Trump offers to help resolve Gulf crisis, UAE tightens squeeze on Qatar

[Prbkk]

11 hours ago, dunroaming said:

I notice in the picture that the two gentlemen either side of Trump are protecting their genitals.  Clearly they are aware of Trump's reputation as a genital grabber!

Yes and anyone contemplating a grab at those particular genitals would be beyond certifiable, on a number of counts.

[Morch]

On 6/8/2017 at 0:44 PM, dexterm said:

Sinister forces at work here. I strongly suspect Trump deliberately started this crisis or it received his tacit approval. The media and diplomatic attack on Qatar began almost immediately after Trump left.

 

Qatar has not been towing the line and has been punching above its weight in the region for a while through Al Jazeera supporting the Arab Spring, which of course upset the authoritarian Egypt, Saudis, Jordan and the UAE...nothing to do with any anti-terrorism pretexts.

 

I also think we are being softened up for a direct or proxy war with Iran. Bringing together all the parties in the region who stand to lose power  and influence with Iran on the ascendancy. Wars are good for deflecting attention from real issues.

 

"As the recently leaked emails of the Emirati ambassador to Washington confirmed, the UAE spent considerable resources lobbying US officials to endorse the 2013 military coup that brought a violent end to Egypt's revolutionary moment and the tenuous transition to democracy dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood's political party.

 

The Emirati ambassador was revealed to have coordinated closely with the most hawkish pro-Israel think-tanks in Washington to promote a view of the Middle East that posits the conservative monarchies, military dictatorships, and Israel as the bulwark against Iranian expansionism and Sunni Islamists.

 

For its perceived role in promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, hosting members of Hamas' political bureau, and taking a softer line on Iran, Qatar became a central target of the Saudi-Emirati-Israeli joint lobbying efforts."

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/06/analysis-qatar-gulf-crisis-terrorists-170607062029222.html

 

...very interesting read about what may actually be going on behind the facade in the region.

 

Sinister forces at work. Again. We are being softened for war. Again. Funny how posters periodically going on about imagined upcoming calamities also describe themselves as seeing the full half kinda people.

 

The Trump administration ME policy seems to focus on solidifying a front against Iran's influence. Posters may argue if that's a wise or worthy course of action, but it is what it is.  For better or worse, most countries in the ME are  not paragons of civil or human rights by any Western standard (no, not even Iran, elections and all). The US works with what the countries that exist, and sometimes that means unsavory compromises and turning a blind eye to certain issues. Most people understand that's the way of thing.

 

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

33 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Sinister forces at work. Again. We are being softened for war. Again. Funny how posters periodically going on about imagined upcoming calamities also describe themselves as seeing the full half kinda people.

 

The Trump administration ME policy seems to focus on solidifying a front against Iran's influence. Posters may argue if that's a wise or worthy course of action, but it is what it is.  For better or worse, most countries in the ME are  not paragons of civil or human rights by any Western standard (no, not even Iran, elections and all). The US works with what the countries that exist, and sometimes that means unsavory compromises and turning a blind eye to certain issues. Most people understand that's the way of thing.

 

 

 

 

Given Mattis' and McMaster's predilection with Iran, that focus is not surprising. But incidents like this show how risky it is to take sides in the Middle East's internecine struggles.. Especially given the huge and undislodgeable influence that Iran exerts in Iraq.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Given Mattis' and McMaster's predilection with Iran, that focus is not surprising. But incidents like this show how risky it is to take sides in the Middle East's internecine struggles.. Especially given the huge and undislodgeable influence that Iran exerts in Iraq.

 

Same old.

US policy vs. Iran is not a new construct. There was a slight toning down during Obama's second term, which did not amount to a pivotal change. That you keep dishing the same tired line won't change that.

 

Trump isn't "taking sides". He just got a twitter account, internet access and a bladder which keeps him up at night. Every week there's a new episode of tweeting drama. People ought to get stop putting too much stock in them, or attribute a whole lot of forethought.

 

To quote Kurt Vonnegut: "True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.". Now apply this to Trump's tweeting and some of our posters.

[ilostmypassword]

57 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Same old.

