Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Hasn't the US been arming their enemies of the STC through the UAE?
Funny how these things always seem to start at the exact point the US and allies are attacked. Whatever happened before is always ignored.
"Yeah we supplied weapons so the houthis could be attacked, but they started it by attacking our ships months later."
They're attacking civilian ships that have nothing to do with any of the conflict in Israel, so yes, they are going to get clobbered by the coalition of military ships in the area.
That's a plausible explanation. Its just odd that the bombings by both countries happened only days apart, and even more oddly, at the same time as when the Iranians are bombing locations in Iraq.
I know they're going to get their asses kicked, but this didn't start when they attacked ships now, it started before that. We really need to stop simplifying these things to make it sound like they started in the precise moment it's convenient to our side.
That's precisely what happened. The Houthis have already admitted this is all related to Gaza. They may have sporadically done similar acts in the past, but their leader and spokesman has already admitted they are doing this as a means to affect the Israel-Gaza war. Therefore it isn't just convenient to my argument, its actually accurate based on their own admission.
So the fact they've been attacked by US proxies for years now has no relevance to their decision to make these attacks? The gaza situation is a convenient rallying cry for them now, but I don't believe for a second they would've made these attacks were they not already in a war with the US.
I think you're once again falling for the "history started on october 7" way of analyzing things.
Not US proxies. They are an Iranian proxy just like Hamas and Hezbollah. In their case they have been funded to do Iran's dirty work in the region so Tehran can absolve themselves from complicity.
The houthis have been attacked by US proxies. Retaliation is inevitable in war.
They were being attacked by an Arab coalition consisting of UAE/Saudi/Morocco/Sudan mostly funded by the UAE. The UAE and Saudi mostly provided them with weapons that they themselves brought from America. The UAE and Saudi in this instance were acting on their own initiative and for their own reasoning.
The reasons for their attacks on the ships have nothing to do with that war which is mainly about religion and ideology it's completely different. Their attacks on ships are done to try and effect the economy of Israel.
There's no such thing as a US proxy anywhere near the Houthis. The Saudis are the only plausible country who have attacked them. The Houthis have been lobbing missiles at Israel since early in the Gaza war. In both of these cases, they are nation states, not non-state proxies like the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas are on behalf of Iran.
Should add some context to this:
The UN Gen Assembly voted in Dec 22 to ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion on Israel's occupation of Palestine territories. The first hearing is next month, and now numerous other countries (Slovenia for one), who initially didn't support it are now supporting it. It pre-dates the genocide case and its conclusions will likely have minimal impact like every other UN resolution against Israel, because Israel are cnuts.
Last edited:
Will the Germans intervene and remind us they would know what an occupation looks like?
At least the Germans are consistent - did their own genocide, now they support it.
Either geopolitics are complex or we compartmentalize it into little events. I'm not a fan of the latter.
If you want to separate these attacks from the wider picture, sure, you can do it and excuses the US from all the meddling they've had in the yemeni war.
I'm sure none of you are naive enough to believe the US is selling weapons to UAE and SA without knowing precisely what they will be used for. It's not just free market, that's why US companies can't sell to certain countries. It's part of politics and by selling weapons that they know will be used to target certain groups, that means not only political approval, but support for those attacks.
Groups like the STC simply would not exist without US support, so sure, we can use semantics all we want, but in practical terms, they are a US proxy. When the houthis are being attacked by US weapons, they don't go "oh it's the UAE who bought these, the US were just selling it", of course they will see it as the US attacking them, as they should.
So we simply can't separate these events.
"It all began when he punched me back" seems like a common strategy these days for people who want to clear their side of any previous wrongdoing when they're attacked.
This is not a case of poor american vessels being targeted by crazy houthis, it's a consequence of an ongoing conflict and gaza is just a very useful excuse for the houthis to rile up their population and bring sympathy to their side.
As expected.
It was always going to be a nothingburger.
Iran do what they do best whenever they're targeted - hit defenceless targets or fire missiles at empty bases, insisting they've targeted US/Zionist bases of operation. And the Pakistanis had to save face by retaliating - hitting Iranian territory but not Iranians themselves.
They've solely operated via proxies for decades, there was never going to be a direct confrontation. Neither side would have wanted or had the appetite for such a thing.
There’s been an effective ceasefire in place in Yemen since April 2022 that has just recently been further strengthened and may potentially led to a real peace process there - https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/...-to-ceasefire-un-led-peace-process-says-envoy
I don't think that changes how the houthis see the US.
No, but their view of the US long precedes the outbreak of the conflict with the US-backed Saudi-led coalition (“death to America” has adorned their flag since 2003), and if their recent actions in the Red Sea were purely in response to US support for their enemies in that conflict then you would have expected the Huthis to have launched them when the war was in full swing, not when it has clearly winded down.
All of which suggests that they may not be purely reactive actors in this, and are willing to risk a renewal of hostilities in Yemen in pursuit of their own (and/or Iran’s) agenda.
Not reactive in terms of actual military hostilities, but reactive in terms of what's happening in gaza. I believe they see this as great propaganda for them, at last on social media (I know, I know...) there were plenty of people, especially muslims praising the houthis for standing up to it.
However, my original point when raoul mentioned these attacks as the beginning of the houthi / US hostilities, is that this is not the beginning, it's just another episode in a war where the US definitely has their proxies fighting iranian proxies. Something that Raoul denies.
The Houthis are an Iranian proxy, so of course they are by definition going to be anti-Saudi and US. That's the entire purpose of the Iranians funding them in the first place. They weren't however getting Yemeni territory plastered with US and UK ordinance on a daily basis until they started attacking the ships. Therefore this is a brand new conflict related to Israel/Gaza and Iran's desire to remotely interject themselves into it through one of their three local proxy groups. Whatever happened sporadically during Yemen's conflict with Saudi is a completely separate topic.
As I said, I think that's just a convenient way to look at these conflicts. If you see it as something separate, you can say these attacks are unprovoked. If you see it as part of a wider conflict, then this is just as escalation and a response to previous attacks. So I'm not surprised an american prefers to frame it in a specific way.
A bit like lots of israelis frame the current conflict as having started on october 7.
In a way I understand the need for that way of thinking, it makes them more irrational and unstable, so we feel a bit less bad when we blow their civilians to pieces.
I was watching a video on the Yemen situation yesterday and a question struck me: what is ultimately more responsible for wars in the Middle East, religion or oil? @2cents (or anyone else) care to enlighten me?
The British (and French) arbitrarily carving up countries and then proceeding to superimpose one where people already inhabit land (because they didn't want to take responsibility for a people who they've shafted after enduring a horrendous crime) certainly doesn't help. Nor do the decades of hegemonic foreign policy, overthrowing non-compliant leaders, playing both sides in a war and propping up tyrants help either. Religion and oil certainly haven't helped, but the foundations for the instability sources from a hegemonic and colonial origin.
There was an Israeli attack earlier today in the Syrian capital which killed 5 members of Iran's IRGC.
Not a big deal since the US would be there in any case, therefore EU nations would never be in a situation where they would have to go it alone. The 2nd bit is also a bit off given that 30% of global container shipping goes through the Suez, and as the world’s biggest economy, the US would be affected just as much if not more than EU countries.
Meh, I don't think it is wise for the EU to be betting that the US will always be there. EU countries must have better military capabilities.
The US have global military reach so they are likely to always to have military assets nearby. Other than the UK, none of the European countries are anywhere close to having the resources to do this sort of thing.
You'd have to think it's on the cards, now that anti-immigration voices are seemingly getting louder in some prominent EU countries?
I think it's gonna get there in the near future.
The EU, particularly Germany under Merkel, lived in pacifistic bubble for 20 years.
Rebuilding the Bundeswehr will cost many, many billions and take at least a decade. Do we have the time?
Also were the money should come from?
I think it’s probably too reductive to singularly pin Middle Eastern wars on either religion or oil. Obviously each conflict has its own dynamic that needs to be understood on its own terms, and both religion and oil are often relevant factors, but they are rarely if ever sufficient to explain things on their own.
Taking a step back and thinking in broader, more general terms, you could say that Middle Eastern conflicts tend to be driven by a combination and interplay of unresolved internal issues and pervasive external intervention.
The former have their origins in the ongoing process by which the region is attempting to come to terms with a largely Western-shaped modernity that has completely undermined the traditional forms of social and political solidarity that shaped Middle Eastern societies for centuries (this is not necessarily unique to the Middle East and really applies everywhere including the “West” itself). Religion, fundamentalism, and sectarianism are obviously major elements in this, but their role has to be understood in the context of the appeal of competing forms of solidarity relating to nationalism, tribalism, and so on, of the spread of modern forms of communication and technology, and of the actions of external powers pursuing competing agendas in the region.
The latter has its origins in the relatively asymmetric power balance between the region and Europe that began to be seriously felt by the end of the 18th century, and to the unique and vital geostrategic location of the region. Obviously ensuring the smooth and continuing flow of the region’s oil to the world’s markets is a vital aspect of the region’s importance, but again this must be understood in a broader context of great power competition, global trade routes, and so on. Insidious Western imperial intervention in the region long predates the mass export of its oil, and the Middle East will probably always hold a unique place in Great Power consciousness.
Pre-90s Turkey and Israel aside, the most popular (though not necessarily politically dominant) ideological and political movements in the region over the last century or more have probably been those that have promised to transcend the internal divisions in order to challenge and successfully overcome the external interference, with a view to placing the destiny of the Middle East firmly back in the hands of the peoples of the region themselves. So far none of them have come close to succeeding in this.
Last edited:
After the Iranian revolution in 1979, there's also been a rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both want to counter eachothers influence in the region.
What would you have the West do? You can’t just sit back and accept that a militia is disrupting the global commerce, and political pressure didn’t work. Not saying this is necessarily the right approach but what would be?
Sit it out. If it hurts economically, so be it. Don't want the US Navy protecting your ships? Go and send your own navy.
Yes, this is throwaway rhetoric from me.
