@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
Do we have evidence that Iran was “within a month, even two weeks” of nuclear weapon capability, even ownership?
As well as the evidence @Hedgehog has just linked, there is the evidence in the New York Times link which I provided earlier. Israel argued that without an attack Iran could create a “shield of immunity” around the development its nuclear weapon capability.
That’s not what Trump is saying. And in that same link the CIA made nothing like that claim.
Do we have evidence that Iran was “within a month, even two weeks” of nuclear weapon capability, even ownership?
So what is the basis for his claim?
There's an excellent lecture by MIT professor Theodore Postol, who is a nuclear weapons expert, that explains why Iran has a nuclear deterrent right now without having refined uranium to the degree required to build a thermonuclear warhead.
It's an hour long lecture if you care to sit through it but his point is made in the first 20 minutes if you have the stomach to be thus far enlightened. I found it extremely uncomfortable to sit through myself.
Thanks AFF. Fascinating. Particularly the observation re the original US/Iran nuclear treaty.
I’m not entirely sure about the rapid underground transformation of Uranium hexafluoride to a uranium metal nugget but he could be right. It’s certainly true that the means of creation of small bombs to use fissile uranium is not that difficult and the design reasonably well known.
I suppose it’s also possible that the NY Times report is unclear about the rapidity of this risk and the comments on it.
The video does however give a bit more credibility to Trump’s “a month, maybe two weeks” scenario.
I guess it all depends on how accurately it portrays the Iranian capability in the tunnel. Perhaps the possible threat is more powerful than the execution?
Whatever AFF, that video link isn’t going to make sleep at night any easier.
A very interesting article on how the Trump administration is trying to use faith to justify the war in Iran. Using a msn link because the CNN article appears behind a paywall.
The designs for nuclear weapons are fairly well known in outline (some will even appear in text books). But, detailed designs needed to just assemble a bomb are going to be much harder for any state to obtain. Even with a detailed plan, a small bomb is not going to be easy to assemble, and will probably need to be tested. It gets easier the higher the enrichment level of uranium, probably anything below 80% is going to be useless for building a bomb (though it's theoretically possible), and above 90% gives options for making bombs without testing (the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a simple design which was so certain to work it was never tested). The IAEA report on the current state of Iranian nuclear programmes at the start of the year (because even after the bombing last year, Iran was adhering to their agreement to maintain international observation of their nuclear programme and to not progress work on nuclear weapons, says Iran has 440kg of 60% enriched uranium, which is significantly short of what's needed for a practical nuclear weapons (theoretically possible, but I doubt anyone has designed and tested a bomb with uranium at that low level of enrichment). So, to reach an actual bomb would need to put that through further enrichment, assuming Iran has significant numbers of centrifuges - and assuming that Iran doesn't have access to detailed plans for an efficient design (and the means of manufacturing that design, which will need to be very precisely engineered) that would give them enough for 4 or 5 simple bombs similar to the one dropped on Hiroshima.
The designs for nuclear weapons are fairly well known in outline (some will even appear in text books). But, detailed designs needed to just assemble a bomb are going to be much harder for any state to obtain. Even with a detailed plan, a small bomb is not going to be easy to assemble, and will probably need to be tested. It gets easier the higher the enrichment level of uranium, probably anything below 80% is going to be useless for building a bomb (though it's theoretically possible), and above 90% gives options for making bombs without testing (the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a simple design which was so certain to work it was never tested). The IAEA report on the current state of Iranian nuclear programmes at the start of the year (because even after the bombing last year, Iran was adhering to their agreement to maintain international observation of their nuclear programme and to not progress work on nuclear weapons, says Iran has 440kg of 60% enriched uranium, which is significantly short of what's needed for a practical nuclear weapons (theoretically possible, but I doubt anyone has designed and tested a bomb with uranium at that low level of enrichment). So, to reach an actual bomb would need to put that through further enrichment, assuming Iran has significant numbers of centrifuges - and assuming that Iran doesn't have access to detailed plans for an efficient design (and the means of manufacturing that design, which will need to be very precisely engineered) that would give them enough for 4 or 5 simple bombs similar to the one dropped on Hiroshima.
Is this your summary of Dr. Postol's lecture? Or is it your way of endorsing his lifetime body of work on ballistic and nuclear weapons technology?
I'm afraid I haven't had time to listen to Dr Postol's lecture, and I'm also a words person so find it far easier to read a transcript of a lecture than listen to it (which isn't an excuse for not finding time to listen to the lecture). The post was from my own personal knowledge, which includes a nuclear physics PhD, that the reported 440kg of 60% enriched uranium isn't something that can be turned into one or more nuclear bombs on the timescale that had been claimed - especially given the degradation of the enrichment capability in Iran from the bombing last year.
Whoever came up with the blockade idea is a genius.
Iran can't get income from sailing its own oil out and weapons from China and Russia can't come in.
And now it seems China is putting the heavies on Iran to open the strait. So it seems to have worked.
China and Russia vetoed a UN resolution to open the strait (surprise surprise!) but now it's hurting China, they do something.
Great idea.
What on earth are you on about? Iran has a land border with seven mutual SCO countries and Russia can get to Iran across the Caspian Sea (and does hourly) and around the neighboring stans, any time it wants to.
