6 ms·

> Then we had about 20 years of politicians who thought the soft power stuff was all you needed Actually, about 9 years. Then Afghanistan happened, followed by

> Then we had about 20 years of politicians who thought the soft power stuff was all you needed Actually, about 9 years. Then Afghanistan happened, followed by Iraq. Hard power was back baby! > The security concerns haven't changed, but the way of dealing with them has. The security concerns were never there to begin with, unless you mean the security concerns of Israel. With the US as the hegemon, it is in the US's interests to maintain the security of key trade corridors, the most volatile and important of which is the Hormuz strait (arguably even more than the Suez). Post Iranian Revolution, every action of the US has only served against its interests, to further destabilize the corridor - whether it was funneling weapons to Saddam, invading Saddam 20 years later, not to mention the constant sabre-rattling against Iran throughout. > I'm confused as to why Filipinos are protesting against taking out the Iranian regime; it's a direct blow to Chinese expansionism, as well as the jihadist groups in the south Lol no. Getting involved with Iran means fighting a country that has every intention to bog down the US in a long war, at no cost consideration for its citizens. China loves the war - it's a repeat of Vietnam. China is literally dishing out intelligence to Iran and helping them skirt sanctions. Also Iran, which is Shia, isn't involved with the terror groups in Mindanao (which are hardline Sunni and funded by the US GCC allies). > But America's taking out the weakest links in the Russian-Chinese-Iranian-Venezuelan axis The weakest link in the axis was literally Venezuela - proximity to the US, a hated president, and competing factions vying for power. Well, at least before the US decided it was a dandy idea to kidnap Maduro. > A short-term rotation away from East Asia doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad strategic move. The Iran war is going to be anything but short-term, as the Iranians have stated. Even if the US wants to exit the campaign, the Iranians will not let them, and if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do. The Asian allies know this, which is why everyone from South Korea to Japan to Philippines to Australia has been worried - because they know that this leaves fewer American resources for them. The US has already begun diverting THAADs and Patriots from SK to the Middle East because they've been depleted. The UAE was begging around for interceptors from Italy (at a 125% premium) and then Russia, because the US failed to provide for its "capable allies". The Gulf states internally already see the US, including US defence products, as unreliable in supply and are already moving to lock in deals with EU providers such as Rheinmetall.

noduerme 8mo ago
> it's a repeat of Vietnam I think this is a bizarre comparison. The people of Vietnam hated the French colonial occupation, and most of them despised the American-backed regime as well. They were fighting a 20-year-long anti-colonial war for independence (something that China, by the way, does not want any of the people they've colonized to emulate). On the contrary, there's every indication that the people of Iran, as well as Venezuela, legitimately hate their repressive regimes and want nothing more than a chance to overthrow them. This isn't imposing regime change on some country that had never thought of it. It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves. In that sense, our role here is quite a lot more like the Soviets in Vietnam, than America in Vietnam, or of either country in Afghanistan. We're not in the position of needing to prop up a puppet regime or find ethnic groups or exogenous actors. All we really need to do is target the existing oppressors. >> if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do. Stop with the AIPAC > blaming Israel for getting America into this. Israel did great work taking out Iran's defenses and gaining air superiority in the previous 12-day war, and it was only held back from continuing by the US - temporarily losing the total control it held. Furthermore, in no way is Israel going to be open to attack after this, whether or not the US remains involved. Consider what happens if this war does succeed in weakening the Iranian regime to the point where the people can come back into the street and overthrow it: Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, the West has a bargaining chip in oil against China's control of rare earths, and conceivably there is a broad peaceful order in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shia and Jews, all relatively Western-facing, potentially progressive and aligned with the US and Europe. Would that be a terrible outcome?
- watwut 8mo ago
  > It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves. That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change". In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it. If they loose control over country, there will be civil war and unrest, but all chances of some moderates consolidating power went down. Or, even more likely, regime wont fail and will have stronger grip over the country. > Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, This war is massive gift to Russia. The sanctions are removed, the oil prices go up. Russia wants this war to go on as long as possible, it is like a lifeline for them.

noduerme 8mo ago

> it's a repeat of Vietnam I think this is a bizarre comparison. The people of Vietnam hated the French colonial occupation, and most of them despised the American-backed regime as well. They were fighting a 20-year-long anti-colonial war for independence (something that China, by the way, does not want any of the people they've colonized to emulate). On the contrary, there's every indication that the people of Iran, as well as Venezuela, legitimately hate their repressive regimes and want nothing more than a chance to overthrow them. This isn't imposing regime change on some country that had never thought of it. It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves. In that sense, our role here is quite a lot more like the Soviets in Vietnam, than America in Vietnam, or of either country in Afghanistan. We're not in the position of needing to prop up a puppet regime or find ethnic groups or exogenous actors. All we really need to do is target the existing oppressors. >> if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do. Stop with the AIPAC > blaming Israel for getting America into this. Israel did great work taking out Iran's defenses and gaining air superiority in the previous 12-day war, and it was only held back from continuing by the US - temporarily losing the total control it held. Furthermore, in no way is Israel going to be open to attack after this, whether or not the US remains involved. Consider what happens if this war does succeed in weakening the Iranian regime to the point where the people can come back into the street and overthrow it: Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, the West has a bargaining chip in oil against China's control of rare earths, and conceivably there is a broad peaceful order in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shia and Jews, all relatively Western-facing, potentially progressive and aligned with the US and Europe. Would that be a terrible outcome?

watwut 8mo ago
> It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves. That is fundamentally untrue. In Venezuela, regime ended up completely intact, except the change on the top. There is no "clearing the path" and there is no "regime change". In Iran, protests stopped. The lead was replaced by more hardline lead. Nationalists now wont go against the regime, even if they dislike it. If they loose control over country, there will be civil war and unrest, but all chances of some moderates consolidating power went down. Or, even more likely, regime wont fail and will have stronger grip over the country. > Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, This war is massive gift to Russia. The sanctions are removed, the oil prices go up. Russia wants this war to go on as long as possible, it is like a lifeline for them.