War with Iran: what is this really all about?

Want more than just watching?
Connect with Israelis, Palestinians, and global voices having real conversations every day -  https://discord.com/invite/MSTfuhnj8S

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

And we're live. What's up, everybody? Thank you for joining. We are in day five of the war with Iran. What are they even calling this war? Oh, they're calling Operation Epic Fury. Cringe. But, anyways, we're going to talk a little bit about what's going on. And even the what are the motivations and justifications? Because the narratives we're hearing are really all over the place. So maybe let's start there. Let's go through how people are justifying this, the different camps these people are in, how much legitimacy there are to these positions, and then we'll go into the arguments for those against the war. So one we hear is just the humanitarian justification that the Iranian people deserve better leadership, that you know their oppressive regime uh needs to be destroyed for them to have freedom. This makes most sense, this belief makes most sense when held by actual Iranians who are in Iran as well as in the diaspora. Um we see this as a common position amongst those people. We also do see people who are generally pro-Israel making this case as well, but I think we should be suspicious of their intention. Um a lot of the same people who have been just callously cheering on what's going on in Gaza or just turning a blind eye to it or whitewashing it or spreading misinformation about the numbers are now pretending to really care about the Iranian people. But if this regime change leads to hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians, I don't think they're going to care too much because for them, that's not the main priority. It's doing what's best for Israel. Um now, if you're Israeli, or let's say an Israel first, sure, obviously you want to do what's best for Israel, but that's not a defensible position, right? The idea of saying, I think we should attack Iran because it'll be good for Israel is much harder to defend than saying, no, we need to do it for the Iranian people. So we are seeing a lot of the pro-Israel activists making the case that we're doing this for the people. I just don't think it's sincere. Um And then there's those who are talking about the threat of nuclear weapons. Now, this in one hand is the most legitimate one if you believe it to be a real threat. Right? There's a genuine belief that Iran is racing towards nuclear weapons, and if they obtain one, then they're likely to use it. Or if not likely, that there's still some chance they'll use it. If you genuinely believe this, then it's not hard to reach the conclusion that regime change is the best decision. Now, is that a real legitimate threat, A, of them building one? And if they do build one using it, I think that's a different conversation and debate. I personally have never been convinced that that's their intention. Um, but if you do believe that, you could see how they'd reach the conclusion that regime change is good. And now we're hearing um, I think this new narrative, and it's interesting where this is coming from, we're hearing that this is actually all about China. We're seeing a big China push now. And it almost seems a little bit coordinated and artificial. Now, it might be true, but a lot of the people who are pushing the China narrative are also pro-Israel influencers. People who never talk about China are now saying the U.S. is doing this for China. Pretty good theory as to where this narrative comes from. So the masses are convinced that the U.S. did this on Israel's behalf. Marco Rubio kind of acknowledged it and then walked it back, but that confirmed it. That's a very, that's very, very bad PR for Israel. Like the Americans are furious. There's more hate, more anti-Israel hate in the US than there's ever been. Well, a good counter narrative is not to get defensive and say, no, it's not Israel. It's simply to start promoting other reasons why this attack, why the U.S. is involved. So China is almost separating the U.S. motivation from Israel motivation. They're saying Israel has their own motivations, but the US because of China. Um I want to read an analysis read by Melissa Chen that kind of gives an explanation. Maybe I'll invite her on. Um, I don't know if you all know her. I don't even know her too well. We follow each other, but what does she do? VP board for strip. Peach, I'm sorry. I'm I'm live streaming. If you want, you can come here and I'll pet you, but you gotta stop me, Alan. Oh, you want to go out? Hold on, guys. So maybe Alan, maybe we'll see if Melissa's willing to have a conversation about this because I'm not at all convinced. And one of the reasons I'm not convinced of the China narrative is because Trump's giving all sorts of reasons for why this attack is happening. They all sound like bullshit, but he hasn't even mentioned China once. So um let's see. Oh damn, I missed it. Okay. I'm gonna read it because she makes the case. It's not a case that I currently have bought into, especially because it seems motivated in order to actually just protect Israel, but and also just because Trump is not saying anything about China. Trump's justifications are free the Iranian people. Um we've been at war with them for seven 47 years. It's just a bullshit claim. There's that's just ridiculous. Um nuclear weapons, like we're hearing a lot of the traditional stuff, not the China narrative. So it's almost like the the pro-Israel advocates are pushing this China narrative when the US government even isn't even pushing it. So it is interest, that is interesting. Melissa Chen says, seeing a plethora of low IQ, Israel forced the US into war takes. Z thanks you for helping to unwittingly launder CC CCP propaganda, by the way. Okay, I mean, I don't know if there's any basis that this is Chinese propaganda. It's a very natural conclusion to believe Israel um pushed U.S. into doing this because we know that Netanyahu has been calling for war with Iran for 30 years now. Uh, we could see a much clearer reason for Israel to want war with Iran than the U.S. We see Netanyahu visiting the White House every few months. Uh we know that Miriam Adelson is Trump's number one donor. We know that he's also easily persuaded by bullshit. It doesn't require Chinese propaganda to reach the conclusion that Israel's involved in the U.S. decision, especially after Rubio to some degree confirmed it. Um, so this line, in my opinion, reeks of like pro-West propaganda. Come. She goes, the U.S. strikes come down to Iran and China having engineered a mathematically unwinnable war of attrition for any purely defensive strategy. In other words, they can replace missiles faster than the U.S. can replace the interceptors needed to stop them. Secretary of Servic Marco Rubio stated this week that Iran is now producing over 100 ballistic missiles per month, while the U.S. can manufacture only six to seven relevant ballistic missile interceptors per month. Even the broader Patriot PAC MSC line is only at 45 per month, and THAAD SM3 production is even tighter at around 10 per month before emergency surges. Surely you can see how this giant is a giant problem. No, I don't see how this is a giant problem unless you are adamant on going to war with Iran. If you're if if you don't attack other countries, then this shouldn't be an issue. Um and what is China doing? China is deliberately supercharging this imbalance. Beijing has been caught shipping dual-use propellant ingredients, planetary mixers, components that let Iran build its munitions factories at break-nit speed. Reders released a report on February 24th revealing that Iran was dazed from sealing a deal with China for CM302 supersonic anti-ship missiles capable of evading defenses, sinking U.S. carriers, destroying from distance of 290 kilometers, which turns straight of Hermuz into a lethal kill zone. This doesn't strike you as a red line that should galvanize action now rather than later, then you weren't able to handle the reality of geopolitical survival. Yeah, again, this is how neoconservatives talk. They make it sound like every action you need to take, every violent action, is reality of geopolitical survival. Um all these weapons, we have never seen Iran use them unprovoked and to attack other nations unless attacked first. Again, I I and I want to make something clear. I do not support the Iranian regime. They're theocratic, they're repressive, um, they're not the Iranian people deserve better. But we could acknowledge that and still recognize propaganda and false claims when we see it. Why is China doing this? Because a cheap, endless Iranian missile barrage that forces the US to expend 4 million interceptors against 20 Shay Shaheds, whatever. It's essentially the the imminent arrival of Chinese back game changer would have rendered America's naval supremacy obsolete and provide anti-access shield over the Gulf, Iranian nuclear sites, and every proxy from Hezbollah Houtis. This is why the Gulf states are also aligned with U.S. action. The U.S. needs to restore deterrence against a regime racing towards nukes, again, not buying that, and send an unmistakable message that the United States will never cede the Gulf to Sino Iranian nightmare. So essentially they're saying the US um China's helping Iran uh get weapons, uh, which is very much their right. It's like is like the imagine this. Imagine invade invading the U.S. and your pretense. Hold on, my cat is she's she's old and she's just nagging. Pete, I'm putting you outside because you're you're not acting okay right now. She's just she just always wants attention at her old age of 18. Um, where were we? So they're saying um because Iran is building a military and the US doesn't want them to have military force, we need to bomb them. That's honestly, that is so much less compelling of a narrative than saying we're scared of them getting nukes. Um, like this is, in my opinion, the least compelling of all the narratives. We don't like that China's arming them, they're getting too strong, so we need regime change. Now, let's talk about the arguments that are against regime change. This is the Camp Ammin. Again, I would actually like to see regime change, just not forced by uh uh Western forces and massive aerial bombardments. Now, some who reject regime change are doing so because they actually like the Iranian regime, right? Why would you want to change a regime that you like? And then others just don't want to support this aggression against the sovereign nation, an illegal war against the sovereign nation. Um, I would say that to the camp I fall into, and I imagine most people who are against this, right? Most people who are against US and Israeli action in Iran do not support the regime. It's simply recognizing an illegal war, a bad plan, um, false pretenses, and not actually having the best interests of the Iranians in mind. No one has actually even presented a coherent plan for regime change. Nobody. At least I haven't seen one. It's almost this assumption, it's like, let's just bomb them and they'll surrender. When has that