Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bolton got his Christmas wish with that strike on the Iranian general.

God only knows how this will work out.

The one positive thing I had to say about 45 was the he seemed to be resisting influences like Bolton to avoid escalating against Iran. So much for that. I guess the opportunity to push his other problems out of the headlines, give a potential witness against him something he wanted, lure the media into it's usual war-backing and kill some bad guys was too strong.

Yeah, that isn't surprising.

Apparently these were actually bad - I'll admit to having never heard of them awhile they were alive - but this is going to get ugly in the best case scenario (i.e., Iranian retaliation that doesn't spark further escalation) and very ugly in the likely bad scenario (i.e., renewed regional war).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

The one positive thing I had to say about 45 was the he seemed to be resisting influences like Bolton to avoid escalating against Iran. So much for that. I guess the opportunity to push his other problems out of the headlines, give a potential witness against him something he wanted, lure the media into it's usual war-backing and kill some bad guys was too strong.

Yeah, that isn't surprising.

Apparently these were actually bad - I'll admit to having never heard of them awhile they were alive - but this is going to get ugly in the best case scenario (i.e., Iranian retaliation that doesn't spark further escalation) and very ugly in the likely bad scenario (i.e., renewed regional war).

I think a more long range worst case scenario is the rulers in Iran finding a way to use the death of this figure to gin up nationalism and hatred for the US among a population that is not anti-US or anti-Western.

I'm all for killing the degenerate hard liners who rule Iran. Nobody anywhere wants them in power. The world hates them; most of their own people hate them. But the calculation Bush and Obama made was that to engage in aggression against the country in any manner could give the rulers an issue around which to rally the people. The rulers are currently pretty desperate, as we've really strangled their economy. They were praying for a reaction like Trump's. Lets hope the population sees through the propaganda of the rulers and rejects efforts to stoke up nationalism.

And let's hope Iran doesn't react in a manner that results in Trump inviting Wolfowitz and Perle to the White House to provide advice.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think a more long range worst case scenario is the rulers in Iran finding a way to use the death of this figure to gin up nationalism and hatred for the US among a population that is not anti-US or anti-Western.

I'm all for killing the degenerate hard liners who rule Iran. Nobody anywhere wants them in power. The world hates them; most of their own people hate them. But the calculation Bush and Obama made was that to engage in aggression against the country in any manner could give the rulers an issue around which to rally the people. The rulers are currently pretty desperate, as we've really strangled their economy. They were praying for a reaction like Trump's. Lets hope the population sees through the propaganda of the rulers and rejects efforts to stoke up nationalism.

And let's hope Iran doesn't react in a manner that results in Trump inviting Wolfowitz and Perle to the White House to provide advice.

Here's my long-term worst case scenario: Somewhere along the way, the autocrats in Turkey, Iran, and Arabia decide to carve up the Middle East among themselves and to hell with it. Iran gets Iraq, Kuwait, and Azerbaijan, and a green light to do what they will in Central Asia, the Sauds get Yemen, Oman, the gulf states, and Jordan, and get a free hand in Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti, and Turkey gets Syria, Lebanon, Armenia and Georgia, and a free hand in the Caucuses' and the Black Sea basin in general, as well as Cyprus, and then Turkey and the Saud's split Egypt (Turkey gets Alexandria and Cairo but the Saud's have the Suez and lower Egypt).

Each of those countries would be roughly as populous or more populous and at least as wealthy as Russia to the North and otherwise all would be bordered by significantly weaker countries in the Balkans, Africa, and Central Asia.

Sykes and Picot aren't the only ones with crayons.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's my long-term worst case scenario: Somewhere along the way, the autocrats in Turkey, Iran, and Arabia decide to carve up the Middle East among themselves and to hell with it. Iran gets Iraq, Kuwait, and Azerbaijan, and a green light to do what they will in Central Asia, the Sauds get Yemen, Oman, the gulf states, and Jordan, and get a free hand in Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti, and Turkey gets Syria, Lebanon, Armenia and Georgia, and a free hand in the Caucuses' and the Black Sea basin in general, as well as Cyprus, and then Turkey and the Saud's split Egypt (Turkey gets Alexandria and Cairo but the Saud's have the Suez and lower Egypt).

Each of those countries would be roughly as populous or more populous and at least as wealthy as Russia to the North and otherwise all would be bordered by significantly weaker countries in the Balkans, Africa, and Central Asia.

Sykes and Picot aren't the only ones with crayons.

Each of those countries sounds fractured, unstable and prone to civil war. You think the autocrats believe they can manage them?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Each of those countries sounds fractured, unstable and prone to civil war. You think the autocrats believe they can manage them?

Certainly.

I think the Autocrats all have their eyes on some degree of expansion already, but are generally opposing expansion by the others as they each want a dominant role as the main regional power. The big problem I suggest is that they could get together and expel the US and Russia by working together and each be better off than if they fight each other and play client state to the two external powers.

And at some point in history, each of those powers has occupied the territories I assign them and more.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I generally think assassination of another country's leaders is a bad idea, because it's unlikely to have strategic effect (the country just elevates another leader) and because it invites the same sort of response.

But what was Suleimani doing in Baghdad?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I generally think assassination of another country's leaders is a bad idea, because it's unlikely to have strategic effect (the country just elevates another leader) and because it invites the same sort of response.

But what was Suleimani doing in Baghdad?

Have you seen Andrew Exum's piece today?

