This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

We look at a new Washington Post investigation titled “Money War” that traces the effects of U.S. sanctions under the last four presidents: Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden. According to the report, the U.S government has instituted, in some form or another, sanctions against a third of all other countries around the world, despite no clear evidence that they are effective in influencing target nations’ politics, and in fact may often entrench the power of ruling parties. We speak to Jeff Stein, one of the authors of the Post investigation, about its findings, including on the effects of sanctions in Venezuela and Iran.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Ismail Haniyeh during a video statement marking the 34th anniversary of the founding of the Hamas movement, December 2021. (Hamas Chief Office)
Hamas announced early Wednesday that Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Palestinian faction’s political wing, was assassinated in Tehran, where he was present for the inauguration of the new Iranian president.
The assassination, in Iran no less, marks a major escalation that will likely have regional ramifications and came hours after Israel bombed Lebanon on Tuesday evening, killing three civilians, according to Lebanese state media. Israel claimed that it killed a senior Hizballah figure in the strike, but the Lebanese resistance group had not issued a statement on the matter at the time of publication.
Israel killed multiple members representing multiple generations of Haniyeh’s family in Gaza since October. Several leaders of Hamas have been assassinated by Israel before Haniyeh, only to be replaced and for the organization’s capabilities to grow.
In January, Saleh al-Arouri, the deputy head of Hamas’ politburo, was killed in a strike in Beirut along with several other cadres and commanders with the group.
Two weeks ago, Israel claimed to have killed Muhammad Deif, the secretive head of Hamas’ armed wing, in a strike in Gaza that killed at least 90 Palestinians in an area it had unilaterally declared as a humanitarian zone.
Israel continued to wage attacks across Gaza by air, land and sea amid heavy fighting and ground incursions on Tuesday.
The Palestinian health ministry in Gaza said on Tuesday that 37 people had been killed in Israeli attacks over the past 24 hours, bringing the death toll to 39,400 since early October.
The actual number of fatalities is likely much higher, with thousands of people missing under the rubble or their bodies not yet recovered from Gaza’s streets.
The Israeli military withdrew from eastern Khan Younis, the largest city in southern Gaza, on Tuesday following an incursion lasting eight days and forcing another wave of mass displacement from the area.
Palestinians returned to Khan Younis to find evidence of what the government media office in Gaza described as “horrific massacres” for which it demanded international accountability.
“Palestinian rescue workers and civilians collected dead bodies from the streets of the abandoned battle zone, bringing corpses wrapped in rugs to morgues in cars and donkey carts,” Reuters reported.
The government media office said that the bodies of 255 people had been recovered and more than 30 others were missing.
During the incursion, the Israeli military fired on 31 homes with their residents inside, as well as more than 300 other homes and residential buildings.
The military also razed the cemetery in Bani Suheila and its surroundings on the eastern outskirts of Khan Younis:
#????? | ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??????*????.
?????? ??????*???? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????.
??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ????… pic.twitter.com/8uqmdsbu1V
— EekadFacts | ????? (@EekadFacts) July 30, 2024
Nearly all of Gaza under evacuation orders
Israel meanwhile issued new forced displacement orders in al-Bureij, central Gaza, “launching strikes there in apparent preparation for a new raid,” according to Reuters.
“Medics said an Israeli air strike in nearby al-Nuseirat killed 10 Palestinians as they fled from Bureij on Tuesday, and another strike killed four other Palestinians inside Bureij,” the news agency added.
More than 85 percent of the territory of Gaza is under an Israeli so-called evacuation order, the UN agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) said on Monday.
But there is no safe place for people to go, and no assurance of protection for civilians who choose to stay or are unable to evacuate from designated areas.
Repeated displacement is also making it increasingly difficult for organizations, already contending with Israel’s near-total blockade, to provide aid and services to those who were forced to leave their homes with next to nothing.
Palestinians return to eastern Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, after Israeli forces pulled out on 30 July ( APA images)
The Palestinian health ministry in Gaza said that it was no longer able to restore the functionality of the Gaza European Hospital in Khan Younis after an Israeli evacuation order was issued on 27 July.
The Palestinian Civil Defense warned that overcrowding among displaced people in Gaza, who have insufficient access to water and sanitation, was leading to the proliferation of diseases, including conditions affecting children’s skin.
By early July, the World Health Organization had recorded nearly a million cases of acute respiratory infection, while other illnesses such as diarrhea, acute jaundice and cases of suspected mumps and meningitis, as well as scabies and lice, skin rashes and chicken pox are spreading among the population.
The UN health agency said on Tuesday that it was very likely that polio has infected Palestinians in Gaza after the health ministry in the territory declared a polio epidemic across the coastal enclave on Monday.
Detection of the virus in sewage samples collected in Gaza represents “a setback” against efforts to completely eradicate the disease worldwide, Christian Lindmeier, a World Health Organization official, said on Tuesday.
Al Mezan, a Palestinian human rights group based in Gaza, warned that more than one million children in the territory “are at risk of dying if not vaccinated” for the highly infectious virus.
“To prevent thousands of deaths, the international community must ensure Israel immediately ends its genocide, including the weaponization of water and sanitation facilities,” the rights group added.
According to WHO, the disease mainly affects children under the age of 5 and one in 200 infections “leads to irreversible paralysis.” Five to 10 percent of those paralyzed die “when their breathing muscles become immobilized.”
Collapse of essential systems
With the collapse of Gaza’s solid waste management system, conditions are ripe for the disastrous spread of diseases transmitted through contamination such as polio and hepatitis A – there have been 40,000 diagnosed cases of the latter since October.
Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has seen a drop in polio vaccination rates in Gaza from 99 percent to 89 percent, according to a UNICEF spokesperson. The director of the World Health Organization announced that it was sending more than a million polio vaccines to Gaza to be administered to children “in the coming weeks,” UN News reported.
The virus, “transmitted by person-to-person spread mainly through the fecal-oral route,” according to WHO, is less frequently transmitted through contaminated water or food.
The “can emerge in areas where poor vaccination coverage allows the weakened form of the orally taken vaccine virus strain to mutate into a stronger version,” UN News added.
The vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 “had been identified at six locations in sewage samples collected last month from Khan Younis and Deir al-Balah – two Gaza cities left in ruins by nearly 10 months of intense Israeli bombardment.”
The spread of disease and epidemics is a predictable result of Israel’s genocidal military campaign, if not the intention.
In yet another case of Israeli soldiers destroying civilian infrastructure for no military purpose, soldiers recently recorded themselves detonating Canada well, the main water facility in Rafah, southern Gaza.
The Tel Aviv daily Haaretz reported on Monday that the facility “was destroyed last week with the approval of the commander of the soldiers … but without the approval of senior officers.”
But blaming lower-ranking soldiers may be an attempt to deter international courts scrutiny of more senior military personnel, while the pattern of behavior on the ground indicates that troops are ordered to destroy essential civilian infrastructure for no military purpose – a war crime.
Destroying water treatment plants is a war crime in its own right. Doing so in full knowledge that it will contribute to the spread of polio is evidence of genocidal intent. https://t.co/38PkBD4043
— Heidi Matthews (@Heidi__Matthews) July 27, 2024
Younis Tirawi, writing for Dropsite News, recounted that Giora Eiland, an adviser to Israel’s defense minister Yoav Gallant, described in October a strategy to destroy the ability of Palestinians in Gaza to pump and purify water within Gaza.
Monther Shoblak, the head of the water utility in Gaza, told Tirawi that the Canada well facility had remained functional until Israel’s ground invasion of Rafah in early May, as solar panels allowed it to operate despite Israel cutting off the supply of electricity to the territory in October.
