I’m usually a “Sane Trump Theory” supporter, but I see no outcome where the US achieves strategic gains in this one. Even with successful leadership assassination and significant damage to Iran’s current nuclear capabilities, it’ll just be kicking the can down the road and galvanising even more the Iranian people against the US. There’s no way an outright occupation of Iran will happen.

But most NATO substrates have also designated the IRGC as a terrorist org, which I think would imply that the offensive is somehow strategically important. I don’t like the whole depoliticising “distraction from Epstein” narrative, but I’m struggling to come up with alternatives here.

  • rainpizza
    55·
    13 days ago

    I posted an analysis from Pepe Escobar and his theory seems to be a much better explanation to me:

    The real objective is to definitively destroy the last independent link in the Eurasian energy chain that essentially connects Russia with China, strategically passing through Central Asia and Iran. It is to permanently sever the most crucial energy corridor of the 21st century.

    Think about it carefully for a moment. Iran is not just Iran. Iran is the strategically crucial energy corridor between Russian oil and gas and expanding Asian markets. Iran is the geographic link that allows China to access massive energy resources without relying on shipping lanes controlled by the U.S. Navy.

    Iran is, quite literally, the master key that can make or completely destroy the entire multipolar architecture that Russia and China have been systematically building over the past 15 years of strategic coordination. And here is the chronological detail that should send shivers down the spine of any serious geopolitical analyst on the planet.

    The American empire and its European vassals have a very specific window of approximately four to six months before the full expansion of BRICS Plus is definitively and irreversibly consolidated. Before the new parallel financial system is fully operational and functional. Before the new overland trade routes of the Belt and Road Initiative render the entire Western system of global maritime control completely irrelevant.

    This is their last real chance, and they know it perfectly well in Washington. That’s why the desperation is palpable, why the brutality is so blatant, why they are completely willing to risk a regional conflagration that could spiral completely out of control.

    • Cowbee [he/they]
      24·
      13 days ago

      Forgive my ignorance on the topic, but why four to six months? What happens then that would make intervention in Iran not as effective, or impossible?

      • rainpizza
        23·
        13 days ago

        Sadly, the author didn’t explain that point in particular. However, I can speculate that it has to do with the USD. If all the logistic framework and the material conditions allow for a complete abandonment of SWIFT/USD/other important imperialist dominated tools for international trading, this will allow countries to drop the USD and US treasuries at record levels.

        If countries around the world(or at least in Asia) drop US treasuries and USD, the entire foundation of the USD will be broken and that will allow hyperinflation to rock the USA. This in part will destroy their ability to fund their own institutions(CIA, DEA, USAID, ICE) and even their military. Adding to this, it will open the possibility of plenty of countries that already are in the BRICS alternative to boycott the USA.

        That’s my take. I could be wrong but I reach that conclusion from other takes on the USD.

    • ICBMEnglish
      23·
      13 days ago

      I think Escobar’s analysis is pretty uncontroversial at this point. Brian Berletic has been saying much of the same. I think it’s a good framework for understanding the psychotic urgency of the moment. Although I think there are more history and layers to it, especially with regard to Israel. The contradictions of the Zionist project in occupied Palestine have lead to very desperate behavior on the part of the Zios and the US to protect power projection in West Asia.

      The historical intent of the US regarding Iran since 1979 is pretty clear: Saddam, Iran-Iraq War, the “War on Terror”, Operation Timber-Sycamore, the 30+ year myth of a “nuclear threat”, etc. Chiefly observed through the lens of 911 and Timber-Sycamore, it seems Iran has been in the crosshairs of a larger strategy for a long time. The thwarting of Syrian regime change by Russia changed the US imperial calculus a lot and it has taken time to reposition.

      The use of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as an excuse to launch a genocide had the expected consequence of drawing in a larger conflict and creating enough chaos and instability to create additional pretexts for regional war, planned regime change – notably in Syria. All these policy papers and CFR fucks talked about doing that to open up Iran, and ofc as soon as that happens Shitrael launches a sneak attack on Iran… The propagandists go into overdrive… The US bombs Iran… There’s been a low-grade Shitraeli war, sabotage and terrorism campaign going on in Iran… Economic warfare which culminated in a larger color revolution operation last month.

      And…

      Iran is still standing, still building out trade networks with Russia and China. Still selling it’s own oil. Still advancing and resisting imperialism. Still looming over the collapse of the Zionist project.

      It’s gotta be driving the Fourth Reich crazy. The desire to either steal Iran’s oil, or at least destroy them as a competitor goes back decades. I think the urgent nature of cutting off oil from Venezuela and Iran to China/Russia, ultimately has everything to do with the US marinading in the Wolfowitz Doctrine mindset for so long.

    • ConselheiroOP
      21·
      13 days ago

      That makes a lot of sense, I think this is the correct read. I remember reading something similar during the fall of Assad’s government and attacks on Lebanon that it would also impact that same corridor. With that in mind, even bombing Iran into complete anarchy would be a sufficient strategic victory to the US if a more tactical approach fails.

      Edit: read the whole thing, and it’s relieving to know that Russia and China have mutual defense agreements with Iran. Hopefully 2026 is the year those CENTCOM carriers sink to the bottom of the ocean.

    • Maeve
      17·
      13 days ago

      The latest round of sanctions is extremely upsetting, food costs up 52?% and of course the brunt taken by poor and middle class.

    • Ronin_5
      3·
      12 days ago

      I’d have to give some pushback on this theory because China’s top three imports are from Russia, the Gulf states, and Iraq, followed by Canada and the US.

      The US already controls the gulf states and Iraq. China neighbours Russia. Controlling Iran doesn’t do anything in cutting off petroleum to China.

      • rainpizza
        6·
        12 days ago

        The US doesn’t control the Golf states and Iraq to that point that you are suggesting. Some Gulf states even engage in payments in Yuan instead of the USD. As for Iraq, you can see the lack of control when the US protested and even threaten Iraquis for their choice on their prime minister.

        Any of these top oil exporter will leave the US if provided with a different material framework such as the Eurasian energy chain proposed through BRICs. The US fears that energy shock so that’s why they decided to attack Venezuela to control a certain supply closest to them.

        • Ronin_5
          3·
          12 days ago

          The US has literal military bases in the gulf states. All the weapons they use are from the west.

          The Iraq war was to literally control Iraqi oil companies, and they currently do. Otherwise they wouldn’t be be able to do this:

          https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/article/chevron-seeks-better-terms-from-iraq-before-taking-over-lukoil-oilfield-reuters-sources-say/

          If they want to cut off energy to China (say in the event of war, etc) it’d be trivial. They don’t need to take over Iran to do so. They can simply strike from where they are.

          • rainpizza
            6·
            12 days ago

            Even if they are occupied with those military bases, it didn’t stop the Gulf states to seek China or to change their payment currency to Yuan. Also, remember that the bombing of Qatar changed them and it lead them to seek other defense pacts. Soon, we will see those changes.

            As for Iraq, they are in the process of dismantling those US military bases so the only powerful control left is in the economic area. All of that control will wither out when there are viable material alternatives to Western dominated trade routes and the West’s economic system. That’s why the Eurasian energy chain is very important.

            Just like any sanctions against Israel didn’t have any effect due to Western backing, Western sanctions will no longer have any effect in West Asian countries if strong material alternatives to the Western economic system appear.