Nothing diplomatic offered to them by Bibi and Trump.

They have to fight for our good, not for their own. If they don't fight hard, the Israeli/NRA lobbies will become even more strong and wicked here in the US.

They already manipulate, surveil, imprison and suppress western citizens and if these wars happen at a low cost for us, we will be overwhlemed forever by manipulative/controlling/murdering apparatuses that right now have turned on Gazans, but another day may turn on ordinary Europeans and Americans.

Bibi and Trump are offering to the Iranian regime "death or death". I think it's going to be a long war there. If this war comes without a big cost to Americans, I don't see how the US will free itself from the Israeli/NRA lobbies and how the rest of the western world will free itself from the US.

The Iranians have ran out of options, I agree, but this US commitment to Israel is weakening all those "great" western institutions, like international law, humanism, public opinion, democratic debates, honest information, etc.

The US needs its democratic ethos back, and Europe should find a way to deal with Russia. If it sticks to US-Israeli alliance, there won't be European identity and European democracy in the 22nd century (in my opinion).

The worst part about it is that the American people will be happy to blame the president, and pretend that when he leaves office all the evil leaves with him. They go back to sleep, and the next administration picks up right where the last one left off.

We're looking at nearly a century of continuity of US policy vis-á-vis Iran.

Ah, Trump's big beautiful war is here. Trump the peacemaker, Trump the "no-foreign-wars" peace president! :rofl:

Seems that Donald "I'm not going to start wars, I'm going to stop wars." -Trump has now put aside his eager hopes for that Nobel-prize and has gone head on to the next forever war with his supporters eagerly cheering for this.

Now it's so warming to see the spineless MAGA-morons rallying around their big beautiful prez and supporting Trump's decision to go to another not-so well thought war. How desperately they now try to change their stance:

Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s one-time pick for the attorney general post who had warned of the Middle East conflict turning into another drawn out war for the U.S., said on X that the president’s strike didn’t necessarily portend a larger conflict, and likened it to the strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani during Trump’s first term

“President Trump basically wants this to be like the Solimani strike — one and done,” Gaetz wrote. “No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker!

Few strikes and then go back home to eat that cherry pie? Well, might not to happen exactly that way. At best, the US is now on board with Bibi, as Bibi wanted, on this perpetual conflict of "war off - war on" where two sides stop for some time with announcements from Israel and the US that the nuclear threat has been now thwarted/eradicated... only for the next bomb strikes to happen later. But that will be enough for the MAGA-morons.

Once few weeks (or less) have gone and Israel and the US halt their strikes and declare victory, all these MAGA people will rejoice victory and the wisdom of Trump and deride those who opposed this war. Of course, likely Iran will continue to adapt it's defenses and simply then get the nuclear weapon and the clergy will stay in power in Iran. After these attacks, the young generations of Iranians will remember just how Israel and the US attacked them, hence the evil nature of the US doesn't have to be retraced back to the Pahlavi regime and the ouster of Mossadeq, which is old history for the new generations of Iranians. If Iranians had an 8 year war against Saddam Hussein, then this generation isn't going to be softer either. And then the Iranian nuclear deterrent, likely with ICBMs, will simply be a "non-issue", just like North Korea. Because that's what the US does when the country actually has nuclear weapons that could possibly strike mainland US. Bibi's Israel has opted for perpetual war already, so they are totally OK with this.

The US has an armed forces of over 1 million with roughly quarter of a million based outside of the Continental US. Of those less than 40 000 are stationed in the Middle East. Hence there's no land invasion happening. And no regime change, actually.

So along the invasion of Iraq, this is one of those stupid wars the US gets itself into.

he Israeli/NRA lobbies will become even more strong and wicked here in the US. — Eros1982

You meant AIPAC?

A note to those who might not know it:

When there is a war in the Middle East the first thing a sensible citizen should do is to drop all US based media outlets and turn on British ones, for more honest and unbiased information. Reuters and BBC may not be perfect, but they are definitely less censored than their US counterparts.

Thank you.

When there is a war in the Middle East the first thing a sensible citizen should do is to drop all US based media outlets and turn on British ones, for more honest and unbiased information. Reuters and BBC may not be perfect, but they are definitely less censored than their US counterparts. — Eros1982

That's a bit of a laugh honestly. Maybe slightly less propaganda than US media, but if you're looking media that is not propaganda there are plenty of independent analysts around. I'd start with Chris Hedges.

However, in terms of reporting from events on the ground, fog of war and disinformation / psychological operations make that pretty difficult.

For example in this recent US strike on Iran, what we don't know:

a. How effective the bunker busters were.

b. In the case they were effective, if anything important remained there or was already taken away.

c. If the Iranians tried to shoot at the B-2s but failed, can't shoot down B-2s at all, can shoot down B-2's but that capacity is already degraded, or then can shoot down B-2s but did not for diplomatic reasons (US says where they are going to strike to avoid actual damage, in return Iran doesn't shoot down the planes), or then Iran can shoot down B-2s but chose not to in order to assess the potential of these weapons systems (if existing architecture of similar sites are good enough, or they need to go deeper). Then all the same questions can be asked about Russia and China, as they could bring in missile and radar capacity for the purposes of trying to shoot down B-2s if they wanted to (do they want to, not want to, can't, or won't for diplomatic and/or assessing the weapons reasons).

d. What impact the strike has on Iranian enrichment and nuclear bomb production (which is almost certainly coming; hopefully when it does Israel will need to cease and desist from reckless warfare and genocide).

And there's similar unknowns about pretty much everything: how effective US / Israel missile defence is, how many missiles remain, and likewise Iranian ballistic missile effectiveness and how many of their missiles remain.

The only information we can be pretty certain of is clearly verified video evidence or then events all parties agree happened (such as this recent US attack on Iran). From this we know Iran and Israel are definitely attacking each other and both doing damage.

They already manipulate, surveil, imprison and suppress western citizens and if these wars happen at a low cost for us, we will be overwhlemed forever by manipulative/controlling/murdering apparatuses that right now have turned on Gazans, but another day may turn on ordinary Europeans and Americans. — Eros1982

Agreed.

Nothing diplomatic offered to them by Bibi and Trump. — Eros1982

Their strategy is to make diplomacy impossible.

Israel elites (not just Netanyahu) make diplomacy impossible by assassinating diplomats and making sure to break any word they do give, because they don't want pressure for a diplomatic solution.

Specifically they don't want pressure from American Jewish elites who aren't as fanatical and pay a cost for Israel's genocide and warfare. If diplomacy was an option then powerful jewish voices may pressure US and Israeli politicians to cut it out. The way to solve that issue is to make diplomacy not-an-option and therefore further escalation the only option that can be discussed.

As for Trump, his strategy is to make diplomacy impossible simply by having the psychological need that anyone he's dealign with (that he doesn't like) accept humiliation as part of any agreement.

However, so far at least, if he doesn't get his way then he mostly just walks away from the situation and focuses on people he can humiliate. For example he didn't get what he wanted in the Ukraine-Russia war, so just walked away. He couldn't subdue the Houthis, so just walked away.

As with most narcissists, a challenging battle is not the goal but only preying on weaker parties.

Once few weeks (or less) have gone and Israel and the US halt their strikes and declare victory, all these MAGA people will rejoice victory and the wisdom of Trump and deride those who opposed this war. Of course, likely Iran will continue to adapt it's defenses and simply then get the nuclear weapon and the clergy will stay in power in Iran. After these attacks, the young generations of Iranians will remember just how Israel and the US attacked them, hence the evil nature of the US doesn't have to be retraced back to the Pahlavi regime and the ouster of Mossadeq, which is old history for the new generations of Iranians. If Iranians had an 8 year war against Saddam Hussein, then this generation isn't going to be softer either. And then the Iranian nuclear deterrent, likely with ICBMs, will simply be a "non-issue", just like North Korea. Because that's what the US does when the country actually has nuclear weapons that could possibly strike mainland US. Bibi's Israel has opted for perpetual war already, so they are totally OK with this. — ssu

Possibly, maybe even probably, but there's a few things that can go wrong with such a plan that are worth considering.

Israel has no way to normalize due mainly to the genocide.

The extent of the damage Iran has done can't continue to be suppressed if the war ends. Of course we don't know the extent of the damages, but it does seem pretty significant based on what we know.

Whereas the US can do as you say, as the war is far away and easily forgotten in the next news cycle, that option isn't available for Israel, so if the war didn't accomplish anything and was super destructive Israelis may not be so happy about that.

Israel has pursued a strategy of intentionally having no off ramp, so unsurprisingly finds itself with no off ramps.

Then Iran need not cease striking if Israel and US cease striking and if they continue striking then Israel will likely have to continue responding.

I believe Netanyahu said the quiet part out loud the other day that a long war favours Iran, that's what Iran wants. So there maybe no way for Israel to just "turn it off" now that its started.

The reason this war favours Iran is that even if missile interceptors were super effective (which they don't seem to be) Iran can likely outproduce ballistic missiles compared to interceptor missiles (which are more expensive and several are fired at each target).

If we ignore missile defence (assume both are depleted); in terms of Israel's strike capability, Iran is far bigger in population and geography so can absorb more destruction (along with being more accustomed to hardship and less snowflaky Westerner psychology to begin with).

Even if exchanging comparable damage, Iran is so big that most of its population aren't effected psychologically or economically (they keep having normal days as the bombs are out of sight and out of mind for the most part), whereas incoming missiles can be seen from essentially anywhere in Israel and economic activity is focused in a few major cities; so doesn't take many missiles every day / night to completely disrupt normal life for most Israelis.

