HOW IRAN CAN WIN ITS WAR WITH AMERICA

Another ugly piece of granite testifies to America's lack of fortitude.

by Colin Liddell

It's happened! Trump has done the unforgivable and assassinated the Iranian general who literally defeated ISIS in Syria (Is America actually settling a score here?).

The more significant irony is that Blumpf/ Neo-Con America/ the Cult of Interventionism is using this action to "look strong," when in fact it is the act of a pathetic weakling who simply doesn't understand how the World works.

The most important aspect of this attack was how crappy and cowardly it was, using a drone to blow up someone at an actual airport. Thanks for normalising extreme airport terrorism, America. That's really important when you are in-over-your-head fighting asymmetrical wars all over the World and have just been told to fuck off by "rogue" nuclear power North Korea.

This attack is literally on the same level of "heroism" as some fat nerd in his basement playing "Call of Duty." But from this it is also extremely clear how America can be defeated and even humiliated: all they have to do is simply to get America to go beyond its big, fat comfort zone of drones, cruise missiles, and expendable proxies, and get it to start fighting a real war—in short to call the Paper Tiger's bluff.

Behind Trump's boomertard bluster, the Rambo optics, the pricey firework displays that the US military can drop on many parts of the World, and the military-industrial complex rubbing its hands with glee, are a bunch of little cry-baby bitches who will start going weak at the knees and whimpering like drowning kittens when the body bags start trickling in.

Yes, the body bags, and not even that many body bags.

Despite the Hollywood optics, America is the very opposite of a warrior nation. It is an umimperialistic empire, a contradiction in terms. Since WWII, where it had plenty of help, its  military record is frankly shameful:

KOREA—a draw against weaker opposition
VIETNAM—a defeat against weaker opposition
GULF WAR I—a limited victory (plenty of allies)
AFGHANISTAN—still in progress (probable Taliban victory)
GULF WAR II—tactical victory, strategic defeat

I make that one small win and two rather large defeats out of five.

At the start of all these wars, America was less of a "cucked" and "pozzed" nation than it has since become due to the erosion of its founding culture and the spread of Leftism. Also the nation was fighting with much stronger motivation than it has today for whatever stupid and pointless shit it is trying to do in the Middle East today.

In Vietnam it was battling against the spread of the psychopathic condition known as "International Communism," while in the last two "Bush" wars it was fighting against the people it erroneously thought were responsible for a massive terrorist attack on its home territory.

Yet, in both these cases it got worn down to the point where its superior hardware was powerless to prevent a collapse of morale. The defeat against the Vietcong was clear and obvious, while in Iraq America's humiliation was masked by some messy arrangements that may now be open to review.

Part of the appeal that Trump had in 2015 and 2016 was that he appeared to understand the lessons here, i.e. that you are only strong by staying within the bounds of your strength as an elephant is strong by staying on the land, a whale at sea, etc.

He won the election, to a large degree, by calling out the neocon stupidities of all his opponents, from Jeb Bush down to Hillary.

The American people, who had absorbed the lessons of their past defeats in as face-saving a way as possible, sucked up this Trumpian take on strength-out-of-weakness in the face of the biggest demonization and gaslighting campaign ever, and pushed him into the White House.

This now battered and abused connection with the US voter is what Trump's terrorist stunt at Baghdad airport threatens to destroy. But this is now a triviality compared to the ultimate good an intensified struggle in the Middle East promises, basically the destruction of the global hegemony that American undeservedly built up in the post-Cold War period when its stupidity could go unchallenged.

This hegemony is already hollow and waiting to collapse. This unimperialistic empire has fallen into the extremely bad habit of relying totally on proxies, allies, and mercenaries to do its dirty work, as we saw during the recent riots in Baghdad when US embassy security was provided by...wait for it...UGANDANS!!!

Why has the American Empire followed this demeaning course?

Nobody left behind

Essentially because of what happened in Beirut in 1983, a small but very significant defeat inflicted on the USA by Hezbollah, when America made the mistake of sticking its nose in where it wasn't wanted by using military personnel it could not politically afford to lose. 247 body bags reminded President Reagan of this fact, and he quite sensibly paid heed, ensuring that the Lebanon became a Hezbollah fief.

America has always tried to minimise body bags, but since 1983 it has taken this process to absurd heights. This has been a godsend for sinister military security companies, who prefer to minimise political fall out for their political paymasters by preferably employing non-Americans, as we see with the Embassy Ugandans.

But these Embassy Ugandans are a signal on how to defeat America. In fact, nothing could be clearer. By pulling out of Lebanon in 1983—practically on the next boat—and by "outsourcing" its military operations to private companies in Iraq, the US tells all its enemies the one simple trick necessary to defeat it: "Kill US personnel and you win."

This kind of ass-backwards foreign policy can only work if—and only if—other significant players agree to be nice to you. Global "reverse racism" achieved this for Obama, whose Muslim background and lukewarm support for Israel also helped. But even in this case of geopolitical generosity America still managed to use up various proxy forces in the Middle East, ending up being stuck with the region's untouchables, the Kurds, as their only bulwark.

Trump too avoided serious opposition at first, as other important geopolitical players waited to see if he would live up to his campaign rhetoric of scaling down America's pointless "forever wars."

With thousands of US military personnel and private security personal training and backing the Kurds in Syria, it would have been relatively easy for any of the other big players—Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, or even the Syrians themselves—to have created conditions or incidents that sent a steady trickle of body bags back to a wimpish and dewy-eyed America. But they clearly held off on the promise that Trump was "different" and that any Neocon moves were simply cases of his hand being pushed against his will.

The murder of General Qasem Soleimani—openly killed by the US probably because Mossad was too chickenshit to do it—now changes all that.

While not quite a declaration of war, it comes extremely close. But Iran has more sense than to reply with an act of outright war, like shutting the Straits of Hormuz to oil tankers (the Chinese would not approve). Instead what it and its allies will do is look for opportunities to kill Americans—or prospective Ugandan Americans—in Iraq and Syria. There are several thousand US personnel, and only a few dozen need to be butchered to make America look weak. To save face Trump would then have to up the stakes and do something that would simply be unacceptable to the rest of the World, like actually bombing Iran which would directly lead to the Straits of Hormuz being shut down.

Because of America's inherent weakness, the best case scenario for the Iranians would be to provoke Trump into an actual invasion of Iran.

The reason for this is simple. Despite it vast and costly military, America simply can't handle body bags unless its interests and safety are directly threatened, and America's interests and safety can only be directly threatened by an invasion of American soil (which is another reason Americans voted for Trump). By using proxies and foreign mercenaries, the USA attempts to militarily intervene in the outside world without body bag blow-back. However, the more real a war becomes the harder this is to do.

Body bags are the surest way to remind Americans that they are not only involved in pointless "forever wars" but actual "nowhere wars."

If that happens, then domestically, pressure would grow on Trump from two sides. The Left, which has almost nothing else to attack him with at the moment, and true "America First" nationalists. But most of all, normie America would just see him as a blustering idiot, wasting "precious Amercian lives" while steering the World towards chaos. With the loss of the feel good factor, they would immediately start believing all the anti-Trump memes his enemies—Neocons and Leftists alike—have been poisoning the political and cultural waters with since 2016.

Trump could may very well have lost the 2020 election by what he just did in Baghdad. But let us hope that these events lead to something more substantial—the actual collapse of American power where it does not belong.

Become a Patron!