Political Posts

[lnofeisone]

42 minutes ago, ourkid8 said:

 

There are no hurt feelings. The Iranians and their allies can eliminate the Israelis at any moment if US ever steps away. That so-called “unbreakable friendship” between Trump and Netanyahu is already fractured — and this is an exciting time for the region. If Trump ever tells Israel “you’re on your own,” - they would be in big trouble! 

He speaks the language that Israel’s genocidal animals truly understand. (Please see another Israeli minister spewing hate below) 

 

The difference — which puzzles me how you don’t see it — is that he is a publicly elected official representing the will of Israeli voters. Compare him to the Iranians: one side acts like bloodthirsty animals, slaughtering women and children, the other shows true discipline and resistance and just defeated the worlds super power. Even Trump admitted it when he told Netanyahu to stop blowing up entire buildings in Lebanon.

 

Israelis are experts at killing women and children as we have seen in Palestine and now Lebanon, but the moment they get hit back, they beg for American help and play the victim - it’s exactly what they did during the 12 day war. 

 

Remember: Israel only exists because of the United States allows them to exist. as per JD Vance, “Israel needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.”   

JD Vance giving Israelis a reality check: 

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2067642712560689401/video/1?s=46

 

Another Israeli cabinet member: 

 

“I am personally proud of the holocaust of Gaza, and that 80 years from now, they will tell their grandchildren what the Jews did,” 

—The Israeli Minister of Social Equality.

 

 

It is genuinely embarrassing how much loud, confident ignorance you manage to cram into a single post. You aren't analyzing Middle East politics. You are typing out a fever dream of fiction fueled by TikTok algorithms with zero historical literacy. 

 

Let's ground your post a bit.

 

First, your delusion that Iran and its proxies could "eliminate Israel at any moment" if the US steps away is mathematically and militarily brain-dead. Iran couldn't even protect its own proxy leadership from being systematically turned into statistics over a single weekend, and Hamas is trapped in a blockaded strip, having lost nearly 50% of the land from beforec Oct 7th. Believing they pose an existential threat to a nuclear-armed state with one of the most tech advanced militaries on Earth shows you are absolutely no grasp on conventional warfare. Nevermind that Israel won its most decisive victories of '48 and '67 without massive US aid alignment. 

 

Second, calling a collection of religious extemeist loons who have economically gutted Lebanon, ruined Gaza, and hidden in tunnels while their chivilians take the hit "discipline and restraint" is a peak Stockholm syndrome. If watching your entire command structure get obliterated by exploding pagesr and airstrikes is your definition of "defeating a superpower", then please, keep on winning. 

 

Third, falling for fake internet quotes in 2026 is pathetic. The "gaza holocaust" quote you attributed to May Golan is widely exposed, illiterate mistranslation of a Hebrew interview, where she said she was proud of "ruins of Hamas infrastructure." Seriously, go listen to it and use Google Translate. If you have to invent fake quotes ot make your point, you already admitting your actual argument is a loser. And by the way, this isn't the first time I caught you falling for fake Internet memes from propaganda accounts. You can scroll back many pages back and it's all there. Maybe it's time to reconsider what echo chamber you are in?

 

Finally, trying to use JD to imply US is cutting Israel loose completely exposes your political illeteracy. Vance's entire stance is to cut through the red tape and let israel finish the job faster and harder. JD knows that this particular excursion by Trump was a huge miscalculation and as an American, I do too. I have no clue what Trump was thinking about here and in Trump's fashion, he is trying to bull his way into a deal and disengage, even if it means bullying Israel into stopping its activities. But to think JD or anyone sane thinks that Hamas/Hezb are good guys and the US is going to throw Israel to the wolves is just naive. 

 

You lack the basic factual baseline required to have this conversation. Seriously, pick up a history book. It is fascinating how much pro-pal and anti-israel folk just refuse to help themselves and continuoully humiliate themselves. Oh and do consider changing up your X/TikTok algo. I suspect you are getting fed a healthy diet of propaganda. 

