PK781
Trusted Member
with all due respect, najam is not a geopolitical analyst. He is simply a local journalist thats always on the side of the ruling elite.
He cannot be taken seriously
Aftermath of the Iran-US war and its effects on proximities
- Thread starter Goenitz
- Start date
with all due respect, najam is not a geopolitical analyst. He is simply a local journalist thats always on the side of the ruling elite.
He cannot be taken seriously
PK781
Trusted Member
I get what you're saying, but its not always necessary for religion or culture to be involved when its about survival and defending the region.
And lets face it, the other so-called basket is not exactly our friend, they've betrayed us many times and its not wise to trust them again. What we need is to get rid of literal and moral corruption amongst our ranks, we will be ok as long as we carefully tread the waters. We're headed in that direction already. After May 2025 and now the mideast, this will change all thinking.
Serendipity
Registered Member
I have thought much about this. It did not make strategic sense. One key insight was when they attacked Oman and said this was not our intention. The decapitation led to local commanders making decisions in silos. Restraint is rarely the default in that case. They mimicked MAD but did not have thr firepower parity to execute it.
I keep saying they should have taken hits and become the champion of the collective muslim public. This is ramadan. Outrage would precipitate across the public a lot faster. Having thr collective sympathy of the entire world public muslims is a powerful tool. Already Europe is breaking rank. Sometimes the risk of what can be is more convincing than the risk of what is.
But now they have half the muslim world conflicted. They are, best case scenario, rooting for Iran's attacks on Israel but still wary of the attacks on muslims. Worst case scenario they will spin a narrative that this is pure malice unleashed and a greater evil than Israel ( i have heard this argument from many quarters that they attacked more muslim countries than Israel).
Overall I think the truth sits in the middle. The muslim countries are simply operarionally easier to hit with short range cheaper weapons.
PK781
Trusted Member
because the gulf states have not on their own responded to iranian strikes, this has caused iran to continue striking them, and this is not good for the region.
Iran is now targetting the american diplomatic missions (embassies) which are in the capitals of gulf countries.........this will cause civilian destruction and casualties.
Why are they attacking vacated diplomatic embassies? What's the goal here?
Iran is now targetting the american diplomatic missions (embassies) which are in the capitals of gulf countries.........this will cause civilian destruction and casualties.
Why are they attacking vacated diplomatic embassies? What's the goal here?
Watandar
Trusted Member
The goal is to pierce the bubble that the GCC has constructed for itself, where they ally with the US and Israel, and participate in its wars, espionage and information sharing. The GCC is then allowed to live peacefully and build endless shiny buildings inside their bubble while Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese, Palestinians and more are blown to pieces in endless intrigues and conflicts. Its karma coming back to the GCC.
Another objective is to cause capital flight and loss in tourism. This pressure on the GCC is meant to coerce them to demand Trump stop this war.
Serendipity
Registered Member
Hate and envy are poor instruments in strategic planning ( not debating justified vs unjustified here mind you). Those are precisely the motives that planners bait. 'Cutting your nose to spite your face' is not a luxury Iran has.
Is it worth inducing flight of capital at the cost of losing the support and sympathy of the vast majority of your ilk in thr region? Probably not. The irony is that I predict these countries will come out with an even stronger brand image after this. They are already commanding that narrative that before security was a claim, now its battle tested. But time will be the decider on this.
I simply believe the decision was more emotional than strategic, as is often the case with the real victim in an equation. Countless have fallen for this trap in history.
Serendipity
Registered Member
A more pertinent question for the forum -
Does pakistan need an openly stated doctrine of lower threshold of nuclear response vs Isral to amplify deterrence. At the end of the day they are more closely bound to their little strip of land. There is no doubt that the aggression is creeping towards Pakistan.
Does pakistan need an openly stated doctrine of lower threshold of nuclear response vs Isral to amplify deterrence. At the end of the day they are more closely bound to their little strip of land. There is no doubt that the aggression is creeping towards Pakistan.
EugeneP
Trusted Member
Don't cheapen the term "local journalist". In this case, he is just being a troll AKA a sensationalist/jerk.
codeforfood
Registered Member
The numbers you are mentioning are peanuts if you are dealing with the adversaries you mentioned. They will be blown away in first few engagements. The only way to deter this is to have effective nato like partnerships. Strength in number in military, supply chain and economics.
codeforfood
Registered Member
Unfortunately you think that relationships remain static. Power projection from inside -out is important so is creating and maintaining relationships that makes one indispensable in a given moment/hour. Those relationships cannot be one direction and one dimensional. Unfortunately, short sighted begets short sightedness.
RescueRanger
Meme Lord
Distant_Observer
Trusted Member
The ultimate betrayal
This is what India did to Iran
This is what India did to Iran
HAIDER
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
I find another !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
