War with Iran Part II

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

Excellent analysis. (which in no way justifies Israeli conduct but explains how the US left has been thoroughly duped and even willingly led into it through the exploitation of antisemitic tropes.)

This is not analysis. It is propaganda. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the ME would strongly disagree with this sh#t. The problem is Israel.

If you can't define the words shia and sunni without looking, your ignorant opinion isn't interesting.

Dp. I’m a Sunni and I have theological issues with twelver Shiism.

I agree with the PP that the post was propaganda and that Israel is the problem.

DP here and as someone very well aware of the Sunni vs Shia debate in that region, the post was propaganda and completely absolved Israel of causing havoc in the Middle East. Israel is just frustrated it can no longer play the Sunni vs Shia card and that the people in the Middle
East are moving past the theological differences and emphasizing the need for cooperation.

That post didn’t absolve Israel of anything. It just pointed out a basic fact that everyone whose mind is not totally clouded by anti-semitism and/or TikTok foreign affairs influencers understands … that Iran is broadly hated in the ME.

So is Israel. At the moment, Iran is a more rational actor (I can't believe I am typing that) who is not in the middle of committing genocide, so why should anyone put the interests of Israel above their own, or that of Iran, for that matter.?

Iran has been the rational actor for years. They only respond to Israel’s and US’s aggression. You know how many proxies both Israel and US arm and let loose on Iran?

Apparently, you two geniuses are able to selectively "forget" the thousands of Iranian citizens who were recently murdered by the regime. Oh, and the three men who were hanged but had committed no crime. But yes - so rational, so moral.

You mean where Trump openly-admitted they sent weapons to protesters and that Mossad/israel admits to having agitators on the ground?

Can your stupid a$$ explain how it is that over a two year period and using the equivalent of 6 Nukes in Gaza which is far smaller than Iran, Israel killed "70,000," but Iran --from the ground in like two days---killed 40, 000? Explain how your brain processes such absolute rot.

Always amusing how Zionists suddenly pretend to be concerned about human life when they love slaughtering Palestinians and Lebanese to the tune of hundreds of thousands along with bombing Iranians and their civilian infrastructure . They are ethnosupremicists where all other lives are beneath them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

Excellent analysis. (which in no way justifies Israeli conduct but explains how the US left has been thoroughly duped and even willingly led into it through the exploitation of antisemitic tropes.)

This is not analysis. It is propaganda. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the ME would strongly disagree with this sh#t. The problem is Israel.

If you can't define the words shia and sunni without looking, your ignorant opinion isn't interesting.

Dp. I’m a Sunni and I have theological issues with twelver Shiism.

I agree with the PP that the post was propaganda and that Israel is the problem.

DP here and as someone very well aware of the Sunni vs Shia debate in that region, the post was propaganda and completely absolved Israel of causing havoc in the Middle East. Israel is just frustrated it can no longer play the Sunni vs Shia card and that the people in the Middle
East are moving past the theological differences and emphasizing the need for cooperation.

That post didn’t absolve Israel of anything. It just pointed out a basic fact that everyone whose mind is not totally clouded by anti-semitism and/or TikTok foreign affairs influencers understands … that Iran is broadly hated in the ME.

Give it a rest, you amateur. Outside of the CORRUPT LEADERS who are all servile dogs of Isr whether paid to play nice w/ isr and turn against their brethren who are being slaughtered by isr (Jordan/Pakistan/Egypt) or even more pathetic, PAY to be servile losers (Gulf states), the majority of SUNNI Muslims are absolutely rooting for Iran.

And it's so ludicrous you condescendingly mention "TikTok influencers" as if "thinktanker" ZJs like Richard Haass and every other warmongering, decrepit, bloodthirsty loser like him who never saw bloodshed in the ME that didn't get them hard, have credibility on this subject. We've had to sit through years of racist, supremacist, Z monsters from these disgusting, Israel-First thinktanks like AEI/Foundation for Def. of Dem/Heritage/ Fed.Soc/blah/blah/blah, be a part of every god-damned roundtable discussion to talk about the MIDDLE EAST/MUSLIMS/ARABS. No one needs to hear the opinions of someone who is literally why the ME is f***ed. It's like inviting on a rapist or friend of a rapist to discuss the victim.

