4 ms·
> If the KSA quits, America can pull its security guarantee and the regime falls. Well, that's a pretty shitty outcome for the US, so the KSA has a ton of leve
by astrodust 10y ago
> If the KSA quits, America can pull its security guarantee and the regime falls.
Well, that's a pretty shitty outcome for the US, so the KSA has a ton of leverage here and they know it.
> The United States was 61% energy independent in 2013, with net energy imports falling...
Yes, and this might be one of the reasons that Saudi oil prices were pushed down. Shale oil and fracking was becoming a problem and they moved to correct that. This also took care of the Canada problem as well, setting back development by another decade.
Don't forget the oil market is world-wide. The US could be self-sufficient but if oil is crazy expensive because Saudi Arabia is on fire that will wreck the economy.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> the KSA has a ton of leverage No, they don't. It's an existential question versus inconvenience. Trashing the KSA could be spun as a national security or human rights decision. > the oil market is world-wide Trashing the KSA would be expensive, but not catastrophic. Rising oil prices would help American exporters. Furthermore, we have laws on our books to ban the export of crude; WTI could be low while Brent soars.
- M_Grey 10y agoSeriously... we just ate upwards of $6 trillion on a couple of wars that changed nothing for the better, and frankly people already seem largely over it, even as those wars are far from over. Clearly the public is not above being led by the nose when it comes to bombing people they've never met, don't identify with, and maybe even are a bit scared of.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoI don't see why dropping support for the House of Saud would require we bomb anyone. We'd garrison Israel, the UAE and Kuwait and let Saudi Arabia consume itself from within. The Kingdom depends on American arms. If we cut those sales off, their security infrastructure starts failing within weeks. My fundamental point is that American influence over the Saudis shadows any Saudi influence on America.
- M_Grey 10y agoI agree with you completely. I only mean that since Americans have shown willingness to commit to far more in the name of far less, this would be a trivial thing to lead them into.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoPardon me! (I saw your name and re-read my arguments before responding. I'm used to your points being thorough.)
- M_Grey 10y agoNo pardon necessary, I was being unclear. I can only plead tiredness, and thank you for finding my usual run of post thorough.
- WildUtah 10y agoThe Saudi Terror Clan spends tens of billions of dollars every year on bribing US politicians and retired politicians and military men. It's true that the US people would be fine without any alliance with the STC, but US policy isn't set by the American people. US policy is set by politicians, bureaucrats, and military leaders. And STC has them well into its palm. That's why the STC can attack us on our own soil, kill thousands of us, and get thanked and rewarded by our leaders.
- astrodust 10y agoIt's easy to say everything's fine now when the ramifications of this have not played out. Interest rates are stupidly low now, borrowing trillions has never been easier. If they get as high as they did in the 1980s there will be blood in the streets.
- PeterisP 10y agoWhat is a new regime going to do significantly differently? No matter who rules, they are going to pump and sell the oil. Heck, even the ISIS does that with oil under their control.