Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The recent statement by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian asserting that Iran does not intend to attack neighboring countries generated widespread misinterpretations in several analytical circles. Many observers assumed the message was directed at the Gulf monarchies. However, such an interpretation makes little sense considering that American attacks against Iran are being launched from Sunni countries in the region. Moreover, Iran continues to frequently strike targets in those states.

A closer reading of the statement indicates that the message had a specific recipient: Azerbaijan. Pezeshkian’s remarks appear to have been primarily an attempt at de-escalation amid the possibility of a new front opening in the current war.

The tension began after the crash of a supposed Iranian drone at an airport in Azerbaijan. Authorities in Baku classified the episode as a possible hostile attack and responded with harsh rhetoric, including promises of the use of force. Military movements along the border were reported, suggesting that the incident could escalate into a direct confrontation.

Tehran immediately denied any involvement in the episode. Such a denial alone would not necessarily be enough to dispel suspicion. Nevertheless, several factors make the hypothesis of a deliberate Iranian attack unlikely. First, if the objective had been to strike Israeli or American strategic assets located on Azerbaijani territory, Iran would hardly have chosen such a limited and ineffective action as a simple drone incident that caused no significant damage.

Furthermore, Baku’s own reaction raises questions. Interstate conflicts are rarely triggered by isolated drone incidents, especially when there are no casualties or meaningful destruction. The speed and intensity of the response suggest that the episode may have been interpreted within an already tense political context, in which some actors might have been seeking a pretext for escalation.

Another relevant element concerns Iran’s demographic composition. A significant portion of the country’s population consists of ethnic Azeris, which creates an additional layer of sensitivity in bilateral relations. An open conflict with Azerbaijan could generate internal tensions and undesirable identity-based mobilizations within Iran itself. Historically, for this reason, Tehran has adopted a cautious posture toward Baku, avoiding direct confrontations whenever possible.

Given this context, alternative hypotheses have emerged to explain the incident. One possibility is a false-flag operation conducted by actors interested in dragging Azerbaijan into the current conflict between Iran, the United States, and Israel. Another possibility involves the use of electronic warfare capabilities to divert Iranian drones launched toward other directions and cause them to fall on Azerbaijani territory, thereby creating an artificially politicized incident.

Regardless of the origin of the episode, the decisive factor for understanding the crisis lies in Azerbaijan’s geopolitical alliances. In recent years, Baku has developed significant strategic cooperation with Israel, particularly in the fields of energy, defense and intelligence. However, this rapprochement creates tensions with another key Azerbaijani partner: Turkey. Ankara has traditionally regarded Baku as a natural ally based on ethnic, linguistic, and historical affinities between Turks and Azeris. The slogan “one nation, two states” symbolized this partnership for many years.

However, the regional scenario changed significantly after the fall of the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, an event that altered the strategic balance in the Middle East. With the weakening of the former geopolitical buffer zone represented by the Syrian state, competing expansionist projects began interacting more directly. On one side stands Turkey’s regional strategy, often described as neo-Ottomanism; on the other, the expansion of Zionist influence under the project commonly referred to as “Greater Israel.”

In this context, Turkey increasingly perceives Israel as a potential existential rival. The emergence of possible anti-Turkish military alignments in the Eastern Mediterranean – such as cooperation between Greece, Israel, and Cyprus – as well as Israeli involvement in the Horn of Africa, including the recognition of Somaliland, are clear signs of growing hostility between Tel Aviv and Ankara. For this reason, despite its many disagreements with Iran, Turkey currently sees Tehran’s role in the conflict as indirectly beneficial, since it contributes to weakening Israel and improving Turkish strategic security.

Within this framework, Turkey does not want its “brother nation” in the South Caucasus to attack Iran, as such a move would undermine Ankara’s broader strategic posture toward Israel. By threatening Iran, Baku risks ignoring its closest ethnic ally in favor of its partnership with Israel – something many Turkish observers view as unacceptable. Among Turkish nationalist circles – including Turkists, Turanists, neo-Ottomanists, and even Islamist circles – the possibility of Azerbaijan acting militarily against Iran under Israeli influence is widely interpreted as a move contrary to the interests of the broader Turkic world.

Thus, the current crisis reveals a complex web of rivalries and alliances. A direct confrontation between Iran and Azerbaijan would have profound consequences not only for the South Caucasus but also for the strategic balance involving Turkey, Israel, and other regional powers. It would also carry serious risks of internal instability within Iran due to its large ethnic Azeri population.

In this sense, Pezeshkian’s statement can be understood as an attempt to prevent a limited incident from evolving into a broader conflict. Whether this effort at de-escalation will be sufficient remains uncertain. What seems clear, however, is that a war between Iran and Azerbaijan would hardly benefit any regional actor other than those interested in deepening divisions and rivalries across the Eurasian space – namely Israel and the United States.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

“Our success will continue to hinge on America’s military power and the credibility of our assurances to our allies and partners in the Middle East.”

These were the words spoken in December 2013 by the Secretary of Defense of the Obama administration, Chuck Hagel, to the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. That reinforced the historical guarantees given by Washington to its puppets, reaffirming the deceptive propaganda that the United States is the guardian of global security.

Promises like that are made by every administration, whether Democrat or Republican. Twelve years later, Donald Trump would reinforce that mantra again, addressing Qatar specifically: “The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory (…) of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.” According to Trump, the United States would respond to attacks against Qatar with “all lawful and appropriate measures,” “including militarily.”

Israel had just bombed Doha, targeting Hamas leaders. The entire speech by the president of the United States was completely hollow: the Patriot systems acquired for 10 billion dollars in the 2012 agreement, together with a new acquisition of Patriot and NASAMS systems for more than 2 billion dollars in 2019, did not intercept the Israeli bombardment. And the United States did not consider that attack a “threat to the peace and security of the United States” — on the contrary, they turned a blind eye to it.

Qatar hosts the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. Air Force and the British Royal Air Force at Al-Udeid Air Base, built with more than 8 billion dollars invested by the Qatari government. None of this has protected the Qatari people. Iran’s retaliation for the U.S.–Israel aggression revealed that the base itself (the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East) is a fragile target: it was struck by a missile on the 3rd, which likely damaged or destroyed the AN/FPS-132 early-warning radar, one of the most important sensors in the U.S. missile defense system, valued at about $1.1 billion. Satellite images suggest significant damage to the equipment, which could compromise the ability to detect ballistic missiles at long distances.

In 2017, Saudi Arabia spent $110 billion on U.S. military equipment in an agreement that foresees spending more than $350 billion by next year — including Patriot and THAAD systems. Apparently, this enormous expenditure is not guaranteeing fully secure protection. Despite important interceptions in the current war, the U.S. government instructed part of its personnel to flee Saudi Arabia to protect themselves — which reveals that even the United States does not trust the defensive capability it sells to others. In fact, in the early hours of the 3rd, two drones struck the U.S. embassy in Riyadh and, two days earlier, U.S. soldiers were also targeted.

Since 1990, Gulf countries have spent nearly $500 billion purchasing weapons and protection systems from the United States, according to data from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database and reports from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The construction and maintenance of defense infrastructure by the United States is almost entirely financed by the host countries. All of this is being blown apart by the legitimate Iranian retaliation.

The ineffectiveness of the protection provided by the United States had already been demonstrated in last year’s war, but also by the launches from Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis toward Israel, which shattered the myth surrounding the Iron Dome. In a certain sense, the success of many of those attacks represented a humiliation for the all-powerful American arms industry. The several MQ-9 Reaper drones shot down by the Yemenis represented losses amounting to $200 million — the drones used by the Houthis to shoot down the American aircraft cost an insignificant fraction to produce.

The ineffectiveness of American protection also reveals the extremely low quality of the products of its military complex. This complex is dominated by a small handful of monopolies such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon which, without competitors and with clients subservient to the American government, see no need to make the maximum effort to produce weapons and systems of unsurpassable quality. Finally, corruption runs rampant in this field, and inferior peoples such as those of the Gulf do not deserve to consume products of the same quality as those destined for America — apparently their regimes are willing to pay dearly for anything.

Iran, with all its experience of more than four decades dealing with aggression, has known how to use these vulnerabilities very well. Leaders at the highest levels of the Iranian state publicly insist that peace in the Middle East is impossible while U.S. bases remain operational in the region. Saeed Khatibzadeh, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, stated, “We have no option but to put an end to the existence of American presence in the Persian Gulf area.” These appeals are certainly circulating in neighboring countries — both among the general population and within the armed and political forces.

The Persian nation is not only attacking military installations but also strategic targets that affect the nerve center of the Gulf countries’ economies: the energy industry — in retaliation for the bombings of its own oil infrastructure by the United States and Israel. These Iranian attacks place even greater pressure on the puppet regimes of imperialism to do something to stop their masters. The obvious solution would be to prevent the use of their territory for aggression against Iran, which would necessarily imply closing the military bases.

Although all these countries are dictatorships that repress any dissent, as the suffering of the civilian population increases, popular discontent may become uncontrollable. Their rulers know this and are already racking their brains to find a safe way out of this potentially explosive situation.

