A coalition of the few: U.S. and Saudi Arabia stand alone against Iran

Source: Politico | September 17, 2019 | Wesley Morgan

The United States and Saudi Arabia lack virtually any allies as they consider how to respond to this weekend’s attacks on Saudi oil refineries, raising doubts about whether the Trump administration could build any coalition for military action in the region.

The attacks have crippled Saudi oil production, creating one of the largest oil disruptions in decades. But while Defense Secretary Mark Esper tweeted that the U.S. is working with “our partners to address this unprecedented attack,” President Donald Trump has alienated key allies by unilaterally pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and re-imposing sanctions. It has already been unable to enlist allies to protect shipping in the region from Iranian attacks.

“In a normal administration, we should be able to get 40 or 50 countries on board for something like this but we can’t because nobody trusts the Trump administration and everybody thinks they’re going to take them into war,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Obama administration national security official who worked on Iran policy at the Pentagon, referring to the maritime security initiative — which he called “pathetic.”

“There is no offensive coalition against Iran, not there or anywhere else in the world right now,” added Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who studies Iranian military activity in the Middle East.

Even leading Republicans in Congress called on Trump to take action only with the help of allies. “The best way to counter Iran is by working by, with and through regional partners — including making sure they have what they need to defend themselves and our shared interests,” Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma said in a statement late Monday.

The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said earlier that “I hope our international partners will join us in imposing consequences on Iran for this reckless destabilizing attack.”

Successive U.S. administrations have used coalitions to bolster the legitimacy of military actions and to relieve some of the pressure on heavily used U.S. military forces — from the 1991 Gulf War and the Clinton administration’s actions in the Balkans to the much-maligned “coalition of the willing” that the George W. Bush administration recruited for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

And since taking office, Trump has often expressed frustration with allies over burden-sharing, pushing European, Asian, and Middle Eastern partners to bear greater financial and practical costs in areas where the U.S. underwrites their security.

That was the Pentagon’s rationale when it announced the so-called International Maritime Security Construct in July following the Iranian seizure of a British tanker and the June shoot down of a U.S. surveillance drone. By recruiting international partners for a flotilla of naval vessels and surveillance aircraft, the Pentagon hoped to limit the amount of U.S. military might it would have to commit to providing security in waterways where Iranian naval forces have harassed commercial shipping.

That’s seen as a key concern at a time when the military is trying to shift troops, aircraft, warships and other equipment away from the Middle East to better prepare for potential conflicts with Russia or China.

Yet many allied nations — including bedrock military partners like France and Germany — steered clear out of concern that the Trump administration might use the mission to drag them into a confrontation with Iran.

France and Germany have both condemned the weekend attacks on the Saudi oil industry. But France appears committed to diplomacy with Iran. French President Emmanuel Macron last month called for Trump and President of Iran Hassan Rouhani to meet to try to arrange a summit.

And a German government official last month warned of being “sucked into” a larger military mission if it joined the maritime security mission.

So far, only the U.K., Australia, and Bahrain have joined the U.S. in the maritime coalition.

………

Tagged: , ,

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Discussion
  • Consistent #31770

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.