50
submitted 5 days ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/news@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 12 points 5 days ago

This agreement does not – at least from the initial public texts – constitute a formal mutual defence treaty akin to NATO’s Article 5, obligating one to defend the others militarily

sicko-wistful

Genuinely though it seems like it should??? It might actually get the US to back off if Russian and Chinese missiles were pointed at them if they touch Iran.

[-] QinShiHuangsShlong@hexbear.net 12 points 5 days ago

Neither China nor Russia are willing to end the world for Iran which is what would be required. The US obviously knows this too hence would not be dissuaded. All an article 5 like agreement would do is weaken China's position as a growing alternate pole when the US invade and China doesn't press the button.

An agreement to work around sanctions and help Iran guarantee development is much more beneficial for everyone.

Also article 5 wasn't designed with the idea of ever protecting against nuclear powers, it's purpose is to intimidate imperialisms victims out of being too uppity and fighting back too far.

[-] CommCat@hexbear.net 6 points 5 days ago

Watch Danny Haiphong's last interview with Ali Alizadeh. He points out the reason why Russia/China are not eager to form a stronger pact with Iran. There are two factions within Iran, the Conservatives and Liberal Reformists. The Liberal Reformists are always looking to normalize and build stronger ties with the West, including the USA. Every time Russia/China offers stronger ties with Iran, the liberals will just stall. Not sure if it's true, but he points out that the last time Xi Jinping visited Iran, he was put in a hotel room that didn't even have a working toilet. I would think the strong Iranian oligarchs are part of the liberal reformists, since they have a lot of assets in the West.

[-] QinShiHuangsShlong@hexbear.net 9 points 5 days ago

I'm sure that definitely contributes to it. But entering a game of chicken when everybody already knows where your line is is simply a bad idea and I'm sure the CPC and Russian government realize that as well.

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 7 points 5 days ago

Also article 5 wasn't designed with the idea of ever protecting against nuclear powers, it's purpose is to intimidate imperialisms victims out of being too uppity and fighting back too far.

No, that’s what NATO’s been retooled into. NATO, and article 5, were designed with the idea of encircling and “protecting against” the USSR

[-] QinShiHuangsShlong@hexbear.net 3 points 5 days ago

While true at the surface it was more to fight against groups funded by the USSR (such as in Afghanistan) to contain influence gains as far as I'm aware at least.

Which is a slight but very important distinction as it meant direct nuclear power clashes were far less likely and action even if perfunctory could be taken to avoid being seen as unreliable as it was against proxies, even if it became incredibly close at times.

For example if the US was arming Syria to invade Iran as opposed to doing it itself an Article 5 style agreement would make a lot more sense.

this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
50 points (100.0% liked)

news

24576 readers
474 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS