Britain and US prepare to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen

[Vrubel]

12 hours ago, Nabd said:

Same bullshit is being circulated by axis of resistance that somehow, Hamas is winning, Iran is winning. This war is being won as we speak.

Now if you dare to mention that Gaza is fucking ruined and some 30k died and we are dealing with a fucking crisis of 2m people who might be exiled, if you dare mention this then you will be attacked by the mob of axis of resistance and will be called a traitor.

Iranians and their Arab allies are playing a steadfast long game. They don't give a shit about how many Gazans die. Only the West and even Israel is  more concerned about that. For the Iranian proxies this ‘caring’ is just another weakness to exploit. 
for Iran, Palestinians are absolute disposables, Hezbollah a little less so because they see them as an extension of themselves.

Edited January 14 by Vrubel

[BlueOak]

@Nabd I take your point that the US is still a major power in the region deciding events. You are still somewhat operating from the old paradigm before the creation of BRICs and China's rise to a superpower. This is very understandable as many of us have spent decades within it, and the US still holds a great deal of sway as you say.

There are a few holes in this I can demonstratable show you without needing to get too much into technicalities. graphs or sources.

1, Iran wouldn't be moving its facilities underground if it thought them safe.

2, Countries with mutual nuclear weapons never get engaged directly in war. Only through proxy. So they are exceptionally significant defensively. Offensively I agree they are less practical (especially to nearby countries) or deployable, and their programs often used as propaganda to keep people ready for war with X country just in case.

3, Conflict shows competition. There are competing interests here, that's why there is conflict. This is increasing globally as BRICS and NATO reach a parity in terms of power, unless people accept this and work together, avoiding competition and conflict. Rather than resist each other.

I appreciate your insight into Iranian politics, I don't have it to anything near that depth. One of the reasons Western perspectives don't align as you expect is because they lack an understanding of it. Further, the detail you gave about Suleimani helped me understand the situation surrounding him more. Ditto Russia. Ditto Israel. Ditto China etc. It doesn't help that many of these cultures value secrecy. 

There are certainly shared interests and competing interests, which are not mutually exclusive.

As you ask the question, why does Iran project its power outward?
Nearly all countries do. There are very few that are not looking to do this.

Different countries have different vehicles to do this. Some use culture, some use trade, tourism, faith, land ownership, banks, military power, nuclear power, education, large corporations, domination of key sea lanes or land bridges etc. Because again remember a country is a collection of many different people with different interests, that are not confined to their own country. If these collectively are largely expressed as military action (with all the industries, education and cultural norms etc necessary to support it), then that's what is projected outward. If it's trade, then its trade. If it is religion, then it is religion. You get the idea.

Iran seems to me, to be a country that is somewhat militant but a strong religious and cultural regional power, so its cultural influence makes nearby receptive populations more sympathetic to its own wishes as a country. This is not so much one group of people being responsible for it by mere decision, but a natural result of what Iran is in that region, to that region.

Moreover, there is a huge amount of mistrust and tension in the Middle East. So the need to project outward is seen as a necessity by all the larger or more powerful countries. In safer times and territories, people can focus more on their own countries domestically, or at least less violently confrontational pursuits. 

*Nuclear powers use proxy wars as a way to wage war. Its been the standard since WW2 and nukes were invented.

tl;dr. The macro and the micro line up. The country is the people, its institutions, culture, heritage, environment etc. Safety concerns or the problems/challenges a population faces, as well as the natural qualities/abundance of everything the population is and has, are what manifest both externally and internally.

Edited January 15 by BlueOak

[zazen]

@Nabd You provide great nuance to sitatuions that often goes under appreciated. I think where we view things differently as does BlueOak is not that there aren’t any micro interactions, factions and handshakes taking place in private but that on a macro scale the base presumption that US can just do as it pleases isn’t the case any longer. It doesn’t have the weight it used to be able to swing - not that it’s not powerful, it just isn’t the only powerful kid on the block.

I commented this in the Israel/Gaza thread but it’s relevant here:

Douglas McGregor is great 👍🏻 him and other similar voices are silenced or not given the spotlight because they go against the fantasy and ego of Western exceptionalism and the changing landscape of power dynamics underway. Advanced military, huge fire power and money spent doesn’t equate to victory like it used to.

Older military paradigms are neutralised by modern day capabilities and geography. The same way gunpowder defeated bows and arrows, navy and sea superiority overcame impossible land invasions to allow for colonial conquest and fighter jets defeated battleships by air - ballistic missiles and drone technology today can neutralise threats from the sea and air at a fraction of the cost. In a war of attrition - “the conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose” Henry Kissinger

Non state actors and ‘poorer’ less ‘developed’ groups can neutralise or provide challenges to advanced militaries due to tunnels, difficult terrain, missiles and drones. Even without drones and missiles - think Taliban and Vietnam. Houthis are far larger in number and have drones and missiles - and remain strongly intact despite already being bombed for almost a decade by Western munitions.

The US/UK strikes didn’t do anything - in fact now US/UK ships will be blockaded. More inflation thanks to weak leaders and vested interests who can’t say no to the spoilt child they raised - Israel. They’d rather facilitate ethnic cleansing, death and destruction and try to maintain their imperial image of top dog instead of being embarrassed by ‘poorer primitives’ - after already being embarrassed in the Middle East and Ukraine. 
 

Now Israel want to go for Hezbollah and drag in the US and possibly Iran. Bibi stated he wants complete control of the land from West of the Jordan river to the sea - as good as saying from the river to the sea - something pro Palestinians are criminalised for saying but that the other side can say lol. Hypocrisy.

The reason Iraq has been home to many empires/invasions and Afghanistan hasn’t but is instead the grave of them has a lot to do with geography. Iraqs terrain is flat which allows for easier invasions and ongoing wars - similar to European wars that allow for tanks to move across plains and fields that would never work in say the jungles of a Vietnam or mountains of Afghanistan. Iran is less mountainous than Afghanistan but more warrior oriented than Iraq. 
 

The West wrongfully thought they could take over Afghanistan as they did Iraq - it would be foolish to think the same for Iran.

 

Also a great video to watch: