- It has successfully controlled Middle-Eastern oil to such an extent that it allowed the US to take the world economy hostage via the petro-dollar. — Tzeentch

You have a strange idea of hostage situations, but anyway.

Very typical to totally forget and sideline here the House of Saud, which is very crucial to the whole thing. The House of Saud, once a British protectorate, then made good relations with the rising Superpower and finally made Saudi-Aramco purely Saudi owned, without a clash with the West as had happened with Iran. That the Saudis went with the dollar when Nixon got out of the gold standard was very crucial for the US. Even if there is hostility towards the US in the country (starting famously with Osama bin Laden), the partnership that hasn't any ideological or cultural ties has continued as a real example of realpolitik.

You, and many others, are operating under an assumption that the 'forever wars' had some envisioned endpoint of permanent victory. They did not. Talk of 'spreading democracy', etc. was just the figleaf.

Causing chaos and destruction was the whole point - except in those countries that willfully kowtowed before Washington and basically assigned themselves voluntarily to vassal status. — Tzeentch

This is the typical anti-American rant, that doesn't at all grasp the reality of how expensive wars are ...especially when you end up losing them, just like Vietnam or Afghanistan.

If this would be such an incredibly successful foreign policy towards a region, then wouldn't it then be better according to you that the US would have to bomb or occupy West European countries in order to "prevent regional powers from rising through classic 'divide & rule' strategies, and by destroying any West European country that started showing signs of prosperity and a sense of independence".

Oh, the US would be so better then...

Yet on the contrary, the US was OK with European integration and an EU to rise. Forget the Marshall Plan? Why was this so good according to your "divide & rule"? And this makes the US far different from classic imperialist countries like Russia.

In truth in the long run "divide & rule" is a constant uphill battle and a perpetual drain on the economy and resources of any country/empire. Thus after exhausting the prosperity in these quite mindless wars, then empires falter.

I think we're talking past one another. I don't think Trump has any particular policy regarding the middle east. — frank

It seems so. We agree on this.

Perhaps the policy of Trump is be in the limelight at all times and make people/countries react to your actions?

Maybe. What I was pointing out is that Trump probably wouldn't have made any decision if it weren't for people briefing him on world events like his opinion is supposed to be of consequence. His focus is more domestic. The tariffs may have seemed like a foreign policy, but it wasn't really. It's about his ideas about taking the US back to the 1970s in terms of industrialization.

You have a strange idea of hostage situations, but anyway.

Very typical to totally forget and sideline here the House of Saud, which is very crucial to the whole thing. The House of Saud, once a British protectorate, then made good relations with the rising Superpower and finally made Saudi-Aramco purely Saudi owned, without a clash with the West as had happened with Iran. That the Saudis went with the dollar when Nixon got out of the gold standard was very crucial for the US. Even if there is hostility towards the US in the country (starting famously with Osama bin Laden), the partnership that hasn't any ideological or cultural ties has continued as a real example of realpolitik. — ssu

The reason is obvious, and I'm glad you asked - Saudi Arabia, with its population of only roughly 30 million, is the perfect US "ally" because it is not a serious candidate for being a great/regional power.

Supporting minor powers in order to balance against the bigger ones is classic balance of power politics, and Saudi Arabia is a textbook example.

If this would be such an incredibly successful foreign policy towards a region, then wouldn't it then be better according to you that the US would have to bomb or occupy West European countries in order to "prevent regional powers from rising through classic 'divide & rule' strategies, and by destroying any West European country that started showing signs of prosperity and a sense of independence".

Oh, the US would be so better then...

Yet on the contrary, the US was OK with European integration and an EU to rise. Forget the Marshall Plan? Why was this so good according to your "divide & rule"? And this makes the US far different from classic imperialist countries like Russia.

In truth in the long run "divide & rule" is a constant uphill battle and a perpetual drain on the economy and resources of any country/empire. Thus after exhausting the prosperity in these quite mindless wars, then empires falter. — ssu

Europe willingly subjugated itself to the US (it didn't have a huge amount of options post-WII), and when a part of the world willingly throws itself in your lap that is of course a geopolitical wet dream. That's a unique situation and not something that is easily replicated - especially not in the Middle-East.

In terms of wars being "expensive", this entirely depends on the ways in which the war is profitable.

Vietnam was a costly, pointless failure that greatly harmed the US. The fact that the defeat greatly and observably harmed the US I view as a strong indicator that 'failure' is the appropriate word here.

With Afghanistan and various other interventions, I don't agree they were failures. The US successfully created failed states all over the world to deny resources, bloc power and trade corridors. Any damage the US may have suffered from the eventual retreat was superficial. So in these cases the geopolitical benefit far outweighed the cost. Again, that's why they keep doing it over and over, and over.

