Global politics

[Psy-Fi]

Why Finland is blaming Russia for a sudden influx of migrants on its eastern border

[Lisnaholic]

^ I  think that report from the Finnish border, and the rise of Gert Wilders are two elements or reactions to what may come to define this era of global politics.

"Post-Cold War" is an ok label as far as it goes, but 30 years later surely we deserve a title that isn't just, "the time that came after an earlier time".

My suggestion is The Era of Climate Migration.
Worsening climate, fewer crops, more fighting over decent land and fresh water: these are the things that push people to relocate, and that is going to become more and more common in the coming decades, I suspect. Europe and the US are already feeling the pressure: little wonder that voters are deperately turning to leaders with comment-worthy hairstyles.

[Psy-Fi]

Geert Wilders | Populist parties will grow 'stronger & stronger' unless people's fears are addressed

[Psy-Fi]

Recorded 3 months prior to his win...

Argentina's Milei on Dollarization, Central Bank, China (Full interview in english)

[SGR]

Johnson plays the role of loveable idiot cos he knows people will buy it.

He makes out that he's dopey and like a silly old granddad but in reality he is much smarter and more cunning than that.

I fucking hate the shitty haired bellend. Used to boil my piss when I saw/heard people making an affection out of him referring to him as 'Boris' or worse, 'BoJo' 🤢

Still my favorite Boris Johnson moment:

Gavin Newsom had a similar moment a few weeks ago:

[jimmy jazz]

My favourite Johnson moment was the time he hid inside a freezer to avoid answering a question. Or the time he became the only PM in British history to dodge a TV debate in the rubup to an election.

Pooooosy

[Mindy]

[Lisnaholic]

Thanks, Mindy ! That's a very clear look at some of the problems underlying the present troubles in the Middle East. It's a useful counter-balance to the 24-hour news coverage that, understandably enough, focus on the latest hostage to be released, the latest hospital to be attacked.

Another historic overview is this:-

Guernica Everyday

Back in 1937, Picasso and the world were shocked by the bombardment suffered by Guernica - I'm assuming that it was one of the first times that hostilities spilled, at great speed, beyond the battlefield. Back in the old days, attrocities advanced, village by village, at the speed of horses or soldiers marching. But thanks to modern techniques, an army doesn't even have to capture the intervening territory: they can just deliver destruction from afar.
I suppose I'm making an obvious point because it's been happening that way ever since. But there's an equally obvious point that aggressors keep setting to one side: you'll never win the hearts and minds of people by bombing them into the ground. One of the main things you achieve is to make a life-long intractable enemy of the civilians you are attacking: it's a super-efficient way to radicalize civilians against you.

[Psy-Fi]

Police raid Moscow gay bars after Supreme Court LGBTQ+ ruling

Russian security forces have raided gay clubs and bars across Moscow less than 48 hours after the country's top court banned what it called the "global LGBTQ+ movement" as an extremist organization.

[Guybrush]

Police raid Moscow gay bars after Supreme Court LGBTQ+ ruling

"Russian authorities reject accusations of LGBTQ+ discrimination."

Yeah, right.

Russia's morally degenerating into the future.

[Lexi Darling]

Yeah. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is the long term goal of the American right wing as well.

[Jwb]

very interesting that you posted this Mindy. I was working on a thread about the current situation in the middle east and the potential for it to spill into a wider regional conflict. But I gave up on it.

Here's a few videos I'd  recommend.

Skip to 3:35 to avoid the intro and embedded ad. That's where the real video starts.

skip the embedded ad which starts at 1:23 and ends at 3:30.

long ass post

The key points are basically that since the Hamas attack on Oct 7th, there has been a lot of speculation about the potential causes or motivations behind the attack.  Although we don't know that Iran or any other power had any insight whatsoever into the attack,  let alone anything to do with it,  they do have some plausible motivations,  as well as known ties to Hamas, though not nearly as close as Hezbollah.

So it's not like it's outside of either their means or even their usual modus operandi of how they project soft power in the region.  As such, there has been a lot of speculation in certain circles from day 1 over Iran's potential involvement in the attack. 

The most prominent theory is that the normalization agreement that was being pursued between Israel and Saudi Arabia presented a severe threat to Iran, and as such they sought to throw a monkey wrench in that process via Oct 7th.

It's worth pointing out that the normalization process is not so much a peace agreement,  as is often presented.  There hasn't been any state of war between Israel and Saudi Arabia for quite some time.

In fact,  over the years,  they have grown closer militarily and have formed a covert alliance against Iran, as a response to the nuclear deal that Obama signed with Iran.

Netanyahu was by far the biggest critic of and the biggest obstacle to America trying to reach any sort of diplomatic understanding with the regime in Iran. Frustrated with the Obama administration for pursuing that route, Israel and Saudi Arabia grew closer in ties. 

Though not so much officially,  because of the optics. The vast majority of the Saudi population is very much anti Israel, and even though they are a monarchy and so you would think they could do what they want, the amount of radical religious thinking that exists in Saudi Arabia has always presented an internal threat to their rule. So they need the optics of at least getting something for the Palestinians in exchange for officially recognizing Israel and normalizing relations.

The details on what those concessions were going to be are vague,  though the general impression is that it would involve some amount of increased autonomy for the Palestianian Authority or PA, the government of the West Bank, along with freezing the expansion of settlements. So really not much of a game changer for the Palestians in the West Bank,  let alone in Gaza, which seems to have been left out of the considerations altogether. 

Although the Saudis did negotiate some wins for themselves,  including a defense pact with the United States and assistance with developing nuclear energy.

