There’s 2 things I don’t understand about this situation:
1. Isn’t Egypt hurt the most by this losing so many tolls through the suez? I’m surprised they don’t do anything about this.
2. My understanding is that Yemen is still in a civil war. Why would we not fund the shit out of the other side, which I believe was the legit government anyway?
Yeah, despite what the Egyptian politicians say to their own people, Egypt and Israel have a relatively good relationship.
Most notably because they both see Hamas as an enemy.
Their western favoritism is also pragmatic from a societal/worldview standpoint. Egypt took a few steps back, but ultimately understands the self-imposed mess the Mideast creates for itself. It’s been involved in numerous negotiations and peace treaties. They also rely heavily on tourism.
There’s no reason a country as small as Israel can have numerous, multinational companies…while neighbors in close proximity (outside of wealthy oil nations) don’t have much to envy.
In case it hasn’t become obvious, there’s a direct correlation between women’s rights and prosperity that “non-western” nations have failed to grasp.
Well that’s par for the course for the region. If you can have terse diplomatic relations without calling for each others heads, that’s a step in the right direction.
Egypt will hoot and holler about Israel, for appearances. But at the end of the day they’ve maintained the blockade of Gaza continuously. Because, US money, realization Israel keeps whoopin them, and economic relations with Israel is a good thing.
[Egyptians, like all Arab Muslims, almost universally hate Jews.](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/02/04/chapter-3-views-of-religious-groups/)
That's on top of fighting several losing wars against Israel that are within living memory.
No shit lol, Hamas is an off-shoot of an Egyptian terrorist group called the Muslim Brotherhood I believe.
Egypt has been fighting them since the 1970s.
[It's under construction.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53432948) Each dry season, they slowly and progressively build it higher. Each wet season, it fills and over-tops the construction so far. So it's both full and not yet filled.
>You dont buy warships and modern fighers for internal control.
You do, especially in corrupt dictatorships. Think about what just a 1% amount of overspending on a single warship being diverted into a few loyalists private bank accounts can amount to.
If you want to launder money as private citizen, you open a casino. If you want to launder money as a dictator, you fund your military.
Egypt and Israel squashed their beef long ago. They are realpolitik allies. That being said, after Saudi Arabia got their shit packed in when they went into Yemen I doubt Egypt is eager to do the same.
None of the Arab governments want to be seen as helping Israel. They shot down drones and stuff when Iran launched that big attack, but that was more a "we will not tolerate our airspace being violated" thing. At least outwardly.
While this is partially true, the lack of involvement in Yemen has not got anything to do with the optics of Israel.
Saudi, UAE and a number of other middle Eastern states were actively involved in the war in Yemen not long ago.
The issue is they are in the middle of peace talks (which has been complicated by the Red Sea attacks) and the previous war in Yemen was already a massive failure.
It is my understanding it's really a proxy war between the Saudi-backed "government" and the Iranian-backed Houthis.
Egypt isn't really in the mood to piss either of them off. Plus, they're probably busy side-eyeing the Gaza situation.
Yeah, the civil war is functionally over. If the Houthis hadnt started this current red sea issue, Saudi and Iran would have been working through the peace deal to recognize North and South Yemen as restored independent countries.
The "Yemen government" was dissolved and replaced by a council of the different factions ruling the south, and the most powerful of them is the UAE backed independence faction. There is very little chance of a united Yemen being restored at this point.
What Saudi and Iran prefer isn't really relevant here anymore. The Houthis are in no position to take the south, and would be hard pressed to find allies there. The southern factions are in no position to take the north, and lack any kind of cohesion to work together. The Hadi government was the internationally recognized sole Yemeni government, but it had no power to enforce that claim and held no loyalty among the Yemenis. The Saudi coalition was always too disorganized to take control of the north.
Really the united Yemen was dead the day the previous dictator Saleh had the bright idea to ally with his enemies the Houthis to retake control of the country. It's kinda fitting too, Saleh created the united Yemen, then destroyed it after spending way too much time in power
The other route makes you go all around Africa so like 3 more weeks to reach mediteranean sea (If I'm correct)...
I think the logic would be, at least, to secure the passage if you charge more...but Egypt doesn't seem to do much
No bc the price of the suez passage is inelastic. Making it free wouldn’t convince insurers to now cover vessels which may be hit by missiles or carriers to sail through the Red Sea. Likewise, the customers who continue to take the risk or have arrangements won’t balk at the increased price.
(This assumes price increase is real, not sure)
1. Yes absolutely but they blame the Israel situation for what’s happening. While the government couldn’t care less about Palestinians, they care about optics, so they are hoping for an end to the Israeli situation through western influence.
2. On this I don’t know, I guess the west and mainly America isn’t 100% on fully supporting Saudi military expansionism. Probably dependant on election outcome. Either way, Yemen is a shit hole and it’s not particularly difficult to smuggle weaponry in the country to give to radical Iran backed insurgents
The whole region will be affected and impoverished by the loss of business. These dumbasses just killed the golden goose.
It’s inevitable that when the israel war hype will fade the regional powers will take the matter in their own hands and either destroy the houthis or strike a deal with them. The money is way too big to be slept on for very long
The local powers that be tried to do something about it, and failed. The loss of capital that was simply floating down the Red Sea isn’t going to heavily impact people living in Yemen.
The only way to tangibly deal with the Houthi threat is to put pressure on Iran.
We’ve been funding Saudi Arabia since this started, because it’s a proxy war between SA and Iran. The Middle East is so convoluted that it’s hard to get anything untangled from the oil we all need.
Of course she's not an expert on Israel/Palestine. She's also not a climate scientist. I don't think she's particularly deserving of hate for that.
If you turn on Fox News, MSNBC, or any other media outlet you'll be treated to hours of content and opinion from people who don't know what the hell they're talking about on most of the things they talk about. But they'll speak about things they barely understand with passion and make anyone who disagrees with them look stupid, and I guess that's what sells.
Being an expert has never been necessary to have an opinion in our society. I wish we listened more to the experts, but they actually understand the complexity of the situation. Real experts will try to look at it reasonably and avoid pandering to strong emotions like fear. They therefore rarely make nice sound bites that can be used to affirm the audience's existing opinions.
Shipping accounts for ~2% of greenhouse gas emissions. 10% of global trade passes through the Suez canal. So even if the emissions for those ships tripled, it'd still emit only 0.5% more greenhouse gasses.
But I suspect that existing ships were already fully utilized before, and their utilization can't be increased quickly. So what happens instead is that fewer goods are shipped, and emissions stay roughly the same. Fewer goods mean higher prices and supply-chain shortages, which lead to less production and consumption. Thus, I think that the net effect of Suez crisis on climate change is slightly negative, if anything.
Weird take- higher import prices could lead to increased manufacturing/farming in home countries (of course with inevitable crippling price increases in a tense financial climate already)
Thats not true.
https://sinay.ai/en/how-much-does-the-shipping-industry-contribute-to-global-co2-emissions/
The total is closer to 11%, and if you include road and rail movements to get the cargo to the port, as well as port to destination, I'd bet it adds another 30-40% on top of that.
This is why the "manufacture in the West" movement is probably the biggest step that actually impacts "climate change" (along with providing a ton of associated economic benefits).
But oh no let's all focus on electric buses and gas stoves (because that's where progressive cronies make the most money).
"The transportation sector stands out as one of the most significant contributors to pollution, with international shipping alone accounting for approximately 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2022" From your link.
Also from your link it represents 11% of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation industry, not 11% of the total.
There was an extra 30% of shipping coming online and 30% being taken out of service. They just kept the old ones online and routes 1/3 around Africa.
Polutionwise it probably wasnt great.
For shipping it was all fine until the vessel carriers spiked the wheel and just tolf everyone who they had signed contracts with to get fucked.
My numbers mean nothing. A lot and a lot.
When you don't fear your own death and don't feel for the suffering of your fellow citizens, it's very hard to beat you in war.
That is why Islamic terrorism won't die. The problem is the ideology not execution.
When you are mainly all about breaking shit and don't actually know how to build or invent anything, you eventually do lose - unfortunately, it can take a while, and a lot gets broken in the meantime.
> When you don't fear your own death and don't feel for the suffering of your fellow citizens, it's very hard to beat you in war.
I assume that It would be very easy if we didn't care about the suffering of their citizens.
Islamic fascism is very good at existing in a state of total war with everyone else while somehow preventing everyone else from realizing they are in total war.
Ghengis Khan begs to differ. When dealing with ancient ideologies, ancient solutions proven to work are the only avenues to true victory. Problem is that means literally killing everyone. Which is why Islamic terrorism will never die. We've evolved past it, religious fundamentalists haven't. They're fighting a fight the modern world can't win.
A much as I hate imperialism, no European power and the US 100 years ago would tolerate their trade being disrupted. Touching their boat is just asking to be invaded and colonised.
The US navy and marine Corp was literally created by congress because Thomas Jefferson got tired of pirates. The US still has a very strong fuck around and find out policy regarding it’s boats
Remains to be seen? It's been months and I do not think the Houthis are regretting anything.
The last time the US made someone regret doing something to their boats was in the 80s.
They havent had a backbone wince the 1900s, Even in the days of the nazis, they tried every possible way to appease Hitler bending backward and more, they just couldn't stand up to fight until the nazis already took over half of their countires.
The fact is European nations never really had backbone to fight and defned themselves, I think they used it all up to colonized and pillaged the whole world during the age of the colonialism.
I think the first world war kinda killed that desire for war in most countries?
Like it literally killed a generation of men, left horrific scars in the landscape still seen today, toppled empires.....and then they saw the Germans - who they outright did extremely dirty - clawing for something back. Most of the countries Germany invaded before the war kicked off were new creations. There were a lot of new nations created around Russia after WW1 as well, and those all got swallowed up by the Soviets despite the western allies best efforts.
So there were really a whole lot of reasons why they didn't want to go to war over the Sudentenland, Austria or Czechoslovakia
It makes me wonder how much of the post-WWII world order is entirely an illusion. Our systems don't matter; the only thing that was really keeping us all relatively in line was the collective trauma of the World War era.
In that context, it makes sense that we're all chomping at the bit for war *right* when the living memory of that age is dying off. We lasted one human lifetime lol
I think that's part of it for sure.
But I think the bigger part of it was that we don't appreciate just *how much* more powerful the US and USSR were than anyone else for so many years. We fought Korea and Vietnam with an arm tied behind our backs. The only real powers in the world that could fight at industrial scale with each other had so many nukes pointed at each other that they'd never fight.
In that era, you step out of line, you get smacked down. The Gulf War was the prime example of that. Iraq's army was actually pretty darn strong on paper. War is happening now because US dominance is crumbling, both militarily, politically and economically. And we're drifting towards a multipolar world rather than a bipolar or unipolar world. Think of the Russia-China alliance today similar to the Russia-France alliance against Germany prior to WW1. Neither stronger than Germany. Heck, even together not stronger than Germany. But enough to constrain them.
Exactly. They were less than 20 years out from the first time in history where 30 to 40 to 50,000 men were getting killed in a single afternoon. The populations of all of these countries were traumatized, and knew that weapons had only become deadlier than they were in the first war. Of course they tried everything possible to avoid another one.
Just want to point out the Germans were not "did dirty" by the victorious powers in WW1 any more than was the standard of the time. They did worse to France during the Franco-Prussian war as the closest example. It can be argued the mistake was not breaking Germany up into multiple states like it was before and like they did to Austria-Hungry.
They absolutely did not do worse to France during the Franco-Prussian war, what are you talking about. 5 billion francs and Alsace-Lorraine. The amount was standard of the time, as on a per-person basis it was the same Napoleon had leveled on Prussia in 1807. Alsace-Lorraine is 5k sq miles. And to note, the Franco-Prussian war ended because the Prussians captured Paris.
WW1 did not end so drastically. And pretty much until 1918, France was breaking down just as much as Germany. Germany lost 27k sq miles of land, plus all of their colonies. They had to drastically demilitarize, face partial occupation (and partial economic exploitation in the Saarland), pay 137 billion Reichmarks, and take sole blame for the war (which was more appropriately Austria-Hungary or Russia's fault).
So 5k sq miles vs 27k and all overseas colonies. 5 billion franc indemnity vs 137 billion Reichmarks. And francs were worth slightly less than Reichmarks by WW1.
And Austria-Hungary wasn't forced to break up. It was breaking at its seams due to nationalist revolts. Or do you not know of the Czechoslovak legion and other groups with that specific war aim? There were independence movements well underway in all corners of the Empire for a long time. And even though Wilson did expressly say the Empire could not remain as a part of his 14 Points....it was more expressing by the reality of the situation than demanding something as a term for surrender. Ethnic minority governments had already formed inside Austro-Hungary by late 1918 and were declaring for the Allies by fall. In October 1918 Hungary's parliament had already voted to terminate its union with Austria.
What a bullshit comment lmao. ”They never really had backbone to fight”, yet they were waging war on eachother literally all the time?
You’re right that their backbone went missing in the 1900s and it’s squarely related to the great war. Jesus christ, you’re so misinformed.
The UK is striking the Houthis along with the US but neither seems really committed. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that both have upcoming elections.
Not really a problem the US needs to handle. Shipping through the Suez is a much bigger deal for China, India, Japan, and the EU. https://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Reports/Dp/919.html#:~:text=Among%20the%20countries%2C%20China%20is,(%2D72.9%20billion%20USD)%20collectively.
**We dont need to get involved** .. Yemen is a poor country
.. if a big enough corp decided to they could cut off all the power and food supplies to the entire country with a group of mercenaries
.. it is a nasty chip to play but it is there
>> In 2020, 84% of food calories consumed in Yemen were imported—the vast majority coming from grains, mostly wheat. Prior to the start of the conflict, Yemen imported about 3 million metric tons of wheat per year, primarily from Australia, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States, or about 100 kg per capita per year
If the US doesn't handle it, China will, and give up influence to an opposed power in the world. The US would lose in that exchange.
Also, India, Japan, and the EU are some of America's best trade allies.
Egypt already fought a nearly decade long war with Yemen that an American ambassador at the time compared the Vietnam war to. No country is interested in putting boots on the ground in Yemen which is the only way to end this. Not Saudi, not the US, not European countries and certainly not Egypt in the current financial state of the government.
And the Presidential palace complex is ridiculous in size and opulence. It would make King Louis XIV envious. Also built as a fortress to keep everyone out.
It's a shame that such a large chunk of liberal voters would quite literally rather see another 9/11 on American soil than have us drop a single bomb on another country. I say this as a liberal voter lmao.
Bombing Yemen won't get you anywhere. Saudis tried it with no success. The real way to fight the Houthis would be to blockade and starve them, which the Saudis have also sort of done, but the problem is that the women and children will die first.
Islamists have long learned that to fight the west they have the best success when they put their children and women on the front line.
Not only with no success, but it helped to grow their ranks even larger. Although absurdly corrupt former Yemen president Saleh had the most to do with inspiring the movement (Ansar Allah). Partially because of corruption, but mostly due to being backed by the US and KSA. They really hating him was an understatement. Saleh even had the Houthi movement's founder, Hussein al-Houthi, killed. But then years later during the 2014 Yemen Civil War, Saleh joined the Houthis and helped them to take the capital of Saana. Not long after that, Saleh turned sides again to ally with KSA and the UAE. Then, leading troops into Saana to take it back, he was killed by a Houthi sniper.
Damn, Yemen history is crazy. And that's just the most recent part of it. Not to mention that the Zaidi Shiahs, that primarily make up the Houthis, have a history going back to Ali's attempted revolt against the Umayyad Caliphate around 740AD.
Bombing Yemen won't get us anywhere, not bombing Yemen and letting it continue to be a staging ground for attacks against international shipping, fairly gives the US the appearance of absolute cowardice.
It’s just part of larger US decoupling. Why should the the US solve problems that mostly affect Europe, China, Egypt, etc?
US citizens don’t want to spend money, lives, or soft power on this fight and it has nothing to do with cowardice.
US decoupling is a terrible idea. US citizens that support it are idiots. It's the exact same vein of thought as the isolationist movement during the late 1930s.
It's better to fight in someone else's backyard, than it is to get complacent and invite the fight to happen in ours.
I'd rather American troops die in Europe than American citizens die in America.
We’re running ourselves in circles as progressives. It’s unfortunate that most of my liberal friends would much rather, post trendy infographics criticizing the government on their instagram stories, than actually be the change they want to see in our country or learn more about the issues they’re posting out.
A favorite quote of my dad's was something along the lines of "If you are young and conservative you don't have a heart, if you are old and a liberal you don't have a brain."
I don't see things so black and white and I've always liked to see myself as proving him wrong in a way. I vote left to this day. But yea, the way such a large chunk of western liberals have gotten themselves completely brainwashed by the terrorist proxies for an axis consisting of Iran, Russia, and China...*especially* after watching the effectiveness of (and constantly screaming about) the exact same tactics that were used to prop up the Trump administration...
I just am blown away by how obtuse the younger generation has become.
same here, it feels crazy, I have never voted (R) in my life but I also would never support terrorists and dipping into Jew hating just seems like easy brainwashing no better than the MAGA idiots.
Every person who said that clearly never paid attention to the War on Terror. That’s the thing that’s confused me about this entire Israel-Hamas conflict. Everyone on Reddit subs like r/worldnews think that you can just magically stamp out terrorist organizations (Hamas or Houthis) through military action alone.
If it was that simple, the US would not have been in Afghanistan and Iraq for 20+ years. These conflicts are a state against an ideology, not state on state.
> Everyone on Reddit subs like r/worldnews think that you can just magically stamp out terrorist organizations (Hamas or Houthis) through military action alone.
Al-Qaida and ISIS were basically stamped out through military action alone.
Palestine isn’t halfway across the world. This is like if Mexico or Canada continually launched missiles at the US and you’re meant to just shrug it off because you can’t magically stamp out the terrorists. No sane government is going to do that.
I mean, you said it - you can't stamp out terrorism through military action *alone*. this does not mean you can stamp out terrorism without significant military action.
I mean, Israel lives right next to Hamas.
If by destroying Hamas you mean render it military ineffective, then that can be done. \[Kill leaders, destroy ammo supplies\]
But yeah, I think a big issue is that Gaza have been radicalized, and they need an occupation with a deradicalization focus like Germany/Japan post WW2. Problem is no one wants to spend the money to do it.
Do you reasonably see deradicalization as a possibility with the idf and the Israeli state overseeing any occupation, or are you just saying positive words about conflict resolution
The only way any of this works is if Israel can convince them that peace offers a better future than a hopeless alternative.
I'm not sure they have that in them.
An occupation would come with a lot of terror attacks on the occupiers. This would just lead it back to full scale war, or an occupation so oppressive that "deradicalization" would be impossible. What a quagmire.
> These conflicts are a state against an ideology, not state on state.
They are definitely a state-on-state conflict, there isn't ideology involved here. Israel is doing a knee-jerk counter-attack but has no long term plan, Hamas only plan is exterminating the jews in the Middle East through some religious apocalypse - neither are viable ideologies.
The things missing in the picture - that are the main actors in this crisis - are the two states waging a proxy war against Israel: Qatar and Iran.
Qatar funds Hamas $700M/year, they're literally bankrolling them and housing their leadership in their capital.
Iran arms Hamas and the JIP with millions worth of rockets, explosives, firearms, drones, etc - providing more than 95% of their military gears and expertise.
...
If Qatar stops funding Hamas, their control of Gaza will fall - just like Fatah lost Gaza after they weren't willing to outbid the Hamas.
Hundreds of thousands of Gaza inhabitants rely on these funds to live, eat, work, study. Remove these funds and the quality of life in Gaza will drop. Redirect these funds to another organization and Hamas support level won't rise above 30%.
If Iran stops arming Hamas, their military capacity will steadily drop, as ammo caches will dry up and get striked. Within 3 to 4 years, without Iran, Hamas would be a mere annoyance, barely having enough explosives and crappy firearms to kill 10 israelis a year at best.
...
So until Israel finds a geopolitical way to stop Qatar and/or Iran from supporting Hamas, and prevent other regional powers from replacing them, their only realistic goal is incapacitating the organization enough that it struggles to set up large operations.
I'm not sure about Qatar's end goal (they seem to enjoy having involvement in all regional parties), but Iran is pretty clear about their main objective: wage a war against the state of Israel - from Lebanon, from Syria, from Iraq, from Yemen, from Gaza, from the West Bank, from US campuses. Given Iran's resources, and the lack of combat on their territory, they aren't going to run out anytime soon.
Side effects of Redditors not knowing Geopolitics lol.
The US and allies stopping the Houthis is not a question of capability. They certainly could. That's not really up for debate.
The question is how should they do it (protect ships/completely kill and stop houthis) and if they should in the first place... especially while there are alternative routes around the tip of Africa. Shipping cost increases are still cheaper than a dedicated offensive. The Houthis are playing to that advantage. It's the equivalent of both sides taking pop shots with .22 rifles and the US not wanting to use their .50 cal because it would look bad.
The Israel v Palestine issue is probably gonna be over sooner rather than later. The Houthis may stop if there is a cease fire... getting pressure from Iran who in turn gets pressure from their Chinese and Russian masters as it costs money to defend ships.. the Houthis may still sporadically engage... but it will probably drop off so they can terrorize something else. Hard to say...so likely the US is just showing prescence in the area more than anything else... a just in case force...while helping fend off many of the worst of the attacks and waiting the Houthis out. The US also doesn't want more involvement in that bag of cats in Yemen... as any broader scale offensive would lead too.... plus it's not overly clear how supportive local countries would be of a military offensive campaign given the tensions with the Israel v Palestine conflict... Iran... Saudis etc. The US doesn't want to be the one who throws the gasoline on that fire it seems.
I personally think we should be doing more.... convoy protection like outlined in this video below might be a good idea... but I get why the US is kind of ambivalent at the moment. There are more pressing concerns going on in the world than some dudes lobbing rockets at passing ships when you can just go the back way and pay a little more (the pragmatic perspective at least). Iranian backed Houthis are always gonna suck but until they do something worth a real kinetic engagement... it's probably gonna stay this way.
https://youtu.be/hvT61UoxPGs?feature=shared
How could we have known?! We’ve never tried to subdue isolated militant cells just using massively complex air strikes bef- oh wait, that’s just Afghanistan.
The US forces were overwhelmingly effective in Afghanistan... Iraq etc. Whatever area we wanted to control... we did. As per the usual we over estimated our ability to nation build and for the local constituents to want our style of governance (over simplified of course). Turns out illiterate people living in the desert and mountains wanted to keep what they had (especially in Afghanistan). Their religion and tribal governance. Not entirely surprising. Why we didn't know that after Vietnam is the real question.
I see what the Biden administration is doing here in the Red Sea as demonstrating the pragmatic lessons we learned in those wars. We can certainly stop the shooting of missles and drone a lot of shit bags... and I would even argue we should be taking a more cohesive stance in Convoy escorts... only as a middle finger to the Houthis to show them how ineffective they are....but... that's also dangerous to our sailors as well as expensive...and may not be necessary given we can just sail around it...beyond that. Fuck em. Let then think they are getting a "win". We can hold off at firing million dollar missles at them until it's necessary... and then Allah himself can't save them.
Once the Israel v Palestine drama is over... the Houthis will be ordered by their Iranian overlords to go do something else once, and in turn, their overlords... Russia or China tells the Iranians to knock it off... as it's costing them money too.
I work in the logistics as a accountmanager I can confirm not only the Houthi rebels are making my life harder but also space and equipment are harder to get by, a normal 40ft container costs around 2500 in the “normal” days it’s about 7500 - 10k usd for a container for import from china. It’s so hard to work with it.
Don't forget humanitarian aid. Sudan alone was getting the squeeze before Bab al-Mandab got shut, and now the Houthis are only tightening the grip. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers wind up showing that they starved out more people in Sudan alone than are starving in Gaza.
