Eastern Mediterranean

Status
Not open for further replies.
www.spacewar.com

Rockets, drones on display at Islamic Jihad parade in Gaza

Gaza City, Palestinian Territories (AFP) Oct 4, 2023 - Palestinian militants marched Wednesday through Gaza City, brandishing weapons and carrying rockets and drones, in a parade marking the 36th anniversary of the establishment of the Islamic Jihad movement.
www.spacewar.com
 
I'm surprised to see no posts in here regarding the fall of the Assad Regime in Syria. The events of the past few weeks have been truly incredible to say the least, and to casual observers like me, it was a major surprise.

I had been attempting to collect sources about this event but it was futile; the flurry of information was simply too great. Perun did a masterful job and summarised the whole thing quite eloquently:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOzXlat-TcE&ab_channel=Perun
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUjq4Ov0o4U&ab_channel=HISutton
Click to expand...
The Russian economy breathes through highly flammable oil and gas pipelines, through fleets of oil tankers subject to international economic sanctions that cross sea straits not controlled by anyone. In my opinion, its survival depends on the goodwill of the West, on India's tolerance and on a difficult balance with the terrorist groups it has been massacring for half a century. In my opinion, Russia should negotiate a just peace before things get worse in the Sahel, in South America, in the Middle East and in the China Sea. The world is changing.
 
jsport said:
apnews.com

US troops need to stay in Syria to counter the Islamic State group, Austin says

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told The Associated Press that the U.S. needs to keep troops deployed in Syria to prevent the Islamic State group from reconstituting as a major threat.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
That belongs to the old democrat scheme of exporting democracy to countries that do not want it. In my opinion, that is not going to happen with the new US administration. I believe they will withdraw troops from Syria, and from other places. When the European Union gets tired of sending money to the area, the Burqa will return. There is no point in trying to change the way these people think. I don't even think it's smart to tell them how they must live.
 
Justo Miranda said:
..., the Burqa will return. There is no point in trying to change the way these people think. I don't even think it's smart to tell them how they must live.
Click to expand...
It’s not so easy. Firstly the EU has interests in a Syria, not being a Theocracy. If it’s just for the sake of being legally able to send asylum seekers some day back.
Secondly, Syria has no homogeneous population, so “these people” could have different thoughts on the matter.

Hypothetical speaking, if the regime in Iran would lost his power somehow (no, I’m not a warmonger) I doubt the majority would vote again for a religious leader. So, in my opinion, change to a more liberal way (in the likes of Age of Enlightenment) is always in the cards. All it takes is time (at least decades), blood and tears.

The question for me is, is it our responsibility to “help” them somehow.
The applied alternative is to support strong men at the expense of democratic but not liberal movements or don’t interfere at all (if there is no risk to yours). Better?
 
0cu0 said:
It’s not so easy. Firstly the EU has interests in a Syria, not being a Theocracy. If it’s just for the sake of being legally able to send asylum seekers some day back.
Secondly, Syria has no homogeneous population, so “these people” could have different thoughts on the matter.

Hypothetical speaking, if the regime in Iran would lost his power somehow (no, I’m not a warmonger) I doubt the majority would vote again for a religious leader. So, in my opinion, change to a more liberal way (in the likes of Age of Enlightenment) is always in the cards. All it takes is time (at least decades), blood and tears.

The question for me is, is it our responsibility to “help” them somehow.
The applied alternative is to support strong men at the expense of democratic but not liberal movements or don’t interfere at all (if there is no risk to yours). Better?
Click to expand...
There is no civilization better than another, in each historical period there is one that stands out and then falls to be replaced by another, like the teeth of sharks. During the Middle Ages the Muslim city of Cordoba had gas lighting, in one of the most unfortunate periods in history my country was part of a caliphate, and all the administration was processed from Damascus... The wheel turns, let it turn.
 
Civilizations are a diffuse concept in this day and age. That differentiation worked in a time without aircraft, internet and with homogeneous populations.
But you can now definitely live in a country/culture where you are more oppressed than somewhere else, especially if you are female or a minority of some kind. Do you have to care? Of course not.