Which kind of emphasizes the point.  Historically,  the idea was that broader recognition of Israel by the Arab and even broader Muslim world was a bargaining chip that was to be withheld until they resolved the situation with the Palestinians, the assumed framework being a two state solution.

By seeking to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and some of the gulf states which was seen as a launching pad for broader recognition of Israel in other Muslim countries,  Israel was attempting to bypass the idea of having to resolve the  Palestinian issue before getting broader recognition in that part of the world. Their mechanism for doing so was citing their mutual opposition to Iran as grounds for a common cause.  Netanyahu makes this clear here:

you'll notice this video was posted less than a month before the Hamas attack.  so this was what Netanyahu was saying about the prospective deal at the time.  The red marker speech he refers to in this video was made in 2012, while the Obama  administration was still considering negotiations with Iran. 

Another dimension to consider is Saudi Arabia.  They are enemies with Iran for a number of reasons.  The obvious recent one being the prolonged civil war in Yemen, in which Iran is funding Shia militants known as the Houthis. These same rebels not coincidentally have declared war on Israel in response to the latest Gaza war. Yet another reminder that Iran has many such vectors of soft power in the region. 

Even though concerns about Iran have drawn Saudi Arabia and Israel closer together,  the Saudis are not so cut and dry as far as being an ally. Just 8 months ago they enraged Netanyahu and his regime as well as spooked the US when they apparently decided to enter into a normalization process with Iran, in a deal brokered by China.

And yet, despite this apparent pivot, we ended up back in the situation in the months leading up to Oct 7th, with the United States apparently putting extensive effort into brokering a normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Part of the reason the Saudis might have been drifting out of Washington's orbit could have been Biden's early disposition to the regime. I think this segment from Mehdi Hasan's show where he was criticizing this deal highlights a few important details. This video is long but really I'm only referencing 2 specific parts for clues. Here's the video and below I will identify the points I want to cite.

The first is at the very beginning of the video,  around 2:20 where Hasan shows Biden on the campaign trail condemning Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudi regime. He then notes the subsequent change of attitude Biden has taken,  including fist bumping MBS and touting the prospects of the normalization process as a "mega-deal."
14:07-15:30  He highlights concerns about Saudi Arabia getting nuclear energy because it's not clear they don't want nuclear weapons, including a video of MBS saying that if Iran got a nuke, Saudi Arabia would have to get one.

So these details combine to give some insight on not only the change of heart MBS had,  but also how this deal could have easily ended up leading to a nuclear arms race between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Another interesting detail is that in addition to us having clear statements from both Netanyahu and MBS regarding their attitudes towards the normalization process in the run up to Oct 7th, we also have a similar statement the leader of Iran.  This is him from Oct 3.

So the Saudis are "betting on the wrong horse," and Israel will "soon be eradicated by the Palestinians." Obviously that doesn't prove anything as far as knowing what was going to happen, since I'm pretty sure they are always predicting Israel's eradication  but it's pretty clear what their stance towards the prospective deal is and where their interests lie. Not that this should be any mystery,  considering that Netanyahu made it crystal clear that Iran was a major target of said alliance.

Whatever progress was made on pursuing a normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel doesn't seem to matter now because with Israel bombing Gaza,  Saudi Arabia naturally pivoted once more,  not necessarily towards Iran though somewhat distancing themselves from Isreal.

In fact you might wonder why any of this matters if say Hamas carried out the attacks without consulting Iran,  which seems likely enough considering there's no hard evidence to the contrary. It would still matter because since the war in Gaza has started,  Iranian proxies have not only been striking US assets (not personnel in most cases,  from what I understand) but Hezbollah,  their main proxy has also been ratcheting up tensions with Israel.  Regardless of how the conflict started, the longer it goes on the more opportunities there are for it to expand.

Iran has a number of vectors for soft power in the region,  but Hezbollah are by far their biggest asset. Iran gives them 700m annually in military aid and they are the largest non state military in the world,  operating out of the failed state of Lebanon which has no control over them.  They  have a  massive arsenal of missiles, some of which are quite advanced. Israel cannot properly defend against an all out missile attack launched by Hezbollah. That's an inherent vulnerability Israel has had for some time and it's also a useful form of deterrence for direct attacks against Iran.  If the John Boltons of the world got their way for example,  and we pursued a policy of regime change in Iran as we did in Iraq, Iran could unleash hellfire on Israel in retaliation via Hezbollah.

For that reason,  Iran isn't necessarily eager to have Hezbollah launch their missiles at Israel and turn this into a two front war,  because then they lose that significant deterrence.

So far they haven't gotten significantly involved in the conflict,  despite posturing that they might be willing to do so. By providing a sense of ambiguity as to their intentions,  they keep Israel on alert which potentially deviates some of their attention from the war.  But so far I think it's safe to say they've been a non factor.

That's a good thing,  because if they did get involved, unlike with Hamas, Iran might be implicated by default in the eyes of US and Israel.  Their ties are far too close to overlook that relationship.

[close]

This is why I gave up on this post lol cause I don't know how to not go on tangent after tangent on this topic.

[Psy-Fi]

Hamas officials join Nelson Mandela's family at ceremony marking 10th anniversary of his death

[Mindy]

[Lisnaholic]

This is why I gave up on this post lol cause I don't know how to not go on tangent after tangent on this topic.

I haven't read your whole post, JwB, but can totally relate to the above comment. The situation in Israel/Palestine reminds me of a phrase the journalist P.J. O'Rourke used about another part of the world: "The conflict that passeth all understanding."