In the same way that Molière’s bourgeois gentilhomme realized that he had been speaking prose all his life, yours truly has realized that one of the reasons I had a good run as a consultant and now as a commentator is looking for minority reports. This is a useful posture to take in a polluted informational environment, such as we’ve had with the war in Ukraine and if anything are seeing even more so in the intensifying conflict in the Middle East. So indulge me for a bit.
For those who have not seen the Stephen Spielberg movie, which goes well beyond the Philip K. Dick short story. Tom Cruise is John Anderton, head of a Washington, D.C. prototype precrime unit, which arrests citizens treated as guilty of murder based on visions of three clairvoyant “precogs”. The program is about to be rolled out nationally when the Anderton himself is charged by the precogs as set to murder a man he has never heard of. The key part starts at 3:48, when Anderton, who is on the lam, visits Iris Hineman, a scientist who helped create precrime.
One thing I would observe regularly when reading volumes of literature searches and analyst reports early in studies is that, in a parallel to how the Big Lie works, certain facts or seemingly authoritative opinions would be picked up and repeated across an industry. The dint of repetition would lead even sophisticated insiders to treat that revealed wisdom as being more true that equally valid information that would suggest a somewhat or even very different trajectory.
There seems to be an immediate application to minority report thinking in Middle East coverage. Many prominent YouTube commentators have fallen in with the US/Israel party line that the recent missile strikes by Iran on Israel did little damage, and even were significantly intercepted. This includes analysts who came to understand that the previous, negotiated Iran attack on April was and often continues to be described inaccurately in the press. Iran first sent about 300 very slow moving drones that took about 6 hours to reach Israel. They were intended to draw fire and elicit information about how the Israel air defense system worked. They were not expected to get through; if they did, that would be gravy. Iran then sent in a small number of ballistic missiles, all or virtually all of which hit their targets precisely, which included extremely highly protected air bases.
In other words, the hammering by pols and pundits that the earlier Iran attack “failed” (when it was intended to be a show of capability as opposed to do harm) has turned that into a widely accepted fact, leading to continued, dangerous underestimation of Iran.
Similar successful messaging seems to be taking hold in the West with the latest Iran missile strikes. A surprising number of analysts, who did not fall in with the “Russia is running out of artillery” and other Ukraine-favoring spin are, too often, not exhibiting much skepticism regarding the new official story that the Iran attack did little damage and was therefore not effective. One of the claims connected to that is that many missiles were intercepted.
I hate to repeat a video run earlier on this site, but the one below, staring below, shows verified footage of missiles raining down on targets, the first the Navatim air base, the second, Tel Nof. You can see how almost none were intercepted:
Now it could be, as one reader suggested, that Iran chose this attack to be a second demonstration project, that it chose to strike low-priority areas in important targets. But regardless, these strikes demonstrated that Israel and the US did not meaningfully interfere with the Iran barrage.
And it’s not as if Israel has shown itself to be so effective as to deter the Saudis to continue to improve relations with Iran. To be blunt, you don’t invest in losers:
Something tells me this isn’t the “new Middle East” Netanyahu wants:
Just a day after Iran’s missile attack, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister meets with Iran’s president, declaring that Saudi Arabia wants to “permanently close the chapter on our differences.” pic.twitter.com/loAHaltulk
— Sina Toossi (@SinaToossi) October 3, 2024
As to Iran’s controversial claim that it took out 20 of Israel’s 35 F-35s at Navatim, some have argued that Iran should show the goods. Ahem. Iran is supposed to give the West a clue as to what is surveillance capabilities to satisfy the peanut gallery? And in any event, as we know, images can be doctored. I have heard claims that there are not-great quality images of Navatim that show little damage. There are others that assert the reverse:
🚨🇮🇷🇮🇱 BREAKING: photos reveal Iran successfully destroyed Israel’s F35 fighter jets with pinpoint accuracy.
There’s almost $400M of U.S. taxpayer money up in smoke in these images alone.
And this was just a taste. pic.twitter.com/nNzKejhF0U
— ADAM (@AdameMedia) October 4, 2024
Mind you, I am not saying you should place much stock in this either. However, a new interview of Larry Johnson by Nima of Dialogue Works presentsother satellite images purport to show over 32 successful strikes at Navatim air base:
The coverage on the invasion of Lebanon is more even-handed, with many of the independent commentators describing how it is not going well, that Israel has already taken a lot of casualties when the fighting has barely begun. But this fits many of their priors: Israel has not won its past wars in Lebanon, Hezbollah is tougher than it was in 2006, the IDF lost to the much less experienced, equipped, and well bunkered Hamas. Some observers thought that the assassination of Hassam Nasrallah and most of the top leadership cadre would cripple Hezbollah. But other commentators have described how Hezbollah is operationally highly decentralized, with units of 250 to 500 each having their own leadership, their own territory and directives, and even their own supplies. There is admittedly some intermediate “management” but the top echelon has little to do with the fighting. Nevertheless, even with Hezbollah clearly continuing to perform effectively, some commentators seem almost puzzled in the wake of the much-ballyhooed decapitation attacks.
Another reason for more skepticism regarding the Lebanon invasion is the suspicion that Netanyahu went ahead now to undermine Biden and therefore Harris, so an overwhelmingly anti-Trump media is uncharacteristically willing to create some daylight between it and Israel. Per the Hill this evening, Democrats suspect Netanyahu of attempting to tilt Trump-Harris race. From the story:
Democrats increasingly suspect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to interfere in U.S. domestic politics by ignoring President Biden’s calls to negotiate a peace deal in Gaza and by confronting Hezbollah and Iran weeks before the U.S. election.
The rapidly escalating confrontation between Israel, Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s ally, Iran, has undercut Biden’s efforts to achieve peace through diplomacy.
The growing threat of a broader conflict has opened the door for former President Trump to argue that the world is “spiraling out of control” on Biden’s watch.
We’ll put aside the fact that if Biden were actually interested in diplomacy, he would have fired Tony Blinken long ago.
Similarly, the Wall Street Journal today tries to depict the Biden Administration as victimized and unable to check Israel. Of course, it omits that Biden restricted his degrees of freedom by vowing unconditional support after October 7 and never once criticizing Israel.
It includes a tidbit new to me:
After the airstrike that killed Nasrallah on Friday in Beirut, U.S. officials said Israel had only informed them of the imminent attack when the planes were in the air.
This is taken to mean that the attack was a fait accompli, which is false.
It says the US did know of the Nasrallah kill mission in advance. If the bombs had not yet been dropped, the mission could have been aborted. But the Administration is too cowed to impose any punishment, and Israel knows that full well.
The Journal also tries to depict the US as wanting to curb Israel belligerence. Yet it states that it is actually not willing to appear to be hindering an Israel response to Iran in the runup to the election. And Biden’s poor impulse control makes him the escalation cheerleader in chief:
U.S. and Israeli officials have been discussing potential targets, including Iran’s oil facilities. President Biden said on Wednesday that he opposed any strikes on Tehran’s nuclear facilities, but on Thursday left open the possibility that he would support an Israeli attack on the oil infrastructure, remarks that sent oil markets surging.” rel=”nofollow”>U.S. and Israeli officials have been discussing potential targets, including Iran’s oil facilities. President Biden said on Wednesday that he opposed any strikes on Tehran’s nuclear facilities, but on Thursday left open the possibility that he would support an Israeli attack on the oil infrastructure, remarks that sent oil markets surging.
And one might have to take US claims that it is pushing Israel hard to refrain from using nukes with a fistful of salt:
🇺🇸🇮🇱🇮🇷 US claims of not wanting Israel to strike Iranian nuclear sites is verbatim the 2009 Brookings "Which Path to Persia?" strategy of maintaining plausible deniability while, in fact, attacking Iran including its nuclear sites…
The paper stated:
"As in the case of… pic.twitter.com/NpqVGySxs3
— Brian Berletic (@BrianJBerletic) October 3, 2024
On related fronts, Israel is also skirmishing with Russia. It hit a Russian ammo depot in Syria. And this was no small-scale attack. From The Cradle:
The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported, “Unknown drones … carried out airstrikes targeting an ammunition warehouse near Jablah city in Latakia countryside, near the largest Russian air base in Syria, which led to the warehouse’s destruction and huge explosions heard from far away.”
