We’ve featured fresh reports of the US moving planes to the Middle East, such as: Probably F15s, F16s, F22s And F35s : Dozens Of US Jets Now Converging On The Middle East. There are similar accounts, such as:
🔴 U.S. has significantly increased its military posture in the Middle East, with multiple C-17 transports deploying to bases in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, special operations assets (including Night Stalkers and AC-130 gunships) positioned regionally, and two carrier strike… pic.twitter.com/tC3mXC6nI3
— The Inquiry (@InquiryTh) January 10, 2026
It has been less widely noticed that Iran has changed its military doctrine from authorizing purely defensive action to now permit pre-emptive strikes.
From Tasmin News on January 6, translated by Resistance.org:
Statement of the Secretariat of the Defense Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran, January 6, 2026.
[….]
The Islamic Republic of Iran, relying on national cohesion, comprehensive deterrence capability, and full defensive readiness, once again affirms that the country’s security, independence, and territorial integrity constitute an inviolable red line. Any infringement upon national interests, interference in internal affairs, or action against Iran’s stability will be met with a proportionate, targeted, and decisive response.
Within the framework of legitimate self-defense, the Islamic Republic of Iran does not limit itself to responding after an action has occurred and considers objective indications of threat as part of the security equation.
Reader Historiality claimed on January 8 that Russia was evacuating embassy staff from Israel. A colleague who has contacts among diplomats across the Global South just wrote us:
China has also pulled its diplomats out of Israel. Russia has urged its citizens to flee via Egypt. Neither country has pulled out of Iran to the best of my knowledge.
We are taking the liberty of posting the text of this entire tweet for reader convenience, since it can be read for free on Twitter.
A dramatic shift moves us from “defense” to a posture of “imminent offense.”. –Talal Nahle
At noon, the measures concerned “troop movements.”. Now, after sunset, Iran has begun “clearing firing corridors.” (Firing Corridors). This means vacating specific airspaces to allow its… pic.twitter.com/lk6nxk0UY9
— IntelSky (@Intel_Sky) January 10, 2026
The body:
A dramatic shift moves us from “defense” to a posture of “imminent offense.”. –Talal Nahle
At noon, the measures concerned “troop movements.”. Now, after sunset, Iran has begun “clearing firing corridors.” (Firing Corridors). This means vacating specific airspaces to allow its missiles to launch toward external targets without colliding with civilian or friendly aircraft.
Here is the new and exclusive update in the evening brief of January 10 (17:01):1. “Fire Corridor”. From Central to Western Iran
A new and dangerous NOTAM has appeared (A0398/26).
Location: A broad air strip extending from Markazi Province (Arak) and Hamedan toward the western borders (Kermanshah. Ilam).
Strategic analysis: This is not a protective closure of a site, but a clearance of a pathway. This “air tunnel” is typically established to allow ballistic missiles or drone swarms to pass safely from central launch bases toward targets in Iraq or Israel. The existence of this corridor indicates that missile batteries have been armed and oriented westward.2. “Ocean Gate”. Jask
NOTAM number (A0390/26) has appeared.
Location: Jask port and naval base (on the Gulf of Oman, outside the Strait of Hormuz).
Critical importance: Jask hosts heavy submarines (Kilo class) and long-range anti-ship missile systems.
Analysis: Activating Jask means fortifying the “rear platform.”. If the Strait of Hormuz is closed, Jask is the only base capable of engaging U.S. fleets in the Indian Ocean. This secures the rear of the Iranian navy.3. “The Last Iron Dome”. Tehran (SHORAD Alert)
NOTAM number (A0392/26) has appeared.
Location: Very low-altitude restrictions over specific areas of Tehran.
Analysis: This indicates the deployment and activation of short-range air defense systems (SHORAD) such as “Majid” or “Tor-M1” among residential buildings. The target here is not fighter jets, but cruise missiles or small drones that could slip between buildings. This is the “final layer” of defense before impact.4. “Vahdati” Air Base. Dezful
NOTAM number (A0395/26) has appeared.
Location: Vahdati Air Base in Dezful.
Importance: A highly advanced offensive base (close to the Iraqi border), known for fast F-5 aircraft used for rapid response.
Analysis: Placing this base in a “live fire” status means it will be the spearhead of any border air engagement to prevent hostile aircraft from penetrating deeper territory.Geopolitical conclusion of the evening brief (17:01):
The title of this file is “Opening the Road to Fire.”
The most dangerous element in this update is the “western air corridor” (Point 1).
When a state clears an air route from the center of the country to its borders, this is a very strong indicator of intent to launch offensive projectiles (missiles or drones), not merely defensive measures.Preparations are complete:
Commanders are in bunkers (since noon).
The offensive pathway is open (now).
Close-in defense (SHORAD) is activated inside the capital (now).Iran is now standing with its finger on the trigger.
As the end of this post indicates, this posture may be a signal of readiness as opposed to positioning for action to follow immediately. But given the clear signs that the US is moving military assets to the Iran theater, it is hard to believe that it makes sense for Iran to stand pat.
One has to think that if the intent is to launch a pre-emptive strike, as opposed to engage in threat display, that Iran will not sit around in a state of high preparedness but will hit as soon as they are ready. So if the reading above is accurate and Iran plans to move first, the strike would seem likely to come tonight or at the latest, the night after.
Waiting for an Israeli sneak attack, instead of attacking Israel first, is incredibly stupid. Ask Hezbollah.
Allowing US forces to build up on your border, without attacking them first, is also incredibly stupid. Ask Saddam. He was an idiot to allow the U.S. to build up an invasion force in Saudi Arabia without a military response from Iraq during the first Gulf War.
Smash your enemies before they smash you. Both Israel and the U.S. bombed Iran a few months ago. There is no “peace.“ If I ran Iran, I wouldn’t wait.
I am Iranian, and this my take: Iran would lose either way!
Waiting to get sucked punched doesn’t help either, does it?
Iran never being on the initiative means that Mossad simply sucker punches them by using their intelligence assets to weaken them in an interchange of blows.
While I completely understand good normal people never really WANTING to choose to ruin their lives and invite chaos and destruction into their homes and the homes of those they love…
I wonder if all these (including Iranians here) scapegoats of the western /US elites , who are being openly attacked in so many ways by these elites and their military machines actually realize how bad it would hurt these elites pretense to actually be in control ,if the “kids” getting picked on by the bullies…. pops him a good one. The bully might win in the moment… but he would lose face. And he is actually afraid of that above all else.. so it seems.
Here in the US…. A lot of us, maybe even most of us want those bullies hauled out and given the perp walk treatment… for the rest of their lives.
Every time the emperor is shown to be naked… it breaks something. Part of the facade.
For the rest of the worlds good… here in the west/USA..
It looks like the good people of the US are going to have to strike against to oligarchs, the feds, and the cops… who are all stooges.. to the same oppressors who plague the world.
Regime change begins at home
Problem is Iran doesn’t have the means to do decapitation strike on US, any initial “smashing” success like sinking of aircraft carrier will unite Americans and give Trump carte blanche to wage genocidal war against Iran. To weaken support for such actions, both domestic and international, Iran needs to be seen as clearly responding to unprovoked attack.
It’s interesting, but I would actually disagree with this. It may have been true 20 years ago, but the US has now self-sorted into rigid worldviews: the people that would blame Iran already mindlessly support attacking Iran, and the people that don’t support an attack will reflexively blame Trump for any casualties.
The public reaction to Maduro’s capture in Venezuela and the ICE killings already shows that. And the real problem for the US is that most of the first, jingoistic group are either older or incapable of meaningfully contributing to a war (i.e. they’re empty suits). Meanwhile I think the youth and even much of the military core (NCOs, technical specialists, field officers, etc.) are constantly becoming more anti-imperialist.
Exactly! Iran is wise to prepare to meet the bullies, but in this case, a first strike–however justified– will only lead to nukes by the genocidaires in the US and Israel. Once we lose an aircraft carriers, and that seems likely in the next round in the ME, our yellow press will scream for vengeance. And all we have are nukes.
“Decapitation strikes” are, at most, temporary successes. Conflicts aren’t won by killing a country’s leaders. FDR died during WWII. The US didn’t surrender to Germany and Japan as a result.
And frankly, the U.S. doesn’t have the ability to defeat Iran. The U.S. military can’t invade Iran. Any U.S. base or troop buildup with striking distance of Iran’s missiles would be attacked. US aircraft would have a very difficult time bombing Iran due to Iran’s anti aircraft missiles.
Israel can launch a genocidal war against Gaza because Gaza has no means to either attack Israel or defend itself from air attack. Iran is a completely different story.
Iran waiting to be attacked by the US and Israeli is stupid. Iran trying to destroy US and Israeli military equipment before it can be used against it is the smart move. Destroying US missiles and planes on U.S. bases is much better than letting them strike Iran. Same holds true for Israeli weapons.
The US may not be able to invade and defeat Iran. But they can cause absolute devastation and chaos. And it’s the Iranian people that will suffer for the most part.
There seemed to be a lot of people getting excited at the prospect of America invading Venezuela properly and getting a bloody nose. What these people seem to forget that if America failed and took casualties, or even if they successfully invaded and then cut and run after years of trickling casualties, there would be far more Venezuelans dead. Their country would be in ruins.
FDR died on 4/12/1945 when the war was effectively over.
I am constantly amazed by the lack of aggression against the jewish state and USA when they have for years stated openly they wish to destroy Iran. The word is that if Iran hits the US and jew state with all they have BEFORE the jews and US attack this will mean the end of the regime ! the slaughter of the people! utter destruction! etc, – this is what the jews and the US plan anyway – Iran should show the world what a small country can do just like the vietnamese!
Israel is not “the Jews.” The reality is that Zionists claiming that Israel represents “the Jews” is anant -Semitic trope. Jews have been in the leadership of the Palestinian solidarity movement from the beginning. Zionism is a perversion of Judaism and noes not represent the Jewish people.
The distinction between “all Jews” and “Zionists,” though it regularly fails to be made in private and public discourse alike, is more important to maintain than ever in these perilous times. So thank you, John, for that response to Eric’s rhetoric — which by incorporating phrases like “jew state” verges, quite plainly, on the antisemitic. A word btw that I, an anti-Zionist Jew, rarely use anymore, never mind hurl at folks, now that its meaning has been hijacked by genocidal terrorists in Israel & actual (and deeply cynical) Jew-haters at home. But when its tropes manifest here they should be called out … in accordance with site rules, I trust.
If Iran attacks first , then it will be used against them in Western media as a first strike to justify a full scale invasion. Only time will tell if Iran has the gumption to withstand a full scale war- same goes for Israel( which is tiny and cannot withstand a large air assault)
We don’t even remotely have the ability to do that.
We can’t even defend Ukraine, which is much smaller and less difficult in terrain, and had at the start of the war a population of half the size. Conquest requires vastly more forces than defense.
And we would need Turkiye, which has the biggest army in theater, and would not attack a fellow Muslim nation.
Considering Turkey has been attacking fellow Muslims in Syria for quite some time, on what basis do you think they would not go to war with a Muslim country? Especially one that is a different sect of Islam.
But America would not invade Iran following a strike. It would launch a massive bombing campaign and probably special forces strikes. Which would kill who knows how many Iranians. But maybe that is what the iranian government is hoping for. That is they get bombed people will rally round the flag and solve the protest issue they are having at the moment.
Not comparable. Because Syria was not a war. It was an incursion that did vastly better than anyone anticipated in producing regime collapse due to the CIA successful bribing the Syrian military at scale.
And Turkiye’s basis for the operation was Syria not stopping Kurdish refugees from coming into Turkiye. Estimates were that that population was as high as 5 million, creating a big social burden as well as political risk.
So Turkiye then had particular beefs and the incursion was intended to teach Syria a lesson and force them to accept Kurdish repatriation, which Al-Assad previously had said (or at least said by action, my recollection is not precise on that point) he would not do.
Erdogan has huge rallies on the street of opposition to the genocide in Israel. He gives them verbal support but then does nada publicly (save fake optics like pretending to halt imports from Israel) and tacitly backs Israel although now he working to contain Israel in Syria. Actually, actively, and massively supporting Israel by attacking the one state that has to some degree tried to stop the genocide would be a bridge too far. And given Syria, strengthening Israel further in the region is also not in his interest.
All of those points are valid. And Turkey is hsrdly likely to want a war like that with Iran on it’s border. But your original point is that they would not attack a fellow Muslim nation.
Call it an incursion, call it a war. They were willing to take military action against a fellow Muslim nation. There are many reasons for them to not want a war with Iran, but that is not one of them.
Syria under Assad was not defined as a religious state, with an Alawite minority ruling over a Sunni majority. One of the common tropes about Assad, which I assume was true, was one of the upsides of his purported heavy-handedness was that he protected religious minorities, particularly Christians, who were otherwise seen at risk of persecution. Iran is even though it does not require members of minority religions to become adherents.
I would put it in a different way, and say that Sultan would attack anyone if he smells an easy victory, and stay away from anyone that can punch back. He won’t let “fellow Muslimsness” stand in path of his neo-Ottoman ambitions. Being an opportunist, if he feels that Iran is almost done, he would be glad to stick a fork into it.
Neither Erdoğan nor the elites in Turkiye are interested in creating another Syria-like situation.
On the street, most ordinary folk are disgusted by American adventures in their garden.
Turks and Persians have had plenty of issues (including many wars) over the years of their long history as neighbors, If they want to fight tomorrow, there’s nothing that would stop them. Being fellow Muslims is not very good a reason for them not to fight.
I could squint hard and find reasons why Erdogan, who is after all very mercenary, might want to cooperate with US and Israel. Turks may not actually fight themselves, but they can make available a lot of resources with which Israel and US can make Iranians miserable and, given Erdogan’s past record, I strongly suspect that he will for a high enough a price.
Iran launched a preemptive strike against Israel on April 13, 2024.
Jackson Hinkle has reported that Russia has transferred Iskandars to Iran.
Likely, Israel will attack when the rioters (burning hospitals and mosques!) begin to die down, which is in the very near future.
OTH, 100,000 Russian soldiers are dead thanks to the US, so payback via a proxy (or defense partner), is not unthinkable.
How would Jackson Hinkle know? He read it on the Internet, just like everyone else, and did not give it any thought.
ty. the majority of Twitter geopol “news” is one-person engagement farms rehashing whatever they find anywhere.
the really good accounts rarely/never throw out breaking news, because they’re honest about their limitations, lmao….and have integrity
Wait, Danny Haiphong and others have spent years telling me that the Axis of Resistance was going to bring down the Empire any minute… you mean to say that isn’t happening?
Empires fall gradually then all at once…..
What is the trip?
One; the empire is shooting its defenses in Kiev, not expending enough offensive weight.
Beating its head against Iran is gradual.
Iran looks like its getting picked apart…gradually.
On a long time span I agree with you, but Gaza, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, et al may be dead and buried in the meantime. A thrashing scorpion is a dangerous thing.
It’s kind of an opposite to the idea of Europeans and Americans fighting Russia to the last Ukraine. A lot of people who are not happy with what the US is doing seem rather happy with the idea of seeing it fought to the last Arab/Iranian/Venezuelan.
Ukrainians worship McDonald’s, which creates some pity in the cold USian heart.
LOL
I’ve only been following DH on YT recently, and I did notice that the tone of his video titles is quite sensationalist!
Example from two weeks ago:
“Trump CORNERED, Iran’s New Missiles Push Netanyahu to BEG for War “
Good to know it’s not just me, and that it’s been this way for a while … but that’s a bit sad if he feels he needs to resort to that for “algorithm’s sake”.
He’s been producing this stuff (Left/Anti-Imperialist Triumphalism, for lack of a better term?) for years. I remember reading him in Black Agenda Report years ago, before his YouTube channel, and it was the same mindset, which I’ve found to be endemic over the decades.
And yes, even alternative political sites on YouTube are being ruined by the host’s adherence to the Algorithm…
Well, we’re in reverse-Betteridge times as far as I’m concerned, so … Yes.
ChrisRUEcon: I’d say maybe.
It seems to me that the Iranian government’s change to an aggressive / attack posture militarily has to do with events inside Iran. I am reading reports that Elon Musk (ever the signal of white-boy stupidity) is using the Pahlavi flag on his site. I am also reading that the U S of A somehow supports the shah-in-waiting-in-DC-suburbs.
This is like cultivating some mythical descendent of Anastasia Romanova and trying to plant said descendent in the Kremlin.
Do people in Washington truly get paid to fight wars of sixty years ago?
I think that the example of Venezuela is instructive. The U S of A logistically (washed-up army), economically (fragile economy), and politically (no one in Washington has the social capital to lead) could not invade Venezuela. So the U S of A settled for scuttling Machado (read: the shah-let) and dealing with the facts of the matter, Delcy Rodriguez and her brother Jorge.
I just read an interview this morning in Fatto Quotidiano of some academic in Italy who is an Iranian exile. He is expecting Israel and the U S of A to intervene. Only Iranian exiles of a certain kind believe such fantasies.
Meanwhile, I have some reliable reports that the Iranian populace is burning down mosques and other religious sites. This is remarkable news, given the artistic value of many mosques and the traditional tie of Shi’i Islam to Persian nationalism. They are also burning down facilities attached to the Revolutionary Guard.
The geniuses in Washington, New York, D.C., and Tel Aviv have no control over these changes.
So: maybe. It is going to take a couple of weeks to determine what happens in Iran. I doubt that Iran will attack outside the borders during an internal crisis. But I also doubt that Israel and the U S of A have any influence at this time, except as sponsors of death squads within Iran.
I doubt that Iran will attack outside the borders during an internal crisis.
I thought it was common practice for a country with internal domestic problems to attack a foreign enemy to rally the populace at home. I guess there’s a reason why this is an exception to the rule?
Using Reza Pahlavi as a figure head is not only spectaculary self-defeating but the guy is despised in Iran itself. He is best buds with Bibi and has visited Israel a coupla times but if he ever came back, he would have torture squads be part of his entourage. I suppose that the Israeli plan is to attack Iran and kill a lot of civilians and try to finally get that regime change. They may have restocked on anti-air missiles but will it be enough? Or will they, when they run low, once more run to Uncle Donny to bail them out. Donny might decide to take part in this war but once you start a war, you never know how it will turn out. What if the Iranians, with Russian help, shot down one or two B-1 bombers. What if video emerges of shot down F-35s with captured pilots? None of that would fly well with the American people. Trouble is that Donny is high on his own power and thinks that he can do anything he wants.
Another speculative take would be. If the protests become terminally existential for the government of Iran why not fire it all off, a dead hand switch so to speak. Or at least a deterrent to the instigators of these riots.
I have some reliable reports that the Iranian populace is burning down mosques and other religious sites. This is remarkable news, given the artistic value of many mosques and the traditional tie of Shi’i Islam to Persian nationalism.
if Mossad and the CIA pay some low-lifes enough they would probably torch their grandmothers. And we cannot discount the presence of the Mojahedin-e-Khalq.
The original peaceful protesters are likely horrified.
We see the same tactic here in the Homeland. Agents provocateurs enter protesting crowds and begin to ‘escalate’ the proceedings. I remember discussions last year or so about how to spot a police agent in “disguise” in a protest crowd. One tell was shined combat boots. Another was military style haircuts, etc. etc.
Hold on tight, it’s going to be rough.
DJG, Reality Czar:
I should have probably prefaced my response with “tongue firmly planted in cheek” … :)
I’m also possibly carrying residual trauma from being caught in the Trump administration’s Venezuelan theatre of operations. So forgive me, my friend. Your response is as ever a clearer reading of the situation.
Looks pretty normal – especially compared to when it’s restricted.
Google ‘UM688’ – the flight path they are claiming is closed – with the ‘time’ on the search limited to ’24 hours’. That link is the only source of that claim.
If that claim doesn’t turn out to be true pretty fast (mashing F5 on a google search of that term over the last 24hr) – then personally I’d permanently trash that source as being completely unreliable.
So enough time has passed now with nothing to back up this specific claim – zero sign anywhere on the Internet of restrictions on that corridor – that I’m fairly confident the source is just a load of nonsense making things up.
It’s very difficult to see what Iran can gain from a pre-emptive strike. It doesn’t have the ground forces to follow up on a missile strike, so it’s just an invitation for Israel/US to counterstrike its already very shaky infrastructure. Thats not to say they won’t do it – the view from a bunker in Tehran of their strategic options may look very different than for a dispassionate outsider.
Most likely they expect an attack on Iran within weeks and they are preparing for a hair-trigger immediate response. they want their missiles in the air as soon as the first Israeli/US missile crosses into their airspace. The Cold War term for this was LOW (Launch on Warning). or Early Warning Counterstrike (EWCS).
Iran issued the first NOTAMs three days ago, and at the time they were reported as defensive.
Given Israel’s habit of using civilian air traffic as “human shields”, the most plausible explanation is Iranian air defenses clearing the “lines of fire” with the assumption that Trumpanyahu will take advantage of the riots and try something with the hope of destabilizing Iran even more.
I agree that Iran probably wouldn’t launch a purely “preemptive” attack. It just really doesn’t match their current strategic position or planning, or even technical aspects of their military (like the missile cities, which are designed to sustain launches while absorbing attacks).
Now if they do happen to strike first, I would guess it’s purely a timing calculation: that they’re finally more likely to break Israel & the US quicker & with fewer casualties by acting sooner than later.
On the other points though, my impression is totally different. Iran definitely has the ability to mobilize a lot of ground forces, they don’t even need long lines to overrun most US bases in the Gulf, and if it comes down to it, they can “reach” the Syrian & Jordanian border just by backfilling the Iraqi PMUs.
And as to the infrastructure question (which also touches on the constant claims of mismanagement), I’m still surprised almost nobody reads between the lines: the Iranian government treats most centralized soft infrastructure as already written-off. Their strategic planning has assumed since the revolution that they will fight an existential war on the same scale as Vietnam against simultaneously the US, Israel, the Gulf Arabs, and much of Europe. And we all know one of the first things the US & Israel do in war is bomb civilian infrastructure.
In light of that though, Iran’s strategic position has improved significantly in my lifetime, which is one more reason I think “use it or lose it” is the last thing the Iranian government is thinking.
Ty for LOW & EWCS.
I think a major weakness of Iran is that it has never demonstrated a significant deterrence. No doubt nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, still Iran has air defense systems, missiles, and drones, tacit Russian and Chinese support, and in the summer 12-day war with Israel it damaged important Israeli infrastructure.
Iran is an oil rich country and China is its biggest customer, and the US views China as an adversary; Khamenei should do the math.
“The United States carried out major airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria on Saturday” according to the NYT. And Israel is always condemning and threatening Iran. A preemptive strike is legal and following the abduction of Maduro, the US claim to own Venezuela’s oil, Syria a dysfunctional state, Lebanon occupied, and suffocating sanctions on Iran, I’m not sure what else Iran’s leadership needs to realize they’re facing an existential threat.
Rather than wait to be attacked, and once again allow Israel and the US to pick and choose its ideal moment, I think Iran has more to gain with a preemptive strike.
Iran’s problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAtGYWgXfY4
Why do I think this talk of an Iranian preemptive strike is the setup for a narrative to cover an Isr false flag event designed to start a war.
Me think so as well. A preemptive attack by Iran would give Israel and the US any justification to do what they always wanted… Can´t believe Iran is that stupid and I don´t think Russia or China would be pleased.
I’m so old, I remember both the U.S. and Israel bombing Iran in an unprovoked sneak attack, while the U.S. was simultaneously negotiating with Iran in order to catch Iran off guard. /s
Neither the U.S. nor Israel need justification to bomb countries. They just do it. And because they previously started a war with Iran, any future attack by Iran would be seen as a continuation of the war Israel started.
Destroying country’s missiles and aircraft before they can be used against you is the smart play here. In any fight, you want to be the one who strikes the first blow.
Is there any evidence to suggest Trump and handlers need maintain an image?
The mystery to solve is why Iran and allies do not take initiative while sensing it is target.
The T admin response to the Minneapolis shooting and in Venezuela suggests they have a great need to maintain the image of the ‘wronged party’ or the ‘hero defending the helpless’ in any situation where their military adventures are concerned. / imo.
I have no first-hand experience of Iran, but it’s fair to say that the regime there falls into a well-understood category: those that draw their legitimacy from an ideology, rather than from popular support. (Such regimes may also enjoy some popular support, but that’s not the point.) Regimes of this sort, especially those who believe they are guided by supernatural forces, naturally see any opposition at all as illegitimate, and even sinful. So it follows that any opposition to the regime must be the product of negative, and perhaps literally diabolic, outside forces. The regime in Tehran has had fifty years to internalise this way of thinking, and of course, as in all countries, “foreign interference” can be used as an alibi for the failures of the regime itself. (It’s significant that the protests were originally about economic mismanagement, as was the case in the early days of the crises in Tunisia and Syria.)
Given that Iran was attacked last year, therefore, it’s understandable if the regime sees the protests as not only fomented from outside, but as the precursor to some kind of further attack, and indeed a warning sign in itself that one will happen. So it may be getting its retaliation ready. What the regime’s position would be on pre-emptive strikes I have no idea. International law doesn’t allow such things, but how does a religious regime which feels threatened respond to that?
“,,,those that draw their legitimacy from an ideology, rather than from popular support..”, I though you might be referring to the Starmer regime, or Merz, or Macron or…
Their “approval” ratings are pretty dismal.
One might be accused of ethnocentric bias and/or hypocrisy when smugly pointing fingers at other regimes, while the hypocrisy, lawlessness recklessness of the west is driving the world to the brink.
Meanwhile, one of the most barbaric atrocities in history has been funded and supported by the empire and vassals. In the big picture, the Iranian regime is a benevolent actor fighting against the genocidal Zionist regime
Oh well, millions must die to serve the interests of the imperial oligarchy.
Iranian politics actually has more factions and parties than USA and UK combined. Yes, theocracy sets some boundaries on the policies, but similar boundaries obviously do exists also in USA politics, or even in EU nowadays.
The theocracy is basically the background noise, politics are all over the place from conservatism to westernizers to social democrats. There are regions where the (moral, theocratic) background noise is high (like Qom) and where it’s low (like Tehran or Isfahan).
Lets just say that in general people who are dissatisfied with “economic mishandling” (in the second most sanctioned country in the world) don’t kill police officers or burn mosques. See: yellow west demonstrations.
Yeah, this looks like standard playbook for the US/UK/Israel. As has been discussed at length, the west did regime change on the secular and elected Mossadegh government. They rank hypocrisy and lies are neck-deep as usual. Also, the normative nonsense regarding the type of government is largely irrelevant.
A quote attributed to M. Gandhi: “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy”
(But the US is a an oligarchy, and offers no meaningful democratic choice. The paid puppets change, but policy does not.)
Or, the Democrats in US–at least the establishment, all the way to the faith in the “supernatural.”
My apologies Aurelien, my previous reply was overly sarcastic. It was early Sunday morning (California) and I am notoriously grumpy and fog-headed before my coffee. Now that I have had my two cups: I do agree that the preparations by Iran are most likely to respond immediately to the upcoming attacks. I would be very surprised if they launched a pre-emptive strike. They have acted with relative restraint in the past
Thank you. I agree.
Why do you call the Iranian gov “the regime there” while you would not use the same language for Israel or US or UK? People do go to vote and at least the administrative and legislative bodies are elected. Are you saying that there isn’t a silent majority in Iran that accepts the present olitical situation? Do you have any unbiased evidence to support your claim that it draw its legitimacy from an ideology, rather than from popular support?
It seems to me UK is under the labour regime right now and that, at least in what it comes to freedom of speech, there is no popular support in UK for the present regime. Am I right?
As for the foreign interference, are you gaslighting us here? As soon as the revolution was concluded, US and the West goaded and paid Iraq to start a long war against Iran. And all the sanctions and all the funds confiscated from Iran in western banks, including the already paid challenger tanks that the British didn’t deliver and sold to others. I think this was the lowest post I have seen from Aurelien and I am dissapointed.
Oh dear. My point was that by definition it draws its legitimacy from ideology because it says it does. It is the Islamic Republic, after all. Other regimes draw their legitimacy, or say they do, from other ideologies, notably national liberation, and in the past the class struggle, and so forth. This is a recognised category of political system and behaves and responds in a way different from other systems, so if we want to try to foresee how Iran may behave we need to take that into account. Western political systems, for all that you make very valid criticisms of them, are structurally different, and can be expected to behave differently. That much, I think is obvious.
Of course the West has long wanted to get rid of the regime in Tehran, but that’s not the point here. The point is a technical one, to consider how the government in power in Tehran (we can decide not to call it a regime if you dislike the term) will react, given its unique characteristics. That has nothing to do with whether Starmer is popular or not, which is an entirely different issue. By contrast, only a fantasist would imagine that all would be well in the country if only there were not for hundreds of fluent Farsi-speaking foreign agents everywhere in the country stirring things up.
Is it obvious though? I agree that Iran won’t magically become heaven once the US decamps from West Asia. I also don’t disagree that the Iranian government has a guiding ideology and will resist majority opinion to a point (though I’d disagree with the above characterization of that ideology).
In that sense though, is it really different from any half-functional state with a coherent worldview? As you pointed out, even ideological states can have popular support and supposedly non-ideological ones can defy the popular will (like most NATO states today). But doesn’t that invalidate the supposed dichotomy between them?
Isn’t it more likely that the West simply claims not to have an ideology because denial follows organically from its actual ideology (which clearly isn’t a new or original idea on my part)? And in that case, isn’t it more accurate to follow the interplay between the ideology and political currents within a state instead of treating it as a black-box within a possibly illusory category?
The main characteristic of the Iranian Islamic Republic in the area which diffrentiate it from the rest is not that is islamic, they all are around (not Armenia), or that it is Shia and not like the rest (Sunni – Iraq is majority Shia), but that it is a republic with overseers. And the overseers don’t look only over the political class respecting the percepts of the faith… Within this sand box (equivalent with the Overtone Window in the West), people are given all the latitude to play. And from this perspective, Iran is truly, not only more democratic than the sourrounding monarchies and republics, but more democratic than entities like USUK and all those FPTP polities.
So within its constitution and with the processes in play, I would say that there is solid legitimacy in Iran, and discussion chipping or trying to downplay or ridiculize that aspect are very uninformed.
And what the NotThe Pilot and hk said as well.
Thx for replying.
I think the dichotomy, between regimes that derives legitimacy from ideology vs. those that depend on popular support is fundamentally wrong. Abstractly, every regime anywhere in the world depends on, if not explicit affirmative support from the populace, at least passive acquiescence from sufficiently broad swaths of the population. The distinction, really, is whether the people are willing to tolerate the regime, even if they may not explicitly “like” them, because of some “ideological” and/or “institutional” reasons (i.e. I hate party X, but they were legitimately elected in the last election–not just that they are recognized to be vice-gerents of God on a piece of Earth, per James I, or whatever), or if the government needs to constantly show explicit evidence of affirmative support by the populace. But, if so, the former is just another word for state legitimacy, democratic or otherwise. (as an illustration of this, we can see how practically every government in the West has been “unpopular” in some fasion for some time, perhaps longer than people think–Nicholas Longworth, speaker of the US House in early 20th century, quipped that Congress was unpopular when Henry Clay was the Speaker of the House or when John Adams presided over the Senate–but that they are elected and empowered by the constitutional order that most of the populace supports in abstract is sufficient to grant them legitimacy.) The faith in Constitutionalism is no less “religious” than that in the future return of the Twelfth Imam or whatever. “Ideology,” in turn, is merely a part of the overall framework that undergirds this legitimacy–nothing more or less. At least as important (probably much more so) are the sense of the populace in their safety and well-being, as well as their self-respect and pride. In these dimensions, I don’t see how the Iranian government is any different from others.
