Archives: Articles

By Boaventura de Sousa Santos

What happened in the early hours of January 3 in Caracas left the world stunned. But the strongest reason for astonishment is the fact that the world was stunned. What happened had been widely predicted. Since when? The less informed would say since Donald Trump came to power. But it is mainly since the publication of the National Security Strategy in November 2025, which states that the US reserves the right to intervene in any country whenever its interests are at stake.

Let’s go back in history and analyze the three main components of what happened: the surprise, the illegal capture of a political leader, and the reasons given for the act.

As for the surprise and the reasons, we need only go back to September 1939. In 1939, the world (the world that mattered then was Europe and the US) was stunned by Hitler’s surprise attack on Poland. The justification of the Nazi leader: “The Polish state has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and appealed to arms… In order to put an end to this lunacy I have no other choice than to meet force with force from now on… Destroying Poland is our priority… The winner is never asked if what he said was the truth or a lie. As far as starting and fighting a war is concerned, there is no law – victory is the decisive factor. Be brutal and be without mercy.”

Anyone who closely followed Hitler’s behavior could predict what was going to happen. Hitler publicly invented Polish aggression while secretly ordering surprise attacks, telling his generals to act ruthlessly to achieve victory, illustrating the deceptive nature of the invasion. Polish aggression was invented, the invention was turned into reality through propaganda, and the invasion was invoked as an act of self-defense. Germany’s security was at stake. It so happened that European diplomats looked but did not see, listened but did not hear, read but did not understand. Denial was a cover for the impotence and poor political quality of the political leaders of the time.

As for the illegal capture of leaders, it is easy to recall the case of Panamanian President Daniel Noriega on January 3, 1990. However, we need to go back much further to see how a similar tactic was used in the past during the period of historical colonialism. King Ngungunyane was the king of the Gaza Empire between 1884 and 1895, a territory that today corresponds largely to Mozambique. Because of his resistance to Portuguese colonialism, he was known as the “Lion of Gaza.” He was defeated by colonialist troops in 1895 in Chaimite. Not satisfied with their victory and fearing that the king would continue to fuel anti-colonial resistance, the colonialists captured him and brought him to Portugal as a trophy of war. They paraded him along the main avenue of Lisbon. He was then deported to one of the Azores Islands, where he died in 1906.

In August 1897, French colonialists imposed colonial control over the Menabé kingdom of the Sakalava people in western Madagascar, massacring the local army. King Toera was killed and beheaded; his head was sent to Paris, where it was placed in the archives of the Natural History Museum. Almost 130 years later, pressure from the king’s descendants, as well as from the government of the Indian Ocean nation, paved the way for the return of the skull.

In other words, displaying symbols of resistance (sometimes the leaders themselves, their skulls, or their art objects) as trophies in the metropolis is a consistent practice of colonial rule. Whether the “deposit” is on an island, in a museum, or in a center in New York is a minor issue, a matter of convenience for the victor.

Has colonialism returned?

This is perhaps the most naive question that can be asked at this point. It is based on the idea that colonialism is a thing of the past, having ended with the independence of the European colonies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Colonialism is the treatment of a people or social group considered subhuman and, as such, unworthy of being defended by international or national law, human rights, or international treaties. The justification is perfectly rational: since they are subhuman, it would be absurd to treat them as human. That would jeopardize the defense of beings considered fully human. Colonialism is racism, slavery, plundering of natural and human resources, occupation by a foreign power, expulsion of peasants or indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories to make way for “development projects,” illegal deforestation, ethnic profiling, and racial discrimination.

Colonialism is a permanent and essential component of capitalism. Writing in England and bearing in mind above all the English case, Karl Marx was mistaken when he wrote that colonial violence was an initial phase of capitalism (primitive or original accumulation) that would later give way to the “monotony of economic relations based on the exploitation of free wage labor.” Colonial violence is permanent, and without it, capitalism would not exist. It is not present in the same way everywhere in the world precisely because colonialism-capitalism is an unequal and combined global project. From Rosa Luxemburg to Walter Rodney and David Harvey, this fact is now almost universally accepted.

More recently, what was the creation of the State of Israel if not an act of colonial occupation, a loathsome way for Europeans to unload onto the Palestinian people the atonement for the heinous crimes that they, Europeans, had committed against the Jews? Is the transformation of Gaza into the Riviera of the eastern Mediterranean anything more than an act of recolonization?

Another sign of recolonization is the anachronistic return of piracy. In times of peace or undeclared war, interfering with navigation in national or international waters is an act of piracy.

If Karl Marx, at the time he wrote (mid-19th century), had lived in India, Egypt, or Nigeria, instead of England, he would certainly have paid more attention to colonialism than to capitalism. Colonialism was the first modern global project, first as a pioneer of capitalism and then as a central component of the consolidation of capitalism. For this reason, the pioneering countries (Portugal and Spain) were promptly marginalized as soon as the pioneering period ended.

Recolonization and the duality of criteria

It is fair to think that colonial violence and capitalist monotony, despite being twin sisters, had periods of unequal coexistence. The post-World War II period gave more and better publicity to the capitalist sister, while in the current period, which did not begin with Trump and will not end with him, publicity is on the side of the colonialist sister. We are in a period of recolonization, while distracted intellectuals with false consciousness sing hymns to decolonial thinking. Others, such as Yanis Varoufakis, whom I greatly admire, speak of techno-feudalism, forgetting that feudalism, even in Europe, was a much more confined regime than is thought. If there is anything new in the world, it is not techno-feudalism, it is techno-colonialism.

One of the fundamental characteristics of colonialism is the abysmal line that separates “us” (the metropolitan sociability of fully human beings) and “them” (the colonial sociability of sub-humans). This division is neither essential nor ontological (humanity is one). It is driven by short-term tactical objectives. And the main objective is always free access to so-called natural resources, without which capitalism cannot survive. Vlodymyr Zelensky’s legitimacy is as great or as small as that of Nicolas Maduro, but while the former is welcomed as a hero, the latter is captured and treated as a criminal. If indeed Nicolas Maduro did not win the elections, Zelensky is the product of a coup d’état disguised as a color revolution (2014) – in which Ms. Victoria Nuland handed out sandwiches to protesters – and his term has long since ended. The prolongation of the war is his insurance policy for staying in power. Zelensky has long since handed over the minerals and land to US companies. Maduro’s crime was not handing over the oil until now. In addition, Zelensky serves to annoy Russia, China’s main ally, while Venezuela accommodates both.

The fear of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping

As current Western leaders measure others by their mediocre standards, their concern is not with the aberrant and barbaric illegality committed in Venezuela. They are primarily concerned with the possibility that Putin is now legitimized to capture Zelensky or China to invade Taiwan. I don’t like to make predictions, but I am convinced that the US has just given China and Russia a golden opportunity for them to show their moral superiority over the West. As rising empires, they have other means of imposing their will and doing so with the credible appearance of a positive sum: all countries win, although Russia and China win more.

What next?

I read the National Security Strategy published in November 2025 very carefully. It is an important document that should be read by all democrats around the world. The world is divided between two rival powers, one of which is willing to use all means to defeat its rival and to do so as quickly as possible. To do so, it must transform its sphere of influence into a fortress defended by loyal vassals. The two loyal vassals are self-mutilated Europe (Russia is part of Europe) and Latin America. China’s access to Europe is already blocked. That was the objective of the war in Ukraine, which Europeans are now consolidating at their own expense.

The important thing is to further weaken Europe and make it increasingly dependent on the US. To do this, it is important to reduce the European Union to irrelevance. The first act was Brexit and regaining the unconditional loyalty of the United Kingdom. Now it is a matter of ending the European Union: when they are isolated European countries are weaker and easier to control. Let us note one of the priorities of the policy for Europe (p. 27): “Building up healthy nations in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe through commercial ties, weapons sales, political collaboration, and cultural and educational exchanges.” This formulation shows how the dominant countries of the European Union are excluded from this policy, especially France, Germany, and the Nordic countries. In Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe lies the hope of the world’s future.

This formulation shows how the dominant countries of the European Union are excluded from this policy, especially France, Germany, and the Nordic countries. In Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe lies the hope of vassalage. These are the weakest countries, with weaker social democracy and therefore more susceptible to being governed by conservative (preferably far-right) parties whose loyalty to the US will never be questioned. The Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, and Portuguese know what this means. For example, the Portuguese, on the eve of presidential elections, have certainly noticed the large investments in advertising by the far-right party, Chega. The poor vote, but the rich pay. All this in addition to their huge presence on social media. In a semi-presidential system, a Chega candidate, once elected President of the Republic, will easily convince the Portuguese that he wants to change Portugal, but that the system won’t let him because the blocking parties oppose it. There is no other solution but to provoke a political crisis, dissolve parliament, call elections, and hope that his party wins the elections (alone or in coalition with a right-wing party – PSD – whose political agenda is already “adapted” to that of the far right). Then everything will be different…

Latin America is problematic due to its important trade relations with China. The destabilization processes must be tougher. The case of Venezuela is very revealing. In the case of Osama Bin Laden’s kidnapping by special forces, no American soldiers died and only a few of Osama’s relatives died. In Maduro’s case, between 30 and 40 soldiers from the presidential guard died, many of them Cuban, according to information from the Cuban government. For now, nothing can be confirmed, not even whether there were negotiations and who participated in them. One thing is certain: the Venezuelan people knew nothing and were taken by surprise. And even less is known (or wanted to be known) about the Venezuelan indigenous peoples (Wayuu, Warao, Pemon, Yanomani, etc.) who make up 2-3% of the population and whose relationship with the Bolivarian revolution has long been tense due to the exploitation of natural resources (mining) in their ancestral territories.

Next come the three big puzzles for the NSS: Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia. Mexico is a priority because Cuba’s survival will depend on it, and Cuba must fall because it is a matter of prestige for the great statesman Marco Rubio. The interventions vary. Gustavo Petro has already been declared a narco-terrorist. In turn, as Brazilians are well aware, the blockade candidate, Lula da Silva, was arrested in 2018 to be removed from the presidential race. The governments that followed privatized the country’s strategic wealth so that, if Lula da Silva’s return could not be prevented, he would return to a country very different from the one he had left. And so it was. Nicolas Maduro may also return, but if he does, he will find a very different country, especially in terms of control over oil exploration.

Each country’s strategy will be different, but they will all have something in common: massive intervention by BigTech and the control they have over the Internet, strategic satellite communications, and social media. Selective digital blackouts will be one of the weapons used to immobilize resistance to imperial designs. China and Russia are already beginning to take precautions, and I think they have good reasons to do so.

Latin America is more divided than ever, as became clear at the recent meeting of CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States). In fact, some countries cannot play the innocence and surprise card in everything that is happening in Venezuela. In my view, Brazil made a very serious strategic mistake by blocking Venezuela’s entry into BRICS. This was an important contribution to Venezuela’s isolation. Another, even more perverse contribution came from the Europeans when they awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who had called for US military intervention in her own country. Donald Trump is the protagonist of this barbarity, but he did not act without receiving encouraging signals. Signals imposed by him? Perhaps we will never know.

And how to block China in Africa and the Middle East? It is difficult to say whether Israel is, like Europe, a loyal vassal of the US, because in this case, it is not clear who is the vassal and who is the master. Iran is the big puzzle in the Middle East; in Africa it is Nigeria. The strategy is well defined. In one way or another, both countries are targeted for neutralization. The elephant in the NSS room is what will happen within the US, an impoverished, divided society, ignorant of what it is today and deluded about what it was yesterday, in short, a society where a civil war is already taking place in dribs and drabs with massacres in schools, supermarkets, and churches. What saves us is that history is not deterministic and that chance and the resistance of the people have reasons that imperial reason does not know.

What is to be done?

The left and the war of liberation

If it is true that we are in a period of recolonization, the response of the people can only be a war of liberation. Even if it is very different from previous wars, starting with that of Haiti in 1804. Unfortunately, critical thinking and left-wing politics have not yet realized the transformation, and each party is presenting its little candidate with its little program to entertain the long winter or summer evenings (depending on the country).

UN and European Council

At the institutional level, I dare to make two suggestions involving two Portuguese men whom fate has placed at the head of two institutions that are already dead and only show signs of life due to the illusion created by the inertia of history.

In the case of the UN, António Guterres should resign immediately. It would be the only act of similar impact and opposite to that of the invasion and recolonization of Venezuela. Those who know Guterres know that he has some virtues, but there is one he lacks: courage. We remember Kofi Annan and Boutros-Boutros Ghali and the price they paid for opposing the designs of the US. Guterres has eaten crow too often.

In the case of the European Council, chaired by António Costa, he too should resign because the sovereignty of peoples no longer makes sense, especially when one belongs to the sphere of influence of the US, which has just thrown sovereignty down the drain of the magnificent buildings in Brussels. But Costa has the same problem as Guterres and one more. To the pride of the Portuguese, António Costa was never a victim of racism (as far as I know) while he was minister and prime minister of Portugal. However, I am sure that if he dared to deviate from the script written by the US ambassador to the EU, Ursula von der Leyen, President Trump would be the first person to play the racist card against Costa with his usual rudeness. The same thing happened to Obama when he was in the White House. Obama behaved so well that he was even the great promoter of remote and aseptic killing by drones. Several thousand people died. And he had already won the Nobel Prize, of course. So, nothing to expect from Costa.

What remains? Everything.

Boaventura de Sousa Santos is the emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Coimbra in Portugal.

8 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Stansfield Smith

The US “regime change” operation against Venezuela has been defeated. The Bolivarian Revolution remains firmly in power. Now, Washington’s campaign against the Chavistas attempts to paint Interim President Delcy Rodriguez as compromising on the heritage of Presidents Nicolas Maduro and Hugo Chavez. The Wall Street Journal ran an article Venezuelan Regime’s New Strategy: Appease Trump to Survive, referring to Delcy Rodriguez’ official statement January 4 (below).

The Washington Post on January 6 could state “the Trump administration appears to have quietly settled on Delcy Rodríguez, Nicolás Maduro’s right hand, as the figure it prefers to lead Venezuela after Maduro’s fall. This was not an improvised choice. Reportedly, it is the result of prolonged negotiations in which she presented herself as the natural successor to Maduro.” In fact, Venezuela operated according to its constitution, approved in a national referendum, where the vice president takes office if the President cannot fulfill his duties. The vice president is Delcy Rodriguez. Her becoming president follows Venezuela’s highest law. Trump had nothing to do with it.

