Iran & Saudi Arabia Moving Closer Together

#27
#27
Reopening of embassies is the sign of the downfall of the US? I mean sure, why not, crazy stuff can happen its still the 20s so crazy stuff is bound to happen, but I dont buy this.

As for China being all peaceful:

1. South China Sea, pissing off a six different countries or so. Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea | Global Conflict Tracker
2. Chinese-Indian border. Another Clash on the India-China Border Underscores Risks of Militarization
3. Taiwan
4. China has also gained several thousands of kilometers of land from Kazakhstan, Krgystan, North Korea, pakistan, Tajikistan since the 90s. Even a little from Russia too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and tvolsfan
#30
#30
LouderVol said:
What? Biden should have interfered and made sure two countries didnt open their embassies in each other's countries?
Click to expand...
Sigh…..
The diplomatic isolation of Tehran as a pariah state was a bedrock pillar of our foreign policy. I really wonder if you have really thought the implications of this through.
And this isn’t even touching on the matter of letting China be seen as the most competent and respected diplomatic force on the planet.
This is far worse news than many care to admit
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40 and marcusluvsvols
#31
#31
OrangeTsar said:
Sigh…..
The diplomatic isolation of Tehran as a pariah state was a bedrock pillar of our foreign policy. I really wonder if you have really thought the implications of this through.
And this isn’t even touching on the matter of letting China be seen as the most competent and respected diplomatic force on the planet.
This is far worse news than many care to admit
Click to expand...
I am in the policy of the US needs to be less involved in foreign affairs. And yes that means things will not go as we want them. I am fine with that.

This is just another case of people wanting change, but not wanting things to change.

One diplomatic measure of two countries reopening embassies is not an indication that China is some great diplomat. If it was a real alliance, or this lasts for 20 years I would be impressed.

There are plenty of reasons I have been watching China. This is not one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and marcusluvsvols
#33
#33
tvolsfan said:
“America First” policies
Prevent China from growing their influence worldwide

Pick one
Click to expand...

And yet, this isnt happening under the Bad Orange Man's administration, who was BOTH America First AND prevent China from growing.

Instead, we have team Biden, who is NOT America First and doing everything it can to improve China's situation (including not leading a world wide lawsuit against them to pay for Covid damage).
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, Tnslim1, marcusluvsvols and 1 other person
#34
#34
Gandalf said:
And yet, this isnt happening under the Bad Orange Man's administration, who was BOTH America First AND prevent China from growing.
Click to expand...
China’s influence never stopped growing under Trump. Did you really think that was the case?
 
#36
#36
LouderVol said:
I am in the policy of the US needs to be less involved in foreign affairs. And yes that means things will not go as we want them. I am fine with that.

This is just another case of people wanting change, but not wanting things to change.

One diplomatic measure of two countries reopening embassies is not an indication that China is some great diplomat. If it was a real alliance, or this lasts for 20 years I would be impressed.

There are plenty of reasons I have been watching China. This is not one of them.
Click to expand...
Minimizing foreign entanglements is a laudable goal. Getting directly involved is a boatload of troubles. But reflexively putting our national head in the sand like Limburg and the “American First” movement of the 1930s is how you wind up with Hitler and Pearl Harbor. Even in the days of American isolation, the US was able to be a world diplomatic leaders (see the negations to end the Russo-Japanese War of 1905).
We cannot simply step aside and give up world diplomacy leadership to Xi and company.
And actually, minimizing foreign intervention helps us be a diplomatic leader because we are seen more as an honest broker
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#37
#37
OrangeTsar said:
Minimizing foreign entanglements is a laudable goal. Getting directly involved is a boatload of troubles. But reflexively putting our national head in the sand like Limburg and the “American First” movement of the 1930s is how you wind up with Hitler and Pearl Harbor. Even in the days of American isolation, the US was able to be a world diplomatic leaders (see the negations to end the Russo-Japanese War of 1905).
We cannot simply step aside and give up world diplomacy leadership to Xi and company.
And actually, minimizing foreign intervention helps us be a diplomatic leader because we are seen more as an honest broker
Click to expand...
Ok, if putting our national head in the sand is how we wind up with bad events, is putting our head on the other country's soil how we get good events? To ask another way, is the only result of isolation bad and is the only result of intervention (diplomacy) good?

