Bingo and as another talking head pointed out, and I forgot who, Iran was extremely muted in it's response similar to it's token pro forma response against the US for killing Qasem Soleimani. In Iraq, Iran literally called the US and warned them of the time and place of the attack to ensure the US could prepare for it's defense and then chose to use easily mitigated means in it's attack. Likewise in Israel, Iran intentionally used slow moving high visibility weapons that provided HOURS of notice to allow Israel and it's defenders to prepare; and they did hence no casualties or real damage. In both cases, as in nearly all other cases involving the West, Iran was the initially aggrieved party.
This entire post should be s/Israel/Iran/ who needs to really step up and create a meaningful deterrent as both Israel and the US seem to think it's open season on uniformed Iranian government officials as well as ok to attack them on their own Iranian sole. A good start would be an targeted assassination campaign against US generals as well as leveling a couple Israeli embassies without notice all while working even harder to get a couple nukes since Israel time and time again shows it's inability to resist bullying or restrain itself.
Arnold talks here about maybe Iranians are tired of a theocratic regime whereas generally time has shown attacking another nation tends to do the opposite regardless of it's prior internal derision. Also just a thought experiment but maybe Israeli's equally are tired of their apartheid government who prefer a constant system of war and wish to remove the Rabbis.
I was largely agreeing with your first paragraph. Lots of what's going on here is signalling and playing pretend.
But the second paragraph ... I don't think a consulate is considered the country's own soil. And the people Israel killed were there to assist locals to attack Israel. I wouldn't feel too bad if the Massachusetts Air National Guard took out a few people in Rhode Island who were making life miserable for those living in SE Mass.
After a bit of searching, it seems you are correct about soil but I think that misses the point. Embassies have a special status and attacking one is very much like attacking the country's own soil.
In this game of signalling, I gather that the Israelis were trying to send a message, "If you send someone to help people attack us, we don't give a sh*t if you've stationed him in an embassy."
Have heard was not an embassy but a building next to it and moreover an embassy is not suppose get a pass if it is used for conducting military action.
It seems they can only be considered "key factors" if one were to ignore that Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues. Considering Iran has been supplying its proxy Hezbollah with the arms it is using to shell Israel's north, Israel's strike appears to be defensive.
Ironically (I wish I could think of a word stronger than "ironically"), much of the Jewish population of Israel is now Jews who arrived from other places in the Middle East, where they were basically ethnically cleansed by Arab/Muslim regimes. They aren't nice progressive European democrats. And they support a tough line toward the governments of their former countries.
Since 1948, the area has moved away from "diverse" multi-ethnic states toward many Muslim ethnostates (to use Freddie de Boer's term) and one Jewish ethnostate.
Isn't it funny what happens to the Human mind when it contemplates matters involving Israel?
I wonder: do you think 50++ years of propaganda can alter people's belief systems and subconscious, sub-perceptual heuristics? I think it would be HILARIOUS if that is true to some degree, but our culture is oblivious to it.
> It seems they can only be considered "key factors" if one were to ignore that Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues.
It sounds like you are saying that any event that occurred after that cannot be "key".
I am very suspicious that your reasoning may be imperfect, but I do not like to jump to conclusions. Are you willing to describe your reasoning, and defend it from critique?
I did not say that “any event that occurred after that cannot be ‘key’.” I stated that, in the context noted, the two points do not strike me as particularly “key” in terms of Israel’s prospective course.
> It seems they can only be considered "key factors" if one were to ignore that Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues.
Do you people not realize that conversation histories are persisted on here? Like, do you not see them if you are on mobile or something?
The "they" that you quoted from my original post, refers to the two specific points that I referenced, not -- as you suggested -- “any event that occurred after . . . .” Capisci?
> It seems they can only be considered "key factors" if one were to ignore that Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues.
You reference "key factors"
You say (it seems) these "key factors" [CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED] **IF** [one was to ignore that] [Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues].
Does this not imply that **BECAUSE** [Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues] THEREFORE [these "key factors"] [CANNOT be considered]?
Is there an alternate way that your words can be logically interpreted?
I think it's funny because what you are literally discussing is human cognition, and a human opining on proper (mandatory?) cognition *who then is unable to defend that claim* is like peak Allism (or peak Western Ideological Delusion, whatever).
Another relevant factor: if Israel directly attacks Iran, the Iranians will surely construct nuclear weapons, which they can do in a very short time. If the security of the regime is actually threatened, they will then use those weapons against Israel.
Please do not present your hallucinations of the future as facts, it is unprofessional, plausibly dangerous, and just plain old weird (even though it has become the de facto form of cognition in Western countries).
Come to think of it: Arnold fancies himself a bit of an expert on LLM's, I wonder if he has ever noticed that humans (of which he is one) do it *all the time*.
Was it an embassy or a military blast structure? It was clearly a military defense structure not an embassy structure. Did you notice the steel in the photos of the destroyed building clearly showing very highly reinforced and very deep concrete structure on top indicating a military blast design. It must have been hit with bunker buster bombs not the weapons that would be used on an ordinary building. Being a "bomb proof" bunker says it is not an embassy.
If it's on the embassy grounds I'm not sure that matters. Also, does US have highly reinforced structures on their embassy grounds in many/most countries? Would US consider attacks on these buildings to be attacks on the embassy? I expect so.
I am old enough to remember Iran violating every embassy norm possible and kidnapping Americans as hostages. Iran defined by actions that the Western norms for embassy protection don't apply to them. In dealing with Iran's present government, none of the embassy rules apply. They are Middle-Age barbarians in their beliefs and actions and not part of the civilized world.
I didn't even try to list everything Kling might have been better to consider. I merely thought one needed to include these two factors along with everything else when assessing what to do next.
Ive discussed this issue online with the following stance:
1) the United States should not “support” Israel with weapons or money. They have to defend themselves.
2) if they are truly defending themselves, the United States doesn’t need to have an opinion of how they do so. If they commit genocide is Gaza that is their own business.
People who support Israel hate this. They demand we give Israel unlimited support and immediately start a war with China/Russia/Iran because it’s inevitable anyway. We have to do so because of “our values”.
People who don’t support Israel say that allowing a genocide by an oppressor is against “our values” even if we have no ties to them.
I’m a bit tired of “our values”. Our values always seem to mean starting wars with people halfway around the world that have done nothing to me.
Iran isn’t going to be different than any other Middle East shithole. And it won’t stop with Iran. The people who want to attack Iran want to attack Russia and China too.
"Instead, it should treat this conflict as the war that it is. That means relentless attacks that serve to weaken Iran’s regime."
