-
WAR OF IDEAS
Has the U.S. Reached Peak Car?
-
KILLER APPS
Cyberspies Are Using PRISM for Spearphishing
-
PASSPORT
Remembering Michael Hastings
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 1:06 PM
Share
The Obama administration is about to propose the sale of more than $60 billion worth of advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia. Apart from providing an obvious boost to the U.S. defense industry, the clear purpose here is to send a message to Iran. As an unnamed U.S. official stated a few days ago, "We want Iran to understand that its nuclear program is not getting them leverage over their neighbors, that they are not getting an advantage. . . We want the Iranians to know that every time they think they will gain, they will actually lose." In short, the sale is "mainly intended as a building block for Middle East regional defenses to box in Iran."
I get all that, although it seems like an awful lot of weaponry to "contain" a country whose entire defense budget, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, is only $10 billion.
But my real question is this: if our primary goal is to discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapons, then might this new initiative be counter-productive? Doesn't it just give Iran an even bigger incentive to get a nuclear deterrent of its own? Think about it: if you had a bad relationship with the world's most powerful country, if you knew (or just suspected) that it was still backing anti-government forces in your country, if its president kept telling people that "all options were still on the table," and if that same powerful country were now about to sell billions of dollars of weapons to your neighbors, wouldn't you think seriously about obtaining some way to enhance your own security? And that's hard to do with purely conventional means, because your economy is a lot smaller and is already constrained by economic sanctions. Hmmm....so what are your other options?
Of course, it's possible that Iran's leaders have already made that decision, and if so then these moves won't have much effect on their calculations. And I'm all for maintaining a favorable balance of power in the Gulf. But if we are still hoping to convince Iran that it would be better off without some sort of nuclear weapons capability (even if only of a "latent" sort), this move strikes me as a step in the wrong direction.
Jim Watson-Pool/Getty Images
EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, IRAN, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, SAUDI ARABIA, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
The only outcome I see from this arms deal is the build up of an arms race within the Middle East, which will undoubtedly, as you said would only leave one option for Iran's leadership, which would be to develop an even bigger arsenal of both conventional and also nuclear weapons to counterbalance the amount of weapons the US sends to countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, and also our increasing military presence in the region. I for one don't know what a good solution for stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions would be, but I don't think that building up the arms of the entire region that will result from this is a productive solution, nor will it be helpful for our overall strategy.
But hey, it's good for Boeing and Northrup Grumman, so it's good for us all, right? Well, it might help our balance of trade with the Saudis.
I'm not sure there is really a lot of difference between the government of Iran and the Saudi monarchy. Both places are run by theocrats with more oil money than they know what to do with, and neither is a bastion of humn rights. Beats me why we do business with them - ah but there is the profit motive.
It will be interesting to see how much security this buys for Saudi Arabia, when it could be the fuse that touches off an arms race in a very volatile part of the globe.
I'd actually take the profit motive
Especially over more covert, potentially short-sighted or sinister agendas of an arms race and of stoking the fires of conflict to justify another foolish war - if we're going down in flames, may as well make a few bucks
At the risk of over-simplifying and being paranoid, the idea of more firepower stockpiled in the ME should be of comfort to no one (sincere apologies but it's true) - regardless of motive
But hey, it's good for Boeing and Northrup Grumman, so it's good for us all, right? Well, it might help our balance of trade with the Saudis.
I'm not sure there is really a lot of difference between the government of Iran and the Saudi monarchy. Both places are run by theocrats with more oil money than they know what to do with, and neither is a bastion of humn rights. Beats me why we do business with them - ah but there is the profit motive.
It will be interesting to see how much security this buys for Saudi Arabia, when it could be the fuse that touches off an arms race in a very volatile part of the globe.
What is more offensive is our up-coming sale of 100+ F35s to Turkey.
Turkey, a now-Islamist state that has expressed solidarity with Iran and Syria. Iranian foreign ministers have called for SECURITY COOPERATIONS WITH TURKEY!!!!
Turkey is the deal breaker, not Saudi Arabia.
The arms deal is simply more of the same. Saudi Arabia has always been our bitch in the ME. We built Saudi Arabia.
How exactly is it offensive?
Turkey is becoming the most important regional player in the middle east. Both Islamist and Democratic Turkey is definitely European Union bound. Just last week, Turkish voters passed sweeping constitutional reforms that have further separated the military from the Liberal Democratic-Islamist government.
Yes!! Liberal Democratic-Islamist Government.
Already a member of NATO, Turkey is again aiming for inclusion in the EU.
Stephen Kinzer's book "Reset:Iran, Turkey, and America's Future" stresses the fact that America needs to look outside of just Israel and Saudi Arabia for its regional interest in the middle east.
Turkey is playing a very smart diplomatic game by befriending governments in the Middle-East enforcing relationships in Europe and building strong relations in the Americas i.e. Brazil and the US.
The elections were sham. Turkish voters had no idea what they were voting on, the AKP controlled the voting booths. The AKP wants to change the constitution to decrease the military's power over the government. The secular military is the only thing that has prevented Turkey from becoming Iran.
Turkey was once a strong US/Israel ally, now it continues to alienate the West by expressing support for Iran and Syria, while Turkish Islamists send funds to Hamas. Recep Tayyip Erdo?an is today's mussolini.
You do know Turkey sits on 88 US nuclear warheads?
