Positive Impacts of a New Middle East War

Sometimes to assess probabilities, you have to talk about things in a way that isn’t touchy feely.

Some of those thoughts are pretty cold as a result. For instance, it’s not real popular to talk about the “good”, depending on one’s perspective, that comes out of war.

But, that’s exactly what this post is about and seeks to discuss:

What are the positive impacts for USNATO to supporting Israel and either provoking or engaging a broader Middle East war?

I ask this from the perspective of not being a proponent of violence, physical harm, death, or destruction. I feel as though we should be beyond those means of resolution as a society. But, I also realize we’re not - making war inevitable. That means there is a reason to fight, and victory would likely produce a “good” outcome - or the one the victors desire. Given war is costly, you don’t do it unless the perceived benefit is greater than the risk. So where to start with this New Middle East war, in terms of NATO benefit?

Right out of the gates, a few come to mind:

- Potentially damage China/Russia
- Reimagine opec+
- Dramatically reduce terrorism
- Unify the US and/or clearly weed out those who support terrorists.
- Eliminate rogue regimes
- Build up our industrial base (maybe employ former UAW people)
- Increase our income from arms sales and have reason to further arm NATO
- Spread Russia thin to where they may have to draw from their Arctic ambitions - while NATO expands
- Gives us a real test to see if Turkey should be in NATO.

What else?

Done right, there’s a great deal of progress that can be made.

Considering the “good” perspective makes me think Israel may not hold on the ground offensive because of Iran, per se. The tactical pause from Israel likely comes from letting this play out for a moment. Get another carrier group in the region. Get some allies to join as well. Get our subs in the area. Surge land-based assets. Resupply Israel. Read the room. Etc.

All under the guise of establishing humanitarian aid. That said, the humanitarian aid is legitimate. It just so happens to also be convenient - buys time to get our ducks in a row.

The more positives that can be identified for USNATO, thinking over the long/intermediate term even, the more probable the above is playing out.

What other positives come to mind?

Side note: What led me to write this post? I figured I’d share when it dawned on me that few posts share what led the OP to posting - at least not much detail. Makes it harder to see where someone is coming from.

I posted this question:thought because:

I think you can get a decent probabilistic sense of how a whole lot of things will play out from here as the current conflict is THE thing that can materially disrupt the world in a way that shapes the future materially - and subsequently the motives/impacts of the conflict. This could be impactful - having a sense of where we are going that’s not driven by emotion is useful perspective to have and evolve.

So, basically, I was just thinking about what I was thinking about. 😎

Who here would like to be noted as willing to play the role of devils advocated for future reference? Step right up!

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Why limit it to just the middle east? Lets just do it right and make it a total world war. We can bomb the crap out of both china and russia along with iran, north korea, and any other nation we care to eliminate and plunder everywhere and anywhere we want at that point. Problem is, by that time we wont exist as a nation either.

Oh, and don't forget the added benifit of reducing global populations. Killing off 5 or 6 billion people would be benificial for the environment and drastically reduce global warming. I mean, what better way to reduce global warmeng that to set off 3 or 4 hundred nuclear bombs around the planet and create a 15 or 20 year nuclear winter around the globe.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Just off the top of my head:

A "defeat" of Iran would essentially put Pakistan, an Islamic country with nuclear weapons (and an itchy trigger) in a "squeeze play" between fallen Iran and its natural rival, India.

Potentially subduing not only the ME, but the Asian subcontinent as well.

I know I have beaten a dead horse here, but if Israel/ the world wants peace, then the religious folk from any side need to coexist.

When you don’t, you lose ground, not gain it.

Day 1 the Clinton backed regime stripped a part of Serbia (Kosovo) and backed an influx of Muslim extremist terrorists.

To this day, trying to give them its own f*cking independent state while demolishing ancient history and orthodox monasteries that’s Serbian over 1000years+.

In 99’ bought short term by Clintons/Biden pay for play money and power.

In return, a clusterf*ck of issues going forward in the future.

Israel on stage now, unleashing a quarter of the destruction/power of a nuclear bomb past days over Gaza.


cheers:

the unintended consequences will be vast..

a reply to: VulcanWerks

There can be no peace in a world where the most powerful nation is the war monger. The MIC needs constant war and threat of war to sustain it's budget and if a war can't be found it will be created.

The creation of terrorist groups to undermine and occupy perceived enemies is also quite acceptable to the US regime.

What we have just now is the US running a protection racket across the globe under the guise of foreign ald.

a reply to: Imhere

Day 1 the Clinton backed regime stripped a part of Serbia (Kosovo) and backed an influx of Muslim extremist terrorists. To this day, trying to give them its own f*cking independent state while demolishing ancient history and orthodox monasteries that’s Serbian over 1000years+.

And the "genocide" was the other way around.
I like posts that invoke real history.

- Potentially damage China/Russia

How is that a good thing, unless you feed on hate? Too much to compete with them on the sports field and economic markets so just cheat, steal and kill your way over the finish line?

- Reimagine opec+

Guess we got no choice as the refineries blow up and shipping lanes close as the bombs fall. Will some new energy tech turn up in time, or will we just have to wait as civilization falls first and go back to rubbing sticks for fire for a while?

- Dramatically reduce terrorism

Maybe with less people around there will be less to be scared off. in some ways there will be other threats of survival turning up.

- Unify the US and/or clearly weed out those who support terrorists.

By terrorist I assume you mean government? Some states will do better than others. Maybe go that way with the situational awareness at this time. The people will be unified in having to rely on their local community more for daily needs.

- Eliminate rogue regimes

As one common law of civility for everyone falls, tribal law will pick up the pieces. If does feel like there is something in the background trying to rule it all. With the sacrifice going on in Giza, it puts Darth Vader to shame on his path for totalitarian control.

- Build up our industrial base (maybe employ former UAW people)

There will be lots of work to do whatever way it goes.

- Increase our income from arms sales and have reason to further arm NATO

It is a benefit for some. The arms trade and technology has made a difference in a lot of conflicts. Only goes so far as some sides have enough arms to kill us all.

- Spread Russia thin to where they may have to draw from their Arctic ambitions - while NATO expands

I don't know. Don't expect Russia is too surprised by the situation. With how Russia handled Ukraine, it will be a measured response that defends their position. Not sure what kind of defense treaty are around these days and how much they will be enforced should push come to shove.

- Gives us a real test to see if Turkey should be in NATO.

Will also test how the UN will stand.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

I don’t see any benefit for direct US involvement.

It would unwind decades of efforts to reposition the US into the broader global community.

As for reducing terrorists, I don’t see how that would work. It’s rare that we can fight ideology with weapons. When kids are orphaned to foreign powers, what kind of ideology do we think they’re going to be sympathetic to?

Israel is more than capable of dealing with Palestine. Im not sure we’d all agree with their methods, but the US shouldn’t be directly involved.

The only way I see the US playing an active roll is if Iran enters, and again, I’m having a hard time seeing the bright side in that scenario.

2 carrier groups sitting in the Med tells me all I need to know about my nations response. That's all our government knows right now is death and destruction.

I've never reacted well to ultimatums as I imagine others do not as well.

a reply to: tenbears

It may be there as a deterrent. Iran is definitely going to take the carrier groups into consideration in their decision making regarding Israel.

But I won’t discount it as war footing either. I sure hope it’s not.

at this point the only positive will be no social media..

War has always brought nations out of financial peril, enriching the 1% and creating new multi-billion dollar companies.

As mentioned, it's also a big plus for over-population and the Green Agenda, though the entitled, molly-coddled youth of today are going to take a direct kick in the nutz and a wake-up call to the real world we live in. Whether that ends well or not is anybody's guess.

originally posted by: XxGargamelxX
Who here would like to be noted as willing to play the role of devils advocated for future reference? Step right up!

I’m all for it!

