The recent Hamas attack on Israel exposed a troubling reality for the US: years of resource drawdown in the Middle East have created dangerous intelligence gaps. As analysts scramble to understand potential threats amidst an Iranian-backed bombardment, a critical question hangs in the air - has the US underestimated the region's importance at its own peril?

 

From Shift to Scramble: Years ago, the US began diverting resources away from the Middle East, viewing Russia and China as more pressing threats. Now, the consequences are stark. Key personnel focused elsewhere struggled to swiftly switch gears and decipher a flood of threat reports originating from diverse groups, including Iranian-backed entities.

 

A Reckoning at the Top: This intelligence scramble has triggered a high-level reassessment within the Biden administration's national security apparatus. The current approach towards Iran, coupled with the deprioritization of the entire region, is being widely criticized for leaving the US vulnerable.

 

Vulnerability Exposed: Multiple sources, including current and former officials, lawmakers, and congressional aides, point to the Biden administration's neglect of the Middle East as a key factor in the current predicament. One former official expressed frustration, stating, "Biden has essentially ignored the Middle East for the past three years...Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Now they're paying the price."

 

Key Takeaways:

Intelligence gaps due to resource reduction in the Middle East are causing concern within the US national security establishment.
The recent Hamas attack and ongoing threats from Iranian-backed groups highlight the potential dangers of this situation.
There is widespread criticism of the Biden administration's approach towards Iran and the Middle East, with accusations of neglect and vulnerability.

 

31.01.24

Source

 

 

Nothing much to disagree with on that OP.

Doesn't look good for Biden's re election campaign though.

48 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nothing much to disagree with on that OP.

Doesn't look good for Biden's re election campaign though.

 

Not to worry.  The MSM will spin it to be the Bad Orange Man's fault.

 

I miss mean tweets and relative peace.

 

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Not to worry.  The MSM will spin it to be the Bad Orange Man's fault.

 

I miss mean tweets and relative peace.

 

So what do you think of the peace deal he brokered, ignoring the Palestinians?

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So what do you think of the peace deal he brokered, ignoring the Palestinians?

What peace deal? It didn't result in "peace" whatever it was.

His israeli policy was the only one I fundamentally disagreed with in every aspect.

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So what do you think of the peace deal he brokered, ignoring the Palestinians?

 

I think that during his administration, Palestinians and Israelis weren't killing the heck out of each other.  Not until 2 year into Biden's reign.  Plenty of time for Biden to make another of his disastrous executive orders against all things Trump. Like at the border and Keystone.

 

Neither were the Russkies and the Ukes killing each other en masse during the Bad Orange Man.  And WW3 wasn't in the air.

And I think results speak 10x as loud as the words that come out of (both sides of) their mouths.  Hopefully, so will the voters.

 

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So what do you think of the peace deal he brokered, ignoring the Palestinians?

He did more than most Presidents to bring peace to the region. As far as the Palestinians go, you can't make peace with people who only want to see you dead. 

Frankly, Biden was right. The Middle East, in the overall scheme of things, is not that important. Longer term China and Russia dwarf Israel-Palestine.

 

Few Arab countries actually like the Palestinians. They are tired of the issue and want to live their dissolute lives spending oil revenue for their own pleasures. Most want to normalize relations with Israel and do business with the country.

 

There's precious little strategic need to keep the US military on the ground in the ME. A carrier group can do the only needful thing, which is maintaining the free flow of oil and gas through the gulf and Strait of Hormuz. Maybe keep naval facilities in Bahrain or Qatar, but no need for troops on the ground. The Israel-Palestine issue is more political, because Israel is of great importance to many in the donor class. The US gained nothing but resentment for moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Some "dealmaker".

 

As for Iran, the US is biding time until the mullahs die off, and the youth of Iran change the course of the nation more toward secularism and the West. It would be a mistake to bomb Iran now, as so many chickenhawk Repubs are saying, such as "confirmed bachelor" Lindsey Graham. Yes, Iran supplies weapons to militant groups, but does not pull their strings. Using Repub "logic", we should bomb gun stores and gun manufacturers when some whackjob shoots up a church or school.