Will the peoples of these countries swallow all the lying propaganda that their regimes — fed by the lie industry of the United States and Israel — try to tell them, that Iran is the aggressor and responsible for the attacks? But why do the United States build missile launch bases so close to residential neighborhoods? Clearly, just like the Israelis, this is not a “moral” and “ethical” army: those people exist to serve as human shields for American soldiers. The logic of protection is inverted: it is not U.S. anti-aircraft systems that serve to protect the Saudi, Emirati or Qatari people — it is these second-class citizens who must die to protect the occupying forces.

Moreover, U.S. military bases frequently house soldiers responsible for crimes against local populations. This became explicit during the Iraq War. For example, the rape of a 14-year-old girl named Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, followed by her murder and the killing of her family after soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division invaded her house in Mahmudiya in 2004. Or the rapes documented over years during the invasion of Iraq, together with the practice of sexual exploitation and prostitution carried out in areas near American military installations such as Balad Air Base, used by the 4th Infantry Division.

On the 1st, U.S. Marines killed at least nine protesters who attempted to storm the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, in protest against the criminal aggression against Iran that had already massacred about 150 girls in an Iranian school the previous day. This is what imperialist presence in the countries of the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America serves for: to rape, murder and use the natives themselves as human shields, not to protect them.

How long will it take before they rise up against this true military occupation? Probably not long.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Join up the dots and you come to the same conclusion. America and Israel are the biggest losers in the Iran war. But not Trump.

A recent poll in the U.S. concluded that Donald Trump tells the truth only about 3 percent of the time during his public announcements at press conferences. Perhaps it was his stint at being a celebrity on TV that taught him how gullible people in America are when fed the most fanciful, moronic lies a leading figure can tell, through the American media. Of course, it’s also about the journalists as well, and if there’s one thing that the Trump administrations have taught us, it is how poor the general level of journalism is in America these days. American journalists are not afraid to ask difficult questions or disbelieve what they are told. They simply don’t know how to do this in the first place.

Covering the Iran war, it is breathtaking, some of the brazen lies he tells while being questioned by journalists who are complicit in his dirty work. The mere idea that Iran, for example, acquired a Tomahawk missile and used it to kill its own schoolgirls is beyond absurd. How could journalists not question such a reply when it is so clear that Trump is lying through his teeth?

Because of this lying, we can see how Trump works, though. Unlike other U.S. presidents who have some shame and discomfort in lying to the press, Trump suffers no such handicap and so can take on bolder, more daring ventures on the global stage. In this environment, there is no respect for international law or even due process within the political framework of how Congress works. Trump hasn’t worked out how to defeat Iran, but he has all the contingent narratives to lay out afterwards to explain why everything that goes wrong is not his fault. We see that he is already preparing himself for the day of judgement by the press pack in the coming days and weeks by telling them that it was Jared Kushner, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff who told him to hit Iran.

The direction towards these three is revealing. Of course, we have learned the simple rule of Trump when it comes to decisions. When things go well, everything was his decision; when things go badly, blame others.

And so, the blaming of these three is a clear example and acknowledgement by Trump that the Iran war was a failure. The U.S. didn’t bring about regime change nor seek any military concessions from its government. In fact, it’s really hard to establish one minor point where you could say that the Americans chalked up any kind of victory, given the high energy prices around the world and the Straits of Hormuz still closed to oil tankers. Despite the U.S. being a net exporter of oil, the crisis is raising pump prices back home, and so it is Trump’s support base of blue-collar workers who are, once again, paying the price for his failed policies.

This last point about the Straits of Hormuz is worth taking stock of when we examine Trump’s lies, which just get increasingly fatuous by the day. It’s like we’re dealing with a child in power who has lost sense of any of the realities around him. One of Trump’s claims which he repeats over and over again is that the U.S. navy has completely destroyed its Iranian counterpart, and that all ships have been sunk. And yet there is no video evidence at all to support this, official or even just phone footage from even one U.S. sailor’s phone. Could this be another massive Trump lie, given that he is struggling to prove to the American people or the press that the operation has been a success? Very convenient that all Iranian vessels happen to have been sunk. Perhaps the truth sunk and the Iranian vessels are still operational. The saddest thing is that not one American “journalist” is even able at a press conference, or even in their copy, to ask the most obvious question about this claim, which is: “If there is no Iranian navy, then why are the Straits of Hormuz still closed to ships passing through?”

Or is it that the Iranian navy has been destroyed, but Iran’s control of the shipping and its threat against America’s aircraft carriers is so strong and prevalent that the U.S. navy doesn’t have the capability to break the siege?

Trump is busy building up a case to make him look less culpable in the whole war, which in itself is a massive admission that it has all gone horribly wrong. These indicators are subtle and sometimes are not easy to spot, like his recent comment that GCC countries helped the U.S. bomb Iran. So the mighty U.S. navy, air force and army did not come up to scratch and had to rely on regional partners? The president needs some help here with his messaging, as he is clearly trying to spread the blame and reduce his own importance, perhaps as a ploy to not only protect himself from impeachment but from facing international criminal courts.

The lie that GCC countries bombed Iran is even more laughable than the one about Iran bombing its own schoolgirls, but with no real journalists around who are even able to ask the most obvious questions, he’ll be able to get away with it, despite the odd dichotomy of logic shooting himself in the foot. The truth about the so-called Iran War is that almost nothing we see on our TV screens is anywhere near the truth. Sometimes it is simply omission, as in the case of the real level of destruction in Israel, which is not being reported due to a shameful agreement struck between U.S. networks and Israel to block the truth and only show bombs which have hit civilian targets rather than military ones. The biggest lie possibly concerns the reasons behind it, although blithering buffoons like Lindsey Graham can hardly keep the lid on it. Money. Do even Trump’s more vociferous supporters doubt for one moment that he hasn’t made billions out of it by manipulating markets?

Segue nostro Telegram.

L’Europa primo importatore di armi al mondo

Il 9 marzo 2026 lo Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) ha pubblicato il suo rapporto annuale sui trasferimenti di armi convenzionali. Il dato principale è inequivocabile: l’Europa è diventata la prima regione importatrice di armi al mondo, superando per la prima volta dagli anni Sessanta sia l’Asia-Oceania sia il Medio Oriente. Le importazioni europee di sistemi d’arma maggiori sono più che triplicate (+210%) nel periodo 2021-2025 rispetto al quinquennio precedente, passando dal 12% al 33% del totale globale.

Il volume complessivo dei trasferimenti internazionali di armi è cresciuto del 9,2% tra i due periodi — il maggiore aumento dal 2011-2015 — e questo incremento è quasi interamente trainato dall’Europa. Come ha dichiarato Mathew George, direttore del programma SIPRI sui trasferimenti di armi: “L’aumento brusco dei flussi di armi verso gli Stati europei ha spinto i trasferimenti globali in crescita di quasi il 10%. Le consegne all’Ucraina dal 2022 sono il fattore più evidente, ma la maggior parte degli altri Stati europei ha iniziato a importare significativamente più armi per rafforzare le proprie capacità militari contro una crescente minaccia percepita dalla Russia.”

Chi compra. L’Ucraina è il primo importatore mondiale in assoluto, con il 9,7% delle importazioni globali (rispetto allo 0,1% del quinquennio precedente). Seguono in Europa la Polonia e il Regno Unito. I tre Paesi insieme assorbono quasi la metà delle importazioni europee. Ma il fenomeno è diffuso: le importazioni dei 29 Paesi NATO europei sono cresciute del 143% nel periodo.

Il caso della Polonia è emblematico. Le importazioni polacche sono aumentate dell’852% — quasi nove volte — rispetto al 2016-2020. Varsavia è il primo importatore NATO in Europa, con il 17% del totale delle importazioni NATO europee e il 3,6% di quelle mondiali. La quasi totalità delle forniture proviene da fuori Europa: il 47% dalla Corea del Sud e il 44% dagli Stati Uniti. La Polonia sta costruendo quello che dichiara essere il più grande esercito di terra d’Europa, equipaggiandosi quasi esclusivamente con armi americane e sudcoreane.

Chi vende. Gli Stati Uniti hanno ulteriormente consolidato il proprio dominio come fornitori di armi, passando dal 36% al 42% del mercato globale delle esportazioni. In termini assoluti, le esportazioni americane sono cresciute del 27%. Il dato strategicamente più rilevante è questo: per la prima volta in due decenni, la quota maggiore delle esportazioni americane è andata all’Europa (38%) anziché al Medio Oriente (33%). Le esportazioni USA verso l’Europa sono aumentate del 217%. Il 48% di tutte le importazioni europee proviene dagli Stati Uniti — soprattutto aerei da combattimento e sistemi di difesa aerea a lungo raggio.

La Francia è il secondo esportatore mondiale con il 9,8% del mercato, in crescita di oltre un quinto. L’80% delle esportazioni francesi va però fuori dall’Europa — soprattutto a India, Egitto e Grecia. La Germania è salita al quarto posto globale, superando la Cina, con il 5,7% del mercato — anche grazie alle forniture all’Ucraina.

466 F-35 ordinati dall’Europa. Un numero riassume la dipendenza europea dagli Stati Uniti meglio di qualunque analisi: alla fine del 2025, dodici Paesi europei avevano 466 caccia F-35 di Lockheed Martin ordinati o preselezionati per l’ordine. A questi si aggiungono almeno 78 ordini israeliani di sistemi missilistici di difesa aerea e 66 ordini tedeschi per analoghi sistemi. L’Europa sta investendo massicciamente in armi — ma le sta comprando in America.

Il paradosso: comprare armi da chi ti destabilizza

Il rapporto SIPRI fotografa un paradosso che nessun commentatore mainstream osa nominare. L’Europa sta triplicando le importazioni di armi perché percepisce una crescente minaccia dalla Russia e una crescente incertezza sull’impegno americano a difendere i propri alleati. Lo dice testualmente il rapporto: “Le percezioni di minaccia riguardo alla Russia, amplificate dalle incertezze sull’impegno degli USA a difendere i propri alleati europei, hanno alimentato la domanda di armi tra gli Stati membri NATO.”

Tradotto: l’Europa compra armi americane perché non si fida più degli americani. La stessa America di Donald Trump che ha abbandonato l’Ucraina, minacciato di invadere la Groenlandia (territorio di un alleato NATO), attaccato verbalmente Spagna e Regno Unito nel mezzo della guerra contro l’Iran, e ha dichiarato apertamente che le esportazioni di armi sono uno strumento di politica estera — come esplicita la nuova America First Arms Transfer Strategy.

L’Europa sta comprando sicurezza dallo stesso Paese che produce la sua insicurezza. E ogni caccia F-35 acquistato, ogni sistema Patriot installato, ogni miliardo speso al Pentagono è un miliardo che non va all’industria europea della difesa — quella stessa industria che Bruxelles dice di voler rafforzare con programmi come il SAFE (Security Action for Europe), dotato di 150 miliardi di euro in prestiti agevolati per acquisti intra-UE.

Ma i numeri parlano chiaro: nonostante la retorica dell’autonomia strategica, il 48% delle armi europee viene ancora dagli USA. L’Europa non è una potenza che si riarma per difendersi: è un cliente che si riarma per comprare protezione. Pedina, non giocatore.

Bunker nucleari a ruba fra i funzionari USA

Mentre l’Europa compra armi per prepararsi alla guerra, chi la guerra l’ha lanciata si prepara a sopravviverle. Secondo un’inchiesta del Telegraph ripresa da ZeroHedge, almeno due membri senior del gabinetto Trump hanno acquistato bunker anti-nucleari privati dall’inizio del conflitto con l’Iran.

Ron Hubbard, proprietario della Atlas Survival Shelters — azienda texana specializzata in rifugi sotterranei — ha dichiarato di essere stato “inondato di chiamate” dall’inizio delle operazioni militari, con un aumento delle richieste di dieci volte rispetto alla media. Ha rivelato che due membri del gabinetto Trump sono tra i nuovi clienti: “Uno di loro mi ha mandato un messaggio ieri, chiedendomi: ‘Quando sarà pronto il mio bunker?'”

I rifugi in questione non sono cantine rinforzate. Sono strutture in acciaio temprato con porte blindate anti-esplosione, sistemi di purificazione dell’aria, e dotazioni di lusso — cinema, piscine, poligoni di tiro — progettate per resistere ad attacchi con droni o testate convenzionali. I prezzi partono da 20.000 dollari per i modelli base e arrivano a diversi milioni per i compound più sofisticati.

Lo stesso Hubbard è però brutalmente onesto sui limiti: “Nessun bunker al mondo è progettato per resistere a una bomba bunker-buster americana. Se gli americani ti vogliono morto, sei morto.” L’ironia è tragica: i membri del governo che hanno ordinato il bombardamento dell’Iran si comprano rifugi perché sanno che le ritorsioni sono inevitabili.

L’azienda ha aperto un nuovo ufficio a Dubai — dove le richieste sono esplose dopo che i missili iraniani hanno colpito la città. “Pensavano di non vedere mai cadere bombe. Adesso che le bombe cadono, vorranno tutti un rifugio. È un dato di fatto.” Atlas Survival Shelters fatturava in media 2 milioni di dollari al mese nel 2026; per il prossimo mese prevede ricavi di 50 milioni. Il business della paura nucleare è il più fiorente dell’economia di guerra.

Tra i clienti precedenti dell’azienda figurano nomi come Mark Zuckerberg e Andrew Tate. Le élite globali si preparano al peggio. Non perché siano paranoiche — ma perché conoscono le conseguenze di ciò che hanno messo in moto.

Due facce della stessa medaglia

I due fenomeni — l’Europa che si riarma e i funzionari USA che comprano bunker — non sono notizie separate. Sono le due facce della stessa medaglia, e quella medaglia si chiama economia di guerra permanente.

Da un lato, l’industria bellica americana raccoglie i dividendi della paura: il 42% del mercato globale delle armi, 466 F-35 ordinati dall’Europa, esportazioni in crescita del 217% verso il Vecchio Continente. BlackRock — il più grande gestore patrimoniale del pianeta — detiene miliardi in Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman ed Elbit Systems. Ogni bomba sganciata sull’Iran è un ordine di riacquisto. Ogni sistema Patriot installato in Europa è un contratto pluriennale di manutenzione e munizioni.

Dall’altro, chi siede ai tavoli dove si decide la guerra sa perfettamente che le conseguenze sono incontrollabili. Lo Stretto di Hormuz — attraverso cui transita il 20% del petrolio mondiale — è di fatto chiuso dal 28 febbraio. Il Brent ha superato i 120 dollari. Il Qatar ha dichiarato la force majeure sui contratti di gas. L’Iran ha colpito Dubai, basi americane, territorio israeliano. I missili balistici iraniani hanno dimostrato di poter raggiungere obiettivi che si credevano al sicuro.

E chi ha innescato tutto questo? Gli stessi che ora comprano bunker. Non è cinismo: è la logica interna del sistema. La guerra genera profitti per chi la finanzia, terrore per chi la subisce, e rifugi sotterranei per chi la ordina. Il circuito è perfetto.

L’Europa paga il conto

L’Europa si trova intrappolata in una spirale autodistruttiva. Spende per riarmarsi contro una minaccia russa reale ma strumentalmente amplificata, comprando armi dal Paese che destabilizza il suo fianco orientale e il suo approvvigionamento energetico. L’Europa riceve tra il 12 e il 14% del proprio GNL dal Qatar attraverso Hormuz — forniture ora interrotte. La dipendenza dal gas americano cresce, e con essa la subordinazione politica.

Il programma europeo SAFE da 150 miliardi dovrebbe incentivare acquisti intra-UE, ma i grandi fornitori europei — Francia, Germania, Italia — continuano a esportare la maggior parte delle proprie armi fuori dal continente. La Francia vende l’80% fuori Europa. L’UE ha un volume di esportazioni pari al 28% del mercato globale — quattro volte la Russia, cinque volte la Cina — ma non riesce a equipaggiare sé stessa. Come ha osservato il generale Hodges: “La relazione transatlantica esiste ancora, ma non è più la stessa e probabilmente non lo sarà mai più.”

Lo SIPRI stesso nota che la “nuova strategia America First per i trasferimenti di armi” dell’amministrazione Trump rende esplicito ciò che era sempre stato implicito: le esportazioni di armi americane sono uno strumento di controllo politico, non di solidarietà tra alleati. Ogni F-35 venduto all’Europa è un vincolo di dipendenza tecnologica, logistica e strategica che durerà decenni.

La guerra è il prodotto

Il rapporto SIPRI esce il 9 marzo 2026 — dieci giorni dopo l’inizio delle operazioni militari USA-Israele contro l’Iran. I dati coprono il periodo 2021-2025, quindi non includono ancora l’impatto dell’attuale conflitto. Ma come ha dichiarato il ricercatore SIPRI Pieter Wezeman, gli Stati del Medio Oriente avevano già piazzato ordini significativi prima dell’escalation — e il conflitto in corso spingerà ulteriormente la domanda, “soprattutto di sistemi anti-missile e di difesa aerea.”

La spesa globale per la difesa ha raggiunto i 2.700 miliardi di dollari nel 2024 — un aumento del 9,4% in termini reali, il più alto dalla fine della Guerra Fredda. Il commercio di armi è tornato ai volumi del 1989, l’ultimo anno della Guerra Fredda. Non è un caso: stiamo vivendo l’inizio di una nuova Guerra Fredda, ma questa volta con bombe vere che cadono su Teheran, Dubai e le petroliere nel Golfo Persico.

La domanda che il rapporto SIPRI non pone — ma che noi poniamo — è: chi beneficia di questo ciclo? L’Europa, che spende sempre di più e si sente sempre meno sicura? I cittadini americani, i cui funzionari comprano bunker mentre spendono le loro tasse in bombe? O i gestori di fondi, le lobby del complesso militare-industriale, i donatori che finanziano le campagne e dettano le guerre?

La guerra è il prodotto. Il caos è la materia prima. L’Europa compra armi, l’America compra bunker, e chi siede al tavolo dove si decidono i conflitti conta i profitti.

Lo scacco matto è in corso. Ma chi lo sta dando a chi?

Segue nostro Telegram.

L’attacco congiunto di Stati Uniti e Israele contro l’Iran segna una frattura storica non solo nel già fragile equilibrio mediorientale, ma anche nell’architettura globale della non proliferazione nucleare. Il punto non è soltanto che Washington e Tel Aviv abbiano colpito uno Stato sovrano in assenza di un chiaro mandato del Consiglio di Sicurezza e fuori dai requisiti stretti della legittima difesa previsti dalla Carta dell’ONU, il che rappresenta di per sé una flagrante violazione del diritto internazionale. Il punto, ancora più grave, è che questa aggressione proietta nel sistema internazionale un messaggio politico devastante: chi rinuncia all’arma atomica o resta al di qua della soglia nucleare si espone alla coercizione, al bombardamento e persino alla decapitazione politica; chi invece possiede una deterrenza credibile diventa molto più difficile da aggredire.

Come noto, la Carta delle Nazioni Unite vieta la minaccia o l’uso della forza contro l’integrità territoriale o l’indipendenza politica di uno Stato, e l’articolo 51 riconosce il diritto di autodifesa solo “if an armed attack occurs”, cioè in caso di attacco armato subito, fino all’intervento del Consiglio di Sicurezza. Numerosi giuristi internazionali hanno espresso il parere secondo cui i raid statunitensi e israeliani contro l’Iran violano il divieto cardine dell’uso della forza e configurano un caso di aggressione, in quanto non sono avvenuti in risposta a un attacco armato iraniano, né a seguito di un’autorizzazione del Consiglio di Sicurezza. Del resto, lo stesso Segretario generale António Guterres ha affermato al Consiglio di Sicurezza che i bombardamenti hanno violato il diritto internazionale, inclusa la Carta dell’ONU.

Se già il piano dello jus ad bellum è stato calpestato, il danno ulteriore riguarda il regime di non proliferazione. Il Trattato di non proliferazione, infatti, riconosce all’Iran e a tutti gli altri Paesi il diritto a un programma nucleare civile, pur vietando l’uso della tecnologia nucleare per sviluppare armi atomiche. Dunque, il TNP si regge su un compromesso elementare: gli Stati non dotati di armi nucleari accettano di non costruirle, e in cambio mantengono il diritto all’uso pacifico dell’energia nucleare dentro un quadro di controlli, verifiche e regole. Ma se uno Stato che resta formalmente nel quadro del TNP e sottopone parti del proprio programma a salvaguardie viene comunque bombardato per obbligarlo a rinunciare all’uso dell’energia nucleare, quel compromesso perde credibilità politica. Chi dovrebbe ancora fidarsi di un sistema che non protegge chi osserva la cornice della non proliferazione?

La posizione dell’AIEA (Agenzia internazionale per l’energia atomica) è in questo senso eloquente. Il direttore generale Rafael Grossi ha richiamato le risoluzioni della Conferenza generale dell’Agenzia che affermano che gli attacchi armati contro installazioni nucleari “non dovrebbero mai avere luogo” e che tali attacchi possono provocare rilasci radioattivi con conseguenze gravi dentro e oltre i confini dello Stato colpito. Anche quando l’Agenzia ha detto di non avere indicazioni immediate di danni rilevanti ad alcuni siti o di aumenti anomali di radioattività, il principio ribadito resta chiaro: le infrastrutture nucleari sotto salvaguardie non devono diventare bersagli militari. Quando invece lo diventano, il messaggio che passa non è che le regole valgono solo finché le grandi potenze decidono di rispettarle.

Da parte loro, Washington e Tel Aviv sostengono di agire per impedire la proliferazione, ma il loro comportamento produce l’incentivo più forte immaginabile alla proliferazione stessa. Se il possesso di capacità nucleari sospette o incomplete non impedisce l’attacco, e se la trasparenza o la cooperazione con gli organismi internazionali non mettono al riparo dall’uso della forza, allora molti governi del Sud globale trarranno una conclusione brutale: non basta restare dentro il TNP, occorre arrivare a una deterrenza vera. Il punto non è auspicare o meno questo esito, ma constatare che la condotta di Stati Uniti e Israele lo rende politicamente più plausibile, più razionale agli occhi di molti decisori, più spendibile nelle élite di sicurezza dei Paesi non allineati.

Il caso della Corea del Nord è, in questo quadro, il precedente più istruttivo. Non a caso, anche diversi organi di stampa occidentali hanno riferito che numerosi esperti e ex funzionari ritengono che i raid statunitensi e israeliani contro l’Iran rafforzeranno ulteriormente il programma nucleare di Kim Jong Un. Uno di essi, Song Seong-jong, ha sintetizzato la lezione in modo brutale: “Kim deve aver pensato che l’Iran è stato attaccato in questo modo perché non possiede armi nuclari”. La Corea del Nord dispone, ad oggi, di un arsenale stimato di circa 50 testate e di materiale fissile sufficiente a produrne fino a 40 ulteriori; per questo, molti analisti ritengono che oramai sia impossibile un processo di denuclearizzazione per la Corea del Nord, divenuta di fatto inattaccabile. La conclusione politica, per chi osserva il sistema dall’esterno dell’Occidente, è quasi inevitabile: Pyongyang non è stata trattata come Teheran o come Caracas proprio perché possiede una capacità nucleare già consolidata.

L’aggressione contro l’Iran, del resto, si inserisce in una sequenza più ampia che rende la lezione ancora più corrosiva. L’uccisione di ʿAlī Khāmeneī è arrivata appena due mesi dopo il sequestro di Nicolás Maduro in un raid delle forze speciali statunitensi in Venezuela, un altro leader alla guida di uno Stato privo di deterrenza nucleare.

Anche la narrativa statunitense con cui si è costruito il caso contro l’Iran contribuisce a questa erosione della credibilità del regime di non proliferazione. L’affermazione di Donald Trump secondo cui l’Iran avrebbe presto avuto missili in grado di colpire gli Stati Uniti non à supportata dai rapporti della stessa intelligence statunitense. Nel complesso, Trump ha usato argomenti enfatizzati o non corroborati nel tentativo di costruire il consenso interno a possibili raid. Se una superpotenza ricorre a minacce gonfiate, informazioni dubbie e rivendicazioni unilaterali per giustificare l’uso della forza, allora il problema non è solo l’illegalità dell’atto finale; è la trasformazione della non proliferazione in pretesto geopolitico. Da regime di regole, essa diventa linguaggio di guerra selettiva.

Per decenni l’Occidente ha sostenuto che la sicurezza collettiva richiede meno armi nucleari, più controlli, più trasparenza, più accordi. In teoria è ancora vero. In pratica, però, gli Stati Uniti e Israele stanno insegnando al resto del mondo la lezione opposta: le garanzie diplomatiche sono revocabili, le negoziazioni possono essere spezzate, le salvaguardie non proteggono dai bombardamenti, e un Paese che non dispone di deterrenza credibile rischia di essere trattato come un bersaglio disponibile, nonostante i colloqui sul nucleare tra Washington e Teheran fossero ancora aperti al momento dell’attacco. Se persino il negoziato non impedisce l’aggressione, quale incentivo resta alla moderazione strategica?

Da questo punto di vista, la vera vittima collaterale dei raid contro l’Iran è la fiducia nel regime di non proliferazione. Il TNP sopravvive non solo perché esiste un testo giuridico, ma perché gli Stati ritengono che l’adesione al trattato migliori la loro sicurezza rispetto all’alternativa. Se invece cresce la convinzione che solo la bomba scoraggi il cambio di regime, l’assassinio mirato o il bombardamento “preventivo”, allora il calcolo strategico di molti Paesi non allineati cambia radicalmente. Non nel senso che tutti si precipiteranno a costruire arsenali, ma nel senso che l’argomento antinucleare perderà forza nelle burocrazie militari, nei consigli di sicurezza nazionale e nelle opinioni pubbliche che si sentono esposte alla coercizione occidentale.

La lezione finale è dunque che non sono Teheran, Pyongyang o altri Stati del Sud globale a distruggere il regime di non proliferazione. A demolirne la credibilità sono prima di tutto le potenze che pretendono di difenderlo bombardando, assassinando e applicando il diritto in modo selettivo. Quando Washington e Tel Aviv colpiscono l’Iran e chiamano questa violenza “sicurezza”, non stanno rafforzando il mondo contro la bomba. Stanno dicendo a tutti gli altri che, nel sistema internazionale realmente esistente, la vulnerabilità invita l’aggressione e la deterrenza la scoraggia. Il problema non è se questa conclusione sia moralmente giusta. Il problema è che, dopo ciò che è accaduto, rischia di apparire strategicamente vera.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

“Nuestro éxito seguirá dependiendo del poder militar de Estados Unidos y de la credibilidad de nuestras garantías a nuestros aliados y socios en Oriente Medio.”