Israel destroyed 30 water wells in the south this month alone, and displaced people have been forced to shelter in overcrowded conditions without suitable hygiene infrastructure or access to sufficient clean water, fuel, food and medicine.
The international charity Oxfam said earlier this month that “Israel damaged or destroyed five water and sanitation sites every three days since the start of this war,” reducing the amount of water available in Gaza by 94 percent to a mere 4.74 liters per person – “less than a single toilet flush.”
Israel attacks Beirut
Israel bombed southern Beirut on Tuesday, with its military claiming that it targeted Fuad Shukr, a senior Hizballah commander. Israel said that Shukr was killed but Arabic-language media said his fate remained unknown late Tuesday.
The area around Hizballah’s Shura Council in the Haret Hreik neighborhood of the Lebanese capital was also hit, that country’s state news agency reported.
Lebanon’s health ministry said that a woman and two children were killed, though “the search for more missing persons under the rubble continues.”
The apartment building in south Beirut has been decimated by what is said to be 3 missiles from an IDF drone. The strike that killed Hamas' deputy chairman Saleh al-Arouri in January left the building standing. This was meant to destroy it and take everybody with it. pic.twitter.com/OzSSD2ER3n
— Séamus Malekafzali (@Seamus_Malek) July 30, 2024
The Beirut strike took down a whole residential building, and the scale of destruction may have been intended to reinforce the threats made by Israeli leaders to inflict the same genocidal violence in Lebanon that it has in Gaza.
+The strike in Beirut on Tuesday was an anticipated “retaliation” from Tel Aviv after a projectile killed 12 children at a sports field in Majdal Shams, a city in the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights on Saturday. Israel blamed Hizballah but the Lebanese resistance group denied having any connection to the deadly blast.
Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, accused Hizballah of crossing a red line, though it is highly unlikely that the Lebanese resistance group would have deliberately targeted Majdal Shams.
A building targeted in an Israeli strike in the southern suburb of Beirut, 30 July ( Xinhua News Agency)
Amal Saad, an expert on Hizballah, said that since 8 October, the group “has refrained from targeting Israeli civilians, much less Syrian Druze.”
“The strong support for the resistance movement among this community, which lives under Israeli occupation, makes it illogical for Hizballah to risk striking in this vicinity,” she added.
Targeting civilians, whether Syrian or Israeli, “wouldn’t be strategically beneficial for Hizballah when it would inevitably lead to all out war – a war which Hizballah has been very keen to avoid as demonstrated by its sub-threshold responses to Israeli strikes on Beirut and on civilians” in Lebanon, according to Saad.
She added the group has been careful to “avoid giving Israel any pretext for waging war” but “it’s entirely expected” that Israel would exploit the tragedy “in order to deflect attention away from its daily massacres of Palestinian children” in Gaza.
Not “a single drop of blood”
Majdal Shams residents chanted “murderer, murderer” at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he attempted to visit the site of the deadly strike on Monday.
After Netanyahu left Majdal Shams, local residents verbally attacked the head of the municipality, who invited Netanyahu to the town. People yelled at him "traitor, dog" and more. https://t.co/RIbUrWnZ7A
— B.M. (@ireallyhateyou) July 29, 2024
Syrians reeling from the unprecedented mass casualty event in Majdal Shams issued a statement rejecting “that a single drop of blood be shed under the name of revenge for our children.”
After the deaths in Majdal Shams, Israeli media reported that Netanyahu canceled the exit of around 150 children from Gaza for medical treatment in the United Arab Emirates “for fear of public backlash,” the human rights group Gisha said.
In response to a petition from human rights groups, Israel’s high court on Sunday ordered the government “to inform it of its progress toward implementing a permanent mechanism for the medical evacuation of sick and injured Gazans,” The Times of Israel [reported]((https://www.timesofisrael.com/high-court-gives-government-7-days-to-come…).
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization, announced that “85 sick and severely injured people,” including 35 children, were evacuated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi for specialized care on Tuesday.
“It is the largest medical evacuation since October 2023,” he said, adding that “63 family members and caregivers accompanied the patients.”
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights said on Sunday that the ongoing closure of Gaza’s crossings, preventing “the travel of urgent and lifesaving cases,” makes clear “Israel’s commission of genocide against the people of the Gaza Strip.”
“Those who have not been killed by Israel’s war machine are not spared by the complete Israeli siege and closure on Gaza,” the rights group added, “leaving thousands of wounded and sick doomed to certain death.”
Death is all but guaranteed due to Israel’s “deliberate destruction and collapse of the healthcare system and the weakening of its remaining lifesaving resources,” according to PCHR.
Around 14,000 sick and injured patients, most of them children and older people, require care that is not available in Gaza.
PCHR estimates that hundreds of ill people have already died due to lack of access to medical treatment but there are “no statistics available in this regard due to disruptions in official medical monitoring and documentation systems.”
• Article first published in The Electronic Intifada
The post Ismail Haniyeh assassinated in Tehran after Israel bombs Beirut first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s top ceasefire negotiator, has been assassinated in an airstrike in Tehran, with Hamas leaders saying that Israel is responsible and that the move will severely undermine talks for a ceasefire amid Israel’s genocide of Gaza. Haniyeh, who was head of Hamas’s political bureau, was killed in the early hours of Wednesday in his residence in Iran’s capital…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

Fears of all-out war in the Middle East are growing after top Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran on Wednesday. Haniyeh was in Iran for the inauguration of the country’s new president. Iran and Hamas both blamed Israel, which has not officially claimed responsibility but had previously vowed to kill Haniyeh and other top Hamas leaders over the October 7 attack. The assassination came less than 24 hours after Israel took credit for killing Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah commander, in an airstrike on Beirut. For more on the significance of the assassination, we host a roundtable discussion with Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy in Tel Aviv; international politics professor Karim Makdisi, who teaches at American University of Beirut; and Palestinian American journalist Rami Khouri in Boston. “Killing Haniyeh really is a sign from the Israelis that they are not interested in negotiating the ceasefire, the hostage release, prisoner exchanges. They just want to assert Zionist Jewish supremacy in all of Palestine and control the powers around the region,” says Khouri.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Ismail Haniyeh, a prominent Palestinian political leader and the head of Hamas’ political bureau, has been assassinated today in an Israeli airstrike on Tehran.
Haniyeh was in the Iranian capital for the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.
Both Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard confirmed his death and announced ongoing investigations into the incident.
Commentators have said this assassination and the “reckless Israeli behaviour” of continuously targeting civilians in Gaza would lead to the region slipping into chaos and undermine the chances of peace.
A Palestinian refugee
Ismail Abdel Salam Ahmed Haniyeh was born on 23 January 1962 in the Shati refugee camp in the Gaza Strip.
His family originated from the village of Al-Jura, near the city of Asqalan, which was mostly destroyed and completely ethnically cleansed during the Nakba in 1948.
Haniyeh completed his early education in United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) schools and graduated from Al-Azhar Institute before earning a BA in Arabic literature from the Islamic University of Gaza in 1987.
During his university years, he was active in the Student Union Council and later held various positions at the Islamic University, eventually becoming its dean in 1992.
Following his release from an Israeli prison in 1997, Haniyeh became the head of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s office.
Political life
Haniyeh’s political experience included multiple arrests by Israeli authorities during the First Intifada, with charges related to his involvement with the Palestinian Resistance movement Hamas.
He was exiled to southern Lebanon in 1992 but returned to Gaza after the Oslo Accords.
Haniyeh led the “Change and Reform List”, which won the majority in the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, leading to his appointment as the head of the Palestinian government in February 2006.
