Category: iran

  • Top Iranian officials previously referred to an execution when reacting to Jamshid Sharmahd’s death on 28 October

    Iran has claimed that an Iranian-German duel national who had been sentenced to death died last week before his execution could be carried out.

    “Jamshid Sharmahd was sentenced to death, his execution was imminent, but he died before it could be carried out,” the judiciary spokesman Asghar Jahangir told reporters without elaborating. It is understood Tehran claims he suffered a stroke.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Amnesty International has called on authorities in Iran to ‘immediately and unconditionally’ release a female student who was arrested after stripping to her underwear in what the human rights group described as a public protest against harassment relating to the country’s strict dress code. The incident took place after the woman, who has not been identified, reportedly had a confrontation with members of the Basij paramilitary force who ripped her headscarf and tore at her clothes inside Tehran’s Islamic Azad University. Local reports alleged that she was beaten during the arrest

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.


  • This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Two years ago, Western media and academics reported that Iran was about to begin a new revolution in order to abolish the current political system, a legacy of the 1979 revolution. They dubbed this ‘new revolution, Woman, Life, Freedom,’ and described it as a feminist and democratic revolution. But as the Iranian public saw that the so-called leaders of this “new revolution” couldn’t organize a few thousand Iranians in a street demonstration and realized that the so-called leaders were not sovereign individuals who were dedicated to Iran, but Western-Israeli puppets, this “revolution” disappeared. The Iranian public soon found out that this “new revolution” was nothing more than riots whose main participants were thuggish elements who killed members of the police force and burned public assets, encouraged, instigated, and sponsored by western governments. Even though the so-called new revolution in Iran died a few months after its inception, Western governments and especially the Norwegian government were still hoping until October 6, 2023, for the revival of this fascist revolution to topple the government. In order to revive this alleged revolution, the Norwegian government awarded the Nobel Prize to Narges Mohammadi, a female political prisoner in Iran, whose invitation to any street protest in Iran, if she ever did, was unable to summon ten demonstrations.

    However, this seemingly great opportunity to restart the ‘new revolution’ in Iran did not last long. On the morning of 7 October 2024, the American aspiration of a feminist and democratic revolution or regime change in Iran, which was also shared by its Western allies and West Asian client regimes, was transformed into a nightmare when a few hundred Palestinians carried out the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation in the occupied Palestine. The political landscape of West Asia has been altered by this military operation in such a way that American political projects, such as the Iranian regime change and the Abraham Accords, have faded away. To the surprise of the United States and its Western allies, such as Norway, and thanks to the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation, 8 October 2023 became the day of the revival of the ideals of the 1979 revolution, such as freedom and independence from Western Imperialism. The liberation of Palestine from occupation was one of the particular ideals of the Iranian revolution and the political system it generated. As the Iranian revolutionaries of 1979 comprehended Palestine until its liberation in a state of revolution, they coined the slogan “Wake up people, Iran has become Palestine” which became one of the most popular slogans of the revolution. Several days before the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation,  Western media outlet were reporting on the latest developments of the Abraham Accord and the excitement of the leaders of the slave-states of the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirate, for signing the Accord. However, the leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, cautioned the leaders of these Arab regimes about the futility of their efforts to normalize relations with the apartheid regime of Israel. He described their efforts as “betting on a losing horse” because, in his opinion, the Palestinians were more capable than ever in their struggle for liberation from occupation.

    In preparation for the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to give the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize to Narges Mohammadi, a political activist with zero political influence in Iran, Norway organized a large gathering of Norwegian academics/imperialist agents and Iranian academics in diaspora who functioned as native informers. The Norwegian hosts were evidently interested in evaluating the degree to which the American regime change project coincided with the ‘new revolution’ in Iran. The conference persuaded the Norwegian Nobel Committee that Narges Mohammadi would be an ideal candidate for the Nobel Prize, as it would position her as a potential leader of the “new feminist and democratic” revolution in Iran. Because she is prone to repeating statements from Western masters about almost everything and remaining silent when they want her to be silent. The fact that she did not speak out regarding the Israeli genocide in Palestine explains, to a certain extent, why she was selected by the Nobel Committee as the winner of the 2023 Nobel Prize. Norway’s desire to play a role in the American regime change project in Iran was not a thoughtless decision, but a continuation of its effort in enhancing its own position in the American foreign policy strategy in the West Asia formulated in its foreign policy strategy document published in 2008. The document reveals that Norway’s foreign policy is merely an adjunct to the American foreign policy in West Asia and elsewhere. In accordance with the Norwegian foreign policy document and in the name of humanitarian intervention, Norway took an active role in the bombing of Libya in 2011. Many years later, as late as 2018, the Head of the Middle East Studies at the University of Oslo, who has been so dedicated to this foreign policy document, signs an open letter to the UN asking for humanitarian intervention in Syria. The letter to the United Nations states that Syrian sovereignty should not be viewed as a hindrance to protecting the Syrian people, as Kofi Anan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, stated in one of his reports. According to Kofi Anan, “no legal principles — even sovereignty — can ever shield crimes against humanity.”

    The Norwegian political elite was under the impression that by giving the Nobel Prize to a nobody of Iranian politics, they could either contribute to a regime change in accordance with the American plan or transform Iran into a new Syria and a target for humanitarian intervention. However, I doubt that any European academic would have the courage to ask the United Nations for humanitarian intervention in Palestine after the Israeli genocidal response to the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation. The unconditional support of the United States and other Western governments for the Israeli genocide against the defenseless Palestinian civilians for a year and now against Lebanese civilians has led people in the Global South to realize that the real meaning of democracy, human rights, and women’s rights that Westerners have been trying to bring them was genocide. After the 7th of October 2023, people from the Global South became aware that Israel, the state that Westerners have attempted to portray as the sole democracy in West Asia, is in fact a genocidal, racist and apartheid regime. They have discovered that the sole democracy in West Asia is a remnant of the colonial settler regimes of the past. This is the reason why its conduct cannot be distinguished from the avaricious and ruthless colonial powers of the past, and its survival and future depend on the persistence of American global dominance. The al-Aqsa Flood Operation not only succeeded in bringing to the attention of global public opinion the appeal of the oppressed and ethnically cleansed Palestinians, but also in defeating the American regime change project in Iran. Furthermore, the al-Aqsa Flood Operation revealed that Iran and the Axis of Resistance were the only forces that supported the Palestinian struggle for liberation from the Israeli occupation, as part of their own struggle against Western imperialism and in defense of their national sovereignty and independence in the region. The question is: How have Iran and its allies, in the Axis of Resistance, been able to liberate or protect themselves from the ideological deceptions and political traps, introduced and created by Western imperialism and their native informers, which would divide them and put them against each other?

    Divide to Conquer and Rule

    The methods Western governments use to promote their political and economic interests in the West Asia region are rarely examined by scholars and journalists who are specialized in the region. The scholars and journalists who work in the region are interested in the ethnic, religious, social and political dividing lines, cleavages or fault lines within the states and societies to enable Western governments led by the United States to exploit these dividing lines, cleavages and fault lines to their advantage. Recently, the Middle East Eye published a critical article on the preoccupation of Western governments, media, and academia with such dividing lines, whereas this publication has been preoccupied with such fault lines since its inception. While Saudi Arabia, in collaboration with the United States and Britain, was bombing noncombatant population and civilian infrastructure in Yemen for many years, the Middle East Eye was saying that the Iranian-backed Shia Houthi positions were the targets of the bombings. This publication would happily report that the Palestinian Hamas movement issued a statement supporting the ‘constitutional legitimacy’ of the Saudi collaborator, Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi. According to the Middle East Eye: “This statement is considered Hamas’s first tacit message of support for an ongoing Saudi-led military campaign against the Shiite Houthi group in Yemen, even as the Palestinian group did not clearly mention the campaign in its statement.” The Middle East Eye and outlets similar to it are the culmination of the American-Western declared plans for promoting democracy, human rights, stability and peace in West Asia. They are specialized in causing internal divisions and conflicts in the region. These media outlets typically exhibit empathy for the suffering of Palestinians and advocate for justice in the face of Israeli brutality. However, they hold Iran and the Axis of Resistance as the primary causes of instability in the region. This is why its editors, correspondents, and contributors hold an anti-Iranian position, while Iran has demonstrated that it is the only state in the entire world that sincerely supports the Palestinian struggle for liberation from the Israeli occupation. They downplay, dismiss, or criticize the Iranian position on the Palestinian issue. To create division within the Axis of Resistance, Middle East Eye spread lies about the Iranian Commander of the Qods Force’s role in the assassination of Seyed Hassan Nasrollah, the leader of Hezbollah. Qods Force is, in fact, the principal architect of the Axis of Resistance against Western imperialism and Israel in West Asia.

    There are thousands of educated individuals from the West Asia region who have been working as native informers or imperialist propagandists for the United States and its Western allies since the early 1990s. These native informers and imperialist propagandists have been recruited as academics, NGOs, or political activists. While native informers have been elaborating on social, religious, ethnic, political, and cultural divisions within the region, imperialist propagandists have been attempting to turn these divisions into actual conflicts. However, the fact that a highly respected scholar of the West Asia region told the world that the 2023 fascist riots in Iran were a revolution against internal colonization demonstrated that native informers can easily turn into imperialist propagandists when the imperialist employer says so. “Woman, Life, Freedom is a movement of liberation from this internal colonization. It is a movement to reclaim life. Its language is secular, wholly devoid of religion. Its peculiarity lies in its feminist facet.”  A decade ago, this scholar argued that the security and economic interests of Western imperialism in West Asia were compatible with the political democratization of the region and considered the so-called Arab Spring to be the expression of the union between Western governments and Arab, Iranian and Turkish democrats under the leadership of Turkey. But since he has not learned anything from the failure of the Arab Spring, he has turned from being a native informer into an imperialist propagandist who refuses to learn from his logical inconsistencies and experiences. This is the reason why, years after the failure of the “Arab Spring” and months after the morally and politically justifiable suppression of the fascist riots in Iran, this native informer-imperialist propagandist cautions those he believes to be the genuine agents of the revolutionary movement that if they are unwilling or unable to assume power, others will. In his view, it was the unwillingness of the revolutionaries or those who had initiated and carried the uprisings forward in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen to assume power that allowed the free-riders, counterrevolutionaries, and others to assume power in the “Arab Spring”.

    Before addressing the question of who are the protagonists and free riders of the “Arab Spring” in these countries, it is worth noting that the Bahraini Uprising, which was by far the most genuine uprising among the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings, has been omitted from the narratives about the uprisings. Almost simultaneously with the brutal suppression of the Bahraini uprising by the Saudi Arabian and Emirati military, the terrorist campaigns against the Syrian government commenced. While Saudi Arabia and Qatar provided funding for the terrorist campaigns in Syria, Turkey provided logistical support for the terrorist campaign, and Western governments provided political cover by tying it to the Arab Spring. Western governments, their academia, and media, which were totally uncaring about the bloody suppression and murdering of Bahraini political activists, stood firm behind the terrorist organizations active in Syria as the only advocates of democracy and human rights. Contrary to the claims of this native informer and imperialist propagandist, almost nothing happened in Iraq and Lebanon during the ‘Arab Spring.’ After the anti-corruption demonstrations in these countries in 2019-2020 were hijacked by pro-Western and anti-Iran and anti-Hezbollah forces with the active support of American embassies, these two countries were added to the ‘Arab Spring.’

    The Arab Spring 2 was an attempt to weaken and marginalize the Axis of Resistance, which included Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization forces, and the Yemeni Ansarullah. In fact, the same political forces and states that supported the Israeli war against Hezbollah in 2006, the ISIS and the Saudi-Emirati war against Yemen lauded the Arab Spring 2. Arab Spring failed because the United States and its Western allies did not recognize the sovereignty of the very nations whose democratic aspiration they claimed to support. By the term “democracy,” the United States and its allies refer to political regimes in the region that adhere to their directives and follow their advice irrespective of their national interests or deliberations. The political regimes that follow the American order in the region share one thing in common: their opposition to and animosity toward the Axis of Resistance. This has paralyzed them to express their opinion of their people and condemn the Israeli genocide in the region. Since the stability of these regimes depends on how useful they are for the Axis of Western Domination led by the United States in the region, they cannot do otherwise. Nevertheless, a significant fracture has emerged among the educated Arabs, Iranians, and Turks who have come to the realization that the true essence of the entire Western discourse on democracy, human rights, and women’s rights is genocide. The fact that Israel has been committing genocide against the Palestinian people with the direct assistance of Western governments and their media, in violation of the Genocide Convention, makes the latter an accomplice in the Israeli genocide. As per article III of the Genocide Convention, both the act of committing and complicity in genocide are punishable offenses. According to article IV: “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

    With Israeli genocide and the unconditional support of all the members of the Axis of Western Domination led by the United States in West Asia, this Axis has been turned into an Axis of Genocide. It is noteworthy that all members of this supported the ‘new revolution’ in Iran. Israel was the most prominent sponsor of the fascist riots, with which Norway had the illusion of competing through the 2023 Nobel Prize. From 2001 to 2011, the Axis of Western Domination bombed any state or nation that hesitated to accept their submission peacefully, provided they were defenseless. They bombed and invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya because they realized that these states and nations were defenseless. Due to the failure of the Axis of Western Domination in the region to subjugate Hezbollah, Syria, and Ansarullah through the Israeli war against Lebanon in 2006, the terrorist campaigns against Syria since 2011, and the Saudi-Emirati war against Yemen since 2015, the Axis of the Resistance has been formed. The Iraqi Popular Mobilization, whose main components emerged as a response to the American occupation of Iraq in 2003, joined the Axis of Resistance to fight the Western-Israeli phenomenon known as ISIS in Iraq and Syria. ISIS succeeded in controlling large parts of these two countries in 2014 through acts of genocide against all those they deemed to be unbelievers, especially Shia Muslims. Western governments and Israel hoped that an ISIS Khalifat in Syria and Iraq would end Iranian political influence in these two countries, which they viewed as a bridge to Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is the same story with Ansarullah, who were ruling the 80% of the Yemeni population. Saudi Arabia and its Western and regional backers accused Ansarullah of being an Iranian proxy but failed to defeat it after a decade. The Western backed Saudi-Emirati war against the Ansarullah movement made the movement stronger and its ties with Iran friendlier because Iran was the only state that supported them against foreign powers politically, economically and militarily. Hamas and Islamic Jihad joined the Axis of Resistance because they realized that the Axis was the only political and military force they could rely on to free Palestine from Israeli occupation. What is common between the Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi and Syrian and Yemeni and Palestinian experience is that they had to defend their sovereignty against states and terrorist organizations that were supported by the United States, other Western governments and Israel. The Axis of Resistance is not a result of the decisions made by governments, but rather a result of the convergence of states and movements that have been fighting for their sovereignty and independence from the former Axis of Western Domination and the current Axis of Genocide in the region for several decades. Iran learned from its experience fighting alone against an enemy who had the support of Western powers in the 1980s that it was important to form an alliance against Western intervention in the West Asia region. This is why, while trapped in a devastating war, Iran helped the formation of Hezbollah, which has become the most effective resistance organization against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon since the 1980s. Iran went on to support Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which started their Armed Struggle in the 1980s and 1990s, and at the same time supported Islamic and anti-imperialist forces in Iraq and Yemen, which are now known as the Yemeni Ansarullah and Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq.

    Each member of the Axis of Resistance has experienced the impacts of the Axis of Western Domination in their own country and in the region, and their actual resistance against such impacts has qualified them as constituting components of the Axis of Resistance. This is why each member of the Resistance raises the universalizing character of the Axis. If the slogan “one for all and all for one” has any meaning, it can be found in the practice and experiences of solidarity of the Axis of Resistance. While the Axis of Resistance was forming against the forces of Western Domination in the region, including Israel, not only Arab autocracies and Turkey, but also an army of native informers posing as academics and journalists argued that the people of the region could escape from the suffering of imperialist injustice if they are accustomed to it and contributed to its continuity. The terms of acceptance of imperialist injustice in the region and of contributing to its continuity were democracy, human rights, and women’s rights or moderation.

    While Turkey represented democracy, human rights, and women’s rights for a while, especially during the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia represented moderation. Therefore, the entire discourse regarding the politics of West Asia oscillated between moderation and democracy.

    Although numerous scholars promoted Turkey while advocating for the objective of ‘Making Islam Democratic,’ the responsibility of promoting Saudi Arabia was delegated to Thomas Friedman and his like-minded people. The result was a fierce competition between the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Turkey for the consolidation of American hegemony in the region and for the normalization of Israeli apartheid in occupied Palestine. These leaders believed that their contribution to the imperialist injustice in the region and their collaboration with the Axis of Western Domination would safeguard them from harsh treatment in the ongoing injustice.

    The efforts to make themselves a darling of the imperialist dominance in the region might explain the animosity of the imperialist clients against Iran and the Axis of Resistance expressed in their countless English and Arabic media outlets. A glance at the seemingly progressive and reliable outlets such as Aljazeera and Jadaliyya, Middle East Eye, and TRT will reveal the extent of their anti-resistance and anti-Iranian posture, not to mention the media owned by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The majority of regional analysts appearing in these media outlets appear to be pro-Palestinian. Convinced of the enduring nature of the dominance of Western imperialism, led by the United States in the region, they refer to the members of the Axis of Resistance as the “proxies of the Iranian regime” to remind their audience of the temporary nature of the Iranian state. It appears that these analysts are unaware of the fact that all small and large Western governments constitute the primary obstacle to Palestinian liberation in any meaningful manner. These outlets do not mention that Iran has been subject to murderous economic sanctions for several decades because of its loyalty to its allies in the Axis of Resistance. While the Saudi-Emirati war against Ansarullah was supported by all Western governments, Iran was the only state to support the Ansarullah movement. Iran has provided support to the Yemeni Ansarullah, the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Force, the Palestinian freedom fighters such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as the Syrian government, as they all represent forces of sovereignty who defend their independence and freedom from Western dominance.

    The United States and its Western allies have imposed economic sanctions on Iran due to their assertion that it has committed three unforgivable sins. They claim that Iran interferes with the affairs of other countries in the region, which implies that Iran does not accept the rulers imposed by the United States on the region. Thus, it supports forces that resist American interference in the region. According to American rules in the region, Palestinians must be prevented from fighting for their rights and for their liberation from Israeli bondage, and that Israel must preserve its military and technological supremacy regardless of the costs for other states and nations in the region. Iran not only regards Israel as an illegal state in the region that needs to be dismantled, but it also seeks to end American omnipotence and tyrannical power in the region, since it is the United States and its allies that allow Israel to commit genocide against the Palestinian and Lebanese people with impunity. According to American rule, Saudi Arabia on behalf of the United States should determine who should govern in Yemen, something Iran rejects and says that every state and nation must be the master of its own destiny. The second reason Iran is the target of American and Western sanctions is its advancing military technology, especially its advanced missile program, which the United States and other Western powers want to be dismantled. The real meaning of this Western demand is that Iran ceases its missile program and disarms itself so that it would not be able to reach enemy targets beyond its borders. This makes it easier for the United States and its allies to wage war against it. Iran not only succeeded in developing its military technology and accomplishing advanced missile and drone programs to secure its territorial integrity and national sovereignty against American threats, but it also succeeded in boosting the military technology of its allies in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestinians to be more effective against the Axis of Western Domination and Genocide in the region. Ultimately, Iran has been subjected to demonization and economic sanctions and has become a target of Israeli terrorism due to its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. The United States wants Iran to prove that it is not seeking nuclear weapons in return for easing economic sanctions against it. According to this American logic, it is not the accuser who must demonstrate through the presentation of evidence that the accused has committed a wrong, but rather the accused who must demonstrate against evidence that is not present that he or she has not committed the wrong. To satisfy the American demand and demonstrate that Iran has no intention of making nuclear weapons, Iran must dismantle its entire nuclear program and refrain from developing nuclear technology. Iran does not accept this because it is a violation of its national sovereignty. Furthermore, Iran does not wish to be deprived of all options whenever it encounters an existential threat from either Israel or the United States. Therefore, it possesses all the necessary technology to produce nuclear weapons; however, it refrains from producing such weapons as it is not currently confronting an existential threat. Recently, Iranians are reminding Western powers that if they create a threatening condition for Iran, Iranians may reconsider their nuclear policy in a matter of days.

    The rationale behind the economic sanctions, media war and regime change projects against Iran was that such measures would either install a Western friendly regime or convince Iran to change its behavior and give up its sovereignty. The United States and its allies were hoping that, even if all regime-change attempts and attempts to change Iran’s behavior fail, it would become so fragile that it could not hold the Axis of Resistance together and assist its allies in the region when they needed it most. Despite economic sanctions and technological embargo imposed by the Axis of Domination and Genocide in the region on Iran, Iran has proved to be more economically prosperous, technologically advanced, ideologically and politically influential, and militarily stronger than anticipated. Iran not only helped the Axis of Resistance economically and militarily, but also helped them achieve a high degree of technological sophistication and military self-sufficiency that no power could take from them, despite its own economic difficulties. Every member of the Axis was convinced by this that Iran believes in their talent and strength and wants them to be strong, self-sufficient, dignified, sovereign and equal members of the Axis. It suffices to compare the reverence of the Iranian leaders to that of Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, with the contemptuous treatment of Saad Hariri, the former Prime-Minister of Lebanon, by the leaders of Saudi Arabia. Iran and Saudi Arabia have treated these two Lebanese political leaders differently, demonstrating who is considered a sovereign ally and who is a dependent proxy.

    Iran comprehends that in the event that the Axis of Domination and Genocide defeats the apparent weaker links within the Axis, it will not be content with anything less than Iran’s complete surrender. Imperial agents and their native informers interpreted almost every Western aggression or any Western political project as a means of regime change in Iran. This included the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli War on Lebanon, the Arab Spring, and finally the fascist riots in Iran. The fascist riots in Iran, entitled Woman, Life, Freedom, were the last misinformation and disinformation attempt by the imperialist agents and their native informers. They created the illusion for Western governments, as their employers, that Iran was on the brink of collapse and would be forced to submit to American conditions in the region. These imperialist agents and their native informers, who have been functioning as academics, journalists, political activists, and NGO activists, have failed miserably in their last attempt. All the efforts carried out by these imperialist agents and native informers who have constructed religious, political, ethnic, and gender divisions in West Asia have been guided by the principle of divide and rule. They explained that political and economic underdevelopment, conflicts, and wars in the region were related to these divisions. These epistemological assumptions serve as a guideline for Western media and pro-Western media in the West and the region, but they also serve as a point of departure for social scientists and historians in the region. What follows from the knowledge produced based on these epistemological assumptions requires the active intervention of Western governments in the region. Western governments thus finance, initiate, and establish organizations which call themselves non-governmental organizations as instruments of interference in the social and political affairs of various societies in the region. Without the financial support of their government, Western NGOs in the region will disappear. This indicates that non-governmental organizations serve to divert the local populace from the fact that Western imperialism and Western elite are the main responsible for the social, religious, and political divisions and conflicts in the region.

    Since unity, solidarity, and fraternity in the region challenge American imperialism regionally and globally, movements that promise unity, solidarity, and fraternity in the region are designed as Iranian proxies that conspire against peace and stability in the region. The imperialist agents and native informers who accuse Iran of interfering in Iraqi affairs never mention the fact that the United States has taken Iraq’s entire oil revenue hostage to impose its will on the Iraqi state. The United States and its Western allies use every political means, terrorism, mass murder and even genocide to reshape the region according to their insatiable interests. Naturally, the imperialist agents and their native informers become preoccupied with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, expansion, and influence, as well as its proxies, as the main causes of political disputes and social conflicts in the region. The anti-government and anti-corruption demonstrations in Iraq and Lebanon during the period of 2019-2020 were referred to as the Arab Spring 2 by the imperialist agents and their native informers, as they turned anti-Iran and anti-Hezbollah.

    The Struggle for Sovereignty

    Iran managed to build and strengthen a regional front known as the Axis of Resistance against the alliance of the Axis of Domination and Genocide, while every regional analyst believed that the collective West and Israel were going to shape the West Asia region according to their own security and economic interests. In his last speech, Iran’s leader said that the only reason the U.S. and other Western powers support the Israeli apartheid regime is because it lets them control the natural resources of the region. He explained that by controlling the region’s resources, the West, led by the United States, would be more confident in their future conflicts with other world powers such as China and Russia. Western powers have become the accomplices of the Israeli genocide because not only their security and economic interests, but their supremacist attitude toward non-Westerners is indistinguishable from those of the Israeli regime, according to Iran’s leader. This is the reason why, rather than focusing on the racist and genocidal nature of the Israeli regime, the Western media places emphasis on its military might and portrays it as the most powerful entity in the region. According to the leader of Iran, the combination of Israel’s fictitious military might with the American aspiration of transforming this regime of apartheid and genocide into a hub for both energy export from the region to the West and for importing Western products and technology to the region prompted several regimes in the region to normalize their relations with this regime. But the Palestinians and other members of the Axis of Resistance are fighting for their freedom and independence from Israeli and American dominance in the region, which has turned this Western dream into a nightmare.

    Iran was, in fact, the first member of this resistance and was able to anticipate its formation since the 1979 revolution. The Iranian revolution transformed the country from a client of American imperialism into a sovereign and self-governing state. According to the section on foreign policy of the constitution of this sovereign state specified in articles 152, 153, and 154, Iranian governments have a duty to reject any forms of imperialist domination or interference in Iranian internal politics. Moreover, it obligates the Iranian governments to demonstrate active solidarity with all nations that oppose imperialist dominance and interference in their internal affairs. Here, the key concept is the sovereign right of nations and states to shape their societies according to their own will, aspirations, ideas, deliberations, and decisions. According to Article 152 of the Iranian constitution, The Islamic Republic of Iran is mandated to reject any form of foreign dominance within its territory, to preserve its independence and territorial integrity, and to defend the rights of all Muslims and the oppressed peoples of the world against superpowers. Article 153 prohibits any agreements that give any form of foreign control over the Iranian natural resources, economy, army, or culture. Finally, according to the Article 154, “The ideal of the Islamic Republic of Iran is independence, justice, truth, and felicity among all people of the world. Accordingly, it[the Islamic Republic] supports the just struggles of the Mustad’afun (oppressed) against the Mustakbirun (oppressors) in every corner of the globe.” During the first year of the revolution in Iran, there was a universal consensus among all revolutionary tendencies on these ideals declared by the Iranian Constitution. These articles of the Iranian constitutions are the guiding lines of the Iranian struggle to defend its state sovereignty and to support other nations in their struggles for sovereignty and independence from imperialist powers. Iran has supported the Palestinian struggle for liberation from Israeli apartheid for the same reason it supported South African struggles against apartheid. Iran stands in solidarity with Hezbollah, the Syrian government, Yemeni Ansarullah, and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces as they fight for the same independence and sovereignty that it enjoys itself. Iranian independence and sovereignty prevent it from joining the Axis of Western Domination and Genocide in the region. Iran is aware that without aiding and defending the sovereignty of others, it is unable to safeguard its own sovereignty. For a long time, the imperialist agents and their native informers have argued that the Iranian nation does not endorse Iran’s interventions in Western imperialist affairs in the region. However, recent opinion polls conducted by imperialist agents and their native informers indicate that, the majority of Iranians “are invested in the idea of providing military support to Iran’s proxy groups in the Middle East, the so-called “Axis of Resistance” (Jebhe Moqavemat). Sixty percent are in favor of this policy and 31 percent are against it.”  Western governments’ academic and media mouthpieces accuse Iran for two contradictory reasons. They blame Iran for using its financial resources to assist and empower its proxies who cause instability in the region instead of using those resources to elevate the prosperity of its own people or accuse it of using other members of the Axis of Resistance for its own interests. While the first claim assumes Iran to be a nefarious but a rational and pragmatic player in the region, the latter claim assumes Iran to be an ideological, fanatic and dogmatic actor. Iran must be contained, moderated, or subject to constant demonization, economic sanctions, terrorism, and regime change since it is the cause of instability in both cases. However, despite the numerous criminal plots against the Iranian state and nation since the revolution, Iran has steadfastly upheld the revolutionary principles of sovereignty and independence against Western imperialism and demonstrated genuine solidarity with the oppressed people who fight for their own sovereignty and independence.

    Even though the Soviet Union collapsed, which made the United States the global sovereign or consolidated its global hegemony, supported and facilitated by its various Western allies and regional clients, and to which Russia and other members of the former socialist block in Europe and Central Asia surrendered, Iran did not relinquish its sovereignty and independence. Iran faced two choices: either surrender to American global hegemony and its “new world order” or face American wrath in the form of regime change or land invasion, as it happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya and Syria. Iran realized that it was impossible to protect its own sovereignty without promoting the principle of sovereignty and practicing a genuine practice of solidarity with all forces that resisted American domination and Israeli aggression in West Asia.

    This is how the Axis of Resistance as we know it today came into being.  Iranians had to resist not only the military, economic, and political consequences of American global dominance in the region, but also the circulation of its ideology by contemporary political philosophers, historians, political scientists, sociologists, and anthropologists, who theorize, justify, and normalize the American order. The Aristotelian theory of rulership and governance is at the heart of the new world order. According to this theory, the soul, composed of the rational and expedient components of the world, is destined to reign over the physical, passionate, and natural components of the world. The American world order ideology assumes that the West, led by the U.S., represents the former and the rest of the world represents the latter in the contemporary world. This theory argues that the United States and its allies represent the human elements that must rule the animal elements of the world because both men and animals are better off when animals are tamed and ruled by men. This theory assumes that, since it is always the superior who discovers this principle of ruling, he must make sure that the inferiors understand this principle. This theory makes the inferior believe that he is a slave who must obey the superior as his master and execute his orders unquestionably. According to this principle of rulership, while the task of the slave is the administration of things and production of the necessities of life, the task of the master is the administration of the slaves. Russia, which consented to being administered by the West, led by the United States, attempted to fulfill the duties of a slave and fulfill the master’s demands, however, it was unsuccessful. However, China, which has achieved great success in the administration of things and production of necessities of life, has come to the realization that as a nation, they have high expectations and desire to safeguard their sovereignty and independence. At the same time, Russia realized that their success in the administration of things and the production of the necessities of life depended on them protecting their sovereignty and independence from Western interventions in the affairs of their nation. Aristotle advised superior men to do philosophy and politics because they were the kind of science that enable the superior to command the slave who produces the necessities of life. Modern imperialism, from an Aristotelian perspective, would not be possible without modern philosophy, social sciences and humanities that have persuaded the rest of the world of their inferiority. As Aristotle argued that plants exist for the sake of animals, and animals exist for the sake of men, and the slave exist for the sake of the master, modern human and social sciences argue that non-Westerners exist for the sake of Westerners. Imperial agents and their native informers are practitioners of the social and human sciences, whose failure to convince the inferior people of their inferiority could result in the inferior people refusing to be governed by their superiors. When this occurs, the Americans and their Western allies attempt to coerce the inferior populace into submission by means of economic sanctions, intimidation, and threats. Whenever these measures fail, and the superior Westerners find the inferior people defenseless, they turn into wild beasts by indiscriminate killing of civilians, murdering babies, women, and elderly people, and destroying their homes. The Israeli Genocide of Palestinian and Lebanese people is the last example of such crimes.  While the United States, with the help of its Western allies, attempts to dominate the world by demonstrating Western superiority and the inferiority of the rest of the world, Israel fails to dominate West Asia despite all the political, economic and military help it receives from America and Europe. In 2006, Israel attempted to replicate what the United States and its Western allies accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, but it fell short. Since the so-called Arab Spring, the United States and Israel have worked together to kill as many Libyan, Syrian, Yemeni people as they can and destroy as much of their infrastructure as they can because according to the imperialist principle, the superiors can either subjugate the inferiors or destroy them. However, Iranian revolutionary foreign policy has rejected this Western superiority complex and has tried to minimize its political consequences in the region. Iran has been trying to convince the people of the region that their struggle for sovereignty and independence from imperialist domination is impossible without the formation of a united front to resist American and Western intervention in the region. From an Iranian perspective, the resistance against the imperialist dominance in the region is intrinsically linked to the Palestinian struggle for liberation from the Israeli occupation. Iran supports the Palestinian struggle for sovereignty and independence, as an unfree Palestine would make the future of its own sovereignty and independence uncertain. Because an unfree Palestine means supremacy of the Western Axis of Domination and Genocide in the region. This may explain the moral high ground held by Iran when it comes to the Israeli genocide and its Western and regional accomplices.

    According to Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, book VIII, it is with friends that men are more able to think and to act because the impacts of friendship are so significant that it can hold states together. Whereas men with friends do not have a need for justice, just men need friendship because justice has a friendly quality. But true friendship is about reciprocal goodwill, since friends wish what is good for one another for their own sake. It is the mutual recognition of goodwill between people that makes them friends. According to Aristotle, there are people who love each other for their utility and in virtue of some good which they get from each other. There are also those who love for the sake of pleasure because they find each other pleasant. Hence, those who love others for the purpose of their utility, do so for the sake of their own well-being, whereas those who love for the sake of pleasure do so for the sake of their own pleasure. If the parties don’t stay what they are to each other, their friendship will be easily broken up. For instance, when an individual ceases to be pleasant or useful to the other, the latter ceases to love them. Friendship is perfect when men are good and equal because they wish well for their friends for their own sake. Such friendships last as long as the parties remain good, and goodness is a lasting thing. Friendships such as these are not instrumental because they are not based on how useful friends are to each other. Since true friendship is rare and infrequent, it requires time and familiarity. The imperialist agents and their native informers fail to understand that Iran and the Axis of Resistance are the only true friends in Asia because they founded their friendship on mutual recognition of their sovereignty, equality, and struggle for justice. The familiarity with such virtues in each other took time, but the time was not wasted. The time was used to discover what is good in each other.

    The post Iran and the Axis of Resistance first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Daughter of Jamshid Sharmahd says family let down by US and German governments’ failure to save him

    Germany has recalled its ambassador to Tehran and summoned the Iranian charge d’affaires in Berlin in protest over the execution of a German-Iranian dual national, Jamshid Sharmahd, accused of terrorism by Iran.