SOHR said it was not clear whether the drones were launched from inside Syrian territory or from the sea. According to local reports, drones, warplanes, and warships conducted the violent attack.
Warships and warplanes were present in the sea and skies, “believed to be Israeli,” SOHR added. “The air defenses of the [Syrian] regime and Russian forces confronting the missiles for more than 40 minutes.”
From Aljazeera, Israel keeps pounding Beirut:
Israel launches the heaviest air strikes on Beirut so far with dozens reportedly killed across Lebanon over the past day.
Um, something like 300 civilians died in the 85 or 86 bunker-buster-bomb attack that killed Nasrallah.
The Financial Times gives the pretext for the attacks:
Israel’s military carried out one of its heaviest bombardments of Beirut overnight with multiple air strikes that aimed to kill surviving leaders of militant group Hizbollah.
Residents across the Lebanese capital heard several large blasts, and flames and large plumes of smoke were seen rising from the southern suburb of Dahiyeh in the early hours of Friday.
Hashem Safieddine, the heir apparent to Hizbollah’s assassinated former leader Hassan Nasrallah, was the target, a person familiar with the situation said on Friday.
Israeli military intelligence believed they had located Safieddine attempting to hold a meeting with a small number of other Hizbollah operatives, many of them relatively senior in the organisation, the person said.
Note that Hezbollah has at least one command center well away from Beirut which per Norman Finkelstein, is designed to withstand a nuclear bomb. Finkelstein argued that Nasrallah chose to use the Beirut center despite the risks (one YouTuber today described Beirut as a nest of spies) so as not to appear a coward. Becoming a martyr, if that’s what it came to. would be the better outcome.
But this video gives a sense of what is happening to Beirut, once the Paris of the Mediterranean:
Laith Marouf & Dr @s_m_marandi (w @HadiHtt behind camera) tour destroyed suburb of Beirut, Lebanon, after Iran retaliation.
Hizbullah's Media Relations Office organised a tour of Beirut's southern suburb (Dahieh), to give the world a glimpse of the mass destruction of civilian… pic.twitter.com/KYyHB0oD6M
— Free Palestine TV (@TVFreePalestine) October 3, 2024
Finally, Ayatollah Khamenei gave a very rare speech at prayers on Friday. Some feared he might issue a new fatwa allowing for the use of nuclear weapons (Shia doctrinally does not allow for the use of weapons of mass destruction but religious leaders have some latitude in interpretation). That did not happen. He issued a call for unity among all Muslims in opposing Israel and gave part of his speech in Arabic rather than Farsi to reach more listeners. He affirmed that Iran would strike Israel again if it attacked. He depicted the missile barrage as a minimum warranted response:
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei:
“The actions taken by our armed forces were the least punishment for the occupying Zionist regime in the face of the crimes, the unbelievable crimes committed by that regime, that bloodthirsty regime, that wolfish regime, that rabid… pic.twitter.com/4FnWeAVutf
— Sulaiman Ahmed (@ShaykhSulaiman) October 4, 2024
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei:
“When they are satisfied with one country, they go to another country.
Every country that doesn’t want to be captured by the enemy, it must be awake from the beginning.
When the enemy goes to another country, one must help him.
We… pic.twitter.com/cmdOZA8sT1
— Sulaiman Ahmed (@ShaykhSulaiman) October 4, 2024
Back to the minority report theme. At least as of now, I see at least as big a gap between Muslim reporters and analysts and Western analysts, including some Israel critics as we have between Russian sources and Ukraine skeptics versus Collective West supporters. However, at this stage, there are also some Anglosphere Israel critics who seem not to be a skeptical as they might be of US/Israel claims about Iran. Perhaps that will change soon but it bears watching. That may result from anti-globalists having better access to Russia language sources/Russian speakers than they do Muslim and Axis of Resistance sources to better sanity check the official narrative. So I encourage readers to find this sort of minority report.
109 comments
Comments are closed.
More info on Netanyahu’s failure here:
https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/10/04/general-qassem-soleimani-wins-israel-falls-into-the-trap-of-the-axis-of-resistance/
Any mainstream media news story containing the phrase “U.S. officials said” can be correctly interpreted as court stenographers repeating a lie.
Yes, unnamed “officials” or the IDF press release is repeated verbatim. That passes for “journalism”. Ray McGovern called them “sycophant-stenographers”
I noted the contrast between the official line that most of Iran’s missiles were shot down, and the videos showing many that were not shot down. It is possible that some missiles were not shot down because they were off target and not worth wasting an expensive interceptor on, of course.
I also found it odd that the missiles’ engines seemed to be continuing to burn during final descent – that is not typical for ballistic missiles, which true to their name let gravity take over mid flight. Do the still-lit engines indicate terminal-phase maneuvers?
I noticed that too. From what I’ve read, Hypersonics spend more time in-atmosphere than icbms (which are hypersonic but not maneuverable), and can maneuver more to change course or evade interceptors. I also read that they can burn on the descent so that they maintain a high speed even after all that atmospheric drag. I’m definitely no expert though.
I want to give a big thanks to NC for the israel-palestine and israel-iran coverage. Super helpful.
Yeah, but the ones I saw were on slow parabolic trajectories, which says ballistic missiles rather than hypersonic ones.
I’m not an expert either, so healthy scepticism is warranted, but it’s my understanding that Iranian missiles reach a height of around 400 kilometers on their ballistic trajectory. This means that they have to re-enter the atmosphere at speeds that cause the warhead to overheat and burn.
To prevent this the nosecone is covered in material that actually ignites on re-entry and burns but much cooler than the plasma around while creating a protective gaseous bubble around the warhead. This way the warhead can also be as aerodynamic as possible to retain most of the speed right to the target.
On the other hand, they still could have been cruise missiles diving on their target, distances and heights are very deceptive especially on the night sky.
It is called an ablative thermal protection. It doesn’t “ignite” as you wrote, but relies on the endothermic effect of sublimation of the ablative material. To the camera, it does look like a burning item falling from the sky, though.
That is, of course, correct.
Many ICBM warheads are maneuverable, but only to stay on target…versus evading anything. Trying to remember if also to change target in the last minute(s)?
Paul J’s explanation interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuverable_reentry_vehicle
The stuff that goes exoatmospheric will glow brightly on reentry. The warheads/submunitions are smaller and faster moving, as are some of the decoys. The spent launch vehicles flare with varying intensity and sometimes visibly break apart.
I’ve seen one video from April where the warhead definitely appeared to be manuevering, and there was what seemed like it might be rocket exhaust visible. I haven’t noticed anything similar in scenes from the more recent attack.
I too had noticed the continued burn on descent, and, wondering about that, remembered something from close to 50 years ago.
Around ’77/’78 I was studying machining. We had a class picnic, and a classmate brought a salad in a bowl that was about 1.5-2 feet in diameter, of thin (1.5-2mm) lightweight metal, with a really nice parabolic “bottom”.
It turned out that his father had ended up with a rejected ICBM nosecone tip, machined from a solid piece of titanium, chosen to survive the heat of re-entry. As mentioned, it sure will glow at those temperatures.
No idea what they use now.
Per the Times headline yesterday, missiles not intercepted instead “fell”, a BS tell if I ever saw one. Fell how, exactly? Where?
They fell exactly on target.
No unique sources but an observation: If Iran hit Israel with one or more hypersonic missiles, they displayed a capability that neither the US nor its “allies” possess. That, among other things, makes me think Iran has been showing restraint, not lack of capability, and I would take seriously their threat that an Israeli response will be met by a much more powerful attack. Iran I think is following Russia’s example in escalating slowly while working diplomacy to solidify its position with the non-western world.
