Israel, Palestine and Iran

[Dodgyknees]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I'd be mad the people that paid for my allotment by having me on state TV got blown up too.

Boris will be worried about Russia's involvement, especially as they've paid so much towards his lifestyle, and of hanky sexy models for Boris to enjoy too.

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

The deep thinking strategic mind of Raab will steer us safely around this one.

He’s the one that didn’t realise a lot of our imports came from overseas, isn’t he?

 

Look, it's easy to make him look bad by referring to things he's said or done.

[magnkarl]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Okay, so this is the marker for how seriously you intend to take this potential conflict. Thanks for clarifying.

I take it as seriously as I take it when the US bombs anyone else, it's a sad state of play. However, if people can't point out that Corbyn taking money to go on Iranian state TV is asinine then the benchmark for Labour's leadership is set pretty low.

[Chindie]

Hey! Look ov-

CORRRBYYYYYYNNNN!!!

[OutByEaster?]

I think State sponsored assassination is always wrong. There are so many other options open to states in dealing with each other. If we're talking about actions outside of the sphere of state, if we're talking about terrorism, then we should be dealing with crime and be looking to arrest those that carry it out and subject them to the rule of law. The 21st century has seen a return to wild west justice; we should aspire to be better.

 

[StefanAVFC]

Corbyn's finished fellas. Donezo. Please stop dragging every thread down to that level.

[Awol]

6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think State sponsored assassination is always wrong. There are so many other options open to states in dealing with each other. If we're talking about actions outside of the sphere of state, if we're talking about terrorism, then we should be dealing with crime and be looking to arrest those that carry it out and subject them to the rule of law. The 21st century has seen a return to wild west justice; we should aspire to be better.

 

My bold: In this case terrorism isn’t outside the sphere of the Iranian state, it’s the primary foreign policy tool of it. The network of self-sustaining groups Iran has established and grown over 35+ years is bewildering in scope. They are all loyal to the ideology of Iranian revolution, trained, equipped and largely directed by the IRGC and Qods Force in pursuit of Iranian foreign policy objectives.

Arresting these guys is sometimes possible (it was rumoured some big name militia leaders were picked up last night, separate from this strike), but that’s very rare. Keep in mind this guy has masterminded the militias responsible for killing approx 600 Iraqi civilians in the last few weeks/months alone for protesting against corruption & state capture - by the IRGC/Soleimani. 

Like with Bin Laden & Baghdadi there are plenty of people who will pick up his torch, but he was particularly skilled at his role - to crush opponents of the Iranian regime, often by orchestrating mass murder of civilians at home and abroad. 
 

Projecting western judicial norms into conflict environments is a laudable idea, but not always practical. 

[OutByEaster?]

17 minutes ago, Awol said:

Projecting western judicial norms into conflict environments is a laudable idea, but not always practical. 

What is a "conflict environment"? 

If Soleimani is carrying out terrorist attacks, he's a rogue agent who should be picked up and arrested; if (as clearly seems to be the case here) he's an agent of Iranian foreign policy then it should be dealt with at a state level - diplomacy, sanction, war - that sort of thing.

What seems to happen instead is this sort of constant state of faux-war that allows the US to do as it pleases without any sort of censure or limitation under law. Indeed, worse than that, it seems to allow specific elements with the US power structure to do that without having any oversight by its democratic structures.

The ongoing almost-war is a deliberate construct to avoid oversight. It's a licence to do as you please.

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

If Soleimani is carrying out terrorist attacks, he's a rogue agent....

....constant state of faux-war that allows the US to do as it pleases without any sort of censure or limitation under law. Indeed, worse than that, it seems to allow specific elements with the US power structure to do that without having any oversight by its democratic structures.

The ongoing almost-war is a deliberate construct to avoid oversight. It's a licence to do as you please.

From what I've read, this Solemani is not a rogue agent, he's an Iranian state authorised conductor/orchestrator of  teror and murder etc.

In other words he was sort of doing (but more so) what the US has just done to him.

It would be much better if no one was doing all that sort of stuff. Iran, the US, Israel, Russia, China.... etc. They all do it and no one gets censured by their democratic structures, largely because their structures either tacitly or openly demand the stuff is done.

[OutByEaster?]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

From what I've read, this Solemani is not a rogue agent, he's an Iranian state authorised conductor/orchestrator of  teror and murder etc.

Exactly, so he's not a terrorist - he's an agent of Iranian foreign policy. 

We've not then reacted to that in the ways that are traditional or enshrined in international law - we've simply killed him - it's a political assassination. That's impossible to justify. I'm not defending his actions, he's clearly a very dangerous individual and part of an extremely unpleasant regime. What I am doing is condemning the choice of the method of reaction - there's been no formal declaration of war, no attempt at a diplomatic measure and no congressional oversight - it's a criminal action by a President or whoever it is that holds his strings. 

 

 

 

[Awol]

15 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

What is a "conflict environment"? 

If Soleimani is carrying out terrorist attacks, he's a rogue agent who should be picked up and arrested; if (as clearly seems to be the case here) he's an agent of Iranian foreign policy then it should be dealt with at a state level - diplomacy, sanction, war - that sort of thing.

What seems to happen instead is this sort of constant state of faux-war that allows the US to do as it pleases without any sort of censure or limitation under law. Indeed, worse than that, it seems to allow specific elements with the US power structure to do that without having any oversight by its democratic structures.

The ongoing almost-war is a deliberate construct to avoid oversight. It's a licence to do as you please.

