zazen

@Elliott We got some calls right early on in Jan. Trickery (attacked during negotiations) + the need to keep any war short due to interceptor stock piles running low. US weren't expecting Iran to shut Hormuz or spread the war to the region as way to impose economic costs. They ran of out military options and had to resort to civilian infrastructure / industrial capacity. But any further hits would be highly escalatory and risk the gulf countries which have reached their limit of tolerance. They expected Iranians to coup the regime but instead they rallied around the flag. US got more desperate from Iran not bending + the economic pressure mounting from the cascading affects of a oil supply shock (oil hitting 140 yesterday) = so Trump had to heat up the rhetoric threatening Iran after which he taco'd a few times. In the latest threat against the power grid / more bridges - Iranians instead made a human chain around the power plants in protest. They flirted with a lowkey ground op on the weekend which also failed and that they tried covering up with attention diverted to the pilot rescue. That means they won't try a proper ground invasion in the future. Had little choice but to find a off ramp and Pakistan helped midwife it. Israel is still acting rogue and hitting Lebanon hard despite it. Not sure if that will flop the negotiations which seem to be difficult already. Iran has gained more leverage after this confrontation instead of less as they still have de facto control over Hormuz which will only make their bargaining position demand even more.

@Nivsch thanks for providing nuanced views. I think the centre has moved right enough for that bill to be passed - so can’t just be pin pointed at Ben Gvir etc although he’s the most vile of the lot. Israel is divided but it’s hard to know how much? I’m just guessing it’s a 1/3 left, middle and right but the left are shrinking whilst the right are increasing. The centre doesn’t have to be far right but simply fear driven enough to tolerate a mobilised right wing to gain momentum especially post October 7th. On some issues or views we see in polling that majority are in agreement ie war on Iran being good or necessary, or after October 7th most agreeing Israel wasn’t going hard enough on Gaza even though a week or two in they had already dropped massive amounts of bombs. It’s tough to know how representative those polls are, but even then - let’s say they are true. I don’t think most Israelis are intently wanting the mass death of Palestinians, but also I think many simply are indifferent and feel whatever needs to happen for survival needs to happen - and that can be equally bad as a result because it enables harmful actions and ends up tolerating the far right due to ‘survival’. The main issue is the threat perception of Israel remaining on high alert and its security doctrine being maximalist in the region which reinforces that perception. The man security dilemma between Israel and Iran needs resolving for things to really settle - and then the Palestinian issue settled too. The issue is we now see Israeli heads talking of a new Sunni axis as a future threat (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi/Pakistan). If threat perception always remains high that will ever ensure insecurity of Israel. This may be partly due to past trauma (understandably) but is being weaponised by other interests (domination / imperialism).

Lets not forget the magical mullahs who want to impose clerical facism on the world lol What makes geopolitics so interesting is how it has multiple domains interacting with each other, but that's also what causes flaws in many analysts if they lack knowledge in certain domains (finance, oil markets etc). I've started seeing finance guys saying how this war was started by financial interests because they have captured the US state totally - thus control its foreign policy. Jiang goes for the more ideological being the driver ie Christian Zionism. But its never one cause - and the US empire state isn't as captured by capital as the nation state which has been much more hollowed out by capital interests. The security state (NSA/Washington) still has its own logic of primacy, national security etc which can hurt capital interests (tariffs, tech containment of China, sanctions etc).

@Ramasta9 The problem with conspiracy theories which may not be conspiracy is that they lack evidence or use half truths as evidence. Many of these conspiracy point to something real enough to have people resonate with it - but then add on layers false truths or overstretch things to the point of not being true. From another thread about Zionist control of the US, I responded to others regarding it:

Mehdi Hassan is such a Karen If Jiang spoke to a serious geopolitical analyst he would be challenged properly on his claims instead. Like for example how is it possible for Israel to usher in pax Judaica with the small population / industrial base they have. 10m people who are themselves internally divided can’t be an empire - which is why they piggy back of the US empire to achieve their goals. Then he says Israel will take over CENTCOM / US bases in the Middle East and that this is the plan of the war. But Iran has destroyed / partially made them ineffective lol as if Iran really gonna be okay with Israel taking the throne there. On his latest video he “speculates” how the outcome of this war is Trump World Order where he destroys the Middle East’s energy share to make the world (Europe and Asia mainly) dependent on US energy, food and fertilizer. But oil is priced globally so high oil prices means inflation back at home in the US. The entire dollar / financial system comes under stress or implodes. The US also can’t replace that much oil supply. At least he does caveat that he’s speculating.

