Middle East and North Africa 19

[Clueless Northman]

Indeed, if the deal seems ok to other countries, they will just cancel any existing sanction, whatever the US Congress does. Then, it'll be US businesses who will suffer because they can't deal with Iran, while Europe and Asia will have a field day.

[Mr Fixit]

I genuinely find it hard to get my head around what the anti-deal Democrats think they'd get out of torpedoing this. There's nothing else on the table, and if this deal goes down the sanctions coalition that made any of this possible unravels. This is as good a deal as anyone is going to get and a damn sight less expensive and risky than any other option.

Well, they'd get that the chief Middle-Eastern bogeyman stays bogeyman for the foreseeable future so that US ME policy wouldn't have to change to accept an inconvenient new reality. The Iranian nuclear program was never really the true problem anyway.

[Horza]

Well, they'd get that the chief Middle-Eastern bogeyman stays bogeyman for the foreseeable future so that US ME policy wouldn't have to change to accept an inconvenient new reality. The Iranian nuclear program was never really the true problem anyway.

I don't know why that matters though. As far as I can tell their arguments are a melange of lazy hawkishness, lobbying from all Iran's well-wishers dissolved into a big tub of Senatorial self-importance.

[Shryke]

Bibi is against the deal, so it by definition must be a good thing.

[Biglose]

Bibi is against the deal, so it by definition must be a good thing.

Everyone in Israel is more or less against the deal. And for the love of the truth, from their perspective it is correct.

Of course the money we will be giving to iran (frozen assets etc) will be used towards terrorism or "freedomfighters" however you want to call it.

The ugly truth behind it is, that the west needs those "terrorists" to fight the terrorists of ISIS. They have become more or less the boots on the ground. So if for every dollar which goes towards "fighting" israel, ninety-nine are going towards fighting ISIS (And thats a low estimate considering how by a long shot ISIS is a far, far, far more direct concern to Iran compared to Israel which is more or less a retoric element) , it is not that bad from a US perspective who wants to get out of the middle east and wants the Iraq fuck up to be contained. And most europeen countries (espacially the population) thinks that israel should have made peace with the palestinians a long time ago, so support for them is not really a deal breaker, either.

Indeed, if the deal seems ok to other countries, they will just cancel any existing sanction, whatever the US Congress does. Then, it'll be US businesses who will suffer because they can't deal with Iran, while Europe and Asia will have a field day.

Generally correct, but not that easy. Of course the US could pessure other countries in upholding the sanctions, it would just be very hard and some countries which are not that close aligned with the US might not follow. But it is not a fight between the US and the rest of the world, it is a fight between Congress and the President of the United States.Generally Obama can kind of fuck congress over, if he just puts the deal in front of the UN. Then a next president could still revoke the deal, but he or she would be in violation of international law. Which is something you do not do too lightly. (Espacially since it would call the reliance of the word of the USA into question)

So truth be told: Obama holds in this negotiation nearly all the cards. So he does not need to compromise(he will probably still do something to smoth things over with Israel a bit, probably send them more guns, just to prevent it from becoming too much of an issue in the presidential elections). It burns down to: They lost, he won. Simply put. If his victory is good for the world, as always only time will show.

[The guy from the Vale]

Everyone in Israel is more or less against the deal. And for the love of the truth, from their perspective it is correct.

Of course the money we will be giving to iran (frozen assets etc) will be used towards terrorism or "freedomfighters" however you want to call it.

The ugly truth behind it is, that the west needs those "terrorists" to fight the terrorists of ISIS. They have become more or less the boots on the ground. So if for every dollar which goes towards "fighting" israel, ninety-nine are going towards fighting ISIS (And thats a low estimate considering how by a long shot ISIS is a far, far, far more direct concern to Iran compared to Israel which is more or less a retoric element) , it is not that bad from a US perspective who wants to get out of the middle east and wants the Iraq fuck up to be contained. And most europeen countries (espacially the population) thinks that israel should have made peace with the palestinians a long time ago, so support for them is not really a deal breaker, either.

Generally correct, but not that easy. Of course the US could pessure other countries in upholding the sanctions, it would just be very hard and some countries which are not that close aligned with the US might not follow. But it is not a fight between the US and the rest of the world, it is a fight between Congress and the President of the United States.Generally Obama can kind of fuck congress over, if he just puts the deal in front of the UN. Then a next president could still revoke the deal, but he or she would be in violation of international law. Which is something you do not do too lightly. (Espacially since it would call the reliance of the word of the USA into question)

So truth be told: Obama holds in this negotiation nearly all the cards. So he does not need to compromise(he will probably still do something to smoth things over with Israel a bit, probably send them more guns, just to prevent it from becoming too much of an issue in the presidential elections). It burns down to: They lost, he won. Simply put. If his victory is good for the world, as always only time will show.

 

 

But the same calculation should be even more important to Israel, as ISIS is a far bigger threat to them right now than Hezbullah might ever hope to be.

[Biglose]

 

 

But the same calculation should be even more important to Israel, as ISIS is a far bigger threat to them right now than Hezbullah might ever hope to be.