Additionally, does this current diplomacy via China mean we are actively seeking to minimize our foreign intervention?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol, NorthDallas40 and marcusluvsvols
#38
#38
McDad said:
Ok, if putting our national head in the sand is how we wind up with bad events, is putting our head on the other country's soil how we get good events? To ask another way, is the only result of isolation bad and is the only result of intervention (diplomacy) good?

Additionally, does this current diplomacy via China mean we are actively seeking to minimize our foreign intervention?
Click to expand...
It means we have neglected to even field a team and have in effect forfeited the game. World diplomacy abhors a vacuum. If we don’t lead, others with more nefarious motives will gladly step into the breech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1 and Gandalf
#39
#39
OrangeTsar said:
It means we have neglected to even field a team and have in effect forfeited the game. World diplomacy abhors a vacuum. If we don’t lead, others with more nefarious motives will gladly step into the breech.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer any questions. Would you like to try again or would you rather move on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and NorthDallas40
#40
#40
McDad said:
You didn't answer any questions. Would you like to try again or would you rather move on?
Click to expand...
I am not sure i understand the questions. I do Not Support “Head in the Soil” of another nation unless absolutely necessary. I don’t think that is required for the US to simply work diplomatically to isolate Iran. We can do that simply with a competent State Department and an engaged President.
But if you have specific questions that I am not understanding, I apologize in advance
 
#41
#41
OrangeTsar said:
Minimizing foreign entanglements is a laudable goal. Getting directly involved is a boatload of troubles. But reflexively putting our national head in the sand like Limburg and the “American First” movement of the 1930s is how you wind up with Hitler and Pearl Harbor. Even in the days of American isolation, the US was able to be a world diplomatic leaders (see the negations to end the Russo-Japanese War of 1905).
We cannot simply step aside and give up world diplomacy leadership to Xi and company.
And actually, minimizing foreign intervention helps us be a diplomatic leader because we are seen more as an honest broker
Click to expand...
That's a bs argument to bring up the start WW2 as the failure of isolationism, when it was WW1 interventionalism that led to the issues in WW2. There is a reason the US backed out of the break up of Germany.

Also the Japanese attacked plenty of nations that had gone interventionalist in the mean time. So us being isolationist wasnt the cause, and it's barely even correlation. They were attacking anyone with a colony or territory in the area. The Japanese also invaded the Phillipines at the same time as Pearl Harbor, another inerventionalist matter that came back to bite us. We were a threat no matter which path we took.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan and NorthDallas40
#42
#42
What's done is now done. Considering our ties to Saudi, like them or not, a smart State Department would ask how we use SA/Iran renewed relations to our advantage to try to keep a lid on the ME, in particular Iran's nuclear ambitions. We should also continue to strengthen recent SA/ Israeli ties going forward. No doubt this is a play by China with ulterior motives which aren't too hard to figure out, but Iran doesn't even enter the conversation, much less the room, if it was a proposed SA/US/Iran sit down.
 
#43
#43
OrangeTsar said:
I am not sure i understand the questions. I do Not Support “Head in the Soil” of another nation unless absolutely necessary. I don’t think that is required for the US to simply work diplomatically to isolate Iran. We can do that simply with a competent State Department and an engaged President.
But if you have specific questions that I am not understanding, I apologize in advance
Click to expand...
They are still posted in my initial response to you. If you want me to provide clarity, I will attempt to do so.
 