I suspect a lot of Iranians will rally 'round the regime in the face of external attacks by Israel, unless maybe (maaaybe) those attacks are confined specifically to regime security assets. That'll be a difficult needle to thread, I would think. I suspect this would actually strengthen the regime, at least in the short run.
I also don't know how Israel gets regime change in Iran without the US taking the lead, either, and there is little appetite for that in US public opinion. If I were Israel, I think I would focus more on Hezbollah as the more immediate threat.
You can't win a war with air attacks. Not possible short of nuclear weapons. See Vietnam, WW2, UK blitz, Afghanistan, etc. Is Israel going to send ground troops to attack Iran to win the war like they have done with Gaza? No chance. Bad idea.
You can hurt a lot of people and infrastructure from the air - "exact a deeply painful price". This further entrenches the current regime and enables them to gain popular support and savagely attack any internal opposition. See Vietnam, WW2, Afghanistan, etc.
Direct air attacks create a tit-for-tat response that can wreck both countries for decades. Israel has more to lose from this since it is a highly successful country. Iran is already a wreck.
The big picture is that decades of low-level conflicts with Iran and others have not prevented Israel from becoming one of the most successful countries in the world. Escalating to a high-level conflict puts Israel's success at risk. Will any US company set up factories or research projects in Israel while there is a high-level conflict?
There are no good or easy options here....
The way for Israel to "win" is likely by continuing to do what has worked very well for decades.
Israel has been "winning" the conflict for decades. It doesn't seem like it because the news media focuses exclusively on isolated violence rather than general prosperity. Israel is one of the most successful countries in the world. Iran and Hamas have been losing the conflict for decades. They are trying to change the game from win-lose to lose-lose. For them losing big with Israel also losing is preferable to losing small with Israel winning. Don't fall for their trap.
Jewish people seem to be becoming increasingly unpopular globally though. Then again, they seem to enjoy complaining about it endlessly (what's their marketing budget? I read an article on it once, it is *massive*), so maybe that is actually beneficial in some strange way.
Of course, they're becoming increasingly unpopular. As the most successful white people in the world, they must be powerful oppressors. Because, as we all know, all disparities are caused by oppression.
Well, there's that I suppose, but there is also a sort of magical aura around Jewish people as well, as if somehow there's an extra powerful force acting on people's minds. I think it's extremely fascinating watching humans discuss them while walking on eggshells. 😂
Bennett reminds one of the political criticism President Bush received after halting major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003: the Democrats were lined up in Congress attacking the failure to achieve total victory. Then of course, a few years later these same politicians were attacking Bush again for supposedly going to war in the first place, never mind the fiasco of Clinton’s no-fly zone fiasco. One suspects Netanyahu knows his detractors and what can be expected from them and that is not principled, or strategic, long term thinking.
No, the important issue is what is best for Israel’s long term interests. Give the senior US administration officials credit for stating the obvious:
“ senior administration official said Israel's successful defence was already a victory over Iran, and that the country should ‘think carefully’ about what it does next.
The odds that Israel can achieve regime change in Iran through military means seem long at best given Israel has yet to achieve regime change in Gaza much less Lebanon and continues to endure missile attacks from both quarters. A massive strike on Iran, however, will guarantee, however, an Iranian counterattack that may or may not be successful. Does Israel even have the anti-missile weapon reserves to handle another attack like the one it just suffered?
Israel received support from both Jordan and Saudi Arabia in thwarting the Iranian attack on Israel. Preserving that partnership is of long term importance to Israel. Any attack on Iran ought not threaten those relationships. Iran has not attacked either Jordan or Saudi Arabia directly in response to their defensive aid. Maintaining these relationship can plausibly be considered of more strategic importance than the alleged message of strength that would be carried by a revenge attack.
Importantly, Iran framed its attack as a reprisal for the bombing of a facility in Damascus killing senior Iranian military. Iran claims that the facility was diplomatic, Israel claims it was a military facility. At least in the newspapers I’ve seen, Iran seems to have won that framing battle. Although the issue of whether an attack on diplomatic facilities conforms to international law is contentious, Israel did do something that many if not most people around the world would consider to have been a significant escalation in itself and that Iran was within its rights to respond as it did.
Israel’s economy is suffering at the moment (https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-794580 ) and its reliance on the US for weapons represents a dangerous ceding of autonomy. One would think that Israel would want to be in the strongest position possible before triggering another escalation. Arien Beery makes a case for not striking back today so that Israel can strike back stronger tomorrow that would seem to sum up these points: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/go-long-againstof -iran/ But even he is deluded by the notion of “swift resolution to the Gaza War.” Perhaps it will be enough in the short term to keep Hamas contained.
And the war council seems to be proceeding along these lines as they seek a Goldilocks solution, perhaps hitting proxies or launching a deniable cyberattack. (https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-794580 ). Launching a regime-change campaign on Iran doesn’t seem to pass a cost benefit analysis and is not likely feasible militarily anyway. I have faith that the war council will find a better long term approach.
Naftali Bennett's point that a successful defense is not a win is correct, never mind the US regime, Arnold wrote: "Unless Prime Minister Netanyahu is as dense as his detractors believe, he must be thinking along similar lines." I don't think anyone who follows Israeli affairs or who has read his recent autobiography would entertain even for second the idea that he is "dense." I suppose that his detractors (the Israeli Left) are possessed by the same obsessive malevolence toward him that our Left exhibits in regard to President Trump, which results in irrational denigration driven by emotional needs. All men have their faults, often grave, but the difference between a rational critical assessment and the expression of unqualified animosity is always obvious and says more about the source than about the object.
"Netanyahu Derangement Syndrome" is definitely a thing, just like Bush, Trump, and all the other non-leftist-in-power derangement syndromes. In the course of the same conversation I heard a lawyer talk about attending a wonderful evening in which he personally contributed a sizable sum to help to host a Supreme Court Justice (who, you know, might hear one of his firm's cases one day) in a very lavish manner, then condemn Netanyahu as obviously criminally corrupt and deserving of immediate removal from office and imprisonment for much less.
This intellectual degeneration has gotten to the point that anytime I hear anyone quote Emerson's, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ... " line, I reflexively want to throw up.
"It seems to me that the Obama-Biden approach was to try to work with the Iranian regime and to attempt to change Israel’s regime. Perhaps that is the opposite of what they should have been thinking."