No it is not. ISIS is a threat primarly for Europe and secondary for the US. A few more attacks like Paris and we might end up in a civil war. Jihadist returning to germany also threaten US installations and US soldiers, as has been demonstrated int the past. Israel has already a big terrorist problem, if ISIS or Hamas shoots rockets, what does it matter?

[Alarich]

ISIS is a problem for Syria and Iraq. Not for Israel. Strengthening Hezbollah to fight ISIS means that in the event of a successful campaign, they can use that strength agains Israel. The problem here is that the obvious solution (peace with the Palestinians, two-states etc.) is off the table under the current government in Israel. Israel want's to keep the status quo as colonial power.

With the deal, Iran will be able to have greater influence in the region - for those who find their hegemonial status threatened by a new big player (Saudi-Arabia, Israel), the deal is a bad one.

 

ETA: With the withdrawal of US troops, someone will have to fill the power vacuum. Iran is the natural and most obvious choice.

[Horza]

ISIS is a problem for Syria and Iraq. Not for Israel. Strengthening Hezbollah to fight ISIS means that in the event of a successful campaign, they can use that strength agains Israel. The problem here is that the obvious solution (peace with the Palestinians, two-states etc.) is off the table under the current government in Israel. Israel want's to keep the status quo as colonial power.

With the deal, Iran will be able to have greater influence in the region - for those who find their hegemonial status threatened by a new big player (Saudi-Arabia, Israel), the deal is a bad one.

 

Pretty much. I'd only add the caveat that this war has cost Hezbollah a lot in terms of respect in the Arab world and experienced commanders without providing much in the way of lessons for fighting the Israeli army.

In general the Tehran-Riyadh proxy conflict and the rise of ISIS has been strategically positive for Israel, it has divided and weakened potential adversaries and provided openings for co-operation with the anti-Iran coalition. The extinguishing of the Arab Spring flame has seen the return of a comfortable dictatorial status quo and muffled the voices of Arab public opinion. In such an environment the Iran deal is almost palatable.

[The guy from the Vale]

@Biglose:

 

Civil war in Europe because of ISIS? That makes just about no sense whatsoever. Who would be fighting in that? The 2% of EU inhabitants who are Muslims, the vast majority of whom are as terrified of ISIS as the rest of us?

 

@Alarich and Biglose: 

 

At the same time, I'd like to remind you what the secondary target during the Charlie attack was: a kosher supermarket. Israel is also seen as an extension of the West into the Middle East, so it's a target for ISIS... and it shares a border with Syria. Attacking Israel would also bolster ISIS' legitimacy amongst Islamists. If Israel thinks Iran is a bigger threat than ISIS, then its' risk assessment is terribly flawed.

[Horza]

If ISIS were to start going after Israel it is much more likely to operate out of Gaza, the West Bank or Sinai than Syria. The Golan Heights are heavily fortified and the area is contested by the pro-Western Southern Front and Nusra-aligned Jaish el-Fateh (South), neither of whom have any love for ISIS.

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, all of these alternatives should worry Israel, too. Moreso than Hezbullah attacks when the latter are weakened by the Syrian civil war. I just don't see how Israel's politicians can consider Iran an immediate threat when even the former chief of Mossad says they're not while ignoring ISIS who have both more of an incentive and more of an opportunity of attacking Israel directly.

[Axes]

Well, all of these alternatives should worry Israel, too. Moreso than Hezbullah attacks when the latter are weakened by the Syrian civil war. I just don't see how Israel's politicians can consider Iran an immediate threat when even the former chief of Mossad says they're not while ignoring ISIS who have both more of an incentive and more of an opportunity of attacking Israel directly.

 

 

 

Because ISIS are not an existential threat, and are opposed by practically the whole middle-east (at least, formally). If they try to take on the IDF on the ground they will be devastated, which is why they are ignoring countries like Israel or Turkey. They will eventually be either contained or destroyed anyway. Compare this with a powerful nation state like Iran for with large natural resources and a regime that, at least formally, will accept little less than the destruction of Israel as a state, regardless of the existence or lack of a peace process with the Palestinians, then it would make at least some Israeli's see them as the bigger threat.

[Biglose]

@Biglose:

 

Civil war in Europe because of ISIS? That makes just about no sense whatsoever. Who would be fighting in that? The 2% of EU inhabitants who are Muslims, the vast majority of whom are as terrified of ISIS as the rest of us?

 

In Europe does not mean in every part of europe. But what do you think will happen in France for example? Sure it does not need a to become a full blown civil war, but just imagine the secondary consequences if for example marie le pen becomes president of france and the pegida or whatever the name would be then gets into the parliament in germany in the double digits. Sweden is also a candidate that might be in trouble.

And do not forget Great Britain. ISIS more or less threatens the political powers to be in europe. Sure, europe probably won't become a califat, but a strong shift to the right threatens those powers in the same way.

 

At the same time, I'd like to remind you what the secondary target during the Charlie attack was: a kosher supermarket. Israel is also seen as an extension of the West into the Middle East, so it's a target for ISIS... and it shares a border with Syria. Attacking Israel would also bolster ISIS' legitimacy amongst Islamists. If Israel thinks Iran is a bigger threat than ISIS, then its' risk assessment is terribly flawed.

