I wouldn't put much stock in the strategic implications of these publicized papers outside of the strategic implications being that they want you to think China is a discernible threat.
It's similar to the Israel/Iran thing with the end goal being trying to drum up the warmongers.
Just reading a few sentences of that, it reads exactly like warmonger rhetoric that we all know intimately rather than inside baseball.
Uh, are you saying that Iran wouldn't erase Israel from the Middle East if they had the capability to do so? Where are you going with this? It's indisputable that Iran sponsors anti-Israeli militias across the Middle East, which would qualify them as a threat.
I believe that whether or not Iran would erase Israel from the Middle East, which they probably would, along with a certainty than Israel not only would erase Iran from the Middle East, but has been actively trying to get the US to do so for some time -- the reality is that the only erasure thus far that has been actually executed in earnest is by the Israelis on behalf of the Gazans.
Which would, you know, qualify Israel as "a threat". And they certainly are, in many ways.
To what or whom, you haven't really made clear, but certainly a threat.
Anyhow, I'm really not interested in this level of discussion because it feels extremely superficial. It also feels quite gross to either take seriously or promote warmonger rhetoric, but that's just my personal opinion.
Also, please do not predicate your posts with "uh", it's a bit silly.
Iran is pretty darn hard to actually invade - unlike Iraq, Iran has tons of mountainous terrain and a huge army, and even the US hasn't tried it. So while it would be very unfortunate for Iran if they got into that war, the regime might survive. The US could probably do a lot more, but if they did then Iran could go metaphorically-nuclear and block the strait of Hormuz, destroying global oil supply and supply of LNG to asia, causing mass blackouts there. So the US would be quite leery about doing so.
Israel could nuke Iran, but then they'd be utterly fucked politically. Not just for breaking the nuclear taboo, but because Hezvollah et al would cream themselves and have basically infinite recruitment.
In contrast, Israel has recently had some of its citizens killed by the Iran-backed Hamas, and are bordering both Lebanon and Syria. This didn't hurt Iran from political backlash, not at all, Iran's been pretty open in their hating Israel. If for any reason the US withdrew its military backing for Israel, Iran could and would support an extended proxy war between Israel and its neighbors. Not Gaza (Israel controls their water and fuel supply, so if they're not concerned about pissing off the US and rest of the world then they can kill them all fairly easily) but Lebanon and Syria via Hezbollah and some 'renegotiation' over Golan heights.
What's more, Iran could just invade Israel outright, with Syria's support. Iran has 9x the population size and their army is reasonably modern. Without US backing, Egypt's current dictator could decide to provide military support of their own. And if they win that war then Israelis will be ethnically cleansed. Which is arguably a worse threat than what Israel could do to Iran.
There you go, it can be argued! I wouldn't normally argue for it, I'd say they're about equal personally. It's kind of weird to compare them; neither is really in a good position to fight the other in the first place.
Good post, I basically agree - hence the current policy Israel and America have cooked up of isolation and embargo.
Regarding ethnic cleansing, while you speculate, the Gazans suffer under it in reality.
I'd give Iran the implicit moral highground because they are pretty peaceful and haven't attempted to ethnically cleanse anyone, unlike Israel in both aspects.
Just on the basis of what has actually happened, Israel is an egregiously immoral state. Rich man, eye of a needle and all that.
Now, as for whether or not they would... I think they probably would. But that's speculation, not reality.
Iran hasn’t directly started any wars, but has been fighting proxy wars across the Middle East and Africa for over a generation. You are seriously misinformed here and should not be discussing this stuff until that changes. The entire spectrum of conflicts in the Middle East right now are all coordinated by Iran and its revolutionary guard.
How is it meaningless? Japan was conquered and has had its constitution written by the US while hosting a large number of its troops. The only difference between this and any other historical vassal state is the US paints an illusion of not being one and its economic system doesn’t require tribute to profit greatly as it favors trade.
It also is free to amend and revise its constitution, to terminate the US-Japan defense treaty (Article 10), to pursue its own foreign policy goals, etc. "Vassal state" is an old term with specific connotations that fits Japan if you sort of squint the right way but really doesn't.
To military conflict? I doubt it. To political and economic conflict? Probably. The same thing would be true of France or Poland. That's generally what happens when an ally country stops being an ally country, but it doesn't imply that they're a vassal state.
France and Poland are also US vassals lmao. France can make a better case but that’s because it admitted that all of these alliances subserve it to the US in the 60s and has fought hard to retain some semblance of independence.
Here's an interesting and often used Chinese government propaganda word they use: vassal. It's meant to insult any U.S allies that work together with U.S against Chinese aggression, and to try to drive a wedge between the countries. Nevermind that it's so obvious it never works. And they never call Russia or North Korea a Chinese vassal officially - although some Chinese netizens do
2. Japan has a different work and compensation culture than European countries.
3. China is no discernible threat to Japan.