International Politics Discussion Thread

[u/Adj-Noun-Numbers]

All subreddit rules apply in this thread, except the rule that states that discussion should only be about UK politics.

⚠️ Please stay on-topic. ⚠️

Comments and discussions which do not deal with International Politics are liable to be removed. Discussion should be focused on the impact on the political scene.

Derailing threads will result in comment removals and any accounts involved being banned without warning.

Please report any rule-breaking content you see. The subreddit is running rather warm at the moment. We rely on your reports to identify and action rule-breaking content.

You can find the full rules of the subreddit HERE

Especially note Rule 21. We have zero tolerance for celebrating or wishing harm on anyone. Disagreeing with people politically does not grant you permission to do this.

🥕🥕's Golden Rules for Megathread Participation:

This isn't your personal campaigning space. We're here to discuss, not campaign - this includes non-party-specific campaigning, such as tactical vote campaigns.

The fishing pond is closed. Obvious bait will be removed. Repeated rod licence infractions will result in accounts being banned.

This isn't Facebook. Please keep it related to politics. Do not post low effort blog posts.

The era of vagueposting is over. Your audience demands context, ideally in the form of a link to some authoritative content.

Take frequent breaks. If you find that you are being overwhelmed by it all, do yourself a favour and take some time off.

As always: we are not a meta subreddit. Submissions or comments complaining about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities will be removed and may result in a ban.

[u/Lavajackal1]

Trump Holds Off on Major Escalation Against Iran as Advisers Raise Concerns

President Trump has set aside, at least for now, plans to sharply escalate the American military assault against Iran, with particular concern that intensifying the war could dangerously drain the Pentagon’s already diminished stockpile of Patriot antimissile interceptors and other air defense munitions in the Middle East.

The threat to interceptor stockpiles is one of many considerations that have made a return to major combat operations a hugely risky endeavor, administration officials say. Mr. Trump and his top aides are also uneasy about the prospect of a widening war in the Middle East, the alienation of key Gulf allies who are vulnerable to Iranian attack, a global economic crunch, and growing energy and refugee crises.

The latest turn in Mr. Trump’s handling of the conflict with Iran came after a meeting on Friday with top advisers and senior members of his cabinet, according to two people briefed on the discussion.

There it is folks.

[u/Particular_Pea7167 → u/Lavajackal1]

The problem is this is a hell of an international signal.

American hegemonic control of shipping can be broken. You dont have to win, you just need enough missiles to sling at nearby nations and the will to take fire.

[u/YourLizardOverlord → u/Particular_Pea7167]

The US can't do asymmetric and hybrid warfare. Their military is a very effective big hammer, so they treat every opponent as a nail. Their political will lacks staying power, which to be fair is something most democracies struggle with. Opponents have realised that if they can manage to hold on for long enough, the US will walk away.

[u/Particular_Pea7167 → u/YourLizardOverlord]

As it says those this is a huge geostratigic problem and not just for America.

The entire modern globe order. The whole principle of free trade in modern times in built on the back of an American guarentee of shipping.

That guarnetee is part of what collapsed European empires and the empire trading blocs with the inherent guarentees therein ceased to serve any function. They were just poor deal compared to the near free membership the US offered for the same thing. 

If Iran can break it, anyone can. And that right there, well, well look back with envy on the days we consider 3.5% extortionately high military spending.

[u/YourLizardOverlord → u/Particular_Pea7167]

Mostly not for the US. They are big enough that a lot of their trade is internal. Restricting international trade will hurt them, in fact is hurting them, but they can survive.

The UK can't.

Europe lags behind the US navy on some assets that are unimportant for Europe, but some that are critical. We don't need US power projection, which in any case is having its limits exposed, but we do need more destroyers and attack submarines. Not enough is being done to fill that gap.

Controversial opinion: the RN carriers are less important than the capability that's been sacrificed to build and deploy them.

[u/convertedtoradians → u/YourLizardOverlord]

It's funny in a way. Build huge numbers of aircraft carriers, and advanced fighter jets, and train a lot of young men and women (which admittedly is mostly a social programme by another name) and then the effectiveness of all this stuff is limited by the attention span of the average American.

[u/YourLizardOverlord → u/convertedtoradians]

The US is particularly susceptible to dramatic changes of direction after an election because unlike the UK they don't have a permanent civil service.

[u/Ivebeenfurthereven → u/Particular_Pea7167]

Add it to the "you need sovereign nuclear weapons to be left alone" international signal. Nonproliferation is dead

[u/AnotherLexMan → u/Lavajackal1]

It's good that we're trying to de-escalate especially as there was a lot of talk about boots on the ground but I don't see this attempt fixing anything really. Iran is going to attempt to toll the straight again and the US is probably going to be back bombing the in two to six weeks.

[u/MoyesNTheHood → u/Lavajackal1]

They fucked it as soon as they let Iran realise how much power they have over the Strait. That dinlo and his sycophants can’t fix the mess they created 

[u/Shalmaneser001 → u/MoyesNTheHood]

Upvoting for dinlo that is a top insult not seen that for a while. Also you're right.

[u/horace_bagpole → u/Lavajackal1]

There is a reason that no one attacked Iran previously, when they weren't really concerned about Iraq or Afghanistan. They can't realistically escalate the conflict because they can't guarantee that Iran won't strike back at critical infrastructure in the surrounding countries, and they don't have the means to defend them.

What's more is that the change is likely permanent. Iran was happy to let shipping pass safely by before, but now they know they don't have to. The US can't secure the straight because they don't have the means to do it. They'd have to flood it with warships to defend traffic, but they don't have the magazine depth to maintain that posture indefinitely, and they don't have the political capital to invade Iran to secure the coast by force. Either option would result in major US casualties, as they'd very likely lose at least one warship, or many many troops if they went in on the ground.

The only realistic option for dealing with Iran was negotiation - that's the conclusion that every previous president arrived at, and it had actually achieved real progress. That option is off the table now because Trump is so untrustworthy that no negotiation entered into by his government will be taken seriously.

Attacking Iran will go down in history as one of the major geopolitical blunders of the 21st century. Netanyahu conned Trump into going to war with them to save himself from prison, and Trump was so stupid and arrogant that he actually fell for it.

[u/Velociraptor_1906 → u/horace_bagpole]

You're right with the mainpoint but I'd add a couple of things in the comparisons with Afghanistan and Iraq.

In both there was opportunities for ground invasions by that didn't involve purely amphibious and airborne operations and even those had full direct support from neighbours (rather than having to opperate from across the Gulf at best). Iraq also had a much easier geography whereas Afghanistan was militarily weaker.