[Political Interest]

The United States and UK are both heavily entangled in the politics of the Middle East. Their allies in the region are Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and smaller Gulf States. They use these countries against their main enemy, Iran.

When I ask for the reason why the West chooses to be so actively involved in this part of the world I am told that it is to do with the need to maintain energy security.

However, neither Japan or China are actively involved in the Arab world but still manage to secure their energy sources without any major problems.

Why then does the West need to be engaged with this part of the world?

What would happen if England and America took all of their forces out of the Middle East and refused to take a side in any of the conflicts there?

[Contrapunctus]

Why then does the West need to be engaged with this part of the world?

Oil and other odds and ends. A slavish dedication to Cold War era geopolitics doesn't help things either.

What would happen if England and America took all of their forces out of the Middle East and refused to take a side in any of the conflicts there?

The Middle East would be left to its vices. Syria would continue to crumble along with Iraq. I would also wager that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel would become power players in the region, for better or worse.

[Bridgeburner]

When I ask for the reason why the West chooses to be so actively involved in this part of the world I am told that it is to do with the need to maintain energy security.

And economic stability.

However, neither Japan or China are actively involved in the Arab world but still manage to secure their energy sources without any major problems.

They are reliant on the US Navy protecting SLOCS (sea lines of communication) and enforcing peace. And the US does so because if it didn't, the global economy would tank. So they have a vested interest in seeing trade move unhindered from the Gulf, through the Indian Ocean to South, Southeast and East Asia.

Why then does the West need to be engaged with this part of the world?

Here's a nice article

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/file ... 0Final.pdf

For example, despite the fact that America is becoming more self-sufficient in energy, its
transportation sector remains heavily dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. Simultaneously,
the regional powers in the Asia-Pacific are overwhelmingly dependent upon energy supplies sourced in
the Middle East and southeast Asia
the Middle East. That dependence is only forecast to increase as regional economies develop and their
populations increasingly demand higher standards of living.
Given the shared dependence upon energy trade, there is a shared interest in maintaining basic freedom
of navigation and communication via sea lanes. However, shared interest does not equate to
consensus on how best to cooperate. There are significant and ongoing questions about whose
responsibility it is to secure sea lanes, and who should bear the costs of guaranteeing their security.
The littoral states of the IOR are hugely dependent upon the sea.


Even though total and net imports of oil to the United States have declined in the last few years, the
absolute quantity of oil supplied from the Middle East has remained relatively stable, at around 2 million
barrels per day. But even if US oil imports have declined, America is still closely tied to international oil
markets. Therefore any major disruption of oil flows from the Middle East or elsewhere will
have negative consequences for its economy, as well as for the economies of the European Union
and the member states of NATO.
The US also has significant economic interests in ASEAN, with trade totalling US$240 billion and
investments exceeding US$200 billion (2013 data); and in India, with trade exceeding US$90 billion and
investments of US$28 billion (2012 data).
China is and will continue to be heavily dependent on safe, secure and unimpeded transit of goods along
the sea lanes between the Middle East and Southeast Asia. China is closely tied to the global economy,
with 90 per cent of its foreign trade transported by sea. The route from the Indian Ocean via Southeast
Asia to China is its most important sea route. It accounts for around 50 per cent of total foreign trade, 80
per cent of oil imports, and large proportions of other resources such as liquefied natural gas, iron ore and
copper.
India is almost entirely dependent on maritime transport for its international trade, which
amounts to about US$800 billion per year. Of this, more than 20 per cent consists of energy
commodities. Domestic production of oil and gas is static or declining. The country imports about 80 per
cent of its oil requirements and 60 per cent of its natural gas needs, all by sea. In addition, refined oil
6 The Future of Sea Lane Security Between the Middle East and southeast Asia
products account for 20 per cent of the value of exports. Imports of coal have risen rapidly over the last
few years, now accounting for about 25 per cent of consumption, and this trend is likely to continue
despite growing domestic production.
All state actors around the Indian Ocean and in East Asia have an interest in maintaining
freedom of navigation, safety and security along the sea lanes between the Middle East and
Southeast Asia. The Middle East states rely on these sea lanes for the energy exports that sustain their
economies, and Asian countries are increasingly becoming the principal importers of these energy
products. Future gas exports from East Africa will boost these energy flows. At the same time, countries in
the Middle East and Africa rely on imports of manufactured goods from Asia.
Overall, the sea lanes linking Europe, the Middle East and Africa with Asia – via the Indian Ocean and the
East and South China seas – are among the busiest in the world. They accounted for 25–30 per cent
of global shipping traffic in 2012, compared with 17 per cent in 1992 – during this period total shipping
traffic increased more than twofold.

