Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | Youtube |
Published | 2023/12/07 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Beau explains the intricate power dynamics in Middle Eastern foreign policy, stressing negotiations over military solutions, and dispels the notion of simple solutions.
Policy enthusiasts
The full transcript delves deeply into the complex interplay of power dynamics, the significance of negotiations in resolving conflicts, and the lack of simple solutions in international affairs.
#ForeignPolicy #MiddleEast #PowerDynamics #Negotiations #ComplexSolutions
Well, howdy there, internet people, it's Beau again.
And welcome to the Roads with Beau.
Today, we are going to be talking about foreign policy and aid and how it works.
This is, I think, the fourth time I've sat down to film a video on this subject.
The first few were using our fictitious region on the whiteboard.
But every time I would get done, a new question would come in, and those questions are very specific to the current
situation in the Middle East.
So, while explaining the dynamics in a fictitious region would be helpful to understand other conflicts later,
and would be something that could be referenced a little bit more easily,
I think in this case, because of the number of questions that are super specific, it might be better just to answer the
questions.
So today we're going to talk about aid and why the United States won't just cut aid, because that is a solution that is
being offered. And so we're going to run through it.
But again, this video is about how foreign policy is,
not how you want it to be, not how I want it to be.
It's about how it works right now.
So it's not about morality, it's not about ethics,
not even about humanity.
It's about power and nothing else.
OK, so we have a series of questions.
And they're not linked.
These are from different people.
I have put them in order to kind of guide us through this conversation.
Okay I see a bunch of commentators say the U.S. won't cut aid or sever the relationship
with Israel as a statement of fact, but none of you say why, at least not clearly.
I know that it has something to do with Iran, but that's it.
OK, don't overthink this.
Don't overthink this.
It's way simpler than I think most people
want to acknowledge.
In the Middle East, there are three regional powers,
Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Right now, Saudi Arabia and Israel
lean towards the United States.
Iran leans towards China and Russia.
If the United States was to cut aid or sever the relationship,
which, if you don't know, that's an even more extreme thing,
they no longer have the balance of power
shifted in their direction.
They don't have two of the regional powers.
They only have one.
It's that simple.
It is that simple.
It is masters of the universe, foreign policy, sphere
of influence type stuff.
That's why.
The conversation can end there.
There are a whole bunch of other considerations
as far as political stuff at home,
as far as the strategic capability of Israel.
There's a whole bunch of other things.
But if you want to keep it simple and boil it down to the one thing that isn't going
to be affected by any of the other stuff, there are three regional powers and currently
two of them lean towards the U.S.
Therefore, the U.S. maintains a greater amount of influence in the Middle East.
We're not going to do anything to disrupt that.
It's really that simple.
Okay.
But anytime we talk about something like this, we always say, okay, that's not how it works,
but let's say that it's true.
Let's say that it happens.
Along those lines, we have this.
I got my friend who studies international affairs
to start listening to you.
And she really likes you, but says she wishes
you would just tell people that cutting the aid
ends with China green lighting Israel
to do whatever they want.
And it's even worse for the Palestinians.
Okay, so this is a scenario.
It's being presented here as the only scenario, I don't think it is, and I don't think it's
even the most likely.
But since we're playing the game of let's say it's true, we're going to run through
the various options that would occur if the US cut the aid or severed the relationship.
The first thing, and the thing that I think is most likely, would be that Israel just
looks to another member of NATO to get supplies.
And the United States would probably help that member of NATO provide it.
So even though publicly there wouldn't be the support coming from the United States
to Israel, it would still be there via a back channel.
It would lessen the resistance that US government officials get from the citizens at home.
What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public type of
thing.
So if that's the route that happens, literally nothing changes.
The reason people want to cut the aid or sever the relationship is because they believe it
will have a marked impact on what they're seeing on their screens.
The reality is, I think I've referenced this before, maybe even hinted or told part of
the story, but there was a gas station that I used to go to all the time.
a long history with the owner. I knew everybody that worked there. They even started carrying
a specific coffee product for me. I asked for it and they started carrying it. Shopped
there for a really long time. Hurricane Michael hit, the gas station never reopened. So of
course that means I couldn't get my coffee product and I had to walk everywhere, right?
No, I just went somewhere else to get my supplies.
Israel would do the same thing.
Now, my belief is they would get it from another member of NATO.
The situation that is presented here, this scenario,
is more along the lines if all of NATO was just like, no,
we're done with Israel.
which, again, not going to happen because the US wants that influence.
But if it were to happen, Israel wouldn't just stop, they wouldn't just stop fighting,
they would look to Moscow or Beijing to get their supplies.
In which case, the fighting still goes on.
The only thing that occurred here is the U.S. lost influence in the Middle East.
Now, as far as the part about China green lighting Israel, if you are a world power,
you don't want your regional power allies fighting.
Right before all of this started, the U.S. was pushing Saudi Arabia and Israel to normalize
relations, right? China or Russia would do the same thing between Iran and
Israel. What's the first sticking point? Iran's support of the Palestinians. That
would be the first thing that would have to change. And if it did, then there's
nothing, there's no outcry. Okay, so along these lines somebody else who kind of
figured out that that would be an option, and I have to admit this comment I'm
I'm kind of reconstructing from memory because I couldn't find it.
