Britain and US prepare to strike Houthi rebels in Yemen

[Raze]

https://www.ft.com/content/0cbe7cbb-382d-49d1-8846-4f96b583580f
 

Houthi rebels in Yemen have been attacking ships to disrupt trade to protest Israel’s war on Hamas and for blocking aid to Gaza. 
 

This is causing economic problems so the US and UK are about to strike apparently.

 

This may cause a wider war in Yemen or even Iran (who backs Houthi’s).

Yemen is about the population and size of Afghanistan. Iran is the population and size of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

[r0ckyreed]

They already did, apparently.

[zazen]

A serious escalation. Some points: Today a ship was seized by Iran - which used to be theirs and had barrels of oil cargo. Could also be deflection from the ICJ hearing. Houthis have the capability of hitting oil fields in Saudi which will tailspin the world into inflation and financial instability like we’ve never seen.

Instead of intervening in stopping innocents dying in Gaza and strong arming a peaceful solution the US/UK are doing Israel’s bidding and escalating things / saving face as Western hegemons.

Henry Kissinger said ‘to be a enemy of the US is dangerous but to be a friend is fatal’ - because you become a lapdog and sacrificial lamb for imperial interest.

 

Edited January 12 by zazen

[Raze]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-11/ty-article-live/ahead-of-world-court-hearing-netanyahu-rejects-calls-for-gaza-population-transfer/0000018c-f676-dd68-a3cf-f6feba5b0000

[Raze]

 

[Danioover9000]

@Raze

1 hour ago, Raze said:

https://www.ft.com/content/0cbe7cbb-382d-49d1-8846-4f96b583580f
 

Houthi rebels in Yemen have been attacking ships to disrupt trade to protest Israel’s war on Hamas and for blocking aid to Gaza. 
 

This is causing economic problems so the US and UK are about to strike apparently.

 

This may cause a wider war in Yemen or even Iran (who backs Houthi’s).

Yemen is about the population and size of Afghanistan. Iran is the population and size of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

   Arguably this event has higher probability of escalation. Not good.

[Raze]

 

 

[Devin]

Sacrificial Iranian pawns.

[BlueOak]

UK air strikes another country without asking parliament first. Can't even keep to our own laws. My countries high level functioning is currently a joke to me, and well on its way to being a dictatorship. I hope Rishi Sunak is dragged in chains before the Hague, personally, along with Blair and the rest of them who think this is the correct course and have been complicit in breaking international law, but importantly our own law. Which is important to me.

He won't be of course, but I certainly hope the UK are put into the genocide complaints, as we are now assisting it. 

[BlueOak]

Its becoming quite obvious to me, that these people likely want a regional war with Iran. other than an excuse to try to remove Iran's nuclear program, there is one other logical reason I can see. If its a flex, to say stay off the trade routes, because our coalition's naval power is waning relative to BRICS, and we need to adjust to it by projecting an impression of strength.

This is sort of like Russia invading Ukraine to try to prove to the world it's still an imperial power, which was one reason why, because its status is waning in global politics relative to other powers, and Putin's ego was hurt. We don't control the sea lanes anymore and we've got to accept that, these acts of just bombing whoever the hell we like, half the globe away from us, rather than addressing the elephant in the room as to why it's happening, is on the way out.

If Israel want to fight other countries around them. Okay. But Sunak dragging us into a regional conflict, needs to be challenged.

Edited January 12 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, Nabd said:

US brought the current Iranian regime to power and they will never take it down unless a similar functioning regime/organization is ready to take its place to safeguard US interests and currently no one is going to play the role of Iran.

Best way to think of it is US trimming Iran fingernails.

Yes.

They do however want the nuclear program stopped.

Edited January 12 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Just now, Nabd said:

That's not a problem and never was.

When US wants someone dead they get them and they did already assassinate many Iranian scientists.

This nuclear stuff is for people of US and western Europe to be frightened and always ready to enlist and accept war when/if it comes.

What makes you think its not a problem?

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Nabd said:

What makes you think it is?

War has changed after the gulf war and 3rd world countries can't compete against US in a military conflict. The "mighty" Iraqi army was annihilated without even engaging the coalition. They saw nothing but dead bodies and burning vehicles.

All this propaganda is just the US learning their lesson since Vietnam war of how important media is.

Iran is moving its program underground, making stopping it impossible.

Why is it a problem from the perspective of the way the US, UK etc think?

Nukes are the weapons that decide and shape global politics. They can kill a scientist every week, and its not going to matter, Iran will get nukes. Its widely speculated Russia has assisted them in return for the drones they've sent over. Regardless of that speculation though, they will have nukes at some point. Unless something drastically changes in the international order or other country's approach to this particular topic with Iran specifically.

The other thing that would stop it, of course, is a ground invasion happening in this very spot. Which is what some want.

From what I recall large amounts of the Iraqi army didn't engage the US, but the terrain of Iran is completely different. Iraq was an open desert, while Afghanistan is closer in terms of the difficulties in geography. A war in Iran would be significantly harder than Afghanistan, given its a world that is more resistant to Western nations projecting their power over it unchallenged, and a more powerful country. I don't think a direct comparison is all that simple. Its a different world than it was 20 years ago.

What do I think personally?

Everyone needs to get out of the Middle East, and leave the Middle East to the Middle East. Its been obvious nobody is helping the region by interfering in it. The vast majority of people in the Middle East don't want our assistance or interference and haven't done so for hundreds of years. Right now it's only making things worse. That means get the oil money out and get the weapons out.

[BlueOak]

@Nabd

What can they possibly drop on an underground fortified mountain complex? 

The Houthis are interfering with global trade. That's the main obvious reason they are being bombed. Ships won't travel that route anymore, and the insurance costs are skyrocketing. Hamas did destabilize and undermine Israel's stability somewhat. It depends what you mean as a danger. Threatening global trade is one of the quickest ways to escalate someone to war.

There are calls to invade Iran in America and Israel. Thankfully not enough of them.

*Oh and AP are pretty good as far as what's left with any integrity in journalism goes.

Edited January 12 by BlueOak

[Devin]

6 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

@Nabd

What can they possibly drop on an underground fortified mountain complex? 

The Houthis are interfering with global trade. That's the main obvious reason they are being bombed. Ships won't travel that route anymore, and the insurance costs are skyrocketing. Hamas did destabilize and undermine Israel's stability somewhat. It depends what you mean as a danger. Threatening global trade is one of the quickest ways to escalate someone to war.

There are calls to invade Iran in America and Israel. Thankfully not enough of them.

Actually there are very serious people in the U.S. government calling for the overthrow of Iran, number 3 in the polls for president Nicki Haley, and number 3 in the U.S. Congress Lindsey Graham.

[BlueOak]

12 hours ago, Nabd said:

The problem is you are not going to understand anything by checking news. This has nothing to do with AP or others.

If the US wanted to bomb them early on, they would've done it ages ago. If they want to bomb it when its underground, they will bomb it. If they want to overthrow the government then they will do it and won't wait for votes or UN council or whatever bullshit AP or others report on, just like they did with Saddam Hussein.

For some reason all westerners find it hard to comprehend what I said but its quite simple to understand. I think people find it too horrifying if true, which is true but also liberating.

tl;dr: The US cannot just bomb Iran anymore on a whim. Iran has allies in Russia and China. Also the social chaos such a war would generate without popular approval for a war, is significant. Democracies require popular support for war to start it. That's part of the equation you are missing, they need to be propagandized to for many months, and right now propaganda gets less effective each year.

You will see varying perspectives by checking the news. Usually the perspective of the ruling elite in that country or the respective parties perspective. I do not often watch the news, usually only by happenstance or to confirm something, but the AP are a reliable source of information. If you have evidence otherwise, please present it, I certainly have evidence AP try to take a more neutral perspective and maintain integrity in their information:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias

However, that was me taking a source as to why America feels Iran's nuclear program, is becoming a problem, rather than relying on the source for my own opinion. I gave you my opinion separately. Get out of the Middle East is my opinion, money, weapons, everything, leaving the Middle East to the Middle East is my opinion. Then the region can harmonize naturally without outside pressures being exerted on it. The way the world works though, every country is trying to push its influence further outward, in a zero sum game. Which means constant conflict in regions without a near superpower or regional power without nuclear weapons. When you get nukes things change radically geopolitically, (you could argue dangerously even that paradigm is being tested elsewhere.)

How I tend to take information, is to look for the most intelligent and capable speakers I can find, and do a cross reference of different speakers. It's a gradual shaping of my own perspective by the best minds I can find, including my own bias and ongoing self-experience of reality showing me insights, or my intuition where my large self breaks through more demonstrably for insight. I find major news outlets very simplistic and often far too focused on achieving a flawed or unhelpful end when they give information, but they do still offer the perspective of ruling class and the message they wish to echo.

You are right the bias is usually done to achieve an end.
You are wrong about there not being a significant interest in stopping Iran from getting nukes both in Israel and America. 

As leo often says, countries are many voices, not just one.

Edited January 13 by BlueOak

[zazen]

South Africa and Yemen standing up to Israel and the West is significant - we are entering a multipolar world where the global south are emboldened and will not sit by any longer at imperial bullying. Western audiences being drip fed propaganda for decades of their exceptionalism and others lack of it aren’t able to read the room of geopolitical reality. Western power projection is overestimated and a Eastern/Middle Eastern response and kneecapping of this projection is underestimated.

The same way the Suez crisis of 1956 signalled the end of British hegemony - what is becoming today's Suez crisis (with the US/UK intervening) signals and spotlights the end of US hegemony and the ushering in of a multi polar world which they are arrogantly unwilling to accommodate without lashing out against.

Houthis haven't been defeated since 2015 and have penetrated Saudi's US fortified missile/drone defense system which can hit oil fields - despite robust U.S support including advanced Patriot missiles. ''Such is the capability of the Iranian-provided missiles and drones that the current commander of US Central Command, responsible for all US forces operating in the Middle East, recently testified before Congress that the US no longer enjoys the presumption of air superiority in the Mideast Gulf.''

Iran are much stronger, larger, advanced and have much better protection against any possible ground invasion thanks to their geographical situation (a mountainous moat as compared to the flat land in other Middle Eastern regions). Their long range missiles can sink any carriers and the strait of Hormuz can be choked and blocked affecting the West. 

''The reality of modern warfare is that small nations and non-state actors such as the Yemenis can be armed with modern military weaponry that negates the military impact of multibillion-dollar investments such as the carrier battlegroup. It costs the Yemenis tens of thousands of dollars to fire their drones and missiles against Israel and maritime shipping; it costs the US navy millions of dollars to shoot them down.

Moreover, it costs the US navy hundreds of millions of dollars just to keep a carrier battle group deployed and operating, while the Yemenis can credibly threaten to sink a carrier using weapons that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This failure goes far beyond the issue of security for the Red Sea. The United States has long maintained that it could guarantee that if Iran ever sought to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the US navy would be able to reopen it in a very short period. But Operation Prosperity Guardian puts a lie to that claim.

The fact is, the world balance of power has changed dramatically, and legacy systems like the carrier battlegroup are no longer the dominant means of power projection they once were. The USA has, in effect, put all its eggs in one basket through its over-reliance upon the carrier battlegroup when it comes to force projection.

The looming failure of Operation Prosperity Guardian exposes the impotence of the USA when it comes to being able to accomplish its plans for regional dominance in the Persian Gulf, South Pacific and Taiwan, and signals a new era where the appearance of an American fleet off the shores of a faraway land no longer inspires fear and intimidation.

For a nation like the United States, which has premised so much of its foreign and national security on the notion of strength-based deterrence, the revelation that its military power projection capabilities are more bark than bite undermines its credibility as an ally and partner in a world largely defined by conflicts created by, or on behalf of, the United States.''

Edited January 13 by zazen

[BlueOak]

@Nabd

There is not just one voice in Iran, Israel or America. 
There is not just one set of opinions or policy wishes, in any of those countries.

While certain people in positions of power in Iran, were given backing by the US, that doesn't put them on a string that they pull to give everyone in Iran one unified voice, the US does not control the government there directly either. You can't both at the same time say, America is 'clipping the nails of iran', while implying they have absolute control over their country. Why would there be a need if that was true? They have influence sure, that's what we are talking about, spheres of influence pushing up against each other.

A country is made up of all kinds of social, political, historical, cultural, individual, religious, and business interests or pressures etc. That's what we are referring to when we say a country wants this, or a country wants that.

When I say a significant portion of the American and Israeli world does not want Iran to have nukes, I mean exactly that, not the totality of America or Israel and everything they stand for. I see people say it from these countries all the time.

If you think nukes don't have a profound geopolitical impact, I would like to understand your opinion more, despite my obvious resistance to it. Why do you think nukes don't have a large geopolitical impact? Or is it you feel America strategically want Iran to have nukes? (or they don't care?)

Sadam was a threat to the oil industry. Again, trade and industry are the quickest ways to escalate to war. Which is exactly why Yemen is being bombed, or the primary reason. I've broken down the why in previous posts in more detail. @zazen does a much better job above.

I must admit some ignorance on Syrian matters, it was a time i'd checked out of global affairs and politics completely. I know a certain amount but I wasn't absorbing the usual volume of information to form a comprehensive view on Syria. Besides a general view, there seemed so many parties involved, the best I could say is: It is a good example of what occurs when the world is undergoing what Zazen describes, only in a place more beset by many competing interests that it resulted in anarchy. 

When I did watch Syrian recaps it reminded me of the olden days of warfare, when there was no defined global order, and small groups or individual countries would take matters into their own hands, leading to a more chaotic result.

Edited January 13 by BlueOak

[zazen]

@Nabd The lack of force or power projection (by Hezbollah, Iran etc) doesn't necessarily indicate weakness - which is a paradigm the US comes from and which is applied to other nations. Iran-Saudi-China have been peace making and integrating towards each other more and more including with Russia. These countries aren't geographically blessed the way US is in acting the way US does. The US can go around the world dick swinging and warmongering with minimal consequence because they have two vast seas to protect them with, a ally to the North and a weak neighbour to the South. Certain countries need to be more wary of any military adventures because the price to be paid is higher. Especially those with resources or ones with fault lines like India-Pakistan or Ukraine-Russia etc.

Two groups having aligned interests doesn't mean conspiracy behind the scenes either - despite skirmishes done covertly in Syria lets say between Russia and Iran on who they want to remain in power - on a wider scale they have larger interests to be aligned on. They don't want to undo the work they've done (with BRICS and Iran joining the Shaghai Cooperation Organisation) and start wars to destabilise themselves and the region unlike vested interests of the West and Israel who wish to see Iran destroyed.

Israel didn't defeat Hezbollah in 2006, US backed Saudi haven't defeated Yemen since 2015 and they don't seem weakened through attrition or in morale by their recent actions, Ukraine being backed by NATO and the West haven't won against Russia. 2 days ago Iran just seized back a oil tanker that was confiscated by US some years ago. Russia warned of Westward expansion that the West provoked and had to go in to Ukraine to secure its buffer zone and security interests - it gave red lines that were crossed and responded to - that's not a sign of weakness. Them being restrained all these years while the West flirted with how much they could push the boundaries and poke the bear wasn't indicative of them being weak by any means.

States or non-state actors being backed by another state doesn't mean being dictated to by them. Houthis being Iran backed doesn't necessarily mean dictated to by Iran, like wise Israel being US backed doesn't necessarily mean US dictates Israel entirely. While it does provide influence, it isn't absolute control. 

Edited January 13 by zazen

[Vrubel]

@Nabd both Iran and the USA trying to play each other by laying “traps of interdependency”. The cunning of the Iranians is legendary. The only reason Iran is keeping Hezbollah on a leash right now is because they need them as their foot soldiers to storm into Israel later when Iran is nuclear and ready for war with Israel.  

I used to believe Israel is not really afraid of Iran having nukes and would much rather see Iran weak and poor due to sanctions. The idea was they would have less resources to send to send to Hezbollah, Hamas etc. and also drive the Iranian population further in to boiling dissatisfaction. 
I think Israel was outplayed in this case here by Iran. Dealing with the atomic weapon should have been the biggest priority.
I do believe after the Gaza war is over, Hezbollah will get a beating next. After Hezbollah is diminished you can expect strikes by Israeli fighter jets on Iranian nuclear installations. 
This will be 2024 according to my prediction.

Edited January 14 by Vrubel