Recent Items

Iran War Watch: Iran Makes Real Concessions on Nuclear Enrichment But Can Trump Take That Win? UPDATE: Israel Embassy Evacuation Says War May Be Imminent

Posted on by

The latest round of indirect Iran-US talks concluded yesterday, with the Iranians and the Omani interlocutors making positive noises and future supposedly planned, although a date has yet to be set. Critically, as we’ll soon discuss, Iran offered new concessions on its nuclear program, beyond those in the JCPOA. which would allow Trump to declare victory and back off. As far as I can tell, Iran would get no sanctions relief; this break would simply to be get all those nasty US military assets in theater to go back to where they came from. But the US side was not pleased:

From Axios:

What they’re saying: During the break, an Iranian official told Al Jazeera that Iran had rejected the idea of permanently abandoning uranium enrichment, dismantling its nuclear facilities, and moving its uranium stockpiles out of the country.

  • The official said Iran’s proposal includes reducing the uranium stockpile to low enrichment levels under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  • “Our proposal in Geneva is politically serious, technically creative, and includes everything required to reach an agreement immediately,” the Iranian official told Al-Jazeera.
  • Al-Busaidi said the sides had “been exchanging creative and positive ideas” and “hope to make more progress.”

The other side: Witkoff and Kushner were disappointed with the Iranian positions, the source said after the morning session.

  • It’s unclear if their thinking changed after the afternoon meetings.
  • If they report back to Trump that there was no breakthrough, it would make a military strike more likely.

And per the Guardian:

The indirect talks in Geneva were held in two sessions, with reports that the US team led by Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, had been disappointed by the proposals put forward by Iran.

The brevity of the second session of talks appeared ominous, observers said.

At one point, to the frustration of Tehran’s team, Witkoff had to break off his talks with Araghchi, to drive across the Swiss city to meet Ukrainian negotiators.

However, the US is still engaged in too much saber-rattling to see a US climbdown as likely. In particular, the US is carrying on about a core Israeli demand, that Iran effectively make itself defenseless by getting rid of its long-range missiles and severely limiting its other missiles. Janta Ka Reporter features a fairly long clip from a press briefing by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The critical bit starts at 3:53:

Iran possesses a very large number of ballistic missiles, including short-range ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and our bases in the region and our partners in the region and all of our bases in the UAE and Qatar and Bahrain. They also possess naval assets that threaten shipping. they possess conventional weapons solely designed to attack Americans.

So the US side is escalating its demands even as Iran is making a reasonable offer. Not only is Iran either not to have or accept restrictions on even its short-range missiles, but they can’t even have a navy.1 Help me.

Now admittedly, Rubio is a hard-core neocon. Vice President J.D. Vance was reported in the extensive press leaks on the Sunday White House pow-wow as joining Trump in pressing Pentagon officers pointedly on their assessment of odds of success. Vance, with the very much marginalized Tulsi Gabbard, has also been one of the strongest anti-war voices in the Administration.

So it is not a good sign that in a fresh interview in the Washington Post, which was a lead story, that he tries to have it both ways, saying there will not be a long war with Iran, but not ruling out strikes….which those who have followed this confrontation know is simply not a credible outcome. Any attack by the US will generate a ferocious response from Iran, which among other things is just about certain to generate a non-trivial level of deaths among American service-members even before getting to wreckage of Israel. That means the US will have to find a way to punish Iran. How can that possibly not get the US mired in an unwinnable conflict?

Nevertheless, from the Post:

Vice President JD Vance said Thursday that while military strikes against Iran remain under consideration by President Donald Trump, there is “no chance” that such strikes would result in the United States becoming involved in a years-long, drawn-out war.

Speaking with The Washington Post on Thursday, Vance said he does not know what Trump will decide to do about Iran, describing possibilities that include military strikes “to ensure Iran isn’t going to get a nuclear weapon,” or solving “the problem diplomatically….

“The idea that we’re going to be in a Middle Eastern war for years with no end in sight — there is no chance that will happen,” he told The Post.

As we can see from the reports thus far, it still appears that the US will not accept an outcome where Iran does not capitulate. So the US seems to be fantasizing that it can quickly and easily bring Iran to heel. I believe it was Colonel Macgregor who depicted this view as believing that the US could break Iran’s legs, forcing them to make additional diplomatic concessions.

And there are divergent readings on Trump’s remarks at the State of the Union. John Mearsheimer, in a talk with Glenn Diesen, argued that he thought it signaled a softening in Trump’s position, since he mentioned only Iran’s nuclear development. By contrast, Alexander Mercouris, based on Trump’s tone as opposed to substance, feels that Trump has shown what comes off at personal hatred for the regime, and has gone too far down the road to war to turn around now.

To highlight a point we’ve made before: whether the US goes to war with Iran is a test of Israel’s power in the US, and above all, in the Trump Administration. Aggressive and obviously coordinated leaks about the warnings from General Caine that victory not assured but the downside was considerable in last Sunday’s meeting between Trump and senior officials pointed to serious downsides not just for the US but for Israel as well. Yet we don’t yet have any sign that a realistic assessment, that the US is putting global perception of military power at risk and that Israel is risking its own destruction, has penetrated the Zionist and Christian Evangelical bubbles.

