You nailed it. Iran, and russia, will fall as naturally and seemingly surprisingly as did the Wall. It would however be /nice/ if the collective West would let go their fears and quit grubbing for commerce in the now, and instead see the immense payoffs of the better near-tomorrow - in peace, freedom and, incidentally, commerce too.
Daniel, you bring such clarity. But here's some clarity from your Uncle Ehud. The US leadership--whoever that is--simply prefers the Mullahs to the Jews.
But here is my question: why? It simply isn’t in their OWN interest to save the Iranian regime. I simply don’t understand modern US foreign policy which was my motivation for writing this article.
I don't mean to sound flippant, because I respect the work you obviously put into your writing. After reading your piece, I can even accept that it is not in the US government's interest. But it is in somebody's interest, and that somebody seems to have some serious influence.
It is a very sad state of affairs when the opportunity to silence Iran once and for all is thwarted and impeded by the United States. A golden opportunity for the US to join up with Israel and to attack Irans Nuclear capability. Instead, Israel is being warned to Not do that and if they do, they will be doing it alone.
It boggles my mind to this day as I still have no clarity as to why the Biden administration seems to do everything they can to befriend a theocracy that despises them.
To be fair and try to point out some of the US’s disadvantages (not that I necessarily agree with any of them as good enough to prevent involvement, as you mentioned, at least even in an indirect form):
1. The US (- based on some accounts) is broke.
This might most likely be the main reason.
It has a spiraling debt crisis and, supposedly, roughly a third of GDP is directed solely at debt servicing and financing (which is apparently more than the
welfare and military expenditures combined).
There are many examples of past empires collapsing under the weight of their own debts due to a prolonged war.
The latest prominent example being the British Empire, the crashing of its currency and its loss of world dominance after WW2 (and thus the creation of Israel, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.) due to extreme debt.
Ray Dalio’s “The changing world order” is a very good read to see the world through this financial prism.
2. The current US administration is more concerned about a multitude of domestic issues (e.g., corruption, immigration, crime, drug abuse, etc., etc., etc.) and about an apparent fear of “losing democracy” or at least “losing to populism”.
It is also weary - after twenty years of fighting in the middle east - and realizes it cannot simply drop democracy on cultures which take offense in critical thinking and detest non-collectivism (e.g., Islamic cultures)
3. There are pressure groups inside the current administration (e.g., Squad members, Leftists/Marxists, etc.) and in American society (e.g., the Muslim electorate that might serve as a tipping point in an upcoming election) and abroad (e.g., Russia, Qatar, Iran, China, etc.) which are trying to topple American and western hegemony in various methods (i.e., financially, politically, militarily and via propaganda) and trying to prevent it from taking decisive action against any of their so called “global South” allies.
4. The US has gotten complacent.
Being a huge Island state, surrounded by no imminent threats of land invasion and containing huge natural resources - it prefers to stay in its imaginary autarky bubble and disregard the above external pressures.
Having said all that -
seeing that the US hasn’t even seriously attacked the Houthis in Yemen which pose no military or political threat whatsoever shows that it will definitely not do so with Iran
I think that you may be right on the money about the US' financial situation. But IMHO it's not an excuse for not giving Israel the deep bunker bombs it needs...or otherwise to deploy them themselves. What is absolutely not being envisaged is boots on the ground or casaulties or inordinate expenditure on the part of US taxpayers.
Especially since some of said bunker bombs have actually already been paid for by Israel and not necessarily with military aid (which is basically the US’s way of stimulus for its defense economy that is around 1-3% of the workforce and an even larger portion of its GDP)
Playing “devil’s advocate” yet again, and assuming no fowl intent on decision makers (i.e., no malevolence or external pressures involved, simply rational decisions)
I’d guess that they claim:
1. There are still tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East so the US will easily get dragged to any conflict (as if it hadn’t already lost a few soldiers and keeps on getting bombarded as we speak, but I guess perception of the electorate matters in these things)
2. Iran is a huge country and Israel can’t attack Iran sufficiently on its own due to logistical issues (e.g., air re-fueling, sufficient fire power, etc.)
3. The elections are coming and that is priority no. 1.
“Putting out one fire at a time”…
It almost seems this admin can’t even handle Hurricane season together with elections, let alone a regional war that’s been going on for over a year…
The fourth obvious claim would be that hurting Iran’s oil infrastructure would hurt China too much, possibly strengthen Russia and might actually effect global GDP in a huge way if Iran really feels it has no way out and starts attacking Saudi Oil, as in 2015
What you say certainly are considerations I'm sure. But to them I would add this: modern (Western) society seems to view a single civilian death in war as unacceptable ,rendering the conduct of war virtually impossible. We like the idea of funding armies with big guns to the end of being entirely unused. Unfortunately if you signal to your enemies that you don't want to fight, there is no deterrent.
This might actually explain the lack of real action against the Houthis, which are indeed hurting the US (and the whole world) *financially and this progressive “humanist” way of thinking brings me back to the US’s complacency.
The western world has gotten so used to not experiencing major wars in the past few decades that it might think (to quote Emanuel Macron) “wars are never the solution. diplomacy is”.
Yes, wars always end in diplomacy but it doesn’t mean they are not essential sometimes (- using targeted wars to prevent bigger wars).
This “humanistic” way of thinking is of course is an asymmetrical benefit for irrational and unlawful actors (e.g., Jihadists and the Islamic Republic) which do not adhere to the same principles.
*The only other financial explanation I can think of for the lack of action against the Houthis is that parts of the US admin are knee deep and in bed with Qatari money
If the United States doesnt fufill its destiny, which it is, honestly, to put down the Rabud Dog-- Iran-- it bred and cultivsted in the first place, I have a theory, of sorts.
The Catholic Church has done its dirtiest work and betrayed the west's most valuable secrets--it's nuclear capabilities, it's propulsion achievements and nuclear arsenal locations-- to the Iranians, Chinese and North Koreans--the Protestant's went with The Russian Orthodoxy and the Anglosphere--and an assault on Iran would cause massive terrorism domestically in all our states by the embedded Islamists who have flocked to us under the guise of building a life for themselves.
Just an idea, it is rooted in the Rise of Antisemitic, Anti-Western and Anti-Minority ideologies that are perpetrated by The Oligopolies of The World--The Power Elite, if you will-- throughout the Developed and Developing World Regimes.
Unfortunately, a lot of my analysis is very "back and to the left" but it looks like the Gazan War was began by The Catholic Church shortly after the Oslo Accords. Part of their Replacement and Liberation Theories.
Assuming all of this were to happen, might it create a problem in itself?
For without the menace of Iran and it’s proxies undermining stability in the Arab world - what is there to compel the Arab nations to progress with the Abraham Accords?
For as long as we can remember leaders of Arab nations have had to keep at least one step ahead of their more radical ‘street’ - without the impending disaster from Tehran why would they now risk civil unrest to make peace with Israel?
Counter balance the Arabian Peninsula Sunni Arabs? Sunni/Shia rift? They think they can control the Iranians? The theoracy of Iran has vowed to destroy Israel and Obama/Biden hate Israel? I don't know. This embassy in Lebanon, under Iranian control, is a game changer. However, that's all different now given the current condition of Hezbollah.
Thanks for an insightful post. Great explainer.
Thanks for the feedback Rebekah.
Brilliant reasoning. But will the US understand and act? Not under the current maladministration anyway.
Probably not Tom. Hence my last paragraph.
You nailed it. Iran, and russia, will fall as naturally and seemingly surprisingly as did the Wall. It would however be /nice/ if the collective West would let go their fears and quit grubbing for commerce in the now, and instead see the immense payoffs of the better near-tomorrow - in peace, freedom and, incidentally, commerce too.
Thank you for your work. I am hopeful that this time the opportunity to take out Iran will not be squandered.
I appreciated your hope George. I wish I shared your faith in US decision-making.
Daniel, you bring such clarity. But here's some clarity from your Uncle Ehud. The US leadership--whoever that is--simply prefers the Mullahs to the Jews.
But here is my question: why? It simply isn’t in their OWN interest to save the Iranian regime. I simply don’t understand modern US foreign policy which was my motivation for writing this article.
I don't mean to sound flippant, because I respect the work you obviously put into your writing. After reading your piece, I can even accept that it is not in the US government's interest. But it is in somebody's interest, and that somebody seems to have some serious influence.
Follow the money.
Are you implying Qatar?
More like individuals enjoying Qatari largess.
I would say you're Nuts but sadly the US government is stupid and probably would try.
It is a very sad state of affairs when the opportunity to silence Iran once and for all is thwarted and impeded by the United States. A golden opportunity for the US to join up with Israel and to attack Irans Nuclear capability. Instead, Israel is being warned to Not do that and if they do, they will be doing it alone.
It boggles my mind to this day as I still have no clarity as to why the Biden administration seems to do everything they can to befriend a theocracy that despises them.
papa j
To be fair and try to point out some of the US’s disadvantages (not that I necessarily agree with any of them as good enough to prevent involvement, as you mentioned, at least even in an indirect form):
1. The US (- based on some accounts) is broke.
This might most likely be the main reason.
It has a spiraling debt crisis and, supposedly, roughly a third of GDP is directed solely at debt servicing and financing (which is apparently more than the
welfare and military expenditures combined).
There are many examples of past empires collapsing under the weight of their own debts due to a prolonged war.
The latest prominent example being the British Empire, the crashing of its currency and its loss of world dominance after WW2 (and thus the creation of Israel, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.) due to extreme debt.
Ray Dalio’s “The changing world order” is a very good read to see the world through this financial prism.
2. The current US administration is more concerned about a multitude of domestic issues (e.g., corruption, immigration, crime, drug abuse, etc., etc., etc.) and about an apparent fear of “losing democracy” or at least “losing to populism”.
It is also weary - after twenty years of fighting in the middle east - and realizes it cannot simply drop democracy on cultures which take offense in critical thinking and detest non-collectivism (e.g., Islamic cultures)
3. There are pressure groups inside the current administration (e.g., Squad members, Leftists/Marxists, etc.) and in American society (e.g., the Muslim electorate that might serve as a tipping point in an upcoming election) and abroad (e.g., Russia, Qatar, Iran, China, etc.) which are trying to topple American and western hegemony in various methods (i.e., financially, politically, militarily and via propaganda) and trying to prevent it from taking decisive action against any of their so called “global South” allies.
4. The US has gotten complacent.
Being a huge Island state, surrounded by no imminent threats of land invasion and containing huge natural resources - it prefers to stay in its imaginary autarky bubble and disregard the above external pressures.
Having said all that -
seeing that the US hasn’t even seriously attacked the Houthis in Yemen which pose no military or political threat whatsoever shows that it will definitely not do so with Iran
I think that you may be right on the money about the US' financial situation. But IMHO it's not an excuse for not giving Israel the deep bunker bombs it needs...or otherwise to deploy them themselves. What is absolutely not being envisaged is boots on the ground or casaulties or inordinate expenditure on the part of US taxpayers.
I agree,
Especially since some of said bunker bombs have actually already been paid for by Israel and not necessarily with military aid (which is basically the US’s way of stimulus for its defense economy that is around 1-3% of the workforce and an even larger portion of its GDP)
Playing “devil’s advocate” yet again, and assuming no fowl intent on decision makers (i.e., no malevolence or external pressures involved, simply rational decisions)
I’d guess that they claim:
1. There are still tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East so the US will easily get dragged to any conflict (as if it hadn’t already lost a few soldiers and keeps on getting bombarded as we speak, but I guess perception of the electorate matters in these things)
2. Iran is a huge country and Israel can’t attack Iran sufficiently on its own due to logistical issues (e.g., air re-fueling, sufficient fire power, etc.)