Trump’s remarks on January 3 that Rodríguez had spoken with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and appeared “quite courteous,” saying “we’re going to do whatever you need,” aimed to sell the story of her acquiescing to Washington. But Rodríguez swiftly contradicted that story hours later, appearing on state television to declare that “there is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros.”

January 5, the Wall Street Journal escalated the campaign to smear now acting President Delcy in an article that came out two days after she assumed presidential powers. It claimed the CIA viewed Delcy as the best-positioned short-term successor to President Maduro. The intention is to make us think the CIA has a special connection with her. In fact, by this time, she was already interim president, and Washington saw it could do nothing about it but sell the story she is there by US choice.

This US fake news campaign seeks to sow division in the Chavista movement and among defenders of Venezuela by instigating rumors that the kidnapping of Maduro involved a “mole,” and that Delcy Rodriguez had a deal with the CIA and Trump.

In addition, much is made of part of her January 4 statement out of its context: “We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence.” Some interpret this as compromising if not a step towards capitulation. In fact, she emphasized Venezuela does not want war, but a “respectful international relationship between the United States and Venezuela, and between Venezuela and the countries of the region, based on sovereign equality and non-interference…That has always been the position of President Nicolás Maduro and it is the position of all of Venezuela at this time.” This is also exactly what Cuba has always asked of the United States.

Her whole statement: Message from Venezuela to the World and to the United States

Venezuela reaffirms its commitment to peace and peaceful coexistence. Our country aspires to live without external threats, in an environment of respect and international cooperation. We believe that global peace is built by first guaranteeing peace within each nation.

We consider it a priority to move toward a balanced and respectful international relationship between the United States and Venezuela, and between Venezuela and the countries of the region, based on sovereign equality and non-interference. These principles guide our diplomacy with the rest of the world.

We extend an invitation to the US government to work together on a cooperation agenda aimed at shared development, within the framework of international law, and to strengthen lasting community coexistence.

President Donald Trump: our peoples and our region deserve peace and dialogue, not war. That has always been the position of President Nicolás Maduro and it is the position of all of Venezuela at this time. That is the Venezuela I believe in, to which I have dedicated my life. My dream is for Venezuela to be a great power where all good Venezuelans can come together.

Venezuela has a right to peace, development, sovereignty, and a future.

Delcy Rodríguez, Acting President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Unfortunately, many who should know better fell for the US rulers’ propaganda campaign. A Consortium News piece declared, Did Venezuela VP Hand Over Maduro in Deal With the US? Rather than exposing US psyops, which earned it its high reputation, here it gives it legitimacy. Another, Tariq Ali, once a respected Trotskyist anti-war activist, claimed on X that “the US is backing Delcy who has promised them whatever they want.” And reposts long discredited Eva Golinger, “Internal Coup? Was Maduro Betrayed by his VP?” And, “Sure seems like Delcy Rodriguez was the CIA source on the inside who set Maduro up and handed him over to the United States.” None of these smears are based on any evidence.

On January 4, President Trump declared, “If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.” Delcy Rodriguez has responded, “The Venezuelan people are a people who do not surrender, and we do not give up…President Nicolas Maduro’s instructions have been given. Let’s go out and defend our homeland…We are ready to defend Venezuela…We will never again be slaves.”

Manolo de los Santos’ excellent article explains who Delcy Rodriguez is. “The Rodríguez family’s revolutionary credentials are etched in struggle. Their father, Jorge Antonio Rodríguez, a leader of the Socialist League, a Marxist-Leninist organization, was tortured and murdered by the Punto Fijo regime in 1976. Both Delcy and her brother Jorge (the President of the National Assembly) emerged from this tradition of clandestine and mass struggle for socialism. President Maduro himself was a cadre of the same organization. To suggest betrayal among them or capitulation born of cowardice or opportunism ignores four decades of shared political formation, persecution, and leadership under relentless imperialist aggression and the class character of their revolutionary leadership.”

Now, not only do we have the US government repudiating the world and international law by invading a country and seizing its president for admitted concocted reasons. We must face the fact that the US psyops system continues to be so effective that it is able to dupe leading long-time opponents of the US empire, like Tariq Ali, into being mouthpieces for its own “regime change” propaganda.

Stansfield Smith, ChicagoALBASolidarity.org

8 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Vijay Prashad and Carlos Ron

On the early morning of January 3, the United States government launched a massive attack on Caracas, Venezuela, and three of the country’s states. Roughly 150 aircraft swarmed the skies, bombing with exceptional ferocity. Amongst these aircraft were EA-18 Growlers equipped with the most advanced electronic warfare systems, such as the Next General Jammers, as well as AH-64 Apache and CH-47 Chinook helicopters. Residents of the city had never experienced such sustained violence: loud explosions, massive plumes of smoke, and aircraft—–seemingly unconcerned about counter-attacks —– plunged the city into darkness. Later, at a press conference, US President Donald Trump said, ‘The lights of Caracas were largely turned off due to a certain expertise that we have. It was dark and it was deadly’. The United States does not spend more than $1 trillion annually on its military without having built the world’s most lethal arsenal. This was hyper-imperialism in hyper-drive.

Elite Delta Force troops descended from the helicopters to the location where President Nicolás Maduro was spending the night. They faced resistance from soldiers on the ground, but overwhelming firepower from the air killed many Venezuelan and Cuban soldiers (24 Venezuelans, according to the Venezuelan Army, and 32 Cubans, according to Havana). Once ground resistance was neutralised, the Delta Force seized President Maduro and Venezuela National Assembly member, Cilia Flores, Maduro’s wife. They were taken to the USS Iwo Jima and then flown to the United States to stand trial in the Southern District of New York, based on an indictment alleging that they ‘corrupted once-legitimate institutions to import cocaine into the United States’. Six people are accused in the indictment, including Maduro and Flores.

Meanwhile, in Venezuela, Vice President Delcy Rodriquez assumed leadership in Maduro’s absensce. She held a widely publicized meeting with all the main political leaders, including the Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello who was also named in the indictment. In this initial meeting, Rodriquez called for the release of Maduro and Flores, emphasised that Maduro remains the legitimate president, and confirmed that the government remained intact and at work to assess the situation. Within a day, Rodriquez—now sworn in as acting president in the absence of Maduro –said that she is open to discussion with the United States to prevent another attack, though she continued to insist on the release and return of Maduro and Flores. Certainly, the scale of the attack by the United States made it clear that Venezuela cannot sustain a full barrage from the US over a period, thus, reopening dialogue will be necessary, especially regarding Trump’s primary interest: the oil industry. Rodriquez comes from a revolutionary family, her father Jorge Antonio Rodriquez being the founder of the Socialist League, in which Delcy Rodriquez and Maduro once served as cadres. There is no question of any surrender of the Bolivarian process, which is a fundamental political line for Rodriquez and the team that is leading Venezuela’s government.

As dawn broke on 3 January and the stench of bombs lingered in the air, the population was both alarmed and shocked. It is important to emphasise that the 2003 Operation Shock and Awe bombing campaign in Iraq was dwarfed by the bombing of Operation Absolute Resolve (2026) against Venezuela. The bombs were way more powerful, and the weapons systems far more sophisticated and overwhelming. Yet it did not take long for people to take to the streets. A spontaneous open-mic outside the Presidential Palace of Miraflores drew crowds to speak out against the attack on their country. Most speakers spoke passionately with great feeling about the Bolivarian process. They understood that this attack was against their sovereignty, and-–more significantly–-that this was an attack on behalf of the Venezuela’s old oligarchy and US oil conglomerates. Their clarity was striking, yet corporate media ignored this coverage.

The weakness of the new mood in the Global South

A few hours before the attack on Venezuela, President Maduro met with Qiu Xiaoqi, the high envoy of President Xi Jinping. They discussed China’s Third Policy Paper on Latin America (released December 10), in which the Chinese government affirmed, ‘as a developing country and a member of the Global South, China has always stood in solidarity through thick and thin with the Global South, including Latin America and the Caribbean’. They reviewed the 600 projects that are being jointly conducted between China and Venezuela and the $70 billion Chinese investment in Venezuela. Maduro and Qiu chatted, and then they took photographs which were posted widely on social media and shown on Venezuelan television. Qiu then left with the Chinese Ambassador to Venezuela Lan Hu and the directors of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Latin America and Caribbean department, Liu Bo and Wang Hao. Within hours, the city was being bombed. That day, the spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, ‘Such hegemonic acts of the US seriously violate international law and Venezuelan sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region. China firmly opposes it’. Beyond that, little could be done. China does not have the capacity to roll back US hyper-imperialism through military force.

Within Latin America, the rising Angry Tide – led by Argentina’s Javier Milei – celebrated the capture of Maduro, while Ecuador’s right-wing President Daniel Noboa made the point not only about Venezuela, but about the need to defeat the Pink Tide that had been inspired by Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarianism: ‘All the criminal narco-Chavistas will have their moment. Their structure will finally collapse across the continent’. Argentina led a group of ten countries to block a condemnation of the US violation of the UN Charter at a meeting of the thirty-three-member Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). These countries were Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Trinidad and Tobago. It is a sign of the Angry Tide’s growing influence that CELAC, once able to stand for sovereignty, is now dragged into support for US adventurism in Latin America and for Trump’s orientation toward the revival of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.

CELAC was established in 2010 from the Rio Group (1986) in 2010 to form a regional body excluding the United States (as the Organisation of American States does), which is why its creation was helped along by the Pink Tide. Its first co-chairs were right-wing Chilean President Sebastián Piñera and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. This kind of unity of the right and left over the idea of sovereignty is now weakened beyond recognition. A failure of CELAC to act has meant that not only its orientation (including the passage of the idea that the Latin America is a Zone of Peace in the 2014 Havana summit) has been dismissed, but so too has the Charter of the Organisation of American States.

Trump has openly pledged to revive the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, first articulated by US President James Monroe to combat not only European interference in the Western hemisphere but also the growth of independence led by people such as Simón Bolívar, one of Latin America’s greatest heroes. Bolivarianism was revived by Chávez as one of the core ideological frameworks of the Pink Tide. Trump’s open embrace of the Monroe Doctrine and his call for a “Trump Corollary” (do what it takes to enforce the Doctrine) signals the US aim to restore old oligarchies across the hemisphere and grant US conglomerates free rein (potentially even reviving the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a trade initiative defeated by Chávez and others in 2005). This is class struggle on a continental level.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter.

Carlos Ron is Co-Coordinator of the Nuestra America office of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research.

8  January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof

This article examines the theological and legal tensions arising from the linguistic distinction drawn between the Arabic term ‘Allah’ and the English term ‘God’ within pluralistic secular frameworks. Centred on a recent controversy in Guruvayur, Kerala—where elected councillors chose to swear their oaths ‘in the name of Allah’ rather than the statutory ‘in the name of God’—this article deconstructs what it identifies as the Delusion of Distinction.

In the municipality of Guruvayur, Kerala—a region celebrated for its sacred identity as a “temple town” and its long history of communal coexistence—a legal and theological tremor recently surfaced. During their official induction, councillors belonging to the Muslim League opted to swear their oaths ‘in the name of Allah’ instead of the constitutionally prescribed ‘in the name of God’ as stipulated in the Third Schedule of the Indian Constitution and the Oaths Act of 1969. This prompted a formal complaint by Kerala Congress (M) leader R. H. Abdul Salim, who sought their disqualification on the grounds of procedural deviation.

Though appearing at first glance to be a matter of bureaucratic literalism, the episode unveils a deeper theological crisis. The controversy rests on a shared—but flawed—assumption held by both the councillors and their critics: that ‘Allah’ and ‘God’ refer to distinct ontological realities. This article argues that such an assumption represents a fundamental departure from Quranic hermeneutics. By transforming a linguistic signifier into a marker of tribal exclusivity, both parties inadvertently resurrect the very barriers the Quran sought to dismantle. Through linguistic, theological, and constitutional analysis, this article demonstrates that ‘Allah’ is not a sectarian brand name for a Muslim deity but a universal reference to the Absolute.

The Etymological Reality: ‘Allah’ as the Universal Definite

Any resolution of this dispute must begin with the foundations of Semitic linguistics. The word Allah (الله) is a contraction of al (the) and ilah (deity or god). Its literal meaning is “The God”—singular, definite, and unique.

This etymology is not exclusive to Islam; it belongs to a shared Abrahamic heritage. The term is cognate with the Hebrew Elohim and the Aramaic Alaha. Long before the advent of Islam, Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews used Allah in their prayers and scriptures. Even today, Arabic translations of the Bible employ Allah to refer to the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

When the Guruvayur councillors insist on ‘Allah’ to the exclusion of ‘God’, they commit what may be termed a semantic fallacy. They treat a common noun elevated into a proper noun as though it were a sectarian trademark. From a Quranic standpoint, this is a regression. The Quran did not introduce a new deity; it came to correct distorted human understandings of the One God already invoked across languages and cultures. To claim that ‘Allah’ cannot be translated as ‘God’ is to deny the linguistic fluidity intrinsic to the Semitic tradition itself.

The Quranic Bridge: Unity of the Divine Referent

The strongest rebuttal to this linguistic exclusivism emerges from the Quran itself. In Q.29:46, the Quran outlines a principled framework for interfaith engagement:

“And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best … and say: ‘We believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you. Our God (Ilahuna) and your God (Ilahukum) is One, and to Him we submit.’”

The phrase wa-ilahuna wa-ilahukum waḥid is theologically decisive. Rather than employing sectarian nomenclature, the Quran deliberately uses the generic term Ilah to assert unity of referent. It does not say, “Our Allah and your God are the same,” but affirms that the object of worship is one, regardless of the linguistic label.

By insisting on ‘Allah’ as a non-translatable term within a secular constitutional oath, the councillors unintentionally convey the message: “Our God is not your God.” This directly contradicts the Quranic mandate. If the God of the Quran is the same God worshipped in the Torah and the Gospel, then He is undoubtedly the same ‘God’ invoked in a secular oath. To deny this reduces Rabb al-‘Alamin (Lord of the Worlds) to a Rabb al-Muslimin (Lord of the Muslims)—a localised, tribal deity.

Linguistic Tribalism and the Delusion of Distinction

The Delusion of Distinction arises from the mistaken belief that divine sanctity is bound to the phonetics of a particular language. This form of linguistic tribalism is explicitly rejected in Q.17:110:

“Say: Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful (al-Raḥman). Whichever you call—His are the most beautiful names.”

This verse establishes a principle of linguistic plurality. If the Quran permits substitution of Allah with al-Raḥman, it validates any name that truthfully points to the Divine essence. The Most Beautiful Names (al-Asma’ al-Ḥusna) are attributes—Justice, Mercy, Truth—not magical sounds rendered invalid through translation.

To suggest that the English word ‘God’ is ontologically inferior is to confine the Divine to Arabic phonetics. Yet if Allah is truly the Creator of all humanity, then God, Ishwar, Daivam, Yahweh, and Dieu are all legitimate references to the same transcendent reality. By erecting linguistic barriers, one does not defend Islam; one provincialises God.

Deconstructing the Legal Complaint: A False Dichotomy

The complaint filed by R. H. Abdul Salim is likewise grounded in a false dichotomy. It assumes that because the statute specifies ‘God’, the use of ‘Allah’ constitutes defiance of constitutional authority.

In a multilingual and pluralistic democracy, ‘God’ functions as a constitutional placeholder for the highest moral authority recognised by an individual’s conscience. To penalise an elected representative for invoking the Arabic equivalent of that placeholder is a form of sectarian legalism. However, the councillors’ refusal to accept ‘God’ inadvertently reinforces Salim’s premise, as though they were indeed swearing by a different authority.

A Quranically informed position would have recognised that swearing by ‘God’ is swearing by Allah. By turning the issue into a public contestation, the Divine Name was reduced to a political marker rather than a moral anchor. This constitutes what may be called semantic idolatry.

The Abrahamic Continuum and the Error of Brand-Naming

The Quran consistently presents itself as a confirmation (muṣaddiq) of previous revelations, not a rupture. Q.2:136 commands believers to declare:

“We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us … and what was given to Moses and Jesus … We make no distinction between any of them.”

If no distinction is to be made between the prophets, none can be made between the Divine source who sent them. The God who spoke to Moses as Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh and to Jesus as Alaha is the same Being identified as Allah in Arabic.

Insisting that Allah cannot be translated into God or Daivam introduces a distinction precisely where the Quran insists on unity. It amounts to a brand-name theology, implying that the Islamic God is a different “product” from the God of previous revelations—an implication bordering on theological incoherence within tawḥid.

Meaning over Sound: The Essence of the Divine Names

Islamic spirituality is rooted in meaning (ma‘na), not mere sound (lafẓ). The Divine Names describe attributes of essence, not phonetic charms. If God is al-Ḥaqq (The Truth), then invoking Truth in any language is an invocation of God.

To treat ‘Allah’ as possessing a sacramental power denied to ‘God’ is a form of phonetic fetishism. It ignores the Quranic assertion that God is closer to the human being than their jugular vein (50:16)—a proximity entirely independent of language.

More subtly, it risks a form of semantic shirk: the suggestion that Allah and God represent rival referents. Tawḥid rejects this absolutely. There is no “Muslim God” and “secular God”. Any sincere reference to the Creator is a reference to Allah.

Kerala, Language, and the Fitna of Identity Politics

Kerala has long exemplified a composite cultural ethos, where Islam historically integrated local linguistic traditions rather than displacing them. The Guruvayur controversy signals a troubling drift towards linguistic Arabisation as identity politics.

This discord born of symbolism overshadowing substance. A public oath should foreground accountability and service, not linguistic posturing. The Quran declares that wherever one turns, there is the Face of God (2:115). By rejecting the word ‘God’, the councillors turned away from that Face as it appears within the linguistic reality of their own society.

Towards a Quranic Secularism

The Oaths Act exists to ensure moral accountability, not theological gatekeeping. The spirit of the law rests in sincerity of intention (niyyah), not phonetic precision.

A genuinely Quranic secularism recognises that universal principles of justice, equity, and integrity are manifestations of the Divine in the public sphere. Within such a framework, ‘God’ is not a secular substitute for Allah but its English synonym.

The Guruvayur councillors erred because they accepted the premise of otherness. A truly Quranic response would have affirmed: “I swear in the name of God, whom I call Allah in the language of my faith.”

The Guruvayur episode exposes a deeper malaise: the branding of the Divine. While the councillors may have acted from a sense of religious sincerity, their stance revealed a lack of Quranic depth. By treating Allah and God as distinct, they perpetuated a Delusion of Distinction that fractures what the Quran insists is One.

A mature secular democracy requires linguistic flexibility, just as faith traditions require theological breadth. Whether one says Allah, God, or Ishwar, the referent is the same Lord of the Worlds. Recognising this unity is essential for an inclusive public square where service, justice, and integrity matter more than the phonetics of devotion.

V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence.

10 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Kurt Cobb

The United States is now engaged in what I am calling “smash-and-grab” diplomacy in Venezuela, and it will perhaps soon do the same in Greenland, a territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. In case you have never heard the term, smash-and-grab refers to robberies undertaken by smashing store windows and/or display cases and taking what is readily available without concern about alarms going off or people on the street or in the store seeing what the robbers are doing. The phrase seems more descriptive than the older one of “gunboat diplomacy” in which, not infrequently, the mere display of force was used rather than actual attacks to obtain concessions from a weaker nation.

The current practitioners of the U.S. form of smash-and-grab diplomacy leave little to the imagination, prefering big displays of violence and simply taking what they want with no pretext that the target country is accepting terms through negotiation. Witness the brazen taking of all exported oil from Venezuela, the proceeds from which are supposedly going to be used “for the benefit of the American people and the Venezuelan people” (whatever that means), according to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Readers certainly know that in the past there have been other more subtle ways that major powers have taken the resources they need for their industries and militaries. For instance, what followed the era of gunboat diplomacy—which more or less ran from the late 19th century through early 20th century—was a era of less direct bullying of weaker countries by major powers. As empires crumbled, newly independent countries were strongly encouraged to install leadership friendly to American and European foreign policy and economic interests—or else! One of the “or else’s” was detailed in a book called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, written by one of the unofficial emissaries from the United States who carried a message of consequences if the target countries’ leaders did not acquiesce. The author began the book with this:

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign “aid” organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

As weaker countries across the world grew their economies and became more confident in their power, this form of intimidation ceased to be as effective. The rise of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia are two examples.

In an age of rising prosperity and the free flow of resources around the world, the waning power of American and European institutions to impose their will did not seem as problematic as it might otherwise have been. But with the return of scarcity of key metals (think: China’s restriction on strategically important metals), energy (think: natural gas in Europe), food (think: China’s purchases of farmland around the world), and water (think: well, all over the globe), expect more countries to engage in some form of smash-and-grab diplomacy as shortages lead to military operations designed to alleviate those shortages and/or prevent future ones.

What the current U.S. administration is doing, though probably unwittingly, is saying the quiet part out loud. As the natural resources that the modern world depends on become more and more scarce, countries will more and more resort to openly violent methods to secure access to those resources.

Smash-and-grab robberies result in losses to the merchants affected and inconvenience and upset for the public. But as such robberies become an instrument of foreign policy over the decades ahead, they will only mean more chaos for everyone.

