It's a bit weird to say Israel could replace the US as a security partner without giving an example of who that would be. Russia? China? The EU? And what money are they to buy the materials with, their own? American? Who would continue to bribe their neighbors they're not at war with and restrain those they are at war with. What if Iran really does get nukes, what if a 3rd country gives them one.
Currently the Americans are trying to figure out how much sovereignty they really have and are discovering that it's indeed effectively none. What do you think that does to a population, especially during a sustained economic recession, where the fed is dropping interest rates, while stocks are at all time highs. It seems like the only thing Americans can agree on is that 'this cannot last', I don't know what'll replace it but there is a reasonably good chance it won't be good for Israel.
> weird to say Israel could replace the US as a security partner without giving an example of who that would be. Russia? China?
China, Russia and India come to mind. (The latter two need Israeli weapons expertise and are transactional about their geopolitics. The last is in the growing throes of anti-Muslim ethnonationalism. The first and third import energy.)
> what money are they to buy the materials with, their own?
Yes. Amercan aid to Israel is less than 1% of its GDP [1][2]. We buy influence with that money, but it's not existential.
> What if Iran really does get nukes, what if a 3rd country gives them one
...Israel already has nukes and superior delivery mechanisms to Iran. Also, if Iran gets nukes, I put Israel becoming a regional hegemon protecting the Gulf from a nuclear Iran on the board.
> Americans are trying to figure out how much sovereignty they really have and are discovering that it's indeed effectively none
This is dumb. America's Israel policy until about 2025 has been broadly popular with the electorate. (Israel could have become unpopular earlier, but nobody particularly likes folks occupying universities and blocking bridges.)
[1] https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel
With regards to sovereignty I was referring to US foreign policy, not dealing with annoying libs. Right now the struggle is between the Restrainers and the Primacists to decide if a war with China should be preceded by a war with Iran. Israel is pushing for the war with Iran because it wants to be the local hegemony. No American gets to vote on this and those who thought they were voting against it actually voted for the person most likely to enable it. Hence zero sovereignty, well maybe that’s negative sovereignty.
1% is absolutely huge with regards to a GDP (money spent). Also that’s not all inclusive, you need to throw in all the other money the US spends on the Middle East.
I’m unlikely to change anyone’s mind on this, but I generally am interested in exploring the bounds of others. Unless you have something new and interesting to share I think we’re done here.
> No American gets to vote on this and those who thought they were voting against it actually voted for the person most likely to enable it. Hence zero sovereignty
You're mixing up sovereignty with direct democracy.
We're a republic. We have total sovereignty when it comes to geopolitics. None of that requires Americans voting on foreign policy issues, which in reality, given even informed Americans' international literacy, would be horrific.
> 1% is absolutely huge with regards to a GDP (money spent)
But easy enough to replace, even solely with domestic resources.
> you need to throw in all the other money the US spends on the Middle East
This is nonsense. One, we're not abandoning the Gulf for a variety of financial and geostrategic reasons. Two, even if we do, that's an opportunity for Israel as an emerging regional hegemonic.
> I’m unlikely to change anyone’s mind on this
Wouldn't have expected otherwise. These discussions can still be interesting for us, as you mentioned, and for others.
I know Israel sees its future as a regional, and perhaps global, kingmaker. The fulcrum upon which the multipolar world balances and that this is an attractive proposition to them. But it’ll be entering into a world with a combination of circumstances that have never happened before, which I think is one hell of a risk, a risk that has a good chance of ending disastrously for them, let alone the rest of the world. And what should happen to them if they fail.
It’ll be like singing ‘we’ll be home by Christmas,’ or ‘King Cotton,’ often many of the assumptions that underpin these beliefs do not pan out. I guess it’s now ‘free beachside real estate.’
> a combination of circumstances that have never happened before, which I think is one hell of a risk, a risk that has a good chance of ending disastrously for them, let alone the rest of the world. And what should happen to them if they fail
Geopolitically, if America is becoming an unreliable security guarantor, they have no choice. They don't need to be bombing Gaza into oblivion. But they do need to establish the precedent that they can intervene with force in the region at their discretion.
Let me know when they’ve defeated the Houthis because so far that plan isn’t working, and that’s with US support.