Thread by @Smug_editing

"WW III is starting" discourse is going to ramp up in the next few hours, so here's how things will REALLY work.

Iranian policy since 2020, after the Trump admin whacked Soleimani, has been strategic patience — ie, Iran's unique set of challenges can't be immediately won...

1/x

https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1779238676062781493

...and thus require perseverance until more favorable conditions are present.

More specifically, Tehran knows it cannot outright beat the United States and Israel in a straight-up war if it came down to it.

2/x

Yes, it could (and would!) do horrible damage, probably taking down the US empire in the process.

But the Iranian regime probably wouldn't make out either given the requisite costs, opportunities for dissent, intentions of other actors/ethnic groups, etc etc.

3/x

This is why a lot of the game for the past few years has instead been using various regional agents and proxies to distract and probe its opponents. Fuck around and inflict cuts as often as possible, which are sometimes retaliated, but try not to escalate things too much.

4/x

But wait, why should things be escalated?

The issue is the Middle East is *THE* region in the world where deterrence matters the most.

5/x

It's a neighborhood where actors whack each other with sticks.

If one of them whacks you, you *need* to come back with a bigger stick and whack them back (and harder) to show you're serious, or else other people might start *getting ideas* about you.

6/x

The issue is that if you whack someone in this region TOO hard/with too big of a stick... they start believing that you *actually* intend to kill them this time.

In this case, they come back with a gun instead of a bigger stick.

See what's happening to Gaza as an example.

7/x

That's why there's an observable tendency of actors to engage in a lot of chest-thumping and promises of THOUSANDFOLD DESTRUCTION but not that much action.

It's about *publicly* communicating strength and establishing deterrence. Action must be reciprocal.

8/x

"But Smug, we have Iran LAUNCHING DRONES AND FIRING MISSILES AT ISRAEL!!!"

Yeah, they are. But why are they doing this again?

9/x

Right, because Israel attacked Iran's consulate in Damascus last week, which killed seven senior officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), incl. a senior general.

Hitting a country's diplomatic mission in a third country is generally seen as a BIG NO-NO.

10/x

Now, to be fair, when you have a lot of IRGC figures (including a top figure) in a consulate building, it's very very very likely weren't just sitting around having tea. They were probably planning/coordinating military-related stuff.

ie, you can see why Israel did this.

11/x

That doesn't change the fact the Israelis crossed A BIG LINE by attacking a consulate/diplomatic building (plus killing a senior figure).

This is a pretty big stick whack. Iran HAS to respond with its own whack to reestablish deterrence. They've signaled as much for days.

12/x

Thus the current strikes.

Now, where do things go from here?

13/x

Really, there are two scenarios.

Scenario 1: Iran gets hits in and shows strength, reestablishing deterrence. Things de-escalate a bit after some face-saving back-and-forth.

The fact that this attack was basically telegraphed ahead of time (and is even now) hints at this.

14/x

There is, however, the more troubling possibility of Scenario 2: *ACTUAL ESCALATION*.

The problem here is that Israel and its leadership is — interestingly — the more "irrational" actor in this situation.

15/x

Iran doesn't want a war: it can afford to wait for the Israelis and Americans to grow weaker, especially the latter.

The Biden admin doesn't want a war: it's facing a HARD election year, its military is already overstretched as fuck, and it can't handle another front.

16/x

PARTS — (though not all!) — of Israel's leadership though is cognizant that time is NOT on its side.

America is growing relatively weaker and less supportive for a variety of reasons (generational views, competing demands, bad economy, etc).

17/x

i.e., whatever Israel gets out of the US *now* is the most that it'll be getting. Israel will be left isolated in the Middle East surrounded by enemies.

So parts of the leadership can't help but think: "Lets set this thing off now + weaken our enemies before its too late."

18/x

So the key thing to watch in the coming hours is:

1) *EXACTLY* how Israel responds to these attacks.

...and, MORE IMPORTANTLY...

2) How much support, IF ANY, the Biden Admin is willing to give. Israel can't go ALL IN MIDDLE EAST WAR NOW w/o US backing.

19/x

Expect DC neocons + the Israel lobby to hype up the war narrative like CRAZY for the next few hours/days.

In my view, odds are that the Biden admin communicates "this is your shitshow" and tries to stay out of it.

In this case, we get scenario 1.

20/20

Morning after follow-up.

https://twitter.com/Smug_editing/status/1779428151589851186

@K_DCWard2 - theres general agreement, quietly and sometimes overtly, that the military and industrial base is not in a position to sustain a peer conflict (delicate supply chains, ammunition production times, weak shipbuilding capacity, low recruitment numbers, falling standards, etc)

2/x

@K_DCWard2 - Despite a public narrative of "the economy is fine," it isn't: inflation isn't controlled, higher interest rates would put banks at risk, credit card/loan delinquency is going up, the non-cooked unemployment figures are bad, banks hinting they don't trust US debt, etc.

3/x

@K_DCWard2 - US is nonetheless committed its empire to the narrative of "if push comes to shove, we can defend ALL of our democratic allies".
- *THIS IS THE PERCEPTION THAT MATTERS* because if people *stop* believing that then they'll start bandwagoning.

4/x

@K_DCWard2 ("Hello, Chinese embassy? Yes, we also saw that the US lost an aircraft carrier in that missile attack and can't sustain two wars (Ukraine and Iran) at the same time. Yes, we *are* calling about doing a side deal. Yes, we'll hold for the ambassador.")

5/x

@K_DCWard2 - economic and diplomatic consequences of war w/ Iran would be bad: higher energy prices (in a fragile economy + already upset voters), regional partners saying "I want nothing to do with this" with no consequences, damage/deaths to already limited US manpower and hardware..

6/x

@K_DCWard2 - Basically, another war and its consequences could easily push the US (and thus its empire) over the edge because its system is already overwhelmed with challenges/threats/problems and it doesn't have the material resources/political capital to handle all of them.

7/x

@K_DCWard2 It's a genuine "there would be no winners" situation.

8/8