As I've been discussing with Tzeentch, one possibility is the US wants to more-or-less start collapsing the global economy by massive chaos in the various Eurasian "crossroads". @Tzeentch views events in line with this general geopolitical strategy. — boethius

I have to correct you here.

My point was not that the US is trying to crash the global economy, but that it is trying to disrupt land-based trade connections between its main rivals in order to maintain control of global trade.

Yes, I am very sure about my point. It is dreamy to think that there is a chance to come back to the context prior to October 7th. This date did critical damage to the collective thought and soul of Israel. Like to the Americans in September 11th or here in 2004 Madrid bomb attacks. Do not expect to go back to pre-10/7 life. It looks like it is acceptable to take Sinwar out because he is a terrorist. But this is the way Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, etc. think about Netanyahu. They will keep attempting to take him out. Will you feel safe in a nation whose president is in perpetual thread with their neighbours? Then, this will be another reason for Netanyahu to keep bombing, and this is why I can't see peace in the long term.


You are viewing this conflict through a European lens.
— BitconnectCarlos

And you are viewing this conflict through a religious lens because:

God grants victories.
— BitconnectCarlos

What God?
What religious text? Quran or Talmud?
What prophet? Muhammad or Abraham?
See? This conflict is endless because it always leads to religious differences and hostility. I am right and you are wrong because my holy book says so; don't try to argue why. — javi2541997

I'm saying maybe the Palestinians are getting tired of war and just want peace (which would happen if the hostages were returned but Hamas keeps refusing). And Iran may keep attempting to kill Bibi, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. Being the target of assassination attempts is not a shameful thing. It is the price of having enemies, and some forces like Iran are wicked and must be opposed regardless of whether they use some measures or not.

I am mentioning the conflict through a religious lens because that is the lens of the participants of the conflict. So it's noteworthy -- especially when there are similarities. Both groups view military victories as granted by God and defeat as likely a sign of divine disfavor. Therefore defeat brings discouragement and questioning from both sides. It would be a very different matter if Hamas was wildly successful, then the Palestinians would be bolstered.

I think the better explanation is that Israel / US simply have no practical way to defeat Iran.

They've been in a delusional driven genocide with constant escalation to try to distract from the Genocide internationally (new enemies to continue to be the victim) and also maintain credibility domestically of being the superior race that can go around killing all their enemies. — boethius

The US politicians are just in the pocket of the Israel lobby thanks to mainly the Pro-Israeli Christians in the electorate, not just the American Jewish community. It's quite obvious that the US doesn't want the kind of "final solution" which the Netanyahu government hopes it can do somehow. These things take a lot of time to change, but I think they are changing.

But do notice that you have two different administrations and states here.

The spell of invincibility broke between due to Iran's missile attack demonstrating Israeli air defence doesn't work so well (so Iran can cause significant damage conventionally) and also the pentagon simply having no plan to actually defeat Iran (Israel overconfidence likely includes overconfidence in US capacity as well). — boethius

I have to agree with you. Those missiles hitting Nevatim Air base really were hitting Nevatim air base. And the US is in no position to occupy Iran.

Nuclear weapons hinder the pace of going up the escalatory ladder, but they don't keep states from fighting each other ...as long as the fighting is "limited" in scale. Argentina could attack easily the UK as there really was no threat of a nuclear mushroom cloud engulfing Buenos Aires. The UK wouldn't use nukes to defend few inhabitants and sheep in the Falklands. Also Pakistan and India could have a border war even with nuclear arms on both sides. And North and South Korea can engage in firefights then and now.

Hence the unfortunate reality is that it would be logical now for Iran to get it's nuclear weapon. The US will attack only nations that have potential nuclear weapons, but not a large and dispersed nuclear deterrent. That's why it's totally possible that Iran does have few nukes already.

The UN sat by for years while Hezbollah constructed terror installations when it was in the UN's deliberate mission to disarm them. — BitconnectCarlos

The truth is that the UN can perform only a limited things well. It can be between two sides, when both sides accept this. But it's laughable to think the UN could act like a superpower. Really, the Korean war fought under the UN flag happened only because China was represented by the nation now known as Taiwan and the Soviets had foolishly boycotted the Security Council and wasn't there to veto the thing.

The idea that the UN could "disarm" Hezbollah is ludicrous. If the IDF with all it's might couldn't disarm Hezbollah while occupying Lebanon last time, how could a small contingent of a battalion size or so lightly armed blue berets do that?

But I guess that was this kind of agreement that all sides could OK in the Security Council, while knowing it wouldn't happen. Many actions are hypocritical.

However, "when shit hits the fan" as it were and you need daily approval of the president for all sorts of military actions and responses, then the inability to predict Trump is a problem. — boethius

In such a case he'll probably defer to a third party because he has no idea what the right military course of action would be and doesn't seem to be interested in being heavily involved in these types of situations for long (look at how he approached COVID). It'll probably depend on the people he would surround himself with so we will likely see things deescalate if he hands it off to people like Tucker or Tulsi though there is the (unlikely ATM) risk he appoints some crazy hawk like Bolton. I dunno, what does Project 2025 say about a future Trump cabinet?

Sure, but none of that is on the scale of crashing the global economy in a mad scheme to attack Iran without an endgame. — boethius

Maybe but my sense is that he can do literally anything and his base won't care one bit.

The issue of buying Trump is related in my these only to escalating the genocide, simply to avoid paying for something you can get for free anyways under Biden. — boethius

The one (I guess) good thing I can say about Biden is that although he would ultimately allow these escalations to happen in the end, he may be slowing them down with his constant concerns, which wouldn't happen with Trump. Israel doesn't care about the concerns that the US brings up but they could be slowing down their violations if only to keep up this appearance of listening to them. If the Israelis are impatient and want to nuke Gaza and be done with it, then they may very well be fine with paying some money to speed the genocide process up.

Obviously Trump has no problem wither further violence against the Palestinians, but if he's asked for something he's going to want something in return. — boethius

A small price for AIPAC. The great thing with Trump is that more things are on sale with him, such as the West Bank.

I have to correct you here.

My point was not that the US is trying to crash the global economy, but that it is trying to disrupt land-based trade connections between its main rivals in order to maintain control of global trade. — Tzeentch

Maybe there is some subtlety I missed in your position, but the core of the disagreement seemed to me that you were arguing this Israeli escalation in the Middle-East served US grand strategy interests up to and including a war with Iran.

The central thesis of my rebuttal to this position is that a war with Iran would crash the global economy and I don't see that as serving US grand strategy interests.

If the position is escalation but not to the point of crashing the global economy, my rebuttal to that position is that I just don't see what more chaos the US could possibly need in the Middle-East.

Obviously there was no land trade highway about to be built through Gaza nor Lebanon, so sure trade could pass through Iran and so collapsing Iran could make "sense" in such a strategy but:

A. Genocide isn't needed to provoke a war with Iran and is anyways a liability (my main concern is arguing the genocide serves no plausible US imperial interest), and

B. A war with Iran would crash the global economy (presumably) and I don't see what the US does next ... just keep the rest of the world economy continuously crashed?? Doesn't seem possible to me over any extended period of time, but indeed would just hyper-accelerate building exactly those land corridors of which this strategy is designed to prevent.

Of course I am not disagreeing with the generalities that you present that chaos in these land corridors generally serves the whole Island-navy-vs-land geopolitical strategic approach, just not to the point of actually crashing the global economy that would have plenty of adverse effects and accelerate further opposing coalitions (which we are already seeing by simply disrupting the global economy and threatening the crash Russia as a vital supplier of resources to plenty of countries; they naturally look to secure their survival in building an alternative trading system to that of the US; which, sure, the US could embargo the whole world - I'm not denying their supremacy on the high seas - but where does that actually lead is my issue).

Which mirrors our disagreement also on escalation with China in which your position is the US could embargo China, whereas my position is the same that I see no successful pathway after crashing the global economy.

However, to be clear, I am open to such questions being answered. I'm not claiming such a strategy is impossible for US imperial custodians to be embarked on, only that I don't see what it could be; therefore, given that, I feel the data is best explained by the alternative hypothesis that these escalations serve various coalitions of US elite personal interest merely cloaked in broad strategic terms such as Israel by definition serving US interests somehow, but quite directly at the expense of US grand strategic interest.

Israelis celebrating Spain flood death toll…

[/img]

If we were not members of NATO, we would already have been bombed by spangled-minded Netanyahu; that’s a given.

Hey, @BitconnectCarlos. Look at the representatives of the nice and helpless nation of Israel. Because we should have pity on them! Otherwise, we deserve to be punished by ‘karma’ and God’s mercy and heaven, etc., and the rest of nonexistent things, but what could we expect from an occupier and an artificial nation like Israel? But hey, Carlos, didn’t you say that they are cool people, but they are just a threatened nation or something? What do you say now? Tit for tat, right? If they cheer about the deaths of Spain floods, I will cheer when a Lebanese or Gaza brother takes Netanyahu or another Israeli hateful ass out, right? Do you understand my thoughts on that artificial country now? Because it seems we only have to be empathetic with Jews.

If the blue berets are not going to do their mission (did they even attempt it... at any point?) the least they could do is get out of the way when the real army comes forth to clean up the mess that they helped create.

It doesn't even look like they attempted to enforce resolution 1701. It's not only Israel that has hit them, apparently Hezbollah likely struck a UN headquarters and they need to get out of there. Obviously if Israel had an official policy of striking them many more would be dead.



You're mad at a twitter account with an Israeli flag in it and this is apparently shaping your entire perspective towards the situation.