He notes that they were regularly tracking Suleimani as he traveled between Syria and Iraq. Someone has to train all those militias.

I expect large portions of the Iraqi government welcomed his presence. Remember, Iran and the Shi'a militias played a big role in pushing Isis out.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

And at some point in history, each of those powers has occupied the territories I assign them and more.

Yes, but there are also reasons beyond "western" intervention why they don't anymore, and while not particularly applicable to those three, significantly changed international norms about what you're allowed to do to placate troublemakers since then.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think a more long range worst case scenario is the rulers in Iran finding a way to use the death of this figure to gin up nationalism and hatred for the US among a population that is not anti-US or anti-Western.

That would be whom?? I mean, we've done kinda a ton to the people of the region to earn that for ourselves.

I'm all for killing the degenerate hard liners who rule Iran. Nobody anywhere wants them in power.

I'm not. When have we ever been able to kill our way to foreign leadership that we liked better? Post-WW2 Japan, I guess, but are you ready for that scale of effort?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

That would be whom?? I mean, we've done kinda a ton to the people of the region to earn that for ourselves.

Iran is not a hard line society. It's a diverse group of normal people governed by hard liners. They're not anti-West. Quietly, socially, most of them behave like westerners.

I'm not. When have we ever been able to kill our way to foreign leadership that we liked better? Post-WW2 Japan, I guess, but are you ready for that scale of effort?

I was talking perfect world scenarios. It'd be great if we could just kill the hard liners and see them replaced by moderates. But that's not possible. I also meant it in the sense that I'm happy to see hard liners of any country who repress their people die. Preferably more slowly than by drone strike.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not. When have we ever been able to kill our way to foreign leadership that we liked better? Post-WW2 Japan, I guess, but are you ready for that scale of effort?

Vietnam. Cambodia. Laos. Colombia. Panama. Grenada. The Philippenes. Mexico. Or, Great Britain?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Vietnam. Cambodia. Laos. Colombia. Panama. Grenada. The Philippenes. Mexico. Or, Great Britain?

The Balkans.
Edited to remove WWII references.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Vietnam. Cambodia. Laos. Colombia. Panama. Grenada. The Philippenes. Mexico. Or, Great Britain?

You've got a good start going, but 1953 Iran needs to be on the list. Kermit Roosevelt actually paid both sides to get into a massive fight that left 300 dead in order to create a crisis and overthrow Mosadegh.

It's sort of like twitter battles between the Russian MAGA accounts and the Russian Bernie accounts, but with bodies.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

https://www.eurasiagroup.net/issues/Top-Risks-2020

Ian Bremmer is a bit like Fareed Zakaria, in that he's not usually saying anything terribly revelatory. But his selection of risks, organization of points, and economy of words makes his stuff a compelling read. I can't really disagree with or add to any of this.

Particularly insightful is the observation that populism is not peaking globally, but still in a building phase. Bremmer sees no 2020 risk of it impacting policy, but sees future risk as it continues to grow. I'd have liked to see him predict what it mutates into as it rambles forward. The fascinating thing about populism through history is it almost always fails because the component parts of it - differing groups with similar grievances but too diverse to fuse into a coalition - fail to transform into a serious political movement with concise policy demands. But that assessment/prediction is based on pre-Internet history. Domestically, the overlap between the Trump, Sanders, and Warren voters suggests an environment in which the right messaging, shrewd use of connective technology, and a candidate not as polarizing as any of them could bring a majority of voters in those camps into one tent. That'd be an actually formidable third party. But what would it look like?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You've got a good start going, but 1953 Iran needs to be on the list. Kermit Roosevelt actually paid both sides to get into a massive fight that left 300 dead in order to create a crisis and overthrow Mosadegh.

It's sort of like twitter battles between the Russian MAGA accounts and the Russian Bernie accounts, but with bodies.

There are some advantages to the shift to cyber warfare. For one, the CIA can create bots at 1/1000th the price of hiring local thugs.

More generally, why has there been no discussion of our role in creating the Iranian Revolution? Or the mess in Iraq?

If people are to understand the chain of events that caused Iran and Iraq to become the problem states they are today, we have to start with the dimwitted Brits' carving of boundaries. I believe it was Churchill who assessed Iraq as an ungovernable area of warring tribes long before its arbitrary boundaries were cut. That was the start of the shit show.

Few Americans would care to hear about how we installed the Shah, or understand that this stooge we installed over a democratically elected leader was a repressive incompetent who ruined the country's economy. And it's notable this favoring of a monarch would put them in a camp with Revolutionary Tories, no? Best to have a crown. The people can't think for themselves. But fuck all of that naysaying. Better to dust off the "Nuke Iran" stickers from '79.

That's not to say Trump was wrong. If Iran's leaders have to be checked, then check them. And few things send a message to the fundamentalist vermin who repress both the population and the valid, elected leaders of that country like killing a man who was basically their Secretary of State. And if Iraq's sovereignty must be breached to stanch Iran's influence, then do that too. Just be aware, you're possibly angering a population of Iranians who'd rather be your friends.

And as a disclaimer at the bottom of every story about Iran and Iraq, a recognition that this is a "We broke it, so we now own it" situation should be included. Khomeini didn't appear out of nowhere. He emerged from a nation we repressed. Iraq's Shi'a majority hasn't fallen in with the Iranians for no good reason. That accrues from our backing Hussein and the Ba'athists who persecuted the population of the country.

If we must act in our naked self interest, let's at least be honest about it.