I think we should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia regardless.
It's a very good account of what happened in Yemen and (as far as I can tell) accurate, but the recommendations at the end are just a complete letdown. It's like the lowest-effort boilerplate foreign policy recommendation dusted off from about 1995 or so. A UNSC resolution and an expanded monitoring mission. That's it? That's the big finish? "We should have a ceasefire and all foreign interference should stop, and an international mission should report any violations of the ceasefire" was the gloriously successful result of the Paris peace talks in 1973. It didn't work because the talks were not being conducted in good faith and as a result the ceasefire was broken almost immediately.
2: Got any better ideas?
1: This always seems like a good idea. I wonder how much power Saudi Arabia has to inflict misery on us.
I thought everyone knew the Paris talks was just the United States giving up. I wasn't very attentive at the time though.
4: well, quite, and this is also the United States giving up, and trying to force the Saudis to give up as well.
What if, instead of giving up, we subsidized Yemen invade Saudi Arabia?
I think that means that Iran automatically becomes a Saudi ally, out of spite.
Just giving up seems like a better idea then.
I favor the Reagan-Oliver North approach: give missiles and drones to the Iranians to pass on to the Yemeni rebels to use against the Saudis. What could possibly go wrong?
10: I could only support that if there were a cake and a Bible involved.
I want underwear documents too. Though women's underwear has gotten much smaller since then.
I think "actually use our leverage to stop Saudi Arabia from pursuing the war" is a substantive change proposed on top of what it posits the UN could do. If you believe we have leverage with them.
13: yeah, the difference is that, after Afghanistan, it suddenly seems plausible that Biden could decide that SA sucks, we get nothing from them that we need/care about, and so we have leverage for the first time since God knows when.
You could argue every specific of that (except SA sucking), but it really is different from the previous status quo, which was that everybody knew we'd never do anything to hurt SA.
Biden already has enough risk of a coup.
15: Why is there so much loyalty in the Blob to Saudi Arabia? Is it outright corruption? Is it still about the oil? Or is there some kind of strategic consensus that we need Saudi Arabia to contain Iran?
16: Yes.
Seriously, the main reason the Blob has so much trans-administration power is that it contains multitudes. If you don't like our SA policy for oil or human rights reasons, you might still like it for anti-Iran reasons.
I also think there's just a lot of inertia. I don't want to get into a whole gerontocracy argument, but senior people were already starting to get these jobs pre-Reagan. The Ukraine thread linked to the Wiki page for "Predictions of USSR Collapse", and some of the quotes in there talk explicitly about how bad Russia specialists were at their jobs--not just the CIA, but academics as well. The range of acceptable opinions is so narrow that you basically have to buy in to have any say at all. And every politician gets briefed by people who've bought in. The old guard continually renews itself, and like I say, there's always some justification.
It's worth noting that other countries will also adjust their stances to make sure that they don't risk being so unacceptable that a true paradigm shift could happen--see the softening of anti-Israel sentiment among various Arab nations. Sadat and Arafat were, however flawed, actually trying to find some kind of peaceful coexistence, but IMO SA and the like are just making sure not to piss off the Blob.
15: Oh, I don't think Joe has any appetite for another round. But he's never wavered on what he did in Afghanistan, so other countries have to consider that he's at least capable of taking hard stands no recent president has been (I'd suggest Reagan was the last one who really DGAF and stood by his guns, both when he provoked the Soviets and when he sat down with them. Clinton & Obama both tried in their ways, but both backed down and let the Blob have its way).
I'm ready to bury the hatchet with Iran. I don't think that continuing to be mad about them kicking out the Shah 43 years ago is really worth the trouble. And it would do a lot to disempower the Blob here at home.
I'd suggest Reagan was the last one who really DGAF and stood by his guns
US in Beirut in 1983 totally belies that. I'm sure I can think of other examples.
I'm ready to bury the hatchet with Iran.
You're singing my tune. Unfortunately it takes two to Tango. Or, uh, un-Tango, and I'm afraid we'll have to wait for a government in Iran that isn't made up of hardliners, even if we have a US administration that would be willing. Joe really fucked up with the JCPOA.
I feel like its disingenuous for us to try to strike the nuclear deal again after the last guy demonstrated that the United States can't be trusted to keep a deal in good faith. At this point I'm prepared to unilaterally drop the embargo without any concessions.
20: Going in to Beirut or leaving Beirut? Or both?
Shelling Beirut from the USS Iowa.
Just taking the "standing by his guns comment" saying the US would not back down and give in to terrorism then pulling out a few months after the Marine barracks were bombed
20: Good grief, I'm not claiming the guy was some sort of adamantine hero: I was identifying specifically the instances I meant. And I think those two (very big) examples are two more than you can come up for the 5 guys between him and Biden.
19: " I don't think that continuing to be mad about them kicking out the Shah 43 years ago is really worth the trouble."
It's got practically nothing to do with the Shah and a whole lot to do with holding American diplomats hostage for more than a year.
To a far lesser extent, but noted by foreign-policy people, it's that Iran continues to have a policy of taking hostages.