IRAN to create its own Nato 'Axis of Resistance' military alliance against US, Israel

[HMD]

Tehran, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas & others will operate under joint command.

thoughts? 

Edited October 8 by HMD

[Leo Gura]

Hasn't this already been the case for a decade?

[Lyubov]

It won’t really work or be remotely comparable to NATO.

alliances like this require massive amounts of funds and development. 

It’s more for show. Countries like Iran aren’t really developed enough to carry out complex alliances like this. 

BRICS is another one. It’s more for show. In actuality basically nothing has materialized from this alliance. In reality advanced alliances are very challenging to build between states. 

Edited October 8 by Lyubov

[Lyubov]

When you look at just how advanced an alliance like NATO is, then a union like the EU, it’s pretty damn impressive what western governments have been able to accomplish together. Nothing else comes close to this between different states. 

[Basman]

Its crazy how European countries are now besties after having been at war with each other for hundreds of years.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Basman said:

Its crazy how European countries are now besties after having been at war with each other for hundreds of years.

That's true of like the whole world.

Tribes in France were killing each other long before there was a France. Today we take France for granted.

Edited October 8 by Leo Gura

[PurpleTree]

I think it’s nice.

 

[zazen]

Twitter thread from Mouin Rabbani:

1. The Axis of Resistance is a coalition rather than a formal alliance. It consists of states, movements, and militias that share the common objective of confronting and reducing US and Israeli influence in the Middle East, and at times of weakening governments allied with the West as well.

2. Iran is the most powerful member of this coalition and therefore a central and highly-influential player. But it does not command the Axis of Resistance. It is more the Germany of the European Union than the Soviet Union of the Warsaw Pact. Its influence is also far from uniform and, as demonstrated by the shifts in Iranian-Syrian relations during the past quarter century, changes over time. Some militias operating in Iraq and Syria have all the hallmarks of Iranian proxies. Yemen’s AnsarAllah clearly does not. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was closely involved with the establishment of Hizballah, which for good measure fully subscribes to the Islamic Republic’s system of rule. But it is today powerful enough to make its decisions in Beirut rather than Tehran. Hamas for its part has had an ambivalent relationship with the Axis. At the outset of the Syrian civil war Hamas broke with Damascus, and its exile leadership moved not to Beirut or Tehran but Doha, and a rupture with Iran lasting almost half a decade ensued.

3. It’s transparently clear that the 7 October attacks were neither an Iranian initiative nor coordinated with the Axis of Resistance. So transparently clear that US and Israeli intelligence have come to the same conclusion to preserve their credibility. I don’t believe Hamas ever expected its coalition allies to immediately unleash similar offensives of their own upon Israel. It must have understood that just as Hamas prioritized its own interests and agenda, others would do so as well.

4. Nevertheless, Hizballah on 8 October opened what it termed a support front against Israel, and over the next two months was joined by Yemen and militias in Iraq and Syria. Iran played a supporting role, except when it was directly targeted by Israel.

5. The purpose of the support fronts has been to engage in multi-front attritional warfare against Israel, and to a lesser extent against its allies, in order to raise the costs to Israel and its Western sponsors of continuing the genocidal campaign against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. To this end, they have repeatedly stated that their attacks would cease the moment a ceasefire takes hold in the Gaza Strip.

6. Preventing coordinated or unified action by its adversaries has been a guiding principle of Israeli statecraft going back to the 1949 Armistice negotiations that ended the Palestine War. De-linking the support fronts from the Gaza Strip, and then from each other has therefore been an Israeli priority.

7. As a rule, states and conventional militaries prefer to avoid wars of attrition, particularly when these are prosecuted on their territory. They are too costly in terms of the social, economic, and manpower losses involved. This forms the crucial context for the dramatic escalations of the past week.

8. Israel’s dilemma in this respect is two-fold: Its campaigns to de-link and suppress the support fronts risk their escalation into additional full-scale conflicts independent of the war against Gaza. And secondly, the longer this campaign continues the greater the prospect of a full-scale regional conflagration.

9. In other words, the combination of Israel’s inability to achieve a decisive outcome in the Gaza Strip, and refusal to accept a ceasefire agreement, has forced it to play double or nothing. Either Hizballah capitulates and dismantles its support front, or it will face the full force of the Israeli military. Yemen has withstood similar efforts by the US-UK naval task force in the Red Sea. Short of a mortal Israeli blow against Hizballah and its military capabilities, a scenario that no one takes seriously, it also won’t work in Lebanon.

10. Yet from Israel’s perspective the challenge is also a unique opportunity. With Biden wrapped firmly around his finger, Netanyahu believes that the period until January 2025 is ideal to provoke a direct US-Iranian confrontation. And he seems to have decided that the road to Tehran goes through the southern suburbs of Beirut.

11. Just to be clear, tails don’t wag dogs. Dogs wag tails. Washington may well have liked for Israel to approach things differently, but it is geopolitically invested in preventing an Israeli defeat. And that is what makes this moment so particularly dangerous. END

[PurpleTree]

Maybe Russia and China can join too.

[Hatfort]

It's not NATO-like, but there's already an alliance of those countries you list, so it doesn't have to be created or made official. They have some cultural commonalities, share a history and a region, and are they are the target of other alliances in different ways.

There's also BRICS, which is not a military alliance, it's an economic one Iran is interested in joining, and it's likely to happen. I wouldn't underestimate it, they are not only big, but very powerful economies.

[Basman]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's true of like the whole world.

Tribes in France were killing each other long before there was a France. Today we take France for granted.

Do you think in a similar fashion that nations in for example Europe will eventually merge as one super country in some kind of way? War is pretty much unthinkable between Western-European countries.

[Leo Gura]

Just now, Basman said:

Do you think in a similar fashion that nations in for example Europe will eventually merge as one super country in some kind of way? War is pretty much unthinkable between Western-European countries.

Yes. That's what the EU is.

[Ero]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes. That's what the EU is.

The EU is failing pretty miserably at that. Lack of systemic and Tier 2 thinking as it relates to immigration, energy, technology and economic security has lead to polarisation that got far-right parties elected not just at the outskirts, but at the supposed centres of the EU - Germany, France and the Netherlands.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Ero said:

The EU is failing pretty miserably at that.

Your time horizon is just too narrow.

Nations don't operate on human timescales.

[Ero]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Nations don't operate on human timescales.

Agreed. But what I was pointing to is the nuance that although this is where the history trends towards, that doesn’t mean EU in its present form is what will achieve that. Same way I don’t think the UN will be the “world government”. 

The line will be eventually crossed, but that doesn’t mean the horse you bet on will be the one to do it. EU is a technological laggard without sophisticated leadership. Green deals alone will be the death of it, mark my words. 

My people are in the race and not the audience, so I rather also bet on the right horse.

[royce]

 

[Leo Gura]

54 minutes ago, Ero said:

doesn’t mean EU in its present form is what will achieve that

I don't see the EU going away.

It's not like you're gonna invent something better to replace it which skips over all its challenges and people don't bitch about.

Nationalists will keep bitching about the EU till they're dead.

Edited October 9 by Leo Gura

[Karmadhi]

2 hours ago, Ero said:

The EU is failing pretty miserably at that. Lack of systemic and Tier 2 thinking as it relates to immigration, energy, technology and economic security has lead to polarisation that got far-right parties elected not just at the outskirts, but at the supposed centres of the EU - Germany, France and the Netherlands.

People have issues with how the EU is run, but not about it existing and being part of it.

EU is necessary considering the growth of countries like China, India.

Europe needs to be united, it is too weak alone.

[Ero]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't see the EU going away.

It’s issue are not the nationalists. They will bitch about everything. It is due to the upcoming technological asymmetry. And green globalism is inadequate at handling that.
Individual countries will pull ahead not because but despite its regulations on energy and AI. That will change the leverage the EU has. It has already exported its energy and security to the US. It’s nothing but bureaucracy at this point.

[Ero]

8 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

People have issues with how the EU is run, but not about it existing and being part of it.

EU is necessary considering the growth of countries like China, India.

Europe needs to be united, it is too weak alone.

Agreed. All I am pointing to is that what is the administrative structure and regulation of the EU currently is deadweight. And will continue to be until a revitalisation under proper leadership. Thing is, people don’t understand that the fundamental shift that is coming in technology is nothing contemporary organisations and structures can handle. EU is already showing it’s inadequate on that front. None of the latest open sourced models or Apple Intelligence is available there. That should tell you something. I don’t expect it to change.