British and then US empire are underpinned by control of corridors (trade) and clearance (the currency that trade is settled it). Any country important enough that is outside that systemic control or resists it is a target. The primacy of that system is being contested by new emerging powers. China/Russia would be too catastrophic to go to direct war with - so weaker links are tackled and any strategic advantage is being locked in to prevent their dominance dilute further. The empire became financialized (paper heavy), as rocks (resources) and scissors (industry) got outsourced. That made it brittle and vulnerable to new powers emerging who do have strong rocks (Russia) and scissors (China) who together are creating a parallel system (paper/financial rails) circumventing the US one. The system (paper) has to be backed by something (rock/scissors) but increasingly is seen as hollow (outsourced industry) and vulnerable (high debt). Empire needs to re-anchor the system to material power to keep its credibility and enforce the quality of its collateral (US system perceived as pristine condition). This is being done coercively as we can see. There’s a scramble to re-industrialise and lock down critical supply chains and industry (friend/re-shore) to become resilient. JP Morgan has a fund earmarked for 1.5trillion dollars over 10 yrs for this. BlackRock are going in on stabelcoins and tokenization to extend dollar reach and maintain its primacy against de-dollarisation. None of this has to be some grand strategy on behalf of Trump, but it’s more so institutional logic, instinct and inertia with multiple actors converging on the same incentives to keep the system they benefit from dominant, against a rising challenge. I think that’s how VZ, Greenland (new Arctic trade corridor opening), Donroe doctrine and hemispheric co from, and now Iran make some sense.

No one asked or tested if Jews were trusted enough to be given a state. In fact they were wrongly mistrusted for centuries and instead persecuted, leading to the crime of all crimes - Holocaust. The horrors of that made it clear - people are owed a right to dignity and safety - inalienable and unconditional. But now Palestinians are asked to build enough trust to earn the right to live in a portion of their own home from which they were cleansed from. This is inverted and gaslighting propaganda Western Zionists speak of. Rights of this kind are a domain where permission doesn’t need to be asked. That doesn’t mean trust doesn’t need to be built - but it’s not a prerequisite for the right. “UN Recognition: Numerous United Nations resolutions, such as Resolution 3236, explicitly reaffirm the "inalienable rights of the Palestinian people," including the right to self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty. "Not Conditional": In legal terms, these are often described as jus cogens (peremptory norms), meaning they are fundamental principles of international law that cannot be set aside or made conditional upon the "permission" of an occupying power or neighbor.”

US is funding terrorist groups in the Middle East for their own geopolitical aims. Bibi funded Hamas. See the two videos I shared in that comment. Beside my own whataboutism: The Palestinian authority in the West Bank has worked with Israel (recognised them) and polices their own people. They’ve cooperated and what happens there? Settlement expansion. Who knows - other Middle Eastern countries didn’t have Iran’s same rhetoric or fund proxies next to Israel and they still got fucked. Venezuela and Cuba don’t have that rhetoric or fund proxies (as far as I know) - Maduro offered to work with US corporations and still got plucked out like a flower, Cuba’s getting embargoed as we speak and has been sanctioned for decades. The point is regardless of rhetoric - geostrategically important countries that want to maintain their autonomy aren’t allowed to: Your putting all those countries into the same bucket as if they all wanted to destroy Israel - all critiqued Israel over Palestine, some had hostility, and others were more extreme (Iran). Saddam used the Palestinian cause for legitimacy and to become a gulf hegemon - his doctrine didn’t revolve around Israel or its elimination but was against Iran and then he invaded Kuwait. It was literally called the gulf war - and that triggered a coalition against him. Assad’s dad was hostile due to the territorial dispute over golan - not necessarily eliminationsit. Gaddafi proposed a one state solution with democratic rights for everyone (calling it Isratine)- a restructuring or evolution of Israel to resolve the issue, not total destruction. Turkeys recognised Israel since 1949 and trades with it but critiques it heavily due to its actions - also not eliminationist. Saudi, Qatar and the gulf have had the stance of a two state solution since the Arab peace initiative - just because you see a TV anchor or minister have strong rhetoric against Israel doesn’t mean the official stance of the government is to eliminate it. People are obviously angry at Israel. Israel had existential hostility against it in its early founding but we can’t take those peak threats and project them forward in time when they’re largely subdued and the region is largely negotiating with Israel instead - even normalising in some cases or making it conditional upon Palestinian rights. Iran has the biggest Jewish population in the ME that haven’t been been eliminated (because the issue is geopolitical, not some fanatical hatred of Jews as you make it out to be in your caricature of Muslims): Palestinians rejected those deals because they weren’t fully sovereign or viable states. Just one detail relevant today - right now EU countries including your own (Spain) are denying the US airspace for its actions - that’s their right. Palestinians weren’t given right to their airspace, let alone other things (borders, resources or airwaves like telecoms, wifi etc). Should EU give up its ego to make peace the with global hegemon in your view? Or are they too stubborn and don’t want to be seen as humiliated just like the Palestinians and Iranians over giving up their sovereignty? So might makes right in your view? Sovereignty is only for those strong enough to defend it?

Iran and Israel actually aren’t imperial in the same sense as the US - even if their actions have caused bloodshed. All nations seek power to gain and maintain their security and sovereignty - which to most is a just cause. Imperial Empires seek domination for accumulation and primacy, not just preservation of the nation state. A state being unjust internally is a different matter to it causing injustices abroad. Beyond their own borders it’s not simply about internal politics but geopolitics - between states. Though Israel is literally preventing another state from existing which is the whole injustice to begin with. But still - its ambition is bounded (unlike imperial empires) even if its aggressive within that boundary and contested territory. State actions beyond borders can be morally wrong (causing injustice) yet strategically understandable (geopolitically) if it’s being done for survival - both can coexist. Russia is heavily oligarchic and hasn’t invested in its own people the same way China has - that doesn’t mean they aren’t right in resisting US containment that’s caused a security dilemma - as you’ve pointed out before. The difference is that Israel is heavily aggressive about their security whilst their ambitions are mostly capped locally to Israel and occupied Palestinian land - whilst US’s aren’t. Israel still causes issues in the region but I think their primary intent isn’t to dominate it for material gain and primacy (imperial ambitions). It’s more to preserve their ability to dominate Palestinian land and absorb it into Israel proper. Their security doctrine is maximalist and highly aggressive because they seek security through dominance - using a superpower who seeks primacy through imperially dominating the same region - which is why they align. That security logic can become imperially expansionist (Greater Israel) - just like how Japans insecurity (vulnerable from scarce resources) turned imperial wanting a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”. They invaded China, colonized Korea and were pushing further into SEA. Security and imperialism start to blur because then countries try secure themselves imperially - but the difference is scale and intent. I don’t think we’ve gotten close to Greater Israel yet but it could happen. And I don’t buy Proff Jiangs point of them wanting to create a Pax Judaica - a country that small in scale (population) can’t become an empire - which is exactly why they piggy back off of one for their own interests. Hardliners entrench under pressure - so the most probable way of getting a regime change is through regime evolution which needs a more enabling environment ie less geopolitical pressure externally + their own internal pressure to reform organically. We already saw changes with the Hijab law I think some years ago. Integration isn’t just about swallowing pride - each country makes a trade off between prosperity and autonomy. Each of them have different positions and are folded into the system on different terms. China integrated when it posed no threat and was too big to even discipline - but as it got stronger within the system now it’s trying to be contained. GCC countries have up much more of their sovereignty because they head a weaker position (leverage) - and what’s it got them is being sucked into their patrons interests in this war they were barely consulted on. South Korea also had its THAAD defense taken away to protect Israel, leaving it naked in front of NK - which Iv said before is a hell hole. This is why countries try to retain their sovereignty as much as possible - because decisions not in your interest get made. Speaking of Saddam and related to the previous comment on survival - he was expansionist and invaded Iran and they warred for 8 years with US supporting Iraq who used chemical weapons. Later on the US invaded Iraq in 2003. Iran had to expand its buffer zone and sphere of influence into Iraq which was easier as its majority Shia. Then further into Syria to support Assad which allowed them a land bridge to Hezbollah in Lebanon - and that was their strategic depth/deterrence against Israel. Against a stronger country (and empire) all you have is asymmetric means like proxies, missiles and chokepoints. The thing with Israel is that its security doctrine is maximalist - they don’t want to risk any strong country in the region that may not be aligned - and the Palestine question only intensifies their tension even more. That’s why even after Assad fell - they went in and hit military assets - they don’t just care about intent but capability. So they want to mow the lawn and keep the power of balance tilted in their favour - and GCC countries are a non threat as they are US occupied anyway. So Iran and Israel both act primarily from security needs - but in opposite ways. Iran builds deterrence through depth and proxies because it’s weaker, while Israel maintains security by pre-emptively weakening the region to remain dominant against any potential threat. The Palestinian issue deepens any hostility and distrust, which reinforces the cycle - but the main issue is a security dilemma between the two. Until the Palestine question is resolved to lessen tensions - and an inclusive security arrangement is made for the region - things will remain as they are or war will change them. Just like what was lacking between Europe-Ukraine-Russia was a security architecture that included Russia - and that led to war to settle things after red lines were crossed.

