Israel and Iran on brink of war

[Picaro]

RE: Israel and Iran on brink of war
⁜→ "Picaro," et al,

BLUF: The US does not have the moral high ground, the political capital or the monetary strength to act as the "World Police" anymore.

Compared to who? Who is there we need to pretend has higher moral ground? The UN? Latvia? Our own interests are what matters, not what some partisan press release writer at the NYT might say about it. And, we've been threatened repeatedly and attacked.

It's the only solution that will work with them, they're nutjobs, and like all Islamists any compromises are seen as evidence of weakness, not diplomacy, no different than Nazi Germany's views were, The Soviet Union's, Putin's, Mao's, or Xi's views. The stone age is where they will be happiest, back to bandit nomads killing each other over sheep and water holes, which is where Libya, Iraq, and Syria are heading.

(COMMENT)

While I'm sure that there are probably a significant number of people who agree

(including myself in moments of strong emotions), we know that the use of force (or even the threat to use force) is counterproductive to developing workable solutions.


Most Respectfully,
R

Yet historically that view has only led to bigger and worse conflagrations, just kicking the can down the line. Better to fight small wars, in the case of Iran maybe an hour longer than it took to destroy Iraq's offensive capabilities, due to size of Iran. Then we let them dig themselves out for a few years. Maybe by then they might see that 'Allah' doesn't really like them as much as they think. Or better yet, we suck every drop of oil they have out of the ground while we're there and then leave, and they can rot while they wait for the rest of Islam to save them.

 

[Andylusion]

The terrorist state of Israel has been trying for decades to get the U.S. to back them attacking and invading Iran.
Thankfully, the American government has refused to get involved with their crazy plans. ...

There is nothing terrorist about Israel though. If they were, they would have wiped out the large Muslim population in their own country decades ago. Let alone having them in their government.

 

[Picaro]

There is nothing terrorist about Israel though.

Well, a few months ago the IDF began letting Israel's right wing racist Ultra-Orthodox nujobs into the services, including in officer positions, not a great idea imo, so that fact may change soon. These are the 10%+ of Israeli Jews that cheer the bombings in Europe and would massacre Da Evul Xians as soon as Muslims, a wild card in any war or military action the IDF should seriously rethink.

If they were, they would have wiped out the large Muslim population in their own country decades ago. Let alone having them in their government.

True enough so far.

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel and Iran on brink of war
⁜→ "Picaro," et al,

The US does not have the moral high ground, the political capital or the monetary strength to act as the "World Police" anymore.

Compared to who? Who is there we need to pretend has higher moral ground? The UN? Latvia? Our own interests are what matters, not what some partisan press release writer at the NYT might say about it. And, we've been threatened repeatedly and attacked.

(COMMENT)

To say "America has the Moral High Ground" is to say America → is highly respected for holding and upholding generally accepted standard of justice → being on the positive side "right and wrong" or "good and evil" behavior → the recognized as the "honest arbitrator."

The comparison to some other nation is irrelevant. It does not matter where America Ranks - it is all about perception.

✦ IF they don't consider America as holding the Moral High Ground; ​

​

✦ THEN we don't !​

Yet historically that view has only led to bigger and worse conflagrations, just kicking the can down the line. Better to fight small wars, in the case of Iran maybe an hour longer than it took to destroy Iraq's offensive capabilities, due to size of Iran. Then we let them dig themselves out for a few years. Maybe by then they might see that 'Allah' doesn't really like them as much as they think.

(COMMENT)

While I often find myself fighting the urge to adopt such attitudes (probably being the least honest in the discussion), America needs to readjust the presentation of its foreign policy and its defense posture in dealing with the radicals striving to achieve some special recognition as the favored based on a religious context. America must be above the fray and totally indifferent to religion.

Or better yet, we suck every drop of oil they have out of the ground while we're there and then leave, and they can rot while they wait for the rest of Islam to save them.

(COMMENT)

America does not need to appear anymore arrogant than the general political and diplomatic perceptions reflects her to be.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Picaro]

RE: Israel and Iran on brink of war
⁜→ "Picaro," et al,


(COMMENT)

To say "America has the Moral High Ground" is to say America → is highly respected for holding and upholding generally accepted standard of justice → being on the positive side "right and wrong" or "good and evil" behavior → the recognized as the "honest arbitrator."

The comparison to some other nation is irrelevant. It does not matter where America Ranks - it is all about perception.

✦ IF they don't consider America as holding the Moral High Ground; ​

​

✦ THEN we don't !​

​

​

I'm hard pressed to find any countries whose morals and standards make their 'perceptions' of us something we need concern ourselves about, much less their opinions; most Islamic nations are run by dictators and assorted criminal clans, as is most of Africa and South America, Asia certainly has no honest dealers, even among our 'allies', just a few ethnic groups like Malaysian Chinese here and there whose morals and ethical standards might match something resembling 'high' relative to the norms in their respective regions. Europe certainly has little room to finger wag, being the main source of apologia for terrorism against others as well as a major funder of it, meanwhile painting itself as some sort of paragon of virtues.​

Yet historically that view has only led to bigger and worse conflagrations, just kicking the can down the line. Better to fight small wars, in the case of Iran maybe an hour longer than it took to destroy Iraq's offensive capabilities, due to size of Iran. Then we let them dig themselves out for a few years. Maybe by then they might see that 'Allah' doesn't really like them as much as they think.

(COMMENT)

While I often find myself fighting the urge to adopt such attitudes (probably being the least honest in the discussion), America needs to readjust the presentation of its foreign policy and its defense posture in dealing with the radicals striving to achieve some special recognition as the favored based on a religious context. America must be above the fray and totally indifferent to religion.

A position that merely got us used as suckers and attacked in the past, as it will in the future. The political platforms of Islam make religion a political factor, whether it fits with the Founders fantasies of being 'diverse' in intent with our own legal system. Islam is a political ideology; the faux 'religious' trappings are just camouflage for a violent genocidal bandit cult.

Or better yet, we suck every drop of oil they have out of the ground while we're there and then leave, and they can rot while they wait for the rest of Islam to save them.

(COMMENT)

America does not need to appear anymore arrogant than the general political and diplomatic perceptions reflects her to be.

Again, it isn't arrogance, but reality, and again there are few 'perceptions' of us by assorted dictators and crime syndicates that are honest or worth our respect. Most are blatantly hypocritical and fraudulent; for just one example see the so-called 'International Court Of Justice' farce. Any reason for us to view it's 'perceptions' respectfully?

 

[BigDave]

Israel vs Iran definitely has the potential to start WW3 because i think Russia would enter on the side of Iran which means the United States and Saudi Arabia would enter the war on the side of Israel. China could use this as an excuse to start a shooting war with the United States and as they say there goes the old ball game!

 

[Picaro]

Israel vs Iran definitely has the potential to start WW3 because i think Russia would enter on the side of Iran which means the United States and Saudi Arabia would enter the war on the side of Israel. China could use this as an excuse to start a shooting war with the United States and as they say there goes the old ball game!

Many would see it that way, but Russia likes to start wars, then run away, as they did in Korea; they're small potatoes, and both them and Red China are over-rated as military powers, Red China grossly so. If they were a serious power, they would have already moved on Viet Nam and Taiwan as soon as they were strong enough. Like Russia, they're wannabe imperialists, but they are only threat to weak powers. Iran is weak, to, and also an imperialist wannabe. It makes no sense to let them keep building up until they decide to start a war on their terms, as Hitler did, the Kaiser did, Japan did, etc., etc. We pull back, the only result will be more attacks and bigger wars. Isolationism and 'Neutrality' has never worked for us; sooner or later they attack anyway, and have no respect for us, it's not something we can do unilaterally. We have no reason to respect them in turn. Shooting wars with us will be very short ones, with fewer deaths than letting the cretins determine when they start. Somebody threatens you, particularly savages, you take that seriously.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel and Iran on brink of war
⁜→ "Picaro," "BigDave," et al,

BLUF: The US is not superior in any facet or capability that leads to the decision for armed conflict. The entry into conflict is an executive decision supported by economic, financial, political, diplomatic, and (last but not least) military advisors. In order to even consider armed conflict with any faction of the world's leadership, the US must be formidable in nearly every aspect of the strength that supports the decision. The reality is, that America is not that formidable.

Israel vs Iran definitely has the potential to start WW3 because i think Russia would enter on the side of Iran which means the United States and Saudi Arabia would enter the war on the side of Israel. China could use this as an excuse to start a shooting war with the United States and as they say there goes the old ball game!

(COMMENT)

The reality of behind the factors in which conflicts are started has to do (in the practical sense) factors of: • the most to gain, and • what losses are sustainable.

​

There is a "Yiddish Proverb" that goes: "If you have nothing to lose, you can try everything." The unspoken implication here is that if you have something to lose, the risk should be very carefully undertaken, if at all. But the Israelis see that the Russian Federation and the Peoples Republic of China might have a greater incentive to take the risk.

In this regards, most of America's strongest allies are inside the geopolitical spheres enveloping the Commonwealth. And in that view, most have more to lose in conflict than they can gain economically, commercially, militarily, politically, or diplomatically.

​

( ∑ SUMMATION)

America should be developing strategies, other than military Centrix, to resolve international disputes.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BigDave]

RE: Israel and Iran on brink of war
⁜→ "Picaro," "BigDave," et al,

BLUF: The US is not superior in any facet or capability that leads to the decision for armed conflict. The entry into conflict is an executive decision supported by economic, financial, political, diplomatic, and (last but not least) military advisors. In order to even consider armed conflict with any faction of the world's leadership, the US must be formidable in nearly every aspect of the strength that supports the decision. The reality is, that America is not that formidable.

Israel vs Iran definitely has the potential to start WW3 because i think Russia would enter on the side of Iran which means the United States and Saudi Arabia would enter the war on the side of Israel. China could use this as an excuse to start a shooting war with the United States and as they say there goes the old ball game!

(COMMENT)

The reality of behind the factors in which conflicts are started has to do (in the practical sense) factors of: • the most to gain, and • what losses are sustainable.

View attachment 367700
​

There is a "Yiddish Proverb" that goes: "If you have nothing to lose, you can try everything." The unspoken implication here is that if you have something to lose, the risk should be very carefully undertaken, if at all. But the Israelis see that the Russian Federation and the Peoples Republic of China might have a greater incentive to take the risk.

In this regards, most of America's strongest allies are inside the geopolitical spheres enveloping the Commonwealth. And in that view, most have more to lose in conflict than they can gain economically, commercially, militarily, politically, or diplomatically.

View attachment 367717
​

( ∑ SUMMATION)

America should be developing strategies, other than military Centrix, to resolve international disputes.


Most Respectfully,
R

Where is Saudi Arabia ranked?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel and Iran on brink of war
⁜→ "BigDave,"

Where is Saudi Arabia ranked?

(ANSWER)

Saudi Arabia is Ranked 36th; being tied with both Andoria and Slovakia. Saudi Arabia is the second highest-ranked state which is also a member of the Arab League. Only the United Arab Emirates, ranking 35th, places higher.

◈ Lebanon Ranks 93rd​

◈ Jordan Ranks 102nd​

◈ Egypt Ranks 116th​

The rankings I used are based on the trends observed over a decade. They do not include the impact of the COVID-19 for any of the countries mentioned, and it does not include any impact connected with the October Revolution in Lebanon (2019-2020).
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...-lebanon-s-crippling-economic-crisis-n1234005

'We're on the road to collapse': Inside Lebanon's crippling economic crisis​

July 18, 2020,​

By Abbie Cheeseman​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Picaro]

Current events in Lebanon will prompt escalating aggression by Iran. Let them do what they want while 'respecting' them will result in a war within two years, and they will take the initiative, resulting in higher casualties for their enemies as a 'reward' for that 'respect'.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel and Iran on brink of war
⁜→ "Picaro," et al,

BLUF: You are confusing the roles these political and military actors are playing in relation to Lebanon and Iran.

Current events in Lebanon will prompt escalating aggression by Iran. Let them do what they want while 'respecting' them will result in a war within two years, and they will take the initiative, resulting in higher casualties for their enemies as a 'reward' for that 'respect'.

(COMMENT)

Neither the US nor Iran want tensions to escalate into a hard contact between military forces. While the US would never attempt to the introduction of ground forces in numbers, the Islamic Republic knows that the US has the ability to destroy the entire Iranian Navy and cripple any attempt by the Iranian Air Force to present air capabilities. The Islamic Republic knows that (even with over thirty S-300 SAM Batteries) every single key communication node is vulnerable to total destruction and that the Iranian Power Generation Capacity can be reduced by 50% in a dozen sorties (there are only 15 to 20 Power Plants that generate 1000 MWs or more).

While there is an Iranian imprint on the Lebonese Landscape, that reach is not yet capable of generating significant political support for Lebanon to enter a gateway into an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Yes, everyone understands that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF) has connections with every major Jihadist Operators, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters throughout the Region. But those connections are not very sustainable in a general IAC.

Yes, connections can be drawn between the "current events" in Lebanon by what Iran is doing is not an escalation in aggression, but an attempt to make their relevance in the Region known internationally.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BigDave]

RE: Israel and Iran on brink of war
⁜→ "Picaro," et al,

BLUF: You are confusing the roles these political and military actors are playing in relation to Lebanon and Iran.

Current events in Lebanon will prompt escalating aggression by Iran. Let them do what they want while 'respecting' them will result in a war within two years, and they will take the initiative, resulting in higher casualties for their enemies as a 'reward' for that 'respect'.

(COMMENT)

Neither the US nor Iran want tensions to escalate into a hard contact between military forces. While the US would never attempt to the introduction of ground forces in numbers, the Islamic Republic knows that the US has the ability to destroy the entire Iranian Navy and cripple any attempt by the Iranian Air Force to present air capabilities. The Islamic Republic knows that (even with over thirty S-300 SAM Batteries) every single key communication node is vulnerable to total destruction and that the Iranian Power Generation Capacity can be reduced by 50% in a dozen sorties (there are only 15 to 20 Power Plants that generate 1000 MWs or more).

While there is an Iranian imprint on the Lebonese Landscape, that reach is not yet capable of generating significant political support for Lebanon to enter a gateway into an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

Yes, everyone understands that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF) has connections with every major Jihadist Operators, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters throughout the Region. But those connections are not very sustainable in a general IAC.

Yes, connections can be drawn between the "current events" in Lebanon by what Iran is doing is not an escalation in aggression, but an attempt to make their relevance in the Region known internationally.

Most Respectfully,
R

What do you think the impact will be on the world stage if Israel absorbs the West Bank once again? I would think that would very possibly start a war against Iran,Syria,Jordan and Egypt. The United States would aid Israel and they would win that war.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel and Iran on brink of war
⁜→ "BigDave," et al,

BLUF: This is speculation. I don't think that even the Department of State (DoS) has a good view of the most probable outcome. DoS and the White House have been operating in the Middle East as if every organization is like a free-spinning gear; as opposed to intermeshed gears turning as one huge mechanism. That is a recipe for failure in foreign policy. DoS and the White House see the Middle East like they want it to be rather than the reality for what it is. It is the reason that every previous US endorsed plan has failed in the past, and what will ultimately kick The Trump Peace Plan to the curb.

What do you think the impact will be on the world stage if Israel absorbs the West Bank once again?

(COMMENT)

​

This is very dependent on the way in which the Arab Palestinian inhabitants of the territory - in which Israel plans to extend sovereignty [portions of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)] react - and → what, if anything, opens hostilities. There is no question that there will be some fraction of the people that see this as annexation by force and greet the move with criticism.

◈ The response by the Arab Palestinian inhabitants "inside" the portions of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) which will be incorporated.​

◈ The response by the Arab Palestinian inhabitants "outside" the portions of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) which will be incorporated.​

◈ The backlash by the UN, all the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and other non-state actors.​

◈ The response by the Arab community beyond the West Bank.​

When we look at "the world stage" we see oceans of apathy - just waiting to swamp the bandwagon to criticize the outcome. But most of whom have not made any significant contributions to the peace. This is why it is rather important that the Judeans and Samarians make it clear that this is a project that coincides with their "self-determination."

I would think that would very possibly start a war against Iran,Syria,Jordan and Egypt. The United States would aid Israel and they would win that war.

(COMMENT)

Wars are expensive in both political and economic capital. You have mentioned six countries here. Let's look at who can afford a war; looking at the LPI is an interactive benchmarking tool created to help countries identify the challenges and opportunities they face in their performance on trade logistics and what they can do to improve their performance. The LPI 2018 allows for comparisons across 160 countries. Wars are logistic intensive.

The World Bank: Global Rankings 2018 (I have not seen the 2019 Rankings yet.)

✧ UAE Ranking 11 .............. w/Global powers ranked by potential military strength: Not Ranked​

✦ USA Ranking 14 ..................w/Global powers ranked by potential military strength ('PwrIndx'): #1​

✦ Israel Ranking 37..................w/Global powers ranked by potential military strength ('PwrIndx'): #18​

✧ Iran Ranking 64................w/Global powers ranked by potential military strength ('PwrIndx'): #14​

✧ Egypt Ranking 67.............w/Global powers ranked by potential military strength ('PwrIndx'): #9​

✧ Jordan Ranking 84...........w/Global powers ranked by potential military strength ('PwrIndx'): #72​

✧ Syrian Ranking 138..........w/Global powers ranked by potential military strength ('PwrIndx'): #55​

Yes, it is possible to start a war. But is it reasonable to assume that anyone actually wants that? (RHETORICAL) NO! The numbers just are not that good. Then, we have not even begun to start with the Five Constant Factors behind war:

(1) The Moral Law (What are we willing to do to win?);​

(2) Projected Power (How far are we willing to go?);​

(3) Terrain;​

(4) The Choice of Commander (During most of my time in Iraq and Afghanistan the Junior 4-Stars were in Command); In wars previous to Iraq, Generals fought for command. If the Generals are not fighting for command, you need to find out why.​

(5) Method and discipline.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Likkmee]

If it comes to Israel vs. Iran, many people (including me) are cheering for Israel.

There are many good things to say about Israel.

I cannot think of a single good thing to say about Iran.

They have skiing and hunting

 

[verker]

War between Israel and Iran are not one scenario ... that Israel has nukes ...

 

[gtopa1]

The terrorist state of Israel has been trying for decades to get the U.S. to back them attacking and invading Iran.
Thankfully, the American government has refused to get involved with their crazy plans. ...

Wasn't it Iraq that wanted to drag in the US...just sayin'!!

Greg