The silly season - the media preoccupation with an endless and rather brainless array of summer stories – was up to its usual standard this year; little of significance happened in NZ politics with our politicians (both sides) taking their holiday break ahead of what is bound to be a demanding year dominated by preparing for and then campaigning day in and day out for the 2020 election. But that media insouciance did not apply internationally.

One major event happened in the always volatile Middle East. For a few nerve-racking days following the the assassination of a top Iranian General by an American drone the world came frighteningly close to open war between Iran and the USA. There were threats a-plenty.

Why write a blog on American foreign policy you may well ask. The reason is simple. Although New Zealand often punches above its weight in international circles, America is so huge that its foreign policy affects us all.

We heard about the detail of what happened but why? Why is the United Sates such an implacable enemy of Iran? Why does America (and I include the foreign policy elites as well as the mindless ‘wherever America goes and whatever it does is right’ brigade) support Saudi Arabia and stay in a seemingly constant state of hostility with Iran?

The US gave a shifting justification for assassinating Qasem Soleimani of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Quds Force, let alone the nine others also killed in the drone strike. First it was to stop an "imminent attack", then later stating: "We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where." Despite threats of severe retaliation for any response resounding from the White House, Iran subsequently fired rockets at a US base in Iraq.

After a breathless wait, the two sides thankfully pulled back.

What is the reason the US is so against Iran? Why does the US have such a cooperative relationship with Saudi Arabia while being on the brink of war with Iran? Is there any crucial interest at stake?

Saudi Arabia and Iran are implacable enemies. The US, with the Western World being dragged along, sides with the Saudis. How and why do we end up on that side?

One reason for the Saudi/Iran antagonism is a religious difference. They are both Muslim but the Saudi’s are Sunni muslims and Iran are Shia. Sunni’s and Shia have been more or less constantly fighting each since the disputed decision from the earliest days of Islam about whether the Caliph should be a direct descendant of Mohammed (Shia) or chosen from the broader community of the believers (Sunni). There is no sensible reason why this divergence should drive America’s foreign policy. This is like taking sides in the Catholic/Protestant dispute.

Another reason often cited is oil. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have lots of oil. But with the shale oil in Nebraska the US is now self sufficient for oil in any event. Next year the USA will be actually exporting quite a lot of oil. Maybe it’s the Americans generously protecting Europe’s thirst for oil, or China’s or India’s. But the Americans would not risk war to aid China or India. Under the present US leadership they show surprisingly little sympathy for Europe. So that does not explain why the US should be constantly at total odds with Iran.

Could it be to protect Israel? The US does that, but again taking sides in the Saudi/Iranian dispute doesn’t particularly fit logically. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran would get rid of Israel if they could. The Saudi’s shut up more about that to assuage American opinion, but beneath that quiet exterior they feel the anti-Israel sentiment as much as Iranians, more so in a way as the Palestinians are mostly Sunni.

We are told it is because Iran supports terrorist groups. They do that (although to Iran they a revolutionary movements). But over time Saudi money has funded all sorts of anti-Western and anti-Israel groups that resort to terror.

Saudi Arabian money and people were the source of most of the funding and most terrorists behind the 9/11 attack in America. Besides, a few months back they murdered a Saudi Arabian American domiciled journalist in their embassy in Ankara. The whole lot of them are perfectly capable of being murderous thugs. The Shah who American used to support was a frequent user of firing squads for people he did not like or trust. So if killing off murderous thugs drives the policy they show one-sided inconsistency if they just hit Iran.

Or could it be that the Americans are not driven by a policy but by an impetuous president who realises that the occasional drone assassination of a loudly denounced “enemy of America” makes him look like a “no-nonsense” leader? One whose re-election chances will be enhanced by the attention of the public being diverted from more pressing domestic issues?

I suspect the latter. Polls apparently show American voters do not support a war with Iran - I bloody hope they are right.