When a neocolonialist motherfucker such as @EmmanuelMacron points to the colonized and says "you guys have a problem", this isn't a dispassionate critique but rather a pretext for a narrative of domination that will reflect in policy across the board and into the future.
Motherfuckers such as @EmmanuelMacron are a more serious threat to our liberty, dignity, and human rights than even Trump. At least outright racists such as Trump say the quiet part out loud and that inspires resistance and gets people to get off the fence.
If I had more time I'd post an entire series under the title "Fuck you, Macron" about how cynical he is about the "problems" he speaks about (while breaking down each problem and the actual solution). Maybe I'll have the time.
Macron isn't saying any of this to fix the problems, only to win the votes of racists, and perhaps to make more money from Muslim dictators who also want to say that we Muslims are uniquely savage and hence must be ruled by enlightened dictators because we can't rule ourselves.
Btw if you're offended by the language I use when I describe neocolonialists, tyrants, and terrorist, then don't follow me. I do not model myself after your social construct of how someone like me should sound, and I find it part of my work to advertise our rage to the world.
It is part of my job to show absolute contempt and complete disrespect for every power that profits off the subjugation of my people.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Israel is historically unique in that it struts like a hegemon but survives like a colony. It dominates its region militarily and psychologically, yet is so critically dependent on foreign support that if the lifeline is cut, the entire structure starts to collapse.
No state in modern history combines such regional dominance with such strategic dependence. Israel wields power like an empire, but lives like a protectorate - it can't sustain its supremacy without continuous Western military, economic, and diplomatic support.
To be clear, Israel is *not* a colony in key ways:
- It has no metropole
- It is sovereign and self-governing
- It exports ideology and security doctrine
- Its elite wield global influence
- It wasn't built for extraction but for replacement
Israel will never accept a sovereign, strong Syria. No amount of "goodwill signals" will change that, they’ll only be read as weakness and invite more aggression. Israel looks only at your capacity, never your intent. Its doctrine is security through mass devastation.
This government wasted months on appeasement while Israel bombed Syria 1000+ times, occupied ~200 sq km of land, inflamed sectarian tensions, this on top of its longstanding occupation of the Golan. Appeasement didn’t buy time or security. It sent a signal of weakness.
Accept reality or be crushed by it: Syria's main enemy isn't Hezbollah or Iran, it's Israel. Signaling "shared enemies" while it's murdering your people and occupying your land wasn't just naive, it was malpractice and an insult to strategy and to memory. ynetnews.com/article/hk00bz…
Here's a thread about Netanyahu's calculus for regional recalibration in the aftermath of the 12-day war with Iran.
Netanyahu is due to meet Trump tomorrow, and a lot might change - this is a thread about what won't
When Israel launched its war on Iran mid-June, I had said it's Netanyahu's war. Yes, it was also Israel's war, another war of consensus. But Netanyahu doesn't do anything unless it helps him politically.
This is a map of the parameters.
As many of you know, Netanyahu has faced mounting legal troubles for years. He's been indicted on charges of corruption and abuse of power. Long story short, he needs to be in power to stay out of prison.
So, the 12-day war between Israel (& the US) vs Iran seems to be over, and the ceasefire seems to be holding. Here's a thread assessing what has changed, what didn't change, and what may be next:
Since it's Israel who started this war, let's start with its war aims (declared & assumed):
- End Iran's nuclear program
- Regime change
- Kill Iran-US negotiations for a new deal
- Drag the US in
- Distract from Gaza
- Stop Europe’s 2SS push
So, was Iran's nuclear program stopped?
Expert consensus is forming around "no". The facilities were damaged but not fully destroyed. The US telegraphed its attacks early enough that Iran moved not just the uranium, but likely the centrifuges too.
A quick situational update after the US strikes Iran's nuclear facilities. Events might to accelerate, so I'm hoping to give you a snapshot of how things stand as of the time of writing this thread.
The US warned Iran ahead of its attacks - we have confirmation of this from US, Iranian, and Arab sources. The same reporting says the strike was one-off and now over, with the US seeking negotiations and explicitly denying intent to pursue regime change.
What about the damage? The Iranian authorities had already evacuated key sites and moved enriched uranium elsewhere. Early assessments show proven surface-level damage but no confirmed destruction of underground infrastructure. The Iranian nuclear program has not been "ended".
Excellent question by @vali_nasr. Here's a thread about Iran's nuclear program, why it's so hard to "destroy", and why "Fordow" is really about dragging the US into war:
Let's start with the basics. To have a nuclear program, a country needs:
- Uranium reserves
- The ability to mine ore & process it
- Centrifuges to enrich it
- Technical know-how to run the cycle
Iran has all of these *domestically*. Natively.
The way uranium is enriched is to first convert it into gas (UF₆) and then pass it through a cascade of centrifuges (which are basically fast-spinning cylinders) until it reaches a certain purity.
It's technically demanding, but not impossibly complicated.