Iran, the Red Sea, and the West (tm).

[REDY]

Perhaps. We all know that Ukraine's western "friends" leaned heavily on them to instead fight it out, the chief negotiation from Ukraine who signed the draft treaty...

Does it exist? If it would exist it would be shared by russian trolls. I know that the Putin troll was waving some document but there were no signs.
This also shows why are any negotiations with Russians difficult.
If they failed in all previous agreements and they propose by force to get some new ones and lie about them, how trustworthy are they?

 

[Lexicus]

And wether or not it's actually bluff Iran will call it because the threat of being bombed by the US doesn't add much on top of what the israelis already did.

I don't think this is quite true; the US could probably mount a much wider campaign of destruction of Iran's vital infrastructure, de-developing the country much more thoroughly than Israel alone is capable of.

Whether the US will actually do this though is anyone's guess.

 

[r16]

the Ukranian envoy person , with extensive links to anyone in Ukraine , including the Mafia and stuff , got an agreement from the Russians that things would not be allowed to escalate and then was killed by the Ukranians as a traitor and quickly exonarated with a statement that it was an error . With this , a witness who was there all along was removed and he would never be able to tweet that the Ukranian underground had all agreed to a time limited Russian takeover to return Ukraine to pre-Maidan conditions . In adfition to everyone with political power ... That is only how the Russians were planning to reach Kiev in 14 hours or there abouts . There was no Russian plan or whatever to capture the city in 72 hours in combat , this would be a disaster for ever successful foreign policy of Kremlin at the time . Everything exists , despite the Western trolls refusing everything . When THAT battle ends , we will see what's true and what's not .

 

[caketastydelish]

Israel struck Iran first, preemptively. Because they started it, they should fight this war without U.S. support.

 

[innonimatu]

Does it exist? If it would exist it would be shared by russian trolls. I know that the Putin troll was waving some document but there were no signs.
This also shows why are any negotiations with Russians difficult.
If they failed in all previous agreements and they propose by force to get some new ones and lie about them, how trustworthy are they?

Thge two heads of state acting as mediators in the instambul newgotiations confimed it. What was never excpalied was why Ukraine's government pulled out after that. What is known was that Boris flew to Kiev imnmediately and then the treaty was scuttled.

I don't think this is quite true; the US could probably mount a much wider campaign of destruction of Iran's vital infrastructure, de-developing the country much more thoroughly than Israel alone is capable of.

Whether the US will actually do this though is anyone's guess.

Is Trump pulling another Yemen, announce virctory and flee, and manage to avoid a war? Os is he actually comming whatever the US can put together for a last big war? IF the last, it can cause great damage., Will still lose because that cannot achieve the "regime change" and the US will never be able to maintain any position in the Middle East with a war going on. All those basesd and the influence that went with having them, gone. It'll put iself in the position Israel put itself, to winning exit strategy for the war.
I do doubt that Trump can get away with pulling another Yemen. But there's precedent...

 

[ConquestsMaster]

Put up or shut up. Link?

Here are some of your posts a few hours before the invasion, saying that you didn't think it would occur and that it was just a propaganda project by the West:

Feb 21, 2022

But this "strategy" requires Russia to oblige in doing the promised invasion. Else the US government and its local lackeys get no better reputation that the Jehovah's witnesses promising the end of the world just about now. This requires the russians to do a war, and the ukranians to oblige also by forcing them do do one they know is a trap, knowing Ukraine will suffer in consequence. The plan makes no sense. That's Washington&London today - ran by idiots who believe their own crap, that propaganda can make reality bend to their needs and everyone will fall for it.
I venture, from the successive delays in the promised war, that neither the russians nor the ukranians are willing to play their allotted roles. Nor the french and not several other governments of the supposed fearful vassals of Central Europe. Now there's russian troops in the regions that were supposed to be attacked to start a war, the ukranians can bow out of the commitment and the US will move to try to squeeze the europeans for the most it can for the "protection". The war was cancelled.

Feb 21, 2022

I do think that the war project has been cancelled with the resent move by Russia. Which they didn't really want (had been avoiding for years, instead pushing for changes within Ukraine and keeping the more russophile population there) and must have done only because otherwise the two regions would have been attacked initiating a wider war.

Feb 21, 2022

Isn't it obvious? They really believed Ukraine was going to restart the war in the two territories, and that russian public opinion would not allow its government to just sit out. They're trying to so visibly raise the stakes as to preempt that. That is the scare part. The people in Kiev were really willing to go forward. But the OSCE reports already noted the preparations and increases in shellings. Yes it's credible, I don't think that the russians got fooled. If they did it was very well played on the US side.

Feb 22, 2022:

Gorbles said:
You don't need to put it in quotes, it's literally happened.

Congratulation on lapping um Boris' propaganda so eagerly.
But there is no war going on. This whole effort has been mostly a failure. The desired war to make Russia lose Ukraine permanently has still not been caused.

Feb 23, 2022

So far they've not been as bloody as the US, but a war over Ukraine could be nasty enough to be another Iraq. I do hope the russians don't what that on their borders - chaos does not benefit the runners-up in the global disputes - those have to built up their power and wrecking is a waste.

And just for context, additional posts by you on the day of the invasion itself and the days preceding it. To your credit you did admit being terribly wrong when the invasion occurred, so I'm not sure why you're denying it now.

Nov 30, 2021

My bet is that this will turn into a nothingburger and Germany will be buying russian gas from nordstream 2 in January. But never discount the power of idiocy.

Jan 26, 2022

The anglo-saxon way of media/public opinion management has been rather shameless ever since the cold war ended. For recent examples, recall the puppet their tried to install in Venezuela, that no venezuelans bothered supporting? Recall all the news stories planted about how he was the "legitimate president", the governments pretending to recognize this guy who had no power as the government of that country? This is diplomacy by propaganda.
News stories of Russia being about to attack Ukraine because... they don't even justify the claim, as you noticed, are propaganda, just like that about the venezuelan puppet. Exactly the same reach, posted on the same news media by the same journalists (in the US you can know which agency is planting a piece in the WP by the journalist publishing it), copied and recopied by other in the same predictable way... And never stories that actually make sense and explain rationally what is happening. In this about Ukraine, it's "bad Putin wants to conquer Ukraine". Really? It could have been done in 2014 if he wanted that.

I think the ukranians are being goaded into reigniting the war in the east to force a russian intervention. I bet that the plan among the amoral FP people encouraging a restart of the war it is to try to provoke that russian invasion and so create enduring hatred between ukranians and russians ("you attacked our people"). It's the only way all this propaganda makes sense.

The russians must know this,. They have no pressing reason to invade unless the war restarts and the rebels who are unofficially under russian protection in the east need help. They can just wait out the collapse of the government in Kiev as life is getting worse in the country, secure in the guess that cultural ties would make the next regime will be russian-friendly again simply through internal political dynamics and some influence and bribing, as things go there. It would take a serious war to many casualties to sour those cultural ties. So Russia has a strategic reason to not want such a war. And those wishing a cold war with a weakened Russia have a strategic reason to wish that war. And they think they have a means to force Russia: arrange a war with (published!) massacres/ethnic cleansing in the east that makes public opinion in Russia angry and presses the government to intervene.

Outside that scenario the only way it could make sense for Russia to intervene was through a coup directly in Kiev, If they can pull that off. With a minimum of fighting and casualties. Any big invasion or just even bombing the ukranian army to pieces from across the border would be counterproductive for the goal of having Ukraine in the russian sphere of influence, as it would leave a legacy of hatreds and desire for revenge. Of course the russians could consider going for the strategy of wrecking, but as the neighboring country they really shouldn't want that - it would spill over. They want influence, not instability at the border.

Jan 26, 2022

Everyone seems to agree that the idea is for Russia to invade Ukraine. And that the ukranians will be hung to dry. But why would the russians oblige to step into an obvious trap? And why would the ukranians oblige in playing the role of crushed victims?

It can't go that way because it's too obvious that it's a bad idea - for both!

This would require a bunch of idiots (the neonazis ?) doing something in ukraine to provoke the russians, without being able to see that they would likely end up dead. And it would require a bunch of idiots in the russian government ordering a full scale invasion instead of just a very localized response. Its absurd! I can see the plans on a high level, but I can't see how the actors would be willing to play the roles. So I wonder between thinking this is just talk and no war is going to happen, and thinking that someone may (think it) has found the idiots to start it and so is setting the stage in the media.

Jan 27, 2022

Based on this, I think that the russian government has played long ago the scenarios for Ukraine, and decided on a course. An actual bloody war between Russia and Ukraine risks destructing the deep ties that have existed between those populations. Russia cannot annex Ukraine militarily because most of the population would revolt against that, so what could possibly be the gain from an invasion? Only replacing the government with a friendly one. But a friendly government must still be capable of governing the country. And if Russia were to just invade and replace Ukraine's government, that government would have no public legitimacy. It would fall the moment troops withdrew. And they can't stay, Ukraine is too big and Putin cannot suppress opposition like Stalin did in annexed Poland. This is why in 2014 when an actual war was going on inside Ukraine and what passed for military there was broken, there was no march on Kiev to replace the government. The outcome of that scenario was deemed undesired then, should remain undesired now.

When I try to look at this rationally, the only possible invasion scenario that might make sense would be after war in eastern Ukraine causes outrage. Because only then would much of the ukranian population be outraged at its own government for reigniting the civil war and due to the attendant casualties. Russia really can't intervene before, it would be totally counter-productive to the goal of regaining influence over Ukraine. It would instead be lost, with all Ukranians except those already in secession.

And even if this bad scenario of war deadly enough to cause outrage and justify an invasion happened, a new government installed violently by Russia cannot hope to control the western regions. This scenario ends in a partition of Ukraine between pro- and anti-russian population. Why would Russia seek this outcome, instead of seeking to regain influence over the whole of Ukraine? Imo Putin has always governed playing the long game, precisely because he indeed seems to want to restore a glory of Russia as it was. Ukraine is poor and not getting better, its government have all been terrible. It's a matter of time for the government to collapse. It's a matter of just waiting, in the long game, it will drift back towards Russia because of 9 centuries of shared culture. Unless violence now cause enough hatred to override that. What we saw so far is coherent with Putin trying to deter a reignition of the civil war, to avoid having o intervene.

Feb 24, 2022

No, it seems to me very risky in possibly leading to protracted war and high casualties. But I wonder what he may know that let to this uncharacteristically rash action.

I had actually been considering the hypothesis of the russian side doing a regime change by going straight for Kiev. It was the logical thing to do if a war indeed happened. But thought actual war an unlikely scenario, so that would not happen.

Feb 24, 2022

I've been wrong before, didn't think it would come to war.

So I may be wrong again. But will say I don't think it'll be safer to move than to stay put. If this war has some rationality to it the objective will be to install a different government, not to destroy stuff or cause casualties that lead to permanent bad blood. Cities souldn't come under attack but highways and other transport links may be targets.

Feb 24, 2022

I'm still surprised that the russians took what was so plainly bait to get them bogged down in a war.

And just for fun, another prediction regarding the battle of Kyiv:

Feb 25, 2022

I say it will end with a (localized) bloodbath saturday night or sunday followed by total collapse of any resistance, if the ukranian government persists in this strategy of mobilizing lightly armed civilians.

Likewise. I explicitly said the opposite: that Ukraine, and its backers, had to negotiate a peace settlement right in the first month of war, because it was only going to get worse as time went by. And I was alone here saying that.
Russia had the annexation of the two oblasts that declared independence done properly, there was no way they were going back unless Ukraine capitulated to all demands there and then and some further referendum reversed things with a Russia happy having a russia-aligned Ukraine. Perhaps that might have been possible then in the first month. Perhaps. We all know that Ukraine's western "friends" leaned heavily on them to instead fight it out, the chief negotiation from Ukraine who signed the draft treaty was murdered as soon as he got back to Kiev (by whom?), and the rest is history.

Here a few of your posts speculating that Russia wouldn't annex territories:

Jan 27, 2022

The other possibility, of invading just for taking a chunk out of eastern Ukraine, not just Crimea, is damaging for russian interests. A small territory gained, a large territory turned enemy. Crimea may pass because it was only administratively moved to Ukraine in the 50s, but more bites out of Ukraine will cause popular hostility in rump Ukraine - they're stealing our territory! - and sway the balance of political opinion inside rump Ukraine against Russia as he russophiles leave the country. The fact that some territories de facto seceded and sought to join Russia but were refused shows this is not the goal. No invasion was necessary if it were, just accept them in and move the border posts. No, what the russian government wants is to regain influence over the whole of Ukraine. Hence the Minsk Process. Putin wants want all of Ukraine, returning to the fold willingly. Not necessarily as part of Russia but as a close ally. He already refused just a piece of it, damaged by war.

