Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
There is a very narrow path in which the Iranian regime does not survive a direct confrontation with Israel, leading to the collapse of regional proxies (incl. Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, perhaps even the Syrian regime itself), but also to depriving China and Russia from influence in the Middle East. If this could be combined with an even narrower path where Putin’s regime does not survive its lack of success over Ukraine, we could be looking at a very, very different geopolitical landscape within 2–3 years from what the doomsayers have been predicting regarding the erosion of Western influence
11 replies
2 recasts
47 reactions
Greg Lang
@designheretic
It’s a Hail Mary that bears significant risk in the throwing though—a lot of events have to go just right to get there, and one bad dice roll means WWIII
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
Who else do you expect would join the fight alongside Iran to turn this into a world war? Russia is likely too stretched in Ukraine, China has ties with Iran but likely not to the point of entering an armed conflict against Western powers (which would presumably back Israel), North Korea may be a wildcard here but has a lot to lose from a direct confrontation. More likely in my view that each would supply weapons to Iran and turn this into a proxy war. I also suspect the nuclear risk is overblown, first because it would spell the end of the regime in Tehran, second because they are likely not ready to weaponize and fire their fissile materials (see https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable-weapon-potential).
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Greg Lang
@designheretic
The point I’m making is that there are a lot of unpredictable elements that are chaotically determined when you start up a war machine Yes, the happy path you describe makes sense and hypothetically could be an outcome in the event all of the conditions you describe are met—but you’re describing a future state that depends on a lot of things happening just so War is chaos. None of what happens after it starts can be predicted with total certainty. That fact means there is some non-zero probability of nuclear war associated with setting out on the path you described. I would ask you the following: What percentage chance of that risk materializing are you comfortable with? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? To me, even a 1 in 1000 chance is too high to be acceptable when it comes to the end of civilization in a nuclear conflagration, especially for the sake of something that offers such nebulous benefit to humanity as continued unilateral geopolitical dominance by the US But where do you come down?
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