US policy vs. Iran is not a new construct. There was a slight toning down during Obama's second term, which did not amount to a pivotal change. That you keep dishing the same tired line won't change that.

 

Trump isn't "taking sides". He just got a twitter account, internet access and a bladder which keeps him up at night. Every week there's a new episode of tweeting drama. People ought to get stop putting too much stock in them, or attribute a whole lot of forethought.

 

To quote Kurt Vonnegut: "True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.". Now apply this to Trump's tweeting and some of our posters.

You're calling the nuclear pause deal with Iran a slight toning down?  Really?

And as for taking sides, maybe not really in the Qatar situation, but in the conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites, he definitely did take sides. Which most likely helped to set off this crisis. And this is not a case of Trump flying off the handle. This is a policy crafted by people who are widely credited with being level-headed and knowledgeable.

[wabothai]

23 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Really?

Only when there is plenty in it for them.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

You're calling the nuclear pause deal with Iran a slight toning down?  Really?

And as for taking sides, maybe not really in the Qatar situation, but in the conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites, he definitely did take sides. Which most likely helped to set off this crisis. And this is not a case of Trump flying off the handle. This is a policy crafted by people who are widely credited with being level-headed and knowledgeable.

 

Yes, really.

In case you missed it, there were them sanctions, US Navy in the Gulf and a whole lot of antagonism prior to the signing of the agreement. The agreement itself did not relieve a whole bunch of other sanctions still in place, and did not see US forces withdraw. So paint it as you like, but it wasn't an about face in terms of policy. Just a realistic adjustment to circumstances.

 

And no.

Trump, even if he is "taking sides", doesn't do anything outside the well laid tracks of US ME policy for the last 30+ years - aligning with Sunni regimes. Don't recall another US President taking a different line. Perhaps you know better. Making Trump a core element of the current trouble between Qatar and its neighbors ignores a whole lot of competition, bad blood and existing tensions. So while I do agree that the man is a buffoon, pinning everything that goes awry on his tweeting fingers is way off mark. A better way to say it would be that he certainly doesn't make things any easier.

 

And another no.

You have no idea if Trump was "flying off the handle", or if it was part of a well thought out policy crafted by knowledgeable people in his administration. Better keep this gem for the next time someone goes on about how Trump doesn't care about policy briefings and such. 

[Credo]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

You have no idea if Trump was "flying off the handle", or if it was part of a well thought out policy crafted by knowledgeable people in his administration. Better keep this gem for the next time someone goes on about how Trump doesn't care about policy briefings and such. 

The ME foreign policy is well over Trumps head and he does not have the attention span to even try to get a handle on it.   He doesn't have anyone in his administration to 'craft' much of anything.   

 

I would guess that the long standing military told him what to do and how to do it.   

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Credo said:

The ME foreign policy is well over Trumps head and he does not have the attention span to even try to get a handle on it.   He doesn't have anyone in his administration to 'craft' much of anything.   

 

I would guess that the long standing military told him what to do and how to do it.   

 

There are still plenty of people in the administration savvy with ME related policy issues. Whether or not Trump consults them, or pays attention to their views is another matter. I don't know that he listens to military persons more than others. Doubt they advised him to tweet as he did.

 

More often than not, it seems like the President just blurts (or tweets) something on the spur of the moment, based upon not much but some vague notions of the subject at hand, a healthy dose of ego, and an uncontrollable urge to inflict his opinions upon the world. So again, not unlike some TVF posters.

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, really.

In case you missed it, there were them sanctions, US Navy in the Gulf and a whole lot of antagonism prior to the signing of the agreement. The agreement itself did not relieve a whole bunch of other sanctions still in place, and did not see US forces withdraw. So paint it as you like, but it wasn't an about face in terms of policy. Just a realistic adjustment to circumstances.

 

And no.

Trump, even if he is "taking sides", doesn't do anything outside the well laid tracks of US ME policy for the last 30+ years - aligning with Sunni regimes. Don't recall another US President taking a different line. Perhaps you know better. Making Trump a core element of the current trouble between Qatar and its neighbors ignores a whole lot of competition, bad blood and existing tensions. So while I do agree that the man is a buffoon, pinning everything that goes awry on his tweeting fingers is way off mark. A better way to say it would be that he certainly doesn't make things any easier.