Like I said, letting everything run its course is a possibility.
I don’t have the answer, by the way.

​

 
Are there any strategic advantages for the US of having the “Riviera of the Middle East”?
I mean, you have Nato bases in Cyprus and all around the Middle East. The section of land is on the brink of becoming a desert (according to the Köppen classification) and you will “annoy” a religious community, to say the least.
 
had said:
Are there any strategic advantages for the US of having the “Riviera of the Middle East”?
I mean, you have Nato bases in Cyprus and all around the Middle East. The section of land is on the brink of becoming a desert (according to the Köppen classification) and you will “annoy” a religious community, to say the least.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of the faux Jordan Valley annexation plans of 2019? Israel threatened to annex that area, a sort of natural border between J&S and Jordan. Security-wise, it was to prevent arms smuggling operations into Palestinian territories.
Then shortly after, the UAE demanded to stop this and a normalization agreement was signed between it and Israel.
It was never spoken of again.

It is possibly a repeat of that. We are hearing about Arab leaders giving their solution proposals for probably the first time in history. I'm giving it a 50% chance it's done to scare the Arab world into action.


Another 50% chance I'm giving to an honest proposal.
In 2019 the messaging was more coherent. Now it seems to draw panicked reactions from all over.
What also changed is that it is now abundantly clear to Israel that its massive army, unbridgeable technological edge, and the highest defense expenditure in the west, won't save it from the realities of having 0 strategic depth.
Add to that the IDF's severe manpower shortage and you essentially got a country desperate to make its borders shorter and more defensible.

For that, Israel will need Gaza and J&S.
The questions of whether that'll happen, when, how, etc, are going to be too speculative anyway. But it is a clear security need for Israel. So we may see some actual push in that direction. Even if it means just half of Gaza.
 
I have no doubt about the strategic advantage for Israel (leaving a possibly destabilized Egypt/Jordan aside).
But all I see for the US are disadvantages, therefore my question.
 
had said:
I have no doubt about the strategic advantage for Israel (leaving a possibly destabilized Egypt/Jordan aside).
But all I see for the US are disadvantages, therefore my question.
Click to expand...
I wrote a really long response, switched to a new tab for source material, switched back and the entire message is gone. I'll just write it briefly and explain if there is a misunderstanding.

1. Personal gain - POTUS is seen as peacemaker. Good for elections.

2. Regional stability - Gaza is one noisy island of instability and that may be gone soon. Or Saudi Arabia joins the Abraham Accords and that ends a long conflict.

3. Treasure - more trade between Israel and Arabs, or lower expenditure on wars both potentially mean the US has to draw less from its stocks to replenish Israel.

4. Power projection - an Israel with more security cooperation with Arab nations, or not busy fighting bordering enemies, is one more capable of projecting power and assisting the US and allies in their conflicts.

5. Lower trade disruptions - Israel supplies energy to Europe. Gazan factions threaten energy infrastructure. Also, Israeli-Saudi peace could facilitate simplified Arab energy exports to Europe.
 
I find it delightfully ironic that the same Americans (not pointing on anyone specifically, just generalization) who just a few years ago screamed "mass deportations are EVIL and only GODLESS COMMUNISTS MONSTERS could do it!" now all hailing Trump proposal to deport the population of Gaza)
 
Big_Zukini said:
Gaza is one noisy island of instability and that may be gone soon.
Click to expand...
The Gazans, the million or so living there today, will still be around somewhere. Apart from the moral considerations of first destroying the place where they live, they are a breeding ground for more hate and resentment.
It does not matter who or what first caused the hatred, the mere existence of a mass of homeless people is a source for future trouble.
This will not be resolved, or even mitigated by deporting them. Jordan was nearly torn apart in the seventies after the mass influx of refugees that followed the Six Day War, Lebanon failed as a state.
Any real estate developer will enter that environment at his peril.
 
