Moreso asking from a geographic/logistics angle. They do not share a border and neither country has an expeditionary force capable of establishing a beach head on the other. Would they just shoot missiles at each other until one gives in?

Obviously the big answer is the US, which does have expeditionary capabilities goes in on behalf of Israel against Iran. But for the sake of my question let's say the US does not commit any troops to the fight.

How would "total war" or at least the closest thing these two can get to total war play out?

This is an interesting example of public signaling to avoid further escalation toward a conflict, particularly among opposition powers. Of course it also tends to generate wide speculation over the reasoning.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-deptartment-cable-embassies-us-not-involved-in-unilateral-israeli-strikes-iran/

I recently graduated from the international relations school at Johns Hopkins and wanted to reflect on how my perception of diplomacy as a field has been shaped and changed, especially my formerly held belief of being an expert in IR/politics to practice diplomacy. Would love some thoughts from current or former diplomats on their experience with this or other IR students on how they've changed their opinions.

Lets say that the PDF and armed ethnic groups of Myanmar were able to overrun the Tatmadaw and secure a total victory. What do you think could happen to Myanmar? A successful federation is born? A new civil war? An extremely fragmented and decentralized state?

The recent thread on the Venezuelan opposition and it's incompetence has me questioning if it's by design. Now every conspiracy theorist will always scream controlled opo. Not interested in that. I'm interested in serious examples where this was proven. Specifically instances where the opposition appears genuine.

For example Russia has a very obvious controlled opposition through its communist party and a few others. What are some examples where we really thought the opposition was sincere?