The USA showering Gulf states (and Israel) with weapons
July 31st, 2007According to the Guardian:
The Bush administration is facing claims that it is fuelling an arms race in the Middle East following the disclosure of a plan to sell $20bn (£9.8bn) of advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
The plan, which will be announced today, will be balanced by a 25% increase in US military and defence aid to Israel. A further $13bn will be pledged to Egypt.“This administration does not have an arms sales policy, except to sell, sell, sell,” said Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association. “That approach in the Middle East can be like throwing gasoline on a brush fire.”
And…
Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner, who plans to introduce a resolution to block the deal, told the Washington Post that there would be broad opposition: “The reputation of the Saudis has taken quite a beating since 9/11,” he said. “And despite the fact that the administration has done everything to portray them as part of the moderate Arab world, members of Congress of both parties are increasingly sceptical.”
Another Democrat, Tom Lantos, criticised the build-up of arms in the region. “This is not a sale at Macy’s that you go in and buy a bunch of stuff.”
German Zuender e-mag gives us this question:
It’s quite difficult for us to judge this move of President Bush and, most of all, to consider the consequnces this will have for the Middle East region. Is this going to cause an arms race between the Gulf states? Is Bush maybe terribly wrong in funding those countries, as former American Presidents have been already (Afghanistan, Iraq)? How do people in the Middle East see these military aids, do they appreciate it or do they see it as an paternalistic act of the US?
Loading ...
Loading...
The thing I don’t particularly understand about this is that this move is intended to counter Iran’s influence in the region. However, Iran has gained influence through unconventional means (terrorism and an ideological counter to secularism), and through proxies (Hezballah, Hamas, militias in Iraq), so I’m not entirely convinced that this will produce the result that the U.S is looking for.
This has been happening for a while though, and many of these countries that are receiving this extra military aid still lack the expertise to handle much of the weaponry being sent. There has to be a more focused ideological approach to counter what the U.S believes to be growing Iranian influence, however I think predictions of an arms race are premature, at least at this point.
There was a really revealing piece about this on Ynet yesterday written by Ron Ben-Yishai called Arming the Arabs.
I think the biggest problem is that the U.S. government can’t distinguish between diplomatic soft power relations in the MENA regions, and can only see a purely realist power strategy as the viable solution. Unfortunately, I think it’s part of a larger policy shift that has been happening in U.S. policy circles towards a more pre-emptive, restore/maintain American hegemony and control in the Middle East, or at least have strong proxies in the region (Arab and Israeli) to protect their interests.
What really saddens (and angers) me is that this seems to be the only way the U.S. seems to know how to engage with many players in the region
Just look at how much of a pain it was just getting the U.S. and Iran to sit down in Iraq recently. This is due to the influence on policy from people like Richard Pearl and Condoleezza Rice making comments like these:
or these by Condoleezza Rice:
There’s an overall lack of a real policy that isn’t based on force or protecting “strategic interests,” as Condi calls them, and that’s the huge roadblock to real engagement with various actors…
Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza are proxy wars the US seems to be loosing and (although the Iranian regime and it’s policies aren’t wildly popular either) the US is also loosing the hearts and minds battle, as propaganda against neo-cons, zionism and ‘moderate’ dictatorships is more likely to go down well than any counter efforts.
So the logical next step is to fuel an arms race which combined with intensified sanctions will push the regime to the point of collapse à la soviet union, and/or soften it up iraq-style for an invasion.
The last regional not-so-cold war had the US supporting Sadam, and lead to the deaths of over a million people. Then there is the tragi-comedy of American talking heads appearing regularly on Arab channels to denounce, and I quote, “Persian interference in Arab affairs”.
Anyway whether the US’s policies are short-sighted or not they seem to think they serve their national interests. The problem is that for some Arab rulers their private interests in preserving their thrones, and the obscene amount they siphon off as ‘commissions’ in such deals, are the main consideration.
Alarms have been sounded over this, and dire warnings issued in a variety of different metaphors, from flooding to fueling. But really, what’s new? This is how the US strengthens its ties with its allies, and Israel and the Gulf States are, to vastly varying degrees, allies of the US.
Consequences don’t fit into a money/weapons equation. I agree, the arms race fear is definitely premature, somewhere between longsighted and unfounded.
But then, this weapons deal takes place in close proximity to the most volatile, unpredictable region in the world. The region where it takes less than a year to make a triple civil war prediction dangerously close to being spot on.
Just the place to ship weapons.
Everyone knows that gift-wrapped tanks don’t kill people. When in Gulf States, they rust in peace. When in Israel…well, Israel has no need of tanks, at least. They have their Merkavah.
I don’t especially like this deal, either, although tasnim’s point about strengthening ties is valid.
No one has mentioned the reported Russian agreement to sell Iran 250 advanced long-ranged Sukhoi-30 fighter jets and aerial fuel tankers?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1185379034835&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
And a few to Syria?
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/19/europe/EU-GEN-Russia-Syria-Jets.php
Does anyone see this as America’s first step to withdrawing from Iraq?
How so? If anything this just gives them more of a reason to be there.
I think the world should unite and offer Hammas funding for uniforms. They are probably fighting Israel in civilian clothing because they can’t afford uniforms
Esra’a: The idea may be to arm the opponents of Iran in hope that they’ll prevent the IRI from controlling Iraq once the Americans leave.
America is doing this out of its own interests; not ours or Iraq’s.
Esra’a: of course. America desperately wants to contain/reduce the IRI’s power and influence.
And naturally, the US takes complete advantage of our countries for the sake of their goals and interests, not giving a damned about how much this is harming us and our future. Typical US attitude. I can’t wait until the superpower is in the hands of a government that is actually useful and moral, instead of this abusive and hypocritical one.
Hey guys,
it’s really interesting to see the different opinions on this issue. Still it would be great if you could just add your country of origin to your name. It would make it so much easier for us to understand your point of view.
Thanks for giving us the opportunity of an inside-view on the middle east.
Tasnim and Duniazad are from Libya.. Grumpy the USA… Not sure about Avi.
Well, in a short period of time it can prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) from controlling Iraq and spreading it’s Shia Islam to other parts of the region.
In a long run, if we assume we could have a peace in region (for whatever price) that peace won’t stay long because the most countries in the region have totalitarian regimes also these countries have deep root conflicts inside and with each other. I don’t think so something good will come out of it in the future.
IRI’s reaction proved that is not happy and considers it as a threat act of the US. Although IRI has considered most Arabic countries as The State allies, except Iraq at the meantime because Iraqi Shia is dominant, also US Army still is busy with terrorist attacks and chaos there.
I am sure we need peace in the region on the other hand I see these corrupted governments won’t let it happen and what I see from these aids it reminds of next war. Hopefully IRI and other countries try to prevent it in peace.
Esra’a: I’m not sure who you mean by “us” and “our.” I’m sure the Saudis and the Egyptians think it’s a good deal for them. If it does help contain Iran then that benefits Bahrain, Iraq, etc. Certainly Iran, Syria, and Israel feel threatened, but I don’t think that’s what you meant.
Katharina is right: Is it possible for me to edit my user id, change it from “Grumpy” to “Grumpy (USA)”?
I can’t find which came first: US arms deal with Saudi Arabia/Egypt or Russian arms deal with Iran/Syria?
As far as I know Grumpy you’re not logged on, so you can just add (USA) to where it says “Name” because it’s not a registered account.
You mean their leaders, whom many of us dislike, because already they are more than just abusing their powers at this point. I mean the USA whines and complains about democracy/human rights and so why does it support countries which give no value to such principles? It can only mean one thing: they actually don’t give a damn. Which is fine, and we knew that a long time ago, we were never naive enough to assume otherwise. But it does mean that the USA, even if indirectly, is actually supporting and funding these human rights violations instead of actively condemning them the way it promises to. Passing around a bunch of weapons, the way they did during the Iran-Iraq war, is NOT helping anyone, especially not us. In fact this is a destructive move to say the least and it foreshadows the very worst. What happened to “diplomacy”? The U.S has the worst foreign policy I know of.
In 1984 the U.S administration at the time had a big role in Iraq, or an increasing one at least, and Rumsfeld made several trips there throughout the year.
And now, look at Iraq, and the role the U.S played in this chaos. How do you expect any of us to trust this initiative and consider it a dear step? You really think the U.S gives a crap about us and our human rights? Because I sure as hell know they don’t. And I don’t expect them to. But I would hope that a government that gives no consideration for our future and our lives, to at least butt out, and let us handle our own business. It’s our country in question. We will criticize America when or if needed and our fears are completely justified, not exaggerated. If you were in my place Grumpy you too would be scared.
Yes, I would be.
Allthough, I hoped for preventing more war in the region but I should say, it’s just a hope which with current events it’s going to be faint-hope.
In reality, there are many countries and groups involved like IRI, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Al Mahdi militants, Al Qaeda groups, Saddam’s leftover army militants, New Iraqi army (NIA), Iraqi Police, US and British army in Iraq war! If US Army leaves Iraq at the meantime, this religious war in Iraq will spread whole region and the region will be huge massacre and terrorism field then nothing could stop it.
As US army has a plan to leave Iraq so there were two possible options for US to stop this violence in Iraq and make peace before leave Iraq:
1. Cease-fire and peace discussions with involved parties in this violent including Iraqi government.
Well, it was impossible to have peace without considering some parties like IRI! and US won’t consider it, so there’s just second option.
2. US leaves these groups alone to destroy each other as much as possible then will clean the mess! It seems US army already made up their mind and they will go for second option. It would work for US to stay away from the blood shed for a while and let militants destroy each other but unfortunately civilians will sustain more losses and damages than militants.
I think just the government of Iraq has the right to decide for itself not any other country or militant groups and I hate to see any violence against humans anywhere and I know everybody blame US for what they have done to Iraq but my question is what’s the best option for Iraq at the moment? Please consider current Iraq situations and involvement of militant groups.
So pretty much everyone thinks that giving sophisticated arms to Saudi Arabia is a bad idea, huh? As I said, I don’t like it, either, but to judge from the lack of posts about Israel’s extra $3,000,000,000/year, I’d have to guess that no one feels very threatened by that…
Arms to an Islamic nation = VERY BAD.
Money for arms to Israel = no comment.
How very odd.
It’s because we’re very used to it. The U.S and Israel will always remain very tight – what comments were you looking for? Of course it’s threatening and many people here continue to oppose Israeli human rights abuses. However increasing arms/financial assistance to Israel comes by no surprise to us. Increasing arms to the Gulf, on the other hand, is not something that many people were expecting at such a critical time.
What do you think Israel is going to do with more weapons that is threatening, but not worth mentioning because you’re so used to it?
What do you think Saudi Arabia is going to do with more weapons that has everyone sounding alarms?
I think Israel will stick pink flowers in gun barrels, turn tanks into floats and paint planes and helicopters sky blue for an aerial display.
Then they might do a little spring-cleaning and throw out a few old cluster bombs past their use-by date.
“Everyone” has been sounding alarms over the idea of shipping weapons to a region often sweepingly described as a volatile hotspot. I doubt “everyone” would pick Saudi as the biggest alarm-sounding factor.
However, when Saudi Arabia is highlighted, corrupt princes, the dove deals, and the world-wide campaign for rust removal often get a mention.
It’s no use obsessing over Israel, as threatening as it is. “Surprising” news is what people talk about, not news that has been apparent since 1950. You didn’t see Israel’s financial and military gains from the US getting so much media publicity now do you? You don’t see Israel making huge headlines and actually serving as “surprising” when it comes to its relationship with the USA do you? It’s no difference here. When you say “USA finances Saudi’s new military base” that to us hits much closer to home. Is Israel threatening? Yes, is it really worth mentioning, yes but never to this extent. Why not? Because no matter how much we complain Israel will not cease its actions. Israel has never listened to average citizens of Arab countries and what makes you think that they’re going to listen to us now? You think if we kick and whine it’s going to say “well you know what, we’re really scaring these folks! Why don’t we just stop for a while?”
No.
But Saudi receiving weapons… yes we have the right to express our concerns, our future very much depends on it.
Of course you do, and I think you know that if anyone ever tried to shut you up I would be on your side, not theirs, no matter who it was.
Here’s the thing that has me puzzled: why is everyone so afraid of Saudi Arabia?
Not Saudi Arabia, what we are scared of is how the US is using Saudi Arabia to further its own interests… which doesn’t consider our interests or safety at all.
Who are you afraid is going to get shot with weapons provided to Saudi Arabia, or get shot by someone else because of weapons provided to Saudi Arabia?
[...] The USA showering Gulf states (and Israel) with weapons – Mideast Youth – Thinking Ahead Bush is just building up the military complex monetary gains….the woman is just a token given to him in exchange for his weapons… __________________ http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php When you want to know the truth, search all articles available on your topic. The truth lies somewhere between it all. [...]