Who would believe that bullshit, right? Well, as it turns out a lot of people continue to believe that bullshit. Propaganda is a powerful thing. — Tzeentch

Agreed. No qualms from me on that one.

And if we're honest, how is Gaza any different from the de facto and actual genocides the US has perpetrated and supported, like those in Vietnam, East-Timor and the Middle-East, with casualty figures running into the millions? — Tzeentch

Definitely, why I stressed genocide is not something American imperial custodians are against per se, just that this particular genocide doesn't serve US imperial interests.

Main difference is that this genocide is being broadcast live and there's also no plausible deniability, muddy the waters, kind of usual bullshit people easily swallow as you mention above. Israeli officials literally just get up on podiums and declare their intention to starve the Palestinians, that rape is ok, that they're animals, that children are just future terrorists and must be killed etc.

Normally you have clear evidence of mass murder on the one hand and a long winded plausible deniability bullshit narrative on the other and most people are then like "huh, who's to say what happened".

It's crazy, but they continue to get away with it. I can't blame the Americans for thinking they'll get away with it again. — Tzeentch

But they didn't!

The famous child burning photograph turned public opinion against the war, massive protests, huge cultural change.

It was so shocking to American elites that they did not in fact get away with it, they wanted to "win the war", that they completely reorganized the military, and in particular the draft, in order to be sure not to be bothered by public opinion in subsequent wars they will want to wage.

Of course, US remained a superpower and the threat of the Soviet Union was still current and so on and there were plenty of "rational" parties involved in US politics at the time.

For example, in 1975 you not only have the end of the Vietnam war but also the Churchill committee that investigated the CIA (for the first and only time). That no one was held accountable represents the fact corruption wins out over democracy basically in a process that continues to this day getting more and more corrupt all the time, but the fact the investigation happened at all represents things were on a knifes edge. It could have easily gone another way.

It's crazy, but they continue to get away with it. I can't blame the Americans for thinking they'll get away with it again.

I'm open to the possibility that they won't - times are changing - but that will require US assets from putting their money where their mouth is. No sign of that so far. Just "Oooh"ing and "Aaah"ing. — Tzeentch

Well there's two forms of getting away with it.

There's the "getting away with it" in terms of not being held accountable for law breaking and incompetence, starting a war on fabricated intelligence and lying to congress and the public and so on, and then "getting away with it" in terms of wasting the Imperial capital stocks of one form or another doesn't exactly collapse the empire and there is plenty left still to loot.

Soviet elites "got away with it" in both sense for quite some time and continued to "get away with it" in the various former Soviet republics.

Of course, if the US Imperial tributes suffers enough then there could be elite re-alignment to fix things, such as we saw with the re-ascendency of Russia under Putin, of which the key element was Putin putting in place a system of elite discipline (that is the key to play the geopolitical game coherently which Putin definitely understood from day 1; of course, who knows what will happen once he's gone if he's the linchpin in this strategic alignment).

Iran and Afghanistan are part of the same geographical region, so in my opinion this is not so strange.

Afghanistan has been wrecked, while Iran is now threatening to jump the gun on US intervention.

So the switch makes sense, and again I see continuity. — Tzeentch

Did Afghanistan really need to be wrecked? Was the Taliban building some cutting edged economic centre and I just missed it?

But my point was if you really want a war with Iran how do you geographically go about doing that without Afghanistan or Iraq?

So you really need to war game this out in detail. Obviously there's no actual plan to invade Iran, the best that can be done is a lot of chaos which would shut down oil exports from the region and (maybe collapse is too strong a word but) basically "not goodify" the global economy, seriously pissing off everyone in particular China. Is the expectation that China just accepts loss of oil imports from the Middle-East (and a lot of other people too)? Is Europe super happy about this?

There's the critical need of the oil, the super bad press of Israel committing a genocide, so how does the US maintain a forever war in the Middle-East between Iran and Israel without a coalition forming big enough to intervene?

Don't get me wrong, I do get the basic geopolitical idea of crashing the rest of the global economy and then sitting pretty in North America ... but how do you actually go about doing that?

Life ... finds a way.

As otherwise, the disruption must be only acute the time to accomplish some terminal objectives, such as invading and occupying Iran, which you'd definitely want to be in Afghanistan and Iraq to actually go about actually doing (which there is zero indication that the US can do, even when it was in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even less indication that the US is actually preparing to do such a thing).

Yep. It's all bullshit.

I'm as surprised as you are that people keep falling for this shit, but alas here we are.

By bombing Nord Stream the US has rolled out a plan that has been in place since at least 2014, of transferring European energy dependency from Russia to the US.

And the US has succeeded. Germany and the rest of Europe took it like a bitch. The US reaps the benefits. — Tzeentch

US elites reap benefits from harming Europe and forcing Europe to buy US gas.

