Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

La defensa mosaica descentralizada de Irán —denominación oficial— se modifica constantemente: esa es la estrategia a largo plazo del IRGC, consistente en una muerte por mil cortes diseñada para desangrar al Imperio del Caos.

Recorramos los canales interconectados que impregnan el pantano inconstitucional, imposible de ganar y estratégicamente catastrófico construido por el Imperio del Caos.

La resiliencia mosaica y la estrategia a largo plazo de Irán; la tentación de ese espantoso culto a la muerte en Asia Occidental de pasarse a la energía nuclear; el inminente e inexorable infierno de los interceptores; el implacable impulso de China por deshacerse del antiguo orden (acumulando oro, deshaciéndose de dólares); el progreso de los BRICS en la creación de un sistema financiero paralelo; el colapso de los vasallos estadounidenses en varias latitudes: todo ello está acelerando un reinicio radical del sistema.

Y luego está Vladimir Putin, que, de forma casual, casi como una idea de último momento, anuncia que, después de todo, puede que no haya gas ruso para vender a la UE:

Quizás tenga más sentido que dejemos de suministrar gas a la UE y nos traslademos a esos nuevos mercados, y nos establezcamos allí (…) Una vez más, quiero subrayar: no hay ningún motivo político en esto. Pero si de todos modos van a cerrarles el mercado en uno o dos meses, quizá sea mejor marcharse ahora y centrarse en países que sean socios fiables. Dicho esto, no es una decisión. Solo estoy pensando en voz alta. Pediré al Gobierno que lo estudie junto con nuestras empresas.

El lamentable canciller Bratwurst pidió permiso al neocalígulo para que Alemania comprara petróleo ruso. Lo consiguió. Pero puede que no haya nada que comprar.

Se trata de una guerra energética, y la UE, una vez más, ni siquiera reúne los requisitos para ser un mendigo sin hogar. Sin gas de Qatar, sin petróleo y gas rusos. Ahora vuelvan a su guerra eterna obsesionada con la OTAN.

El bombardeo del oleoducto del CCG-petrodólar

Inmediatamente después del ataque decapitador del sábado pasado contra el líder supremo ayatolá Jamenei, Irán pasó a un mando y control descentralizados y a células con un plan de sucesión de cuatro niveles, lanzando incesantes salvas de misiles más antiguos y lentos y drones sacrificables para consumir baterías Patriot y sistemas THAAD a escala industrial. Con esa medida, Irán cambió las reglas del juego ya en el primer día de la guerra.

Cualquiera con un coeficiente intelectual superior a la temperatura ambiente sabe que utilizar tres Patriots —con un coste combinado de 9,6 millones de dólares— para defenderse de un solo misil balístico iraní sacrificable es completamente insostenible.

Por lo tanto, no es de extrañar que solo hicieran falta cuatro días de la guerra del sindicato Epstein contra Irán para que el sistema financiero mundial se volviera completamente loco. Se evaporaron 3,2 billones de dólares en cuestión de cuatro días, y la cifra sigue aumentando.

El estrecho de Ormuz está cerrado a todos los efectos prácticos, excepto para los buques rusos y chinos. Al menos el 20 % de las necesidades mundiales de petróleo no se están moviendo a ninguna parte. Toda la producción de GNL de Qatar está fuera de servicio, sin perspectivas de reanudación. El segundo yacimiento petrolífero más grande de Irak ha sido cerrado.

Y aun así, el volátil neocalígulo vocifera que su guerra, que se suponía que solo duraría un fin de semana, puede prolongarse durante cinco semanas, y otros payasos industriales y militares del Pentágono hablan de que se prolongará hasta septiembre.

Al fijar como objetivos legítimos los intereses estadounidenses en todo el Consejo de Cooperación para los Estados Árabes del Golfo (CCG), y no solo las bases militares, Irán ha puesto una bomba de relojería. Se trata de un ataque directo al petrodólar (para deleite silencioso de Pekín).

Sin duda, Teherán calculó que la reacción en cadena sería instantánea, hasta llegar al pánico como preludio de una nueva Gran Depresión generalizada.

La falta de petróleo, sumada a la inexistencia de una defensa significativa del CCG contra los misiles y drones iraníes, significa el fin de los torrentes de dinero falso de Wall Street.

Al fin y al cabo, la burbuja de la inteligencia artificial se financia con las “inversiones” del CCG. El nuevo bombardeo de Pipeineistán no es del tipo Nord Stream: es el bombardeo del oleoducto del petrodólar del CCG.

Todo esto está sucediendo en un tiempo récord, a medida que se perfecciona el mosaico descentralizado de Irán. Por ejemplo, una serie de misiles antibuque letales, que aún no se han utilizado, están coordinados por el IRGC, la marina, el ejército y las fuerzas aeroespaciales. Lo mismo ocurre con los drones.

Aunque los ataques con misiles balísticos no mantengan el ritmo inicial vertiginoso, son más que suficientes para seguir golpeando sin cesar las bases militares estadounidenses (cuyas defensas aéreas ya están en gran parte agotadas); sumir al culto de la muerte en Asia Occidental y al CCG en un infierno económico total; y aterrorizar hasta la muerte a todos los rincones de los “mercados globales”.

Y a pesar de todas las bravuconerías de Washington por parte del untuoso y payaso secretario de las guerras eternas, docenas de fortalezas militares subterráneas iraníes cargadas con decenas de miles de misiles y equipos siguen siendo invisibles e intocables.

Arruinar el modelo de negocio del Imperio del Caos

Esta es una guerra desesperada para salvar el petrodólar. Una potencia energética como Irán que comercia fuera del petrodólar es el anatema definitivo, especialmente porque el proceso va acompañado de la iniciativa de los BRICS para establecer sistemas de pago independientes.

La inmensa fragilidad estructural del CCG —los vecinos de Irán— los convierte en una presa ideal. Al fin y al cabo, todo su modelo de negocio se basa en el petrodólar a cambio de la ‘protección’ mafiosa de Estados Unidos, que se ha desvanecido en la arena en los cuatro primeros días de la guerra.

Es el momento de que la máquina de guerra asimétrica de Irán arruine el modelo de negocio del Imperio del Caos en tiempo real.

La prueba definitiva es la implosión del sueño bling bling de Dubái, mucho más que la devastación impuesta a los intereses relacionados con la Quinta Flota de Estados Unidos en Bahréin e incluso un misil balístico que destruyó el radar de matriz en fase AN/FPS-132, valorado en 1100 millones de dólares, en la base aérea de Al Udeid, en Qatar.

La ruptura coordinada y en curso del CCG, ya inevitable, significa en última instancia el fin del reciclaje del petrodólar, lo que abre el juego al petroyuan o al comercio de energía en una cesta de monedas de los BRICS.

“Jaque mate” proviene del persa “Shah Mat”, que significa “el rey está indefenso”. Bueno, es posible que el emperador neocalígulo no sepa que está desnudo, porque es incapaz de jugar al ajedrez. Pero está lo suficientemente asustado como para empezar a buscar desesperadamente una salida.

El corredor aéreo Astracán-Teherán

Ahora veamos el papel de Rusia. La atención debe centrarse en el corredor aéreo Astracán-Teherán, repleto de vuelos secretos de carga. El aeródromo militar de Chkalovsk, cerca de Astracán, es el centro logístico clave del corredor: cargamentos como el Il-76MD, el An-124 y el Tu-0204-300C van y vienen cubiertos con un material especial que reduce la visibilidad del radar y los oculta de los sistemas de rastreo civiles.

Su carga llega al aeropuerto de Mehrabad en Teherán (no es de extrañar que fuera bombardeado por Israel), Pyam y Shahid Behesthi en Isfahán. También se aplica la logística multimodal, ya que parte de la carga se entrega a través del Caspio.

Todo está coordinado por la 988.ª Brigada Logística Militar de Astracán. El contenido de la carga incluye componentes para sistemas de defensa aérea, módulos de guía por radar, sistemas hidráulicos para lanzamisiles y módulos de radar de detección de largo alcance.

Además, en virtud de un protocolo secreto, Rusia está suministrando a Irán tecnología de guerra electrónica de última generación, incluida una versión de exportación del Krasukha-4IR, capaz de interferir los sistemas de radar de los drones estadounidenses.

A esto hay que añadir que Irán pronto desplegará baterías S-400 completas, lo que le permitirá controlar hasta el 70 % del espacio aéreo iraní.

Cómo la tensión económico-política se volverá insoportable

Y ahora pasemos al papel de Turquía.

Hace solo dos meses, el MIT (servicio de inteligencia turco) advirtió directamente al IRGC de que combatientes kurdos estaban intentando cruzar de Irak a Irán.

Piénsese en ello: un miembro de pleno derecho de la OTAN que transmite información operativa urgente al IRGC justo cuando el sindicato Epstein se preparaba para la guerra.

Hay al menos 15 millones de kurdos viviendo en Irán. Lo último que quiere Ankara es que los kurdos se empoderen en Irán. A pesar de todas las insaciables maniobras del sultán Erdogan, sabe que no puede enfrentarse frontalmente a Teherán.

Necesita equilibrar una gran variedad de intereses que mezclan la OTAN, el corredor energético con Rusia, pero también el corredor energético hacia Occidente a través del oleoducto BTC, y el papel de ancla occidental del Corredor Medio hacia China.

Por eso, el supuesto misil balístico iraní que apuntaba a Turquía y que fue derribado por la OTAN no fue gran cosa: los ministros de Asuntos Exteriores Fidan (Turquía) y Aragchi (Irán) lo discutieron como adultos.

Existe una impenetrable niebla de guerra al respecto: el misil podría haber sido enviado para inutilizar la terminal petrolera del BTC y los posteriores drones lanzados sobre Georgia estaban diseñados para inutilizar el punto más débil del BTC.

Nada de esto está confirmado, y será imposible confirmarlo. También podría haber sido una operación de bandera falsa, aunque Teherán pueda estar muy interesado en cortar el 30 % del suministro de petróleo de Israel.

El BTC seguirá en funcionamiento, ya que atraviesa Georgia transportando crudo azerí a través del Cáucaso hasta la costa mediterránea turca. Bombardear el BTC encajaría en la estrategia iraní de cortar todos los corredores energéticos que alimentan al sindicato Epstein y sus acólitos a través del Golfo, el Cáucaso y hasta el Mediterráneo.

A lo largo del BTC, otras medidas lógicas de Irán serían atacar el oleoducto este-oeste de Arabia Saudí (que evita Ormuz); las plataformas de carga marítimas de Irak en aguas territoriales iraníes, que manejan 3,5 millones de barriles al día; y el centro de procesamiento de Abqaiq, que maneja la mayor parte del crudo saudí antes de que llegue a las terminales de exportación.

Si Irán, bajo una presión extrema, se ve obligado a atacar todo lo anterior, no hay ninguna reserva estratégica de petróleo en el planeta capaz de cubrir el déficit.

En esta infernal interconexión de corredores energéticos, rutas marítimas, cadenas de suministro globales, seguridad marítima y precios del petróleo fuera de control, solo los payasos del Pentágono pueden querer prolongar la guerra hasta septiembre. Asia, Europa y todos los importadores de energía del tablero de ajedrez ejercerán la máxima presión para lograr cualquier medida de distensión.

Sin embargo, la estrategia asimétrica de Irán sigue siendo inquebrantable: expandir la guerra horizontalmente y alargar al máximo el plazo para que la presión económica y política sea insoportable.

Traducción: esto no es una maniobra rápida para cambiar el régimen por parte de un grupo de psicópatas. Se trata de una guerra de desgaste estructurada. Y el guion se ha escrito en Teherán.

Traducción: Observatorio de trabajador@s en lucha

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 difesa decentralizzata a mosaico dell’Iran – questa la denominazione ufficiale – viene costantemente modificata 24 ore su 24, 7 giorni su 7: questa è la strategia a lungo termine dell’IRGC, una morte per mille tagli progettata per dissanguare l’Impero del Caos.

Esaminiamo i canali interconnessi che permeano la palude incostituzionale, impossibile da conquistare e strategicamente catastrofica costruita dall’Impero del Caos.

La resilienza mosaica dell’Iran e la sua strategia a lungo termine; la tentazione per quel terribile culto della morte in Asia occidentale di passare al nucleare; l’inesorabile inferno degli intercettori che si avvicina;

l’incessante spinta della Cina ad abbandonare il vecchio ordine (accumulando oro, scaricando dollari); i progressi dei BRICS nella creazione di un sistema finanziario parallelo; il crollo dei vassalli americani, in diverse latitudini: tutto ciò sta accelerando un radicale riassetto del sistema.

E poi c’è Vladimir Putin, che con disinvoltura, quasi come un ripensamento, annuncia che alla fine potrebbe non esserci gas russo da vendere all’UE:

” Forse avrebbe più senso per noi smettere di fornire gas all’UE e spostarci verso quei nuovi mercati, affermandoci lì (…) Ribadisco: non c’è alcun motivo politico. Ma se tra un mese o due ci chiuderanno comunque il mercato, forse è meglio andarsene ora e concentrarsi su paesi che sono partner affidabili. Detto questo, non è una decisione. Sto solo riflettendo ad alta voce. Chiederò al governo di esaminare la questione insieme alle nostre aziende”.

Il deplorevole Cancelliere Bratwurst ha chiesto il permesso al neo-Caligola affinché la Germania potesse acquistare petrolio russo. Lo ha ottenuto. Tuttavia, potrebbe non esserci nulla da acquistare. Questa è una guerra energetica e l’UE, ancora una volta, non è nemmeno all’altezza di un mendicante senzatetto. Niente gas del Qatar, niente petrolio e gas russi. Ora tornate alla vostra guerra infinita ossessionata dalla NATO.

 Il bombardamento dell’oleodotto del CCG-petrodollaro

Subito dopo l’attacco decapitante di sabato scorso contro la Guida Suprema Ayatollah Kahamenei, l’Iran è passato a un comando e controllo decentralizzato e a cellule con un piano di successione a quattro livelli, lanciando raffiche incessanti di missili più vecchi e più lenti e droni sacrificali per consumare batterie Patriot e sistemi THAAD su scala industriale. Con questa mossa, l’Iran ha cambiato le regole del gioco già dal primo giorno di guerra.

Chiunque abbia un QI superiore alla temperatura ambiente sa che utilizzare 3 Patriot – per un costo complessivo di 9,6 milioni di dollari – per difendersi da un singolo missile balistico sacrificale iraniano è del tutto insostenibile.

Non c’è quindi da stupirsi che siano bastati solo 4 giorni di guerra del Sindacato Epstein contro l’Iran per mandare completamente in tilt il sistema finanziario globale. 3,2 trilioni di dollari sono andati in fumo in soli 4 giorni – e il conto continua a salire.

Lo Stretto di Hormuz è praticamente chiuso, tranne che per le navi russe e cinesi. Almeno il 20% del fabbisogno globale di petrolio non si muove da nessuna parte. L’intera produzione di GNL del Qatar è fuori servizio, senza alcuna ripresa in vista. Il secondo giacimento petrolifero più grande dell’Iraq è stato chiuso.

Eppure, il volubile neo-Caligola continua a sostenere che la sua guerra, che avrebbe dovuto durare solo un fine settimana, potrebbe protrarsi per cinque settimane, mentre altri esponenti del Pentagono parlano di un possibile prolungamento fino a settembre.

Prendendo di mira gli interessi statunitensi in tutto il CCG come obiettivi legittimi, e non solo le basi militari, l’Iran ha innescato una bomba a orologeria. Si tratta di un attacco diretto al petrodollaro (con la tacita soddisfazione di Pechino).

Teheran ha sicuramente scommesso che la reazione a catena sarebbe stata immediata, fino al panico come preludio a una nuova Grande Depressione generalizzata. L’assenza di petrolio, unita all’incapacità del CCG di difendersi in modo significativo dai missili/droni iraniani, significa la fine dei flussi di denaro fittizio di Wall Street. La bolla dell’intelligenza artificiale, dopotutto, è finanziata dagli “investimenti” del CCG.

Il nuovo bombardamento del Pipeineistan non è del tipo Nord Stream: è il bombardamento dell’oleodotto del GCC-petrodollaro.

Tutto questo sta accadendo in tempi record, mentre il mosaico decentralizzato dell’Iran viene messo a punto. Ad esempio, una serie di micidiali missili anti-nave – che non sono ancora stati utilizzati – sono coordinati dall’IRGC, dalla marina, dall’esercito e dalle forze aerospaziali. Lo stesso vale per i droni.

Anche se gli attacchi con missili balistici non stanno tenendo il passo con il ritmo iniziale vertiginoso, sono più che sufficienti per continuare a martellare costantemente le basi militari statunitensi (le cui difese aeree sono già in gran parte esaurite); per precipitare il culto della morte in Asia occidentale e il GCC in un inferno economico totale; e per spaventare a morte ogni angolo dei “mercati globali”.

E nonostante tutte le dichiarazioni di Washington da parte del viscido e buffo Segretario delle Guerre Eterne, decine di fortezze militari sotterranee iraniane cariche di decine di migliaia di missili e attrezzature rimangono invisibili e intoccabili.