What would happen if England and America took all of their forces out of the Middle East and refused to take a side in any of the conflicts there?

Tenuous peace that would get messier? None of the other regional participants have a proper blue-water navy capable of replicating what the US Fifth Fleet does, but they do have even more critical strategic interests than the US in the region. Immature navies with (relatively) little experience would be placed in close proximity to each other.

Plus if violence erupted between major participants in the Middle East, oil would balloon, and we don't want that, right when KSA is getting so desperate they are taking steps towards floating portions of Aramco

[Political Interest]

Neither China or Japan are actively involved in the Arab world and seem to rely on America to keep the region stable.

If both of these countries can sit back and do nothing then why can the UK not do so as well?

As you can see in my signature, Enoch Powell thought along similar lines.

[N^G]

The United States and UK are both heavily entangled in the politics of the Middle East. Their allies in the region are Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and smaller Gulf States. They use these countries against their main enemy, Iran.

When I ask for the reason why the West chooses to be so actively involved in this part of the world I am told that it is to do with the need to maintain energy security.

However, neither Japan or China are actively involved in the Arab world but still manage to secure their energy sources without any major problems.

Why then does the West need to be engaged with this part of the world?

What would happen if England and America took all of their forces out of the Middle East and refused to take a side in any of the conflicts there?

oil prices would go up

[starman2003]

The United States and UK are both heavily entangled in the politics of the Middle East. Their allies in the region are Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and smaller Gulf States. They use these countries against their main enemy, Iran.

Israel isn't an ally but a client, or more like a big leech imposed on the US by those of us here who consider it first and foremost...

When I ask for the reason why the West chooses to be so actively involved in this part of the world I am told that it is to do with the need to maintain energy security.

More than that. There's the influence of AIPAC and ZOA etc.

What would happen if England and America took all of their forces out of the Middle East and refused to take a side in any of the conflicts there?

Had they done that a long time ago, most of the problems probably would've sorted themselves out. Without US backing, Israel would've been forced to make concessions essential for a comprehensive settlement. Archaic monarchies would've fallen. Iraq certainly would've remained more stable internally--and the whole region too. I think the democratization crusade of 2003 ultimately led the ruinous upheavals of 2011-14.

[Oxymoron]

The United States and UK are both heavily entangled in the politics of the Middle East. Their allies in the region are Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and smaller Gulf States. They use these countries against their main enemy, Iran.

When I ask for the reason why the West chooses to be so actively involved in this part of the world I am told that it is to do with the need to maintain energy security.

However, neither Japan or China are actively involved in the Arab world but still manage to secure their energy sources without any major problems.

Why then does the West need to be engaged with this part of the world?

What would happen if England and America took all of their forces out of the Middle East and refused to take a side in any of the conflicts there?

Japan relies on the US for its energy security, and China is not really energy secure at this point.
As far as the Arabs they took the Middle East through violent expansion from the Arabia, so I ask maybe they should get out of the rest of the Middle East.

[starman2003]

As far as the Arabs they took the Middle East through violent expansion from the Arabia, so I ask maybe they should get out of the rest of the Middle East.

They may be thrown out of at least part of it. Gradually, Israel has been "ethnically cleansing" its territories. This process might accelerate at some future date, especially given an increasing jewish population.

[Doomhammer]

The thing is, I don't entirely buy arguments pertaining to energy security. US has more or less achieved hemispheric self-sufficiency, while European energy primarily comes from Eurasia. Moreover, I think we can all agree, a la Mearscheimer, that offshore-balancing is the appropriate grand strategy for the US and that US ought to focus on balancing China in the Far East rather than getting bogged down in region-engineering in the Middle East. The excessive US military presence in the Middle East, as PI suggests, is very counter-intuitive.
I agree that Israel and the GCC-Iran conflict play a large role in this, but non-energy related economics plays a key role. The integration of GCC elites into the transnational capitalist class and the prominent position of the military industrial complex in shaping US foreign policy are the major factors. The former matters because GCC elites share the same interest in repressing undesirable elements in the Middle East, be it Iran, Shiite terrorists/non-Saudi backed terrorists, and genuine democratic movements. For this, a strong US military presence is always needed as a deterrent. As for the MIC, it is enormously profitable for them for the US to have a permanent presence in the Gulf.



