Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/politics
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Greg 🎩
@gregory-1967
I’m surprised when some people say, "There’s a high chance the U.S. might attack Iran, and it could actually happen." The truth is, even the slightest conflict of interest between the U.S. and Iran doesn’t automatically mean war. The U.S. actually needs Iran as an active player to maintain balance in the Middle East. At the very least, Iran helps counter Turkish ideological influence. And without a strong and stable government in Tehran, the Caucasus region would almost certainly fall into chaos and war. Let me leave you with this quote from Obama’s book: "Iran was a constant adversary, but one whose interests occasionally aligned with ours more than we liked to admit."
3 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
azb
@azbest
Seems like you assume that this administration is acting within the framework of general American interest, but it may not be actually the case.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Greg 🎩
@gregory-1967
Countries act based on their interests. What I find interesting is that some of Iran's interests in the Middle East align with those of the U.S., and having a controlled Iran is far more beneficial than a weak government in Iran.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
azb
@azbest
I agree, that's usually the case. But do you think Trump's geopolitical agenda is actually motivated by the best interest of the U.S.?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Greg 🎩
@gregory-1967
Do you think a governance system that defines itself based on the strategies of Washington's strategists would allow Trump to make a mistake on such a scale? Even the smallest mistake could hand the initiative over to China. I’m not sure how much we agree on this, but the premise of the question above is that the overall policies of a country aren’t determined by a single politician — rather, the politician enforces those policies using various tools.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
azb
@azbest
We can expect it to prevent some mistakes, and it's comforting to think it makes a catastrophic one impossible, but ultimately the system isn’t infallible. Neither is the group in power a mere executor of formerly established goals. Some damage has already been done, and the geopolitical alliances are shaken. Even if that doesn't transform into a more serious conflict, it will not be easy to restore the trust between NATO states, and that surely will be exploited by other parties. Again, this isn't specifically about Iran, I'm just suggesting that it maybe necessary to update the way we're making sense of what's happening.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Greg 🎩
@gregory-1967
You have to look at it from a big picture perspective to really grasp the depth of these issues. The U.S. doesn’t need the trust of European countries or NATO—it's always been the one keeping these unions afloat through various costs, shaping the global system to fit its own interests. But now, it needs to play a different kind of game to maintain its position against China and Russia, even if that means the current global order collapses in the process. This isn't about Iran specifically—but Iran does play a role in how the U.S. strategizes, and that role isn’t minor at all. It could actually become a key factor. Iran holds significant influence over part of the most important area of the Rimland from an economic standpoint. https://warpcast.com/gregory-1967/0x019a0fd1
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
azb
@azbest
You know, you can strategize all you want, but when you've made yourself the enemy of the whole world, that strategy might be difficult to execute.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Greg 🎩
@gregory-1967
That's why we need politicians....
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