Yeah you sound super credible

[Anonymous]

The Trump administration daily reports to Netanyahu on the Iranian war, but not Congress or the American people. In fact, they just do the opposite where they lie through their teeth about what's going on. Let that sink in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

Excellent analysis. (which in no way justifies Israeli conduct but explains how the US left has been thoroughly duped and even willingly led into it through the exploitation of antisemitic tropes.)

This is not analysis. It is propaganda. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the ME would strongly disagree with this sh#t. The problem is Israel.

The author is an expert on the Middle East, you twit. It's *you* who is constantly spewing your propaganda.

It’s a wish casting for Israel. Seriously no one but the most fanatical pro Zionist would think it is even coherent argument. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the ME.

Right, because only you - no one else - could possibly know what they're talking about re: the Middle East. Just you and your obsession with "Zionists." You don't even see that the true fanatic is YOU. Your ego must be visible from space.

It is obvious you and the author have no clue what you’re talking about. Every group, country, etc in the Middle East hates Israel because of their actions. It is only US pressure on the countries in the region that this is kept in check and this is done at great expense. It is beyond credibility to say the people you kill and cripple every day are on your side. How stupid.

What will happen in the ME is the following. The US will leave. There is no way to maintain bases that are under constant attack. Jordan’s government will fall and be replaced by a Palestinian government that will annex the West Bank and Gaza. Oh and the new Palestinian state in Jordan will be recognized by every country in the world. Iraq with Iran’s support will take over Kuwait. The other kingdoms in the gulf will either fall(the population has always been pro Palestinian) or take an anti Israel pro china policy. Iran has decided to make an example out of UAE. So cross the UAE off your list.

Now you have to watch what happens in Egypt. Gas and diesel price spike and fertilizer has gone up is 500%. Looks like food riots will be coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

Excellent analysis. (which in no way justifies Israeli conduct but explains how the US left has been thoroughly duped and even willingly led into it through the exploitation of antisemitic tropes.)

This is not analysis. It is propaganda. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the ME would strongly disagree with this sh#t. The problem is Israel.

If you can't define the words shia and sunni without looking, your ignorant opinion isn't interesting.

Dp. I’m a Sunni and I have theological issues with twelver Shiism.

I agree with the PP that the post was propaganda and that Israel is the problem.

DP here and as someone very well aware of the Sunni vs Shia debate in that region, the post was propaganda and completely absolved Israel of causing havoc in the Middle East. Israel is just frustrated it can no longer play the Sunni vs Shia card and that the people in the Middle
East are moving past the theological differences and emphasizing the need for cooperation.

That post didn’t absolve Israel of anything. It just pointed out a basic fact that everyone whose mind is not totally clouded by anti-semitism and/or TikTok foreign affairs influencers understands … that Iran is broadly hated in the ME.

Give it a rest, you amateur. Outside of the CORRUPT LEADERS who are all servile dogs of Isr whether paid to play nice w/ isr and turn against their brethren who are being slaughtered by isr (Jordan/Pakistan/Egypt) or even more pathetic, PAY to be servile losers (Gulf states), the majority of SUNNI Muslims are absolutely rooting for Iran.

And it's so ludicrous you condescendingly mention "TikTok influencers" as if "thinktanker" ZJs like Richard Haass and every other warmongering, decrepit, bloodthirsty loser like him who never saw bloodshed in the ME that didn't get them hard, have credibility on this subject. We've had to sit through years of racist, supremacist, Z monsters from these disgusting, Israel-First thinktanks like AEI/Foundation for Def. of Dem/Heritage/ Fed.Soc/blah/blah/blah, be a part of every god-damned roundtable discussion to talk about the MIDDLE EAST/MUSLIMS/ARABS. No one needs to hear the opinions of someone who is literally why the ME is f***ed. It's like inviting on a rapist or friend of a rapist to discuss the victim.

Yeah you sound super credible

Pretty sure I understand it better than you. What is your background?

I'll never forget back in the day (or any day when the ME is discussed in MSM), watching National Review Z-trash Rich Lowry during the Iraq war on Chris Matthews' show, talking about the "Arab street" and what the "Arab street" thinks. Chris then asked that loser if he'd ever actually been to the Middle East. Guess what the answer was. That's what passes for "credibility" in America. Some Zionist or western chauvinist telling brainwashed viewers what Muslims/Arabs think. Preposterous garbage.