Last edited:
Dilandu said:
I find it delightfully ironic that the same Americans (not pointing on anyone specifically, just generalization) who just a few years ago screamed "mass deportations are EVIL and only GODLESS COMMUNISTS MONSTERS could do it!" now all hailing Trump proposal to deport the population of Gaza)
Click to expand...
Oh my dear, it's almost like you are seriously expecting (ideo)logical consistency from the US of A over time - poor thing...
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
The Gazans, the million or so living there today, will still be around somewhere. Apart from the moral implications of first destroying the place where they live, they are a breeding ground for more hate and resentment.
It does not matter who or what first caused the hatred, the mere existence of a mass of homeless people is a source for future trouble.
This will not be resolved, or even mitigated by deporting them. Jordan was nearly torn apart in the seventies after the mass influx of refugees that followed the Six Day War, Lebanon failed as a state.
Any real estate developer will enter that environment at his peril.
Click to expand...
If that real estate developer just so happens to be the so-called president of the united states I bet you dollars to donuts that he'll get away scot-free. A politician can never go wrong by gambling public funding on private enrichment.
 
Last edited:
Big_Zukini said:
I wrote a really long response, switched to a new tab for source material, switched back and the entire message is gone. I'll just write it briefly and explain if there is a misunderstanding.

1. Personal gain - POTUS is seen as peacemaker. Good for elections.

2. Regional stability - Gaza is one noisy island of instability and that may be gone soon. Or Saudi Arabia joins the Abraham Accords and that ends a long conflict.

3. Treasure - more trade between Israel and Arabs, or lower expenditure on wars both potentially mean the US has to draw less from its stocks to replenish Israel.

4. Power projection - an Israel with more security cooperation with Arab nations, or not busy fighting bordering enemies, is one more capable of projecting power and assisting the US and allies in their conflicts.

5. Lower trade disruptions - Israel supplies energy to Europe. Gazan factions threaten energy infrastructure. Also, Israeli-Saudi peace could facilitate simplified Arab energy exports to Europe.
Click to expand...
I understand your first point very well and would add some possible additional benefits on the part of pro-Israel businesses to the Trump family. But Trump is not the US, is he?

Point 2 is true for every solution in this matter. I try to leave the moral/ethic dimension out of it because it would be an endless discussion (My position is similar to Arjens)

To point 3. I don´t see that happening with this solution, sorry.

To point 4. That is an interesting and entertaining hypothesis. The US is waiting for Israel to join possible wars in East Asia...
But I guess you mean Iran. Makes only sense if a war with Iran would be advantageous for the US.

To point 5. Similar to point 3, sounds like a stretched argument to me. “Good for Israel/Europe” equals “good for the US”. Especially after Trump took the reins.
Some could argue, that selling overpriced LNG to Europe is more beneficial to the US.
 
Arjen said:
The Gazans, the million or so living there today, will still be around somewhere. Apart from the moral considerations of first destroying the place where they live, they are a breeding ground for more hate and resentment.
It does not matter who or what first caused the hatred, the mere existence of a mass of homeless people is a source for future trouble.
This will not be resolved, or even mitigated by deporting them. Jordan was nearly torn apart in the seventies after the mass influx of refugees that followed the Six Day War, Lebanon failed as a state.
Any real estate developer will enter that environment at his peril.
Click to expand...
It's not about the existence of Palestinians. Rather, it's about the geography of Gaza and its surroundings. It is on the coastline where Israel's population is concentrated, and it's surrounded by Israeli towns and cities. It also prolongs Israel's border by 45km (compared to its linear border with Egypt).
If said population was still bordering Israel but on the Egyptian side, it may still create conflicts but of much lower magnitude, and requiring much lower resources. After all, now Egypt would have an interest in keeping the quiet.
In terms of advantage for the US, well I already explained what it stands to gain from this. Israeli, and also other allies, ability to focus outside their immediate borders and project power, is something of major interest to the US, even if not frequently and precisely expressed.

Specifically on homelessness: Frequent wars have left many in Gaza homeless. That's an inevitable reality given the circumstances I detailed above. But Egypt is a country of 112 million. Not only will they have low relative effect on housing and the economy, but they will likely easily assimilate, as was the case in Jordan. This improvement in quality of life is likely to reduce overall hateful sentiment.

