I think MacGregor's point is that a lot has changed in the past 20 years. Other countries are stronger and the US is perceived as weaker. This could be an opportunity for other countries to try to break the hegemony.
I think MacGregor's point is that a lot has changed in the past 20 years. Other countries are stronger and the US is perceived as weaker. This could be an opportunity for other countries to try to break the hegemony.
I don't see anyone rushing into to try that. Russia is completely engaged closer to home. The Chinese are certainly offering themselves as an alternative hegemon to the US but they are not about to send troops to the Middle East. And Israel is still Israel: able to take on its neighbors as needed.
Yeah but I think all bets are off if the US takes a direct swing at Iran. And after the foreign policy blundering of the past 20+ years, I've no confidence we'll show restraint
What do you mean by "direct swing"? Trump had an Iranian general assassinated, which is certainly a causus belli (and unusual even in actual wartime).
So far the the evidence for any intent-- even on Israel's part-- to engage Iran militarily in fairly void. Are there warmongers, in the US, the UK and Israel, who would like to so? Absolutely yes. But there are no signs pointing to their being able to get their way.
Recall that in the First Gulf War Saddam Hussein fired off missiles at Israel although Israel had nothing to do with the conflict itself; yet the US held to its mission in Kuwait and did not use that as reason to go after Saddam after his army was expelled from Kuwait. And given the current disorder (polite word used) in the House right now, it's hard to see how the US could be rallied to such an effort at the moment (Yes, Congress would have to sign off on such a war with some sort of vote or other).
Yeah but I'm not thinking the First Gulf War, I'm thinking Iraq. I'm thinking "regime change." And I'm sure the neocons have allllll sorts of plans to rally Americans to their never-changing cause.
I think MacGregor's point is that a lot has changed in the past 20 years. Other countries are stronger and the US is perceived as weaker. This could be an opportunity for other countries to try to break the hegemony.
I don't see anyone rushing into to try that. Russia is completely engaged closer to home. The Chinese are certainly offering themselves as an alternative hegemon to the US but they are not about to send troops to the Middle East. And Israel is still Israel: able to take on its neighbors as needed.
Yeah but I think all bets are off if the US takes a direct swing at Iran. And after the foreign policy blundering of the past 20+ years, I've no confidence we'll show restraint
What do you mean by "direct swing"? Trump had an Iranian general assassinated, which is certainly a causus belli (and unusual even in actual wartime).
So far the the evidence for any intent-- even on Israel's part-- to engage Iran militarily in fairly void. Are there warmongers, in the US, the UK and Israel, who would like to so? Absolutely yes. But there are no signs pointing to their being able to get their way.
Recall that in the First Gulf War Saddam Hussein fired off missiles at Israel although Israel had nothing to do with the conflict itself; yet the US held to its mission in Kuwait and did not use that as reason to go after Saddam after his army was expelled from Kuwait. And given the current disorder (polite word used) in the House right now, it's hard to see how the US could be rallied to such an effort at the moment (Yes, Congress would have to sign off on such a war with some sort of vote or other).
Yeah but I'm not thinking the First Gulf War, I'm thinking Iraq. I'm thinking "regime change." And I'm sure the neocons have allllll sorts of plans to rally Americans to their never-changing cause.