3. The elections are coming and that is priority no. 1.
“Putting out one fire at a time”…
It almost seems this admin can’t even handle Hurricane season together with elections, let alone a regional war that’s been going on for over a year…
The fourth obvious claim would be that hurting Iran’s oil infrastructure would hurt China too much, possibly strengthen Russia and might actually effect global GDP in a huge way if Iran really feels it has no way out and starts attacking Saudi Oil, as in 2015
What you say certainly are considerations I'm sure. But to them I would add this: modern (Western) society seems to view a single civilian death in war as unacceptable ,rendering the conduct of war virtually impossible. We like the idea of funding armies with big guns to the end of being entirely unused. Unfortunately if you signal to your enemies that you don't want to fight, there is no deterrent.
Word!
This might actually explain the lack of real action against the Houthis, which are indeed hurting the US (and the whole world) *financially and this progressive “humanist” way of thinking brings me back to the US’s complacency.
The western world has gotten so used to not experiencing major wars in the past few decades that it might think (to quote Emanuel Macron) “wars are never the solution. diplomacy is”.
Yes, wars always end in diplomacy but it doesn’t mean they are not essential sometimes (- using targeted wars to prevent bigger wars).
This “humanistic” way of thinking is of course is an asymmetrical benefit for irrational and unlawful actors (e.g., Jihadists and the Islamic Republic) which do not adhere to the same principles.
*The only other financial explanation I can think of for the lack of action against the Houthis is that parts of the US admin are knee deep and in bed with Qatari money
100%. Peace relies on being seen to have the will to wage war.
If the United States doesnt fufill its destiny, which it is, honestly, to put down the Rabud Dog-- Iran-- it bred and cultivsted in the first place, I have a theory, of sorts.
The Catholic Church has done its dirtiest work and betrayed the west's most valuable secrets--it's nuclear capabilities, it's propulsion achievements and nuclear arsenal locations-- to the Iranians, Chinese and North Koreans--the Protestant's went with The Russian Orthodoxy and the Anglosphere--and an assault on Iran would cause massive terrorism domestically in all our states by the embedded Islamists who have flocked to us under the guise of building a life for themselves.
Just an idea, it is rooted in the Rise of Antisemitic, Anti-Western and Anti-Minority ideologies that are perpetrated by The Oligopolies of The World--The Power Elite, if you will-- throughout the Developed and Developing World Regimes.
Thanks for sharing your analysis Deacon.
Unfortunately, a lot of my analysis is very "back and to the left" but it looks like the Gazan War was began by The Catholic Church shortly after the Oslo Accords. Part of their Replacement and Liberation Theories.
Your always welcome, Daniel.
You're
Assuming all of this were to happen, might it create a problem in itself?
For without the menace of Iran and it’s proxies undermining stability in the Arab world - what is there to compel the Arab nations to progress with the Abraham Accords?
For as long as we can remember leaders of Arab nations have had to keep at least one step ahead of their more radical ‘street’ - without the impending disaster from Tehran why would they now risk civil unrest to make peace with Israel?
That is the danger indeed.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/ottoman-american-empire
The Obama/Biden administration wants to restore Iranian hegemony.
If so, why? Thanks my question.
Counter balance the Arabian Peninsula Sunni Arabs? Sunni/Shia rift? They think they can control the Iranians? The theoracy of Iran has vowed to destroy Israel and Obama/Biden hate Israel? I don't know. This embassy in Lebanon, under Iranian control, is a game changer. However, that's all different now given the current condition of Hezbollah.
The US isn't its last legs. What it does is get involved in the wrong conflicts at the wrong times.