[pasabagi]

I agree. I just think if I was working for the US state department, and I was sizing up various countries around the middle east to build a partnership with, I would choose Israel every time. The only country that comes close is Turkey, and they have coups every couple of decades.

I think the reasons why the ME is so unstable are a bit complex, but it's also not really relevant. If you're interested in a stable regional partner, the reasons why a given country is unstable is not really something you care about.

[stevenjohns]

Considering that the only metric for supporting a Middle Eastern group is that they have to be pro-Israel, of course Israel becomes the natural choice. It’s not about stability considering that Israel is a constant powder keg. That in itself is just the catch-22 of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

The right decision - if you had the best interests for the US and the region - is to completely withdraw. Any other decision leads to more conflict and hostile and opportunist groups (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia, et al) growing in influence with every passing moment.

[pasabagi]

The basic goal of US foreign policy has been to maintain a network of US allies and partners around the world, who can be relied upon to protect US strategic interests, like access through the strait of Hormuz.

Nations like Qatar or SA are fine, but ultimately they are dictatorships that occasionally do stuff like chop up journalists, so you don't invest that much into them. The US had a very close strategic partnership with Iran, which was in this mould, and it didn't turn out very well.

Israel, on the other hand, is a western-style settler-colonial state that has never had a coup, has a strong civil society, and frankly could have gone to the USSR at any point in the cold war and they would have been just fine.

Obviously, if you don't want the US to be a global hegemon, this policy doesn't make sense. However, the US state department almost always does, so this policy is totally rational from their perspective.

[DSingularity]

Wow! How do you lump in Qatar with Saudi Arabia? Please point us to one time where Qatar did something last heinous as Saudi thugs chopping up a Saudi journalist at the behest of the crown prince.

[yyyk]

>Please point us to one time where Qatar did something last heinous as Saudi

Their treatment of "guest workers" (de facto almost slaves) is significantly worse than Saudi killing a single person.

Not only due to numbers affected (the Guardian counted 6,500 deaths). It's that, we expect repressive regimes to kill their opponents but when their acts are turned against truly helpless and unrelated people it's even worse.

https://www.traffickingmatters.com/the-2022-world-cup-forced...

https://sports.yahoo.com/qatar-world-cup-unpaid-workers-slav...

[DSingularity]

Workers rights is a separate discussion and one in which the entire gulf region is shamefully criminal.

I asked about the unparalleled brutality of a Crown Prince ordering the dismemberment of a journalist. Remember, this is a person who we host in the White House to shake hands with a smiling president — it matters that the whole world knows he ordered the killing and that the whole world continues to look the other way. Imagine how he will deal with dissidents for the next decade?

[yyyk]

>Workers rights is a separate discussion in which the entire gulf region is shamefully criminal.

It's not. It's a human rights issue, which has led to many deaths. Qatar has a far worse record than the rest of the Gulf.

>Remember, this is a person who we host in the White House to shake hands with a smiling president

So you don't want to do any diplomacy with unsavory regimes? With this standard, the US couldn't even talk to most of the ME, not to mention Russia and China. The world is unlikely to survive that.

>I asked about the unparalleled brutality of a Crown Prince ordering the dismemberment of a journalist.

Well, it's a separate issue that almost the entire ME is guilty of. Just look at the case of Zahra Kazemi[0]. And we have diplomacy with those people!

Sorry, just used your argument for a sec.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahra_Kazemi

"was an Iranian-Canadian freelance photographer, who according to the medical examiner was raped, tortured and killed by Iranian officials following her arrest in Iran."

[DSingularity]

The ME is unstable by design. Why dance around the subject? The US supports anti-democratic dictatorships in the countries it controls.

Guess what comes with unpopular regimes? Perpetual instability due to oppressed populations. In the countries that are not controlled the US supports any group willing to fight the government — sometimes with arms and other times with endless cash to fight the government within the framework of democracy. You think either of those actions support stability?

[dariusj18]

It's ridiculous to think the instability in the middle east is by US design, there are thousands of factions vying for power and the US has to make strategic calls day by day. Had the US made bad decisions, sure, did they know those decisions were bad at the time, probably not. If you have countries where no group (ethnic or political) has a majority, then no ruling government will be "popular".

[DSingularity]

Oh yeah? What is your explanation for Sykes-Picot?

[selectodude]

It had nothing to do with the United States and the geopolical issues it created. In fact, the Americans sent a commission to Syria which deduced that what the French and Brits were doing was very stupid, at which point the Brits and French told the Americans to piss off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Crane_Commission

[dariusj18]

Perhaps you can first explain why you think that is relevant? AFAIK it was an agreement that the US did not participate in, nor was its intent to destabilize.