Public opinion shows diminished trust in US-Pakistan relations due to historical grievances and Pakistan's close ties with China. The sentiment leans towards skepticism about Pakistan's reliability as a partner for sourcing critical minerals. Many commenters favor strengthening US-India relations due to India's growing economic and strategic ties with the US. Discussion also includes references to past events like hiding Osama Bin Laden and broader US foreign policy strategies in global resource markets.

United States

Pakistan

India

China

US Pakistan relations have definitely gone downhill over the years, especially after 9/11, the Afghanistan War, and Bin Laden. Pakistan's close relations with China doesn't help either. The US is a lot closer with India nowadays since India is a much more valuable economic partner compared to Pakistan and they are opposed to China.

gtafan37890

in the 1971 war, US threatened to nuke india. If it wasn't for USSR protection, who knows what would've happened?

In general, I feel things changed after 9/11...

theWireFan1983

The United States and Pakistan used to be very close, especially during the Cold War. During the Cold War, the United States CIA used western Pakistan to funnel weapons into Afghanistan. Many of the relationships built back then would ultimately lead to the creation of Al-Qaeda and the events of 911. The Soviets were close allies of India, so naturally, the United States backed up Pakistan. However, during the war on terror, it was revealed to everyone that the Pakistanis had in fact been hiding Osama bin Laden. It was considered a massive betrayal of the trust between Pakistan and the United States. It was also revealed that Pakistan had been getting closer to China, a Geo political rival of the United States. Considering all this, the United States decided to take a shift. They begin to get closer with India, and I believe it will be a relationship in the future similar to Great Britain and the United States. Also hypothetical here, but considering a future World War III scenario I could see India sitting on the sidelines the way that the United States did prior to their entry into World War II. I believe India’s entry into the conflict would be the game changer that ultimately leads to the victory of the NATO and Quad alliances against the China and Russia dominated axis. There is also a massive crossover in population between India and the United States. Surprisingly, India also favors a strong relationship with Israel. So I believe in the future, you will see a kind of alliance between the United States, India, Israel, and the western gulf countries in the Middle East versus the Chinese and Russian backed Shia  sections of the Middle East..  India is going to be the key to the entire future. If the west is smart, they give India whatever it wants and set it up to be the next global democratic superpower.

[deleted]

I blog on Indian national security and current conflicts:  
[https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/](https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/)

India and the US have moved on since the low point of 1971. We have close economic, cultural and even military ties. The US is our biggest trading partner and more Indians live in the US than any other country (4.5 million). I believe there is a bipartisan consensus for a close relationship between India and the US., as it should be, for the world most populated country with the 3rd biggest economy in PPP terms. 

US ties with Pakistan have slipped not just because of its support for terror groups, but because its economy is in bad shape and ties with the US would be in the form of aid rather than trade. 

That said, I believe the US seeks to view ties with India in a transactional way, rather than being shaped by shared values. Israel gets a blank cheque to act against a terror attack, whereas India cannot extradite or even question planners of terrorist attacks who are US citizens. Our democracy is as chaotic and as diverse as the US (or more), but we get a lot of unsolicited advice on how   
to run the country - with a threat of sanctions, if we don't fall in line.

Dean_46

The US supporting Israel isn’t necessarily about oil, and the primary reason that US oil production is high at the moment, is due to technological advancements ([US Shale Revolution, 2010](https://www.strausscenter.org/energy-and-security-project/the-u-s-shale-revolution/)) that won’t necessarily last forever.  Also, not all crude oil is equal.  Some is heavier, some lighter, and some is better for producing certain petroleum products.  For this reason, our net imports are still at 27% and our gross imports are higher.  We still need crude oil and refined petroleum from other countries and regions, and for as long as we rely on fossil fuels, we always will.

Israel doesn't have oil and never did. 

Caring about the stability of oil production is why so many countries kowtow to the Arab states.

Garet-Jax

I think it’s worth noting that while oil has long been important to American interests (and thus, interest) in the region, the other major factor to consider here is the Suez Canal. Ensuring that there are decent relations between the states in close proximity to the canal overshadows a lot of the more localized dilemmas such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Then, there is Iran which has slowly been driving Israel and the Arab powers closer together. The US clearly benefits from that sort of alignment and also reduces the likelihood of a conflict. The coordinated response to Iran’s drone/missile strike is exhibit A on how this has led to escalation dominance for the Arab-Israeli-US axis in the region.

kerouacrimbaud

Well both to a degree. The US provides a security umbrella under which the rules based world trading order (this cliched phrase is still operative) functions. This order benefits many countries quite a number of which are US allies. A lot of Europe, Japan, S Korea, etc are very dependent on the energy market. 

