Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

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

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

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

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

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

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

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

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

As noted by The Cradle,

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

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

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

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

— Greg Stoker (@gregjstoker) March 7, 2026

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

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

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

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

Sen. Elizabeth Warren also stated after the briefing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) March 8, 2026

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

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

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

“No one wants to fight for Israel!”

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

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

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) March 4, 2026

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

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

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

Original article:  consortiumnews.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

After just a week into Donald Trump’s war, there is very little to report which should or could please the U.S. president. Much of America’s infrastructure in the Middle East has been destroyed with U.S. soldiers now housed by hotels in GCC countries as there is nothing left of their bases. The stocks that these countries have as part of their air defence systems is almost depleted as military chiefs argue about how quickly they can be replaced (some THAAD and Patriot systems are being shipped from Japan and South Korea) and Iran is hitting Israel harder and harder each day.

Of course, due to the new draconian rules which Israel has imposed — that no military strikes that Iran succeeds in carrying out can be ‘reported’ on by journalists or even citizens who wish to post it on social media — as well as the comically corrupt, partisan way U.S. news outlets are covering the war, very little bad news gets seen by the public, if any.

Under this set up, it is hardly surprising that Trump went to war, given that he must have factored in a great deal of support from U.S. media, whom he claims to despise. In this regard, we can conclude that media itself is complicit in war crimes, given that it has played a huge role in the decision to go to war and also the day to day reporting of events on the ground.

A good example of the few points of the war which are reported, but done in such a distorted way, is the news that Iran has stopped its bombing of GCC Gulf states. This has been presented as a victory by the U.S. and a climb down by Iran. The truth though is that it is a considerable victory for Tehran as what is not being reported or even examined is the deal that Iran has struck with those countries. None of those countries will allow any kind of military activity now by U.S. forces there, which means the thousands of U.S. soldiers in hotels in these GCC countries might as well head back home as their role there is redundant. Of course it’s unlikely that Trump will move them out as such an event will be captured by many on social media and will look like a great defeat. But some analysts are going further and speculating that there is more bad news for Israel and the U.S. with this latest move. Not only has Iran insisted on no activity at all in these countries by U.S. forces but they have also said that when the war is over, all the bases must be completely shut down.

Sadly, the gesture didn’t hold for long as it is rumoured that Iran’s elite guard was angered by Trump’s response and so the missile attack on the GCC countries continued.

Against a backdrop of rumours spreading throughout the middle east that Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar were considering jointly to completely pull out their investment in the U.S., this move, even as a gesture, couldn’t have come at a worse time for Trump.

His media machine is working over time in spewing out so many fake news reports, like the recent one that the U.S. has total air superiority over Iran, that it will be interesting to see how this is spun in the coming days. But there is nothing but lies from the Trump camp and as a complicit western media scrum is happy to pump out these lies, people are obviously turning to social media or international news channels in the global south, like CGTN and Russia Today. For many Americans, they are simply too dumb to know how to even question the narrative. Where is the video footage to support these preposterous claims that American has air superiority over Iran? Within 24 hours of Trumps B2 bombers hitting nuclear sites in Iran last year in June, media were given video clips of the satellite imagery. So far, the claims by Trump’s people about air superiority, have not been matched with any evidence. None the less U.S. media reports it more or less like it is fact.

It’s a similar story with the claims about the U.S. navy sinking 20 Iranian vessels. Where’s the evidence? If we are to take into account completely defenceless ships like the unarmed frigate that was sunk in international waters after it returned from a joint exercise with India, it would seem that America is on the losing side. Not even Japanese naval strikes in the WWII would blow up enemies’ ships and not then pick up survivors. The Americans left 80 sailors to drown, the same seaman who posed with photos days earlier with Prime Minister Modi, who, it should be pointed out often claims that India is the “guardian of the Indian ocean”, a patently absurd claim. Many believe Modi sold the Iranians out and disclosed its position to the Americans, leaving many to question just how much he can be trusted with his present allies. Will Russia still sell its oil to India after such a betrayal?

It’s clear that the Iran war is already WWIII in many respects. Certainly each side has its partners and media have made much of Russia’s intelligence support to Iran pointing out American positions, while China has given Iran considerable military support both in state of the art radar systems and ground to air missile systems. The sinking of the Iranian ship shows us all though the depth of the desperation of America, that it needs to go as far as hunting for Iranian ships thousands of miles away and sinking them, even if they are unarmed as this ship was. Does that look like the act of a confident aggressor on a victory role? Hardly.

