Westerners love to whine about how tyrannical and authoritarian Iran's government is, but it's worth noting that the control Tehran exerts within its borders is a major reason US-Israeli efforts to turn the nation into a giant Libya have failed. That control exists to thwart precisely the type of existential foreign threat that Iran just thwarted. Were it not for that existential foreign threat, such control wouldn't be necessary.
The US has openly admitted to deliberately fomenting the domestic unrest we saw in Iran earlier this year, and to attempting to arm insurgent factions. Those foreign threats were put down by precisely the "tyranny" you've seen western liberals and anarkiddies decrying in Iran all year.
The fact that the US-Israeli war failed to achieve the government-toppling goals set out by Washington and Tel Aviv means that Iran was able to inhibit the visibility that US and Israeli intelligence agencies had into the nation, because you only fail to accomplish a military objective you think you can accomplish if your enemy is able to surprise you. Countering US and Israeli intelligence operations, rooting out US and Israeli intelligence assets, blocking US and Israeli propaganda from domestic consumption, and obstructing US and Israeli visibility into Tehran's government and military could only be achieved by a strong government that's willing exert forceful control over what goes on inside its own borders.
Westerners like to point at the "authoritarianism" of the few remaining enemies of the US-centralized empire as though it proves that we're looking at a struggle between a beneficent and virtuous civilization and a bunch of evil tyrants, but really all it proves is that the only nations who are able to resist absorption into the imperial blob are the ones who are willing and able to exert control over what happens inside their borders. If the US and its allies weren't constantly working to subvert and topple all unabsorbed nations, this "authoritarianism" wouldn't be needed to resist it.
Fascinating argument by Bloomberg's top energy analyst Javier Blas 👇: he argues that China effectively saved the world economy during the Iran war by absorbing the brunt of the global oil supply shock on its own, without visible economic damage.
According to his calculations, China "cut its average daily waterborne oil imports by the same amount as the combined oil consumption of Germany, France and the UK."
And, still according to Blas, they "did so without suffering economic harm" because they could rely on many levers: their huge strategic petroleum reserve, a massive surge in EV usage, their remaining coal-fired electricity capacity, and coal-to-chemicals replacing lost feedstocks.
Had China not been ready to absorb that blow, a good argument can be made that the economic damage to the West, and the world at large, would have spiraled far beyond what we saw.
Effectively, China's energy strategy at all levels (petroleum reserves, EVs, etc.) and its ability to withstand huge supply shocks paid off for everyone, not just for them.
It sounds awfully familiar: in 2008 too it was China's stimulus package and continuous buying of US Treasuries that averted a complete breakdown of the global financial system.
So twice in 20 years the country the West loves to present as a "threat" to the global economy effectively saved it from a US-made global economic disaster 🤷
@Jyo63@valkeryie_skull@jackschulden@ZionismExposedx You’re literally commenting on a photo of a Israeli using her child as a human shield and you say only Palestinians do it. You zionist scum have no shame
You thought Epstein Island was bad?
Israel built the only military prison in the world designated for children.
Children are subjected to beatings, torture, and rape on a regular basis.
Conviction rates in courts reach 99.7%.
This applies only to non-jewish children.
So what is in "The Deal with Islamic Republic of Iran"?
If you're confused, it's normal: the US and Iran already publicly disagree on what they agreed to, and it's not even a "deal": just a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that sets the terms for negotiating the actual deal within the next 60 days.
We do, however, know a few things:
1) Israel is actively trying to undermine the deal - for instance by striking Beirut yesterday Sunday.
Israeli media say that the deal is causing "profound concern among Israeli officials," that "Israel, despite having started the war alongside the US, was not involved in the negotiations," and that "the deal do[es] not achieve the goals of the war that were set out by the US and Israel" (https://t.co/hMqvezz08J).
That last part is clear: the very existence of this MOU proves the objectives of the war were not met, as they certainly didn't include the US negotiating an exit with an undefeated Iran while Israel is freaking out about it on the sidelines.
2) We know, because both parties and Pakistan (the mediator) confirmed it, that a finalized MOU does exist and that it's due to be formally signed on Friday in Switzerland by JD Vance and maybe Trump himself (Vance told Fox News: “I certainly plan to be there, but it’s possible the president himself could be there” https://t.co/sTmdfAv7DS)
3) We know Trump ordered the US naval blockade to be lifted (supposedly today, Monday)
4) The Strait of Hormuz will reopen on the Iranian side (though both parties publicly spun the terms differently - Trump says "toll-free," Iran's FM Araghchi says with "service fees")
5) The war would end on all fronts including Lebanon - both sides used this exact phrase. Israel, obviously, is trying hard to spoil this.
6) Some form of sanctions relief is included - Iran speaks of "termination of all sanctions" (https://t.co/3v7Xa3n9lv) and a senior US official confirmed the structure is "Iran would earn economic rewards each time it met a set of US demands"
7) The MOU apparently does not agree on anything wrt nuclear, just that it will be discussed during the 60-day negotiation window, with Iran maintaining its current nuclear status quo in the meantime
8) In fact I suspect the MOU defers most things truly contested - like nuclear - to later negotiations while resolving in the immediate only the problems the war itself created: stop shooting, reopen the strait (under updated Iranian rules), and lift the blockade.
Which means that, most likely, this "deal" is - at this stage - less a deal than an acknowledgement of the new status quo reached in the war. It differs from the April 5 ceasefire in that, this time, the US is lifting all coercion it introduced in the war - including the naval blockade it imposed on April 13.
So in effect the war had two phases of failed coercion (military, then economic with the blockade), and the MOU formalizes the failure of both.
In exchange what the US is getting is a conversation about its initial stated war objectives (like nuclear), which it will now have to pursue after having proven it cannot impose them by force.
Needless to say, you don't get better terms at the table after showing you couldn't get them on the battlefield 🤷
If you made a dollar a sec you’d have $1 million in 12 days, you’d have $1 billion in 32yrs & $1 trillion in 31,710yrs or 5X longer than human civilization. New rightwing thing is acting like there’s an incremental difference between 5X longer than human civilization and 12 days
I want to introduce you to Steve. He’s 83. His wife died a few months ago and he comes to this lodge in Spring Mill, Indiana and draws. He taught art in Terre Haute, IN his whole life. He also did courtroom sketches in court cases. In the comments I’ll share some pics from his sketchbook. He was excited when I said I was going to share his sketches with the world.