There are no bases in Saudi Arabia; you’re getting KSA confused with Qatar, which is locked in a bitter dispute with the Kingdom and is now getting ostensibly greater support from Iran and Turkey (at a time when Donald Trump decidedly sided with KSA). And let’s not forget that Turkey is rapidly souring on relations with the US and is taking a stand against Saudi Arabia in its spat with Qatar. Iran has clients and proxies all throughout the Mid East, but the ones that will cause the most disruption are in the Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and to a lesser degree, Qatar and Syria. Iran has a lot more leverage than what you might assume. And the US is in no position to use Bagram as a lunching pad in a war against Iran. That’s a war that would have an immediate economic and diplomatic sting.
Tehran has been using its proxies against US forces for decades and yet the US has never responded with much more than strong words, podium pounding, and economic sanctions. There’s a reason for that.
We don’t get to decide what government other countries have, but we do get to retaliate when they attack us, whether they use uniformed soldiers or terrorist proxies. Which we did in Afghanistan. And now we need to make sure the Taliban never take power again.
If we ever do go to war in Iran, we’ll have the same goal. The mullahs can never rule again. We have the same rule for Germany and Japan. No Nazi rule in Germany, no military rule in Japan.
Goose and gander? The U.S. attacked Iran without provocation in 1953. Would it be appropriate for Iran to wage war against us vowing that “Republicans can never rule U.S. again”?
Or should we agree that the key guiding principle underlying your rhetoric is Might Makes Right ?
I chose the 65-year old example because it is so clear-cut and applied to the specific country you mentioned. Do you think we have to go back 65 years to find U.S. malfeasance worthy of “retaliation”? The U.S. destroyed the country of Iraq over a period of several years, and is a major contributor to Afghan gloom. We destroyed Nicaragua’s hopes, installed the despicable despot Pinochet in Chile and more recently helped ensure that Russia would be run by right-wing kleptocrats rather than embrace democracy.
If other countries followed your prescription (and ignored the precept “Might makes right”) the U.S. would be under attack from many sides.
I may have skimmed them. My initial comment was not a reaction to you specifically. It was a reaction to the fact that a thread asking about the reason for continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan turned into a discussion about the use of Afghanistan as a platform to attack Iran. It seemed such a bizarre twist for the thread to take that I commented on it. I certainly had no intention to “allocate blame” for the thread hijack.
I think the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan immediately. I think the war in Afghanistan is murderous and highly destructive. Let the indigenous people of Afghanistan try and sort out their own problems.
Errors many, like Qatar is not Saudi arabia, but “surrounded” like a bugs bunny like in a wile e coyote movie… Of course Turkey also helped you American surround Iraq in 2003… ah no in fact they refused to allow the use of the base or indeed any of their territory. so they would be so eager for Iran… Or Turkmenistan with their friend Putin.
It is typical american superificialism to think a Turkmenistan or a Turkey will allow contrary to their national interests an attack on the Iran and for the Central Asians and the Caucauses, directly irritate and even directly provoke their Russian neighbor, the permanent presence unlike the come and go barely remember history americans.
But that I responded to was the silly simplistic idea that a base in the unstable Afghanistan long from the easy resupply is some great advantage - as AK84 highlighted himself.
Of course the Americans of a certain political tendency think that like in an action movie or a video game you just decide.
Not even main purpose, a useful purposes as if
1 : the host country has no say in the usages of bases (they do and they do block, voir Turkey 2003)
2 : the usage would not require the specific supply and this would not be put at risk (the transport of the heavy needs across land, both Pakistan and Afghanistan)
3 : even if the Americans blundered ahead with or without approval, the usage of the base against the Iran would not provoke wider hostility among the tacitly “pro american” (the Afghan shia), losing yet more
That is why I called it the typical American action movie thinking, their posts are pure Americans decide à la “action movie” and there is no other consequences (and of course the bombing succeeds in the movie time frame so there is not a second order need… and no consequences are thought of.
I’m not an American with a certain political tendency.
I think the ‘Project for the new American century’ is still in progress and that invasion of Iran is still on the table. Whether it is a bad or childish idea or not.
This is a long term game, and maybe not going entirely to plan, temporary sensitivities of the countries involved play a lesser role than having the infrastructure for a future invasion in place.
When the time comes and the drums start beating the ‘allies’ will comply.