    His daughter, Gazelle Sharmahd, who had pressed the German and US governments hard to save him, said she and her brother felt let down by the failure of both governments to do more. Sharmahd was executed on Monday.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • We speak with Iranian American policy analyst Trita Parsi about Israel’s latest attack on Iran on Saturday, when it bombed military facilities and air defense systems in the country. Iran said four soldiers were killed in the attack. Israel also struck air defense batteries and radars in Syria and Iraq. Israel’s assault this weekend came about four weeks after Iran launched a missile attack on…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg3 trita israel strikes

    We speak with Iranian American policy analyst Trita Parsi about Israel’s latest attack on Iran on Saturday, when it bombed military facilities and air defense systems in the country. Iran said four soldiers were killed in the attack. Israel also struck air defense batteries and radars in Syria and Iraq. Israel’s assault this weekend came about four weeks after Iran launched a missile attack on Israeli military sites in response to Israel’s war on Lebanon and Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders, part of a series of actions between the two countries since the outbreak of the war on Gaza last year. “The Israelis are just continuously escalating the situation,” says Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He warns that Iran’s relatively restrained responses to Israeli actions could encourage decision-makers in both Israel and the United States to “go all the way” and strike Iranian nuclear sites and other major targets. “This, unfortunately, is leading — much thanks to the approach of the Biden administration — towards a much larger escalation.”


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • It is apparently not much of an exaggeration to say that Israel’s attack on Iran fizzled. Some targets were hit and at least two Iranian soldiers were killed, but the ineffectiveness of the operation was probably due to several factors:

    1. Israel just doesn’t have the weaponry. Most of its missiles don’t have the distance, and those that do, just barely so. That’s true for a lot of its drones, too, and they are too easily detected and don’t have the carrying power.
    2. The US didn’t aid, in particular with refueling manned aircraft. It’s just as well. It would have been a good way to lose both pilots and aircraft.
    3. Most of the nations geographically in between Israel and Iran would not permit overflights from either Israel or the US. Iran told these nations that they prefer to remain on good terms with them, and that they would consider it an act of war to lend their airspace to Israeli operations.
    4. Iranian antiaircraft systems were apparently quite effective.

    Other factors may have been involved. It is possible that cooler heads prevailed in the Israeli and US militaries, for example, but we may never know, or at least not soon. Nevertheless, the main reason that Israel did not cause more damage appears not to be a question of intention, but of capability. There’s no question that Israel was hoping for an escalation that would widen the war and force the US to enter on Israel’s side. That appears to have been avoided. Iran will have to respond, but unlike Israel, neither Iran nor the US wants escalation. Iran’s response will therefore be measured, and they will declare the matter settled.

    The Netanyahu government now finds itself squarely in check, though not yet checkmated. Nevertheless, the best it can do now is probably a stalemate. This is not good in the short run for Gaza and the Palestinians, nor for Lebanon, but it’s also not good for Israel, whose population is emigrating, whose economy is tanking, and which is generally a pariah throughout the world. Its decades of building its image as glamorous, progressive and a technological powerhouse is gone. It is now the redoubt of religious fanatics and criminals that even much of the international Jewish community is loathe to support. Its current mainstay is the international network of influence peddlers such as AIPAC, whose power has not dwindled in the US and other western governments, due to its ability to enrich the military industrial complex and to control the elective processes in these governments. With the loss of a wider base in the Jewish community, however, that power is likely to decline.

    The post The Escalator Grinds to a Halt first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Israeli attack is over, but the outcome remains unclear. Tehran is downplaying it — even mocking it — which may be more reflective of their desire to de-escalate than a true assessment of the damage Israel inflicted on Iran. Just as Israel kept the damage of Iran’s Oct. 1 strikes secret, Iran will likely not disclose the full picture of Israel’s strike, although Tehran has reported that…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  •  

    WSJ: Iran Opens the Door to Retaliation

    The Wall Street Journal (10/1/24) describes an Iranian missile barrage as a response to “Israel’s restraint”—rather than as a response to an Israeli terrorist bombing in Tehran, which went unmentioned in the editorial.

    The media hawks are flying high, pushing out bellicose rhetoric on the op-ed pages that seems calculated to whip the public into a war-ready frenzy.

    Just as they have done with Hezbollah (FAIR.org, 10/10/24), prominent conservative media opinionators misrepresent Iran as the aggressor against an Israel that practices admirable restraint.

    Under the headline, “Iran Opens the Door to Retaliation,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board (10/1/24) wrote that Iran’s October 1 operation against Israel “warrants a response targeting Iran’s military and nuclear assets. This is Iran’s second missile barrage since April, and no country can let this become a new normal.”

    The editors wrote:

    After April’s attack, the Biden administration pressured Israel for a token response, and President Biden said Israel should “take the win” since there was no great harm to Israel. Israel’s restraint has now yielded this escalation, and it is under no obligation to restrain its retaliation this time.

    ‘We need to escalate’

    NYT: We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran

    “Bully regimes respond to the stick,” Bret Stephens (New York Times, 10/1/24) declared—citing the fact that Iran was reluctant to make a nuclear deal with the United States after the United States unilaterally abrogated the last deal.

    The New York Timesself-described “warmongering neocon” columnist Bret Stephens (10/1/24), in a piece headlined “We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran,” similarly filed Iran’s April and October strikes on Israel under “aggression” that requires a US/Israeli military “response.” And a Boston Globe editorial (10/3/24) wrote that Iran “launched a brazen attack,” arguing that the incident illustrated why US students are wrong to oppose American firms making or investing in Israeli weapons.

    All of these pieces conveniently neglected to mention that Iran announced that its October 1 missile barrage was “a response to Israel’s recent assassinations of leaders of [Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], Hezbollah and Hamas” (Responsible Statecraft, 10/1/24). One of these assassinations was carried out by a bombing in Tehran, the Iranian capital. But we can only guess as to whether the Globe thinks those killings are “brazen,” Stephens thinks they qualify as “aggression,” or if the Journal believes any country can let such assassinations “become a new normal.”

    Likewise, Iran’s April strikes came after Israel’s attack on an Iranian consulate in Damascus that killed seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers (CBS, 4/14/24). At the time, Iran reportedly said that it would refrain from striking back against Israel if the latter agreed to end its mass murder campaign in Gaza (Responsible Statecraft, 4/8/24).

    ‘Axis of Aggression’

    NYT: We Should Want Israel to Win

    Bret Stephens (New York Times, 10/8/24) thinks we’d be safer if “cunning and aggressive dictatorships…finally learned the taste of defeat.”

    A second Stephens piece (New York Times, 10/8/24) claimed that “the American people had better hope Israel wins” in its war against “the Axis of Aggression led from Tehran.” The latter is his term for the coalition of forces resisting the US and Israel from Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon and Iran, which refers to itself as the “axis of resistance.” Stephens’ reasoning is that, since Iran’s 1979 revolution, the country

    has meant suffering for thousands of Americans: the hostages at the US embassy in Tehran; the diplomats and Marines in Beirut; the troops around Baghdad and Basra, killed by munitions built in Iran and supplied to proxies in Iraq; the American citizens routinely taken as prisoners in Iran; the Navy SEALs who perished in January trying to stop Iran from supplying Houthis with weapons used against commercial shipping.

    The war Israelis are fighting now—the one the news media often mislabels the “Gaza war,” but is really between Israel and Iran—is fundamentally America’s war, too: a war against a shared enemy; an enemy that makes common cause with our totalitarian adversaries in Moscow and Beijing; an enemy that has been attacking us for 45 years. Americans should consider ourselves fortunate that Israel is bearing the brunt of the fighting; the least we can do is root for it.

    This depiction of Iran as an aggressor that has victimized the United States for 45 years, causing “suffering for thousands of Americans,” is a parody of history. The fact is that the US has imposed suffering on millions of Iranians for 71 years, starting with the overthrow of the country’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. It propped up the brutal Pahlavi dictatorship until 1979, then backed Iraq’s invasion of Iran, helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iranians (Foreign Policy, 8/26/13). It imposes murderous sanctions on Iran to this day (Canadian Dimension, 4/3/23).

    Given this background, suggesting—as the Journal, the Globe and Stephens do—that Iran is the aggressor against the US is not only untenable but laughable. Furthermore, as I’ve previously shown (FAIR.org, 1/21/20), it’s hardly a settled fact that Iran is responsible for Iraqi attacks on US occupation forces in the country. Stephens’ description of the Navy SEALs who died in the Red Sea is vague enough that one might be left with the impression that Iran or Ansar Allah killed them, but the SEALs died when one of them fell overboard and the other jumped into the water to try to save him (BBC, 1/22/24).

    Stephens went on:

    Those who care about the future of freedom had better hope Israel wins.

    We are living in a world that increasingly resembles the 1930s, when cunning and aggressive dictatorships united against debilitated, inward-looking, risk-averse democracies. Today’s dictatorships also know how to smell weakness. We would all be safer if, in the Middle East, they finally learned the taste of defeat.

    What Stephens is deploying here is the tired and baseless propaganda strategy of hinting that World War II redux is impending if America doesn’t crush the Third World bad guy of the moment. More realistically, the “future of freedom” is jeopardized by the US/Israeli alliance’s invading the lands of Palestinian and Lebanese people and massacring them. These crimes suggest that, in the Journal’s parlance, it’s the US/Israeli partnership that is the “regional and global menace.” Or, to borrow another phrase from the Journal’s editorial, it’s Israel and the US who are the “dangerous regime[s]” from which “the civilized world” must be defended.

    ‘A global menace’

    Boston Globe: A strong Israeli defense against Iran benefits US interests

    “Iran launched a brazen attack,” the Boston Globe (10/3/24) editorialized—brazenly ignoring Israeli violence toward Iran.

    Corporate media commentators didn’t stop at Iran’s direct strikes on Israel, casting Iran as, in the Journal‘s words (10/1/24), “a regional and global menace”:

    It started this war via Hamas, which it funds, arms and trains to carry out massacres like the one on October 7, and it escalated via Hezbollah, spreading war to Lebanon. Other proxies destabilize Iraq and Yemen, fire on Israeli and US troops and block global shipping. It sends drones and missiles to Russia and rains ballistic missiles on Israel. All while seeking nukes.

    Stephens’ column (10/1/24) similarly argued that “Iran presents an utterly intolerable threat not only to Israel but also to the United States and whatever remains of the liberal international order we’re supposed to lead.” The Globe editorial (10/3/24) wrote that “the threat posed by Iran extends beyond Israel’s borders.” Both cited the Houthis in Yemen, among other alleged Iranian “proxies.”

    Painting Iran as the mastermind behind unprovoked worldwide aggression helps prop up the hawks’ demands for escalation. But the US State Department said there was “no direct evidence” that Iran was involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel, “either in planning it or carrying it out” (NBC, 10/12/23).

    As FAIR has shown repeatedly (e.g., FAIR.org, 4/21/21, 8/26/20), it isn’t true that Hezbollah is an Iranian puppet. The Houthis, formally known as Ansar Allah, likewise aren’t mere proxies (Democracy Now!, 2/1/24)—and don’t expect the media hawks to tell you that the Houthis began attacking ships they understand to be Israel-linked in response to the US/Israeli assault on Gaza, and say that they will stop if the US/Israeli war crimes in Gaza end.

    Moreover, it’s clear that the Journal has no problem with US arms exports, including when they are used to carry out atrocities against civilians, so its posturing about the harm done by Iranian arms sales to Russia cannot be taken seriously (FAIR.org, 1/27/23).

    Propaganda goes nuclear

    LAT: Focus modeBreaking News Civil suit against Roman Polanski alleging 1973 child rape won’t go to trial; settlement reached Advertisement Opinion Opinion: What more do the U.S. and its allies need? It’s time to take out Iran’s nuclear sites

    Uriel Hellman (LA Times, 10/17/24) writes that “the responsible nations of the world have tried myriad methods to thwart this doomsday scenario” of Iran making a nuclear weapon, including “negotiated agreements.” The US has tried making deals with Iran, it’s tried violating those deals—nothing seems to work!

    As usual, those who are itching for a war on Iran invoke the specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Stephens (New York Times, 10/1/24) wrote:

    This year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that Iran was within a week or two of being able to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb. Even with the requisite fissile material, it takes time and expertise to fashion a nuclear weapon, particularly one small enough to be delivered by a missile. But a prime goal for Iran’s nuclear ambitions is plainly in sight, especially if it receives technical help from its new best friends in Russia, China and North Korea.

    Now’s the time for someone to do something about it.

    That someone will probably be Israel.

    By “something,” Stephens said he also meant that “Biden should order” military strikes to destroy the “Isfahan missile complex.” “There is a uranium enrichment site near Isfahan, too,” Stephens wrote suggestively.

    The LA Times published two guest op-eds in less than two weeks urging attacks on Iran based on its alleged nuclear threat. Yossi Klein Halevi (10/7/24) wrote:

    Today, Iran sits at the nuclear threshold…. The culminating moment of this war to restore Israeli deterrence against existential threat will be preventing Iran’s nuclear breakout.

    Ten days later, Uriel Heilman (LA Times, 10/17/24) argued: “With Iran’s belligerence in overdrive, the US and its allies should seriously consider a military option to take out Iran’s nuclear sites.”

    The first question posed by CBS‘s Margaret Brennan in the vice presidential debate (10/1/24)—”would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran?”—was premised on the claim that Iran “has drastically reduced the time it would take to develop a nuclear weapon. It is down now to one or two weeks time.”

    ‘Threshold’ is a ways away

    NYT: To Build a Nuclear Bomb, Iran Would Need Much More Than Weeks

    If this New York Times piece (10/2/24) seems to have a different, less alarmist tone than other corporate media reports, perhaps that’s because its author, William Broad, is a science reporter and not someone whose beat is foreign policy.

    Readers who aren’t versed in the technical terms used to discuss nuclear proliferation can be forgiven for thinking that a country at “the nuclear threshold” is mere days away from being able to use nuclear weapons against their enemies, as these media warnings seem to suggest. But in reality, as the blog War on the Rocks (5/3/24) explained:

    Three distinct elements distinguish a state that has achieved a threshold status. First, the conscious pursuit of this combined technical, military and organizational capability to rapidly (probably within three to six months) obtain a rudimentary nuclear explosive capability after a decision to proceed. Second, implementation of a strategy for achieving and utilizing this status. And third, the application of this status for gain vis-à-vis adversaries, allies and/or domestic audiences. Nevertheless, a threshold state remains sufficiently short of weapons possession and even from the capacity to assemble disparate components into a nuclear weapon within days.

    According to a Congressional Research Service document (3/20/24) published in March, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports “suggest that Iran does not yet have a viable nuclear weapon design or a suitable explosive detonation system.”

    Estimates of how long it would take for Iran to develop nuclear weapons vary. US intelligence said that Iran could enrich enough uranium for three nuclear devices within weeks if it chose to do so (Congressional Research Service, 9/6/24). Yet as noted by Houston G. Wood, an emeritus professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering who specializes in atomic centrifuges and other nuclear issues, it “would take Iran up to a year to devise a weapon once it had enough nuclear fuel” (New York Times, 10/2/24).

    Siegfried S. Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, likewise told the New York Times that “it would likely take many months” for Iran to develop nukes, “not weeks.” As the Times noted, CBS‘s question in the vice presidential debate “conflated the time it would most likely take Iran to manufacture a bomb’s worth of highly enriched uranium with the overall process of turning it into a weapon. ”

    What’s more, US intelligence continues to say that Iran “is not currently undertaking nuclear weapons-related activities” (Congressional Research Service, 9/6/24). In 2003, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against building nuclear weapons that has not yet been rescinded (FAIR.org, 10/17/17).

    ‘Iran won’t stop itself’

    IAEA: Iran is Implementing Nuclear-related JCPOA Commitments, Director General Amano Tells IAEA Board

    “Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments,” the IAEA (3/5/18) said in March 2018. Two months later, the same could not be said to the United States.

    Even if Iran were pursuing nuclear weapons, nothing under international law supports the idea that Israel and the US therefore have the right to attack Iran. India would not have been within its rights to attack Pakistan to prevent its rival from building a nuclear weapon.

    But media assume different rules apply to Iran. The editors of the Wall Street Journal (10/1/24) contended:

    If there were ever cause to target Iran’s nuclear facilities, [Iran’s October attack on Israel] is it…. Iran is closer than ever to a nuclear weapon and won’t stop itself. The question for American and Israeli leaders is: If not now, when?

    Recent history shows that Iran has been willing to “stop itself” from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran abided by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), popularly known as the Iran nuclear deal, under which Iran limited its nuclear development in exchange for a partial easing of US sanctions. It stuck to the deal for some time even after the United States unilaterally abandoned it.

    Just before President Donald Trump ripped up the agreement in 2018, the IAEA reported that Iran was “implementing its nuclear-related commitments” under the accord. The year after the US abrogated the agreement, Iran was still keeping up its end of the bargain.

    ‘Provocative actions’ from US/Israel

    Responsible Statecraft: Killing the Iran nuclear deal was one of Trump's biggest failures

    Responsible Statecraft (5/7/24): “Relations between the United States and Iran have been so damaged by Trump’s withdrawal that it does not appear as though the deal can be resurrected.”

    Iran subsequently stopped adhering to the by then nonexistent deal—often advancing its nuclear program, as Responsible Statecraft (5/7/24) noted, “in response to provocative actions from the US and Israel”:

    In early 2020, the Trump administration killed Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and soon after Tehran announced that it would no longer abide by its enrichment commitments under the deal. But, even so, Tehran said it would return to compliance if the other parties did so and met their commitments on sanctions relief.

    In late 2020, Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated near Tehran, reportedly by Israel. Soon after, Iran’s Guardian Council approved a law to speed up the nuclear program by enriching uranium to 20%, increasing the rate of production, installing new centrifuges, suspending implementation of expanded safeguards agreements, and reducing monitoring and verification cooperation with the IAEA. The Agency has been unable to adequately monitor Iran’s nuclear activities under the deal since early 2021.

    However, situating Iranian policies in relation to US/Israeli actions like these would get in the way of the Journal’s campaign, which it articulated in another editorial (10/2/24), to convince the public that “If Mr. Biden won’t take this opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, the least he can do is not stop Israel from doing the job for its own self-preservation.”

    Of course, the crucial, unstated assumption in the articles by Stephens, Halevi, Heilman and the Journal’s editors is that Iran’s hypothetical nuclear weapons are emergencies that need to be immediately addressed by bombing the country—while Washington and Tel Aviv’s vast, actually existing nuclear arsenals warrant no concern.

     

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • In the ever-unfolding context of Israel’s genocidal war on the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples, the players more astutely silent in its preceding months have come very much to the fore of discussion in the British and American legacy media. One of these regional players is, of course, Iran.

    Iran: at the centre of a geopolitical storm

    Iran’s foreign policy towards Israel has been greatly exaggerated in terms of its forcefulness and commitment, especially when discussing instances such as the April bombardment of Israel by Iran and the later launching of missiles towards the nation just mere weeks ago.

    A largely ineffective gesture of retaliation against the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, it killed no Israelis and minorly-injured few others – acting as a direct challenge to the media’s often-touted view of Iranian diplomacy and wider polity as one motivated by extremism and hyper-religious fervour.

    Persia, as it was known until 1930, can perhaps be said to have a brighter life ahead of it than the one it currently leads. Yet clearly the West, in its framing of Iran’s recent history and current events, have analysed it incorrectly, and for a clear reason.

    The filthy legacy of the War on Terror has elevated crackpots into public intellectuals and political hawks into great statesmen, who comment incessantly on the subject of Iranian life and politics. Their spew of pseudo-intellectual nonsense on the barbarism of the nation of Iran misses a much easier critique.

    A modern tyranny

    The Iranian state system is not, as they would believe, suicidally committed to antiquated ideas of Pan-Islamism, Sharia, and the like, but instead a deeply unprincipled and inefficient modern tyranny.

    It is a system which can and eventually will be toppled, for it is a certified gerontocracy, whose arthritic puppet-masters grow increasingly unpopular, especially with the youth of Iran. And whilst indeed one can grant the danger they pose to the nominal “international order” we supposedly maintain, they are not exceptional in this due to their religious configuration, and are no more dangerous a regional power than the Israeli state or that of the House of Saud.

    The discourse surrounding Iran for the period following the 1979 Revolution has been one focused on the movement of so-called “Islamic Fundamentalism”. This in itself is a misnomer, as the preferred term of the more orthodox movements of political Islam themselves prefer the term Tadjid, or revivalist Islam – suggesting, in its right-wing formulations, a more palingenetic strain.

    These movements, which in their European parallels were often historically aligned with fascistic ones, have sought to reclaim pasts which as political scientist Oliver Roy points out, were never materially realised.

    This blundering misunderstanding, that ultra-orthodoxy has inordinately effected the politics of the MENA region, has dramatically influenced Western foreign policy and the way it is discussed for the worse.

    Diminutive figures

    More convincing is the argument that while the revival of a pan-Islamic ideology may have had some sway in the rhetoric of political leaders following the humiliation of 1967, the states themselves are much more turgid, and as much committed to the geopolitical advantage-gaining of their given nation-state.

    From the first two years of the post-revolutionary euphoria, the Ayatollah Khomeini was making compromises on the supposed Islamification of his nation. The constitution, derived as it is from the 1906 Iranian one and the constitution of the Fifth French Republic, has deeply secularised principles enshrined into its foundations.

    And whilst the Islamic Republican Party cracked down on virtually all leftist and other Tadjid opposition to the point of their extinction following the bombings of 1981, the acceptance of that party and its descendants to recognise and placidly concede to the demands of modernisation and industrialisation is demonstrable.

    This compromising attitude is shown today in the diminutive figure of Ali Khomeini, 3rd President of the Islamic Republic and current Supreme Leader.

    This man, one who stands as a veritable pilchard next to the great white Ruhollah, frequently sides, and therefore gives his authority to, the conservative forces in the Majles (Iranian Parliament).

    He holds this power under the Veleyat e Faqih, the principle of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, which gives him the divinely anointed final say on Iranian law in his withered hands – with nominal political impartiality.

    This is not an Iranian problem

    There is however, no discernable partiality towards theology shown in his governance, and in himself he tells of the true nature of revivalist conservative movements in Iran and the wider Islamic political sphere. Contrary to standing on first principles, divinely bestowed and communicated, these men are deeply compromised and compromising figures.

    Of course, the characteristic is shown to some extent across all states globally. Focusing regionally, however, and the corruption of the Israeli state can be shown to be similarly dangerous, as the Knesset members slaughter tens of thousands in the Gaza strip and light up the Lebanese hills with bombings.

    Similar is the reputation of the disgraceful ruling family of Saudi Arabia, who despite their 70+ year long ties with the United States, regularly exploit foreign workers, and proceed to lock up, torture, or otherwise silence opposition in their borders and beyond them.

    Iran is no exception in the region, as even their funding of ‘proscribed’ ‘terror’ organisations can be paralleled in the funding of mad Israeli settlers in the Occupied West Bank by the Israeli government.

    If Iran is no anomaly in their diplomatic licentiousness, as they have their moral equivalents mere miles away, then all should be held to account by governments and the media equally, especially in the West with its history of supposed ethical superiority.

    A society on the edge

    As for Iranian society itself, what can be said is a great deal. The movements of the West, whilst important, will not organically and prosperously drive the Mullahs from power in Tehran. To this point there appears a ground-swell in Iranian society which shows the potential to wrench the current iteration of the state from power.

    The Women’s movement, one which has shown great promise in recent years after the hospitalisation of Mahsa Amini and Arezou Badri, is gaining even greater momentum.

    On the subject of Iranian womanhood – and the broader subject of which Fanon speaks in Algeria Unveiled – despite the pearl clutching and hand wringing of didactic Western liberals, Iranian women have shown that they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

    They’ve denied objectification by the Western press by doffing their hijabs in defiance of the authorities, leading protests and demonstrations in their own right. Their demands for autonomy for the women within Iranian society, and their refusal to stand silently whilst the authorities punish them for their mere existence as subjects with thoughts outside of conservative values is inspiring.

    Similar manifestations of this growing tide can be seen in the movement for Kurdish liberation in the nation, subdued as it may be in comparison to that of other Kurdish movements elsewhere. The movement has its members imprisoned and sentenced to death in Iran, and fought for its own emancipation not only during the days of the British empire, but since long after the arrival of white supremacist armies in their territory.

    Iran: don’t be fooled by the West – or Iranian leadership either

    This drive of righteous men and women will likely come topple what remains of the Shia orthodoxy, illegitimate as it is in the eyes of many young Iranians, and deserves our support as leftists.

    We cannot be led astray in believing, for example, as some do, that the support for resistance against the state of Israel itself grants an excuse to act in flagrant disrespect and contempt of the independence of religious and ethnic minorities, and other oppressed groups on the domestic front.

    Iranian society is seeking and will continue to seek a higher point than the one which sees an ostensibly divine government ruling cynically over a subdued public.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By James Horton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The BRICS Summit taking place in Kazan, Russia, from October 22 to 24 is a pivotal gathering in global geopolitics. The summit brings together the original BRICS members – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – along with five new members: Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Then, dozens of other countries are attending as well:

    This includes the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, as well as leaders from Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Indonesia, and Mexico. There is even a possibility that UN chief António Guterres may appear at this BRICS Summit.

    This expansion marks a significant step in the group’s evolution as a counterbalance to Western influence.

    Dedollarization. Whoops.

    The first day of the summit, October 22, was marked by formal opening ceremonies and a dinner hosted by Russian president Vladimir Putin. This day set the tone for discussions on a broad array of topics, including economic cooperation, multilateralism, and security.

    Russian officials emphasized BRICS’ role in reshaping global governance, promoting multipolarity, and addressing economic disparities.

    One of the most significant discussions will centre on dedollarization – the effort to reduce global reliance on the U.S. dollar in international trade and finance.

    This topic is particularly important for Russia and China, both of which have been vocal about creating alternatives to the dollar-dominated financial system. In line with this, BRICS introduced BRICS Pay, a payment system designed to facilitate transactions among member countries, bypassing Western-dominated systems like SWIFT.

    Additionally, the summit will address the integration of new members, which represent significant geopolitical and economic forces. For instance, Saudi Arabia’s inclusion as a full member is seen as a notable development, given its substantial influence in global energy markets.

    The creation of a “partner country” model will probably also be discussed, which could further expand BRICS reach by offering other nations limited membership in the future.

    Why the BRICS Summit matters

    This year’s summit carries a deeper significance than past meetings. It marks Russia’s largest diplomatic event since the Ukraine conflict began, positioning BRICS as a platform for Russia to demonstrate that it is far from isolated on the global stage.

    Hosting the summit allows Russia to underscore its continued influence despite efforts by Western countries, particularly NATO members, to marginalize it.

    Moreover, the summit serves as a crucial platform for member states to advocate for a more equitable global order. Since its inception, BRICS has sought to challenge Western hegemony, particularly the dominance of the US and its allies in global governance institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

    Over the years, BRICS has worked to establish alternative institutions, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, though these efforts have met with mixed success.

    In 2024, the summit has renewed focus on reducing reliance on Western financial structures, particularly in light of sanctions imposed on Russia and Iran. Many of these nations are eager to develop their own systems to protect their economies from potential punitive measures by the West.

    The addition of powerful economies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE only strengthens BRICS ability to challenge Western financial dominance.

    The West and NATO will NOT be happy

    For Western and NATO countries, the growing influence of the group presents a challenge. BRICS Summit’s push for dedollarization and the creation of alternative financial and political structures could erode the West’s economic leverage.

    The US dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is central to American financial and geopolitical power. So, efforts at BRICS Summit to reduce its role could have long-term implications for global financial markets.

    While the West may downplay the significance of BRICS as a geopolitical competitor, it is closely watching developments, especially the group’s increasing appeal to countries in the Global South.

    Nations like Turkey, a NATO member, have expressed interest in closer ties with BRICS, indicating that even countries traditionally aligned with the West are looking to diversify their diplomatic and economic relations.

    Moreover, the summit occurs against the backdrop of heightened geopolitical tension, particularly concerning the war in Ukraine and the broader rivalry between the U.S. and China.

    For countries like India and Brazil, both of which have sought to maintain a careful balance between the West and BRICS, this summit underscores their desire to pursue a multi-aligned foreign policy that maximizes their strategic autonomy without alienating either bloc.

    BRICS Summit: a pivotal moment whether the West likes it or not

    The 2024 BRICS Summit is a landmark event in the evolving global power dynamics – whether the West likes it or not.

    By expanding its membership and advancing its goals of financial independence from the West, BRICS is positioning itself as a formidable force in international relations.

    For the West, this signals the emergence of a more multipolar world, where Western dominance is no longer taken for granted, and alternative powers are increasingly asserting their influence on the global stage.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Biden administration has launched a probe after highly classified U.S. intelligence documents were posted online showing that Israel is taking steps to launch a retaliatory attack against Iran. Meanwhile, a drone hit Benjamin Netanyahu’s seaside home Saturday in what the Israeli prime minister has called an assassination attempt by “Iran’s proxy Hezbollah.” As tensions between Iran and Israel…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A U.S. weapons system has landed and is “in place” in Israel, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin said on Monday, as the Biden administration beefs up U.S. support of Israel and Israeli forces prepare to attack Iran and continue their bombardments of Lebanon and Gaza. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, worth between roughly $1 billion to $1.8 billion and made by…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The recent string of exaggerated military successes – or at least as they are understood to be – places Israel in a situation it has been previously used to: prowess in war.  Such prowess promises much: redrawing boundaries; overthrowing governments; destroying the capabilities of adversaries and enemies.  Nothing, in this equation, contemplates peace, let alone diplomatic resolution. It’s playground pugilism that rarely gets out of the sandpit.

    In Washington, a fever has struck regarding Israel’s advances.  The outbreak has stirred much enthusiasm in a doctrine that has been shown, time and again, to be wretchedly uncertain and grossly dangerous.  With no concrete evidence of imminent harm to US interests, it featured in the highest policy planning circles that oiled an invasion of Iraq in 2003.  While the stated objective was the disarming of Saddam Hussein’s regime for having Weapons of Mass Destruction it turned out not to have, the logic was one of pre-emptive strike: we attack the madman in Baghdad before he goes nuclear and loses it.

    The establishment wonk on empire and espionage at the Washington Post, David Ignatius, offers a fairly meaningless assessment in terms of claimed Israeli dominance over Iran and its proxies.  After a year of conflict, Israel had “gained what military strategists call ‘escalation dominance’”.  The implication: a decisive attack on Iran is imminent.

    The point here (at this juncture, the mind lost seeks sanctuary in a mental asylum of lunatic reassurances), is that attacking Iran in toto will not result in much by way of retaliatory detriment.  Some bruising, surely, but hardly lingering flesh wounds.  Israel has, it would seem, been working some magic, spreading its own view that Iran has a gruesome plan in its military vault: eliminating Israel by 2040.

    In Foreign Policy, Matthew Kroenig, generously self-described as a national security strategist, blusters for war.  “Indeed, now is an ideal opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” he asserts with childish longing.  The reason for such an attack lies in a presumption.  Yet again, the doctrine of pre-emption, one hostile to international law and the UN Charter, plays out its feeble rationale.  Evidence, in such cases, is almost always scanty.  Kroenig, however, is certain.  Iran will secure one bomb’s worth of weapon-grade material within a matter of weeks.  The rest is obvious.  No evidence is offered, nor does it even matter, given Kroenig’s longstanding zeal in wishing to rid Iran of its nuclear facilities.

    The Atlantic Council has also suggested a policy that what is good for the goose of Christian-Jewish freedom is not good for the gander of Persian Shia ambition.  It is exactly this full-fledged hypocrisy that the despots of the secular tyranny in North Korea realised in dealing with Washington.  Beware the nostrums against nuclear armament.

    In a report authored by both Democrats and Republicans for the Council, a warning of chilling absurdity is offered: “The United States needs to maintain a declaratory policy, explicitly enunciated by the president, that it will not tolerate Iran getting a nuclear weapon and will use military force to prevent this development if all other measures fail.”

    Instead of resisting belligerent chatter, the authors suggest that the US threaten Iran through announcing “yearly joint exercises with Israel, such as Juniper Oak and seek additional funding in the next budget cycle to speed research and development of next-generation military hardware capable of destroying Iran’s nuclear program.”

    Kroenig shows his usual stuffing.  Iran can never have nuclear weapons, because the United States and Israel say so.  (The Sunni powers, for their own reasons, agree.)  This form of perennial idiocy could apply to all the powers that have nuclear weapons, including Israel itself.  At one point, no state should have had that relic of sadism’s folly.  Then they came in succession after the United States: the Soviet bomb, the Britannic bomb, the Gallic bomb.  Throw in China, India, Pakistan, Israel.  Plucky, deranged North Korea, was wise to note the trend, showing lunacy to be eternally divisible.

    It is precisely that sort of logic that has drawn such comments as this from the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a May interview: “Iran’s level of deterrence will be different if the existence of Iran is threatened.  We have no decision to produce a nuclear bomb, but we will have to change our nuclear doctrine if such threats occur.”  This month, almost 40 legislators penned a letter to the Supreme National Security Council calling for a reconsideration of current nuclear doctrine.  The greater the fanatic’s desire to remove a perceived threat, the more likely an opponent will give basis to that threat.

    For all the faux restraint being officially aired in Washington regarding Israel’s next round of military assaults, there is enormous sympathy, even affection, for the view that wrongs shall be righted, and the mullahs punished.  Bedding for a more hostile response to Iran also features in the inane airings of the presidential election.  Vice President Kamala Harris, in an interview with 60 Minutes, remarked that, “Iran has American blood on its hands, okay?” In making that claim, she suggested that Tehran was somehow Washington’s greatest adversary.

    In response to this fatuous remark, Justin Logan of the Cato Institute offers an ice-cold bath of reason: “This is not the Wehrmacht in 1940.”  The path to dominating the Middle East hardly involves such tools as propaganda, proxy operations and psychological warfare “much less becoming the greatest threat to the United States.”

    The nuclear option is now available to governments that should never have had them.  But acquiring the dangerously untenable followed.  To assume that brutal, amputation loving theocrats in Tehran should not have them defies the trajectory of a certain moronic consistency.  The Persian bomb is probably imminent, and it is incumbent on the murderous fantasists in Israel and the United States to chew over that fact.  Unfortunately for the rest of us, the fetish against acquisition risks expanding a conventional conflict through testing the will and means of a power that, while wounded, hardly counts as defeated.

    The post Nuclear Fever: War Mongering on Iran first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Biden administration is sending an advanced anti-missile defense system and 100 U.S. troops to Israel in advance of expected retaliatory strikes against Iran. This marks the first significant deployment of American troops to Israel since the beginning of its assault on Gaza, though the U.S. has spent an estimated tens of billions of dollars on the Israeli military and related operations.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Pentagon confirmed Sunday that it has authorized the deployment of an advanced antimissile system and around 100 U.S. troops to Israel as the Netanyahu government prepares to attack Iran — a move that’s expected to provoke an Iranian response. Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, press secretary for the U.S. Defense Department, said in a statement that at President Joe Biden’s direction…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Hopes of pardon dashed for Niloofar Hamedi and Elaheh Mohammadi, who were cleared of collaboration with US

    Two young female journalists who were sentenced to lengthy prison terms for reporting on the death of Mahsa Amini have been cleared of charges of collaborating with the United States government but will still spend up to five more years behind bars, the Iranian authorities have announced.

    Niloofar Hamedi and Elaheh Mohammadi were arrested in 2022 after reporting on the death and funeral of Amini, the young Kurdish woman who died in police custody in 2022, sparking the nationwide Women, Life, Freedom protests.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • “I said it loud and clear — and meant it — that I support Zionism without qualification,” Keir Starmer told Jewish News.

    So our brand-new prime minister has refused to rule out UK military involvement in any Israeli response to Iran’s recent missile attack, condemning what he calls Iran’s “malign role” in the Middle East.

    And he refused to say whether MPs would get a vote beforehand on any military action. “We support Israel’s right to defend herself against Iran’s aggression, in line with international law, because let’s be very clear, this was not a defensive action by Iran, it was an act of aggression and a major escalation in response to the death of a terrorist leader.

    “It exposes, once again, Iran’s malign role in the region: they helped equip Hamas for the seventh of October attacks, they armed Hezbollah, who launched a year-long barrage of rockets on northern Israel, forcing 60,000 Israelis to flee their homes, and they support the Houthis, who mount direct attacks on Israel and continue to attack international shipping.”

    Of course, Starmer didn’t mention the many attacks Israel had made on Lebanon and Iran over the years or explain why Hamas and Hezbollah came into being.

    Be honest: who exactly are the “malign” influences in the Middle East?

    Just as Britain and America would like everyone to believe that the Israel-Palestine conflict began on October 7 last year, when it had been going on since 1948 (and before), they’d like us to believe that hostilities with Iran began with the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But you have to go back over 70 years to find the root cause in America’s case, while Iranians have endured a whole century of British exploitation and bullying. The US-UK-Israel Axis don’t want this important slice of history to become part of public discourse. Here’s why.

    In 1901 William Knox D’Arcy, a Devon man, obtained from the Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar a 60-year oil concession to three-quarters of Persia. The Persian government would receive 16% of the oil company’s annual profits, a rotten deal as they would soon realize.

    D’Arcy, with financial support from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil, eventually found oil in commercial quantities in 1908.  The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was formed and in 1911 completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at Abadan.

    Just before the outbreak of World War 1 Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, wanted to convert the British fleet from coal. To secure a reliable oil source the British Government took a major shareholding in Anglo-Persian.

    In the 1920s and 1930s, the company profited hugely from paying the Persians a miserly 16% and refusing to renegotiate terms. An angry Persia eventually canceled the D’Arcy agreement and the matter went to the Court of International Justice in The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year concession but on a smaller area. The terms were an improvement but still didn’t amount to a square deal.

    In 1935 Persia became known internationally by its other name, Iran, and the company changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil refinery in the world and the British government, with its 51% holding, had affectively colonized part of southern Iran.

    Iran’s tiny share of the profits had long soured relations and so did the company’s treatment of its oil workers. 6,000 went on strike in 1946 and the dispute was brutally put down with 200 dead or injured. In 1951, while Aramco was sharing profits with the Saudis on a 50/50 basis, Anglo-Iranian handed Iran a miserable 17.5%.

    Hardly surprising, then, that Iran wanted economic and political independence. Calls for nationalizing its oil could no longer be ignored. In March 1951 the Majlis and Senate voted to nationalize Anglo-Iranian, which had controlled Iran’s oil industry since 1913 under terms frankly unfavorable to the host country.

    Social reformer Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister by a 79 to 12 majority and promptly carried out his government’s wishes, canceling Anglo-Iranian’s oil concession and expropriating its assets. His explanation was perfectly reasonable: “Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries… have yielded no results thus far. With the oil revenues, we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people.

    “Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced…. Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.” (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran, p. 525)

    For his impudence he would be removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3 years then put under house arrest until his death. Britain, determined to bring about regime change, orchestrated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil, froze Iran’s sterling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. The Iranian economy was soon in ruins… All sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

    America was reluctant at first to join Britain’s destructive game but Churchill (prime minister at the time) let it be known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into the arms of Russia just when Cold War anxiety was high. That was enough to bring America’s new president, Eisenhower, onboard and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down.

    So began a nasty game of provocation, mayhem and deception. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in exile, signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other nominating the CIA’s choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were written as dictated by the CIA. In August 1953, when it was judged safe for him to do so, the Shah returned to take over.

    Mossadeq was arrested, tried, and convicted of treason by the Shah’s military court. He remarked: “My greatest sin is that I nationalized Iran’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire… I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”

    His supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Zahedi’s new government reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion’s share, with 40% going to Anglo-Iranian.

    The consortium agreed to split profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but refused to open its books to Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the board.

    The US massively funded the Shah’s government, including his army and his hated secret police force, SAVAK. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954. Mossadeq died in 1967.

    The CIA-engineered coup that toppled Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and let the American oil companies in, was the final straw for the Iranians. The British-American conspiracy inevitably backfired 25 years later with the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a tragically botched rescue mission.

    If Britain and America had played fair and allowed the Iranians to determine their own future instead of using economic terrorism to bring the country to its knees Iran might today be “the only democracy in the Middle East”, a title falsely claimed by Israel which is actually a repulsive ethnocracy. So never mention the M-word: MOSSADEQ.

    But Britain seems incapable of playing fair. In 2022, when Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian, was freed after five years in a Tehran prison it transpired that the UK had owed around £400m to the Iranian government arising from the non-delivery of Chieftain battle tanks ordered by the Shah of Iran before his overthrow in 1979. Iran had been pursuing the debt for over four decades. In 2009 an international court in the Netherlands ordered Britain to repay the money. Iranian authorities said Nazanin would be released when the UK did so, but she suffered those years of incarceration, missing her children and husband back in the UK, while the British government took its own sweet time before finally paying up.

    Smoldering resentment for more than 70 years

    During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) the US, and eventually Britain, leaned strongly towards Saddam and the alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them.

    This is how John King, writing in 2003, summed it up. “The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam’s army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.

    “The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked the UN censure of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France, and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.”

    As it happens the company I worked for at that time supplied the Iranian government with electronic components for military equipment. We were just mulling an invitation to set up a factory in Tehran when the UK Government announced it was revoking all export licences to Iran. Britain had decided to back Saddam. Hundreds of British companies were forced to abandon the Iranians at a critical moment.

    Betraying Iran and throwing our weight behind Saddam went well, didn’t it? Saddam was overthrown in April 2003 following the US/UK-led invasion of Iraq, and hanged in messy circumstances after a dodgy trial in 2006. The dirty work was left to the Provisional Iraqi Government. At the end of the day, we couldn’t even ensure that Saddam was dealt with fairly. “The trial and execution of Saddam Hussein were tragically missed opportunities to demonstrate that justice can be done, even in the case of one of the greatest crooks of our time”, said the UN Human Rights Council’s expert on extrajudicial executions.

    Philip Alston, a law professor at New York University, pointed to three major flaws leading to Saddam’s execution. “The first was that his trial was marred by serious irregularities denying him a fair hearing and these have been documented very clearly. Second, the Iraqi Government engaged in an unseemly and evidently politically motivated effort to expedite the execution by denying time for a meaningful appeal and by closing off every avenue to review the punishment. Finally, the humiliating manner in which the execution was carried out clearly violated human rights law.”

    Alston acknowledged that “there is an understandable inclination to exact revenge in such cases” but warned that “to permit such instincts to prevail only sends the message that the rule of law continues to be mocked in Iraq, as it was in Saddam’s own time”.

    So now we’re playing dirty again, supporting an undemocratic state, Israel, which is run by genocidal maniacs and has for 76 years defied international law and waged a war of massacre, terror and dispossession against the native Palestinians. And we’re even protecting it in its lethal quarrel with Iran.

    It took President Truman only 11 minutes to accept and extend full diplomatic relations to Israel when Zionist entity declared statehood in 1948 despite the fact that it was still committing massacres and other terrorist atrocities. Israel’s evil ambitions and horrendous tactics were well known and documented right from the start but eagerly backed and facilitated by the US and UK. In the UK’s case betrayal of the Palestinians began in 1915 thanks to Zionist influence. Even Edwin Montagu, the only Jew in the British Cabinet at that time, described Zionism as “a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom”. A century later it is quite evident that Zionism has been the ultimate “malign influence” in the Middle East.

    Sadly, the Zionist regime’s unspeakable cruelty and inhumanity against unarmed women and children in Gaza and the West Bank — bad enough in the decades before October 2023 but now showing the Israelis as the repulsive criminals they’ve always been — still isn’t enough to end US-UK adoration for it.

    The post Who are We to Accuse Iran of “Malign Influence”? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Activist’s treatment at Evin prison has become even more severe since she was awarded prize last year

    The jailed Nobel peace prize laureate Narges Mohammadi has marked the first anniversary of her award with a call for peace in the Middle East from Tehran’s notorious Evin prison.

    The Iranian human rights activist said in comments to Italy’s Corriere della Sera: “Today, the dark shadow of war once again hangs over our beloved country. I hate war.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Activists hope a change in international law could help to address the intensifying erosion of women and girls’ rights in Afghanistan

    Read more: Afghan exiles on the Taliban’s gender apartheid

    Over the past three years, the world has watched in horror as women and girls in Afghanistan have had their rights and freedoms systematically stripped away.

    In the face of inaction by the international community, a campaign for the conditions being imposed on Afghan and Iranian women to be made a crime under international law as gender apartheid was launched last year. What does the term mean and will it make a difference?

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Biden officials have reportedly admitted that ceasefire negotiations amid Israel’s war on Lebanon and genocide in Gaza have been suspended, despite public insistence by high-powered figures within the administration that they are working around the clock for a ceasefire. The Biden administration has given up on ceasefire talks after first proposing a deal for a 21-day ceasefire between…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the British outlet Channel 4 on Monday that he believes current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to drag the U.S. into a war with Iran, an effort that the ex-Israeli leader called “reckless.” Asked whether he thinks Netanyahu “wants to draw the United States into a confrontation with Iran,” Olmert replied, “I suspect that he does.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In a report from Beirut, Rima Majed examines Israel’s escalating attacks on Lebanon and how Israel’s actions in the region have fueled resistance movements. “Since October last year, we’ve realized … our lives do not have a meaning in this broader international order. We are numbers. Our bodies are disposable,” says Majed. “All we keep hearing is that Israel has the right to self-defense.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Israeli forces continued attacks on the outskirts of Beirut and in southern Lebanon on Saturday. There were 13 Israeli strikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut overnight and another five on Saturday, one of which may have been targeted at paramedics, according to Al Jazeera. The number of casualties is not yet clear. “There is increasing destruction and it’s clear that complete blocks…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Read Part 1.

    The events described in previous articles ─ pro-Israel influence that enabled rapid recognition by the U.S. government of the Israel regime in 1948 and an American murder of 29 Palestinians at the Cave of Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994 are not isolated relics of the past. They link to events that occur in contemporary times and remain alive as if happening today ─ salient features in the historical narrative that a world ignored and served to claim more victims.

    Pro-Israel influence that enabled rapid recognition by the U.S. government of the Israel regime initiated the trend that guaranteed almost continuous support by the U.S. government for Israel’s mounting crimes. Made in America Baruch Goldstein, in his murderous rampage, set the stage for continuous murders of Palestinians and for the made in America bombs that extinguished the life of Hezbollah Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah.