Iran and China have the belt and road corridor by land that has seen a doubling of its rail transport of oil. Regional Iranian authorities have accelerated all transit activity at the borders to facilitate regular supply to the country of all military industrial and civilian necessities
Nobody is doing anything that you describe. China is just fine with Iran right now and Chinese vessels are sailing right through without challenge.
AFF
I didn't know Iran had such transports available to it. Thank you for filling me in. Makes sense Iran has easy access to Russian arms supply now.
But as I understand it China still get's something like 40% of its oil and 30% of its gas through the strait of hormuz from Iran.
Article here about the pressure China put on Iran a few days ago to reinstate international maritime law of free access.
@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
I'm afraid I don't believe that conspiracy theory Pomona.
As I've mentioned earlier, the 2015 deal was problematic for a number of reasons and even before trump, the republicans, saudi arabians, United Arab Emirates and Israel opposed it and it was controversial even under the Obama administration.
Whoever came up with the blockade idea is a genius.
Iran can't get income from sailing its own oil out and weapons from China and Russia can't come in.
And now it seems China is putting the heavies on Iran to open the strait. So it seems to have worked.
China and Russia vetoed a UN resolution to open the strait (surprise surprise!) but now it's hurting China, they do something.
Great idea.
What on earth are you on about? Iran has a land border with seven mutual SCO countries and Russia can get to Iran across the Caspian Sea (and does hourly) and around the neighboring stans, any time it wants to.
Iran and China have the belt and road corridor by land that has seen a doubling of its rail transport of oil. Regional Iranian authorities have accelerated all transit activity at the borders to facilitate regular supply to the country of all military industrial and civilian necessities
Nobody is doing anything that you describe. China is just fine with Iran right now and Chinese vessels are sailing right through without challenge.
AFF
I didn't know Iran had such transports available to it. Thank you for filling me in. Makes sense Iran has easy access to Russian arms supply now.
But as I understand it China still get's something like 40% of its oil and 30% of its gas through the strait of hormuz from Iran.
Article here about the pressure China put on Iran a few days ago to reinstate international maritime law of free access.
If you look at the map of where China gets its middle eastern oil and condensates, https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-where-china-gets-its-oil/ you can see that only 6% of its requirements needs to transit the Strait of Hormuz, that being the products originating in the UAE.
The rest can be shipped overland or through the Bab el Mandeb, or from the Indian Ocean.
6% is still significant but it's not so much that Russia can't make up a good deal of the shortfall. Which is what I understand they are doing.
As I've mentioned earlier, the 2015 deal was problematic for a number of reasons and even before trump, the republicans, saudi arabians, United Arab Emirates and Israel opposed it and it was controversial even under the Obama administration.
That the Republicans opposed something Obama did falls squarely into the "They would, wouldn't they?" category.
As I understand it, the deal just addressed Iran's nuclear capabilities. The other regional powers mentioned are in competition with Iran for influence over the region, and so would view anything that is good for Iran as bad for them. Iran would still have been sponsoring militant groups across the region, and Saudi Arabia would like to be the main sponsor of militant groups, but that wasn't on the table.
Some respectable commentators think that Obama's team could have got a few more concessions or given away less.
Nevertheless, respectable commentators agree that the deal was better than no deal. It was certainly not so bad that it was worth trashing the reputation for good faith of the US by abandoning it.
@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
I'm afraid I don't believe that conspiracy theory Pomona.
As I've mentioned earlier, the 2015 deal was problematic for a number of reasons and even before trump, the republicans, saudi arabians, United Arab Emirates and Israel opposed it and it was controversial even under the Obama administration.
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that Trump's anti-Black racism is longstanding, nor is it a conspiracy theory that he has a fanatical hatred of Obama. Those ideas are theories, but they don't assume any kind of conspiracy behind them. What do you think the definition of a conspiracy theory is? What conspiracies are involved in those beliefs?
@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
I'm afraid I don't believe that conspiracy theory Pomona.
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that Trump's anti-Black racism is longstanding, nor is it a conspiracy theory that he has a fanatical hatred of Obama. Those ideas are theories, . . . .
And they are theories for which supporting evidence has been easily observable during Trumps first term and his second term.
@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
I'm afraid I don't believe that conspiracy theory Pomona.
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that Trump's anti-Black racism is longstanding, nor is it a conspiracy theory that he has a fanatical hatred of Obama. Those ideas are theories, . . . .
And they are theories for which supporting evidence has been easily observable during Trumps first term and his second term.
And indeed plenty of evidence from before he was ever anywhere near running for President.
Whoever came up with the blockade idea is a genius.
Iran can't get income from sailing its own oil out and weapons from China and Russia can't come in.
And now it seems China is putting the heavies on Iran to open the strait. So it seems to have worked.
China and Russia vetoed a UN resolution to open the strait (surprise surprise!) but now it's hurting China, they do something.
Great idea.
What on earth are you on about? Iran has a land border with seven mutual SCO countries and Russia can get to Iran across the Caspian Sea (and does hourly) and around the neighboring stans, any time it wants to.
Iran and China have the belt and road corridor by land that has seen a doubling of its rail transport of oil. Regional Iranian authorities have accelerated all transit activity at the borders to facilitate regular supply to the country of all military industrial and civilian necessities
Nobody is doing anything that you describe. China is just fine with Iran right now and Chinese vessels are sailing right through without challenge.
