Oh so there still are allowed enemies in the world then, great to know.
This brings up a genuinely interesting question: how can such a regime be brought down then?
- Sanctions don’t work. As you say, this has been tried since ages without any result.
- War doesn’t work. The US are about to make total fools out of themselves (if it wasn’t already clear enough, that is). As others have said, to remove the regime, it would need a total military take-over of the country, which is neigh on impossible. This kind of war only serves to stabilise the regime and to give them further motivation to repress any nay-sayers in the country.
Obama’s patient approach was probably the right one: give them enough incentive not to develop nuclear weapons by lifting some of the hardest sanctions, while at the same time making it clear that it would be good if Iran found its way towards a less repressive regime. At the time, the US still had soft power to wield, and were probably still an appealing model for the Iranians. Today, thanks to the idiots in Washington, that advantage is gone. The US are as repulsive as it gets, and through their reckless approach, have solidified a regime which, previously to this war, was struggling against its own population like never before.
5 Likes
Agree with this,Obama arrangement seemed to be working OK until the orange horror decided it was a bad deal,Trump speak for if I didn’t do it,it was a dud.
Christ knows how history will judge this current episode.
Sanctions only build up a bank of hate,which can carry on through generations,long after any clear meomry of what caused them is gone.
1 Like
It’s a very difficult question my friend. But, one thing you don’t do is to hurt the very people that’s being subjugated by the regime.
In Iraq, they hung Saddam but faced a ferocious Sunni insurgency. Then ISIS overran a corrupt, submissive, and collaborative Iraqi army which paved the way for Shia militias who now has a freehand. They drove away the Al-Quada, and the Taliban to install a puppet regime who ate the institutions, and finance hollow from inside for two decades. Now Taliban are back again. They killed Gaddafi, but now Libya is sliced-up by two warlords, and their numerous proxy clans. In Palestine, they backed the submissive and corrupt PA/Fatah/Abbas (it’s basically the same) who didn’t stand in the way of blockade of Gaza, and the atrocities in West Bank, the Palestinians repaid with Hamas, Islamic Jihad.
In Bangladesh, there weren’t any sanctions during the Hasina Regime (2008-2024). While it infuriated us at that time, in the hindsight, it ensured the regime don’t get entrenched with the people and though 15 years have seen unspeakable, and incalculable atrocities, the Hasina Regime is gone. Now imagine if Netanyahu and Trump didn’t torpedo the 2015 deal, and the West was more collaborative with Khatami, Rouhani, and Pezeshkian, while not allowing Netanyahu to act like a rabid dog.
5 Likes
Only stating the obvious, but the decision to launch this shitfest will go down as one of the biggest blunders of all time, perpetrated appropriately by a clown.
I’ve been trying to find similar historical events, and I can’t come up with many. Maybe the 1956 Suez Crisis or Alkiviades’ Sicilian expedition, but even that is pushing it. The amount of stupidity and naivety it took to get involved in this was off the scale.
2 Likes
No.
But I suppose they think in their narrow-minded zero sum bunker mentality, that any weakening of the Islamic Republic’s military is a positive for them, as it gives them more time as well, as cause to set up a buffer zone in Lebanon, which arguably serves their security. After all, the military strenght of Iran has been castrated to some degree, which if you use zero sum only as your strategic thinking, seems very positive (since Israel is not particularly hurt militarily and economically).
But it’s all so short term (next 10 years) and Israel doesn’t seem to care about their legitimacy or standing, which I think is a massive strategic mistake that will eat them up in years to come, as loyalty and popularity of Israel decreases globally (also in the states that they need to prop them up diplomatically and with trade).
4 Likes
Absolutely, can only agree with this. Patience is the key, and maybe also accepting alterity.
3 Likes
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/2046895055722434571
https://x.com/TankerTrackers/status/2046918475633864760
1 Like
Well, I could come up with one: WW1. If you look at the historical events preceding the start of WW1, you’ll pull your hair. Nobody wanted to start that war, and yet…
In fact, not many wars start without people being bottomlessly stupid. Sun Tzu advocated that the highest intelligence lies in defeating the enemy without fighting. Well, that was more than 2’500 years ago. You’d like to think that the idea would have been assimilated since then, but no. Brutal idiots like Trump and many others know nothing about that.
2 Likes
I guess the difference there is that with WW1, no single actor could really be said to have done something arbitrarily stupid - it was really a set of rational decisions made under constraints that led to a catastrophic outcome. Rational in the individual unit, stupid in the aggregate. By contrast, this conflict is based entirely on inexplicable decisions from the American administration - even the Israeli decisions have a logic of sorts, even if likely to be self-defeating in the long-term.
The most baffling element of all is really the fact that the Pentagon has contemplated this potential conflict perhaps more than any other since the fall of the Soviet Union, with only Taiwan coming close (US did not take the threat to Taiwan that seriously prior to circa 2000, because of their own sense of naval preponderance). Any normal Secretary of Defence would have drawn on decades of ready-to-hand analysis to consider what to do about the Straits.
8 Likes
That’s why he’s the Secretary of War
6 Likes
Gosh, who could have ever predicted that trying to use a bombing campaign to induce regime change would make it difficult to conduct negotiations with that regime?
7 Likes
It’s a punitive reaction and hurts Iran even if it doesn’t bring the regime down. That’s not the point here. It is a political reaction.
As for your thesis that sanctions don’t work, I find that very weak. I see others agree with you without any empirical evidence, I note.
Sanctions on Russia have been a big, big help. Sanctions on Iran has limited it.
Often sanctions is about limiting space for geopolitical maneuver.
But sure, Iran is the leading world expert in avoiding sanctions, but to claim sanctions have no effect is imo a laughable simplistic populist statement. Just because they don’t by themselves topple a regime, does not mean that “Sanctions don’t work”.
Sanctions can or can not have an effect, it depends on sanctions. “Sanctions” is just a word, but it’s a very big word that includes military attack and economic choking and everything in between. Of course the sanctions on North Korea and Iran has had an effect. But sure, sometimes sanctons can be counter productive. Not at all clear this is the case with Iran.
1 Like
There are/were some severe US/Western sanctions against Iraq, Iran, Russia, Myanmar, DPRK. All the regimes survived. Sanctions hurt the regimes, but it hurts the people more. The regime always have/had a fat reserve to burn through the sanctions, while the people made more vulnerable.
2 Likes
I have a suspicion that Iran may be using this narrative to prolong the ‘negotiation’ or the preparatory phase of the ‘negotiation’.
Sanctions only often make the country look inwards and become more self reliant.
Yes , the general populace might be facing a lot of hardships.
But when a country is a certain size like Iran is now , India was then. Sanctions aren’t really going to work.
1 Like
And again. The sanctions don’t work if the country in itself is basically self sufficient.
Iran right now is a self sufficient country , the quality of life for people there might be deplorable (especially for people who don’t agree with the current regimes etc)
1 Like
But they limit the geopolitical space for said states. It limits their power and often their military industry.
Sanctions on Russia has had enormous effects, that is undeniable. Syria cannot even rebuild with sanctions, so for the new regime a positive outreach towards for instance Europe was deemed critical.
I also note that you failed to mention South Africa ?
In short, I think your argument is limited and quit weak, as it is too easy to butcher without even reading up.
Quirky that you posted that. I find SA a real curious case.
They arguably have been worse off (in terms of mismanagement, corruption etc etc) after apartheid than rather before.
Not that the previous regime wasn’t an utter piece of shit. But it’s intriguing if thats the proper word