Even if we assisted Ukraine or Taiwan, some argue they would face major challenges against Russia or China (2 nuclear superpowers), and there is concern about potential escalation and broader regional or global repercussions.
Whether it's illicit drugs, industrial espionage, or cyber-related problems
Bad faith tends to produce further mistrust and unproductive outcomes
***
The ongoing conflict involving Israel and Palestinian groups, including Hamas, is complex; some believe aspects of it could be resolved.
I sense if 51 to 75% of those aspects were resolved, then 100% of the conflict would feel as though it'd been solved.
Detractors hold a losing position that it's 100% unresolved over the 1 to 15 out of 100 issues which haven't yet been tackled effectively.
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████, a stance some believe could accomplish certain objectives.
China and Russia possess modern military and technological capabilities, and China is advancing quickly in certain technology areas.
Iran does not appear to have comparable technological advantages or the same resources in those areas.
They have employed so-called kamikaze drones, such as the Shahed models.
These systems are part of a broader set of capabilities that extend their influence and military reach.
Some analysts compare the strategic challenges they pose to those presented by North Korea.
The broader concern is the role of extremist elements within certain political movements identifying as Shia.
This is a central concern for many observers.
Saudi cooperation with Israel has been influenced by diplomatic engagement, including US leadership.
Some suggest that political support from certain international groups has affected Israeli policy toward Palestinians, and there are concerns about potential changes in control in areas such as the West Bank.
The extensive damage in Gaza and the resulting humanitarian crisis have significantly affected negotiating positions and the balance of leverage in discussions.
Under intense pressure and the threat of further escalation, parties holding hostages may feel compelled to accept a deal and seek to secure exchanges.
Those involved may be frightened and reassessing their position, worried that anticipated political changes could lead to greater consequences.
This evokes historical moments such as changes after 1967.
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████, a highly controversial suggestion.
Others advocate approaching negotiations over the West Bank with a firm opening line, suggesting an uncompromising stance:
"How can we achieve peace when some groups express support for violence against civilians and promote hostility toward our people?"
That question is difficult for those targeted to address.
Persistently raising it may put the other side on the defensive and challenge the coherence of their arguments.
The stated aim of this approach is generally framed around two outcomes:
1. Some expect pressure will lead to the release of hostages, and see that as an opportunity.
2. Others worry a temporary ceasefire could allow armed groups to regroup.
One suggested sequence is to prioritize securing the release of hostages and then consider further political or security measures; however, such options are highly debated and carry significant consequences.
██████████████████████████████████████████████████ are highly contentious and raise serious humanitarian and legal concerns.
