Allowing Israel to define the New Administration is a Big mistake.

[BigRob]

Your involvement around the world is welcomed and thus not at issue. What is at issue is the how US interacts with the rest of the world and the consequences of those interactions.

I can accept that, but when push comes to shove we will still demand what is in our self-interest.

A good example is the so called missile shield and its effect on relationships with Russia. There was no reason to give Russia a cause to revert to type to become a belligerent again, all that has done is fire their pride and caused them become resuregent.

I dispute the notion that it was the proposed missile shield in Poland that reverted Russia to a belligerent again. Russia has been becoming more and more aggressive ever since the Cold War ended. Part of the Russian mentality is to "right the wrongs of the Cold War" and regain their dominance on the world stage. We have seen a much more aggressive Russia as the price of oil spiked, and we have not seen it decline with the price. It is not the missile shield that made this occur. It may have given a quick political excuse, but if not that it would have been something else.

Consequencial damage is this ridiculous idea that they can somehow ally themselves with that wanker Chevez in order to gain an influence in south/central America again! Its as if everyone forgot the rules of the old game...you piss in our yard, we'll piss in yours!!

Russia can align themselves with Chavez if they so choose, but in practical terms this means little, outside of being a sore spot for the US. Chavez openly states that he only buys Russian military material because the United States will not sell him any. (I believe that this is a mistake)

I agree with the sentiment of the old world, and the Russian action in South America was to be expected (Chinese activity in the region is more worrisome to me). We can easily counter balance any Russian influence in South America in my view, and that should not negate our attempts at missile defense.

In my view, Europe all but demands the missile defense, and in order for the United States to credibly offer a deterrent to Europe we must offer not only a missile shield but a nuclear deterrent as well.

I would cautiously suggest a less hamfisted approach to relations with allies such as undermining a newly established government in Pakistan for example. Whilst the more belicose amongst you will wave the flag and yeehaw as the missiles go whomping into the villages of Wasiristan etc. its this sort of industrial idiocy that recruits yet further nutters to the cause. Thus, hopefully I think there will be a more intelligent and targetted approach in the field of international relations....hopefully.

Well to comment on Pakistan, I have said on numerous occasions, openly following a policy of cross border raids is a disaster. Obama openly wants to follow this policy. I feel this backs Zardari into a corner and emboldens the extremist element in Pakistan (a nuclear armed country).

.........but....this thread is about Isreal so one should really concentrate on Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Russia in order to gain some insight into the potential pitfalls that Obama is going to face.

I concur, I believe Iran and Pakistan will be the biggest threats facing Obama in the short term. Perhaps even North Korea. That said, all of these issues will automatically bring in Russia and China, and India to an extent.

What I am not willing to do is sacrifice United States grand strategic interests on a whole out of fear of the law of unintended consequences. It is simply not a viable argument to prevent action in my view. There will always be real consequences you can readily evaluate, and I think decisions must be made on those.

 

[Andy]

.......no it was an illustration of the law of unintended consequences not a dissertation on strategic defence systems.

Ok... I don't buy it. If I'm understanding the theory correctly, I don't buy it.

Simply because we post a completely defensive system for our allies benefit, doesn't look to me like a cause for unintended consequences.

The implication is that if we don't choose to advance our military, that no one else will either, and everyone will live in peace and happiness for all eternity. If that were true, then we never would have advanced beyond metal swords and iron armor.

The fact is, other nations of the world are advancing, whether we choose to or not. As America becomes (relatively) weaker, our enemies will be more and more likely to become a threat not only to us, but our allies.

You don't see Russia discontinuing to develop new and more deadly weapons. Why is it you are not sending messages to them saying they should stop before America becomes belligerent? Did they not invade one of our allies? Did we invade one of theirs? Why don't you tell them to stop making these super deadly weapons, used offensively to kill masses of people, unlike our defense shield, only used to save masses of people?

Russia Tests Giant Fuel-Air Bomb
"I think the likelihood is that this is the world's biggest non-nuclear bomb,"

You know... I think I'm feeling a bit belligerent. Are you feeling a tad belligerent?

Yes I can feel it now! We're getting very belligerent! Nobama, you feel it? Rob you feel it? United, you feel us all getting belligerent?

Your are right Scot! We're all getting belligerent from Russia's bomb testing and weapons race! We're all getting belligerent!

 

[The Scotsman]

The implication is that if we don't choose to advance our military, that no one else will either,

.......anyway....... the discussion is on the US and Isreal. What is your oppinion on Iran and Russian in respect to relations with Isreal......here's a hint for you ......if you understrand the issues of the region you'll understand why I mentioned the Missile shield (as an example) and the deterioration in US-Russian relations!

read on below......

 

[The Scotsman]

I dispute the notion that it was the proposed missile shield in Poland that reverted Russia to a belligerent again. Russia has been becoming more and more aggressive ever since the Cold War ended. Part of the Russian mentality is to "right the wrongs of the Cold War" and regain their dominance on the world stage. We have seen a much more aggressive Russia as the price of oil spiked, and we have not seen it decline with the price. It is not the missile shield that made this occur. It may have given a quick political excuse, but if not that it would have been something else.

..............sorry Rob I think you've missed my point but I think it is more my fault than yours.

Okay in a nutshell.......the situation with Isreal is complex and implicitly wound up in the even more byzantine morass of relationships which is the Middle East! An Obama Government would (I assume) want to have a peaceful and successful withdrawl from Iraq; at least that is the stated intention at this stage! Such withdrawl in my somewhat befuddled oppinion can only really be acheived with some agreement, be it tacit or otherwise from Iran, that their role in the region will be supportive rather than expansionary at worst case or at best corrosive.....would you agree?

Again....keeping it simple, thus setting aside all the other players in the region........ Relationships between the US and Iran are strained to say the least because of a whole raft of reasons. In talking to the Iranians one needs not only to know with whom to talk to but how and when to talk. For example Clinton stumbled into Iran and tried to open dialogue with the triumverate of Khatami, Rafsanjani and Karroubi and the reformers without understanding that supreme power lay with Khamenei - in short they spoke to the wrong people! This simple mistake bolloxed up the whole dynamic of the dialogue that Clinton wanted to establish and indeed did more harm than he could imagine. The consequences, as we discussed on a previous thread, was that Khatami was sidelined as a potential threat to Khamenei which directly led to Ahmadinejad, a hardliner being installed as President. It was because of Clinton that the US now has to deal with the hardline conservatives!

As you know Russia enjoys reasonable relations with Iran and the assistance of the Russians to gain an audience with the Iranians and the use of their good offices could have been of use to the US in re-establishing a dialogue with Iran. This could have served as a double whammy to assist in not only the successful transition and ultimate extraction from Iraq but also the fact that Iran is behind Hamas!!!!

Thus my point about Russia and Missile shields and Isreal and unintended consequences.....That was my point......

 

[BigRob]

..............sorry Rob I think you've missed my point but I think it is more my fault than yours.

As per usual.

Okay in a nutshell.......the situation with Isreal is complex and implicitly wound up in the even more byzantine morass of relationships which is the Middle East! An Obama Government would (I assume) want to have a peaceful and successful withdrawl from Iraq; at least that is the stated intention at this stage!

I agree with this point.

Such withdrawl in my somewhat befuddled oppinion can only really be acheived with some agreement, be it tacit or otherwise from Iran, that their role in the region will be supportive rather than expansionary at worst case or at best corrosive.....would you agree?

I agree that Iran will play role, but I also think the Saudis have just a big as stake in the matter as Iran does.

I also think that the domestic forces in Iraq are playing a large counter-balance to the influence of Iran in Iraq. That said, I agree that Iran still can make or break Iraq, so yea I will agree with your sentiment on the whole.

Again....keeping it simple, thus setting aside all the other players in the region........ Relationships between the US and Iran are strained to say the least because of a whole raft of reasons. In talking to the Iranians one needs not only to know with whom to talk to but how and when to talk. For example Clinton stumbled into Iran and tried to open dialogue with the triumverate of Khatami, Rafsanjani and Karroubi and the reformers without understanding that supreme power lay with Khamenei - in short they spoke to the wrong people! This simple mistake bolloxed up the whole dynamic of the dialogue that Clinton wanted to establish and indeed did more harm than he could imagine. The consequences, as we discussed on a previous thread, was that Khatami was sidelined as a potential threat to Khamenei which directly led to Ahmadinejad, a hardliner being installed as President. It was because of Clinton that the US now has to deal with the hardline conservatives!

I am not sure this was the entire reason Ahmadinejad was elected. He ran on a very populist platform promising mostly domestic reform. While I agree the dynamic you laid out played a role, I am not sure it was the only factor.

I think regardless of this dynamic however, when we invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan, classified Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" and started saber rattling Iran was going to react much in the way they have regardless of previously discussions. Add all this to the oil price spike, the rapidly expanding problems in Iran, and I think we still have the same problem.

As you know Russia enjoys reasonable relations with Iran and the assistance of the Russians to gain an audience with the Iranians and the use of their good offices could have been of use to the US in re-establishing a dialogue with Iran. This could have served as a double whammy to assist in not only the successful transition and ultimate extraction from Iraq but also the fact that Iran is behind Hamas!!!!

Russia has a vested interest in not seeing a nuclear Iran yes, but Iran flatly rejected the Russian offer on their nuclear program as well. Russia, in my view, and Iran, are connected by energy and arms sales. Russia is happy about the prolonging the crisis with Iran so that they can sell Iran arms. They are not overly happy about a nuclear Iran, but they know they will not be the target of a nuclear Iran. At the same time, by prolonging the crisis, Russia gets better energy prices, energy deals with Iran, and makes a bundle selling Iran arms.

I do not think Russia was the key to our Iranian relationship. Iran helped us for awhile in Afghanistan before it became apparent they would be on the invasion list.

Thus my point about Russia and Missile shields and Isreal and unintended consequences.....That was my point......

I maintain that the threat posed to Europe by a nuclear Iran and the negative effect backing off of our nuclear and conventional deterrent to Europe (and Israel) would be a foreign policy disaster.

I am not willing to back off of this stance to a resurgent Russia that quite frankly hates the United States to begin with. We must maintain our deterrent to our allies and we must enhance and fund missile defense.

We need missile defense not only to offer a deterrent to Europe against Iran, but also for us against Russian expansion. Missile defense is the right way to go in my view, and backing off of our extended deterrent to Poland (as Obama is doing) is not only a disaster for the United States, but our credibility with our allies all around the world, especially after selling out Georgia.

 

[The Scotsman]

Russia has a vested interest in not seeing a nuclear Iran yes, but Iran flatly rejected the Russian offer on their nuclear program as well.

.....but back up a second we're not talking about nuclear programmes or missile shields thats all just fluff.... what we're talking about is international relations and the consequences of ones descisions! Russia has a relationship with Iran the US does not - who has the most "influence" in that region?............Russia or the US?

The US has a problem in that their position is purely based on an armed hold on Iraq with more to lose than any other nation in that region, but as you pointed out Saudi Arabia is also a major benefactor of a dominant US in the Middle East! As we've discussed Obama is looking for an exit strategy but it has to be on terms that would be acceptable to the coalition, Iraq and especially to Saudi Arabia - a destabilised Iraq controlled by a dominant Iran would leave the Saudi Royal family extremely concerned! The US has to maintain stability in that region if they wish to maintain the perception that they are in control of the region thus keeping the Saudis happy!

Consider this for a second..... If the Saudi Royal family percieve a weakness in the US position then they may look to others in order to secure their borders and promote their interests with the Iranians. Due to political and economic interests and diplomatic influence the Saudis may hedge their bets and strengthen their ties with the Russians or indeed the Chinese! Thus my argument about unintended consequences.

Russia, in my view, and Iran, are connected by energy and arms sales. Russia is happy about the prolonging the crisis with Iran so that they can sell Iran arms.

as the US and the UK has been doing in the Middle East and all over the world for decades...if you make weapons you sell weapons...no big deal.

I am not willing to back off of this stance to a resurgent Russia that quite frankly hates the United States to begin with. We must maintain our deterrent to our allies and we must enhance and fund missile defense.

....Russia doesn't hate the US!! they don't trust the US which is quite different.... have you forgotten your Cold War?...its all part of the game!

We need missile defense...

...huh?? you already have one? its called NORAD......as for other European countries well.....we have all sorts of wonderful shoot bang stuff that can be deployed as well as being part of NATO. BUT, if they did require assistance from the US then enter the much renown Raytheon Patriot system which as you capably demonstrated in Israel can be loaded, deployed and on-line in any part of the world inside of a few days or so....that's the missile shield that we're talking about here!

