With regards to sovereignty I was referring to US foreign policy, not dealing with annoying libs. Right now the struggle is between the Restrainers and the Primacists to decide if a war with China should be preceded by a war with Iran. Israel is pushing for the war with Iran because it wants to be the local hegemony. No American gets to vote on this and those who thought they were voting against it actually voted for the person most likely to enable it. Hence zero sovereignty, well maybe that’s negative sovereignty.

1% is absolutely huge with regards to a GDP (money spent). Also that’s not all inclusive, you need to throw in all the other money the US spends on the Middle East.

I’m unlikely to change anyone’s mind on this, but I generally am interested in exploring the bounds of others. Unless you have something new and interesting to share I think we’re done here.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-]

> No American gets to vote on this and those who thought they were voting against it actually voted for the person most likely to enable it. Hence zero sovereignty

You're mixing up sovereignty with direct democracy.

We're a republic. We have total sovereignty when it comes to geopolitics. None of that requires Americans voting on foreign policy issues, which in reality, given even informed Americans' international literacy, would be horrific.

> 1% is absolutely huge with regards to a GDP (money spent)

But easy enough to replace, even solely with domestic resources.

> you need to throw in all the other money the US spends on the Middle East

This is nonsense. One, we're not abandoning the Gulf for a variety of financial and geostrategic reasons. Two, even if we do, that's an opportunity for Israel as an emerging regional hegemonic.

> I’m unlikely to change anyone’s mind on this

Wouldn't have expected otherwise. These discussions can still be interesting for us, as you mentioned, and for others.

▲

cjbgkagh 3 days ago | parent [-]

I know Israel sees its future as a regional, and perhaps global, kingmaker. The fulcrum upon which the multipolar world balances and that this is an attractive proposition to them. But it’ll be entering into a world with a combination of circumstances that have never happened before, which I think is one hell of a risk, a risk that has a good chance of ending disastrously for them, let alone the rest of the world. And what should happen to them if they fail.

It’ll be like singing ‘we’ll be home by Christmas,’ or ‘King Cotton,’ often many of the assumptions that underpin these beliefs do not pan out. I guess it’s now ‘free beachside real estate.’

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-]

> a combination of circumstances that have never happened before, which I think is one hell of a risk, a risk that has a good chance of ending disastrously for them, let alone the rest of the world. And what should happen to them if they fail

Geopolitically, if America is becoming an unreliable security guarantor, they have no choice. They don't need to be bombing Gaza into oblivion. But they do need to establish the precedent that they can intervene with force in the region at their discretion.

	▲	cjbgkagh 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Let me know when they’ve defeated the Houthis because so far that plan isn’t working, and that’s with US support.