Even though the US is sort of self sufficient in oil and gas, the US alone cannot provide for all its allies. And it would not benefit the US at all either economically or from a geopolitical standpoint, if their major allies fall into deep recessions. 

Morally too, the wealthier Western aligned nations can probably secure their energy needs even at elevated prices. But the less wealthy ones (India, lots of African nations, Pakistan, etc) will have major economic problems if the energy market is unbalanced. This could drive up poverty, hunger, social chaos and political unrest. In the worst case, it could lead to conflict and war. 

The other thing would be not to allow power vacuums to occur. China, for example, cannot afford to have their energy supply at risk. Giving up on the Middle East would put a lot of pressure on China to step up intervention to secure their energy needs. This risks pulling the Middle East further into China's sphere of influence. This would also not please India a whole lot. Then there are the other major population centers like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Pakistan. Many of these countries would have to resort to coal to supply more of their energy needs.

The Middle East is still a crucial source of energy and that energy is crucial to maintain a semblance of global order.  

As an aside, the situation is such that many European countries and the US turn a blind eye towards Russian exports. It is entirely possible for US to cripple Russian oil exports by impounding their tankers - something that Russia doesn't really have a navy to defend against. But this would lead to such chaos that the US really can't or won't countenance this.

phiwong

As long as Israel remains a stonewall against Russian influence in the Middle East, the US has every incentive to support its existence, security, and power. The power vacuum in the region if Israel were to somehow become greatly weakened would be the most easily accessible to Russia. The odds of the US suddenly winning the hearts of people in Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, etc. after supporting Israel for close to a century now is slim to none.

ArrowHelix

In 1947 Truman's advisors famously told him to *not* support the creation of Israel, he did it anyway, so back then it was a political and/or moral choice (but not *geo*political, as the cold analysis would say do not antagonize the Arabs, that's more or less what Truman's aids told him).

Another policy of America post ww2 was *do not let anyone else get all the oil* - or another Hitler/Stalin may rise and start ww3. So if we follow this logic - with weakened Israel there's a good chance *all* ME oil will be under the control of &lt;someone other than US or its allies&gt;. 

Of course we can name the usual suspects Iran, Russia and China - but it doesn't matter as much - what matters is Israel is part of an alliance preventing ME oil hegemony and thus reducing the chance of an Asiatic or Euro-Asiatic power attempting some form of world or at least landmass domination.

And frankly there are far less appealing members in this alliance, it's the nature of real-world considerations, unlike Tolkin novels there are no elves to ally with, that's why FDR went to visit King Faisel of KSA in 1944, even before the war ended and despite the odd coupling an absolutist monarchist-theocracy makes for America (the founding fathers would likely have been very much against it).

rnev64

Israel is the only country US can trust in the region that can rely on to clear a Red Sea blockade, which will stop the fastest trade routes between ships crossing from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. Other countries in the region are allies of the US on paper, but not really *willing* allies. And rerouting the ships to cross around Africa will increase shipping costs significantly, after all ship fuel costs, and they will be transporting fewer products for longer distances. These increased costs will be falling on the consumer, leading to widespread inflation, and reduced global trade, and as a result, global economic decline. 

[See map](https://images.app.goo.gl/mg6rwh5kiskM3iZH8) for illustration. US helps defends Israel, and Israel helps US defend global economy.

Yelesa

Sorry but the entire premise of your question could not be further from reality.

rebruisinginart

Alliances are not entirely transactional. We don't essentially need Israel for Middle Eastern oil and we're not promising Taiwan defense solely for chips. 

Israel has been a largely dependable ally and the relationship still holds popular and strategic value. It will continue irrespective of whether there is a pivot away from Middle East, as is often reported (IMO, this will not happen - the Pacific will simply get more/additional resources).

Israel is very important in the technology and innovation fields.  They are the only democratic nation in the Middle East.  They also don’t chant “death to America” in the streets👍

Effective_Scale_4915

Nop, but the bible still says that Israel is pretty important for all that armaggeddon stuff

ValVenjk

Truman in 1948 regarding the recognition of Israel:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/05/13/harry-truman-israel-antisemitic/

The recognition of Israel and our relationship with it has almost no strategic military value that could not easily be replaced by someone else. The reason we support Israel is because to Americans, especially White Americans, Israel and Israelis are us. Arabs and Muslims are not. 

Really is that simple.

TaxLawKingGA

Israel being able to defeat Iran by itself in a war helps the US immensely.

LouQuacious

Price stability is still the problem so Israel is still important

shing3232

The US doesn't want the Middle East to consolidate behind one political leadership, that would create an entity that would be too large to be ignored or circumvented.

silverionmox

The support for Israel was never geopolitical, it was and is plainly political.

qjxj

Israel has always been seen as a foothold into the near east in case we ever need to launch operations. It's critical to American projection the same way South Korea, Japan, and soon-to-be Phillipines as spring boards to launch operations.