The US empire benefited from a strong Europe. The whole reason the US can abuse European allies to begin with is that they are such diehard allies. They were far more useful to US imperialism with vibrant economies that can help balance against China.

The reasons to "take out" Europe are only sensical due to previous US imperial mismanagement, such as removing the Euro as competition for the dollar ... which only makes sense to do if you've already greatly mismanaged the dollar ... and doesn't actually solve the fundamental issues so only delays the day of financial reckoning.

Cannibalizing allies is again a sign of imperial decline.

Maybe this is true, but I will believe it only when the US empire is definitively put in the trashbin of history. Until that happens, history shows they're way too dangerous to underestimate. — Tzeentch

Yes, we shall definitely see.

However, just like Russia has gone through many phases of Imperial expansion and decline, and the corruption and discipline of each phase, and China for even longer, so too can America go through it's first imperial decline and reemerge later.

The great powers rarely just "go away" completely since the globalized international system started to form.

What's different now is nuclear weapons and environmental limits.

Either, or both, will kill billions of people in our lifetime. Which is unfortunate.

Main difference is that this genocide is being broadcast live and there's also no plausible deniability, muddy the waters, kind of usual bullshit people easily swallow as you mention above. Israeli officials literally just get up on podiums and declare their intention to starve the Palestinians, that rape is ok, that their animals, that children are just future terrorists and must be killed etc.

Normally you have clear evidence of mass murder on the one hand and a long winded plausible deniability bullshit narrative on the other and most people are then like "huh, who's to say what happened". — boethius

One could make the prediction that this will be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back.

Not an altogether unreasonable prediction, but at the same time I don't think it's obvious enough to take it as proof of US incompetence.

But they didn't!

The famous child burning photograph turned public opinion against the war, massive protests, huge cultural change.

It was so shocking to American elites that they did not in fact get away with it, they wanted to "win the war", that they completely reorganized the military, and in particular the draft, in order to be sure not to be bothered by public opinion in subsequent wars they will want to wage.

Of course, US remained a superpower and the threat of the Soviet Union was still current and so on and there were plenty of "rational" parties involved in US politics at the time.

For example, in 1975 you not only have the end of the Vietnam war but also the Churchill committee that investigated the CIA (for the first and only time). That no one was held accountable represents the fact corruption wins out over democracy basically in a process that continues to this day getting more and more corrupt all the time, but the fact the investigation happened at all represents things were on a knifes edge. It could have easily gone another way. — boethius

The US suffered strategic defeat in Vietnam and had to pay a price, but did it take responsibility for the millions of innocent dead it caused, and the effects of chemical warfare that last up until this day?

I'll let you be the judge, but in my opinion Vietnam vets paid the worst price, and the US itself largely got away with it.

Did Afghanistan really need to be wrecked? — boethius

Of course.

Afghanistan connects Russia and China to India.

Can't have the continental powers developing land-based trade relations on Uncle Sam's watch now can we?

Don't get me wrong, I do get the basic geopolitical idea of crashing the rest of the global economy and then sitting pretty in North America ... but how do you actually go about doing that? — boethius

The plan isn't so much crashing the global economy. The plan is, if things were to come to blows with China, to be able to cut off its land-based trade by sowing chaos in the bottlenecks that connect it to the rest of the world.

China is connected to Europe via Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Iran. It's connected to India via Pakistan and Bangladesh.

What do we see in all these regions? Long-standing US involvement.

The US empire benefited from a strong Europe. — boethius

Emphasis on the past tense.

When the Soviet Union was the big bad, the US empire benfitted from a strong Europe.

Today however Europe is unlikely to get directly involved in a war with the new big bad, China. In fact, a strong Europe would likely be able to slip US influence if it got into a war with China, and actually be able to benefit from the conflict. That's why Europe is now treated as a potential rival and no longer as an actual ally.

Not only that, but Europe can also potentially function as a critical market that can keep the Chinese economy afloat after its sea-based trade is cut off - this is why the disruption of Chinese-European trade routes is a fundamental part of US Eurasian strategy.

Europe's position in relation to the US empire fundamentally changed after the Cold War ended, and the Europeans were too slow the realize.

Israeli officials literally just get up on podiums and declare their intention to starve the Palestinians, that rape is ok, that they're animals, that children are just future terrorists and must be killed etc. — boethius

"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" - J. Goebbels.

Straight from the Goebbel's playbook.

Not a word from you on the widespread sexual abuse of 10/7 hostages and victims as well as the general rape culture that pervades the Islamic world. Not a word from you on the genocidal intentions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Now go run along and be a good propagandist for the likes of Putin, Assad and Iran. :vomit:

That's profoundly cute, coming from someone who is literally spinning apologetics for a genocide.

There is no genocide; only the resurfacing of blood libels when Israel responds to the murder of 1200 of its own and the taking of hundreds of hostages (as any nation would). How dare they react.

Population figures simply do not support the idea of a genocide.

How dare they react. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, how dare they react to legitimate resistance to occupation by committing genocide.

There is no genocide; only the resurfacing of blood libels when Israel responds to the murder of 1200 of its own and the taking of hundreds of hostages (as any nation would). How dare they react. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, tit for tat, mate. How does the does the Gaza population dare to think of revenge in the long term? Prepare for the next generations of young Hamas fighters.

In calling the deliberate murder and rape of civilians "legitimate resistance" you only expose your own moral bankruptcy.

If that isn't wrong then neither is genocide.



We saw white flags over Jabaliya after Sinwar's death -- perhaps peace is on the horizon. It appears Israel has finally broke them and peace is at hand. Success emboldens them more than failure.

In calling the deliberate murder and rape of civilians "legitimate resistance" you only expose your own moral bankruptcy. — BitconnectCarlos

The only rape in all these events that's actually proven is the Israelis raping prisoners on camera.

How do you explain that?

Ah yes ...

"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" - J. Goebbels. — BitconnectCarlos

Learn to condemn murder.

The only rape in all these events that's actually proven is the Israelis raping prisoners on camera.

How do you explain that?

Ah yes ... — boethius

"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" - J. Goebbels. — BitconnectCarlos

:100:

And given Israel's conduct it's not the only lesson they're taking from the Nazi playbook.

-- perhaps peace is on the horizon. — BitconnectCarlos

Carlos, your optimism is—let's say— outstanding.

It appears Israel has finally broke them and peace is at hand. Success emboldens them more than failure. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah! Thanks Israel!

No... Let's get back to reality. Sinwar was a terrorist and the main objective of Israel since October 7th. The deaths of him —and Nasrallah in Lebanon— make the belligerent groups a bit dizzy and forsaken. But this is not over yet. Hamas will name another leader; the Gaza people are thirsty for revenge. You told me yesterday that around 80% of the population of Gaza is Hamas friendly or associated. Israel chopped the log but not the roots. While we are discussing here, I bet they are already reorganising themselves. It is pretty dreamy to think that peace comes by killing and destroying. 
 
Start with the basic premise: Does the current government recognise Palestine as a sovereign state? No! Right? Then, the conflict will remain.

It's the occupation, stupid.

UNIFIL needs to leave. — BitconnectCarlos

Whether UNIFIL is successful or not isn't the question here. It's attacking UN blueberets. It's just shows how absolutely reckless Netanyahu has come.

What the Israelis don't seem to understand is that it goes both ways. How many Oct 7s have happened to the people in Gaza and now Lebanon and how many civilians have been radicalized as a result? — Mr Bee

Formation of the Hezbollah was the result of the last occupation of Lebanon. That in itself shows how obvious this is.

In an intelligent debate this would be obvious, but policy has been hijacked by ideology and propaganda, where the leaders themselves are believing their own propaganda. Bibi and his administration has morphed into a wartime cabinet. Now before Israel and the IDF made limited military strikes, but those did go hand in hand with foreign policy and basically were peace-time operations. Now once the military has been totally mobilized (and demobilized partly for the economy not to tank totally), the threshold of military actions has severely been reduced.

What seems not to have been discussed is the possible nuclear weapons test made by Iran.

If the earthquake in a region where a testing site is would have been a nuclear explosion, although it could have been also eathquake (as there are earthquakes in Iran). Yet if it was, the absolute silence in Israel (except the Jerusalem Post) and in the US would be totally in line with how historically the US (and the West) reactions of the past.

When North Korea made it's first nuclear experiment and the tremors were noticed in an area where there's no earthquakes usually, the reaction was to play down it was a possibly a conventional explosion or in any case a failed test. And latter nuclear tests haven't made any outcry. With silence the North Korean nuclear arsenal has been building up.

Naturally this is speculation, but if Iran did make a nuclear test, it will be now frantically building it's meager nuclear deterrent and decentralized the weapon systems. As Iran and Israel are basically at war with each other (even if both sides really don't want to look it that way), then this would be the logical time for Iran to go through with it's nuclear weapons program. Anymore the "ability to make a bomb" isn't credible deterrence for Iran. And the rockets of Hezbollah aren't either, as Netanyahu has opted to destroy Hezbollah and invade Lebanon.

So that would leave Iranians with the attempt to have some kind of nuclear balance with Israel. Naturally this means that Saudi-Arabia or UAE could also decide to have nuclear weapons, if Iran goes public with it's nuclear deterrence. Yet also if Iran has a nuclear deterrent, even small one, it can also get a more aggressive. Which actually it has by now twice attacking Israel. Which in the latter strike the attack has seemed to have gone through... even if naturally the IDF says that the attacks were inneffective.

