Simple Question: Does the Israeli/Hamas War expand or not?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: JinMI

If they hop in to direct involvement.

That’s different than providing material support.

Fair enough.

Now lets get into the semantics of "direct involvement."

I suppose I should clarify the context when I say direct involvement. Troops bearing the flag on their shoulder in the conflict.

Of course it’s more nuanced than that and has been for some time.

I guess I just fall back on that because it’s the most traditional sense of “directly at war”.

Because even when we speak of allies it gets convoluted. Turkey has been fighting the Kurds. Turkey is also a loose ally, who cozies up to Russia. They also shot a Russian Jet who barely entered their airspace clearly conducting missions in Syria. Hell, Wagner troops charged a U.S. installation in Russia and got absolutely smoked.

But even some of those acts that appear incredibly direct didn’t result in war. I think it’s implied that any time there is proxy there is going to be lines that the term blurry does no Justice.

To some degree I have little doubt Iran had a large involvement in what happened. But I was commenting on the scale of conflict to follow.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well, yes, you aptly described the plausible deniability associated with proxies.


All I'm saying, or rather putting you up to saying is at what point do we deny the proxies actions as independent and hold the host nations to account?

And I think we both know that should this occur, we, the US, are in trouble!

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: VulcanWerks

I’d factor in watching the money too.

The markets haven’t dumped, even if you insulate out defense stocks.

There are plenty of people in the circle who could have played this already, but I haven’t seen any movements that seem black swan like.

For what it’s worth, I haven’t touched my position which is still overall bullish. I also don’t play defense stocks other than the amount I can’t avoid in ETFs or Retirement (which is a trivial position).

At the end of the day everyone wants to stay in power. That won’t happen with Iran if they go all in. It would be a bloody war and no one would really “win”, but iran would end up with a new government after the sand settles.

I’m still long and intend to remain that way.

Beyond my own curiosities about global politics, economics, and defense - the primary reason I discuss, follow and analyze those things for investment purposes.

I think there’s an incredible amount of bullishness that’s completely unappreciated.

If this powder keg blows, the market might puke for a minute, but would rally hard from there. Tightening is done. Tons of rebuilding will happen in the next decade. Inflation will abate over the next year. War is bullish.

It’s an interesting time.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

It has to escalate. Islam can't exist in its current form anymore.

So long as this:

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'

The Exclusive Moslem Nature of Area:

'The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.'

A common view. Not just Hamas.

The reason Muslims don't see Hamas as terrorists is because they are mostly conditioned to support that statement. They ABSOLUTELY share that view.

Maybe this is what's needed to make Islam understand in no uncertain terms that: You will exist in a world where a Jewish state exists. There is no other option for you. You don't get your way this time.

The other religions are too passive on this. They are afraid of muslim swords and the short fuse anger of the touchy Muslims.

Jews don't care if there are Mosques in Jerusalem for peaceful worship. Nor The Christian Holy Sepulcher. Totally fine sharing. All are welcome... in peace. But...

Islam on Palastine: The mindset where you can start a business with a partner, get a more favorable profit share, and then demand 100%. And then go to war because your deal was only 60/40.

In reality, The UN map actually shafted the Jews. Because it gave everything around Jerusalem, except Jerusalem, to the Muslims, and their demanding mountain wanted more to come to Muhammed. It even gave the birthplace of Christ to the Muslims. The Temple Mount to nobody. Islam was the only one that had an untouched sacred land the entire time. A Christian will get prosecuted by Sharia Law if they set foot in Mecca.

It's a religion of blindly righteous primacy that needs to be fleshed out and stamped out on a world stage. With all applicable of the 1.9 billion.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Hasn't it already?

Hezbollah out of Lebanon.
IRGC out of Syria


And we know who is behind it.

If history is to be regarded, we have the babies and civilian deaths already.

Technically you’re absolutely right.

But, I suppose I’m thinking along the lines of the entire Middle East (more less) being involved in hot conflict.

Which is material expansion from here.

Should have been more clear in my OP.

a reply to: JinMI

Well, yes, you aptly described the plausible deniability associated with proxies. All I'm saying, or rather putting you up to saying is at what point do we deny the proxies actions as independent and hold the host nations to account?

I’m not denying it, I think it’s highly probably Iran was involved. I think at an international level that’s accepted as well.

As to holding them to account, that is a spectrum. They’re going to be further isolated and sanctioned at the least. I’m fairly confident on that.

And we’ve been at proxy war with them for some time in Yemen and Syria as well. I’m sure some would argue before that in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If holding them to account means a traditional war, I guess we’d have to ask ourselves when it’s worth that. Personally I don’t think we’re there yet, but I wouldn’t be confused if it happened next week either.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

That's fine, and I'm certainly no expert of all the history, context and factions involved.

However I will remind that Saudi Arabia has withdrawn from the SA/Israel talks.

That puts even more Islamic pressure on the issue.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

As to holding them to account, that is a spectrum. They’re going to be further isolated and sanctioned at the least. I’m fairly confident on that.

Well, that's where our own foreign policy gets involved. The current regime didn't enforce and here we are. Infact, the more info that comes out puts our own gov't really friendly with Iran.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

But, I suppose I’m thinking along the lines of the entire Middle East (more less) being involved in hot conflict.

And a lot of the Middle East doesn’t really want to die on a hill for Iran, Palestine, or Lebanon. They might have a degree of rhetoric to appease their extreme constituents. But the ones in power wouldn’t benefit joining three failing states in the long run.

A good deal of that credit would go to Trump and even Jared who helped make some ties that further isolated the real bad actors there.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: VulcanWerks

That's fine, and I'm certainly no expert of all the history, context and factions involved.

However I will remind that Saudi Arabia has withdrawn from the SA/Israel talks.

That puts even more Islamic pressure on the issue.

And they jumped right on the phone with the Iranians:

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman received a call on Wednesday from the Iranian leader, Ebrahim Raisi, during which they discussed "the current military situation in Gaza and its environs", the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) said.

Prince Mohammed told Raisi that Riyadh is "communicating with all international and regional parties to stop the ongoing escalation", SPA said.

www.barrons.com...

The Saudi’s, to me, are the wildcard right now. I don’t see them being in love with Iran, and removing them might be a major win given how much more westernized they are.

In the “New Middle East” that Benny laid out, Saudi Arabia grows materially and survives this resurfacing.

So, Saudi’s have to look impartial for fear is both foreign and domestic problems if they don’t.

Whatever the path forward, the new Middle East hinges on Saudi Arabia being either allied with Israel, or to declare neutrality, or solidarity with the US against terrorists in their country.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: CriticalStinker

As to holding them to account, that is a spectrum. They’re going to be further isolated and sanctioned at the least. I’m fairly confident on that.

Well, that's where our own foreign policy gets involved. The current regime didn't enforce and here we are. Infact, the more info that comes out puts our own gov't really friendly with Iran.

The current admin is likely more lenient to a fault, but I think really friendly is a stretch.

Loosening a grip doesn’t quite equate to ally.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: VulcanWerks

But, I suppose I’m thinking along the lines of the entire Middle East (more less) being involved in hot conflict.

And a lot of the Middle East doesn’t really want to die on a hill for Iran, Palestine, or Lebanon. They might have a degree of rhetoric to appease their extreme constituents. But the ones in power wouldn’t benefit joining three failing states in the long run.

A good deal of that credit would go to Trump and even Jared who helped make some ties that further isolated the real bad actors there.

Agreed.

The plan laid out for the new Middle East absolutely favors the non-bad actors. Rooting out the bad actors is a win for everyone.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Lets split the baby then. Affiliated.


Why is our gov't affiliated with a nation that promotes terrorism all over the ME?

Steering this back on topic, what does this show the moderate countries? The ones who bought into the Abraham Accords?

a reply to: VulcanWerks

This is where we get into the Stinky aspect.

Where and how do we separate the factions from the nations?

Especially if it goes kinetic with formations of militants?

a reply to: nugget1

Yeah, Iran backs Hamas, that's apparent. If they had a smoking gun that Iran was directly responsible for this most recent attack on Israel by Hamas, then I'd think Israel would attack Iran, too.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: CriticalStinker

As to holding them to account, that is a spectrum. They’re going to be further isolated and sanctioned at the least. I’m fairly confident on that.

Well, that's where our own foreign policy gets involved. The current regime didn't enforce and here we are. Infact, the more info that comes out puts our own gov't really friendly with Iran.

The current admin is likely more lenient to a fault, but I think really friendly is a stretch.

Loosening a grip doesn’t quite equate to ally.

No it does not - it could equate to pacification.

If The New Middle East is the blueprint, you’d have to make it seem like it’s not.

Normalizing relations with Iran would suggest it’s not. Why? Because we and they know that some fraction of every dollar we give them is going to fund groups/actions that are to our detriment.

Giving a little to get a lot, so to speak.

I’d say that the new Middle East plan has a decent chance at happening - largely because it would be US/NATO backed.

We did enough damage to Russia in Ukraine that there ability to support another military with “surplus” would be more challenging - never mind the cost of supporting another conflict.

NATO now has the Arctic covered.

Once we expand NATO presence into the Middle East materially, NATO wins.

And I think NATO will win, but, we might lose Taiwan and a chunk of the South China Sea in the process - thought we’d give up the south China seas oil reserves if NATO proliferated in the Middle East as we wouldn’t really need them.

a reply to: JinMI

Why is our gov't affiliated with a nation that promotes terrorism all over the ME?

In what way are we friendly with them?

There’s a mild forum of conversation with them. There’s a possibility some of their assets get unfrozen. I’d hardly call that a friendship.

If there’s no dialog or off-ramp than war is almost inevitable.

And it’s always a complicated dilemma on when de-escalation has happened and if the other party deserves it.

Japan and Germany both enjoy being top ten economies in the world. I’m sure at the time of de-escalation that was a highly contested outcome.

After the Cold War Russia and the West enjoyed a calming of tension.

People come around more times than not.

So it would beg the question is it time for war with Iran? And again, I don’t think so, but I wouldn’t be shocked if it happened.

There are dead Americans and some held hostage due to their proxy involvement. Where do we go from here?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well, lets go through a few items.

6 billion released to them along with 6 prisoners for 6 of theirs.

80 billion in oil sales that dodged sanctions.

The White House spy ring that was just found out.

This is where I'm arguing from.

There are dead Americans and some held hostage due to their proxy involvement. Where do we go from here?

Oh, I don't know. I just wanted to pick a fight on the semantics you used. Establishing some definitions as it were.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

China grabbing Taiwan would come at a cost.

Could BRICS satisfy Chinas appetite if they cut themselves off from the West? We’d be better off without them than they would be without us. There’s a trade imbalance where their economy is reliant on the West, but the West is sacrificing cheap goods for economic disparity in trade.

They would hurt our supply chain short term but take a hit long term. It would have to be coupled with a large conflict if they were really trying to get geopolitical stock.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: VulcanWerks

This is where we get into the Stinky aspect.

Where and how do we separate the factions from the nations?

Especially if it goes kinetic with formations of militants?

I think the separation depends on if the nation is controlled by a “faction” or not - at least not a known-terrorist organization.

Saudi Arabia isn’t. If the Saudi’s got on board and said “you know, these extremists are a problem for us too. Don’t invade our country - we’ll handle this ourselves” and suddenly they become the model for what Islam stands for - and that isn’t extremism.

That model proliferates - and you have countries that are not run by terrorists organizations, and the last world religion that needed to make peace with others at scale has done so.

And then we enter the bi-polar world of NATO (which I slides the Middle East largely) and China/Russia/Whoever else.

Or at least, I could see that realistically playing out over the next 5 years.