It was never purely about oil, in the same way that having a huge military presence in Poland is not about grain.

TheGreenInYourBlunt

how does a small country like Israel even make that gdp?

Admirable-Ratio-5748

Having control in Israel means a gateway for control in the middle east.

Masterpiece9839

It’s not about oil, but rather ideology.  When Israel was the only secular democracy in the region, it made a lot more sense to support them.  The more the neighboring countries around them democratize, the less relevant they will be and the more politically untenable it will be to continue supporting them, particular if they keep at it with the war crimes and the apartheid.

cazbot

They're the only democracy in the middle east

Well I think Lebanon has potential they need to get rid of hezbullah and any threat of Israeli aggression.

I don't think Israel should bomb it into oblivion to get rid of hezbullah though.

Nor do I think the US should support Israel unconditionally.

It made sense during the cold war when we used Israel as a proxy against the soviet backed arab states, and maybe during the saddam series (and cleanup), but now it doesn't make as much sense and really feels like the tail is wagging the dog.

Randall172

Nope. It sucks no matter how u look at it. We left Afghanistahn to just dump money into Gaza anyway. Waste.

zakksyuk

Interesting write up, just something minor that stuck out to me:

&gt; Belarus recently entered the Russia-US dispute. With a largely state-owned economy that never underwent neoliberal shock therapies (despite the lack of retirement among other capitalist aspects) 

I’m not sure where you’re getting that Belarus doesn’t have retirement.

It’s 65 for men and 60 for women, all retired persons receive a state pension.

You can read an English language description of their social safety nets [here](https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2018-2019/europe/belarus.html), the USA’s Social Security Administration maintains some reviews of social safety nets in a selection of foreign countries.

Gauss-Legendre

This is a great write up. I would only comment on this part:

&gt;Saudi Arabia had become too big, too ambitious to be controlled by the United States. It financed Islamist terrorism and Wahhabi institutions around the world in a rejection of Westernist principles. 

&gt;The importance of Saudi Arabia for the free movement of oil, as well as its collaboration on many issues of international politics and the purchase of American weapons, prevented any possibility of extensive publication of these findings, even when the financing of Al Qaeda by the Al-Saud and assistance with its state intelligence culminated in 9/11. 

&gt;However, the ignorance of the American public could be exploited from the trauma of Al-Qaeda to "" fight terrorism and the nations that shelter it "" in a relatively disconnected way with 9/11.


I think this is a mistaken way at looking at the Saudi-US relationship. Like with so-called "Israel", the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia isn't a genuine ally of the United States, that is, it doesn't forge friendly relations with the US on its own terms, like how Hez'bollah and other Shi'ite militia/political organizations have maintained friendly relations with Iran. (Nasrallah has even said that Iran "doesn't tell us what to do, we have to act for ourselves".) Saudi Arabia is a vassal state or proxy of Washington's undeclared empire. Washington more or less tells them what to do. If you think about this, it has interesting implications for the 9/11 attacks, doesn't it? 

Washington mostly has vassal states, proxies, and military protectorates. You could say Washington is 'allied' with London or Paris, as these are both imperialist countries that have a fragile truce with US imperialism when the world rate of profit is high e.g. in the form of NATO. 

So, Saudi Arabia along with other Gulf monarchies, aren't "too ambitious" for Washington, in funding and arming sectarian terror groups which are used to fight secular and progressive governments in the Middle East like secular Syria under Bashar al-Assad (an Alawite in a pluralistic but Sunni majority country), or Gadaffi's Islamic socialist Libya, which was progressive. Actually, Saudi Arabia performs a useful service to Washington by laundering the process through its own network of terror ratlines. This is how the intelligence side of things likes to operate. It legitimizes the United States and paints it like an outside actor when it's very much an inside actor. 

What "Westernist principles"? The "principles" of militarism, global plunder and genocide? Saudi Arabia fits well with Westernist principles. The imperialist Western countries, but especially a slave-holding settler colony like the US was founded as, don't have real principles worth looking up to, ones that actually advance human welfare anyhow. 

Now, al-Qaeda, ISIL and other sectarian Islamist groups do hold anti-Western, anti-US views, to be sure. But that's not necessarily a problem for the Western capitalist class. That's because, these anti-Western forces:

1. refuse to participate in the international system, or systems of development, and can only govern by force, not by show of leadership or any popular participation.

2. their *sectarian* and fanatically regressive character means that they're prone to splintering, and kept perpetually weak. Sectarian Islamism is deeply centered on excommunication of others from its religion. Minor disagreements result in splintering, which keeps them perpetually weak, like with Trotskyism. 

