Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | Youtube |
Published | 2023/11/05 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
A professor urges Beau to explain a potential worst-case scenario in foreign policy, revealing recent signaling towards peace and diplomatic efforts to prevent severe conflicts.
Foreign policy enthusiasts
Detailed explanations on the intricacies of foreign policy and diplomatic efforts in preventing severe conflicts.
#Diplomacy #ForeignPolicy #BidenAdministration #Peace #ConflictPrevention
Well, howdy there, internet people, it's Beau again.
So today, we are going to talk about diplomacy
and Biden and foreign policy
and a request from a professor to talk about a what-if.
And I guess we'll talk about why I have been, quote,
intentionally vague lately in some of the things
that I have been talking about.
Okay, so here's the message.
I'm a professor and teach about foreign policy.
I have a lot of respect for the way you present things
and make them accessible without needing a PhD.
I understand why you were intentionally vague
about how it could quote, get really bad.
One of the reasons I like you is that you aren't alarmist
and don't scare people for clicks.
Now that that threat has subsided,
I beg you to explain what the worst case scenario was
people should really know.
Okay, so over the last few weeks I have been talking about expansion, widening it, getting
really bad, talking about a regional conflict in the Middle East.
And I have been vague about it.
Now as far as the message goes, I do not believe that the threat has subsided, as in it's completely
gone.
definitely lessened. Over the last few days there has been a lot of signaling
coming from the Iranian government. Well, elements within the Iranian government
because the Iranian government is basically three governments wrapped up
in a trench coat. They're not always united but there's been a lot of
signaling and that signaling is that they don't want a regional conflict
either. They call for a boycott which is another way of saying we
don't actually want to fight. That's really good news. It is better news than
most people probably really grasp. So that expansion, the possibility of a
regional conflict is what the Biden administration's foreign policy has been
prioritizing, stopping that. That's been their main goal. Because of that
signaling, and it is worth noting because in the US the coverage says Iran
proxies. Iran has influence over the non-state actors. They don't have
command, so there's still a risk there. But the worst-case scenario here is now
very, very, very unlikely. It wasn't necessarily just a couple of weeks ago.
So starting off an expansion of this conflict could include other non-state actors getting
involved and that's bad but that's on the opposite end from the worst-case scenario.
The worst-case scenario begins with Arab states, with other Middle Eastern countries, with
other countries in the region getting directly involved with their actual military.
That's your worst-case scenario because from there it is very easy for dominoes to
start falling.
If other countries in the region decided to intervene on the Palestinian's behalf,
they would do so by going after Israel.
There would be attacks on Israeli territory.
If that coalition of countries or singular country started to make gains into Israeli
territory, that's when it could go from something that is horrible to something that is unthinkable.
In the West, the West in general, constantly telling Ukraine, don't send troops into Russian
territory, why?
Because they're a nuclear power and it could be perceived as an existential threat, which
could lead to the deployment of strategic arms, nuclear weapons.
Israel is also a nuclear power.
That rule about not taking territory from nuclear powers, that's pretty universal.
That risk was there.
And I know that sounds very hyper-polic.
In 1967, big conflict, Israel had just gotten nukes, just got them.
In fact, I don't even think they had good, wide-scale, like the ability to produce well
yet.
There was a plan, I can't remember the name of the operation, but it was designed to insert
some commandos and have them go up to the top of a mountain, very symbolic, down from
the mountaintop and all that stuff.
I want to say in the Sinai and detonate a nuke as a warning.
In 1973, Israel almost invoked the Sampson option.
They readied more than a dozen nuclear weapons on readiness for planes and missiles to be
delivered.
It's not...
It isn't something that is out of the realm of possibility.
If a regional conflict started, it would be on the table.
And it turns a horrible situation into one that's really bad.
Like just unthinkable where you are not counting the lost in thousands.
This is what the Biden administration foreign policy, their diplomacy efforts have been
focused on.
That was the priority.
what everybody was looking at. Now that the signaling has occurred, you'll see a
shift and it's already started. The State Department is meeting with Arab foreign
ministers, I think today, and they're talking about a ceasefire. A word that
realistically the US government probably isn't going to use for a while. You'll
here, pause, as Biden said, a pause. The signaling from Iran started right about
the time he said that. That's when the shift occurred and up until then, up
until those signals were clear from Iran, the worst-case scenario was something
that had to be considered because it's not something that was out of the realm of possibility.
It was unlikely, but if a coalition of countries or a country in the region decided to intervene
on the Palestinians' behalf and started hitting Israeli territory, the second that
happened you were far more likely to have strategic arms deployed there than
at any point in the conflict in Ukraine. It was a real risk. It's still a
risk but it's just lessened a substantial amount. So, that's uh, I
I didn't see the value in talking about that until we knew, because I was very hopeful
that cooler heads would prevail in Tehran.
I know in the U.S. there's a lot of propaganda about the country, but they're not ignorant
people and I thought that that was a very, I thought them recognizing the
stakes was the most likely but it just wasn't something I was ready to talk
about. I didn't see the value in scaring people for no reason because if if it
did start going down that direction there's nothing anybody could do about
it. But it does appear that Iran and other major players in the area have
signaled that isn't what they want, which stands to reason if you go watch the
video over on the other channel with the whiteboard in our fictitious region. The
The countries that were allied to red, they really don't want red to win.
So it fits with normal foreign policy, but we didn't know.
Now that those signals are out there, you can anticipate a shift in US foreign policy.
There will still be a lot of resources devoted to that, but it is more likely today that
you see the U.S. start to really apply pressure to maybe get a ceasefire or a pause than it
was a week ago.
All that being said, we're not completely out of the woods yet because something could
happen in Gaza that alters Toran's perception. The non-state actors could
act on their own and something happened there. There's still risks. It's just a
lot less than it was a week or two weeks ago. But yeah, that's the other
end of the spectrum, as far as what's possible and how bad it could get.
And that is really what the Biden administration has been working for.
That's what they've been doing.
I would imagine that when this administration ends and all the inevitable books come out,
There's probably going to be a lot of revelations about conversations that were had that will
probably be surprising.
Just remember, what the American public doesn't know is what makes us the American public.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}