World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
What's next? Launching a war against the Ukraine to appear Putin?
You dumb fucking orange man.
...do you think Putin wants Iran to be bombed?
Strangely yes. This jacks up the price of oil in a way that doesn't dirty Putin's hands. It's a bit of a weird play but makes some sense.
Iran is a major trade partner and an important partner in the Ukraine War and they were both important allies of Assad and worked closely together in Syria. They have deep ties. There's no way the price of oil is worth losing one of their key allies in the region.
Why not? They have strategic value sure but Russia is nearly bankrupt, Iran for an extra year or two of solvency makes sense to me. Further weakens the US too.
It told you why not! Because Iran is an important regional ally and business partner and military asset.
Russia sacrificing an ally like this for something as paltry as "gas prices" would be short-sighted in the extreme.
Although since you seem to think Russia is "nearly bankrupt" and that this only buys them "an extra year or two" that explains why you don't think this matters.
Yeah the condescending really explained your point. Import export numbers, critical resources only Iran provides Russia, strategic geographic and political value. You really covered it all in those... 3 sentences formatted as paragraphs. Worthless. Down vote me if you failed econ 1.
Jesus do you want me to write you an essay?
I will say they just entered a new 20-year bilateral trade and military cooperation treaty on Jan 17th of this year, which is hardly something Russia would do if they were willing to just destroy Iran in a few months. They did this because trade between the countries has risen sharply due to the sanctions against Russia, and that's not going away any time soon so it would be foolish to sacrifice them at this stage. Then there's the suspected missiles and drones that Iran has been (possibly) supplying Russia for its war with Ukraine, and blowing them up would disrupt that supply line.
But if you're determined to believe Russia wants Iran to be bombed, I won't be able to stop you.
You wanna go look at those numbers or you gonna keep bullshitting based on articles you skimmed? Like I'm aware of the trade and the drones. I'm also aware of Russia's oil exports and their ghost fleet selling to India and others.
Here's a list of Russia's trading partners with numbers. Notice how Iran isn't even top 10? Do I need to break down what they're exporting to Germany or do you get it now? And this ignores India BTW.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_Russia
Strait of Hormuz shuts and that's gravy for Russian, especially with the Artic ocean melting. Congrads though, now I think you're a drop out.
If Iran gets their own nukes, then Russia loses a big bargaining chip.
Honestly, that's probably the only reason why nukes weren't used.
If Iran gets their own nukes, one of Russia's most important allies in the region is safe from attack. That seems a lot more useful than a "bargaining chip". Now, Russia risks losing an important ally and whatever bargaining chip they may have had.
You're reading the play like Russia wants an ally.
What they want is a dependent.
Iran supplies an absolute shit ton of military supplies to Russia.
Yeah. You think Russia is doing shit for free?
Only empires can have dependency, Russia isn't nearly that strong. Russia needs allies or it will be overwhelmed.
But Russia thinks it's an empire and acts accordingly, reality be damned.
So you think they're stupid.
Glances at Belarus
Yeah. Okay.
Belarus has basically been driven out of the European economy, but that's hardly something Russia did. If Russia has become an empire and Belarus has lost its sovereignty it's because Europe decided to force the issue. Bad move, I guess?
Or maybe Belarus and Russia are just allies and they're working together like normal allies do.
Either way, comparing this to Iran is absurd! Iran has ten times the population. Plus, China is right there. It wouldn't work.
I agree with most of the points you’re raising in this thread but Belarus is definitely a Russian puppet state more so than a conventional ally.
Look at that, it's working.
I think you should look at a map sometime. Unless you are taking about Russia-China relations, but that doesn't seem to be the context here.
What's working? Iran isn't any more dependent on Russia than it was before the strikes.
There are just as many countries between Iran and Russia as there are between Iran and China, I don't see why Iran would have to allow itself to be dependent on Russia when China is just as close. Granted, Russia and Iran border the Caspian Sea so they can access each others' ports, but Iran also has ocean coast so it can access Chinese ports as well. In terms of raw numbers, Iran's exports to China value $4.59B and imports value $10B. Trade with Russia, by comparison, is $1.9B. Total.
China is actually a closer economic partner with Iran than Russia is, so why wouldn't Iran be able to turn to China?
Also, Iran is a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Also also, Iran is an observer member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and looks to be in the process to become a full member eventually.
Also also also, Taiwan condemned Iran's strikes against Israel, so you know they're tight with China lol
Then why would you say China is "right there" as an argument.
Also, the premise is not that Iran is a puppet state of Russia, but that they are dependent on Russia for security from other nuclear-armed countries. Russia doesn't want Iran to get nukes because they lose that valuable bargaining chip.
Let's sum up your arguments so far.
You think that Russia can't maintain control over other nations, and I provided a direct refutation of that.
You think that China was geographically closer to Iran than Russia was, and that is refuted with Google maps.
You need to take a look at the players, their motivations and the "board" and then come back with an actual assessment instead of plainly incorrect and unfounded opinions
I don't agree with the guy, but Russia has dependencies both in central Asia and in Europe. Without Russia's support, the current regimes in Turkmenistan, Belarus and Transnistria would not survive.
Iran, however, isn't one, as you said.
Russia is a real country run by actual human beings. They're not Mordor with a dark lord commanding an army of orcs. And Russia wants allies. They're up against a vast global US-lead alliance system. Of course they want allies.
Yeah but usa is russia's ally
Would have been easy enough for them to be allies with Ukraine, but they didn't do that, did they?
No, they want dependents. Allies have a choice. Dependents have an illusion of choice.
This is some of the most geopolitically misinformed shit I’ve read in a while, congratulations.
Great rebuttle. Really drove home your point with facts and evidence. Oh no sorry, didn't get bogged down with those... Or post any, or even a differing opinion. Just the snide of.. Did you by chance drop out of school?
Plus the whole world destabilization thing
Do you think Trump didn't ask permission to his master before bombing Iran?
Netanyahu?
Although it's not like Trump is some puppet on a string. The whole US government wants war with Iran and it has for my entire life. There doesn't need to be some secret master behind this (Israel, Russia, whatever)
Anybody else remember Cheyney singing “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?”
Lol Netanyahu is not Trump's master, he's his business buddy.
The guy thinks like an 80s caricature of a business man. He wants to build resorts in Gaza so he cozies up with Israel. Plus there's oil and natural gas in Iran. Iran is a friend of China which Trump desperately wants to look strong against.
He doesn't care about Israel or Palestinians (or anyone for that matter) he couldn't give two shits. If the roles were reversed, he would cozy up to the power in charge.
I'm not saying he's a great strategist, I think he goes with the opportunities and jumps on them when he can and he takes a lot of miscalculated risks, exactly like he run his other businesses.
But one thing for sure, he asked Putin before he did launched his pew pews on Iran.
Do you think Biden wouldn't have done the exact same thing to "defend" Israel?
This is clearly about Israel and the long-time desire for war with Iran in the US government. Blaming Russia is, frankly, absurd.
Trump certainly would like to have Putin as a business buddy, he's an 80's deals guy after all, but there's no business here that benefits Russia so that's also absurd. Russia does not benefit from Iran's collapse. This is very bad for Russia.
Biden wouldn’t have voided and left the Iran nuclear agreement (that he himself helped to negotiate and put in place) though, which was the stone that got all of this rolling in the first place.
I'm not blaming Russia, I'm not saying Dems were not gonna side with Israel. You asked if Putin wanted the strikes on Iran. I'm saying there's no way he wasn't on board.
Does he like it? I don't know but one thing for sure is he knew about the strikes and agreed to them. With all that Trump did to benefit Putin up till then, no way in hell he didn't ask permission to do that move...
And I'm saying there's no way Putin wants Iran to be bombed, and so therefore this was done without his permission or knowledge.
Yup. When have established powers ever liked a revolutionary government? We don't have to like the type of revolution Iran underwent to acknowledge that it was a radical revolutionary government in the literal sense of the term. No country on Earth has a form of government like Iran's. It's pretty unique. Any time a decent sized country tries is taken over by revolutionaries who attempt a radically new form of government, they receive immense opposition from the old powers. All of Europe declared war on France for chopping the head off their king. Every western government embargoed the people Haiti for daring to violently overthrow their slavers. An expeditionary army of numerous capitalist powers invaded the nascent Soviet Union to try and shut it down. And Iran has been under massive sanctions since they dared to throw their western-backed dictator out by force.
Established powers always try to clamp down on any kind of revolutionary government. It's not that they fear the government itself; they fear the ideas that government represents. Iran needed to be punished. It needed to be embargoed into poverty. They couldn't just let Iran try out its new form of government and let them sort themselves out. Because if Iran can overthrow a western-backed puppet and seize control over their own natural resources? Well that's an idea that could spread far and wide.
After existing since 1979, Iran's government is pretty far from "revolutionary". In fact, looking at their domestic policy, I'll call them reactionary without a second thought.
Their most "revolutionary" thought probably was: "let's export our theocracy to other lands".
They are a symptom however. The shah was so unpopular (read: repressive) that islamists were able to take over. The shah was propped up by the UK and US in the 1950-ties, in a coup, because Iran nationalized oil industries.
Who would stop him?