Despite being dismissed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in June 2007 after the Hamas military wing took control of Gaza, Haniyeh continued to lead the government in Gaza.
He later played a role in national reconciliation efforts, which led to the formation of a unity government in June 2014.
Haniyeh was elected head of the Hamas political bureau in May 2017.

Al-Aqsa flood
On 7 October 2023, the Al-Qassam Brigades, led by Mohammed Deif, launched the Al-Aqsa Flood operation against Israel.
In the genocidal Israel war that has followed in the past nine months, Haniyeh suffered personal losses, including the killings of several family members due to Israeli airstrikes.
Republished from The Palestine Chronicle with permission. The Chronicle is edited by Palestinian journalist and media consultant Ramzy Baroud, author of The Last Earth: A Palestine Story, who visited New Zealand in 2019.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Ismail Haniyeh, a prominent Palestinian political leader and the head of Hamas’ political bureau, has been assassinated today in an Israeli airstrike on Tehran.
Haniyeh was in the Iranian capital for the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.
Both Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard confirmed his death and announced ongoing investigations into the incident.
Commentators have said this assassination and the “reckless Israeli behaviour” of continuously targeting civilians in Gaza would lead to the region slipping into chaos and undermine the chances of peace.
A Palestinian refugee
Ismail Abdel Salam Ahmed Haniyeh was born on 23 January 1962 in the Shati refugee camp in the Gaza Strip.
His family originated from the village of Al-Jura, near the city of Asqalan, which was mostly destroyed and completely ethnically cleansed during the Nakba in 1948.
Haniyeh completed his early education in United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) schools and graduated from Al-Azhar Institute before earning a BA in Arabic literature from the Islamic University of Gaza in 1987.
During his university years, he was active in the Student Union Council and later held various positions at the Islamic University, eventually becoming its dean in 1992.
Following his release from an Israeli prison in 1997, Haniyeh became the head of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s office.
Political life
Haniyeh’s political experience included multiple arrests by Israeli authorities during the First Intifada, with charges related to his involvement with the Palestinian Resistance movement Hamas.
He was exiled to southern Lebanon in 1992 but returned to Gaza after the Oslo Accords.
Haniyeh led the “Change and Reform List”, which won the majority in the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, leading to his appointment as the head of the Palestinian government in February 2006.
Despite being dismissed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in June 2007 after the Hamas military wing took control of Gaza, Haniyeh continued to lead the government in Gaza.
He later played a role in national reconciliation efforts, which led to the formation of a unity government in June 2014.
Haniyeh was elected head of the Hamas political bureau in May 2017.

Al-Aqsa flood
On 7 October 2023, the Al-Qassam Brigades, led by Mohammed Deif, launched the Al-Aqsa Flood operation against Israel.
In the genocidal Israel war that has followed in the past nine months, Haniyeh suffered personal losses, including the killings of several family members due to Israeli airstrikes.
Republished from The Palestine Chronicle with permission. The Chronicle is edited by Palestinian journalist and media consultant Ramzy Baroud, author of The Last Earth: A Palestine Story, who visited New Zealand in 2019.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.

We continue to look at the record of Donald Trump’s vice-presidential running mate, Senator J.D. Vance, with a focus on his foreign policy actions, with Matt Duss of the Center for International Policy, former adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders. Vance is “very aligned with Trump,” says Duss, such as in his support of the Abraham Accords, the Arab-Israeli normalization deal signed under the Trump administration that sought to increase Israel’s power in the region at the expense of Palestinian rights.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
In a sign of major geopolitical realignment, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states sent warm congratulations to Iran on its newly elected President Masoud Pezeshkian.
Saudi King Salman welcomed the news of Iran’s election winner last weekend and said he hoped that the two Persian Gulf nations would continue developing their relations “between our brotherly people”.
That olive branch from Saudi Arabia to Iran is an unprecedented diplomatic development – one that will trigger alarm in Washington whose primary goal in the Middle East has been to isolate Iran from its neighbors.
There were similar cordial official messages from Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain. Together with Saudi Arabia, these oil-rich states comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). There is much talk now of the Gulf Arab bloc normalizing relations with its Persian neighbor.
For his part, President Pezeshkian – a heart surgeon by profession – says he wants to prioritize peaceful regional relations.
For decades, since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Gulf Arab states have viewed the Islamic Republic with deep suspicion and hostility. For one thing, there is the sectarian tension between Shia Islam as professed mainly by Iran and the Sunni Islam that dominates the Gulf Arab states.
There is also the visceral fear among the Arab monarchies that the revolutionary politics espoused by Iran might infect their masses thereby threatening the rigid autocracies and their system of hereditary rule. The fact that Iran holds elections stands in stark contrast to the Gulf kingdoms ruled by royal families. So much for President Joe Biden’s mantra about the U.S. supposedly supporting democracy over autocracy.
The United States and its Western allies, in particular, the former colonial power Britain, have exploited the tensions in the Persian Gulf to exercise a divide-and-rule policy. The British are past masters at playing the sectarian game in all their former colonies from Ireland to Myanmar and everywhere in between, including the Middle East.
Taking a leaf out of that imperialist playbook, Washington has historically fuelled fears of Iranian expansionism. This has ensured Saudi Arabia and its Gulf neighbors remain under U.S. “protection” which is vital for maintaining the petrodollar system that underpins the American dollar as the international reserve currency. Without the petrodollar privileges, the U.S. economy would implode.
Secondly, the Gulf is an eye-watering huge market for American weapons exports, from overrated Patriot air defense systems to overpriced fighter jets.
In short, the policy of the U.S. and its Western allies was and is to promote a Cold War in the Gulf between the Arab states and Iran.
The schismatic animosity cannot be overstated. The Arab monarchies were habitually paranoid about Iran infiltrating their societies. Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni rulers conducted severe repressive policies towards their Shia populations.
In 2010, an explosive exposé by Julian Assange’s Wikileaks organization showed the then Saudi ruler King Abdullah pleading with the United States to launch military attacks on Iran. The Saudi monarch described Iran as “the head of the snake” and he implored the U.S. to decapitate the Islamic Republic.
Fast forward to the present Saudi ruler, King Salman, a half-brother of the deceased Abdullah, who is now calling for fraternal relations with Iran – as are other Gulf Arab states.
Saudi heir to the throne, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also extended his congratulations to Iran’s new president and went further to propose regional security cooperation. The Saudi heir reportedly told President Pezeshkian: “I affirm my keenness on developing and deepening the relations that unite our countries and peoples and serve our mutual interests.”
This is an astounding turnaround for positive relations. Crown Prince MbS was the main instigator of Saudi’s disastrous war on Yemen in 2015 which was prompted by his fear of Iran’s alliance with the Houthis in Saudi’s southern neighbor following the landmark international nuclear deal with Tehran.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Sunni states were also instrumental in pursuing the U.S.-led covert war for regime change in Syria against Iranian ally Bashar al Assad. That proxy war effort was a defeat for the U.S. side after Russia and Iran stepped in to defend Syria.
What’s happening here is a major geopolitical realignment. Russia, Iran, China and others have put a decisive marker down spelling the end of U.S. and Western hegemony.
It is clear that the U.S.-led so-called “rules-based global order” is nothing more than a dead-end scam imposed on the rest of the world. All empirical evidence shows that the primary enemy of international peace and security is the U.S. hegemon and its Western vassals.
The U.S.-instigated proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is recklessly pushing the world to the abyss of a nuclear catastrophe. Elsewhere, in the Middle East with the Western-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza and the relentless belligerence of NATO in the Asia-Pacific toward China, it is increasingly evident what is the source of international conflict and chaos – U.S.-led Western imperialism.
