Ukraine has withdrawn its previous assurances that mechanical failure was to blame for a plane crash over Iran that killed 176 passengers and crew, with experts warning a potential "catastrophic" event may have caused the airliner to plummet to the ground.
The crash of the Ukraine International Airlines flight minutes after takeoff from Tehran's airport occurred just hours after the regime launched a ballistic missile attack on military bases housing American troops in neighbouring Iraq.
the original story of a plane exploding in mid air due to engine failure was somewhat dubious.
now, we get to find out if (a) someone interesting was onboard or (b) Iran's air defense operators are a bit twitchy at the moment,
I've gone from former rabid warhawk (post 9/11) to actually doing a bit of hand-wringing in regards to the United States' seeming addiction to drone-powered extrajudicial killings. Even if the targets richly deserved to die, which in the most recent case is assuredly so, there's significance to the means by which we reach the ends, and I think the means, when viewed from a distance, make us look suspiciously like bad guys. Not as bad as those we fight, it might be said, but that's small consolation when you realize that somewhere along the way we may be giving up the very principles we thought we were upholding.
I agreed with slapping the Taliban back in the day, but have been dubious about most of it since, especially the ongoing occupations.
The horrific part is that sensible is probably no longer a relevant position, we have meddled, occupied and destablised nearly every damn place in the region and the consequences flowing into the countries around it are not ignorable.
It is a shame that Trumps isolationist agenda got trumped by the industrial warlords, it might have got worse in the short term but its hard to imagine how it gets better without that step.
noddy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:05 am
I agreed with slapping the Taliban back in the day, but have been dubious about most of it since, especially the ongoing occupations.
The horrific part is that sensible is probably no longer a relevant position, we have meddled, occupied and destablised nearly every damn place in the region and the consequences flowing into the countries around it are not ignorable.
It is a shame that Trumps isolationist agenda got trumped by the industrial warlords, it might have got worse in the short term but its hard to imagine how it gets better without that step.
Yeah, apparently Trump has seen the light; the Deep State might leave him alone now so long as he is sufficiently bellicose to provide profitable conflicts.
I'm not seeing this change. We killed the butcher of Aleppo and Iran shot off missiles which were never intended to hit anyone [they possibly screwed up with the Ukrainian flight.] Everyone declared victory (except for Iraq itself) and it's back to the usual shadow war because neither side really wants open, hot conflict.
The warhawks have been gnashing their teeth because Trump isn't going to give them the war they want.
And he's set himself up another win-win situation: he humiliates Iran for trying to humiliate the US while also getting the Iraqis to verbalize what he actually wants- move the troops out.
As for the broader picture, it's very hard to justify any warfooting two decades in. The people in charge don't know what's going on beyond being a pet project of some insane and increasingly corrupt people. It was a waste of blood and treasure. Just addressing it is depressing.
Adding a warfront with Iran would be extra-depressing. I think Trump was sincere in saying that he's ready to make good deals with Iran-- he's apparently been telling this to the Iraqis for a while now.
But a lot of it is very much on the Iranians, no matter how big and bad and awful we may be-- half of their subterfuge and shadow games are fueled by revanchist dreams that no one should put up with and don't produce any situation where deals can be made.
And the deal we did make with the Obama administration was incredibly stupid and corrupt (how many people around the world actually got a cut of that money?) and ideological. Iran as a replacement for the ideal proletariat is very much an international lefty thing and President Obama and his administration were filled up with people who were just the right age to buy into all of that.
I would be happy with extremely generous terms, if and when agreements could be reached; even if that includes a public acknowledgement of rotten things we have done to Iran.
But it also has to come with some acknowledgement that not every battle, real/shadowy/imagined, was some put-upon tragedy for Iran and it's Iran-i-ness. If the losses are lopsided more for one side than the other, that isn't a conspiratorial violation....that's called defeat.
And that's the hold up- there is zero indication that anyone running that country would even entertain the 'd-word'; they'd much rather see the whole enterprise in ruins.
This is why I cant see any point in trying to decode which odious thing was justified by which other odious thing, we have 20 years of em, everyone has a story.
Iran gets the pass just because they live there, its as simple as that.
A war between America and Mexico would not benefit in any way from a Chinese occupation, the gory details of who did what and why are almost irrelevant.
still, even that is simplifying it, the middle east is right next to Europe, Israel and other supposed allies, the mess of disengagement is weighed against the mess of power vacuum chaos, their are no good outcomes.
But I'm not following on why Iran deserves any sort of pass. That it is a pitiable situation and one we shouldn't be in doesn't make the Iranians sympathetic.
And the difference is that in such a theoretical Mexico-US fistfight, neither side would be harboring dreams of also conquering Canada, the Caribbean, the rest of Central America and Pacific as some god given right for being Yanqui or Chicano; and posed in such a way as to disturb all of those other entanglements- like the kind you mentioned- until either side got their way.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
It means nothing to the US. It means catastrophe for Australia. It could drive China to take up arms.
If the US-Iran clash escalates into war, it has potentially global implications.
And it all comes down to one narrow waterway: the Strait of Hormuz.
If fighting closes this gateway to the Middle East, it will choke the arterial shipping flow of oil and gas to the world.
Many economies will suffer. Hard.
The US is OK: It gets most of its fuel oil and gas from fracking.
Australia is not: It relies on oil extracted in the Middle East and processed in Asia. It has no strategic fuel reserves. It must rely on US generosity to top it up in an emergency.
China will be ropeable. This is precisely what its strategic thinkers have feared for decades. It’s also why it has sunk billions into its Belt-and-Road diplomatic project as well as aggressively establishing a military presence in the South China and Andaman seas and the Indian Ocean. Beijing is prepared to fight to keep fuel flowing out of the Middle East.
Interesting take, for some reason it reminds me of Imperial Japan's problems during the run-up to WWII. My mum always told me the long game was to bleed the Saudis (by extension the ME) dry of oil so that the US would become the new oil capital. Maybe she was not so far off after all.
yeh, as with many of Americas choices in the last decade the chaos doesnt really affect you guys but your alleged allies get less and less keen to be associated with it as they cop the worst of it.
I'm not sure how an eventual realignment of oil supply is necessarily a disaster for AU. Any disruption will be temporary, there's far too much at stake for everyone.
Everything works out in the long term, but we live in the short term
As the article pointed out, we have only 30 days worth of oil reserves and most of our food travels by truck.
We are in Asia, so chaos and panic in Asia is not high on our agenda, especially if China feels forced to protect its energy supply routes for its own national safety.
So, in order for allies like the US to help in case the worst happens, a 45-60 day oil supply would seem to be necessary. Perhaps your central planners don't consider a worst-case scenario to be likely enough to warrant the infrastructure investment. But the doom porn does not likely account for the savings that will result from the declaration of a national emergency. The US for instance only has approximately a 30 day supply as well, but the infrastructure to access it can only supply a fraction of average consumption, so in case of a serious emergency, we'll all have to hunker down and use extreme energy saving methods. Somehow I doubt we'll all be dropping like flies, nor would I think you guys would be either. It would be interesting to know if your 30 day supply could be provided at normal consumption rates, I bet not.
all those things are true and possible but weighed up against ongoing conflict in Iran/Iraq, I doubt the public will see the cost benefit in that way.
For me, it is mostly hyperbole and doomer porn barring the provocation of China - as the article points out 70% of Asian oil imports happen from that small strait and its absolutely in China's interest to not tolerate any potential loss of that crucial infrastructure.
Once we have their dick swinging around to establish geo political relevance, the middle eastern stuff fades away into the background for most of us.
Australia having one foot in each camp would be forced to pick a side, something nobody wants to do.
Iran has admitted accidently shooting down its own plane, which is de-escalation, they also fired some meaningless missles to save face without hurting much, which is also de-escalation.
Its only China deciding it has as right to a conflict free route for its vital energy supplies thats the concern into the future.
I am not surprised the Iranians admitted they shot down the plane. Whoever allowed it to take off and fly into a high alert air defense zone is ultimately to blame for its being shot down.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
noddy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 7:50 am
Iran has admitted accidentally shooting down its own plane, which is de-escalation, they also fired some meaningless missles to save face without hurting much, which is also de-escalation.
Its only China deciding it has as right to a conflict free route for its vital energy supplies thats the concern into the future.
It seems the gods were aligned against Iran in this one. allowing the plane to take off may have been due to the Iranians not actually expecting a retaliation from the US as the missile strike was a show for its domestic audience.
I think the Chinese had a hand in this as well. There is no way they would allow their oil supply to be cut off.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Protesters demand Iran’s leaders quit after military admits it shot down passenger plane
Published Sun, Jan 12 20207:18 AM ESTUpdated 37 min ago
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