Given these advantages, Iran has no incentive to just call it quits, and also Iran and China have every incentive to push for the war lasting as long as possible (to absorb US capacity, attrit weapons, damage diplomatic position, and so on).

The US has an armed forces of over 1 million with roughly quarter of a million based outside of the Continental US. Of those less than 40 000 are stationed in the Middle East. Hence there's no land invasion happening. And no regime change, actually.

So along the invasion of Iraq, this is one of those stupid wars the US gets itself into. — ssu

Agreed.

Moreover, there's really no way to conquer Iran. 90 million people, and a geography that similar to 1 entire Rocky Mountain chain in addition to 1 entire France.

It's just not feasible for the US to conquer Iran without going to full total war, drafting millions of people, which is obviously not happening.

However, whereas Trump can get bored and walk away from the situation, it's not clear how Israel can just call it an "oopsie" and turn off the war and restore the status quo ante.

Nuclear weapons I would argue are no longer a feasible option now that the US has struck Iran.

So very unclear how Israel can get out of the war now that they've started it (and by the most antagonistic means of assassinating civilians, including professors, in their homes).

There's a lot at stake in the Middle-East.

US influence is on a heavy down slope, and the BRICS are ready to swoop in to lay claim to all of the trade corridors and resources.

The reason the US doesn't care for diplomacy is simple: no country in the region will trust them anymore. All partners they have in the region only kowtow to Washington out of fear of reprisals, and will drop Washington the moment a safe alternative is available.

So that leaves the US with one option: sow chaos in order to deny the resources and trade corridors to its enemies.

Israel is ultimately going to pay the price for that, but until then its chronically unfeasible geopolitical situation will give the US all excuses it needs to pursue this strategy.

It's pretty insane they are bombing nuclear facilities accepting the risk of nuclear fallout.

Nothing diplomatic offered to them by Bibi and Trump. — Eros1982

Really? You think the bombings would continue if Iran agreed to abandon it's enrichment program and allow UN inspectors access to any sites at any time? I think Trump would take that deal in a second.

Israel has no way to normalize due mainly to the genocide. — boethius

Just what genocide?

Israel has pursued a strategy of intentionally having no off ramp, so unsurprisingly finds itself with no off ramps. — boethius

I agree with you. This is Likud party's main line: there doesn't have to be any peace with the Palestinians, there can be a perpetual war as far it is low intensity and doesn't cost too much. And that has worked for decades now, whereas trying to do a peace with the Palestinians has been represented as utterly impossible, because it failed.

Moreover, there's really no way to conquer Iran. 90 million people, and a geography that similar to 1 entire Rocky Mountain chain in addition to 1 entire France.

It's just not feasible for the US to conquer Iran without going to full total war, drafting millions of people, which is obviously not happening. — boethius

This is the main issue that Trump in his ineptness doesn't understand. The only options are limited strikes. Trump should ask himself, just how long did he fight the Houthis? How long? 30 days and that was it, and they are quite alive and kicking.

This is behind the absolute stupidity that the neocons have spread for many decades of Iran being an existential threat to Israel and the US. The politically incorrect and utterly out of the Overton window is the fact that Iranian nuclear deterrent would be to deter Israeli nuclear deterrent, not to be used in an all out attack on Israel. Why would Iran want tens of millions of it's own citizens to perish? There's no reason.

The fact is that if Iran would have a nuclear deterrent, the US response would be similar as it was to North Korea. Bill Clinton was the last president that truly thought of attacking North Korea in the similar way as Trump has now attacked Iran. Americans too are sane in the end: they attack and occupy countries that don't have a nuclear deterrence capability. Unconditional surrender, occupation of the whole country and regime change are exactly the things that countries with nuclear weapons will opt to use them against.

This all just shows how stupid this war is and how Trump has been lured into a war that in the end won't give him that victory he so eagerly wants.

And anyway, especially the vice president is going batshit crazy in trying to deny just what has happened:

(CNN) Vice President JD Vance, in his first public comments since President Donald Trump authorized US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, emphasized that the US is “not at war” with Iran as he laid out the president’s decision-making process.

“We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” Vance said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker,” calling the strikes a “testament to the power of the American military.”

We've debated at length this issue before, and I'm still not convinced these Isreali conflicts / genocide are some sort of grand US strategy.

You wouldn't need an AIPAC and endless Israeli lobbying and intelligence operations to influence US politics if it was all rational US grand strategy.

For example, contrast with Taiwan which is clearly US grand strategy to keep independent of China, we never hear of Taiwanese lobbying efforts to keep the status quo, much less increase the conflict with China.

Of course, Israel will align its goals with as many US elite faction goals as possible, such as simply having wars to sell weapons generally speaking.

Who I would argue was following some sort of rational US grand strategy was Obama, who made the nuclear deal with Iran and talked constantly of pivoting to Asia to contain China. Which is what follows rationally from a goal to stay the leading power: confronting the rising economic super power which is easily identified as the competition.

The other thing Obama did was try to restore American soft power after Bush, which he successfully did and there was clear advantages to the US system for doing that, so having it severely damaged under Trump 1, then further eroded under Biden, then jettisoned entirely in the first months of Trump 2, is not achieving some rational objective.

So I just don't see how it's a rational strategy to get into a war with Iran which there seems no pathway to victory on, and if Iran "wins" the conflict by simply surviving it will be in a far better position in the region to thwart US and Israeli interests.

Feel free to argue otherwise (I of course don't exclude there is some sort of master plan driving events), but for me a better model to explain what is happening is Israeli race-superiority settler fanaticism, Netanyahu's personal political problems, and a weakening and disastrously corrupt imperial core that can no longer assert imperial grand strategy interests over special interest factions that compose the US controlling elite.

Any powerful enough special interest gets what it wants and endless money printing satisfies all the elites generally speaking. They all (the actual major players) have yachts off Monaco, cabins in Switzerland, bunkers in New Zealand, and can all see the bigger picture that if the US does over extend and collapses they'll be doing pretty fine.

In this context of a cognitive collapse of US grand strategy the US system is erratic and essentially driven by random gyration encounters other powers it can't do anything about. They don't know what to do about Putin, so run over a decade of propaganda to "take him out" as that's what they normally do with someone they don't like, they then takeover Ukraine as that's something they know how to do, but then Russia invades and all they can do is prop Ukraine up but do nothing decisive (as it's good money for the arms industry and it "sounds good" to bleed Russia, but welding them to the Chinese for the foreseeable future is terrible grand strategy) as well as act opportunistically such as blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipeline locking Europe into buying US LNG.

I definitely see how various US elite factions profit from these events, but I don't see how it's some sort of rational plan beyond that short term profit / prophesy seeking. It's nonsense strategy we'd expect from a corrupt, easily manipulated geriatric mental case, just as the current strategy is what we'd expect from a corrupt, easily manipulated narcissistic megalomaniac.

I agree with you. This is Likud party's main line: there doesn't have to be any peace with the Palestinians, there can be a perpetual war as far it is low intensity and doesn't cost too much. And that has worked for decades now, whereas trying to do a peace with the Palestinians has been represented as utterly impossible, because it failed. — ssu

Likud rose to power because of the intifadas and the failure of peace agreements. The nice, left-wing Israelis failed, thus you get Likud. Sort of like how on 10/7, the most left-leaning progressive Israelis were killed. Hypothetically, I believe if the Arabs living in Gaza or the West Bank truly wanted peace, we would see it, but this would not work the other way around. The Nakba always looms in the collective memory. I think the "Nakba" is how the "Palestinian" people came to be—both lies.

The nice, left-wing Israelis failed, thus you get Likud. — BitconnectCarlos

This is completely untrue. The intifadas were a response to Israeli invasion, occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza. To characterize the behavior of the Israeli government during that time as "nice" is nauseating. Israel did everything it could think of to make life hell for the Palestinians in the occupied territories. They clearly wanted the Palestinians to either die or leave, and they did neither.

You're making up your own history so you can imagine that Israel is a victim. It's not. The reason there hasn't been peace in the region is very simple. It's Zionism. This is not a indictment of Judaism. It's just about a couple of generations of absolute evil bastards who happen to be Jewish. Their time will pass and they'll be forgotten. Then there will be peace.

Just what genocide? — ssu

The genocide is an openly declared policy such as starving the entire population and bombing every hospital and university, and horrendous crimes in themselves even considered in isolation to mass murder, such as sniping children, proudly boasted about by the perpetrators.

There is nothing to analyze or debate about these facts. It is as clear as anything taken for common knowledge such as the sun shining upon the earth.

If you want to live in denial about it, then you weld your soul to the fate of these evil doers. So I'd consider it carefully if you entertain the possibility of an afterlife.

Or if I misunderstand you and there's multiple genocides to consider at the moment, you're just asking which one I'm talking about, then in that case I am referencing all the genocides currently being perpetrated by Israel.

I agree with you. This is Likud party's main line: there doesn't have to be any peace with the Palestinians, there can be a perpetual war as far it is low intensity and doesn't cost too much. And that has worked for decades now, whereas trying to do a peace with the Palestinians has been represented as utterly impossible, because it failed. — ssu

To make some sort of plausible attempt at peace, Israel would have to stop its settler activity.

That would be the bare minimum of Israel stopping at some line in the sand and then trying to negotiate some modus vivendi around that, which may include things like offering compensation for land already stolen and obviously some pathway for Palestinians to have rights; obviously 2 state solution being the only viable option if it's assume Israel "needs to be race superiority based in Jewishness".

And that's the bare minimum. If the US federal government was still kicking native Americans off their land today, you think they wouldn't still be resisting that? You think it would be the native population that "can't accept peace" when the US government keeps chipping away at their land. And that's just the land, imagine if the native Americans had also no rights.

This is the main issue that Trump in his ineptness doesn't understand. The only options are limited strikes. Trump should ask himself, just how long did he fight the Houthis? How long? 30 days and that was it, and they are quite alive and kicking. — ssu

We agree here. Also why I think this really isn't "Trump's war" but Netanyahu needed an escalation for his own problems, thought he could get Trump to go along.

The evidence that Trump and US elites broadly speaking didn't want this war is that there's no shock and awe. If you actually through you could smack Iran down from the air you'd go all in day 1, maximum air power, try to collapse the command and control, try to collapse civil society, absolutely pedal to the metal to establish air supremacy on all of Iran and keep hitting every possible military asset and especially convoy of any kind.

When analyst talked about a war with Iran being hard to win before, it was assuming maximum and relentless shock and awe.

Limited strikes by Israel (due to simply being way smaller) and then limited strikes by the US is the absolute worst strategy, as Iran can now transition smoothly to a total war system, and even better now after the US strikes knows exactly what these bunker busters can do.

So this idea that Israel has "softened up" Iran, mentioned in the mainstream media, is just widely naive as to how warfare works. Why Ukraine lost 20% of its territory in like a single week was because it did not transition to total war (as that's costly if you aren't sure a war is coming) and Russia maximized the advantage during that transition.

Point being, maybe Trump did understand it, and why he didn't just go and preemptively strike Iran, but he's not in a political position to just leave Netanyahu high and dry.

He maybe screaming for peace now precisely because he is able to understand generals explain that they can't do much, a message he's likely to believe considering they couldn't even defeat the Houthis. Whether the generals were over enthusiastic or he was overenthusiastic, it's hard to imagine the experience increased his enthusiasm for an air Vs mountain war.

This is behind the absolute stupidity that the neocons have spread for many decades of Iran being an existential threat to Israel and the US. The politically incorrect and utterly out of the Overton window is the fact that Iranian nuclear deterrent would be to deter Israeli nuclear deterrent, not to be used in an all out attack on Israel. Why would Iran want tens of millions of it's own citizens to perish? There's no reason.

The fact is that if Iran would have a nuclear deterrent, the US response would be similar as it was to North Korea. Bill Clinton was the last president that truly thought of attacking North Korea in the similar way as Trump has now attacked Iran. Americans too are sane in the end: they attack and occupy countries that don't have a nuclear deterrence capability. Unconditional surrender, occupation of the whole country and regime change are exactly the things that countries with nuclear weapons will opt to use them against. — ssu

I agree with all this.

Iran, like Russia, represents a lot of resources that the neocons can't control, so both they and their predecessors are psychologically damaged by the existence of Iran. They are used to being able to "do something" when they don't like someone or what's happening in a country.

Israel needed an existential enemy to justify its militarism and refusal of a 2 state solution and obstructing any peace process generally speaking. At the same time, by maintaining the conflict with Palestinians and Hezbollah and Iran, they are naturally on friendly terms, then Iran can turn around and say they are therefore Iranian proxies and no peace is possible until Iran is destroyed.

When this dynamic started, Iran didn't even have any ability to strike Israel, but has clearly developed the capacity since, so became a self fulfilling prophecy that Iran became an actual threat which certainly Israeli warhawks ideal scenario is the US go and destroy Iran.

The problem is it's just super difficult to do and the US just has no good reason to do it.

So, what really motivated this Israeli attack on Iran is either magical thinking or then a gamble, mostly for Netanyahu's personal reasons, that clearly hasn't worked. Maybe a case of becoming over confident in what the Mosad can do after the "brilliant success" of blowing up commanders and children with pagers.

This all just shows how stupid this war is and how Trump has been lured into a war that in the end won't give him that victory he so eagerly wants.

And anyway, especially the vice president is going batshit crazy in trying to deny just what has happened: — ssu

Yes, further evidence they all know they can't get any good military outcome with Iran.

Just normal friendly blowing up your stuff but totally not a war. Amazing.

Maybe Netanyahu's gamble was that he thought they could show Iran "wasn't so tough" based on the idea that decapitation strikes would cause mass panic and disarray, and also that Israeli missile defence was already "good" and US hand would be forced in providing its own missile defence in the region, so certainly results would be stellar.

If Israel could show the war was easy to win, then Trump would want to come in and mop up.

Not clear why they would think that would happen (seeing as True Promise 1 and 2 already demonstrated Iran can penetrate the missile defences), but could just be old man syndrome of not really understanding technology.

If they only wanted more tensions for domestic political outcomes or distract from Gaza, then they would have started a more limited cycle of strikes and retaliation, such as we saw before but just one notch up.

The reason there hasn't been peace in the region is very simple. It's Zionism. — frank

That's right, Frank. How dare the Jews want to have their own land in their ancestral homeland. I agree -- that's much of what it comes down to. Why can't they just happily subject themselves to Arab rule? The Arabs play nicely. They are merciful rulers with a record of fair treatment towards their minority populations.

How dare those Jews assert themselves? If only they knew they are less, there would be no problems. Their place is under the Muslims. Under the Arabs. And how dare those Nazi Zionists challenge this fact.

That's right, Frank. How dare the Jews want to have their own land in their ancestral homeland. I agree -- that's much of what it comes down to. Why can't they just happily subject themselves to Arab rule? The Arabs play nicely. They are merciful rulers with a record of fair treatment towards their minority populations.

How dare those Jews assert themselves? If only they knew they are less, there would be no problems. Their place is under the Muslims. Under the Arabs. And how dare those Nazi Zionists challenge this fact. — BitconnectCarlos

It's all short term bullshit. Israel will be a footnote in the history of the 20th Century. A terrible mistake.

Just encountered this channel today.

This guy predicts a ground invasion of Iran by the US:



The reasons being that:

1. Iran wants a US ground invasion
2. Israel wants a US ground invasion
3. American people and military planners don't want a US ground invasion
4. Donald Trump wants a disastrous ground invasion of Iran and a US civil war at the same time

And therefore, 1, 2, and 4 are going to get what they want.

Interesting point (though very unsure if accurate points), Israel's goal is to help collapse the US empire (such as getting it into an unwindable war with Iran) as it stands to inherit the US military infrastructure in the Middle East and so dominate the region for many generations to come. A sort of Charlemagne to the US's Pax Romana.

It's unclear to me how that would technically work, even just considering the supply chain issues, but certainly some version of it is possible if the entire region is in smouldering ruins.

The whole theory seems far fetched to me, but seems interesting to reflect on.

He also claims to predict history, so we will have to watch his career with great interest.

In other news ...

Pakistan condemns Trump's Iran bombing after nominating him for Nobel Peace Prize — Reuters

Likud rose to power because of the intifadas and the failure of peace agreements. The nice, left-wing Israelis failed, thus you get Likud. Sort of like how on 10/7, the most left-leaning progressive Israelis were killed. Hypothetically, I believe if the Arabs living in Gaza or the West Bank truly wanted peace, we would see it, but this would not work the other way around. The Nakba always looms in the collective memory. I think the "Nakba" is how the "Palestinian" people came to be—both lies. — BitconnectCarlos

@BitconnectCarlos, naturally you see lies in there being a "Nakba" or "Palestinians", but the people living in West Bank and Gaza don't see it that way. Besides, these Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank don't see any prospect of peace because of Likud. Once Likud came into power, the peace process stopped. That's it. And it wasn't anymore the time of Palestinians negotiating, it was the time of Hamas.

With the other side remembering "Nakba" and the other side remembering "The Holocaust", it's no wonder you have a perpetual war.

I'll repeat one anecdote I remember from the times I was in the university. One of the brightest guys that I had started studying economics with was an Finnish reservist NCO who had been a blue beret in Lebanon. Once in the mid 1990's I was sipping beer with him in a student party and the discussion came to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The guy said in the most earnest and straight forward way possible: "There is never going to be peace in the Middle East between Israel and the Arabs." Not in our lifetime.

Looking back thirty years now, his words are still true. Yep, it might have been a conflict that could have come to the end when the Cold War ended, but it didn't. That Oslo peace process might have worked, but it didn't. And we cannot get back to that. And in the end we have this today.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you listening to Fox News only or what?

Iran is a signing country of the IAEA; it commits to the later's standards, its inspectors, and so on. That's the reason why you know very well where to attack Iran, but you don't know where to attack Israel. Because IAEA has all the info about Iran and Israel and USA use Iran's commitment to international laws & organizations in order to kill it.

It's mind boggling what is happening in this world, but that's the situation we are talking about. The US, UK and EU had these ideas of international cooperation, international organizations, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and so on, and the USA are attacking Iran for committing to these norms, while defending Israel that does not recognize any of these norms and treaties.

There have been assumptions that Iran may be surpassing those limits of enriching uranium, but nothing alarming from Iran, till the day that Donald Trump decided to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal Framework.

The reason why Iran is attacked has nothing to do with CNN and Fox News standard coverage, nor with what Trump & other lunatics are saying. Iran is much more committed to international treaties than Israel and Trumpistan.

Iran is attacked for: (1) it is the only country in the Middle East that still stands for a Palestinian State, and (2) somehow for all terrorist attacks on Israel, Iran is considered complicit.

There is some moral/legal justification in trying to stop Iran from 2 (though anyone in the Middle East can sponsor/support terrorists and/or false flag attacks), but there's nothing moral and legal on all the requests Trump & Netanyahu are making on the Iranian regime. They are not telling Iranians give up all support for Houthis & co. They are telling Iran no more uranium enrichment, no more ballistic missiles, and "total surrender".

As Boethius put it: Trump is making diplomacy impossible.

This is what we are talking about: Israel dragging the USA to another immoral/illegal Middle East war, USA blackmailing UK and EU in order to shut up and blame Iran on things that either it is not doing, or it has a right to do.

The Israeli lobby has assumed the duty to inform the American public with honest, educative, historical, legal and moral information through all the news outlets that it controls in this country. This why Americans are worrying now about inspectors who can't reach Iran's nuclear sites :groan:

The genocide is an openly declared policy such as starving the entire population and bombing every hospital and university, and horrendous crimes in themselves even considered in isolation to mass murder, such as sniping children, proudly boasted about by the perpetrators.

There is nothing to analyze or debate about these facts. It is as clear as anything taken for common knowledge such as the sun shining upon the earth.

If you want to live in denial about it, then you weld your soul to the fate of these evil doers. So I'd consider it carefully if you entertain the possibility of an afterlife.

Or if I misunderstand you and there's multiple genocides to consider at the moment, you're just asking which one I'm talking about, then in that case I am referencing all the genocides currently being perpetrated by Israel. — boethius

I understand your point.

My point is that we don't really want to have inflation on the term genocide or it to be a popular derogatory adjective as "fascist" or "nazi" describing something that it isn't. With genocide we are talking about the intent of total destruction of people. Of the two million people in the Gaza strip perhaps 60 000 in truth have been killed. That yet isn't genocide, or it is a very failed attempt of genocide. Do notice that amount hasn't grown even linearly. The real threat is famine, which truly could kill a lot more with a quarter of million people in catastrophic food insecurity and one million emergency condition. That catastrophy has not been initiated yet by Israel. Yet the number 50 000 - 60 000 dead out of two million ought to make it perfectly clear the absolute disregard for human life in this conflict.

To make some sort of plausible attempt at peace, Israel would have to stop its settler activity. — boethius

I don't think that the Bibi administration attempts a peace solution, it is attempting to win the conflict. The Oslo peace process has been dead for decades now.

Limited strikes by Israel (due to simply being way smaller) and then limited strikes by the US is the absolute worst strategy, as Iran can now transition smoothly to a total war system, and even better now after the US strikes knows exactly what these bunker busters can do. — boethius

Hear hear! :100: :up: :heart:

Now the clergy that rules of Iran can really go back to the times of the 1980's when it was in war. The idea that Iran's regime would fall because of this is an example of the utter stupidity now so prevalent. I mean really, think of yourself and your country that you live in. If two foreign countries that are thousands of kilometers away from you suddenly started bombing your country, why would your response be to attack your own government? Nope. Iran will try to transition to a wartime economy now.

Israel needed an existential enemy to justify its militarism and refusal of a 2 state solution and obstructing any peace process generally speaking. — boethius

I agree.

Yet you should give a thought here also to why is Iran, of all countries, so hellbent to be against Israel in the first place? Iranians aren't Arabs, they are (mainly) Persians. Iran doesn't have a border with Israel and Israel hasn't taken any of land that is considered part of Iran. One reason might be that the Pahlavi regime was not hostile to Israel (yet not extremely friendly either), but that isn't a reason enough.

The only reason I can understand is that in order to blow wind to the sails of the Iranian Islamic revolution, the Shiites of Iran had to attack Israel to get a following from the Sunni community. Because otherwise the Sunni states wouldn't be so accepting of the Shiite Islamic revolution. It's actually quite similar to the fact that after invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was suddenly extremely supportive to the Palestinian cause and lobbed few Scud missiles into Israel, because why not?

Iran, like Russia, represents a lot of resources that the neocons can't control, so both they and their predecessors are psychologically damaged by the existence of Iran. They are used to being able to "do something" when they don't like someone or what's happening in a country. — boethius

Well, a lot of countries have a lot of resources that the neocons don't control. International trade is for that. In the end, the resources of some country don't justify war, because those resources never make wars actually profitable as in the end they cost a lot more than just to buy the Goddam resources by trade. Neocons and other imperialists give as reasons the natural resources of some country as a valid reason to invade them, but in the real world this never goes out so simple.

Ah, Trump's big beautiful war is here. Trump the peacemaker, Trump the "no-foreign-wars" peace president! :rofl: — ssu

Right— now those same people who insisted Trump was “better” than Biden — because at least he was anti-war (“no wars under his four years”) — insist that this shouldn’t be surprising, because he’s just doing what all presidents have done. Which is true — just really two faced to wave it off now.

Maybe it’s a one-off thing and Iran will restrain itself in its response. Either way it’s a stupid and dangerous move, and accomplishes nothing. You can’t get regime change without ground forces, you can’t destroy their nuclear sites, and you won’t get them to “surrender unconditionally.”

The whole thing is stupid and pointless.

I can't blame everything on Likud. One event that sticks in my mind was the Olympic massacre of 1972. That wasn't under Likud. The violence has been there regardless of whether Israel has been liberal or conservative.

When ~1300 are murdered in a day, yes, the Holocaust will be mentioned. By and large, I don't think the Holocaust fuels violence. Any civilization would be devastated if that many of its own were murdered in a day. I think what fuels Israeli violence and paranoia is memories of Arab violence.

Regarding the Holocaust, yes, it bolstered Zionism, but Zionism doesn't delineate how large Israel ought to be. What the Holocaust did teach us is that no matter how advanced or civilized a nation is, anti-Semitism is here to stay. It shattered the Jews' belief that technological progress or social "advancement" is going to vanquish anti-Semitism somehow. Or that assimilation was the solution.

If one night of air strikes or exchanging some artillery fire makes a "war" then Iran is apparently at war with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, the US, and itself, and seems to be leaning towards declaring war on the rest of its neighbors as its main strategic response (i.e., closing off all its most powerful neighbors main income stream and attacking their civilians at sea) immediately after losing its entire air force, most of its air defenses, and a significant portion of its standoff weapons.

I'm just saying, I'm not going to lose sleep over the people who dream this stuff up not having nuclear weapons, particularly when their country has seemed to teeter on the verge of revolution or civil war the past few years.

How serious are you being here?

4. Donald Trump wants ... a US civil war ... — boethius

Isn't it more that the Trumpets (or many of them) want a cultural revolution?

Only partially. The fact is that Iran, due to the type of foreign policy it pursues, has been involved in combat with the Taliban, significant combat in Iraq, including attacks on US forces over the last several years, major combat operations in Syria, has also been bombed by Pakistan because it allows safe haven to terrorist groups, and IIRC has also had clashes with Azerbaijan, while being in a Cold War that occasionally goes hot with the rest of its neighbors, a proxy war with the Saudis in Yemen, as well as ongoing struggles with secessionist forces and its own populace.

And now, it seems to want to triple down on its failures, given the threat to engage in an overt act of war against its remaining neighbors as a means of somehow indirectly getting back at Israel and the US instead of just accepting that supporting Hamas has been a disastrous policy and accepting defeat (which is already here, and they've already lost Assad and had Hezbollah turn to a separate peace after losing their entire leadership).

Iran pursues something like the regional foreign policy equivalent of the Soviet Union or US at the peak of the Cold War, while having the actual economic and military strength of... well, Iran. From a realpolitik view it's almost incomprehensible.

including attacks on US forces over the last several years, — Count Timothy von Icarus

When has Iran attacked US forces?

that supporting Hamas has been a disastrous policy and accepting defeat (which is already here, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hamas is alive and well. Its numbers will undoubtably grow after all this. The failure has been the professed goal that was given in justification for genocide— Namely the destruction of Hamas.

Sure, the policies have now led to war crimes against Iran, from the Israeli and US governments— but I for one admire the solidarity. Same for the Houthis. Standing up against genocide is commendable, regardless of outcome.

Anyway — these war crimes have so far accomplished nothing. It’s a publicity stunt by the casino-bankrupting moron in office, who couldn’t locate Iran on a map with a gun to his head. The lies being told about nuclear weapons are laughable— yet it’s the new “weapons of mass destruction” line. Guess we never learn our lesson.

Iran has used "proxies" (often actually Iranian forces) to carry out 170 attacks on US bases just since the start of the Gaza War. There were also Iranian forces involved in firing Iranian rockets at Israeli cities from almost the outset of the war until Hezbollah was militarily defeated, so, while this is certainly an escalation, the two have effectively been at war the whole time.

Unsurprisingly, counterstrikes have killed IRGC officers because they are directing the attacks.

I am not saying anything about US policy being good BTW, just that this is part of a larger pattern involving pretty much the entire region, and that from a strategic perspective it seems stupid from the Iranian side to keep doubling down.

Iran has used "proxies" (often actually Iranian forces) to carry out 170 attacks on US bases just since the start of the Gaza War. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In that case, the US’s “proxy” is committing a genocide, and the US itself has been singing “Bomb bomb Iran” for years, as well as supplying its proxy with weapons and equipment to carry out its war crimes.

I wonder how we would react if Mexico, with the aid of China, decided to take out our top military personnel and bomb our nuclear facilities, simply because they didn’t want us having a bomb (even though they have them— illegally). Would the reaction be calm and measured?