So no lasting harm, no foul?
Saudi Arabia's crown prince said in an interview aired Sunday that war with Iran would devastate the global economy and he prefers a non-military solution to tensions with his regional rival.
This is an interesting discussion of how the Saudis could weigh options.
I was content to have America squeeze Iran more rather than fight Iran symmetrically in a tit-for-tat militarized dispute that gives Iran the choice of when and how much to fight so that violence is calibrated to bolster support for the mullahs with a bit of victimhood to get sympathy abroad and a rally-around-the-flag effect at home--but not too much violence to threaten the regime.
If the Saudis wanted to strike back--like at Kharg Island, as I've mentioned over the years--I was in favor of supporting the Saudi effort.
But apparently, after thinking about it, nobody will strike back militarily.
I wonder how the Saudis will retaliate?
