6 ms·

From the article: >Israel could force the United States into a war with Iran at any time. >It should go without saying that creating the conditions where the

by Dig1t 7mo ago

From the article: >Israel could force the United States into a war with Iran at any time. >It should go without saying that creating the conditions where the sometimes unpredictable junior partner in a security relationship can unilaterally bring the senior partner into a major conflict is an enormous strategic error, precisely because it means you end up in a war when it is in the junior partner’s interests to do so even if it is not in the senior partner’s interests to do so. This situation is not just because we elected a clown, these people donated hundreds of millions to Trump's campaign (Miriam Adelson, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Elison, etc). The same lobby (the Israel lobby) has contributed hundreds of millions more to almost every US senator, to the point that both political parties are pretty much aligned when it comes to serving Israel. There are plenty of politicians in the Democrat party who are quietly supporting this war because at the end of the day they've been bought by the same lobby. Kamala (the alternative candidate in the 2024 election) has her own ties to Israel, and publicly said "all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Which means had she won the election she likely would have also invaded Iran. It goes beyond just who we elected, it's huge sums of money flowing through our political system and effectively buying our politicians.

abraxas 7mo ago
Nonsense. Of course Democrats are also on Israel's side. The US will always take Israel's side in any Middle East dispute. But it's only this infantile man and his clown cart that is stupid enough to go along with any and every hare brained idea that Israel puts forth.
mrguyorama 7mo ago
We had Israel friendly politicians for at least 50 years, all of which who eagerly wanted to fuck up Iran ("Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" anyone?) and we didn't because they were at least sober enough to understand that it was moronic and would obviously be some sort of strategic defeat or decades long boondoggle. No president has ever been this fucking stupid.
- dripdry45 7mo ago
  Look, if the goal over the last year has been to destroy America, it’s economy, it’s reputation… you basically couldn’t pick a better set of actions. It seems pretty obvious that they’re trying to turn America into Russia. Crash everything, and let the oligarchs swoop in and buy up the shattered pieces. Then keep the people divided and depressed using media and drugs.
  - phatskat 6mo ago
    This has been the (largely) conservative playbook for decades, at least since the religious right took over, it’s just being borne out in a much more direct way. The old model was “claim that public institution X is bloated/corrupt/ineffective/evil and replace it with private company Y”. The current admin has done away with any table dressing and just flat-out collapsed entire departments - the furloughs, replacing department heads or essentially forcing them to step down on moral grounds, gutting and stacking the justice system, DOGE…this has all been synonymous with the right’s playbook for a long time.
watwut 7mo ago
Israel is entirely dependent on USA. If USA says they cant attack, they wont.
- markdown 7mo ago
  But most US politicians are dependent on Israel-aligned donors, so the US isn't going to say they can't attack. They'll do what they need to in order to keep the money flowing in so they can get re-elected.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > the US isn't going to say they can't attack America has told Israel not to attack multiple times. Hell, Trump has held Netanyahu back before.
- hermitcrab 7mo ago
  Are you sure you haven't got that the wrong way around? As an outsider it looks to me as if Israel shouts 'jump' and the USA says 'how high?'. Which is bizarre when you look at how much support the US gives Israel.
  - gzread 7mo ago
    Not bizarre - Israel shouts "money" and the USA says "how much?"
    - Tostino 7mo ago
      Those bribes to all the senators and reps really pays off, doesn't it? Sadly it's our tax dollars that it is paying off with.
  - watwut 7mo ago
    No, I do not have it other way round. Israel defense and economy both depend on USA. Which is why it took mentally challenged president to start an expensive war that only Israel and Russia benefit. Previous presidents including Trump himself did told NO to Israel in the past. Israel wanted this war, it is not like they would be victims here. But USA is NOT a victim either. Hegseth, Trump and co love the violence, love the bombing and love to cosplay as masculine men. They do not get play the "they made me do it" card. Third, for christ sake, they sent Witkoff and Kushner to negotiate. Lets not pretend there was any honest attempt at negotiations or war avoidance.
manyaoman 7mo ago
For me that was the best insight in the whole article. Here are a few extra sentences for context: > So Iran would now have to assume that an Israeli air attack was also likely an American air attack. It was hardly an insane assumption – evidently according to the Secretary of State, American intelligence made the exact same assessment. But the result was that by bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities in June of 2025, the Trump administration created a situation where merely by launching a renewed air campaign on Iran, Israel could force the United States into a war with Iran at any time.
p_j_w 7mo ago
>publicly said "all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Which means had she won the election she likely would have also invaded Iran. Your second sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Obama had similar words to say about Iran during his administration and never invaded.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> it's huge sums of money flowing through our political system and effectively buying our politicians I disagree strongly with this assertion. But for sake of argument, let's assume it's true: American politics is permanently captured to Israel's interests. That still doesn't explain this war. "I think most folks understand that this war was a misfire for the United States, but I suspect it may end up being a terrible misfire for Israel as well. Israeli security and economic prosperity both depend to a significant degree on the US-Israeli security partnership and this war seems to be one more step in a process that very evidently imperils that partnership. Suspicion of Israel – which, let us be honest, often descends into rank, bigoted antisemitism, but it is also possible to critique Israel, a country with policies, without being antisemitic – is now openly discussed in both parties. More concerning is polling suggesting that not only is Israel underwater with the American public, but more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis for the first time in American history." If, on the other hand, we acknowledge "Netanyahu...is playing an extremely short game because it benefits him politically and personally to do so," we can allow for similar levels of narcicism and stupidity in the U.S.
- xg15 7mo ago
  Israel is currently busy annexing southern Lebanon, and I don't think it's at all decided how the "hearts and minds battle" in the US will eventually end. (Or how important the popular support even is) So right now, the state of the war is a win for Israel.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > how important the popular support even is To see the effect of losing popularity, see how AIPAC's power in the Democratic party has begun to wane following their defeat in New Jersey. A common mistake those deploying money in politics make is forgetting that the endgame is votes. The money helps buy votes. But if you're losing votes, you're losing votes. > right now, the state of the war is a win for Israel If hostilities end right now, yes. There is zero indication that endpoint is proximate.
  - YZF 7mo ago
netsharc 7mo ago
> Which means had she won the election she likely would have also invaded Iran. Wow, what an insult, to call her as stupid/cheaply buyable as Trump. I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have had an alcoholic wife-beating former Fox teleprompter-reader who would not have been able to tell her why it'd be a catastrophe to start bombing Iran... As weak Biden was/appeared to be, at least he had a competent team (ok, it wasn't competent enough to pushback against Adolf Netanyahu). Probably Harris would've tried to restore the Obama-Iran deal like Biden did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations_during_the_Biden_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...), a job that Biden failed because a particular fuckwit fucked it up before him...
ActorNightly 7mo ago
2 things. First, this "both sides bad" take isn't fooling anyone. Everyone sees through your bullshit that you are pro Trump. Like its easy to tell from just this comment, but if anyone thinks Im being super presumptions, feel free to looks at your comment history and you will see Im right. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46890675#46891294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46890675#46891294 Secondly, the shitty thing for you is that the conservatives in charge have shown themselves to be just very inept. They could have honesty just rode the rest of Trumps term in silence, and Trump would still have been very popular despite the tarrifs, but they had to fuck it up in the most grandeur way possible of starting a new war. Which means that Republicans are going to lose the support of the average person who is clueless about politics, and can vote one way or another based on vibes, and Which means Dems are likely going to take a lot of the power back. At which point, it will become socially acceptable to "punish" conservatives and pro Trump people. There is already work going on to process internet comments and extract patterns of speech to cross correlate them across varying accounts on social media to id certain people, and if id'ed you better believe your work, your family, your friends, and whomever else you are going to be connected to are going to get spammed and your life ruined as much as possible. So Imma be the nice guy and tell you to tighten up you OPSEC because you are doing an extremely poor job at it.

by Dig1t 7mo ago

abraxas 7mo ago

Nonsense. Of course Democrats are also on Israel's side. The US will always take Israel's side in any Middle East dispute. But it's only this infantile man and his clown cart that is stupid enough to go along with any and every hare brained idea that Israel puts forth.

mrguyorama 7mo ago

We had Israel friendly politicians for at least 50 years, all of which who eagerly wanted to fuck up Iran ("Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" anyone?) and we didn't because they were at least sober enough to understand that it was moronic and would obviously be some sort of strategic defeat or decades long boondoggle. No president has ever been this fucking stupid.

dripdry45 7mo ago
Look, if the goal over the last year has been to destroy America, it’s economy, it’s reputation… you basically couldn’t pick a better set of actions. It seems pretty obvious that they’re trying to turn America into Russia. Crash everything, and let the oligarchs swoop in and buy up the shattered pieces. Then keep the people divided and depressed using media and drugs.
- phatskat 6mo ago
  This has been the (largely) conservative playbook for decades, at least since the religious right took over, it’s just being borne out in a much more direct way. The old model was “claim that public institution X is bloated/corrupt/ineffective/evil and replace it with private company Y”. The current admin has done away with any table dressing and just flat-out collapsed entire departments - the furloughs, replacing department heads or essentially forcing them to step down on moral grounds, gutting and stacking the justice system, DOGE…this has all been synonymous with the right’s playbook for a long time.

watwut 7mo ago

Israel is entirely dependent on USA. If USA says they cant attack, they wont.

markdown 7mo ago
But most US politicians are dependent on Israel-aligned donors, so the US isn't going to say they can't attack. They'll do what they need to in order to keep the money flowing in so they can get re-elected.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > the US isn't going to say they can't attack America has told Israel not to attack multiple times. Hell, Trump has held Netanyahu back before.
hermitcrab 7mo ago
Are you sure you haven't got that the wrong way around? As an outsider it looks to me as if Israel shouts 'jump' and the USA says 'how high?'. Which is bizarre when you look at how much support the US gives Israel.
- gzread 7mo ago
  Not bizarre - Israel shouts "money" and the USA says "how much?"
  - Tostino 7mo ago
    Those bribes to all the senators and reps really pays off, doesn't it? Sadly it's our tax dollars that it is paying off with.
- watwut 7mo ago
  No, I do not have it other way round. Israel defense and economy both depend on USA. Which is why it took mentally challenged president to start an expensive war that only Israel and Russia benefit. Previous presidents including Trump himself did told NO to Israel in the past. Israel wanted this war, it is not like they would be victims here. But USA is NOT a victim either. Hegseth, Trump and co love the violence, love the bombing and love to cosplay as masculine men. They do not get play the "they made me do it" card. Third, for christ sake, they sent Witkoff and Kushner to negotiate. Lets not pretend there was any honest attempt at negotiations or war avoidance.

manyaoman 7mo ago

For me that was the best insight in the whole article. Here are a few extra sentences for context: > So Iran would now have to assume that an Israeli air attack was also likely an American air attack. It was hardly an insane assumption – evidently according to the Secretary of State, American intelligence made the exact same assessment. But the result was that by bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities in June of 2025, the Trump administration created a situation where merely by launching a renewed air campaign on Iran, Israel could force the United States into a war with Iran at any time.

p_j_w 7mo ago

>publicly said "all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Which means had she won the election she likely would have also invaded Iran. Your second sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Obama had similar words to say about Iran during his administration and never invaded.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> it's huge sums of money flowing through our political system and effectively buying our politicians I disagree strongly with this assertion. But for sake of argument, let's assume it's true: American politics is permanently captured to Israel's interests. That still doesn't explain this war. "I think most folks understand that this war was a misfire for the United States, but I suspect it may end up being a terrible misfire for Israel as well. Israeli security and economic prosperity both depend to a significant degree on the US-Israeli security partnership and this war seems to be one more step in a process that very evidently imperils that partnership. Suspicion of Israel – which, let us be honest, often descends into rank, bigoted antisemitism, but it is also possible to critique Israel, a country with policies, without being antisemitic – is now openly discussed in both parties. More concerning is polling suggesting that not only is Israel underwater with the American public, but more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis for the first time in American history." If, on the other hand, we acknowledge "Netanyahu...is playing an extremely short game because it benefits him politically and personally to do so," we can allow for similar levels of narcicism and stupidity in the U.S.

xg15 7mo ago
Israel is currently busy annexing southern Lebanon, and I don't think it's at all decided how the "hearts and minds battle" in the US will eventually end. (Or how important the popular support even is) So right now, the state of the war is a win for Israel.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > how important the popular support even is To see the effect of losing popularity, see how AIPAC's power in the Democratic party has begun to wane following their defeat in New Jersey. A common mistake those deploying money in politics make is forgetting that the endgame is votes. The money helps buy votes. But if you're losing votes, you're losing votes. > right now, the state of the war is a win for Israel If hostilities end right now, yes. There is zero indication that endpoint is proximate.
- YZF 7mo ago

netsharc 7mo ago

> Which means had she won the election she likely would have also invaded Iran. Wow, what an insult, to call her as stupid/cheaply buyable as Trump. I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have had an alcoholic wife-beating former Fox teleprompter-reader who would not have been able to tell her why it'd be a catastrophe to start bombing Iran... As weak Biden was/appeared to be, at least he had a competent team (ok, it wasn't competent enough to pushback against Adolf Netanyahu). Probably Harris would've tried to restore the Obama-Iran deal like Biden did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations_during_the_Biden_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...), a job that Biden failed because a particular fuckwit fucked it up before him...

ActorNightly 7mo ago

2 things. First, this "both sides bad" take isn't fooling anyone. Everyone sees through your bullshit that you are pro Trump. Like its easy to tell from just this comment, but if anyone thinks Im being super presumptions, feel free to looks at your comment history and you will see Im right. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46890675#46891294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46890675#46891294 Secondly, the shitty thing for you is that the conservatives in charge have shown themselves to be just very inept. They could have honesty just rode the rest of Trumps term in silence, and Trump would still have been very popular despite the tarrifs, but they had to fuck it up in the most grandeur way possible of starting a new war. Which means that Republicans are going to lose the support of the average person who is clueless about politics, and can vote one way or another based on vibes, and Which means Dems are likely going to take a lot of the power back. At which point, it will become socially acceptable to "punish" conservatives and pro Trump people. There is already work going on to process internet comments and extract patterns of speech to cross correlate them across varying accounts on social media to id certain people, and if id'ed you better believe your work, your family, your friends, and whomever else you are going to be connected to are going to get spammed and your life ruined as much as possible. So Imma be the nice guy and tell you to tighten up you OPSEC because you are doing an extremely poor job at it.