Below is my weekly summary/preamble, spoilered so that you can get down into the comments more easily.
preamble
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ceasefire that, for weeks, is so obviously about to be broken at any given moment and yet nonetheless continues. So-called Operation Freedom may mark a resumption of hostilities, as the US seems to once again be trying an active role in attempting to take control of the Strait of Hormuz. The initial, ridiculous claim was that the US Navy would itself be escorting ships (i.e. just getting your destroyers sunk for no reason), and as expected, this was just said to try and calm markets. Nonetheless, there is reporting that other military measures may be taken against Iran soon if they continue to keep the Strait closed, so we’ll see how that all goes.
US gas prices at the pump have hit close to record high numbers, and generally the average citizen is growing mightily displeased with Trump, even those in previously safe demographics. Unfortunately, this discontent is not immediately geopolitically relevant - as both parties are staffed from top to bottom with pro-war Zionists with only a small group of exceptions, and third parties will necessarily never be allowed to take power, there is no way for US public discontent to manifest itself in a change of policy. What is more likely to cause changes in policy will be grumbling from American capitalists, of which there are many factions. The fossil fuel capitalists seem perfectly content for this situation to continue indefinitely, with record profits. I imagine the financial sector is pretty nervous, but aren’t currently demanding Trump cease fire - same for the tech industry which has now been engulfed in AI, as the bubble seems to be close to, but not quite, popping. Smaller businesses and agriculture are perhaps the most likely to be crying uncle, but may have limited representation.
Going back to Western Asia, the situation from last week has remained broadly the same. The Zionist tactic in Southern Lebanon appears to essentially be “If we can’t occupy this land, then you won’t be able to, either,” as they are doing their utmost to physically destroy as many towns and villages on the border as possible. Hezbollah’s success at keeping Zionist territorial gains fairly minimal, and the growing onslaught of not only anti-tank guided missiles but also FPV drones causing chaos where the Zionists attempt to hold and advance, have, I believe, partially contributed to Iran not pushing the issue of a comprehensive ceasefire in Lebanon so far as to cause them to feel the need to resume fire on the occupied territories.
The US blockade has truly been a mixed affair. While it’s obviously quite leaky and many Iranian ships are getting through, Naked Capitalism and others have pointed out that it’s not just Iranian ships that are transporting goods, and that there are ~70 Chinese ships with Iranian oil that are much less willing to risk running the blockade. But, once again, the success of the blockade isn’t all that relevant. Iran has experienced periods of a couple years straight without meaningful oil exports and survived, and their extensive land borders make a true siege impossible - goods can and are still pouring into the country, and with Pakistan recently allowing Iranian exports through their border, as well as the Caspian Sea in the north and Iran’s railway link to China, Iranian exports can still leave just fine. Another interesting indication is that China’s government has ordered Chinese businesses to ignore US sanctions against Iranian oil, so we’ll see how that develops. And while the issue of maintaining sufficient public cohesion in the wake of economic suffering is a potential long term problem, we haven’t yet seen any meaningful scenes of public discontent inside Iran. Internal unity appears to be staying at record levels in the face of total war.
Even being as careful as possible to check my own biases, it’s difficult for me to form any other conclusion other than that Iran is winning, and people like Armchair Warlord have even pointed out that American tactical victories have been pretty minimal so far.
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.
The issue with any feminist critique or any other critique of anti-imperialist critical support of an authoritarian state is that the state itself is the battleground on which these struggles take place.
Iran has a gender equality problem. A big gender equality problem. Probably it has other big problems too that make supporting it uncomfortable. It is entirely correct to oppose any regime that is regressive towards any group. It is entirely correct to criticize Iran’s attitude towards women’s rights and Iran’s attitude towards feminism.
And it’s too much of a hand-wave to simply say that anti-imperialism comes first. It’s not correct to create a hierarchy of justice and say that justice against imperialism is more important and overrides justice for women in Iran.