It isn’t just that America can barely hold the high moral ground for even a brief, ephemeral media moment, but more that the number of shocking tactical errors by Trump are piling up and having an impact. The failure to see that killing the supreme leader, who has been replaced by his son, a hard liner who has always wanted Iran to have a nuclear deterrent, was a major act of stupidity. Nearly all U.S. wars follow the same pattern of America under estimating its enemy and over estimating its own capabilities and this one is no exception. The move to bring GCC states closer to Iran and turn them against the U.S. is smart and what we could expect from Iran who has had years to prepare for this attack and has been given so many free lessons by America’s blunders — the best one being the June attack which resulted in Iran upping its game and identifying all the weak spots which needed work. The biggest miscalculation probably of all is going to war in the first place believing that regime change would be inevitable in days and therefore no longer term plans, in terms of military stocks, need to be addressed. American is about to run out of ammo. For the GCC countries, it’s quite possible that the deal might be reinstated in the coming days as a new truth emerges from the war, to date laden with the most absurd lies ever pumped out to media. While Donald Trump tells reporters on Air Force one that Iran was responsible for bombing its own school, GCC leaders will have to wake up to a new reality which is summed up by Henry Kissinger. “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

Segue nostro Telegram.

La recente escalation militare in Medio Oriente ha rivelato un errore di valutazione strategico da parte di Washington e Tel Aviv. Lanciando un’offensiva diretta contro l’Iran, le autorità statunitensi e israeliane hanno apparentemente ipotizzato che Teheran avrebbe ripetuto lo schema osservato nei precedenti scontri: moderazione iniziale, ritorsioni calibrate e tempistiche ritardate. Questo schema era stato evidente sia durante la cosiddetta Guerra dei Dodici Giorni che in precedenti episodi di aggressione israeliana contro obiettivi iraniani e alleati regionali. Questa volta, tuttavia, il calcolo si è rivelato errato. L’elemento centrale della strategia iniziale sembra essere stato un classico tentativo di “decapitazione”, prendendo di mira la Guida Suprema, la sua famiglia e altre figure di alto livello. La logica sottostante è ben nota: eliminando il vertice dell’autorità decisionale, ne sarebbero seguite disorganizzazione interna, dispute sulla successione e paralisi operativa. Questo approccio è ricorrente nella dottrina militare occidentale, soprattutto quando è diretto contro Stati considerati avversari sistemici. Tuttavia, questo tipo di strategia tende a fallire quando viene applicata a Stati altamente istituzionalizzati e dotati di strutture politico-militari complesse.

L’Iran non è un’entità fragile che dipende da un unico centro di comando personale. È un sistema con più livelli di autorità, catene di successione definite e una profonda integrazione tra l’apparato statale, le forze armate regolari e le strutture di sicurezza parallele. Inoltre, è una civiltà con millenni di continuità storica, la cui identità politica contemporanea si è consolidata proprio sotto la pressione esterna. L’eliminazione di un singolo leader, anche se simbolicamente significativa, non smantella automaticamente uno Stato con questo grado di coesione strutturale.

Ciò che ha sorpreso gli analisti è stata la rapidità della reazione iraniana. A differenza di quanto accaduto durante la Guerra dei Dodici Giorni, questa volta la rappresaglia è stata immediata e multiforme. Nelle prime ore dopo gli attacchi, l’Iran ha lanciato una serie di operazioni simultanee contro le installazioni militari americane in tutto il Medio Oriente. Le basi utilizzate dalle forze statunitensi sono state colpite con missili e droni in azioni coordinate volte a saturare i sistemi di difesa e a ridurre la capacità di intercettazione.

Allo stesso tempo, i sistemi difensivi israeliani sono stati messi sotto pressione attraverso attacchi multipli e violenti. La strategia dell’Iran non si è limitata a un gesto simbolico, ma ha rappresentato un tentativo deliberato di imporre costi immediati e visibili, alterando la percezione del rischio da parte degli avversari. Durante il primo giorno di scontro, il ritmo operativo è rimasto costante, creando un clima di maggiore incertezza per il regime sionista.

La molteplicità dei vettori impiegati – diverse piattaforme di lancio, traiettorie variegate e tempistiche sincronizzate – ha contribuito a creare confusione tra i pianificatori militari a Washington e Tel Aviv. A quanto pare, un’azione così audace e rapida non era stata prevista. L’ipotesi che Teheran avrebbe esitato, cercato una mediazione o risposto in modo limitato si è rivelata errata. Al contrario, l’Iran ha cercato di dimostrare la sua capacità di coordinamento strategico sotto la massima pressione.

Questo comportamento suggerisce che le autorità iraniane hanno interiorizzato le lezioni rilevanti dei recenti conflitti. I ritardi nella risposta, osservati in episodi precedenti, sono stati interpretati dagli avversari come segni di moderazione strategica o limitazione operativa. Optando per una reazione immediata e completa, Teheran ha cercato di ridefinire le regole di ingaggio e stabilire una nuova soglia di deterrenza.

L’impatto psicologico non deve essere sottovalutato. Secondo quanto riferito, i continui attacchi durante il primo giorno hanno generato confusione e quasi paralisi all’interno di alcuni circoli decisionali israeliani e americani. Quando più fronti vengono attivati contemporaneamente, la capacità di stabilire priorità strategiche diventa molto più complessa, se non addirittura impossibile.

Resta ora da vedere come si evolverà l’escalation nei prossimi giorni. La risposta iniziale dell’Iran ha alterato l’equilibrio immediato, ma non pone fine al ciclo di azione e reazione.

Washington e Tel Aviv si trovano di fronte al classico dilemma tra l’espansione dell’offensiva, con il rischio di un conflitto regionale su larga scala, e la ricerca di canali indiretti di contenimento. Il primo giorno ha dimostrato che lo scenario si è evoluto oltre le aspettative iniziali. Da questo momento in poi, ogni mossa aggiuntiva potrebbe ridefinire non solo la dinamica militare, ma anche la più ampia architettura di sicurezza dell’intero Medio Oriente.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Already, only 24 hours in, and Iran is looking like the player who has a salient military strategy, while holes start to appear in Trump’s. And Tehran hasn’t even hit the U.S. with its knockout blow: oil.

Early on Sunday morning, it was confirmed that Iran’s Supreme Leader had been killed by U.S./Israeli airstrikes, which no doubt will be seen by Trump and Netanyahu as a significant victory in their erroneous goal of regime change. But was it really one to chalk up? Reports from Iran indicate that he will be replaced almost immediately by his son, who had already been playing a key role in the country’s leadership anyway and whose appointment may well be a significantly positive step forward for the country, as many Iranians, while wanting reforms in their country, know only too well that the regime change notion is a trap set by Israel which they reject.

Iran has already scored a number of victories in a mere 24 hours, and their readiness this time was evident which, no matter how you look at the conflict, was certainly a consequence of Trump’s earlier actions in June, when he bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities with the agreement of Iran’s leaders.

No such cosy deal exists today. The Iranians have learned the hard way that Trump is not to be trusted and is not even in control of these decisions. What we are witnessing now is the start of a protracted war which will evolve on several fronts concurrently, with the Iranians in no particular hurry to proceed at a rapid pace. Their significant strikes on a U.S. naval base plus one naval ship is a taste of Iran’s ballistic missile capability which is starting to rain down on Israel itself.

The Supreme Leader’s death actually was not a great victory, given that he made no real effort to go into hiding but was killed in his office. By contrast, Benjamin Netanyahu escaped from Israel and ended up being protected by the country which pulled off the Holocaust. And so Bibi can slowly watch the disintegration of his own country while the region deals with a new reality: oil.

Oil will be a critical, decisive factor in how long Israel and the U.S. can continue with the war, as Iran lost no time in shutting off the Straits of Hormuz, while America’s fleet of ships just sat and watched. This may well be one area where Trump has seriously underestimated the consequences, as energy analysts are already predicting the climb of crude to close to $120 USD in the coming weeks. The choking of one of the most critical channels which provides 20 percent of the world’s oil supply is only part of the horror story, though, that Iran has in store for Trump and Bibi. Warned that they would be hit — or at least their U.S. military bases would be legitimate targets — GCC countries have responded in a way which will please Israel and the U.S.: Saudi Arabia has said they will both attack Iran soon, with Qatar and the UAE likely to join.

