So to an extent, using the phrase anti-semite is counterproductive and deepens the rift between Jews and everyone else. — Punshhh

What I think is important most of all, is to stop talking about "the Jews" as though it is some monolithic entity.

Actors like the Netanyahu government or uncouth lobby groups like AIPAC try to foster this intentionally, acting as though they represent "the Jews", when in fact they represent very narrow, (and in these cases quite problematic) agendas.

The ultimate result of this, is that these actors and groups present an image of undue legitimacy, whereas the people that are involuntarily associated with them ("the Jews") unduly suffer in the blowback.

Calling out these specific interests, what they stand for and who they represent exposes them and denies them the use of these labels as a shield against criticism.

Part of me says that the world deserves Trump. — Hanover

In terms of foreign policy he can hardly do worse than the Biden administration.

An isolationist America might actually produce a peaceful putting asleep of the American empire, rather than a world war which is what the US is coursing straight towards under this clownshow of an administration.

I like how you turned that one around. :lol:

Russia looking to start WW3 against a power bloc that has a GDP roughly 20 times greater than it, ...

... or simply the MIC pushing propaganda to start the largest arms build-up since WW2 so it can profit exorbitantly and probably bring WW3 closer than it actually is now?

The US is probably also in on this, hoping to militarize Europe and provoke a wider war between it and Russia, to avoid either from profiting too much when the US will be inevitably crippled by conflicts with China and North Korea in the Pacific, and other conflicts elsewhere.

Indian media sharing footage of the attack that took place on a Greek-owned cargo ship that took place today.

This might give people an idea of the type of ordnance the Houthi are using.

Obviously, these aren't Taliban-style IEDs strapped together with duct tape, but actual weapons of war that pose a serious threat to civilian and military shipping.

Military vessels are generally able to withstand multiple impacts of this kind. For frigate/destroyer-sized vessels, three impacts would be a conservative estimate. Civilian ships, depending on size and age, may perish to fire and flooding after even one.

This is a very interesting subject, but perhaps a little off-topic for the thread. Lets continue this discussion in the future. :pray:

What's wrong with the UK? They are good fighters and they have a great armed forces. Also, they are still committed to European safety, even if they are on an Island. — ssu

Ukrainian official: Johnson Forced Kyiv to Refuse Russian Peace Deal (The European Conservative)

This is the reason.

The UK belongs to the Anglosphere, and together with other countries from the Anglosphere follows foreign policy that is heavily aligned to the US. The Anglosphere consists of exclusively island nations. (The US and Canada being essentially an 'island' in every practical sense)

These nations do not share the same security concerns as the European mainland, so should not be permitted to have this kind of influence over European (mainland) security.

And with the EU there's one thing that I've learnt to be true: the more you know about how it really operates, the more angry you become. — ssu

Quite so. It's an abomination, sadly. I think if Europe wants to remain functional and sovereign, it needs to replace the EU with an entirely different structure. I estimate the chances of that happening to be very low, so for the foreseeable future we're stuck with this mess.

But anyway, I'm for a loose union that still gives a lot of power to the individual countries because let's face it: the EU has done a really poor job on creating an universal European identity. Only the English have succeeded in creating an unifying identity with being British. But to be an European, well, it's like being an Asian or African... — ssu

Personally, I think a military alliance structure like NATO, but without the US and the UK, would be perfect. European nations economies function in vastly different ways, and the idea of an economic union has caused serious issues all over and I don't think was ever feasible.

Other elements like open borders (but with protected outer borders) I think would be fine as well.

I'm not sure about a "European identity" - attempts at trying to force something like that are silly, heavy-handed and probably doomed to fail (also reeks of communism) - but I do genuinely feel like I have a lot in common with other Europeans. We share a lot of history, and have reconciled the good and the bad. I also find war between two European nations pretty much unthinkable.

There is a lot of commonality which could be the basis for a more functional union that also respects the differences.

