Hacker News

As US missiles leave South Korea, the Philippines asks: are we next?

2026-03-1110:343569www.scmp.com

South Korea couldn’t stop the pull-out. Now, Manila must figure out if it is indeed a strategic partner or just another supply depot.

This Week in AsiaPolitics
Patriot missile launchers are seen deployed at a US military base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, on Sunday. Photo: Yonhap/AFP

The transfer of Patriot batteries from the Korean peninsula, accompanied by reports that parts of a THAAD anti-missile system were also on the move, did not directly affect the US military presence in the Philippines.

But the episode has forced a question that Manila would rather not have to ask out loud: if America’s assets can leave South Korea, what exactly is anchoring them anywhere?

Analysts say the answer reveals much about the nature of US alliances in Asia and the limits of what treaty partners can actually demand.

South Korea may see US missiles move to Middle East

South Korea may see US missiles move to Middle East
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung confirmed on Tuesday that Seoul had formally opposed the transfer – and failed to stop it.

“We have expressed opposition to the relocation of some air defence batteries by the US forces here for their own military needs,” he said.


Read the original article

etiam

Karma: 9362
...
 @Hacker__News
@hacker._news

Comments

  • By noduerme 2026-03-1111:047 reply

    America is a bit overstretched at the moment. As far as I can tell, we spent about 50 years in the cold war talking up liberty and democracy, but that was essentially all kind of a BS cultural-supremacy soft-power fig leaf until the cold war ended. Then we had about 20 years of politicians who thought the soft power stuff was all you needed. About a decade of unwinding that position, and the new paradigm is to get back to creating a global order and dispatching regimes that disrupt our commerce. The security concerns haven't changed, but the way of dealing with them has.

    The only trouble is, we are no longer the superpower that we were in 1950 or even 1980. What I think will be interesting from this realignment is how our alliances will probably shift toward countries which are strategically aligned with us even if they're much less ethically or ideologically aligned with our stated beliefs.

    South Korea and the Philippines are both "capable allies" in the sense that Israel and the UAE are, and in the sense that much of Europe is not. I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; it's a direct blow to Chinese expansionism, as well as the jihadist groups in the south. But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis. A short-term rotation away from East Asia doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad strategic move.

    • By piva00 2026-03-1111:282 reply

      > South Korea and the Philippines are both "capable allies" in the sense that Israel and the UAE are, and in the sense that much of Europe is not.

      Most of Europe combined (meaning the EU + the most closely aligned non-EU countries) are a much more formidable force than the UAE or Israel... You can't compare using individual European countries since in a hot scenario the vast majority of the EU countries would band together, and the movement towards military integration has already been started.

      The US never had a period without flexing its muscles after the Cold War, you can't say that there were 20 years of "soft power is all you need" while keeping wars like Iraq/Afghanistan for 20 years, keeping spending more on the military than the next 10-20 countries combined.

      The trouble is that the US has lost the plot, there's no value or vision to defend, it hollowed itself out with hyperfinancialisation since the 80s, the consequence is that there's no rallying inspirational point anymore. It doesn't have a "hook" to attach its vision of the future, I have no idea what's the vision of the USA for the future except for "generating wealth".

      As a nation it just seems to be lost, butting heads while moving backwards.

      • By ben_w 2026-03-1112:08

        Mm. Reminds me of something I saw a while back, can't remember enough to search for it though.

        During the Cold War, there was an easy "US good, USSR bad" pattern for the world to be inspired by, but with the fall of the Soviet Union, the rest of the world no longer needs to (or even can if it wanted to) rally around a call of "hey, at least we're not the USSR".

        Now we don't have the USSR in the picture, what does the USA offer? Much of the rhetoric I see from it these days is "We're not China", and true, you're not, but when we're looking in from the outside there's a loss of scale and rightly or wrongly the ICE detention camps and exporting of people to CECOT, looks much the same as Uighurs being put in Xinjiang internment camps.

        Meanwhile, increasing fractions of my hardware, from injection moulded widgets to laser welding kits, from 3D printers and PV to computers and smartphones, is made by Chinese firms, so China looks increasingly like the place where stuff actually happens, and conversely the USA looks increasingly like the place where grand visions are pronounced only to fail from lack of awareness of how to engineer anything or what customers really benefit from (e.g. Juicero, Metaverse, Cybertruck).

      • By nebula8804 2026-03-1112:112 reply

        >The trouble is that the US has lost the plot, there's no value or vision to defend, it hollowed itself out with hyperfinancialisation since the 80s, the consequence is that there's no rallying inspirational point anymore. It doesn't have a "hook" to attach its vision of the future, I have no idea what's the vision of the USA for the future except for "generating wealth".

        I'm not entirely sure I buy this. Everything you said feels true, and it's happening in the moment. But I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The way you wrote "hyperfinancialisation" makes me think you are European (German?)

