Category: Uncategorized

By Biljana Vankovska

A prefatory note:

This article was drafted on the eve of Hungary’s parliamentary elections (12 April 2026), before the final results were confirmed. Writing now, with the outcome known, the essential analysis remains unchanged.

The election has not produced a democratic breakthrough, nor does it signal a turn toward genuine pluralism or sustainable development. What we are witnessing is a recalibration of dependency: a shift from friction with EU disciplinary mechanisms toward alternative alignments that may unlock funds—but at the cost of deeper entanglement in geopolitical agendas, including the militarisation of Europe and the prolongation of the war in Ukraine. The structural constraints outlined in this text—the narrowing of political space, the absence of a credible left, the substitution of personnel for policy—have not been overturned. If anything, the result confirms them. There are no grounds for celebration. Only clarity.

* * *

It is probably of little importance to Hungary that one of its most significant parliamentary elections coincides with Orthodox Easter. Yet those of us on “the other side of the civilizational divide” (even if the author herself is not a believer) may still indulge in a metaphor: will Orbán manage to be reborn once again after sixteen years in power? Will Viktor remain victorious, or will his much younger opponent, will his much younger opponent, Péter Magyar (whose very name means ‘Hungarian,’ turning the contest into a symbolic duel: Orbán vs. ‘The Hungarian(s)’), emerge as the new national leader?” There is a symbolic resonance here, even though coincidental: the rival’s name itself becomes a rhetorical weapon; Magyar can position himself as the “true embodiment” of the nation against Orbán’s personalized rule.

The extraordinary international attention these elections attract in what, at first glance, is a small and seemingly insignificant European country is driven far more by external (geopolitical and geo-economic) factors than by democratic concerns. Orbán has long been branded in the West as a far-right autocrat. In principle, Hungarian elections should represent a “celebration of democracy,” a moment when citizens’ voices are heard and their will respected. Yet public opinion surveys and expert analyses suggest a different picture: while outsiders view Hungary as a battleground within an increasingly fractured transatlantic (and European) bloc, Hungarian citizens themselves are far less concerned with foreign policy. Like people elsewhere, they are preoccupied with the living standard, economic insecurity, migration, and corruption—in simple terms, with their everyday well-being.

From an external perspective, Hungary represents yet another example of internal fractures within the West. Orbán, alongside several other European leaders, has positioned himself as a kind of European echo of Donald Trump—a strongman, populist, and sovereignist. At times, he even cultivates the aura of a “dissident” or “peacemaker,” one of the few leaders willing to challenge Brussels over the escalation of the war in Ukraine. At the same time, he remains a close ally of Benjamin Netanyahu and a participant in Trump’s so-called “peace board.”

He can also be described as a skilled global political operator, capable of balancing Hungary economically between non-Western powers such as Russia, China, and India, while pursuing pragmatic economic diplomacy in the national interest. Yet after sixteen years in power and firm control over state institutions, it is hardly surprising if a leader begins to believe in his own omnipotence and drifts away from both public promises and the interests of those within the system.

There is much more that could be said about Orbán. But, judging from the experience of many countries with long-entrenched rulers, change itself can be good news. The more troubling question, however, is: is it real change—or merely replacement? Who is the successor, and what vision does he offer?

Based on what is currently known about the young Magyar, apart from his energy, charisma, and ability to consolidate the opposition into a single bloc (thereby reducing pluralism and turning the election into a two-camp confrontation), one can only conclude that he is a product of Fidesz itself, or better a political offspring of Orbán’s system, now breaking away to claim leadership. His ideological positioning is best captured in the slogan: “neither left nor right—only Hungary.” In other words, a marginalization of ideology in favor of national rhetoric. This closely mirrors Orbán’s own claim that his party embodies Hungary itself.

Both contenders thus compete on the same terrain (nationalism and conservatism), differing only in nuance. Magyar’s main weapon is his anti-corruption stance, coupled with clear signals that he would be a far more compliant partner within the EU and NATO. Presumably, this is tied to expectations that Hungary would regain access to EU funds, often restricted under Orbán. Yet how this “mathematics” will work—securing financial inflows while simultaneously committing resources to military purposes, including involvement in Ukraine—remains unclear.

Observers of Hungary’s electoral system already point to four possible post-election scenarios, as power distribution depends on a complex institutional mosaic. Magyar could win without real power—or the opposite. A “Bulgarian scenario” of prolonged instability and polarization is also possible. Much will depend on the well-known phenomenon of the “silent majority,” which often decides at the last moment and ultimately tips the balance.

What remains largely overlooked is the narrowed—almost non-existent—pluralist party landscape. While experts debate whether the elections are democratic or fair, few notice the deeper reality: Hungary has effectively become a “left-less country.”

Although I apply strict criteria when defining the left (and would not include social-democratic or liberal variants), the current contest is clearly between two populist, nationalist, conservative figures, with only a minor far-right party (Mi Hazánk Movement) hoping to pick up crumbs in potential coalition negotiations. The Hungarian Socialist Party has withdrawn from the race, while the liberal-left Democratic Coalition may struggle to cross the 5% threshold.

The differences between the main actors lie in age and nuance, not in any meaningful ideological or strategic divergence. Hungary will remain a pawn in larger geopolitical games, while the opposition will merely simulate dissent rather than offer a genuine alternative.

Partly due to historical factors, especially the discrediting of the old left, from which Orbán himself once emerged, and partly due to the systematic narrowing of democratic space, little is likely to change regardless of the electoral outcome. Elections, in this sense, lose their meaning—except perhaps for external geopolitical actors.

The phenomenon of “left-less countries” is becoming increasingly troubling, particularly in states that emerged from behind the “Iron Curtain” with deep hostility toward anything associated with socialism or communism. This is also evident in Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland. In many other European countries, leftist forces are deliberately labeled “far-right” in order to discredit them or blur distinctions with the genuinely rising radical right.

The Czech Republic has gone furthest by banning far-left organizations and even communist symbols, equating them with Nazism. This is not new, but it is intensifying in a world increasingly teetering on the brink, where a genuine left would need the courage to openly support those who refuse submission—not only to Brussels or Washington, but to any hegemonic center.

Hungary thus stands as a case where democratic elections risk becoming a façade without real alternatives. Magyar, like others, looks to Brussels for funding—even as Europe moves toward rearmament, militarization, and industrial conversion for war.

In the Balkans, we have long captured this reality in a simple proverb: “Out goes Murto, in comes Kurto” (Sjaši Murto da uzjaše Kurto). An old comic (the famous Franco-Belgian comic series Iznogoud) from my youth told the story of the Grand Vizier constantly proclaiming: “I want to be Caliph instead of the Caliph.” That, ultimately, is what these elections may bring.

The West will remain divided—with or without Orbán—and Europe is structurally dependent (as my friend Ali Borhani has rightly named vassalallies/vassal-allies to the US), even if, by some miracle, it frees itself from Trump.

