Count Delinard said:
Political nature in its purest form...
TaleWorlds News: New News Necessary for the OT Neophytes
- Thread starter Úlfheðinn
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Political nature in its purest form...
Count Delinard said:
This remains valid only as long as the two sides practice hard realism in their foreign policy. The world has seen some tight standoffs like this many times. One close example is the Taiwan strait crisis during the Mao era, which many thought could throw the world in another war, but the two sides calibrated eachother's interests correctly and eventually engaged in negotiations. North Korea is the more recent example. The regime is usually portrayed as mad and irrational, but Pyongyang has a good record of dancing along the cliffs, and Washington even engaged in negotiations with their „rocket man”.
What could tilt the USA and Iran into a war though is some anomaly happening along this apparent routine of sabre rattling. The thing with Iran is that they are left with less and less choices. First they had the USA withdraw from the nuclear deal, and reimpose sanctions, which led to economic and social instability. Secondly, they have come to blows with Israel and Saudi Arabia in the region, which adds strain to its security. Now, they have been targeted directly by the USA. This spiral of events have caused one issue which is out of the norm: the US has left very little room for negotiations through these actions, and Iran will be less willing to trust any future negotiations. This is much less than routine, and if the pattern continues, Iran may become the cornered beast. When states are left with litle room for maneuver in their foreign policy, they tend to isolate themselves and become more agressive externally and more authoritarian internally. The hardliners in Iran may be having a feast right now, and their popularity is surely growing.
The strategic position of the USA was pretty solid before the attack. The anti-Iran sentiment in Iraq was at its peak with the recent protests, while Iran itself was starting to struggle with protests and political dissent over the current Islamic regime. Now the tables have turned. The popularity of the pro-Iranian camp in Iraq has got a spike, while in Iran, the killing of the general has boosted nationalism and the anti-American sentiment just after the anti-government protests.
My opinion is that the fuel may ignite if Iran is left without any viable diplomatic options. Otherwise, the continuation of their foreign policy may as well be the use of military force where needed. The diplomatic field is already bad as it is. They are most likely talking through intermediaries, which is not very practical nor fast, and in crisis situations they may be slow to react. That's not a good milkshake, if you ask me.
Edit: and there we go https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security/iraq-calls-for-foreign-forces-to-leave-after-u-s-killing-of-iran-commander-idUSKBN1Z409A
Sadrists and other pro Iranian Shia parties hold the balance of power in the parliament. Possibly because of the destruction of half the election ballots in a probable arson after a recount was called.
Of course they’re going to vote for such a resolution. It’s been trending in this direction for a while. This little spike just accelerated the Americans’ loss of friendly political power in Iraq.
Of course they’re going to vote for such a resolution. It’s been trending in this direction for a while. This little spike just accelerated the Americans’ loss of friendly political power in Iraq.
That depends on what is meant by "do terror attacks", really. They are the core funding and intelligence assistance to other Shia groups in the middle east, such as Hezbollah. And Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by some, such as America, who in turn back groups that others consider to be terrorist organizations or terrorist states. Either everyone involved in middle-eastern geopolitics 'does terror attacks', or almost nobody does.Adorno said:
These are just the usual squabbles, yeah. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It is a relatively wealthy, high population country, with it's own high tech armaments industry. It also has strong military ties to Russia and China. The only way that Iran ends up "defeated" in any way is by it's enemies in the region, namely the United States, Saudi Arabia, Israel, is by them fomenting dissension among it's young population. Over 50% of Iran's population is under 30, and from what little I have gleaned from Iranians who have talked about it(and this may not be correct), the younger generations, as a whole group, don't really have any particular allegiance to the revolution or to the existing regime. Relatively, they are quite liberal (and I mean liberal not from the American sense, but the rest-of-the-world sense). Espionage and political agitation will be the order of the day, not full blown military confrontation.Count Delinard said:
You're right. Iran "outsource" their terror 
So far things have gone as expected, we're just waiting for Iran to strike at US troops in the region, and for US to retaliate.
The status of UN troops in iraq is still undecided - but maybe the meeting right now will clear that up. They might all be withdrawn, as well as US troops.
So far things have gone as expected, we're just waiting for Iran to strike at US troops in the region, and for US to retaliate.
The status of UN troops in iraq is still undecided - but maybe the meeting right now will clear that up. They might all be withdrawn, as well as US troops.
For anyone interested, a blog article discussing legality of the US attack.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-soleimani-strike-and-self-defence-against-an-imminent-armed-attack/
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-soleimani-strike-and-self-defence-against-an-imminent-armed-attack/
BenKenobi said:
TRUMP
How have you not found out that international law is a joke yet?
Iran has launched "more than a dozen" ballistic missiles against two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. forces, the Pentagon said Tuesday. Iran said the attack was in retaliation to the airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, one of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic.
Source
So it begins
Source
So it begins
Most of the iranians are awaiting for a new government. They want at least a "soft islam" type of government. What US did was pretty clever. It made the iranians cry for war and stick together.
But whatever Iran does, it's government is going to change. If they give a harsh answer, they are going to get in to a long war or at least get embargo which, both of them are going to cause them instability.
If they don't give a harsh answer, then their people are going to show their anger towards their own government possibly causing a civil war
Through blood or not, USA made a huge step by forcing their foe to choose between two moves that will cause them to die or reform.
Whatever they do, USA will get what it wants. Removing the islamist government.
But whatever Iran does, it's government is going to change. If they give a harsh answer, they are going to get in to a long war or at least get embargo which, both of them are going to cause them instability.
If they don't give a harsh answer, then their people are going to show their anger towards their own government possibly causing a civil war
Through blood or not, USA made a huge step by forcing their foe to choose between two moves that will cause them to die or reform.
Whatever they do, USA will get what it wants. Removing the islamist government.
Kutsalkadavra said:
So most Iranians are opposed to the government and want a regime change, but are also raving pro-state fascists who'll go out into the streets if their government doesn't avenge a military officer?
trueten said:Iran has launched "more than a dozen" ballistic missiles against two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. forces, the Pentagon said Tuesday. Iran said the attack was in retaliation to the airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, one of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic.
Source
So it begins
Oh god.trueten said:Iran has launched "more than a dozen" ballistic missiles against two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. forces, the Pentagon said Tuesday. Iran said the attack was in retaliation to the airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, one of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic.
Source
So it begins
The whole situation, as strange as it seems, might set some ground for negotiations. Iran saved face and has "achieved" proportional response for the US strike, while the US military has got no casualties, according to preliminary reports.
Things look bad indeed, but it can turn 180 degrees if both sides consider that "satisfaction" was achieved with proportional military action. If there will be no serious military attacks from the US or Israel in the near future, you may as well consider they have engaged in some form of talks.
And by the way, an Ukrainian liner has crashed with 170 people while taking off from Tehran.
Things look bad indeed, but it can turn 180 degrees if both sides consider that "satisfaction" was achieved with proportional military action. If there will be no serious military attacks from the US or Israel in the near future, you may as well consider they have engaged in some form of talks.
And by the way, an Ukrainian liner has crashed with 170 people while taking off from Tehran.
kurczak said:Imagine being angry about a foreign country assassinating your people lmao. ****ing fascistsNUQAR'S Kentucky "Nuqar" James XXL said:
What I'm pointing out is the silliness of saying the whole country is clamouring for regime change while also being willing to start a civil war over the death of a general who suppresses protests. It would be like Hong Kong protestors suddenly rioting because they want Xi Jinping to exact revenge on Indonesia for bombing one of those islands they all fight over.
