Ideally they will want a pro west state. Since its not possible. They are happy if the writ of current regime is rendered ineffective.
US is oil surplus now. They really don't care about the world anymore. Infact it gives them even more leverage to bring the other states in their orbit. On Militias, They surely have factored the militias in equations. A US president don't easily give an audience to Chief of a designated terror organization without a deal. I will not give Houthis much credence. Americans seem to treat them as target practise. ISIS, HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH all were once tauted as very powerful entities but they all were rendered ineffective. Houthis may seem like a powerful foe but they actually are not. Militias only have nuisance value and they exist till the state let them. Once a modern state decide to finish them, they can do nothing more than squeal. Just like our naxals.
Russian strength hides the fact that they have lost the techonology war. They are still struggling to develop a proper 5th gen FA. Russians may seem stronger now but their power projection capabilities have been permanently diminished. Domestically they are stronger now than in past. So, I don't see them loosing or splintering. They are here to stay. But I also don't see them crossing even Dnieper River. Russians will remain a boogeyman in north. They will keep EU on its toe.
Do you really think Mullah will be left with enough capabilities to inflict a conventional military cost? I don't think so. So, They will go sub conventional. Americans already deal with multi spectrum subconventional threats so its nothing new for them either.
Now, Pakistan Issue, I agree we should have finished them when we had the chance. But I don't think pakistan became more dangerous to us after 1971. It was always dangerous to us. It us who never recognized it. Yes, They became more lethal after it. But our state was more than willing to absorb those losses. Afterall our state is still happy to let Hindus die in WB.
So, All in all, American have actually done two things:
1. Reduced the influence zone of their adversaries. (Now, Americans have bigger bombs)
2. Made the conflicts more localized and intense.(Americans are further so heat is disproportionately on the adversaries)
All right ! I don't think I could get my point across well to you &
@Nibbler coz I didn't articulate my PoV well .
Instead of focusing on the tactical part of the equation I should have focused on the meta narrative which would have highlighted the faulty strategy of the US & the reason I think it won't get out , not without paying a heavy price.
What's the reason individuals or groups or nations crave power ? It's to do with material prosperity for power for its own sake doesn't yield anything.
Beginning 1990 with the collapse of the USSR the US was the sole super power of the world. The Chinese even called them the world's first hyper power .
If the US Deep State wanted it could've enacted policies which would have ensured American hegemony for another century.
Yet within less than 35 years , the US is on the brink of losing its premium status in the world. Now we can argue all day about how it is eliminating Iran like it did Saddam's regime earlier or how Putin's been brought to his knees or how the Europeans have been shown their place but in the larger scheme of things how have all these developments ensured the US continues its hegemony as sole super power of the world.
For starters it has done something unprecedented in the recorded history of mankind which is not only to aid the rise of its rival & be directly complicit in it namely the rise of China.
To think the world's foremost brain on foreign policy & strategy & practitioner of realpolitik - the Jew boy Henry Kissinger was behind the entire US policy on China .
Irrespective whose administration it was in power he was invited to the WH to be consulted so much so that Jew boy was seen as US's interlocutor with the CCP whereas he was in actuality the unofficial Chinese ambassador to the US.
Now it's not as if the US was unaware this was happening. Back in 2001 it perpetrated what's now known as the Hainan Incident . However before things could proceed further down that path , 9/11 happened.
In fact I'd go so far as to argue that with the collapse of the USSR , inhibitions which crept into the US Deep State post Vietnam about directly intervening in another country militarily , went for a toss. Check out direct US military interventions before 1990 & post 1990 including Afghanistan.
If you want to maintain your hegemony over the world , first & foremost , you do it thru trade & maintaining your stranglehold over technology for which peace is a pre requisite.
Problems require trouble shooting thru diplomacy where war becomes a tool of the last resort . However successive administrations since 1990 have been seen to be more trigger happy than its predecessor.
Consider "Nobel Peace Prize winner " Obummer. He withdrew from Iraq , ordered the surge in Afghanistan post Operation Neptune Spear & then got involved in Syria & Libya & another half a dozen other spots too insignificant to register.
I could go on . Trust you get the drift.
Up until this point I've been focusing only on their foreign policy . Check out their financial & monetary policies . Check out their debt in 1990 & what it is today. Check out what damages shipping off entire industries overseas especially to China has had on the middle & lower classes in the US. Mfg has practically disappeared.
This in turn has exacerbated social tensions , racial tensions , class tensions & is leading to the rise of a new class of politicians - the socialist democrats which is short hand for communists .
With cleavages opening up into chasms which are unbridgeable , all this tinder box requires is a spark.IMO the war over Taiwan will be that spark.
will scream that American weapons are the best and say he never gets credit like when he stopped wars between Pak and India.
so DeGaulle's treachery had no effect 
