I'm not going to defend the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. But I am going to contextualize it. - Prior to the fall of the Shah, Iran was the United States' biggest recipient of military aid. The F-14s the Israelis bombed were obliquely explained as "when the countries still had ties", not as in "Iran used to be our Saudi Arabia." The Iranian Revolution turned Iran into a pariah state so they couldn't get any maintenance on anything; this is one reason they suffered like a half million dead in an eight year war of attrition with Iraq. - After the fall of the Shah, Iran leaned heavily on terrorism. The CIA and State Department will never forgive Iran for two things: (1) the marine barracks bombing in Beirut (2) the kidnapping and murder of the CIA station chief for South Asia. Mired in protracted battlefield hell, Iran responded asymmetrically. - The traditional counterbalance of Israeli power in the Middle East was Saudi Arabia. El Al now flies between Mecca and Tel Aviv because MBS really doesn't give a fuck about Israeli power. That, more than anything, cemented his acceptance by the USA despite his big-time dictatorial moves, assassinations and power grabs - he ain't sussed with Israel. Iran? The Houthis are just another repressed minority without Iran. The Iranian response to the aerial murder of Soleimani was milquetoast at best. Iran was Dead Man Walking at that point because what it showed was that Iran got nuthin'. Nonetheless Putin managed to convince the Iranians to convince their proxies to open conflict up wide on October 7th, thinking it would affect US elections. Putin figured he could bank on Trump, only to discover like everyone else that everything Trump touches dies. Netanyahu, for his part, needs the October 7 war to keep in the good graces of Israelis so the longer he can keep up the conflict the longer he's in power. And since then, - Hamas has been effectively liquidated - Hezbollah has been effectively liquidated - America has gone kinetic against the Houthis It doesn't take a genius to go "if we tee up an opportunity for Trump to appear decisive and powerful he'll absolutely take it." I don't think he has the attention span for a ground war. I think Ukraine has shown everyone that ground wars are bad TV. But fuckin' hell if I were the CIA or State Department I would be doing the following out of sheer Great Game skullduggery: 1) keep the war in Ukraine dragging along for as long as possible. Ain't my bodies and the more indebted Ukraine is the better. Meanwhile it's grinding Russia down and tying them up in a futile meatgrinder. 2) Use Russia's preoccupation to foment chaos everywhere they have an interest. Syria? Gone. Iran? Going. North Korea? Packed up and gone home. 3) Allow and encourage Israel in their genocide. It makes me sick. It makes me hopeless. It makes me stare at the horizon a lot and it gives me this tightening in my chest that I can't seem to do anything about. But the CIA and State Department have never given the first fuck about foreign genocides, particularly when they're convenient to their aims. I've seen nobody talk about this picture: Which, to me, is astonishing. Because everyone talked about this picture: That's a Trump-leaked bit of IMINT out of KH-11 Block IV. demure can either back me up on this or shut me down but I'm unaware of commercial imagery with that resolution. And the resolution of those Russian bombers is... Well, here's Maxar. Here's Maxar zoomed in. I don't think you get blowups like Vasil's there unless you have some special friends. And I think Vasil's special friends want Vladimir Putin to know who's really running the show. You drank from the firehose. I suspect you were taken aback, as I was, by how fervently the once and former US insiders were at "Iran gonna burn, yo." Two, three, four decades later and to a man, they wanted Iran to burn more than anything else on this green earth. I think you can also agree that Trump has no attention span for anything that doesn't have a place to write "TRUMP" on it. The Gray Men? I don't think it's Senator Bloodfeast. I think Senator Bloodfeast is trying to figure out how to keep his job in a party gone populist. I think the Gray Men wanted this so bad that they went around the Russian operative running National Intelligence. Think of that! We have a Russian patsy ostensibly in charge of this shit! Who coddled up to Assad! And we STILL dropped bombs on Natanz! While the cat is away the mice will play and say what you will about Pete Hegseth, the man sure cuts a striking silhouette for a power vacuum. I would like to make two recommendations to you. The first is this video. That's not some random Youtuber, that's BBC 4 Storyville. It's basically 90 minutes of what happens when you let them eat cake, 90 minutes of the Iran that the very, very last of the Gray Men still remember. The "remember what they took from you" refrains are all held by people who used to be hella more powerful while everyone at "RETVRN" spent time tortured by SAVAK. The second is this book. Paul Kriwaczek was at that party, filming it for the BBC. He was so blown away by it that he basically went "what does history even mean" and went off to basically chart an underdog's history of Europe and the Middle East. The perspectives in it are still with me two decades later. I think you could stand to focus on something other than current events. I know I could. And while I've got a couple dozen books on the middle east up in that list, In Search of Zarathustra didn't make it because it's much more about humanity than it is about history. There's a whole lot of humans in Iran. And for the most part, they aren't substantially worse off than they've been since 2009. I don't know what the future holds but I, for one, have been expecting this since 2020.