 Mandare in bancarotta il modello di business dell’Impero del Caos

Questa è una guerra disperata per salvare il petrodollaro. Una potenza energetica come l’Iran che commercia al di fuori del petrodollaro è l’anatema definitivo, soprattutto perché il processo è accompagnato dalla spinta dei BRICS verso la creazione di sistemi di pagamento indipendenti.

L’immensa fragilità strutturale del CCG – i vicini dell’Iran – li rende una preda ideale. Dopo tutto, il loro intero modello di business è costruito sul petrodollaro in cambio di una “protezione” mafiosa degli Stati Uniti, che è svanita nella sabbia nei primi quattro giorni di guerra.

Segnale alla macchina da guerra asimmetrica dell’Iran per mandare in bancarotta il modello di business dell’Impero del Caos in tempo reale.

La prova definitiva è l’implosione del sogno bling bling di Dubai, molto più della devastazione inflitta agli interessi legati alla Quinta Flotta statunitense in Bahrein e persino di un missile balistico che ha distrutto il radar a scansione fasciata AN/FPS-132 da 1,1 miliardi di dollari alla base aerea di Al Udeid in Qatar.

Il crollo coordinato e in corso del CCG, già inevitabile, significa alla fine la fine del riciclaggio del petrodollaro, aprendo il gioco al petroyuan o al commercio di energia in un paniere di valute BRICS.

“Scacco matto” deriva dal persiano “Shah Mat”, che significa “il re è impotente”. Ebbene, l’imperatore neo-Caligola potrebbe non sapere di essere nudo, perché incapace di giocare a scacchi. Tuttavia, è sufficientemente preoccupato da iniziare a cercare disperatamente una via d’uscita.

 Il corridoio aereo Astrakhan-Teheran

Ora passiamo al ruolo della Russia. L’attenzione dovrebbe concentrarsi sul corridoio aereo Astrakhan-Teheran, affollato di voli cargo segreti. L’aeroporto militare di Chkalovsk, vicino ad Astrakhan, è il principale hub logistico del corridoio: cargo come l’Il-76MD, l’An-124 e il Tu-0204-300C fanno la spola coperti da un materiale speciale che riduce la visibilità radar e li nasconde ai sistemi di tracciamento civili.

I loro carichi arrivano all’aeroporto Mehrabad di Teheran (non sorprende che sia stato bombardato da Israele), Pyam e Shahid Behesthi a Isfahan. Si applica anche la logistica multimodale, poiché alcuni carichi vengono consegnati attraverso il Mar Caspio.

Tutto è coordinato dalla 988ª Brigata logistica militare di Astrakhan. Il contenuto dei carichi comprende componenti per sistemi di difesa aerea, moduli di guida radar, sistemi idraulici per lanciamissili e moduli radar di rilevamento a lungo raggio.

Inoltre, in base a un protocollo segreto, la Russia fornisce all’Iran sistemi di guerra elettronica all’avanguardia, tra cui una versione per l’esportazione del Krasukha-4IR, in grado di disturbare i sistemi radar dei droni statunitensi.

A ciò si aggiunga che l’Iran schiererà presto batterie S-400 complete, che gli consentiranno di controllare fino al 70% dello spazio aereo iraniano.

 Come lo stress economico-politico diventerà insostenibile

E ora passiamo al ruolo della Turchia.

Solo due mesi fa il MIT, i servizi segreti turchi, ha avvertito direttamente l’IRGC che i combattenti curdi stavano cercando di attraversare il confine dall’Iraq all’Iran.

Riflettiamo su questo: un membro a pieno titolo della NATO che trasmette informazioni operative urgenti all’IRGC proprio mentre il Sindacato Epstein si preparava alla guerra.

Ci sono almeno 15 milioni di curdi che vivono in Iran. L’ultima cosa che Ankara desidera è che i curdi in Iran acquisiscano potere. Nonostante tutte le insaziabili manovre di copertura del Sultano Erdogan, egli sa che non può antagonizzare frontalmente Teheran.

Deve bilanciare una miriade di interessi che mescolano la NATO, il corridoio energetico con la Russia, ma anche il corridoio energetico verso l’Occidente attraverso l’oleodotto BTC e il ruolo di ancora occidentale del Corridoio Centrale verso la Cina. Ecco perché il presunto missile balistico iraniano che avrebbe puntato sulla Turchia e sarebbe stato abbattuto dalla NATO non è stato un evento di grande rilevanza: i ministri degli Esteri Fidan (Turchia) e Aragchi (Iran) ne hanno discusso in modo maturo.

C’è una nebbia di guerra impenetrabile al riguardo: il missile potrebbe essere stato lanciato per danneggiare il terminale petrolifero BTC e i successivi droni lanciati sulla Georgia potrebbero essere stati progettati per colpire il punto più debole del BTC.

Nulla di tutto ciò è confermato e sarà impossibile confermarlo. Potrebbe anche trattarsi di una falsa bandiera, anche se Teheran potrebbe essere molto interessata a tagliare il 30% dell’approvvigionamento petrolifero di Israele.

Il BTC continuerà a essere in gioco, poiché attraversa la Georgia trasportando il greggio azero attraverso il Caucaso fino alla costa mediterranea turca. Bombardare il BTC rientrerebbe nella strategia iraniana di recidere ogni corridoio energetico che alimenta il sindacato Epstein e i suoi accoliti attraverso il Golfo, il Caucaso e fino al Mediterraneo.

Lungo il BTC, altre mosse logiche dell’Iran sarebbero quelle di attaccare l’oleodotto saudita est-ovest (che bypassa Hormuz); le piattaforme di carico offshore dell’Iraq nelle acque territoriali iraniane che gestiscono 3,5 milioni di barili al giorno; e l’hub di lavorazione di Abqaiq che gestisce la maggior parte del greggio saudita prima che raggiunga i terminali di esportazione.

Se l’Iran, sotto estrema pressione, fosse costretto a colpire tutti i suddetti obiettivi, non esisterebbe alcuna riserva strategica di petrolio sul pianeta in grado di coprire il deficit.

In questa infernale interconnessione di corridoi energetici, rotte marittime, catene di approvvigionamento globali, sicurezza marittima e prezzo del petrolio fuori controllo, solo i responsabili del Pentagono potrebbero desiderare di prolungare la guerra fino a settembre. L’Asia, l’Europa e tutti gli importatori di energia sulla scena internazionale eserciteranno la massima pressione per qualsiasi misura di allentamento della tensione.

La strategia asimmetrica dell’Iran rimane tuttavia immutabile: espandere la guerra orizzontalmente e allungare al massimo i tempi per rendere insopportabile lo stress economico-politico.

Traduzione: non si tratta di una manovra per un rapido cambio di regime da parte di un gruppo di psicopatici. Si tratta di una guerra di logoramento strutturata. E la sceneggiatura è stata scritta a Teheran.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Iran’s Decentralized Mosaic Defense – the official denomination – keeps being tweaked 24/7: that’s the IRGC’s long-term strategy of a death by a thousand cuts designed to bleed the Empire of Chaos dry.

Let’s wade through the interconnected canals permeating the unconstitutional, unwinnable, strategically catastrophic Empire of Chaos-built swamp.

Iran’s mosaic resilience and long-term strategy; the temptation for that ghastly death cult in West Asia to go nuclear; the approaching, inexorable Interceptor Hell; China’s relentless drive to ditch the old order (hoarding gold, dumping dollars); the BRICS’s progress in creating a parallel financial system; the collapse of American vassals, in several latitudes: all that is accelerating a radical system reset.

And then, there’s Vladimir Putin, just casually, almost like an afterthought, annoncing there may not be any Russian gas to be sold to the EU after all:

“Maybe it would make more sense for us to stop supplying gas to the EU ourselves and move to those new markets, and establish ourselves there (…) Again, I want to stress: there’s no political motive here. But if they’re going to close the market to us in a month or two anyway, maybe it’s better to leave now and focus on countries that are reliable partners. That said, this isn’t a decision. I’m just thinking out loud. I’ll ask the government to look into it together with our companies.”

The pitiful Bratwurst Chancellor asked permission from neo-Caligula for Germany to buy Russian oil. He got it. But there may be nothing to buy. This is an energy war, and the EU once again does not even qualify as a homeless beggar. No Qatar gas, no Russian oil and gas. Now go back to your NATO-obsessed Forever War.

The bombing of the GCC-petrodollar pipeline

Immediately after the decapitation strike last Saturday on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Kahamenei, Iran switched to decentralised command and control and cells with a 4-level deep succession plan, launching relentless volleys of older, slower missiles and sacrificial drones to consume Patriot batteries and THAAD systems in industrial scale. With that move, Iran changed the rules of the game alread on Day One of the war.

Anyone with and IQ over room temperature knows that to use 3 Patriots – $9.6 million combined cost – to defend against a single Iranian sacrificial ballistic missile is completely unsustainable.

So it’s no wonder that it took only 4 days of the war of the Epstein Syndicate on Iran for the global financial system to go completely bonkers. $3.2 trillion evaporated in a matter of 4 days – and counting.

The Strait of Hormuz for all practical purposes is closed – except for Russian and Chinese vessels. At least 20% of global oil needs are not moving anywhere. Qatar’s entire LNG production is off line – with no resumption in sight. Iraq’s 2nd larget oil field has been shut down.

And still, volatile neo-Caligula vociferates that his war that was supposed to last only a weekend may drag for five weeks, and other industrial-military Pentagon clowns are talking about all the way to September.

By lasering on US interests across the GCC as legitimate targets – and not only military bases – Iran set a time bomb. This is a direct attack on the petrodollar (to the silent delight of Beijing). Tehran certainly gamed that the chain reaction would be instantaneous – all the way to panic as preamble to a new, generalized Great Depression.

No oil, plus no meaningful GCC defense against Iran’s missiles/drones means no more torrents of Wall Street fake money. The AI bubble, after all, is being financed by GCC “investments”. The new Pipeineistan bombing is not of the Nord Stream kind: it’s the bombing of the GCC-petrodollar pipeline.

All that is happening in record time as Iran’s decentralized mosaic is fine-tuned. For instance, an array of deadly anti-ship missiles – which have not been used yet – are coordinated by the IRGC, the navy, the army, and aerospace forces. Same for drones.

Even if ballistic missile attacks are not keeping up with the initial, breakneck pace, they are more than enough to keep steadily hammering US military bases (whose air defenses are already largely depleted); plunge the death cult in West Asia and the GCC in total economic hell; and scare to death every nook and cranny of “global markets”.

And for all the chest-thumping in Washington by the oily, clownish Secretary of Forever Wars, dozens of Iranian underground military fortresses loaded with tens of thousands of missiles and equipment remain invisible – and untouchable.

Bankrupting the Empire of Chaos business model 

This is a desperate war to save the petrodollar. An energy powerhouse like Iran trading outside the petrodollar is the ultimate anathema, especially because the process is coupled with the BRICS drive towards setting up independent payment systems.

The immense structural fragility of the GCC – Iran’s neighbors – makes them an ideal prey. After all, their entire business model is built on the petrodollar in exchange for a Mafioso US “protection”, which has vanished in the sand in the first four days of the war.

Cue to Iran’s Asymmetric Warfare Machine bankrupting the Empire of Chaos business model in real time.

The definitive exhibit is the implosion of the Dubai bling bling dream – much more than the devastation imposed on US 5th Fleet-related interests in Bahrain and even a ballistic missile destroying the $1.1 billion AN/FPS-132 phased array radar at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

A coordinated, in progress GCC crack up, already inevitable, eventually means the end of petrodollar recycling, opening the game to the petroyuan or energy trade in a basket of BRICS currencies.

“Checkmate” comes from the Persian “Shah Mat”, meaning “the king is helpless”. Well, Emperor neo-Caligula may not know he’s naked, because he’s incapable of playing chess. But he’s scared enough to start desperately looking for a way out.

The Astrakhan-Tehran air corridor

Now for the role of Russia. The focus should be on the Astrakhan-Tehran air corridor, crammed with secret cargo flights. The Chkalovsk military airfield near Astrakhan is the key logistical hub of the corridor: cargoes such as the Il-76MD, the An-124 and the Tu-0204-300C are shuttling back and forth covered with special material that reduces radar visibility and hides them from civilian tracking sytems.

Their cargo arrives in Mehrabad airport in Tehran (no wonder it was bombed by Israel), Pyam and Shahid Behesthi in Isfahan. Multimodal logistics also apply, as some cargo is delivered via the Caspian.

Everything is coordinated by the 988th Military Logistics Brigade from Astrakhan. Cargo contents include components for air defense systems; radar guidance modules; hydraulic systems for missile launchers; long-range detection radar modules.

On top of it, under a secret protocol, Russia is supplying Iran with state of the art electronic warfare, including an export version of the Krasukha-4IR, capable of jamming the radar systems of US drones.

Add to it that Iran will soon deploy full-fledged S-400 batteries – which will allow it to control as much as 70% of Iranian airspace.

How the economic-political stress will become unbearable

And now for the role of Turkiye.

Only two months ago the MIT – Turkish intel – directly warned the IRGC that Kurdish fighters were trying to cross from Iraq into Iran. Let that sink in: a full NATO member passing time-sensitive operational intelligence to the IRGC just as the Epstein Syndicate was getting ready for war.

There are at least 15 million Kurds living inside Iran. The last thing Ankara wants is empowered Kurds in Iran. For all of Sultan Erdogan’s insatiable hedging, he knows he can’t frontally antagonize Tehran. He needs to balance a cornucopia of interests mixing NATO; the energy corridor with Russia – but also the energy corridor to the West via the BTC pipeleine; and the role of western anchor to the Middle Corridor to China.

That’s why that alleged Iranian ballistic missile allegedly pointing to Turkiye and shot by NATO was not a big deal: Foreign Ministers Fidan (Turkiye) and Aragchi (Iran) discussed it like adults. There’s impenetrable fog of war about it: the missile might have been sent to cripple the BTC oil terminal and subsequent drones launched on Georgia designed to cripple the weakest spot of the BTC.

None of that is confirmed – and will be impossible to confirm. That might as well have been a false flag – even though Tehran may be quite interested to cut off 30% of Israel’s oil supply.

The BTC will continue to be in play, as it weaves across Georgia carrying Azeri crude across the Caucasus to the Turkish Mediterranean coast. Bombing the BTC would fit the Iranian strategy of severing every energy corridor feeding the Epstein Syndicate and its acollites across the Gulf, the Caucasus and all the way to the Mediterranean.

Along the BTC, other logical Iranian moves would be to attack the Saudi East-West pipeline (it bypasses Hormuz); Iraq’s offshore loading platforms in Iranian territorial waters that handle 3.5 million barrels a day; and the Abqaiq processing hub that handles the majority of Saudi crude before it reaches export terminals.

If Iran under extreme stress is forced to hit all of the above, there’s no strategic petroleum reserve on the planet capable of  covering the gap.

In this hellish interconnection of energy corridors, shipping lanes, global supply chains, maritime security and the oil price going out of control, only Pentagon clowns can possibly want to prolong the war until September. Asia, Europe, and every energy importer across the chessboard will be applying maximum pressure for any measure of de-escalation.

Iran’s asymmetric strategy though remains immovable: expand the war horizontally, and stretch the timeline to the max to make the economic-political stress unbearable.

Translation: this is not a quick regime change stunt by a bunch of psychos. This is a Structured War of Attrition. And the screenplay has been written in Tehran.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Il primo vertice trilaterale ASEAN-Cina-GCC tenutosi all’inizio di questa settimana in Malesia, con 17 paesi del Sud del mondo seduti al tavolo, è stato di fatto una celebrazione dello spirito della Nuova Via della Seta.

Il primo ministro malese e attuale presidente dell’ASEAN Anwar Ibrahim ha riassunto così il tutto: “Dall’antica Via della Seta alle vivaci reti marittime del Sud-Est asiatico ai moderni corridoi commerciali, i nostri popoli sono da tempo collegati attraverso il commercio, la cultura e la condivisione di idee”.

Questo fa riflettere molto. Proviamo un primo approccio sintetico che metta a confronto Oriente e Occidente – e ciò che li divide – guidati da uno straordinario studio, La Mediterranee Asiatique: XVI-XXI Siecle, del direttore di ricerca del CNRS Francois Gipouloux, anche specialista dell’economia cinese.

La tradizione europea è tutt’altro che monolitica – ed è solo una parte del quadro – quando si tratta di percezioni globali sulla filosofia politica e la concezione dello Stato. Esistono differenze nette anche quando si fa riferimento a Hobbes, Locke e Rousseau.

Il cuore della questione era l’opposizione terra/mare. Per Carl Schmitt, terra/mare si riferisce a amico/nemico – la matrice della politica – fornendo un’interpretazione chiave della storia mondiale, ma solo una tra tante.

È nell’Europa “continentale” – per usare la terminologia anglosassone –, soprattutto in Francia e in Prussia, e non in Inghilterra, che si è concretizzato il concetto hobbesiano di Stato. La Gran Bretagna è diventata una potenza mondiale grazie alla sua marina e al commercio, rinunciando alle istituzioni caratteristiche dello Stato come una costituzione scritta e una codificazione legislativa del diritto.

Il diritto internazionale anglosassone ha infatti annullato la concezione continentale dello Stato e anche della guerra. Secondo Schmitt, ha sviluppato i propri concetti di “guerra” e ‘nemico’ a partire dai conflitti marittimi e commerciali che non facevano distinzione tra combattenti e non combattenti (per quanto riguarda la sua eredità duratura, si pensi alla “guerra al terrorismo”).

La mia guerra è giusta, perché lo dico io

Si è quindi consolidata l’opposizione tra il diritto di fare la guerra sulla terraferma – la guerra è “giusta” se avviene tra Stati sovrani, tramite eserciti regolari e risparmiando i civili – e il diritto di fare la guerra in mare, che non implica una relazione tra Stati. Ciò che contava era attaccare il commercio e l’economia del nemico. E i metodi della guerra totale erano diretti contro i combattenti o i non combattenti.

Ciò portò a un nuovo concetto occidentale di “guerra giusta” e di diritto internazionale: quando il nemico viene trasformato in un criminale, l’uguaglianza giuridica e morale tra i belligeranti viene distrutta. È questa la logica perversa che sta dietro ai genocidi psicopatologici che legittimano la distruzione della Palestina.

Queste differenze nella formulazione del diritto derivano da due concezioni diverse dello spazio: chiuso, terrestre – caratterizzato da Stati sovrani, delimitati territorialmente – e aperto, marittimo – uno spazio unico, illimitato, libero da ogni controllo statale, dove la priorità è garantire le vie di comunicazione. Gli inglesi non pensavano allo spazio in termini di territorio, ma di vie di comunicazione, proprio come i portoghesi e gli olandesi prima di loro.

Schmitt identifica nello Stato un’entità legata alla terra e al territorio. Quindi, per quanto sorprendente possa sembrare, è Behemoth, l’animale terrestre dell’Antico Testamento, e non il mostro marino Leviatano che avrebbe dovuto essere scelto da Hobbes come simbolo dello Stato.

Nello sviluppo dell’Occidente, tre forme istituzionali – ugualmente valide – erano in competizione tra loro: le leghe di città – come la Lega Anseatica; le città-Stato – soprattutto in Italia; e lo Stato-nazione, soprattutto in Francia.

Pochi in Occidente ricordano che la Lega Anseatica e le potenti città-Stato italiane, per almeno due secoli, furono valide alternative allo Stato territoriale. Due eminenti ricercatori, Douglass North e Robert Paul Thomas, in The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History, sostengono che lo Stato moderno fu imposto all’Europa occidentale perché era il più adatto a svolgere due compiti fondamentali: garantire in modo efficiente i diritti di proprietà e la sicurezza fisica delle persone e dei beni.

Se torniamo all’Europa del XIV secolo, prima del Rinascimento, c’erano almeno un migliaio di Stati di tutte le dimensioni. Ciò significa che non c’era concentrazione di potere e che era prevedibile una sorta di competizione creativa. Chi voleva trovare un posto migliore dove esercitare la propria libertà aveva una scelta ragionevole.

Avevamo ad esempio la Germania, con i suoi tre attori principali costituiti dall’imperatore, dalla nobiltà e dalle città; l’Italia, con i suoi attori principali costituiti dal papato, dall’imperatore e dalle città. E la Francia con i suoi tre attori principali costituiti dal re, dalla nobiltà e dalle città. In ogni caso, proliferavano alleanze diverse.

In Germania, l’imperatore si alleò con la nobiltà contro le città. In Italia, la nobiltà era urbanizzata e le città traevano profitto da infinite dispute. In Francia, la nobiltà era molto diffidente nei confronti della borghesia e il re si alleò con le città contro la nobiltà. L’Inghilterra scelse una strada completamente diversa. Ancor prima della Francia, gli inglesi crearono uno Stato centralizzato, ma con un assetto politico piuttosto originale.

L’Asia e lo Stato mandala

L’Asia è una storia completamente diversa. Qui non possiamo usare il termine “Stato” per designare le costruzioni politiche del Sud-Est asiatico prima della decolonizzazione. Nel Sud-Est asiatico, i confini erano arbitrari tra le tribù, le cosiddette formazioni politiche “primitive” (dal punto di vista occidentale) e lo Stato.

Sulla scia dei concetti politici prevalenti in India, nell’Islam e in Occidente, gli Stati apparvero nell’arcipelago insulindiano (il Sud-Est asiatico marittimo), ad esempio sotto forma di burocrazie cortesi, basate su una rete di alleanze complesse. Qualunque fosse il grado di istituzionalizzazione, la distinzione tra il re, il vassallo e il bandito era quanto mai labile.

Il ricercatore vietnamita Nguyen The-Anh ha osservato come “la frammentazione politica sia generalmente la conclusione preliminare dei primi europei che entrarono in contatto con il Sud-Est asiatico. Marco Polo vide nel nord di Sumatra ‘otto regni e otto re incoronati… ogni regno possiede la propria lingua’”.

La Cina, invece, era caratterizzata da uno Stato unitario che imponeva, attraverso un’amministrazione piuttosto efficiente, l’ordine sociale su un vasto territorio. Non c’era concorrenza contro lo Stato centralizzato che proveniva da un’aristocrazia terriera, né una borghesia urbana, né un esercito che contestava l’ordine imperiale, come in Europa. Questa è la differenza principale tra la Cina e l’Occidente.

Tommaso d’Aquino decretò che se il potere del re appartiene a una moltitudine, non è ingiusto che il re venga deposto o veda il suo potere limitato da questa stessa moltitudine se si trasforma in un tiranno e abusa del potere reale.

Questa distinzione è completamente estranea alla tradizione cinese. Ciò che è accaduto nell’ultimo secolo circa in Cina è che la peculiare configurazione – e la competizione – tra attori locali e potere centrale ha portato a quello che potrebbe essere definito un impero non strutturato, la cui forza deriva dai confini mutevoli e dal carattere diffuso delle reti transnazionali.

In un’economia globale, ciò conferisce alla Cina un’eccezionale capacità di proiezione. Quando i confini diventano sfumati e il legame tra lo Stato e gli individui è confuso, il carattere non strutturato di questo impero consente alla periferia asiatica della Cina di svilupparsi in un arco che va dal Giappone e dalla Corea del Nord a Singapore e all’Indonesia. Questo è esattamente il sottotesto di alcune delle discussioni chiave del vertice ASEAN-Cina-GCC di Kuala Lumpur. Jeffrey Sachs aveva capito perfettamente la situazione in anticipo.

Ora, l’opposizione tra un sistema di relazioni internazionali considerato “arretrato” e irrazionale in Asia e moderno e razionale – perché basato sulla realpolitik – in Occidente è finita. I fattori culturali ora plasmano la realtà sia in Asia che in Occidente per quanto riguarda la concezione dello Stato e delle relazioni internazionali.

La Cina è finalmente abbastanza sicura di sé da iniziare a distaccarsi dall’attuale sistema di relazioni internazionali dominato dall’Occidente, perché ha i mezzi per farlo.

Il concetto cinese di armonia nelle relazioni internazionali era legato alla proclamazione di un ordine naturale di cui la Cina sarebbe stata garante. Ma ora siamo molto lontani dal XVIII secolo, quando l’ambiente internazionale della Cina delle 18 province era costituito da Corea, Manciuria, Mongolia, Turkestan cinese, Tibet, Birmania, Annam, l’arcipelago delle Ryuku e il Giappone. La dinastia Qin era desiderosa di riaffermare la propria sovranità in campo politico e culturale, assicurando la protezione della Cina attraverso la gestione di una cintura di Stati favorevolmente disposti.

Oggi una Cina sicura di sé vede un nuovo sistema di relazioni internazionali direttamente collegato a una rete di opportunità geoeconomiche per tutti, la Belt and Road Initiative. Questo è alla base delle relazioni tra la Cina e l’ASEAN, il CCG, la CELAC, l’Asia centrale e l’Africa nel suo complesso.

Benvenuti nel mondo arcipelagico

Il mondo ha superato il dilemma “terrestre” o “marittimo”, al di là di Mackinder e Mahan. Il mondo è ora meglio definito, come lo ha coniato Gipouloux, come arcipelagico (il corsivo è mio), che collega nebulose urbane di diverse dimensioni e vocazioni.

La globalizzazione ha accelerato la trasformazione di un mondo terrestre in un mondo arcipelagico. Nuove tecnologie, pressioni economiche e finanziarie, disinformazione su larga scala: la Cina sta navigando tra questi scogli in stretti bassi nel tentativo di consolidarsi come potenza globale.

Tutto ciò implica il progressivo avanzamento talassocratico della Cina: un impero flessibile e tollerante (“comunità di destino comune per l’umanità”), una ricca confederazione con una capacità di influenza globale sostenuta da comunità polimorfiche – il “bamboo internet” della diaspora cinese.

Questo è ciò che è stato mostrato a Kuala Lumpur e che continuerà ad evolversi attraverso una serie di organizzazioni multilaterali. Il mandala all’opera, in stile cinese.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The first ever ASEAN-China-GCC trilateral summit earlier this week in Malaysia – with 17 Global South nations at the table – was a de facto celebration of the New Silk Road spirit.

Malaysian Prime Minister and current ASEAN chair Anwar Ibrahim summed it all up: “From the ancient Silk Road to the vibrant maritime networks of Southeast Asia to modern trade corridors, our peoples have long connected through commerce, culture, and the sharing of ideas.”

That inspires a lot of reflection. Let’s try a first, succint approach matching East and West – and what divides them – guided by an extraordinary study, La Mediterranee Asiatique: XVI-XXI Siecle, by CNRS research director Francois Gipouloux, also a specialist in the Chinese economy.

The European tradition is far from monolithic – and it’s only part of the picture – when it comes to global perceptions about political philosophy and the conception of the State. There are stark differences even when referred to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

The heart of the matter used to be the land/sea opposition. For Carl Schmitt, land/sea relates to friend/enemy – the matrix of politics – providing a key interpretation of world history, yet one among many.

It’s on “continental” Europe – to borrow the Anglo terminology –, mostly in France and Prussia, and not in England, that the Hobbesian concept of the State materialized. Britain became a world power thanks to its navy and trade, eschewing the characteristic institutions of the state such as a written constitution and a legislative codification of law.

Anglo-Saxon international law in fact voided the continental conception of the State and also war. According to Schmitt, it developed its own concepts of “war” and “enemy” out of maritime and trade conflicts which did not make a distinction between combatants and non-combatants (when it comes to its lasting legacy, think “the war on terror”).

My war is Just, because I said so

The opposition then solidified between the right to wage war on land – war is “just” if it happens between sovereign states, via regular armies, and sparing civilians – and waging war on sea, which does not imply a state-to-state relation. What mattered was attacking the trade and the economy of the enemy. And methods of total war were directed against either combatants or non-combatants.

That led to a new Western concept of “Just War” and international law: when the enemy is turned into a criminal, juridical and moral equality between belligerents is shattered. That’s the perverse logic behind psycho-pathological genocidals legitimizing the destruction of Palestine.

These differences in the formulation of law came out of two different conceptions of space: closed, overland – featuring sovereign states, territorially delimitated – and open, over the seas – a unique space, unlimited, free of every state control, where primacy is about securing communication links. The British did not think about space in terms of territory, but of routes of communication, just like the Portuguese and the Dutch before them.

Schmitt identifies in the State an entity linked to land and territory. So, as startling as it seems, it’s Behemoth, the terrestrial animal of the Old Testament, and not the marine monster Leviathan that should have been chosen by Hobbes as a symbol of the State.

In the development of the West, three institutional forms – equally viable – were in competition: Leagues of Cities – like the Hanseatic Legue; City-States – especially in Italy; and the Nation-State, especially in France.

Few across the West may remember that the Hanseatic League and the powerful Italian city-states, for at least two centuries, were viable alternatives to the territorial state. Two top researchers, Douglass North and Robert Paul Thomas, in The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History, argue that the modern state was imposed on Western Europe because it was the best equipped to fulfill two key tasks: to efficiently guarantee property rights and the physical security of people and goods.

If we go back to Europe in the 14^th century, before the Renaissance, there were at least a thousand states, of all sizes. That means no concentration of power – and some sort of creative competition in store. There was a reasonable amount of choice for those who wanted to find better places to exercise their freedom.

We had for instance Germany, with its three main actors constituted as the Emperor, the nobility and cities; Italy, with its main actors as the Papacy, the Emperor and cities. And France with its three main actors as the King, nobility and cities. In each case, different alliances proliferated.

In Germany, the Emperor allied with the nobility against the cities. In Italy, nobility was urbanized, and cities profited from endless squabbles. In France, nobility was very suspicious of the bourgeoisie, and the King allied himself with the cities against nobility. England chose a completely different path. Even before France, the Brits created a centralized state, but under a quite original political set up.

Asia and the Mandala State

Asia is a completely different story. Here we cannot use the terminology of “state” to designate the political constructions of Southeast Asia before decolonization. In Southeast Asia, the borders were arbitrary between the tribe, so-called “primitive” political formations (from a Western perspective) and the State.

Springing up from political concepts prevailing in India, Islam and the West, states showed up in the Insulindia (maritime Southeast Asia) archipelago, for instance, as courtly bureaucracies, based on a network of complex alliances. Whatever the degree of institutionalization, the distinction between The King, The Vassal and The Bandit was tenuous at best.

Vietnamese researcher Nguyen The-Anh has remarked how “political fragmentation is generally the preliminary conclusion of the first Europeans who made contact with Southeast Asia. Marco Polo saw in the north of Sumatra ‘eight kingdoms and eight crowned Kings…each kingdom possesses its own language.”

China, on the other hand, featured a unitary state imposing – via a quite efficient administration – social order over a vast territory. There was no competition against the centralized state issuing from a landed aristocracy; no urban bourgeoisie; and no military contesting the imperial order, as in Europe. That’s the major difference between China and the West.

Thomas Aquinas decreed that if the power of the king belongs to a multitude, it’s not unjust that the king is deposed or sees his power restrained by this very own multitude if he turns into a tyrant and abuses royal power.

This distinction is completely alien to the Chinese tradition. What happened over the past century or so in China is that the peculiar configuration – and competition – between local actors and central power led to what could be defined as an unstructured empire, whose force comes from its shape-shifting borders and the diffused character of transnational networks.

In a global economy, this gives China an exceptional projection capacity. When borders become fuzzy, and the link between the state and individuals is fuzzy, the unstructured character of this Empire allows the Asian periphery of China to develop in an arc from Japan and the DPRK to Singapore and Indonesia. This is exactly the subtext of some of the key discussions in Kuala Lumpur at the ASEAN-China-GCC summit. Jeffrey Sachs totally got the picture beforehand.

Now, the opposition between a system of international relations deemed “backwards” and irrational in Asia and modern and rational – because based on realpolitik – in the West is over. Cultural factors now shape reality in Asia as well as in the West about the conception of the state and international relations.

China is finally self-assured enough to start disengaging from the current, Western-dominated system of international relations – because it has the means to do so.

The Chinese concept of harmony in international relations used to be linked to the proclamation of a natural order of which China would be the guarantor. But now we are a long way away from the 18^th century, when the international environment of the China of 18 provinces was constituted by Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia, Chinese Turkestan, Tibet, Burma, Annam, the Ryuku archipelago and Japan. The Qin dynasty was keen to reassert its suzerainty on the political and cultural domains, assuring the protection of China by managing a belt of favorably disposed states.

Today a self-assured China sees a new system of international relations directly linked to a Belt and Road network of geoeconomic opportunities for all. That underlies the relationship between China and ASEAN, GCC, CELAC, Central Asia and the whole of Africa.

Welcome to the archipelagic world

The world has surpassed the “overland” or “maritime” dilemma, beyond Mackinder and Mahan. The world is now best defined, as Gipouloux coined it, as archipelagic (italics mine), linking urban nebulas of different sizes and vocations.

Globalization accelerated the transformation of a terrestrial world into an archipelagic world. New technologies, economic and financial pressure, disinformation on a mass scale – China is navigating all these rocks in shallow straits in the quest to solidify itself as a global power.

All that implies the progressive, thalassocratic advance of China: a flexible and tolerant Empire (“community of shared destiny for mankind”), a rich confederation with a capacity for global influence supported by polymorphic communities – the “bamboo internet” of the Chinese diaspora.

This is what was on display in Kuala Lumpur – and will continue to evolve via an array of multilateral organizations. Mandala at work, Chinese-style.

The Gulf Cooperation Council countries are home for close to 31 million migrant workers in various sectors with the share of migrants many times exceeding that of natives.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Con un síntoma de gran reacomodo geopolítico, Arabia Saudita y otros estados árabes del Golfo enviaron cálidas felicitaciones a Irán debido a su recientemente electo presidente, Masoud Pezeshkian.

Salman, el monarca saudita dio la bienvenida a las noticias sobre el ganador de las elecciones en Irán la semana pasada y señaló La Rama de Olivo de parte de Arabia Saudita es un desarrollo diplomático sin precedentes – cosa que producirá alarma en Washington cuya meta principal en el Medio Oriente ha sido la de aislar a Irán de todos sus vecinos.

Hubo similares y cordiales saludos oficiales de parte de Kuwait, Qatar, los Emiratos Árabes Unidos, Omán y Bahrain. Junto con Arabia Saudita, estos estados ricos en petróleo conforman el Concejo de Cooperación del Golfo (GCC sigla en inglés). Existe ahora mucho intercambio sobre el Bloque Árabe del Golfo en torno a normalizar las relaciones con su vecino pérsico.

Por su parte, el Presidente Pezeshkian – de profesión cirujano cardiólogo – declara que él desea poner en primer plano las relaciones pacíficas en la región.

Durante décadas, desde la Revolución Islámica el año 1979 los estados árabes del Golfo han percibido a la República Islámica con gran sospecha y hostilidad. Esto debido a que existe una tensión sectaria entre el Islam Chiita profesada principalmente por Irán y el Islam Sunita que domina a los estados del Golfo.

Existe también un visceral temor entre las monarquías árabes debido a que las políticas revolucionarias adelantadas por Irán podrían infectar a sus masas y por lo tanto amenazar a sus rígidas autocracias y a sus sistemas de gobierno hereditario. El hecho que Irán realice elecciones produce un agudo contraste con las monarquías del Golfo y sus monarquías hereditarias. Demasiado para el presidente Joe Bien quien sostiene que supuestamente Estados Unidos apoya la democracia por encima de la autocracia.

Estados Unidos y sus aliados occidentales, en particular la ex potencia colonial de Gran Bretaña han aprovechado las tensiones en el Golfo Pérsico para aplicar una política de dividir para reinar. Los británicos fueron los anteriores maestros en la aplicación de la política del juego sectario en todas sus anteriores colonias desde Irlanda hasta Myanmar y en todo lo demás entre medio, incluyendo el Oriente Medio.

Extrayendo una página de ese manual imperialista, Washington históricamente ha alimentado los temores al expansionismo iraní. Esto ha asegurado que Arabia Saudita y sus vecinos del Golfo permanezcan bajo “protección” cosa que resulta vital para el sostenimiento del sistema petrodólar que mantiene al dólar norteamericano como divisa de reserva internacional. Sin los privilegios de los petrodólares la economía de Estados Unidos implosionaría.

En segundo lugar, el Golfo es un apabullante, es un inmenso mercado para las exportaciones de armas de Estados Unidos, desde los sobrevaluados sistemas antiaéreos Patriot hasta los cazas a sobreprecio.

En breve, la política de Estados Unidos y sus aliados occidentales fue y es promover la Guerra Fría en el Golfo entre los estados árabes e Irán.

La cismática animosidad no puede ser sobrestimada. Las monarquías árabes son habitualmente paranoicas acerca de que Irán infiltre sus sociedades. Arabia Saudita y los otros gobiernos Suni aplicaron severas políticas represivas contra sus poblaciones chiitas.

En el año 2010 una explosiva denuncia de la organización Wikileaks de Julian Assange, demostró que el gobernante saudita de entonces, el rey Abdullah, suplicó a Estados Unidos para lanzar ataques militares contra Irán. El monarca saudita describió a Irán como “la cabeza de la serpiente” y le imploró a Estados Unidos decapitar a la República Islámica.

Rápida y seguidamente, el actual gobernante saudita, el Rey Salman, medio hermano del fallecido Abdullah, está ahora planteando relaciones fraternales con Irán –como también lo hacen los otros estados árabes del Golfo.

El heredero saudita al trono, el Príncipe de la Corona, Mohammed bin Salman, también envió sus congratulaciones al nuevo presidente de Irán y se adelantó a proponer la cooperación en la seguridad regional. Se informó que el heredero saudita le dijo al Presidente Pezeschian que: “Yo comprometo mi disposición para desarrollar y profundizar las relaciones que unan a nuestros países y a nuestros pueblos y servir a nuestros mutuos intereses.”

Se trata de un asombroso vuelco hacia relaciones positivas. El Príncipe de la Corona que fue el principal instigador de la desastrosa guerra saudita contra Yemen el año 2015 la cual fue provocada por su temor a la alianza de Irán con los Huties en el vecino sureño saudita luego del hito internacional del acuerdo nuclear con Teherán.

Arabia Saudita y los Estados Suni del Golfo también fueron instrumentales en proseguir la guerra encubierta de Estados Unidos para el cambio de régimen en Siria contra el aliado iraní, Bashar al Assad. Ese esfuerzo de guerra por encargo fue una derrota para el lado de Estados Unidos luego que Rusia e Irán participaron en defensa de Siria.

Lo que aquí sucede es un gran realineamiento geopolítico. Rusia, Irán, China y otros han fijado una marca decisiva declarando el fin de la hegemonía de Estados Unidos y de Occidente.

Queda claro que el lema “gobierno basado en el orden global” de Estados Unidos no es otra cosa que una fina estafa impuesta al resto del mundo. Toda la evidencia empírica indica que el principal enemigo de la paz internacional y la seguridad es el Hegemón de Estados Unidos y sus vasallos occidentales.

La guerra por encargo instigada por Estados Unidos contra Rusia en Ucrania está incesantemente empujando al mundo hacia el abismo de una catástrofe nuclear. En todas partes y en el Medio Oriente, con el genocidio israelí en Gaza apoyado por Occidente y la incesante beligerancia de la OTAN en el área Asia-Pacífico contra China, resulta crecientemente evidente cuál es la fuente del conflicto y del caos internacional: el imperialismo occidental dirigido por Estados Unidos.

Puede que los líderes árabes del Golfo no estén reaccionando a partir de sensibilidades democráticas. Pero ellos con certeza saben que lo que está escrito en la pared para la hegemonía norteamericana y de su mortal y su destructivo deseo de sobrevivir a toda costa.

El mundo está cambiando dramáticamente hacia un nuevo orden multipolar donde la mayoría de las naciones están tratando de alcanzar una coexistencia pacífica.

El año pasado China gestionó un reencuentro histórico entre Arabia Saudita e Irán. Todos estos partidos saben que el desorden hegemónico de Estados Unidos de la Guerra Fría es insostenible y básicamente auto destructor para aquellos que se adhieren a él.

Los sauditas saben que la máquina económica euroasiática maneja la economía mundial y que el abrazo del Sur Global de un orden multipolar está martillando los clavos en el ataúd de la economía occidental.

Arabia Saudita y los otros estados árabes del Golfo se están anotando como los nuevos miembros del Consejo de Cooperación de Shanghai que también incluye a Rusia, China, Irán la India y Paquistán entre otros.

El Rey Salman y otros dirigentes árabes finalmente se están dando cuenta que el clientelismo del Tío Sam es como poner un arma de fuego a su propia cabeza. Como aquel criminal de guerra norteamericano, Henry Kissinger, una vez acertadamente señaló con su típico cinismo de marca: ser un enemigo de Estados Unidos puede ser peligroso pero ser un aliado del Tío Sam es absolutamente fatal.

Los días de Washington y sus secuaces occidentales jugando a dividir para reinar se están acabando, puesto que ellos mismos se han desacreditado irremediablemente.

Publicado originalmente por Strategic Culture Foundation
Traducción desde el inglés por Sergio R. Anacona

The days of Washington and its Western minions playing divide and rule are over because they have discredited themselves irreparably.

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In a sign of major geopolitical realignment, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states sent warm congratulations to Iran on its newly elected President Masoud Pezeshkian.

Saudi King Salman welcomed the news of Iran’s election winner last weekend and said he hoped that the two Persian Gulf nations would continue developing their relations “between our brotherly people”.

That olive branch from Saudi Arabia to Iran is an unprecedented diplomatic development – one that will trigger alarm in Washington whose primary goal in the Middle East has been to isolate Iran from its neighbors.

There were similar cordial official messages from Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain. Together with Saudi Arabia, these oil-rich states comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). There is much talk now of the Gulf Arab bloc normalizing relations with its Persian neighbor.

For his part, President Pezeshkian – a heart surgeon by profession – says he wants to prioritize peaceful regional relations.

For decades, since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Gulf Arab states have viewed the Islamic Republic with deep suspicion and hostility. For one thing, there is the sectarian tension between Shia Islam as professed mainly by Iran and the Sunni Islam that dominates the Gulf Arab states.

There is also the visceral fear among the Arab monarchies that the revolutionary politics espoused by Iran might infect their masses thereby threatening the rigid autocracies and their system of hereditary rule. The fact that Iran holds elections stands in stark contrast to the Gulf kingdoms ruled by royal families. So much for President Joe Biden’s mantra about the U.S. supposedly supporting democracy over autocracy.

The United States and its Western allies, in particular, the former colonial power Britain, have exploited the tensions in the Persian Gulf to exercise a divide-and-rule policy. The British are past masters at playing the sectarian game in all their former colonies from Ireland to Myanmar and everywhere in between, including the Middle East.

Taking a leaf out of that imperialist playbook, Washington has historically fuelled fears of Iranian expansionism. This has ensured Saudi Arabia and its Gulf neighbors remain under U.S. “protection” which is vital for maintaining the petrodollar system that underpins the American dollar as the international reserve currency. Without the petrodollar privileges, the U.S. economy would implode.

Secondly, the Gulf is an eye-watering huge market for American weapons exports, from overrated Patriot air defense systems to overpriced fighter jets.

In short, the policy of the U.S. and its Western allies was and is to promote a Cold War in the Gulf between the Arab states and Iran.

The schismatic animosity cannot be overstated. The Arab monarchies were habitually paranoid about Iran infiltrating their societies. Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni rulers conducted severe repressive policies towards their Shia populations.

In 2010, an explosive exposé by Julian Assange’s Wikileaks organization showed the then Saudi ruler King Abdullah pleading with the United States to launch military attacks on Iran. The Saudi monarch described Iran as “the head of the snake” and he implored the U.S. to decapitate the Islamic Republic.

Fast forward to the present Saudi ruler, King Salman, a half-brother of the deceased Abdullah, who is now calling for fraternal relations with Iran – as are other Gulf Arab states.

Saudi heir to the throne, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also extended his congratulations to Iran’s new president and went further to propose regional security cooperation. The Saudi heir reportedly told President Pezeshkian: “I affirm my keenness on developing and deepening the relations that unite our countries and peoples and serve our mutual interests.”

This is an astounding turnaround for positive relations. Crown Prince MbS was the main instigator of Saudi’s disastrous war on Yemen in 2015 which was prompted by his fear of Iran’s alliance with the Houthis in Saudi’s southern neighbor following the landmark international nuclear deal with Tehran.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Sunni states were also instrumental in pursuing the U.S.-led covert war for regime change in Syria against Iranian ally Bashar al Assad. That proxy war effort was a defeat for the U.S. side after Russia and Iran stepped in to defend Syria.

What’s happening here is a major geopolitical realignment. Russia, Iran, China and others have put a decisive marker down spelling the end of U.S. and Western hegemony.

It is clear that the U.S.-led so-called “rules-based global order” is nothing more than a dead-end scam imposed on the rest of the world. All empirical evidence shows that the primary enemy of international peace and security is the U.S. hegemon and its Western vassals.

The U.S.-instigated proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is recklessly pushing the world to the abyss of a nuclear catastrophe. Elsewhere, in the Middle East with the Western-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza and the relentless belligerence of NATO in the Asia-Pacific toward China, it is increasingly evident what is the source of international conflict and chaos – U.S.-led Western imperialism.

The Gulf Arab leaders may not be reacting out of democratic sensibilities. But they must surely know that the writing is on the wall for American hegemony and its destructive death wish to survive at all costs.

The world is changing dramatically to a new multipolar order where the majority of nations are trying to come to a peaceful coexistence.

Last year, China brokered a historic rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. All of these parties know that the U.S. disorder of hegemonic Cold War division is unsustainable and ultimately self-defeating for those who adhere to it.

The Saudis know that the Eurasian economic engine is driving the world economy and the embrace of the Global South of a multipolar order is hammering nails into the coffin of Western hegemony.

Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arab states are signing up as new members of the Shanghai Cooperation Council which also includes Russia, China, Iran, India and Pakistan, among others.

King Salman and other Arab leaders are finally realizing that Uncle Sam’s patronage is like putting a loaded gun to your head. As that old American war criminal Henry Kissinger once reputedly remarked with his trademark cynicism: being an enemy of the U.S. can be dangerous but to be an ally of Uncle Sam is absolutely fatal.

The days of Washington and its Western minions playing divide and rule are over because they have discredited themselves irreparably.

❗️Join us on Telegram , Twitter , and VK .

Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), gathered Saudi journalists in Riyadh in December to say that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had been an ally for decades, but had stabbed Saudi Arabia in the back, and threatened a response.

According to Gulf experts, the disagreement between MBS and Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) is because of the competition between the two over geopolitical and economical leadership in the region. The rivalry stems from the question as to who will be in control of the global oil market.

MBS favors lower oil production, in line with OPEC agreed upon levels, which keeps the global oil price higher. U.S. President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia to personally ask MBS to raise oil production in order to lower the gasoline prices in America, which would be a political plus for Biden and his 2024 re-election campaign while faced with low polling numbers.

However, after the cordial fist-bump the meeting failed to produce the results Biden came for. MBS refused to increased oil production, instead sticking with the previous OPEC agreed upon levels. MBS is the most powerful player in OPEC, and has stepped onto the regional stage as the most powerful political player in the region as well.

MBZ favors increased oil production, which would drop oil prices, but with increased sales, UAE would still have high profits. This strategy is in line with what the White House favors.

The UAE has become an investment and tourism destination for wealthy foreigners, including those from western democracies. Residents of the UAE enjoy a first-class lifestyle, and comparable wages in a cosmopolitan setting.

Not that long ago, Saudi Arabia didn’t even offer a tourist visa. Women had to be covered from head to toe and ‘fashion police’ roamed the streets beating women with canes if not appropriately covered. MBS shelved those antiquated measures and is in the process of turning Saudi Arabia into a tourist destination including the new mega-city Neom, and the new Saudi airlines which will rival the UAE’s Emirates airlines.

The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is witnessing a subtle but noticeable shift, as cracks begin to emerge in the once unshakeable alliance between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Recent events, ranging from regional disagreements to economic competition, have contributed to a growing strain between these two powerhouse nations.

Yemen and Regional Ambitions

One area that has tested the Saudi-UAE relationship is the ongoing conflict in Yemen. Initially presenting a united front against the Houthi rebels, differing visions on post-war Yemen have caused a rift. While Saudi Arabia portrays itself as the senior custodian of Yemen’s stability, the UAE has often pursued independent ambitions in the south, creating divisions and muddying the waters of coalition efforts. This discord has further complicated reaching a comprehensive peace agreement.

Economic Rivalry

Economic competition has become another catalyst behind the strained Saudi-UAE relationship. Both countries aspire to diversify their economies and reduce dependence on oil, leading to increased rivalry in various sectors such as finance, tourism, entertainment, and technology. These ambitions have occasionally resulted in overlapping interests and rivalries, creating friction between the two nations, as they vie for prominence in the region.

Energy Diplomacy and OPEC

In the realm of energy diplomacy, tensions have recently risen, causing the Saudi-UAE relationship to falter. Disagreements arose within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) regarding production cuts. UAE’s push for higher production quotas to fund its future economic projects clashed with Saudi Arabia’s preference for maintaining market stability. The fallout of these negotiations exposed divisions, sparking resentment and contributing to the widening gap between the two nations.

Qatar and the GCC Crisis

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) crisis, which erupted in 2017, has further strained the Saudi-UAE alliance. While Saudi Arabia led the blockade against Qatar, the UAE took measures to isolate Qatar, accusing it of supporting terrorism. However, as regional dynamics have evolved, Saudi Arabia has sought reconciliation, while the UAE remains hesitant. This contrasting approach has caused a rift within the coalition, impacting the shared stance against Qatar and challenging the long-standing regional dynamics.

Regional Influence and Power Struggles

As both Saudi Arabia and the UAE aim to assert their dominance and expand their influence in the wider Middle East, their individual foreign policies frequently collide. Divergent approaches towards Syria, Iran, and Egypt, among others, have strained the alliance. Saudi Arabia’s focus on confronting Iran and maintaining traditional alliances often contrasts with the UAE’s pragmatism and pursuit of calculated regional partnerships. Such divergent strategies have created tensions, potentially altering regional dynamics.

The Saudi-UAE alliance, once hailed as an unbreakable pillar in the region, is experiencing significant strain due to Yemen’s complexities, economic rivalry, energy diplomacy, the Qatar crisis, and power struggles in the region. These contrasting interests and policies have gradually eroded the unity that once defined their partnership. As the Middle East undergoes profound transformations, it remains to be seen how Saudi Arabia and the UAE will navigate these challenges, either rejuvenating their alliance or drifting further apart in pursuit of their own ambitions.