Obama's diplomatic policy is a deviation from the strategy of trying to contain Iran (by stick and / or carrot) to the extent of preventing development. — boethius
In terms of maintaining/re-establishing US primacy, the genocide in Gaza is absolutely terrible policy. — boethius
And the genocide not only doesn't serve US Imperial strategic interest, it doesn't serve Israel's either. — boethius
I do agree that Trump has plans. Many plans, actually. Like "Liberation Day" tariffs, remember? Great plans!I was responding to your point that Trump doesn't have a plan. He does. It might be unrealistic, but the plan is to offer Iran goodies to drop their nuclear ambitions. — RogueAI
One thing would be for them to drop the program. Another thing to get Israel to believe the program is dropped.Would Iran trust us? Doubtful, but there is precedent for the U.S. bribing Iran to drop it's enrichment. Obama did it. What is Iran's alternative, though? They just got punished severely. They got no support from the (civilized) world and even their neighbors turned on them. Top Iranian officials now know Israel can and will take them out. Why not take the bribe the Trump Admin is offering? Isn't enrichment just not worth it at this point? — RogueAI
First of all, is an Iran that has great relations to it's Arab neighbors the optimum situation for Israel, or is an Iran that still is a "rogue state" that can be bombed every once and a while better? I fear that for Bibi, the war prime minister, the latter is a better option. — ssu
Exactly. To welcome back Iran to the international community, or at least to accept not attacking it is against the hawkish policy. Even if Iran would want to change it's policies, it's very difficult to change the course of Israeli lead US now.Then once Iran has the bomb they can be like "See! See! We were right all along! If only we bombed them harder!" — boethius
Sanctions will be a natural part, but note that's it's only Western sanctions. Iran isn't similar to the Hermit Kingdom (North Korea).Then, as you note with North Korea, Iran doesn't strike anyone with nuclear weapons and the issue is forgotten about, but sanctions permanent due to having nuclear weapons. — boethius
Sanctions will be a natural part, but note that's it's only Western sanctions. Iran isn't similar to the Hermit Kingdom (North Korea). — ssu
If the MAGA people cheer on how inept and totally useless the UN or other international organizations are, do note that then simply "the South" goes it's own ways. As I've said earlier, we are on track to go to an international order that was present in the 18th Century (as even the 19th Century had functioning international cooperation and organizations). — ssu
Good point, actually North Korea is the country which is now in a firm defense pact with Russia. The North Korean troops now fighting in Europe show this.Is North Korea even so isolated now? — boethius
And it's actually the real reason why the Superpower status of the US is waning.It's so wild that the US is now attacking institutions it created for its own benefit. — boethius
18th Century was a mess in Europe. A lot of wars and very unstable alliances. Yes, there wasn't yet industrial warfare, but there were the fighting and the armies roamed, that was total warfare. And so it had been even earlier.But do you reference the 18th and 19th century in it's relatively peaceful international relations, such as between European powers not having yet discovered the true power of industrial warfare, or in its ruthless colonial competition aspects? — boethius
Why “however”? What do you want it to contrast to? — neomac
The use of the word "however" is to to contrast with the fact that parties seeking their own gain at the expense of some collective gain (family, organization, business, institutional, government, country, empire, or what have you) usually don't advertise that, but will present their plan as in the interest of the group. — boethius
So, party A pursues B and party C pursues D; however, party C will usually also claim to be pursuing B. — boethius
National interest is and can’t be anything else than what results from people’s self-serving interests on a national level AND given certain power relations between them. — neomac
It obviously can. You can easily have a situation where the "certain powerful people" self-serving interest would be to plunder the national treasury and make off with the winnings. This is obviously not in the interest of any sensible concept of "the nation". — boethius
As I said you are framing a situation not in terms of competing interests, but in moral terms. This reflects your allegedly “impartial” (or “virtuous”?) interest. Yet your views are exposed to the same “bias” you are accusing others to be victim of or purposefully embracing: namely, viewing national interest in light of your self-interest. Your “populist” views are putatively aligned with those of the mass of powerless nobodies which are victims of the putative abuses of evil elites. — neomac
At this point in the discussion you are interjecting into, the debate with Tzeentch and @Benkei is descriptive of whose interest is even being served by recent policy.
@Tzeentch presents a description of the decision making process as coherent grand strategy since many decades, whereas @Benkei and I disagree the policy changes and decisions in the middle-east represent some sort of coherent US grand strategy over many decades. — boethius
In the long run maybe, yet it wasn't a disaster. Iran isn't parading captured Israeli or US pilots. Nor are there pictures of IDF or USAF/USN aircraft being shot down.So, basically the 12-Day War has turned out as a complete disaster for the United States and especially for Israel.
Neither of two possible goals (regime change and destruction of Iran's nuclear program) were achieved. In fact the war has made it more likely that in the long-term Iran's regime will survive and that it will get its hands on nuclear weapons. — Tzeentch
You are right. If US Middle East policy is looked on the long run, it really has been a train wreck. But people just don't think about it. Yet when you went from having CENTO, having nearly all the major regional players as your allies to then having "Twin Pillars" (of Saudi-Arabia and Iran) and then to the present, it's obvious that things have gotten just worse.The only thing that hasn't happened is for the entire narrative to collapse. People keep on believing the delusions, etc., but that's not actually something that will help the US going forward. Keeping people high on delusions and propaganda has a long-term cost, and all it is achieving is allowing the US to continue a defunct foreign policy. — Tzeentch
If US Middle East policy is looked on the long run, it really has been a train wreck. — ssu
You are right. If US Middle East policy is looked on the long run, it really has been a train wreck — ssu
If your previous allies turn into your enemies, how do you think that would be a success of any kind?To make such a statement, one must first understand what the principal US goals have been in the Middle-East. In my view, it is first and foremost about securing access to cheap oil and denying stable land-based access to others (like Russia, China and India). Second, it has been to avoid any regional competitor to Israel from rising. (Note the role Iran plays in both of these) — Tzeentch
Bullshit. Laying waste to a region isn't anything successful. Having something like the occupation of Iraq isn't a success. US has now fought several wars in the region. It's simply a huge waste of money as the region is as volatile as before.This policy has been remarkably successful for decades. The US completely dominated the Middle-East, and successfully laid waste to the region at will. — Tzeentch
Don't forget the French. Thanks to technological advances like fracking, the US isn't dependent on the Middle East anymore. So what's really the point?The Middle East has been fucked up since the British ruled it. The US has not returned it to a state of organic ease and well being, but all they wanted was oil, right? — frank
So what's really the point? — ssu
If your previous allies turn into your enemies, how do you think that would be a success of any kind? — ssu
I don't have a hatred towards the US. The US has had a great foreign policy in the long run in Europe. When other countries voluntarily join your alliance, do want keep in it, and look for the US for leadership, that is true success.It's not wasted breath to vent your hatred of the USA. — frank
It's not irrelevant.It's irrelvant. — Tzeentch
The Taleban couldn't inflict a real cost upon the US, but it won the war and the US lost, just like in Vietnam. That's a fact. My basic reasoning here: when you have to bomb a country, you have already lost a lot, namely peace. Being in a dominant position and having peace is the true measure of success.US power in the Middle-East would be waning anyway as a result of the shifting balance of power, but the key here is that none of those enemies are capable of inflicting a real cost upon the US. — Tzeentch
All I'm saying is that this train wreck cannot be described as an success in any way. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.