Estas fueron las palabras pronunciadas en diciembre de 2013 por el secretario de Defensa del gobierno de Obama, Chuck Hagel, a los países del Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo. Aquello reforzaba las garantías históricas dadas por Washington a sus marionetas, reafirmando la propaganda engañosa de que Estados Unidos es el guardián de la seguridad global.

Promesas como esa son hechas por cada administración, sea demócrata o republicana. Doce años después, Donald Trump volvería a reforzar ese mantra, dirigiéndose específicamente a Qatar: “Los Estados Unidos considerarán cualquier ataque armado contra el territorio (…) de Qatar como una amenaza a la paz y la seguridad de los Estados Unidos.” Según Trump, Estados Unidos respondería a los ataques contra Qatar con “todas las medidas legales y apropiadas”, “incluyendo militarmente”.

Israel acababa de bombardear Doha, apuntando contra dirigentes de Hamas. Todo el discurso del presidente de Estados Unidos era absolutamente vacío: los sistemas Patriot adquiridos por 10 mil millones de dólares en el acuerdo de 2012, sumados a una nueva adquisición de Patriot y NASAMS por más de 2 mil millones de dólares en 2019, no interceptaron el bombardeo israelí. Y Washington no consideró aquel ataque como una “ amenaza a la paz y la seguridad de los Estados Unidos  ” — por el contrario, cerró los ojos ante él.

Qatar alberga el Comando Central de Estados Unidos, la Fuerza Aérea de Estados Unidos y la Real Fuerza Aérea británica en la base aérea de Al-Udeid, construida con más de 8 mil millones de dólares empleados por el gobierno de Qatar. Nada de eso ha protegido al pueblo catarí. Las represalias de Irán a la agresión de Estados Unidos-Israel revelaron que la propia base (la mayor instalación militar de Estados Unidos en Oriente Medio) es un objetivo frágil: fue alcanzada por un misil el día 3, que probablemente dañó o destruyó el radar de alerta temprana AN/FPS-132, uno de los sensores más importantes de la defensa antimisiles de Estados Unidos, valorado en alrededor de 1,1 mil millones de dólares. Imágenes de satélite sugieren daños significativos en el equipo, lo que podría comprometer la capacidad de detección de misiles balísticos a largas distancias.

En 2017, Arabia Saudita gastó 110 mil millones de dólares en material bélico de Estados Unidos, en un acuerdo que prevé gastar nuevos 350 mil millones de dólares hasta el próximo año — esto incluye los sistemas Patriot y THAAD. Aparentemente, ese gasto exagerado no está garantizando una protección totalmente segura. A pesar de importantes interceptaciones en la guerra actual, el gobierno estadounidense orientó a parte de sus funcionarios a huir de Arabia Saudita para protegerse — lo que revela que ni los propios Estados Unidos confían en la capacidad de defensa que venden a los demás. De hecho, en la madrugada del día 3, dos drones alcanzaron la embajada estadounidense en Riad y, dos días antes, soldados estadounidenses también fueron atacados.

Desde 1990, los países del Golfo han desembolsado casi 500 mil millones de dólares en la compra de armamento y sistemas de protección de Estados Unidos, según datos de la Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), de la base de datos del Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) y de informes del Congressional Research Service (CRS). La construcción y mantenimiento de la infraestructura de defensa por Estados Unidos es financiada casi completamente por los países anfitriones. Todo esto está saltando por los aires gracias a la legítima represalia iraní.

La ineficacia de la protección dada por Estados Unidos ya se había demostrado en la guerra del año pasado, pero también por los disparos de Hamas, Hezbollah y los hutíes hacia Israel, que derribaron el mito alrededor del Domo de Hierro. En cierto sentido, el éxito de muchos de esos ataques representó una humillación para la todopoderosa industria bélica estadounidense. Los varios drones MQ-9 Reaper derribados por los yemeníes significaron pérdidas por un monto de 200 millones de dólares — los drones utilizados por los hutíes para abatir las aeronaves estadounidenses costaron una fracción insignificante para ser producidos.

La ineficacia de la protección estadounidense también revela la bajísima calidad de los productos de su complejo militar. Este está dominado por un pequeño puñado de monopolios como Lockheed Martin y Raytheon que, sin competidores y con clientes subservientes al gobierno estadounidense, no ven la necesidad de esforzarse al máximo para producir armamentos y sistemas de calidad insuperable. Finalmente, la corrupción corre libre en esta área, y pueblos inferiores como los del Golfo no merecen consumir productos de la misma calidad que los destinados a América — aparentemente, sus regímenes están dispuestos a pagar caro por cualquier cosa.

Irán, con toda su experiencia de más de cuatro décadas lidiando con agresiones, ha sabido utilizar muy bien esas vulnerabilidades. Dirigentes del más alto nivel del Estado iraní insisten públicamente en que no es posible que haya paz en Oriente Medio mientras las bases de Estados Unidos estén en funcionamiento en la región. Saeed Khatibzadeh, el viceministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Irán, declaró: “No tenemos otra opción que poner fin a la presencia estadounidense en la zona del Golfo Pérsico”. Estos llamados ciertamente están circulando en los países vecinos — tanto entre la población común como en las fuerzas armadas y políticas.

La nación persa no está atacando solo instalaciones militares, sino también objetivos estratégicos que afectan el punto neurálgico de la economía de los países del Golfo: la industria energética — en represalia por los bombardeos de Estados Unidos e Israel contra su propia infraestructura petrolera. Estos ataques iraníes presionan con una fuerza aún mayor a los regímenes títeres del imperialismo para que hagan algo para detener a sus amos. La solución obvia sería impedir la utilización de su territorio para agresiones contra Irán, lo que implicaría necesariamente el cierre de las bases militares.

Aunque todos estos países sean dictaduras que reprimen cualquier disidencia, a medida que aumenta el sufrimiento de la población civil, el descontento popular puede volverse incontrolable. Sus gobernantes lo saben y ya están rompiéndose la cabeza para encontrar una salida segura para esta situación potencialmente explosiva.

¿Acaso los pueblos de estos países se tragarán toda la propaganda mentirosa que sus regímenes — alimentados por la industria de mentiras de Estados Unidos e Israel — intentan contarles, de que Irán es el agresor y el responsable de los ataques? Pero ¿por qué Estados Unidos construye bases de lanzamiento de misiles tan cerca de barrios residenciales? Está claro que, al igual que los israelíes, no se trata de un ejército “moral” y “ético”: esas personas existen para ser escudos humanos de los soldados estadounidenses. La lógica de protección se invierte: no son los sistemas antiaéreos de Estados Unidos los que sirven para proteger al pueblo saudí, emiratí o catarí, son esos ciudadanos de segunda clase los que deben morir para proteger a las fuerzas ocupantes.

Además, las bases militares de Estados Unidos frecuentemente albergan soldados responsables de crímenes contra las poblaciones locales. Esto quedó explícito durante la Guerra de Irak. Por ejemplo, la violación de una niña de 14 años llamada Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, seguida de su asesinato y el de sus familiares después de que soldados de la 101.ª División Aerotransportada invadieran su casa en Mahmudiya, en 2004. O las violaciones documentadas durante años durante la invasión de Irak, sumadas a la práctica de explotación sexual y prostitución realizada en áreas cercanas a instalaciones militares estadounidenses, como la Base aérea de Balad, utilizada por la 4ª División de Infantería.

El día 1°, marines estadounidenses mataron al menos a nueve manifestantes que intentaron invadir el consulado estadounidense en Karachi, en Pakistán, en protesta contra la agresión criminal contra Irán que ya había masacrado a cerca de 150 niñas en una escuela iraní el día anterior. Para eso sirve la presencia imperialista en los países de Oriente Medio, Asia Central, África y América Latina: violar, asesinar y usar a los propios nativos como escudos humanos, no para protegerlos.

¿Hasta cuándo se levantarán contra esta verdadera ocupación militar? Probablemente, eso no tardará en suceder.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The proverb “revenge is a dish best served cold” traces to French (“La vengeance se mange froide”), appearing in English literature by the 19th century. Most Americans do not know the French orign of the proverb… 

It entered popular culture thanks to Star Trek. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), Khan Noonien Singh delivers the line during a tense video call with Admiral Kirk:

Ah, Kirk, my old friend… do you know the Klingon proverb? ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold.’ And it is very cold…

As the war against Iran continues to escalate, Russia finds itself in a powerful position to deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which has kowtowed to the United States and allowed the US to dominate militarily the Persian Gulf on behalf of Israel, and India, which has taken advantage of their long friendship with Russia to engage in a disgustingly abject act of sycophancy with Israel at the expense of fellow BRICS member Iran. Russia has delivered a firm diplomatic message to both.

During an Ambassadorial Roundtable in Moscow on March 5, 2026, Sergei Lavrov addressed the Ambassadors from the GCC countries, who had come to Moscow seeking Putin’s intervention in shutting down Iran’s military operations in retaliation for the sneak attack by Israel and the United States. The event was supposed to focus on the Ukrainian crisis, digital threats, and international information security, but Lavrov devoted significant time to the escalating Middle East conflict, particularly the US-Israeli military strikes on Iran and Iran’s retaliatory actions affecting Gulf states.

