zazen

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.

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.

Is Iran trying to create a global empire/order under which it wants the world to live? No, so don't panic. Does opposing imperialism against countries mean you endorse the countries being predated on? Also no. I've shared the bad of Iran - imam of peace/PBD podcast where he goes into it. You understand Western imperialism against Russia being bad, but when it comes to Iran its good because of your anti-Islam bias. You know that saying ''hard times creates hard men, that create good time that create soft men'' - in the same way hard times creates hard liners too. Those hard times come heavily from external geopolitical pressures such as - being historically couped and strategically contained ever since. I'll relate above answer to this. A countries geopolitics is downstream of the cards its dealt - the geo in geopolitics is for geography - the real material world that then informs the countries structural stregnths and weakness. Trade alone shows nothing, its on what terms that trade is done - what do you need to give up in order to be able to be part of the Western system ie how much autonomy or soverignty. The gulf countries being weak and small, feeling vulnerable in the region made the deal from THEIR position, to be under US security architecture in exchange for trading their oil in dollars - petro dollar. But we can now see what having bases in your country does - sucks you into the geopolitics of the super power patron - at your own expense and discontent. Now the gulf is suffering and stuck in a quagmire it hopes is resolved. Now - China occupies a different position and simply due to its sheer size and scale has leverage against the empire imposing itself. It trades with the US - but on terms that don't give away its autonomy or sovereignty to a massive degree. In the same way - Iran views its on cards and questions why they should subordinate on unfavorable terms. It could be a formidable power given its size, population, education levels (reasonably high especially in STEM), deep culture / civilization - and most of all its geography / resources. Its those same reasons why it resists containment, and why its contained. The issue with integrating economically is that it can then create rivals in the system. The US learnt will try prevent that with India as we can see spoken candidly here:

In short Western empire, of which it’s a forward base. The same reason Japanese imperialism should have been hated in the past, or Soviet, or Hitlers imperialism. Iran is a threat to that empire because it’s in a vital geography and openly defiant to bending the knee. And has the cards to do so - to a extent. I said there wouldn’t be regime change when those protests kicked off, and that this war wouldn’t be a easy one for the US - it isn’t. Their like a porcupine fighting a lion, all they have to do is not lose and impose significant costs via economic/political pressure. If we understand the core of what underpins empire then many actions become clear. Basically it’s down to trade corridors and settling that trade in the empires currency. Venezuela and Iran are both settling trade in non-dollar, but Iran is arguably the much more vital trade corridor (Hormuz) and connecting the largest land mass on earth which can by pass it. They are juniors co-building a parallel financial system BRICS. But the US can’t directly war with China/Russia (dragonbear) - so it goes for the weak links and attempts indirect containment to maintain primacy. Israel has its own security concerns too - so US/Israel align on dominating the region for slightly different reasons. Israel’s security dilemma is largely self inflicted due to dominating Palestinians and fracturing the region alongside the US. They deserve to be hated (not the people, but the empire). Fuck them.

Goyim lives matter

But are all those true? I’ve seen plenty of videos of their region where life is normal and they practice Islam, have beautiful mosques too. They had a program of those campuses (repressive and inhumane yes) to de-radicalise after terrorist attacks apparently occurred. Many of them for example go back and forth via land routes into neighbouring Afghanistan and end up in Syria too with other terrorist groups fighting jihad etc So the same extremist strand of Islam you point out is what China had to deal with in its own borders. Secessionists. Hence the camping down. Now it’s ended and Muslims live as normal there - from what I gather. China’s invested in the region to provide economic support and help de-radicalise or keep them away from terrorism and tourism’s massively increased. How did US deal with terrorists? Fuck up an entire continent 0-100 real quick. No understanding of the root cause of the issue. Muslims themselves know the issue of extremists within their own religion - Muslim states support or do counter terrorism ops all the time especially for example Pakistan in collaboration with US etc. They know the issue and perhaps get what Chinas dealing and how it felt the need to do what it did to maintain national integrity. Perhaps that was being exploited by covert cia ops that arm them to destabilise from within too. Most Muslim countries have good relations with China - get the nature of the beast - and also don’t have the geopolitical luxury of calling them out on the world stage - but also don’t feel the need to make a performance of it and morally posture. Iran had a anti-apartheid position and politically supported the fight against it (a non Muslim country) beside just Palestine.