Anyway missiles schmissiles we're discussing Israel. The biggest ally you have in the Middle East is Israel and the main belligerents are Syria and Iran and their proxies in Palestine all of whom you are effectively isolated from. Russia on the other hand has relations with these countries and has influence in some capacity or another within these Governments. Thus, the continuation of this odd stance in Central Europe is odd especially since your portfolio of interests in the Middle East which are arguably more important in the short term (OIL) are in jepardy from not only local interests of Iran but also from Russia and China (OIL)! Perhaps the point has been reached where international relations should start to be less militaristic and more based on diplomacy and an inclusive dialogue which takes me back to where I started.....

"Your involvement around the world is welcomed and thus not at issue. What is at issue is the how US interacts with the rest of the world and the consequences of those interactions."

 

[BigRob]

.....but back up a second we're not talking about nuclear programmes or missile shields thats all just fluff.... what we're talking about is international relations and the consequences of ones descisions! Russia has a relationship with Iran the US does not - who has the most "influence" in that region?............Russia or the US?

Depends on who you ask.

The US has a problem in that their position is purely based on an armed hold on Iraq with more to lose than any other nation in that region, but as you pointed out Saudi Arabia is also a major benefactor of a dominant US in the Middle East! As we've discussed Obama is looking for an exit strategy but it has to be on terms that would be acceptable to the coalition, Iraq and especially to Saudi Arabia - a destabilised Iraq controlled by a dominant Iran would leave the Saudi Royal family extremely concerned! The US has to maintain stability in that region if they wish to maintain the perception that they are in control of the region thus keeping the Saudis happy!

I can agree with this. But it seems by extension we must then prevent Iran from going nuclear at all costs. Saudi Arabia and Egypt openly state that they are going to go nuclear should Iran go nuclear. In order to accomplish this we must not only leave a stabilized Iraq but also prevent Iran from going nuclear.

The problem is that if we pull out Iraq before we are able, and that is followed up by Iran quickly going nuclear, it will result in an arms race across the Middle East. Any perception of the US maintaining control with that environment is not going to happen.

Consider this for a second..... If the Saudi Royal family percieve a weakness in the US position then they may look to others in order to secure their borders and promote their interests with the Iranians. Due to political and economic interests and diplomatic influence the Saudis may hedge their bets and strengthen their ties with the Russians or indeed the Chinese! Thus my argument about unintended consequences.

This is exactly why we must, at all costs, maintain the credibility of our deterrent. Our actions in Poland and Iraq, and our position on Iran, are being watched by Saudi Arabia. If we keep backing down, on issues such as a missile shield, and going into talks from positions of weakness, Saudi Arabia is not going to put much faith in the US to do much of anything.

....Russia doesn't hate the US!! they don't trust the US which is quite different.... have you forgotten your Cold War?...its all part of the game!

In Russian schools, it is openly taught that the United States is not a friend. The Cold War logic is fine, but is not quite as relevant here. Russia feels betrayed by the Cold War, and is determined to regain their superpower status. During the Cold War the United States was willing to do whatever it took to keep that in check, we are not willing to do that now.

...huh?? you already have one? its called NORAD......

NORAD is not a missile defense shield. NORAD will detect missiles, but it can not defend against them.

as for other European countries well.....we have all sorts of wonderful shoot bang stuff that can be deployed as well as being part of NATO.

None of that shoots down an incoming missile from Iran with a nuclear warhead. Hence the reason Europe continually asks the United States to put up a missile shield.

BUT, if they did require assistance from the US then enter the much renown Raytheon Patriot system which as you capably demonstrated in Israel can be loaded, deployed and on-line in any part of the world inside of a few days or so....that's the missile shield that we're talking about here!

I hate to tell you this, but propaganda aside, the Patriot missile system does not work as well as you are led to believe.

The patriot missile system is not effective in killing warheads. What it will do it it hit the missile (when it works). None of that does you any good of course, when Russia has the ability to jam the entire system from the border of Poland.

Basically, should Iran go nuclear and lob a nuclear missile into Europe or Israel, the Patriot missile system will be unable to stop it. The PATRIOT system claims success by deflecting missiles. This works fine with a conventional SCUD, but not so much with a nuclear tipped missile.

Further, they do no one any good when we continually refuse to deploy them where they are needed. In order to have any chance of being effective, we need them in Poland and Eastern Europe.

