The article is dry recitation of polling numbers, but the geopolitical implications of this shift are staggering.
For example, the Saudis have long relied on their alliance with the US for defense, allowing them to plow their prodigious oil wealth into vanity projects like ski resorts in the desert and 100-km-lomg skyscrapers. But if they feel they can't rely on the US anymore (and after the past month, can they?), they could easily invest in building their own nuclear weapons instead. Israel would obviously not tolerate this, but even they would likely hesitate to pick a fight with the one country in the region that can (and does) outspend them 2x on defence.
While I agree, nuclear weapons have their own drawbacks and unless you invest in the full triad, just having siloes may even make you more of a victim (that's their main function anyway).
What they can and have started to do is to make deals with partners like Ukraine to diversify their defense systems so they are independent from the USA.
As Iran has shown, you don't need nukes, just a means of cutting off, or at least severely restricting, the flow of oil. All Saudi needs to do is let the US and/or the world know that if they do/don't do X the taps turn off, as Iran has shown. That's a more powerful weapon than having a few sanctions-triggering bombs.
America has lost the entire world. Everyone has realized that they can't depend on the US as much as they did and are looking to distance themselves.
It's too bad, because the unity that we had before Trump was great for peace, but now the rule of the strong is plunging the world back into wars and uncertainty.
These conversations are always interesting. Most treat the world as a single variable problem when, in reality, it is an exceedingly complex multivariate problem. And the Arab world sure is responsible for a large number of variables to decipher reality from a simple article that ignores so much.
Others have mentioned China as a benevolent actor of sorts. I find this interesting, maybe even laughable. China is not interested in coming to the aid of anyone in the world. I am not saying this to criticize China. I believe this is purely a statement of fact: They don't do that.
If we pulled it forward to modern times, China, for example, would not put it all on the table and lose nearly 500K lives to save Europe in a world war. They exist for one thing, and one thing only: To do business that benefits their nation. And that's it.
Again, not being critical, just stating what I believe to be a fact. I can also say that I envy that focus to some extent. It's "China first" to an extreme level.
OK, so, if we accept my premise: Who in the world would come to the aid of societies in need?
Let's also agree that perfection does not and will note ever exist on this planet. So, insisting on perfect interventions, actions and outcomes is not rational. We are --humanity-- not perfect.
Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role. Europe has self-decimated over the decades in terms of these capabilities. So, they can't. Africa? Asia? Who's left? Nobody.
Without a doubt, the Arab world --or Middle East in general-- has been a complex neighborhood for quite some time. Yet, things have gotten massively worse when a country like Iran sponsors murderous terrorists in the region and --as confirmed by the current conflict-- makes it a point to build-up a Middle-East-Annihilation arsenal of missiles that could have almost no other purpose than to obliterate everything around them and even as far as Europe.
And then you add the potential for some of these missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
And then you add a regime that simply has not been a rational actor.
So, what do you do? Do you wait until they are a nuclear power? Just like we waited for Hitler to come to power and kill millions of Jews and others? How much slack do you give a regime who's publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?
Without a doubt, the actions of the last month or so have not been perfect. They will not be. That's just reality. For example, I don't understand how sinking their entire navy, destroying their air force, destroying their anti-aircraft capabilities, some 20,000 sorties and targets later...we still have to make a deal with them to keep Hormuz open.
How does that happen? Drones and missiles, of course. What is remarkable is that you'd think we would have mitigated that danger to the point where the international waters of the strait would no longer be threatened. I don't understand why stupid reporters never ask this question. Well, I answered it right there.
And yet, to go back to the thought: Who else but the US could have even approached setting Iran back far enough to make the neighborhood less of an issue? China? They would never. They have happily been selling Iran weapons hardware and know-how. They do not exist to benefit the rest of the world. China first. That's the policy.
Can anyone imagine just how far worse --horrific, really-- this would be if Iran had gone nuclear in the next few months or couple of years? This would truly be unimaginable. We've already seen that NATO does not seem to be willing to engage and might be largely useless.
So, while not perfect, at this point in time I believe that this is one of those "treating the cancer early" scenarios. Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics. This, while not ideal, not perfect, not desirable, not pretty, is likely a good thing. Now it has to end with the right outcome, whose minimum definition is to denuclearize Iran. From there, it would be nice to see the wonderful Iranian people get out from under the oppression they have been living under for so long. If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful. Same with Venezuelans, BTW.
> Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics.
No, they were not. No more than Saddam was close to having WMDs. Your entire premise is based on Israeli lies.
> How much slack do you give a regime whose publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?
How about you answer what we are supposed to do with regimes whose actual actions over the last 80 years have been the destruction of others? I'm talking about the US and Israel, btw.
> If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful
How many of them actually live in Iran? I'm sure the monarchists in LA love that the country is being leveled.
You do realize that the Iranian government (whatever remains of it) is actually insisting, as a condition, that their nuclear materials not be removed from the country?
Burden of proof lies on the accuser. There is no proof. Just the same Israeli lie that Iran is weeks away, for years and years.
Demanding the sovereignty to enrich nuclear materials for energy purposes does not mean they have or want nukes. They won't be able to have the triad anyway, so you can argue having a nuke would be a strategic misstep since they can't guarantee MAD anyway. Better to be able to utilize your large rocket arsenal to wage war and not have people think you are launching a first strike.
Stop trolling. You are speaking like the theocratic Iranian regime were saints building gardens and farms. C'mon. Who do you think you are fooling. They funded nearly all of the terrorism that has been causing so much mayhem in the Middle East and beyond. Now, if you are a Jew hater, so be it. There's nothing I can say to make you accept that Israel could not invent terrorists launching HUNDREDS of missiles into their territory. Yet, you are convinced that Iran is a good actor in world politics that was not within reach of something that could have launched us into and unthinkable version of WW3.
So be it. You are free to believe whatever you wish.
> Yeah, if you only subscribe to the US view of the world, then of course the US are the good guys.
Kindly show me where I said that "the US are the good guys".
There are no good guys in this crap. The world is a mess. And you cannot do any of this without things getting messy.
As for my opinion: As a US citizen, I would be perfectly fine with the US closing down all military bases in Europe and elsewhere. Bring it all home.
If Europe wants to defend their territory, they should do it themselves. The US funds somewhere around 70% of NATO. We should exit that thankless organization. Countries like Spain can face reality on their own. We can use the money at home. I don't know how much we spend on all the bases around the world. I'd shut them all down. Again, can invest their own citizen's taxes to defend themselves.
I'd say the same about the UN. We are spending billions to support that organization. Why? Let someone else host them, we'll gladly show up and vote.
In other words, if all the US has gained at an international level for what we have done, it's time to stop.
I don't have a problem with this at all. It isn't about being an isolationist. It's about what we are paying for and how we are being taken advantage of.
This is very similar with the situation we had with drugs. We pay for the R&D here and Europe (and others) enjoyed low drug prices because they did not have to pay for it. We subsidized low prices around the world. Now that is largely ending. Drug prices are going up around the world because we are no longer going to be taken advantage of in that domain. If you want the drugs we develop, pay your fair share of the R&D.
Is any of the above simple or perfect in concept and execution? No. Of course not. Name anything in international relations that is. Nobody can. It does not exist. But you certainly can try to do the right thing and end-up people hating you for it. Whereas those who do nothing don't have that problem. Funny how that works.
Nobody expects China to run the next protection racket. Because no matter how people try to whitewash, a protection racket is not something decent people (or countries) do.
> Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role.
Canada would like a word.
US deaths in WW2: 420k
US population in 1940: 132000k
US death rate from WW2: 318/100k
Canada deaths in WW2: 43k
Canada population in 1940: 11300k
Canada death rate from WW2: 380/100k
US deaths in WW1: 117k
US population in 1918: 103000k
US death rate from WW2: 114/100k
Canada deaths in WW2: 66k
Canada population in 1918: 8100k
Canada death rate from WW2: 814/100k
In other words, the real cause of this shift is that Oct 7 showed that it is possible to beat America, and destroy Israel. The reaction in the entire Arab world? Immediately pile on!
In other words: this was a great PR win for (and by) hamas, showing that US/Israel, and the entire west CAN be beaten. And it was very much a PR win, in other words: it's false information. They didn't convince many Syrians, who had to directly deal with Iranian islamist actions directly. And in Lebanon, it's about equal, which I'm going to guess is not the opinion of all Lebanese. There's 2 groups of Lebanese: hezbollah (who number in the millions) that get paid by Iran's regime and everyone else, that get killed by hezbollah, and aren't very exited, to put it mildly, that hezbollah goes out to kill Syrians in Syria and Iraq and even Iranians in Iran.