Other commentators have taken up the point we have made for some time: that Israel, which has bizarrely fixated the not-belligerent Iran as a fundamental threat,2 sees a closing window of opportunity. Among the reasons:

Iran is getting militarily stronger all the time in general with its continued build out of missile and drone stocks and development of even more formidable missiles and in particular relative to the US with it being over-committed between Ukraine and China alone and can barely maintain air defense and offensive weapons at their current stressed levels. That is before factoring in the impact of recent Russian and Chinese assistance, particularly in surveillance capabilities.

Ryan Grim argued on Breaking Points that Israel is concerned about population flight, particularly of the young and educated, who also skew liberal, as another factor pushing the leadership to favor war. Perhaps I am missing something, but unless the 12 Day War triggered a new wave of departures, a new war would not seem to be a plus for getting citizens to stay. But then again, those in charge may believe that that would greatly improve Israel’s security. Informed readers are encouraged to weigh in.

The US will never again have such a Zionist-beholden president as Trump

The Republicans will lose at least the House in the midterms; Trump’s diminished authority and probable pre-occupation with another impeachment

Israel is bleeding support among the US public thanks to the Gaza genocide. Not only is Israel losing backing generationally among Jews, but 70% of Americans oppose a war with Iran. And younger Americans generally do not see Iran as a threat to the degree that oldsters do. From Responsible Statecraft:

According to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs survey, “about half of U.S. adults are ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ concerned that Iran’s nuclear program poses a direct threat to the United States… About 3 in 10 are ‘moderately’ concerned and only about 2 in 10 are ‘not very’ concerned or ‘not concerned at all.”

But there is an age gap. “Americans generally hold a negative view of Iran, but the view is sharper among older Americans,” AP observes.

While “(a)bout 6 in 10 U.S. adults say Iran is an ‘enemy’ of the United States,” the poll showed that “.only about half of U.S. adults under 45 say Iran is an enemy, compared with about 7 in 10 Americans ages 45 and older,” according to AP.

“There is also a wide generational divide in concern about Iran’s nuclear program, with only about one-third of Americans under 45 saying they are highly concerned, compared with about 6 in 10 older Americans.”

And as we have said before, Israel has the means to force the Trump Administration to go to war. Among them:

Israel can attack Iran and force the US either to assist from the outset or pile on quickly after Israel goes all in

Zionist billionaires and Christian Zionists can withhold financial support for the GOP at the midterms, assuring not just a loss in the House but also putting the Senate at risk, increasing the odds of not just an motion of impeachment passing in the House but even of having Trump in danger of losing in a Senate trial

Israel can release Epstein-related kompromat. The evidence that the Department of Justice is keeping back even more than earlier thought makes it a virtual certainty that Israel has some independent doozies. There are already smoking guns:

Larry Johnson described the meaningful concessions Iran offered in his latest post, Will Trump Take the Exit Ramp or Go to War with Iran?:

Four Iranian officials told the New York Times that Tehran is proposing to suspend nuclear activity and uranium enrichment for three to five years, after which Iran would join a regional nuclear consortium and maintain a low level of 1.5 percent uranium enrichment for medical research. Iran would also dilute its existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium in phases and grant monitoring access to IAEA inspectors.

But Johnson then recounts that even retreat on the nuclear front this is not enough for Team Trump:

US negotiators — Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — made clear that Iran’s nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan must be dismantled and that any agreement should not include sunset clauses. Iran International Special envoy Steve Witkoff also told a private gathering of AIPAC donors that any Iran nuclear deal should last indefinitely.

In the meantime, the state of US preparedness does not look great:

And the Iranians are not relenting on their preparations for war. If Magnier has heard this, the US and Israeli military certainly has as well:

The only upside of sorts is as former IDF soldier Mizrahi pointed out above, both the strain on the US military of staying at a hair-trigger of combat readiness means that this “Will the US attack or not?” question is not likely to remain in abeyance much beyond the next new moon, of March 19. But that still seems like an eternity given the stakes, and the risk we have skipped over, that Israel could go nuclear in the high-odds scenario that it and the US fare badly.3

Update 8:10 AM EST: Reader fk sent this Axios article, which appeared after this post went live. Recall that Larry Johnson flagged embassy evacuations and NOTAMs alerts as indicators that military action was nigh. But I am not sure if this particular action meets his threshold:

The U.S. State Department announced on Friday that it started evacuating “non-emergency” government personnel from the embassy in Israel and their family members, citing “safety risks” amid growing tensions with Iran….

Between the lines: The ongoing military buildup, the military briefings for the president and the evacuation of the embassy in Israel stand in stark contrast to claims by U.S., Iranian and Omani officials that the nuclear talks in Geneva on Thursday were “positive” and made progress.

So it is still possible that this move is just more threat display….

