Jump to content

Middle East Crisis


Rayvin
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, ewerk said:


Sounds like the US did warn Israel against escalating things with Lebanon but they ignored them. Of course the US won’t take any action during election season.

Neteayahu will be happy because there is little damage, he has an excuse to attack Iran further, and knows that the US will not allow Iran to take decisive action without significant retribution.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ewerk said:


Sounds like the US did warn Israel against escalating things with Lebanon but they ignored them. Of course the US won’t take any action during election season.


In a nutshell. 

Surprise, surprise, as soon as Iran get involved, then they're getting interested and saying Israel has the right to defend itself. But Israel's incursion into Lebanon is fair-game? :rolleyes: Quite how they expected to take out the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah and not expect any retribution is utterly ridiculous. 

The US, and the UK should be calling for widescale de-escalation on all sides. But they won't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran didn’t like the fact Saudi and Israel were making friends so they used one of their proxies (Hamas) to launch the terrorist attack on Israel last october. They did so knowing Israel would pummel Gaza in response.
 

Netanyahu is going far beyond a reasonable response and is trying to wipe out all of Iran’s proxies on its doorstep by attacking hezbollah. I don’t think Iran wants war with Israel (its goals were to keep Israel as a pariah in the Arab world, so they achieved their objective).

 

But if Bibi is bold (or insane) enough to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities then, which I think he might be, they would respond in kind.
 

That’s when the US might intervene. The yanks hate the Iranian regime too and have been known to be invade and change regimes in that part of the world before. I don’t think there is much of an appetite for it however at this stage and neither presidential candidate wants to get involved in a new mess in the Middle East, which is why Netanyahu sees this as his chance to reshape the face of the Middle East and possibly cling to power if successful. 
 

That’s my analysis. I think Netanyahu is cut from the same cloth as Hamas and Hezbolllah and shoukd stand trial for war crimes 

Edited by Dr Gloom
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s probably good news for Trump’s charge for the presidency too because he can frame the narrative - the democrats allowed an escalation in the Middle East on their watch 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

It’s probably good news for Trump’s charge for the presidency too because he can frame the narrative - the democrats allowed an escalation in the Middle East on their watch 

It suits him down to the ground that Iran are kicking off now too as it gives him "just cause" to pick up right where he left off before covid took a massive shit on his plans in 2020.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

It’s probably good news for Trump’s charge for the presidency too because he can frame the narrative - the democrats allowed an escalation in the Middle East on their watch 


He met Netanyahu in Florida the other week, no hostages/ceasefire until after the election was the ask, guess it was a yes given the ramp up by the IDF.

 

I don’t buy the WW3 panic mongers either, Iran is hated (along with it’s proxies) throughout the arab world who have been bombing the Houthi’s (Iran backed) for years, led by our owners lot.

 

There’s a reasonably significant “modernisation” movement in Iran, Israel needs to make sure whatever they do it doesn’t unite, via outrage, wider Iranian opinion, by all means piss off/kill the ayatollah’s but limit civilian casualties (unfortunately they are shit at that).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Toonpack said:


He met Netanyahu in Florida the other week, no hostages/ceasefire until after the election was the ask, guess it was a yes given the ramp up by the IDF.

 

I don’t buy the WW3 panic mongers either, Iran is hated (along with it’s proxies) throughout the arab world who have been bombing the Houthi’s (Iran backed) for years, led by our owners lot.

 

There’s a reasonably significant “modernisation” movement in Iran, Israel needs to make sure whatever they do it doesn’t unite, via outrage, wider Iranian opinion, by all means piss off/kill the ayatollah’s but limit civilian casualties (unfortunately they are shit at that).

 

There seems to be people panicking that Iran have nuclear weapons but there has been little to no evidence to suggest they've managed to produce and / or test any actual missiles. That will be the US narrative if Trump gets in power though IMO, all very reminiscent of the post 9/11 waffle around Iraq.

 

Any excuse to lead ground troops back into the middle east, since it's been far too long since the military industrial complex benefited from a good war.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly dread to think what transpires with this and Ukraine if Trump wins - as it's starting to sound like he may.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I honestly dread to think what transpires with this and Ukraine if Trump wins - as it's starting to sound like he may.

 

I was being wined and dined last night by my American bosses. Least they could do for making me miss the match, although arguably that was a favour given the lack of goals. Anyway, they were terrified about the prospect of a Trump presidency. I pointed out so were we. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I honestly dread to think what transpires with this and Ukraine if Trump wins - as it's starting to sound like he may.

 

What transpires will be whatever Putin wants, in both cases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern is with voters in America who want Israel to stop killing civilians in Gaza and Lebanon are indicating they won't vote for Harris because of the current failure to protect those civilians. 

If Trump gets in, he will let Netanyahu do whatever he wants and will probably also support direct action against Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rayvin said:

I honestly dread to think what transpires with this and Ukraine if Trump wins - as it's starting to sound like he may.

