Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The U.S.-Israeli war primordially is being waged to create Israeli hegemony across West Asia.

At one level, the conflict is an existential battle, fought out between Iranian missile and intercept capabilities, versus those of the U.S. and Israel.

Conventional thinking has been that this was a no-brainer contest: Iran would be outmatched by U.S. technology and firepower, and forced to capitulate.

Iran’s military humiliation, plus the decapitation of its leadership, would result – it is presumed – in an organic upsurge of populist resentment that would overwhelm the Iranian State, and roll it back into the western sphere.

On the plane of the purely bilateral struggle – as the war enters the fourth day – Iran sits in the driving seat. The State has not crumbled, but rather is visiting drone and missile carnage on to American military bases across the Gulf, and is striking Israel with hypersonic missiles, armed (for the first time) with multiple steerable warheads.

At this point, Iran is on the verge of exhausting Gulf interceptor stockpiles entirely – and too, has eaten deeply into Israeli-American dwindling air defence reserves through Iran initially prioritising older missiles and drones that deplete air defences. Iranian high-end missiles flying at speeds above Mach Four are proving largely impervious to Israeli air defences.

The U.S. intelligence-led assassination of the Supreme Leader has proved to be a cardinal error. Rather than precipitate a collapse of morale, it led instead to massive outpourings of support for the Islamic Republic. To evident surprise in Washington, it has also fired-up Shi’a across the region with calls for jihad and for revenge for the killing of a revered Shi’a religious leader. Tel Aviv and Washington badly misread the terrain.

In sum, Iran is resilient and holding its ground for the long-term against the U.S., whose calculus was grounded in a quick ‘shoot and scoot’ war – a strategy largely imposed by paucity of munitions. The Gulf monarchies are wobbling. The Gulf ‘brand’ – Prosperity, big money, AI, beaches and tourism – likely is over. Israel too, may not survive in its present state.

The geopolitical ramifications, however, extend far beyond Iran and the Gulf States. Iran’s selective closure of the Hormuz Strait, and the destruction of Gulf port facilities more widely, tells another tale.

Take Iran’s particular focus on destroying the U.S. Fifth Fleet’s infrastructure at Bahrain. The Fifth Fleet forms the backbone to U.S. regional hegemony – as laid out here:

“Approximately 90% of the world’s oil trade passes through these areas, and U.S. control guarantees the linked energy supply chains. The fleet also covers three vital strategic chokepoints: the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. And its HQ is not just a port. It’s a comprehensive radar, intelligence and database centre”.

Iran has succeeded in destroying the radars and much of Bahrain’s port logistic and administrative infrastructure. It is systematically driving U.S. forces out of the Gulf.

The war on Iran is not projected just for the U.S. to add Iranian resources to the U.S. energy ‘domination portfolio’, as per the Venezuelan model. Iran, last year, represented only about 13.4% of total oil imported by China by sea — not a crucial component.

The Iran war however, is all about a bigger U.S. play: Control of strategic chokepoints, and of energy transit more generally, so as to deny China access to energy markets and so to curtail its growth.

The Trump National Security Strategy (NSS) set a goal for U.S. policy of “rebalanc[ing] China’s economy towards household consumption”.

This is American code-speak for coercing China to export less, and for it to import more through a radical economic reconfiguration to consuming more domestically — the object being to restore America’s share of global exports versus hyper-competitive and cheaper Chinese exports.

One way to impose this shift would be through tariffs and trade war. But another would be to deny China access to energy markets that it — and the wider BRICS market — requires for growth. This might be achieved, the NSS strategy hints, by constricting resource supply – i.e. by imposing naval blockades of chokepoints, by siege, and the seizure of vessels through the arbitrary sanctioning of vessels (as seen in the Venezuelan stand off.

In brief, Iran’s strikes on the Gulf may be firstly intended to convey a message that, for Gulf neighbours to align with Israel and America and against Iran, is no longer acceptable to Iran. But what Iran also seems to be doing is to attempt to wrest key sea chokepoints, ports and naval corridors from U.S. control — and to bring them under Iranian control.

In other words, to bring the seaways adjacent to the Persian Gulf under Iranian control. Such a shift would be hugely important – not just to China and Iran’s relations with China, but to Russia too, which needs to keep seaborne export routes open.