While we don’t know the extent, it is public info that Russia has supplied Iran with S-400 systems, presumably manned by Russian technicians for now. Additionally, there have been reports of Russian transfers of their 5th generation jets. Like the triumphalist talk of remaking Lebanon after the Beirut bombing, Israel and the US may be headed for a miscalculation. Or maybe the US will decide that F35 sales would not be helped by seeing how they perform in contested air space.
We may know soon enough.
Great comment, thanks!
My 2 cents:
1) Agree and you could probably go even further as Iran’s capability with conventional weapons may just be unique for the time being: a massive, long-range, hypersonic precision-strike inventory.
2) The S-400’s are still a rumor, aren’t they? Unless we’re talking about a very limited deployment, the number of systems that would need to be in place for a layered air defense–EW, Pantsirs, etc.–would be very hard to keep hidden the whole time they were trundling around IMO.
3) The Su-35’s being sent to Iran are considered 4th+ gen. Sounds pedantic but 5th gen refers to stealth aircraft with advanced radar like the Su-57, F-22, F-35, J-20. Su-35’s are not in that league and probably not a huge threat to 5th gen fighters.
4) No Su-35’s have been delivered yet AFAICT. Just Yak trainers. It will take years of heavy investment to train up a cadre on modern aircraft and tactics (unless you’re referring to Russian crews).
Su-35s are definitely not in the same league as F-35s, because they have proven themselves in a real war.
F-35s not that stealthy:
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/five-problems-with-americas-f-35s-now-that-canada-is-buying-its-own-f-35s
So do we downgrade them to gen 4.5?
I’d say no, owing to some fundamental issues.
TL;DR, even a subpar gen 5 has big advantages over previous generations.
1) Stealth is 50% or more about aircraft shape, not coatings.
2) AESA radar are much more expensive, but also more capable and harder to detect than older radar tech.
That means in a hot war (where you can fire long range missiles without needing visual confirmation) a gen 5 can spot and attack long before a gen 4 can do either. The gen 5 is also substantially less vulnerable to air defenses.**
Caveats for all 5th gen aircraft:
1) At close range, their stealth advantage is substantially gone and they are on a somewhat more equal footing with older tech.
2) To maximize stealth they should be tactical and sparing with their use of radar, ideally cooperating with other radars.
3) Stealth is significantly reduced* against long-wave search radars: AWACS, some SAM radars, some navigational and weather radar. These radars can spot them but not guide weapons.**
Additional caveats for the F-35 (once you’ve paid for it and it makes it out of the hangar):
1) It lags behind almost every other gen 5 in maneuverability and lack of supercruise.
2) It’s advantages are in data fusion, but this requires that (a) they work as advertised (b) the F-35 is flying in a highly supported environment: AWACS, other F-35’s around, low EW, etc.
3) It looks to have more than its fair share of compromised design choices (technology lags aside, the Su-57 seems a much sounder design)
* Reduced but not nullified, stealth shaping retains some advantages.
** Stealth makes things much harder but not impossible to hit (with conventional radar in these examples). Hence the 1999 Serbian F-117 shootdown with the aid of an old low-freq radar. This is also why the Su-57 is the first (only?) fighter to carry a supplemental L-band radar. Critically, a few newer missiles are capable of flying to L-band targets–Russia even claimed to have done this in combat last year. Could end up being a major vector of attack against stealth aircraft.
According to the New York Times and several Iranian sources, S-400 deliveries started two months ago when an unmarked Russian transport plane landed in Tehran.
As for threats and fighters, I recall decades ago meeting a veteran pilot from WW2, and when asked by young pups which enemy fighter he thought was the most dangerous, he laughed and said bluntly: “the one that was shooting at you!”
The thing here is that a networked Su-35 will always know where F-35 is, it will know when F-35 is targeting it, and it has the speed to get out of the dodge when the F-35 launches – even if Su-35 can’t get a lock on the F-35. The kill zone of the AIM-120 against the Su-35 is pretty much the same as Su-35’s capability to engage the F-35.
Not counting the fact that you can get about 5 Su-35s for each mission capable F-35. And after a few days of intensive hostilities, probably around 12 for each mission capable F-35. Is the F-35 that much better?
I don’t think the intent was to take advantage of the S-400s’ mobility, beyond using that to get them in place. They want to defend high value potential targets.
I suspect that one problem is that, during most of the Cold War, there was a healthy respect for Russia’s military capabilities that still has some residual effect (although it has largely been replaced by triumphalist disdain–I keep pointing to Andrew Bacevich’s account of how “disappointed” he was when he finally got the chance to see Red Army maneuvers after the fall of the Wall in which BMPs were breaking down in front of him.) I don’t think Iran was ever the subject of much respect in terms of its technological prowess (something that harkens back to the way Japanese were dangerously underrated in 1930s, in the leadup to World War 2–there’s a nifty military history master’s dissertation on this by a Canadian MA student (it’s not “deep” but interesting nevertheless) : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjS8rvdl_WIAxUM6ckDHcljPeMQFnoECBgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fprism.ucalgary.ca%2Fitems%2F7795608f-dfae-4d2f-a9d5-6f6800d89c92&usg=AOvVaw19rap5LVjMKhHULqycgi5c&opi=89978449). Breaking this inertia, I expect, will take a bit bigger shock.
PS. Oops. copied the wrong link–this by an Australian PhD student on the Japanese military intel…. The link should be correct now.
PPS. Hopefully, I got rid of the duplicate post of the first one.
On the cold war – “threat inflation” was the order of the day, where Soviet capabilities were almost always over-estimated, in order to pad the DoD budget. Andrew Cockburn wrote a book questioning the conventional wisdom by interviewing Soviet emigres who had been draftees in the Red Army.
I got that book when it first came out. I’d say that Cockburn over-eggs his pudding in order to counterbalance the “ten feet tall” propaganda of the neocons. (For instance his hardest evidence is the Israeli success against T-72s in Syria in 1982, but we now know that those tanks were, like most Soviet arms exports, made less capable than the ones given to the Soviet military.) On the other hand, Cockburn also points out that the US military massively exaggerated the capacity of its own weaponry, and that US draftees before the draft was abolished did not exactly seem to be the perfect fighting men.
Those Soviet BMPs are still alive and kicking.
I’m just repeating the passage from the introduction to one of Bacevich’s books, describing his formative experience.
The interesting thing is that people like Bacevich became skeptical of US imperialism because they felt that threats overseas are exaggerated. So it made sense for him to use that as an example of how Soviet power was nowhere near what warmongers of his day claimed. But, would people like Bacevich feel the same way if they felt that Russia, China, or Iran are really that powerful? We already got the answer to this question to a degree in 2022: when Bacevich himself was quite supportive of aid to Ukraine, to disappointment of many. (I have no idea where he is now–he’s been pretty quiet lately.)
I suspect that one problem is that, during most of the Cold War, there was a healthy respect for Russia’s military capabilities that still has some residual effect (although it has largely been replaced by triumphalist disdain–I keep pointing to Andrew Bacevich’s account of how “disappointed” he was when he finally got the chance to see Red Army maneuvers after the fall of the Wall in which BMPs were breaking down in front of him.) I don’t think Iran was ever the subject of much respect in terms of its technological prowess (something that harkens back to the way Japanese were dangerously underrated in 1930s, in the leadup to World War 2–there’s a nifty military history master’s dissertation on this by a Canadian MA student (it’s not “deep” but interesting nevertheless) : https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/109796/2/02whole.pdf). Breaking this inertia, I expect, will take a bit bigger shock.
The level of commentary regarding the conflict between Isreal and Hezbollah among the “geopolitical” pundits who usually focus on the Ukraine War has been very low. Despite knowing little about the region beyond the usual shallow Western caricatures and bromides, they nonetheless feel the need the opine at length, tarnishing themselves in the process and causing me to doubt their analysis about the regions they’re more familiar with.
Mercouris, for example, embarrassed himself with long lectures in recent episodes about how weak Hezbollah was, how the loss of leadership risks resulting in its “disintegration” because the organization’s “just a militia” or whatever. It was painful to listen to for anyone with a passing grasp of Lebanon and Hezbollah’s history.
Similarly, Gilbert Doctorow–now that he’s a bonafide geopolitical pundit—sees fit to opine about Isreal-American relations. Not that I find Doctorow particularly insightful even about Russia, his area of expertise (his analysis tends toward the shrill and hyperbolic), but he’s at least worthy of consideration and reading when sticking to Russian affairs.
There’s a danger, once a pundit attracts an audience, of them taking up habits that make mainstream pundits so execrable: the obsession with topicality, the drive to comment when you have nothing much of value to say, being contrarian purely for more attention/views, etc.
I agree about Gilbert Doctorow. He is skilled at crafting topical headlines that border on clickbait. His analysis often seems weak.
Sorry, I am getting him mixed up with someone else. Please delete the above comment.
Doctorow in fact has said things that are demonstrably inaccurate about US-Israel politics, specifically that the US is in the driver’s seat. This is so wrong-headed as to look to be designed to attract attention.
Yes Alexander’s blind acceptance of the Israeli line on how Hezbollah was critically wounded, especially given how he had said just a few days before that the pager attacks were ineffective in hitting combat personnel, was quite disappointing. At least he is willing to re-evaluate and course correct, and admits his ignorance about the Middle East.
I unsubbed from Mercouris when I saw him siding with the racist protestors in the UK. Sure the UK gov response is not going to be nice to other groups, but he was definitely treating those far right vermin as legitimate. He had a guest on who was waffling on about some white-nat / extreme right dog whistle (I didn’t see this, but read someone who was horrified by it); when they called him on it in the stream, they got booted.
So he can go onto the very large pile of poseurs, along with Jim Kunstler, and many, many more before him.
Curious, though it’s a bit late to ask, but who do/would you listen to regarding these matters. I’m always looking for new observers and analists.
Andrew Napolitano is generally an even tempered person in this stuff. He gets an array of ideological perspecrtives.
re: “racist protestors in the UK”. Their society is breaking down, yet their rulers keep bringing more immigants in. These people have nothing to offer Britain. Not even cheap labor.
What is the point of it? The British aristocracy feels guilty about rapacious colonialism but the people who must pay are the commoners. Not to mention young men of military age from random places who are dumped in european cities with no real idea how to navigate anything. But anyone who questions it is ‘Nazi’
The British aristocracy feeling guilty about anything is a nice joke.
It’s not just geopolitics. After making a name as a statistician, Nate Silver appears to have convinced himself that he has useful things to say on domestic politics.
Yup. Him and Scott Adams.
Honestly Yves, YOU are my Minority Report. It’s been rather amazing to me just how good your Russia/Ukraine analysis has turned out to be. My own take on that is that you are not swayed by what might be the ‘desirable’, or ‘right’ outcome, and are willing to look for and point out the difficulties of achieving such ends.
Which of course, leads the commentariat to chime in as well. I am well aware of the difficulties Russia would face in trying to occupy Ukraine. But recently, (I think it was Plutonium Kun) pointed out the extent of the Dneiper watershed, and how keeping THAT safe from meddlesome Ukies only compounded the problem. Brilliant. Something I never would have thought of.
Your methodology is especially useful to me when it comes to money, finance, global trade…I’m still a bit of a dope about all that, but it’s a useful habit on a range of issues, and even in life. A habit I’ve been working on cultivating.
The current state of play in the ME is very foggy right now. Having crazy people instigating the action makes it more so. I very much appreciate your efforts to help us navigate through murky times, and knowing that you won’t go off half-cocked with some pet ‘Hot Take’.
Well said, I tried to say the same thing below, but I love your express much more
> looking for minority reports.
Boyd has something to say about the mismatch between
>> new observations and the anticipated concept description of these observations.
When trying to resolve the inconsistencies within the conceptual system
>> any inward-oriented and continued effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality will only increase the degree of mismatch.
The minority reports can show the cracks in the framework which are subject to later failure. Can crack some ricebowls, too, so not for yes-men.
The picture appears to me as follows. On Oct. 7 2023, an opportunity presents itself before the Likud government in Israel for the establishment of Greater Israel. Netanyahu prompty declares a long war to finally rid Gaza of Palestinians, citing elimination of Khamas as excuse. As project genocide continues apace, most of the world population responds with disgust and dismay, while the United States sees and opportunity to completely capture Israeli foreign policy, by letting the vulnerable, now in trouble and home and abroad Netanyahu, accumulate more trouble. Netanyahu now depends entirely on the might of United States to protect himself from being tried, which gladly uses all its resources to muscle pesky international institutions crying ‘justice!’ into submission.
With Israel completely in its reins, the necons can now execute their goals of picking off first, the circle of defence Iran created around Israel, and finally to have their long sought after war with Iran. Getting Israel to do its dirty work allows US plausible deniability, a trick that seems to have worked wonders, since even pro-resistence camp continues to buy the idea that Israel is the maniacal entity (which it is) and US is being ‘dragged’ by its out of control ambitions.
This view departs from leading foreign policy ideas that put Israel lobby at the center of explaning the current crazies in the middle-east. But that view has always seemed implausible, for the reason that if US policy is purchasable on the market, why won’t the more resourceful Arab countries outbid the Israelis? Why can’t China buy American friendship? Another reason is simply that no special explanation is needed for US administrations wreckless disregard for human life and use of brute force, a consistent foreign policy posture right through the post-war period; see Vietnam, Iraq, Nicaragua, Chile etc.
The advantages of the account is it perfectly explains US interests in Gaza genocide, which seems to have confused many, prompting them to resort to make-believes about US weakness. It also explains why Israel would rather implode than to act in its own interests.
Doesn’t capture of US policy by one highly motivated faction of the oligarchy explain it all just as neatly?
It does. But the confounder, even for many acute commentators has been what immediate interests would be served of this faction of the US oligarchy to have Palestinians massacred. After all, its not as if the empire was struggling to subjugate them in relatively more respectable ways. So it has been suggested this is a very Israel specific thing (and that they have lost their minds), and US was taking the blows to its international reputation because Netanyahu was steering US foreign policy, to which the incompetent White House was a mere helpless enabler. Whatever you may think of the incompetence of US planners, and there is much useful discussion of that on this outstanding website (thanks Yves, Lambert and co.) its hard to deny that old observation Harold Pinter made of US propaganda still stands untarnished:
Thank you for this reference to a May 1988 South Magazine interview with Pinter, Xquacy. Pinter went on:
He repeated this in a letter to the Guardian in 1999:
Ethnonationalists are not Homo economicus. The most obvious example would probably be the Nazis. Germany made war against the USSR when it was clearly against its interest to do so – their war games showed an invasion was likely to fail, and they were enjoying great economic benefits from their treaty with the Soviets. The point was Lebensraum, a fundamentally mystical concept.
Good points. Yes, I agree that this policy is Washington-centered, i.e., Washington wants to completely rule and dominate the entire globe and Zionists are on board with the project because they are deeply involved through their well-developed project of bribery of Congress and control of a good part of the news and entertainment industries. So, it’s a creative partnership.
Washington may want to dominate the world but they would be happy to have their Zionist franchise rule the Middle east for them. As a Greater Israel would mean the destruction of the countries surrounding them as well as the destruction of Iran, that would be just gravy on top.
I’ve been thinking about this comment for several hours and I believe that it draws correct conclusions about American neocon endorsement and support for the Revisionist Zionist campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people.
The Tehran “hostage crisis” of 1980 seems to have mortally wounded the world-view of an entire generation of American foreign policy elites, especially in the wake of the fall of Saigon in 1975. Hatred of the Iranian regime metastasized into support (many believe instigation) of Iraq’s brutal 9-year war on Iran. I’m reminded of Rumsfeld’s 1983 handshake with Saddam smack in the middle his UN-documented 350-odd chemical attacks on Iranians that killed thousands of civilians. Then came Bush 41’s Gulf War and the debacle of 9/11.
These events seem to have enraged American elites even further. Islam replaced communism as the “enemy” — but as they were “othered” as non-persons and didn’t present the risk of Mutual Assured Destruction, killing Muslims has become normalized for them. U.S. calls for a temporary cease fire in Gaza are simply theater to keep Arab oil and Chinese trade flowing.
Bed-wetting American elites are using “Israel” as a proxy for their own murderous purposes against the Muslims who populate their adult nightmares, just as they are using “Ukraine” as a proxy to kill the Russians who menaced their childhood dreams. As Yves points out, American legacy media scriveners perpetuate amnesia about all this history.
There’s a don’t miss video in this article, has anybody watched this yet? Referenced in Yves reporting as:
“But this video gives a sense of what is happening to Beirut, once the Paris of the Mediterranean:”
https://x.com/TVFreePalestine/status/1841937491869499531
There’s a lot of powerful reporting in there and you can’t miss the scene at 14:27
I really hope someone else will comment on the quality of coverage in this video
There is a demonstration of great humanity in the video going from 1800 to 1850
Sorry to focus so much on this video not wishing to thread jack, because this is another excellent post from naked capitalism and it’s just what I’ve been looking for for the last few days. This site is worth every cent of donations it receives from us!!!
More great stuff here, thank you!
“…Many prominent YouTube commentators have fallen in with the US/Israel party line that the recent missile strikes by Iran on Israel did little damage, and even were significantly intercepted…”
Those commentators should know that Israel has targeted and murdered many dozens of journalists, imposed strict censorship and accurate information is very difficult to obtain. Anyone can simply read the Israeli press releases, we don’t need YT personalities to do that for us. The public should abandon any commentator who cannot use critical thinking skills, might as well watch Fox/CNN/Sky/ tee vee garbage.
It would be nice if the commentators covered things like this:
https://cpj.org/2024/10/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/23/israel-is-deliberately-targeting-journalists-in-gaza-experts
I heard someone say something like: when I lull myself to sleep at night rather than counting sheep I count missiles, lot’s and lot’s of missiles descending…
Not sure of her vantage point, but maybe it was over the Zionist Entity…
“…Another reason for more skepticism regarding the Lebanon invasion is the suspicion that Netanyahu went ahead now to undermine Biden and therefore Harris, so an overwhelmingly anti-Trump media is uncharacteristically willing to create some daylight between it and Israel..
This is getting even more nutty: both Ds and Rs are falling all over themselves to show how they are MORE supportive of Israel than the other. The Rs are saying that JB was too soft on Iran in the past and he needs to be tougher…. this is bipartisan and BOTH so-called candidates are in lock-step on the issue, just rhetoric to say who will lead the more effective genocide.
The majority of the media are seemingly anti-DT yet they have given the dude more coverage than any political figure in memory and have done for years – almost every freakin day!. There is no such thing as bad publicity and it is quite lucrative as well.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/les-moonves-trump-cbs-220001
Recall CNN covering DT’s empty podium while ignoring Sanders speech. Anti-Trump?
https://fair.org/home/cable-news-covers-everyones-speech-but-sanders-who-made-the-mistake-of-discussing-policy/
The media coverage has become very narrow, the message is: the media is the message, there is no alternative, do as you are instructed based on the Unified Hegemonic Narrative.
The final minority report of your presentation here is the Iranian religious leader
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
He is three and a half years older than Joe Biden. The contrast between the two men could not be more Stark, although both have had long long careers within their nation’s government.
Watching his speech feels powerful, nobody vying for president, or any person elected or otherwise in top government positions, in the United States is half the speaker this man is, IMO
Certainly true of putin. Amazing to me grasp and ability to speak intelligently on seemingly any and every topic.
I need to get a translated transcript of the full talk. But you can see he made it with only a couple of small pieces of note paper. as memory aides.
Much of it in a foreign language, no less (granted, he’d be very familiar with it, given his job and career, but still…)
Minor quibble:
Brian Berletic is referencing hitting the Iranian nuclear enrichment sites, rather than hitting Iran with nukes.
“And one might have to take US claims that it is pushing Israel hard to refrain from using nukes with a fistful of salt”
I wish that a reporter would ask US congress swamp creatures if the support of Israel’s right to defense includes nuclear weapons, and if they would support that even if the Iranian deadhand levels Israel leading to the Sampson option. Then I would ask them whether they think Israel would hit the DC with the Sampson option or just turn Europe and the Middle Eastern oil fields into radioactive wastelands.
Sadly, unlike in the Cuban crisis in 1962, DC seems empty of serious leaders.
I was going to mention this too.
That said, can the Iranian nuclear program be taken out without using nukes?
Nuclear facilities are deep and hard. To use nukes would require big blast, on the surface or penetrated. Accurate, too.
Even a large nuclear strike will not succeed in getting all Iran’s missiles!
The amount of radioactive debris entering the air would be sizeable….
Who is down wind?
I wondered about that for years, and then I just remembered Windy.com!
Current wind patterns in Iran show very light winds blowing out of the border regions all around the country, but a strong circular pattern in the interior. That suggests a lot of radioactivity might stay local, unless it gets taken into the upper atmosphere into the jet stream. Should fallout get into the Persian Gulf, current strong winds would take it partially to the Gulf States, but especially to southern Pakistan and central India.
If Dimona (which I have always considered Iran’s first radiological weapon) goes up, it looks like southern Jordan and northwest Saudi Arabia are will light up, and the Red Sea will get some as well.
So you gentlemen might glance at the FT analysis that in NC links today, I think, and which has the hedline and dek —
‘Can Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities by itself? Without US support, analysts believe the Israeli air force will struggle to mount a successful operation’
Original here — https://www.ft.com/content/4cfc2761-ec1d-4769-8ff9-f0b636255425
Archived here — https://archive.ph/dH66L
Long story short: the target sites in Iran, Natanz and Fordow, are too long a flight from and too deeply dug to be vulnerable to any non-nuclear weapon except the US’s GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a “giant, precision-guided bomb (that is) about 6 metres long, weighs 30,000lb, and can plough through 60 metres of earth before detonating, according to the US military.”
Me: The FT doesn’t note, but I will, that those sites would have been vulnerable to penetration by Russian hypersonic missiles, except the US and Israel don’t have those
The FT article continues: no Israeli planes are both big enough and equipped to deliver the MOP, and that’s besides the fact that “a strike package totalling about 100 aircraft — equivalent to almost a third of the Israeli air force’s 340 combat-capable aircraft” would be needed to protect any such bombers/adapted Hercules transports.
Me: Again, the FT doesn’t note that Russian transport planes have been flying S-400 air defense and EW systems, as well as other Russian kit, into Iran non-stop for at least the last four months. Hence, those Israeli planes would be unlikely to survive to reach their targets.
So what’s left? The FT article claims, “there is ‘no chance’ Israel would be able to purchase a strategic US bomber, such as the B-2 Spirit, that is needed to drop such a bomb.’
My surmise is that even a B-2 might be destroyed before reaching its target and the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex know this, and will therefore push back hard any poif/whenls in Washington and Tel Aviv come demanding that such an attack be made using a US strategic bomber.
So, inasmuch as it looks like it’s a nuclear attack or nothing — and a nuclear attack may very well still not work, but will be guaranteed to create substantial fallout downwind and have the world up in arms against a mad dog state that’s the first nation to use nuclear weapons since 1945, Israel is screwed.
Both Russia and China have radars specifically geared for detecting stealth aircraft.
Some Western sources claim that they can detect, but not shoot a stealth aircraft down.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/if-russia%E2%80%99s-nebo-m-radar-can-%E2%80%98see%E2%80%99-f-35-enough-shoot-it-down-191785
Personally I think that the poor performance of the Western equipment in Ukraine is not leaving room for confidence for the West.
