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.
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.