Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic

[2cents]

The initial wave of Jews going to British mandate of Palestine was not really international-political motivations in the early 20th century. The first group of settlers up until 1936 were basically middle class/relatively wealthy Jews from Europe and USA who were suffering persecution buying Land and Homes from the natives and deciding to live in that region because of the historical connection. The locals were fine with this too up until 1936 when the number of immigrants had gotten to a point which started up racial tensions between the two groups, which culminated in the Arab Revolt. Starting from the early 30's both sides had become more and more belligerent in their approach resulting in, first the Arab Revolt which already saw gangs of Zionist Israeli's and fervent Palestinian nationalists rise up to its culmination in the Nakba.

This is a bit inaccurate in parts. Before 1948 there were several waves of migration of Jews into Palestine starting in the 1880s and culminating in the 1930s. These were largely in response to pogroms and oppression in the Russian Empire (1880s, 1904-1906, post-WW1 civil war), Poland (mid to late 1920s) and finally Germany (1930s). The first three waves may be understood as part of the general mass migration of Jews out of the Russian Empire, during which a vast majority chose to go to the United States and elsewhere rather than Palestine.

The general profile of these migrants of the first three waves was not prosperous. This is because Palestine was a much cheaper destination to reach from Odessa and Trieste than New York was, but most Jews who could afford the trip to the latter happily chose it as America was considered a far more enticing destination than Palestine economically speaking. In fact, while the Zionist agencies in Palestine tried to encourage the settlement of wealthy Jews with capital in Palestine, they were constantly disappointed with the economic profile of the typical Jewish arrival they encountered, and went to some lengths - mostly unsuccessfully - to discourage the migration of the poorer classes of Jews to Palestine.

After America introduced immigration quotas in 1924, Jewish migration to Palestine really ramped up, to the point that you could probably safely argue that without those quotas the state of Israel could not have been founded.

Zionist settlement provoked Palestinian resistance from the very start - largely localized to rural elements in the late Ottoman period, then gradually escalating during the British period, with regional outbreaks of violence in 1920 and 1921 followed by the more widespread violence of 1929 when you could say the resistance began to take on a national character. This culminated in the strikes and three-year revolt of 1936-39 which was launched, as you say, in large part in response to the wave of Jews arriving in Palestine fleeing Nazi Germany.

In response to that revolt, the British - having issues the Balfour Declaration during WW1 - first suggested partition before limiting Jewish immigration and offering the Palestinians independence. WW2 put a hold on all this, with Britain washing their hands of Palestine and handing it over to the UN in the aftermath.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Well, you've got those two the wrong way round firstly, but we also have names for those things...namely Salafism and Wahabism.

And secondly, neither of those have anything to do with Israel and having to face 'Islamism'. Hamas can be best described as a geo-political organisation, and Iran obviously doesn't subscribe to either Wahabism or Salafism.

What do you mean wrong way around? Wahabism predates Salafism by about a century and then the two kind merged as one of the key figures in Salafism decided to champion Wahabi's.

But my point was more along the case that during the first few centuries both of them were your standard religious-socio-political movements, but in the modern world the Wahabi's have mostly stayed to Conservative Socio-Politico rulesets and governance whereas Salafism has taken a dark twist and morphed into organizations like Al-Qaeda, Al Nusra and ISIS.

Regarding the latter point, I agree, but i was merely pointing out what he could be meaning by that.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

This is a bit inaccurate in parts. Before 1948 there were several waves of migration of Jews into Palestine starting in the 1880s and culminating in the 1930s. These were largely in response to pogroms and oppression in the Russian Empire (1880s, 1904-1906, post-WW1 civil war), Poland (mid to late 1920s) and finally Germany (1930s). The first three waves may be understood as part of the general mass migration of Jews out of the Russian Empire, during which a vast majority chose to go to the United States and elsewhere rather than Palestine.

The general profile of these migrants of the first three waves was not prosperous. This is because Palestine was a much cheaper destination to reach from Odessa and Trieste than New York was, but most Jews who could afford the trip to the latter happily chose it as America was considered a far more enticing destination than Palestine economically speaking. In fact, while the Zionist agencies in Palestine tried to encourage the settlement of wealthy Jews with capital in Palestine, they were constantly disappointed with the economic profile of the typical Jewish arrival they encountered, and went to some lengths - mostly unsuccessfully - to discourage the migration of the poorer classes of Jews to Palestine.