 

 

[Marco Van Basten]

3 hours ago, lnofeisone said:

I tend to agree with your asessment though I think our conclusions are a tad differnet. I think Iran was acting rationally. What is being conflated is moral/conventional rationality with strategic rationality. While Iran's actions are highly destructive and confrontational, they followed a calculated, logical framework aimed at regime survival, regional influnce, and assymetric deterrence.  It did take a terrible move by the current president to really reward them handsomely. 

I think picking a fight with two nuclear capable adversaries and stating that your goal is destroying two nuclear armed states is asking to be nuked into Stone Age.   How that is rational is beyond me.  Had USA in 1979 or Israel since been run by anyone with guts, Iran and its great civilization (I truly believe that Iranian civilization is a great one and I am not being ironic) would have been wiped off the face of the earth.  

[lnofeisone]

4 minutes ago, Marco Van Basten said:

I think picking a fight with two nuclear capable adversaries and stating that your goal is destroying two nuclear armed states is asking to be nuked into Stone Age.   How that is rational is beyond me.  Had USA in 1979 or Israel since been run by anyone with guts, Iran and its great civilization (I truly believe that Iranian civilization is a great one and I am not being ironic) would have been wiped off the face of the earth.  

Sure. It's a risk (that Israel and US will take the high road) Iran took and it paid off. Again, we agree on the outcome but I think Iran is shrewed when it takes risks and up to this point it has been paying off. More so in the last round with Trump. 

[John Hjorth]

16 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

CNN - Politics [June 19^th 2026] : Italian foreign minister cancels trip to US over Trump’s comments about Meloni

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

-And the temperamental Italian blonde - most of the time dressed in white - gets all worked up of the eigthy years old pro, experienced womanizers comments about her! - So much for that good personal relationship! 

 

 

 

International Politics anno 2026! - You can't make this up!

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

In politics, there are things you just don't engage in, especially towards women!

 

More of the same from the International Politics kindergarden sandbox  [ ] :

 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

One would think the two were married, ripe for diworse! [ ]

[ourkid8]

1 hour ago, lnofeisone said:

It is genuinely embarrassing how much loud, confident ignorance you manage to cram into a single post. You aren't analyzing Middle East politics. You are typing out a fever dream of fiction fueled by TikTok algorithms with zero historical literacy. 

 

Let's ground your post a bit.

 

First, your delusion that Iran and its proxies could "eliminate Israel at any moment" if the US steps away is mathematically and militarily brain-dead. Iran couldn't even protect its own proxy leadership from being systematically turned into statistics over a single weekend, and Hamas is trapped in a blockaded strip, having lost nearly 50% of the land from beforec Oct 7th. Believing they pose an existential threat to a nuclear-armed state with one of the most tech advanced militaries on Earth shows you are absolutely no grasp on conventional warfare. Nevermind that Israel won its most decisive victories of '48 and '67 without massive US aid alignment. 

 

Second, calling a collection of religious extemeist loons who have economically gutted Lebanon, ruined Gaza, and hidden in tunnels while their chivilians take the hit "discipline and restraint" is a peak Stockholm syndrome. If watching your entire command structure get obliterated by exploding pagesr and airstrikes is your definition of "defeating a superpower", then please, keep on winning. 

 

Third, falling for fake internet quotes in 2026 is pathetic. The "gaza holocaust" quote you attributed to May Golan is widely exposed, illiterate mistranslation of a Hebrew interview, where she said she was proud of "ruins of Hamas infrastructure." Seriously, go listen to it and use Google Translate. If you have to invent fake quotes ot make your point, you already admitting your actual argument is a loser. And by the way, this isn't the first time I caught you falling for fake Internet memes from propaganda accounts. You can scroll back many pages back and it's all there. Maybe it's time to reconsider what echo chamber you are in?

 

Finally, trying to use JD to imply US is cutting Israel loose completely exposes your political illeteracy. Vance's entire stance is to cut through the red tape and let israel finish the job faster and harder. JD knows that this particular excursion by Trump was a huge miscalculation and as an American, I do too. I have no clue what Trump was thinking about here and in Trump's fashion, he is trying to bull his way into a deal and disengage, even if it means bullying Israel into stopping its activities. But to think JD or anyone sane thinks that Hamas/Hezb are good guys and the US is going to throw Israel to the wolves is just naive. 

 

You lack the basic factual baseline required to have this conversation. Seriously, pick up a history book. It is fascinating how much pro-pal and anti-israel folk just refuse to help themselves and continuoully humiliate themselves. Oh and do consider changing up your X/TikTok algo. I suspect you are getting fed a healthy diet of propaganda. 

 

 

“If it weren’t for the United States of America, with me … Israel wouldn’t exist right now. Israel would have been blown off the face of the earth 100% and every smart person in Israel knows that” -DJT
 

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2066828883295371641/video/1?s=46

Edited 17 hours ago by ourkid8

[lnofeisone]

13 minutes ago, ourkid8 said:

“If it weren’t for the United States of America, with me … Israel wouldn’t exist right now. Israel would have been blown off the face of the earth 100% and every smart person in Israel knows that” -DJT
 

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2066828883295371641/video/1?s=46

Thanks for proving my point about your absolute lack of understanding of this situation. You think you got something here? You are dropping a clip of DJT, the same DJT who is famous for his hypoerbole and claiming credit for sunrise and you are taking it this pitch as a Pentagon debrief? 

 

He is feeding his own brand and not arguing that Hamas, Hezb, or Iran are millitary masterminds. Thanks for confirming your entire worldview is built on 15-second social media clips. 

[ourkid8]

1 hour ago, lnofeisone said:

Thanks for proving my point about your absolute lack of understanding of this situation. You think you got something here? You are dropping a clip of DJT, the same DJT who is famous for his hypoerbole and claiming credit for sunrise and you are taking it this pitch as a Pentagon debrief? 

 

He is feeding his own brand and not arguing that Hamas, Hezb, or Iran are millitary masterminds. Thanks for confirming your entire worldview is built on 15-second social media clips. 

I hope you enjoyed the MOU in which Iran/US determined Israel’s faith. Please stop thinking Israel is anything more than the sugar baby in the relationship with US. 

Edited 15 hours ago by ourkid8

[Sweet]

3 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

More of the same from the International Politics kindergarden sandbox  [ ] :

 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

One would think the two were married, ripe for diworse! [ ]

Pretty much everyone knows Trump is lying, he basically says this stuff over and over about people he is dissatisfied with for one reason or another.  I’ll admit it was funny in his first term but his whole shtick has gotten lame partly because he takes himself much more seriously this time around.  Meloni too has been a bit of a drama queen in photos, deliberately pulling faces, which is mildly irritating.  I like many of the policies of both, but for Trump specifically, I just don’t like him as a person - I’m sure he will be devastated!

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Sweet

[John Hjorth]

31 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Pretty much everyone knows Trump is lying, he basically says this stuff over and over about people he is dissatisfied with for one reason or another.  I’ll admit it was funny in his first term but his whole shtick has gotten lame partly because he takes himself much more seriously this time around.  Meloni too has been a bit of a drama queen in photos, deliberately pulling faces, which is mildly irritating.  I like many of the policies of both, but for Trump specifically, I just don’t like him as a person - I’m sure he will be devastated!

 

Yeah, @Sweet,

 

It's kind of pathetic. Politics is about getting stuff, sh*t done. Not about hanging out on SOME, bothering, pestering others.

[lnofeisone]

6 hours ago, ourkid8 said:

I hope you enjoyed the MOU in which Iran/US determined Israel’s faith. Please stop thinking Israel is anything more than the sugar baby in the relationship with US. 

MOU that is now being called off because Israel went ahead and did what is good for Israel?

