Has the US Lost The Trust of Our Allies?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dsnort, Mar 28, 2015.

  1. dsnort macrumors 68000

    dsnort

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    In persona non grata
    #1
    From NBC News Richard Engel:

    It's sad when your friends stop inviting you to parties, or even tell you they're having a party.
     
  2. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #2
    If getting into another war in the Middle East is your idea of a "party" - then I think I don't mind being left of the guest list.

    "Trust" is not a very useful word here. Because relations between nation states are fundamentally different from those between individual human beings.

    Does Britain "trust" the United States? Obviously it does in certain respects: the nations conduct joint military operations; they share extensive intelligence information; they are joint signatories to several treaties; they have extensive cultural, social, and economic ties.

    But "trust"? The US government doesn't tell the British where our nuclear submarines are. It doesn't share a great deal of stealth and nuclear technology. The reality is that nations need to act in their own best interests. And sometimes those interests are not the same as those of countries that are nominally your allies.

    And things get messed up when countries deviate from that principle. Britain, in 2003, didn't really believe invading Iraq was a good idea. But because Tony Blair "trusted" in the "Special Relationship" between the two countries - he agreed to back George Bush's invasion of that country. A disaster.

    Saudi Arabia has different interests than the US when it comes to both Yemen and Iran. For one thing, Yemen is right on their southern border. If Yemen collapses into chaos, its much more likely to be a problem for them - than it is for us. (Ask Saudi Arabia if they care about Mexican Drug Cartels...)

    Saudi Arabia didn't need the permission of the United States to act in Yemen.

    If Richard Engel, quoting these mysterious military and congressional sources; really is saying that because Barack Obama isn't buying Bibi Netanyahu and Sheldon Adelson's lunatic plan to get into another war in the middle east by bombing Iran (rather than negotiating a peaceful end to their nuclear weapons) - then he, along with the mystery colonels and republican congressmen, can go straight to hell.
     
  3. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #3
    Only naive people think trust exists in foreign politics. You can be confident that a country won't attack you, but ultimately, each country will (in a perfect world) do what's best for its own interests, which might or might not be the same as the US. In a non perfect world like ours, the leaders of each country will decide what's best for their own personal interests, which might or might not be the same as the US.
     
  4. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #4
    For the most part I agree with your points. However, could you please post a link that quotes Netanyahu as advocating an attack on Iran rather than diplomatic pressure - such as sanctions.
     
  5. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Please. Given all he's done to undermine U.S. talks with Iran.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    With the Saudis, it's more like your woman-hating drug dealer who cuts people's heads off stops inviting you to parties.
     
  8. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #8
    They are a blast.
     
  9. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #9
    Vigorously advocating that the US and other nations use strong diplomatic means to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program is not, in any way, the same as calling for an invasion or other violent actions.
     
  10. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #10
    [​IMG]

    But after the party, to many end up like this.
     
  11. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #11
    Sanctions will not dissuade or prevent Iran from getting a nuclear device if that is what it decides it must have.

    I strongly suggest a careful reading of this article in Foreign Policy magazine to have a better understanding of Iran/US nuclear discussions.

     
  12. sigmadog macrumors 6502a

    sigmadog

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    near Spokane, WA
    #12
    "Trust" is not the word I would use with regard to foreign nations. A better term is "reliability", and I think the point Engel is making is that many countries no longer view the U.S. as a reliable participant in international affairs.

    It is my belief that the Obama administration has done much to ruin any remaining credibility the U.S. had internationally, thereby making America an unreliable and "untrustworthy" actor in a dangerous and volatile part of the world.

    The next administration will inherit this mess (which is arguably worse than the previous mess), and will need to take steps to restore U.S. credibility around the world.

    Until then, nations in the middle-east will be taking steps to defend themselves from the inevitability of a nuclear Iran. Saudi Arabia, for instance, may begin their own nuclear program (if they haven't already).
     
  13. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #13
    I'm not arguing whether or not sanctions would be effective. I'm merely pointing out that Netanyahu is not, in fact, calling on the US to attack Iran. Do you have a link that quotes him advocating for an attack?
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    Just a thought on trust ...

    It may be easier to earn it, if Republicans weren't publicly warning other nations that in two years our commitments might be null and void.
     
  15. sigmadog macrumors 6502a

    sigmadog

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    near Spokane, WA
    #15
    In other words, it's better to let other nations find out in two years they've been had. Yeah, that would really improve trust.
     
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    America.

    We're going to **** you over, but at least we're honest about it.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    That's exactly what Obama has done.

    ----------

    If he didn't want the US to attack Iran he wouldn't do what he's done.
     
  18. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #18
    Netanyahu has for years been threatening for Israel to make an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

    But the reality is that Israel can't attack Iran on its own. For all the good technical reasons, which no doubt Israel's air force generals have explained to Netanyahu.

    So instead Netanyahu, fearing that the US (and the rest of the p5 countries) may actually reach an agreement with Iran, whips up his lapdogs in the nuttier fringes of the Neocon Republican party to urge the US (the only country in the world that could conceivably accomplish such a task) to do the job for him.
     
  19. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #19
    So - No. Characterizing Netanyahu as calling for an attack is just part of the usual demonizing rhetoric.

    Interestingly, the article linked by vrDrew has a former security advisor saying that Israel can attack Iran's nuclear facilities on its own.
     
  20. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20
    Israel might technically be able to scatter some bombs on Iranian territory. But it couldn't actually destroy Iran's nuclear assets.

    It really comes down to this: viv-a-vis Iran we have limited options.

    1) We can do nothing. Maintain the existing regime of sanctions - despite which, Iran has vastly increased both the number of centrifuges and the amount of enriched uranium it possesses.

    2) We (meaning the United States) can launch yet another war in the middle east, by attacking and hoping to destroy Iran's nuclear assets.

    or

    3) We can reach some sort of a deal with Iran. One that allows us inspection rights, and by which Iran reduces both the number of centrifuges and its stockpile of nuclear material.

    Of these, Netanyahu is vociferously complaining about the third one. We can assume he's not thrilled with option one. Leaving us little doubt about what he's really calling for.

    If I'm demonizing Bibi Netanyahu, its because he deserves to be demonized. He is a menace to the peace of the world. He is by every measure of the words both a racist and a war criminal.
     
  21. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #21
    Lol! I just got that and it made me chuckle.
     
  22. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #22
    Estonia can attack Iran's nuclear facilities on its own. Doesn't mean it will be effective.

    Destroying Iran's nuclear facilities will not be a quick raid. It will be a weeks-long campaign, akin to Operation Noble Anvil (NATO's 1999 unprovoked war on Serbia.)

    Israel has problems:

    The IAF air force lacks bombers. Only fighters without the range to reach Iran and return.

    The IAF lacks an aerial refueling capability necessitating forward bases for their short-range fighters.

    Iran's nuke facilities are deeply dug-in, safe from Israeli bunker-busters which are limited to what the F-16 can carry. Their only option is the nuclear option.

    Any successful campaign against Iran will require massive U.S. participation. A neocons wet-dream.
     
  23. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #23
    A disaster, yes, but what is the evidence that he was merely following Dubya's lead? We do not know what was said between them.
     
  24. Ulenspiegel macrumors 68020

    Ulenspiegel

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Location:
    Land of Flanders and Elsewhere
    #24
    I can not agree more.
    In 1604 Miguel de Cervantes wrote in Don Quixote, "Love and war are all one . . . It is lawful to use sleights and stratagems to . . . attain the wished end." History has proven it.
     
  25. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #25
    Funny that a Dutch would quote an early 1600s Spaniard. ;)
     

Share This Page