Oliver Boyd-Barrett: Startling Changes of Perspective

YouTube link to Rachel Blevins’ interview with military analyst Mark Sleboda on Iran-Israel.

By Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Substack, 6/19/25

Oliver Boyd-Barrett is a scholar and critic of media and communication, propaganda, and international news media and film.

There have been a number of important developments over the past 24 hours. Let me summarize these, first of all, and, in the time I have today (under time pressure as always), flesh them out as best I can. In “fleshing them out” I shall likely not proceed in the same order as my summary points are presented below. I will note that amongst the most prominent of physcial actions that have occurred in the past few hours is an Israeli attack on the inactive Iranian nuclear reactor at Arak, justified on the grounds that this will stop Iran from re-activating it; and an Iranian call for the evacuation of Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev desert, in advance of a forthcoming Iranian assault. Iran claims to have fired 100 drones into Israel during the last day.

Perhaps most importantly, in the light of my most recent previous post, there are signs of a stronger, more proactive move of support for Iran from China, especially, and from Russia. Secondly, there are some growing doubts as to the accuracy of Israeli and US claims that Israel controls the skies over Tehran. Thirdly, the situation with respect to Iranian missile launchers is perhaps not so dire as might have seemed to be the case yesterday while, fourthly, there are persistent indications that Israel will soon run out of missiles.

Fifthly, while the US and Israel have repeatedly talked about their interest in assassinating the Supreme Leader (a foolish quest, totally illegal of course and typically gangsterish, as this in itself most assuredly would NOT bring about regime change in Iran), President Trump, who has said that he has signed off on relevant attack plans, is now saying he will hold off from “direct” US participation for up to two more weeks because, apparently, he has more hope for that negotiations (which are due to continue in Geneva on Friday beteween the E3 and Iran) can be successful, while there is plenty of evidence in the US that public opinion does not support this measure (greater US involvement in the war) and that Trump’s MAGA basis is split, with prominent foundational members of the MAGA movement such as Tucker Carlson and Steven Bannon coming out in strong opposition to another US-instigated “forever war.”

On the topic of assassinations I hold it highly likely that the President Peseshkian’s predecessor, Raisi, was assassinated – probably by Mossad, perhaps by the CIA or MI6.

What would be the nature of more direct US involvement in the war? There are many senior-level voices that express doubt as to the likely success of MOABS for the purpose of taking out deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities. One of these is that of MIT/Stanford professor emeritus Ted Postol (a cousin of mine through marriage, I am pleased to say) who is highly skeptical that MOABs can achieve the necessary depth. An additional measure, involving the dropping of one MOAB after another at exactly the same target would be particularly challenging to achieve.

In short, the MOAB route could end up further embarrassing the US (which has in effect just lost a war to Yemen, having a little while back lost a war to Afghanistan, in a long line of losses going back to Vietnam and Korea – none of these being counted as amongst the most technologically sophisticated civilizations).

Besides, how is MOAB going to help given that the real purpose of this war has nothing whatsover to do with nuclear enrichment but with regime change. Would a successful MOAB attack bring about regime change of itself? No, it wouldn’t.

Would an attempt on the life of the Supreme Leader bring about a regime change? No, because the political system of Iran is far too complex. We can think of it as being a vibrant democracy in a system that is capped by the privileged influence of the mullahs [ayatollahs], perhaps comparable to – but actually more benign in my view – the US system of democracy that seems in many respects to be totally overridden by an out-of-control military-industrial complex, a lobby complex and plutocrats, a far more sinister crowd than humble Shi’a clerics.

So, last night I was bemoaning the evidence of a strong, unambiguously supportive stance by Russia and China that would convey to the world their resolve that they would not allow this war crime to pass and that they would extend to Iran, their partner in the BRICS, every help it needs in order to survive and prosper, and I was also casting doubt on the efficacy of the BRICS, which is unable or unwilling to express a view on events that are tearing the world apart and whose leaders seem fearfully over-cautious about being bold.

So I am glad to say that I have to take some of this back. First of all, I should note that there was a telephone call yesterday between President Putin and Chairman Xi Jinping. This lasted about an hour and the leaders spent most of their time talking about Iran. They have issued a statement to the effect that both countries are united behind the view that the way to resolve the conflict between Iran and Israel is through diplomatic means.

