Smoke rose over Riyadh last week as Houthi forces launched strikes on the Saudi capital, as well as on crucial oil infrastructure in major coastal cities.
It has been a disastrous month for Saudi Arabia as Houthi forces have made substantial gains along the west coast of Yemen. The Yemeni group scored massive victories in early September, capturing the port city of Mocha along with other key islands in the Red Sea. This will allow the Houthis to more effectively restrict Saudi transit through the Bab Al-Mandeb strait, dealing a severe blow to the already battered global oil market.
The problems for Saudi Arabia don’t come solely from their south, however. Militia groups in Iraq have gotten involved, and they’ve begun launching missiles from Saudi Arabia’s north. Targets have included crucial oil infrastructure, most notably the East-West Pipeline – a crucial means of getting oil trapped in the Persian Gulf across the country to the Red Sea.
Saudi Arabia is in a moment of serious peril. Pinched between militias from Yemen in the south and Iraq in the north, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought the assistance of President Donald Trump. MBS called Trump two times on September 10 urging him to take military action against the Houthis, a request Trump has refused thus far.
Mohammed bin Salman’s plea for help highlights a broader dynamic in his relationship with the U.S., one which places Saudi Arabia in the position of relying heavily on America for their military. This is not only true offensively for Saudi, but also defensively. Their ability to shoot down incoming missile fire is reliant on American-made defensive systems, such as Patriot interceptors. Their supply of these systems has been dramatically reduced in recent months due to the conflict in Iran.
With America being similarly low on crucial defensive systems, which are needed to protect U.S. bases, Saudi Arabia is now left unable to effectively defend key oil and military sites. Iran – which is aligned with the Yemeni and Iraqi militias in a coalition known as the Axis of Resistance – is able to watch as economic pressure builds on Saudi Arabia, and by extension the United States.
Conventional strategic thinking is being thrown into question due to this war. America’s military bases in the region have been a burden rather than an asset. They’ve served as easy targets for Iran to strike, helping them climb the escalation ladder at their own pace. The Gulf Arab nations – who were under the impression that these bases would deter Iranian attacks on their soil – are now reconsidering their close ties to the United States. The decision by these nations to become reliant on America for their defense is also being questioned. They’ve been battered by Iranian missiles and drones all throughout the conflict, and have been left largely defenseless due to the shortage of American-made interceptor systems.
America has served as the world’s arms salesman for decades. Our government has built up a long list of clients who rely on our country for their defense, as Patrick Buchanan pointed out in his book A Republic, Not an Empire. After going down a list of the many foreign entanglements Washington has roped us into, Buchanan pointed out that we have become, in effect, a global empire.
“Nothing can destroy this country except the overextension of our resources, Republican Senator Robert A. Taft once said. Indeed, it would be an understatement to describe the commitments above as an overextension of our resources. In their totality, they make the nineteenth-century British Empire look isolationist; truly, this is imperial overstretch.”
“Our situation is unsustainable. The steady expansion of global commitments, as relative national power declines, is a prescription for endless wars and eventual disaster.”
Buchanan’s decades-old assessment has been proven correct.
What has been made apparent by the shortage of defensive weapons is that we cannot maintain this posture of perpetually arming nations across the globe. Not only are we being tasked with ensuring the defense of nations in the Middle East amid the Iran war, but we also must protect our own troops – stationed at U.S. military bases – from incoming fire.
Of course, we must also supply Israel with the defensive systems necessary to strike at Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and elsewhere while enjoying protection guaranteed by the United States.
Escalation also continues in eastern Europe, as Ukraine’s provocative strikes on Moscow will undoubtedly lead to a Russian response. America will once again feel obligated to ensure Kyiv’s defense, not only by supplying them with weapons, but also intelligence assistance. In the Pacific, American weapons stationed in South Korea and Japan were relocated at the beginning of the Iran war due to the lack of defensive systems in the Middle East, further proving that American attempts to police the entire world are futile. The U.S. does not possess infinite resources.
American troops at bases across the Middle East have tragically been killed by Iranian strikes, as the military is forced to ration the remaining stockpile of defensive weapons. Just days into the war, America’s client-states in the Gulf were said to have depleted years worth of munitions. In the months of conflict that followed these dire reports, the effects of what Buchanan called “imperial overstretch” were being felt. Bases faced an onslaught of Iranian missiles and drones. Damage was so severe that many will likely not be returned to by the U.S. military. A chaotic withdrawal, of sorts.
The American regional order in the Middle East is collapsing in real time. In this period of chaos, there is the option to change course. Our leaders could realize the errors of their ways and bring the troops home.
This is not what Washington is known for, however.
My fear is that rather than acknowledge the failures of imperialism and chart a new path of restraint, the War Party will dig its heels in. The tendency of those at the helm of all failed government programs – especially war – is to blame every factor but themselves for the disaster. We often hear “if only we stayed longer,” or “we just needed more funds.” Many war hawks are more appalled at the act of leaving a war than they are at the decision to launch one unnecessarily. Take the neoconservative’s response to Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal or Trump’s attempts to leave Syria, for example.
If every crisis is met with another new foreign commitment, this cycle of imperial overstretch will never end. Eventually, something has to give. We can only hope that somebody in power can recognize that the empire is decaying, accept this reality, and guide us back to a sane foreign policy with grace.
It would be delusional and reckless of me, however, to tell you that I am hopeful. Our leaders possess no such humility.
Nolan Denaro is a political analyst, writer, and host of “The Quest For Clarity” podcast, available on YouTube and Spotify. He is a columnist at Antiwar.com, and his work has been published by Responsible Statecraft, the Libertarian Institute, The Daily Caller, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes on U.S. foreign policy, economics, and current events, with a particular focus on war and imperialism. He maintains a personal Substack blog, and you can follow him on X @nolandenaro. Nolan can be reached for correspondence at nolansdenaro@icloud.com.
