SecureSignals
No bio...
User ID: 853
Not necessarily a state but an Alliance, Iraqi militias are cooperating with Iran and inflicting huge damage on US assets in Iraq for example.
The point was that secular cooperation among Arabs (with Persians potentially at the helm) is what actually keeps Israeli planners up at night, sectarian fundamentalist slogans are what they point to as a pretext and they actually benefit from it and exploit it. Israel is not pursuing the policy it is because of "Death to Israel" chants, it's doing so for the reasons laid out in the Clean Break Memo, which directly plans on using sectarian fundamentalism to destabilize hostile and relatively secular regimes like Syria to prevent that type of cooperation.
In the counterfactual with the Shah, it would depend on whether he were more of an Assad figure or King of Jordan figure. But it doesn't reduce to the Islamic Revolution.
SecureSignals
13hr ago
So the Jews create their colony in the middle of the Muslim world on the basis of superstitious, cult nonsense, and now Muslim religious hostility is cited as the justification for Israel launching these surprise attacks on its neighbors and conquering their territory and displacing the Muslims and destabilizing the region and most likely world economy. The raison d'etre for Israel is far more religious in nature than the Islamic regime in Iran.
The regimes of Assad and Saddam Hussein were not marked by rote Islamic fanaticism towards Israel, yet they were targeted by Israel for the exact same reasons I suggested. In Sryia the new regime is more Islamic than the Assad, accomplished with the support of Israel. A colonial project does not survive given a balance of power with enemies who are surrounding you. It results in colonists leaving. The US colonial project did not thrive on the basis of a balance of power with the Indians, nor the Spanish colonial project.
To answer your question, it would depend on the political objectives of the Shah. The threat of Pan-Arabism is actually what Israel has been trying to nip in the bud for all these years, preventing the political alliance of actually more secular leaders like Assad, Hussein, Nasser, and since the fall of Iraq Iran is the greatest threat of providing a basis for greater political unity and cooperation among Arabs. That is the 100x greater threat to Israel than Islamic fundamentalism- Israel's policy does not reduce to Muslim hostility, it's about making Israel the regional hegemon to secure its colonial project.
Just to add to @coffee_enjoyer's comment, it's disingenuous to suggest that Israel actually starting both wars does not constitute Israel starting the war with Iran. You simply have the ground truth that both wars started with Israel launching surprise attacks on Iran.
It's more disingenuous to suggest coarse propaganda slogans constitutes a start of a war. And by that standard, you would also have to consider the Jewish religion itself, which is an esoteric war-cry against its enemies including Iran. Jews to this day publicly celebrate Purim, the mass slaughter of Persian civilians on the basis of a "pre-emptive strike" dubiously similar to the narrative Israel is using to justify its own surprise attacks and aggressive war on Iran. Passover is publicly celebrated, which is the celebration of a mass slaughter of the first born sons of the Gentiles in Egypt. Israeli society has identified its war on Iran as a holy war on Aamalek, and that's not a new association.
The Jewish Synagogue, although slightly more esoteric than "Death to Israel", is a much more profound and esoteric war-cry than Iran's slogans, and a more indispensable raison d’etre for the entire religion itself which is why we have Israel in the first place causing so much war in the region. The religion is a war cry.
Quite awhile back, you argued that none of Israel's enemies in the region could defeat it even without US help. I countered that they wouldn't need to militarily defeat Israel, they would just need to cause enough insecurity and instability to threaten the colonial project. Not only has that proven more true than ever, but I think this war given the enormous investment by the US military shows that Israel could not have fought Iran without US help. And in fact a Iran/Hezbolahh/Houthis scenario against Israel with US neutrality very well may have resulted in the actual military defeat of Israel.
And that's the real reason for this war, going back to the "New Strategy for Securing the Realm." There was a balance of power between Iran and Israel, which is good for the US but bad highly threatening for Israel. Israel is starting this war to disrupt the balance of power, so they are hegemonic in the region.
To say Israel didn't start the wars is disingenuous in every respect.
Israel’s hostility to Iran isn’t ethnic or national or irredentist or religious
This war and Israel itself would not exist without its religion. The Jewish religion has brought that region to this exact point, it is a religious hostility.
SecureSignals
1d ago
Sorry, I don't believe you. If you had hundreds of bombs going off inside houses, bedrooms, with kids around, in grocery stores, churches, everyone would call it terrorism if the tables were turned.
SecureSignals
2d ago
I'm just curious, do you admit the US government is consciously straining the Cuban oil supply in order to put political pressure on their regime? Or do you seriously think it's about curbing welfare fraud?
So if a mail bomb is sent to some IDF recruit by Hezbhollah to blow up inside his house then that's not terrorism because it's a military target?
It's not the target that is exceptional here, it's the clandestine appropriation of a consumer supply chain as a weapon. That is actually unprecedented, it's a method of warfare that fundamentally erodes global trust in economic trade and cooperation, it is far more unusual than a blockade of a Strait in the middle of an existential war. As to the semantics, feel free to not call it terrorism if it makes you feel better, even though you would call it that if/when bombs are set off inside the homes of Israeli or US troops.
Spitting in the food in the back kitchen isn't such an enormous taboo because of the direct consequences, but because none of us want to live in a world where that is remotely acceptable behavior, we want to trust our food has been handled properly and not question it when we sit down to eat. But people here defending the planting of hidden explosives in consumer goods can't seem to wrap their minds around those consequences. Why is Hezbollah such a dangerous enemy Israel has to normalize spitting in the food as a method of warfare?
SecureSignals
2d ago
Iran doesn't have a formal oil embargo on the Strait either! You can cross, good luck getting insured, might want to reconsider it unless you pay IRGC $2 mil. But no formal oil embargo, for all that's worth.
SecureSignals
2d ago
There were reports of collateral victims, yes but that hardly matters. Planting hidden explosives in the consumer supply chain is normalized terrorism, so I don't really want to see people act shocked that Iran is projecting power over its Strait, literally the most normal and predictable wartime maneuverer ever.
SecureSignals
2d ago
I'm sorry, can we just cut the bullshit? The US kidnaps the leader of Venezuela and then forbids them from shipping oil to Cuba. Then it strongarms Mexico into stopping oil shipments to Cuba. No matter how you try to rationalize this, it is certainly not more normal than Iran's restrictions on the Strait.
Iran is fighting an asymmetric war for its survival. The only two possibilities were ever immediate surrender or blockading the Strait. Most likely the Friday timing of the attack on Iran was intended to wrap up the war before the markets even opened by Monday in the best case scenario. But I find it hard to tolerate people complaining about Iran acting in a way that's unprecedented or unpredictable, when it's neither of those things. If Iran wants to survive, blockading the Strait and threatening regional infrastructure are things it must do. And no I do not like it, which is why I was strongly opposed to this war and want it to end.
All of this was extremely predictable. The question people should be asking is not why Iran is doing what it is doing, but why we were led here by our own leaders walking directly into extremely predictable consequences. There is no good answer for that.
SecureSignals
2d ago
Cuba is facing essentially a full-country blackout from three months of US oil blockades...
In early January, the US cut off Cuba’s main oil supplier, Venezuela, after capturing its president in a military raid and forcing its acting government to halt shipments.
Weeks later, Cuba lost oil supply from other providers, such as Mexico, after the US threatened them with additional tariffs, arguing that Havana posed an “extraordinary threat” by aligning itself with “hostile countries and malign actors, (and) hosting their military and intelligence capabilities,” a claim that Cuba rejected.
SecureSignals
2d ago
Everyone was cheering when Israel infiltrated a consumer electronics supply chain to plant hidden explosives inside batteries. That is actually pushing the boundaries of normalized warfare. Blockades when you are at war has long been normalized. The US has been blockading Venezuela and Cuba international shipping without any sort of war.
I like being able to afford food, and generally dislike freezing to death in the winter.
Me too, but rather than bemoan the predictable consequences of an aggressive war it's more productive to contend with the apparatus that brought the world to this state.
SecureSignals
4d ago
Consider Netanyahu has already said, just the other day, the aspiration is for Gulf oil to flow through pipelines in Israel. The fact is they want the escalation ladder.
SecureSignals
4d ago
To sort of echo Daste's recent post, it's remarkable the lack of threads for the ongoing conflict given its historic implications for Culture War, but I'll keep the ball rolling for another update/call to register your predictions:
- On Friday Donald Trump gave Iran an ultimatum to open the Strait of Hormuz, or else the US will target Iranian civilian energy infrastructure. Israel has enthusiastically supported the ultimatum.
- Iran has vowed to retaliate against Gulf energy and desalination infrastructure if the US follows through on its threat.
It's very possible the next few days will be a turning point in history. I guess I will register the prediction of Trump TACO given any other alternative is too bad for the world to fathom. Yesterday Iran did enormous damage to the towns in Southern Israel hosting Israeli nuclear infrastructure (which actually does not fall under the oversight of the IEA in contrast with Iran's program to this point). The notion that Iran is incapable of following through with its avowed retaliation is bunk, given the recent strikes on Qatar gas facilities that will have long-term impacts on global supply of natural gas.
So what's going to happen tomorrow? All of the public signals point to Trump making the decision to totally destroy Iranian infrastructure in order to destroy the country. But Iran won't back down because it would be the end of the regime. So who's going to blink?
Poilievre
SecureSignals
8d ago
It matters because the "they're Islamo-Fascists who hate Americans for our freedoms", or as Trump put it yesterday "the worst people since Hitler", has been the conventional wisdom used to justify violence. They are rational actors. The notion they they are incapable of reaching and maintaining an agreement through negotiation is false. The idea they are some Rogue State that has to be put down immediately at any cost is false. The idea people propose here "the damage Iran is doing to the region is proof we should have started this war" are wrong. They are rational actors, we had other paths to balancing power and maintaining regional stability, we chose this catastrophic path for a very specific reason.
SecureSignals
8d ago
The world is at risk from US operations in Iran because Iranian regime faces an existential crisis, and its deterrence is folded into the threat of eliminating regional infrastructure that would cause humanitarian and global economic crisis. This ought to be a very strong incentive to avoid the escalation ladder, the problem is Israel wants to climb the escalation ladder, they will burn down the region to become the regional hegemon even if America is sacrificed as a result (especially if it is). They just bombed Iranian gas facilities today and Iran has ordered the evacuation of Gulf facilities in a possible retaliation.
SecureSignals
8d ago
Ok so it's about the Shah not about American/Israeli intervention in overthrowing Syria, Iraq, Libya. Libya disarmed their nuclear program and then we promptly proceeded with regime change resulting in the public torture and execution of its leader. We surround Iran with military bases with an obvious concerted effort by Zionist Jews to get America to attack Iran, but Iran just has an irrational hatred for the US because of the Shah. That is so obviously false.
SecureSignals
8d ago
Do you know how hard we are now attacking Iran from our bases and military presence in Iraq and Iraqi airspace? Why were we in Iraq in the first place? You are just explaining how this all goes back to the same answer. We topple Hussein for Israel, Iran arms militias that resist. Oh well now the story is Iran just hates us for no reason, so we have to risk the world to achieve regime change in Iran as well.
How long are people going to fall for this circular logic?
SecureSignals
8d ago
Essentially none of the comments like this are worth a dime if they don't contend with the progress in the negotiations, and in Iran's compliance with the former deal that Trump ended. Because you aren't even trying to lay out the case for why the escalation path you proposed is lower-risk than making another deal.
