Multiple narratives in the Israel/Iran conflict
As I write this, the Israeli assault on Iran is increasingly looking like an attempt at regime change. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003 the targeting of Iraq's state TV was a critical part of the strategy of invasion and occupation. Today, Iran's state TV station was bombed and is currently on fire on many floors.
As of this moment we still don't know if this strike on the TV station was an intentional act by Israel, but in any case this is a major escalation and will have huge consequences going forward.
These developments highlight a weird shifting narrative in this war. The first narrative is that Israel had to attack Iran to degrade their nuclear capabilities because they were "days away" from producing nuclear weapons. This was the justification for the initial attack, but this narrative is gradually being replaced with the narrative that Iran is a monstrous rogue state which must be dismantled.
If all this sounds familiar, that's because this shifting narrative was also used in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It is as if Israel is working from the same playbook. If this playbook is to be followed correctly, a "coalition of the willing" involving multiple soveriegn nations would need to come together to counter the threat of "weapons of mass destruction".
Unfortunately for Israel, there is no indication that the US or any other western nation is keen to get their hands dirty helping Israel. Trump continues to say he "supports Israel" but his statements are terse and low key. In a recent interview he said Israel was "doing well". This is not what you would expect if there was a plan to get involved in a regime change invasion ala 2003.
Meanwhile, reports have come through that Iran has offered an olive branch to the US in the form of revisiting it's enrichment program, and Trump continues to talk of "making a deal" with Iran.
This brings us to what is perhaps a third narrative, namely that Iran is going to return to the negotiating table and that this conflict will ultimately be viewed as a "spat", with both sides willing to walk away after suffering significant damage.
My gut feeling is that, despite the superficial similarities between 2025 and 2003, this is a very different conflict, both in terms of geopolitics and the way it is being represented in the media. In 2003 there was a global moral panic about Saddam Hussein's purported WMDs. This moral panic was stirred up by yellow journalism for several years before the invasion to brainwash the population of western nations where people were still reeling from the shock of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
The vibe now is very different. There's no brainwashing campaign going on. Trump said they need to "fight it out". Israel is looking increasingly isolated and they aren't winning. The attack on the TV station could be their undoing. If I were conspiratorially minded I might speculate that the TV station was actually bombed by Iran as propaganda coup.
We live in interesting times!
Note: I didn't spend much time writing this, but wanted to get my thoughts out quicky while the situation is still developing. Time will tell if my speculation is correct.
I have read this opinion-analysis by Winston for the second time, on June 20, 2025. That’s eight days after the surprise Pearl-Harbor type attack by the US-backed Zionist Republic of Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is a serious war the outcome of which is anyone’s guess at this stage. My gut feel is that both parties cannot walk away from this calling it a “spat” for the same reason Roosevelt did not walk away from Pearl Harbour This is TOTAL WAR against the Islamic Republic of Iran recognized as a sovereign nation by the United Nations. It is a zero-sum game now. Israel can only lose if China & Russia support militarily the government of Iran as they supported the North Vietnamese over the long struggle 1965-1975.
I do hope Winston’s “spat” scenario eventuates, preserving the existing Iranian regime
But, I cannot see how assassination of generals and threats to kill the Supreme Leader, bombing the national TV center, is anything other than a regime-change war i.e., a war of conquest.
It's quite fascinating and a real head scratcher to ponder on what happens next. Trump said yesterday he would make a decision within 2 weeks, but I think that is a misdirection like almost everything else he has said.
Seymour Hersh - a pretty sharp journalist - says the US will start bombing this weekend.
I still think that Trump plans to get out of this without starting a new war, but I admit all the overt indications are quite the opposite. It's really a gut feeling and I can't fully justify it.
Bibi will accept nothing short of regime change - that's a no-brainer. If Trump scores a last minute "deal" with Iran's leadership Israel will feel betrayed and the results will be unpredictable, maybe catastrophic.
On the other hand, if Trump bombs the Fordow nuclear site the global ramifications of this will also be catastrophic. Anyone with half a brain knows that such an act would be reckless and counter-productive on many levels:
1) It's not likely to be successful but will enrage and embolden all the enemies of the US.
2) If it is successful it could create another Chernobyl - or worse.
3) Such an act would commit the US to regime change and whatever regime replaces the Mullahs could be far worse, probably something like ISIS on steroids.
