4 ms·

All of this to avoid saying "We'd be fine with you existing within your pre-1967 borders."

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
Do you see an out for Khamenei et al? They can’t credibly dismantle their nuclear deterrent and expect to keep their heads. Israel and America cannot accept it, particularly now that its conventional defences have been shown ineffective. The classic approach, airlifting the Ayatollah to a dacha in Moscow while the IRGC saves face and plots a forever path to new elections, falls apart when you consider how Iran’s internal security and geopolitical alignment would need to be sculpted in a way that would satisfy the great powers. (Iranian crude fuels China’s refineries.)
- krisoft 1y ago
  > They can’t credibly dismantle their nuclear deterrent Mainly because they don’t have one and never had one. Hard to dismantle something you don’t have. Even harder to do so credibly. They had programs to obtain a nuclear deterrent. They can dismantle those programs. But they never had the actual nuclear deterrent itself.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Sure, I mean that Khamenei can’t come out and say he’s shutting down enrichment, letting in the IAEA, actually do it and expect to stay in charge.
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    They’re sure refining a lot of material for a country that doesn’t have any plans for putting any of it in a nuclear or radiological weapon.
    - krisoft 1y ago
      That's the program you are talking about, not the deterrent. You are mixing up "working on opening a bakery" with "having bread". They are related, but not the same.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  > Do you see an out for Khamenei et al? They can’t credibly dismantle their nuclear deterrent and expect to keep their heads. Israel and America cannot accept it, particularly now that its conventional defences have been shown ineffective Honestly, I don’t think the American people have the stomach for another Middle Eastern war, and Israel has shown in the past that if you recognize their right to exist in some form, they’ll leave you the hell alone - see Egypt, Jordan, etc. So if he pulled back from those two rivalries, I doubt that hurts him much. I’d see it as riskier because of internal power struggles and possibly from regional rivals, but who knows. Guy’s in his mid 80s and there’s a decent chance Mossad knows exactly where he is. He’s got one foot on a banana peel and the other foot in the grave regardless.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > don’t think the American people have the stomach for another Middle Eastern war We don’t. That’s why the only plausible escalation here is we bomb stuff and go home. > if he pulled back from those two rivalries, I doubt that hurts him much Hmm, I wonder if this could work together with IAEA denuclearisation. Possibly with Chinese help. They, too, have an interest in Iran remaining deradicalised and flowing.
  - seydor 1y ago
    > the American people have the stomach for another Middle Eastern war, Sure they do. It's another faraway TV war. Trump is just pretending like he s hesitating to ease his fundamentalist MAGA base into it.
    - andrewflnr 1y ago
      But the Democrats/liberals also don't want a war, especially one that vaguely supports Israel. Very few people in America are anything less than strongly opposed, just a few Iran hawks.
      - seydor 1y ago
        We re about to find out in the following days
anon291 1y ago
I'm not sure why we should be 'fine' with people existing in their pre-1967 borders. I'm not advocating any military action, but the idea that we should just shrug while a great classical civilization's entire history and archaeology are being held hostage by iconoclastic religious zealots is not something any humanitarian should just shrug at.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  It’s a reference to borders that do not include Gaza, the Golan Heights, or the West Bank. It’s likely that any two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis would roughly look like how things were before the Six-Day War. However, I’m getting more at the fact that Iran is unwilling to accept a two-state solution because necessarily, one of those two states would be Israel.
  - tguvot 1y ago
    so, gaza is going back to egypt and everybody is locked there behind fence. and west bank is annexed by jordan ? sounds good
    - lenerdenator 1y ago
      Gaza and West Bank as Palestinian territory. That means that Israel would have to retreat to its 1967 borders.
      - tguvot 1y ago
        at 1967 west bank was annexed by jordan and all Palestinians had jordanian citizenship and Gaza strip was part of Egypt, surrounded by barbered wire with military issued permits to enter or exit it. this is what 1967 borders are. feel free to check maps, wiki, etc. There are no palestinian territory on map at 1967 borders
      - dralley 1y ago
        There was no "Palestinian territory" in the 1967 map. Gaza was part of Egypt, the West Bank was part of Jordan. But neither Egypt nor Jordan want anything to do with them now because of the internal instability it would inevitably result in.

Do you see an out for Khamenei et al? They can’t credibly dismantle their nuclear deterrent and expect to keep their heads. Israel and America cannot accept it, particularly now that its conventional defences have been shown ineffective. The classic approach, airlifting the Ayatollah to a dacha in Moscow while the IRGC saves face and plots a forever path to new elections, falls apart when you consider how Iran’s internal security and geopolitical alignment would need to be sculpted in a way that would satisfy the great powers. (Iranian crude fuels China’s refineries.)

krisoft 1y ago
> They can’t credibly dismantle their nuclear deterrent Mainly because they don’t have one and never had one. Hard to dismantle something you don’t have. Even harder to do so credibly. They had programs to obtain a nuclear deterrent. They can dismantle those programs. But they never had the actual nuclear deterrent itself.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Sure, I mean that Khamenei can’t come out and say he’s shutting down enrichment, letting in the IAEA, actually do it and expect to stay in charge.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  They’re sure refining a lot of material for a country that doesn’t have any plans for putting any of it in a nuclear or radiological weapon.
  - krisoft 1y ago
    That's the program you are talking about, not the deterrent. You are mixing up "working on opening a bakery" with "having bread". They are related, but not the same.
lenerdenator 1y ago
> Do you see an out for Khamenei et al? They can’t credibly dismantle their nuclear deterrent and expect to keep their heads. Israel and America cannot accept it, particularly now that its conventional defences have been shown ineffective Honestly, I don’t think the American people have the stomach for another Middle Eastern war, and Israel has shown in the past that if you recognize their right to exist in some form, they’ll leave you the hell alone - see Egypt, Jordan, etc. So if he pulled back from those two rivalries, I doubt that hurts him much. I’d see it as riskier because of internal power struggles and possibly from regional rivals, but who knows. Guy’s in his mid 80s and there’s a decent chance Mossad knows exactly where he is. He’s got one foot on a banana peel and the other foot in the grave regardless.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > don’t think the American people have the stomach for another Middle Eastern war We don’t. That’s why the only plausible escalation here is we bomb stuff and go home. > if he pulled back from those two rivalries, I doubt that hurts him much Hmm, I wonder if this could work together with IAEA denuclearisation. Possibly with Chinese help. They, too, have an interest in Iran remaining deradicalised and flowing.
- seydor 1y ago
  > the American people have the stomach for another Middle Eastern war, Sure they do. It's another faraway TV war. Trump is just pretending like he s hesitating to ease his fundamentalist MAGA base into it.
  - andrewflnr 1y ago
    But the Democrats/liberals also don't want a war, especially one that vaguely supports Israel. Very few people in America are anything less than strongly opposed, just a few Iran hawks.
    - seydor 1y ago
      We re about to find out in the following days

anon291 1y ago

I'm not sure why we should be 'fine' with people existing in their pre-1967 borders. I'm not advocating any military action, but the idea that we should just shrug while a great classical civilization's entire history and archaeology are being held hostage by iconoclastic religious zealots is not something any humanitarian should just shrug at.

lenerdenator 1y ago
It’s a reference to borders that do not include Gaza, the Golan Heights, or the West Bank. It’s likely that any two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis would roughly look like how things were before the Six-Day War. However, I’m getting more at the fact that Iran is unwilling to accept a two-state solution because necessarily, one of those two states would be Israel.
- tguvot 1y ago
  so, gaza is going back to egypt and everybody is locked there behind fence. and west bank is annexed by jordan ? sounds good
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    Gaza and West Bank as Palestinian territory. That means that Israel would have to retreat to its 1967 borders.
    - tguvot 1y ago
      at 1967 west bank was annexed by jordan and all Palestinians had jordanian citizenship and Gaza strip was part of Egypt, surrounded by barbered wire with military issued permits to enter or exit it. this is what 1967 borders are. feel free to check maps, wiki, etc. There are no palestinian territory on map at 1967 borders
    - dralley 1y ago
      There was no "Palestinian territory" in the 1967 map. Gaza was part of Egypt, the West Bank was part of Jordan. But neither Egypt nor Jordan want anything to do with them now because of the internal instability it would inevitably result in.