    The constant drumming of arranged epithets and twists of reality, where an Israel committed atrocity becomes an Israel sacrifice, continues to manipulate minds. Hezbollah and its deceased leader, Hassan Nasrallah, are not portrayed as fighting to prevent the genocide of the Palestinian people by the terrorist Israeli government; they are labelled as terrorist Hezbollah and terrorist Nasrallah urging genocide of nuclear-armed Israel and as individuals who deserve the ultimate fate.

    In his speech to the United Nations (UN), Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, displayed the deranged and manipulative mind that governs Israel’s actions. He said “more resolutions have been passed by the General Assembly against Israel in the last decade than against the rest of the world’s countries,” and accused the UN of being a “house of darkness” and a “swamp of antisemitic bile.” The avalanche of UN resolutions condemning Israel’s genocidal actions prove that Israel is a “house of darkness,” a nation that has no regard for international law, and has leaders who feed upon hating other peoples. In his purposeful upside-down world, Netanyahu attempted to use valid condemnation of Israel’s actions by those who have been trusted to safeguard the world against criminal actions to prove Israel is a “shining light on the hill.”

    From Netanyahu,

    Hezbollah is the quintessential terror organization in the world today. It has tentacles that span all continents. It has murdered more Americans and more Frenchmen than any group except Bin Laden. It’s murdered the citizens of many countries represented in this room.

    Netanyahu alludes to one incident, the 40 year-old 1983 bombings of French and American barracks in Beirut. On October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber drove a truck filled with explosives into the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut and killed 241 U.S. military personnel. That same morning, another suicide attack killed 58 French soldiers in their barracks. The barracks were components of contingents of U.S. Marines and French forces that arrived in Lebanon as part of a peacekeeping mission. After the Sabra and Shatila massacres, which killed between “1,300 and 3,500 civilians, mostly Palestinians and Lebanese Shias,” and French and U.S. naval bombardments of the Shouf hills, Lebanese militants perceived the French and U.S. presences in their land as intruding forces that protected Israel’s invasion. The militants wanted these forces to leave, and, not too long after the bombings, they left. No confirmed information is available of who authorized and carried out the bombings. A formal Hezbollah did not exist at that time.

    There is definite information that Israeli air force jet fighter aircraft and navy motor torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War, killed 34 and wounded 171 crew members. Many Americans have been arbitrarily murdered by Israeli forces and settlers in the West Bank and Gaza, about ½ dozen this year.

    Heart breaking to learn that Turkish-American woman, Aysenur Eygi, who radiates beauty, was shot and killed while protesting near Nablus. Disturbing to know the U.S. government does not hold Israeli officials responsible. Pulverizing to understand that Israel uses slaughter to send a message ─ come to Israel to help the Palestinians and you will be killed — young, old, man, woman, or child. Her life should not be forgotten, and her image should appear on every protest mechanism.

    Apply Netanyahu’s statement to situations that caused U.S. casualties, and we have, “Israel is the quintessential terror organization in the world today. It has tentacles that span all continents. It has murdered more Americans than any group except Bin Laden. It’s murdered the citizens of many countries represented at the UN.”

    Reality, truth, and facts are rarely considered by Israel’s puppets. Reading a paper placed before him, US President Joe Biden says the same as his leader.

    Hassan Nasrallah and the terrorist group he led, Hezbollah, were responsible for killing hundreds of Americans over a four-decade reign of terror. His death from an Israeli airstrike is a measure of justice for his many victims, including thousands of Americans, Israelis, and Lebanese civilians.”

    “Hundreds of Americans,” and “thousands of Americans, Israelis, and Lebanese civilians?” Some Israeli civilians have been killed in the tit-for-tat hostilities, a minute number compared to Lebanese civilians and UN workers killed by Israel. Ex-president Joseph Biden, please name one American proven to be killed by Hezbollah since it became an official organization in 1985.

    The Israeli Prime Minister, who believes that the function of the peoples of the world is to make certain Israeli Jews live and survive well, regardless of the murders of others, recites,

    After generations in which our people were slaughtered, remorselessly butchered, and no one raised a finger in our defense, we now have a state. We now have a brave army, an army of incomparable courage, and we are defending ourselves.

    An insolent and degrading insult to all those who fought and died in World War II. The United States, Soviet Union, and their allies fought bravely to defeat the Nazi state in World War II. They raised more than their fingers; they sacrificed themselves in defense of all the European peoples. If there was a strategy to liberate anyone from the camps and secure their lives — Poles, Soviet prisoners of war, gypsies, political opponents of the Nazi regime, and Jews — they would have implemented the strategy.

    In war and immediate post-war years, communication and access to news, including firsthand knowledge was limited — no Internet, no 100 channels of television, no electronic mail, no You Tube, no digital cameras, no smart phones, no Facetime, no WhatsApp, and no social media. The ubiquitous, daily, and on site images of the violence we see today were not available to stir the mind to action. Unbelievable, that despite the enormous information that describes the genocide in Gaza, the world remains relatively passive and little effort is being applied to prevent the genocide. Just the opposite is occurring; societies are helping and encouraging it. Mr. Netanyahu, nobody encouraged the Holocaust; Mr. Netanyahu stand up and tell us why you are encouraging the genocide, requesting the Western world to contribute to your gruesome cause, and are ready to extend it to Lebanon?

    The unwary world, still unable to confront its malaise, has allowed the Israeli Jews to judge who lives and who dies, slaughtering others with impunity and without redress. Netanyahu has said it with bravado, vowing to destroy anyone in the world who harms an Israeli citizen. Recent events indicate nobody is safe from the Zionist Jews who murder with ease, without remorse, and without facing justice. Give it perspective by citing a few examples.

    The goat and sheepherders in the South Hebron Hills live a simple and basic life on semi-desert land, which is barely sufficient to feed their small herds. They don’t ask anything from anybody, don’t harm anybody, and just want to do their daily chores. Settlers from Brooklyn, New York, who never saw a goat or sheep in their life, have suddenly become herders who need room and land for their pet goats. Simple way to get it ─ forcibly evict these simple people and ruin their lives by telling them the land is now a closed “firing zone.” If they protest, well, just shoot them. A video (scroll down) shows a settler arguing with a Palestinian herder on the herder’s land in the village of al-Tawani and arbitrarily shooting him. Israeli soldiers nonchalantly regard the incident and nobody detains the assailant.

    Gaza has its daily atrocities. Israeli snipers and soldiers wantonly murder men, women, and especially children. In one episode, Israeli soldiers search a building, going from apartment to apartment. They enter an apartment and order several men to strip and then execute them. No reason and no concern for the killings. Go to “The Night Won’t End,” a film that investigates civilian killings in Gaza. View from 1:00.01 to 1:04.50 and be prepared to witness a horror.

    In the West Bank town of Qabatiya, soldiers murder several Palestinians and then commit a gruesome act — treat the lifeless bodies as rubbish and throw them off the roof into the street below.  

    The New York Times reports,

    According to Wafa (Palestine News Agency), seven Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military during a 10-hour raid into Qabatiya, south of the city of Jenin, on Thursday. Among them, Wafa said, were the three people — believed to be men — captured in the video.

    Wafa reported that, after being thrown from the building, the bodies were mutilated on the ground by the claw of an Israeli excavator before being taken away by the military.

    In describing the exploding pagers that killed about 10 people and injured several thousand in Lebanon, media, as usual, inserts a description of Hezbollah as the “terror group.” Here we have one of the most horrific terror attacks in recorded history, with innocent civilians suddenly blinded while doing their daily activities and the victims are called the terrorists.

    Biggest atrocity

    The greatest atrocity has been done to Jewish people. Since its inception, Israel Jews have been used as pawns to oppress and subjugate others and been subjected to constant attacks. Thanks to Netanyahu and his compatriots, the Jews have become the most hated people in the world. Not just animosity or mild disapproval; venomous hatred of not wanting to associate and wishing disappearance. World Jewry may not realize it but this animosity comes from democratic, freedom loving, and liberal persons, people fighting for human rights who now express belief that Zionist Jews are inhuman. Many decent and well-meaning people are following the suggestion by Palestinian poet Remi Kanazi.

    Do not cower to Zionists. Shame them. Do not welcome them in your spaces. Why should these genocide loving fascists be treated any different than any other flat out racist.

    Can the world confront its malaise? Activists should keep doing what they are doing and try to overcome the Zionists and their worldwide conspirators who find antidotes by converting protests against their malevolent actions into malevolent protests by the protestors. The latest trickery has the New York Times, Sept. 4, 2024, publish, “Across the United States this spring, Iran also used social media to stoke student-organized protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, with operatives providing financial assistance and posing as students, according to American intelligence assessments.” What nonsense.

    Well known that Israeli operatives flood social media with derogatory information on campus protestors and flattering information on their counter protestors, and hundreds of millions of dollars of donations are used to shape college presidents’ and government officials’ decisions. The Iranian agents, if they existed, probably could not buy a government or college official a cup of coffee.

    Mentioning the atrocities committed by Israel leads to the question, “What can be done to stop Israel?” Arguments to the eventual demise of the Zionist nightmare are more wish fulfillment than reality.

    The Times of Israel (TOI) features an article, “Derelict economy could sink ‘Titanic’ Israel, experts warn,” which relates, “New research paints worrying picture of decades of neglected national priorities leaving the country without the resources to face existential threats.” TOI is perspicacious, Intel has halted expansion of its facilities in Israel, delaying construction of a $25 billion factory for chip production. This pessimism gives optimism to those who believe that a disastrous economy will not be able to support a strong military. After Israel’s military decimates Hezbollah as a fighting force, Israel will no longer need a world class military to protect it from fulfilling its self-guided mission. This mission does not have a high-flying economy as its prominent feature; the Israel economy will always receive assistance from its benefactors — United States, Germany, and Jewish billionaires around the world. The salient feature of the Zionist mission is Irredentism ─ uniting of Jews around the world, physically or morally, in a supposedly united Biblical kingdom of Judah and Israel. That mission is almost completed and only enforcers composed of a small military and a large settler population will be needed to contain the Palestinians on the plantation. The shrinking labor force, due to emigrating Israelis, will be filled by the slave labor of compliant Palestinians.

    Another argument for defeating Israel treats collapse of its principal supporter, the United States of America. Accomplishing that internally does not seem plausible. A possible solution to Israel’s maddening of the civilized world lays with leaders of several nations. A world realignment of blocs, those contending American hegemony and those blindly supporting it, is occurring. The U.S. faces economic decline from Chinese competition. If a substantial number of nations are convinced that moving away from the United States and aligning with China is less dangerous than allowing the modern Israelites and their Joshua leader to continue the revival of the Biblical Conquest, slay the inhabitants of the “promised Land,” and lead the world to continuous conflagrations, they could take action and give the U.S. an offer it cannot refuse ─ stop aiding Israel or we start aiding China. Successful rearrangement of the contending blocs requires a three-way endeavor.

    • Gravitation to use of the Yuan as international currency will sink the dollar, substantially raise the price of U.S. imports, and cause a national inflation. This will be offset by lowering the cost of U.S. labor for exports and foreign investment.
    • Tariffs will have to be imposed by foreign nations to offset the reduced prices and increased competitiveness of U.S. exports
    • Nations will have to be assured they are not threatened by loss of U.S. security.

    We have a complex subject that needs discussion beyond this article. Wait, there may be a solution on the way. I don’t recommend it but ex-President and future felon, Donald Trump, proposes weakening the dollar, increasing tariffs, and providing less security to other nations.

    Will a Trump victory bring about the international realignment that forces the United States to compromise its protection of Israel to guarantee protection of its economy? What a dilemma!

    The post Part II: The World Confront its Malaise first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.