The arab world is exited for this to happen. Arabs on top again! So ... this is not a failure by the (Biden or Trump 1) administration, and not a reaction to the deaths in this conflict. Also: not a chance in hell that this actually happens.
Also ... how dumb are these people? "Who is committed to upholding international law?" with China consistently scoring the highest? Really? The problems with US/EU/Israel in international law is that they don't uphold international law against other actors, only against themselves (e.g. they don't defend Sudan, except Israel, and then only a little bit). But China is actively committing warcrimes by the dozens.
61 comments
For example, the Saudis have long relied on their alliance with the US for defense, allowing them to plow their prodigious oil wealth into vanity projects like ski resorts in the desert and 100-km-lomg skyscrapers. But if they feel they can't rely on the US anymore (and after the past month, can they?), they could easily invest in building their own nuclear weapons instead. Israel would obviously not tolerate this, but even they would likely hesitate to pick a fight with the one country in the region that can (and does) outspend them 2x on defence.
What they can and have started to do is to make deals with partners like Ukraine to diversify their defense systems so they are independent from the USA.
It's too bad, because the unity that we had before Trump was great for peace, but now the rule of the strong is plunging the world back into wars and uncertainty.
And we're just in Q1 of 2026... I can hardly imagine the long years of 2027 and 2028.
> Paradoxically China looks like the bastion of peace.
What's paradoxical about that? Or, why would it be any more of a paradox than the USA being it?
> bastion of peace
Internet censored. Uyghurs on trains to jail. Supports 3 terrorist states.
So much peace they might hug you to death.
5D chess, man, 5D chess...
Others have mentioned China as a benevolent actor of sorts. I find this interesting, maybe even laughable. China is not interested in coming to the aid of anyone in the world. I am not saying this to criticize China. I believe this is purely a statement of fact: They don't do that.
If we pulled it forward to modern times, China, for example, would not put it all on the table and lose nearly 500K lives to save Europe in a world war. They exist for one thing, and one thing only: To do business that benefits their nation. And that's it.
Again, not being critical, just stating what I believe to be a fact. I can also say that I envy that focus to some extent. It's "China first" to an extreme level.
OK, so, if we accept my premise: Who in the world would come to the aid of societies in need?
Let's also agree that perfection does not and will note ever exist on this planet. So, insisting on perfect interventions, actions and outcomes is not rational. We are --humanity-- not perfect.
Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role. Europe has self-decimated over the decades in terms of these capabilities. So, they can't. Africa? Asia? Who's left? Nobody.
Without a doubt, the Arab world --or Middle East in general-- has been a complex neighborhood for quite some time. Yet, things have gotten massively worse when a country like Iran sponsors murderous terrorists in the region and --as confirmed by the current conflict-- makes it a point to build-up a Middle-East-Annihilation arsenal of missiles that could have almost no other purpose than to obliterate everything around them and even as far as Europe.
And then you add the potential for some of these missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
And then you add a regime that simply has not been a rational actor.
So, what do you do? Do you wait until they are a nuclear power? Just like we waited for Hitler to come to power and kill millions of Jews and others? How much slack do you give a regime who's publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?
Without a doubt, the actions of the last month or so have not been perfect. They will not be. That's just reality. For example, I don't understand how sinking their entire navy, destroying their air force, destroying their anti-aircraft capabilities, some 20,000 sorties and targets later...we still have to make a deal with them to keep Hormuz open.
How does that happen? Drones and missiles, of course. What is remarkable is that you'd think we would have mitigated that danger to the point where the international waters of the strait would no longer be threatened. I don't understand why stupid reporters never ask this question. Well, I answered it right there.
And yet, to go back to the thought: Who else but the US could have even approached setting Iran back far enough to make the neighborhood less of an issue? China? They would never. They have happily been selling Iran weapons hardware and know-how. They do not exist to benefit the rest of the world. China first. That's the policy.
Can anyone imagine just how far worse --horrific, really-- this would be if Iran had gone nuclear in the next few months or couple of years? This would truly be unimaginable. We've already seen that NATO does not seem to be willing to engage and might be largely useless.
So, while not perfect, at this point in time I believe that this is one of those "treating the cancer early" scenarios. Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics. This, while not ideal, not perfect, not desirable, not pretty, is likely a good thing. Now it has to end with the right outcome, whose minimum definition is to denuclearize Iran. From there, it would be nice to see the wonderful Iranian people get out from under the oppression they have been living under for so long. If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful. Same with Venezuelans, BTW.
> Iran was on a straight path to being a nuclear nation run by deranged theocratic lunatics.
