Secretary of State Mike Pompeo takes part in a meeting with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on September 18, 2019. Mandel Ngan/Reuters
Business Insider: Just 13% of Americans would support US military going to war over Saudi oil field attack
* A new Insider poll found just 13% of respondents would back the US military joining or supporting Saudi Arabia in a conflict following an attack on two major Saudi oil facilities.
* A significant portion of Americans — roughly one in four — believe the US should remove itself entirely from the affairs of the region and let Saudi Arabia handle its issues itself.
* The Trump administration has blamed the attack on Iran, which comes amid broader tensions linked to economic sanctions, and there are fears of another conflict in the Middle East is on the horizon.
Only 13 percent of Americans would support the US military joining Saudi Arabia in a conflict as part of a response to a recent attack on two major Saudi oil fields, a new Insider poll of US adults shows.
The poll asked participants "what, if any, role do you think the US should take in a response to the attack on the Saudi oil facilities?" The participants were given six options and asked to select the one that comes closest to their view.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This is one of those situations where everyone does not want war, but war wants you. I am expecting more Iran and/or Iran-sponsored attacks in the future.
It would be a war no one would win.
ReplyDeleteShort of an attack on a US base, killing hundreds of American personnel, Iran will be safe from a change of opinion in the American population. When that changes, Iran will get all the war it wants.
ReplyDeleteRAIN,
OF,
RUIN,
R,
and you, doubtless, will be the first to ask to be sent
ReplyDeleteAsk Germany and Japan if there are no winners or losers Sam,lol!!!!
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:17
ReplyDeleteI've served a tour in the US mil. Have you?
Former Marine here.
ReplyDeleteI agree with WNU Editor: additional attacks by Iran or its proxies are inevitable.
ReplyDeleteThere is a weird dynamic in Iran's dealings with the West. In a nutshell, Iran too often overplays their hand and it can backfire on them.
1. Iran has repeatedly said that if they cannot export oil, then no one else in the Persian Gulf can either. That is an aggressive position, and I think Iran means it, as explained below.
2. The sanctions are hurting Iran more than they will admit. The attack implies that Iran is really hurting; Iran would not attack the Saudis directly, as they have now done, if the sanctions were ineffective. Note well that Iran has not stopped spending to support its proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. The Iranian people are bearing the economic pain.
3. The USA decided last summer not to retaliate when Iran shot down the American drone. While that decision may have been correct on the merits, I think Iran interpreted the USA's restraint as weakness. Hence, this more aggressive attack against Saudi.
4. The USA seems to have decided not to retaliate against Iran militarily now. As noted by the article, few in the USA, least of all Pres. Trump, want a war with Iran. The Gulf states are too weak and fearful of Iran to retaliate unless the USA leads it.
5. I think Iran will interpret the absence of military retaliation now as more weakness. That will embolden them to attempt an even more brazen attack.
6. Iran is very creative, and we should expect an attack anywhere, not only in the Gulf. Personally, I think they might attack either:
a. In the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aden. Such an attack gives Iran a more plausible excuse to blame the Houthis; or
b. Somewhere in Europe or perhaps the Mediterranean. I think Iran calculates that the Europeans are so craven that further attacks against them will drive the wedge between them and the USA even deeper.
7. I doubt that Iran would launch a direct attack against a U.S. Navy ship, etc. Instead, Iran will go for the weakest links, which are the Gulf states opposing them and our European allies.
8. I actually think Iran may be misreading the Europeans. None of them like the USA's current President and won't do him any favours. But I think that, in the calculation of their national interests, France, Germany, etc. will conclude that Iranian hegemony over the Middle East is not in their interest. This may actually drive them toward the USA.
Publius,
DeleteI would consider also the IRG doing this as part of their power struggle with the Theocracy back home.
And when the price of gasoline at the pump hits $5.00 a gallon, that 13% in favor of war will shoot up drastically --- it's all about the money
ReplyDeleteRuss
ReplyDeleteyep
"The Iranian people are bearing the economic pain."
ReplyDeleteWar always inflicts economic pain but at time for some can mean economic boom.
ReplyDeleteWe have interests all over the world and some are remote and difficult to protect therefore inviting to some.
As for Iran misinterpreting some of our past actions, for example the seemingly unanswered drone shootdown awhile back I keep pounding the drum for this act to have been a test by us of their abilities and tactics. They aren't flawless as the attack on Saudi Arabia has shown. They do choose and weigh the action they take. This puts them in the driver's seat sometimes.
Remember when we shut down Iraqi electric transmission lines with carbon fibers or some such cheap gadgetry draped over those lines. Cheap and bloodless.
I think the tactic here is to separate the regime and it's backers from the dissatisfied population. Many of whom are a younger generation and are internet and employment hungry. And, if possible, upgrade the restive group or groups on some of Iran's border.
Anon 4:58PM, I'm inclined to skepticism on #5 but that is just my opinion. I certainly could be giving them having more appreciation of the situation than is due. #2, they have reduced funding to hezbolla which is being blooded from both Israel and Syrian opposition and appears to be under increasing pressure from Lebanon's citizens but to what extent I haven't read.
Enjoyed your reading of the situation.
Trump says he's raiding the Pentagon budget to protect our national security. According to the military, Trump's gambit will undermine our national security.
ReplyDeletePentagon points to threats after Trump raids budget for wall
Publius,
ReplyDeleteOverall excellent analysis. I always enjoy reading your analyses.
With regards to point 3 I've already pointed out elsewhere how devastating to the American people a war with Iran is likely to be. So, yes I think it was the correct decision not to retaliate and I might add we'd have had no real support making our situation even more dire.
With regards to point 4 not so long ago Saudi leadership boasted that they could destroy Iran in a matter of hours. I suspected this was an emoty boast. If they're to "weak and feeble" to lead the way in their own defense, perhaps it's time to HIT THE GYM to use an analogy. GET STRONGER!! It'd be a shame if they can't especially with the enormous monetary investment the Saudis have made on their military. Saudi Arabia was attacked. It's up to them to lead the way in responding to the attack.
As for a and b of point 4, the nations in the regions affected are going to need to lead the way in developing and carrying out the proper security posture based upon their unique situations. If these nations cannot or will not do so, real politik may require the US to consider other options as to who it is going to work with and act accordingly.
Perhaps sanctuins have been effective. They typically haven't in the past. As suh, all the more reason not to allow Iran to goad us into a war that would be at a time and place of their choosing.
I've also observed that Iranian leaders tend to over play their hand. Actually this seems to be the case regarding our enemies in general. Maybe the tendency of US leaders to underestimate the abilities of adversaries while overestimating ours has an effect on them. As I've stated before, the tendencies of our enemies including Iran to over play their hand is something we can capitalize on with the right leadership. The attacks on Saudi oil facilities have just opened up a huge opportunity for America and American oil producers. I think there's a real possibility for America to be the biggest benefactor from this. Furthermore I think president Trump understands all of this.
Perhaps Saudi Arabia and Iran can end up at war over this. Maybe they can tear each other apart. Maybe they can both lose.
Anon (5:48),
ReplyDeleteI see your concerns. Allot of people have expressed them. With that said I think you can relax. There may be some temporary spikes that last for a few weeks but no more as other pruducers rush in to fill the gap. Frankly I think much of this is hype and fear mongering that the media is stoking with what are IMHO likely ulterior motives.
We've seen very little daily change of late in the price per barrel of oil and even less reaction from Wall Street on this. IMHO if such a mid to long term rise in the price of gasoline as you mention were likely based on the current situation we would be seeing a much greater reaction from these markets than we are.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link on the border wall even though it is off the topic of the editor's current post. It reads like a typical anti-Trump screed. Nevertheless it has merit as a teaching and analysis tool.
How limited funds are allocated towards the military and other needs is a matter of debate of which reasonable people can and will disagree on. The national security challenges each nation faces are unique. As such, how and on what they will invest precious resources will be different. IMHO for our unique national security situation, southern border security of which a wall along at least a portion of it is an essential component far exceeding pretty much any of the other programs we are currently investing in. I've recognized this for quite some time and it's nice to finally have a POTUS who appears to get.
The article mentions poor basic living conditions for troops. Obviously our military personnel who sacrifice so much for so little MUST be taken care of. IMHO these so called Pentagon officials don't care much for the troops. The editor routinely mentions any number of projects that US military leaders are current investing in. As stated, the border wall is mission critical. Any number of these projects could be cut back and we could continuing cutting back until the funds are available to address military living conditions, schools, and the essential border wall. By not tackling this and instead sniping at POTUS IMHO is poor leadership. Of course changing course might mean taking on some powerful special interests. Sniping at Trump and criticizing the necessary border wall are easy and in the short term have the potential for gain.
The troops who are used to hardships from all of the fruitless missions they've been sent on are no doubt used to hardship as are there families. They will understand POTUS has a fiduciary responsibility to provide for necessary border security however he can. They will also understand who it is who stood by while funds that could have been used for their living conditions were diverted to a plethora of nib essential projects. IMHO we need new leadership at the Pentagon and have for quite some time.
I have a number of family and friends who have served in the military and some who currently are serving. At least among those who serve or served stateside, none reported unsafe living conditons nor have I observed unsafe livjng conditions. While the living conditions on base aren't always great, I've never observed anything unsafe nor have any of my friends or family reported such things.
As no military personnel are interviewed, no top Pentagon officials are named, no pictures are supplied, and no specific examples are cited, I suspect there's a strong possibility that either the whole thing is entirely made up or isolated events are being distorted. In any event, the article is a bit vague. I suspect its by design. It wouldn't be the first time the media has mislead us and unfortunately it won't be the last time.
70,000 of our people are in harms way from an attack by Iran, no rational Commander in Chief would conduct a campaign against them given that knowledge.The Iranians already have in place the means, manpower and strategy’s to carry out this while absorbing any combination of robust actions on our part.
ReplyDelete