Trump and co are still dangerous, even with the sometimes absurd belligerence, because they have the military might of the empire behind them. That military might has cracks showing, especially up against a country as militarily developed as Iran is, but it can still do damage.

Or to put it another way:

Long-term view: The empire is in serious decline, shows no signs of being capable of turning things around, and through its mask off belligerence is currently redefining itself as an overt world terrorist organization (thereby damaging the soft power of the past). A new multi-polar world order is not yet solidified, but Iran’s ability to defend itself is solidifying the multi-polar rise against imperial attempts to reassert the uni-polar order.

Short-term view: The empire still has a lot of weapons and can hurt a lot of people with them. Nobody has perfect defenses that can stop every attack and people living in relative peace is better than them dealing with a thrashing beast.

As for Trump himself, he’s long been kind of unhinged. Plus narcissists tend to be when backed into a corner. Hypothetically, would it materially change much if Trump himself was no longer making the executive calls but others in his circle were? I would figure, policy-wise, no dramatic changes. But others may be more grounded in terms of the consequences of the flow of oil being disrupted for so long and more willing to make peace deals for that reason. Media management would for sure take a hit, with them struggling to find somebody with the same personality cult draw.

But all of this analysis doesn’t mean much with regards to the headline. The fact is, he pissed off enough people for them to want to do this. Whether it would actually lead anywhere, it is a pretty strong statement of hatred of the man coming from the region.

Interesting, thanks for doing such a detailed breakdown on it. When you put it that way, I can see why there’d be a desire to cover it up (if it was him dying to a Russia attack in Ukraine) to avoid open escalation. With it being such a proxy war. But I can also see how if the timeline allows for it as you say, then maybe he really did get back uninjured and die at home. From what I could find on aortic tear/dissection, he’d be in the age range where it could have been building up unseen as a problem for a while.

Like this is what one source says on it:

Aortic dissection happens because there’s a slow breakdown of the cells in the walls of your aorta. The breakdown has likely been going on silently for many years before the weakened area of the aortic wall finally gives way. This results in a tear, which leads to the aortic dissection.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/16743-aortic-dissection

So if it was a cover-up, they were certainly careful to choose something as the cause that tracks as believable, while also being subtle enough in how it can occur that (from the sound of it) it wouldn’t necessarily be something you’d notice as a problem coming in a medical record.

For the conspiracy angle of it, that same article does also say:

Traumatic injury to your chest like a high-speed car crash or serious fall from a height of more than 20 feet.

(among factors that can increase risk of aortic tear)

So it’s possible that he got injured in Ukraine and it triggered an aortic tear, but you’d think if he was injured there, he’d be kept there rather than shuttled back to Washington. But I spose it could be that he technically did die of an aortic tear while in Ukraine, after getting injured by some attack. And the cover-up is that he died at home.

I was reading a thing the other day claiming the timeline made no sense for him making it back when he supposedly did and then dying after. Though at the same time, the idea he was killed by a Russian strike seems like a very specific explanation; is there data behind it or just conjecture? It seems like the US would want to seize on a thing like that to vilify Russia further, unless they are afraid of admitting weakness in the process? Or afraid of its visibility drawing them into a more direct war with Russia? (Though Trump is so belligerent, he doesn’t seem like the type to want to hold back.) OTOH, if he died to the Ukrainian side somehow (ex: from infighting, blowback, etc.), that seems more like a thing they’d want to hide.

But either way, it is strange and I’m curious to know if there is more info on the situation beyond the stuff about the timeline.

Yeah, if Iran can hold its own against the empire, then I’m not sure it’s even exaggeration to say that China would be capable of doing a reverse uno and turning empire states into failed states. All the more so after all the resources the empire has burned against Iran. Not that China would want to do that much widespread damage, but I guess what I’m trying to say is, I really don’t think the empire has yet gotten the message that its hegemony is not coming back.

It’s funny how blatant they’re being about it. Like you didn’t even change the title much. And the article is pretty transparent about saying there are concerns that they won’t be able to wage war against the DPRK or China because of what they’ve lost against Iran.

Like here:

Analysts believe war plans with North Korea call for a significant amount of US missiles, both to hit enemy targets and to defend US forces and Seoul from projected massive strikes by Pyongyang’s forces.

They aren’t even hiding it. They’re talking about Occupied Korea like it is just a US military base with the civilian people living there as an afterthought. Which is pretty much what it is, but it’s so mask off. And they call it “war plans”, not some hackneyed euphemism.

The O’Hanlon quotes are the most weasel word, but sound downright funny when you read past it:

O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said he doesn’t believe the US military’s ability to deter Chinese or North Korean aggression “has suffered yet.”

But the expert cautioned that “at some point” deterrence could wane. “It’s probably unmeasurable and unknowable where that point might be, since it’s largely about an adversary’s psychology,” said O’Hanlon.

“Unmeasurable and unknowable.” I guess that’s bourgeoisie intelligentsia for “I don’t fucking know.”

Fair enough.

Am I looking at this in too basic of a way or does the timing of the recent further imperial attacks on Iran coinciding with the funeral of the martyred leader feel like the Ramadan War part two in that the empire is trying to take advantage of Iran being busy with something religious that matters to them a lot? (And is only going to harden the people of the region against the empire all the more due to the blatant disrespect for something that matters to them so deeply.)

It’s sure looking like this is going to keep going, even if on and off, until the empire is forced to exit the region from sheer lack of resources to continue. They adamantly refuse to concede even to such a low bar as respecting Iran’s sovereignty over its own territory. It’s twisted how they try to frame Iran enforcing control over the territory it controls as some kind of attack on others. It illustrates how the empire sees the world, as something it possesses, with all others subject to its will. The tweet reads like an imperial cop talking about a wanted criminal, instead of a terrorist empire talking about a victim defending themself. Typical DARVO shit.

