December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« Local Programming: Drinking Liberally South Philly Tonight | Main | Local Programming: Drinking Liberally West Philly Tonight »

March 11, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"[C]onsider l’affaire Freeman the first conspicuous salvo in the effort to sabotage the Obama administration’s outreach to Tehran." While Chas Freeman was anti-Israel by standards of the national security community that does not translate into being pro-detente with Iran. The Saudis, with whom Freeman has some association, are second only to the Likud in their opposition to a nuclear Iran.

Freeman would have likely been a moderate Iran-skeptic, not that the NIC would have been a determinative voice on this policy, which is not just about nuclear proliferation ( though that is the high profile issue)

Tne Israeli Lobby disliked Freeman for his position on Israel-Palestine

Interesting. Well, you actually know what you're talking about, unlike me. But this raises questions: Are the Israelis and the Saudis coordinating their policies on Iran?

De facto, yes. For some years now.

A nuclear Israel is no threat to KSA as both states are US allies but a nuclear Shiite Iran makes the al-Saud very, very, nervous.

Yeah, I can see why they would do that. I knew they and the Bahrainis covertly cooperate with the Israelis on economic and other security matters.

Still, Iran's leadership has made a political linkage between its regional ambitions and the Palestine-Israel conflict. I can see why someone would think that an American official who was interested in taking a less pro-Israel position on the second would also be less hawkish toward the first.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Support This Blog

Philadelphia Bloggers