Yep and if Israel ceased to exist, the US would create one for this reason. Need some attack dog in the region to get the other Arab nations to do as they’re told.
Comment on Why is the US so into Israel?
Objection@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Israel is an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East. The Middle East is full of oil and independent countries that the US would rather control as puppets.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon - every country that doesn’t bend the knee gets bombed. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Israel - those countries that do bend the knee get limitless military support, regardless of how oppressive they are.
The US is intent in conquering the entire Middle East by force. Israel is not unique, it’s just the most firmly controlled US proxy.
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Eh. The US really has no interest in actually conquering the Middle East. Outside the main US territories, the US is a trade empire, not a settler one. The US is never going to try and annex territory in the Middle East and make it a state. The US just wants to make sure the oil keeps coming out of the ground and that it keeps getting exported at an affordable cost. It’s primary goal is to prevent Middle East nations from using their oil for political leverage or for purposes other than export. It would have made a lot of sense economically for a country like Saudi Arabia to not get into the oil export business. Instead, they could have kept their oil domestic, built up a supply chain of value-add products, and export those. Instead of exporting raw oil, they could mainly export plastics, highly refined fuels, and the things made from plastics. But the West wants cheap energy, and they want the higher places on the supply chain.
It’s ultimately all about the oil. The day the oil runs out or the day oil is no longer needed, Israel will be abandoned and left to its own devices.
Objection@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I call the US being able to dictate what happens to the oil as “conquest.” Of course they aren’t going to do formal annexation, there’s no reason to.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You can define things however you want, but words do have meaning. Conquest implies direct political control over a place.
Objection@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Not really. There are plenty of cases in history where conquest results in establishing a tributary or proxy state. Japan conquered Manchuria in WWII, the fact that they set up a puppet government does not change that fact at all.
The word you’re looking for is annexation. I’m not “redefining” anything.