Would it be better for US to take a more neutral stance between Israel and Arabs since the 1960s?

[David Hume]

US originally planned to take a neutral stance between the Arabs and Israel, and it was the Soviets who originally planed to support Israel. If that had been kept, US would

1, not being targeted as much by the terrorists, and likely no 911.

2, better relationship with the Arabs and Islamic world, and possibly more influences in the middle east as the result.

3, save a lot of money, which was sent to Israel as aids and to other countries like Egypt as bribes for them to recognize Israel.

4, more political capital could have been spent to counter Russia and China.

5, Israel might have to accept the two state solution.


While Israel is a key ally in the middle east, the truth is always that Israel needs US much more than the other way around. There would be plenty of Arab countries who would be eager to be an ally of US, if not for the special relationship with Israel.

[Dan the Roman]

This was never going to work for reasons of internal dynamics on both sides.

Stalinism was always going to turn antisemitic, because Zionism was internationalists. Soviet Zionists had links, both personal and ideological with Zionists in the West, and so did Soviet Jews as a whole.

By definition, any group which has an organization - cultural, religious, or ethnic - with links outside the Soviet block was going to get hit with accusations of espionage and treason. The very nature of the Stalinist political system created incentives for every official to go after their rivals, and in the process of going after Jewish Communists they didn't like, antisemitic campaigns were going to be launched.

In short, for the Soviet-Israeli relationship to work, not only with Israel have to go Communist, but all Western Jews would have to also become Pro-Soviet. That wasn't happening so the relationship was doomed with the Cold War.

As for the United States, ultimately Washington had to chose between its allies - the existing governments of Arab states, and their opponents who wished to overthrow them. If the US turned on the monarchies and republics they would have turned to the Soviets for support. Furthermore, that would have required breaking fully with Britain and France on behalf of a policy that would not work.

In short: Both the US and Soviet Union tried to pursue more neutral policies. They were forced into polarized ones by structural factors that made neutrality impossible.

[Dan the Roman]

Also I find a lot of modern discourse is a consequence of the disappearance of traditional diplomatic history from curriculums.

History is not the tale of stupid, racist people doing stupid and racist things. Generally, most things happened for good reasons and structural path dependency is so strong it would have been nearly impossible to avoid things.

Poland's leaders made a number of questionable moves in 1788-1792, but the international system was such that there may have been no winning moves. They were doomed no matter what they did because the rules were stacked against them. Similarly in 1936-39.

There probably were not winning moves in 1920-22 that avoided a lot of people losing their homes in Greece and Turkey.

Armenia had very few in 2020.

I see the Nakba as a tragedy more than a crime in that there aren't really scenarios that end well. We are not in an optimal timeline, and things have probably diverged further since the 1990s, but I am really unsure how you avoid an ugly refugee crisis in 1948. I don't even buy the idea that individual Jewish or Arab leaders could have avoided one because even if they wished for a settlement there were a lot of actors and forces rendering that unworkable.

The Soviet Union did pretty poorly in the Middle East and the US very well. In fact, the US was winning going away between 1973 and 1978 when it lost Iran.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No, the mistake was not doing more to prevent the Iranian revolution or at they very least ensuring that Khomeini did not take over. If the Iranian Revolution never happened , there likely is a two state solution by now and peace in the middle east.

Also no Iranian Revolution means:

- Saddam likely never invades Iran or tries to later create and empire in the Gulf as Iran would be a major counterweight to it
 
- We are not as reliant on Saudi Arabia for oil as we are

- We do not need to rely on Pakistan as much to supply the Mujahedeen against the USSR meaning Pakistan does not get the influence they have over Pakistan which means the Tailban may never take over.



The Iranian Revolution was the most disastrous thing to happen in the middle east in the past century and was basically for Islamists what the Russian Revolution was to Communism.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This was never going to work for reasons of internal dynamics on both sides.

Stalinism was always going to turn antisemitic, because Zionism was internationalists. Soviet Zionists had links, both personal and ideological with Zionists in the West, and so did Soviet Jews as a whole.

By definition, any group which has an organization - cultural, religious, or ethnic - with links outside the Soviet block was going to get hit with accusations of espionage and treason. The very nature of the Stalinist political system created incentives for every official to go after their rivals, and in the process of going after Jewish Communists they didn't like, antisemitic campaigns were going to be launched.

