zazen

He’s engaging because he has multi domain knowledge and strings things together very well - which is new for a lot of people. But he then makes some simplistic takes and overreaches in places too - specifically the notion of secret societies acting towards creating a Pax Judaica empire and subsuming the American empire - Middle East bases as its own. A highly influential semi-dependant node / forward base (Israel) in a wider imperial system (US) - can’t itself become an empire. A nation of 10 million on a small strip of land, which is itself divided and has its own issues with the Palestinians it occupies, next to a power like Turkey, next to a gulf region increasingly angered / suspicious of it, trying to dominate Iran as we speak which seems to be failing - doesn’t have the scale or fundamentals to be a empire. Half truths are a bitch and overweighting one logic (eschatological) as bound to win is overreach.

It’s sloppy analysis if you equate a stateless people fighting for their right to a state that is denied by their occupiers - with an expansionist Nazi regime wanting to dominate other states continentally beyond its own. Of course Palestinians are going to lash out violently at times and resist in asymmetric ways that use terrorist tactics if other avenues are denied to them or Israel demand concessions that would make their “state” not a proper one with full sovereignty.

From Claude: “Security as a motive is universal and morally neutral. Every state in that analysis is acting from something it calls security. Iran calls its proxy network security. The US calls its military bases security. The Gulf calls its arms purchases security. If security justifies everything, it justifies nothing — it becomes a password that unlocks unlimited violence. The question isn’t whether Israel is acting from security. It’s what kind of security doctrine it has chosen, and what that doctrine requires as a permanent operating condition. A normal security doctrine says: we need defensible borders, deterrence capacity, and a stable equilibrium with neighbors. It has a logical endpoint — a point at which the security need is satisfied. Israel’s doctrine has no such endpoint — because it is not purely a security doctrine. It is a demographic and territorial project wearing security language. The project requires: ∙ Continued control over Palestinian land and population ∙ Suppression of any political entity that confers legitimacy on Palestinian resistance ∙ Prevention of any regional power achieving the capacity to impose costs on that control ∙ And therefore — permanent regional destabilization as a feature, not a bug That last point is the tell. A state genuinely seeking security seeks stability. Israel’s strategic behavior consistently produces instability — the destruction of the Lebanese state, the de-development of Gaza, the fragmentation of the Palestinian political body, the pressure on the US to confront Iran. These aren’t regrettable side effects. They are the mechanism. A fragmented, weakened, externally dependent Arab and Persian world is the condition under which the territorial project can continue without a coherent force capable of stopping it. So the distinction you’re drawing is exactly right: Security seeks an equilibrium. Domination requires the permanent incapacity of the other. A state that has satisfied its security needs doesn’t continue expanding settlements. Doesn’t level civilian infrastructure repeatedly. Doesn’t work to ensure its neighbors never develop coherent state capacity. Doesn’t require its patron to sanction, threaten, and periodically bomb every regional power that arms a group capable of hitting back. The maximalism is the evidence. Not evidence of greater insecurity — evidence that security was never the terminal goal. Security is the frame inside which a project of permanent demographic and territorial control is prosecuted. And because the project can never be completed without generating resistance, and resistance is then used to justify the next round of force, the doctrine becomes self-perpetuating. The tragedy is that this produces real insecurity for ordinary Israelis — because a population sitting on top of an unresolved dispossession, surrounded by people with legitimate grievances, actually is in danger. The maximalist doctrine generates the very threat environment it claims to be responding to. But acknowledging that would require acknowledging the project itself — which the political architecture of the state is designed to prevent.” If we just had to Birds Eye view the region it’s basically a security dilemma / power competition between Israel, Iran and to a degree even Saudi Arabia/GCC - all within a US hegemonic order that wants a defiant country (Iran) submitted. But each country has different risk appetites and demands ie maximalist or not. US/Israel seem to be maximalist (dominate the region). Saudi/GCC seem to be balanced because they are more vulnerable / weaker. They benefit from the status quo / folded into the US order - but also want stability with Iran to prevent chaos in the region that Israel seems to be more tolerant of or prefer (divide and rule) But at the same time it’s not like GCC would want Iran to become a hegemon if fully normalised / sanctions lifted. Iran has way stronger fundamentals that would make it so (90m population, highly educated, geography / resources, deep culture etc). So they occupy a narrow band / box - they want stability but Iran defanged to a degree as to not feel threatened. Irans foreign policy has caused bloodshed and angered Sunni Muslims massively. Supporting Assad in Syria, Hezbollah, Yemen etc. But from a cold geopolitical lens - they felt the need to gain strategic depth against an empire wanting to destroy it. We can see how after Assad fell Israel then struck Iran - weaker air defence over Syria creating an air bridge to Iran - whilst also disrupting the land route to supply Hezbollah. All these countries in between Iran-Israel have run into trouble due to this - hence both are hated to a degree by many. But at the same time many can see much of the root cause is this rivalry - and that Iran has simply had the strength to resist subordination to the larger imperial order of the US including its regional junior partner Israel. Dune 3 came out early in reality:

@Elliott lol remember we were discussing how US can only hope for a short shock and awe campaign. Now they’re stuck in operation quagmire depleting interceptors and getting desperate. Up against these people who apparently barely flinch and march on even with bombs going off: Good listen: And FIFA - fuck Israel fuck America (empires, not people)

It’s clearly because of Israel being a US forward base for regional domination of an important trade corridor - as we’ve seen how the strait of Hormuz is now being leveraged. Even without Palestine - the geopolitical rivalry and strategic containment of Iran still exists which would be used as narrative to fuel resistance - against that empire. The Middle East needs an inclusive security architecture to resolve the security dilemma (largely between Israel-Iran) but also to include the other states to prevent any Shia-Sunni tensions spilling into chaos. The same sort of security architecture needed to be there between Europe-Russia but wasn’t - hence resulting in red lines being crossed and Ukraine.

Maybe having a superpower like the US on Israel side has been a major problem in its own way - because both states interests align in dominating the region and US provides a level of impunity to Israel that allow it to dominate and be maximalist. Israel has a toxic combination of impunity from a superpower, and a high sensitive to any threat due to historic trauma (post Holocaust) and a religion that is easy to distort towards entitlement (chosen people framing) meaning less likely to compromise and easily tilted towards supremacist attitude. The world being angry at Israel only intensifies that mentality (us vs the world that’s anti-Semitic). Even now after this Iran war being started - much of the West (US which Israel relies on) is seen as Israel’s doing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4g66r3z40o Joe Kent Top US counterterrorism official resigns from Trump Admin ”After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today. I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” Read his whole letter: https://x.com/joekent16jan19/status/2033897242986209689?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ Strong words against Israel’s role.

@Elliott This comment:

@Elliott what do you think about Shahid Bolsens theory around this war - commented above replying to Jodi. As your from US? Do you think the state is captured to that degree where it’s the biggest money dictating its foreign policy ie the financial elites who want a stable investable Middle East - that this war is just a operational purge of hardliners in the way of that plan.

Why were they concerned about apartheid South Africa? SA isn’t Shia, Muslim or Arab. Theres also definitely a geopolitical angle ie wanting to have strategic depth against Israel who view Iran as the enemy, including its backer the US/West who has long vied Iran as such.

I think it’s all of the above but to varying degrees - with Jiang weighting ideology as a driver being the weakest, Israel’s influence being mid, US strategic dominance being the heaviest driver. Israel is a highly influential node in a larger US imperial system - it can nudge actions at the margins or set the pace or timing of events, but never control the empire to do the events in the first place. US-Israel interests converge in wanting regional domination. US for grand strategy / control of important choke point, dollar dominance, and an important trade corridor on the largest landmass on earth - Eurasia - which connects to its two rivals (China-Russia). Israel security and gulf stability to protect oil flows is also important as the global economy runs on it - including petro dollar. But much of the insecurity comes from zero sum thinking around how to go about security which is neoconesque - domination and submission of any defiant / autonomous actors. They want Iran to capitulate and it won’t because it has a history of dealing with Western imperialism it doesn’t want to repeat - and feels it has the cards not to ie its geographic WMD the strait of Hormuz which their using as we speak to impose costs on the empire. I’d guess it’s 50% US empire, 30% Israeli influence, 10% domestic politics (Trump / Bibi) , 5% ideaology (Christian Zionism / eschatology), 5% capital interests (MIC, big oil) Covers what you were asking too.

Unverified but also I think it’s state or institutionally managed wealth - not his personal wealth. Due to sanctions they have a whole parallel economy and black money moving around. A lot of the wealth is in Iran (IRGC controlled industries) or some outside in property perhaps - def a leap from Western propaganda that Iran wants to destroy the West in that sense. Im really conflicted on Bolsens take on Iran and have for a while taken his views with caution - I’ve honed in on his core blind spot which skews his analysis. It’s that the US state is totally captured by capital interest - thus any state action must have capitals hand behind it - leading to rationalise its actions around that fact. And amongst differing capital interest the most dominant faction is the Financial elite (FIC) financial-industrial-complex - that has eclipsed and outgrown the (MIC) - military industrial complex which was the old faction dictating foreign policy and profiting of wars. His logic is - that FIC want stability for investability - they profit more from stable (emerging - global south) markets. And because they are trans national (don’t care for their host nation from which they grew - US) they are partnering with the new centres of power ( GCC, China, BRICS ) who have the same vision of stability, prosperity etc. Trump is assumed to be amongst that “new money” faction of elites - also due to his close ties with the gulf countries and family business ties. So he’s on board with the vision and overseeing the dismantling of US empire so that multi polarity can emerge - that this FIC will profit from and who are invested in it. ** But now that war has kicked off - it needs to be rationalised. Hasn’t the US pivoted to the FIC’s plans and foreign policy which wants stability? This is where he reaches IMO and becomes conspiratorial simply because of that core blind spot (US total capture by capital). His theory is that insider pragmatists in Iran needed this war as a method to take out the hardliners in the way of reform/peace and stability. And that they are aligned on the vision but can’t come to peace due to these hardliners. As if going to war is the efficient method lol it literally creates more hardliners “rally around the flag effect”. As if the new leader Motjaba was an inside man on the job and feeling pragmatic enough to make a deal after sacrificing his whole family. I think the security state has its own logic, institutions and motives ie primacy of the US empire. Even if capital hollows out the nation state the empire state remains its own insulated domain that won’t be. I think the security state has its own logic, institutions and motives ie primacy of the US empire. Even if capital hollows out the nation state the empire state remains its own insulated domain that won’t be. Capital has penetrated the state but not totally captured it to the point it dictates every policy - it may influence sure - but ultimately the state has its own logic of strategic dominance. Hence why there is the national security strategy - talking of power, primacy and not just profit which Bolsen has totalised as the dominant logic and explanation behind all US behaviours. Notice how he applies realism (states competing for security, power) to the gulf countries behaviours in Africa (Sudan, Somalia etc) but doesn’t apply it to the US - because he assumes the state isn’t its own actor - because it’s captured by capital who wants stability for investability. All kinds of mental gymnastics need to happen to explain geopolitical events from that point on. Trump increasing military budget to 1.5trillion? That’s just for domestic policing and US’s own back yard - not the Middle East which is the future growth region the FIC are invested in lol US doing sanctions, tarrifs, China tech containment - hurting capital interests - but I thought capitals captured the state Mr.Bolsen? Nope - they just clamped down on Anthropic for not following orders / which OpenAI did. State is the final authority - because they have monopoly on force - no amount of finance can become sovereign over - even if they can invest beyond the nation state itself. It’s more simple (Occams razor) : Iran is being tackled now because it’s weakened+vulnerable, has been a long time target, Israel heavily influencing also for its own needs/wants, and multipolarity is challenging the US empire/dollar of which Iran trades outside of - but that Russia and China are too catastrophic to go to direct war with. Empire acting like empire during a phase it feels it’s losing its primacy in - trying to lock down any interests it can to reverse a trajectory it can’t - and miscalculating due to hubris typical of late stage empires - now stuck in a quagmire Iran is going to drag it through to change the balance of power in the region. **Side note: I think Sunni Muslims have a bias against Shia Iran - perhaps they can’t accept Iran is the defiant one with balls whilst their states are down or subordinate satellites - so they’d rather have the glory of US empire defeat leading to regional stability and prosperity via BRICS - be attributed to their own GCC elites and Western Financial elites in on the plan. What do you think? Is it plausible the state is captured to that extent.. I’m not sure but I highly doubt it.

Its so unfortunate - the region has been in chaos ever since Israel's occupation / US's domination of the petro dollar - with all the spillover affects its caused. PLO in the South, Israel coming in - Hezbollah filling in the vaccum - Iran bolstering them up as asymmetric deterrence to the point the can't be subordinate to the Lebanese state which is itself weak. The fact they can go into Syria and fight causing more chaos - and that protect the land bridge to Iran for supplies etc. It's all geopolitics and power competition. If Israel could be at peace with the region and the Palestinian question resolved - things would calm down a lot. Lebanaon could re-build and get stronger to sub-ordinate Hezbollah as it should be etc. That was great and in line with what I wrote a page back - comes down to corridors (trade) and currency (what that trade is settled in). I believe Israel heavily influenced things to tilt towards this being done also, after watching the following:

A plausible one though because it isn't complete. Genocide also by definition means the intent to kill in part or in whole - so even if 100% isn't achieved, doesn't not make it one. Otherwise there would never be a genocide unless that race/people/nation-attempt at becoming a nation is made extinct. https://www.timesofisrael.com/time-fact-checks-netanyahu-interview-countering-his-denial-of-bankrolling-hamas/ ''Netanyahu had reportedly said at a Likud faction meeting in 2019 that anyone who opposes a Palestinian state should support the funds for Hamas, the enemy of the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority. When Time asked about the quote, Netanyahu replied: “That’s a false statement. I never said that.” However, Time noted, besides the numerous reports of the 2019 comments, Netanyahu had reportedly said the same in a 2012 interview with journalist Dan Margalit. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich also made the claim in a 2015 interview.'' So Putin's wise for seeking prosperity for his people - on terms he didn't have to subordinate his countries sovereignty - because they got nukes and are formidable. But Iran's barbaric because it doesn't want to subordinate its sovereignty either and has had a defiant posture against the West ever since against their own containment? Domestic rhetoric doesn't mean they're going to act on it - it's part of domestic politics and they want people to rally around the flag when threatened by a external power. But I agree its not strategically wise. It's the same way Medvedev tweets out threatening remarks that increase tensions for no reason or on tv shows / news anchors being hawkish. Regarding capability - the ayatollah they killed literally had a fatwa against nukes as a weapon. They signed up to the JCPOA that Trump ripped up. They were negotiating last year during which they got bombed. They were negotiating this year and went above and beyond the JCPOA that Trump could have taken and boasted about Peace in the Middle East like a retard - again they got hit DURING negotiations in which they were conceeding massively. Who's the one against peace then? And why do they keep flip flopping around? My thinking is that they don't really want full economic integration of Iran because that will lead to Iran being a dominant player in the region - so they use the nuclear card and negotiations as a carrot push-pulling - to keep it strategically constrained - then gaslight the world about it being a threat. Same way US doesn't want India to rise in a way that threatens its hegemony, and the way China has risen within their same order and is now threatening their dominance - Iran is even more important to prevent because of Israel being near by. Talks now of Israel thinking about Turkey next: Israel seeks security by dominating the region and fracturing it, by which it will never find security. Knawledge:

@Breakingthewall So it doesn't get lost in the comments.

*I didn't call him nazi but am chiming in on the convo between breaking wall and other user*lol We don't know the facts - that's the problem. Any when a country is being attempted to be regime changed through internal instigation which apparently had provocatuers killing state personal (police etc), had Trump and others openly tweeting to storm government buildings, had Israeli / Western heads brag about having Mossad on the ground doing all that - you don't think the state is going to fight back? If the same was happening in the West what would happen? Spain crackde down on Catalonian succession - not in a very bloody way obviously, but there was no superpower provoking Catalonians on the ground that would escalate to such violence either. You underestimate the beast of imperialism that countries on the receiving end of it are faced with. If the Iranian government are bad like the West says and the people there are suffering under them - why do they sanction and hurt the every day people which the EUU is also claimed support for like the little butch puppets they are. Why is Cuba being embargoed which is getting very little coverage. It's not about you or me who live in the core of the Empire, its that the violence goes one way which is outside to those resisting it and being affected by it ie bombed, couped, killed, sanctioned economically into desperate conditions which only the West has the ability to uni-laterally do. Its their financial WMD.