Feb 23, 2022

Those were the daydreams of those who spent the past year increasing the tension there. But the russians would have to be insane to actually attempt to occupy Ukraine. We're not one only ones who can see it would be ruinous - they can see the trap also. They are either targeting some very specific adversaries there, military command aligned with the government, just to reduce the military threat they perceived. Or doing some kind of coup - "regime change". I'm willing to bet it's it's not an attempt to annex some (more) portion of Ukraine. And I suspect it's regime change because they're not giving up on retaining their old influence over Ukraine but had no way to keep it with things as they were.

Feb 25, 2022

I think that the only thing compatible with these moves is a plan to have it break apart, retaining the biggest portion as friendly - not annexing it. To avoid an occupation, quickly put to a vote whether each province wants to remain on leave. Which has the added bonus of possibly causing trouble within the EU and NATO over the fate of the western provinces. But the downside of such a systematic voting process is that naturally Kiev would remain in rump Ukraine, and become hostile over the loss of most of its hinterland! And Kiev is the biggest city sitting on the biggest river. So this too fails to render the region friendly for Russia.

The only really good outcome for Russia now would be a mirror of 2014: new regime installed, the west of the country breaks away this time. And, unlike 2014, the government in Kiev says good riddance and the balance of political influence within this smaller Ukraine shifts to Russia. Then the breakaway west officially forms a new country recognized by everyone but risks becoming sort of a Bosnia there, between hungarians, poles and ukranians. The EU's problem. The flaw is that this depends on those regions breaking away - requires mistreatment, in another mirror of 2014, which will do nothing good for the reputation of Russia in the context. But perhaps reputation ceased being a concern because whatever it did the reaction was the same?

Feb 25, 2022

My impression is that Russia wanted to grab Crimea back, but only Crimea which had strategic value. And irredentism as usual.. The rest of the russophile population was more convenient within Ukraine, to vote for the pro-russian parties.
I have no idea how feasible it would be to puppet or annex Ukraine, but going from electoral maps of the 2010s it was roughly split in half overall. Not enough to avoid major trouble. Meaning that the plan is probably either neutrality or division.
And splitting Ukraine would indeed be a nightmare, so avoiding that should be the top diplomatic priority now for other countries that want to solve this mess.

i mean, if Russia revises its borders on historical or cultural allegations, why can't Poland or Romania revise theirs? And if Poland revises its southestern border, why can't it hope to revise its eastern one? And then why can't Germany revise theirs in Silesia? We don't need that crap!

North Koreans were indeed fighting within Russia, which I did not expect, considering all the serial inventions from Kiev (the latest one being that they recieved ukranian bodies in the latest repatriation swaps with russian passports!). I could have suspected that one might have some truth to it because Russia never denied it. They were not fighting within any terroritory formerly of Ukraine. Nor did they materailly influence the course of the war in any way. All reports displayed it as a favour to North Koreal , let them gain some experience fighting their avowed enemies.
Ultimately absolutely nothing came out of that story and the koreans are apparently done learning how to defeat NATO. Not that they had much to learn imo. The histerics from Kiev over it were just fodder for war entertainment.

Your posts would be an incredible teaching tool for students of psychology. First, you use denial as a coping mechanism. Then, when it's clearly not possible anymore, you shift to rationalization:
"Okay, it did happen, BUT it wasn't that bad, and it didn't change anything, and it was good for the North Koreans!" (except for the dead soldiers, which you conveniently ignore in most of your ramblings)

You know you can just admit that you got played like a fiddle. Putin the dove fooled you, again.

Of course the North Koreans affected the war, thousands of soldiers involved in combat along the most active section of front line. By the way, North Koreans are not done, here is a Russian state news agency claiming that thousands of North Koreans combat engineers and military builders are going to be sent to Kursk. Russia military bloggers are already speculating that the North Korean soldiers might be used in Ukraine (Sumy).

Another invention. The US never simply withdraws, has to be pushed out or ground down. Or, I think we're about to see, be barkrupt much as the British Empire was. By the US back then, btw.

Here is you claiming that the US would withdraw from Syria:

Jan 25, 2024

We are fortunate that those countries demolishing the temporary US hegemony are led by very rational and careful people, who are not out for any big war but instead inflict a slow drain on the empire. We're not looking at WW3 here.

Next will be widrawal from Syria, where the US was protecting ISIS as part of its streategy of chaos in the Middle East. And widrawal from Iraq. It's like seeing the collapse of the British Empire all over. It wasn't WW2 that colapsed it outright. It was overextension combined with economic and political incapacity afterwards. In the US' case it didn't take a big war. The US is no longer the no. 1 economy or industrial producer, due to its own choice to de-industrialize and instead finantialize its economy. I noticed some news about how Boeing distributed 121% of its profits to shareholders ove the past 10 years... They're borrowing to pay the financial looters, and not investing. That alone sets the US up to lose hegemony. The only unknown was how quick change would happen. Incompetence at all levels and a habit of getting into needless wars of choice made it happen fast.

And for context, here is a post by you claiming that Russia/Assad had basically won the civil war. And a few posts implying that the US inability to change the regime in Syria was a proof of its waning power.

May 6, 2022

They basically won the war over two years with that strategy in Syria, cleaning numerous pockets of resistance in entrenched urban areas with very limited casualties.

Feb 3, 2024

Are you however under the delusion that the US could even invade Iran? It can't. And therefore it cannot destroy is current government, or military. The US tried bombing only in several countries, notably North Vietnam, and failed. The US tried partial invasions in Iraq (1992) and Syria (ongoing) , and failed to dislodge their goverments.

Now, the iranians are not stupid. They know all this but they also know that time alone will see the US out of the Middle East.

Feb 26, 2024

So it very much hastens change now that the US basicaly disarmed itself and can no longer scare the governments (as in: the people in government) of other countries as effectively as it used to. They don't even have enough missiles to equip their whole navy, nor enough sailors to man the existing ships. The "obey or we'll kill you" threat, demonstrated repeatedly during the 1999-2012 period, lost its teeth. First Syria where Assad did not go, now the wars in both Ukraine and Yemen, are very consequential. The "rules based order" ends in 2024.

In the end, we all know what happened. The regime was changed in Syria. Even if it was not by the pet proxies of the US, it was still a win for American interests in the region. The new Syrian government is trying to curry favor with the West and is anti-Iran. Iran's Axis of Resistance lost one of its main members. The Israeli expanded their occupation of Syrian territory, and they can used its airspace at will.

I mean, sure the US will withdraw from Syria. But that's a meaningless prediction by itself, as every empire will fall at some point. The US is actually planning a withdrawal in the near future. But for the US, the intervention was a success. With minimal boots on the ground and relatively few resources (compared to the Iraq War, for example), it has achieved most of its goals.

And I'm not saying that the US won't try to attack Iran directly in this war. What I'm saying its that if it does, it takes the option of swift collapse instead of the slower one.

If you really want a prediction that you can actually quote for the future, I can give you one: my best guess is that the US will officially keep out of this war because a relevant majority there among the military and the oligarchy don't want the US's "imperial advantages", the remaining ones, collapsing sooner rather than later. They must be very worried about the dollar and about keeping some appearence of control in the Middle East. Being defeated by Iran shatters both this year. If they are rational they won't risk it. If those are the faction that are in control now it's all bluff. And wether or not it's actually bluff Iran will call it because the threat of being bombed by the US doesn't add much on top of what the israelis already did. They have to end the perennial israeli threat by forcing them to face defeat and blowing back on them the instability they sought to cause all around. It's the only rational strategy for Iran: Israel must be seen by everyone as losing this war.

That actually seems like a somewhat plausible prediction. I doubt that Iran has the means to impose a total defeat on Israel and the US, but it can maybe draw them in an unwinnable war and claim victory for having survived.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Trump went ahead and greenlit strikes on three Iranian facilities.

There is no way to measure the damage, but if substantial, I would bet that that's that.

Iran cannot retaliate, not in any way that really threatens US interests, the Israelis and quietly, most of the Sunni Gulf states(whom we are also appeasing here, without much fanfare) are presumably quite pleased. Provided it actually set back their program, ofc.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Trump went ahead and greenlit strikes on three Iranian facilities.

There is no way to measure the damage, but if substantial, I would bet that that's that.

Iran cannot retaliate, not in any way that really threatens US interests, the Israelis and quietly, most of the Sunni Gulf states(whom we are also appeasing here, without much fanfare) are presumably quite pleased. Provided it actually set back their program, ofc.

Trump is going to be addressing the nation in 30 minutes. So much for his two-week window. The old Iran hawk McCain would be happy.

As for retalation, we'll have to wait and see. I've wondered if Iran has been holding back on its missile reply to Israel so it has units to reply to DC advances, but the fact that the alleged "surprise" promised by the mullahs a few nights before has not manifested makes me doubt it.

 

[ConquestsMaster]

Good post and our overall view is very similar

A few minor disagreements

A: it may actually be possible for Israel's strategy of assassination to lead to a friendlier regime, though this is not, admittedly, the most likely outcome.

Getting the Ayatollah could promote a power struggle despite these recent clarifications. Especially if they get a second and a third.

There is, of course, no guarantee the new regime would be friendlier. There are plenty of reasons to believe it wouldn't be.

I agree with you. Regime change is possible, but it seems unlikely to me. There is actually a significant portion of the population of Iran that is pro-Western. And there are plenty of Iranians that are opposed to their own regime, especially among the educated urban population. A few polls have shown this, and also showed that many Iranians didn't agree with their country's foreign policy, including its alignment with the Russia/China bloc. Although I doubt that the methodology and results of the polls were serious. I saw Iranians expressing these sentiments firsthand, but obviously that's just anecdotal evidence from Iranians abroad who are not representative of the whole country.

There are also some Iranians that are rabidly anti-Western, but I think their importance is has been greatly exaggerated by US propaganda. Still, it's hard to see how the US could change the regime without a full ground invasion, which would be extremely costly or unfeasible. It seems like participating in the bombing of Iran would just increase anti-Americanism and rally more people around the regime. It would also give a convenient excuse for the regime to adopt harsher measures to crack down on dissidents that it could label as traitors. And I don't think there are any opposition movements in the country that are sufficiently organized, popular and powerful to topple the regime. Maybe you could expect a palace coup, but I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Iranian leadership to estimate the probability of this.

Regarding the foreign policy of a hypothetical new regime, well that's even more speculation. Currently Iran projects its influence through proxies that are anti-West/US/Israel for both ideological and pragmatical reasons. A new leadership might start wondering what it gains from those proxies. It's certainly a question that many regular Iranians asks: what does the average citizen gain from investing money to send weapons to the Houthis, Hezbollah or Hamas? Shouldn't that money be invested in Iran itself? It's a similar question many Americans have started asking after their disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously, the leadership of a country rarely directly represents the interests of its people. But Iran as a state is in a rather advantageous positions: it's large, populous and defensible. Its borders are not credibly threatened by any neighbors. The only outside danger is foreign influence contributing to regime change, but a new government might assess this threat differently, and if it does so, it might be open to a rapprochement with the West. Maybe that's a goal of Israeli bombings and American threats, to force Iran to abandon its proxies and reorient its foreign policy, by showing them that the cost of supporting the proxies and getting bombed is simply not worth it. But expecting to turn a country friendly by bombing it seems awfully stupid.

B: I don't love bringing empire into this. I don't really love the Marxist view of history in which all state behavior can be reduced to economic gain. These are various social movements squaring off: Islamic fundamentalists, Zionists, with a wildcard of American machismo, itself its own sorta cultoid phenomenon, thrown in for good measure.

I dunno if the Iranian leadership intended to gain materially from their proxy empire. I kinda doubt it. That was a side benefit next to the real mission of it, the supremacy, culturally, of what they believe to be righteous.

I don't want to be reductionist. Ideology surely plays a role in conflicts and geopolitics. Mainly to create popular support for governments and their actions. But leaders themselves have also varying levels of ideolgical convictions. That being said, ideology doesn't seem to be the main factor driving foreign policy in the Middle East. Iran is a Shia theocratic republic, but its allies are ideologically disparate, such as the Sunni Islamist Hamas and the (previously) Arab nationalist and secular Syria. Israel (and even the US to a small extent) helped the Iranian ayatollahs in their war against Iraq when it was convenient. The US has supported all kinds of goverments and rebels throughout its history, including social democrats, communists, sunni islamists, absolute monarchies, right-wing military juntas, etc. The Iranian government seems rather pragmatical in many of its decisions, at least as much as any other nations, but there are intense propaganda efforts in the West to depict it as an "insane death cult" to prepare us for a war with them, which it seems is happening now...

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

What the US and its lapdog Israel (or vice versa?)

I get confused, too. Depending on who you ask, Israel is both a colony of the US yet has its puppeteer's strings all over it...

 

[Zardnaar]

I get confused, too. Depending on who you ask, Israel is both a colony of the US yet has its puppeteer's strings all over it...

It's whatever is convenient at the time. Or whose propaganda ones been consuming.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Trump went ahead and greenlit strikes on three Iranian facilities.

There is no way to measure the damage, but if substantial, I would bet that that's that.

Iran cannot retaliate, not in any way that really threatens US interests, the Israelis and quietly, most of the Sunni Gulf states(whom we are also appeasing here, without much fanfare) are presumably quite pleased. Provided it actually set back their program, ofc.

Trump bombed Iran, ya.

Not a huge surprise with six $2 billion stealth bombers on the move Friday night. (We have about 20 of the $2 billion stealth bombers, so 1/3rd of them)
Maybe some other ones from Diego Garcia or elsewhere performed the attack?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/21/politics/iran-b-2-bombers-trump

Multiple US B-2 bombers appear to have taken off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri on Friday night and are heading west, according to flight tracking data CNN has reviewed, as President Donald Trump weighs his military options over a potential airstrike in Iran.

A US defense official said there has been no order given to move forward with any kind of operation against Iran using the B-2s. As of Saturday, the planes are flying over the Pacific and appear to be headed toward Guam.

Two US defense officials cautioned that any movement of B-2s does not mean an operation is imminent but rather is intended to provide the president with options. Another US official said moving aircraft can be a show of force and a deterrent as Trump deliberates.

B-2 bombers are the only plane capable of carrying the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, which experts have highlighted as the only type of bomb potentially capable of destroying Iran’s underground Fordow nuclear facility. Each B-2 bomber is able to carry two of these “bunker buster” bombs, which weigh an impressive 30,000 pounds each.

It was 6 of the giant bunker buster bombs for Fordow.
Dozens of submarine cruise missiles for the two other sites.

Trump says US strikes obliterated nuclear fortress Fordow, other Iran sites

The president announced Saturday that the U.S. has conducted successful airstrikes against three key Iranian nuclear facilities in a major escalation of the conflict.

www.newsweek.com

On Fox News, Sean Hannity relayed what he said Trump had just told him about the mission's particulars: B-2 stealth bombers dropped a total of six bunker-busting MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) bombs on Fordow, the mountain-fortified enrichment facility believed to be ground zero of the Iranian nuclear program. Natanz and Isfahan were hit with tomahawk missiles from U.S. submarines stationed 400 miles away, Hannity said citing a direct conversation with Trump.

King Trump seems satisfied, but now the world will have to deal with the consequences if Iran decides to mine the Persian Gulf.
Iran might also attack USA bases in the middle east.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I don't want to be reductionist. Ideology surely plays a role in conflicts and geopolitics. Mainly to create popular support for a governments or their actions. But leaders themselves have also varying levels of ideolgical convictions. That being said, ideology doesn't seem to be the main factor driving foreign policy in the Middle East. Iran is a Shia theocratic republic, but its allies are ideologically disparate, such as the Sunni Islamist Hamas and the (previously) Arab nationalist and secular Syria. Israel (and even the US to a small extent) helped the Iranian ayatollahs in their war against Iraq when it was convenient. The US has supported all kinds of goverments and rebels throughout its history, including social democrats, communists, sunni islamists, absolute monarchies, right-wing military juntas, etc. The Iranian government seems rather pragmatical in many of its decisions, at least as much as any other nations, but there are intense propaganda efforts in the West to depict it as an "insane death cult" to prepare us for a war with them, which it seems is happening now...

The rhetoric, the proxies, this is a nation committed to expanding the power of Shias relative to other groups and willing to ignore material interests to do it. The proxies sponsored are moving against either A: Israeli Jews, B: Sunni Arabs, often sponsored by Saudis, with a side of C: America, we who they appear content to define as the Great Satan(at least by leadership). Materially? A desire to trade would have been much more beneficial. The arch capitalist West would've even been willing to overlook nationalization by 1990, I'd imagine, yet the Ayatollahs remained committed.

Ben Gvir and his like, their counterparts in Iran? Not an influential minority. They're the mainstream. Iran acts rationally, sorta, yeah, but always within the confines of what is primarily a social movement advancing its power first, with money second.

Even its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons could plausibly be about an ability to conduct proxy and perhaps direct military action with a much greater degree of impunity than currently enjoyed. It is the nukes that bring the US, the sanctions, and the violence; based on reports, Trump appears to have shifted based on sincere belief they were close. They appear to have looked at that and determined "eh, **** it, we want our influence, and we'll risk billions upon billions in likely losses to get it".

The first point, yeah I do agree. Israeli action is unlikely to produce regime change without invasion. The most plausible route I can envision is if Israel gets the Ayatollah, his successor, and enough politically influential clerics to essentially bribe, coerce and cajole a friendlier successor; conceivably, this would still be a leader irrationally hostile to Israel, as Iranian domestic political opinion would forbid any other possibility(unfortunately, it disappoints me), but, maybe not one committed to pursuing nukes.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

So, what’s the game plan? Iran still has the knowledge. Condemned to bombing them every few years in perpetuity as they rebuild? Seems if I am Iran at this point a nuclear weapon is my only guarantee of existence. Stupidity has a major cost and that cost is apparently war.

 

[innonimatu]

Trump wants a Schroedinger's war. It is a war if you look at it one way and a mere "attack" if you look another way. It worked with Syria many years ago (the missiles for the phony chemical weapons attack), it worked with Yemen recently. I'm not so sure it'll work with Iran. How can both sides claim victory in order to de-escalate? And even if Iran abstains from any large retaliation on US bases in the region, can those be occupeied again without fear? And how does this save the proxy Israel from the hole it dug itself into? Not that Washington usually cares about discarding used proxies but they do have influence there...

@ConquestsMaster so you have managed to show (look at the dates) that I didn't expect a war there before Ukraine stepped up its preparations to attack and subdue the two breakaway republics. Again: look at the dates. The situation escalated after those discussions. After continued escalation. Check when the war actually started. It's what happens when two parties simply can't negotiate a compromise. It should hold a lesson for current evends. But do people ever learn?

@Kaitzilla there is no evidence yet of what was actually used in this attack.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Hey it's sounds like Iron Eagle 2 but the Israelis are the Soviets.

So, what’s the game plan? Iran still has the knowledge.

sure, they might have to check out a book on nukes at the library...

 

[innonimatu]

Trump's statements, if he isn't simply making them up on the fly, seem to be meant to take the "nuclear issue" off the table: by stating that the iranian nuclear program has been destroyed (chich is obviously false, but who's going to complain?), there is no longer anything for Israel's military to keep attempting to bomb. Unless Israel's government calls their sponsors liars, which they can't. Their excuse was destroying the nuclear program. Not their big boss is stating that is already done.

It may have been an escalation to de-escalate, if it was coordinated. But then for Iran's governemnt to de-escalate it has to have something to claim as victory also. I'm not seeing how that can work without further movements. Is the US evacuating some of its bases? Is Israel yelding in the occupied territories?

This is a stupid war where those involved do not want to (or are able to) escalate but are looking for a way out which enables them to claim victory. Brinkmanship. A very dangerous time.

 

[Snowygerry]

Our reporters in Israel tell of Iranian missile impacts right now, about 20 seem to have been launched, people are told to seek shelter, too early to report on damage.

 

[banzay13]

Probably all Russia - US peace talk in Ukraine worth nothing, as Iran - US negotiation showed. Reduced help from US just showing that US doesn't have capability support Ukraine as before (Israil and Taiwan at first). As Trump said, its Europe problem

 

[Snowygerry]

On the other hand Russia has been shown to be a completely useless ally again , not a peep came from Moscow as Iranian nuclear capability was reduced to rubble.

North Korea, Belarus take note.