I'll be more emphatic. You hear a lot about Trump supporters, and even Republicans in general, being 'isolationists' along the line of the 'America First' movement in the 1930s. It's pretty clear this is exactly backwards. The Obama-Biden 'America Last' vision is for an America economically fettered by dependence on China for critical industrial materials and infrastructure, and diplomatically fettered by independent regional powers in Europe and Southwest Asia, specifically the EU and Iran. Contrary to popular misconception we were never economically integrated in the globalized economy and our military power gave us freedom of action throughout the Cold War. A similarly economically free America, especially with secure energy supplies, allied with other independent democratic states, would be the force to face down Russian, Chinese, and Iranian aggression. It is clear that the Democrats can not form such a coalition since they are infected by a Fifth Column that expresses admiration for dictatorships like China and Iran, much like the statist admiration for Hitler and Mussolini that was present in the 1930s Democrat Party. 'American First' in the 1930s was wrong to not more forcefully oppose Hitler's Germany but they were wrong in recognizing there was no way to cut deals with him.
Trumps Middle East policy was vastly superior to bidens.
I can’t speak for Iran, but I don’t think we are in an ideological conflict with Russia or China. We have realpolitik differences. The conflict should be treated the way 1815-1914 conflict were treated.
One reason people were sour on confronting Hitler is that the Kaiser was sold as being Hitler but he wasn’t (whatever flaws he had).
Ww1 was the price of making a realpolitik war into an ideological war.
I agree with you about Russia. But I think there's a real ideological conflict with China. Xi is really serious about "socialism with Chinese characteristics"; he really believes it cannot co-exist with capitalism. He believes the first wrong step the Soviet Union took was to denounce Stalin.
Another interesting essay topic could be titled "An American, Democrat-voting Jew's Choices."
For several decades I (and many other Cassandras) have been accurately warning such people that the status of (a) Jews in general (as a group that gets deemed "historically oppressed" and thus inside the intersectional allies "treaty organization" instead of ejected as "white adjacent pact" 'vrag' group) and of (b) Israel in particular (entitled to secure existence as a Jewish state and held to the same standard as any other ally, with America as a strong ally reliably defending such a state of affairs) in both American progressive / leftist ideology and in Democrat party public messaging and internal policy, was completely untenable.
That is, as Auster put it, these are "unprincipled exceptions" destined to be rectified away, like a Marxian contradiction that would inevitably become heightened and reconciled to the detriment of Jews and Israel.
The political logic driving the evolutionary mechanism of leftism treats such expedient exceptions as irritating thorns in the side that are at best managed, hand-waved, rationalized, and only temporarily tolerated until the very moment some group's support is either unnecessary for electoral victory or so suicidality secure for other reasons so as to make the group's members indifferent to, or even come to cultishly embrace, their being thrown under the bus in this manner. These kinds of shifts really highlight the absurdity of Bryan Caplan's political theory of an "anti-market" left and "anti-left" right.
This once merely predictable untenability has proven to be such, revealed by the elite academic and Biden administration's reactions to the massacre. Everyone knows the Clintonites would have behaved completely differently. An American Jew who supports Israel and votes for Democrats could have voted for Clinton without too much naivete or too many qualms as regards this matter, but is now clearly voting affirmatively against the interests of Jews and Israel.
And so, a choice must be made.
I fear many will go Full Converso and make the wrong one.
It has been frankly shamefully embarrassing to hear otherwise brilliantly persuasive people try desperately to avoid the ugly reality of this unfortunate predicament and come up with 'explanations' for why this isn't necessarily so while being unable to address even the most obvious objections. It's like watching a slow-motion, cognitive-dissonance-driven, nervous breakdown happen in real time right before your eyes.
This is the mental anguish and grief of a break-up of once-strong but now unrequited love the end of which one refuses to accept. "Listen carefully, I don't love you anymore, now I hate you" met with, "I can't quit you." Left-leaning American Jews have invested so much of their sense of themselves and the world in the idea that Republicans are the worst thing in the universe that they cannot even contemplate flipping to the other side, and so feel they politically have "no other place to go" (ahem, Israel was founded based on analogous considerations.) But if the American left gets Jewish support even without having to be pro-Jew or pro-Israel, then it will happily dump those inconsistent positions, just as happened with the left a long time ago in practically every other place in the world.
In addition to being more consistent with the tenets of progressive ideology, the demographic make-up of the electoral base of the Democratic Party has shifted to include a critical mass of rabidly anti-Israel voters in key battleground states.
Many leftist American Jews were - and continue to be - completely confused or in total denial about who their best friends and worst enemies are. An America with lots more Muslims who vote lots more for Democrats is going to have a Democratic Party turn against American support for Israel. Duh! Because it is considered impolite to say this obviously true fact, it has become impossible for progressive Jews to think it and face it in time to do anything about it, and now they are screwed. When people say, "Oh, come on, this PC / woke stuff is really just harmless civility right, what's the danger?" The danger is that people can't think straight about reality when certain ideas necessary for doing so are crimestopped because socially prohibited.
A tragically recurrent existential error throughout history has been the recruiting of external allies to help one defeat one's domestic opponents, only to discover too late and to one's horror that these same swords now swing at you too, the sword-wielders turn out to be less than permanently perfect servants and have their own ideas and interests, like, defeating you too.
As one example out of countless, in the several Macedonian wars (mostly in the first half of the second century BC), many Greek states repeatedly asked for rising-power Rome's help and intervention especially after Roman victories in the Second Punic War dramatically adjusted the balance of power in the Mediterranean. Soon enough, Rome took them all, and after the Battle of Corinth which broke the Achaean league, the whole city of about 100,000 people was destroyed so thoroughly - with even most building stones from the rubble removed to build those famous roads - that for the first time in six thousand years it went completely uninhabited for a century, something it seems that didn't occur even after the Bronze Age Collapse of the Mycenaean. The only reason people started to live there again was because after a hundred years the Romans decided to build a new city there in 44BC (just in time for sufficient growth that Paul would send epistles to the new Christians there, telling them women should be silent in church.)
Point is, one needs to be careful about who ones invites to help with one's fights. American Jews weren't. A related note is that """populism""" is apparently the worst thing in the world and only Republicans do it (despite mysteriously never delivering what their voters actually want) except when Democrats clearly do it even worse (and deliver!) by bowing to and servicing the prejudices of their many client identity groups, that is, by constantly agitating acrimony by following the script of their modern equivalent of a "passion play", and then conspicuously dumping in various ways on those opponent groups.
Sympathy for the devil is one thing, but voting for him is another. So yes, a choice must be made.
Let's not exaggerate. Even if we include not-mentioned-in-this-thread China it still isn't half. And it is at least as important to note it is an even smaller portion of the world's economy.
Be careful to assume that 100% of the population in each country mindlessly falls for their government's propaganda - I live in a Western country, and I am extremely anti-Western.
Then again, if your intent is propaganda and persuasion: carry on.
I was thinking only of the countries' governments and leadership. Individuals seems like a different issue to me but maybe not. Either way it's something to be aware of.
I note that most anti-western people living in western countries aren't enemies.
Of course, nowadays, to be anti-western is the height of respectability in many western places: high-powered universities, major media (NYT, NPR), non-profits, etc.
While it is true that "Iran has been at war with Israel for years,' I don't think it is a coincidence that Iran's proxy Hamas launched its attack on Israel on October 7th, after it had become clear that the US and its allies had squandered large quantities of munitions and military equipment on the failed Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russia. The timing was certainly convenient for Iran's friend Russia, since the Biden Administration's attention would now be diverted to another conflict. As I have said before, getting entangled in a land-based war of attrition in Russia's backyard was inherently stupid, but the stupidity was compounded by the failure to anticipate that the Ukraine-Russia conflict might have repercussions in the Middle East. These people suffer from the delusion that they are the world's puppet masters. Now the Administration is stuck between a rock and a hard place: they need to keep propping up Ukraine until the election, even though it is clear that Ukraine is a lost cause, and they also need to keep the Israel-Iran conflict contained at Israel's expense. Keep your expectations low.
It seems Israel should be leveraging the Iranian public's significant discontent with the current Iranian regime. I would be surprised if Mossad and CIA has not established relationships with internal groups which would love an opportunity to foment insurrection given the right amount of military support. It is hard to see any other realistic alternative for Israel that would have a lasting, beneficial security impact. Insofar as the U.S. has an interest in such regime change, it would make sense for it to work with the Israelis in bringing this about.
I'm curious what you expect Israel to achieve here.
Let's suppose that the US did manage to overthrow the Iranian regime. (Let's be honest -- this is not something Israel itself can really achieve). Maybe the new government would be slightly more pro-Israel, but perhaps not, or even the reverse. Look at the example of Iraq and ISIS.
Then what? Israel still won't be secure, at least not as secure as they would like to be, because they're a tiny nation with a tiny population and practically every state in the region is hostile to them. Is the US supposed to overthrow the government of every Arab country?
The problem is basically economic, demographic and logistic. Jews are a tiny minority in the region and control a tiny territory, and it's just basically impossible to be secure under those conditions. Although they've done quite well so far, the level of security they want requires more people and more territory, and while they've had some success in improving their birthrate, meaningfully expanding their territory is just impossible.
It's unfortunate, but at this point I think the best option for Jews would be to acknowledge that it's just impossible to have a homeland which is a) secure b) Jewish and c) in the Middle East. Compromising on the first means just permanently accepting a power differential relative to the hostile regimes which surround them and trying to survive as well as possible. Compromising on the second would mean integrating the Palestinians and becoming a mixed nation with a large Arab population, as countries like France and Sweden have in fact already done. Similarly to the populations of those countries, Jews would experience a worse standard of living and suffer discrimination and physical violence, but it would not be impossible to survive and everyday life would probably be bearable. The last option would be to give up and go somewhere else, perhaps to the United States, where Jews can still enjoy peace, a certain cultural influence and a high standard of living. Sad as it may be, I think this is probably the best option for the typical Israeli.
Tit for tat response makes no sense and regardless of the extent of the response Iran says they will strongly retaliate; i take them at their word. So, if Israel to respond it needs to be meaningful as Iran will respond.
US wants to avoid a wider conflict; sorry but that is not going to be avoidable once Israel respond and Iran then do something. So, escalation seems inevitable and US will be drawn in to again assist Israel in its defense; hard to see it any other way.
Only way US not to be brought in to fray will be if Israel does not respond and if it does Iran sits still. That seems improbable.
Israel's mind control over Westerners is nothing short of amazing, when the topic of discussion is anything involving Jewish people, people's cognitive abilities drop down to somewhere in the neighbourhood of a teenager who read a book above their reading level.
I think it is hilarious how childish and utterly incapable of logic Western culture is here in 2024.
I realize I'm jeopardizing a mostly reasonable conversation we were having on another thread but your assessment of people generally in support of Israel is what seems rather childish to me.
Some people are always childish and utterly incapable of logic. Everyone is sometimes childish and utterly incapable of logic.
Historical treatment of Jews has resulted in somewhat unique treatment of Israel. Is that justified? I'd say in some degree but IDK. Is it unique in the right ways? Surely not perfectly, maybe mostly not. However wrong it might be, I don't think policy and general thinking towards Israel is childish or illogical. Saying that it is suggests arrogance, overconfidence, incomplete knowledge, or some combination thereof.
I'm not sure how to answer that. It doesn't seem like something one can attach a probability. By comparison, maybe I'd say your claim is about as likely as Trump having lost the election due to fraud.
... Now that I wrote that, I see another similarity. I have no doubt there was some fraud in the election, discovered or not. It is just extremely unlikely to be great enough to make any difference in the outcome. Likewise, there are no doubt people exactly as you describe but they are surely vastly outnumbered by those whose cognitive abilities are always at that level, those so ill-informed that cognitive ability isn't even an issue, and those whose logic is as good or better than yours or mine.
This American doesn't believe that you can be tolerant with people who belief systems are barbaric middle age religious nonsense and clearly totally intolerant. True believers like Hamas and related Islamic believers are incompatible with a civilized society and will continue to attack civilization.
After killing millions for almost a 100 years, the Christian believers figured out that fighting over imaginary gods was a negative sum game. Only the surviving "leaders" could possibly win.
Killing the leadership of Iran may get the "negative sum game" concept through to the minds of the believers.
It seems your analysis is missing two key factors:
Iran's attack was in response to an attack on their embassy.
Iran's attack was telegraphed (I hear). It was largely symbolic.
Neither factor makes Iran the good guy but both seem critical in formulating further action.
Bingo and as another talking head pointed out, and I forgot who, Iran was extremely muted in it's response similar to it's token pro forma response against the US for killing Qasem Soleimani. In Iraq, Iran literally called the US and warned them of the time and place of the attack to ensure the US could prepare for it's defense and then chose to use easily mitigated means in it's attack. Likewise in Israel, Iran intentionally used slow moving high visibility weapons that provided HOURS of notice to allow Israel and it's defenders to prepare; and they did hence no casualties or real damage. In both cases, as in nearly all other cases involving the West, Iran was the initially aggrieved party.
This entire post should be s/Israel/Iran/ who needs to really step up and create a meaningful deterrent as both Israel and the US seem to think it's open season on uniformed Iranian government officials as well as ok to attack them on their own Iranian sole. A good start would be an targeted assassination campaign against US generals as well as leveling a couple Israeli embassies without notice all while working even harder to get a couple nukes since Israel time and time again shows it's inability to resist bullying or restrain itself.
Arnold talks here about maybe Iranians are tired of a theocratic regime whereas generally time has shown attacking another nation tends to do the opposite regardless of it's prior internal derision. Also just a thought experiment but maybe Israeli's equally are tired of their apartheid government who prefer a constant system of war and wish to remove the Rabbis.
