the Five Eyes Alliance, a clandestine intelligence network is a global surveillance apparatus that originated during World War II and has since evolved into a dominant geopolitical tool led primarily by the United States. This partnership often operates without democratic oversight, sometimes even undermining the sovereignty of its own member nations and their elected leaders. Beyond military defense, the alliance engages in economic espionage and intrusive mass surveillance targeting both foreign allies and private citizens.

Here is the second part: another point is the indefatigable alliance. In reality, this argument, which is often cited, is nothing more than a euphemism, meaning a word that hides a cruder concept, because it is, in itself, the very definition of tribalism. To my knowledge, these axes are almost never mentioned this way. Another argument would be that he didn't really mean his phrase—fair enough, once again—but then why would states have applied it literally? This, once more, only shifts the question. Now that we have analyzed this, it is clear that the same conclusion applies to America First in the same context, where justice is put on the back burner; I will leave this question to the experts on the US dossier to clarify it. And another point that emerges is that the facts show a perfect rhetorical symmetry. Let us take the example of the double standard, which looks more and more like whataboutism in the global debate, where major powers accuse each other of the same thing. Let us take as an example the fact that it is impossible to determine which power uses terrorism to justify its policy, while reproaching the other for doing the exact same thing as soon as they criticize them. Then let us analyze the question of India, which is unfortunately not a non-aligned country, but rather aligned with both camps at the same time, which is not quite the same thing, let us admit it, and that is where my point on economy and Jahiliyyah comes in. Finally, let us also notice that the rational school, which defends justice as the only compass, seems to ignore that the institutional school uses a very widespread sophism, unconsciously in my opinion—I grant them the benefit of the doubt. The realist school often reproaches it for being naive or idealistic regarding the question of the UN and institutions, and the institutional school often responds with its desire not to legitimize the law of the jungle. Yet, the realist school hasn't seemed to notice that this argument looks like a slippery slope sophism, consisting in refusing to take an action by considering a series of unproven implications. Yet, the realist school defends that it wants to bring back justice. We are going to show in this point that these implications do not exist, because the goal of denouncing this is precisely to try to make the world return to the pursuit of justice, and sayion that someone is dead will not kill him, i think that we agree on that, Finally, I wish to specify that the purpose of these posts was not to attack Palestine or the USA, but simply to demand universal justice.

Good evening, my name is Youcef, and today I will share with you a reflection I had on global geopolitics and tribalism. To do so, we are going to address in this text, which may be very long, many themes that are not seen from this angle, across several parts. First, we will try to look at the concept of tribalism through the lens of Jahiliyyah (the ignorance preceding the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him) and we will see why this metaphor explains a lot of things, notably the Arab dogma that became Houari Boumediene's—may Allah have mercy on him—famous phrase regarding Palestine. We will also cite the case of America First, although less detailed since I have studied it less, but we will talk about it for the sake of symmetry, and I leave it to the experts among you; I will return to this specific point later in my reasoning. Next, we will discuss how even complex cases like India—finally, we will tackle an interesting conclusion from an angle that has almost never been approached regarding the rational school and the institutional school, and we will try to explain the arguments against them and why, in reality, many of them are either weak or reinforce this hypothesis through semantics, meaning the sense of words and euphemisms. So, on this, let us begin: thus, Jahiliyyah is an Islamic concept that precedes the arrival of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. It notably has interesting characteristics in its tribalism or Asabiyyah—a word meaning, among other things, fanaticism, notably developed by the famous historian Ibn Khaldun. So, in summary, the tribalism of Jahiliyyah, including the one who uttered the famous phrase "stand by your brother, whether he is just or unjust" associated with Jundub ibn Anbar, boils down to a logic of blood where justice was not present but only the clan, and the clan alone, hence the violent wars it caused. It was characterized by sacred months, which are those of Islam that you might know, especially if you are Muslim like me, during which war was halted and trade resumed significantly—we will discuss this later in the section on India, but we are still far from it. So after that comes Islam, and notably a hadith, meaning a saying reported from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, through chains of individuals reputed for their reliability, where he quotes this adage of Jahiliyyah but changes its meaning to make it just, specifying that it means by advising him. Now that this is done, let us begin with the first point: Houari Boumediene, former president of Algeria, declared regarding Palestine that we will be with it, whether it is just or unjust. This model was cited from the hadith according to its defenders; we will see together why it stems more from tribalism. So, let us analyze the classic defense: first of all, we have the argument of the sacred cause, fair enough, but we will agree that Islam is a sacred cause within the Arab world, yet the Arab world agrees on criticizing the method some use to defend Islam according to them, like terrorist groups. Yet, why when some Palestinians tarnish the cause by their actions—not all of them, but some obviously do—should we not bring them to order?

Cross posted from https://sh.itjust.works/post/64310170

US President Donald Trump has again signalled support for selling F-35 fighter jets to Turkiye, brushing aside Israeli objections. The potential deal remains blocked by US legal restrictions after Ankara’s purchase of Russian air defence systems, while Israel argues the sale would undermine its military advantage in the region.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/50036606

Now that the Iran conflict is heating up again, one thing I'm surprised doesn't get talked about is where the oil reserves are at and where they are heading. Flow through the straits has been restricted for a long time, and once reserves get low enough it's going to make a big mess of the economy, but somehow markets are ignoring it and no one is talking about it?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/46819029

The question of why the U.S. government began a war with Iran is unsettled. The ostensible reasons, blocking Iran from developing nuclear weapons and protecting Iranians’ human rights, are not enough. Iran’s agreement not to build a nuclear arms program was in force...

...a U.S. government that so easily tolerates human rights abuses within the United States and in certain allied nations would seemingly have little zeal to fight Iran on that account, unless there were other inducements.

Strategic considerations as to U.S. economic sustainability and U.S. economic and political power in the world very likely impelled nervous U.S. decision-makers to start a war...

...The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz might not be a strategic “mistake,” but rather a deliberate feature of the conflict...

...The argument is that the blockade of the straits is a deliberate move by Washington to choke off China’s energy “lifeline” and, in doing so, halt its geopolitical rise...

...“Because oil was and is so fundamental to nearly every industry, the ‘petrodollar’ became ubiquitous, and the dollar became the cornerstone of the global economy.” To preserve the petrodollar arrangement and predictability of the dollar’s value becomes a principal objective of this war...

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/44443793

The Great Recession in Europe, the economic downturn that began in 2008, resulted in job and income loss, which demonstrably contributed to a rise in poor mental health among those affected. The COVID-19 pandemic, and the measures put in place to contain the virus, similarly caused a spike in the prevalence of poor mental health due to job and income insecurity. Moreover, this crisis negatively impacted mental health through other factors, notably social isolation and the deterioration of working conditions in sectors such as care.

Question; these trends must somehow be worldwide anyone has a take on this from their region?

ROBERT A. PAPE is Professor of Political Science and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats. He is the author of Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War.

...

FAR HORIZONS

Horizontal escalation occurs when a state widens the geographic and political scope of a conflict rather than intensifying it vertically in a single theater. It is especially appealing as a strategy for the weaker parties in a military contest. Instead of trying to defeat a stronger adversary head-on, the weaker side multiplies arenas of risk—drawing additional states, economic sectors, and domestic publics into the remit of the conflict. Iran cannot defeat the United States or Israel in a conventional military contest. It does not need to. Its objective is to gain greater political leverage.

The strategy of horizontal escalation follows a recognizable pattern. First, Iran has demonstrated resilience. U.S. decapitation strikes intended to paralyze the Iranian military. By launching large-scale retaliation within hours of losing the supreme leader and many senior commanders, Tehran signaled continuity of command and operational capacity.

Second, Iran has widened the conflict well beyond Iranian territory, effecting what scholars call “multiplication of exposure.” Rather than confining retaliation to just Israel, Iran struck or aimed at targets in at least nine countries, most hosting U.S. forces: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Greece, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The message was unmistakable: those countries that host American forces would face severe consequences and the war that Israel and the United States started will spread.

Decapitation strikes create powerful incentives for horizontal escalation.

Third, Iran has politicized the conflict through its strikes. Iran’s retaliation has resulted in the closure of airports, the burning of commercial property, the killing of foreign workers, and the disruption of energy and insurance markets. Gulf leaders have been forced to reassure foreign investors and tourists. The war has migrated into boardrooms and parliamentary chambers. In the United States, the widening scope of the war has alarmed members of Congress. Numerous actors have now entered the conflict, each pursuing distinct interests, none fully coordinated, and all capable of altering the trajectory of escalation beyond Washington’s control.

The final dimension of Iran’s strategy is time. The longer multiple states feel pressure, the more that politics both within and among regional states can intensify the conflict. Without a version of NATO in the Middle East or a single American general effectively running the military operation for all the countries targeted by Iran, there is a high risk of wires getting crossed. U.S. officials have, for instance, floated the idea of stoking an ethnic rebellion in Kurdish parts of Iran to help target the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. But that might provoke responses from Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, countries that would not welcome a powerful Kurdish insurgency in the region. The recent downing of three U.S. jets in a friendly-fire incident over Kuwait also illustrates the logistical and coordination problems that bedevil any attempt to fend off Iran’s escalation in the Gulf.

Iran’s foreign ministry reinforced this logic publicly, framing the missile barrages as legitimate responses against all “hostile forces” in the region. The phrasing has widened responsibility for the attack on Iran beyond Israel and the United States to encompass the broader U.S.-aligned order in the Gulf. Although Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has apologized to Gulf neighbors for the attacks, the installation of a new supreme leader aligned closely with the Revolutionary Guard suggests that such gestures are tactical rather than a signal that Tehran intends to abandon its strategy of horizontal escalation. Fundamentally, Iran’s horizontal escalation is a political strategy. It plays directly to the audience that Iran seeks to persuade: the Muslim populations across the region that may not be ideologically aligned with Iran but are generally poorly disposed toward Israel.

...

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/48384457

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/48383631

https://web.archive.org/web/20260304105404/https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=54e1cf706a41af84

They pulled it from a number of recruiting sites but Kagi still had the results in their cache.