But the state is the vehicle, battleground, for achieving justice for women’s right, or any other rights. The state is the level at which those rights are fought over. It is at the level of the state that public policy is formed and enforced, at which legal rights for women and at which punishment for oppressors of women occurs, so it’s at the level of the state that the battle for legal rights must occur.
Anti-imperialism is not more important than feminism, but it is a prerequisite for feminism.
If the state is destroyed or subjugated then the fight for feminism or any other rights within that state cannot occur. If the state disintegrates into local factions then the fight for feminism also disintegrates into a more local affair. If the state is subjugated by another state then the rights of women in the subjugated state are now at the whim of the occupier. If it doesn’t serve the interests of the occupier to promote feminist rights in the occupied state, then those rights cannot move forward.
Or, if the occupier is not outright opposed to feminism, it may allow feminist rights to progress but only ever insofar as that struggle doesn’t compromise the interests of the occupier. And necessarily shaped towards the interests of the occupier.
Anti-imperialism is not more important than feminism or any other progressive issue. It is, however, the prerequisite. The state must exist and the state must have sovereignty for any local rights to progress.
It’s conceivable that sometimes a state is so regressive that its destruction is a necessary prerequisite to the struggle for minority rights. Like, it’s hard to imagine the rights of Jewish people progressing under Nazi Germany so the destruction of Nazi Germany as a state was the prerequisite for racial/ethnic justice to develop in Germany. So it’s not an absolute to say that the only way to progress feminism is to maintain the state as the battleground of rights.
But that’s a question of material reality. Is Iran so horrid that women’s rights simply cannot progress? It’s not. Women’s rights have progressed there. They are still far behind where they should be, no doubt, still far behind what is normal in the west. But it’s not incapable of change and evolution. So it’s very difficult to say that the struggle for feminism requires the destruction of Iran as a state.
And if you want to argue that feminism would progress under a US occupation then material reality matters again. Would feminism progress under a US occupation? Did feminism progress in Afghanistan? Iraq? Does it progress better in Saudi Arabia than Iran?
Feminism is just as important as anti-imperialism and anti-imperialism does not override feminism. It’s one struggle. The preservation of a sovereign state that is capable of evolving its treatment of women is the prerequisite for the progression of feminism in Iran.
Occupation of Iran or a puppet regime would not progress feminism there and would be counterproductive because it would sideline or, even worse, co-opt the local struggle for feminism in favor of the interests of the occupier.
It’s one struggle. Feminism requires anti-imperialism. It isn’t subordinated to it. Iranian women can only advocate their rights if the state they live in is capable of responding to their demands which necessarily means that for Iranian feminism to succeed then Iran must be a sovereign state.
If the USA really was the army of progressive liberation then yeah sure the USA would be justified in erasing authoritarian and regressive regimes and establishing in their place progressive regimes. If the USSR didn’t stop at Berlin and replaced Europe with sovereign Soviet republics you couldn’t criticize it. But that’s not what the USA is and that’s not what it would create in Iran.
When an imperialist subjugates another state it doesn’t promote internal rights. It promotes internal division. It empowers whoever is most willing to serve their interests. The rights of feminism are, at best, a tangential inconvenience. Iranian women would be incapable of advocating their rights in a subjugated Iran because they would have zero power over the USA.
In addition to you being correct, this is also a good example of how proper marxist argumentation requires little to no obscure jargon, buzzword flim flam, or rhetorical circlejerking. The author could learn a thing or two
Yeah! Primary contradictions are determined not by importance in moral terms, but by strategic necessity and relations between axes of oppression!
This is a really good line of argument. I would add, think about libya after western intervention caused the state to collapse. The result was not the flourishing of feminist and liberatory movements, but the regression of social progress in a warlord society. That would be a likely outcome were the West to be successful in bringing down the Iranian state. Unfortunately, us-israeli aggression has probably put back feminist struggles in Iran by decades.
This is great, especially in the way you respond to the part of her argument that claims that “campism” prioritizes states over people, and you’ve unpacked the “primary contradiction” with more explanatory depth than I would have been able to.