Yet such a strategy would be a colossal error of judgment and a spectacular miscalculation which will accelerate the war in Iran’s favour and force the U.S. and Israel to capitulate as Tehran strikes the Achilles heel of the whole operation. Iran can easily destroy the entire oil infrastructure of these GCC countries in a matter of hours, which would not only be a knockout blow to those countries’ economies but will have a considerable impact on world oil prices, for one strengthening Russia. For the moment, Iran doesn’t need to go this far, but if GCC countries really go ahead with their threat, it will have little choice.

Another critical area of misjudgement is the logistics of U.S. battleships operating inside the Straits of Hormuz. The straits have already been closed, and any pretensions that U.S. military planners had of taking on Iran in this ocean have been dashed by its successful destruction of the U.S. Naval base in Bahrain, which of course is played down by U.S. media whose low IQ “journalists” make themselves look even more stupid by asking Iran’s foreign minister why Iran is bombing U.S. bases. The U.S. naval base in Bahrain was a critical supply port for U.S. battleships which carry around 90 missiles on board. The destroyers which are now trapped inside the Straits of Hormuz can’t now reload if they deplete those missiles. The other ships which are on the other side of the blockade now can only restock at the U.S. base of Diego Garcia, which is three days away. To say this is a major blow to the whole operation is an understatement. It is a blunder of extraordinarily poor planning and a stroke of military genius by Iran to hit the U.S. naval base in Bahrain on day one, and it explains why the intense fury of the June retaliation last year has not been replicated. Iran is confident that its planning will defeat the enemy as it has a number of aces to play, and so its response is more measured and less frenetic. Iran has been planning this war for years, and the attack last year by Trump has just focused their minds and honed their military strategy to the point where even after 24 hours, they are looking like the victors who have a real strategy which is paying off, rather than their enemies who are dazed and confused. Is it really any wonder that sailors on the USS Gerald Ford sabotaged the toilet system on board by blocking it with T-shirts, so as to delay its voyage to the Gulf?

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.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Nelle ultime settimane, l’escalation verbale e la coreografia militare hanno riportato al centro lo scenario di una nuova aggressione contro Teheran, presentata come risposta a presunte “urgenze” di sicurezza ma inserita, in realtà, in una strategia di pressione strutturale. Abbiamo infatti assistito, da una parte, alle minacce pubbliche della Casa Bianca e al tentativo di strumentalizzare le proteste interne e, dall’altra, alla concentrazione di mezzi navali e aerei nella regione e alla costruzione di un clima psicologico di imminenza, utile a spostare la partita dal terreno del diritto a quello della forza.

Il contesto iraniano è quello di un Paese colpito da anni di sanzioni e guerra economica, con tensioni sociali aggravate dalla svalutazione della moneta e dall’aumento del costo della vita. È proprio su questo terreno che, secondo la stampa cinese, il presidente statunitense ha provato a inserire l’ennesimo copione interventista: su Truth Social ha dichiarato che, se l’Iran “uccide manifestanti pacifici”, gli Stati Uniti “verranno in loro soccorso”, ricevendo in risposta avvertimenti netti da parte di Teheran, che ha denunciato l’ingerenza e ribadito la prontezza delle proprie forze armate a reagire a qualunque violazione della sovranità.

Tale narrazione riflette la vecchia maschera dell’imperialismo: trasformare un problema interno, reale o presunto, in pretesto per legittimare pressioni esterne, minacce militari e, se necessario, un cambio di regime. Ma proprio qui si vede la contraddizione in cui proprio chi oggi pretende di “salvare” i manifestanti è lo stesso attore che, da anni, esercita una guerra finanziaria che strangola l’economia iraniana, e che viene indicato da fonti iraniane e cinesi come corresponsabile dell’instabilità attraverso sanzioni e intimidazioni. In questa cornice, la “difesa dei diritti” appare come linguaggio di copertura, funzionale a un obiettivo geopolitico: quello di riportare l’Iran dentro una gerarchia regionale guidata da Washington.