 

Whay I enjoyed is the news of Israel capturing a huge network of tunnels paid for by Iran with estimates of several 100s of hezb fighters and drone operators running short on water and food.

[Marco Van Basten]

10 hours ago, lnofeisone said:

Sure. It's a risk (that Israel and US will take the high road) Iran took and it paid off. Again, we agree on the outcome but I think Iran is shrewed when it takes risks and up to this point it has been paying off. More so in the last round with Trump. 

I agree with you, except the US and Israel did not take the high road, they took the stupid/suicidal road.  

[cubsfan]

Fun & Games in Iran:

 

 

[ourkid8]

4 hours ago, lnofeisone said:

MOU that is now being called off because Israel went ahead and did what is good for Israel?

 

Whay I enjoyed is the news of Israel capturing a huge network of tunnels paid for by Iran with estimates of several 100s of hezb fighters and drone operators running short on water and food.

Within hours of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, the Israeli regime agreed to a ceasefire and stopped killing Lebanese woman/children. By morning, Iran gradually reopened the strait. Trump now issues hollow threats to claim credit for the opening - the timing says otherwise!  

[cubsfan]

Internal fights for control.  First 10 minutes tells the story:

 

 

[boilermaker75]

The Strait of Hormuz is being renamed the Strait of Schrödinger as it is both open and closed at the same time.

[ourkid8]

6 hours ago, lnofeisone said:

MOU that is now being called off because Israel went ahead and did what is good for Israel?

 

50 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

Internal fights for control.  First 10 minutes tells the story:

 

 

Whay I enjoyed is the news of Israel capturing a huge network of tunnels paid for by Iran with estimates of several 100s of hezb fighters and drone operators running short on water and food.

I listened to the first 10 minutes and i never heard so much verbal diarrhea in my life. 
 

I love how your source of news is from someone who left Iran in 2003 and never visited since - 23 years ago. 
 

He says Iranians are pro Israel - just that view alone makes him a joke! 

Edited 2 hours ago by ourkid8

[ourkid8]

7 hours ago, lnofeisone said:

MOU that is now being called off because Israel went ahead and did what is good for Israel?

 

Whay I enjoyed is the news of Israel capturing a huge network of tunnels paid for by Iran with estimates of several 100s of hezb fighters and drone operators running short on water and food.

How is the “partial withdrawal” from southern Lebanon coming along? Trump just ordered it on Irans request.  (I am attaching pictures of billboards in Lebanon thanking Iranians) 
 

Iranians are principled individuals and expect the MOU to be adhered to or we walk away and shut the SoH.
 

Edited 1 hour ago by ourkid8

[Spekulatius]

On 6/20/2026 at 12:20 AM, adesigar said:

Ah yes how conveniently you forget how the Shah got into power. It was the US and UK that orchestrated a coup that destroyed democracy in Iran to bring a dictator to power and so he could give 40% of Irans oil to western companies. The Shah was a US/UK puppet who was terrorizing Iranians. Also read up on the atrocities that followed the coup and understand the reason why the revolution took place. 
 

Khomenei quickly labeled the USA as the “great Satan”. This was likely  a reaction to the USA constantly mettling in Iranian politics and enabling the Shah coming to power.

The Iran hostage affair occurred in the chaos of the Islamic revolution . Radical students raided the US embassy. This was not government sanction as a stable government in Iran didn’t even exist at that time. Khomenei quickly capitalized on this thigh and put his weight behind the students. This was done for to establish his friction as a ruler of Iran and it worked. Thats a lease that also a

explains many action that one could think of not rational. My sense is that if you label someone or a party as not rational, you just don’t understand their motivation at all.

 

Now we mettle in Iranian political again (regime change) and expect a different results. I think we probably stabilized the regime if anything.

[changegonnacome]

On 6/19/2026 at 10:30 PM, Marco Van Basten said:

What you fail to realize is that the Iranian behavior over the past 47 years has never been rational.

