Comment by JumpCrisscross

> […] or the US has to sit and watch the world plunge into recession and Asian countries in particular are going to burn.

Perhaps worth noting that the US is not unscathed in this, as oil/petroleum is a global market that includes the US. US domestic gas pump prices (which is input into everything, including groceries) go up when global oil prices go up. Not to mention things like fertilize (and, as a lot of people suddenly found out, the importance of helium).

And it's not like the US can practically stop exports, as a lot what the US produces can't be processed by their own refineries (at least at prices palatable to the consumer).

* https://blog.drillingmaps.com/2025/06/this-is-why-us-cant-us...

So it's not wrong to say that the world may end up in a global recession, and Asian countries have more acute problems that will hit sooner than the US, but the US will also face those issues if things drag on.

> Asian countries in particular are going to burn

They won't sit still, though. Eventually, if this were tried, we'd see Chinese-flagged tankers buying passage rights from Iran and being escorted by PLAN ships.

No way does Commander TACO take that shot. The US interdiction threat in the gulf is empty, and everyone know it. Iran gets paid at the end of every story. The whole boondoggle has been a failure for the US in every analysis.

> So far, the US seems to prefer letting the world burn rather thans plitting with Israel.

That is the plan: After decoupling the EU from Russia gas by provoking the Ukraine war, now it is time for the Asian countries to be cut off from gulf oil/gas, so the US fracking projects become economical and the entire "allied" countries depend on the US petrostate.

It is the only way to preserve US hegemony. Since this long term project is bipartisan, higher gas prices in the US don't matter before the midterm elections.

The only difference in foreign policy between Trump and Biden is that Trump is more risk taking and often spells out the real intentions, such as "we'll take the oil".

>That means we are now in a situation where the US has to either split with Israel and offer Iran significantly better terms than they had before the war, likely including the lfiting of economic sanctions, or the US has to sit and watch the world plunge into recession and Asian countries in particular are going to burn. And who knows what a prolonged impasse will do to Europe, particularly come winter.

I have the impression that somehow if the world will go into a recession, China will come out ahead. It looks like they either prepared for it or they have enough space to maneuver.

When your opponent in an argument is this disconnected from reality, that's when you realizing engaging rationally is fruitless. This is just hasbara propaganda and Zionist lies and it has no place in a civil discussion.

totally. iran’s navy was advancing towards us east coast, their bombers were getting ready to fly over the atlantic and rain down on us heavily. we were all sitting here scared shitless of iran :)

strait

Even when Israel strikes first, someone else started it. Brilliant!

The problems the UAE has are not based on Iran attacking the UAE but Iran closing the Strait - which is a direct and foreseeable result of Israel attacking Iran.

[dead]

Johnny Harris has a pretty decent video on the topic as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsO-rULEfrk

STC was defeated after a Saudi bombing campaign, and their independent nation quashed. While there might be holdouts here and there, they are a non-entity now.

> Kind of depressing thought actually

I gotchu: https://youtu.be/-evIyrrjTTY ("This Land is Mine", 3 min)

I tried to make sense of middle eastern politics once. My conclusion has been „It’s complicated.“

Not really there are time of instability but large stretches of stable government usually under a single empire the Persians, Rome, Caliphs and then Ottomans. The current shit show is due to a western induced collapse of the ottomans and then western powers ensuring no single nation can once again enforce that stability.

Lots of things have existed throughout history, yet we have overcome them in the last few hundred years. There is peace in Europe (west of Russia) which had as ancient conflict as Yemen; there is democracy, freedom, women have equal rights in much of the world, starvation and many diseases are mostly overcome, warfare is very rare and not an omnipresent threat, ...

Thank goodness our predecessors didn't think this way. They thought that through reason, hard word, and humanism they could overcome these things, and they did. No doubt there were plenty of naysayers.

What will we do with our turn?

[dead]

On whose side is Turkey? Or is it charting its own path?

Arab Bedouin saying:

"I and my brother against my cousin, and I and my cousin against the stranger."

And for extra fun, the U.S. sometimes likes to jump into the fray.

Also, for tourism they aren't exactly welcoming to western culture. They don't even allow trans or non binary people (X) to transit to other places at dubai or abu dhabi. Can't have your cake and eat it.

> Virtually all Arabs hate Israel

This is true, but Emiratis are a notable exception. The UAE may be the only Arab country where Jews are not only allowed to live, but can do so safely without fearing either their neighbors or their government.

For example, last year when a rabbi was murdered, the Emirati government reacted forcefully and made a point to sentence the perpetrators to death. Note, the perpetrators were not Emiratis.

> The modern Egyptian state is oriented toward close partnership with the US, and a large part of that was peace with Israel post '73.

While also true, the relationship between Israel and Egypt has been tense lately.

They are at peace, and the border is stable. And economic integration is tightening, for example with the recent $35B gas deal [1]. So it's plausible that UAE could align with both, as you say.

But at the same time, it's just as plausible that this alignment will become increasingly complicated for geopolitical reasons. As Israel grows stronger in the region, Egypt seems to have adopted a strategy of indirectly undermining them.

For example, Egypt's handling of the Gaza war has indicated that they were playing a double game - openly containing Hamas, while covertly allowing them to grow stronger. When the IDF captured Rafah in 2024, they uncovered massive smuggling tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border, which could not possibly have been unknown to Egypt.

Sisi is also known for having cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood domestically, as they were his primary political rival. But externally, he has shown a willingness to support them as a tool to weaken his rivals, including Israel. This is a dangerous game which could easily backfire.

One more example: just this week Egypt is conducting a live fire military exercise 100m from the Israel border - a deliberate decision that is escalating tensions. [2]

[1] https://www.egyptindependent.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-...

[2] https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/egypt-live-fire-drills-is...

Various Arab states maintain this balancing act between a virulently anti-Israel population and a US-aligned (in most cases, US-installed) regime that’s tacitly okay with the existence of Israel.

It’s actually surprising it’s achievable for so long but in the long term doesn’t feel stable given the direction things are headed

[flagged]

They've also been cooperating on blockading Gaza for a couple of decades. Israel gets most of the attention for that, mostly rightfully so, but people seem to forget that there's a border with Egypt too and that has also had very limited access.

Israelis do not hate Egyptians... The Arab world has a major Jew-hatred problem, but the reverse it not true.

Remember that 20% of the Israeli population is Arab.

The briefly elected Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt was .. not as liberal as the Tahrir Square protests demanded.

My bad, it's late in the evening here and I typed something that works when spoken with emphasis and timing (at least in my head).

I added quotes, it should say that Pakistan's weapons program is one that is outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as Pakistan is not a party to it.

Oh like mark Zuckerberg 30th through 40th mansions?

> My low-key guess is cutting off Pakistan was intended to send a message to Cairo

Abu Dhabi and Cairo have been misaligned for years since the Sudan Civil War began (UAE backs the RSF and KSA+Egypt back the Army) as well as the UAE backing Abiy Ahmed in Ethiopia at the expense of their traditional partner KSA.

> To my understanding there isn’t a treaty yet.

This is as close as it will get. New Delhi doesn't "sign" defense treaties unless pushed to a corner, because it reduces maneuverability.

The Pakistan-KSA alignment was already cooking after IK was overthrown. I think I mentioned it before on HN (need to find the post I wrote) but given the primacy Pakistan has had in US-Iran negotiations well before the war as well the PRC's increasingly miffed attitude at Pakistan following the CPEC attacks, the US most likely brokered a back-room realignment between PK and KSA.

A neutral-to-ambivalent India with a pro-America Pakistan is better for the US than a completely aligned India with a pro-China Pakistan.

TODO: citations