 

The worst move the US ever made was starting the 2nd Iraq War. The intel back then said "No WMD, or at best a 15% chance", only because one cannot prove a negative. Gulf War One had convinced Saddam that it's better to live a life of "braods, booze and palaces" than try to be a major player on the world stage. Cheney, however, was determined, and got Tenet and Bush to go along, and made a fool of Colin Powell by altering the speech he was to deliver to the UN. The analysts in the agency had prepared a much more neutral assessment, but Cheney overruled Tyler Drumheller et al and gave Powell lies.

54 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I think that during his administration, Palestinians and Israelis weren't killing the heck out of each other.  Not until 2 year into Biden's reign.  Plenty of time for Biden to make another of his disastrous executive orders against all things Trump. Like at the border and Keystone.

 

Neither were the Russkies and the Ukes killing each other en masse during the Bad Orange Man.  And WW3 wasn't in the air.

And I think results speak 10x as loud as the words that come out of (both sides of) their mouths.  Hopefully, so will the voters.

 

You have zero understanding of the Middle East issue. Their have long been quiet periods, but the area always erupts again....and always will. trump did aggravate the situation by moving the US embassy, getting absolutely nothing in return but resentment and a commitment by aggrieved parties to continue the strife.

Let's face it. It's all too complicated for Biden, a man who struggles to stay on his feet and string a coherent sentence together. Certainly not both at the same time.

 

Whether you are Republican or Democrat, it's clear that the US needs a competent leader. Not one who meddles in every conflict in the world without a long term strategy. Not one who constantly lies about himself, his family and his political achievements. Not one who embarrases himself on the world stage dragging the once good name of the US through the mud.

 

These are dangerous times in global politics. Let's hope for all our sakes he's gone soon. 

 

The people who argued the U.S. should stay home and not be involved in other regions of the war have just flipped their line of argument.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nothing much to disagree with on that OP.

Doesn't look good for Biden's re election campaign though.

It does if you consider the alternative.

Who cares what looks good for a Biden re-election?  He has been on the wrong side of History for over 50 years now.  Enough!!

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The people who argued the U.S. should stay home and not be involved in other regions of the war have just flipped their line of argument.

I made the same observation.

8 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Not to worry.  The MSM will spin it to be the Bad Orange Man's fault.

 

I miss mean tweets and relative peace.

 

 

The article blames the reduction of U.S. military presence over the years.

 

Who bragged about having withdrawn troops from Iraq? Who sacrificed the presence of Kurds in Syria to his friendship with Erdogan? Who stopped support to the Free Syrian army?

5 minutes ago, candide said:

 

The article blames the reduction of U.S. military presence over the years.

 

Who bragged about having withdrawn troops from Iraq? Who sacrificed the presence of Kurds in Syria to his friendship with Erdogan? Who stopped support to the Free Syrian army?

 

Both the US and Israel knew of and approved of the transfer of over a billion dollars from Qatar to Hamas with the specific intention of destabilising the region.

8 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Frankly, Biden was right. The Middle East, in the overall scheme of things, is not that important. Longer term China and Russia dwarf Israel-Palestine.

 

Few Arab countries actually like the Palestinians. They are tired of the issue and want to live their dissolute lives spending oil revenue for their own pleasures. Most want to normalize relations with Israel and do business with the country.

 

There's precious little strategic need to keep the US military on the ground in the ME. A carrier group can do the only needful thing, which is maintaining the free flow of oil and gas through the gulf and Strait of Hormuz. Maybe keep naval facilities in Bahrain or Qatar, but no need for troops on the ground. The Israel-Palestine issue is more political, because Israel is of great importance to many in the donor class. The US gained nothing but resentment for moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Some "dealmaker".

 

As for Iran, the US is biding time until the mullahs die off, and the youth of Iran change the course of the nation more toward secularism and the West. It would be a mistake to bomb Iran now, as so many chickenhawk Repubs are saying, such as "confirmed bachelor" Lindsey Graham. Yes, Iran supplies weapons to militant groups, but does not pull their strings. Using Repub "logic", we should bomb gun stores and gun manufacturers when some whackjob shoots up a church or school.

 

The worst move the US ever made was starting the 2nd Iraq War. The intel back then said "No WMD, or at best a 15% chance", only because one cannot prove a negative. Gulf War One had convinced Saddam that it's better to live a life of "braods, booze and palaces" than try to be a major player on the world stage. Cheney, however, was determined, and got Tenet and Bush to go along, and made a fool of Colin Powell by altering the speech he was to deliver to the UN. The analysts in the agency had prepared a much more neutral assessment, but Cheney overruled Tyler Drumheller et al and gave Powell lies.

China and Russia are obviously a threat, but so is Iran. Trump took a hard line with Iran, but Biden has been significantly softer. Reports suggest that in the last 2/3 years Iran has stepped up the pace of it's development of nuclear weaponry, and will likely have an atomic bomb well within 5 years. That is something to be very concerned about.

48 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

China and Russia are obviously a threat, but so is Iran. Trump took a hard line with Iran, but Biden has been significantly softer. Reports suggest that in the last 2/3 years Iran has stepped up the pace of it's development of nuclear weaponry, and will likely have an atomic bomb well within 5 years. That is something to be very concerned about.

How did the "hard line" work? Did it prevent or trigger uranium production by Iran?  Who killed the 2015 nuclear deal? As a direct consequence, Iran increased uranium enrichment by 10-fold in 2019

The OP is pure drivel. Written be someone with zero understanding of current geopolitics and foreign policy. 

3 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

China and Russia are obviously a threat, but so is Iran. Trump took a hard line with Iran, but Biden has been significantly softer. Reports suggest that in the last 2/3 years Iran has stepped up the pace of it's development of nuclear weaponry, and will likely have an atomic bomb well within 5 years. That is something to be very concerned about.

Look forward to the links to underline your assertion.

6 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

Both the US and Israel knew of and approved of the transfer of over a billion dollars from Qatar to Hamas with the specific intention of destabilising the region.

 

@ozimoron

 

No, the intention was not to 'destabilize' the region, that's just you saying things.

It had little to do with some 'regional' level plans, at least on Israel's part. Qatar is a different story - but again, nothing to do with 'destabilizing'.

6 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

China and Russia are obviously a threat, but so is Iran. Trump took a hard line with Iran, but Biden has been significantly softer. Reports suggest that in the last 2/3 years Iran has stepped up the pace of it's development of nuclear weaponry, and will likely have an atomic bomb well within 5 years. That is something to be very concerned about.

 

Trump didn't do a thing when American bases were attacked and soldiers hurt.

Trump didn't do a thing when the Iranians shot down that fancy, state of the art, expensive mega-drone.

Trump talks a lot, and presents a tough image - but at the end of the day, Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon, and it's proxy strategy is working well.

14 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Frankly, Biden was right. The Middle East, in the overall scheme of things, is not that important. Longer term China and Russia dwarf Israel-Palestine.

 

Few Arab countries actually like the Palestinians. They are tired of the issue and want to live their dissolute lives spending oil revenue for their own pleasures. Most want to normalize relations with Israel and do business with the country.

 

There's precious little strategic need to keep the US military on the ground in the ME. A carrier group can do the only needful thing, which is maintaining the free flow of oil and gas through the gulf and Strait of Hormuz. Maybe keep naval facilities in Bahrain or Qatar, but no need for troops on the ground. The Israel-Palestine issue is more political, because Israel is of great importance to many in the donor class. The US gained nothing but resentment for moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Some "dealmaker".

 

As for Iran, the US is biding time until the mullahs die off, and the youth of Iran change the course of the nation more toward secularism and the West. It would be a mistake to bomb Iran now, as so many chickenhawk Repubs are saying, such as "confirmed bachelor" Lindsey Graham. Yes, Iran supplies weapons to militant groups, but does not pull their strings. Using Repub "logic", we should bomb gun stores and gun manufacturers when some whackjob shoots up a church or school.

 

The worst move the US ever made was starting the 2nd Iraq War. The intel back then said "No WMD, or at best a 15% chance", only because one cannot prove a negative. Gulf War One had convinced Saddam that it's better to live a life of "braods, booze and palaces" than try to be a major player on the world stage. Cheney, however, was determined, and got Tenet and Bush to go along, and made a fool of Colin Powell by altering the speech he was to deliver to the UN. The analysts in the agency had prepared a much more neutral assessment, but Cheney overruled Tyler Drumheller et al and gave Powell lies.

