3 ms·

This is nonsense. Iran spent decades funding proxies to specifically isolate their region economic competitor: Saudi Arabia. Israel just happened to be there an

This is nonsense. Iran spent decades funding proxies to specifically isolate their region economic competitor: Saudi Arabia. Israel just happened to be there and frequently get in the way when not directly intervening.

runlaszlorun 1y ago
No middle east expert but wouldn't you call Turkey a competitor?
- austin-cheney 1y ago
  Iran does not view Turkey as their primary regional competitor. You could argue that Turkey is not an oil economy and is closer to Europe. There is also an ethic and religious factor. Iran is majority Persian and Shia while Saudi Arabia is majority Arab and Sunni.
  - herewulf 1y ago
    FWIW, Turkey is majority Turkic and Sunni. The Middle East is a complex place.
  - t-3 1y ago
    Turkey and Iran also have some common interests WRT to Kurds and other minority groups, though they clash in other areas (like Syria).
edanm 1y ago
Sorry, what? You're literally [edit: figuratively] flying in the face of... well, just about anyone who has any knowledge or expertise in the middle east. It also flies in the face of anyone with general knowledge: Two of Iran's main proxies are Hamas, that has been shooting rockets at Israel for the last 15 years, and launched a major invasion planned (in their mind) to destroy Israel? And Hezbollah, which fought multiple wars with Israel, also launched hundreds of rockets at Israel since the Gaza war began, and had thousands of rockets aimed at Israel, as well as tens of thousand of ground troops hidden in caves and tunnels on the border of Israel, with plans to launch an invasion into Israel? This is all on top of the Iranian regime saying over and over again that one of their goals is to destroy Israel?
- austin-cheney 1y ago
  I have 5 complete US military CENTCOM deployments (about 5 years living there). What is your expertise?
  - edanm 1y ago
    What does that matter? Are you saying you are more of an expert than everyone else? Would you at least agree that yours is at the very least far from a mainstream opinion? I feel like you at least need to back it up with some evidence given that. For the record, I have no formal expertise in anything related to this. I do live in Israel, have been living through the bombing campaigns, invasions etc of Iran's proxies for most of my life. The country that just "happened to be in the way". Except in the case of Hezbollah (first Google result for "why was Hezbollah founded": "Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to fight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon."). And except in the case of Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, on the border of Israel. This is the first time I've ever heard Hamas referred to as not mainly having to do with Israel, but with Saudi Arabia. (In any case, differences in opinion aside, thank you for your service!)
    - austin-cheney 1y ago
      It matters because you suggested you asked for it. So, are you saying the US must go war with Iran now because Hezbollah was founded 43 years ago and does not like Israel? You are doing a really bad job of presenting anything coherent.
      - edanm 1y ago
        > So, are you saying the US must go war with Iran now because Hezbollah was founded 43 years ago and does not like Israel? No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure why you're switching to talk about this. I was specifically refuting this idea from the GP of this thread: > Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless. This and other parts of that comment implied that, up until now, there was a rules-based order, but this attack somehow goes against that. I was pointing out that this doesn't make much sense to me, because Iran has been breaking that rules-based order for years and getting away with it. Saying that enforcing the order is the problem, and not the attempt to circumvent it, is IMO incorrect. You're free to correct me on that idea if you disagree, it's certainly a debatable opinion. But the only thing you disagreed with me on (or at least the thing you called out) was that Iran wasn't funding proxies against Israel, it was to contain Saudi Arabia. That, unlike my alternative view of what the war signifies, is something that is at odds with reality.
samjones33 1y ago
Iran has spent 100x more (1000x) preparing for and battling Israel than it has Saudi. You are clearly not counting Iranian-funded rockets in the region or where they point. (Hezbollah had 15,000 of em... zero pointed at Saudi... ditto arms in Syria... ditto arms in Gaza...)
- austin-cheney 1y ago
  Saudi Arabia does not threaten to fire rockets at Iran on a daily basis or encourage others to do so. That is a striking distinction that cannot be ignored. And also Israel has nuclear weapons. Hezbollah is not Iran. Israel has gone to war with Hezbollah in the past completely without military intervention from Iran.

runlaszlorun 1y ago

No middle east expert but wouldn't you call Turkey a competitor?

austin-cheney 1y ago
Iran does not view Turkey as their primary regional competitor. You could argue that Turkey is not an oil economy and is closer to Europe. There is also an ethic and religious factor. Iran is majority Persian and Shia while Saudi Arabia is majority Arab and Sunni.
- herewulf 1y ago
  FWIW, Turkey is majority Turkic and Sunni. The Middle East is a complex place.
- t-3 1y ago
  Turkey and Iran also have some common interests WRT to Kurds and other minority groups, though they clash in other areas (like Syria).

edanm 1y ago

Sorry, what? You're literally [edit: figuratively] flying in the face of... well, just about anyone who has any knowledge or expertise in the middle east. It also flies in the face of anyone with general knowledge: Two of Iran's main proxies are Hamas, that has been shooting rockets at Israel for the last 15 years, and launched a major invasion planned (in their mind) to destroy Israel? And Hezbollah, which fought multiple wars with Israel, also launched hundreds of rockets at Israel since the Gaza war began, and had thousands of rockets aimed at Israel, as well as tens of thousand of ground troops hidden in caves and tunnels on the border of Israel, with plans to launch an invasion into Israel? This is all on top of the Iranian regime saying over and over again that one of their goals is to destroy Israel?

austin-cheney 1y ago
I have 5 complete US military CENTCOM deployments (about 5 years living there). What is your expertise?
- edanm 1y ago
  What does that matter? Are you saying you are more of an expert than everyone else? Would you at least agree that yours is at the very least far from a mainstream opinion? I feel like you at least need to back it up with some evidence given that. For the record, I have no formal expertise in anything related to this. I do live in Israel, have been living through the bombing campaigns, invasions etc of Iran's proxies for most of my life. The country that just "happened to be in the way". Except in the case of Hezbollah (first Google result for "why was Hezbollah founded": "Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran primarily to fight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon."). And except in the case of Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, on the border of Israel. This is the first time I've ever heard Hamas referred to as not mainly having to do with Israel, but with Saudi Arabia. (In any case, differences in opinion aside, thank you for your service!)
  - austin-cheney 1y ago
    It matters because you suggested you asked for it. So, are you saying the US must go war with Iran now because Hezbollah was founded 43 years ago and does not like Israel? You are doing a really bad job of presenting anything coherent.
    - edanm 1y ago
      > So, are you saying the US must go war with Iran now because Hezbollah was founded 43 years ago and does not like Israel? No, I didn't say that, and I'm not sure why you're switching to talk about this. I was specifically refuting this idea from the GP of this thread: > Sort of. I think there was an effort to put a rules-based framework, still skewed towards the "great powers", but a framework nonetheless. This and other parts of that comment implied that, up until now, there was a rules-based order, but this attack somehow goes against that. I was pointing out that this doesn't make much sense to me, because Iran has been breaking that rules-based order for years and getting away with it. Saying that enforcing the order is the problem, and not the attempt to circumvent it, is IMO incorrect. You're free to correct me on that idea if you disagree, it's certainly a debatable opinion. But the only thing you disagreed with me on (or at least the thing you called out) was that Iran wasn't funding proxies against Israel, it was to contain Saudi Arabia. That, unlike my alternative view of what the war signifies, is something that is at odds with reality.

samjones33 1y ago

Iran has spent 100x more (1000x) preparing for and battling Israel than it has Saudi. You are clearly not counting Iranian-funded rockets in the region or where they point. (Hezbollah had 15,000 of em... zero pointed at Saudi... ditto arms in Syria... ditto arms in Gaza...)

austin-cheney 1y ago
Saudi Arabia does not threaten to fire rockets at Iran on a daily basis or encourage others to do so. That is a striking distinction that cannot be ignored. And also Israel has nuclear weapons. Hezbollah is not Iran. Israel has gone to war with Hezbollah in the past completely without military intervention from Iran.