The Israel-Iran War ?

[Legbiter]

Should not have to wait too long to see what the US does. If B-2's start blowing up targets in Iran in the next days that'll be it.

[Valmy]

Should not have to wait too long to see what the US does. If B-2's start blowing up targets in Iran in the next days that'll be it.

We started seeing worrying signs in the weeks leading up to this attack. America was removing non-essential personnel from bases and embassies in the days leading up to the strike on Iran. Now we can see American ships and other forces move around. Something is going to happen, Trump and his cronies are up to something.

[Legbiter]

Yeah seems Trump wants in on this, after seeing how easily Iran got curbstomped. 

Also:



An official nickname. Kooky Carlson.

[Sheilbh]

I wonder how this is going to affect regime stability in Iran. Will Iranians rally around the government or will it provide an opportunity for regime change?

My expectation would 100% be a rally round the flag.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I do not think that that a bombing campaign is genocide, and really I don't think anyone else does either.  People who believe that a bombing campaign is genocide wouldn't be cheering one against Israel unless they themselves were genocidal (and admittedly that may be the case with many of them).  A double standard based on perceived ancestry is called racism.  I'm not objecting so much to the hypocrisy, I'm objecting to the racism.  The UN could dispel those concerns with charges of war crimes for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a genocide charge against president Xi of China.

You keep saying "the UN", but the UN doesn't press charges.  That's the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is a separate inter-governmental tribunal created by the Rome Statute.  Except in very limited circumstances, the ICC can only prosecute crimes that are either committed in a member state, or by individuals from a member state.

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and China are not member states, so the court has no jurisdiction there.  There was actually was a call to investigate China, but the court determined they had no evidence that any of the crimes occurred outside of China or involved anyone from a member state outside of China.  Palestine and Ukraine are member states, which is why the ICC can indict Russians and Israelis involved in those conflicts despite those states not being member states.

Further, Netanyahu and Gallant have not bee charged with genocide by the ICC, just war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Literally the only person who the ICC has ever charged with genocide is Omar al-Bashir.

[Tamas]

Yeah seems Trump wants in on this, after seeing how easily Iran got curbstomped. 

Also:



An official nickname. Kooky Carlson.

I bet Bibi, not to mention the IAF, are annoyed how this old fucker swoops in taking all the credit. "we"?

But on the MAGA people having trouble supporting Trump going to war in the Middle East - grow up. They are in way too deep to question the leader.

[celedhring]

I guess the US had spent too long without getting itself entangled in the Middle East yet again?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Born too early to fight in the sandbox.  Born too late to fight in the sandbox.  Born just in time to fight in the sandbox.

[Legbiter]

But on the MAGA people having trouble supporting Trump going to war in the Middle East - grow up.

Yeah but it's funny to observe now because a new patch hasn't dropped yet with a new cope so they're floundering for a bit.

[Razgovory]

I do not think that that a bombing campaign is genocide, and really I don't think anyone else does either.  People who believe that a bombing campaign is genocide wouldn't be cheering one against Israel unless they themselves were genocidal (and admittedly that may be the case with many of them).  A double standard based on perceived ancestry is called racism.  I'm not objecting so much to the hypocrisy, I'm objecting to the racism.  The UN could dispel those concerns with charges of war crimes for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a genocide charge against president Xi of China.

You keep saying "the UN", but the UN doesn't press charges.  That's the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is a separate inter-governmental tribunal created by the Rome Statute.  Except in very limited circumstances, the ICC can only prosecute crimes that are either committed in a member state, or by individuals from a member state.

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and China are not member states, so the court has no jurisdiction there.  There was actually was a call to investigate China, but the court determined they had no evidence that any of the crimes occurred outside of China or involved anyone from a member state outside of China.  Palestine and Ukraine are member states, which is why the ICC can indict Russians and Israelis involved in those conflicts despite those states not being member states.

Further, Netanyahu and Gallant have not bee charged with genocide by the ICC, just war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Literally the only person who the ICC has ever charged with genocide is Omar al-Bashir.

The UN has the power to form criminal tribunals in cases of genocide AND it has the ability to refer cases to the ICC even if the belligerents are not members of the ICC.  THe UN did establish Tribunals concerning war crimes and genocide in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda,  which of course were not a party the Rome treaty since it didn't exist yet.

The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or

the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works

[crazy canuck]

Raz, the UN does not have the power to "form criminal tribunals".  The UN Security Council could refer a matter to the ICC if there is a resolution passed - but now think about who has a power of veto in the UN Security Council. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

So Trump says a lot of things that often are only tenuously connected to what's actually happening.

But a US + Israel war on Iran to affect regime change would be... I don't know... a tall mountain to climb, IMO. Taking the premise at face value for the moment, my disparate thoughts are:

• Leaving aside the moral elements altogether for a moment, I feel like this has potential to be a US repeat of Putin's invasion of Ukraine. There's a real risk to get stuck in a quagmire that drains US money, materiel, and lives for a long time.
• Is the idea that Iran is going to unconditionally surrender without US (or Israeli?) boots on the ground, purely from a bombing campaign? I would be surprised if that works.
• If the US is serious in affecting regime change in Iran, it'll likely need to position more forces in theatre than it has now. This will likely take some time.
• While Trump and Hegseth are very "America #1, everyone else sucks", I assume they'd still like some support from others (if for no other reason than to feel like a hegemon ordering lesser countries around)... but who would support the US here? Saudi Arabia?
• Domestically, I expect there'll be some opposition to the war but Trump might also be hoping for a "rallying around the flag during wartime" effect.

I don't know... I still think this typical Trumpian bluster that will be followed up with very firm and pompous statements all over the map, and relatively minimal action.

Separate from that, it'll be interesting to see what China and Russia does - to what degree will they be interested in  and able to prop up Iran?

The likelihood of a major war is not decreasing, IMO.

Regime change would effect nothing positive aside from perhaps a long delay to the nuclear program.

Whatever government emerged would very likely be no better than the clerical regime, and could be worse.

If the current regime collapses (e.g. the Ayatollah dead and no clerical ruler emerges to replace him) my guess is the most likely sort of government is one where a general from the IRGC takes over and rules as a military junta

While this wouldn't be Iran's current theocracy, all of the IRGC generals hate the West with the intensity of the sun, are Islamists, extreme nationalists and by most reports more bellicose than the Ayatollah is.

Such a regime would likely endeavor to rush to a nuclear device of some sort.

Given Iran's ethnic divisions a Syria style civil war could also occur—and like the Iranian Revolution, whoever ends up winning that will probably be quite bad.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

The UN has the power to form criminal tribunals in cases of genocide AND it has the ability to refer cases to the ICC even if the belligerents are not members of the ICC.  THe UN did establish Tribunals concerning war crimes and genocide in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda,  which of course were not a party the Rome treaty since it didn't exist yet.

The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or

the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works

Yes, that's the "very limited circumstances" I was referring to.  As far as I can tell, the genocide in Darfur is the only time the UNSC has exercised its referral power against a non-member-state of the ICC.  As I already noted, this is also the only time someone has actually been charged with genocide by the ICC.

The UN had nothing to do with the indictments of Netanyahu, Gallant, or Deif (Sinwar and Haniyeh were also going to be indicted, but Israel offed them before the ICC had a chance).  Those indictments were handed down by the ICC under its own authority because Palestine is a signatory.  The UN has not referred anything to the ICC with respect to Palestine, because it doesn't need to.  No one associated with the situation in Palestine has actually been charged with genocide.

This whole subthread started because you claimed the UN was prosecuting Israelis, and only Israelis, for genocide.  None of those three things is true.

[Sheilbh]

Agree with a lot of OvB's points.

From a European perspective really not sure that on top of Russia, Syria, Libya and the Sahel we need another failed state with a population of 90 million. And again Turkey as the shock absorber (though unclear how long it can play that role).

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I can be: Ottoman Empire?