A reminder that as the US continues to threaten countries around the world, fedposting is to be very much avoided (even with qualifiers like "in Minecraft") and comments containing it will be removed.
Image is of Iranian missiles in one of their many fortified underground facilities. I sincerely hope this isn't AI generated, because I'm very wary of posting footage of explosions or combat and having it later turn out to be fake.
Now that the initial shock of the war's beginning is over and there's a meaningful dataset to analyze, the takes from the many hundreds of Geopolitics Understanders are flying in, with predictably extreme variance about how long they predict this war to last and who will ultimately be the victor - and, indeed, what victory even looks like for either side. There are some who are already toasting to their side's victory, but most serious analysts seem to believe that if there isn't any negotiations, and it's just attrition to the death, then it's gonna be a long war (months or even years), and then, depending on the analyst, either the US or Iran then concedes defeat.
All of these takes are being informed by quite possibly the worst information environment yet conceived by humanity. There's the usual stuff: falsehoods, lying by omission, wild exaggerations, state propaganda, doctored videos, masses of bots boosting certain narratives, etc - but now also easily accessible AI which creates images and videos that can be quite convincing unless further inspected by tools online, and people claiming that some non-AI videos were made with AI. On top of all of that, censorship across the Middle East is now in full effect, spawning arguments about whether Iran's strikes have actually decreased in intensity (and if they have, then why), or if we just aren't seeing them as much on social media anymore. Scant footage here and there confirms that strikes are still happening, but I suspect that most of the evidence of further damage to Western facilities will either be satellite imagery or indirect indicators like rescue crews gathering in certain areas, as well as the he-said-she-said of official statements by either side. Given the West's utter lack of reliability with reporting... well, pretty much everything, but especially the Ukraine War, I know which side I'm predisposed to believe, but obviously Iran's government generally isn't going to report successful strikes by Western forces for a myriad reasons.
However, the military conflict is being gradually eclipsed in importance by the growing likelihood of a global economic crisis of massive proportions. A very large proportion of the fuel that keeps the world running is now not moving, and may remain so for weeks or months. Some are even predicting that 2026 will be the year of the biggest energy crisis in world history, dwarfing the crisis of 1973, as countries around the world begin to restrict oil and gas exports and tap into limited reserves. In such a situation, Iran clearly holds all the cards, because even if the US eventually achieves air supremacy, it is still relatively trivial to fire cheap drones en masse at tankers in the strait and at oil facilities throughout the Gulf. Assuming that Iran and the US do not negotiate, then even if the US eventually somehow wins and can reopen the strait within a few months, the global economic and political situation may be so degraded that the victory will be pyrrhic.
Last week's thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.
Please check out the RedAtlas!
The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.
The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine
If you have evidence of Zionist crimes and atrocities that you wish to preserve, there is a thread here in which to do so.
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on the Zionists' destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
I found it 15:31
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgMlRShuv4M
Using the doomsday bomber flying out of England - they are going to drop a tactical nuke on Fordow.
18:00 Russia will take Iran under its nuclear umbrella following this attack.
Will it though?
This is wishful thinking. Russia would effectively be joining this war if it did so.
As far as I see it, and this is just my not particularly informed opinion, Russia has two options here:
They can do "nothing" (diplomatic condemnations and such), and the US sees it can get away with a "small scale" nuking every now and then, and nukes end up becoming a regular part of the US military arsenal. Russia might even consider this normalisation a good thing, as it enables them to use tactical nukes as well (Though somehow I get a funny feeling the west would hold Russia to a different standard than the US). However, the US being able to use tactical nukes means that they can continue their global terror as they see fit and potentially use nuclear terror to extend the life of empire by a few decades, and being the US, will likely continue to escalate beyond just "tactical" nukes sooner or later. Not doing anything to materially prevent more future nuclear strikes means that Moscow is now counting down the days until the US nukes them, since MAD doctrine will no longer truly apply and the US isn't like to just drop one single (ultimately pointless) nuke and then never again. They couldn't hold back from a second one in WW2, they won't be able to hold back from dropping more now. Russia is 3rd, maybe 4th on the US's list of targets to nuke, so "strongly condemning" this or something probably wouldn't end well for them.
Russia takes a more active stance to defend Iran, putting it under their nuclear umbrella and possibly even getting actively involved in the war. This would be a massive use of their resources and potentially could escalate things with the US into an active conflict between the two, instead of just proxy wars, which in turn, since the US has already dropped one nuclear weapon, means that nukes aren't fully off the table anymore, which means Russia could potentially put themselves into a war that turns into a full on nuclear apocalypse. On the other hand, if they make it clear they will be responding more aggressively towards nuclear strikes, it might get the US to back down, maybe even make Iran sign some "peace deal" or something and withdraw, since the US, if they're already resorting to nukes, have clearly bitten off more than they can chew with Iran and just want a big
moment to save face.
I'm not super confident in my analysis here, so I welcome criticism of it, and all of this hinges on the idea that the US will actually drop a tactical nuclear weapon on Iran, which I'm not really convince they will. I don't know much about Galloway, but I'm guessing he's not some prophet who is never wrong, he's just making predictions based on his own understanding. I just don't see the advantage the US has in dropping a tactical nuke on a site they were already able to bury using conventional weaponry in the 12 day war. Seems like a huge risk for no reward or benefit.
