Breaking News: Major Combat Operations in Iran 🇺🇸 🇮🇱 🇮🇷

[Elliott]

You think cutting off the Africans trade and supply to Tomahawks and f35s will stop the genocide? Well I'll be a monkeys uncle, you should've said something!

Are voices in your head telling you that we are suggesting military action against Israel? Supporting the Ayatollahs to conquer Israel?

 

Cut your lying bullshit, you nazi

Sudan

The U.N. is actively advocating for an independent peacekeeping force in Sudan to stop the civil war, protect civilians, and address atrocities committed by the SAF and RSF since April 2023. Currently, the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) operates in the region, with its logistics base in Kadugli suffering a fatal drone attack in December 2025

Congo

large-scale UN missions are active in the Congo (MONUSCO)

 

 

Forbes

https://www.forbes.com

Biden Secretary Of State Condemns China's 'Acts Of Genocide' Against ...

Apr 11, 2021 — Topline. Secretary of State Antony Blinken staunchly rebuked China on Sunday for acts of genocide against Muslim Uyghurs in its Xinjiang

 

Balkanweb.com

https://www.balkanweb.com

President Biden announces sanctions against Myanmar military leaders

US President Joe Biden has signed an executive order imposing sanctions on members of the military. Biden called on Myanmar's generals to step down and 

Edited 19 hours ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

Ol' TACO got us again

 

https://www.axios.com/2026/03/20/trump-winding-down-iran-war-hormuz-strait

Trump considers "winding down" Iran war without opening Hormuz Strait

3 hours ago — President Trump said on Friday he is considering "winding down" the war with Iran without solving the crisis over the closure of the Strait

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/multiple-waves-unauthorized-drones-spotted-103646158.html

Multiple waves' of unauthorized drones recently spotted over US Air Force base

one of the United States Air Force’s largest and most strategic airfields

 

 

Trump has also eased sanctions on Iranian oil

 

Now, if u.s. leaves, who in the world if you were Iran, would quit bombing Israel if you have the missiles and drones? I wouldn't quit until it changes back to Palestine, otherwise you know this just keeps happening.

Watch the u.s. leave, Iran control hormuz, then Houthis close red sea to kill Saud, the race traitors.

Edited 15 hours ago by Elliott

[Raze]

8 hours ago, Nivsch said:

@Raze In many cases, what looks like mistreatment towards Palestinians is actually tied to security considerations that have to be taken constantly into account in the current reality.

This is why I can't buy the exaggerated one-sided story fueled by various external sources. 

Surely there are other cases in which the power is being abused.

At the same time, this does not negate the existence of occupation, mistreatment, or elements of religious superiority.

The reason is irrelevant, the purpose of segregation and South African apartheid was also based on security concerns. Restricting human rights or committing war crimes doesn’t suddenly not count if you feel like you have a good reason.

By that logic when Palestinian militants target Israeli civilians it’s ok because they’re trying to expel the invaders who are brutalizing, stealing from and occupying them outside of international law. It’s still targeting civilians which is a war crime, even if it’s a justified goal.

Also security isn’t the reason, they also fund extremists themselves and target peaceful resistance with violence and repression as well which actually hurts their own security. 

 

6 hours ago, Lila9 said:

Is it anti-genocidal when non-Jews commit genocide (Sudan, Myanmar, Ethiopia, China, Congo)? Oddly enough they are very quiet about it.

Because we don’t have people like you defending it like you do the genocide israel commits.

Nothing demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of Zionists more their current argument is you can’t critics their genocide because you don’t complain as much about other genocides.

Edited 14 hours ago by Raze

[Wilhelm44]

3 hours ago, Raze said:

The reason is irrelevant, the purpose of segregation and South African apartheid was also based on security concerns. Restricting human rights or committing war crimes doesn’t suddenly not count if you feel like you have a good reason.

By that logic when Palestinian militants target Israeli civilians it’s ok because they’re trying to expel the invaders who are brutalizing, stealing from and occupying them outside of international law. It’s still targeting civilians which is a war crime, even if it’s a justified goal.

Also security isn’t the reason, they also fund extremists themselves and target peaceful resistance with violence and repression as well which actually hurts their own security. 

 

Because we don’t have people like you defending it like you do the genocide israel commits.

Nothing demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of Zionists more their current argument is you can’t critics their genocide because you don’t complain as much about other genocides.