3. can be cynically used to undermine unfriendly governments, like Syria and Saddam's Iraq. Factoring in the two points above, this ensures that the country whose government is overthrown by these Islamist forces will never rise to any prominence or power again.

[In effect, these anti-Western views can't translate to anything that actually challenges US hegemonic power in the region,](https://twitter.com/IbnAlRafidayn/status/1210534409599934466) like: 

* Iran, which is an Islamic theocracy, but not sectarian, 

* Qadaffi's "Islamic socialist" Libya which was judged by US intelligence to be sufficiently anti-Soviet, but still had a socialist-like political economy;

* Syria, which is a secular State, but anti-Zionist (like Iran) and also pan-Arabist. Pretty inclusive.

It's also worth stating that Washington doesn't necessarily want Syria (for example) to be ran by Islamic extremists. The sectarian, anti-democratic character of these groups is useful for Washington, as explained above, and aligns with its own anti-democratic class interests (creating a safe investment environment for corporate America). 

Washington wants Syria to be run by Western businessmen and economists, preferably American ones, of Washington's own choosing. ISIL and other paramilitary proxy forces were meant to be defeated by US combat forces at a designated point in time. They don't pose a real problem to the US in any case (I mean, "Islamist terrorism" is down to like #7 in the State Department's latest "national security threats" list).

11-22-1963

Access our wiki [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/InformedTankie/wiki/index).

New comrades, ask for your user flair [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/InformedTankie/comments/h0z44q/request_user_flairs_you_would_like_to_see_by_your/?utm_medium=android_app&amp;utm_source=share)

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InformedTankie) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

The CCP's plan is to latch onto the US as long as possible until no longer needed, so the US's plan needs to be to flicking it off as soon as possible until it's too late.

Linny911

Writing in *Foreign Affairs*, [Elizabeth Economy](https://www.hoover.org/profiles/elizabeth-economy) and Melanie Hart argue that an over-reliance on tariffs and an under-utilization of economic partnerships with other trading nations hampers the United States' competitive stance with respect to the People's Republic of China. Speaking to the incoming administration, they argue, "If Trump can embrace a more ambitious economic and trade policy, his second term can supercharge the global shift away from dependence on Chinese supply, bolstering the U.S. economy and enhancing U.S. national security."

The authors note that there is abundant opportunity, and demand from potential partner nations and corporations, to diversify supply chains for critical inputs -- including in the chipmaking industry, chemicals, and critical minerals sectors -- away from the PRC. Hart and Economy stress that Beijing's aggressive practices of dumping inputs onto the world market, in an effort to undermine emerging non-Chinese sources of supply, must be met with resolve and appropriate investment and financial support from nations such as Japan, Australia, and the United States. Finally, citing the successes of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the authors emphasize the near-term opportunity the incoming administration possesses to craft trade deals that can bolster multi-national resilience against unfair Chinese trade practices and simultaneously advance American business, labor, and intellectual property interests.

HooverInstitution

Ironically Trump will probably negotiate more trade deals than Biden, but that is a super low bar to clear, and anyone who wants to negotiate with the US will have to contend with the fact that the deal will be extremely one sided. This also means the multilateral deals proposed are simply not going to happen outside of the existing usmca. Be prepared for a bunch of bilateral deals because those tilt the negotiating leverage towards the US

College_Prestige

&gt; But the index also shows that Washington is punching below its weight in the critical area of economic relationships, which measures a state’s ability to use economic interdependence to exercise influence and leverage over trade and investment partners. Here, the United States ranks a distant second to China. And if the United States is underperforming in this measure in Asia, the same is likely true in Africa and South America, regions where China is the largest trading partner and an increasingly dominant source of investment.

I really don't think the US should copy China's strong arm tactics. It doesn't need to. China has run out of room to continue its debt driven growth model (there's only so much infrastructure or capital plant any country can use) and it now has massive over capacity (which can't be fixed by China's normal production oriented stimulus) which is leading to deflation coupled with massive government debt. Couple that with China's workforce shrinking by greater than 50 million over the next decade and the retiree to worker ratio ballooning, the US basically just has to tread water - and it will naturally do better than just treading water.

In structural terms, China is fucked.

GrizzledFart

Don't worry, Mr Trump will come up with sth completely unexpected.

One-Strength-1978

The previous 7 rounds of chip sanctions (according to chatGPT) didn’t work, but I’m sure our next initiative will work. /s

I don’t know why we keep doing piecemeal programs, just come out and declare that we’re in a Cold War with China then blockade all trade into or out of China. 

GhostOfKiev87

The US seeks to develop partnerships with Pakistan for critical minerals to reduce dependence on China, aligning with global resource competition.

US Strategic Interest in Pakistan's Critical Minerals

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want