Of course, world society could arrive at a global “kumbaya” moment and decide to cooperate on dramatically reducing worldwide consumption, first by eliminating waste and then by prioritizing consumption that is essential for a healthy, functioning society. We can wish for this. But nothing in the crumbling international order suggests that it will happen.

Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oilprice.com, OilVoice, TalkMarkets, Investing.com, Business Insider and many other places.

12 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Jose Biomorgi

In complex times, where pain and confusion spread everywhere, silence, discretion, and prudence are the best way to understand any situation and take the best decision. However, understanding that the first casualty in any war is the truth, and regarding the infamous behavior of the mercenaries of the media, who serve to the aggressor’s interests, I decided to write this short article to bring to light what is plain to see, but which they don’t want us to see. The US change regime operation fails in Venezuela. The Bolivarian Revolution hold on to power.

For more than a decade, the Bolivarian Government has been denouncing the aggressions of the US and the entire global system of domination, through the Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCM) applied to Venezuela. These measures have a clear criminal nature, and have caused deep social wounds and structural damage in our country, and we have learned to live with them and overcome them over the years. Proof of this is the almost five years of economic growth that we have reached in Venezuela. However, the cost has been high. Although never as high as losing sovereignty and independence.

The people of Venezuela, noble, brave, stubborn, resilient, and with an infinite sense of patriotism, have consistently denounced the aggression of the United States in all instances, at every level and at every moment. But we have not been intimidated and we are not willing to surrender their sovereignty. We have been denouncing the blockade that US has tried to impose on us, but at the same time, we have been working and moving forward. And that is what the imperialism cannot forgive us for: our ability to overcome adversity.

A brief note that will help us contextualize what I will describe below: Venezuela has had a relationship with the United States for over 120 years and we have built an entire system of technological dependence on this country and its European satellites. This influence even extends beyond that, into the cultural sphere. To mention just one example: in all the South America, the most popular sport is soccer, except in Venezuela. Even in Colombia, which is further north than our country. In our case, the king of sports is baseball, and that is undoubtedly a product of the great influence that the USA exerted on our country throughout the 20th century.

Let’s get down to business. What arguments have we used to denounce the MCUs, and which sectors have they primarily affected?

– The oil sector has undoubtedly been the most affected. Our oil production plummeted from nearly 3 million to 300 thousand barrels in less than five years, a consequence of our inability to purchase parts and components for maintaining our production system, as well as to conduct retrospective exploration studies for enhanced oil recovery, drill new wells to increase production, and a long list of other factors that would fill a book.

– The production of petroleum derivatives dropped to zero during the most difficult times we faced, due to our inability to purchase diluents and catalysts, among other necessities, to be able to refine and produce fuels. We even had our three main refineries (CRP, El Palito, and Puerto La Cruz) shut down at one point. We have been working to reverse this, but at huge cost.

– Our oil tankers, all under siege and sanctions, prevented us from transporting our main source of national wealth, forcing us to look for a complex and costly mechanisms to transport oil, which resulted in significant losses for the nation.

– The electricity sector is another major casualty. Our primary source of electricity generation is hydroelectric power. All of this generation system, as well as the transmission systems, was designed, manufactured, and installed by multinational corporations from the US and Europe, using technologies and equipment developed by them, such as turbines, control systems, transformers, generators, among others. So, we were not able to perform timely preventive and corrective maintenance due to the inability to acquire pieces and parts from these multinational corporations, which significantly dropped down the electricity supply, affecting the quality of life of our people.

– We have repeatedly denounced the impossibility of purchasing medical equipment, as well as parts and components to maintain our medical equipment.

– We also had to find alternatives for acquiring all types of medications, which required adapting our internal regulations to make it possible. We even had to import essential medications that we manufactured previously, such as biological drugs, among others.

– We had to transform our agri-food industry, which has been one of our greatest successes, as we now have independence in this area, although not without paying a very high social cost.

– We denounce the theft of our wealth by the global financial system and the impossibility of using them to acquire basic supplies of our industrial production.

– We have always affirmed our willingness to establish trade relations with all countries, within a framework of mutual respect and recognition, making it clear that any ideological differences we may have should not interfere with trade relations between nations.

I could continue mentioning many things, but this article would become infinitely long.

So, what is happening right now? US is negotiating and defining mechanisms with the Bolivarian Government, for increasing the acquire of Venezuelan crude oil (which they have done during more than 120 years), as well as selling parts and components to us to improve and strengthen our electrical system, exploring investment opportunities in our oil fields with the aim to increase our production, among many other announcements that our authorities will surely do soon.

All of this, of course, without relinquishing our sovereignty and our primary objective at this time, which is the rescue of our brother, President Nicolás Maduro, and our sister, First Lady and Deputy Cilia Flores, a courageous woman and an example of dignity and unwavering principles.

In conclusion, compatriots, let us not be swayed by the pain we feel at this moment. Let us not be blinded by the smoke curtains that the traitorous mercenaries, subservient to the aggressor, are trying to sell us. Let us not be misled by the enemy.

US abducted our President. They cowardly took him and Cilia away in an extraordinary show of force, carried out by the most powerful empire that humanity has ever known. Faced with the repeated failures of the US administrations against the Bolivarian Revolution and the valiant people of Venezuela, they had no other alternative than use the force and the cowardly aggression, employing the most advanced technological warfare systems and weapons.

However, the US administration seems finally understood that the only actor that can guarantee of stability in Venezuela is the Bolivarian Revolution. The only way for US to negotiate is by sitting down with the Bolivarian Government. If US want anything from Venezuela, they have to dialogue with us.

So, dear friends, comrades, and fellow citizens, the question arises: Who is winning this battle? Time will speak.

Let there be no doubt. We will rescue Nicolas and Cilia, and once again, WE WILL PREVAIL.

Jose Biomorgi is Venezuela’s Ambassador to Lebanon and Syria

12 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ashraf Zainabi

When dialogue reaches a dead end, politics rarely stays calm. Narratives harden, positions freeze, small incidents acquire larger meanings, and escalation begins to feel less like an accident and more like a direction. The present moment in U.S.–Iran relations appears to carry many of these features at once.

Big wars are rarely announced. They arrive quietly, through signals that seem disconnected when seen alone but form a clear pattern when viewed together. Russia evacuating its citizens from Iran through specially arranged flights is one such signal. By itself, it proves nothing. But it matters because it comes at a time when several other indicators are moving in the same direction. To understand why escalation now feels closer than before, we must look beyond any single event.

First, diplomacy between the United States and Iran has effectively collapsed. There is no meaningful negotiation channel left that carries trust. Nuclear talks are stalled, indirect messaging is reduced to warnings, and red lines are repeated rather than negotiated. When diplomacy stops producing movement, power politics fills the vacuum. History shows that prolonged diplomatic paralysis often precedes confrontation, not compromise.

Second, Iran is passing through one of its most serious internal crises in decades. Protests, economic pressure, and social anger have placed the state under intense strain. Governments under such pressure tend to behave in one of two ways, either they seek compromise, or they externalise threat. Iran’s leadership has increasingly framed its internal unrest as externally encouraged, especially by the United States and its allies. This framing narrows space for restraint. When a regime begins to see protest and pressure as part of a foreign strategy, escalation becomes easier to justify internally.

Third, U.S. signalling has changed in tone. Washington has moved from managing Iran to openly questioning the durability of the Iranian system. Statements emphasising “support for the Iranian people,” combined with tightened sanctions and military readiness in the region, are read in Tehran not as moral concern but as pressure. Even when intervention is not intended, signalling matters. Perception often drives response more than intent.

Fourth, the military environment around Iran has become denser and more alert. Increased patrols, higher readiness levels among U.S. regional forces, and parallel preparedness by Iran’s own military reduce reaction time. When forces operate closer, faster, and under stress, the risk of miscalculation rises sharply. Escalation does not always begin with a decision; sometimes it begins with an incident.

Fifth, regional actors are behaving as if instability is possible. Russia’s evacuation of citizens must be read in this context. States evacuate civilians not because war is certain, but because they believe conditions could deteriorate rapidly. Such actions reflect risk assessment, not panic. When multiple states quietly prepare for disruption, it signals that escalation is being treated as a serious possibility.

Sixth, Iran occupies a special place in U.S. global strategy. The United States today is not primarily fighting regional adversaries; it is managing competition with Russia and China. In that larger contest, Iran functions as a buffer. Its independence limits how far U.S. influence can move across West and Central Asia. As long as Iran remains intact and resistant, it blocks corridors, complicates alliances, and slows strategic pressure on America’s real challengers.

This makes Iran persistently uncomfortable for Washington, not because it is the strongest enemy, but because it blocks the road.

At the same time, the U.S. has learned that direct wars are costly. Iraq and Afghanistan reshaped American thinking. Large troop deployments, body bags, and long occupations are no longer acceptable at home. The preference now is indirect pressure, sanctions, isolation, internal stress, strategic signalling. Ukraine demonstrates this approach clearly, heavy support, but no boots on ground, and externalised cost.

Iran resists this model more stubbornly than most states. Its geography, energy role, and political posture make it difficult to fold into U.S.-led systems. That resistance ensures pressure never truly eases. Over time, sustained pressure creates moments of instability. Those moments are often when escalation becomes tempting. Does all this mean war is inevitable? No.

But escalation does not require inevitability. It only requires narrowing options. Right now, options are shrinking. Trust is absent. Communication is minimal. Internal pressures are high. Military alertness is rising. External actors are preparing quietly. Narratives on both sides frame the other as unreasonable and dangerous. This is how escalation begins, not with declarations, but with convergence.

The danger is not intention alone. It is misjudgement. Each side may believe the other will step back. Each may believe pressure can be controlled. History suggests such confidence is often misplaced. If escalation occurs, it will not remain confined to Iran and the United States. Buffer states, regions, and ordinary people will bear the cost. Stability, once broken, does not return easily.

The question, therefore, is not only whether U.S.–Iran escalation seems imminent. The deeper question is whether the world is prepared for the consequences if restraint fails.

Dr. Ashraf Zainabi is a teacher and researcher based in Gowhar Pora Chadoora J&K

12 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Akbar E. Torbat

The United States, along with its regional proxy Israel and the European Troika, tries to destabilize Iran to rip the country apart. Failing to achieve this purpose during the 12-day war, they now want to use violent protests like the Arab Spring in 2011 to achieve the same objective.

In recent months, the rate of inflation in Iran has been high, ranging from 40% to 50%. The US unilateral economic sanctions have hurt the country’s international trade. As sanctions tightened, Iran’s national currency, the rial, plummeted in value, reaching about half of its original value by late December.

In late December 2025, the reformist government of President Pezeshkian decided to end the subsidized preferred exchange rate for importing essential goods. Furthermore, his government increased the price of energy products, mainly gasoline, which had been at generally very low levels. All of these at once created an economic shock and provided the precondition for protests. The economic crisis and the demonstrations played into the hands of the imperialists, allowing them to fan the flames of the crisis and instigate riots.

Following the collapse of the national currency, the rial, a series of protests began on December 28 in the Tehran Grand Bazaar and in the retail district of central Tehran. Then, the protests spread to some other cities and turned violent against the theocratic regime. On the tenth and eleventh days of the nationwide livelihood protests, merchants in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, as in previous days, refused to open their shops. Other retail markets, as well as mobile phone and audio-visual equipment shops, also closed in protest.

Taking advantage of these protests, the Western media spread propaganda to destabilize Iran. They propagate Reza Pahlavi’s speeches, the son of the last Shah of Iran, as a candidate to bring back the monarchy in Iran. According to Haaretz, “Israel ran a covert influence operation using fake accounts and AI-generated content to promote Iran’s exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi and push for restoring the monarchy.”

However, the real intention of the imperialists is to rip the country apart and control its oil, as is being done in Venezuela. They have used all sorts of propaganda in the form of false reports and videos made up by artificial intelligence to aggravate the crisis.

President Donald Trump pledged to support the demonstrators. On January 9, Trump issued a new warning to Iran’s leaders, saying, “You better not start shooting because we’ll start shooting too.” Additionally, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed the US’s support for the protesters. Furthermore, Senator Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo, the former director of the CIA, Zionist officials, and “Hannah Neumann”, a German member of the European Parliament, have all stated that they stand with the protesters in Iran.

Yet, the Wall Street Journal reported, “President Trump has threatened repeatedly to intervene in the event of a bloody crackdown on Iranian protesters. That has prompted US officials to examine possible strikes on Iranian military sites.”

The Islamic Government’s Response

On January 11, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the Parliament Head, said Iran recognizes peaceful protests over economic concerns but stands firmly against armed terrorists. “To prevent miscalculation, understand that should you [Trump] take action to attack Iran, both the occupied territories [Israel] and all American military centers, bases, and ships in the region will be legitimate targets,” Qalibaf warned.

Also, on January 9, 2026, after Iran witnessed the largest street demonstration of the people on the twelfth night of the protests, Ali Khamenei, the religious Leader, called the protesters “foreign mercenaries.” He also added about Donald Trump, “If he knows that the arrogant men of the world, such as Pharaoh and Nimrod, Reza Khan and Mohammad Reza [the Shah and his father], were overthrown at the height of their pride, he too will be overthrown.” Furthermore, in a letter to the United Nations Security Council, Amir Saeed Iravani condemned the US government’s illegal actions and its coordination with the Zionist regime to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs and provoke riots and unrest in Iran.

The Western imperialists have instigated some ethnic groups, mostly the Kurds in western Iran, to destabilize the country by violent protests and riots in some cities. The arrest of some Mossad-related agents in various cities, such as Ilam, Tehran, Lorestan, etc., revealed that the Zionist regime has hired villains to provoke riots. These people use the “knock and run” tactic to kill and set on fire public and private properties. According to Tasnim News, with the arrest of some riot leaders in Tehran, it was revealed that they had collaborated with the Kurdish Komoleh rebel group. These people had mostly come to the capital from the western provinces of the country. They were in contact with Komoleh and were receiving sabotage instructions and weapons from them. Some agitators from the ethnic groups were armed with rifles, knives, and Molotov cocktails to kill law enforcement personnel, set on fire banks, mosques, and public properties.

There were widespread terrorist acts, such as attacks on businesses, shops, and stores that were still operating, warehouses, public transportation, government and law enforcement centers, Basij bases, and police stations, carried out in the most severe criminal ways on their agenda.

To control the riots and unrest, the Iranian government cut off the nation from the internet and international telephone calls. Some reports indicate that at least 100 rioters and four security personnel were killed, and 2,200 arrested during the unrest.

