Objectively intelligent.

[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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

It is amazing how well the memory of the Mossadegh coup and the installation of the Shah as our proxy has remained alive and at the front of peoples' minds, not just in Iran but the whole Middle East. It is referred to constantly. I think the last beg seismic event in the US that is comparable is probably the Civil War.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

Not sure why you're absolving the French of responsibility, but yes, the current issues in the regime date to the decline of the Ottomans.

They weren't dim-witted, though. They were drawing lines to suit their interests, not the interests of locals. That's how imperialism works.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Not sure why you're absolving the French of responsibility, but yes, the current issues in the regime date to the decline of the Ottomans.

They weren't dim-witted, though. They were drawing lines to suit their interests, not the interests of locals. That's how imperialism works.

The Ottomans were no piece of cake, either, but arguments and territory and populations exchanges between Turks, Arabs, and Persians (with a few Greeks, Balkans, and assorted others thrown in) went on for 1000 years before France and England showed up and joined the party.

There is some degree to which western imperialism wasn't all that different from preceding forms. The Brits are much less special than they think they are.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There is some degree to which western imperialism wasn't all that different from preceding forms. The Brits are much less special than they think they are.

They were a more nuanced, dressed up, and detached form of ruthlessness than prior imperialists. The Nazis are credited with mechanizing evil to banality, and the Brits were certainly not on par, but the cruelty they dished out under the guise of civilizing others is on the same continuum.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

If you want to talk about the big picture, there is a longstanding rivalry in the Persian Gulf between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi'a Iran, and we side with the Saudis.