We do not have a reliable missile defense system. We certainly do not have anything that will shoot down an ICBM with any effectiveness. While Iran may not have ICBM's as of yet, Russia certainly does, and they make no bones about the fact that they are not our friends, and they want to reestablish themselves on the world stage. Russia as well, under the Cold War Logic, and even now, has never taken the use of nuclear weapons off the table such as we continue to do.

Anyway missiles schmissiles we're discussing Israel. The biggest ally you have in the Middle East is Israel and the main belligerents are Syria and Iran and their proxies in Palestine all of whom you are effectively isolated from. Russia on the other hand has relations with these countries and has influence in some capacity or another within these Governments. Thus, the continuation of this odd stance in Central Europe is odd especially since your portfolio of interests in the Middle East which are arguably more important in the short term (OIL) are in jepardy from not only local interests of Iran but also from Russia and China (OIL)! Perhaps the point has been reached where international relations should start to be less militaristic and more based on diplomacy and an inclusive dialogue which takes me back to where I started.....

As long as the Saudi's pump oil, our local interests are fine. The United States does not import oil from Iran. Aside from that, we should not be willing to risk our relationship with Europe (which we will) by letting Russia and China expand their influence in the Middle East, which we simply will not tolerate.

"Your involvement around the world is welcomed and thus not at issue. What is at issue is the how US interacts with the rest of the world and the consequences of those interactions."

It is never this black and white. No matter what we do will effect another part of the world. We can interact by talking and always using diplomacy, but that only limits the credibility of our deterrence. The impact of that, in my opinion, is far worse than the impact losing some influence with a group like Hamas.

 

[Andy]

Consider this for a second..... If the Saudi Royal family percieve a weakness in the US position then they may look to others in order to secure their borders and promote their interests with the Iranians. Due to political and economic interests and diplomatic influence the Saudis may hedge their bets and strengthen their ties with the Russians or indeed the Chinese! Thus my argument about unintended consequences.

This would tend to move toward not showing weakness, by tabling military intervention.

....Russia doesn't hate the US!! they don't trust the US which is quite different.... have you forgotten your Cold War?...its all part of the game!

I think in general Russia would like to overturn the results of the Cold War.

...huh?? you already have one? its called NORAD......as for other European countries well.....we have all sorts of wonderful shoot bang stuff that can be deployed as well as being part of NATO. BUT, if they did require assistance from the US then enter the much renown Raytheon Patriot system which as you capably demonstrated in Israel can be loaded, deployed and on-line in any part of the world inside of a few days or so....that's the missile shield that we're talking about here!

NORAD is simply a location that collect all the data from all the military installations. In other words, an intelligence gathering cite. They have no ability to do anything, only tell us there is a missile coming. I want our military to be able to do more than alert us that we're going to die.

Patriot system is a good system, but not for ICBMs. Remember, it was designed to shoot down aircraft, not missiles. When a patriot missile hits an incoming missile, is might blow it apart, but it can't destroy the warhead. Thus the warhead still falls to the ground and blows up. Apply that to nuclear warheads, and claim that's enough? No, we need a missile defense shield.

Anyway missiles schmissiles we're discussing Israel. The biggest ally you have in the Middle East is Israel and the main belligerents are Syria and Iran and their proxies in Palestine all of whom you are effectively isolated from. Russia on the other hand has relations with these countries and has influence in some capacity or another within these Governments. Thus, the continuation of this odd stance in Central Europe is odd especially since your portfolio of interests in the Middle East which are arguably more important in the short term (OIL) are in jepardy from not only local interests of Iran but also from Russia and China (OIL)! Perhaps the point has been reached where international relations should start to be less militaristic and more based on diplomacy and an inclusive dialogue which takes me back to where I started.....

Like I said before, if we are not willing to use military force, the enemies will not listen to us. Europe and Hitler was an example. If you invade poland, we're going to do something! So he invaded poland. They didn't do anything... result? He kept invading.

Saddam was told for 10 years to disarm and he didn't. He was told to let the UN inspectors see the decommissioned weapons, he didn't. He was told not to support terrorism. He did.

I have no problem with diplomacy. But when diplomacy fails, military action must be taken.

 

[The Scotsman]

I can agree with this. But it seems by extension we must then prevent Iran from going nuclear at all costs. Saudi Arabia and Egypt openly state that they are going to go nuclear should Iran go nuclear. In order to accomplish this we must not only leave a stabilized Iraq but also prevent Iran from going nuclear.

