4 ms·

>Relevant for a lot of geopolitical and corporate strategic situations as well. The whole Mideast situation we're in now is because we were in zugzwang and a co

>Relevant for a lot of geopolitical and corporate strategic situations as well. The whole Mideast situation we're in now is because we were in zugzwang and a couple leaders felt the compulsion to move. Taiwan is a similar situation: the best policy is "strategic ambiguity", which is holding for now, but is a bit of an unstable equilibrium. This isn't the case at all. Obama HAD a deal with Iran that Trump tanked in his first term. Israel did not have to respond to a terrorist attack with genocide. Trump could have said No to Netanyahu who clearly threatened to attack Iran with or without us, it turns out we could indeed put pressure on them not to attack, but TACO. Everything that's happening in the middle east is a series of blunders by fools.

alex43578 6mo ago
And on the flip side, Iran could choose not to pursue a nuke and violate the NPT. Hamas could choose not to kill 800-some civilians and take 250 hostages, etc.
- gzread 6mo ago
  why would Iran not make a nuke when America keeps bombing countries that don't have nukes, and avoids bombing countries that have nukes (most notably North Korea)? They have all the incentives to have a nuke so they'll stop getting bombed. Obama negotiated to avoid this but Trump ripped it up and bombed them, so they're definitely not going to trust any agreements with the west ever again. From their perspective, their only path to not getting bombed to shit involves having several nukes. It's quite rational for them to do that.
- Sardtok 6mo ago
  That nuke they are apparently working has been just around the corner for over 30 years according to Israeli propaganda.
- colechristensen 6mo ago
  Certainly, I was only talking about one side of the conflict, the errors in our own house.
- darkwater 6mo ago
  > And on the flip side, Iran could choose not to pursue a nuke and violate the NPT. Because MAD is the only way to scare away the world's bully.
- ogogmad 6mo ago
  Iran has said that it's working on nuclear energy, not a bomb. Their pope-level religious leader said it was haram to have nuclear weapons. I know you can't necessarily trust Iran's word, but can you trust Israel's?
  - colechristensen 6mo ago
    There is ZERO serious questioning that Iran was working on developing nuclear weapons. It is abundantly clear that they were. How actively and to what extent in recent years is a matter of some debate but in general they absolutely have had a serious weapons program.
    - Paradigm2020 6mo ago
      I'd be very interested in the sources for your ZERO ?
      - Paradigm2020 6mo ago
        Hello ?
    - CamperBob2 6mo ago
      Gee. Now why in the world would they have wanted to do a thing like that?
    - somenameforme 6mo ago
      Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran will have a nuke within a few years, for more than 30 years, and seeking to use that as a justification to invade them. If Iran wanted to make a nuke in this time frame they would have. The only thing that changed now is that he found a big enough idiot to believe him. Though now that the US and Israel have invaded them, I do expect they will develop a nuclear weapon, because it seems to be the only way for a nation to ensure its security in modern times.
      - colechristensen 6mo ago
gzread 6mo ago
Small correction: Israel has been doing a genocide continually since 1948 - it didn't start in 2023.
- colechristensen 6mo ago
  Stop. "No, but actually it's this!" oneupsmanship does not add to the conversation.
  - doodlebugging 6mo ago
    I chose not to up- or downvote your reply. I disagree that the comment above adds nothing to the conversation. It adds historical context that otherwise may not be apparent to the current generation who must grow up and deal with the problems that ignoring the past has created and will continue to create. I'm a bit older than a lot of y'all and I grew up reading stories on the founding of Israel, the true stories of the holocaust written by those who witnessed and experienced the horrors first-hand, etc. All of these books that I read were written from the Israeli perspective for an American or western audience in order to inform people who had no concept of the depths of depravity that a modern industrialized society could allow themselves to be dragged into. The information and the stories related steered my own opinions and feelings towards supporting Israel in the wars and other significant events that have happened during my own lifetime - 1967 Six Day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War, 1978 Camp David Accords, 1982 Israeli intervention in Lebanon, 1983 US Marine Barracks bombing and the fallout from that, and all the bullshit conflicts since. I was able to follow these things as a kid and later a teen into adulthood because my parents maintained a book club subscription that was regularly improved by addition of new, current books on many subjects. As kids we were encouraged to select books for the collection and to read them when they were delivered. Knowledge is power. By ignoring the historical context you are effectively censoring events that did happen and whose repercussions still resonate in the region. You should not cherry-pick your own version of history. That is effectively propaganda, a tool used by authoritarians to indoctrinate. The original books that I read were written from the Israeli perspective in order to gain international influence. There were no novels or historical biographies of Arab leaders or of the region that were written in the context of providing historical background information that would help someone in the west understand the situation from the Arab perspective. To get that you needed to read newspapers and magazines, which I also did. Over time I began to understand just how complex everything is in the region and how constant support, especially from the United States, paid for the Israeli side of every conflict and situation. For anyone to support Israel's current leadership in what can only be described as a genocide on the same level employed against Jews by the Nazis or the US Cavalry against Native American tribes is wrong. Perhaps you should read a book about genocide and the origin of the term. I recommend the excellent book: Samantha Power: A Problem from Hell - America and the Age of Genocide[0] Sadat and Begin showed a path forward if other players had the courage to follow. Too bad that it took thousands of deaths on all sides and nearly 50 years and huge financial incentives and arms deals to bring others into agreement that living as neighbors in the same region requires some level of cooperation in order to guarantee mutual survival. Unfortunately the current players simply picked a common enemy and focused their efforts on destroying that enemy so that they could control the resources of the region. I hope you agree that this comment has added something useful to the conversation. [0]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/368731._A_Problem_from_Hell_ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/368731._A_Problem_from_H...

alex43578 6mo ago

And on the flip side, Iran could choose not to pursue a nuke and violate the NPT. Hamas could choose not to kill 800-some civilians and take 250 hostages, etc.

gzread 6mo ago
why would Iran not make a nuke when America keeps bombing countries that don't have nukes, and avoids bombing countries that have nukes (most notably North Korea)? They have all the incentives to have a nuke so they'll stop getting bombed. Obama negotiated to avoid this but Trump ripped it up and bombed them, so they're definitely not going to trust any agreements with the west ever again. From their perspective, their only path to not getting bombed to shit involves having several nukes. It's quite rational for them to do that.
Sardtok 6mo ago
That nuke they are apparently working has been just around the corner for over 30 years according to Israeli propaganda.
colechristensen 6mo ago
Certainly, I was only talking about one side of the conflict, the errors in our own house.
darkwater 6mo ago
> And on the flip side, Iran could choose not to pursue a nuke and violate the NPT. Because MAD is the only way to scare away the world's bully.
ogogmad 6mo ago
Iran has said that it's working on nuclear energy, not a bomb. Their pope-level religious leader said it was haram to have nuclear weapons. I know you can't necessarily trust Iran's word, but can you trust Israel's?
- colechristensen 6mo ago
  There is ZERO serious questioning that Iran was working on developing nuclear weapons. It is abundantly clear that they were. How actively and to what extent in recent years is a matter of some debate but in general they absolutely have had a serious weapons program.
  - Paradigm2020 6mo ago
    I'd be very interested in the sources for your ZERO ?
    - Paradigm2020 6mo ago
      Hello ?
  - CamperBob2 6mo ago
    Gee. Now why in the world would they have wanted to do a thing like that?
  - somenameforme 6mo ago
    Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran will have a nuke within a few years, for more than 30 years, and seeking to use that as a justification to invade them. If Iran wanted to make a nuke in this time frame they would have. The only thing that changed now is that he found a big enough idiot to believe him. Though now that the US and Israel have invaded them, I do expect they will develop a nuclear weapon, because it seems to be the only way for a nation to ensure its security in modern times.
    - colechristensen 6mo ago

gzread 6mo ago

Small correction: Israel has been doing a genocide continually since 1948 - it didn't start in 2023.

colechristensen 6mo ago
Stop. "No, but actually it's this!" oneupsmanship does not add to the conversation.
- doodlebugging 6mo ago
  I chose not to up- or downvote your reply. I disagree that the comment above adds nothing to the conversation. It adds historical context that otherwise may not be apparent to the current generation who must grow up and deal with the problems that ignoring the past has created and will continue to create. I'm a bit older than a lot of y'all and I grew up reading stories on the founding of Israel, the true stories of the holocaust written by those who witnessed and experienced the horrors first-hand, etc. All of these books that I read were written from the Israeli perspective for an American or western audience in order to inform people who had no concept of the depths of depravity that a modern industrialized society could allow themselves to be dragged into. The information and the stories related steered my own opinions and feelings towards supporting Israel in the wars and other significant events that have happened during my own lifetime - 1967 Six Day War, 1973 Yom Kippur War, 1978 Camp David Accords, 1982 Israeli intervention in Lebanon, 1983 US Marine Barracks bombing and the fallout from that, and all the bullshit conflicts since. I was able to follow these things as a kid and later a teen into adulthood because my parents maintained a book club subscription that was regularly improved by addition of new, current books on many subjects. As kids we were encouraged to select books for the collection and to read them when they were delivered. Knowledge is power. By ignoring the historical context you are effectively censoring events that did happen and whose repercussions still resonate in the region. You should not cherry-pick your own version of history. That is effectively propaganda, a tool used by authoritarians to indoctrinate. The original books that I read were written from the Israeli perspective in order to gain international influence. There were no novels or historical biographies of Arab leaders or of the region that were written in the context of providing historical background information that would help someone in the west understand the situation from the Arab perspective. To get that you needed to read newspapers and magazines, which I also did. Over time I began to understand just how complex everything is in the region and how constant support, especially from the United States, paid for the Israeli side of every conflict and situation. For anyone to support Israel's current leadership in what can only be described as a genocide on the same level employed against Jews by the Nazis or the US Cavalry against Native American tribes is wrong. Perhaps you should read a book about genocide and the origin of the term. I recommend the excellent book: Samantha Power: A Problem from Hell - America and the Age of Genocide[0] Sadat and Begin showed a path forward if other players had the courage to follow. Too bad that it took thousands of deaths on all sides and nearly 50 years and huge financial incentives and arms deals to bring others into agreement that living as neighbors in the same region requires some level of cooperation in order to guarantee mutual survival. Unfortunately the current players simply picked a common enemy and focused their efforts on destroying that enemy so that they could control the resources of the region. I hope you agree that this comment has added something useful to the conversation. [0]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/368731._A_Problem_from_Hell_ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/368731._A_Problem_from_H...