 

And another no.

You have no idea if Trump was "flying off the handle", or if it was part of a well thought out policy crafted by knowledgeable people in his administration. Better keep this gem for the next time someone goes on about how Trump doesn't care about policy briefings and such. 

Well, I think most Sunni Arab nations would disagree with you. They certainly didn't seem overfond of Obama after the deal was concluded.And I never said it was an "about face." Those are your words. But a significant lessening of tensions yes. And the uproar wasn't just about the nuclear agreement.  And never did Obama explicitly take sides in the dispute and label Iran the chief terrorist threat. In fact, the reason he fired Mattis was because he felt that Mattis was way too fixated on Iran. And Obama also withdrew support for the Saudi assault on Yemen. The Saudis certainly didn't feel that was a slight toning down. And they enthusiastically welcomed Trumps revival of support for that campaign. "A slight toning down"? Nonsense.

As for Trump not being responsible at all for the Qatar problem. The case has been made by moderate people that Trump's enthusiastic endorsement of Saudi policy and his support for their crusade in Yemen encouraged the Saudis to unleash this latest step.

As for flying off the handle, I was referring, if elliptically,to Trump's general support for the Sunni Arab alliance. Not the tweets about Qatar. Specifically McMaster's and Mattis' well known hostility to the Iran. Those two are  "people who are widely credited with being level-headed and knowledgeable."

[stevenl]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, really.

In case you missed it, there were them sanctions, US Navy in the Gulf and a whole lot of antagonism prior to the signing of the agreement. The agreement itself did not relieve a whole bunch of other sanctions still in place, and did not see US forces withdraw. So paint it as you like, but it wasn't an about face in terms of policy. Just a realistic adjustment to circumstances.

 

And no.

Trump, even if he is "taking sides", doesn't do anything outside the well laid tracks of US ME policy for the last 30+ years - aligning with Sunni regimes. Don't recall another US President taking a different line. Perhaps you know better. Making Trump a core element of the current trouble between Qatar and its neighbors ignores a whole lot of competition, bad blood and existing tensions. So while I do agree that the man is a buffoon, pinning everything that goes awry on his tweeting fingers is way off mark. A better way to say it would be that he certainly doesn't make things any easier.

 

And another no.

You have no idea if Trump was "flying off the handle", or if it was part of a well thought out policy crafted by knowledgeable people in his administration. Better keep this gem for the next time someone goes on about how Trump doesn't care about policy briefings and such. 

Disagree. He did go outside established foreign policy, by complaining to the biggest terror sponsoring country about another country, whose policies the terror sponsoring country does not like.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Disagree. He did go outside established foreign policy, by complaining to the biggest terror sponsoring country about another country, whose policies the terror sponsoring country does not like.

 

Disagree all you like.

Other than words, what major policy change was put in place?

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, I think most Sunni Arab nations would disagree with you. They certainly didn't seem overfond of Obama after the deal was concluded.And I never said it was an "about face." Those are your words. But a significant lessening of tensions yes. And the uproar wasn't just about the nuclear agreement.  And never did Obama explicitly take sides in the dispute and label Iran the chief terrorist threat. In fact, the reason he fired Mattis was because he felt that Mattis was way too fixated on Iran. And Obama also withdrew support for the Saudi assault on Yemen. The Saudis certainly didn't feel that was a slight toning down. And they enthusiastically welcomed Trumps revival of support for that campaign. "A slight toning down"? Nonsense.

As for Trump not being responsible at all for the Qatar problem. The case has been made by moderate people that Trump's enthusiastic endorsement of Saudi policy and his support for their crusade in Yemen encouraged the Saudis to unleash this latest step.

As for flying off the handle, I was referring, if elliptically,to Trump's general support for the Sunni Arab alliance. Not the tweets about Qatar. Specifically McMaster's and Mattis' well known hostility to the Iran. Those two are  "people who are widely credited with being level-headed and knowledgeable."

 

Sunni regimes were not enthusiastic about the deal or about Obama's relatively (and I stress, relatively) less hawkish stand on Iran. But there was no actual rift in their relations with the US. No looking out for a new sponsor, not much outright vocal challenging of US policy.

