|
War On Iran – Czech cruiser ‘Krteček’ – Larijani’s Martyrdom – Kent’s Resignation
From a Wall Street Journal piece I quoted yesterday:
> The Trump administration as soon as this week plans to announce that multiple countries have agreed to form a coalition that will escort ships through the waterway, which runs along the Iranian coast, U.S. officials said. The U.S. and potential coalition countries are still discussing whether those operations would begin before or after the war ends. <
I commented:
What is the use of escorting ships through the Strait “after the war ends”?
So far there are no takers of Trump’s call for allies. I doubt that there will be any.
No European country and no Asia ‘ally’ has offered to help him to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Nor does the U.S. Navy.
So for once I was right – nearly right:
Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš has decided to dispatch the Czech cruiser ‘Krteček’ to the Persian Gulf, making the Czech Republic the sole EU nation to join the US-led coalition. 💪🇨🇿🇺🇸
Czech what? Some twitteratis fell for the joke. But Czechia is a landlocked country with no navy. Krteček though (also Krtek) is a famous Czech personality. I’ll leave it to you color his cruiser.
biggerIn other news the Israelis claim to have killed Ali Larijani last night. Sayed Larinjani led Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. He was a capable pragmatic politician with good relations to all power centers – IRGC, clerics, Bazaari – within the Iranian state.
Larijani would have been the first high level person to contact for eventual peace talks.
That is likely the reason why the Zionist tried to eliminate him. It makes it more difficult for the U.S. to find a way out of the conflict.
But it will otherwise not make a big difference. Larijani is, like everyone, replaceable. His martyrdom will strengthen Iran’s willingness to endure all hardship needed to finally defeat the U.S. and Israel:
The killing of Ali Larijani, like that of Ali Khamenei before him, is best understood as an instance of strategic martyrdom, a dynamic that exposes the fundamental irrationality of Israel’s and the US’ continued reliance on decapitation strategies, especially given their repeated historical failure. The decapitation-attrition-invasion playbook that the US and Israel keep drawing from reveals systems locked into a familiar repertoire of counterproductive violence that have consistently failed to adapt to reality. This failure is so glaring that even Trump acknowledged it, when he recently admitted that the US attacked Iran “out of habit.”
…
Iran operates from a value-strategic rationality whereby martyrdom itself can perform important political work and generate strategic effects that not merely resist but reverse the intended consequences of assassination.
That Larijani attended the mass rally and made statements openly embracing the possibility of martyrdom before his death only underscores how consciously this logic is adopted by those who bear its consequences, a logic articulated most clearly by Khamenei himself, who declared that “either we are martyred on this path, whose honour is eternal, or we achieve victory; both are victories for us.”
…
In short, strategic martyrdom ultimately contributes to deterrence by regeneration, whereby repeated attempts at decapitation are subject to a law of diminishing returns as adversaries discover that killing leaders neither fractures the system nor compels submission but instead contributes to its consolidation.
One Joe Kent, the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, resigned today. In his resignation letter he blames Israel for pushing Trump towards the war on Iran.
Doing so has somewhat become a fad:
One diplomat with knowledge of the talks said: “We regarded Witkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets that dragged a president into a war he wants to get out of.”
No. It wasn’t Israel (which Kent had promoted), that has dragged Trump into or launched the war. The sole person who did that was Donald Trump – in spite of all warnings about what a war with Iran would entail. The Israelis would not have dared such a move against Iran had Trump not agreed with them.
Another bland dose of echolalic opiate…
“Larijani is, like everyone, replaceable. His martyrdom will strengthen Iran’s willingness to endure all hardship”
This comes straight from the usual Orientalist and, ultimately Western supremacist discourse, which poses as anti-imperialism on this and other websites.
The “Orient” is all impersonally committed to an unrenounceable endeavour.
Or vice-versa, all impersonally plagued by corruption and cowardice.
Apart from these stereotypes, only misquoted (and completely irrelevant) ancient masters exist, along with the singular leader who follows their remote footsteps.
Edward Said’s analysis of Orientalism, now half a century old, fully applies to these supposedly “independent” and thought-provoking comments.
In fact, even the original Marxian “They cannot represent themselves […]” would suffice.
On the other hand, we have the mollified, entitled, monadic Western individuals who cannot even survive a moderately increased gasoline price.
And they will certainly bring the empire to its final demise, by means of mid-term voting and vociferous outrage for the Epstein files.
The proper steps to revolutionary change!
What else?
Of course, apocalyptic prophecies notwhitstanding, all these respected commentators will defend their privilege as decadent and (literally) dying Westerners, with any means available…
Posted by: MoaMetal | Mar 17 2026 19:06 utc | 89
CP: Oil Over Human Lives – The Latest UNSC Resolution Unpacked with Fiorella Isabel
“Politicians and public figures must stop accommodating Zionism and ‘both sidesing’ apartheid, aggression, and genocide. There is no such thing as a ‘liberal Zionist’, just as there is no such thing as a liberal slaver, a liberal Nazi, or a liberal fascist. And there is no morally defensible position that grants the blood-soaked, genocidal Israeli regime a ‘right to exist’…”
Posted by: John Gilberts | Mar 17 2026 17:39 utc | 7
The entire quoted statement is factually wrong.
Slavers, Nazis and fascists are all liberals.
Liberalism and Racial Slavery: A Unique Twin Birth, from the book Liberalism: A Counter-History, Domenico Losurdo, 2005
This did not even involve a return to the slavery peculiar to classical antiquity. Certainly, chattel slavery had been widespread in Rome. Yet the slave could reasonably hope that, if not he himself, then his children or grandchildren would be able to achieve freedom and even an eminent social position. Now, by contrast, his fate increasingly took the form of a cage from which it was impossible to escape. In the first half of the eighteenth century, numerous English colonies in America enacted laws that made the emancipation of slaves increasingly difficult. 5
The verdict of American Quakers and British abolitionists has been fully confirmed by contemporary historians. At the end of a ‘cycle of degradation’ of blacks, with the ignition of the white ‘engine of oppression’ and the conclusive soldering of ‘slavery and racial discrimination’, we see at work in the ‘colonies of the British empire’ in the late seventeenth century a ‘chattel racial slavery’ unknown in Elizabethan England (and also classical antiquity), but ‘familiar to men living in the nineteenth century’ and aware of the reality of the southern United States. 9 Hence slavery in its most radical form triumphed in the golden age of liberalism and at the heart of the liberal world. This was acknowledged by James Madison, slave owner and liberal (like numerous protagonists of the American Revolution), who observed that ‘the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man’ power based on ‘mere distinction of colour’ was imposed ‘in the most enlightened period of time’. 10
Liberalism managed to create a form of slavery even worse than classical chattel slavery!
Lincoln never intended to be an abolitionist. The fight between Lincoln and the slave owners was over how to handle the “the Negro question”, with the slave owners strongly preferring to keep Black people around as slaves, while Lincoln represented the faction that believed that close co-habitation with subhumans like Black people will slowly degrade the great White race.
For some time Lincoln harboured the idea of deporting the blacks, likewise regarded by him as ultimately alien to the community of the free, from the United States to Latin America after their emancipation. 72 In this sense, having confronted one another for decades, what clashed during the Civil War were the causes not of liberty and slavery, but precisely two different delimitations of the community of the free: the opposed parties accused one another of not knowing how, or not wanting, to delimit the community of the free effectively. To those who brandished the spectre of racial contamination as an inevitable consequence of the abolition of slavery, Lincoln replied by emphasizing that in the United States the overwhelming majority of ‘mulattoes’ were the result of sexual relations between white masters and their black slaves: ‘slavery is the greatest source of amalgamation’. For the rest, he had ‘no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races’, or to recognize the right of blacks to participate in political life or hold public office or perform the role of jury member. Lincoln declared himself well aware, like any other white man, of the radical difference between the two races and the supremacy of the whites. 73
Liberals come in progressive (“woke”, “Democrats”) and conservative (“MAGA”, “Republican”) varieties, but they’re all still liberals at the end of the day.
These ignorant statements from liberal commentators like Fiorella Isabel show that the commentators have zero understanding of fundamental political history. Consequently, liberal commentators are incapable of formulating informed opinions on issues such as UNSC Resolution 2817, where Fiorella Isabel the liberal joins with Ali Abunimah the other liberal in condemning Russia and China for not vetoing the resolution, despite the fact that Iran itself thanks Russia and China for their support in the UNSC and allows oil headed to China and India to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
The press office of the UN itself noted that Russia presented an alternative resolution that was supported by China, Pakistan and Somalia but vetoed by America, and that China and Russia both called America’s UNSC resolution as deeply biased.
By slandering the opponents of America while pretending to be on the side of the oppressed, liberals like Fiorella Isabel and Ali Abunimah are allies of the oppressor—America—and therefore enemies of humanity.
Death to America
Marg bar Âmrikâ
Marg bar Âmrikâ
Marg bar Âmrikâ
Posted by: All Under Heaven | Mar 17 2026 19:18 utc | 98
|