It’s the system, stupid. It does not allow real change—only cosmetic replacements.

By John Ross

Iran has won the first battle in the US war of aggression against it. But it is an error to claim, as some genuinely and rightly against the US aggression have done, that Iran has yet won the war. This is based on an underestimation of the strength and ruthlessness of US imperialism. The outcome of the next round depends on the result of the illegal US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This result, in turn, depends not only on the resistance of the Iranian people but also on countries seeking an independent path of development, and the people of the US itself, refusing to accept the US claim to unilaterally control the high seas and blockade any country it wishes.

If Iran has indeed won the war against the US, this would be the greatest strategic defeat of the US since Vietnam, as some have stated—some have claimed, wrongly, that it would be an even greater defeat than Vietnam. But exactly because it would be such a strategic defeat for the US, US imperialism has no intention of giving up simply because it has lost the first round. It, instead, will change its tactics to attack Iran. As the Wall Street Journal bluntly summarised: “As the President said in his first term, the U.S. shouldn’t start a war it doesn’t intend to win. His challenge now is to prove to Iran’s regime he meant what he said.” Activity in solidarity with Iran must be redoubled.

The US has turned to an attempted blockade of Iran, rather than bombing, precisely because Iran clearly won the first round in the US/Israeli war of aggression against it. The reason for the US ceasefire, and the substitution of an attempted blockade, is that the US concluded that it could not domestically withstand the political cost that would have resulted from the almost complete destruction of oil and gas production in the Persian Gulf, and the years-long increase in oil prices in the US that would have followed from it, which would have been the inevitable result of Iran’s military retaliation in the Gulf against a US attack on its power supply and energy production.

Therefore, due to Iran’s military capacity for resistance, the US decided it could not carry out its threat to bomb Iran’s power and energy infrastructure and Trump’s threat that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again”. The US, therefore, chose a different form of escalation—to launch a more prolonged strategy of a war of attrition to try to grind Iran down financially by blocking its oil exports. This policy, however, due to the inevitable months-long high oil and energy prices it would create, attacks in a prolonged way not only Iran, but the economy of every country and the population of the US itself. For this reason, even the US’s closest allies, for example in Europe, have refused to support the blockade.

As the US has switched, for the moment, to an economic war of attrition against Iran rather than a direct bombing attack (this could change at any moment), a key measure is going to be the oil price, as the higher the oil price goes, due to the effect of this in lowering living standards, the greater will be the discontent and opposition in the US to Trump’s war.

At the time of writing, the oil price has risen by 45% since 27 February, the day before the US attack on Iran—the peak since the beginning of the war was 69% on 7 April, before the US and Iran agreed a ceasefire. Due to the oil price increase the US consumer price index rose from 2.4% in February to 3.3% in March—a painful shock for the US population, which largely explains the President’s current low opinion poll ratings. According to the latest YouGov poll, only 39% of the US population was “satisfied” with the President, while 67% believed the country was “on the wrong track”.

But while this energy price increase is extremely painful for the US population it is not by itself enough to cause a deep crisis in the US economy. This is why US financial share markets have not fallen in any major way. This situation is in line with my analyses, published in Chinese at guancha.cn, that the key to the situation in the US is not the economy itself, which at 2% year on year GDP growth, on the latest data is slow, but relatively stable, and not facing a deep crisis, but it is the political impact of these economic processes— see my articles 躁郁症式”分析不可取：什么是决定中美竞争胜负的关键？[‘Bipolar Disorder’ analysis is inadvisable: What is key to determining the outcome of US-China competition?] and 美元低迷就是总统执政失败，特朗普能否打破魔咒？[A weak dollar has signified a crisis for US presidents; can Trump break the curse?]

The political configuration, which faces the US administration, as a result of its latest policy of blockade is therefore the following. The US is attacking Iran, the economies of all countries in the world, and the living standards of the people of the US itself. The more these forces understand their common interests and coordinate their actions, the more certain it is that this US aggression against Iran, but also against them all, will be defeated. Solidarity must be redoubled in that framework.

No Cold War Statement on the War Without End فارسی / Farsi

The capitalist United States has imposed war upon war on the planet for over 90% of its existence since 1776 – only pausing for a few years in its early period. Almost all these wars have been wars of choice, often taking place very far from the US mainland (the wars in the Philippines and Vietnam took place 13,000 km away). These wars resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of civilians, with horrendous weaponry used (including nuclear bombs in Japan and chemical weapons in Vietnam and Iraq). Forty-five men have been president of the United States. All of them have entangled their country in a foreign war or a war against people on the land being settled, particularly Native Americans, enslaved Africans, and immigrants. This belligerent habit has discarded US law (particularly the War Powers Resolution of 1973) and, by default, has permitted US presidents to use their massive military power against the planet.

This pattern is evident in the current conjuncture. In 2026, US President Donald Trump deepened or initiated five major conflicts on the planet. Three of them are being conducted alongside the government of Israel, which operates in a twinned manner with the United States government, alongside European countries that provide diplomatic support and weaponry. Each of these wars violates the United Nations Charter, making them illegal acts that should receive condemnation in the UN Security Council; all of them are wars of aggression, which means that the person who authorised them is a war criminal.

1. Venezuela. On 3 January 2026, United States violated Article 2 of the UN Charter when it invaded a member state of the UN, kidnapped its sitting president, and forced the country to submit to demands devised by the United States government.
2. Cuba. The United States has conducted an illegal economic blockade of Cuba since 1960, violating Article 41 of the UN Charter that only permits third-party sanctions to be imposed with a UN Security Council resolution (of which there has been none). This blockade was deepened on 29 January 2026, when Trump forbade any third country from providing oil to Cuba, forcing the country to survive on about a third of its energy supply.
3. Iran. On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel, in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter, began a barrage of attacks on Iran, killing civilians with abandon and destroying infrastructure across the country, as well as assassinating the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. These attacks come less than a year after the United States and Israel bombed Iran’s nuclear energy facilities over twelve days in June 2025. The recent bombings provoked retaliation from Iran against US military bases that are less shields for Iran’s neighbours and more targets. The war has led to the partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which has resulted in a major fuel and food catastrophe across the world.
4. Lebanon. Taking advantage of the war on Iran, Israel has been ruthlessly bombing the south of Lebanon and its capital, Beirut, in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter. A fifth of the population has been displaced, and thousands of civilians have been killed and wounded.
5. Palestine. As part of the unending and brutal genocide against the Palestinians, despite the ceasefire, Israel has attacked the cities in Gaza repeatedly and has been confiscating land in the Occupied West Bank as well as removing Palestinians from the area in violation of several UN resolutions on the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

These five wars are related to each other, being part of the US-driven imperialism that has begun to shape the planet (we are aware of other wars, in Myanmar, Sudan, and Ukraine, for example, but those will be for another statement). Unable to drive an agenda to recover its declined economic power and the rise of the Global South (particularly China), the United States has shifted its focus to its military force. But even here, the United States finds that it can destroy infrastructure and kill civilians, but it cannot seem to subdue nations politically. Each of these countries stands tall. None of them are willing to surrender.

Despair and demoralisation are not to be the mood of the world’s people. From Cuba to Palestine, those who are being fired upon fight back with everything they have at their disposal. They require the world to stand with them and not to be despondent. They require condemnation of US imperialism, and they require that we never treat such violence as normal. These wars appear to be without end. But they will end. The human spirit is far too strong to be vanquished by tormentors. It uses every avenue to refuse a world in which this history of war without end determines our future.

By Tings Chak & Atul Chandra

We descended into Chibichibi Cave in southern Okinawa with the heavy feeling that this was not a site of distant history, but a warning. The cave is low enough that you have to bend forward as you walk. The air is damp, the light disappears quickly, and the air becomes suffocatingly warm. In April 1945, as US forces landed on the island, 140 Okinawan civilians (mostly elders, women, and children) hid here. Eighty-five of them would die by their own hands. Parents killed their children first, then themselves.

This was not an act of collective madness, nor a cultural predisposition to suicide. What happened here was manufactured. It was the consequence of disinformation used as a weapon of war.

At Chibichibi, Okinawan civilians had been told by the Japanese Imperial Army that US soldiers were “red devils” who would rape and torture them. They were taught that capture was shameful, that as subjects of the emperor they must never surrender. Terrified, trapped, and cut off from reliable information, families acted on lies that proved fatal. In a neighboring cave, everyone survived – because two people had lived in Hawai’i, and some had first-hand knowledge of the United States that contradicted Japanese education, and had the means to communicate with US soldiers.

Takamatsu Gushiken, known locally as the “bone digger,” guided us through the cave. He is also one of the core members of the local activist group, No More Battle of Okinawa. For decades, he has helped recover the remains of hundreds of people killed during the Battle of Okinawa. Before entering, he asked a simple question: Why are we going into this cave? His answer was equally simple – because we do not want this to happen again. Not in Okinawa, not in Asia, not anywhere.

Okinawa makes up just 0.6% of Japan’s landmass, yet it hosts roughly 70% of all US military facilities in Japan, one of the most militarized colonies of the US. Seeing it firsthand, one quickly realizes that this is not a matter of isolated bases; it is an overwhelming military encirclement. Fences cut off coastlines, fighter jets thunder overhead, and entire communities are hemmed in by infrastructure built for war. Calling these installations “bases” is misleading – they function more like a permanent occupation embedded into everyday life.

Today, in the heightened New Cold War that the US is imposing on China, this infrastructure is expanding. The same island that was sacrificed as a battlefield in 1945 is being prepared for sacrifice again.

At Henoko, a once-pristine coastal area known locally as a “hope spot,” a new military base is being constructed on reclaimed land, despite repeated local opposition documented by the Okinawa Prefectural Government and international observers. For nearly three decades, Okinawans have resisted this project through elections, referenda, court cases, and daily acts of civil disobedience. All have been ignored. Since 2014, elderly protesters (many in their seventies and eighties) have gathered every single day at the gates of Camp Schwab, sustaining a daily resistance for more than a decade. They sit on folding chairs, block trucks carrying landfill material, and are forcibly removed by security guards and police. As they are dragged away (by their own community members, men the age of the protesters’ sons, grandsons, students, and neighbors) they sing: “No to war.” “Protect nature.” “Don’t give away our children’s future.”

Hundreds of trucks pass through daily, carrying sand and stone to fill the sea. Some of that soil comes from areas where the remains of those killed in the Battle of Okinawa are still being recovered. “This is like killing the dead a second time,” Gushiken tells us.

To understand why Okinawa bears this burden, we have to look beyond the present moment. The Ryukyu Kingdom, which once governed these islands, maintained diplomatic and trade relations across East and Southeast Asia for centuries. It was forcibly annexed by Japan in 1879 and subjected to systematic cultural suppression. Okinawan languages were banned in schools, economic development was deliberately stunted, and discrimination was institutionalized. During the Battle of Okinawa in 1945, approximately one quarter of the civilian population was killed, a figure established in postwar historical research and official Okinawan memorial records. Japanese troops used civilians as human shields and coerced mass suicides, particularly in Okinawa (a pattern not seen on the Japanese mainland.)

After Japan’s defeat, Okinawa remained under direct US military rule until 1972. Even after its “reversion” to Japan, the bases stayed. Land seizures, environmental contamination, and crimes committed by US personnel (often shielded from local justice) became enduring features of life on the island.

Today, Okinawa is being transformed once again, this time into a frontline staging ground in an increasingly militarized regional order, as outlined in US strategic planning documents and war-game assessments that explicitly depend on bases in Okinawa. New missile deployments, base expansions, and joint military exercises are carried out in the name of “security”, while local democratic opposition is overridden as an inconvenience. Every available channel (elections, referenda, lawsuits) has been exhausted. When Okinawan votes conflict with military priorities, they are simply ignored.

Yet the resistance of Okinawan has been continuous and deeply rooted. Women’s organizations have documented decades of sexual violence linked to the military presence, most notably Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence, which has maintained detailed case records since the mid-1990s. Teachers’ unions, farmers, artists, and religious groups have all played roles in the anti-base movement. Sculptor Kinjo Minoru spent ten years creating works that trace life before, during, and after the war, insisting that memory itself is a form of resistance. Artists, musicians, and educators continue to insist that peace education is not optional – it is a matter of survival.

One guide told us that for thirty years after the war, families from the same village did not speak to each other about what happened in the caves. The trauma was too deep. Only later did people begin to ask the hardest question of all: Why did this happen here? The answer leads back, again and again, to colonial domination, militarized education, and information controlled by those preparing for war.

Chibichiri Cave is a warning from the past, reminding us that those who died there were not irrational, but were tragic victims of fear-mongering. Rather than being incidental to the war, disinformation was part of its logistics. In an era of escalating hyper-imperialist military aggression of the United States (from Okinawa to Gaza, from Iran to Venezuela) disinformation once again plays a central role in shaping public consent for war.

Okinawa reminds us that war does not begin with bombs. It begins with stories, about enemies, about threats, about inevitability. And it reminds us that resisting war requires more than slogans, and contesting the disinformation campaigns in the New Cold War requires solidarity based on communication, exchange of reliable information, and a refusal to accept narratives of dehumanization.

As we left the cave, Gushiken’s question came up again: Why do we go inside? We go because to remember is to take on responsibility. Okinawa is small, as a local saying goes, but you cannot swallow a needle. Despite decades of occupation and sacrifice imposed by others, Okinawans continue to resist being used as a battlefield, from World War II to the New Cold War. Remembering Okinawa is not about the past; it is about refusing to be prepared for war in the present.