I was largely agreeing with your first paragraph. Lots of what's going on here is signalling and playing pretend.
But the second paragraph ... I don't think a consulate is considered the country's own soil. And the people Israel killed were there to assist locals to attack Israel. I wouldn't feel too bad if the Massachusetts Air National Guard took out a few people in Rhode Island who were making life miserable for those living in SE Mass.
After a bit of searching, it seems you are correct about soil but I think that misses the point. Embassies have a special status and attacking one is very much like attacking the country's own soil.
In this game of signalling, I gather that the Israelis were trying to send a message, "If you send someone to help people attack us, we don't give a sh*t if you've stationed him in an embassy."
Maybe so but the point was that Iran was signaling, not truly attacking.
1) 300 missiles seems like more than just signalling.
2) If they were just signalling, what were they signalling?
Have heard was not an embassy but a building next to it and moreover an embassy is not suppose get a pass if it is used for conducting military action.
"Arnold talks here about maybe Iranians are tired of a theocratic regime"
Wait a minute. I thought you were going to say, "Israel is tired of its evil theocratic regime."
It seems they can only be considered "key factors" if one were to ignore that Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues. Considering Iran has been supplying its proxy Hezbollah with the arms it is using to shell Israel's north, Israel's strike appears to be defensive.
The problem is that list of tit for tat goes back as far as when Jews decided a talking bush gave them a mandate to ethnically cleanse the area.
Yeah.
Ironically (I wish I could think of a word stronger than "ironically"), much of the Jewish population of Israel is now Jews who arrived from other places in the Middle East, where they were basically ethnically cleansed by Arab/Muslim regimes. They aren't nice progressive European democrats. And they support a tough line toward the governments of their former countries.
Since 1948, the area has moved away from "diverse" multi-ethnic states toward many Muslim ethnostates (to use Freddie de Boer's term) and one Jewish ethnostate.
I disagree one must ignore other factors in order to consider these two factors.
Isn't it funny what happens to the Human mind when it contemplates matters involving Israel?
I wonder: do you think 50++ years of propaganda can alter people's belief systems and subconscious, sub-perceptual heuristics? I think it would be HILARIOUS if that is true to some degree, but our culture is oblivious to it.
> It seems they can only be considered "key factors" if one were to ignore that Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues.
It sounds like you are saying that any event that occurred after that cannot be "key".
I am very suspicious that your reasoning may be imperfect, but I do not like to jump to conclusions. Are you willing to describe your reasoning, and defend it from critique?
I did not say that “any event that occurred after that cannot be ‘key’.” I stated that, in the context noted, the two points do not strike me as particularly “key” in terms of Israel’s prospective course.
lol, I literally quoted your text:
> It seems they can only be considered "key factors" if one were to ignore that Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues.
Do you people not realize that conversation histories are persisted on here? Like, do you not see them if you are on mobile or something?
This simulation is getting stranger every day! 😂
The "they" that you quoted from my original post, refers to the two specific points that I referenced, not -- as you suggested -- “any event that occurred after . . . .” Capisci?
> It seems they can only be considered "key factors" if one were to ignore that Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues.
You reference "key factors"
You say (it seems) these "key factors" [CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED] **IF** [one was to ignore that] [Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues].
Does this not imply that **BECAUSE** [Iran's war against Israel began long before Israel took out Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his IRGC colleagues] THEREFORE [these "key factors"] [CANNOT be considered]?
Is there an alternate way that your words can be logically interpreted?
I think it's funny because what you are literally discussing is human cognition, and a human opining on proper (mandatory?) cognition *who then is unable to defend that claim* is like peak Allism (or peak Western Ideological Delusion, whatever).
Thoughts?
Another relevant factor: if Israel directly attacks Iran, the Iranians will surely construct nuclear weapons, which they can do in a very short time. If the security of the regime is actually threatened, they will then use those weapons against Israel.
Please do not present your hallucinations of the future as facts, it is unprofessional, plausibly dangerous, and just plain old weird (even though it has become the de facto form of cognition in Western countries).
Come to think of it: Arnold fancies himself a bit of an expert on LLM's, I wonder if he has ever noticed that humans (of which he is one) do it *all the time*.
Was it an embassy or a military blast structure? It was clearly a military defense structure not an embassy structure. Did you notice the steel in the photos of the destroyed building clearly showing very highly reinforced and very deep concrete structure on top indicating a military blast design. It must have been hit with bunker buster bombs not the weapons that would be used on an ordinary building. Being a "bomb proof" bunker says it is not an embassy.
If it's on the embassy grounds I'm not sure that matters. Also, does US have highly reinforced structures on their embassy grounds in many/most countries? Would US consider attacks on these buildings to be attacks on the embassy? I expect so.
On or off embassy grounds, a military blast structure is military. Look at: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wd61ksjdgu1siu4zinucw/Screenshot-2024-04-15-at-10.19.29-PM.png?rlkey=t3ww54sbskk7vwb491qjocp6a&dl=0 for a screen shot of the re-bar structure that is deep 3-D for blast. This couldn't have been taken out with most rockets or even cruse missiles. Highly reinforced against guns, RPG's, grenades and man portable systems is all embassy structures get for reinforcement and that is not what this was.
I am old enough to remember Iran violating every embassy norm possible and kidnapping Americans as hostages. Iran defined by actions that the Western norms for embassy protection don't apply to them. In dealing with Iran's present government, none of the embassy rules apply. They are Middle-Age barbarians in their beliefs and actions and not part of the civilized world.
"On or off embassy grounds, a military blast structure is military."
I disagree that a defensive structure is by default military.
I made no analysis.
I made no attempt to list all factors.
I didn't even try to list everything Kling might have been better to consider. I merely thought one needed to include these two factors along with everything else when assessing what to do next.
Can you link to some evidence on this? Preferably some independent organization, rather than Israel or United States government sources.
Seems legit, thank you!
Ive discussed this issue online with the following stance:
1) the United States should not “support” Israel with weapons or money. They have to defend themselves.
2) if they are truly defending themselves, the United States doesn’t need to have an opinion of how they do so. If they commit genocide is Gaza that is their own business.
People who support Israel hate this. They demand we give Israel unlimited support and immediately start a war with China/Russia/Iran because it’s inevitable anyway. We have to do so because of “our values”.
People who don’t support Israel say that allowing a genocide by an oppressor is against “our values” even if we have no ties to them.
I’m a bit tired of “our values”. Our values always seem to mean starting wars with people halfway around the world that have done nothing to me.
