"The Axis of Resistance, led by Iran, had a rare window of opportunity to inflict severe damage to Israel in the middle of 2024".
At which time, determined and resolute action was called for to take advantage of Israel's weakness.
And at precisely which time (19th May 2024) President Ebrahim Raisi, who was known for those qualities, mysteriously died when his helicopter crashed for no apparent reason. To be replaced by the elderly and irresolute Masoud Pezeshkian.
Thanks for this perspective, Hua Bin. One factor that may come into play is that many countries -- even countries that are favorable to Iran -- would prefer that Iran not have nuclear weapons. Think of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, probably several Euro countries, Russia, maybe even China. Iran is different from North Korea, because NK is not under the leadership of a group waiting for the 12th Imam to trigger Armageddon. What some of those countries may do (and not do) behind the scenes may be quite different from what they say publicly.
On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that Iran does not already have nuclear weapons. We have been hearing about Iran's nuclear program for decades -- yet the US built nuclear weapons from a standing start in about 3 years, at a time when no-one even knew for sure that the theory would work, much of the technology did not exist, and the US simultaneously had to fight WWII. Even South Africa under apartheid sanctions managed to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe Iran's nuclear program is like Colonel Ghaddafi's -- just a talking point for negotiations?
I agree. Russia and China never supported North Korea to get the bomb. Nuclear proliferation is not a good idea except the state under threat itself. Iran's motivation is understandable but its approach is indecisive and eventually made itself vulnerable.
i don't think Iran actually has a bomb. even the US intelligence verifies that and I don't see any reason for them to hide the fact if true. I think Iran used nuclear threshold strategy as a bargaining chip but its bluff was called.
Iran is a big country, so it could hide the real McCoy somewhere while showing empty hands where nukes are expected.
Remember, Iran has successfully used decoys so far, not only in the swarms of drones but also for its air defenses. Apparently, a lot what "israel" bombed on 13 June were in effect decoys – not all, I agree.
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, and I support nuclear proliferation. Gun control doesn't work, and this is just existing nuclear powers not wanting anyone to be able to challenge them.
The *sub-official discourse*, which of course does not remotely coincide with world public opinion, is that Israel, following October 7, had an effectively unlimited right to defend itself—minus the potential use of nuclear weapons. After the destruction of most of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the fall of the Assad regime, the question inevitably became: would Iran be next? And if so, would the U.S., especially under Trump, directly participate?
The only thing really holding Trump back at this point is U.S. public opinion. But aside from that, the pattern has clearly been one of Israeli escalation following October 7. I think it would be fascinating to delve into the manifold epistemic complexities—or, should one say, mysteries—of October 7 itself. In other words, the fly-on-the-wall historical verity of Hamas’ discussions leading up to that fateful day. Ditto, to be sure, for the Israeli side.
For example, what does the combined "general staff" of the West think most likely happened on the Israeli side vis-à-vis October 7? Otherwise put, if I had been an Israeli tank commander successfully retreating from the Gaza border following Hamas’ breakout, I would, I think, in short order begin to doubt my own superiors—ipso facto, given the conditions and context of that particular stage in the Netanyahu regime. And every day following that I would think: so this is the *soi-disant* brilliant Götterdämmerung which Israel devised in order to pass into history as another epochal stage in Western conquest and empire-building.
It was "inevitable" that the indigenous would attack, thereby allowing for their practical—but also morally *pro forma*—annihilation. After this period of conquest concludes, then Russia and China remain, after which the West will have achieved the much-vaunted "post-history"—interrupted by the Cold War, following which the West became more united, not less, under the maximalist dialectic of the summit of anti-fascism fascism.
To wit: Israel has a maximalist right to defend itself, and the worst wrong and aggression conceivable in the West—but perforce applicable to the entire world—is "antisemitism."
the jewish state is never encumbered by public opinion or morality. its domestic population is overwhelmingly aligned with its genocidal maniac policy and it has the backing of the "democratic" "value-based" west. Of course, it has long coopted the western ruling elites. you have to take the hat off to a parasite that has managed to totally take control of the host , make the host welcome it with full heart, and gag any antibody too. it has to be the most successful parasite the world has ever seen.
as for the Al Aqsa operation and Israel's real role in it, we'll need to wait for future historians to uncover the truth - if such historians are not first labelled and punished as "anti-semitic". Interestingly, within Israel, there were a lot of doubters about the government account of what happend that night, including Jonathan Pollard, the "biggest spy in US history" working for Mossad and a bona fide jewish hero. there are video clips on Youtube where you can watch him raising doubts about another false flag, hardly a surprise for anyone who knows about Israel's history.
I wouldn't write off Iran just yet. If the US get directly involved they are going to take a lot more hits than with the Iraq war. Still I hope they stay out of direct involvement.
agree it is too early to say for sure. I doubt Iran would prevail if the US gets involved directly. I would not be surprised if it seeks truce and agrees to US demands to disarm in that scenario.
Looking forward to part 3. I agree that China will not get deeply involved with Iran. But nothing says they can't supply Iran with loans and supplies, allowing for a long war of attrition that will exhaust the USA. Russia can provide satellite data, more loans and military equipment.
As I wrote in my previous comment, Russia and China don't want Iran to fall under USA control, but letting Iran suffer without dying would be perfectly acceptable to Russia and China.
Also, a breakup of Iran is not necessarily a bad thing for Russia or China. Independent Kurdistan might join with Kurdish Iraq and then stir up a civil war in Kurdish areas of east Turkiye, which Russia would like because this weakens Turkiye. Independent South Azerbaijan would not be dangerous to Russia or remnants Iran. As long as remnant Iran controls an Indian Ocean port, which both Russia and China want, independent Baluchistan is no problem. In the process of breakup, possibly remnant Iran could clean up internal problems besides ethnic/religious/language divisions.
I also lean towards your point that Russia and China would have the same cold-eyed analysis as you laid out. Involving the US in another protracted middle eastern conflict is a win for both, though I doubt Iran can hold out for long if the US goes in directly. I highly doubt the US would want to put boots on the ground. Instead it could just disarm Iran and instigate a regime change. Russia and China don't have the ability to stop that, given they both lack power projection in the middle east and have higher geopolitical and military priorities.
> Instead it could just disarm Iran and instigate a regime change.
That's a long shot, does the U.S. have the wherewithal? I doubt it. The U.S. is working hard at turning itself into a toothless tiger, it even got run out of town, in this case the Red Sea, by the Houthis. Iran is no Yemen.
"Iran was clearly trying to leave some space to get back into the good grace of the US".
Now that really is a symptom of insanity. As Kissinger is said to have warned, while being an enemy of the USA can be painful, being its friend is fatal.
Why would Iran want to get back into the good graces of the killer anaconda?
Because the sanctions ARE hurting. What Iran should have done is "a Russia". By that I mean develop new relationships politically, commercially, technologically and in terms of supply lines. It has done that to some extent with Russia and China, but that is not enough, and in any case it is not smart to only rely on those 2.
Yes, I know, sitting in my armchair setting out the sanctions busting strategy for Iran is easy.
Russia and China not overtly jumping in to help Iran might have something to do with a strategem to bait Jewry to getting tied up ever-deeper in the Iranian quagmire while simultaneously providing covert assistance... just maybe. Since one of the hallmarks of Jewry is their psychopathic rage coupled with irrational vindictiveness which has assuredly led themselves to overreach.
As in, "never interrupt your opponent while he is in the middle of making a mistake" as per Sun Tzu's strategem.
I suspect there is some element of cold-eyed strategy to benefit from Israeli/US overreach and another potential forever war. That said, in reality Russia and China don't have the power projection in the middle east to intervene militarily even if they are so inclined. Also both have other geopolitical and economic priorities of their own.
China has also placed severe export restrictions on rare earth minerals and antimony to the west, stuff needed for weapons manufacturing. This gives China a very potent leverage that effectively equates to a moratorium on warfare. Let's see how this impacts the western MICs as they run critically low on rare earths.
Iran is part of BRICs+ and a major source of China's energy independence. The take down of Iran is the start of the domino of the take down of BRICs+ and China. Is China still living in the past like the Ming and Qing and waiting for new gunboats to sail up the Yangtze and Yellow rivers?
this is not true. domino effect is an overblown theory from Vietnam to Iraq, Libya and Syria. Did those "dominos" affect the world in the long run? If you think, if China doesn't intervene in Iran, western powers would somehow be able to overwhelm China, then you are sadly mistaken. In a face down between China and the US/west, Iran is inconsequential. If gunboats come to China now, you think they won't go to the bottom of the ocean just because Iran is taken off the board? think twice.
no offense but you are overly emotional about the subject. My objective is to have a rational discourse and take lessons from Iran's mistakes. I'll discuss why Iran's fate is not all that important in the grand scheme of things in my view.
The law of very large numbers say if the West are given unlimited attempts, they will be successful eventually. China must win the struggle for this law. Iran's survival gives China the edge in this struggle because it gives provide China 3 things: energy for China's economy, a distraction for the West, and new allies.
China will do what it can to help Iran, no doubt. As you laid out, Iran's defeat is not good news for China. I could be wrong here but I am less concerned about the military implications - the US will lose to China in a war in western pacific whether it defeats Iran or not. It's a contest of hard strengths and China has never counted on others to fight its war and is prepared to take on its enemies in whatever geopolitical situation. It is reckless to have your strategic freedom dictated by the performance of a political partner like Iran. finally, Iran has not been fully aligned and reliable with China and shouldn't expect China to bail it out. I'll get into that subject in my next essay.
China's future depends on Iran's survival, because it'll show others China can provide protection from the West. If Iran falls, China will only be an amateur 'go' players.
If China has not been preparing for America's direct involvement in Iran then it'll never escape the century of shame. We'll see if Chinese ADAs are ready to keep America's airpower in check in Iran because Russia is too occupied with Ukraine. I foresee waves of Chinese planes entering Eastern Iran with military aid to prevent America's direct involvement.
I don't agree with the proposition China's future depends on the survival of a weak theological state with half its population wanting to be part of the west. Maybe you know something I don't. But Iran is hardly a pillar for the new world order. There is a typical western thinking about ganging up to win which China doesn't subscribe to. No offence, but you read too much into Zbig's chessboard theories. I'll share my thoughts on China's perspective.
It's not about Iran. It's about the West's ability to impose its will. It's about the proxies the West are lining up to engage China. It's about dividing the West's resources to focus on China. Iran plays a part in this. As the West pointed out, it's better the contest takes place away from one's border than on one's border. Once it happens on the border it's took late because it'll escalate to nuclear war.
China will deal with the west on its own. If you want to be a big boy, you need to fight like a big boy. weak states like Iran is a liability, not an asset in a final showdown. you don't think Chinese and Russian strategists have thought through this already? as for where to fight, if China goes to the Middle East in Iran's assistance, it's an overreach as China doesn't have the power projection ability realistically. If the west comes to China to fight, then the overreach is on their side. I assure you China will take care of business around its shores, with or without Iran surviving the current crisis.
Fighting on China's borders will result in damages to China and the risk of going nuclear is greater than in Iran. If a Chinese city is attack, China will need to retaliate on mainland US. The back and forth will likely escalate to a nuclear war. A contest in Iran will not reach that level, and it'll deter other proxies like Isreal from joining the West. Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, and New Zealand are just waiting time bombs. India is waiting for an opportunity to take a bite also.
The law of very large numbers points to Iran as the better theater for China than in Asia. Logistically, China can out supply the West in the Middle East since the countries between Iran and China are friendly. The rail network gives China the edge. It plays to China's economic might.
A contest around China's border will damage China's economy since the main economic centers are on the coast. These centers will be targeted by the West's proxies just like Ukraine did in Russia. China can't retaliate against the US if they didn't pull the trigger. The law of very large numbers goes to the West in this scenario. It's like the British against the Qing. They can keep on attacking China without consequences.
Valid points, even though "after the fact" analysis is always 20/20. Following your logic, should not China and Russia actively assist Iran? China knows that an Iranian "defeat", i.e. the Syria or Lybia scenario would be catastrophic to China's interests.
The success of the G7 is security guarantee. If BRICs+ doesn't offer this, it will fail because countries seek ultimately protection. Economic ties alone will not be enough to ensure China's sovereignty. A country will ally with countries that offers economic and security protection. Without allies China will be worn down and torn apart.
Technology has reach a stage where manpower is not the deciding factor of a war. As we see in Ukraine, Russia's industries are the main factor for it's success. Manpower can be replaced with proxies as the West employed. There are 6+ billions proxies for the West if China fails to draw them into it's orbit. The destruction of Iran will force countries around the world to hesitate in aligning with China. The survival of Iran is the tipping point for BRICs+.
BRICS is not and cannot be a security bloc, period. Can you see China and Pakistan in a collective security bloc with India, which has always been a fence sitter and more and more pro-west and pro-Israel. Can you see Brazil, South Africa, UAE or Indonesia wanting to be on the opposite side of the US and the west in an opposing military camp. while China and Russia don't want to see Iran's fall, it's a pitfall to overblow Iran's strategic value. neither country will conflate despise for Israel/US with commitment to save Iran.
BRICs+ is the opening to a security block. Without a security block to build on, BRICs+ will be destroyed militarily with divide and conquer. We see in Saudi Arabia's refusal to complete it's membership. We see in Argentina's withdrawal of it's application. The destruction of Iran may see countries withdrawing from BRICs+, and the containment of China's future.
Nothing excuses the fact that like Ukraine the USA has provoked, aided and abetted this war. Trump is the most dangerous man on earth as the infant adult he is, putty in the hands of his controllers. The most pertinent issue now is where is the countervail leadership to stop Trump in his tracks. China and Russia are both going to have to play a heavy hand to insure Iran wins this war. Trump and his thugs are desperate and we can be sure the nuclear option is on the table. A decisive victory for Iran may finally convince Washington its empire is dead in the water.
I see Trump as a distraction, like all US Presidents. For those actually calling the shots, he is a public relations disaster due to his limited intelligence and proclivity to text/speak without thinking. That's why the deep state bureaucracy dislikes him. However, the simp has zero agency. JFK may have been the last US President trying to assert himself against the three-letter-spook bureaucracy.
Selected for: Pliability, gullibility, salesmanship, poise, ego, greed, lack of scruples, ethics or morals and, if possible, vulnerability for blackmail. Trump lacks some of these but he was grudgingly accepted for the "job".
no doubt Trump is treacherous and not to be trusted - this should be the most obvious thing under the sun.
however, I don't think China or Russia will pick this fight as the final show-down with the US. What is really important is for them to win the final battle in best possible position (ie. near their own borders). what's happening in Iran is transcient. even if Iran's regime is toppled, does that mean the US and Israel will be occupying the country? will there be a puppet government? I wouldn't bet on that - look at Iraq, Libya, Syria. Just another forever war bleeding US resources. this would be a victory for the jews, but not for the US. China only needs to ensure it wins the final battle with the US and this is hardly it.
i doubt the jews or the US would put boots on the ground. their goal is to bomb Iran into a rump state and fragment it. with the internal frictions in the country, I don't like the odds they would have the grit for a long war. fighting what and how?
A portion of the population, devoted and committed Shia, yes.
But unfortunately Iranian society is not a monolith. Decades of subversion and influence operations have taken their toll. It is a divided society. What percentage remain devoted and committed Shia?
Hasn't the Islamic Republic always been in a lose-lose situation? Externally, It had no well armed friends that could fight side by side and the most well armed and dedicated enemies. Internally, it has a divided population and a rebellious population of Kurds and Sunnis who probably provided the assistance to Mossad. Iran had a foreign policy that respected the sovereignty of other nations and could have served to limit Israel's expansion, brought stability to the Middle East, and prevented the debacle in Afghanistan. Iran was doomed to fail and the world helped Iran to fail. The Islamic Republic and thousands of years of Persian life will be vanquished and the world will suffer for the failure to protect Iran.
i think the Persian civilization will continue even if the state, as it is, fragments. the internal division is probably too deep at this point to salvage a coherent country out of it.
You are correct. The evil forces arrayed against Iran and its few small allies were/are massive. It fought a good fight.
An important point. Forgive me if someone else made it already. Iran is in this position because it chose morality. In other words, the nation made a statement of principle on a moral issue, and lived by it, and is now dying by it. True martyrdom.
I am referring to the fact that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon. The official Iranian statement is that nuclear weapons are inappropriate for humans to create and possess.
I'm generally inclined to dismiss official statements out of hand, as the gaslit rubbish they are 99.999% of the time. But in this case, the narrative rings true. Iran has had nuclear technology for generations. Obviously, if they wanted nuclear weapons, they would have them. Equally as obvious, when you have nuclear weapons, you are left alone, feared if not respected. And obviously, Iranian leadership has always known and understood all of this. None of what Iran has endured and will endure had to happen, except that Iran chose moral principle over materialistic pragmatism. Again, the way of the true martyr. The satanic world may scoff and mock them. I don't.
If tomorrow Cyrus' whip falls from the heavens onto the heads of the fake hebrews, in the form of a many megaton tipped hypersonic, and Tel Aviv gets glassy, then I take back the above comment.
I look forward to your insight into the Chinese angle. They, like the Russians, have an interest here. Free of the trappings of second-tier Abrahamic "morality", unlike Iran and Russia, I am interested in what their calculus will be.
I'll speculate on China's view as an educated guess in part 3 and in the context of Chinese social media comments. official position is always more opaque on sensitive issues like this.
Interesting. However, I believe your conclusion, "In a societal contest of grit and unity, Iran can hardly match Israel" dead wrong. On the contrary, I have the strong feeling that when the chips are down, as they are now, and the fate of the Iranian nation and national culture is at stake, most Iranians, including many justifiably dissatisfied with the government, and even some who would have liked to see it overturned, will find the necessary grit and unity to defend their nation. On the other hand, the vulgar and brutal character of many of today's Israelis, formed by the murderously psychotic nature of their state, together with dilution of the original national character by the influx of lumpen jews from the US, Russia and elsewhere over the past few decades, may result in the population at large being incapable of showing those qualities when the hypersonic shit hits the fan.
I certainly hope you are right. It's hard to bomb someone into loving you so the US is very likely to further alienate Iranians, even the many who are west leaning. Maybe the silver lining of this war is that Iran could finally become more cohesive and united against common enemies. Sometimes it takes a war to dispel final illusions, like most Russians have stopped hoping to belong to the west after Ukraine.
Iran's record of unity certainly has left a lot to be desired. Otherwise, Mossad, CIA and MI5 wouldn't have such an easy time inflitrating the country and execute those precision targetted killings, etc. Hence, my comment.
I wouldn't underestimate the collective viciousness and bond of the jews. israel's survival has been built on a total disregard of basic morality and ethnics and its population are members of a mafia-like partnership of crime. they know the reckoning would come swift if they don't bind together in the criminal enterprise they are undertaking. frankly, we know cockroaches are the hardest pests to destroy in nature. the jews share a similar grit.
Chapeau for taking the time to answer all these comments, including mine. Yes, and I hope you're right about me being right! What you add here is also true, I think. Careful with your analogies, though, however appropriate: people have been accused of anti-s for less, and even for nothing of the sort!
I could care less. I am anti criminal. I don't want my kids to live in a world where the most vicious crimes are not prosecuted and cannot even be mentioned. nothing should stop upright people to speak the name of Lord Voldemort. otherwise, where is the good life?
A challenging analysis. Time will tell if you are correct. Undoubtedly, the attacks on Iranian personnel indicate issues, but the stunning achievements in missilery despite brutal sanctions over decades, suggests an incredibly resilient core.
On balance, I think the Iranians will prevail.
Your assessment of Israeli resilience is overly generous. The ethno supremacist racist genocidal have never really faced the Mike Tyson test. ‘Everyone has a plan until they get smacked in the face’.
In my experience bullies always squeal and retreat before collapsing.
"The Axis of Resistance, led by Iran, had a rare window of opportunity to inflict severe damage to Israel in the middle of 2024".
At which time, determined and resolute action was called for to take advantage of Israel's weakness.
And at precisely which time (19th May 2024) President Ebrahim Raisi, who was known for those qualities, mysteriously died when his helicopter crashed for no apparent reason. To be replaced by the elderly and irresolute Masoud Pezeshkian.
Raisi's helicopter crashed near the border with Azerbaijan, where coincidently Israel is building “smart cities”!
General Suleimani's murder by the US also robbed Iran of a stirling leader at a crucial moment.
Thanks for this perspective, Hua Bin. One factor that may come into play is that many countries -- even countries that are favorable to Iran -- would prefer that Iran not have nuclear weapons. Think of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, probably several Euro countries, Russia, maybe even China. Iran is different from North Korea, because NK is not under the leadership of a group waiting for the 12th Imam to trigger Armageddon. What some of those countries may do (and not do) behind the scenes may be quite different from what they say publicly.
On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that Iran does not already have nuclear weapons. We have been hearing about Iran's nuclear program for decades -- yet the US built nuclear weapons from a standing start in about 3 years, at a time when no-one even knew for sure that the theory would work, much of the technology did not exist, and the US simultaneously had to fight WWII. Even South Africa under apartheid sanctions managed to build a nuclear weapon. Maybe Iran's nuclear program is like Colonel Ghaddafi's -- just a talking point for negotiations?
I agree. Russia and China never supported North Korea to get the bomb. Nuclear proliferation is not a good idea except the state under threat itself. Iran's motivation is understandable but its approach is indecisive and eventually made itself vulnerable.
i don't think Iran actually has a bomb. even the US intelligence verifies that and I don't see any reason for them to hide the fact if true. I think Iran used nuclear threshold strategy as a bargaining chip but its bluff was called.
Iran is a big country, so it could hide the real McCoy somewhere while showing empty hands where nukes are expected.
Remember, Iran has successfully used decoys so far, not only in the swarms of drones but also for its air defenses. Apparently, a lot what "israel" bombed on 13 June were in effect decoys – not all, I agree.
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, and I support nuclear proliferation. Gun control doesn't work, and this is just existing nuclear powers not wanting anyone to be able to challenge them.
The *sub-official discourse*, which of course does not remotely coincide with world public opinion, is that Israel, following October 7, had an effectively unlimited right to defend itself—minus the potential use of nuclear weapons. After the destruction of most of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the fall of the Assad regime, the question inevitably became: would Iran be next? And if so, would the U.S., especially under Trump, directly participate?
The only thing really holding Trump back at this point is U.S. public opinion. But aside from that, the pattern has clearly been one of Israeli escalation following October 7. I think it would be fascinating to delve into the manifold epistemic complexities—or, should one say, mysteries—of October 7 itself. In other words, the fly-on-the-wall historical verity of Hamas’ discussions leading up to that fateful day. Ditto, to be sure, for the Israeli side.
For example, what does the combined "general staff" of the West think most likely happened on the Israeli side vis-à-vis October 7? Otherwise put, if I had been an Israeli tank commander successfully retreating from the Gaza border following Hamas’ breakout, I would, I think, in short order begin to doubt my own superiors—ipso facto, given the conditions and context of that particular stage in the Netanyahu regime. And every day following that I would think: so this is the *soi-disant* brilliant Götterdämmerung which Israel devised in order to pass into history as another epochal stage in Western conquest and empire-building.
It was "inevitable" that the indigenous would attack, thereby allowing for their practical—but also morally *pro forma*—annihilation. After this period of conquest concludes, then Russia and China remain, after which the West will have achieved the much-vaunted "post-history"—interrupted by the Cold War, following which the West became more united, not less, under the maximalist dialectic of the summit of anti-fascism fascism.
To wit: Israel has a maximalist right to defend itself, and the worst wrong and aggression conceivable in the West—but perforce applicable to the entire world—is "antisemitism."
the jewish state is never encumbered by public opinion or morality. its domestic population is overwhelmingly aligned with its genocidal maniac policy and it has the backing of the "democratic" "value-based" west. Of course, it has long coopted the western ruling elites. you have to take the hat off to a parasite that has managed to totally take control of the host , make the host welcome it with full heart, and gag any antibody too. it has to be the most successful parasite the world has ever seen.
as for the Al Aqsa operation and Israel's real role in it, we'll need to wait for future historians to uncover the truth - if such historians are not first labelled and punished as "anti-semitic". Interestingly, within Israel, there were a lot of doubters about the government account of what happend that night, including Jonathan Pollard, the "biggest spy in US history" working for Mossad and a bona fide jewish hero. there are video clips on Youtube where you can watch him raising doubts about another false flag, hardly a surprise for anyone who knows about Israel's history.
Yes. The parasite is empowered and guided by a supernatural force. Hence its success.
There is a greater power that men could avail themselves of, than that of the parasite. But they choose to despise the Truth, and suffer accordingly.
amen to that
I wouldn't write off Iran just yet. If the US get directly involved they are going to take a lot more hits than with the Iraq war. Still I hope they stay out of direct involvement.
agree it is too early to say for sure. I doubt Iran would prevail if the US gets involved directly. I would not be surprised if it seeks truce and agrees to US demands to disarm in that scenario.
Looking forward to part 3. I agree that China will not get deeply involved with Iran. But nothing says they can't supply Iran with loans and supplies, allowing for a long war of attrition that will exhaust the USA. Russia can provide satellite data, more loans and military equipment.
As I wrote in my previous comment, Russia and China don't want Iran to fall under USA control, but letting Iran suffer without dying would be perfectly acceptable to Russia and China.
Also, a breakup of Iran is not necessarily a bad thing for Russia or China. Independent Kurdistan might join with Kurdish Iraq and then stir up a civil war in Kurdish areas of east Turkiye, which Russia would like because this weakens Turkiye. Independent South Azerbaijan would not be dangerous to Russia or remnants Iran. As long as remnant Iran controls an Indian Ocean port, which both Russia and China want, independent Baluchistan is no problem. In the process of breakup, possibly remnant Iran could clean up internal problems besides ethnic/religious/language divisions.
I also lean towards your point that Russia and China would have the same cold-eyed analysis as you laid out. Involving the US in another protracted middle eastern conflict is a win for both, though I doubt Iran can hold out for long if the US goes in directly. I highly doubt the US would want to put boots on the ground. Instead it could just disarm Iran and instigate a regime change. Russia and China don't have the ability to stop that, given they both lack power projection in the middle east and have higher geopolitical and military priorities.
> Instead it could just disarm Iran and instigate a regime change.
That's a long shot, does the U.S. have the wherewithal? I doubt it. The U.S. is working hard at turning itself into a toothless tiger, it even got run out of town, in this case the Red Sea, by the Houthis. Iran is no Yemen.
"Iran was clearly trying to leave some space to get back into the good grace of the US".
Now that really is a symptom of insanity. As Kissinger is said to have warned, while being an enemy of the USA can be painful, being its friend is fatal.
Why would Iran want to get back into the good graces of the killer anaconda?
my very point of its lack of acumen and good judgement.
Because the sanctions ARE hurting. What Iran should have done is "a Russia". By that I mean develop new relationships politically, commercially, technologically and in terms of supply lines. It has done that to some extent with Russia and China, but that is not enough, and in any case it is not smart to only rely on those 2.
Yes, I know, sitting in my armchair setting out the sanctions busting strategy for Iran is easy.
Russia and China not overtly jumping in to help Iran might have something to do with a strategem to bait Jewry to getting tied up ever-deeper in the Iranian quagmire while simultaneously providing covert assistance... just maybe. Since one of the hallmarks of Jewry is their psychopathic rage coupled with irrational vindictiveness which has assuredly led themselves to overreach.
As in, "never interrupt your opponent while he is in the middle of making a mistake" as per Sun Tzu's strategem.
I suspect there is some element of cold-eyed strategy to benefit from Israeli/US overreach and another potential forever war. That said, in reality Russia and China don't have the power projection in the middle east to intervene militarily even if they are so inclined. Also both have other geopolitical and economic priorities of their own.
China has also placed severe export restrictions on rare earth minerals and antimony to the west, stuff needed for weapons manufacturing. This gives China a very potent leverage that effectively equates to a moratorium on warfare. Let's see how this impacts the western MICs as they run critically low on rare earths.
Iran is part of BRICs+ and a major source of China's energy independence. The take down of Iran is the start of the domino of the take down of BRICs+ and China. Is China still living in the past like the Ming and Qing and waiting for new gunboats to sail up the Yangtze and Yellow rivers?
this is not true. domino effect is an overblown theory from Vietnam to Iraq, Libya and Syria. Did those "dominos" affect the world in the long run? If you think, if China doesn't intervene in Iran, western powers would somehow be able to overwhelm China, then you are sadly mistaken. In a face down between China and the US/west, Iran is inconsequential. If gunboats come to China now, you think they won't go to the bottom of the ocean just because Iran is taken off the board? think twice.
no offense but you are overly emotional about the subject. My objective is to have a rational discourse and take lessons from Iran's mistakes. I'll discuss why Iran's fate is not all that important in the grand scheme of things in my view.
The law of very large numbers say if the West are given unlimited attempts, they will be successful eventually. China must win the struggle for this law. Iran's survival gives China the edge in this struggle because it gives provide China 3 things: energy for China's economy, a distraction for the West, and new allies.
China will do what it can to help Iran, no doubt. As you laid out, Iran's defeat is not good news for China. I could be wrong here but I am less concerned about the military implications - the US will lose to China in a war in western pacific whether it defeats Iran or not. It's a contest of hard strengths and China has never counted on others to fight its war and is prepared to take on its enemies in whatever geopolitical situation. It is reckless to have your strategic freedom dictated by the performance of a political partner like Iran. finally, Iran has not been fully aligned and reliable with China and shouldn't expect China to bail it out. I'll get into that subject in my next essay.
You don't take into account the hydrocarbons Iran supplies China with. China's growth depends a lot on them I have read.
The way things are going, Iran will end up fragmented, Libya-style, which will be a victory for the US and Israel.
agree. it is likely to seek a truce and bend the knee, however righteous people hate the outcome.
For the moment the fragmenting is done by "israel" which cannot fight back in any meaningful way.
China's future depends on Iran's survival, because it'll show others China can provide protection from the West. If Iran falls, China will only be an amateur 'go' players.
If China has not been preparing for America's direct involvement in Iran then it'll never escape the century of shame. We'll see if Chinese ADAs are ready to keep America's airpower in check in Iran because Russia is too occupied with Ukraine. I foresee waves of Chinese planes entering Eastern Iran with military aid to prevent America's direct involvement.
I don't agree with the proposition China's future depends on the survival of a weak theological state with half its population wanting to be part of the west. Maybe you know something I don't. But Iran is hardly a pillar for the new world order. There is a typical western thinking about ganging up to win which China doesn't subscribe to. No offence, but you read too much into Zbig's chessboard theories. I'll share my thoughts on China's perspective.
It's not about Iran. It's about the West's ability to impose its will. It's about the proxies the West are lining up to engage China. It's about dividing the West's resources to focus on China. Iran plays a part in this. As the West pointed out, it's better the contest takes place away from one's border than on one's border. Once it happens on the border it's took late because it'll escalate to nuclear war.
China will deal with the west on its own. If you want to be a big boy, you need to fight like a big boy. weak states like Iran is a liability, not an asset in a final showdown. you don't think Chinese and Russian strategists have thought through this already? as for where to fight, if China goes to the Middle East in Iran's assistance, it's an overreach as China doesn't have the power projection ability realistically. If the west comes to China to fight, then the overreach is on their side. I assure you China will take care of business around its shores, with or without Iran surviving the current crisis.
Fighting on China's borders will result in damages to China and the risk of going nuclear is greater than in Iran. If a Chinese city is attack, China will need to retaliate on mainland US. The back and forth will likely escalate to a nuclear war. A contest in Iran will not reach that level, and it'll deter other proxies like Isreal from joining the West. Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, and New Zealand are just waiting time bombs. India is waiting for an opportunity to take a bite also.
The law of very large numbers points to Iran as the better theater for China than in Asia. Logistically, China can out supply the West in the Middle East since the countries between Iran and China are friendly. The rail network gives China the edge. It plays to China's economic might.
A contest around China's border will damage China's economy since the main economic centers are on the coast. These centers will be targeted by the West's proxies just like Ukraine did in Russia. China can't retaliate against the US if they didn't pull the trigger. The law of very large numbers goes to the West in this scenario. It's like the British against the Qing. They can keep on attacking China without consequences.
You may be correct; lots of ethnic groups who might seize the opportunity to gain their own salvation.
Valid points, even though "after the fact" analysis is always 20/20. Following your logic, should not China and Russia actively assist Iran? China knows that an Iranian "defeat", i.e. the Syria or Lybia scenario would be catastrophic to China's interests.
I don't share your view on the impact for China. I'll explain why in the part 3.
no 20/20 hindsight - the fact I didn't write about the matter earlier doesn't mean I didn't feel this way from the start.
The success of the G7 is security guarantee. If BRICs+ doesn't offer this, it will fail because countries seek ultimately protection. Economic ties alone will not be enough to ensure China's sovereignty. A country will ally with countries that offers economic and security protection. Without allies China will be worn down and torn apart.
Technology has reach a stage where manpower is not the deciding factor of a war. As we see in Ukraine, Russia's industries are the main factor for it's success. Manpower can be replaced with proxies as the West employed. There are 6+ billions proxies for the West if China fails to draw them into it's orbit. The destruction of Iran will force countries around the world to hesitate in aligning with China. The survival of Iran is the tipping point for BRICs+.
BRICS is not and cannot be a security bloc, period. Can you see China and Pakistan in a collective security bloc with India, which has always been a fence sitter and more and more pro-west and pro-Israel. Can you see Brazil, South Africa, UAE or Indonesia wanting to be on the opposite side of the US and the west in an opposing military camp. while China and Russia don't want to see Iran's fall, it's a pitfall to overblow Iran's strategic value. neither country will conflate despise for Israel/US with commitment to save Iran.
BRICs+ is the opening to a security block. Without a security block to build on, BRICs+ will be destroyed militarily with divide and conquer. We see in Saudi Arabia's refusal to complete it's membership. We see in Argentina's withdrawal of it's application. The destruction of Iran may see countries withdrawing from BRICs+, and the containment of China's future.
Nothing excuses the fact that like Ukraine the USA has provoked, aided and abetted this war. Trump is the most dangerous man on earth as the infant adult he is, putty in the hands of his controllers. The most pertinent issue now is where is the countervail leadership to stop Trump in his tracks. China and Russia are both going to have to play a heavy hand to insure Iran wins this war. Trump and his thugs are desperate and we can be sure the nuclear option is on the table. A decisive victory for Iran may finally convince Washington its empire is dead in the water.
I see Trump as a distraction, like all US Presidents. For those actually calling the shots, he is a public relations disaster due to his limited intelligence and proclivity to text/speak without thinking. That's why the deep state bureaucracy dislikes him. However, the simp has zero agency. JFK may have been the last US President trying to assert himself against the three-letter-spook bureaucracy.
...and they took him out for that. the empire took a truly dark turn after that and has never recovered.
“Presidents are selected, not elected”. — FDR
Selected for: Pliability, gullibility, salesmanship, poise, ego, greed, lack of scruples, ethics or morals and, if possible, vulnerability for blackmail. Trump lacks some of these but he was grudgingly accepted for the "job".
no doubt Trump is treacherous and not to be trusted - this should be the most obvious thing under the sun.
however, I don't think China or Russia will pick this fight as the final show-down with the US. What is really important is for them to win the final battle in best possible position (ie. near their own borders). what's happening in Iran is transcient. even if Iran's regime is toppled, does that mean the US and Israel will be occupying the country? will there be a puppet government? I wouldn't bet on that - look at Iraq, Libya, Syria. Just another forever war bleeding US resources. this would be a victory for the jews, but not for the US. China only needs to ensure it wins the final battle with the US and this is hardly it.
Have you factored in the Shia's propensity to suffer and dig in for a long war?
i doubt the jews or the US would put boots on the ground. their goal is to bomb Iran into a rump state and fragment it. with the internal frictions in the country, I don't like the odds they would have the grit for a long war. fighting what and how?
A portion of the population, devoted and committed Shia, yes.
But unfortunately Iranian society is not a monolith. Decades of subversion and influence operations have taken their toll. It is a divided society. What percentage remain devoted and committed Shia?
We're about to find out.
Hasn't the Islamic Republic always been in a lose-lose situation? Externally, It had no well armed friends that could fight side by side and the most well armed and dedicated enemies. Internally, it has a divided population and a rebellious population of Kurds and Sunnis who probably provided the assistance to Mossad. Iran had a foreign policy that respected the sovereignty of other nations and could have served to limit Israel's expansion, brought stability to the Middle East, and prevented the debacle in Afghanistan. Iran was doomed to fail and the world helped Iran to fail. The Islamic Republic and thousands of years of Persian life will be vanquished and the world will suffer for the failure to protect Iran.
i think the Persian civilization will continue even if the state, as it is, fragments. the internal division is probably too deep at this point to salvage a coherent country out of it.
You are correct. The evil forces arrayed against Iran and its few small allies were/are massive. It fought a good fight.
An important point. Forgive me if someone else made it already. Iran is in this position because it chose morality. In other words, the nation made a statement of principle on a moral issue, and lived by it, and is now dying by it. True martyrdom.
I am referring to the fact that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon. The official Iranian statement is that nuclear weapons are inappropriate for humans to create and possess.
I'm generally inclined to dismiss official statements out of hand, as the gaslit rubbish they are 99.999% of the time. But in this case, the narrative rings true. Iran has had nuclear technology for generations. Obviously, if they wanted nuclear weapons, they would have them. Equally as obvious, when you have nuclear weapons, you are left alone, feared if not respected. And obviously, Iranian leadership has always known and understood all of this. None of what Iran has endured and will endure had to happen, except that Iran chose moral principle over materialistic pragmatism. Again, the way of the true martyr. The satanic world may scoff and mock them. I don't.
Just to cover the 0.001%
If tomorrow Cyrus' whip falls from the heavens onto the heads of the fake hebrews, in the form of a many megaton tipped hypersonic, and Tel Aviv gets glassy, then I take back the above comment.
I look forward to your insight into the Chinese angle. They, like the Russians, have an interest here. Free of the trappings of second-tier Abrahamic "morality", unlike Iran and Russia, I am interested in what their calculus will be.
I'll speculate on China's view as an educated guess in part 3 and in the context of Chinese social media comments. official position is always more opaque on sensitive issues like this.
Interesting. However, I believe your conclusion, "In a societal contest of grit and unity, Iran can hardly match Israel" dead wrong. On the contrary, I have the strong feeling that when the chips are down, as they are now, and the fate of the Iranian nation and national culture is at stake, most Iranians, including many justifiably dissatisfied with the government, and even some who would have liked to see it overturned, will find the necessary grit and unity to defend their nation. On the other hand, the vulgar and brutal character of many of today's Israelis, formed by the murderously psychotic nature of their state, together with dilution of the original national character by the influx of lumpen jews from the US, Russia and elsewhere over the past few decades, may result in the population at large being incapable of showing those qualities when the hypersonic shit hits the fan.
I certainly hope you are right. It's hard to bomb someone into loving you so the US is very likely to further alienate Iranians, even the many who are west leaning. Maybe the silver lining of this war is that Iran could finally become more cohesive and united against common enemies. Sometimes it takes a war to dispel final illusions, like most Russians have stopped hoping to belong to the west after Ukraine.
Iran's record of unity certainly has left a lot to be desired. Otherwise, Mossad, CIA and MI5 wouldn't have such an easy time inflitrating the country and execute those precision targetted killings, etc. Hence, my comment.
I wouldn't underestimate the collective viciousness and bond of the jews. israel's survival has been built on a total disregard of basic morality and ethnics and its population are members of a mafia-like partnership of crime. they know the reckoning would come swift if they don't bind together in the criminal enterprise they are undertaking. frankly, we know cockroaches are the hardest pests to destroy in nature. the jews share a similar grit.
Chapeau for taking the time to answer all these comments, including mine. Yes, and I hope you're right about me being right! What you add here is also true, I think. Careful with your analogies, though, however appropriate: people have been accused of anti-s for less, and even for nothing of the sort!
no offence to cockroaches
I could care less. I am anti criminal. I don't want my kids to live in a world where the most vicious crimes are not prosecuted and cannot even be mentioned. nothing should stop upright people to speak the name of Lord Voldemort. otherwise, where is the good life?
A challenging analysis. Time will tell if you are correct. Undoubtedly, the attacks on Iranian personnel indicate issues, but the stunning achievements in missilery despite brutal sanctions over decades, suggests an incredibly resilient core.
On balance, I think the Iranians will prevail.
Your assessment of Israeli resilience is overly generous. The ethno supremacist racist genocidal have never really faced the Mike Tyson test. ‘Everyone has a plan until they get smacked in the face’.
In my experience bullies always squeal and retreat before collapsing.