As the Pentagon is shifting its focus to confront Russia and China, the top US commander in the Middle East is arguing that the region is crucial to this so-called “great power competition” the military is now prioritizing.
Gen. Frank McKenzie, the head of US Central Command, said if the US pulls out of the Middle East, China and Russia will expand their influence, a common talking point among hawks who favor intervention in the region.
“The Middle East writ broadly is an area of intense competition between the great powers. And I think that as we adjust our posture in the region, Russia and China will be looking very closely to see if a vacuum opens that they can exploit,” McKenzie told reporters on Sunday.
While McKenzie favors continued US engagement in the Middle East, he also agrees that China is the top “pacing threat” facing the US military, which is the official line coming out of the Pentagon. “I agree completely that China needs to be the pacing threat we orient on,” he said. “At the same time, we are a global power and we need to have a global outlook. And that means that you have the ability to consider the globe as a whole.”
Mckenzie’s claimed that Moscow wants to sell more air defense systems in the region and that Beijing has a “long-term” goal of establishing military bases in the Middle East. Both of these goals would be more achievable if the US left, he said.
China currently has one overseas military base in Djibouti, which is located next to a US base and was established for anti-piracy operations. Despite US claims, there’s no indication that China wants to expand its military presence in the region, as Beijing’s preferred way to spread influence is through infrastructure investments and trade.
When it comes to Russian arms sales, that concern rings hollow coming from the US. For decades, US weapons have flooded the region, fueling conflict after conflict. Today, the US’s top allies in the region — Saudi Arabia and Israel — are constantly bombing their neighbors with US weapons.
McKenzie said he met with Saudi leaders over the weekend who were “very concerned” about the US’s pivot towards Asia and the Pentagon’s global posture review. Ultimately, McKenzie said he wasn’t fearful that the US would completely disengage from the region and said the US could maintain influence by supporting proxies and keeping missile systems in the Arabian Peninsula.
Pretty blunt. They are our pawns. Hands off.
Then let them have fun. Keep our money (tax money) out of there. Let China and Russia drain their money.
The Pentagon Strategic Reviews always claim the US “must” maintain overwhelming supremacy everywhere. Why? Well, who else has as many generals or admirals as the US? Or global “commands” from which people make careers, and then retire and transition into the lucrative defense consulting racket.
If Syria is the bellwether, Washington eyes regime change as opposed to outright war, though proxies maintain the “illusion.
Washington isn’t leaving and more Middle East leaders should have concerns.
Regime change in Syria has been in our sights since Eisenhower.
Someone call a cataracts surgeon.
Why would these “leaders” have concern? They are participants in big US hedge and closed investment funds. “Leaders”? Like who? Sisi? The sect(gang) leaders in Iraq? The Saudis? Even President Assad still had a few pennies invested in companies that in turn invest with British and American venture and hedge funds. You really believe that stuff about “sanctions”? That’s for the bank manager in Damascus or Tehran. The top elite in every nation never suffer one bit. Under the Mullah robes are bitcoin codes
Either the good general is not observant — or he is spending too much time focused on what he believes US wants, and has no ability to hear dissonant tones,
US has not left, nor is it likely to leave. No country in the region is interested in losing relationship with US. Quite to the contrary, good relations are desired.
That said, things have changed, sand shifting underneath the known landmarks, new perspectives developed.
Good general may have noticed the shifting sands, from Clinton era, through Bush and Obama. Then comes uncouth Trump and suddenly the new shape of landscape appeared. Three major waves washed over Middle East. Massive US military interventions and proxy forces, Chinese dominance in buying Saudi Arabia oil, and Russia and Turkey stabilizing Syria and becoming stabilizing force in the area. Consequently, Iran became a non-issue to Gulf states, Neither of these dynamics individually changed US position. Us position was static — assumptions of primacy in relationships, Russia, China and others had no assumptions, but worked on developing mutually beneficial relations. As a result, as of today — not in some future — Middle Eastern states are engaging with other powers and regions to develop their potential.
It is not the question of US leaving, and somebody moving in. This is a case of US being very much present, and other countries — China and Russia among them — are developing productive relationship with the region.
For US, the question is — what is the purpose of a relationship. It is not sufficient to expect that a country A must accept our primacy in international relations. What is the content of relationship? What are we bringing to the table
Right now the US provides investment opporutunites for global elites everywhere. Russia does not. Nor does China. When that changes, the US dollar will sink, and the US will be a “who cares” nation, like the UK.
Ah, the “vaccum theory ” returns. Let the Russians and Chinese have the Middle East. Aren’t we all going green, and dumping fossil fuels. Hm. maybe not. Tell Biden. Well he won’t be around in 2035, 2040, 2050 or whenever his utterly fictional deadlines for “carbon free” emissions are supposed to happen, all the massive to the contrary notwithstanding. Militaries gonna have electric tanks? Bombers? Aircraft carriers? Wonder why the NBC or CNN press at WH pressers don’t ask eager beaver Jen that?