Discussion about this post

User's avatar
uncle tungsten's avatar

1967 borders? and what of the Syrian lands in the Golan Heights. Are these to be yielded in exchange for a Palestine State? The zionists and outlaw U$ empire will apply their rules based order logic and whine and whinge until they have totally sabotaged every peace deal. My preference is to stick to the original UN mandate and not one stolen by force of arms. Give Lebanon and Syria a break from these mendacious zionist neighbours.

Thanks karlof, it is interesting to see some vague semblance of Arab and Iranian unity but the frenetic machinations of the 'rules based order' thugs will be hard at work imo.

Expand full comment
richardstevenhack's avatar

Response to Karl Sanchez' "BRICS+ Emergency Summit & Other Actions"

Alexander Mercouris believes that this movement will continue and influence the UN Security Council to pass a binding resolution against Israel. He says that this will take time but movement is there.

The problem with that, of course, is the previous Resolutions have been ignored by Israel and the US. And as long as the neocons run Washington, they will continue to be ignored. Therefore the probability is that the US will either veto or at best abstain from voting such a Resolution. What good is such a Resolution if the US is not willing to enforce it?

Mercouris, despite his sophisticated foreign policy knowledge, can be ridiculously naive at time. This is because he views the actions of the state as a "civilian" and "subject" to states. I as an anarchist can see states for what they are and can predict how they will behave.

There is the problem of actually implementing such a Resolution. As Karl has said in an earlier post, this can only be done with military force (or perhaps alternatively a severe economic blockade of Israel, which also amounts to an act of war.) The only actors in the region really capable of implementing such force are: 1) Hezbollah in Lebanon; 2) Turkey; 3) possibly Egypt in concert with other actors; 4) Iran.

The problem with THAT is that two of these entities are considered "terrorist" by the US and the EU, i.e., Hezbollah and Iran. And those are the two that really have the firepower to do damage to Israel from a distance (or very close in the case of Hezbollah.) Turkey also has the power but would have to move through Syria to get to Israel's borders.

The problem with either Hezbollah or Iran being involved is that the US neocons will attack either or both of them. Turkey is less likely to be attacked, being a NATO member, which would risk splitting NATO (not particularly a Bad Thing), but again, it would take some time to sort out the logistics and geopolitics of Turkey acting against Israel, whereas Hezbollah and Iran could immediately act.

There is another possibility: that Russia and China could present Israel with a fait accompli in the form of the threat of stand-off precision missile strikes on Israel's military, in particular Israel's nuclear arsenal. Russia's Kinzhal missiles could hit Israel from the Black Sea, and Russia undoubtedly knows where Israel's missile arsenal is hidden. Unless Israel has its missile arsenal organized in the same manner as Alastair Crooke discussed Iran's yesterday - scattered in independently operating units that could continue a war even if cut off from their HQ - Israel's threats to use nukes could be contained.

The problem with THAT is Israel's five German-designed diesel submarines which reportedly are armed with Popeye Turbo cruise missiles with 200-liloton nuclear warheads (how many per sub is unknown.) It is possible that Russia and China's attack subs could locate and neutralize those subs, but I suspect that is problematic.

And of course, the US response to such threats must be considered. Again, the neocons run the show. This is demonstrated by the fact that when the US claims to be "worried" that Israel is deliberately provoking Hezbollah to escalate the war, they send an Israeli-born, dual Israeli-US citizenship, low-level official to "discuss" the matter with Israel. I suspect they actually want Israel to escalate the northern conflict so the US can get involved and then extend the conflict to Iran. So the probability that the US will stand by as Russia and China threaten Israel is in my view next to nil.

This is a mess. The only option which does not almost immediately escalate to nuclear war is the economic blockade one. But even in that scenario, Israel could threaten it's "Samson Option" and threaten to nuke most of the major cities in the Middle East.

I see very few options which do not lead either immediately or within a relatively short time to WWIII.

Karl is right. The international community needs to condemn Israel explicitly as a genocidal terrorist state and directly compare the Zionist regime to the WWII Nazi Germany regime. Only then can sufficient amounts of force be directed against Israel.

The problem with THAT is geopolitics and diplomacy are not conducted in such language. So the international community will fritter about spending months trying to get a UN Resolution which will be ignored by both Israel and the US. The war will widen, Israel will begin to lose and then threaten its Samson Option.

It's going to be a major mess no matter what happens unless somehow the Israeli regime is forced from power internally, which, according to Crooke, is doubtful as support for Palestinian genocide is now rampant in the Israeli population.

Someone offer an alternative to this scenario. I can't see one.

Expand full comment
30 more comments...

No posts