There will only be peace if America is weakened and Israel destroyed
I don’t disagree with this, but
It is in the interest of the Americans for the genocidal Israelis to keep destabilizing the region
I don’t see how the destabilization is “in the interest” of Americans. Before the Iran war started, they had access to Persian gulf oil through the Strait of Hormuz, now they don’t. They’ve lost access to around 20% of the global supply of oil. This is going to be enormously painful, economically.
I attribute this irrationality to the influence of the Israel lobby in US politics, AIPAC and the like, prioritizing Israel’s interests over that of America.
If you truly want to absolve the Israel lobby of responsibility, I think a more robust argument for you is just that the US government is insane.
If de-stabilizing the middle is is not in the interest of Americans, then why has the American military spending so many resources in keeping the region in constant conflict? Biden was planning a Strike in Iran before his term ended. If he had succeeded in taking a second term perhaps we would be in the middle of a more effective democrat managed war with Iran. Americans have been trying to have control of the region’s resources for decades. Same as the resources of Venezuela and now the strategic infiltration of Latin America under the Donroe doctrine aided by Israel. It is a matter of regional control as they prepare for a war with China in Order to maintain their Economic rule on the world. This has been said by Hillary Clinton , Biden and now It is openly stated by Donald Trump and Hegseth without the candy coat of Democrats’ flair for propaganda. In order for America to maintain their economic supremacy and way of life it needs to remove opposition, stop de-dollarization so that they can export the price tag for the failures of their corrupt system to the rest of the world and also remove industrial competition. They also need to have vassal and slave states; Like what Argentina is turning into.
Americans want to pretend that the tail wags the dog; But Israel is just another proxy to induce managed conflict in a region they want to control. Just like Honduras is shaping up to have a similar effect in Latin America. In that sense, in order to have peace you need to shoot the dog, not it’s tail.
If de-stabilizing the middle is is not in the interest of Americans, then why has the American military spending so many resources in keeping the region in constant conflict?
Because it’s in Israel’s interest. Israel wants the region destabilized so that its enemies will be destroyed and it can expand. As I wrote in my previous post, the Israel lobby successfully influences the United States to prioritize Israel’s interests over its own. It does this by eliminating anyone opposed to Israel in Congress by dumping money into their elections. In 2024 they spent $8.5 million to unseat Cori Bush in her Democrat primary election, spent $15 million to unseat Jamaal Bowman in his primary (one of the most expensive primary elections ever), and in 2026 a pro-Israel coalition spent over $18 million to unseat Thomas Massie in his primary. They’ve done this to many others in the past and will likely make a strong attempt to unseat Ro Khanna in the future. If they didn’t have to do this to get the United States to support Israel they wouldn’t spend the money. Once they control Congress, they can get the US to spend orders of magnitudes more than they put in.
Yes, for sure the US wants to maintain economic supremacy. But when you say they’ve “been trying to have control of the region’s resources for decades” it’s belied by the fact that the US already has control of the regions resources. US has (or had) huge bases all around the Persian gulf, where all the oil is, in Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and profound influence over the oligarchs of those countries. And those oligarchs would be happy to have the US there forever, because the US keeps them in power. The only friction with this situation is Israel, which increases security risks for the US bases and the Arab oligarchs. In other words, Israel is the only source of threat to the US’s powerful position in the region. Edward Said was writing about this in the 70s in Question of Palestine - that was almost 50 years ago. You could say Iran threatened that position, but Iran was terrified of attacking the US until forced to by Trump’s stupid decisions.
If you’re then going to say that the US went to war with Iran to control its resources, I think you need to come up with the careful accounting to point to exactly what resources will be taken to make up for the trillions of dollars that would need to be spent to conquer Iran, even in the best case scenario. The Iraq war cost around $2 trillion, and eventually the US had to pull out. Iran has three times the population, a much more motivated population, and is much more dug in than Iraq was during the second Gulf War. In the best case scenario, you would have to come up with resources greater than probably $10 trillion that will need to be spent conquering Iran. For reference Saudi Aramco is worth about $2 trillion. The math doesn’t work out.
Venezuela, Latin America, and the Donroe Doctrine are separate issues where the US is indeed acting imperialistically, trying to vassalize countries and extract resources. But even when operating in this maximally extractive manner the US usually uses a much softer touch that a full invasion or bombings. Because long term instabilities are actually bad for energy investment. Developing oil reserves requires years of infrastructure buildout, and operators avoid regions where geopolitical risks or insurgencies threaten to destroy their capital-intensive facilities, especially when it can take a decade or more to recover the initial investment…
I think a more robust argument for you is just that the US government is insane
If you don’t know how the world works and ascribe all actions to “crazed” individuals, sure. This is very typical thinking for liberals, for example. Doesn’t really work for anyone with a material conception of reality though.
