(credit to RomCom1989 for the title)
Image is of an Iranian soldier exulting in the launch of a ballistic missile aimed towards the imperialists.
short summary this week: US doing pretty bad and Iran doing pretty good all things considered, Strait of Hormuz is closed and will almost certainly remain so until the end of the war, Trump has no idea what to do, global economic crisis from strait closure is basically guaranteed at this point but who will ultimately benefit most and who will ultimately lose most is still up in the air.
longish summary is below in the spoiler tags
longish summary
While there are still major debates raging about how badly things are actually going right now and what the post-conflict map may look like, as we blaze past the two week mark on this conflict, it's becoming ever more obvious to almost everybody involved that this war is not going according to plan, if there ever was one. US airstrikes are, from what I can best determine, still mostly done with relatively less powerful (but still very dangerous!) and much less plentiful standoff munitions launched from bombers, though certain border and coastal areas are being struck with more powerful and more plentiful short-range guided bombs. This indicates that Iranian air defense is still sufficiently functional throughout most of Iran that the kinds of true carpet bombing done against Korea and Vietnam in the past (and Gaza very recently) is still too risky, though their airspace is still very much under assault, as we appear to have images of small groups of Western fighters breaching relatively deep into the country. Under some kind of Iranian pressure (drones? missiles? speedboats?) one aircraft carrier has retreated to a thousand kilometers from Iran, hiding behind the mountains of Oman; the other is sitting in the Red Sea, rather pointedly out of range of Yemen. As such, the ranges that Western aircraft must travel to bombard Iran is increasing, which reduces their frequency and increases strain on maintenance and logistics in the medium and long term.
While there is tons to say about the current social, economic, and military state of Iran, I don't think I have a reliable enough picture to give a good summary beyond "they aren't close to defeat or regime change". What has instead captured much of the world's attention is the continuing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which has inspired some of the most delusional statements I have seen so far in my life, which is sincerely a profound achievement. For those out of the loop: the strait is currently closed to all shipping except those going to very particular countries (I've seen China and Bangladesh mentioned, and apparently India is in the process of working something out and may succeed or fail). This is because most ships are not risking the trip due to the ~20 tankers and container ships that Iran has already struck and disabled in the strait and in the Persian Gulf. Additionally, the threat from Iran's military to Navy ships is such that attempting to create a convoy to guide tankers through it is suicidal to both the Navy and merchant ships. Right now it cannot be done, and it very well might be the case that it could never be done, simply due to the combination of Iran's naval forces (hundreds, perhaps thousands, of armed, specialized speedboats designed for exactly this purpose), their drones (in the tens of thousands), their torpedoes, and if all else fails, their naval mines.
The Western reaction to this has been so moronic that it has almost integer underflowed into being philosophical: what does it truly mean for a passage to be "closed"? Has Iran truly "closed" the strait, or is the risk of traversing it simply too high for these cowardly sailors (who, for some strange reason, seem to care about their "lives" and "families")? How is it possible for Iran to have closed the strait if, according to the West, Iran's military has been totally obliterated? All these questions and more plague the minds of those who cannot accept the now-proven fact that there are indeed military forces on this planet that the US Navy with all its aircraft carriers and destroyers and submarines cannot defeat; and one of those minds is, rather hilariously, Trump himself. His thrice-daily positive affirmations that Iran has been defeated are taking on an increasingly deranged and almost pitiable tone; the lamentations of a man who has finally found a situation where him merely stating that something is true is insufficient to change the situation one iota. Despite stating that some kind of naval compact or alliance is being established to protect shipping, every Western country so far - from the UK, to France, to Japan, to Australia - has publicly stated that they will not risk their ships to do so. All this as the continued blockade yet further guarantees a worldwide energy, production, transportation, and food crisis that will have major global ramifications for at least the rest of the decade and almost certainly beyond.
If the anti-imperialists play their cards right, the US could lose much from this crisis, and others, like China and Russia, could gain a great deal. To quote Nia Frome (co-founder of Red Sails): "An effective Marxist has to be enough of an accelerationist/pervert to treat the obviously bad things that are going to happen as the political opportunities they are."
Last week's thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.
Please check out the RedAtlas!
The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.
The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on the Zionists' destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
NYT very long update
Kharg Island Is an Appealing Target for Trump, With High Risks
Snippets
Full text
Donald J. Trump told an interviewer in 1988 that if Iran attacked U.S. forces, “I’d do a number on Kharg Island. I’d go in and take it.”Nearly 40 years later, the fate of Iran’s main oil export hub, an island that Mr. Trump now calls the country’s “crown jewel,” is emerging as a pivot point in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.
“Just one simple word, and the pipes will be gone,” Mr. Trump said at the White House on Monday, renewing his threat to attack oil infrastructure on Kharg Island after the U.S. bombed military sites there last week. “It’ll take a long time to rebuild that.”
The tiny island, at the northern end of the Persian Gulf, presents an appealing target for a president who has often asserted that the United States should pursue oil assets when it goes to war.
An attack or a move to seize control of the island could cripple Iran’s ability to profit from its natural resources. But by taking Iranian oil off the world market — or by prompting more damaging Iranian strikes against infrastructure elsewhere in the region — Mr. Trump would risk sending energy prices even higher, with all the economic and political problems that would accompany such a surge.
Clayton Seigle, an energy specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, said that Iran appeared to have refrained from attacking “the biggest oil and gas targets that would be most crippling for the world economy,” giving the country options to escalate in response to strikes on its own oil infrastructure.
And because Kharg Island is some 400 miles away from the Strait of Hormuz, even full U.S. control of the island would do little to take away Iran’s primary means of leverage against the United States: its ability to choke energy shipping out of the Persian Gulf.
Iran “already has the whole world’s energy in a stranglehold,” Mr. Seigle said. “If we take over Kharg Island today, how does that stop the Iranians from shooting at ships, shooting at critical infrastructure, and thus keeping control over the energy exports in the region?”
Mr. Trump said on social media on Friday that U.S. airstrikes had “totally obliterated” military targets on the island. The United States could attack the island’s oil infrastructure, he said, if Iran did “anything to interfere with the Free and Safe Passage of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz.” On Monday, he renewed that warning, asserting that the United States could destroy the energy facilities there “on five minutes’ notice.”
At the same time, the deployment of a unit of about 2,500 Japan-based Marines to the Middle East has added to the speculation that Mr. Trump may be tempted to try to seize the island outright. His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said on social media that Mr. Trump “has been remarkably consistent his entire life on Iran,” and posted the old quotation that he would “take” Kharg Island if U.S. forces were attacked.
But there would be serious risks to seizing the island, said Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank with a hawkish stance on Iran.
Such an operation would only make sense, Mr. Goldberg said, if threats to U.S. forces on the island from drones or missiles were at an acceptable level, and if the United States had some control over the oil that is piped to Kharg Island.
Otherwise, Mr. Goldberg said, attacks on Kharg Island’s oil infrastructure — or, for example, the power plant that enables it — could be a means to further weaken what remains of the Iranian regime and increase the chances that a popular uprising could topple it. He argued that Iran may not have the means to retaliate more heavily against the oil assets of U.S.-friendly countries in the Gulf.
“If the end state of Epic Fury is that the regime is still there,” Mr. Goldberg said, using the name of the U.S. campaign, “then you might consider some sort of closing act that disrupts their ability to access that oil revenue.”
Military officials have declined to say what missions the Marines being sent to the Middle East would be assigned to carry out. Rather than seizing Kharg Island, they could be ordered into a different, no less dangerous mission — helping to secure the Strait of Hormuz, which their ships would need to transit before getting to the island.
Francis Galgano, an expert in military geography at Villanova University, said that he viewed an operation for Kharg Island as “perhaps more likely” than one against the coastline of the strait. Seizing Kharg Island would give the United States “an extreme pressure point on the Iranians,” he said.
“Any commitment of ground troops changes the calculus at home and abroad,” Mr. Galgano said. “It would be a huge step.”
Using U.S. troops to seize Iranian territory to protect shipping is not a new idea. Mr. Galgano was a 26-year-old Army tank captain serving in the Middle East in 1986 when Iran was attacking tankers in the Persian Gulf. He said he was involved in “war-gaming” a plan to land in Bandar Abbas, an Iranian city, to seize the Strait of Hormuz, one of many possible actions.
Of course, removing Iran’s ability to export oil from Kharg Island would mean cutting off substantial amounts of oil from the global market, possibly for a long time — a move that could send prices even higher. Oil has been hovering above $100 a barrel, up from less than $73 a barrel before the war started. At that point, some 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil exports transited through the island.
Iran has been among the few countries sending tankers through the Strait of Hormuz since the war started, meaning at least some of its oil is reaching the global market. Since March 1, at least 14 vessels laden with oil or other energy products have left Iran and passed through the narrow waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence, a shipping analysis firm.
There are signs that Kharg Island has continued to operate as an export hub even after last week’s airstrikes. A satellite image showed three tankers at the island’s oil loading berths on Tuesday.
Analysts say that it is Iran’s closure of the strait, rather than control of Kharg Island, that is at the root of the country’s ability to exact a toll on global energy markets. The strait normally carries about a fifth of the world’s oil, and substantial amounts of natural gas. It is so narrow that Iran can harass ships there by launching small boats and firing weapons from its coast.
James M. Acton, the co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said that control of the strait had emerged as such a powerful point of leverage that the regime was unlikely to fold even in the face of Mr. Trump’s threat to bomb Kharg Island’s oil terminal.
“Keeping the strait closed is of more value to them than the oil facilities on Kharg Island,” Mr. Acton said.
Mr. Trump said on Monday that it was not clear whether Iran had gone beyond firing at ships in the strait to mining its waters. U.S. officials said last week that Iran had started laying mines in the strait, The New York Times reported.
“We don’t know that any have even been dropped in,” Mr. Trump said. “If they do it, it’s a form of suicide.”
Mr. Trump appeared to be suggesting that by mining the strait, Iran would complicate its ability to export its own oil. But if Iran could no longer load its oil onto ships, the country would have less reason to allow a trickle of traffic.
“Seizing Iran’s most important oil hub would also fully eliminate any economic incentive Iran has to let any traffic go through the strait,” said Caitlin Talmadge, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied security issues in the Persian Gulf. “So it could backfire.”
I don't understand the obsession with this island. Isn't Qeshm Island way more strategically important?
Maybe, but Westoids don't understand actual military strategy. Oil is the start and end of their thinking. And Kharg island has a port thats responsible for 90% of Iranian exports. Nevermind that even if the US does take Kharg island it would have zero effect on Iran's control of the strait.
Right but you need ALL these other fucking islands first before you can even think of taking Kharg island. You could try to supply and operate a position on Kharg Island from somewhere like Kuwait but I don't see how you can reasonable defend the island without getting ships off the coast of it... And they can't do that without taking all the other islands first.
It would have to be part of an absolutely massive multi-front assault on the country. You have to hit all of these locations at the same time. They can't do it. You need 200k troops minimum for this operation. Probably way more because you're then going to need to operate in-land too in order to deal with all the missiles hitting your newly created positions on the shore.
They have to take the entire Iranian coastline. Then they have to take all the in-land places that shoot at the coastline positions they've taken. It's fucking ridiculous. This country is TOO BIG and its geography is awful for an attacker.
They can not do any of this shit. They are fucked if they do.
Hey, you don't need to convince me. I'm well aware. But I'm not in the Whitehouse
Americans don't understand geography
Or logistics, or planning, or strategy, or thinking, or...
Just take the island. Nobody has been so smart and so brave and so handsome as to just go in and take it.
Apparently, the area's the size of South Vietnam if randoms on Twitter are to be believed.
Well, if that's the case, then maybe the other benefit to imperialism aside from Oil Island Fetishization is depriving China of a major supplier.
Yeah, real big brain move, isn't it? Remove the only possible point of friction between China and Iran by cutting off the supply entirely yourself.
it's the place Iran loads up their oil for export. it's the Big Oil Island. don't you want the Big Oil Island? sure, the oil still can't taken through the straight--it couldn't if the US captured the whole heap of islands in the strait--but put yourself in Trump's shoes, he owns Kharg and it's like he owns all the oil in the country even if he can't do shit with it
how many islands is a heap?
"if they can't sell their oil they'll definitely open the strait"