Ok, the question posed today involves the actors likeliest (chance stronger than 50%) to join a regional conflict given events in Gaza. You can give an explanation for any complicated choices (i.e. some event condition) in the comments. I’m going to leave off the possibility of actors outside of the Middle East (West Asia) entering the conflict for a further poll.
Several people have commented on the UK’s hardened attitude toward Russia, attributing it to the Brits simply being Brits, regardless…
Making fun of the conflict?
Low act!
Not so to your not so, Master Dot. What you think in silence is irrelevant in this context. This is a competition for influence, and an integral part of the reptilian strategy is gaining and holding international attention. They know they have no hope militarily, by themselves, so their most effective tool is the application of pressure on Israel via their (h@m@s’s) friendly international enablers.
The more people and media outlets that speak their name, the more effectively their propaganda spreads. By using their chosen name – which, again, means ‘courageous’ in Arabic – you choose to oil the cogs in their myth-making machine.
What would happen if – on Planet Unicorn – all oxygen was to cut to the reptiles? Think about that for a moment.
It won’t happen, of course, so the next thing, in fact, one of the few things we humble individuals CAN do, is cease calling the baby-defiling filth by their chosen name. You would seldom – on this blog anyway – call Swan by his proper name (notwithstanding your comment above), but you’re o.k. with praising granny r@pists as ‘brave’?
What the firetruck, people?
Why is this so difficult?
You’ve fallen for the propaganda.
Are you all descended from Philistines?
I’ll briefly pause my frothing rant to link to a personal tribute to a young Israeli soldier (Free Beacon via Powerline).
Sobering. One – of how many thousands? – who will be forgotten by all except those he touched in life.
I’ve just been Cromwell’d. If the stakes are that high on a blog, I’m going to make some big calls, I hope they age like a fine Israeli wine and not goat’s milk.
Anyway, just call Ham-arse a Shia controlled terrorist wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Option 1. is correct.
Iran can’t do open conflicted. They might split alliances but if the alliances hold then Iran is taking on a massive new alliance.
Turkey’s interests are Kurdistan and Cyprus. They have no incentive to get involved.
Saudi Arabia is more probable but in as far as marching on Qatar.
The Iranian cum Syrian backed militias are bad for business. Even if other Arab and Muslim powers agree in principle about Israel, it’s not practical to take on the River to the Sea ideology.
The sad fact is these conflicts will likely end once and for all only when Israel severely damages the Iranian and Syrian regimes and openly annexes Gaza & Southern Lebanon, formalises the annexation of the Golan Heights and possibly the West Bank; alternatively the West Bank could be a real Palestinian State if they uphold an uneasy peace with Israel. I don’t think Israel should be aggressive at all but simply practising legitimate self defence eventually may result in conquest by default and a choice for Arabs to leave or become Israeli citizens.
I’m not joking this stupid AAPL autocorrect changes the tense of words.
I’m surprised it doesn’t read changed the tense of words.
Iran’s puppets yes, but none of the sovereign countries – they wouldn’t dare risk the level of fury in Israel and the calculated intended destruction that’s coming. The response to “not since the Holocaust” will be “biblical devastation”.
Axis of Resistance most likely. The states that are part of AoR will effectively enter the war if they are targeted (depending on degree) in return. If the level of civilian losses in Gaza become catastrophic and /or forced displacement appears imminent then Egypt and Jordan (sorry, should have been a choice) could possibly enter the conflict, but the most likely situation involving them, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would be denial of airspace to the US and the status of its bases.
Define catastrophic as in a number?
I reckon near 50K or over.
Okay. Last week I would have said the number was 100K. Now, I’m around your number.
good point. Gaza has circa 2M residents.
is 20,000 (1%) ‘non-catastrophic’ ?
The United Arab Suburb of Lekemba.
We need a word that means ‘beyond surreal.’
I haven’t expected anything from the U.N. for several decades, but to openly support the slaughter of unarmed Israeli civilians as the Sec.Gen. Gutless has, is … far canal. No words.
Our best hope is to pray for an asteroid.
I wouldn’t say that either, but I’m considering the term/ number [in terms of what] is likely to precipitate a response.
Wow, media now ignoring illegal immigration:
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2023/10/illegal-centrelink-seeker-boat-intercepted-queue-jumpers-sent-to-nauru-for-first-time-in-9-years.html
Guess Reilly’s how can we help to Gillard is a nudge and wink now.
Sorry wrong thread…
Some random thoughts.
I can’t imagine that any of Israel’s neighbouring nations will enter the conflict, especially with the US fleet re-deployed, though plenty of militias / terrorist groups will and some already have. Iran and Syria will help the terrorists as much as they can but won’t attack / invade Israel directly.
Another reason an Arab invasion is unlikely, is that they must know that Israel will fight to the death. Literally. They have nukes and will use them. If Israel goes down, they will take most of their enemies with them.
A possible solution to the Gaza problem, would be for Egypt to take it over like they did from 1948 to 1967. This is highly unlikely of course, because the last thing Egypt would want, is to try control 2 million rabid Jew haters right next to Israel. Also, most Palestinians and Arab nations, wouldn’t want Gazans to live as citizens of a free nation. ‘Palestinians’ were created so the Arabs could manufacture a permanent grievance against Israel with the ‘right of return’.