FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
How Trump made it harder for the US to fight terrorism

How Trump made it harder for the US to fight terrorism

(3:44) Donald Trump shared classified intelligence from Israel with Russia. Here's why that's a big deal. youtube.com/user/voxdotcom

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

They missed a step, why shouldn't Iran have any information on ISIS?

Iran isn't an ally of ISIS, they are opposed?

Original comment

They missed a step, why shouldn't Iran have any information on ISIS?

Iran isn't an ally of ISIS, they are opposed?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

You're missing the point.

The key problem is that an Israeli spy provided the intelligence on the understanding that it would only be shared with the USA. If the USA then shares it with whoever they choose, including known enemies to Israel, then Israel (and other strategic middle-east countries) will obviously be less inclined to continue to give them intelligence. That's an issue, particularly when such intelligence has already saved lives. The trust is broken.

And it's not really that Iran shouldn't have intelligence about Isis - it's more that they shouldn't have information gathered by Israel. The suggestion is that this information reveals the methodology, and possibly even the exact identity, of Israeli secret agents. Besides, if Israel are risking their neck to get sensitive information, they should have a right to choose who gets access to it.

Although Iran vaguely wants to get rid of ISIS (as long as they are a threat to Assad), they also want to get rid of Israeli spies and their intelligence gathering capabilities.

Original comment

You're missing the point.

The key problem is that an Israeli spy provided the intelligence on the understanding that it would only be shared with the USA. If the USA then shares it with whoever they choose, including known enemies to Israel, then Israel (and other strategic middle-east countries) will obviously be less inclined to continue to give them intelligence. That's an issue, particularly when such intelligence has already saved lives. The trust is broken.

And it's not really that Iran shouldn't have intelligence about Isis - it's more that they shouldn't have information gathered by Israel. The suggestion is that this information reveals the methodology, and possibly even the exact identity, of Israeli secret agents. Besides, if Israel are risking their neck to get sensitive information, they should have a right to choose who gets access to it.

Although Iran vaguely wants to get rid of ISIS (as long as they are a threat to Assad), they also want to get rid of Israeli spies and their intelligence gathering capabilities.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

I disagree, Iran has stronger interest in destruction of ISIS than Israel. They are natural enemies, if we take religious divide as parameter, while ISIS isn't very active against Israel; also most of the actions in Syria done by Israel were against Hezbollah, ally of Iran.

Israel prefers ISIS to Iran.

Original comment

I disagree, Iran has stronger interest in destruction of ISIS than Israel. They are natural enemies, if we take religious divide as parameter, while ISIS isn't very active against Israel; also most of the actions in Syria done by Israel were against Hezbollah, ally of Iran.

Israel prefers ISIS to Iran.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

Still missing the point.

The bottom line is this: Israel got the intelligence, so Israel gets to choose who it goes to. If they can't, then they won't share it, which will cost the USA dearly. This intel alone has saved countless American lives. Don't you think that's fair? If trust is established between two countries who exchange intelligence, do you think it's right that one country can unilaterally break their confidence?

And actually, look at the bigger picture - it's not just about religious ideology, it's about politics and power. The presence of ISIS allows Iran to expand its influence in the region via its various proxies, and gives it opportunity to ensure that Iraq never becomes a threat to its security again. Iran is wanting (and getting) political influence, not necessarily stability, and its input in keeping ISIS at bay (rather than destroying them) strengthens its calls for a favourable nuclear deal.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Original comment

Still missing the point.

The bottom line is this: Israel got the intelligence, so Israel gets to choose who it goes to. If they can't, then they won't share it, which will cost the USA dearly. This intel alone has saved countless American lives. Don't you think that's fair? If trust is established between two countries who exchange intelligence, do you think it's right that one country can unilaterally break their confidence?

And actually, look at the bigger picture - it's not just about religious ideology, it's about politics and power. The presence of ISIS allows Iran to expand its influence in the region via its various proxies, and gives it opportunity to ensure that Iraq never becomes a threat to its security again. Iran is wanting (and getting) political influence, not necessarily stability, and its input in keeping ISIS at bay (rather than destroying them) strengthens its calls for a favourable nuclear deal.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

It only works if Israel really wants ISIS to be destroyed. But ISIS is doing a great job of hitting Israel's enemy, and there is a danger that dissolution of ISIS can redirect some of its fighters to Israel. Are Israel’s interests in alignment with interests of USA, when it comes to ISIS?

Original comment

It only works if Israel really wants ISIS to be destroyed. But ISIS is doing a great job of hitting Israel's enemy, and there is a danger that dissolution of ISIS can redirect some of its fighters to Israel. Are Israel’s interests in alignment with interests of USA, when it comes to ISIS?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

What "only works"? Israel has various motives in fighting ISIS, just not as complex as Iran's. Without any doubt, Iran's motives are radically different to those of the USA.

