Straight out the best article you have written and the most relevant question. What is the security architecture the USA wants to leave behind for the gulf.
Seriously, a defense pact between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey? It’s more like a vanity project that will fail as the first shots are fired!
Would Turkey and the Saudi’s defend Pakistan from Indian aggression? I think not! It’s a coalition of three countries which have never integrated their armies, or conducted joint operations—it would be a sh*t show; to say the least. The only real deterrence is Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella—but even that is a question mark? For all we know Iran is close to carrying out a nuclear test, and this will only embolden them further to go nuclear.
Not to mention, Pakistan is unstable. Inflation shot back up to over 11%, and the Saudi’s have a strong relationship with the Indian’s—so don’t expect them to defend Islamabad’s interests when it comes to Pakistan’s biggest rival in the region.
This is clearly a pact to keep Iran in line; however, with Iranian proxies in the region are capable of carrying out asymmetrical operations, so I hardly believe it will be as effective as intelligence analysts claim it to be. IMHO…:)
I’d still be interested in your answer to the first half of the first question: “What would a realistic U.S. exit from the Iran war look like?” By “realistic,” I’m thinking of an exit scenario that you believe has the largest degree of subjective probability associated with it. Trump might ‘declare victory’ and recall troops and military assets, registering no objection to Iran administering Hormuz. Or Trump might try to appeal to Khamenei’s apparent prioritization of ‘the people’s livelihoods,’ presumably referring to economic issues, and offer significant financial inducements to open the Strait. Or he might try bombing civilian infrastructure. ‘Low-keying it’ doesn’t seem sufficient for moving to the next phase. Or maybe Trump has decided to let Iran make the next move, for whatever reason. Trump may be trapped, but it seems he still has options in front of him, even if none of them are good. Which do you suppose he’s likely to exercise?
This morning: the Iranians appointed new leaders to their defense and national security agencies with the announced goal of improving Iran’s offensive & deterrent capabilities; an advisor to the Iranian speaker posted a statement declaring Iran will not negotiate with the US until Trump is gone in ‘29. Sounds like we are in for a long haul. (Pretty much what the E-Trap predicts.) Given our current lebel of fiscal debt, if Hormuz is closed until ‘29, won’t Trump’s successor be pretty much in the same position Antony Eden found himself in late 1956? No financial resources available to influence the military or diplomatic landscape?
Can you consider a world where Iran could develop long range missiles that could hit any country, close at will Ormuz, support proxies that could close the red sea? If you answer no, this dictate what will follow a continuation of the war and eventually the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Alternatively, Türkiye and the Saoudis will get in with an US Air support. If this is not the case Iran will prevail and then the position of Israël will be very strong in the US since it will be the only US asset in the region, the only base. No doubt that if Iran attacks Israël it will retaliate with force. May I remind you that during WW2 the galon was over 4$ (actualised) and there were restrictions. I find your approach very pessimistic.
How realistically can the US achieve a more "stable regional system by January 2029" if our foreign policy is still coupled to that of Israel?
Straight out the best article you have written and the most relevant question. What is the security architecture the USA wants to leave behind for the gulf.
Seriously, a defense pact between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey? It’s more like a vanity project that will fail as the first shots are fired!
Would Turkey and the Saudi’s defend Pakistan from Indian aggression? I think not! It’s a coalition of three countries which have never integrated their armies, or conducted joint operations—it would be a sh*t show; to say the least. The only real deterrence is Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella—but even that is a question mark? For all we know Iran is close to carrying out a nuclear test, and this will only embolden them further to go nuclear.
Not to mention, Pakistan is unstable. Inflation shot back up to over 11%, and the Saudi’s have a strong relationship with the Indian’s—so don’t expect them to defend Islamabad’s interests when it comes to Pakistan’s biggest rival in the region.
This is clearly a pact to keep Iran in line; however, with Iranian proxies in the region are capable of carrying out asymmetrical operations, so I hardly believe it will be as effective as intelligence analysts claim it to be. IMHO…:)
I’d still be interested in your answer to the first half of the first question: “What would a realistic U.S. exit from the Iran war look like?” By “realistic,” I’m thinking of an exit scenario that you believe has the largest degree of subjective probability associated with it. Trump might ‘declare victory’ and recall troops and military assets, registering no objection to Iran administering Hormuz. Or Trump might try to appeal to Khamenei’s apparent prioritization of ‘the people’s livelihoods,’ presumably referring to economic issues, and offer significant financial inducements to open the Strait. Or he might try bombing civilian infrastructure. ‘Low-keying it’ doesn’t seem sufficient for moving to the next phase. Or maybe Trump has decided to let Iran make the next move, for whatever reason. Trump may be trapped, but it seems he still has options in front of him, even if none of them are good. Which do you suppose he’s likely to exercise?
This morning: the Iranians appointed new leaders to their defense and national security agencies with the announced goal of improving Iran’s offensive & deterrent capabilities; an advisor to the Iranian speaker posted a statement declaring Iran will not negotiate with the US until Trump is gone in ‘29. Sounds like we are in for a long haul. (Pretty much what the E-Trap predicts.) Given our current lebel of fiscal debt, if Hormuz is closed until ‘29, won’t Trump’s successor be pretty much in the same position Antony Eden found himself in late 1956? No financial resources available to influence the military or diplomatic landscape?
Can you consider a world where Iran could develop long range missiles that could hit any country, close at will Ormuz, support proxies that could close the red sea? If you answer no, this dictate what will follow a continuation of the war and eventually the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Alternatively, Türkiye and the Saoudis will get in with an US Air support. If this is not the case Iran will prevail and then the position of Israël will be very strong in the US since it will be the only US asset in the region, the only base. No doubt that if Iran attacks Israël it will retaliate with force. May I remind you that during WW2 the galon was over 4$ (actualised) and there were restrictions. I find your approach very pessimistic.