r/geopolitics • u/joiug • 26d ago
The Taliban's Afghan Takeover Might Have Consequences For Yemen Opinion
https://south24.net/news/newse.php?nid=197957
u/joiug 26d ago edited 25d ago
America's Arab allies might no longer regard Washington as a reliable guarantor of their security.
The US' presumed interests in West Asia nowadays largely rest in renegotiating the Iranian nuclear deal, to which end America might be willing to make backroom deals with the Islamic Republic.
The emerging model might be that the US is willing to trade its allies' interests in order to advance its own perceived national ones at their expense.
Generally speaking, the US wants to refocus the vast majority of its military efforts on the Asia-Pacific in order to contain China, but it might also have a more specific regional goal in Yemen related to striking a backroom deal with Iran there as part of a possible compromise related to advancing the nuclear deal's renegotiation process.
From the perspective of the Yemeni War's various stakeholders, this is both an obstacle and an opportunity.
The most pragmatic compromise that the US might make with Iran would be to formalize Yemen's de facto internal partition through a Bosnian-like confederal model, even if only an interim one pending a new constitution.
What does the new US policy model mean for the Yemeni crisis? How will a possible settlement in Yemen effect Saudi Arabia and the region?
102
u/himo123 26d ago
Afghanistan has nothing to do with yemen here, this article is meaningless.
even saudis themselves are having backdoor negotiations with the houthis and iran in yemen, so this is nothing new. US role in yemen was secondary since the beginning.
yemen now isn't only controllled by houthis in the north and the southern secessionists, there are also the hadi government in maareb and the islamists/isis/alqaida in other parts of the country.
41
u/dieyoufool3 Moderator 26d ago
Afghanistan has nothing to do with yemen here, this article is meaningless.
Yeah, this article is pure speculation. Its central assumption, which I believe to be wrong, is it stretches Donald Trump's decision to directly negotiate a withdrawal deal with the Taliban as if it were the new underpinning foreign policy direction for the United States. It is not.
Article is being left up for discussion, though it may be taken down depending on how things blow in the comment section.
A quick aside, thank you to all reading this comment for being a part of this community!
4
u/recovering-human 26d ago
Thanks for moderating, and and please leave it up! Educated discussion of incorrect speculation is valuable for readers, and deleting things based on opinion has a chilling effect.
9
u/OPUno 26d ago
There's a thing on foreign policy analysis, where people write "what's more likely to happen is X" when they mean "Y country should do X because I want that to happen".
Just a quick travel to Twitter:
Andrew Korybko @AKorybko I'm a Moscow-based American political analyst. My personal views are my own and don’t represent any other people, outlets, or institutions.
Without any actual quotes, or numbers, or anything, this is just a bunch of conjectures sewn together, I mean, opinion piece, written by an obvious Putinist.
1
-4
u/chakachaka00dee 26d ago
I believe they would notice the glaring fact that the former holder of the oval office, was responsible for America's diminished role on the global level.
He definitely was not interested in partnerships with NATO and Mid East (with 1 obvious exception) allies where we provided security.
However, there's a new sheriff in town, and one of his goals is returning America to its place as the worlds leader in all spheres. I would like to think American allies also realize and see this as well.
7
u/ferrel_hadley 26d ago
returning America to its place as the worlds leader in all spheres.
US has been flying totally solo on this. Never even informed its allies it was walking away from Bagram nor phoned them about the chaos on Monday.
64
u/ferrel_hadley 26d ago
The US has a very diminished interest in the Middle East compared to even 10 years ago. They have something approaching energy independence and both the left and the right are worn out by their interventions. They have about 4000 in Bahrain, over 1000 in Saudi and little else in the region.
The two things there is significant political interest in in the region would be arms sales by the defence sector and some of the public still care about Israel.
Yemen is so far off the radar as to be invisible.
About the only thing in Washington likely to have any resonance is the left push for it to view the intervention as a human rights violation and push to find leverage to stop it.
Tilting towards China is going to be at best mixed. That could have big implications in the US general public (well big for the regions place in the public mind) and would unlikely bring the kind of direct physical and technical aid that rolls in with a US battle group.
Decarbonisation of the western economies will push the region further down the concern lists.
What ever plans the regional leaders are making they will likely have to account that the post oil shock interest in the region is receding.
15
u/sephirothFFVII 26d ago
Largely agree with your statements. Would be interesting to see if US keeps a carrier battle group around the straits of Hormuz to ensure the flow of crude to its own refineries and trading partners as that has direct impact to it's allies economic interests.
17
u/ferrel_hadley 26d ago
I really do not see the US reducing its ocean policing.
But internally the biggest group caring about Yemen are those who see Saudi as a US sanctioned human rights abuser there. I think Saudi really needs to think about what it wants and what it wants to be in the next decade. The US public think of bin Laden, misogyny (well enough to make people in Mississippi uncomfortable) and Khashoggi when they think of the kingdom. I can honestly see Biden chucking them under the bus in a deal with his legislative left wing. The one thing they have going for them is they buy lots of expensive arms, so have indirect support on the Hill. .
I think the mood in the room is a real thin level of support for the Kingdom.
If Iran rolls south Iraq will not be in their way. I cant see China being the kind of land,sea ,air power in weeks that the US was when it was Saddam in 90.
edited
Kabul just feeds into the US public sentiment that most of the world does not want what they were dying to give them.
2
u/LiberalAspergers 26d ago
Yes. The US has a huge strategic interest in not having a rival in blue water naval development. If the flow of oil is not guaranteed by the US, Japan HAS to develop the capability to guarantee it, and no one wants that to happen.
2
u/ferrel_hadley 25d ago
America has been pushing Japan to build up more since the 80s at least.
3
u/LiberalAspergers 25d ago
Yeah, but the US aren't pushing them to build up the kind of expeditionary force-projection capability they would need to guarantee their oil supply. That would require a couple of carrier groups, amphibious assault capability, and a decent armored force.
The US wants them to invest in ground based aircraft and guided missile frigates to help deter China. Very different force structure.
1
u/[deleted] 26d ago
[removed]
10
u/ferrel_hadley 26d ago
US Navy wont quit patrolling the worlds oceans.
US public remain deeply ideological about "freedom" and "democracy". They spent 20 years and thousands of lives trying to bring it to one of the poorest, least literate places on Earth. If those people believe that someone needs their help and will fight as hard as them they will be willing to get involved. With the Middle East and Afghanistan they just did not think the fight was worth it.
The Middle East North Africa has great solar potential and its likely some parts of it will reinvent themselves as new zones of low cost manufacturing with low cost energy.
6
u/sheytanelkebir 26d ago
Solar power and solar desalination is the future of the region.
Already the middle east does most of its trade with Asia. The pivot will continue in the future.
2
u/HugeVampireSquid 26d ago
Decarbonisation of the western economies will push the region further down the concern lists.
Think Arctic potentially melting and opening up a new trade route would be a much bigger blow to interest in the region
11
u/Honickm0nster 26d ago
But there were only 3K troops in Afghanistan. How does this have a big impact on US deployment in the East Asia?
2
u/tsuke1 26d ago
I dont think so. If this has proven anything its that as long as the involvement of the US is funding and the occasional airstrike and no actual troops on the ground then the US can keep it going indefinetly.
I think what Biden and the rest of the foreign policy experts miss here is that this is an issue because there is anywhere from 15000-20000 americans left behind in the retreat. The US public generally doesnt care about foreign policy unit you start seeing dead Americans.
Think of the kurds. We withdrew they took a hit and no one cared. If there were no 20000 americans here and we left behind i dunno 50000 afghan translators it would suck for a news cycle or two but would ultimately be forgotten.
24
u/Shanard 26d ago
I struggle to understand how twenty years of boots on the ground and trillions of dollars is somehow seen as Washington not committing to the security of their partners. If partners and allies' expectation is that the United States is simply going to fight their civil wars single-handedly for them, and provide 80% of their government's funding for an unlimited amount of time than the United States is always going to be a disappointment.
There are plenty of examples of Washington being a less than exceptional ally, I'm just not sure Afghanistan is a great example of it.
17
u/AziMeeshka 26d ago
I struggle to understand how twenty years of boots on the ground and trillions of dollars is somehow seen as Washington not committing to the security of their partners.
I don't understand this either. If anything, it shows a willingness to commit time, resources, and blood, even when the situation is hopeless. The fact that the US didn't pull out right after killing Bin Laden shows that they really were committed to trying to build a functioning government in Afghanistan that could survive after pulling out. At a certain point you just gotta cut the cord.
11
u/olifante 26d ago
Results are what matter, not how much money and time was put into it. If anything, the fact the US ruled Afghanistan for twenty years makes its failure to achieve its goals even more noteworthy.
1
1
u/jmlsasgzhiwala 25d ago
Yes it is kind of laughable to say that we don't support our allies given that the U.S committed so many resources to Afghanistan and have put up with a so much BS from powers that we have called our allies.
-5
u/chakachaka00dee 26d ago
I agree
AFGH was a great ally until the part where their well trained and equipped troops willingly handed over millions of dollars worth of US donated military equipment and arms to the taliban when they rolled into Kabul. Our troops did their part- the Afghan troops massively failed their pple or maybe, they too welcomed the return of the goat herders to power!
14
u/ferrel_hadley 26d ago
- the Afghan troops massively failed their pple or maybe, they too welcomed the return of the goat herder
66 000 of them died fighting the Taliban. The US walked away from them. Then their leaders took bribes and ordered them to stand down.
Much of the force was untrained and unfit for purpose but some of them were very good fighters.
1
0
u/Alienwallbuilder 26d ago
If Aghani army training from the U.S. is anything to go by the U.S. might be next over run, the concequences of the Taliban's takeover.
1
2
u/AutoModerator 26d ago
Post a submission statement in one hour or your post will be removed. Rules / Wiki Resources
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.