|
Zionist Distorts Arab Analysis As Arguing For Attack On Iran
U.S. President Donald Trump made a big mistake when he threatened war on Iran.
He was doing that to get concessions from Iran which the country is unable to make.
Trump asks for:
- a complete de-nuclearization of Iran,
- strong limits on its missile programs,
- the abolishment of Iranian support for regional allies like Hizbullah, Hamas and Shia militia in Iraq and Yemen and
- the recognition by Iran of Israel as a legitimate country.
Under the current system of Iran any politician who would argue for or agree to making any such concessions would immediately lose legitimacy.
Trump has made threats. He then set out conditions that guarantee that he will not get what he wants. He now has two choices:
- To attack Iran until it concedes something.
- To chicken out and recall his fleet from Iran.
Neither is a good choice:
Iran has announced to retaliate for any attack by massive missile launches against Israel and U.S. positions in the Middle East. Iran has also stated that it would close the Strait of Hormuz and thereby cause sky high global oil prices. This would likely lead to heavy losses for the Republicans in the mid term elections and would eventually end up with new impeachment procedures against Trump.
To chicken out would is also not be a good choice. By resisting a threat from Trump to then see the threat retracted without having made concessions Iran would have set an example that future targets of Trump’s extortion schemes would surely follow. It would make Iran look stronger and Trump look weaker.
I am by far not the only one who makes these points.
As Axios reports:
Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman (KBS) said in a private briefing on Friday in Washington that if President Trump doesn’t follow through on his threats against Iran, the regime will end up stronger, four sources in the room tell Axios.
…
“At this point, if this doesn’t happen, it will only embolden the regime,” KBS said, according to the sources in the room.
…
In a separate briefing on Friday, a Gulf official said the region was “stuck” in a position where the U.S. striking Iran risked “bad outcomes,” but not doing so would mean “Iran will come out of this stronger.”
Prince Khalid bin Salman has a realist’s view and is right with this analysis.
The Axios reporter though, Barak Ravid, – well known to be a Zionist asset -, is trying to turn that realist view KBS uttered into a Saudi argument for bombing Iran:
Why it matters: This is a reversal from the public Saudi talking points cautioning against escalation and from the deep concern Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) expressed to Trump three weeks ago. That warning was one reason Trump decided to delay a strike.
No. The analysis KBS gave is not a reversal of the Saudi position. The Saudis are still cautioning against escalation. What KBS did there was to simply point out the calamity Trump has placed himself into.
To interpret that statement as a Saudi argument for an attack on Iran is a willful and distortion of what was said. It is a typical primitive attempt by a Zionist ideologue to ‘create a reality’ that does not exist.
Esfandyar Batmanghelidj @yarbatman – 10:39 UTC · Jan 31, 2026
I asked a senior Saudi official and Barak’s story mischaracterises KBS’s comments. There has been no reversal of Saudi policy.
KBS was stating the obvious when he said Trump not bombing Iran would embolden the regime. But the Saudis continue to urge caution and do not want war.
(Esfandyar Batmanghelidj is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He is not a friend or promoter of the Islamic Republic.)
As for US Navy. As I said in an earlier thread, one thing that often gets missed in U.S.–China naval comparisons is that the strategies aren’t symmetrical at all. U.S. naval power is overwhelmingly military: carrier strike groups, forward deployments, alliance-based basing, and explicit deterrence missions. It’s projected openly, funded almost entirely through the defense budget, and tied to a global posture meant to reassure allies everywhere at once.
China’s approach is different. It blends military, economic, and commercial tools in ways the U.S. largely does not. Near home, Beijing concentrates on A2/AD—making intervention close to China costly and risky. Farther out, it relies less on overt bases and more on dual-use ports, logistics access, and economic leverage (BRI infrastructure, port investments, shipping, trade dependence). Much of this footprint pays for itself commercially, keeping military costs lower and political visibility softer.
The U.S., by contrast, is actively dispersing forces across many smaller sites and rotational deployments to reduce dependence on a few large, vulnerable bases (Guam, Okinawa, Diego Garcia). Strategically that makes sense—but it comes with a tradeoff: global spread risks strategic thinness. Maintaining credible presence everywhere strains ships, crews, budgets, and political attention, especially when facing a competitor that can focus primarily on its near seas while expanding outward selectively.
So the issue isn’t that the U.S. Navy is weaker—it isn’t. It’s that America is playing a purely military, global game, while China is playing an asymmetric, whole-of-system game that mixes economics, geography, and patience. The danger for the U.S. isn’t losing control overnight; it’s being everywhere, all the time, against a rival that doesn’t need to be.
You can already see this dynamic playing out in Trump’s wild gyrations between Greenland, Venezuela, Iran, and Taiwan — each a test of the U.S. Navy’s ability to project decisive power in distant or contested theaters. The pattern isn’t random: it’s a scattershot attempt to reassert dominance where the Navy is still formidable, yet increasingly constrained by alliances, international law, escalation risks, and the sheer cost of being everywhere at once. Russia’s southern buffer strategy quietly limits the payoff of any single move, while China watches and waits, content to let America burn fuel and political capital on far-flung fronts. The Navy remains respected, but geopolitics has made decisive action rarer and more expensive than the headlines suggest.
Posted by: Princess Bodica | Jan 31 2026 20:03 utc | 118
Yesterday after Putin held talks with Itan’s Larijani, Putin convened a meeting of the Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation of the Russian Federation with foreign states. All that’s provided in the readout is Putin’s opening remarks. However, IMO given the unfolding of events and Russia’s deep involvement in them, Russia’s level of help to Iran was surely discussed and would be classified info.
Yesterday Maria Zakharova held her weekly briefing that noted several things. Here’s the first:
We have taken note of certain statements made by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Frank Türk (Austria) during the 39th special session of the UN Human Rights Council held on January 23 to discuss the allegedly deteriorating human rights situation in Iran. That is, it was not devoted to pressure on Iran from the West in order to worsen the economic situation in this country and thereby stimulate discontent among Iranians. This session was devoted to the human rights situation in Iran. This already sounds strange.
It is noteworthy that F. Türk, as well as the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which he heads, have not previously been known for objectivity and impartiality when it comes to assessing the state of affairs in states that are objectionable to the “collective West”, this time could not pass over in silence the negative impact on the economic situation in Iran, which is exerted by the long-term policy of Western unilateral coercive measures against this country.
In his speech, in addition to a number of ambiguous assessments and controversial maxims, the UN official nevertheless stressed that the recent protests were caused by a sharp rise in prices against the backdrop of a serious economic crisis, aggravated, among other things, by the impact of foreign sanctions. [My Emphasis]
There was more to the above dealing with Western Human Rights hypocrisy. There were three Q&As related to the Iran situation that didn’t provide any additional substance we weren’t already aware of. Here’s the most important one for most barflies:
Question: Iran plans to hold military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz in the coming days. According to some media reports, the Russian and Chinese military will take part in the exercises. Could you comment on these reports?
Maria Zakharova: This is the prerogative of our defence ministry. I can pass on your question to them. For my part, I will definitely do it. If we have any information on this matter, we will also share it.
So, what did the MoD say? I can’t access it .
TASS has this recap of the Weekly Briefing. TASS also has this interesting and important blurb that Maria also noted:
The United Nations and Secretary-General Antonio Guterres have lost the moral authority to take part in the Ukraine negotiation process, Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya said, accusing Guterres of favoring one side.
“We learn about what is happening in the negotiation process from newspapers, just like you. We are not involved, and neither is the UN, which has lost the moral right to participate, including the secretary-general, who is clearly playing on one side,” Nebenzya said in an interview with Russia-24 TV.
Nebenzya stressed that he had repeatedly mentioned this publicly and personally to Guterres, but “nothing helps.”
The last item on my update is from Lavrov’s interview with Turkish Media. The initial Q&A reveals quite a lot. I’ll only provide the first few paragraphs:
Question: Mr Minister, I would like to thank you for finding time in your busy schedule to conduct an exclusive interview with us.
On February 24, the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine enters its fifth year. Do you think it is likely that it will be resolved in the near future? Does Moscow view the conflict primarily as a matter of national security or as the prevention of larger, more inevitable clashes?
Sergey Lavrov: Do we see this conflict as a broad clash between Russia and the West? The answer is yes. Ukraine is a “pawn”, a tool used by the West to build up such a bridgehead right on the borders of the Russian Federation in order to create direct threats to our security.
We know that this work was carried out immediately after Ukraine became independent. It was being prepared to join NATO. Although it is well known that the independence of Ukraine was recognized primarily on the basis of the Declaration of Independence. It clearly proclaimed the policy of non-alignment with military blocs, neutrality and renunciation of nuclear weapons. It was in line with this course proclaimed by the Ukrainian leadership after the collapse of the Soviet Union that the Russian Federation, and most other countries in the world, recognised Ukraine.
When the first Maidan took place back in 2004, the West, primarily the Europeans, but also the Americans, of course, stood behind it in those years and could not hold on to their desires, which literally broke through in their speeches. They demanded a “third” round of voting, because the protégé of the West, Mr. Viktor Yushchenko, could not win. I remember very well how the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium said before the third illegal tour that Ukrainians were obliged to choose who they were with: with the West or with Russia, with Europe or with Russia.
This “either-or” mentality, they say, we want to be in charge everywhere, just as we commanded for more than 500 years in the colonial era, in the era of slavery, so we want to continue to live in the neo-colonial period at the expense of others, including creating all kinds of threats to our competitors. Russia, of course, was seen as a competitor on the world stage. They hoped that after the Soviet Union, it would also fall apart. We know a lot of facts. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken about this.
It was a “battle” that had been prepared in advance. It was financed, among other things, by the Americans. As then-US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the “architect” of Ukrainian politics, once again admitted when she was out of the State Department, they spent $5 billion to prepare Ukraine for a coup d’état and turn it into an “anti-Russia.” This is all in the public domain.
It is clear that we are not talking about some “accidents”, internecine strife between two neighboring peoples. We are talking about a geopolitical project that the West has repeatedly undertaken over many centuries of history in order to weaken and destroy our country. [My Emphasis]
And it will continue until the West is completely defeated, and that includes the Outlaw US Empire.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 31 2026 20:08 utc | 121
|