The GCC ambassadors reportedly urged Russia to pressure Iran to de-escalate and halt its missile/drone strikes on or over their territories (e.g., targeting US/Israeli-linked sites). Lavrov responded critically and pointedly rejected a one-sided approach. Lavrov shut them down in an extraordinary display of tough love. I’ve posted the video of his remarks below.

Lavrov began by expressing condolences for civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure in Persian Gulf countries caused by the ongoing conflict. But he immediately challenged the GCC’s selective criticism… He asked whether they had condemned the “US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran” or specific incidents like the reported killing of 170 schoolgirls in Minab by US/Israeli actions). Ouch!

He continued by highlighting their hypocrisy in pushing for pressure only on Iran while not equally condemning the initiators (US and Israel), noting that accepting such a request would imply acceptance of the original aggression.

Lavrov asserted that the ongoing US and Israeli operations were aimed at driving a wedge between Iran and its Arab neighbors (GCC states), noting that these actions were an attempt to sabotage recent positive normalization trends (e.g., Saudi-Iran rapprochement, UAE/Iran engagement).

He advocated for a unified, balanced international response: an immediate cessation of all hostilities (not just Iranian ones), political/diplomatic settlement, and safeguarding legitimate security interests of all Persian Gulf states.

He reminded the Ambassadors that Russia has long promoted a Concept of Collective Security in the Persian Gulf (for over 20 years) and expressed appreciation for GCC efforts in this regard (e.g., trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi). He concluded by calling on the GCC and others to add their voices to calls for de-escalation and against selective UN resolutions (e.g., any Bahrain-proposed draft condemning only Iran). Without issuing a direct threat, Lavrov was putting the GCC on notice that Russia expected them to hold Israel and the United States accountable for the economic disaster that is confronting the GCC.

Then there is India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent trip to Israel was ill-timed, coming three days before Israel and the US attacked Iran. Although India is one of the founders of BRICS, he made a big show of elevating the India-Israel relationship from a “strategic partnership” to a “Special Strategic Partnership for Peace, Innovation, and Prosperity.” Modi signed 16 agreements and announcement of 11 joint initiatives in areas like defense (joint development/production with tech transfer), critical/emerging technologies (led by national security advisors), cyber security (Indo-Israel Cyber Centre of Excellence in India), agriculture, water management, labor mobility (facilitating over 50,000 Indian workers in Israel over five years), culture, education, and more.

Modi, along with Netanyahu, announced the advancement of free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations (first round concluded, next in May; Modi stated a deal would be finalized “soon”). He also reaffirmed India’s strong defense and counter-terrorism cooperation with Israel, including potential transfers like Iron Dome technology. Talk about bad timing. Modi’s obsequious behavior in Israel was a direct insult to the other members of BRICS… Advocating warm relations with a country guilty of genocide has not been well-received by other BRICS members.

The attack by Israel and the United States on Iran, a member of BRICS, has created a potentially catastrophic economic problem of Modi and India. India imports the vast majority of its crude oil needs (around 85-88% of total consumption), as domestic production is limited. India’s total crude oil imports average roughly 5 million barrels per day (bpd) in recent data (early 2026 figures). The Persian Gulf countries (primarily Iraq, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, and Qatar; sometimes broadly including other Middle East suppliers) are a major source, especially via the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of these flows pass. Iran’s de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz has created an emergency situation for India.

The war against Iran has given Russia tremendous leverage over India. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, in remarks made on March 6, 2026, emphasized that Russia would not disclose specific quantitative data on oil exports to India, citing “too many ill-wishers” and security concerns. This came in response to reports of potential large deliveries (e.g., up to 22 million barrels in a week) amid India’s supply crunch. Peskov also noted the Iran war has significantly boosted demand for Russian energy resources, positioning Russia as a “reliable supplier” of oil and gas.

Russia, instead of leaving India to sleep in the bed it made with Israel, highlighted its readiness to support India, but at a cost. For instance, earlier in March (around March 4), sources indicated Russia was prepared to divert oil cargoes (e.g., ~9.5 million barrels near Indian waters) and potentially raise India’s share of Russian crude imports to up to 40%. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak mentioned receiving “signals of renewed interest” from India in larger volumes due to the crisis.

Amid the surge in demand for Russia’s Urals crude, Russia hit India with a firm, but diplomatic, reminder of the cost of betraying a friend. Prior to the attack on Iran, Russia sold oil to India with deep discounts ($10-13 below Brent pre-conflict). While promising to help India compensate for its loss of Persian Gulf oil, Russia inoformed Modi that India would have to pay a premium of $4-5 over Brent for March/April deliveries. This reflects market forces rather than explicit “assurances” of continued discounts; some reports frame it as Russia treating it more as “business” without prior friendship-based concessions.

I am speculating here, but I think Modi is going to reconsider the agreements he made with Israel… Especially if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed for six months or more. What do you think?

Original article:  sonar21.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Elizabeth Vos on the social-media suppression of information that could help U.S service people refuse to join the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran as fears grow that Trump will send ground troops into the conflict.

As the U.S. and Israel’s deeply unpopular war with Iran enters its second week, social media platform X is censoring the accounts of people providing information to military servicemembers on how they can refuse to serve. This is particularly relevant as fears have grown that U.S. ground troops may enter the conflict.

The Center on Conscience & War, an 80-year-old nonprofit that, according to its website, “advocates for the rights of conscience, opposes military conscription, and serves all conscientious objectors to war,” was banned on X for 12 hours. The center’s executive director, Mike Prysner, shared a notice that the center received from X which labeled their posts as having “violated X rules” against “illegal and regulated behaviors.”

X has just suspended @CCW4COs for informing service members of their legal rights. pic.twitter.com/joNYvW9E2w

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

Prysner wrote: “This is the post @CCW4COs was suspended for, informing service members of their legal right under DoDI 1332.14 to report “failure to adapt” within first 365 days of service and receive an entry-level discharge.”

This is the post @CCW4COs was suspended for, informing service members of their legal right under DoDI 1332.14 to report “failure to adapt” within first 365 days of service and receive an entry-level discharge https://t.co/PLPQslEz6x

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

It remains legal to conscientiously object to military service. The only conceivable way that the post could be framed as encouraging illegal or irregular behavior would be to recast such objections as mutiny, which is exactly what pro-Israeli voices on social media have been frantically doing in the last few days.

In response to conservative commentator Candace Owens also encouraging those in the U.S. military to conscientiously object to serving in Iran, pro-Israel journalist Emily Schrader wrote on X:

“This is illegal. She is literally advocating mutiny. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2387 (Advocating overthrow or disloyalty in the armed forces). It is a crime for any person, including civilians, to willfully advocate or attempt to cause:
• insubordination in the armed forces
• disloyalty among service members
• mutiny or refusal of duty
It also criminalizes distributing materials intended to encourage those outcomes.
The penalty can be up to 10 years in prison and fines.”

Other pro-Israel voices like Bill Ackman, the billionaire hedge-fund manager, reposted Shrader’s sentiments.

The social media ban on the Center for Conscience and War came less than 24 hours after its executive director, Prysner, also wrote via social media regarding anecdotal evidence of troops being readied for combat:

“I just spoke with the mother of a service member in this unit. They were given one last call home before having to turn in their phones. He told his mom they were going ‘boots on the ground’ tonight.”

I just spoke with the mother of a service member in this unit. They were given one last call home before having to turn in their phones. He told his mom the were going “boots on the ground” tonight. pic.twitter.com/3OCupSfp9Q

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

As noted by The Cradle,

“Mike Prysner … said in posts on X that his office has been overwhelmed with requests for guidance from service members seeking to dodge deployment…. ‘Phone has been ringing off the hook,’ he wrote … adding that many troops had not been told the mission involved combat until the last moment and were initially informed they were heading to training.”

As veteran Greg Stoker said via X: “Service members knowing their rights is a direct threat to both the secular imperialists who own these apps and the rapturous evangelicals trying to bring about Armageddon.”

Service members knowing their rights is a direct threat to both the secular imperialists who own these apps and the rapturous evangelicals trying to bring about Armageddon.

You don’t want to be fighting for either. https://t.co/hMzq96xSir

— Greg Stoker (@gregjstoker) March 7, 2026

Some X users have also been anecdotally reporting the apparent mobilization of troops:

“Spoke to a family member tonight — a Marine stationed in California. He said half\ the troops on base have disappeared in the past couple days and that the situation is chaos with those still remaining.”

Despite official denials that troops on the ground are part of the current plan, President Donald Trump has not ruled out the possibility. Democrats expressed alarm over the possibility following a March 4 classified briefing.

Democracy Now! noted that Sen. Richard Blumenthal said, “I just want to say I am more fearful than ever, after this briefing, that we may be putting boots on the ground.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren also stated after the briefing:

“I just left a classified briefing on Iran, and here’s what I can say. It is so much worse than you thought. You are right to be worried. The Trump administration has no plan in Iran. This illegal war is based on lies, and it was launched without any imminent threat to our nation. Donald Trump still hasn’t given a single clear reason for this war, and he seems to have no plan for how to end it, either.”

