After the USA and Israel have targeted and killed much of Iran's leadership, trump is now whining that there is nobody there to talk to. A bit like the child who murders his parents and claims sympathy as an orphan.
Top US Counterterrorism official resigns over Iran war. According to former Director, Joe Kent, Iran posed "no imminent threat."
Yeah, bit of a stopped clock situation; Kent's a full-on everything's-Israel's-fault conspiracy theorist. The worry is that he was ever in a position of power.
I worry about some MAGA version of the Dolchstoßlegende arising from this. You can see the outlines already forming, where good, pure-hearted Donald Trump was deceived into a bad war by those tricksy, deceitful Israelis. Given the way that both the American right and the Israeli government are working their hardest to erase distinctions between Israel's Likud government and all Jews everywhere this could get very ugly indeed.
It's not about Israel on Israel's own terms. It is American Evangelical Zionists pushing a terrible theology. Israel is merely a tool to them, not a partner, not a client, not a mission field, not a purpose. "Support for Israel" is just a slogan: code. I don't believe for one second that American Evangelicals care about Jews, or Israel. Their own extreme beliefs count Jews as unsaved, -- damned for eternity -- the whole thing is despicable.
The UK right supports Israel with very little of the fundamentalist Christian baggage. The root is I think a general liking for authoritarian governments together with a lot of Islamophibia.
The UK right supports Israel with very little of the fundamentalist Christian baggage. The root is I think a general liking for authoritarian governments together with a lot of Islamophibia.
I agree. And Crœsos has an excellent point too.
It’s hard to see any options likely to be followed by the Trump administration which do not make things even worse.
Trump is now threatening to invade Kharg Island, and at the same time is calling us Brits and other US 'allies' cowards for not joining in his horrible war games.
Surely somebody in the US administration has the courage to tell Trump he's wrong?
The UK right supports Israel with very little of the fundamentalist Christian baggage. The root is I think a general liking for authoritarian governments together with a lot of Islamophibia.
That and knee-jerk reaction / trolling to anything supported by the left. Recall that Young Conservative members went around with "hang Mandela" shirts in the 80s. Plus the Israeli regime has over decades waged a propaganda war with up-and-coming Labour apparatchiks. It was common knowledge 20 years ago when I was a student that members of the National Organisation of Labour Students (the "official" Labour Student organisation but at the time thoroughly co-opted by Blairites) would get flown out to Israel and given the propaganda tour, and many of those activists are now or have recently been MPs. And the Labour right's reaction to anything the left supports is often more visceral than that of the tories.
The UK right supports Israel with very little of the fundamentalist Christian baggage. The root is I think a general liking for authoritarian governments together with a lot of Islamophibia.
It's a shift away from the Wets who often tended to take a slightly less partisan view (Kit Malthouse maybe representing something of a throwback in that one regard)
"But aspects of the modern state of Israel only partially embody Theodor Herzl's (the founder of political Zionism) original vision"
Which gives the impression that in the main the modern state of Israel embodies Herzl's vision, but diverges in some aspects.
The impression you get from the words I used is also down to your interpretation.
Presumably then as we move closer to the date of its founding we should be able to pick up aspects of this vision in policy, which I why I ask for the parallels between Altneuland and the events of 1948.
Establishing and maintaining peaceful relations with Palestinians was one of the aspects in which the establishment of the Jewish state rather obviously diverged from Herzl's vision, as evidenced by the long period of conflict leading up to 1948. This doesn't seem surprising, as it was a rather notable point of difference between Herzl's Political Zionism and Practical Zionism, which became more dominant following his death. I note that, ideologically, Practical Zionism is not motivated by the need to address antisemitism. I also note that David Ben-Gurion stated that he never suffered from antisemitic persecution growing up (in Poland).
In the search for a single guiding perspective, the New Historians are an interesting choice. When it comes to Zionism, they are a side in their own right, and appealing to the New Historians is picking a side - one that, for example, describes Zionism as colonialism.
The central theme uniting the "New Historians" was a re-evaluation of the early years of Israel's founding from then newly released archival material. There is general agreement on the events of this time even if there is a difference in their evaluation and whether they constituted ethnic cleansing and colonialism (Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe) or just a by product of state formation (Benny Morris, Tom Segev).
Thanks. This particular distinction was rather unclear to me - the range of interpretations, and who holds which views, seems to have been in a state of flux over the decades, particularly in the case of Benny Morris.
It's not about Israel on Israel's own terms. It is American Evangelical Zionists pushing a terrible theology. Israel is merely a tool to them, not a partner, not a client, not a mission field, not a purpose. "Support for Israel" is just a slogan: code. I don't believe for one second that American Evangelicals care about Jews, or Israel. Their own extreme beliefs count Jews as unsaved, -- damned for eternity -- the whole thing is despicable.
Absolutely!
And that is one of the things that trouble me so much. For a lot of American Evangelicals, the ultimate goal is to create the conditions for the Second Coming. So it isn't really about support for Israel - it is about having the Temple rebuilt and the boundaries of Israel "restored" to those of David and Solomon, because these are required to fulfill the prophecies, so that "God's Will Be Done!"
My deeply suspicious nature sees this as a first step in the process of forcibly closing the mosque and starting the process of "reclaiming" the land and rebuilding the Temple. And American Evangelicals would support this 100% as a fulfillment of prophecy, regardless of the bloodshed that would ensue.
It seems to me we have equal and opposite lethally numpty tendencies going on within two of the world's major power blocs.
On the one hand we've got swivel-eyed pre-millenialist loons potentially influencing policy in the White House and Pentagon.
On the other we have Putin's paranoid identification of Russia with 'Christian Civilisation' threatened by both Islam and Western liberalism, a position that Patriarch Kyrill seems only too willing to endorse.
There's anti-semitism in that nationalistic mix too.
Meanwhile, if Trump does ease off it will be for economic reasons. He despises his allies but it wouldn't be in America's interests for the rest of us to undergo economic melt-down.
I don't often find myself agreeing with Peter Hitchens but he spoke a lot of sense on BBC Radio 4's 'Any Questions' last night - it's repeated today (Saturday) and his views on Trump's buffoonery accord very much with my own reading of the situation.
He'll say one thing today, something completely different tomorrow.
There's enough turmoil and churn as it is. He's only making things worse.
It’s been a dimension within evangelicalism, but hardly a universal view.
And in any case this current conflict seems unlikely to further that hope. It seems to be failing.
Even ultra loyalist Speaker Mike Johnson seems very equivocal at the prospect of a $200 billion price tag. (That may have been a tactical move by the military to point out the probable cost if this disaster continues, of course.)
Nope. That sector of evangelicalism won’t see its dreams furthered through this conflict.
It's not about Israel on Israel's own terms. It is American Evangelical Zionists pushing a terrible theology. Israel is merely a tool to them, not a partner, not a client, not a mission field, not a purpose. "Support for Israel" is just a slogan: code. I don't believe for one second that American Evangelicals care about Jews, or Israel. Their own extreme beliefs count Jews as unsaved, -- damned for eternity -- the whole thing is despicable.
Absolutely!
And that is one of the things that trouble me so much. For a lot of American Evangelicals, the ultimate goal is to create the conditions for the Second Coming. So it isn't really about support for Israel - it is about having the Temple rebuilt and the boundaries of Israel "restored" to those of David and Solomon, because these are required to fulfill the prophecies, so that "God's Will Be Done!"
My deeply suspicious nature sees this as a first step in the process of forcibly closing the mosque and starting the process of "reclaiming" the land and rebuilding the Temple. And American Evangelicals would support this 100% as a fulfillment of prophecy, regardless of the bloodshed that would ensue.
Do they think Jesus is a demon who will come when he's called? Good grief. 🤬😱😭
It's not about Israel on Israel's own terms. It is American Evangelical Zionists pushing a terrible theology. Israel is merely a tool to them, not a partner, not a client, not a mission field, not a purpose. "Support for Israel" is just a slogan: code. I don't believe for one second that American Evangelicals care about Jews, or Israel. Their own extreme beliefs count Jews as unsaved, -- damned for eternity -- the whole thing is despicable.
Absolutely!
And that is one of the things that trouble me so much. For a lot of American Evangelicals, the ultimate goal is to create the conditions for the Second Coming. So it isn't really about support for Israel - it is about having the Temple rebuilt and the boundaries of Israel "restored" to those of David and Solomon, because these are required to fulfill the prophecies, so that "God's Will Be Done!"
My deeply suspicious nature sees this as a first step in the process of forcibly closing the mosque and starting the process of "reclaiming" the land and rebuilding the Temple. And American Evangelicals would support this 100% as a fulfillment of prophecy, regardless of the bloodshed that would ensue.
Do they think Jesus is a demon who will come when he's called? Good grief. 🤬😱😭
That struck me too. Confusing a prophetic statement of 'in those days there will be...' for some kind of recipe that they better get brewing, because, obviously, their personal involvement in whatever the great thing is, is the most important factor about it. Though strangely their personal involvement in 'following Christ' seems less to the fore. We know where He ended up.
Pentagon officials have made detailed preparations for deploying U.S. ground forces into Iran, multiple sources briefed on the discussions told CBS News.
Senior military commanders have submitted specific requests aimed at preparing for such an option as President Trump weighs moves in the U.S.-Israel-led conflict with Iran, the sources said.
<snip>
The U.S. is preparing to deploy elements of the 82nd Airborne Division into the Middle East region.
Unlike the tariffs, which could affect Trump personally by diminishing the value of his holdings, this planning involves other people's lives and Trump is often indifferent to anything that happens to anyone who isn't him.
It’s been a dimension within evangelicalism, but hardly a universal view.
And in any case this current conflict seems unlikely to further that hope. It seems to be failing.
Even ultra loyalist Speaker Mike Johnson seems very equivocal at the prospect of a $200 billion price tag. (That may have been a tactical move by the military to point out the probable cost if this disaster continues, of course.)
Nope. That sector of evangelicalism won’t see its dreams furthered through this conflict.
Sure.
To be honest, I've not come across that much pre-millenialist loopiness for many a good year, but from what I can gather it has staged something of a come-back and not only in the US.
I'm not sure who if anyone is going to benefit from this conflict.
If the Iranian regime collapsed tomorrow there'd be chaos and confusion before things settled down. If ever they were to do so.
That's not to disparage or doubt the ability of the Iranian people's ability to order their own affairs but if Trump and Netanyahu destroy their infrastructure then we can't expect anything other than chaos and civil unrest across the region.
Unlike the tariffs, which could affect Trump personally by diminishing the value of his holdings, this planning involves other people's lives and Trump is often indifferent to anything that happens to anyone who isn't him.
"But aspects of the modern state of Israel only partially embody Theodor Herzl's (the founder of political Zionism) original vision"
Which gives the impression that in the main the modern state of Israel embodies Herzl's vision, but diverges in some aspects.
The impression you get from the words I used is also down to your interpretation.
I'm trying to use the plainest reading of that sentence in the absence of any alternate explanation. What does it mean to 'embody' that particular text, what does 'diverges in some aspects' mean in the context set by @Pomona's post here (especially given Herzl's relative unfamiliarity with the region).
I am reminded of a conversation I was having with a friend a few weeks back in which he referenced this article by Joseph Massad
on how there used to be a consensus on Israel/Palestine which was very much set in the terms of books like 'From time immemorial' and which wasn't really sustainable against the background of subsequent historical and academic work.
Checking in on the news from this side of the Pond, it's hard to see quite what Trump and his Orcs are up to.
On the one hand, they seem to want to declare some sort of 'victory', and on the other hand they seem to want to go all-out with a boots-on-the-ground invasion of Kharg Island (or what's left of it, after Trump has bombed it 'for fun'...).
Meanwhile, the Israelis continue to beat hell out of Lebanon, and the world economy (O! the sheer folly of basing it on oil...who knew?) continues to take an equal bashing. This is likely to be felt keenly by many of the less well-off people here in the UK.
Our PM tries (to his great credit) bravely to maintain his pragmatic stance, distancing the UK from direct action, but with Iran chucking missiles at our base in Diego Garcia, this may not be possible for much longer. All the military and naval cutbacks of previous governments are perhaps now being regretted...
A fair point as always. Who’d be a military planner? They have no option but to keep open “boots on the ground”.
How likely is it that the option will come to pass? I’ve given up predicting Trump’s mind!
But I suppose the more important question is whether Congress will swallow a $200 billion bill? I think it would completely shaft the midterms for the GOP. And I’m not sure if Johnson could get the votes.
In any case, in the best possible military scenario (by no means guaranteed) of a land defeat for Iran, the Straits of Hormuz could be subject to rearguard guerrilla attacks for years. Damaging even one large tanker could cause both a blockage and an ecological disaster.
I’m pretty sure the US military don’t think it’s wise to go down that route. But in the current USA it’s hard to stop this madman.
I find it hard to believe that Israeli and US military planners wouldn't have foreseen Iranian attempts to block the Straits of Hormuz.
It's the obvious thing for the Iranian regime to do by way of retaliation in an assymetric war for survival.
Perhaps they thought the regime would collapse in a matter of days as Putin appears to have assumed in Ukraine.
Or else that NATO, Japan, Australia and others would all rally round and send in ships on Trump's say so even though he and Netanyahu started the war unilaterally.
Anyone sending ships into the Gulf is going to tread carefully even if Iranian missile capability is severely 'degraded'.
Thinking about support for Israel from among evangelicals, it seems that there has been significant historical support for Zionism from among Christians in Britain. Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom:
Christian Zionism preceded Zionism amongst both secular and rabbinic Jews, and much of the initiative for this came from within the United Kingdom. Expectations of a national return of the Jews to their homeland, often called Restorationism, were widely held amongst the Puritans, also heralding greater tolerance and the gradual readmission of Jews to England.
17th century Congregationalists like John Owen, and Baptists like John Gill, and John Rippon, some 18th century Methodists and 19th century preachers like C. H. Spurgeon, Presbyterians like Samuel Rutherford, Horatius and Andrew Bonar, and Robert Murray M'Chyene, and many Anglicans including Bishop J. C. Ryle and Charles Simeon held similar views.
…
[Lord] Shaftesbury repeatedly lobbied Lord Palmerston for moves to stimulate Jewish return to the Middle East, primarily by the appointment of a British Consul in Jerusalem in 1838. He also pressed for the building of Christ Church, the first place of Reformed worship in Jerusalem despite Ottoman and local opposition and the consecration in 1841 of a Jewish joint Anglican and Prussian Bishop in Jerusalem. Shaftesbury's labours paved the way for the Balfour Declaration.
William Hechler, an Anglican minister has been described as 'not only the first, but the most constant and the most indefatigable of Herzl’s followers'.
It is not a matter of what the US military saw or did not see, it is a matter of what the CinC did or did not see. And we know he is not very rational.
As to putting boots on the ground, it is not a matter of what he says as to what he is doing. He is sending the boots there. When asked if he was going to use them he said something to the effect, "I am not sure, but if I were I wouldn't tell you." Translation: the Marines are going in.
He may also use the 82nd Airborne. I noted previously they had cancelled training exercises and are under twenty-four-hour notice. When I was on a mobility team, if I had that notice I knew I was going.
It’s the usual dilemma over Trump’s self contradictory statements. Which ones does he mean? I don’t think you can second guess him.
Is it war (which Congress needs to approve) or isn’t it? GOP Congress reps seemed to go out of their way to declare it wasn’t, while Hegseth and sometimes Trump himself have used the term “war” to describe what’s going on. It’s yet another separation of powers issue. GOP Congress seem to want to avoid anything which would require them to act on the basis of Congressional power.
And I’m not sure even boots on the ground would make a difference unless it’s clear they are going to stay indefinitely. It’s an incursion or, as Trump says, an “excursion”.
I suppose similar arguments apply to expenditure. The costs of this incursion aren’t creeping up, they are leaping up. And will leap up even more with boots on the ground should they arrive. Which I guess is why the military are seeking approval for a $200 billion hike. Meanwhile, presumably under Executive Authority, conflicts and costs continue.
That’s true of course but historical support before the establishment of the State of Israel may not be an accurate indicator of the majority of views today.
I come from the evangelical wing of the church but am not alone in believing that both the decision to legitimise the State and the means of setting up its boundaries have been misguided, and largely responsible for close on 80 years of unrest.
I think they will try to take Kharg island and then declare victory.
What would prevent them from taking Kharg Island?
My biggest fear is them going into Tehran and not having any exit plan. We once tried to send in a raiding party into Tehran to get our hostages out. Did not work so well because the weather did not cooperate/
Underestimating their enemy - as they have done to date.
The Iranians don’t need to hold Kharg island or preserve their facilities - to “win” - they would need to destroy the American deployment. Which given the island is basically inflammable may not require a lot of sophistication.
This is an existential war for the Iranian regime and it isn't for the US.
Were Trump and Netanyahu rational state actors the Iranian regime wouldn't need to defeat them - it would just need to push up the cost of defeating Iran to the point where it's greater than the cost of leaving the regime alone.
The problem for Iran is Trump isn't rational in any sense, while Netanyahu is facing his own kind of existential war in that he needs to keep as many crises going as he can to remain in power and out of the courts.
This is an existential war for the Iranian regime and it isn't for the US.
(Snip)
The problem for Iran is Trump isn't rational in any sense, while Netanyahu is facing his own kind of existential war in that he needs to keep as many crises going as he can to remain in power and out of the courts.
Sums it up, really. Plus I’m not sure the new Ayatollah is all that rational either.
I find it hard to believe that Israeli and US military planners wouldn't have foreseen Iranian attempts to block the Straits of Hormuz.
It's the obvious thing for the Iranian regime to do by way of retaliation in an assymetric war for survival.
Perhaps they thought the regime would collapse in a matter of days as Putin appears to have assumed in Ukraine.
Or else that NATO, Japan, Australia and others would all rally round and send in ships on Trump's say so even though he and Netanyahu started the war unilaterally.
Anyone sending ships into the Gulf is going to tread carefully even if Iranian missile capability is severely 'degraded'.
Something my wife pointed out today. Trump did not consult any military planners. Trump himself said he consulted with Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio,
Under normal circumstances, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, Intelligence community leadership, and various cabinet level officials should have been consulted as well as contact with the major allies.
None of them were consulted. Fact is, most of the major military planners who had come up through the ranks threw previous administrations had been fired in the past year.
Instead, you have a guy who wrestled five deferments during the Vietnam war, making a decision with unqualified people.
Hegseth says he now needs $200 billion to finish the war. I hope congress tells him where he can shove it.
I think they will try to take Kharg island and then declare victory.
What would prevent them from taking Kharg Island?
Drones. Drones are what would prevent them. The Americans have learned nothing from the conflict in Ukraine. You can't mass troops anywhere without drones taking them out in big hunks. Ukraine has taken so long for the Russians because they can only advance by threes and sixes.
Added to that you might land an expeditionary force there but the Iranians are waiting for them. Once you got them there then what? How do you establish resupply and logistics? Everything approaching the island is just target practice for the drone force.
This is an existential war for the Iranian regime and it isn't for the US.
(Snip)
The problem for Iran is Trump isn't rational in any sense, while Netanyahu is facing his own kind of existential war in that he needs to keep as many crises going as he can to remain in power and out of the courts.
Sums it up, really. Plus I’m not sure the new Ayatollah is all that rational either.
The three of them may screw up the world.
It's not even clear the new Supreme Leader is making decisions. Since his selection he's only issued written statements and he's known to have been injured in the attack that killed much of his family. For all we know he's in a coma.
Disinformation is also a quite normal aspect of the conduct of modern warfare.
DT, I’m not sure whether the Karg Island option is a bluff, a threat or a deliberate aim. In general, such boots on the ground operations are not “telegraphed” in advance because that endangers the troops involved.
Based on actions so far by Iran under the new Ayatollah, it seems unlikely to back down in any case. Iran is not Venezuela. It will continue to retaliate, whatever. And I’m sure it will be reinforced if reinforcement is required.
This is an existential war for the Iranian regime and it isn't for the US.
(Snip)
The problem for Iran is Trump isn't rational in any sense, while Netanyahu is facing his own kind of existential war in that he needs to keep as many crises going as he can to remain in power and out of the courts.