I would just note on the point of Hezbollah being effectively liquidated, perhaps their historical role and influence out of Lebanon is moot now, but as I understand it, between HB across the middle east and the amalgamation of Iran-aligned militia groups, these are still legitimate asymmetrical threats in the Iranian pocket.
I've certainly never been out of the armchair on this one. And definitely - never count out an ideology. But I cannot recall a time that the various paramilitary Lebanese factions have been this disordered, this powerless and this wrong-footed. Iran is also very much in eclipse. It seems like the Saudis have a handle on all their shit, Israel is running rampant without any other nation doing much other than expressing tepid concern and their allies are decreasing in number and allegiance. Various talking heads have been mouthing off about Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz. At this point, they have to be calculating that doing so will just demonstrate how powerless their navy is. Israel legit controlled their airspace inside a week; what the hell is their Navy going to do?
I will admit to knowing very little about these things… but when I heard this piece the other day I had to double check my maps… um… doesn’t the US 5th fleet operate out of Bahrain? Is there really much of a question as to naval superiority? (Again - I’m not some kind of military junkie - but my guess is an Iranian “closure” is not much more than posturing) Various talking heads have been mouthing off about Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz
Thanks for the info I guess. Not sure how relevant or irrelevant any of it will be if we put boots on the ground in the Middle East for another 20 years. There is a disturbing amount of people calling for exactly that. Guys with friends from high school who died in Afghanistan getting all gassed up to enlist their sons. We can't pretend that's not real. That's to say nothing of the apocalypse fetishism of the Christians who run the white house Faith Office. They want nuclear holocaust so Jesus can come back.
Eyes on the prize: the apocalyptic Christian fetishists want a red heifer sacrificed in a rebuilt Holy Temple. Said Holy Temple would need to replace the Dome of the Rock so... go Jews I guess? This, of course, is a cross-eyed evangelical Revelations-related read of the Book of Numbers and is subject to whim. Christian thought on the issue has a lot more to do with Tim LaHaye than it does with John the Apostle so it's pretty squishy. Squishy as it is, it has fuckall to do with Iran. The Iran thing is Ezekeil 38-39 which doesn't say "holocaust" and actually fits the USSR better than Iran - Ezekiel 38 reads out Persia as an "ally" of Gog among modern-day Turkey, Ukraine, Ethiopia and Libya. And sure - they'll interpret it however they want. But the prophetic backing for a Left Behind War diminished greatly on October 8th, 9th, 10th and subsequent retaliatory events. I'm not seeing boots on the ground in Iran. There's no advantage to it. I could be wrong? The amount of bizarro-ass shit since 2016 is mind-numbing. But there will be significant resistance to putting soldiers anywhere they are within easy reach of a truck bomb.
Sure. Stochastic assassination is a real and driving concern. But what does it have to do with Iran? What does it have to do with end-times evangelical Christians? This is where I lose patience with quote-unquote liberals, and I say that as a guy any political quiz will out as borderline socialist: "the sky is falling" is not a useful political or philosophical position. Shit's all fucked up. Craven nazis are running the government. There's plenty to freak out about why do you find it necessary to skip-load to a completely different argument just so you can find something to shout at me about? Oh boo hoo hoo the only credible choices are inaction and assassination, everyone on BSky agrees.
Specifically, any conflict with Israel is used to stoke the fires and ramp up the 'We must be faithful instruments of His Will' talk. Iran is easy to use as the next 'Great Enemy' no matter what the book says. The 'Death to America' chanting makes this very easy. Vance Boelter has a traceable education in Christian Nationalism. Places like Christ for the Nations Institute still exist today, and are where he got his start. https://slowcivilwar.substack.com/p/on-the-christian-education-of-dr Not trying to move any goalposts.But what does it have to do with Iran? What does it have to do with end-times evangelical Christians?
"Great" enemies must be exactly that - "great." Let's suppose we were dealing with a Khrushchev-era USSR - beating us at spaceflight, rolling up non-aligned states, possessing a(n apocryphal) "missile gap." The Communists were definitely Godless and the John Birch Society made great hay with it. But even then, it wasn't apocalyptic it was "must be defeated." We're not dealing with a Khrushchev-era USSR tho. We're dealing with a country that lost control of its own skies in three days, whose navy is principally equipped with outboard motors, which has been throwing shit with a CEP on the order of hundreds of meters at a country the size of New Jersey. You can't pop off at their nuclear weapons program between rounds of golf and still argue they're "great." Besides which, evangelicals are going extinct. I know they occupy an outsized place in your universe but other than the Charlie Kirk millennial incels, every demo is down. So on the one hand, you look like a chump calling an enemy "great" if you can push them over without so much as a congressional hearing. And on the other hand, the number of people willing to listen to "because Jesus said so" has never been so low as now.
Was there any advantage? From a PNAC standpoint, there was obviously advantage. 1) It allowed the Bush administration to move the narrative from "we were caught unawares" to "Toby Keith Approved." 2) It allowed the United States to assert hegemony over the TAPI Pipeline. 3) It allowed the United States to reshape the Middle East from a disparate patchwork of treaty states to a unified American framework of peace and prosperity. Oops, no it didn't but if you don't think that was the goal you haven't been paying attention. You can't argue that Trump will do anything for money out one side of your mouth and out the other insist that "tangible advantage or benefit doesn't enter into the conversation" out the other. It's ALL about tangible advantage or benefit. Refusing to demean yourself with empathy for your opponent's positions does not eliminate them.
There was a miscommunication of the word 'advantage' that made this convey something I didn't mean. Specifically in the second instance, I meant 'tangible advantage or benefit' for anyone other than Trump personally or whatever given foreign interest he has most lately acted in the interest of. Obviously he does things that are self serving. Regarding point 1: Do we expect retaliatory asymmetrical violence? If so, will one of those attacks be used by the media and the nashville industrial country music complex to create another Angry American moment to justify boots on the ground? We seem primed for it. 2: Good point. Less specific material reasons to want to assert that tier of control. 3: Footage of pre/post revolution is being used by right wing media right now on substack, tiktok and probably facebook and twitter, to test the waters on how does right wing america feel about supporting 'Regime change.' This makes me worried that the right wing think tanks know how to get people in the 'send my son to die in the desert' mood.
Okay, "tangible advantage or benefit for anyone other than Trump." But what tangible advantage or benefit would Trump derive from boots-on-ground in Iran? He's not a man of firm philosophical standing, but "isolationist" is something he gets called a lot more than "imperialist." There would be heavy political cost to deploying troops anywhere they aren't needed for humanitarian aims and considering how sclerotic and ineffectual the Iranian regime is, why fucking bother? Do we expect retaliation? As I said, I expected retaliation after Soleimani and it effectively never came. Shit, I think the world expected retaliation after Nimr al-Nimr and it came in the form of memes. There was a time when the Iranians were enthusiastic and skillful practitioners of terrorism but that time is clearly past. If they were gonna pop off they woulda done long since. As far as workshopping a regime change, it serves the same purpose as "bombing is good tho", something they definitely need to do considering Trump ran on isolationism. Besides which the right-wing think tanks have long been at "wall it off and it will collapse on its own" with Iran, even before the Soviet Union did exactly that (and long, LONG before Syria did exactly that). The argument is basically that the tree is about to fall anyway, why rush at it with an axe when you can sit back, crack open a Busch Light and watch it fall. Operation Enduring Freedom cost about $2.3T. Trump ain't big on numbers or statistics but he definitely listens to prices. I guarantee you he asked how much a MOAB cost.
Will there be more resistance than there was before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? If there IS quantifiably MORE resistance than pre- Afghanistan and Iraq is it actually enough to stop Gulf War 3? If the coequal branches of government were functioning that way I might be tentatively able to think that would be enough. As it stands I don't think so. Unless the armed forces themselves refuse to go, the whole chain of command as it currently exists has no concern for soldiers within reach of truck bombs. Current evidence suggests those in charge of issuing orders to make Netanyahus wishes into military reality will do so when ordered. That's why Trump and Co gutted the generals and the JAG. that's the purpose behind doing that. I won't talk the finer points of the theology of the crazies. We agree that it's perfectly malleable to the political demands of Republicans. That's the important part. I keep my finger on their pulse because it's often predictive of the specifics of the latest stochastic terrorism. At the moment the crazies are promoting the morality and hilarity of running over Pride parades with their trucks.But there will be significant resistance to putting soldiers anywhere they are within easy reach of a truck bomb.
Fucking lol we were hella better off 20 years ago and the Dems still rubber-stamped the invasion of Iraq. If Trump wanted boots-on-ground in Iran we'd have boots-on-ground. But what would be the point? Iraq was all about mobile weapons labs and dumb shit like that; we're three days past "we took off from Elmendorf and within twelve hours the Iranian nuclear program was a smoking ruin." is it a smoking ruin? Does it matter? The only thing keeping us from doing it again is we don't currently have the inventory of MOABs (or whatever they're calling them these days). The first time you violate a nation's sovereignty is a problem but after that, it's just a job. Prolly won't even make the news, tbh. Netanyahu doesn't want boots-on-ground in Iran either. Israeli interests start and stop at Israeli sovereignty and the reason Netanyahu is grinding so deeply into this shitshow is Oct 7 showed that he fucked up royally at the ONE PRIORITY he kept harping on, which was "keep Israel safe." "Send a bunch of conscripts a thousand miles away for regime change" is a tough sell.If there IS quantifiably MORE resistance than pre- Afghanistan and Iraq is it actually enough to stop Gulf War 3? If the coequal branches of government were functioning that way I might be tentatively able to think that would be enough.
Current evidence suggests those in charge of issuing orders to make Netanyahus wishes into military reality will do so when ordered.
Well that took me aback. Your point about the relative low 'cost' of a targeted air campaign carries a lot of weight. I suppose this illustrates that I don't have a particularly clear idea of what Bibi and his cohort do want in specific material terms beyond 'Set fire to every country that funds or houses Hamas, Hesbollah, etc.'Fucking lol we were hella better off 20 years ago and the Dems still rubber-stamped the invasion of Iraq.
Netanyahu doesn't want boots-on-ground in Iran either.
"Send a bunch of conscripts a thousand miles away for regime change" is a tough sell.
If you can figure out a way to assign blame to them for something else horrific, real, fake or otherwise, I'm sure someone could manage it.
So imagine a man so hell-bent on preserving the security of Israel that he prompted the stochastic assassination of the guy who signed peace accords. Now imagine that for more than 20 years, he's been running on "I keep you safe." Imagine that he's been riding this grift for so long that his gravy train is leaking into the press and he's been legit indicted for bribery and corruption. Now imagine he's suddenly responsible for the worst failure of security in the history of the nation, and responsible for more deaths than any tragedy since the War of Independence in 1948. Your first instinct is likely "dude's chum." But then you remember how countries rally around their leaders in times of strife. Netanyahu has postponed a reckoning. If he lands this plane correctly he can sail off into the sunset without going to jail but anything short of "I made you safe again" and it will not only be bad for Netanyahu, it will be bad for Likud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu#Trial Israel is proud of its conscript army and its tradition of service. That hinges on Israel's successful defense of its borders. Pacifying Lebanon or Syria is one thing; hopping a plane to Iran is quite another.I suppose this illustrates that I don't have a particularly clear idea of what Bibi and his cohort do want in specific material terms beyond 'Set fire to every country that funds or houses Hamas, Hesbollah, etc.'
And lo, when the people of Iran saw they had been attacked, they cheered in gratitude and toppled their overlords in favour of liberal democracy.