So long as not subscribing is worse than subscribing countries will still do it. Even if it not in the interest of the country the decision makers can and do still get kickbacks / speaking engagements.

It’s interesting to read of the ineffectiveness of influence the gulf states thought they had, though I think that speaks more to the relative cost effectiveness of tributes versus blackmail. These states don’t have the security apparatus to both blackmail US politicians and prevent others from blackmailing those same politicians. This second part is essential as it is what maintains the relative advantage.

I do think they will be less enthusiastic subscribers in the future, and perhaps even shop around for more cost effective approaches. Modi in India is intentionally creating an Indian diaspora as one example and I believe he is bribing politicians to help make this happen.

▲

alephnerd 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> read of the ineffectiveness of influence the gulf states thought they had

The primary players in the Gulf - Saudi and the UAE - have been aligned with the ongoing Iran strikes.

KSA's Mohammad Bin Salman has been lobbying Trump to strike Iran [0], just like his predecessor King Abdullah was doing [1]. Similarly, the UAE has an ongoing land dispute with Iran [2].

[0] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/28/trump-ira...

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/cut-off-he...

[2] - https://www.uae-embassy.org/foreign-policy/occupied-uae-isla...

▲

cjbgkagh 5 hours ago | parent [-]

So is it your stated position that the reason the US has decided to go to war with Iran is because of Saudi Arabia and the UAE?

▲

alephnerd 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Nope. And that is quite a leap in logic.

The larger Gulf States are aligned with the US in striking Iran. And we have an incentive also to prevent another nuclear breakout from happening.

Edit: can't reply

> I do note that a similar reason was given for North Korea which did end up rather peacefully acquiring nuclear weapons

Because we were in Iraq and Afghanistan when North Korea's nuclear breakout happened in the early 2000s.

> the primary reason?

There is no primary reason (there never is), but there are clearly a multiple interests that aligned with striking Iran

1. Iran's eventual nuclear breakout (already mentioned)

2. The operationalization of the Iran-Central Asia-China railway in 2025 [0], which allows China to bypass Malacca

3. Iran's relative weakness following the collapse of the Assad regime, the death of much od Hezbollah's leadership, and the Houthis comparative weakness

4. Continued anger amongst policymakers in the Gulf, Israel, and the US that Iran-backed Hamas launched the 10/7 attack barely 3 weeks after the US+EU launched the IMEC project and were about to loop Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords [1]

[0] - https://caspianpost.com/iran/china-kyrgyz-iran-rail-link-cut...

[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/09/g20-eu-and-us-...

▲

cjbgkagh 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I was hoping to hear the case made as to why Israel was not the primary reason but instead you seem to have chosen to elide it altogether. It seems to be a conspicuous omission especially when both the US and Israeli admin have repeatedly made the case that Israel was the primary reason.

▲

cjbgkagh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I felt giving a primary reason would add clarity, which is why I asked. So is “prevent another nuclear breakout from happening” the primary reason?

I do note that a similar reason was given for North Korea which did end up rather peacefully acquiring nuclear weapons.

Edit: so to confirm that is your stated primary reason? Any other reasons you can think of?

	▲	mikkupikku 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Primary reason is because Israel and American zionists (mostly evangelical christians) lobby for it. The KSA and friends also lobbying for it is just icing on the cake for American politicians.