this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
39 points (100.0% liked)
World News
3317 readers
88 users here now
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, this arguably takes a ripe asset rich target away from Iran though. Obviously hitting them for damages sake isn't good behaviour, but they've already made their bed when they let US use their country as a military base to blow up Iran. Just cause they fucked up and got their shit rocked doesn't mean Iran gains anything from this. What can Saudi do or provide that US and Israel don't already have in spades?
Basing locations. Geographical limitations are a reality. If you cannot launch attacks from close by your options will be much more limited. If only a few of the Gulf state comprador regimes remain available to them in that region, that significantly reduces their tactical flexibility and shrinks the area to disperse/hide their assets over.
Taking Saudi Arabia out of the equation is a net advantage for Iran. There are still plenty of targets in the region without them.
And if they were to not allowing usage of airspace to attack Iran with a country, that also limits the ways the US can approach from more distant bases, potentially increasing flight lengths.
Although unless such a deal includes no radars can be active in SA during conflict it might just be a way for the empire to gain some of its vision against ballistic missiles again.
Simply not having US military stationed there is already a huge victory in itself, or am I missing something? Ultimately, Iran wants zero US military presence in the region, and this could be a major initial step in that direction. As long as Iran keeps bombing US allies and leaving be the neutral states, it sends a powerful message.
I thought this was a non aggression pact with nothing in it whatsoever about remove US presence or am I missing something