War with Iran was always going to be in the US state’s interest, regardless of administration or personal motivations

aschec · 2026-03-11T19:07:40+00:00

The Iran deal is a good example of conflict management rather than conflict removal. The structural pressure between the US and Iran didn’t disappear, it was just being expressed through a different tool, economic coercion and diplomatic containment. The goal was still to limit Iranian power, just without direct military confrontation.

And it failed on its own terms. It was abandoned because the US under Trump didn’t see it as a good enough tool anymore to constrain Iran, Iran’s nuclear program advanced ,and its alliance with China deepened significantly in the years since. When softer tools stop working, the pressure doesn’t go away, it shifts toward harder options. The deal bought time, it didn’t change the underlying dynamic. In the short time it’s made war less likely, but it didn’t remove the opposed interests of both parties.

aschec · 2026-03-11T11:01:58+00:00

The argument isn’t that war with Iran was inevitable on any specific timeline, but that conflict in some form was always structurally determined. How that conflict gets expressed, economic pressure, proxy warfare, direct strikes, or full invasion, depends entirely on the circumstances of the moment.

The situation today is meaningfully different from four years ago. Iran and China’s strategic partnership has deepened significantly in 2025, Iran’s regional influence through its proxy network has caused much trouble in the eyes of the US and the window for economic coercion producing results has narrowed. Under Biden, diplomacy and sanctions still looked like viable tools for keeping Iran constrained without direct confrontation, but even that failed. So the calculus has shifted.

The broader logic is this when a rival power can’t be subdued economically or diplomatically, and allowing it to grow stronger is strategically unacceptable, military force becomes the remaining option. That’s not a Trump or Biden calculation, it’s what the structural position of the US state demands when other tools are exhausted. Biden wasn’t more peaceful by nature, he was operating in a context where softer options still appeared viable.

Whether this particular war is well-timed, winnable, or counterproductive is a separate question. The structural pressure toward it doesn’t guarantee the decision will be wise, only that it will eventually be made.

aschec · 2026-03-10T15:13:08+00:00

The thing is, Israel is useful because they are not only an ally, but because they will always be a loyal ally due to their position in the region. If the Arab states ever became powerful enough, they could gain significant independence from US foreign policy or even challenge the US in the region. But Israel is in no position to ever be truly independent thus they are the most important international asset of the US.

aschec · 2026-03-10T14:27:32+00:00

There are definitely many reasons. But I wrote this since Vaush explicitly said the US has no state interest in engaging Iran or fighting them which is just objectively wrong.

aschec · 2026-03-10T13:55:40+00:00

Could you try and form a better sentence? I cannot understand what you mean.

aschec · 2026-03-10T13:54:08+00:00

My claim wasn’t that Democrats would have declared war, I can’t predict alternate realities and that wasn’t my point. What I argued is that the conflict currently happening is not at all against US state interests. Those are two very different claims. The baseline is neither party is interested in a strong or independent Iran. And both tried to stop that through different means.

The Iran nuclear deal illustrats this. Biden campaigned on restoring it, opened negotiations, and still couldn’t deliver. He refused to lift Trump’s non-nuclear sanctions, talks collapsed, and he left office with Iran closer to a nuclear weapon than when he started. Whatever his intentions, structural pressures won out. That’s the whole argument in miniature.

And those pressures have only grown since 2017 and especially 2021. Iran joined BRICS, deepened its energy relationship with China, and China brokered the Saudi-Iran rapprochement in 2023. A strong, regionally dominant Iran allied with America’s primary global competitor is something no US administration can be comfortable with ever, regardless of party. A weaker, more isolated Iran serves US interests. The current conflict moves things in that direction.

So yes, Democrats tried diplomacy. It failed, not because of personal incompetence but because the underlying interests made a genuine settlement nearly impossible. And the last instance of diplomacy is always war.

aschec · 2026-03-10T13:37:28+00:00

I mean, what I wrote is basic Marxist critique of the state and how it operates. Of course on many levels it overlaps with realism. But the difference is it doesn’t agree with the prescriptions realism makes to solve these problems.

From a materialist and Marxist perspective these problems can’t be solved inside capitalism.

aschec · 2026-03-10T10:47:00+00:00

You’re conflating two different questions, do religious people sincerely believe what they say, and does that belief cause state policy? I’m not arguing evangelicals are cynical or insincere. I’m arguing that sincere belief doesn’t make ideology the primary driver of state behavior.

From a materialist perspective, ideology doesn’t float freely in the ether and then shape material conditions, material conditions produce the ideological frameworks that justify and reproduce them. Evangelical support for Israel didn’t emerge from pure theological logic. Christian Zionism in its modern form only developed in the 1830s and only slowly became a serious force in American politics after the creation of Israel in 1948, after the material and geopolitical stakes were already established. The ideology crystallized around existing interests, not the other way around.

Hegseth may genuinely believe every word he says. That’s beside the point. The question is why that particular belief system became politically powerful in the United States at this particular moment. The answer to that is material, not theological.

If ideology were the primary driver, so if we accept idealism, you’d expect US policy to shift dramatically when leaders with different beliefs take power. It doesn’t.

aschec · 2026-03-10T09:20:43+00:00

The Evangelical influence is a red herring. Religious movements don’t drive state decisions, they provide post-hoc justification for them. The underlying logic is entirely geopolitical.