And Hezbollah (Iran) attacking Bibi's home with a drone in Ceasarea won't likely defuse the situation...

(Times of Israel) The Prime Minister’s Office confirms that the premier’s private residence in Caesarea was targeted in a drone attack from Lebanon earlier this morning.

In a short statement, the PMO says that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara were not home at the time of the attack and that there were no injuries in the incident.

I am curious about that. I think 5 were injured last time I checked. Perhaps a mistake? Fog of war? I don't know. I'd be horrified if Israel viewed the blue berets as valid targets alongside Hezbollah.

Hamas will name another leader; the Gaza people are thirsty for revenge. — javi2541997

Are you sure about this? Maybe they just want the war to be over and go back to pre-10/7 life. Hundreds of Hamas surrendered today; I think they're getting sick of it.

Now, if they were on the verge of victory things would be different and I'd imagine they'd be highly motivated rather than think "well we're basically victorious, maybe Israel has had enough. Time to take it easy on them!" It seems that victory emboldens and failure discourages (and this applies to the Jews too). Losing top terrorists is discouraging and possibly interpreted as a sign that God is not with them. In Islamic and Jewish theology it is God who grants victory.

You told me yesterday that around 80% of the population of Gaza is Hamas friendly or associated. — javi2541997

No, I said supposedly a source internal to Hamas said that 80% of the casualties of the Gaza war were Hamas & those close to them. The Palestinians were largely supportive of Hamas but many have become disenchanted after the results of 10/7.

It is pretty dreamy to think that peace comes by killing and destroying. — javi2541997

It sounds strange but this happens time after time in the Middle East. Strength is in that region. God grants victories.

Start with the basic premise: Does the current government recognise Palestine as a sovereign state? No! Right? Then, the conflict will remain. — javi2541997

You are viewing this conflict through a European lens.

Are you sure about this? Maybe they just want the war to be over and go back to pre-10/7 life. Hundreds of Hamas surrendered today; I think they're getting sick of it. — BitconnectCarlos

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.

I am curious about that. I think 5 were injured last time I checked. Perhaps a mistake? Fog of war? I don't know. I'd be horrified if Israel viewed the blue berets as valid targets alongside Hezbollah. — BitconnectCarlos

I think it's quite obvious that where UNIFIL has stations and observation posts is known to everybody and in the maps. Let's take for example just some of the attacks at UNIFIL troops by the IDF:

(October 10th, POLITICO) ROME — Two United Nations peacekeepers were hospitalized after an Israeli tank fired at an observation tower Thursday, according to the U.N. mission in southern Lebanon.

The U.N. peacekeeping mission UNIFIL has been operating along the “Blue Line” that separates Lebanon and Israel since the 1970s, with a mandate to restore security in the area. - The U.N. said in a statement that Israeli forces have "repeatedly hit" its positions in recent days, including two Italian bases and the mission headquarters in Naqoura, a coastal town in the southwest of Lebanon.

And then, six days later:

(Oct 16th, Al Jazeera) UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon say Israeli forces have fired at one of their positions in the south in a “direct and apparently deliberate” attack that damaged a watchtower.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said on Wednesday its peacekeepers near southern Lebanon’s Kfar Kila observed an Israeli Merkava tank “firing at their watchtower”, adding that “two cameras were destroyed, and the tower was damaged”.

You really think that a Merkava tanks, with their superb optics and fire control just "accidentally" fire on a marked and known UN watchtower? Fog of war, really? I won't buy the idea that tank crews are so disobedient and reckless that they just themselves decided to fire upon UN installations when they felt like it.

Look, Israel simply tries to intimidate UN forces simply to leave, hence there then would be nobody observing what they do. It's the obvious fact here. Even if nobody listens to what UN says, it's still there as an annoying neutral observer. Besides, there's historical examples of this. In one case in a prior war (if I remember correctly in the Golan Heights) IDF soldiers wanted UN peacekeepers that were Finns to abandon their observation post, which the Finnish blue berets refused to do. As the situation with two armed sides pointing assault rifles at each other was dangerous, the Finns laid down their weapons, but still refused to move. Hence an Israel-Finland wrestling match ensued.

So now Israel hit Iran by going after it's air defense. But not the nuclear sites and, of course, not yet the oil installations, which would bounce oil prices higher. Seems like Bibi listened to the US administration and now waits just how the US elections are going to go.

If Trump get's into office, will then the nuclear sites be targeted?

So now Israel hit Iran by going after it's air defense. But not the nuclear sites and, of course, not yet the oil installations, which would bounce oil prices higher. — ssu

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.

Targeted assassinations is massively popular in Israel and also provokes responses that allows Israel to claim to be the victim.