This is a really important point, and you’re totally correct. The character of war, what we traditionally think of as war, has shifted entirely. Whether that’s Putin’s ‘little green men’ in Crimea, to a hybrid force of Russian regulars and local militias in Eastern Ukraine, or a mixture of Assad’s army, Iranian IRGC, Shia foreign legion and Russian Wagner group mercenaries in Syria, and a multitude of other examples. 

The clear dividing lines between opposing sides and the agents of states using armed force legitimately have dissolved. That creates an environment that neither scholars nor practitioners have developed the language to properly describe yet, that’s why I used the unsatisfactory term ‘conflict environment.’ 

To me that describes a situation which is neither at peace or experiencing classic conventional war, where the state is regularly using armed force but does not have the monopoly on it, and other actors, both state, proxy and non-state are using violence to compete for political influence and/or territorial control. 

Does that help at all? 

While I agree that the US and its allies are conducting operations in this environment without much direct oversight, the same is true of all the other parties, and those allied forces (ours) are generally reactive. 

For example the West was out of Iraq by 2011, but in 2014 was called back in at the request of the ‘legitimate’ Iraqi government to help push back ISIS, a non-State armed group seeking to topple the state. 

At the same time Iran also sent forces to participate in the same battle, so we had Iranian infantry receiving air support from US jets, fighting a multinational Jihadist army in Iraq, alongside local Iraqi militias and regular units. 

Move around the Middle East to Syria, Yemen, Libya and it all looks much the same. 

”War” ain’t what it used to be, but the conversation is yet to catch up with the reality. 
 

 

[OutByEaster?]

48 minutes ago, Awol said:

This is a really important point, and you’re totally correct. The character of war, what we traditionally think of as war, has shifted entirely. Whether that’s Putin’s ‘little green men’ in Crimea, to a hybrid force of Russian regulars and local militias in Eastern Ukraine, or a mixture of Assad’s army, Iranian IRGC, Shia foreign legion and Russian Wagner group mercenaries in Syria, and a multitude of other examples. 

The clear dividing lines between opposing sides and the agents of states using armed force legitimately have dissolved. That creates an environment that neither scholars nor practitioners have developed the language to properly describe yet, that’s why I used the unsatisfactory term ‘conflict environment.’ 

To me that describes a situation which is neither at peace or experiencing classic conventional war, where the state is regularly using armed force but does not have the monopoly on it, and other actors, both state, proxy and non-state are using violence to compete for political influence and/or territorial control. 

Does that help at all?

It does, and whilst I rail against it, I'm not in denial of the situation on the ground. 

Where I do disagree with you is on the motivations behind this reality and the slightly preposterous idea that we're "reactive" within it. 

 

 

[sne]

Is a BBC documentary from last year about this guy called Shadow Commander.

Not seen it and I'm sure it has it's flaws but might be worth a watch.

[Awol]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

Where I do disagree with you is on the motivations behind this reality and the slightly preposterous idea that we're "reactive" within it. 

The original sin in 2003 was ours (well, Bush & Blair) no question. I’m writing a thesis on that very point! To the extent that we’re in Iraq now it’s by invitation - Obama didn’t want to go back in 2014 but ISIS was going to sack Baghdad.

Libya is much complicated, because the government established after Gaddafi fell rejected all security assistance from NATO, as was their right. Various Arab regimes then jumped in to back different actors and it’s now about to be invaded by Turkey, slave markets and all.

Yemen & Syria were not Western inspired, but the result is much the same. We (the West) have been bit part actors in those conflicts subsequently, but have not driven them. 

There’s no question we have a lot to answer for, but it doesn’t help the analysis to blame the West for everything, or even most of what’s happening now. Others have agency and use it in spades. 

[chrisp65]

We love to have a bit of a dabble in war, its just so inconveniently expensive to do it properly.

I wonder if our new aircraft carrier will be just the right toy for some high profile patrolling, or if it will be considered too expensive to risk.

 

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Exactly, so he's not a terrorist - he's an agent of Iranian foreign policy. 

Iranian foreign policy includes promoting instigating and funding terrorism. That's where it gets murky. As AWOL says, it's not "traditional". He's a state terrorist.

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Iranian foreign policy includes promoting instigating and funding terrorism. That's where it gets murky. As AWOL says, it's not "traditional". He's a state terrorist.

But with State terrorism - shouldn't the responsibility rest with the state, not the individual - if not, isn't every member of any state armed force a terrorist?

 

[Davkaus]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Iranian foreign policy includes promoting instigating and funding terrorism. That's where it gets murky. As AWOL says, it's not "traditional". He's a state terrorist.

As long as the CIA are falling under the same classification.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Davkaus

[villakram]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

My bold: In this case terrorism isn’t outside the sphere of the Iranian state, it’s the primary foreign policy tool of it. The network of self-sustaining groups Iran has established and grown over 35+ years is bewildering in scope. They are all loyal to the ideology of Iranian revolution, trained, equipped and largely directed by the IRGC and Qods Force in pursuit of Iranian foreign policy objectives.

Arresting these guys is sometimes possible (it was rumoured some big name militia leaders were picked up last night, separate from this strike), but that’s very rare. Keep in mind this guy has masterminded the militias responsible for killing approx 600 Iraqi civilians in the last few weeks/months alone for protesting against corruption & state capture - by the IRGC/Soleimani. 

Like with Bin Laden & Baghdadi there are plenty of people who will pick up his torch, but he was particularly skilled at his role - to crush opponents of the Iranian regime, often by orchestrating mass murder of civilians at home and abroad. 
 

Projecting western judicial norms into conflict environments is a laudable idea, but not always practical. 

One man's terrorist...

Oh right, Freedom & Democracy!

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

As long as the CIA are falling under the same classification.

Yes, as I said 

Quote

. Iran, the US, Israel, Russia, China.... etc. They all do it