After the outbreak of this round of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, does the United States want to fight or does it not want to fight?One point that I have been emphasizing is that there are several hot spots in the world right now, and they have different meanings for different countries.
As far as the US-led global security strategic framework is concerned, the three fulcrums are NATO to the west, NATO is mainly aimed at Russia, and the buffer zone between NATO and Russia is Eastern European countries and Ukraine. Of course, the center of the contradiction is now Ukraine, so the meaning of Ukraine for the United States and Russia is definitely different.
For the United States, this was originally a point to divide Russia and Europe, but for Russia, this has already hit its doorstep, and the changes in the security situation in Ukraine must be related to Russia's core interests.
In the same way, the fulcrum of the US security strategy in the east is the US-Japan security agreement, and under this agreement, the implicit Taiwan Strait is actually a similar situation, which is our core interest, and it is impossible to tolerate any substantive changes, but for the United States, it is relatively relaxed, and the more tense it is, the more it can take advantage of the fire.
However, only in the Middle East, Israel, as one of the three pillars of the US global security strategy, is indeed the core interest of the United States, because it is directly related to the life and death of the petrodollar, which is fundamentally different from the situation in Ukraine and the Taiwan Strait.
It can be said that although these three fulcrums are very important to the United States, the two fulcrums of the east and west can affect the circulation range of the dollar, while the fulcrum of the Middle East affects the question of whether the petrodollar can be used. So the importance here is a notch higher on the American side.
This is not simply affected by their father-son relationship, it is really related to the lifeblood of the United States. This is also a core reason why the United States is actually very passive now.
Therefore, rationally speaking, the United States certainly does not want its core interests to be challenged, and the best option here is deterrence, and peace under deterrence is the best choice. If you have to go to war, it is better to win quickly, and at worst, you will drag into a protracted war, and you will not be able to win, which will shake the foundation of the petrodollar.
But the current situation is indeed very passive, passive is passive in Israel itself has been trapped, if Israel withdraws now, don't think about it, it will definitely be a counterattack escalation, escalation to the point where you have to start a big offensive again, because the basis of Israel's existence, to put it bluntly, is deterrence, and if you can't deterrence, you must fight, enjoy peace, in the concept of the United States, it does not exist in the first place.
After Israel's current position is rolled out, it is far from achieving the goal of a quick victory in a quick battle, which makes the United States passive. The United States does not want to fight a protracted war, but it is also impossible to give up Israel, which is tantamount to giving up the petrodollar by default, which is obviously impossible.
It's just that now the United States can't find a suitable way, and it can't stop and stop, and it won't be able to finish the fight for a while and a halfThere is no doubt that the core is still to protect the petrodollar, but how?In the final analysis, it is Israel's deterrence, in fact, that is, the deterrence of the United States does not work, which is very troublesome.
Now there are countries calling for a ceasefire in the United Nations, but the more this happens, the more Israel will not be able to stop, and the United States will not support the ceasefire, because if the United States and Israel cease fire under everyone's pressure, you can imagine how Israel will gain a foothold in the future
If Israel admits cowardice once, it must always admit cowardice, and this is a strategic dilemma that Israel has to face after dragging the United States into the water. You can't admit it, but you can't win a quick victory, and then everyone keeps putting forward proposals at the United Nations, and the United States keeps vetoing them, so that the United States and Israel are sent to the opposite side of civilization again and again to show the public.
On the 8th local time, the United Nations Security Council voted on a draft resolution submitted by the United Arab Emirates calling for the immediate implementation of a humanitarian ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. The draft resolution was not adopted that day due to a veto by the United States. In the day's vote, 13 of the 15 members of the UN Security Council voted in favor, with the United Kingdom abstaining and the United States voting against. Since the United States is a permanent member of the Security Council and has the right of veto, the resolution could not be adopted. U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Wood said the U.S. "does not support" the current ceasefire.
American mothers and sons, Britain abstained, Japan voted in favor, and only the United States and Israel, father and son, were isolated in the United Nations. Many people say that the United States does not want a ceasefire, but in fact, as the only supporter of Israel, the United States has to oppose a ceasefire, otherwise Israel will be abandoned, it is easy to abandon Israel, can the United States abandon petrodollars?
Now the more this is the case, the more we should put them on the fire, vote on the proposals every three or five times, and pull the United States and Israel out every once in a while to show the public and tell the whole world who is the public enemy of human civilization
100 help plan