Oh look, another person who thinks making a personal attack will win them an argument. An alliance of weird bedfellows, historical enemies at that, because they have a common enemy up in all of their backyards
If you think that's a personal attack, you don't know what a personal attack is.
You fail to have any true understanding of the world or geopolitical realities and are regurgitating what the war hawks pay the news to make you think.
Considering the kind of "wisdom" the kind of people who complain about "war hawks" in the West tend to usually produce, this is gonna be good.
Iran and Russia can not be allies long term because both of them require dominating central asia and the northern middle east for their own security and prosperity. Without us as the enemy to unite them against they will be, at best, spending their defense budgets in preparation to fight each other.
Yet they understand that before ever going hot on those issues, they first have to arrange a world without you.
At the very least they have to be ready for such an event and this is especially true if Iran comes to control Iraq and Syria as it will be as large as Russia economically and population wise. Same goes for China, doubly so, which is sandwiched between Russia and India who themselves are very friendly and have military cooperation.
India is neither willing nor able to interfere much in this debacle beyond making money for itself, which it desperately needs, and which is one of major reasons for such policy, in addition to limiting geography.
Without the US there all of these countries will turn on each other and a natural balance of power will form again, which is what the US should have been attempting to cultivate since 1990 instead of trying to build an empire of democracies.
Again, nice piece of wishful thinking you have there, why not a world of peace hope and prosperity of all, however out of all things to bet the future of world politics and existence of my country on, wishful thinking of people with this kind of misunderstanding of geopolitics is about the last.
Empire of democracies? Pfff... Stop stealing propaganda from Bush trying to chip at neoliberal idiot vote and thinking it was ever serious, or even more so, still is.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
A "neutral balance of power" means, in practice, an age of constant wars, scheming, instability and other bullshitry up until someone does to manage to set a more stable balance of power.
For all the ways it would suck, at least it would make people who think "neutral balance of power" in geopolitics means something else wise up.
There was a
multipolar balance of power in Europe, and it ended in 1914...
I get you want that empire, but don't come at me like me not sharing your opinions means you're smarter or "more informed" than me because you sure the fuck aren't.
There's always one or more empires or alternatively a bunch of wannabe ones fighting tooth and nail to be it, at best there's sometimes a choice which you have to live with.
I'm being smart by wanting a decent choice of one to be available, while you think you can keep the perks of being one but without the costs because you take them for granted, because sure as fuck you are terribly informed if you spout the same talking points about "war mongers" as leftists do.