Iran isn’t going to be different than any other Middle East shithole. And it won’t stop with Iran. The people who want to attack Iran want to attack Russia and China too.
"Instead, it should treat this conflict as the war that it is. That means relentless attacks that serve to weaken Iran’s regime."
I suspect a lot of Iranians will rally 'round the regime in the face of external attacks by Israel, unless maybe (maaaybe) those attacks are confined specifically to regime security assets. That'll be a difficult needle to thread, I would think. I suspect this would actually strengthen the regime, at least in the short run.
I also don't know how Israel gets regime change in Iran without the US taking the lead, either, and there is little appetite for that in US public opinion. If I were Israel, I think I would focus more on Hezbollah as the more immediate threat.
You can't win a war with air attacks. Not possible short of nuclear weapons. See Vietnam, WW2, UK blitz, Afghanistan, etc. Is Israel going to send ground troops to attack Iran to win the war like they have done with Gaza? No chance. Bad idea.
You can hurt a lot of people and infrastructure from the air - "exact a deeply painful price". This further entrenches the current regime and enables them to gain popular support and savagely attack any internal opposition. See Vietnam, WW2, Afghanistan, etc.
Direct air attacks create a tit-for-tat response that can wreck both countries for decades. Israel has more to lose from this since it is a highly successful country. Iran is already a wreck.
The big picture is that decades of low-level conflicts with Iran and others have not prevented Israel from becoming one of the most successful countries in the world. Escalating to a high-level conflict puts Israel's success at risk. Will any US company set up factories or research projects in Israel while there is a high-level conflict?
There are no good or easy options here....
The way for Israel to "win" is likely by continuing to do what has worked very well for decades.
Israel has been "winning" the conflict for decades. It doesn't seem like it because the news media focuses exclusively on isolated violence rather than general prosperity. Israel is one of the most successful countries in the world. Iran and Hamas have been losing the conflict for decades. They are trying to change the game from win-lose to lose-lose. For them losing big with Israel also losing is preferable to losing small with Israel winning. Don't fall for their trap.
Jewish people seem to be becoming increasingly unpopular globally though. Then again, they seem to enjoy complaining about it endlessly (what's their marketing budget? I read an article on it once, it is *massive*), so maybe that is actually beneficial in some strange way.
Of course, they're becoming increasingly unpopular. As the most successful white people in the world, they must be powerful oppressors. Because, as we all know, all disparities are caused by oppression.
Left: Jews are white
Centrist: Jews are actually very diverse
Right: Jews are white
Well, there's that I suppose, but there is also a sort of magical aura around Jewish people as well, as if somehow there's an extra powerful force acting on people's minds. I think it's extremely fascinating watching humans discuss them while walking on eggshells. 😂
Bennett reminds one of the political criticism President Bush received after halting major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003: the Democrats were lined up in Congress attacking the failure to achieve total victory. Then of course, a few years later these same politicians were attacking Bush again for supposedly going to war in the first place, never mind the fiasco of Clinton’s no-fly zone fiasco. One suspects Netanyahu knows his detractors and what can be expected from them and that is not principled, or strategic, long term thinking.
No, the important issue is what is best for Israel’s long term interests. Give the senior US administration officials credit for stating the obvious:
“ senior administration official said Israel's successful defence was already a victory over Iran, and that the country should ‘think carefully’ about what it does next.
"’Big question is not only whether, but what the Israelis might choose to do, so this is a decision for them,’ the official said.” (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68814391 )
The odds that Israel can achieve regime change in Iran through military means seem long at best given Israel has yet to achieve regime change in Gaza much less Lebanon and continues to endure missile attacks from both quarters. A massive strike on Iran, however, will guarantee, however, an Iranian counterattack that may or may not be successful. Does Israel even have the anti-missile weapon reserves to handle another attack like the one it just suffered?
Israel received support from both Jordan and Saudi Arabia in thwarting the Iranian attack on Israel. Preserving that partnership is of long term importance to Israel. Any attack on Iran ought not threaten those relationships. Iran has not attacked either Jordan or Saudi Arabia directly in response to their defensive aid. Maintaining these relationship can plausibly be considered of more strategic importance than the alleged message of strength that would be carried by a revenge attack.
Importantly, Iran framed its attack as a reprisal for the bombing of a facility in Damascus killing senior Iranian military. Iran claims that the facility was diplomatic, Israel claims it was a military facility. At least in the newspapers I’ve seen, Iran seems to have won that framing battle. Although the issue of whether an attack on diplomatic facilities conforms to international law is contentious, Israel did do something that many if not most people around the world would consider to have been a significant escalation in itself and that Iran was within its rights to respond as it did.
Israel’s economy is suffering at the moment (https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-794580 ) and its reliance on the US for weapons represents a dangerous ceding of autonomy. One would think that Israel would want to be in the strongest position possible before triggering another escalation. Arien Beery makes a case for not striking back today so that Israel can strike back stronger tomorrow that would seem to sum up these points: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/go-long-againstof -iran/ But even he is deluded by the notion of “swift resolution to the Gaza War.” Perhaps it will be enough in the short term to keep Hamas contained.
And the war council seems to be proceeding along these lines as they seek a Goldilocks solution, perhaps hitting proxies or launching a deniable cyberattack. (https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-794580 ). Launching a regime-change campaign on Iran doesn’t seem to pass a cost benefit analysis and is not likely feasible militarily anyway. I have faith that the war council will find a better long term approach.
Naftali Bennett's point that a successful defense is not a win is correct, never mind the US regime, Arnold wrote: "Unless Prime Minister Netanyahu is as dense as his detractors believe, he must be thinking along similar lines." I don't think anyone who follows Israeli affairs or who has read his recent autobiography would entertain even for second the idea that he is "dense." I suppose that his detractors (the Israeli Left) are possessed by the same obsessive malevolence toward him that our Left exhibits in regard to President Trump, which results in irrational denigration driven by emotional needs. All men have their faults, often grave, but the difference between a rational critical assessment and the expression of unqualified animosity is always obvious and says more about the source than about the object.
"Netanyahu Derangement Syndrome" is definitely a thing, just like Bush, Trump, and all the other non-leftist-in-power derangement syndromes. In the course of the same conversation I heard a lawyer talk about attending a wonderful evening in which he personally contributed a sizable sum to help to host a Supreme Court Justice (who, you know, might hear one of his firm's cases one day) in a very lavish manner, then condemn Netanyahu as obviously criminally corrupt and deserving of immediate removal from office and imprisonment for much less.
This intellectual degeneration has gotten to the point that anytime I hear anyone quote Emerson's, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ... " line, I reflexively want to throw up.
"It seems to me that the Obama-Biden approach was to try to work with the Iranian regime and to attempt to change Israel’s regime. Perhaps that is the opposite of what they should have been thinking."
I'll be more emphatic. You hear a lot about Trump supporters, and even Republicans in general, being 'isolationists' along the line of the 'America First' movement in the 1930s. It's pretty clear this is exactly backwards. The Obama-Biden 'America Last' vision is for an America economically fettered by dependence on China for critical industrial materials and infrastructure, and diplomatically fettered by independent regional powers in Europe and Southwest Asia, specifically the EU and Iran. Contrary to popular misconception we were never economically integrated in the globalized economy and our military power gave us freedom of action throughout the Cold War. A similarly economically free America, especially with secure energy supplies, allied with other independent democratic states, would be the force to face down Russian, Chinese, and Iranian aggression. It is clear that the Democrats can not form such a coalition since they are infected by a Fifth Column that expresses admiration for dictatorships like China and Iran, much like the statist admiration for Hitler and Mussolini that was present in the 1930s Democrat Party. 'American First' in the 1930s was wrong to not more forcefully oppose Hitler's Germany but they were wrong in recognizing there was no way to cut deals with him.
Trumps Middle East policy was vastly superior to bidens.
I can’t speak for Iran, but I don’t think we are in an ideological conflict with Russia or China. We have realpolitik differences. The conflict should be treated the way 1815-1914 conflict were treated.
One reason people were sour on confronting Hitler is that the Kaiser was sold as being Hitler but he wasn’t (whatever flaws he had).
Ww1 was the price of making a realpolitik war into an ideological war.
I agree with you about Russia. But I think there's a real ideological conflict with China. Xi is really serious about "socialism with Chinese characteristics"; he really believes it cannot co-exist with capitalism. He believes the first wrong step the Soviet Union took was to denounce Stalin.
Another interesting essay topic could be titled "An American, Democrat-voting Jew's Choices."
For several decades I (and many other Cassandras) have been accurately warning such people that the status of (a) Jews in general (as a group that gets deemed "historically oppressed" and thus inside the intersectional allies "treaty organization" instead of ejected as "white adjacent pact" 'vrag' group) and of (b) Israel in particular (entitled to secure existence as a Jewish state and held to the same standard as any other ally, with America as a strong ally reliably defending such a state of affairs) in both American progressive / leftist ideology and in Democrat party public messaging and internal policy, was completely untenable.
That is, as Auster put it, these are "unprincipled exceptions" destined to be rectified away, like a Marxian contradiction that would inevitably become heightened and reconciled to the detriment of Jews and Israel.
The political logic driving the evolutionary mechanism of leftism treats such expedient exceptions as irritating thorns in the side that are at best managed, hand-waved, rationalized, and only temporarily tolerated until the very moment some group's support is either unnecessary for electoral victory or so suicidality secure for other reasons so as to make the group's members indifferent to, or even come to cultishly embrace, their being thrown under the bus in this manner. These kinds of shifts really highlight the absurdity of Bryan Caplan's political theory of an "anti-market" left and "anti-left" right.
This once merely predictable untenability has proven to be such, revealed by the elite academic and Biden administration's reactions to the massacre. Everyone knows the Clintonites would have behaved completely differently. An American Jew who supports Israel and votes for Democrats could have voted for Clinton without too much naivete or too many qualms as regards this matter, but is now clearly voting affirmatively against the interests of Jews and Israel.
And so, a choice must be made.
I fear many will go Full Converso and make the wrong one.
It has been frankly shamefully embarrassing to hear otherwise brilliantly persuasive people try desperately to avoid the ugly reality of this unfortunate predicament and come up with 'explanations' for why this isn't necessarily so while being unable to address even the most obvious objections. It's like watching a slow-motion, cognitive-dissonance-driven, nervous breakdown happen in real time right before your eyes.
This is the mental anguish and grief of a break-up of once-strong but now unrequited love the end of which one refuses to accept. "Listen carefully, I don't love you anymore, now I hate you" met with, "I can't quit you." Left-leaning American Jews have invested so much of their sense of themselves and the world in the idea that Republicans are the worst thing in the universe that they cannot even contemplate flipping to the other side, and so feel they politically have "no other place to go" (ahem, Israel was founded based on analogous considerations.) But if the American left gets Jewish support even without having to be pro-Jew or pro-Israel, then it will happily dump those inconsistent positions, just as happened with the left a long time ago in practically every other place in the world.
In addition to being more consistent with the tenets of progressive ideology, the demographic make-up of the electoral base of the Democratic Party has shifted to include a critical mass of rabidly anti-Israel voters in key battleground states.
Many leftist American Jews were - and continue to be - completely confused or in total denial about who their best friends and worst enemies are. An America with lots more Muslims who vote lots more for Democrats is going to have a Democratic Party turn against American support for Israel. Duh! Because it is considered impolite to say this obviously true fact, it has become impossible for progressive Jews to think it and face it in time to do anything about it, and now they are screwed. When people say, "Oh, come on, this PC / woke stuff is really just harmless civility right, what's the danger?" The danger is that people can't think straight about reality when certain ideas necessary for doing so are crimestopped because socially prohibited.
A tragically recurrent existential error throughout history has been the recruiting of external allies to help one defeat one's domestic opponents, only to discover too late and to one's horror that these same swords now swing at you too, the sword-wielders turn out to be less than permanently perfect servants and have their own ideas and interests, like, defeating you too.
As one example out of countless, in the several Macedonian wars (mostly in the first half of the second century BC), many Greek states repeatedly asked for rising-power Rome's help and intervention especially after Roman victories in the Second Punic War dramatically adjusted the balance of power in the Mediterranean. Soon enough, Rome took them all, and after the Battle of Corinth which broke the Achaean league, the whole city of about 100,000 people was destroyed so thoroughly - with even most building stones from the rubble removed to build those famous roads - that for the first time in six thousand years it went completely uninhabited for a century, something it seems that didn't occur even after the Bronze Age Collapse of the Mycenaean. The only reason people started to live there again was because after a hundred years the Romans decided to build a new city there in 44BC (just in time for sufficient growth that Paul would send epistles to the new Christians there, telling them women should be silent in church.)
Point is, one needs to be careful about who ones invites to help with one's fights. American Jews weren't. A related note is that """populism""" is apparently the worst thing in the world and only Republicans do it (despite mysteriously never delivering what their voters actually want) except when Democrats clearly do it even worse (and deliver!) by bowing to and servicing the prejudices of their many client identity groups, that is, by constantly agitating acrimony by following the script of their modern equivalent of a "passion play", and then conspicuously dumping in various ways on those opponent groups.
Sympathy for the devil is one thing, but voting for him is another. So yes, a choice must be made.
"Iran is paying no price at all."
