So McCarthyism but instead of blacklisting you for being commie, it’s for opposing genocide.

lmaooo

It reeks of desperation from the imperial admin to feel like they have some level of control over the situation. It strikes me that they really are organizationally unequipped to take an overt geopolitical L at this point; I think the pathetic showing of negotiation for peace on their part shows that. They are so used to everyone folding to them. They are used to diplomacy being another tool to solidify people folding to them, in polite meeting rooms. They refuse to grapple with the idea of losing any power.

They might as well have written a note that said:

Our Demands: “Give us your land.”

Putrid, entitled fuckers.

Yeah, I’m not very confident on that point. Maybe it’s also a matter of organization and communicating expectations clearly to the Iranian people? If we contrast to somewhere like the US, the US starts all these wars, but doesn’t really have to deal with attacks on its soil and appears to have most of its operations these days run on a clandestine level. So it’s like it operates almost independently of the rest of the nation. Whereas a place like Iran, it is being attacked on its soil and it is doubtful it has the same level of clandestine operation, or interest in such. By communicating clearly, it is perhaps both an external message and an internal message: “We are not going to drag you [the people of Iran] into a conflict with muddy lines for confusing purposes.” After all, there are “regime change” efforts from the west in countries like that, so making sure the people are trusting the institutions of power is important.

What do you think of this angle to it?

P.S. I should really look into reading that as well. I keep seeing people here talk about it as a resource.

For our new BBC podcast, Top Comment, we spoke to a representative of Explosive Media, one of the key accounts generating these clips. He wanted us to refer to him as Mr Explosive.

He’s a savvy social media operator who initially denies working for the Iranian government. In previous interviews the outlet has said it is “totally independent”. But upon further questioning, Mr Explosive admits the regime is a “customer” - something he’s never before confirmed publicly.

🤣 I have to laugh at how hard western media tries to make it sound like everything done in a country they don’t like is secretly tied to its “regime” of a government, as if this somehow means the action is inherently bad just cause the west said the country’s government is bad. It’s such a silly fucking “gotcha”. “Oh, you claim you are independent? But you made something for the government! Not so independent now, are you??? Gottem.” Meanwhile, the west is chock full of private entities that make/do stuff for the government, so it’s laughable they want to act like that’s a bad thing when another country does it, but not when it’s them.

If my understanding of the timing of it is right, they were in the middle of the negotiations still when it happened. So since part of the reason to do the negotiations at all seems to have been to show openness toward negotiating for peace, it would look bad if they suddenly broke it; but also, taking an attack in a pacifist manner would not help them either. So warning first gives the enemy the chance to back off, same with agreeing to attempted negotiations, but if they hadn’t backed off, Iran could have shown after that they warned first and only attacked when absolutely necessary to defend themselves.

This is how both Iran and Russia seem to behave these days in dealing with provocation and aggression. State the lines very clearly, give ample chance to back off, state what the response will be very clearly, and then pull no punches if the lines are crossed. In this way, it is harder to accuse them of being deceptive or random in their actions and it cannot be said that it is unclear what their boundaries are. The empire will still try to warp and distort what they do, but those nations who are more “on the sidelines” and are looking to the direction of the geopolitical world as a whole will be able to see the contrast between them and the deceptive aggression of the empire.

That is at least what I surmise is supposed to be some of the motive behind it. I could be wrong.

🤣

Strange. Personally, I feel pretty hopeful. It appears to me like the battle lines are being drawn more clearly, solidarity is strengthening for the Axis of Resistance, and the world is seeing that the empire can bleed like anyone else.

Forgive me if I sound more poetic than materialist, but I feel compelled to say: The old world is dying. Something new is taking shape. Now is the time of beginnings, in every space carved out by the resistance, every tendril of empire in retreat. We must not let our weariness cling to the gaunt pallor of imperial inevitability and instead look to the cracks where light is filtering in to claw at them, broaden them, until they burst and the whole rapacious palace built on bones and soil soaked in blood comes crashing down.

Awesome, love to hear it. Sounds like they are solidifying their role as the center of the resistance in the region, around which others can rally.

It’s a great example of how Zionism doesn’t care about Judaism when it comes down to it. It just uses it as a vessel for colonization.

That’s good to hear, thanks. Hoping for the best for the region. 🙏

The whiplash of this after Trump’s vaguetweeting threats. Hard to believe the Zionist entity will actually hold to a ceasefire, with how often it violates ceasefires with other places in the region.

Also wondering what this means in practice:

No further aggression (including against Iranian allies)

Like who counts as an official ally of Iran in this plan. Because places like Lebanon and Palestine really need the help, not the Zionist entity shifting its aggression mainly toward them again.

I don’t think it’s that simple to achieve though. Look at how much Yemen has done with its limited resources. Iran could inflict pain via the Strait even with more limited resources. Iran could make it hell to try to occupy due to terrain. Nukes are scary, but they are more barbaric than they are a strategic military resource. Most of their strategic power comes from MAD and deterrence. Less from actual use.

I agree with the spirit of it. I’m doubtful of anyone’s commitment to letting nukes loose though (but I fully believe there are warhawks who consider it - IIRC, the “Cuban Missile Crisis” was one such event). As Trump is a mask off version of the status quo, it makes sense he may express openly, or sound like he’s expressing, consideration of nukes.