Should Iran prevail in this mammoth struggle against Israel and the Trump Administration, the ramifications would be huge. The (selective) closure of Hormuz over months, in itself, would play havoc in European gas markets, as well as possibly trigger a debt market crisis.

Further, the breaking of the ‘Gulf Brand’ as a safe investment haven will likely see the dollar devalue, as investors search for alternative geography in which to situate their assets.

The U.S.’ Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity corridor across the South Caucasus will likely bite the dust. This likely will induce India to return to — and stay with — Russian oil imports, and impact on India’s relations with Israel.

Beyond the geo-political reconfiguration as a result of the war, the geo-financial architecture will change significantly too.

By Caitlin JOHNSTONE

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

No bro this US war in the middle east will be completely different, bro. See, this time the regime we’re trying to get rid of is REALLY BAD!

No no, this is nothing like all those other times. This time military interventionism to topple an oil-rich government in west Asia will lead to peace and democracy. Our soldiers will be greeted as liberators!

You don’t understand, bro. This time the government and the media are telling us the truth! This time the regime really IS committing mass atrocities and they really ARE trying to build weapons of mass destruction.

Why are you acting so skeptical? If it turns out our leaders were wrong and this war was a bad idea, I’m sure they’ll admit their mistakes and course-correct immediately to set things right, and then implement major, sweeping policy changes to make sure they never repeat the same mistakes again. What could possibly go wrong?

I know you think this will be a disaster like all those other US military interventions in the region, but you see, unlike all those other times, this time there are many foreign policy analysts from highly respected think tanks and mass media outlets assuring us that it will go perfectly fine.

If bombing Iran was a bad idea they would have told us so in the news. The news isn’t allowed to lie about important things like this.

This time is completely different because this time there are people from the targeted country who say they don’t like their government. If that country didn’t need American bombs dropped on it, every single person from that country would love the government.

No this isn’t like all those other times. This time it’s about bringing freedom and democracy to a poor oppressed population, and it’s about fighting terrorism, and it’s about women’s rights, and it’s about bringing peace and stability to the region. Don’t you agree that those are good and worthy goals? Why do you hate freedom?

I’m beginning to suspect that you just love tyrannical regimes. There is no other possible reason anyone could oppose US military interventionism to topple a government in the middle east. Also you hate Jews.

Original article:  caitlinjohnstone.com.au

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The hour is getting late. Virtually all pieces of the puzzle are falling into place.

Even as his “massive armada” is being deployed, neo-Caligula social posts/vociferates to Iran: “MAKE A DEAL” (originally in caps). That’s maximum pressure in effect. Not even the possibility of negotiation. It’s Capitulation or War.

Neo-Caligula’s Top Three demands:

1. Iran should ditch its – civilian – nuclear program, as in total cessation of uranium enrichment.
2. Iran must reduce its missile program to a minimum.
3. Iran must stop supporting “proxy forces” – as in Hezbollah, Yemen’s Ansarallah and Iraqi militias.

There’s absolutely no way that Ayatollah Khamenei, the IRGC and the Majlis – the Iranian Parliament – will agree to any item on this ultimatum, dictated, of course, by the Zionist axis. Hence no capitulation.

Cue to Tehran dramatically raising the stakes.

The Majlis has already approved the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The final decision is in the hands of the Iranian government/security apparatus. This is in fact binding for the government and the military, de facto authorizing the IRGC, under  full constitutional cover, to seal the Strait of Hormuz.

I’ve extensively written about that on Asia Times during the past decade. At the time, Goldman Sachs derivative experts were adamant: if Hormuz is blocked, before or during a full-scale naval war in the Gulf, oil may reach $700.00 a barrel.

And this will only be temporary – because the entire global economy will collapse.

Most of all, the blocking of Hormuz would trigger the detonation of the TWO QUADRILLION (caps mine) dollars derivative market – updating the initial, misleading calculation by the BIS (Bank for International Settlements), placed at $700 trillion. Over the years, several Gulf traders, off the record, have agreed with the “quadrillion” numbers.

Also during the past decade, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted that they do not have the military ability to keep Hormuz open. That remains the case.

Now cut to clueless little gusano Marco Rubio – bought and paid for by Zionist vulture billionaire Paul Singer, who already profited from the Venezuela operation – talking about  US “force posture” near Iran.