4) It will cost a fortune. There will need to be massive boots on the ground. To subdue a country of 90 million you would probably need a million troops.
5) It will politically destroy Trump - this is guaranteed.
6) China, Russia and Pakistan are likely to get involved. Things could go boom.
This is not just a "bomb and walk away operation" - that won't work with Iran. It seemed to work with Libya but look at the outcome! US ambassodor murdered, extremists take over the country. Syria is not a comparison because the US did not directly attack Syria. The only direct comparisons are Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump will be committing political suicide if he goes down that path.
Both potential outcomes are unthinkable, but walking away from Israel is the less unthinkable option, in my opinion. Trump is a pragmatist. I believe he would like to see Netanyahu replaced. That way he can stay "pro-Israel".
So my crazy gut-inspired vision is that he's going to let Israel die on this hill, while continuing to profess his heatfelt "support". He'll wait it out. Netanyahu will resign. A more moderate leadership will emerge in Israel, and then, only then, a deal will be struck with Iran.
This is going to drag on for months, maybe years, with no certainty. The suffering on both sides will be compounded by fear of what comes next.
There can be no "swift end" to this, in my unfounded opinion. It's intractable. So the world will limp on in its messy way towards an unknown future.
Having just watched the interview with Col. McGregor you posted, I see now that the "less unthinkable" option, namely leaving Israel on it's own against Iran will likely push Israel into using a nuke - which is about as unthinkable as it gets.
There are no good options here. Maybe prayer is the only correct approach.
We need a miracle.
Thanks for penning these thoughts for all of us who like you are trying to make sense of what’s going on but without success.
There is something fundamentally inconsistent and illogical in Trump's stated position on this conflict. One the one hand he seems to be worried that Iran will unilaterally execute a nuclear first strike against Israel - an act of unfathomable evil which the supreme leader has ruled out as "haram". This would suggest that Iran cannot be trusted, making any "deal" worthless.
Then he turns around and says there's still a chance to make a deal. 😦
Let's not forget that Obama made a deal and Trump ripped it up.
Is Trump playing games here? Is the real agenda regime change? Is it 4D chess?
Regime change or 4D Chess? Based on Occam’s Razor, regime change.
However the very notion of “regime change” is a euphemism. Regime-change is naked imperial aggression.
From dictionary:
Occam’s Razor: the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.
Yes, regime change is a modern euphemism for what was once proudly called a war of conquest. Ancient Persia was involved in many wars of conquest until they were finally brought down by Alexader the Great in the 3rd century BC.
Conquest is a complicated thing though isn't it. The USA conquered Japan - SUCCESS. The USA attempted to conquer Vietnam - FAIL. They attempted to conquer Afghnaistan - FAIL. Iraq - SUCCESS (but led to the rise of ISIS).
When you conquer a nation state you have the responsibility of rebuilding all the infrastructure you destroyed. The model which the Bush regime pitched for conquering Iraq was the Japanese model but it didn't work out too well.
Iran has a population of 90 million. If you crush and destroy its infrastructure (which you HAVE TO do if you really want to "conquer" it) then you have to rebuild all that and take care of 90 million poor souls who may starve to death otherwise.
It's a big responsibility.
But before we get to that point China would probably intervene because Iranian fossil fuels are an important part of their economy and because their own national pride would not allow a close neighbour and trading partner to be utterly destroyed.
The US would find itself at war with China. It's unthinkable.
Trump acts like he's unhinged and doesn't care or even think about this stuff. That's 100% an act.
The moment China flexes will be the key moment which redefines this conflict. That moment could come sooner than you think. I can't believe they would stand back and do nothing.
Yes you are referring to China’s strategic relationship with Iran.
This war against Iran I am starting to see as a war of empire.
—
Will park this answer from DeepSeek here, to a question about the Iran to China railroad.
This is to China what Nordstream is or was to Russia.
—
The planned railway line connecting Tehran to China, now operational, represents a major geopolitical and economic development under China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Here is a detailed analysis:
### 🚂 1. **Route Specifications and Operational Status**
- **Path and Distance**: The 10,400-km corridor links Xi'an (China) to Tehran via Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, terminating at Iran's Aprin Dry Port. Future extensions aim to connect Turkey, Europe, Africa, and the Persian Gulf states .