The Gulf Arab leaders may not be reacting out of democratic sensibilities. But they must surely know that the writing is on the wall for American hegemony and its destructive death wish to survive at all costs.
The world is changing dramatically to a new multipolar order where the majority of nations are trying to come to a peaceful coexistence.
Last year, China brokered a historic rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. All of these parties know that the U.S. disorder of hegemonic Cold War division is unsustainable and ultimately self-defeating for those who adhere to it.
The Saudis know that the Eurasian economic engine is driving the world economy and the embrace of the Global South of a multipolar order is hammering nails into the coffin of Western hegemony.
Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arab states are signing up as new members of the Shanghai Cooperation Council which also includes Russia, China, Iran, India and Pakistan, among others.
King Salman and other Arab leaders are finally realizing that Uncle Sam’s patronage is like putting a loaded gun to your head. As that old American war criminal Henry Kissinger once reputedly remarked with his trademark cynicism: being an enemy of the U.S. can be dangerous but to be an ally of Uncle Sam is absolutely fatal.
The days of Washington and its Western minions playing divide and rule are over because they have discredited themselves irreparably.
• First published in Strategic Culture Foundation
The post U.S. divide and rule no more… Washington’s Gulf allies embrace Iran first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Yogi Berra, famous as a baseball catcher and a wandering philosopher, is credited with the statement, “If you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Uncle Sam, famous for initiating endless wars and philosophizing about democracy and human rights follows Yogi’s pronouncement in only one direction ─ the road to war.
The endless wars, one in almost every year of the American Republic, are shadowed by words of peace, democracy, and human rights. Happening far from U.S. soil, their effects are more visual than visceral, appearing as images on a television screen. The larger post-World War II conflagrations, those that followed the “war to end all wars,” in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have not permanently resolved the issues that promoted the wars. From their littered battlefields remain the old contestants and from an embittered landscape new contestants emerge to oppose the U.S. “world order.” The U.S. intelligence community said, “it views four countries as posing the main national security challenges in the coming year: China, followed by Russia, Iran and North Korea.” Each challenge has a fork in the road. Each fork taken is leading to war.
China
“China increasingly is a near-peer competitor, challenging the United States in multiple arenas — especially economically, militarily, and technologically — and is pushing to change global norms,” says a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Interpretation ─ China has disrupted the United States’ world hegemony and military superiority. Only the U.S. is allowed to have hegemony and the military superiority that assures the hegemony.
Foreign Policy (FP) magazine’s article, “How Primed for War Is China,” goes further: “The likelihood of war with China may be the single-most important question in international affairs today.”
If China uses military force against Taiwan or another target in the Western Pacific, the result could be war with the United States—a fight between two nuclear-armed giants brawling for hegemony in that region and the wider world. If China attacked amid ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the world would be consumed by interlocking conflicts across Eurasia’s key regions, a global conflagration unlike anything since World War II. How worried should we be?
No worry about that. Beijing will not pursue war. Why would it? It is winning and winners have no need to go to war. The concern is that the continuous trashing will lead the PRC to trash its treasury holdings that finance U.S. trade debt (already started), use reserves to purchase huge chunks of United States assets, diminish its hefty agricultural imports from Yankee farms, and enforce its ban of exports of rare earth extraction and separation technologies (China produces 60 percent of the world’s rare earth materials and processes nearly 90 percent). The U.S. should worry that, by not cooperating, the Red Dragon may decide it is better not to bother with Washington and use its overwhelming industrial power, with which the U.S. cannot compete, to sink the U.S. economy.
China does not chide the U.S. about its urban blight, mass shootings, drug problem, riots in Black neighborhoods, enforcing the Caribbean as an American lake, campus revolution, and media control by special interests. However, U.S. administrations insist on being involved in China’s internal affairs — Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, South China Sea, Belt and Road, Uyghurs — and never shows how this involvement benefits the U.S. people.
U.S. interference in China’s internal affairs has not changed anything! The United States is determined to halt China’s progress to economic dominance and to no avail. China will continue to do what China wants to do. With an industrious, capable, and educated population, which is four times the size of the U.S. population, arable land 75 percent of that of the U.S. (295,220,748 arable acres compared to 389,767,633 arable acres), and a multiple of resources that the world needs, China, by default will eventually emerge, if it has not already, as the world’s economic superpower.
What does the U.S. expect from its STOP the unstoppable China policy? Where can its rhetoric and aggressive actions lead but to confrontation? The only worthwhile confrontation is America confronting itself. The party is over and it’s time to call it a day, a new day and a new America ─ not going to war to protect its interests but resting comfortably by sharing its interests.
Russia
Western politicos responded to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s comment, “The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century,” with boisterous laughter. Go to Ukraine and observe the tragedy and learn that Putin’s remark has been too lightly regarded. It’s not a matter of right and wrong. It’s a matter of life and death. The nation, which made the greatest contribution in defeating Nazi Germany and endured the most physical and mental losses, suffered the most territorial, social, and economic forfeitures in post-World War II.
From a Russian perspective, Crimea had been a vital part of Russia since the time of Catherine the Great ─ a warm water port and outlet to the Black Sea. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s attachment of Crimea to The Ukraine Republic was an administrative move, and as long as Ukraine allowed Russia free entry to Crimea, Moscow did not seek annexation. To the Russia government of year 2014, the Euromaidan Revolution changed the arrangement. Putin easily rationalized annexing a Ukraine region whose population was 2/3 Russian, considered a part of Russia, and was under attack by Ukrainian nationalists.
Maintaining Ukraine in the Russian orbit, or at least, preventing it from becoming a NATO ally, was a natural position for any Russian government, a mini Monroe Doctrine that neutralizes bordering nations and impedes foreign intrusions. Change in Ukraine’s status forecast a change in Russia’s position, a certain prediction of war. Ukraine and Russia were soul mates; their parting was a trauma that could only be erased by seizure of the Maiden after the Euromaidan.
Ukraine has lost the war; at least they cannot win, but don’t tell anybody. Its forces are defeated and depleted and cannot mount an offensive against the capably defended Russian captured territory. Its people and economy will continue to suffer and soldiers will die in the small battles that will continue and continue. Ukraine’s hope is having Putin leave by a coup, voluntarily, or involuntarily and having a new Russian administration that is compliant with Zelensky’s expectations. The former is possible; the latter is not possible. Russian military will not allow its sacrifices to be reversed.
For Ukrainians, it is a “zero sum” battle; they can only lose and cannot dictate how much they lose. A truce is impeded by Putin’s ambition to incorporate Odessa into Russia and link Russia through captured Ukraine territory to Moldova’s breakaway Republic of Transnistria, which the Russian president expects will become a Russian satellite, similar to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This leaves Ukraine with two choices: (1) Forget the European Union, forget NATO, and remain a nation loosely allied with Russia, or (2) Solicit support from the United States and Europe and eventually start a World War that destroys everybody.
As of July 8, 2024, Ukraine and United States are headed for the latter fork in the road. After entering into war, the contestants find no way, except to end it with a more punishing war. That cannot happen. Russians crossing the Dnieper River and capturing Odessa is also unlikely. The visions of the presidents of Russia and Ukraine clash with reality. Their visions and their presence are the impediments to resolving the conflict. Both must retire to their palatial homes and write their memoirs. A world tour featuring the two in a debate is a promising You Tube event.
Commentators characterized the Soviet Union as a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. After it became scrambled eggs, Russia’s characterization became simplified; no matter what Putin’s Russia does, it is viewed as a cold, icy, and heartless land that preys on its neighbors and causes misery to the world. Apply a little warmth, defrost the ice, and Russia has another appearance.
Iran
Ponder and ponder, why is the U.S. eager to assist Israel and act aggressively toward Iran? What has Iran done to the U.S. or anybody? The US wants Iran to eschew nuclear and ballistic weapons, but the provocative approach indicates other purposes — completely alienate Iran, destroy its military capability, and bring Tehran to collapse and submission. Accomplishing the far-reaching goals will not affect the average American, increase US defense posture, or diminish the continuous battering of the helpless faces of the Middle East. The strategy mostly pleases Israel and Saudi Arabia, who have engineered it, share major responsibility for the Middle East turmoil, and are using mighty America to subdue the principal antagonist to their malicious activities.
Although Iran has not sent a single soldier cross its borders to invade another nation and has insufficient military power to contest a United States’ reprisal, the Islamic republic is accused of trying to conquer the entire Middle East. Because rebellions from oppressed Shi’a factions occur in Bahrain and Yemen, Iran is accused of using surrogates to extend their power ─ guilt by association. Because Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah have extended friendship (who does not want to have friends), Iran, who cannot even sell its pistachio nuts to these nations, is accused of controlling them.
Iran is an independent nation with its own concepts for governing. The Islamic Republic might not be a huggable nation, but compared to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, it is a model democracy and a theocratic lightweight. Except for isolate incidents, Iran has never attacked anyone, doesn’t indicate it intends to attack anyone, and doesn’t have the capability to wage war against a major nation.
Defined as Iran, the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism, the Iranian government has not been involved in terrorist acts against the United States, or proven to have engaged in international terrorism. There have been some accusations concerning one incident in Argentina, one in the U.S. and a few in Europe against dissidents who cause havoc in Iran, but these have been isolated incidents. Two accusations go back thirty to forty years, and none are associated with a particular organization.
If the US honestly wants to have Iran promise never to be a warring nation, it would approach the issues with a question, “What will it take for you (Iran) never to pursue weapons of mass destruction?” Assuredly, the response would include provisions that require the U.S. to no longer assist the despotic Saudi Kingdom in its oppression of minorities and opposition, in its export of terrorists, and interference in Yemen. The response would propose that the U.S. eliminate financial, military and cooperative support to Israel’s theft of Palestinian lands, oppressive conditions imposed on Palestinians, and daily killings of Palestinian people, and combat Israel’s expansionist plans.
The correct question soliciting a formative response and leading to decisive US actions resolves two situations and benefits the U.S. — fear of Iran developing weapons of mass destruction is relieved and the Middle East is pointed in a direction that achieves justice, peace, and stability for its peoples. The road to war is a tool for Israel’s objectives. The U.S. continues on that road, willingly sacrificing Americans for the benefit of the Zionist state. Tyranny and treason in the American government and the American people either are not observant or just don’t care.
Democratic Republic of North Korea (DPRK)
Nowhere and seemingly everywhere, North Korea stands at a fork in the road. The small and unimportant state that wants to be left alone and remain uncontaminated by global germs, is constantly pushed into responding to military maneuvers at its border, threats of annihilation, and insults to its leaders and nation. From United States’ actions and press coverage, North Korea assumes the world stage as a dynamic and mighty nation and exerts a power that forces respect and response. How can a nation, constantly described as an insular and “hermit kingdom,” cast a shadow that reaches 5000 miles to the United States mainland and speak with a voice that generates a worldwide listening audience?
The world faces a contemporary DPRK, a DPRK that enters the third decade of the 21st century with a changed perspective from the DPRK that entered the century. Rehashing of old grievances, reciting past DPRK policies that caused horrific happenings to its people, and purposeful misunderstanding of contemporary North Korea lead to misdirected policies and unwarranted problems. Purposeful misunderstanding comes from exaggerations of negative actions, from not proving these negative actions, from evaluating actions from agendas and opinions and not from facts, from selecting and guessing the facts, and from approaching matters from different perspectives and consciences.
Instead of heading away from North Korea, the U.S. speeds toward a confrontation and North Korea makes preparations — developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems and signing a mutual defense pact with Russia. The U.S. State department paves the road to war and, as a favor to its antagonist, induces it to develop the offensive and defensive capabilities to wage the war. Apparently, the U.S. defense department has orders not to attack the DPRK before it has ICBMs and warheads that can demolish the U.S. Unlike Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, let’s make this a fair fight.
North and South Vietnam have only one problem ─ U.S. interference in their internal affairs. Stop the joint maneuvers and remove the U.S. troops and the North and South will learn how to get along and realize they must get along. If they do not find friendship and engage in hostilities, they will resolve the issue in a way that badly affects both and does not affect the U.S. Why internationalize an issue that is national and can be contained? Why make the U.S. land subjected to possible attack because two miscreants cannot behave?
North Korea might go down in history as the nation that awakened the world to the consequences of global saber rattling. It has shown that the nuclear world can become one big poker game, in which a challenge to a bluff can be an ‘all win’ and ‘all lose’ proposition. Which gambler is willing to play that game when an ‘all win’ doesn’t add much more to what the gambler already has, and an ‘all lose’ means leaving the person with nothing? The odds greatly favor America, but the wager return is not worth taking the bet, despite the odds. Keep it sweet and simple, let the Koreans settle their problems, and we will see doves flying over the Korean peninsula.
The Road to War
The U.S. does not develop foreign policies from facts and reality; they are developed from made-up stories that fit agendas. Those who guide the agendas solicit support from the population by providing narratives that rile the American public and define its enemies. This diversion from facts and truth is responsible for the counterproductive wars fought by the U.S., for Middle East turmoil, for a world confronted with terrorism, and for the contemporary horrors in Ukraine and Gaza. U.S. foreign policy is not the cause of all the problems, but it intensifies them and rarely solves any of them.
Because violence and military challenges are being used to resolve the escalating conflicts throughout the globe, should not more simplified and less aggressive approaches be surveyed and determined if they can serve to resolve the world conflagrations. Features of that determination modify current U.S. thinking:
(1) Rather than concluding nations want to confront U.S. military power, realize nations fear military power and desire peaceful relations with the powerful United States.
(2) Rather than attempting to steer adversaries to a lose position, steer them to a beneficial position.
(3) Rather than denying nations the basic requirements for survival, assist their populations in times of need.
(4) Rather than provoking nations to military buildup and action, assuage them into feeling comfortable and not threatened.
(5) Rather than challenging by military threat, show willingness to negotiate to a mutually agreed solution.
(6) Rather than interfering in domestic disputes, recognize the sovereign rights of all nations to solve their own problems.
(7) Rather than relying on incomplete information, purposeful myths, and misinterpretations, learn to understand the vagaries and seemingly irrational attitudes of sovereign nations whose cultures produce different mindsets.
Recent elections in the United Kingdom indicate a shift from adventurism to attention with domestic problems. The Labor Party win over a Conservative government that perceived Ukraine as fighting its war and the election advances of the far right National Rally and the far-left Unbowed Parties in France show a trend away from war. A win by Donald Trump, whose principal attraction is his supra-nationalist antiwar policy, will emphasize that trend and indicate that the most disliked of two disliked is due to the abhorrence to war.
From ever war to war no more.
A pleasant thought
that U.S. administrations thwart.