        I'd imagine a vision for the country would be explained at places like World Expo right? In 2025 their booth (developed during Biden years even though it launched during Trump) gave a "semi" okay idea of where the country is placing its vision. Was it expressed well at the Expo? Not entirely sure, but it was there.

        Historically, they didn't need to really do much at these Expos because who doesn't know the U.S.? And who doesn't know what the country is about? But I guess with the increasing decline of the U.S., they now have to 'advertise' themselves and explain to people what the underlying vision is.

        In the end, the underlying theme seems to be "optimistic collaboration led by American innovation". Yeah I know its hard to picture this in the moment after everything that has happened in the last year but as the Biden years ended this was the thinking among government officials.

        [1]:https://youtu.be/NVCcdeYMzpU?t=183

        Watching this video a year later, it just seems so comical that this whole vision of "collaborative innovation": of the future being a collaborative project, with America wanting to lead it but not alone, and the slogan 'Imagine what we could create together' just seems comical after everything that's occurred in the last year. I guess it remains to be seen if this vision will hold once Trump is out of office.

        • By piva00 2026-03-1112:21

          > I'm not entirely sure I buy this. Everything you said feels true, and it's happening in the moment. But I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The way you wrote "hyperfinancialisation" makes me think you are European (German?)

          I'm Brazilian-Swedish, living in Sweden.

          > I'd imagine a vision for the country would be explained at places like World Expo right? In 2025 their booth (developed during Biden years even though it launched during Trump) gave a "semi" okay idea of where the country is placing its vision. Was it expressed well at the Expo? Not entirely sure, but it was there.

          A vision for the country is something that's built upon, across governments and party lines since it's "what the nation is about" more than what policies are being voted on by diverging ideologies, it's something to tether a nation's spirit onto. Advertising something on a World Expo is just advertisement, it's the actions over a longer period of time that can be linked to a vision that actualises it, and that's what I don't see from the USA at all.

          > In the end, the underlying theme seems to be "optimistic collaboration led by American innovation". Yeah I know its hard to picture this in the moment after everything that has happened in the last year but as the Biden years ended this was the thinking among government officials.

          That line couldn't reek more of corporate-speak than it does, it's something you'd read on a PowerPoint slide from McKinsey. It doesn't inspire anyone, reading it doesn't make you feel "yeah, I want to buy into that". It just cements more of my thought that the vision is "get wealthy", it just states an end without inspiring any of the means for it.

          Also, the Biden years already feel long gone, it could've been the beginning of re-steering the ship into a brighter path, barely a bit more than a year without Biden and nothing from the previous USA is recognisable.

          > Watching this video a year later, it just seems so comical that this whole vision of "collaborative innovation": of the future being a collaborative project, with America wanting to lead it but not alone, and the slogan 'Imagine what we could create together' just seems comical after everything that's occurred in the last year. I guess it remains to be seen if this vision will hold once Trump is out of office.

          Exactly, it's comical that it was kept as a pitch given everything we are seeing from post-Trump USA. It's really hard for me to imagine coming back from this, even more if it does last for another 3 years.

        • By noduerme 2026-03-1112:292 reply

          It's a real problem that Trump himself and his movement seem incapable of articulating a positive vision of America. It's an equally serious problem that the opposition are equally negative about the country, its history, its promise and potential. Both factions seem to be serving as negative emissaries. No one has less vision of America than MAGA; and no one hates it more than the Democratic Socialists. This isn't really an accident, in my opinion. And it's not just due to "hyperfinancialization" or growing economic inequality or racial disparities - all of those are issues.

          Call me paranoid, but I think it's due to one of our greatest strengths being hijacked. Our free speech laws and the openness of our society, the total non-filtering of information - which I support - have created a fertile ground for sophisticated propaganda from China and Russia, Iran and Qatar, to overwhelm the brains of a lot of people on both sides of our political divide through massive social media psyops that have gone on for a decade.

          It's reached the point that very few people in America can state why America is a good thing, even for its own citizens, let alone for the rest of the world.

          But not very long ago, this was not the case. And there are excellent arguments to be made for why America should remain the keystone of the global order: It's inclusive, it's progressive, its system has been a miraculous engine of economic growth for everyone in its orbit. But the easiest and most banal reason, one which no one says out loud is: If not America, which country would you rather have exercising power to create some kind of international order? The people who think everything America does is automatically evil haven't really made much study of what life is like under the realistic alternatives to that question.

          • By wolvoleo 2026-03-1112:41

            > If not America, which country would you rather have exercising power to create some kind of international order? The people who think everything America does is automatically evil haven't really made much study of what life is like under the realistic alternatives to that question.

            Ideally no country of course but a multilateral organisation like the UN.

            Definitely not the unilateral bully that is the US right now. That's not even the least bad option anymore. It is what the US was during the second Iraq invasion, everyone knew it was based on lies but we went along anyway because the US still had soft power. But Trump has thrown all that away.

          • By nebula8804 2026-03-1112:53

            >It's an equally serious problem that the opposition are equally negative about the country, its history, its promise and potential.

            I don't buy that at all. Mamdani's election is the latest example of a progressive left that is slowly making inroads and provides an extremely positive vision for the future based on inclusion and respect for all peoples. He is definitely rising to the occasion as well. His win was a 15 years of struggle starting with an extremely disorganized movement in Occupy Wall street, with many events in between to him getting elected as a democratic socialist in the finance capital of the US. His vision pursues economic justice as a way to empower people to build a positive future.

            But we don't need to just use him as an example. AOC was also pushing an extremely positive message in her famous campaign ad: a positive vision for the future: Green New Deal, efforts to invest in people and not just corporate graft and the same respect for people of all backgrounds(given her district has 50+ languages spoken there). She knocked out the guy that was the Democratic party's main money man link to the financial institutions that bribe both parties.

            [0]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq3QXIVR0bs

            Her victory followed decades of struggle of Bernie Sanders's vision who went from being a completely dismissable vision back in his days of trying to become Mayor of Burlington to now being a figure that the Democratic party is forced to recon with because he has built a solid movement in the next generation that has the drive to implement his original vision.

            > Call me paranoid, but I think it's due to one of our greatest strengths being hijacked. Our free speech laws and the openness of our society, the total non-filtering of information - which I support - have created a fertile ground for sophisticated propaganda from China and Russia, Iran and Qatar, to overwhelm the brains of a lot of people on both sides of our political divide through massive social media psyops that have gone on for a decade.

            Yeah this exists but at the same time are you seeing whats happening on the ground off the internet? Its people using whatever strained institutions are left to slowly hold people accountable and also driving towards a new vision by raising people like Mamdani. Everyone was surprised by his win...except the people on the ground who saw him go on a hunger strike years earlier to help taxi drivers committing suicide because they were trapped or working through the corrupt system to actually get a free bus line funded and helping real people.

            [1]: https://www.amny.com/nyc-transit/mta-five-bus-routes-fare-fr...

    • By watwut 2026-03-1111:252 reply

      China and Russia are benefiting from this war. It is not a blow to them, it is a gift for them.

      > I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime;

      Iranian regime was not "taken out". It does not seem like it will be taken out either. Its leader got changed for younger more hard line one with the same name. Edit: also Filipinos are much more affected by oil crisis then USA. It is literally an emergency crisis for them.

      > But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis.

      Venezuela is under exactly same regime as before. Maduro got changed for Delcy Rodríguez, keep regime intact. Trump got personally richer, but that is it.

      • By noduerme 2026-03-1112:141 reply

        >> Its leader got changed for younger more hard line one with the same name

        Who hasn't been seen or heard from yet. I'd give this a few more days before pronouncing it a done deal.

        • By watwut 2026-03-1112:291 reply

          His father, wife and kid were killed in bombing. He was leading the crackdown on protests. There is very little ground to think he will be making some easy deals. He was chosen as a middle finger to Trump.

          • By noduerme 2026-03-1112:39

            I think the IRGC chose him because he's already dead, and they want Israel to go hunting for a dead guy. If he's not dead, which would be some sort of miracle, he isn't doing much now.

            And no one needs a deal with him. The Iranian regime doesn't want a deal, and there's no deal to be had.

      • By iso1631 2026-03-1111:345 reply

        Trump took out an 87 year old man, converting him into a martyr and ruining any chance of change for another generation, all while causing massive spikes in the price of oil and thus inflation, and of course sacrificing a few US soldiers in the way while he bombed hundreds of kids.

        And nearly half of the US supports this.

        • By hrimfaxi 2026-03-1111:53

          I didn't believe your nearly half statement but yep https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/us/politics/polls-wars-us...

        • By noduerme 2026-03-1112:131 reply

          Ruining any chance of another generation to do what? Get shot in the street for protesting? Get imprisoned and murdered for showing their hair in public? Become a martyr to the cause of a dead revolution that provided nothing for its people?

          What exactly was ruined for the next generation of Iranians, by taking out that 87 year old man?

          • By watwut 2026-03-1112:271 reply

            The protests were result of moderate fractions rising, trying to get power. That is over for now.

            • By noduerme 2026-03-1112:40

              Doesn't seem over when you see video of people shouting from balconies all over Tehran

        • By nebula8804 2026-03-1112:281 reply

          >And nearly half of the US supports this.

          This does not accurately describe the picture.

          When the US went to Iraq the approval rating was in the 90s(correction I mixed up Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraq was 70-80s) because the US had been attacked, and Bush took the time to sell the war to the Americans (with lies) by the time all the disasters kept coming in, support dropped to the 40s.

          This war started in the 40s approval rating. If bodies start coming home in mass, I don't know how things will turn out for Trump and his party but its already looking like a disaster for them and it hasn't even hit the really ugly part yet.