The censorship of an account sharing information for troops regarding how to conscientiously object is particularly relevant now as thousands of U.S. troops are facing the potential for imminent deployment in the escalating conflict with Iran: a war largely unsupported on the home front.

Breaking news: The Army abruptly canceled a major training exercise, officials said, fueling speculation within the Defense Department that soldiers specializing in ground combat and a range of other missions may be sent to the Middle East. https://t.co/1nuTFn8acH

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 6, 2026

According to The New York Times, support for U.S. intervention in Iran is incredibly low, having “ranged from 27 percent in a Reuters/Ipsos poll to 41 percent in a CNN survey, far below the level of public backing that Mr. Trump’s predecessors initially enjoyed when they used force overseas.”

Many see the intervention as a war waged overwhelmingly for Israel, especially in light of broad daylight comments from figures like U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said:

“The president made the very wise decision: We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

Other veteran activists have also been speaking out against the war, and urging servicemembers to refuse to serve. As reported by Breakthrough News, at a Chicago rally on Saturday, veteran Daniel Lakemacher urged U.S. soldiers to “refuse this illegal and immoral war” on Iran.

“To all those who are not yet deployed: Now is the time to resist.”

At a Chicago rally on Saturday, veteran Daniel Lakemacher urges U.S. soldiers to “refuse this illegal and immoral war” on Iran.

The rally was part of a “Stop the War on Iran!” national day of action. The… pic.twitter.com/ukeY6Sci3i

— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) March 8, 2026

This negative sentiment was also voiced by former U.S. Marine Sgt Brian McGinnis, a Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate for North Carolina, who was dragged out of a recent congressional hearing after shouting that “America does not want to send its sons and daughters to war for Israel.”

Sen. Tim Sheehy and police officers reportedly broke McGinnis’s arm as they struggled to remove him from the room. McGinnis was then charged with multiple counts of assault.

Former US Marine Sgt Brian McGinnis as he’s dragged out of Congress:

“No one wants to fight for Israel!”

Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-AIPAC) can be seen helping cops manhandle the veteran

Expect to see much more of this as the Zionist war drags on pic.twitter.com/itHaOkexf2

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) March 4, 2026

The violent repression of a former service member’s speech against U.S. intervention in Iran, like the social media suppression of information that might help military members use legal methods to refuse to serve in that war, demonstrates how desperate the government is to preserve its ability to force Americans to fight for Israel.

The president and his supporters seem increasingly confused when justifying the U.S. involvement to the press. When asked about U.S./Israeli strikes on Iran’s water desalination plants, Trump rambled about beheaded babies and referenced Oct. 7. This behavior is stoking public resistance to the war, including amongst members of the military.

At a time when a dangerous war of America’s own making is escalating dangerously out of control, it cannot be acceptable to censor or render it illegal for members of the U.S. military to have a conscience.

Original article:  consortiumnews.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

When you dance with the devil, the dance isn’t done until you are done. U.S. President Trump may have believed he could manage Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s maniacal ambitions and succeed in a contest for power; sometimes hidden, other times open. Until February 27^th, considering the ending of the 12 Day War last summer, and also UNSC 2803 on Gaza, Trump appeared to have the upper hand. But on February 28th, the script would be flipped, resulting in an honorless war on Iran; not only on the Iranian government, military, and state institutions, but on the Iranian people themselves.

The victims in this are chiefly the people of Iran, starting with some 165 Iranian school girls at the Minab school in southern Iran, killed by Israeli strikes, though Iran will not remain victims as they push to become victors. Yet this conflict has other casualties too. Trump, MAGA, and whatever efforts at rebuilding American credibility appear to be among the ruins of the US-Israeli attack on the sovereign nation of Iran, and the despicable assassination of its leader Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. It appears that the U.S. has passed the point of no return.

The solemn burial of the 165 school girls wantonly slaughtered by U.S.-Israeli attacks

Some time ago the U.S. pushed the world into mayhem in the domain of international law. The Western powers had, since the end of the 20^th century Cold War, begun to shift away from a formal acknowledgement of international law, and pursued the rhetoric and practice of a so-called “rules based order”; one where the rules were unilaterally created by the Washington consensus, and were fluid, constantly shifting, conveniently and hypocritically to meet the needs of the American imperial machine. Trump’s mandate, from the American people, was to restore international law and credibility. But in the 47^th administration, there were some disconcerting signs early on that this would not be the case, even if somewhat hilarious. Threats made against Greenland and Canada were more comical than worrisome at the time. The strange (if mutually agreeable) outcomes with Venezuela seemed to have been a win-win for both countries. Nationalists laughed, globalists cried; but it’s all fun and games until it’s not.

So today to describe the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran as “violations of international law”, or “war crimes”, while no doubt true, feel very much like meaningless technical phrases from a bygone era. And in this new day and age, it is therefore clearer and more germane to simply describe these viscerally as murderous and valourless. It is mass murder, for at the time of writing, more than a thousand Iranian people have been killed in these wanton attacks, and this is simply ignominious, for Iran posed no imminent threat and the U.S. was engaged with Iran in negotiations towards a peaceable resolution of their differences.  It was right when the U.S. and Iran had all but tentatively agreed that Israel notified the U.S. that it was about to strike, and it is important to meditate on the profoundly dishonorable and discrediting nature of the U.S. going in on the attack instead of pushing to halt it.

Trump apparently made the grievous error, one of potentially world-changing proportions, to join in with these attacks, unlike the way his administration handled Israel’s attacks last summer. We have arrived at a catastrophic inflection point for the MAGA project and American credibility. It is impossible to underscore enough the extraordinary damage done to the U.S.’s efforts to improve its reputation under Trump, after decades of neoconservative and neoliberal imperialist adventurism in the post-Cold War period which ostensibly the Trump project was aimed at reversing.

Nuclear Blackmail?

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou claimed back in November of 2025 that Netanyahu threatened Trump with Israeli nuclear strikes on Iran, if Trump did not go along with a conventional strike at the time. Kiriakou says this information comes to him from a trusted source, and Kiriakou’s own credentials, history, and credibility as a whistle-blower who served time in U.S. prison as a result of his commitment to truth, combined with his unique access to insider information, leads us to give high credence to his testimony.

Former CIA Counter-terrorism office John Kiriakou in the November 2025 interview

According to Kiriakou:

“The reason though, I’m told that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran, was that the Israelis said for the first time, ‘If you don’t bomb Iran to take out these deep bunkers, we are going to use nuclear weapons.’ And they have never threatened that before. And so Trump said, bombing Iran might actually save us from the start of World War III, if it keeps the Israelis from using nuclear weapons.”

In addition, we are forced to account for the conclusions of ex Saudi intel chief Prince Turki al-Faisal, who explains that Netanyahu “convinced” Trump to support him on February 28th, concluding that “This is Netanyahu’s war”.

Al Faisal’s interview with Amanpour on CNN, March 4, 2026

Trump has apparently been outmaneuvered by the Zionist establishment, even if this was the result of nuclear blackmail, and has driven MAGA smack into a Zionist brick wall, while we should caution that these are unfolding events and this is but the read of things as of today.

Trump has been trapped, compromised, and outplayed by Netanyahu and the Israeli establishment, resulting in U.S. participation in a horrifically discrediting and strategically counterproductive war on Iran. While Trump might attempt to salvage the situation, more will rely on the diplomatic and strategic intervention of BRICS leaders like Russia, China, and even India, to de-escalate this crisis.

Eliminating Khamenei was strategically self-defeating even in the narrowest and immediate sense, as the Ayatollah was arguably a moderating force on the nuclear question, and Iran’s technocratic system ensures institutional continuity regardless of leadership decapitation. It would be understandable, even expected, now if Iran were indeed to pursue nuclear weapons, assessing what has happened in some part no doubt because they do not apparently have one now. Which is not to say they ought to, but who could readily blame them today if they did?

The Kiriakou claim about Israeli nuclear blackmail, if true, represents nuclear terrorism by definition, but there is a fundamental flaw in the logic of compliance: if Trump bombed Iran to prevent an Israeli nuclear strike last summer, nothing prevents Israel from issuing the same threat again with escalating demands. The leverage problem is not resolved by submission to it, which is perhaps then what we have seen again on February 28th.

Rubio’s disavowal of the Khamenei assassination is another strange factor in this. Is it plausible deniability, or a reflection of team Trump having lost control of the situation?  Kiriakou’s claim of Israeli nuclear threats against Trump, Saudi complaints about the lack of defense for US regional bases, Prince Turki al-Faisal’s conclusion that Netanyahu pushed Trump into the war, and reports of Iranian retaliatory strikes on U.S. bases for which the Americans were underprepared, all lend towards the conclusion that the U.S. lost control of the situation and did not seek a confrontation where increasingly successful negotiations were merely a ruse.