In short, for the Soviet-Israeli relationship to work, not only with Israel have to go Communist, but all Western Jews would have to also become Pro-Soviet. That wasn't happening so the relationship was doomed with the Cold War.

As for the United States, ultimately Washington had to chose between its allies - the existing governments of Arab states, and their opponents who wished to overthrow them. If the US turned on the monarchies and republics they would have turned to the Soviets for support. Furthermore, that would have required breaking fully with Britain and France on behalf of a policy that would not work.

In short: Both the US and Soviet Union tried to pursue more neutral policies. They were forced into polarized ones by structural factors that made neutrality impossible.

Stalin was obviously an antisemite, but there were certainly a number of Communist Russian Jews.

[Crumpets]

Not starting in the 1960s, no. But the one-two-three-four punch of Arafat rejecting the 1994 agreement, the 1995 Rabin assassination, Bibi's first election in 1996, and the Second Intifada starting in 2000 showed that a long-term sustainable peace agreement wasn't really possible or even desired on either side, and the US's focus should have shifted more to a mindset of containing the conflict to Israel and Palestine (and avoiding intervention by/entanglement with Iran, Hezbollah, and other actors) rather than trying to play an active role in ending or shaping the conflict. That was never going to happen, especially after 9/11, but that would have been my "with hindsight" policy.

[Dan the Roman]

This was never going to work for reasons of internal dynamics on both sides.

Stalinism was always going to turn antisemitic, because Zionism was internationalists. Soviet Zionists had links, both personal and ideological with Zionists in the West, and so did Soviet Jews as a whole.

By definition, any group which has an organization - cultural, religious, or ethnic - with links outside the Soviet block was going to get hit with accusations of espionage and treason. The very nature of the Stalinist political system created incentives for every official to go after their rivals, and in the process of going after Jewish Communists they didn't like, antisemitic campaigns were going to be launched.

In short, for the Soviet-Israeli relationship to work, not only with Israel have to go Communist, but all Western Jews would have to also become Pro-Soviet. That wasn't happening so the relationship was doomed with the Cold War.

As for the United States, ultimately Washington had to chose between its allies - the existing governments of Arab states, and their opponents who wished to overthrow them. If the US turned on the monarchies and republics they would have turned to the Soviets for support. Furthermore, that would have required breaking fully with Britain and France on behalf of a policy that would not work.

In short: Both the US and Soviet Union tried to pursue more neutral policies. They were forced into polarized ones by structural factors that made neutrality impossible.

Stalin was obviously an antisemite, but there were certainly a number of Communist Russian Jews.

Stalin shifted Communism from an internationalist ideology to a hermetically sealed world where anyone with external ties, be they Comintern agents, ethnic/religious activists with links outside- became suspect. There is a reason Jews were banned from the KGB after it was established.

And this largely extended throughout Eastern Europe. Jews weren't just purged in the Soviet Union. They were removed in every Warsaw Pact state, and in many of the foriegn Communist partied under Soviet control. Heck, Stalin even pressured Mao to imprison his Jewish translator as an American spy. Like Stalin literally told the CCP to purge the half dozen or so Jewish volunteers they had for years!

I actually don't think Israel played a role. The Slansky trial was in 49 along with the Night of Murdered Poets. These were driven by internal Soviet dynamics and therefore nothing the US did would effect them.

[All Along The Watchtower]

No, the mistake was not doing more to prevent the Iranian revolution or at they very least ensuring that Khomeini did not take over.

You’re absolutely right, the US should have done all in its power to prop up the Shah in 1978-79 against the will of most Iranians, intervening in Iran again like we did in 1953 would certainly have gone a long way to solving our foreign policy issues in that part of the world. If only our leaders had consistently heeded this kind of brilliant foreign policy advice!

 

[OSR stands with Israel]

No, the mistake was not doing more to prevent the Iranian revolution or at they very least ensuring that Khomeini did not take over.

You’re absolutely right, the US should have done all in its power to prop up the Shah in 1978-79 against the will of most Iranians, intervening in Iran again like we did in 1953 would certainly have gone a long way to solving our foreign policy issues in that part of the world. If only our leaders had consistently heeded this kind of brilliant foreign policy advice!