          • By iso1631 2026-03-1115:01

            > I mixed up Iraq and Afghanistan

            American foreign policy in a nutshell

        • By fhub 2026-03-1112:07

          Israel tracked him and killed him with a Blue Sparrow missile.

        • By hattmall 2026-03-1111:584 reply

          I'm curious what you think about Iran killing 30,000+ protestors in the streets last month, going to hospitals to kill the injured, and continuing to review video footage to actively seek out and kill scores of 2+ million protestors?

          Personally I find it strange that with all the vocal detestation of "Nazis" so many people aren't in favor of intervening when an undeniably fascist regime commits the largest mass murder since the early days of the Holocaust and has no plans to stop the killing.

          • By tartoran 2026-03-1112:231 reply

            It’s indisputable that the Iranian regime is horrid to Iranians (most of them). But what the US just did is actually strenghtening the grip of the Islamic regime, they get unified against an attacker, their aging aytolah turned into a martyr and a new young one was put in place, oil fields set on fire, plenty of indiscriminate bombing on civillians and so on. This is a major fuck-up.

            • By noduerme 2026-03-1112:412 reply

              I think you underestimate how much they hate the regime and how happy they are to see us trying to eliminate it.

              • By tartoran 2026-03-1117:33

                A large chunk will fight for their life to hold onto the old regime. Remains to be seen what will come out of this. Civil war in Iran is still a major fuck-up IMO.

              • By tastyface 2026-03-1120:16

                Actually, many Iranians are terrified and hate being bombed into oblivion: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/world/middleeast/iran-bom...

                This may not go the way you think. Which will enrage Trump and cause even more bombing.

          • By krige 2026-03-1112:10

            I'm curious why do you think that a half-assed undercooked invasion at Israel's beck and call is the only possible solution to this issue when we have ample historical evidence that invading Middle East literally never worked?

          • By wolvoleo 2026-03-1112:452 reply

            Yes what Iran did is terrible.

            But if it was a country without oil it would have been no more than a byline in the media, as if it were Sierra Leone or something, let's be honest.

            • By iso1631 2026-03-1115:05

              Sudan is the classic example. 90% of Americans could barely point to it on a map. Most Europeans have no idea there's a civil war raging for the last 3 years and created millions of refugees, killed hundreds of thousands, subjected tens of millions to famine.

              The problem is you can't paint it as "good guy" and "bad guy"

            • By noduerme 2026-03-1112:573 reply

              Israel is a country without oil. Over 2 years, it killed 60,000 people in Gaza - about twice as many as the Iranian regime killed in 2 days. The former was described as genocide, the latter was widely ignored. And for 2 years, Israel's war against Hamas was the headline story every day on every media outlet in the world. There was no end of people screaming for intervention.

              You're right, no one pays attention to Sierra Leone, or Sudan, or Myanmar. And no one here or in the media would care that some country was fighting a war with the Iranian regime either, as long as the country country fighting it wasn't populated by Jews.

              • By orwin 2026-03-1114:45

                My country doesn't sell Iran any weapons they used to kill protestors and independentists. I am allowed to boycott Iranian products, like my father was allowed to boycott SAF products. I just want my country to stop selling weapons that help killing civilians and end up in west bank terrorists hands. And be allowed to boycott what the fuck I want.

              • By wolvoleo 2026-03-1119:28

                Iran's mass murder after the protests was not ignored. We had a mass protest in my city. I'm not sure if you can call it genocide because it's their own people, the same race and identity. It's certainly mass murder and terrible but not an attempt to change the population racial makeup. Thus the label genocide doesn't qualify, but yes the actions are morally equally bad. Just a different label.

                The reason there's less attention is twofold:

                First of all our countries support Israel so we are complicit. That calls for more protest among us who don't agree because there's actually something we can change. Iran is not going give a crap when they see people marching in protest in Europe.

                Another thing is that Israel has no business being in Gaza in the first place. Iran's government unfortunately does have a legitimate claim to governance in Iran.

                I'm not against Jews at all but I am against my country supporting genocide.

                Also I don't think one country unilaterally bombing a place they have nothing to do with is the answer to any problem.

              • By manyaoman 2026-03-1114:02

                Why so many words to say "anyone who criticizes Israel is an antisemite"? If you really think Gaza gets too much attention, then instead of silencing others, why don't you just start talking about the injustices that you think are underrepresented.

          • By YCpedohaven 2026-03-1112:12

            it’s so obviously a farce when you’re bombing girls schools and when Israel starts hitting oil fields, suddenly fucking Lindsey Graham wants restraint.

    • By clerkclerk123 2026-03-1111:39

      I admire your honesty and confidence regarding America's return to the path of imperialism. If only every American were as honest as you.

    • By comrade1234 2026-03-1111:231 reply

      The USA has 11 carrier groups.