Iran is one of the most sanctioned regimes in the world.
And how effective are these sanctions with Iran, Russia, etc.?
Maybe simultaneously making enemies of half the worlds economy and population makes it a bit difficult to shut it down.
Let's not exaggerate. Even if we include not-mentioned-in-this-thread China it still isn't half. And it is at least as important to note it is an even smaller portion of the world's economy.
Be careful to assume that 100% of the population in each country mindlessly falls for their government's propaganda - I live in a Western country, and I am extremely anti-Western.
Then again, if your intent is propaganda and persuasion: carry on.
I was thinking only of the countries' governments and leadership. Individuals seems like a different issue to me but maybe not. Either way it's something to be aware of.
I note that most anti-western people living in western countries aren't enemies.
This gets into the very important area of the degree to which our so-called democracies are actually democratic.
Of course, nowadays, to be anti-western is the height of respectability in many western places: high-powered universities, major media (NYT, NPR), non-profits, etc.
Indeed it is, as are pro-western sentiments. Do you believe that it is merely a fashion trend or some sort of triviality or silliness?
forumposter123, yes, I agree difficult to shut down. The goal is to make the target of the sanctions to stop doing what they are doing.
While it is true that "Iran has been at war with Israel for years,' I don't think it is a coincidence that Iran's proxy Hamas launched its attack on Israel on October 7th, after it had become clear that the US and its allies had squandered large quantities of munitions and military equipment on the failed Ukrainian counteroffensive against Russia. The timing was certainly convenient for Iran's friend Russia, since the Biden Administration's attention would now be diverted to another conflict. As I have said before, getting entangled in a land-based war of attrition in Russia's backyard was inherently stupid, but the stupidity was compounded by the failure to anticipate that the Ukraine-Russia conflict might have repercussions in the Middle East. These people suffer from the delusion that they are the world's puppet masters. Now the Administration is stuck between a rock and a hard place: they need to keep propping up Ukraine until the election, even though it is clear that Ukraine is a lost cause, and they also need to keep the Israel-Iran conflict contained at Israel's expense. Keep your expectations low.
It seems Israel should be leveraging the Iranian public's significant discontent with the current Iranian regime. I would be surprised if Mossad and CIA has not established relationships with internal groups which would love an opportunity to foment insurrection given the right amount of military support. It is hard to see any other realistic alternative for Israel that would have a lasting, beneficial security impact. Insofar as the U.S. has an interest in such regime change, it would make sense for it to work with the Israelis in bringing this about.
I'm curious what you expect Israel to achieve here.
Let's suppose that the US did manage to overthrow the Iranian regime. (Let's be honest -- this is not something Israel itself can really achieve). Maybe the new government would be slightly more pro-Israel, but perhaps not, or even the reverse. Look at the example of Iraq and ISIS.
Then what? Israel still won't be secure, at least not as secure as they would like to be, because they're a tiny nation with a tiny population and practically every state in the region is hostile to them. Is the US supposed to overthrow the government of every Arab country?
The problem is basically economic, demographic and logistic. Jews are a tiny minority in the region and control a tiny territory, and it's just basically impossible to be secure under those conditions. Although they've done quite well so far, the level of security they want requires more people and more territory, and while they've had some success in improving their birthrate, meaningfully expanding their territory is just impossible.
It's unfortunate, but at this point I think the best option for Jews would be to acknowledge that it's just impossible to have a homeland which is a) secure b) Jewish and c) in the Middle East. Compromising on the first means just permanently accepting a power differential relative to the hostile regimes which surround them and trying to survive as well as possible. Compromising on the second would mean integrating the Palestinians and becoming a mixed nation with a large Arab population, as countries like France and Sweden have in fact already done. Similarly to the populations of those countries, Jews would experience a worse standard of living and suffer discrimination and physical violence, but it would not be impossible to survive and everyday life would probably be bearable. The last option would be to give up and go somewhere else, perhaps to the United States, where Jews can still enjoy peace, a certain cultural influence and a high standard of living. Sad as it may be, I think this is probably the best option for the typical Israeli.
Suggesting in 2024 that the United States should enact regime change in an Islamic Middle Eastern country is really wild.
Tit for tat response makes no sense and regardless of the extent of the response Iran says they will strongly retaliate; i take them at their word. So, if Israel to respond it needs to be meaningful as Iran will respond.
US wants to avoid a wider conflict; sorry but that is not going to be avoidable once Israel respond and Iran then do something. So, escalation seems inevitable and US will be drawn in to again assist Israel in its defense; hard to see it any other way.
Only way US not to be brought in to fray will be if Israel does not respond and if it does Iran sits still. That seems improbable.
Sadly, war is on.
Israel's mind control over Westerners is nothing short of amazing, when the topic of discussion is anything involving Jewish people, people's cognitive abilities drop down to somewhere in the neighbourhood of a teenager who read a book above their reading level.
I think it is hilarious how childish and utterly incapable of logic Western culture is here in 2024.
I realize I'm jeopardizing a mostly reasonable conversation we were having on another thread but your assessment of people generally in support of Israel is what seems rather childish to me.
You are welcome to your perception.....how much trust do you have in it?
Some people are always childish and utterly incapable of logic. Everyone is sometimes childish and utterly incapable of logic.
Historical treatment of Jews has resulted in somewhat unique treatment of Israel. Is that justified? I'd say in some degree but IDK. Is it unique in the right ways? Surely not perfectly, maybe mostly not. However wrong it might be, I don't think policy and general thinking towards Israel is childish or illogical. Saying that it is suggests arrogance, overconfidence, incomplete knowledge, or some combination thereof.
Great stories.
Now, back to my question:
You are welcome to your perception.....how much trust do you have in it?
I'm not sure how to answer that. It doesn't seem like something one can attach a probability. By comparison, maybe I'd say your claim is about as likely as Trump having lost the election due to fraud.
... Now that I wrote that, I see another similarity. I have no doubt there was some fraud in the election, discovered or not. It is just extremely unlikely to be great enough to make any difference in the outcome. Likewise, there are no doubt people exactly as you describe but they are surely vastly outnumbered by those whose cognitive abilities are always at that level, those so ill-informed that cognitive ability isn't even an issue, and those whose logic is as good or better than yours or mine.
This American doesn't believe that you can be tolerant with people who belief systems are barbaric middle age religious nonsense and clearly totally intolerant. True believers like Hamas and related Islamic believers are incompatible with a civilized society and will continue to attack civilization.
After killing millions for almost a 100 years, the Christian believers figured out that fighting over imaginary gods was a negative sum game. Only the surviving "leaders" could possibly win.
Killing the leadership of Iran may get the "negative sum game" concept through to the minds of the believers.