March 5th 2026 Session about the US/Israeli war on Iran

Session 2026-03-05

Felicitas:

Dear Michael, in our session on july 23rd 2025 I asked you questions regarding Iran's geopolitical significance as a force against Western imperialism and how it conducted itself when it was attacked by the US/Israel in june 2025 and you gave me the following answer:

"@MEntity: First we will say that from our perspective, Iran holds a central node in what we might describe as a convergence of Epochal themes that shape not only its internal development, but also its internal engagements. It is not merely a political state but a living symbol of ideological persistence, adaptive sovereignty, and ethical/moral challenge to dominant global narratives.

Regarding Professor Marandi, we would agree with the assessment. While the nuclear narrative serves as the convenient, institutional justification for sanctions and isolation, the true existential threat posed by Iran to US/Israel hegemony is Iran's persistent refusal to fall in line with the global order shaped primarily by post-World War Western architecture. It is not Iran's potential capacity to make a nuclear weapon that is the problem, but Iran's proven capacity to inspire and enable non-state resistance to imperial designs. The support of groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, especially when that support crosses Sunni/Shia divisions, speaks to Iran's pan-Islamic and even post-Islamic positioning as a bastion of independence, not merely a theocratic state. This model cannot be easily co-opted and that is what sustains the antagonism. Iran's moral/ethical framing of resistance, even if not always well executed, challenges Western moral monopoly. This is a deeper form of defense.

As to why or if Iran was caught off guard on June 13th, there are several factors to consider: There are internal Epoch tensions where the Young Soul surge in revolutionary leadership brings boldness, but also idealism and overconfidence. Young Souls can often miscalculate risk due to inflated senses of moral clarity and capacity for control. There are Trust issues at work, as well. Iran does not trust the West, but has trusted the protocols of negotiation as a deterrent. There may have been tactical assumptions that the West, especially Israel, would not act with such blunt aggression while diplomatic theatre was in play. It could be said that Iran had a misplaced projection of decency, or projection of strategic restraint, despite the West and Israel historically rarely showing either of these.

And finally, Israel maneuvered to exploit a moment of relaxed defense during diplomatic activities. Iran was not naive, but operating from a complex balance of threat analysis and were tactically surprised. Your assessment that the acceptance of a ceasefire was to retain a strategic image of rationality is fair. We see a preservation of power as Iran's leadership recognized that military escalation beyond a certain threshold would then unify multiple external powers against it, undoing decades of carefully constructed positioning.

In addition to this, Iran "made its point" by absorbing the surprise attack, retaliating effectively, and all while demonstrating restraint, upholding its role as a resistance anchor without becoming the aggressor. And finally, from the perspective of Epochs, Iran is not going to simply react, but is performing a role where it must both resist and demonstrate moral/ethical clarity, not descend into vendetta. This is in keeping with a growing Mature Soul nation navigating Baby and Young pressures from within. Iran appears to us to be one of only a few nation-states still functioning with an ideology that rivals and critiques Western order and not merely copying it or reforming it."

Last saturday, february 28th 2026, the US and Israel attacked Iran again and the war is still ongoing as we speak. The attack came again during ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran regarding its nuclear program and more broadly its military capacity. In a press conference on the evening before the US/Israel attacked Iran again, the Omani mediator stated that a lot of progress had been made and that Iran had made far-reaching concessions. The next day, Israel/USA started to bomb Iran, committing the war crime of perfidy again, killing the Ayatollah Khamenei and other senior leaders in Tehran as well as around 165 little girls in a school in Minab, Iran.

