"Ahead of the report’s release, Mr. Biden spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Although the official White House description of the call did not say that the two men discussed the report, other officials said the purpose of the discussion was for Mr. Biden to explain why he was releasing the findings and outline the administration’s next steps. The administration has made clear that Mr. Biden will speak only to King Salman, his counterpart as head of state, and will not speak directly to the crown prince.
Whether the new administration’s attempt to bypass the 35-year-old crown prince and deal only with his 84-year-old and often ailing father will succeed remains to be seen."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/politics/us-pauses-saudi-uae-...
Where is the outrage? All the social media platforms are silent.
Trump's opponents didn't seem to be suggesting noticeably better strategies to deal with the virus and Democrat led states don't seem to be handling the virus much better than Republican led states [2].
Gibraltar
San Marino
Belgium
Czechia
Slovenia
UK
Italy
Portugal
Montenegro
And, do you really think that Belgium has all of whatever bad characteristics you like to apply to the US government? Or is it maybe more a consequence of being a small and densely populated area that people travel a lot to and from, like NYC? It's not as simple as good policy response meaning lower deaths.
The administration was overtly spreading misinformation and speaking against straight up correct medical advice. They made overt statements in national media that assistance vs the virus would be treated as a quid pro quo for political loyalty. They threatened governors that criticized the administration with denial of federal resources in a (&()^) epidemic. You cannot whitewash the blood on their hands.
It was craven politics born of an early idea that the virus would be worst in left leaning coastal cities, and hence would help Trump for re-election. Obviously a virus doesn't give a crap about political parties, so it didn't go that way.
It's entirely reasonable to believe that the number of covid deaths in the US would have been an order of magnitude less with more sober decision making.
I prefer to focus on more concrete and demonstrable failures but I think in a few years when we can really parse this data we'll find that Trump's actions directly led to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths... but, I'm not certain.
The biggest failure I think we pretty clearly made in handling the virus was not quickly building up some nationalized vaccine production facilities. If ever there was a time for some good old state capitalism it was this pandemic and a few hundred million invested in setting up facilities we know we'll eventually need would have paid off handsomely.
Almost six years later, Mr Obama has approved military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and now Syria.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) estimates the Obama administration has launched more than 390 drone strikes in five years across Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia – eight times as many approved during the entire Bush Presidency.
Obama making decisions on his own doesn't have anything to do with middle east nation's interest in US approval for their own actions.
I'm addressing what those middle east nations choose to do and who they consult with, get 'approval' from / etc.
What? That's exactly what it means.
The simple fact is we have very little justification to criticize the actions of other nations when we cannot even go an Administration without attacking another nation.
2) Why is the US not allowed to "attack[] another nation"? esp given it was a response to attacks on American/coalition personnel?
Israel's usually pretty opaque military and other actions allow for a lot of unexpected partnerships.
The Abraham accords are the legacy of the Trump admin and I think it’s a very good one.
As alliances shift in the middle east it's not surprising that Israel would be involved. Relations / tensions are pretty wild in the Middle East. I think 'unlikely' alliances are almost inevitable, and maybe not as unlikely as we think. There area lot of strangely conflicting incentives out there.
I think whatever horse trading happened behind the scenes was likely more valuable than PR.
There are many signs of Biden administration going back to the deal. They are both dancing around it but there's definitely been a policy change regarding Iran.
For stability of the region, commerce, peace and moderate forces in all parties, it was a good deal.
It wouldn't have resolved all the issues the world has with Iran, but the idea of having a "deal" in place that resolves all issues is childish.
Eg can the US have a "deal" with Saudi in place to resolve all the regional and human rights issues with them? Of course not. But those who argue against the JCPOA claim the US could've had a "deal" with Iran that resolved all issues.
It would've been used to rebuild some trust between both nations and help resolving other issues in long term.
Although right now the deal is hanging by a thread, I still think its possible that in long term it will be considered a major victory for all parties involved.
The fact that the hardliners couldn't kill it off despite years of effort (while being in power) may be later judged as a strength of it.
That's better than nothing I guess. But it's not the "we're back, let's make this work" announcement I'd hoped for.
I'm very supportive of engagement with Iran. In a generation they'll be the main power in the ME. Its time to get on board or be left behind I think. The Saudis are yesterday's news.
Both sides are dancing but there have been very positive signs. I expect the parties to return to deal in 2-5 months.