I’m skeptical and (perpetually) short on time; but I’ll queue it up and give it an initial opportunity to make a case.
My stance going in is that Russia’s failed invasion and the US debacle in Iran make future aggression less likely (at least for the short term). I’d argue it’s similar to how the US “war” in Vietnam diminished the US appetite for war ~50 wars ago.
War is costly to direct participants; only Israel seems to have a continued appetite for it among developed nations… Putin’s once solid grip on power is now showing significant cracks, Trump & republicans currently look to lose some share of electoral power due to their policies (which involves more than just Iran, but that seems to be the single biggest polling impact).
I’ll certainly acknowledge the tensions in the middle east could easily inflate to become a larger conflict. Hopefully the wiser people prevail over the “strongmen” who somehow keep getting elected.
I can appreciate the skepticism, and I wouldn’t have pressed the issue if I didn’t appreciate both your approach and your position.
Regarding the war in Vietnam, that was back when we had leaders who were bothered by things like optics and polling. Nixon was a crook, lied about it, got caught, was impeached, felt shame, resigned during that era. That precedent clearly doesn’t apply here.
The issue with Israel/Iran is that the US is feeding on all sides of it. Trump is doing whatever the hell he’s doing and in order to (in his mind) save face, he’s gotta do something big. So the oil pipeline to the rest of the world gets shut down. Manufacturing and shipping slows by default. What shipping does occur is under assault by Houthis and the IRGC because hurting trade hurts the US.
It’s a very ugly cascade web effect.
And once more, thank you for hearing me out through my own verbal static.
I’m skeptical and (perpetually) short on time; but I’ll queue it up and give it an initial opportunity to make a case.
My stance going in is that Russia’s failed invasion and the US debacle in Iran make future aggression less likely (at least for the short term). I’d argue it’s similar to how the US “war” in Vietnam diminished the US appetite for war ~50 wars ago.
War is costly to direct participants; only Israel seems to have a continued appetite for it among developed nations… Putin’s once solid grip on power is now showing significant cracks, Trump & republicans currently look to lose some share of electoral power due to their policies (which involves more than just Iran, but that seems to be the single biggest polling impact).
I’ll certainly acknowledge the tensions in the middle east could easily inflate to become a larger conflict. Hopefully the wiser people prevail over the “strongmen” who somehow keep getting elected.
I can appreciate the skepticism, and I wouldn’t have pressed the issue if I didn’t appreciate both your approach and your position.
Regarding the war in Vietnam, that was back when we had leaders who were bothered by things like optics and polling. Nixon was a crook, lied about it, got caught, was impeached, felt shame, resigned during that era. That precedent clearly doesn’t apply here.
The issue with Israel/Iran is that the US is feeding on all sides of it. Trump is doing whatever the hell he’s doing and in order to (in his mind) save face, he’s gotta do something big. So the oil pipeline to the rest of the world gets shut down. Manufacturing and shipping slows by default. What shipping does occur is under assault by Houthis and the IRGC because hurting trade hurts the US.
It’s a very ugly cascade web effect.
And once more, thank you for hearing me out through my own verbal static.