happened? When's the last time the U.S. successfully did regime change? What about the past few decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East should give us any confidence that this is going to work? Why should we get on board with this? In fact, if you care about the Iranian people, you should be very concerned by military action being led by Donald Trump and Netanyahu. They don't care about the Iranian people. If a million Iranian civilians need to be killed for regime change, they would do that without thinking twice. There's zero consideration for what's best for the people. And so don't even let people promote that, right? Don't don't and anybody who says this is for the people, ask them if they support then regime change afterwards in North Korea and all these other repressive regimes. See if they're consistent. Ask them why not. Because it's generally not about the people. The only ones who who that's a sincere perspective is actually Iranians who are suffering from this regime or whose family still lives there and is suffering. Everyone else, it's they're not being sincere. It's just easier to defend the humanist position. Say, yeah, we're doing it for the people, not because it's much more defensible than saying we're doing it because uh I support Israel. But don't buy that narrative. And again, the same people who were saying we need to, we need regime change because the regime is repressive, will will not care when hundreds of thousands of Iranians are are killed. And at this rate, uh, and I again I don't want to be like a pessimist, but if it continues at this rate, we very well may be at a place a year from now with hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians. Like that's that's not that's very plausible if if this continues. Um often regime change, you start to see signs of it actually very early on. Historically, you see defections early on. There's like a quick opportunity for a coup. This often happens within the first few hours. We didn't we saw close to no defections. Again, this doesn't mean regime change won't happen, but it's not following some of the historic patterns of regime change. We're now seeing seemingly misinformation promoted by the U.S. and Israel that the Kurds are uh yesterday it was reported that they actually began an offensive, but the Kurds are denying this. What's that all about? Um are speculating that um maybe it's just fog of war misinformation, or there's actually interests that want Iran to believe that the Kurds have gotten involved, so they start attacking the Kurds, which will increase the chance the Kurds are involved, create division, soak chaos, hope for civil war. Um that's that's really what it seems like they're going for now. It doesn't seem like there's a plan. And again, for regime change to work, you need some viable alternative. It's not like you have uh a secular, a liberal secular opposition that's ready to take power. You have the Revolutionary Guard, which is by far the most powerful force in Iran. Um, you can't defeat them with airstrikes. Can you airstrike them into oblivion and eventually get them to surrender? Yeah, yeah. But there's no guarantee. We haven't seen that happen all too much historically. Um let's see, we'll read some comments. Uh, anyone who cares about Iranians and this is an informed individual would not want a regime change like this. This being all that war. Yeah, yeah, I would agree for sure. Johnny says, who's beating my cat? Yeah, right. No, Peach, I'm not letting you in because you're you're fucking up my stream. No, not gonna do it. Kung Fu Spider says, I've heard arguments saying Israel completely dog walked the U.S. into this war or has blackmailed Trump either by threatening assassination or Epstein files, but I'm not convinced of that. Foreign fall foreign policy base is the U.S. doesn't actually have interest in toppling the regime and creating a filled state. What do you think about the petrodollar issue? Um so the Epstein files blackmail. I've never bought that narrative. The evidence does not really support a wide-scale blackmail operation. Um Trump is just weak. He's easily convinced. Uh, he definitely didn't plan to do this when he got into office. Part of his campaign was no war with Iran. Like he's been criticizing past presidents for their potential interest in war with Iran, and then he comes in and he becomes the guy that does it. He could have been, it could have all been a rouge, but I think he got in there and he was convinced either by the neoconservatives in his cabinet, um, war profiteer lobbyists, Netanyahu, combination of all of them. Um he's not mentally stable, he's not emotionally healthy. Um, it doesn't require blackmail, it just requires persuasion. He's the guy's a little bitch. Like he just like he's got no spine. You could and and here's how you see it, because they've been there have been interests pushing for war with Iran for decades. They didn't convince Biden, they didn't convince Obama. Um, I wouldn't go as early as Bush because he was involved in another illegal and immoral war, but Obama and Biden weren't weren't convinced. So whatever pressures were, we're able to compel Trump. Um anyways, let's talk about at least one more thing. The the the what one of the single most barbaric beliefs that is still normalized is the pro-war uh worldview. Okay, it's both morally inconsistent and intellectually shallow, and it is barbaric. It's not that anti-war and pro-war are of equal footings and we need to debate it. There's very clearly a morally superior position here. Um, and I don't care if it sounds elitist to say the same way an abolitionist shouldn't feel elitist saying that their position is morally superior to that of a slave owner. Uh this is what we're talking about now. We in society overwhelmingly believe that humans deserve an inalienable right to life. In fact, this belief is so widely held, it is more widely held than belief in any individual religion. So, to some degree, the belief in human rights, in our inalienable right to life, is the world's most common religion or belief system. It's such a strongly held belief that we have robust debate in society of if it's okay to remove take that right away from a murderer, right? That's the debate over capital punishment. It's such a strongly held belief that we debate in society of if a human's right to life is more important than a woman's right to bodily autonomy, the debate on abortion. But yet, when we do this thing we call war, we become cold and callous and we justify any amount of civilian deaths. We shrug it off as if it's nothing. We create a technical term for it to distance ourselves from the reality of it. We call it collateral damage. But collateral damage is simply a category of people whose right to life was violated, taken from them against their will. Now, I understand the argument that there are some instances where you need to make very difficult decisions where civilians will die. But that's not how we operate during war right now. For us, it's simply all too quick of a decision. We very rarely explore all other options, and then once we engage in war, we engage with levels of proportionality that is again a violation of human rights, all for the greater good. So essentially, the pro war camp is saying that I trust my nation's decision to play God and kill people for the greater good. That's essentially the pro-argument. I support the killing of civilians for the greater good. So much evil in this world comes from that idea. Every genocide, every mass atrocity was always done in the name of doing it for the greater good. It is one of the single most dangerous beliefs in the history of the world. Now, with that, there actually are some instances where you can make the case that killing for the greater good is worth it. But we should have a very high threshold to getting there, exhausting all other options and proving that we're doing everything in our power to not violate humans' inalienable right to life. This is us making essential moral progress. And I do want to say there is like a psychological basis for this. Hold on, let me give my cat another chance, okay. Come. Come I'll pet you. Now, there's uh actually a psychological basis for this, right? Humans, part of what makes us human is our immense capacity for compassion and kindness for those in our in-group, those we see as our own, and an immense capacity for hate for those in our out-group, those we deem as others. Uh, this is part of what makes us human. This is um part of what allowed us to survive as uh hunter-gatherers for so long. But it's also the same trait that allows us to justify such death and destruction. It's how you can see such cognitive dissonance of a society that understands that humans deserve the inalienable right to life, become cold, callous, and even a bit psychopathic when it comes to the lives of others because they view them as an other. So this ideology is really that we've developed as a result of some psychological component which in the right conditions supports death and destruction towards those we deem our enemy. But the world we live in today, and and so much of moral progress has actually been our circle of compassion expanding from the tribe to the village to the city to the nation. And today we are making more progress, and more and more of us are seeing us as one human species, and we want to we want this right to be protected for all people, right? That that is the moral progress of the 21st century that the pro-war camp are trying to hold us back from. So, one of the single most important things that we can achieve as a society as we enter the second quarter of the 21st century, it's outgrowing our barbaric ideology of war. And in fact, it's more important now than ever before. As we enter the age of AI and people actually become worthless or more worthless than we've ever been, now more than ever, we need a strong system of human rights to protect to protect us. Um because less than ever are we needed for work. A lot of the justification for democracy is also connected to giving the workers, giving those who support the economy a say in things. So much of where our human rights, the justification for our human rights comes from, comes from the utility of humans. That is that is quickly changing. So in order for humans to continue to be protected in the age of AI, in the age where we are no longer needed, we need a strong moral belief around human rights and a system to protect them. It may be essential for survival. Um, so yes, this debate, it's not a debate of two equal sides just trying to figure it out. This is abolitionists against slave owners. That's the debate. And in a few decades, I believe and hope we will look back at this conversation similar to how we today look back at the debate over abolitionism versus owning humans. We look back, it's like, how can anybody support that? We're gonna say the same about this. That seems to be part of the trend of moral progress we've been making. Um, I think that's that's all I had. We could do QA. If somebody wants to come on and share thoughts, challenge something I said, could open it up for debate. Yuri's saying Obama was convinced why did he pay them billions if he didn't use it as a tool to stop Iran? What was he convinced of? I'm not sure I understand. Uh Obama negotiated a deal with Iran, right? He was convinced that that is a better way to deal with them, not regime change. Pato Prazzoli says the pro-war view tends to be held by people who will not fight in the war themselves, nor will their loved ones fight. That's true. There's a market for being talked to the way you just talked to that cat. What does that mean? There's a market? You gotta explain that. In Israel, this is not necessarily the case, as there's mandatory conscription and very high levels. Yeah, that is true, Levi. Uh, I think what he's saying is more true with like the like Western support. Um, I wonder how the US military feels about it. Because now they're talking about boots on the ground, right? If if they actually try to do boots on the ground, that's time for regime change in the US. If if not already. Nah, Yuri, I'm not buying that. Iran tried to kill Trump. I don't think he's trying to help anyone, he's making sure he stays alive. Yeah. I'm not. Yf Kanan says, Do you think Amalek's story fuels these wars by Israel? I don't think this is the geopolitical consideration Israel takes or Netanyahu's consideration. I don't think he's like fueled by anything religious. I think it's more uh his legacy, um his power, and I think he generally thinks this is good for the people in the in the long term. Um now it is possible you have some segment of the population that view us as fighting Amalek, and some of the support from the religious Jews living in Israel might be motivated by that story. Did you see the Jonathan Larson, Jonathan Larson Substack about what U.S. troops allege they were told? Yeah, about like end of times prophecy. Feel free to drop a link. That was cringe. Like that is essentially us saying we need to take down this theocratic regime by our theocratic regime. Like what? How does that make Yeah, that was wild. Smiling Lager says it's telling that the decision was made to send in American troops just after all the Epstein files were published and Epstein worked with the technocratic oligarchs who were pushing for global technofeudal governance, where there was ownership class and serfs. Yeah, but I'm what I still don't see the connection. Um like you're saying they released it and then they did this to distract people, but then why release it? Like I it I that I that article that argument has never convinced me, but maybe you can make the case. Like I don't really think this has much to do with the Epstein files, but it is actually funny that Epstein files Epic Fury, same initials. So uh that's kind of funny. Coincidence? Who knows? So Levi brings up an issue more. Don't you think the timing just two days before Purim played a part? I mean, that maybe because the perm is about the Persians trying to kill us, and then we turn the tables on them. Um so is that like symbolic? Yeah, I could see that, but that's also the most fucked up time to do it. It just ruined the holiday for for all of us. Like I wouldn't have supported it anyways, but it's uh and doing it on Shabbat also, right? It was done on Shabbat. How is that Jewish? You could you you're technically allowed to do stuff on Shabbat for something called Pikuch Nefish to save a life, but this is not you could have waited, you could it you could have waited 12 hours and done it Saturday night. No, nobody would have died if you waited 12 hours. So it was not there's not there was nothing Jewish about that. Nothing Jewish about that. Okay, let's see what we have. Um imagination sees that there's censorship for videos showing what's happening there. Some said that on X. Can you elaborate on that imagination? I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying. Yeah, people died in the exactly, yeah, yeah. One of the the like six six people, I think they were all family members, died uh when a ballistic missile hit a synagogue. It it directly hit the bomb shelter in the synagogue, yeah. Yeah. No, no, and it didn't it, it it was essentially an attack on Shabbat which caused Jews to die. Literally, Israel contributed to Jews being killed on Shabbat. It's the opposite of Piquak Nefish. It's breaking the Sabbath in order to contribute to Jews dying. Imagination says catch thoughts. He talks about life, but is starving me. Um I'm not eating in ten whole minutes. Yeah, I mean, it he he's got she's got food in her bowl, but I think she just wants attention. And she likes to go outside. I take her for walks. We're here on the second floor, but she was a street cat for like the first nine years of her life in Tel Aviv. I brought her from Tel Aviv to the north. It took over a year and a half for her to be comfortable around people, but now she's a sweetheart. Um, but I'll take her outside and she follows me, so I just walk around and she'll follow me. It's it's kind of cute. Okay, cool. I I think maybe uh you know we could keep this short and sweet. Um, I'll probably do another one this evening. Or not this evening, but sometime this weekend. Um, and yeah, I just wanted to uh check in, share some thoughts, send you all love. Uh and those on Discord, we can, if you guys want to continue, happy to do an after party on Discord. So if those watching want to continue the conversation, I'll drop you all a link in the chat. It's also in the description. And if not, have an awesome weekend, and I hope to see you all very soon. Sending love from the Galilee in the beautiful land of Israel and Palestine. Until next time.