I honestly think the "win" strategy was nuclear weapons but they were simply unable to maintain the delusion level required to followthrough. 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).

Seems like Bibi listened to the US administration and now waits just how the US elections are going to go.

If Trump get's into office, will then the nuclear sites be targeted? — ssu

My bet is that it is in fact the reverse, that Biden is the one 100% captured by the Zionists and they are pushing a max the genocide and attacking everyone else because Biden is president, but there simply a practical limit of how far you can actually go.

When Trump talks about Iran he never mentions a need to attack them but just goes on about how he sanctioned them and they were broke and he kept the price of oil down and they would never dare due anything because he's Trump etc. A major component of Trump's rise to power initially was his calling out the wars in the middle-east as failures as he knew they were unpopular.

Biden's Zionist support is quite clearly due to lobby capture and is super bad for him and Kamala, as an obvious genocide isn't popular with democrats, and Trump has no need to criticize Biden from the left, he can just vaguely claim that Hamas would never have tried anything when he was in power and he's going to solve everything.

Trump's base is pro-Israel so he knows it wouldn't be popular to go anti-Israel but if he was intent on attacking Iran we'd probably know that. Mostly when he talks about the issue it demonstrates he just doesn't know much about any of the Middle-East conflicts and isn't too interested in them: he just claims no one would try anything when he's president and that he bankrupted Iran with the sanctions and keeping the oil price down.

Trump's MO on national security is to escalate rhetoric to appear tough and then be the reasonable person that brings peace with his brilliant negotiation tactics. He was bragging on Joe Rogan that he would bring Bolton, who he called a nut job (accurately) to international diplomatic meetings to scare people and that he used Bolton that way. Now, whether this sort of negotiation tactics are effective or not is one question but what's clear is that despite all Trump's many failings he simply not a warmonger and does stay true to his "businessman persona" or focusing on deals and economics (what he's most excited about is tariffs).

Not that Trump is any friend of the Palestinians, literally using it as an insult, so the genocide may continue, but I find it unlikely that Trump is itching to get into office to escalate unwindable wars in the Middle East. He absolutely loves the Saudis for instance and the Saudis don't want a regional war so he's have plenty of reasons to deescalate and cut deals and claim diplomatic brilliance and that he's saved the lives of all the people over there.

Wheres Biden simply gets slapped down when he tries to "talk back" to Netanyahu, Trump may simply do that and force Netanyahu to deescalate (which the US could easily do).

Most of all, I would guess is what preoccupies Trump's the most is on all his legal battles and nearly being assassinated and so on and he's going to deal with all that, as we've discussed before.

Naturally all the above is guess work as he's highly erratic while also gaining in experience. He no longer has such singular focuses as he did before and also now knows better how the system operates and can be manipulated.

Wheres when he got elected the first time he was easy to predict that he'd just keep being Trump and running is mouth constantly and fighting with the media and constantly tweeting whatever crosses and being extremely naive how the political system actually worked, he has learned a lot since so what he actually plans to do is anyone's guess, but I don't find it likely his focus will be to attack Iran is my main point here.

When Trump talks about Iran he never mentions a need to attack them but just goes on about how he sanctioned them and they were broke and he kept the price of oil down and they would never dare due anything because he's Trump etc. — boethius

He did suggest that Israel should attack the nuclear facilities in Iran in response to the Oct 1 attack. Of course that may be him playing politics because he thinks a war with Iran would help him but I just want to throw that out there.

Apart from that I agree that Trump's general aversion to wars will probably discourage Israel from starting a war with Iran since they won't have the ironclad guarantee that Biden would provide that the US would be involved. Of course that same assessment would also mean that entities like China and Russia would be more emboldened to invade places like Taiwan.

Unfortunately I don't see him encouraging Netanyahu to deescalate in Gaza or Lebanon especially if the US doesn't have to get involved. Trump is also paid off by folks like Adelson too mind you so probably he'll be transactional in matters like the West Bank.

Look, Israel simply tries to intimidate UN forces simply to leave, hence there then would be nobody observing what they do. It's the obvious fact here. Even if nobody listens to what UN says, it's still there as an annoying neutral observer. — ssu

The UN sat by for years while Hezbollah constructed terror installations when it was in the UN's deliberate mission to disarm them. They were suppose to neutralize that zone. Instead, they built their installations very close to Hezbollah military sites (or vice-versa, Hezbollah built their sites close to the UN sites knowing they were safe and that if Israel targeted them it would be right near a UN site.)

When you allow known terror groups to build their installations within meters of yours you are not a neutral party. The UN has not been neutral in this conflict: There are 57 Muslim nations in the UN and 1 Jewish one who is disproportionately scapegoated. Israel has by far the most UN resolutions against it when there are many nations that are worse. Going purely by the UN though, Israel is apparently the worst nation on Earth. UN neutrality is a myth.

