There are political differences to be expected, but let me try to explain why the USA is willing to rub elbows with the Saudis and not with Iran. My credentials are this: I spent 6 months working on strategy in the CENTCOM AOR bitching about every single country in the Persian/Arabian Gulf every single day. The choice is one of picking the lesser of two evils. The USA has a great interest in keeping and increasing its geopolitical influence in the Middle East (Israel is not included in this region even though we have to plan for their actions). The two main regional powers in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia and Iran. We used to be friendly with both countries back in the 1970s but Iran had a revolution and the Ayatollah didn't want anything to do with us, and it remains that way today. Although the current President of Iran (Rouhani) has mentioned that he would like to improve relations with the USA, he is not the boss regardless of how many people voted for him; the Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader and he still openly calls for the death of Israel and the USA. So we obviously can't be friends with Iran. That leaves us with Saudi Arabia, and while they also sponsor terrorism, they are all we have left. We overlook their actions, and in exchange we are allowed to keep a significant military force there, which props up their government and provides them with a pretty big stick when negotiating with the smaller countries in the region (the only other stick they really have is their gargantuan oil production). So our PATRIOT batteries protect the family of Saud from Iran, and we get to have a little say in their goings on. It's as simple as that. Just about everybody we deal with is a piece of scum that would like to see the USA brought down a peg, but Saudi Arabia doesn't do it openly and they depend on our money and protection, so we get along a little better than them. Iran openly calls for our destruction. The last several US presidents, both Republican and Democrat have decided that it's better for us to support Saudi Arabia than not have any influence in the Middle East at all. The only other option is to withdraw our forces (without Saudi Arabia's cooperation we would probably lose our basing agreements with all the other countries in the region) and have no say whatsoever and watch as the Middle East goes in a direction that isn't beneficial to the USA in the slightest.

--And to get back to the topic of the parent post, yeah, this is exactly what the NSA is supposed to do. It is supposed to do two things: Secure the information of the USA and its citizens, and to undermine the security of everything else. A lot of US citizens were upset when they found out that the NSA vacuum had gotten their information as well, and rightfully so. But the NSA is still primarily focused on targeting external entities, and although those entities are well within their rights to complain, don't expect the NSA to stop just because someone didn't like it. Regardless of what a federal judge says about collecting on US citizens, no judge will EVER tell the NSA to stop its clandestine activities on foreign networks.

I appreciate your informed and reasonable response, but you didn't really address the two main points of the grandparent poster.

1. Iran isn't really different in stance from several other countries. You say that Iran calls for the death of Israel and America, but this isn't really true. The one quote from Ahmadinejad that gets thrown around turned out to be a mistranslation. And even if Iran's leadership did say such things, they are not even close to being alone in such heavy handed rhetoric. And anyway words shouldn't be enough to start trillion dollar wars. Otherwise Iran should have the right to attack the US for McCain and other American politicians' equivalently inflammatory speech.

2. Israel is as complicit in terror as other powers in the middle east, if not more so, but they never called out. The reasons are usually vague or fallacious, such as them being "friends" or "like us" or the only democracy in the middle east.

The question I was answering above was "why Saudi Arabia and not Iran? Aren't they both bad?" Regarding your other points, I'll answer them below (and I admit my attitude upfront on the first one, you just posted that you are frustrated with people with a willful blind spot and then you give me #1):

1. Iran's calling for the death of Israel and the USA is just a single missed translation? Give me a break. A news article from five days ago: "As usual, Iranians chanted "Death to America" and also denounced Israel." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/11/385396449/on-.... It's a slogan over there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America. And they aren't alone in their rhetoric. North Korea says it too. And guess what? We've isolated them as much as we can as well. The countries that are willing to openly say "Death to America" are ones that haven't matured enough on the world stage to realize that you should say one thing and do another. The rhetoric alone isn't enough to start a war, but their actions aren't that innocent. Iran's first "blue water navy" excursion was planned to sail all the way to the coast of the USA and enter our territorial waters, just to say that they could (but their ship didn't make it). They built a mock US aircraft carrier and practiced shooting anti-ship missiles at it. They aren't just talking big, they are actively posturing as the opposition to the US influence in the region.

2. Yeah, Israel does some stuff. The Jews have killed a lot of people (even going back to biblical times). They usually get a pass because they are seen as the "small fry" backed into a corner by all the Muslim countries surrounding them. It isn't true, but that is the story that is spun. Similar to how we treat the Saudis, we let Israel get away with a lot of things that we should probably put a stop to--seriously, pretty much anybody with sense can see that compromise is the best way to solve the Israel/Palestine issue, but when two peoples hate each other that much, sometimes it's easier to watch them punch it out. If you try to break up a fight, you risk getting punched yourself. And besides, we don't get along with the Israelis as much as most people think. Seriously, we share more intel with New Zealand than we do with Israel.

Subjective experience here - been in Iran (Tehran, Isfahan, Yazd and places between those, backpacking & mountaineering). I think we all know better than to judge whole country of 80 million based on few radicals that are conveniently showed in TV? I have met several hundred people, most were very fond of west, US too (that surprised me), few didn't care and there was exactly 1 taxi driver in Isfahan, who asked me if I knew Obama - because he is war criminal... arguably not very bright type :) Maybe my experience isn't representative of the whole country, but few people screaming Death to america aren't either.

We get it, you (US) want influence there, because of oil. And because of... oil. You don't like that there is actually somebody who doesn't care that much and isn't afraid. A bit egoistic, and I don't get what do you expect to get in long term, except for keeping whole region unstable, with weak rulers who bow in front of you... ah wait

> "As usual, Iranians chanted "Death to America" and also denounced Israel."

The "As usual" should tell you that it is nothing new. It started back in 1979 after their revolution; and you must admit that the US did some really shady things in Iran leading up to the revolution (including the overthrow of Mossadegh).

I would really recommend you watch Rick Steves' trip to Iran. The people there are much more liberal than almost any other middle-eastern country, and most don't harbor ill-will towards America; despite the fact that we did everything short of active combat for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war! No one can estimate the number of Iranians killed based on US intel and US support.

And while you do quote "death to america" repeatedly, how about all the threats that everyone from McCain to Bush to Obama have hurled at Iran? "All options are on the table" ... "military force can be used" ... etc. etc. And what about the sanctions? Nations would be within their rights to consider sanctions an "act of war". And Stuxnet? If Iran did the same to us? Obama has stated explicitly that a "cyberattack" would be considered an act of war!!

About the "Death to America" phrase - that doesn't really have the meaning you ascribe to it. Taxi drivers in Tehran will mumble "Death to traffic" - it's a figure of speech that's much milder than it's literal interpretation.

If you were to say "goddamn Iranians", the literal interpretation would be that you wish for Iranians to burn and suffer for eternity in the depths of hell. Of course, what you're actually saying is something much milder.

Let's use analogy, maybe not 100%, but good enough - do you want to plan and have future where you have friends, which help each other (ie real friends), or do you want a future when where you spy on everybody, including your mother, father, best friend ever, your kids etc? Because you know, these attitudes will have lasting effects on our future and how will society look. If we don't even try to build fair world for our descendants, we'll never get there by accident.

Or in other words - as a foreigner (would never want US citizenship exactly because of things like these) - we (in europe for example), for long thought we are friends. YOu helped us out in WW2, and it created special bond. Now it seems, you don't care anymore. Okay, we will try to find our own way. Things go both ways...