Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Сorporate media of all stripes have rushed to support the U.S./Israeli attack on Iran, throwing objectivity and accuracy by the wayside in order to manufacture consent for regime change.

On February 28, the U.S. and Israel launched a joint attack on Iran, bombing cities across the country, assassinating its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and openly stating their goal was overthrowing the government.

Despite this, media have gone out of their way to present the actions as the U.S. protecting itself, describing them as “defensive strikes,” and to frame Iran as the aggressor. “Iran chooses chaos” ran the headline of the New York Times’ newsletter, portraying the Islamic Republic as the primary actor.

The Free Press used similarly Orwellian concepts. “War is Iranians’ best chance at peace,” presenting U.S./Israeli crimes as an act of mercy on its long-suffering population.

Meanwhile, under the new leadership of self-described “Zionist fanatic” Bari Weiss, CBS News has transformed itself into a mouthpiece for the Israeli Defense Forces, interviewing IDF Brigadier General Effie Defrin, and uncritically presenting Israel’s war as “aimed at preventing a wider global threat.”

Across the West, corporate media have employed the same tactics of using the passive voice and not naming the perpetrator when describing U.S./Israeli aggression. A perfect encapsulation of this was the BBC’s headline, “At least 153 dead after reported strike on school, Iran says,” that made it sound as if the children died in a lightning strike or a labor dispute, rather than that they were bombed by hostile foreign powers.

Israeli casualties were given more sympathetic coverage than their Iranian counterparts, while media regularly toned down the language used to describe Israeli actions to make them sound more reasonable, and did the opposite with Iran. The Washington Post, for example, wrote (emphasis added) “Israel urges evacuation of south Beirut suburbs; Iran threatens revenge on U.S. over warship.” Thus, Israel was treated as making a good faith attempt to reduce civilian casualties, while the Iranian response to their ship being attacked and sunk in international waters was presented as menacing.

Another common tactic of delegitimization media use is to describe the Iranian as a “regime” (e.g., Bloomberg, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, CNN, NBC News). The word “regime” immediately discredits a government, and cues the reader to oppose it. The phrase “Israeli regime” is virtually never used, unless in a quote from Iranian officials.

Earlier this week, large numbers of Israeli troops re-invaded southern Lebanon. Media attempted to find ways to present the operation as legitimate, including euphemistically using the phrase “cross over into Lebanon” to describe the invasion, or even blaming Hezbollah for the violence. CNN, for instance, wrote that, “Hezbollah is dragging Lebanon into the war on Iran,” and that “Hezbollah just restarted the fight that Israel was waiting to finish,” thereby flipping the realities of who was attacking whom.

There have also been a number of fawning profiles of Israeli leaders. “Benjamin Netanyahu’s long career was built on conflict avoidance—then, October 7 transformed and radicalized him,” wrote The Atlantic. In Britain, the coverage from some quarters was even more positive. “Netanyahu is the great war leader of our age” The Daily Telegraph stated, describing the prime minister as a “genius.”

The Daily Telegraph’s Monday front page headline read “Britain backs war on Iran,” with a picture of diaspora Iranians cheering on the bombing of their country. The reality, however, is far less jingoistic. A YouGov poll published the same day found that only 28% of U.K. citizens support U.S./Israeli actions, with 49% expressing their opposition to them. Nevertheless, BBC anchor Nick Robinson suggested, on air, that protests against the U.S./Israeli attacks should be banned across the U.K.

This sort of mentality should come as no surprise, given BBC leadership’s stated positions on Israel. The corporation’s Middle East editor, Raffi Berg, is a former CIA operative and Mossad collaborator who has a signed letter of recommendation from Netanyahu on his office wall.

Anonymous BBC employees speaking to Drop Site News claimed that Berg’s “entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel.” They went on to allege that he holds “wild” amounts of power at the British state broadcaster, that there exists a culture of “extreme fear” at the BBC about publishing anything critical of Israel, and that Berg himself plays a key role in turning its coverage into “systematic Israeli propaganda.” The BBC has disputed these claims.

If true, the sort of top-down pro-Israel bias at the BBC closely mirrors that of American outlets. A leaked 2023 New York Times memo revealed that company management explicitly instructed its reporters not to use words such as “genocide,” “slaughter,” and “ethnic cleansing” when discussing Israel’s actions. Times staff must refrain from using words like “refugee camp,” “occupied territory,” or even “Palestine” in their reporting, making it almost impossible to convey some of the most basic facts to their audience.

CNN employees face similar pressure. In the wake of the October 7 attacks, the company’s C.E.O. Mark Thompson sent out a memo to all staff instructing them to make sure that Hamas (and not Israel) is presented as responsible for the violence, that they must always use the moniker “Hamas-controlled” when discussing the Gaza Health Ministry and their civilian death figures, and barring them from any reporting of Hamas’ viewpoint, which its senior director of news standards and practices told staff was “not newsworthy” and amounted to “inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda.”

German media conglomerate Axel Springer, meanwhile – owner of outlets such as Politico and Business Insider – requires its employees to sign what amounts to a loyalty oath to support “the trans-Atlantic alliance and Israel.” The company fired a Lebanese employee who, through internal channels, questioned the requirement.

American newsrooms are also filled with former Israel lobbyists. A MintPress News investigation found hundreds of former employees of Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC, StandWithUs and CAMERA working in top newsrooms across the country, writing and producing America’s news – including on Israel-Palestine. These outlets include MSNBC, The New York Times, CNN, and Fox News.

There are even ex-Israeli spies writing our news. Another MintPress report revealed a network of former agents of IDF intelligence outfit, Unit 8200, working in America’s newsrooms, including at CNN and Axios.

Therefore, with American newsrooms presided over and staffed in no small part by pro-Israel zealots, it is far from a surprise that their coverage closely mirrors the outlook and biases of Washington and Tel Aviv.

And now, with CNN, CBS News, and TikTok owned by CIA asset Larry Ellison, the IDF’s largest private funder and a close personal friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, we should only expect the propaganda to be dialed up to eleven.

Original article: mintpressnews.com

Abbas al-ZEIN

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

El intento de Washington de imponer su dominio total ha desencadenado un enfrentamiento que ahora amenaza la propia estructura del poder estadounidense en Asia Occidental.

El 28 de febrero de 2026, Asia Occidental cruzó una línea roja que había estado presente en la región durante años, de la que los diplomáticos hablaban con cautela y que los planificadores militares analizaban a puerta cerrada. Estados Unidos, en plena coordinación operativa con Israel, lanzó un ataque militar a gran escala contra la República Islámica de Irán, dirigiéndose contra el núcleo de su liderazgo soberano, sus capacidades estratégicas de disuasión y la infraestructura que sustenta ambos.

En cuestión de horas, Teherán respondió con ataques con misiles transfronterizos contra bases estadounidenses en el golfo Pérsico y en el interior de la Palestina ocupada, transformando lo que Washington había planteado como un golpe preventivo decisivo en la fase inicial de una guerra regional que Irán había advertido desde hacía tiempo que se produciría tras cualquier agresión directa contra su territorio.

El enfrentamiento pasó rápidamente de la retórica y la represalia simbólica, alterando la temperatura estratégica de toda la región desde las primeras horas.

Doctrina de decapitación: conmoción, asesinatos y ataques a infraestructuras

El asalto, denominado «Operación León Rugiente» por Israel y «Operación Furia Épica» por Washington, comenzó en las primeras horas de la mañana con más de 200 aviones de combate, incluidos aviones F-35, que despegaron desde múltiples bases regionales bajo la cobertura naval estadounidense en el mar Arábigo.

La secuencia de objetivos, la profundidad de penetración y el uso de municiones pesadas para destruir búnkeres reflejaban una clara doctrina operativa: decapitar al liderazgo, cortar las redes de mando y desactivar la capacidad de represalia antes de que pudiera movilizarse por completo.

La primera oleada se centró explícitamente en lo que los planificadores israelíes y estadounidenses consideran la «cabeza de la pirámide». Los sitios soberanos de Teherán fueron atacados en rápida sucesión.

Los bombardeos alcanzaron el distrito de Sayyid Khandan y la calle University, con el objetivo de Beit al-Rahbari, el complejo del líder supremo Alí Jamenei, junto al palacio presidencial y el edificio del parlamento. Escuadrones de F-35 llevaron a cabo incursiones concentradas contra el perímetro de seguridad a lo largo de la calle Pasteur, desplegando municiones pesadas de penetración diseñadas para derrumbar estructuras subterráneas reforzadas.

Al amanecer del 1 de marzo, la televisión estatal iraní interrumpió su programación para anunciar el martirio del ayatolá Jamenei tras la destrucción de su residencia y los centros de mando adyacentes. Los informes confirmaron la muerte de figuras de alto rango que habían asistido a una reunión de emergencia de la Sala de Operaciones de Defensa Suprema, entre ellas el ministro de Defensa, el general de brigada Aziz Nasirzadeh, altos mandos de la Guardia Revolucionaria, el jefe del Estado Mayor, funcionarios de inteligencia y el secretario del Consejo Supremo de Seguridad Nacional.

El ataque tenía por objeto vaciar de contenido lo que Washington y Tel Aviv consideraban el núcleo de toma de decisiones de la República Islámica de un solo golpe contundente.

Los ataques se extendieron mucho más allá de los objetivos de liderazgo. Las instalaciones de Isfahán, Karaj y Qom relacionadas con el enriquecimiento de uranio y el almacenamiento de misiles balísticos fueron alcanzadas en oleadas coordinadas. Se atacaron los sistemas de defensa aérea en un intento de cegar y desorientar el escudo disuasorio de Irán.

La Radio del Ejército israelí describió posteriormente que se habían atacado unos 500 objetivos, incluidas instalaciones de mando sensibles y depósitos de misiles asociados con la Guardia Revolucionaria.

Las víctimas civiles siguieron a la ofensiva militar. En la ciudad meridional de Minab, un ataque aéreo destruyó la escuela primaria femenina Shajareh Tayyebeh («Árbol Bueno»), matando a más de 175 alumnas e hiriendo a docenas. Las imágenes del lugar circularon rápidamente por los medios de comunicación iraníes, lo que modificó el clima político interno. La masacre endureció la determinación del público, que pasó a considerar el enfrentamiento no como una disputa estratégica abstracta, sino como un trauma nacional con consecuencias generacionales.