Yes, and Poles voted for him. — ssu

And somewhat predictably so. The Law & Justice Party pursued many foolish policies. This I don't have an issue with.

Well, if you have some articles or references about this, I would genuinely be interested... — ssu

Tens of thousands protest in Poland against ex-ministers' imprisonment (Reuters)

Pro-EU fanatics are silent on Poland's new illiberal turn (The Telegraph)

All of this is taking place as we speak, so we'll have to wait until later for some more brainy stuff.

Taking over the media and throwing the opposition in jail literally within weeks of taking office is probably the most blatant power grab I have ever seen in a western "democracy".

Who here are "they". — ssu

The Brussels elite, which is pursuing its own agendas that, predictably, never involve "less EU" but always "more EU".

Let me ask you, who does Von Der Leyen represent? Certainly not the European people, so who? Personally, I couldn't tell you, and that's what worries me to no end.

How is it an undemocratic abomination? — ssu

For one, we don't get to vote for the leader of the European Union - in this case Von Der Leyen - or other EU organs like the European Central Bank. There's also virtually zero transparency and control with regards to what these people get up to (and who they're working for).

Meanwhile, countries, including my own, are being completely hamstrung in certain fields by European legislation (see Dutch farmers' protests, for example), which, despite never being talked about in Dutch elections and there being no domestic support for much of this legislation, seem to be ever-expanding.


Tusk served as president of the European Council and as president of a transnational organisation known as 'the European People's Party' (an ominous name to be sure, though I'm not sure if it sounds commie or fascist - two branches from the same rotten tree anyway).

Who knows what uncouth, Europhilic lobbies this man is controlled by, but he was clearly sent in response to Poland's anti-EU trend, and indeed was successful in getting elected.

But it's the way he is now cleaning house like some dictator, without any criticism from European legislative organs whatsoever, that should be the canary in the coal mine. Clearly this man was given cart blanche to "get Poland back on track."


They tried the same in the Netherlands, where now a decidedly anti-EU party has become the largest.

Not that long before the elections, two parties on the left conspiciously merged into one, even though these parties did not have all that much in common and this merger will likely bite them in the end. However, together they did have a chance at winning upcoming the election.

Then, notorious Europhile Frans Timmermans was summoned out of nowhere to lead this questionable alliance. Timmermans had been working for the EU in relatively major positions for some 10 years, and architected the European Green Deal (which has been a total disaster for the Netherlands, by the way).

Long before the elections the propaganda machine was already churning, extolling him and labeling him possible 'future Dutch prime minister', etc., even though it is now clear that the anti-EU party probably won specifically because so many people did not want Timmermans as PM.


What this should tell you, is that the EU is not some impartial legislative body that follows the will of the European nations, but in fact is trying to influence the European nations' democratic processes towards a ever more EU, and often 'slipping in the cracks' to do so.

It's an undemocratic, untransparent abomination.

Yet that credible deterrent can be viewed always by the Kremlin as a threat that is out to get them. It needs an enemy to justify it's authoritarian grip. — ssu

Hmm. Maybe, but what enemy would that be? In the period between 1999 - 2013 Putin tried very hard to have good relations with the West. To a large extent he succeeded, and ties between Europe and Russia were good.

In my opinion, that was a perfect template for long-term stability, and it's hard to see why the Russians would have wanted to break that status quo by arbitrarily warmongering.

Lithuania surely will ask for defense assistance of article 5. The real issue is how treaty members will react to this. How will their populations far from Lithuania respond?

Is this a reason to go to a conflict which can lead to full scale nuclear war? — ssu

The thing I would worry about most in this scenario, once again, is Uncle Sam who basically has the power to send Europe into a nuclear war while it sits thousands of miles across the pond.

I've said this before, but the Americans don't share in the cost of large-scale war on the European mainland, in fact have historically benefitted from it. It is extremely foolish of us to put our fate in their hands.

In your scenario, what happens when the Americans decide large-scale, potentially nuclear, war between Europe and Russia is in its interest because it wants to "weaken Russia"?

The Yankees can and will climb the escalation ladder as far as they want and there's nothing Europe can do about it. Well, Europeans can whinge, maybe. I'm sure there will be plenty of whinging.

If, in reaction to your scenario, the Europeans want de-escalation, but the Americans covertly fire a 10kt nuclear weapon from an SSBN in the Baltic, what do you suppose will happen?

How so?

So far the Houthi don't appear to be backing down.

Honestly, I get the feeling the US and allies are falling for a trap here. Bombing campaigns are the NATO's bread and butter, and it was the predictable reaction to the Houthi attacks.

Since US diplomacy has completely failed, the "hammer" is the only tool in the West's tool box. Simultaneously the US is spread so thin that it can't afford to commit anywhere, greatly diminishing the impact of said hammer and making it almost bound to end in a dud.

Meanwhile, judging by the way Hamas has managed to mitigate the damage done by Israeli bombing strikes it appears that such actors aren't as vulnerable to this type of warfare as they once were.

For a closer example of what looming fascism might look like, I would look at what is happening in Poland right now under Donald Tusk.

Unsurprisingly, it comes from the undemocratic abomination that is the European Union.

This is nothing other than the EU sending out its agents to quell anti-EU movements from taking root, which must now be a growing worry to the Brussels elite. In the Netherlands they tried the same with Frans Timmermans, but they failed. In Poland they succeeded.

There should be antagonism towards that. There was towards the Third Reich. Was and is towards apartheid. — jorndoe

Speaking of apartheid and genocide, this is currently taking place in Israel with either "unconditional support" or tacit approval of virtually every western government.

The West should get its own house in order before it starts lecturing and antagonizing other countries, because currently it has zero credibility.

But you know, if Americans want to go to war with Russia over democratic principles that would be a nice joke. Fight that battle without us Europeans, though. Will you be volunteering for the frontlines?

In my opinion, this complacency and decadence we see within the EU is a post-Cold War thing. During the Cold War we had proper armies - way larger than what would be required today to provide a deterrent against Russia. So I believe we can do better.

Though, it is important to stress that even though I believe we should have a credible deterrent, we should not combine an arms build-up with antagonism towards Russia. A deterrent should have as its purpose stable relations between east and west.

The reason it won't happen until Europe shakes the US yoke is because the US does not want stable relations between Europe and Russia.

In fact, sowing discord on the European mainland is a strategy written down by Mackinder in his famous article 'The Geographical Pivot of History', and echoed by people like Brzezinski in 'The Grand Chessboard'.

Mackinder was British, by the way. It stems from a time when the British still had illusions of empire and world domination, but it appears they have not forgotten their old tricks.

It is no coincidence it was the US and UK who sought to block peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Both are island nations who do not share in the cost of war on the European mainland but have historically benefitted from it.

The EU has a combined GDP rougly equal to the US, and roughly ten times greater than Russia.

If Europe were even to remotely get its act together, there'd be no Russian threat whatsoever.

So why doesn't it? The enemy is at the gates after all!

My sense is that the US is and has been pulling strings in the background in order to keep Europe nice and docile, instead turning into the peer competitor that it could be and potentially shaking the US yoke.

And therein lies the problem. We share an "alliance" (though vassalage would be a better term) with a belligerent hegemon that lives across the pond. It doesn't share our security concerns, in fact being an island nation it benefits from sowing discord on the Eurasian mainland - divide & conquer.

This relationship we have with the US won't keep Europe safe, rather the opposite is true. The US is a dangerous ally.

Again, if Europe tried even a little bit there would be no conceivable Russian threat and we could enjoy stable relations with our eastern neighbor backed up by healthy deterrence.

That would not be in American interests though, which, I suspect, is why it doesn't happen.

