the primary thing is in oil & for a very long time Saudi Arabia gives the US a deal, the Roosevelt deal included provided military protection & Saudi Arabia's approval in relations. The next president wasn't interested in their opinion when he recognized Israel, against the recommendation of the advice from his advisers (said he wouldn't vote for someone who took "Mr. Clifford's" advice for President) & their highlight of the importance of their oil in the event of another of another World War said his concerns were with "justice, not oil". Last President to probably say that but his been balancing act with the two countries with Iran being the enemy of my enemy on the receiving end of it.
The National Iranian Oil Company is State-owned so it is pretty easy to figure out why the US treats them as a country ruled by tyrants that is desperately trying to nuke somebody ASAP. If the opened up oil production to ExxonMobile & Shell relations would be very different, I seriously doubt they give a shit about nukes especially considering sanctions directly affect Iran's oil production. Hillary Clinton used Gulf countries in an argument where there wasn't much difference between the two in the response to the question but Hillary threatens Iran off-the-top & accuses them of threatening others in the region
CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.
But I would do the same with other countries in the region. We are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons, but they are intent upon using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.
And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States, to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran.
It would give us three tools we now don't have. Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran. And we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad because even again today he made light of 9/11, and said that he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died.
He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.
And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4670271&page=16
I'm not sure the timeline to this but Saudi Arabia cut a deal with Pakistan that (their CIA or spies rebranded, trained, & organized the up-start Taliban) will provide them a nuke on-demand and blamed the US for this for not being tough enough on Iran for the reason why they need self-defense nukes. I don't know if she referenced this or predicted this but the publicly claimed reasons for this isn't far from the truth.
The sold it to us for cheaper than a gallon of a Pepsi & took less seriously of the situations brewing until the oil embargo which the brilliant idea to trade guns for oil solved in addition to pressuring them to work with Syria & a couple of issues they took their side against Iran -- one was a land dispute involving Bahrain. Eventually reality responded in combination of the wealth & influence the dominant minority of Saudi Arabia gained combined with their full support of Israel right or wrong. When it comes to Afghanistan there has been armed conflict since 1978, US was right there allying against the lefties. They support right wing militias, dictators, because they play ball with their natural resources & Iran sits on too much oil for them to nationalize production as far as the US is concerned.
Gaddafi, I forgot he was still around until the US started mentioning him again during the Arab spring. Reagan bombed the shit of their boats & his countries targets in general than when the airline atrocity happened him he was blamed with the theory he did it as revenge for all the bombing. He nationalized oil production in 1964 (IIRC) but he was a quiet dictator in comparison to his neighbors but you wouldn't know from the retired & renewed rhetoric.
The wahabbi terrorism works out as bonus because indefinite detention, black sites, CIA torture, & foreign policy are terrific for Al-Qaeda recruiting. US doesn't want to release Guantanamo prisoners but they'll be among the first ones to be there when they get out. Private contractors stand to profit from forever war & there are common sense ways to change direction but nah, the US continues with the status Quo but oil & gas profits with the bonus of private defense industry profits ranks as the primary concern regarding all this. The Wahabbi cults also tend to favorite privatization like other right wing militias.
In fact, right wing militia is an accurate label for ISIS or the Taliban.
= new reply since forum marked as read