This time around it doesn't look like Iran was as surprised by the attack as last year in june. As far as I can see based on what I read and hear from the news sources I follow, so far Iranian leadership is implementing the strategy that it said it would implement, if attacked again: Not only retaliation against Israel, but also against US (and other Western powers) military and strategic assets in the region as well as the closure of the strait of Hormuz to the transportation of oil, gas and other goods. I get the impression that Iran is well prepared militarily (in terms of weapons stockpiles, strategic planning, manpower and determination) and can keep doing what it is doing for quite a while. Also, although not all Iranians are happy with their state and government, I get the impression that a majority of Iranians doesn't want to be "freed" by carpet-bombardments of their country and therefore now actually stands with its government and military establishment more than before Iran was attacked again.

I doubt whether the same can be said for the US/Israel and its vassals. If I understood correctly, the US war-planners have concluded that they don't have enough weapons to withstand Iranian missiles and drones for more than a few weeks and that they don't have enough manpower to send soldiers into Iran to do a ground invasion. Still the US and Israeli regimes went ahead with the attack anyway, apparently betting on the quick disintegration of Iran's state and military structures once the Ayatollah was assassinated and a big popular uprising to take over the country. Neither of these outcomes occured and now it looks like they are 'stuck' in a war without a clear strategy or off-ramp. Unless the objective was/is to 'simply' destroy Iran as much as possible, then that would explain the fact that the US/Israel are bombing so many civilians and civilian infrastructure like hospitals, ambulance hubs, schools, sports facilities and water purification installations, just like they did in Gaza. And now Israel is alo carpet-bombing Beirut and other places in Lebanon again.

I also heard that there were numerous internal complaints from US soldiers about commanders telling them that they were fighting a holy war, that Trump was anointed by Jesus Christ and that they have to make this as bloody as possible to bring about armageddon. This sounds truly deranged, but the US secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who has crusader tattoos on his body and hates muslims, actually doubled down on this. So it looks like religious extremism is also at play here on the side of the US/Israel.

We are in a situation now in which two nuclear-armed states, the US and Israel, are waging a vicious war of aggression against a non-nuclear-armed state, Iran, bringing about enormous suffering and destruction as well as the destabilization of the global economy. Needless to say, this makes me also very nervous with regards to the possibility that at some point these psychotic regimes (US and Israel) might use nuclear weapons. Especially Israel seems very dangerous here, with its 'Samson option'-doctrine.

I experienced a horrible mix of reactions on saturday, when the attack on Iran began. On the one hand I felt a strange kind of exhilaration because Israel and the US, through Iran's retaliation, were being presented with real-life consequences again instead of just being allowed endless impunity, on the other hand I felt and feel dread and sorrow because of the horrors of war the Iranian people are having to face now. Also, I feel dread because I value Iran's persistent refusal to fall in line with the global order shaped primarily by post-World War Western architecture. I don't want it to be defeated or worse, erased.

Can you give me your assessment of Iran's leadership now, compared to the assessment you gave me last july and which I quoted above. Faced with this war of aggression by the US/Israel, Iran is having to fight what looks like an existential war. Does that translate into the complete loss of its ethics and restraint? Have the baby and young sould pressures within gained the upper hand? Does it run the risk of descending into vendetta this time around? I know that you won't predict the future, but what are the probalities of Iran surviving this war with its ethical and resistance stance intact? Also, what is the probabilty of the US/Israel using (tactical) nuclear weapons?

And as far as the US is concerned: does the leadership in charge over there see this as a crusade? They murdered the second most important leader in shia islam, so they intentionally angered a lot of muslims. And what is the probabilty of resistance on a significant scale within the US against this war, both within its military and within the US population? I got the impression that there might already be some resistance within the ranks of the military, for example on the aircraft carrier Ford that experienced clogged toilets. Was there some sabotage going on by US sailors who had enough of being deployed for so long or was it merely a question of malfunction of old equipment on the ship?

MEntity:

First, in July we described Iran as trying to hold a dual function of resistance anchor and moral framing, all while navigating internal Baby and Young pressures. The difference now is that the "dual function" is under existential strain and existential strain does three things to leadership systems, regardless of nation:

It compresses decision time which tends to push any system toward its most practiced circuits, doctrine, hierarchy, redundancy, and retaliation ladders. Your perception that Iran is less surprised and more doctrinally prepared this time is consistent with what usually follows an initial shock event. The second event tends to be met with pre-built contingencies rather than improvised poise.

Next, it clarifies internal cohesion through this external threat. What you describe is what is often called "rallying consolidation" where internal dissent does not vanish, but it deprioritizes itself in the face of invasion, assassination, and mass civilian harm. This is not unique to Iran, but a fairly standard human collective response, especially when the "alternative" is experienced as annihilation and not as liberation.

And finally, it increases the probability of ethical erosion, but it does not guarantee it. "Existential" does not automatically equal "vendetta," but it does increase the temptation toward it because the psyche and the state both begin to justify anything as necessary.

So the question of whether this translates into the complete loss of ethics and restraint is that this is not the case, inherently, but the probability of drift does increase. The most likely pattern is not a sudden flip into pure vendetta, but selective narrowing of ethics, meaning, with leadership maybe preserving internal moral narrative while expanding what it counts as legitimate targets, legitimate methods, and legitimate collateral.

As for Baby and Young pressures gaining the upper hand, those pressures have intensified, indeed. The question is whether Mature capacities remain operative. In our terms, "Mature" here would look like clearer discrimination between symbolic retaliation and strategic retaliation, more attention to proportionality narratives, and more effort to keep third party populations from being framed as legitimate pain vessels. "Baby and Young" would look like prestige-driven escalation, humiliation politics, absolutist rhetoric, and punitive targeting meant to terrify rather than to strategically constrain.

From what we can see, Iran's actions around Hormuz appear to be designed as asymmetric leverage against the global economic architecture, rather than being only an emotional lashing out, which can be read as strategic rather than purely based in vendetta. However, any theater that includes mass civilian casualties, such as the Minab school strike being attributed to the United States and Israel by Iran, will reliably raise internal public demand for punishment, and leadership will have to absorb and translate that demand.

Felicitas: Do you mean to say that the Minab school strike was not done by the US or Israel? I thought it was a cruise missile fired from the USS Abraham Lincoln.

MEntity:

If the war remains primarily as standoff strike warfare, drone and missile exchanges, maritime disruption, proxy and regional base targeting, then the probability that Iran maintains some recognizable ethical narrative and enough restraint to keep its resistance posture "legible" to much of the Global South and non-aligned public, is fairly moderate.

If the war shifts into sustained decapitation attempts, mass civilian slaughter, infrastructure collapse, and especially any attempt at internal fragmentation operations, then the probability of vendetta-driven policy increases, and the probability of an ethical stance decreases because the internal justification becomes survival through terror.

If leadership succession after Khamenei's death is orderly enough to preserve continuity of doctrine and command, the probability of strategic continuity is higher. As far as we can see, escalation ladders are being actively rewritten in real-time.

Regarding your question about Minab school strike, we do not have that data yet. We only know the impact of its attribution and at the moment, it is being attributed to United States and Israel by Iran. We cannot confirm, but we can say that it was not accidental. There is precision in the strike that is clear to us.

Regarding nuclear use by the United States or Israel, we think you are right to fear this and that you are also right that it is still not the most likely outcome because nuclear use is not just a weapon of choice, but an epochal political choice that reorders alliances, legitimacy, and retaliation expectations. Israel's nuclear posture is mostly deterrence oriented and existentially framed. The probability rises primarily under conditions where Israeli leadership believes state survival is as stake. For the United States, nuclear use would require crossing multiple military, political, and alliance thresholds, and would trigger enormous global blowback. This helps keep baseline probabilities lower than it may seem.

Overall, we see the use of nuclear weapons to be low, but not negligible. It becomes tangibly higher if either state faces decisive defeat, uncontrollable escalation with mass casualties at home, or a belief that credible deterrence has failed and must be re-established through an unthinkable act.

Regarding the crusade framing, we can say that it is true that some commanders and subcultures are framing it this way, but it is not established as a unified guiding doctrine of the leadership. What is established is that such rhetoric exists in circulation and in wartime, even minority rhetoric can become catalytic if tolerated.

Regarding resistance from within the United States Military and U.S. population, we can say that resistance rises in the population as more visible civilian atrocities occur, prolonged economic pain, and absence of a believable objective. We already see heavy energy and shipping market stress linked to Hormuz disruption, which is likely to grow in domestic backlash.

Within the military, resistance tends to rise with repeated deployments, ambiguous missions, perceived illegalities, high risk with inadequate protection, and leadership rhetoric that feels unhinged or sectarian.

We cannot see where this is going yet, but we do know that all of these factors are on the rise.

Regarding the clogged toilets, we also cannot say with certainty, but we do know that prolonged deployment strain can lead to engineering and maintenance problems. We do not see the spark of mutiny at the moment.

Felicitas:

Oooo, I hoped it was some creative sabotage going on on the Ford.

We are 12 minutes over time already, just so you know.

MEntity:

Your emotional mix of exhilaration and dread are not contradictions, but an honest clarity. Exhilaration is your recognition of consequences returning to actors you have witnessed operating with impunity. Dread is your recognition that consequence is also carried first by bodies that did not consent, children, civilians, and the displaced. Both responses can coexist without canceling each other. This is the Mature Soul capacity to hold paradox without collapsing into nihilism or righteousness.

The most practical internal compass for our students in the days and weeks ahead might be to track where your attention helps you stay human. If your attention turns into compulsive consumption, or turns to fantasies of annihilation, this is a slip toward vendetta within yourselves, not just the states. If your attention turns toward being an informed witness, toward support for relief, and insistence on ethics even for those you side with emotionally, this is a resistance stance.

We understand we are overtime. We will conclude here for today. Good day to you, Felicitas. We have said in the past that the next 5 years would be the most challenging. We are only just beginning to see these challenges.

—————————————-

Some thoughts from me about this session: Based on the information I have seen, I believe that it was the US who are responsible for the airstrike on the school in Minab.

Furthermore, so much is happening that I realized after the session that I didn't even include in my summary of events the fact that a US submarine torpedoed an Iranian navy ship off the coast of Sri Lanka. The ship was on its way back home after taking part in joint naval drills with the Indian navy. Not only did the US sink this ship in international waters without any evidence that it posed a threat, but it also did not stick around to rescue survivors, all in direct contravention of international law. More than 80 Iranian sailors died and a few dozen were picked up alive by the navy of Sri Lanka.

Also, people in Bahrein who oppose the presence of the US military in their country and the rule of the Khalifa dynasty, have taken to the streets in big numbers and have been met by violent oppression from the police state they live in. Saudi-Arabia sent in forces to help the Khalifas suppress the uprising and many people have been imprisoned. I don't see any mention of this in mainstream Western media at all.

And lastly, I saw some disgusting so-called news articles in my own country (the NL) that are described best as Mossad-porn, glorifying the 'genius' of the Israelis in how they managed to locate the whereabouts of Ayatollah Khamenei. Aside from the fact that this is shameless propaganda for an entity and state that in my opinion should only be referred to as terrorists and criminals (the Mossad and the state of Israel), it is also such BS. When a guy and his entourage don't hide in some bunker (unlike Netanyahu, who in the first days of this war fled to a bunker in Berlin, Germany) but rather just stay at home and at their regular office, it can hardly be called a feat of intelligence when his whereabouts are found out and subsequently bombed.

But leaving all that aside, even if it might anger some of you: I wholeheartedly wish for Iran to survive this horrible war intact as a living breathing beacon against Western imperialism or as Michael said it: Iran's persistent refusal to fall in line with the global order shaped primarily by post-World War Western architecture.