#44
#44
OrangeTsar said:
Minimizing foreign entanglements is a laudable goal. Getting directly involved is a boatload of troubles. But reflexively putting our national head in the sand like Limburg and the “American First” movement of the 1930s is how you wind up with Hitler and Pearl Harbor. Even in the days of American isolation, the US was able to be a world diplomatic leaders (see the negations to end the Russo-Japanese War of 1905).
We cannot simply step aside and give up world diplomacy leadership to Xi and company.
And actually, minimizing foreign intervention helps us be a diplomatic leader because we are seen more as an honest broker
Click to expand...
We weren’t isolationist in 1905. We had just stolen Spain’s empire and were doing all we could to run with the big dogs on the world stage.
Isolationism gained popularity during the Great Depression as you noted but our foreign policy was never hardcore isolationist. I don’t know how we could have done more to prevent the rise of the Axis had we been more meddlesome.
Do we have any substantial diplomatic successes in the last 20 years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#45
#45
LouderVol said:
That's a bs argument to bring up the start WW2 as the failure of isolationism, when it was WW1 interventionalism that led to the issues in WW2. There is a reason the US backed out of the break up of Germany.

Also the Japanese attacked plenty of nations that had gone interventionalist in the mean time. So us being isolationist wasnt the cause, and it's barely even correlation. They were attacking anyone with a colony or territory in the area. The Japanese also invaded the Phillipines at the same time as Pearl Harbor, another inerventionalist matter that came back to bite us. We were a threat no matter which path we took.
Click to expand...
The Japanese took SEA for resources, which we and our allies were denying to them due to their aggression.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#46
#46
OrangeTsar said:
Sigh…..
The diplomatic isolation of Tehran as a pariah state was a bedrock pillar of our foreign policy. I really wonder if you have really thought the implications of this through.
And this isn’t even touching on the matter of letting China be seen as the most competent and respected diplomatic force on the planet.
This is far worse news than many care to admit
Click to expand...
Why use the term "worse"? If this turns into a peaceful resolution, how is that bad for the US? Or anyone?
 
#47
#47
OrangeTsar said:
It means we have neglected to even field a team and have in effect forfeited the game. World diplomacy abhors a vacuum. If we don’t lead, others with more nefarious motives will gladly step into the breech.
Click to expand...
Convince me that China brokering a peace deal between KSA and Iran is nefarious? And compare what China has been doing with playing peacemaker and trying to build infrastructure in Eurasia and Africa is bad/nefarious, but Team America provoking wars and destroying infrastructure is being good.
 
#48
#48
OrangeTsar said:
I am not sure i understand the questions. I do Not Support “Head in the Soil” of another nation unless absolutely necessary. I don’t think that is required for the US to simply work diplomatically to isolate Iran. We can do that simply with a competent State Department and an engaged President.
But if you have specific questions that I am not understanding, I apologize in advance
Click to expand...
Why is our foreign policy focused on keeping other countries down or isolated or less developed? This is a scarcity mindset. There is plenty of room for other countries to develop without it being any kind of threat to us.
 
#49
#49
Vol737 said:
What's done is now done. Considering our ties to Saudi, like them or not, a smart State Department would ask how we use SA/Iran renewed relations to our advantage to try to keep a lid on the ME, in particular Iran's nuclear ambitions. We should also continue to strengthen recent SA/ Israeli ties going forward. No doubt this is a play by China with ulterior motives which aren't too hard to figure out, but Iran doesn't even enter the conversation, much less the room, if it was a proposed SA/US/Iran sit down.
Click to expand...
You don't think this alleged nuclear ambitions of Iran were not discussed between them and the Saudis?
 
#50
#50
Vol737 said:
What's done is now done. Considering our ties to Saudi, like them or not, a smart State Department would ask how we use SA/Iran renewed relations to our advantage to try to keep a lid on the ME, in particular Iran's nuclear ambitions. We should also continue to strengthen recent SA/ Israeli ties going forward. No doubt this is a play by China with ulterior motives which aren't too hard to figure out, but Iran doesn't even enter the conversation, much less the room, if it was a proposed SA/US/Iran sit down.
Click to expand...
Neither country trusts the US because we have shown to be untrustworthy, we stepped into the JCPOA in one administration and tore up the deal in the next, and we even go as far as to attack our allies (Nordstream) and tank their economies in an effort to virtue signal (Russian sanctions).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top