Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | Youtube |
Published | 2023/03/25 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Politicians' domestic messaging can impact foreign policy, urging the US to de-escalate in Syria to avoid civilian casualties and strategic traps.
Policy Makers, Activists
The full transcript provides detailed insights into the complex dynamics between domestic politics and foreign policy decisions, urging a cautious and strategic approach to avoid escalating conflicts with severe consequences.
#ForeignPolicy #De-escalation #Iran #Syria #CivilianCasualties #PoliticalMessaging
Well, howdy there, internet people.
It's Beau again.
So today, we are going to talk about how politicians at home,
creating talking points and messaging for a domestic
audience in their own country, can oftentimes create a
situation where they derail good foreign policy.
And because of their talking points at home,
they miss the forest for the trees.
And they make mistakes.
We're going to talk about that, and we're
going to talk about how Iran might be about to play the US
in a really big way, because the United States habitually
underestimates Iran.
Okay, so if you have no idea what I'm talking about, there is a back and forth going on
in Syria between U.S. forces and local groups that are Iranian-backed.
In Western media, you're probably going to hear the term Iranian proxy.
That's not right.
They're Iranian-backed.
They appear to be proxies because Iran is really good at backing groups like this.
They are top three in the world.
This back and forth is occurring.
The groups hit a US base, the US responds, and it goes back and forth.
The media seems to be intent on making it seem as though this is kind of a new development,
like it started last week.
That's not true.
This has been occurring.
If I had to guess, every other week for years, it's not a new development.
There was a situation in which there were injuries and somebody was lost, and that put
it into the new cycle.
Most outlets are not providing the history of it.
At the same time, there is a, quote, feeling that these hits by these groups are becoming
more deliberate and more intense.
Okay, I really hope you're picking up the disdain in my voice for the idea that foreign
policy decisions might be based on feelings, but let's just take that and file it away
for a second.
So in the US, what's the response going to be?
You're going to have two camps develop.
One is the hawkish camp, which is going to be like, we need to go in there and clean
house and send somebody else's kid over there to do that, you know.
You're going to have that group.
And then you're going to have the proportional response group, which is basically just maintaining
the status quo back and forth for however long.
The mission in Syria has become nebulous at best for the United States.
Okay, so let's assume for a second that the feeling is correct.
They are becoming more intense and more deliberate.
Why?
The eternal question, right?
Intent.
Why?
Why at this moment?
If you take a step back, you realize these groups are backed by Iran.
Iran is also backing another country.
They're providing them with tools, Russia, to operate in Ukraine.
It would be incredibly helpful to Russia if the United States was to get bogged down in
Syria.
It doesn't hurt Iran, they're not their people, they're aligned groups.
So Iran gets to help Russia in a big way in the hopes of getting another card slid to
them later in the game, and they don't really lose anything.
The US does, the civilians in Syria do, because even in just the back and forth over the last
few days, one of the group's rockets went off course.
One out of a bunch of rockets went off course and went into a civilian area.
Luckily there were only injuries, but if this was to escalate, it would be the civilians
who pay the price, as is almost always the case.
So what's the right move if you are the U.S.?
Deescalate.
Nobody in U.S. politics is going to want to say that, but that's the right move.
If the feeling is correct, the right move is to de-escalate.
There is not really a situation in which the hawkish position is going to be correct.
The right move is to de-escalate.
If it is by design, if it is more deliberate, the goal is to provoke a response.
hits, they've been going on for years. They're not exactly militarily effective
from a strategic or operational level. So the only real reason for them to become
more intense or more deliberate is to provoke a response. If your opposition is
trying to provoke a response, you don't give it to them. That's called walking
into a trap. The problem is you are going to have a lot of politicians in the United
States want to establish their hawkish credentials, and they'll use this to do it.
We can only hope that the Biden administration and the Department of Defense
realizes that an escalation in Syria is a horrible idea. We should be going the
other way. We should be de-escalating. We should be moving towards
ending the mission there. That should be the goal, right? If your opposition wants
you to do something. It's probably a bad idea to do it. We're gonna have to wait
and see how it plays out and wait for more information because I'm not going
to base something on a feeling. The one thing that everybody needs to
remember here is the people who are calling for escalation, they're not going
be the ones who pay the price. It's going to be civilians, it's going to be people
who don't have a say in the matter. And sadly, I think one of the most effective
tools for encouraging de-escalation here is to remind people that if the US gets
bogged down in Syria, and escalates there, it will be less capable of supporting Ukraine.
Anyway, it's just a thought, y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}