What Do You Think Today?

[peter]

Actually quite difficult to comment on what is happening on the ground between Israel and Iran, but notice how the upbeat, almost euphoric, commentary of the first few days is falling away.

Exchanges are ongoing between the two belligerents, that's for sure, but while Iran are fairly open about what damage is being done, Israel are pretty much slapping a blackout zone around all reportage.

We know a hospital in Beersheba was hit - of that Israel has made much (which is somewhat puzzling given their own propensity for striking hospitals in Gaza) - and the stock exchange building. Last night the strikes also in Beersheba left fires burning near the Microsoft buildings there. But in the main, coverage is limited and concentrated upon political and diplomatic efforts to bring the conflict to a halt being made by third party nations.

President Trump, following his ridiculously bellicose rhetoric of the past few days, and the yammering media speculation that he was "about to strike", has suddenly damped it all down. He's clearly been briefed (there's no indication that he understands the situation fully enough to be able to construct this chain of reasoning on his own) on how dangerous and effectively irreversible such a lurch into active involvement would be, and on this basis has announced a 'two week window' within which he will 'make his decision'. (Note the 'inverted commas' of the last words; that is of course because he won't actually be making any decisions for himself on this. His decision will effectively be made by the last person who gets to speak to him - it always is.)

The truth is that once that final decision to involve the USA is made, then its almost impossible to speculate on where it ends. And what does America actually do?

Okay. They could take out this nuclear site at Fordo with their 30,000 pound bombs. But this is easier said than done. It requires many, many planes to create the 'corridor' via which the B52 bombers could approach the site of the enrichment plant. This in itself is a hugely massive and complex operation. And to what end does it serve? If, as is actually more probably the case than not, Iran is not actually constructing a nuclear bomb, has no bomb, nor any actual desire to have one......then bombing the site has absolutely zero strategic effect on Iran's capability to strike at Israel and draws America into the conflict (with all of the dangers, both domestic and geopolitical that that involves, never mind militarily) without making the slightest dint in the Iranian capacity to inflict damage in return.

So what? Does it concentrate on Iranian militarily targets? Attempting to beat down on its ability to mount air defences and fire ballistic missiles at Western targets in the region? It might ultimately be able to achieve this end, but the indicators are that it would be at enormous cost to Western assets in the region, not to mention the effects on the global economy and the completely unpredictable nature of what other countries might do in consequence of this escalation of the conflict. And what if the Straits of Hormuz where 30 percent of the world's oil passes through are closed? Or the Saudi or Iraqi oil fields are hit? Ot the Western naval assets struck? When the costs of these things in terms of material and human losses start to turn up on the doorstep of people in the home countries, the blowback is likely to be considerable. Unlike in Iran itself, where people are becoming more, not less, inclined to support their government, in the USA and UK (in particular, but not exclusively) the population is far more sceptical about the whole adventure, and visible costs at home are only going to make this worse.

So Trump, so normally dismissive of the possibility of anybody else being able to make an input into any situation, finds himself having to take a back seat for a couple of weeks while he hopes that the Europeans that he is usually disdainful of, try and dig him out of the situation that either he and Israel together, or less possibly Israel alone, has landed him in.

To that end a meeting will take place in Geneva today, in which the foreign ministers of France, the UK and Germany will meet with their Iranian counterpart. It will be a blow to the inflated Trumpian ego to have to deferr to European diplomacy in order to dig him and Israel out of the situation they have contrived to get themselves into, and you can bet that the Iranians will make them pay heavily. But there will be absolutely no Iranian surrender, as Trump demanded. By now the likelihood is that Israel is realising it has bitten off more than it can chew and will be looking for its exit strategy. All kinds of behind the doors concessions will be promised - sanctions lifting and the like - in order to get Iran to cease responding and make it appear that Israel has won. They will even be offered the option of keeping being able to enrich uranium up to and including the levels required for domestic energy production (essentially what they actually had in the JCPOA agreement that Trump screwed up).

And another thing that will be dropped is the demand from the USA of a strict limitation on the amount of conventional missile holdings they could have. Unreported and unbeknownst to Western audiences, this limitation was actually included in the nuclear limitations talks that America was holding with Iran prior to the Israeli intervention. Thus, the Americans were demanding not only were Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions (which it probably never had anyway) but also to render itself defenceless to any future attack from whatever source as well!

How could any country ever accept that? It was a nonsense and it's a testament to Iranian patience that they were even prepared to keep negotiating under this kind of nonsense anyway. But the Israeli attack put this particular bit of foolishness to bed at least, and it's doubtful that any of the European negotiators in Geneva will have the temerity to suggest it again. If they do, they can expect a pretty robust response from the Iranian delegation to be sure.

But let's summarise. In short, I don't think that this piece of Israeli adventurism is going anything like according to plan. I think that the damage to Israel from Iranian strikes is way more substantial than they expected and the Iranian response is much more effective than anything that they had planned for. The Americans have at last grasped that they sit on the brink of a fucking disaster, and are desperately playing for time in the hope of putting the genie back into the bottle. To this effect, a backdoor deal involving all kinds of concessions to Iran will be slubbered up, and then, when the hostilities end, will be presented as an Israeli win to the Western public. Thus will the public perception of Israeli invincibility be maintained - a perception that Israel as the last bastion of a Western Settler Colonial State mentality long dead everywhere else, is absolutely dependent upon.

But behind the scenes, in Iran and across the non-Western world, the truth will be more understood. Israel started a war that it couldn't finish, against an enemy that would not be cowed. It remains to be seen how this will play out in the future, but my guess is that the long time coming redressing of the balance in the Middle East will begin to be effected. Israel will need to adopt a very, very, different attitude to its neighbours and a very much curtailed vision of its future, if it is going to survive.

(Edit: The alternative is of course that European efforts to dig Israel and America out of the shit fail, the two week window is wasted, and the whole thing goes to hell in a handcart. It will all depend upon the talents (questionable, certainly in the UK's case) of our foreign ministers and the diplomatic teams behind them. I really hope that they've got some good advisers on hand; ones versed in the realities of the situation and not bought into the nonsense rhetoric of the media and propoganda machines that feed the rest of us our information.)

[peter]

I don't know what is happening to us.

Over on the BBC website this morning is an article that records that a senior Russian government official has said that regime change in Tehran is not something that it can condone. 'Unacceptable' is the word he, the spokesman, uses, but doesn't go into what the Russians might actually do about it.

But this isn't what got me.

Reading the article I was stunned at the blase way it referred to "killing the Iranian leader". In a number of places it spoke in this language, like the killing of another state's head of state was something that you do every day - part of the normal run of things. And that it was perfectly okay. Part of the plan of the action that was sanctioned, justified and totally okay to be comfortable with.

Well I'm not. I still don't understand why we are talking about supporting a country engaged in committing if not a genocide, then the next thing to it. And why we are talking about going to war with the single country in the region that seems to be trying to do something about it (sorry - not actually true, because Yemen's Houthis have absolutely done their bit as well). And now it seems, we are supposed to be casual about our country engaging in talk, let alone actually aiding, in the 'taking out' of another world leader? And dear old 'Auntie' can blithely refer to it multiple times as though it's like going to the market to buy vegetables.

Let's just be clear here. Ayatollaha Ali Khamenei is not Adolf Hitler. He's always been regarded as fairly moderate in comparison to his predecessor, the fearsome Ayatollah Khomeini, if fairly conservative in his views on the country's governance. Because Israel is at war with Iran is not a reason why the world should suspend its normal moral compass and start sanctioning the killing of any leader that we - the Western hegemony - happen not to like.

In fact you have to agree with the Russian official interviewed in the article, Dmitry Peskov, that doing this would open a Pandora's Box none of us want to see opened.

Needless to say, this casual indifference to what would previously have been considered to be one of the world's total no-no's has come from Donald Trump. He was the one who started talking in terms of, "We know where he is, we won't kill him - not yet - ....." as though this was part of normal geopolitical diplomacy. And it's amazing how rapidly it has spread. It goes hand in hand with the West's indifference to the genocide itself. Once brutalised to the point where we (or our establishments at least) can see what their ally is about in Gaza and barely react to it, let alone God forbid do anything to actually stop it, then the sky's the limit. A political assassination of another world leader is a mere trifle in comparison. If the language can be found to smooth over the near sixty thousand dead in Gaza, the images of people burning in their tents and being driven to crowd surging madness for a bowl flour, all the while being shot at as if in a fairground shooting gallery...... Well, against this the talking around a single political assassination is as nothing.

-----0-----

But there's another story I wanted to talk about this morning but I'm too afraid to do so. Thanks to a recent government decision, I'm afraid that if I go anywhere near this story, I'll be courting the kind of trouble that at my age, I simply don't need.

How ridiculous is that? This, the country I was born in, the country that my forebears went to war for and died in numbers to protect. And now I'm too afraid to outline my feelings on a story, not for the societal backlash or anything, but because I fear that the actual state could misinterpret my posting and I could bring down its anger upon myself.

