US and Europe impose new sanctions on Iran in response to supply of weapons that US says Russia could use in Ukraine

Russia has received new deadly ballistic missiles from Iran for use in Ukraine and is likely to use them, the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, announced on Tuesday in London as he prepared to travel with the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, to Kyiv.

The news, confirmed by the US for the first time and seen as of huge significance to the battlefield balance ahead of Ukraine’s difficult winter, led the US and Europe to impose new sanctions on Iran, so apparently slamming the door on the prospect of a rapprochement between the new reformist Iranian government and the west.

The move may also add to the pressure on the US to end its restrictions on Ukraine using British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles to strike targets deep inside Russia and not just in occupied parts of Ukraine.

MBFC
Archive

  • SnowflakeEnglish
    24·
    3 months ago

    That’s not true. No one was moving to “Palestine”. It was a somewhat dead area. As well there was never a country called Palestine. You don’t see it on any maps. From all the development in Israel brought a lot of Arab immigrants to Palestine area as well. There could have been a Palestine but they declined that partition plan and chose to lose a war. They continue to lose wars.

    • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
      2·
      3 months ago

      That’s not true. No one was moving to “Palestine”. It was a somewhat dead area.

      Perhaps it was but there was some movement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Aliyah - but I think you alluded to this earlier when you mentioned what Russia and such did back in 1882.

      As well there was never a country called Palestine. You don’t see it on any maps.

      From what I can tell, this is correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Ottoman_period

      the Palestine region within it was divided into the five sanjaks (provincial districts, also called liwa′ in Arabic) of Safad, Nablus, Jerusalem, Lajjun and Gaza.
      In common usage from 1840 onward, “Palestine” was used either to describe … a region that extended in the north–south direction typically from Rafah (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly defined place where the Syrian desert began.

      Countries - or even provinces - usually have well defined borders, so up to Ottoman control it wasn’t a single entity but a poorly defined grouping.

      I guess one could make the case for it after the British Mandate of Palestine, but of course it still wasn’t an independent country when the British were running things.

      From all the development in Israel brought a lot of Arab immigrants to Palestine area as well.

      I don’t know too much about this but it sounds plausible.

      There could have been a Palestine but they declined that partition plan and chose to lose a war. They continue to lose wars.

      Well, Oct 7 really was a major setback. I would admit that Netanyahu seems like the last person to allow for Palestine or a two state solution, like, ever. But he was about to be handed a major setback in gov’t control back in Sept and Oct 2023 which one could kinda see as maybe paving the way for a new gov’t to take control, one more likely to offer a new olive branch to the Palestinians - until Oct 7 happened and everyone agreed to coalition and stand behind Netanyahu.

      • SnowflakeEnglish
        12·
        3 months ago

        Perhaps it was but there was some movement.

        Right, that movement was not to Palestine however. Those people would have been moving to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria because there was no country named Palestine.

        I don’t know too much about this but it sounds plausible.

        For it not to be plausible would mean from 1850 to now every woman would had to have 15+ kids and their kids have 5+ kids with 0 mortalities.

        Well, Oct 7 really was a major setback. I would admit that Netanyahu seems like the last person to allow for Palestine or a two state solution, like, ever…

        You should look into Hamas/Gaza govt support for a two state solution for context on netanyahu. They do not support and they will not surrender or recognize Israel.

        As well netanyahu has voiced his vision for a two state solution.

        It’s a fair take given that time and time again Gaza advances to destroy Israel.

        • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
          2·
          3 months ago

          Well, to be fair some folks might have moved in a time when there was a territory that went by the name of the British Mandate of Palestine. Anyways, semantics, mostly agreed.

          I would agree on the bit regarding Hamas … but I think one shouldn’t conflate all Gazans and their beliefs with just Hamas. Remember that Hamas took power only after overthrowing a unity government that was under the Palestinian Authority (which does still support a two state solution).

          Regarding Netanyahu, the article from CNN you cite kinda shows the problem. Netanyahu is not in favor of Palestinian sovereignty.

          In fact, CNN makes it very clear,

          Netanyahu has never been a full-throated supporter of a two-state solution

          That said, the security concerns regarding Israel are indeed valid. I’m not sure what the right answer to that would be… perhaps in the beginning we’d need to have peacekeepers? But perhaps we could find a neutral islamic country (who? Perhaps Malaysia?) to fit that role. With fellow followers of Islam keeping the peace and IDF having withdrawn, perhaps then Israel can feel secure while a new Palestine is built?

          • SnowflakeEnglish
            12·
            3 months ago

            Why would he have complete supporte for their sovereignty given what his country has seen at their hand. The right answer to this is why do they need a military. They are surrounded by Muslim brothers. I’m sure israel would offer their protection as well as allies near them. There are various countries today without a military force.

            That said, the security concerns regarding Israel are indeed valid. I’m not sure what the right answer to that would be… perhaps in the beginning we’d need to have peacekeepers?

            The problem is. Hamas wants nothing to do with that. They don’t want a two state solution unless they keep their terror military and weapons. In fact they won’t accept or recognize Israel at all. Then your problem is you blame their denial for a two state solution on Netanyahu. Or you expect him to give the terrorists sovereignty anyways.

            • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
              2·
              3 months ago

              The problem is. Hamas wants nothing to do with that. They don’t want a two state solution
              they won’t accept or recognize Israel at all.

              Agree this is a problem. They caused Oct 7 and they need to be stopped.

              The innocent Gazans unaffiliated with Hamas, and the PA and the folks living in the West Bank deserve to have their country and their rights respected, but none of that should read as saying Hamas should stay in power, or even be allowed to exist at all.

              Then your problem is you blame their denial for a two state solution on Netanyahu.

              This is a misreading of my argument. Hamas != State of Palestine

              Or you expect him to give the terrorists sovereignty anyways.

              Well, not to Hamas!

              Why would he have complete supporte for their sovereignty given what his country has seen at their hand.

              Again, not to Hamas! For the past twenty years the PA has kept peace with Israel - this is the model to follow.

              The right answer to this is why do they need a military. They are surrounded by Muslim brothers.

              Yeah… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict

              There are various countries today without a military force.

              Let’s say for the sake of argument that magical wizards come in and fix everything. We end up with two states tied together by peace, with the violence behind them. (Model for this being the Troubles in Northern Ireland.) Or even a single Israel state with peace - for the sake of this argument, this detail doesn’t matter.

              It’s a volatile area with lots of conflict between different countries, even if one excludes Hamas and related insurgents. Any country in that area would need a military just to defend its own existence.

              The countries that don’t have any military forces - I imagine none of them are in this kind of situation.

              I’m sure israel would offer their protection as well as allies near them.

              In theory that could work. The problem in practice is that IDF has lost a lot of good will, and perhaps might be seen as occupiers instead of peacekeepers from a friendly allied country. Hence my suggestion for Malaysia to step in - Islamic troops from a far away neutral country - might be better perceived.

              Heck, a lot of goodwill might be earned just by being fresh and new. Now that may not be entirely fair to the IDF, but politics is rarely fair.