Sums it up, really. Plus I’m not sure the new Ayatollah is all that rational either.
I don't see any particular reason to doubt his sanity so far.
Trump is now threatening to blow up Iranian power plants if they don’t open the Straits of Hormuz within 48 hours. I don’t think this will work. I wonder if he is doing this, because are now telling him that trying to take Kharg island with a landing force will lose American lives.
It also leads me to wonder about the security of US foreign policy communication. This treat was made on Truth Social - it is being treated as a statement by Trump, but I am fairly sure he is not the only person with access to his social media channel.
This is an existential war for the Iranian regime and it isn't for the US.
(Snip)
The problem for Iran is Trump isn't rational in any sense, while Netanyahu is facing his own kind of existential war in that he needs to keep as many crises going as he can to remain in power and out of the courts.
Sums it up, really. Plus I’m not sure the new Ayatollah is all that rational either.
I don't see any particular reason to doubt his sanity so far.
Other than the obvious reason that half his family just got murdered by the Great Satan and/or Little Satan.
That’s true of course but historical support before the establishment of the State of Israel may not be an accurate indicator of the majority of views today.
The point was to consider historic views in Britain that contributed to Zionism, with the aim of examining how these views led to Zionism becoming a realised project, the narratives that these views helped to create (and that were created to support these views), and the narratives that we (in Britain, at least) continue to be told and tell ourselves in relation to Jews and Israel, both to justify our country's actions in the past, and that sustain our attitudes and actions in the present.
It commemorates the 10,000 Jewish children who escaped Nazi persecution and arrived at the station during 1938–1939, whose parents were forced to take the decision to send them to safety in the UK. Most of the children never saw their parents again, as their parents were subsequently killed in concentration camps, although some were reunited.
The point was also about examining the motives of the countries and people historically involved in supporting Zionism - whether this was for entirely altruistic reasons, to what extent about the pursuit of self-interest. And, in the present, about how our own individual motives relate to our understanding of antisemitism.
As the article that chrisstiles cited points out, there is significant academic research that critiques long-standing narratives about the establishment of the modern Jewish state in Palestine, and it pointedly links the perpetuation of these narratives to "the interests of western imperialism and corporate power".
However, I would say that in narrative terms, what the article itself does is replace one simple narrative - Israeli Jews as the oppressed - and replace it with another - Israeli Jews as the oppressors:
Media cliches
There is no respected scholar of the Middle East today in the western academy who would deny Israel's massive expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948 and 1967.
Equally, no academic expert could deny that Zionism was always a European settler-colonial movement allied with the imperialist countries or that Zionism had always espoused racist views of the Palestinians and cooperated with other settler colonies extending from South Africa to French Algeria and beyond.
And no scholar today could earnestly question that the Israeli state is an institutionally racist and Jewish supremacist state - enshrined in law - or deny the history of Zionist terrorism in the region, let alone the turmoil and violence Israel has visited on the entire Middle East since its establishment in 1948.
Critiquing established narratives is necessary, but I don't find the article's own narrative regarding the Jewish state, nor antisemitism nor peace, particularly helpful.
I suppose (if the process is at all rational) that using Truth Social Trump posts may be part of the disinformation approach. At the very least, because of his numerous contradictions, it’s probably a way of sowing anxiety.
You may be right about the Kharg island option risks to US military lives which is one of the reasons that I sense the possibility of a bluff. Get Iran to divert support to Kharg Island in advance of landing troops somewhere else?
Probably too rational a thought?
Meanwhile many Asian economies are already feeling the pinch of the blockade.
Critiquing established narratives is necessary, but I don't find the article's own narrative regarding the Jewish state, nor antisemitism nor peace, particularly helpful.
Helpful or unhelpful is besides the point. It's accurate.
You may be right about the Kharg island option risks to US military lives which is one of the reasons that I sense the possibility of a bluff. Get Iran to divert support to Kharg Island in advance of landing troops somewhere else?
Did you not hear the message of Iranian FM Abbas Aragchi on March 5, when asked whether Iran fears a ground invasion?
With a straight face and the most matter of fact demeanor his reply was "We are waiting for them."
Do you suppose he meant that the IRGC is prepared only on one or two of many possible fronts? Iran has been preparing for this moment for twenty years, do you think they have understaffed any of the possible invasion points? I do know that the IRGC has announced that they will destroy every inch of Kharg Island before they will allow their enemies to siphon a single drop of oil from it.
Just asking. ISTM that a ground force invasion has the very great potential of ending badly for the invading force. Maybe this is why Trump has pivoted to the safer position of threatening to bomb Iran's power infrastructure.
You may be right about the Kharg island option risks to US military lives which is one of the reasons that I sense the possibility of a bluff. Get Iran to divert support to Kharg Island in advance of landing troops somewhere else?
Just asking. ISTM that a ground force invasion has the very great potential of ending badly for the invading force. Maybe this is why Trump has pivoted to the safer position of threatening to bomb Iran's power infrastructure.
AFF
Not being someone with any military experience whatsoever, I was somewhat awed by the 60km traffic jam of Russian military vehicles coming down the motorway to Kyiv four years ago. On another (military) forum I frequent for a different perspective on this kind of thing, a number of (ex?)squaddies referred to it as a 'target rich environment', and so it turned out to be. It is my impression that Trump sees himself as some kind of Putin, and the threat (and supposed leverage) posed by his invasion flotilla is starting to ring vague bells.
The Iranians have countered his power infrastructure threats by saying they will hit desalination plants in the gulf in return.
I cannot help thinking that the Iranians are itching for Trump to invade Kharg Island because then they have Anerican boots on a relatively small piece of land which will then be clobbered with everything they have.
The Iranians have countered his power infrastructure threats by saying they will hit desalination plants in the gulf in return.
Welp, that sounds like game, set and match for Iran.
Disabling the desalination plants would literally deprive millions of people of potable water, and I doubt that relief tankers would be allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz.
I can't imagine the Gulf states would sit still for that kind of escalation.
Comments
It's not about Israel on Israel's own terms. It is American Evangelical Zionists pushing a terrible theology. Israel is merely a tool to them, not a partner, not a client, not a mission field, not a purpose. "Support for Israel" is just a slogan: code. I don't believe for one second that American Evangelicals care about Jews, or Israel. Their own extreme beliefs count Jews as unsaved, -- damned for eternity -- the whole thing is despicable.
I agree. And Crœsos has an excellent point too.
It’s hard to see any options likely to be followed by the Trump administration which do not make things even worse.
Surely somebody in the US administration has the courage to tell Trump he's wrong?
That and knee-jerk reaction / trolling to anything supported by the left. Recall that Young Conservative members went around with "hang Mandela" shirts in the 80s. Plus the Israeli regime has over decades waged a propaganda war with up-and-coming Labour apparatchiks. It was common knowledge 20 years ago when I was a student that members of the National Organisation of Labour Students (the "official" Labour Student organisation but at the time thoroughly co-opted by Blairites) would get flown out to Israel and given the propaganda tour, and many of those activists are now or have recently been MPs. And the Labour right's reaction to anything the left supports is often more visceral than that of the tories.
It's a shift away from the Wets who often tended to take a slightly less partisan view (Kit Malthouse maybe representing something of a throwback in that one regard)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce84073mr06t
For good or for ill, TACO.
TACO = Trump Always Chickens Out.
Establishing and maintaining peaceful relations with Palestinians was one of the aspects in which the establishment of the Jewish state rather obviously diverged from Herzl's vision, as evidenced by the long period of conflict leading up to 1948. This doesn't seem surprising, as it was a rather notable point of difference between Herzl's Political Zionism and Practical Zionism, which became more dominant following his death. I note that, ideologically, Practical Zionism is not motivated by the need to address antisemitism. I also note that David Ben-Gurion stated that he never suffered from antisemitic persecution growing up (in Poland).
Thanks. This particular distinction was rather unclear to me - the range of interpretations, and who holds which views, seems to have been in a state of flux over the decades, particularly in the case of Benny Morris.
Absolutely!
And that is one of the things that trouble me so much. For a lot of American Evangelicals, the ultimate goal is to create the conditions for the Second Coming. So it isn't really about support for Israel - it is about having the Temple rebuilt and the boundaries of Israel "restored" to those of David and Solomon, because these are required to fulfill the prophecies, so that "God's Will Be Done!"
In connection with this, did anyone else notice this rather worrying development: Al Aqsa Mosque closed at Eid
My deeply suspicious nature sees this as a first step in the process of forcibly closing the mosque and starting the process of "reclaiming" the land and rebuilding the Temple. And American Evangelicals would support this 100% as a fulfillment of prophecy, regardless of the bloodshed that would ensue.
On the one hand we've got swivel-eyed pre-millenialist loons potentially influencing policy in the White House and Pentagon.
On the other we have Putin's paranoid identification of Russia with 'Christian Civilisation' threatened by both Islam and Western liberalism, a position that Patriarch Kyrill seems only too willing to endorse.
There's anti-semitism in that nationalistic mix too.
Meanwhile, if Trump does ease off it will be for economic reasons. He despises his allies but it wouldn't be in America's interests for the rest of us to undergo economic melt-down.
I don't often find myself agreeing with Peter Hitchens but he spoke a lot of sense on BBC Radio 4's 'Any Questions' last night - it's repeated today (Saturday) and his views on Trump's buffoonery accord very much with my own reading of the situation.
He'll say one thing today, something completely different tomorrow.
There's enough turmoil and churn as it is. He's only making things worse.
And in any case this current conflict seems unlikely to further that hope. It seems to be failing.
Even ultra loyalist Speaker Mike Johnson seems very equivocal at the prospect of a $200 billion price tag. (That may have been a tactical move by the military to point out the probable cost if this disaster continues, of course.)
Nope. That sector of evangelicalism won’t see its dreams furthered through this conflict.
Do they think Jesus is a demon who will come when he's called? Good grief. 🤬😱😭
That struck me too. Confusing a prophetic statement of 'in those days there will be...' for some kind of recipe that they better get brewing, because, obviously, their personal involvement in whatever the great thing is, is the most important factor about it. Though strangely their personal involvement in 'following Christ' seems less to the fore. We know where He ended up.
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/6845/fooling-our-immune-system-against-fascism-philosemitism-and-other-far-right-tactics#latest
with a thread which also tackles how we distinguish Trumpists and Nazis and where we draw the line
And some other signs that he's going to double down.
Unlike the tariffs, which could affect Trump personally by diminishing the value of his holdings, this planning involves other people's lives and Trump is often indifferent to anything that happens to anyone who isn't him.
Sure.
To be honest, I've not come across that much pre-millenialist loopiness for many a good year, but from what I can gather it has staged something of a come-back and not only in the US.
I'm not sure who if anyone is going to benefit from this conflict.
If the Iranian regime collapsed tomorrow there'd be chaos and confusion before things settled down. If ever they were to do so.
That's not to disparage or doubt the ability of the Iranian people's ability to order their own affairs but if Trump and Netanyahu destroy their infrastructure then we can't expect anything other than chaos and civil unrest across the region.
Often?
Is there any evidence that it isn't 'always'?
I'm trying to use the plainest reading of that sentence in the absence of any alternate explanation. What does it mean to 'embody' that particular text, what does 'diverges in some aspects' mean in the context set by @Pomona's post here
(especially given Herzl's relative unfamiliarity with the region).
I am reminded of a conversation I was having with a friend a few weeks back in which he referenced this article by Joseph Massad
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/why-academic-scholarship-israel-palestine-threatens-western-elites
on how there used to be a consensus on Israel/Palestine which was very much set in the terms of books like 'From time immemorial' and which wasn't really sustainable against the background of subsequent historical and academic work.
On the one hand, they seem to want to declare some sort of 'victory', and on the other hand they seem to want to go all-out with a boots-on-the-ground invasion of Kharg Island (or what's left of it, after Trump has bombed it 'for fun'...).
Meanwhile, the Israelis continue to beat hell out of Lebanon, and the world economy (O! the sheer folly of basing it on oil...who knew?) continues to take an equal bashing. This is likely to be felt keenly by many of the less well-off people here in the UK.
Our PM tries (to his great credit) bravely to maintain his pragmatic stance, distancing the UK from direct action, but with Iran chucking missiles at our base in Diego Garcia, this may not be possible for much longer. All the military and naval cutbacks of previous governments are perhaps now being regretted...
A fair point as always. Who’d be a military planner? They have no option but to keep open “boots on the ground”.
How likely is it that the option will come to pass? I’ve given up predicting Trump’s mind!
But I suppose the more important question is whether Congress will swallow a $200 billion bill? I think it would completely shaft the midterms for the GOP. And I’m not sure if Johnson could get the votes.
In any case, in the best possible military scenario (by no means guaranteed) of a land defeat for Iran, the Straits of Hormuz could be subject to rearguard guerrilla attacks for years. Damaging even one large tanker could cause both a blockage and an ecological disaster.
I’m pretty sure the US military don’t think it’s wise to go down that route. But in the current USA it’s hard to stop this madman.
It's the obvious thing for the Iranian regime to do by way of retaliation in an assymetric war for survival.
Perhaps they thought the regime would collapse in a matter of days as Putin appears to have assumed in Ukraine.
Or else that NATO, Japan, Australia and others would all rally round and send in ships on Trump's say so even though he and Netanyahu started the war unilaterally.
Anyone sending ships into the Gulf is going to tread carefully even if Iranian missile capability is severely 'degraded'.
As to putting boots on the ground, it is not a matter of what he says as to what he is doing. He is sending the boots there. When asked if he was going to use them he said something to the effect, "I am not sure, but if I were I wouldn't tell you." Translation: the Marines are going in.
He may also use the 82nd Airborne. I noted previously they had cancelled training exercises and are under twenty-four-hour notice. When I was on a mobility team, if I had that notice I knew I was going.
Is it war (which Congress needs to approve) or isn’t it? GOP Congress reps seemed to go out of their way to declare it wasn’t, while Hegseth and sometimes Trump himself have used the term “war” to describe what’s going on. It’s yet another separation of powers issue. GOP Congress seem to want to avoid anything which would require them to act on the basis of Congressional power.
And I’m not sure even boots on the ground would make a difference unless it’s clear they are going to stay indefinitely. It’s an incursion or, as Trump says, an “excursion”.
I suppose similar arguments apply to expenditure. The costs of this incursion aren’t creeping up, they are leaping up. And will leap up even more with boots on the ground should they arrive. Which I guess is why the military are seeking approval for a $200 billion hike. Meanwhile, presumably under Executive Authority, conflicts and costs continue.
Who is going to blow the whistle?
That’s true of course but historical support before the establishment of the State of Israel may not be an accurate indicator of the majority of views today.
I come from the evangelical wing of the church but am not alone in believing that both the decision to legitimise the State and the means of setting up its boundaries have been misguided, and largely responsible for close on 80 years of unrest.
What would prevent them from taking Kharg Island?
My biggest fear is them going into Tehran and not having any exit plan. We once tried to send in a raiding party into Tehran to get our hostages out. Did not work so well because the weather did not cooperate/
The Iranians don’t need to hold Kharg island or preserve their facilities - to “win” - they would need to destroy the American deployment. Which given the island is basically inflammable may not require a lot of sophistication.
Were Trump and Netanyahu rational state actors the Iranian regime wouldn't need to defeat them - it would just need to push up the cost of defeating Iran to the point where it's greater than the cost of leaving the regime alone.
The problem for Iran is Trump isn't rational in any sense, while Netanyahu is facing his own kind of existential war in that he needs to keep as many crises going as he can to remain in power and out of the courts.
Sums it up, really. Plus I’m not sure the new Ayatollah is all that rational either.
The three of them may screw up the world.
Something my wife pointed out today. Trump did not consult any military planners. Trump himself said he consulted with Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio,
Under normal circumstances, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, Intelligence community leadership, and various cabinet level officials should have been consulted as well as contact with the major allies.
None of them were consulted. Fact is, most of the major military planners who had come up through the ranks threw previous administrations had been fired in the past year.
Instead, you have a guy who wrestled five deferments during the Vietnam war, making a decision with unqualified people.
Hegseth says he now needs $200 billion to finish the war. I hope congress tells him where he can shove it.
Drones. Drones are what would prevent them. The Americans have learned nothing from the conflict in Ukraine. You can't mass troops anywhere without drones taking them out in big hunks. Ukraine has taken so long for the Russians because they can only advance by threes and sixes.
Added to that you might land an expeditionary force there but the Iranians are waiting for them. Once you got them there then what? How do you establish resupply and logistics? Everything approaching the island is just target practice for the drone force.
AFF
It's not even clear the new Supreme Leader is making decisions. Since his selection he's only issued written statements and he's known to have been injured in the attack that killed much of his family. For all we know he's in a coma.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyxv87zwwpo
Disinformation is also a quite normal aspect of the conduct of modern warfare.
DT, I’m not sure whether the Karg Island option is a bluff, a threat or a deliberate aim. In general, such boots on the ground operations are not “telegraphed” in advance because that endangers the troops involved.
Based on actions so far by Iran under the new Ayatollah, it seems unlikely to back down in any case. Iran is not Venezuela. It will continue to retaliate, whatever. And I’m sure it will be reinforced if reinforcement is required.
I don't see any particular reason to doubt his sanity so far.
It also leads me to wonder about the security of US foreign policy communication. This treat was made on Truth Social - it is being treated as a statement by Trump, but I am fairly sure he is not the only person with access to his social media channel.
Other than the obvious reason that half his family just got murdered by the Great Satan and/or Little Satan.
I'm reminded of the Kindertransport – The Arrival sculpture outside Liverpool Street station, installed in 2006: The point was also about examining the motives of the countries and people historically involved in supporting Zionism - whether this was for entirely altruistic reasons, to what extent about the pursuit of self-interest. And, in the present, about how our own individual motives relate to our understanding of antisemitism.
As the article that chrisstiles cited points out, there is significant academic research that critiques long-standing narratives about the establishment of the modern Jewish state in Palestine, and it pointedly links the perpetuation of these narratives to "the interests of western imperialism and corporate power".
However, I would say that in narrative terms, what the article itself does is replace one simple narrative - Israeli Jews as the oppressed - and replace it with another - Israeli Jews as the oppressors: Critiquing established narratives is necessary, but I don't find the article's own narrative regarding the Jewish state, nor antisemitism nor peace, particularly helpful.
I suppose (if the process is at all rational) that using Truth Social Trump posts may be part of the disinformation approach. At the very least, because of his numerous contradictions, it’s probably a way of sowing anxiety.
You may be right about the Kharg island option risks to US military lives which is one of the reasons that I sense the possibility of a bluff. Get Iran to divert support to Kharg Island in advance of landing troops somewhere else?
Probably too rational a thought?
Meanwhile many Asian economies are already feeling the pinch of the blockade.
Helpful or unhelpful is besides the point. It's accurate.
Did you not hear the message of Iranian FM Abbas Aragchi on March 5, when asked whether Iran fears a ground invasion?
With a straight face and the most matter of fact demeanor his reply was "We are waiting for them."
Do you suppose he meant that the IRGC is prepared only on one or two of many possible fronts? Iran has been preparing for this moment for twenty years, do you think they have understaffed any of the possible invasion points? I do know that the IRGC has announced that they will destroy every inch of Kharg Island before they will allow their enemies to siphon a single drop of oil from it.
Just asking. ISTM that a ground force invasion has the very great potential of ending badly for the invading force. Maybe this is why Trump has pivoted to the safer position of threatening to bomb Iran's power infrastructure.
AFF
Not being someone with any military experience whatsoever, I was somewhat awed by the 60km traffic jam of Russian military vehicles coming down the motorway to Kyiv four years ago. On another (military) forum I frequent for a different perspective on this kind of thing, a number of (ex?)squaddies referred to it as a 'target rich environment', and so it turned out to be. It is my impression that Trump sees himself as some kind of Putin, and the threat (and supposed leverage) posed by his invasion flotilla is starting to ring vague bells.
The Iranians have countered his power infrastructure threats by saying they will hit desalination plants in the gulf in return.
Welp, that sounds like game, set and match for Iran.
Disabling the desalination plants would literally deprive millions of people of potable water, and I doubt that relief tankers would be allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz.
I can't imagine the Gulf states would sit still for that kind of escalation.
AFF