____

1 This demand is even more ridiculous when you consider that merely scuppering a few rusty old boats in the right place would “threaten shipping” by blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

2 Yes, this is anecdata, but one indicator of the depth of this attachment is that I had a fantastic lawyer. Our ten year friendship ended in the early 2000s (and we were friends, she discussed many of her day to day stresses with me) ended because she would get stony silence from me every time she started ranting about Iran.

3 I am relegating this gossip to a footnote, since it comes from a single source and I am not sure how much is the result of him tracking down reports in the Iranian media of what it learned from its hack of Israeli networks, versus other Israeli sources, which he has. The problem with single sources is even if they are reporting what they heard with 100% accuracy and that information is true, their contact or contacts may not have a full picture and the information gaps may be consequential. Nevertheless, he says that Israel has about 300 nuclear weapons, but the Israeli documents said its experts were seriously concerned that many did not work. Nuclear bombs, even the old and comparatively simple gun-type require that the multiple elements of the triggers fire in an extremely tight time sequence (milliseconds?) or else the detonation is a fizzle. On top of that, many (most?) are on submarines…and with the Chinese having sen in a spy ship that can locate submarines, it may not be easy for an Israeli sub to get in a good firing position. Additionally, the contact said that many of the Israeli nuclear devices were low-yield by contemporary standards. That is not implausible if Israel started its program early and froze or greatly slowed it in return for promises of US protection.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Post Comments
80 comments

  1. The Rev Kev

    ‘Iran would also dilute its existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium in phases and grant monitoring access to IAEA inspectors.’

    This is a new counter offer by the Iranians where previously there was talk of flying that highly enriched uranium out of the country for Russia to take care of due to their nuclear expertise. This had me thinking that perhaps the Iranians want to tie this to sanction relief. The US may promise this but we know that it will never happened. When the JCPOA was signed, sanction relief was part of that package. Obama pulled back on some sanctions – but then introduced a whole new raft of sanctions. So perhaps the Iranians want to tie the level of nuclear enrichment levels to stepped removal of sanctions on Iran. As US sanctions are removed, more and more of that enriched uranium is diluted. The trouble for Iran is how do you do a deal with a regime that is treacherous and is agreement-incapable.

  2. HH

    Hostilities appear imminent because the evacuation orders have been given for embassy personnel in Israel. Israel intends to keep hammering Iran, irrespective of consequences, until Iran falls. Until the grip of billionaire money on U.S. politics is broken, the U.S. will be Israel’s engine of destruction in the Mideast. Militarized insanity dominates U.S. foreign policy, and we will all suffer the consequences.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      The evacuation order is for non-emergency personnel I assume that does meet Johnson’s threshold and assume he will weigh in on his next post or YouTube chat.

      1. Aurelien

        It shouldn’t. It’s a fairly routine and low-level precaution and is mainly aimed at families and non-essential personnel. It comes under the heading of Just in Case. If the US actually closes its Embassy (and other nations will almost certainly follow suit) then you know it’s serious.

        1. Old Jake

          Well, now I’m hearing (seeing) Al Jazeera and NBC reporting military action, and photos of smoke plumes over Iranian locations.

  3. Aurelien

    The US has found itself in a relatively common position during crises: it can’t go forward and it can’t go backwards, thus it paws the ground while doing nothing.

    The US is handicapped by the fact that it has never understood Iran. The memory of the shock of the fall of the Shah in 1978 and the subsequent occupation of the US Embassy have obstructed any efforts there may have been to actually research and analyse what is going on in the country. So far as I can see the “Iran” as perceived by Washington, largely influenced by Israel, is a virtual construct which has very little to do with the reality on the ground. To a large extent, therefore, military planning is done in a complete conceptual vacuum.

    Ever since 1979, the US has been desperate for signs that the regime is weakened and likely to be overthrown. It’s likely that they believed, because they wanted to believe, that the attacks last year did the regime considerable damage, and that the protests and violence this year were a result of those attacks, and incessant, if ineffective, US propaganda, and that even the threat of an attack would make the regime climb down, and perhaps cause it to disintegrate. Either that or a few quick attacks would disable what was left of Iran’s capability before it could retaliate. This is all wishful thinking of course: the regime retains considerable support in rural areas and among the urban poor, but most importantly it has by far the biggest security apparatus, and there is no way I can see that it can be overthrown by force internally.

    So they can’t go forward and they can’t go back. For the record I didn’t think an attack was likely in recent weeks, and I’m unconvinced now, but in such a situation rational analysis may not be much help: you might as well toss a coin.

      1. Es s Ce Tera

        A violence approach is definitely the worst, both in terms of being the worst possible move and achieving the worst possible results.

    2. PlutoniumKun

      I suspect the voice of the Iranian expat community in the US has also had a malign influence in distorting the overall picture.

    3. JohnnyGL

      Aurelien,

      I have to respectfully disagree. The problem isn’t 1979. The problem is how our elites understand 1991. They think the West won and there’s no need to bother understanding any other country anymore. We’re the best and everyone else in the world needs to become more like us. There’s no need to negotiate or compromise if we’re obviously the best the world has to offer. No need for our elite class to care about history and culture of other places. No need for careful, patient trust-building and understanding. It’s true with Iran, Russia, China and pretty much any other country you can name. We still had the capacity for genuine diplomacy during the cold war. Our ability to conduct diplomacy was already visibly fading in the 2010s, but the JCPOA with Iran turned out to be the twilight of our diplomatic prowess before we gave up diplomacy completely.

      We’re going to have to re-learn that there’s limits to our ability to shape and mold the world into something more to our liking. It’s not going to be a quick lesson.

      1. .Tom

        Thank you, Johnny. A notable feature JCPOA and Maidan had in common was the West’s intent to renege.

        Not only do we have to learn the lesson you mention, we will then have to win back the trust of our counter-parties.

      2. elissa3

        Yes. At the level of the people in power in the USA, this has almost hardened into an ideology that one might call “Americanism”. While it has similarities to that violent, racist, psychotic ideology called zionism, the principal difference is that this ideology is not shared by the vast population of the US. I would propose that this is because: 1) the US population is quite diverse, ethnically, racially, and politically; 2) most Americans have negligible interest in foreign affairs unless they are directly affected in real terms (body bags, $5 gasoline, etc.); and 3) living within a vast island and not having had a good education in history, geography, demographics, Americans simply don’t care about whatever this thing called “Iran” is all about. They will go along with whatever their favorite political leader tells them.

        We are many decades from WWII and Vietnam, a few less from 9/11. The latter having evolved into the Iraq war, is now acknowledged by most of the population as a fiasco. So this “Americanism”, “the essential nation” thing might be believed by the ruling government class as one of the self-justifying reasons for their actions. Existential for them, but NOT for a great part of the population.

    4. Mikel

      “the regime retains considerable support in rural areas and among the urban poor”
      A lot of that going around with current leaders around the world.

      I’ve stopped looking at the decisions being made as ones being about what is good for the citizens of a country.
      The vested interests seek to come out with some kind of profit, one way or the other, and with many ways to capitalize from disaster. All they have to believe is that they will not personally be held accountable or can ride off into the sunset (in any part of the world) with ill gotten gains while people hurl insults in the press and online.
      EX: In the USA, we’re still talking about neocons in power after all the mistakes.

  4. MicaT

    Just like the US/russia “negotiations “ they are just not real.
    As witkoff said, why haven’t they capitulated yet?
    Unfortunately it seems to me that the “negotiations” are all a ruse to make some kind of sellable argument to the American people that we tried but the Iranians just won’t negotiate. And there isn’t a single media outlet even trying to mention peace.
    An unprovoked attack on Iran by the US is imminent and there is nothing short of full surrender by Iran to stop it.
    Iran was smart to basically agree to almost no enrichment with no other parts knowing the US would say no. It calls out the bluff that it is about enrichment.

    I hope the war doesn’t happen

    2. Ignacio

      I very much agree. Negotiations aren’t real in the sense that the purpose is not to reach an agreement. These are intended as a show of power. Instead of offers that cannot be refused (Godfather’s style) these go with offers that cannot be accepted. Is it possible to entertain the idea that the Iranians made their offer only to show that the other side is agreement incapable.

      The hypothesis described here (to say it in short, about Zionists/Evangelists blackmailing Trump) has indeed explanatory power on what we have been seeing lately. By contrast the negotiations side-show appear to be genuinely Trumpian trademark.

  5. Carolinian

    The latest Simplicius suggests the MSM are not all on board and that the Pentagon or parts of it are also rebelling. How many divisions does Lindsey Graham have?

    https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/iran-calls-trumps-bluff-as-deep-state

    The Israelis like to see themselves as clever manipulators and indeed for a tiny country they have been wildly successful in getting so much support from the giant hegemon. But the Epstein situation shows the extremes that they have had to go to in manipulating our ruling class which, as Eisenhower pointed out, has come to take “war is the health of the state” as its mantra.

    The problem with this imposed narrative is that America with its polyglot makeup and devotion to individualism is quite different from former devotees of the Emperor or the Fuhrer. So an arbitrary war would be not just a military and financial disaster but most of all a political disaster. Trump with his already low poll ratings and crumbling policies (the tariffs) may think he has little to lose but the Wall Street money masters need to jerk his chain.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Israel holds the trump card. They can attack and we have to go in.

      And they and the US (per Aurelien on the US not understanding Iran) may really believe that a hard US strike will still hurt Iran bigly or bigly enough to be consequential.

      People like the Krystal/Saagar Breaking Points duo, who ought to know better, keep mouthing that the US would win in a full on war with Iran, which ex nukes, is just not true. As Larry Johnson keeps pointing out, we could not even beat the Houthis. But if they think that, it is likely that an awful lot of people do too.

      1. TimH

        Accepting that the US decision makers think that attacking Iran would be a slam dunk win, surely the Knesset doesn’t believe that after the 12 day war?

        1. Yves Smith Post author

          One of the YouTubers raised that question, particularly since the Israel had also asked for a delay in an attack planned IIRC for Jan.

          First, Israel attacked on its own, not the US. US came in only late and got Iran to agree to performative strikes. So fantasy of US dominance not tested.

          Second, the YouTuber said the delay was to get moar better air defenses in place.

  8. Judith

    Dated today:

    “In view of the current security situation in Iran, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Chinese Embassy and Consulates in Iran remind Chinese nationals to refrain from travelling to Iran, the Consular Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an announcement on its official WeChat account on Friday.

    It also said that Chinese nationals already in Iran should heighten security precautions and leave as soon as possible. ”

    https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202602/1355853.shtml

  9. Sunlight Disinfects

    Chinese anti-ship missiles.

    It was reported a few days ago that Iran was negotiating to acquire Chinese anti-ship missile. The sourcing for these reports is murky. I wonder if such reports are just a way of hyping the Iranian threat and justifying an attack sooner rather than later.

      1. Sunlight Disinfects

        I wonder if there is such a deal in the works.

        That’s why I noted that the sourcing of the reports is murky (anonymous).

        It seems like just a ‘scare’ that hypes a potential future threat as a means of justifying action NOW.

        See my further comment below.

  10. LawnDart

    Circa 1977-78:

    “He [the shah] is your only real ally in the Middle East, and the industrial world rotates on the axle of oil that is the Middle East. Oh, you have Israel, of course, but that’s actually a liability to you, not an asset. And no oil there. Your politicians must placate the Jewish vote, must get their money to finance campaigns. So you’re stuck with Israel, I’m afraid. However, Iran is the key. Your oil companies– which carry even more power than the Jews– need us. You need our shah– or you think you do, just as you thought you needed South Vietnam’s corrupt leaders”

    “Are you suggesting otherwise? Is Iran the equivalent to Vietnam?”

    “Potentially much worse…”

    –John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

    Are US oil companies in a position to capitalize on a new Iran war?

    2. JonnyJames

      The oil companies are even more powerful than the (Zionist) Jews. And now, the interests of the Epstein Class oligarchy converge. It is interesting to note that the UK/US coup in 1953 was about the oil.

      Grayzone posted this a few days ago.
      https://thegrayzone.com/2026/02/13/iran-war-opportunity-oil-lobbys/

      Some analysts claim that the US acts against Iran purely for Israel’s benefit, however that does not appear to be the case. Multiple interests are served: MICIMATT (MIC), BigOil, and one could say that US geostrategic interests would be served in blocking pipeline routes, barriers to China’s BRI, preventing alliance between Russia, China Iran…and the control of a very important geographic location etc.

      But of course the dream of either making Iran a failed state, or installing a puppet regime is quite unlikely.

      1. LawnDart

        Epstein Class oligarchy

        Isn’t the Epstein Class the upper-crust or top-tier of the PMC– not oligarchs, but one step away from these? Lieutenants, not the dons themselves?

        I gotta agree that an Iran attack will be a cash-cow and wonderful opportunity for “elites” (“good families”) to expand influence and power– plenty to feast upon, and nothing to stop the slaughter… attack itself is a success.

        1. JonnyJames

          It appears that they have PMC as well as oligarchs in their ranks, but I would bet that the real damning material will never be released and I would bet that the real dirt has not been released. So we plebs will never know. Sadly, It really does not matter, as the people in high places are very rarely held to account. I don’t see anyone being arrested in the US. At least Mandelson and Andrew will be shamed and given a slap on the wrist. Here in the US, nothing.

  11. .Tom

    In the embedded tween from Alon Mizrahi:

    A part of me really wants the US to go for it, because a war with Iran will be a major push for decolonization of West Asia, and the world. Without it, things will take longer, and it’s a shame.

    I find I sometimes think this way too. It’s what I think Simplicius means when identifying as “accelerationist”, i.e. the empire is going down so let’s get it over with quickly and move on to the next thing. This is ofc terrifying so I can’t maintain support of the idea to it for long.

    In the last couple of weeks I have a slightly different reason for the same line of thought. Besides a humiliating defeat, what could possibly lead to the scorpion to change its nature? Israel and the USA are nuts about Iran, like western Europeans are nuts about Russia. I cannot imagine an endogenous process by which they cure their own madness and choose peaceful and just coexistence. As so many pundits said at the end of the 12-day conflict in June 2025, it’s a ceasefire in which to get ready for the next round. If a diplomatic breakthrough now leads to deescalation of the acute situation, I think it will be similar.

    The counterpoint to this thinking is that peace through deterrence may be more stable. As well set out in Yves’ article, time seems to be in Iran’s side. So perhaps if we can get through this year without this war then Iran’s deterrent may start to really work. I mean, we don’t hear so much sabre rattling about DPRK now.

    And then I go back to thinking about how the leopard won’t change its spots or the scorpion its nature. What will they do if Iran has functioning deterrence? Go back to beating up weaker opponents I suppose: Cuba, Venezuela, Lebanon, West Bank.

