Hacker News Reader

Comment by WJW | Hacker News Reader

There are broadly 3 ways this can end:

- The Houthi rebels back down.

- The West backs down and accepts a minor rebel group disrupting global shipping .

- The Houthis get their shit kicked in.

There is technically a fourth option where the West tries but fails to enact option 3 I guess, but I doubt it. Houthi air defenses are limited to whatever old soviet SAMs they can scrounge together.

To be honest, I don't see the second option happening either. So we have options 1 and 3 left. I hope it's option 1, as there is enough war already in the world.

View on HN

> West backs down and accepts a minor rebel group disrupting global shipping

There is zero chance capitulating works without someone reining the Houthis in.

The Houthis don’t have a unified power structure. There is nobody to accept that a deal has been signed. The only group that can credibly claim to control them is Tehran; a deal would need to be made with them. And they haven’t offered terms.

I interpreted "backs down" as "stops using the suez canal" not "gives in to their demands"... for precisely the reason that giving in to demands seems unlikely to stop them (even if it might create a brief pause).

You shouldn't be downvoted for this. The dollar reserve status is only guaranteed as far as 'the commerce' is protected. Your understanding and comment show the true power dynamics.

Exactly. This issue isn't that dissimilar from Somali pirates attacking ships in the same region: at first it was "mildly annoying" to the West at large, but ransoms were generally paid. Then it escalated to the point where the West basically said enough, and brought sufficient firepower to deter the pirates.

Another option is Israel follows the overwhelming vote by the UN for a ceasefire.

I think Israel should do that, yes. But I also think that the Houthi wouldn't stop shooting at western ships even if Israel fed and housed every Gazan in an actual palace. Their flag has some hints as to the goals of the movement, after all.

Do you for real suggesting the Iran is carrying this out because they care for people of Gaza?

They care about the Gaza people just as much as Israel being the most just army in the world

As sad as it might be I don't think being just is a KPI any army in the world cares much about.

The UN is a decoration, Israel has the historic chance of getting rid of hamas and setting precedent that if you fck around, you will find out, no way they are stopping.

There is zero chance of getting rid of Hamas in this fashion. It, or a worse successor, will come out of this just fine, no matter how many individual members wind up as meat paste.

> a worse successor, will come out

One hopes it will learn that Hamas’ tactics don’t work. They backfire. And they lose one global sympathy.

Hamas’s tactics worked great here. They’ve created 20k new martyrs to recruit off. Prompting a big reaction was the goal, and they got it.

> Prompting a big reaction was the goal, and they got it

Hamas lost control of Daef and Islamic Jihad. They launched an attack that was shockingly brutal, took hostages and then lost them, and are likely to lose physical control over Gaza for some time. There might have been an inkling of a strategy, but nobody on the ground was calling shots.

Precisely the way they like it. Control means governing, which means you're blamed when things go wrong. Hamas has zero interest in actually having to run a functional government with elections and water quality monitoring and street maintenance. See also: Republican promises to repeal Obamacare.

> They launched an attack that was shockingly brutal...

The response to that attack has killed ~15x as many so far, with plenty of civilians in that mix. Even the US is starting to message "hold up, that's a bit much" now.

> Hamas has zero interest in actually having to run a functional government

Hamas’ leadership wants its villa bills paid. Those payments come in exchange for influence over Gaza. No power in Gaza, no villas in Doha.

> Republican promises to repeal Obamacare

This is nonsense. (I’m ignoring that it’s also in bad taste.)

The Republicans were messaging to a primary base who reward loyalty over productivity. Hamas wasn’t messaging to anyone with this attack. They lost control of their proxies.

The analogy is in America supporting the Mujahideen to pressure the Soviets and then watching that backfire as Al Qaeda.

> Hamas’ leadership wants its villa bills paid.

Which will continue.

> Those payments come in exchange for influence over Gaza.

Those payments come in exchange for remaining a thorn in Israel's side. They don't need to be managing Gaza's water authority to remain one. They're much more effective as an insurgency than a government.

> The Republicans were messaging to a primary base who reward loyalty over productivity.

The same is true for Hamas, quite clearly.

> Hamas wasn’t messaging to anyone with this attack. They lost control of their proxies.

This is a weird assertion; all signs point to extensive planning by Hamas of this attack.

> Which will continue

If they lose control over Gaza? No.

> payments come in exchange for remaining a thorn in Israel's side…they're much more effective as an insurgency

The guys in Doha aren’t insurgents. They’re bureaucrats. The insurgent leadership is being killed.

> same is true for Hamas, quite clearly

How? There is no loyalty test. Again, Hamas lost control of its proxies. You’re conflating separate situations that are fundamentally different because on the surface you like the opportunity to call the GOP terrorists. Which, ironically, undermines your broader argument.