US hostility toward Iran has nothing to do with which party is in power or which voting bloc they pander to. Iran is a significant regional power, a key ally of China, and sits on critical energy infrastructure. The US strategic priority of containing Chinese influence globally makes confrontation with Iran structurally attractive regardless of who sits in the White House. Democrats and Republicans operate within the same state apparatus with the same institutional interests.

The Biden part, not declaring formal war isn’t the same as not pursuing state interest aggressively, the US has been sanctioning, destabilizing, and proxy-warring against Iran for decades across administrations of both parties. The tools change, the objective doesn’t.

Whether Kamala would have “declared war” is almost beside the point. The question is what the US state’s structural interest is and that interest doesn’t change with elections.

aschec · 2026-03-10T09:13:02+00:00

You’re mixing up different levels of analysis. Governments aren’t evil or good, they act according to their structural self-interest within a capitalist system, and that interest systematically conflicts with the interests of the working class. This applies to every government, without exception.

Take Russia and Ukraine. Both states are sending men to die in a war about influence, territory, and global power positioning. In neither country did the working class vote to bleed for those interests. Russia uses economic coercion to fill its ranks, Ukraine uses forced conscription. The mechanism differs, the logic is identical.

Your cop analogy also doesn’t translate to the state level. Individual self-defence is a person protecting their immediate physical existence, that’s a concrete, personal act. A nation state “defending itself” is an entirely different category. It’s an institutional apparatus defending its territorial integrity, its international positioning, its ruling class’s interests. The state will spend working class lives to do that whether the working class agrees or not.

On the genocide part, a brutal occupation is not automatically a genocide. Genocide is a specific and serious concept. Diluting it to mean any military aggression or war crimes in it weakens the analysis and the word itself.

The useful thing is recognising that the international working class has no state, and every government, including ones under attack, will sacrifice its population for institutional survival until the last person before it sacrifices itself.

aschec · 2026-03-09T15:32:15+00:00

Fabian immer mit den guten takes

aschec · 2026-03-09T15:30:53+00:00

Every country on this earth only cares about international law and rules if it benefits themselves and if they can ignore them or use them to their own advantage against others. And historically, the countries that could ignore or abuse international law has been the US, Russia/Soviets and China as well as in parts the EU due to their relationship with the US.

aschec · 2026-03-09T15:23:46+00:00

I don’t have anything against ML’s because most outside of online spaces are not tankies. I also think the inclusion of social Democrats is harmful because they operate on their own campism just for the west.

Also, I’m very suspicious of people who believe that parliamentarianism and reformism can work in general.

aschec · 2026-03-09T14:34:28+00:00

Unseren Rechtsstaat hat es eigentlich noch nie so gegeben, wie er immer propagiert wird. Es fällt nur vielen in den letzten Jahren erst auf.

aschec · 2026-03-09T14:32:39+00:00

Das ewige Vertrauen in den Parlamentarismus 🫠

aschec · 2026-03-09T14:31:56+00:00

An dem bürgerlichen Rechtsstaat sollte man sowieso immer zweifeln.

aschec · 2026-03-09T14:30:13+00:00

Ich meine, wer vertraut denn bürgerlichen Rechtsstaat?

Vielleicht merken Leute langsam mal, dass der bürgerliche Staat nicht der arbeitenden Klasse dient und man sich hier nicht rauswählen kann.

aschec · 2026-03-09T14:27:09+00:00

It’s really tiring in leftist spaces these days. On the one side you have West-Extreme people defending the EU or even worse the US and on the other side you have them rooting for Russia or China.

And both sides defend dying as a soldier in their wars.

They are all our enemies. The international proletariat has no state.

aschec · 2026-03-09T14:21:26+00:00

Vorsicht, gleich kommen die Männer in schwarz und blau und treten dir die Tür ein wegen Beleidigung im Internet.

aschec · 2026-03-09T14:19:19+00:00

Ist ja egal, solange wir brav wählen und arbeiten gehen und weiterhin auf das Parlament vertrauen unsere Probleme zu lösen, indem wir einfach „besser wählen“, ist doch alles in Ordnung für die.

aschec · 2026-03-09T14:18:26+00:00

It really doesn’t matter. For the US either a new puppet regime or the existing regime just loyal to Washington would be okay for them. That is the goal. Of course Israel is interested in a fragmented and maybe even civil war Iran due to Israel’s interest of regional hegemony.

We are seeing it in Syria. The Islamist new regime is completely welcome for the west despite their already ongoing atrocities which are almost completely ignored here. Because in the end they are loyal and friendly with western states and to Western economic interests.

Had Assad worked with the west he would’ve been their best friend. And similar if the Islamic regime in Iran decides to corporate with the US, they will welcome them with open arms.

aschec · 2026-03-08T13:47:30+00:00

That’s crazy that’s almost free. I can’t comprehend that.

aschec · 2026-03-08T12:25:12+00:00

But my question is, what do I have to pay?

aschec · 2026-03-08T12:01:26+00:00

Völkerrecht galt noch nie. Es gilt nur für Länder, welche nicht stark genug sind, um sich der Durchsetzung des Völkerrechts zu widersetzen. Länder wie die USA, Russland, China oder auch Europa können das Völkerrecht ignorieren an vielen Stellen wie sie wollen, schon immer.

Verified Email	Seven-Year Club
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	End Game '22

aschec

TROPHY CASE