But no matter how deranged the empire gets, setting off nukes in this geopolitical landscape is unprecedented territory. This isn’t the US bombing Japan at the end of WWII where the US was the only one who had nukes. If the US uses nukes now, anti-imperialist nuclear powers would be pressured to retaliate (namely: Russia, China). Otherwise, the new precedent is that you can nuke whatever country you want, as long as they can’t nuke back. And that sort of precedent in the hands of a declining empire lashing out would mean it starts viewing its nukes as a valid option for blowing up entire peoples.

Nukes in Iran would also not crush Iran or its resistance. It would senselessly mass murder for no real gain. Remaining Iranians would have all the more vicious hatred for the US and double-down on efforts to block the Strait and break the empire economically. Trump would cement himself as an international pariah (his ego clearly doesn’t want that).

So although I fully believe those conversations get had because the empire is brutal as hell, it would not be something it can really come back from. I think the greater likelihood is that this is spectacle and it’s Trump trying to intimidate, while they focus on a more kidnapping-of-Maduro style of operation.

Either way, I hope the anti-imperialist nuclear powers are having those conversations about what they would do if the US did try to nuke Iran.

It’s shit like that what makes me hate when people try to humanize the oligarchy. “Anyone with that much wealth would act that way.”

That’s not what the humanizing argument is. It’s that 1) human beings are in fact capable of being that fucked up, which leads to 2) we can do something about it in how we design systems going forward, i.e. it’s not an inevitability that the most monstrous of human beings exist in the first place.

If we instead insist 1) the worst of us aren’t human, that leads 2) there are literal monsters among us whose origin is beyond our comprehension and control, and all we can do is try to catch them before they do damage and kill them before they gain any power.

In practice, the first mindset is typically associated with liberation forces and what they practice and believe. The second mindset is typically associated with class and caste, racism and things like that. Note that this does not mean the liberation forces are pacifist in the face of already existing monstrous human beings, nor does this mean they feel a need to mourn the death of a violent oppressor. It just means that they do not treat the existence of the worst people as an inevitable part of life.

So, it’s not that “anyone with that much wealth would act that way.” It’s that a system that produces an oligarchy also produces and elevates sociopathic behavior. It’s not a flip of a switch that means everyone over a certain amount of wealth instantly starts acting like the top worst kind of human being. It’s more of a gradual process and we’re not going to tend to hear as much about the ones with wealth whose character is a “lesser evil”, whose ties to industry are exploitative but whose personal MO remains somewhat conscientious. After all, rare as they may be, class traitors do exist. Generalities about what a system produces do not prevent exceptions to the rule.

Right, but in the case of a settler state, they are also an occupying force, which complicates it beyond bougie and worker, and that’s the part I’m trying to get at that’s important in the US context. In a way, it’s another angle of looking at the patsoc problem: where people view things as working class and elite, but their vision of better is the working class getting more of the imperial spoils. They haven’t internalized/accepted the state as an occupying entity and only see it as one that exploits the working class.

For comparison, current Russia is capitalist, but it is not “occupying Russia”: it’s local bourgeoisie ruling over local working class, but it’s native Russian forces carrying this out, not colonizers. In the US, it is both that and occupation, and the history of the US shows that when the local working class push for better without addressing the settler contradiction, it plays out as mild reforms that struggle to stick, usually at the expense of dumping the needs of a group on a lower rung.

I think this is the most resonant analysis of the US mindset/conditions I’ve read to date. People tend to cover the “giving up” side a lot, the “not doing enough” side as well, and typically the conclusion drawn is that people are too comfortable and don’t care enough to rebel; but those other limited narratives don’t get at what you did, the rationale behind holding back because of the belief that the risk won’t actually pay off and that it will be for nothing.

As an example, we have people like Aaron Bushnell to look at in fear. This guy who martyred himself for Palestine and it was a blip of attention in a sea of spectacle. To the point you make about atomization, if most people in the US saw Aaron Bushnell as a brother, as family, they would not only have been aware of what he did, but been spurred to action. Instead, he’s “just a name.” Some people try to honor what he did, but they aren’t in military buildings, breaking things in them as a consequence for the military creating a world where one of its own would choose to do what he did.

People are conditioned instead to look at things like “I got mine”, or at most, “I got mine for me and my immediate family / circle of friends.” Minneapolis appears to be a situation where that attitude didn’t hold and people started seeing Minneapolis as one and ICE as outsider invaders.

As communists, we like to talk about building class consciousness and that does matter, but this train of thought makes me wonder if the more pressing consciousness is US people coming to understand the US state apparatus as like invaders. Substantively, it is like invaders for the indigenous population, since its inception. And the ramping up of policing/ICE/militarization/etc. may make the US state more like invaders for the general population as well. This is perhaps a reason why Minneapolis stands out.

The conditions are already coming, already there for some people, that the state is turning its conquering nature inwards, but people need to learn still to not scramble to get out of the way and hide, and instead find solidarity with the indigenous and their priorities; they are the ones who have known invasion for the longest time.

This feels a bit rambly, but anyway, great analysis, gets me thinking and is somewhat cathartic to have that feeling named, of wondering how worth it is, to risk.

Yeah I don’t even know how to process that part. Like what. That part reads like someone hacked the account and took over, it’s so random.

Tbh, I’m skeptical this was written by him. I’m not saying it’s not a real tweet (I saw your link). But he has a very specific style of unhinged word salad. The line “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell” reads like someone trying to put an action hero 'murican movie president spin on his normal ravings.

Not to say it’s outside the realm of possibility that he wrote or dictated all of it. He is performative after all, unhinged even before this, and his mind may be literally going. But it strikes me as a bizarre kind of coherent incoherence in this case. I’m not sure how much it matters, it just sticks out to me as odd even by his standards.