Temporary sensitivies… Kha. Permanent. The americans have the attention span of the small children, but the countries in question, they have to live permanently with their neighbors, the Russians, the Iranians - and the incompetence of the long-term management by the americans of the Iraq gives everyone the lesson about the worth of their planning.
the allies will comply assertion, it worked very well with Turkey in 2003. No, in fact not at all.
If we ever go to war with Iran, it would end up being a disaster of epic proportions. As in the case of North Korea, “winning” would only come at a tremendously high price, and there are so many different possible adverse outcomes that winning doesn’t seem likely. Almost every credible foreign policy and defense think tank believes it’s a terrible idea. Every American administration, whether they will admit it publicly or not, thinks it would be a disastrous idea, as evidenced by the fact that they haven’t done it despite decades of talking about it.
Some allies might ‘comply’ because they think there’s something in it for them. Saudi Arabia might ‘comply’, but seeing as they don’t even allow the United States military on their soil, I’m not sure that I see much value in their participation.
It’s Qatar, not Saudi Arabia, that actually hosts the United States armed forces, but the United States sided with KSA in its dispute with Qatar, and guess which country Qatar has strengthened economic and political ties with in recent months? Why would Qatar ‘comply’ if the US wanted to bomb Iran using Qatar’s air base? What does Qatar get out of it? Again, think about this. The US sides with KSA, which doesn’t even allow US troops, and the US under Trump takes a firm position against Qatar, which does. How utterly fucking stupid is that? And you think Qatar is going to ‘comply’ if the US wants to bomb its ally?
It’s Turkey that is a NATO ally, yes, but as was already pointed out to you, Turkey’s interests in the region is complex and takes many forms, and they do not neatly coincide with the US. Ramira already pointed out to you that Turkey refused to allow Turkish air space to be used to attack Iraq. Why? Because they didn’t want a humanitarian crisis on their doorstep and they didn’t want Kurds to get the idea of nation statehood. Any attack on Iran is going to evoke similar feelings. Turkey is not going to ‘comply’ either.
The United States would be almost entirely on its own on this one, and no amount of land and airspace in Afghanistan is going to make tackling Iran any easier, especially at a time when it’s struggling to achieve its aims in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. What would be gained? Creating more fertile ground for terrorists?
As the list asserted included the Saudi, I have just been looking and it appears there is no US base in the Turkmenistan, only a permission for the refueling stops for the purpose of the transit to Afghanistan.
In any case, although the action movie type analysis thikns a marker on the map = all freedom, relative to the reflecting on the realities of the Afghan case, all basing agreemnts or transit agreements give the approvals to the host country for the parameters of the usage - and the host countries can and do say no as the Turkey did to the Americans for all uses of the existing bases in 2003.
The Afghan interest can not be to gratitiously throw oil on the burning fires, and antagonize its own Shia population which are among the most solid supporters against the Talebans.
The analysis of the Afghan situation here has mostly been of the action movie type, without any reality of the logistics and the risks.
The americans would be smarter for the Afghanistan to open the negotiations with the elements of the Talebans and leave on a client state basis to some kind of the unity government.
They would have been even smarter to play the realpolitik and have made the common cause with the Iran but it is clear the WWII Action Movie thinking is too dominant
Also it seems to be the case there is no base in Azerbaijan, for the factual record, only the accord to allow the refueling for the transit to the Afghanistan.
Minor nitpick, but we helped ensure that Russia would be run by right-wing kleptocrats rather than by a renovated Communist Party or by a nationalist. Democracy was never a realistic option. (I think what we did was very bad, to be clear, and that rule by Zyuganov & company would be a lot better than what Russia has today, but I think it’s extremely unlikely that Russia was ever going to turn into Germany or France).
The situation in Chile was certainly exacerbated and supported enthusiastically by America, but in the last analysis Allende was overthrown by the Chilean right with the connivance of the center. Describing the events of 1973 as ‘made in america’ removes agency from the Chilean people involved on all sides.
So, on the one hand, we have pure hypotheticals, and on the other we have…oh, let’s see…president Dilbert doing his damnedest to alienate as many NATO allies as possible, with Tillerson scurrying behind him trying to clean up the shitpiles…taunting NK at every opportunity, this time with Tillerson and Mattis speaking out…dancing around China with vague threats about a trade war…the Qatar debacle. Oh yeah, great foreign policy. Good cop, idiot cop.
