Follow us on social

Littoral_combat_ship_uss_fort_worth_lcs_3_22319462451

With Marines on Persian Gulf vessels, is Biden risking war with Iran?

Biden is charting a dangerous path in signaling to Saudi Arabia that Washington has its back in return for Israel normalization.

Analysis | Washington Politics

The Washington Post reports that Biden is embarking on a "remarkable escalation" in the Persian Gulf that could lead to a U.S.-Iran war. He is reportedly preparing to authorize U.S. Marines and sailors to be stationed on interested commercial vessels in an effort to thwart Iran from seizing oil tankers in the region.

Biden is primarily responsible for having created this situation due to two policy paths he has chosen.

First, he chose to negotiate America’s return to the JCPOA rather than reentering it via executive order while also disregarding many of the key factors that made Obama’s diplomacy with Iran successful.

Iran has undoubtedly created its fair share of problems in the talks. But by choosing a negotiated return, Biden also chose to keep Trump’s sanctions in place — even though key Biden officials are on record blasting Trump’s max pressure strategy as a dismal failure.

But today, Trump’s maximum pressure strategy is Biden’s. One element of it has been to confiscate Iranian oil on the high seas — in contradiction to international law — as a way to enforce US sanctions on Iran. Predictably, Iran responded by targeting oil shipments of countries that collaborated with Biden on this matter. This has then prompted Biden to beef up U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf to prevent Iranian actions that only began as a result of Biden’s own policies.

But now Biden may “remarkably escalate” this counterproductive policy by putting U.S. military directly into the mix. This is partly due to the second policy he has erroneous prioritized: the Abraham Accords and getting Saudi to normalize with Israel.

Saudi Arabia has requested a security pact with the U.S. in order to agree to normalize with Israel and abandon the Palestinians. Biden may wisely not go for that, but as part of wooing the Saudis, he believes he has to show that he’s willing to commit to war in the Middle East — a commitment few in the region believe the U.S. has. 

Stationing U.S. Marines on oil tankers may be designed to signal to Mohammed Bin Salman that Biden is serious about defending Saudi Arabia against Iran and that the (very brief) era of the U.S. withdrawing from the Middle East is over.

It is impressive how MBS has played Biden. He is successfully pushing the U.S. president to reverse the many policies Saudi Arabia opposed — rejoining the JCPOA, reducing U.S.-Iran tensions, and bringing American troops home from the Middle East.

In return, Israel gets normalization while it continues to annex Palestinian land. And America gets to once again enjoy the short straw of having to live on the verge of war with Iran.


(October 17, 2015) Sailors assigned to Surface Warfare Mission Package, Detachment 4, on the USS Fort Worth (LCS 3). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Joe Bishop/Released)
Analysis | Washington Politics
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Are American 'boomers' at risk?

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Nuclear explosion
Top image credit: Let’s curb loose talk of using lower-yield nuclear weapons

Reckless posturing: Trump says he wants to resume nuke testing

Global Crises

President Donald Trump’s October 29 announcement that the United States will restart nuclear weapons testing after more than 30 years marks a dangerous turning point in international security.

The decision lacks technical justification and appears solely driven by geopolitical posturing.

keep readingShow less
Sudan al-Fashir El Fasher
Top photo credit: The grandmother of Ikram Abdelhameed looks on next to her family while sitting at a camp for displaced people who fled from al-Fashir to Tawila, North Darfur, Sudan, October 27, 2025. REUTERS/Mohammed Jamal

Sudan's bloody war is immune to Trump's art of the deal

Africa

For over 500 days, the world watched as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) methodically strangled the last major army garrison in Darfur through siege, starvation, and indiscriminate bombardment. Now, with the RSF’s declaration of control over the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Sixth Infantry Division headquarters in El Fasher, that strategy has reached its grim conclusion.

The capture of the historic city is a significant military victory for the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, though it is victory that has left at least 1,500 civilians dead, including 100 patients in one hospital. It is one that formalizes the de facto partition of the country, with the RSF consolidating its control over all of Darfur, and governing from its newly established parallel government in Nyala, South Darfur.

The SAF-led state meanwhile, clings to the riverine center and the east from Port Sudan.

The Trump administration’s own envoy has now publicly voiced this fear, with the president’s senior adviser for Africa Massad Boulos warning against a "de facto situation on the ground similar to what we’ve witnessed in Libya.”

The fall of El Fasher came just a day after meetings of the so‑called “Quad,” a diplomatic forum which has brought together the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates in Washington. As those meetings were underway, indirect talks were convened in the U.S. capital between a Sudanese government delegation led by Sudan’s foreign minister, and an RSF delegation headed by Algoney Dagalo, the sanctioned paramilitary’s procurement chief and younger brother of its leader.

The Quad’s joint statement on September 12, which paved the way for these developments by proposing a three-month truce and a political process, was hailed as a breakthrough. In reality, it was a paper-thin consensus among states actively fueling opposite sides of the conflict; it was dismissed from the outset by Sudan’s army chief.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.