Khamenei’s Assassination: Strategic Futility

The assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei was counterproductive on its own terms. The Ayatollah was elderly, physically declining, and had perhaps a few years remaining. If the objective was to prevent Iranian nuclearization, Khamenei’s continued leadership served that purpose better than his removal.

Iran operates as a “meritocratic technocracy” organized around organizations of experts, where individuals are promoted to below their level of competence: the next tier of leadership is perpetually prepared. This is a system governed by institutions, not men, with the sole exception of the Supreme Ayatollah’s interpretive authority. Decapitation strikes against such a system are structurally futile, and in terms of morale within Iran, these do not serve to reduce it but to strengthen their resolve and unity.

Trump’s previous behavior is inconsistent with the interpretation that he simply wanted war with Iran. Historical friction with Pompeo and Bolton, friction with Netanyahu, the fact that military conditions favored an attack far more in 2017-2018, and the events of the 12-Day War in which Trump forced Israeli jets to turn around, as they were trying to break the ceasefire just agreed to, in such a way that would pull the U.S. in the way we see now. These all point in the direction of Trump’s preference for non-military solutions at times when military conditions and a more coherent casus belli were more favorable than now. We may recall Trump being quite irate at Israel for trying to break the ceasefire:

“Uh they violated, but Israel violated it, too. Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs the likes of which I’ve never seen before. The biggest load that we’ve seen. I’m not happy with Israel. You know, when when I say, “Okay, now you have 12 hours.” You don’t go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So, I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran either. But I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because of one rocket that didn’t land that was shot perhaps by mistake that didn’t land. I’m not happy about that. You know what we have? We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*ck they’re doing. Do you understand that?”

Trump’s irate comments to the Guardian about Israel’s bellicosity at the end of the 12 Day War

Conclusively, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statements to press more or less confirm that Israel initiated the conflict, and the U.S. went ahead and joined it, on the rationale that Iran would retaliate against both parties even if Israel was the chief provocateur. While from the perspective of international law, the U.S. had no business threatening Iran in the first place, within that microcosm of reality, there is a certain logic to it. Iran, after all, is not in the business of being fooled by any sort of ‘good cop/bad cop’ antics, nor would they let the U.S. off the hook by buying into some sort of plausible deniability. Moreover, Iran had already warned the U.S. that any strike from either party would result in a firm military response aimed at numerous U.S. military bases and installations in the region. Rubio accounts that the Pentagon’s assessment was that because Iran would strike the U.S. anyhow, even though Israel was the aggressor, then the U.S. had better join in on the initial attack in order to mitigate their own losses.

But Rubio’s response points to a broader reality. Rubio, on behalf of the administration, had effectively shifted blame onto Israel and the Pentagon, and in so doing attempted to deflect responsibility and tell a story that “our hands were tied” by the logic of the conflict. It’s a fair point, within the problematic setup that the U.S. had created for itself in the first place, we should note.

At the end of the day, it is most probable that Israel will begin soon to pressure the U.S. to engage in ceasefire talks with the Iranians. According to Israel’s Ynet, the Americans themselves apparently tried to immediately end the conflict right as it started, but because the Israelis (if we are to believe Rubio) had assassinated Khamenei, the Iranians weren’t having it. After all, the U.S. or Israel has now attacked Iran three times already, entirely unprovoked. Iran has planned for a multi-year war, and Khamenei’s strategic legacy was one of preparing Iran for such a conflict, with a victory strategy contingent upon decentralizing their forces within Iran, withstanding ongoing and major strikes on buildings associated with traditional command and control in Tehran, the ensuing havoc upon the global economy that such a war would create including the Strait of Hormuz, combined with Israel’s relative inability to take punches for too long – the same metric that forced Israel to push the U.S. for a ceasefire at the end of the 12 Day War last summer.

The attacks on U.S. bases in the region are meant to disrupt the ability for the aggressors to resupply and support Israel, paving the way for increasingly effective attacks on Israeli military targets like we have seen before.

Trump is no doubt in store for a very painful lesson due to his honorless bellicosity in service of Netanyahu’s unhinged war-mongering. Does he have a trick up his sleeve? Will he once again pull a rabbit out of the hat? He has surprised the world numerous times, so time will tell. But as things look, his project appears burnt and there is little sympathy for his own political survival among large swathes of his former supporters. Can he get them back? Can dead school children be brought back to life? There’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. At the same time, if Iran succeeds at hitting the U.S. and Israel hard, and Trump is able to end this conflict sooner than later, the world will be better off for it. As for Israel’s alleged nuclear blackmail, that’s a gift that keeps on giving, and one that needs to be confronted.

Follow Joaquin on Telegram @NewResistance or on X/Twitter @XoaquinFlores

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A little clarity for everyone

Pakistan has attacked Afghanistan. American aircraft carriers have broken toilets. The embassies of twelve states are calling on their citizens and diplomatic staff to leave Iran. How are all these events connected? Let’s take a strategic and geopolitical look.

The situation after January’s “Operation 13 Days,” in which Western intelligence services plotted and attempted yet another regime change in the Islamic Republic of Iran through the old method of organized protests, was one of encirclement of Iran by U.S. armed forces, concurrent with negotiations between the American and Iranian governments. The whole world cried out against the U.S., which, with its usual gangster-like arrogance, put Iran under pressure, creating no small number of problems.

But what if the perspective were broader than that?

From a strategic point of view, both military and diplomatic, what we have seen is this: the U.S. and Iran open diplomatic talks; the U.S. surrounds them with its military force. If we stick to a technical analysis, this gesture has meant putting up a wall of military defense between Iran and… Israel.

That’s right: Israel is the country that is trying to provoke an escalation in the Middle East, pressuring the U.S. for authorization and military support to attack Iran. Without the U.S., Israel would risk ending up like a squashed fly, making a lot of noise and disturbing everyone, but it wouldn’t take much to wipe it out. This link is essential. If we admit this possibility, which, I repeat, makes strategic sense, we realize that there is an attempt at collaboration between the U.S. and Iran to redraw the maps of the Middle East. And this makes sense and is indispensable for reducing the power of the Zionist entity, reshaping Arab influences, and agreeing on zones of influence. An absurd idea? We will see in six or seven months.

If we look more closely, we realize that it is Israel itself that has tried to detonate the conflict, creating various enmities and breaking points. A method already known on the international scene. And this is where the Pakistan issue comes in.

When plumbers are lacking

If we broaden our view, we see that Israel has meanwhile tried to run for cover and has rushed to find some new allies. The first was India. The country led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is thirsty for military technology, particularly nuclear technology, and with the agreement signed with Netanyahu, it will have access to Israeli and American technology. This choice is consistent with both the political stance of the current Indian leadership and the concrete needs of the world’s most populous country.

In order to be a power, it must have access to a range of technologies that will allow it to remain at the top of the competition, technologies that it cannot obtain from China, its long-standing rival. Israel is well aware of this, which is why it has stepped in and tried to fragment the rapprochement that had been achieved thanks to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which had managed to bring the RIC (Russia-India-China), the three great superpowers, to the table, reaching a historic agreement on cooperation and healing the animosities of the past.

And how does Israel go against China as well, trying to create a zone of negotiation with the U.S., which cannot stand China? It inserts itself into Pakistan, which has excellent relations with China and is also a rival of India. Two possible victories in one fell swoop. But perhaps even more than that.

The detonation of a conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in fact, does what the U.S. did not want to do: set the region on fire, but in the East, not in the West. In this way, Iran finds itself indirectly involved, since the well-known tensions with the Balochistan region, between Pakistan and Iran, and also the political relations that have stabilized positively with the new Afghan leadership, are now being called into question and become the subject of a series of problems to be resolved.

This choice is still a Plan B, but it makes sense. By setting the region ablaze, Israel is aiming for a change in the balance of power in the medium term, not immediately. The only way to escalate the situation is to involve the U.S. in the Pakistan-Afghanistan affair, perhaps by offering the Washington government the opportunity to return to Kabul. What is certain is that the USS Ford, with 35 hydraulic engineers on board, did not suffer a ‘random’ failure of its toilets: the tampering with one of the largest warships in the world (and other ships as well) is a simple but effective way of telling Israel that no, they have no intention of engaging in a war in the Middle East right now to satisfy the follies of the genocidal Netanyahu.

Then there is the other player that is being called into the field, Russia, which has kept its distance for the moment, leaving the U.S. to deal with Iran. Russia has already made a significant retreat from the region with the loss of exclusive access to the Caucasus, due to the century-old agreement between the U.S., Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Russia, which mediated the transition in Afghanistan with incredible foresight, could now be called upon, precisely by Israel, to have its say. In this way, Israel also aims to disrupt the hard work of rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia, which objectively constitutes a major barrier to Zionist ambitions, but this could also become an opportunity for Russia and the U.S. to disqualify Israel from the game. How? By allowing at least part of this escalation to come to light, revealing the Israeli mind behind it all, in order to completely delegitimize Israeli authority and its influence in the world.

It is not yet entirely clear who is pushing whom in this strange conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan, nor how things will end between Iran and the U.S… what is certain is that the situation is heating up and could become very, very dangerous if Israel is not stopped in time.