Promesa Verdadera 4: Ampliación del campo de batalla

La respuesta de Irán no se desarrolló tras días de deliberaciones. Menos de una hora después del ataque inicial y solo dos horas después del inicio de la campaña de bombardeos, el Cuerpo de la Guardia Revolucionaria Islámica (CGRI) anunció el lanzamiento de «Promesa Verdadera 4». La operación supuso una escalada decisiva e histórica: el ataque directo a instalaciones militares estadounidenses en toda Asia occidental.

Los misiles alcanzaron el cuartel general de la Quinta Flota en Juffair, Baréin, símbolo del dominio marítimo de Washington en el golfo Pérsico. La base de Al-Udeid en Qatar, una de las mayores instalaciones aéreas estadounidenses de la región, fue alcanzada, junto con instalaciones en los Emiratos Árabes Unidos, Kuwait, Jordania y la base de Harir en la región del Kurdistán iraquí.

Por primera vez, Teherán situó formalmente toda la red de infraestructuras estadounidenses desplegadas en el frente dentro de su campo de batalla declarado, borrando la distinción que se había asumido durante mucho tiempo entre los objetivos israelíes y los estadounidenses.

El ministro de Asuntos Exteriores iraní, Abbas Araghchi, aclaró que la respuesta se dirigía contra las «fuentes de agresión», subrayando que Teherán no consideraba enemigos a los Estados anfitriones, sino que consideraba las bases estadounidenses en su territorio como extensiones de la soberanía estadounidense. El secretario del Consejo Supremo de Seguridad Nacional, Ali Larijani, reforzó este planteamiento, afirmando que estas bases constituyen territorio estadounidense independientemente de su ubicación geográfica. En esencia, cualquier plataforma utilizada para atacar a Irán sería tratada como parte de la guerra.

Al mismo tiempo, se lanzaron cientos de misiles balísticos y drones hacia la Palestina ocupada. Las sirenas sonaron en Jerusalén, Tel Aviv y Haifa. A pesar de los intentos de interceptación, se registraron impactos directos en instalaciones militares y estratégicas, lo que obligó al gobierno de ocupación a declarar el estado de máxima emergencia y a trasladar a los colonos a refugios.

El aura de inmunidad estratégica que había rodeado durante décadas tanto a las bases estadounidenses como al interior de Israel se rompió en cuestión de horas.

Con el alto el fuego ya violado por Tel Aviv, Hezbolá, uno de los pilares centrales del Eje de la Resistencia, lanzó ataques coordinados con cohetes y drones desde el sur del Líbano contra objetivos militares dentro de la Palestina ocupada, lo que indicaba que Irán no estaría solo en el campo de batalla.

Los ataques supusieron la escalada más grave en el frente libanés desde la guerra de 2024, lo que transformó inmediatamente la crisis en un enfrentamiento en múltiples frentes. Tel Aviv respondió con intensos ataques aéreos sobre el sur del Líbano y los suburbios del sur de Beirut —Dahiye— dirigidos contra infraestructuras de la resistencia, centros logísticos y presuntos centros de mando.

El bombardeo de Beirut reinsertó al Líbano directamente en la ecuación de la guerra, lo que podría poner en práctica la doctrina de la «unidad de frentes» articulada desde hace tiempo por el Eje de la Resistencia. Con la entrada de Hezbolá, el conflicto dejó de ser un intercambio bilateral entre Estados Unidos e Irán y se convirtió en un enfrentamiento regional, tal y como había predicho el difunto Jamenei el mes pasado, con teatros de operaciones superpuestos que se extienden desde el Golfo Pérsico hasta el Mediterráneo oriental.

El impulso de Washington para cambiar el régimen y la agenda de Tel Aviv

Políticamente, Washington y Tel Aviv presentaron el ataque como una necesidad estratégica más que como un acto de escalada. El presidente estadounidense Donald Trump declaró que el objetivo era la eliminación permanente de lo que él denominó la amenaza nuclear iraní, vinculando abiertamente la operación al cambio de régimen e instando a los iraníes a «tomar el control» de su país.

Lanzó un ultimátum al CGRI para que depusiera las armas o se enfrentara a la destrucción, ofreciendo inmunidad a quienes cumplieran. El mensaje dejaba claro que el ataque no se limitaba a las centrifugadoras y los depósitos de misiles, sino que apuntaba al núcleo político de la propia República Islámica.

El primer ministro israelí, Benjamin Netanyahu, describió el ataque como una oportunidad histórica para remodelar Asia Occidental. Los responsables de seguridad israelíes lo calificaron de ataque preventivo contra las ambiciones nucleares de Irán, haciendo hincapié en la sorpresa táctica y la amplitud de los objetivos atacados. Para Tel Aviv, la operación se ajustaba a una visión estratégica más amplia en la que los proyectos de normalización y las iniciativas de integración regional se aseguran mediante un dominio militar abrumador.

La respuesta de Teherán fue igualmente inequívoca. Las autoridades iraníes declararon que la era de la paciencia estratégica había terminado y calificaron el ataque como un suicidio político y militar para la alianza entre Estados Unidos e Israel. Fuentes oficiales anunciaron el cierre del Estrecho de Ormuz a la navegación internacional, una medida que inmediatamente sacudió los mercados energéticos mundiales.

En medio de la escalada de tensiones, el CGRI anunció que había atacado varios petroleros en el estrecho de Ormuz y el golfo, mientras que las autoridades marítimas de Baréin y Omán informaban de ataques a buques, víctimas y alertas navales reforzadas, lo que supuso un cambio de la represalia simbólica a la confrontación marítima directa.

Escenario uno: guerra total y ruptura sistémica

La primera y más peligrosa trayectoria es una guerra regional total. En este escenario, Irán pasa de atacar bases a imponer un cierre total de las exportaciones de petróleo del Golfo Pérsico. El cierre temporal del estrecho de Ormuz podría convertirse en un bloqueo sostenido respaldado por minas navales, baterías de misiles antibuque y tácticas marítimas asimétricas. Los precios del petróleo podrían dispararse por encima de los 200 dólares por barril, lo que amplificaría la fragilidad económica mundial y ejercería una enorme presión sobre las economías dependientes de la energía.

Con Hezbolá ya involucrado y el frente libanés activo, Israel se enfrentaría a la presión simultánea de Irán, Líbano, Yemen e Irak. La activación de la doctrina de la Unidad de Frentes estiraría la capacidad militar israelí y obligaría a Washington a considerar una intervención directa en múltiples escenarios para proteger a su principal aliado regional.

Las bases estadounidenses en Baréin, Catar, Kuwait, los Emiratos Árabes Unidos e Irak se convertirían en objetivos fijos bajo amenaza continua, transformando los símbolos de proyección en pasivos.

Tal escalada pondría a prueba la durabilidad de la arquitectura regional de Washington. Los proyectos construidos sobre la premisa de la supremacía militar israelí —incluidas las vías de normalización y los corredores de integración— podrían desmoronarse bajo un fuego sostenido. En lugar de contener a Irán, una guerra integral podría afianzar a Teherán y a sus aliados como una fuerza regional inquebrantable, acelerando el cambio hacia un orden multipolar en el que la influencia rusa y china se expanda a expensas del dominio atlantista.

Escenario dos: un equilibrio duro bajo nuevas reglas

Una segunda posibilidad se basa en la restauración de la disuasión tras el choque mutuo. Si Washington calcula que una mayor escalada conlleva el riesgo de pérdidas militares y políticas insostenibles, y Teherán considera que su mensaje ha sido suficientemente transmitido, podría surgir una tregua no declarada.

En tales condiciones, el bando estadounidense-israelí enmarcaría la interrupción de la trayectoria nuclear de Irán como un logro estratégico, al tiempo que se alejaría de un cambio de régimen explícito. Irán consideraría los ataques directos contra las bases estadounidenses y el interior de Israel como una prueba de que la inmunidad occidental ha llegado a su fin. La confrontación entraría en una nueva fase de guerra en la sombra, regida por normas de combate más duras y permisivas.

Sin embargo, la reincorporación de Hezbolá complica cualquier rápida desescalada. El enfrentamiento en múltiples frentes reduce la probabilidad de un rápido entendimiento bilateral. Los intercambios de misiles, las operaciones cibernéticas, los asesinatos selectivos y los ataques calibrados podrían convertirse en mecanismos de señalización semirregulares. La región se vería sumida en una zona gris persistente, ni guerra a gran escala ni paz estable, con una estabilidad económica perpetuamente expuesta a brotes de violencia.

Escenario tres: Guerra de desgaste sostenida

Teherán podría optar por un desgaste prolongado diseñado para erosionar la lógica de la presencia estadounidense sin provocar una represalia abrumadora. En lugar de dar a Washington un pretexto para la devastación de las infraestructuras, Irán y sus aliados podrían aumentar los costes de forma gradual.

Con este enfoque, todas las bases estadounidenses se convertirían en instalaciones fortificadas bajo el fuego intermitente de drones y misiles. Ormuz y Bab al-Mandab podrían sufrir interrupciones periódicas suficientes para desestabilizar los mercados sin llegar a un cierre total.

Israel probablemente intensificaría los asesinatos y las operaciones encubiertas, profundizando los ciclos de represalias. La participación sostenida de Hezbolá desde el Líbano estiraría aún más la capacidad militar y de defensa aérea de Israel.

A lo largo de los meses, el agotamiento constante de las reservas de municiones, los sistemas interceptores y los presupuestos de defensa podría erosionar la justificación estratégica del despliegue avanzado. Sin embargo, el desgaste también ejerce presión interna tanto sobre Irán como sobre el Líbano. La confrontación sostenida bajo embargos más estrictos exige resiliencia económica, cohesión social y estabilidad política. Los actores externos tratarían de aprovechar cualquier fractura interna.

Escenario cuatro: Choque decisivo y rápido recálculo

Una última trayectoria contempla una rápida ruptura estratégica. Una hipótesis prevé que el ataque inicial paralice con éxito las estructuras de mando iraníes y obligue a concesiones radicales en los programas nucleares y de misiles. Sin embargo, la velocidad y el alcance de la represalia de Irán, llevada a cabo a pesar de la pérdida de figuras de alto rango, complican esa valoración.

La alternativa se centra en un revés inesperado de Estados Unidos. Un ataque directo contra un importante activo naval, la destrucción de un centro de mando central como el cuartel general de la Quinta Flota o ataques incapacitantes contra múltiples bases podrían generar una reacción interna en Washington suficiente para obligar a un reajuste inmediato. Si Israel fuera objeto de un fuego preciso y sostenido que amenazara sus infraestructuras básicas, los responsables políticos estadounidenses se enfrentarían al riesgo de que la continuación de la guerra pusiera en peligro su principal ancla regional.

El orden regional en juego

Lo que comenzó el 28 de febrero es una contienda por la arquitectura del poder en Asia Occidental. Washington apostó por que una fuerza abrumadora impondría la sumisión y restauraría su dominio indiscutible. Teherán respondió atacando directamente las instalaciones estadounidenses y el interior de Israel. La reincorporación de Hezbolá al campo de batalla demuestra que la doctrina de la Unidad de Frentes está lejos de estar inactiva, e integró al Líbano en la geometría estratégica de la guerra.

La región se encuentra ahora entre dos resultados estructurales: o bien un acuerdo negociado que reconozca los límites del dominio unilateral, o bien una confrontación sostenida que acelere la erosión de la hegemonía estadounidense y afiance un nuevo equilibrio de disuasión liderado por el Eje de la Resistencia.

Lo que está en juego va más allá de los cálculos inmediatos del campo de batalla y alcanza la configuración a largo plazo del poder en Asia Occidental.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A “Uniting for Peace” resolution in the UN General Assembly can counter the Security Council’s failure to act.

Truthout is a vital news source and a living history of political struggle. If you think our work is valuable, support us with a donation of any size.

Already 555 Iranians — including 180 students at a girls’ elementary school in Minab — have been reported dead in the war of aggression launched February 28 by President Donald Trump and his accomplice, accused war criminal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, against Iran.

“Operation Epic Fury involves the largest regional concentration of American military firepower in a generation,” U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

This aggression has destabilized the region and triggered Iran’s legitimate exercise of self-defense.

The U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran violates the United Nations Charter, which requires that all states settle their disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of armed force except in self-defense under Article 51 after an armed attack against a UN state by another state, or when the Security Council authorizes it.

Before February 28, Iran had not mounted an armed attack against any country, nor did it pose an imminent threat to the U.S., Israel, or another UN member state. And the Security Council had not authorized the use of military force against Iran.

The timing of the U.S.-Israeli attacks undermines the pretext that the U.S. and Israel had been engaging in good-faith negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

Netanyahu Convinced Trump to Withdraw From the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2017

Trump claimed he attacked Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

The negotiations preceding the February 28 attack must be examined in the context of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that was negotiated by France, Britain, Russia, China, Germany, the U.S., and Iran during the Obama administration.

In the JCPOA, Iran agreed to restrict its uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities. In return, the U.S. unfroze billions of dollars in Iranian assets to provide relief from punishing sanctions. Until Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal during his first administration, the JCPOA had been working to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

“Iran has gotten rid of all of its highly enriched uranium,” Jessica T. Mathews wrote in an 2017 article in The New York Review. “It has also eliminated 99 percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium…. All enrichment has been shut down at the once-secret, fortified, underground facility at Fordow.… Iran has disabled and poured concrete into the core of its plutonium reactor — thus shutting down the plutonium as well as the uranium route to nuclear weapons. It has provided adequate answers to the [International Atomic Energy Agency’s] long-standing list of questions regarding past weapons-related activities.”

Nevertheless, in 2017, Netanyahu convinced Trump to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal. “I asked [Trump] to leave the JCPOA,” Netanyahu bragged. “It was me who made him to depart from the deal.”

Had the JCPOA remained in force, the current U.S.-Israeli aggression would almost certainly not have happened.

Negotiations Were Bearing Fruit But U.S. and Israel Attacked Anyway

Before the February 28 U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, the country of Oman had been brokering negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. and Israel insisted that Iran stop enriching uranium, limit its ballistic missile program, and end support for its “proxies” Hezbollah and the Houthis.

On February 27, Oman’s foreign minister said on CBS News that the negotiations had made significant progress and Iran had agreed to more concessions than those contained in the JCPOA. A nuclear agreement was “within our reach,” he stated.

Nevertheless, Trump maintained that diplomacy had been exhausted. The U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran the next day.

In his videotaped announcement, Trump misleadingly stated that the Iranian government has “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions.”

Citing no evidence, Trump declared that the Iranian regime “has built nuclear weapons.” This contradicted his declaration in June 2025 after his bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites that the U.S. had “obliterated” its nuclear program.

Israel erroneously stated that Iran is armed with nuclear weapons. For the past two decades, Israel has claimed that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Trump said that in order to avoid a war, Iran would have had to say “those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.’” But Iran has stated this several times. In fact, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa banning nuclear weapons in 2004.

The Trump administration has admitted it has no evidence Iran is weaponizing its uranium enrichment program, or even that it has restarted enriching uranium since last June. Iran has always maintained that it enriches uranium for peaceful purposes, as permitted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

There is also no evidence that Iran is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that could hit the United States.

The purpose of the joint U.S.-Israeli operation, Netanyahu said, was “to remove the existential threat posed by the terrorist regime in Iran.”

“Netanyahu’s agenda has always been to prevent a diplomatic solution, and he feared Trump was actually serious about getting a deal, so the start of this war in the middle of negotiations is a success for him, just like it was last June,” Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, told Al Jazeera.

U.S.-Israeli Aggression and Iran’s Self-Defense

The U.S.-Israeli use of force against Iran violates its sovereignty and territorial integrity and thus constitutes illegal aggression, which was considered the “supreme international crime” at Nuremberg.

Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter says that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Aggression is inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. An “act of aggression” is “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,” under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. Aggression includes “the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State.”

A “preemptive” strike (purportedly to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons) violates the UN Charter and constitutes aggression.

Professor Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, posted on X: “I strongly condemn the Israeli & US aggression against Iran, in violation of the most fundamental rule of international law — the ban on the use of force. All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international order.”

Article 51 of the Charter says, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

After the U.S. and Israel mounted these armed attacks, Iran was permitted to act in self-defense.

When the UN Security Council Drops the Ball, the General Assembly Can Act

The UN Security Council met on February 28 but it did not pass a resolution addressing the U.S.-Israeli bombing of Iran.

If the U.S. prevents the Security Council from acting to restore international peace and security, the General Assembly can convene under “Uniting for Peace,” a resolution passed by the General Assembly to bypass the Soviet Union’s veto during the Korean War.

The General Assembly can recommend that its member states impose arms and trade embargoes on the U.S. and Israel. The General Assembly could also suspend the U.S. and Israel from its ranks. These decisions would require a vote of two-thirds of the 193 General Assembly member states.

An Illegal Effort to Engineer Forcible Regime Change in Iran

Both Trump and Netanyahu have made it clear that they seek regime change in Iran, and their killing of Khamenei is consistent with that goal. Forcible regime change is illegal.

The UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights all guarantee the right of peoples to self-determination. The two covenants have the same first sentence of Article 1: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

This isn’t the first time the U.S. has engaged in forcible regime change in Iran.

In 1953, the CIA covertly orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, against British oil interests. The U.S. then installed the vicious Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled Iran with an iron fist for 25 years.

But the chickens came home to roost. The Shah was overthrown in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and replaced with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s theocracy.

When Khomeini died in 1989, he was succeeded by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was assassinated on February 28 by U.S. and Israeli strikes. This time, U.S. regime change in Iran is overt.

“For decades, the United States has sought to destabilize Iran, a critical Asian power situated at the intersection of three major continents and multiple waterways,” the Committee of Anti-Imperialists in Solidarity with Iran (CASI) said in a statement.

Since 1953, “Iran has weathered both the direct and indirect effects of U.S. imperialism, culminating in a brutal devastating eight-year military aggression (1980-88) and a devastating sanctions regime that has denied Iranians’ access to basic medical supplies, infrastructure, foodstuffs, and led to astronomical inflation,” the CASI statement said. “Over the last few decades, Iran has suffered assassinations of its scientists and generals, bombings of critical infrastructure, and repeated violations of its sovereignty and attacks on its national development.”

Now the U.S. and Israel are touting U.S. resident Reza Pahlavi, son of the notorious Shah of Iran, as a puppet to run Iran’s government. Media outside Iran “has been used a lot to try to project an image of an immense popularity, much more than it actually is,” Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said on Democracy Now! “He does enjoy a base in the diaspora. He does have a growing base inside Iran. We see his name being chanted by people, as far as the protests. But there’s also sort of an authoritarian and undemocratic movement of people around him.”

In fact, “[t]he Trump administration appears to have no long-term plan, no sense of what the U.S. ultimately aims to achieve, and no answer to what happens after the American-Israeli assault,” Nicholas Grossman wrote at LiberalCurrents. “The president is talking about regime change, and missiles are flying at government targets, but there’s no ground force ready to take control if it fails.”

Countries Can Prosecute Under Universal Jurisdiction

How can the leaders of the U.S. and Israel be held accountable for their crimes in Iran?

The U.S., Israel, and Iran are not parties to the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC). So the ICC would have no jurisdiction to prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders for war crimes.

But under well-established principles of international law, the crimes prosecuted by the ICC — including war crimes — are crimes of universal jurisdiction.

The doctrine of universal jurisdiction allows any country to try foreign nationals for the most atrocious crimes, even without any direct relationship to the prosecuting country. That means other nations can prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders for the war crime of targeting civilians.

Indeed, the United States has taken jurisdiction over foreign nationals in anti-terrorism, anti-narcotics trafficking, war crimes, and torture cases. The U.S. government tried, convicted, and sentenced Charles “Chuckie” Taylor Jr. to federal prison for torture committed in Liberia. Israel tried, convicted, and executed Adolph Eichmann for his crimes during the Holocaust.

The War Powers Resolution

In addition, U.S. participation in the war on Iran violates U.S. statutory law.

The U.S. War Powers Resolution permits the president to introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only (1) after Congress has declared war; (2) in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”; or (3) when there is “specific statutory authorization.” None of those three conditions was met before the U.S. attacked Iran.

Trump launched a major war against Iran without seeking congressional approval.

The Senate will vote this week on the War Powers Resolution that Senators Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) co-sponsored. It says, “Congress hereby directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force.”

There is little or no chance that this resolution will pass, however, as the majority of U.S. legislators, including some Democrats, support Trump’s war of aggression on Iran.

Meanwhile, the United States has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and it is the only country ever to have used them. Israel also possesses nuclear weapons, in spite of Security Council Resolution 687, which was a step toward the goal of creating a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone throughout the Middle East.

Former UN human rights official Craig Mokhiber referred to “[t]he US-Israel Axis” as “the greatest threat facing humanity today.” He posted on X:

A murderous bombing campaign in Iran, continuing genocide in Palestine, serial aggression abroad, belligerent occupation of several countries, acts of transnational terrorism, repression at home, schemes to profit from murder and colonization, systematic coverup of the Mossad-Epstein operations, massive corruption of the public and private sectors across the West, sanctions against human rights defenders and international courts, attacks on international institutions, the dismantling of international law, mass surveillance of the rest of us, and a growing trail of blood and destruction around the globe.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers issued a statement on February 28, in which it urged “all states to immediately implement an arms embargo on Israel and the U.S., withdraw their ambassadors, and pursue legal actions to hold their military and political officials accountable.”

An overwhelming majority of people in the United States oppose U.S. perpetration of the war in Iran. They must make their views known to their congressmembers and take collective action in opposition to Trump-Netanyahu’s dangerous aggression against Iran.

Original article:  truthout.org

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

La obsesión por cumplir aquí y ahora los objetivos existenciales -confesos y no confesos-, por los actuales decisores de Tel Aviv y Washington, enturbia su entendimiento, específicamente, el de Trump.

Después de los sucesos del mes de enero, los organismos de seguridad iraníes plantearon disposiciones para impedir que cualquier maniobra de impulso de manifestaciones sociales o separatismos geográficos prosperaran para desunir el país y destruir al sistema.

Por ello, el sábado 28 de febrero, estaban listos para controlar las calles y contener la ofensiva de grupos separatistas, infiltrándose en los ámbitos de protesta, controlando sus comunicaciones internas y acumulando personal y equipamiento armamentístico en las áreas de los separatistas. Aparte, de que los agentes del orden se vistieron de civil y pululaban en las grandes ciudades de la nación.

El Trump de este mes de marzo es una figura que, junto con el declive de su biología personal, está acabando con su construcción de relaciones públicas e histórica de una década y está acumulando el pitorreo de los integrantes sensatos y prudentes del orden global.

Trump no se está hundiendo en el pantano globalista, se está autolesionando severa y geopolíticamente, mientras aumentan las suspicacias sobre una posible sustitución por J.D. Vance, vicepresidente, que tiene diferencias clánicas y de perspectivas con el dúo Rubio-Ratcliffe y ante quien el jefe de la diplomacia omaní procuró influir, con información veraz y una argumentación coherente, para paralizar la operación bélica.

Los primeros tres días de guerra contra Irán dejan la impresión de que el Pentágono tiene un cierto desorden respecto a un plan consistente y que, por más fuerza temible que posea, los iraníes actúan sólidamente con una administración de guerra firme y con estándares que fueron prefijados por Jameneí que había preparado la humillación histórica para los Estados Unidos y su consiguiente expulsión regional.

A pesar de que circuló, durante el primer lunes de marzo, que el centro militar estadounidense daría, entre los días 3, 4 y 5 de marzo, un golpe mortífero y de proporciones diluviales contra la fortaleza militar de Irán, achicando esencialmente su capacidad de producir daños, algunos analistas que siguen muy de cerca, y minuto a minuto, los desarrollos del panorama completo, ignoraron tal material promocional.

Por estas horas se está aceptando, aunque débilmente, que la Inteligencia Artificial, utilizada por el Pentágono para asesinar a Jamení, funcionarios militares, civiles y arrodillar a los iraníes, no fue tan exacta como absurdamente la promovieron durante el fin de semana pasado.

Quienes crean que el Pentágono y Trump reconocerán públicamente la cantidad real de bajas estadounidenses que están teniendo, ven mucho Hollywood.

Quienes crean que Israel admitirá abiertamente que Irán logró incapacitar algunas herramientas militares israelíes, leen mucho la Biblia al revés.

Quienes, en el campo iraní, dirigen la guerra -y con ellos, los otros sectores que los apoyan- tienen lo vital de lo que carece el liderazgo estadounidense: la convicción ideológica basada en lo sobrenatural y que es deshonroso y hasta una blasfemia -sostienen ellos- rendirse ante lo que ellos llaman Gran Satán.

No obstante, ello no conlleva que Ari Larijani y los grupos que hoy gestionan la guerra -por orden espiritual y ejecutiva dada por Jameneí- estén dispuestos a hacer del mundo un infierno o que el mundo entre en una tercera o centésima guerra mundial.

Y Trump tampoco quiere personalmente una guerra mundial.

En cambio, sí la quieren quienes lo impulsaron a matar a Jameneí, creyendo que con el evento de guerra mundial (o regional) ellos saldrían indemnes o tendrán un bajo costo.

Bajo este marco, Netanyahu quiere adelantar, para junio o antes, las elecciones israelíes para ser reelegido, mientras Donald seguirá lidiando para no perder las elecciones de medio término, confiando en las estimaciones que indican que los ataques iraníes disminuirán en estos días.

Pero hasta ambas elecciones, pueden suceder, o no, muchas cosas.

No todo está escrito ni tampoco todo puede evitarse. Son sucesos de alto voltaje y el ritmo de velocidad lo dictan los protagonistas y no los analistas porque, tal y como lo señalamos el 24 de septiembre de 2025, cuando dijimos que la guerra en curso podría posponerse, debido a los esfuerzos interactivos de un conjunto de actores, pero también indicamos que: A la vez, también se acepta que todo puede adelantarse en los próximos cinco meses. Desde dicho artículo al presente, pasaron los sucesos de enero y el inicio de la guerra entre Irán, Estados Unidos e Israel en, exactamente, 157 días, o un poco más que cinco meses.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A recente escalada militar no Oriente Médio revelou um erro de cálculo estratégico por parte de Washington e Tel Aviv. Ao desencadearem uma ofensiva direta contra o Irã, autoridades dos Estados Unidos e de Israel aparentemente partiram do pressuposto de que Teerã repetiria o padrão observado em confrontos anteriores: contenção inicial, resposta calibrada e dilação temporal. Esse padrão foi perceptível tanto durante a chamada Guerra dos Doze Dias quanto em episódios anteriores de agressões israelenses contra alvos iranianos e aliados regionais. Desta vez, contudo, o cálculo mostrou-se equivocado.

O elemento central da estratégia inicial parece ter sido uma tentativa clássica de “decapitação”, atingindo o Líder Supremo, sua família e outros alvos de alto nível. A lógica subjacente é conhecida: ao remover o vértice decisório, produzir-se-ia desorganização interna, disputas sucessórias e paralisia operacional. Trata-se de uma abordagem recorrente na doutrina militar ocidental, especialmente quando dirigida contra Estados considerados adversários sistêmicos.

Entretanto, esse tipo de estratégia tende a falhar quando aplicado a Estados altamente institucionalizados e dotados de estruturas político-militares complexas. O Irã não é uma entidade frágil dependente de um único centro pessoal de comando. É um sistema com múltiplas camadas de autoridade, cadeias de sucessão definidas e uma integração profunda entre aparato estatal, forças armadas regulares e estruturas paralelas de segurança. Além disso, trata-se de uma civilização com continuidade histórica milenar, cuja identidade política contemporânea se consolidou precisamente sob pressão externa. A eliminação de uma liderança individual, ainda que simbolicamente relevante, não desarticula automaticamente um Estado com esse grau de coesão estrutural.

O que surpreendeu analistas foi a velocidade da reação iraniana. Diferentemente do que ocorreu na Guerra dos Doze Dias, desta vez a retaliação foi imediata e multifacetada. Nas primeiras horas após os ataques, o Irã lançou uma série de operações simultâneas contra instalações militares americanas espalhadas pelo Oriente Médio. Bases utilizadas por forças dos Estados Unidos foram atingidas com mísseis e drones, em ações coordenadas que visaram saturar sistemas de defesa e reduzir a capacidade de interceptação.

Paralelamente, sistemas defensivos israelenses foram colocados sob pressão por meio de ataques múltiplos e incisivos. A estratégia iraniana não se limitou a um gesto simbólico; tratou-se de uma tentativa deliberada de impor custos imediatos e visíveis, alterando a percepção de risco dos adversários. Ao longo do primeiro dia de confrontos, a cadência das operações manteve-se constante, criando um ambiente de elevada incerteza operacional para o regime sionista.

A multiplicidade de vetores empregados – diferentes plataformas de lançamento, trajetórias variadas e sincronização temporal – contribuiu para confundir os planejadores militares de Washington e Tel Aviv. Ao que tudo indica, não se esperava uma ação tão ousada e rápida. O pressuposto de que Teerã hesitaria, buscaria mediação ou responderia de maneira limitada mostrou-se incorreto. Em vez disso, o Irã procurou demonstrar capacidade de coordenação estratégica sob pressão máxima.

Esse comportamento sugere que as autoridades iranianas internalizaram lições relevantes dos conflitos recentes. A demora em responder, observada em episódios anteriores, foi interpretada por adversários como sinal de contenção estratégica ou limitação operacional. Ao optar por uma reação imediata e abrangente, Teerã procurou redefinir as regras do engajamento e estabelecer um novo patamar de dissuasão.

O impacto psicológico também não deve ser subestimado. Ataques contínuos ao longo do primeiro dia produziram relatos de confusão e quase paralisia em determinados segmentos decisórios israelenses e americanos. Quando múltiplas frentes são ativadas simultaneamente, a capacidade de priorização estratégica torna-se mais complexa, senão “impossível”.

Resta agora avaliar como se dará a escalada nos próximos dias. A resposta inicial iraniana alterou o equilíbrio imediato, mas não encerra o ciclo de ação e reação. Washington e Tel Aviv enfrentarão o dilema clássico entre ampliar a ofensiva – correndo o risco de um conflito regional de grandes proporções – ou buscar canais indiretos de contenção. O primeiro dia demonstrou que o cenário evoluiu além das expectativas iniciais. A partir deste ponto, cada movimento adicional poderá redefinir não apenas a dinâmica militar, mas a arquitetura de segurança de todo o Oriente Médio.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The recent military escalation in the Middle East revealed a strategic miscalculation on the part of Washington and Tel Aviv. By launching a direct offensive against Iran, authorities in the United States and Israel apparently assumed that Tehran would repeat the pattern observed in previous confrontations: initial restraint, calibrated retaliation, and delayed timing. This pattern was evident both during the so-called Twelve-Day War and in earlier episodes of Israeli aggression against Iranian targets and regional allies. This time, however, the calculation proved mistaken.

The central element of the initial strategy appears to have been a classic attempt at “decapitation,” targeting the Supreme Leader, his family, and other high-level figures. The underlying logic is well known: by removing the apex of decision-making authority, internal disorganization, succession disputes, and operational paralysis would follow. This approach is recurrent in Western military doctrine, especially when directed against states considered systemic adversaries.

However, this type of strategy tends to fail when applied to highly institutionalized states equipped with complex political-military structures. Iran is not a fragile entity dependent on a single personal command center. It is a system with multiple layers of authority, defined chains of succession, and deep integration between the state apparatus, regular armed forces, and parallel security structures. Moreover, it is a civilization with millennia of historical continuity, whose contemporary political identity was consolidated precisely under external pressure. The elimination of an individual leader, even if symbolically significant, does not automatically dismantle a state with this degree of structural cohesion.

What surprised analysts was the speed of the Iranian reaction. Unlike what occurred during the Twelve-Day War, this time retaliation was immediate and multifaceted. Within the first hours after the attacks, Iran launched a series of simultaneous operations against American military installations across the Middle East. Bases used by U.S. forces were struck with missiles and drones in coordinated actions aimed at saturating defense systems and reducing interception capacity.

At the same time, Israeli defensive systems were placed under pressure through multiple and forceful attacks. Iran’s strategy was not limited to a symbolic gesture; it represented a deliberate attempt to impose immediate and visible costs, altering adversaries’ perception of risk. Throughout the first day of confrontation, the operational tempo remained constant, creating an environment of heightened uncertainty for the Zionist regime.

The multiplicity of vectors employed – different launch platforms, varied trajectories, and synchronized timing – contributed to confusion among military planners in Washington and Tel Aviv. By all indications, such a bold and rapid action was not anticipated. The assumption that Tehran would hesitate, seek mediation, or respond in a limited fashion proved incorrect. Instead, Iran sought to demonstrate its capacity for strategic coordination under maximum pressure.

This behavior suggests that Iranian authorities internalized relevant lessons from recent conflicts. Delays in responding, observed in previous episodes, were interpreted by adversaries as signs of strategic restraint or operational limitation. By opting for an immediate and comprehensive reaction, Tehran sought to redefine the rules of engagement and establish a new threshold of deterrence.

The psychological impact should not be underestimated. Continuous attacks throughout the first day reportedly generated confusion and near paralysis within certain Israeli and American decision-making circles. When multiple fronts are activated simultaneously, the ability to prioritize strategically becomes far more complex, if not effectively impossible.

It now remains to be seen how escalation will unfold in the coming days. Iran’s initial response altered the immediate balance but does not end the cycle of action and reaction. Washington and Tel Aviv face the classic dilemma between expanding the offensive – risking a large-scale regional conflict – or seeking indirect channels of containment. The first day demonstrated that the scenario evolved beyond initial expectations. From this point forward, each additional move may redefine not only the military dynamic but the broader security architecture of the entire Middle East.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

– A maioria dos brasileiros demonstra apreensão diante da possibilidade de os Estados Unidos adotarem medidas contra o Brasil semelhantes às aplicadas recentemente na Venezuela. O temor ganhou força após a ofensiva militar determinada por Donald Trump, presidente dos Estados Unidos, contra o país sul-americano, episódio que reacendeu o debate sobre soberania, direito internacional e o papel do governo brasileiro no cenário global.

Segundo levantamento do instituto Genial/Quaest, divulgado pela Folha de São Paulo, 58% dos entrevistados afirmaram temer que Washington possa agir de forma parecida em relação ao Brasil. A pesquisa analisou a percepção da população sobre a atuação dos Estados Unidos na Venezuela e também sobre a resposta do governo do presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) ao episódio.

Horas após os ataques, o presidente Lula se manifestou publicamente contra a operação militar. Em publicação nas redes sociais, afirmou que a incursão ultrapassou uma “linha inaceitável” e alertou para os riscos da violação do direito internacional. “Atacar países, em flagrante violação do direito internacional, representa o primeiro passo para um mundo de violência, caos e instabilidade, em que a lei do mais forte prevalece”, escreveu o presidente. Em outra mensagem, reforçou: “A condenação ao uso da força é consistente com a posição que o Brasil sempre tem adotado em situações recentes em outros países e regiões”.

Dias depois, o governo brasileiro endureceu o discurso. Durante reunião do conselho permanente da Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA), em Washington, o representante do Brasil, Benoni Belli, afirmou que Nicolás Maduro havia sido “sequestrado”, termo que elevou o tom crítico da diplomacia brasileira em relação à ação dos Estados Unidos.

A pesquisa, realizada entre os dias 8 e 11 de janeiro, após as manifestações do governo brasileiro, também avaliou a opinião da população sobre a postura adotada por Lula. Para 51% dos entrevistados, a reação do presidente foi considerada errada. Já 37% avaliaram a atitude como correta, enquanto 12% disseram não saber ou preferiram não responder.

Os dados revelam forte diferença de percepção conforme o posicionamento político dos entrevistados. Entre os que se identificam como de esquerda não alinhada ao lulismo, 72% consideraram correta a postura do presidente, contra 23% que a classificaram como errada. Já no grupo que se declara de direita não bolsonarista, 82% avaliaram negativamente a reação do governo, enquanto apenas 11% a aprovaram.

O impacto eleitoral do episódio também foi medido. Para 24% dos entrevistados, a posição de Lula diante da crise pode influenciar o voto nas eleições deste ano. Desses, 17% afirmaram que o episódio aumenta a preferência pela oposição, enquanto 7% disseram que fortalece o apoio ao presidente. A maioria, 71%, declarou que o tema não interfere em sua decisão eleitoral.

O levantamento mostrou ainda que 24% da amostra disseram não ter conhecimento da notícia sobre a prisão de Nicolás Maduro. Entre os que opinaram, 46% afirmaram apoiar a ação militar norte-americana, enquanto 39% disseram desaprová-la. Ao serem questionados sobre a legitimidade de interferir em outro país para prender um líder acusado de autoritarismo, 50% consideraram a prática aceitável, contra 41% que a julgaram inaceitável.

A pesquisa Genial/Quaest ouviu presencialmente 2.004 brasileiros com 16 anos ou mais. A margem de erro é de dois pontos percentuais, com nível de confiança de 95%.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In a moment of candor in March 2022, Joe Biden revealed why the U.S. needed the Russian invasion to launch its three-pronged, pre-meditated war on Russia, writes Joe Lauria.

The U.S. got its war in Ukraine.

Without it, Washington could not attempt to destroy Russia’s economy, orchestrate worldwide condemnation and lead a proxy war to bleed Russia, all as part of an attempt to bring down its government.

Joe Biden has now left no doubt that it’s true.

The president of the United States confirmed what Consortium News and others have been reporting since the beginnings of Russsiagate in 2016, that the ultimate U.S. aim is to overthrow the government of Vladimir Putin.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Biden said on Saturday [March 26, 2022] at the Royal Castle in Warsaw. The White House and the State Dept. have been scrambling to explain away Biden’s remark.

But it is too late.

“The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region,” a White House official said. “He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change.”

On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “As you know, and as you have heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia, or anywhere else, for that matter,” the last words inserted for comic relief.

Biden first gave the game away at his Feb. 24 [2022] White House press conference — the first day of the invasion. He was asked why he thought new sanctions would work when the earlier sanctions had not stopped Russia. Biden said the sanctions were never designed to prevent Russia’s intervention but to punish it afterward.

The U.S. therefore needed Russia to invade in order to punish it in the hope of undermining its economy and Putin’s rule.

“No one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening,” Biden said.  “That has to sh- — this is going to take time.  And we have to show resolve so he knows what’s coming and so the people of Russia know what he’s brought on them. That’s what this is all about.”

It is all about the Russian people turning on Putin to overthrow him, which would explain Russia’s crackdown on anti-war protestors and the media.

It was no slip of the tongue. Biden repeated himself in Brussels on Thursday:

“Let’s get something straight …  I did not say that in fact the sanctions would deter him.  Sanctions never deter. You keep talking about that. Sanctions never deter. The maintenance of sanctions — the maintenance of sanctions, the increasing the pain … we will sustain what we’re doing not just next month, the following month, but for the remainder of this entire year.  That’s what will stop him.”

It was the second time that Biden confirmed that the purpose of the draconian U.S. sanctions on Russia was never to prevent the invasion of Ukraine, which the U.S. actually desperately needed to activate its plans, but to punish Russia and get its people to rise up against Putin and ultimately restore a Yeltsin-like puppet to Moscow — the real U.S. aim.

Without a cause those sanctions could never have been imposed. The cause was Russia’s invasion.  The U.S. had several opportunities to prevent the invasion and purposely didn’t.

