Israel, Palestine and Iran

[magnkarl]

14 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The exact opposite is true - the timing thing is relevant BECAUSE it's been said for years without any action - so the question on timing is "Why now and not then?"

 

 

I get your point, but that point is not timing on Israel’s part, at least? Ours, maybe.

Israel’s blowhard of a UN ambassador, and several blowhards before him have raised it umpteen times.

[Panto_Villan]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Obviously I don’t want more fighting, but from the US position they have to do something fairly big don’t they?

Gaza pulled the tigers tail and found out.

Will the US response be as disproportionate as Israel’s?

Honestly, no idea. As I said above there's genuinely no good options here. The US really doesn't want to escalate, but they also need to do something big enough to deter Iran from further action, and those two things appear contradictory.

I'd guess they'd err on the side of non-escalation, and then in a few weeks they'll find themselves in the same situation again.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Panto_Villan said:

Honestly, no idea. As I said above there's genuinely no good options here. The US really doesn't want to escalate, but they also need to do something big enough to deter Iran from further action, and those two things appear contradictory.

I'd guess they'd err on the side of non-escalation, and then in a few weeks they'll find themselves in the same situation again.

Maybe they surprise us all, get round a table. Talk it over…? 

[magnkarl]

3 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Honestly, no idea. As I said above there's genuinely no good options here. The US really doesn't want to escalate, but they also need to do something big enough to deter Iran from further action, and those two things appear contradictory.

I'd guess they'd err on the side of non-escalation, and then in a few weeks they'll find themselves in the same situation again.

A big boom for some of the weaker proxies maybe? Hizbollah in Iraq and the IRG in Syria seem prime targets.

[Panto_Villan]

Just now, magnkarl said:

A big boom for some of the weaker proxies maybe? Hizbollah in Iraq and the IRG in Syria seem prime targets.

Yeah. Or another assassination of one of their military generals abroad? There's quite a few options available, it's just a question of what Biden decides is a suitable response. But yes, my money would probably be on large-scale strikes on targets outside Iranian borders.

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

Maybe they surprise us all, get round a table. Talk it over…? 

Haha. The problem is they did get Iran to sit down and talk things over a few years back, and there was a nuclear deal agreed between the US and Iran and several European powers, including us. Wasn't a great deal by any stretch of the imagination, but Trump ripped it up - so I don't think Iran would trust the US to stick to a deal even if one was negotiated. Their foriegn policy is too erratic these days.

With all that said, I think the hope is that once the Gaza war is over, the region might calm down a bit. I guess the US is probably hoping it can get by by trading missiles and drone strikes with Iran until Israel are done with Gaza, and then perhaps everyone can claim they achieved their objectives and let the situation calm down.

But escalation can take on a life of its own. Hamas' terror attack was disastrously successful because it left Israel no choice but to respond with overwhelming force against Hamas, and if say an Iranian missile somehow got through the defences of a US warship and sunk it with massive loss of life then Biden would similarly have no other option than start a major war with Iran. So everyone involved is playing a dangerous game here.

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

Maybe they surprise us all, get round a table. Talk it over…? 

I'm not sure Iran would get round a table especially with the possibility of another Trump presidency.

Don't forget that it was Trump pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal that kind of rattled the Iranian cage more than it needed to. The there was Trumps peace plan in Israel…

Trump is to blame for quite a bit of this.

[Chindie]

7 minutes ago, Genie said:

Obviously I don’t want more fighting, but from the US position they have to do something fairly big don’t they?

Gaza pulled the tigers tail and found out.

Will the US response be as disproportionate as Israel’s?

 

The US is in a difficult position with how to respond. They're being attacked by semi autonomous proxies of Iran in third party nations. They can't really fight them the way they would want to without committing themselves to an almighty conflict that they aren't going to 'win'. So far they have basically committed themselves to a limited and arms length 'conflict' of air strikes and missiles against the Yemen based Houthi group, which isn't going to do anything of note but look like they've responded.

The fact of the matter is Iran isn't going to stop funding these groups, a war against Iran would be horrific and lead to an even bigger disaster than Iraq and chuck the tense stability of the region in the bin. It would also probably piss off the other regional power, Saudi, because a regime changed Iran would be brought in from the cold and long term would become a bigger threat to them than they are as a persona non grata state.

No quick answers. The thing ultimately with Iran will have to be opening up to them again, which will take many, many more years and probably need them to have a governmental change of direction, which will take a while. Trump throwing the nuclear deal in the bin was one of the stupidest things he did as it essentially made the Iranians think '**** it' and not even try to show good will or operate in line with how the US wanted them to. Appropriately enough Israel had their fingers all over Trump making that decision and a bunch of those words removed in Tel Aviv were delighted when he did it.

[Genie]

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm not sure Iran would get round a table especially with the possibility of another Trump presidency.

You’re probably right, but I was thinking from the point of view that it might stop the Americans bombing parts of Iran, or even Tehran. More of a short term solution than thinking ahead to the US elections in November.

[Panto_Villan]

21 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The US is in a difficult position with how to respond. They're being attacked by semi autonomous proxies of Iran in third party nations. They can't really fight them the way they would want to without committing themselves to an almighty conflict that they aren't going to 'win'. So far they have basically committed themselves to a limited and arms length 'conflict' of air strikes and missiles against the Yemen based Houthi group, which isn't going to do anything of note but look like they've responded.

The fact of the matter is Iran isn't going to stop funding these groups, a war against Iran would be horrific and lead to an even bigger disaster than Iraq and chuck the tense stability of the region in the bin. It would also probably piss off the other regional power, Saudi, because a regime changed Iran would be brought in from the cold and long term would become a bigger threat to them than they are as a persona non grata state.

No quick answers. The thing ultimately with Iran will have to be opening up to them again, which will take many, many more years and probably need them to have a governmental change of direction, which will take a while. Trump throwing the nuclear deal in the bin was one of the stupidest things he did as it essentially made the Iranians think '**** it' and not even try to show good will or operate in line with how the US wanted them to. Appropriately enough Israel had their fingers all over Trump making that decision and a bunch of those words removed in Tel Aviv were delighted when he did it.

I don't think this is true. You might be right about the long-term effects, but I very much doubt Saudi would think that far ahead - Iran are a real threat to them, and I think the Saudis would be extremely enthusiastic about a chance to take the Iranians out. Countering Iranian influence was the main driving force behind the recent improvement of relations with Israel, as the Arab countries consider Iran a much bigger issue than Israel these days. That was clear in Yemen, where a coalition of several Arab nations couldn't even defeat one of the weaker Iranian proxies. Let alone the fact Iran keep threatening to build nukes.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if all the countries that were fighting the Houthis in Yemen would happily support an American invasion of Iran with their own military forces, and if not I'm sure they'd be willing to contribute to an invasion logisitically.

Edited January 29 by Panto_Villan

[LondonLax]

7 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

It can equally be argued that the US is pushing proxy wars against all of those nations that exist in defiance of it - I think the US is setting tests at least as much as it's taking them.

 

No it’s the other way around. 80 year old president going into an election year. There must be dictators everywhere thinking ‘now’s our chance’. 

[desensitized43]

12 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

It can equally be argued that the US is pushing proxy wars against all of those nations that exist in defiance of it - I think the US is setting tests at least as much as it's taking them.

 

Well we all have our strategic interests, don't we?

Iran want to push the western nations out of the region so they can have a free hand as one of the dominant powers. Western nations don't want a situation where one nation rises to that prominent position which would threaten oil supplies and international trade through Suez.

It wasn't that long ago that the US (under Trump) assassinated one of the IRG generals in a drone strike so I get what you're saying. Ultimately though the situation will need addressing at some point. Either the US will have to deal with Iran either diplomatically or militarily or leave the region.

[magnkarl]

36 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

It wasn't that long ago that the US (under Trump) assassinated one of the IRG generals in a drone strike so I get what you're saying. Ultimately though the situation will need addressing at some point. Either the US will have to deal with Iran either diplomatically or militarily or leave the region to be controlled by a regieme that executes people in the marketplace for being gay, beats up women for dancing and has one of the most medieval interpretations of law on the planet, sends weapons to a genocidal Russia and bombs its neighbours, including nuclear armed Pakistan on a regular.

FTFY.

I don't necessarily think taking out Iranian proxies outside of Iran would be a bad thing, all things considered. We might even be able to get help locally rather than just bum-rushing the place.

Edited January 30 by magnkarl

[chrisp65]

It does feel quite like we should be accelerating the move away from the need for oil and the need to import plastic shit from China to maintain a GDP figure reliant on buying and selling shit.

[Panto_Villan]

The US is already entirely self-sufficient in oil and gas. It’s a very narrow view to assume we could just ignore the Middle East if only we didn’t need their oil.

[Jareth]

5 hours ago, LondonLax said:

There must be dictators everywhere thinking ‘now’s our chance’. 

That includes Donald!

[chrisp65]

17 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

The US is already entirely self-sufficient in oil and gas. It’s a very narrow view to assume we could just ignore the Middle East if only we didn’t need their oil.

Who’s assuming we could ignore the Middle East?

[Jareth]

Good to see from the old pig poker https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68137220

Quote

Britain is ready to bring forward the moment when it formally recognises a Palestinian state, the foreign secretary has suggested.

Lord Cameron said Palestinians had to be given a political horizon to encourage peace in the Middle East.

 

Edited January 30 by Jareth

[Panto_Villan]

7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Who’s assuming we could ignore the Middle East?

Reads like you're implying these discussions would be going differently if we weren't reliant on foreign oil. However, the biggest Western player in the region isn't actually reliant on foreign oil so I think that demonstrates we'd still be faced with the exact same headaches whether we needed the oil or not.

Is that not what you meant?

[chrisp65]

10 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Reads like you're implying these discussions would be going differently if we weren't reliant on foreign oil. However, the biggest Western player in the region isn't actually reliant on foreign oil so I think that demonstrates we'd still be faced with the exact same headaches whether we needed the oil or not.

Is that not what you meant?

I am implying the conversation would be different. I think we’d have far more options and far more flexibility of response and far more time if the economy of the ‘west’ was less reliant on getting oil out of the Middle East and getting container ships past the Red Sea.

The U.S. were self sufficient in oil when Russia invaded Ukraine, we still had inflation and economic pain.

That’s nowhere near the same as ignoring the Middle East.

 

[villa89]

51 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Good to see from the old pig poker https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68137220

There's no chance Israel allow a Palestinian state. The current government take pride in having prevented that happening. Israel's policy is for all the brown people to leave and go back to Egypt where they belong leaving space for more Jewish settlements to take over. It's their right according to whatever nonsensical part of the bible you choose to believe. 

There needs to be a move on both sides to the centre and a similar peace plan that happened in northern Ireland. The difference in the middle east is that there are many more players and many people who want to keep the instability and conflict going. In northern Ireland I think people on all sides wanted progress. Netanyahu doesn't want peace, he wants genocide.

Edited January 30 by villa89