He’s old enough at this point, it could genuinely be his mind going, causing so much flip flopping. OTOH, him having spent his life used to calling shots and people listening, it may be breaking his brain a bit that he is currently holding one of the most powerful positions in history and Iran is not only not doing what he demands, they’re actively destroying components of what makes that position powerful in the first place with no end in sight. He is getting humiliated on a large scale and for someone like him whose life revolves around ego, it’s gotta hurt; that is, if he’s still coherent enough mentally to comprehend it properly.

Though this is also assuming any sort of accuracy to the information he’s getting. He could be insulated from some of the reports and reacting to whatever he hears from advisors or Fox News without any kind of comprehensive picture given to him on what’s going on.

Whatever the cause, the character of it looks very tantrum-like.

The vacillating back and forth is wild. “NATO sucks” “but we didn’t need them”, “the fight is won” “but they won’t help us continue it”, “a simple military maneuver” “but we need their help with it but it’s so easy to do with so little risk but we don’t need their help”. Reminds me of the old “the enemy is strong and weak at the same time” aspect associated with fascism.

It’s not a withdrawal, you see, it’s an adjustment of posture. Like how when a company goes bankrupt, it’s a tactical reevaluation of payroll priorities.

Time to do a more “honest” rewrite:

Trump, who has repeatedly touted his “great relationship” with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, has downplayed the ‌threat of ⁠the Chinese drills around Taiwan and said Xi told him he will not attack Taiwan while the U.S. president is in office - something Beijing has never confirmed.

Despite concerns in the U.S. and abroad about Trump’s inclination to back Taiwan, his ​administration in December unveiled a record $11 billion ​sale of weapons for the ⁠island, angering Beijing, which says such arms deals must end.

Nonetheless, some Japanese officials have worried Trump may be prepared to soften support for Taiwan in pursuit of a trade accord with China, a move they fear will embolden Beijing ​and spark conflict in an increasingly militarized East Asia.

Tokyo had been unnerved by muted U.S. rhetorical support for Japanese ​Prime Minister Sanae ⁠Takaichi after her remarks last year that a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan could bring about a Japanese military response. Trump reportedly told her privately not to escalate the ensuing diplomatic row with Beijing.

Possible interpretations that come to mind:

• Trump understands who had to bend when he tried his tariffs bullshit with China and it wasn’t China, so his normal belligerence is reigned in a bit here because there’s a real and obvious threat to being cavalier with China.
• It’s another example of pretending to prioritize peace and deals, while looking to build up military and attack in a backstabbing way. Would fit with “sending arms” in spite of sounding like he’s wanting to stay on China’s good side for now.
• Reuters is misrepresenting the Trump admin position in some way because there’s factional infighting among imperialists who don’t like his approach to maintaining the empire.
• There is an intent to turn Japan into a proxy against China like Ukraine against Russia, but the US wants to come out looking like they don’t endorse it and are distancing from it so that China won’t cut them out of trade deals as a result.

Edit: phrasing

It feels a lot like the early days of the pandemic in that way, with a kind of denial that can happen. “Maybe it will pass > it’s affecting some people but just how bad is it, really? > maybe it will stay isolated to some regions > maybe we should try to prepa- oh fuck it’s here.”

Not quite the same kind of situation. Because it’s going to impact some regions more than others, depending on how dependent they were on this distribution of oil. But the snowball effect nature of it seems similar.

I think you put it in perspective well. It does kind of seem like an idea that could only come out of “believing your own lies” and “wanting to look like you’re doing something when you’re not actually doing anything”. Like “Iran could make nukes” has been one of the main fear-mongering talking points about the country. In spite of the fact that, if I remember/understand right, Iran’s previous leader was opposed to having nukes (the one they murdered). And on top of that, Iran has not needed nukes to lay waste to the empire’s bases in the region.

So as priorities go, it sounds very performative and doesn’t make any sense to put resources toward. But it fits with Trump’s MO of trying to do showy things and then declare victory.

Speculation (assuming this is new policy at all):

• They’re afraid they’re going to get taken out themselves, so they’re trying to cause as much damage on the way out as possible.
• They’re taking damage to the point that it’s becoming harder to carry out operations in a coordinated way, so they’re trying to decentralize more so.

Could be wishful thinking on my part that it’s a sign of desperation, but if this is out of the ordinary as policy, it’s gotta be for some reason and I don’t think it would be driven by confidence in capability to control outcomes.

