Taking Royal Hostages

 

Historically, a militarily defeated country was required to provide hostages to the victor to ensure compliance to whatever treaty came into force after a war.  The defeated king would be required to send members of his family to be kept in the imperial household of the victor.  Thereafter, any violation by the defeated power would result in, among other consequences, the death of these hostages.

Thinking about the current situation in the Middle East and the Gulf, it seems so logical that the Gulf countries, whose economies depend on oil and gas infrastructure and whose people depend on desalinated water and also electricity for air conditioning would want to cut a deal with Iran for peace.  It is clear that Iran can target and hit any such facilities that they choose. 

So why haven’t these Gulf countries come to some sort of mutually agreeable terms to keep the Gulf open for shipping, sustaining life, etc.?  To my knowledge, the United States isn’t holding hostage any crown princes of the various Gulf monarchs.  But the United States is, in fact, holding countless billions (trillions) in wealth from these same monarchs.  Investments in US assets, investments held at US institutions, and investments denominated in US dollars. 

Is the US capable only of confiscating Iranian or Russian assets?  Of course not. 

These monarchs are between a rock and a hard place: watch their countries and, therefore, the source of their wealth destroyed, or watch their accumulated wealth confiscated.