Paul Craig Roberts: Iran is WINNING

Paul Craig Roberts asserts that Trump's claims of obliterating Iran are a misdirection. The real destruction is of American military bases in the Persian Gulf, with Gulf States reportedly asking the US to leave and Dubai collapsing as a financial center. This indicates a significant weakening of the US presence and influence.

Trump was describing the destruction not of Iran, but of all the American military bases in the Persian Gulf. We've lost all our radar capability. One of the Gulf States has asked us to leave, and I suspect that'll be contagious. People are fleeing from Dubai. It's collapsing as a financial center.

Iran's strategy of simply not surrendering is framed as a victory against the US and Israel. It maintains its ability to attack Israeli cities and US bases, and control the Strait of Hormuz, demonstrating that American and Israeli actions have not impacted its core capabilities.

Iran is winning the war. All they have to do is not surrender, and they've won. Their ability to penetrate the Iron Dome, to put Israeli citizens and cities in flames, to destroy our bases, and to control whether or not any oil goes out from the Persian Gulf – none of this has been impacted by the Americans or the Israelis.

With conventional military efforts failing and leaders like Trump and Netanyahu facing elections and indictments, Roberts warns that they may resort to nuclear weapons to avoid defeat and save political careers, posing a severe threat of escalation.

Trump faces midterm elections and Netanyahu faces elections. They're not winning. What are they going to do if they can't win? One or the other is likely to pull out the nukes in order to save face, in order to win.

Both Russia and China are characterized as having no strategic vision, abandoning Iran, and being easily swayed by trade deals. This makes them useless as allies in a major conflict, as they prioritize economic interests over geopolitical solidarity.

What Russia and China have shown is that they are useless as allies because they're governed by governments who have no strategic vision, no awareness of what this means for their own vital interests. They'll sell out their grandmother. They sell out their own country for a trade deal.

The core problem driving conflict in the Middle East is identified as the 'Zionist agenda of greater Israel,' which seeks to expand influence from the Nile to Pakistan. This agenda inherently leaves no room for the existence of nations like Iran, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, making peace impossible without its renunciation.

The real issue is the Zionist agenda of greater Israel. This has recently been redefined; it used to be from the Nile to the Euphrates. Now it's from the Nile to Pakistan. This means there's no room for Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. If the Iranians don't understand that their existence is incompatible with greater Israel, then Iran only has one choice: it's got to fight for its life.

Despite its current 'winning' position, Iran is criticized for its repeated mistake of not taking the initiative, waiting to be attacked before reacting, and failing to preemptively destroy Israel's nuclear capabilities. This reactive stance is seen as a fundamental military flaw that leaves it vulnerable.

If they have effective means to respond, they should use that first. They shouldn't wait on the nuclear weapon. They should just finish Israel off. This is the mistake Iran repeatedly makes: it doesn't finish the job. Why hasn't Iran already destroyed the entire Israeli nuclear capability? They never use the initiative. It waits, gets beat up, blown up, then it reacts.

Following the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader, the host notes a significant shift towards hardline decision-makers. These new leaders, with battlefield experience, are more prepared for war and less inclined to negotiate with the West, complicating future diplomatic efforts.

Many of these commanders right now who are in power, they were on the battlefield in Lebanon, in Syria. They know what the battlefield is. And they're so much prepared for the war. All these new people who were somehow feeling that they can do something with the West, they are disappearing from the scene. Now decision makers have changed.

Roberts argues that Iran's victory is crucial to prevent a larger nuclear conflict. Its defeat would embolden the US to target Russia and China, leading to a global nuclear war and the obliteration of all things, making Iran's survival a 'roadblock' to this catastrophic outcome.

If we nuke Iran, that lets the genie out of the bottle, and so it will hasten the nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia and China, from which there's no survival. I think it's important that the Iranians prevail because that is a roadblock to further war, bigger war, worst war. If Iran goes, it will embolden the Americans, and Russia or China become the next on the hit list, and that's when the proverbial hits the fan.