Still, I don't believe the plan is necessarily to actually evacuate Gaza. Speech and actions are often unrelated.
had said:
I understand your first point very well and would add some possible additional benefits on the part of pro-Israel businesses to the Trump family. But Trump is not the US, is he?
Click to expand...
Sorry I didn't understand. Can you rephrase? Every leader of every western nation wants to be portrayed as one making peace.
had said:
To point 3. I don´t see that happening with this solution, sorry.
Click to expand...
You mean with the Gaza evacuation option? If that works, Israel's total expenditure on war will be lower as:
  1. Palestinians will be either in a neighboring country that wants to maintain peace (anti-Israel sentiment in Egypt and Jordan is through the roof, but no wars), or in a non-neighboring country and thus unable to wage war.
  2. Israel's border will be 45km shorter thus lower manpower required.
  3. Crippling war expenses won't be spent every couple years since Gaza-Israel wars won't happen.
had said:
To point 4. That is an interesting and entertaining hypothesis. The US is waiting for Israel to join possible wars in East Asia...
But I guess you mean Iran.
Click to expand...
I don't mean only Iran. The US has various security commitments in the middle east. By shifting some to Israel, in exchange for resolving the Gaza situation, the US could reallocate resources to other theaters. That alone is enough.
I don't know precisely how Israel could contribute, but these are net more freed up resources in the hands of the west.
For example, Israel's frequent security needs prevent it from retiring equipment that's still relevant and in good condition.
Israel retired Patriot batteries which were reportedly transferred to the US which in turn could use these to bolster Ukraine's defenses. But this required aid to Israel first, in the form of additional David's Sling equipment. In the future, such transfers could possibly be made without first expending resources to substitute.
had said:
Makes only sense if a war with Iran would be advantageous for the US.
Click to expand...
War with Iran, IMO, is net beneficial to the US. Rarely does a war occur without any painful impact to the winning side. But Iran is a combination of too high of a threat to let develop unbothered (BMs, nukes, terrorist networks), and fragile leadership (popularity crisis) and defenses (largely ineffective vs Israel&US). This makes it a particularly worthwhile target.
The thought it would disrupt middle eastern energy trade is not trivial. It would have to cut its own trade in the process - its lifeline. This creates a chicken and egg situation:
If the IRGC feels it's doomed, it might go all out and cut energy trade (temporarily). But if it does that, it has no way back.

The potential benefits are twofold. Not only is the region's dominant hostile power and a major component of the axis no longer a threat, but its new leadership would highly likely seek restoration of friendly relations with the west. This in turn might undermine energy security of China and other hostile entities.

had said:
To point 5. Similar to point 3, sounds like a stretched argument to me. “Good for Israel/Europe” equals “good for the US”. Especially after Trump took the reins.
Some could argue, that selling overpriced LNG to Europe is more beneficial to the US.
Click to expand...
As a starting point, I think the US would rather Europe just wean off Russian energy. Everything else is a bonus. There is a big difference between trade competition with a friendly country, and ensuring your allies don't finance a war waged against them.
But my point wasn't really about energy. Red Sea and east med trade disruptions perhaps impact Europe the most, but the globality of trade and businesses means the consequences will be felt by everyone with open trade.

Overall, "good for Israel/Europe = good for the US" is a good argument if we go beyond 2025 where both Israel and Europe are very local powers, and into the potential where they may project power and allow the US to lower some commitments.
Just security independence in Europe would be a great boost to American military capabilities.
 
To 1. Yeah sorry. I meant, that the Trump family would probably gain other benefits from pro-Israel businesses as well.

To 3. Don’t see an increased trade with Arab countries after this “Gaza deal”, sorry.
Less (war) expenses for Israel? Could be, but still kind of a stretch to sell that as a strategic advantage for the US, in my opinion.

To 4. Alright, I can see some benefits for the US. (I’m not going into the Iran stuff, that is another topic)

To 5. I’m not saying your argument is false. It feels just overly constructed – connecting that to this specific Gaza deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom