Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's neither cynical nor simplistic.

It's a positive view because the US, despite it's failings, is a positive and pragmatic actor.

It's not simplistic because I'm respecting the fact that 'geostability' is a primary concern, even as that might run counter to other objectives such as democracy, free markets etc.

"regional superpower cannot compete with the world superpower" of course they can and do.

It costs the US tremendously to project it's power in Iran obviously a 'full on war' between parties would be mostly decisive in the short run but that's besides the point.

You are failing to differentiate between the kind of power that the US projects vs Iran.

The US actually supports, and helps hold together the House of Saud and therefore stability in Saudi Arabia.

They otherwise don't interfere internally. They put some pressure on Saudis for social progress but that's that.

The US is trying to help 'hold things together'.

The result of this, is that Saudi can provide oil - not to America, but to the world, at market prices.

The only special provision that comes along with US protection of the Gulf is that the Saudis cannot for example sell their Oil exclusively to China or Russia or do some kind of big strategic deal with them.

Put another way - US presence there is to stop Russia/China or some other power from taking hold.

Saudi has an interest in Yemen because it's right on the border, and full of rebels who'd like to overthrow it, ultimately, they also want peace and stability.

Iran wants to cajole, control and antagonize the Arab states and Israel and not in a nice way. They now have Iraq as a vassal state, and they'd prefer the Arabs to be their vassals as well.

If Iran did not exist, there would be almost zero ongoing fighting right now in the ME. Syria, yes, but outside of that no.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: