This is a thread specifically for the war, not a general megathread (use the pinned /c/genzedong thread for that).
Please keep related news in this thread rather than making separate posts. Remember to include sources and avoid spreading rumours.
This is a thread specifically for the war, not a general megathread (use the pinned /c/genzedong thread for that).
Please keep related news in this thread rather than making separate posts. Remember to include sources and avoid spreading rumours.
Found on an Iranian Telegram. Let me know your thoughts.
"As for people betting “Trump” won’t use nuclear weapons - they still don’t get “Trump” isn’t in charge of anything.
This is an all-or-nothing bid by the US to maintain primacy over the planet before losing it permanently.
The unelected US corporate-financier establishment - pushing for wars since the inception of America as a nation - have ALREADY USED NUCLEAR WEAPONS - TWICE!!!
They considered using them on Korea, Vietnam, and even as recently as Afghanistan.
DO NOT let the US pin this solely on a single politician, or an administration or a US proxy. Make sure EVERYONE involved is blamed and held accountable.
This is called compartmentalization - dividing up your political fronts when dirty work is required so you can flush the consequences down with one or more of these fronts while keeping the political whole more or less intact.
The US literally does this every 4-8 years with presidents and scores of wars of aggression and other horrible foreign and domestic policies - and they will do it with this time as well.
It wasn’t “Clinton,” “Bush,” or “Obama’s” wars (although they are accomplices and equally guilty) - they are Wall Street and Washington wars - every single one of them - no matter who is picked to sell them and take the fall for them.
If you never expose and hold Wall Street and Washington as a whole accountable, they will continue their compartmentalization game forever without end."
It is pretty much my thinking too, the US state just loves putting the blame of their atrocities on a single individual to whitewash themselves, just a few rotten apples! don’t mind the entire state apparatus (media included because it is part of the state) serving them unquestionably nor the entire military infrastructure in the region, that didn’t just materialize when Trump won elections.
Libs love pushing the narrative about how democratic the US state is and all the mechanisms to stop tyranny and whatever, but they do seem to quickly drop all of that behind whenever the capitalist class decides to wage war.
Cheap oil is the basis of the global capitalist system. If that is gone, then we will see revolutions spout through the western world, and a dependence on Chinese solar / battery tech.
Thus, any and all measures will be made to maintain this system. This includes preserving oil reserves, including Iranian reserves.
They will not be using a nuclear option, because 1. it will irradiate Iranian reserves and 2. it will not guarantee surrender, and Iran will retaliate by completely destroying oil reserves in gulf states.
This war is not ideological. Well, it is, but the ideology is based on forced acquisition of private property, namely Iran’s oil reserves. They won’t do anything to compromise that.
^This.
The nuke card is a bluff. The powers that be won’t allow their usage here.
Japan at the end of WWII was a totally different situation. The same rational used then can’t be reused here for largely the same reasons it wasn’t in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan: you can’t profit from radioactive ashes.
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.
As much as I agree, “no real gain” isn’t exactly true. They would much rather turn Iran into a failed or destroyed state than let it live and kick them out of thr region
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.
Fallout doesn’t care about borders. usa can’t nuke Iran without also hurting all the countries in the region, including nuclear armed Pakistan.
this is probably obvious but this is really the basis of the stability of liberal democracies. do a secret speech every 2-12 years and blame all the bad stuff on one person (who’s really too rich to care)
I think it’s possible that Trump will use nukes - what else could defeat Iran’s mountain fortifications? There is no larger explosion than a nuke, so perhaps a ground penetrating weapon with a nuclear warhead will be used to destroy Iran’s deepest missile bases? Otherwise Iran will be able to launch missiles for several more weeks.
They don’t even know where the missile bases are to target them. Even if they know where an entrance is there is no knowing which way the tunnel leads after it goes underground. The missile bases have been specifically built to withstand bunker busting bombs. They are 100m+ deep in granite. On top of that there are over 100 of these missile complexes. Many of these are thought to be in north eastern Iran which means more time for Iran’s air defenses to do their work.
The closer to the ground a nuke is detonated the longer lasting the fallout. Fallout that will go over to Pakistan and to a lesser extent India. Fallout from one nuke could kill millions in a few weeks and cause tens of millions of people to get cancer. 5 would render most of Pakistan and parts of india unlivable for years and kill tens of millions in the short term.
usa can’t use nukes on Iran because they would effectively be using them on 2 or 3 other nuclear states.
A lot more than weeks. They can do this indefinitely.
Nukes can’t do that, actually.
They would have to deplete their very difficult to replace nuke stockpile by nuking every square-kilometer of the Iranian countryside to be sure there isn’t enough IRGC units left to fight back, especially if they use smaller tactical nukes. Any less than that, and all that would do is make the IRGC take the gloves off completely and dunk on the US and allies even harder than they already do. And not even the US has anywhere enough nukes for that. Nukes are good at destroying a large amount of targets concentrated in a small area[1], but they are terrible at destroying a large number of targets scattered over a large area. Which the IRGC is.
Actually, this disputable is some cases. Especially if you want to be efficient about it. Nukes are not efficient. There’s also all the radioactivity issues you’d have to deal with afterward. ↩︎
I definitely agree.
I agree in general, but I do think it doesn’t help that the leadership is irrational specifically (not just Trump of course)
If you think of Trump and the leadership as a the spokesperson for the Epstein class, then the argument from the post makes sense.
The irrational aspect can only been seen superficial in Trump but it is actually the entire class behind him.
Although I definetly think that in general class interests rule societies, I do think that specific mainfestations of class rule can be more or less rational with respect to their interests. I’d say that I definetly think the current administration and for example Tsar Nicholas’s regime were examples of less rational manifestations. That doesn’t change the fact that the entire bourgeoisie class is the problem, of course. But I do think we should be careful with assuming that just because the Trump-administration does something, then it is in the rational self-interest of the Bourgeoisie, it could just as well be a very poor attempt at that. But of course proletarian class rule is the solution anyhow.
I mean, as long as the pressure builds and there is no vent, it is entirely possible that they use nukes imo.
This might be an existential war for Iran, but i feel like the US elites are feeling like it is existential for them too even though the US as a whole may be able to survive, the elites might lose wealth and that is unacceptable.