Major US military commitment to Gulf cannot be assumed

Oxford Analytica; Excerpts;Thursday, November 24 2011  President Barack Obama last month announced that talks with the Iraqi government on a new status of forces agreement (SOFA) had broken down, leading to a decision to withdraw all forces by the end of 2011. Since then, US officials have gone to great lengths to ... reassure Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) allies and deter Iran, which may believe that there is a regional strategic vacuum it can fill once US forces are out of Iraq.  Impact Despite Obama's Asia-Pacific emphasis, Washington intends to retain a robust presence in the Middle East. Yet major projected increases in US and Canadian oil production over the next 20 years might erode the imperative to protect Gulf supplies. A new US brigade in Kuwait will be more prepared for conventional conflict against Iran than the much larger force in Iraq had been. Even after departing Iraq, Washington will maintain a substantial force presence in the Middle East, and the capability rapidly to enlarge it as needed -- sufficient to deter the Iranian military. However, a number of contingencies -- budget cuts, Tehran's potential acquisition of nuclear capability, and public hostility in host states -- could undercut this force posture. ... ......  Even without the forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, or in support bases in Central Asia, US forces in the region present a formidable deterrent to Iran as well as reassuring Gulf allies. These are more than 'trip-wire' forces, and maintain current readiness to contain, protect and deter threats. They also provide a standing nucleus for far larger rapid deployment of forces based in the United States such as the XVIII Airborne Corps, which can deploy anywhere in the world on 18 hours notice. These forces tend to validate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's declaration that Iran risked "badly miscalculating" if it underestimated US regional military capabilities.  While the US retains a strong presence in the region, several 'game changers' might undercut it However, it is unlikely that the forces within the Middle East will remain fixed in size, capability or scale. While US forces in Germany remained at Cold War levels for many years, the dynamic nature of the Middle East means that the 2016 force posture will not resemble the posture of 2011. Any number of 'game changers' could alter the US force presence: Budget cuts Following the congressional super-committee's failure to agree on a fiscal consolidation plan amounting to at least 1.2 trillion dollars over ten years, a sequestration of agency funds will follow, and approximately 500 billion dollars will automatically come out of the Department of Defense. On top of the 450 billion dollars already pledged to the debt reduction effort, this sum would impact operational readiness, including expensive overseas deployments . Less receptive host nations US forces maintain a presence in the region through the invitation of local nations. In the context of this year's uprisings, leaders of these nations could face increased criticism for hosting US forces. While the UAE, Kuwait and Qatar have not experienced the degree of societal upheaval seen in Egypt, Bahrain remains in question and others could follow. Public pressure could eventually force the removal of US forces. Iranian influence Tehran's actions could result in a dramatic US force rebalancing in either direction. Any number of factors could see a large increase in forces in the region -- including a more aggressive Iran provoking US naval forces in international waters, Iranian naval forces mining the entrance to the Gulf, attacks on US interests outside of Iraq, or an international commitment to preventing the development of a nuclear weapon. Yet under certain conditions, a more aggressive Iran could also result in fewer forces in the region. Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon, it is most unlikely it will choose to employ it against a neighbour. However, it might pursue an aggressive diplomatic policy, using its nuclear status as a lever to coerce neighbours into refusing to host US forces.