Chas Freeman: U.S. Alliances Collapse & Israel Commits Suicide

Overview

Ambassador Chas (Chaz) Freeman argues that multiple conflicts across the Middle East and Europe reflect more than tactical escalation. Instead, he says they indicate a structural collapse of the U.S.-led security order, driven by:

• Washington’s refusal or inability to reliably back allies
• Rising regional powers seeking to replace U.S.-managed arrangements with more autonomous, deals-based security and alternative energy routes

---

1) Saudi–Houthi escalation and the weakening of Saudi “U.S.-backed” security

Freeman describes Saudi Arabia’s renewed conflict with the Houthis as rooted in an earlier Saudi-backed Yemeni government assault on Sana’a airport. After that attack, he claims the Houthis gained major strategic leverage, including influence along:

• The Red Sea
• Bab el-Mandab

He says the Houthis are striking a wide range of targets inside Saudi Arabia, including:

• Radar systems
• Ammunition depots
• Airfields
• Aircraft hangars
• Energy infrastructure (including Aramco facilities)

Economic squeeze argument

Freeman argues the conflict squeezes Saudi Arabia economically by disrupting oil export capacity:

• He cites difficulties moving oil via Hormuz and Bab el-Mandab
• He also cites reduced export ability through alternative shipping routes
• Meanwhile, war costs rise as revenue declines

Rejection of a “military solution”

He rejects the feasibility of a military solution and argues U.S. policy has limited Saudi options by refusing to back the Saudis further in what he calls a “reborn war.”

Potential destabilizer via militia involvement

Freeman adds a destabilizing possibility: he claims strikes on Saudi energy infrastructure may involve Iraqi militia actions, allegedly without Iraqi government involvement.

---

2) A diplomatic pivot: mediation likely led by Iran, not the U.S.

Freeman points to an upcoming meeting in Salalah, Oman, bringing together:

• Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers
• Iran’s foreign minister

He expects Gulf states—especially Oman—to signal support for managing transit through the Strait of Hormuz. In his view, this would undermine the practical effectiveness of any U.S.-aligned blockade approach.

Freeman’s core prescription for Saudi Arabia

He argues Saudi Arabia should:

• Seek mediation with the Houthis via Iran (calling Iran the “only logical mediator”)
• Accept that Saudi Arabia cannot restore the pre-crisis U.S.-Saudi dynamic
• Repair ties with Iran to prevent further damage to energy and security

Breakdown of the historic U.S.–Saudi bargain

Freeman frames this as the unraveling of a long-standing bargain dating to the 1945 meeting between:

• King Abdulaziz
• Franklin Roosevelt

He characterizes that bargain as trading U.S. protection for Saudi hydrocarbon access, alongside implied limits on hostile Israeli actions—now, in his view, “gone up in smoke.”

---

3) U.S. policy: “putting itself in a political box” via energy and refusal to commit

Freeman connects Middle East escalation to broader U.S. strategic inconsistency.

• He claims Donald Trump told allies (in Freeman’s account) that the U.S. will not back Saudi actions
• And that the U.S. will not shield Saudi-linked shipping from attacks

Freeman argues this creates a “political trap” for Washington because escalation affects global energy prices, and thus U.S. domestic politics.

Ukraine diesel pressure (fuel-price consequences)

He also argues the U.S. is pressuring Ukraine’s ability to produce diesel, alleging the U.S. asked Ukraine to halt strikes on diesel-producing facilities. He says this would:

• Increase fuel prices (he claims diesel is above $6/gallon)
• Raise domestic costs
• Set up an “election-year reckoning”

---

4) Collapse of U.S. hegemonic architecture; regional blocs and “indigenous” security

Freeman argues the broader implication is the end of U.S. primacy. He cites trends such as:

• Gulf states moving toward alternative security structures, including a “tripartite” framework involving Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey
• Russia and China remaining willing to support when the U.S. fails—reinforcing non-U.S. options

He also suggests that:

• U.S. naval posture and Persian Gulf basing are degrading under Iranian pressure
• This undermines the logic of any sustained blockade strategy

---

5) Israel and the “widening” regional breakdown

Freeman argues Israel is acting in ways that contradict expected logic of a weakening regional environment. Rather than seeking new deals to stabilize a more constrained future, he claims Israel escalates against multiple neighbors.

He further claims that:

• The current regional chaos distracts from Israel’s actions in Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank

Freeman portrays Israeli decision-making and politics as increasingly self-damaging (using the “Israel commits suicide” video framing), including:

• Loss of international support (he mentions European/UK policy shifts he characterizes as pathbreaking)
• Internal disarray and civil-military strain, including warnings the IDF could fall apart
• Moral and political fractures inside Israel over policy toward Palestinians
• Increasing doubt about Israel’s long-term viability and legitimacy

---

6) Europe/NATO and Ukraine: “nothing” for NATO; Ukraine as a liability

Freeman argues NATO expansion and the Ukraine strategy were misguided from the start and are now backfiring on Europe.

He claims:

• The war shows U.S. strategic confusion
• Europe lacks the ability to clarify or counter it
• The war supports Russia’s claim that NATO association is an intolerable threat

Forecasted consequences

Freeman foresees:

• A “rump” Ukraine that is corrupt, impoverished, deindustrialized, and unlikely to be a stable buffer
• Downstream European instability, including “revenge” dynamics (e.g., involving Poland or Hungary)
• A worsening Europe-facing crisis exacerbated by winter conditions and degraded Ukrainian capacity

Blocked diplomacy

He emphasizes that diplomatic exits are blocked by Western sabotage of earlier talks (referencing Istanbul in 2022), and that he sees no workable Western diplomatic plan.

---

7) Western “sacred status quo” vs rule-of-law in an emerging multipolar system

Freeman argues that Western debate is being suppressed by treating the current order as “sacred,” preventing serious consideration of alternatives.

He contrasts this with a growing emphasis elsewhere (including in BRICS discussions) on rule-based international behavior, using a “no traffic lights” analogy for a world without rules.

BRICS rule-making as an alternative framework

He suggests BRICS is moving toward rule-making by consensus and that the process could form an institutional alternative to the post–World War II order dominated by the West.

Warning: chaos if no new framework emerges

He warns that if the old order has died but no new framework emerges, the outcome will be anarchy/chaos.

---

Presenters/Contributors

• Ambassador Chaz (Chas) Freeman

  • Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense
  • Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

• Glenn

  • Interviewer/presenter (referenced as “Glenn” throughout)