Iran: the collapse

I find it amazing that people still refer to international law and the post WW2 institutions like they still mean something. I have been listening for example to Rory Stewart on “the rest is politics” podcast and his analysis and reasoning is generally technically correct, but based on international laws that have long been made obsolete.

We are clearly in the middle of a phase where the old rules don’t apply, and the big powers are writing the new rules with their actions.

I think it was Pitt who said after Austerlitz that the map of Europe should be rolled up as it wouldn’t be needed for the next ten years. I think the Middle East, Eastern Europe and possibly the far east will have boundaries redrawn and rules rewritten in these next twenty years.

 

Important background context:

What a sentence by the BBC. pic.twitter.com/fcnKs21hxz

— Hamza Yusuf (@Hamza_a96) March 5, 2026

 

I'm asking you to provide support for the assertion you made. That's not an unreasonable request.

 

You've basically defined what makes the British British there.

 

It’s 2026, gramps. You’re supposed to go on the internetz and substantiate his argument for him. It’s called unburdened by proof.

 

some news :
- 1250 iranians killed, of course including civilians, and the Teheran Azadi Sports Complex destroyed (??) (But I took note of what Yoshou said about the very good accuracy of US Bombs )
- Macron and his govt have accepted American military aircraft at a French base in the southeast (Istres). In return for this assistance, France demanded that these aircraft not participate in operations in Iran but only in the defense of partners in the region
- Keir Starmer on Iran: "I took the decision that the UK would not join the initial strikes on Iran by the U.S. and Israel."

 

I have heard multiple people - including our PM - question whether or not a regime like Iran's deserves protections provided by international law.
It's an argument I hate. One can concede that the regime has been terrible and murderous, repeatedly killing many young people, the flowers of their society, to remain in power.
At the same time, "we can just ignore international laws, standards and bodies if the regime in question is odious enough" is a terrifying slippery slope.
It reminds me of the argument some make against providing due process to people accused of serious crimes.
The counter argument has always been that if due process applies to Ted Bundy, it will apply to everyone and thus those rights will protect everyone.
I don't think people will look back fondly on this type of argument and I think the Spanish stance will age much better.

 

For the life of me, I still do not wrap my head around the sinking of the Iranian Navy ship of the coast of Sri Lanka. What the ********? What's the point besides killing 100 people? If the us navy wanted to seize the vessel or detain the sailors, I am certain it would have been easy. this is simply unconscionable.....

 

Obama beat Hillary very largely because she supported the invasion of Iraq. There are going to be a lot of people who lose elections in six years time because of their short-sightedness right now.

 

It’s not 2003 and this is a very 2003 take.

 

Apparently most of the US strikes have been in the south of Iran (suggesting that the US was responsible for bombing the elementary school), and Israeli strikes have been in western Iran including Tehran.

 

I have missed pages but I am here now. I will support you on this because after doing nothing but letting and in some cases abetting the Holocaust, the west felt bad. Zionist faction of Judaism saw this as the time ro push for their own homeland. Europe still being anti Semitic didnt want the new homeland in Europe. They explores the horn of Africa, Madagascar but settled on Palastine at thrme pushing of the Zionist. And the world was never the same.

I do agree with @Sufjan Guzan when he says US ans Israeli relations will be untenable in the next 10 years if not sooner.

 

The Balfour Declaration predates the Holocaust by a decade….

But sure. I’m the one doing historical revisionism….

 

Reports that an Iranian drone has struck Nakhchivan airport in Azerbaijan. Iran denies it was them, Baku is upset and demands an apology - other reports says they reserve the right to retaliate against Iran

 

This is going swimmingly well.

By the time it ends, Trump can claim to have ended 15 wars at minimum, maybe more.

No way Norway can avoid giving him their super prize after that.

 

Yes.
But more than anything what's unacceptable is that Trump is literally shitting on international law by
attacking militarily a country (even if it's a bloodthirsty dictatorship) without any legitimate reasons, but for financial gain and to weaken his main economic enemy, China, by reducing its oil imports. It started with Venezuela, now it's Iran. And there must be a hundred million American assholes who believe Trump is acting to liberate oppressed peoples.
And it's one, two, three la la la la ... next stop is Greenland

Now, while he has expressed the desire for Europe to be able to defend itself, without american financial or materiel support, the U.S. opposes Poland, Germany, and Nordic countries developing their own nuclear weapons. The Deputy Pentagon chief (officially the Undersecretary of War for Policy) has made it clear: Washington will not tolerate Poland, Germany, or the Nordic countries developing independent nukes. If you want a Seat at the table, you do it through NATO’s nuclear sharing—not by building a private stockpile that undermines U.S. hegemony. US wants overall Europe remains avove all weak and a good vassal.
Although I do not approve of an escalation of the nuclear arsenal, we've had enough of Trump, policeman of the word, invested by god (god of my ass). Spain has shown a way by opposing this jerk; I hope most European countries will follow.

 

More than two decades actually, and there is a long way to go from creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine to creating a state. It took 6 million deaths for that.

 

Oh obviously the Holocaust was a key component in that. Never denied that at all. Politicians and elites will use tragedy for their ends all the time. Sometimes they even manufacture the tragedies on purpose! History is littered with examples. E.G.: what did Saddam Hussein have to do with 9/11?

The overall point was to support that elites saw a way to fragment the Ottomon Empire which was in its death throes decades before the Holocaust in order to extract resources.

Superdave would have you believe that the British Empire was benignly offering the Jewish people a homeland, as if that was their modus operandi….. follow the money people. it’s always about the money.

And for the record: outside of being against settler colonialism it isn’t like the Jewish people kicking Palestinians off their land is any different than the what the American people did to the Native Americans and what the Germans wanted to do to the Slavic people.

So don’t be throwing this anti-semitic claim out at me. I call balls and strikes fairly. Let’s steer this back to the War however.

Iran represents an opportunity for further fragmentation of the region. Who does this benefit? Look to how the attempts at building larger unions in Africa have been treated? With armed conflict. Again this type of fragmentation done by the West happens over and over again to the point where it’s clear the goal isn’t to respect another country’s sovereignty or to install democracies. It’s fragmentation to extract resources.