 

On 6/20/2026 at 8:53 AM, 73 Reds said:

Don't confuse them with history.  Nor with sensible questions.

 

I understand where you guys are coming from and share your disgust of the actions Iran supports indirectly and carries out directly - but your making the standard error in IR, which is your falling to walk a mile in your opponents shoes. The madman fallacy (like with Iran) is the oldest narrative in conflict - first between neighbouring tribes, then between Kingdoms, now between States. The story goes that your enemy is crazy, psychotic & irrational. The the more truer reality is your enemy is paranoid, scared and has no way of knowing what YOUR true intentions are. The cost in international security of attributing benign intent to a rival and getting it wrong - is that you don't get to exist anymore. The problem is compounded by the fact that in war all defensive military spending when viewed through the lens of fear and paranoia looks an awful lot like offensive spending. This leads States to act in ways that you perceive as crazy but is essentially survivalist paranoia driven by incomplete information (i.e. rival intentions)

 

The reality is if you take a step back and re-frame the Iran & Israel rivalry from a purely classical realist, offensive & defensive perspective - as a regional security competition between two powers vying for regional hegemony it is depressingly similar to so many regional security competitions throughout history. The novelty with Iran/israel (say versus France and Germany's European competitions) is the use of proxies AND the involvment of non-regional global hegemon in the competiton. 

 

When you get down to it - both countries, Iran and Israel'sp, are deeply insecure and hyper-concerned about their survival & security - they should be they live in a bad neighbourhood. They are both adolescent regimes - one created in 1947, the other in 1979 . Both have had existential territorial events in the last 80yrs (i.e. living memory). So they are both paranoid - as they should be. Paranoid geopolitical actors are the ones that survive. When you reframe things with this lens what you find is that Iran since 1979 has been operating a very rational (albeit brutal) relative power/survival playbook. Has it been effective? I mean the proof is in the pudding - the Islamic revolution is still in existence, Iran's territorial map hasn't changed since 1979 despite being the least preferred regime option of the global superpower and its pal in the neighbourhood Israel. Its this still there. Indeed Iran just had the US gunsights on it for a full two months and walked away with an MOU and sanctions relief. 

 

18 hours ago, lnofeisone said:

I think Iran was acting rationally. What is being conflated is moral/conventional rationality with strategic rationality. While Iran's actions are highly destructive and confrontational, they followed a calculated, logical framework aimed at regime survival, regional influnce, and assymetric deterrence.  It did take a terrible move by the current president to really reward them handsomely. 

 

@inofeisone above kind of sums it up well here, my view on Iran.....hate the regime, the behaviour is morally abhorrent.....you can say many things about what they've done, all true.....but irrational isn't one of them....in fact its extreme moral & ethical bankruptcy is a function of its extreme rationality when viewed through the lens of the power asymmetry that exists between them and the US/Israel

 

I'll tackle your points @Marco Van Basten line by line. Before I do - you need to hold the following realist framework principles constant as they underpin the explanation around Iran's behaviour over time that hopefully helps you see them less as lunatics intent on Israel's destruction and more like the paranoid, weak state that drives much of their decision making. Seen through this lens - Iran's foreign policy is quite rational and dare I say it quite innovative in its construction given the unique security puzzle it has to solve for itself....its not often a regional foe has the complete and almost unfettered support of the Global hegemon as Israel has. Which makes this regional security competition somewhat unique and that uniqueness drives a lot of Iran's novel response to its novel regional security competition.

 

Anyway here are the principles - it's hard to argue with any of them:

 

(1) there are no actors in the system above States, the system is anarchic by nature, when you call 911 in the international system nobody answers - its fundamentally a self-help system

(2) States, therefore, are chiefly concerned with their own survival (they have to be, nobody is coming to help)

(3) it's impossible to know the true intent of your international rival, as intent lives in the minds of men

(4) Because the cost of intent miscalculation is "national death,". States must constantly weigh the costs and benefits of their actions based on imperfect information. Paranoia in international relations isn't a psychological defect, it is a structural requirement. You must assume the worst in your rival.