 

Didn't say you said it was an about face. I said Obama's tenure was a change of tone, not a change of course. Significant lessening of tensions? Because Kerry and Zarif hugged? Sanctions are and were in place, US Navy is in place. Numerous aggressive and threatening interactions in the Gulf even during negotiations.

 

What you call picking sides is wishful thinking. Other people may call Obama's stance more balanced, that's about it. Same goes for the Saudis - even if from their point of view (and I do not suspect you of being privy to their inner consultations) Obama's policies were more than "toning down", it does not change the validity of the argument, which considers the issue from a neutral position.

 

The nonsense here can be applied to posters trying to pin their partisan views on each and every topic.

 

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Sunni regimes were not enthusiastic about the deal or about Obama's relatively (and I stress, relatively) less hawkish stand on Iran. But there was no actual rift in their relations with the US. No looking out for a new sponsor, not much outright vocal challenging of US policy.

 

Didn't say you said it was an about face. I said Obama's tenure was a change of tone, not a change of course. Significant lessening of tensions? Because Kerry and Zarif hugged? Sanctions are and were in place, US Navy is in place. Numerous aggressive and threatening interactions in the Gulf even during negotiations.

 

What you call picking sides is wishful thinking. Other people may call Obama's stance more balanced, that's about it. Same goes for the Saudis - even if from their point of view (and I do not suspect you of being privy to their inner consultations) Obama's policies were more than "toning down", it does not change the validity of the argument, which considers the issue from a neutral position.

 

The nonsense here can be applied to posters trying to pin their partisan views on each and every topic.

 

"Sunni regimes were not enthusiastic about the deal". Meiosis much? How about Sunni regimes were enraged by the deal.  Would that characterization be inaccurate?

"Didn't say you said it was an about face. "  Then why say it at all?

And as for picking sides, James Mattis is now Defense Secretary. The guy who Obama fired for being way too anti-Iranian. McMaster is now National Security Advisor.  Another guy with lots of animus towards the Iranians.  When coupled with an explicit labeling of Iran as the chief terror threat - an obvious exaggeration - that is very significant indeed.

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

"Sunni regimes were not enthusiastic about the deal". Meiosis much? How about Sunni regimes were enraged by the deal.  Would that characterization be inaccurate?

"Didn't say you said it was an about face. "  Then why say it at all?

And as for picking sides, James Mattis is now Defense Secretary. The guy who Obama fired for being way too anti-Iranian. McMaster is now National Security Advisor.  Another guy with lots of animus towards the Iranians.  When coupled with an explicit labeling of Iran as the chief terror threat - an obvious exaggeration - that is very significant indeed.

 

 

No, "enraged" wouldn't be an accurate description. But you're sure to argue this non-point ad nauseam. Placing overly emotional labels on international relations issues is a choice. Up to you, as they say.

 

An about face. There. Said it again. Because I can. You don't get to dictate what phrases other posters use. Sorry about that.

 

As for the last bit. I think we misunderstood each other. When I commented on taking sides it was with reference to the OP. Iran is not directly a side in it. If your point is that the US administration generally holds anti-Iranian views, that's hardly news. It's been the case for years now - the apparent obsession with Mattis & McMaster notwithstanding.

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, "enraged" wouldn't be an accurate description. But you're sure to argue this non-point ad nauseam. Placing overly emotional labels on international relations issues is a choice. Up to you, as they say.

 

An about face. There. Said it again. Because I can. You don't get to dictate what phrases other posters use. Sorry about that.

 

As for the last bit. I think we misunderstood each other. When I commented on taking sides it was with reference to the OP. Iran is not directly a side in it. If your point is that the US administration generally holds anti-Iranian views, that's hardly news. It's been the case for years now - the apparent obsession with Mattis & McMaster notwithstanding.

From those radicals at Foreign Policy

Why Saudi Arabia Hates the Iran Deal 

 As President Barack Obama pursues a historic deal with Iran over its nuclear program, he has already made history — though perhaps not in the way he intended. For the first time since the United States emerged as a major power in the Middle East, all of its key allies — Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia — are in open revolt against its policies.

With U.S. and Iranian negotiators preparing for another round of negotiations, Washington’s relationship with Riyadh may prove the hardest to patch up.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/11/14/why-saudi-arabia-hates-the-iran-deal/

Well, they've not just been patched, they've been welded.

 

"Rather than the Saudi king greeting Obama at the airport, it was the governor of Riyadh. The Saudis were seemingly going out of their way to snub Obama as he entered his final months in office. They were angry at the administration’s policies in the Middle East, including a perceived shift toward Iran and Obama’s refusal to intervene in the Syrian war"

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/saudi-arabia-trump-iran-riyadh-salman/527463/"

 

And while the US has justifiably have been holding unfavorable views of Iran, Mattis' views were so over-the-top that he got fired for them. And now he's the Secretary of Defense. I guess to your way of thinking Secretary of Defense is not a significant position for a policy maker. Nor is the Position of National Security Adviser. And they do not signal a major change in US policy.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

From those radicals at Foreign Policy

Why Saudi Arabia Hates the Iran Deal 

 As President Barack Obama pursues a historic deal with Iran over its nuclear program, he has already made history — though perhaps not in the way he intended. For the first time since the United States emerged as a major power in the Middle East, all of its key allies — Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia — are in open revolt against its policies.

With U.S. and Iranian negotiators preparing for another round of negotiations, Washington’s relationship with Riyadh may prove the hardest to patch up.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/11/14/why-saudi-arabia-hates-the-iran-deal/

Well, they've not just been patched, they've been welded.

 

"Rather than the Saudi king greeting Obama at the airport, it was the governor of Riyadh. The Saudis were seemingly going out of their way to snub Obama as he entered his final months in office. They were angry at the administration’s policies in the Middle East, including a perceived shift toward Iran and Obama’s refusal to intervene in the Syrian war"

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/saudi-arabia-trump-iran-riyadh-salman/527463/"

 

And while the US has justifiably have been holding unfavorable views of Iran, Mattis' views were so over-the-top that he got fired for them. And now he's the Secretary of Defense. I guess to your way of thinking Secretary of Defense is not a significant position for a policy maker. Nor is the Position of National Security Adviser. And they do not signal a major change in US policy.

 

I guess that my point about silly argumentation is made.

 

When I commented on the US policy remaining pretty constant, that's a statement made from a neutral point of view. Not from the supposed Saudi point of view. Similarly, on a previous topic, I did not consider Obama's parting shot at the UN a change of policy with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the greater scheme of things, US foreign policy retains it's course. I'll go out on a limb here, and opine this - things will get back "normal" post-Trump. At least on the international relations front. Countries having up and down, disagreements and whatnot is not unusual. As you yourself post, things got patched rather quickly with Saudi Arabia.

 

I don't know that Mattis views on Iran were over-the-top. That's either what you say or something alleged by another. "Over the top" is a judgement call, no idea what substance its based upon. In the regional context, which may incorporate different considerations and issues than those relevant to, say, Europe - it would not be unreasonable to view Iran as a threat or as a destabilizing element.

 

To my way of thinking, with respect to the Trump administration,  there is a gap between the President statements (which are often off  the cuff and off mark) and supposed crafted policies. One of the sights we are growing accustomed to is of various officials and spokespersons scrambling to make sense of the President's statements, while attempting to present them in whatever context of policy making. Sometimes it fits, sometimes it doesn't. How much of Trump's statements is grounded in actual thought out policies is anyone's guess. I would venture that the chaos broadcasted out of the White House is a tame version of how things look on the inside. If some people find comfort in imagining there's more to it, whatever rocks their boat.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I guess that my point about silly argumentation is made.

 

When I commented on the US policy remaining pretty constant, that's a statement made from a neutral point of view. Not from the supposed Saudi point of view. Similarly, on a previous topic, I did not consider Obama's parting shot at the UN a change of policy with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the greater scheme of things, US foreign policy retains it's course. I'll go out on a limb here, and opine this - things will get back "normal" post-Trump. At least on the international relations front. Countries having up and down, disagreements and whatnot is not unusual. As you yourself post, things got patched rather quickly with Saudi Arabia.

