Calling the US “lethargic” in Iraq and Afghanistan ignores the brutal reality of two decades of military intervention, not a lack of willpower.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear: by lethargic, I mean since Dubya left office and more so post-2021.
Many Americans, even many MAGAts, would rather the US stay out of the Middle East.
Granted, the wishes of many Americans, even many MAGAts, are probably of little concern to Trump, but thinking of such intrudes on his precious time he spends on golf games, flogging paraphernalia, micro-blogging, and masturbatory rallies.
Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons isn’t some irrational hatred of Israel; it’s a classic deterrence strategy, shaped by watching the US topple regimes in Iraq and Libya.
Their interest is understandable, given the examples you cited, but how would nukes benefit Iran against the US?
Iran is over 3x the population and over 12x the area of North Korea. Crossing over to Iran would not be as easy as crossing the DMZ of a non-nuclear North Korea. Tehran is perhaps over 400 km from the Iran-Iraq border, across the Zagros mountains, whereas Pyongyang is less than 100 km from the sea and less than 150 km from Seoul, much of it at an elevation less than 500 meters. (Though, granted it’s also less than 150 km from the PRC, which, along with Russia, supports it). Any future Douglas MacArthurs (an FDR appointee) would have quite a challenge in Iran even without nukes.
Nukes enhances North Korea’s defences in a way I don’t think it would Iran’s.
Again how would US treatment of Iran-with-nukes be much different than Iran-with-nukes—aside from probably not bombing nuclear-related or ICBM-related sites in Iran?
What if the US assassinated another Iranian general in Baghdad? Would Iran nuke the US?
What if Iran, in solidarity with Gazans and other Palestinians, attacked Israel with missiles and drones, and Israel counterattacked with a little more force? Would they nuke Jerusalem? Tel Aviv? Both?
Libya, while bigger, is, IIUC, mostly desert, with a capital on the Mediterranean cost.
Kadaffy would also have benefit more with having nukes than Iran, though I doubt he would have nuked his protesters.
You also misrepresent diplomatic dynamics. Turkey-Israel relations have been rocky for over a decade, especially after the Gaza flotilla raid.
which was over 15 years ago. Yet, presumably, the embassies in Ankara and Tel Aviv remain open.
Saudi-Israeli normalization has stalled due to overwhelming regional anger over Gaza.
Yes.
If Israel moves forward with ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank as the Israeli right and centre want, will make things even worse.
Which is why they might wait until diplomatic relations with the Kingdom are (well) established.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have made public statements on the matter.
Perhaps, though neither really need nukes as they are essentially American protectorates.
Even Turkey has hinted it won’t be left behind.
They’re in NATO.
Downplaying North Korea’s deterrent as something the US could wipe out without nukes is reckless fantasy.
No, just improbable.
Seoul would be in ruins before the second wave of bombers took off.
Seoul is not an American city, nor is it the only city in South Korea (albeit it is the biggest and the capital); and by bombers, I assume you mean American ones, as North Korea perhaps doesn’t have much in the way of bombers.
If you’re going to talk strategy, bring facts, not slogans.
good advice.
I said “live by the sword, die by the sword” to point out that violent actions have consequences. You replied with “Allahu Akbar” like I’m some kind of fanatic. That’s not debate, it’s just trolling and deflection. If your instinct is to hear a moral warning and turn it into a caricature, that says more about you than it does about me.
What I was getting at is that Iran and some other opponents of the US, particularly the commies and Isalmacists, can also be pretty violent and warlike.
In a quick glance I find only one mention of Germany:
So Obama wrote something—essentially an opinion—that Merkel agreed with.
Let’s say the connection: what significant role did Merkel, play in the fall of Assad?
If anything, she indirectly helped it by helping to drain some of the Sunnis away from Syria.
No: the article is long, and I’ve already spent much time replying to replies ITT: it’s summer, and here in Toronto, it’s about 1:50 PM (EDT) (and currently 33°C), and there’s some grass that I might want to see. Maybe later.
I don’t see that in the linked article.
Why would Iran want Assad overthrown? I thought they were friends.
Isn’t this (or at least was) the same Russia that exported natural gas to Germany?
Was this the same Assad regime that made deals with Islamic State regarding petroleum, even though they fought each other?
Is this the same Turkey that could probably use this pipeline as another source of natural gas, even if they would have to deal with the Assad gang?
If so, then at least it’s not her problem anymore.
Btw, kudos to Germany on developing alternatives such as solar and wind. 😁🙂
Braver than Orbán, Obama, or Canada’s Harper at any rate.
Hasn’t the crime gone down?
FWIW,
wp:Immigration and crime in Germany
even if all the splinters oppose that?
It happens. It might have been largely what made Elon Musk, the richest Nazi in history, rich.
IIUC, pro-West and pro-Soviet forces were kind of played out in revolutionary Iran.