Thread: There is nothing more macabre than this idea that one should be against Armenia because it is “backed by Russia and Iran”...it’s only backed by Russia and Iran precisely because those against it are backed by the US or others. It’s simple realpolitik. So what?

The people that view the Middle East solely through this lens like it’s some fun wargame they play are the worst kind because they don’t see the people who suffer directly from this grotesque war gaming strategy of constantly plotting a new WWI style alliance game.

It’s perfectly reasonable to analyze the region through alliances, but extrapolating from that therefore one must support a war for no reason in which one has no stake is gross.

It’s possible to understand the reasons for war and the choices countries make in backing one another without becoming a macabre cheerleader for suffering and war.

This whole bizarre Iran bogeyman of “we must support everything that is against Iran” is nonsense. One should oppose the Iran regime on its merits, because the regime is a theocratic aggressive regime backing Hezbollah and extremist groups.

That doesn’t mean that Iran’s supposed adversaries are good. Turkey’s regime is not much different than Iran, a far-right religious extremist regime backing Hamas (which Iran also backs)...

There is no simple math that says one monarchy is good and another is bad in the Gulf. Better to judge them on what they do. Do they push tolerance and coexistence or not? If so, then that’s better.

The idea that, for instance, Saudi Arabia is more “reactionary” and “authoritarian” than the trend in Ankara where people are put in prison for a decade for tweets or protesting, both are authoritarian.

The simplistic story that makes one side “good” and the other “bad” is not reasonable and is even worse when it comes to cheering on war, whether cheering on war in Libya, Yemen or Nagorna-Karabakh. All wars are generally bad. Never good.