The politics of the region are not as simple nor simplistic as either side would like it reduced to.

We repeatedly told the Saudis that we would vote No on the creation of Israel at the UN vote. Then, we voted Yes. The video of that event showed the look on the Saudi king's face immediately afterwards. Very pissed off. When OPEC first caused an oil crisis in the 1970s, it affected our war in Vietnam. Nixon sent a "backdoor envoy" to the Saudis, who privately informed them that Nixon would bomb Saudi Arabia if oil did not start flowing. The Saudis "quickly and quietly" began supplying oil. Despite this sort of relationship history, the Saudis remain strong US allies. Their oil fields were under threat from the Kuwait invasion by Iraq. They had no illusions over Sadam's objectives. They unhesitatingly provided bases and support for Desert Storm, then hosted us in the region for nearly a decade longer than either nation had planned when Desert Storm failed to "defang" Sadam. (Our continued presence in that country is what directly turned Al Qaeda against us.)

So, now, the Saudis are being attacked by Iran over US/Israel strikes. 1) The Saudis do not like Iran. 2) The Saudi Wahabis hate Shia (which is what Iran is predominantly.) 3) The Saudis are conducting a ground war in Yemen against Shia Houthi Iranian allies. 4) The Saudis don't want Iran to have nukes any more than the rest of the world really does. The Saudis remain our allies. I don't know where the rest of the region stands, but if you look at the Saudi-US alliance, it has withstood worse.

The region tends to be split along religious lines. Most of it is Sunni. Iran, and actually the largest portion of Iraq, are Shia. Which nation is the "pariah" in the region? The GCC does not include Iran. Historically, there is no more love between these religious factions than there is for outside Western interference. Leaders in the region acknowledge the realities of both. Nobody likes Israel, but they have survived to become just another reality of the region. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Alliances frequently consist of who is most open to selling arms. It is a very layered, complex situation. The whole region has been plagued by outside-origin wars since WWI. This is just another one to them. The West has money. It needs oil. It sells weapons. The relationship will be damaged, but not come unglued.

Anyone not wishing Iran to be a nuclear armed state has an interest in aiding the US/Israel side. Anyone wanting to restore oil flow quickly has an interest in opening the strait. Nothing wrong with asking. "No" is a legitimate answer. It might surprise you, but the US could care less. We are the world's largest oil producer. (Look it up.) We make oodles of money when oil prices are high. China is Iran's leading customer, on the order of 80% of their oil. We have no interest in restoring China's oil supply. Iran loses most of their nation's income when they themselves shut off the strait to their own exports. What urgency do we have to restore Iran's income? Iran is betting that the loss of oil will provoke world outcry, so the revenue loss will be temporary, and we will be pressured into opening the strait. Our response has been, essentially, "Want it open? Go open it."

These are some nasty facts of the situation. Most people won't like them. I myself do not totally agree with it all, but I am not going to pretend this aspect isn't part of it. I don't want Iran having nukes. That it has come down to a war over it is unfortunate. It now "is what it is." We will see how it ends. The winners will then write history, and tell us our future narrative of the conflict.