Iranian-Swedish citizen Saeed Azizi also exchanged for Hamid Noury, who was serving life in Sweden for role in death of political prisoners
Johan Floderus, the Swedish EU diplomat held in captivity for two years in Iran, has been freed and has arrived home, the Swedish prime minister has announcedgreeted by the prime minister and his delighted and relieved family and friends.
Ulf Kristersson said on Saturday that the Iranian lifer Hamid Noury was being exchanged for Johan Floderus and the Iranian-Swedish citizen Saeed Azizi. He arrived back in Sweden later that evening.
When Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s helicopter went missing in the mountains on May 19, authorities initially responded by urging the public not to worry. In a country accustomed to being on razor’s edge — only weeks before, Iranians feared Israel would launch a major attack within the country’s borders — the statement was intended to reassure people. But it quickly turned into a joke.
Front Line Defenders issues regularly urgent appeals on behalf of Human Rights Defenders. This case is just an example: on 29 May 2024 FLD called for action on behalf of woman human rights defender Jina Modares Gorji in Iran who was sentenced to twenty-one years in prison.
Please get your own Front Line Defenders Appeals. By subscribing to this list [https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/secure/act-now.php] you will receive information on all cases that Front Line Defenders takes up on behalf of human rights defenders at risk. You will receive an average of 4 to 8 emails per week.
On 24 May 2024, Jina Modares Gorji was notified that Branch 1 of the Sanandaj Revolutionary Court has sentenced her to a total of twenty-one years in prison. In the verdict of the revolutionary court, the woman human rights defender has been sentenced to ten years in prison on the charge of “forming groups and association with the intention of disturbing the national security,” ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government,” and one year in prison on the charge of “propaganda activities against the state.”
Jina Modares Gorji is a woman human rights defender, book seller, and feminist podcaster and blogger in Sanandaj, in the Kurdistan province in Iran. Her human rights work includes advocating for women among the Kurdish community, girls’ rights, and socio-cultural rights via holding book clubs and writing blogs. She has been arrested several times since September 2022, following the death of Mahsa (Jina) Amini in the custody of the Iranian morality police …
On 9 April 2024, the last hearing occurred for the woman human rights defender. The aforementioned charges are related to her peaceful human rights activities, which includes speaking to media, participating in international conferences and organising activities to promote women’s rights in the Kurdistan province in Iran. The woman human rights defender was arrested on 10 April 2023 and was arbitrarily detained for almost three months in solitary condiment and in the public Womens Ward of Sanandaj prison. She was also denied access to a lawyer. In mid-February 2023, she was informed that “spreading disinformation” had been added to the previous charges of “forming groups and association with the intention of disturbing the national security”, and “propaganda activities against the state”. On 3 July 2023, the woman human rights defender was released on a bail of one billion IRR.
In April 2023, Branch 1 of the Sanandaj Public and Revolutionary Court dismissed the lawsuit that Jina Modares Gorji filed against the physical and verbal assault during her arbitrary arrest.
On 12 February 2023, Jina Modares Gorji appeared with her lawyer before Branch 1 of the Sanandaj Revolutionary Court, where she did not sign the pardon scheme as she stated this would constitute an acknowledgement that the charges against her human rights work were legitimate. This scheme was announced by the Iranian judiciary in February 2023 on the occasion of the 44th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.
The woman human rights defender had previously been arrested on 21 September 2022 for her work and participation in the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests, and charged with “gathering and collusion against the national security” and “propaganda activities against the state.” She was released on a bail of 10 billion IRR on 30 October 2022, after going on hunger strike for three days in protest against the physical assault and detention she endured in the Sanandaj Correctional Centre.
The prosecution of Jina Modares Gorji is part of a wide crackdown on human rights defenders in Iran where, hefty sentences issued against human rights defenders on the charge of “forming groups and association with the intention of disturbing the national security,” against groups of human rights rights defenders reported by Front Line Defenders in April and May 2024.
Front Line Defenders is particularly concerned with the sentencing of the woman human rights defender Jina Modares Gorji , as it believes the judicial action is in reprisal for her peaceful and legitimate human rights work.
In the early 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan launched a covert war to destroy the fledgling Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. It was brutal: Paramilitary war, CIA attacks, economic blockade, and more.
It would wreak havoc on the country, killing tens of thousands and ravaging the economy. But an international solidarity movement stood up in response. And the Reagan government’s hubris, and drive to fuel its war on Nicaragua, would break U.S. laws and lead to a shocking scandal in Washington: Iran Contra.
In this episode, host Michael Fox walks back into the 1980s, to the U.S. response to revolution in Nicaragua and to the international solidarity that pushed back.
This is Part 2 of Episode 10.
Under the Shadow is an investigative narrative podcast series that walks back in time, telling the story of the past by visiting momentous places in the present.
In each episode, host Michael Fox takes us to a location where something historic happened — a landmark of revolutionary struggle or foreign intervention. Today, it might look like a random street corner, a church, a mall, a monument, or a museum. But every place he takes us was once the site of history-making events that shook countries, impacted lives, and left deep marks on the world.
Hosted by Latin America-based journalist Michael Fox.
Follow and support journalist Michael Fox or Under the Shadow at https://www.patreon.com/mfox. You can also see pictures and listen to full clips of Michael Fox’s music for this episode.
Additional links/info
Monte Perdido’s new album Ofrenda is now out. You can listen to the full album on Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music, YouTube or wherever you listen to music.
Other music from Blue Dot Sessions.
For declassified documents on the U.S. Contra war on Nicaragua and the Iran Contra affair, you can visit Peter Kornbluh’s National Security Archives here and here.
Brian Wilson’s memoir, Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson, is available here. His interview on Democracy Now! is here.
Eline van Ommen’s book, Nicaragua Must Survive: Sandinista Revolutionary Diplomacy in the Global Cold War (University of California Press, 2023), is available here.
William Robinson’s book, A Faustian Bargain: U.S. Intervention In The Nicaraguan Elections And American Foreign Policy In The Post-cold War Era about the U.S. role in Nicaragua’s 1990 election is available here.
This pair of NACLA articles from professor William Robinson, offers an opposing view, underscoring that “Washington’s principal concern in Nicaragua is not getting rid of Ortega but preserving the interests of transnational capital.”
“Crisis in Nicaragua: Is the US Trying to Overthrow the Ortega-Murillo Government? (Part II)”
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Hi, I’m your host, Michael Fox. First, before we get started, let me say that today is the continuation of episode 10 about the Nicaragua Revolution. If you haven’t heard the first part, I recommend you go back and listen to that Now. Also, many portions of today’s episode deal with harsh themes from the US War on Nicaragua in the 1980s, including killings, war and terror attacks. If you’re sensitive to these things or you’re in the room with small children, you might want to consider another time to listen. Okay, here’s the show.
I’m standing on the shore of this old Fisherman’s Village, Pacific Ocean, Northwestern Nicaragua. In the evening time, in the early morning, these guys roll the boats in and out using these big long wooden rods that they helped to get them on shore. It’s dark sand in a volcanic. The waves are breaking. There’s about a dozen surfers out in the water. Many of them are from Brazil and the US actually folks that came here years ago fell in love with the surf here, bought homes on the side of the stay. There’s a little surf hostile on the beach, kind of right behind me. Also behind me is this little kind of palapa where woman sells fish and beers and food on the beach. But other than that, it’s not developed. It’s dirt roads, but really nice, really nice. It’s called here and it’s just a couple miles from Pu Sandino. Of course, Sandino Sandino. He was the Freedom Fighter who led the fight against the US Marines when Nicarag was occupied in the 1910s and twenties. And the reason I’m here is not for the nice break or the ocean, which is beautiful, but because this spot, this Port Guer Sandino was the scene of major, major pushback by the United States during the 1980s.
Remember just a few years before the sand and East insurgency had overthrown a brutal US backed dictator, but amid the Cold War crusade against the supposed threat of communism in central America, the United States set out to do all it could to destabilize the new government. The US government trained counter-revolutionaries launched economic sanctions, imposed an embargo, and the CIA and the US government was openly attacking ports up and down the Pacific and the Caribbean side of Nicaragua. And this one got mined, attacked several times, including the refinery, which is just a couple miles down the road from here.
That was in the fall of 1983. The CIA trained commandos and then supervised raids from speedboats targeting major Adavan ports. As part of the strategy to undermine the Sand Anisa government, they damaged port facilities in Puerto Sandino. They also attacked oil and pipeline operations. A White House official confirmed that CIA agents supervise the attack. Let’s make the bastards sweat. CIA director William Casey reportedly told his chief of operations for Latin America about the sabotage campaign. Early the next year, 1984, the CIA began laying underwater mines at Nicaraguan ports. In the following months, at least eight ships from numerous countries were damaged by the mines, including a Soviet freighter and a Dutch dredger. The actions caused an uproar both in Nicaragua and abroad.
While the mining of Nicaragua Harbors has caused a huge political furor in the United States, antisa gorilla sources here in Costa Rica feel vindicated because of the tactical effectiveness of the mining.
This wasn’t a new strategy. So if we think about what the United States government did to Chile under ae and that infamous quote from Nixon where he talks about make the economy scream, I think that was one of the strategies that the Reagan administration used against Nicaragua.
That is Alex Venia.
I am an associate professor of history at Arizona State University.
We heard from him in the first part of this episode. He’s an expert on this period of US intervention in Central America and in particular Nicaragua in the 1980s.
So by mining the port, by controlling and preventing economic activity from flowing in or flowing out of the country, I mean Nicarag says knew pretty early on that there was some sort of covert actual, well, a covert economic war and an actual overt war at the borders happening against him, and they knew who was waging it.
The attacks on Nicaragua ports were just the tip of the iceberg.
The Reagan administration has spent over $80 million funding the Contra’s gorilla attacks inside Nicaragua. The question center on who the Contras are targeting, it has become some, say, a dirty war.
The tactics are what we call terrorist tactics. They are not military tactics
That ands so much more in a minute.
This is under the shadow, an investigative narrative podcast series that walks back in time to tell the story of the past by visiting momentous places in the present. This podcast is a co-production in partnership with The Real News, Anne Nala. I’m your host, Michael Fox, longtime radio reporter, editor, journalist, the producer and host of the podcast Brazil On Fire. I’ve spent the better part of the last 20 years in Latin America. I’ve seen firsthand the role of the US government abroad and most often sadly, it is not for the better invasions, coups, sanctions, support for authoritarian regimes politically and economically. The United States has cast a long shadow over Latin America for the past 200 years. In each episode in this series, I’ll take you to a location where something historic happened, a landmark of revolutionary struggle or foreign intervention. Today, it might look like a random street corner, a church, a mall, a monument, or a museum. But every place I’m going to bring you was once the site of history making events that shook countries impacted lives and left deep marks on the world will try to discover what lingers of that history today. So in the first part of this episode, we looked at the Sand Anisa Revolution against dictator Anastasio samosa and the rollout of US plans to destabilize the new government. In this part two, we dive deep into the CIA’s contra war on Nicaragua, the economic embargo and the Iran Contra scandal, but also the international Solidarity movement that stood up in response.
This is under the shadow season one Central America, episode 10, part two 1980s, Nicaragua Contra War. So while the CIA is mining ports, the contras are wreaking havoc on the countryside. Those were the counter-revolutionaries armed and trained in Honduras and sent to destabilize the scent in the government.
We talked about the Contra’s war on Nicaragua and their terror campaign on the civilian population in the first part of this episode. It had a tremendous toll in the country. They killed thousands of innocent people. They destroyed crops and industrial production. They forced the sand Anisa government to divert as much as 50% of its national budget to fighting the war that meant less money for social programs, health and education, food production, and the promises of the revolution. William Robinson is a professor of sociology and Latin American studies at uc, Santa Barbara. He lived in Nicaragua throughout the 1980s. We heard from him often in the first part of this episode. There’s a rapid
Militarization of the whole country. You now see the army and the young kids in their military uniforms. Everyone had their AK 47 and their militia training. But you now see this incredible militarization and it undermines the ability of the revolution to transform things. The strategy was to grind down the economy, to make it impossible for the revolution to improve people’s lives and to eventually force the population to turn its back on the revolution just in the name of survival. So that was a war of attrition. The term that was thrown around by us strategists, military and political strategists back then was low intensity warfare. It’s been called quite a number of things in recent decades, but that was what they called it then and what we called it. It was the war of attrition and it was very successful.
The San Anta government instituted a draft to more effectively combat the US backed Contras. It was not popular,
And what that meant is that a significant portion of the population, which wasn’t totally Gungho San Anisa, but wasn’t counter-revolutionary either through their baggin, not necessarily with the counter-revolution, but against the Sandinistas or sent their kids abroad. And that really also helped to undermined the social base of the revolution.
Meanwhile, the United States was also unleashing a campaign of psychological warfare on the Nicaraguan people spreading fear, tension and terror.
There’s this spy plane, it actually doesn’t drop bombs. It goes way too high in the sky. You can’t see it and it breaks the sound barrier. So for about a month straight, they would fly overhead every day and maybe they were taking photographs, but we analyzed at the time those of us trying to, they were analysts of us strategy analyzed that they wanted the whole population to have this to be a permanent state of tension and anxiety. I am going to tell you, my son was born in September 2nd, 1984, and these overhead flights started shortly afterwards and we were about to send him to be raised by his grandmother who was living in Mexico because we thought any day there would be an invasion.
Keep in mind that this was about a year after the US invaded the tiny Caribbean island of Granada in 1983, as that country’s revolution imploded.
But the point here is we lived round the clock with this tension, right, this fear and this tension, and that was part of the psychological warfare.
But if the Reagan government was doing all it could to undermine the Sanda Revolution,
Nicaragua,
There was also an international grassroots movement standing up for Nicaragua and pushing back on the United States. Nicaragua was an inspiration around the world. Like I mentioned in the last episode in 1979, the Sandinistas rid the country of a four decade long dictatorship. They rolled out literacy, vaccination and health campaigns. They built roads in sugar mills and created a ministry of culture with the goal of democratizing art. Poet priest, Ernesto led the effort. Solidarity activists from the United States supported the revolution at home and abroad. Thousands visited the country on tours of solidarity with the revolution were brigades that helped harvest crops on state run and cooperative farms. Nala itself, which co-produces this podcast series led several delegations throughout the 1980s. Alex Cox was among those who visited the country on a solidarity tour, a film by Alex Cox. He’s the British film director who would later go on to make the movie Walker about the US filibuster who invaded and took over Nicaragua in the mid 18 hundreds
Walker. It is the God-given right of the American people to dominate the Western Hemisphere.
We looked at that in depth in episode eight. You
Go and travel around and you see the farm cooperative and you meet the representatives of the political parties, et cetera. So we went on one of those trips and it was very interesting. I really enjoyed it.
He was there during the November, 1984 general election, which saw Sand Anisa leader Daniel Ortega win a landslide victory with more than two thirds of the vote. Turnout was over 75%. The Sandinistas hoped a clear electoral victory with the participation of hundreds of international observers would encourage the United States to set aside its war on the country.
It was tremendously positive and very enthusiastic. The vast majority of the people whom I met supported the revolution and supported the sand ANDAs. And then over the four years that I was there going back and forth, it did change because the Contra war enacted such a heavy toll that everybody had a family member who had been killed or impacted or forced to leave their farm because of the American financed terrorism of the Contras
Historian Alex Venia.
There’s a huge anti Reagan Sunday Mista march in Managua. I think it must be from 83 or 84, and I remember seeing a documentary about this, and there’s a banner at the forefront of this march where it says Reagan son of a bitch. And I think that’s how we can think about Ronald Reagan and what he did, not just in Nicaragua but Central America. This is one of the darkest, if not the darkest period of Latin American history when it comes to genocide, political violence and just mass death. And Ronald Reagan was behind a lot of
It. People in United States knew it and responded, but
Then the grassroots side is you had the emergence of the sanctuary movement that emerges not too far from me here in Phoenix in Tucson with the Presbyterian minister in church that start to create an underground railroad for central American refugees who are fleeing the violence that the US is generating in their home country. And you have hundreds of thousands of Americans who are marching on the streets and become part of the Central American solidarity movie.
As many as 80,000 people across the United States signed a pledge of resistance promising to commit civil disobedience. If the United States invaded Nicaragua and people were already putting their bodies on the line against the US support for the Contras, there were hunger strikes, others blocked weapons shipments. Many went to jail. Vietnam veteran Brian Wilson lost both legs while participating in a nonviolent protest on the railroad tracks outside of a US weapons depot in California. The train ran him over.
We found out later that the train crew that day had been ordered not to stop the train, which was an unprecedented, basically an illegal order.
That’s him speaking to Amy Goodman’s democracy now in 2011 after the release of his memoir, blood on the Tracks.
This is what happens to people of course all over the world who obstruct the Yankee Mad train that’s trying to repress people who want to have self-determination or what have you. So it was just another part of the US policy coming home very personally to me, viscerally. The day I woke up, 9,000 people showed up at the tracks and ripped up 300 feet of the tracks and stacked up the railroad ties in a very interesting sculpture. And from that day on for 28 consecutive months, there was a permanent occupation in the tracks of sometimes 200 people with tents blocking every train and every truck, 2100 people arrested. Three people had their arms broken by the police.
We must have peace in Central America. That’s
Alina Van Oman is a historian at the University of Leeds. She says it’s hard to underscore just how big the solidarity movement grew to be in the United States, how important it was for Nicaragua and vice versa.
It’s easy to forget because you haven’t lifted, but I think it was very, very present in local council meetings. There were debates about the Minister revolution and United States foreign policy. This was something that student unions talked about. This was posters everywhere. It’s more left-leaning. City councils established relationships with Nicaragua towns was kind of an alternative foreign policy route.
Some of the people who traveled to Nicaragua also put their lives on the line.
Often other Americans would go down there and serve as human shields to protect. They thought that if you have foreigners on the border areas that the contrasts wouldn’t attack the population, DEA population there because foreigners were around,
But the contras did not hold back.
The electricity is coming out of here, out of the powerhouse, up to the transformers on the pole and going into the 10 kilometers of distribution line.
That’s the voice of 27-year-old US engineer Ben Linder. He was in Nicaragua as a volunteer, helping to build a small hydroelectric dam to provide electricity for a poor community in the countryside. But on April 28th, 1987, Ben Linder was killed alongside two Nicaraguans in a contra ambush. The 2007 documentary, American Sanda looks back at the US citizens who came to Nicaragua in the 1980s to support the revolution, including Ben. Ben was seated with his notebook says one eyewitness in the documentary, and it was at that moment that a hand grenade took his life. It was something that we never understood why they killed him, says SA friend of Linder’s who worked with him on the hydroelectric project. Of course, it was people from our country, but they were sent and supported by the United States and they never understood what he was trying to do here for us. For the Nicaraguans. The following year, the Contra shot and wounded New York, Reverend Lucius Walker during a terror attack on civilians, Reverend Walker was in Nicaragua leading a religious study delegation. I knew Reverend Walker. He was an incredible man. He passed away in 2010, but he spoke about the attack on his life in Nicaragua in the late 1990s on a local New York TV network.
Two people in that boat attack were killed. 29 were wounded, and I was able to see firsthand an example of terrorism, promoted, organized, paid for, directed by my own government, and as I lay on the boat wounded from that gunshot wound, I realized that the bullet which came within four inches of shattering my spine was paid for by my own tax money. And it shaped in me a resolve to not simply acquiesce and go away quietly, but to renew our efforts to fight against the foreign policy of our own government that would kill innocent civilians around the
Corner.
Reverend Walker responded to that moment by founding pastors for peace. Over the last 35 years, the group has carried thousands of tons of aid to countries like Nicaragua, Cuba, and elsewhere that face punishing US policies and crippling economic sanctions. Meanwhile, as the United States was attacking Nicaragua, other countries were standing up, including Cuba and the Soviet Union, which strengthened their ties with the sista government in the face of us. Aggression. Throughout the 1980s, the San Anisa government was clear that all these ties of solidarity were an important lifeline, particularly as the war dragged on and the financial crisis deepened. This is the essence of Alina Van Oman’s 2023 book. Nicaragua must Survive Sand Anisa Revolutionary Diplomacy in the Global Cold War.
I’ll argue that the Sandinista has used revolutionary diplomacy and transnational connections as a means to keep the revolution alive and making sure it survived in the phase of this kind of international aggression, but also obviously the kind of domestic discontent that was growing.
She says the Sanda government not only built international connections at the grassroots level, but also cultivated ties with leaders around the world and in particular in Europe. There she says political leaders were concerned about the spread of communism, but they feared that Reagan’s war on central America could have disastrous consequences, not just for Central America but across the planet. The name of Alina’s book Nicaragua Must Survive is actually a nod to a creative international response from the Sandinistas to US aggression.
In 1985, there was this rag campaign called Rag Must Survive as well or Nicarag, and that was one of the biggest transnational fundraising campaigns of the FSLM that they organized basically to keep their economy going in the aftermath of the US embargo and basically to prevent the country from collapsing
The US embargo. If the contra war and the CIA actions weren’t bad enough on the heels of the ESA 1984 electoral victory, the US government decides to turn up the heat even more.
Our objectives will not be attained by goodwill and noble aspirations alone.
On May 1st, 1985, Reagan declares Nicaragua a threat to national security and imposes a trade embargo or blockade on the country. The measure bans all imports and exports to and from Nicaragua and prohibits Nicaragua planes and boats from entering US ports. The United States had long been a top trading partner of Nicaragua. Despite sand Anisa efforts to increase trade with other countries, the embargo still hit hard, costing an estimated $50 million a year. Some parts for US manufactured goods became virtually impossible to acquire. In other words, when something broke down, it was hard to fix it. Factories stood idle while waiting for replacement parts similar US trade embargoes have long caused suffering. Most famously in Cuba and more recently in Venezuela, where I’ve reported on the impacts firsthand, the tactics have not changed nor have the goals in Nicaragua in the years after the start of the embargo, the economy shutters, inflation soars the blockade coupled with the war wreaks havoc on the economy. We’re waiting in line. There are no products. One middle-aged woman tells the camera in a documentary from the late 1980s, we’re dying of hunger and our money is worthless. It’s all worthless. She says,
Our land is so fertile here. We should not be going hungry, says a man. But in the United States, they send dollars, so we kill each other, responds an elderly woman and then they take everything we have. William Robinson,
You have to understand how difficult it was just to get eggs. There was shortages of everything. There’s shortages of toilet paper. There was shortages of all the basic food stuffs. Half of your day was struggling in the streets to figure out how you’re going to get food that night. How are you going if you ran out of gas, propane gas, there wasn’t necessarily, you can’t just run down to the store and get your gas tank filled up. You had to spend a day or two days negotiating and figuring out how you’re going to even get some more propane gas.
Meanwhile, in the United States, this was happening.
We hold these hearings because in the course of the conduct of the nation’s business, something went wrong. Seriously wrong
That in a minute.
Hey everyone, Maximilian Alvarez here, editor in chief of the Real News Network. We’re going to get you right back to the program in a sec, I promise. But really quick, I just wanted to remind y’all that the Real News is an independent viewer and listener supported grassroots media network. We don’t take corporate cash, we don’t have ads, and we never ever put our reporting behind paywalls, but we cannot continue to do this work without your support. It takes a lot of time, energy, and money to produce powerful, unique, and journalistically rigorous shows like Under the Shadow. So if you want more vital storytelling and reporting like this, we need you to become a supporter of The Real News now. Just head over to the real news.com/donate and donate today. It really makes a difference. Also, if you’re enjoying under the shadow, then you will definitely want to follow Nala. The North American Congress on Latin America, nala’s reporting and analysis goes beyond the headlines to help you understand what’s happening in Latin America and the Caribbean from a progressive perspective. Visit nla.org to learn more. That’s NA c.org. Alright, thanks for listening back to the show.
I ran contra at the time. It was the biggest scandal to hit the US presidency since Richard Nixon’s Watergate the decade before, and I want to walk through it all because it’s complicated, but it’s also so important. Peter Koble is a senior analyst at the National Security Archive, but
I really do think of us as forensic historians exhuming the Buried Secrets of State.
The archive has done tremendous work on Iran Contra since the late 1980s. It has a treasure trove of declassified documents. Many are shocking. They paint a clear uncensored picture of the scandal and the US terror campaign in the region. National Security Archive staff have produced a number of books on the topic one, which Peter co-edited. I’ll include the links to them in the show notes.
And you had an obsession with overthrowing the sun and government rolling back the Nicaragua Revolution that led directly to the Iran Contra scandal, which was at the time, and people have forgotten this, the most significant constitutional crisis for the US government. The Reagan administration had violated the basic sacrosanct foundation of the separation of powers, the power of the purse and Congress constitutionally controlled the power of the person. The Reagan administration basically circumvented that, lied about it and decided to fund its own foreign policy operations without Congress’s authority. Indeed going around Congress’s denial of authority for that covert paramilitary war to continue
Be in order. Joint meeting will come, joint meeting will come to water.
Remember that in 1983 and 1985, the US Congress explicitly prohibited the Reagan administration from providing financial support to the Contras. They did it anyway. Here’s how it went. In 1985, top officials in the Reagan administration began secretly selling weapons to Iran routed through Israel. It was illegal. The US government had imposed an arms embargo against Iran and designated the country a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran was desperate for weapons because it was at war with Iraq. The White House justified the armed shipments as part of an operation to free seven US hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a militant group with ties to Iran. Alex Venia,
What are they doing with the money that they’re making off these arm sales? Well, they’re funneling that money to pay for the contrast because officially the US government and the Reagan administration and his National Security Council White House could not give money to the contrasts. So they’re using these illicit economic gains from having sold weapons and missiles to the Iranians and transferring that to the contrasts. They’re also hitting up the SUL Brune. They’re hitting up this worldwide anti-communist network to also give them money so they can continue financing the contrasts to continue financing the atrocities that they’re committing in Ian fashion. In Nicaragua,
October 5th, 1986, the San Anisa government shoots down a US cargo plane carrying weapons to the Contras former US Marine. Eugene SFUs is the sole survivor. He’s captured an interviewed by a US reporter.
I feel I’m a prisoner of politics right now. Our government doing so many things and this government fighting back and I’m a boat in between stuck in the waves.
Hassan Fuss has admitted the plane. He parachuted from carried military supplies to rebels trying to overthrow the government here. He said Pilot William Cooper who died in the crash, talked of high level sponsors.
When an individual comes across and says, this is coming right out the main room that was said, that was said, what did that mean to you? I was coming right out of the White House.
Hassan Fuss was tried and sentenced to prison in Nicaragua for terrorism, though he was pardoned and released a month later. Meanwhile, a Lebanese magazine fully breaks the Iran Contra story following a leak by a senior official of Iran’s Islamic revolutionary guard.
And that blows up by 85 86 in the form of what now we remember as the Iran conscious scandal, which then leads to this infamous TV appearance by Ronald Reagan, which he says, I mean he lies to the American people. And to this day, I tell my students the fact that he wasn’t impeached for this. It is quite amazing that it did not happen.
The charge has been made that the United States has shipped weapons to Iran as ransom payment for the release of American hostages in Lebanon, that the United States undercut its allies and secretly violated American policy against trafficking with terrorists. Those charges are utterly false.
That was November 13th, 1986. Reagan’s approval rating tanks 20 points five months later he backpedals saying he still believes nothing was done wrong, but that the facts show differently. In May, 1987, the Iran Contra hearings begin on Capitol Hill.
These hearings this morning and for the days to follow will examine what happens when the trust, which is the lubricant of our system, is breached by high officials of our government.
The hearings last until August all summer long and they were a big thing. I was 10 at the time living on the outskirts of Washington dc but I remember them. I had a family member who studied law and he came into attend the trial. CNN covered it around the clock and it was the top story many nights in the evening News,
Colonel North please rise
Much of the congressional proceedings focused on one man, Colonel Oliver or Ollie North. That’s him being sworn in at the hearings. He wears a green military uniform with medals on his left chest. He’s clean shaven, short hair parted on the side. He’s a Vietnam vet and a US National Security Council staff member. He was the guy who basically ran the Iran Contra operation out of the White House. And as I mentioned in the first episode of this podcast, he was also the guy that my civics teacher wanted to bring into our class In the early 1990s, north was found to have shredded or hid important documents, but
When he has to testify before Congress, he was kind of like the star of the show. He was great at deflecting, at lying, at presenting himself as a true believer, as a guy who without saying that he engaged in criminal activity, he pretty much said that we are right and we are using this for a noble cause, which is an amorphously defined freedom or democracy.
Journalist Bill Moyers would later interview Senator John Kerry, then a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for an expose on the scandal.
They were willing to literally put the constitution at risk because they believed somehow there was a higher order of things that the ends do in fact justify are justified by the means.
Criminal trials dragged on against Oliver North and roughly a dozen other top officials in the Reagan administration, including national security advisors and members of the CIA and military. As we’ll see a little later, their outcomes be a sign of as independent counsel Lawrence Walsh put it, how powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office without consequences. Meanwhile, in Nicaragua the war, the inflation and the economic misery continued.
The
War was brutal. Says Marvin Ortega Rodriguez, a member of the Sandinistas who would go on to serve as Nicaragua ambassador to Brazil and Panama between 1961 and 1979, it’s estimated that approximately 60,000 people may have died in combat fighting to overthrow samosa and between 1980 and 1990, another 60,000 fell. He says every day you had more deaths, a daily violent bloodletting. He says when you go to cemeteries, their whole areas with graves painted red and black sand, Anisa colors, so many kids fell fighting and many people began to migrate to the United States. It’s estimated that 240,000 people arrived to the US at that time. We have traditionally low migration to the US at that time. It grew. He says, meanwhile, the United States rolled out a new form of foreign intervention. William Robinson did some of the first reporting on this in the early nineties.
The 1990 elections are approaching the US massively begins internal political intervention in a new way spends millions of dollars. I think the figure I put in my 1992 book, a Faustian Bargain is a total of $25 million for a small country is incredible of funding all of this opposition, political opposition, which is going to organize and unite around a single slate, single candidate for the 1990 elections. So this new form of political intervention where you finance and organize a trade union, student groups, peasant groups, civic groups, political parties, and then unite, unite them all in a united front that was inaugurated that strategy in Nicaragua and then of course throughout the 1990s, and again, right up till date, that’s a strategy used around the world. Now
Much of that funding came through the National Endowment for Democracy or NED, which was founded in 1983 to essentially do openly what the CIA used to do covertly,
But it’s not just limited to the NED, there was all kinds of political funding. The NED was the spearhead and then of course there was the covert CIA political funding also continued.
William Robinson says the 1990 election was technically free and fair, but in reality the vote was held under a gun.
The United States placed a gun to the head of the Nicaragua and said, well now you see what we have done throughout the 1980s. We’ve destroyed your lives, we’ve shattered your hopes. We’ve made it impossible for any meaningful transformation in favor of you poor majority. And now if you want any respite, you are going to vote for this opposition that we’ve cobbled together for
Alex Nia. There was no mistaking the message from Washington in the lead up to the elections
By the time we get to was the elections in 1990. The US and the people that kept sending out Nicaragua were very clear either, do you guys want more war, vote for this Anas, do you want the end of war vote for Violeta Chamorro? And people were like tens of thousands of people had died in the country war. People were tired of war. And the surprising thing is the FSLM lost the election, but they accepted the loss, right? So that’s also, it went against this 10 years of propaganda that the Reagan administration and then George HW Bush had launched against the
Opposition candidate Viol defeats President Daniel Ortega with almost 55% of the vote. It was a crushing defeat for SMO, but also a victory for Nicaragua democracy. It was the first time the government passed from one president to another peacefully through elections. The Sandinistas were also clear that the United States was not the only one to blame for their electoral laws. Marvin Ortega Rodriguez says at a conference at the University of Caras, Thomas Bo, one of the historic leaders of the FSLN was asked what led to San Anis mo’s electoral defeat? He said, we lost humility, we lost our modesty, we got cocky, we felt powerful, and we isolated ourselves from the people. William Robinson,
The FSLM. The Sandinistas also made a lot of mistakes. We cannot glorify everything real human beings in struggle. Real mistakes made real abuses of power. The thing about the US Counter-revolutionary strategy, it was very intelligent in the sense that it knew how to exploit the mistakes made by the Sandinistas and how to coax them to make more and more mistakes. I just didn’t want to leave that out of the story here. One, because it has to be told, but secondly, because then those mistakes become part of the US strategy.
One of those mistakes happened early on in mesquite indigenous communities along the Caribbean coast in December, 1981, the Sanda government resettled thousands of community members far from their homes. It was one example of a national revolutionary project that did not factor in indigenous autonomy and it fueled an ongoing latent historical conflict in Nicaragua that would broil between the government and these communities and more specifically the region’s two main indigenous resistance organizations. The United States took advantage. A 1986 report from us solidarity groups wrote that quote from time to time both received support from the US government’s covert war on Nicaragua. Some members of the communities joined the ranks of the Contras. The Sanda government tried to make things right in the end, it began peace negotiations. In 1987, the Nicaragua legislature approved autonomy for the mosquito people and their region, including the right to their traditional lands. Communities that had been resettled were allowed to return home.
Given the clear mandate for peace and democracy, there is no reason at all for further military activity from any quarter
Following the San ANDA’s defeat from the 1990 presidential election, president George HW Bush announced that the US was happy with the results and that he would lift the embargo and provide $300 million in new economic aid for the country. Nico’s new president Violeta Chamorro rolled out a pro US economic package.
So what that represented was that the new government would definitively do away with the San Eastern Revolution, but would also inaugurate the neoliberal structural adjustment. The restoration not just of full capitalism but neoliberal capitalism in Nicaragua. With that political triumph, it will privatize everything that had been public. It will not just politically restore the old oli gargy back to power, but economically restore the strength of the Nicaragua bourgeoisie at a time when Nicaragua was going to integrate into these new circuits of global capitalism. And so that’s what this opposition and its triumph represented,
But there was resistance, protests and strikes against the privatizations and austerity. Meanwhile, in the United States, the Iran conscious scandal trials languished,
Did you or did you not shred documents that reflected presidential approval of the diversion
In the trial against Oliver North. For instance, defense lawyers raised legal challenges over the release of classified information to hold up the trial and block the release of key information. The 14 charges against him were dropped down to a handful. He was eventually convicted of three counts, including aiding and ab embedding in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry and ordering the destruction of documents. But those convictions were vacated by a DC court in 1990 and then dismissed the following year.
10 more people were also convicted, including national security advisors, John Poindexter and Robert McFarland and Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, who we heard about in the Honduras episode. Other top White House officials and members of the CIA and military were also convicted, but almost all were pardoned by outgoing President George HW Bush in 1992. He also pardoned former defense secretary Casper Weinberger before the case against him went to trial. You might remember that Bush ran the CIA in the 1970s before becoming Reagan’s vice president and eventually winning the presidency himself in 1988 during the Iran Contra scandal. Bush said he had no knowledge of the dealings.
Weinberger’s notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking. Reagan administration officials,
Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, who led the investigation into the criminal conduct of the Reagan administration. Officials responded to Bush’s pardon before the press.
President Bush’s pardon of Casper Weinberger and other Iran Contra defendants undermines the principle that no man is above the law. The Iran Contra coverup has continued for more than six years. It has now been completed with the pardon of Casper Weinberg,
Alex Ignia.
There’s a lot of controversial findings that should have resulted in more people being sent away and the fact that it wasn’t allows it to continue, right? So a lot of these things have never gone away. A failure to actually prosecute this and find out what totally happened, led to the reign of impunity and for it to become an even more systemic feature of us and empire, particularly in the global south.
There was another lawsuit the United States ignored. Remember the CIA mining of the ports that I talked about in the start of today’s episode? Well, in the mid eighties, Nicaragua brought the United States to the International Court of Justice for violating international law by supporting the Contras and Mining Nicaragua’s Harbors. The ICJ is a branch of the United Nations and it’s the only international court that adjudicates disputes between countries, so it’s a big thing.
Thank you, your Honor. Your honors have asked us to address
This was the court that later heard the high profile genocide case against former Yugoslavian leader Slovic and
The case before the court is an opportunity to break this vicious cycle.
More recently, it’s the court that heard the case of Nicaragua against Germany for failing to prevent genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. But back in 1986, the court ruled in favor of Nicaragua. It ruled that the US had violated international law, violated the sovereignty of Nicaragua and used force against the country. It ordered the United States to make reparations to Nicaragua for all injury caused to the country. The United States just ignored it. Alex Ignia,
They actually win the case. And what does the United States do? Well, they just say whatever the ICC or whatever the international court was, they don’t have an army. They can’t do anything to
Us. This is not the first time nor the last that the United States would ignore international law. There’s someone I met during my most recent trip to Nicaragua in early 2024 that really brought the full impact of the US Contra war home for me. His name is Jose Francisco Artola.
So I was near the border with Honduras, stopped for the night at a community recreation area. Jose was working as a janitor in the overnight guard. He was cleaning out the pool with one of those long nets. He wore a plaid shirt, boots, unlaced, a warm smile. What most struck me were his legs. He walked by kind of shuffling, limping from one to the other. His feet were turned inward. It’s called S or Club Foot. It’s a fairly common birth defect. About one in a thousand babies in the United States have it, and although almost no one in my life knows this, I was one of those babies. I was born with Club Foot two, Jose could have been me. The difference was I was born at a hospital in the United States, Northern Virginia, outskirts of dc. The doctors recognized the problem and took action. The solution isn’t really that hard. If you act quick, my legs were put into little casts for a few months. Apparently in more severe cases, patients may need additional casts, braces, or even surgery, but the birth defect is totally curable. Growing up, I played almost every sport there was. I run several days a week when I have time. You would never guess I was born with Clubfoot.
Jose did not have this opportunity because he was born in the late 1980s in a Nicaragua that was under the weight of a US imposed economic and military war says when he was born, he was sent home with his family and that was that his father never took much of an interest in trying to find help for his legs. He says when he turned 18, he went to see a doctor, but at that point the doctor said there was nothing they could do. I was born in the most powerful country in the world, and he was born in the country that the United States was taking aim at. And this is just one small example of the US policies on Nicaragua in the 1980s that continue to take a toll. Ironically, Jose told me his dream today was to get to the United States. As I’ve mentioned throughout this series, that is the end result of US actions in Latin America, be it Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, or Venezuela today driving generation after generation of migrants in refugees toward the very place that caused the bulk of the hardships in their countries, the United States. I’ll be honest, I walked away from my conversation with Jose and had a really hard time composing myself. Who gets to live, who gets to die, who gets medical treatment, and who gets to go in search of the so-called American Dream? None of it should depend on a roll of the dice for where you’re born or the swipe of a pen in Washington.
Interestingly, if Jose were born in Nicaragua today, he would probably be able to get treatment. In 2012, the country rolled out a national program to provide care similar to what I got for kids born with Clubfoot. And in fact, there’ve been many improvements in Nicaragua over the years.
Before I arrived in Nicaragua last year, I wasn’t sure what to expect. News reports painted the image of a country in shambles when I visited. It was my first time there in 20 years, and I’ll be honest, I was surprised. The highways are better paved and more developed than almost anywhere else in Mexico and Central America. Healthcare and education are still free. Two decades ago when I was there, parts of the capital Managua were still rubble and dirt roads. Today the whole waterfront and downtown has been completely revamped with parks, museums, and a little waterpark that costs only a buck and a half to get in. Energy runs around the clock. That is not the way it was a couple of decades ago. Colleen Littlejohn is an economist and a solidarity activist who’s lived and worked in NUA since the 1980s.
In 2006, there were 12 hour cuts in the energy every single day. I mean, it was really desperate.
Not anymore. In the late two thousands, Colleen worked with the World Bank to bring in development projects like renewable energy.
I remember bringing the vice president of the World Bank once. It must’ve been about 2007 or eight to see the first wind tower and it was on the ground. It hadn’t even been. I said, it is hard to show you a lot of things, but it’s happening. I said, you come back and now there’s hundreds if not thousands. It’s like 15% of the total electricity in the country, and we always talked in the eighties. In so movement, the threat of a good example
More than three quarters of Nicaraguan energy today is from renewable sources.
See, the FSLN won again in 2006. Daniel Ortega has been in power since. That is the elephant in the room here, and I want to touch on this for a second because depending on who you speak with, Ortega’s government is either an authoritarian dictatorship or carrying on the revolutionary legacy of the Sandinistas, and the reality is complicated. On the one hand, a substantial portion of the population is still as committed to the FSLN and CMO as it’s ever been. That’s clear. At concerts in Managua like this or on the streets, red and black send Anisa flags waving people selling Chera Hugo Chavez or Carlos Fonseca t-shirts. There’s this deep visceral connection with the past and pride in the revolution. They point to those tremendous steps forward in terms of development that I’ve mentioned as accomplishments of the present. But on the other hand, there have been government abuses, political prisoners, opposition candidates. In civil society organizations silenced hundreds of anti-government activists, academics and journalists have been forced into exile citizenship stripped for many. There’s an underlying sense of fear that they may be accused of being counter-revolutionaries,
Viola’s protest.
Much of this stems from the violence of 2018. Some people call that a dictatorship cracked down on democracy. Others say it was an attempted us back coup. And the truth is, there were huge peaceful protests. The government used excessive force. Protesters were killed, and violent opposition groups held the country hostage. They used terror tactics and killed innocent people. The fight over Nicaragua is vicious and it is complicated and generally onlookers abroad have lined up on one side or the other.
It is so thick on so many levels.
That’s Graham Russell. You’ve heard from him before in this series. He’s been involved in Central America work since the 1980s. He’s the founder and director of the Canadian Group Rights Action, which supports local communities in Guatemala and Honduras, often facing mining and resource extraction on their lands. And I think he has a really good analysis about why progressive solidarity activists and academics are so divided over Nicaragua.
And I think it is actually been a very successful story of propaganda and demonization, and none of this is a defense of every single thing Ortega has ever done or his wife or even the government itself, but it’s sort of like a repetitive playbook.
Graham says, there are many cases where we’ve seen divisions over countries in Latin America that are trying to step out from under the shadow of the United States, Cuba under Fidel, Venezuela under Chavez, and now Maduro Morales in Bolivia, risid in Haiti, and of course Ortega in Nicaragua.
These are the cases that create sort of real fissures in the So-called more progressive sectors, and I think the fault line is imperialism alive and well today. And does imperialism colonialism and settler colonialism, does it characterize everything that’s going from the past? Does it characterize everything that’s going on today?
This is important. This entire podcast looks at the history and legacy of US imperialism and intervention in the region. Graham’s point is this. Can you see and criticize policies and actions of the Nicaraguan government today as disconnected from the 200 years of US intervention and the ongoing role of the United States, or do you take into account all of that? This for Graham is the guiding question, and I think that’s a helpful analysis.
This is not reducing all of Nicaragua’s ills to the US or Canada or the OAS or whatever, not at all. It’s always a local to national to global issue. But in the measure that any North American government, official, mainstream media, alternative media, donor, funder, whoever in the measure that we do not fundamentally address at all times, what is the role of our government’s past and present? What is the role of our company’s past and present? What is the role of the OAS dominated by the US past and present? What is the role of the World Bank in the Inter-American Development Bank, past and present, dominated by the US in the measure that we do not address all of these at the same time that we’re throwing stones at Ortega individually or particular policies of his government, then we are participating in censorship. We are absolutely covering up our contribution to the role, to the issues, and it becomes morally and ethically really complicated because that’s our responsibility.
Now, look, Graham’s not trying to say that everything that happens in Nicaragua today is because of the United States, but he’s saying that we forget the United States. We can’t leave it out of the equation. Its role historically and its role today. As I’ve mentioned so often in this podcast, the past is never far behind, particularly when that past caused so much harm, so much bloodshed across the region in Nicaragua, the legacy of the Contra War and the brutal US sanctions that destroyed the nation. Well, they left wounds, deep wounds, and they have an impact on the present and on current policies.
They do not want to be under the boot of the us. That in my view, is their great crime. And it is absolutely independent of whether Ortega has committed this crime or not. Whether he and his wife have scored extra money or not, or stolen extra money or not. Because what’s going on in Nicaragua, as in Guatemala, as in Honduras, as in Salvador, they should be assessed and judged on their government programs for the wellbeing of the majority of their populations. And they’re all living under the shadow of the us. They’ve all been under the boot of the us, and that is a heavy boot
In the lead up to the 2018 violence. The US funneled millions of dollars into opposition groups through USAID and NED US officials have consistently condemned Nicaragua and they even blocked it from attending the Summit of the Americas in 2022.
Now, none of this compares to the US onslaught of the 1980s, but it shows that the United States hasn’t taken its finger off the trigger. And here’s the thing, the US frames all of this as denouncing Nicaragua in the name of democracy and human rights, but the United States doesn’t really care about those things as we have seen throughout this podcast. Remember Honduras Post 2009, we talked about it at length in episode seven, the US openly embraced fraudulent elections and a violent narco dictatorship and said nothing. Why? Because the leaders of the coup government were open for business Washington allies. Meanwhile, the United States has levied sanctions on Nicaragua
And welcome our top story of this hour. The United States has imposed an entry ban on Nicaragua and President Daniel Ortega, his vice president wife and his government.
Now, this is not the crippling economic embargo of the 1980s. In fact, the US remains Nicaragua’s top trading partner. The sanctions are focused on top officials of the Ortega government as well as gold companies, Nicaragua’s top export. But even the most minor sanctions are illegal in international law and they have an impact. And some of this stuff has been rolled out just in the last couple of weeks. Bills are even moving through Congress in Washington to try and remove the country from the Central American Free trade agreement. Block loans prohibit US investment in Nicaragua and ban us imports of Nicaragua beef and coffee. Solidarity activists visited Capitol Hill in mid-May to ask their congressional representatives not to proceed with the bills.
As people in the United States, we have a responsibility to stop our government from these retaliatory and illegal actions that it’s taking to try to harm the people, particularly the most vulnerable of Nicaragua. It’s atrocious and we don’t support
It. The timing of these steps in Washington is not by accident. They come in the wake of Nicaragua taking Germany to the International Court of Justice for aiding in genocide by continuing to supply weapons to Israel for its onslaught against Palestinians in Gaza.
Don’t punish the countries in the world that support Gaza.
And speaking of Gaza, you may have noticed there is this tremendous Palestine solidarity movement rippling over the United States and the world
Have all the
Power across college campuses nationwide. Another tense day, as more universities crack down on pro-Palestinian protests ahead of graduations.
The pro-Palestine protests on college campuses in the United States have been compared to the anti-war movement of the 1960s. But there’s another forebearer as well. Nicaragua Solidarity, 1980s. I asked Professor William Robinson about this when we spoke recently. He almost had to cancel our interview because of the actions taking place at his university, uc, Santa Barbara, and literally right now, there are occupations on your campus. Is Palestine, is this like the Nicaragua of
2020? You hit the nail the head. Yeah, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Thank you so much for bringing us there, because right now, worldwide, the eyes are on Palestine. It’s the first genocide of the 21st century, and so much is at stake and the people of the world and us, both revolutionaries, but simply humanity, people that just love humanity and want to protect it are saying this is the frontline of the defense of humanity. Worldwide Palestine right now is what Nicaragua was in the 1980s is what Vietnam was in the 1960s. So much is at stake in the defense of Palestinian lives right now.
So much that is all for this episode of Under the Shadow. Next time we head to Costa Rica because it was at this very site that the then President symbolically knocked off a chip of the barracks and he declared the end of the Costa Rican army in the military to a country without a standing army, to the attempts for peace in the region and the US attempts to undermine the movement for change in Central America, even there. That is next on Under The Shadow.
Just a few things to say before I go. First, I’ve added links to the National Security Archives, the documentary American Sanda, Elena Van Oman’s book, Nicaragua Must Survive, and other sources I’ve mentioned in this episode. You can find all that in the show notes. Second, the new album for my band, Monte Perdido is finally out on Spotify or wherever you stream music. It was just released a week ago. It’s called Renda Offering. We wrote it for our former guitarist, Pedro Benet, who died in a free diving accident in Mexico 10 years ago. It includes the theme songs to both Under The Shadow and My 2022 Podcast, Brazil on Fire. The song you’re hearing right now is the third song on the album A. The link is also in the show notes. Please check it out, like it, follow it, and share it with a friend. Finally, if you like what you hear, please check out my Patreon page, patreon.com/m OX. I’m constantly updating it with exclusive music, photos, interviews, and background of all these episodes. You can also support my work there. Become a monthly sustainer or sign up to stay abreast of all. The latest on this podcast and my other reporting across Latin America. Under the Shadow is a co-production in partnership with The Real News and Nala. The theme music is by my band Monte Perdido. This is Michael Fox. Many thanks. See you next time.
Unfavourable weather conditions, technical malfunction, sabotage: the crash of the Bell 212 helicopter with the president of Iran Ebrahim Raisi on board continues to be a focal point of discussion on the Middle East agenda. But what is the reality of what happened? And is a theory of US involvement legitimate?
Raisi: what we know so far
The preliminary report issued by the general staff of the Iranian Armed Forces which was supposed to clarify the circumstances of the tragic event, did not put an end to the speculations.
Although the document explicitly states that no impact of bullets or other striking elements was found on the remains of the aircraft, the idea that the presidential helicopter was sabotaged remains on the list of the possible explanations.
However, officials, even Iranians themselves, take great effort to abstain from any statements that could encourage the supporters of this theory.
Perhaps, former Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Jawad Zarif came the closest to a real accusation: he said that the US is responsible for the crash, but only in the sense that Iran is subjected to US sanctions prohibiting sale of aircraft and technologies.
Judging by Zarif’s words, even in their accusations directed to the US Iranian officials actually consider technical malfunction of a decades old helicopter to be the reason of the incident.
Amazingly, Western officials, experts, and media don’t voice any substantial objections. Spokesman of the State Department Matthew Miller stated that Iran often uses its aircraft well beyond the lifespan due to the punitive measures against the country. Washington does not plan to cancel the sanctions, he added.
Miller’s remarks were followed by multiple articles in the US media. The technical malfunction theory was embraced and promoted by the Washington Post, Forbes, Bloomberg, and other publications. Bell Tech corporation, the manufacturer of the crashed helicopter, insisted it had no working relations with Iran as well.
It is the technical malfunction theory, that has apparently become the main lead, solid? We’ll try to look into it by working with the available data.
Technical malfunction? Weather?
On 19 May, Ebrahim Raisi and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliev took part in an inauguration of a dam on the Araks river at the Iran-Azerbaijan border. After the ceremony Raisi, foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, and Tebriz imam Mohammad Ali Ale-Hashem set for Tebriz.
All of them went aboard of the same Bell 212, although there were three aircrafts available. They flew over a mountainous region of the Iranian Eastern Azerbaijan province. Two helicopters arrived safely to their destination, but the president’s aircraft lost radio contact.
After hours of search and rescue operation that was joined by Turkish UAVs and specialists at the request of the Iranians, the emergency responders located the crash site. All passengers, including imam al-Hashem, who had previously managed to respond to a number of phone calls, were found dead.
It should be noted that Raisi initially planned to visit Armenia that day, while Amir-Abdollahian was to inaugurate the dam with Azerbaijan’s Aliev, but the plan had been changed because of diplomatic protocol.
Poor weather conditions were cited as the initial reason for the crash. Indeed, in the first few hours after the presidential helicopter went off the radar local media reported about an extremely heavy fog in the area.
Back then it was speculated that the pilot could have failed to evade obstruction due to low visibility or simply made an emergency landing in accordance with safety regulations. Experts on aviation later stressed that the pilot even had the right to refuse to take off in such weather conditions.
Iran: elements of doubt
However, Golamhossein Esmaili, presidential chief of staff who was aboard another helicopter, explained to the Iranian media that the weather conditions were actually not so unfavorable as it might have seemed.
There was no fog. Maybe in the ravines there was fog, but there was no fog on our flight route. Clouds were slightly above the helicopter.
There were three helicopters flying the same route. Could it mean that none of the pilots believed the fog to be a risk? Or they decided to shrug it off, as well as the regulation that prohibits multiple high-ranking officials from boarding the same aircraft?
This strange chain of coincidences provided a fertile ground for another theory: the president of Iran was assassinated and became a victim of an internal power struggle. Turkish experts point out that Raisi was believed to eventually succeed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as the supreme ruler. After his demise, the list of contestants is down to Khamenei’s son Mojtaba and the speaker of parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
Casting internal conflicts aside, it could be that Raisi’s death was orchestrated by external actors.
Israel and the US
Both Israel and the US are in confrontation with Iran. They are also allies with Azerbaijan, providing them with motive as well as capability to strike out at the Iranian leader.
At this point it would be premature to accuse Israel. After the recent escalation between Tel-Aviv and Tehran they reached a fragile balance, one that Israel is keen to secure as it continues its military operation in the Gaza Strip. ‘
This is why the Israeli media just hours after the first reports of the helicopter disappearance hurriedly announced that Israel is not responsible for the incident. Or, perhaps, it was not a statement of denial, but a hint: we didn’t do it, but we know who did.
The US chose another tactic: instead of denials they came up with a fully-fledged theory – technical malfunction – which returns us to the cynical statement by Matthew Miller: yes, the helicopter of the Iranian president crashed because of US sanctions, but the Iranians are to blame.
Could it be that Washington bears not circumstantial but rather direct responsibility for the incident?
Iran-Raisi crash: we won’t know yet
There are some arguments in favour of this theory: US special services could have easily reached out to the aircraft manufacturer to establish weak points of the helicopter and select an appropriate way to attack them.
The conclusion about the absence of bullet impact made by the Iranian general staff adds to the possibility that the helicopter was sabotage by other means to cover the tracks.
What were these means, and who used them – this is what the investigation must establish.
Iranian hip-hop artist Toomaj Salehi, Uyghur poet and activist Tahir Hamut Izgil, and Venezuelan pianist and recording artist Gabriela Montero.
On 22 May 2024) The Human Rights Foundation announced the recipients of the 2024 Václav Havel International Prize for Creative Dissent: Iranian hip-hop artist Toomaj Salehi, Uyghur poet and activist Tahir Hamut Izgil, and Venezuelan pianist and recording artist Gabriela Montero.
“Their work stands as a testament to extraordinary bravery and ingenuity,” HRF Founder Thor Halvorssen said. This year’s laureates will be recognized during a ceremony on Tuesday, June 4, at the 2024 Oslo Freedom Forum (OFF) in Oslo, Norway. Montero will be performing the European and Scandinavian premiere of “Canaima: A Quintet for Piano and Strings” at the Oslo Konserthus. The Havel Prize ceremony will also be broadcast live at oslofreedomforum.com.
Toomaj Salehi is an Iranian hip-hop artist known for lyrics protesting the Iranian regime and calling for human rights. In September 2022, at the height of the nationwide “Women, Life, Freedom” protests, Salehi released several songs supporting women’s rights. One song, “Divination,” with the lyrics, “Someone’s crime was that her hair was flowing in the wind. Someone’s crime is that he or she was brave and…outspoken,” grew in popularity and was sung throughout the protests. Salehi was first arrested in October 2022 and was released on bail in November 2023 after the Iranian Supreme Court overturned his charges of “corruption on Earth,” “propaganda against the system,” “collaboration with a hostile government,” “inciting people to murder and riot,” and “insulting the leadership.” On November 27, 2023, he posted a YouTube video describing the torture and forced confession he experienced during his detention. Three days later, armed plain-clothes agents abducted Salehi. He was subsequently charged in two trials. On April 24, the Isfahan Revolutionary Court sentenced him to death.
Tahir Hamut Izgil is a prominent Uyghur poet, filmmaker, and activist. He is known for his avant-garde poetry, written in Uyghur and influenced by Uyghur life. Originally from Kashgar, Izgil led the 1989 student movement at the Central Nationalities Institute in Beijing. In the late 1990s, he was arrested on charges related to the possession of sensitive literature, leading to a three-year sentence in forced labor camps. He is among the few Uyghur intellectuals who successfully escaped the region in 2017.Izgil’s new memoir, “Waiting to Be Arrested at Night: A Uyghur Poet’s Memoir of China’s Genocide,” documents his journey living in and escaping the Uyghur Region, sharing a rare testimony of the Uyghur genocide with the broader world. His book has been listed as one of the “50 notable works of nonfiction” by The Washington Post and as one of the “10 0 Must-Read Books of 2023” by Time Magazine
Gabriela Montero is a Grammy Award-winning Venezuelan pianist and recording artist. Celebrated for her exceptional musicality and ability to improvise, Montero has garnered critical acclaim and a devoted following on the world stage. Montero’s recent highlights include her first orchestral composition, “Ex Patria,” a tone poem that grew from the human rights struggle in Montero’s native Venezuela. The piece powerfully illustrates and protests Venezuela’s descent into lawlessness, corruption, and violence, winning her first Latin Grammy® for Best Classical Album.Montero is a committed human rights advocate, using her gifts of composition and improvisation as tools of creative dissent. In 2015, she was named an Honorary Consul by Amnesty International. Montero was awarded the 2012 Rockefeller Award for her contribution to the arts and was a featured performer at Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential Inauguration. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/10/15/venezuelan-pianist-gabriela-montero-wins-the-2018-beethoven-prize/]
Initial investigation by rescue group finds ageing aircraft either did not have transponder fitted or had it turned off
The helicopter that crashed killing the Iranian president, Ebrahim Raisi, and the foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, either did not have a transponder fitted or had it turned off, according to an initial investigation by the Turkish rescue group that found the wreckage.
The Turkish transport minister, Abdulkadir Uraloğlu, told reporters that on hearing news of the crash, Turkish authorities had checked for a signal from the helicopter’s transponder that broadcasts height and location information. “But unfortunately, [we think] most likely the transponder system was turned off or that the helicopter did not have one,” he said.
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian were killed on Sunday in a helicopter crash along with several other officials and crew. Wreckage of the helicopter was found early Monday in a mountainous region of the country’s northwest following an overnight search in blizzard conditions. Raisi was returning from inaugurating a new dam built jointly with Azerbaijan…
Ruthless prosecutor behind thousands of executions who rose through the theocratic ranks to become the president of Iran
The career of Iran’s president, Ebrahim Raisi, who has been killed in a helicopter crash aged 63, was defined by violent events. His initiation into politics was triggered by the 1979 Iranian revolution, one of the most cataclysmic and epoch-shaping events of the late 20th century, which unfolded with headline-grabbing drama as Raisi was just turning 18.
Given the heady fervour of that revolutionary period, with daily mass street demonstrations eventually leading to the toppling of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the country’s once seemingly invincible western-allied monarch, followed by the return from exile of the messianic cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to ecstatic acclaim, it is perhaps no surprise that a militant, impressionable young activist was sucked into the political system that took shape in the aftermath, was moulded by it – and later participated in some of its more unsavoury actions.
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian were killed on Sunday in a helicopter crash along with several other officials and crew. Wreckage of the helicopter was found early Monday in a mountainous region of the country’s northwest following an overnight search in blizzard conditions. Raisi was returning from inaugurating a new dam built jointly with Azerbaijan along the two countries’ border. Raisi, 63, was elected in 2021 in a vote that saw the lowest-percentage turnout in the Islamic Republic’s history after major opposition candidates were disqualified from taking part. Analyst Trita Parsi says the president’s death will have little impact on the Islamic Republic’s policies, including barring dissident candidates from running for office. “Now the regime is going to have to try to whip up and mobilize voters and excitement for an election within 50 days,” he says. “And it has to make a decision: Is it actually going to allow other candidates to stand, or is it going to continue on the path that it has set out for itself in which these elections increasingly become rather meaningless in terms of actual democratic value?”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
Protests and hunger strikes among asylum seekers held in detention centres in preparation for deportation to Rwanda are increasing, the Guardian has learned.