As Gushiken put it plainly before we left the cave: “The problems we see today in Okinawa with the US and Japan are the result of the unresolved problems of 1945, and the Battle of Okinawa.” This insistence (that the war never truly ended here) is the political and moral core of the demand and the movement he is part of: No More Battle of Okinawa.

Tings Chak and Atul Chandra are the Asia co-coordinators of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

This article was previously published here by Peoples Dispatch (Lee en español aquí) and is produced by Globetrotter.

Okinawa reminds us that war does not begin with bombs. It begins with stories, about enemies, about threats, about inevitability.

By Bodapati Srujana

Two days after the United States and Israel launched attacks that killed Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei and hundreds of others—including more than 160 children in a strike on a girls’ school—a United States submarine torpedoed and sank the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena in the Indian Ocean as it was returning from participating in the multinational naval exercise MILAN hosted by India.

Only days earlier, the ship had been docked in Visakhapatnam as an invited participant in India’s flagship multilateral naval exercise. The vessel took part in ceremonial events, including a parade attended by the President of India.

Yet shortly after leaving the region, the Iranian frigate was destroyed by torpedoes fired from an US nuclear submarine near the southern coast of Sri Lanka, roughly twenty nautical miles from the port of Galle. Sri Lanka’s navy launched rescue operations and pulled 32 sailors from the water. Around 160 members of the crew died at sea.

The vessel and its crew had only days earlier been welcomed as guests of the Indian Navy. They had participated in ceremonies and professional exchanges at India’s invitation. Yet the unarmed ship was attacked almost at India’s doorstep while departing the region.

The destruction of an invited naval guest within India’s maritime neighborhood—by a military with whom Prime Minister Modi has sought closer alignment—raises uncomfortable questions for India. The Indian government’s subsequent silence is striking; by withholding both public condemnation of the attack and condolences for the lost sailors, New Delhi risks self-inflicted humiliation. For a ship welcomed by India to be sunk without a formal response suggests a concerning subordination of regional prestige to diplomatic convenience.

Meanwhile in Washington, The US Secretary of War publicly boasted of the sinking of the Iranian frigate by its submarine near India. The contrast could not be starker. This is not an isolated episode. Despite the United States violation of Iranian sovereignty and the killing of Iran’s head of state, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, India has remained silent.

Modi – Israel

The attack on Iran and the killing of Khamenei began soon after Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel and his address to the Knesset. The nature of the visit was humiliating in itself. He was reportedly not invited as an official guest of state but rather as a personal guest of Bibi Netanyahu, a war criminal.

Modi addressed a Knesset session that was boycotted by the opposition, while non-members filled vacant seats. He was also awarded a hitherto non-existent Knesset Medal drummed up particularly for him. There, he smiled and simpered and proclaimed solidarity with Israel against terrorism, all the while Israel and the United States were mobilising armadas and equipment for war against Iran, in view of the whole world. This simpering and humiliating behaviour not only embarrassed the country but also made India appear complicit in the US-Israel alliance’s aggression against Iran.

Within two days of the visit, Iran was attacked. No one can say that India did not realise an attack on Iran was forthcoming when it was evident to the rest of the world. This is a continuation of India turning its back on the people of Gaza in the international arena—always careful not to condemn Israel for its ongoing genocide of Palestinians, all the while expressing support for Israel against alleged “terrorism.”

Under Modi, India has come a long way, from being one of the first countries to recognise Palestine to the shameful abandonment of the Palestinian cause, increasingly sliding into the embrace of a genocidal regime, with India’s top industrialists taking part in the production of Israeli drones that are used against Palestinians and Iran, under the Indian government’s benevolent gaze.

India-Iran

Iran, as has been claimed by the current Indian government multiple times over the years, has long been a strong friend and civilizational neighbour to India. Since the late 2000s, however, India has been downgrading its economic relations with Iran under pressure from the United States, in a bid to get closer to Washington. India signed the nuclear deal with the US, which so far has yielded little benefit in the field of nuclear energy and, in return, abandoned Iran’s gas pipelines, a project that would have been vital for India’s energy security.

Since 2019, under US sanctions, Iran, which used to be India’s second-largest supplier of oil, has seen its exports to India nearly drop to zero. The Indian government has not had the initiative to seek ways to import heavily discounted Iranian oil, as China has done.

Nonetheless, Iran has long been a time-tested friend of India. With long run hostilities involving Pakistan, India’s only viable route to Central Asia, has been through the Chabahar port, which Iran has allowed India to develop, enabling continued trade with Afghanistan and the wider central Asian region. Even so, India has often dragged its feet on the port’s development under pressure of US sanctions.

The strategic importance of Chabahar for India cannot be overstated. Yet, the US recently ended the waiver that had allowed India to fund and construct the port, without a word of protest from the Indian government. Chabahar was reportedly a bomb target on the first day of the US-Israel campaign, in complete disregard for India’s interests.

Iran is a central node in the proposed International North–South Transport Corridor, a 7,200-kilometre trade route linking India to Russia and Europe. The corridor—conceived jointly by India, Iran, and Russia—aims to connect ports such as Mumbai to cities like Moscow through a network of sea, rail, and road routes, dramatically reducing transport time and costs while deepening Eurasian trade connectivity.

For India, the project carries strategic significance. It offers a route into Eurasia that bypasses Western-dominated maritime chokepoints and traditional trade corridors, potentially giving India greater economic and geopolitical autonomy in its access to Central Asia, Russia, and Europe. Yet despite the importance of Iran to this project, and the implications for India’s own long-term strategic and economic interests, New Delhi has chosen to remain silent in the face of the attack on Iran.

Even with occasional statements critical of India’s stance on Kashmir, Iran has often supported Indian interests in various international forums, including by helping to block resolutions pushed by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation that could have led to sanctions against India. Under Ayatollah Khamenei, whose views have guided Iran’s foreign policy, Iran has been a trusted friend. Yet, the Indian government did not have the spine to condemn his killing by the United States.

Shallow and Opportunistic Calculations

India’s complete abandonment of non-alignment, autonomy, and political spine in the face of US hegemony under Trump—under the Modi government—stems from shallow, opportunistic calculations of India’s economic interests. More precisely, these are the economic interests of India’s large corporate houses, which Narendra Modi has championed throughout his political career, and whose priorities have been the cornerstone of both domestic and foreign policy since he took office.

India’s top domestic monopoly houses have been keenly pursuing partnerships with both Israeli and US corporations. With little concern for investing in the development of sovereign national capabilities in technology, research, and innovation, these Indian corporations have recently been entering subordinate technological partnerships with US firms as a strategy for their next phase of growth. In doing so, they are seeking access to the US market while leaving India’s domestic economy and technological base underdeveloped and impoverished.