This is wishful thinking. You want that israel sees ISIS as the bigger threat. So you bend your argument around that outcome. ISIS is fighting the enemies of Israel, if they like it or not. ISIS has no international standing. And the existance of ISIS more or less gets the west to accept a Kurdish state (against the wishes of Nato member turkey).

And every non-Arabic state in the middle east is a big win for Israel. Sure they hate jews, but they are no threat to Israel.

[The guy from the Vale]

Civil war you said, and civil war is almost impossible, even in France. The highest estimates put Muslims at 10% of the French population - and, again, many of them are definitely anti-IS (during the Paris attacks, two French Muslims were amongst the greatest heroes against the terrorists). So at most, you have something like 5% of all French on one side against 95% of the French as well as most of the EU on the other side.

Nice to see you backtracking though.

 

Iran is a non-Arabic state in the Middle East...

I just don't see where the idea that Iran is the single most pressing threat to Israel has any founding in reality. Sure, the rhetoric is there, but that goes both ways, really. And most Arabic states in the region are worse in that respect, not better. Again, Meir Dagan, former director of Mossad, considers the Iranian regime "very rational", and compared to the other countries in the region, I'm inclined to agree.

[Horza]

Iran is a non-Arabic state in the Middle East...

I just don't see where the idea that Iran is the single most pressing threat to Israel has any founding in reality. Sure, the rhetoric is there, but that goes both ways, really. And most Arabic states in the region are worse in that respect, not better. Again, Meir Dagan, former director of Mossad, considers the Iranian regime "very rational", and compared to the other countries in the region, I'm inclined to agree.

 

I agree with Meir Dagan (and many others in the Israeli defence/intelligence world) that Iran isn't an irrational actor and isn't an imminent threat to Israel. Netanyahu and most of the Israeli political class are talking rubbish when they say otherwise. But that's not neccesarily incompatible with Iran being the country most likely to imperil Israeli security in the near and longer future. At the most basic level Iran is 1) a regional power that 2) doesn't like Israel and 3) isn't a strategic partner or otherwise dependent on the US, making it automatically a larger threat relative to any other country, even if the scale and likelyhood of such a threat is low.

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, yes, but bringing Iran into the West-friendly fold is also a chance to actually eliminate a threat without having to fight them in the first place. 

[Biglose]

Civil war you said, and civil war is almost impossible, even in France. The highest estimates put Muslims at 10% of the French population - and, again, many of them are definitely anti-IS (during the Paris attacks, two French Muslims were amongst the greatest heroes against the terrorists). So at most, you have something like 5% of all French on one side against 95% of the French as well as most of the EU on the other side.

Nice to see you backtracking though.

 

 

The comment was made in correlation with the thread to israel. And as it stands right now, the chance of some sort of civil war caused by ISIS in Europe is higher than the direct threat they pose to israel.

And no, there of course will be fraction, or would you join up with Neonazis? Terror tends to divide a society.
 

Iran is a non-Arabic state in the Middle East...

I just don't see where the idea that Iran is the single most pressing threat to Israel has any founding in reality. Sure, the rhetoric is there, but that goes both ways, really. And most Arabic states in the region are worse in that respect, not better. Again, Meir Dagan, former director of Mossad, considers the Iranian regime "very rational", and compared to the other countries in the region, I'm inclined to agree.

And one can have very rational enemies. If you are on the same side, it is of course very important that your ally is rational and not insane. But if you are talking about a person wanting to kill you, well....What does it matter ? Why Iran is most pressing? Because Iran is one of the most powerful and its power is growing. And it will start growing significantly with lifted sanction. This endangers Israels military superiority. Simple as that. ISIS will not become powerful. They will make the life of the people living under their regime a hell on earth, but they will never build an Airforce or anything in this direction.

 

What shell they do? Send a thousand teenagers with suicide wests running towards israel?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Axes,

 Because ISIS are not an existential threat, and are opposed by practically the whole middle-east (at least, formally). If they try to take on the IDF on the ground they will be devastated, which is why they are ignoring countries like Israel or Turkey. They will eventually be either contained or destroyed anyway. Compare this with a powerful nation state like Iran for with large natural resources and a regime that, at least formally, will accept little less than the destruction of Israel as a state, regardless of the existence or lack of a peace process with the Palestinians, then it would make at least some Israeli's see them as the bigger threat.

The Daesh have more staying power than I'd have oroginally anticipated. While they aren't as strong as a full Nation-State they aren't weak as I'd have anticipated. They've been pretty resiliant under sustained attack. I don't think they should be lightly dismissed.

[Alarich]

Iran has a big population, well educated too. It has large natural ressources and sits in an important geo-strategical spot. They stood their ground in a long war with US-backed Iraq. They have everything you need to become an important regional power.

If the sanctions are lifted, Iran can make much better use of its ressources and this will upset the status quo. Those who profit from the status quo (Israel, Saudi-Arabia) are therefore against it.