Approximately 55 detainees, including Afghans, Iranians and Kurds, are believed to have staged a 10-hour peaceful protest in the exercise yard at Brook House immigration removal centre, near Gatwick airport from 6pm Tuesday until 4am Wednesday.
Making a rare appearance at an international defence show, the Iranian Ministry of Defence is showcasing a wide variety of weapons, ranging from long-range cruise missiles through ground-based air defence systems to UAVs. In the last category, there are models of two Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) platforms. They are both equipped for ISR and […]
Authoritarian governments are extending their pursuit of critics far beyond their borders
Forty-five years ago, the Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov was killed in London with a poison-tipped umbrella as he made his way home from work. The horrifying case transfixed the British public.
So transnational repression is not new, including on British shores. But unless its target is unusually high-profile, or it uses startling tactics such as those employed by Markov’s killers – or in the attempt to assassinate Sergei Skripal – much of it passes with minimal attention.
Washington, D.C., April 30, 2024—Iranian authorities must immediately release journalist Parisa Salehi from prison and cease jailing members of the press for doing their jobs by reporting on events of public interest, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Tuesday.
On January 24, Judge Asef Al-Hosseini, in Branch one of Karaj Revolutionary Court, sentenced Parisa Salehi, an economics reporter for the state-run financial newspaper Donya-e-Eqtesad, to one year in prison, a two-year ban on leaving the country, two years of internal exile, and a two-year ban on social media use, after convicting her on charges of “spreading propaganda against the system” in connection with her reporting, though no specific report was mentioned at the time, according to her post on X, formerly Twitter, and a report by Iran International.
Salehi’s prison sentence was later reduced by an appeals court to five months, but the other sentences were upheld, according to newsreports.
On April 21, Salehi received a summons requiring her to surrender to prison authorities within five days, the exiled-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reported.
“Iranian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release journalist Parisa Salehi and cease the practice of arbitrarily locking up members of the press without revealing any credible information about their alleged charges,” said Carlos Martinez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director, in New York. “The lack of transparency about Salehi’s case risks a chilling effect on newsgathering in the country and questions the judiciary’s due process.”
Salehi was arrested on April 28 and was immediately transferred to Karaj’s Kaju’i prison to serve her five-month prison sentence according to a post by her sister Parinaz Salehi on X, formerly Twitter.
CPJ’s email to Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York requesting comment on Salehi’s arrest and imprisonment did not receive any reply.
In fall 2022, they were on the streets of Tehran facing down Iranian riot police. Chanting “Woman, Life, Freedom,” their voices captured the world’s attention — until their friends were shot, loved ones arrested, and they were forced to run for their lives. Less than two years later, those same protesters now face a very different kind of danger. Having survived waves of domestic repression…
Tourists visiting Spanish cities like Córdoba, Toledo and Sevilla have the option of whiling away an hour or so at a ‘Museum of the Inquisition’, sometimes known as a ‘Gallery of Torture’. For around three euros, visitors can view an exotic range of devices used to impale, immolate, strangle and dismember human beings in the name of God.
It’s tempting to reassure ourselves that these are relics of a far-distant past, horrors that could never happen now. But did the Dark Ages ever really end? Noam Chomsky commented:
‘Part of the tragedy of the Palestinians is that they have essentially no international support. For a good reason – they don’t have wealth, they don’t have power. So they don’t have rights. It’s the way the world works – your rights correspond to your power and your wealth.’
It is indeed the way the world works. It is also the way the medieval world worked. UK Foreign Secretary, Lord David Cameron (Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton), recently passed judgment on the war in Ukraine at a Washington press conference:
‘It is extremely good value for money… Almost half of Russia’s pre-war military equipment has been destroyed without the loss of a single American life. This is an investment in the United States’ security.’
According even to Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky, 31,000 Ukrainians have been killed in the conflict. US officials estimate 70,000 dead, while Russia claims to have killed 444,000. Are these deaths ‘good value for money’?
And what about the 50,000 Russians estimated by the BBC to have died? Do they matter? After all, European civilisation is supposed to be founded on Christ’s teaching that we should love, not just our ‘neighbour’ but our ‘enemy’. On Britain’s Channel 5, BBC stalwart Jeremy Vine offered a different view to Bill, a caller from Manchester:
‘Bill, Bill, the brutal reality is, if you put on a uniform for Putin and you go and fight his war, you probably deserve to die, don’t you?’
Elsewhere, the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, commented after Iran retaliated to Israel’s bombing of an Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, killing 16 people, including two senior Iranian generals:
‘The attacks on Israel by Iran this weekend were wrong. They risked civilian lives and they escalated the already dangerous tensions in the region. I pray for the peace and security of Israel’s peopleat this time and I appeal to all parties both for restraint and to act for peace and mutual security.’ (Our emphasis)
If Christ had done political commentary, he would have declared both the Iranian and Israeli attacks wrong, and he would have prayed ‘for the peace and security’ of the peoples of Israel and Iran, and also Palestine.
‘[It was] a reckless and dangerous thing for Iran to have done, and I think the whole world can see. All these countries that have somehow wondered, well, you know, what is the true nature of Iran? It’s there in black and white.”
He was immediately asked: ‘What would Britain do if a hostile nation flattened one of our consulates?’
Cameron’s tragicomic response:
‘Well, we would take, you know, we would take very strong action.’
Naturally, ‘we’ would do the same or worse, but it’s a grim sign of Iran’s ‘true nature’ when ‘they’ do it. The ‘Evil’ have no right even to defend themselves when attacked by the ‘Good’. Standard medieval thinking.
‘Murderous’ And ‘Brutal’ – Tilting The Language
In idle moments, we sometimes fantasise about opening our own Media Lens Chamber of Propaganda Horrors, a Hall of Media Infamy. It would be a cavernous space packed with examples of devices used to strangle and dismember Truth.
A special section would be reserved for the sage effusions of BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner, who wrote recently of Israel:
‘It responded to the murderous Hamas-led attacks of 7 October… and then spent the next six months battering the Gaza Strip.’
The Hamas attack was ‘murderous’, then, with Israel administering a mere ‘battering’ with its attack that has caused at least 30 times the loss of life. A ‘battering’ is generally bruising but not necessarily fatal. The term is certainly not synonymous with genocide. Is this biased use of language accidental, or systemic?
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) commented on their careful study of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal:
‘Looking at all attributions, 77% of the time when the word “brutal” was used to describe an actor in the conflict, it referred to Palestinians and their actions. This was 73% of the time at the Times, 78% at the Post and 87% at the Journal. Only 23% of the time was “brutal” used to describe Israel’s actions…’
The Intercept reported on a leaked memo which revealed that the New York Times had ‘instructed journalists covering Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land’. The Intercept added:
‘The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by displaced Palestinians expelled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli–Arab wars. The areas are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.’
The memo was written by Times standards editor Susan Wessling, international editor Philip Pan, and their deputies. A Times newsroom source, who requested anonymity ‘for fear of reprisal’, said:
‘I think it’s the kind of thing that looks professional and logical if you have no knowledge of the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But if you do know, it will be clear how apologetic it is to Israel.’
Our Chamber of Propaganda Horrors might feature this barely believable sentence from a BBC report by Lucy Williamson, which reads like something from the film ‘Dr. Strangelove’:
‘If you wanted to map the path to a healthy, functioning Palestinian government, you probably wouldn’t start from here.’
Probably wouldn’t start from where? From the middle of a six-months genocide, with two million civilians starving, with children literally starving to death, with tens of thousands of children murdered, with Gaza in ruins? It is hard to imagine a more ethically or intellectually tone-deaf observation. The BBC’s Jeremy Bowen added to the sense of surreality:
‘The decision not to veto the Ramadan ceasefire resolution is also an attempt by the Americans to push back at accusations that they have enabled Israel’s actions.’
Is it an ‘accusation’ that the US has supplied billions of dollars of missiles and bombs without which Israel could not conduct its genocide? Is there any conceivable way the US could ever ‘push back at’ that unarguable fact? The Guardiandescribed how the US has worked hard to avoid Congressional oversight:
‘The US is reported to have made more than 100 weapons sales to Israel, including thousands of bombs, since the start of the war in Gaza, but the deliveries escaped congressional oversight because each transaction was under the dollar amount requiring approval.
‘The Biden administration… has kept up a quiet but substantial flow of munitions to help replace the tens of thousands of bombs Israel has dropped on the tiny coastal strip, making it one of the most intense bombing campaigns in military history.’
These hidden sales are in addition to the $320m in precision bomb kits sold in November and 14,000 tank shells costing $106m and $147.5m of fuses and other components needed to make 155mm artillery shells in December.
In response to the latest news of a massive additional supply of arms to Israel, Edward Snowden posted on X:
‘ok but you’re definitely gonna hold off on sending like fifteen billion dollars’ worth of weapons to the guys that keep getting caught filling mass graves with kids until an independent international investigation is completed, right?
‘…right?’
Because we no longer live in the Dark Ages, right?
Waiting For The Hiroshima Bombing Scene
People are generally not tortured on the rack in Western societies, but are we really any less callous?
Christopher Nolan’s film ‘Oppenheimer’ has been lauded to the skies. It earned 13 nominations at the Academy Awards, winning seven Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. It also won five Golden Globe Awards.
And yet the film is a moral disgrace. It focuses on the life of physicist Robert J. Oppenheimer, and particularly, of course, on his key role in developing the first atomic weapons. The direct results of his efforts were the dropping of nuclear fireballs on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan that killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people.
These were the first acts of nuclear terrorism, by far the greatest single acts of terrorism the world has ever seen. Although the moral doubts haunting the ‘Manhattan Project’ then and since feature strongly in the film, a portrayal of the hideous impact of Oppenheimer’s invention on civilians is almost completely absent. This single, dignified comment from an elderly Japanese viewer reported by the Guardian says it all:
‘“I was waiting for the Hiroshima bombing scene to appear, but it never did,” said Mimaki, 82.’
Although the BBC sought out the opinion of cinemagoers in Hiroshima, ‘only meters away’ from where the bomb exploded, the film’s shocking moral failure was not mentioned.
On reflection, our museum might be better called, The Museum Of Media Madness. Thus, the BBC reported on the refusal of event organisers, The European Broadcasting Union (EBU), to ban Israel from the Eurovision Song Contest. The EBU opined:
‘We firmly believe that the Eurovision Song Contest is a platform that should always transcend politics, promote togetherness and bring audiences together across the world.’
The BBC claims to be obsessed with reporting ‘both sides of the story’, but it conveniently forgot to mention that Russia has been banned from the song contest since 2022 for a reason that did not ‘transcend politics’ – its invasion of Ukraine.
Martin Österdahl, EBU’s executive supervisor for Eurovision, was asked to explain the contradiction. He responded that the two situations were ‘completely different’. True enough – Israel’s crimes in Gaza are much worse even than Russia’s crimes in Ukraine. Österdahl’s casual brush off:
‘We are not the arena to solve a Middle East conflict.’
Media and political voices seeking to challenge the reigning brutality are not burned alive, but they are buried alive in high security prisons like Julian Assange, beaten up on the street like George Galloway, and forced into exile like Edward Snowden. Dissidents may not be pelted with rotten fruit and vegetables in the stocks, but they are pelted with relentless media attacks intended to discredit them.
In the Guardian, John Crace greeted the news that Galloway had returned to parliament, with a piece titled:
‘The Ego has landed: George Galloway basks in his swearing in as MP’
Crace wrote:
‘Wherever he goes, his giant ego is there before him. Like most narcissists, the only fool for whom he makes allowances – for whom he has a total blindspot – is himself.’
He added:
‘… there is a lot about Galloway to dislike. His self-importance is breathtaking. Most MPs suffer from an excess of self-regard, but George is off the scale. It has never crossed his mind that he is not right about everything.’
Before Galloway’s victory, a Guardian news piece commented:
‘“A total, total disaster”: Galloway and Danczuk line up for Rochdale push – Two former Labour MPs are back to haunt the party in what has been called “the most radioactive byelection in living memory”’
As we have discussed many times, this is the required view, not just of Galloway, but of all dissidents challenging the status quo – they (and we) are all toxic ‘narcissists’. Thus, the BBC observed of Galloway, a ‘political maverick’:
‘To his critics and opponents, he is a dangerous egotist, someone who arouses division.’
What percentage of Tory and Labour MPs under (and including) Sunak and Starmer are not dangerous egotists? Are the thousands of MPs who, decade after decade, line up to vote for US-UK resource wars of aggression of first resort, for action to exacerbate climate collapse, not dangerous egotists? Of course they are, but they are not labelled that way. The only egotism perceived as ‘dangerous’ by our state-corporate media system is one that threatens biocidal, genocidal and suicidal state-corporate narcissism.
We have to travel far from the ‘mainstream’ to read a more balanced view of Galloway. Former British ambassador Craig Murray commented:
‘I have known George Galloway my entire adult life, although we largely lost touch in the middle bit while I was off diplomating. I know George too well to mistake him for Jesus Christ, but he has been on the right side against appalling wars which the entire political class has cheer-led. His natural gifts of mellifluence and loquacity are unsurpassed, with an added talent for punchy phrase making.
‘… But outwith the public gaze George is humorous, kind and self-aware. He has been deeply involved in politics his entire life, and is a great believer in the democratic process as the ultimate way by which the working classes will ultimately take control of the means of production. He is a very old-fashioned and courteous form of socialist.’
We strongly disagree with Galloway’s views on fossil fuel production and climate change – in fact, he blocked us on X for robustly but politely challenging him on these issues. Nevertheless, it is clear to us that Murray’s view of Galloway is far more reasonable.
Neon-Lit Dark Age
In ‘Brave New World Revisited’, Aldous Huxley wrote:
‘The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free.’ (Huxley, ‘Brave New World Revisited’, archive.org, 1958, p.109)
This is certainly true of corporate journalists. Borrowing illiberally from authentically dissident media, a recurring Guardian appeal asks readers to support its heroic defence of Truth. The declared enemy:
‘Teams of lawyers from the rich and powerful trying to stop us publishing stories they don’t want you to see.
‘Lobby groups with opaque funding who are determined to undermine facts about the climate emergency and other established science.
‘Authoritarian states with no regard for the freedom of the press.
‘Bad actors spreading disinformation online to undermine democracy.
‘But we have something powerful on our side.
‘We’ve got you.
‘The Guardian is funded by its readers and the only person who decides what we publish is our editor.’
They have indeed ‘got you’, many of you, and not in a good way. The real threat to truth in our time, quite obviously, is the fact that profit-maximising, ad-dependent corporate media like the Guardian cannot and will not report the truth of a world dominated by giant corporations. The declared aspiration is a sham, a form of niche marketing exploiting the gullible.
The truth is that ‘mainstream’ media and politics are now captured in a way that is beyond anything we have previously seen. All around the world, political choices have been carefully fixed and filtered to ensure ordinary people are unable to challenge the endless wars, the determination to prioritise profits over climate action at any cost. The job of the corporate media system is to pretend the choices are real, to ensure the walls of the prison remain invisible.
The only hope in this neon-lit Dark Age is genuinely independent media – the blogs and websites that are now being filtered, shadow-banned, buried and marginalised like never before.
Video evidence shows multiple arrests after regime launched new draconian campaign against women and girls
Harrowing first-hand accounts of women being dragged from the streets of Iran and detained by security services have emerged as human rights groups say country’s hijab rules have been brutally enforced since the country’s drone strikes on Israel on 13 April.
A new campaign, called Noor (“light” in Persian), was announced the same day the Iranian regime launched drone attacks against Israel, to crack down on “violations” of the country’s draconian hijab rules, which dictate that all women must cover their heads in public.
A North Korean delegation led by the cabinet minister for international trade is visiting Iran, the North’s state-run media reported on Wednesday, amid suspicion Tehran used North Korean weapons technology for its attack on Israel.
The minister for external economic relations, Yun Jong Ho, left Pyongyang on Tuesday by air leading a ministry delegation to Iran, the Korean Central News Agency said, without providing further details.
Yun, who previously worked on ties with Syria, has been active in North Korea’s increasing exchanges with Russia, this month leading a delegation on a visit to Moscow, KCNA added.
The North’s announcement comes after some experts raised the possibility that North Korean parts or military technology could have been used by Iran against Israel, following the launch of more than 300 drones and missiles on April 13. The experts cited close military cooperation between Pyongyang and Tehran.
South Korea’s spy agency, the National Intelligence Service, said last Wednesday it was looking into whether the North’s weapons technology was used in the ballistic missiles that Iran launched against Israel.
“We are keeping tabs on whether the North Korean technology was included in Iran’s ballistic missiles launched against Israel, given the North and Iran’s missile cooperation in the past,” the NIS said.
Separately, Matthew Miller, a U.S. State Department spokesperson, said last Tuesday that the United States was “incredibly concerned” about long-suspected military cooperation between North Korea and Iran.
Having established diplomatic ties in 1973, North Korea and Iran have long been suspected of cooperating on ballistic missile programs, possibly exchanging technical expertise and components for their manufacture.
A 2019 report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency showed Iran’s Shahab-3 ballistic missiles were developed based on North Korea’s midrange Rodong missiles.
The Khorramshahr missile that Iran has developed is also believed to be technically linked to North Korea’s Musudan missiles.
North Korea has also been suspected of involvement in arms trade with Russia, although the two countries have denied that transfers have taken place.
The NIS has said that since August, North Korea has made 10 weapons transfers of an estimated one million shells to Russia, according to the NIS, which is widely seen as an attempt by North Korea to boost its sagging economy amid aftermath of COVID-19 and international sanctions.
Other reports have suggested North Korea has delivered ballistic missiles to Russia’s military, citing U.S. satellite images.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.
By not responding to decades of Israel’s provocations with an attack on Israeli soil, Iran displayed patience. The Islamic Republic rulers realized the provocations were becoming harsher, more damaging, and without stopping; it was time to respond. Their response was notable; a mild rebuke that showed power and unwillingness to harm civilians, unlike the offensive attacks by Israel’s military and intelligence that have killed Iranian civilians and military personnel.
Israel’s worldwide propaganda mechanism omits the tens of previous illegal and damaging attacks inflicted upon Iran and charges Iran with cruel and threatening behavior that requires a strong reply. Already, members of England’s parliament (MP) obeyed the Zionist call for action with outrageous pleas to assist Israel against “Iran’s genocidal actions,” and “attempt to interrupt the peace.”
One person is injured and that is genocide. Tens of thousands of Gazans killed and no reference to genocide. Mayhem in the Middle East since the first Zionist set foot in Palestine and one relatively harmless attack disturbed the peace. Are these MPs real people or artificial intelligence? How can they run for office and be elected?
A common thread exists in US actions of aggressive behavior toward nations that have not threatened the security of the United States, such as 21st-century Iraq and Iran. The common thread weaves nations that were or are antagonists of apartheid Israel. All, except Iran, have been subdued by the U.S. What Israel wants, Israel gets, and Israel convinced the United States to eliminate the foes of the Zionist Republic. Americans died and Americans paid for efforts that had scarce benefits to U.S. citizens. Iran is now the last nation standing and Israel is coercing the U.S. to perform its usual duty — get rid of Iran. Look at the record.
Sudan
Deposed Sudan leader, Omar al-Bashir, made it clear. “Israel is our enemy, our number one enemy, and we will continue calling Israel our enemy.” Israel also made its relationship with Bahir clear by destroying a Sudanese arms factory suspected of producing chemical weapons for Hamas. Times of Israel reports that “Over the years, there have been reports of the Israelis continuing to aid South Sudanese rebels during Sudan’s second civil war, which lasted from 1983 to 2005.” Israel’s assistance to the rebels enabled South Sudan to secede and weaken Bashir. The Times of Israel also reports that “Miniature Israeli flags hang from car windshields and flutter at roadside stalls, and at the Juba souk in the city’s downtown, you can buy lapel pins with the Israeli flag alongside its black, red and green South Sudanese counterpart.”
Link of a car bomb at the World Trade Center in New York to Osama bin Laden, who resided in Sudan, prompted the US State Department to add Sudan to its list of state sponsors of terrorism. In October 1997, the U.S. imposed economic, trade, and financial sanctions on Sudan. These sanctions occurred despite none of the extremists engaging in terrorist activities while in Sudan. Bashir offered extradition or interviews of arrested al-Qaeda operatives and allowed access to the extensive files of Sudanese intelligence. According to a CIA source, reported in the Guardian, Sept 30, 2001, “This represents the worst single intelligence failure in this whole terrible business. It is the key to the whole thing right now. It is reasonable to say that had we had this data we may have had a better chance of preventing the attacks.”
The U.S. Congress heightened the insurrection in Sudan’s Darfur province by passing amendment H.Con.Res.467 — 108th Congress (2003-2004), amended 07/22/2004, which “States that Congress declares that the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, are genocide, and urges the Administration to refer to such atrocities as genocide.” The amendment gathered world opinion against the Sudanese government. Although the public accepted the figure of 400,000 killings of people in Darfur, this genocide had no verification of the number of killings, no displayed mass graves, and no images of a great number of bodies.
Before he left the U.S. State Department, former US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick stated on ABC News online, November 9, 2005, “It’s a tribal war. And frankly I don’t think foreign forces want to get in the middle of a tribal war of Sudanese.”
A peace agreement ended the second Sudanese civil war in 2005. On July 9, 2011, South Sudan became independent and reduced Sudan to a pipeline for South Sudan oil. After Sudan became a diminished state, barely able to survive, the United States lifted economic and trade sanctions. Independent South Sudan fared worse — involved in its civil war, human rights violations, and social and economic turmoil. Human Rights Watch (HRW) claimed [South Sudan] “Government security forces and armed groups perpetrated serious human rights abuses, including killings, acts of sexual violence, abductions, detention, torture and other ill-treatment, the recruitment and use of children, and destruction of civilian property.” The U.S. government did not criticize the human rights violations of the friend of Israel.
On October 23, 2020, Israel and Sudan agreed to normalize relations
On April 6, 2021, the Sudanese cabinet approved a bill abolishing the 1958 law on boycotting Israel.
The once wealthy Sudan, flowing with minerals and gushing with oil had the possibility of becoming a strong and vibrant African nation. US policies of countering terrorism, assisting South Sudan rebels, and interfering in the Darfur civil war contributed to preventing that outcome and provided Israel with a friendly Sudan that no longer assisted the Palestinians.
Libya
Libya’s leader, Mohammar Qadhafi, has been quoted as saying on April 1, 2002, “Thousands of Libyans are ready to defend the Palestinian people.” In that speech he called for a Pan-Arab war against the state of Israel’s existence and demanded “other Arab leaders open their borders to allow Libyans to march into Palestine, to join the Palestinian uprising.” In the speech, Gaddafi claimed he would not recognize Israel as a state.
The United States used Gadhafi’s support for radical revolutions as a reason to have strained relations with Libya. Sanctions soon followed. In March 1982, the U.S. Government prohibited imports of Libyan crude oil into the United States and expanded the controls on U.S. originated goods intended for export to Libya. Licenses were required for all transactions, except food and medicine. In April 1985, all Export-Import Bank financing was prohibited.
On April 14, 1986, the United States launched air strikes against Libya in retaliation for “Libyan sponsorship of terrorism against American troops and citizens.” Five military targets and “terrorism centers” were hit, including Gadhafi’s headquarters.
After Libya halted its nuclear program, renounced terrorism, accepted responsibility for inappropriate actions by its officials, and paid appropriate compensation to the victims’ families for the bombing of a US commercial airplane over Lockerbie, Scotland, the United Nations (UN) lifted sanctions, the U.S. terminated the applicability of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act to Libya, and President Bush signed an Executive Order terminating the national emergency, which ended economic sanctions. All was going well until 2011.
Despite the lack of clarity of the 2011 rebellion against Gadhafi and specious reasons for NATO and US roles to defend the rebels, the U.S. government cut ties with the Gadhafi regime, sanctioned senior regime members, and, together with several European and Arab nations, managed to convince the UN Security Council to authorize intervention in the conflict. The intervention demolished the Gadhafi regime and enabled the rebels to obtain victory, another fallen nation that was an outspoken antagonist of Israel, and, still, in 2024, an embattled nation.
Egypt
On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel to reclaim territories they had lost in the Six-Day War. With Israeli troops seriously outnumbered and facing near-certain defeat at the hands of the Soviet-backed nations, President Nixon ordered an emergency airlift of supplies and materiel. “Send everything that will fly,” Nixon told Henry Kissinger. The American airlift enabled Israel to launch a decisive counterattack that pushed the Egyptians back across the Suez Canal.
In a briefing, Scuttle Diplomacy: Henry Kissinger and Arab-Israeli Peacemaking, by Salim Yaqub, Woodrow Wilson Center, Dr. Yaqub argued that “Kissinger’s pivotal role as the intermediary allowed him to feign neutrality while secretly supporting the Israelis, and to turn the peace negotiations into a long series of small confidence building steps which would give the appearance of progress that Egypt required to come to an agreement with Israel, but which would allow Israel to keep most of the Syrian and Palestinian land gained after the 1967 Six-Day War.”
Prime Minister of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, signed a peace treaty with Israel, and the U.S. normalized relations with previously combative Egypt. The most populous and leading nation of the Arab world, the principal defender of Arab rights, which had waged several wars with Israel, no longer posed a threat to Israel and became a weakened observer to the hostilities affecting the Middle East.
Syria
Israel and Syria battled from day one of the UN 181 Proclamation that recommended partition of the British Mandate.
The U.S. never favored the Assad regime and cut relations. After the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil, the Syrian Government tried limited cooperation with the U.S. War on Terror. Syrian intelligence alerted the U.S. of an Al-Qaeda plan to fly a hang glider loaded with explosives into the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain. Syria was also a destination for U.S. captives outside of its borders in its rendition program. According to U.S. officials, as reported by Nicholas Blanford, in a Special to The Christian Science Monitor, May 14, 2002, ”Syrian information was instrumental in catching militant Islamists around the world.”
Syria’s descent into near oblivion started with its civil wars, in which foreign fighters (ISIS and al-Nusra) entered Syria from NATO’s Turkey (no retribution to Turkey for allowing ISIS to enter Syria), and a multitude of insurgents fought with and against one another until Assad, with assistance from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, overcame the insurgencies. WikiLeaks, in 2011, released diplomatic cables between the U.S. embassy in Damascus and the State Department, which revealed the U.S. had given financial support to political opposition groups and their related projects through September 2010.
ISIS is defeated and a limping Assad government barely survives as a splintered nation. Bombed almost daily by Israeli missiles and planes, the hopelessly weak Syria cannot retaliate. With assistance from the U.S., Syria’s threat to Israel has been neutralized.
Iraq
Justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq with a spurious reason that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and needed to be silenced was so absurd that another reason was sought. Security school scholars argued a joint threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist groups. Hegemony school scholars argued preservation and extension of U.S. hegemony, including the spread of liberal democratic ideals. When in doubt bring in liberal democratic ideals.
The interventionists conveniently forgot that Saddam Hussein was a restraint to Iran and a deterrent to Radical Islamists. With Hussein removed, Iran lost its restraint. Bordering on Iraq and spiritually attached to Iraq’s Shi’a population, Iran became involved in the commercial, economic, and political future of Iraq, an event that U.S. strategists should have known.
The invasion of Iraq and disposal of a Saddam Hussein regime, which had prevented al-Qaeda elements from establishing themselves, exposed Iraq’s porous borders to Radical Islamic fighters. Founded in October 2004, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) emerged from a transnational terrorist group created and led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. His cohorts entered through Jordan, while al-Qaeda forced out of Waziristan in Pakistan found a haven in Iraq. Meanwhile, fighters trained in and wandering through the deserts of Saudi Arabia hopped planes to Istanbul and Damascus and worked their way across Syria into Iraq. Disturbed by the U.S. invasion and military tactics, Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim al-Badri al-Samarrai, later known as Al Baghdadi, founder of the Islamic Caliphate, transformed himself from a fun-loving soccer player into a hardened militant and helped found the militant group Jamaat Jaysh Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaah (JJASJ), which countered the U.S. military in Iraq.
Spurious reasons and obvious counterproductive results leave doubts that the original explanation and rationales for the invasion were correct. A more valid reason involves the neocons in the Bush administration who were closely identified with Israel in the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and the office of the vice president, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, who aggressively advanced the case for the invasion. Some backups to that theory,
Haaretz, Apr 03, 2003, “White Man’s Burden,” Ari Shavit, “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish (ED: Avid Israel supporters), who were pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”
In The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War, Muhammad Idrees Ahmad echoes the case.
The road to Iraq was paved with neoconservative intentions. Other factions of the US foreign policy establishment were eventually brought around to supporting the war, but the neocons were its architects and chief proponents.
A 1996 report, Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, prepared by neoconservatives at the Jerusalem-based think tank, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, many of whom held vital positions in the George W. Bush administration, lends substance to the charge that the invasion of Iraq served Israel’s interests.
We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship….Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.
Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
Participants in the Study Group included Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader, James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS, Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates, Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, and Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University.
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser later served in high positions in the George W. Bush administration at the time of the Iraq invasion. The others were allied with organizations that promoted Israel’s interests.
Two observations:
(1) Why were Americans prominent in an Israeli Think Tank and why were they advising a foreign nation?
(2) Note that the thrust of the report is to advise Israel to have a “clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity, and mutuality.” This has been the modus operandi of the Netanyahu administrations.
No “smoking gun” firmly ties the neocons devoted to Israel together with using the United States military to eliminate another Israel antagonist. The argument is based upon it being the best, most factual, and only reason the war could have been wanted.
Iran – Last Nation Standing
The Islamic Republic may not be an exemplary nation, but there is no evidence or reason for the U.S. accusations that Iran is a destabilizing, expansionist nation, or leading sponsor of international terrorism. Why would it be – there are no external resources or land masses that would be helpful to Iran’s economy, Iran has not invaded any nation, and its few sea and drone attacks on others are reactions from a perception that others have colluded in harming the Islamic Republic and its allies. Ayatollah Khomeini’s vision of expanding his social ideology never got anywhere and died with him. Subsequent leaders have been forced to reach out to defend their interests and those of their friends, but none of these leaders has pursued an expansionist philosophy or wants the burden that accompanies the task — enough problems at home.
No matter what Iran does, the US perceives Iran as an enemy and a threat to not only the Middle East but to world order. All this hostility, despite the facts that (1) the Iranians showed willingness to create a new Afghanistan by pledging $560 million worth of assistance, almost equal to the amount that the United States pledged at the Tokyo donors’ conference in January 2002, (2) according to the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Dobbins, played a “decisive role in persuading the Northern Alliance delegation to compromise its demands of wanting 60 percent of the portfolios in an interim government,” (3) Iran arrested Al-Qaeda agents on its territory and, because Al-Qaeda linked the Shiite Muslims, represented by Iran and Hezbollah, with Crusaders, Zionists, and Jews as its most bitter enemies, had ample reason to combat terrorist organizations, and (4) Iran has no reason for or capability of attacking the U.S .or its western allies.
Being vilified for inadequate reasons is followed by Iran not being praised for significant reasons. President Trump, in his January 8, 2020 speech, argued the U.S. had been responsible for defeating ISIS and the Islamic Republic should realize that it is in their benefit to work with the United States in making sure ISIS remains defeated. Trade the U.S. with Iran and Trump’s speech would be correct.
The U.S. spent years and billions of dollars in training an Iraqi army that fled Mosul and left it to a small contingent of ISIS forces. Showing no will and expertise to fight, Iraq’s debilitated military permitted ISIS to rapidly expand and conquer Tikrit and other cities. Events energized Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, which, with cooperation from Iran and leadership from its Major General Qasem Soleimani, recaptured Tikrit and Ramadi, pushed ISIS out of Fallujah, and played a leading role in ISIS’ defeat at Mosul. Iran and Soleimani were key elements in the defeat of ISIS.
What reward did Solemani receive for his efforts? When his convoy left Baghdad airport, a drone strike, perpetrated by U.S. military, assassinated Major General Solemani and nine other innocent people on January 3, 2002. UN’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Agnes Callamard, reported the U.S. had not provided sufficient evidence of an imminent threat to life to justify the attack.
As usual, Israel used the U.S. to satisfy its desires. “Israel was going to do this with us, and it was being planned and working on it for months,” President Trump said about the coordination to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force. “We had everything all set to go, and the night before it happened, I got a call that Israel will not be participating in this attack. I’ll never forget that Bibi Netanyahu let us down. We were disappointed by that. Very disappointed…But we did the job ourselves, with absolute precision … and then Bibi tried to take credit for it.”
Why do these protectors of the realm want Iran destroyed — they fear Iran may act as a deterrent to their future aggression. Iran cannot win a war with a nuclear weapon or any weapons; it can only posture and threaten use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Its principal antagonists, Israel, United States, and Saudi Arabia have elements that shield themselves from a nuclear attack by Iran. Israel’s small size makes it likely that fallout from a nuclear weapon will endanger the entire region, especially Iran’s allies. Any nuclear strike on Israel will be countered with a torrent of nuclear missiles that will completely wipe large Iran off the map and without fallout causing harm to neighboring nations. With little to gain and everything to lose, why would Iran engage in nuclear aggression?
Netanyahu’s scenario follows a pattern of using American lives and clout to further Israel’s interests and decimate its adversaries. Survey the record — destruction of Iraq, destruction of Sudan, destruction of Libya, destruction of Egypt, destruction of Syria. and now Iran. Only Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries will be left standing, remaining in that position as long as they show no threat to Israel.
The destructions visited upon the described nations have done little to advance US security and economy. Therefore, the reason for the actions and US support of Israel must be political —politicians coopted by catering to the religious right community and other Israel defenders. US administrations are willing to sacrifice American lives and give exorbitant financial assistance to Israel in trade for electoral support from Israel’s backers.
The present confrontations between Iran and Israel have escalated. Those who believe Israel’s few drones over Isfahan concluded retaliation for Iran’s excessive number of missiles and harmless result in the attack on Israel might be mistaken. The drones may have only tested Iranian defensive capability. More, much more provocations may happen.
Due to US aggressive tactics, the antagonists to Israel have fallen and Iran is the last nation standing.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, self-proclaimed champion for human rights and freedom, and enemy of dictators everywhere, inched closer to getting Ukraine aid after eight months of successfully delaying it, empowering Russia’s genocide. Kremlin state TV repeatedly praised Johnson for assisting their brutal invasion, which, as discussed in this week’s bonus show, emboldened Iran to unleash a shocking swarm of drones and missiles against Israel.
The Ukraine aid package still faces delays, thanks to MAGA, and will have to go back to the Senate before it reaches President Biden’s desk. The Trump-proposed changes, of structuring some of the aid as a loan, can be forgiven by the President, including partial loan forgiveness by Biden on his way out, should he lose the election. If Trump wins, he could force Ukraine to repay what’s left of the loan and refuse to send ATACMS, the long-range missiles that have made Ukraine effective at blowing up Russian planes and other military targets that slaugher civilians. The compromise in this aid package, far less than what Ukraine actually needs to win the war, adds to the urgency to ensure Trump loses the electoral college. It’s going to be a nailbiter, for America and the world.
This week’s bonus show includes reports that Paul Manafort is back to help Trump (and Russia) win the 2024 election. Russian mafia expert Olga Lautman and analyst Monique Camarra of the Kremlin File podcast join Andrea to discuss Manafort’s dark arts and how they may help Trump and Russia illegally hijack our democracy once again.
Ari Berman of Mother Jones stops by Gaslit Nation next week to discuss his new must-read book Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People—and the Fight to Resist It. Ari will share his insights on how we got here and what must be done to save our democracy.
Want to hear the full episode? Join a community of listeners and get bonus shows, all episodes ad free, submit questions to our regular Q&As, get exclusive invites to live events, and more by subscribing at the Truth-teller level or higher on Patreon.com/Gaslit!
Thank you to everyone who supports the show – we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!
Show Notes:
Johnson’s plan to send aid to Ukraine moves closer to reality “Democrats will not be responsible for this bill failing,” one Democratic lawmaker pledged on Thursday morning. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/18/johnson-plan-send-aid-ukraine-moves-closer-becoming-reality/
Putin Ally Declares Mike Johnson ‘Our Johnson’ https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-declares-mike-johnson-our-johnson-1890071
Why Did U.S. Planes Defend Israel but Not Ukraine? There are lessons for other nations in the events of the past few days. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/04/ukraine-israel-war-comparison/678077/?gift=hVZeG3M9DnxL4CekrWGK3zBTrwyTVOGzmWK5yps1Kck&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
How Israel and allied defenses intercepted more than 300 Iranian missiles and drones https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/14/middleeast/israel-air-missile-defense-iran-attack-intl-hnk-ml
To be clear, if someone does trigger a motion to vacate — anyone, MTG or Massie — it would be incredibly perilous for Johnson. But remember: the first step is a motion to table. And Democrats could vote to table, and that’s that. https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1780240955196539137
Video Shows Ukrainian Plane Being Hit Over Iran The New York Times has obtained video of the moment a Ukrainian airliner was hit minutes after takeoff from Tehran. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/video/iran-plane-missile.html
The Great Oligarchs Escape: ‘The Ground Is Trembling. They Will Stream Into Israel’ As Ukraine war rages and the West tightens the screws on Russian oligarchs, many of them look to Israel to escape. Some hold Israeli citizenship, exactly for these kinds of circumstances. Billionaires will benefit from Israeli law, allowing them to hide sources of income for a 10-year period https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-03-10/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/the-great-oligarchs-escape-the-ground-is-trembling-they-will-stream-into-israel/0000017f-f2d9-df98-a5ff-f3fd182d0000
EXCLUSIVE: Ukrainian President @ZelenskyyUa said he spoke to lawmakers and the president about Ukraine’s urgent need for wartime aid and stressed “please just make a decision,” during an interview with @IAmAmnaNawaz. Stream more tonight at 6 ET online: https://to.pbs.org/3MzB3rB https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/1779985953966219589
This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.
On April 1, Israel mounted an unprovoked military attack on a building that was part of the Iranian Embassy complex in Damascus, Syria, killing seven of Iran’s senior military advisers and five additional people. The victims included Gen. Mohamad Reza Zahedi, head of Iran’s covert military operations in Lebanon and Syria, and two other senior generals. Although Israel’s attack violated the United…
Over the weekend, Iran launched over 300 missiles at Nevatim Air Base, a base in southern Israel that houses U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who oversaw a strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria just a few weeks ago, has already promised to retaliate. Observers viewed these brewing tensions with concern, ringing the alarm bells of the breakout of a wider war.
Suddenly, western politicians from US President Joe Biden to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have become ardent champions of “restraint” – in a very last-minute scramble to avoid regional conflagration.
Iran launched a salvo of drones and missiles at Israel at the weekend in what amounted a largely symbolic show of strength. Many appear to have been shot down, either by Israel’s layers of US-funded interception systems or by US, British and Jordanian fighter jets. No one was killed.
It was the first direct attack by a state on Israel since Iraq fired Scud missiles during the Gulf war of 1991.
The United Nations Security Council was hurriedly pressed into session on Sunday, with Washington and its allies calling for a de-escalation of tensions that could all too easily lead to the outbreak of war across the Middle East and beyond.
“Neither the region nor the world can afford more war,” the UN’s secretary general, Antonio Guterres, told the meeting. “Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate.”
Israel, meanwhile, vowed to “exact the price” against Iran at a time of its choosing.
But the West’s abrupt conversion to “restraint” needs some explaining.
After all, western leaders showed no restraint when Israel bombed Iran’s consulate in Damascus two weeks ago, killing a senior general and more than a dozen other Iranians – the proximate cause of Tehran’s retaliation on Saturday night.
Under the Vienna Convention, the consulate is not only a protected diplomatic mission but is viewed as sovereign Iranian territory. Israel’s attack on it was an unbridled act of aggression – the “supreme international crime”, as the Nuremberg tribunal ruled at the end of the Second World War.
For that reason, Tehran invoked article 51 of the United Nations charter, which allows it to act in self-defence.
Shielding Israel
And yet, rather than condemning Israel’s dangerous belligerence – a flagrant attack on the so-called “rules-based order” so revered by the US – western leaders lined up behind Washington’s favourite client state.
At a Security Council meeting on 4 April, the US, Britain and France intentionally spurned restraint by blocking a resolution that would have condemned Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate – a vote that, had it not been stymied, might have sufficed to placate Tehran.
At the weekend, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron still gave the thumbs-up to Israel’s flattening of Iran’s diplomatic premises, saying he could “completely understand the frustration Israel feels” – though he added, without any hint of awareness of his own hypocrisy, that the UK “would take very strong action” if a country bombed a British consulate.
The foreign secretary is asked about Israel bombing the Iranian consulate in Syria & he says he understands Israels frustration!
Hes then asked what the UK would do if another country flattened one of our consulates & he says we would take very strong action pic.twitter.com/l3E0A8gzri
By shielding Israel from any diplomatic consequences for its act of war against Iran, the western powers ensured Tehran would have to pursue a military response instead.
But it did not end there. Having stoked Iran’s sense of grievance at the UN, Biden vowed “iron-clad” support for Israel – and grave consequences for Tehran – should it dare to respond to the attack on its consulate.
Iran ignored those threats. On Saturday night, it launched some 300 drones and missiles, at the same time protesting vociferously about the Security Council’s “inaction and silence, coupled with its failure to condemn the Israeli regime’s aggressions”.
Western leaders failed to take note. They again sided with Israel and denounced Tehran. At Sunday’s Security Council meeting, the same three states – the US, UK and France – that had earlier blocked a statement condemning Israel’s attack on Iran’s diplomatic mission, sought a formal condemnation of Tehran for its response.
Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, ridiculed what he called “a parade of Western hypocrisy and double standards”. He added: “You know very well that an attack on a diplomatic mission is a casus belli under international law. And if Western missions were attacked, you would not hesitate to retaliate and prove your case in this room.”
There was no restraint visible either as the West publicly celebrated its collusion with Israel in foiling Iran’s attack.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak praised RAF pilots for their “bravery and professionalism” in helping to “protect civilians” in Israel.
In a statement, Keir Starmer, leader of the supposedly opposition Labour party, condemned Iran for generating “fear and instability”, rather than “peace and security”, that risked stoking a “wider regional war”. His party, he said, would “stand up for Israel’s security”.
The “restraint” the West demands relates only, it seems, to Iran’s efforts to defend itself.
Starving to death
Given the West’s new-found recognition of the need for caution, and the obvious dangers of military excess, now may be the time for its leaders to consider demanding restraint more generally – and not just to avoid a further escalation between Iran and Israel.
Over the past six months Israel has bombed Gaza into rubble, destroyed its medical facilities and government offices, and killed and maimed many, many tens of thousands of Palestinians. In truth, such is the devastation that Gaza some time ago lost the ability to count its dead and wounded.
At the same time, Israel has intensified its 17-year blockade of the tiny enclave to the point where, so little food and water are getting through, the population are in the grip of famine. People, especially children, are literally starving to death.
The International Court of Justice, the world’s highest court, chaired by an American judge, ruled back in January – when the situation was far less dire than it is now – that a “plausible” case had been made Israel was committing genocide, a crime against humanity strictly defined in international law.
And yet there were no calls by western leaders for “restraint” as Israel bombed Gaza into ruins week after week, striking its hospitals, levelling its government offices, blowing up its universities, mosques and churches, and destroying its bakeries.
Rather, President Biden has repeatedly rushed through emergency arms sales, bypassing Congress, to make sure Israel has enough bombs to keep destroying Gaza and killing its children.
When Israeli leaders vowed to treat Gaza’s population like “human animals”, denying them all food, water and power, western politicians gave their assent.
Sunak was not interested in recruiting his brave RAF pilots to “protect civilians” in Gaza from Israel, and Starmer showed no concern about the “fear and instability” felt by Palestinians from Israel’s reign of terror.
Quite the reverse. Starmer, famed as a human rights lawyer, even gave his approval to Israel’s collective punishment of the people of Gaza, its “complete siege”, as integral to a supposed Israeli “right of self-defence”.
In doing so, he overturned one of the most fundamental principles of international law that civilians should not be targeted for the actions of their leaders. As is now all too apparent, he conferred a death sentence on the people of Gaza.
Where was “restraint” then?
Missing in action
Similarly, restraint went out of the window when Israel fabricated a pretext for eradicating the UN aid agency UNRWA, the last lifeline for Gaza’s starving population.
Even though Israel was unable to offer any evidence for its claim that a handful of UNRWA staff were implicated in an attack on Israel on 7 October, western leaders hurriedly cut off funding to the agency. In doing so, they became actively complicit in what the World Court already feared was a genocide.
Where was the restraint when Israeli officials – with a long history of lying to advance their state’s military agenda – made up stories about Hamas beheading babies, or carrying out systematic rapes on 7 October? All of this was debunked by an Al Jazeera investigation drawing largely on Israeli sources.
Those genocide-justifying deceptions were all too readily amplified by western politicians and media.
Israel showed no restraint in destroying Gaza’s hospitals, or taking hostage and torturing thousands of Palestinians it grabbed off the street.
All of that got a quiet nod from western politicians.
Where was the restraint in western capitals when protesters took to the streets to call for a ceasefire, to stop Israel’s bloodletting of women and children, the majority of Gaza’s dead? The demonstrators were smeared – are still smeared – by western politicians as supporters of terrorism and antisemites.
And where was the demand for restraint when Israel tore up the rulebook on the laws of war, allowing every would-be strongman to cite the West’s indulgence of Israeli atrocities as the precedent justifying their own crimes?
On each occasion, when it favoured Israel’s malevolent goals, the West’s commitment to “restraint” went missing in action.
Top-dog client state
There is a reason why Israel has been so ostentatious in its savaging of Gaza and its people. And it is the very same reason Israel felt emboldened to violate the diplomatic sanctity of Iran’s consulate in Damascus.
Because for decades Israel has been guaranteed protection and assistance from the West, whatever crimes it commits.
Israel’s founders ethnically cleansed much of Palestine in 1948, far beyond the terms of partition set out by the UN a year earlier. It imposed a military occupation on the remnants of historic Palestine in 1967, driving out yet more of the native population. It then imposed a regime of apartheid on the few areas where Palestinians remained.
In their West Bank reservations, Palestinians have been systematically brutalised, their homes demolished, and illegal Jewish settlements built on their land. The Palestinians’ holy places have been gradually surrounded and taken from them.
Separately, Gaza has been sealed off for 17 years, and its population denied freedom of movement, employment and the basics of life.
Israel’s reign of terror to maintain its absolute control has meant imprisonment and torture are a rite of passage for most Palestinian men. Any protest is ruthlessly crushed.
Now Israel has added mass slaughter in Gaza – genocide – to its long list of crimes.
Israel’s displacements of Palestinians to neighbouring states caused by its ethnic cleansing operations and slaughter have destabilised the wider region. And to secure its militarised settler-colonial project in the Middle East – and its place as Washington’s top-dog client state in the region – Israel has intimidated, bombed and invaded its neighbours on a regular basis.
Its attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was just the latest of serial humiliations faced by Arab states.
And through all of this, Washington and its vassal states have directed no more than occasional, lip-service calls for restraint towards Israel. There were never any consequences, but instead rewards from the West in the form of endless billions in aid and special trading status.
‘Something rash’
So why, after decades of debauched violence from Israel, has the West suddenly become so interested in “restraint”? Because on this rare occasion it serves western interests to calm the fires Israel is so determined to stoke.
The Israeli strike on Iran’s consulate came just as the Biden administration was finally running out of excuses for providing the weapons and diplomatic cover that has allowed Israel to slaughter, maim and orphan tens of thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza over six months.
Demands for a ceasefire and arms embargo on Israel have been reaching fever pitch, with Biden haemorrhaging support among parts of his Democratic base as he faces a re-run presidential election later this year against a resurgent rival, Donald Trump.
Small numbers of votes could be the difference between victory and defeat.
Israel had every reason to fear that its patron might soon pull the rug from under its campaign of mass slaughter in Gaza.
But having destroyed the entire infrastructure needed to support life in the enclave, Israel needs time for the consequences to play out: either mass starvation there, or a relocation of the population elsewhere on supposedly “humanitarian” grounds.
A wider war, centred on Iran, would both distract from Gaza’s desperate plight and force Biden to back Israel unconditionally – to make good on his “iron-clad” commitment to Israel’s protection.
And to top it all, with the US drawn directly into a war against Iran, Washington would have little choice but to assist Israel in its long campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear energy programme.
Israel wants to remove any potential for Iran to develop a bomb, one that would level the military playing field between the two in ways that would make Israel far less certain that it can continue to act as it pleases across the region with impunity.
That is why Biden officials are airing concerns to the US media that Israel is ready to “do something rash” in an attempt to drag the administration into a wider war.
The truth is, however, that Washington long ago cultivated Israel as its military Frankenstein’s monster. Israel’s role was precisely to project US power ruthlessly into the oil-rich Middle East. The price Washington was more than willing to accept was Israel’s eradication of the Palestinian people, replaced by a fortress “Jewish state”.
Calling for Israel to exercise “restraint” now, as its entrenched lobbies flex their muscles meddling in western politics, and self-confessed fascists rule Israel’s government, is beyond parody.
If the West really prized restraint, they should have insisted on it from Israel decades ago.
The Middle East has, for some time, been a powder keg where degrees of violence are tolerated with ceremonial mania and a calculus of restraint. Assassinations can take place at a moment’s notice. Revenge killings follow with dashing speed. Suicide bombings of immolating power are carried out. Drone strikes of devastating, collective punishment are ordered, all padded by the retarded notion that such killings are morally justified and confined.
In all this viciousness, the conventional armed forces have been held in check, the arsenals contained, the generals busied by plans of contingency rather than reality. The rhetoric may be vengeful and spicily hysterical, but the states in the region keep their armies in reserve, and Armageddon at bay. Till, naturally, they don’t.
To date, Israel is doing much to test the threshold of what might be called the rule of tolerable violence. With Iran, for instance, it has adopted a “campaign between the wars”, primarily in Syria. For over a decade, the Israeli strategy was to prevent the flow of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah, intercepting weapons shipments and targeting storage facilities. “Importantly,” writes Haid Haid, a consulting fellow for Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, “Israel appeared to avoid, whenever feasible, killing Hezbollah or Iranian operatives during these operations.”
But the state of play has changed. The Gaza War, which has become more the Gaza Massacre Project, has moved into its seventh month, packing morgues, destroying families and stimulating the terror of famine. Despite calls from the Israeli military and various officials that Hamas’s capabilities have been irreparably weakened (this claim, like all those battling an idea rather than just a corporeal foe, remains refutable and redundant) the killings and policy of starvation continues against the general Palestinian populace. The International Court of Justice interim orders continue to be ignored, even as the judges deliberate over the issue as to whether genocide is taking place in the Gaza Strip. The restraints, in other words, have been taken off.
The signs are ominous. Spilt blood is becoming hard currency. Daily skirmishes between the IDF and Hezbollah are taking place on the Israeli-Lebanon border. The Houthis are feverishly engaged with blocking and attacking international shipping in the Red Sea, hooting solidarity for the Palestinian cause.
On April 1, a blood crazed strike by Israel suggested that rules of tolerable violence had, if not been pushed, then altogether suspended. The attack on Iran’s consular offices in Damascus by the Israeli Air Force was tantamount to striking Iranian soil. In the process, it killed Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi and other commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including Zahedi’s deputy, General Haji Rahimi. Retaliation was accordingly promised, with Iran’s ambassador to Syria, Hossein Akbari, vowing a response “at the same magnitude and harshness”.
It came on April 13, involving 185 drones, 110 ballistic missiles and 36 cruise missiles, all directed at Israel proper. Superficially, this looks anarchically quixotic, streakily disproportionate. But Tehran went for a spectacular theatrical show to terrify and magnify rather than opt for any broader infliction of damage. Israel’s Iron Dome system, along with allied powers, could be counted upon to aid the shooting down of almost all the offensive devices. A statement had been made and the Iranians have so far drawn a line under any further military action. What was deemed by certain pundits a tactical failure can just as easily be read as a strategic if provocative success. The question then is: what follows?
The Israeli approach varies depending on who is being asked. The IDF Chief of Staff, General Herzi Halevi, stated that “Israel is considering next steps” declaring that “the launch of so many missiles and drones to Israeli territory will be answered with retaliation.”
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir was taloned in his hawkishness, demanding that Israel launch a “crushing” counterattack, “go crazy” and abandon “restraint and proportionality”, “concepts that passed away on October 7.” The “response must not be a scarecrow, in the style of the dune bombings we saw in previous years in Gaza.”
Cabinet minister Benny Gantz, who is a voting member of the war cabinet alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, is tilting for a “regional coalition” to “exact the price from Iran, in the way and at the time that suits us. And most importantly, in the face of the desire of our enemies to harm us, we will unite and become stronger.” The immediate issues for resolution from Gantz’s perspective was the return of Israeli hostages “and the removal of the threat against the residents of the north and south.”
Such thinking will also be prompted by the response from the Biden administration that Netanyahu “think very carefully and strategically” about the next measures. “You got a win,” President Joe Biden is reported to have told Netanyahu. “Take the win.” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has also expressed the view that, “Strength and wisdom must be the two sides of the same coin.”
For decades, Israel has struck targets in sovereign countries with impunity, using expansive doctrines of pre-emption and self-defence. In doing so, the state always hoped that the understanding of tolerable violence would prevail. Any retaliation, if any, would be modest, with “deterrence” assured. With the war in Gaza and the fanning out of conflict, the equation has changed. To some degree, Ben Gvir is right that concepts of restraint and proportionality have been banished to the mortuary. But such banishment, to a preponderant degree, was initiated by Israel. The Israel-Gaza War is now, effectively, a global conflict, waged in regional miniature.
In the wake of a series of retaliatory attacks launched by Iran on Saturday after Israel killed 16 people in a bombing of Iran’s embassy in Syria earlier this month, progressive lawmakers in the U.S. are warning fellow lawmakers against calling for a war against Iran — and instead are calling for an immediate ceasefire “on all sides” as Israel’s aggression in Palestine and beyond is causing…
This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on Apr. 14, 2024. It is shared here with permission.
Shortly after Iran’s retaliatory strike on Israel concluded seemingly without incident, the full-throated proclamations of Israel’s defensive feats followed. Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari said that Iran’s retaliation had “failed” after 99% of the launched missiles and drones were intercepted by Israeli air defense systems. U.S. President Biden hailed Israel’s “remarkable capacity” to defend against such “unprecedented attacks,” sending a message to Iran that it “cannot effectively threaten the security of Israel.”
Israeli military analyst Amos Harel added more meat to these statements, regarding the “incredible operational capabilities” of the Israeli Air Force and its allies to have averted an ostensible disaster by preventing the targeting of key military bases. He even goes so far as to say that “one can assume that Tehran is extremely disappointed,” because the intention of the attack, according to Harel, was to showcase its capabilities by hitting military targets like Netavim Air Base:
“It appears that the Iranians planned to destroy the base and the advanced F-35 fighter jets stationed there, which are the crown jewel of American aid to Israel. Iran failed completely.”
Such assessments are mistaken on two counts: first, they confuse (or intentionally obfuscate) Iran’s intentions behind the attack, and second, they incorrectly interpret the attack’s results.
The first point is fairly uncontroversial. Virtually no one but Israeli talking heads believes that Iran launched the attack with the objective of widening the confrontation. Iran’s constant preparation of the international community by vociferously declaring its intentions a week in advance and promising the U.S. that its attack would be “under control” and conducted in a way that “avoids escalation” confirms that Iran was displaying considerable restraint in its strikes. Even Arab detractors of Iran mocked the attacks as an impotent exercise in political and military “theater.”
The second point though has been less talked about because interpreting the attack’s results has been filtered through the various propaganda prisms of different actors. It’s fairly obvious why Israelis like Harel — who for the past six months has inflected his military analysis with journalistic psy-ops directed at his fellow Israelis — would want to inflate Israeli military achievements. After declining confidence in the army’s ability to protect its citizens following October 7, Israel has made a point of projecting an image of impregnability in the face of regional aggressors.
Several activists and military and political analysts have offered a different interpretation of the results.
Avaaz campaign director Fadi Quran posted on X that “the scale of Iran’s attack, the diversity of locations it targeted, and weapons it used, forced Israel to uncover the majority of anti-missile technologies the US and it have across the region.”
“The Iranians did not use any weapons Israel didn’t know it had, it just used a lot of them,” Quran added. “But the Iranians likely now have almost a full map of what Israel’s missile defence system looks like, as well as where in Jordan and the Gulf the US has installations.”
According to Quran, what this means is that Iran can now “reverse engineer” the intelligence it gathered, while Israel and the U.S. “will have to re-design away from their current model,” making the the cost of the “success” in stopping the attack very high.
“Anyone assuming this is just theatrics is missing the context of how militaries assess strategy versus tactics,” Quran elaborated, emphasizing that gathering intelligence is a key component of long wars of attrition, which is a model that Iran prefers to all-out war.
Beirut-based military analyst and Al-Mayadeen contributor Ali Jezzini offered a similar analysis of the Iranian strikes, arguing that they were “very successful” and that more missiles likely hit their target than Israel has been letting on.
This seems to have been corroborated by video evidence recorded by Palestinians in the case of the Netivim military base, showing several missiles apparently hitting their targets, although there has been no confirmation of the extent of the damage
“The cost of this night’s interceptions certainly exceeds a billion dollars between the Americans and the Israelis,” Jezzini added, a claim that seems to be echoed by Israeli sources.
Jezzini said that in the context of a full-scale war, Israel would not be able to keep up this level of air defense for more than a few days before missiles started to overwhelm Israel’s defense capabilities.
Political analyst Sari Orabi echoed this analysis on his Telegram channel, arguing that the “success” of Israel in intercepting Iranian missiles is “conditional upon the presence of regional layers of protection provided by the United States,” which exposes Israel’s reliance on its network of allies and forces it to give away its various defensive positions.
Orabi added that the Iranian intention behind the strike was “extremely cautious” and “sought to create a new deterrence stance that does not evolve into war,” which creates a new precedent for Iranian action that increases the regional cost of continuing belligerent action toward Iran.
The Biden administration has also made this cost clear to Israel, reportedly telling Netanyahu that the U.S. would not back an Israeli counterattack and that Israel should “take the win.”
In this context, Iran has consciously and delicately raised the stakes of a wider confrontation, further straining U.S.-Israeli relations and creating renewed pressure to diffuse regional tensions. Possibly, it might also lead to pressure to end the genocidal war on Gaza.
The Middle East is bracing for the possibility of regional war after Iran responded to Israel’s bombing of the Iranian Consulate in Damascus with a major drone and missile attack Saturday. The attack caused little damage inside Israel, as it intercepted nearly all of the drones and missiles with help from the United States, Britain, France and Jordan. Iran’s government described the attack as a…