After America introduced immigration quotas in 1924, Jewish migration to Palestine really ramped up, to the point that you could probably safely argue that without those quotas the state of Israel could not have been founded.

Zionist settlement provoked Palestinian resistance from the very start - largely localized to rural elements in the late Ottoman period, then gradually escalating during the British period, with regional outbreaks of violence in 1920 and 1921 followed by the more widespread violence of 1929 when you could say the resistance began to take on a national character. This culminated in the strikes and three-year revolt of 1936-39 which was launched, as you say, in large part in response to the wave of Jews arriving in Palestine fleeing Nazi Germany.

In response to that revolt, the British - having issues the Balfour Declaration during WW1 - first suggested partition before limiting Jewish immigration and offering the Palestinians independence. WW2 put a hold on all this, with Britain washing their hands of Palestine and handing it over to the UN in the aftermath.

Interesting, thanks for this post.

I was always under the impression that the first waves of land purchases in the "Holy Land" were quite extensive based on how quickly they managed to become a significant demographic and land owner and required some working degree of capital, hence my assumption there was relative wealth in the initial waves.

 

[The Corinthian]

What do you mean wrong way around? Wahabism predates Salafism by about a century and then the two kind merged as one of the key figures in Salafism decided to champion Wahabi's.

But my point was more along the case that during the first few centuries both of them were your standard religious-socio-political movements, but in the modern world the Wahabi's have mostly stayed to Conservative Socio-Politico rulesets and governance whereas Salafism has taken a dark twist and morphed into organizations like Al-Qaeda, Al Nusra and ISIS.

Regarding the latter point, I agree, but i was merely pointing out what he could be meaning by that.

Salafism takes roots from the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah who was around the time after the Mongols ravaged much of the Islamic empire (so around the 1250s). A form of Salafism has always been around as a reformist movement in any case, especially when you consider how the Islamic empire became decadent at certain stages. Wahabism as a movement (although as you intimate they are both pretty similar and these days can be considered interchangeably) came a few hundred years ago.

In any cases, both can be traced back even further to the Hanbali madhab, which goes even further back.

 

[Frosty]

I take the view that World War III began in 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea. The main protagonists are US, EU, UK and Israel on one side; on the other are Russia, China and Iran. Every major international crisis the UK has faced since 2014 has emanated from one of those three countries. The election of Trump, Brexit, Gaza, Ukraine, even Covid (accidently) can be traced back to these actors, and they are supporting each other heavily both militarily and economically. What Israel did in Damascus is pretty unremarkable in that context. Western pearl clutching with its 'Gays for Gaza' narcissism only reflects how insulated from reality we have become.

This war is sometimes hot, sometimes cold, usually fought through proxies but not always. Much of it is a propaganda war aimed at weakening the west or undermining its institutions and alliances through division and social conflict.

It will eventually culminate in the invasion of Taiwan and the supplanting of western global power entirely.

Do you also do kids parties?

 

[That_Bloke]

The Balfour declaration was long before 1948.

And the biggest irony is that this so touted declaration refers to a man who was a known anti-semite, eager to prevent a mass Jewish immigration to the UK and built his electoral campaign on it.

 

[Frosty]

And the biggest irony is that this so touted declaration refers to a man who was a known anti-semite, eager to prevent mass Jewish immigration to the UK and built his campaign on it.

You are right. There is a long tradition of anti Semitic politicians who liked the idea of a Jewish state for precisely that reason.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The Balfour declaration was long before 1948.

1917 i believe .

The argument around what the declaration actually meant by Jewish home in Palestine rather than Jewish state goes on even today but the term was deliberately left vague as it couldn't be reconciled with other commitments if more specific.

I wanted to make the point that it wasn't implemented by the UK as a simple matter of choice. As the UK lost control of the whole thing.

 

[That_Bloke]

Interesting, thanks for this post.

I was always under the impression that the first waves of land purchases in the "Holy Land" were quite extensive based on how quickly they managed to become a significant demographic and land owner and required some working degree of capital, hence my assumption there was relative wealth in the initial waves.

No matter what how extensive the land purchases were, Jews didn't own more than 7% of the Palestine Mandate and represented about a third of its population as of 1948. Giving them 55% of the territory and control over the most important water resources was a recipe to disaster.