Lack of leadership, I say. — ssu

I'll agree. The Biden administration looks like a set of children playing with fire, and where I had sort of expected some foreign policy veterans to show up to avoid utter disaster, nothing of the sort seems to be happening.

lol, what? — Count Timothy von Icarus

LOL

Fascism: Idolatry of the State

This is a pretty interesting take on fascism .

The Biden administration has gotten itself into one giant mess, and seems to have no clue how to get out of it nor possesses the diplomatic credibility to ameliorate the damage.

However, even though on the surface the participation of NATO / EU / Trading nations seems sort of obvious, I'm not sure if it actually is.

The current attacks on shipping are a direct result of the Israel-Gaza war. Many in Europe and even India are critical of both Israel's and the US policy vis-á-vis Gaza and the Palestinians.

My sense is that their willingness to put sailors and vessels at risk to clean up the mess the United States and Israel created is probably quite low, especially considering US-EU relations of late.

There is even some indication that the Houthis are avoiding targeting anything that isn't related to the US or Israel, which means the EU may have more to lose by getting involved.

Furthermore, whereas Somalia was an isolated, failed state and Somali piracy was limited in both scale and weaponry, the Houthis and the interests they represent (Iran / wider Muslim world / perhaps even the Iran-Russia-China "alliance") carry much more gravity.

Just think of France's rapidly dwindling position in Africa right now. If they piss off the wrong people, they will lose their entire former empire (or what was left of it). It would be for the better if you ask me, but the French elite probably disagree.

In other words, the Houthi have friends in high places, and anyone who gets involved on the US or Israel's behalf can expect retaliation that targets their weak points.

Lastly, as we've discussed earlier, the weaponry the Houthi are using is extremely dangerous to a navy that isn't prepared for this (new) generation of warfare. Nations will think twice about putting themselves in the crosshairs.

Even navies that are capable of dealing with this type of threat will face the monetary cost of sending a taskforce that can defend itself 24/7.

With the Somalis it was completely different. A navy vessel operating alone would be perfectly fine. The piracy was carried out by armed men in small boats who intended to board merchant vessels. What the Houthi are doing today is completely different.

Consider perhaps also the risk of getting dragged into a war with the Houthi / Yemen or even Iran by operating under US-led task forces

There's not much reason to take the WWII comparisons seriously anyway. If people want to argue Israel and Hamas are engaged in total war, they have no basis to condemn Hamas' actions because it is simply fighting according to the rules by which such a war is fought.

, US, Britain carry out strikes against Houthis in Yemen, officials say (Reuters)

Looks like the next step towards escalation. I doubt it was unexpected by the Houthis and Iran, and I wonder what their reaction will be.

And this brings us back to fascism: the overwhelming sense of crisis and the threat by evil outsiders.

I really can't say much more than that. It is exactly what seems to be going on with that. — schopenhauer1

In my opinion, this is a classic example of framing.

One hardly needs to be fascist to believe that the United States political ruling class is rotten to the core and should be removed for the sake of the people. In fact, looking at it from across the pond that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. Obviously whether Trump is a suitable alternative is a whole other question, but this doesn't make him or his supporters fascist.

I mean look at Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. In their debates, they are afraid to trash on the frontrunner who is the most corrupt president we've had in terms of blatantly using democratic means secure his power and whose divisive rhetoric has made the divisions that much greater. They know this, but they barely address Trump's unsuitability to take office, and his offensive behavior because that would mean the base would reprimand by not even considering such blasphemy of their dear leader. But that just shows the lack of backbone on their part. Only Chris Christie has spoken out forcefully in the presidential primary. Hell, Nikki Haley might even be letting open the possibility of being Trump's VP! — schopenhauer1

What of the Democrats, who shunned RFK Jr. and forced him to go independent? What of Hillary and Bernie?

Undemocratic and tasteless though such things may be, they're hardly exclusive to Trump or the Republican party. It actually seems to be a core feature of American democracy.

And it's also typically democratic to point fingers at the other side and ignore the own side's role in the myriad of problems that plague the system.

