I hope it is kosher to post this under ~talk. I know people are sick of this topic, so I put plenty of tags in to help those not interested avoid seeing this thread. FWIW, you can go into your Settings and enter keywords to filter threads on ( via tags ).

To my question.

Netanyahu has been killing people with no means of defense.

What is President Biden's motivation to keep sending military aide to Israel while Netanyahu continues to do this?

I have a few guesses, but none of them on their own or together seems to justify the political or humanitarian costs:

1. Somehow it is in the geopolitical interest of the U.S. to do so
2. Israel would be destroyed without military aide ( but defensive weapons can still be sent )
3. The U.S. benefits from Israeli intelligence
4. Congressional republicans aligned with Christian Nationlists want to see Israel live out a Biblical prophesy and it would cost President Biden politically if he were to push a decrease in military aide - assuming he could.
5. President Biden might have lost Jewish American votes, BUT Jews are a minority in America and many American Jews are against what Netanyahu is doing.

Those are the possibilities I could come up with. Am I missing anything? All of these possibilities together do not seem to be worth the political cost President Biden incurred. Is there something I missed?

Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen, and militias in Iraq and Syria.

Whenever western media outlets speak of these groups they seem to prefix the term Iranian-Backed.

I'm starting to raise my eyebrows a bit at how universally the term is being used. It feels almost mandated. My understanding is these are indeed supported financially and materially by Iran, but they also very much operate independently. So the extent of the relationship is unknown or at least debated.

Does this strike anyone else as odd or suspicious? Is this use fair and justified?

My mind can't help but wander to the laying of a propaganda foundation for direct conflict with Iran.

As a preface, this comes from the perspective of an American looking in on Europe. I'm curious in particular what any Europeans (please include your country of origin/ethnicity if you feel so inclined) feel about this post and the future of the EU.

Europe is a unique region, to put it lightly. The extremely high level of development relative to the rest of the world over this last millennium as well as so many technological innovations in that period of time led to a Europe ready to exert its influence upon the rest of the world. We can comfortably say that, while examples do still exist, colonialism as an institution has largely faded. Europe is a much more varied continent culturally and ethnically despite a space roughly equal to that of the USA. We've all heard the common sayings about 200 miles is long in Europe where 200 years is long in America and generally speaking that does hold true.
That said, Europe in the modern era really does feel like many small countries functioning as one big entity with the European Union. The EU has only gained credibility and legitimacy and it is now the institution I expect to hear from on matters within the EU first, even ahead of any individual nation state.
All of this to say, I think a united Europe is the strongest possible future for Europe. No individual state in Europe is large enough to exert an influence upon the world without the rest of Europe behind them. Globalization, while diminished in recent years, is still happening and I don't see a decentralized Europe as "winning" globalization as dozens of individually tiny states.

I could continue writing, but I think you understand my position. Now I would like to point to the article I found that really made me think about this, here.

I would also like to ask, what do you see Europe and the European Union standing for? Should it continue to centralize or is the current level of control enough? Too much? I didn't mention Ukraine or defense in this post but obviously that has a huge impact on all of these questions and I would love to hear if that has impacted your perspective on this admittedly grandiose idea for a united Europe.

People from all countries welcome to discuss, but please do mention your country if you feel comfortable doing so!

Edit: More reading for anyone interested.

What I meant is a world without any barriers whatsoever for the circulation of people. Each country would have border checks for things like explosives, heavy drugs, and weapons, but apart from that everyone would be allowed in, always. I'm not sure about economy measures, trade barriers, and circulation of goods, though.

But please, feel free to interpret "world without borders" however you wish! ;)

The US, EU and assorted allies have gradually gotten into the habit, in recent decades, of using targeted sanctions (a lot) against both individuals and govts when the targets do something the West does not approve of.

Do they work? Do they help?

I think Obama-era sanctions on Iran played a part in getting Iran to at least consider the nuclear accord that Trump promptly renigged on ... but I also think Rouhani also wanted to develop a better relationship w/the US (and I'm sure he had at least grudging support from the Ayatollah), and gladly used the sanctions as the justification for speaking to the Great Satan.

Details aside, I think sanctions helped in that case. I can't think of any other examples where they were effective in helping achieve their intended effects.

OTOH, I think aggressive sanctions against North Korea have, at best, done no good at all, and have probably made the situation worse.

Any other successes come to mind?