Apparently out of this joint to boot -
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Apparently out of this joint to boot -
Some in the EU, , are calling for negotiaons with Iran, meanwhile France recently said it wants to a Palestinian state.
Now, Iran's expansionist mentality has already been curbed, which the Middle East, Europe, and maybe China like, but a pro-US tilt is dangerous for all of them. Just look at the map, the GCC, Turks (not only Turkey), and Pakistanis do not want to be caught in a vice by an alliance of Israel, Iran, India, and if Trump has his wish, Russia. China and the EU also don't want that.
China doesn't want obstructions from the only side it has almost complete freedom to operate in. There's disputes even with ASEAN in the South China Sea, but none with Pakistan or any other Stan for that matter.
Also, China's strategy since Mao is not to confront the US except through a buffer zone, like Korea & Vietnam. Now that the buffer extends all the way to the EU's border, the US wants to go for the weakest link; Iran. If Iran shifts orientation, Russia might start having second thoughts.
Do either China, the EU, or the countires in the middle who connect them want this? No.
The easiest way for all these actors to curb US designs is a less expansionist Iran & Israel. An Iranian deal plus a Palestinian state would achieve that.
Which is what the links above might indicate. If not possible, the EU will want a quick shock and awe vs Iran and then pivot to 2-state solution. Worst case for them is protracted conflict because it distracts from Ukraine.
Russia on the other hand totally wants a weak EU, and an Iran war would do it. But, Putin might not trust that a deal with Trump outlasts the next election. Also Russian ties with China are getting stronger over time. I think this explains Putin's hestiance.
As a final point, and either think they're next or that a falling Iran is really bad for them, and the GCC is without cover if that happens. Where would China be at the end of that chain? So all have zero incentive to let Iran completely fall.
Now, Iran's expansionist mentality has already been curbed, which the Middle East, Europe, and maybe China like, but a pro-US tilt is dangerous for all of them. Just look at the map, the GCC, Turks (not only Turkey), and Pakistanis do not want to be caught in a vice by an alliance of Israel, Iran, India, and if Trump has his wish, Russia. China and the EU also don't want that.
China doesn't want obstructions from the only side it has almost complete freedom to operate in. There's disputes even with ASEAN in the South China Sea, but none with Pakistan or any other Stan for that matter.
Also, China's strategy since Mao is not to confront the US except through a buffer zone, like Korea & Vietnam. Now that the buffer extends all the way to the EU's border, the US wants to go for the weakest link; Iran. If Iran shifts orientation, Russia might start having second thoughts.
Do either China, the EU, or the countires in the middle who connect them want this? No.
The easiest way for all these actors to curb US designs is a less expansionist Iran & Israel. An Iranian deal plus a Palestinian state would achieve that.
Which is what the links above might indicate. If not possible, the EU will want a quick shock and awe vs Iran and then pivot to 2-state solution. Worst case for them is protracted conflict because it distracts from Ukraine.
Russia on the other hand totally wants a weak EU, and an Iran war would do it. But, Putin might not trust that a deal with Trump outlasts the next election. Also Russian ties with China are getting stronger over time. I think this explains Putin's hestiance.
As a final point, and either think they're next or that a falling Iran is really bad for them, and the GCC is without cover if that happens. Where would China be at the end of that chain? So all have zero incentive to let Iran completely fall.
Like the Minnesota shooter who has degrees in "Leadership" and other nonsense majors like "Int'l Condiment Sandwich Spreading ",or "High-Altitude Cat Herding"-IIRC DHS Krist Noem (Psycho-dressup Barbie)has similar "accreditation.
Lethe
Captain
If you read the author bio, Tellis is no mere journalist but has at least been in the vicinity of the American policy-making process towards India. His perspective is representative of how Washington has thought about India in the 21st century. At root this essay is venting Washington's frustration that New Delhi does not perceive itself and its own interests as Washington would like.
The essay's many references to unipolarity and multipolarity are red herrings that obfuscate the real points of contention. To speak of a preference for multipolarity makes as much sense as speaking of a preference for gravity. These are states of affairs that exist or emerge independently of our attitude towards them. Put crudely, Washington wants India to bend the knee in submission and take its place within the American hegemonic firmament, as the nations of Europe and Japan did after WW2. India has consistently refused to do this, in large part because it sees itself as representing a great civilization that will continue to write its own chapter in the book of human history. One consequence of this outlook is that India continues to cultivate relationships even with nations that the west has declared persona non grata such as Iran and, most importantly, Russia, whilst simultaneously declining to enter into binding arrangements with the United States (or anyone else) that infringe upon national sovereignty.
Note the essay's brief references to the generic "rancor" of the Cold War era, as if this is a subject too complicated to go into, rather than having been a fairly simple dynamic of one party (the United States) refusing to deal with the other except on terms of complete submission (i.e. abandoning non-alignment, ending relations with the Soviet Union, opening markets to American corporations). These complaints are nothing new: Washington has despised India for its unwarranted pride from the very beginning.
Much of the essay seeks to play on India's anxiety about China and the divergent development paths of the two nations to argue that India can't afford not to submit to the United States, but I think that misreads the basic nature of the phenomenon. What matters at root is a belief amongst the establishment in the dignity, cultural distinctiveness and unique destiny of the nation. Assessments of material power can inform those narratives indirectly, but they are not compelling in and of themselves. That India is not in China's league and has no medium-term prospect of closing the gap is relevant to that self-image, and surely much of the Indian establishment is indeed in need of a reality check on that score, but I don't think it is the kind of revelation that would compel India to look more favourably upon deeper enmeshment with the United States. If anything, it's a spur to internal reform and long-term planning. More short-term pragmatism might be part of that, including in ways that satisfy Washington, but it would not produce any fundamental realignment.
Since this mentions China, I'll post it here. But it seems NYTimes editorial board has given the order to its journalists to start manufactering consent to liberal Americans of the benefits of the USA going to war with Iran.
I got to say, even 6 months into the Trump presidency liberals continue to have terrible optics. At the very least Republicans sell a message of holy war to its evangelical base. Democrats justifying the potential deaths of hundreds to even thousands of American soldiers, is that its worth it because it'll make China look bad, wow.
I got to say, even 6 months into the Trump presidency liberals continue to have terrible optics. At the very least Republicans sell a message of holy war to its evangelical base. Democrats justifying the potential deaths of hundreds to even thousands of American soldiers, is that its worth it because it'll make China look bad, wow.
No, International Relations is a real major.
Moreover, this school has produced not only diplomat Qin gang and scholar Yan xuetong, but also our beloved Guancha host Shilao. This incident merely reflects the current dilemma faced by the school (where some students show no interest in their major or related real-world events, and are unlikely to pursue careers in relevant fields in the future.).
Let's not aim the wrong thing.
supercat
Colonel
Here is the archived version:
Sure, go ahead. Get stuck in another quagmire in Iran.
Iran finally learned some lessons.
China's negotiations with the Trump regime is going nowhere.
The New York Times is wishcasting again.
If India could at least do its job properly then maybe Uncle Sam would be willing to look the other way. But imaging having some guy that can't do his job but keeps yapping none stop. Given how anti-employee America is right now, thats a huge no.