As 30-40k US troops are “in reach of thousands of Iranian UAVs and ballistic missiles”, it’s “prudent” to have forces to “defend against what could be (Rubio’s own definition) an Iranian threat”.

Of course, this “threat” would never come from the  Empire of Chaos, Plunder and Permanent Strikes – following a neo-con dream already sketched in the late 1990s.

So, according to Rubio logic, the US Army now reserves the right to launch a preemptive strike against Iran.

Assuming this preemptive strike happens, Tehran has already signalled, via a Supreme Leader’s advisor and the Foreign Ministry, among others, that it won’t be a limited war.

Translation: even the ghost of a Tomahawk hitting Iranian territory will be answered by an “immediate and comprehensive response” targeting Tel Aviv and US bases across the Gulf.

Quick recap: neo-Caligula – at least at face value – frames his threats as a prelude to a “deal” which would in effect amputate Iran’s nuclear program and its whole defense/disuassion mechanisms.

Tehran’s response: you attack us, and we destroy Israel as a functioning entity – plenty of hypersonic missiles are up to the task – and you, neo-Caligula, becomes responsible for the collapse of the global economy.

“Unconventional” weapons and “strategic surprises”

Venezuela was just a rehearsal. Iran is the Holy Grail.

Neo-Caligula is not attempting to impose a mere military blockade of Iran. He is launching hardcore economic siege warfare – aimed not only at Iran but also China and Russia, disrupting at the same time Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) integration projects (China-Iran) and the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC, uniting Russia-Iran-India).

This is the next level – way beyond Hybrid, approaching Hot – of the comprehensive imperial war on BRICS, directed against no less than four top BRICS: Iran, Russia, China and India.

We are way beyond mere “containment” of Iran. This is a systemic threat, all-round, across the geopolitical and geoeconomic spectrum, directly disturbing energy flows, connectivity corridors and strategic partnerships. And all that disguised as a mere “security” operation.

Iran’s asymmetric naval strategy, painstankingly built since the start of the millenium, has myriad ways to counter-act an imperial attack: over 6,000 naval mines; deployment of swarm tactics via small, missile-armed boats; countless anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles positioned along the Persian Gulf shoreline; scores of kamikaze drones, submarines and anti-ship missiles scattered on Gulf islands.

Iran is massing all its firepower on what it describes as the “first line of confrontation”, as in the Persian Gulf. Unlike during the 12-day war, everything will be used in the theatre: “unconventional” weapons; an array of “strategic surprises”; new hypersonic missiles; massive cyber-attacks.

Those with an IQ over room temperature at the Department of Forever Wars might do their homework, for instance, on the Khalij Fars supersonic anti-ship ballistic missile, part of Iran’s AAAD strategy: Mach 3 speed; over 300 km range; over 650 kg warhead with EO/infrared seeker. The Khalij Fars would have a ball against American sitting ducks.

Iran has already switched off its radars and is going dark, including the civilian radars at Imam Khomeini International Airport, to protect itself from US missiles and at the same time to allow the installation of Russian jamming systems Murmansk-BN (they need radar silence to be properly callibrated).

Then, on the imperial side, there’s the imminent entry in the theatre of the E-11A BACN: not a mere surveillance aircraft, but a sort of massive “flying router”: a sky-high Wi-Fi linking F-35s and F-22s using different communication systems with ground forces and ships, everything  in real-time and evading Iran’s notorious, mountanious terrain.

Are you ready to destroy the global economy?

NATO is, predictably, all over the place now, complete with strident regime change rhetoric. A sound scenario determines that neo-Caligula may have struck a bargain with the EUro-chihuahuas: I refrain from annexing Greenland (for now) but you support my war on Iran.

Enter yet another “coalition of the willing” (actually “the coerced”). It’s no wonder the IRGC is now being designated as a “terrorist organization” by Brussels – on a par with al-Qaeda and ISIS (these two, by the way, fully normalized by Washington, Brussels and even Moscow).

In parallel, several NATO bases are being set up to help the American “massive armada” with a massive air bridge.

Tehran now has fully understood that what neo-Caligula and his Zionist backers really want is regime change. This has absolutely nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

Still, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf continues to stress that Tehran does not oppose the principle of dialogue and diplomacy, as long as it involves mutual respect. Turkiye’s Sultan Erdogan, for his part, is proposing a high-level trilateral between Iran, the US and Turkiye, possibly via video conference.

It’s now up to diplomacy-averse neo-Caligula and his megalomaniacal narcissist mood swings. So this is how the whole drama is coming to: either neo-Caligula and his “massive armada” pauses, opening some room for talks, and he ends up saving the global economy; or we have the Gates of Hell opened in West Asia.

It’s Zero Hour time.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The overnight visit by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar to India has been rather thin on the ground.

Although this has been his first visit to India as Foreign Minister, and notwithstanding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘hands-on’ approach to the India-Israel relationship which has seen a huge upswing during his years in power through the past 11 years, it comes as a surprise that he was not received by the PM. One plausible explanation could be that PM has his hands full what with the crucial state election in Bihar, which has traditionally been a weathercock in India’s national politics. 

Couldn’t the visit of Sa’ar have been scheduled in such a way that a meeting with PM was possible? The only explanation is that the Israeli dignitary’s consultation was hastily arranged. What happened for such an unseemly haste for Sa’ar to rush to Delhi? 

The more one runs a fine comb through the visit, the more it seems that Sa’ar actually came to discuss Gaza situation even as the crucial upcoming template of the second stage of the Gaza Peace Plan on the deployment of the international force is coming up. 

The MEA readout simply says, “FM Sa’ar shared Israel’s perspective and views on developments in West Asia and the Gulf. EAM expressed India’s support for the Gaza Peace Plan, welcomed the return of hostages and expressed hope that the Peace Plan paves way for a durable and lasting solution.” 

Perhaps, some forensic work is needed here to dig deeper. To be sure, Delhi is aware of Washington moving to launch a UN draft resolution in the Security Council seeking mandate for the creation of an International Security Force (ISF) for Gaza.

According to Axios, which has seen the relevant document, the duration of the ISF is for a period of two years with the possibility of extension. The ISF will not perform a peacekeeping mission but will instead focus on ensuring the security of the border sector, with Israel and Egypt protecting the Gaza population and humanitarian corridors, as well as preparing new Palestinian police forces.

The ISF’s mandate also includes the disarming of Hamas, which is of course the most sensitive work of its entire mission. According to the US draft resolution, ISF will be expected to stabilise the situation in the Gaza sector by means of demilitarisation of the region, including through destruction and prevention of reconstruction of military, terrorist and offensive infrastructure, as well as clamp down on the supply of weapons to unsustainable armed formations. In sum, this is a proactive mission with a difference whose performance will be critical to Israel’s security and the viability of the Gaza Plan itself. 

The deployment of the first units of ISF in the Gaza sector is planned in January, Axios reported quoting an unnamed US official. The ISF will exercise their mandate under a single command, “closely cooperating and consulting with representatives of Egypt and Israel.” 

Now comes the cutting edge 

According to reports in Ynet and the Guardian, the countries whose troops will join the ISF under the common command of Egypt could potentially include troops from Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Turkey and Pakistan. Accordingly, all these countries participated in the recent Istanbul conference hosted by Turkey to discuss the Gaza situation.  

The Security Council discussion on the US draft is expected to start in the near future. Trump is in a hurry to get going with the proposed Council of Peace with himself as its viceroy with full powers to coordinate the recovery process and management of the destroyed territory in Gaza in accordance with a comprehensive plan. 

Of course, Israel is not fully on board the plan to deploy ISF in Gaza. On the other hand, Hamas, as can be expected, is interested in an early  deployment of the ISF, hoping that would be a check on the Israeli occupation.

According to a ‘scoop’ by Ynet, the Israeli news website and online outlet for the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, officials of the Israeli Ministry of Defence made a startling disclosure a week ago during a closed-door briefing for members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee about Pakistan’s inclusion in the ISF. 

In a recent commentary, Ynet assessed that “Importantly, the United States is not seeking a Security Council resolution—certainly not under Chapter VII, which would authorise the use of force—but rather a vaguely worded document that would allow the council to give its backing and endorsement to the formation of a stabilisation force. This force would be established by the US in coordination with Arab and Muslim countries… it appears there are, for now, no elements that are fundamentally problematic from Israel’s perspective—except for one: the clause concerning the disarmament of Hamas and other Gaza-based terrorist groups.”

The rushed visit to Delhi by Minister Sa’ar can be put in perspective.  He would have sensitised Delhi that Israel is not in a position to dictate the composition of the IDF. Interestingly, the only other meeting Sa’ar had in Delhi was with the National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, India’s ace Pakistan hand. 

Pakistan enjoys strong support from Saudi Arabia with which it is now inextricably bonded with a defence pact. At any rate, the US is in the driving seat here and Trump is leaning on Turkey to assume the lead role, and Turkey has very friendly relations with Pakistan (and rather unfriendly equations with Delhi.) 

It has been reported previously that Trump is an admirer of Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir and there was even some media speculation that a Pakistani role in the stabilisation of Gaza already figured in the cogitations between the two statesmen. In the final analysis, the inclusion of Pakistan in the ISF carries the imprimatur of Trump. And it will be an uphill task now for Delhi or any other world capital to do anything about it. 

Indeed, Israel opposes the very idea of any UN involvement, which, it fears, will affect its military’s engagement rules in Gaza. Israel has reason to worry that the reliance on the United Nations as the source of authority for establishing the stabilisation force and the Board of Peace, which could give the UN influence over the mandate language and the rules of engagement granted to the force. 

This is the eleventh hour before a finalised version of the US document will be ready and a Security Council mandate is sought, spelling out the details of countries that will constitute the ISF. Israel would be counting on India to pull all stops to block Pakistan’s inclusion in the IDF. 

The role of Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council becomes important in this context. But then, Pakistan has been an active partner in the Russian initiatives in the Security Council aimed at restraining Israel in its destructive war in Gaza. 

Also, Russia will have to take into consideration China’s stance with which it coordinates in the UN almost as a matter of routine in the recent years. It is highly improbable that China will be party to Pakistan’s exclusion. 

The point is, much as India vilifies Islamabad as the champion of international terrorism, Pakistan also happens to be a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for the 2025–26 term and has been appointed Chair of the UNSC 1988 (Taliban) Sanctions Committee for 2025, and Vice Chair of the UNSC 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee for 2025, along with Russia and France.  

Over and above all that, Pakistan has a highly disciplined and professional army, which enjoys international prestige, especially in the Middle East region, and is capable of doing a great job professionally in the Gaza mission, which is fraught with big security challenges. 

Buck stops at Oval Office 

Delhi has cause to worry that the buck stops at the Oval Office. Indeed, with all the humiliation and bitterness that India has undergone in the recent months at the hands of the US officials on the oil imports from Russia, it is too much to expect PM to ask Trump for a favour, which is what PM Benjamin Netanyahu would have expected in happier circumstances. Delhi also has to be wary of Trump seizing the opportunity to propose mediation on India-Pakistan issues.  

That leaves EAM tangoing with his American counterpart Marco Rubio who is a rising star in Trump’s policymaking apparatus currently. EAM has been meeting Rubio oft and on. Their last meeting was in Malaysia just a week ago. 

But even here, Rubio has his limitations when Trump is directly involved. In this case, Trump has a role for himself in the future developments in Gaza. If the Gaza security situation turns critical in the coming months due to the ineptness of the IDF, Trump’s prestige will be dented internationally. 

Make no mistake, the IDF deployment will be for the long haul. And don’t be surprised if an extended Pakistani military presence in Gaza, not far from Tel Aviv, eventually morphs into an Israel-Pakistan relationship of some sort. At the very least, a cordial working relationship between the military establishments of the two countries will become an operational necessity, given the centrality that Tel Aviv attaches to Gaza’s security climate, which is indeed an existential issue for Israel.  

Israeli diplomacy is highly pragmatic and skilful in handling such tricky situations. Certainly, the fact that Israel has no diplomatic ties with Pakistan will not stop it from cultivating the Pakistani contingent in the IDF once the rubber hits the road. And Israel has a matching counterpart in this respect in Field Marshal Munir. 

Trump will only be happy with an informal ‘normalisation’ of between Islamabad and Tel Aviv. Who knows, if things go well, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner may appear some day in Rawalpindi in a not too distant future, acting on Trump’s instructions to resuscitate the moribund Abraham Accords. 

Original article:  www.indianpunchline.com