One might accept that the Iranian government, by its origin and continuing structure, depends much more on ideology to maintain legitimacy–because it garners support from certain critical subsets of the population, even if it might alienate others. But this is not fundamentally different from another other regime anywhere in the world. (Russian interference, anyone?) It still has to deliver on security, prosperity, and dignity of its people and risk their wrath if they fail to. It was the “prosperity” angle, or the lack thereof, from all accounts that I’d come across, is what initially prompted the protests: this doesn’t seem to offer any short to medium term opening for the foreign affairs angle. Yes, cutting a deal with the West can help, but the price of that deal has been growing ever steeper and the potential benefits growing ever nebulous. Even if the discontent with the current regime is considerable–which I don’t doubt–there are’t many who will rise up to give the crown back to the Pahlavis, especially when they know that hte Pahlavis are far more of US and Israeli puppets than they ever were and have nothing of their own to offer. If so, the potential Iranian strategy falls to the realm of military and diplomatic-political realms: how much harm can they inflict on their enemies and how far can they limit the harm to themselves, including how would the eventualities that could arise from their action affect the ability of the regime to maintain popular support compared to other alternatives. Again, it’s not clear to me if Iran stands to lose much on that dimension if they opted for a more “aggressive” course of action–perhaps not a preemptive strike, but a very quick and hard response to aggression, say.
Historically they’ve been defensive. In the 12-day war that israel started they responded attack for attack and Israel stopped after their last response; I assume Israel couldn’t take it any more, imo Israel would never stop if they thought they were winning.
Imo it would be stupid to launch first, this might justify nukes in the minds of those running the west. But also stupid to attack Iran now that they’re better prepared than last time. What makes most sense to me is we’re preparing a false flag that they attacked, and that we’re ready to use nukes, reinforcing the reign of terror we’ve started.
If the Strait of Hormuz is closed, this will vindicate Team Trump’s heroic actions in Venezuela by proactively securing the largest oil-reserves in the world, and it will allow the USA/Israel, Saudi Arabia, and “allies” a free-hand to neutralize the Iranian threat once and for all. No doubt good Americans will support this action as the global economy is shaken to the core and this hits home as it becomes painful to fill the tanks of their pickup trucks and SUVs.
Your perspective of reality may differ.
Venezuelan oil will have no impact on the future of US; creating chaos on the high seas will.
Venezuelan oil will have no impact on the future of US
It offers a false sense of security, and this sense may be perceived as true for long enough to garner or consolidate support from enough people for the leaders who are keeping us safe.
Don’t we have enough recent examples of this? I don’t see any need to change the recipe.
Well, VZ oil does serve to keep prices low enough to bankrupt the oilers in the Permian. Seems Trump only cares for Big Oil, not the little guy who extracts it in the good ole USA.
The previous major events, like the opening strikes by Israel on Iran at the start of the 12 days, were preceded by flight stoppages at Ben Gurion by several hours. I recall that travel last summer by former colleagues in Israel was disrupted for shorter flight closures for smaller incidents in Syria and Lebanon. So if we’re really counting down to anything involving the Western Front then you should keep an eye on Ben Gurion’s flight board here. Currently status quo, first day of the work week in Israel just ended.
fwiw I think we have another tense week-ish to go before it’s clear what is about to happen
It looks to me like Iran is already under siege.
it’s likelier than ever that Trump, or Netanyahu, use a nuclear weapon in the coming war. Both are willing to do it
How on earth do we get peace out of this?
It is perpetual war for perpetual peace.
Political power on the basis that might is right.
Fuelled by low voltage politics and politicians who have been bought.
Fuelled by an armaments industry that is the most profitable business on the planet.
Meanwhile the planet burns.
Israel’s MO for most of its military successes was the use of preemptive strikes. The ‘73 war was the result of Arab preemptive strikes that nearly led to a serious defeat of Israel. As Seymour Hersh reported in The Samson Option, Israel resorted to Nuclear Blackmail to tip the scales in its favour.
It makes perfect sense for Iran to strike first, if only to take the Samson Option of the table.