this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
45 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

1276 readers
9 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml
QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
45
What's even the point of the current US offensive on Iran? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 month ago by Conselheiro@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm usually a "Sane Trump Theory" supporter, but I see no outcome where the US achieves strategic gains in this one. Even with successful leadership assassination and significant damage to Iran's current nuclear capabilities, it'll just be kicking the can down the road and galvanising even more the Iranian people against the US. There's no way an outright occupation of Iran will happen.

But most NATO substrates have also designated the IRGC as a terrorist org, which I think would imply that the offensive is somehow strategically important. I don't like the whole depoliticising "distraction from Epstein" narrative, but I'm struggling to come up with alternatives here.

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 56 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I posted an analysis from Pepe Escobar and his theory seems to be a much better explanation to me:

The real objective is to definitively destroy the last independent link in the Eurasian energy chain that essentially connects Russia with China, strategically passing through Central Asia and Iran. It is to permanently sever the most crucial energy corridor of the 21st century.

Think about it carefully for a moment. Iran is not just Iran. Iran is the strategically crucial energy corridor between Russian oil and gas and expanding Asian markets. Iran is the geographic link that allows China to access massive energy resources without relying on shipping lanes controlled by the U.S. Navy.

Iran is, quite literally, the master key that can make or completely destroy the entire multipolar architecture that Russia and China have been systematically building over the past 15 years of strategic coordination. And here is the chronological detail that should send shivers down the spine of any serious geopolitical analyst on the planet.

The American empire and its European vassals have a very specific window of approximately four to six months before the full expansion of BRICS Plus is definitively and irreversibly consolidated. Before the new parallel financial system is fully operational and functional. Before the new overland trade routes of the Belt and Road Initiative render the entire Western system of global maritime control completely irrelevant.

This is their last real chance, and they know it perfectly well in Washington. That’s why the desperation is palpable, why the brutality is so blatant, why they are completely willing to risk a regional conflagration that could spiral completely out of control.

[–] Cowbee@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Forgive my ignorance on the topic, but why four to six months? What happens then that would make intervention in Iran not as effective, or impossible?

[–] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Sadly, the author didn't explain that point in particular. However, I can speculate that it has to do with the USD. If all the logistic framework and the material conditions allow for a complete abandonment of SWIFT/USD/other important imperialist dominated tools for international trading, this will allow countries to drop the USD and US treasuries at record levels.

If countries around the world(or at least in Asia) drop US treasuries and USD, the entire foundation of the USD will be broken and that will allow hyperinflation to rock the USA. This in part will destroy their ability to fund their own institutions(CIA, DEA, USAID, ICE) and even their military. Adding to this, it will open the possibility of plenty of countries that already are in the BRICS alternative to boycott the USA.

That's my take. I could be wrong but I reach that conclusion from other takes on the USD.

[–] Cowbee@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 month ago

Ah, interesting! I was curious why the timeframe was so specific, but this helps fill in that gap, thanks comrade!

[–] Orcinus@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 month ago

Oh dear. Time to live off beans and rice then.

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

With your intelligence and memory like a steel trap, you could really be making a lot of money somewhere (and idk what you do for a living so I'm obviously not commenting on that), but I am super glad you are here, educating us, comrade! As always, my deepest respect and gratitude. 🫡

[–] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 month ago

I am glad that I could help!

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Incidentally, Sean Foo touched on this the other day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W927Y4Ot9E4

[–] TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 month ago

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[–] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think Escobar's analysis is pretty uncontroversial at this point. Brian Berletic has been saying much of the same. I think it's a good framework for understanding the psychotic urgency of the moment. Although I think there are more history and layers to it, especially with regard to Israel. The contradictions of the Zionist project in occupied Palestine have lead to very desperate behavior on the part of the Zios and the US to protect power projection in West Asia.

The historical intent of the US regarding Iran since 1979 is pretty clear: Saddam, Iran-Iraq War, the "War on Terror", Operation Timber-Sycamore, the 30+ year myth of a "nuclear threat", etc. Chiefly observed through the lens of 911 and Timber-Sycamore, it seems Iran has been in the crosshairs of a larger strategy for a long time. The thwarting of Syrian regime change by Russia changed the US imperial calculus a lot and it has taken time to reposition.

The use of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as an excuse to launch a genocide had the expected consequence of drawing in a larger conflict and creating enough chaos and instability to create additional pretexts for regional war, planned regime change -- notably in Syria. All these policy papers and CFR fucks talked about doing that to open up Iran, and ofc as soon as that happens Shitrael launches a sneak attack on Iran... The propagandists go into overdrive... The US bombs Iran... There's been a low-grade Shitraeli war, sabotage and terrorism campaign going on in Iran... Economic warfare which culminated in a larger color revolution operation last month.

And...

Iran is still standing, still building out trade networks with Russia and China. Still selling it's own oil. Still advancing and resisting imperialism. Still looming over the collapse of the Zionist project.

It's gotta be driving the Fourth Reich crazy. The desire to either steal Iran's oil, or at least destroy them as a competitor goes back decades. I think the urgent nature of cutting off oil from Venezuela and Iran to China/Russia, ultimately has everything to do with the US marinading in the Wolfowitz Doctrine mindset for so long.

[–] Conselheiro@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That makes a lot of sense, I think this is the correct read. I remember reading something similar during the fall of Assad's government and attacks on Lebanon that it would also impact that same corridor. With that in mind, even bombing Iran into complete anarchy would be a sufficient strategic victory to the US if a more tactical approach fails.

Edit: read the whole thing, and it's relieving to know that Russia and China have mutual defense agreements with Iran. Hopefully 2026 is the year those CENTCOM carriers sink to the bottom of the ocean.

[–] PoY@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 1 month ago

that's an amazing analysis.. it makes so much sense

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 1 month ago

The latest round of sanctions is extremely upsetting, food costs up 52?% and of course the brunt taken by poor and middle class.

[–] Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’d have to give some pushback on this theory because China’s top three imports are from Russia, the Gulf states, and Iraq, followed by Canada and the US.

The US already controls the gulf states and Iraq. China neighbours Russia. Controlling Iran doesn’t do anything in cutting off petroleum to China.

[–] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The US doesn't control the Golf states and Iraq to that point that you are suggesting. Some Gulf states even engage in payments in Yuan instead of the USD. As for Iraq, you can see the lack of control when the US protested and even threaten Iraquis for their choice on their prime minister.

Any of these top oil exporter will leave the US if provided with a different material framework such as the Eurasian energy chain proposed through BRICs. The US fears that energy shock so that's why they decided to attack Venezuela to control a certain supply closest to them.

[–] Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The US has literal military bases in the gulf states. All the weapons they use are from the west.

The Iraq war was to literally control Iraqi oil companies, and they currently do. Otherwise they wouldn’t be be able to do this:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/article/chevron-seeks-better-terms-from-iraq-before-taking-over-lukoil-oilfield-reuters-sources-say/

If they want to cut off energy to China (say in the event of war, etc) it’d be trivial. They don’t need to take over Iran to do so. They can simply strike from where they are.

[–] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Even if they are occupied with those military bases, it didn't stop the Gulf states to seek China or to change their payment currency to Yuan. Also, remember that the bombing of Qatar changed them and it lead them to seek other defense pacts. Soon, we will see those changes.

As for Iraq, they are in the process of dismantling those US military bases so the only powerful control left is in the economic area. All of that control will wither out when there are viable material alternatives to Western dominated trade routes and the West's economic system. That's why the Eurasian energy chain is very important.

Just like any sanctions against Israel didn't have any effect due to Western backing, Western sanctions will no longer have any effect in West Asian countries if strong material alternatives to the Western economic system appear.

[–] WilliamA@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 1 month ago

Weakening Iran weakens the further axis of resistance, which significantly weakens anti-imperialist resistance in the middle east as a whole.

[–] Marat@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I had a theory a little bit ago that this most recent sleeper cell offensive was resource intense, and if it doesn't actually result in some form of victory [whether nuclear, economic or oppurtunistic in nature] this deployment might be a last ditch effort to get something out of it, or if all else fails they would rather try to cripple the country than let it continue

[–] i_c_b_m@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

https://tankie.tube/w/sfyWZkap4bCk38UR76cKnX

https://tankie.tube/w/g3ytqo8YjCNTXSNhmVe4GG

https://tankie.tube/w/qGaeVvp4JTbiDZVHj3nGqZ

https://tankie.tube/w/e7LXctuwYj5dD1WMZMc19v

[–] Mzuark@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 1 month ago

I think we overspent on the budget this year so they're just burning it

[–] Malkhodr@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They either see a chance to destabilize the government enough so that the reformists completely capitulate (like they've wanted to do). Or Trump is trying to force some lesser negotiation concession and make it look like a win like Maduro.

It depends on whether or not the US believes its own propaganda about Iran's stability/capabilities. I see a real possibility that if they assassinated Khamenei and other high ranking members of the IRGC, Washington may think that would propel the reformists into absolute power and they then concede the missle program, which the IRGC and Guardian council have fiercely opposed negotiations on.

However that's only if Trump and the current clique in power genuinely believes in supremacy of the US.

The more likely thing to happen if Khamenei is assassinated I'd that the IRGC decides that the country is in an emergency scenario and begins liquidating reformists if they think they undermine Iranian sovereignty. They'd likely have popular support after a US operation as people are really sick of the reformists reproachment rhetoric with the west.

Figures like Rohani who before used to proudly discuss these concepts are now opportunistically changing their tune to something more similar to what the IRGC has been saying for a decade. That signals to me that Iranian public opinion is now very clearly mobilized against any negotiation with the US, which the government is still fruitlessly engaging in (Astagfurallah).

[–] glimmer_twin@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago

Worst case scenario for the americans they cause Syrian Civil War 2.0. Collapse everything and let it burn. Maybe sell some weapons to both sides, good money in that. Either way an opposing regional force is off the table.

Best case they somehow get some puppet in charge and they have a pliant government on China’s flank.

[–] Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 month ago

US foreign policy has always been to align foreign nations to US interests. In an ideal world, every state in the Middle East would be subject to US imperialism.

The current situation is that all countries neighbouring Israel is compromised and Iran is the only country left standing.

The IRGC is designated as a terrorist group as retaliation for the west’s failed coup attempt.

[–] ahriboy@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 month ago

Once the US started a war, it means that America will suffer economic loss in return. Also PSL will plan more protests if war was started.

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago

Trump build a new war room under the white house and wants to get some use our of it?

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oil.

[–] MasterDeeLuke@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 month ago

It's enough for them just to weaken Iran, fracture it or at the very minimum destroy their oil facilities to deprive China but also other countries in general of another oil trading partner and thereby increasing their subservience to the US. They want to pave the way for Israel's eventual Manifest Destiny of the middle east and Iran currently stands as the only powerful middle eastern nation that isn't a collaborator regime.