Midsize companies that employ millions of workers are now shedding jobs and relocating overseas to cut costs

As panic spreads among German manufacturers, layoffs are rolling through formerly prosperous towns and villages with no living memory of a downturn.

Many Mittelstand firms are idling workers, cutting jobs or shifting production, including to China.

It’s wild how they blame it on China, while spelling out how German industry is actively choosing to do layoffs and outsource. Because, and of course this is the part they don’t say, the empire/capital class is prioritizing their personal profits over the local working class. They are, from the sound of it, actively de-industrializing their own country for short-term capital gain and blaming it on China. None of which is inevitable! They could prioritize their own industry and focus their efforts inward, but that would make the imperialists unhappy.

If European policymakers don’t take tougher measures to protect industry, “you could see a very rapid decline of the German Mittelstand,” said Noah Barkin, senior adviser at the research firm Rhodium Group.

European leaders are seeking new legal powers to hit back at China.

Of course, in typical imperialist fashion, their solution is not to reign in the exploiting classes at all, but instead to lash out at another country as the bogeyman.

I was hoping they got specific, but you’re right:

Cato Institute Senior Editor Michael Chapman explained that the poll did not define socialism, leaving it up to the respondents to determine what the term meant.

So kind of meaningless data, since we have no idea how the respondents define it in their head.

Would like a better source on this than AP.

Damn, that is infuriating.

I’m glad for your perspective on the reformists, cause otherwise this would make no fucking sense at all. I mean, even with that context, it’s confusing as hell to follow along with in the news. Like how do they even benefit from this? I don’t get it.

This whole thing with the MoU is an absolute shitshow, from everything I’ve seen shared on it. Not just from Iran’s end, but like US says one thing, israel says another… I wonder how much is purposeful psyop and how much is infighting from both ends (empire and anti-imperialist).

The fact that Japan and Germany apparently have some of the highest and were also key imperialist/fascist powers of WWII… and still today are very reactionary in spite of their WWII base of power largely being destroyed…

Must be a coincidence, not that the Yankees have made a concerted and violent effort to keep them interested in imperialism, as an ally in it. Pay no attention to the Yankees working with Nazis after WWII behind the curtain.

O_O what is with israel and trying to compete with itself to reach new heights of unhinged

given other recent news though, I wonder if this is a sign of fracturing between israeli and US leadership: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11983139

but maybe I am doing wishful thinking there

Was just wondering about this as a possible route the empire would go with some days ago:

The power brokers of the Yankee end of empire are the real leash holders at the end of the day. The question, as far as I can tell, is: what strategic calculus are they going to make if israel doesn’t want to bend the knee enough to match step with them?

They can threaten removal of support, or even carry it out in which case israel’s situation becomes even more precarious. If israel bends, they have to reign in their more rabid tendencies, which may require a forced change in the power status quo of israel.

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11916359/8331856

Time will tell of course if this really goes anywhere or means anything about the rabid status quo state of things there. I’m very skeptical about any of it meaning a damn thing more than performance. But it makes sense to me that Washington may be seriously contemplating this, if the Yankee understanding of the situation is that israel’s current leadership doesn’t want to move in lockstep with Washington. If that is the belief and this isn’t just for show, they are probably hoping they can salvage the settler project there, without having to abandon it.

I guess it depends on what you mean by “defend”. I can’t speak for others, but for me, it’s not about defending them morally, as in “they should be excused because they were pushed into it.” It’s more about the practicality of it and how much potential they have for change. If somebody was driven toward it cause of poverty and didn’t understand what they were getting into until they’re already deployed, that doesn’t excuse things they do on behalf of the empire. It doesn’t change the fact that people who did wrong need a mechanism for being held accountable, especially by the people who they wronged. What it does mean is that they’re probably more capable of change and more apt to have guilt about what they directly or indirectly participated in.

On the other hand, if somebody is a rabid, bloodthirsty weapon of imperialism, they would surely be one of the last ones it’d ever occur to me to try to reach out to or change.

That said, I completely agree that Yankees are largely insulated from the wars themselves and it makes us varying shades of clueless (I say us cause I live there myself). I would venture to say, in fact, that what’s going on with Iran is one of the few times they haven’t been and it’s still insulation from attack on actual “US” soil. This time, the oil stuff is impacting things and it’s harder to ignore for that reason.

The only way the occupier will ever understand the word “ceasefire” is if they cease to have weapons with which to fire. Only on that day will they suddenly remember what peace is and claim to cherish it above all else.

‘A ceasefire does not mean ceasing fire. It means not escalating the attacks.’

The empire used to try to be clever with the lies.

I’m resisting the urge to anger post about this, but suffice it to say, I resonate with this:

I’d be laughing at this circus if my blood wasn’t boiling.

Well there is this: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11916359/8339247

So whether this deal holds together as anything or not, I don’t think Iran is going to be lowering its guard any time soon. Everything I’ve been reading as this goes on gives me the impression that Iran is explicitly and vocally aware of how duplicitous the empire is. I’ve noticed @Malkhodr@lemmygrad.ml has an understanding of the internal factions that influence which way it goes, that it’s not all a uniform set of interests, but I don’t understand it very well myself. My rough impression from what they have shared about it in the past, is that there are bougie types who are more apt to push for a deal for their own benefit and there are hardliners who are more apt to push for maintaining military confrontation as needed. And that deals falling through due to the dishonesty of the empire gives more credence to the arguments of the hardliners. So it seems to me that either Iran gets more time to rebuild or the position of those are staunch on the need for self-defense is strengthened.