We have people here talking about how "oh we just bomb their desalination plants, and yeah maybe they retaliate against the Gulf desalination plans and oil infrastructure and bring the entire region to chaos, mass regional humanitarian crisis, likely mass refugee crisis, risk the global economy, but it's worth it." The fact is, if you are an American, the risk equation is UNAMIBUGOUSLY AGAINST this escalation path. It's only Israel that stands to benefit from this escalation path, nobody else in the world does so. There is no universe in which this escalation path is worth the alternative "risk" of continuing negotiations that, by all accounts other than Kushner and Witkoff, two Zionist Jews who were regarded as Israeli assets by diplomats involved in the negotiation, were proceeding very well.
This is why the Zionist element is the only explanation for why an American would accept this risk to their own interests and the global economy to scuttle those negotiations. This is also why, when someone like you lays out the case for this escalation path, you basically ignore the alternative and much lower-risk path that all parties agreed was alive and progressing well, but then was sabotaged by Witkoff and Kushner at the very moment they made the greatest progress by all accounts.
You also ignore the fact that Iran's hostility towards the US is downstream from our alliance with Israel. So that hostility and the risks associated with it are another cost of the Zionist integration in America. So every step of the way, from the first step to "bomb their desalination plants" is being influenced by Jewish interests, not American interests.
SecureSignals
8d ago
I can't imagine how optimistic you are to think Iran can't target Gulf oil fields and infrastructure. Tel Aviv, airports, and US embassies are still being hit right now but you can't think they can target oil infrastructure?
SecureSignals
9d ago
The most important point was on enrichment and the treatment of the highly enriched stockpile, which Iran had conceded and was why those involved in the process, other than Witkoff and Kushner, thought a deal was within reach. And diplomats involved with the talks said Witkoff and Kushner were regarded as Israeli assets. So yeah the consensus among everyone involved except Witkoff/Kushner seems to have been:
- No imminent threat
- Major concessions put a deal within reach
SecureSignals
9d ago
Trump is in full bullshitting mode, lying and contradicting himself every other sentence. Yesterday he said he was preparing to announce a grand naval Coalition to re-open the Straits, today he says nobody is coming and he doesn't need them. Yesterday he said he talked to a former President who disclosed to Trump that the president regretted not attacking Iran like Trump did. A claim that was promptly disputed by every single living President. Most likely he was talking to AI George Washington, who happened to completely agree with Glenn Beck's support for attacking Iran.
Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced today he was resigning over the war in Iran.
President Trump,
After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Directory 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.
....
Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that you should strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make that mistake again.
What's most significant is that Kent is not a Marjorie Taylor-Green or a Thomas Massie. Kent served in the U.S Special Forces and in eleven combat tours, mostly Iraq, and then retired an became a paramilitary officer with the CIA. His wife was killed in Syria. Kent had a very public feud with the Nick Fuentes faction of America First which was started by Kent's public denunciation of Fuentes.
Kent was clearly amenable to an aspirational "middle ground" with respect to the tenuous America First/Israel Alliance, which is why he was targeted by the Groypers in the first place. Nobody can accuse him of hiding some deep-seeded Jew hatred because of his long and recent history of supporting Israel, this seems to be a genuine defection. This defection is highly significant and the first time a high-ranking official has described any of these conflicts in these terms.
There may be more shoes to drop/more resignations. My own criticism of Kent's resignation is that he tries to absolve Trump of blame, when Trump is neck-deep in all of this.
This resignation comes as the same day the Guardian reports that a UK security adviser present at US-Iran talks believed a deal was within reach immediately before the US/Israeli strikes on Iran.
Iran had also made an offer of what the mediators described as an economic bonanza, with the US being given the chance to participate in a future civil nuclear programme.
In return, nearly 80% of the economic sanctions on Iran would have been lifted, including assets frozen in Qatar, a demand Iran made in the 2025 talks.
The Oman mediator believed the offer of zero stockpiling of highly enriched uranium was a breakthrough that meant an agreement was within reach.