Now, I am concerned that the wording of the statement seems to me to fall into the trap of legitimizing the lie that this is just about Israel versus Iran, which of course it is not – it is about the US war against the rest of the world for the maintenance of US hegemony through the use, in this instance, of Israel-as-proxy, (which does not mean that the proxy, the “tail,” is not also wagging the dog). And it seems to give legitimacy to the lie that the real issue is about nuclear enrichment and to the lie that Iran remotely constitutes a nuclear “threat” to the region when it is the humungus, inhuman bully, Israel, that is the threat and when the real issue, as I have just said, is about US global supremacy through regional Israeli supremacy.

But we should also note that the Russian-Chinese statement does not preclude hard support for Iran.

At this point I should throw in the obvious observation that Iran is important in this context not because it may become a nuclear weapons power – on that we shall just have to wait and see, but no evidence of it so far – but because Iran sits on one of the world’s most important, perhaps THE most important global concentration of oil and gas wealth. By controlling Iran, installing a Western-friendly puppet regime, the US (which does not itself need much oil from Iran) may think it can control China, which is a major user of Iranian energy. And China, as Trump and the neocons have been parrotting for decades, is the real adversary that the US has to stop and overcome.

Now, the Moscow-Beijing statement is proactive in the sense that both countries agree to mobilize their respective departments of state to resolve the problem. A call between Putin and Erdogan of Turkey the day before came to a similar conclusion.

There are reports today from Dima of the Military Summary Channel, citing CIG/Telegram/Counter Int, that China has two electronic surveillance ships (855 and 815A) in the Gulf, their purpose being to gather intelligence of Israeli drone and missile launches and to give this to Iran.

AFP reports that China has had conversations with Oman, seeking to pressure Oman into closing its air-space to the US and Western nations, as well as China talking with Pakistan so that Pakistan can help close off its south western maritime border to Israeli, US and Western planes and ships, in this way forcing as much western traffic as possible into the Gulf, where it will be highly vulnerable either to direct hits or to Iranian measures designed to close the Strait of Hormuz (the US has already evacuated its navy and personnel from Qatar and Bahrein).

Professor Marandi, speaking to Glenn Diesen from the PressTV studios in Tehran this morning believes that such hits, coupled with Iranian missile strikes on US bases in the region, as well as strikes on neighboring oil and gas fields, could be a crippling blow to international trade, even pushing much of the world back into a pre-oil era.

China has also been talking to General al-Sisi of Egypt, trying to apply pressure on Egypt to control the passage of certain (Western war)ships through the Suez canal – a measure that would contravene a treaty of 1888 except in circumstances in which the security of the canal itself was at stake.

In the meantime there is growing consensus among analysts that Israel is lacking missiles and may soon run out. The Iranian waves of drone and missile attacks are depleting Israeli interceptors. Iran has far many more missiles than Israel, to all accounts. Israel claims to have destroyed one half of Iranian missile launchers which, in the light of some assessments, would represent quite good news about its remaining capability. But it is entirely possible that there has been a great deal of exaggeration about Israel’s successes in hitting or in other ways disabling Iranian launchers, anyway.

There are continuing reports of the arrival of Chinese cargo ships to Iran that are delivering weapons, including air defense systems.

As for Russian tardiness in responding to the crisis, Putin himself explains that in making progress towards the recent and now agreed strategic partnership between the two countries (Iran and Russia) he found the Iranians were difficult to negotiate with, that it was Iran that said it did not want a mutual defense clause, and that Iran was resistant to a program of joint Russian-Iranian weapons production on Iranian soil, and, finally, that Russia has not received a request from Iran for help with more weapons. I can see that Iran has many historical reasons for suspicion of Russia (essentially, Russia vied with Britain for control of Iran for over one hundred years), but I am not entirely satisfied with this account by Putin.

(I shall return later to extend and to update)

***

“According to Seymour Hersch, the war will start in the next few days. Ever aware of the potential impact on the stock and bond market, the start of could wait until the markets close for the weekend. According to Hersh’s sources, it will consist of a bombing campaign, mostly directed at the Revolutionary Guards, followed by B-2’s dropping bunker busters on Furdow to destroy Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.” – This summary provided by Sylvia Demarest.