Rulers Snub Arab Summit, Clouding U.S. Bid for Iran Deal

[former9thward]

Source: Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—Saudi Arabia’s monarch pulled out of a summit to be hosted by President Barack Obama on Thursday, in a blow to the White House’s efforts to build Arab support for a nuclear accord with Iran.

King Salman’s decision appeared to ripple across the Persian Gulf. Bahrain said on Sunday that its ruler, King Hamad bin Isaa Al Khalifa, had opted not to travel to Washington.

The only two monarchs from the six countries confirmed to attend the summit at the White House and the presidential retreat at Camp David, Md., were the emirs of Qatar and Kuwait.

At stake for the White House is Mr. Obama’s key foreign-policy initiative, an Iran pact that is proceeding toward a June 30 deadline without support from regional powers. King Salman’s decision signals that the Arab states aren’t on board and could continue to act on their own to thwart Tehran, as Saudi Arabia has done in leading a military coalition against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-king-salman-wont-attend-gulf-summit-hosted-by-obama-1431281891

[cosmicone]

1. We can always bring Arab spring to Saudi Arabia

[karynnj]

2. Comments by Saudia Arabia actually deny that this is a snub

- though the reason seems on the par with turning down a date for a very unconvincing reason. Note that this is the WSJ. If you click on the writers name, it takes you to his bio and a list of previous articles he wrote. Looking back, he was consistently negative on the likelihood of an agreement.

It is clear, from Obama's and Kerry's statements, that they are working to insure he Gulf States that they are not abandoning them - they also reject the idea of a guarantee to defend them - something that they would have to get Congress to pass. Reading the various statements that have been made by the State Department and President Obama since the agreement was made, it is pretty clear that the US is NOT giving either the Arab states or Israel the right to veto the agreement.

The US and the other P5 + 1, have consistently made the case that this agreement deals JUST with the nuclear issue and that they consider that it will be positive for the region if an agreement eliminating the threat of a nuclear Iran for a decade is achieved.

It is not the least surprising that Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries (and Israel) prefer Iran to be held in check by sanctions -- and some US sanctions are for reasons other than the nuclear issue and they will remain. Obviously, SA does not want Iran to become stronger - as there is a geopolitical battle between them. Where the best thing in the region might be a diplomatic end to that geopolitical battle, it is not clear that ending it is what SA wants .... and it is most certainly not what the neocons want.

It was interesting in the first days after Obama spoke to Rouhani that what many of us thought a great possible result - that a friendlier Iran could help with diplomatic solutions in Syria and Lebanon - was part of why the Gulf States and Israel were against the effort. (It will be interesting to see if Kerry and Zarif can actually push SA and the Yemen rebels respectively to keep and extend the humanitarian ceasefire and actually work for a diplomatic solution in this troubled country. As of this point, neither has had success though reading the more detailed articles they are clearly trying.)

Here is a link to a NYT editorial board piece from yesterday that explains a lot of this - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/opinion/sunday/beyond-the-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0

[jwirr]

3. I really do not understand why everyone in the ME seems to object to this deal. If Iran is allowed

to create a nuke it is the ME countries that are most likely to be bombed (maybe the US also). Israel for certain. Why are they not totally in favor of stopping Iran any way we can. But instead they want more war in the ME. That seems to me to be suicidal.

[bananas]

5. Because this doesn't stop Iran from creating a nuke.

On the contrary, it acquiesces to Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure. The other countries want Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure to be dismantled - as it should be. This deal establishes that infrastructure permanently, it's now a permanent threat, it escalates the situation, the other countries now have to increase their own military capabilities. And removing the sanctions enables Iran to ramp up it's proxy wars in the region.

[jwirr]

6. Okay I see their point. But given that we are not doing very well in the ME - could war stop it?

[bananas]

14. War isn't the only option

The Federation of American Scientists and the Carnegie Endowment for Peace did a joint report two years ago:

- Despite aspirations to be self-sufficient, Iran’s relatively small uranium resources will inhibit the country from having an indigenous nuclear energy program.

- Economic pressure or military force cannot “end” Iran’s nuclear program. It is entangled with too much pride—however misguided—and sunk costs simply to be abandoned.

- The nuclear issue will never be fully resolved absent a broader political settlement. The only sustainable solution for assuring that Iran’s nuclear program remains purely peaceful is a mutually agreeable diplomatic solution. Given that political reconciliation is unlikely, the goal should be détente.

- Alternative options exist and should be highlighted. For example, Iran’s solar energy potential is estimated to be thirteen times higher than its total energy needs. By offering Iran cutting-edge alternative energy technologies, a positive precedent could be set for other nuclear-hopefuls.

- Public diplomacy should complement nuclear diplomacy. Efforts should make clear to Iranians that a prosperous, integrated Iran—as opposed to a weakened and isolated Iran—is in America’s interests. Washington should clarify what Iranians would collectively gain by a nuclear compromise (other than a reduction of sanctions and war threats) and explain how a more conciliatory Iranian approach would improve the country’s economy and advance its technological—including peaceful nuclear—prowess.

The report is at the Carnegie website: http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/04/02/iran-s-nuclear-odyssey-costs-and-risks/hs8r

and at the FAS website: http://fas.org/blogs/fas/2013/04/new-report-analyzing-irans-nuclear-program-costs-and-risks/

Here's a Reuters article about the report: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-iran-nuclear-report-idUSBRE93200620130403

[Daniel537]

8. Nonsense. Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, which this deal preserves

while maintaining oversight to ensure it doesn't breakout into weapons capability. These Arab states are hostile to Iran regardless of the nuclear program, its just another excuse to further their sectarian bigotry. Besides, the ME already has one nuclear state.

[Daniel537]

10. Its pure sectarian hatred.

The Sunni dictators want to stop the spread of Shiite power, which is why you see these Gulf countries arming terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria and Yemen to overthrow Assad and the Houthis. They want to weaken Iran in every way possible so they will oppose any agreement the West reaches with Iran.

[Comrade Grumpy]

4. the GCC and the GOP. What a bunch of whiners. n/t

[Daniel537]

7. Good. These homophobic, sexist sectarian murderers can keep their asses right at home. n/t

[former9thward]

9. If that is the standard we should pull out of the UN.

And just become totally isolationist.

[Daniel537]

11. Nope, we just don't get upset when terrorist-supporting, warmongering dictators

decide to snub us.

[former9thward]

12. The UN is full of homophobic murdering dictators.

You ok with that?

[Daniel537]

13. Its not about being ok, its about accepting reality.

We can deal with these "leaders", we just shouldn't bend over backwards to please them, especially when it comes to them trying to push us into a war they refuse to fight themselves. Don't know what you're point is here, no one is calling for breaking relations.