I’m so sorry to hear that. Just know that we (in the lemmygrad community) are here if you need to talk about it. I know talking is never going to take the pain away on a thing like that, but it can be a help as opposed to being alone in it. I don’t have experience with that kind of grief, but I do have some experience with loss and I know words can feel kind of hollow after. I just remember that it’s important to look after yourself in those moments.

Thank you for being here. 🫂

I’ve been reading this comment and its subsequent replies and with all due respect, I think you need to take a break from monitoring the war situation if you are reduced to arguing with people on the internet about how the country you side with should bomb schools and hospitals. Yes, I know the context is you saying “in retaliation”, it’s still not a good place to find yourself in mentally.

If you don’t live in Iran, one thing you can be doing for the situation is oppose the illegal and aggressive war perpetrated by the empire and organize in that manner, including using the opportunity to point out to people just how blatantly horrible the empire has been historically while they are more apt to be disgusted with it and listen. I feel pretty confident in assuming you are not a military general of a country of over 80 million people. Iran is not going to read lemmygrad for consultation on whether they should target civilians. All this will accomplish is making you look bloodthirsty for being reduced to supporting the direct targeting of civilians (maybe you don’t personally care about that right now, but you are part of lemmygrad for posting here and how we each post contributes to how all of us look - and contributes to how all of us think, which is why people argue over the correct line in the first place).

Jones Manoel’s essay is about multiple things, among which is the west being obsessed with purity and fetishizing defeat to the point that they lose sight of tactics and material constraints. It is not him arguing that AES states should do war crimes because the empire does. Here is an example of what he is driving at from the essay:

Another very well known case is that of Vietnam. Everyone supported Vietnam when it was under attack, being destroyed and bombed for over 30 years. Vietnam beat Japan in WW2, then had to fight France, and then had to fight the United States. From 1945 to 1975 it spent 30 straight years without being able to build a damn school or hospital because a bomb from France or the United States would drop and destroy it. When the country was finally able to beat all of the colonial and neocolonial powers and had the opportunity to start planning, to build highways, electrical systems, schools and universities without having bombs land on them the next day and destroy everything that was being done, the country was abandoned by the majority of the left. It lost its charm, it lost its enchantment.

In other words, when a people are weak and victimized, then western Marxists will support it. When they are managing a sovereign socialist project and making mistakes of their own accord, then some of these same Marxists will suddenly become shy and heavily critical, saying that the country has lost its way, is tyrannical, is doing a bad job, etc.

You claim this is about tactics, but people generally use limited weaponry on military targets for a reason; not just because they’re trying to be ethical, but because if you blow a limited stock on civilian infrastructure with the intent to maximize casualties and without dismantling military infrastructure, the enemy may still be readily able to attack you and you will probably harden their resolve to fight to the last one standing. Colonialist thinking is not “smart” militarily in this way, it is brutal and genocidal and often relies on having a military edge over its opponent, so that anything can be a target and it still won’t run out of munitions or suffer meaningful retaliation. It appears that it is right now stuck in the same mindset in spite of the fact that Iran is capable of damaging it militarily and has already done so.

Second, as we can see (an example is recently posted in this thread: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11042011/7910365), Iran is willing to retaliate in the form of attacking some industrial infrastructure that is not strictly military, but with evacuation warnings first. So far, Iran’s strategy appears fairly consistent with the idea of: 1) Primary: target “hard power” colonial/imperial military bases in the region, targeted strikes of military in a hotel or embassy, that sort of thing; 2) Secondary: some limited targeting of “soft power” under the right circumstances, e.g. industry, but with focus on destroying the tools rather than targeting people who happen to work there, and 3) Indirectly, via blocking the strait and making oil prices spike, hit the capitalist where it cares the most (the pocketbook). Don’t let a single headline induce despair and the belief that Iran needs to divert from a strategy they surely have been planning and trialing for a long time.

As a final point, you’re not wrong about history being written by the victors, to a point, but it’s also sometimes written by the marginalized too in response to the victors writing it deceptively (ex: post Civil War US tried to whitewash slavery in classrooms in some parts of the country, but I think it’s clear in retrospect that while its deception had some success, it was also highly limited in reach). You can’t Men in Black memory wipe on a conflict this publicized and Iran is not going to take over the world and all of its media and schooling so it can control all narrative. That’s the type of thing the western empire tries to do and we know it doesn’t work forever and effectively in every way because things have internal contradictions to them.

