Mere hours before Trump's 8pm Tuesday deadline yesterday, Pakistan's government contacted Iran with a US-written proposal for a two-week ceasefire, explicitly stated to also include Lebanon, during which they would negotiate a permanent end to the war on the basis of Iran's 10 Points. Among other things, these points include 1) maintaining strict control (joint with Oman) over Hormuz, complete with a toll; 2) the end of sanctions on Iran; 3) keeping their enriched uranium; 4) a withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East [stated by the Supreme Leadership Council but not in the 10 Points, so who knows], and 5) some plausible guarantee that Iran would never be attacked again. I've heard rumors that China may have prodded Iran to accept these terms.
In theory, these are relatively confident and maximalist demands. In practice, Iran has already achieved military and economic control over Hormuz and the withdrawal of many US troops and bases from the region, so at least a few of Iran's demands are, to a greater or lesser extent, already achieved, and with little hope for an increasingly exhausted US to undo these achievements short of nukes.
A couple hours after the ceasefire, the Zionist entity began a wave of airstrikes in Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians, as well as flying drones into Iranian airspace. This was a strange move to make even if you assume - very sensibly - that the US is completely agreement non-capable: why not agree to the ceasefire and simply pretend to negotiate for two weeks while regrouping/repairing what assets you can and then start hitting Iran again?
One theory is that the Zionists are testing to what degree Iran is actually willing to have solidarity with Lebanon and Hezbollah. While the Resistance has been relatively united since October 7th, the formation of separate peaces instead of negotiating terms as a united front has been a major exploitable weakness. Alternatively, it's been proposed that the US didn't even consider using the ceasefire to regroup and deceive Iran, and that Trump merely wanted a way to chicken out of his threat on Iran's electrical grid - the fact that US officials have since stated that Iran's 10 Points were not the same ones they agreed to is a point supporting this, I suppose. If the conflict resumes and Trump does not deliver another 48 hour deadline (and/or makes it something silly like a month from now) then this could be the explanation.
From Iran, I am getting the sense that a lot is happening behind the scenes. Statements from top officials like Araghchi have stated quite plainly that there will be no ceasefire and no negotiations unless the Zionists stop attacking Lebanon, but as of ~24 hours after the ceasefire began, there has been no significant military response from Iran yet. There have apparently been phone calls between Araghchi and numerous regional officials, but it is unknown to what end. All the while, the global economic situation continues to deteriorate. Over the next week or two, the last tankers that left Hormuz before it closed will arrive at their destinations. If the missile exchanges begin once more, then the West, much like most of the rest of the world, will be experiencing all sorts of fuel, energy, food, and product shortages while trying to justify why they broke the ceasefire to kill more Lebanese civilians.
Last week's thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.
Please check out the RedAtlas!
The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.
The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on the Zionists' destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
It absolutely does not matter what anyone says here, and your comments hold no more weight than mine in influencing the real world. I also feel you're reading too deeply to a comment made in jest.
That being said, as a Marxist I do think everything should be subjected to ruthless criticism, and there is much to criticize about the Islamic Republic of Iran, from its domestic policies, to how it handled its imperialist aggressors before this war started.
My position on the ceasefire is that it is generally a waste of time that will produce zero results and is delaying the inevitable resumption of war. This is evidenced by the fact that negotiations lasted only a single day before both sides decided to go back home, and neither side wanted to compromise on maximalist terms that would result in the complete capitulation of either side. Iran has learned its lesson after being backstabbed the last two times it tried negotiating with the US and now has more leverage it won't give up, and the US refuses to move an inch from its domination over the Middle East and tried extracting from Iran diplomatically what couldn't do militarily.
If anything, the ceasefire (which only occurred because Pakistan and China both pressured Iran into doing to give the global economy a small respite) is just a pretence for both sides to re-arm and re-strategize before the war resumes. This is probably what most Israelis who oppose the ceasefire feel too.
I also strongly suspect Trump will announce an extension of the ceasefire at the last hour that will go on indefinitely because one, Trump is already sick of this war, clearly wants to move on, and this is the best way to do it without denying material reality and declaring victory and two, it will give more time for the US and Israel to rebuild their lost military assets.
I don't think it is a "disease of liberalism" to point out that negotiating away your nuclear program for the past decade with an enemy that does not want to coexist with you and has every intent to destroy your government and society for profit is a good idea.
