Horror Scene After “Double-Tap” Bombing Kills Over 20 at Popular Tehran Square

Witnesses Describe Horror Scene After “Double-Tap” Bombing Kills Over 20 at Popular Tehran Square

In Iran, the U.S. and Israel are employing tactics used in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the “War on Terror” and Trump’s recent attacks on alleged drug boats in the Carribean.

REZA SAYAH AND MURTAZA HUSSAIN MAR 2

Drop Site is a reader-funded, independent news outlet. Without your support, we can’t operate. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a 501(c)(3) tax-deductible donation today.

Upgrade to paid

Twenty people were killed in a U.S.–Israeli attack on Niloofar Square in Tehran on March 1, 2026. Photo: SNN.

Reprinted from Drop Site News.

TEHRAN, IRAN—As groups of families and others gathered Sunday evening at cafes around Niloofar Square—a middle-class area in eastern Tehran—after breaking their fast for Ramadan, a series of explosions struck the area, leveling several buildings and killing over 20 people, according to witnesses at the scene and later reports from local news sources.

Witnesses who spoke to Drop Site said two explosions hit the area—a smaller strike in the vicinity, followed by a larger one that devastated much of the neighborhood, a tactic known as a “double tap” strike that is used to inflict maximum casualties.

Videos of the immediate aftermath of the attack showed several individuals dead and wounded as well as massive destruction on the street outside. In Cafe Ahla, next to the square, blood and debris soaked the floors. Several patrons who had been sitting there when the attack struck could be seen dead on the floor or with their mutilated bodies still sprawled across their seats.

“We were sitting here around 8:00-8:30 p.m. and suddenly there was the noise and explosion. We got up and a few people ran away. We turned around to get our belongings and we saw that blood was spraying everywhere. Someone’s hand had fallen on the floor, a head had fallen on the floor,” said Shahin, a witness who had been at the cafe and asked to be identified by first name only. “There were scalps torn off, hands severed, a few people were laying here all cut up and two people were martyred.”

As has been the case with nearly all of the bombings in Iran, it remains unclear whether this attack was carried out by the U.S. or Israel. Israel has used “double tap” strikes in Gaza, Lebanon, and elsewhere. 

In one prominent incident, the Israeli military killed 22 Palestinians, including five journalists, in a double tap strike on Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis in August. The U.S. repeatedly engaged in double tap strikes during the so-called “War on Terror” in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen and, most recently, in a September 2025 attack on an alleged Venezuelan drug smuggling boat in the Caribbean.

Survivors of the Sunday attack at Niloofar Square described a similar pattern in which an initial bombing was followed by a much larger attack a short time later.

“One hit and it wasn’t that bad but when the second one hit, suddenly everything exploded. The windows all shattered. Whoever had hookahs were thrown to the floor,” Shahin said. “One of my friends whom I don’t know that well he was sitting here. His hookah was in his hands until the last moment. He was severed in half. Half of him was thrown to the side. I put him back together and placed him where he was. A piece of his brain was thrown here on the floor.”

The bombing at Niloofar Square was one of a number of attacks on densely populated areas of the Iranian capital over the past 24 hours. A separate strike hit Ferdowsi Square—a major historical area in central Tehran—amid a broader campaign striking targets all across the city. Among the sites hit were police stations, government buildings, and offices of the country’s national broadcaster. Numerous videos circulating on social media showed widespread destruction on city streets including collapsed buildings and debris. Another strike reported by local media damaged the Golestan Palace—a UNESCO world heritage site.

At least 555 people have been killed in Iran so far in the U.S.-Israeli military campaign that began on Saturday, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society. That number is believed to be an undercount given the large scale of the campaign targeting cities in numerous parts of the country.

“The worst thing that can happen in your life is this. You’re sitting here in peace, relaxing for an hour, and something like this destroys your whole life,” said Shahin, who survived the attack on Cafe Ahla. “You tried to hit the police and you killed average people. If this is how you want to kill, then kill us all. Every night we are seeing killings. We can’t sleep at night because we’re worried something will happen to our kids.”

Hospitals and other medical facilities have also been repeatedly targeted in the U.S.-Israeli strikes. On Monday, Fatemeh Mohammad Beigi, a member of parliament’s health commission, said on state media that nine hospitals have been attacked, including five in Tehran and four in other cities. The Gandhi hospital in northern Tehran was completely evacuated, with patients—including babies in incubators—being moved to other facilities after it sustained severe damage from airstrikes. Abuzar Hospital in Ahvaz was also hit and evacuated. Iran’s Red Crescent Society said its Comprehensive Rehabilitation Center in the Seyed Khandan neighborhood of the capital was seriously damaged, with photos showing shattered treatment rooms.

“Attacking a hospital is an attack on life, and attacking a school is an attack on a nation’s future,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian wrote in a social media post. “Targeting patients and children is a blatant violation of all human principles, and the world must condemn it. I stand with the grieving nation; the Islamic Republic of Iran neither remains silent nor submits in the face of such crimes.”

Meanwhile, War Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed claims of civilian casualties in a press conference on Monday saying, “No stupid rules of engagement, no nation building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win and we don’t waste time or lives. As the president warned, an effort of this scope will include casualties. War is hell and always will be.”

The Trump administration has given mixed signals about its own motivations for the war and how long it will last—citing sometimes conflict claims about stopping the Iranian nuclear program, ballistic missile development, or even toppling the ruling government. At present there is no clear timeline for how long the fighting will continue, with Trump himself suggesting that the fighting could stretch on for weeks or more.

“All these people have died and they had nothing to do with nuclear bombs, they had nothing to do with missiles,” said Shahin.

 Why We Struck Iran

The machine that all but made the decision itself

KEN KLIPPENSTEIN MAR 2

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine briefs the press on Operation Epic Fury

We’re covering the Iran war extensively in the coming days, subscribe so you don’t miss any updates

Subscribed

We attacked Iran because the target was simply too tempting to pass up, military sources tell me. 

No consideration was given to the what, the so what or the then what, I’m also told. The “high-value targets” were just too valuable: the Ayatollah, the Chief of staff of the Army, the Minister of Defense—at least 40 senior officials in total were killed. Trump 'approved' what was all but impossible not to approve. The president is captive to an intelligence machine built over decades that now produces kill packages so clean and seductive that it practically runs itself. 

As the Pentagon bluntly put it, “a large-scale U.S. strike cut off the head of the snake,” summarizing its view of a crisp decapitation operation.

Trump gets away with all of this by pretending we’re not actually at war—a falsehood with which Congress is happy to play along. Asked if the U.S. is at war with Iran, Sen. Lindsey Graham told Meet the Press: “I don’t know if this is technically a war.” Absurd as that sounds, Democratic leaders are adopting the same framing. Sen. Chuck Schumer says the strikes are “risking wider conflict” as if this isn’t already that; Rep. Hakeem Jeffries says the operation has “brought us to the brink of a possible war,” as if this isn’t already war. 

If killing a 36-year-long head of state and his deputies isn’t war, what is?

The United States is at war with Iran, pure and simple. We have been for decades. We supported Iraq in its war against Iran. We’ve conducted special operations inside Iran. We’ve shot at Iranian coastal installations and sunk Iranian ships. We’ve undertaken constant covert operations in the shadows, from actual sabotage to planting cyber viruses. We shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, attacked targets on land, and conducted thousands of strikes against Iranian proxies in multiple countries from Yemen to Lebanon. We’ve labeled the country part of the Axis of Evil. We killed Quds Force head Qasem Soleimani in an aerial assassination and bombed Iranian nuclear-related sites. We’ve thwarted Iranian attacks on Israel and others, maintained a tripwire ground force in Kuwait, and hardened installations in the region.

From Jimmy Carter to Donald Trump, through Republican and Democratic administrations, the United States has frozen countless billions in Iranian assets; sanctioned Iranian companies; cut off Iran from the world banking system; banned Iranian oil imports and exports; and penalized non-U.S. companies investing in the country. We have designated the nation, Iranian organizations, and Iranian individuals state sponsors of terrorism and foreign terrorist organizations.

Add to this history that today, the American military machine continues to do its thing. In two-and-a-half decades of war since 9/11, it has perfected the ability to find and destroy a target, any target. I’ve previously written about the fundamental change that has occurred in the nature of warfare in the practice of decapitation. As we see here in the latest, the U.S. and Israel carried out an opening blow that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of other Iranian leaders.

The military feat itself is the “reason” we are where we are. Pure and simple, meticulous intelligence work identified the routines and locations of the Ayatollah and others in Iran’s national security apparatus and when a set of meetings on Saturday morning were pinpointed, the tight-as-a-rubber-band machine snapped into action.