Too much speculation when facts are present
Think a little on a smaller scale, Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state and they set the defense budget. Not too long ago they were looking at weapons from other vendors outside of the U.S. If the Saudi's would have chosen to purchase Russian or European aircraft would it change the end state of your argument? With the aspect of the Camp David Accords and the role Congress plays in the approval the President has to provide a justification that the mainstream media will carry and provide popular support. Apply some parsimony to your theory here. All of the other variables you and the comments are adding have unfounded speculation carried by popular bias.
"Keep us safe from Iran" - don't you think that this kind of attention-grabbing headline is getting a bit old? It is the US who's threatening to attack, not the other way around. The article itself is a bit more sensible, but with headlines like this, FP seems just as awful as CNN.
to Vilkssweden-- When did Iran take all that land from the Kurds or the Baluchis? You should understand that Iran has a number of other ethnic minorities including Arabs. Any attempt to play them off against the Government will probably fail because as a whole they think of themselves as Iranian first. While we are talking about all those big boy toys for the Saudi's, I will always remember a conversation I had with a US Army sergeant who was back from a training mission with the Saudi Army. When I asked him if they were any good, he replied that if the Saudi Sergeant was shot all the rest would run like rabbits. While too much of the media and our White House continue to parrot the talking points of the Israelis that Iran will have a bomb any day now, we should worry about the step by step build-up of modern arms along the Persian Gulf which also includes Patriot missiles. Too much of this,"the Sky is falling" talk is from the White House on behalf of the Israeli tail that wags the US dog.
How about it, indeed?
Would you call it Spiral Model?
It is just a pure and clear application of the Security Dilemma. That's it!!
===== http://www.buyshopping.us/ =======
accept paypal or credit card and free shipping
We need your support and trust!!!
Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps
To our website Walk around A look at
Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth
You'll find our price is more suitable for you.
===== http://www.buyshopping.us/ ========
Iran's government has no reason to not develop WMD
Our response has been so clumsy, that it has made us appear more aggressive and unpredictable than we really are. Iran knows that detterrence, either through Nukes, lower-grade chemicals and biologicals, or just nuclear capability will allow them an infinite degree of leeway to act within their own borders and a highly expanded degree of leeway outside their borders. We should shift our focus to living with a nuclear Iran. It wont be that bad, for God's sake Stalin and Mao had nukes and they were much crazier than Ahmedinejad.
Two other points to consider...
I'm a major in the U.S. Army currently attending Intermediate Level Education (ILE - the new Command and General Staff College) at Fort Belvoir, VA. This topic is of particular interest to me as a Middle East Foreign Area Officer. Although I have not yet served as a Security Assistance Officer at a U.S. Embassy, I am familiar with the programs operated out of Office of Military Cooperation (OMC) or Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) sections within U.S. Embassies abroad. Security assistance and cooperation are just one of many ways the U.S. government helps to build capacity in foreign countries. The long term goal of course is to increase interoperability in a multinational environment as well as to provide the ability of the host nation to counter threats without direct U.S. intervention. I think we would rather gain influence and access with the Saudis through this arms package rather than let it go to someone else. Nonetheless, we have to bring something to the table with the Saudis, and our technology and superior weaponry is very attractive.
I agree that this $60 billion arms deal (focusing mostly on 5th generation aircraft and the modernization of weapons systems that the Saudis already possess) may have the unintentional affect to encourage the Iranians to continue to pursue a nuclear capability. One would hope that the administration has considered the long term effect of this security assistance package; however, there is enough evidence of U.S. military presence/influence in the region to make the claim that the Iranians have been "encouraged" to pursue nuclear endeavors way before this $60 billion arms package was proposed. Just look at how the U.S. has surrounded Iran on two of its borders (Iraq and Afghanistan), or look at the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet stationed in Manama, Bahrain (a Shi'a dominated Arab country).
Two other points to consider. First, Kuwait has recently signed cooperation agreements with France, Japan, and Russia to assist the Kuwaitis in setting up 4 reactors by 2022. This is surely spurring the Iranians to continue on their current path. Second - and possibly more unpredictable - is Israel. This, to me, is the wild card in that Israel will not hesitate to act in a unilateral manner to stop Iran from acquiring the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. This has the potential to mitigate our presence and influence in the region.
Going back to the topic at hand, this package will clearly boost the defense industry and will have a ripple effect throughout the U.S. economy. It will be interesting to see how this situation develops over the next few weeks.
For all of Walt's talk about containing Iran...
he sure does get mad when the US tries to employ a containment-esque strategy. I've followed this blog for quite a while, and over the past 2 years I've seen Walt go from a tried and true realist to more of a partisan isolationist. Just an observation Walt; if you're going to call your self a realist, act like one consistently. As of late, you've become too partisan and more of an isolationist than a realist. You should really change your by-line under your blog from "realist in an ideological age" to "partisan isolationist". It would suit you better.
It means that American defense industry should be grateful to Iran also. And why Saudi Arabia, India is also going to sign a big deal for arms and equipment during Obama's India visit. Read more at: http://fmeducation.blogspot.com/2010/09/iran-and-saudi-arabia-bring-good-news.html
I'm afraid we do not know for sure about Iran's intentions. Its neighbours might need the weapons or the US should make Iran think that its neighbours are well-equipped.
This photo reminds me of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussain shaking hands. Will it have the same currency down the road?
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(19)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE