GEORGE FRIEDMAN. US Military Options in Iran (Geopolitical Futures 17-9-19)

The United States has openly accused Iran of being behind the drone and cruise missile attacks on Saudi Arabia’s largest oil refinery.

The attacks did not directly affect the U.S., save for the spike in oil prices, which actually helps the American oil industry. There is a temptation to let the attacks slip into history. But the United States has formed an anti-Iran alliance in which Saudi Arabia is a key (though weak) player …. Failing to respond to an Iranian attack on a vital Saudi facility could help Iran increase its power throughout the region …. Military action against Iran … would both endanger the alliance structure and cut against U.S. strategy.

You can read the full article here.


Ramesh Thakur is a professor emeritus at the Crawford School of Public Policy, the Australian National University.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to GEORGE FRIEDMAN. US Military Options in Iran (Geopolitical Futures 17-9-19)

  1. Rory McGuire says:

    Yes, Mark. And as he is “not good at anything involving the US or Israel”, this means in a Middle East context he is not good at anything. Full stop. Note for example how he advocates blockading Iranian ports: no discussion of the legality of doing so. But why should we be surprised? The US has shown us time and again it does not consider itself bound by international laws or treaties. And Australia goes along with this misbehaviour.

  2. Malcolm Spry says:

    The only strategy to fix this mess is to get Iran back to the negotiating table by easing the sanctions. This is an American created mess in the first instance. No amount of military action will achieve longer term peace in the region.

  3. Mark Freeman says:

    George Friedman is a seasoned geopolitical analyst but not good at anything involving the US or Israel. This article is notable for what it ignores rather than its inclusions. He doesn’t question the legitimacy of long running US sanctions on Iran or its refusal to normalize relations or attempt to harness Iran to assist US interests.

    He sidesteps the inconclusive source of recent attacks and instead assumes Iran is behind it all. He also minimises Israel’s role in inflaming US and Saudi tensions with Iran. He also doesn’t compare Iran’s push west and south against it’s need not to do so eastwards.

    This is a fine example of the polished but disingenuous analysis for which he is sometimes known.

Comments are closed.