'Schizophrenic' US pushing Arab states toward Russia

[Super Nova]

Get your shit together USA for the benefit of your self and the rest of us. signed... the west.



'Schizophrenic' US foreign policy pushing Arab states toward Russia, Bahrain warns

Obama administration's stance on Iran and Syria could see US lose influence in the Middle East, Bahrain's rulers warn.

America’s “schizophrenic” approach to the Middle East could result in many key Arab states deciding to align themselves more closely with Russia, the rulers of Bahrain warned on Sunday.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the Crown Prince of Bahrain, warned that Barack Obama's administration would lose influence in the region if it persisted with what a “transient and reactive” foreign policy.

There has been a sharp rise in tensions between Washington and several major Arab states in the wake of last month’s controversial interim agreement with Iran over its nuclear programme.

Citing President Obama’s handling of the recent crisis over Syria’s chemical weapons, which allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin to seize the initiative, Sheikh Salman said some states were now seriously reviewing their relations with the US.

“The Russians have proved they are reliable friends,” said Sheikh Salman, referring to Mr Putin’s diplomatic intervention to prevent Western military action against Bashar al-Assad.

“As a result some states in the region have already started to look at developing more multilateral relations rather than just relying on Washington. America seems to suffer from schizophrenia when it deals with the Arab world.”

The Washington and Cambridge-educated Sheikh Salman, 44, who also serves at Bahrain’s First Deputy Prime Minister, said America’s recent involvement in the region’s conflicts meant many Arab states now doubted whether they could rely on the West to protect their interests.

“The US cannot sit from afar making condescending judgements. It needs friends and partners to achieve its goals,” he said.

Bahrain is one of several Gulf states which were angered by the Obama administration’s decision to call for the removal of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak three years ago following widespread anti-government protests, even though Mr Mubarak has been a staunch pro-Western ally for thirty years. Sheikh Salman said this was an example of the “transient and reactive” nature of American policy-making.

“The problem is that policy in America operates in two-year election cycles, and there is no long-term planning.” In common with other Gulf states, Bahrain has also expressed concerns about the recent interim agreement negotiated in Geneva last month between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Britain and America used the annual Manama Dialogue regional security conference, which is hosted by Bahrain and organised by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, to offer assurances that the Geneva deal will not affect their support for Arab states.

Chuck Hagel, the US Defence Secretary, told the conference that the Pentagon had no plans to reduce America’s sizeable military presence in the Gulf, while William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, emphasised Britain’s “historic” ties with Bahrain, which is home to the US Navy’s powerful 5th Fleet.

But the concerted charm offensive failed to assuage the resentment many Arab states feel that their own concerns have not been addressed by the interim agreement with Iran. Although Iran was invited to attend the Bahrain conference, it was the only Gulf state not to send a delegation.

“You do not need to reassure us,” said Sheikh Khalid bin Hamad al-Khalifa, Bahrain’s Foreign Minister, of the diplomatic overtures made by Britain and America at the weekend. “You need to listen to us, because we know Iran well.”

Sheikh Khalid said the Gulf states were keen that any deal with Iran should not be confined to the nuclear weapons issue alone. Any agreement with Iran must also address other issues, such as Tehran’s continued involvement in state-sponsored terrorism, including its support for terrorist groups like Hizbollah.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... warns.html

[AiA in Atlanta]

Couldn't the same thing have been said about the Soviet Union during the Cold War? It was said. And it didn't turn out so well for many Soviet client states. But you know, had U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia been cut loose long ago they would have had revolution, the country would have gone to hell and by now would have recovered some stability (and democracy) but instead the US props up corrupt regimes and so they become more and more fragile, more and more corrupt and need more and more outside support. I say let them go to hell.

[Chard]

Get your shit together USA for the benefit of your self and the rest of us. signed... the west.

You gotta love an article that cites someone who has literally everything to lose from US foreign policy complaining about US foreign policy, especially when it's the Prince of Bahrain. The man's afraid we might carry out backing another "Arab Spring" in Bahrain and, even worse for Bahrain's pocket book, we might normalize relations with Iran enough to lift our embargo of Iranian oil.

But hey, yellow journalism is alive and well at the Telegraph. Not sure what's more special, that you actually buy into it or that someone out there actually considered this newsworthy.

[Neferti]

Hey, Chard,

Did you ever get the idea that Aussies from "Down Under" think that the Yanks from "Up Above" talk a lot of crap?

[Super Nova]

You gotta love an article that cites someone who has literally everything to lose from US foreign policy complaining about US foreign policy, especially when it's the Prince of Bahrain. The man's afraid we might carry out backing another "Arab Spring" in Bahrain and, even worse for Bahrain's pocket book, we might normalize relations with Iran enough to lift our embargo of Iranian oil.

But hey, yellow journalism is alive and well at the Telegraph. Not sure what's more special, that you actually buy into it or that someone out there actually considered this newsworthy.

Chard,

I really like your post and POW however I am starting to see the American bias in your opinions. We all have them however I have lived in the Middle East and from what I can see the US doesn't have a sound policy and this weakens your position in the region. The US supports oppressive regimes and is surprised when things go tits up.

is the US pro-democracy in the world or just pro-US interests that is, money and oil.

The US needs to make up it's mind because it is lost the high moral ground it had post WWII and cold war and now is seen just as an imperialist nation seeking to dominate the planet by many. No-one understands Us policy and I suspect it is because it is based on money rather than principles.

[Chard]

I really like your post and POW however I am starting to see the American bias in your opinions. We all have them however I have lived in the Middle East and from what I can see the US doesn't have a sound policy and this weakens your position in the region. The US supports oppressive regimes and is surprised when things go tits up.

No, we support whoever works for our best interests. Keeping that region of the world on the brink of a regional conflict at all times is in our best interests. To the locals it looks like we're crazy, but then they can't see the entire forest because they live in a particular tree.

is the US pro-democracy in the world or just pro-US interests that is, money and oil.

Please tell me that was rhetorical. You cannot be this goddamn naive for real. Of course we do it intentionally and for our own national interests. The best thing is, that's the exact same thing every one else is doing in the region, including Australia.

The US needs to make up it's mind because it is lost the high moral ground it had post WWII and cold war and now is seen just as an imperialist nation seeking to dominate the planet by many. No-one understands Us policy and I suspect it is because it is based on money rather than principles.

Ok, I was wrong. You really are that goddamn naive. Of course we do it for our own national interests, just like everyone else. Welcome to International Politics, try not to let your disillusionment depress you to much.

[Super Nova]

Ok, I was wrong. You really are that goddamn naive. Of course we do it for our own national interests, just like everyone else. Welcome to International Politics, try not to let your disillusionment depress you to much.

Excellent responses Chard.

It is nice to hear from a Yank that tells it like it really is. We all know the truth. It is all about America's interests masked by the "we want the world to be democratic and individuals to have human rights ...etc" propaganda.

The world is the US' market to dominate through business interests and bring the booty back home. Just like the traditional colonialists. The US needs to lift its game because the Chinese are getting better at this game. Russia and China are play a long game.

I see this all ending in tears in the next 20-40 years for the US. The hard game of International Politics combined with the economic power of others and no high moral ground in the US positions will weaken the US and you will go the way of other dominate powers. The Barbarians are at your gates and your Rome is about to fall.

[Chard]

You missed my point entirely. What I described isn't simply why American policy in the Middle East is. I described how every Western nation and quite a few East and near east nations policy decisions concerning the Middle East comes to be. Australia included.

It simply isn't in any of our interests for that part of the world to become stable and peaceful for reasons that should be readilly appearant if you think on it. Welcome to real politik, buddy.

[Super Nova]

You missed my point entirely. What I described isn't simply why American policy in the Middle East is. I described how every Western nation and quite a few East and near east nations policy decisions concerning the Middle East comes to be. Australia included.

It simply isn't in any of our interests for that part of the world to become stable and peaceful for reasons that should be readilly appearant if you think on it. Welcome to real politik, buddy.

My point to your point is that the west follows America's lead and that is why it may appear we all have the same approach.

If the US changed so would the rest of the west.

I look forward to the day when the US is energy independent... that's soon right if I remember correctly, then you may play with a more even and moral hand with regards to the Middle East.

[Chard]

My point to your point is that the west follows America's ead and that is why it may appear we all have the same approach.

If the US changed so would the rest of the west

Yeah, turns out our best interests happen to align with those of others. The alternative is to give up on your interests in favor of an incredibly naive world view. Life ain't fair and someone has to pay for the First World's cushy lifestyle. Don't like it? Which parts of your life style are you willing to forego to assuage misplaced ethics?

I look forward to the day when the US is energy independent... that's soon right if I remember correctly, then you may play with a more even and moral hand with regards to the Middle East.

I look forward to it simply because we can tell the goddamn Sauds to eat sand.