America Must Get Out of the Middle East for Good

[KAL-EL]

Again, primary strategic goal was to stop the spread of communism ideology. It was ultimately defeated, and Vietnam is now a close strategic ally. The US attained its goal in the end. Vietnam is no longer an adversary. Strategic goals were met, but it took decades.

Slightly off topic but Vietnam in my opinion should be armed to the teeth against modern aggressors

 

[Ali_Baba]

Bro production line is not something you can shift somewhere and that too underground overnight.
And not everything can be shifted underground.
If you were producing 100missiles per month pre war but due to destruction of key facilities, your Production is limited to only 10-20 per month, this is a big capability gap and a big achievement for enemy.
At Hanyiah assassination, Iran fired almost 180 Ballistic Missiles in one or two nights alone, but due to suppression of bases during war, Iran was able to fire only 10-15 missiles - that is almost 90% suppression of offensive capability - not a fking joke.
Which nation on earth has been able to achieve this against any enemy?

Again, US is judged against 100% domination standards so its military performance is sometimes not appreciated as much as it should be.

I am suggesting the line has been moved into cold storage only and not as an active line.

 

[Feroze]

America Must Get Out of the Middle East for Good

After no breakthroughs emerged in the U.S.-Iran negotiations over the weekend, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would blockade the Strait of Hormuz. This latest escalation ahead of the pending end of the cease-fire moves the U.S. even further away from what should be its top priority in the Middle East: getting out.
The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has been a clear strategic defeat for the United States, at once exposing the limits of American power while degrading it in the process. The U.S. has taken enormous hits to its credibility as an ally and its reliability as a responsible actor on the global stage. The economic impacts are already painful, raising the cost of gas, food, and other staples around the world, with fears of a global recession mounting. But the Trump administration has not been able to muster an explanation for why these costs are worth it.
In the wake of yet another pointless Middle East war, the shrewd strategic move would be to dramatically scale back the U.S. footprint in the Middle East and to transform Washington’s relationship with Israel. This reorientation of U.S. foreign policy would do more to advance America’s security and prosperity than doubling down on a failed war.
The Pentagon reports that the U.S. has hit 13,000 targets in Iran and decimated its navy, air defense systems, missile facilities, and command and control and logistical networks. U.S.-Israeli attacks have also eviscerated the upper ranks of Iran’s leadership. Yet the Islamic Republic remains unbowed and arguably in a stronger strategic position than before the war, given its de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz. The war in Iran has been another demonstration of a lesson Washington should have learned long ago: the region’s problems cannot be solved by overwhelming military force.
The U.S. has spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the course of decades building up its security presence in the Middle East. But in a matter of a few weeks, Iran’s retaliatory attacks exacted severe damage on at least 13 of those bases. The extensive U.S. footprint in the region has served little utility in the war and provided Iran with ample targets. If U.S. bases are useless in a major regional conflict, then what exactly is the point of the costly American presence in the region? What interests does the U.S. have in the region that warrant such an outsized permanent presence?
Ultimately, there is no threat emanating from the Middle East that can harm the United States. Indeed, the greatest source of the region’s instability over the last 25 years has been the United States’ quest for regional dominance and its enablement of Israeli aggression. The war with Iran has underscored once again that the U.S.-Israel relationship is a strategic liability for Washington.
Iran may pose a threat to Israel, but the Islamic Republic represents no such danger to the United States. While Trump made the call to enter this war, there is no doubt that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s influence played a significant role in Trump’s decision.
Despite the hundreds of billions in weapons the U.S. has given to Tel Aviv, the U.S. has greatly depleted its own munitions stockpiles defending Israel since Hamas’s October 7 attack.
Washington’s unwavering support for Israel weakens American security while doing nothing to advance American interests. In fact, U.S. and Israeli interests often diverge in the region, as is the case with Israel’s continued bombing of Lebanon that has jeopardized the current cease-fire and diplomatic efforts with Iran.
The U.S. rarely uses its immense leverage to prevent Israel from undermining America’s strategic goals. This imbalance should be corrected, with the United States beginning to treat Israel like a normal partner and forcing it to shoulder the burden for its own defense. Changing the nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship would enable the United States to pull back from the region and lessen the likelihood of getting drawn into Middle Eastern conflicts. Similarly, the wealthy Gulf states should also be responsible for their own security. They have more at stake in the fate of the Strait of Hormuz than anyone.
For decades, the U.S. foreign policy establishment has foolishly entangled the U.S. in the Middle East, and that entanglement has harmed American interests, needlessly wasting blood and treasure while cultivating anti-American sentiment and terrorism. The war in Iraq cost $2 trillion, and the war in Iran is costing at least $1 billion a day. Washington is throwing good money after bad in the region, when these resources could be used to improve Americans’ lives.
It’s time for U.S. foreign policy to focus on what matters: protecting the homeland and advancing Americans’ prosperity, not projecting power in a region of declining strategic importance like the Middle East. A good first step would be to end this war, even if Washington just walks away without a deal with Iran.
If this really is America’s Suez moment, managing the decline in Washington’s relative global power position requires a ruthless prioritization of American interests. The Middle East’s conflicts and quarrels shouldn’t be on that priority list.

Yes USA should stay out of the Middle East like forever especially after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Yes USA should stay out of the Middle East like forever especially after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

The US wasn't even in the Middle East during the Iran/Iraq War.
We only had a refueling station in Bahrain.

It was only after Saddam invaded Kuwait did the US bases appear...so don't blame us for being called in for protection...

is only 1200km away...

is only 2600km...we are on the other side of the planet.

 

[Feroze]

The US wasn't even in the Middle East during the Iran/Iraq War.
We only had a refueling station in Bahrain.

It was only after Saddam invaded Kuwait did the US bases appear...so don't blame us for being called in for protection...you are only 1200km away...we are on the other side of the planet.

Okay I agree with you, but USA did invade Afghanistan and Iraq you know.

USA needs to mind its own business.

 

[Yellow is Okay]

Vietnam is still a communist nation.

Seriously, I am fascinated with your take on history. It's right up there with another member here.

In case you weren't aware, the US had an opportunity to meet its goals in Vietnam back in 1956.

Vietnam is communist in name only, or at the very least, it's still governed by a party that simply calls itself "communist". The fact that Vietnam joined ASEAN and especially the WTO is clear proof that communism has long drifted away.

https://tienphong.vn/ong-co-van-nguoi-bac-nhip-cau-quan-he-viet-my-post1433926.tpo

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

After 1975 until the 1980s, under the state-owned economy, "blockade" policies, and rationing system, Vietnam's economy collapsed and fell into a deadlock. In early 1980, officials from the Vietnamese Embassy in France contacted me. By the end of 1980, I began directly assisting them. In early 1980, Pham Hung sent a delegation to meet me in Paris to explain that Vietnam's economy had hit a dead end.

After the border war with China in 1979, the country was left extremely vulnerable. The people were poor, and the state was weak. They asked for my advice. The leadership of the Vietnamese government and the Communist Party, especially Pham Hung, who was then Vice Chairman and later Chairman of the Council of Ministers, tasked the delegation to consult with me on economic issues.

The discussion was long, but ultimately, when I met with Pham Hung's delegation, I made it clear: the centrally planned, state-owned economy they were operating under could not develop. Their system of centralized distribution through state subsidies was fundamentally incapable of growth. On top of that, the policy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the idea of the poor seizing leadership, was a theoretical fantasy. In reality, it had failed.

I told them bluntly: from ancient Athens, Rome, to the Qin Dynasty and beyond, no nation has ever become strong based on a poor population. A country can only be strong if its people are wealthy because the strength of a nation rests on its citizens. If you impoverish the people, the nation remains weak. Therefore, they needed to rethink their strategy. They had to create conditions for the people to participate actively in economic development in order to build the country.

