Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | Youtube |
Published | 2024/01/04 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Beau breaks down recent events in Lebanon and Iran, speculating on potential connections and the risks of regional conflict escalation, urging for a nuanced understanding of the motivations behind military actions.
International observers
In-depth analysis of the geopolitical implications and potential consequences of the events described in the transcript.
#Geopolitics #MiddleEast #RegionalConflict #RealignmentOperations #Israel #Iran #Lebanon
Well, howdy there, internet people, it's Beau again.
So today we are going to talk about
what occurred in Iran and Lebanon.
We're gonna cover them both at the same time
because most people are viewing them as connected.
We don't know that they are.
So we're going to run through both situations
and talk about them individually,
talk about why people see them as connected
and why they may not be.
And then we will talk about what it means
if they are actually connected.
OK, so if you have no idea what I'm talking about,
miss the news.
Two operations were conducted, one in Lebanon and one in Iran.
We will talk about the one in Lebanon first.
The one that occurred in Lebanon was a very directed strike
against a high-level member of Hamas.
This could be the beginning of realignment operations.
And tomorrow morning, over on the other channel,
the Roads with Bo, there will be an in-depth explanation
as to what that actually means to include
organizational charts and all of that stuff.
But the short version is realignment operations
take a violent group and turn them over time into a more pragmatic group, doesn't turn
them into a peaceful group, but it turns them into a group that would be more willing to
sit down at a table and negotiate.
This kind of bears some of the marks of that being what it is.
Now Israel has denied involvement.
If I was in Vegas, I would be taking out a line of credit to put all of the money down
on Israel being behind it.
I have a high degree of confidence that that is who is responsible for that in Lebanon.
So now let's move on to Iran.
This was not directed, not well directed.
It occurred at a memorial service for Soleimani.
Now the assumption is that this was also Israel.
There are other options.
There are a bunch of groups both inside of Iran and out that would like to see the support
of Soleimani no longer present. So this one, the level of confidence isn't there
to say that this was Israel, but it doesn't matter if it was or not. What
matters is Iran's perception. We are back to that point. We're back to what matters
is how Iran reads it. Let's hope that they determine it was one of the groups
inside of Iran that is opposed to the theocratic government. That would be
ideal because it would lower the temperature across the region. But we
have no idea whether or not that's what happened and we have no idea whether or
not that's how Iran would read it even if it was what occurred. But right now
people are associating the two things because humans, we are pattern-seeking
creatures and we like to see everything is connected. In real life, it's not. So we
don't know that yet. But because world leaders are also humans, everybody's
posture across the Middle East just went up. The risk of regional expansion of a
regional conflict is much higher today than it was two days ago. Okay, so let's
assume the Iran operation was Israel. It wouldn't be a good move, right? I mean I
think that's obvious because it realistically will increase support for
Israel's opposition. So if it's a bad move, why would they do it? Mission creep.
The next mistake they were going to make if they followed the US pattern would be
mission creep and that's very well what this could be. If Israel has determined
that they do not possess the capability to fully degrade Hamas the way they're
doing it, they might decide, hey, well, if we can't reduce the number of combatants
to a sufficient level, let's send a message and hopefully reduce their supplies.
If Israel did it, that's the reason they did it and it was a bad move.
It's mission creep.
It's expanding the scope of the mission because at some point the leadership realizes the
The victory conditions that were set can't be attained by the way they're trying to
do it.
So rather than say that, they expand the scope of the mission.
From Israel's perspective, assuming they are involved in both, the realignment operations,
yeah, that would be smart.
Trying to send a message, it would be a bad idea.
don't know yet. I mean we don't know that Israel was behind Lebanon at time of
filming. Israel was behind Lebanon, okay. We may not be able to prove that but
that we're talking 99.9 degree percent certainty on that one. Like it's just,
I cannot think of anybody else that would want to do that in that way.
Iran, a whole lot more options, but it depends on how Iran reads it. If this
expands, this is something that the US might get drug into on the periphery
right now. So if you're going to hope for something, hope that an internal group
inside of Iran claims responsibility and Iran believes them. Again, if you want to
know a little bit more about realignment operations, which by the way are
considered best practices when you're dealing with a non-state actor, there
will be the video tomorrow morning going over how it works. Anyway, it's just a
With that, y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}