 

 

A single carrier group could not tackle issues all over the area. There's a carrier group in place now, plus a whole lot of other forces, and the Houthis manage to disrupt maritime traffic anyway. The other thing missing would be intel - need bases for that, and local cooperation. As for troops on the ground - it depends what falls under this label.

 

Regarding Iran - waiting for the Mullahs to die off? There are replacements, and not all are very old even. Banking on 'the youth' is a gamble, not much of a strategy. As for Iran not pulling the strings of proxies, you're either joking or severely misinformed. There are proxies and there are proxies, but making such a blanket statement is way off mark.

 

21 hours ago, Walker88 said:

The worst move the US ever made was starting the 2nd Iraq War. The intel back then said "No WMD, or at best a 15% chance", only because one cannot prove a negative. Gulf War One had convinced Saddam that it's better to live a life of "braods, booze and palaces" than try to be a major player on the world stage. Cheney, however, was determined, and got Tenet and Bush to go along, and made a fool of Colin Powell by altering the speech he was to deliver to the UN. The analysts in the agency had prepared a much more neutral assessment, but Cheney overruled Tyler Drumheller et al and gave Powell lies.

On that I agree 100%.

It was a huge mistake, and unfortunately Blair went along with it.

 

Cheney IMO was a bad man, but Bush the younger just as bad.

 

Certainly Powell looked uncomfortable when delivering his speech about the WMD facilities- perhaps that explains it. He certainly suffered for it later.

The US can't be everywhere. And China + Russia are the bigger threats. China pushing into the Pacific in the Solomons and Papa New Guinea, plus the threat to Taiwan. Really, Iran and the Middle East should be European concerns. They're the ones utterly dependent on the Suez Canal. Let them defend it. Let the Euros solve the constant Arab uprisings and terrorism. 

2 minutes ago, John Drake said:

The US can't be everywhere. And China + Russia are the bigger threats. China pushing into the Pacific in the Solomons and Papa New Guinea, plus the threat to Taiwan. Really, Iran and the Middle East should be European concerns. They're the ones utterly dependent on the Suez Canal. Let them defend it. Let the Euros solve the constant Arab uprisings and terrorism. 

 

Disagree. The US was instrumental in establishing Israel, they should be instrumental in solving the problem. They are the largest benefactor of Israel and so are in a uniquely influential position to do so.

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Disagree. The US was instrumental in establishing Israel, they should be instrumental in solving the problem. They are the largest benefactor of Israel and so are in a uniquely influential position to do so.

 

This isn't about Israel it is about Iran's ongoing sponsorship of terror since 1979 and the establishment of Houthi terrorists who are trying to overthrow the government of Yemen. Let Europe deal with it. I am far, far more concerned with Chinese expansion which is taking place right now and displacing Australian influence throughout Melanesia.

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Disagree. The US was instrumental in establishing Israel, they should be instrumental in solving the problem. They are the largest benefactor of Israel and so are in a uniquely influential position to do so.

 

@ozimoron

 

Israel was 'established' following a UN vote. There was a rather wide support. You making it into a USA thing is just you pushing stuff.

This topic is about the ME in general, you making it about Israel is about as clueless as it gets.

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

The US can't be everywhere. And China + Russia are the bigger threats. China pushing into the Pacific in the Solomons and Papa New Guinea, plus the threat to Taiwan. Really, Iran and the Middle East should be European concerns. They're the ones utterly dependent on the Suez Canal. Let them defend it. Let the Euros solve the constant Arab uprisings and terrorism. 

As long as the world economy remains dependent on petroleum and natural gas for fuel, the ME is everyone's problem. It is good to see that countries like Australia and the USA, among many others, are working to reduce that dependence.

54 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

This isn't about Israel it is about Iran's ongoing sponsorship of terror since 1979 and the establishment of Houthi terrorists who are trying to overthrow the government of Yemen. Let Europe deal with it. I am far, far more concerned with Chinese expansion which is taking place right now and displacing Australian influence throughout Melanesia.

 

You can't separate out the current attacks on the US without considering Israel. The far right like to artificially compartmentalize conjoined issues.