1. Willful blindness is needed to bemoan America's lessened footprint in the MidEast and claim it'll "destabilize" the region. In reality, the US's policy of primacy has encouraged US "allies" to be even more reckless and destabilizing.
Consider the following:
>>
Consider the following:
>>
2. Would Saudi have started the reckless war in Yemen without the explicit or implicit green light from the US and Riyadh's (correct) belief that the US would assist them in the war? The planes are American, the bombs are American. EVEN THE MECHANICS ON THE GROUND ARE AMERICAN! >
3. The New York Times reports today that US military officials are in the flight operations room in Riyadh, providing intelligence and tactical advice to the Saudis as they ravage Yemen.
nytimes.com/2018/12/25/wor…
>>
nytimes.com/2018/12/25/wor…
>>
4. This is the very same war Mattis wanted to continue. Why has there been far more outcry in the media over Trump decision to pull out of Syria than Trump's decision to intensify the senseless slaughter in Yemen?
Indeed, which decision destabilizes the region the most?
>>
Indeed, which decision destabilizes the region the most?
>>
5. The "post-American" Middle East will be unstable, just as the "American" MidEast CLEARLY is. But a balance can emerge where neither the Iranians, the Israelis, the Saudis or the Turks have any incentives to rock the boat. >>
6. Knowing that the US is not there to back them, both Saudi and Israel will likely be more cautious and less destabilizing. They will lose maneuverability but will remain safe. >>
7. Iran will be deprived of its ability to expand its influence by taking advantage of American (or Saudi) mistakes. The gift that never ends giving to Tehran - American interventionism - will finally have run out. >>
8. Being too weak to take on Israel and having no more American mistakes to benefit from, Iran will likely seek to consolidate its position rather than be expansive. An uneasy peace can come from this. Not ideal, but less unstable than "Pax" Americana. >>
9. And perhaps most importantly, a lessened American military footprint in the MidEast and an end to the endless wars there will of course greatly benefit the US itself. Indeed, imagine if Iraq never had been invaded in the first place!
10. So yes, a post-American MidEast will be unstable, but since the US has not used its resources to truly stabilize the region and has only gotten itself entangled in endless wars, it is likely better than the "American" MidEast....