.... so this needs to be discussed with Iran, and US diplomatic relations with Iran are............

The problem is that if we pull out Iraq before we are able, and that is followed up by Iran quickly going nuclear, it will result in an arms race across the Middle East. Any perception of the US maintaining control with that environment is not going to happen.

...so we go back to diplomacy and international relations...............

This is exactly why we must, at all costs, maintain the credibility of our deterrent. Our actions in Poland and Iraq, and our position on Iran, are being watched by Saudi Arabia. If we keep backing down, on issues such as a missile shield, and going into talks from positions of weakness, Saudi Arabia is not going to put much faith in the US to do much of anything.

........which justifies my stance really....why did Bush feel that he should or indeed feel like he needed to act in such a provocative position in the first place? You see the how the situation has pushed the US into a difficult position not only with its allies but potential adversaries - purely based on an incoherent militaristic foreign policy!

In Russian schools, it is openly taught that the United States is not a friend. The Cold War logic is fine, but is not quite as relevant here. Russia feels betrayed by the Cold War, and is determined to regain their superpower status. During the Cold War the United States was willing to do whatever it took to keep that in check, we are not willing to do that now.

.....so what..... a lot of countries don't like the US but why formulate policy in order to make them feel that they have to react in a proportionally provocatively manner? I would have thought that setting up a missile shield in the far east would be more beneficial and strategically more important for protecting Australia, South Korea and Japan from Chinese missiles..... why are you not doing that? Provocation of the Chinese is surely less important than your assests in this region?

NORAD is not a missile defense shield. NORAD will detect missiles, but it can not defend against them.

...... you know what I mean....... anyway I don't want to start discussing missiles.....

As long as the Saudi's pump oil, our local interests are fine.

...but what about if they start pumping it for the Chinese instead........

It is never this black and white. No matter what we do will effect another part of the world. We can interact by talking and always using diplomacy, but that only limits the credibility of our deterrence. The impact of that, in my opinion, is far worse than the impact losing some influence with a group like Hamas.

.......... not to Isreal!!!!!! And they have the ability to start a nuclear war........

checkmate

 

[BigRob]

.... so this needs to be discussed with Iran, and US diplomatic relations with Iran are............

Really none at this point.

...so we go back to diplomacy and international relations...............

Fine, but we do not do so by taking any credibility to our hard line stance off the table.

........which justifies my stance really....why did Bush feel that he should or indeed feel like he needed to act in such a provocative position in the first place? You see the how the situation has pushed the US into a difficult position not only with its allies but potential adversaries - purely based on an incoherent militaristic foreign policy!

We have been putting missiles in Eastern Europe long before Bush showed up on the scene. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? The United States did not win the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia put missiles in Cuba, and we caved in Turkey and with invasion promises for Cuba. Thank god we kept it quiet, or NATO would have probably imploded.

I agree that Bush's foreign policy has not been the most diplomatic, but it has not been the worst either. If we continue to cave in on foreign policy objectives we not only lose our own interests, but our allies take notice and get worried that they are next to be bailed on.

.....so what..... a lot of countries don't like the US but why formulate policy in order to make them feel that they have to react in a proportionally provocatively manner? I would have thought that setting up a missile shield in the far east would be more beneficial and strategically more important for protecting Australia, South Korea and Japan from Chinese missiles..... why are you not doing that? Provocation of the Chinese is surely less important than your assests in this region?

We are reacting is a provocative manner? Russia invaded Georgia! Iran is going nuclear. Eastern and Western Europe want the missile shield. We already bailed on Georgia, Poland took a major note of that. What is next? We bail on Poland? Then what? You don't think Israel will take note of that? Saudi Arabia will notice. Europe and South America will notice.

Our foreign policy approach predates Bush. We were willing to take an aggressive stance on Russia before, which kept the Cold War contained. We do not seem to be willing to do so again.

...but what about if they start pumping it for the Chinese instead........

Doubtful that this will occur to any great extent. Saudi Arabia relies to heavily on American arms to risk upsetting the current oil/arms relationship that Washington has with Riyadh.

.......... not to Isreal!!!!!! And they have the ability to start a nuclear war........

checkmate

Israel is not going to be overly devastated that we are unable to press an issue with Hamas. What they are going to be overly devastated about is if we allow a nuclear arms race in the Middle East between countries that hate them. We are on our way to doing just that.