AFAIK most drones were not intercepted before reaching Israeli airspace, otherwise, y'know, the ballistic missiles wouldn't have had the cover to strike the airbases
I was gonna say that that's a completely unsustainable strategy but that hasn't stopped capitalists from doing it before. It'll basically only work until the crises become so fundamental that merely keeping the lights on and food on the table and water in the pipes becomes impossible, but that's a problem for the industrial capitalists. the finance ones will have a field day buying up every drop of fresh water on the planet to enjoy just a few more months of yacht-riding and then flying off to their bunkers once civilizations starts collapsing in earnest
well, I'm much more optimistic but that seems like the worst case scenario at least
sir, we tactically ascertained the geolocated coordinates of the VIP, and proceeded to engage the target via vehicle. we lost a truck while gaining proximity to a suicide IED, and another to a suicide grenade, but exactly 3 minutes and 15 seconds later, we began to unleash a precise barrage of suicide bullets into the target. several children were in our ballistic trajectory but later analysis with our top of the line AI software revealed a 36% chance of them being suicide bombers based on body language, which is a margin that is deemed acceptable according to manual C, page 56, section 12-alpha foxtrot
Hersh really has been godawful on this conflict compared to Russia and I don't really know why. I remember one of his articles literally like a month or two after the offensive into Gaza started where he was just like "alright, so, now that Hamas has been completely defeated, now where does Israel go?" and here we are in mid-April 2024 and Hamas is still the unquestioned victor of the Battle of Gaza.
Anybody remember the claims about how using bunker busters on the tunnels would work? Anybody remember the claims about how flooding the tunnels would work? I guess Hersh really just is a victim of his sources, so it's just garbage in, garbage out
the communist version of 
I really hope that if an Israeli attack does occur that Iran sticks to its word. Not that I think that they wouldn't because of cowardice or anything, I think if an Israeli missile strike hit Iranian territory or officials then it's a 100% chance that Israel gets smacked, but I do wonder if Israel is trying to find a way of striking Iran so indirectly or so covertly that Iran would hesitate to strike back.
Like, if they poisoned an Iranian general or something - could Iran reasonably prove that it was Israel that did it so that the response strike could be justified to the world? What about if "ISIS" does a terrorist attack like they did in Moscow, where it definitely, absolutely, 100% was DEFINITELY NOT THE WEST, I swear to you Russia, it was, uh, ISIS-K or whatever group we've just invented? What about retaliating with a bunch of sanctions instead of militarily? There's a lot of ways that Israel could strike back that would obviously be them, but cannot be immediately directly linked to Israel, and as Iran explicitly said that Israel would not have weeks of preparation, every day - or indeed, every hour - that Iran hesitates, the Western state propaganda apparatuses would be doing that Parenti-esque consent manufacturing, simultaneously piling up their accusations of Iran being a paper tiger spewing empty threats and how their influence in the Middle East is collapsing, while also saying that, no, of course that terrorist attack by ISIS couldn't possibly be related to Israel, and so if Iran does strike then they're warmongering bloodthirsty imperialists breaking the rules-based international order.
The same goes for China. China's path toward sovereign industrialization - whether socialist or not - means that it is no longer an easy source of cheap labour for Western capital. And as the supply price increases so too does the sabre-rattling from Western states and media.
I think some people tend to misinterpret the latest offensive against China (as in, the one since at least 2018 when the Ughyur genocide accusations revved up) as one of a political battle, which is also the general framing of the conflict from the American side. Like, they think that the fundamental battle between the US and China is a battle of ideologies, or unipolarity vs multipolarity, or "freedom" vs "authoritarianism". But really, this is all fundamentally economic in nature, and the political reasons are merely used to justify and excuse those economic decisions.
China being socialist isn't really the problem for the West, as the post says, it's about having economic sovereignty. It's the strong thread that binds the whole anti-US alliance together - China, Russia, Iran, the DPRK, Cuba, Venezuela, etc - despite their very different histories and ideologies and religions. They all want economic sovereignty. China wasn't a major problem for the West for decades despite being socialist because they didn't pose an economic threat to imperialism until relatively recently. The fact that China's recent economic ascendancy just so happens to coincide with a new propaganda campaign seeking to ignite a new ideological Cold War between American capitalism and Chinese socialism is, well, not actually a coincidence.
So when I see analyses that come at the situation taking the American assumptions without question, it's frustrating, especially from left-wingers who should know better. So this is a good piece to explain the global situation, and why us communists believe what we believe despite Iran and Russia not being socialist.
It is important to note that Iran’s foreign policies in the Middle East region, and consequently its extraterritorial military proxy activities, are predicated on Shia sectarianism and Ayatollah Khomeini’s exhortation to “export the Islamic Revolution.” Aside from running wholly contrary to Iran’s national interests as well as wantonly endangering the Iranian people, this policy bent has proved deeply divisive and unpopular throughout the region and has always manifested to the major detriment of secular, particularly left and progressive, forces.
this is a very strange statement given that Iran supports Syria, which is ruled by Alawites, and also most Palestinians are Sunni. not saying that supporting Shia isn't a big part of the state ideology, but "predicated" makes it sound like if you're not Shia, you're on the missile target list
a bizarre piece all around. some economists assume a can opener; some communists assume a powerful international workers' movement
The Cradle: Iran enhances air defenses with Russian support: Report
[hexatlas tags: russia, iran, israel, ukraine]
Iran and Russia are developing a deepening strategic partnership that could prove crucial in helping Iran defend itself from an attack from Israel, The Washington Post said in a report on 16 April. The Post claims that according to a leaked Russian document, stolen Iranian emails, and interviews with US intelligence officials, Russia has pledged to provide Iran with “advanced fighter jets and air-defense technology, assets that could help Tehran harden its defenses against any future airstrike by Israel.”
The Post report cites intelligence sources claiming that Russia has agreed to provide Iran with Su-35 fighter jets and the S-400 anti-missile defense system. The Su-35s would be a dramatic upgrade for an Iranian air force that consists mainly of rebuilt US and Soviet aircraft from before the 1979 revolution that established the Islamic Republic. The S-400 is Russia’s most advanced missile defense system. In 2019, Russia provided Iran with the S-300 system. The intelligence officials added there is no public evidence that Su-35s or S-400s have been delivered to Iran.
Well, that's helpful.
Also some stuff in there about what Russia has been getting in return - drones and such.
Putin and Raisi had a phone convo. Nothing tremendously interesting except this line:
Putin condemned the attack on the Iranian consulate, stating, "What the Islamic Republic of Iran did in response to that act that happened criminally and in light of the inaction of the Security Council was the best way to punish the aggressor and represented the tactfulness and rationality of Iran's politicians.” The Russian head of state also added that Moscow believes Tehran “is one of the main pillars of stability and security in the region.”
I haven't been keeping up with Putin's statements and stances on the conflict but that's some pretty hostile language from a guy who wasn't exactly anti-Zionist not long ago
[tag: Russia, Iran]
thanks for the clarification. I was aware they had a different calender but I guess I assumed that the translation would call it the Iranian month name (Ordibehesht?)
there have been analyses by various commentators and cranks but ultimately it's all gonna be rumors and speculation. Israel couldn't tell the truth to keep their grandma alive, and Iran seems unwilling to release information about the strike so as to not give away too much