The Communication Cube


Iran is almost like the size of Europe. Israel invaded Gaza, which is way smaller, even occupying it with ground forces and that didn't solve the problem.
I think for Israel it's a checklist of enemies they can hurt, and for the US it's disabling a China-allied and oil-providing country with the additional benefit of isolating Russia.
If there ever will be a direct confrontation between China and the US, I think the US just prepared itself to have an advantage so they would win. Mitigating the risk of it ever coming to a confrontation in the first place.

But in the end, just like in the Ukraine-Russia war it's mostly ordinary people who just want to have a happy normal life getting killed by other people in the same situation for the profit of a few rich and powerful people who're profiting off the war, no matter who eventually "wins".
Usually wars are fought by only a small percentage of the people in a country (like, 5% or so). The rest of them can become collateral damage.

Yeah, it's so obvious all those million people so morally wrong will now be convinced that those foreigners who leave them without fresh water to drink and clean air to breathe, bomb their schools and kill civilians are the righteous knights than can and will save their country from depravation and will build them a disneyworld out of their immense generosity. They are all so much closer to happiness and joy now. They don't even have to decide anything, debate a constitution or elect a parliament, just relax on the ruins of your house until Trump designates your king or viceroy or governor, or whatever it is (no califa in any case) and Netanyahu parachutes your puppet MPs. Now that they won't be able to afford a burka they'll be overjoyed to learn they no longer need to wear one. Pity they can't afford a shirt and jeans either. But, hey, who cares when you can blissfully starve satisfied that your former tyrants are no more. How do you say Dollar is the greatest in Farsi ?
Didn't they perform an ethnic cleaning of the Germans after the second world war to educate the German people what their country did was wrong?
What should they do with the Iranian people to convince them they should change without killing them?
Or can they stay who they are, but with a smaller army and a new leader. Not having a nuclear bomb else they get attacked again.
I also don't know what the US's plan is regarding this, but to me your story implies more is needed, which would probably result in even more deaths.
Not starting a war, and not doing anything also results in deaths apparently. So, it's bad either way, and it looks like the US feels more comfortable in trying something. Even though trying something might be a poor plan.
 
Iran is almost like the size of Europe. Israel invaded Gaza, which is way smaller, even occupying it with ground forces and that didn't solve the problem.
That depends on who you ask. Trump would probably tell you you're impatient, he just needs a little longer to build his resort, and Nethanyahu that colonisation is fast but not so fast.
I think for Israel it's a checklist of enemies they can hurt, and for the US it's disabling a China-allied and oil-providing country with the additional benefit of isolating Russia.
For Netanyahu it's a need for self-justification in front of judgements and elections, which needs some well hated enemy to massage the populace feelings.
The Iran war does not isolate Russia. China and India will buy more oil and gas from Russia, more expensively, and even in the USA they're talking of lifting sanctions against Russia to contain oil prices.
The west will waste more weapons in the Middle East and fewer will get to Ukraine, and once Russia gets the money and the miltary advantage, it will use it
to rebuild relations now that the west is seen worldwide as ever more unreliable. The war just creates incentives for expanding the BRICS camp and making it more militarily and not only economically powerful,
since now it's clear that you can't have economy without army and that there are no longer wold rules.
This war validates Russia in money, might and doctrine, it doesn't isolate it at all.
Being a bully is always stupid, but when you're not the strongest it is even more stupid.
If there ever will be a direct confrontation between China and the US, I think the US just prepared itself to have an advantage so they would win. Mitigating the risk of it ever coming to a confrontation in the first place.
I'm not sure what you mean. Wasting your arsenal in a war you can't very brilliantly win (or maybe just can't disclose the real goals for the others to clearly see you won?)
and you don't quite now how to sell exactly is a way to prepare for a war with China?

China just needs to wait for USA to bankrupt itself faster with wars and arrest Trump at the right moment and plant some puppet in Washington.
(unless Trump is already China's puppet, but I kind of don't imagine things so, at most he could be Putin's puppet, but I'm not sure why I imagine this).
China probably doesn't need to bomb USA, just control its supply chain, launch cyberattacks, spy and covert actions, etc. But then USA may attack and China may strike back.

I'm relatively amused by Ukraine offering to help. Not only that Ukraine is currently busy enough at home, but that they don't seem to understand the problem.
For the Ukrainians, intercepting a $20000 drone with a $4000000 missile is an obvious failure, but for the USA weapons industry is business as usual.
The UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc may be happy of Ukraine's help, but for the USA it misses the point. The USA problem is how best to siphoon public money into the right private hands, and cheap interceptors spoil margins.
Like the USA weapon designers only knew how to design armoured radar trucks, self propelled launchers and solid fuelled missiles with sophisticated targeting and navigation and satellite networks,
but didn't understand how to design a 1000$ drone attached to a webcam and a wifi link if they had a business case.
Zelensky is probably honestly trying to get some leverage as tit for tat when sending home produced ware and experts to the Gulf, but it risks shaming his overseas providers.
Which he might have considered an acceptable risk in his current situation, maybe, if the USA alliance is already too unreliable.
Usually wars are fought by only a small percentage of the people in a country (like, 5% or so). The rest of them can become collateral damage.
You say it as if 5% was little. In fact that 5% works in the war and the other 95% works for the 5%, that's what martial laws and war economy are for.
The 5% may risk their lives, health and sanity, and do all of the killing, but they wouldn't do a thing without food rations, fuel, munitions, and new recruits someone raised at homes and schools.
In peace time the 100% needs a good portion of themselves to just survive. Food needs to be grown and collected, and cooked, houses need to be built and maintained, etc. etc.
In war, the 5% grows as much as it can until the 95% becomes too small to sustain the 5%.
And that's why there is collateral damage. Because everybody knows damaging the 95% can stop the 5%, even if it is even more unethical that hurting the 5%.
Didn't they perform an ethnic cleaning of the Germans after the second world war to educate the German people what their country did was wrong?
I'm no historian but I thought the nazis had already done the ethnic cleansing and there simply weren't many jews, gipsies or what-not left
when they were defeated, so there may have been some cleansing when Nuremberg or so, but I wouldn't call it ethnical.
Not sure what you mean or the exact historical facts.
What should they do with the Iranian people to convince them they should change without killing them?
Maybe start by listening to them ? Don't encourage them to revolt and then leave the regime kill them massively?
Or maybe just don't do business with people you don't agree with their ethics ?
These things are usually done with infiltration, financing, networking, spying... Bombing countries doesn't change societies for the good.
But it's easier than finding real soluctions and convincing everyone they're good enough.
Or can they stay who they are, but with a smaller army and a new leader. Not having a nuclear bomb else they get attacked again.
I have no idea, but the interantional inspectors say they didn't have any nuclear bomb.
Fear that a country may one day have a nuke would be an excuse to bomb any country, and when those doing the bombing
are those who already have nukes, then it gets harder to understand.
The main problem with the Iranian regime is the internal repression, but that is not for other regions to solve unasked by the Iranian popullation itself.
The next big problem is terrorism and financing of militias, which makes it more legitimate for foreign nations to intervene, since it affects abroad,
but that hasn't much to do with nukes or big armies. It might even continue under a new regime if the same rich people keep being rich.
I also don't know what the US's plan is regarding this, but to me your story implies more is needed, which would probably result in even more deaths.
More wisdom is needed, not more violence. Maybe just give free uncensored satellite internet access to mobiles (then the regime would forbid mobiles, I guess).
Or producing and broadcasting news and fiction. A marthyr factory is not a cultural change spark.
Not starting a war, and not doing anything also results in deaths apparently. So, it's bad either way, and it looks like the US feels more comfortable in trying something. Even though trying something might be a poor plan.
75% of the USA is against this war. But the ones selling expensive oil and buying governments need the oil and gas prices to get high enough to be competitive.
Doing something you're not sure it's a great plan is usually worse than doing nothing. But it may a be a good plan, depending on who looks at it and for which goals.
It's just not a good plan for most people for any good reasons.
 
Back
Top