Hence an Israel-Finland wrestling match ensued. — ssu

:rofl:

He did suggest that Israel should attack the nuclear facilities in Iran in response to the Oct 1 attack. Of course that may be him playing politics because he thinks a war with Iran would help him but I just want to throw that out there. — Mr Bee

My basic point is that he's free to criticize Biden for not being "tough enough" as red meat to his base without having any actual intention to attack Iran. If elected he's then free to claim there was a perfect time to attack Iran but the weak Biden missed it.

Apart from that I agree that Trump's general aversion to wars will probably discourage Israel from starting a war with Iran since they won't have the ironclad guarantee that Biden would provide that the US would be involved. Of course that same assessment would also mean that entities like China and Russia would be more emboldened to invade places like Taiwan. — Mr Bee

Agreed.

Unfortunately I don't see him encouraging Netanyahu to deescalate in Gaza or Lebanon especially if the US doesn't have to get involved. Trump is also paid off by folks like Adelson too mind you so probably he'll be transactional in matters like the West Bank. — Mr Bee

Definitely possible. I'm definitely not arguing the genocide would stop under Trump, just that I find it unlikely he'll attack Iran. However, Trump being erratic and also loving good press, he may see forcing Israel to let aid in Gaza as an easy win.

Where "deals" may occur is that Israel maybe forced to deescalate anyways if it has no further possibilities of escalating and then Trump takes credit for that. I didn't make that so clear in my post above, but I didn't mean to imply that Trump would actually be the direct cause of deescalation in this scenario, just that if it happens he'll take credit for it. He would nevertheless be the indirect cause of deescalation due to being unwilling to escalate. Permanent war with Hezbollah with the US Israel may simply be forced to accept is unsustainable.

It's unclear to me what hard influence the Israeli lobby has over Trump so maybe he can be just paid off as you say, but perhaps not.

However, my main thesis here is that Israel / US simply has no practical pathway to defeat Iran without nuclear weapons and Israel is forced to deescalate not by Biden but by the Pentagon making clear they simply just go casually defeat Iran, then the deescalation would happen due to not having an option to escalate further. Which if that happens Trump will simply claim it was because of him.

The reason to escalate as far as possible now while Biden is present, try to "finish the final solution job", would be, even if Trump can simply be bought, to simply avoid needing to do that. Escalating as far as possible now and then deescalating (whether it is Trump or Harris that wins) is simply cheaper than needing to cut a deal with the next president, whether Trump or Harris.

Definitely possible. I'm definitely not arguing the genocide would stop under Trump, just that I find it unlikely he'll attack Iran. However, Trump being erratic and also loving good press, he may see forcing Israel to let aid in Gaza as an easy win. — boethius

He's probably not knowingly gonna do something that will be akin to starting a war, but I can't definitively rule out him being duped into it. He was convinced to assassinate Soleimani after all. The Iranians will do all they can to avoid escalation but as we see with the Israeli's constant provocation they can be moved to retaliate and who knows where that will go.

It's unclear to me what hard influence the Israeli lobby has over Trump so maybe he can be just paid off as you say, but perhaps not. — boethius

I mean he has been paid off by people like Sheldon Adelson and now his wife. He was the one who ripped up the Iran deal, moved the embassy to Jerusalem, and did the Abraham Accords which bypassed the Palestinian issue. Like you said, Trump isn't knowledgeable about the middle east so he could be casually led into agreeing to things that most other presidents won't including Biden.

As a result I don't see him giving a damn about the Palestinians or their plight. His administration would probably pass the responsibility to someone like his son in law Kushner who's made his intentions to build beachfront property on Gaza well known.

The reason to escalate as far as possible now while Biden is present, try to "finish the final solution job", would be, even if Trump can simply be bought, to simply avoid needing to do that. Escalating as far as possible now and then deescalating (whether it is Trump or Harris that wins) is simply cheaper than needing to cut a deal with the next president, whether Trump or Harris. — boethius

Biden is still gonna be president for a few more months so yeah the possibility of Israel starting a war with Iran isn't completely out of the question. In fact Netanyahu may be more likely to do it during the lame duck period just so he can tie the next administration's hands. If Netanyahu feels emboldened by a Trump victory to start a war with Iran that would probably be when he'd do it. Would also provide cover for his buddy Trump to pretend like he's some kind of dove too.

He's probably not knowingly gonna do something that will be akin to starting a war, but I can't definitively rule out him being duped into it. He was convinced to assassinate Soleimani after all. — Mr Bee

I don't disagree but Trump viewed assassinating Soleimani as anyways a good thing that he's super proud of and believes, possibly correctly, people are proud of him for it too, especially his base. Where I'm unsure how easy it is to buy Trump is to do something that would make him unpopular like starting a giant war that can't be won and would also cause a major economic catastrophe sending oil sky high (he's also super proud of keeping oil prices low).

Where Trump is far more interesting than Biden is that his megalomania competes with his propensity for corruption, making him unpredictable.

So, I think we are in agreement that we can't predict either way, and so Israel can't predict either way, whereas Biden and Harris are 100% predictable. However, even Harris would want something, so it's anyways cheaper to get your genocide in before the deadline.

Which is only one explanation of recent events, that we are on a deescalation track and that explains Israel's weak attack on Iran doing nothing what they promised to do and also Israel escalating in Gaza to take advantage of peak tension to distract from the genocide but also not need to spend any further political capital once there's a new president.

Of course, the alternative scenario that Israel is just waiting for the next president, whether Trump or Harris or both, to escalate, is possible but seems to me less likely as I find the better fit to the data is that the Pentagon is simply unable to wage war on Iran in any sensible way and not that Biden would be unwilling to.

I mean he has been paid off by people like Sheldon Adelson and now his wife. He was the one who ripped up the Iran deal, moved the embassy to Jerusalem, and did the Abraham Accords which bypassed the Palestinian issue. Like you said, Trump isn't knowledgeable about the middle east so he could be casually led into agreeing to things that most other presidents won't including Biden. — Mr Bee

Definitely Trump participates in these sorts of transactions but all this stuff his base also wanted. His MO is more seeing what his base wants and then maximizing his gains in following through on that.

Trump does have a strange sort of integral loyalty to his base, which is why his base is loyal to him. He is aware that his base is against more wars and he did deliver on that policy during his presidency.

He's going to wheel and deal behind the scenes to maximize his gains, do "good business with the boys" essentially, but I do feel he puts the limit on anything that would visibly upset his base, such as starting a giant war they don't want and would increase the price of oil which they also don't want.

So, totally agree with you that he was easily manipulated during his presidency to setup both further escalation in Ukraine and further escalation in the Middle-east, but also notable the "main events" didn't actually then happen during his presidency. He teed up Biden to hit it out of the park though, genocide and giant war wise.

As a result I don't see him giving a damn about the Palestinians or their plight. His administration would probably pass the responsibility to someone like his son in law Kushner who's made his intentions to build beachfront property on Gaza well known. — Mr Bee

Totally agree here. As mentioned the only reason for Israel to speed things up before the election is to simply avoid needing to negotiate with the next president. Hence, clear Northern Gaza, start settling it under the next president who won't push back on that, whether Trump or Harris, but neither need to "pay more" in one form of political capital or another for further big favours; "go back to normal" as it were. The normal money sent to Israel is controlled by congress anyways so pay days aren't going to stop; the presidency is only needed to control for military operations.

Biden is still gonna be president for a few more months so yeah the possibility of Israel starting a war with Iran isn't completely out of the question. In fact Netanyahu may be more likely to do it during the lame duck period just so he can tie the next administration's hands. If Netanyahu feels emboldened by a Trump victory to start a war with Iran that would probably be when he'd do it. Would also provide cover for his buddy Trump to pretend like he's some kind of dove too. — Mr Bee

Definitely possible. We'll need to wait and see. Trump would definitely encourage that and be like "sleepy Joe has finally woken up!"

The alternative scenario I present is conditioned on deescalation being motivated by simply a lack of means and not motivation; there's a few indications (weak response to Iran, lack of any sensible war plan to defeat Iran, lacklustre performance invading Lebanon, domestic tensions rising in Israel) to support the premise, but it could easily all be a ruse.

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.

My own view is that events are better explained by pursuing such a strategy nominally but the essential character driving US policy being corruption; that US imperial factions are withdrawing capital from the empire (different forms of war profiteering in the case of Ukraine - military, selling gas to Europe, privatizing Ukraine and buying up the farmland, human, drug and arms trafficking - and in the case of Israel all those war profiteering motivations but also, dare I say, "propheteering" in the form of pursuing a delusional apocalyptic Zionist vision); other US elite factions "go along with it" due to inter-elite negotiations, but only up to a limit of threatening their core interests (such as actually collapsing the global economy, in the case of tech elites, or then getting into wars that can't be won, in a bad way and not a good way, such as top Pentagon generals and CIA bureaucrats, who also have say in these negotiations). I.e. geopolitical debate in the US is currently a proxy for discussing and sorting out each elite faction's share of the Imperial pie, resulting in conversation that presents itself as being about "US strategic interests" but is really about which elites are going to get what and which pipers are going to get paid along the way.

Zionists are simply one of many US elite factions in this context getting their pound of flesh.

The fundamental driver of this corruption being that US elite interests diverge from any plausible objective imperial interests as soon as imperial extension reaches a peak (a rising tide no longer lifts all boats) and is greatly accelerated by the removal of an ideological threat to the whole system, such as communism.

Even if you loved the empire, as soon as there's enough US elites that rather maximize their own wealth by withdrawing US political capital (mostly by mismanaging imperial finances), then there is anyways created an elite collective action problem that if you don't defend your position in the troff then someone else will take your place anyways.

I.e. would you either spend your capital on trying to defend some plausible set of US imperial interests ... or spend your capital on getting even more capital and just move to your giant yacht in Singapore with a few backup bunkers sprinkled over the globe on various cool islands, even undersea bases like Sponge Bob Square Pants!, if it all goes tits up?

The rational choice according to US elite's own ideology is to maximize their own individual gains in this situation and not sacrifice a single dollar like a dirty communist for the good of the whole, even if the whole is the glorious empire that they'll cry single tears over saluting the flag in this case and even if the end result of transferring all the means of production to communist China in pursuing individual gains is that communism becomes the dominant force on the planet. "They're not really communists" they tell themselves, if you haven't noticed that refrain.

It is a mathematical certainty that at some point you maximize your gains by withdrawing whatever capital you can from any system you're involved in, rather than pursue the marginal gains of growing that system as a whole. I.e. at some point you maximize your gains as a US elite not by further growth of the Empire but by pursuing decreases in taxes while running up the national debt to transfer to yourself through various corrupt schemes and simply cut deals with other elites to make it happen, all of whom have an interest in doing the exact same thing.

When all is said and done you simply look at rational choice theory and pat yourself on the cock.

Where I'm unsure how easy it is to buy Trump is to do something that would make him unpopular like starting a giant war that can't be won and would also cause a major economic catastrophe sending oil sky high (he's also super proud of keeping oil prices low). — boethius

It's not a matter of him being bought off to outright start a war which I agree he wouldn't do if the option was explicitly presented to him. However there are plenty of escalatory actions that the guy may not know is escalatory. I'm talking about him accidentally putting Iran in a position where they put Trump in a position to start a war. Perhaps he could be told that assassinating a top Iranian general in the middle of Tehran like Israel did when they killed Nasrallah would be a good idea, with assurances from Netanyahu that this definitely wouldn't get the Iranians to retaliate in a major way. He could very well be paid off to do something like that, as he was when he moved the embassy to Jerusalem.

Definitely Trump participates in these sorts of transactions but all this stuff his base also wanted. His MO is more seeing what his base wants and then maximizing his gains in following through on that. — boethius

He can snub his base all he wants and they will still suck up to him. He was supposed to "drain the swamp" but his major piece of legislation was a tax cut to the rich. He was supposed to get Mexico to pay for the wall but shut down the government because congress wouldn't fund it. He was supposed to bring back jobs to the Midwest, which ironically enough happened under Biden. None of that matters.

There is nothing that he can't brush off with his usual bullshit. We unfortunately live in a political environment where substance doesn't matter which explains the current campaigns going on right now. His base currently supports him because they think he will bring down prices, but his economic plans include a 20% global tariff on all imported goods that most people believe is inflationary. That should mean something but his base doesn't and won't care.

It's not a matter of him being bought off to outright start a war which I agree he wouldn't do if the option was explicitly presented to him. However there are plenty of escalatory actions that the guy may not know is escalatory. I'm talking about him accidentally putting Iran in a position where they put Trump in a position to start a war. Perhaps he could be told that assassinating a top Iranian general in the middle of Tehran like Israel did when they killed Nasrallah would be a good idea, with assurances from Netanyahu that this definitely wouldn't get the Iranians to retaliate in a major way. He could very well be paid off to do something like that, as he was when he moved the embassy to Jerusalem. — Mr Bee

Yes, this is definitely a good explanation for all the escalation that happened during his presidency.

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.

He can snub his base all he wants and they will still suck up to him. He was supposed to "drain the swamp" but his major piece of legislation was a tax cut to the rich. He was supposed to get Mexico to pay for the wall but shut down the government because congress wouldn't fund it. He was supposed to bring back jobs to the Midwest, which ironically enough happened under Biden. None of that matters. — Mr Bee

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

However, as I say, if there's deescalation that is mainly due to practical factors in the scenario I propose, including what Israel now understands as practical limits.

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. I'm not disputing you can pay Trump in one way or another to do a great many things, including continuing the Genocide but it's just economics 101 to buy from the cheaper source for the same thing (... or indeed get paid for getting it, as is currently happening under Biden; which I think is best explained by Biden's proclivity to be "grandpa awkward" around children in public translating to even more damaging video material existing in private).

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.

If it was only Trump that would be an obstacle to further escalation I agree with your view that he can anyways be easily manipulated into escalation. Deescalation would be due to simply not having the means to escalate further to a desirable scenario (because Iran can fight back).