If the strategic goals of the US are to restore the free flow of trade through the Red Sea, to prevent the war between Hamas and Israel in Gaza from igniting a regional conflagration, and to thwart Iranian efforts to halt Israel’s normalization into a new, more stable and prosperous Middle East, then this morning’s fire and brimstone is likely to prove counterproductive.
I fail to see how it is. Ignoring Houthi aggression against international shipping would be counterproductive. Continuing to merely shooting $20k arrows with $1.2M arrows would be counterproductive over the long run. Finally targeting the archers has the chance to be very productive - if US and UK keep it up and don't leave it as a two-off.
In fact, one can’t help but feel that the US, like Israel after Oct. 7, is dancing to a tune that was scripted for it by a rogue militia in a failed quasi-state that has little to lose.
I don't think so. I think Houthis counted on US inaction given that it is a election year and parts of Democratic coalition are staunchly anti-Israel and threatening to abandon Biden. I am very curious what this Marc guy thinks should be done.
. . . if you doubt that the main aim of Iran and its proxies is to stoke anger at the US, listen to Hezbollah’s response to the US action. “The American aggression confirms once again that the US is a full partner in the tragedies and massacres committed by the Zionist enemy in Gaza and the region,” the Lebanon-based group said in a statement on Friday.
Hezbollah has the Ayatollah's hand firmly inserted up its butt. Their words are written in Tehran. It is hardly evidence of anger at the US having been stoked by US finally responding to months of Houthi aggression.
There are at least two views you can take on the US decision, joined by Britain, to strike Houthi targets in Yemen early Friday. Although they are entirely contradictory, both would be correct.
That makes zero sense. Either they are not "entirely contradictory" or they are not both correct, or neither.
The first is that this was inevitable. Both politically and to retain credible deterrence against further hostile actions by Iran and its proxies, doing nothing was simply not an option for President Joe Biden. The second view, and doubtless the reason he had first hesitated, is that there is little likelihood of success and a measurable risk of escalation.
The two statements are not contradictory, and only the first one is correct.
I think he hesitated because of politics - especially within the Democratic Party. And indeed, Republicans seem to be more in favor of the strikes than his fellow Democrats. Degrading Houthi capabilities can certainly work as Houthis will certainly be wary of losing advantage in the Yemeni civil war. As far as danger of wider escalation, I think that danger is far higher due to inaction, as our enemies would be emboldened by it.
None of the quoted portion gave any hint of what this Marc "Baldrick" Champion's cunning plan would be.
I'll have to read the rest of the piece, but I am not very confident.
Could you link to it anyway?
Swammerdami himself said:
The major blame falls on the failure of all peace efforts, and Netanyahu's disproportionate response to Hamas atrocities.
What would in your opinion have been a "proportionate" response? If you were PM of Israel, what would you have done?
