- 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 than 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, bloc 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.