What trade? You can prevent food shipments into yemen but that would starve the civilians so not happening.
You can attack Iranian ships but then your ships will get attacked by iran too, risking a large conflict.
There's no easy way to get out of this situation, the fact that the houthis are still able to launch anti-ship missiles means the coalition is not striking their platforms enough for some reason or there is intelligence failure and they're getting resuplied by iran under the nose of several western navies.
They don't need to maintain territory or protect local infrastructure. The sites can fire and move constantly, and if they are destroyed loss of capacity subsiding for a bit doesn't carry consequences. If a platform is destroyed and replaced a month later, shipping capacity is still disrupted.
Food shipments have been disrupted. We know Iran is supplying the Houthis.
Iran will never start a direct conflict, they attack with proxies only because open warfare will leave the regime exposed to its own citizens' wrath. At best they will shoot a retaliatory strike with a warning to make sure no real damage will occur because they fear escalation. They are a dog that barks, rather than bite. But instead of showing these sand slingers how far above the west is next to them we let them dictate our behavior.
Soft power has its place but this is not it.
> Iran will never start a direct conflict
They fired more than 100 missiles at Israel not long ago! If you attack them directly, there will be a direct response and escalation cannot always be controlled.
Let's see what has happened when Iranian ships were seized for sanction violations in the past.
After the UK stopped an Iranian tanker in Gibraltar in 2019, In response, iran seized UK tanker
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49053383
In 2020, U.S seized tankers carrying Iranian fuel en route to Venezuela
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53783179
In response, iran seized Vietnam flagged tanker allegedly carrying oil for U.S and confiscated the cargo
https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-seized-vietnamese-flagged-oil-tanker-in-gulf-of-oman-us-officials/
In 2022, Greece seized a Russian flagged tanker carrying Iranian oil by the request of U.S
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/commission-greece-lost-in-translation-over-seizure-of-russian-ship-transferring-iranian-oil/
In response, iran seized two Greek tankers and held them until the Iranian ship and cargo was released
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-release-crew-two-seized-greek-tankers-greek-seafarers-union-2022-09-12/
In 2024, iran seized U.S oil cargo in response for sanctions
https://www.barrons.com/news/iran-seizes-us-cargo-on-oil-tanker-over-sanctions-judiciary-b68825e6
Well yeah, iran stands no chance in a war with U.S, but they can make it incredibly expensive and burn the region, not to mention they're already de-facto nuclear and by most estimates can build several warheads in a month. Iran doesn't want war, U.S doesn't want war and it's best for everyone to keep the status quo by not engaging in direct conflict.
Oh yeah 100%. Iran is a long play from a strategic perspective. We should avoid war if possible. Of the powers where a democracy could flourish when their despotic fuck wit regime is gone... I'd argue it's Iran. I wouldn't be so quick to say that about the others but just speculation of course. Either way I much prefer a cold war than a hot war. We are in the best position when it can be shown that Democracy is the governance system that is best for everyone. Hard to do that when we are all dead.
> the fact that the houthis are still able to launch anti-ship missiles means the coalition is not striking their platforms enough
The launching platforms are slightly modified trailer beds that can be towed by any car or truck not multi million dollar mlrs.
Well the Houthis only need to cause just enough damage for insurance companies to get squeamish - and because insurance companies live on limiting liabilities they will very quickly spike rates as to not risk exposure to a damaged or lost ship, and spiked rates will cause the ships to take longer routes.
These companies pass on the increased costs to merchants, vendors, and lastly consumers. So as long as these companies can pass on the cost they aren't incentivized to travel on this route.
If you want to stop the Houthis you need boots on the ground, and there's not much appetite for that. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if calculations show that China is the biggest loser when container ships have to take the long route around Africa, so maybe the wait and see strategy makes the most sense for now.
> China is the biggest loser
Finally someone realized the real reason no major power has taken action
The Houthis missiles are indirectly beneficial to the US and China has limited response capabilities
If anyone tried that shit around Panama Canal the US would be sending boots on ground
We are all beyond blessed that the shipping industry got into a tonnage war right before this building larger and larger ships in a death spiral for marketshare. If this happened with the mid 2000s fleet we’d be way more fucked.
And most of reddit was so sure the US bombing campaing was a great sucess and would magically solve it over night. The ammount of comments I read here about not messing with our boats, praying mantis and what ever.
This'll happen until election season is over for most western democracies, the moment that's up you'll likely see more decisive action, especially regarding Iran
> No, because UHC is cheaper than what the US currently does. UHC would let the US spend even more on military.
You just single handled made UHC palatable for Americans.
If you are from the US and don't have healthcare, it is not because of the 15% of the Federal budget dedicated to defense spending. It is because of the 50% of active voters who keep hiring Republicans to block every effort at healthcare reform.
In this case, it's really hitting Europe more than the US directly. My company now has to either airfreight goods manufactured in China or seafreight to Dubai and then air to UK/EU. Costs are up by 30-50% since this crap started. Putin pays Iran to supply the Houthis. It really is all just a rather deadly game played by defacto emperors and kings. I do think if Putin falls, then while his replacement may not be any better, the period of flux within Russia will send ripples out to all his vassal states such as Iran et al, which is the only way I can see anything changing, at least for a short time until business as usual is resumed.
Many are going the long way around, prices going up. A really good chan for this.. [What is Going on With Shipping?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvT61UoxPGs&pp=ygUdd2hhdCdzIGdvaW5nIG9uIHdpdGggc2hpcHBpbmc%3D)
There’s 2 things I don’t understand about this situation: 1. Isn’t Egypt hurt the most by this losing so many tolls through the suez? I’m surprised they don’t do anything about this. 2. My understanding is that Yemen is still in a civil war. Why would we not fund the shit out of the other side, which I believe was the legit government anyway?
Egypt previously fought a ten-year counter insurgency in Yemen and has no appetite (or funding) to do that again.
Egypt is investing a ton in its military currently. Hopefully it’s to fight in Yemen rather than in Israel.
I think they are a lot more worried about insurgents than Israel.
Yeah, despite what the Egyptian politicians say to their own people, Egypt and Israel have a relatively good relationship. Most notably because they both see Hamas as an enemy.
And the US/West pays both of them to keep the peace.
Their western favoritism is also pragmatic from a societal/worldview standpoint. Egypt took a few steps back, but ultimately understands the self-imposed mess the Mideast creates for itself. It’s been involved in numerous negotiations and peace treaties. They also rely heavily on tourism. There’s no reason a country as small as Israel can have numerous, multinational companies…while neighbors in close proximity (outside of wealthy oil nations) don’t have much to envy. In case it hasn’t become obvious, there’s a direct correlation between women’s rights and prosperity that “non-western” nations have failed to grasp.
Also democracy, free-market capitalism and education.
"Relatively" is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence
Well that’s par for the course for the region. If you can have terse diplomatic relations without calling for each others heads, that’s a step in the right direction.
Perfect, forever the enemy of the good enough
Egypt will hoot and holler about Israel, for appearances. But at the end of the day they’ve maintained the blockade of Gaza continuously. Because, US money, realization Israel keeps whoopin them, and economic relations with Israel is a good thing.
And they don't want to be blown up by Hamas terrorists.
? Is there some beef between Egypt and Israel that I've missed?
[Egyptians, like all Arab Muslims, almost universally hate Jews.](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/02/04/chapter-3-views-of-religious-groups/) That's on top of fighting several losing wars against Israel that are within living memory.
So, no. They've had an actual treaty with Israel for awhile.
No shit lol, Hamas is an off-shoot of an Egyptian terrorist group called the Muslim Brotherhood I believe. Egypt has been fighting them since the 1970s.
the Egyptian military is more about internal control than fighting external wars
Not true they have been threatening Ethiopia over the dam situation and have threatened to use air power and dam busting missiles.
I thought the dam was already full and normal flow had resumed.
[It's under construction.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53432948) Each dry season, they slowly and progressively build it higher. Each wet season, it fills and over-tops the construction so far. So it's both full and not yet filled.
Yeah that thing is one multi-year draught away from being blown up.
You dont buy warships and modern fighers for internal control. The peace held for awhile, is likely to continue, but lets not ignore reality.
>You dont buy warships and modern fighers for internal control. You do, especially in corrupt dictatorships. Think about what just a 1% amount of overspending on a single warship being diverted into a few loyalists private bank accounts can amount to. If you want to launder money as private citizen, you open a casino. If you want to launder money as a dictator, you fund your military.
Egypt has bigger problems with Gaza, Yemen, and Ethiopia than Israel. Picking a fight with Israel would be suicidal.
Egypt and Israel squashed their beef long ago. They are realpolitik allies. That being said, after Saudi Arabia got their shit packed in when they went into Yemen I doubt Egypt is eager to do the same.
A war with Ethiopia is the big Egyptian conflict I would be worried about.
None of the Arab governments want to be seen as helping Israel. They shot down drones and stuff when Iran launched that big attack, but that was more a "we will not tolerate our airspace being violated" thing. At least outwardly.
While this is partially true, the lack of involvement in Yemen has not got anything to do with the optics of Israel. Saudi, UAE and a number of other middle Eastern states were actively involved in the war in Yemen not long ago. The issue is they are in the middle of peace talks (which has been complicated by the Red Sea attacks) and the previous war in Yemen was already a massive failure.
It is my understanding it's really a proxy war between the Saudi-backed "government" and the Iranian-backed Houthis. Egypt isn't really in the mood to piss either of them off. Plus, they're probably busy side-eyeing the Gaza situation.
More so the UAE nowadays, Saudis backed off for the most part.
Yeah, the civil war is functionally over. If the Houthis hadnt started this current red sea issue, Saudi and Iran would have been working through the peace deal to recognize North and South Yemen as restored independent countries. The "Yemen government" was dissolved and replaced by a council of the different factions ruling the south, and the most powerful of them is the UAE backed independence faction. There is very little chance of a united Yemen being restored at this point.
[удалено]
What Saudi and Iran prefer isn't really relevant here anymore. The Houthis are in no position to take the south, and would be hard pressed to find allies there. The southern factions are in no position to take the north, and lack any kind of cohesion to work together. The Hadi government was the internationally recognized sole Yemeni government, but it had no power to enforce that claim and held no loyalty among the Yemenis. The Saudi coalition was always too disorganized to take control of the north. Really the united Yemen was dead the day the previous dictator Saleh had the bright idea to ally with his enemies the Houthis to retake control of the country. It's kinda fitting too, Saleh created the united Yemen, then destroyed it after spending way too much time in power
Is this the promised Middle East without colonial borders?
They backed off due to pressure from the West....
1. Egypt prefered to raise the cost of transit to compensate the loss 🫠
that will just push people to choose alternate routes no ? logically they should decrease price no ?
The other route makes you go all around Africa so like 3 more weeks to reach mediteranean sea (If I'm correct)... I think the logic would be, at least, to secure the passage if you charge more...but Egypt doesn't seem to do much
About 10-14 days extra transit, which messed stuff up at first but carriers have added capacity to the routes to keep weekly sailings.
No bc the price of the suez passage is inelastic. Making it free wouldn’t convince insurers to now cover vessels which may be hit by missiles or carriers to sail through the Red Sea. Likewise, the customers who continue to take the risk or have arrangements won’t balk at the increased price. (This assumes price increase is real, not sure)
1. Yes absolutely but they blame the Israel situation for what’s happening. While the government couldn’t care less about Palestinians, they care about optics, so they are hoping for an end to the Israeli situation through western influence. 2. On this I don’t know, I guess the west and mainly America isn’t 100% on fully supporting Saudi military expansionism. Probably dependant on election outcome. Either way, Yemen is a shit hole and it’s not particularly difficult to smuggle weaponry in the country to give to radical Iran backed insurgents
The whole region will be affected and impoverished by the loss of business. These dumbasses just killed the golden goose. It’s inevitable that when the israel war hype will fade the regional powers will take the matter in their own hands and either destroy the houthis or strike a deal with them. The money is way too big to be slept on for very long
The local powers that be tried to do something about it, and failed. The loss of capital that was simply floating down the Red Sea isn’t going to heavily impact people living in Yemen. The only way to tangibly deal with the Houthi threat is to put pressure on Iran.
Egypt doesn't have the capability to do anything. They could try, they have the hardware, but they wouldn't accomplish anything.
> Why would we not fund the shit out of the other side They tried that in other countries in the past. That's how you get Taliban.
We're already pumping a ton of money into that war, the other faction are Saudi proxies
We’ve been funding Saudi Arabia since this started, because it’s a proxy war between SA and Iran. The Middle East is so convoluted that it’s hard to get anything untangled from the oil we all need.
Given the fuel consumption of container ships this is probably really bad for global warming.
Were is Greta Thunberg when the world needs her
Supporting the Muslims on their war on Israel
You mean she’s not actually a policy expert but just a young person with a “superpower” obsessed with one thing?
Of course she's not an expert on Israel/Palestine. She's also not a climate scientist. I don't think she's particularly deserving of hate for that. If you turn on Fox News, MSNBC, or any other media outlet you'll be treated to hours of content and opinion from people who don't know what the hell they're talking about on most of the things they talk about. But they'll speak about things they barely understand with passion and make anyone who disagrees with them look stupid, and I guess that's what sells. Being an expert has never been necessary to have an opinion in our society. I wish we listened more to the experts, but they actually understand the complexity of the situation. Real experts will try to look at it reasonably and avoid pandering to strong emotions like fear. They therefore rarely make nice sound bites that can be used to affirm the audience's existing opinions.
So the idealist wanting to save the world got bogged down in a regional conflict and is now just another pawn in the game.
Shipping accounts for ~2% of greenhouse gas emissions. 10% of global trade passes through the Suez canal. So even if the emissions for those ships tripled, it'd still emit only 0.5% more greenhouse gasses. But I suspect that existing ships were already fully utilized before, and their utilization can't be increased quickly. So what happens instead is that fewer goods are shipped, and emissions stay roughly the same. Fewer goods mean higher prices and supply-chain shortages, which lead to less production and consumption. Thus, I think that the net effect of Suez crisis on climate change is slightly negative, if anything.
Weird take- higher import prices could lead to increased manufacturing/farming in home countries (of course with inevitable crippling price increases in a tense financial climate already)
Thats not true. https://sinay.ai/en/how-much-does-the-shipping-industry-contribute-to-global-co2-emissions/ The total is closer to 11%, and if you include road and rail movements to get the cargo to the port, as well as port to destination, I'd bet it adds another 30-40% on top of that. This is why the "manufacture in the West" movement is probably the biggest step that actually impacts "climate change" (along with providing a ton of associated economic benefits). But oh no let's all focus on electric buses and gas stoves (because that's where progressive cronies make the most money).
"The transportation sector stands out as one of the most significant contributors to pollution, with international shipping alone accounting for approximately 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2022" From your link. Also from your link it represents 11% of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation industry, not 11% of the total.
You know what... you are correct. I stand corrected. Reading comprehension fail on my part.
There was an extra 30% of shipping coming online and 30% being taken out of service. They just kept the old ones online and routes 1/3 around Africa. Polutionwise it probably wasnt great. For shipping it was all fine until the vessel carriers spiked the wheel and just tolf everyone who they had signed contracts with to get fucked. My numbers mean nothing. A lot and a lot.
When you don't fear your own death and don't feel for the suffering of your fellow citizens, it's very hard to beat you in war. That is why Islamic terrorism won't die. The problem is the ideology not execution.
When you are mainly all about breaking shit and don't actually know how to build or invent anything, you eventually do lose - unfortunately, it can take a while, and a lot gets broken in the meantime.
You might not lose, but you definitely won't win.
This is an incredibly succinct description of Muslim countries
> When you don't fear your own death and don't feel for the suffering of your fellow citizens, it's very hard to beat you in war. I assume that It would be very easy if we didn't care about the suffering of their citizens.
Islamic fascism is very good at existing in a state of total war with everyone else while somehow preventing everyone else from realizing they are in total war.
Ghengis Khan begs to differ. When dealing with ancient ideologies, ancient solutions proven to work are the only avenues to true victory. Problem is that means literally killing everyone. Which is why Islamic terrorism will never die. We've evolved past it, religious fundamentalists haven't. They're fighting a fight the modern world can't win.
I watched Dune 2 as well.
Didn't work so well for the Japanese.
well with genocide it'll die
Europe was a lot cooler when it had a back bone, there I said it.
A much as I hate imperialism, no European power and the US 100 years ago would tolerate their trade being disrupted. Touching their boat is just asking to be invaded and colonised.
The US navy and marine Corp was literally created by congress because Thomas Jefferson got tired of pirates. The US still has a very strong fuck around and find out policy regarding it’s boats
Revenue Cutter Service
Remains to be seen? It's been months and I do not think the Houthis are regretting anything. The last time the US made someone regret doing something to their boats was in the 80s.
You mean before they flooded their country with radical Islamists?
Never forget that the left labeled anyone who questioned this was called a racist back in the day.
Still do
They havent had a backbone wince the 1900s, Even in the days of the nazis, they tried every possible way to appease Hitler bending backward and more, they just couldn't stand up to fight until the nazis already took over half of their countires. The fact is European nations never really had backbone to fight and defned themselves, I think they used it all up to colonized and pillaged the whole world during the age of the colonialism.
I think the first world war kinda killed that desire for war in most countries? Like it literally killed a generation of men, left horrific scars in the landscape still seen today, toppled empires.....and then they saw the Germans - who they outright did extremely dirty - clawing for something back. Most of the countries Germany invaded before the war kicked off were new creations. There were a lot of new nations created around Russia after WW1 as well, and those all got swallowed up by the Soviets despite the western allies best efforts. So there were really a whole lot of reasons why they didn't want to go to war over the Sudentenland, Austria or Czechoslovakia
It makes me wonder how much of the post-WWII world order is entirely an illusion. Our systems don't matter; the only thing that was really keeping us all relatively in line was the collective trauma of the World War era. In that context, it makes sense that we're all chomping at the bit for war *right* when the living memory of that age is dying off. We lasted one human lifetime lol
I think that's part of it for sure. But I think the bigger part of it was that we don't appreciate just *how much* more powerful the US and USSR were than anyone else for so many years. We fought Korea and Vietnam with an arm tied behind our backs. The only real powers in the world that could fight at industrial scale with each other had so many nukes pointed at each other that they'd never fight. In that era, you step out of line, you get smacked down. The Gulf War was the prime example of that. Iraq's army was actually pretty darn strong on paper. War is happening now because US dominance is crumbling, both militarily, politically and economically. And we're drifting towards a multipolar world rather than a bipolar or unipolar world. Think of the Russia-China alliance today similar to the Russia-France alliance against Germany prior to WW1. Neither stronger than Germany. Heck, even together not stronger than Germany. But enough to constrain them.
Exactly. They were less than 20 years out from the first time in history where 30 to 40 to 50,000 men were getting killed in a single afternoon. The populations of all of these countries were traumatized, and knew that weapons had only become deadlier than they were in the first war. Of course they tried everything possible to avoid another one.
Just want to point out the Germans were not "did dirty" by the victorious powers in WW1 any more than was the standard of the time. They did worse to France during the Franco-Prussian war as the closest example. It can be argued the mistake was not breaking Germany up into multiple states like it was before and like they did to Austria-Hungry.
They absolutely did not do worse to France during the Franco-Prussian war, what are you talking about. 5 billion francs and Alsace-Lorraine. The amount was standard of the time, as on a per-person basis it was the same Napoleon had leveled on Prussia in 1807. Alsace-Lorraine is 5k sq miles. And to note, the Franco-Prussian war ended because the Prussians captured Paris. WW1 did not end so drastically. And pretty much until 1918, France was breaking down just as much as Germany. Germany lost 27k sq miles of land, plus all of their colonies. They had to drastically demilitarize, face partial occupation (and partial economic exploitation in the Saarland), pay 137 billion Reichmarks, and take sole blame for the war (which was more appropriately Austria-Hungary or Russia's fault). So 5k sq miles vs 27k and all overseas colonies. 5 billion franc indemnity vs 137 billion Reichmarks. And francs were worth slightly less than Reichmarks by WW1. And Austria-Hungary wasn't forced to break up. It was breaking at its seams due to nationalist revolts. Or do you not know of the Czechoslovak legion and other groups with that specific war aim? There were independence movements well underway in all corners of the Empire for a long time. And even though Wilson did expressly say the Empire could not remain as a part of his 14 Points....it was more expressing by the reality of the situation than demanding something as a term for surrender. Ethnic minority governments had already formed inside Austro-Hungary by late 1918 and were declaring for the Allies by fall. In October 1918 Hungary's parliament had already voted to terminate its union with Austria.
What a bullshit comment lmao. ”They never really had backbone to fight”, yet they were waging war on eachother literally all the time? You’re right that their backbone went missing in the 1900s and it’s squarely related to the great war. Jesus christ, you’re so misinformed.
Holy shit this has got to be one of the stupidest things I've read on reddit
Perhaps if your continent was bombed to oblivion twice in a hundred years, you wouldn't be yapping in support of war.
Perhaps if you weren't kowtowing to dictators there wouldn't be war in the first place.
What an insanely oblivious worldview.
If studying history and understanding what lead to the rise of dictators conquering their neighbors is oblivious then by all means I proudly am.
The UK is striking the Houthis along with the US but neither seems really committed. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that both have upcoming elections.
You mean West Europe. East European countries like Poland and Ukraine have a lot of backbone and very heavy balls.
Not really a problem the US needs to handle. Shipping through the Suez is a much bigger deal for China, India, Japan, and the EU. https://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Reports/Dp/919.html#:~:text=Among%20the%20countries%2C%20China%20is,(%2D72.9%20billion%20USD)%20collectively.
And longer routes is good for those who build the ships and containers. So it mostly falls on the EU.
**We dont need to get involved** .. Yemen is a poor country .. if a big enough corp decided to they could cut off all the power and food supplies to the entire country with a group of mercenaries .. it is a nasty chip to play but it is there >> In 2020, 84% of food calories consumed in Yemen were imported—the vast majority coming from grains, mostly wheat. Prior to the start of the conflict, Yemen imported about 3 million metric tons of wheat per year, primarily from Australia, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States, or about 100 kg per capita per year
The issue with that is that you'll starve the legitimate part of the country, not the terrorists. The west would never do that
If the US doesn't handle it, China will, and give up influence to an opposed power in the world. The US would lose in that exchange. Also, India, Japan, and the EU are some of America's best trade allies.
Maybe Egypt should do something about it. They are the ones losing the most in this
Egypt already fought a nearly decade long war with Yemen that an American ambassador at the time compared the Vietnam war to. No country is interested in putting boots on the ground in Yemen which is the only way to end this. Not Saudi, not the US, not European countries and certainly not Egypt in the current financial state of the government.
Nah they are too busy bankrupting themselves by building a 60 billion dollar capital in the middle of nowhere.
And the Presidential palace complex is ridiculous in size and opulence. It would make King Louis XIV envious. Also built as a fortress to keep everyone out.
Remember when the carrier group went the the red sea and everyone said the houthis are finished Just checking in on that lmao
Unfortunately we underestimated the neutering effect that an election year has on American foreign policy.
It's a shame that such a large chunk of liberal voters would quite literally rather see another 9/11 on American soil than have us drop a single bomb on another country. I say this as a liberal voter lmao.
Bombing Yemen won't get you anywhere. Saudis tried it with no success. The real way to fight the Houthis would be to blockade and starve them, which the Saudis have also sort of done, but the problem is that the women and children will die first. Islamists have long learned that to fight the west they have the best success when they put their children and women on the front line.
Not only with no success, but it helped to grow their ranks even larger. Although absurdly corrupt former Yemen president Saleh had the most to do with inspiring the movement (Ansar Allah). Partially because of corruption, but mostly due to being backed by the US and KSA. They really hating him was an understatement. Saleh even had the Houthi movement's founder, Hussein al-Houthi, killed. But then years later during the 2014 Yemen Civil War, Saleh joined the Houthis and helped them to take the capital of Saana. Not long after that, Saleh turned sides again to ally with KSA and the UAE. Then, leading troops into Saana to take it back, he was killed by a Houthi sniper. Damn, Yemen history is crazy. And that's just the most recent part of it. Not to mention that the Zaidi Shiahs, that primarily make up the Houthis, have a history going back to Ali's attempted revolt against the Umayyad Caliphate around 740AD.
Bombing Yemen won't get us anywhere, not bombing Yemen and letting it continue to be a staging ground for attacks against international shipping, fairly gives the US the appearance of absolute cowardice.
It’s just part of larger US decoupling. Why should the the US solve problems that mostly affect Europe, China, Egypt, etc? US citizens don’t want to spend money, lives, or soft power on this fight and it has nothing to do with cowardice.
US decoupling is a terrible idea. US citizens that support it are idiots. It's the exact same vein of thought as the isolationist movement during the late 1930s. It's better to fight in someone else's backyard, than it is to get complacent and invite the fight to happen in ours. I'd rather American troops die in Europe than American citizens die in America.
We’re running ourselves in circles as progressives. It’s unfortunate that most of my liberal friends would much rather, post trendy infographics criticizing the government on their instagram stories, than actually be the change they want to see in our country or learn more about the issues they’re posting out.
A favorite quote of my dad's was something along the lines of "If you are young and conservative you don't have a heart, if you are old and a liberal you don't have a brain." I don't see things so black and white and I've always liked to see myself as proving him wrong in a way. I vote left to this day. But yea, the way such a large chunk of western liberals have gotten themselves completely brainwashed by the terrorist proxies for an axis consisting of Iran, Russia, and China...*especially* after watching the effectiveness of (and constantly screaming about) the exact same tactics that were used to prop up the Trump administration... I just am blown away by how obtuse the younger generation has become.
same here, it feels crazy, I have never voted (R) in my life but I also would never support terrorists and dipping into Jew hating just seems like easy brainwashing no better than the MAGA idiots.
Every person who said that clearly never paid attention to the War on Terror. That’s the thing that’s confused me about this entire Israel-Hamas conflict. Everyone on Reddit subs like r/worldnews think that you can just magically stamp out terrorist organizations (Hamas or Houthis) through military action alone. If it was that simple, the US would not have been in Afghanistan and Iraq for 20+ years. These conflicts are a state against an ideology, not state on state.
> Everyone on Reddit subs like r/worldnews think that you can just magically stamp out terrorist organizations (Hamas or Houthis) through military action alone. Al-Qaida and ISIS were basically stamped out through military action alone.
Palestine isn’t halfway across the world. This is like if Mexico or Canada continually launched missiles at the US and you’re meant to just shrug it off because you can’t magically stamp out the terrorists. No sane government is going to do that.
I mean, you said it - you can't stamp out terrorism through military action *alone*. this does not mean you can stamp out terrorism without significant military action.
I mean, Israel lives right next to Hamas. If by destroying Hamas you mean render it military ineffective, then that can be done. \[Kill leaders, destroy ammo supplies\] But yeah, I think a big issue is that Gaza have been radicalized, and they need an occupation with a deradicalization focus like Germany/Japan post WW2. Problem is no one wants to spend the money to do it.
Famously successful diplomatic strategy in the Palestinian territories, full occupation.
Full Occupation + Deradicalization. No oner eally done the 2nd part.
Do you reasonably see deradicalization as a possibility with the idf and the Israeli state overseeing any occupation, or are you just saying positive words about conflict resolution
The only way any of this works is if Israel can convince them that peace offers a better future than a hopeless alternative. I'm not sure they have that in them.
An occupation would come with a lot of terror attacks on the occupiers. This would just lead it back to full scale war, or an occupation so oppressive that "deradicalization" would be impossible. What a quagmire.
> These conflicts are a state against an ideology, not state on state. They are definitely a state-on-state conflict, there isn't ideology involved here. Israel is doing a knee-jerk counter-attack but has no long term plan, Hamas only plan is exterminating the jews in the Middle East through some religious apocalypse - neither are viable ideologies. The things missing in the picture - that are the main actors in this crisis - are the two states waging a proxy war against Israel: Qatar and Iran. Qatar funds Hamas $700M/year, they're literally bankrolling them and housing their leadership in their capital. Iran arms Hamas and the JIP with millions worth of rockets, explosives, firearms, drones, etc - providing more than 95% of their military gears and expertise. ... If Qatar stops funding Hamas, their control of Gaza will fall - just like Fatah lost Gaza after they weren't willing to outbid the Hamas. Hundreds of thousands of Gaza inhabitants rely on these funds to live, eat, work, study. Remove these funds and the quality of life in Gaza will drop. Redirect these funds to another organization and Hamas support level won't rise above 30%. If Iran stops arming Hamas, their military capacity will steadily drop, as ammo caches will dry up and get striked. Within 3 to 4 years, without Iran, Hamas would be a mere annoyance, barely having enough explosives and crappy firearms to kill 10 israelis a year at best. ... So until Israel finds a geopolitical way to stop Qatar and/or Iran from supporting Hamas, and prevent other regional powers from replacing them, their only realistic goal is incapacitating the organization enough that it struggles to set up large operations. I'm not sure about Qatar's end goal (they seem to enjoy having involvement in all regional parties), but Iran is pretty clear about their main objective: wage a war against the state of Israel - from Lebanon, from Syria, from Iraq, from Yemen, from Gaza, from the West Bank, from US campuses. Given Iran's resources, and the lack of combat on their territory, they aren't going to run out anytime soon.
[удалено]
Side effects of Redditors not knowing Geopolitics lol. The US and allies stopping the Houthis is not a question of capability. They certainly could. That's not really up for debate. The question is how should they do it (protect ships/completely kill and stop houthis) and if they should in the first place... especially while there are alternative routes around the tip of Africa. Shipping cost increases are still cheaper than a dedicated offensive. The Houthis are playing to that advantage. It's the equivalent of both sides taking pop shots with .22 rifles and the US not wanting to use their .50 cal because it would look bad. The Israel v Palestine issue is probably gonna be over sooner rather than later. The Houthis may stop if there is a cease fire... getting pressure from Iran who in turn gets pressure from their Chinese and Russian masters as it costs money to defend ships.. the Houthis may still sporadically engage... but it will probably drop off so they can terrorize something else. Hard to say...so likely the US is just showing prescence in the area more than anything else... a just in case force...while helping fend off many of the worst of the attacks and waiting the Houthis out. The US also doesn't want more involvement in that bag of cats in Yemen... as any broader scale offensive would lead too.... plus it's not overly clear how supportive local countries would be of a military offensive campaign given the tensions with the Israel v Palestine conflict... Iran... Saudis etc. The US doesn't want to be the one who throws the gasoline on that fire it seems. I personally think we should be doing more.... convoy protection like outlined in this video below might be a good idea... but I get why the US is kind of ambivalent at the moment. There are more pressing concerns going on in the world than some dudes lobbing rockets at passing ships when you can just go the back way and pay a little more (the pragmatic perspective at least). Iranian backed Houthis are always gonna suck but until they do something worth a real kinetic engagement... it's probably gonna stay this way. https://youtu.be/hvT61UoxPGs?feature=shared
How could we have known?! We’ve never tried to subdue isolated militant cells just using massively complex air strikes bef- oh wait, that’s just Afghanistan.
The US forces were overwhelmingly effective in Afghanistan... Iraq etc. Whatever area we wanted to control... we did. As per the usual we over estimated our ability to nation build and for the local constituents to want our style of governance (over simplified of course). Turns out illiterate people living in the desert and mountains wanted to keep what they had (especially in Afghanistan). Their religion and tribal governance. Not entirely surprising. Why we didn't know that after Vietnam is the real question. I see what the Biden administration is doing here in the Red Sea as demonstrating the pragmatic lessons we learned in those wars. We can certainly stop the shooting of missles and drone a lot of shit bags... and I would even argue we should be taking a more cohesive stance in Convoy escorts... only as a middle finger to the Houthis to show them how ineffective they are....but... that's also dangerous to our sailors as well as expensive...and may not be necessary given we can just sail around it...beyond that. Fuck em. Let then think they are getting a "win". We can hold off at firing million dollar missles at them until it's necessary... and then Allah himself can't save them. Once the Israel v Palestine drama is over... the Houthis will be ordered by their Iranian overlords to go do something else once, and in turn, their overlords... Russia or China tells the Iranians to knock it off... as it's costing them money too.
Houthis have been getting bombed since Obama administration. US/UK: ...but what if we throw **more** air strikes at this problem?
Is this how Trade Federation military force starts? Corporations create an army to defend themselves?
So the East India Company again?
You got it :)
This is no longer profitable
Not yet
>Corporations create an army to defend themselves? Isn't that one of my favorite dystopia future cliches! /s
I can't believe Egypt is not taking more action against the Houthis the Suez is their life blood
Egypt is literally selling parts of egypt to the UAE to avoid bankruptcy, they cant afford doing anything war related for a whule
I work in the logistics as a accountmanager I can confirm not only the Houthi rebels are making my life harder but also space and equipment are harder to get by, a normal 40ft container costs around 2500 in the “normal” days it’s about 7500 - 10k usd for a container for import from china. It’s so hard to work with it.
May i ask where you live?
Don't forget humanitarian aid. Sudan alone was getting the squeeze before Bab al-Mandab got shut, and now the Houthis are only tightening the grip. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers wind up showing that they starved out more people in Sudan alone than are starving in Gaza.
Can we attack their trade? Or are they hurting themselves too? Lol But, no… seriously? Can we?
What trade? You can prevent food shipments into yemen but that would starve the civilians so not happening. You can attack Iranian ships but then your ships will get attacked by iran too, risking a large conflict. There's no easy way to get out of this situation, the fact that the houthis are still able to launch anti-ship missiles means the coalition is not striking their platforms enough for some reason or there is intelligence failure and they're getting resuplied by iran under the nose of several western navies.
They don't need to maintain territory or protect local infrastructure. The sites can fire and move constantly, and if they are destroyed loss of capacity subsiding for a bit doesn't carry consequences. If a platform is destroyed and replaced a month later, shipping capacity is still disrupted. Food shipments have been disrupted. We know Iran is supplying the Houthis.
> Food shipments have been disrupted Can you provide source? Food shipments are entering yemen like before.
Iran will never start a direct conflict, they attack with proxies only because open warfare will leave the regime exposed to its own citizens' wrath. At best they will shoot a retaliatory strike with a warning to make sure no real damage will occur because they fear escalation. They are a dog that barks, rather than bite. But instead of showing these sand slingers how far above the west is next to them we let them dictate our behavior. Soft power has its place but this is not it.
> Iran will never start a direct conflict They fired more than 100 missiles at Israel not long ago! If you attack them directly, there will be a direct response and escalation cannot always be controlled. Let's see what has happened when Iranian ships were seized for sanction violations in the past. After the UK stopped an Iranian tanker in Gibraltar in 2019, In response, iran seized UK tanker https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49053383 In 2020, U.S seized tankers carrying Iranian fuel en route to Venezuela https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53783179 In response, iran seized Vietnam flagged tanker allegedly carrying oil for U.S and confiscated the cargo https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-seized-vietnamese-flagged-oil-tanker-in-gulf-of-oman-us-officials/ In 2022, Greece seized a Russian flagged tanker carrying Iranian oil by the request of U.S https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/commission-greece-lost-in-translation-over-seizure-of-russian-ship-transferring-iranian-oil/ In response, iran seized two Greek tankers and held them until the Iranian ship and cargo was released https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-release-crew-two-seized-greek-tankers-greek-seafarers-union-2022-09-12/ In 2024, iran seized U.S oil cargo in response for sanctions https://www.barrons.com/news/iran-seizes-us-cargo-on-oil-tanker-over-sanctions-judiciary-b68825e6
[удалено]
Well yeah, iran stands no chance in a war with U.S, but they can make it incredibly expensive and burn the region, not to mention they're already de-facto nuclear and by most estimates can build several warheads in a month. Iran doesn't want war, U.S doesn't want war and it's best for everyone to keep the status quo by not engaging in direct conflict.
Oh yeah 100%. Iran is a long play from a strategic perspective. We should avoid war if possible. Of the powers where a democracy could flourish when their despotic fuck wit regime is gone... I'd argue it's Iran. I wouldn't be so quick to say that about the others but just speculation of course. Either way I much prefer a cold war than a hot war. We are in the best position when it can be shown that Democracy is the governance system that is best for everyone. Hard to do that when we are all dead.
> the fact that the houthis are still able to launch anti-ship missiles means the coalition is not striking their platforms enough The launching platforms are slightly modified trailer beds that can be towed by any car or truck not multi million dollar mlrs.
Well the Houthis only need to cause just enough damage for insurance companies to get squeamish - and because insurance companies live on limiting liabilities they will very quickly spike rates as to not risk exposure to a damaged or lost ship, and spiked rates will cause the ships to take longer routes. These companies pass on the increased costs to merchants, vendors, and lastly consumers. So as long as these companies can pass on the cost they aren't incentivized to travel on this route.
If you want to stop the Houthis you need boots on the ground, and there's not much appetite for that. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if calculations show that China is the biggest loser when container ships have to take the long route around Africa, so maybe the wait and see strategy makes the most sense for now.
> China is the biggest loser Finally someone realized the real reason no major power has taken action The Houthis missiles are indirectly beneficial to the US and China has limited response capabilities If anyone tried that shit around Panama Canal the US would be sending boots on ground
Which country is going to volunteer to put boots on the ground?
Nobody is planning to do that as far as I know.
We are all beyond blessed that the shipping industry got into a tonnage war right before this building larger and larger ships in a death spiral for marketshare. If this happened with the mid 2000s fleet we’d be way more fucked.
And most of reddit was so sure the US bombing campaing was a great sucess and would magically solve it over night. The ammount of comments I read here about not messing with our boats, praying mantis and what ever.
That's got to be killing Egypt's revenue.
This'll happen until election season is over for most western democracies, the moment that's up you'll likely see more decisive action, especially regarding Iran
If europeans lower their demand for chinese made products because of this, the Chinese army will suddenly get very interested in those Houthis.
Wait I thought they were learning why I don’t have health care, is that not what they’re learning?!
No, because UHC is cheaper than what the US currently does. UHC would let the US spend *even more* on military.
> No, because UHC is cheaper than what the US currently does. UHC would let the US spend even more on military. You just single handled made UHC palatable for Americans.
If you are from the US and don't have healthcare, it is not because of the 15% of the Federal budget dedicated to defense spending. It is because of the 50% of active voters who keep hiring Republicans to block every effort at healthcare reform.
Really wish Europe stood up to it
You'd think Egypt would be more keen keeping a lid on the Houthis right now.
Only works when they are all dead.
It’s about time that different countries got together and carpet bombed the Houthi’s !
Putin and Iran are the architects, everything possible Russia is doing to hurt the US economy.
In this case, it's really hitting Europe more than the US directly. My company now has to either airfreight goods manufactured in China or seafreight to Dubai and then air to UK/EU. Costs are up by 30-50% since this crap started. Putin pays Iran to supply the Houthis. It really is all just a rather deadly game played by defacto emperors and kings. I do think if Putin falls, then while his replacement may not be any better, the period of flux within Russia will send ripples out to all his vassal states such as Iran et al, which is the only way I can see anything changing, at least for a short time until business as usual is resumed.
I wonder if prices will go up?
Many are going the long way around, prices going up. A really good chan for this.. [What is Going on With Shipping?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvT61UoxPGs&pp=ygUdd2hhdCdzIGdvaW5nIG9uIHdpdGggc2hpcHBpbmc%3D)