“Calling this ‘starting a war’ is a Democratic talking point,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said today, adding: “This is the elimination of a threat that has existed since 1979.”

Because we were already at war with Iran and have been for decades, those in charge didn’t think they had to ask permission (or even if they did, that they had time to do so). The target is hot, red hot, and we need to strike now to gain the maximum advantage, the briefers say. Yes, there are intelligence and diplomatic people who fret about the consequences, but like the wusses in Congress, they are brushed aside because this is an opportunity we can’t pass up.

That’s how it’s been explained to me.

As many of you may have noticed, I have not unleashed my own barrage of words over the US and Israeli war on Iran. I’ve followed the arguments for and against, unhappy that so much of what has been said and written focuses on Trump rather than Iran and the intelligence machine I’m describing, and that so many of the Washington responses opposing the latest attacks have been to fret about the paperwork behind war powers rather than the obvious need to redefine what war is. 

In a rebuke of his own party’s rhetoric, congressman Eric Swalwell said this weekend, “Now is the time for values-based arguments against war with Iran,” adding: “NOT process (‘Come to Congress’) ones.” 

His point is well taken, but I’m skeptical that the opposition to the strike is focused on the machine that made it inevitable, instead of focused on Trump individually.

We build this military and intelligence machine, we pay for it, we watch it out there constantly training, deploying, exercising, attacking this and that in a half dozen countries so when something like this unfolds, we shouldn’t be surprised. That’s what it’s for. 

Several former senior military officials have groused to me that there’s very little scholarly analysis of decapitation as a policy in the open record, and certainly as it relates to major war (as opposed to counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency against non-state actors). And yet as I wrote earlier, we are witnessing a new breed of warfare with the ability of the military to perform near-instant decapitation. It is no longer the ten-year hunt for Bin Laden or the many unsuccessful attempts to get Saddam.

We need to adjust, for the old arguments about war, about going to war, and about the nature of war no longer apply in this strange new world.

Now, Donald Trump says that the “big wave” is still to come in the war, unsure himself of the outcome or even the point of Operation Epic Fury, which the lawyers are labeling “major combat operations” to further obscure the plain truth. Hegseth says that Trump “has all the latitude in the world” in deciding how long the war will last, while also reassuring that the Iran war will not be “endless.”

The “big wave” is merely another series of flights hitting more targets than yesterday. “Endless” is already here. And even if Iran’s theocracy is replaced by something else, the military isn’t going to fold up the machine and go home. Even if Iran ends up being something other than endless and a true democracy emerges, the machine will be there to continue to war with America’s many enemies.

It is the system that is our long-term problem, and our screwed up language and debate about war. For all the fretting about AI, an autonomous machine is already in charge. 

Subscribe if you think a war by any other name is still a war

Iran and the impact on the global economy

by Michael Roberts

Oil prices rose nearly 9% toward $73 per barrel today, the highest in over eight months, as the joint US and Israeli strikes on Iran sharply escalated tensions across the Middle East. And it seems that the narrow Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint that handles roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments and significant volumes of natural gas, is now being blocked (despite Tehran insisting the strait remains open).  Shipping companies are rerouting vessels away, and insurance companies are sharply increasing premiums. 

OPEC+ agreed on Sunday to increase production by 206,000 bpd in April, ending a three-month pause, but that’s well below the 411,000–548,000 bpd that had been previously considered.  So it is unlikely to make a difference to the short-term disruption to oil supply.  However, although crude oil prices are up, they are nowhere near as high as they reached in the post-pandemic energy price surge.

Two things need to happen before oil prices shoot up to $100/b or above.  First, there must be significant and prolonged disruption of all traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, given that the Strait carries about one in five barrels of oil in the world. Second, the missile and drone attacks must start hitting oil production installations.  So far, these installations across the Middle East have been studiously avoided – and that includes Iran’s.

If those two factors come into play, then the oil price per barrel could be in triple figures.  But remember, global oil production and supply are well above global demand because of the relative slowdown in global economic growth and the increasing switch to renewables. Last year it is estimated that global liquid fuels consumption increased by 1.1 million b/d in 2025 and may rise by 1.2 million b/d this year.  But global oil production growth will continue to outpace oil consumption so that oil inventories will increase by 3.1 million b/d in 2026.

Although China relies for much of its oil from the Middle East (mainly Saudi Arabia), it has been building up its strategic stockpiles for just such events and because of worries about US sanctions.  So China is well placed to deal with any shortages; and it can still turn to more oil imports from Russia and from South America, where it has been increasing supply in recent years to avoid the Middle East. The US has plenty of strategic stockpiles and, of course, its own domestic production.  However, for many parts of the Global South and for east Asia (Japan and Korea), as well as Europe in general (where Russian oil supply has been ended), the situation could be much tighter if the conflict continues for a long time.

Another factor helping to keep oil prices from exploding is the coming into supply of Venezuelan oil. Licences have been granted to US trading companies to export oil. Much of the oil transported previously bound for China, is now going to terminals around the Caribbean before being sold to US Gulf Coast refineries.  Venezuela’s oil production is likely to be back at pre-US sanction levels soon.

Trump is hoping and expecting a quick conflict that will bring the Iranian regime down or force its current leaders to submit to US terms.  Then oil prices will come back to ‘normal’  – in effect the ‘Venezuela outcome’.  But Iran is not Venezuela.   The history of US imperialist and Israeli ‘interventions’ in the Middle East suggests prolonged chaos, this time in a country of 90m people.  There is no organised opposition to the regime within Iran and, so far, the new leaders of the regime seem determined to retaliate for some time ahead.

If the war does get prolonged, it would keep oil prices high and despite the generally favourable balance of supply and demand long term, that could feed through to higher inflation in the major economies.  US consumer price inflation, already stubbornly above the Fed’s target rate of 2% a year, could hit 4% instead.  Rising energy prices are also a tax on consumption and investment, so economic growth could also lose a few basis points over the year.

A prolonged conflict could seriously damage growth in the Middle East.  The Gulf states would lose their lucrative tourist traffic and airlines may be forced to bypass the area for global transit.  The heady days of luxury lifestyles for foreigners would be over in these places.

So far, the US financial markets are unmoved, except that the gold price has reached new highs (the safe asset to hold in crises).  But note too, that the dollar has risen against other currencies, a further indication that all the talk about the dollar’s imminent demise is wishful thinking.  And what does the US-Israeli unprovoked ‘pre-emptive’ strike on Iran say about the resistant power of the BRICS+ group?

Speech by Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, Feb 16th 2026

 Reprinted from From Thomas Fazi on X @battleforeurope

If you want to understand why the US and Israel are attacking and attempting to subjugate Iran, you must read this historic speech by Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, delivered earlier this month at the 16th Al Jazeera Forum held in Doha: 

“Excellencies, Distinguished colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen, السلام علیکم 

 

It is a privilege to address you at this distinguished forum and discuss the profound question of our region: Palestine. 

 

Let me begin with a fact that the region has learned through decades of painful experience, and that the world is learning again at a terrible human cost: ‘Palestine is not one issue among many’. 

 

Palestine is the defining question of justice in West Asia and beyond. It is the strategic and moral compass of our region. It is a test of whether international law has meaning, whether human rights have universal value, and whether global institutions exist to protect the weak — or merely to rationalise the power of the strong. 

 

For generations, the Palestinian crisis was understood primarily as the consequence of an illegal occupation and the denial of an inalienable right: the right of a people to self-determination. But today, we must recognise that the crisis has moved far beyond the parameters of occupation alone. What we are witnessing in Gaza is not merely war. It is not a ‘conflict’ between equal parties. It is not an unfortunate byproduct of security measures. It is the deliberate destruction of civilian life on a massive scale. It is genocide. 

 

The human cost of Israel’s atrocities in Gaza has wounded the conscience of humanity. It has torn open the heart of the Muslim world — and it has also shaken millions beyond it: Christians, Jews, and people of all faiths, who still believe that the life of a child is not a bargaining chip, that starvation is not a weapon, that hospitals are not battlefields, and that the killing of families is not self-defense. 

 

Palestine today is not simply a tragedy; it is a mirror held up to the world. It reflects not only the suffering of Palestinians, but also the moral failure of those who had the power to stop this catastrophe — and chose instead to justify it, enable it, or normalise it. 

 

But Palestine and Gaza is not only a humanitarian crisis. It has become the platform for something larger and more dangerous: an expansionist project pursued under the banner of ‘security’. 

 

This project has three consequences — each of them profound, each of them alarming: 

 

The first consequence is global. The Israeli regime’s conduct in Palestine, and the impunity granted to it, have deeply damaged the international legal order. We must say this clearly: the world is moving toward a condition where international law no longer is respected and governs international relations. 

 

What is perhaps most dangerous is the precedent being established: that if a state has sufficient political cover and protection, it may bomb civilians, besiege populations, target infrastructure, assassinate individuals across borders, and still demand to be regarded as lawful. 

 

This is not merely a Palestinian problem. It is a global problem. 

 

We are witnessing not only the tragedy of Palestine, but the transformation of the world into a place where the law is replaced by force. 

 

The second consequence is regional. Israel’s expansionist project has had a direct and destabilising impact on the security of all countries in the region. 

 

The Israeli regime now openly violates borders. It breaches sovereignties. It assassinates official dignitaries. It conducts terrorist operations. It expands its reach in multiple theatres. And it does so, not discreetly, but with a sense of entitlement — because it has learned that international accountability will not come. 

 

Let us be candid: if the Gaza issue is ‘settled’ through destruction and forced displacement — if that becomes the model — then the West Bank will be next. Annexation will become policy. 

 

This is the essence of what has long been called the ‘Greater Israel’ project. 

 

The question therefore is not whether Israel’s actions threaten Palestinians alone. The question is whether the region will accept a future in which borders are temporary, sovereignty is conditional, and security is determined not by law or diplomacy, but by the ambitions of a militarised occupier. 

 

The third consequence is structural — and perhaps the most dangerous. 

 

Israel’s expansionist project requires that neighboring countries be weakened — militarily, technologically, economically, and socially — so that the Israeli regime permanently enjoys the upper hand. 

 

Under this project, Israel is free to expand its military arsenal without limits, including weapons of mass destruction that remain outside any inspection regime. Yet other countries are demanded to disarm. Others are pressured to reduce defensive capacity. Others are punished for scientific progress. Others are sanctioned for building resilience. 

 

Nobody should be confused: this is not arms control, it is not non-proliferation, it is not security. 

 

It is the enforcement of permanent inequality: Israel must have a ‘military, intelligence and strategic edge’, and others must remain vulnerable. This is a doctrine of domination. 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, 

 

This is why the Palestinian question is not only a humanitarian issue. It is a strategic issue. It is not only about Gaza and the West Bank. It is about the future of our region and the rules of the world. 

 

So what must be done? 

 

It is not enough to express concern. It is not enough to issue statements. It is not enough to mourn. We need a coordinated strategy of action — legal, diplomatic, economic, and security-based — rooted in the principles of international law and collective responsibility. 

 

First, the international community must support legal mechanisms without hesitation. 

 

Second, there must be consequences for violations. 

 

We call for comprehensive and targeted sanctions against Israel, including: an immediate arms embargo, the suspension of military and intelligence cooperation, restrictions on officials, and banning trade. 

 

Third, we need a credible political horizon grounded in law. The international community must affirm: the end of occupation, the right of return and compensation in accordance with international law, and the establishment of a unified and independent Palestinian state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital. 

 

Fourth, the humanitarian crisis must be treated as a matter of urgent international responsibility. Collective punishment must never be normalised. 

 

Fifth, regional states must coordinate to protect sovereignty and deter aggression. The principle must be clear: security cannot be built on the insecurity of others. 

 

And finally, the Islamic world, the Arab world, and the nations of the Global South must build a united diplomatic front. 

 

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League, and regional organisations must move beyond symbolism toward coordinated action: legal support, diplomatic initiatives, economic measures, and strategic messaging. 

 

This is not about confrontation. It is about preventing the region from being reshaped by force. 

 

Dear colleagues, 

Let no one miscalculate: a region cannot be kept stable by allowing one actor to act above the law. The doctrine of impunity will not produce peace; it will produce wider conflict. 

 

The path to stability is clear: justice for Palestine, accountability for crimes, an end to occupation and apartheid, and a regional order built on sovereignty, equality, and cooperation. 

 

If the world wants peace, it must stop rewarding aggression. If the world wants stability, it must stop enabling expansionism. 

 

If the world believes in international law, it must enforce it — consistently and without double standards. 

 

And if the nations of this region seek a future free from perpetual war, they must recognise this fundamental truth: Palestine is not merely a cause for solidarity; it is the indispensable cornerstone of regional security. 

 

Thank you”.

Irish Support of The Palestinian Cause Has Nothing to do With Sectarianism

The Irish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign

shared by Eamonn McCann

 

Palestinian Support Has Nothing to Do With a Rise in Sectarian Attacks  

 

The Derry Irish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign utterly rejects the comments made by local Unionist community leader Brian Dougherty in the Irish Times in which he linked ongoing sectarian attacks in Derry to the city’s overwhelming support for the Palestinian cause. 

 

Mr Dougherty who represents the Fountain based North West Cultural Partnership spoke at an event in the Hollywell Trust saying: 

 

“Derry sees itself as a progressive active city, but that activism has consequences, that feeds into general civic issues in Derry. 

 

In Northern Ireland people like to binarise themselves. You’re either for us or against us, so if you’re not on our parade supporting Palestine then you must be supporting Israel.“

 

The attempt to sectarianise the Palestine solidarity movement and frame it through the prism of narrow communal politics is a crass misrepresentation of who we are and what we stand for when we raise our voices against genocide. 

 

Our marches and our activism has brought thousands onto the streets without the merest hint of violence or threat. 

 

These thousands have come from all walks of life. Unlike the marches promoted by Mr Dougherty as ‘culture‘ there are no exclusions based on sectarian/religious lines when you march with us. 

 

Dougherty’s snide sectarianising of our movement and of the official position of our local Council mirrors the DUP attitude to Palestine and their promotion of Israeli Apartheid and genocidal actions. 

 

To portray PUL people as a homogeneous bloc who support the actions of Israel is useful for Mr Dougherty and Unionist politicians, it gives them an excuse to ignore the facts of what is happening in Palestine.

 

Unionist politicians desperately cling to the notion that to oppose Israel is either ant- Semitic or something done by Irish Catholics, Nationalists and Republicans. 

 

This is of course nonsense. To oppose genocide and express outrage against forced starvation, bombing civilians and destroying hospitals and schools does not make you a Catholic or Protestant, unionist or nationalist, it makes you human. 

 

Our members, our supporters, those who have signed our petitions and have marched with us come from every part of our society. 

 

We would never think of asking someone what their religion is before deciding if they can march with us. 

 

Our movement is a model of the kind of diversity and pluralism that gives hope for the future of this place. 

 

Protestant, catholic and dissenter have been joined by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and every other creed in the common cause of humanity. 

 

The Derry IPSC is completely and utterly opposed to all forms of hatred and division. 

To support, encourage or even unwittingly be a part of something that divides our vibrant communities would be self destructive as we are from these communities. 

 

We stand against homophobia, transphobia, sectarianism, racism, antisemitism and all forms of hatred. 

 

Sectarian attacks are disgusting and always wrong. 

 

We stand for a united community in this place that speaks with one clear voice on the plight of the Palestinian people. 

 

Palestinian solidarity is global, outward looking and progressive. We reject the characterisation of our movement put forward by Brian Dougherty.

Mamdani Treads an All Too Familiar Path

Richard Mellor

Zohran Mamdani's election as Mayor of New York City inspired thousands of working class people, giving many of them hope that their living standards were about to improve. It showed that a candidate that kept the issues to the needs and aspirations of working class people could get elected even in the face of vicious racist and xenophobic attacks from the Wall Street criminals, land speculators and real estate pimps that control the city's finances. Beyond that, as a Muslim, he won in a city with a large Jewish population as he spoke in support of Palestinian rights.

The propaganda machine was relentless.  Never ending fear mongering, threats from the billionaires that they would take their money and leave the city never toppled the Mamdani train from the tracks. How can that not be exciting?

The problem is, we have seen these campaigns before. Myself and others like me, particularly those of us that have been around for a while, have lived through many of them. So, exiting as his victory was, it was an electoral victory, in the face of many firsts---he's a Muslim, he is an immigrant born in Uganda, a child of Indian parents. There is one unfortunate similarity with other victories like his; he is a candidate of the other Wall Street Party-------the Democrats.

I went back to look at Jesse Jackson's platform in 1988 and it was similar to Bernie Sanders platform 30 years later. Jackson made class appeals, talked of "us and them" ""fishes and sharks" "haves and have nots" and so on. But the Democratic Party machine put a stop to all that nonsense and Jackson shifted to the right, to the, "we are all in this together" mode. Class war must not be mentioned even in its mildest form which is what Mamdani’s platform was.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's victory was exciting too. Any time the big guys get taken down a peg it gives people hope that things will change for the better. But that hope gets dashed pretty quickly because the Democratic Party is a capitalist party and as much a billionaire’s party as the Republicans are. 

Those three billionaires we saw in the front seats at Trump's inauguration would be sitting in the same spot were a Democrat elected president. The billionaires own both parties and we could see that during the 2020 election when even the hated Dick Cheney, who was often referred to as Satan by many Democratic Party faithful’s, switched sides and was Satan no more. In the face of Trump, the imbecile George W Bush, the guy who slaughtered a million Iraqi's and destroyed their country, one of Michelle Obama's close friends, became cuddly. These people know only too well how important class solidarity is.

The Democratic Party is known as the black hole of all social movements. After the Battle in Seattle in 1999 that shook US capitalism, the trade union hierarchy that is an arm of the Democratic Party in the workers' movement, sent its staffers in to temper the movement, direct it away from any independent path politically and it to the safe confines of the Democratic Party. 

 

The base Mamdani built was purely for electoral reasons. But that base should have and can be, a starting point for an independent direct action movement based in our communities and organisations, and as Mayor of a major city like New York the resources are there to spread that movement beyond the Big Apple. He had the support of major unions in the city.

 

But unless, there is some secret strategy that I don't know about, it looks like Mamdani is in there with AOC as a rising star in a party that represents big capital. They will join Bernie Sanders as yet another disappointment that will tend to drive people in two ways, one is to abandon the electoral process altogether and the other to seek a way out through right wing or nationalist policies. The complete failure of the Democratic Party to offer a way out is a major reason we have the sexual deviant racist in the Oval Office. 

Artificial Intelligence: Citrini and the AI doom scenario

 Citrini and the AI doom scenario

by Michael Roberts

A report published last weekend by the obscure financial analyst group, Citrini Research, on the future impact of AI apparently caused a stock market sell-off in software companies.  Citrini was little known until its “Global Intelligence Crisis” report suddenly amassed over 22 million views on X alone. The basic message was that, within a very few years ahead, AI ‘agents’ will quickly replace human labour in all sectors of the economy.  This would lead to a massive rise in unemployment, followed by a collapse in consumption and a financial crisis in so-called ‘private credit’ and mortgages, thus triggering a recession.

The Citrini authors say that they were not making ‘predictions’ but just setting out a ‘scenario’ that could happen as early June 2028: forecasting a stock market price crash of 38%; an unemployment rate above 10% and a credit and mortgage market meltdown.  And all because AI was so successful that AI agents usurped human labour, especially in software and other hi-tech development currently done by skilled tech workers.

How did Citrini justify this doom scenario for the economy, the stock market and millions of mainly skilled workers that so convinced US investors (at least for a day or so)?  The main argument was that AI agents developed by the tech giants would be so productive and so effective that companies would make huge profits by replacing costly human labour.  But then, said Citrini, millions would have no wages, so they could no longer spend as before, and a consumpton-led slump would be inevitable.

The 2028 scenario was described. “The owners of compute saw their wealth explode as labor costs vanished. Meanwhile, real wage growth collapsed. Despite the administration’s repeated boasts of record productivity, white-collar workers lost jobs to machines and were forced into lower-paying roles.”… The velocity of money flatlined. The human-centric consumer economy, 70% of GDP at the time, withered.” There would be no escape from this doom because there were no countervailing factors to stop it – “no natural brake”.  Loss of incomes would lead to mortgage defaults, not by workers with low incomes, but this time by those hi-tech workers who were paid high wages until AI agents took over.

The Citrini scenario dismissed the conventional view of crises as ‘creative destruction’, namely that “technological innovation destroys jobs and then creates even more”.  Not this time. Yes, “AI has created new jobs. Prompt engineers. AI safety researchers. Infrastructure technicians. Humans are still in the loop, coordinating at the highest level or directing for taste. For every new role AI created, though, it rendered dozens obsolete. The new roles paid a fraction of what the old ones did.” So the ensuing slump would not correct the crisis because it was not a traditional cyclical recession but a permanently structural one.

That’s because “AI got better and cheaper. Companies laid off workers, then used the savings to buy more AI capability, which let them lay off more workers. Displaced workers spent less. Companies that sell things to consumers sold fewer of them, weakened, and invested more in AI to protect margins. AI got better and cheaper. A feedback loop with no natural brake.” Human intelligence will no longer be needed, because “machine intelligence is now a competent and rapidly improving substitute for human intelligence across a growing range of tasks”.

What are we to make of this doom scenario?  Apparently, many investors in the US tech market swallowed it – at least for a day.  But they came to their senses when they were reassured by mainstream economists and others that Citrini was laying out a scenario in just two years that was never going to happen. As shown in previous posts,technological innovations take some time to pervade an economy and make a step change in productivity and its impact on the labour force. 

The OECD reckons it could take up to 20 years before AI becomes a ‘general purpose technology’ and that assumes that AI models and agents have become experienced and at least as error-free as humans.  And a new report argues that it took 100 years to move from Michael Faraday’s and Joseph Henry’s generation of the electric current in the 1830s to electricity boosting productivity growth and transforming the economy.  ChatGPT only appeared on the scene five years ago. 

Yes, an AI agent-driven economy is emerging.Consumer AI agents are already beginning to book travel and complete small purchases autonomously for shoppers. Soon they’ll handle more of the end-to-end buying journey in complex purchases: negotiating prices and terms, coordinating delivery and returns and transacting with other agents at machine speed. The global AI agents market, valued at $5.4 billion in 2024, is projected to reach $236 billion by 2034.

For businesses, this means a growing share of businesses won’t have humans at all. They’ll be agents acting on behalf of individuals, interacting with other agents representing sellers, logistics providers and payment processors. A majority of the commercial supply chain could eventually be agent-to-agent. 

Or so the story goes – it may not be that simple. There is still a lot wrong with the ability of these agents to talk to each other and provide a reliable service that matches skilled and experienced human labour. Moreover, AI agents are digital, they do not make physical goods, which we still need.  To do that, agents will have to combine with robots and that can only be at exorbitant cost of investment.  And this is the real scenario for a future recession.  Many mainstream commentators on the Citrini paper reckoned that it was ‘pure Marx’ because it posed a consumer collapse without recovery ie. the end of capitalism.  But a consumer-led slump and collapse is not Marx’s theory of crises – although most mainstream (and many leftist) economists think it is. 

Marx rejected the ‘underconsumption’ theory of crises on many occasions. Marx’s theory was based not on underconsumption, but on overinvestment or accumulation.  Capitalist resort to technologies and machines to cut production costs and raise profitablity by shedding labour.  But in Marxist theory, only human labour can create value in production, so a contradiction emerges between trying to increase the productivity of labour by doing away with much of it and trying sustain higher profitability.  Falling profitability over time leads to falling profits and then an investment ‘strike’ by capitalists. That is the ‘natural brake’ that Citrini claims does not exist with AI.  Capitalists stop investing, then lay off workers and it is then that workers cannot sustain consumption.  Mainstream critics of Citrini are right in saying that if AI increases productivity so much, it will lead to falling prices so that consumer purchasing power will remain.  But they ignore the real doom scenario: rising productivity means less growth in value and eventually falling profitability.

Historically, there is another side to the impact of technology.  Technological change has been the main driver of employment growth throughout history. Around 60 per cent of workers in the US today are employed in occupations that did not exist in 1940.  In the 1840s, Friedrich Engels argued that mechanisation shed jobs, but it also created new jobs in new sectors.  The historian Robert Allen characterised that period as ‘Engels pause’ when the industrial revolution took output forward in leaps and bounds, but wages and employment did not.  Real wages only began to rise during the long boom of the 1850s.

In the 1850s, Marx clarified these two sides of ‘creative destruction’: “As soon as machinery has set free a part of the workers employed in a given branch of industry, the reserve men are also diverted into new channels of employment and become absorbed in other branches; meanwhile the original victims, during the period of transition, for the most part starve and perish.” (Grundrisse).  So eventually, new technologies may take an economy forward, but only after a time and at the expense of labour (and not forever).

Mainstream economists suggest that labour could be protected by a tax on AI agents and capital and/or government handouts to the unemployed – these are the usual remedies offered for the Citrini calamity.  But that would not be effective if profitability is eventually squeezed. Instead, what is required is the collective ownership of AI technology and its private owners so that any gains in productivity would be used for social needs (reduced hours and increased public goods and services).

There were three reasons why stock market investors panicked on reading the Citrini scenario, despite the holes in its arguments.  Investors were already worried about a possible AI bubble bursting if the huge investment in AI models did not deliver sufficient returns.  Investors could also see that existing software development companies with human labour are under threat from AI agents; and they also worried that any bursting bubble could spread to the unregulated private credit lenders and cause a systemic crisis. But investors have been reassured by the counter-arguments to the Citrini doom scenario and, for the moment, it is back to business as usual.