Your assessment of the Saudi military reflects the mindset of the Arab mind that has frustrated US military advisors for decades. The Saudis, Egyptians, et al are almost impossible to train because their officer corps has no concept of "lead from the front."
Tribal societies generally produce crappy armies. If military units are composed of multiple tribes, they have no unit cohesion, because no on trusts anyone from another tribe. If military units are composed of single tribes, they will have unit cohesion, but will not take heavy casualties, as doing so would weaken their tribe, perhaps fatally.
This is something so few people online understand. The US interest in the Middle East was never "oil for us", it was "oil for everybody (on our team)". I talk to Europeans online all the time, and I swear, you'd think nobody in Europe realized this whatsoever. So strange!
It is so hard to get the general public to understand that oil is a global commodity. It all more or less gets put into one market pool and one price is set for it.
So the Iraq war and invasion was NOT for Dick Cheney's oil buddies AND revenge for Bush Sr. "assassination attempt" OR the WMDs. Now I have heard everything.🤣😂..I need more popcorn.
@@joela.4058yeah it's really disheartening how such a basic economic premise escapes most people. I often find myself explaining it to people, and unsurprisingly many of them have socialist views and are therefore economically illiterate, so it checks out...
I find this ignorance to spam entire political spectrum. Try explaining to a trumper that Biden has little power of gas prices and that despite US drilling oil at all time levels, prices are still high. It’s like they can’t comprehend something that goes against their preferred narratives
I find this ignorance to spam entire political spectrum. Try explaining to a trumper that Biden has little power of gas prices and that despite US drilling oil at all time levels, prices are still high. It’s like they can’t comprehend something that goes against their preferred narratives
In 1990 I was enrolled at the Spartan School of Aeronautics in Tulsa OK. There were a large number of Saudi students there. They all had nice apartments and nice cars and the best weed. It didn't matter if they came to class or not. They all passed.
source : trust me bro if that is true, it reflects the values of the school you chose to go to. A school that has no respect to it's evaluation process is hardly giving lessons worth attending. and those students were smart enough to realize that. meanwhile most Americans walk out with nothing of value other than a debt to pay. if it all it takes to compensate me at work is to attend from 8 to 5 then it would be dumb to give any extra work for nothing. that's the most efficient thing to do. The most valuable lesson American capitalism teaches for sure.
If you talk to people from Vail, CO who were around in the 80s, they will tell you some stories about rich Saudis...It didn't involve weed. Sniff sniff....
@@Khannea capitalism is efficiency seeking. You get what you want with the least possible effort. More effort without further compensation = you're picking cotton.
Mr. Zeihan, thank you for providing such information with us! Although, I, as a Japanese woman was flattered to hear what you mentioned about Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, but I have to ask you. Are Japanese governement and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force that strong??? Personally, I doubt it, and we need the strong alliance with the Free World and other nations in the region, thank you.
There is a reason we required the Japanese to dismantle their Navy after WWII. It was not as technically advanced as US or British ships, but your Navy had true experience managing fleet-scale naval operations and engagement far from home. More so than the US, and almost as much as the British. The US and allies intentionally forced a multi-generational break in your Navy in hopes that the loss of experience would prevent repeats of, let's just call it, "adventure travel" that the Japanese Navy performed throughout Asia in the early 20th Century. It worked. But now you have a fairly advanced Navy (bolstered by the best from the your allies), and it's clear that even though the old commanders are buried, their instruction manuals are not. Japan's Navy is rising once more. Let's just hope they choose better adventures this time, yes?
@@FamilyManMoving Thank you for sharing your information. Thank you for bolstering by the best from you :) I think the big difference now and the past is, we are defending together with the Free World against the aggressors. I really hope our politicians and servicemen, make the right decisions to defend ourselves, the Free World and others against aggressive dictators. So we all can have the better adventures together with the rest of the world. So Taiwan and Phillipine and others can feel safe. Thank you!
I think its interesting that now that push has turned into shove, Japan is quickly reverting to its old self while Germany who doesn't have the constitutional constraints of Japan, is fighting it tooth and nail. It's almost like the Germans are afraid of what they'd become if they remilitarize while Japan is afraid what they'd become if they don't.
I thought Japan, at least its leadership beginning with P.M. Abe, realized they were in an 'isolated' area (geographically) and needed to be more 'assertive' with its axis neighbors such as Russia, North Korea, and China. Abe tried to push through changes to Japan's Constitutional description of the military (the JDF) from a purely defensive force to allow for more regional operations. I thought some changes got approved by their Parliament (the Diet) and has allowed the JDF to do more cooperative operations with South Korea, the USA, and Philippines (and Taiwan through some backdoor channels!). As for Germany, I don't know how well prepared they (or the rest of Western Europe) is as Russia's sabre rattling gets louder and louder. Contrast that with their neighbor Poland which is becoming more militarized and defiant of any provocations from the East (Russia or its 'cannon-fodder-puppet' Belarus).
Japan lives really close to China. Germany has all of NATO to help it if Russia gets past Ukraine (and we all know the Russians want to keep expanding their borders). Japan is pretty much on its own except for countries who remember the Greater Co-prosperity Sphere) and the US.
I have half a notion that the insanity of WW2 Germany was from propaganda not native to that place. I've read a ton of books on Nazism and it seems to have originated in a non western place. Maybe in or around 1921.
@@joshjones6072I have evidence that Hitler's rise to power was largely funded by Joseph Stalin. The concentration camps were according to his design. Stalin used Hitler to erase the independent German Communist Party
@@joshjones6072 Who said anything about Germans only being insane in WW2? There's a reason its called WW2... They were one of the big reasons why there was WW1 and before that you should look up the history of Prussia which was the centerpiece of what became Germany. And if we really want to go way back in the weeds look up the Old Prussians who were some of the last pagan hold outs in Western/Central Europe. It took an order of knights to finally defeat and convert them. And if you want to go EVEN further back in time one of the worst battlefield losses the Romans ever had was to people who inhabit what is today Germany. No, they've got a marshal tradition that goes back just a bit before WW2. As for the origins of Nazism... I'm no expert. I know the Italians were a big inspiration for what Nazism became. That's certainly Western though.
Pleased with your choice of "After America" series. Personally I like the forward speculation and focus on how everything connects to other regions (it is a facet of Zeihan videos, and one of my favorite aspects, that this video like so many others mentions just about every region in the world within a few minutes)
To make things more interesting Nippon Steel of Japan just purchased USS Steel, pending approvals mind you. So now they are going to have a guaranteed source of steel external of their country once the deal is complete. Which you need lots of steel for long range ships for force projection and defense.
At this point stell manufactured in the US is specialized use steel fabrication,, not the production of steel itself. The needed steel is imported. This could change and probably wil change if the US realyy does withdraw into a manufacturing strong North American regional economy.
I'm not up on the financials of US Steel and why they were sold, but if it has to be I'd rather see a company like Nippon Steel, from an international partner country, rather than a Chinese company or other foreign company (maybe India's Accellor, although they might be too big to own it if US anti-trust law was to come into play). Cheers
@Mindokwin and to make those large international deals they lobby governments, on both sides, so that government interests can come inline and help grease those deals a bit more to ensure they happen. Shareholders need to see a market for all that extra steel. Japanese government wants to buy steel for naval ships, and there's your additional market. Much much more than simple free market capitalism goes on behind the scenes in the bigger game of geopolitics.
My son found some dumb made up cartoon on RUclips where he's always kicking off about not going to chuck e cheese it drives me mental and I can't block them lol 😂
Each time Zeihan talks about the US growing more isolationist, I cannot help but agree. Most of my former guard, and reservist buddies mostly see Iraq as a wast of money. And anyone who has friends or family in the armed forces who deployed is very skittish about future engagement overseas. Sadly, I am not sure our Leaders are aware that our soldiers only want to fight defensive wars.
The so-called War on Terror did a lot to sour public opinion on military intervention, even when it might be justified and necessary. If the War on Terror never happened, or at least was better coordinated and carried-out, the West might be less skittish about helping Ukrain stave-off Russia.
@@waxwars9183 That mentality will only carry so far. If you want your experienced soldiers to stick around you cannot use them as cannon fodder for nation building in different continents. This is a major recruitment problem for the DOD. As more and more patriotic young people pass on joining the military.
There have always been people in the military who were just in for the benefits. There used to be people who joined the military just to stay out of jail. Fortunately, the military has the means to make them follow orders regardless of their likes and dislikes.
Afghanistan was a HUGE waste of life and resources. It has been a waste for a thousand years and will be a waste for a thousand more. Let's not forget our dear friends in the UK who decided to redraw the borders in the Middle East without considering local tribal affiliations. That's why the middle east is so fouled up. Randomly drawn borders. And as long as a madman is threatening Europe (Putin) there will be no stability or peace in the world including here in the US.
I understand a US-centric view here, but not all your subscribers are American. Australia has real issues should oil markets go crazy AND we are not big enough to do more than focus on our immediate region. Love your work.
Its because Australia is really not that important. You have gotten rich sending coal to kill the world and help the chinese. Now lie in the bed you made.
Australia would have less issues if they hadn't had a decade of governments resisting renewable energy. Now that's changed and the country is making huge advances there. The faster Australia moves off of fossil fuels, the more secure it will be.
@@KevinLyda Probably not. The RUSH to AE is premature. The technology is very undeveloped. Which means a lot of waste as the stuff rushed into service gets replaced.
At 0:45, a slight correction for Peter and his team--according to the US Dept of Energy, in 2005 (the peak of US crude imports), the US was importing most of its crude from Saudi, then Venezuela, then 'Other' OPEC, then Canada. Nevertheless, as Peter states, the US has been a net exporter of petroleum since 2019.
As an energy researcher, I'd like to push back on the first point Peter made (or at least extend it). He is absolutely right that there was hardly any middle eastern oil that got shipped to the US. However, Oil is traded on a global market (as it can be shipped fairly easy), so if the US had not intervened in the middle east, the price of oil would have increased everywhere, including in the US (at least in the medium and long term) Given that "energy security" is usually defined as "uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price" (IEA), securing the oil sources in the middle east for other countries indeed increased the energy security in the US. Besides that, great points and beautiful scenery.
Could it be that us presence in middle east was always a medium term plan? Just to scale home production to a point where it could dictate oil prices irrelevant of middle east output? I am just speaking out of my head, so correct me if im wrong.
But why should things be priced on a global market anyway? It may seem strange in the era of free trade but is it really logical for commodities to be fungible no matter how far away?
@@danielscalera6057 well the price is of course different between the pump and the closest harbor (as you have to add at the transportation costs plus costs of congestion). However, once it is on the ship, the price of transporting it from the middle east to Europe vs. America is very similar (and very cheap relative to the value of the cargo). So if the price of oil was double in Europe vs. the US (without tariffs and with trade capacity available), any cargo (even from the gulf of mexico) would rather go to Europe instead of the US, decreasing the price in Europe and increasing it in the US. So a global oil price can be interpreted as the price of oil on a cargo ship. For oil it makes sense, for gas it doesn't as shipping via LNG ads significant costs and there is muss less shipping capacity compared to oil.
The dollar! Oil is the best international commodity behind the value of dollar in the world. That was also a big reason for America to make sure oil to be accessible to all
Just a little extra note regarding US benefiting from Middle East oil in the recent past… keeping Persian Gulf oil flowing keeps international oil price low, so that we (USA) can buy it cheap from Canada and Mexico. That is also going away once the refineries catch up to refining domestic shale oil.
Peter can you do in this series also smaller nations like Czech Republic, Vietnam, Uruguay, Panama etc. For a person listening to your channel frequently things starts to repeat after some time.
I think its just the nature of his content like all these projection based of things that happen over a long period of time. Things won't change until like another 5+ years of data comes in.
The Japanese are hard to bargain with. They will sit and nod and say yes a full meeting, then at the end say: NO! Will be interesting to follow though, when will they show up in the region, how will they be received? Most of the times you are right though, Peter. Like for example currently, with global syupply chains being severly disrupted by small time (Iran backed) terrorists called ”Huthi Rebels” attacking freight ships with drones (from Iran, of course), which is a scenario you have warned for many times.
And they aren’t stupid enough to attack ships and risking the US bringing ‘freedom’ to their country. It’s all a set up, Like the Israelis did to the gazans.
Notably the newly announced 10 nation U.S. led naval coalition to provide shipping security in the Red Sea does not include Japan. It includes Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, the Seychelles and the United Kingdom and a few others.
Keep in mind that while this may be true in the future, at present the crude/refinery mismatch means that consumer gas prices are still connected to global oil prices, and the US president will thus be very interested in keeping oil prices down. The US withdrawal from the Middle East will come after US consumer gas prices are detached from global oil prices, and we don’t know when that will happen.
It's a process. I know that new refineries are being built, and some plants are being retooled to run the lighter domestic crude, but yeah, it will take years.
The Red Sea problems developing today are likely to be a catalyst for military involvement for the USA and the West. For China, the East and the Middle East access to the Suez Canal is of vital interest. Renewed security concerns are developing for East and West.
Excellent analysis! I would wonder if India would play a major role? They have 2 aircraft carriers I believe plus are a credible military power which has faced off with Pakistan & China. Also they are physically much closer to the gulf!! IMHO the Indians have a vested interest in the area. Countering China & Iran. India does not want another hostile Muslim country with nukes. Just my 2 cents worth Truly enjoy your work!
Thank you! I thought so too. But I think India has never been seen as exerting it's power beyond the Indian subcontinent. It is assumed that India is a developing nation with problems of its own with its immediate neighbours to deal with. But I believe the recent anti-piracy push of India in the Persian gulf just announced their presence in the region. So yeh India will be a player in the region since we get almost all of our fuel from there.
His point that Saudi military does not know how to use its equipment is true. My friend once worked in Saudi Arabia teaching English to helicopter mechanics so they could read the manuals and fill out the reports. They had been given a Sikorsky and a box of parts and told go be dangerous to the enemy.
Its because by design, their king promote people base on loyalty rather than competent. they do that to prevent possible rise of those peasant which historically happen all the time, lol.
@@zee9709 Very true. They bribe the population in many ways. (I don't know but imagine those helicopter mechanics were Filipino or Pakistani. Most Saudis are above working with their hands.)
I can do Australia for you. The govt will try to appease the US by ass licking and joining their expeditions, while simultaneously paying lip service to China about what a great friend to Australia they are and how we will let millions flood across as fake students. They will ramp up stimulus for housing, subsidies for housing, tax breaks for housing, new legislation for housing, and bullshit propaganda promoting housing. That is all.
This video came out on a day the US and the UK said they would protect shipping in the Red Sea militarily to keep global trade moving, which goes against this videos premise, doesn’t it?
The US and the UK said they're intent on "creating a coalition" to protect shipping in the Red Sea. If you had been protecting shipping in the Red Sea for forty years and you planned to hand the job off - you'd have to show your replacements how to do the task, too. It's a matter of transitioning while still projecting power...until, of course, the transition is done. IMO, the video's premise holds.
It is not about what US chooses, but about what US can do. Not only it is clear that US has to withdraw from ME, it also needs to withdraw its force in Europe as well.
@@antigonesmith9781 In 1839 Britain took Yemen as a strategic control point for the eventual Suez Canal. Fifteen years before the Crimean War. How much has actually changed?
I had also heard that part of why we used a lot of mid-east oil was a strategy to use theirs up and make friends or at least allies till we have more than them or it becomes statically important to us ours, one of the few early plans that seem to have worked.
@@magnumfunnels6165 I'm old enough to grown up during the Reagan administration when everybody was yelling at him to use our reserves instead of going with the Arab price hikes and there was a statement he made which was part of this plan is to save ours and use up there's. Just like his strategic military initiative to elaborate on Star wars to make the Russians spend more money in development and then that statement was something to the effect of he who runs out of money first loses first which was not to say it didn't put us in turmoil as well but he was a zero-sum gain kind of guy from what I remember as a teen growing up at that time
@peter China as we speak is trying to get a hold of the maledives and djibouti. Would that make a difference when it comes to their ships capacity? Both countries dont have a lot of people while at the same time are strategically located and have the potential to solve the problem of the range of their ships.
Another country leaving the region ( per say) is Russia. Because their population of young men is dissapearing due to war casualties and imigración this could be very disruptive for the countries surrounding it. unless they begin to use more powerful arms (nuclear)
LOL this is fantasy. Didn't you see the incredible welcome Putin got in UAE? Blinken got close to ignored. After Ukraine is finished up, Russia is back in the Middle East in a big way.
No body cares about the uae. They dont produce anything other tan oíl and gas. All their food is imported. Is gonna be rough Every where but countries who dont produce anything Will have thame hardest time@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311 In your dreams, you delusional orc. How many yachts does your boss own anyway? Why wouldn't he answer the damned question?
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311 welcoming Putin with open arms is one thing, but can Russia project power within the Persian gulf area that's another thing, aside from US no other nation on the outside has the military power to police the region
@@pouyaz8472 Russia and the US can only act with the collaboration of allies. And the US has now lost all its allies there except Israel. Iran and Russia are now pretty tight and Saudi Arabia has made its peace with Russia. Pretty soon Iran's going to be strong enough to stand up to the USA. Look at how North Korea now has advanced Russian missiles which can hit the mainland USA. Russia's not going to let the US or Israel get away with anything in the future.
He said very clearly as America itself is not dependent. It is to protect the sea lanes of oil supplies for Europe and Japan. America has always its own source plus from Canada and Venezuela. He explained clearly. You need to learn English comprehension.
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311Trump didnt say the US was there for the oil, he said the US was "keeping the oil." And Syria barely produces any oil to begin with, they're insignificant as an oil exporter. The US is not in the Middle East "for oil." It's more than that
@@MuiltiLightRider Yes it is more than that, it's mainly for the Israel lobby who has a death hold on US foreign policy but the oil is definitely a big part of it. Syrian oil is hardly insignificant, it's about half a percent of global production from memory and the US takes most of that. Look at the numbers. Google the videos of the convoy of tankers carting it out. Only Western media claims the US is NOT stealing Syrian oil. The entire non Western world can see theft for what it is.
Was oil price stability not a major reason for US Middle East involvement? It may not source its oil from the ME but the price it pays for US/ Canadian/etc oil is set internationally. Those US produces aren’t going to sell at $30 to the US when the rest of the world is paying $100 - unless the US abandons capitalism?
It is not rocket science! The US produces enough oil for its own market. But... First, each region has a different composition of oil and requires its own refinery. The US doesn't have refineries for shell-oil, but it has spare refineries for Canadian oil (look up sweet and sour oil). So it exports the shell-oil, and refines Canadian oil. Second, we live in a global world. You sell oil to the highest bidder.