 

[2cents]

Interesting, thanks for this post.

I was always under the impression that the first waves of land purchases in the "Holy Land" were quite extensive based on how quickly they managed to become a significant demographic and land owner and required some working degree of capital, hence my assumption there was relative wealth in the initial waves.

Land purchases were largely funded by international donations channeled via the Jewish National Fund.

 

[glazed]

Do you also do kids parties?

Yes but never the same place twice for some reason.

 

[glazed]

You are right. There is a long tradition of anti Semitic politicians who liked the idea of a Jewish state for precisely that reason.

Not quite. The British right supported Zionism mainly because European Jews were the powerhouse of communist revolution and they wanted to bring them onside. This 1920 article by Winston Churchill lays it all out in detail. This is also why the British left and the Soviets were so anti-zionist in the first place. The two ideologies were in direct competition for intellectual fire power.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism

 

[2cents]

It's a nebulous, and inaccurate term used to generalise the Muslim world

Hamas can be best described as a geo-political organisation

There are plenty of credible analysts of Hamas who have firmly conceptualized the organization in terms of "Islamism".

Here's the PLO's Ziad Abu Amr referring to Hamas as "Islamists" in a 1992 article:

"From a theoretical and doctrinal standpoint, Palestinian Islamists, including Hamas, dismiss democracy as a Western concept with no place in a Muslim society. They argue that Islamic doctrine provides principles that have greater justice and comprehensiveness. In an Islamic order, political parties whose frame of reference is not Islam would be banned, but before the establishment of Islamic rule, democracy is preferred to dictatorship as more hospitable to the flourishing of Islam.' For the time being, Islamists can argue that national liberation takes precedence over the debate over democracy and pluralism. In the long run, however, failure to articulate acceptable positions on these issues may alienate significant segments of Palestinian society and undermine the movement's influence."

Khaled Hroub in a 2006 book on the difference between Hamas and other Islamist movements:

"In the area of political Islam and its various approaches to politics, Hamas has offered a unique contemporary case of an Islamist movement that is engaged in a liberation struggle against a foreign occupation. Islamist movements have been driven by a host of various causes, the vast majority of which were focused
on the corrupt regimes of their own countries. Another stream of movements, the ‘globalized Jihadists’, have expanded their ‘holy campaigns’ across geopolitical lines, furthering pan-Islamic notions that reject ideas of individual Muslim nation-states. Contrary to both of these, Hamas has somehow remained nationstate
based, limiting its struggle to one for and within Palestine, and fighting not a local regime but a foreign occupier. This differentiation is important as it exposes the shallowness of the widespread (mostly Western) trivializing conflation of all Islamist movements into one single ‘terrorist’ category."

Or more recently Tareq Baconi on the emergence of Hamas within the Islamist framework in his book Hamas Contained:

"Through its charter, the brotherhood’s Palestinianization culminated in Hamas’s emergence as both an Islamic and a nationalist party. By defining its nationalism as “part and parcel of its religious ideology,” Hamas’s leaders demonstrated that Islam was to be the foundation for a political ideology. In so doing, Hamas entered the fold of Islamist parties, or movements that draw on Islam to define a particular political agenda. Rather than the creation of a caliphate or a pan-Islamic entity, many Islamists are driven by “Islamo-nationalism,” a means of combining Islamic identity with nationalism. While asserting its nationalism, Hamas’s charter also celebrated the transnational Islamism that informed the movement’s historical identity and showed that, at least on a philosophical level, the movement remained part of the regional structure of the Muslim Brotherhood."

There's nothing inherently wrong with using the term "Islamist" as long as we avoid essentializing those drawn to Islamist movements and recognize the diversity of those movements which fall under what is a fairly broad umbrella.

 

[the_cliff]

UAE won't like this.

 

[VorZakone]

UAE won't like this.

Wait...didn't they just a couple of months ago put them on the terror list again, after de-listing them in 2021?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/poli...on-houthis-global-terrorist-entity/index.html

 

[the_cliff]

Wait...didn't they just a couple of months ago put them on the terror list again, after de-listing them in 2021?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/poli...on-houthis-global-terrorist-entity/index.html

Yes, the bloomberg article implies they're willing to take them off it again.

 

[VorZakone]

Yes, the bloomberg article implies they're willing to take them off it again.

And 3 months later they'll want them on the list again.

I'm sure these policymakers are smart and experienced folks, but this flip-flopping feels like they're just throwing shit at the wall.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[The Corinthian]

There are plenty of credible analysts of Hamas who have firmly conceptualized the organization in terms of "Islamism".

Here's the PLO's Ziad Abu Amr referring to Hamas as "Islamists" in a 1992 article:

"From a theoretical and doctrinal standpoint, Palestinian Islamists, including Hamas, dismiss democracy as a Western concept with no place in a Muslim society. They argue that Islamic doctrine provides principles that have greater justice and comprehensiveness. In an Islamic order, political parties whose frame of reference is not Islam would be banned, but before the establishment of Islamic rule, democracy is preferred to dictatorship as more hospitable to the flourishing of Islam.' For the time being, Islamists can argue that national liberation takes precedence over the debate over democracy and pluralism. In the long run, however, failure to articulate acceptable positions on these issues may alienate significant segments of Palestinian society and undermine the movement's influence."

Khaled Hroub in a 2006 book on the difference between Hamas and other Islamist movements:

"In the area of political Islam and its various approaches to politics, Hamas has offered a unique contemporary case of an Islamist movement that is engaged in a liberation struggle against a foreign occupation. Islamist movements have been driven by a host of various causes, the vast majority of which were focused
on the corrupt regimes of their own countries. Another stream of movements, the ‘globalized Jihadists’, have expanded their ‘holy campaigns’ across geopolitical lines, furthering pan-Islamic notions that reject ideas of individual Muslim nation-states. Contrary to both of these, Hamas has somehow remained nationstate
based, limiting its struggle to one for and within Palestine, and fighting not a local regime but a foreign occupier. This differentiation is important as it exposes the shallowness of the widespread (mostly Western) trivializing conflation of all Islamist movements into one single ‘terrorist’ category."

Or more recently Tareq Baconi on the emergence of Hamas within the Islamist framework in his book Hamas Contained:

"Through its charter, the brotherhood’s Palestinianization culminated in Hamas’s emergence as both an Islamic and a nationalist party. By defining its nationalism as “part and parcel of its religious ideology,” Hamas’s leaders demonstrated that Islam was to be the foundation for a political ideology. In so doing, Hamas entered the fold of Islamist parties, or movements that draw on Islam to define a particular political agenda. Rather than the creation of a caliphate or a pan-Islamic entity, many Islamists are driven by “Islamo-nationalism,” a means of combining Islamic identity with nationalism. While asserting its nationalism, Hamas’s charter also celebrated the transnational Islamism that informed the movement’s historical identity and showed that, at least on a philosophical level, the movement remained part of the regional structure of the Muslim Brotherhood."

There's nothing inherently wrong with using the term "Islamist" as long as we avoid essentializing those drawn to Islamist movements and recognize the diversity of those movements which fall under what is a fairly broad umbrella.

It's still a nebulous term. Just recently we've had Michael Gove term Muslim Council of Britain, MEND and Cage as Islamist. It's a totally nothing term that's been weaponised by dogwhistlers, Islamophobes and the like to brandish any group that's identifiably Islamic in the political framework as extreme.

Now, I don't deny that Hamas are Islamic and politically driven from its inception (and therefore fit the definition of Islamist, although, again, it's a nothing term that doesn't really explain much), but they've also been lumped in with the likes of Al Qaeda, ISIS, when discussing in these threads over the last few months, and now seem to share a space with MCB, MEND etc in the UK. In reality they're distinctly and starkly different in their aims, especially since 2017 where they've revised their charter.

The manifesto includes three notable departures from the earlier charter, though they are heavily conditioned. First, Hamas accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state —at least provisionally—based on the June 4, 1967 lines. Second, the document attempted to distinguish between Jews or Judaism and Zionism. In the new document, Hamas said that its fight is with the “racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist” Zionist project, Israel, and not with Judaism or Jews. The new platform also lacked the anti-Semitic language of the 1988 charter. Third, the document did not even reference the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas was originally an offshoot of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood.

Hamas' aims are primarily and really only geographical and nationalist in nature. Your previous write up highlights why I think a distinction is important when discussion Hamas -

Hamas on the other hand are an Islamo-Nationalist movement with a singular focus on the Palestinian cause. They are as much a political party and social movement as they are a “terrorist organization”, a term that really doesn’t capture what they’re about. They have deep roots among the Palestinian population of the occupied territories, and in particular Gaza, and can be regarded as a legitimate, mainstream expression of the broader Palestinian national movement, given their popularity and success over the last three and a half decades. They have never attacked targets outside Israel/Palestine, and do not accept non-Palestinian volunteers.* That said, they do have their origins in the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and so acknowledge an ideological lineage which they share with al Qaeda and many other analogous organizations going all the way back to the 1930s.

For posters like @glazed , when he intentionally uses the word Islamist, it is an Islamophobic dogwhistle, where that word carries a certain connotation, when the reality is different, particularly when its to do with Israel and its neighbours. As you mention - it's a broad umbrella term, and for me personally, it's too broad and doesn't tell us much.

(Here's what Gove said: Amid free speech fears among Conservatives, the communities secretary told MPs that the advocacy groups Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), Mend and Cage were organisations with “Islamist orientation and beliefs” that could be included on a list of groups banned from access to public money, ministers and civil servants.)

 

[2cents]

Now, I don't deny that Hamas are Islamic and politically driven from its inception (and therefore fit the definition of Islamist, although, again, it's a nothing term that doesn't really explain much)

I might be able to take this line of argument more seriously if you were able to come up with a more tight-fitting and coherent alternative. I’m certainly open to suggestions. As it is, all you’ve offered is “Hamas can be best described as a geo-political organisation” which is akin to stating that “Israel can be best described as a nation-state”, “the KKK can be best described as a formal association of American citizens”, or “Manchester United can be best described as a sporting institution” and seems designed to avoid applying any kind of ideological foundation or impulse to Hamas or similar movements.

It is true that bigots/Islamophobes will abuse terms in order to essentialize Muslim activism and strip Muslims of their individuality and humanity, and this should always be challenged. (I also believe that “Zionism/Zionist” is sometimes used in this way in the Jewish context, but I would never refrain from employing it where appropriate). In this case it is Hamas themselves who have emphasized the central role of Islam in their political mission. To quote directly from that 2017 charter:

​

“The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means.”​

This is a frame of reference that Hamas shares with many analogous organizations in the region and beyond, and we shouldn’t refrain from acknowledging it and the broader context in which it emerged, even as we recognize the diversity of those organizations, the different environments they operate in, and alternative sources of inspiration they draw on (not to mention the vast array of potential reasons an individual may be attracted to such a group).

In other words, a discussion on what exactly is meant by “the rise of Islamism” would have to acknowledge a broad context in which a number of factors (e.g. the failure of secular regimes, the impact of Gulf oil money, the Iranian Revolution, the overbearing legacy of Western imperialism, etc.) combined to help drive a growth in the popularity of Islamic political movements generally from the late 1960s onward, while still recognizing that the form their activism and resistance took was contingent on several other factors too, and especially on the particular circumstances and challenges facing them in places as diverse as Gaza, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Turkey, Tunisia, etc. Keeping all that in mind, I think we can discuss Hamas in terms of “the rise of Islamism” without necessarily and unwittingly providing cover for Israel or Islamophobia, which I accept is a real and legitimate concern.

 

[the_cliff]

So the normalisation isn't happening I guess. Who would've thought.

 

[africanspur]

I haven’t been following but I thought there was a tweet posted in this thread a while back along those lines.

Very much sadly a forgotten conflict.

 

[africanspur]

Islamism has a pretty clear definition no? A political group that believes Islam should play a significant role / be the overriding source of laws and morality.

Now there's clearly, as with any political movement, variance within that. In terms of how willing those groups are to use democracy, or maintain it, how willing they are to use violence or to what extent they want religion to play a role in daily life.

Clearly, some will use the term to make a point, as for example when Hamas were being compared to ISIS by the Israelis, a clearly inaccurate comparison.

Still, there is no doubt that Hamas is an islamist movement,arising from broader middle Eastern islamist movements. I think they wouldn't even shy away from that term themselves.

 

[2cents]

I think they wouldn't even shy away from that term themselves.

It’s the most commonly used translation of Islamiyun (إسلاميون) which is a term often used by these movements, including Hamas, to describe themselves. There may be a case to be made for simply using Islamiyun itself (see here).