You're the one w/ less than no credibility on this topic. No one in their right mind wants to hear from a Zionist or "thinktank" with "credibility" about what the *Middle East* thinks. It was always complete insanity having an entire discussion on the Middle East w/ NO actual ME Muslims/Arabs even at the table. Who in the hell thinks it's normal to even do that? But that's what it has always been and it's why Gen X and older have a warped view of the ME w/ Israel being treated as though it pissed rainbows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

Excellent analysis. (which in no way justifies Israeli conduct but explains how the US left has been thoroughly duped and even willingly led into it through the exploitation of antisemitic tropes.)

This is not analysis. It is propaganda. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the ME would strongly disagree with this sh#t. The problem is Israel.

If you can't define the words shia and sunni without looking, your ignorant opinion isn't interesting.

Dp. I’m a Sunni and I have theological issues with twelver Shiism.

I agree with the PP that the post was propaganda and that Israel is the problem.

DP here and as someone very well aware of the Sunni vs Shia debate in that region, the post was propaganda and completely absolved Israel of causing havoc in the Middle East. Israel is just frustrated it can no longer play the Sunni vs Shia card and that the people in the Middle
East are moving past the theological differences and emphasizing the need for cooperation.

That post didn’t absolve Israel of anything. It just pointed out a basic fact that everyone whose mind is not totally clouded by anti-semitism and/or TikTok foreign affairs influencers understands … that Iran is broadly hated in the ME.

Give it a rest, you amateur. Outside of the CORRUPT LEADERS who are all servile dogs of Isr whether paid to play nice w/ isr and turn against their brethren who are being slaughtered by isr (Jordan/Pakistan/Egypt) or even more pathetic, PAY to be servile losers (Gulf states), the majority of SUNNI Muslims are absolutely rooting for Iran.

And it's so ludicrous you condescendingly mention "TikTok influencers" as if "thinktanker" ZJs like Richard Haass and every other warmongering, decrepit, bloodthirsty loser like him who never saw bloodshed in the ME that didn't get them hard, have credibility on this subject. We've had to sit through years of racist, supremacist, Z monsters from these disgusting, Israel-First thinktanks like AEI/Foundation for Def. of Dem/Heritage/ Fed.Soc/blah/blah/blah, be a part of every god-damned roundtable discussion to talk about the MIDDLE EAST/MUSLIMS/ARABS. No one needs to hear the opinions of someone who is literally why the ME is f***ed. It's like inviting on a rapist or friend of a rapist to discuss the victim.

Yeah you sound super credible

Pretty sure I understand it better than you. What is your background?

I'll never forget back in the day (or any day when the ME is discussed in MSM), watching National Review Z-trash Rich Lowry during the Iraq war on Chris Matthews' show, talking about the "Arab street" and what the "Arab street" thinks. Chris then asked that loser if he'd ever actually been to the Middle East. Guess what the answer was. That's what passes for "credibility" in America. Some Zionist or western chauvinist telling brainwashed viewers what Muslims/Arabs think. Preposterous garbage.

You're the one w/ less than no credibility on this topic. No one in their right mind wants to hear from a Zionist or "thinktank" with "credibility" about what the *Middle East* thinks. It was always complete insanity having an entire discussion on the Middle East w/ NO actual ME Muslims/Arabs even at the table. Who in the hell thinks it's normal to even do that? But that's what it has always been and it's why Gen X and older have a warped view of the ME w/ Israel being treated as though it pissed rainbows.

We all know Chris Matthews has only been to Israel on a sponsored trip. Looks like, the indoctrination worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anti-war protesters arrested in New York urging end to Israel weapon sales

300 Protesters Arrested Outside Schumer's NYC Office Over weapons Sale | VERTEX

Yep Israel in action. No free speech here in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anti-war protesters arrested in New York urging end to Israel weapon sales

300 Protesters Arrested Outside Schumer's NYC Office Over weapons Sale | VERTEX

Yep Israel in action. No free speech here in the US.

Look at all of the Jewish ppl being antisemitic to Chuck!

-Unhinged

[Anonymous]

Why can’t we just stick to topic of thread, and discuss the war??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t we just stick to topic of thread, and discuss the war??

