zazen

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;

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.