[c3534l]

> The Cold War is over. Yet somehow western democracies are still clinging on to alliances with barbarous regimes like Saudi Arabia and UAE.

That's because those in power are the moderate ones, who are able to keep the most extreme elements of Islamic fundamentalism at bay. You want to topple Saudi Arabia and UAE? Great, now it's run by ISIS. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser evil.

[Ar-Curunir]

Lmao okay. They're moderate only if you're a privileged European. Have you seen how they treat south and south-east Asians?

[stupidcar]

The governments of these countries are in no sense “moderate”, and it is absurd to suggest that the only choice they face is between their incumbent autocratic regimes and fundamentalism Islamic ones. Extremists both secular and religious have prospered in the Middle East precisely because western backing for unrepresentative regimes has snuffed out moderate and democratic opposition.

This geopolitical calculus might have made sense when there was a real danger of such countries being swallowed up into the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence. But it would be much better now to disengage as much as possible with the governments of countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

[kpil]

Saudi Arabia is the ISIS that made it so I don't see your point? The beheaded even less so.

[ssijak]

If only US and NATO applied that logic to Lybia and Syria

[seanmcdirmid]

They did for a long time.

[robotrout]

Yep. It was easy for us to topple Libya, and we almost succeeded with Syria as well, if Russia hadn't stepped in. A secular government is easy to stir up the fundamentalists against, to use them as foot soldiers in your regime change operation.

They won't have as much luck with Iran, since it's government is so strongly aligned with the fundamentalists, the pool of willing cannon fodder will be smaller.

I hope, at some point, these illegal regime change operations that the US and other western countries have been involved in for so many decades, will eventually stop.

[seanmcdirmid]

Lybia and Syria had their own rebellions to deal with. Without a popular uprising, it’s very doubtful that the USA would intervene at all like they did before in Iraq and Afghanistan. Say what you will, but the people of a country should have a right to change its government.

Also, when chaos is set into motion, the west has to decide if the costs of not getting involved are greater than getting involved. Often doing nothing isn’t viable either.