Here I post, every day pretending to be something that I'm not - a 'fearless reporter of the news' - when in fact I'm too lilley-livered to go anywhere near something I consider a real impingement upon our freedom to protest, our freedom to express our opinion about that which our government, or other individuals/groupings in our society, get about in their daily activities.

How did this happen - and woe upon us that we allowed it. Truly was it done, slowly slowly catchee monkey style. Very cleverly brought about, thinly sliced like salami. But make no mistake; like Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel Brave New World, we find ourselves somewhere that while it looks fine on the surface, has a dark underside, such that the clever money is to go about looking upwards, whistling as you pretend it isn't there.

Too late for that in my case I suppose, but even I am clever enough not to stick my head directly into the lions mouth. I can only apologise for my failure to step up to the plate, to do the decent thing and be prepared to risk everything, to give all, in order to say that which should be said.

In recompense I give you the names of people who put me to shame, so that if you would truly see that which is out there to be seen, you can do so for yourself.

Rap artist and activist Lowkey. His recent interview with George Galloway was simply astounding in the depth of understanding and knowledge he evidenced. More to be learned of how things really are in fifteen minutes conversation than in weeks, months of BBC coverage. (Ghost Soldier, George Galloway on YouTube should get it.)

Aron Mate and Max Blumenthal from the Greyzone. Just about everything they post is a revelation, full of facts that you will never find on the main stream media. So, so informative and unstinting in their pursuit of the truth.

Owen Jones, recently recognised by Amnesty International as their outstanding journalist of the year. A force of nature unto himself, Owen has earned his place amongst the pantheon of greats with his Gazan coverage. Unstinting and unafraid.

Novara Media, in particular Michael Walker. His playful style and light touch is refreshing, but he has the capacity to really cut through. More power to the guys at Novara.

Judge Andrew Napolitano and his regular guests. In all matters military and geopolitical the Judge is out in front in his coverage.

These guys are a serious starting point to what is out there. I'd give my right nut to be half as good as any one of them.

[peter]

If Colonel Douglas Macgregor, ex American serviceman and advisor to the US government has any kind of handle on things, then the decision join Israel in its war on Iran has already been made.

By his reckoning the two week window that Donald Trump has allowed, purportedly to give time for diplomatic efforts to bring the war to a close, is in fact more about giving the American forces the preparation time they need in order to get their ducks in a row.

Certainly the big bunker busting bombers are moving into situ as we speak, heading for the US military base in Guam. In addition US aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz has been pulled from the South China Sea and is headed towards the Gulf. Movement of planes has already been seen to the UK and other European bases (KC- 135's) and F-16, F-22 and F-35's have been moved to the Middle East.

Certainly put together, this indicates that at least a serious preparation is being made to join the conflict, and in terms of the diplomatic efforts, there is not much indication that either side, Iran or Israel, is in any mind to halt the ongoing strikes each are making. Iran has said that it is happy to restart the talks with the USA interrupted by the Israeli first strike, but will not do so while under attack from Israel. Israel shows no inclination to stop the attacks until the nuclear program of Iran as it sees it, is destroyed. Clearly they have no capability to do this on their own, and are thus totally reliant upon the American entry into the war, at least to the tune of mounting attack on the Fordo nuclear enrichment site. Only the American B-52 stealth bombers can carry the 3,000 pound bombs required to even stand a chance of penetrating to the depth required to disable the plant, and even this is in some doubt.

Geopolitical expert Professor John Mearsheimer believes that even should this goal be achieved, it would be only a short time before Iran would reestablish its program make up the loss. Even in the event of a regime change, he says this would be done. If there is any lessons to be learned from the past few days, he says, it is that possession of a nuclear deterrent as quickly as possible is absolutely the clever money. As to the nuclear non-prliferation agreements that have served the world so well since the 1960's and 70's - well, they're dead in the water with all of the long term consequences that brings.

John Mearsheimer and Douglas Macgregor both, as a matter of interest, are of the opinion that Israel is taking far more intensive damage than we are being led to believe in the media. Mearsheimer believes that they are loosing the war and is unequivocal saying so. They are desperate to get the USA involved, not simply in order to achieve their objectives, but on an actual existential level. They've bitten off far more than they can chew and are on the ropes. If he's correct then USA involvement would seem, again, to be a certainty. Having said that, neither Mearsheimer nor Macgregor see any good end resulting from an American decision to enter the fray; Mearsheimer observes that no regime change has ever been achieved without putting boots on the ground. Air strikes alone are simply, he says, not enough. But mounting a ground invasion of a theatre as large, and against a population so numerous and spread out, is a huge undertaking absolutely fraught with pitfalls. And in Donald Trump's case, it truly flies against everything he was elected on. The Israeli's have absolutely skewered him and no mistake.

