Two contrasting views of the strategic dilemma — posed by the Israel-US attack on Iran

19 June 2025

People, who have experienced waves of violence . . .

. . . generally understand its nature and constraints better than most of the world's leaders.

The above observation leads us . . .

. . . to evaluate two contrasting analyses of what Russia and China arguably should be doing, as predatory Israel and the United States seek to obliterate Iran.

Choice 1 — intentional passivity

On the one hand, we see China sitting on the sidelines, issuing its characteristically pompous, non-intervening chastisements to the West.

Explaining the merits of this Chinese exercise in no-force passivity is Najma N. Minhas at GVS Deep Dive:

GVS Deep Dive, Iran-Israel War: China Refuses to React, and That’s the Strategy, YouTube (18 June 2025)

Choice 2 — physical engagement

In contrast to GVS Deep Dive's analysis of somnolence's virtues — we see elderly geopolitical observers (like Paul Craig Roberts) advancing the view that — if one wants to preserve one's Great Power survival and status, one had better get forcefully involved in defending one's geopolitical interests.

Thus (asserts Roberts), realistically oriented Great Powers fight aggressors with force, rather than empty pronouncements.

Those proctection-worthy strategic interests being, implicitly, like Iran's oil supply to China. Or Iran's geographic proximity importance to Russia:

If the Russian Foreign Ministry has anyone capable of thought, just because Iran has a target on its back doesn’t mean that Russia doesn’t. China also has a target on its back, and the Chinese government sits there passively telling their “Russian allies” to sue for peace in Ukraine.

The stupidity is unimaginable. What is the point of seeking peace with those whose intention is to get you?

The crux of deciding whether to sit or jump . . .

. . . lies in assessing the purported wisdom of:

(a) passively hoping that one's enemy will overextend and wilt — by chewing up too many intervening patsy nations — before it manages to bite one's own survival off at the neck

versus

(b) recognizing that one's adversary's strength and confidence increase with each passively-granted, patsy-sacrificing step closer to one's own — increasingly vulnerable — throat.

With those strategic choices in mind

Let's appraise current circumstances:

Israel, with the United States' eager assistance, has recently discombobulated Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah. Taken over Syria. And a few days ago, put overly complacent and trusting Iran on the ropes.

Those events look like accelerating Western momentum to me.

Especially so, if one looks back their similarly claimed 'successes' in destroying Iraq and Libya.

So, unless Russia and China can claim zero strategic interests in the Middle East — then it looks to me like both are being booted from a region they do have necessary survival involvements in and with:

China, most obviously, for Iranian oil and China's own Belt and Road initiative.

And saltwater port-seeking Russia in having been, essentially, kicked out of Syria by a hostile United States and Israel.

Dismissing the — 'they can't do anything' — passivity-supporting argument

GVS Deep Dive (and its parallel analysts) maintain that Russia is involved in the Ukraine War. And China has more important interests in the South China Sea and its adjacent waters.

Neither, supposedly, can afford to extend their military presences.

That's nonsense.

Russia's navy is not predominantly involved in furthering its advances in Ukraine. And the Federation could easily venture at least a few submarines into Middle Eastern seas (where the US Navy is wave-hopping itself around in an Iran-threatening manner).

Similarly so, China could also advance its presence, with its now impressively sized flotilla of battle boats.

Empty-headed chickenshitness — not lack of means — arugably would characterize both those nations' decisions to avoid aiding pseudo-ally Iran in meaningful ways.

If so, exactly Roberts' point.

In short, if one is afraid of sparking a war with the United States, one is always going to be ceding whatever American neocons want, to them.

The moral? — One by one, the West's targets fall

When a tiger is feasting on people all around, a successful hominid does not cower in a too-small steel rain-collecting bucket, waiting for it to go away.

That's the Darwinian rule:

Dumbass patsies get eaten.

And psychotic warmongers grow fatter on their dismembered carcasses.

Those of us who have worn uniforms — and been directly responsible for other people's survival — know and act on this principle.

This is especially true for folks, who have been through any form of violence's repeated fire.

This is why I am certain that experienced members of Russia and China's military staffs are at odds with their nations' usually passive civilian leaders.

When dealing with the psychotic West, countries that are led by 'pussies' (in colloquial language) are — more likely than not — going to wind up on the carcass (or badly bitten) pile.

A string of cowards — watching a string of cowards being eaten — does not represent an inspiring future for humankind.

Thank God for the counter-example that the admirably courageous Houthis set.

PeteFree.com

Two contrasting views of the strategic dilemma — posed by the Israel-US attack on Iran