 

I was having a debate with my old man the other day about PR v FPTP. I’ve always made the case for PR because it’s the most democratic form of democracy, every vote counts, it forms consensus-building, works in Europe etc.

 

He reckons FPTP and a smaller two party system, while less democratic, is a safer system because it protects democracy from extreme parties that want to overturn it. He has pointed to the gains the far right has made across Europe recently. We’ll find out in the US whether he’s right, or not. Because I genuinely think that’s what Trump wants. 
 

The consequences of a Trump victory for the US, for western democracy more broadly and the global order will be profound. Withdrawal from NATO, Ukraine would fall and where would an emboldened Putin march next? Trump threatened to overturn US democracy in 2020 when he lost - would he go further in his “last” term?
 

My dad thinks FPTP will stop another Trump victory. I’m less confident. He won in 2016. This race looks too close to call. I hope he’s right but I don’t know if the American public are ready to elect a black woman. 

Edited by Dr Gloom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I can see the validity of FPTP in relation to stopping Trump either. Given he’s won once and the simulations give him only a slightly lower chance of winning than Harris. Also, you could conceivably have Reform being the biggest party with less than 30% of the vote. It seemed impossible but look at how they’ve spread the vote and how many seats the Lib Democrats have and how it’s now a 5 horse, rather than a two horse race in England. Apart from FPTP not being fit for purpose, I think that scenario with Reform is more likely than extremism under PR. You have c. 60% of the vote going to ‘progressive’ parties at most GEs anyway. The other thing is FPTP delivering so many Tory governments. Which has essentially created terminal, insular decline 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Not sure I can see the validity of FPTP in relation to stopping Trump either. Given he’s won once and the simulations give him only a slightly lower chance of winning than Harris. Also, you could conceivably have Reform being the biggest party with less than 30% of the vote. It seemed impossible but look at how they’ve spread the vote and how many seats the Lib Democrats have and how it’s now a 5 horse, rather than a two horse race in England. Apart from FPTP not being fit for purpose, I think that scenario with Reform is more likely than extremism under PR. You have c. 60% of the vote going to ‘progressive’ parties at most GEs anyway. The other thing is FPTP delivering so many Tory governments. Which has essentially created terminal, insular decline 

 

i agree. my dad is an old school socialist - a card-carrying labour party member who used to take me canvassing as a boy - and we had many a row about corbyn when he was leader as my dad was a fan and blind to the antisemitism stuff for far too long. i argued that PR was in labour/the left's interests but he insists FPTP is the system which protects democracy best, because it wouldn't ever allow a a far-right party to win power - though he conceded it is less democratic.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

I think Netanyahu is cut from the same cloth as Hamas and Hezbolllah and shoukd stand trial for war crimes 

 

100% agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alex said:

Not sure I can see the validity of FPTP in relation to stopping Trump either. Given he’s won once and the simulations give him only a slightly lower chance of winning than Harris. Also, you could conceivably have Reform being the biggest party with less than 30% of the vote. It seemed impossible but look at how they’ve spread the vote and how many seats the Lib Democrats have and how it’s now a 5 horse, rather than a two horse race in England. Apart from FPTP not being fit for purpose, I think that scenario with Reform is more likely than extremism under PR. You have c. 60% of the vote going to ‘progressive’ parties at most GEs anyway. The other thing is FPTP delivering so many Tory governments. Which has essentially created terminal, insular decline 

 

How many people vote for Reform as a protest vote, knowing fine well that under FPTP they are not a serious contender on a nationwide level. I suspect many who voted for them may consider differently if it was under PR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Craig said:

 

How many people vote for Reform as a protest vote, knowing fine well that under FPTP they are not a serious contender on a nationwide level. I suspect many who voted for them may consider differently if it was under PR. 

They clearly aren’t that savvy in terms of the electoral system since I doubt many of them did it to hand labour a huge majority. Yet they were a major factor in that and anyone looking into it a bit would have known that was the pre-election prediction too. Focussing on them kind of misses the point imo, in terms of revealing the absurdity of FPTP in a post-truth, multiple party, do your research via Facebook age. To give a more concrete example, the data modelling suggests that if an election were held today, Labour would have a majority of 82 with about 30% of the popular vote. I.e. larger than Johnson’s ‘landslide’ in 2019

Edited by Alex
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I was reading just before that the reason in particular Israel have sort of walked into this one is because Netanyahu refuses to launch an independent inquiry into the initial attack by Hamas, fearing it will expose him as being responsible for security failures. Had he done this, the arrest warrant wouldn't have been issued as the ICC would have entrusted the process to Israel's courts. He will have known this, so he clearly has something to hide.

 

I think it's clear anyway that the focus of this war has switched from defeating Hamas to expanding Israeli land though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.