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Just off the top of my head:

A "defeat" of Iran would essentially put Pakistan, an Islamic country with nuclear weapons (and an itchy trigger) in a "squeeze play" between fallen Iran and its natural rival, India.

Potentially subduing not only the ME, but the Asian subcontinent as well.

Excellent point - and definitely supports the war being a boon to USNATO.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

The new Cancel Wars are interesting to watch. You have CEOs and businesses cancelling Hamas supporting Harvard students, Foundations withholding financial support to Harvard, and now the news is reporting that Starbucks is suing the Union they work with over their public support for Hamas' actions.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
Sometimes to assess probabilities, you have to talk about things in a way that isn’t touchy feely.

Some of those thoughts are pretty cold as a result. For instance, it’s not real popular to talk about the “good”, depending on one’s perspective, that comes out of war.

But, that’s exactly what this post is about and seeks to discuss:

What are the positive impacts for USNATO to supporting Israel and either provoking or engaging a broader Middle East war?

I ask this from the perspective of not being a proponent of violence, physical harm, death, or destruction. I feel as though we should be beyond those means of resolution as a society. But, I also realize we’re not - making war inevitable. That means there is a reason to fight, and victory would likely produce a “good” outcome - or the one the victors desire. Given war is costly, you don’t do it unless the perceived benefit is greater than the risk. So where to start with this New Middle East war, in terms of NATO benefit?

Right out of the gates, a few come to mind:

- Potentially damage China/Russia
- Reimagine opec+
- Dramatically reduce terrorism
- Unify the US and/or clearly weed out those who support terrorists.
- Eliminate rogue regimes
- Build up our industrial base (maybe employ former UAW people)
- Increase our income from arms sales and have reason to further arm NATO
- Spread Russia thin to where they may have to draw from their Arctic ambitions - while NATO expands
- Gives us a real test to see if Turkey should be in NATO.

What else?

Done right, there’s a great deal of progress that can be made.

Considering the “good” perspective makes me think Israel may not hold on the ground offensive because of Iran, per se. The tactical pause from Israel likely comes from letting this play out for a moment. Get another carrier group in the region. Get some allies to join as well. Get our subs in the area. Surge land-based assets. Resupply Israel. Read the room. Etc.

All under the guise of establishing humanitarian aid. That said, the humanitarian aid is legitimate. It just so happens to also be convenient - buys time to get our ducks in a row.

The more positives that can be identified for USNATO, thinking over the long/intermediate term even, the more probable the above is playing out.

What other positives come to mind?

Side note: What led me to write this post? I figured I’d share when it dawned on me that few posts share what led the OP to posting - at least not much detail. Makes it harder to see where someone is coming from.

I posted this question:thought because:

I think you can get a decent probabilistic sense of how a whole lot of things will play out from here as the current conflict is THE thing that can materially disrupt the world in a way that shapes the future materially - and subsequently the motives/impacts of the conflict. This could be impactful - having a sense of where we are going that’s not driven by emotion is useful perspective to have and evolve.

So, basically, I was just thinking about what I was thinking about. 😎

What kind of propaganda is this?

There is no reimagining Opec; NATO wants to get rid of oil.
If you don't believe the "MSM Narrative" then you support terrorism?
Going to war never reduces terrorism; it creates it.
None of this will damage Russia or China unless it explodes into WW3; in which case, we won't win that.
Turkey is aligned with Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood; they don't want to be in NATO.
Selling arms to who exactly? The terrorists of tomorrow. Contradictory to your other point of reducing terrorism. War doesn't do that.

I've never seen a post project so incorrectly; none of these are positives. Making NATO bigger is the WEF goal; they want to deforrest and depopulate the planet.

This is so ridiculously off base it hurts.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

I didn’t realise John Bolton had an ATS account.

Obviously, based on the comments here, it forces everyone to pick a side. It really is all about perspective (just like the OP said) and which advantages or disadvantages you consider to be a priority. Not that it really matters because there is going to be war either way.