Didn't work before WW1 or WW2. Just a bigger problem to deal with. Or it becomes the US against the rest of the world run by a couple dictator countries. Would the US survive? Doubtful.
The problem for a lot of Americans is in accepting not caring about being the world police. It's a paradox to have both complete energy independence and have global power to control the oil market without being the largest suppliers' best customers.
china doesn't really need the US, they are building pipelines to russia, the caucasus and planning on iran through pakistan; even without these they can already project power far from home with their aircraft carrier and might soon be energy independent altogether with their endless construction of nuclear reactors or just coal power(which they can gain from russia).
@@TimGeorge-dp7wbthe longer the world has lived in peace, the less it appreciates US’s policing effort. Maybe it’s time for other countries to participate in the police team.
The world 🌍 is Definitely changed.. especially in the past two decades..not even from a political view..you see when you go out of your front door every day...and in the next 20yrs it'll change massively again..good video 👍
Yep, in the next 20 years it will change massively again but in the opposite direction. At least in Europe. North America will continue to flood itself forever.
No friends, only interests…combined with, “ the enemy of my enemy “. Religion and culture mean a lot to the populace…but the real players only care about power and leverage. Power players will use any religion, governmental and/or economic system. If you lose sight of these fundamentals, you lose the plot!
What about India as an external force? It's near, has reasons to be involved and already has economic and military partnerships with key players in the region including Oman, UAE, Saudi, Israel and Iran.
I think you should've mentioned India as it can be the most potent third party in West Asia. They're the first stop out of the gulf and have a sizeably competent navy that doesn't matter really have to function far from home (unlike China). India is already in bed diplomatically with a lot of the west asian countries and with the large amount of Indian workers and citizens, their interests also align.
You're going to have to face facts that India is a joke in the global arena. Competent navy? Get fucked. No one has ever put the words competent and India together.
WOW...look at the clarity of that water in the background...fantastic! What if the American media had that clarity of truth instead of being simply an output speaker in the BILLIONAIRE ECONOMY? Peter really goes to some interesting locations...on the planet and in the mind.
Hmm, fair to mention China and Japan. But odd to not mention India into this mess. I got a feeling they will be interested in the middle east oil supplies too. I actually see a Japanese/Australian naval alliance getting a bit more active in the Indian Ocean (If Japan wants to extend power there, then the Australian naval bases are perfect forward bases). I'd love to see the Indians getting involved too. But, they do have the habit of "sitting on the fence" when it comes to situations like that.
In case you didn’t watch the India video of this series, here’s the TLDR (obviously, this is Peter’s view): India is basically virtually unstoppable (with maybe the exception of the US) if they decided to ‘get involved’ in the Persian Gulf - primarily because of proximity, and because the US no longer has troops there. So far, despite all the issues going on in the world, India hasn’t had the need to do anything of that sort, but you never know when something happens that finally pushes a country over the edge. Will India get involved? - As an Indian, I feel it’s not likely to ever happen. We have great trade relations with most of the Middle East, and because we don’t have any alliance compulsions.
Surprised he said so much about Japan without even mentioning the recently seized cargo ship. In the last week the Galaxy Leader, an Israeli ship operated by a Japanese company, was seized by Houthis and Japan is leading the cause to get the ship back. If there proves to be no diplomatic resolution with the rebels then the Japanese navy might even step up
Interesting that they declined to be part of the recently announced US led coalition to provide naval security in Red Sea. It includes Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, the Seychelles and the United Kingdom
Don't India given its proximity and heavy reliance on oil will have a say in this not now but in 10 years . Given they have a reasonable navy which is only going to grow hear on.
He likes to downplay India in everything for some reason. India has good relations with the Middle east nations and even Iran so its weird to omit India. Or through omission suggest we don't have a navy worth mentioning.
Spot on. India can disrupt the entire east - west traffic and works with Russia on their own oil and gas supply so they maybe able to decouple from middle eastern supply. That's a dark horse, for sure... India has tons of problems but they're very large and they seem to be developing decent capacities (navy, nukes, hypersonics etc).
After Carter, the world was taught that there was no greater sin than raising the cost of gas for the US consumer. Peter's a smart guy who brings a lot of information to the table, but he ignored the biggest reason the US "cares" about Middle East Oil: price stability. Sure, we can get crude from Canada, but it's going to be priced according to the global commodity indexes. For that matter, same will oil from South Dakota. Our energy prices are as dependent on Saudi outputs as they ever were. True...the Chinese have to worry about price _and_ supply. But American voters care about themselves, and the cost to fill their tanks, heat their homes and transport our goods. Rising fuel costs end political aspirations. Fast. The US can never ignore an external variable that can damage US GDP or raise inflation. Walking away from that could be an issue. Short of nationalizing US oil production and price setting, the mid-east is still relevant. Oh, and no way Japan destabilizes mid-east oil without the US balking. No way. Again: it's all about the price of gas.
Spot on. But the "Global Commodity" pricing effect still presupposes peaceful global trade. Should that break down into 19th century style multipolar naval escort trade empires, you would likely see BIG divergences in Nymex/Brent pricing for crude. Possibly enforced by a returning US petroleum export ban.
How is Canadian oil priced as a global commodity when it would need to go through the US to act as such? America also had the strategic petroleum reserve to not care about prices
@@NullHand Given our reserve has not been large enough to actually do much, and on top of that we've cut it almost by half since 2021 - yeah. An export ban is about the only thing that might work. But I suspect current politics would prefer we all pay more for less. Makes ya want to buy that EV, amirite?
I wonder why Peter didn't include India in this analysis. They are not a naval superpower yet, but they can be a regional power in the Indian Ocean and project into neighboring Middle East areas (I'll leave S.E. Asia and East Asia out for now). Combine them with the Japanese and assistance from a few other countries in the region, and they'd be a pretty potent combination if China expands its 'bullying' diplomacy tactics into the region (and we all know how well India and China get along!). And India does have an interest in making sure the oil flows freely from the Middle East to Southern Asia. Just a few thoughts beyond the tight regional boundries Peter sticks to in the video.
Yes thye Indian Ocean could so easily really become the Indian Ocean, controling the only feasible link between Arab oil countries and the far east of Asia. I'm surprised the US has not pushed India in this direction.
The fellas at “What the Ship?” believe that the large European container alliances are potentially forcing the US to intervene in the region, because a large portion of their container ships are also part of the US Navy Sealift capacity.
I would be very interested in your opinion on New Zealands future considering its economy is literally hitched to Chinas. I am concerned for our future.
New Zealand's future is pretty easy to see. It’s run and controlled by Communists and history has shown us over 100 times that Communism fails catastrophically every time. New Zealand will become a 3rd world failed state like every other Communist country run by Communists.
I'd argue your future is mostly tied to Australia's future... But yeah. You're too small and too remote to do anything. You'll do what the dominant power wants or go into decline. Best case is status quo. Worst case you turn into a Chinese resort. Frankly, you'd be well advised to follow the policies your government pursued in the 19th and early 20th century. Make immigration (from culturally similar places, aka. the west) unproblematic. You need all the people and capital you can get right now. Like make it real e a s y and c o n v e n i e n t. Right now you can't compete with other developed nations at all. Only people from subpar jurisdictions would be interested (asia/pacific). No professional from the US or EU would deal with the hassle and low pay. You really have to come up with something.
@@RobertGeordieGibb New Zealand is certainly under the U.S. security umbrella, but OP was asking about economics, where the U.S. is far less likely to bail another country out of bad decisions.
China's economic and demographic collapse are terminal, they're toast. NZ will need to make adjustments. You have no choice but to find new markets. They only potential global markets projected to expand enough by population and GDP to replace China are: sub-Saharan Africa, Pakistan, The Philippines and Indonesia.
Peter is making some HUGE assumptions, but even if some of it's true, it's honestly relieving. The Middle East is a black hole where empires go to die, and sooner we move one from them the better.
the US can't keep its fingers out of the place though. This is why they back isreal so hard. It's more or less an American outpost in the middle East. America needs to learn it can't run the globe, so stop trying. Stop in Ukraine, stop in China, stop in the middle east Fix up its own house instead of trying to be the global hegemon again.
Amen Brother! I agree we need to defend our neighbors Canada and Mexico our biggest trading partners. We have the entire North American Continent and we need nothing else.
What about India as an outside power? Its Navy's technology may be behind those other powers, but it's right next door and has ships and doesn't have to go as far. It also has a growing energy market, and my understanding is limited energy resources. Plus it has an interest in being able to cut Chinese energy supplies off. I would think it would be a natural fit for an outside power looking to both secure its own and have the ability to disrupt others energy.
The hard thing with India is that it is quite reliant on importing and due to its isolated geography it has a hard time projecting power as well as forming close allies. For example look at Ukraine, India was one of the few nations to NOT condemn Russia’s invasion due to their dependence on them for oil. However India also has to juggle being “friends” with the USA. It’s technically an ally and trade partner to both and neither.
The geopolitical dominoes also put India as a "natural" ally of Iran. Simply because their main thermonuclear rival and nemesis is Pakistan. The standard tribal border frictions between Pakistan and Iran make this an "enemy of my enemy" situation.
@@thedukeofchutney468India didn't condemn Russia because India and the erstwhile Soviet Union and now Russia have had a long standing partnership, especially in terms of extending support to each other at international fora as well as in terms of India's reliance on Russian arms. Further, Russia's narrative of multipolarity is closely aligned with India's vision of the world, unlike the US, which wants a unipolar world where it's the master. India only began importing oil from Russia after the invasion when the West sanctioned Russia and the latter was forced to offer huge discounts, which turned out to be a sweet deal for India. Yes, India is a heavy importer of energy just like China, but most of our supplies come from Iraq, Saudi, UAE, and some from Iran. It's only the last 1.5 years where we've started importing Russian oil in bulk. So we were never dependent on Russia for energy and even now, as the discounts dry up, we are again pivoting to our old avenues (Gulf/ ME) for oil.
@@NullHandI disagree. Pak is more or less irrelevant in our overall future based calculus. We used to look upon it as a great rival, but now it's in such bad shape that apart from a few pinpricks here and there, they're incapable of doing anything that can be perceived as that of rivaling India. We're now looking towards the Chinese as an enemy/ adversary with regards to developing our overall capabilities. Our relations with Iran aren't really based on our relationship (or lack thereof) with Pak and Iran's tensions with Pak. All the nuclear capability that Pak has will be irrelevant when civil war eventually breaks out due to hyperinflation and lack of basic amenities combined with growing terrorism and a population explosion.
@@shrithikkothari8220 So.... You are expecting civil war and societal breakdown in a nuclear armed hostile border nation and you consider that "more or less irrelevant"????? You DO live in an interesting neighborhood.
The Middle East has always been, and will ALWAYS be a hotbed of instability, long before Israel (modern state) existed. The people in that region are more focused on fighting each other and are largely incompetent and this causes them to not be so significant on geopolitical front and just harms their own region. The resources (oil) and routes (silk road) are no longer as significant as they once were and it has been increasingly bypassed by other areas by this instability and incompetence.
You don't understand the mentality of the Middle East, and you don't understand that the West tried to destroy the Middle East more than once and is still trying
Pete is just about the only pundit talking about the US withdrawing from its roll in global security. The US has the world's biggest and most advanced navy and the biggest funded military bar none. And we're supposed to believe we're just going to walk away from business as usual? What are the sailors and marines going to do with all that spare time? What about all the think tanks who game geopolitics and protection scenarios? What about the advantage in influence this gives us? I still don't see it. Maybe shift into a lower gear for a while. New administrations come and go like the weather. Plus I don't think we're done with the neocons yet. (Liz Cheney for president?)
You lost me at taking you serious at Liz Cheney she is an imcompetent bafoon at the highest level. I would see Vivek Ramaswamy in there long before and i hate his guts not a chance in hell a woman makes it only way now is if Kamala takes office if Joe croaks.
"Lower gear" can include "not patrolling certain sections of the oceans". Taking one step back from protecting every single trade lane doesn't mean mass redundancies for the navy. The other point Peter made elsewhere is that the US navy already transitioned its fleet compositions away from "high quantity of light ships to be everywhere at once". Still extremely competent, just for different jobs than before. To put Peter's point differently: the US de facto already moved away from absolute global security and the rest of the world didn't notice. All the above is also for a fading doctrine. Ukraine has proven the concept of a no-navy naval blockade. That development hasn't triggered panic manufacturing so far as militaries are highly conservative (it's part of the job: risk aversion). The US is aware of the need to retool. Time will tell which other countries are the early adaptors.
@@RobertGeordieGibb Nuclear weapons are kinda strictly defensive weapons. That may be exactly what some small countries need. I expect more will need a solution to food and fuel shortages, especially as climate change disrupts harder. Nukes don't solve those problems.
I have to take this video with a grain of salt. He never mentions India or Egypt as possible regional players. He never mentions the petrodollar in his analysis of why the US was involved in Middle East affairs. You have to do better than this Zeihan
The concept of America withdrawing globally is logical but yet we stay involved? The neocons want us involved for military industrial complex or political and ideological reasons. I would love to see this explored
This is a process that'll play out over decades. Baby steps, not a sudden flick of the switch. US will retain some interests for longer, drop others sooner, all to navigate its way into a position that better suits it's future interests.
It is so slanted to suggest that the rift between the US and Iran began in 1979. We overthrew their democratically elected leader, and installed a brutal dictator as their Shah.
What if your leftist university studies (at best) hasn't given you an accurate representation of events? The Shah was already there, and keeping him in power was preserving the constitution of Iran. He was a progressive modernizer, giving women equal rights, did land reforms and much more.
@@jesan733 One can recognise that this undemocratic action had positive effects while also accurately noting that it caused tension and alternative decisions may have had even more positive effects.
@@dreambuffer fair enough, but counterfactuals are very difficult and it's not that clear that Mossadeq was that democratic either. What we know is that losers can't write history and the most crucial difference between e.g. Atatürk and the Shah may just be that the latter happened to be overthrown.
@@GotGracexxxxx I know a lot about operation Ajax already, but thanks. Maybe you should go and read more broadly on the full context and what happened during the reign of the shah, and not just some one-sided account designed to say "western powers bad, mmmkay"?
As someone who was on exercise with the Saudi's. Yes, they have a lot of modern equipment. But they cannot employ it properly. They haven't modernized the battlefield C2 since 1996.
Your assessment of the Saudi military reflects the mindset of the Arab mind that has frustrated US military advisors for decades. The Saudis, Egyptians, et al are almost impossible to train because their officer corps has no concept of "lead from the front."
It’s a side-effect of marrying your cousins for a thousand or so years!
@@veeli1106 That explains alot about the southern U.S.
I'm from Egypt and consanguineous marriage is so uncommon. Maybe you should rethink your idiotic comment. @@veeli1106
@@morro190and that from someone who’s mother has no teeth
Tribal societies generally produce crappy armies. If military units are composed of multiple tribes, they have no unit cohesion, because no on trusts anyone from another tribe. If military units are composed of single tribes, they will have unit cohesion, but will not take heavy casualties, as doing so would weaken their tribe, perhaps fatally.
This is something so few people online understand. The US interest in the Middle East was never "oil for us", it was "oil for everybody (on our team)". I talk to Europeans online all the time, and I swear, you'd think nobody in Europe realized this whatsoever. So strange!
It is so hard to get the general public to understand that oil is a global commodity. It all more or less gets put into one market pool and one price is set for it.
So the Iraq war and invasion was NOT for Dick Cheney's oil buddies AND revenge for Bush Sr. "assassination attempt" OR the WMDs. Now I have heard everything.🤣😂..I need more popcorn.
@@joela.4058yeah it's really disheartening how such a basic economic premise escapes most people. I often find myself explaining it to people, and unsurprisingly many of them have socialist views and are therefore economically illiterate, so it checks out...
I find this ignorance to spam entire political spectrum. Try explaining to a trumper that Biden has little power of gas prices and that despite US drilling oil at all time levels, prices are still high. It’s like they can’t comprehend something that goes against their preferred narratives
I find this ignorance to spam entire political spectrum. Try explaining to a trumper that Biden has little power of gas prices and that despite US drilling oil at all time levels, prices are still high. It’s like they can’t comprehend something that goes against their preferred narratives
In 1990 I was enrolled at the Spartan School of Aeronautics in Tulsa OK. There were a large number of Saudi students there. They all had nice apartments and nice cars and the best weed. It didn't matter if they came to class or not. They all passed.
source : trust me bro
if that is true, it reflects the values of the school you chose to go to.
A school that has no respect to it's evaluation process is hardly giving lessons worth attending. and those students were smart enough to realize that. meanwhile most Americans walk out with nothing of value other than a debt to pay.
if it all it takes to compensate me at work is to attend from 8 to 5 then it would be dumb to give any extra work for nothing. that's the most efficient thing to do.
The most valuable lesson American capitalism teaches for sure.
@@m.deadly5952 Those Saudi kids are all royal kids. Their parents pay top dollar at American institutions.
If you talk to people from Vail, CO who were around in the 80s, they will tell you some stories about rich Saudis...It didn't involve weed. Sniff sniff....
@@m.deadly5952- capitalism is not remt seeking.
@@Khannea
capitalism is efficiency seeking. You get what you want with the least possible effort. More effort without further compensation = you're picking cotton.
Mr. Zeihan, thank you for providing such information with us!
Although, I, as a Japanese woman was flattered to hear what you mentioned about Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, but I have to ask you.
Are Japanese governement and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force that strong???
Personally, I doubt it, and we need the strong alliance with the Free World and other nations in the region, thank you.
Your country has the strongest navy in the region without a doubt.
@@drunkdriver Thank you. Have a nice day :)
There is a reason we required the Japanese to dismantle their Navy after WWII. It was not as technically advanced as US or British ships, but your Navy had true experience managing fleet-scale naval operations and engagement far from home. More so than the US, and almost as much as the British. The US and allies intentionally forced a multi-generational break in your Navy in hopes that the loss of experience would prevent repeats of, let's just call it, "adventure travel" that the Japanese Navy performed throughout Asia in the early 20th Century.
It worked. But now you have a fairly advanced Navy (bolstered by the best from the your allies), and it's clear that even though the old commanders are buried, their instruction manuals are not. Japan's Navy is rising once more. Let's just hope they choose better adventures this time, yes?
@@FamilyManMoving Thank you for sharing your information. Thank you for bolstering by the best from you :)
I think the big difference now and the past is, we are defending together with the Free World against the aggressors.
I really hope our politicians and servicemen, make the right decisions to defend ourselves, the Free World and others against aggressive dictators.
So we all can have the better adventures together with the rest of the world. So Taiwan and Phillipine and others can feel safe. Thank you!
@@bigsky8746 Your words make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
I think its interesting that now that push has turned into shove, Japan is quickly reverting to its old self while Germany who doesn't have the constitutional constraints of Japan, is fighting it tooth and nail. It's almost like the Germans are afraid of what they'd become if they remilitarize while Japan is afraid what they'd become if they don't.
I thought Japan, at least its leadership beginning with P.M. Abe, realized they were in an 'isolated' area (geographically) and needed to be more 'assertive' with its axis neighbors such as Russia, North Korea, and China. Abe tried to push through changes to Japan's Constitutional description of the military (the JDF) from a purely defensive force to allow for more regional operations. I thought some changes got approved by their Parliament (the Diet) and has allowed the JDF to do more cooperative operations with South Korea, the USA, and Philippines (and Taiwan through some backdoor channels!). As for Germany, I don't know how well prepared they (or the rest of Western Europe) is as Russia's sabre rattling gets louder and louder. Contrast that with their neighbor Poland which is becoming more militarized and defiant of any provocations from the East (Russia or its 'cannon-fodder-puppet' Belarus).
Japan lives really close to China. Germany has all of NATO to help it if Russia gets past Ukraine (and we all know the Russians want to keep expanding their borders). Japan is pretty much on its own except for countries who remember the Greater Co-prosperity Sphere) and the US.
I have half a notion that the insanity of WW2 Germany was from propaganda not native to that place. I've read a ton of books on Nazism and it seems to have originated in a non western place. Maybe in or around 1921.
@@joshjones6072I have evidence that Hitler's rise to power was largely funded by Joseph Stalin. The concentration camps were according to his design. Stalin used Hitler to erase the independent German Communist Party
@@joshjones6072 Who said anything about Germans only being insane in WW2? There's a reason its called WW2... They were one of the big reasons why there was WW1 and before that you should look up the history of Prussia which was the centerpiece of what became Germany. And if we really want to go way back in the weeds look up the Old Prussians who were some of the last pagan hold outs in Western/Central Europe. It took an order of knights to finally defeat and convert them. And if you want to go EVEN further back in time one of the worst battlefield losses the Romans ever had was to people who inhabit what is today Germany. No, they've got a marshal tradition that goes back just a bit before WW2.
As for the origins of Nazism... I'm no expert. I know the Italians were a big inspiration for what Nazism became. That's certainly Western though.
Pleased with your choice of "After America" series. Personally I like the forward speculation and focus on how everything connects to other regions (it is a facet of Zeihan videos, and one of my favorite aspects, that this video like so many others mentions just about every region in the world within a few minutes)
To make things more interesting Nippon Steel of Japan just purchased USS Steel, pending approvals mind you. So now they are going to have a guaranteed source of steel external of their country once the deal is complete. Which you need lots of steel for long range ships for force projection and defense.
This is just a set up for the WWII of the 21st century! Teams have been completely re-organized, though, not sure how balanced it's gonna be...
Multi-national companies' loyalty is to the stockholders and board of directors, not countries.
At this point stell manufactured in the US is specialized use steel fabrication,, not the production of steel itself. The needed steel is imported. This could change and probably wil change if the US realyy does withdraw into a manufacturing strong North American regional economy.
I'm not up on the financials of US Steel and why they were sold, but if it has to be I'd rather see a company like Nippon Steel, from an international partner country, rather than a Chinese company or other foreign company (maybe India's Accellor, although they might be too big to own it if US anti-trust law was to come into play). Cheers
@Mindokwin and to make those large international deals they lobby governments, on both sides, so that government interests can come inline and help grease those deals a bit more to ensure they happen. Shareholders need to see a market for all that extra steel. Japanese government wants to buy steel for naval ships, and there's your additional market. Much much more than simple free market capitalism goes on behind the scenes in the bigger game of geopolitics.
Can you do a video in a Chuck E Cheese, or perhaps in a Walmart bathroom stall? Peter your followers need variety show some of America's wonders.
Reminds me of this for some reason
ruclips.net/video/_yiQXPOO1Yo/видео.html
😂😂😂
Do one in the Denny's Fear Hole
My son found some dumb made up cartoon on RUclips where he's always kicking off about not going to chuck e cheese it drives me mental and I can't block them lol 😂
This is Peter Zeihan talking to you from Wendy's mens bathroom.
Man, this really begins to look like history repeating itself on so many levels.
Because it always is - geography!
how? was japan involved in the gulf previously?
world is round so yea. it make sense
History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme very often.
Because it always does... And we never ever learn. We just don't.
Each time Zeihan talks about the US growing more isolationist, I cannot help but agree. Most of my former guard, and reservist buddies mostly see Iraq as a wast of money. And anyone who has friends or family in the armed forces who deployed is very skittish about future engagement overseas.
Sadly, I am not sure our Leaders are aware that our soldiers only want to fight defensive wars.
Lol…you’re job is to do what you’re told not what you want to do.
The so-called War on Terror did a lot to sour public opinion on military intervention, even when it might be justified and necessary.
If the War on Terror never happened, or at least was better coordinated and carried-out, the West might be less skittish about helping Ukrain stave-off Russia.
@@waxwars9183
That mentality will only carry so far. If you want your experienced soldiers to stick around you cannot use them as cannon fodder for nation building in different continents.
This is a major recruitment problem for the DOD. As more and more patriotic young people pass on joining the military.
There have always been people in the military who were just in for the benefits. There used to be people who joined the military just to stay out of jail. Fortunately, the military has the means to make them follow orders regardless of their likes and dislikes.
Afghanistan was a HUGE waste of life and resources. It has been a waste for a thousand years and will be a waste for a thousand more.
Let's not forget our dear friends in the UK who decided to redraw the borders in the Middle East without considering local tribal affiliations. That's why the middle east is so fouled up. Randomly drawn borders.
And as long as a madman is threatening Europe (Putin) there will be no stability or peace in the world including here in the US.
🎶 On the second day of Christmas my Zeihan gave to meeeee 🎶 ❤
20 yrs USN. Some of my favorite times in the service was sailing and watching! Let's do it!
Wow this brings a whole new level of understanding to this whole situation 😮 bravo Peter for putting this together 👏
I understand a US-centric view here, but not all your subscribers are American. Australia has real issues should oil markets go crazy AND we are not big enough to do more than focus on our immediate region.
Love your work.
I am so happy we got you around New Zealand. Our government closed down the last oil fields years ago
Its because Australia is really not that important. You have gotten rich sending coal to kill the world and help the chinese. Now lie in the bed you made.
Australia would have less issues if they hadn't had a decade of governments resisting renewable energy. Now that's changed and the country is making huge advances there. The faster Australia moves off of fossil fuels, the more secure it will be.
"Five Eyes" is not going away.
@@KevinLyda Probably not. The RUSH to AE is premature. The technology is very undeveloped. Which means a lot of waste as the stuff rushed into service gets replaced.
"Shhh China" I LOL'ed because I feel like my Christmas shopping was possible only because the US Navy made sure commodities got to China safely
I wish you a merry christmas. Peter 🎅 and a happy New year 🎉
At 0:45, a slight correction for Peter and his team--according to the US Dept of Energy, in 2005 (the peak of US crude imports), the US was importing most of its crude from Saudi, then Venezuela, then 'Other' OPEC, then Canada. Nevertheless, as Peter states, the US has been a net exporter of petroleum since 2019.
I’ve been looking forward to these videos since you anounced them, really interesting. Especially interesting in the Canadian one.
Thanks for doing this series.
Spot-on analysis. Good insight into the ME "alignments" and status. Thank you sir.
Could you expand more on Turkey and the Eastern Balkans? Also thank you for your insights.
I’m at work and what a way to end my night at work by listing to you man. 👍always very informative
As an energy researcher, I'd like to push back on the first point Peter made (or at least extend it). He is absolutely right that there was hardly any middle eastern oil that got shipped to the US. However, Oil is traded on a global market (as it can be shipped fairly easy), so if the US had not intervened in the middle east, the price of oil would have increased everywhere, including in the US (at least in the medium and long term)
Given that "energy security" is usually defined as "uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price" (IEA), securing the oil sources in the middle east for other countries indeed increased the energy security in the US.
Besides that, great points and beautiful scenery.
Could it be that us presence in middle east was always a medium term plan? Just to scale home production to a point where it could dictate oil prices irrelevant of middle east output? I am just speaking out of my head, so correct me if im wrong.
But why should things be priced on a global market anyway? It may seem strange in the era of free trade but is it really logical for commodities to be fungible no matter how far away?
The oil, like our natural gas, might also be priced locally in the future. Petrodollar will not be a thing anymore.
@@danielscalera6057 well the price is of course different between the pump and the closest harbor (as you have to add at the transportation costs plus costs of congestion). However, once it is on the ship, the price of transporting it from the middle east to Europe vs. America is very similar (and very cheap relative to the value of the cargo). So if the price of oil was double in Europe vs. the US (without tariffs and with trade capacity available), any cargo (even from the gulf of mexico) would rather go to Europe instead of the US, decreasing the price in Europe and increasing it in the US. So a global oil price can be interpreted as the price of oil on a cargo ship. For oil it makes sense, for gas it doesn't as shipping via LNG ads significant costs and there is muss less shipping capacity compared to oil.
The dollar! Oil is the best international commodity behind the value of dollar in the world. That was also a big reason for America to make sure oil to be accessible to all
I'm gonna have to watch this one a couple times.
Just a little extra note regarding US benefiting from Middle East oil in the recent past… keeping Persian Gulf oil flowing keeps international oil price low, so that we (USA) can buy it cheap from Canada and Mexico.
That is also going away once the refineries catch up to refining domestic shale oil.
Thank you for your insights and valuable subject. And that’s a wonderful view👍
Peter can you do in this series also smaller nations like Czech Republic, Vietnam, Uruguay, Panama etc. For a person listening to your channel frequently things starts to repeat after some time.
I think its just the nature of his content like all these projection based of things that happen over a long period of time. Things won't change until like another 5+ years of data comes in.
And Malaysia too please . Since I am from there. =)
How are we an exporter of crude oil when there's been so much tightening of the belt on leases for the upcoming years?? Fraud
@@jessicapadgett7345technology has increased production and reduced overhead of many sites
He is much more thorough in his books
Thank you🌸
The Japanese are hard to bargain with. They will sit and nod and say yes a full meeting, then at the end say: NO! Will be interesting to follow though, when will they show up in the region, how will they be received? Most of the times you are right though, Peter. Like for example currently, with global syupply chains being severly disrupted by small time (Iran backed) terrorists called ”Huthi Rebels” attacking freight ships with drones (from Iran, of course), which is a scenario you have warned for many times.
The Houthis aren’t terrorists or rebels. They actually control the north of yemen which includes the capital.
And they aren’t stupid enough to attack ships and risking the US bringing ‘freedom’ to their country. It’s all a set up, Like the Israelis did to the gazans.
And who told you that they are terrorists?
Has every enemy of America become a terrorist?
Notably the newly announced 10 nation U.S. led naval coalition to provide shipping security in the Red Sea does not include Japan. It includes Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, the Seychelles and the United Kingdom and a few others.
@abooddg2816 no. We don't call the Chinese or Russians terrorists even though they suck. We call terrorists terrorists
Great job
Keep in mind that while this may be true in the future, at present the crude/refinery mismatch means that consumer gas prices are still connected to global oil prices, and the US president will thus be very interested in keeping oil prices down. The US withdrawal from the Middle East will come after US consumer gas prices are detached from global oil prices, and we don’t know when that will happen.
US prices already are independent and not affected by other market supplies.
It's a process. I know that new refineries are being built, and some plants are being retooled to run the lighter domestic crude, but yeah, it will take years.
Can you make one about Eastern Europe After America? Would be very interesting.
Most underrated political strategy. The IDGAF diplomacy 😂
The Red Sea problems developing today are likely to be a catalyst for military involvement for the USA and the West. For China, the East and the Middle East access to the Suez Canal is of vital interest. Renewed security concerns are developing for East and West.
Excellent analysis! I would wonder if India would play a major role?
They have 2 aircraft carriers I believe plus are a credible military power which has faced off with Pakistan & China.
Also they are physically much closer to the gulf!!
IMHO the Indians have a vested interest in the area. Countering China & Iran.
India does not want another hostile Muslim country with nukes.
Just my 2 cents worth
Truly enjoy your work!
Thank you! I thought so too. But I think India has never been seen as exerting it's power beyond the Indian subcontinent. It is assumed that India is a developing nation with problems of its own with its immediate neighbours to deal with.
But I believe the recent anti-piracy push of India in the Persian gulf just announced their presence in the region. So yeh India will be a player in the region since we get almost all of our fuel from there.
His point that Saudi military does not know how to use its equipment is true. My friend once worked in Saudi Arabia teaching English to helicopter mechanics so they could read the manuals and fill out the reports. They had been given a Sikorsky and a box of parts and told go be dangerous to the enemy.
Its because by design, their king promote people base on loyalty rather than competent. they do that to prevent possible rise of those peasant which historically happen all the time, lol.
@@zee9709 Very true. They bribe the population in many ways. (I don't know but imagine those helicopter mechanics were Filipino or Pakistani. Most Saudis are above working with their hands.)
Please do Australia 🇦🇺 as a whole
and New Zealand please
I can do Australia for you.
The govt will try to appease the US by ass licking and joining their expeditions, while simultaneously paying lip service to China about what a great friend to Australia they are and how we will let millions flood across as fake students.
They will ramp up stimulus for housing, subsidies for housing, tax breaks for housing, new legislation for housing, and bullshit propaganda promoting housing.
That is all.
Not until you lot gets your firearms back in civilian hands!
@@veeli1106considering the amount of Hamas sympathises we have here, I kinda like it how it is at the moment.
That would be an easy vid to do seeing as the Albanese government is fast turning Australia into a hole.
You don't mess with the Zeihan!
This video came out on a day the US and the UK said they would protect shipping in the Red Sea militarily to keep global trade moving, which goes against this videos premise, doesn’t it?
My thoughts exactly. I'll see it when I believe it.
The US and the UK said they're intent on "creating a coalition" to protect shipping in the Red Sea. If you had been protecting shipping in the Red Sea for forty years and you planned to hand the job off - you'd have to show your replacements how to do the task, too. It's a matter of transitioning while still projecting power...until, of course, the transition is done. IMO, the video's premise holds.
It is not about what US chooses, but about what US can do. Not only it is clear that US has to withdraw from ME, it also needs to withdraw its force in Europe as well.
@@antigonesmith9781 In 1839 Britain took Yemen as a strategic control point for the eventual Suez Canal. Fifteen years before the Crimean War. How much has actually changed?
Lovely seeing Lake Manapouri
Do a podcast with Tim Dillon!
The crossover we never knew we needed. Jokes aside that would be hilarious.
Exzellent explanation!!!!👍👍👍👍
Watch the Caucasus as the US leaves the region and Russia remains distracted.
The khaganates are coming back! With 21st century weapons & tech.
I had also heard that part of why we used a lot of mid-east oil was a strategy to use theirs up and make friends or at least allies till we have more than them or it becomes statically important to us ours, one of the few early plans that seem to have worked.
The US has more mineable oil reserves by far.
@@magnumfunnels6165 I'm old enough to grown up during the Reagan administration when everybody was yelling at him to use our reserves instead of going with the Arab price hikes and there was a statement he made which was part of this plan is to save ours and use up there's. Just like his strategic military initiative to elaborate on Star wars to make the Russians spend more money in development and then that statement was something to the effect of he who runs out of money first loses first which was not to say it didn't put us in turmoil as well but he was a zero-sum gain kind of guy from what I remember as a teen growing up at that time
@peter China as we speak is trying to get a hold of the maledives and djibouti. Would that make a difference when it comes to their ships capacity? Both countries dont have a lot of people while at the same time are strategically located and have the potential to solve the problem of the range of their ships.
great video
Another country leaving the region ( per say) is Russia. Because their population of young men is dissapearing due to war casualties and imigración this could be very disruptive for the countries surrounding it. unless they begin to use more powerful arms (nuclear)
LOL this is fantasy. Didn't you see the incredible welcome Putin got in UAE? Blinken got close to ignored. After Ukraine is finished up, Russia is back in the Middle East in a big way.
No body cares about the uae. They dont produce anything other tan oíl and gas. All their food is imported. Is gonna be rough Every where but countries who dont produce anything Will have thame hardest time@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311 In your dreams, you delusional orc. How many yachts does your boss own anyway? Why wouldn't he answer the damned question?
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311 welcoming Putin with open arms is one thing, but can Russia project power within the Persian gulf area that's another thing, aside from US no other nation on the outside has the military power to police the region
@@pouyaz8472 Russia and the US can only act with the collaboration of allies. And the US has now lost all its allies there except Israel. Iran and Russia are now pretty tight and Saudi Arabia has made its peace with Russia. Pretty soon Iran's going to be strong enough to stand up to the USA. Look at how North Korea now has advanced Russian missiles which can hit the mainland USA. Russia's not going to let the US or Israel get away with anything in the future.
Great analysis
Peter you are such a humorist. "US was not about oil in the ME" 😂😂😂
He said very clearly as America itself is not dependent. It is to protect the sea lanes of oil supplies for Europe and Japan. America has always its own source plus from Canada and Venezuela. He explained clearly. You need to learn English comprehension.
@@rameshpudhucode6862 Yes he said it bit it's a lie. Even the US president admitted the US is in Syria for the oil.
@@blackcatdungeonmastersfami5311Trump didnt say the US was there for the oil, he said the US was "keeping the oil." And Syria barely produces any oil to begin with, they're insignificant as an oil exporter. The US is not in the Middle East "for oil." It's more than that
@@MuiltiLightRider Yes it is more than that, it's mainly for the Israel lobby who has a death hold on US foreign policy but the oil is definitely a big part of it. Syrian oil is hardly insignificant, it's about half a percent of global production from memory and the US takes most of that. Look at the numbers. Google the videos of the convoy of tankers carting it out. Only Western media claims the US is NOT stealing Syrian oil. The entire non Western world can see theft for what it is.
Oh dear. Critical thinkings not your 'thing' is it??
Rerrow! Thank you for the video as always - where was this filmed please? It is gorgeous!
Was oil price stability not a major reason for US Middle East involvement? It may not source its oil from the ME but the price it pays for US/ Canadian/etc oil is set internationally. Those US produces aren’t going to sell at $30 to the US when the rest of the world is paying $100 - unless the US abandons capitalism?
If the US is oil independent, why do we have high gas prices & inflation when Saudi Arabia cuts production & increases the price of oil?
It is not rocket science! The US produces enough oil for its own market. But...
First, each region has a different composition of oil and requires its own refinery. The US doesn't have refineries for shell-oil, but it has spare refineries for Canadian oil (look up sweet and sour oil). So it exports the shell-oil, and refines Canadian oil.
Second, we live in a global world. You sell oil to the highest bidder.
Returning to “we don’t care” foreign policy of 200 years ago is the best news
Which means America is tired of wars and there's no point to that bloated defense spending.
Didn't work before WW1 or WW2. Just a bigger problem to deal with.
Or it becomes the US against the rest of the world run by a couple dictator countries. Would the US survive? Doubtful.
The Israeli firsters who rule your decrepit country have other ideas..
Love your jabs at past leaders, but can you do a video on what a good foreign relations plan for the US would look like?
The problem for a lot of Americans is in accepting not caring about being the world police. It's a paradox to have both complete energy independence and have global power to control the oil market without being the largest suppliers' best customers.
Americans are afraid of anything non-American and will not give up on strong-arming this or that part of the globe anytime soon.
china doesn't really need the US, they are building pipelines to russia, the caucasus and planning on iran through pakistan; even without these they can already project power far from home with their aircraft carrier and might soon be energy independent altogether with their endless construction of nuclear reactors or just coal power(which they can gain from russia).
+ we've seen what the world does when America doesn't police it- I'm all for it but good bet it will bite us eventually
@@TimGeorge-dp7wbthe longer the world has lived in peace, the less it appreciates US’s policing effort. Maybe it’s time for other countries to participate in the police team.
@@YaSunny0409 agreed- tired of it. My bet is other countries will fail
As a person living in Kyoto I disagree with that last sentence. But as an American... I agree.
The cognitive dissonance of living in two realities..
The world 🌍 is Definitely changed.. especially in the past two decades..not even from a political view..you see when you go out of your front door every day...and in the next 20yrs it'll change massively again..good video 👍
Yep, in the next 20 years it will change massively again but in the opposite direction. At least in Europe.
North America will continue to flood itself forever.
I really love the fact that your political neutral.
No friends, only interests…combined with, “ the enemy of my enemy “. Religion and culture mean a lot to the populace…but the real players only care about power and leverage. Power players will use any religion, governmental and/or economic system. If you lose sight of these fundamentals, you lose the plot!
Thank you Captain Obvious.
What about India as an external force? It's near, has reasons to be involved and already has economic and military partnerships with key players in the region including Oman, UAE, Saudi, Israel and Iran.
I think you should've mentioned India as it can be the most potent third party in West Asia. They're the first stop out of the gulf and have a sizeably competent navy that doesn't matter really have to function far from home (unlike China). India is already in bed diplomatically with a lot of the west asian countries and with the large amount of Indian workers and citizens, their interests also align.
India is almost isolationist only interested in trade
You're going to have to face facts that India is a joke in the global arena. Competent navy? Get fucked. No one has ever put the words competent and India together.
And the Indian military officers are imbued with the ethgiiic of "lead from the front" as commented on above.
Peter is pretty sure the Indians don’t exist
I have a feeling India will be in another vid
Hi Peter, how many hours do you spend outdoor daily? Sunscreen brand plzzz?
WOW...look at the clarity of that water in the background...fantastic! What if the American media had that clarity of truth instead of being simply an output speaker in the BILLIONAIRE ECONOMY? Peter really goes to some interesting locations...on the planet and in the mind.
I love the ending where you say we don’t care. That’s exactly correct. We do not care. Best place to be.
Hmm, fair to mention China and Japan. But odd to not mention India into this mess. I got a feeling they will be interested in the middle east oil supplies too.
I actually see a Japanese/Australian naval alliance getting a bit more active in the Indian Ocean (If Japan wants to extend power there, then the Australian naval bases are perfect forward bases). I'd love to see the Indians getting involved too. But, they do have the habit of "sitting on the fence" when it comes to situations like that.
This is a series for the holidays. Go back one for India.
In case you didn’t watch the India video of this series, here’s the TLDR (obviously, this is Peter’s view):
India is basically virtually unstoppable (with maybe the exception of the US) if they decided to ‘get involved’ in the Persian Gulf - primarily because of proximity, and because the US no longer has troops there. So far, despite all the issues going on in the world, India hasn’t had the need to do anything of that sort, but you never know when something happens that finally pushes a country over the edge.
Will India get involved?
- As an Indian, I feel it’s not likely to ever happen. We have great trade relations with most of the Middle East, and because we don’t have any alliance compulsions.
8 Minutes of me nodding my head
Surprised he said so much about Japan without even mentioning the recently seized cargo ship. In the last week the Galaxy Leader, an Israeli ship operated by a Japanese company, was seized by Houthis and Japan is leading the cause to get the ship back. If there proves to be no diplomatic resolution with the rebels then the Japanese navy might even step up
Interesting that they declined to be part of the recently announced US led coalition to provide naval security in Red Sea. It includes Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, the Seychelles and the United Kingdom
I believe this was recorded earlier this year.
@@dmjung sometimes I wonder about his schedule
🇺🇸🇬🇧
Lol that ending love it 😂
Don't India given its proximity and heavy reliance on oil will have a say in this not now but in 10 years . Given they have a reasonable navy which is only going to grow hear on.
Nobody cares about what India thinks
He likes to downplay India in everything for some reason. India has good relations with the Middle east nations and even Iran so its weird to omit India. Or through omission suggest we don't have a navy worth mentioning.
@@jaydath8181 I thought India really didn't like muslim nations? Or is that just limited to its populace?
Spot on. India can disrupt the entire east - west traffic and works with Russia on their own oil and gas supply so they maybe able to decouple from middle eastern supply. That's a dark horse, for sure... India has tons of problems but they're very large and they seem to be developing decent capacities (navy, nukes, hypersonics etc).
@@orcho141South Asian muslims minus Bangladeshi.
How quickly things change.
More they change, more they remain the same? 🙂
After Carter, the world was taught that there was no greater sin than raising the cost of gas for the US consumer. Peter's a smart guy who brings a lot of information to the table, but he ignored the biggest reason the US "cares" about Middle East Oil: price stability. Sure, we can get crude from Canada, but it's going to be priced according to the global commodity indexes. For that matter, same will oil from South Dakota. Our energy prices are as dependent on Saudi outputs as they ever were. True...the Chinese have to worry about price _and_ supply. But American voters care about themselves, and the cost to fill their tanks, heat their homes and transport our goods. Rising fuel costs end political aspirations. Fast.
The US can never ignore an external variable that can damage US GDP or raise inflation. Walking away from that could be an issue. Short of nationalizing US oil production and price setting, the mid-east is still relevant.
Oh, and no way Japan destabilizes mid-east oil without the US balking. No way. Again: it's all about the price of gas.
THIS. Zeihan's claim that the USA only involved itself in the Middle East in order to secure oil supplies for its allies is very suspect.
Spot on.
But the "Global Commodity" pricing effect still presupposes peaceful global trade.
Should that break down into 19th century style multipolar naval escort trade empires, you would likely see BIG divergences in Nymex/Brent pricing for crude. Possibly enforced by a returning US petroleum export ban.
How is Canadian oil priced as a global commodity when it would need to go through the US to act as such? America also had the strategic petroleum reserve to not care about prices
@@NullHand Given our reserve has not been large enough to actually do much, and on top of that we've cut it almost by half since 2021 - yeah. An export ban is about the only thing that might work. But I suspect current politics would prefer we all pay more for less. Makes ya want to buy that EV, amirite?
Peter contact Limes (Caracciolo) or Domino (Fabbri). Please!
I wonder why Peter didn't include India in this analysis. They are not a naval superpower yet, but they can be a regional power in the Indian Ocean and project into neighboring Middle East areas (I'll leave S.E. Asia and East Asia out for now). Combine them with the Japanese and assistance from a few other countries in the region, and they'd be a pretty potent combination if China expands its 'bullying' diplomacy tactics into the region (and we all know how well India and China get along!). And India does have an interest in making sure the oil flows freely from the Middle East to Southern Asia. Just a few thoughts beyond the tight regional boundries Peter sticks to in the video.
It's not easy to speak extemporaneously after making a few notes. I suspect Peter simply forgot India. Yes, they could be a big player in the ME.
well india is india so there is your answer, cant even fix stuff at home 🙄
Yes thye Indian Ocean could so easily really become the Indian Ocean, controling the only feasible link between Arab oil countries and the far east of Asia. I'm surprised the US has not pushed India in this direction.
He has spoken of India in the past and they could kill China through their control of Indian Ocean because of Chinese energy dependence.
Please scroll upwards for my previous answer!
The fellas at “What the Ship?” believe that the large European container alliances are potentially forcing the US to intervene in the region, because a large portion of their container ships are also part of the US Navy Sealift capacity.
I would be very interested in your opinion on New Zealands future considering its economy is literally hitched to Chinas. I am concerned for our future.
New Zealand's future is pretty easy to see. It’s run and controlled by Communists and history has shown us over 100 times that Communism fails catastrophically every time. New Zealand will become a 3rd world failed state like every other Communist country run by Communists.
Yes I would be interested to
I'd argue your future is mostly tied to Australia's future... But yeah. You're too small and too remote to do anything. You'll do what the dominant power wants or go into decline. Best case is status quo. Worst case you turn into a Chinese resort.
Frankly, you'd be well advised to follow the policies your government pursued in the 19th and early 20th century. Make immigration (from culturally similar places, aka. the west) unproblematic. You need all the people and capital you can get right now. Like make it real e a s y and c o n v e n i e n t. Right now you can't compete with other developed nations at all. Only people from subpar jurisdictions would be interested (asia/pacific). No professional from the US or EU would deal with the hassle and low pay. You really have to come up with something.
@@RobertGeordieGibb New Zealand is certainly under the U.S. security umbrella, but OP was asking about economics, where the U.S. is far less likely to bail another country out of bad decisions.
China's economic and demographic collapse are terminal, they're toast. NZ will need to make adjustments. You have no choice but to find new markets. They only potential global markets projected to expand enough by population and GDP to replace China are: sub-Saharan Africa, Pakistan, The Philippines and Indonesia.
amazing view. where is it? he usually says.
Peter is making some HUGE assumptions, but even if some of it's true, it's honestly relieving. The Middle East is a black hole where empires go to die, and sooner we move one from them the better.
Peter is also quite a poor analyst
Angelo Merte is a better one. Therefore Germoney is in such a good shape now
the US can't keep its fingers out of the place though. This is why they back isreal so hard. It's more or less an American outpost in the middle East. America needs to learn it can't run the globe, so stop trying. Stop in Ukraine, stop in China, stop in the middle east Fix up its own house instead of trying to be the global hegemon again.
7:26 Interesting focus on Japan…on the day of the news of Nippon Steel buying U.S. Steel…
I am looking forward to our upcoming "I don't give a shit" attitude towards the rest of the world outside the Americas hemisphere.
Amen Brother! I agree we need to defend our neighbors Canada and Mexico our biggest trading partners. We have the entire North American Continent and we need nothing else.
The Israeli firsters who rule your decrepit country have other ideas..
@Peter
Where was this video filmed? That lake is gorgeous.
I especially like the part about "we don't care"!
So do the people of the Middle East I would imagine.
@0:35 Filmed on Vargas Island, BC?
Why do i get the feeling that Mr Zeihan has been offering his services to Turkey and Japan ?
@birdman3572= Because they might the highest bidder.
Damn dude, very interesting!
What about India as an outside power? Its Navy's technology may be behind those other powers, but it's right next door and has ships and doesn't have to go as far. It also has a growing energy market, and my understanding is limited energy resources. Plus it has an interest in being able to cut Chinese energy supplies off. I would think it would be a natural fit for an outside power looking to both secure its own and have the ability to disrupt others energy.
The hard thing with India is that it is quite reliant on importing and due to its isolated geography it has a hard time projecting power as well as forming close allies. For example look at Ukraine, India was one of the few nations to NOT condemn Russia’s invasion due to their dependence on them for oil. However India also has to juggle being “friends” with the USA. It’s technically an ally and trade partner to both and neither.
The geopolitical dominoes also put India as a "natural" ally of Iran.
Simply because their main thermonuclear rival and nemesis is Pakistan.
The standard tribal border frictions between Pakistan and Iran make this an "enemy of my enemy" situation.
@@thedukeofchutney468India didn't condemn Russia because India and the erstwhile Soviet Union and now Russia have had a long standing partnership, especially in terms of extending support to each other at international fora as well as in terms of India's reliance on Russian arms. Further, Russia's narrative of multipolarity is closely aligned with India's vision of the world, unlike the US, which wants a unipolar world where it's the master. India only began importing oil from Russia after the invasion when the West sanctioned Russia and the latter was forced to offer huge discounts, which turned out to be a sweet deal for India. Yes, India is a heavy importer of energy just like China, but most of our supplies come from Iraq, Saudi, UAE, and some from Iran. It's only the last 1.5 years where we've started importing Russian oil in bulk. So we were never dependent on Russia for energy and even now, as the discounts dry up, we are again pivoting to our old avenues (Gulf/ ME) for oil.
@@NullHandI disagree. Pak is more or less irrelevant in our overall future based calculus. We used to look upon it as a great rival, but now it's in such bad shape that apart from a few pinpricks here and there, they're incapable of doing anything that can be perceived as that of rivaling India. We're now looking towards the Chinese as an enemy/ adversary with regards to developing our overall capabilities. Our relations with Iran aren't really based on our relationship (or lack thereof) with Pak and Iran's tensions with Pak. All the nuclear capability that Pak has will be irrelevant when civil war eventually breaks out due to hyperinflation and lack of basic amenities combined with growing terrorism and a population explosion.
@@shrithikkothari8220 So....
You are expecting civil war and societal breakdown in a nuclear armed hostile border nation and you consider that "more or less irrelevant"?????
You DO live in an interesting neighborhood.
Where can I get a pair of those sunglasses. They look awesome.
in first minute of this video this guy showed how delusional he is
Can you also talk about the countries in the Caribbean?
This is my island in the sun. I'm not important to anyone..
Cheers.
The Middle East has always been, and will ALWAYS be a hotbed of instability, long before Israel (modern state) existed. The people in that region are more focused on fighting each other and are largely incompetent and this causes them to not be so significant on geopolitical front and just harms their own region. The resources (oil) and routes (silk road) are no longer as significant as they once were and it has been increasingly bypassed by other areas by this instability and incompetence.
You don't understand the mentality of the Middle East, and you don't understand that the West tried to destroy the Middle East more than once and is still trying
They would not have killed against each other if it weren't for America and the United Nations. Read history
Was totally not expecting to hear Japan's potential involvement.
Pete is just about the only pundit talking about the US withdrawing from its roll in global security. The US has the world's biggest and most advanced navy and the biggest funded military bar none. And we're supposed to believe we're just going to walk away from business as usual? What are the sailors and marines going to do with all that spare time? What about all the think tanks who game geopolitics and protection scenarios? What about the advantage in influence this gives us? I still don't see it. Maybe shift into a lower gear for a while. New administrations come and go like the weather. Plus I don't think we're done with the neocons yet. (Liz Cheney for president?)
You lost me at taking you serious at Liz Cheney she is an imcompetent bafoon at the highest level. I would see Vivek Ramaswamy in there long before and i hate his guts not a chance in hell a woman makes it only way now is if Kamala takes office if Joe croaks.
"Lower gear" can include "not patrolling certain sections of the oceans". Taking one step back from protecting every single trade lane doesn't mean mass redundancies for the navy. The other point Peter made elsewhere is that the US navy already transitioned its fleet compositions away from "high quantity of light ships to be everywhere at once". Still extremely competent, just for different jobs than before. To put Peter's point differently: the US de facto already moved away from absolute global security and the rest of the world didn't notice.
All the above is also for a fading doctrine. Ukraine has proven the concept of a no-navy naval blockade. That development hasn't triggered panic manufacturing so far as militaries are highly conservative (it's part of the job: risk aversion). The US is aware of the need to retool. Time will tell which other countries are the early adaptors.
@@PsieyePete's lucky he has you to explain himself.
@@RobertGeordieGibb Nuclear weapons are kinda strictly defensive weapons. That may be exactly what some small countries need. I expect more will need a solution to food and fuel shortages, especially as climate change disrupts harder. Nukes don't solve those problems.
This man has consistently being wrong but there is somethingabout his confidence that attracts the underdeveloped in me
I have to take this video with a grain of salt. He never mentions India or Egypt as possible regional players. He never mentions the petrodollar in his analysis of why the US was involved in Middle East affairs. You have to do better than this Zeihan
Does anyone know where Peter may have been in this video? If it is Colorado is it Lake Granby?
The concept of America withdrawing globally is logical but yet we stay involved? The neocons want us involved for military industrial complex or political and ideological reasons. I would love to see this explored
This is a process that'll play out over decades. Baby steps, not a sudden flick of the switch. US will retain some interests for longer, drop others sooner, all to navigate its way into a position that better suits it's future interests.
location?
It is so slanted to suggest that the rift between the US and Iran began in 1979. We overthrew their democratically elected leader, and installed a brutal dictator as their Shah.
What if your leftist university studies (at best) hasn't given you an accurate representation of events? The Shah was already there, and keeping him in power was preserving the constitution of Iran. He was a progressive modernizer, giving women equal rights, did land reforms and much more.
@@jesan733 One can recognise that this undemocratic action had positive effects while also accurately noting that it caused tension and alternative decisions may have had even more positive effects.
@@dreambuffer fair enough, but counterfactuals are very difficult and it's not that clear that Mossadeq was that democratic either. What we know is that losers can't write history and the most crucial difference between e.g. Atatürk and the Shah may just be that the latter happened to be overthrown.
@@jesan733 Maybe you could go read up on Operation Ajax? It probably got scrubbed from your textbook. 🤷♂️
@@GotGracexxxxx I know a lot about operation Ajax already, but thanks. Maybe you should go and read more broadly on the full context and what happened during the reign of the shah, and not just some one-sided account designed to say "western powers bad, mmmkay"?
Can you breakdown the Japanese influence a little more, I’m having trouble researching it.
First!!!!!!
104😂
# 2406! yay😂
Um, you were 2nd by 4 minutes.
As someone who was on exercise with the Saudi's. Yes, they have a lot of modern equipment. But they cannot employ it properly. They haven't modernized the battlefield C2 since 1996.