No, they were not. No more than Saddam was close to having WMDs. Your entire premise is based on Israeli lies.
> How much slack do you give a regime whose publicly stated goals, for decades, have been the complete destruction of others?
How about you answer what we are supposed to do with regimes whose actual actions over the last 80 years have been the destruction of others? I'm talking about the US and Israel, btw.
> If you know any Iranians (we have many friends) you know they are actively rooting for the US to succeed and are thankful
How many of them actually live in Iran? I'm sure the monarchists in LA love that the country is being leveled.
> No, they were not.
How do you know that?
You do realize that the Iranian government (whatever remains of it) is actually insisting, as a condition, that their nuclear materials not be removed from the country?
Demanding the sovereignty to enrich nuclear materials for energy purposes does not mean they have or want nukes. They won't be able to have the triad anyway, so you can argue having a nuke would be a strategic misstep since they can't guarantee MAD anyway. Better to be able to utilize your large rocket arsenal to wage war and not have people think you are launching a first strike.
So be it. You are free to believe whatever you wish.
Problem is that the rest of the world increasingly does not follow that view anymore.
> Can anyone imagine just how far worse --horrific, really-- this would be if Iran had gone nuclear in the next few months or couple of years?
> I believe that this is one of those "treating the cancer early" scenarios.
There was nothing "early" about this. Iran's nuclear program exists for decades and somehow they were always "just a few weeks away" from a nuke.
> Yeah, if you only subscribe to the US view of the world, then of course the US are the good guys.
Kindly show me where I said that "the US are the good guys".
There are no good guys in this crap. The world is a mess. And you cannot do any of this without things getting messy.
As for my opinion: As a US citizen, I would be perfectly fine with the US closing down all military bases in Europe and elsewhere. Bring it all home.
If Europe wants to defend their territory, they should do it themselves. The US funds somewhere around 70% of NATO. We should exit that thankless organization. Countries like Spain can face reality on their own. We can use the money at home. I don't know how much we spend on all the bases around the world. I'd shut them all down. Again, can invest their own citizen's taxes to defend themselves.
I'd say the same about the UN. We are spending billions to support that organization. Why? Let someone else host them, we'll gladly show up and vote.
In other words, if all the US has gained at an international level for what we have done, it's time to stop.
I don't have a problem with this at all. It isn't about being an isolationist. It's about what we are paying for and how we are being taken advantage of.
This is very similar with the situation we had with drugs. We pay for the R&D here and Europe (and others) enjoyed low drug prices because they did not have to pay for it. We subsidized low prices around the world. Now that is largely ending. Drug prices are going up around the world because we are no longer going to be taken advantage of in that domain. If you want the drugs we develop, pay your fair share of the R&D.
Is any of the above simple or perfect in concept and execution? No. Of course not. Name anything in international relations that is. Nobody can. It does not exist. But you certainly can try to do the right thing and end-up people hating you for it. Whereas those who do nothing don't have that problem. Funny how that works.
> Well, the answer to this is simple. The only nation with the ability and the demonstrated willingness to risk life, limb and treasure is the US. The rest of the American continent cannot and has never taken this role.
Canada would like a word.
In other words, the real cause of this shift is that Oct 7 showed that it is possible to beat America, and destroy Israel. The reaction in the entire Arab world? Immediately pile on!
In other words: this was a great PR win for (and by) hamas, showing that US/Israel, and the entire west CAN be beaten. And it was very much a PR win, in other words: it's false information. They didn't convince many Syrians, who had to directly deal with Iranian islamist actions directly. And in Lebanon, it's about equal, which I'm going to guess is not the opinion of all Lebanese. There's 2 groups of Lebanese: hezbollah (who number in the millions) that get paid by Iran's regime and everyone else, that get killed by hezbollah, and aren't very exited, to put it mildly, that hezbollah goes out to kill Syrians in Syria and Iraq and even Iranians in Iran.
The arab world is exited for this to happen. Arabs on top again! So ... this is not a failure by the (Biden or Trump 1) administration, and not a reaction to the deaths in this conflict. Also: not a chance in hell that this actually happens.
Also ... how dumb are these people? "Who is committed to upholding international law?" with China consistently scoring the highest? Really? The problems with US/EU/Israel in international law is that they don't uphold international law against other actors, only against themselves (e.g. they don't defend Sudan, except Israel, and then only a little bit). But China is actively committing warcrimes by the dozens.