By your own logic, they lost out on a huge potential trading partner when they put all effort into isolating and provoking the USSR. A trading partner is not what they were aiming for. And it’s not what they’re aiming for now. Why would it be?
I don’t disagree with this, but
I don’t see how the destabilization is “in the interest” of Americans. Before the Iran war started, they had access to Persian gulf oil through the Strait of Hormuz, now they don’t. They’ve lost access to around 20% of the global supply of oil. This is going to be enormously painful, economically.
I attribute this irrationality to the influence of the Israel lobby in US politics, AIPAC and the like, prioritizing Israel’s interests over that of America.
If you truly want to absolve the Israel lobby of responsibility, I think a more robust argument for you is just that the US government is insane.
If de-stabilizing the middle is is not in the interest of Americans, then why has the American military spending so many resources in keeping the region in constant conflict? Biden was planning a Strike in Iran before his term ended. If he had succeeded in taking a second term perhaps we would be in the middle of a more effective democrat managed war with Iran. Americans have been trying to have control of the region’s resources for decades. Same as the resources of Venezuela and now the strategic infiltration of Latin America under the Donroe doctrine aided by Israel. It is a matter of regional control as they prepare for a war with China in Order to maintain their Economic rule on the world. This has been said by Hillary Clinton , Biden and now It is openly stated by Donald Trump and Hegseth without the candy coat of Democrats’ flair for propaganda. In order for America to maintain their economic supremacy and way of life it needs to remove opposition, stop de-dollarization so that they can export the price tag for the failures of their corrupt system to the rest of the world and also remove industrial competition. They also need to have vassal and slave states; Like what Argentina is turning into.
Americans want to pretend that the tail wags the dog; But Israel is just another proxy to induce managed conflict in a region they want to control. Just like Honduras is shaping up to have a similar effect in Latin America. In that sense, in order to have peace you need to shoot the dog, not it’s tail.
Because it’s in Israel’s interest. Israel wants the region destabilized so that its enemies will be destroyed and it can expand. As I wrote in my previous post, the Israel lobby successfully influences the United States to prioritize Israel’s interests over its own. It does this by eliminating anyone opposed to Israel in Congress by dumping money into their elections. In 2024 they spent $8.5 million to unseat Cori Bush in her Democrat primary election, spent $15 million to unseat Jamaal Bowman in his primary (one of the most expensive primary elections ever), and in 2026 a pro-Israel coalition spent over $18 million to unseat Thomas Massie in his primary. They’ve done this to many others in the past and will likely make a strong attempt to unseat Ro Khanna in the future. If they didn’t have to do this to get the United States to support Israel they wouldn’t spend the money. Once they control Congress, they can get the US to spend orders of magnitudes more than they put in.
Yes, for sure the US wants to maintain economic supremacy. But when you say they’ve “been trying to have control of the region’s resources for decades” it’s belied by the fact that the US already has control of the regions resources. US has (or had) huge bases all around the Persian gulf, where all the oil is, in Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and profound influence over the oligarchs of those countries. And those oligarchs would be happy to have the US there forever, because the US keeps them in power. The only friction with this situation is Israel, which increases security risks for the US bases and the Arab oligarchs. In other words, Israel is the only source of threat to the US’s powerful position in the region. Edward Said was writing about this in the 70s in Question of Palestine - that was almost 50 years ago. You could say Iran threatened that position, but Iran was terrified of attacking the US until forced to by Trump’s stupid decisions.
If you’re then going to say that the US went to war with Iran to control its resources, I think you need to come up with the careful accounting to point to exactly what resources will be taken to make up for the trillions of dollars that would need to be spent to conquer Iran, even in the best case scenario. The Iraq war cost around $2 trillion, and eventually the US had to pull out. Iran has three times the population, a much more motivated population, and is much more dug in than Iraq was during the second Gulf War. In the best case scenario, you would have to come up with resources greater than probably $10 trillion that will need to be spent conquering Iran. For reference Saudi Aramco is worth about $2 trillion. The math doesn’t work out.
Venezuela, Latin America, and the Donroe Doctrine are separate issues where the US is indeed acting imperialistically, trying to vassalize countries and extract resources. But even when operating in this maximally extractive manner the US usually uses a much softer touch that a full invasion or bombings. Because long term instabilities are actually bad for energy investment. Developing oil reserves requires years of infrastructure buildout, and operators avoid regions where geopolitical risks or insurgencies threaten to destroy their capital-intensive facilities, especially when it can take a decade or more to recover the initial investment…
If you don’t know how the world works and ascribe all actions to “crazed” individuals, sure. This is very typical thinking for liberals, for example. Doesn’t really work for anyone with a material conception of reality though.
By your own logic, they lost out on a huge potential trading partner when they put all effort into isolating and provoking the USSR. A trading partner is not what they were aiming for. And it’s not what they’re aiming for now. Why would it be?