Ibn Tayyar

Thank you for your insight brother, I believe I understand where you are coming from, but I have my own objections.
While you are focusing on the geopolitical results of Taliban rule - which may favour Iran - I am speaking more about the suffering the average Shi'i is going through in Afghanistan when it comes to Taliban oppression.
You don't even need to look further than what Iranian media is itself reporting on the plight of the Shi'a there.
I understand your sentiment in that you want to look at the "bigger picture", but I cannot ignore the suffering of my brothers & sisters. 

wa alaykum al salam
There's no shame in that. It is a Shi'i country where the Leader & President have to be Shi'i (according to the Constitution),  where the country is Shi'i majority, where it is ruled in accordance with Shi'i Law. When does it stop being Shi'i? Foreign policy? 
Unfortunately Iran did more than just "talk" to the Taliban. It actually supported them in certain ways. 
When Shi'a betray eachother, it is because the dunya has come between them. When the Sunnis betray the Shi'a, it is because of their madhab. Otherwise, how do you explain Hamas' betrayal when it came to Syria? Was it not inter-madhabi solidarity with the Syrian Revolution? 
Like you said, the Axis was mostly a Shi'i thing. And there is a reason for that. Let us stop deluding ourselves into not thinking a big chunk of Sunnis absolutely despise us and want nothing to do with us. 

wa alaykum al salam
There's no shame in that. It is a Shi'i country where the Leader & President have to be Shi'i (according to the Constitution),  where the country is Shi'i majority, where it is ruled in accordance with Shi'i Law. When does it stop being Shi'i? Foreign policy? 
Unfortunately Iran did more than just "talk" to the Taliban. It actually supported them in certain ways. 
When Shi'a betray eachother, it is because the dunya has come between them. When the Sunnis betray the Shi'a, it is because of their madhab. Otherwise, how do you explain Hamas' betrayal when it came to Syria? Was it not inter-madhabi solidarity with the Syrian Revolution? 
Like you said, the Axis was mostly a Shi'i thing. And there is a reason for that. Let us stop deluding ourselves into not thinking a big chunk of Sunnis absolutely despise us and want nothing to do with us. 

Salaam alaykum. Not strictly Islam-related, but I have completed a new book that might interest the arts people here. 
“A Prequel to Hamlet”
Set in the years before Hamlet, this prequel delves into the intricate webs of ambition, love, and betrayal that set the stage for Shakespeare’s tragedy. King Hamlet, a valiant warrior and loving father, defends Denmark from the prideful King Fortinbras of Norway. Prince Hamlet navigates budding love for Ophelia, loyalty to his father, and early signs of existential doubt. Meanwhile, Claudius’s cunning ambition festers, as he contemplates fratricide to seize the throne and Gertrude’s heart. Written in iambic pentameter in Late Modern English, this play explores the destructive collision of lofty goals and their hollow realities.
Every year, I teach Shakespeare’s Hamlet to curious teenagers.
While some feel that Shakespeare’s work is too antique, too dense, and perhaps too pretentious for today’s youth, I strongly think otherwise: Shakespeare’s plays have lost little value if at all. They are not just important due to historical literacy or philology. They are important because their themes are universal – greed, jealousy, loss, love, madness – these are as relevant to the human experience today as they were in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. An international student from China can relate to these plays just as well as an English lord from the Victorian era. If anything, young people are more keen on understanding Shakespeare’s nuanced characters, because they are mature enough to understand that the world is not black-and-white, that some of their peers are two-faced, and that their hearts house both good and evil. For these reasons, their young eyes can appreciate the conflicts and themes of Shakespeare.
As I taught Shakespeare’s Hamlet year after year, I was impressed with how developed its characters were from the first Act. I often wondered what Prince Hamlet would have been like prior to the play: before the tragic loss of his father, and before the untimely marriage of his mother to his uncle. The original play introduces us to a broken and depressed prince, already in the middle of his love story with Ophelia, already the apple of Horatio’s eye, well-liked in Denmark and taking a break from his studies at Wittenberg. We are also briefly introduced to a resolute Prince Fortinbras and his sickly uncle, after what seems to have been a war between Denmark and Norway that resulted in the death of King Fortinbras. Hence, the idea of a Hamlet prequel was born.
In this play, I mirrored some of the themes of the original play. I explored the relationships and conflicts between the existing characters, and I created some characters of my own. I tried to be faithful to the iambic pentameter in most places, and I wrote in a broadly Late Modern English style. Along with the King James Bible, Shakespeare’s work was the nucleus of modern English. The two ossified the English language until it became today’s lingua franca. The more these works are discarded, the more English goes into free-fall, changing beyond recognition after a few generations. As Shakespeare unwittingly stabilized a language, he purposefully tried to warn us of the dangers of unbridled passion. In that sense, there is a great deal of moral literacy gained from these works as well.
As Robert Frost inimitably wrote:
Some say the world will end in fire
Some say in ice
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire
But if it had to perish twice
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
I pray that you enjoy reading this play as much as I enjoyed writing it.
Available now in paperback and Kindle
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DPQ783PX?ref_=pe_93986420_774957520

wa alaykum al salam
There's no shame in that. It is a Shi'i country where the Leader & President have to be Shi'i (according to the Constitution),  where the country is Shi'i majority, where it is ruled in accordance with Shi'i Law. When does it stop being Shi'i? Foreign policy? 
Unfortunately Iran did more than just "talk" to the Taliban. It actually supported them in certain ways. 
When Shi'a betray eachother, it is because the dunya has come between them. When the Sunnis betray the Shi'a, it is because of their madhab. Otherwise, how do you explain Hamas' betrayal when it came to Syria? Was it not inter-madhabi solidarity with the Syrian Revolution? 
Like you said, the Axis was mostly a Shi'i thing. And there is a reason for that. Let us stop deluding ourselves into not thinking a big chunk of Sunnis absolutely despise us and want nothing to do with us. 

wa alaykum al salam
There's no shame in that. It is a Shi'i country where the Leader & President have to be Shi'i (according to the Constitution),  where the country is Shi'i majority, where it is ruled in accordance with Shi'i Law. When does it stop being Shi'i? Foreign policy? 
Unfortunately Iran did more than just "talk" to the Taliban. It actually supported them in certain ways. 
When Shi'a betray eachother, it is because the dunya has come between them. When the Sunnis betray the Shi'a, it is because of their madhab. Otherwise, how do you explain Hamas' betrayal when it came to Syria? Was it not inter-madhabi solidarity with the Syrian Revolution? 
Like you said, the Axis was mostly a Shi'i thing. And there is a reason for that. Let us stop deluding ourselves into not thinking a big chunk of Sunnis absolutely despise us and want nothing to do with us. 

He was an oppressor of his people. He was obviously disliked. He ruled with a Cult of Personality.
Such regimes mostly fail unless assisted by a powerful security apparatus. His problem is that it turns out even his security forces were corrupt and easy to bribe. Many of them were opportunists. 
It is simply a shame that he has been replaced by something which looks to be an even bigger monster, with a vengeance for us Shi'a.

That is surely the case but as of now, they are clearly the winners. The AoR has taken heavy losses and there's no use denying that. They have overthrown the regime, installed a favourable ruler in place and the weapons pipeline to both Lebanon and Gaza is cut off as of now. It is a net victory for them, and incoming genocide and persecution for the Shi'a.
The behaviour of some of the AoR internet champions reminds me of those Soviet-era commie diehards who were arguing, denying and shouting down critics, even sympathetic voices who disagreed with them, even as their empire was crumbling down, but then Gorbachev signed the resignation letter, all the republics seceded one by one and they have been coping since 1991, still in denial.
Yes, it takes courage to admit mistakes and correct them. It's not the most pleasant of experiences but if there is a way to fix the current mess it is not shouting down constructive criticism, including that from sympathetic voices, and tarring them by calling them CIA/MI6 agents, Zionists, Wahhabis, 'Shirazis' and simpleton fake news-spreading and brainwashed NPCs. 
Taking the L, self-reflection, and fixing the mistakes is the need of the hour, not calumnous shouting matches.

Thank you for your insight brother, I believe I understand where you are coming from, but I have my own objections.
While you are focusing on the geopolitical results of Taliban rule - which may favour Iran - I am speaking more about the suffering the average Shi'i is going through in Afghanistan when it comes to Taliban oppression.
You don't even need to look further than what Iranian media is itself reporting on the plight of the Shi'a there.
I understand your sentiment in that you want to look at the "bigger picture", but I cannot ignore the suffering of my brothers & sisters. 