Nor do I believe it is a good idea to issue a fatwa prohibiting the accumulation of the one weapon that would have prevented this war and the 12-day war from killing thousands of your people. There is a reason the Great Satan does not fuck with the DPRK.
And the USA has been preparing for this war in the same amount of time. That doesn't mean they can't make mistakes or get complacent in underestimating the resilience of their enemy, and the same should apply to Iran. I don't think it wise to adopt an absolutist mindset in regard to how anti-imperialist factions organize themselves. Strategies always change because previous ones fail, and Iran has undeniably changed their geopolitical strategy from this war. I also don't know what policy you're referring to here, agreeing to a ceasefire that wasn't their idea to begin with?
One factor I think so many doomers have not considered is that Iran would severely limit its ability to strike at Israel or the USA if they had nuclear bombs. Nuclear states can't be flinging ballistic missiles at other nuclear states, that would just result in nuclear responses. Iran has made the tactical and strategic decision to keep nuclear weapon development at the cusp so that in the event that they deem it necessary they can become a nuclear state quickly, but they still have the ability to use conventional warheads on ballistics to do grave damage to the entity and US bases, as well as the gulf monarchies. And as far as whether nuclear weapons protect states from US intervention, we know that the US sent chuds in who murdered some fishermen because they fucked up their mission. I'm increasingly beginning to believe that nuclear deterrence is only part of why NK has been mostly left alone, and if they had Iran's natural resources they would be under the eye just like Iran is.
Iran having nukes would severely limit the US and Israel from attacking Iran. And that's a good thing, because it would put pressure off Iran and force the US/ Israel to focus on Iranian proxies instead of trying to attack the heart of the axis of resistance.
India and Pakistan briefly did last year, but that did not result in any nuclear response. In fact, I would argue that conflict ended so quickly precisely because both sides were nuclear-armed states and common sense prevailed.
And at what point will it be deemed necessary to have a nuclear weapon? 40+ years of hostility from the imperialist global hegemon and the Zionist entity? Your nuclear scientists, generals, and civilian leaders getting assassinated? Your country actively getting bombed and your people being killed by them? None of that crosses the red line? I mean, there's only so much cope people can do here to justify Iran not having nukes, but I really cannot rationalize a single reason for Iran to not have it at this point.
The DPRK is constantly under the eye of the empire, that's why half of Korea is still occupied by the US. But having nukes prevents the US from doing anything else beyond espionage and sabotage missions. They can't just go into Pyongyang and kidnap Kim Jong-un because they know the DPRK would retaliate on a level Venezuela never could. If anything, Iran having abundant oil and gas is a strong argument for why Iran should have nukes way more than North Korea or Cuba should.
Iran isn't going to nuke occupied Palestine and make Palestine uninhabitable to Palestinians for generations even if they had nukes. The Zionist entity knows this. This is why MAD with respect to Iran and the Zionist entity is more about Iran destroying Israeli desalination plants with conventional weapons because that won't poison the land in the same way nuclear fallout would. Once you cross out the Zionist entity as a nukeable target, there's a lot less targets that Iran could and would want to nuke. It's basically Turkey and central Europe. Most other potential targets are either countries they have warm relations with (Russia, China, India), countries that border Iran despite not being very friendly (Azerbaijan), countries that are too close to Palestine (Syria, Jordan, Egypt), and countries that are too far away from Iran (the US, the UK). If anything, Iran getting nukes is more about insurance in case Russia or China allies with the West against Iran or Iran has diplomatic fallout with India or Pakistan. It's not as good of a weapon against Western hegemony since they have no intentions of nuking occupied Palestine.
MarmiteLover123 had a comment where the deterrence is more about the DPRK having massed artillery that would reduce Seoul to rumble within hours after a single phonecall. And the nukes are not just for the US. Relations between the PRC and the DPRK were at best frosty during the 90s and various Chinese dynasties had conquered or attempted to conquer Korea. Therefore, the nukes are pointed at Beijing as well because the DPRK studies history. Remember, the PRC technically invaded the DPRK during the Cultural Revolution when dumbass Red Guards crossed the border in order to overthrow the "revisionist regime of Kim."
Pretty much every single nuclear power outside of Pakistan and the UK has nukes pointed at multiple country. The US, Russia, and China consider every single nuclear power a potential target. France has them pointed at the US and Russia. India has them pointed at Pakistan and China. The DPRK has them pointed at the US and China. The Zionist entity considers every single country a potential target via the Samson Option.
Since they have made the political decision not to nuke occupied Palestine for the sake of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation and since Iranian ballistic missiles don't have enough range to hit the US or the UK, the main reason for Iran to have nukes would be if they feel the Russia-China-Iran counterhegamonic axis won't last and they need insurance or if they feel Iranian-Indian relations or Iranian-Pakistani relations will deteriorate to the point where they need a nuclear option on the table. I don't think either of those will happen anytime soon outside of maybe the deterioration of Iranian-Indian relations and apparently neither do the decision makers of Iran.
So to wrap everything up, their military decision of not building nukes stems from their political decision of not subjecting occupied Palestine to nuclear weapons and other WMDs. That is the lynchpin behind this.
Good points made here, however I'd like to add a couple of things. Firstly, while nuking Israel would cause massive damage and death especially if it were detonated in say, Tel-Aviv, it would not make the land uninhabitable for generations. After Hiroshima was nuclear bombed in WW2, the city quickly returned to its pre-war population by 1955 with much of the essential infrastructure and amenities rebuilt. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have both been very liveable cities for many decades now, with the aftereffects of radiation poisoning only significantly affecting those who were actually living in those cities on the day of the bombing. In my hypothetical nuclear strike of Tel-Aviv, it would be largely Israeli settlers that will suffer, not the Palestinians.
Obviously state and private sector funding is a big factor behind how fast you can rebuild a city that was completely flattened and Japan received plenty in the post-war period, but there's an exaggerated perception that a nuclear strike would turn a land into the Fallout series for the next century. I would say the firebombing of Tokyo achieved a similar material result in the end, but the psychological effect of a single nuclear bomb doing that is incredibly devastating. This is the main reason why no nuclear-armed state dares to use nuclear weapons against each other.
Secondly, even if you were to cross out Israel as a target for fear of killing Palestinians, there are still some very viable targets Iran could choose. The first is US military bases and critical infrastructure in the Gulf States, which has already been a major source of retaliation for Iran every time the US/ Israel moves up the escalation ladder. The second is an offshore target that is within range of Iran's ballistic missiles, like Diego Garcia or even just a US aircraft carrier. The latter option in particular can completely remove potential civilian casualties while still demonstrating to the US that Iran can now retaliate with nukes.
Must have missed this comment, but it doesn't change the fact that the DPRK has a nuclear weapon that can also reduce Seoul to rubble with a single strike in seconds (although they would probably want a city left to capture afterwards). They also have ICBMs that can theoretically reach any part of the continental US. Again, it is the mere threat of potential destructive power that deters all-out war from starting.
I mentioned to another user earlier that the brief India-Pakistan war last year, the only such direct conflict to have ever occurred between two nuclear powers, ended so quickly because of the fear of escalation to using nukes. There's a reason JD Vance and Marco Rubio were in very close contact with both governments during that week. Likewise, if a hypothetical war between the DPRK and the PRC were to start (as unlikely as that would be), I feel the US AND Russia would personally step in to de-escalate as fast as possible.
You're right - everybody in Iranian leadership is wrong and have not considered any of this to the depth of western leftists.
Again, I do not understand this absolutist mindset some people here have adopted in regard to Iran.
Do you think the Iranian leadership is always correct and have never made mistakes? Do you think it was wise to try and appease the US for the last decade by restricting your nuclear program for some sanctions relief while simultaneously choosing not to work more closely with China?
Nobody is infallible and everything should be subjected to ruthless criticism. Even Lenin criticized Trotsky and Stalin while the nascent USSR was being besieged by every world power at the time.
There are a number of loud commenters here who do think exactly that. And anyone who questions the wisdom of some of the choices made by the IRGC is just a "doomer ultraleftist." They think the only analysis that has any legitimacy is analysis that assumes it as a foregone conclusion that Iran knows with omniscient power what the best course of action is. If you disagree, you're just a fool western armchair general, and you have to be over there literally fighting if you want to have any ground to disagree. Nearly everything they say about "doomers" could be said just as reasonably about them, but applied to their non-materialist rose colored glasses regarding their belief that anti-imperialist states are incapable of mistakes or bad tactical decisions.
I almost exclusively lurk rather than comment, but I don't know why much of the rest of the newsmega seems to go along with it so easily. It's a shame because on several broader issues, I tend to agree with them more than the one or two bold commenters here who are willing to put up with their petty name-calling and try to engage with them and argue against their Panglossian commentary. The constant "you're just a doomer" and "you have no valid concerns or thoughts because you are just a lib/ultraleftist westerner" is beyond off-putting and it makes it harder for me to take the rest of their analysis seriously. For all their complaints of how much "doomerism" there supposedly is here, it's their own pettiness that really drags down the quality of discussion and analysis in the newsmega. It's all the more ironic when someone posts a comment they they don't like (which is anything slightly critical of any of the choices Iran has made) and they pull out the "what, you think you know any better you weak minded westerner?" line, because it's practically certain that there are elements within the Iranian leadership structure that have similar concerns and probably disagreed with a number of the decisions that were ultimately made.
There is plenty more I could say, but I feel like what's the point when a top level comment getting scores of upvotes is equating a number of people here with literal Zionists just because they have discussed fears that Iran's agreement to the ceasefire may have been miscalculation.
edit: swapped out a common but potentially ableist word for an alternative.
Largely because this forum is an echo chamber, and like every other echo chamber, it will have people bandwagoning whatever the prevailing popular opinion is at any given time. Unfortunately it seems that the popular opinion on the news comm is currently a MAGA-esque "trust the plan" but for the Islamic Republic. Like, I thought the general consensus was critical support for Iran but some here have forgotten what "critical" actually means. Don't get me wrong, I still love Hexbear and I very much value the discussions we have here, but sometimes being a Marxist and applying Dialectical Materialism to my analysis can be an uphill battle.
I've never taken the "doomer" label seriously and it really shouldn't be applied to a genuine leftist discourse. More often than not I find those who are accused of it are just being principled socialists or are realistic in their outlook of any given subject. It's not like I was saying Iran is destined to fail and America is thinking 8 steps ahead of them or something, only that we apply a more measured take on some of their foreign policy decisions.
And again, the ceasefire which I think is a waste of time is not even Iran's idea to begin with (they were more than happy to keep attacking the imperialists and zionists), it was Pakistan and China's!
The funny thing is it's not just "weak minded" Westerners or "ultras" that have raised concerns of Iran's past decisions, the Russians and Chinese have also levelled valid criticisms at Iran before over what they see as an unreliable strategic partner.
Comrade Xiaohongshu, who ironically has also been called a "Doomer" here before for their very excellent analysis, made comments here and here at the beginning of this year talking about why Russia and China are unwilling to provide more material support to Iran beyond the very limited aid they have already given. All sourced from Russian and Chinese social media circles who have a much greater grasp of the history and diplomacy between all three countries than many of the people here.
Do you think you have the same information as the IRGC? Do you think you care about the Iranian nation and people as much as the IRGC? Keep wishing they burned themselves out trying to kill the empire, it means nothing.
Do you think you're actually saying anything useful by constantly making strawman 'gotcha' statements that don't address my points whatsoever and make you come off sounding like a MAGA cheerleader telling people to blindly "trust the plan"?
You need to seriously learn what critical support means and get off the tribalistic mentality that being against America automatically means you're correct on everything.
The fact that you've shifted the goal post from the government to the "IRGC" is already proving my point. The IRGC were NOT the ones who created the ceasefire idea, it was Pakistan and China who had their own interests. The IRGC weren't even the ones who initially agreed to it and kept fighting in the first couple of days of the ceasefire, it was the Iranian MFA who have been operating independently of the IRGC throughout this war. Members of the Iranian parliament have also opposed ceasefire in recent days, for similar reasons to which I stated in my previous comments that you have completely ignored. You accuse me of not knowing anything about Iran when you don't even have all the facts yourself. No investigation, no right to speak.
I strongly suggest you log off for a while, apply self-crit, and stop thinking you're somehow better than anyone else here by being a dogmatic cheerleader for countries you clearly don't understand.
2.5 years into Al Aqsa Flood and you still repeat this drivel about "Iranian Proxies".
We have nothing further to discuss. Please block me.
'Proxy' is a legitimate term used in political science to refer to organizations or states that are sponsored (either politically or militarily) by a third-party power. Iran absolutely does this for organizations like Hezbollah and Ansarallah and wages proxy wars through them. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel also all do this.
I don't really understand the hostility towards anything I've said and your refusal to actually engage in the content of my analysis. But since you do not wish to discuss further I will disengage now.