Europe willingly subjugated itself to the US (it didn't have a huge amount of options post-WII) — Tzeentch

As Ukraine should willingly subjugate itself to Russia. What other options does Ukraine have? Neither Europeans nor the US are offering other options to Ukraine than subjugating itself to Russia, right? That's why Europeans and the US are helping Ukraine fight against Russia, instead of supporting Russia fight against Ukraine, right?

and when a part of the world willingly throws itself in your lap that is of course a geopolitical wet dream. — Tzeentch

Why should Europeans and the US deny such wet dreams to Russia which wants to annex only a small portion of Ukraine, not the entire Ukraine, just a small portion that is directly linked to the control of the Black Sea? Europeans and the US should serve Russia's wet dreams, right?
If that means sacrificing Europeans and the US geopolitical wet dreams, that's not an excuse for denying Russia's wet dreams, right?

That's a unique situation and not something that is easily replicated - especially not in the Middle-East. — Tzeentch

But if it is difficult for the US then it is difficult for Russia and China too, right? And if Russia and China are meddling anyways in the Middle-East, why shouldn't the US?

In terms of wars being "expensive", this entirely depends on the ways in which the war is profitable. — Tzeentch

Let us know about the ways the war is profitable to Iran, Russia and China.
After you finish with the US and Israel, of course. Take your time.

The US successfully created failed states all over the world to deny resources, bloc power and trade corridors — Tzeentch

On the contrary Russia and Iran created successful states all over the world to grant those states resources, block competing powers and trade corridors.

Europeans and the US should serve Russia's wet dreams, right? — neomac

You're playing the wrong game.

It is wrong for Russia to do what it's doing, on the view of the majority of the geopolitical sphere. No one will support that. It's potentially pragmatic in terms of appeasing a dictatorial weirdo who can't keep his shit together, but otherwise, It would be a very cowardly move. That's why the world wont service Russian's continually hostile attitudes to geopolitics. Sometimes, it is right to deny those what they want.

Maybe you didn't get the sarcastic tone of my post.
Whatever plausible point Tzeench has, it is then elaborated through his personal ideological glasses and with such an arrogance that it exposes his own arguments to easy dialectical retorts. Discrediting interlocutors and silence treatment are the next predictable steps from his part since he feels defenseless against such dialectical retorts.
Said that, I would add that in political debates ideological views are part of the game but also part of the problem to the extent they nurture conflicts. So in a philosophy forum like this one it would be more suitable (expected? beneficial? fun?) to take a philosophical approach about political debates, take a step back and resist the temptation to (explicitly or implicitly) reason in terms of what is right or wrong (which is still political propaganda) but in terms of what one wants and what on can get in a way that equally applies to ALL ideological conflicting views at hand (INCLUDING the ideological views one supports).

Oh, well yeah, totally my bad.

So in a philosophy forum like this one it would be more suitable... to take a philosophical approach about political debates, take a step back and resist the temptation to... reason in terms of what is right or wrong...but in terms of what one wants and what on can get in a way that equally applies to ALL ideological conflicting views at hand — neomac

Setting side some extremely weak responses about how the conversations actually run, yeah, 100%. Probably my least-enjoyed aspect of this place is the clear ideological capture plenty of posters are under.

There are now many indications that the US and Israel are about to launch another unprovoked war on Iran in the coming weeks.

The concrete result so far is that it is pushing Iran towards the Russians and the Chinese, who are reportedly ramping up their support for Iran - something which Tehran had not been overly eager for in the past.

A massive US military buildup suggests whatever is about to go down is much bigger than the Twelve-Day War of 2025.

Diplomacy is likely being used as a cover, as it was in 2025 also, to keep some measure of strategic ambiguity, and suggestions of disagreements between the US and Israel are probably of the same nature.


The goal of the US and Israel is of course singularly to achieve chaos in Iran. It achieves chaos by saying it wants to enact 'regime change', which will in practice will turn into nothing other than an exercise in destabilizing the country.

Iran is viewed by Israel as a threat to its regional dominance, and to the US it represents a vital land-based trade connector between the Middle-East, India, Russia and China which it cannot directly control and thus must be destroyed.

Note that creating a general state of chaos, as the US and Israel successfully did in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. will be sufficient to achieve both goals.

While the Russians and the Chinese will probably be able to ensure the survival of the Iranian regime, and any would-be replacement government will see resistance as far as the eye can see and is unlikely to survive over the long-term, this all fits neatly into the US-Israeli plan for chaos.

The U.S. would have gone in, but the Arab states are worried about destabilisation in the region. There is big money invested in the Arab States, anything which could disrupt that, or put off investors will be seen as a big no no.
I’m expecting Isreal to start it off any day now though and drag the U.S. into it.

Corporate interests have little if anything to do with it. The Arab states should be grateful they're allowed to exist at all, and haven't been bombed into ashes or thrown into chaos like the US did with all their neighbors.

If the US goes to war with Iran, it will be because US wants it, and for no other reason.

Sure, it will try to use Israel as the patsy, but Israel doesn't have the power to drag the US into a war. Israel is only allowed to play that role to provide the US with plausible deniability - so the US can pretend its being forced while in fact it is simply rolling out its own machiavellians plan like it always has.

A massive US military buildup suggests whatever is about to go down is much bigger than the Twelve-Day War of 2025. — Tzeentch

If (or when) three US aircraft carriers are deployed to the area, that indeed is ominous. Now there's two, I think. And a lot of USAF aircraft stationed all around the Middle-East.

For the Trump the high from the successful Venezuela operation has likely passed and Trump wants the global attention being on his actions. But then, it's just an air campaign. I guess there's again a lot of hopeful thinking just what the objectives here would be. But then again, Trump is quite open for bribes, so perhaps Iran should sell some oil through the Trump family...

Of course this shows how hilariously wrong were all those that believed that Trump was against forever wars and reckless military expeditions as he is now openly calling for regime change in Iran.

Corporate interests have little if anything to do with it. The Arab states should be grateful they're allowed to exist at all, and haven't been bombed into ashes or thrown into chaos like the US did with all their neighbors.

Corporate interests are not the primary issue here. We live in a world of oligarchs now and Trump likes to hobnob with them. Whatever you say about dark forces within the U.S., Trump is calling the shots on this one, just like with Venezuela. Also you do realise that the Arab states are the money laundering and crypto capitals of the world.
Now think about how your common, or garden oligarch might feel about his favourite playground becoming a war zone.

Israel doesn't have the power to drag the US into a war — Tzeentch

:chin:

It just fails the common sense test.

Israel is a tiny country with some seven million inhabitants, that is geopolitically completely compromised and has put itself in a situation of total reliance on the United States.

Yes, there's the Israel lobby, but I think its power is vastly overstated. If you want to argue the lobby has the power to single-handedly sway the world's biggest superpower, I need to be shown something concrete that accounts for that kind of power.

Personally, I don't buy it. I am sooner inclined to view the whole "powerful Israel" yarn as a cover for the United States to excuse its inexcusable forever wars which are blatant attempts at disrupting trade on the Eurasian continent to ensure Eurasia cannot form land-based alternatives to the maritime trade which of course the US dominates - this is Heartland theory.

Yes, there's the Israel lobby, but I think its power is vastly overstated. — Tzeentch

I think it’s probably understated, so this one may be an agree to disagree situation. You’re familiar with Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy I imagine. If you can read that while looking at US’s history and still be unconvinced, there’s not too much left to debate.

Needless to say, the claim isn’t that the US has no accountability, or isn’t serving its own interests in supporting Israel. That’s certainly true. Let it also be noted that other thinkers who I respect, like Noam Chomsky, weren’t entirely convinced of the thesis in the book mentioned above. I don’t think the Israel lobby accounts for everything, but when it comes to Gaza or Iran, I think their sway is very powerful.

You’re familiar with Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy I imagine. If you can read that while looking at US’s history and still be unconvinced, there’s not too much left to debate. — Mikie

I'm aware of Mearsheimer's opinion on the topic, but as far as I recall he doesn't provided a concrete source for the alleged power of the lobby either.

Meanwhile, the US source of power over Israel is very concrete.

I'm sure you understand the problem here and don't find this objection unreasonable.


Don't get me wrong, the Israel lobby is powerful for a lobby, but there's an extent to what lobbying can achieve and what is being ascribed to the lobby far exceeds it, in my opinion.


I like Mearsheimer's concrete analysis on things, but in his conclusions he leans too much towards explanations that exculpate the US; incompetence, evil lobbies, etc.

However, there are theories and analysts who actually show the red lines running through US geopolitics - and I frequently describe them here - which paint a different picture.

I think a common mistake people make is thinking that they can easily understand the machinations of what was formerly the most powerful global empire. If that were so easy, we wouldn't have this giant laundry list of countries that the US succesfully led down the path of their own destruction, all while the US itself remained conspicuously at the top.


Anyway, I'm hoping for more debate on this topic. I don't think your position is unreasonable, and I'm prepared to change my mind on this.

I'm sure you understand the problem here and don't find this objection unreasonable. — Tzeentch

Certainly not unreasonable. It’s just hard for me to look at what happened in Gaza, in particular, and not feel as though the lobby had great sway in that case. There are others, of course.

But you’re right, there aren’t easy explanations. The US government is influenced by many things, and the people running it have varying interests. Trump, for example, in my view cares more about being popular and knows the public is wary of war— hence these quick ventures into bombing Iran and kidnapping Maduro.

I’m not entirely sure Israel even wants a conflict with Iran right now, to boot.

Anyway, I'm hoping for more debate on this topic. I don't think your position is unreasonable, and I'm prepared to change my mind on this. — Tzeentch

Me too— but first I think it’s important to take into account what we’re not saying. After what you said, I think it’s fairly clear you don’t dismiss the lobby as weak, and I don’t dismiss other influences and interests in US foreign policy.

So maybe the real debate should be about the historical record on Israel’s lobby on specific actions in the Middle East and whether the lobby had an outsized effect, particularly to the point of being counter to other US interests. I think there’s a good case to be made there.

To bring it back to the thread topic: I think it’s the Israeli’s who care about Iran more than the US. They particularly afraid of them getting nuclear capabilities. I think they generally want to US to wipe them out, put in a puppet government like before ‘79, and that’s the reason there’s conflict with Iran. But I’m a bit surprised at this buildup right now. Seems like odd timing and I’m not sure what the goal is. Does the US really think they can just go in and topple the regime? Do they want boots on the ground? I don’t think so. Yet here we are.

I think Gaza is a clear example of "horse-trading".

Israel continues to accept its role as Uncle Sam's bloodhound in the Middle-East - with the massive geopolitical risks that it entails for itself - and in return the US supports Israel. It is often said the US does so 'unconditionally', but there is of course a condition: that Israel remains useful to the US.

The Israeli government communicates to Washington what it wants in return, and it is the job of the Israel lobby to garner support and to quash critical voices as much as possible.


Note that the lobby doesn't create US policy. Washington does. Washington wants Israel to continue to exist, and it wants Israel to be warlike and internally stable to fulfill its role, hence why it doesn't mind supporting Israel in what is commonly understood to be genocide.

Note also that since the US needs Israel to be jingoist/ultranationalist to fulfill its purpose, it likely views Israeli extremism as 'par for the course' - perhaps even desirable, because how are you going to court a nation to follow down a path of its own destruction without first turning them into irrational extremists? Support for ultranationalist elements is a recurring theme in US proxy wars, and that is no coincidence.


All we've seen over the last decades is the US tacitly supporting Israel in its slow method of ethnic cleansing and genocide, while keeping just enough distance not to appear directly responsible. Washington is simply engaging in what it fully understands to be highly controversial policy, while conducting damage control to its reputation - and it has done so quite successfully, I will add.

Yes, there are rows, but some finger-wagging in the UN isn't going to impress Washington.

I’m not entirely sure Israel even wants a conflict with Iran right now, to boot. — Mikie

They definitely do. Supposed 'disagreements' between Washington and Tel Aviv are just theatre to keep the Iranians guessing and to give the airs of reluctance in the matter.

Iran is on the verge of escaping the 'intervention window', and a war now might be the final opportunity for the US and Israel to reset the balance of power in the Middle-East one last time before an intervention in Iran becomes an unfeasible affair (most notably because as China, Russia and India grow more powerful, the US can no longer afford costly interventions against secondary adversaries).

The Iranians have now also accepted more support from the Chinese and the Russians, which expedites its escape from the intervention window, while simultaneously increasing the sense of urgency in Washington and Tel Aviv.

So maybe the real debate should be about the historical record on Israel’s lobby on specific actions in the Middle East and whether the lobby had an outsized effect, particularly to the point of being counter to other US interests. I think there’s a good case to be made there. — Mikie

If you want to call the lobby's influence 'outsized', I won't argue with that. It is a powerful lobby, and the historical record leaves little room for debate as far as I'm concerned.

I just think it would be a mistake to believe this constitutes Israel "dragging" the US into wars it doesn't want to fight. The US wants these wars too; it just doesn't want things to look that way.

I think it’s the Israeli’s who care about Iran more than the US. — Mikie

Perhaps, but only marginally. Iran is a critical link in Eurasian land-based trade, which would become of extreme importance in the case of a maritime blockade of China.

But I’m a bit surprised at this buildup right now. Seems like odd timing and I’m not sure what the goal is. Does the US really think they can just go in and topple the regime? Do they want boots on the ground? I don’t think so. Yet here we are. — Mikie

The resilience of the Iranian government is a big question mark.

I think what the US and Israel are banking on is that a significant air and naval campaign combined with all sorts of 'cloak & dagger' operations will be enough to shake the regime and cause an uprising among the population.

And that that would be enough to throw Iran into chaos for the foreseeable future - sowing chaos of course being the real goal here, since direct control is pretty much out of the question.