Counterpoints:
Putin is a cowardly west-loving liberal.
If Russia puts Iran under its nuclear umbrella it is totally fair for the US (or France or the UK) to put Ukraine under its nuclear umbrella. Russia is already making noise about a British/French plot to give Ukraine a nuke, claim it was domestically produced and use it to extract concessions/ceasefire from Russia. If Russia puts Iran under its nuclear umbrella the west will tut and say all is fair then put Ukraine under theirs, smuggle them a nuke, it'll get used on Russia, Ukraine will disavow, Russia will have to decide do they retaliate and test the west then making good on their umbrella either directly against Russia or nuking Iran instead for example if Russia strikes back and the whole thing unravels.
I just do not think it's so simple.
On point 1, Putin is a cowardly west-loving liberal who is forced against his will to defend Russia against western military build up, so I'm not sure if Russia would be ok with the US nuking Iran and then doing nothing, not because they don't want to, but because the west has forced their hand. It would be more of a "the west has fucked up again and created blowback from their actions" rather than "Russia wants to defend other nations and do something decent in the world."
And point 2 is a really good one I hadn't thought of. I know the west would never "play fair" but they probably would be quite eager to give an excuse to end the Ukraine war or else Russia gets nuked. Then maybe even have a "whoopsie the nuke we sent to Ukraine got lost and wound up in the hands of a Paramilitary NGO with no affiliation with Ukraine that launched it at Moscow." And Russia would know this, so they might rush to nuke Ukraine to speed up the war so they can quickly put an end to it before the west can do something like that, but again, that would make the west escalate, which would make Russia escalate and so on until we're all dead.
Regardless of how it plays out, if the US does actually drop a nuke on Iran, it's because they think that MAD isn't actually legitimate anymore, so the question ultimately would be whether Russia understands that or whether they will just sit around pretending they aren't waiting for the US to target them next/third/fourth. There's not really much of a way to deescalate anymore, which is horrifying.
Doing nothing would just result in the use of nukes being escalated. It's fordow now, Tehran six months from now and Ukraine is armed with those fallout fatman launchers in about a year.
"Normalising" wouldn't matter either because, as you say, the west holds itself to a different standard.
This war was a high-risk high-reward gambit. If they win, they secure their future against China. If they lose, the US dies - starting with an economic death.
The US is losing.
Trump, as a gambler, might choose another high-risk high-reward gambit of using nuclear weapons to reestablish deterrence against Iran. Maybe they think Iran will yield in the face of nuclear might, but they already have seen the signs that Iran isn't the kind to yield.
Flaw in my argument. The US already has plenty of deterrence with their air superiority and the damage they are inflicting.
There is something to be said for these people have absorbed propaganda that goes like this: Japan would not surrender, they were fanatical, a US invasion to force them to surrender would have cost a million American lives, America dropped two nukes and Japan surrendered, it sobered them up (please ignore the USSR cutting through Japanese forces in China like a red hot knife through butter causing them to panic).
If one believes this narrative as most Americans do as it is the revisionist history repeated a million times over to justify using nukes and to cast America as good guys. If one does then one might be tempted to say "hey it worked back then, why can't it work for us now, Iran is fanatical like Japan, surely nukes will sober them up, spare us a land invasion and Trump comes out a winner of a major unwinnable war going into the November elections with cheap oil for all it's a sure thing".
That's what worries me. That and the US after Ukraine has failed to destroy Russia, after all the anti-colonial stuff that has happened in Africa and so on might want to truly establish itself as a deranged monster. The thinking goes that if they nuke Iran anyone else on their shit list who isn't Russia or China will fall on their knees in fear when they come knocking with the fleet on their doorstep. The premise being even if we can't beat you conventionally we'll just nuke you so you still lose so why not make a deal.
Yeah, that's the main reason why I can't see them actually dropping a nuke, they do have the capability to demolish Iran with conventional weapons, just not without consequences and a bloody nose. Nukes would be a pretty awful gambit since they would only increase the consequences and not really achieve any goals. A gambler only bets when they think they can win big, and I don't see them actually winning, even from their perspective, by dropping a nuke. If Israel was utterly destroyed and settlers were fleeing en-masse as the state collapses? Sure, I could see them launching a nuke then, they'd have nothing left to lose. But now? It's way too early for them to escalate to this level. Don't get me wrong, I do think they absolutely would drop a nuke if they thought they could get away with it, they just probably know they can't get away with it at the moment.
Also as an aside, the ignorant liberals I keep tabs on because their takes are always completely wrong all think that Trump is about to start dropping nukes, which is also part of the reason why I'm skeptical of the whole idea.
EDIT: Sorry, I also meant to say that your opening point is a good one, the US is a slowly crumbling empire and crumbling empires always seem to get into big devastating "high risk, high reward" wars as they collapse.
This was Jiang's prediction and former MP Galloway's claim after allegedly speaking to people in ~~China and~~ Russia.
Would using Iran as a proxy for the war be that bad of a thing for them?
Imagine the money they'd make
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: