It was definitely an aggressive action, but it wasn't one rooted in a coherent imperialist plan of action. I'm Trump's mind it was dick swinging, and he didn't follow up with major aggression. He didn't build up troops in Iraq and ships in the strait of Hormuz to threaten Iran. He likes to flex but not follow through with a fight. The flexing is disrespectful and he's not trying to improve relations with Iran in any way, but he's not planning on invading either. No one is saying Trump is a peacenik, he just doesn't have the stomach for major conflict which is what the imperial project kinda needs right now since it's softer instruments are failing.
I would argue that no US president has the stomach for war with Iran because they know we would lose. Everything is posturing and flexing to an extent. Trump has increased ships in the Hormuz (or at least aggression from the ships already there), with the seizing of oil tankers and weapons shipments.
Trump's incoherent plan is just as dangerous as it is helpful.
I would argue that no US president has the stomach for war with Iran because they know we would lose.
I don't think this is true. the military, intelligence community, etc. clearly believes they'd prevail (against a mountain of evidence over the last 60 years) and the neolibs defer to the military on these matters. american military superiority is practically a religious belief at this point. the empire won't survive another war but I'm not sure the democratic party actually knows that.
they're trying to encircle and starve Iran before actually mounting a ground war. that was the reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq, the continued presence in Afghanistan, the fuckery in Syria, etc.. it's a question of when the MIC tries the ground war, not if.
Certainly, yes, if they want to do a ground war they need to secure power in all the bordering countries, and that's of course a huge reason why the US is in those countries. But if you're saying it's a matter of when, not if, then the idea that Trump would somehow stand against it strikes me as preposterous on its face.
And I still don't agree the US would ever follow through with that threat of war. The US is extremely cowardly when it comes to war, and avoids anything but the weakest possible nations unless forced, like in WWII. Iran is not the soft target it was in the 80s, and everyone in DC is constantly furious at themselves for not following through back then when they had the chance. Iran is not going to get any weaker, because China (and Russia to a lesser extent) will keep supporting it, and the US is too weak to do anything about it. The international sanctions have failed.
then the idea that Trump would somehow stand against it strikes me as preposterous on its face.
I don't think anyone is saying that he'd stand against it. they're saying that the power in the executive branch has, over the past 60 years, been incredibly focused on the president himself. a weak president who's incapable of making and holding to decisions will fail to marshal the empire into a ground war with Iran.
that said, I think everyone in this discussion is being staked to more extreme positions than they actually hold. Trump or Biden... we're splitting hairs here and speculating on very little actual information.
Trump's incoherent plan is absolutely not as dangerous and harmful as a competent and dedicated imperialist project would be. Like nobody is saying Trump is an anti-imperialist lol. Just that he isnt completely submissive to a broader imperialist power structure like Biden would be. When people make this observation they aren't dating Trump is "good" for the world, just that by comparison he isn't as bad as people who have an ideological commitment to the Imperial project
Trump involves them because they have a lot of power in the right wing power structure but he is skeptical of them and will go against them from time to time. Just look at the fallout with Bolton. Everything Trump said about him was true, he's a bloodthirsty monster that wants to wage any war he can. Bolton accused Trump of being bad for US interests abroad and eroding the imperial relationships they have built over the last several decades.
Again, he's not an anti-imperialist and he is going to continue imperialism. He's just not the same materially as Biden will be
He's not the same, agreed, but I'm not convinced he's not as bad. I stand by that he is clearly worse for Iran and China. LatAm is more arguable; Biden has some weird opinions about LatAm relative to a lot of standard Dems because he's spent so much more time there than other US politicians, though he's not at all an anti-imperialist there either.
Honestly, I think a lot of this will prove to be irrelevant. I don't think the US really can do imperialism like it used to.
Trump has a weird obsession with Iran and China, and is definitely worse for them. China wants the US to be predictable so they can adjust their policies in a rational way to respond, and Iran wants things to go back to how they were under Obama because their situation was improving. Both have reportedly said they want Biden to win.
Maduro on the other hand, has said he doesn't give a shit who wins because the Democrats are bloodthirsty Imperialists as well, and KJU has called Biden a rabid dog while relatively amicable to Trump. Different specific countries have different interests, but if we are being honest, the LATAM perspective is the most important currently. A full scale war with Iran is very unlikely and one with China is never going to happen, but coups, fascism and war in LATAM are very real threats. Also, rising anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism need to be protected, and South America is the epicenter for both. The situation is precarious there.
Overall, I can't really say which I prefer because it's like choosing between people I love and care about getting fucked more or people I don't know but still care about getting fucked more.
It was definitely an aggressive action, but it wasn't one rooted in a coherent imperialist plan of action. I'm Trump's mind it was dick swinging, and he didn't follow up with major aggression. He didn't build up troops in Iraq and ships in the strait of Hormuz to threaten Iran. He likes to flex but not follow through with a fight. The flexing is disrespectful and he's not trying to improve relations with Iran in any way, but he's not planning on invading either. No one is saying Trump is a peacenik, he just doesn't have the stomach for major conflict which is what the imperial project kinda needs right now since it's softer instruments are failing.
I would argue that no US president has the stomach for war with Iran because they know we would lose. Everything is posturing and flexing to an extent. Trump has increased ships in the Hormuz (or at least aggression from the ships already there), with the seizing of oil tankers and weapons shipments.
Trump's incoherent plan is just as dangerous as it is helpful.
I don't think this is true. the military, intelligence community, etc. clearly believes they'd prevail (against a mountain of evidence over the last 60 years) and the neolibs defer to the military on these matters. american military superiority is practically a religious belief at this point. the empire won't survive another war but I'm not sure the democratic party actually knows that.
But then why have they never done it?
they're trying to encircle and starve Iran before actually mounting a ground war. that was the reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq, the continued presence in Afghanistan, the fuckery in Syria, etc.. it's a question of when the MIC tries the ground war, not if.
Certainly, yes, if they want to do a ground war they need to secure power in all the bordering countries, and that's of course a huge reason why the US is in those countries. But if you're saying it's a matter of when, not if, then the idea that Trump would somehow stand against it strikes me as preposterous on its face.
And I still don't agree the US would ever follow through with that threat of war. The US is extremely cowardly when it comes to war, and avoids anything but the weakest possible nations unless forced, like in WWII. Iran is not the soft target it was in the 80s, and everyone in DC is constantly furious at themselves for not following through back then when they had the chance. Iran is not going to get any weaker, because China (and Russia to a lesser extent) will keep supporting it, and the US is too weak to do anything about it. The international sanctions have failed.
I don't think anyone is saying that he'd stand against it. they're saying that the power in the executive branch has, over the past 60 years, been incredibly focused on the president himself. a weak president who's incapable of making and holding to decisions will fail to marshal the empire into a ground war with Iran.
that said, I think everyone in this discussion is being staked to more extreme positions than they actually hold. Trump or Biden... we're splitting hairs here and speculating on very little actual information.
Trump's incoherent plan is absolutely not as dangerous and harmful as a competent and dedicated imperialist project would be. Like nobody is saying Trump is an anti-imperialist lol. Just that he isnt completely submissive to a broader imperialist power structure like Biden would be. When people make this observation they aren't dating Trump is "good" for the world, just that by comparison he isn't as bad as people who have an ideological commitment to the Imperial project
Trump has surrounded himself with people who have that ideological commitment and the history of carrying it out.
Trump involves them because they have a lot of power in the right wing power structure but he is skeptical of them and will go against them from time to time. Just look at the fallout with Bolton. Everything Trump said about him was true, he's a bloodthirsty monster that wants to wage any war he can. Bolton accused Trump of being bad for US interests abroad and eroding the imperial relationships they have built over the last several decades.
Again, he's not an anti-imperialist and he is going to continue imperialism. He's just not the same materially as Biden will be
He's not the same, agreed, but I'm not convinced he's not as bad. I stand by that he is clearly worse for Iran and China. LatAm is more arguable; Biden has some weird opinions about LatAm relative to a lot of standard Dems because he's spent so much more time there than other US politicians, though he's not at all an anti-imperialist there either.
Honestly, I think a lot of this will prove to be irrelevant. I don't think the US really can do imperialism like it used to.
Trump has a weird obsession with Iran and China, and is definitely worse for them. China wants the US to be predictable so they can adjust their policies in a rational way to respond, and Iran wants things to go back to how they were under Obama because their situation was improving. Both have reportedly said they want Biden to win.
Maduro on the other hand, has said he doesn't give a shit who wins because the Democrats are bloodthirsty Imperialists as well, and KJU has called Biden a rabid dog while relatively amicable to Trump. Different specific countries have different interests, but if we are being honest, the LATAM perspective is the most important currently. A full scale war with Iran is very unlikely and one with China is never going to happen, but coups, fascism and war in LATAM are very real threats. Also, rising anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism need to be protected, and South America is the epicenter for both. The situation is precarious there.
Overall, I can't really say which I prefer because it's like choosing between people I love and care about getting fucked more or people I don't know but still care about getting fucked more.