It was basically, I don't think Israel would go to China.
Their military isn't high tech enough to give them what they need.
Yeah, okay, so this person is thinking about it.
But that's just another reason for China to want Israel.
Because Israel already has the stuff, they have the specs.
So in addition to losing influence, if Israel was to go to one of the other major powers,
when they went, they would be taking a whole bunch of U.S. secrets with them.
That's not something the U.S. would want.
it even less likely that they would cut aid or sever the relationship.
And then we have this one, which I'm sure there are some people thinking this right
now because as many times as I've said this, it's a really hard concept for people to
hang on to because most people aren't that cynical.
What are you talking about?
and the pig I don't know who the pig is I'm assuming it's another commentator
have both hinted that Israel would go to Russia or China if the US stopped no
Russia and China are friends to the Palestinians explain to me like I'm five
how a relationship has ever changed that much in history I mean as far as the
explained to me part I would suggest that the United States dropping nuclear
weapons on a country, and then just a few decades later, them being one of the more
reliable allies in the region, I mean, I would suggest that's a bigger change.
But people have the view that Russia and China are friends to the Palestinians.
Let's do it a different way.
You're playing a video game, one of those strategy video games like Civilization or
something like that.
Your options are to be allied with a country that is economically and militarily devastated
or one that is economically sound, is a regional power, and is the only nuclear power in the
region, and they have all of your opposition's secrets. Which one do you ally
with? Countries don't have friends, they have interests. Beijing or Moscow would
drop the Palestinians faster than Trump dropped the Kurds. It's the nature
foreign policy. So the reason people offer this up as a solution is because
they have that moral injury. They're seeing what's happening on their
screen and they don't like it. The reality is no matter which scenario it
follows. The only thing that actually changes is whether or not the US
maintains the same amount of interest and influence in the region and what
language is printed on the bombs that drop. Nothing else changes. That's it.
this situation is the single most complicated hotspot in all of foreign
policy. There is not a more complicated situation. If your solution can fit on a
bumper sticker, somebody's probably already thought of it. If it hasn't been
implemented you probably want to ask why. Now, all of this, this is foreign policy.
If you on a moral level are like, I don't want my country supporting X, I don't
want my money going to Y, that's an entirely different thing. That is an
entirely different thing. If you want to make that argument for those reasons,
There's nothing wrong with that.
You can make that argument.
Just don't expect it to change what's on your screen.
The footage is going to look exactly the same.
One of the things that people have to acknowledge about this, because that's another reason
that some people want to cut the aid or sever the relationship is because they believe if
that happens, then the Palestinians will be able to like rise up and retake Israel or
something like that.
That's not going to occur.
They don't have the power.
Other Arab nations will not intervene on their behalf directly because Israel has a nuclear
deterrent. If you send your troops streaming towards Tel Aviv, it's a good
way to have your own capital turned into ashes. There is no military solution to
this. This will not be decided at a sand table, it will be decided at a boardroom
table over negotiations. There is no decisive victory for either side. It's
not going to happen. If it was going to, it would have happened by now. That's the
part that people really need to grasp because especially in the West,
especially in the United States where we believe that everything can be solved
by war. This can't be. There's not the power dynamic and the strategies
involved. There is no way for this to be resolved by force. It has to be done at
the negotiation table and right now undoubtedly there is somebody from each
side, typing that the other side won't honor the negotiation or won't honor the deal, then give up.
If you believe that and you believe that the opposition is totally evil and that they'll
never surrender, they'll never seek peace because somehow they are unlike every other
human on the planet, they don't want to just go about their lives, they're dedicated to
being evil, then give up.
Because that's how this ends.
It ends in a negotiation table, nowhere else.
There's a saying about the easy way, the easy path is always mined.
When you are talking about this situation or any other incredibly complicated foreign
policy issue, the simple solution, if it was that simple, somebody would have thought of
it, if it would have worked. It's not simple. We want it to be simple because
people like right and wrong. They like clarity. They like black and white issues.
I get it. I understand and undoubtedly there is somebody watching this who
supports one side or the other. And realistically, there are people watching
this right now who are supporters of opposing sides. And I'd be willing to bet
that there's at least two people supporting opposing sides who are upset
at the idea that there can't be a decisive military victory. I get it.
But that's the reality.
Nothing's going to change that.
The power is too lopsided, and the strategy adopted by the weaker side feeds off of that
lopsided power.
There's no decisive victory to be had.
And the weaker side does not have the power to actually take the territory back by force.
This ends at a negotiation table.
I cannot stress that enough.
There aren't any simple solutions here.
This is probably one of the hardest lessons to learn about foreign policy, about international
affairs is that the good guy, whoever you think the good guy is, they don't always
win.
And when a situation spirals out of control to bring it back into control, most times
Neither side is happy.
That's how this gets resolved.
So at some point we will do a video about with our fictitious region that's going to
cover a lot of this same stuff, but that's to be able to reference in other conflicts.
the amount of questions coming in about this in particular, it seemed important
to just do it this way. Provide a little bit more context to the
answers that people who talk about foreign policy are giving that they
don't dive into. So a little bit more context, a little bit more information,
and having the right information will make all the difference. You all have
Have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}