I think this is the tit for tat game of limited escalation. All out attack will likely respond in an all out counter-attack and retaliatory strike. — ssu

Just curious, what do you see as Iran's (and by association, their proxy armies) ultimate vision, one where they would never need to use violence against adversaries again? I just want us to be clear here the means and ends here, as they get lost in this "Elephant vs. tiger" crap.

Remember that the Islamic Republic of Iran has the heritage and, at least officially, the aims of the Islamic revolution to promote the Muslim World. The hostility against Israel comes basically as a popular endeavor to woo the Arab street to support the Islamic revolution. Yet the Islamic republic is inherently against the present-day monarchies and the non-theocratic democracies (at least in name democracies) of the Arab states. And then there is the Sunni / Shia divide to that and also that Iranians aren't Arabs. So a lot of reasons for divisions.

And of course from their point of view, the Great Satan is out to get them and their revolution. This blends in to the Iranian history of the early 20th and 19th Century, when the state was quite weak compared to the Western imperialists and I think Iranians view this time similarly as present day China views the China of the 19th Century.

I think the whole region should have a real push to normalize relations, disarm and integrate as places like Europe have done. It's not just Iran's fault.

Remember that the Islamic Republic of Iran has the heritage and, at least officially, the aims of the Islamic revolution to promote the Muslim World. The hostility against Israel comes basically as a popular endeavor to woo the Arab street to support the Islamic revolution. Yet the Islamic republic is inherently against the present-day monarchies and the non-theocratic democracies (at least in name democracies) of the Arab states. And then there is the Sunni / Shia divide to that and also that Iranians aren't Arabs. So a lot of reasons for divisions.

And of course from their point of view, the Great Satan is out to get them and their revolution. This blends in to the Iranian history of the early 20th and 19th Century, when the state was quite weak compared to the Western imperialists and I think Iranians view this time similarly as present day China views the China of the 19th Century.

I think the whole region should have a real push to normalize relations, disarm and integrate as places like Europe have done. — ssu

:up:

I just want this to be kept in mind when discussing all of this. There is a tendency (of anti-Westerners), to romanticize or glorify the "little guy" no matter what- to admire their way of causing small areas of chaos. But at the end of the day it is for an awful goal. Simply saying, "Well they are against imperialism!" is disregarding all things you are mentioning. Their actions lead to heightened pain and suffering, transforming them into a force resembling the very "Great Satan" they claim to fight against, especially when they fuel smaller paramilitary groups resisting integration into the global system.

Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. Their actions, teetering on the edge of destruction without going over, aren't admirable or clever. This ideology, akin to a suicidal, apocalyptic death cult, needs to be cast aside from the collective mindset of an entire region, thrown into the dustbin of history.

While acknowledging that the West might sometimes act against its own interests, solely pointing fingers at "the West" for these issues oversimplifies the intricate geopolitical landscape. Yes, NGOs and governmental entities might sometimes support internal resistance to authoritarian regimes, but cynically highlighting the West's interests without considering the nuanced reality doesn't contribute to a balanced perspective.

The West's failures lie in its inconsistent promotion of freedoms using soft power or, at times, misusing hard power. Yes, colonialists might eye resources, but it's infinitely better to engage with nations that knew how to quickly develop and integrate with the West, like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, which have embraced liberal democracy, anti-corruption measures, and the rule of law. Development, championed by leaders prioritizing structured growth over export-based economies, is the key to creating more just societies and promoting global welfare.

I was not calling for ethnic cleansing. My position was in response to Tzeentch's logic that the indigenous population always has the right to resist a foreign occupier. I argue that zionism is decolonization.

Palestinians aren't even remotely close to Axis powers of the WW2. — ssu

Hamas is comparable to the axis powers in terms of wickedness. More rapey than Nazi Germany though.

How do you think the US responds if 1200 of its civilians are killed and 200 captured by a group that is bent on its destruction? The casualty rate isn't terrible: about 1:2 or 1:3 terrorist killed to civilian ratio. Many conflicts around the globe are much bloodier but receive far less attention. No nation is placed under a microscope like Israel.

If you have good civil defense (bomb shelters), safety of civilians is important and the evacuation of civilians from the battlefield is possible, then a huge war can go without huge losses on civilians. — ssu

And Hamas did build bomb shelters... for themselves. They've received plenty of aid to build shelters. Or are you suggesting here that Israel just build bomb shelters for the palestinians? I'm not sure why you mentioned this idea or its relevance to the Israel/Gaza war.