The Indian government’s foreign policy and domestic economic strategy have been structured around these corporate interests. The government has been assiduously pursuing a subordinated partnership with the United States solely to this end. There can be no other justification. This relationship of subordination that India has cultivated with the US is certainly not aligned with the interests of its own people.

A Flawed Strategy

US hostile actions of its guests in India’s backyard, only underscore that the subordinate partnership is unlikely to yield any benefits for India’s economy or its people.

Recently, US Deputy Secretary of State Landau, speaking in India, did not mince his words when he said that the US has no intention of letting India develop the way China did, leveraging US markets.

Trump’s imposition of 50 percent tariffs, later reduced only to 18 percent, and the push for India to adopt zero tariffs, forcing it to stop purchase of discounted Russian oil beneficial to the Indian economy, further illustrates this point. While the US is determined to make India complicit in its international misadventures, it is equally resolved that India should never grow into its own technological and industrial power.

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a major portion of India’s oil supplies passes, due to US actions, leaving India with only about 25 days of reserves, represents a serious blow to the Indian economy.

At the same time, India, until now, had been restricted from purchasing discounted Russian oil under terms tied to US trade deals, which offer dubious benefits. On 06 March, US Treasurer Besset generously suggested that India could purchase Russian oil already on its way within a month; after that, India would have to buy US oil at much higher prices. This is nothing but economic extortion—to which the Modi government appears blindly acquiescent.

This is where the intellectual hollowness of Modi’s economic and political strategy for India becomes apparent. The path India is pursuing internationally, pandering to US misadventures, is not only morally and ethically wrong, but it is also against the material interests of India and its people. One can only hope that India discovers its spine and stands up for the rest of the Global South in the current scenario, though this seems unlikely under Modi.

Bodapati Srujana works in the area of agrarian relations in India, having participated in several studies around the country. She often writes on issues in the Indian Economy.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

By Vijay Prashad

For Paki Wieland (1944-2026), who fought the cruelty of US imperialism all her adult life.

The morning of my departure from José Martí Airport, named after the father of the nation, I hugged everybody: the woman who checked me in, the man who stamped my passport, the ground staff. I had hugged all my friends tightly the previous day, my tears fighting for the right to stream down my face. It felt as though, through these hugs, I wanted to somehow transmit my trepidation about what could possibly happen to Cuba, the Cubans, the Cuban Revolution – all of it – because of the madness of Donald Trump.

**

What has the world become? It is as if billions of people have become bystanders of the atrocities imposed by the United States and Israel: the genocide of the Palestinian people, the kidnapping of the Venezuelan president, the pummeling of Iran without cause, and of course, the attempt to asphyxiate Cuba. The decadent brutality of the US government, sharpened by the foolhardiness of Trump, is unpredictable and dangerous. No one can accurately say what comes next. Trump seems trapped in Iran, where he did not anticipate the political wisdom of the Iranians in refusing a ceasefire now, only for the US and Israel to rearm and destroy their cities with greater ferocity in a week. Trump cannot seem to bring the war in Ukraine or the genocide against the Palestinians to a halt. Trump’s ally, Israel, has once again widened its war to Lebanon and thus threatens to shake up the streets of the Arab world, where there is already disquiet at their utterly pliant governments. Will he strike Cuba next, thinking it will be a quick victory?

It is hard for me to describe the impact of Trump’s cruel Oil Embargo to Cuba. There has been no shipment of refined oil to Cuba since early December 2025. This means that every part of modern life has been utterly disrupted. The roads of Havana are quiet because there is simply not enough fuel for cars and buses to take people around. Schools and hospitals – the temples of revolutionary Cuba – struggle to maintain basic services. Farmers struggle to bring food into the cities, and medicines are expensive, if they are available. Imagine being a patient who needs to have neurosurgery, with doctors simply unwilling to risk putting a probe into your brain amid electricity fluctuations and rolling blackouts. This was the starkest example of the dangers of the Trump Oil Blockade that I heard during my time in Havana. As I walked around the Malecon, I saw a few horse-drawn carts go by. It is almost as if the yanqui wants to punish the Cuban Revolution and thrust ten million Cuban citizens into the Iron Age.

**

I came to Cuba as part of a delegation of solidarity from the International Peoples Assembly, a platform of hundreds of organizations from around the world that are trying to reestablish movement-to-movement internationalism. Our delegation was led by João Pedro Stedile (national direction of the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement), and included Fred M’membe (President of the Socialist Party of Zambia and the opposition’s candidate for president this year), Brian Becker (one of the leaders of the Party for Socialism and Liberation in the United States), Manolo De Los Santos (director of The People’s Forum), Giuliano Granato (one of the leaders of Potere al Popolo from Italy) as well as Manuel Bertoldi and Laura Capote (coordinators of the ALBA Movements). We visited many places, including the Latin American School of Medicine (ELAM), the Institute of Neurology, the Martin Luther King Center and Casa De Las Americas. We met with the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba and the President of Cuba, as well as countless ordinary Cubans. We went to the main cemetery in Havana to pay homage to the 32 Cubans who lost their lives defending Venezuelan sovereignty, and we walked around the city of Havana to meet people who were going about their everyday lives.

During one of the conversations, a friend asked how I found Cuba, a place I have visited countless times over the past 30 years. I said that I found the situation difficult but that the people seemed irrepressible. My friend was clear: the prevailing sensibility in the country was that the Cubans would fight to the very end to defend their right to a future and their refusal to return to 1958, the year before the Revolution.

During the early years of the Revolution, Fidel Castro made it clear that the urgency was to solve the people’s immediate needs and problems. This meant that the Cuban Revolution placed its emphasis on ending hunger and poverty, illiteracy and ill health, as well as providing housing and cultural spaces. To see the deterioration of life because of the harsh, nearly 70-year Embargo and the new Oil Blockade is heartbreaking. The priority remains to ensure that every Cuban can live a life of dignity. This was the message as well from the President of Cuba, Miguel Diaz Canel, a man of great humility: we will resist, he said, but we will not permit the Revolution to squander its gains and its emphasis on the well-being of our people.

Sitting on a rocking chair beside my friend Abel Prieto, a former Minister of Culture, in Casa De Las Americas, was a tonic. As usual, Abel, my fellow Marxist-Lennonist (!), made me laugh aloud and at the same time feel sorrow. His comments ranged from an assessment of Trump (with “madness” being the word most often used) to his sense of the vitality of Cuban reality (the remarkable crowds that stood in pouring rain to pay homage to the remains of the Cubans killed by the US forces in Venezuela on January 3). I felt comforted by his balance between humor and clarity, Abel’s literary sensibility in control of the fast-moving situation.

I accepted Abel’s view that perhaps the United States in its current form is a gigantic mistake – the arrogance of Trump a reflection of something inherent in the extreme idealism that the United States and its administrations know better than anyone else. They believe they know better what should be done to the Palestinians, the Venezuelans, the Iranians, and the Cubans. In the name of “democracy,” the democratic rights and existential rights of the people in these darker nations are utterly absorbed by the US President – the holder of preponderant power. It is an ugly vision but a real one, a reality that rips sensitive people around the world away from their own desire to shape a reality that is not so hideous. A third of the people killed in Iran by the United States and Israel are children, and the children of Palestine, whose names we honor, will never become adults.