 

The Shah of Iran was one of our staunchest Allies and we absolutely should have taken actions to prevent his fall . In fact Carter did the opposite, and took action to stop the Iranian military from doing a counter Coup .

[All Along The Watchtower]

No, the mistake was not doing more to prevent the Iranian revolution or at they very least ensuring that Khomeini did not take over.

You’re absolutely right, the US should have done all in its power to prop up the Shah in 1978-79 against the will of most Iranians, intervening in Iran again like we did in 1953 would certainly have gone a long way to solving our foreign policy issues in that part of the world. If only our leaders had consistently heeded this kind of brilliant foreign policy advice!

 

The Shah of Iran was one of our staunchest Allies and we absolutely should have taken actions to prevent his fall . In fact Carter did the opposite, and took action to stop the Iranian military from doing a counter Coup .

On the contrary, Carter’s biggest mistake was letting the Shah into the US. That was the direct catalyst for the hostage crisis and Khomeini took full advantage and consolidated his power.

There actually was a new, comparatively moderate government in Iran in the initial months after the Shah fled Iran (fleeing the country is in and of itself a de facto abdication/resignation that means the leader is no longer legitimate, much like Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 or Ashraf Ghani in 2021). The Carter administration was actively negotiating with it. There’s no guarantee that Khomeini wouldn’t have come to power had the Shah not been allowed to enter the US, but that decision made it more or less a certainty.

[Dan the Roman]

No, the mistake was not doing more to prevent the Iranian revolution or at they very least ensuring that Khomeini did not take over.

You’re absolutely right, the US should have done all in its power to prop up the Shah in 1978-79 against the will of most Iranians, intervening in Iran again like we did in 1953 would certainly have gone a long way to solving our foreign policy issues in that part of the world. If only our leaders had consistently heeded this kind of brilliant foreign policy advice!

 

The Shah of Iran was one of our staunchest Allies and we absolutely should have taken actions to prevent his fall . In fact Carter did the opposite, and took action to stop the Iranian military from doing a counter Coup .

On the contrary, Carter’s biggest mistake was letting the Shah into the US. That was the direct catalyst for the hostage crisis and Khomeini took full advantage and consolidated his power.

There actually was a new, comparatively moderate government in Iran in the initial months after the Shah fled Iran (fleeing the country is in and of itself a de facto abdication/resignation that means the leader is no longer legitimate, much like Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 or Ashraf Ghani in 2021). The Carter administration was actively negotiating with it. There’s no guarantee that Khomeini wouldn’t have come to power had the Shah not been allowed to enter the US, but that decision made it more or less a certainty.

Its actually worse. The US NSA was meeting with the Iranian PM and FM in Algiers on split-screen while the Shah was entering the country as Carter initially said no, then changed his mind while Brzezinski was out of the country making it look like a deliberate humiliation of the Iranians when in fact Carter was merely up to his usual habit of humiliating his staff.

[MyLifeIsYours]

No, the mistake was not doing more to prevent the Iranian revolution or at they very least ensuring that Khomeini did not take over. If the Iranian Revolution never happened , there likely is a two state solution by now and peace in the middle east.

Also no Iranian Revolution means:

- Saddam likely never invades Iran or tries to later create and empire in the Gulf as Iran would be a major counterweight to it
 
- We are not as reliant on Saudi Arabia for oil as we are

- We do not need to rely on Pakistan as much to supply the Mujahedeen against the USSR meaning Pakistan does not get the influence they have over Pakistan which means the Tailban may never take over.



The Iranian Revolution was the most disastrous thing to happen in the middle east in the past century and was basically for Islamists what the Russian Revolution was to Communism.

Reverse back to the 1950s and not assassinate Iran democratic leader in place of a brutal dictatorship who supported American interests.

[Indy Texas]

No, the mistake was not doing more to prevent the Iranian revolution or at they very least ensuring that Khomeini did not take over. If the Iranian Revolution never happened , there likely is a two state solution by now and peace in the middle east.

