Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

General Jack Keane's analysis reveals that key US allies like Saudi Arabia are now actively discouraging US military strikes on Iran. They fear damage to their oil infrastructure more than Iranian aggression, signaling a shift where allies are no longer willing to bear the costs of US foreign policy, thus weakening American leverage.

Related Insights

Fears of a US-Iran conflict disrupting oil flows are overstated. Any potential US military action would likely be designed to be 'surgical' to specifically avoid Iran's oil infrastructure, as the administration's priority is preventing economic shocks and energy price hikes ahead of elections.

Countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia are ambivalent about US military action. Their primary fear is not a full-scale war, but a limited 'hit-and-run' strike where the US attacks and then diverts attention, leaving them 'naked and vulnerable' to Iranian retaliation without a long-term American security presence.

The US military action, especially the blockade of the Straits of Hormuz, is harming Gulf nations economically. Instead of strengthening an anti-Iran coalition, this 'half-baked' approach is eroding goodwill and pushing these crucial partners away, undermining the primary strategic benefit of the operation.

Gulf countries now view the U.S. not as a protector but as a power that dragged them into a war as collateral damage and failed to defend them. This collapse of the old security architecture is causing fractures within the GCC and forcing states like the UAE to seek new, independent security arrangements.

Iran's strategy involves striking non-combatant US allies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia. This imposes broad regional pain, demonstrating to the world that the economic and political costs of attacking Iran will be too high for anyone to bear, thus restoring long-term deterrence.

The near certainty that Iran would retaliate against the energy infrastructure of US allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait forces the US to reconsider massive strikes. These allies effectively become human shields for Iran, complicating US military calculations.

Key US allies have incentives for America to enter a conflict with Iran but not win decisively. The ideal outcome for them is a weakened Iran and a distracted, overextended America that is more dependent on their cooperation. This subverts the simple narrative of a unified coalition, revealing a complex web of self-interest.

Contrary to the belief that Gulf states always wanted a hardline US policy on Iran, their perspective shifted after 2019. When Iran attacked Saudi and UAE assets and the Trump administration failed to respond, they realized the US was an unreliable defender. This prompted them to make their own peace with Iran, a policy directly undermined by the recent US-led war.

The main driver for US action against Iran is to stabilize the Gulf region to secure over $2 trillion in investment deals with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. These deals are the centerpiece of Trump's economic agenda, making the threat from Iran an existential economic one.

The Trump administration's unilateral approach, demanding help from allies it has previously bullied, has backfired in the Iran conflict. Unlike past wars where coalitions shared the financial and military burden, the U.S. is now isolated and facing a "global raspberry," demonstrating the failure of transactional diplomacy.

US Influence Wanes as Allies like Saudi Arabia Prioritize Economic Stability Over Conflict | RiffOn