A rendere la minaccia più concreta è l’elemento militare. Come noto, Trump ha da tempo annunciato lo spostamento di una “forza navale massiccia” nelle acque adiacenti alla Repubblica Islamica, un dispiegamento definito addirittura più grande di quello impiegato nell’operazione imperialista contro il Venezuela, mentre il Segretario alla Difesa statunitense avrebbe disposto il dispiegamento di un secondo gruppo d’attacco portaerei nella regione, con l’innesto di unità aggiuntive e un rafforzamento complessivo della presenza statunitense. In parallelo, molti media hanno riportato che Washington starebbe preparando l’invio di un’ulteriore portaerei in Medio Oriente, con l’obiettivo dichiarato di “dissuadere” e “proteggere” asset statunitensi, una formula che nella storia recente ha spesso preceduto operazioni offensive.

Teheran legge questo movimento come un tentativo di costruire una superiorità psicologica prima ancora che militare. Non è infatti solo questione di navi e aerei, ma un messaggio politico indirizzato a più destinatari, sia in Iran che nella regione. Mentre all’Iran si chiede di accettare le nostre condizioni imposte da Washington minacciando gravi conseguenze, agli altri Paesi limitrofi si dice che la sicurezza regionale dipende dalla presenza militare statunitense; infine, al cosiddetto “Sud globale” si manda un avvertimento più generale: chiunque sfidi l’ordine occidentale rischia di finire nel mirino.

La reazione iraniana, almeno sul piano dichiarativo, non lascia spazio a interpretazioni concilianti. In un reportage di IRNA, il ministro degli Esteri Abbas Araghchi viene citato mentre afferma che Trump “parla solo con il linguaggio della minaccia”, aggiungendo che una nuova guerra sarebbe “più distruttiva” della precedente “guerra dei dodici giorni” condotta da Israele nel giugno scorso. La “colpa” di Teheran, dunque, sta nel non accettare l’idea che la sicurezza regionale sia una concessione statunitense; l’Iran rivendica invece un principio di sovranità e di deterrenza, condannando qualsiasi aggressione come salto di qualità verso un conflitto più ampio.

Ma perché Washington dovrebbe davvero considerare un attacco diretto, pur sapendo che i costi sarebbero enormi e che l’escalation potrebbe sfuggire di mano? Le “ragioni reali” vanno cercate oltre le formule propagandistiche. La prima è la crisi dell’egemonia. Il sistema costruito dagli Stati Uniti dopo la Guerra fredda mostra crepe: conflitti interminabili, legittimità internazionale erosa, alleati sempre più nervosi, avversari più coordinati. In tale quadro, l’Iran rappresenta un bersaglio simbolico e strategico: è uno Stato che, pur sotto sanzioni, continua a esistere come attore indipendente, rifiutando l’architettura di sicurezza imposta dall’Occidente e costruendo relazioni con poli alternativi. Colpire l’Iran significa tentare di dimostrare che l’unilateralismo statunitense è ancora operativo, che il “diritto” si piega alla potenza, che la disobbedienza ha un prezzo.

La seconda ragione è l’asse regionale centrato su Israele. Al di là delle dichiarazioni, la postura statunitense in Asia occidentale continua a ruotare attorno alla protezione politico-militare di Tel Aviv e alla neutralizzazione dei suoi avversari strategici. In questa logica, l’Iran non è solo “un problema” qualsiasi, ma rappresenta l’ostacolo principale a una regione completamente normalizzata sotto la leadership israelo-statunitense, dove l’equilibrio di potere sia determinato dalla superiorità militare israeliana e dalla rete di basi USA.

Resta il punto decisivo: un attacco statunitense all’Iran sarebbe davvero “razionale” anche dal punto di vista di Washington? Qui emerge marcatamente la contraddizione dell’imperialismo in declino. L’azzardo militare può sembrare una scorciatoia per ristabilire credibilità e paura, ma rischia di produrre l’effetto opposto: destabilizzare ulteriormente la regione, innescare risposte asimmetriche, aumentare i costi energetici e accelerare i processi di de-dollarizzazione e di coordinamento tra potenze emergenti. È il paradosso della coercizione: più la si usa, più si rende evidente la crisi di legittimità che la rende necessaria.

