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

VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


Fully speculation on my part but the very visible public messaging from the US on a strong Iranian response feels a bit like expectation management, God knows how they'll respond but the US could be expecting a limited response that it could sell as a sign of de-escalation, or to further present Iran as a paper tiger.
 
Iran should attack Israeli nuclear sites, but they don't exist so no big deal...
 
On the islamism debate, undeniably the rise of militant zionism as espoused by the settler movement is a far greater threat to middle east peace.
 
Giggsyking said:
No
Click to expand...

The US used resolution 687 (along with half a dozen earlier resolutions), which was a standing UNSCR from Gulf War 1, to make the argument Iraq was not complying with the original terms of surrender. UNSCR 1441 was used to justify the invasion.
 
Raoul said:
The US used resolution 687 (along with half a dozen earlier resolutions), which was a standing UNSCR from Gulf War 1, to make the argument Iraq was not complying with the original terms of surrender. UNSCR 1441 was used to justify the invasion.
Click to expand...
I know the resolution 1441, and despite Iraq not specifically breaching it and agreed to it, the resolution itself contained no automatic authorization of war or invasion. It was clear a matter for the security council for a diplomatic solution and only if every mean fails members of the SC have the right to disarm Iraq in the act of self defence.

What Bush did was misusing it (1441) as legal cover for his illegal invasion. That takes us to a set of lies he told the UN general assembly, Iraq is using the Food for oil program to buy weapons (lies), Iraq has WMD (lies), Iraq is harboring Al-Qaeda (lie).
 
Giggsyking said:
I know the resolution 1441, and despite Iraq not specifically breaching it and agreed to it, the resolution itself contained no automatic authorization of war or invasion. It was clear a matter for the security council for a diplomatic solution and only if every mean fails members of the SC have the right to disarm Iraq in the act of self defence.

What Bush did was misusing it (1441) as legal cover for his illegal invasion. That takes us to a set of lies he told the UN general assembly, Iraq is using the Food for oil program to buy weapons (lies), Iraq has WMD (lies), Iraq is harboring Al-Qaeda (lie).
Click to expand...

I agree. It was missued/manipulated. Which gets back to my original point, that no one should rely on the UN to bail them out of this current mess because its simply a tool of larger nations to get what the want, which often leaves smaller countries out in the cold when seeking international conflict mediation.
 
Giggsyking said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no Iraqi state nor Iraq to speak of. This country is done, the US made sure of it, and I won't speak or argue about "what ifs". It's pointless.

I'm certain that the Iraqi population is firmly on Palestine's side, but they have too much on their hands to effectively play any relevant role. The only Muslim country that really could take Iraq's mantle and lead the dance would be Turkey, but they have their own agenda and a loooot at stake. Their NATO membership also further complicates things.
 
Last edited:
Giggsyking said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's quite correct. You would have to split Iraqi perceptions of Palestine into sectarian factions - both generally agreeing albeit for different reasons. Saddam and Arafat had a pretty good relationship, which was codified when Arafat supported or tacitly looked the other way during Saddam's military adventures against Iran and Kuwait, for which he was subsequently rewarded by Saddam at times funding and arming elements of the PLO and allowing Arafat to move headquarters to Baghdad for a while in the mid 80s. There was also a lot of Palestinian support for Saddam because he was viewed as somewhat of an acolyte of Nasr style pan-Arabism who would stand up to the west, which Saddam successfully leveraged for domestic and regional propaganda during the 80s and 90s. The Shi'a factions that presently rule Iraq are generally supportive of the Iranian view of Israel, albeit much less stridently so than Tehran's position.
 
africanspur said:
Do you genuinely believe this?
Click to expand...
Yes absolutely, it's a key factor in 10s of thousands of dead Palestinians, and there increasingly fanatical racism is a major reason why so many Arab states will struggle to sell normalisation to their people. Whilst at the same time allowing the likes or Iran to navigate the shia/sunni divide and still garner some support in the wider arab world if they are seen to lead some kind of resistance to the settler movement.
 
That_Bloke said:
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 "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.
Click to expand...

This post plays into the debate over how best to understand Saddam’s place in the Iraqi political context which might be worth thinking about. Was Saddam an exceptional figure whose egomaniacal ruthlessness almost single-handedly derailed Iraq’s steady progress? Or was his ascent to power the inevitable product of a political culture that rewarded the ability to navigate by conspiracy, factionalism, and violence?
 
Superden said:
Yes absolutely, it's a key factor in 10s of thousands of dead Palestinians, and there increasingly fanatical racism is a major reason why so many Arab states will struggle to sell normalisation to their people. Whilst at the same time allowing the likes or Iran to navigate the shia/sunni divide and still garner some support in the wider arab world if they are seen to lead some kind of resistance to the settler movement.
Click to expand...

Why is Israeli extremism towards Zionism and what constitutes their land that is limited in essence to an already established nation state and occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza more destabilizing than say,

Salafi extremism which has resulted in ISIS and hundreds of thousands of dead and their ambition to rule over the entire middle east under a caliphate

OR

Iranian foreign policy which is to arm and equip all kinds of paramilitary groups in failed states in the middle east for their own ends of sowing discord amongst the Arab World, particularly those in alignment with the West

OR

Al-Qaeda and their various physical manifestations that have tens of thousands of soldiers such as the Al-Nusra front and Al-Din marauding through Syria.

All these groups whose end goals are murky are far more dangerous for stability than Israeli Zionism. The goals of Zionism are finite, known and pretty static for the past decades. The goals of the above in some cases are quite literally kill everyone but ourselves, destroy everyone but ourselves and last man standing is the winner.

There's a reason why Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and the Gulf States have either normalized relations or have not yet officially done so but are in a state of peace and co-existence. The only potential conflicts in the region that extremist Zionism can poise to start are paramilitary groups like Hezbollah and Houthi's, failed states in Syria and a geo-political foe in Iran.

Israel's relationship with the Arab world is far more stable than Iran's for example.
 


In the event of a conflict with Iran, if we do not receive American ammunition - we will have to use everything we have...
Click to expand...
I really hope the codes to the Israeli nukes are somehow in Washington or locked away in some gym locker at NATO headquarters.
 
Sweet Square said:



I really hope the codes to the Israeli nukes are somehow in Washington or locked away in some gym locker at NATO headquarters.
Click to expand...


How this small country can blackmail a country who owns everything to them. Baffling
 
Ramadan is now over and still the paper-tiger Islamic regime in Iran hasn't avenged the loss of their top IRGC commander who was blown up in Iranian consulate in Damascus last week. So you may wonder why....because the regime knows if they retaliate and the chain of reaction will have Israel retaliate, they just don't have the public support/will to go to full on conflict. This isn't 1980s anymore where people rallied behind the flag and went to fight Saddam (I still believe Saddam's attack was the biggest gift to Khomeini and it helped ruthlessly establish the new regime and ruthlessly kill all dissidents thanks to the war. It's textbook playbook).

Anyways, regime tried to hold a minute of silence at Azadi (Aryamehr) Stadium in Tehran for Commander Zahedi and his team who were blown up in Syria by Israel...and this was the fans' reaction.

 
Hanks said:
Ramadan is now over and still the paper-tiger Islamic regime in Iran hasn't avenged the loss of their top IRGC commander who was blown up in Iranian consulate in Damascus last week. So you may wonder why....because the regime knows if they retaliate and the chain of reaction will have Israel retaliate, they just don't have the public support/will to go to full on conflict. This isn't 1980s anymore where people rallied behind the flag and went to fight Saddam (I still believe Saddam's attack was the biggest gift to Khomeini and it helped ruthlessly establish the new regime and ruthlessly kill all dissidents thanks to the war. It's textbook playbook).

Anyways, regime tried to hold a minute of silence at Azadi (Aryamehr) Stadium in Tehran for Commander Zahedi and his team who were blown up in Syria by Israel...and this was the fans' reaction.

Click to expand...

I don't think they (The Iranian government) want to go full on conflict either mate. Despite what the media wants us to think.

Also, I know the Iranian regime is not popular at all in Iran nor anywhere in the world for that matter but if it does go full conflict and innocent Iranians start dying that will quickly change as it always does.
 
berbatrick said:
Click to expand...

The Houthis have basically shut down the Mandab straight, you really thing Iran couldn't do the same to Hormuz ? That much is obvious, it goes without saying and it's probably a way to tell the Gulf countries to stay out of it.
 
I just find it predictably absurd that all these Western nations are frantically on the phone to Iran, insisting on restraint, when not one of those diplomats or leaders had anything to say about Israel essentially starting this direct confrontation by committing an actor of terror by bombing an Iranian consulate in another sovereign nation. All we had was genocide Joe roll out the usual bravado of standing by to help Israel, reminding us of the US' 'Iron clad committment' blah blah. They've really illuminated the insincerity of their moral and principled stance when it comes to global affairs (if the unfolding genocide in Gaza didn't do that already).
 
Kaos said:
I just find it predictably absurd that all these Western nations are frantically on the phone to Iran, insisting on restraint, when not one of those diplomats or leaders had anything to say about Israel essentially starting this direct confrontation by committing an actor of terror by bombing an Iranian consulate in another sovereign nation. All we had was genocide Joe roll out the usual bravado of standing by to help Israel, reminding us of the US' 'Iron clad committment' blah blah. They've really illuminated the insincerity of their moral and principled stance when it comes to global affairs (if the unfolding genocide in Gaza didn't do that already).
Click to expand...

Yeah it's absurd, they're claiming nations have a right to self-defence whilst simultaneously threatening Iran if it dare
defend itself. There's no moral argument to it, just an overpowered nation bullying whoever it can.

For all the rhetoric Iran clearly don't want a direct war. Yet if the West allow Israel to act with impunity then its exactly what will happen, in the exact same way the Hamas attack was predictable.
 
The only proportionate response would be to attack the Israeli consulate in Damascus. I presume that Western diplomats have remonstrated to Israel a lot over the last few months behind closed doors, but they have to maintain their appearance of "backing Israel" publicly. Hence the ridiculous hypocritical statements of "we warn Iran not escalate" etc.

Iran clearly does not want a direct confrontation, as that could easily undermine the regime back at home. Imagine it'll be more of the same, some proxies will attack something random in Syria or Iraq.

All things aside, the Israelis are currently better equipped and far more emboldened. Wonder if Iran will ever actually come close to striking back.

Edit: also, just thinking - I wonder if the consulate attack in Damascus was revenge for the supposed "Mossad intelligence" base that Iran flattened in Iraq? Albeit that itself might have been retaliation for something Israel did, fully lost track at this stage.
 
2cents said:
There is no Israeli consulate in Damascus.
Click to expand...
I suppose the closest parallel would be something like the consulate or embassy in Jordan. Or a US military base in Syria if we're still using that poor country as a stage for proxy attacks.
 
Kaos said:
I suppose the closest parallel would be something like the consulate or embassy in Jordan. Or a US military base in Syria if we're still using that poor country as a stage for proxy attacks.
Click to expand...

If Iran were to directly hit an Israeli diplomatic mission in response, it would jeopardize relations with the host country, which is something the Israelis didn’t have to worry about with Syria. I can’t really think of a country Tehran would be willing to go that far with. Even the Hezbollah attack in Buenos Aires in the 90s dragged Iran’s name through the mud in Argentina for years and years afterwards. However if we’re discounting that factor, Israeli targets in Baku or the UAE would make sense to me. They both neighbor Iran and Tehran could claim, probably with some legitimacy, that they are used by Israeli intelligence to support various types of attacks within Iran, as the Israelis claim Tehran uses Syria for.
 
the_cliff said:
The Houthis have basically shut down the Mandab straight, you really thing Iran couldn't do the same to Hormuz ? That much is obvious, it goes without saying and it's probably a way to tell the Gulf countries to stay out of it.
Click to expand...

I feel this is being massively overlooked. I've got a few mates who are currently taking the long route round the cape to get back to the UK. One has had to fend off pirates. He sent me a video and 6 small boats who were clearly experienced and tried a coordinated attack to push the larger vessel in to shallower waters and slow it down enough for them to try to board it. Luckily they have security on board who shot at them and damaged two of the boats so eventually they all fell back. It honestly looked scary as feck though.

So we have a huge expense for security, added wages to the crew and a lengthy delay in getting the cargo to its destination simply because they can't navigate the Suez Canal, or have chosen not to. All that is passed on to us. I know many reports say the Houthis attacks are not having a significant effect and many are taking the risk, but I can assure you many are not and are taking the safer option of rounding the cape. To me that's insane as only a couple of years ago that route was considered to be high risk due to the risk of attacks by pirates, not to mention the added distance and difficulties with disruption due to weather around that area.

I've searched the mainstream media and most are just not reporting on this at all yet it's a massive problem and is absolutely contributing to rising prices for the rest of us.
 
langster said:
I feel this is being massively overlooked. I've got a few mates who are currently taking the long route round the cape to get back to the UK. One has had to fend off pirates. He sent me a video and 6 small boats who were clearly experienced and tried a coordinated attack to push the larger vessel in to shallower waters and slow it down enough for them to try to board it. Luckily they have security on board who shot at them and damaged two of the boats so eventually they all fell back. It honestly looked scary as feck though.

So we have a huge expense for security, added wages to the crew and a lengthy delay in getting the cargo to its destination simply because they can't navigate the Suez Canal, or have chosen not to. All that is passed on to us. I know many reports say the Houthis attacks are not having a significant effect and many are taking the risk, but I can assure you many are not and are taking the safer option of rounding the cape. To me that's insane as only a couple of years ago that route was considered to be high risk due to the risk of attacks by pirates, not to mention the added distance and difficulties with disruption due to weather around that area.

I've searched the mainstream media and most are just not reporting on this at all yet it's a massive problem and is absolutely contributing to rising prices for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Of course, another thing to consider is what a regional war will do to oil prices. The effect on the price of oil would be like what happened in the first 6 months/year in the Russia Ukraine war but on steroids....
 
Israel should apologize and the U.S. should start telling Israel that it’s a small country, not a superpower. They should say that in clear terms. Israel has the right to defend itself, but what they did in Damascus was wrong. America shouldn’t follow through with this madness. Stop Israel from being a bully in the Middle East. we don’t want more wars.


Kaos said:
I just find it predictably absurd that all these Western nations are frantically on the phone to Iran, insisting on restraint, when not one of those diplomats or leaders had anything to say about Israel essentially starting this direct confrontation by committing an actor of terror by bombing an Iranian consulate in another sovereign nation. All we had was genocide Joe roll out the usual bravado of standing by to help Israel, reminding us of the US' 'Iron clad committment' blah blah. They've really illuminated the insincerity of their moral and principled stance when it comes to global affairs (if the unfolding genocide in Gaza didn't do that already).
Click to expand...
Absurd, hypocritical, maybe. However, calling for restraint given the situation is the right thing to do. Macron, for example, is right in this instance. France traditionally tries to avoid wars, and it’s good to see.
 
Last edited:
ManUtd1999 said:
Israel should apologize and the U.S. should start telling Israel that it’s a small country, not a superpower. They should say that in clear terms. Israel has the right to defend itself, but what they did in Damascus was wrong. America shouldn’t follow through with this madness. Stop Israel from being a bully in the Middle East. we don’t want more wars.



Absurd, hypocritical, maybe. However, calling for restraint given the situation is the right thing to do. Macron, for example, is right in this instance. France traditionally tries to avoid wars, and it’s good to see.
Click to expand...
The trouble is Israel carried out this attack, knowing full well it will provoke Iran. They likely had help from the US too. If the calls for restraint work then Israel would have got away with it with no repercussions, thanks largely to a host of Western nations and their diplomats who've given them essential carte blanche to continue carrying out similar attacks in the future. Its akin to the useless school teacher punishing a kid for hitting the bully back.

What needs to happen is for the US and various other European nations to explicitly condemn the consulate terror attack, and insist Israel issue an apology and refrain from carrying out further destabilising attacks in the region. Though this comedic wishful thinking as we know hell would freeze over before these nations condemn Israel. So Iran principally has every right to retaliate and hit Israeli or US targets in response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.