He was an oppressor of his people. He was obviously disliked. He ruled with a Cult of Personality.
Such regimes mostly fail unless assisted by a powerful security apparatus. His problem is that it turns out even his security forces were corrupt and easy to bribe. Many of them were opportunists. 
It is simply a shame that he has been replaced by something which looks to be an even bigger monster, with a vengeance for us Shi'a.

How is it a Wahabbi narrative when Grozny was completed destroyed? How is a Wahabbi narrative when Russia fired inaccurated ballistic missiles and fired artillery shells into Grozny, which no doubt led to civilian casualties? You don't believe there was thousands of Muslims who were injured or killed as they were caught in the crossfire of a brutal assault that left a city in ruins? And do you buy the "NATO narrative" on Bosnia/Serbia? If yes, why? If no, why did many of our Shi'a brothers fight alongside the Bosnians and were rightfully praised for doing so - despite Salafi/Wahabbi presence among the Bosnians, including Al-Qaeda and Saudi funded groups, all the while NATO was destroying Serbian positions from the air?
How can some believers heap praise on Russia and China, whose Governments under Putin and Xi actually placed sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, and joined the US and the West in condemning Iran at UNSC (Resolution 1929) and placed the Iranian Nuclear Program under Chapter 7 of the UN? Some "allies" they are.
How can some believes take Putin as an "ally" despite Putin and Russia's great relationship with Netanyahu and Israel during the 90s and 00s, where they heaped praise on eachother, called eachother "friends" (as Ariel Sharon referred to Putin), while Putin called Israel a "special state" to Russia - these are only some examples of both sides heaping praise on eachother. One only needs to Google the official statements from Israel and Russia after a diplomatic meeting and you will see the most flowery language when describing eachother - with the exception of the recent times (post-Ukraine).
How is the CCP not a killer of Muslims when the CCP was the chief backer of the Burmese Government, whose Security Forces alongside Buddhist extremists carried out massacres on the Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar? (Some called it a genocide).
How is the CCP not an oppressor of the Muslims despite the animosity communism has towards religion? In my previous post, I shared a link from the mouthpiece of the CCP, where their officials openly state that Muslims cannot fast in Ramadan if they are teachers or public servants. State atheism is never an ally.
How can you call them an "ally", when Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said not to take Jews and Christians as "awliyaa"? No one is an ally of a believer but a believer. 
The kafir can be a cooperative of the believer based on the interests of the believer. But he can never be an "ally", even if he gave us 99% of what we wanted.
For example, in Afghanistan, Iran famously assisted the Americans in toppling the Taliban/Al-Qaeda regime. After the fall of the Taliban, many of our Shi'a brothers aligned themselves with the pro-US Afghan Government, as they feared a Taliban resurgence which would oppress the Shi'a, as we see today in Afghanistan. Many Shi'a took a supportive or neutral stance to the US removing Saddam (la). This does not make them allies in the slightest. 
My point is, do not elevate their status. Openly point out their misdeeds and hypocrisy. And never consider them an ally. 

Iraq had better be prepared for anything. That border needs to be completely sealed right now. Every metre manned by a soldier.
I'm not sure there is anyone that could be cooperated with to ensure border security from Iraq's point of view. I also wonder what the future holds for the SDF. Will the Kurds and the rebels come to any sort of agreement? Or will this simply mean a new civil war between them? 

Iraq had better be prepared for anything. That border needs to be completely sealed right now. Every metre manned by a soldier.
I'm not sure there is anyone that could be cooperated with to ensure border security from Iraq's point of view. I also wonder what the future holds for the SDF. Will the Kurds and the rebels come to any sort of agreement? Or will this simply mean a new civil war between them? 

Iraq had better be prepared for anything. That border needs to be completely sealed right now. Every metre manned by a soldier.
I'm not sure there is anyone that could be cooperated with to ensure border security from Iraq's point of view. I also wonder what the future holds for the SDF. Will the Kurds and the rebels come to any sort of agreement? Or will this simply mean a new civil war between them? 

Iraq had better be prepared for anything. That border needs to be completely sealed right now. Every metre manned by a soldier.
I'm not sure there is anyone that could be cooperated with to ensure border security from Iraq's point of view. I also wonder what the future holds for the SDF. Will the Kurds and the rebels come to any sort of agreement? Or will this simply mean a new civil war between them? 

Iraq had better be prepared for anything. That border needs to be completely sealed right now. Every metre manned by a soldier.
I'm not sure there is anyone that could be cooperated with to ensure border security from Iraq's point of view. I also wonder what the future holds for the SDF. Will the Kurds and the rebels come to any sort of agreement? Or will this simply mean a new civil war between them? 

Iraq had better be prepared for anything. That border needs to be completely sealed right now. Every metre manned by a soldier.
I'm not sure there is anyone that could be cooperated with to ensure border security from Iraq's point of view. I also wonder what the future holds for the SDF. Will the Kurds and the rebels come to any sort of agreement? Or will this simply mean a new civil war between them? 

I realise it is realpolitik, but this realpolitik has bolstered a group that has killed and is currently oppressing the Shi'a.
I believe Islam asks of us to have a moralist policy on the world, surely if the blood of the innocent believers is on the line.
Perhaps you and I can agree to disagree.

I don't believe so brother. I made note many times that those who sacrificed themselves in conflicts such as Bosnia and Gaza are to be honoured. I don't believe they made any sort of mistake in doing what they did.
I don't believe I said exclusivist, but more Shi'a-centered.

salam alaykum brother
What I mean by prioritising ourselves is turning towards our neglected Shi'a communities in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are oppressed and killed on a daily basis.
Iran opened an Office for the Taliban in Tehran and completely normalised these nawasib ghouls as legitimate actors. This is despite the blood of thousands of Shi'a in their hand. 
Is it wrong to call this a mistake?
Is it wrong to criticise the fact that Iran turned to Hamas so many times despite their pro-Saddam history and their pro-FSA position in the middle of the Syrian conflict, when the Shi'a were at risk of extermination? 
Where was their sympathy for us?
How easily are we duped to believe such groups can "change" their position, and that their anti-Shi'ism can be cured? 
My heart pains for the people in Gaza, and I am not against supporting them - it is the duty of the Muslim to extend a hand to his oppressed Muslim brother.
My problem is the failure in resource management. Neglecting our own and relying on nawasib.
Your Shi'i brother is your real ally. He won't stab you in the back when you need him.
As for Hamas and their likes, as long as Turkish and Qatari money is involved (the money that killed thousands of Shi'a), they will sell you out in an instant.

@mahmood8726 insha Allah I will respond to you in due time brother. Thank you again for your response.

salam alaykum
I don't believe I said that brother. But I believe in prioritising ourselves over others. That is the view of all nations and people, for example Iran would prioritise Iranians over non-Iranians. That is natural and normal, and what all Governments should do.
Is it wrong to call for the attention of the Shi'a to be directed at oppressed and suffering Shi'a populations? 
I have no issue with assisting Sunnis, in fact I believe it is honourable for one to sacrifice himself for such a noble cause, and we can do more do two or three things at once, but it is simply a matter of priority for me and where we direct our resources. That is all.

With regard to what you quoted, I'm specifically speaking of the rocket fire that occurred post-ceasefire (happened a few days ago), which Hezbollah literally said was a warning shot for ceasefire violations.

wa alaykum al salam
I believe it is based on my own rational analysis. Happy to be proven wrong. But let me address your points one by one, and insha Allah you will also see my perspective.
What does it tell you when one side violates the ceasefire hundreds of times and the other site barely does anything in response, beside a few rocket warning shots? 
What does it tell you when Hezbollah has already started a campaign to compensate those whose property was destroyed or damaged? 
This does not give you the impression that Hezbollah has the will to keep on fighting, does it? It tells you that Israel is acting in impunity, does it not?
It is clear to me that Hezbollah wants to move past this chapter, especially with the current debacle in Syria, which is no doubt interrupting the logistical support to Hezbollah from Iran and its other allies. Brother, you can only do so many things at once.
Tell me, before Israel commenced its escalatory behaviour after the pager attack, with the killing of tens of Hezbollah's commanders and leaders swiftly after that, and significantly increasing its aistrikes aswell as beginning the ground operation in Lebanon, would Hezbollah have accepted this same ceasefire? No, because it went against everything Nasrallah talked about in his speeches.
The Hezbollah official narrative was the fighting stops in Lebanon when it stops in Gaza, and that was the message given to American and French mediators. Until Hezbollah changed its stance. Why did it change its stance? Because of external military pressure aswell as internal political pressure.
The damage was nowhere near disproportionate. Remember when Nasrallah said for every building that is destroyed in Lebanon, we will destroy a building in Israel? 
 
Hezbollah fought bravely and admirably for a group that lost its command structure. But you know what would have been better for Hezbollah? Had they not lost their command structure in the first place. 
It is clear Israel won the intel and counter intel battle. I don't think anyone would dispute that.
Even if I grant you that, all this tells me is Hezbollah did not want to attempt to deter Israel by engaging in equal fire, the doctrine which Nasrallah spoke about repeatedly. 
Israel had told its citzens to prepare for 2 thousand to 5 thousand rockets and shells being fired from Lebanon on a daily basis. That never happened. 
All the while Israel engaged in an air camapign whose scale was probably not seen since the American war on Iraq.
Does this not tell you Israel was in control of the escalation ladder from the beginning? 
Brother, the only large scale damage that was done was in border towns. Nasrallah had talked about the importance of the industrial, political and security infrastructure in Israel's major cities, and how Israel is vulnerable due to how interlinked they are.
They were not significantly damaged at all. 
What I'm saying is, Hezbollah did not achieve anything Israel did not expect it to achieve. It knew the Iron Dome could not possibly intercept all rockets from South Lebanon, especially in the border region. Which is why it evacuated the settlers in the first place, before even commencing the ground operation by months prior to it beginning.
In 2006, Hezbollah achieved many surprises against Israel. In this war, everything Israel prepared for did happen.
I don't believe Israel significantly damaged Iran either, but they certainly hit and damaged soft targets, such as long-range radars (Ghadir) and solid fuel production sites.
Whatever Iran hit in Israel, it was not significant enough to change Israeli strategic calculus - the killing of Iranian commanders did not stop, nor did it alter or degrade their military capabilities i.e their ability to conduct airstrikes, which is their strategic and main asset. And this was after close to 400 missiles were fired in two seperate attacks on airbases. One would think that firing this much missiles on Israel's important airbases would perhaps render them inoperable for atleast some time. But in fact, Israel continued their air campaigns - and in fact escalated them, after both attacks.
And it is clear to me that the Israeli campaign in Syria is one of the reasons for the debacle in Syria today. Israeli targeting of Iranian commanders and associated infrastructure was always bound to weaken the logistical network that Iran spent years creating.
I will refer you to my first point regarding my personal belief that Hezbollah wants this war ended. I believe this question will be answered in due time, when the ceasefire expires. 
And if I am proven correct, I don't believe you can claim any "win" on Hezbollah's part other than the fact it survived.
Brother, in 2006, Israel achieved barely anything militarily.
This time, the Israelis clearly stated their objective was to delink Hezbollah from Gaza. If the ceasefire holds, then they would have succeeded in doing that. There is no shame in admitting this.
This would also mean that the Northern settlers would be able to return.
It would also literally mean, Gaza was "left alone". Something that was promised not to happen.
Absolutely, the weakening of Iran. You don't believe the countless aistrikes in Syria contributed to Iran's weakening logistically in Syria, which subsequently weakened Syria's ability to defend itself against the rebels?
Do you think this offensive would have succeded in the way it has, had Iran and its allies not fought against Israel? No, they would still have enough power to back the Syrian Government and defeat the offensive.
The rebels saw an opening and took the opportunity. Some of them have admitted this publicly. They knew the Syrian Army without Iran (and its allies), and Russia, will not hold.
I'm glad you agree here. Also? if this happens, then Hezbollah would have no choice but to end the war with Israel, even if I were to take your previous point that there was some will to fight left in the first place.
An Israeli victory in Syria would mean an Israeli victory since October 7. Literally the only card left for the Hamas would be the hostages.
Yes that is correct, but brother, how many people believe our own propaganda? How we are basically undefeatable? I know of many like this. As soon as you say the enemy does something better than you, or the leaders of the resistance are making a mistake, you are seen as a traitor. This zealotry is seen all across our communities. 
It's always "trust the resistance leaders". Sometimes you should trust the critics.
The US and the West do one thing right in my opinion: they criticise themselves publicly. Every year the Pentagon releases reports critical of certain aspects of the US military. Where they should improve. What went wrong in previous battles. Congress debates it. The public and the media are allowed to criticise. Those who failed can be voted out.
In our circles such a thing would be viewed as demoralising or traitor-like behaviour. You are giving the "enemy" our "battle secrets" would be said.  
Unfortunately there's too many of them to ignore.
Thank you for the response and discussion brother.

I agree with brother @Jaabir in that the lack of "Shi'a-Centrism" in our geopolitics is to blame for our losses. While I do believe that helping all suffering Muslims is ideal and praiseworthy, we ought to not place the plight of others in a status where they are above or equal to ourselves. 
The news regarding the suffering that our brothers & sisters go through in places like Afghanistan & Pakistan is sickening. It is even worse that they are neglected, hardly ever discussed, and certainly not supported during their struggles.
The Shi'a should always be the priority. 
Those who claim the war in South Lebanon was a victory are simply coping and unable to admit to reality. The attempt to present anything as a victory is a sign of desperation, and a reminiscent of the failing Arab armies during the Arab-Israeli wars of the past.
The Zionists said that their aim was to delink Gaza from Lebanon. Hezbollah said they would fight the Zionists as a support front in order to pressure Israel to submit to a ceasefire. 
Gaza has been destroyed and is still under bombardment. Israel completely destroyed South Lebanon and killed most of Hezbollah's Leaders and Commanders. It is also very likely that alot of Hezbollah's rocket stockpile was either used or destroyed, as is normal in a war against an opponent with air superiority. All Hezbollah achieved was it showed that it has the ability to damage Israeli border towns, and hit Israeli cities with drones and missiles. Something Israel and the world already knew anyway. Visual damage in Israel is relatively minimal - certainly compared to South Lebanon. 
Israel was also able to kill some of Iran's most senior commanders with hardly any damage recieved in retaliation.
What does this tell you? Israel is not deterred. It was not "defeated". It achieved its objective that it announced prior to the pager operation, which was 1) de-link Gaza and South Lebanon/Hezbollah 2) return the Northern Settlers home.
Now, did it achieve ultimate victory, as in "destroying" Hezbollah? No it did not achieve that. But how does this prove that Hezbollah's sacrifices - of thousands of martyrs - was "worth it"? Hezbollah did not achieve any of its stated goals and objectives since it joined the war in support of Gaza. All it did was "survive".
And what happened subsequently - the weakening of Hezbollah and Iran generally, as a result of the Gaza War - is obviously being exploited by Turkey and its rebels to fulfill their ultimate goal in Syria. The Shi'a in Syria will suffer greatly if this offensive remains as hot as it is, in addition to our Holy Shrines being in grave danger.
And if the regime in Damascus does fall and Iran's route to Hezbollah is compromised, then yes, Israel has just achieved a geopolitical victory of the ages. 
The believers should be honest with themselves. Learn from your mistakes and do not paint everything as a victory. Be open about where you have failed.
One thing I wish we learned from our enemies, especially the US, is when they train their troops or simulate wargames, they make it so the enemy is incredibly strong, perhaps much stronger than the enemy really is or stronger than even themselves.
This is why the US Military regularly loses in war game simulations. They try their best not to underestimate their enemy. 
And what happens when the US or the West (including Israel) fail? Instant self-criticism and internal debates. They don't try and sugarcoat their failures. They try and learn from their mistakes. You don't think in Israel there won't be a critical investigation into the failures of their military and intelligence when it came to October 7? There will be for sure. Just as there was following the 2006 War. And after the 1973 War.
Unfortunately in our Shi'i political circles all you see is positivism and talks of how in mere minutes we can wipe our enemies out. Even right now, some are people have convinced themselves that what is happening is in Syria is some sort of 4D master plan.
It is not haram to be critical or to mention how tough your enemy is. It is stupid to belittle the other side and convince yourself your much superior - even if you actually are, let alone if you aren't.
This is not a video game. This is war. 
May Allah grant us patience and foresight.