AFF
I didn't know Iran had such transports available to it. Thank you for filling me in. Makes sense Iran has easy access to Russian arms supply now.
But as I understand it China still get's something like 40% of its oil and 30% of its gas through the strait of hormuz from Iran.
Article here about the pressure China put on Iran a few days ago to reinstate international maritime law of free access.
If you look at the map of where China gets its middle eastern oil and condensates, https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-where-china-gets-its-oil/ you can see that only 6% of its requirements needs to transit the Strait of Hormuz, that being the products originating in the UAE.
The rest can be shipped overland or through the Bab el Mandeb, or from the Indian Ocean.
6% is still significant but it's not so much that Russia can't make up a good deal of the shortfall. Which is what I understand they are doing.
AFF
I've read China is much more dependent than your infographic describes on resources coming through the strait. Here for example.
It says 45-50% of China's crude oil transits the strait. And there is the gas issue too.
I think they have a vested interest in keeping the strait open. Which is good.
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
As I've mentioned earlier, the 2015 deal was problematic for a number of reasons and even before trump, the republicans, saudi arabians, United Arab Emirates and Israel opposed it and it was controversial even under the Obama administration.
That the Republicans opposed something Obama did falls squarely into the "They would, wouldn't they?" category.
As I understand it, the deal just addressed Iran's nuclear capabilities. The other regional powers mentioned are in competition with Iran for influence over the region, and so would view anything that is good for Iran as bad for them. Iran would still have been sponsoring militant groups across the region, and Saudi Arabia would like to be the main sponsor of militant groups, but that wasn't on the table.
Some respectable commentators think that Obama's team could have got a few more concessions or given away less.
Nevertheless, respectable commentators agree that the deal was better than no deal. It was certainly not so bad that it was worth trashing the reputation for good faith of the US by abandoning it.
I think the reasons for abandoning it by the US were fair. It didn't address the deeper issues and was not long enough.
Negotiations did continue, but failed.
And here we are.
And the proxy terror groups continue and Iran has a billion missiles and plenty of enriched uranium.
@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
I'm afraid I don't believe that conspiracy theory Pomona.
As I've mentioned earlier, the 2015 deal was problematic for a number of reasons and even before trump, the republicans, saudi arabians, United Arab Emirates and Israel opposed it and it was controversial even under the Obama administration.
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that Trump's anti-Black racism is longstanding, nor is it a conspiracy theory that he has a fanatical hatred of Obama. Those ideas are theories, but they don't assume any kind of conspiracy behind them. What do you think the definition of a conspiracy theory is? What conspiracies are involved in those beliefs?
Perhaps conspiracy theory was the wrong words.
I imagine it's very natural for Trump's detractors on the left to label him racist. It's a conspiracy of the left.
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
What do you expect? That they should just bend the knee and say "yassuh, yas massuh"? Why should they play by rules that they don't agree with, that are not enshrined in international law, and that are set to choke their sovereign right to conduct commerce with anyone they choose?
What nonsense. If it was your country you would do anything in your power to secure the living of your people and the continued functioning of your economy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about China. If China needed a quick end to this thing they wouldn't be landing X'ian Y-20s full of equipment on Iran's military airstrips.
@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
I'm afraid I don't believe that conspiracy theory Pomona.
As I've mentioned earlier, the 2015 deal was problematic for a number of reasons and even before trump, the republicans, saudi arabians, United Arab Emirates and Israel opposed it and it was controversial even under the Obama administration.
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that Trump's anti-Black racism is longstanding, nor is it a conspiracy theory that he has a fanatical hatred of Obama. Those ideas are theories, but they don't assume any kind of conspiracy behind them. What do you think the definition of a conspiracy theory is? What conspiracies are involved in those beliefs?
Perhaps conspiracy theory was the wrong words.
I imagine it's very natural for Trump's detractors on the left to label him racist. It's a conspiracy of the left.
No, it’s simply not. Trump’s racism, both in general and with particular regard to the Obamas, is something pretty obvious to anyone with a good understanding of the history and dynamics of racism in the United States.
Any treaty is a compromise between two or more countries which started out with strong positions at polar opposite ends of the spectrum. Then it is a process of each side giving a little here, a little there until they reach a point that they feel they can live with. The Obama treaty did not have everything the US originally wanted. The Iranians did not get everything they thought they needed. It was also time limited so negotiators could continue to meet to work out another succeeding treaty.
A sane leader would start with what is already on the table and try to move the needle to a more favorable position. Not Trump. His narcissism and his racism impelled him to throw everything out. He could do better, but he hasn't.
@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
I'm afraid I don't believe that conspiracy theory Pomona.
As I've mentioned earlier, the 2015 deal was problematic for a number of reasons and even before trump, the republicans, saudi arabians, United Arab Emirates and Israel opposed it and it was controversial even under the Obama administration.
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that Trump's anti-Black racism is longstanding, nor is it a conspiracy theory that he has a fanatical hatred of Obama. Those ideas are theories, but they don't assume any kind of conspiracy behind them. What do you think the definition of a conspiracy theory is? What conspiracies are involved in those beliefs?
Perhaps conspiracy theory was the wrong words.
I imagine it's very natural for Trump's detractors on the left to label him racist. It's a conspiracy of the left.
Why are you saying that conspiracy theory was the wrong words to use, but then still say that Trump's racism is "a conspiracy of the left"? That's not what a conspiracy is at all. "A conspiracy of the left" would suggest that some group of "the left" was secretly hiding evidence of Trump's non-racism, which it is not. Do you know what the word "conspiracy" means? What exactly has been conspired here?
Donald Trump has very literally been found guilty of racial discrimination as a landlord way back in the 80s when he was a Democrat - he and his father Fred were illegally discriminating against non-white and particularly Black tenants. Then there was the Central Park 5. Then there was the obsession with proving that Obama was born in Kenya. Then there was posting racist AI-generated memes about the Obamas. That's just a potted history, but it points to a very obvious history of Trump's own personal racism.
I have to ask - why are you so invested in denying that Trump is racist? You've previously said that you don't agree with all his opinions, so why not just say that he's racist but that you disagree with his racism?
@WhimsicalChristian I'm also curious as to why it hasn't occurred to you that attacking Iran will create even more terrorism, in the same way that the 2003 invasion of Iraq did? Many people predicted that invading Iraq would only strengthen anti-Western sentiment and enable radicalization, and it did just that. It's exactly what we don't need when the threat from terrorism in the West is so splintered and multi-directional now.
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
What do you expect? That they should just bend the knee and say "yassuh, yas massuh"? Why should they play by rules that they don't agree with, that are not enshrined in international law, and that are set to choke their sovereign right to conduct commerce with anyone they choose?
What nonsense. If it was your country you would do anything in your power to secure the living of your people and the continued functioning of your economy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about China. If China needed a quick end to this thing they wouldn't be landing X'ian Y-20s full of equipment on Iran's military airstrips.
AFF
With all the virtue signalling about a "rules based" order I was simply pointing out there are a lot of countries that don't play by the "rules", Iran, China and Russia and all these "shadow fleets".
If you play by the rules while others don't, you'll find the rules damage those who do and the rule breakers come out on top.
I imagine your comments above for it being ok for China to disregard the rules can equally apply to the US then. So they are also excused from the "rules based order".
China is the US's biggest threat. By your rules above, it's fine for them to do whatever they need to do to secure their interests.
I'm not interested in thrashing out Trumps personal attributes or lack thereof. There is a very long hell thread for that.
I'm interested in his geopolitics, or rather, the geopolitics of his administration, which I think are on the money, which is what this thread is about.
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
What do you expect? That they should just bend the knee and say "yassuh, yas massuh"? Why should they play by rules that they don't agree with, that are not enshrined in international law, and that are set to choke their sovereign right to conduct commerce with anyone they choose?
What nonsense. If it was your country you would do anything in your power to secure the living of your people and the continued functioning of your economy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about China. If China needed a quick end to this thing they wouldn't be landing X'ian Y-20s full of equipment on Iran's military airstrips.
AFF
With all the virtue signalling about a "rules based" order I was simply pointing out there are a lot of countries that don't play by the "rules", Iran, China and Russia and all these "shadow fleets".
If you play by the rules while others don't, you'll find the rules damage those who do and the rule breakers come out on top.
I imagine your comments above for it being ok for China to disregard the rules can equally apply to the US then. So they are also excused from the "rules based order".
China is the US's biggest threat. By your rules above, it's fine for them to do whatever they need to do to secure their interests.
You are conflating rules with international law.
Many if not all sanctions imposed by the west are unlawful. They are "rules" but not laws.
Why do you think the west hides behind the word "rules"? Because they don't dare to use the word "law" in reference to how they attempt to choke the economies of countries that operate outside their monetary systems.
There is no such thing as a shadow fleet. That's a term that is meant to imply that they operate outside the law, without insurance. They don't. They are simply not insured by Lloyd's of London, but by other firms that operate in other currencies.
When the west starts talking about China breaking actual international laws on the high seas, citing chapter and verse, I'll listen. Until then it's just noise.
On the money? I think you’re wrong. It’s impossible to do geopolitics without respect for diplomacy, confidentiality and patience. This administration shoots its mouth off - and not just Trump.
There is no such thing as a shadow fleet. That's a term that is meant to imply that they operate outside the law, without insurance. They don't. They are simply not insured by Lloyd's of London, but by other firms that operate in other currencies.
<snip>
Smuggling sanctioned goods. Let's have a discussion about the lawful nature of those sanctions. Chapter and verse of the UN resolutions that underpin them.
All that unlawful sanctions are, are injunctions against trading in the currency of the sanctioning country. They are optional not compulsory although the sanctioning country would like to compel compliance they can't.
I'm not interested in thrashing out Trumps personal attributes or lack thereof. There is a very long hell thread for that.
I'm interested in his geopolitics, or rather, the geopolitics of his administration, which I think are on the money, which is what this thread is about.
Trump’s personal attributes or lack thereof are heavily intertwined with his geopolitics and his domestic politics. It’s a package deal.
I'm not interested in thrashing out Trumps personal attributes or lack thereof. There is a very long hell thread for that.
I'm interested in his geopolitics, or rather, the geopolitics of his administration, which I think are on the money, which is what this thread is about.
It's nonsense to suggest that Trump's personal bigotry doesn't impact his administration's geopolitics. Particularly when it involves his undoing of Obama-era policy.
I mean, on the one hand, depending on his own personal experience with Christian antisemitism, a Jew doing this to a crucifix could be filed away with "Koreans burning down Shinto shrines following the defeat of Japan."
OTOH, when YOU are the occupying army, the moral equation is obviously reversed. Plus, when your government is trying to sell its wars in the west as fought on behalf of "Judeo-Christian values", AND you've got nefarious actors in the antiwar camp trying to smuggle in blood-libel myths as part of their propaganda, yeah, it's pretty much the most boneheaded photo-op imaginable.
I mean, on the one hand, depending on his own personal experience with Christian antisemitism, a Jew doing this to a crucifix could be filed away with "Koreans burning down Shinto shrines following the defeat of Japan."
OTOH, when YOU are the occupying army, the moral equation is obviously reversed. Plus, when your government is trying to sell its wars in the west as fought on behalf of "Judeo-Christian values",
The soldier involved is not going to be prosecuted, and will be given a written warning.
you've got nefarious actors in the antiwar camp trying to smuggle in blood-libel myths as part of their propaganda
Although there's no real need, there's a plethora of videos published daily of various atrocities. Although if evangelicals are going to get upset at a statue being desecrated but not with any of the other videos, perhaps Calvin was right.
Although there's no real need, there's a plethora of videos published daily of various atrocities.
Well, I was thinking of the blood libel as the literal slander that Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Christ, synechdocized to the idea that Isrseli policy is at least partly motivated by animosity toward Christianity(as opposed to just standard imperialism against people who just happen to be Christian). That idea still has currency in some not-entirely bottom-tier sections of reactionary anti-zionism.
Although if evangelicals are going to get upset at a statue being desecrated but not with any of the other videos, perhaps Calvin was right.
You mean Calvin was right to proscribe iconography for protestants, because if not, some of them would go nuts and start treating the desecration as worse than things that cause real harm?
Yeah, I've noted the slight asymmetry between the respective priorities
of religious and secular people among the oppressed, even within the same oppressed group. To take one of the simpler examples, in the movie Romero there's a scene where state-allied gunmen show their contempt for one of Romero's requests by shooting up a glass-case housing a crucifix and other religious items, and Romero looks on with a look of horror hitherto unseen on his face. I remember thinking that if I knew what he at that point knew about the actions of the Salvadoran military, shooting at a crucifix would seem like a pretty minor teansgression. Examples abound in more complicated theatres of conflict, including the Middle East.
I've had a lot of conversations with Jewish friends in which you can pick up a lot of thinly veiled fear and contempt they carry toward Christianity, justified by 2000 years of persecution. Being educated and considerate, I can hardly blame them, dating back to when I heard an undergraduate associate lambaste Martin Luther as "that raging anti-Semite." Historically, the accusation is not inaccurate. There's a long, ugly history to consider.
The idea that Zionist Jews are going to be cozy buddies with conservative Christians feels a little alien to me since most Jewish folks I know, including good friends, are very quick to remind me that our respective religions are very much not on good terms. They're always a little afraid of us. Even among friends, the distrust and fear run deep; and when fear comes to power, it easily becomes hate.
The union between evangelical Christianity and Zionist Judaism seems to me to be entirely one of momentary convenience, and it'll fall apart as soon as that convenience disappears. You can see it in folks who think that "geopolitics" is the most important factor. Focusing on tactical operations is one way to elide deeply uncomfortable moral questions.
"Judeo-Christian" is a nonsensical patchwork category - with white supremacist overtones - that doesn't do justice to the real history of our respective religions. I am not in any way shape or form Jewish, and most of my Jewish friends do not want to be conflated with Christianity. Confusing the two is deeply disrespectful.
I really feel for the remaining Christians in Palestine, who seem to be among the most overlooked in this conflict.
I've had a lot of conversations with Jewish friends in which you can pick up a lot of thinly veiled fear and contempt they carry toward Christianity, justified by 2000 years of persecution. Being educated and considerate, I can hardly blame them, dating back to when I heard an undergraduate associate lambaste Martin Luther as "that raging anti-Semite." Historically, the accusation is not inaccurate. There's a long, ugly history to consider.
One of my teachers was ethnically half-Jewish, and said the same thing about Luther. Mind you, that teacher was also a devout Catholic, and I don't know what he thought of the RCC's own pretty vile record in that regard. I think he was doing an overall critique of Luther, saying he shouldn't be considered some big hero without blemishes, rather than just expressing outrage at the antisemitism itself.
I do know that the Jewish Herbert Marcuse and others in the Frankfurt School regarded the Reformation by and large as a progressive shift in the Dialectic, with maybe a 1066 And All That-type "This might seem like a bad thing, but actually it was a good thing" qualifier to account for the Reformers' more illiberal teachings and practices.
The idea that Zionist Jews are going to be cozy buddies with conservative Christians feels a little alien to me since most Jewish folks I know, including good friends, are very quick to remind me that our respective religions are very much not on good terms. They're always a little afraid of us. Even among friends, the distrust and fear run deep; and when fear comes to power, it easily becomes hate.
The union between evangelical Christianity and Zionist Judaism seems to me to be entirely one of momentary convenience, and it'll fall apart as soon as that convenience disappears. You can see it in folks who think that "geopolitics" is the most important factor. Focusing on tactical operations is one way to elide deeply uncomfortable moral questions.
"Judeo-Christian" is a nonsensical patchwork category - with white supremacist overtones - that doesn't do justice to the real history of our respective religions. I am not in any way shape or form Jewish, and most of my Jewish friends do not want to be conflated with Christianity. Confusing the two is deeply disrespectful.
Netanyahu uses "Judeo-Christian" all the time, when appealing to xtian-right culture warriors. It's cringe as hell, but OTOH, he's not exactly a fringe voice in the global Jewish community, and he and his enablers should probably bear at least some responsibility if non-Jews get the idea that the term is okay.
I really feel for the remaining Christians in Palestine, who seem to be among the most overlooked in this conflict.
So true.
An old former acquaintance of mine (Jonny Baker of CMS now) wrote a song after visiting various Palestinian Christian Groups in the 1990s (and experiencing the reality of their doubly marginalised situation). It contained the poignant line;
Why can’t you treat me like a human being?
(A creative radical, Jonny. He once created a prayer walk in a major cathedral - St Paul’s I think - which contained a large, suspended block of ice. The block of ice represented IIRC unforgiveness and indifference. Folks were invited to reflect, pray, and also light a small candle under the block.)
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
What do you expect? That they should just bend the knee and say "yassuh, yas massuh"? Why should they play by rules that they don't agree with, that are not enshrined in international law, and that are set to choke their sovereign right to conduct commerce with anyone they choose?
What nonsense. If it was your country you would do anything in your power to secure the living of your people and the continued functioning of your economy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about China. If China needed a quick end to this thing they wouldn't be landing X'ian Y-20s full of equipment on Iran's military airstrips.
AFF
With all the virtue signalling about a "rules based" order I was simply pointing out there are a lot of countries that don't play by the "rules", Iran, China and Russia and all these "shadow fleets".
If you play by the rules while others don't, you'll find the rules damage those who do and the rule breakers come out on top.
I imagine your comments above for it being ok for China to disregard the rules can equally apply to the US then. So they are also excused from the "rules based order".
China is the US's biggest threat. By your rules above, it's fine for them to do whatever they need to do to secure their interests.
You are conflating rules with international law.
Many if not all sanctions imposed by the west are unlawful. They are "rules" but not laws.
Why do you think the west hides behind the word "rules"? Because they don't dare to use the word "law" in reference to how they attempt to choke the economies of countries that operate outside their monetary systems.
There is no such thing as a shadow fleet. That's a term that is meant to imply that they operate outside the law, without insurance. They don't. They are simply not insured by Lloyd's of London, but by other firms that operate in other currencies.
When the west starts talking about China breaking actual international laws on the high seas, citing chapter and verse, I'll listen. Until then it's just noise.
AFF
How do you see the difference between the "rules based order" and "international law"?
As for China and "international law", there are plenty of examples of breaches with their actions in the South China Sea.
But I assume you would not count them as breaches (as China doesn't) because they don't accord with China's idea of international law.
It's all a bit of a farce isn't it?
So the US is well within its rights to protect itself for national security reasons according to your definitions.
Comments
@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
As well as the evidence @Hedgehog has just linked, there is the evidence in the New York Times link which I provided earlier. Israel argued that without an attack Iran could create a “shield of immunity” around the development its nuclear weapon capability.
That’s not what Trump is saying. And in that same link the CIA made nothing like that claim.
So what is the basis for his claim?
There's an excellent lecture by MIT professor Theodore Postol, who is a nuclear weapons expert, that explains why Iran has a nuclear deterrent right now without having refined uranium to the degree required to build a thermonuclear warhead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtUobr7xGz4
It's an hour long lecture if you care to sit through it but his point is made in the first 20 minutes if you have the stomach to be thus far enlightened. I found it extremely uncomfortable to sit through myself.
AFF
I’m not entirely sure about the rapid underground transformation of Uranium hexafluoride to a uranium metal nugget but he could be right. It’s certainly true that the means of creation of small bombs to use fissile uranium is not that difficult and the design reasonably well known.
I suppose it’s also possible that the NY Times report is unclear about the rapidity of this risk and the comments on it.
The video does however give a bit more credibility to Trump’s “a month, maybe two weeks” scenario.
I guess it all depends on how accurately it portrays the Iranian capability in the tunnel. Perhaps the possible threat is more powerful than the execution?
Whatever AFF, that video link isn’t going to make sleep at night any easier.
Is this your summary of Dr. Postol's lecture? Or is it your way of endorsing his lifetime body of work on ballistic and nuclear weapons technology?
AFF
Look at Alan’s avatar! (I’m not sure if my title is out of date but he’s a nuclear physicist.)
I didn't know Iran had such transports available to it. Thank you for filling me in. Makes sense Iran has easy access to Russian arms supply now.
But as I understand it China still get's something like 40% of its oil and 30% of its gas through the strait of hormuz from Iran.
Article here about the pressure China put on Iran a few days ago to reinstate international maritime law of free access.
I'm afraid I don't believe that conspiracy theory Pomona.
As I've mentioned earlier, the 2015 deal was problematic for a number of reasons and even before trump, the republicans, saudi arabians, United Arab Emirates and Israel opposed it and it was controversial even under the Obama administration.
Well I'll be dipped in butter. I have not been paying attention. My bad.
AFF
If you look at the map of where China gets its middle eastern oil and condensates, https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-where-china-gets-its-oil/ you can see that only 6% of its requirements needs to transit the Strait of Hormuz, that being the products originating in the UAE.
The rest can be shipped overland or through the Bab el Mandeb, or from the Indian Ocean.
6% is still significant but it's not so much that Russia can't make up a good deal of the shortfall. Which is what I understand they are doing.
AFF
As I understand it, the deal just addressed Iran's nuclear capabilities. The other regional powers mentioned are in competition with Iran for influence over the region, and so would view anything that is good for Iran as bad for them. Iran would still have been sponsoring militant groups across the region, and Saudi Arabia would like to be the main sponsor of militant groups, but that wasn't on the table.
Some respectable commentators think that Obama's team could have got a few more concessions or given away less.
Nevertheless, respectable commentators agree that the deal was better than no deal. It was certainly not so bad that it was worth trashing the reputation for good faith of the US by abandoning it.
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that Trump's anti-Black racism is longstanding, nor is it a conspiracy theory that he has a fanatical hatred of Obama. Those ideas are theories, but they don't assume any kind of conspiracy behind them. What do you think the definition of a conspiracy theory is? What conspiracies are involved in those beliefs?
And indeed plenty of evidence from before he was ever anywhere near running for President.
"No, we are!"
I'm confused!
I've read China is much more dependent than your infographic describes on resources coming through the strait. Here for example.
It says 45-50% of China's crude oil transits the strait. And there is the gas issue too.
I think they have a vested interest in keeping the strait open. Which is good.
Their faking countries to bypass sanctions is just another example of China not playing by the "rules" either.
I think the reasons for abandoning it by the US were fair. It didn't address the deeper issues and was not long enough.
Negotiations did continue, but failed.
And here we are.
And the proxy terror groups continue and Iran has a billion missiles and plenty of enriched uranium.
Perhaps conspiracy theory was the wrong words.
I imagine it's very natural for Trump's detractors on the left to label him racist. It's a conspiracy of the left.
So am I. So are they...(the US and Iran).
I know rite!
I thought the blockade started first, then the capitulation from Iran.
Then pulling back from Iran.
They probably realised no good opening the strait if they couldn't get their oil through (funding) and get arms so changed their minds.
And now it seems some western countries are developing a spine and will defend opening it.
Finally.
What do you expect? That they should just bend the knee and say "yassuh, yas massuh"? Why should they play by rules that they don't agree with, that are not enshrined in international law, and that are set to choke their sovereign right to conduct commerce with anyone they choose?
What nonsense. If it was your country you would do anything in your power to secure the living of your people and the continued functioning of your economy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about China. If China needed a quick end to this thing they wouldn't be landing X'ian Y-20s full of equipment on Iran's military airstrips.
AFF
A sane leader would start with what is already on the table and try to move the needle to a more favorable position. Not Trump. His narcissism and his racism impelled him to throw everything out. He could do better, but he hasn't.
Why are you saying that conspiracy theory was the wrong words to use, but then still say that Trump's racism is "a conspiracy of the left"? That's not what a conspiracy is at all. "A conspiracy of the left" would suggest that some group of "the left" was secretly hiding evidence of Trump's non-racism, which it is not. Do you know what the word "conspiracy" means? What exactly has been conspired here?
Donald Trump has very literally been found guilty of racial discrimination as a landlord way back in the 80s when he was a Democrat - he and his father Fred were illegally discriminating against non-white and particularly Black tenants. Then there was the Central Park 5. Then there was the obsession with proving that Obama was born in Kenya. Then there was posting racist AI-generated memes about the Obamas. That's just a potted history, but it points to a very obvious history of Trump's own personal racism.
I have to ask - why are you so invested in denying that Trump is racist? You've previously said that you don't agree with all his opinions, so why not just say that he's racist but that you disagree with his racism?
With all the virtue signalling about a "rules based" order I was simply pointing out there are a lot of countries that don't play by the "rules", Iran, China and Russia and all these "shadow fleets".
If you play by the rules while others don't, you'll find the rules damage those who do and the rule breakers come out on top.
I imagine your comments above for it being ok for China to disregard the rules can equally apply to the US then. So they are also excused from the "rules based order".
China is the US's biggest threat. By your rules above, it's fine for them to do whatever they need to do to secure their interests.
I'm not interested in thrashing out Trumps personal attributes or lack thereof. There is a very long hell thread for that.
I'm interested in his geopolitics, or rather, the geopolitics of his administration, which I think are on the money, which is what this thread is about.
You are conflating rules with international law.
Many if not all sanctions imposed by the west are unlawful. They are "rules" but not laws.
Why do you think the west hides behind the word "rules"? Because they don't dare to use the word "law" in reference to how they attempt to choke the economies of countries that operate outside their monetary systems.
There is no such thing as a shadow fleet. That's a term that is meant to imply that they operate outside the law, without insurance. They don't. They are simply not insured by Lloyd's of London, but by other firms that operate in other currencies.
When the west starts talking about China breaking actual international laws on the high seas, citing chapter and verse, I'll listen. Until then it's just noise.
AFF
Smuggling sanctioned goods. Let's have a discussion about the lawful nature of those sanctions. Chapter and verse of the UN resolutions that underpin them.
All that unlawful sanctions are, are injunctions against trading in the currency of the sanctioning country. They are optional not compulsory although the sanctioning country would like to compel compliance they can't.
AFF
It's nonsense to suggest that Trump's personal bigotry doesn't impact his administration's geopolitics. Particularly when it involves his undoing of Obama-era policy.
I mean, on the one hand, depending on his own personal experience with Christian antisemitism, a Jew doing this to a crucifix could be filed away with "Koreans burning down Shinto shrines following the defeat of Japan."
OTOH, when YOU are the occupying army, the moral equation is obviously reversed. Plus, when your government is trying to sell its wars in the west as fought on behalf of "Judeo-Christian values", AND you've got nefarious actors in the antiwar camp trying to smuggle in blood-libel myths as part of their propaganda, yeah, it's pretty much the most boneheaded photo-op imaginable.
The soldier involved is not going to be prosecuted, and will be given a written warning.
Although there's no real need, there's a plethora of videos published daily of various atrocities. Although if evangelicals are going to get upset at a statue being desecrated but not with any of the other videos, perhaps Calvin was right.
Well, I was thinking of the blood libel as the literal slander that Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Christ, synechdocized to the idea that Isrseli policy is at least partly motivated by animosity toward Christianity(as opposed to just standard imperialism against people who just happen to be Christian). That idea still has currency in some not-entirely bottom-tier sections of reactionary anti-zionism.
You mean Calvin was right to proscribe iconography for protestants, because if not, some of them would go nuts and start treating the desecration as worse than things that cause real harm?
Yeah, I've noted the slight asymmetry between the respective priorities
of religious and secular people among the oppressed, even within the same oppressed group. To take one of the simpler examples, in the movie Romero there's a scene where state-allied gunmen show their contempt for one of Romero's requests by shooting up a glass-case housing a crucifix and other religious items, and Romero looks on with a look of horror hitherto unseen on his face. I remember thinking that if I knew what he at that point knew about the actions of the Salvadoran military, shooting at a crucifix would seem like a pretty minor teansgression. Examples abound in more complicated theatres of conflict, including the Middle East.
The idea that Zionist Jews are going to be cozy buddies with conservative Christians feels a little alien to me since most Jewish folks I know, including good friends, are very quick to remind me that our respective religions are very much not on good terms. They're always a little afraid of us. Even among friends, the distrust and fear run deep; and when fear comes to power, it easily becomes hate.
The union between evangelical Christianity and Zionist Judaism seems to me to be entirely one of momentary convenience, and it'll fall apart as soon as that convenience disappears. You can see it in folks who think that "geopolitics" is the most important factor. Focusing on tactical operations is one way to elide deeply uncomfortable moral questions.
"Judeo-Christian" is a nonsensical patchwork category - with white supremacist overtones - that doesn't do justice to the real history of our respective religions. I am not in any way shape or form Jewish, and most of my Jewish friends do not want to be conflated with Christianity. Confusing the two is deeply disrespectful.
I really feel for the remaining Christians in Palestine, who seem to be among the most overlooked in this conflict.
It seems rather entitled for one faction to say "But they're not following the rules that we dictate to our advantage!"
This is war, not a board game.
One of my teachers was ethnically half-Jewish, and said the same thing about Luther. Mind you, that teacher was also a devout Catholic, and I don't know what he thought of the RCC's own pretty vile record in that regard. I think he was doing an overall critique of Luther, saying he shouldn't be considered some big hero without blemishes, rather than just expressing outrage at the antisemitism itself.
I do know that the Jewish Herbert Marcuse and others in the Frankfurt School regarded the Reformation by and large as a progressive shift in the Dialectic, with maybe a 1066 And All That-type "This might seem like a bad thing, but actually it was a good thing" qualifier to account for the Reformers' more illiberal teachings and practices.
Netanyahu uses "Judeo-Christian" all the time, when appealing to xtian-right culture warriors. It's cringe as hell, but OTOH, he's not exactly a fringe voice in the global Jewish community, and he and his enablers should probably bear at least some responsibility if non-Jews get the idea that the term is okay.
So true.
An old former acquaintance of mine (Jonny Baker of CMS now) wrote a song after visiting various Palestinian Christian Groups in the 1990s (and experiencing the reality of their doubly marginalised situation). It contained the poignant line;
(A creative radical, Jonny. He once created a prayer walk in a major cathedral - St Paul’s I think - which contained a large, suspended block of ice. The block of ice represented IIRC unforgiveness and indifference. Folks were invited to reflect, pray, and also light a small candle under the block.)
How do you see the difference between the "rules based order" and "international law"?
As for China and "international law", there are plenty of examples of breaches with their actions in the South China Sea.
But I assume you would not count them as breaches (as China doesn't) because they don't accord with China's idea of international law.
It's all a bit of a farce isn't it?
So the US is well within its rights to protect itself for national security reasons according to your definitions.