|
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.)
Posted by: ChatNPC | Feb 1 2026 22:44 utc | 359
A solid, reliable, incorruptible social contract is needed to unify a society and make it prosper and develop. Lose that and decline, corruption and collapse become inevitable.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Feb 1 2026 23:32 utc | 362
There has never been an enduring social contract of any type.
Posted by: watcher | Feb 1 2026 23:36 utc | 363
the people being governed grant it[the government] the right to rule, because they accept the social contract between the rulers and the ruled. Dictatorial rulers offer essentially security and consistency to the population which in many societies they willingly trade against things like “freedom” or choice.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 1 2026 23:52 utc | 364Finance as a public utility instead of the private jackboot we have currently is requirement number one because it effects all the incentives our society operates around.
<=governments always end up providing for the few at the expense of the many.
<= Once the government is formed, those appointed to lead operate in secret with respect to those who are the governed.. The governed masses are left with no way to learn, discover or know enough about the personal affairs of those running the government or the operations themselves to be able to make election decisions or to be able to recognize when those in charge have deviated from the terms of the social contract: under-performance, abuse of authority, corruption of purpose, unauthorized self enrichment, even things like weaponizing the government against the crowds. No way for the crowds to discover abuse, misuse, or corruptions or do anything about them if such is discovered
History shows soon after a new government forms those who are appointed to operate it have no need to be constrained by the terms of the social contract because their deviations cannot be addressed by the crowds.
A contract is a two way street; it requires each party to enforce the provisions and terms in the contract against the other party. Joe agrees to paddle the boat the crowd owns in a straight line. The rest of the crowd agrees to let joe paddle the boat provided he does so according to the contract. But Joe dies and designates Queeny to take joes job. Queeny can’t paddle the boat in a straight line.. Soon the boat uses more fuel, arrives late, and is always in need of maintenance long before its time .. so the crowd investigates and discovers Queeny can’t do the job.. fires Queeny, hires Jill, Jill is corrupt, she profits by carrying drugs on the boat and soon the authorities arrest Jill confiscate the boat.. The crowd is dumbfounded.. It has been kept in the dark and only learned the corruptions of Jill and the incompetencies of Queeny after the boat has been confiscated.
Without the boat going for food and supplies the crowd soon dies.
The problem with making a social contract is enforcement.. The bottom up masses have no mechanism or authority powerful enough to discover and manage the incompetencies, frauds, or corruptions of those who drive the boat. (the boat captains do not allow the crowds to check on the boat or its operations, nor is the crowd allowed to question trip routes, fuel cost, maintenance, and repairs. All the crowds in a social contract are allowed to do is pay and obey, pay and obey, pay and obey, pay and obey.
There must be an enforcement system that allows the crowd to discover what the ship captain is up to, and the mechanism must be independent of the Ship Captain authority or influence. The crowd needs to be authorized as a detective (auditor) and given the authority to investigate the Ship Captain and ship operations without any requirement, objection or permission of the Ship Captain (independence), to investigate, discover, and document both the integrity of the Ship Captain and the performance of the Ship under the Ship Captain’s tenure.
The crowds need to be able to discover exceptions (deficiencies, wrongdoings, or inefficiencies) and outline them in an audit report) and the crowds need to be able to make sure (enforce corrections) the exceptions are timely corrected. IOWs who in the social contract is going to be powerful enough to enforce the obligation of the Ship Captain to correct the discovered deficiencies, wrongdoings or inefficiencies? A court, but not one the ship captain has control over? Enforcement requires an independent court (a court that protects the contract rights of the both parties) and a police or military force strong enough to arrest, hold and replace the Ship Captain. When the crowds are not authorized to prosecute the violations of the terms of the contract, or when the prosecutor or court system likewise refuses there is no contract, instead the contract becomes a promise without obligation.
Once the court renders its opinion, assigns a punishment, there has to be a jail in which the warden is not the Ship Captain and a military force under court control strong enough to take control of the ship and its captain until the deficiencies are corrected.
All social contract governments fail because those who man the positions in government are able to conduct the affairs of government in secret. Without immediate, informed, direct and authoritative intervention by the crowds, to enforce the contract, the ship’s captain can do as he or she pleases, even turn the guns on the ship on the crowd. The captains are immune to their failures, transgressions or corruptions because there is no way the crowds can efficiently enforce the contract obligations against those who operate the government..
This is why i have long been proposing a 2nd government which I have outlined before. .
Posted by: snake | Feb 2 2026 10:32 utc | 374
|