And "such is war" is one of the most stupid reasoning ever I've heard. Believe me, there really are very different ways of fighting a war. — ssu

All of which involve killing the enemy as far as I'm aware. Since you mentioned WWII I'm sure you know the Allies did get their hands dirty and engaged in very questionable practices which today we'd call war crimes. Israel's conduct is well above the standards of the Allies in WWII. Israel exercises restraint. And we can all sit back and demand Israel exercises more restraint but it's basically babble to me as none of us are familiar with the reality on the ground. What other country would we demand such restraint from after 1200 of its people have been murdered? And 200 captured? By a terrorist group which vows to do so again and again?

Now we are reaching in Gaza the numbers that in the Iraqi war were killed in two years (24 000). — ssu

Did the Iraqi army wear uniforms? Did they build their command centers under hospitals? Did they routinely store weapons in houses and schools? Would they open fire behind women in wheelchairs? Hamas is a different type of enemy on a different type of terrain.

Hamas's ideology infects the Palestinian people and their schools raise them to be martyrs from childhood fearless of death. You ever see those kindergarten graduations in Gaza? Israel ought to destroy their enemy this time, not just wound it and come to some temporary peace (and you know it's temporary because Hamas strives endlessly for Israel's destruction). But it's a dangerous task because the more Israel is victorious, the more world opinion and anti-semitism will turn against them and the Jews. Israel may win militarily, but lose strategically.

That's true but firing anti-ship missiles at civilian vessels is no joke. A military vessel can withstand some punishment, but civilian ships aren't made nor crewed for that.

I think the fact that (presumably) Iran launched these attacks on shipping amidst talk of a US invasion tells me they either think the US is bluffing or are not afraid of wider conflict. Either option is fertile ground for escalation.

In addition, most semi-modern navy vessels simply aren't made with swarm attacks in mind. They can defeat a salvo of 5-8 subsonic sea skimming missiles, but that requires the vessel, crew, sensors and armaments to be in peak condition.

US navy ships tend to be better equipped to counter high volume, but the problem is that given how cheap modern drones are, an attack could contain literally hundreds of drones and still be (extremely) cost-effective.

A Shahed drone reportedly only costs 20,000 USD to produce. Modern anti-air missiles cost millions a piece. Hell, even a burst from CIWS probably costs more than that.

I believe the Russians improved the original Iranian Shahed with optical guidance. If drones can target seperate systems on a navy vessels (radars, VLS, CIWS, etc.) they would turn ships into sitting ducks even if they fail to sink them.

Assuming the Iranians can produce them in high quantities, this is basically a blueprint to defeat modern navies, including the US navy. Furthermore, I think Russia and China are seeing this as well, and probably are producing similar drones of their own. (And they are capable of far greater production quantities than Iran)

It would require a massive revolution in naval shipbuilding to counter this threat.

I went on a bit of a tangent there, but whilst writing this I started to realise how grave this situation might actually be. I used to take US naval dominance for granted, but I think we're actually past that point.

Israel's conduct is well above the standards of the Allies in WWII. Israel exercises restraint. — BitconnectCarlos

The Allies' goal wasn't to displace an entire people and ethnically cleanse the area of Palestinians. So this is false. You have an idiotic idea of restraint, where the capability to do worse is proof of restraint. That's the abusive father claiming restraint when hitting his children because he could kill them too.

Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. Their actions, teetering on the edge of destruction without going over, aren't admirable or clever. This ideology, akin to a suicidal, apocalyptic death cult, needs to be cast aside from the collective mindset of an entire region, thrown into the dustbin of history. — schopenhauer1

Well, if the anti-Westerners have the idea of viewing things extremely black and white, I also urge to make the distinction between Iran and the IS / Daesh.

Iran isn't a suicidal death cult. It has managed far better in it's foreign policy than let's say another "Axis-of-evil" country, North Korea. The idea of "Mad Mullahs" is more of propaganda than reality.

And this is one thing we have to remember: in the Middle East the rhetoric is far more over the top than the actions taken. Rhetoric and actions are two different things. In European and American rhetoric and discourse this is different, especially if the person is at a leadership position. In fact, when some Iranian politicians vow to destroy Israel, this is rhetoric to the crowds. In similar fashion, we should also be somewhat hesitant also to make direct conclusions when Israeli politicians vow now to destroy Gaza or when they refer to Amalek. Just to take an example, the PLO said quite the same things as Hamas says now, yet could sit down with the Israelis and attempt the peace process. Yes, the rhetoric is very alarming and shouldn't be dismissed, yet the simple fact is that basically in the Middle East you have hotheads dominating the public discourse.

And this is one thing we have to remember: in the Middle East the rhetoric is far more over the top than the actions taken. — ssu

And what of the actions that you keep pointing to and discussing? This low level deployment of paramilitary fighters, meant to disrupt without going to full scale war? You’re playing both sides by using sorting language on their escalation and now saying oh it’s not so bad. Either they want the region in conflict or they don’t.

The Allies' goal wasn't to displace an entire people and ethnically cleanse the area of Palestinians. So this is false. You have an idiotic idea of restraint, where the capability to do worse is proof of restraint. That's the abusive father claiming restraint when hitting his children because he could kill them too. — Benkei

Look at how the war was actually fought as opposed to self-declared or implied intentions. The US often wouldn't even take prisoners in the pacific. German POWs were massacred on several occasions as a retaliatory measure. Bombings were much more indiscriminate under Arthur "bomber" Harris and by the US against Japan. I won't even bring in the Russians because it would make my point too easy. Israel imports aid to the civilians of Gaza while the conflict is ongoing. Israel is leagues ahead of the conduct of the Allies. Also, it is not clear what Israel's intention is regarding Gaza. I think Israel would be unwise to annex it assuming they are victorious.

Even with my "idiotic" definition Hamas still fails. They show no restraint. Hamas kills and rapes until they are stopped by force. They are truly indiscriminate.

These are the type of mental gymnastics only an intellectual could cook up. :rofl:

Also, it is not clear what Israel's intention is regarding Gaza. — BitconnectCarlos

This has been clear for decades. You've just not been paying attention. And not just Gaza, the rest of Palestine as well.

This low level deployment of paramilitary fighters, meant to disrupt without going to full scale war? — schopenhauer1

That's the way Israel and Hamas and Israel and the Palestinians have fought for quite a long time now.

For example, warfare in Lebanon has gone on for a long time on a low burner even after Israeli withdrew from Southern Lebanon. The global media focuses on this only when large scale operations happen.

That's the way Israel and Hamas and Israel and the Palestinians have fought for quite a long time now.

For example, warfare in Lebanon has gone on for a long time on a low burner even after Israeli withdrew from Southern Lebanon. The global media focuses on this only when large scale operations happen. — ssu

Right, but what is the strategy here? Yes, these are leading questions.

Let's pose a counterfactual situation where there were no Islamist paramilitary groups or low level violence. What would that look like?

Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no?

I went on a bit of a tangent there, but whilst writing this I started to realise how grave this situation might actually be. I used to take US naval dominance for granted, but I think we're actually past that point. — Tzeentch

Seems like the Houthis have tried swarming or similar attack, that the US CENTCOM called "complex":

On Jan. 9, at approximately 9:15 p.m. (Sanaa time), Iranian-backed Houthis launched a complex attack of Iranian designed one-way attack UAVs (OWA UAVs), anti-ship cruise missiles, and an anti-ship ballistic missile from Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen into the Southern Red Sea, towards international shipping lanes where dozens of merchant vessels were transiting.

Eighteen OWA UAVs, two anti-ship cruise missiles, and one anti-ship ballistic missile were shot down by a combined effort of F/A-18s from USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS Gravely (DDG 107), USS Laboon (DDG 58), USS Mason (DDG 87), and the United Kingdom’s HMS Diamond (D34). This is the 26th Houthi attack on commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea since Nov. 19. There were no injuries or damage reported.

See here

Seems like US merchant vessels went through the Bab el Mandeb and the US warships and the British warship were on picket defence.

Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? — schopenhauer1

Well, how did the Israeli independence movement look like to the British, who were fighting them?

It's a war, an insurgency.

Here's footage of the British doing anti-terrorist operations against the Zionists:

It would be nice to know some more details about how complex this truly was, but a strike of this size would have been very dangerous to isolated navy vessels. A carrier group is obviously in a whole other ballpark. The Houthi can't hurt that, unless they expend hundreds of missiles and drones.

My sense is that the Houthi are raising the threat environment, and possibly gathering intel on the effectiveness of their bombs and strike patterns. It's hard to imagine other fleets operating indepedently under this type of threat. I think everyone will be leaning on the Americans.

No I’m talking about countries and Iran and their goals. Israel’s goal was quite clear, their neighbors was quite clear too about Israel at that time, so that point seems just an aside or not understanding my question.

It would be nice to know some more details about how complex this truly was, but a strike of this size would have been very dangerous to isolated navy vessels. — Tzeentch

I think there will be interesting military history written about this, but I think it will take years. Military professional magazines might have a good account on the missile war in a few months I guess.

No I’m talking about countries and Iran and their goals. Israel’s goal was quite clear, their neighbors was quite clear too about Israel at that time, so that point seems just an aside or not understanding my question. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps then I don't understand your question.

Is the question what are the objectives of Iran and it's proxies here?

Is the question what are the objectives of Iran and it's proxies here? — ssu

Yes.

Let's pose a counterfactual situation where there were no Islamist paramilitary groups or low level violence. What would that look like?

Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no? — schopenhauer1

Second try...

The PLO wasn't (and isn't) Islamist. And it's difficult to say what the Palestinian liberation movement would be then if it wouldn't resort to the typical violence these movements use. But I guess that pacifism wouldn't be so successful in this case. The pacifist march to the Gaza wall didn't end up so well for the Gazans.

Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no? — schopenhauer1

This is something not just limited to the Middle East or Muslim countries, actually. Yet I do think that democracy is totally possible in these countries. I think Malesia is one example as it's put quite high for example in the Economist's Democracy Index and ranked among the United States and Israel as "flawed democracies". (the Index categorizes countries as: Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid regime and Authoritarian).



(The most authoritarian are North Korea, Myanmar and Afghanistan in that order).

In my view, for a country to be a democracy and a justice state, you do have to have a) a functioning economy and b) functioning, effective institutions to uphold those rights and freedoms. One might argue that many of the Gulf States are at least OK for their own citizens (not for the migrant workers). If you don't have to pay taxes, all services are provided and you can even get income from the state, many can be OK with an autocratic monarch.

The tragedy is that only true peace could possibly bring enough prosperity to the region for it to become not so wavering. But if a group of armed men in pick up trucks can create an "Islamic State" and militaries can make coups, there's a long road to political stability needed to have a functioning democracy. All rulers in the region can face violent overthrows, hence the belief in democracy isn't strong for starters.

The PLO wasn't (and isn't) Islamist. And it's difficult to say what the Palestinian liberation movement would be then if it wouldn't resort to the typical violence these movements use. But I guess that pacifism wouldn't be so successful in this case. The pacifist march to the Gaza wall didn't end up so well for the Gazans. — ssu

I wasn't quite thinking of the PLO (now part of Palestinian Authority, a quasi-governing agency). I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. I notice you try to look for a quick Israeli redirection. I find that interesting and telling :chin:. It's like a knee-jerk reaction almost. It's really hard for you to simply denounce Islamism and authoritarianism demonstrated by Muslim communities without qualification of something (mainly anti-Israel or US). You aren't as biased as other posters, but the undercurrent is obvious. I'm not even sure this is objectivity, because even most historians and chroniclers have a point of view.

This is something not just limited to the Middle East or Muslim countries, actually. Yet I do think that democracy is totally possible in these countries. I think Malesia is one example as it's put quite high for example in the Economist's Democracy Index and ranked among the United States and Israel as "flawed democracies". (the Index categorizes countries as: Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid regime and Authoritarian). — ssu

As I mentioned, Tunisia, though not perfect, is towards democratic reforms.

The tragedy is that only true peace could possibly bring enough prosperity to the region for it to become not so wavering. But if a group of armed men in pick up trucks can create an "Islamic State" and militaries can make coups, there's a long road to political stability needed to have a functioning democracy. All rulers in the region can face violent overthrows, hence the belief in democracy isn't strong for starters. — ssu

So what is Iran's goals, such that it would be a world where they wouldn't use violence? That to me, seems like slightly different question than what are their goals, because it questions whether their goal itself IS violence for violence sake. Usually violence is a means to an ends. But if violence is actually the goal, that is a different story. That is something that cannot be remediated or negotiated. It can only be contained or stopped for brief time periods until they decide to pursue their goals again.

I wasn't quite thinking of the PLO (now part of Palestinian Authority, a quasi-governing agency). I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. I notice you try to look for a quick Israeli redirection. I find that interesting and telling :chin:. It's like a knee-jerk reaction almost. It's really hard for you to simply denounce Islamism and authoritarianism demonstrated by Muslim communities without qualification of something (mainly anti-Israel or US). You aren't as biased as other posters, but the undercurrent is obvious. I'm not even sure this is objectivity, because even most historians and chroniclers have a point of view. — schopenhauer1

One of the most biased posters blaming others for being biased. What a joke.

One of the most biased posters blaming others for being biased. What a joke. — Benkei

It’s quite a projection to post this being you are one of the most biased, toxic and well-poisoning posters on this issue. You seem to support any cause that is deemed the underdog, no matter how violent the means and ends.. No matter if it was they who started the violence or not.. No matter if they want peace or not. Also, the whole UN schtick is out the door being that NO ONE has followed the UN since 1947.. the very FIRST ignoring of the resolution.

Of course, I'm biased in favour of the oppressed and justice - which any sane person would arrive at on the basis of legal and moral principles. It's morons who think pursuing the status quo is somehow not biased, especially when they get into cultural comparative absolutism.

Your lack of historical knowledge and inability to think is on display across the forum. It's not an ad homs to point this out.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/10/west-bank-videos-show-israeli-troops-killing-teenager-and-driving-over-mans-body

This is what you get when you support people unconditionally: they rightfully think they can get away with anything with clear atrocities as a result.

I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. I notice you try to look for a quick Israeli redirection. I find that interesting and telling :chin:. It's like a knee-jerk reaction almost. — schopenhauer1

Well, look at the topic and the name of this thread. Is it somehow a knee-jerk reaction to try to stay with the topic???

I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. — schopenhauer1

Iranians have their Islamic revolution. No wonder that both Ansar Allah (the Houthis) and Hezbollah are also islamic movements too. Hence it's no wonder why they are islamic and shiite movements. It would be similar to be puzzled about the American revolution being so much about liberal policies and rights of individuals.

As I mentioned, Tunisia, though not perfect, is towards democratic reforms. — schopenhauer1

Tunisia has had it's share of going forward and back, but the country that started the "Arab spring" has improved somewhat. No news is usually good news, even if corruption still persists.

So what is Iran's goals, such that it would be a world where they wouldn't use violence? — schopenhauer1

I guess peacefully then spreading their theocratic islamic revolution. "Revolutionary" goverments usually stick to their ideology, at least in some way: still the US talks a lot about democracy and individual rights etc. Many say it's still an experiment. In Iran's case it's their revolution that is for them important. This could happen quite peacefully. Similarly as, well, Saudi Arabia has spread Wahhabism. Not only by the actions of one Osama bin Laden, that is.

Similarly as, well, Saudi Arabia has spread Wahhabism. Not only by the actions of one Osama bin Laden, that is. — ssu

Despite the ruling class trying to avoid this. I think there would be an interesting analysis to be made between Wahhabism and Trumpism in relation to inequality and political power.

That's an interesting point!

I'm not so sure just how grass roots is the support for strict Wahhabism in Saudi-Arabia, though. But there surely are those Wahhabbi Trumpists around in the country. Usually putting religion to be state sponsored and you make the people to be not so religious. My country is a perfect example of that! And actually, the youth in Iran isn't so interested in the theocracy either.

Your lack of historical knowledge and inability to think is on display across the forum. It's not an ad homs to point this out. — Benkei

This is generic smear based on your bias, but carry on with ad home and unsupported smears. You don’t like it if the history doesn’t support your narrative and then ad hom and poison the well without reasoned arguments for the rest when you are bothered. But carry on.

Well, look at the topic and the name of this thread. Is it somehow a knee-jerk reaction to try to stay with the topic??? — ssu

Yeah look at that topic. It’s already biased, so are you saying we have to buy into the inherent bias of the thread (started years ago) to discuss the broader Middle East from which this topic is part of and relevant to being the players that are involved?

I guess peacefully then spreading their theocratic islamic revolution. "Revolutionary" goverments usually stick to their ideology, at least in some way: still the US talks a lot about democracy and individual rights etc. Many say it's still an experiment. In Iran's case it's their revolution that is for them important. This could happen quite peacefully. Similarly as, well, Saudi Arabia has spread Wahhabism. Not only by the actions of one Osama bin Laden, that is. — ssu

Yeah so what does this world look like? Prior to and after Trump, you essentially got the gist of an American democratic society. You have post Ww2 Western Europe. It’s liberal democracy that tends towards consumerism but has the freedoms not to if one chooses. Countries pursue self interest for resources and trade and using their monetary policy. That’s a given. I don’t need secret cabal-style “oh no!” documents to prove what’s obvious about corporations pursuing their goals for profit. But besides these not so interesting “revelations” that general anti-globalist Leftist ideas proffer, what is this counter Iran’s end goal vision is that they are countering? I don’t need Islamic jihadism to tell me free trade can cause trade imbalances. So again, what are they offering? Why perpetual violence disruptions as policy? What is the end goal of not to simply maintain violence? I guess it redirects attention away from them for their own citizens. It gives them a show of power in the region. But power usually is for a goal. Economic, ideological, etc. it’s usually not simply that one has the power to display a show of power because it always begs the question, “for what purpose”? Simply showing you can cause violence in a region for its own sake makes no sense other than one wants to cause chaos for its own sake.