NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4739900.stm
Iran has offered to help finance the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority governed by the Hamas militant group.

They go and get their money somewhere else.

Now, I can understand that there has to be some sort of reaction by the West, but the fact of the matter is that Hamas doesn't necessarily need us. It can find support somewhere else, with people who won't ask for them to tone it down a bit.

Not only that though. Russia has in recent years decided that they were going to end their foreign policy of the early years. Putin has managed to get the country back on its feet, and now it is generally accepted there that Russia should be involved in the Middle East as a matter of course. And as an alternative to the EU and the US, every time we make a mistake, they get a little more influence in the region.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,401078,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4719148.stm

So what can Israel, the EU and the US realistically do, faced with all this?

Oh, and not really related, but a good story nonetheless:
Iran leader faces Holocaust case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4741042.stm)

Well, allow Iran and Russia to hammer out a deal on enrichment, open up dialogue with Hamas, and move towards normalization of relations with Hamas so that they aren't "isolated" in to the hands of Iran but rather open up to the world.


However, Ahmadinejad's popularity with the leadership of Iran is falling like a stone. Ever since he took office the economy has tanked (even with high oil prices), the stock market has plunged, foreign money is bleeding from the country and the rebuilding of relations with the world is being shot to pieces.

I think it might be a matter of time before he is removed; the Iranian clerical establishment doesn't want a nut like him ruining the progress they've made. If we open up dialogue and act reasonable, we may be able to discredit Ahmadinejad to the point of his removal.

They go and get their money somewhere else.

Now, I can understand that there has to be some sort of reaction by the West, but the fact of the matter is that Hamas doesn't necessarily need us. It can find support somewhere else, with people who won't ask for them to tone it down a bit.
Good. Crazy people can fund crazy people and the rest of the world can spend their money on important things. Like studies on Sex v Masturbation.
Not only that though. Russia has in recent years decided that they were going to end their foreign policy of the early years. Putin has managed to get the country back on its feet, and now it is generally accepted there that Russia should be involved in the Middle East as a matter of course.
Damn right, we've got to keep the Soviets at bay. Zombie Stalin will be knocking on our doors at any moment!
And as an alternative to the EU and the US, every time we make a mistake, they get a little more influence in the region.
Yeah, because the US and EU are just soooo popular and influential in the Middle East. I mean, earlier this month they had all those spontaneous portests about how much they loved Denmark.
So what can Israel, the EU and the US realistically do, faced with all this?
Spend their money on things that matter rather than trying to bribe 3rd world nations that hate us into being our "friends"?

Damn right, we've got to keep the Soviets at bay. Zombie Stalin will be knocking on our doors at any moment!
Personally, I'm not a fan of Putin. I think he's a proto-fascist who's taking Russia away from what I personally would want it to be. So I'd prefer it if Russia didn't more or less rule the Middle East, because I don't think it'll help the prospect of establishing some more popular representation down there very much.

Yeah, because the US and EU are just soooo popular and influential in the Middle East. I mean, earlier this month they had all those spontaneous portests about how much they loved Denmark.
You know I'm talking about politics, not sentiment. For the governments, the West is important. They are a source of cash and technology, and in return, the West can be a force for democratisation.
Russia can do the same thing, but might have different motives. I don't like the US putting people into Syrian jails for purposes of interrogation, and I don't think Russia will be much better.

Spend their money on things that matter rather than trying to bribe 3rd world nations that hate us into being our "friends"?
So what matters if not foreign policy in the Middle East right now?

Personally, I'm not a fan of Putin. I think he's a proto-fascist who's taking Russia away from what I personally would want it to be. So I'd prefer it if Russia didn't more or less rule the Middle East, because I don't think it'll help the prospect of establishing some more popular representation down there very much.
The West hasn't managed to make a major difference in the Middle East, somehow I doubt that Russia will get that much better of a reception.
You know I'm talking about politics, not sentiment. For the governments, the West is important. They are a source of cash and technology, and in return, the West can be a force for democratisation.
That might work if that were the goal. Western governments, however, have a notoriously poor reputation with backing democratization of the MidEast.
Further, after about 8 centuries of constant European interference, the Middle East isn't that much better of a place.
Russia can do the same thing, but might have different motives. I don't like the US putting people into Syrian jails for purposes of interrogation, and I don't think Russia will be much better.
"Might"? "Think"? There was another man who thought about what some things in the MidEast might be like. That man is now pouring blood and treasure out of the US and is not to popular anywhere.
So what matters if not foreign policy in the Middle East right now?
Well, there is that business with heaps of foriegn debt, but I'm sure that will just go away on its own.

The West hasn't managed to make a major difference in the Middle East, somehow I doubt that Russia will get that much better of a reception.
It might with the governments.

Western governments, however, have a notoriously poor reputation with backing democratization of the MidEast.
The Cold War is over. It's possible to do it properly now, but I concede that it would require a change of priorities for many Western countries.

Well, there is that business with heaps of foriegn debt, but I'm sure that will just go away on its own.
Well, you can forget that. The US is going to choke on that some day, because no politician who will ever go out there and tell people that he will raise taxes and cut spending will ever get elected, or even selected by his party.

The Cold War is over. It's possible to do it properly now, but I concede that it would require a change of priorities for many Western countries.
Priorities aren't likely to change, though, as the current aim is "stability" and helping out friends, and who doesn't like stability and helping friends?
Filthy anarchists who don't like the status quo, that's who.
Well, you can forget that. The US is going to choke on that some day, because no politician who will ever go out there and tell people that he will raise taxes and cut spending will ever get elected, or even selected by his party.
Simply diverting the money that is currently propping up governments in the 3rd world to debt relief would at least make a start on lowering it. But then that would mean that the US was putting its own concerns first, and the people would never have that. Not when fucking yourself with a rusty pike is such an appetizing an option.

Simply diverting the money that is currently propping up governments in the 3rd world to debt relief would at least make a start on lowering it.
Not really. The US government only spends about $32.5 billion on foreign affairs out of a total $2.8 trillion budget. I'm not sure, but I think aid and debt relief falls into that category.

At any rate, it would be a tiny cut. Defence is one area though where there is a lot to be cut - but with that sort of strategy, you don't win elections these days.

Not really. The US government only spends about $32.5 billion on foreign affairs out of a total $2.8 trillion budget. I'm not sure, but I think aid and debt relief falls into that category.

At any rate, it would be a tiny cut. Defence is one area though where there is a lot to be cut - but with that sort of strategy, you don't win elections these days.
Each drop in the bucket counts. Right now what is needed is a minor victory that could be used to sell a grander plan of cutting costs and shrinking budgets, accompanied by reforms to make things more efficient.
None of this is going to happen, however, until people realize that the government can only spend what it taxes from the people, and from there reach the conclusion that there is no magic money making machine that funds all the pork barrel spending they want.

I think it might be a matter of time before he is removed; the Iranian clerical establishment doesn't want a nut like him ruining the progress they've made. If we open up dialogue and act reasonable, we may be able to discredit Ahmadinejad to the point of his removal.
The iranian clerical establishment were the ones who put him in his position. The election was a sham.

The iranian clerical establishment were the ones who put him in his position. The election was a sham.

Yep, but can they correct there own mistake before someone else does. Then the clerics will be hiding in caves with osama.