Will the War in Gaza Ignite the Middle East?..Israel and Iran On a Collision Course

https://apnews.com/article/iran-1953-coup-cia-218323db3cc1aca6bde1e54827527e8d
CIA publicly acknowledges 1953 coup it backed in Iran was undemocratic as it revisits ‘Argo’ rescue

 

Overtaken by scholarship.

 

your source:
ON JUNE 23, 1953, the CIA plan code-named TP-AJAX was approved by Eisenhower. The coup that would prove a source of contention was remarkably simple.

And I said the CIA admitted to this.


Well well...

 

As this truce takes effect, the sheer magnitude of Israel's crimes in Gaza, juxtaposed against meager to minimal damage to the actual group (Hamas) it was actually supposed to be fighting, will leave Israel more isolated, less able to continue with its oppression and lies, and more fundamentally and comprehensively defeated, than any time in its history. That is how I see it, even if I can't dismiss out of hand the various scenarios Al Jazeera has mapped below either:

 

Al Jazeera is naive or stupid with this graph.

Very disappointed.

1. It doesn’t matter if Israel or Hamas breaks the cease fire. Israel will say Hamas did it. Israel doesn’t have credibility, it has supporters. These supporters England, Germany, and the U.S. will support Israel no matter what. There is no Reagan in the White House. No one is going to hold Israel’s feet to the fire when they break the cease fire.

2. They are Palestinian captives, they have not been given due process nor have they ever had civil rights under Israeli law. Not a PR victory for Net.

3. The extended peace involves a violation of the truce by Israel?

The chart is not the reality of the situation.

 

Yes. The point is that recent scholarship makes clear the coup plan was irrelevant to events. Eisenhower approved it. The CIA admitted it. None of that mattered.

 

It would be a good thing that both sides cease fire to release some of the hostages and prisoner from both sides. The young children and many of the women should be released and kept out of danger of all this. It isn't right to kidnap women and children during this war and in the battles out there.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveb...n-ocean-us-defense-official-says-no-injuries/
Israeli-owned ship attacked by Iranian drone in Indian Ocean, US defense official says; no injuries

Some excerpts also from the original AP report:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-p...-attack-symi-39929cae42a191b2f242896a053123a7

 

I should mention that while the US has decided to publicize the attack now, the attack on the Israeli ship actually took place a couple of days ago before the truce between Hamas and Israel went into effect.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/midd...indian-ocean-attacked-by-iranian-drone-report

 

The long standing pro Israel and Israeli plan to push the US across the Rubicon (so to speak), and take direct military action against Iran, is in full swing. All you need is to listen to and read the plethora of embedded talking heads, columnists and other agents of theirs, this weekend all reading from the same talking points. Their purported objective not to start a full blown war but to exact greater "punishing deterrence". A couple of decades ago when they first outlined their plans, they saw these sort of military attacks as "sanction-enhancers" to go along with the "punishing sanctions" they were then advocating and charting. All part of their "implosion" agenda for Iran.

Even though I have mentioned that Iran is indeed at its nadir domestically, I very much doubt Iran won't react with full fury to any such attack. In any case, while my real hope is to see the pro Israel lobby fully dismantled and for these liars to be sent to the psychiatric wards they belong to, if it comes to any sort of a military attack, I prefer a furious full scale war to the finish than many more years of more lies being entrenched into the fabric of public discourse across the globe, aimed to justify bringing more hardships, misery and less hope for the Iranian people. All as these groups continue their march to bring about Iran's long planned "implosion." The latter agenda more corrosive and costlier to the character of both sides than the former, which although tragic, would be more akin to an earthquake or other natural disaster from whose ashes people can still hope to rebuild for a brighter future.

 

The US political establishment is split on Iran, with some factions leaning towards an Obama-like "we can be friends with (or pay off) Iran" and other factions regarding Iran as a terrorist state that's a threat to Israel, and therefore must be opposed and their government overthrown.

Which makes me think that inaction, rather than any sort of overt aggressive military action is more likely. Although a lot of that depends on Iran. They have been attacking the US through it's proxies, and the US has been firing back, at it's proxies. If Iran decides to go after the US overtly, that will be the ammunition the anti Iran factions need to give you that "furious full scale war to the finish."

To my mind, the smart move for Iran is to simply cool their jets and wait out the current Israeli-Hamas crisis. To even a casual observer to the American political scene, the high, sacred place that Israel has held with the American political establishment is on the wane. In a decade, those pro Israel Democratic politicians and staffers in the State Department will be dead of old age or retired, and the AOC's, Ilhan Omar's, and Rashida Talib's will be running things. They have a more "from the river to the sea" view of Israel and that will likely be where the American political scene will be.

The problem is that it might be too difficult to sit this crisis out. I'm sure there is a lot popular support inside Iran as well as government support to do something. The pressure may be too much to avoid that "furious full scale war to the finish" you desire.

 

There is pressure on the Israeli leadership not to be so gentle with Hamas.
Benjamin Netanyahu, moderate
By Jason Willick

Israel’s hostage deal with Hamas put Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at odds with his far-right coalition partners. Under the agreement, applauded and partly brokered by the Biden administration, Hamas will free some 50 hostages abducted on Oct. 7 in exchange for a four-day cease-fire and the release of about 150 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. Israeli cabinet ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich initially opposed the deal as excessively lenient toward Hamas, with Ben Gvir calling it a “disaster,” though Smotrich ultimately voted in favor.

This cleavage between Netanyahu and the hard right highlights an overlooked pattern in the international debate about the war in Gaza: Netanyahu has often steered Israel in a more moderate direction since Hamas’s Oct. 7 rampage. He has followed the lead of the Biden administration more than right-wing Israeli opinion. Indeed, some of Netanyahu’s moderate impulses arguably helped create the conditions for the Hamas attack in the first place. There are lessons here for Washington as it tries to influence Israeli strategy in the future.

The debate in the West is whether Israel’s response to Hamas’s massacres has been excessive. But the debate in Israel has more often been whether the response is sufficient. Israeli military planners initially foresaw a large-scale ground offensive across the entire Gaza Strip, but Netanyahu ultimately approved a smaller operation focusing first on Gaza’s north. The prime minister delayed the invasion for nearly three weeks after the Hamas attack as the Biden administration persuaded it to adopt more-tailored plans for its ground war. . . .

 

My preference is to see an end to the campaign aimed to bring about an implosion in Iran, carried out through a panoply of means most people are simply unaware of, with economic sanctions only a part of the larger whole. I find Iran risking a full scale war preferable. The former (policies aimed at bringing an implosion) is very corrosive and doesn't offer much hope at the end of the tunnel. That is a bigger concern for me than the Palestinian issue or even the risk of full scale war with Iran. Not that the prospects of the latter are all that inviting either, but still better than the path that can lead to an implosion (civil war) in Iran eventually.

 

There are reports about the Houthis seizing another Israeli vessel:

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/afr...ker-seized-yemen-unidentified-armed-attackers
Israel-linked tanker seized off Yemen by unidentified armed attackers

 

As I mentioned very early into the conflict, Israel will find itself trapped by its own fanciful rhetoric and propaganda.

 

In case it was not mentioned, your mentioning of the above has already proven to be the very rhetoric and propaganda you accuse "Israel" of and if anything you've trapped yourself into a transparent, fixed, rigid, inaccurate analysis based on your personal biases specifically your pro Iranian Muslim Council and Hezbollah version of Shiite Islam. You don't even reflect most Iranian citizens who want to be free of the Council and reject the rhetoric you cling to.

Lol your need to piss on Israel to deflect from the internal conflict in Iran means what? You forgot to mention that conflict?

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202302036145

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202302266149

 

Again, the demographic change in US establishment means that, if you are willing to wait, those sanctions will be lifted in time anyway. I can't imagine why you think an all out war would be better than that, unless you think the effect of those sanctions; some sort of civil war, is likely sooner than the US change of heart.

 

Israel is a democratic state with free speech, so the views of Israel's people will influence policy.

 

Can you define what "democratic state" and "free speech" mean to you?

 

You haven't got the slightest clue about my personal biases, which have nothing to do with any "Muslim Council" nor based on anything that might be called a "Hezbollah version of Shiite Islam." ...

I have mentioned Iran is at its "nadir domestically" and that assessment of mine isn't based on dubious polls cited by an anti-regime, foreign funded, propaganda outfit like "Iran International". The problem I see isn't dissatisfaction or disillusionment with the regime (which is at an all time high), but the lack of any viable alternative which can genuinely claim even support of the numbers that still support the regime. The best thing going for the regime, in fact, are those who have been most supported in opposition to it -- as well as the stance (and questionable associations) these groups have been advocating. Most Iranians are not in favor of those groups who have been advocating making their lives miserable through sanctions (in hopes they might revolt against the regime). The few who are in favor of such tactics are a small minority who don't have to pay the price for these tactics.

 

The influence they will exercise is to merely tighten the trap further. Israel won't be able to bomb itself out of this mess. And if it was willing to pay even the 'down payment' for some of its fanciful and lofty objectives, it would have at least committed a ground force (and taken a military posture) commensurate with the task.

 

We shall see.

 

In the Middle East Israel is the only example.

 

If Israel takes out Iran Israel will win praise from Americans who remember the Iranian hostage crisis. It would be a good idea to deal with Iran when Israel has nukes, and Iran does not.

I hope Israel takes advantage of the situation to re occupy Gaza, and ethnically cleanse it.

Adolf Hitler put it well when he wrote in Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter IV, "Munich," "The acquisition of new land and soil for the settling of the superfluous population has no end of advantages."

 

So, you aren't able to define it interesting . . . It's just whatever you want it to be?