There are so many details in here it's hard to know what to make of it. You'd have to be an expert in Yemeni history or something. If an article of this sort was written about recent U.S. history people on this board would never agree on its accuracy, so all the more hard to say about an article about Yemen.
Okay, well what is the basis for the conclusions that are being made about intervening there?
Is it just disliking Saudi Arabia without any thought to whether they are correct in this context?
Consider too, its been the express policy of the US for decades and is still the express policy of our western allies in the EU to engage with bad and moderately bad actors to try and bring them up to more liberal standards rather than to isolate them and let them fall even further.
Do you really think this is how the U.S. deals with bad actors? I find it implausible to the point of cartoonish to think that this is the general policy, although I won't deny that it ever happens. But where is the evidence of this happening recently, of making a signficiant rapprochement with a previously hostile or rogue state?
I am not even sure how to respond to something like this. Engagement has been the literal policy of the west since WWII. It did get a bit derailed during the cold war, but even there that was prosecuted by the other side being isolationistic.
The entire premise of the UN and the multinational organization is based on engagement. It was really only fringe players (Cuba, North Korea, Iran) that the west completely isolated.
I can't think of many instances, other than perhaps the U.S. reaching out to China a few decades ago, and Trump reaching out to NK recently. Mostly it's either regime change, or else picking sides and declaring the bad actor a villain.
So you've missed our budget for foreign aid? In 2015 the US gave $18.25 billion in economic aid to 92 recipients and $18.23 billion in security aid to 143 recipients. Here's an ABC AU article on it
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-21/here-are-the-countries-that-get-the-most-foreign-aid-from-the-us/9278164. Here's a link to the EU Aid Explorer
https://euaidexplorer.ec.europa.eu/. The US version of the aid explorer is easy to find but I couldn't get it to load.
And this is before you even consider the impact of indirect aid (through the UN for example) that's heavily funded by the west, and any commercial arrangements created by first world companies and incentivized by the laws of the west.
Or before you consider the impact of being the largest cultural exporter on earth.
The idea that direct intervention is anything more than a flashy drop in the bucket is kind of nonsensical.
I think the literal, express, and widely acknowledged purpose in putting those weapons in Saudi Arabia is to discourage Iran from openly seeking to claim the region through military might. That's pretty much how they have been using them.
I have to be honest, I find this explanation ridiculous. I can't think of a single occasion in recent memory when Iran was involved in an actual conflict they initiated against a neighbor, other than their war with Iraq in the 80's (and I'm not sure who started that one). The idea that SA needs billions of dollars of weaponry to defend themselves against Iran sounds like fantasy to me.
Here's just 2 quick links, you can find about ten thousand with a google search, and it's actually difficult to find any arms deal with Saudi Arabia that doesn't mention the Iranian threat. This one was for $15billion that specifically included systems to shoot down missiles from Iran
http://fortune.com/2018/11/29/us-saudi-arabia-arms-deal/. Or you could look at this Wiki leak talking about a deal that lays out almost immediately that it's targeted at Iran's regional ambitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_arms_dealThese are both recent, but you can easily walk back in time and find endless references to the need for Saudi Arabia to counter Iranian influence, and heck you can even find similar stuff related to Iraq if you keep going back.
You understand that this is little more than the exact same policy the West used doing the cold war? Maintain an absolute advantage on the conventional level and be sure that at worst you can brake even in the mutually assured destruction game, just applied on a regional level.
As much as you dislike Saudi Arabia, would the world be better if Iran took over the whole region?
I find this as plausible as the idea that Russia is on the brink of taking over all of Europe. Not that either are fuzzy and cuddly, but in a scenario of constantly poking the growling bear, I find it dubious to point at the growling and argue that if we didn't take offensive measures the bear would take over the place. Sure, Iran, like any country, seeks to increase its influence in the region, just like anyone else would if given the chance.
You do understand that Iran (and previously Iraq) have an actual history of aggressiveness. This isn't some kind of mythological threat. Iran is one of the top 5 exporters of terrorism and militant actions, in the region they directly fund groups in other countries that are in active rebellion against he government and they even set up proxy governments in several other states.
What is "not plausible"?
There are an awful lot of countries that would not take over the neighbors if given the chance, or that believe in expanding their influence in peaceful ways.
And in that region in particular there's a history tendency towards this breaking out into open conflict. But the idea that Iran is some evil tyrant and SA is the last bastion of peace and liberality...give me a break (I know you didn't say this).
You're correct I did not say that. I said Iran is a known bad actor. Who do you think we should be supporting to minimize their influence in the region? Small countries don't cut it, it has to be someone that could stand up to them.
I can't personally find much of a difference between them, and if it's politically expedient to just choose an ally and go with it, then fine, but that doens't pair up well with then denouncing the morality of the side you didn't pick because they weren't as suitable an oil ally. Oh yeah, and because the evil side happened to kick out the puppet dictator that was installed there :p
So that sounds like you'd prefer we were just hostile to the region as a whole, nevermind that would literally be giving truth to the idea that the US is anti-muslim, why would you ever want to cause the region responsible for most of the armed conflict in the world to consolidate against you?
