The iranian government/IRGC isn't innocent but remember that its the regular people, the working class of Iran that is actually suffering further because of hostilities initiated by US/Israel
> remember that its the regular people, the working class of Iran that is actually suffering further because of hostilities initiated by US/Israel
This is true of any war. That’s damning for the party that starts a war of choice. But it’s no vindication for the regime that’s built itself up as a regional pest, including sponsor of actual terrorism against ordinary people, for years.
You realise that no vindication for the regime that’s built itself up as a regional pest, including sponsor of actual terrorism against ordinary people, for years. is a valid descriptor of the US as well?
G42 isn't American - it's Emirati. But it doesn't matter.
Iran is only burning additional bridges with it's neighbors which has only incentivized them to take a much more hardline stance against the Islamic Republic.
The fact that they alienated Qatar last week is truly mindboggling though - it was QatarEnergy that was subsidizing NOIC and Qataris with clan ties in Iran like Saad al Kaabi who were some of the biggest proponents for Qatar-Iran normalization have been sidelined.
It has also now aligned the Gulf States with Ukraine [0], and now reduces Iran to become a mere extension of Russia, and arguably converts this conflict into a second theatre of the Russia-Ukraine War, which in my opinion has become a de facto world war.
> Iran is only burning additional bridges with it's neighbors..
If you are permitting your airspace to carry out continual bombing campaigns causing massive casualties and also host enemy bases, then the "bridges" have already been burnt and you are a belligerent in the War.
Did Iran really have allies in Arab Sunni ruled countries though? Pretty much all of them already see non-Arab Shia Iran as an enemy, and have for a long time. The only real mystery is how the region hasn't imploded already with all the historical tension between these countries.
> Did Iran really have allies in Arab Sunni ruled countries though
Yes. Qatar due to Iran's support of the Thani family during the tumultuous 1990s [0] and the blockade [1], Sudan under Bashir [2] and now under the Army [3], Tunisia [4] due to ties with Ennadha, Algeria until 2025 [5] due to Morocco and Israel's close defense cooperation, and Kuwait due to economic and clan ties [6].
> Pretty much all of them already see non-Arab Shia Iran as an enemy
Only those states directly aligned with Saudi or the UAE (they are not the same team) view Iran with hostility becuase of Saudi Arabia and Iran's perennial rivalry over the MidEast.
Iran on the other hand protected the Thani family during the failed 1996 countercoup, as well as collaborated with Qatar on extracting LNG from the Gulf.
In the real world, countries compartamentalize relations and are not binary in nature.
This is how India can both arm Israel [0] as well as transit Hormuz with Iranian backing [1] and continue to operate Chabahar Port [2] despite neighboring Konarak Port being hit [3].
When countries break this norm of compartmentalization, that is when they become actively belligerent.
Also, by this logic (which is flawed), we would be justified in striking Iran, as Iran has aided and abetted Russia in their war against Ukraine, thus Iran can arguably be treated as another front of the larger US-Russia and by extension US-China conflict.
I realize Qatar is in an "it's complicated" relationship, it's just amusing to me that people feign shock that Iran would consider them fair game while omitting the detail of them kinda being a client state hosting a huge US military base.
The thing is, if we accept the norms that Qatar can be targeted for kinetic action by Iran for hosting US assets or by the US for hosting Iranian assets, then that opens a MASSIVE can of worms.
This means Ukraine has the precedent in place to target the Chongqing–Xinjiang–Europe railway in Russia in retaliation for Chinese support of Russia [0].
This also means all of Europe is fair game to be striked by Russia in retaliation for supporting Ukraine [2].
This also means South Korea considering rearming Ukraine [4] due to North Korean involvement in the Ukraine War could make it a direct belligerent against Russia.
This is why sentiments hardened globally and especially amongst Gulf States once they were targeted by Iran.
Accepting that nations like Qatar, Turkiye, and Azerbaijan that have an avowed policy of compartmentalized relations are fair game to strike means we have to accept we are in a de facto World War.
The attempted strike on Diego Garcia was similarly destabilizing in it's implications [5]
Hosting US assets actively being used in war vs Iran = being active co-belligerents. Host countries no longer neutral when they don't adhere to duty of abstention (Hague Convention V). This not even Iran using deniable proxies, this is Qatar allowing sovereign territory to facilitate attack on Iran, which unambiguously makes them legitimate target. Ditto with Diego Garcia.
In the same way railway in RU already legitimate target for UKR because in RU soil. If EU sending out sorties from NATO bases to hit RU then they too would be active belligerents. There's no compartmentalizing using territory to shoot someone else.
The norms of compartmentalization I have mentioned are orthogonal to The Hague conventions and frankly they do not matter in a world which has de facto moved away from being rules based.
Additonally, by that logic it is acceptable for Ukraine to conduct kinetic action against Chinese assets in Russia, which they have held back against despite Chinese support for the Russian MIC.
Also, I told you years ago to not chat with me on this platform. We do not align and I have found it tiresome discussing with you. I have ignored and steered away from commenting with you and I ask you to do the same for me.
It's acceptable, as I said, targets in RU soil legitimate. Of course the UKR has their own calculation on what PRC interests in RU they're able to hit that's not counterproductive - PRC support for RU MIC can be much more than what it is.
Even if we accept moving from "rule based" doesn't discount realist/rational based which rule based is derived from. It is not hard to understand allowing your house to be used to shoot at someone else = your house is now legitimate target. Expecting immunity under those conditions is strategic fantasy, especially when IR hitting GCC countries is arguably not counter-productive.
> The thing is, if we accept the norms that Qatar can be targeted for kinetic action by Iran for hosting US assets or by the US for hosting Iranian assets, then that opens a MASSIVE can of worms.
None of your examples are actually analogous, they are all more distant support than hosting a base from which direct attacks are carried out except for the first one in which the "can of worms" is justifying attacks on a state that it is already a direct belligerent (and in fact the aggressor) because of third-party support, which, on the other hand, is not analogous for the opposite reason—it is very much not necessary to invoke any third-party action to justify that. The direct belligerence already justifies that.
There’s no “precedent” needed, Russia and Ukraine are simply choosing not to do certain things to avoid widening the war in the ways you mention, because they don’t think that would be to their advantage. The precedent is there already, it’s not like either country is looking at Iran and going “oh wow, I didn’t know that was an option!”
> Iran always seems like they have more enemies than friends
Because the core of the Iranian Revolution is quite similar to Maoism [0] but also very interested in exporting the revolution abroad.
You have to remember that the Iranian Revolution only happened in 1979, and most of Iran's modern leadership were foot soldiers and even leadership during Iran's Cultural Revolution [1] in the 1980s (eg. Rouhani, Larijani, Aref, Arafi).
Imagine if China today was ruled by active Red Guard, or if the 1976 autocoup failed - that's Iran, but with a dose of Islamism.
> I guess I overplayed the Shia/Sunni divide.
Yep. In fact, a number of Sunni states saw contemporary attempts to mimic the Iranian Revolution such as in Saudi Arabia with the Kaaba Siege, the Afghan Revolution in 1979 which led to the Soviet Occupation, and the burning the US Embassy in Islamabad in 1979 [2].
I took a Chinese course in Beijing with the son of an Iranian diplomat as a classmate and we did not gel, but frankly thats my only experience. The funny thing was that the guy was a huge womanizer/drinker, which I also hear is normal for Iran. Iranians actually seem quite liberal by Muslim standards (if it wasn't for the whole revolutionary guard/cleric leadership, again by my limited maybe outdated experience), which is weird when our side has the KSA, one of the most conservative countries on earth.
It is a pity really, Iran is on my bucket list for food, culture, and natural beauty. More so than any other country in that area, its too bad about the whole "death to America" thing.
> son of an Iranian diplomat as a classmate and we did not gel, but frankly thats my only experience. The funny thing was that the guy was a huge womanizer/drinker, which I also hear is normal for Iran
It's similar to China in that regard - rhetoric doesn't matter and you always look out for number one.
There's a reason why socially speaking China's Harvard remains Harvard even despite Peking and Tsinghua becoming global tier institutions, and why leadership who should supposedly be earning a couple thousand dollars a year are chauffeured in Audi A8s with full protocol in Beijing.
Most normal people are chill and average, but there's still a whole separate world of people within a small selectorate.
> which is weird when our side has the KSA, one of the most conservative countries on earth
KSA has socially liberalized as well, and the same style of hijab as you would see in Iran is the norm.
That said, unlike Iran's incumbent leadership, MBS and much of the governmental apparatus is highly likely to liberalize in the UAE manner in the next 3-5 years. The main blocker has been succession - MBS isn't officially king yet, as King Salman continues to reign.
That said, it would still remain an authoritarian state.
> It is a pity really, Iran is on my bucket list for food, culture, and natural beauty. More so than any other country in that area, its too bad about the whole "death to America" thing
> The fact that they alienated Qatar last week is truly mindboggling though
I mean Qatar did just give a really expensive plane to the guy who unilaterally assassinated the Iranian supreme leader and is bombing their country to smithereens.
First, your argument makes Iran a valid target because Iran has been directly supplying weaponry for Russia to use against Ukraine. If Iran is justified to strike Qatar for supporting the US via basing and financing, then the US is justified in striking Iran as they are supporting Russia against Ukraine with financing and armaments.
Secondly, Iran had very few allies in the region, and Qatar was their last major one who could act as a good faith interlocutor.
Now Iran has to negotiate with the US via Pakistan, whose leadership has been setting the US's Iran policy [0][1][2] in favor of an armed approach following the short Pakistan-Iran War in 2024 [3].
We can keep perpetually striking Iran. It doesn't matter to us and midterms be damned. But Iran has lost their last contact with whom they could negotiate an offramp, and will have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and at least decade to rebuild.
The maximalist approach (which was always stupid) won't occur, but the realistic win (ie. a deindustrialized Iran that cannot threaten a nuclear program for at least a decade) is successful. I even mentioned this would be the end result before this happened [4].
Qatar was the last major Gulf State that was pushing against this approach, but they have now silently aligned with Israel, Saudi, and the UAE.
And as I've mentioned before, HNers heavily overestimate the influence and power civilian leadership such as a President let alone their cabinet members and other Senate confirmed members have on actual policymaking. In action (and even in this administration) policy is managed upwards.
It'd be pretty sick if the relevant discipline / sector / market of every single career path I embark upon, didn't summarily shit itself as soon as I begin making costly and irreversible personal investments therein.
Well at least you won't be alone in that regard when AI takes 90% of the knowledge jobs in the next few years and the world economy crashes for everyone because of any lack of political planning for this eventuality!
We're all gonna be right there with you. And 'safe' trade jobs like plumbers? Lol let's see how that works out when vastly fewer people can afford your services and millions are trying to panic retrain into anything still deemed safe.
It would force a company to come to the negotiating table when laying off workers and grading their performance. It would prevent a lot of bs layoffs; at the very least concrete reasons would be needed for RIFs.
I grew up in small town South GA that growing up has 5 or 6 factories. All but one left when they got tired of dealing with the unions. The one that is still there was never unionized
I don't know why you or your parent commenter got downvoted, but I use that as evidence that the end is very near.
With the current geopolitical climate and the arrival of AI, I'm predicting a sharp economic downturn at the end of the year the likes of which we haven't seen in a century.
I mean the Housing Bubble popping and the Dot Bomb were bad, but the US national debt was so much lower then. Income inequality was lower. Student loan debt was lower. Healthcare was more affordable. Homes were more affordable. Food was more affordable. We had (some) faith in our electoral process.
When the cheap capital runs out, when value of the dollar collapses due to unforced error, when the overseas investment dries up, when billionaires panic and yank their investment in AI (leaving us with a duopoly like always), when the employment rate peaks never to return, when companies stop hiring for the foreseeable future, when people stop visiting websites or buying software, when we abandon liberal arts for the trades in Service Economy 2.0, when hospitals and universities close, when farms go bankrupt, when interest on the US national debt consumes its social safety net, when we sell our public lands for pennies on the dollar, when nobody is held accountable..
That's when we the people will remember who we are. Somehow, like every other time before, we'll pull ourselves up by our bootstraps from nothing. Without time, money or resources, we'll come together and find a way to rebuild. We won't even tax the rich or incite violence against them, we'll simply manifest the abundant reality that's been denied to us by them for so long.
That looks like organizing. Unions. Cooperatives. Mutual aid networks. Renewable energy. Permaculture. Voluntary employment and clock-in. Credit unions and crowdfunding. Automation. Distributed means of production. Fair trade. Class action lawsuits. Boycotts. Voting against incumbents. Solarpunk.
We'll transcend competition and see the matrix for the bill of goods that it is. Rather than trying to get the money and power back in futility, we'll make them irrelevant.
It's time to start thinking about selling those stocks. Divesting from the blood money of unearned income that comes from exploitation, suffering and war (even though they don't tell us that). Steering clear of prediction markets. Dropping the crypto.
We know they won't. But that's why they'll stay insulated from knowing what stuff they're made of, holding out as long as possible, lonely and alone. And the fun part is, they'll get to find out anyway when the music stops.
A quick explanation of how an 'accident' like that can happen (not a justification and not comprehensive of all scenarios, just from my perspective):
Strikes on civilian gatherings are more likely when the only intelligence used to make the decision are IMINT and SIGINT.
SIGINT would typically be radio activity of interest. This could be:
- Known hostile entity using the radio (example: Taliban member known to US intelligence)
- unidentified entities using a known enemy radio frequency (some non-state actors used particular channels for certain communications)
- unknown entities communications indicated hostile association/intent. (example: members of ISIS-K discussed direct involvement in the bombing of a children's hospital)
So an analyst has determined SIGINT of interest. The signal is then geo-located to an accurate enough place in the AOR to warrant additional collection, typically a drone feed.
A reaper or predator is sent it get a direct visual of where the signal was geo-located.
Back in the day, the feeds weren't super high definition. Thus, a wedding or funeral just looks like a bunch of potentially military aged males gathering in one place.
Some things that could cement a strike authorization is seeing somebody a the wedding with a hand held radio, or collecting more SIGINT in the immediate facility. Someone attending the wedding/funeral is talking on the radio again, maybe the person previously identified as associated with the hostile group.
Depending on the conflict, that's more than was needed to authorize a strike and how we wind up reading about these gatherings getting drone striked.
Incomplete intelligence and lax rules of engagement
It's also worth mentioning that in many of the countries where these kinds of 'accidents' happen, firearms can be culturally significant as a rites of passage for males in a community. So a wedding/funeral may also appear as being partially composed of military aged armed males.
Not sure how it relates to subsidies, but it is what you said. The government is cancelling wind shore projects leased to TotalEnergies under the Biden admin for ~$930 million.
The Trump admin is paying them back with the understanding that TotalEnergies will reinvest the money into oil and gas operations in the US
reply