#s orry

Guys. Guys guys. Marvel hasn’t been subtle from Day 1. There were Doctor Strange references in the first Spiderman Trilogy. They’re nerds. We’re all nerds, and we love this shit and Marvel has as yet been especially good at it. 

Thus it’s not surprising that the first Iron Man already referenced Howard and Maria Stark’s unusual deaths, as well as Rhodey’s potential for Iron Patriot. So yeah, I’m gonna go here and say that on top of collaborating with The Ten Rings, Marvel not-so-surreptitiously hinted at Obadiah Stane being a bastard of truly epic, political, and multi-generational proportions. 

So on top of Stane very certifiably canonically putting a hit out on Tony for his own personal gain - and then essentially singlehandedly trying to oust him from SI - it’s not beyond imagining just who might have in such a case called in the assassination expertise of the Winter Soldier on the elder Starks. Especially if it was at such a juncture as to put Stane at a place of power over SI while leaving the only Stark heir at an inextricably weak point in his life, and in no place to challenge him or his choices. (I’m not even going to touch the fact that this take-over would have happened at a truly amazingly advantageous point in American foreign politics, IE building up to, pre-, during, and post- the Gulf War conflicts.*) 

But how would Stane have garnered resources for not one assassination but two under the very noses of his friends and allies, you ask? See, as follows, the classic utilization of filmic mise-en-scène here where Stane and Stark are mid-fight in a public place, where Stark tokenly takes time out of the fight to protect civilians and Stane uses them against him.

Granted, the placement of Stane’s legs could be coincidence, but frankly I doubt it. Because I doubt that Marvel was more inclined to promote “hydrogen-power” in this scene than it was inclined toward giving its viewers a very not-so-subtle clue as to how Stane garnered his power. IE, via purposeful assassination, truly chess-master strategy, and flagrant politicism, as supported by our least favorite fascist agency.

*Okay but yeah I am also gonna at least talk about tangential political interests for SI and how as a transitory generation between Howard and Anthony Stark, Obadiah Stane very openly represents the worst of American international politics, or vis à vis, why Tony Stark has a very triggery issue with a lot of polemical arguments later on.

So essentially, on top of representing the very popular (among adult voters anyway) pro-American views in the post-9/11 pre-2009 world, Stane is one of the biggest and most open proponents of flagrantly toxic pro-American martial and political superiority that has appeared before or since in any superhero film. {And prior to 9/11, which is a martial conflict period Stane would also have lived through, the Gulf War conflicts would have provided not only plenty of incentive for pro-American agendas, but also access to anti-American channels which will play in in a moment.)

To most viewers now, including some of those who were proponents of such view 10 years ago, Stane’s politics are scary. Especially so because he holds so much power in a fictional but nonetheless publicly and governmentally powerful weapons institution. Stane extrapolates freely - in his most villainous moments - on the importance of maintaining his own power as well as what is implied to be both “America’s” and “Stark Industries’” power over the weapons industry. To whom Stane is telling the lie is a mystery, particularly because he is shown to be playing both ends of said argument against the middle.

Which, again, supports my theory from above in which Stane isn’t a pure-blood patriot, nor is he solely a profiteer. He’s a shape-shifter, out to take whatever shape he needs to in order to come out on top. Even if it means killing his mentor and his mentor’s wife, and his mentor’s son and his “golden goose.” 

Most fundamentally, Stane has access and power. And where does corruption gravitate but to the corrupt, connected, and cunning?