**

On my last day, I saw a group of Cuban schoolchildren playing in a park, dressed in their school uniforms, their revolutionary scarves around their necks. They were chirping with laughter and chatter. I watched them from across the road playing a game, supervised by two smiling teachers, with some cones on the ground – a game that required them to weave between them. These children must have been about five or six, boys and girls who played in a cocoon of great happiness. I sent them a virtual hug. Be safe children. Always. Hug Cuba for me every day.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. He is the author of forty books, including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South, and How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa, written with Grieve Chelwa. He is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, the chief correspondent for Globetrotter, and the chief editor of LeftWord Books (New Delhi). He also appeared in the films Shadow World (2016) and Two Meetings (2017).

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

English

On 28 February, Israel and the United States launched military strikes on various targets in Iran. Israel and the United States claimed that they fired ‘pre-emptively’. But there was nothing pre-emptive about these strikes, since Iran has neither threatened Israel nor the United States, nor has Iran built up its military capacity to do so. These strikes are an act of aggression, a violation of the United Nations Charter. Iran has said repeatedly that it is uninterested in attaining nuclear weapons, and it has negotiated in good faith with the United Nations, the United States, and the European Union to prevent any continuation of conflict. Both Israel and the United States have acted in bad faith, uninterested in negotiations and only focused on war.

No Cold War condemns these military strikes on Iran. We call upon the United Nations Security Council to convene an immediate session to deliberate on the violation of the UN Charter, namely Article 2 that protects the sovereignty of each member states, including Iran.

---

Spanish / Español

No a la Guerra Fría Condena la agresión militar de Israel y Estados Unidos contra Irán

El 28 de febrero, Israel y Estados Unidos lanzaron ataques militares contra varios objetivos en Irán. Israel y Estados Unidos afirmaron que dispararon «de forma preventiva». Pero estos ataques no tuvieron nada de preventivo, ya que Irán no ha amenazado ni a Israel ni a Estados Unidos, ni ha desarrollado su capacidad militar para hacerlo. Estos ataques son un acto de agresión, una violación de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas. Irán ha dicho en repetidas ocasiones que no está interesado en obtener armas nucleares y ha negociado de buena fe con las Naciones Unidas, Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea para evitar que el conflicto continúe. Tanto Israel como Estados Unidos han actuado de mala fe, sin interés en las negociaciones y centrados únicamente en la guerra.

No Cold War condena estos ataques militares contra Irán. Hacemos un llamado al Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas para que convoque una sesión inmediata para deliberar sobre la violación de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, concretamente el artículo 2, que protege la soberanía de cada uno de los Estados miembros, incluido Irán.

---

فارسی / Farsi

By John Ross

The second Trump presidency differs from previous US administrations in rhetoric and tactics.

It is carrying out military attacks and intensified blockades against Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran. But it simultaneously imposes tariffs, insults allies, and makes threats such as seizing Greenland from  Denmark.

Against China, early in this presidency, the US threatened 145 per cent tariffs before retreating and Trump has attempted to negotiate an end of the Ukraine war with Russia.

All this has led some to argue Trump is fundamentally changing US goals. It is suggested he is proposing the US retreat into the western hemisphere or is prepared to divide the rest of the world into “spheres of influence” with countries such as China and Russia.

No change in US goals

These ideas are wrong and dangerous, as will be demonstrated as events unfold, because they leave countries unprepared for what is happening. They are also used to suggest that it is not so vital to defend countries such as Cuba, because the US is only interested in the western hemisphere, and will not attacks other countries if they do not interfere with US goals there.

Such views are in contradiction with even the Trump presidency’s words in its two new major policy statements — the National Security Strategy and National Defence Strategy.

Certainly, these stress US desire to control the western hemisphere.

The Security Strategy states: “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert … American pre-eminence in the western hemisphere.”

But it makes clear that its target is not only Latin American countries seeking independent development but also China — which is the chief trading and construction partner of many Latin American countries.

The Security Strategy says of Latin America: “We want other nations to see us as their partner of first choice, and we will (through various means) discourage their collaboration with others … we should make every effort to push out foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region.”

US targets China

Far from retreating from other parts of the world, both the Security and Defence Strategies specifically target China. The Defence Strategy states: “the NSS [National Security Strategy] directs DoW [Department of War] to maintain a favourable balance of military power in the Indo-Pacific.”

It states: “We will erect a strong denial defence along the First Island Chain.”

The Security Strategy emphasises US military support for Taiwan: “A favourable conventional military balance remains an essential component of strategic competition. There is, rightly, much focus on Taiwan …  because Taiwan provides direct access to the Second Island Chain and splits north-east and south-east Asia into two distinct theatres… preserving military overmatch, is a priority.”

US policy in Europe

The Defence Strategy specifies that reducing US military forces in Europe is to concentrate them against China: “Although we … will remain engaged in Europe, we must — and will — prioritise defending the US Homeland and deterring China.”

The US is indeed at present seeking some agreements with Russia, with the aim of attempting to break up good relations between China and Russia. But the facts show this is purely a short-term tactical manoeuvre. If Trump really sought good strategic relations with Russia he would promote mutually lowering military expenditure and detente as the basis of security relations between western Europe and Russia, while establishing mutually beneficial energy links between the two. Instead, he is urging western Europe to increase military spending, which can only be strategically aimed against Russia, and entirely opposes re-establishing energy relations between Russia and western Europe.

Trump’s foreign policy in action

Even more significant than words are actions. During the second Trump presidency, Venezuela was attacked and an oil blockade imposed against Cuba, but six of the seven countries the US bombed are outside the western hemisphere — Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria and Iraq.

Trump proposes increasing this year’s annual US military budget from $1 trillion to $1.5trn — far more than required to deal with the western hemisphere.

US attempts to acquire a first strike nuclear capacity

The Defence Strategy emphasises building the Golden Dome anti-ballistic missile system not against countries with small numbers of intercontinental missiles, such as North Korea, but those with large numbers such as China and Russia: “The Department [of War] will prioritise efforts to develop President Trump’s Golden Dome… with a specific focus on options to cost-effectively defeat large missile barrages and other advanced aerial attacks.”

Golden Dome’s reality is an attempt to acquire an offensive US first-strike capacity against countries such as China. At present the US is deterred from launching nuclear war because it faces a devastating nuclear response.

Golden Dome’s strategy is that if the US launches a first nuclear strike, against China or Russia, Golden Dome will knock out the small number of missiles that would survive to be launched at the US after such a first strike.  

Trump’s purely tactical manoeuvres to attempt to achieve US strategic goals

The US is not retreating into the western hemisphere. Some people put this idea forward because the US withdrew its attempt to impose 145 per cent tariffs on China and accompanied this by less aggressive anti-China rhetoric.

This wishful thinking misunderstands the situation. The US retreated from attacking China solely because it faced strength. China was the biggest force opposing the US, with its economic countermeasures, But China had other countries aligned with it — Russia and many in the global South.

Trump 2.0, therefore, decided it was mistaken tactics to start by attacking the strongest force it opposes — China. Instead, it was necessary to first attempt to change the relation of forces against China by defeating other, weaker, countries friendly to China. Then, having overturned them, it could turn round and attack what it hopes would be a more isolated China, hoping to weaken it by those means. Hence US attacks on numerous countries coupled with temporary less harsh rhetoric against China.

The US is not retreating into the western hemisphere, it is just adopting more subtle tactics to attempt to maintain and strengthen its global hegemony and dominance.

Trump’s military assault on the global South

The conclusions that follow from this reality is clear. Global South countries at present under direct attack by the US, such as Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, are today in the front line of fighting the US attack on all independent, progressive and socialist forces in the world. These countries therefore must receive the maximum support both for reasons of moral solidarity, and the interests of these countries, but because if they were to be defeated the US will be strengthened in its attack on every other country and progressive movement.

The evidence, both in words and actions, is that if the US were allowed to succeed in its attacks in the western hemisphere, against Cuba and Venezuela, it would not stop at that and accept a division of the rest of the world. It would simply follow up its attacks on Cuba and Venezuela, in a somewhat strengthened position, by attacks on other countries.

In short, the idea that the US is retreating simply into the western hemisphere is entirely wrong and extremely dangerous.    

John Ross is a member of No Cold War Britain.
The above article was originally published here by the Morning Star.

Marco Fernandes speaks with Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi 

Shortly after the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Deputy and former President of the National Assembly, Cilia Flores, in the first days of the year, the White House directed its “regime change” machine towards another energy power, Iran. About to celebrate its 47th anniversary, the Islamic Revolution has always been a thorn in the side of the U.S. and, especially, Israel. Tehran is the biggest supporter of the Palestinian cause in the world and, in practice, the biggest obstacle to the Zionist project of “Greater Israel,” which presupposes the expulsion or extermination of the Palestinian people from their land. For this reason, overthrowing the Iranian revolutionary government has always been among the priorities of Washington and Tel Aviv.

Like Cuba, Iran has also been the target of heavy sanctions from the West – imposed in different waves – since the revolution that overthrew the dictatorship of Shah Reza Pahlevi. These sanctions have caused countless damage to its economy and its people, and since October, they have been aggravated by a new round of sanctions imposed through the UN. To make matters worse, the U.S. has admitted to carrying out financial attacks to devalue the Iranian currency in recent months, causing enormous economic pressure, which initially triggered legitimate and peaceful popular protests. However, after a few days, mainly on 8 and 9 January, these protests were infiltrated by agents organised by external forces from the U.S. and Israel (as publicly admitted by both), causing much destruction and death on the streets of the country, and were strongly repressed by the Iranian security forces. As a popular reaction, massive street demonstrations in support of the government took place on 12 January.

Since then, the U.S. has been deploying numerous military forces to the region and Trump has spent days threatening to bomb Iran, but in recent days he seems to have backed down after Iranian threats that a U.S. attack would result in a regional war. A first round of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran took place last Friday (6) in the United Arab Emirates, apparently without significant results. But both countries have stated that they are discussing the possibility of a second round of negotiations.

To analyse this situation, BdF‘s geopolitical analyst Marco Fernandes spoke with Mohammad Marandi, professor of English literature at the University of Tehran and one of the leading authorities on geopolitical analysis of Iran in Western media. Marandi is the son of an important figure in the Islamic revolutionary movement, paediatrician Alireza Marandi (who served twice as Minister of Health of the Islamic Republic), and was born in the United States, where he lived until the age of 13, as his family was exiled to escape the dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi. Shortly after returning to Iran at the age of 16, Marandi volunteered for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to fight in the war against Iraq, where he escaped death four times – having been shot twice and targeted by two chemical attacks.

Read the full interview

BdF – In recent days, the U.S. has sent its navy to the Persian Gulf region and Trump has threatened to attack Iran, trying to force negotiations for the country to suspend its nuclear programme, hand over its ballistic missiles and stop supporting the Palestinian resistance in the region. What are the chances of negotiation on these terms? What is the Iranian government willing to negotiate?

Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi – The Iranian position is quite clear. In fact, it is quite clear that it will not negotiate its military capabilities. Therefore, its missile programme is out of the question. Nor will it negotiate its regional alliances. Therefore, these are also out of the question. The nuclear programme is something Iran is willing to discuss, but not enrichment itself. That is also out of the question. What can be negotiated is a mechanism to ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme is peaceful. This is something we have done before and which Trump himself destroyed.

The JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), the 2015 nuclear agreement. So that is what Iran is willing to negotiate. Of course, Iran will expect a much better deal than the 2015 one at the negotiating table. Because Iran has moved on since then and has been betrayed by the U.S.’s violation of that agreement. And Iran has suffered because of it. Therefore, the only thing really open for negotiation is a framework in which Iran’s uranium enrichment programme can operate and address, or take into account, the concerns, or potential concerns, of Western countries.

The Iranian government has responded in recent days that any attack on the country will be met with a regional war against the U.S. and its allies. If that happens, what are the possible military and economic consequences of a regional conflict? The Wall Street Journal published an article stating that Trump has backed away from an attack at this time due to a lack of sufficient defence for his allies in the region in the event of an Iranian counterattack. How do you assess that statement?

Yes, this is a position that the Iranians have stated, and they will definitely follow through on what they have said they will do. If the United States attacks Iran, even if it is a limited attack, the Iranians will respond with full force. Iran will not accept aggression and will not allow the United States to be encouraged to commit aggression. Therefore, if the United States decides to attack Iran, there is no doubt that the United States will suffer a very strong attack.

The recent protests, which began over a legitimate economic issue – the devaluation of the rial – were clearly exploited by external forces, such as Mossad (acknowledged by both Mike Pompeo and Israeli authorities), to destabilise the revolutionary government. The Western media has stirred up a “scandal” over the alleged thousands of deaths attributed to the crackdown on protests, but nothing is said about the number of police officers and officials murdered by foreign intelligence agents. What really happened during those days?

It is quite clear what happened. The West is making up a story. They carried out a conspiracy against the country, first by putting pressure on the rial, something that the U.S. Treasury Secretary has already admitted twice and even boasted about. Then there were peaceful protests, which did not result in arrests or police persecution. But after a few days of protests, which were not very large, we saw a sudden influx of very well-trained protesters, provocateurs and terrorists. They killed a large number of police officers on the night of Thursday, 8 January. And on 9 January, the police and security forces clashed with them. And 3,117 people were killed, including police officers and many innocent bystanders who were targeted by these terrorists because they wanted to increase the number of casualties to justify U.S. intervention. And of course, as you correctly pointed out, Mossad admitted its role. They issued a statement in Persian saying that they are on the ground. [Mike] Pompeo [former Secretary of State in Trump’s first term] stated twice in a tweet, and also on Israel’s Channel 13, that the United States and Israel are on the streets with the protesters. And on Israel’s Channel 13 news, he said that the U.S. is involved. In addition, Israel’s Channel 14 said that they brought weapons into Iran, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of police officers. After that, we saw this Western media campaign with ridiculous numbers, basically to justify the war. But the Iranian government released the number of victims and the names of each person, along with their identification details. And, in general, the Western media ignored this, even without having a response to it. But the United States and the West are unable to provide alternative numbers, because they simply make up numbers.

Recently, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly boasted about a financial attack on the Iranian currency, which allegedly caused the sharp devaluation of the rial. Apart from this alleged “financial attack,” have the new sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the EU through the UN, via the snapback mechanism related to the end of the JCPOA negotiations (since October), had any effect, making foreign trade even more difficult for Iran? How much has the economic war imposed by the West damaged the Iranian economy?

The snapback mechanism failed largely because the Russians and Chinese refused to recognise it. The U.S. and Europeans coordinate with each other, and also with certain countries in the region, to exert pressure on other entities, other countries. So we have decades of sanctions and maximum pressure sanctions. We have also had them for years. But this was a coordinated effort to suddenly bring down the currency in order to start and inflame violent unrest. As I said, during these riots, these protesters were like ISIS [Islamic State]. They burned 15 people alive. They destroyed hundreds of banks. In 48 hours, they literally destroyed hundreds of very expensive ambulances and fire engines, public buses, hundreds of educational centres and libraries, and hundreds of mosques. It was extraordinary how fast they were, how well trained they were to carry out this operation.

After all, why does the U.S. insist on wanting to overthrow the Islamic revolutionary government after almost 50 years, even though it has failed so far?

In fact, there are two reasons. One is that after the revolution, Iran became independent from both the Western and Eastern blocs, and this independence was something that neither the U.S.-led bloc nor the Soviet Union and its bloc liked. Therefore, they cooperated together against the country. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States continued to antagonise Iran. In addition, Iran’s support for liberation movements around the world, whether in South Africa, Latin America, and of course Palestine, was also one of the main reasons for their hostility. The liberation movement that most bothers Americans is that of the Palestinian people. In fact, at the moment, this is the biggest reason for U.S. hostility towards Europe.

Both Western governments and the media have promoted the son of former Shah Reza Pahlavi as a possible “option” in an eventual regime change operation. Mr Pahlavi has been away from Iran since the revolution. How popular is he in the country today?

He is not popular among the Iranian people. He has never lived in the country in the last 50 years. His father and grandfather were extremely corrupt, and his father created the feared secret police SAVAK [Organisation for National Security and Intelligence]. When the revolution happened, they stole billions of dollars and took it abroad. Today, he is constantly seen with Netanyahu and is asking the Israelis and Americans to bomb Iran. Obviously, a person like that will not have support among the people. He is also a somewhat ridiculous character, and his family has many problems that are constantly ridiculed by ordinary Iranians. Therefore, he has no legitimacy or popular support. He is just a tool of the empire to mobilise its resources against the country.

What has been the role of Iran’s strategic partners, China and Russia, during the last tense weeks of attacks by the US and the Zionist regime? Are they supporting Iran economically or militarily? To what extent can an attack on Iran at this point be interpreted as an attack on Brics?

The Russians, Chinese and Iranians cooperate a lot. They have extensive trade and business relations. They do not provide assistance in the sense of giving something to Iran for free. Iran buys what it needs from Russia and China, and to a large extent, especially from Russia. The cooperation is very close. Russia also buys what it needs from the Iranians, both military and civilian. Trade routes between the three countries are also expanding. The north-south corridor between Iran and Russia and the New Silk Road with China. All of this is moving forward. The relationship with Russia has evolved more quickly in some respects because both countries are fully sanctioned, and that facilitates cooperation. But because of China’s weight, the relationship with China is obviously very important. And yes, there is no doubt that an attack on Iran is an attack on the Brics. It is an attack on a multipolar world. The United States is desperately trying to preserve its empire.

A common criticism of Iran from progressive and anti-imperialist circles in Latin America is to label the country a so-called “theocracy,” since the head of state is the Supreme Leader, an Ayatollah. At the same time, Iran has democratic elections for both the president – with a rotation of different political orientations – and the Parliament. How would you characterise the Iranian political system?

I think that in Latin America, the left is often influenced by Western narratives. And therefore, they are very mistaken about Iran. Iran is an Islamic republic and therefore not a theocracy, it is an Islamic democracy. All democracies have their limitations, and an Islamic democracy is also a limited democracy. Of course, I do not consider Western countries to be democratic. And I think that, after Epstein, it became very clear that the West is ruled by the “Epstein class.” And democracy is just a facade. But in Iran, the leader himself is chosen by a council of experts. And he can be removed by the council of experts. We have the president and parliament, who are chosen by the people, and we have local elections for cities and municipalities. And there are also elections. It is not a utopia, but Iran is much more open and democratic than the U.S. allies throughout our region. And, as I said, the West has exposed itself for what it really is, especially after Epstein.

The revolution is approaching its 50th anniversary and has shown impressive resilience, having been targeted by the U.S. since the first day of the popular movement that led to the revolution. Take, for example, the development of science, where Iran has made many important achievements (pharmaceuticals, military, nuclear programme, etc.) despite heavy sanctions imposed by the West. What do you think are the main achievements of the revolution for the Iranian people after almost half a century of resistance and attempts to build a sovereign path for their country?

Iran has achieved a great deal under the maximum pressure sanctions and the war that the U.S. and the West have imposed on Iran through Saddam Hussein and, more recently, through Israel, and despite the terrorism that the West has imposed on the country. We see that the country has made great strides in areas of high technology, and I think its defence capabilities reflect that. The very fact that Iran was able to defend itself against the joint attacks by the U.S. and Israel and was able to respond in a way that forced them to retreat shows, in my opinion, Iran’s broader capabilities as a technologically advanced country. Universal education in Iran, which was very low before the revolution, especially for women, is now among the highest in the world, both at the school and university levels. And if there were no sanctions, Iran today would probably be ahead of most of the more developed countries in the global South, and even many of the countries in the West. It was under wars, terrorism and sanctions that Iran achieved so much. And so I think that with the rise of the Brics and the decline of the Western Empire, the coming years will be easier for Iranians to develop, and we hope to have the opportunity to address the shortcomings we have today as a result of global power hostility.

The above article was originally published here by Brasil de Fato.