If one wants to understand what is going on politically, first we must dismiss buzzwords like "fascism". There's nothing going on in the western world currently that even remotely resembles fascism. Nothing that even hints of it - no, Trump isn't fascist either. Talking about "fascist elements" is just rabble-rousing nonsense.

A better word would be "bad loserism", since it more closely captures the nature (and ultimately the limited gravity) of what is going on, namely adults throwing tantrums because their team didn't win the race.

This isn't unique to the US. A similar thing happened in other countries, including my own, where a somewhat controversial party came out the biggest in the last election. In Germany we see the same sort of thing with the AfD (though they have yet to win).

When "their side" doesn't win, suddenly people start questioning democracy, talking about how "fascists" are taking over, etc.

Trump did it when Biden won. In the Netherlands some lefties did it when Wilders won. Germany is now questioning democracy because the AfD might win. Undoubtedly if Trump wins the next election we'll see the same type of thing from the Democrats, etc.

It's all very childish.


So, why is this happening?

- Countries all throughout the West are going through a transitional period, where the ruling political class is being replaced ("populists are taking over"). The desire for meaningful change is high, and elections are close, so all the major sides (and even wild cards like Trump) believe they have a shot at winning.

- A thorough poisoning of the information landscape by propaganda and wrong-headed adverstisement (through algorithms and AI, for example) makes the legitimacy of governments plummet even further. This is something all parties are guilty of, the ruling political class perhaps most of all. Creating internet echo chambers further cements in all sides this belief that they are going to win.

And as such, the democratic process loses its credibility, and people start to refuse to accept the outcomes of elections and fueled by emotion will take all sorts of foolish actions and make foolish statements.


Not fascism, but "bad loserism".

The scary thing is the denial of fascism from Trump supporters. It’s sort of a gaslighting version. — schopenhauer1

So Trump is fascist and anyone who thinks that's nonsense is a Trump supporter and trying to gaslight you? :brow: Casting suspicion on anyone who disagrees with you is not a great starting point for discussion, and would sooner suggest that what you're looking for is an echo chamber.

Personally, I think the idea that the US is anywhere near or even nearing fascism is so humurous it's hard for me to take it seriously.

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.

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

Good place to start. I know revolution seems most likely (historical precedent would back that horse), but can we throw out the moral epiphany (not just in the ruler(s), but in those ruled)? Could we soften “moral epiphany” to a kind of rock bottom “moment of clarity” or is the addiction going to take us all the way down? — Elysium House

A revolution is usually the reaction to hitting a form of rock bottom. The problem is, the citizens will always hit rock bottom long before the elite will, and thus the motivation for radical change won't come from the elite.

Moreover, once such a stage has been reached, the citizens will no longer accept any kind change that comes from the current leadership. As such, the leadership is incentivized to struggle until the very end.

I'm open to hearing examples that suggest otherwise. Maybe there are situations I am not considering.

Also, the "moral epiphany" isn't as unrealistic as one might think. History has known many great reformers who voluntarily ceded parts of their power to better govern their states. However, the larger the decision-making group at the top, the smaller the chance that it will consist of enough wise individuals who could push for such a move. Wisdom is rare after all, and among the ruling elite exceptionally so it seems.

Ironically, the chance of fundamental reforms may be higher under despotism than it is under democracy. Needless to say it's not a great alternative.

Up until now, there have been some folks who refused to accept the realities of the negotiations that took place in March/April 2022.

Recently Oleksandr Chalyi went on a panel at the Geneva Center for Security Policy in which he provided more insight into what took place. Chalyi is a former diplomat and Ukrainian ambassador, and was part of the delegation that conducted the peace negotiations in question. In other words, he's giving a first-hand account from the Ukrainian point of view. He also shares some of his own views on the conflict.

Here are some quotes (paraphrased, because his English isn't fluent):

When I try to answer your first question: what are the roots of the Ukrainian war? [...] To my mind this the key roots are firstly geopolitics. Namely, the hard confrontation between the United States and Russia over Ukraine.

