4 ms·

This is the price the US has to pay if it wants to remain the global hegemon. Keeping shipping routes open is table stakes in maintain their post-WW2 role. In a

This is the price the US has to pay if it wants to remain the global hegemon. Keeping shipping routes open is table stakes in maintain their post-WW2 role. In an ideal world the US would want the harmed countries, such as Egypt, to do more but the reality is they can't due to domestic politics. Egypt needs to preserve face for regime survival. So the US will do the heavy lifting here but the price will be diplomatic leverage later on. The US doesn't actually lose out, that leverage counts for something. This is the status quo, really.

corimaith 3y ago
Depends if that diplomatic leverage is real. After all, China is more than willing to fill in the void for any future demands.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  I believe it is real, the US has created a Western-aligned bloc in the Middle East, consisting of Egypt and some Gulf States, that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. This ensures oil supply to itself and its allies in the event of a war, and acts as a hedge against full Russia/China control of the region. One reason these states are playing ball with the US is because they expect things in return, for example the Saudis want access to nuclear energy technology. You can see the same leverage at play in East Asia, where the US is forcing good relations between South Korea and Japan. The military bases there cost a lot of money, but serve a deterrence purpose against China which is necessary for the US' policy of containment, and confer a level of soft influence that wouldn't otherwise be possible. The pacification of Japan and forced alignment with the US, resulting in 80 years of Japan-US trade, was certainly in the US' own net interests, even though it originally cost a lot of money to do it. Most things aren't zero sum (they are either very negative sum or very positive sum), and indirect benefits can be equally valuable to direct contributions.

corimaith 3y ago

Depends if that diplomatic leverage is real. After all, China is more than willing to fill in the void for any future demands.

hackerlight 3y ago
I believe it is real, the US has created a Western-aligned bloc in the Middle East, consisting of Egypt and some Gulf States, that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. This ensures oil supply to itself and its allies in the event of a war, and acts as a hedge against full Russia/China control of the region. One reason these states are playing ball with the US is because they expect things in return, for example the Saudis want access to nuclear energy technology. You can see the same leverage at play in East Asia, where the US is forcing good relations between South Korea and Japan. The military bases there cost a lot of money, but serve a deterrence purpose against China which is necessary for the US' policy of containment, and confer a level of soft influence that wouldn't otherwise be possible. The pacification of Japan and forced alignment with the US, resulting in 80 years of Japan-US trade, was certainly in the US' own net interests, even though it originally cost a lot of money to do it. Most things aren't zero sum (they are either very negative sum or very positive sum), and indirect benefits can be equally valuable to direct contributions.