But the bottom line is that they’re against imperialism and injustice - even if they use it for their own narrative / justification. Apartheid South Africa and Israel are literally committing injustices - but SA is far away and wasn’t an existential threat to Iran in the same way Israel is within the same region - especially after having seen country after country get taken down. Agree with the rhetoric being inflammatory - but it’s something most of the ME and now most of the world seem to fell even if they don’t say it. And it’s not directed at the people or Western nation states per se - but the Empire state that’s allowed corporations to hollow out the nation state and its people also. Hence even Westerners themselves highly critical of it - beyond the injustice it’s causing globally.

I think I view it like this: there’s an objective reality that’s materially surface level. We have a conciousness of depth beyond the surface and have constructed language in order to coordinate enough to survive. We labeled one part of that reality Woman-Man. We are the subjects with enough soul to be aware of the objective part of reality - and that we are more than it. Is a apple a apple objectively?

@Breakingthewall No doubt they use it for legitimacy. But doesn’t erase the material reality of a security dilemma being there (between Israel/Iran) - and an imperial hegemon with its junior partner wanting to contain you. Just like how Venezuela or Cuba pose no threat to America yet their being strangled too. Iran was also against apartheid South Africa - even though apartheid South Africa wasn’t threatening Iran in any way - but countries can still have certain stands simply if seen as the right thing to do, independent of power games or security issues.

Usually you don’t want to war if your on the receiving end of the pain though, unless your literally occupied or invaded hence Ukraine fought back with determination. The threat of Iran has been amplified to such a degree even though they negotiated the JCPOA which Trump tore up. They were negotiating and conceding even more on nukes this year before they got attacked again. They only retaliated after being hit first by Israel - the first time they staged a retaliatory strike with coordination and warning simply to establish deterrance and no lives lost. Even though they’ve had constant decapitation hits on scientists or general soleimani for example.They’ve been under crippling sanctions as well. Considering all that they’ve been restrained up till now - and now don’t want a simple ceasefire without changing the balance of power in the region as to not have constant mowing of the lawn type repeats year after year. Beyond nukes - the other two issues are proxies and missiles. The proxies emerged from Israel’s own occupation of Palestinians - Hamas internal and Hezbollah to the North. Of course Iran would support them to gain an asymmetric advantage through strategic depth around the adversary who wants you destroyed - because that’s all it has as deterrence - totally rational from a survival aspect. Being asked to drop those two would be suicide. The proxy network less so and is probably reasonable to demand - but the missiles is a red line as that’s really all they have as a deterrance - they’d be sitting ducks without it and barely have a airforce of their own. The gulf countries didn’t have a choice but to give up some sovereignty for protection because they have vulnerable geographies and small populations / armies. So they made the bargain - be under US security umbrella and give up autonomy due to lack of hard power. They’ve just tried using financial leverage to influence the US as much as possible - and they still got suckered into their patrons geopolitics and are suffering for it. Iran is different due to its strengths - population size, geography like a fortress, military etc. so they don’t want to submit to the US system on unfavourable terms - they have the aged power to say no and the history of empires suffocating them to want a end to that. There’s actually a divide amongst Muslims and people in general on Iran/GCC. Some view Iran as expansionist and bad, others as heroics. People view GCC as either peaceful pragmatic nation builders or sell outs to the West. But the truth is their postures are downstream from their position - whether they’re inside the system (GCC) or outside it trying to get sucked in as subordinate (Iran). And GCC didn’t have much choice so shouldn’t be judged to that degree. It’s simply real politik and trying to survive based on the cards you got. Much of this stems from Israel’s initial sin of occupying and dominating Palestinians - and wanting to secure itself in maximalist terms by fracturing the region including the last defiant state (Iran). That lead to resistant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah which is literally a militia within Lebanon rivalling its own army. US aligns with Israels ME interests for its own reasons of empire (petro dollar / critical trade corridor). All this cluster fuck is because one traumatised group of people persecuted by Westerners, wanted a safe homeland and went to all lengths to get it, displacing native people on that land - and now needing to dominate them till this day in order to maintain it. That caused a spillover effect onto an angered region. Jews who are already highly sensitive to threats due to past trauma - based their sense of security on domination that only entrenches more insecurity. And because the same empire that enabled Zioland also wants control of the strategic heartland of Eurasia - they both imperially mess up the region.

@Raze disgusting. it’s crazy how most of Israeli society are pro this war whilst the population of thejr main backers are against it - poetic really. https://en.idi.org.il/articles/63704 The world is going to be even more enraged with Israel if the perception remains that they were the sole cause of this war - and the world has to suffer in recession, inflation etc for it. The gulf are angry - though UAE seems to be pushing itself as a frontline state against Iran - a bit like a Taiwan or Ukraine but on a way smaller scale. Apparently extra troops get to ME tomorrow so if there is to be some ground invasion it could be this weekend or in the next week possibly. Maybe they’ll try something else (air campaign heavy bombing) before committing to that. This guys been shared before but this new podcast was very good;