A Chinese company’s publication of AI-enhanced satellite images of US bases in the Middle East is helping Iranian forces identify targets, US intelligence believes.
The ABC has been briefed on the intelligence by a source inside US defence, who says the images are endangering lives.
Chinese geospatial artificial intelligence and software company MizarVision, which the Chinese government has a small ownership stake in, has been publishing detailed satellite images with tagging data of multiple US military sites in the lead-up to, and during, the Iran war.
The imagery showcases an AI tool that identifies and tags military forces across vast areas, a capability that once required the resources of a national intelligence agency.
And? Who gives a fuck. I would expect China and Russia to help Iran. Why wouldn’t they?
I do give a fuck. I’m glad they do because the only way I see for long term stability in that region, which affects my and my family’s life in multiple ways, is for the US to lose the war as badly as possible.
I think were pretty screwed either way. If they ramp down, Iran sees them as an existential threat and ramps up nuke capability, but now with less sanctions and more money. Iran with nukes makes Israel more twitchy as they see it as an existential threat.
If USA ramps up, we’re in for a long protracted war and instability.
So we’re screwed either way.
if only the orange child rapist had done that very simple math before thinking it was a good idea to attack Iran to hide his kiddy diddling crimes
I think Israel, without unlimited weapons backing of the US (a condition I think would occur if the US loses badly) would stop casual strikes against Iran. They would know they risk a barrage of missiles that they don’t have the interceptors for. And if Iran gets the nuke, then MAD would be in effect. Israel seeing Iran as an existential threat now, not in the future would sit tight and perhaps even open a dialogue. The problem today is they consider Iran a threat in the future. And mind you they don’t consider them a threat so much to Israel today than to their plans for expansion in Lebanon, West Bank, Syria and so on.
I think it’s that they realize peak oil is over. The middle east is a geopolitical strategic position for energy, as the world is now finding out via Iran closing the SoH.
Israel realised that that is on the wane. Along with the next generations attitude towards their relationshipnwith Israel. Israel is going hard in now as they have a larger support from the USA. I fully expect that to naturally wind down due to internal US political change and global moves away from carbon fuel.
Sure, oil shocks would still bite, but nowhere near to the same level. It’s why the other oil production states are desperately trying to pivot to other industries. Iran has screwed that by making them unsafe. America doesn’t realize that by not protecting their allies there, in the same way they protect Israel, that they will lose them. Edit:typos
I think middle east would be much much safer with iran having nukes
Lol, no. The world is safer with less nukes. Allowing Israel to get nukes was a failure of the international community.
Allowing Ukraine to face repurcussions for giving up their nukes was another failure.
The world is safer with no nukes and infinitely unsafe with infinite nukes. It’s appealing to extrapolate from this that less nukes -> more safety, but that’s an unjustified leap of logic. For example take the case of one nuclear state vs two nuclear states. If there’s only one it can force its will on other states, but if there are two they can keep each other in check and drastically reduce the possibility of nukes actually flying.
Yes, I agree with your logic. However, Iran is a fundamentalist regime. They appear rational next to trump. That doesn’t make them rational. Otherwise there would have been an end to sanctions years ago. And an end to murdering dissidents and protestors.
I hate to defend Iran, but the Iranian regime is in fact very rational. This is easily apparent when you strip away the religious aspect and look at what they actually do. In all direct confrontations with Israel or the US (at least during Khamenei’s rule, I’m not so sure about Khomeini), Iran has responded with measured actions aimed at de-escalation while saving face domestically and internationally and discouraging further aggression. Your image of Iran seems to be built on Western propaganda more than reality (again, I am not saying this to defend the Iranian regime).
Uh… the sanctions are for daring to control their resources contrary to Western capitalist interests. Iran could be the most secular, most democratic country in the world and Western countries would still find a reason to sanction it. Besides, remember JCPOA? It was the US (and by extension the West) that reneged on that deal. Hell, remember the reason the Islamic Republic exists in the first place? Iran, quite rationally, wants to be an independent regional power not subordinate to anybody’s interests (and, again quite rationally, especially not Western interests). This directly contradicts the Western (especially US) demand that all Middle Eastern states be subordinate to their interests and pro-Israel. There can be no reconciliation between these positions (yet Iran tried anyway, see: JCPOA), so securing its position by force is the only realistic prospect, and frankly you can’t argue with results.
Here you seem to be conflating rationality with morality. The Iranian regime is evil as fuck, but it’s rationally evil. Murdering challengers to one’s power is very rational from the perspective of a regime primarily concerned with its own survival. See also: the CCP.
no one is more fundamentalist than western regimes, they all will burn in hell for their crimes
No. Look at DPRK
Iran must have nukes for stability and safety of the region
Short term stability for sure, but I don’t think Russia has been able to provide any more long term stability to anyone better than the US can. China maybe, but we haven’t really seen this version of China show their true colors to a nation they don’t consider part of their original borders.
Oh I’m considering this from the perspective of the regional reason for instability which for a while now has been Israel. For long-term stability, Israel should face mutually-assured-destruction from Iran without the promise of unlimited weapons and interceptors from US. Israel should also face existential threat from Iran if they expand in to neighbouring countries, like they’re currently doing in Lebanon. If the US-Israel military command causes significant economic pain in the US, I think the US public opinion would force the US to break from Israel, which should usher the conditions I’m envisioning - of Israel facing Iran and the region alone, and perhaps even without unlimited US weapons. Def not the only possibility, but the one I think would make things a lot less explosive over the long haul.
E: I think China might push Iran to settle with the US in order to halt the economic destruction that would affect them too, possibly in exchange for greater economic China-Iran cooperation despite US sanctions.
Yeah… ok fair point
The USA already doesn’t have a win condition, but the only way for longterm stability would be something like Iran getting EU membership which isn’t on the table. The solution with the least harm would be for the USA and other NATO allies to help the Iranians overthrow the despots and cut ties with China. The worst possible outcome is like 40% of Iranians die, Israel claims land, and the IRGC stays in power, which is pretty close to your idea of the best outcome.
The time to do that was before bombing hundreds of Iranian children. And civilian infrastructure. Way too late now.
Are you expecting me to defend the Trump Admin? It’s never too late so long as the IRGC holds power, but yes he’s made it a lot harder for us to accomplish positive change.
Your problem here is that you think that “we” can accomplish any positive change. Only Iranians can do that. What “we” want to do is further our imperial domination of the globe.
For the moderate wing of the imperial powers (i.e. your “we”), that means toppling the state and replacing it with a pliant comprador regime which will privatize resources and reduce labour protections and the social safety net, enabling greater profits to flow back into the imperial core and to western companies. As a side benefit and for PR, this would also entail some opening up in terms of social liberties, which would be the “positive change” you’re talking about, but it’s both entirely optional and only at the expense of looting Iran.
For the extreme wing of the imperial powers, which is to say Israel, the goal is to completely destroy the Iranian nation and turn it into a fragmented, forcibly deindustrialized basket case that has no ability to threaten the goal of Greater Israel.
In short, while you probably don’t realize it, you’re articulating a position which is still ultimately hostile and detrimental to the Iranian people and to the middle east as a whole - just not as much as the faction that’s aiming for the destruction of Iran. A neoliberal comprador regime in Iran would be friendly with Israel, so the Greater Israel project would remain unopposed except by scattered resistance groups which could be dealt with piecemeal, and the overthrow of the Iranian state would therefore usher in genocide and forced displacement across the region.
Thus, the only moral and rational position is full support for the Iranian state, in spite of its flaws.
No I’m just saying you might as well give up on that dream - the regime will have more support than ever, now.
We’re discussing hypothetical outcomes, I doubt any one of the suggestions in this thread will have any real world impact but remaining silent would be stupid.
Disagree. A democratic Iran with 90 million population, and presumably no sanctions, is a growth powerhouse that produces loads of things, among which loads of weapons. For Israel’s security apparatus, that’s a country one “bad” election away from launching a lot more weapons at them. That’s something which Israel will not let stand. Which is also why they are so obviously not going for regime change but instead for inducing a failed state that’s ungovernable, can’t organize production, won’t have sanctions lifted, would perpetually have insurgency that can be bombed at will, or in technical terms mow the lawn.
There’s no outcome other than diminished US or Israeli power, or both, that would produce stability in the region given Israel’s ambitions and US interests in the region.
As for the Iranian people, their only hope for better life can come from internal struggle against their gov’t over time that would be made a whole lot easier if their economic situation is made better through lifting of sanctions, or if sanctions remain - through massively increased trade with China. (Cause the more resources people have, the more they have left to organize as change does not come through magic and spontaneous revolutions are a fantasy.) If the EU is smart, they would drop their sanctions against Iran. Which is actually plausible if more shit keeps hitting the fan and their oil supply does not resume, which could force them to break ranks with the US on this.
Removed by mod
Aaalright then. I think we’re done here.
Removed by mod
Only if you don’t take into account harm for Iranians in your idea of “harm.” What you’re describing is basically what happened in Libya.
Iranians were starving and being shot to death in the streets even before the war, continuing the war until the USA admits defeat will also lead to undue suffering. The only system of representing Iranian citizens is a democracy which is the furthest from their current organization.
Are you not capable of learning from history? Again, you could’ve said the same thing about Libya. Does Libya in 2026 look like a thriving democracy to you? Then why do you want to do the same thing in Iran?
Revolution does not always result in democracy, but democracy is still the best system for protecting health and happiness of the majority of people.
Libya now is still better off than Libya under Gaddafi.
What the actual fuck. Holy dear Jesus. That’s a wild take if I ever saw one.
Great counter argument.
What. The. Fuck? Libya under Gaddafi didn’t have fucking slave markets you can’t be fucking serious. Also foreign countries dropping bombs isn’t a “revolution” anymore than Soviet-backed regimes in Eastern Europe were revolutionary.
There are news stories of Gaddafi’s slave trade operations since like 1996, probably earlier.
Wait until ABC finds out where all of Iran’s guns and munitions are made.
I don’t know how much they have left of what Ronald Reagan sold them, oops, sorry Oliver North
Wait until ABC finds out China sells a fuck ton of green tech like EVs, solar, and BESS.
Fuck China, threat to human life on earth
Found the fascist.
They don’t have to be a fascist to have a bad take.
No but generally the people that cry the hardest about communism and its threat to
profithumanity are indeed fascists.Chinese aren’t real communists, they’re red fascists. They’ve got a more powerful oligarchy ruling class than the USA ever has.
You fell for NED propaganda again. Please try harder. Maybe talk to a mainlander once. Visit China. Try to find any victims.