 

[VorZakone]

What does it do for Iranian credibility if their response turns out to be weak/timid anyway?

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Raoul]

I mean, for the sake of nitpicky argumentation, the intervention in Libya in 2011 was through a UN resolution, wasn't it?

Not saying it was good/bad, but that's the UN. It can work in favor of you or against you.

Yes. Which is why one shouldn't rely on the UN to bail them out. 2011 Libya and 2003 Iraq were both done on the backs of UN resolutions.

 

[Pintu]

Yes. Which is why one shouldn't rely on the UN to bail them out. 2011 Libya and 2003 Iraq were both done on the backs of UN resolutions.

Iraq wasn’t… it is the only event in recent history where Germany and France strongly opposed US intervention policy.

 

[Raoul]

Iraq wasn’t… it is the only event in recent history where Germany and France strongly opposed US intervention policy.

It was done based on a resolution that Iraq was in material breach of the original terms of surrender of Gulf War 1. There were two specific UN resolutions that covered this. Another example of how the UN is used to advance the interests of its larger member states while creating the illusion that smaller states are engaging in a democratic process among nations.

 

[That_Bloke]

Yes. Which is why one shouldn't rely on the UN to bail them out. 2011 Libya and 2003 Iraq were both done on the backs of UN resolutions.

No.

"The resolution itself never mentioned a war and only required Iraq to support inspections by UNMOVIC and IAEA.[5]"

 

[VorZakone]

My guess is this will eventually "die down" again in the sense that Iran now has to respond but afterwards it'll be business as usual. That's based on the claim that Iran prefers to avoid a larger showdown.

 

[That_Bloke]

My guess is this will eventually "die down" again in the sense that Iran now has to respond but afterwards it'll be business as usual. That's based on the claim that Iran prefers to avoid a larger showdown.

Iran will retaliate. A strike on an embassy is a declaration of war and too big of a matter to be simply swept under the rug.

It's a matter of when, not if.

 

[4bars]

Iran will retaliate. A strike on an embassy is a declaration of war and too big of a matter to be simply swept under the rug.

It's a matter of when, not if.

And how. Because if the when and how is under trump, shit can hit the fan very rapidly...Even without trump. If the target is important enough for Israel, as things stands, they might retaliate as we never seen before

 

[Raoul]

And how. Because if the when and how is under trump, shit can hit the fan very rapidly...Even without trump. If the target is important enough for Israel, as things stands, they might retaliate as we never seen before

If the Iranian attack comes from Syrian soil then it will be met with a limited response. If it comes from Iranian soil then there's a good chance it will be viewed as a declaration of war between both sides and will result in Israel regarding Iranian territory as fair game - that means nuclear sites and other military targets.

 

[That_Bloke]

The biggest demonstrations were in Baghdad and Sanaa. In Iraq both the public and the State view of the conflict align. Iraq stil is the leading voice of opposition to diplomatic normalisation with Israel in the arab league. You probably not in the circle of Arabic news, but Iraq is a leading country for Palestinian rights. That said, Iraq has a big problem no other arab country has, they literally have all the state wealth in one account in the American federal bank, the revenue of every single drop of oil Iraq sells will be deposited in this account that the US control and can freeze whenever they want, they could starve Iraqis in a heartbeat if they want to, and they have waved this flag few times when Iraq and the US hit a disagreement.

It's not. In fact Iraq's voice means the square root of feck all at the moment.

I've had a decades long interest in this region of the world and speak four languages, including Arabic. Not belonging to any religion or bound by any specific regional culture, whilst being well enough versed in them, allowed me to follow this particular conflict from a fairly broad point of view and navigate through very murky waters.

In my younger years, I personally thought that Iraq would be the spearhead of the Arab world. It was the most advanced Arab country with one of the most educated populations and highest living standards in the world (at the time), also benefitting from its incredibly rich history, critical geographic position and influence in the region, a few minor inconveniences due to dictatorship aside. In my mind, the latter would eventually be ironed out, given enough time. After all, Rome wasn't built in one day.

It all went to shit when Saddam Hussein decided to invade Iran in 1980. From there on, there was no coming back. I've never seen in my lifetime a "third world" country with so much potential taking the irredeemable path of self-destruction because of the futile ambitions of a man intoxicated by his own self-aggrandizing legend. He signed his own death warrant as well as his country's once he committed to it. The US, the UK as well as Israel were never going to miss this opportunity and predictably piled on it as soon as they got the chance.

Long story short and sorry to disappoint you, Iraq is not what it once was and will probably never be, for decades if not centuries. The demonstrations and the Iraqi State's view mean nothing if the US are still making the rain or the sun shine there, just as you said. They have no credibility and their corrupt, pseudo-government's been bought off.

Yemen is a shithole, a fiercely resisting one, but a shithole nonetheless with objectively zero influence on international matters. The Houthis can sink as many ships as they want, and they're fairly successful at crippling Israel's economy, but as long as the US are looming there, they will never be considered as anything else than "terrorists" and dismissed as such. The corrupt official puppet in place isn't worth talking about.

 

[VorZakone]

Iran will retaliate. A strike on an embassy is a declaration of war and too big of a matter to be simply swept under the rug.

It's a matter of when, not if.

What I mean is Iran will respond this time more heavily than usual, but it seems they don't want this to get bigger.

 

[That_Bloke]

What I mean is Iran will respond this time more heavily than usual, but it seems they don't want this to get bigger.

Absolutely.

They never had any interest in getting directly involved or it becoming a regional war and they still don't.

But they have to somehow respond. I personally think that the US will bear the brunt of it.

 

[Kaos]

If the Iranian attack comes from Syrian soil then it will be met with a limited response. If it comes from Iranian soil then there's a good chance it will be viewed as a declaration of war between both sides and will result in Israel regarding Iranian territory as fair game - that means nuclear sites and other military targets.

Israel already regards any territory in the region as fair game. They bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities in the 80s, and have been violating Syrian and Lebanese airspace pretty much daily.

 

[Raoul]

Israel already regards any territory in the region as fair game. They bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities in the 80s, and have been violating Syrian and Lebanese airspace pretty much daily.

They do, but don't currently have the political capital to go after Iran in Iran because they're tied up elsewhere and under intense global scrutiny on Gaza. The only thing that would change that is Tehran firing at Israel from within Iran, which would give the Israelis renewed leverage to hit them back.

 

[Giggsyking]

It's not. In fact Iraq's voice means the square root of feck all at the moment.

I've had a decades long interest in this region of the world and I speak four languages, including Arabic. Not belonging to any religion or bound by any specific regional culture, whilst being well enough versed in them, allowed me to follow this particular conflict from a fairly broad point of view and navigate through very murky waters.

In my younger years, I personally thought that Iraq would be the spearhead of the Arab world. It was the most advanced Arab country with one of the most educated populations and highest living standards in the world (at the time), also benefitting from its incredibly rich history, its critical geographic position and influence in the region, a few minor inconveniences due to dictatorship aside. In my mind, the latter would eventually be ironed out, given enough time. After all, Rome wasn't built in one day.

It all went to shit once Saddam Hussein decided to invade Iran in 1980. From there on, there was no coming back. I've never seen in my lifetime a "Thirld World" country with so much potential taking the irredeemable path of self-destruction because of the futile ambitions of a man intoxicated by his own self-aggrandizing legend. He signed his own death warrant as well as his country's once he committed to it. And the US as well as Israel predictably piled on it.

Long story short and sorry to disappoint you, Iraq is not what it once was and will probably never be again, for decades, if not centuries. The demonstrations and the Iraqi's State view mean nothing if the US are still making the rain or the sun shine there, just as you said. They have no credibility and their corrupt, pseudo-government's been bought off.

Yemen is a shithole, a fiercely resisting one, but a shithole nonetheless with objectively zero influence on international matters. The Houthis can sink as many ships as they want, and they're fairly successful at crippling Israel's economy, but as long as the US are looming there, they will never be considered as anything else than "terrorists" and dismissed as such. The corrupt official puppet in place isn't worth talking about.

I pretty much agree with your historical discerption of the Iraqi situation and the current state of the Iraqi situation. The only thing that I can argue is that you can not for certainty know how would Iraq done if they were in the security council (in Algeria's place), I would argue it would have been the same. The Iraqi state (despite the corrupt dysfunctional government) have never changed their view of the Palestinian issue.

 

[VorZakone]