-The US sanctions against Iran are specifically designed, by admission of US officials, to cause mass misery and social discontent to the point of instigating protests. This is a well-worn playbook for US regime-change operations.
-The unrest in Iran started because merchants were suffering due to the sanctions, which have caused the exchange rate to deteriorate. Merchants closed their shops and protested the economic conditions.
-US officials and Israeli outlets have confirmed that Mossad agents are active among the protestors, presumably to generate anti-government riots. Reports also indicate that individuals among the rioters are armed and shooting/killing police.
-Early on, Trump was very quick to announce that the US was planning to attack the country if the government cracked down on rioters.
-It is very likely that the US and Israel will seek to use the protests, and the massive Western media story that has been whipped up around it, to manufacture consent for a US/Israel military invasion and coup.
-This has been an objective of the US and Israel for many years. Irrespective of popular sentiment in Iran, we are watching a planned regime-change operation unfolding.
-It is crucial to remember that the US does not care about the people of Iran, any more than it cares about the people of Palestine. The US does not care about democracy, or human rights. It wants to destroy the Iranian government because Iran insists on sovereignty and refuses to accept US/Israeli hegemony in the region.
-The US wants to do to Iran what it did to Iraq, Libya and Syria: totally destroy any semblance of sovereignty, destroy the country's industrial capacity, and create chaos and civil war.
-Their ostensible objective is to (re)install a monarchy that will function as a puppet regime of the US, run by Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former dictator (himself installed and backed by the US) who was known for brutal political repression, including torturing and executing political opponents.
-All this under a narrative of bringing "freedom" and "democracy". You can't make it up.
-By the way, to underline how the US cares *zero* about democracy in Iran, remember that the the first US-backed coup in Iran (1953) was against Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was democratically elected and widely popular.
-The US wanted to get rid of Mosaddegh for the very same reason they now want to get rid of the current government - because Mosaddegh believed that Iran should have economic sovereignty and resource sovereignty.
-After the 1953 coup, the US installed a dictatorship (again, so much for democracy!). The current government in Iran arose from the revolution that fought to get rid of that dictatorship.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This thread covers some of our latest work on capitalism, imperialism, post-growth and ecosocialist futures. It's all open access, and free PDFs are available via the link at the end of the thread. 🧵
1) We wrote this review of exciting recent developments in post-growth science, in The Lancet Planetary Health. It's your one-stop introduction to all the key questions, debates, and empirical evidence:
2) We assessed public backing for eco-socialist transformation in the UK and US, and found it enjoys strong majority support in both countries: 72% in the US and 82% in the UK. We also tested how different labels affect people's support:
How popular are post-capitalist/socialist ideas and policies?
Here's a list of studies and surveys with some striking results...
1. A survey shows that a majority of people around the world (56%) agree with the statement “Capitalism does more harm than good”. In France it is 69%, in India it is 74%.
Who is driving climate breakdown? Buckle up for some striking data... 🧵
1. First, global North countries are responsible for 86% of cumulative emissions in excess of the safe planetary boundary.
China is responsible for 1%. The rest of the South and peripheral Europe is responsible for 13%.
These results arise from taking the safe carbon budget and dividing into national "fair shares" on a per-capita basis, and then assessing national emissions against national fair-shares.
2. This chart uses the same data.
The global South *as a group* is actually still within its fair share of the planetary boundary (350ppm), since the few "overshooting" countries are compensated for by "undershooting" countries.
By contrast, the global North has burned through not only its fair-share of the planetary boundary, but also its fair share of the 1.5C budget AND its 2C budget.
3. Here's the same data at the country level. The red countries are in overshoot, the green countries are still within their fair-shares.
I was honoured to write this for @tri_continental Pan Africa:
"One of the most damaging myths about the ecological crisis is that humans as such are responsible for it. In reality it's caused almost entirely by the states and firms of the imperial core." thetricontinental.org/pan-africa/new…
@tri_continental Because everyone always wonders about the China data, yes, as of 2019 (the final year of data in our analysis), China was responsible for only 1% of global emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. globalinequality.org/responsibility…
@tri_continental Curious users can check out the data for China and any other country they want using the interactive tools here: goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/related-resear…
About Spain's tourism problem... it seems intractable but the solutions are actually quite straightforward.
First, we need to recognize that tourism is not a good allocation of real resources and labour. It means producing goods and services that do not themselves directly benefit the local population. In fact, they are actively harmful to locals... gobbling up public space, destroying neighbourhoods, driving housing prices up, worsening climate change, etc.
It is much more rational and beneficial to allocate all this labour toward creating things that people actually need, like public services, affordable housing, renewable energy, and so on.
So, why do tourism at all? Two main reasons.
One reason is to get foreign currency. In this sense, tourism is basically an export (but where the export factories are plunked disastrously right into the middle of your historic downtowns). Why do exports? To pay for imports.
The solution here is simple: reduce unnecessary imports. Reduce luxury goods imports (these only benefit the rich), reduce car/SUV imports (build up your public transit system instead), etc. There are many options here. This reduces pressure for obtaining foreign currency.
A second reason to do tourism is to create jobs. This one seems like a strong argument but in fact it's not.
The obvious solution here is to implement a public job guarantee. Not only does this solve unemployment (a major problem in Spain), it mobilizes labour around socially and ecologically useful things that benefit society, rather than allocating labour to useless things like serving tourists.
In other words, there are simple alternatives to the two main reasons people cite for needing tourism. Any political party that realises this can ride the current wave of popular discontent and translate that energy into real, practical social improvements.
This is not to say that tourism should be abolished, far from it. But it's clear to everyone that extreme dependency on tourism is socially and ecologically destructive and it has to stop.
And for anyone wondering how to go about the practical business of actually scaling down the tourism industry, the answer is the same as for reducing any damaging industry (eg, fossil fuels, luxury goods, SUVs, etc): credit guidance! jasonhickel.org/blog/2024/8/20…
And for the avoidance of all doubt, tourism is an absolute, unmitigated climate catastrophe: nature.com/articles/s4155…
I'm excited to announce this new paper we have in The Lancet Planetary Health.
We show that the world is not moving towards a just and ecological future for all. Growth in energy and material use is occurring primarily in countries that do not need it and is not occurring fast enough (or is declining) in countries that do need it.
The capitalist world economy is not delivering for human needs and ecology. A substantial redistribution of energy and material use is required—both within countries and between them.
1. Globally, we use *a lot* of energy and materials. In fact, we use at least 2.5x more than would be needed to ensure decent living standards (DLS) for all.
DLS includes universal healthcare, education, modern housing, nutritious food, sanitation systems, transit, fridge-freezers, phones, computers, etc.
2. And yet, billions of people are denied access to DLS.
We find that 50% of nations do not have access to enough energy to ensure DLS, given existing national distributions. And for 20 of these countries, their consumption is actually *declining*. This is an extremely bad situation.