The Trajectory Of Empire

This morning Judge Nap featured an excellent interview with Jeffrey Sachs. The overall theme of Sachs’ presentation was the disturbing extent to which it’s possible to argue that the American Empire simply stepped into the shoes of the British Empire, or is even just an extension of the British Empire. For Americans, this should be disturbing because it argues a betrayal of the whole vision of the American Founding—although some might argue that it was a fulfillment of the Hamiltonian vision. I don’t know enough history to decide, so I’ll stick to the first, since that’s the version that is most clearly embodied in our founding documents.

Sachs goes into the joint involvement of the British and American imperial Deep States in the Western war on Iran, and I came across a tweet that excerpts Sachs’ argument in that regard. It’s a necessary prelude to understanding what’s going on today, and why Iran regards the Anglosphere as a mortal enemy—and why Iran sees Israel as an extension of that imperial venture (as Michael Hudson and others also argue):

Sony Thang @nxt888

JEFFREY SACHS:

"In 1953, Iran had a democratically elected and popular prime minister named [Mohammad] Mosaddegh.

The British secret service, MI6, and the US CIA teamed up to overthrow the Iranian government and to install a police state—why?

Because Britain wanted control over Iranian oil to continue.

Britain had been essentially the imperial power of the region.

Then came a democratically elected government after World War II that had the audacity to think that maybe that oil had something to do with Iran, not just with Britain.

And so, the Brits and the Americans said, 'Time to overthrow this guy. We don't allow people to have their own thoughts about their own country's interests.'

That is one of the first of what became dozens and dozens of US regime change operations.

It's notable because MI6—and the British imperial behavior—was the mentor of the CIA on how to do it.

The CIA went on to dozens and dozens of further regime change operations, toppling governments that had the audacity to think that their own natural resources were theirs, or to say that they were neutral, that they didn't side with the United States in the Cold War, or whatever offense was made."

6:27 AM · Apr 17, 2024

You can read about the Western led coup at the link above. “In 2013, the US government formally acknowledged its role in the coup as being a part of its foreign policy initiatives, including paying protestors and bribing officials.” Persia/Iran is a civilization that has an imperial history that is literally thousands of years old, so it’s easy enough to imagine their view of the Anglosphere treating West Asia and the Middle East as their imperial playground, for the purpose of looting its resources. If that reminds you of the West’s policy toward Russia, that’s probably not coincidental—nor is the parallel lost on the Iranians.

In this regard it’s necessary to understand that Israel is strictly a creature of the Anglosphere Empire—a creation in origin of the British Empire and maintained in existence by the American Empire. Don’t believe the stuff you read about Israel developing Wunder Waffen—all that stuff is US technology funded by US taxpayers, or inflated dollars facilitated by the imperial reserve currency. Michael Hudson is, in major part, correct that Israel’s existence is about oil, with the ultimate goal being to make Israel the oil export hub for the Middle East. Turning Israel into a highly armed imperial bridgehead is part of that scheme. The local inhabitants of the region—be they Palestinians, other Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Turks—are at best opportunities for imperial power manipulation but more often simply a nuisance.

Iran, from its plateau redoubt, has watched developments over the decades since the overthrow of the Shah with growing alarm, and has taken steps to protect itself. Will Schryver describes Trump’s nutso assassination of Soleimani as the “catalyst” for current events, but a brief tweet will help set the table for that:

Brian Merson @bsmerson04

I think [the catalyst for Iran’s current policies] goes back much further. Back to Iraq and Libya. What happened to those countries, and their leaders, after agreeing to give up weapons (etc) sent an unmistakable message to the world: the US can't be trusted and only understands strength.

The world was watching.

From this one could argue that the Neocon takeover of US foreign policy under the Clintons was the catalyst for everything going wrong in the world today. Schryver replies to Merson, essentially arguing that the Soleimani assassination by Trump convinced Iran that the American Empire cannot be trusted and that the Middle East is not big enough for the American Empire and independent regional powers:

Will Schryver @imetatronink

Iraq, Libya, Syria ... those things (and many others that could be cited) were all "interim catalysts" for Iran and other nations the empire sought to subjugate to its capricious "rules-based international order".

But the Soleimani assassination was the "decisive catalyst" for Iran — the straw that broke the camel's back; the singular event upon which all their subsequent actions have been predicated.

It began with their bold strike against the American base at Ayn al-Asad in Iraq. It was then followed by their deliberate actions ever since to render untenable further US military presence in the Levant and the Persian Gulf region.

It has been clearly manifest in their resolute defiance of imperial edicts in the form of sanctions, ship seizures, etc.

Concurrently, they have undertaken an unprecedented expansion of their military production and the refinement of their operational and strategic doctrines.

Their recent missile strike against Israel was a formal demonstration of their intent to henceforth exert their regional dominance. It was a warning that the US and Israel will defy at their peril.

5:46 PM · Apr 16, 2024

Schryver follows that up with an optimistic tweet regarding the prospects for escalation currently:

Will Schryver @imetatronink

Gold and oil continue to disbelieve that Israel will launch a counterstrike against Iran — "deep into Iran" as the current narrative describes it.

With each passing day, as clarity increases regarding Iran's first strike against Israel, likelihood of a counterstrike decreases.

8:42 PM · Apr 16, 2024

As I wrote yesterday, the video evidence that these—or possibly normal Iranian ballistic missiles— have the ability to take evasive action in their final approach to the target should scare the p*ss out of anyone within range. Schryver further supports his argument that Israeli reaction is probably to be discounted with these considerations (excerpt):

while it is true the Israelis have not acted rationally in terms of their war of annihilation against Gaza, I find it difficult to believe they will act nearly as irrationally against Iran — especially in light of the impressive potency of the extremely measured Iranian missile strikes against the Israeli airbases in the Negev.

More importantly, there are prohibitive geographic and logistical realities at work here.

Strikes by the IAF using F-35s, F-15s, and F-16s are effectively impossible.

We're talking about a 2000 mile (3000 km) round-trip — which would require multiple in-air refuelings for the strike aircraft. Israel lacks the aerial tankers sufficient to do this.

Specifically, Israel’s aerial tankers are converted Boeing 707s. Woefully inadequate for the size of strike package that would be required and also easy targets. Further, after the Iranian strike any overflight permission for Israeli warplanes over Iraq or KSA seem highly unlikely.

And even if, by some magic, they were able to refuel, their strike aircraft would still be exposed to formidable Iranian air defenses in and around most every desirable target area. The likelihood of the IAF losing a substantial number of strike aircraft would be very high — and that would constitute a much more serious humiliation than did the Iranian strikes against Israeli airbases.

So, as I see it, the only possibility is that Israel will attempt a long-range missile strike against something.

Of course, any sort of Israeli strike at targets within Iran is certain to evoke an escalatory counterstrike against Israel — one that won't be nearly as restrained as was the first one.

In short, ANY manner of Israeli counterstrike against Iran is fraught with extreme risks, and likely very limited rewards, even in the best-case scenario.

That’s a cogent argument. Now, it’s not possibly to be sure how seriously to take this tweet, which suggests that Israel is arranging to circumvent the overflight and refueling issues by arrangement with Azerbaijan, which is hostile toward Iran and has long hosted Israeli forces that have conducted sabotage within Iran. I’d be surprised if Turkey would allow Israeli overflights to Azerbaijan:

301 Military @301military

According to unconfirmed reports in Israeli media, Azerbaijan is in the process of finalizing an agreement to provide Israel with three airbases on the Azerbaijan-Iranian border for strikes against Iran.

7:28 AM · Apr 17, 2024

FYI, here’s a map. Both Iran and Russia would certainly react violently to such a scheme:

Still, never say never. Larry Johnson today has a five minute video about current Western efforts to conduct a color revolution in Azerbaijan’s western neighbor, Georgia. This would undoubtedly lead to a second Russian invasion. All these considerations explain why the Neocons want the Caucasus as a platform to use against both Russia and Iran, and to control energy flow from Central Asia to the West. This should be borne in mind when considering the likelihood that Russia would intervene to protect Iran. That likelihood, as expressed by Doug Macgregor, is extremely high. If you have any doubts, consider the recent speech by Dmitry Medvedev, which MoA has excerpted in major part:

Dmitry Medvedev's Speech On Russia's Strategic Borders

I highly recommend a close reading of everything Medvedev has to say, which comes under six points. Consider this point:

The third. There are several levels of Russian strategic borders.

The first level is limited to the natural landscape (the Carpathians, the Iranian Highlands, the Caucasus Mountains, the Pamirs). And civilizational frontiers-it is clear that a number of our neighbors, for historical reasons, are illogical to include in the Russian ecumene.
...

Fifth. There is one contrasting difference between the approaches of Russia and the "collective West" (mainly the United States). America and its satellites are trying to extend their strategic borders to almost all regions of the world. Under the pretext of "spreading democracy", wars are being fomented all over the planet. The goal is quite transparent-money making.
...
Knowing full well where our strategic borders extend, the West spat on the century-old foundations and organized a geopolitical intervention first in Georgia, and then to Ukraine. We observe similar attempts in Moldova and in the countries of Central Asia. Fortunately, the authorities of the Central Asian states show restraint and wisdom. In their desire for prosperity for their peoples, they focus on their neighbors in Greater Eurasia, rather than on an obese and dependent Europe.

My heart is with Schryver, but my belief in Neocon rationality is very low.