Who knows what was dealt in the backroom along with the arms sales? I mean, the madrassa-funding is no secret anymore. The point is, I think, we don’t get to have PERFECT allies “over there”, we just get to turn things a few degrees at a time. Iraq without a total strategy and universal support was probably an overreach–though it may end up working, inshalla.

But no, I’m not happy with Bush’s dithering either, nor the spineless state department, and I’m wary of the fact that some of those arms may come back to haunt us later.

The late 70’s and early 80’s big weapons sales to Saudi were accompanied by universal education of girls. Significant social change will occur when the sons and daughters of those girls come of age.

That is why the Taliban and AlQueda go after girls education, illiterate mothers are a requirement for maintaining the strict Wahhabi lifestyle.

But Condi should use the opportunity of the sale to compel some human rights concessions as wells as asking them to do something about Saudis going into Iraq to foment chaos.

Saudi human rights can evolve. Nukes in the hands of Iran will devolve us all.

We are building a containment field around the Iranians in advance of Iran’s purchase of the Sukhoi’s. The fact that Saudi Arabia is a medievalist theocracy should be of no importance to the United States. What matters is that Saudi Arabia understands that it will not fall under a Persian Condominium, and it will form part of an unofficial alliance of Israel, Turkey, the KSA, and Egypt, to contain the Iranians.

Covert means will be used to frustrate the Persian’s bomb program. The less said about that, the better.

Palmerston famously remarked that Britain had neither permanent friends nor foes, but she did have permanent interests. The same applies for America. We can be a democratic beacon unto the nations, but we must tend to our interests first.

That’s what Condi has learned, and is applying quite well.

First, this is an Administration move, not a Condi Rice decision. Frothing at the mouth at her over an arms deal isn’t really appropriate. Frankly I’m as impressed with her now as ever.

Ok so look at the arms deal itself. Patriot missiles, ships, and air to air missiles. The Israelis already have the best air force in the middle east, despite the Saudis having F-15’s and other american weapons. Their principle targets when they do fight will be the syrians. The ships are a clear counter to Iranian attempts to close off the persian gulf. The patriot missiles are a counter the missile capability that Iran is buying from North Korea.

The JDAMs do bother me– they give the Saudis attack capability and I can’t see the Saudis using them against anyone but Israel. Show me other parts of this package that are objectionable and I’ll object to those too.

Keeping the saudis buying from us and not Russia is another point in favor of the deal. Russian weapons are terrible, but they’re better than nothing and Putin is dying to get hard currency while getting a foothold back in the middle east.

The main threats to Israel are NOT direct military attack. They are: nuclear weapons, another intifada, and diplomatic isolation. Bolstering the saudis doesn’t change the strategic equation much at all vs Israel. Again, I’m open to analysis here– I’m just going off the article you’re linking to.

There’s another element to this, which is that we don’t want to be confronting Iran all by ourselves. It is very useful for us to have countries bolstered to the point where they can’t get away with quietly cheering us on while condemning us on TV and in the UN.

Finally, consider this: America in a year or two might not be in a position to be confronting Iran directly in any case. What is to say that President Clinton or Obama or Kucinich or whomever will want to take Iran on? More likely, a democrat in office, which is the way to bet right now, will want to leave Iran be while they finish up their weapons program, as Clinton did in the 90’s. How such a president would handle Iran closing the straits of hormuz is beyond me– but if the saudis can make a contest of it even without us then Iran might be deterred. They’re trying to pick a fight with us, not Saudi Arabia.

If Iran gets the bomb, a direct attack is off the menu no matter who is president– at that point it’s unclear how we can handle them without proxies.

You may not like the saudis buying weapons from us, but the decision seems quite defensible. Human rights is an important consideration, but it isn’t the only consideration.

Compared to having this li’l old world situation all zipped and put to bed by now?

I’m all for complaining, but, you know, it’s tough out there, the enemy is tough and the American oppo is tougher still for the proximity, but no one can dispute that Condi Rice is neither Madeline Albright nor Colin Powell, and that’s the obvious comparison, the immediate predecessors.

Maybe we can coherently use the word “failure” if we compare her to the next Secretary of State (that next one is always better).

If Bush had appointed Bolton it would have been the same sort of thing sooner or later.

I remember when Bolton was still at the UN and he worked on the cease fire via Israel and Lebanon and how pissed people were as soon as they found out the French had been involved or something. In fact the same people were critical of Condi Rice for that as well because she was part of the negotiations. The only thing that spared either of them was that the pundits were so busy demanding Olmert be thrown out of office that they had limited time and energy to expend on Condi and Bolton.

It took them no time to turn on Bolton as soon as he did not live up to the preconceived notions of people who themselves never have and never will have to actually work out a cease fire or anything else like that. It is easy to be outraged when your outrage costs you nothing.