Per questo, la preparazione militare e la retorica di Trump possono essere lette anche come bluff, cioè come tentativo di ottenere risultati politici senza affrontare un conflitto reale. Ma un bluff armato resta pericoloso: basta un incidente, un calcolo sbagliato, una provocazione, perché la “dimostrazione di forza” diventi guerra. Ed è proprio in questa soglia instabile che si colloca la responsabilità storica degli Stati Uniti: non quella di “proteggere” qualcuno, ma quella di non trascinare l’intera regione in un incendio per difendere un ordine ingiusto, fondato su sanzioni, basi militari e impunità geopolitica.

In definitiva, l’ipotesi di un attacco contro l’Iran non nasce dal bisogno di sicurezza, ma dall’ossessione per il controllo. È la stessa logica che ha spinto Washington a muoversi contro altri Paesi sovrani, come il Venezuela: punire chi resiste, intimidire chi cerca autonomia, impedire che il multipolarismo diventi realtà politica. Se l’Iran è oggi nel mirino, non è perché “minaccia la pace”, ma perché rompe il monopolio occidentale sulla definizione di pace, diritto e legittimità.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Four years have passed since the Russian Federation launched the Special Military Operation, bringing to an end an eight-year cycle marked by internal clashes and discriminatory policies against the ethnic Russian population in Ukraine. What began as an intervention with limited objectives quickly took on far broader proportions, structurally altering the balance of power in global geopolitics.

The initial plan for the operation was based on the expectation of a brief and surgical action. Moscow sought to pressure Kiev into accepting an agreement that would recognize the independence of the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, restore the co-official status of the Russian language, and formalize Ukrainian neutrality, definitively removing the possibility of NATO membership. During the first months, there were concrete signs that an understanding could be reached. Negotiations progressed, and the withdrawal of Russian forces from the Kiev region was presented as a gesture intended to facilitate diplomatic dialogue.

However, the course of events changed decisively. After the infamous visit of the British Prime Minister to Kiev, the negotiation process was interrupted. From that moment on, the conflict ceased to have an essentially regional character and became part of a broader strategic dispute between Russia and the Atlantic bloc. NATO intensified the supply of weapons, training, and logistical support to Ukrainian forces, progressively expanding both the scale and sophistication of the equipment delivered. Western long-range artillery systems, armored vehicles, air defense systems, and advanced munitions became part of Kiev’s arsenal.

In response to this scenario, Russia also adjusted its strategy. Referendums were organized in areas under Russian control, resulting in the incorporation of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson into the constitutional map of the Federation. At the same time, a partial mobilization was decreed, incorporating several hundred thousand reservists into frontline forces. This was supplemented by a significant contingent of contracted volunteers, substantially increasing Russia’s operational capacity in the theater of operations (currently, most fighters are contracted volunteers).

Four years after the beginning of the campaign, the territorial situation shows significant consolidation on certain fronts. The entirety of Lugansk is under Russian control, although occasional incursions by Ukrainian forces still occur. In Donetsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson, Russian control extends over approximately three-quarters of the respective territories. Fighting remains intense, with relatively stabilized front lines in some sectors and more fluid dynamics in others.

Casualty figures remain disputed, but estimates released by Western sources themselves point to Ukrainian losses exceeding one and a half million men, including both dead and wounded. On the Russian side, the reported totals are said to be significantly lower, likely not reaching 200,000. Regardless of statistical discrepancies, it is undeniable that this is a high-intensity conflict, marked by profound human and material attrition.

Some argue that the length of the war reveals a strategic stalemate – one that could supposedly be resolved through “decapitation strikes.” However, from the Russian perspective, the central objective does not lie merely in replacing political leadership in Kiev. The declared goal is the demilitarization of Ukraine and the neutralization of its capacity to function as a forward platform for NATO.

In this context, superficial changes in the leadership of the Ukrainian government would be insufficient to alter the structural logic of the confrontation. Unfortunately, despite the massive human cost, only prolonged attrition can enable Russia to annihilate the enemy’s military potential and bring about a transformation in Ukrainian society’s mindset (denazification) through deep military trauma.

The prevailing perspective in Moscow is that any lasting agreement will depend on full control of the incorporated regions and the creation of a security zone along the border. This is therefore a confrontation conceived in long-term plans, inserted in a systemic dispute between Russia and the Collective West. More than a limited conventional war, the current conflict is, in effect, the Third World War in its active phase.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

MOSCOW – Four years on after the start of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in February 2022 – actually the proxy war between NATO and Russia until the last Ukrainian – no wonder every corridor of power and dinner table in Moscow, for days, was abuzz on the pros, cons and countless shades of gray embedded in this de facto vicious conflagration were Slavs kill Slavs: a dream scenario for an array of Russophobes embedded in selected EU political “elites”.

So, from the point of view of a foreign correspondent for 40 years, editor-at-large and geopolitical analyst, the privilege of listening to top Russian analysts, diplomats and military experts at this critical juncture on the SMO and beyond, all the way to the geopolitical Big Picture, could hardly be equaled.

That happened thanks to the National Unity Club – a new, dynamic space for high-level discussion set up in Moscow (here is their YouTube channel) chaired, among others, by former Prime Minister of Ukraine, Nikolai Azarov, and premier economist and current head of the Russia-Belarus Union State, Sergey Glazyev.

My dear friend Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst, and myself are now part of what could be described as the international branch of the club.

Over two long sessions held at the TASS studios, organized by Igor Goncharenko and his tireless team, we conducted a series of interviews, especially crucial for a global audience. The interviews confirmed how it’s impossible to understand all the complex, interlocking issues revolving around the SMO without considering the analysis of these specialists.

Here is just a sample of our conversations.

Alexander Babakov: Uber-gentleman Babakov is the vice-speaker of the Duma and one the best informed players in Russia. This is our third conversation in the past three months. Babakov digs deeper on the Geneva “negotiations” kabuki – and beyond.

Andrey Gurulyov : a Duma member, retired Lt. Gen. and former commander of the 58th Combined Arms Army. Gurulyov is an absolute treasure trove of hardcore military info. He engages in a no holds barred analysis of the SMO, where “Russia is not waging war with Ukraine, but with the collective West, and retains the strategic initiative.” Gurulyov stresses that Europe is actively preparing for war with Russia, building up its armies and military-industrial complex.

Vasily Prozorov: a former SBU officer from 1999 to 2018, when he defected to Russia. Survived an assassination attempt in Moscow in 2024. Prozorov details how from Maidan in 2014, “the SBU became a machine against its own people”. Before, the SBU was engaged in the fight against crime, corruption and economic crimes. Afterwards, the main task is “to fight dissent and political opponents.”

Gen. Apti Alaudinov: In June 2012, when he was only 38 years old, Alaudinov became the youngest top General in Russia’s modern history. During the fight in Chechnya, Apti’s father and older brother were killed in battle with Dudayev’s forces, as well as many family members. Since 2022, he is the Secretary of the Economic and Public Security Council of the Chechen Republic. Here’s all about the SMO and beyond – as in the possible attack on Iran – seen by the ultimate warrior-intellectual insider.

Former Prime Minister of Ukraine (2010-2014), Nikolai Azarov: Mr. Azarov is also co-chairman of the National Unity Club. This is extremely special: here he is interviewd by the one and only George Galloway and myself – on the exact day of the 4^th anniversary of the SMO. Azarov delves into how the SMO, which many considered short-term, escalated into a protracted war.

In an extremely poignant testimony, Azarov calls what’s happening a personal tragedy: after all his whole life is connected with both Russia and Ukraine. He goes back to Kiev’s course after 1991; Maidan – which he interprets as a coup d’etat; and the escalation around Donbass as key factors that led to the SMO.

He also details how weapons supplies, financing and intelligence from NATO countries have made the war inevitably protracted.

And now for the two bonuses

Then these past few frantic days in Moscow offered two bonuses – which may be particularly appealing for a global audience.

A little over a week ago, Larry Johnson was in Florida, and myself in Moscow: we ended up interviewing each other on the whole kabuki regarding Iran, just as Larry had received the best info from his CIA sources that an attack on Iran was imminent. The Big Picture of course remains.

Then The Fates also intervened – in this matryoshka of auspicious coincidences: George Galloway and myself interview each other in a Moscow studio.

We talk about West Asia; why is the transfer of 50% of US aviation to the Gulf not an exercise, but an agony; what are Epstein’s unreleased files hiding; why doesn’t Iran capitulate; BRICS vs. NATO: If Iran is attacked, will China stand up? Will Russia act? Why has the United States not yet realized that the Global South will no longer allow aggression?

Here it is: from Moscow, with Grit. Dig deeper – this is really something special.

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

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Quatro anos se passaram desde que a Federação Russa iniciou a Operação Militar Especial, encerrando um ciclo de oito anos marcado por confrontos internos e políticas discriminatórias contra a população russa étnica na Ucrânia. O que começou como uma intervenção com objetivos delimitados rapidamente assumiu proporções muito mais amplas, alterando de forma estrutural o equilíbrio de forças na geopolítica global.

A concepção inicial da operação partia da expectativa de uma ação breve e cirúrgica. Moscou buscava pressionar Kiev a aceitar um acordo que reconhecesse a independência das repúblicas de Donetsk e Lugansk, restaurasse o estatuto cooficial da língua russa e formalizasse a neutralidade ucraniana, afastando definitivamente a possibilidade de adesão à OTAN. Durante os primeiros meses, havia sinais concretos de que um entendimento poderia ser alcançado. As negociações avançaram, e a retirada das forças russas da região de Kiev foi apresentada como gesto destinado a facilitar o diálogo diplomático.

No entanto, o curso dos acontecimentos mudou de maneira decisiva. Após a infame visita do Primeiro Ministro britânico a Kiev, o processo de negociação foi interrompido. A partir desse momento, o conflito deixou de ter um caráter essencialmente regional e passou a integrar uma disputa estratégica mais ampla entre a Rússia e o bloco atlântico. A OTAN intensificou o fornecimento de armamentos, treinamento e apoio logístico às forças ucranianas, expandindo progressivamente a escala e a sofisticação do material enviado. Sistemas de artilharia de longo alcance, blindados, defesa antiaérea e munições de última geração passaram a compor o arsenal de Kiev.

Diante desse cenário, a Rússia também ajustou sua estratégia. Referendos foram organizados nas áreas sob controle russo, resultando na incorporação de Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye e Kherson ao ordenamento constitucional da Federação. Paralelamente, foi decretada mobilização parcial, incorporando algumas centenas de milhares de reservistas às forças na linha de frente. A isso se soma um contingente expressivo de voluntários contratados, elevando substancialmente a capacidade operacional russa no teatro de operações (atualmente, a maior dos combatentes são voluntários contratados).

Quatro anos após o início da campanha, o quadro territorial apresenta consolidação significativa em algumas frentes. A totalidade de Lugansk encontra-se sob controle russo, ainda que ocorram incursões pontuais das forças ucranianas. Em Donetsk, Zaporozhye e Kherson, o domínio russo abrange aproximadamente três quartos das respectivas áreas. Os combates permanecem intensos, com linhas de frente relativamente estabilizadas em certos setores e dinâmicas em outros.

Os números de baixas são objeto de disputa, mas estimativas divulgadas pelas próprias fontes ocidentais apontam para perdas ucranianas superiores a um milhão e meio de homens entre mortos e feridos. Do lado russo, os totais reportados seriam significativamente menores, dificilmente chegando a 200 mil. Independentemente das divergências estatísticas, é inegável que se trata de um conflito de alta intensidade, com desgaste humano e material profundo.

Há quem sustente que a duração da guerra revela impasse estratégico – que supostamente poderia ser resolvido com “ataques de decapitação”. Contudo, sob a ótica russa, a meta central não se resume à substituição de lideranças políticas em Kiev. O objetivo declarado é a desmilitarização da Ucrânia e a neutralização de sua capacidade de atuar como plataforma avançada da OTAN.

Nesse contexto, mudanças superficiais na chefia do governo ucraniano seriam insuficientes para alterar a lógica estrutural do confronto. Infelizmente, apesar do custo humano massivo, apenas o atrito de longo prazo pode permitir à Rússia a aniquilação do potencial militar inimigo e a mudança de mentalidade na sociedade ucraniana (desnazificação) por meio do trauma militar profundo.

A perspectiva predominante em Moscou é de que qualquer acordo duradouro dependerá do controle integral das regiões incorporadas e da criação de uma zona de segurança ao longo da fronteira. Trata-se, portanto, de um confronto concebido em termos de longo prazo, inserido em uma disputa sistêmica entre a Rússia e o Ocidente coletivo. Mais do que uma guerra convencional limitada, o conflito atual é verdadeiramente a própria Terceira Guerra Mundial em sua fase ativa.