Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Sawa

Clinton advisor attack Iran to help Saudi in Yemen

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Clinton Adviser Proposes Attacking Iran to Aid the Saudis in Yemen

Michael Morell is a former acting director of the CIA and a national security adviser to Hillary Clinton — one who is widely expected to occupy a senior post in her administration.

He is also an opponent of the Iran nuclear agreement, a defender of waterboarding, and an advocate for making Russia “pay a price” in Syria by covertly killing Putin’s soldiers.

On Tuesday, Morell added another title to that résumé: proponent of going to war with Iran, for the sake of securing Saudi Arabia’s influence in Yemen.

“Ships leave Iran on a regular basis carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen,” Morell said, in remarks to the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank founded by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. “I would have no problem from a policy perspective of having the U.S. Navy boarding their ships, and if there are weapons on them, to turn those ships around.”

Morell did note, per Bloomberg’s Eli Lake, that this policy “raised questions of international maritime law.”

Which is a bit like saying, “Breaking into someone’s home, putting a gun in their face, and demanding they hand over all their weapons raises questions about armed-robbery law.”

Understatement aside, Morell’s stipulation suggests that he might be dissuaded from initiating a naval war with Iran if the legal issues prove too pesky. But the fact that a person who has Clinton’s ear on national security thinks this proposal makes sense from a “policy perspective” is alarming.

Forcibly boarding another nation’s naval or civilian vessels (outside one’s own territorial waters) and confiscating their weapons can reasonably be construed as an act of war, a point that would be unmistakable if the roles here were reversed.

How many Americans (whose paychecks aren’t directly or indirectly subsidized by Gulf State monarchies) think keeping Yemen within Saudi Arabia’s sphere of influence is a cause worth entering another Middle Eastern war over?

How many would think so if they knew that the Saudis had recently bombed a Yemeni funeral hall, killing 140 people and leading the Obama administration to reconsider its support for the Saudi intervention? Or that some observers of the conflict contend that the Saudis are exaggerating Iran’s role, in order to justify the kingdom’s own expansionist ambitions?

Even if one accepts the Saudis’ preferred narrative — that Yemen’s Houthi rebels are tools of an Iranian regime hell-bent on spreading “Persian subversion” — it’s difficult to see how America has a pressing interest in keeping one of the world’s poorest countries aligned with Riyadh instead of Tehran.

By contrast, it’s easy to see how allowing the Saudis to bomb Yemeni funerals with American missiles could inspire blowback that does threaten our national security, and easier still to see how a hot conflict with Iran could take a toll on our nation’s blood and treasure.

Morell is just one of many advisers Clinton has consulted with over the course of her campaign. And as Josh Rogin has noted, there is a group of intervention skeptics among her inner circle, who hope to beat back the bipartisan call for both an escalation of American involvement in the Syrian civil war and a more “muscular” approach in our dealings with Iran.

Still, Morell’s perspective is in line with that of a new report on Middle East strategy released by the Center for American Progress and the thinking of Clinton’s top national-security aide Jake Sullivan, who recently declared, “We need to be raising the costs to Iran for its destabilizing behavior and we need to be raising the confidence of our Sunni partners.”

On Tuesday, Morell put this sentiment in terms both more concise and grandiose: “We’re back and we’re going to lead again.”

The best hope for those who don’t share Morell’s definition of leadership may be Clinton’s instinct for political caution. While intervention skeptics (or “Iran apologists,” as Eli Lake, whose passion I love, refers to them) are in the minority among elites, they’re quite likely in the majority among the voting public — a point not entirely lost on said foreign-policy mandarins.

“My concern is that we may be talking to each other and agreeing with each other,” Brian Katulis, a senior Middle East analyst at the Center for American Progress, recently told the Washington Post. “But that these discussions are isolated from where the public may be right now.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/clinton-adviser-lets-attack-iran-to-aid-saudis-in-yemen.html

Edited by Sawa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasanhh said:

So, if Hillar is elected, we will have another war to support already failed "pipeline strategies".

I think they are really desperate with their awful failings of their atrocious empire.

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I think they are really desperate with their awful failings of their atrocious empire.

I think that Standing Rock is a consequence of US pipeline strategies to sell oil and gas overseas --to get things back to the Black Golden 1930s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like any of both, neither hilary nor trump, but I also didn't like bernie and the other candidates. I'd say that people should vote blank, but I have the feeling that I won't like the new candidates to election either, in case blank vote win :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Nataly said:

I don't like any of both, neither hilary nor trump, but I also didn't like bernie and the other candidates. I'd say that people should vote blank, but I have the feeling that I won't like the new candidates to election either, in case blank vote win :/

Ultimately any president that comes through the primaries is just a slave to the corporations, the lobbyists and interest groups, the only difference we have from election cycle to election cycle is the actual degree. Presidents don't ever represent the interests of the American people other than the top 1% that literally own them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...