This is the main trigger to me for full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2022.

[...]

To my mind, very quickly after the invasion of February 24th last year, [Putin] understood his historical mistake.

I was in that moment in the group of Ukrainian negotiators. We negotiated with the Russian delegation for practically two months, March and April, a possible peaceful settlement between Ukraine and Russia.

We, as you remember, concluded the so-called Istanbul communiqué, and we were very close in the middle of April to finalize the war with a peaceful settlement.

For some reason it was postponed.

[...]

To my mind, this is my personal view, Putin within one week of the start of his aggression on 24th February very quickly understood he had made a mistake, and tried to do everything possible to conclude an agreement with Ukraine.

It was his personal decision to accept the text of the Istanbul communiqué. It was totally different from the initial ultimatum proposal of Russia which they put before the Ukrainian delegation in Minsk.

So we managed to find a very real compromise.

Putin really wanted to reach a peaceful settlement with Ukraine.

[...]

The Ukrainian-Russian hot war is an integral part of a full-scale cold war between the collective West and Russia over Ukraine. In other words, NATO and the EU are not international security actors or some neutral parties, but real participants in the cold war with Russia over Ukraine. This is my strong belief.

[...]

In general, I am convinced that the key action in ending the war in Ukraine must be taken by the collective West.

It's about their strategic view.

Because now the West, first of all United States, and Germany, France, are in a very special position. [They say:] "We are far away, and ready to do what you ask."

But when I directly ask some decision maker from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United States, Germany, France:

"If, in three months, President Zelensky asks you, together with us, as independent partners, to start some negotiations with Russia on a cease-fire. I will be ready to participate."

You know their first reaction? "No, no! This is your war!"

But then I ask them: "Look boys. But you promised us to do what we asked."

And after this - silence.

It's a very popular slogan: "The key to stop this war is in Moscow." But, I agree, but the key to stop this war is also in Washington, Berlin, Brussels and Paris.

What were the Ukrainians promised and not given by the West? NATO membership probably, Art. 5 guarantees, etc. - but Chalyi does not specify so we're left to ponder.

And what possible reason could the West have for blocking negotiations when the Ukrainians themselves felt they had found a real compromise with Russia? Unbelievable.

In an extensive policy brief he wrote in July 2023 he goes into some more detail, which again paints a bleak picture of the West's role in this war, continuously leading Ukraine along by dangling security guarantees infront of them, but never actually providing them with anything.

And that's of course what we've been arguing here for months. Chalk up another one for team realism.

Decentralization requires the powerful to part with their power, which is something that virtually never happens whether one lives in a democracy or a dictatorial regime. That simply is the nature of man, power and power structures.

The first question is, how does one get the powerful to part with their power? Either they have some form of moral epiphany which propels them to do it voluntarily* or through violent revolution.

In a nutshell, it would require a revolution and a complete rebuilding of the system from scratch, basically like what happened when the US was founded. And then the circus and the slow process of power centralization and corruption simply starts over, because, again, that simply is the nature of man, power and power structures.

*which actually seems more unlikely under a democractic system than under an autocratic system, because of the number of people it would involve.

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.

Shooting down anti-ship missiles and drones has basically been the norm from the 1980's, so it's not so difficult. — ssu

Shooting down a single anti-ship missile is indeed not much of a problem.

The problem is that anti-ship missiles and drones are cheap, and their principal tactic is to overwhelm the target ship's defenses. They fly low to decrease reaction time, which is why many subsonic anti-ship missiles are still in use today.

A lone ship, or even a small task force, is a sitting duck against swarm attacks.

I don't expect the French or British to stick around if there is a real risk such attacks are carried out on their ships.

Besides, their navies are starting to get pretty dated, and I doubt they'll be willing to put their newest vessels on the line.

So with Trump II looming on the horizon, have people started to warm up to RFK Jr. yet?



First person I've ever seen in American politics that dares to speak the naked truth.

But that might be too confrontational to some?