Also no Iranian Revolution means:

- Saddam likely never invades Iran or tries to later create and empire in the Gulf as Iran would be a major counterweight to it
 
- We are not as reliant on Saudi Arabia for oil as we are

- We do not need to rely on Pakistan as much to supply the Mujahedeen against the USSR meaning Pakistan does not get the influence they have over Pakistan which means the Tailban may never take over.

The Iranian Revolution was the most disastrous thing to happen in the middle east in the past century and was basically for Islamists what the Russian Revolution was to Communism.

Iran in the immediate period following 1979 was anti-Israel but it was not pro-Palestinian by any means (after all, why would a Shia Persian theocracy care about a bunch of Sunni Arab apostates?). You know who some of the strongest supporters of Saddam going to war with Iran were? The Palestinians. Iran's main concern at that time was providing support to Shia Muslim groups in the Lebanese civil war (which put them at odds with the US, which tended to mainly favor the pro-Western Maronite factions) and higher level political/diplomatic delegitimization of Israel.

Remember that Israel and Iran clearly didn't hate each other enough not to do arms sales at the behest of the US so the Reagan Administration could fund the Contras.

Saudi Arabia and Iran were seen as the "twin pillars" of US influence in the Middle East. Just having Iran alone wouldn't have been enough. It gives you absolutely zero influence with the Arab countries. By the 1970s, Somalia, Ethiopia and South Yemen had all become communist states. The domino theory that was de rigueur in those days suggested if there weren't a US-friendly regime in Saudi Arabia, the red tide could make its way up the Arabian Peninsula and reach waffly non-aligned countries like Syria and Iraq, and threaten the stability of the pro-Western monarchy in Jordan.

The Shah would not have been of any help in Afghanistan, considering even in a timeline where the 1979 revolution doesn't happen, he had terminal cancer and was going to be dead within a couple of years anyway. And he'd have been replaced by his very young son so in practice the country would have been run behind the scenes by the Shah's sister, who was an extremely socially progressive, secular feminist who would have had absolutely zero interest in getting involved with a bunch of fundamentalist Sunni militants.

[GoTfan]

The Shah only got the authority he did because Eisenhower and Churchill wanted to remove a democratically elected socialist government that was going to use Iran's resources to benefit Iran. Basically, Mossadegh was shoved from power by the West because he put the interests of Iranians ahead of Western interests, and the West simply couldn't have that. It was that same dubious logic that led to US interventionism all over the world for much of the Cold War.

[TheReckoning]

The Shah only got the authority he did because Eisenhower and Churchill wanted to remove a democratically elected socialist government that was going to use Iran's resources to benefit Iran. Basically, Mossadegh was shoved from power by the West because he put the interests of Iranians ahead of Western interests, and the West simply couldn't have that. It was that same dubious logic that led to US interventionism all over the world for much of the Cold War.

This is so wrong it’s laughable.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I guess what if israel had essentially become a non-aligned or even communist aligned power amidst a sea of client western arab states?

[MyLifeIsYours]

The Shah only got the authority he did because Eisenhower and Churchill wanted to remove a democratically elected socialist government that was going to use Iran's resources to benefit Iran. Basically, Mossadegh was shoved from power by the West because he put the interests of Iranians ahead of Western interests, and the West simply couldn't have that. It was that same dubious logic that led to US interventionism all over the world for much of the Cold War.

This is so wrong it’s laughable.

Dude it's factual. The C.I.A. disclosed the information to the public. We launch a coup against Mossadegh to put in a authoritarian monarchy that would serve the interests of the West. The Shah was a ruthless leader who the people of Iran were rightfully in their overthrow of his regime. What happended was unfortunately in the nation becoming a theocracy, let's not be apologetic to the Shah and how America is to blame for overthrowing the leader that the Iranian people put in place.

[TheReckoning]

The Shah only got the authority he did because Eisenhower and Churchill wanted to remove a democratically elected socialist government that was going to use Iran's resources to benefit Iran. Basically, Mossadegh was shoved from power by the West because he put the interests of Iranians ahead of Western interests, and the West simply couldn't have that. It was that same dubious logic that led to US interventionism all over the world for much of the Cold War.

This is so wrong it’s laughable.