If Israel were to make preparations to strike Iran with nuclear weapons it will be imperative for Russia, China, and North Korea to go to full nuclear alert, including the activation of any dead hand systems they may have. This is because an Israeli nuclear strike will not be limited to Iran. Russia and perhaps China as well will be targeted by Israel (and likely the United States ).
You wouldn’t think even Israelis would be crazy to attack the US with nukes?
Well there is Israel’s Samson Option. People think that they would only nuke their neighbours in case Israel itself was going down but there are rumours that they will take down everybody with them, including the US. Remember the Hannibal doctrine which said to kill Israeli soldiers if they were about to be taken prisoner? And how last year they expanded it to Israeli civilians as well with the net effect that over half the Israelis killed last October were killed by the IDF itself? This Samson option would be more of the same. So the west helpfully sold Israel submarines that can hold nukes so why wouldn’t one appear off the coast of the US?
The enrichment sites are reportedly buried very deep underground and in mountainous terrain.
A hypersonic might have enough concentrated force (kinetic + warhead) to damage them but neither the US nor Israel has them. I don’t think bunker busters work well on mountains due to the irregular surface helping disperse the blast force. So nukes are a reasonable inference.
Oh, I just saw Michaelmas above with his much better because more specific comment. I had forgotten about the flight distance into Iran. Having manned planes rather than many different types of missiles is not a great position to be in for taking on Iran.
The Israelis do also have a ballistic missile force. Do they have deep penetrating nuclear warheads that they should have confidence in? I have no idea, but I’ve come to anticipate grotesque overconfidence from the Israeli political class.
In an odd way, I wonder if the breakout of the ground combat makes things easy for Hizb’ullah.
I am actually quite convinced that the loss of Nasrallah and others probably weakens Hizb’ullah’s ability to play politics, whether within Lebanon or with other regional actors. This probably would have been an issue if Israel opted for an “attrition war” in its own style–relying on (targeted) aerial bombings (in the sense that you aim to aggravate, but not actually “hurt” the non-Shia, to exacerbate interfactional struggle within Lebanon), assassinations, and sabotage, without actually closing in for a mano-a-mano combat. After all, Nasrallah was a politician foremost, and a very good one at that. (In fact, repeat of the story wrt Haniyeh, except Nasrallah was a far more skilled at his craft, I think.)
Once you start fighting in earnest, then politics is largely off the table for the short and, possibly, even medium term, and whatever happens afterwards depends on who “wins.” And, FWIW, I’d wager that fighting is taking place on terms very favorable to Hizb’ullah whose tactical military capability is almost completely undiminished and the IDF, despite numbers and materiel, is not exactly in good condition after a year’s worth of high intensity combat and their military doctrines are now a generation or two out of date. If the final outcome is now up to the gods of war, so to speak, then Hizb’ullah, even by itself, has to be in good position.
I had to let go of some of my internal biases to get to the point where I think I understand what is going on, objectively.
Part of me did not want to believe that the ghouls in the State Dept. could be so cynical as to fake ceasefire negotiations as a way to help assassinate Nasrallah. While I figured out that the negotiations were a scam a while back, I surmised that the goal was to just keep talking about a ceasefire, as in “Biden and Blinken are tirelessly working towards a ceasefire.” That way, even if one did not materialize by election month (early voting starts next week in these parts) then they would at least have some cover to help Harris with the Muslim vote.
Well, now that Nasrallah is dead, funny how I can’t find any mention of ceasefire deals anymore. Seems that Blinken doggone done and gave up. Quelle Surprise!
I really think that the US never had any intention of facilitating a deal. It was all part of a master plan to use Israel as a proxy to enact long term goals, like getting rid of Hezbollah, invading Gaza, and sponsoring genocide. As someone put it on MoA, “Gaza’s not a bug, it’s a feature.”
I thought the same. The West no longer has any credibility with anyone any more, after all these acts of perfidy.
There is form. Suleimani was on his way to a peace effort that the US knew about and supported when Trump ordered him assassinated.
http://hamiltoncoalitiontostopthewar.ca/2020/01/07/soleimani-was-on-peace-mission-when-assassinated/
Reminds me of Americans killing Native Americans under a white flag of truce.
There is no honor among thieves.
Osceola
I drove through this small town earlier today. I wonder if students there know where the name of their town comes from?
re: “Minority Report”
On a side note, but since I have dwelved into that movie in the past:
It´s mainly a brainchild of screenwriter Scott Frank who had a horrible time devising the story construction – which – if you are familiar with this line of work, makes perfect sense, considering the complexity (others would say complication) of the plot.
One of the reasons being:
How do you bring together the character story of Anderton and the political analysis which Yves is introducing to lay out her argument.
if interested, a long NEW YORKER interview with Scott Frank from one year ago:
“How a Script Doctor Found His Own Voice”
For decades, Scott Frank earned up to three hundred thousand dollars a week rewriting other people’s screenplays—from “Saving Private Ryan” to “The Ring.” Finally, he decided to stop playing ventriloquist.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/01/01/how-a-script-doctor-found-his-own-voice
with this minor info on “Minority Report”:
…in “Minority Report,” Tom Cruise sneaks into a greenhouse, where a comically brusque botanist divulges secrets about the police state they live in. To hold the interest of a jaded audience, nothing is more important than unpredictability—a promise that if you look away you might miss something.
The Tom Cruise character in “Minority Report” is, essentially, a fascist: a cop who works for a futuristic “pre-crime” unit that apprehends people who intend to break the law before they can pull it off. But in Frank’s rendering, he is also a man who has lost his own child—a son who was abducted—and is coping with that loss by trying, in extreme ways, to stamp out crime forever. On paper, we should not find a protagonist with this job description sympathetic. Yet we do.
p.s.
On a merely personal note:
The lost child element is one of the finished film´s weaknesses – which probably originated with Spielberg since he likes this stuff in his other films – eventually the child lost, finding its way back home (or not) is in essence every single Spielberg film – be it E.T. or Saving Private Ryan or Bridge of Spies.
But without that incentive of the lost child the entire thing falls apart – unlike e.g. Bridge of Spies which rises to the occasion thanks to the same idea – and as such excells over the source material, a script by the Coen Brothers, which shows you what Spielberg can and cannot do. And what a script can or cannot.
And speaking of cops or quasi-cops in fascist systems swichting sides, what too comes to mind (among many others), e.g. Francois Truffaut´s adaptation of “Fahrenheit 451” (1966, including one of Bernard Herrmann´s best music scores) or the not well received “Anon” (2018), by one of the most underrated filmmakers in the past 30 years, “Kiwi” Andrew Niccol.
AG: The lost child element is one of the finished film´s weaknesses – which probably originated with Spielberg since he likes this stuff in his other films
Another profound weakness of the film and also typically Spielbergian is that he totally cops out on the ending and has this wish-washy garbage about the magic of human free will somehow triumphing over time and any coherent logic, whereas the original Philip K. Dick novella absolutely sticks to the logic of there being a set future timeline.
So, contrary to Yves, I don’t think the Spielberg film goes well beyond the Dick story. I think it’s the other way around, other than in terms of the futurist scenery and eye-candy thought up Peter Schwartz and Stewart Brand’s GBN, whom Spielberg hired for the movie.
And even on that front, I’m kind of partial to the original Dick which has has this distinctive 1950s-era “Precog in the Grey Flannel Suit” vibe, with the US run by a McCarthyesque-Orwellian military junta in which the generals are conspiring be top dog via assassination. That’s why the Pre-Crime prediction of murder that sets off the original Dick story occurs and it then develops into a political thriller-type plot that’s just more logical and complicated and interesting than the pathetic Scott Frank-Spielberg script.
“wish-washy garbage about the magic of human free will somehow triumphing over time and any coherent logic”
Not only with this film. As much as I respect the fun stuff in this movie and the willingness and ability to e.g. pull off over the top set-pieces – for today´s taste perhaps even too lavish or playful – I have had grave contentions over the undercomplex solution of some points that you address. (on your very point see also Spielberg´s “A.I.”)
On the other hand they do dare present considerable world building and solutions to translate theoretical concepts into simple action every audience understands. That IS an accomplishment in all fairness. (And I was highly critical in 2002 when it came out.)
For what its worth its still among the top movies in the genre despite some truly cringy stuff, (take a look at DUNE 2 and you see we do not necessarily progress.)
As the artistic approach goes aka “the look”, it is debatable. E.g. I never felt comfortable with Kaminsky´s camerawork. But he is extremely fast and reliable. Keep in mind the incredible machinery at work.
At least for me as European, even worse, German.
We have NO film industry which is a shame considering the size of the country. I once spoke to Oliver Hirschbiegel, director of the Oscar movie “THE DOWNFALL” (dont ask, I have declined to watch it) and he visited Spielberg at the set of “Bridge of Spies” when they shot in Berlin. And Hirschbiegel who comes from painting (much like Wim Wenders) said with laughter “I was intimidated by Spielberg. Its just so fast and professional what they are doing.”
You dont have to agree with the result. But not without cause they compare movie-making with war-making (never “love-making”…).
Of course as the writing goes: A movie adaptation of a novel can never be a literal adaptation. It´s just two completely different art forms. I find this very important. And the better the novel as a novel the less “adaptable”, the less fit for adaptation.
Which is why Hitchcock (but this is only one voice for many) reminded that the best movies are made of “bad novels”. From an industry movie POV this is totally correct. Which means: doing K. Dick is a deal with the devil.
As you bring up your “counter-idea” for an adaptation – with the latest new adapation of Highsmith´s “Ripley” by Steven Zaillian in mind or “Shogun” – a mini-series of Minority Report on the line you suggest could be very promising.
May be someone in the position to do is reading this. Or it already is in the pipeline. I would watch it for sure with the appropriate talent attached.
Bridge of Spies – Glienicke Bridge – was only Western film I have ever seen which accurately portrayed the paranoia of GDR regime with regard to USSR
That MfS under Mielke was constantly trying to keep KGB residents at bay and fearful of Stalin Notes 1952 – knowing Moscow wanted rid of GDR. Shevardnadze ever proposed to Thatcher Soviet dismantling of Berlin Wall.
In West we were presented with monolithic GDR-Soviet policy just as GDR wanted to project but never the frictions between them which made Markus Wolf pursue independent course and keep residents like Putin in Dresden tailed by Stasi and needing special permits to visit Stasi buildings
It “goes beyond” in that it is a vastly more complicated plot. Normally, movies leave a lot on the cutting room floor when they adapt a novel or novella. I have read a lot of Philip K. Dick but happened to read his Minority Report after seeing the movie and was disappointed at how thin it was.
For a somewhat different perspective (although not really a minority report) mademoiselle Caroline Galacteros has now her usually quite interesting analysis (IMHO) subtitled in english (and a handful of other languages)
Israël-Iran : la stratégie du chaos et des « victoires » en trompe-l’œil (Mondoscopie 39)
Enjoy
thanks!
(since French world is always somehow sidelined in our Western communicative spaces, which is dumb.)
Thank you. That was interesting. I’m not sure but she seems to be very level headed and saying that the war between Israel and Iran is simply masking the underlying reality that there is no place left to go with anachronistic 20th C. wars. Because the human and societal needs are simply too great and that the only way to win anything these days is to solve the human problems. That applies to Ukraine too, with its ulterior goal of crippling Russia. Simply counterproductive. Now in a massively destructive way.
p.s. if you look closely at the Minority Report clip you will see Italian cups used to serve the antidote, by Quadrifoglio, “A Classic brand”, owned by Alfa Romeo, i.e. I guess FIAT today (I have a couple of those myself but the larger ones, I prefer bigger tea cups.)
https://i.etsystatic.com/45216411/r/il/22e699/5734927925/il_fullxfull.5734927925_ez14.jpg
Another good outlet for “minority reports” besides NC is Judge Napolitano ‘s YouTube channel.
He has weekly guests like Prof. John Mearsheimer and Col. Lawrence Wilkerson that appear to me to be giving much more rational explanations of present situations in the ME and Ukraine/Russia than I ever hear out of Jake Sullivan, Anthony Blinken, or Mr. Biden or the rest of the Blob.
It also never hurts to listen to the live Al Jezeera channel on YouTube (I’m surprised that channel hasn’t been banned yet).
I have to differ here and this is one of the reasons for writing this post.
Ex Mearsheimer (and Max Blumenthal, but he is a political commentator), I have been very disappointed by the caliber of the takes of the Judge crowd on the Iran strikes (admittedly Scott Ritter has not weighed in yet and he knows the IDF and the various advanced weapons, so that should be useful). Even Wilkerson, ,who is usually sound, does not appear to consider that his contacts might be spinning him.
So it wasn’t just me! I’m guessing that organizations they’ve been part of would have been utterly wrecked by such an attack, but even so …
I’ve been very puzzled.
I suspect much has to do with the You Tube Electric Cattle Prod which has already stung Andrew Napolitano. Guests like MacGregor have become locked into their limited frame of reference – he is especially deficient on Russia and not up to date on Germany but seriously caught in U.S. Mindspace on Israel.
US is living the Imperial Myth forgetting empires fray at edges and breakaway provinces drag in the legions consuming the centre.
US has NEVER faced the situation today but U.K. did in 1938 – with Japan in Asia and Italy in N Africa and Med and Germany in Europe – all major naval powers with hostile U.S. with Plan Orange and Plan Red – and Hitler feeding Jews into Palestine under Transfer Agreement thus destabilising Middle East
One exercise I’ve occasionally found useful is to use Google Translate on the Arabic language Al Jazeera site, then compare that to the English language version.
If I understand this article correctly, I think that America this Week with Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn is an important minority report precog:
https://youtu.be/ZNGyWS_G2gc
And also Chaz Freeman on Dialogue Works
I certainly hope that precog events like panel discussions at the Victor Penchuk Foundation organized to pretend that victory in Ukraine is possible, let alone sane, and hosting luminaries like Boris Johnson and General Petraeus, with a few vague blabberheads thrown in to make it look inclusive will turn out to be as convincing as Anthony Blinkin. Looking forward to the one on how Israel is going to win. Hope they can clarify, Win what?
While I agree that this is a good metaphor to use, I don’t think that it really works for the contemporary media.
Firstly, most of the people involved in the precog programme in Dick’s short story really believe that it works. His central character is genuinely horrified at the possibility that the programme has been subverted by one of his colleagues in order to remove him from power. (In other words, the horrible authoritarian character whom Dick would normally despise is given human qualities — much like General Felix Buckman in Flow My Tears).The difference between this blog and the other outlets critiquing NATO imperialist policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, versus the bulk of the media, is that this blog genuinely wants to find the truth, whereas the bulk of the media simply wants to recycle the lies which their patrons want told and is not particularly concerned with what the truth of the matter is.
Secondly, in “Minority Report” you have an absolutely reliable truth-telling oracle which nevertheless sometimes fails because the universe is not wholly determinate. But here there are only two alternatives; a particular thing happens or it doesn’t, like quantum mechanics. In the case of the propaganda system and the policy system which it serves there seems to be an astounding variety of perspectives converging on similar policies and similar propaganda, but for differing reasons. Note that nobody has really been able to determine whether the US controls Israeli policy, Israel controls US policy, some parts of the US regime control Israeli policy in different ways or vice-versa. And when you get to the Ukrainian mess the astonishing variety of motives is still greater — is it the gas, is it Ukraine’s resources, is it Russia’s resources, is it revenge for recent Russian disobedience, is it payback for the Cold War, and so on.