      • By iso1631 2026-03-1111:471 reply

        Very good at fighting last centuries wars. Then Millennium Challenge 2002 came out

        Of course now we have cheap drones, putting massive asymmetric financial power. Every time Iran fires a $1k drone, America fires a $1m missile to stop it.

        That's a great way to lose a war of attrition.

        America has been losing wars for 50 years, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. 11 carrier groups or 110 doesn't make any difference.

        • By roryrocker 2026-03-1112:283 reply

          > fires a $1m missile

          But are they really 1 million dollars? I've always had the feeling that the cost of military equipment in peacetime has an extreme inflated price because it's a tax payer black hole with so much bureaucracy, middlemen and some level of corruption that you can charge almost any price you want. In a war economy where the goal is to make as many missiles as possible, would governments really pay 1M a piece?

          • By Hikikomori 2026-03-1118:321 reply

            Patriots are 4m a missile and depending on target you may need more than one. Trump gov was already averaging 50b in loans per month, cost of this doesn't matter. MIC will get just as fat as hegseth is getting on lobsters.

            • By pan69 2026-03-1119:26

              If I am not mistaken, another part of the equation is that it physically takes years to build a single missile (hence the cost).

          • By financetechbro 2026-03-1113:01

            Feels like they’d be willing to pay more, imo. But regardless, product development costs don’t disappear during a war economy

    • By fakedang 2026-03-1111:332 reply

      > Then we had about 20 years of politicians who thought the soft power stuff was all you needed

      Actually, about 9 years. Then Afghanistan happened, followed by Iraq. Hard power was back baby!

      > The security concerns haven't changed, but the way of dealing with them has.

      The security concerns were never there to begin with, unless you mean the security concerns of Israel. With the US as the hegemon, it is in the US's interests to maintain the security of key trade corridors, the most volatile and important of which is the Hormuz strait (arguably even more than the Suez). Post Iranian Revolution, every action of the US has only served against its interests, to further destabilize the corridor - whether it was funneling weapons to Saddam, invading Saddam 20 years later, not to mention the constant sabre-rattling against Iran throughout.

      > I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; it's a direct blow to Chinese expansionism, as well as the jihadist groups in the south

      Lol no. Getting involved with Iran means fighting a country that has every intention to bog down the US in a long war, at no cost consideration for its citizens. China loves the war - it's a repeat of Vietnam. China is literally dishing out intelligence to Iran and helping them skirt sanctions. Also Iran, which is Shia, isn't involved with the terror groups in Mindanao (which are hardline Sunni and funded by the US GCC allies).

      > But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis

      The weakest link in the axis was literally Venezuela - proximity to the US, a hated president, and competing factions vying for power. Well, at least before the US decided it was a dandy idea to kidnap Maduro.

      > A short-term rotation away from East Asia doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad strategic move.

      The Iran war is going to be anything but short-term, as the Iranians have stated. Even if the US wants to exit the campaign, the Iranians will not let them, and if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do.

      The Asian allies know this, which is why everyone from South Korea to Japan to Philippines to Australia has been worried - because they know that this leaves fewer American resources for them. The US has already begun diverting THAADs and Patriots from SK to the Middle East because they've been depleted. The UAE was begging around for interceptors from Italy (at a 125% premium) and then Russia, because the US failed to provide for its "capable allies". The Gulf states internally already see the US, including US defence products, as unreliable in supply and are already moving to lock in deals with EU providers such as Rheinmetall.

      • By nebula8804 2026-03-1112:211 reply

        Maybe the Asian countries can finally get together and hash out a way to deal with Israel. It seems like an insurmountable problem. The elites in the US either fall in line or when they try to push back they are eventually forced to relent(ex. Musk in the early Twitter days).

        This entire saga has been a wake up call to the middle eastern states. They thought all the money they paid to the US over the years got them a first class ticket when in reality they are sitting way back in economy.

        There aren't many options on the table. Cozy up to China? Maybe the middle eastern and OECD countries can do it but not the Asian countries. The right strategy would be to join forces to try and help the US get back on track because what other superpower is there? And that means somehow dealing with Israel as they are going to continue causing trouble for everyone.

        • By fakedang 2026-03-1119:451 reply

          They don't need to deal with Israel when Israel itself is a ticking time bomb. This war and this presidency with their kompromat on Trump was their only shot at becoming an expansionist regional hegemon. Israel is facing a demographic timebomb, and a reverse-Aliyah exodus of top talent to literally anywhere else, including the UAE and the US. Turns out, nobody likes living in a military state, except for a bunch of ultra-orthodox emigres and Hasidic Jews, who are both growing like crazy and have zero inclination to serve in national defence, and have piss poor technical aptitude.

          > This entire saga has been a wake up call to the middle eastern states. They thought all the money they paid to the US over the years got them a first class ticket when in reality they are sitting way back in economy.