The fact remains that Israel acquired some intelligence for the benefit of its allies, and the nature of that intelligence puts the operatives who found it at risk. USA chose to share that with an ally of Iran, so people will be more cautious about assisting them in the future. It's not rocket science. It was a profoundly short-sighted thing to do from the USA's point of view.

Original comment

What "only works"? Israel has various motives in fighting ISIS, just not as complex as Iran's. Without any doubt, Iran's motives are radically different to those of the USA.

The fact remains that Israel acquired some intelligence for the benefit of its allies, and the nature of that intelligence puts the operatives who found it at risk. USA chose to share that with an ally of Iran, so people will be more cautious about assisting them in the future. It's not rocket science. It was a profoundly short-sighted thing to do from the USA's point of view.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

ISIS controls land lock territory, has no legitimate trade, no aviation, nor any significant air defense, and still it is well funded and well armed.

Some of the allies are giving bread crumbs, but are not really trying to destroy ISIS for various reasons. Should USA trust those allies in the first place?

Original comment

ISIS controls land lock territory, has no legitimate trade, no aviation, nor any significant air defense, and still it is well funded and well armed.

Some of the allies are giving bread crumbs, but are not really trying to destroy ISIS for various reasons. Should USA trust those allies in the first place?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

No, you're totally right. When Israel uncovers intelligence that ISIS are trying to blow up planes with laptops, they should ignore that, but make a point of betraying the sources. Great idea. Let's see how that works out.

I'd hate to live in your world, where no one trusts each other, and countries are willing to give up each other's secret agents on a whim.

ISIS has been a real coup for Iran who are suddenly significant again and gaining influence and credibility by the day.

Original comment

No, you're totally right. When Israel uncovers intelligence that ISIS are trying to blow up planes with laptops, they should ignore that, but make a point of betraying the sources. Great idea. Let's see how that works out.

I'd hate to live in your world, where no one trusts each other, and countries are willing to give up each other's secret agents on a whim.

ISIS has been a real coup for Iran who are suddenly significant again and gaining influence and credibility by the day.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (9 days ago)

USA is using Kurds as only direct ally in the field. From all the countries (allies) in the region, USA has allied itself with the people that don't have a state.

Maybe, just maybe, you trust too much.

Original comment

USA is using Kurds as only direct ally in the field. From all the countries (allies) in the region, USA has allied itself with the people that don't have a state.

Maybe, just maybe, you trust too much.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

Says you who seems to think Iran are trying to wipe out ISIS for ideological reasons! Don't believe everything the Iranians tell you. I know USA has ulterior motives too, but that's not what we're discussing. Stick to the point.

The USA doesn't have to act on intelligence it receives, if it doesn't trust the sources BUT it can't betray those sources and share it with whoever it wants, because then it won't be receiving much more. Get it? It's super simple. There's no possible universe in which betraying a key intelligence-gathering ally works out in favour of the betrayer.

Original comment

Says you who seems to think Iran are trying to wipe out ISIS for ideological reasons! Don't believe everything the Iranians tell you. I know USA has ulterior motives too, but that's not what we're discussing. Stick to the point.

The USA doesn't have to act on intelligence it receives, if it doesn't trust the sources BUT it can't betray those sources and share it with whoever it wants, because then it won't be receiving much more. Get it? It's super simple. There's no possible universe in which betraying a key intelligence-gathering ally works out in favour of the betrayer.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

Me, no, facts do. Groups that fight ISIS are Kurds and various Shi groups, mostly backed by Iran, no one else. Turkey is fighting Kurds. Israel is fighting Hezbollah. Qatar and SA are fighting Assad, and possibly they are funding ISIS. Of all countries Jordan was most useful to USA with both information and resources. (Merkel is calling for Incirlik base to be moved to Jordan, in part because she recognizes how helpful they were).

Now, I do understand that Israel and USA have strong alliance, but that doesn't mean they always want the same thing and when differences are high some terms of the alliance should be renegotiated.

Original comment

Me, no, facts do. Groups that fight ISIS are Kurds and various Shi groups, mostly backed by Iran, no one else. Turkey is fighting Kurds. Israel is fighting Hezbollah. Qatar and SA are fighting Assad, and possibly they are funding ISIS. Of all countries Jordan was most useful to USA with both information and resources. (Merkel is calling for Incirlik base to be moved to Jordan, in part because she recognizes how helpful they were).

Now, I do understand that Israel and USA have strong alliance, but that doesn't mean they always want the same thing and when differences are high some terms of the alliance should be renegotiated.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

Oh I see, objective facts. Maybe, just maybe, you trust too much. There is a bigger picture, and Iran's reasons for being there aren't quite as noble as you'd like to think, as they sure as hell aren't the same reasons as the USA.

It's amazing that you are still unable to answer the main point. You clearly have an axe to grind, so maybe I can help you focus on the real issue by making it more universal:

If country A gives country B useful intelligence under certain provisos, (and country B accepts those provisos), is it then wise for country B to ignore those provisos? How do you think that may affect country B's ability to gather inteliigence in the future? Have a think.

Original comment

Oh I see, objective facts. Maybe, just maybe, you trust too much. There is a bigger picture, and Iran's reasons for being there aren't quite as noble as you'd like to think, as they sure as hell aren't the same reasons as the USA.

It's amazing that you are still unable to answer the main point. You clearly have an axe to grind, so maybe I can help you focus on the real issue by making it more universal:

If country A gives country B useful intelligence under certain provisos, (and country B accepts those provisos), is it then wise for country B to ignore those provisos? How do you think that may affect country B's ability to gather inteliigence in the future? Have a think.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

You are assuming that country B (Israel) is giving full and honest support to country A (USA), and I'm telling you, all the time, that it's not in Israel’s best interest to give full and honest support to USA when it comes to ISIS.

Original comment

You are assuming that country B (Israel) is giving full and honest support to country A (USA), and I'm telling you, all the time, that it's not in Israel’s best interest to give full and honest support to USA when it comes to ISIS.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

Wrong way round. In this case, country A is Israel (giving intel) and country B is USA. But that doesn't matter.

Don't assume anything. If you want, take into account that country B may be lying with their intelligence. Maybe they have invented a risk of laptops on planes in an effort to deliberately annoy corporate travellers.

The question remains... Is it wise that country A ignores the conditions of country B (or any other country) that they accepted when receiving the intel? How do you think that may affect country B's ability to gather intel from other countries in the future?

Or are you saying that it's sensible for country A to share the intel, because the intel may not be honest, and it's always a good idea to share dishonest intel?

Original comment

Wrong way round. In this case, country A is Israel (giving intel) and country B is USA. But that doesn't matter.

Don't assume anything. If you want, take into account that country B may be lying with their intelligence. Maybe they have invented a risk of laptops on planes in an effort to deliberately annoy corporate travellers.

The question remains... Is it wise that country A ignores the conditions of country B (or any other country) that they accepted when receiving the intel? How do you think that may affect country B's ability to gather intel from other countries in the future?

Or are you saying that it's sensible for country A to share the intel, because the intel may not be honest, and it's always a good idea to share dishonest intel?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

Depends on your objective.

Are you trying to destroy ISIS?

Or, are you trying to make Israel great?

Original comment

Depends on your objective.

Are you trying to destroy ISIS?

Or, are you trying to make Israel great?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

Geez. It doesn't matter. Stop banging your drum for a second and look at the underlying principle at stake. Country A and B, remember?

If the intel is fake, why is it a good idea to share it?

When would it ever be a good idea for a country to share intel (fake or otherwise) on a whim, regardless of the conditions under which it was given?

Original comment

Geez. It doesn't matter. Stop banging your drum for a second and look at the underlying principle at stake. Country A and B, remember?

If the intel is fake, why is it a good idea to share it?

When would it ever be a good idea for a country to share intel (fake or otherwise) on a whim, regardless of the conditions under which it was given?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

Stop looking at propaganda premise, and start looking at reality.

I said FULL and honest, which means not giving all information, or not devoting all of your resources to the task. They won’t lie, but they won’t share everything.

Relationship you are depicting exists between USA and Jordan, but it’s not focus of the video.

Original comment

Stop looking at propaganda premise, and start looking at reality.

I said FULL and honest, which means not giving all information, or not devoting all of your resources to the task. They won’t lie, but they won’t share everything.

Relationship you are depicting exists between USA and Jordan, but it’s not focus of the video.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)
Latest comment:

You're still avoiding it the question.

If the intel is not FULL and honest, why does that make it a good idea to share it, against the wishes of whoever gave it to you?

When would it ever be a good idea for a country to share intel (even or especially if it's not full and honest) regardless of the conditions under which it was given?

Original comment
Latest comment:

You're still avoiding it the question.

If the intel is not FULL and honest, why does that make it a good idea to share it, against the wishes of whoever gave it to you?

When would it ever be a good idea for a country to share intel (even or especially if it's not full and honest) regardless of the conditions under which it was given?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Smug Trump barges to the front at NATO meeting
Smug Trump barges to the front at NATO meeting
David Pakman - Saudis announce $100 million charity donation
David Pakman - Saudis announce $100 million charity donation
Trump's choice for chief USDA scientist is not a scientist
Trump's choice for chief USDA scientist is not a scientist
David Pakman - Trump's impeachment could be a disaster
David Pakman - Trump's impeachment could be a disaster
Trump's co-writer predicts President will resign
Trump's co-writer predicts President will resign