Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The conventional geopolitical answer for this is: the IRGC is the principal sponsor of the Houthis; the Houthi uprising was funded originally as an Iranian proxy war against Saudi Arabia. The Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah are part of an "axis of resistance", the subtext of which is "they take their orders from the IRGC".

It may or may not be the case that they're disrupting shipping at the direction of Iran, but it almost certainly is the case that Iran equipped them, and that Iran can effectively instruct them to stop.

It's hard to make any kind of comment on a thread here without getting pulled towards one pole or another of the ongoing argument about what's happening in MENA right now; I'm doing my best to keep this as dry as possible, and to hedge statements by saying things like "the conventional geopolitical answer". You can find alternate geopolitical answers; in fact, you can probably find any answer you're looking for. All I can do is relay what I'm reading.

I've read that Hezbollah does not take orders from Iran, and that Nasrallah's thinking and decision making on strategy is given a lot of weight (just like Britain did not take orders from USA in WW2):

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/11/04/asad-abukhalil-nasrall...

That article has a few quirks (e.g., derisively referencing George Soros), but I found some of the small details in it add to its overall credibility, like how a portrait of Nasrallah was visible in Soleimani's house when Soleimani's family members were mourning his death.

* I usually treat references to George Soros as antisemitic dog whistles, but the author is normally a strident opponent of antisemitism, so I don't know what to think in this instance.

As I understand it, the biggest story with Hezbollah over the past decade has been their involvement in the Syrian Civil War, which apparently depleted them significantly and greatly reduced their status --- which does remain dominant --- in Lebanon. I think it's pretty widely seen as something Hezbollah did at the instruction of the IRGC, which is Syria's closest military ally.

Ah! What you are saying honestly enriches my understanding of this line in the piece I cited:

> When it comes to war with Israel, Nasrallah is the ultimate decision maker.

Perfectly fair response. I, sadly, failed and walked into a thread I should have avoided. :(

I think my main question is what valid paths forward do people see here? I honestly don't know how to find news that isn't dominated by posturing, at the moment.

I don't know about the best path, but I know an obviously wrong path: which is to reduce other people's resistance and struggle as mere terrorism and extremist. US and western world clearly have the power to rule the world, but the way they act right now will ensure many more resistance and pain for everyone.

This, I think, is a fair and well meaning criticism.

That said, you have to hold your own accountable for bad acts. Doesn't mean none will ever happen, of course. Nor does it mean that you cannot have legitimate concerns and claims. And your response to a terrorist act cannot legitimately be to try to minimize it. Nor is it a valid response to rapid fire old grievances, many of which are misrepresented or where the people involved were held accountable.

So, in spirit of your criticism, let's try and move past it. You don't know the best path. What are some valid paths?

On the other hand, if we look at all the historical precedent for piracy becoming a major disruption to trade, it seems to me that most cases were solved only by a generous application of excessive violence, not by negotiations, as global maritime trade routes simply are a so huge strategic factor that's far more important to major powers involved than any struggle that some people may have, so if someone escalates their struggle to disrupting global trade routes, that is treated as a huge unjustified escalation and they and their struggle automatically becomes the enemy of almost everyone else, something to be eliminated at any cost, not treated as a valid concern.

Indeed, the usage of generous application of excessive violence tends to be effective to solve a lot of problems.

Once, the Romans has Gaul problems. They used a generous application of excessive violence, and it was effective.

Once, the US has native-Americans problems. They used a generous application of excessive violence, and it was effective.

Once, the Nazis has Jews problems. They used a generous application of excessive violence, and it was effective.

Once, Israel has Palestinian problems. They use a generous application of excessive violence, and it IS effective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com