    1. JohnnyGL

      War or no war, the US will go back to beating up weaker opponents. It always does.

      “The decolonization of West Asia” — now that is a weighty notion. Wars often have unforeseen consequences, so Mizrahi is right to raise this possibility.

      Are we stuck in something like 1860 where there’s no other way to end the scourge of slavery except through physical destruction of the planter class?

      How else are we to rid the world of the horrors of the zionist colony? It’s clearly eaten the soul of the US elite, even if that elite was happy to have its soul eaten.

  12. lyman alpha blob

    Extremely disheartening to see that Mitsotakis is allowing Crete to be used by Uncle Sugar and the Zionist entity. Based on the widespread anti-Zionist graffiti I saw and the Cretans I spoke to last year, the Greek people are not happy about it either. So may Israelis have begun buying up property on Crete, one friend said it could be “little Israel” there in a few years.

    Mitsotakis, of all people, should know better. His own father was put in jail by the US-sponsored military junta that controlled Greece from the late 60s-early 70s.

    There were stories of Cretan villagers stabbing Italian paratroopers with pitchforks as they attempted to land on Crete during WWII and we actually uncovered the remains of a WWII Italian soldier complete with dogtags during an excavation there many years ago, so those stories of the fighting Cretan spirit appeared to be true. Of course then, the government was on the same side as the people.

    One hopes they still have some of the spirit of Captain Michaelis left – ελευθερία ή θάνατος!

  13. ISL

    WRT Israeli submarines, this is a long-known issue for Iran, and it is highly probable that Iran has developed solutions. Coupled with the Chinese detection system, such antisub systems must be considered highly effective (from an Israeli military planning perspective). WRT source in footnote 3 – the US and Soviets did lots of testing – Israel has not – this does not affect deterrence, but it does affect nuclear war fighting.

    Iran would be wise to hit Israeli military assets (damage would never be admitted), and key infrastructure (wastewater, desalination, electric substations, refineries, etc.) to degrade the Israeli economy to where only support a small fraction of the current population can be supported, triggering mass emigration. Attrition warfare works well in this strategy. If it is unclear that the patient is bleeding out slowly, it probably avoids triggering Israel to test its nuclear deterrence, which was envisioned as a response to a land invasion to compensate for a lack of strategic depth.

    1. Mikel

      It’s still up in the air what direction Iran will have to concentrate efforts. And it still remains to be seen how they’ve dealt with the long-known issues with internal security.

      1. Polar Socialist

        Well, USA is making it as easy as possible by pulling systems and troops from around the Gulf and concentrating them to Saudi-Arabia/Emirates and Jordan/Israel. This, I believe, is called creating a “target rich environment”.

        Already a week ago it was mentioned (Magnier? Patarames?) that Iran’s primary targets, should the conflict go kinetic, would be the four THAAD batteries. And then just keep shooting the fish in the barrel, as they say.

        1. Mikel

          All directions at once for how long? I’m waiting to see how any of the players are having all this alleged firepower.

      2. Carolinian

        They have already said they are going to hit the long range radar sets the US has at various Arab bases and maybe even the one in Turkey. These are vital to US/Israel missile defense.

        1. Mikel

          Maybe I’ve seen too many spy movies in the past. I’m supposing those are the ones everybody in the world knows about? I’ve seen assumptions that Iran has things that the US/Israel doesn’t know about or the location of.

    2. Mikel

      And, just offhand, it appears that Modi thinks there will be a functioning Israel in the future.
      His walking that far out on a limb has me curious.

    3. TimmyB

      It is highly unlikely that Iran has “developed solutions” to detecting submerged submarines. Nor does there exist a spy ship, Chinese or other wise, that can detect all of a nation’s submarines.

      The U.S., China, and Russia have been working on this problem for decades and have not solved it. The U.S. has mined the ocean bottom with listening devices, has land based and aircraft carrier based patrol planes, helicopters, destroyers, frigates and attack submarines all patrolling the ocean searching for submarines. It can’t locate all of them all the time. The claim that Iran, a country without a blue water navy, has acquired that ability, is simply not believable.

      Moreover, in the extremely unlikely event that that Iran knows the exact location of every Israeli submarine 24/7, it does not have the ability to sink all of them before they could launch nuclear armed missiles at Iran.

      Simply put, Israel’s nuclear armed submarines are not a problem that Iran can solve.

      1. Polar Socialist

        Well, if Israel has nuclear warheads, and if those are in operating condition, and if Israel has managed to stick them to Popeye Turbo submarine launched missiles and if they actually can be launched from the Dolphins, then it is quite unlikely to have longer range than the air launched variant (320 km) [laws of physics dictate that launch height adds to the range].

        This means that those submarines would have to launch from the shallow end of the Gulf Oman to reach anything worth nuclear war head. And I doubt the Dolphins can launch salvos of the Popeyes (and not suffer serious failures), but they have to remain in position for a duration after the first missile has given their position away.

        Submarine nukes even in big navies are know as “second strike strategic deterrent”. And I believe in Israel’s case it’s more about darn expensive second strike ambiguousness.

      2. ISL

        The solution is called sonar networks and passive networks. No military solution is 100% effective, but in narrow, shallow waters like the Straits of Hormuz, it is very feasible. If an Israeli sub launches from 1000 miles distant, then there is a good chance of the missile being intercepted – the sub needs to be close to lower the chance of interception.

        Second, there is evidence China can detect US submarines very well in shallow (less than 100 m) water (S. China Sea) by the signature they leave on the sea surface from satellite. I sometimes hang around spook sites and this is a topic that comes up.

    4. JohnC C Steinbach

      The Dolphin subs are very high tech with noise suppression systems and fuel cell propulsion systems that enable very long ranges, and the capability to stay submerged for extended periods. Coupled with nuclear cruise missiles with a range of nearly 1,000 miles, it would be a mistake to underestimate their capabilities.

      Regarding estimates of 300 weapons, that is in the ballpark. The Israel nuclear arsenal came out of a joint French/Israeli program from the mid-50s to mid-60s. Israel has a very sophisticated nuclear technology program and I would be surprised if there were serious concerns about the reliability of it’s program.

      For more information see my 2012 paper at: hiroshimapeacecommittee.net/?page_id=206

  14. Sunlight Disinfects

    Any stick to beat a dog (a phrase I picked up from Lambert).

    Those who wonder about Trump’s intentions should review developments over the last few weeks.

    1) First Trump wanted to intervene to help protesters. How is that “America First”? And how is it not the “humanitarian intervention of “forever wars” Trump promised to avoid?

    But the protests fizzled when the Iranians jammed Starlink. Oops.

    2) So Trump pivoted to publicly complaining about Iran’s nuclear program while, in negotiations, Trump demanded not just an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions but destruction of Iran’s ballistic missile capability.

    But this just brought ridicule because Trump had boasted that he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability only 8 months ago. And military analysts warned that war with Iran would be very costly after Iran warned that it would respond forcefully to ANY attack – even a “limited” attack.

    3) Now we see the Chinese anti-ship missile scare.

    But the Iranians already have anti-ship missiles . . . so why scream about potential acquisition of Chinese anti-ship missiles? The Chinese missiles might be better in some ways, but the prospect of Chinese direct support for Iran might be a way of convincing skeptical, hesitant Generals that the time to act is NOW.

  15. Lefty Godot

    The usual right-wing news sources have been reporting big “student” protests for 3-4 days now, so apparently the Empire agents in Iran are still making an effort to cause sufficient internal problems in Iran to distract the leadership from concentrating fully on defense against external attacks. It’s pretty amazing that “we” seem to have agents of influence in every country to cause trouble for any Empire-unfriendly governments, considering the pathetically weak effort that the USSR at the height of its power put into aiding and abetting protesters in the US during the 1960s. On the one hand, given how long the Venezuela situation dragged out, it wouldn’t be shocking if no kinetic moves happen till mid-March. On the other, this weekend might be it. “Saturday night’s all right for fighting,” according to Bernie Taupin.

    1. jobs

      I always thought having this much worldwide influence is possible in part because the US can produce pallets of dollars to bribe people.

  16. AC

    I remain on the fence as to what level of damage the US can inflict on Iran. OFC Iran can hit back extremely hard but like with a lot of US “enemies” a big factor is how many traitors are in positions of power. Israel made a lot of initial progress in the 12 day war because of internal subversion. I know a lot of networks were disrupted in the aftemath of those attacks and more recently with the manufactured protests. But in January its one thing to round up some street thugs it’s another to identify and eliminate those in positions of power who have been compromised. I haven’t seen any news about whether those networks were also disrupted. If the Iranians haven’t done a good job there, US/Israel could do a lot of damage.

  18. Es s Ce Tera

    At the SOTU I sensed a new sadness in Trump, perhaps a new weight or burden, a weariness. If Trump is indeed the Decider, then he is like Pontius Pilate and the usual crowd are calling for crucifixion of the innocent. He himself doesn’t see what the innocent have done wrong. Yet if he doesn’t crucify he will himself be crucified.

    Perhaps there’s a different kind of opportunity to offramp than the negotiations. A different decision could be made than was historically made.

  19. Victor Sciamarelli

    Trump insists on being admired as a condition for being invited into his inner circle. He needs a lopsided “deal” in order to gain adulation from the masses. If fascism was the cause of WW2, then flattery, or lack of it, will be responsible for WW3.

  20. Tom Stone

    Firstly, the USA is not agreement capable, like my ex wife, the USA CAN NOT keep an agreement.It is not in its nature.
    Secondly Israel is pulling out all the stops at the same time Trump is losing his base largely due to his handling of the Epstein matter and the increasingly obvious involvement of the Zionists in US politics.
    It turns out that a lot of Republicans can excuse Genocide but can not excuse raping Children.
    If, as seems likely, the USA does go to war against Iran it is going to be a clusterfuck not only in the Mideast but domestically.

    1. nigel rooney

      Yes, interesting to speculate how effectively war against Iran could be managed to remove Epstein from the agenda.

  21. ambrit

    Throwing this in for consideration; there are a good number of “True Believer” Christian Millenarianists in positions of “responsibility” in the US Government. Such people would not worry about the “end of the world as we know it,” since that is exactly what they want. A full on nuclear exchange would fit them nicely. They believe that they are the “Chosen Ones,” chosen to survive and pick up the pieces after the Return.
    Stay safe.

    1. Yalt

      This particular piece of the o.p. stuck out for me in that regard:

      a realistic assessment, that … Israel is risking its own destruction, has penetrated the Zionist and Christian Evangelical bubbles

      The Christian Evangelical bubble will certainly not have any concerns on that score. Israel’s destruction is part of the plan after all.

  22. Jason Boxman

    Trump Says He’s ‘Not Happy’ With Progress of Iran Talks (NY Times)

    President Trump said Friday that he was “not happy” about the state of negotiations with Iran, but that he has not made a final decision about whether to order military action.

    “I’m not happy with the fact that they’re not willing to give us what we have to have,” he told reporters as he left the White House for a trip to Texas. “I’m not thrilled with that. We’ll see what happens. We’re talking later.”

    He wants no nukes at all

    “They cannot have nuclear weapons and we’re not thrilled with the way they’re negotiating, so we’ll see how it all works out,” he told reporters.

    Seems unlikely they’d ever agree to that.

    1. Ben Panga

      >He wants no nukes at all

      “They cannot have nuclear weapons and we’re not thrilled with the way they’re negotiating, so we’ll see how it all works out,” he told reporters.

      Seems unlikely they’d ever agree to that.

      I think you’re confusing “nuclear weapon” with “nuclear enrichment”.

      The Iranians have repeatedly and clearly said they are not trying to build a nuclear weapon and offered to be open for inspections to prove that.

      What they have rejected is completely stopping enrichment.

      Very different things.

      It’s understandable that people keep confusing the two, as there is a huge propaganda campaign to conflate them.

  23. Anthony Martin

    If the US attacks Iran, a number of Gulf States will be drawn in as co-belligerants. If the the US or israel attacks first, then the key issue: What at will be Iran’s counter offensive strategic/operational plan, if the US/Israeli plan to create decapittion, chaos ,and instability fails? If the US/Israel run out of defensive and offensive weapons, then the key questions becomes: how many effective missiles will Iran have in reserve. There are a number of key targets from Haifa Port to the Straits of Hormuz. Personally, tired of Trump and the Us marching to Netanyahu’s tune. What gives?

  24. everydayjoe

    So the enemy is at the gates. Now what. This is the reality for Iran. If Iran was smart, they would have strengthened their military capabilities once Saddam was killed . It looks like they did. There needs to be a long drawn war like in Vietnam with heavy casualties from US and Israel for Iran to be left alone. Iran also needs to go nuclear if it wants to be left alone. This is the cold hard truth. Iran will get nuked if this war escalates. Some accounts say they already possess nukes. The world will find out.

    1. NN Cassandra

      So given they launched in broad daylight, we can assume the moon phase thing isn’t all that important.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Financial Times says it is a joint US-Israel attack.

      Will have something approaching a live blog just before Links go live, but very much appreciate these sightings.

      1. elkern

        Kinda wish I hadn’t checked the News at 2:00 AM; doomscrolled until 5:00, then had a hard time sleeping.

        Peace, plz.

        1. Jonathan Holland Becnel

          Facts

          Me toooooo

          Got about 2 hours of sleep. Once Iran started pounding us military bases I was like ok cool at least they’re fighting back against the rich pedos

  29. Ignacio

    Finally they did it starting this morning. According to MSM a “joint attack” by Israel and the US. And yesterday Pakistan was attacking Kabul.

    Bullshit! And one thing is clear: negotiations were only a side-show as we are learning it is always the case with this US government.

  31. bertl

    My guess is that in a couple of week’s time, it will become clear whether we will be heading towards a completely new world order or a world in which human beings no longer inhabit.

  32. bertl

    My guess is that in a couple of weeks, it will become clear whether we will be heading towards a completely new world order or a world in which human beings no longer inhabit.

  33. Ben Panga

    Well, f***.

    Listening to Trump. He sounds very wooden, like a hostage video.

    Saying a load about the Iranian people rising up. I guess we will see with Bibi and his pet Americans or literally everybody else is right about the chances of that working.

  35. ocypode

    It’s on. Been checking out Thomas Keith, he’s been doing excellent coverage.

    As always, Machiavelli: “Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please.”

  36. HH

    This is QED for Israel controlling U.S. foreign policy. Early reports indicate Iranian missiles are hitting multiple targets in the region. This will mean U.S. losses, and probably the end of Trump’s run of military luck. We may be at an historic turning point or just witnessing another stupid neocon war on the road of U.S. imperial decline.

Comments are closed.