138
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

A reminder that as the US continues to threaten countries around the world, fedposting is to be very much avoided (even with qualifiers like "in Minecraft") and comments containing it will be removed.

Image is a map of Middle Eastern oil/gas production sites, which Iran has promised to strike in retaliation if their own energy infrastructure comes under attack.


My weekly preamble is in spoiler tags below.

preambleFor the weekend of August 1-2, Trump had once again promised major strikes on Iran, which would have included crossing the critical red line of striking their energy infrastructure. In response, Iran once again essentially promised to end the possibility of modern civilization as we know it throughout much of the Gulf States and, to a certain extent, the Zionist entity, with the economic impacts radiating outwards around the world from there. The frustrating part about these threats from Trump is that while he's reneged on them before, the consequences of them actually occurring are so dire that it's difficult to ignore them; rolling a dice with even a 5% chance for complete catastrophe will always be nerve-wracking.

Anyway, as we all know, these strikes did not occur, with the excuse this time being much the same as the previous times: our regional allies begged us not to (potentially true) and Iran called us and said they were willing to negotiate/surrender (untrue). The point of these threat displays is at least twofold: first, to see if Iran is genuinely going to flinch, or, at least, if internal elements that may or may not exist will be spooked into action against the IRGC; and second, to manipulate oil prices downwards by creating constant cycles of "relief" out of an otherwise relatively constant downward trend as Hormuz stays closed and oil reserves continue to ebb. I do say "relatively", of course, given that Ansarallah now appears to be delivering a boot up the ass of Saudi Arabia by taking offline quite a lot of its refinery infrastructure.

It is into this situation that Ukraine seems to want in. For those out of the loop, the situation over in Ukraine has largely the same overall attritional dynamics as previous years, but with a few added wrinkles. Ukraine started striking Russian infrastructure a while ago, and while their effectiveness is hotly debated and I don't want to dismiss them as totally ineffectual, it's clear that the psychological effects - such as they are - are greater than the material effects. Russia's retaliation strikes have been considerably more impactful, including strikes on Ukrainian Black Sea ports and vessels, and a campaign explicitly against gas stations across Ukraine, as well as some rather impressive and disruptive explosions at Ukrainian military fairs and production sites. Zelensky has admitted publicly that they are now basically out of Patriot missiles and that Russian missiles are now landing entirely unopposed (beforehand, they were just landing largely unopposed, given the lackluster performance of Western air defences in general). He seems to have considered a possible way out: linking together the Ukraine and Iran Wars to a united front against Russia and Iran, which would then grant Ukraine more munitions to keep fighting on.

Now, for all the fear I've seen of this occurring (and, don't get me wrong, the US and Russia being in non-proxy, direct conflict is a genuinely frightening prospect for continued life on Earth) how linking together two wars which the West is quite decisively losing into a single war would help at all is beyond me. At this moment, at least, US military planners appear to agree with me. Ukraine hit a Caspian Sea vessel going to Iran a while ago, but then seems to have quickly apologised after being given a stern talking to by the US. This shows just how willing the US is to grant Ukraine more aid, as their own interceptor stockpile is running very low due to Iranian strikes. One would almost feel sympathy for Zelensky if is wasn't for... well, everything that's happened. The path of Ngô Đình Diệm is a tough one to walk.


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

If you have evidence of Zionist crimes and atrocities that you wish to preserve, there is a thread here in which to do so.

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:

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.


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Tervell@hexbear.net 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

more

The ground-force posture is decisive here. Limited U.S. forces in the CENTCOM region—primarily in Gulf partner states, Jordan, and other locations—can defend bases, support air operations, and conduct limited raids. They cannot threaten the seizure of Tehran, the occupation of key population centers, or the systematic destruction of Iran’s remaining ground-force and internal-security apparatus. Without a credible ground component—whether conventional U.S. divisions or a heavily organized, equipped, and backed indigenous opposition force—Iranian leaders can reasonably conclude that they can absorb further punishment, impose reciprocal costs through missiles and Hormuz disruption, and wait for political fatigue, oil-market pressure, or alliance fractures to erode American resolve. Moreover, the longer a pure-air campaign continues without decisive political results, the greater the risk of horizontal escalation. Iran has long accepted that it cannot compete in conventional maneuver warfare; instead, it built its regional strategy around state-sponsored terrorism, missile harassment, and proxy operations. Tehran’s asymmetric reach—underscored by recent drone strikes expanding the war into previously untouched sovereign nations, including Egypt’s Mediterranean ports—proves that external bombardment does not isolate the fight. Rather than forcing submission, an open-ended standoff campaign gives the Islamic Republic both the pretext and the time to expand the conflict regionally—testing American alliances and driving up global economic pain.

Two of the classic Principles of War help explain why this pattern is so persistent. The Principle of the Objective requires that every military effort be directed toward a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable goal. In the current campaign the political objective has shifted—from demands for unconditional surrender, to ensuring Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon, to protecting commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Each successive formulation is more limited, yet the force applied has remained essentially the same: air and naval power without a credible ground component. When the objective itself moves, measuring progress becomes difficult and the campaign risks becoming an open-ended exercise in attrition. The Principle of the Offensive is equally relevant. The initial strikes in late February seized the initiative through surprise and concentrated force. That initiative has since eroded. Iran has adapted its missile tactics, dispersed residual capabilities, and imposed reciprocal costs. A prolonged air-centric campaign that reacts to Iranian actions rather than dictating the terms of the conflict gradually cedes the initiative the United States once held. None of this is an argument for a full-scale occupation of Iran. History and practicality both counsel against such an undertaking. The point is narrower and more practical: the type of force employed must be matched to the political-military objective actually being pursued. If the objective remains truly limited—temporary freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, or a measurable delay in Iran’s nuclear timeline—sustained and focused air and naval power may still be sufficient. But when the objective is defined as Iran never obtaining a nuclear weapon, the problem changes character. The Islamic Republic’s ideology includes the destruction of Israel and sustained resistance to the United States. Nuclear capability is treated as the ultimate insurance that would allow the regime to survive long enough—and deter retaliation sufficiently—to continue pursuing those goals. Absolute and permanent denial of that capability is therefore a regime-threatening demand.

Really funny to still be banging the nuclear drum at this point. No wonder Americans do so bad at war, even their more critical and skeptical military analysts are still basing everything on completely made up ideas about the enemy - any attempt to genuinely seriously evaluate the situation seems impossible within these circles, whenever they start getting close to a point they always manage to jam some completely invented bullshit in.

History shows that air and naval power alone have not reliably delivered such outcomes against governments that view a forbidden capability as essential to their survival. Policymakers therefore face a choice grounded in evidence rather than aspiration. They can accept more limited objectives that air and naval power have historically been able to support, or they can recognize that guaranteeing permanent nuclear denial—or full regime capitulation—requires either a credible ground element to alter the enemy’s strategic arithmetic or a serious commitment to a capable proxy ground force. Continuing to rely primarily on air and naval instruments while demanding outcomes that history shows those instruments cannot deliver alone is a strategy of hope over experience. The Iranian regime, like others before it facing existential stakes, appears prepared to test which approach prevails.

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
138 points (100.0% liked)

news

24852 readers
521 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS