Agreed. I can acknowledge that there is a mosquito in my house, but I’m not concerned about it breaking anything.
Perhaps - that’s a different debate. No doubt some Israelis would argue that an “extreme and hardline” position can be a justified one in certain circumstances (as in ‘I take an extreme position on the question of our possible extermination by nukes - I am unwilling to accept any compromise on that point, no matter how unreasonable that makes me appear’). It isn’t always the case that an ‘acceptable middle ground’ for a deal is reasonable; that depends on what the endpoints are. Those not persinally facing such endpoints are, of course, likely to have a very different view of their ‘reasonableness’.
However, my posts were all to answer the question ‘who cares if they are perceived as sold out of not if the deal is in our best interests?’
Lest we forget, the Americans have many, many allies.
Any deals they do - any moves they make - will be perceived as “good” by some of those allies, “bad” by others.
In this case, it was a deal perceived as “good” by (just to name a few) the U.K., which lost 453 troops fighting alongside the Americans in Afghanistan (and another 179 in Iraq); by France, which lost 88 troops in Afghanistan; by Germany, which lost 57 troops in Afghanistan; and by Spain, which lost 35 troops in Afghanistan itself, and another 62 when a plane full of soldiers crashed in Turkey, plus another 11 troops in Iraq.
Not lifting sanctions on Iran would deprive these countries - American allies, all, and fellow members of NATO - of the wealth and the prosperity which they will now enjoy, thanks to increased trade with Iran.
Sure, the deal has all sorts of benefits, but they aren’t all perceived necessarily in the same way. Being deprived of “weath and prosperity” achieved by trade from removed sanctions isn’t necessarily seen in the same light as ‘being subject to a chance of extermination’.
So, who is doing all this “perceiving”? Over all, the prospect of an agreement with Iran appears to be well received, am I missing something?
And outside of Israel, does anyone see themselves as being subject to extermination, or are you indulging a droll sarcasm? I thought the initial point had to do with other nations having a poor opinion of American loyalty to her friends, i.e., “selling out”. Who, perzackly, might that be?
Whether the deal itself is generally well received is a different question from the issue of whether (allegedly) screwing Israel & the Sunni nations in making the deal has a long-term reputational downside.
Even people who in fact rejoice that Israel/Sunni nations are getting screwed under this deal may perhaps worry that if the US is willing to screw these guys, they may equally be willing in the future to screw them.
Yes, I know that there are perfectly good arguments that the deal screws nobody and is in reality a good deal all around. Just for the sake of argument assume that some folks think otherwise.
“The Saudi prince says the new Iran deal and other developments in the region have led him to conclude that a phrase first used by Henry Kissinger – “America’s enemies should fear America, but America’s friends should fear America more” – is correct."
Well yes. Now many Israelis think Iran is on a path to exterminate them because they can’t trust Iran to act rationally when Iran inevitably gets a nuke.
I’m not sure where your confusion lies. I’m saying, in response to a post, that these two are not of the same weight:
-
Europeans and others feeling they are likely to get more wealthy from trade due to lifted sanctions with Iran;
-
Israelis/Sunnis feeling they are likely to get more dead from Iranian nukes/Hezbollah attacks.
Before we let this thing spin out of control: Not only are “the Sunni nations” not being screwed, “the Sunni nations” neither believe that they are being screwed, nor are they claiming that they’re being screwed.
Of the ten biggest Sunni nations in the world - Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Turkey, Algeria, Sudan and Morocco - not a one has spoken out against the deal, many stand to benefit, and several are downright giddy.
Of the Sunni-majority nations closer to Iran itself, Dubai is absolutely thrilled about the new trade opportunities finally opening up, Oman actively facilitated the deal all along, playing a hugely important behind-the-scenes role in making it happen in the first place, Qatar has welcomed the deal, as has Afghanistan, and so on and so forth.
So it’s really not a question of “the Sunni nations.” It’s the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and maybe Kuwait, plus a handful of their buddies. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
Funny how those just happen to be “our” Sunni nations. The ones we’ve been coziest with, and therefore the…I dunno, the only ones that matter or something?
So Turkey, a NATO ally, “doesn’t matter.”
Neither does Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria, Sudan, Morocco, Dubai, Oman, Qatar or Afghanistan.
Now I’ve heard everything.
I presume you mean “extermination of Israel”. However, I am afraid that doesn’t compute.
If I understand this deal correctly, at a minimum Iran won’t have a bomb, indeed will be farther away from the bomb, for at least 10 years. And afterwards they will be watched carefully to see if they begin actions to develop one.
Meanwhile Israel (which probably does have nuclear weapons, they aren’t saying for the record) can continue to develop anti-missile and other defensive (and offensive) weapons against potential threats from iran or anyone else.
Look at it from the Iranian standpoint; they have in effect given up the one stick that they could use to obtain a favorable bargaining position (see N. Korea for an example) to rebuild their economy, which is a wreck and a ruin thanks to sanctions. Effectively, they are at the mercy of the Israeli (presumed) nukes. In* their *minds, they are the ones with the ‘chance of extermination.’
Yes, I expect they will continue to fund Hamas and other ‘terrorist’ groups, none of which are a threat to the nation-state of Israel, and look to rebuild their military (which is several hundred miles and several countries away from Israel, so I think we and they would spot them coming, don’t you think?). Leaders can pontificate all they want; Iran has lost their biggest club when it comes to Israel and I think the Isrealis will also come to that conclusion (YMMV).
(BTW, good catch on the Suez crisis in your comments to my post above; I was thnking more in line with the US being the first nation to recognize Israel in 1948. But the point that the USA has given (not lent, given) Israel well over $100 Billion in Military financial aid to date and shows no signs of cutting that spigot off makes it hard for me to see how we are ‘selling out’ a friend. Again, YMMV.)
Steken, I think andros was being ‘tongue-in-cheek’, although I may be wrong. I think the points you’ve made are excellent.
I would pick one nit; Dubai is one of the seven Emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates (UAE); they are not an independent country, albeit the ruling Maktoum family does have a lot of discrection.
Press on
You’re absolutely right. I always do that: “Dubai” instead of “UAE.” Extra embarrassing because I’ve done business with the damn place! Sure kept my tongue in check around the client, though. 
If only the Good Lord had not put our oil under their sand, we wouldn’t have to give a shit about a country with more native princes than native plumbers.
Drop that one again in this thread and you’ll have a hat trick! 
Eat your heart out.
This is an even more obscure nitpick than the Dubai one, but technically speaking the Omani government isn’t Sunni, though many of their citizens are. They’re Ibadi along with maybe 1/2-3/4 of the population, a sect that descended from the third split in Islam, the Kharijites ( Sunni, Shi’a, Khawarij ).