If your previous allies turn into your enemies, how do you think that would be a success of any kind? — ssu

It's irrelvant. US power in the Middle-East would be waning anyway as a result of the shifting balance of power, but the key here is that none of those enemies are capable of inflicting a real cost upon the US.

The US will retreat to its island, and it will leave other nations to deal with the fallout - in this case Israel. Some day it will be Europe.

This is a well-established pattern in US foreign policy, and they wouldn't be repeating it ad nauseam if it weren't so wildly effective.

If US Middle East policy is looked on the long run, it really has been a train wreck. — ssu

I wouldn't quite agree.

To make such a statement, one must first understand what the principal US goals have been in the Middle-East. In my view, it is first and foremost about securing access to cheap oil and denying stable land-based access to others (like Russia, China and India). Second, it has been to avoid any regional competitor to Israel from rising. (Note the role Iran plays in both of these)

This policy has been remarkably successful for decades. The US completely dominated the Middle-East, and successfully laid waste to the region at will.

What has changed today is the geopolitical balance of power. It's not US Middle-East policy that has ran its course; it's the US empire that has ran its course.

The US is now clearly struggling to continue achieving these two goals, and that situation looks like it will only be getting worse. That's why this long-time policy is now defunct.

The problem I have with the way you seem to frame it is probably best summarized by the following play on a well-known axiom: "Do not attribute to ignorance that which is clearly the product of malice."

They'll care as soon as they understand what it actually means.

The average American can afford to not give a fuck, until they cannot. Geopolitically, the United States is destined to be a sideshow, and that's where it's headed due to its delusional foreign policy that basically turns everyone into enemies.

When the United States reverts to its natural sideshow status, its gigantic national debt will present an obstacle the average American cannot afford to not give a fuck about.

I'm not looking to get into a semantic discussion about the word 'disaster', but it made a bad situation worse in every conceivable dimension.

The only thing that hasn't happened is for the entire narrative to collapse. People keep on believing the delusions, etc., but that's not actually something that will help the US going forward. Keeping people high on delusions and propaganda has a long-term cost, and all it is achieving is allowing the US to continue a defunct foreign policy.

But honestly I think the worst thing to come out of this, is the image of a weak Israel. It has operated for decades with the knowledge that it needed to maintain an image of invincibility to stave off the myriad enemies it has in the region. It cannot afford to look weak, but now it does, and there's seems to be nothing that can reverse that.

Meanwhile, the US is cutting aid to Ukraine as it worries about its own stockpiles - another signal that the US might not be a position to keep Israel afloat in the future.

So, basically the 12-Day War has turned out as a complete disaster for the United States and especially for Israel.

Neither of two possible goals (regime change and destruction of Iran's nuclear program) were achieved. In fact the war has made it more likely that in the long-term Iran's regime will survive and that it will get its hands on nuclear weapons.

The fact that the Iranian regime was able to survive the attempted decapitation strike has signaled to Russia and China that Iran is a safe investment - something which was entirely up for debate prior to the 12-Day War due to the questionable nature of Iran's internal security. Simultaneously, this war has pushed Iran further into the arms of Russia and China - a process which historically they have been weary of, but are now likely to fully embrace.

In terms of nuclear weapons, the war has prompted Iran to end all cooperation with the IAEA (a institution that has now been shown to blatantly spy for the US and Israel, and produce pretenses for their wars whenever it suits them) thus putting any of Iran's future nuclear development programs out of international supervision.
Of course, Iran's incentive to produce nuclear weapons has dramatically increased. That it will actively pursue nuclear armament is virtually a guarantee now, and the limited damage that was done to its nuclear facilities, and its strengthening ties with Russia and China, suggest that it will be able to do so within a relatively short timeframe.

The damage that has been done to the IAEA's credibility is something that will have global consequences for nuclear profliteration.

Meanwhile, Israel was shown to be critically vulnerable even under limited aerial bombardment. Since the country has zero strategic depth and basically only two lifelines (Haifa and Ben Gurion Airport), it was always a matter of time before western technological supremacy would wane and Israel's vulnerability would be exposed.
A couple hundred rockets and drones is all it takes to threaten Israel with economic crisis - all of Israel's enemies will have taken note of this.


When all these factors are taken together, we're looking at a critical defeat for Israel, and that makes for a very dangerous situation going forward.

Speculations abound concerning follow-up attacks that may include nuclear weapons use.

What options do the US and Israel have left? Conventional strikes were clearly shown to fall short of achieving their objectives. A ground invasion is practically unthinkable.

Uncle Sam and his rabid pet monkey Netanyahu are rapidly running out of options.

Israel started looking critically vulnerable as purportedly the economic damage it suffered threatened to cause a crisis after only twelve days of war and limited penetration of its air defenses.

So I think this strike was meant to bail Israel out, while giving Iran an off-ramp.

That is, unless there's a follow-up operation coming, which is definitely a possibility.

Obama's diplomatic policy is a deviation from the strategy of trying to contain Iran (by stick and / or carrot) to the extent of preventing development. — boethius

As I noted to Benkei, this is not a change of strategy, but a change of method.

It was never a feasible alternative to the stick, because why would Iran do business with the US (with all the baggage that brings) when it can do business with the Russians and the Chinese on a more or less equal basis, with no strings attached?

In terms of maintaining/re-establishing US primacy, the genocide in Gaza is absolutely terrible policy. — boethius

Obviously this isn't explicitly US strategy, but unwavering support for its proxy Israel is.

Israel is critically vulnerable in more ways than one, so letting Israel ethnically cleanse/commit genocide in Gaza is par for the course at this point.

Does it hurt US credibility? Sure, but what credibility did it have left to begin with?

Apparently no amount of support for genocide is going to make the Europeans or any other key strategic allies second guess their relationship with the US, so in the grand scheme of things it matters little.

If you're of the opinion that US support for the Gaza genocide damaged US interests in a significant way, I expect you to be able to point out those damages.

And the genocide not only doesn't serve US Imperial strategic interest, it doesn't serve Israel's either. — boethius

I disagree somewhat. Israeli genocide provides the US with an exit strategy that practically writes itself. And as you point out, Israel is going to be cut off sooner or later, because the US will no longer want to pay the increasing cost of keeping Israel afloat in its unsustainable situation.

The US is simply milking Israel to the fullest extent before that moment arrives. Which means causing maximum chaos, even if their capacity to sow chaos has significantly decreased.


I think you and Benkei are operating under the erroneous assumption that there's any strategy available that doesn't lose the Middle-East for the US.

We are way, way too far down the line for any salvaging operations.

Every nation in the Middle-East hates their guts. Diplomacy is a fucking pipedream, especially now that Russia and China are offering an alternative.

Tzeentch is of the view that Israel is acting on behalf of US Imperial interest in that "eliminating" Gaza and shoring up Israel's strategic position, while also creating chaos in the Middle East, is a logical next step in a rational US grand strategy in line or then formulated (or then "formulatable") by impartial imperial grand strategists. — boethius

You're making it sound a little more esoteric than it actually is.

I'm talking about the US foreign policy establishment, aka "the Blob", the neocons, etc.

It's not a homogeneous group, but since it is interested in maintaing/re-establishing US primacy, it's options are bounded by the realities of geopolitics, which leaves a very narrow margin of deviation.

Strive to be humble, and make small positive contributions to the lives of the people around you. That's already hard enough for most.

Overly lofty goals makes people lose touch with reality, inflate their ego and promote inaction rather than action, because in regards to the world's problems one is powerless and without responsibility anyway.

Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran (Brookings Institution, 2009)

In other words, you don't have a theory but a narrative, which ignores actual facts but you're hellbent on constructing something that you believe is unassaillable. — Benkei

Oh, and this is nonsense too. I'm repeatedly trying to start a conversation about actual geopolitical realities - ergo the 'root causes' - but you've been pretty much categorically ignoring them.

So your position is that the JCPOA was done for shits and giggles to make sure it continues to fit your narrative. — Benkei

What a curious strawman.

Is the thought that phoney amends are made to buy time such a strange thought to you? The Minsk accords were done in the exact same way, and Hollande and Merkel even admitted as much!

The JCPOA does not align with your core theory that says letting Iran develop peacefully was never an option. If you want to claim the JCPOA was a “carrot” toward eventual suppression still contradicts the framing: that any development at all is intolerable. So which is it? — Benkei

Iran wasn't the only threat in the region during the time the JCPOA was established, so this could easily be explained as an attempt at placating Iran with promises of American business while solving other pressing issues.

American business that, of course, never came. So I view the JCPOA as an entirely phoney endeavor to begin with - something which the US was never truly committed to, and which Israel would have never been able to accept in the long-term either.

Ultimately you're talking about an episode of a few years amidst a historical trend of nearly a century. Again - trees and forests.

As the saying goes: "politics makes for strange bedfellows", and it appears to me you're underestimating the capriciousness of geopolitics, where parties will pretend to make amends one day, and be back at each other's throats the next.

But seriously, what would disprove your theory? — Benkei

Maybe it's just a good theory if you're seemingly so keen on disproving it but unable to?

What would disprove it of course is a long-lasting move towards peace between the US, Israel and Iran - a pipedream to be sure. The reason we don't see that, and we'll probably never see that, is because geopolitical realities put these countries at odds with each other pretty much by default.

That doesn't make it a strong theory at all as it cannot explain anything... — Benkei

What doesn't it explain?

The JCPOA?

There's nothing unfair about it. It's simply a strong theory.

I point towards a long-term trend and give the deeper geopolitical dynamics that have shaped it, and make it unlikely to change in the short-to-middle term.

From a US perspective, Iran has way too much potential to let it develop peacefully. Doing so would violate balance of power politics 101, and the basic US strategy of keeping the Middle-East as divided as possible.

Especially with Iran's natural balancer Iraq out of the picture, it requires constant US-Israeli belligerence to stop Iran from naturally expanding.

I both agree and disagree. A long-term strategy does not have to be absolutely uninterrupted - there can be many practical reasons for why it must be interrupted at times - reasons for example pertaining to other nations in the region.

Controlling Iran and its oil resources, and its access point between the Middle-East and Central Asia was always the goal. Letting Iran develop peacefully was never an option. Not for the US, and not for Israel.

Sometimes it was believed this could be achieved with the carrot, sometimes with the stick.

Look at Europe for example - another region of the world that the US has sought to control. It has entirely neutered Europe with use of the carrot.

So what we're seeing are changes in method, and not in overall strategy.

The bottomline is, a strong independent Iran is and was viewed as a massive threat to US power in the Middle-East, and to Israel.

This has been the case since the '50s, when Iran was a large, wealthy, well-educated and rapidly modernizing country, which is why alarm bells started to go off in Washington - these are the building blocks that form a regional power.

Iraq was almost an exact copy in this regard, and at times the US had to balance Iran and Iraq against each other to achieve its goals.

So I'd argue you're missing the forest for the trees.

I don't think it's an oversimplification. Every theory ultimately is a simplification, and the argument "reality is more complicated" is not an argument either unless you provide a theory with greater explanatory value.

What I've described is the red thread that characterizes a century of US involvement with Iran.

US actions vis-á-vis other nations in the region have their own logic to them (and sometimes the logic conflicts). US involvement with Saudi-Arabia however is almost entirely based around using them to balance Iran - this is basic balance of power politics.

The calculus is simple.

Iran is a large country, rich in oil, with strong allies, with a large, well-educated population, situated on a geopolitically critical region of the world.

These are the basic building blocks of a regional power.

Unless it is constantly hamstrung, it will escape the US intervention window and easily surpass Israel in terms of geopolitical power. It doesn't even need WMDs for that.

That's what the past century of US-Israeli policy have been about: preventing Iran from developing into a regional power. All the rest is bullshit.

Following comments by Medvedev, it looks like the Russians might be floating the idea of giving Iran nuclear weapons. Medvedev stated "several countries" were ready to do so (the other presumably being China).

I've long wondered whether this option was being considered, but I assumed this was too hot considering the taboo on nuclear proliferation.

Medvedev has a reputation for making extreme statements, though. It's hard to say whether they're actually serious or just looking to provoke chaos/a reaction in the US-Israeli camp.

Well, my point isn't that US strategy is wickedly brilliant. Especially today it appears the US is being outplayed by China and Russia.

But it does have a strategy that accounts for basic geopolitical realities. That already seems to surpass the scope of the vast majority of people, who do not go beyond simple narratives of "us good, them bad", "Israel has a right to self-defense", "The evil jew lobby rules the US", etc. - so apparently it's brilliant enough to keep 95% of people in the dark about basic US goals.


At the same time, I would not underestimate the United States. It is easy to look at US Middle-East policy as a string of failures, but if we assume the goal was and is to sow chaos (in other words, deny to the enemy that which cannot be directly controlled) it shows a different picture.

Such foreign policy goals would obviously be impossible to explain domestically and internationally, hence they could never be said out loud. I would point to historical continuity as an indicator that such a policy is indeed in place.

There is a long list of countries that underestimated the United States' capacity for Machiavellianism and cloak & dagger practices, and that suffered the ultimate price for it.


As I've said before, I'll believe the US has met decisive failure once it starts to suffer serious blowback. Currently, that isn't happening. It always manages to export the cost of failure to its "friends".

On page 5 of this thread I give a more in-depth analysis.

I'm not sure what you believe is lacking. If you're expecting me to produce hard evidence then obviously I cannot do this - that's simply not how geopolitics works.

I can however point at nearly a century of continuity and explain how what we are currently seeing fits in that historical trend.

If I'm 'telling stories', then everyone here is.

And why now? Iran has been weeks away from a nuclear bomb for decades if we have to believe everybody ever excusing these strikes on Iran. — Benkei

Conflict with China looms, and the US needs to 'cut Iran down to size' so that it cannot exploit the power vacuum the US will leave behind when it fully pivots to Asia.

In addition, sowing chaos in Iran denies China natural resources, and a vital trade corridor to the Middle-East and beyond.

It's really not very complicated - geopolitics hardly ever is. It just requires the proper lens through which to view events.


The window to bully Iran around, as the West has done for nearly a century, is rapidly closing, however. Assuming Iran can keep the regime from rapid collapse, Russia and China will keep it standing.

So we will now see how feasible this US strategy still is.

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.

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.

One important factor in this is that while Israel is the US' preferred partner now, it needn't stay that way.

If Iran shows its willingness to cooperate, the calculus for the US will start to shift.

Ultimately the US aligns itself in whatever way is most profitable, and it's conceivable that the most profitable partner in the future will be Iran, and not Israel, simply because it will become too expensive to keep Israel in a position of regional dominance.

Possibly this is why we continue to see diplomatic contact between the US and Iran even at this time. The US is trying to keep its options open for as long as possible. Admittedly, I would be surprised if the US avoids a war with Iran, but it's possible.

The crucial thing to understand is that the balance of power in the region is shifting (just like it is shifting globally) away from the United States and Israel. If the status quo is maintained, Iran will grow in affluence, and US and Israeli influence will further diminish. This is further exacerbated by the fact that Iran has aligned itself to Russia and China. With such powerful partners it is in a good position to become the new dominant player in the Middle-East - something which the US and Israel must prevent at all costs if they wish to maintain any influence.

Israel also acknowledges that the United States is currently experiencing imperial overstretch, and is having to choose between which interests it wishes to protect. By dragging the US into a war now, it means it cannot abandon Israel later.

The United States on its part urgently needs to pivot to Asia to counterbalance China. However, it cannot do so while simply abandoning all its interests elsewhere. So here its interests align with Israel, in that they both do not want a strong Iran to emerge out of the power vacuum the US leaves behind.

Whatever the exact plans of Israel and the US, they'll both be aimed at ensuring Iran cannot expand its influence in the foreseeable future.

One way to do so is by enacting regime change, which would cause internal turmoil that it would probably take Iran several years to recover from.

At the same time, if Iran manages to produce a nuclear weapon it can threaten nuclear retaliation and impose massive costs on Israel (and indirectly the US).

So regime change and the destruction of Iran's nuclear program are two parts of the same strategy.

2) In Tel Aviv you have in power some Torah-lunatics who believe that they were destined by Yahweh to conquer whomever they want. These Torah-lunatics it said that possess more than 90 nuclear warheads. Although you might be right in arguing that all this unfolding-catastrophe in the Middle East should not be attributed to Israeli groups only, I do take these Torah-lunatics capable of blackmailing US presidents with their nukes. In others words, I have them capable of threatening to use nuclear weapons, behind the curtains. So, there is some blame in Zionists too (apart from those Jewish-banker theories). — Eros1982

The current Israeli government and the people they represent aren't really all that extreme in their religious beliefs. They're extreme in their nationalist beliefs and therefore I think the term 'ultranationalist' is a more fitting characterization.

Ironically, what one might consider the most religiously extreme Jews, commonly called 'ultra-orthodox', often oppose Zionism and the state of Israel, and don't even consider themselves Israelis, for reasons stated in the Torah. (It has to do with the land being promised upon return of the Messiah, which, according to Judaism, hasn't happened yet - alas, details).

So Zionism isn't exactly a religious conviction, but a political one.

Obviously, the state of Israel does bear full responsibility for its actions. It's just that the United States (and several European states to a lesser extent) have been enabling them since the start.

Whoever might be the benefited groups from all these wars, the USA (seen as a whole country) does not seem to benefit. — Eros1982

Despite what I think of the United States' methods, I think it is involved in the Middle-East for sound strategic reasons. (Control over vital trade corridors and oil, most notably) It has also been very effective in protecting its power in the region, at the cost of everyone else's security.

So, perhaps controversially, I view the United States as a whole as the principal benefactor of it's decades-long Machiavellian malpractices in the Middle-East.


Of course there's the usual suspects - the military-industrial complex, big investment firms, etc. - but in my view these are just the vultures flocking to the smell of fresh carrion. Squarely blaming them is just another attempt at exculpating the US by pinning the blame on some 'big bad'.

No; it is carefully calculated US strategy that is and has been the principal driver behind all of this.

It's just that the days of US empire are at their end, and no amount of Machiavellianism or sound strategy can stop the reckoning that is coming its way. That is why everything is now cracking at the seams, and people are looking for scapegoats.

Even though this is the conventional wisdom, I don't think it's actually the case. It's a narrative oft repeated that the United States somehow is beholden to Israel, and that the United States is basically "involuntarily" involved.

The purpose of that narrative is to exculpate the United States, and distance it from its own and Israel's many misdeeds in the region.

The belief that a miniscule nation like Israel could control the world's premiere superpower does not pass the common sense test, even if we assumed every single Israeli was a rich banker.


The truth is that Israel is a remarkably useful asset to the US, which the US has successfully used to destroy geopolitical rivals and sow chaos in a region that it was never able to fully control.

Israel is a nation that, due to its size, will always experience geopolitical threat from its neighbors, so there's always an excuse for war.

When Israel outlives its usefulness, the exit strategy pretty much writes itself. For a credible excuse, the US only needs to point at the hundreds upon hundreds scathing UN reports and human rights reports (and simply leave out the fact that the Israelis did it all with Uncle Sam's help).


The US engages in a form of gepolitical parasitism, where it skillfully sways naive countries to prostitute themselves to the US agenda, usually leading them willingly down the path of their own destruction.

Israel is one such country. I'm sure you can think of several others. Ukraine for example is currently in the terminal stage of friendship with the US.

All of that nonsense in US congress? Just a display, crafted to play a megalomaniacal narcissist like Netanyahu like a fiddle. Those senators were more than willing to pay with what little dignity they had left, in order to have Israel follow willingly to the slaughter. Do you know the US doesn't even have a defensive alliance with Israel?


To be clear, I don't blame anyone for believing the narratives. Entire countries willingly fling themselves into the abyss for those narratives. But it's in people's best interest that they start seeing through the bullshit.

My point is that I don't particularly care. I don't spend my time worrying about the "master plans" of powerless loonies.

Neo-nazis are some fringe group with no power whatsoever. They're also hella useful to vilify any threat to the establishment - something which you're inadvertently contributing to.

Sorry, but you have no idea how silly this looks to me.

Adults putting themselves forward as morally righteous fighters against fascism - come on.

"Neo-nazi master plan", Benkei are you even listening to yourself talk?

I've seen this game played by various establishments over time and frankly I have no time for it.

Do you know the story of the boy who cried fascist?

What do you expect me to make of the 'secret nazis' canard?

I've listened to that drivel coming from the Dutch establishment vis-á-vis populist parties long enough to no longer take it seriously.

Child-like and uninteresting response.

A previous poster already mentioned the Springer quote.

Some populist politician said something inflammatory - big whoop.

All this is is scrouging together circumstantial evidence to make the case that "secretly" the AfD is fascist.

Quit playing a sucker for the establishment.

You can read their site if you want to know what their policy ideas entail, and they're nothing like you're making them out to be.

AfD is a populist party threatening the establishment, so the establishment works overtime to try and paint them as the big bad.

It's childish and boring, but undeniably effective.

Iran's nuclear facilities are in mountain bunkers built deep underground, designed to withstand everything up to a nuclear weapon.

Israel simply does not have the capacity to do anywhere near the type of damage they're boasting about, nor does the US have capacity to spare to make up the difference.

This was in all likelihood principally an attempt at decapitation, meant to force regime change in Iran.

The first strike seems to have failed to accomplish this, and the Iranians are showing they do not fear retaliation by Israel or the US by striking directly at Tel Aviv. This is a very telling sign.

It remains to be seen what else the Israelis have up their sleeve, but if this is it, then it's going to be a very costly dud. Neither Israel nor the US can afford to commit fully unless some huge initial success is achieved. The longer the campaign takes, the slimmer the chances of such success.

Sure, he's culpable, but he's also largely irrelevant. The same is true for Biden or any other US president in modern times.

I often emphasize the 'lightning rod' function US presidents fulfill.

If the US has to make some ugly policy decisions, it's blamed on the president so that once they leave office, people can be made to believe that the ugliness left with them.

That's why I hate to see people focus squarely on Trump. When Trump leaves office things aren't going to change one iota, because this is the face of America.

Blaming Trump for this is just naive, and distracts from the fact that this war has been long in the making with the Israel lobby and the US neocon establishment basically frothing at the mouth to start it.

Trump tried to fight the lobby and lost. Now he just tries to spin it as though he was in on it, or supported it, in the hopes of garnering more souls within the Israel lobby.

Uncle Sam using its rabid pet chimpanzee to sow chaos in the Middle-East - what else is new?