Hard to talk about the war without discussing why we're in it, and who is preventing us from getting out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

Excellent analysis. (which in no way justifies Israeli conduct but explains how the US left has been thoroughly duped and even willingly led into it through the exploitation of antisemitic tropes.)

This is not analysis. It is propaganda. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the ME would strongly disagree with this sh#t. The problem is Israel.

If you can't define the words shia and sunni without looking, your ignorant opinion isn't interesting.

Dp. I’m a Sunni and I have theological issues with twelver Shiism.

I agree with the PP that the post was propaganda and that Israel is the problem.

DP here and as someone very well aware of the Sunni vs Shia debate in that region, the post was propaganda and completely absolved Israel of causing havoc in the Middle East. Israel is just frustrated it can no longer play the Sunni vs Shia card and that the people in the Middle
East are moving past the theological differences and emphasizing the need for cooperation.

That post didn’t absolve Israel of anything. It just pointed out a basic fact that everyone whose mind is not totally clouded by anti-semitism and/or TikTok foreign affairs influencers understands … that Iran is broadly hated in the ME.

Give it a rest, you amateur. Outside of the CORRUPT LEADERS who are all servile dogs of Isr whether paid to play nice w/ isr and turn against their brethren who are being slaughtered by isr (Jordan/Pakistan/Egypt) or even more pathetic, PAY to be servile losers (Gulf states), the majority of SUNNI Muslims are absolutely rooting for Iran.

And it's so ludicrous you condescendingly mention "TikTok influencers" as if "thinktanker" ZJs like Richard Haass and every other warmongering, decrepit, bloodthirsty loser like him who never saw bloodshed in the ME that didn't get them hard, have credibility on this subject. We've had to sit through years of racist, supremacist, Z monsters from these disgusting, Israel-First thinktanks like AEI/Foundation for Def. of Dem/Heritage/ Fed.Soc/blah/blah/blah, be a part of every god-damned roundtable discussion to talk about the MIDDLE EAST/MUSLIMS/ARABS. No one needs to hear the opinions of someone who is literally why the ME is f***ed. It's like inviting on a rapist or friend of a rapist to discuss the victim.

Yeah you sound super credible

DP They sound right on the money, actually. And that’s what rattles you.

We’ve enabled the war criminals to tell us what’s going on in the concentration camps for far too long.

We didn’t allow Hitler & Co. to blame the victims of his atrocities and escape accountability, and we’re sure as hell not going to allow Bibi & Co. to do so now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t we just stick to topic of thread, and discuss the war??

How do you write this and expect to be taken seriously? Explain how we're going off topic, because you seem to tell yourself that everything being discussed isn't connected.

Did someone bring up zoning laws in Des Moines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You cannot make this shit up. Rules for thee and not for Z.

Shurat HaDin is just another POS Israelijew group of Israelijews.
Look at the following two articles and see if you can spot the difference.


4/14/2026
Israeli NGO files ICC suit against Spain PM over Iran exports
https://www.dawn.com/live/iran-israel-war#1991753

An Israeli advocacy non-governmental organisation (NGO) says it asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to consider legal action against Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, for allegedly “aiding war crimes” through exports to Iran, AFP reports.

Filed by Shurat HaDin, which has taken legal action worldwide against what it calls “Israel’s enemies”, the lawsuit accuses Spain of providing “components required by the regime in Tehran and its proxies for military purposes”.

In a filing submitted under Article 15 of the Rome Statute, it alleges that Spain approved the export of about €1.3 million worth of so-called “dual-use products” that could be used in detonators and other explosive-related applications.

“These materials are not innocent industrial products, but critical components that enable explosive devices to function, and they were transferred in circumstances where their use for attacks against civilians was foreseeable and reasonable,” Shurat HaDin has said in a statement.


8/22/2024
Israeli advocacy group tells ICC it has no authority to judge Israel
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bydr73eja

An Israeli legal advocacy group told the International Criminal Court (ICC) it did not have the authority to issue arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant as requested by the tribunal's chief prosecutor Kharim Khan last May. The ICC asked nine Palestinian groups and two Israeli groups to submit their opinion before making the decision.

Shurat HaDin, an NGO founded in Tel Aviv in 2003, was the only Israeli one to be allowed to present claims on behalf of the October 7 massacre victims.

The organization's detailed document states that the court lacks jurisdiction in this case since the Palestinian Authority (PA)is not a member of the Rome Convention from upon which the court was founded, and it is not defined as a "state" that can join the convention.

Like I said in the other thread where I'm regularly called "unhinged": Irredeemable. Zionism has always been THIS. Arrogant, entitled and evil. It's an ideology for supremacist psychopaths who think it's perfectly normal to dehumanize millions while telling everyone how Nazis dehumanized Jews and expect anyone to care at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

Excellent analysis. (which in no way justifies Israeli conduct but explains how the US left has been thoroughly duped and even willingly led into it through the exploitation of antisemitic tropes.)

This is not analysis. It is propaganda. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the ME would strongly disagree with this sh#t. The problem is Israel.

If you can't define the words shia and sunni without looking, your ignorant opinion isn't interesting.

Dp. I’m a Sunni and I have theological issues with twelver Shiism.

I agree with the PP that the post was propaganda and that Israel is the problem.

DP here and as someone very well aware of the Sunni vs Shia debate in that region, the post was propaganda and completely absolved Israel of causing havoc in the Middle East. Israel is just frustrated it can no longer play the Sunni vs Shia card and that the people in the Middle
East are moving past the theological differences and emphasizing the need for cooperation.

That post didn’t absolve Israel of anything. It just pointed out a basic fact that everyone whose mind is not totally clouded by anti-semitism and/or TikTok foreign affairs influencers understands … that Iran is broadly hated in the ME.

So is Israel. At the moment, Iran is a more rational actor (I can't believe I am typing that) who is not in the middle of committing genocide, so why should anyone put the interests of Israel above their own, or that of Iran, for that matter.?

Iran has been the rational actor for years. They only respond to Israel’s and US’s aggression. You know how many proxies both Israel and US arm and let loose on Iran?

Apparently, you two geniuses are able to selectively "forget" the thousands of Iranian citizens who were recently murdered by the regime. Oh, and the three men who were hanged but had committed no crime. But yes - so rational, so moral.

You mean where Trump openly-admitted they sent weapons to protesters and that Mossad/israel admits to having agitators on the ground?

Can your stupid a$$ explain how it is that over a two year period and using the equivalent of 6 Nukes in Gaza which is far smaller than Iran, Israel killed "70,000," but Iran --from the ground in like two days---killed 40, 000? Explain how your brain processes such absolute rot.

Always amusing how Zionists suddenly pretend to be concerned about human life when they love slaughtering Palestinians and Lebanese to the tune of hundreds of thousands along with bombing Iranians and their civilian infrastructure . They are ethnosupremicists where all other lives are beneath them.

My absolute favorite Zionists/defenders of slaughter in the Middle East as a whole, are the ones who want to cheapen the lives of every Palestinian, Iranian, Lebanese, IRAQI, etc., by being extra racist (Bill Maher) and try to justify the slaughter by telling you "They all want to throw gay people off of the roof," so it's perfectly fine to kill all of the "savages."

Now imagine we did that to Jews who were killed during the Holocaust. How are we to know there weren't rapists, homophobes, pedophiles, wife beaters, thieves, etc.? Are we just to assume every single one was a precious unicorn? See how that sounds? That's how repugnant Zionism has always been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he Arab Word is Watching a Different War:

Three reasons why it has been difficult to understand the Arab position:

1 - The first is the Arab relationship with Iran. From the vantage point of Brussels or London, Iran presents itself as a resistance movement with a grievance against American hegemony and Israeli occupation, and this presentation maps comfortably onto familiar Western anticolonial frameworks.
What it does not map onto is the lived experience of Arab populations in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and across the Gulf. In those countries, Iran's presence meant Hezbollah holding the Lebanese state hostage to Tehran's decisions, thirty-five armed factions in Iraq drawing salaries from Iranian funds channeled through the Iraqi national treasury, and Houthi commanders answering to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while firing on Arab civilians from Yemeni soil. Freedom is not the word any serious Arab observer would use for what Iran brought.

Indeed, the Arab world's quarrel with Iran runs far deeper than American bases or Israeli airstrikes. What drives it is the systematic subversion of Arab sovereignty by a foreign power that uses the language of Islamic solidarity as cover for an imperial project conducted through proxies.