I believe you mean well or my response would be, well… different. This is my high effort attempt to go through it with a fine-tooth comb, fairly. Please take it in the spirit of that. And please understand that when I speak of taking a break, I’m not trying to imply that you are incapable of good judgment. You are clearly capable of analyzing. But sometimes (and I am speaking from my own experience) closeness of engagement with a thing can lead to such tunnel-visioning that it becomes hard to step back and look at the bigger picture of it.

I think it’s reasonable to call it outright gaslighting. Because he first tries to poison the well on listening to Iran about anything and then:

Interviewer: “So that’s a no?”

Wright: “I would not pay attention to what Iran says, but there is a lot of energy that flows through the Strait of Hormuz and depending on the timing and the manner in which this conflict comes to an end, we’re gonna see some elevated pricing until we get there.”

So basically, “don’t listen to what Iran says but also what they’re saying could definitely happen.” But if what Iran is projecting is true, then people should listen to them.

I’m skeptical of the phrasing because it sounds like a loaded headline to make it out as if Iran wants to destroy the whole global economy for everybody (which doesn’t fit with, if I’m not mistaken, their selective blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, not blocking it for literally everybody).

The only direct quote I can find is from the Le Monde article the futurism one links to that says:

Iran said on Wednesday, March 11, it was ready for a long war of attrition that would “destroy” the world economy, after firing on two commercial ships and threatening any vessels from the United States or its allies.

And from the linked reuters article where it says:

“Get ready for oil to be $200 a barrel, because the oil price depends on regional security, which you have destabilised,” Ebrahim Zolfaqari, spokesperson for Iran’s military command, said in comments addressed to Washington.

After offices of a bank in Tehran were hit overnight, Zolfaqari said Iran ​would respond with attacks on banks that do business with the U.S. or Israel. People across the Middle East should stay 1,000 metres from banks, he added.

Which is clearly speaking threateningly toward the entity that is directly attacking Iran, the western empire (an entity whose ears would perk up when you mention financial problems), not the whole world. I mean, it even says “addressed to Washington” lol.

I could see Iran wanting to put a wrecking ball through the western empire’s version of “global economy”, which is based on exploitation and military dominance, and does incredible damage to the region Iranians call home. And if we consider “global economy” to mean that unipolar dominance, then maybe it’s technically the truth.

But for a casual reader, based on these sources and what else I have seen thus far, I suspect it is western sources once again being misleading to vilify their current target, trying to make it seem as if Iran is the aggressor.

What’s the pact you’re referring to?

Or maybe the problem is they were under duress and had to make a judgment call on what might help their people and made the wrong one. Not that they are completely naive to the cruelty of the empire. There are times in history where strategic retreat worked, so it would not be odd to think it could have bought them more time. The armchair quarterbacking on the fate of a people is easy to do in hindsight, but it’s not so easy to make that call in the moment.

I think Aisha Gaddafi is 100% correct for this specific situation. Iran has no reason to back down and every reason to set the conclusion of this own their terms, so much as they are able. Meanwhile, over in Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez is having to make a different sort of calculus due to not having the military strength that Iran does, nor sufficient help from other countries in the region.

Capitalists: We can’t do mass public transit that would make cars mostly unneeded, that would be like too hard and too expensive and stuff. Besides, you should want to have a car. A car is your own thing that you use when you want to! Revel in the liberties!

later

Capitalists: plz don’t drive, plz, plz stop

lmao, well these days they definitely seem more performance art than substance, owed I’m sure to their waning influence over world affairs combined with their continued insistence on playing the part of unipolar assistant to the US.

I’m curious what these sanctions even mean substantively. Do any of these individuals have assets in the EU? Or is it entirely performative?

Love me a good Indi post. He’s the one who clued me into the declining state of the US military. I was a bit skeptical when I had first read it because I didn’t want to have false hope about the degree of decline, but so far it seems that the differences are being demonstrated in the careful planning of Iran vs. the sloppy aggression of the US. In this context, I’m inclined to wonder if the seeming sloppiness of Trump is part his own chaotic tendencies and part the jostling bumpiness of the apparatus he is administrating. Like he would be chaotic either way, but would the operation of it as a whole seem as chaotic if it wasn’t also in decline, if that makes sense.

Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE

(some in the comments even pointed it out too, from the other end lol:

“Short term pain, but long term gain”

They just did it again💀

And the US has to gall to accuse other countries of blatant narrative manipulation against the population’s own interests. As usual, every accusation is a confession.

That’s a good way to put it, yeah.