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

The Firestarter said:
If the US allies show Trump a big middle finger regarding sanctions, he will be the one ending up isolated. US sanctioning Germany or France, now that will be unprecedented since WW II . But I actually think he may double down and do it. Again, nobody will be happy except one man in the Kremlin.
Click to expand...

Will anyone in Europe actually have the balls to do so?
 
Raoul said:
I definitely think the deal was working - in fact we know it was working since the Iranians had been getting periodically recertified. On the other hand, Trump did campaign on repealing the entire deal and negotiating a new one so I'm not entirely shocked that he has followed through.
Click to expand...

In that sense, its just another of the "Obama did it so we Republicans have to undo it no matter what" type of thing. Political pettiness at its finest
 
I don’t know the ins and outs of the nuclear deal, but I’m assuming it only stopped them from developing nuclear weapons and not chemical ones. Is this true?
 
Member 5225 said:
but this tactic only works for them?
like if I was Iran I'd negotiate 'weapons inspectors / inspections only if Israel does too' call their bluff
Click to expand...
Israel won't ever accept it though. Oh, and Israel is not under sanctions.
 
Traub said:
I don’t know the ins and outs of the nuclear deal, but I’m assuming it only stopped them from developing nuclear weapons and not chemical ones. Is this true?
Click to expand...

Technically everyone is outlawed from developing chemical weapons I think. Nuclear arms aren’t banned or illegal per se, considering there are at least nine countries that have them. However, obviously there’s a global consensus to stop their proliferation.
 
The Firestarter said:
Merkel has bigger balls than most that are expected to posses them.
Click to expand...
So far all she has been doing is saying that EU cannot depend in US. Which is fine, but to do so, EU countries (especially Germany and France) should state putting a lot of money in military. There are 3 EU countries - not including UK - with larger economy than Russia, but Russia is military more powerful than the entire EU combined. If Merkel doesn't want to depend on US, she should change the balance of power by putting considerably more money in military.

So far, it had been all talk from her.
 
Revan said:
So far all she has been doing is saying that EU cannot depend in US. Which is fine, but to do so, EU countries (especially Germany and France) should state putting a lot of money in military. There are 3 EU countries - not including UK - with larger economy than Russia, but Russia is military more powerful than the entire EU combined. If Merkel doesn't want to depend on US, she should change the balance of power by putting considerably more money in military.

So far, it had been all talk from her.
Click to expand...
So far , Trump hadn't broken the Iran deal. You don't expect much to happen in the space of a week, do you? And regarding the strength of Russia compared to the European countries , that is the result of written and unwritten agreements over the decades. US is a guarantee of security, but in turn they get huge influence and basically call the shots at the world stage. Trump came and decided to disregard that established order with his imbecile remarks and now, actions.
 
Synco said:
Could you expand?
Click to expand...
They played a role in the starvation and siege of the Yarmouk camp in 2014, which is populated by Palestinian refugees from the Nakhba.

Also, their track record of treating Palestinians in Lebanon isn't the best either. Their rhetoric of defending Palestine is PR for the wider Muslim world, particularly in Sunni regions, due to their Shia theological leanings.
 
rotherham_red said:
They played a role in the starvation and siege of the Yarmouk camp in 2014, which is populated by Palestinian refugees from the Nakhba.

Also, their track record of treating Palestinians in Lebanon isn't the best either. Their rhetoric of defending Palestine is PR for the wider Muslim world, particularly in Sunni regions, due to their Shia theological leanings.
Click to expand...
No dissent there, I think it's a misunderstanding of how I used the phrase "liberate of all of Palestine". I tried to clarify that yesterday when another poster answered:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/israel-iran-showdown.438528/page-2#post-22511421
 
Revan said:
So far all she has been doing is saying that EU cannot depend in US. Which is fine, but to do so, EU countries (especially Germany and France) should state putting a lot of money in military. There are 3 EU countries - not including UK - with larger economy than Russia, but Russia is military more powerful than the entire EU combined. If Merkel doesn't want to depend on US, she should change the balance of power by putting considerably more money in military.

So far, it had been all talk from her.
Click to expand...

Deciding to invest more resources in a military buildup is a long term strategic decision. Weapons procurement and base buildup and training are multi-year projects. If Trump is an aberration and business in NATO returns to normal in a few years then it would be silly for Merkel and co to jump the gun preemptively.
 
adexkola said:
Deciding to invest more resources in a military buildup is a long term strategic decision. Weapons procurement and base buildup and training are multi-year projects. If Trump is an aberration and business in NATO returns to normal in a few years then it would be silly for Merkel and co to jump the gun preemptively.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't see why Europe needs to be dependent in US when it comes to security, Trump or not. It has a similar GDP to US, it has more people, it should be able to defend itself.
 
Revan said:
Honestly, I don't see why Europe needs to be dependent in US when it comes to security, Trump or not. It has a similar GDP to US, it has more people, it should be able to defend itself.
Click to expand...

How far do you think Europe is from self-sustainability with regards to defense from an external threat?
 
adexkola said:
How far do you think Europe is from self-sustainability with regards to defense from an external threat?
Click to expand...
Well, UK and France have nukes and intercontinental missiles, so no-one can destroy Europe without getting destroyed in response, but in a conventional war, Europe is significantly weaker than an union of its size and GDP should be.
 
Revan said:
Well, UK and France have nukes and intercontinental missiles, so no-one can destroy Europe without getting destroyed in response, but in a conventional war, Europe is significantly weaker than an union of its size and GDP should be.
Click to expand...

Most EU states are part of NATO - the most powerful alliance in the world. There is no will to undo NATO (in fact its been expanding) and replace it with an exclusive EU force. The policy has been to have NATO and an EU defense policy that works alongside NATO policy.
 
Raoul said:
Most EU states are part of NATO - the most powerful alliance in the world. There is no will to undo NATO (in fact its been expanding) and replace it with an exclusive EU force. The policy has been to have NATO and an EU defense policy that works alongside NATO policy.
Click to expand...
I know that. But then you have president Moron and US loving to bomb other countries for shit and giggles which inevitably drags EU countries in wars they have no business to do.

I say it is better to continue in NATO, but start becoming more independent when it comes to military, and not be dependent in US. Invest large sum of money and start being equal partners to US.
 
Revan said:
I know that. But then you have president Moron and US loving to bomb other countries for shit and giggles which inevitably drags EU countries in wars they have no business to do.

I say it is better to continue in NATO, but start becoming more independent when it comes to military, and not be dependent in US. Invest large sum of money and start being equal partners to US.
Click to expand...

Each country can decide whether or not it wants to participate in whatever military campaigns it wants independent of NATO or the EU. In the case of Iran, the US, the gulf states, and Israel would obviously not require any more help to deal with Iran.
 
Revan said:
I know that. But then you have president Moron and US loving to bomb other countries for shit and giggles which inevitably drags EU countries in wars they have no business to do.

I say it is better to continue in NATO, but start becoming more independent when it comes to military, and not be dependent in US. Invest large sum of money and start being equal partners to US.
Click to expand...

That's a bit dishonest, we are perfectly happy to bomb other countries for shit and giggles alongside the US, sometimes we are even the ones instigating it, cf Libya and Syria.
 
Revan said:
I know that. But then you have president Moron and US loving to bomb other countries for shit and giggles which inevitably drags EU countries in wars they have no business to do.

I say it is better to continue in NATO, but start becoming more independent when it comes to military, and not be dependent in US. Invest large sum of money and start being equal partners to US.
Click to expand...
Huh? Who?
 
Raoul said:
The reason one can but the other can't is the Iranians don't have a benefactor state who has their back like Israel has with the US.
Click to expand...
Yep makes sense.
Am alarmed no one spits this truth though. Israel seem to get away with so much without anyone batting an eyelid. Nothing against them per se but hypocrisy is damning.
 
Member 5225 said:
Yep makes sense.
Am alarmed no one spits this truth though. Israel seem to get away with so much without anyone batting an eyelid. Nothing against them per se but hypocrisy is damning.
Click to expand...
To be honest Israel have been attacked from several sides multiple times in their short history , including a treacherous attack on their holiday. They've dealt exceptionally well with these attacks. You can say they've earned their place at the big boys table.
 
The Firestarter said:
To be honest Israel have been attacked from several sides multiple times in their short history , including a treacherous attack on their holiday. They've dealt exceptionally well with these attacks. You can say they've earned their place at the big boys table.
Click to expand...
The meer notion of a ‘big boys table’ is in itself hypocritical is it not?
I don’t understand how other countries want no more proliferation of nuclear weapons but they have absolutely zero intention of winding down their own arsenals. Am I the only one seeing this or has everyone just got blinkers on?!
 
Member 5225 said:
The meer notion of a ‘big boys table’ is in itself hypocritical is it not?
I don’t understand how other countries want no more proliferation of nuclear weapons but they have absolutely zero intention of winding down their own arsenals. Am I the only one seeing this or has everyone just got blinkers on?!
Click to expand...
It is, but this is the reality and it won't change in the foreseeable future.
 
Member 5225 said:
The meer notion of a ‘big boys table’ is in itself hypocritical is it not?
I don’t understand how other countries want no more proliferation of nuclear weapons but they have absolutely zero intention of winding down their own arsenals. Am I the only one seeing this or has everyone just got blinkers on?!
Click to expand...

In which context? Because countries aren't equal and it has never been a diplomatical objective.
 
Member 5225 said:
The meer notion of a ‘big boys table’ is in itself hypocritical is it not?
I don’t understand how other countries want no more proliferation of nuclear weapons but they have absolutely zero intention of winding down their own arsenals. Am I the only one seeing this or has everyone just got blinkers on?!
Click to expand...

You have to come to grips with the idea of power to explain behavior. The international system of states is anarchic and states are incentivized to help themselves to as much as they can as long as it doesn’t interfere with the interests of the more powerful states. There is a pecking order and those who attempt to challenge it will be penalized. This is generally how it will be until there is a real world government in place.
 
Raoul said:
You have to come to grips with the idea of power to explain behavior. The international system of states is anarchic and states are incentivized to help themselves to as much as they can as long as it doesn’t interfere with the interests of the more powerful states. There is a pecking order and those who attempt to challenge it will be penalized. This is generally how it will be until there is a real world government in place.
Click to expand...

Yet, you take the complete opposite stance regarding smaller states interactions with Russia.

You will stand on your soap box and decry Russia for standing in the way of the rights of smaller, less powerful states from navigating their own foreign policy in any direction they want.

I honestly love reading your posts, because the shamelessness of them is hysterical. Out of one side of your mouth when it suits the US, "States can only do what they want, so far as they don't piss off the big boys", and when it doesn't suit the US "It's an international tragedy that Russia is standing in the way of their neighbors plotting their free and independent course regarding foreign policy".

You flip flop harder than Mitt Romney when it comes to this stuff. I love it.
 
Nucks said:
Yet, you take the complete opposite stance regarding smaller states interactions with Russia.

You will stand on your soap box and decry Russia for standing in the way of the rights of smaller, less powerful states from navigating their own foreign policy in any direction they want.

I honestly love reading your posts, because the shamelessness of them is hysterical. Out of one side of your mouth when it suits the US, "States can only do what they want, so far as they don't piss off the big boys", and when it doesn't suit the US "It's an international tragedy that Russia is standing in the way of their neighbors plotting their free and independent course regarding foreign policy".

You flip flop harder than Mitt Romney when it comes to this stuff. I love it.
Click to expand...

I don't. Russia is part of the equation but it still falls subordinate to the US in terms of the global power pecking order. As a bigger regional power, it can intimidate its neighbors and steal their land but still has to pay a price from the US. That's what the sanctions over the past few years have been largely about.

Once you come to grips with the reality that there is a global power pecking order, the behavior of various states isn't particularly hard to understand.
 
Last edited:
And China, meanwhile, plays the long game. The game where Russia and the US eat each other alive while the Chinese are there waiting for their opportunity to take over as the only large entity left.
 
Last edited:
Nucks said:
Yet, you take the complete opposite stance regarding smaller states interactions with Russia.

You will stand on your soap box and decry Russia for standing in the way of the rights of smaller, less powerful states from navigating their own foreign policy in any direction they want.

I honestly love reading your posts, because the shamelessness of them is hysterical. Out of one side of your mouth when it suits the US, "States can only do what they want, so far as they don't piss off the big boys", and when it doesn't suit the US "It's an international tragedy that Russia is standing in the way of their neighbors plotting their free and independent course regarding foreign policy".

You flip flop harder than Mitt Romney when it comes to this stuff. I love it.
Click to expand...
To be honest the US has not annexed a chunk of land from a neighboring state recently.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
Click to expand...

.....which was not illegal in their deal and now after the US backing out and threatening economic sanctions that are close to a war declaration they have every right to go after whatever tech they want. Unlike Israel they don't have a sugar-daddy to hand them billions dollars worth of donations and state of the art weapons.
 
The Firestarter said:
To be honest Israel have been attacked from several sides multiple times in their short history , including a treacherous attack on their holiday. They've dealt exceptionally well with these attacks. You can say they've earned their place at the big boys table.
Click to expand...

They're a big boys pet which is why they are lucky to have been protected so far. Most of the sane world regards them as a joke of a nation so they definitely have not earned their place anywhere
 
shamans said:
They're a big boys pet which is why they are lucky to have been protected so far. Most of the sane world regards them as a joke of a nation so they definitely have not earned their place anywhere
Click to expand...
I'd say that pet is getting whatever he asks for, lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.