It was a long conversation, but in the end, Pham Hung said to me, "I'm in a very difficult position. I understand what you're saying, but I can't report it to the Party. Because in our ideology, the word "wealth" is the enemy of communism. The bourgeoisie must be eradicated". That was the reality of 1980, 1981, and 1982.

Eventually, I told him, "I know you can't report it verbally. So I'll write it down for you, one page. When you return, just hand this document to the leadership. It will explain that your mission was to meet with Bui Kien Thanh and receive this advice: the people must become wealthy for the nation to be strong. The economy must belong to the people, not the state. Let the leadership read it. If they agree, good. If they don't, then that's that".

He said, "If I report to the Party leadership exactly what you said, I'll be expelled".

So I wrote down a brief statement for him to take back. Four months later, they returned and told me that my document had been submitted to the Party leadership, and the leadership agreed: the people must be wealthy for the nation to be strong.

From that point, I met with them more regularly, exchanged discussions, and they reported back to the Party. Gradually, we built the terminology that would become part of the 6th National Congress of the Communist Party, researching and understanding the steps necessary for the process of Doi Moi.

What did the 6th Party Congress approve? Vietnam would have a multi-sector economy, no longer solely a state-owned economy. The word "multi-sector" itself marked a revolutionary shift, restoring the people's right to engage in economic activities. Before, if you tried to engage in private economic activities, you could be arrested. Raising a chicken without reporting it could get you arrested. Raising a pig without permission could too. Now, Vietnam had a multi-sector economy. That single word, "multi-sector", represented an enormous revolution.

Next, the economy would operate according to market mechanisms, no longer under the subsidy system, no longer ration cards. A market meant operating under the capitalist method: there are buyers and sellers, not top-down distribution.

The first sentence of the Central Resolution of the 6th Congress was a historic revolution. Vietnam's economy would be a multi-sector economy, the people had the right to economic activity again, and the economy would operate under market mechanisms. Vietnam would engage economically with all capitalist countries around the world.

And for what purpose? Not for a poor, proletarian class to rise, but for the people to become wealthy, because without wealthy citizens, there can be no strong country. Poverty weakens a nation.

The concept of "wealth" itself was another profound revolution, effectively abolishing proletarian ideology and the notion of destroying the bourgeoisie.

The goal was wealthy people, strong nation, leading to a democratic, just, and civilized society. A democratic society meant no more dictatorship, because under Marxist-Leninist theory, you had to have the dictatorship of the proletariat to rule. Now, the focus was no longer theoretical, it was practical, starting with the 6th Central Committee Resolution of 1986, which became the foundation of Doi Moi reforms.

From 1980 to 1986, my work was to assist in reshaping their ideological framework, crafting language carefully enough to be accepted by the Party at the Congress, to achieve a revolutionary transformation peacefully.

From there, the strategy became clear. Build a market economy. To enter the market economy, Vietnam needed access to global markets. The largest market in the world, which countries like Japan, France, and Germany relied on after World War II, was the American market.

Aside from the US, there were other capitalist markets like Japan, France, Germany. Vietnam had to find a way to integrate into the global capitalist economy.

Thus, it became necessary to negotiate normalization with the US and lift the US embargo. No one else in Vietnam could handle that, so I had to take it upon myself to negotiate with the Americans step by step, to dismantle the embargo, and gradually establish diplomatic relations with the US.

Establishing diplomatic ties with the US was the gateway to rebuilding Vietnam's relationship with the entire world, and to integrating with democratic and civilized societies.

@Menthol @Viet

The US did fail in the Vietnam War, or at least failed to protect South Vietnam, but it absolutely did not fail the Cold War. The Vietnam War was only one theater in a much larger scheme, and the strategic goals went far beyond simply keeping South Vietnam afloat.

Hero of the People's Armed Forces and intelligence colonel Nguyễn Thành Trung was the pilot who carried out the bombing that helped usher in peace and marked the beginning of the final days of the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) government.

The terrifying explosions that erupted in the heart of Saigon shook the Independence Palace to its foundations and rendered the strategic situation irreversible. The last 3,000 American troops withdrew from the South, the Dương Văn Minh administration surrendered, and the country was reunified.

Question: As an intelligence operative who lived through countless life-and-death situations, what is your greatest regret?

Answer: At this age, I've come to see that life is the same for everyone—suffering outweighs happiness. There are things one can speak of, and moments of joy that can also be shared, but the moments of deep pain cannot. Human life is like that; even those who hold high office or command armies must endure hardship at times.

My greatest regret in life is the loss of the Paracel Islands (Hoàng Sa). We had prepared to retake them, but at the last moment the United States forbade us from launching the operation because it had already reached a secret understanding with China. On 19 January 1974 we moved aircraft from Biên Hòa to Đà Nẵng, resolved to fight to the death in an all-out battle to reclaim the Paracels for the nation. Yet under American pressure, President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu refused to authorize the mission. That is why the deepest regret of my life remains that we were never allowed to fight for the Paracels—and that I never had the chance to die there.

https://danviet.vn/anh-hung-nguyen-...ien-dau-lay-lai-hoang-sa-1083964-d162210.html

Here's just one of the many intriguing behind-the-scenes arrangements that took place between China and the US.

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

The US wasn't even in the Middle East during the Iran/Iraq War.
We only had a refueling station in Bahrain.

It was only after Saddam invaded Kuwait did the US bases appear...so don't blame us for being called in for protection...you are only 1200km away...we are on the other side of the planet.

Actually, he is a lot closer to you than 1200km. By air maybe 450 miles give or take?

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Vietnam is communist in name only, or at the very least, it's still governed by a party that simply calls itself "communist". The fact that Vietnam joined ASEAN and especially the WTO is clear proof that communism has long drifted away.



The US did fail in the Vietnam War, or at least failed to protect South Vietnam, but it absolutely did not fail the Cold War. The Vietnam War was only one theater in a much larger scheme, and the strategic goals went far beyond simply keeping South Vietnam afloat.


https://danviet.vn/anh-hung-nguyen-...ien-dau-lay-lai-hoang-sa-1083964-d162210.html

Here's just one of the many intriguing behind-the-scenes arrangements that took place between China and the US.

Well I don't think we should claim we won anything because as you said the whole thing kind of fizzled on its own.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Actually, he is a lot closer to you than 1200km. By air maybe 450 miles give or take?

okay.. fixed now..

 

[SecularNationalist]

Irans missile force was degraded to 5-10 missiles fired per day. The vast majority of its missile production capability destroyed.

Ok then go ahead and open the strait of Hormuz what's stopping you ? Go stop Irani drones and missiles ,if they were just 5 to 10 per day then why you had to stop the war. Or I guess they are striking US bases flying on Persian carpets if there are no missiles left.
You have zero objectives achieved just big talks.
I have a client from US. She owns a trucking business in Iowa. Today I was talking to her and she said we used to be a super power but now we are just a laughing stock .

 

[mythbuster]

Ok then go ahead and open the strait of Hormuz what's stopping you ? Go stop Irani drones and missiles ,if they were just 5 to 10 per day then why you had to stop the war. Or I guess they are striking US bases flying on Persian carpets if there are no missiles left.
You have zero objectives achieved just big talks.
I have a client from US. She owns a trucking business in Iowa. Today I was talking to her and she said we used to be a super power but now we are just a laughing stock .

Who loses the most with the closure of straits of Hormuz ? GCC countries have trillions of dollars in reserves , they can comfortably survive for a decade without selling a drop of oil .... Iranian pinpricks are like last kicks of a dying horse .