          This is the biggest change. The Gulf states were completely blindsided by the war, and are now rethinking their alliance with the US. Expect to see more Chinese and EU bases in the region - China already has a military base in the UAE. Al Udeid is going to be massively downsized. And these guys are going to be shopping in the EU for weapons systems, not the US.

          > Cozy up to China? Maybe the middle eastern and OECD countries can do it but not the Asian countries.

          The right strategy is for the Asian countries to stop quarreling between themselves and forge new defensive alliances. Or alternatively, submit to Chinese hegemony as tributary states (tributing natural resources that is), as they used to do in the past.

          • By nebula8804 2026-03-1210:031 reply

            >Israel is facing a demographic timebomb, and a reverse-Aliyah exodus of top talent to literally anywhere else, including the UAE and the US.

            While I generally agree that Israel is on shaky ground, I'm not sure this is fully accurate. Ok to be fair, yes a lot of liberal educated Israeli seem to have left a while ago but if you look at their demography they are one of the only few countries that has a positive demography. As other countries begin to degrade from this population decline many more Israeli's may return as well.

            [1]:https://www.populationpyramid.net/israel/2026/

            >Turns out, nobody likes living in a military state, except for a bunch of ultra-orthodox emigres and Hasidic Jews, who are both growing like crazy and have zero inclination to serve in national defence, and have piss poor technical aptitude.

            This contradicts the timebomb narrative and yes this will definitely cause problems just like the decline in education in the US will rear its ugly head years down the line....but having population means possibility, it does not matter how educated a person is if they don't exist.

            >This is the biggest change. The Gulf states were completely blindsided by the war, and are now rethinking their alliance with the US. Expect to see more Chinese and EU bases in the region - China already has a military base in the UAE. Al Udeid is going to be massively downsized. And these guys are going to be shopping in the EU for weapons systems, not the US.

            Its really unbelievable to see how the US has destroyed many relationships in real time and the Trump loving crowd continues to pretend like nothing is wrong. They are gearing up to blame the other side as well once things become visibly painful. Just like the Afghanistan withdrawal under Biden I suspect this mess will become visible after Trump is long gone and the successor will get all the blame.

            I generally try not to believe in conspiracy theories but is the US being set up to fail by multiple advisaries (including Israel) or is it really just stupidity and a broken system of accountability?

            >The right strategy is for the Asian countries to stop quarreling between themselves and forge new defensive alliances.

            Thats the thing, I don't know if they are capable of this given their poor demography. I was thinking that maybe the correct move is to swallow their pride and try and patch up relationships when Trump is gone while also doing more themselves(whatever they can). In fact that might end up being the default move for the EU as well. Bringing in more of China so as to not be completely dependant on the US but ensuring the US is still part of the game in a significant way. I have not seen anything other than tepidness and strongly worded letters from EU since Trump came back and it makes me think there isn't a real life and death motivation for them to become independent. Its much easier to patch things up and hope for the best.

            • By fakedang 2026-03-1211:03

              Apart from the demographic counter you put out, agree on all points. The Hasids vapidly oppose any participation in the military, and are already contesting and protesting it in the courts, which are hearing none of it, much to their chagrin. These are a bunch of folks who haven't had the typical education geared towards scientific talent, who haven't had even the necessary hardening needed to function in modern society - the Israeli state massively subsidizes their lifestyle as long as they're engaged in religious education. Changing community mindsets is much harder than training afresh.

              About the Asian countries, you're right, but I'm still optimistic that with a looming Chinese threat, they might consider strengthening regional bodies like ASEAN. But again, imperialistic China might end with Xi, and China hasn't even been traditionally expansionist outside their core regional claims. Yes, they are strongly irredentist, but that's also a relief for Asian countries - yes, they will be threatened at sea, as China claims more sea, but apart from Taiwan and maybe Amur Russia, China has no interest in actually landing boots on the ground in most of Asia.

      • By noduerme 2026-03-1112:083 reply

        > it's a repeat of Vietnam

        I think this is a bizarre comparison. The people of Vietnam hated the French colonial occupation, and most of them despised the American-backed regime as well. They were fighting a 20-year-long anti-colonial war for independence (something that China, by the way, does not want any of the people they've colonized to emulate).

        On the contrary, there's every indication that the people of Iran, as well as Venezuela, legitimately hate their repressive regimes and want nothing more than a chance to overthrow them. This isn't imposing regime change on some country that had never thought of it. It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves.

        In that sense, our role here is quite a lot more like the Soviets in Vietnam, than America in Vietnam, or of either country in Afghanistan. We're not in the position of needing to prop up a puppet regime or find ethnic groups or exogenous actors. All we really need to do is target the existing oppressors.

        >> if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do.

        Stop with the AIPAC > blaming Israel for getting America into this. Israel did great work taking out Iran's defenses and gaining air superiority in the previous 12-day war, and it was only held back from continuing by the US - temporarily losing the total control it held. Furthermore, in no way is Israel going to be open to attack after this, whether or not the US remains involved.

        Consider what happens if this war does succeed in weakening the Iranian regime to the point where the people can come back into the street and overthrow it: Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, the West has a bargaining chip in oil against China's control of rare earths, and conceivably there is a broad peaceful order in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shia and Jews, all relatively Western-facing, potentially progressive and aligned with the US and Europe. Would that be a terrible outcome?

        • By watwut 2026-03-1112:241 reply

          > It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves.

          That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change".

          In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it.

          If they loose control over country, there will be civil war and unrest, but all chances of some moderates consolidating power went down. Or, even more likely, regime wont fail and will have stronger grip over the country.

          > Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer,

          This war is massive gift to Russia. The sanctions are removed, the oil prices go up. Russia wants this war to go on as long as possible, it is like a lifeline for them.

          • By noduerme 2026-03-1112:371 reply

            >> That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change".

            I think there was massive disappointment in Venezuela that we didn't go further, and that the regime is still in place. I'm extremely disappointed that we let it off there. I'm sick of America making promises to people, since Budapest, since Prague, since the Syrian rebels...

            >> In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it.

            In this case, I hope we don't let the people down. And I think it's far too soon to say that the protests stopped. The Basij are out in force, they're more heavily armed, and bombs are falling. Next week or next month, the entire situation may be different. The people are certainly waiting until the bombs stop. No one goes to protest in the middle of a war. The idea is to create the conditions so that when the bombing stops, the regime is too weak to kill 30,000 more people in the next protest.

            • By piva00 2026-03-1113:181 reply

              It's incredibly naïve to think regime change supported by the people is actually the objective. It's a good thought but which is absolutely out of control of the military actions by Israel or the USA.

              The main objective is to neuter the Iranian regime to diminish how threatening it could be to Israel, behead the government, destroy military targets, destroy its lifeline from the oil industry. If regime change happens because conditions worsen it's a good bonus but without forcefully removing the regime with boots on the ground it's just wishful thinking that it's the main objective.

              Iraq was also under a brutal dictatorship with Saddam, it took more than a decade of ground operations to actually change it. Iran is more populous, has a much more loyal regime security force, is more ideologically driven, and has a much worse geography for any ground invasion.

              When the bombing stops there will be so much destruction that the regime can point towards the USA and Israel that it will keep having loyalists behind to defend them, the IRGC will absorb the more loyal ones and grow to keep stamping out revolutionaries.

              • By ndiddy 2026-03-1114:22

                I agree with your analysis. A senator posted his notes from yesterday's private war briefing yesterday here: https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2031531835453309125

                The US leadership knows they can't destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program or cause regime change. The objective seems to be mainly destroying lots of missile launchers, boats, and drone factories (which Iran demonstrated could do enough damage and use up enough interceptors to make Israel stop attacking them and sue for peace during the 12 day war). When the bombing stops and Iran restarts production, the US will go bomb them again. The US also didn't seem to expect that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, and currently has no plan as to how to get it safely back open.

                In essence the war is about making Iran less of a threat to Israel no matter the cost to the US or to the rest of the West.

        • By ajnin 2026-03-121:26

          I'm amazed by the lengths Americans will go to try to convince themselves they're the good guys. America never has and never will go to war to liberate a people from oppression and spread democracy or other fairy tale. America goes to war for one thing and that is defend the interests of America and its proxy in the middle East, Israel.

          So the interests of the US are the continuation of its imperialist control over the world through oil and the dollar, and those of Israel the expansion of its hegemonic domination over the middle East.

          However this time, while Israel does indeed extend its hegemonic ambitions over the region by invading and bombing Lebanon, the US seem not to be in total control of what's happening in oil markets, the strait of Hormuz, and the toppling of the Iranian regime. There are many factors why, among which the fact that the regime has prepared for years for such a scenario and can not easily be killed by decapitation, and that it actually has partisans and the Iranian people is not going to simply revolt as one.

          This war is also a highly assymetrical one, and that's why the comparison with Vietnam is valid.

        • By fakedang 2026-03-1211:06

          Trump and Co. have already mentioned they have no interest in changing the regimes from the party bodies, either the communists in Venezuela or the IRGC in Iran. He has repeatedly stated that he prefers an insider. Too bad, in Iran's case, he got the toughest insider possible and had Israel kill that guy's entire family too. He even snubbed Machado for Delcy Rodrigues, just to claim a skin-level victory, even though Delcy is much more a hardliner than Maduro.

    • By throwaways122 2026-03-1120:24

      > Chinese expansionism

      I don't think people have the patience for this orwellian bullshit anymore in 2026. While we watched the United States kidnap a country's leader in order to "take their oil", while we are watching them literally starving another country with a blockade in a "friendly takeover" (or unfriendly) while simultaneously bombing a third country in order to (according to Lindsey Graham) control a third of the world's oil supply. And before i forget, threaten the territorial integrity of a fourth country and NATO and European ally to boot. But sure, tell us how the Chinese are the real bad guys that we needing to be watching out for.

    • By maxglute 2026-03-1116:411 reply

      > a bit overstretched

      > A short-term rotation away

      One of those better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt kind of situations. Replace fool with incapable.

      A short term rotation that revealed US isn't just overstretched but systemically incapable of honoring mild security obligations. US failing to protect CENTCOM vs Iran... an opponent like 2% of PRC GDP and even less industrial output. Abandoning CENTCOM infra to IR counter attacks, running out of interceptors... losing regional ABM shield assets... Ultimately it's still Iran, and US has overmatch if sufficient will to power through... (insert at what cost meme). On paper, anyone not retarded knew US posture in 1,2IC not sustainable or US MIC not calibrated to fight adversaries more than 50% it's GDP, let alone PRC 150% by PPP (more by industrial capacity). There is functionally no doubt US can't protect 1IC vs PRC if it has to dedicated this much hardware to Iran in CENTCOM. SKR and PH are going to have hard time convincing their constituents where even delulu can only sustain so much cognitive dissonance, all while paying war premium of MENA fossil, whatever that leaks through, which again breaks retarded narrative that they are unsinkable aircraft carriers vs PRC... who is in fact a land power with resources capable of sustaining regional hegemony, and in Indopac war, US partners would starve/suffer/be blockaded long before PRC suffers. US no longer sole superpower, when it tries to insist upon itself, current aligners are seeing limitations of power and cost of alignment.

      Not to mention what US+Israel has normalized... PRC has munitions in 1/2IC to decapitate/gaza US partners, which is now permissible.

      • By macartain 2026-03-1117:271 reply

        Oh hey - the TLA/milspeak guy (gal?). I wouldn't wish more typing upon you but I would love if you could do a bit more 'longhand' so I could have a better grasp of some of the stuff you say - genuinely not being snarky, you seem to have great and informed insights! Thanks!

        • By maxglute 2026-03-1117:572 reply

          Lazy LLM acronym dump:

          1IC / 2IC: First Island Chain / Second Island Chain.

          ABM: Anti-Ballistic Missile.

          CENTCOM: United States Central Command, combatant command for Middle East

          MENA: Middle East and North Africa, in this case oil that comes from gulf to asia.

          IR: Iran

          MIC: Military-Industrial Complex.

          PRC: People's Republic of China.

          SKR: South Korea (Republic of Korea).

          PH: Philippines.

          The broad analogy is imagine a boxing match. US is aging heavy weight with finesse, Iran is a teen whose been training for a few years. The super weight's day job is protecting other teens from Iran.

          On paper one would expect US to absolutely brain Iran in first round. Before fight, heavy weight had to spend months training / prepping. Which is strange vs fight against teenager, but we can charitably interpret that as diligence. Fight starts, teenage Iran somehow lands a few blows. Which is concerning. Maybe got lucky, a little embarrassing but as long as US heavy weight knocks out teen emphatically in first round. Then teenager survived first round, spent rest period between rounds to punch the other teens US was obligated to protect in the face. Fight continues, what if that knockout doesn't happen until round2... 3... 4... etc. What if heavy weight drags out and wins by TKO in 10th round, what if heavy weight gets tired and forfeits by 5th round. Other teens in protection racket gets nervous, because PRC is not Iran, PRC is like 10 super heavy weights with homefield advantage watching US heavyweight borrow equipment to finish a minor fight with Iran. Some will fixate on the fact that yes, in deed the super weight can probably murder that teen eventually, but the amount of effort required feels insane.

          Maybe the strategically dignified / smart thing was for US not to accept (pick) that fight in the first place. Especially if staking credibility/reputation on fighting PRC one day. I'm 50/50 on this, there's medium/long term reason why Iran missile complex is existential for US regional posture (and Israel), taking it out is strategically sound. Taking it out while revealing that's about the limit of what US can take out is... not.

  • By ourmandave 2026-03-1111:371 reply

    The Phillippines? Get in line.

    Dear Leader is currently threatening Cuba with regime change, because reasons.

    I wonder what stupid obvious lies the administration will tell when they start blowing up that sovereign country and killing or kidnapping it's leaders.

    • By dlahoda 2026-03-1111:462 reply

      Why do you expect lies?

      • By ourmandave 2026-03-1114:19

        Because he lied about Venezuela. He lied about Iran. Why wouldn't he lie about Cuba?

        Esp. when there's no apparent reason to invade them in the first place.

      • By ben_w 2026-03-1111:511 reply

        Not op, but still: I expect Trump to lie because he's a pathological liar, who lies about stuff even when there's no apparent benefit to him to have done so.

  • By expedition32 2026-03-1111:23

    If the US has problems with Iran imagine how the Chinese could darken the skies with drones if they wanted to.

HackerNews

About