Dude it's factual. The C.I.A. disclosed the information to the public. We launch a coup against Mossadegh to put in a authoritarian monarchy that would serve the interests of the West. The Shah was a ruthless leader who the people of Iran were rightfully in their overthrow of his regime. What happended was unfortunately in the nation becoming a theocracy, let's not be apologetic to the Shah and how America is to blame for overthrowing the leader that the Iranian people put in place.

Mossadegh was literally a dictator that had enemies in almsot every single Iranian institution. The Iranians launched the coup, that had some support from the CIA and MI6.

[Dan the Roman]

The Shah only got the authority he did because Eisenhower and Churchill wanted to remove a democratically elected socialist government that was going to use Iran's resources to benefit Iran. Basically, Mossadegh was shoved from power by the West because he put the interests of Iranians ahead of Western interests, and the West simply couldn't have that. It was that same dubious logic that led to US interventionism all over the world for much of the Cold War.

This is so wrong it’s laughable.

Dude it's factual. The C.I.A. disclosed the information to the public. We launch a coup against Mossadegh to put in a authoritarian monarchy that would serve the interests of the West. The Shah was a ruthless leader who the people of Iran were rightfully in their overthrow of his regime. What happended was unfortunately in the nation becoming a theocracy, let's not be apologetic to the Shah and how America is to blame for overthrowing the leader that the Iranian people put in place.

Have you read the documents? I suggest it. They are fascinating.  There were a lot of mistakes to go around, but Mossadegh was speed-running the Daoud path in Afghanistan, and it was a succession struggle by the summer of 1953.

[TechbroMBA]

It’s always good to know that whether it’s Iran, Israel or Palestine that it’s only what Americans did or could have done that ultimately mattered.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Bro do we seriously have neocon(s) arguing in this thread that the Shah could be saved after 2.5 decades of screwing himself over?

[Dan the Roman]

Bro do we seriously have neocon(s) arguing in this thread that the Shah could be saved after 2.5 decades of screwing himself over?

Neither the Shah in late 1978 nor Mossadegh by the summer of 1953 could have been saved. The failure of both were nevertheless tragedies.

[Pres Mike]

Not starting in the 1960s, no. But the one-two-three-four punch of Arafat rejecting the 1994 agreement, the 1995 Rabin assassination, Bibi's first election in 1996, and the Second Intifada starting in 2000 showed that a long-term sustainable peace agreement wasn't really possible or even desired on either side, and the US's focus should have shifted more to a mindset of containing the conflict to Israel and Palestine (and avoiding intervention by/entanglement with Iran, Hezbollah, and other actors) rather than trying to play an active role in ending or shaping the conflict. That was never going to happen, especially after 9/11, but that would have been my "with hindsight" policy.

I reject the notion that peace was impossible, because peace came really close in 2001 and 2008. This was after victories by leftists like Barak and Olmert in the 1999 and 2005 elections.

Heck, even Sharon was planning a utilerian peace by withdrawing from Gaza. Had he survived, he was planning to withdraw from parts of the West Bank. He was going to point to a map and tell the Palestinians "This is your state". He was already relying on Olmert and Labour to govern despite being Likud himself.

In fact, the one man entirely responsible for peace being impossible now is Benjamin Netanyahu. His elections in 1996 and 2009 ended all efforts.

[All Along The Watchtower]

In fact, the one man entirely responsible for peace being impossible now is Benjamin Netanyahu.

Well no, don’t forget the George W. Bush administration. Not only did they aggressively push for the Palestinian elections that gave an Islamist militia a plurality of the vote in the Gaza Strip, (as an aside, perhaps it’s not a good idea to let armed militias participate in elections), they also supported an attempted Fatah counter-coup that resulted in a civil war between Hamas and Fatah which the former won, enabling Hamas to establish themselves as the sole power in Gaza.

[Pres Mike]

In fact, the one man entirely responsible for peace being impossible now is Benjamin Netanyahu.

Well no, don’t forget the George W. Bush administration. Not only did they aggressively push for the Palestinian elections that gave an Islamist militia a plurality of the vote in the Gaza Strip, (as an aside, perhaps it’s not a good idea to let armed militias participate in elections), they also supported an attempted Fatah counter-coup that resulted in a civil war between Hamas and Fatah which the former won, enabling Hamas to establish themselves as the sole power in Gaza.

All big mistakes. But not impossible to overcome