The United States and the Arab Spring: The Dynamics of Political Engineering

A worthwhile read.

The biggest issue is that Americans don't want a war. It's the last thing they want. — ssu

Hmm, this is probably true, but they have to draw the line somewhere. Can they really afford to continue to bide their time as another crisis erupts that directly attacks US / western interests?

I'm also quite skeptical about the willingness of other nations to help out. In the case of Somali pirates it was an isolated threat that in itself could not really harm armed navy vessels. The Houthi rebels however are being supplied with anti-ship missiles.

The only navy I can imagine putting itself in the line of fire of such weapons is the US navy. And possibly the Indians? But then again, the Indians are part of BRICS so it's unlikely their ships would be targeted in such a way.

I think other nations will not be willing to run the risk of having one of their vessels swamped in anti-ship missiles and sunk. It requires a lot of faith in one's equipment.

Hence I find this all very bleak and worrisome. — ssu

Seconded, and good points.

I've heard some talk about Azerbaijan being used as a potential springboard, though the route to Teheran would still be very well-defendable. It'd be a stretch, and incur a level of cost that the Americans cannot afford, as long as China is the main rival they should be worrying about.

Even if they could capture Teheran, there's no way that would end the war. Since the Iranians are probably well-prepared for irregular warfare with Russian and Chinese backing. It would simply turn into another forever war that would eventually end in a US defeat.

At the same time, I can't help but feel the Americans are starting to look cornered. They're being pressured from all angles and it might only be a matter of time before they choose to draw the line somewhere.

Strategically one would think that the line would be drawn somewhere else, in the Pacific, and start a conflict between the US and China. But I don't think the Americans can afford to simply drop all their other interests while waiting for the Pacific to boil over. They certainly can't afford to drop Israel, at least not as far as my imagination goes.

Very worrying indeed. On one hand I can't imagine the US starting a war with Iran under current conditions. On the other hand the stakes are being raised and I think we're nearing a point where the US cannot back down and might do something drastic.

Well, there is the possibility that here IS is used as a proxy, [...] — ssu

Or even just as a patsy. It's not like anyone would believe the word of violent extremists over US intelligence. By now IS is probably so badly fractured that there's not even any type of spokesperson that could deny the claim.

But yes, there's no question that Iran uses proxies. They're commonly referred to as "the head of the octopus."

It'll be interesting to see how the US intends to deal with this, though.

There's a lot of talk about starting a war with Iran, but what would that look like?

Air and naval power aren't going to win the day. Those times are over. They could use it to hurt Iran, but to defeat Iran it would require a full-scale invasion.

Iran is backed by Russia and China, and probably well-prepared to fight a war against a conventional military force.

Even if the US would pull out victorious (which is a big 'if') they would simply be busying themselves with small fish, while the big fish (China) is the laughing third once again.

On a related note, look at this:

US intelligence confirms Islamic State's Afghanistan branch behind Iran blasts (Reuters)

"Confirms",

"The intelligence is clear-cut and indisputable," one source said.

Am I the only one who finds this use of language suspicious to say the least?

The moment I see this type of language coming from "anonymous US intelligence sources" my first thought is that they're the ones responsible.

What was the west supposed to do about it? — frank

The US can stop the war in Gaza at any point in time. Note that the US is supplying Israel with the weapons it needs to conduct this massacre, note the carrier groups it sent in support of Israel, etc.

The reason it doesn't is because of domestic political reasons, aka the US Israel lobby.

If Joe wants to have even a sliver of a chance to be re-elected, he can't afford to antagonize the Israel lobby, which will drag him through the mud if he dares to do so.


Furthermore, due to Israel's tenuous position in the region it is very reliant on international support, so if the US and European countries were to take a firm stance, Israel would have to take it seriously.

The problem is, upon the outbreak of the conflict the first thing these nations did was give Israel cart blanche.

The sputterings they produce now is nothing more than window dressing, so they can continue to pararde themselves as "upholders of international law."