Americani, ite domum. Go balance China ffs.

[yiostheoy]

The United States and UK are both heavily entangled in the politics of the Middle East. Their allies in the region are Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and smaller Gulf States. They use these countries against their main enemy, Iran.

When I ask for the reason why the West chooses to be so actively involved in this part of the world I am told that it is to do with the need to maintain energy security.

However, neither Japan or China are actively involved in the Arab world but still manage to secure their energy sources without any major problems.

Why then does the West need to be engaged with this part of the world?

What would happen if England and America took all of their forces out of the Middle East and refused to take a side in any of the conflicts there?

GHW Bush (i.e., the first one -- the dad) showed how important Middle East oil is when he used all of his political capital to drive Saddam out of Kuwait.

GW Bush (i.e., the second one -- the son) showed how stupid he was by destabilizing the area by capturing and killing Saddam.

This was originally a big British oil field but now pax Britannia has been superseded by pax Americana. That means the USA (or as some like to call her, the USSA) has inherited the job of world's policeman.

If the US' energy needs ever no longer require Middle East oil, then I think you will see the USA less interested in the Arab states.

Because of the huge Jewish minority in the USA however the US will always be a Christian guardian angel (with a really big sword) watching over Israel. That will never change.

[starman2003]

GW Bush (i.e., the second one -- the son) showed how stupid he was by destabilizing the area by capturing and killing Saddam.

I was dead against the 2003 invasion long before it actually occurred, essentially for the same reasons that are now generally accepted.

If the US' energy needs ever no longer require Middle East oil, then I think you will see the USA less interested in the Arab states.

In 1990 it was said that if Kuwait were known for its tomatoes, the US wouldn't have given a damn at all. It's instructive, though, that long after the '73 oil embargo and talk of energy self sufficiency, the US was still so dependent on arab oil it had to send an army to fight for it.
More recently, lower oil prices seem to have derailed hope for self sufficiency via fracking. The bottom line is that the US, and nations it deals with like China, will remain dependent on arab oil for quite some time to come.

Because of the huge Jewish minority in the USA however the US will always be a Christian guardian angel (with a really big sword) watching over Israel. That will never change.

It will not change as long as the US remains a democracy. The masses are too ignorant of the Mideast to know what a liability Israel really is, from our point of view in light of the vastly greater importance of muslim states. American Mideast policy is heavily swayed by those for whom Israel is #1. Someday, after the dust of internecine arab fighting settles, and attention again focuses on Israel, its toadies here will get us into such a horrific mess the whole system will break down.

[Atlantis]

Neither China or Japan are actively involved in the Arab world and seem to rely on America to keep the region stable.

The fact is, though, that America does NOT keep the region stable. Like the interventions of the former colonial powers, US intervention have destabilized the region beyond repair.

Have a look at this: FRACTURED LANDS: HOW THE ARAB WORLD CAME APART. It's rather longish, but well worth reading. The conflicts of the ME are largely due to interference by the UK, France and the US. Left to it's own, the ME would have had conflicts, but without foreign interference they would have settled into an equilibrium.

If both of these countries can sit back and do nothing then why can the UK not do so as well?

The primary aim of the pax-Americana is to achieve US hegemony and not stability. Other players, Europe, Japan, etc., are only let into the pax-American because the US cannot achieve hegemony on its own; it needs compliant vassal states.

Without the pax-Americana, the oil producers would still want to sell their oil on the world markets because they need the revenues. In fact, they would even have to sell more if they had to look after their own security needs without the US.

Many countries in the ME were arbitrarily created by the colonial powers. Without Western interference, they would fall apart into small fiefdoms that would compete with each other. The competition would result in more supply. Even if a couple of suppliers were down for a while due to a local conflict, there would be others to make up for the loss.

The competition of an increased number of suppliers would stabilize the supply-side better than the pax-Americana. US hegemony primarily serves to impose the rules needed by US corporations to prosper.

[starman2003]

The fact is, though, that America does NOT keep the region stable. Like the interventions of the former colonial powers, US intervention have destabilized the region beyond repair.

I'd substitute "for the time being" or "for years to come" for "beyond repair."

The conflicts of the ME are largely due to interference by the UK, France and the US. Left to it's own, the ME would have had conflicts, but without foreign interference they would have settled into an equilibrium.

Right. If neither the US nor any other state had backed Israel, it would've made essential concessions. If the US had stayed out of the region more recently, there would probably be a sunni state spanning western Iraq and eastern Syria.

The primary aim of the pax-Americana is to achieve US hegemony and not stability.

In fact serving Israeli interests was high on the agenda of jewish neocons like Wolfowitz, who got us into Iraq.

Other players, Europe, Japan, etc., are only let into the pax-American because the US cannot achieve hegemony on its own; it needs compliant vassal states.

I think in some cases they've gone along against their better judgment because the US is the only superpower and they feel they have no choice.

Many countries in the ME were arbitrarily created by the colonial powers. Without Western interference, they would fall apart into small fiefdoms that would compete with each other. The competition would result in more supply. Even if a couple of suppliers were down for a while due to a local conflict, there would be others to make up for the loss.

If they have a common interest in high prices they might actually cooperate.

[Atlantis]

If they have a common interest in high prices they might actually cooperate.

True, the Anglos always did pamper their oil corporations.

I know that you meant to refer to ME suppliers. However, they don't cooperate now even though they do have an interest in high prices. Anyways, my argument is still valid that a greater number of supplier would stabilize supply. And there is no chance of a larger Sunni state in the region, as you claimed. Iran, the Kurds, and other regional players will see to it that it doesn't happen, even if Sunnis were to agree among themselves, which is unlikely. Moreover, a regime of terror like IS, necessary to unit Sunnis, is essentially unstable and cannot last. And even the rise of IS is largely due to the US intervention.

The bottom line is that US hegemony favors the creation of semi-monopolistic structures that hinder competition. The pax-Americana serves to protect these global semi-monopolies. The US would be a much poorer nation without them.

I think in some cases they've gone along against their better judgment because the US is the only superpower and they feel they have no choice.

US vassal states believe they have no choice because they don't want to upset the post-1945 world order. However, as the destabilizing effect of US interventions in the ME and its impact on Europe (refugee crisis, terrorism, etc.) become more pronounced, even loyal vassals will start questioning US hegemony. If national leaders don't have the guts to cut the naval cord, EU integration will over time create a political dynamic leading to greater independence from Washington. And Brexit will bring differences between continental Europe and the Anglo-Saxon countries into the open. Continental Europe will have to defend the social market economy against neo-liberalism in the Anglo-sphere.

[starman2003]

And there is no chance of a larger Sunni state in the region, as you claimed. Iran, the Kurds, and other regional players will see to it that it doesn't happen, even if Sunnis were to agree among themselves, which is unlikely.

Sure it's too late now. But what if the US hadn't intervened against IS when it was on a roll in 2014? The Iraqi regime was reeling. The sunnis dominated Iraq in the past and might've regained all of it, perhaps after another year or so.

Moreover, a regime of terror like IS, necessary to unit Sunnis, is essentially unstable and cannot last.

They've done some awful stupid things, which turned the whole outside world against them. But discipline seemed pretty tight within the "caliphate."

And even the rise of IS is largely due to the US intervention.

US intervention in 2003 removed the sunnis from power, so many later supported IS. The US naively thought the various groups would get along fine under democracy. For all his faults, especially in the field of foreign policy, Saddam had a far more realistic view of how to run Iraq. Disempowering the sunnis under imposed democracy caused many to turn to an extremist group.

[Atlantis]

Sure it's too late now. But what if the US hadn't intervened against IS when it was on a roll in 2014? The Iraqi regime was reeling. The sunnis dominated Iraq in the past and might've regained all of it, perhaps after another year or so.

IS wouldn't have happened without the US invasion of Iraq. I think we agree on this. IS was able to grow in the chaos and power vacuum left by the US invasion. Since the US is responsible for IS, it now has a responsibility to protect the people in the region from IS.

The problem is that one intervention leads to another intervention. We have seen the same in the North of Africa, where the Franco-British intervention in Libya resulted in the turmoil in Mali, where the French then had to intervene again. I think the French and British now ought to assume their responsibility in Libya and if it means sending ground troops until at least IS is driven out and the flow of refugees can be controlled.