> all signs point to extensive planning by Hamas

Extensive planning. Not necessarily by Hamas. Again, this was a tremendously stupid move. There were smarter plays, and hints Hamas was trying for them, but they screwed the pooch and are seeing heavy destruction and the likely loss of their fighters, local infrastructure and operational control in Gaza.

> If they lose control over Gaza? No.

Hamas has been out of control in Gaza before, it's hardly the first time. Insurgents don't need control over the area to be a serious pain for the occupying force.

> The guys in Doha aren’t insurgents. They’re bureaucrats. The insurgent leadership is being killed.

Their bureaucracy is largely focused on recruiting and funding the insurgent wing. Taking out insurgent leadership is like offing Bin Laden; someone else always volunteers.

> Again, Hamas lost control of its proxies.

You keep asserting this without any evidence. What proxies? What's the evidence Hamas doesn't want them doing what they're currently doing?

Hamas is the proxy, for Iran, as are Hezbollah. Iran is likely quite happy with their performance, given the brewing international condemnation of Israel's response.

> they screwed the pooch and are seeing heavy destruction and the likely loss of their fighters

They don't care. There's always more cannon fodder, especially after a war generates a new generation of refugees, orphans, and grieving relatives. We saw the same in Afghanistan; every civilian you kill means a family swearing vengeance.

> Insurgents don't need control over the area to be a serious pain for the occupying force

Fair enough, I should have said influence versus control. It looks like Hamas won't have influence in Gaza after this war.

That doesn't mean there won't be insurgents. As you point out, there absolutely will be. In part because of this war. But I doubt they'll show loyalty to Hamas--their surviving leadership will be too far away.

> Taking out insurgent leadership is like offing Bin Laden; someone else always volunteers

Al Qaeda's income fell off a cliff following the American response to 9/11. (Not after 9/11 per se.)

> What proxies? What's the evidence Hamas doesn't want them doing what they're currently doing?

Islamic Jihad, for one. Proxies can have proxies.

Look, if Hamas intended what happened they are incompetent and evil. That strengthens the argument for their liquidation; it says they cannot be reasoned with.

I don't think the last decade of Hamas' rule shows them incapable at achieving their ends. (Islamic Jihad, on the other hand, seem like nutters.) Add to that the operational incoherence of the October 7 attack, and that Hamas lost its hostages, its sole source of leverage, and it's not difficult to conclude things went off piste.

> Iran is likely quite happy with their performance, given the brewing international condemnation of Israel's response

Yes and no. They're happy because it shows their strength, brings them to the negotiating table and makes their oil more valuable. (It also curtails Arab-Israeli normalisation.)

The international response has shown that Israel can do what it wants. The Arab states softly condemned. Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority chose self preservation. America sent through arms. The one PR battle the Palestinians need to win, sympathy in America, has gone backwards.

> We saw the same in Afghanistan

The Taliban took back ground control. Their fighting forces were preserved. That does not look like it will be the case in Gaza; Jerusalem is being far more brutal than we were in Afghanistan. It might be that's the only way to win. (If you're correct, that Hamas intended to kill thousands of Israelis and tens of thousands of its own, then this is a good thing.)

> Al Qaeda's income fell off a cliff following the American response to 9/11. (Not after 9/11 per se.)

Hoist the "Mission Accomplished" banner! What happened next?

(Hint: It rhymes with "schistlamic plate".)

> Look, if Hamas intended what happened they are incompetent and evil. That strengthens the argument for their liquidation; it says they cannot be reasoned with.

I agree! I just don't think the Israeli approach is going to do the trick, and is likely actively harmful to that goal.

> Islamic Jihad, for one. Proxies can have proxies.

PIJ is a rival to Hamas. They've fought from time to time, and coordinate attacks at other times. US intelligence describes it as a "tense relationship": https://www.dni.gov/nctc/ftos/pij_fto.html

> The Taliban took back ground control.

As will Hamas or their successors as soon as Israel withdraws from Gaza. Barring a Holocaust-scale elimination campaign against the population, there'll be a powerful set of insurgent groups in Gaza for the forseeable future.

> Hoist the "Mission Accomplished" banner! What happened next?

Al Qaeda's leadership of the era died or went into hiding. The present offshoots have nothing to do with it; all that survived was the brand.

> PIJ is a rival to Hamas

So? They coordinated on this attack. PIJ launched munitions beyond their capacity to manufacture; they got them from Hamas.

> will Hamas or their successors as soon as Israel withdraws from Gaza

Very doubtful. Not Hamas. Something else, but not Hamas. (Maybe PIJ.) Point is, the leadership loses.

> there'll be a powerful set of insurgent groups in Gaza for the forseeable future

What made Hamas formidable was its funding and access to Iranian weapons. The funds flew into Gaza with Israel's consent. And the munitions entered because Israel gave Hamas room. Whatever the endgame, it's unlikely to be one that just hands Gaza back to an Iranian proxy.

There is nothing historic about this. State powers have destroyed militarily inferior terrorist groups using overwhelming force before.

What would be historic is if this led to a long term reduction of terrorism in the region. However Israel has offered no explanation for why their attempt at brute force anti-terrorism will work better then every other attempt.

You must have missed past 70 years of history lessons. Everybody who cares knows Israel and Mossad don't fuck around, they will kill school full of small children in the middle of western Europe if it would be worth for their goals (that's an extreme example but murdering scientists or civilians was done repeatedly... not judging TBH, they are since beginning in brutal situation with all neighbors and they are capable when it comes to realizing threats... but they are not nice people if they see you as any form of potential threat).

Also, there is no way to get rid of Hamas unless overall conditions that made it what it is today remain. Its desperately naive position that has been proven impossible over and over. Ie terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters, depending on from where you look on Iraq post 2003 invasion.

Maybe with different name, different folks, but cca same goal and methods. Or do you feel that Taliban or Al-Qaeda disappeared just because mightiest military in the world decided to kick their ass for a decade+?

this isn't the US fighting tribes thousands of km away from home. This is israelis not willing to accept hamas' existence anymore, right across the border. You're learning the lessons of Taliban/Al-Quada the wrong way, because you see a bunch of people who look like the taliban doing attacks and stop thinking. This is not the same situation, nor will Israel accept the situation that existed on October 7th to ever happen again. The old status quo is gone and there won't be a return to it ever, and the current status quo between israel/hamas/iran is decided by who ignores the UN/international pressure the longest.

Absolutely nobody has any incentive to listen to calls for ceasefire unless they are in mortal threat, which is what Israel is working on and what hamas started with. The restraint is gone - there is no reason for anyone to hold back because holding back now creates a worse future position.

What would that achieve to protect Israel?

4) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_Canal_Project

There is a 4th way people funding and directing them get a to learn a lesson.

#4 hungry people get fed ...

Feel like they’re going to have to make up their minds on Nr 1 soon.

I feel like your second point should maybe address the Houthi's demands? Which to be precise were an end to the blockade of Gaza.

Regardless of which way you lean in this story, I still find it disingenuous to hide what the demands of parties of conflicts are - any conflict to be precise. Whether it is intentional or not does not matter in my opinion.

They also have demanded death to Israel and Jews though. They’re a cat’s paw for Iran, who don’t really care about Gazans except as they can be used to delegitimize and destroy Israel.

Don't make this about Iran. Iran is doing nothing to deligitimize Israel right now. The Knesset is doing that all on its own.

But death to the Jews? Where is the source of that? But even if they did, they are no threat to Israel. They're no threat to Jews around the world. Israel is vastly more powerful than any country in the region, except maybe Iran. There is really no threat to Israels existence at this point. It's also the only nuclear power in the region. Mearscheimer correctly called this "threat inflation"[1]

But calling for the destruction of a state isn't that uncommon. I fail to see what's so unique about such a statement. Also worth remember that the west itself constantly engages in that rhetoric.

0. Various countries frequently call for the destruction of their neighbours

1. the Israeli's and the Americans constantly call for the destruction of Iran(hardly the only nation btw)

2. the US and Europeans have conferences about the break up of Russia(i.e. the destruction of Russia)

3.Yugoslavia, and several other nations having actually been destroyed in the last couple of decades

[1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1736160553322553404

> But death to the Jews? Where is the source of that?

This is hardly controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement

"The slogan of the Houthi movement (officially called 'Ansar Allah'), a Shia Islamist political and military organization in Yemen, reads 'God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam'".

I didn't know the slogan, but the slogan quite literally doesn't say what the parent claims it does, does it? Otherwise it would be "Death to Israel, death to the jews", no? I tried to google the Arabic and either google is really bad at arabic or that word is mostly used in the quran.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess the curse they're hoping for isn't "they'll be doomed to stub their toes regularly".

Iran is funding basically the entire terrorist campaign against Israel: https://www.acfcs.org/unraveling-a-complex-web-a-primer-on-h... So yes, it is trying as hard as it can to not just delegitimize Israel but destroy it.

What Israel is doing domestically is entirely irrelevant to Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, who have all said numerous times that they want to kill all Jews. This stance has not altered or varied even when Israel had pro-peace governments.

The claim that there is no threat to Israel’s existence is totally absurd. It has fought multiple existential wars in many of its citizens’ living memories, and just suffered an enormous terrorist attack whose authors’ ultimate stated goal is, again, the destruction of Israel.

And then talking out both sides of your mouth that actually “the west” is fine with destroying nations so that rhetoric is okay is simply disingenuous. Is Israel under threat of annihilation and that’s okay, or is it not?

Anyway anyone who knows anything about the conflict can immediately see your framing is extremely disingenuous.

What are you talking about. Hamas is primarily funded by Turkey and Qatar. Both countries with massive US military bases. For four decades we've now been hearing how Iran almost has the nuclear bomb[1], how Iran funds Al-Qaeda, when it fact it's the other way round because Shia's are considered infidels to these people. Various Israeli government officials including Mossad guys have on various times admitted that they propped up Hamas to keep a legitimate government from forming.

Hamas is an offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian army hates them, the Syrians fought them, Iran fought them. Israel, Turkey and the US all fought on the side of Alqaeda in Syria[2][3].

US shut down Turkey's banking integration with Russia with a simple threat of turning off the tap to their banking system. They could shut down Hamas funding in a heartbeat. But they don't it, why[4]?

[1] https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/04/24/Ayatollah-bomb-in-pr...

[2] https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81N1EX/

[4] https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossad-chief-top-general-visit...

Uh Hamas and Iran have been in bed together for decades: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/09/middleeast/hamas-iran-isr...

That you don’t know this seems to indicate you might know less about this conflict than you believe you do. Your further contentions that the US could magically wave a wand and make Hamas disappear confirm it.

For 1, they aren’t going to back down, 2 would set precedent and that’s a big no no, you don’t negotiate with terrorists.

So that leaves us with option 3, a big delivery of freedom.

We negotiate with terrorists all the damned time.

Not on the kind of things that threaten the mighty us economy, you don’t mess with the US dollar unless you are the fed.

It’s cheaper and more effective long term to give them freedom than negotiating, next time they want something they just need to attack the strait again and that’s a bad long term policy to allow.

There is another option, end the occupation of Palestinians and pressure Israel to have a Palestinian state.

Bill Ackman's fanboys got angry :-)

Those who think I am making it up:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1736349872427585588

Currently they only disrupt shipping to Israel, or linked to Israel, as far as I understand.

Indiscriminate targeting/disruption would raise eyebrows in Beijing and I am sure Iran does not want that.

Sorry but have you read the news lately? Because the attacks have been rather indiscriminate, EVERY big shipping company is now refusing to sail their ships through the Red sea and by extension cannot use the Suez canal anymore. Rather, they have to take the long way around Africa now. This adds a lot of extra cost and shipping delay.

You should read the proclamation ...

Actions over words. The Houthis are indiscriminately targeting trade. If they had the discipline to only hit Israeli ships, this would be a different situation.

The point remains that at some point that will impact China because that's where most of the containers come from. Then what? Again China is really the last country Iran should want to piss off.

Or, that'll benefit Chinese shipping companies as, again, I highly doubt that they'll be targeted.

The US are probably the least impacted, if at all.

COSCO hasn't released news they'll stop red sea shipping. TBH if Houthis only targetted western shipping it would be slight competitive advantage to PRC. The potential blowback is if US pressures Iran and threatens 1m barrels of of Iranian oil to PRC.

Yes, I suspect Chinese companies have "immunity".

But overall Chinese exports can still be impacted if the major Western shipping companies stop going through those waters. So there might a balance to maintain if Iran wants to avoid a call from Beijing.

I think PRC influence over situation is limited. I suspect this is as much Iran flexing (Houthi missiles of Iranian origin) their new regional power projection capabilities, and due to current energy geopolitics, betting no one wants to stir the pot any further. They want everyone to know they can now credibly escalate in region, regardless of PRC ire.

Did you read the article? It says that none of the ships targeted so far had anything to do with Israel

Does it?

Well that's obviously not true. The first one that made the news when it was commandeered is Israeli-owned and I believe that all the ships targeted since have some links with Israel.

The effect is that everyone is thinking twice before sailing through those waters, though.

The problem with 3 is global radicalization. Attempts to suppress populations can only work with the ability to convince the population to take your side; in the case of large scale bombing campaigns, the result is more radicalization and an increase in attacks elsewhere.

It’s not obvious to me that giving in to present-time radicals reduces long-run/future radicalization.

I don’t claim that humans are perfectly rational in all activities, but appeasement hasn’t generally worked in the past.

That is not necessary the dilemma. The dilemma could also be whether to let "present time radicals" tease Washington war mongerers into doing something that is in the long term interest of the radicals.

In some situations the US has gone to war with countries who not long after are close allies. Germany comes to mind, but there are others. In other cases the situation you describe is more accurate. What are the primary factors that influence one outcome or another?

The allied powers exercised total media control in Germany and Japan. This strategy is no longer possible due to social media.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com