Archives: Articles

By Balaka Chattaraj

8th March is celebrated as International Women’s Day around the world. The feminist struggle is deeply rooted in its socialist struggle. On 8th March 1917, the female textile workers from Petrograd went on strike. The struggle was for “bread and peace” against rising inflation, better conditions of work and political autocracy. Later the movement inspired and contributed to the Bolsheviks uprooting the monarchy and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat led by Lenin.

Since then the socialist-communist, revolutionaries around the world have united to challenge capitalism, patriarchy, class hierarchy and imperialism around the world. One of the most inspiring communist struggles against imperialism, uprooting the class dictatorship and establishing a people’s government, was the Cuban revolution against the USA’s imperialist backing of the Batista regime. The revolutionaries like Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and Camilo Cienfuegos led the revolution. The Cuban revolutionaries become the figures of inspiration, particularly Castro and Guevara. However, history forgot the women revolutionaries like Tamara Bunke, who was part of Che Guevara’s revolutionary mission against global imperialism in Latin America.

Tamara Bunke was born to Argentinian communist parents. Since her childhood, she was exposed to communist struggle within the household. After completing her degree in political science at the University of Berlin, she joined the Free German Youth party (part of the Socialist Unity Party). In 1960 she met Ernesto Che Guevara, and post-success of the Cuban revolution, she was tasked with translating for Cuban politicians. She was fluent in multiple languages such as Spanish, German, Russian, French and English. Due to her multilingual background, she was part of Che’s Bolivian revolution, which inspired socialist struggle against imperialism around Latin America. She received training in combat and adopted her famous nom de guerre Tania. She has fought against the class hierarchy and capitalist exploitation in Bolivia, shoulder to shoulder with other comrades in the mountains and rainforest. Later, due to deterioration in political and physical weather, she, along with injured guerrilla fighters, was sent back as she was suffering from illness. On 31st August 1967, the Bolivian army, backed by the CIA, captured her for infiltration in the country and planning revolution for working-class interests and shot her through her lung. After her death Castro hailed her as a hero of the working class, and her remains were later buried in Santa Clara in the Che Guevara Mausoleum, Cuba.

Tamara successfully sacrificed her life for international solidarity for the working class. Yet she is very little known and less celebrated around the world among the working class compared to Castro and Guevara. The socialist/communist parties, particularly in South Asia, remember Castro, Guevara and Ho Chi Minh for their fight against imperialism, class exploitation and solidarity for the global working-class population. The pop culture and social media turned the revolutionaries into symbols of “manhood” and “aura”. Others appropriated them for their fiery speech and have the revolutionaries’ faces printed on t-shirts and posters in rooms without knowing their politics and struggle. However, the women guerrilla fighters like Tamara are remembered by very few within Communist parties highlighting the intersectional struggle of women comrades within communist parties. However, the proletariat women remember her as a shining example of sacrifice and working-class internationalism. Her story reminds us how she breaks the stereotype of the portrayal of women in famous spy movies of Hollywood, where women are projected as an object of desire, the espionage that rubs the shoulders of elites. Tamara breaks the taboos and stereotypes of popular perception of women as spies. She was an icon of the Cuban revolution, who was a guerrilla fighter and attained martyrdom in Bolivia for her fight against imperialism and working-class solidarity.

But in her final poem Tamara asked, “Will my name one day be forgotten and nothing of me remain on the earth?” May we remember her communist struggle always? From Rosa Luxemburg to Tamara Bunke to Phoolan Devi we remember every women who contributed for uplifting the lives of working class women globally and their fight against patriarchy that serve capitalism and imperialism. As we fight against patriarchy we must remember “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism” mentioned by Lenin and capitalism is safeguarded by patriarchy which thrives on women’s unpaid labour within and outside household. In order to smash patriarchy, capitalist exploitation and imperial hegemony we must read and remember the politics and struggle of communist women from Luxemburg to Tamara.

Reference –

International women’s day: Tamara Bunke, (n.d) young communist league of Britain.

Lal, C. (2022), Tania-undercover for Che Guevara in Bolivia. Frontier, Vol 55, no. 19.

Tania Bunke: Anti imperialist warrior who lives in the heart of people. (2024). Con El Mazo Dnado.

Balaka Chattaraj is pursuing PhD in Social Work, Tezpur University. She is dedicated social worker.

10 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Leonardo Flores

Two days before his kidnapping, President Nicolás Maduro gave an interview to Spanish writer Ignacio Ramonet and explained that the war on Venezuela is a cognitive one, “because the war is for the brain, the brain handles emotions and handles concepts.”

The term cognitive war is relatively new, and it sheds light on recent discourse around Venezuela. One of NATO’s definitions characterizes cognitive war as unconventional warfare used to “alter enemy cognitive processes, exploit mental biases or reflexive thinking, and provoke thought distortions, influence decision-making and hinder actions, with negative effects, both at the individual and collective levels.” It goes beyond propaganda or psychological warfare. Another NATO source says it “is not the means by which we fight; it is the fight itself. The brain is both the target and the weapon in the fight for cognitive superiority.”

Maduro understood this, saying that “to counteract a cognitive war, you have to create a force of conscience, a force of values, a spiritual force, and fight with the truth. Our greatest weapon is not a nuclear rocket, our greatest weapon is the truth of Venezuela.”

In a recent Venezuela Solidarity Network webinar about the Venezuelan people’s reaction to the January 3rd attack, Ana Maldonado of the Frente Francisco de Miranda said, “The first victim of this war was truth.” She explained that hours after the bombing and kidnapping, Trump went on television to say the military operation was easy, and that narrative was widely accepted.

Erased from the collective memory were ten years of economic warfare that cost Venezuela tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of lives, $630 billion in damages, and a migration crisis that separated countless families. Erased were the attempted color revolutions of 2014 and 2017, the attempted presidential assassination of 2018, the imposition of a fake president in 2019, and the failed mercenary incursion of 2020. Erased was the U.S. declaring Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat” in 2015 and the imposition of increasingly harsh unilateral coercive measures (so-called sanctions), including during the pandemic.

Erased was the months-long, still ongoing U.S. naval presence in the Caribbean and the declaration of a no-fly zone. Erased was the naval blockade that chased down and seized ships attempting to trade in Venezuelan oil.

No, the January 3rd attack wasn’t “easy,” nor was it a victory. Though the U.S. demonstrated its military advantage, it has not won the cognitive battle. “The superiority shown by the Venezuelan people surpasses anything [the U.S.] has done. Their military attack needed an internal war, a fratricidal war they did not achieve,” explained Maldonado. There was no such war, no coup, no regime change.

The January 3rd attack would have been the perfect opportunity for a new color revolution or rebellion. Maldonado stressed the failure of the “unprecedented cognitive war of provocations, intrigue, of wanting to seed doubts and division.” The grassroots, the government, the military and the police remain united behind acting President Delcy Rodríguez. “The fact that we have and continue to demonstrate such unity shows our superiority. Our superiority is organic. It is revolutionary. It is popular. It is the people … building people’s power,” Maldonado continued.

Venezuelans continue building people’s power, including through plebiscites on March 8, when the nation’s 5,336 communes vote on funding local projects. They are in constant mobilization, making it known they want peace and the return of Maduro and Flores. The streets are theirs, with Venezuelan fascists being increasingly sidelined. They are creating culture and insisting that “a unified people will not yield,” as musician Akilin sings in this video:

MI TIERRA. AKILIN – PIAKOA – MALENA D’ALESSIO – GAMBEAT – TIGRON CAMPESINOS – EMILIANO.

Those that claim that Venezuela is now a “protectorate” or “colony” that has sold out or been betrayed don’t seem to be in conversation with Venezuelan revolutionaries. The global solidarity movement, which should be organizing for Maduro and Cilia, calling for an end to sanctions and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Caribbean, instead finds itself having to counter such speculation, as Manolo de los Santos did in an excellent article.

A delegation of peace activists went to Venezuela in late February to hear directly from the people. In a report-back webinar, CODEPINK co-founder Jodie Evans observed that Venezuelans “are engaged in building a future…they are in constant dialogue [with each other] and trying to find ways to thread a needle.” The threats against Venezuela are ongoing and “horrific,” she said, noting that “these horrors are being breathed down their necks every day and they are staying quite committed.” The unity up and down the Bolivarian Revolution is what it needs to survive.

Yes, the United States controls the oil trade and pushed for changes in the hydrocarbon law. Yet there is reason to believe the Venezuelan people may see material gains from these concessions. The Venezuelan government is playing a long game that points towards sanctions relief. Domestically, the National Assembly approved an amnesty law aimed at reconciliation with the moderate opposition, which could be an important factor in preventing or blunting any future U.S. operations aimed at fomenting civil unrest. In these negotiations, the Venezuelan people’s red lines “haven’t been hit yet,” as Evans put it.

Maduro, in his final interview before the kidnapping, said he was “truly happy how millions of men and women in Venezuela and the world defend Venezuela’s truth.” In Venezuela, the defense of that truth happens every day, with constant mobilizations since the morning of the attack.

In the rest of the world, that defense feels lacking. This is not the time for over-analyzing every misstep, real or imagined, by the Bolivarian government. It is a time to relentlessly denounce the kidnapping of a president and a legislator. This is the moment to defend Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace. It is an opportunity to counter Trump’s Monroe Doctrine, the plans for a “Greater North America,” and the so-called “Shield of the Americas.”

We can fight against this cognitive war by insisting on an alternative vision for U.S. foreign policy, one in which the country becomes a good neighbor by centering its relationship with the hemisphere (and the world) on peace, solidarity and shared prosperity.

Leonardo Flores is a Venezuelan-American organizer with CODEPINK.

10 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ghassan Shahrour

Walid Khalidi devoted his century-long life to a simple but radical principle: that the memory of a people is a human right, and that documenting their erasure is an act of historical justice. Born in Jerusalem in 1925 and passing away in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 2026, he became one of the most influential historians of modern Palestine, shaping global understanding of the Nakba and its enduring moral implications.

Khalidi’s academic path began at the University of Oxford, where he earned his MA in 1951. A promising career in Western academia lay before him, yet he chose a more demanding moral route. In 1956, he resigned from his post at Oxford in protest of the Suez Crisis—the British‑French‑Israeli invasion of Egypt. This act of conscience revealed a defining principle of his life: scholarship must remain anchored in ethical responsibility, even when it carries personal and professional cost.

In 1963, Khalidi co‑founded the Institute for Palestine Studies, establishing what would become the leading independent research center dedicated to the study of Palestinian history and society. For decades, the institute served as a global intellectual hub where rigorous documentation, critical inquiry, and institutional independence shaped a new generation of scholarship. Through its publications and archives, it provided scholars worldwide with credible, carefully researched materials on Palestine.

Khalidi’s most enduring contribution lies in his documentation of the Nakba. The Nakba—Arabic for “catastrophe”—refers to the displacement of more than 700,000 Palestinians and the destruction or depopulation of hundreds of towns and villages during the 1948 Arab–Israeli war. His landmark works, including Before Their Diaspora and All That Remains, became foundational references in universities across the world. Through photographs, maps, archival records, and village histories, he preserved the human geography of a land whose communities had largely disappeared. In doing so, he transformed Palestinian memory from a contested narrative into a documented historical record—one that asserts the right of a people to be remembered.

Beyond his own publications, Khalidi played a formative role in shaping modern Palestinian historiography. Through the journals, research programs, and scholarly networks associated with the Institute for Palestine Studies, he helped establish rigorous standards for documenting the Nakba, ensuring that Palestinian history would be studied with the same archival discipline applied to other fields of modern historical scholarship.

His analysis of Plan Dalet, published in the peer‑reviewed Journal of Palestine Studies, stands as one of the most influential historiographical interventions in the study of the events of 1948. Drawing on Israeli archival sources as well as contemporary documentation, Khalidi argued that the depopulation of many Palestinian towns and villages was not merely incidental to war but reflected elements of a coordinated military strategy. His research reshaped international scholarly debates on the origins of the Palestinian refugee crisis and provided essential documentation for later discussions of historical accountability and transitional justice.

Khalidi’s influence extended across major academic institutions. He taught at the American University of Beirut and Princeton University, and later served as a research fellow at the Harvard Center for International Affairs. His election as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences confirmed his standing as an intellectual of global stature. His works continue to appear in the catalogues of leading academic publishers, including Oxford University Press, and remain central references for scholars of the modern Middle East.

Yet beyond positions and honors, Khalidi’s legacy is fundamentally ethical. He treated documentation as a duty, memory as a right, and scholarship as a form of moral witness. For younger generations—Palestinian and international alike—his life offers a model of principled scholarship that resists erasure through truth.

As contemporary debates intensify over archives, digital narratives, and historical denial, Khalidi’s work remains both a foundation and a challenge. It reminds us that justice begins with truth—and that safeguarding memory, especially in an age of contested archives and digital information, is not merely an academic endeavor but a universal human responsibility.

Dr. Ghassan Shahrour, coordinator of the Arab Human Security Network, is a medical doctor, writer, and human rights advocate whose work advances health, disability, disarmament, and human security, with a strong focus on documentation and the protection of collective and digital memory in regional and global movements for peace, justice, and disability rights.

References

• Khalidi, Walid. Before Their Diaspora: A Photographic History of the Palestinians, 1876–1948. Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984.

• Khalidi, Walid, ed. All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992.

• Khalidi, Walid. “Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine.” Journal of Palestine Studies 18, no. 1 (1988): 4–33.

• Institute for Palestine Studies. Institutional history and archives.

• American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Fellowship records and biographical listings.

• Princeton University and American University of Beirut. Institutional records documenting Khalidi’s academic career.

• Oxford University Press. Academic catalogues referencing Khalidi’s works.

10 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ramzy Baroud

Iran is pursuing a multi-layered strategy—military, economic, political, and diplomatic—to raise the cost of war and prevent regime change.

Iran’s Strategy in the Current War

As the war on Iran continues to expand across multiple fronts, Tehran appears to be pursuing a complex strategy that combines military escalation, economic leverage, domestic mobilization, and diplomatic signaling.

Rather than relying on what Iranian officials once described as “strategic patience,” the current approach suggests that Iran is attempting to fundamentally reshape the battlefield by increasing the costs of the war for the United States, Israel, and any regional actors that choose to participate.

The strategy appears to rest on several interconnected pillars designed not only to respond to military attacks but also to prevent the broader objective that Iranian leaders believe lies behind the war: regime change.

Overwhelming the Battlefield

The most visible element of Iran’s strategy has been its attempt to expand the battlefield geographically and operationally.

Rather than focusing solely on Israeli territory, Iran has targeted a wide range of US and allied assets across the region. These include military bases, intelligence facilities, radar systems, and logistical infrastructure that support American operations.

The aim appears to be twofold.

First, Iranian strikes are intended to impose a form of “strategic blindness” on opposing forces by degrading radar systems, surveillance networks, and early-warning capabilities. Such attacks reduce the ability of the United States and Israel to monitor Iranian movements and respond effectively to missile launches or other military operations.

Second, by targeting US bases in multiple countries across the region, Iran is sending a clear message that the conflict will not remain geographically contained.

In practical terms, this means that any country hosting American military facilities risks becoming part of the battlefield.

Iranian officials have repeatedly emphasized that these strikes are directed at US military infrastructure rather than the sovereignty of host nations. Nevertheless, the message is unmistakable: if regional territory is used to launch attacks on Iran, that territory may also become a site of retaliation.

This approach reflects a major shift away from Iran’s previous policy of measured responses and limited escalation.

Instead, Tehran appears to be pursuing a strategy designed to overwhelm the enemy on multiple fronts simultaneously, raising the political and military cost of continuing the war.

Economic Warfare

Alongside its military operations, Iran is also leveraging one of the most powerful tools at its disposal: the geography of global energy supply.

The Strait of Hormuz—through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes—has effectively become a war zone. Although Iran has not formally declared a blockade, the conditions created by the conflict have produced a functional shutdown of the waterway.

Missile exchanges, naval deployments, maritime attacks, and the growing threat environment have drastically reduced the willingness of commercial shipping companies to operate in the area. Insurance costs for tankers have surged, while several shipping operators have suspended or rerouted voyages altogether.

In practice, this means that the strait is not closed by decree but by the realities of war.

This distinction is important. Iran does not need to announce a blockade to achieve the strategic effects of one. The instability itself disrupts energy flows, drives oil prices upward, and injects uncertainty into global markets.

The consequences are felt far beyond the Gulf.

European economies—already weakened by energy shocks following the war in Ukraine—are particularly vulnerable to renewed volatility in oil and gas markets. Rising shipping costs, supply disruptions, and market speculation all compound the economic pressure.

For Tehran, this dynamic serves as a powerful form of indirect leverage.

The longer the war continues, the greater the economic consequences for the global system that underpins Western power. In this sense, the Strait of Hormuz functions not merely as a geographic chokepoint but as a strategic pressure valve capable of transmitting the costs of the conflict far beyond the battlefield.

Domestic Cohesion

Another key pillar of Iran’s strategy lies within the country itself.

Western analysts had widely speculated that sustained military pressure—or a leadership decapitation strategy—could produce internal instability or even trigger a political crisis within Iran.

The killing of senior political and military figures, including high-ranking officials, appeared to be designed in part to create such a vacuum.

Yet the anticipated fragmentation has not materialized.

Instead, Iranian authorities have focused on projecting unity and political cohesion. Mass rallies and public demonstrations have taken place across multiple cities, with large crowds gathering in public squares to express support for the government and condemnation of the attacks.

These displays serve an important political function.

By filling public spaces with supporters, the government is attempting to pre-empt the emergence of alternative movements that might claim to represent a popular response to the war.

In effect, the strategy denies external actors the ability to argue that military intervention is intended to support domestic opposition or restore democratic governance.

For Washington and Tel Aviv, the assumption that internal unrest could become a decisive factor appears to have been a significant miscalculation.

Calibrated Diplomacy

Despite the widening military confrontation, Iran has also sought to maintain a careful diplomatic balance with Arab governments.

Iranian officials have repeatedly emphasized that their strikes are directed at US military installations rather than the countries that host them.

This distinction is important.

Tehran’s broader objective appears to be preventing Arab states from becoming full participants in the conflict. While warning that any government enabling US military operations could face retaliation, Iran has simultaneously signaled that it does not seek confrontation with the region as a whole.

The message to Arab governments has therefore been dual-layered: do not allow your territory to be used for attacks on Iran, but if you avoid direct involvement, Iran does not consider you an enemy.

Such messaging reflects Tehran’s understanding that regional alignment could dramatically reshape the war’s dynamics.

Strategic Weaknesses

Despite the coherence of Iran’s overall approach, several weaknesses remain.

One of the most significant challenges lies in the realm of communication.

Iranian media outlets, operating under heavy pressure and frequent targeting, have struggled to project their narrative effectively to global audiences. Compared with the sophisticated international media infrastructure available to Western governments and Israel, Iran’s messaging often fails to reach wider international publics.

This limits Tehran’s ability to frame the conflict on its own terms.

A second challenge concerns the global anti-war movement.

While protests against the war have emerged in various cities around the world, they have not yet reached a scale capable of exerting decisive political pressure on governments supporting the conflict.

For Iran, the expansion of such protests could become a critical factor in constraining the military options available to Washington and its allies.

A War of Strategy

Taken together, Iran’s actions suggest a leadership attempting to wage war according to a clearly defined strategic framework.

Military escalation, economic disruption, domestic mobilization, and diplomatic signaling all appear to function as parts of a single integrated approach designed to raise the cost of the conflict beyond what its adversaries may be willing to bear.

Whether the strategy ultimately succeeds remains uncertain.

What is increasingly evident, however, is that the war is evolving into a contest not only of military capabilities but also of strategic coherence.

For now, Iran appears to be operating according to a calculated plan, while its adversaries continue to search for a sustainable path forward in a rapidly expanding conflict.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

10 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Paul Krugman

Just a brief note, because yesterday was a travel day and I didn’t even try to draft a full post — which was just as well, because oil markets went wild while I was airborne.

In a way that was odd, because the Strait of Hormuz has been effectively closed since the war on Iran began, with no obvious way to get it reopened quickly. As I showed in yesterday’s primer, continued closure of the Strait is a shock to world oil supplies bigger than the oil shocks of the 1970s. What changed?

Well, on Friday Trump called for UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, suggesting both intransigence and a tenuous grip on reality. Then the Iranians chose Khamenei’s son, reputedly a hard-liner, as the new Supreme Leader. These developments may have dashed the hopes of oil traders who still thought we might have cosplay regime change, Venezuela-style: The regime basically continues, but a new leader makes conciliatory noises and throws a bunch of money Trump’s way. That could still happen, but not for a while.

Time matters here. As the Strait remains closed, producers are shutting down, and this isn’t like turning off a tap that can be quickly restarted. There’s apparently a real nonlinearity here: a 2-week closure of the Strait has much more than twice the adverse impact on global oil supply as a 1-week closure. If this goes on for multiple weeks — and it’s easy to imagine that happening — oil prices, which retreated slightly off their highs early this morning, could go much higher.

Even so, premature to predict a global economic crisis. Prices now are roughly at Russia shock levels:

[https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!-BER!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcf4b7455-a2f9-4245-8ff1-77e6561b71ff_1431x796.jpeg]

That shock was ugly but didn’t cause recessions in either the US or Europe. As I emphasized in the primer, advanced economies are much less vulnerable to oil shocks than they were in the 1970s.

But the situation is scary. And what’s even scarier is that the “warrior ethos” gang in the Trump administration seem to have been caught completely off-guard by the fallout from their adventure, even though the military and the intelligence community tried to warn them about the risks.

MUSICAL CODA

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_3KhfaG64s]

Paul Krugman is an American economist who is the Distinguished Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

10 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

Chairman
World Form for Peace & Justice
 
March 6, 2026

When the 61st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council opened in Geneva on February 23, 2026, the tone set by global leaders was unusually stark. Their warnings were not rhetorical flourishes. They were an alarm about a world in which the very foundations of human rights—carefully constructed after the devastation of World War II—are increasingly under strain.

Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro, President of the Human Rights Council, captured the significance of the moment. Addressing the gathering of more than 120 high-level dignitaries from across the globe, he emphasized that their presence sent a powerful message: that the Council mattered, that human rights mattered, and that multilateral cooperation remained indispensable in confronting shared challenges. He urged the international community to treat this session as a renewed call to listen, cooperate, and act—so that the Council could rise to meet the demands of the moment.

The message was reinforced by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, who warned that human rights are under “a full-scale attack around the world.” According to him, the rule of law is increasingly being displaced by the rule of force. What makes this trend particularly troubling is that it is no longer hidden or subtle. It is occurring in plain sight, often driven by those who wield the greatest power.

Guterres cautioned that when human rights collapse, the consequences cascade through every other sphere—peace, development, and justice. He appealed to the Human Rights Council not to allow the erosion of human rights to become the acceptable price of political expediency or geopolitical rivalry. If that happens, he warned, the world risks creating a new global order where the powerful operate without limits while the vulnerable are left without protection.

The same concern was echoed by Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He warned of a disturbing resurgence of domination and supremacy in international affairs. Behind the rhetoric of certain leaders, he suggested, lies a belief that they stand above the law—and even above the United Nations Charter itself.

Türk reminded the world that the international human rights system was created precisely to counter such impulses. In times of conflict as well as peace, he said, the United Nations must remain a lifeline for the abused, a megaphone for the silenced, and a steadfast ally for those who risk everything to defend the rights of others.

Similarly, Annalena Baerbock, President of the United Nations General Assembly, described her address as a call to action. History, she observed, rarely records the collapse of large systems in a single dramatic moment. Instead, they erode slowly—rule by rule, commitment by commitment—while those responsible for defending them remain silent. Eventually, what once appeared permanent disappears.

Her warning was direct: silence and inaction are choices. But action is also a choice, and it lies within our collective hands.

A Warning Directed at India

These global concerns about human rights were not merely theoretical. They quickly intersected with concrete developments.

On February 25, 2026, a group of United Nations human rights experts issued a sharp warning to the Government of India regarding persistent allegations of custodial torture, deaths in detention, and extrajudicial killings. They called for urgent independent investigations into reports of hundreds of such killings, torture-related deaths, and thousands of injuries inflicted by law-enforcement officials.

According to the experts, these allegations portray a disturbing pattern of violence that may be systemic rather than sporadic. If substantiated, they would constitute grave violations of the right to life, the absolute prohibition of torture, and the principle of non-discrimination—norms that occupy the highest rank in international law.

The experts also expressed alarm at persistent reports of torture and ill-treatment in custody, including beatings, electric shocks, sexual violence, psychological humiliation, and denial of medical care. Overcrowded detention facilities and poor conditions further exacerbate the abuse.

Their warning was accompanied by a simple but powerful reminder: silencing those who seek justice is incompatible with an open and democratic society.

Kashmir: A Case the World Cannot Ignore

These concerns inevitably bring attention to one of the longest-running and most contentious conflicts in modern history—Kashmir.

For decades, reports of human rights violations in Kashmir have included allegations of extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence. Various human rights organizations have documented these abuses over many years.

The magnitude of suffering in the region extends beyond individual violations. Entire communities have lived under prolonged militarization, frequent curfews, communication restrictions, and sweeping emergency laws that grant broad powers to security forces. For ordinary civilians, daily life has often been marked by uncertainty, fear, and disruption.

The existence of laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) has drawn criticism from international human rights groups, which argue that it effectively shields members of the security forces from prosecution for serious abuses. Human Rights Watch and other organizations have long contended that such legal frameworks create an environment of impunity.

Reports of unmarked graves in parts of Kashmir have further intensified concerns. Investigations by local and international organizations have suggested that some graves may contain victims of enforced disappearances or extrajudicial executions dating back to earlier phases of the conflict.

In addition, restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly have repeatedly been documented by international observers. During periods of political tension, authorities have imposed curfews and restricted public gatherings, limiting the ability of people to voice dissent.

A Conflict with Global Implications

The Kashmir dispute is not merely a local or regional issue. It has broader implications for international peace and security.

India and Pakistan—both nuclear-armed states—have fought several wars over the territory. Periodic escalations between them continue to raise fears that the conflict could spiral into a larger confrontation with global consequences.

For this reason, the dispute has remained on the agenda of the United Nations since 1948, when the Security Council adopted resolutions calling for a peaceful settlement and a process enabling the people of Kashmir to determine their political future.

While circumstances have evolved dramatically over the decades, the fundamental principle underlying those resolutions remains relevant: durable peace cannot be imposed by force. It must rest on legitimacy and consent.

The Need for a Political Solution

Ultimately, Kashmir does not lend itself to a military solution. It is a political issue requiring a political settlement.

A sustainable path forward must involve dialogue and diplomacy. India and Pakistan will remain neighbors, bound by geography and history. Any lasting peace in South Asia must therefore include a framework that addresses the aspirations and sentiments of the Kashmiri people themselves.

The genuine leadership of Kashmir must be included in any negotiations aimed at resolving the dispute. Without their participation and consent, no settlement will achieve legitimacy or durability.

Justice, transparency, and accountability are essential first steps. Allowing independent international human rights observers to access the region would signal a commitment to openness and the rule of law.

The warnings delivered in Geneva at the Human Rights Council should not be treated as abstract reflections on global trends. They are reminders that the credibility of the international human rights system depends on its willingness to address difficult cases wherever they occur.

If the world truly believes that human rights matter, then silence cannot remain the default response.

Dr. Fai is also the Secretary General

World Kashmir Awareness forum.

He can be reached at:

WhatsApp: 1-202-607-6435  or  gnfai2003@yahoo.com

www.kashmirawareness.org

By Medea Benjamin

On our recent delegation to Venezuela, one quote echoed again and again — a warning written nearly two centuries ago by Simón Bolívar in 1829:

“The United States appears destined by Providence to plague America with misery in the name of liberty.”

For many Venezuelans, that line no longer feels like history. It feels like the present.

The January 3 U.S. military operation that seized President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores marked a dramatic escalation in a conflict that Venezuelans describe not as sudden but as cumulative — the culmination of decades of pressure, sanctions, and attempts at isolation. “We still haven’t totally processed what happened on January 3,” sanctions expert William Castillo told us. “But it was the culmination of over 25 years of aggression and 11 years of resisting devastating sanctions. A 20-year-old today has lived half his life in a blockaded country.”

Carlos Ron, former deputy foreign minister and now with the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research, described the buildup to the invasion as the result of a carefully constructed narrative. “First there was the dangerous rhetoric describing Venezuelans in the United States as criminals,” he said. “Then endless references to the Tren de Aragua gang. Then the boat strikes blowing up alleged smugglers. Then the oil tanker seizures and naval blockade. The pressure wasn’t working, so they escalated to the January 3 invasion and kidnapping of President Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and the deaths of over 100 people.”

While in the United States the events of January 3 have largely been forgotten, replaced by a devastating war with Iran, in Venezuela the reminders are everywhere. Huge banners draped from apartment buildings demand: “Bring them home.” Weekly protests call for their release.

In the Tiuna neighborhood of Caracas, we met Mileidy Chirinos, who lives in an apartment complex overlooking the site where Maduro was captured. From her rooftop, she told us about that dreadful night, when the sky lit up with explosions so loud her building shook and everyone ran outside screaming.

“Have your children ever woken up terrified to the sound of bombs?” she asked.

We shook our heads.

“Ours have,” she said. “And they are U.S. bombs. Now we understand what Palestinians in Gaza feel every day.”

She told us psychologists now visit weekly to help residents cope with the trauma.

Within days of the U.S. invasion, the National Assembly swore in Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as acting president. President Trump publicly praised Rodríguez for “doing a good job,” emphasizing his strong relationship with her. But from the beginning, she has been negotiating with the United States with a gun to her head. She was told that any refusal to compromise would result not in the kidnapping of her and her team, but death and the continued bombing of Venezuela.

The presence of U.S. power looms large. Nuclear submarines still patrol offshore. Thousands of troops remain positioned nearby. Every statement and decision made by the government is scrutinized. And on February 2, despite Trump’s praise for Delcy Rodríguez, he renewed the 2015 executive order declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security.

The visits from the heads of the CIA and Southern Command have undoubtedly been difficult for the government to swallow. Delcy’s revolutionary father was tortured to death in 1976 by a Venezuelan government that worked closely with the CIA. The U.S. Southern Command coordinated the January 3 attack.

But the government is not without leverage.

“The United States thought the state was weak, that it didn’t have popular support, that the military was divided,” said Tania Díaz of the ruling PSUV party. “January 3rd could have triggered looting, military defections, or widespread destabilization. None of that happened.”

The United States has overwhelming military dominance, but it was also aware that millions of Venezuelans signed up to be part of the people’s militia. This militia, along with the army that remained loyal to the government, gave Washington pause about launching a prolonged war and attempting to replace Delcy Rodríguez with opposition leader María Corina Machado.

While Machado enjoys enthusiastic support among Venezuelan exiles in Miami and the Trump administration recognized her movement as the winner of the 2024 election, the picture inside Venezuela is very different. The opposition remains deeply divided and Trump realized there was no viable faction ready to assume power.

Besides, as William Castillo put it bluntly: “Trump does not care about elections or human rights or political prisoners. He cares about three other things: oil, oil, and oil.” To that, we can add gold, where the U.S. just pushed Venezuela to provide direct access to gold exports and investment opportunities in the country’s gold and mineral sector,

Certainly, under the circumstances, the Venezuelan leadership has had little choice but to grant the United States significant influence over its oil exports. But while Trump boasts that this is the fruit of his “spectacular assault,” Maduro had long been open to cooperation with U.S. oil companies.

“Maduro was well aware that Venezuela needed investment in its oil facilities,” Castillo told us, “but the lack of investment is because of U.S. sanctions, not because of Maduro. Venezuela never stopped selling to the U.S.; it is the U.S. that stopped buying. And it also stopped selling spare parts needed to repair the infrastructure. So the U.S. started the fire that decimated our oil industry and now acts as if it’s the firefighter coming to the rescue.”

In any case, the easing of oil sanctions — the only sanctions that have been partially lifted — is already bringing an infusion of much-needed dollars, and the government has been able to use these funds to support social programs.

But in Venezuela the conflict is not seen as simply about oil. Blanca Eekhout, head of the Simon Bolivar Institute, says U.S. actions represent a brazen return to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine originally warned European powers not to interfere in the Western Hemisphere, but over time it became a justification for repeated U.S. interventions across the region.

“We have gone back 200 years,” she said. “All rules of sovereignty have been violated. But while the Trump administration thinks it can control the hemisphere by force, it can’t.”

The historical contradiction is stark. In 1823, the young United States declared Latin America its sphere of influence. A year earlier, Bolívar envisioned a powerful, sovereign Latin America capable of charting its own destiny. That tension still echoes through the present.

Bolívar’s dream is also being battered by the resurgence of the right across the region. The left in Latin America is far weaker than during the days of Hugo Chávez. Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa have been replaced by conservative leaders. Cuba remains under a suffocating U.S. siege. Progressive regional institutions like CELAC and ALBA have faded, and the vision of Latin American unity that once seemed within reach now feels far more fragile.

In Caracas, the situation is tangled, contradictory, and volatile. But amid the uncertainty, one thing felt clear: the Venezuelan left is not collapsing. It is recalibrating.

As Blanca told us before we left:

“They thought we would fall apart. But we are still here.”

And in the background, Bolívar’s warning continues to drift through the air — like a storm that never quite passes.

Medea Benjamin is co-founder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace.

6 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Abdul Bari Atwan

They truly don’t know Iran. By this, I mean the Israelis and the US, and even some Arab leaders, none of whom dared to condemn the aggression. But the aggression entered its sixth day without the regime falling, and/or the new interim leadership rushing to the nearest negotiating table to surrender. The following factors need to be considered.

The battlefields:

First: The downing of an advanced American fighter jet, the F-15, by Iranian missiles in the west of Iran, a firstever development. This suggests the Iranian military leadership may have developed new missiles capable of achieving this feat, or they acquired them from their Chinese and Russian allies, or both, particularly the Russian S-400 and S-500 missile systems.

Second: The entry of Hezbollah’s ballistic missiles into the arena, striking deep inside Israel, specifically Tel Aviv and Haifa, for the first time after 15 months of restraint and the rebuilding of its military arsenal, and/or what was destroyed during the Israeli aggression. This means that no area in the Zionist entity will be safe.

Third: The fiery speech delivered by Sheikh Naim Qassem, Secretary-General of Hezbollah, containing strong unprecedented tone statements most notably: “We will not surrender and we will defend our land, no matter the sacrifices and despite the disparity in capabilities. We will not surrender.”

Fourth: The introduction of the fastest “infiltrating” drone into the Iranian Air Force for the first time. Named “Hadid 110,” it has a speed of 517 km/h and, according to Western military experts, is considered more efficient than its sister drone, “Shahed,” which performed well deep inside Israel. Its production costs only $35,000, while shooting it down costs $4 million.

Fifth: Every day of resistance by the Iranian army and people costs the occupying state approximately $1 billion. As for America, the costs of the war has already nearly spiralled to $160 billion in the first six days. These preliminary estimates are likely to rise, especially after the bombing of aircraft carriers and the destruction of warships, the increasing number of dead and wounded, the largest military buildup since the Iraq War, and the rise in energy prices.

Sixth: The fulfillment of the promise to close the Strait of Hormuz, which means delivering two fatal blows. The first is to the Western economy because oil and gas prices would likely reach record-breaking figures, and the second, for the Arab states who host the US military bases. Closing the Strait means preventing their oil and gas exports from reaching global markets, and the losses will increase while oil and gas revenues decrease depending on the war’s duration and developments.

The Iranians wanted from the outset a regional war of attrition with no end in sight in direct opposite to the new American warefare military doctrine, which aims for short, swift, and clean wars (without American casualties). The Iranians resolved to bomb all those cooperating with the aggression in the region. This new Iranian theory was best and most clearly expressed by Sheikh Naim Qassem when he called on the Israeli army to prepare for many days of fighting with all available means.

Defeat, surrender, and raising the white flag, individually or collectively, have no place in the Iranian military and political lexicon. In the first six days, the Iranian army launched 500 hypersonic missiles with multiple cluster warheads and more than 2,000 drones, resulting in the displacement of more than 7 million settlers to shelters and tunnels, and the destruction of large parts of Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Neither the 47-year-long starvation siege, nor three Israeli-American aggressions within a few years, nor the incitement of popular protests and the planting of spies among the protesters, nor the deployment of aircraft carriers and warships, nor inflation and the collapse of the national currency, succeeded in defeating the mighty and unwavering Iranian will, and consequently, in toppling or changing the regime.

Our proof is they baffled the Americans in negotiations that lasted more than two years in Vienna and in several other Arab and European capitals, and they never conceded. They rejected all American conditions, starting with halting enrichment and handing over 460 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, and even refusing to allow the inclusion of the Iranian missile industry or severing ties with resistance factions on the negotiating table.

Yes, arrogance, conceit, and the unfortunate complicity of some Arabs blinded them to the true nature of Iran, and they will pay a very heavy price, the most prominent feature of which will be the destruction of all Israeli gas infrastructure. In the Mediterranean, water and electricity stations, and the lack of distinction between settler and soldier, many assumptions have changed after the massacre of the children’s school in southern Iran… and time will tell.

This opinion was written in Arabic by the chief editor of Alrai Al Youm Abdul Bari Atwan and translated for crossfirearabia.com

6 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Villainous lunacy is abundant these days as the bombing of Iran by Israel and the United States continues. The rationale for this illegal pre-emptive war that not only lacks legitimacy but should land its perpetrators in the docks of the International Criminal Court, continues to get increasingly muddled. With US President Donald Trump now given to giving press conferences on the conflict, loony bin mutterings are becoming increasingly the norm.

A common assumption behind these attacks is Israel’s firm, unremitting stranglehold on the US President. Combined with the considerable influence of what John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt called the “Israeli Lobby”, American foreign policy in the Middle East has been tenanted by Israeli interests. And Israel has shown itself to be a particularly bruising tenant in this regard.

While the central rationale is both fantastic and mendacious – namely, the destruction of a nuclear capability that had been, in any case, apparently obliterated last June – the view that Iran was going to unilaterally strike either Israel, the United States, its allies or all of the above, is fascinatingly absurd.

In a classified briefing with Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill on March 2, senior administration officials put forth the position that Israel had already planned to strike Iran, with or without US support. Present were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the increasingly deranged Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine. Prior to the briefing, Rubio put forth the view that “there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer high casualties.” Israeli impulsiveness proved the heaviest of tails in wagging the dimmest of dogs.

This less than convincing explanation worried Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, who serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “This is still a war of choice that has been acknowledged by others that it was dictated by Israel’s goals and timeline.” He questioned whether American lives should be put at risk when an alleged imminent threat was directed at an ally. “Israel is a great ally of America. I stand firmly with Israel. But I believe at the end of the day when we are talking about putting American soldiers in harm’s way and we have American casualties and expectations of more, there needs to be the proof of an imminent threat to American interests. I still don’t think that standard has been met.” Had Iran actually posed an imminent threat to the US, “better planning” should have been in place.

An even clearer statement of the foolish rationale was allegedly put to conservative broadcaster and commentator Tucker Carlson by Trump himself, suggesting that Israel had essentially painted him into the smallest of corners. Carlson, according to The New York Times, had attempted no fewer than three times in meetings at the Oval Office to argue why the US should not go to war with Iran. Reasons for not doing so included risks to US military personnel, the soaring effects of war on energy prices and concern about how Washington’s Arab partners would react. He surmised that it was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to strike Iran that was the sole reason the president was considering a military effort. It would be prudent, suggested Carlson, if the Israeli PM was restrained in his bellicosity.

Carlson has also personally expressed the view that the war took place “because Israel wanted it to happen. This is Israel’s war. This is not the United States War.” It had been launched on a freight of “lies” and orchestrated by Netanyahu’s beguiling approach. “The point is regional hegemony.” Israel wanted “to control the Middle East” and “sow chaos and disorder” in the Gulf.

Another right-wing commentator, Megyn Kelly, reiterated what had been a central, even canonical line of MAGA: “No one should have to die for a foreign country.” The four servicemembers (there were actually six) who had given their lives for the US “died for Iran or for Israel.” The war was clearly Israel’s and based on a fictional threat. “Does it make any sense to you that Iran was planning pre-emptive strikes against us? Obviously, it doesn’t.”

Trump was dismissive of both Carlson and Kelly, slipping into that habit common to megalomaniacs humming before a mirror: he referred to himself in the third person. “I think MAGA is Trump – not the other two.” The movement wished “to see our country thrive and be safe, and MAGA loves what I’m doing.” Carlson’ could “say whatever he wants. It has no impact on me.”

Israel, however, did and does, though Trump, in what can only be regarded as piffling nonsense, is now promoting the view that Israel was the second hitter, with the US taking the bold lead. “We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” he reasoned at a bilateral meeting with Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz. As he “didn’t want that to happen”, Trump thought he “might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready and we were ready.”

Hegseth, in another mad, uneven display before the press, also laid the entire blame for the war on Iran itself. “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it.” Not that the facts even mattered. International law did not exist. “No stupid rules of engagement, no national-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars.” (What do politically correct wars look like?) He sums up the jungle attitude to conflict, a deranged, semi-literate Tarzan whose views would sit well with the state machinery of Nazi Germany, one that showed the world how best to avoid international protocols and violate the laws of war in the name of streaky fantasy and monstrous ego.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.

6 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Salim Nazzal

The current war with Iran closely resembles the war against Iraq in that the United States appears to have no real interest in it, except that it has been drawn into it under the influence of the Jewish lobby.

Public opinion polls within American society indicate that support for this war does not exceed about 27 percent, a very low figure compared with the support the war against Iraq received in 2003 Iraq War, when public approval reached nearly 70 percent.

It is true that American governments do not always follow public opinion when deciding to wage wars. However, they also cannot ignore it completely, since the legitimacy of foreign policy ultimately depends on the acceptance of society.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to push the United States toward a direct military confrontation with Iran. He dealt with several American presidents in this regard, but these attempts failed to draw Washington into a full-scale war except for the full approval expressed by Donald Trump for such a course.

It is noteworthy that although the United States has strongly supported Israel politically and militarily since its establishment, it has not normally entered into a direct joint war with Israel. Even during the Gulf War in 1991, when Saddam Hussein launched missiles at Israel, Washington moved quickly to restrain Israel and prevent it from responding, so that the international coalition which included Arab states would not collapse.

However, political shifts inside the United States, particularly the rise of Christian Zionism, have played an important role in pushing the debate toward more hardline positions against Iran. This movement has been influenced by interpretations presented by the American theologian Cyrus Ingerson Scofield in his well-known Scofield Reference Bible. These interpretations are based on what is known as Dispensationalism, a theological doctrine claiming that the Jewish people have a future role in Palestine as part of end-times prophecy.

However, this theological interpretation is not widely accepted within traditional Christianity. Most historic Protestant churches reject it, as do the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Despite this, decision-makers in the United States understand that Iran does not represent an threat to their country. Many of the arguments used today to justify war strongly resemble the propaganda that preceded the invasion of Iraq, when Iraq was portrayed as a global threat.

Claims to protect the Strait of Hormuz also appear part of the propoganda. The strait has historically remained open to international navigation, including oil tankers, even during periods of intense tension.

For these reasons, the present war appears, at its core a war that is decided by Israel . The more important question, however, may not concern the interests of the United States alone, but rather the difference between the American and Israeli visions for the region.

The United States, despite its repeated interventions, does not theoretically appear interested in fragmenting the Middle East into smaller entities. Israel, however, has historically viewed the region from a different perspective. It understands that the emergence of a unified regional power in the Levant could pose a strategic challenge. Consequently, it tends to prefer a regional environment characterized by fragile balances and internal conflicts.

A similar view was expressed by the Israeli writer Oded Yinon in his 1982 article, A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties, where he argued that the fragmentation of major states in the region such as Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon into smaller competing entities could serve Israel’s strategic interests.

If we look at the military dimension of the conflict, a clear difference in targets can also be observed. American strikes tend to focus mainly on military objectives, whereas Israeli operations often target the civilian infrastructure of society schools, hospitals, television facilities, and public infrastructure aiming to weaken the social fabric and accelerate its fragmentation.

At the same time, sectarian and ethnic divisions within states are often exploited, further increasing the fragility of political structures across the region.

Therefore, viewing the current war simply as a confrontation with Iran alone represents an oversimplification of reality. The conflict may instead be part of a broader trajectory that could push the Arab Levant into a long cycle of conflict and instability.

Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian Norwegian researcher, lecturer playwright and poet, wrote more than 17 books such as Perspectives on thought, culture and political sociology, in thought, culture and ideology, the road to Baghdad

6 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org