-----0-----

Okay scrub all that, the two week window was apparently a bluff. America has made the strike. Now it's game on. I'm going to go do some reading and come back with some further commentary about what is known etc. (Macgregor was right then.)

[peter]

Right.

Continuing from above, it seems that Fordo has been struck, along with a number of other sites involved in the Iranian nuclear program.

Needless to say, Donald Trump is crowing about the "spectacular military success" of the mission and the Iranians are playing it down as minor damage having been done. Trump now warns the Iranian administration that it must seek peace or the next attack will be "far greater".

It's academic really, insofar as it will not impact Iran's ability to prosecute its ongoing exchanges with Israel in the slightest. But what now of the days to come? If America sticks to its claim that the capability of Iran to 'build a bomb' has been ended or at least set back by a few years, then the driving force behind Israel's decision (by its own account) to prosecute a war with Iran, is gone. Unless it is that Israel now changes its major goal to regime change and decides to continue on that basis (in which case it all but confirms that the nuclear threat argument was a ruse from day one, which of course we know it was).

Or Israel could go along with Iran against the word of Trump, and say that it doesn't accept that the nuclear threat from Iran has been neutralised. I don't see America being ready to join a protracted war for the purpose of achieving regime change as yet - but this could change. This strike that it's made is certainly limited to the nuclear business and has gone no wider in its targeting. But if Israel continues to strike Iran and becomes threatened thereby, then Trump would have no choice but to step into the wider conflict, such is the power that the Israel lobby has within the US. (Nb. It has the same power in the UK, so if America goes in, we go in as well.

Or perhaps the whole thing could even be a great big bluff on the part of both Israel and the USA, in order to give Israel an 'out' before it is completely destroyed. If it goes along with Trump and says, "Job done. Now we can stop with the attacks on Iran," then maybe this serves the purpose it needs. Everyone will know it has recieved a drubbing and has had to throw in the towel, but at least it will survive. Damaged yes - but alive. America would have made a token poke at Iran, Israel could call it a day, and the world could breathe a sigh of relief.

This is of course the good scenario.

Bad scenario; Iran takes the strike on its installations badly (as it said it would previously) and decides to respond in type with strikes against American assets in the region. What are we talking? Bases in Syria or Iraq? Shipping in the Gulf? Closing off the Straits of Hormuz? Going wider, attacks on oil infrastructure of American client states in the region? Then the whole blows up and it goes where it goes.

Currently Benjamin Netenyahu is sucking Donald Trump's metaphorical dick for his action: "His name will be written in gold," in the history books, says Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar.

Well, we'll see about that: currently it's scratched onto a dog turd stuck on the sole of the world shoe if my perspective is anything to go by, but that's just me I suppose.

One last point, assuming that Israel and the US wanted to consider the matter closed (America in order to prevent itself from having to embark on yet another likely to be disastrous foreign adventure, and Israel in order to literally save itself), can we assume that Iran will be prepared to let it go? I think so. There's no indication that Iran wants to have a major war with the USA and if it continued in order to secure the destruction of Israel that would be the ultimate end point whether it wanted it or not. And it's already said that it's perfectly happy to return to the negotiations with the USA as long as Israel stops attacking it. So on these bases it seems unlikely that Iran would continue to prosecute a war with Israel if the latter stops attacking it.

So in short, this thing might be over - the snake wrestled back into the bag. Or it might not be. It might be just beginning. Let's see what the next few days has to bring.

(Update: Reports of heavy missile barrages over Jerusalem this morning with the IDF requesting civilians in the area to "seek protected spaces" wherever possible. Also some kickback in the States where complaints are being voiced that Congress was not consulted before these strikes were made. Don't suppose that'll worry Trump overly much, but worth noting anyway.)

Just so that we can be clear on the nature of the regime in Israel that we are supporting (quite possibly militarily in the very near future), I urge people to watch the Sky News report Gaza: Doctors on the front line in which special correspondent Alex Crawford follows two British doctors working to save lives in the occupied territory. It's harrowing stuff and not for the faint hearted, but absolutely necessary viewing for all those concerned with what is being done to the Palestinians while our attentions are being otherwise diverted by the events in Iran. Note - a similar documentary previously intended to be shown by the BBC has been permanently shelved by that ever so brave organisation. Needless to say, no coercion by the Israel lobby involved in that decision.