Accounts differ on whether Kushner left the talks giving the impression Trump would welcome what had been agreed, or that the US negotiators knew it would take something massive to persuade Trump that war was not the best option.
One diplomat with knowledge of the talks said: “We regarded Witkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets that dragged a president into a war he wants to get out of.”
The Guardian’s report that Powell was in the room during the talks was cited in parliament on Tuesday by Liz Saville Roberts, an MP for the Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru party, during an update by Britain’s foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper.
“It appears diplomatic options were still viable and there was no evidence of an imminent missile threat to Europe or of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Saville Roberts told Cooper.
“Does she therefore believe a negotiated path between Iran and the US was still possible at that time and, if so, surely that means that the initial US and Israeli strikes were premature and illegal?”
Cooper responded: “The UK did provide support for negotiations and diplomatic processes around the nuclear discussions.
“We did think that was an important track and we did want it to continue. That is one of the reasons for the position we took on the initial US strikes that took place.”
As I said, what Trump did was accurately identify key fault lines that cut across large swaths of both the conservative and corporate sides of the Republican electorate as well as many former Democrats who'd been alienated by the national party's embrace of Id-Pol and then build a coalition around it.
I swear I feel like I'm the only one with a 10-year memory. Identity Politics reached peak during Donald Trump. BLM and all of its fallout and cultural Great Awokening was during Trump's first term. In 2016 he ran on Immigration restrictionism, which resonated with dissident elements who then turned all of his leadership faults into funny internet memes that went viral incessantly during the 2016 campaign, to the point Reddit had to eventually ban his subreddit. Trump's 2016 campaign was not an anti-idpol coalition, it was fundamentally a nativist movement. The Zionist wing of the GOP picked up on that energy, which is why they called themselves "Never-Trumpers" and opposed the movement, at least until he proved his worth and now they say they define the movement and all the "nativists" who are skeptical of another war for Israel are not MAGA.
Now, the 2024 campaign was more of an anti-idpol coalition, but by this point more discerning observers knew that MAGA was being subsumed by the interests that have brought us exactly where we are today, and "anti-idpol" was a Trojan Horse to move the chess pieces to achieve this war with Iran and the purge of the actual nativists.
That is not at all a clear answer given that Israel has been hostile to relatively secular regimes like Nasser, Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad. Why would the Shah in this counterfactual not be included in that list of Israel's enemies? If it were like Syria, Israel would leverage fundamentalist elements in Iran to destabilize the regime and undermine the Shah like it did in Syria.
Because Israel is a threat to Iran. Israel has spent decades overtly planning for a war with Iran and petitioning the United States to attack Iran. Keep in mind Israel supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war to provide a counterweight to Iraq. Then they take out Iraq by subverting the US foreign policy apparatus and overtly agitate for US to wage war on Iran. They take out Gaddafi (who was actually attempting to cooperate with demands placed on him), Assad, and by all accounts Iran is the crowned jewel of this policy strategy. Do you stop to think maybe that Iranian rhetoric is downstream from Israel's openly admitted foreign policy objectives and actions in pursuing highly destructive regime change throughout the region?
Rallying the country against Israel is fundamentally necessary for the survival of the regime because of Israel's own political strategy.
Syria's new leader was affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS! So why is his ascension over Assad considered such a huge win by Israel and US if this is ultimately about combatting religious extremism in favor of secular leadership? Doesn't that blow the entire "it was the Islamic Revolution's fault" theory out of the water? Israel WANTS an ISIS affiliate to lead Syria instead of Assad. How does this reality correspond to your impression here when it perfectly fits mine?
Edit: It's actually funnier the more you think about. Syria had Israel leveraging radical Islamist groups against the relatively secular Assad regime. Iran had Israel leveraging relatively secular monarchists against the Islamist regime. The only common denominator is Israel's objective to destabilize and destroy its rivals, it's not about fighting Islamism.
More options
Context Copy link