March 11, 2026
Martin Jay
Covering the Iran war, it is breathtaking, some of the brazen lies he tells while being questioned by journalists who are complicit in his dirty work. The mere idea that Iran, for example, acquired a Tomahawk missile and used it to kill its own schoolgirls is beyond absurd. How could journalists not question such a reply when it is so clear that Trump is lying through his teeth?
Because of this lying, we can see how Trump works, though. Unlike other U.S. presidents who have some shame and discomfort in lying to the press, Trump suffers no such handicap and so can take on bolder, more daring ventures on the global stage. In this environment, there is no respect for international law or even due process within the political framework of how Congress works. Trump hasn’t worked out how to defeat Iran, but he has all the contingent narratives to lay out afterwards to explain why everything that goes wrong is not his fault. We see that he is already preparing himself for the day of judgement by the press pack in the coming days and weeks by telling them that it was Jared Kushner, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff who told him to hit Iran.
The direction towards these three is revealing. Of course, we have learned the simple rule of Trump when it comes to decisions. When things go well, everything was his decision; when things go badly, blame others.
And so, the blaming of these three is a clear example and acknowledgement by Trump that the Iran war was a failure. The U.S. didn’t bring about regime change nor seek any military concessions from its government. In fact, it’s really hard to establish one minor point where you could say that the Americans chalked up any kind of victory, given the high energy prices around the world and the Straits of Hormuz still closed to oil tankers. Despite the U.S. being a net exporter of oil, the crisis is raising pump prices back home, and so it is Trump’s support base of blue-collar workers who are, once again, paying the price for his failed policies.
This last point about the Straits of Hormuz is worth taking stock of when we examine Trump’s lies, which just get increasingly fatuous by the day. It’s like we’re dealing with a child in power who has lost sense of any of the realities around him. One of Trump’s claims which he repeats over and over again is that the U.S. navy has completely destroyed its Iranian counterpart, and that all ships have been sunk. And yet there is no video evidence at all to support this, official or even just phone footage from even one U.S. sailor’s phone. Could this be another massive Trump lie, given that he is struggling to prove to the American people or the press that the operation has been a success? Very convenient that all Iranian vessels happen to have been sunk. Perhaps the truth sunk and the Iranian vessels are still operational. The saddest thing is that not one American “journalist” is even able at a press conference, or even in their copy, to ask the most obvious question about this claim, which is: “If there is no Iranian navy, then why are the Straits of Hormuz still closed to ships passing through?”
Or is it that the Iranian navy has been destroyed, but Iran’s control of the shipping and its threat against America’s aircraft carriers is so strong and prevalent that the U.S. navy doesn’t have the capability to break the siege?
Trump is busy building up a case to make him look less culpable in the whole war, which in itself is a massive admission that it has all gone horribly wrong. These indicators are subtle and sometimes are not easy to spot, like his recent comment that GCC countries helped the U.S. bomb Iran. So the mighty U.S. navy, air force and army did not come up to scratch and had to rely on regional partners? The president needs some help here with his messaging, as he is clearly trying to spread the blame and reduce his own importance, perhaps as a ploy to not only protect himself from impeachment but from facing international criminal courts.
The lie that GCC countries bombed Iran is even more laughable than the one about Iran bombing its own schoolgirls, but with no real journalists around who are even able to ask the most obvious questions, he’ll be able to get away with it, despite the odd dichotomy of logic shooting himself in the foot. The truth about the so-called Iran War is that almost nothing we see on our TV screens is anywhere near the truth. Sometimes it is simply omission, as in the case of the real level of destruction in Israel, which is not being reported due to a shameful agreement struck between U.S. networks and Israel to block the truth and only show bombs which have hit civilian targets rather than military ones. The biggest lie possibly concerns the reasons behind it, although blithering buffoons like Lindsey Graham can hardly keep the lid on it. Money. Do even Trump’s more vociferous supporters doubt for one moment that he hasn’t made billions out of it by manipulating markets?
Lucas Leiroz
A closer reading of the statement indicates that the message had a specific recipient: Azerbaijan. Pezeshkian’s remarks appear to have been primarily an attempt at de-escalation amid the possibility of a new front opening in the current war.