- **Transit Time**: Reduces shipping duration from 30–40 days (maritime) to **15 days** by rail, enhancing efficiency for time-sensitive cargo .
- **First Cargo**: In May 2025, the inaugural train delivered solar panels to Iran, supporting its renewable energy push .
*Key Specifications of the China-Iran Railway*:
| **Parameter** | **Detail** | **Significance/Notes** |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| **Length** | 10,400 km (6,500 miles) | Traverses 3-5 countries |
| **Transit Time** | 15 days | Down from 30-40 days by sea |
| **Cargo Volume Growth**| 160% YoY (Jan-Apr 2025) | Surging demand for rail freight |
| **Participating Nations**| Iran, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey | Coordinated tariffs & standards |
### 🌍 2. **Strategic Geopolitical Significance**
- **Sanctions Evasion**: Provides Iran a land-based route to export oil and minerals to China (90% of Iran's exports to China), circumventing U.S. maritime interdiction efforts and "maximum pressure" sanctions .
- **China's Security Goals**: Helps China bypass the Malacca Strait—a U.S.-patrolled chokepoint critical to 80% of its oil imports. Red Sea instability (Houthi attacks) has increased maritime costs by **250%**, making rail economically viable .
- **Countering Western Initiatives**: Positions the corridor as an alternative to the U.S.-backed **India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC)**, which sidelines Iran and centers Israel. This rail line reinforces a China-Iran-Russia-Turkey "golden ring" of influence .
### ⚙️ 3. **Economic and Infrastructure Development**
- **BRI Integration**: Funded by the **$400 billion, 25-year Sino-Iranian agreement (2021)**, the railway anchors Iran in China's BRI network, enabling access to high-end goods despite Western sanctions .
- **Transcontinental Expansion**: A May 2025 meeting in Tehran unified six nations on **standardized tariffs, operational protocols, and journey times** for the China-Europe corridor. Container traffic surged 160% in early 2025 .
- **Iran's Hub Ambitions**: Enhances Iran's role in the **East-West Corridor** (linking China to Europe) and **North-South Corridor** (connecting Russia/Europe to India via Iran), potentially marginalizing rivals like Azerbaijan's Trans-Caspian route .
### ⚠️ 4. **Operational Challenges**
- **Gauge Incompatibility**: Central Asia uses Russian broad-gauge rails (1,520 mm), while China/Iran use standard gauge (1,435 mm), necessitating transshipment at borders and causing delays .
- **Customs and Regulatory Fragmentation**: Varying national safety, customs, and documentation rules increase administrative overhead. Harmonization talks are ongoing but incomplete .
- **Maritime Competition**: Rail costs remain higher than sea shipping for bulk commodities (e.g., oil), though Red Sea disruptions temporarily improve rail competitiveness .
### 🔮 5. **Future Prospects**
- **European Extension**: Dual-load freight services (launched July 2024) will expand to Turkey and Europe by 2026, slashing China-Europe transit times .
- **Infrastructure Upgrades**: Iran plans to complete the **Chabahar-Zahedan rail link (700 km) by 2026**, integrating its ports with the corridor. China may also link Pakistan's Gwadar Port with Chabahar, consolidating BRI's "String of Pearls" .
- **Security Risks**: Regional instability (e.g., Israeli strikes) and U.S. sanctions on financial transactions could disrupt operations despite the land route's resilience .
### 💎 Conclusion
The Tehran-China railway transcends mere logistics; it embodies a **strategic realignment** challenging U.S. hegemony. While operational hurdles persist, its success could reshape Eurasian trade flows, bolster Iran's economy, and accelerate de-dollarization. For China, it secures energy imports and expands BRI's reach, illustrating how infrastructure is becoming the new currency of global power .
Show 2 more replies
Winston wrote this proposition
If you crush and destroy its infrastructure (which you HAVE TO do if you really want to "conquer" it) then you have to rebuild all that and take care of 90 million poor souls who may starve to death otherwise.
I say that, though this might be true for conquest situations like Hitler’s takeover of France and setting up a new collaborationist government 1940, it won’t apply to Iran as it did not apply in Iraq, Libya, Syria. And Lebanon to some extent.
Why is this? The answer is obvious and so you’ll no doubt agree.
US-backed Israel has a policy of not permitting any Moslem country in the region to ‘rise’ like China UNLESS their governments are firmly aligned with the USA. Consider UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan & Egypt for example. These countries are no threat to US-backed Israel provided they can prevent a popular uprising from their Arab population - like the Persian people revolted against their U.S.-puppet government in 1979.
Iran is the biggest threat to this global order of US hegemony. It’s an impressive countryThus . Do you know that Iran is one of the few countries (outside of superpower countries) that has mastered the art & technology of manufacturing a gas-turbine engine for passenger aircraft all from indigenous labor & technology.
Thus Israel’s policy is not to permit a non-aligned Muslim country to rise and become an example to the rest of the world like China & Vietnam
How does Israel prevent these neighboring counties from ‘rising’?
Answer: by bombing their infrastructure and self defense military equipment
I rest my case
The USA did rebuild Iraq. That's my whole point. It cost a fortune and it produced ISIS as a side effect. If Iran is wiped out the victor will be responsible for what happens next.
My country will be affected if China helps Iran to attack Israel to regain its dignity. I think America should stop helping the country that kills innocent children and let them get revenge. If there is a war, it will definitely threaten the whole world. So stop the war and have peace soon. Come out from this revenge.
I have to take issue with this statement by Half Wracked:
"I say that, though this might be true for conquest situations like Hitler’s takeover of France and setting up a new collaborationist government 1940, it won’t apply to Iran as it did not apply in Iraq, Libya, Syria. And Lebanon to some extent. "
It is utter nonsense. A foreign power can't just wipe out a country's infrastructure and walk away, unless they have already prepared a friendly "resistance movement" to take over. Why? because if you just bomb the shit out of a country you end up with something like Cambodia in 1974. The hardliners take over, and they most certainly aren't friendly.
All invaders need collaborationist governments. If there is no pre-existing resistance movement then they have to do what they did in Iraq, which took about 7 years and led to the rise of ISIS.
In Libya it turned to be a disaster because the rebels who the US allowed to take over were a bunch of psychos.
If Iran is wiped out the hardliners who take over will be 1000 times more dangerous to western interests than the Mullahs.
There is zero evidence now that there is any meaningful resistance movement in Iran. A shitload of boots on the ground will be required to subdue the population of 90 MILLION.
Not that I think that will happen. I think it more likely we are looking at a war to end all wars which will end up with billions dead.
Winston what I say is not “nonsense” Rather it is should be seen as a different perspective or different prediction.
You say “I think it more likely we are looking at a war to end all wars which will end up with billions dead.”
The future by definition is unpredictable. We can develop beliefs about the future, that cannot be verified or falsified until the future arrives.
This just leaves the subjective state of optimism, pessimism or indifference
What you say is a pessimistic scenario with billions dying. That does not mean to say it won’t happen.
Here’s a smart way for Iran to respond. An optimistic scenario.
- Ignore the US bunker-buster attack and ignore Trump to keep the majority American public opinion on side.
- Tell the world that Islamic Republic’s war is against the principal instigator, the Zionist Entity. Tell the world that the USA is viewed as a mercenary contractor to the Zionist Entity that controls the Congress and Senate members through bribery & corruption. That will cause divisions in the US body politic.
- Keep pounding Tel Aviv and other non-US targets with wave after wave of missiles.
- Iran’s military objective would be the total economic and population collapse of Israel with 60 % of world population cheering.
Alternative scenario
(pondering)
Ritter’s Rant 009: Where's the Beef
Trump bombed three empty sites in Iran. Why?
Scott RitterFor the record, I was not exactly predicting "a war to end all wars which will end up with billions dead". What I said, if you read it carefully, is that this is "more likely" than the US putting massive boots on the ground in Iran like they did in Iraq. I think there is zero probability of a US-led land invasion. On the other hand, the probability of nuclear war with billions dead is definitely non-zero. I hope it doesn't happen.
This is an interesting thread published on 16 June last year, over 7 months ago, and 1 week before the end of the so-called 12-day war against the Islamic Republic of Iran by nuclear-armed Zionist Israel backed by nuclear-armed USA.
What is extroardinary is that even now, at the end of January 2026, with a massive buildup of US military forces in the region, we don't have a clue about what the fuck is going to happen and how it will affect us.