Strikes against Iran would be extremely bad. Iran is not powerless to strike at US interests, allies and personnel in the region.
The main reason for the raging hate boner is because the US' Foreign Policy Establishment is still seething over the hostages in Carter's time. It's fucking stupid.
I agree, with one of the big foreign policy initiatives of the Iranian revolutionary guard has been to recruit, train and supply materiel to the various Shiite populations throughout the Middle East.
Any attack would likely trigger insurgent attacks throughout the region.
Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.
Much bigger, more populous, more advanced, stronger armed forces, plenty of anti-ship missiles, hundreds of miles of littoral overlooking the busiest oil route in the world, notoriously fanatical in defence. Much more difficult terrain and some very inconvenient borders.
Why this could funnel easily 4 or 5 times as much money to the military industrial complex as the Iraq affair! And hey, if it works out, even more oil, so...
Further, Launching strikes against iran would only serve to send the region even further into chaos since whether we like it or not, Iran is one of the 3 de facto powers in the region (Turkey and SA being the other ones since while Israel is indeed a pocket hulk it isn't interested in any sort of relations with it's neighbors).
Like, after iraq collapsed and syria nearly went under it should be blindingly obvious that removing order and structure from the region is not in anyone's interest.
Further, Launching strikes against iran would only serve to send the region even further into chaos since whether we like it or not, Iran is one of the 3 de facto powers in the region (Turkey and SA being the other ones since while Israel is indeed a pocket hulk it isn't interested in any sort of relations with it's neighbors).
Like, after iraq collapsed and syria nearly went under it should be blindingly obvious that removing order and structure from the region is not in anyone's interest.
I disagree with this. Israel has been interested in relations with its neighbors historically specifically because Israel has been invaded more than once. Israeli policy makers' desire for relations with neighbors began almost literally with the 1948 war when they were negotiating with Jordan as soon as the war began (and Jordan reciprocated interest in a relationship re: Black September), negotiated a peace treaty with Egypt, and were 99% of the way to a treaty with Syria in 2000 but Clinton couldn't push them that last 1%.
Further, Launching strikes against iran would only serve to send the region even further into chaos since whether we like it or not, Iran is one of the 3 de facto powers in the region (Turkey and SA being the other ones since while Israel is indeed a pocket hulk it isn't interested in any sort of relations with it's neighbors).
Like, after iraq collapsed and syria nearly went under it should be blindingly obvious that removing order and structure from the region is not in anyone's interest.
What do you mean Israel has no interest in their neighbors? Israel is probably the most influential power in the Middle East at this point.
Further, Launching strikes against iran would only serve to send the region even further into chaos since whether we like it or not, Iran is one of the 3 de facto powers in the region (Turkey and SA being the other ones since while Israel is indeed a pocket hulk it isn't interested in any sort of relations with it's neighbors).
Like, after iraq collapsed and syria nearly went under it should be blindingly obvious that removing order and structure from the region is not in anyone's interest.
I disagree with this. Israel has been interested in relations with its neighbors historically specifically because Israel has been invaded more than once. Israeli policy makers' desire for relations with neighbors began almost literally with the 1948 war when they were negotiating with Jordan as soon as the war began (and Jordan reciprocated interest in a relationship re: Black September), negotiated a peace treaty with Egypt, and were 99% of the way to a treaty with Syria in 2000 but Clinton couldn't push them that last 1%.
And haven't Israel and Saudi Arabia been in lock step FP wise lately?
Further, Launching strikes against iran would only serve to send the region even further into chaos since whether we like it or not, Iran is one of the 3 de facto powers in the region (Turkey and SA being the other ones since while Israel is indeed a pocket hulk it isn't interested in any sort of relations with it's neighbors).
Like, after iraq collapsed and syria nearly went under it should be blindingly obvious that removing order and structure from the region is not in anyone's interest.
I disagree with this. Israel has been interested in relations with its neighbors historically specifically because Israel has been invaded more than once. Israeli policy makers' desire for relations with neighbors began almost literally with the 1948 war when they were negotiating with Jordan as soon as the war began (and Jordan reciprocated interest in a relationship re: Black September), negotiated a peace treaty with Egypt, and were 99% of the way to a treaty with Syria in 2000 but Clinton couldn't push them that last 1%.
And haven't Israel and Saudi Arabia been in lock step FP wise lately?
Saudi Arabia and Israel are really unified in FP by a general hatred of Iran for various reasons, and other than that don't like each other very much. But Iran is a regional power and despite almost global dislike against them, they're a tough enemy to have.
Israel and Egypt are also quite tight. Back in the Mubarak age top intelligence guys would meet up. The ties are more open these days so I assume the cooperation is still high.
So striking Iran would be met with disaster, underlining the end of American global power and airstrikes as a tool of the west?
I wonder which Eurasian power suggested that this would be a good plan, and a way of showing you're still a real man after surrendering to Turkey?
So striking Iran would be met with disaster, underlining the end of American global power and airstrikes as a tool of the west?
I wonder which Eurasian power suggested that this would be a good plan, and a way of showing you're still a real man after surrendering to Turkey?
Uhh, is Saudi Arabia considered part of Eurasia, or no?
So striking Iran would be met with disaster, underlining the end of American global power and airstrikes as a tool of the west?
I wonder which Eurasian power suggested that this would be a good plan, and a way of showing you're still a real man after surrendering to Turkey?
Uhh, is Saudi Arabia considered part of Eurasia, or no?
For Trump, yes. That's the alliance we're talking about.
So striking Iran would be met with disaster, underlining the end of American global power and airstrikes as a tool of the west?
I wonder which Eurasian power suggested that this would be a good plan, and a way of showing you're still a real man after surrendering to Turkey?
Uhh, is Saudi Arabia considered part of Eurasia, or no?
The middle east is considered part of Asia, isn't it?
Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.
Much bigger, more populous, more advanced, stronger armed forces, plenty of anti-ship missiles, hundreds of miles of littoral overlooking the busiest oil route in the world, notoriously fanatical in defence. Much more difficult terrain and some very inconvenient borders.
Why this could funnel easily 4 or 5 times as much money to the military industrial complex as the Iraq affair! And hey, if it works out, even more oil, so...
We never actually got all that much oil from Iraq anyway, it only sounds nice as an anti-war bumper sticker.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Attacking Iran would be like attacking Iraq: one of the greatest mistakes America ever made. And Iran is more functional than its twin, which presumably means a better-equipped and trained military.
Much bigger, more populous, more advanced, stronger armed forces, plenty of anti-ship missiles, hundreds of miles of littoral overlooking the busiest oil route in the world, notoriously fanatical in defence. Much more difficult terrain and some very inconvenient borders.
Why this could funnel easily 4 or 5 times as much money to the military industrial complex as the Iraq affair! And hey, if it works out, even more oil, so...
We never actually got all that much oil from Iraq anyway, it only sounds nice as an anti-war bumper sticker.
I think there was a plan to extract resources, it's just the people in charge of the plan were children.
So striking Iran would be met with disaster, underlining the end of American global power and airstrikes as a tool of the west?
I wonder which Eurasian power suggested that this would be a good plan, and a way of showing you're still a real man after surrendering to Turkey?
Uhh, is Saudi Arabia considered part of Eurasia, or no?
The middle east is considered part of Asia, isn't it?
Yeah but the Arabian Peninsula is almost completely surrounded by water, moreso than say the Indian sub-continent. I was mostly just being cute, but I thought there was a chance some definition would exclude Arabia.
Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake even if we do win that war. The last thing we need is for there to be yet another power vacuum in the region.
It's instructive to look at which countries Iran borders and where.
Back when I was younger, I really did honestly think the US was going to invade Iran one day since both Iraq and Afghanistan boarder it and we were setting up for an invasion from both sides.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Well isn't that a totally unsurprising turn of events.
Yup. And one of the long-term consequences of Trump's shitbaggery is being exacerbated by Republicans.
Because if it was just Trump, a lot could be forgiven by America's allies relatively quickly. But because Republicans have aligned themselves so closely, dismissing the teasonably legitimate claims against him, it taints the entire party, and hence those allies have to consider not just the possibility, but the likelihood that America switches from reasonable governance to batshit crazy every couple of elections, and that the full weight of governance will typically only push the agenda of the batshit crazy.
Foreign leaders may have to still negotiate with America, but there'll be a hesitance. And unlike the general public*, they're not going to accept a "we never liked him anyway" after years of giving him their full support.
* GWB was still President less than a decade ago.
So Republicans need to understand that they aren't just fucking up.the here and now. This could be decades of fuckery.
That McConnell, and a good portion of the Legislature aren't storming to the White House and telling Trump to shut the fuck up about NATO, makes them complicit. This is NOT the kind of thing you muse about, even in private. Especially with such a leaky fucking Administration.
Really is amazing how nearly all of Trump's foreign policy desires align almost perfectly with Russian interests
Amazing how there's no written record of Trump's interactions with DiDi Putin even though that violates the law
Truly remarkable and surprising how much Trump appears to be in debt and owned by Russia
Fascinating
But voicing said fascination is met with shock and outrage, despite mountains of evidence. But 5 years of Birth Certificate, 4 years of Benghazi, a year of "her emails", those were all justified questions. Apparently.
My January/February issue of Foreign Affairs came in while I was home during the break and Elizabeth Warren had an essay published in this issue. It's an interesting take on US foreign policy and while I have some disagreements and I think Warren misses some nuances, there are three great points she makes:
1. Free Trade has not been a successful policy for US labor
2. The US diplomatic corps needs to be revitalized
3. Education and science funding aren't just inherently good, they also serve a national security function
It's a good essay with some interesting arguments in it, I would recommend reading it. It's available on FA's website, I'm unsure if it's behind a paywall.
My January/February issue of Foreign Affairs came in while I was home during the break and Elizabeth Warren had an essay published in this issue. It's an interesting take on US foreign policy and while I have some disagreements and I think Warren misses some nuances, there are three great points she makes:
1. Free Trade has not been a successful policy for US labor
2. The US diplomatic corps needs to be revitalized
3. Education and science funding aren't just inherently good, they also serve a national security function
It's a good essay with some interesting arguments in it, I would recommend reading it. It's available on FA's website, I'm unsure if it's behind a paywall.
Really is amazing how nearly all of Trump's foreign policy desires align almost perfectly with Russian interests
Amazing how there's no written record of Trump's interactions with DiDi Putin even though that violates the law
Truly remarkable and surprising how much Trump appears to be in debt and owned by Russia
Fascinating
But voicing said fascination is met with shock and outrage, despite mountains of evidence. But 5 years of Birth Certificate, 4 years of Benghazi, a year of "her emails", those were all justified questions. Apparently.
The republican party is most likely fully involved, at least those in power
Haven't read the article, but is this new movement? Or old stuff from the campaign?
Cause I'm pretty sure I remember something about that during the 2016 campaign.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
No, that was just about whether we would honor article 5, because Trump is an iduot who doesn't understand how NATO works. This, if you can believe it, is much worse.
Mr. Trump’s skepticism of NATO appears to be a core belief, administration officials said, akin to his desire to expropriate Iraq’s oil. While officials have explained multiple times why the United States cannot take Iraq’s oil, Mr. Trump returns to the issue every few months.
... still?! I guess he just stopped talking about in public as much, but is still all about it.
Mr. Trump’s skepticism of NATO appears to be a core belief, administration officials said, akin to his desire to expropriate Iraq’s oil. While officials have explained multiple times why the United States cannot take Iraq’s oil, Mr. Trump returns to the issue every few months.
... still?! I guess he just stopped talking about in public as much, but is still all about it.
I don't think Trump remembers people who don't agree with him, tell him he shouldn't do the thing he wants to do, and explain that the world does not work the way he thinks it does. So of course he comes back to those things over and over again, because he was never convinced he was actually in the less-than-absolutely-right.
I mean, this is the man who insisted the Central Park Five were still guilty after they'd been proven to have been innocent.
Posts
I agree, with one of the big foreign policy initiatives of the Iranian revolutionary guard has been to recruit, train and supply materiel to the various Shiite populations throughout the Middle East.
Any attack would likely trigger insurgent attacks throughout the region.
Much bigger, more populous, more advanced, stronger armed forces, plenty of anti-ship missiles, hundreds of miles of littoral overlooking the busiest oil route in the world, notoriously fanatical in defence. Much more difficult terrain and some very inconvenient borders.
Why this could funnel easily 4 or 5 times as much money to the military industrial complex as the Iraq affair! And hey, if it works out, even more oil, so...
Like, after iraq collapsed and syria nearly went under it should be blindingly obvious that removing order and structure from the region is not in anyone's interest.
I disagree with this. Israel has been interested in relations with its neighbors historically specifically because Israel has been invaded more than once. Israeli policy makers' desire for relations with neighbors began almost literally with the 1948 war when they were negotiating with Jordan as soon as the war began (and Jordan reciprocated interest in a relationship re: Black September), negotiated a peace treaty with Egypt, and were 99% of the way to a treaty with Syria in 2000 but Clinton couldn't push them that last 1%.
What do you mean Israel has no interest in their neighbors? Israel is probably the most influential power in the Middle East at this point.
And haven't Israel and Saudi Arabia been in lock step FP wise lately?
Yes. And more openly so too.
I wonder which Eurasian power suggested that this would be a good plan, and a way of showing you're still a real man after surrendering to Turkey?
Uhh, is Saudi Arabia considered part of Eurasia, or no?
For Trump, yes. That's the alliance we're talking about.
The middle east is considered part of Asia, isn't it?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
We never actually got all that much oil from Iraq anyway, it only sounds nice as an anti-war bumper sticker.
I think there was a plan to extract resources, it's just the people in charge of the plan were children.
Yeah but the Arabian Peninsula is almost completely surrounded by water, moreso than say the Indian sub-continent. I was mostly just being cute, but I thought there was a chance some definition would exclude Arabia.
Hasbro geopolitics.
It's instructive to look at which countries Iran borders and where.
Back when I was younger, I really did honestly think the US was going to invade Iran one day since both Iraq and Afghanistan boarder it and we were setting up for an invasion from both sides.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Amy Fiscus is a New York Times writer
Pretty nuts but also not surprising, I guess.
Yup. And one of the long-term consequences of Trump's shitbaggery is being exacerbated by Republicans.
Because if it was just Trump, a lot could be forgiven by America's allies relatively quickly. But because Republicans have aligned themselves so closely, dismissing the teasonably legitimate claims against him, it taints the entire party, and hence those allies have to consider not just the possibility, but the likelihood that America switches from reasonable governance to batshit crazy every couple of elections, and that the full weight of governance will typically only push the agenda of the batshit crazy.
Foreign leaders may have to still negotiate with America, but there'll be a hesitance. And unlike the general public*, they're not going to accept a "we never liked him anyway" after years of giving him their full support.
* GWB was still President less than a decade ago.
So Republicans need to understand that they aren't just fucking up.the here and now. This could be decades of fuckery.
That McConnell, and a good portion of the Legislature aren't storming to the White House and telling Trump to shut the fuck up about NATO, makes them complicit. This is NOT the kind of thing you muse about, even in private. Especially with such a leaky fucking Administration.
Amazing how there's no written record of Trump's interactions with DiDi Putin even though that violates the law
Truly remarkable and surprising how much Trump appears to be in debt and owned by Russia
Fascinating
But voicing said fascination is met with shock and outrage, despite mountains of evidence. But 5 years of Birth Certificate, 4 years of Benghazi, a year of "her emails", those were all justified questions. Apparently.
1. Free Trade has not been a successful policy for US labor
2. The US diplomatic corps needs to be revitalized
3. Education and science funding aren't just inherently good, they also serve a national security function
It's a good essay with some interesting arguments in it, I would recommend reading it. It's available on FA's website, I'm unsure if it's behind a paywall.
Found it - no paywall.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-11-29/foreign-policy-all
Putin's plan is coming to its final stages
The republican party is most likely fully involved, at least those in power
Haven't read the article, but is this new movement? Or old stuff from the campaign?
Cause I'm pretty sure I remember something about that during the 2016 campaign.
How hard is it to learn Russian, do you think?
"OH HAI"
- Newly remilitarised Europe
It's not Hungarian or Finish, but it's not particularly easy. Cool sounding curse words at least.
... still?! I guess he just stopped talking about in public as much, but is still all about it.
I don't think Trump remembers people who don't agree with him, tell him he shouldn't do the thing he wants to do, and explain that the world does not work the way he thinks it does. So of course he comes back to those things over and over again, because he was never convinced he was actually in the less-than-absolutely-right.
I mean, this is the man who insisted the Central Park Five were still guilty after they'd been proven to have been innocent.