AI generated, jebemumast

Iran just forced a new reality on Washington: Concede to Our Terms in the MoU and Stop Threatening Us – or We will Strike Back Harder

Pascal Lottaz (@PLottaz) breaks it down a reality Washington can no longer ignore: “Even if you nuke us, we can still kill Israel and we will… So don’t test us.”

Iran has made clear it can wipe out “80% of the drinking water” of Israel by striking their desalination plants — “The Iranians can strike Dimona and poison the entire region.”

This is why, he says, the U.S. military establishment finally understood Iran had “reestablished reciprocity” of military capacity; Iran HAS the ability to hit our side as hard as we can hit their side.  That’s new to the United States; we have had near unchallenged hegemony in owning the escalation risk, because America could always hit the other side harder than they could hit us.

Until now.

This shift explains why negotiations are happening despite hawks like Lindsey Graham raging at the loss of unchallenged dominance. Iran is prepared to absorb punishment and strike back hard – and they have the capacity to do both.

Watch the full eye-opening clip from the latest Daniel Davis Deep Dive now:

Ko se v zahodnem svetu razpravlja o vzponu Kitajske, je analiza pogosto ujeta v kratkoročne kategorije gospodarske politike: poceni delovna sila, državno usmerjene investicije, industrijska strategija ali tehnološka tekma z ZDA. Takšne razlage zajamejo zgolj površino fenomena. Kitajska gospodarska in politična kontinuiteta namreč temelji na mnogo globljem civilizacijskem sloju – na konfucijanski tradiciji, ki že več kot dva tisoč let oblikuje kitajsko razumevanje oblasti, družbenega reda, izobraževanja in odnosa med posameznikom ter skupnostjo.

Če je evropska politična misel nastala iz konflikta med svobodo posameznika in oblastjo – od atenske demokracije, rimskega prava, krščanske predstave o človekovem dostojanstvu do razsvetljenskega boja proti absolutizmu – je kitajska politična tradicija izhajala iz drugačnega temeljnega vprašanja: kako vzpostaviti družbo, ki bo stabilna, harmonična in sposobna dolgoročnega razvoja?

Odgovor, ki ga je v 5. stoletju pr. n. št. ponudil Konfucij, ni bil demokracija, niti vladavina zakona v zahodnem smislu. Njegova rešitev je bila oblikovanje moralne elite, ki bo državo vodila na podlagi znanja, osebne integritete in občutka dolžnosti. Prav v tem smislu je konfucijanstvo mogoče razumeti kot eno najzgodnejših in najvplivnejših teorij meritokracije v zgodovini.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Konfucionizem predstavlja eno najvplivnejših intelektualnih, političnih in etičnih tradicij v zgodovini človeštva. Več kot dva tisoč let je oblikoval kitajsko civilizacijo, njene institucije, način vladanja, družbene odnose, odnos do izobraževanja in razumevanje odgovornosti posameznika do skupnosti. Če je bila zahodna politična tradicija v veliki meri zgrajena na dediščini antične Grčije, rimskega prava, krščanstva in kasneje razsvetljenstva, je kitajsko družbeno in politično misel odločilno zaznamovala zapuščina Konfucija.

Konfucionizem je pogosto napačno razumljen zgolj kot skupek tradicionalnih pravil o spoštovanju starejših in družinski hierarhiji. V resnici gre za mnogo bolj celovit sistem razumevanja človeka, družbe in države. Njegovo osrednje vprašanje je bilo, kako ustvariti stabilno in harmonično družbo v času političnega kaosa. Odgovor Konfucija ni bil v močnejših zakonih ali večji uporabi sile, temveč v vzgoji moralno odgovornih posameznikov in oblikovanju vladavine, ki temelji na znanju, vrlini in odgovornosti.

Prav zato je konfucionizem še danes pomemben pri razumevanju vzpona Kitajske. Sodobna Kitajska, čeprav uradno temelji na socialistični ideologiji pod vodstvom Komunistične partije, je po gospodarskih reformah po letu 1978 ponovno obudila številne konfucijanske vrednote, predvsem poudarek na izobraževanju, disciplini, kolektivni odgovornosti, družbeni stabilnosti in selektivni meritokraciji. To odpira pomembno vprašanje: ali predstavlja konfucijanska tradicija alternativo zahodnemu liberalno-demokratičnemu modelu razvoja?

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Europe has made a suicide pact and decided to die

… claims security analyst Stanislav Krapivnik.

He was a commander in the U.S. armed forces.

“Germany is an incredible case. They started two world wars. They lost both. And now they want to go to war against Russia, which would completely destroy Germany if there were a war. It’s incomprehensible. The German leaders have gone mad. They don’t learn from history,” he says.

“Do you think the U.S. is going to go to war with a nuclear power like Russia? Anyone who thinks that is a complete ignoramus or their IQ just doesn’t stretch that far. The U.S. will never go to direct war against Russia, just as Russia will never go to direct war with the U.S., because they understand that would be the end of both countries. However, the current leaders of the European Union seem hell-bent on destroying Europe,” he adds.

“One thing is supporting Ukraine on Ukrainian soil, and another is giving Ukraine long-range missiles that strike inside Russia. Have they completely lost their minds? How do you attack the territory of a country that has nearly seven thousand nuclear warheads and could turn all of Europe into cosmic dust in fifteen minutes?” he wonders.

“It really escapes me. I don’t understand how the EU leaders can be so stupid and irresponsible,” he asserts.

“You know the U.S. invaded Mexico several times. Can you imagine the EU financing Mexico after an invasion and giving it long-range missiles that could reach Washington? Can you picture that? What do you think would happen after the first missile hit Washington? No need to think about it. I’ll tell you. What would happen is that Mexico would cease to exist. The U.S. would obliterate Mexico, whether conventionally or nuclear. What I can tell you with absolute certainty is that there wouldn’t be a second missile reaching Washington,” he points out.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Iran’s Foreign Ministry on the Outcome of Talks with JD Vance:

“We have established a Conflict Control Unit to stabilize the front lines in the Middle East, including Lebanon

Second, a hotline of communication has been formed which through Iran can be contacted if problems arise in the Strait of Hormuz

Third, a working group on nuclear file has been formed, which will begin its work as soon as the United States has fully implemented Clause 13 of the agreement

Fourth, we have signed agreements with Qatar regarding the release of Iran’s frozen assets

Fifth, we have received documents from the United States that allow us to sell Oil, Gas, and Petrochemical products without sanctions for a period of 60 days”

Za razumevanje političnih premikov, ki jih danes spremljamo v večini zahodnih demokracij – in ki so se pokazali tudi v Sloveniji na letošnjih parlamentarnih volitvah v obliki premika volilne podpore od tradicionalnih liberalno-demokratičnih strank proti bolj radikalnim in populističnim političnim opcijam – je treba najprej razumeti globlje družbene in ekonomske vzroke spreminjanja volilnih preferenc. Volivci se namreč praviloma ne obračajo proč od uveljavljenih političnih sil zgolj zaradi ideološkega prepričanja, temveč predvsem takrat, ko dobijo občutek, da obstoječi politični in institucionalni sistem ne zmore več učinkovito reševati njihovih vsakdanjih problemov, zagotavljati ekonomske varnosti ter oblikovati prepričljive vizije prihodnjega razvoja.

Prav to vprašanje – zakaj državljani v stabilnih demokracijah vse pogosteje izgubljajo zaupanje v tradicionalne politične elite in zakaj postajajo dovzetnejši za avtoritarne oziroma iliberalne alternative – predstavlja osrednje izhodišče nedavnega eseja Francisa Fukuyame in njegovih soavtorjev o pomenu sposobnosti demokratične države, da svojim državljanom zagotavlja konkretne rezultate.

Francis Fukuyama je skupaj s Chrisom Dannom in Beatriz Magaloni aprila 2025 v reviji Journal of Democracy objavil esej z naslovom Delivering for Democracy: Why Results Matter. Gre za enega najbolj neposrednih in podatkovno podprtih razmislekov o tem, zakaj se demokratični sistemi soočajo z upadajočo podporo in zakaj se v očeh dela javnosti zdijo avtoritarni režimi včasih bolj učinkoviti pri dostavi konkretnih rezultatov.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Jutro

Vieste

Pot

Palagruža

Gužva na Palagruži

Pot

Lastovo, Skrivena luka

_________

* Kaj pa slovstveni del poti? Ha, te nesmrtne konverzacije pa so ostale zapisane v nas.

Hasan Ahmadian, professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Tehran, laid out Iran’s view of the current negotiations during Al Jazeera’s discussion on the upcoming US-Iran talks in Geneva:

His main arguments:

Why close Hormuz:

Ahmadian said the closure came on the second day of peak “Israeli savagery” in southern Lebanon. Iran had actually shown restraint, he suggested, holding back from a larger military response it could have launched, and instead using the strait to make a point: the agreement “cannot be divided” into pieces that each side picks from.

Why not boycott talks with U.S.:

Asked why Iran didn’t simply refuse to attend the upcoming talks in Geneva, Ahmadian said that would have sent the wrong signal, letting Washington think “Hormuz is over and we’ve moved on.” Closing the strait, by contrast, makes clear that if one side reneges on any single clause, the other will suspend a clause too, before talks can advance.

The deal is binding:

Ahmadian pushed back on the idea that the MOU is just a loose statement of intent. He said it contains, in its Article 13, five specific steps both sides must complete before negotiations even begin, one of which is a ceasefire in Lebanon. The US, he acknowledged, had met some obligations, lifting its naval blockade and letting Iranian oil exports resume, but Israel’s attacks on Lebanon continued, so Iran responded by suspending another of the five steps: keeping Hormuz open.

Nadaljujte z branjem→