You are here

Removing US military forces from the Gulf

Feb 16,2017 - Last updated at Feb 16,2017

Reporting on President Donald Trump’s new energy policy, which plans for a big increase in domestically produced oil and gas, the Financial Times reported recently: “Exports of gas have begun, with the first shipments of liquefied natural gas leaving the Sabine Pass facility on the border between Texas and Louisiana a year ago. Since then trade has grown and the US now supplies a dozen different gas markets around the world.”

The US is all set to speed this up.

Trump is stepping on the accelerator of what had begun a year ago, and not just with gas but with oil, too.

He is driving not only to raise gas and oil exports, but to achieve US energy self-sufficiency.

Increased shale and coal production, support for the huge Keystone XL pipeline from Canada and the removal of restrictions on venting gas production from developments on federal land are all part of his mix.

There are two lessons from this. 

Oil prices are unlikely to return to their extraordinary high levels of a couple of years ago; and it raises the important question, why is the US spending $75 billion a year on its military presence in the Gulf?

There would be some risks in a strategy of reducing the US’ military presence in the Middle East, but they are hypothetical risks, as professors Charles Glaser and Rosemary Kelanic point out in the current issue of Foreign Affairs.

Since oil is fungible, Middle East suppliers could possibly disturb the world price with irresponsible behaviour meant to rock the boat — which even the US would have to work hard to protect itself from.

But this depends on some unlikely scenarios.

The first is that a Gulf country could conquer some of its oil and gas-producing neighbours.

In reality, there is no such regional hegemon on the horizon.

Iraq is down and out. Iran is fixated on internal threats. Saudi Arabia is not interested in territorial conquest.

A second hypothesis is that Iran might disrupt the flow of oil through the so-called choke point of the 34-kilometres-wide Straits of Hormuz that gives access to the Gulf.

Iran certainly does not have the capability to close the strait completely.

Even more important is that if it tried to, Iran would shoot itself in the foot, making it difficult for itself to supply world markets at the level it wants.

Thirdly, there is no evidence that, after coming through the drama of its deal making with Europe, the US and Russia over its nuclear programme, it wants to get into another confrontation.

It wants to get on with its own development. It wants more sanctions lifted, which means making that unambiguously clear.

The fourth hypothesis is that one of the main producers might suffer massive internal instability that interferes with its oil production.

Yet, hardly anyone foresees an upset of such proportions.

Even in the highly unlikely event of one of these hypotheses proving correct, the US has its massive strategic petroleum reserve to fall back on; it has stored around 700 million barrels, which is part of the 4 billion barrel reserves held by members of the International Energy Agency.

China is also developing its reserves. This would give the Western countries eight months of oil.

Even if there were not one NATO soldier posted in a Gulf state, it would not take eight months for forces to be brought in from home or other parts of the globe where they are deployed to address such an eventuality.

The US has other ways to protect the Gulf.

Besides increasing the size of its reserve, it can actively encourage other countries to do likewise. 

It can work to decrease its own energy demand from cars, lorries and planes.

Trump could pick up where Obama left off in pushing for more fuel efficiency and expanding wind, solar and tidal sources of power, and speeding the spread of electric cars.

He could even increase taxes on vehicles — which of course he is unlikely to do, except that if an emergency starts to loom, even he might decide to do that.

The US and its NATO allies need no longer commit so many military resources to the Gulf.


Not only is the expenditure not needed, it helps pull the rug from under the Islamists who shout and scream about Western imperialism, and fight.

142 users have voted.


If the US pulls out bases from the Gulf, the South Asian marxists are going to interpret it as a victory and propel further underground marxism movements that can spread into the ME and foil the war efforts to stabilize the region under prima-capitalism doctrines. Plus, the South Asian countries are already amassing mass ground assault equipment and weaponry.

Cause the Gulf needs a marxism and communism wall from the eastern threats.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.


Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.