It reminds me of the passage in Nineteen Eighty-Four where Winston is making a casual correction to Big Brother’s prediction of Oceania’s boot output, increasing the figures to make it seem that the quota has been overfulfilled, and then reflecting that very likely no boots had actually been produced at all, and likelier still, nobody knew or cared how many boots had been produced, while half the population went barefoot. We really don’t know what’s going on, or why things have gone so wrong, which is of course positive as far as the ruling class is concerned because it means we don’t know what we can do about it, and it’s easier to either give up or trust in voting for your chosen candidate (amounts to the same thing in my view).
“Becoming a martyr, if that’s what it came to, would be the better outcome.”
When Jesus chose to martyr himself, he did it for a much greater purpose and he didn’t sacrifice any of his disciples. Nasrallah did not just martyr himself, he also got a bunch of other very important (presumably) people killed with him. Before that “mass suicide” event, did he ask and obtain a signed letter of consent from every one of the participants? I doubt it.
I always see martyrdom especially that of an important figure as a strategic move best suited for critical moments, so what had Nasrallah seen that led him to conclude that such a move would be necessary? Also why now? Why not a month ago, or 3 to 6 months ago? Heck, why not sometime in the future?
IMHO, the whole martyrdom narrative is nothing but a big COPE from the resistance. Nasrallah had led his guard down and as a result a bunch of people got killed for a BIG FAT ZERO.
Sacrifice is a big value in the Muslim world. It is something we cannot relate to. Anyone in what amounts to a guerrilla organization expects he might pay with his life. So you are assuming lack of explicit or implicit consent with no basis for projecting your values and assumption on Hezbollah leaders. Their position is not analogous to being an employee of a Western government-funded military force.
Someone reasonably connected (I cannot stand how much of my information now comes from YouTubers, it makes it impossible to easily retrace who said what) said Iran warned Nasrallah that the IDF was planning a hit (my words, not the sources). Nasrallah nevertheless continued to conduct meetings in Beirut.
Note that DESPITE THE WARNING, the Iran Revolutionary Guard sent one of their top officials to the Nasrallah meeting.
As futile as it is to try to attribute a quote:
Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub (who’s eagle is the basis of the coat of arms of State of Palestine)
First of all, I am not a Westerner. I am an Indonesian, born and bred. I am sure you are well aware that Indonesia is only the world’s biggest Muslim country. I am not a Muslim, but I have lived and gone to school with Muslims, how could I not. Not eating in front of Muslims during puasa (fasting) is just one of those life habits that’s been ingrained in me since childhood. Indonesia’s Muslims though are generally easy going and not as “radicalized” as those from the Middle East, and in areas like Central and East Java, there’s also the moderating influence of Javanese culture. Nowhere is perfect though, and there are certainly pockets of radicalism in the country including West Java which is concerning.
I am not questioning the willingness of resistance members to sacrifice themselves for the cause, rather I am questioning the manner and timing (why now?) of said “sacrifice”. A suicide bomber blowing himself up in a school somewhere in America will at least strike some fear into the hearts of Americans, but a couple of Muslim leaders getting blown up in the Middle East will soon be old news if nothing changes. Nasrallah must have known that he would be a marked man as the leader of Hezbollah, and there would be no reprieve from the kind of life that he had chosen. I just don’t believe that a man like that can assume that the Israelis would be taking an occasional break from trying to kill him given the events from the last few months, so him going ahead with a meeting despite warnings and just a few days after the pager incident just sounds even more reckless.
It’s a surprising choice of screen name
social jim objects
for the Indonesian that you describe here. I have to wonder, how is it that your handle codes so white western? That should be an interesting story, that.
There are plenty of people from Indonesia in SoCal and many of them use Western names, just sayin’.
“IMHO, the whole martyrdom narrative is nothing but a big COPE from the resistance. Nasrallah had led his guard down and as a result a bunch of people got killed for a BIG FAT ZERO.”
I read recently a commentary (cant find source) that pointed out how foundational a concept martyrdom is in Shia Islam. See the Battle of Karbala and the martyrdom of Husayn in Ali. That’s not a particular lesson Christianity took from Roman entertainment with Christians and lions in the coliseum.
Unfortunately a martyrdom complex (Karbala) and a suicide complex (Masada) are doing a death dance in West Asia now.
Both are a big fat zero.
Stephen Kinzer also discusses the role of martyrdom in the Shia faith in some detail in “All the Shah’s Men”.
Israel invested so much in Archaeology to prove their „history“ but even Josephus as source for Sicarii deaths at Masada yielded no historical evidence at the site.
As for Shia Islam – it is good to show respect. Motivation for those ready to face you down and kill you is important to comprehend. Americans may worship Dollars and something they call „Democracy“ but Islam is a binding force for hundreds of millions – Sunni Islam is traditionally militant whereas Shia has to be provoked
‘Israel invested so much in Archaeology to prove their „history“’
Yeah, I was reading how they were doing that. They used bulldozers to scrape the top layers of their digs away – which had all the residual evidence of the past two thousand years – until they came down on top of those layers showing occupation by Israelis. They would then claim that this showed continued Israeli occupation since year dot. And it was archaeologists doing this who were nothing better than vandals.
I regret that I haven’t had the time to read and re-read the post and all the replies. It seems that most of what is mentioned is simply justification for ‘revenge’ behaviour.
Of curse relgious nonsense is intermixed just like salt.
A new cat 4 hurricane is heading for Tampa. OK, Joe. Who are you going to save them or us.
I suggest to ask the zelinsky for some money
I like Brian Berletic, Glen Diesen, Moon of Alabama, to name a few. I’m beginning to think the chuckleheads at State, having failed to destroy Russia via the Ukraine war, are now hoping to bait Russia into opening another front in Iran. Idiots in charge of FP in US still think they can break Russia into a thousand pieces and mold the future. Mores the pity for us captive citizens.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I think we’re in FAFO territory now. The bricks has plans to interconnect their economies into a great shared project. In the United States stands in the way of that, especially with their military bases all over the place, and he ever present danger of the ever expanding NATO. So the axis f resistance, in co-orientation with BRICS really needs to face the dying empire down.
At least that’s what the movies would have us believe, the triumph of good over evil … Yeah, I’m trying to have some hope in this pending apocalypse
Perhaps in addition to having minority reports as our touchstone, thinking creatively, perhaps we should take selected looks back into recent history. We live in this great turbulent firehose of news and we lose our connection with the bigger story. Could the bigger story be considered a minority report at this point?
We have the naked capitalism songbook, so this sounds like it could be an adjacent project. A post that takes us back in time on a subject to what we thought at an important turning point. Even though this comment has nothing to do with the middle east, I’m going to submit this turning point for a look at media and censorship. It’s an interview in December 2020 with Matt Taibbi on Peak Prosperity.
https://youtu.be/cZ1daBNbWjM
I’m also going to include an article from April 2020 on the occasion of Matt Taibbi leaving rolling Stones and starting his own sub stack.https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/announcement-to-readers-im-moving
A *touchstone to the past” could be a little bit like a minority report or a songbook entry, as in a similar way it reinterprets/reorients.
As it was said above very well, Naked Capitalism is our minority report, on so many issues.
And the real challenge on the Middle East has been finding a minority report that seems to have a clear vision. Except for this post, that’s been really lacking the last few days. There was obvious propaganda and there were familiar experts saying stuff to make videos cuz that’s their job, but I think we can agree that they have been out of their depth. Thank the goddess for Naked Capitalism that acts as a loadstone for minority reports or perhaps the meta minority report.
So Khameini gave a speech in another language carried by Al-Jazeera across the Muslim world – world, because the Qu‘ran is read in Arabic to be the true word and Arabic is known to many globally. What US leader could deliver in another language ?
The maskirovka over Israel battle damage in a Military Censorship Society is secondary. What matters is a small footprint absorbing ballistic missiles and the fact it is illegal for any U.S. commercial satellite operator to sell images of Israel
So Iran and Russia know what happened and so does Israel – that is all that matters.