2 - The second dimension is the proxy question itself, where Western analysis fails most comprehensively. Iran goes far beyond supporting armed groups. Parallel state structures get built inside Arab countries, financial systems get captured, and political figures get installed who owe their existence and survival entirely to Tehran. The Iranians who have administered this project understand it as the export of a revolution, but what Arab populations have experienced is closer to a colonial occupation conducted through intermediaries, and as of now, they’re not mourning the Islamic Republic. But Westerners treat these proxy networks as instruments of legitimate resistance rather than as mechanisms of subjugation, they endorse an imperial project while believing themselves to be opposing one, and as a matter of fact, make themselves the legitimizing force behind Iran’s war against the Arab world.

3- The third dimension is the most counterintuitive for a Western audience, and it is the one most consequential for how the current war is understood and misunderstood. For Arab nationalists, including secular nationalists and even those with deep reservations about Israeli policy, Iran represents a greater and more immediate threat than Israel does.

This is a position that Western media are structurally ill-equipped to render intelligible, because Western discourse on the Middle East has been organized for decades around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the primary axis of regional injustice.

The result is that when Western governments and Western publics take strong positions against Israel’s actions against Iran’s operations, they believe themselves to be standing with the Arab world. In reality, they are advancing a position that the Arab world does not share and has not asked for, while ignoring the threat that Arab governments and Arab populations actually live with.

The rhetorical use of Israel as a perpetual alibi for Iranian aggression has been one of the Islamic Republic’s most durable tools, and Western opinion has served as the unwitting amplifier of that tool across the entire duration of the Islamic Republic’s existence.

Excellent analysis. (which in no way justifies Israeli conduct but explains how the US left has been thoroughly duped and even willingly led into it through the exploitation of antisemitic tropes.)

This is not analysis. It is propaganda. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the ME would strongly disagree with this sh#t. The problem is Israel.

If you can't define the words shia and sunni without looking, your ignorant opinion isn't interesting.

Dp. I’m a Sunni and I have theological issues with twelver Shiism.

I agree with the PP that the post was propaganda and that Israel is the problem.

DP here and as someone very well aware of the Sunni vs Shia debate in that region, the post was propaganda and completely absolved Israel of causing havoc in the Middle East. Israel is just frustrated it can no longer play the Sunni vs Shia card and that the people in the Middle
East are moving past the theological differences and emphasizing the need for cooperation.

That post didn’t absolve Israel of anything. It just pointed out a basic fact that everyone whose mind is not totally clouded by anti-semitism and/or TikTok foreign affairs influencers understands … that Iran is broadly hated in the ME.

So is Israel. At the moment, Iran is a more rational actor (I can't believe I am typing that) who is not in the middle of committing genocide, so why should anyone put the interests of Israel above their own, or that of Iran, for that matter.?

Iran has been the rational actor for years. They only respond to Israel’s and US’s aggression. You know how many proxies both Israel and US arm and let loose on Iran?

Apparently, you two geniuses are able to selectively "forget" the thousands of Iranian citizens who were recently murdered by the regime. Oh, and the three men who were hanged but had committed no crime. But yes - so rational, so moral.

You mean where Trump openly-admitted they sent weapons to protesters and that Mossad/israel admits to having agitators on the ground?

Can your stupid a$$ explain how it is that over a two year period and using the equivalent of 6 Nukes in Gaza which is far smaller than Iran, Israel killed "70,000," but Iran --from the ground in like two days---killed 40, 000? Explain how your brain processes such absolute rot.

Always amusing how Zionists suddenly pretend to be concerned about human life when they love slaughtering Palestinians and Lebanese to the tune of hundreds of thousands along with bombing Iranians and their civilian infrastructure . They are ethnosupremicists where all other lives are beneath them.

My absolute favorite Zionists/defenders of slaughter in the Middle East as a whole, are the ones who want to cheapen the lives of every Palestinian, Iranian, Lebanese, IRAQI, etc., by being extra racist (Bill Maher) and try to justify the slaughter by telling you "They all want to throw gay people off of the roof," so it's perfectly fine to kill all of the "savages."

Now imagine we did that to Jews who were killed during the Holocaust. How are we to know there weren't rapists, homophobes, pedophiles, wife beaters, thieves, etc.? Are we just to assume every single one was a precious unicorn? See how that sounds? That's how repugnant Zionism has always been.

Well, the wet fart here is that yes, they do want to murder a bunch of innocent people.