All roads still lead to war.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Voters in Iran elected Masoud Pezeshkian as president Saturday. The heart surgeon and former health minister defeated hard-liner Saeed Jalili in a runoff vote held just weeks after President Ebrahim Raisi and other top officials died in a helicopter crash. Pezeshkian has criticized Iran’s mandatory hijab law for women and has promised to disband Iran’s morality police, as well as better relations…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Political moderation has won a victory in Iran. Cardiac surgeon and former health minister Masoud Pezeshkian defeated stalwart conservative Saeed Jalili in a presidential runoff election, by a margin of 16.3 million votes to 13.5 million votes. Much of Pezeshkian’s platform centered on domestic issues such as loosening strictures regarding female dress. But he also called for engagement with the…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Political moderation has won a victory in Iran. Cardiac surgeon and former health minister Masoud Pezeshkian defeated stalwart conservative Saeed Jalili in a presidential runoff election, by a margin of 16.3 million votes to 13.5 million votes. Much of Pezeshkian’s platform centered on domestic issues such as loosening strictures regarding female dress. But he also called for engagement with the…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
For the past eight months, Hezbollah has attacked the northern portion of Israel in an attempt to pull the Israeli army out from Gaza, reports Al Jazeera. Fears of a wider war have prompted international calls to deescalate the situation at the border between Lebanon and Israel. During a recent meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Reformist legislator Masoud Pezeshkian and conservative former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili will face off in a second round of voting after neither candidate secured a majority of the votes in Iran’s election Friday. Surprise elections in Iran were called after conservative President Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash on May 19, opening what one expert called a “void in the Islamic…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Faramarz Farbod: You have taught at Princeton University for four decades; you were the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in Israel (2008-2014); and you are the author of numerous books about global issues and international law. In preparation for this conversation, I have been reading your autobiography, Public Intellectual: The Life of a Citizen Pilgrim (2019). Tell us about yourself and how you became politically engaged in your own words.
Richard Falk: I grew up in New York City in a kind of typical middle-class, post-religious, Jewish family that had a lot of domestic stress because I had an older sister with mental issues who was hospitalized for most of her life. This caused my parents to divorce because they saw the issues in a very different way. I was brought up by my father. He was a lawyer and quite right-wing, a Cold War advocate, and a friend of some of the prominent people who were anticommunists at that time, including Kerensky, the interim Prime Minister of Russia after the revolution between the Czar and Lenin. My father had a kind of entourage of anti-communist people who were frequent guests. So, I grew up in this kind of conservative, secular environment, post-religious, post any kind of significant cultural relationship to my ethnically Jewish identity.
I attended a fairly progressive private school that I didn’t like too much because I was more interested in sports than academics at that stage of my life. I managed to go to the university and gradually became more academically oriented. I was jolted into a fit of realism by being on academic probation after my first year at the University of Pennsylvania. That scared me enough that I became a better student. I went to law school after graduating from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in economics. But I knew I didn’t want to be a lawyer in the way my father was. So, it was a very puzzling time. I studied Indian law and language to make myself irrelevant to the law scene in the US. I never thought of myself as an academic because of the mediocre academic record I had managed to compile. When I graduated from law school, I was supposed to go to India on a Fulbright, but it was canceled at the last minute because India hadn’t paid for some grain under the Public Law-480 program [commonly known as Food for Peace signed into law by President Eisenhower in 1954 to liquidate US surplus agricultural products and increasingly used as a policy tool to advance US strategic and diplomatic interests with “friendly” nations]. It turned out Ohio State University was so desperate to fill a vacancy created by the sickness of one of its faculty that they hired me as a visiting professor. I realized immediately that it was a good way out for me. I managed to stay there for six years until I went to Princeton for 40 years.
I became gradually liberated from my father’s conservatism and achieved a certain kind of political identity while opposing the Vietnam War. That took a very personal turn when I was invited to go to Vietnam in 1968. There I encountered the full force of what it meant to be a Third World country seeking national independence and yet be opposed by colonial and post-colonial intervention. I was very impressed by the Vietnamese leadership, which I had the opportunity to meet. It was very different from the East European and Soviet leadership that I had earlier summoned some contact with. They were very humanistic and intelligent and oriented toward a kind of post-war peace with the US. They were more worried about China than they were about the US because China was their traditional enemy. But it made me see the world from a different perspective. I felt personally transformed and identified with their struggle for independence and the courage and friendship they exhibited towards me.
FF: What did you teach at Princeton University?
RF: My academic background was in international law. Princeton had no law school, so in a way, I was a disciplinary refugee. I began teaching international relations as well as international law. The reason they hired me was that they had an endowed chair in international law instead of a law school and they hadn’t been able to find anyone who was trained in law but not so interested in it. They tracked me down in Ohio State and offered me this very good academic opportunity. They invited me as a visiting professor first and then some years later offered me this chair which had accumulated a lot of resources because they had been unable to fill this position and I was able to have a secretary and research assistants and other kinds of perks that are not normal even at a rich university like Princeton. I felt more kind of an outsider there in terms of both social background and political orientation, but it was a very privileged place to be in many ways that had very good facilities, and I was still enough of an athlete to use the tennis and squash courts as a mode of daily therapy.
FF: Why would the Vietnamese leadership invite you to come to Vietnam to meet them? Was it because you were a professor at a prestigious university, which gave you an elite status, or was it something else?
RF: I think it was partly because of my background. I had written some law journal articles that had gotten a bit of attention, and somebody must have recommended me. I don’t know. I was somewhat surprised. I was supposed to go with a well-known West Coast author considered a left person, but she got sick, and I was accompanied by a very young lawyer. So, I was basically on my own, inexperienced, and didn’t know what to expect. It seemed a risky thing to do from a professional point of view because I was going as an opponent of an ongoing war. There was a 19th-century law that said if you engage in private diplomacy, you’re subject to some kind of criminal prosecution. I didn’t know what to anticipate. But it turned out this was at a time when the US was at least pretending to seek a peaceful negotiation to end its involvement. So, when I came back, because I had these meetings with the Prime Minister and others who had given me a peace proposal that was better than what Kissinger negotiated many deaths later during the Nixon presidency, the US government rather than prosecuting me, came to debrief me and invited me to the State Department and so on, which was something of a surprise.
FF: Did the State Department take this peace proposal seriously?
RF: I don’t know what happened internally in the government. I made them aware of it. It was given a front-page New York Times coverage for a couple of days. There was this atmosphere at that time, in the spring of 1968, that was disposed toward finding some way out of this impasse that had been reached in the war itself. The war couldn’t be won, and the phrase of that time was “peace with honor” though it was hard to have much honor after all the devastation that had been carried out.
FF: What were the elements of that peace proposal given to you that were striking to you?
RF: The thing that surprised me was that they agreed to allow a quite large number of American troops to stay in Vietnam and to be present while a pre-election was internationally monitored in the southern part of Vietnam. They envisioned some kind of coalition government emerging from those elections. It was quite forthcoming given the long struggle and the heavy casualties they had endured. It was a war in which the future in a way was anticipated; the US completely dominated the military dimensions of the war, land, sea, and air, but managed to lose the war. That puzzle between having military superiority and yet failing to control the political outcome is a pattern that was repeated in several places, including later in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is a lesson the US elites can not learn. They are unable to learn because of the strength of the military-industrial-congressional complex. They can’t accept the limited agency of military power in the post-colonial world. Therefore, they keep repeating this Vietnam pattern in different forms. They learned some political lessons like not having as much TV coverage of the US casualties. One of the things that was often said by those who supported the war was that it wasn’t lost in Vietnam; it was lost in the US living rooms. Years later, we heard the same concerns with “embedded” journalists with combat forces, for instance, in the first Gulf War. It was a time when they abolished the draft and relied on a voluntary, professional armed forces. They did their best to pacify American political engagement through more control of the media and other techniques. But it didn’t change this pattern of heavy military involvement and political disappointment.
FF: This pattern maybe repeating itself in Gaza as we speak. But I would like to ask you a follow up question. You said that the reason essentially for the persistence of that pattern is the existence of a powerful military-industrial-congressional complex. Are you assuming that the US political leadership is wishes to learn the hard lessons but gets blocked by the influence of this complex? Could it be that the US ruling class is in fact so immersed in imperial consciousness that it cannot learn the right lessons after all? When the US leaders look at debacles in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, don’t they seek to learn lessons to pursue their imperial policies more effectively the next time? Which of these perspectives is closer to reality in your thinking?
RF: The essential point is that the political gatekeepers only select potential leaders who either endorse or consider it a necessity to go along with this consensus as to putting the military budget above partisan politics and making it a matter of bipartisan consensus with small agreements at the margins about whether this or that weapon system should be given priority and greater resource. Occasionally one or two people in Congress will challenge that kind of idea but nothing politically significant in terms of friction. There’s no friction in terms of this way of seeing the projection of US influence in the post-colonial world.
FF: Let’s assume that’s correct, and I think you’re right about that. But why is that the case? Is it because the US political class knows that a modern capitalist political economy and state needs this military industrial complex as a kind of floor to the economy, that this floor needs to exist, otherwise, if you remove it, stagnationist tendencies will prevail? Is this military industrial floor a requirement of modern US capitalism? Is that why they’re thinking in this way?
RF: It is a good question. I’m not sure. I think that the core belief is one that’s deep in the political culture. That somehow strength is measured by military capabilities and the underrating of other dimensions of influence and leadership. This is sustained by Wall Street kind of perspectives that see the arms industry as very important component of the economy and by the government bureaucracy that became militarized as a consequence first of World War Two and then along the Cold War. It overbalanced support for the military as a kind of essential element of government credibility. You couldn’t break into those Washington elites unless you were seen as a supporter of this level of consensus. It’s similar in a way to the unquestioning bipartisan support for Israel, which was, until this Gaza crisis, beyond political questioning, and still is beyond political questioning in Washington, despite it being subjected for the first time to serious political doubts among the citizens.
FF: I think you’re right. There is a cultural element here as well in addition to the uses of military Keynesianism for domestic economic reasons and for imperial reasons to project power. I want to ask you one final question about your reflections on Vietnam. What was the quarrel about from the US perspective? Why was the US so keen on having decades of engagement after the French were defeated in early 1950s all the way to mid 1970s? Why did the US engage in such destructive behavior?
RF: I think there are two main reasons. Look at the Pentagon Papers that were released by Daniel Ellsberg; they were a study of the US involvement in Vietnam.
FF: In 1971.
RF: Yes in 1971, but they go back to the beginning of the engagement. The US didn’t even distinguish between Vietnam and China. They called the Vietnamese Chicoms in those documents. Part of the whole motivation was this obsession with containing China after its revolution in 1949. The second idea was this falling dominoes image that if Vietnam went in a communist direction, other countries in the region would follow and that would have a significant bearing on the global balance and on the whole geopolitics of containment. The third reason was the US trying to exhibit solidarity with the French, who had been defeated in the Indochina war, and to at least limit the scope of that defeat and assert a kind of Western ideological hegemony in the rest of Vietnam.
FF: I think Indonesia was probably more important from the US perspective. Once there was a successful US-backed coup d’etat in 1965, some in the US argued that perhaps it’s over. The US has won and achieved its strategic objectives by securing Indonesia from falling in the image of the falling dominoes. The US could have gotten out of Vietnam then. But it didn’t. Maybe this was because of concerns about losing credibility. Do you have any thoughts on this matter?
RF: Yes, that’s a very important observation and it’s hard to document because people don’t acknowledge it fully. The support that the US and particularly CIA gave to the Indonesian effort at genocidal assault on the Sukarno elements of pro-Marxist, anti-Western constituents there resulted in a very deadly killing fields. Indonesia was from a resource and a geopolitical point of view far more important than Vietnam. But Vietnam had built-up a constituency within the armed forces and the counterinsurgency specialists that created a strong push to demonstrate that the US could succeed in this kind of war. The defeat which eventually was acknowledged in effect was thought correctly to inhibit support within the United States for future regime changing interventions and other kinds of foreign policy.
FF: Let’s move on to another politically engaged episode in your life. You were engaged with the revolutionary processes in Iran in late 1970s. You even met Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978 in a three-hour-long meeting prior to his departure from Paris to Iran in early 1979 when he founded the Islamic Republic and assumed its Supreme Leadership until his death in 1989. What were your thoughts about the Iranian revolution? And what are your reflections today given the vantage point of 45 years of post-revolutionary history? Also tell us what were your impressions of Ayatollah Khomeini in that long meeting you had with him?
RF: My initial involvement with Iran was a consequence of several Iranian students of mine who were active at Princeton. Princeton had several prominent meetings in 1978 during the year of the Revolution. As a person who had been involved with Vietnam, I was approached by these students to speak and to be involved with their activities. They were all at least claiming to be victims of SAVAK, the Iranian intelligence service under the Shah that was accused of torturing people in prison. I was convinced that after Vietnam, the next place the US would be involved in a regressive manner would be in Iran in support the Shah. Recall that Henry Kissinger in his book on diplomacy says that the Shah was the rarest of things and an unconditional US ally. By that he meant that he did things for Israel that were awkward even for the US to do and he supplied energy to South Africa during the apartheid period. This sense that there would be a confrontation of some sort in Iran guided my early thinking. Then I also had this friendship with Mansour Farhang, who was an intellectual opponent of the Shah’s regime [and later the revolutionary Iran’s first ambassador to the UN] and represented the Iranian bazaari [pertaining to the traditional merchant class] view of Iranian politics that objected to the Shah’s efforts at neoliberal economic globalization. All that background accounted for my invitation to visit Iran and learn first-hand what the revolution was about.
I went with the former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a young religious leader. Three of us spent two quite fascinating weeks in Iran in the moment of maximum ferment because the Shah left the country while we were there. It was a very interesting psychological moment. The people we were with in the city of Qazvin on the day the Shah left couldn’t believe it. They thought it was a trick to get people to show their real political identity as a prelude to a new round of repression. During the Carter presidency, the US was very supportive of the Shah’s use of force in suppressing internal revolt. They had an interval at [the September 1978] Camp David talks, seeking peace between Egypt and Israel, to congratulate the Shah on the shooting of demonstrators [on 8 September in Jaleh Square] in Tehran. That was seen as the epitome of interference in Iran’s internal politics.
After our visit, we met many religious leaders and secular opponents of the Shah’s government. It was a time when Carter sent the NATO General Huyser to Iran to try to help the armed forces. Because our visit went well, we were given the impression that as a reward for our visit we would have this meeting with Khomeini in Paris, which we did. My impression was of a very severe individual, but very intelligent, with very strong eyes that captured your attention. He was impressive in the sense that he started the meeting by asking us questions – quite important ones as things turned out. His main question was: Did we think the US would intervene as it had in the past in 1953 against Mossadeq? Would the US repeat that kind of intervention in the present context? He went on to add that if the US did not intervene, he saw no obstacle to the normalization of relations. That view was echoed by the US ambassador in Iran, William Sullivan, during our meeting with him. Khomeini objected to speaking of the Iranian revolution and insisted on calling it the Islamic revolution. He extended his condemnation of the Shah’s dynasty to Saudi Arabia and the gulf monarchies arguing that they were as decadent and exploitative as was the Shah. He used a very colorful phrase that I remember to this day, which was the Shah had created “a river of blood” between the state and society. His own private ambition was to return to Iran and resume his religious life. He did not want to be a political leader at that point at least or he may not have understood the degree of support that he enjoyed in Iran at that time. He did go back to the religious city of Qom and resumed a religious life but was led to believe that Bazargan, the Prime Minister of Iran’s interim government, was putting people in charge of running the country who were sacrificing revolutionary goals.
FF: When you met Ayatollah Khomeini, were you aware of the series of lectures he had given in the early 1970s in Najaf while in exile in Iraq that were smuggled via audio cassettes into mosque networks inside Iran and later published as a book titled Islamic Government: Governance of the Jurist? Some people knew that he had those ideas about an Islamic state, but he did not talk about it in Paris. Did he talk about it when you met him?
RF: He didn’t talk about it. I was superficially familiar with it. Among the people we met in Tehran was a mathematician who was very familiar with that part of Khomeini’s writing and was scared by what it portended. Of course, Khomeini, as I said, did not anticipate or at least said he did not anticipate his own political leadership, and may have regarded that vision in his writing as something he hoped to achieve but did not necessarily think of himself as the agent of its implementation. I have no idea about that.
FF: In retrospect, what are your general reflections looking back on Iran’s revolution?
RF: One set of reflections is the revolution’s durability. Whatever failures it has had, it has successfully resisted its internal, regional, and global adversaries. If it had not been tough on its opponents, it probably would not have survived very long. The comparison, for instance, with the Arab Spring’s failures to sustain their upheavals is quite striking, particularly with Egypt when comparing the failure of the Egyptian movement to sustain itself with the Iranian experience and resistance.
The second thing is disappointment at the failure to develop in more humane directions and the extreme harshness of the treatment of people perceived as their opponent. In that sense, there is no doubt that it has become a repressive theocratic autocracy. But countries like Israel and the US are not completely without some responsibility for that development. There was a kind of induced paranoia in a way because they had real opponents who tried to destabilize it in a variety of ways. The West encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and gave it a kind of green light. The attack involved the idea that they could at least easily control the oil producing parts of Iran, if not bring about the fall of the Khomeini-style regime itself. As often is the case in the US-induced use of force overseas, there are a lot of miscalculations, probably on both sides.
FF: The US has viewed Iran ever since its revolution as a threat to its geostrategic interests. I think that the “threat” is more the deterrence power of Iran, in other words, Iran’s ability to impose a cost on US operations in the region, oftentimes targeting Iran itself. And of course, Israel, too, is in alliance with the US. Do you agree with this assessment that there is basically no threat to the United States from Iran aside from Iran’s ability to impose costs on US operations in the region, oftentimes against Iran itself?
RF: I completely agree with that. Iran had initially especially at most an anti-imperial outlook that did not want interference with the national movement. Of course, it wanted to encourage Islamic movements throughout the region and had a certain success. That was viewed in Washington as a geopolitical threat. It was certainly not a national security threat in the conventional sense. But it could be viewed as a threat to the degree to which US hegemony could be maintained in the strategic energy policies that were very important to the US at that time.
FF: Let’s shift to Palestine-Israel. What is the appropriate historical context for understanding what happened on Oct. 7 and what has been taking place since then in Gaza and the West Bank? We know that the conventional US view distorts reality by talking about this issue as if history began on 7 October with the Hamas attack on southern Israel.
RF: This is a complicated set of issues to unravel in a brief conversation. But there is no question that the context of the Hamas attack is crucial to understanding its occurrence, even though the attack itself needs to be problematized in terms of whether Israel wanted it to happen or let it happen. They had adequate advance warning; they had all that surveillance technology along the borders with Gaza. The IDF did not respond as it usually does in a short period. It took them five hours, apparently, to arrive at the scene of these events. On the one side, we really don’t know how to perceive that October 7 event. We do know that some worse aspects of it, the beheading of babies, mass rapes, and those kinds of horrifying details, were being manipulated by Israel and its supporters. So, we need an authoritative reconstruction of October 7 itself.
But even without that reconstruction, we know that Hamas and the Palestinians were being provoked by a series of events. There is a kind of immediate context where Netanyahu goes to the UN General Assembly and waves a map with Palestine essentially erased from it. To Netanyahu, this is the new Middle East without Palestine in it. He has made it clear recently that he is opposed to any kind of Palestinian statehood. So, one probable motivation was for the Palestinians to reassert their presence or existence and resolve to remain.
The other very important contextual element is the recollection of the Nakba or catastrophe that occurred in 1948 where 750,000 Palestinians were forced to flee from their homes and villages and not permitted to return. The Israeli response since October 7 gives rise to a strong impression that the real motivation on its part is not security as it is ordinarily understood but rather a second Nakba to ethnically cleanse and to implement this by the forced evacuation and unlivability of Gaza carried out by what many people, including myself, have regarded as a genocide.
The Israeli argument that they are entitled to act in self-defense seems very strained in this context. Gaza and the West Bank are from an international law point of view occupied territories; they are not foreign entities. How do you exercise self-defense against yourself? The Geneva Accords are very clear that the primary duty of the occupying power is to protect the civilian population. It is an unconditional duty of the occupying power, and it is spelled out in terms of an unconditional obligation, to make sure that the population has sufficient food and medical supplies, which the Israeli leadership from day one excluded. They tried to block the entry of food, fuel, and electricity and have caused a severe health-starvation scenario that will probably cost many more lives than have already been lost.
FF: Not to speak of another violation by Israel: As an occupying power it is prohibited from transferring its own population to the territories that it has been occupying.
RF: Yes.
FF: Of course, Israeli expansionism in terms of its settlements, practically does away with the viability of the idea of a two-state solution, unless somehow, they can be forced to remove all the settlers and dismantle the major settlement blocks in the West Bank.
Let me get your thoughts on the following. It seems Israel used October 7 as an excuse to carry out a speedier mass expulsion campaign rather than to continue with the slower ethnic cleansing that oftentimes characterize its actions in various decades in the period of Israeli control over these territories. We can point to 1948 and 1967 as two other occasions when Israel took advantage of historical moments and expelled many Palestinians. Post-Oct. 7 may be the third historical moment in which Israel is behaving in this manner. Do you agree with this assessment?
RF: Absolutely. The only thing I would add is that the Netanyahu coalition with religious Zionism as it took over in Israel in January of 2023 was widely viewed, even in Washington, as the most extreme government that had ever come to power in Israel. What made it extreme was the green lighting of settler violence in the West Bank, which was clearly aimed at dispossessing the Palestinian presence there. They often at these settler demonstrations would leave on Palestinian cars these messages: “leave or we will kill you.” It is horrifying that this dimension of Israeli provocation has not been taken into some account.
FF: Yes, we see that in the West Bank since October 7. By now some 16 villages have been depopulated, several hundred Palestinians killed, and close to 6000 arrested by the Israeli Offensive (not Defensive) Forces who often act alongside armed settlers who enjoy impunity in terrorizing the Palestinians.
Well, thank you, Richard, for joining me in this conversation. I found it to be very interesting.
RF: Thank you and I also found your questions very suggestive and a challenge.
The post Richard Falk on the Vietnam War, Revolution in Iran, and Genocide in Gaza first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
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.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
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.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
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.
This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.
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.
This podcast is produced in partnership between The Real News Network and NACLA.
Guests:
Edited by Heather Gies.
Sound design by Gustavo Türck.
Theme music by Monte Perdido and Michael Fox.
Permanent links
Additional links/info
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.
This post was originally published on The Real News Network.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Featured image via CEPA
By Hakan Demir
This post was originally published on Canary.