 

Put all that together you get the output (5)

 

(5) Because you must assume the worst, and because you can never know how much power is enough to guarantee survival against future threats, the only truly rational choice is to maximize your relative power in whatever way you can. Taken to its extreme the ultimate goal of any highly capable rational state is to become the regional hegemon—to be so overwhelmingly powerful that no other state in the region would even dare to challenge you (similar to the position the US enjoys in the Western Hemisphere). China, as we know, is on this mission in East Asia.

 

Now let's look at the actions you highlighted as being somehow irrational.

 

On 6/19/2026 at 10:30 PM, Marco Van Basten said:

Iran was not at war with the US at the time of the revolution, instead Iran chose to take Americans hostage - an action that would have caused the Soviets to nuke them.

 

Taking the hostages wasn't an irrational act - it was a deeply insecure, newly formed regime prioritizing its own survival. Because the US had previously orchestrated the 1953 coup to install the Shah, the revolutionaries acted preemptively to eliminate what they rationally assumed was potentially the main staging ground for a second counter-revolution - the US embassy.

 

Furthermore as you mention the Soviets, Iran shrewdly relied on Cold War calculus here in doing so....they knew their massive border with the Soviet Union served as a geopolitical shield, preventing Washington from risking a full-scale retaliatory war or nuclear strike that could trigger a direct superpower confrontation. It was an ugly violation of international norms, but in the ruthless, zero-sum logic of a self-help system, it was a highly calculated and rational move.

 

Did it work? Well yeah. By seizing the embassy, the revolutionaries successfully blinded US intelligence to preempt a feared counter-coup, while Ayatollah Khomeini weaponized the external crisis to purge his own domestic rivals and consolidate absolute clerical control. Death to America was a shrewd exercise in consolidating power inside Iran. A fundamental law of statecraft is that a looming external threat is the single most efficient mechanism for internal political cohesion. When the revolutionary regime took power in 1979, it was highly fragile and faced massive domestic fractures from various rival factions. By institutionalizing the specter of an ever-present, monolithic external enemy—the "Great Satan"—the ruling clerics engineered a permanent state of emergency.

 

Furthermore, using the hostages as an asymmetric deterrent paralyzed the United States for 444 days, shielding the fragile new regime from superpower retaliation and ensuring its immediate short-term survival.

 

Of course not very nice thing to do, morally abhorrent but brutally effective....a nascent fragile newborn theocratic regime is with us 40yrs+ later via the actions Khamenei decided to take. Death to America - Great Satan...political theatre Disgusting yes, rational if survival of Islamic revolution is the only thing being optimized for. I can argue of course that Khamenei optimized for the short term too much here and created a decades long problem for the regime...."Death to America", the "Great Satan" may have helped him consolidate power inside Iran post-revolution but it became a rallying cry for Israel to recruit the Great Satan himself to help in its relative power games with Iran.

 

On 6/19/2026 at 10:30 PM, Marco Van Basten said:

 Iran chose to fund Hezbollah which bombed Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983.  Iran chose war against the US, it was not forced into it.  Similarly with Israel, Iran was not a war with Israel in 1979, as a matter of fact, Israeli engineers built the Teheran water system.  Iran chose to start a war against Israel via proxy.

 

You state that Iran "chose war" against the US by funding Hezbollah to bomb the Marine barracks. A realist would counter that Iran emphatically did not want a conventional war with the United States, because its leaders mathematically understood they would be destroyed.

 

Instead, Iran was engaging in asymmetric balancing. In 1983, Iran was already fighting a devastating, existential war against Iraq (a war the US was covertly supporting by the way). Simultaneously, the US and Israel had moved massive military forces into Lebanon—right in Iran's geopolitical backyard. From Tehran's perspective, a hostile superpower was projecting overwhelming force into a vulnerable periphery, bolstering a regional rival in Israel while also supporting a neighbouring state (Iraq) to incur into Iran.

 

Because Iran lacked the conventional capital to challenge the US military directly, it engineered a highly leveraged asymmetric response: Hezbollah. They correctly identified that U.S. survival was not at stake in Beirut and so by consequence Washington’s political tolerance for pain and casualties was naturally low. Iran's leadership mathematically calculated this threshold. The bombing was not a spasm of blind fanaticism; it was a targeted strike on American political will. By inflicting a sudden, unacceptably high cost in blood—241 American servicemembers—Iran fundamentally altered Washington's cost-benefit analysis. The attack forced the Reagan administration to realize that the geopolitical yield of pacifying Lebanon was not worth the asymmetric price being extracted. The true strategic genius of the proxy model, however, lies in risk management. If the Iranian Air Force had bombed the Marine barracks, the U.S. would have been structurally compelled to retaliate directly against Iranian soil, potentially destroying the regime. Proxies keep actions in gray zones and hedge against retaliation. 

 

The strategy succeeded perfectly. A few months later, the United States withdrew its forces from Lebanon. Take a step back - Iran successfully forced a vastly superior global hegemon to retreat from a strategic theater without ever triggering a direct war. This 1983 blueprint established an exercise in pure structural deterrence, proving that a weaker state could successfully balance against a superpower by exporting chaos, managing escalatory risk, and bleeding its adversaries by proxy.

 

Brutal, morally abhorrent. - but deathly rational and effective.

 

On 6/19/2026 at 10:30 PM, Marco Van Basten said:

Iran was not a war with Israel in 1979, as a matter of fact, Israeli engineers built the Teheran water system.  Iran chose to start a war against Israel via proxy.

 

You correctly point out that pre-1979, Israel and Iran were not at war, and Israeli engineers even built Tehran’s water system. But in international relations, alliances are not built on gratitude or friendship - they are temporary alignments based on mutual interest and threats. Indeed if/when the US goes to war with China people will marvel at how we used to work so closely together on trade. I mean will let them manufacture 100% of our medicine APIs, control all the rare earths we need!

 

Anyway prior to 1979, both Iran and Israel shared a massive common enemy: the Soviet-backed Arab nationalist bloc (Egypt, Syria, Iraq). Israel and Iran engaged in a highly pragmatic "alliance of the periphery" to pool their power and hedge against that Arab core. The cooperation over water systems and agriculture was simply the byproduct of aligned security interests. However, moving into the late 20th century, the structural landscape of the Middle East underwent a seismic shift. The Arab states were neutralized or hollowed out (Egypt signed a peace treaty, Iraq was severely degraded). The geopolitical board was cleared.

 

Suddenly, Israel and Iran found themselves as the two most capable, dominant powers in the Middle East. Realist theory dictates that when a regional system consolidates into a duopoly (with two highly capable states and no higher authority to enforce peace) they will inevitably view each other as the primary threat. Iran didn't just wake up and "choose" to hate Israel....the reality is the structural disappearance of their mutual enemies left them alone in the Middle East room together alone, sparking a classic, inescapable security dilemma and an ensuing wholly predictable security competition between them both.

 

On 6/19/2026 at 10:30 PM, Marco Van Basten said:

As a matter of fact, is it rational to fund Hamas and Hezbollah which are dedicated to the destruction of Israel?

 

You ask if it is rational to fund groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Realist theory teaches us to pay attention to a state's capabilities and structural functions, not its public rhetoric. The rhetoric of "wiping out Israel" is largely an ideological tool used to recruit fighters and legitimize Iran's presence in the Arab world. The actual, on-the-ground function of these groups (for Iran) is fundamentally deterrence and containment.

 

Consider the severe power imbalance: Israel possesses overwhelming technological superiority, total air dominance, deep structural US backing (from the global superpower no less), and a nuclear arsenal. Iran is under heavy sanctions with an aging conventional military. If Iran were to fight Israel in a direct, state-on-state conventional war, Iran would be decimated. The last thing a rational Iran should ever do is to enter into a conventional war but lets remember Iran is interested in maximzing its relative power in the region despite its inherent weakness relative to Israel/USA.

 

Therefore, Iran's only rational play is to avoid a direct war while neutralizing or more precisely minimizing Israel's advantages. They do this through a doctrine of "Forward Defense." By heavily arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Iran has essentially built a "ring of fire" directly on Israel's borders. It is a containment strategy. It's a deterrent strategy.

 

A morally bankrupt one - see the horrors of Oct 7th - but ultra rational in its effectiveness given the power, resources asymmetry between Iran on one side and the US/Israel on the other.

 

The brutal logic of the proxy war is that from a strategic standpoint, a proxy network is the most capital-efficient way for a conventionally weaker state to project power. Using proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas allows Iran to cap its downside exposure (actions of these groups never quite rise to the level of state on state conflict). It keeps things in a gray zone. While also keeping the battle lines thousands of miles away from Iranian borders and forces Israel to expend massive resources fighting multi-front wars of attrition. Resources its unable to project further afield.

 

Again morally bankrupt - but if the game is relative power, survival etc etc....its highly rational.

 

On 6/19/2026 at 10:30 PM, Marco Van Basten said:

 If one country is dedicated to wiping out the other, the logical conclusion is that it risk being wiped out itself!  Is it rational to attack a country that is not at war with you, let alone a country that is armed with nukes?  Iran chose to attack two countries - US and Israel.  If you think that is rational, what is not rational in your opinion?

 

I hear you on Iran's "wiping out" aspiration for Israel but you know realist analysis requires us to strictly separate a state's declaratory policy (what it says) from its operational policy (what it actually does with its capital and military).

The public rhetoric about "wiping out Israel" serves a very specific utility: it is a low-cost ideological mechanism used to legitimize Iran's influence on the Arab street, recruit proxy fighters, and justify the regime's heavy security state at home. However, their operational policy is deeply pragmatic and deterrence-based. They are trying to build a security buffer to ensure regime survival against structurally superior adversaries. They know they lack the military capital to actually wipe out a nuclear-armed Israel, so they do not operationally attempt it - instead, they attempt to contain it and establish mutual deterrence.

 

If Iran were truly an irrational death cult indifferent to its own survival and dedicated to wiping out Israel/US, it would have launched an unprovoked conventional frontal assault against Tel Aviv or a US aircraft carrier decades ago. Instead, Iran operates with extreme discipline to cap its downside exposure. By utilizing a decentralized portfolio of proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis), Iran imposes continuous costs on its rivals while strictly keeping the conflict in a "gray zone" below the threshold of conventional or nuclear retaliation.

 

On 6/19/2026 at 10:30 PM, Marco Van Basten said:

If you think that is rational, what is not rational in your opinion?

 

You ask - If this is rational, what is not rational? In structural realism, irrationality is defined as a failure to accurately calculate the balance of power, leading a state to take on unhedged, existential risk that guarantees its own destruction.

Examples of true state level irrationality are Imperial Japan attacking Pearl Harbor or Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait - Saddam miscalculated the unipolar dominance of the US, inviting a global coalition to utterly destroy his military infrastructure & regime.

 

Iran systematically avoids those actions that would bring a true ground invasion (because its highly rational) - it constantly recalibrates its proxy attacks to avoid crossing existential red lines, calibrates its retaliatory responses to US/Israeli attacks and strictly manages its risk to ensure regime survival while keeping its regional rival (Israel) bogged down in its immediate backyard (Gaza, Lebanon) 

 

I find it all disgusting, as I find much of what the US does in the name of its national security at times disgusting - but Iran whatever way you slice operates as a deeply rational, albeit ruthless, geopolitical actor optimizing for its own survival at all costs in an anarchic system where maximizing your relative power best optimizes for the regimes survival over the long haul.