Neil Bush, ameriški poslovnež in filantrop (sicer pa četrti sin Georgea Busha starejšega in brat zloglasnega Georgea Busha mlajšega) je v intervjuju navrgel nekaj dejstev o odnosih med ZDA in Kitajsko, ki so objektivnim opazovalcem dokaj samoumevne. Njegove izjave so zanimive predvsem zaradi njegovega pedigreja, ker s tem rušijo moč uradne ameriške narative glede Kitajske.

The Chinese system works for China

He says, that after coming to the country 150 times in the past 50 years, he’s “come to the conclusion, and most Americans probably can’t even tolerate that I will say this, that the Chinese system has worked for China. The Chinese system has been so beneficial to hundreds of millions of people.”

The key reason for the US’s hostility to China is simply because China is rising and the US makes up paranoic “false narratives” about it

“[In] the book ‘Destined for War’ a professor from Harvard did a study of 16 cases where an established power like the United States is the strongest power faces a rising power. In today’s world China is a rising power and in 12 of the 16 cases it ended up in war over the past 600 years. And the reason is that a rising power and an established power end up in wars is because the established power feels threatened by the rise and they make up these claims that the rising power wants to take over and be the most powerful force on the earth, or the rising power is gonna take over my economy… They come up with false narratives. There are many false narratives being planted right now and I think it’s directly related to China’s rise and the perceived threat of that rise to our standard of living, to our way of life, to our national security. I just don’t I don’t believe that the rise represents a threat to America so I’m so I’m in a different camp than 90% of the American people right now and I agree with you that if more people could come [to China] they could make their own judgment and not listen to the propaganda and the demagoguery of the political elite in America that make China out to be some kind of devil.”

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Since the brutal Hamas attack on October 7 nearly a year ago, Israel has consistently demonstrated a willingness to take greater risks in its fight against Hamas’s regional backers, including Iran and Hezbollah. Over the last year, Israel has targeted leaders in both Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), systematically killing hundreds of top operatives. It steadily degraded Hezbollah and Iran, judging that although both would maintain low-level conflict, neither wanted a full-scale war with Israel. Domestic dynamics encouraged Israel’s operations, too. Many Israelis feel that a return to the pre–October 7 status quo would be unacceptable. A key lesson from the attacks was that Israel could no longer afford merely to manage and contain the threats on its borders. It would need decisive military wins—regardless of the costs.

Israeli leaders thus became highly motivated to restore the country’s shattered deterrence and the aura of invincibility punctured by Hamas’s attack. Unable to definitively defeat Hamas in Gaza, Israel may see more opportunity in the fight against Hezbollah and Iran. Its military has spent years preparing for a fight on the northern front and, as recent Israeli attacks in Iran and Lebanon have demonstrated, its intelligence services have extensively penetrated both Iranian and Hezbollah networks.

In the current escalatory environment, U.S. and international efforts to encourage a diplomatic settlement to the war in Lebanon or Gaza are unlikely to succeed, even as calls for a cease-fire have become still more urgent in the face of the new direct confrontation between Israel and Iran. But at the moment Israel is not seeking a diplomatic off-ramp; it is looking for total victory. Adding to the strategic calculations are political considerations that link Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival to continued wars that seem only to boost his popularity and the stability of his governing coalition.

…

After a year of war, there is a real possibility of no better “day after” in Gaza or the rest of the region. Talk in Washington of capitalizing on Nasrallah’s death and Iran’s weakness to “reshape” the Middle East harks back to the misguided beliefs that drove the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 to disastrous effect. Continued military conflict harms the region, and it harms U.S. interests. Without a change in the current Israeli government, Israel and its neighbors could be moving toward a very different day after: Israeli reoccupation of Gaza and potentially even of southern Lebanon, as well as reinforced control over, if not annexation of, the West Bank. This is a recipe not for victory but for perpetual war.

…

The other potential path toward full-scale war was a change in strategic calculus—that one of the powers involved would see greater value in waging a war than in avoiding one. This is the mindset that led Israel to scale up its attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Although Iran and Hezbollah appeared to believe that a low-grade conflict with Israel was manageable as long as Israel was preoccupied in Gaza, Israel’s calculus had already shifted as its attention increasingly turned north during the summer.

…

Israel has been willing to go to great lengths to weaken Hezbollah and Iran, and it has already made significant strides on those fronts. But the war in Gaza and increased militarization in the West Bank raises the question of how far Israel is prepared to go in the Palestinian territories. The past year suggests that Netanyahu’s government is aiming for nothing less than the creation of a new reality on all of Israel’s borders.

…

If these operations continue, Israel could, by design or by default, end up reoccupying parts or all of Gaza, the West Bank, and even southern Lebanon. Needless to say, this is a far darker day after than many envisioned. But it is a real possibility with potentially dire repercussions. Reoccupations would threaten Israel’s longer-term security, quash Palestinian aspirations for independence and dignity, and destabilize the entire region.

…

Such an endgame appears more likely by the day. But it cannot bring the long-term security Israel seeks. Instead, it would leave Israel locked in a cycle of war and global isolation, dragging the United States with it.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Bidnov mandat bo šel v zgodovino po njegovi katastrofalno konfliktni zunanji politiki: sprovociranje vojne v Ukrajini, provociranje vojne okrog Tajvana, spoznoriranje izraelskega masakra in genocida nad Palestinci v Gazi, sponzoriranje vojne s Hezbolahom v Libanonu in provociranje vojne z Iranom. Je bil kateri ameriški predsednik bolj konflikten?

Israel is now tempted to risk an all out war with Iran. There is little chance that such a war would achieve anything but an all out war in the Middle East, a rapid increase in oil prices and a severe hit on the Democratic chances in the ongoing election campaign.

Iran, who’s ballistic missiles had no problems in passing Israels air defenses, has threatened an all out attack on Israel’s infrastructure – electricity and gas installations as well as harbors – should Israel attempt to take revenge against Iran.

U.S. media still spreading the myth that the Biden administration is trying to hold back Israel.

The Washington Post for example headlines:

Biden works to limit conflict as Mideast edges closer to all-out war

However the piece admits that some views disagree strongly with its headline:

American officials say they are encouraging Israel to respond in a measured way, but U.S. allies in Europe are concerned that Washington is not putting sufficient pressure on the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “Our understanding is the Americans are not holding them back,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military matter.Further down it comes to the heart of the issue:

Biden has been unwilling to use the most significant source of U.S. leverage — conditioning or suspending military aid to Israel — to try to change the dynamics of the war, as Israel has repeatedly rebuffed U.S. advice and counsel. Nadaljujte z branjem→

Marko Golob

Pred nekaj urami je udarila bomba (tokrat samo figurativna) v obliki intervjuja na CNN razvpite novinarke Christiane Amanpour z libanonskim ministrom za zunanje zadeve Abdalallah Bou Habibib-om en dan pred iranskim napadom na Izrael.

»Bomba« je bila izjava libanonskega zunanjega ministra, da se je Hezbollah pod vodstvom generalnega sekretarja Nasrallaha z Izraelom in s soglasjem ne samo izraelskega predsednika Bibija Netanyahuja, temveč tudi ob vednosti Združenih držav Amerike in Evrope dogovoril za premirje.

Samo nekaj dni za tem je Izrael nanj odvrgel za 80 ton bomb. Zakaj? Zakaj je bil pred dvema mesecema v Teheranu ubit glavni pogajalec in sekretar Hamasa Haniyeh, ki je veljal za voditelja Hamasa, ki si je najbolj prizadeval za mir? Zakaj je bil atentat izvršen ravno v Iranu na dan ustoličenja nove vlade (ki si je javno prizadevala za pomiritev z zahodom), kjer je bil Haniyeh, kot diplomat in mednarodno priznani predstavnik svojega ljudstva uradni gost? Zakaj javno ponižanje Irana?

Komu je nadaljevanje klanja Gaze, invazija v Libanonu in vojna z Iranom v interesu?

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Dobra numerična analiza v spodnjem tvitu.

Izumrli bomo. Mi zahodnjaki. Kot dinozavri. Vendar brez padca kometa ali jedrske vojne. Sami se bomo uničili. Ker se nočemo več razmnoževati.