If Sun Tzu believed that all issues could be resolved by a deal, he would have written a book called "The Art of the Deal".
War and a deal are two completely different qualitative states. You can try to combine them up to a certain point, and that point has already passed.
Trump positions himself as the king of deals, and claims that any goal can be achieved by a deal. Possibly. Possibly, provided that you are the smartest, you have all the good cards in your hands, and you know all the weak points of the enemy and are sure that this deal will be final. Oh, and this deal must also be fulfilled.
Even without going into details, it seems that Trump has only one or two conditions for confidence that a deal will solve problems.
Other than that. Hypothetically. We start a war to achieve a goal. Then, using military pressure, we offer a deal, and the enemy agrees to certain conditions. We stop the war, make a deal. Okay? - No.
The war is not over, because there is no victory for either side, and in a military sense, everyone considers himself a winner. The enemy does not automatically become a friend, he simply temporarily accepts the conditions under pressure. Therefore, he considers himself morally free outside the deal. And will try to achieve his goals. In fact, we have already seen many deals that did not stop anyone (Munich, the Nuclear Deal with Iran...), but I do not remember a single war that ended in victory for one side and did not stop the other side.
To me, there are two facts that matter. First, Israel will not accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. They will do literally anything to stop it, including the use of their own nuclear weapon on Fordow. Second, Iran is ruled by fanatical theocrats who have been causing death and disruption in the region ever since they seized power. The only reason they (like Hamas and Hezbollah) have not killed millions of Israelis is because they have not had the power. Unless Iran voluntarily gives up their nuclear program, the only remaining option is by force. Kudos to Trump for applying more pressure than has ever been applied in the past. But pressure alone may not work, given the nature of Iran’s regime.
'Triumph of strength without entanglement.' Well summed up and discussed early in the day for all to watch n wait. Must be another chicken meme to drop.
A scenario that I have not read anywhere is the Iranian regime acquiring one or more nuclear warheads from either Russia or North-Korea. It would take weeks to get this inside the country by sea or land, and a few more weeks to have a missile with the warhead operational.
The chances of this scenario are higher now the Iranian regime is on the losing side.
This could motivate countries like Russia or North-Korea to cooperate.
It would be a last desperate move from the mullahs to do something big before their fall.
But the risks for the Iranian regime of this scenario are extreme.
If they succeed to launch a missile with a nuclear warhead there is only a small chance it will not be intercepted.
Worse will be for everybody if they succeed.
If Russia is behind, it could lead to WWIII.
The USA would immediately occupy Iran and not stop until the Iranian regime is obliterated.
With a risk that Russia feels obliged to intervene. Although I don’t think they would go on a suicide mission in Iran while knowing that the other side is the USA.
If North-Korea would be the one delivering the nuclear warhead, sanctions will be increased up to 100% closure of the country. Even China would be forced to cooperate because they cannot be seen as siding with mass murderers.
Nobody will try to start a military campaign against North-Korea as they will use their nukes almost for sure.
Let’s hope that this darkest nightmare scenario will never materialize.
On the other side, I hope as well that the Mossad has eyes and ears everywhere, to be able to stop this before it is too late.
I highly doubt Mossad wouldn’t be aware of that. Israel has toasted every launcher that has dared fire anything over the past week. They have eyes everywhere.
We don't need Iran to be a liberal democracy. We need it to be a reliable western oriented state as it was under the Shah. As Egypt more or less is. As Saudi Arabia more or less is. In fact the insistence on "democracy" by President Carter is arguably what led to the Iranian revolution. The Islamist elements must be fought and destroyed. They cannot be allowed to be part of any "democracy". This is the biggest mistake made in Iraq. I cannot imagine any worse thing than what exists now, a rogue revolutionary Islamist dictatorship dedicated to the slaughter of Israel and destruction of the West.
I would say the only thing regime change has going for it in Iran is that previous attempts have removed fairly secular dictatorships leaving a vacuum for jihadists. In Iran, a comparatively secular population has endured decades of authoritarian Islam. The outcome of regime change may actually be positive in Iran.
I have a question. Not just for Andrew, but for everyone who reads it, whether they agree or not. The question is very simple, but I'm sure many don't ask themselves.
Question: Do we need a deal with Iran?
Many will immediately, without thinking, say: "war is bad, it's victims, and peace and a deal are always better than war"
I'll ask again. Do we need a deal? Not Trump, who will once again declare his victory and that he is the king of deals. Not Guterres, who will quietly rejoice that his sponsors (or blackmailers) have not been destroyed. Not Macron and other politicians of states who will sigh with relief and continue to ineptly govern their countries and avoid unnecessary upheavals.
I mean, we, the inhabitants of this world, who want to build this world and see it happy and safe.
Even if Iran refuses to produce nuclear weapons not in words, but in deeds.
Do we want the Iranian regime to remain and continue to turn its people into a total religious herd? Do we want it to increase repression in fear that the people might overthrow it? Do we want Iran to try other ways, through UN structures, through Islamic expansion, through alliances with the most marginal regimes to strengthen itself and again try to seize spheres of influence in the political, informational, ideological and military spheres?
Do we need to betray the people of Iran, who believe that change is possible and the regime is not eternal? Do we need to be responsible to new generations for not crushing the snake when there was a chance?
Yes, it is pleasant and comfortable to believe from the heights of one's moral superiority that a bad deal is better than a good war. But is it true?
I apologize for the fact that the simple question "Do we need a deal?" has taken up so much space. But I just don't see anyone asking it. Out loud.
If Sun Tzu believed that all issues could be resolved by a deal, he would have written a book called "The Art of the Deal".
War and a deal are two completely different qualitative states. You can try to combine them up to a certain point, and that point has already passed.
Trump positions himself as the king of deals, and claims that any goal can be achieved by a deal. Possibly. Possibly, provided that you are the smartest, you have all the good cards in your hands, and you know all the weak points of the enemy and are sure that this deal will be final. Oh, and this deal must also be fulfilled.
Even without going into details, it seems that Trump has only one or two conditions for confidence that a deal will solve problems.
Other than that. Hypothetically. We start a war to achieve a goal. Then, using military pressure, we offer a deal, and the enemy agrees to certain conditions. We stop the war, make a deal. Okay? - No.
The war is not over, because there is no victory for either side, and in a military sense, everyone considers himself a winner. The enemy does not automatically become a friend, he simply temporarily accepts the conditions under pressure. Therefore, he considers himself morally free outside the deal. And will try to achieve his goals. In fact, we have already seen many deals that did not stop anyone (Munich, the Nuclear Deal with Iran...), but I do not remember a single war that ended in victory for one side and did not stop the other side.
I agree.
TACO?
If he can.
To me, there are two facts that matter. First, Israel will not accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. They will do literally anything to stop it, including the use of their own nuclear weapon on Fordow. Second, Iran is ruled by fanatical theocrats who have been causing death and disruption in the region ever since they seized power. The only reason they (like Hamas and Hezbollah) have not killed millions of Israelis is because they have not had the power. Unless Iran voluntarily gives up their nuclear program, the only remaining option is by force. Kudos to Trump for applying more pressure than has ever been applied in the past. But pressure alone may not work, given the nature of Iran’s regime.
'Triumph of strength without entanglement.' Well summed up and discussed early in the day for all to watch n wait. Must be another chicken meme to drop.
A scenario that I have not read anywhere is the Iranian regime acquiring one or more nuclear warheads from either Russia or North-Korea. It would take weeks to get this inside the country by sea or land, and a few more weeks to have a missile with the warhead operational.
The chances of this scenario are higher now the Iranian regime is on the losing side.
This could motivate countries like Russia or North-Korea to cooperate.
It would be a last desperate move from the mullahs to do something big before their fall.
But the risks for the Iranian regime of this scenario are extreme.
If they succeed to launch a missile with a nuclear warhead there is only a small chance it will not be intercepted.
Worse will be for everybody if they succeed.
If Russia is behind, it could lead to WWIII.
The USA would immediately occupy Iran and not stop until the Iranian regime is obliterated.
With a risk that Russia feels obliged to intervene. Although I don’t think they would go on a suicide mission in Iran while knowing that the other side is the USA.
If North-Korea would be the one delivering the nuclear warhead, sanctions will be increased up to 100% closure of the country. Even China would be forced to cooperate because they cannot be seen as siding with mass murderers.
Nobody will try to start a military campaign against North-Korea as they will use their nukes almost for sure.
Let’s hope that this darkest nightmare scenario will never materialize.
On the other side, I hope as well that the Mossad has eyes and ears everywhere, to be able to stop this before it is too late.
I highly doubt Mossad wouldn’t be aware of that. Israel has toasted every launcher that has dared fire anything over the past week. They have eyes everywhere.
That truly would be a nightmarish outcome.
We don't need Iran to be a liberal democracy. We need it to be a reliable western oriented state as it was under the Shah. As Egypt more or less is. As Saudi Arabia more or less is. In fact the insistence on "democracy" by President Carter is arguably what led to the Iranian revolution. The Islamist elements must be fought and destroyed. They cannot be allowed to be part of any "democracy". This is the biggest mistake made in Iraq. I cannot imagine any worse thing than what exists now, a rogue revolutionary Islamist dictatorship dedicated to the slaughter of Israel and destruction of the West.
I would say the only thing regime change has going for it in Iran is that previous attempts have removed fairly secular dictatorships leaving a vacuum for jihadists. In Iran, a comparatively secular population has endured decades of authoritarian Islam. The outcome of regime change may actually be positive in Iran.
May? Will.
Or it may be worse. Final section outlines the possibilities:
https://open.substack.com/pub/mrandrewfox/p/a-regime-on-the-brink?r=z0uop&utm_medium=ios
I am by no means saying the outcome will be great for Iranians. I just cant imagine anyway it could be worse.
I like to leave at least one arse cheek on the fence.
I have a question. Not just for Andrew, but for everyone who reads it, whether they agree or not. The question is very simple, but I'm sure many don't ask themselves.
Question: Do we need a deal with Iran?
Many will immediately, without thinking, say: "war is bad, it's victims, and peace and a deal are always better than war"
I'll ask again. Do we need a deal? Not Trump, who will once again declare his victory and that he is the king of deals. Not Guterres, who will quietly rejoice that his sponsors (or blackmailers) have not been destroyed. Not Macron and other politicians of states who will sigh with relief and continue to ineptly govern their countries and avoid unnecessary upheavals.
I mean, we, the inhabitants of this world, who want to build this world and see it happy and safe.
Even if Iran refuses to produce nuclear weapons not in words, but in deeds.
Do we want the Iranian regime to remain and continue to turn its people into a total religious herd? Do we want it to increase repression in fear that the people might overthrow it? Do we want Iran to try other ways, through UN structures, through Islamic expansion, through alliances with the most marginal regimes to strengthen itself and again try to seize spheres of influence in the political, informational, ideological and military spheres?
Do we need to betray the people of Iran, who believe that change is possible and the regime is not eternal? Do we need to be responsible to new generations for not crushing the snake when there was a chance?
Yes, it is pleasant and comfortable to believe from the heights of one's moral superiority that a bad deal is better than a good war. But is it true?
I apologize for the fact that the simple question "Do we need a deal?" has taken up so much space. But I just don't see anyone asking it. Out loud.