So, when do we stop intervening? That's the big question. Western troops leaving a country will result in a new vacuum and even more bloodletting. We see that in Afghanistan. The puppet government in Kabul is never going to survive without Western military help. I think the only solution in Afghanistan is to let the Taliban rule the country. 15 years of war for nothing. Western puppet regimes are invariably corrupt because the West can only buy influence with money. The stigma of corruption and being a Western puppet is, in itself, enough to discredit any political leader.

The US should not have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, so much is clear.

[starman2003]

Since the US is responsible for IS, it now has a responsibility to protect the people in the region from IS.

Well I dunno. Basically they're just the old sunni elite which has long dominated Iraq, and wants either an improved status in a united country or one of their own. There won't be peace without one or the other. If the US just stayed out, the shiite dominated government might start losing again, somewhat, so that it would be forced to grant the sunnis concessions like letting some former baathists back into power. Better to see them part of the system than backing a screwball alternative like they're doing now.

So, when do we stop intervening? That's the big question. Western troops leaving a country will result in a new vacuum and even more bloodletting. We see that in Afghanistan. The puppet government in Kabul is never going to survive without Western military help. I think the only solution in Afghanistan is to let the Taliban rule the country. 15 years of war for nothing.

Exactly. Reminds me of South Vietnam. The US wasted 58,000 lives and $150 billion (much more in today's money) trying to prop up a regime that just couldn't stand on its own. And the consequences of abandoning it were nowhere near as bad as some said they would be. Fifteen years after Saigon fell, the communist world was shot not ours.
In some cases, it's probably best to just let "nature take its course." That may cause a lot of bloodshed, but postponing the inevitable would be even worse. I suspect that, if the US and Russia just halted all operations the conflicts would be resolved fairly quickly--possibly by forcing certain parties to make vital concessions out of desperation.

[Reyke]

Hello,

After the world war II middle east became a zone of rivalization between Western World and the Soviet Union. For the states of the Middle East it was a great opportunity, because they could choose which one ,,patron'' they want, basing on the offerings of the Soviet Union or the USA.

Both of the Global Powers needed the middle east for their own geopolitical strategy. After the end of the cold war, there was a big vacuum in the middle east, because only America was the one who could give some benefits. Thats why a lot of non govermental jihadist group could gather a lot of people to fight against the biggest enemy - America.
The second alternative to USA was to build own strategical supplies, make own alliances between the states of Middle East. Generally speaking the alliances were fristly grouped in ,,American and non-American'', then both of these groups were divided to Sunni or Shia.

Lack of democratic experiences and religious fundamentalism created a lot of autocratic dictators. The 9/11 caused Arabic Spring where these dictators got overthrown.

Everybody thought that now the societes of Middle East should, or not, they MUST create a liberal democratic system. But there were a big problem. Lack of any group, who had enough power to obtain the legitimation of the society, then change the religion based fundamentalistic system into liberal democratic system, caused that every group who even imitated liberal democratic feelings started to make its own autocratic system. But the status quo ante before the Arabic Spring did not came back, because the power and goods were divided between small groups who were fighting all together.

Western Civilization made a big mistake, because of these steps. Today, it is necessary for USA and Europe to be envolved in this process, but in a new role. The Western Civilization need to figure out how to adapt the liberal democratic values in the society, there is a big problem because the bigger part of society of Middle East is not educated enough in social and politcal sciences to be able to percieve the benefits from liberal democratic system.

Getting into your question, after a short story, which I needed to wrote because my thought are based on the mentioned above history.

If the West withdraw totally from the Middle East, then there will be a huge infringement in regional orderliness, Izreal will be in big problem, because the Arabic world still do not accept the existence of this state. Saudi Arabia can be involved in a huge regional conflict against Iran and other Shia states. There is a huge possibility of humanitarian catastrophies, like using biological weapon.

For Europe that would be a very big catastrophy, the European Union today have a big problem with immigrants, after a big regional war in Middle East, the number of immigrants can be few times more. This can provide more problem among European Union, a lot of right-handed parties and populists parties could be more benefitial on electorat, that can cause that European Union in long run, can fall. Because the distribution of immigrants is a huge problem, because the state parliaments will say no, then the countries who have the most of the immigrants can quit the EU or make a decision to integrate among a close group of states, like western europa states.

The oil prices is also very important, because of a regional conflict, the supplies of oil can be lower, that cause that the oil prices will be very high, or in the second case, the arabic states will try to sell out as many oil as they can. That means the oil prices would go down, even lower than today, that could cause and economic crisis or huge problems among states which economies basing on oil price.

I am very sorry for my bad english vocabulary and grammar, I am trying to improve it day to day, also by posting replies in this forums. Please do not comment my bad grammar or vocabulary, because I am aware of this problem. Please comment on meritum.

[Atlantis]

In some cases, it's probably best to just let "nature take its course."

Absolutely, I'm all in favor of the Dao of politics; but the logic of imperialism is implacable. Imperialism needs to impose its own order. To let go would be against its own nature.

I suspect that, if the US and Russia just halted all operations the conflicts would be resolved fairly quickly--possibly by forcing certain parties to make vital concessions out of desperation.

The Syrian civil war is no longer in the hands of Syrians. The conflict will go on as long as the outside backers continue to fuel the war effort. It could only be brought to an end if some or all of the outside powers were to retreat from the war. If that doesn't happen the conflict could go on for a very long time or even turn into a regional war.

This is a scary scenario:

Syria’s Paradox: Why the War Only Ever Seems to Get Worse

Western Civilization made a big mistake, because of these steps. Today, it is necessary for USA and Europe to be envolved in this process, but in a new role. The Western Civilization need to figure out how to adapt the liberal democratic values in the society, ...

If the West withdraw totally from the Middle East, then there will be a huge infringement in regional orderliness, Izreal will be in big problem, because the Arabic world still do not accept the existence of this state. Saudi Arabia can be involved in a huge regional conflict against Iran and other Shia states. There is a huge possibility of humanitarian catastrophies, like using biological weapon. ...

For Europe that would be a very big catastrophy, the European Union today have a big problem with immigrants, after a big regional war in Middle East, the number of immigrants can be few times more.

Welcome to the forum. Your English is easy to understand.

Complete withdrawal from the ME is purely speculative. It isn't a real world option. The only question is of more or less engagement.

Europe has to pay the price for the US's failed interventions in the ME. The US is geographically sheltered. Therefore, Europe needs to strengthen cooperation to replace US influence in the ME. A unified Europe would see the ME and Africa as its own "backyard" and tell the Yanks to get lost.

Having said that, I don't believe that Europe should get involved militarily, at least not on a large scale. Perhaps some small policing operations would be in order.

Ultimately, even military force depends on economic power. Without a strong economy there can be not strong military. Thus, instead of using the military means that have shown to be counterproductive, Europe should use economic cooperation to help develop the region and solve the migrant crisis at the same time.

People today are obsessed with military solutions. But there is no military solution. The only solution is economic cooperation, which is the strength of the common market and its normative power.

[starman2003]

The Western Civilization need to figure out how to adapt the liberal democratic values in the society, there is a big problem because the bigger part of society of Middle East is not educated enough in social and politcal sciences to be able to percieve the benefits from liberal democratic system.

For years, informed and astute people have questioned the efficacy and survivability of democracy in the West itself. For decades, it's been chronically unable to address a variety of serious issues such as deficits and environmental degradation. Even if relatively well educated, the US or western masses all too often vote on the basis of self interest not what's in the best interest of society or the planet. What I could never understand is, how could the US possibly foist democracy on another nation like Iraq, when it's such a miserable failure in the US itself?

Izreal will be in big problem, because the Arabic world still do not accept the existence of this state.

Your English may be fine but your grasp of current Mideast realities is, frankly, abysmal--unfortunately you are far from alone... Even in the past, when the Arabs had strong state actors, focused on Israel, they were very hard pressed to fight it. I've blogged abut how they might've done much better in '73 and even in '67. But even in a best case scenario, basically all they could ever do is achieve a stalemate. Now or for the time being, the situation is virtually hopeless. In both absolute and relative terms--especially the latter--Israel is, militarily, currently at its absolute zenith. Three arab states have practically disintegrated and even Egypt is focused on internal fighting. I'm not saying they'll never again be able to challenge Israel. That might still be possible someday, with Iranian etc help. But boy, Israel will not be seriously challenged under anything like current conditions...