9 ms·

This feels too reduced in options and reasoning, to be honest. I would be surprised if any of those three options pan out, mid term. To expand a little, I don

by taeric 3y ago

This feels too reduced in options and reasoning, to be honest. I would be surprised if any of those three options pan out, mid term. To expand a little, I don't understand how the Houthis have support right now, outside of support that is specifically about destabilizing the entire region. Which is why I don't see your brief paragraph being enough to explain things. You do mention US support in there; who else is involved? And why?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
belter 3y ago
Easy, its all orchestrated from Iran.
- taeric 3y ago
  I want to believe that that is too simplistic, too. It does seem to fit the evidence far too well, though.
  - comte7092 3y ago
    It’s only really simplistic if you come at things from a pro US/western point of view. The nuance is that not everyone agrees about US backed hegemony in the region. The goal isn’t to “destabilize”/whatever neutered phrase the pentagon is using, the goal is to assert a different political order. The language you’re using here takes the current state of affairs as neutral or a given when it is not.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dralley 3y ago
      Iran supports Iranian hegemony in the region, news at 11?
  - belter 3y ago
    Neither Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis would survive without the support from Iran. They don't even try to hide the origin of their weapons...
    - mulmen 3y ago
      So who backs Iran? They’re not a superpower. How long does Iran survive a shooting war with the US?
      - belter 3y ago
        Who backs Iran? Russia of course. Did you not notice the amount of Iranian drones attacking Ukraine? Other agreements between the two must be in place...This is the result of all the appeasement tactics of the last 15 years.
        epakai 3y ago
        You have to wonder if this could all be tied back to Russia. They obviously stand to gain a lot if foreign powers are distracted. So far it's proving quite the boon to have the US interests split between Ukraine and Israel. I haven't seen evidence to suggest this is the case though. I imagine if we had that evidence it would be paraded before the US Congress to make it apparent that Ukraine's struggle is intimately tied to the unrest in the Middle East.
        mulmen 3y ago
        All they’re really doing is giving us a reason to dust off production capacity. The last thing Russia or China should want is a fully primed arsenal of democracy.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    I'm afraid it really is that simple. The various big players in the Middle East have been doing it for decades. Iran also provides support for Hamas, which is why the Houthis are involved so directly. The details are of course incredibly complicated, but the basic observation that weapons and money flow out of Tehran is straightforward.
    - briffle 3y ago
      taking out a drone with an expensive rocket is a bad choice, but taking out the drone launching crew and site with a rocket (or even better, a good size naval canon) seems like a much more cost effective choice. Its easy to launch things when nobody is shooting back at you.
      - mulmen 3y ago
        Do these drones need significant infrastructure to launch? Seems like whack-a-mole. What do you do when they launch drones from school athletic fields? Or on top of hospitals?
      - jfengel 3y ago
        Except when the drone was launched from a civilian apartment building. Then you get a whole lot of bad press, and people insist you stop fighting entirely.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    All might be to strong, but it is clear that Iran is funding, providing leadership, training, and giving vocal support (sometimes in secret channels). With out Iran this might still exist, but it would have a lot less ability.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  Just because there is a loose alliance and significant military support between several organizations doesn't mean that they all do the main party's bidding, much less that they only do the main party's bidding. (To whit, note that the US can't really order NATO to do much of anything). I suspect that Iran isn't in any sense ordering the Houthis to do anything, and the idea to attack shipping is entirely germinated from the Houthis themselves (largely as a form of "showing support" for Palestinians, even if, as a few people have noted, this action only hurts them while providing them no meaningful aide). Largely, this is because it's colossally stupid for Iran to push for a provocation that is meaningfully likely to see all the major world powers (except for maybe Russia; note that China is going to be on the US's side here) create a coalition to eliminate a troublesome menace.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    This probably is the case, but I think it's worth saying that it doesn't actually change Iran's exposure here, because I presume the rest of the world believes that the IRGC can stop this (or at least drastically scale it back) any time they want. If you were the UK Secretary of State for Defence, where would you rather engage? Houthi Yemen, or anywhere that Iran has an interest?
charred_patina 3y ago
[flagged]
- taeric 3y ago
  If you think this is truly about putting pressure on Israel to halt their campaign in Gaza, I have major questions for the news sources you are ingesting. As well as how much charity you are giving comically literal terrorists in this. As for why they would want to destabilize the region? You basically answered that on your own, no? They cynically want to increase their influence and power, but they can only do so at the expense of others. That is, yes, they have taken the irrational view of causing chaos to further their power-hungry desires.
  - charred_patina 3y ago
    > If you think this is truly about putting pressure on Israel to halt their campaign in Gaza, I have major questions for the news sources you are ingesting. These attacks coincided with the bombing and are the stated reason. > As well as how much charity you are giving comically literal terrorists in this. I know this might get me downvoted, but I don't think that the designation of terrorist is super helpful here. It's usually just used to delegitimize a group by saying they can't be negotiated with. It's hubris to think that anyone you decide to designate as a terrorist no longer has to be negotiated with like any other political entity. In my pov, the bombing of Gaza is a terroristic act. Yet the US finances it and sanctions it. If the Houthis have done worse, then I would agree with the terrorist designation. But it should be clear that the distinction is arbitrary. > As for why they would want to destabilize the region? What do you consider destabilization? I think most of the time I see "destabilization" it is used as a code word for weakening US influence. The US destabilized Iraq by taking out Saddam and disbanding the army. It destabilized Afghanistan by removing the Taliban and sanctioning warlords. It can be argued whether these places were better or worse under US occupation, but just like the word "terrorist" used earlier, my point is that the word "destabilized" is a moral signifier that is used when people don't want to engage in a realistic conversation about the situation.
    - 3y ago
logicchains 3y ago
>I don't understand how the Houthis have support right now They've got a huge amount of popular support in the Middle East, because so many people there hate Israel, and see the Houthis as the only ones standing up to Israel (apart from Hamas and Hezbollah). I don't have a source, but if you ever happened to check the comments on Middle East TikTok videos you'd see what I mean.
tptacek 3y ago
The conventional geopolitical answer for this is: the IRGC is the principal sponsor of the Houthis; the Houthi uprising was funded originally as an Iranian proxy war against Saudi Arabia. The Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah are part of an "axis of resistance", the subtext of which is "they take their orders from the IRGC". It may or may not be the case that they're disrupting shipping at the direction of Iran, but it almost certainly is the case that Iran equipped them, and that Iran can effectively instruct them to stop. It's hard to make any kind of comment on a thread here without getting pulled towards one pole or another of the ongoing argument about what's happening in MENA right now; I'm doing my best to keep this as dry as possible, and to hedge statements by saying things like "the conventional geopolitical answer". You can find alternate geopolitical answers; in fact, you can probably find any answer you're looking for. All I can do is relay what I'm reading.
- taeric 3y ago
  Perfectly fair response. I, sadly, failed and walked into a thread I should have avoided. :( I think my main question is what valid paths forward do people see here? I honestly don't know how to find news that isn't dominated by posturing, at the moment.
  - xinuc 3y ago
    I don't know about the best path, but I know an obviously wrong path: which is to reduce other people's resistance and struggle as mere terrorism and extremist. US and western world clearly have the power to rule the world, but the way they act right now will ensure many more resistance and pain for everyone.
    - taeric 3y ago
      This, I think, is a fair and well meaning criticism. That said, you have to hold your own accountable for bad acts. Doesn't mean none will ever happen, of course. Nor does it mean that you cannot have legitimate concerns and claims. And your response to a terrorist act cannot legitimately be to try to minimize it. Nor is it a valid response to rapid fire old grievances, many of which are misrepresented or where the people involved were held accountable. So, in spirit of your criticism, let's try and move past it. You don't know the best path. What are some valid paths?

by taeric 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

belter 3y ago

Easy, its all orchestrated from Iran.

taeric 3y ago
I want to believe that that is too simplistic, too. It does seem to fit the evidence far too well, though.
- comte7092 3y ago
  It’s only really simplistic if you come at things from a pro US/western point of view. The nuance is that not everyone agrees about US backed hegemony in the region. The goal isn’t to “destabilize”/whatever neutered phrase the pentagon is using, the goal is to assert a different political order. The language you’re using here takes the current state of affairs as neutral or a given when it is not.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dralley 3y ago
    Iran supports Iranian hegemony in the region, news at 11?
- belter 3y ago
  Neither Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis would survive without the support from Iran. They don't even try to hide the origin of their weapons...
  - mulmen 3y ago
    So who backs Iran? They’re not a superpower. How long does Iran survive a shooting war with the US?
    - belter 3y ago
      Who backs Iran? Russia of course. Did you not notice the amount of Iranian drones attacking Ukraine? Other agreements between the two must be in place...This is the result of all the appeasement tactics of the last 15 years.
      - epakai 3y ago
        You have to wonder if this could all be tied back to Russia. They obviously stand to gain a lot if foreign powers are distracted. So far it's proving quite the boon to have the US interests split between Ukraine and Israel. I haven't seen evidence to suggest this is the case though. I imagine if we had that evidence it would be paraded before the US Congress to make it apparent that Ukraine's struggle is intimately tied to the unrest in the Middle East.
        mulmen 3y ago
        All they’re really doing is giving us a reason to dust off production capacity. The last thing Russia or China should want is a fully primed arsenal of democracy.
- jfengel 3y ago
  I'm afraid it really is that simple. The various big players in the Middle East have been doing it for decades. Iran also provides support for Hamas, which is why the Houthis are involved so directly. The details are of course incredibly complicated, but the basic observation that weapons and money flow out of Tehran is straightforward.
  - briffle 3y ago
    taking out a drone with an expensive rocket is a bad choice, but taking out the drone launching crew and site with a rocket (or even better, a good size naval canon) seems like a much more cost effective choice. Its easy to launch things when nobody is shooting back at you.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      Do these drones need significant infrastructure to launch? Seems like whack-a-mole. What do you do when they launch drones from school athletic fields? Or on top of hospitals?
    - jfengel 3y ago
      Except when the drone was launched from a civilian apartment building. Then you get a whole lot of bad press, and people insist you stop fighting entirely.
- bluGill 3y ago
  All might be to strong, but it is clear that Iran is funding, providing leadership, training, and giving vocal support (sometimes in secret channels). With out Iran this might still exist, but it would have a lot less ability.
jcranmer 3y ago
Just because there is a loose alliance and significant military support between several organizations doesn't mean that they all do the main party's bidding, much less that they only do the main party's bidding. (To whit, note that the US can't really order NATO to do much of anything). I suspect that Iran isn't in any sense ordering the Houthis to do anything, and the idea to attack shipping is entirely germinated from the Houthis themselves (largely as a form of "showing support" for Palestinians, even if, as a few people have noted, this action only hurts them while providing them no meaningful aide). Largely, this is because it's colossally stupid for Iran to push for a provocation that is meaningfully likely to see all the major world powers (except for maybe Russia; note that China is going to be on the US's side here) create a coalition to eliminate a troublesome menace.
- tptacek 3y ago
  This probably is the case, but I think it's worth saying that it doesn't actually change Iran's exposure here, because I presume the rest of the world believes that the IRGC can stop this (or at least drastically scale it back) any time they want. If you were the UK Secretary of State for Defence, where would you rather engage? Houthi Yemen, or anywhere that Iran has an interest?

charred_patina 3y ago

[flagged]

taeric 3y ago
If you think this is truly about putting pressure on Israel to halt their campaign in Gaza, I have major questions for the news sources you are ingesting. As well as how much charity you are giving comically literal terrorists in this. As for why they would want to destabilize the region? You basically answered that on your own, no? They cynically want to increase their influence and power, but they can only do so at the expense of others. That is, yes, they have taken the irrational view of causing chaos to further their power-hungry desires.
- charred_patina 3y ago
  > If you think this is truly about putting pressure on Israel to halt their campaign in Gaza, I have major questions for the news sources you are ingesting. These attacks coincided with the bombing and are the stated reason. > As well as how much charity you are giving comically literal terrorists in this. I know this might get me downvoted, but I don't think that the designation of terrorist is super helpful here. It's usually just used to delegitimize a group by saying they can't be negotiated with. It's hubris to think that anyone you decide to designate as a terrorist no longer has to be negotiated with like any other political entity. In my pov, the bombing of Gaza is a terroristic act. Yet the US finances it and sanctions it. If the Houthis have done worse, then I would agree with the terrorist designation. But it should be clear that the distinction is arbitrary. > As for why they would want to destabilize the region? What do you consider destabilization? I think most of the time I see "destabilization" it is used as a code word for weakening US influence. The US destabilized Iraq by taking out Saddam and disbanding the army. It destabilized Afghanistan by removing the Taliban and sanctioning warlords. It can be argued whether these places were better or worse under US occupation, but just like the word "terrorist" used earlier, my point is that the word "destabilized" is a moral signifier that is used when people don't want to engage in a realistic conversation about the situation.
  - 3y ago

logicchains 3y ago

>I don't understand how the Houthis have support right now They've got a huge amount of popular support in the Middle East, because so many people there hate Israel, and see the Houthis as the only ones standing up to Israel (apart from Hamas and Hezbollah). I don't have a source, but if you ever happened to check the comments on Middle East TikTok videos you'd see what I mean.

tptacek 3y ago

The conventional geopolitical answer for this is: the IRGC is the principal sponsor of the Houthis; the Houthi uprising was funded originally as an Iranian proxy war against Saudi Arabia. The Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah are part of an "axis of resistance", the subtext of which is "they take their orders from the IRGC". It may or may not be the case that they're disrupting shipping at the direction of Iran, but it almost certainly is the case that Iran equipped them, and that Iran can effectively instruct them to stop. It's hard to make any kind of comment on a thread here without getting pulled towards one pole or another of the ongoing argument about what's happening in MENA right now; I'm doing my best to keep this as dry as possible, and to hedge statements by saying things like "the conventional geopolitical answer". You can find alternate geopolitical answers; in fact, you can probably find any answer you're looking for. All I can do is relay what I'm reading.

taeric 3y ago
Perfectly fair response. I, sadly, failed and walked into a thread I should have avoided. :( I think my main question is what valid paths forward do people see here? I honestly don't know how to find news that isn't dominated by posturing, at the moment.
- xinuc 3y ago
  I don't know about the best path, but I know an obviously wrong path: which is to reduce other people's resistance and struggle as mere terrorism and extremist. US and western world clearly have the power to rule the world, but the way they act right now will ensure many more resistance and pain for everyone.
  - taeric 3y ago
    This, I think, is a fair and well meaning criticism. That said, you have to hold your own accountable for bad acts. Doesn't mean none will ever happen, of course. Nor does it mean that you cannot have legitimate concerns and claims. And your response to a terrorist act cannot legitimately be to try to minimize it. Nor is it a valid response to rapid fire old grievances, many of which are misrepresented or where the people involved were held accountable. So, in spirit of your criticism, let's try and move past it. You don't know the best path. What are some valid paths?