Naval drama(s) off Arabia (catch all)

[Ray]

I'm haven't been to Yemen, and don't claim any expertise on it. It does seem from my limited reading though that Saudi is at a minimum not targeting AQAP, and at worst may be supporting them. If true, this presents a wicked problem for the U.S. when it comes to strategic direction regarding Yemen and of course the larger region. David posted elsewhere that some SOF thought the Houthis killing AQAP was a good thing and we shouldn't interfere, but I didn't see any reporting yet on that happening. There was a time when two our enemies were fighting each other we saw that a positive, at least for the short term.

You say we don't have a strategy. That may or may not be true, but before you have strategy, at least IMO, you have to have strategic goals/ends/objectives. What do you think they should be?

One factor that should concern the US and Europe is that the most of the oilfields are in the region from East Saudi Arabia, stretching to Iran.

Oil still is an important factor to strategic thinking and plan.

I recall the rationale spelt out in the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

China is poised to 'capture' CAR oil and the lowering of the oil price is driving Russia into China's warm embrace since China has no qualms in cornering oil from any source.

China rising is bad news for the US and its global supremacy.

Therefore, it would be in the interest of the US to calm the badlands of the Middle East, be it through diplomacy, coercion or by sheer military might, even if in a stand off mode.

[davidbfpo]

One factor that should concern the US and Europe is that the most of the oilfields are in the region from East Saudi Arabia, stretching to Iran.

Oil still is an important factor to strategic thinking and plan.

I recall the rationale spelt out in the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

China is poised to 'capture' CAR oil and the lowering of the oil price is driving Russia into China's warm embrace since China has no qualms in cornering oil from any source.

China rising is bad news for the US and its global supremacy.

Therefore, it would be in the interest of the US to calm the badlands of the Middle East, be it through diplomacy, coercion or by sheer military might, even if in a stand off mode.

Ray,

It is hard today to see that US policy in the region has acted to 'calm the badlands'. Until relatively recently few in the USA would openly argue that the Middle East was not a region of national interest, that time maybe coming.

War weariness is a factor now and a realisation inside "The Beltway" that intervention appears to rarely promote US national interests. Add in the impact of shale oil & gas, so reducing US dependence on oil from the region and so for example "why should we fight (etc) to prop up nasty regimes and secure China's oil supplies?". I just read an interview, a few months old, with DNI James Clapper who pointed out the impact of shale oil & gas.

If not oil supplies, securing China's oil supplies, propping up kings and those nasty terrorists aplenty - then what keeps the USA in the region?
One place: Israel.

IMHO supporting Israel is a domestic political necessity for all likely presidents. Yes there are some advantages to the USA in the relationship it has with the Israeli state; rarely does one hear the contrary view.