The tension began after the crash of a supposed Iranian drone at an airport in Azerbaijan. Authorities in Baku classified the episode as a possible hostile attack and responded with harsh rhetoric, including promises of the use of force. Military movements along the border were reported, suggesting that the incident could escalate into a direct confrontation.
Tehran immediately denied any involvement in the episode. Such a denial alone would not necessarily be enough to dispel suspicion. Nevertheless, several factors make the hypothesis of a deliberate Iranian attack unlikely. First, if the objective had been to strike Israeli or American strategic assets located on Azerbaijani territory, Iran would hardly have chosen such a limited and ineffective action as a simple drone incident that caused no significant damage.
Furthermore, Baku’s own reaction raises questions. Interstate conflicts are rarely triggered by isolated drone incidents, especially when there are no casualties or meaningful destruction. The speed and intensity of the response suggest that the episode may have been interpreted within an already tense political context, in which some actors might have been seeking a pretext for escalation.
Another relevant element concerns Iran’s demographic composition. A significant portion of the country’s population consists of ethnic Azeris, which creates an additional layer of sensitivity in bilateral relations. An open conflict with Azerbaijan could generate internal tensions and undesirable identity-based mobilizations within Iran itself. Historically, for this reason, Tehran has adopted a cautious posture toward Baku, avoiding direct confrontations whenever possible.
Given this context, alternative hypotheses have emerged to explain the incident. One possibility is a false-flag operation conducted by actors interested in dragging Azerbaijan into the current conflict between Iran, the United States, and Israel. Another possibility involves the use of electronic warfare capabilities to divert Iranian drones launched toward other directions and cause them to fall on Azerbaijani territory, thereby creating an artificially politicized incident.
Regardless of the origin of the episode, the decisive factor for understanding the crisis lies in Azerbaijan’s geopolitical alliances. In recent years, Baku has developed significant strategic cooperation with Israel, particularly in the fields of energy, defense and intelligence. However, this rapprochement creates tensions with another key Azerbaijani partner: Turkey. Ankara has traditionally regarded Baku as a natural ally based on ethnic, linguistic, and historical affinities between Turks and Azeris. The slogan “one nation, two states” symbolized this partnership for many years.
However, the regional scenario changed significantly after the fall of the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, an event that altered the strategic balance in the Middle East. With the weakening of the former geopolitical buffer zone represented by the Syrian state, competing expansionist projects began interacting more directly. On one side stands Turkey’s regional strategy, often described as neo-Ottomanism; on the other, the expansion of Zionist influence under the project commonly referred to as “Greater Israel.”
In this context, Turkey increasingly perceives Israel as a potential existential rival. The emergence of possible anti-Turkish military alignments in the Eastern Mediterranean – such as cooperation between Greece, Israel, and Cyprus – as well as Israeli involvement in the Horn of Africa, including the recognition of Somaliland, are clear signs of growing hostility between Tel Aviv and Ankara. For this reason, despite its many disagreements with Iran, Turkey currently sees Tehran’s role in the conflict as indirectly beneficial, since it contributes to weakening Israel and improving Turkish strategic security.
Within this framework, Turkey does not want its “brother nation” in the South Caucasus to attack Iran, as such a move would undermine Ankara’s broader strategic posture toward Israel. By threatening Iran, Baku risks ignoring its closest ethnic ally in favor of its partnership with Israel – something many Turkish observers view as unacceptable. Among Turkish nationalist circles – including Turkists, Turanists, neo-Ottomanists, and even Islamist circles – the possibility of Azerbaijan acting militarily against Iran under Israeli influence is widely interpreted as a move contrary to the interests of the broader Turkic world.
Thus, the current crisis reveals a complex web of rivalries and alliances. A direct confrontation between Iran and Azerbaijan would have profound consequences not only for the South Caucasus but also for the strategic balance involving Turkey, Israel, and other regional powers. It would also carry serious risks of internal instability within Iran due to its large ethnic Azeri population.
In this sense, Pezeshkian’s statement can be understood as an attempt to prevent a limited incident from evolving into a broader conflict. Whether this effort at de-escalation will be sufficient remains uncertain. What seems clear, however, is that a war between Iran and Azerbaijan would hardly benefit any regional actor other than those interested in deepening divisions and rivalries across the Eurasian space – namely Israel and the United States.
Eduardo Vasco
These were the words spoken in December 2013 by the Secretary of Defense of the Obama administration, Chuck Hagel, to the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. That reinforced the historical guarantees given by Washington to its puppets, reaffirming the deceptive propaganda that the United States is the guardian of global security.
Promises like that are made by every administration, whether Democrat or Republican. Twelve years later, Donald Trump would reinforce that mantra again, addressing Qatar specifically: “The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory (…) of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.” According to Trump, the United States would respond to attacks against Qatar with “all lawful and appropriate measures,” “including militarily.”
Israel had just bombed Doha, targeting Hamas leaders. The entire speech by the president of the United States was completely hollow: the Patriot systems acquired for 10 billion dollars in the 2012 agreement, together with a new acquisition of Patriot and NASAMS systems for more than 2 billion dollars in 2019, did not intercept the Israeli bombardment. And the United States did not consider that attack a “threat to the peace and security of the United States” — on the contrary, they turned a blind eye to it.
Qatar hosts the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. Air Force and the British Royal Air Force at Al-Udeid Air Base, built with more than 8 billion dollars invested by the Qatari government. None of this has protected the Qatari people. Iran’s retaliation for the U.S.–Israel aggression revealed that the base itself (the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East) is a fragile target: it was struck by a missile on the 3rd, which likely damaged or destroyed the AN/FPS-132 early-warning radar, one of the most important sensors in the U.S. missile defense system, valued at about $1.1 billion. Satellite images suggest significant damage to the equipment, which could compromise the ability to detect ballistic missiles at long distances.
In 2017, Saudi Arabia spent $110 billion on U.S. military equipment in an agreement that foresees spending more than $350 billion by next year — including Patriot and THAAD systems. Apparently, this enormous expenditure is not guaranteeing fully secure protection. Despite important interceptions in the current war, the U.S. government instructed part of its personnel to flee Saudi Arabia to protect themselves — which reveals that even the United States does not trust the defensive capability it sells to others. In fact, in the early hours of the 3rd, two drones struck the U.S. embassy in Riyadh and, two days earlier, U.S. soldiers were also targeted.
Since 1990, Gulf countries have spent nearly $500 billion purchasing weapons and protection systems from the United States, according to data from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database and reports from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The construction and maintenance of defense infrastructure by the United States is almost entirely financed by the host countries. All of this is being blown apart by the legitimate Iranian retaliation.
The ineffectiveness of the protection provided by the United States had already been demonstrated in last year’s war, but also by the launches from Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis toward Israel, which shattered the myth surrounding the Iron Dome. In a certain sense, the success of many of those attacks represented a humiliation for the all-powerful American arms industry. The several MQ-9 Reaper drones shot down by the Yemenis represented losses amounting to $200 million — the drones used by the Houthis to shoot down the American aircraft cost an insignificant fraction to produce.
The ineffectiveness of American protection also reveals the extremely low quality of the products of its military complex. This complex is dominated by a small handful of monopolies such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon which, without competitors and with clients subservient to the American government, see no need to make the maximum effort to produce weapons and systems of unsurpassable quality. Finally, corruption runs rampant in this field, and inferior peoples such as those of the Gulf do not deserve to consume products of the same quality as those destined for America — apparently their regimes are willing to pay dearly for anything.
Iran, with all its experience of more than four decades dealing with aggression, has known how to use these vulnerabilities very well. Leaders at the highest levels of the Iranian state publicly insist that peace in the Middle East is impossible while U.S. bases remain operational in the region. Saeed Khatibzadeh, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, stated, “We have no option but to put an end to the existence of American presence in the Persian Gulf area.” These appeals are certainly circulating in neighboring countries — both among the general population and within the armed and political forces.
The Persian nation is not only attacking military installations but also strategic targets that affect the nerve center of the Gulf countries’ economies: the energy industry — in retaliation for the bombings of its own oil infrastructure by the United States and Israel. These Iranian attacks place even greater pressure on the puppet regimes of imperialism to do something to stop their masters. The obvious solution would be to prevent the use of their territory for aggression against Iran, which would necessarily imply closing the military bases.
