4 ms·
It's supposed to show to regional US allies that the American military cannot really protect them, pushing them to apply pressure to end the war in the short te
by toyg 7mo ago
It's supposed to show to regional US allies that the American military cannot really protect them, pushing them to apply pressure to end the war in the short term, and to cool their relationship with the US and Israel in the long term.
It has had some effect; the emirates are desperate to find a way out of this conflict, and various figures have publicly said "the system of alliances [with the US] has worked but needs to be modernized" - i.e. we can't allow Americans to do what they want anymore.
- geraneum 7mo agoDo Americans do what they want because they are “allowed” by gulf states?
- greggoB 7mo agoIt (normally) has an effect on the military calculus - e.g. if the US weren't allowed to have military bases in these countries, the possibility to take such action seems less plausible.
- geraneum 7mo agoCorrect, but that's not my point. My point is whether the Gulf States can realistically dictate what the US does. Perhaps they can affect US actions, but I doubt it's that cut and dried.
- toyg 7mo agoNobody can realistically maintain bases in a country without some sort of agreement with the local government (and a certain level of tolerance from the population at large) or an expensive full-on occupation. As far as I know, there is a single US base on a territory where the local government does not want it (Guantanamo, Cuba), literally on the doorstep - anywhere else would be prohibitive to maintain long-term hostile occupation. Everything else is maintained and operated in agreement with local authorities - which is why the US, at the moment, cannot use Spanish bases and Diego Garcia to wage war on Iran. Even Saudi bases have been blocked in the past (notably to invade Iraq). Without long-term bases, it becomes extremely difficult to project power with continuity. Can you still do the occasional special op, like killing Osama? Sure, but you can't do things like ensuring free navigation (and hence the flow of resources and goods) and signal intelligence gets so much harder.
- 8note 7mo agothe mask can be taken off at least, that the bases are there so that americans can kill the gulf state leaders in a moment's notice, rather than for any defenses.
- guerrilla 7mo agoYou need to think that all the way through. The answer is obviously yes. Yemen is a perfect example. Iran is obviously as well. Afghanistan another great case. It is certainly possible to resist US pressure. Iran is asking the gulf countries to do that. Imagine how much better they would all be able to resist the US together as well, better than each alone.
- hunterpayne 7mo agoThe gulf countries hate Iran and have for a very very long time, longer than even the concept of the west has existed. Iran throwing around ballistic missiles is far more like a temper tantrum than a viable military strategy. And its a strategic gift to Trump. Whether he/we can take advantage of that, IDK.
- actionfromafar 7mo agoI'm not so sure it's a strategic gift for Trump. Before the war (oh, sorry, I meant the "special military operation") everything was largely fine for the Gulf states. Now, it's not.
- DANmode 7mo agoWho is “we”, just for reader clarity?
- actionfromafar 7mo agoI guess US oil producers make a lot of money right now. I think those must be the "we make a lot of money" Trump refers to.
- geraneum 7mo ago> The answer is obviously yes. Of course it isn't. In reality, being able to resist requires power. Power that's gained more or less independently such as Iran's. Gulf states should be in a position of power to able to resist US presence. The power they have right now is mostly gained through the help of USA and its allies. It's not the same as Iran. Not even close.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]