Regime Change in Moscow

Biden’s speech in Warsaw. (Office of the President/Wikimedia Commons)

Once hidden in studies such as this 2019 RAND study, the desire to overthrow the government in Moscow is now out in the open.

One of the earliest threats came from Carl Gersham, the long-time director of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Gershman, wrote in 2013, before the Kiev coup: “Ukraine is the biggest prize.”

If it could be pulled away from Russia and into the West, he said, then “Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

David Ignatius wrote in The Washington Post in 1999 that the NED could now practice regime change out in the open, rather than covertly as the C.I.A. had done.

The RAND Corporation on March 18 [2022] then published an article titled, “If Regime Change Should Come to Moscow,” the U.S. should be ready for it. Michael McFaul, the hawkish former U.S. ambassador to Russia, has been calling for regime change in Russia for some time.  He tried to finesse Biden’s words by tweeting:

On Putin, Biden expressed what billions around the world and millions inside Russia also believe. He did not say that the US should remove him from power. There is a difference.

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) March 27, 2022

On March 1, Boris Johnson’s spokesperson said the sanctions on Russia “we are introducing, that large parts of the world are introducing, are to bring down the Putin regime.” No. 10 tried to walk that back but two days earlier James Heappey, minister for the armed forces, wrote in The Daily Telegraph:

“His failure must be complete; Ukrainian sovereignty must be restored, and the Russian people empowered to see how little he cares for them. In showing them that, Putin’s days as President will surely be numbered and so too will those of the kleptocratic elite that surround him. He’ll lose power and he won’t get to choose his successor.”

Yearning for the Years of Yeltsin 

After the fall of the Soviet Union and throughout the 1990s Wall Street and the U.S. government dominated Boris Yeltsin’s Russia, asset-stripping former state-owned industries to enrich themselves and a new class of oligarchs, while impoverishing the Russian people.

Putin came to power on New Year’s Eve 1999 and started restoring Russia’s sovereignty. His 2007 Munich Security Conference speech, in which he blasted Washington’s aggressive unilateralism, alarmed the U.S., which clearly now wants a Yeltsin-like figure to return.

The 2014 U.S.-backed coup in Kiev was a first step. Russiagate was another.

Back in 2017, Consortium News saw Russiagate as a prelude to regime change in Moscow. That year I wrote:

“The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader in Moscow. There is substance to Russia’s concerns about American designs for ‘regime change’ in the Kremlin.

Moscow sees an aggressive America expanding NATO and putting 30,000 NATO troops on its borders; trying to overthrow a secular ally in Syria with terrorists who threaten Russia itself; backing a coup in Ukraine as a possible prelude to moves against Russia; and using American NGOs to foment unrest inside Russia before they were forced to register as foreign agents.”

JUST NOW: “”I think Ukrainians were waiting for a long time for such a statement. I think this statement is absolutely correct.”

–Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko on President Biden’s controversial statement about Putin’s removal.https://t.co/6ucqdJS0oM

— John Berman (@JohnBerman) March 28, 2022

The Invasion Was Necessary

The United States could have easily prevented Russia’s military action.

It could have stopped Russia’s intervention in Ukraine’s civil war from happening by doing  four things:

• forcing implementation of the 8-year old Minsk peace accords;
• dissolving extreme right Ukrainian militias;
• ending talk of Ukraine joining NATO and
• engaging Russia in serious negotiations on treaties about a new security architecture in Europe.

But it didn’t.

The U.S. can still end this war through serious diplomacy with Russia. But it won’t. Blinken has refused to speak with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Instead, Biden announced on March 16 another $800 million in military aid for Ukraine on the same day it was revealed Russia and Ukraine have been working on a 15-point peace plan. It has never been clearer that the U.S. wanted this war and wants it to continue. [That peace plan would later be initialed but the U.S. and Britain, with then PM Boris Johnson flying to Kiev stopped the deal.]

NATO troops and missiles in Eastern Europe were evidently so vital to U.S. plans that it would not discuss removing them to stop Russia’s troops from crossing into Ukraine. Russia had threatened a “technical/military” response if NATO and the U.S. did not take seriously Russia’s security interests, presented in December in the form of two treaty proposals.

The U.S. knew what would happen if it rejected those proposals calling for Ukraine not to join NATO, for missiles in Poland and Romania to be removed and NATO troops in Eastern Europe withdrawn. That’s why it started screaming about an invasion in December.

But the U.S. refused to move the missiles and provocatively sent even more NATO forces to Eastern Europe instead of withdrawing the ones already there. The U.S. rejected the treaty proposals because it did not want to prevent an invasion it needed.

Even the pro-Biden mainstream media knows the U.S. could have prevented this war. MSNBC ran an article on March 4, titled, “Russia’s Ukraine invasion may have been preventable: The U.S. refused to reconsider Ukraine’s NATO status as Putin threatened war. Experts say that was a huge mistake.” The article said:

“The abundance of evidence that NATO was a sustained source of anxiety for Moscow raises the question of whether the United States’ strategic posture was not just imprudent but negligent.”

Senator Joe Biden knew as far back as 1997 that NATO expansion, which he supported, could eventually lead to a hostile Russian reaction.

Biden in 1997 saying that the only thing that could provoke a “vigorous and hostile” Russian response would be if NATO expanded as far as the Baltic states pic.twitter.com/i0yfEgIGZA

— Alex Turrall (@ImReadinHere) March 7, 2022

The Excised Background to the Invasion 

It is vital to recall the events of 2014 in Ukraine and what has followed until now as it is routinely whitewashed from Western media coverage. Without that context, it is impossible to understand what is happening in Ukraine.

Both Donetsk and Lugansk had voted for independence from Ukraine in 2014 after a U.S.-backed coup overthrew the democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych.  The new, U.S.-installed Ukrainian government then launched a war against the provinces to crush their resistance to the coup and their bid for independence, a war that is still going on eight years later at the cost of thousands of lives with U.S. support. It is this war that Russia has entered.

“NATO troops and missiles in Eastern Europe were evidently so vital to U.S. plans that it would not discuss removing them to stop Russia’s troops from crossing into Ukraine.”

Neo-Nazi groups, such as Right Sector and the Azov Battalion, who revere the World War II Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera, took part in the coup as well as in the ongoing violence against Lugansk and Donetsk.

Despite reporting in the BBC, the NYT, the Daily Telegraph and CNN on the neo-Nazis at the time, their role in the story is now excised by Western media, reducing Putin to a madman hellbent on conquest without reason. As though he woke up one morning and looked at a map to decide what country he would invade next.

The public has been induced to embrace the Western narrative, while being kept in the dark about Washington’s ulterior motives.

#Russia co-existed with #Ukraine until the 2014 US-backed coup and Kiev’s war against ethnic Russians who resisted it. Everything goes back to 2014–a now 8-year civil war. Airbrushing that out of the story, as Western media does, amounts to deliberate deception.

— Joe Lauria (@unjoe) March 1, 2022

The Traps Set for Russia

Six weeks ago, on Feb. 4, I wrote an article, “What a US Trap for Russia in Ukraine Might Look Like,” in which I laid out a scenario in which Ukraine would begin an offensive against ethnic Russian civilians in Donbass, forcing Russia to decide whether to abandon them or to intervene to save them.

If Russia intervened with regular army units, I argued, this would be the “Invasion!” the U.S. needed to attack Russia’s economy, turn the world against Moscow and end Putin’s rule.

In the third week of February, Ukrainian government shelling of Donbass dramatically increased, according to the OSCE, with what appeared to be the new offensive.  Russia was forced to make its decision.

It first recognized the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, a move it put off for eight years. And then on Feb. 24 President Vladimir Putin announced a military operation in Ukraine to “demilitarize” and “denazify” the country.

Russia stepped into a trap, which grows more perilous by the day as Russia’s military intervention continues with a second trap in sight.  From Moscow’s perspective, the stakes were too high not to intervene. And if it can induce Kiev to accept a settlement, it might escape the clutches of the United States.

A Planned Insurgency 

Biden and Brzezinski (Collage Cathy Vogan/Photos SEIU Walk a Day in My Shoes 2008/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain/Picryl)

The examples of previous U.S. traps that I gave in the Feb. 4 piece were the U.S. telling Saddam Hussein in 1990 that it would not interfere in its dispute with Kuwait, opening the trap to Iraq’s invasion, allowing the U.S. to destroy Baghdad’s military. The second example is most relevant.

In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Jimmy Carter’s former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that the C.I.A. set a trap four decades ago for Moscow by arming mujahiddin to fight the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan and bring down the Soviet government, much as the U.S. wants today to bring down Putin.  He said:

“According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. 

He then explained that the reason for the trap was to bring down the Soviet Union. Brzezinski said:

“That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.’  Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime, a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.”

Brzezinski said he had no regrets that financing the mujahideen spawned terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. “What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?,” he asked.

The U.S. today is likewise gambling with the world economy and further instability in Europe with its tolerance of neo-Nazism in Ukraine.

“The public has been induced to embrace the Western narrative, while being kept in the dark about Washington’s ulterior motives.”

In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Brzezinski wrote:

“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.”

Thus U.S. “primacy,” or world dominance, which still drives Washington, is not possible without control of Eurasia, as Brzezinski argued, and that’s not possible without control of Ukraine by pushing Russia out (U.S. takeover of Ukraine in the 2014 coup) and controlling the governments in Moscow and Beijing. What Brzezinski and U.S. leaders still view as Russia’s “imperial ambitions” are in Moscow seen as imperative defensive measures against an aggressive West.

Without the Russian invasion the second trap the U.S. is planning would not be possible: a proxy war meant to bog Russia down and give it its “Vietnam.”

Europe and the U.S. are flooding more arms into Ukraine, and Kiev has called for volunteer fighters. The way jihadists flocked to Afghanistan, white supremacists from around Europe are traveling to Ukraine to become insurgents.

Just as the Afghanistan insurgency helped bring down the Soviet Union, the insurgency is meant to topple Putin’s Russia.

An article in Foreign Affairs entitled “The Coming Ukrainian Insurgency” was published Feb. 25, just one day after Russia’s intervention, indicating advanced planning that was dependent on an invasion. The article had to be written and edited before Russia crossed into Ukraine and was published as soon as it did. It said:

“If Russia limits its offensive to the east and south of Ukraine, a sovereign Ukrainian government will not stop fighting. It will enjoy reliable military and economic support from abroad and the backing of a united population. But if Russia pushes on to occupy much of the country and install a Kremlin-appointed puppet regime in Kyiv, a more protracted and thorny conflagration will begin. Putin will face a long, bloody insurgency that could spread across multiple borders, perhaps even reaching into Belarus to challenge Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Putin’s stalwart ally. Widening unrest could destabilize other countries in Russia’s orbit, such as Kazakhstan, and even spill into Russia itself. When conflicts begin, unpredictable and unimaginable outcomes can become all too real. Putin may not be prepared for the insurgency—or insurgencies—to come.

WINNER’S REMORSE

Many a great power has waged war against a weaker one, only to get bogged down as a result of its failure to have a well-considered end game. This lack of foresight has been especially palpable in troubled occupations. It was one thing for the United States to invade Vietnam in 1965, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003; likewise for the Soviet Union to enter Afghanistan in 1979. It was an altogether more difficult task to persevere in those countries in the face of stubborn insurgencies. … As the United States learned in Vietnam and Afghanistan, an insurgency that has reliable supply lines, ample reserves of fighters, and sanctuary over the border can sustain itself indefinitely, sap an occupying army’s will to fight, and exhaust political support for the occupation at home.’”

As far back as Jan. 14, Yahoo! News reported:

“The CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel, according to five former intelligence and national security officials familiar with the initiative. The program, which started in 2015, is based at an undisclosed facility in the Southern U.S., according to some of those officials.

The CIA-trained forces could soon play a critical role on Ukraine’s eastern border, where Russian troops have massed in what many fear is preparation for an invasion. …

The program has involved ‘very specific training on skills that would enhance’ the Ukrainians’ ‘ability to push back against the Russians,’ said the former senior intelligence official.

The training, which has included ‘tactical stuff,’ is “going to start looking pretty offensive if Russians invade Ukraine,’ said the former official.

One person familiar with the program put it more bluntly. ‘The United States is training an insurgency,’ said a former CIA official, adding that the program has taught the Ukrainians how ‘to kill Russians.’”

In his Warsaw speech, Biden tipped his hand about an insurgency to come. He said nothing about peace talks. Instead he said: “In this battle, we need to be clear-eyed. This battle will not be won in days or months either. We need to steel ourselves of a long fight ahead.”

Hillary Clinton laid it all out on Feb. 28, [2022] just four days into Russia’s operation. She brought up the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, saying “it didn’t end well for Russia” and that in Ukraine “this is the model that people are looking at … that can stymie Russia.”

“Remember, the Russians invaded Afghanistan back in 1980,” Hillary Clinton says. “It didn’t end well for the Russians…but the fact is, that a very motivated, and then funded, and armed insurgency basically drove the Russians out of Afghanistan.” pic.twitter.com/iirtXI4vz4

— MS NOW (@MSNOWNews) March 1, 2022

What neither Maddow nor Clinton mentioned when discussing volunteers going to fight for Ukraine is what The New York Times reported on Feb. 25, a day after the invasion, and before their interview: “Far-right militias in Europe plan to confront Russian forces.”

The Economic War

Along with the quagmire, are the raft of profound economic sanctions on Russia designed to collapse its economy and drive Putin from power.

These are the harshest sanctions the U.S. and Europe have ever imposed on any nation. Sanctions against Russia’s Central Bank sanctions are the most serious, as they were intended to destroy the value of the ruble.  One U.S. dollar was worth 85 rubles on Feb. 24, the day of the invasion and soared to 154 per dollar on March 7.  However the Russian currency strengthened to 101 on Friday.

Putin and other Russian leaders were personally sanctioned, as were Russia’s largest banks. Most Russian transactions are no longer allowed to be settled through the SWIFT international payment system. The German-Russia Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline was closed down and become bankrupt.

The U.S. blocked imports of Russian oil, which was about 5 percent of U.S. supply. BP and Shell pulled out of Russian partnerships. European and U.S. airspace for Russian commercial liners was closed. Europe, which depends on Russia gas, is still importing it, and is so far rebuffing U.S. pressure to stop buying Russian oil.

A raft of voluntary sanctions followed: PayPal, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix and McDonalds have been shut down in Russia. Coca-cola will stop sales to the country. U.S. news organizations have left, Russian artists in the West have been fired and even Russian cats are banned.

It also gave an opportunity for U.S. cable providers to get RT America shut down.  Other Russia media has been de-platformed and Russian government websites hacked. A Yale University professor has drawn up a list to shame U.S. companies that are still operating in Russia.

Russian exports of wheat and fertilizer have been banned, driving up the price of food in the West.  Biden admitted as much on Thursday:

“With regard to food shortage … it’s going to be real.  The price of these sanctions is not just imposed upon Russia, it’s imposed upon an awful lot of countries as well, including European countries and our country as well.  And — because both Russia and Ukraine have been the breadbasket of Europe in terms of wheat, for example — just to give you one example.”

The aim is clear: “asphyxiating Russia’s economy”, as French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian put it, even if it damages the West.

“We are going to wage a total economic and financial war on Russia” declared Bruno Le Maire, French Minister of the Economy and Finance today.

“We will therefore cause the collapse of the Russian economy” until “Putin returns to better intentions in Ukraine” https://t.co/IWuGeZRSWX

— Aki H Heikkinen (@akihheikkinen) March 1, 2022

The question is whether Russia can extricate itself from the U.S. strategy of information, economic and proxy war.  [The answer three years later is yes.]

Original article:  consortiumnews.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The news that a U.S. aircraft carrier has had to dock in Crete to deal with thousands of seamen needing to leave it in order to, as the saying goes, “take a dump,” should not come as a great surprise to sceptical geopolitical observers. Many might see it as ominous for Trump’s strategy to go ahead with an attack on Iran – an attack which no one outside of his cabal of nodding dogs believes can work, neither in the short nor longer term. This is not only because Iran is hugely better prepared than it was in the June attacks of last year, but also because the U.S. is too vulnerable on too many levels. Iran does not have to win this war. It only needs to deliver precise yet devastating losses, even in low numbers, to Israel and the U.S. The USS Gerald R. Ford’s poorly designed toilet system is a sort of stinking metaphor for America’s weakness: the plumbing of all the ship’s toilets is configured so that if one toilet is blocked, the whole system suffers the same fate, and suddenly thousands of sailors are standing in their own waste.

The Trump armada is the same. Its size is its vulnerability, and it is entirely possible that the joint chiefs of staff – whom Trump personally installed – and the coterie of Pentagon yes-men have not told him that Iran can easily sink the Ford, with or without a failing sanitary system. One hypersonic missile, which cannot be intercepted, is all it would take. If these aircraft carriers are so afraid to come too close to the Straits of Hormuz now, due to the Houthi threat from much less sophisticated missiles, then surely there is a plumbing crisis in the planning of what Trump is trying to achieve by taking on Iran. It is, without any doubt, the most ill-conceived, plainly mad military operation that America has ever undertaken, and it will certainly lead to Trump being impeached when it all goes horribly wrong.

The most extraordinary element of this crisis is that it has been entirely manufactured by Trump’s own uniquely childish, chaotic, and absurdly stupid ideas on how to induce new power and growth in the U.S. economy. Trump’s tariffs strategy is failing on a grand scale and has forced both China and Russia to diversify their economies away from the U.S. market – in particular China, which is enjoying new growth in Central Asia. The Venezuela coup, which has almost certainly given the Trump circle a new lease of optimism about what it can pull off around the world, has forced Russia and China to think harder and more deeply about how to deal with a madman in the Oval Office. They have come to the conclusion that he has to be stopped and that a conflict with Iran is the right time and place to do it, given that Trump has given them no choice in the matter. Russia and China simply cannot afford to let their alliance with Iran be destroyed by a U.S. president who is trapped by an Epstein-like blackmail tryst with Israel. Arguably, this is less to do with their affection for Iran and its leaders and more to do with survival. If Trump were to succeed in overthrowing the regime in Tehran, where would he go after that? Russia and China believe strongly that he has to be stopped – and taught a lesson.

America’s miscalculation on the battlefield is legendary, as there are too many examples to point to, simply to see that this pattern never seems to make U.S. presidents stop and think when they are overstretching themselves. Afghanistan, Iraq, and of course Vietnam were all wars America lost with huge losses, with very little recalibration of understanding what America’s real power is in the world. Having a huge, well-resourced military is hardly a guarantee of winning anything. History has shown this. In fact, it is this vanity, this delusion, which feeds the brain fog and produces a mindset that America can win any war with anyone if it puts its mind to it. But this thinking is usually championed by half-wits who have never served in the military and only want to profit from the lives of young men from poorer families – like Lindsey Graham, or even in Europe, like Ursula von der Leyen, who seems almost sexually charged by the idea of war, but who simply smiles like a silly little girl when a journalist asks her if any of her children are in the military.

“America cannot even win a proxy war in Ukraine,” might be an argument that some advisers to Trump will dismiss by saying, “Well, yeah, but that’s a proxy war… Iran is different as it’s our boys and our ships and planes.” But even this argument is demented and gives a glimpse of just how much of a fake democracy America is, given that Trump 2.0 is modelled on a leader surrounding himself with sycophants, all egging him on, while all Israel has to do is wave its chequebook and remind Trump that his own failed policies are going to eject him from both houses when the midterms come around. It is America’s phoney democracy which has led to Trump’s mad Iran plan gaining the momentum it has managed in recent weeks, even though the whole world and his dog are pointing out that Iran has so many military options to strike the old empire at its weakest point. We should never forget that the perceived success that Trump might have gleaned in June of last year – when 12 days of bombing damaged Iran and its infrastructure – not only did not succeed overall in its objective of toppling the regime, but, perhaps more importantly, only had the impact it did due to the element of surprise.

The only surprise now for observers watching this slow-motion train crash is just how stupid Trump has been to think he can survive this madness. There are no good outcomes. All roads seem to lead to him falling on his own sword. Have pity on those in America whose living comes from satire, as they are being robbed of their raw material by actual real events. No one is going to bother mocking up a cartoon of Trump standing in raw effluent, surrounded by naval officers looking at him with eagle eyes. Wasn’t it Rome that in the end collapsed under its own corruption and blocked sewers? You can’t make this shit up. Literally.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A classe média liberal foi a principal base de apoio da burguesia desde o primeiro dia em que o PT esteve no governo. Todos se lembram da Carta aos Brasileiros, que sacramentou a eleição de Lula em 2002. Mas poucos se recordam de um dos mais importantes desdobramentos daquele pacto, o conluio com a Rede Globo e as ONGs imperialistas para passar por cima da vontade popular expressa em plebiscito e desarmar totalmente o povo. Já se revelava a necessidade do imperialismo de fortalecer o Estado subordinado a ele e enfraquecer a organização independente das massas oprimidas em pleno governo progressista.

Apesar de toda a opressão exercida durante séculos contra o povo brasileiro, foi a passagem do domínio para o capital imperialista, parte diretamente e parte através da burguesia nacional subordinada a ele, e institucionalizada quase à perfeição pela constituição de 1988 e o neoliberalismo, que garantiu de maneira mais estável uma política contrarrevolucionária e de esmagamento do povo. O papel progressista dos bandeirantes, das ferrovias e da Revolução de 1930 de unificar o território nacional e organizar a economia teve a sua contrapartida reacionária na imposição das instituições estatais que organizam o país para a dominação imperialista sobre o povo – e cujo desenvolvimento e fortalecimento se aceleraram sobretudo a partir do final do século passado. Tal constatação é admitida pelos próprios intelectuais da burguesia: em declarações a uma reportagem da imprensa do Senado, o historiador Adilson José de Almeida, autor de trabalhos sobre a relação do Estado com a sociedade na história do Brasil, reconheceu que foi apenas na chamada “Nova República” que o Estado conseguiu implementar uma política sistemática de desarmamento do povo. Eis a confissão do historiador:

“O Estado não tinha recursos financeiros nem humanos para montar forças que dessem conta da segurança externa e interna do Brasil. Por isso, contava com a população civil, que estava obrigada a pegar em armas quando era convocada. (…) Os brasileiros aprendiam a atirar desde pequenos. Embora tentasse, o Estado nem sempre tinha controle sobre essa sociedade armada. Como estavam sempre à mão, as armas que deveriam servir ao Estado eram também usadas para resolver brigas particulares e disputas políticas locais. Por vezes, acabavam se voltando contra o próprio Estado.”

Daí que, ao mesmo tempo em que hoje se estabelece um domínio total do Estado sobre a sociedade, distorce-se e ataca-se a história nacional, precisamente para que a burguesia apresente o período de reação pós-1988 como a maior (ou mesmo a única) conquista que o povo brasileiro já conheceu. Antes, embora fosse fraco, o Estado podia tolerar o povo armado, pois esse povo estava desorganizado e isolado em poucas localidades espalhadas pelo país. A partir do momento em que o território nacional foi unificado, o povo começou a se conhecer e a classe operária ganhou personalidade própria, tornou-se intolerável para a burguesia a convivência com as massas armadas. Como ela mesma reconhece, passou a ser inevitável que o povo se voltasse contra o Estado. Esse temor é compartilhado integralmente pelos pretensos marxistas e socialistas, embebidos da fé supersticiosa no Estado.

Veja-se bem. Não é que o PT deixou de realizar uma medida democrática básica, deixou de armar o povo, que deixou de aplicar o bê-a-bá de uma democracia. Nesse ponto, ele fez mais pela classe dominante do que os próprios representantes tradicionais da classe dominante: ele desarmou completamente o povo. Até hoje ouvimos desses mesmos setores afogados por inteiro nos preconceitos pequeno-burgueses que os trabalhadores e o povo em geral não têm recursos para comprar armas, não saberão manuseá-las, voltar-se-ão contra os seus irmãos, só os ricos conseguirão comprar armas e uma série de tolices do gênero.

Em um artigo sobre o programa militar da revolução proletária, escrito para os social-democratas europeus em 1916 (portanto antes do estabelecimento do Estado operário na Rússia e antes de existir uma situação revolucionária), Lênin identificava a origem desse posicionamento covarde: “o desarmamento como ideia social, isto é, como ideia gerada por determinado ambiente social e que pode atuar sobre determinado ambiente social e não permanece como simples capricho pessoal, foi gerado, evidentemente, pelas condições de vida especiais, excepcionalmente ‘tranquilas’, de alguns pequenos Estados, que durante um período de tempo bastante longo se mantiveram à margem do sangrento caminho mundial das guerras e têm esperanças de continuar à margem.”

No caso do Brasil, o ambiente social é a era neoliberal, de desorganização do proletariado, plena integração da burocracia sindical ao regime burguês e preenchimento do vácuo criado por essa orfandade dos trabalhadores pelo aparecimento de intelectuais e acadêmicos da pequena burguesia como “teóricos” do movimento operário, orientando os trabalhadores a se enquadrar no pensamento oriundo do conforto da vida do pequeno-burguês. O trabalhador que mora na favela e apanha da polícia está longe dessa realidade artificial. “Uma classe oprimida que não aspire a aprender a manejar as armas, a possuir armas”, opinou Lênin, no mesmo texto, “tal classe oprimida mereceria apenas ser tratada como são tratados os escravos”. A burguesia já está armada até os dentes. E se arma cada dia mais, com um destacamento de homens cada vez mais profissional, a polícia, treinados para arrebentar os miolos do povo trabalhador. Não se armar para se defender disso, não se armar para a revolução, que só pode ser armada, é trair os trabalhadores e jogá-los aos leões.

As palavras do historiador burguês citadas anteriormente mostram que, não importa o momento, a classe dominante teme um povo que esteja armado, porque o poder se resume, em última instância, à força – isto é, à força das armas – e não é possível manter uma casta separada e acima do povo, que oprime esse povo, sem o monopólio das armas. Por isso Lênin já dizia, recordando os revolucionários franceses, que um fuzil ao ombro de cada operário é a única garantia de democracia.

Não se trata de uma medida socialista ou mesmo radical por si só. Quando os dirigentes do Partido Operário Social-Democrata Alemão elaboravam o Programa de Gotha e exigiam, entre outras coisas, a formação de uma milícia popular, Marx debochava: “suas reivindicações políticas não vão além da velha e surrada ladainha democrática (…) São um simples eco do Partido Popular burguês”. Ele criticava asperamente aquele programa rebaixado, que se limitava a exigir o que já era realidade em países como Estados Unidos e Suíça, a “exigir coisas que só têm sentido numa República democrática”. Em plena ditadura militar, é claro que seria ridículo exigir o armamento do povo por meios legais; mas se a República democrática foi conquistada no Brasil, qual a razão de não se exigir esse direito fundamental a não ser o abandono dos princípios democráticos? O Programa de Gotha e a crítica de Marx datam de 1875, em um período de refluxo do movimento operário após a derrota da Comuna e de relativa calmaria dos conflitos sociais sob o bonapartismo bismarckiano – disso se esquecem os que advogam que os trabalhadores só devem ser armados em uma situação revolucionária, mas que fogem e fugirão diante dessa situação revolucionária.

Os governos do PT, desde o primeiro momento, nunca foram governos verdadeiramente democráticos, mas sim governos que só pretendem aplicar reformas democráticas secundárias e extremamente limitadas. Não poderia ser diferente, pois o PT é um partido cujo aparelho é dominado pela pequena burguesia e totalmente integrado ao regime burguês, que chegou ao governo e governa em um período de refluxo do movimento operário, cuja mobilização revolucionária seria a única capaz de abalar e demolir os pilares do regime. A apatia no seio do proletariado em consequência da reação neoliberal permite o controle dos sindicatos por uma burocracia de estilo de vida e pensamentos pequeno-burgueses, proveniente do correspondente brasileiro à aristocracia operária europeia.

Ao invés de minar, ainda que timidamente, o controle da burocracia estatal sobre o povo, de realizar as aspirações da sua base operária e sem terra, a fragilidade do PT diante da burguesia o fez manter e aprofundar o controle do Estado burguês sobre o povo e, além de desarmar os oprimidos, ignorou a reforma agrária, enfraqueceu os sindicatos, favoreceu a desigualdade social (Lula o reconheceu inúmeras vezes ao declarar que os bancos nunca lucraram tanto como em seus governos), reforçou o judiciário e a polícia e foi à reboque da burguesia contra os representantes eleitos pelo povo (como no caso da Lei da Ficha Limpa).

O PT começou por acoplar a aristocracia operária como um apêndice da burocracia estatal quando a burguesia lhe permitiu, mas as alianças com o centrão para “garantir a governabilidade” cada vez mais ameaçada pelas pressões do imperialismo o levaram a devolver com juros todo o poder à burocracia tradicional do Estado, aos elementos da burguesia. Assim como a social democracia europeia, ajudou a cavar a própria cova. Porque, diante da mudança de cenário com a crise de 2008, quando o imperialismo precisou elevar o nível do saque contra as nações pobres, o PT tornou-se um empecilho às necessidades dos monopólios. Parafraseando Rosa Luxemburgo sobre a social democracia alemã na revolução de 1918, os governos do PT mantiveram o Estado nas mãos dos que ontem apoiavam a ditadura militar e nas mãos dos que amanhã serão instrumentos da contrarrevolução.

A volta do PT ao governo, após o golpe de 2016, tem aprofundado essa adaptação ao regime – adaptação a um regime cada vez mais antidemocrático, e do qual o PT tem se esforçado para ser seu principal representante. Mesmo que tenha algum sucesso (e ele trabalha intensamente para isso), dificilmente o PT obterá 100% da confiança do imperialismo. Na verdade, não passa de um partido descartável. Também será descartável para os trabalhadores.