Spot on. Initially it will be hard for most Israelis to fully admit to what happened in Gaza, especially with their own Holocaust history. Even here in South Africa there are still some old dudes who refuse to criticize Apartheid.

[zazen]

From Claude:

“Security as a motive is universal and morally neutral. Every state in that analysis is acting from something it calls security. Iran calls its proxy network security. The US calls its military bases security. The Gulf calls its arms purchases security. If security justifies everything, it justifies nothing — it becomes a password that unlocks unlimited violence.

The question isn’t whether Israel is acting from security. It’s what kind of security doctrine it has chosen, and what that doctrine requires as a permanent operating condition.

A normal security doctrine says: we need defensible borders, deterrence capacity, and a stable equilibrium with neighbors. It has a logical endpoint — a point at which the security need is satisfied.

Israel’s doctrine has no such endpoint — because it is not purely a security doctrine. It is a demographic and territorial project wearing security language. The project requires:

    ∙    Continued control over Palestinian land and population
    ∙    Suppression of any political entity that confers legitimacy on Palestinian resistance
    ∙    Prevention of any regional power achieving the capacity to impose costs on that control
    ∙    And therefore — permanent regional destabilization as a feature, not a bug

That last point is the tell. A state genuinely seeking security seeks stability. Israel’s strategic behavior consistently produces instability — the destruction of the Lebanese state, the de-development of Gaza, the fragmentation of the Palestinian political body, the pressure on the US to confront Iran. These aren’t regrettable side effects. They are the mechanism. A fragmented, weakened, externally dependent Arab and Persian world is the condition under which the territorial project can continue without a coherent force capable of stopping it.

So the distinction you’re drawing is exactly right:

Security seeks an equilibrium. Domination requires the permanent incapacity of the other.

A state that has satisfied its security needs doesn’t continue expanding settlements. Doesn’t level civilian infrastructure repeatedly. Doesn’t work to ensure its neighbors never develop coherent state capacity. Doesn’t require its patron to sanction, threaten, and periodically bomb every regional power that arms a group capable of hitting back.

The maximalism is the evidence. Not evidence of greater insecurity — evidence that security was never the terminal goal. Security is the frame inside which a project of permanent demographic and territorial control is prosecuted. And because the project can never be completed without generating resistance, and resistance is then used to justify the next round of force, the doctrine becomes self-perpetuating.

The tragedy is that this produces real insecurity for ordinary Israelis — because a population sitting on top of an unresolved dispossession, surrounded by people with legitimate grievances, actually is in danger. The maximalist doctrine generates the very threat environment it claims to be responding to. But acknowledging that would require acknowledging the project itself — which the political architecture of the state is designed to prevent.”

 

If we just had to Birds Eye view the region it’s basically a security dilemma / power competition between Israel, Iran and to a degree even Saudi Arabia/GCC - all within a US hegemonic order that wants a defiant country (Iran) submitted.

But each country has different risk appetites and demands ie maximalist or not.

US/Israel seem to be maximalist (dominate the region).

Saudi/GCC seem to be balanced because they are more vulnerable / weaker. They benefit from the status quo / folded into the US order - but also want stability with Iran to prevent chaos in the region that Israel seems to be more tolerant of or prefer (divide and rule)

But at the same time it’s not like GCC would want Iran to become a hegemon if fully normalised / sanctions lifted. Iran has way stronger fundamentals that would make it so (90m population, highly educated, geography / resources, deep culture etc).  So they occupy a narrow band / box - they want stability but Iran defanged to a degree as to not feel threatened.

 

Irans foreign policy has caused bloodshed and angered Sunni Muslims massively. Supporting Assad in Syria, Hezbollah, Yemen etc. But from a cold geopolitical lens - they felt the need to gain strategic depth against an empire wanting to destroy it. We can see how after Assad fell Israel then struck Iran - weaker air defence over Syria creating an air bridge to Iran - whilst also disrupting the land route to supply Hezbollah.

All these countries in between Iran-Israel have run into trouble due to this - hence both are hated to a degree by many. But at the same time many can see much of the root cause is this rivalry - and that Iran has simply had the strength to resist subordination to the larger imperial order of the US including its regional junior partner Israel.

Dune 3 came out early in reality:

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by zazen

[Elliott]

This is pretty big, Iran fired at Diego Garcia. I think this is a world record war-time distance, Iran held the previous record.

Edited 9 hours ago by Elliott

[Lila9]

16 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Most of the West don't give a shit about what's happening in Africa. Point still stands, being anti genocide don't make you anti semetic. What is a bit strange though is that a significant majority of the Israeli population don't see Gaza as a type of genocide. Me thinks many are still in denial, understandably so.

 

10 hours ago, Raze said:

Because we don’t have people like you defending it like you do the genocide israel commits.

Nothing demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of Zionists more their current argument is you can’t critics their genocide because you don’t complain as much about other genocides.

 

My point is not that opposing genocide automatically makes someone antisemitic. People are allowed to criticize Israel, Netanyahu, and its actions.

I agree that Israelis don’t fully know what’s happening in Gaza, partly due to media and political framing that creates distance and emphasizes real security threats.

This also makes it hard to accept that Israeli actions have caused civilian deaths, even unintentionally. Especially after the October 7 attacks and ongoing threats from Iran and its allies.

However, when parts of the Western far left condemn Israel while justifying the October 7 masccare (targeting civilians), ignoring other global atrocities, and promoting slogans like a “global intifada” (which basically means genocide) it raises questions about consistency. This rhetoric can feel deeply threatening to Israelis and Jews, for whom “intifada” is associated with real violence and trauma. So the concerns of antisemitism are valid. 

If genocide and human rights violations are wrong, they should be opposed consistently, everywhere, and by everyone, not selectively or for ideological reasons.

 

[Breakingthewall]

12 hours ago, Elliott said:

Trump considers "winding down" Iran war without opening Hormuz Strait

3 hours ago — President Trump said on Friday he is considering "winding down" the war with Iran without solving the crisis over the closure of the Strait

This means acknowledging an undeniable reality: if Iran so chooses, it can collapse the global economy. Therefore, a war against Iran is not viable.

The Ayatollahs' regime will be morally strengthened, though materially weakened. Most likely, they will adopt a rhetoric of victory but reduce their interventions outside their country.

Israel will remain at war with Hezbollah a while more,  and Trump and Netanyahu will claim that everything has been a success and has unfolded according to the most optimistic forecasts. 

The question is: will Iran open the Strait of Hormuz once the US and Israel cease their attacks? Probably not immediately, because that would be showing submission when they are in a position to demonstrate dominance.

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

This means acknowledging an undeniable reality: if Iran so chooses, it can collapse the global economy. Therefore, a war against Iran is not viable.

The Ayatollahs' regime will be morally strengthened, though materially weakened. Most likely, they will adopt a rhetoric of victory but reduce their interventions outside their country.

Israel will remain at war with Hezbollah a while more,  and Trump and Netanyahu will claim that everything has been a success and has unfolded according to the most optimistic forecasts. 

I see no chance of Iran ending their bombing campaign on Israel until Israel is extinct. It would make no sense to me. They'll keep hitting every Western base in the area, forever. They have no incentive to quot and every incentive to continue. They must destroy Israel and then make Saud submit to Iran. The houthis will restart bombing western ships in the Red Sea. Trump probably just changed the world, moving China and Russia ahead of the U.S. now. Europe is probably toast, we're talking Russian conditions for the foreseeable future, complete lack of courage.

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I see no chance of Iran ending their bombing campaign on Israel until Israel is extinct. It would make no sense to me. They'll keep hitting every Western base in the area, forever. They must destroy Israel and then make Saud submit to Iran. The houtus will restart bombing western ships in the Red Sea. 

What the Iranian regime wants is to stay in power because any other possibility means death, they are not interested in a crusade against evil. The new ayatollah has 11 mansions in London. I suppose that besides paradise, he's interested in Earth. Humans are corrupted, westerns and from east

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

What the Iranian regime wants is to stay in power because any other possibility means death, they are not interested in a crusade against evil. The new ayatollah has 11 mansions in London. I suppose that besides paradise, he's interested in Earth. Humans are corrupted, westerns and from east

Israel is their only threat to power.

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Israel is their only threat to power.

Maybe but they can't finish Israel, then they will be realistic and be focused in his own country, with horrible consequences for many Iranians who would be imprisoned and killed

[Elliott]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe but they can't finish Israel, then they will be realistic and be focused in his own country, with horrible consequences for many Iranians who would be imprisoned and killed

They can definitely finish Israel

 

 

The Times of Israel

https://www.timesofisrael.com

To conserve interceptors, IAF choosing not to shoot down some Iranian cluster ...

2 days ago — The Israel Defense Forces assessed 10 days into the war that around half of the missiles launched were carrying cluster bomb warheads, as

 

 

Look at a map, see how small Israel is, surrounded by enemies, how big Iran is surrounded by allies. Nazis always screw themselves. Iran will bomb Israel constantly for the next 10 years. A first world society cannot sustain those conditions, only 3rd world can. Iran tried diplomacy, and then Europe bombed them during negotiations.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[Wilhelm44]

1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

 

 

My point is not that opposing genocide automatically makes someone antisemitic. People are allowed to criticize Israel, Netanyahu, and its actions.

I agree that Israelis don’t fully know what’s happening in Gaza, partly due to media and political framing that creates distance and emphasizes real security threats.

This also makes it hard to accept that Israeli actions have caused civilian deaths, even unintentionally. Especially after the October 7 attacks and ongoing threats from Iran and its allies.

However, when parts of the Western far left condemn Israel while justifying the October 7 masccare (targeting civilians), ignoring other global atrocities, and promoting slogans like a “global intifada” (which basically means genocide) it raises questions about consistency. This rhetoric can feel deeply threatening to Israelis and Jews, for whom “intifada” is associated with real violence and trauma. So the concerns of antisemitism are valid. 

If genocide and human rights violations are wrong, they should be opposed consistently, everywhere, and by everyone, not selectively or for ideological reasons.

 

Surely you have access to CNN, BBC etc. Gaza looks like it got hit by a nuclear bomb. And ur saying that people are struggling to accept that civilian deaths were caused unintentionally. Come on. Of course ur gonna catch some flack if you're not willing to condemn these actions by your government.

[Nivsch]

3 hours ago, Lila9 said:

If genocide and human rights violations are wrong, they should be opposed consistently, everywhere, and by everyone, not selectively or for ideological reasons.

I prefer to not even participate in this game in the first place. This just strenghtening this. What happened in Gaza was wrong, in Iraq too. The west does not see human lives in Arab countries as equal value to them. This is a universal and human tendency and it cause problems. Thats it. A lot of the rest feels like emotionally driven framing without much grounding in reality.

Edited 32 minutes ago by Nivsch

[Elliott]

Farsi Iran genocided Farsi Iranians, they so racist! Israel intentionally starts civil war in Iran, then blames Iran for killing rebels. 

 

 

India Today

https://www.indiatoday.in

Iranian Navy guided India's LPG vessel via Strait of Hormuz last week

4 hours ago — Iranian Navy guided India's LPG vessel via Strait of Hormuz last week. The development comes as tensions in the region have disrupted global 

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Breakingthewall]

16 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

The west does not see human lives in Arab countries as equal value to them

It depends, In Ukraine, NATO pressured until it provoked a war where more people have died than in Iraq, and they are Caucasian Europeans. There is not racism, just business. 

[Lila9]

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Surely you have access to CNN, BBC etc. Gaza looks like it got hit by a nuclear bomb. And ur saying that people are struggling to accept that civilian deaths were caused unintentionally. Come on. Of course ur gonna catch some flack if you're not willing to condemn these actions by your government.

CNN and BBC spread lots of misinformation, and there were multiple times when they said something wrong that painted Israel in a negative light, which later turned out to be false, as admitted by themselves. So Israelis don’t trust those channels because of their obvious bias and perceive them as untrustworthy.

On the other hand, the local channels they do trust also have bias, which leaves people very confused and misinformed, even on social media. There is one post showing destroyed buildings in Gaza and another post showing well-fed and well-dressed Gazans opening a new restaurant or waiting to purchase new iPhones.

Additionally, even if some Israelis are aware of it, the average Israeli is too busy, traumatized, and immersed in survival to do anything. People criticize Israelis for allowing Gaza to be destroyed, but in the same way Americans can’t control their government’s actions, even if they resist and protest, Israelis can’t control it either.

Also, Hamas started the war on Israel without any preparation to protect Palestinian civilian lives. If you start a war, the reasonable thing is to make sure civilians are protected. Hamas (and Iran) literally spent so much time and resources building tunnels for Hamas and deliberately placing their weapons in vulnerable places like family homes, hospitals and schools.

They could have built civilian bunkers and shelters instead, hidden their weapons elsewhere far from civilians etc. They could do so many safety measures to reduce the risk of killing civilians but they didn't.

They knew what they were doing and did it anyway, so they are not innocent and clearly bear a significant part of the responsibility for the destruction and the loss of innocent lives in Gaza.