Although all these countries are dictatorships that repress any dissent, as the suffering of the civilian population increases, popular discontent may become uncontrollable. Their rulers know this and are already racking their brains to find a safe way out of this potentially explosive situation.
Will the peoples of these countries swallow all the lying propaganda that their regimes — fed by the lie industry of the United States and Israel — try to tell them, that Iran is the aggressor and responsible for the attacks? But why do the United States build missile launch bases so close to residential neighborhoods? Clearly, just like the Israelis, this is not a “moral” and “ethical” army: those people exist to serve as human shields for American soldiers. The logic of protection is inverted: it is not U.S. anti-aircraft systems that serve to protect the Saudi, Emirati or Qatari people — it is these second-class citizens who must die to protect the occupying forces.
Moreover, U.S. military bases frequently house soldiers responsible for crimes against local populations. This became explicit during the Iraq War. For example, the rape of a 14-year-old girl named Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, followed by her murder and the killing of her family after soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division invaded her house in Mahmudiya in 2004. Or the rapes documented over years during the invasion of Iraq, together with the practice of sexual exploitation and prostitution carried out in areas near American military installations such as Balad Air Base, used by the 4th Infantry Division.
On the 1st, U.S. Marines killed at least nine protesters who attempted to storm the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, in protest against the criminal aggression against Iran that had already massacred about 150 girls in an Iranian school the previous day. This is what imperialist presence in the countries of the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America serves for: to rape, murder and use the natives themselves as human shields, not to protect them.
How long will it take before they rise up against this true military occupation? Probably not long.
Martin Jay
Join up the dots and you come to
the same conclusion. America and Israel are the biggest losers in the Iran war.
But not Trump.
A recent poll in the U.S.
concluded that Donald Trump tells the truth only about 3 percent of the time
during his public announcements at press conferences. Perhaps it was his stint
at being a celebrity on TV that taught him how gullible people in America are
when fed the most fanciful, moronic lies a leading figure can tell, through the
American media. Of course, it’s also about the journalists as well, and if
there’s one thing that the Trump administrations have taught us, it is how poor
the general level of journalism is in America these days. American journalists
are not afraid to ask difficult questions or disbelieve what they are told.
They simply don’t know how to do this in the first place.
Covering the Iran war, it is breathtaking, some of the brazen lies he tells while being questioned by journalists who are complicit in his dirty work. The mere idea that Iran, for example, acquired a Tomahawk missile and used it to kill its own schoolgirls is beyond absurd. How could journalists not question such a reply when it is so clear that Trump is lying through his teeth?
Because of this lying, we can see how Trump works, though. Unlike other U.S. presidents who have some shame and discomfort in lying to the press, Trump suffers no such handicap and so can take on bolder, more daring ventures on the global stage. In this environment, there is no respect for international law or even due process within the political framework of how Congress works. Trump hasn’t worked out how to defeat Iran, but he has all the contingent narratives to lay out afterwards to explain why everything that goes wrong is not his fault. We see that he is already preparing himself for the day of judgement by the press pack in the coming days and weeks by telling them that it was Jared Kushner, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff who told him to hit Iran.
The direction towards these three is revealing. Of course, we have learned the simple rule of Trump when it comes to decisions. When things go well, everything was his decision; when things go badly, blame others.
And so, the blaming of these three is a clear example and acknowledgement by Trump that the Iran war was a failure. The U.S. didn’t bring about regime change nor seek any military concessions from its government. In fact, it’s really hard to establish one minor point where you could say that the Americans chalked up any kind of victory, given the high energy prices around the world and the Straits of Hormuz still closed to oil tankers. Despite the U.S. being a net exporter of oil, the crisis is raising pump prices back home, and so it is Trump’s support base of blue-collar workers who are, once again, paying the price for his failed policies.
This last point about the Straits of Hormuz is worth taking stock of when we examine Trump’s lies, which just get increasingly fatuous by the day. It’s like we’re dealing with a child in power who has lost sense of any of the realities around him. One of Trump’s claims which he repeats over and over again is that the U.S. navy has completely destroyed its Iranian counterpart, and that all ships have been sunk. And yet there is no video evidence at all to support this, official or even just phone footage from even one U.S. sailor’s phone. Could this be another massive Trump lie, given that he is struggling to prove to the American people or the press that the operation has been a success? Very convenient that all Iranian vessels happen to have been sunk. Perhaps the truth sunk and the Iranian vessels are still operational. The saddest thing is that not one American “journalist” is even able at a press conference, or even in their copy, to ask the most obvious question about this claim, which is: “If there is no Iranian navy, then why are the Straits of Hormuz still closed to ships passing through?”
Or is it that the Iranian navy has been destroyed, but Iran’s control of the shipping and its threat against America’s aircraft carriers is so strong and prevalent that the U.S. navy doesn’t have the capability to break the siege?
Trump is busy building up a case to make him look less culpable in the whole war, which in itself is a massive admission that it has all gone horribly wrong. These indicators are subtle and sometimes are not easy to spot, like his recent comment that GCC countries helped the U.S. bomb Iran. So the mighty U.S. navy, air force and army did not come up to scratch and had to rely on regional partners? The president needs some help here with his messaging, as he is clearly trying to spread the blame and reduce his own importance, perhaps as a ploy to not only protect himself from impeachment but from facing international criminal courts.
The lie that GCC countries bombed Iran is even more laughable than the one about Iran bombing its own schoolgirls, but with no real journalists around who are even able to ask the most obvious questions, he’ll be able to get away with it, despite the odd dichotomy of logic shooting himself in the foot. The truth about the so-called Iran War is that almost nothing we see on our TV screens is anywhere near the truth. Sometimes it is simply omission, as in the case of the real level of destruction in Israel, which is not being reported due to a shameful agreement struck between U.S. networks and Israel to block the truth and only show bombs which have hit civilian targets rather than military ones. The biggest lie possibly concerns the reasons behind it, although blithering buffoons like Lindsey Graham can hardly keep the lid on it. Money. Do even Trump’s more vociferous supporters doubt for one moment that he hasn’t made billions out of it by manipulating markets?
Lucas Leiroz
Baku is damaging its ties with
Turkey by speaking of retaliation against Iran.
The recent statement by Iranian
President Masoud Pezeshkian asserting that Iran does not intend to attack
neighboring countries generated widespread misinterpretations in several
analytical circles. Many observers assumed the message was directed at the Gulf
monarchies. However, such an interpretation makes little sense considering that
American attacks against Iran are being launched from Sunni countries in the
region. Moreover, Iran continues to frequently strike targets in those states.A closer reading of the statement indicates that the message had a specific recipient: Azerbaijan. Pezeshkian’s remarks appear to have been primarily an attempt at de-escalation amid the possibility of a new front opening in the current war.
The tension began after the crash of a supposed Iranian drone at an airport in Azerbaijan. Authorities in Baku classified the episode as a possible hostile attack and responded with harsh rhetoric, including promises of the use of force. Military movements along the border were reported, suggesting that the incident could escalate into a direct confrontation.
Tehran immediately denied any involvement in the episode. Such a denial alone would not necessarily be enough to dispel suspicion. Nevertheless, several factors make the hypothesis of a deliberate Iranian attack unlikely. First, if the objective had been to strike Israeli or American strategic assets located on Azerbaijani territory, Iran would hardly have chosen such a limited and ineffective action as a simple drone incident that caused no significant damage.
Furthermore, Baku’s own reaction raises questions. Interstate conflicts are rarely triggered by isolated drone incidents, especially when there are no casualties or meaningful destruction. The speed and intensity of the response suggest that the episode may have been interpreted within an already tense political context, in which some actors might have been seeking a pretext for escalation.
Another relevant element concerns Iran’s demographic composition. A significant portion of the country’s population consists of ethnic Azeris, which creates an additional layer of sensitivity in bilateral relations. An open conflict with Azerbaijan could generate internal tensions and undesirable identity-based mobilizations within Iran itself. Historically, for this reason, Tehran has adopted a cautious posture toward Baku, avoiding direct confrontations whenever possible.
Given this context, alternative hypotheses have emerged to explain the incident. One possibility is a false-flag operation conducted by actors interested in dragging Azerbaijan into the current conflict between Iran, the United States, and Israel. Another possibility involves the use of electronic warfare capabilities to divert Iranian drones launched toward other directions and cause them to fall on Azerbaijani territory, thereby creating an artificially politicized incident.
Regardless of the origin of the episode, the decisive factor for understanding the crisis lies in Azerbaijan’s geopolitical alliances. In recent years, Baku has developed significant strategic cooperation with Israel, particularly in the fields of energy, defense and intelligence. However, this rapprochement creates tensions with another key Azerbaijani partner: Turkey. Ankara has traditionally regarded Baku as a natural ally based on ethnic, linguistic, and historical affinities between Turks and Azeris. The slogan “one nation, two states” symbolized this partnership for many years.
However, the regional scenario changed significantly after the fall of the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, an event that altered the strategic balance in the Middle East. With the weakening of the former geopolitical buffer zone represented by the Syrian state, competing expansionist projects began interacting more directly. On one side stands Turkey’s regional strategy, often described as neo-Ottomanism; on the other, the expansion of Zionist influence under the project commonly referred to as “Greater Israel.”
In this context, Turkey increasingly perceives Israel as a potential existential rival. The emergence of possible anti-Turkish military alignments in the Eastern Mediterranean – such as cooperation between Greece, Israel, and Cyprus – as well as Israeli involvement in the Horn of Africa, including the recognition of Somaliland, are clear signs of growing hostility between Tel Aviv and Ankara. For this reason, despite its many disagreements with Iran, Turkey currently sees Tehran’s role in the conflict as indirectly beneficial, since it contributes to weakening Israel and improving Turkish strategic security.
Within this framework, Turkey does not want its “brother nation” in the South Caucasus to attack Iran, as such a move would undermine Ankara’s broader strategic posture toward Israel. By threatening Iran, Baku risks ignoring its closest ethnic ally in favor of its partnership with Israel – something many Turkish observers view as unacceptable. Among Turkish nationalist circles – including Turkists, Turanists, neo-Ottomanists, and even Islamist circles – the possibility of Azerbaijan acting militarily against Iran under Israeli influence is widely interpreted as a move contrary to the interests of the broader Turkic world.
Thus, the current crisis reveals a complex web of rivalries and alliances. A direct confrontation between Iran and Azerbaijan would have profound consequences not only for the South Caucasus but also for the strategic balance involving Turkey, Israel, and other regional powers. It would also carry serious risks of internal instability within Iran due to its large ethnic Azeri population.
In this sense, Pezeshkian’s statement can be understood as an attempt to prevent a limited incident from evolving into a broader conflict. Whether this effort at de-escalation will be sufficient remains uncertain. What seems clear, however, is that a war between Iran and Azerbaijan would hardly benefit any regional actor other than those interested in deepening divisions and rivalries across the Eurasian space – namely Israel and the United States.
Eduardo Vasco
How long will it take before they
rise up against this true military occupation?
“Our success will continue to
hinge on America’s military power and the credibility of our assurances to our
allies and partners in the Middle East.”These were the words spoken in December 2013 by the Secretary of Defense of the Obama administration, Chuck Hagel, to the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. That reinforced the historical guarantees given by Washington to its puppets, reaffirming the deceptive propaganda that the United States is the guardian of global security.
Promises like that are made by every administration, whether Democrat or Republican. Twelve years later, Donald Trump would reinforce that mantra again, addressing Qatar specifically: “The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory (…) of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.” According to Trump, the United States would respond to attacks against Qatar with “all lawful and appropriate measures,” “including militarily.”
Israel had just bombed Doha, targeting Hamas leaders. The entire speech by the president of the United States was completely hollow: the Patriot systems acquired for 10 billion dollars in the 2012 agreement, together with a new acquisition of Patriot and NASAMS systems for more than 2 billion dollars in 2019, did not intercept the Israeli bombardment. And the United States did not consider that attack a “threat to the peace and security of the United States” — on the contrary, they turned a blind eye to it.
Qatar hosts the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. Air Force and the British Royal Air Force at Al-Udeid Air Base, built with more than 8 billion dollars invested by the Qatari government. None of this has protected the Qatari people. Iran’s retaliation for the U.S.–Israel aggression revealed that the base itself (the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East) is a fragile target: it was struck by a missile on the 3rd, which likely damaged or destroyed the AN/FPS-132 early-warning radar, one of the most important sensors in the U.S. missile defense system, valued at about $1.1 billion. Satellite images suggest significant damage to the equipment, which could compromise the ability to detect ballistic missiles at long distances.
In 2017, Saudi Arabia spent $110 billion on U.S. military equipment in an agreement that foresees spending more than $350 billion by next year — including Patriot and THAAD systems. Apparently, this enormous expenditure is not guaranteeing fully secure protection. Despite important interceptions in the current war, the U.S. government instructed part of its personnel to flee Saudi Arabia to protect themselves — which reveals that even the United States does not trust the defensive capability it sells to others. In fact, in the early hours of the 3rd, two drones struck the U.S. embassy in Riyadh and, two days earlier, U.S. soldiers were also targeted.
Since 1990, Gulf countries have spent nearly $500 billion purchasing weapons and protection systems from the United States, according to data from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database and reports from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The construction and maintenance of defense infrastructure by the United States is almost entirely financed by the host countries. All of this is being blown apart by the legitimate Iranian retaliation.
The ineffectiveness of the protection provided by the United States had already been demonstrated in last year’s war, but also by the launches from Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis toward Israel, which shattered the myth surrounding the Iron Dome. In a certain sense, the success of many of those attacks represented a humiliation for the all-powerful American arms industry. The several MQ-9 Reaper drones shot down by the Yemenis represented losses amounting to $200 million — the drones used by the Houthis to shoot down the American aircraft cost an insignificant fraction to produce.
The ineffectiveness of American protection also reveals the extremely low quality of the products of its military complex. This complex is dominated by a small handful of monopolies such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon which, without competitors and with clients subservient to the American government, see no need to make the maximum effort to produce weapons and systems of unsurpassable quality. Finally, corruption runs rampant in this field, and inferior peoples such as those of the Gulf do not deserve to consume products of the same quality as those destined for America — apparently their regimes are willing to pay dearly for anything.
Iran, with all its experience of more than four decades dealing with aggression, has known how to use these vulnerabilities very well. Leaders at the highest levels of the Iranian state publicly insist that peace in the Middle East is impossible while U.S. bases remain operational in the region. Saeed Khatibzadeh, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, stated, “We have no option but to put an end to the existence of American presence in the Persian Gulf area.” These appeals are certainly circulating in neighboring countries — both among the general population and within the armed and political forces.
The Persian nation is not only attacking military installations but also strategic targets that affect the nerve center of the Gulf countries’ economies: the energy industry — in retaliation for the bombings of its own oil infrastructure by the United States and Israel. These Iranian attacks place even greater pressure on the puppet regimes of imperialism to do something to stop their masters. The obvious solution would be to prevent the use of their territory for aggression against Iran, which would necessarily imply closing the military bases.
Although all these countries are dictatorships that repress any dissent, as the suffering of the civilian population increases, popular discontent may become uncontrollable. Their rulers know this and are already racking their brains to find a safe way out of this potentially explosive situation.
Will the peoples of these countries swallow all the lying propaganda that their regimes — fed by the lie industry of the United States and Israel — try to tell them, that Iran is the aggressor and responsible for the attacks? But why do the United States build missile launch bases so close to residential neighborhoods? Clearly, just like the Israelis, this is not a “moral” and “ethical” army: those people exist to serve as human shields for American soldiers. The logic of protection is inverted: it is not U.S. anti-aircraft systems that serve to protect the Saudi, Emirati or Qatari people — it is these second-class citizens who must die to protect the occupying forces.
Moreover, U.S. military bases frequently house soldiers responsible for crimes against local populations. This became explicit during the Iraq War. For example, the rape of a 14-year-old girl named Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, followed by her murder and the killing of her family after soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division invaded her house in Mahmudiya in 2004. Or the rapes documented over years during the invasion of Iraq, together with the practice of sexual exploitation and prostitution carried out in areas near American military installations such as Balad Air Base, used by the 4th Infantry Division.
On the 1st, U.S. Marines killed at least nine protesters who attempted to storm the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, in protest against the criminal aggression against Iran that had already massacred about 150 girls in an Iranian school the previous day. This is what imperialist presence in the countries of the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America serves for: to rape, murder and use the natives themselves as human shields, not to protect them.
How long will it take before they rise up against this true military occupation? Probably not long.
No comments:
Post a Comment