 

I don't know that Mattis views on Iran were over-the-top. That's either what you say or something alleged by another. "Over the top" is a judgement call, no idea what substance its based upon. In the regional context, which may incorporate different considerations and issues than those relevant to, say, Europe - it would not be unreasonable to view Iran as a threat or as a destabilizing element.

 

To my way of thinking, with respect to the Trump administration,  there is a gap between the President statements (which are often off  the cuff and off mark) and supposed crafted policies. One of the sights we are growing accustomed to is of various officials and spokespersons scrambling to make sense of the President's statements, while attempting to present them in whatever context of policy making. Sometimes it fits, sometimes it doesn't. How much of Trump's statements is grounded in actual thought out policies is anyone's guess. I would venture that the chaos broadcasted out of the White House is a tame version of how things look on the inside. If some people find comfort in imagining there's more to it, whatever rocks their boat.

Things got patched up  because there were big changes to US policy. Supporting Saudi Arabia in Yemen is no small thing. Declaraing Iran the chief terrorist nation in the region is no small thing.  And yes, the Saudis were enraged.

James Mattis’ 33-Year Grudge Against Iran

In fact, Mattis’ anti-Iran animus is so intense that it led President Barack Obama to replace him as Centcom commander. It was a move that roiled Mattis admirers, seeding claims that the president didn’t like “independent-minded generals who speak candidly to their civilian leaders.” But Mattis’ Iran antagonism also concerns many of the Pentagon’s most senior officers, who disagree with his assessment and openly worry whether his Iran views are based on a sober analysis or whether he’s simply reflecting a 30-plus-year-old hatred of the Islamic Republic that is unique to his service.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500

 

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Things got patched up  because there were big changes to US policy. Supporting Saudi Arabia in Yemen is no small thing. Declaraing Iran the chief terrorist nation in the region is no small thing.  And yes, the Saudis were enraged.

James Mattis’ 33-Year Grudge Against Iran

In fact, Mattis’ anti-Iran animus is so intense that it led President Barack Obama to replace him as Centcom commander. It was a move that roiled Mattis admirers, seeding claims that the president didn’t like “independent-minded generals who speak candidly to their civilian leaders.” But Mattis’ Iran antagonism also concerns many of the Pentagon’s most senior officers, who disagree with his assessment and openly worry whether his Iran views are based on a sober analysis or whether he’s simply reflecting a 30-plus-year-old hatred of the Islamic Republic that is unique to his service.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500

 

 

That you keep saying that there were big changes does not make it so. Even the article linked references that hostile relations vs. Iran are an ongoing thing. The US policy vs. Iran did not fundamentally change. The negotiations, the nuclear deal - these were the available means to deal a problem. It did not amount to more than that, and as a constant reminder - sanctions are in place, the US Navy is in place.

 

Other than hyperbole and conjunction, there isn't a whole lot to the article. The assessment that Iran is a destabilizing force is rather common. That Iran is hostile to the US is true. That by and large, most of the ME is Sunni, is a fact some posters will have to accept.

 

Now if it's not too hard - any chance of returning to topic? You know, the one which focuses of Qatar's relations with its neighbors and not on obsession with Mattis.

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That you keep saying that there were big changes does not make it so. Even the article linked references that hostile relations vs. Iran are an ongoing thing. The US policy vs. Iran did not fundamentally change. The negotiations, the nuclear deal - these were the available means to deal a problem. It did not amount to more than that, and as a constant reminder - sanctions are in place, the US Navy is in place.

 

Other than hyperbole and conjunction, there isn't a whole lot to the article. The assessment that Iran is a destabilizing force is rather common. That Iran is hostile to the US is true. That by and large, most of the ME is Sunni, is a fact some posters will have to accept.

 

Now if it's not too hard - any chance of returning to topic? You know, the one which focuses of Qatar's relations with its neighbors and not on obsession with Mattis.

 

Clearly, the reactions of the various government to Obama's policies and their change in attitude towards Trump, shows that the policy differences were significant. 

And there are plenty of other articles out there about the Mattis-Obama rift. 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Clearly, the reactions of the various government to Obama's policies and their change in attitude towards Trump, shows that the policy differences were significant. 

And there are plenty of other articles out there about the Mattis-Obama rift.