Crisis of the National Currency

In the past, Iran’s central bank had adopted a dual exchange rate system, allowing for a lower preferred exchange rate for the import of essential goods. The justification for adopting the preferred rate was to keep the price of some imported essential goods low for consumers; however, a small part of the difference between the preferred rate and the free rate went to the consumer, and the rest went to firms that received the foreign exchange at the preferred rate from the government. These firms had demanded maintaining the preferred rate, as they benefited from this huge source of rent-seeking arrangements. They obtained foreign exchange at the preferred rate for importing essential goods, but in some cases, they used it for other purposes or sold it for higher prices in the free market by employing various manipulation techniques.

In December 2025, the central bank decided to unify the exchange rate, fixing it to bring the rate closer to the free market rate and thereby ending the corruption associated with the preferred exchange rate. By eliminating preferential currency and transferring subsidies directly to the final consumer, the government wants to both maintain the purchasing power of households and increase transparency in the allocation of subsidies.

Consequently, the devaluation immediately affected the price of certain imported goods, which hurt the retailers. The government has instead allocated subsidies to most of the population to compensate for higher prices on certain essential goods. A monthly subsidy of one million Tomans is deposited into the accounts of most households. This credit is given in the form of vouchers for the purchase of 11 specific essential goods. Nonetheless, the rise in the money supply over the past few decades has been the primary cause of inflation in Iran.

The Iranian government should be wary of controlling inflation, particularly the price of food items. The Iranian people must be aware that Israel and its Western culprits intend to partition and destroy Iran, not be fooled by their propaganda, and be prepared to defend the country.

Akbar E. Torbat, Ph.D., is the author of “Politics of Oil and Nuclear Technology in Iran,” Palgrave Macmillan (2020).

12  January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Bruce Altschuler

It is hard to understand why Donald Trump is so anxious to acquire Greenland even if it takes military force. When he suggested this during his first administration, one of his Cabinet secretaries mused, “You just sit there and be, like, ‘Well, this isn’t real.’” Now, somehow, it is.

Venezuela shows us that, other than a desire for domination, there is no reasonable policy reason for Trump’s military actions. When he first ordered blowing up civilians in speedboats in international waters in the Caribbean, he claimed it was to prevent fentanyl from coming to the United States. After the obvious point that Venezuela produces no fentanyl was made, the justification became cocaine even though it was unlikely that any of these small boats, more than a thousand miles away from the US, contributed to the American drug problem.

Shortly before seizing Maduro, Trump pardoned the former president of Honduras who had just begun a 45-year sentence for his involvement in trafficking more than 400 tons of cocaine to the US. Switching justifications to regime change convinced few as Trump kept the rest of the Maduro regime in power while criticizing opposition leader Maria Machado. As for Trump’s latest justification, seizing “stolen” Venezuelan oil, even the major American oil companies, the supposed victims, seem singularly unenthusiastic.

When Germany occupied Denmark during WWII, the United States temporarily protected Greenland. At the end of the war, it was returned to Danish control but, since then, Denmark has made changes to give Greenlanders greater autonomy including granting the island home rule in 1979.

A major reason many Greenlanders want more control over foreign policy is a 2004 agreement that gave the US permission to upgrade its missile defense system at Thule Air Base which has since been renamed Pituffik Space Base. Inuit, who make up most of Greenland’s population and who had been forcibly removed from the area, sued for the right of return at the European Court of Justice.

Tensions had increased because the US stored nuclear weapons on the island in violation of a Danish ban and without the knowledge of Greenland, a problem worsened by the 1968 crash near Thule of a military airplane carrying four hydrogen bombs. A 2008 referendum calling for increased autonomy for the island passed with a three-quarters majority. It is hardly surprising that despite Trump’s claim that “Greenlanders “want to be with us,” a 2025 Verian poll showed 85% opposed and only 6% in favor.

The 1951 treaty between the US and Denmark allows the building of multiple military bases across Greenland. During the Cold War about a dozen bases, housing some 11,000 troops were built, including the 1959 Project Iceworm, a top-secret city under the ice that would house nuclear missiles. The instability of the ice sheet caused this project to be abandoned in 1966. All of the bases except Pituffik have been closed while the number of American personnel stationed there has been reduced from 6000 to 150.

If there was a real national security threat, the existing treaty would allow the US to increase the number of bases and personnel to whatever it deems necessary, provided it consults with Denmark and Greenland. According to Trump, there is a danger of Russia or China taking over Greenland if the US does not. A week ago he asserted that “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships,” a claim denied by Danish and Greenland officials who say that since a 2018 attempt by China to build several airports was rejected, “there really has been nothing from the Chinese.” Nor does tracking data show any sign of Chinese or Russian ships or submarines near Greenland.

Instead of Trump’s megalomania and desire for domination, Greenland’s future should be up to its own people. The same poll that showed most Greenlanders opposed a US takeover found that if there was a referendum on independence from Denmark, 56% indicated they would vote in favor versus 28% in opposition. Instead of Trump’s imperialist domination, they should be given the opportunity for self-determination.

Syndicated by Peace Voice.

Dr. Bruce Altschuler is emeritus professor of political science.

16 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Peter Schwarz

US President Donald Trump’s persistent threats to take over Greenland have provoked strong reactions in Europe. After Trump repeatedly asserted his claim to the huge island—which belongs to Denmark as an autonomous territory—in recent days and a Danish-American meeting in Washington ended without a resolution, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany and France have sent military reinforcements to Greenland.

For the time being, only a few soldiers and ships have been sent to explore further options. The mission is justified by the need to allay Trump’s concerns that Greenland is not sufficiently protected against Russian and Chinese attacks. In fact, it is intended to deter the US from annexing Greenland by force, even though it would offer little resistance to an American military operation.

The US president has justified his claim to Greenland on the grounds of US national security, among other things. “We need Greenland,” he said, “to prevent Russia and China from owning it.” He added threateningly that the takeover could be done “the easy way” or “the hard way.”

The meeting between the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland with US Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which took place in Washington on Wednesday, did not blow up as previously feared, but it also did not bring the parties any closer together. “We have not succeeded in changing the American position. There is a fundamental difference of opinion,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told the press afterwards.

Rasmussen and his Greenlandic colleague Vivian Motzfeldt had made it clear that they are prepared to work closely with the US to turn Greenland into an armed fortress against Russia and China and to exploit the valuable raw materials stored beneath the island and the adjacent Arctic. But the US insists on owning the island itself. A joint working group will discuss further steps.

In Europe, outrage over Trump’s claim to Greenland has reached fever pitch. The media and all established parties are up in arms over his threat to forcibly seize territory from a NATO partner. Seven European heads of government—including Friedrich Merz (Germany), Emmanuel Macron (France), Keir Starmer (Great Britain), Giorgia Meloni (Italy) and Donald Tusk (Poland)—signed a joint statement against Trump’s annexation plans in early January. They emphasise that the island belongs to the Greenlandic people.

What motivates the European leaders is not concern for international law, and certainly not for the Greenlandic people. The same media and leaders who criticise Trump over Greenland have supported and continue to support his numerous other crimes—from the genocide in Gaza to the bombing of Iran and the attempt to forcibly bring about regime change there. They even welcomed the attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro, which clearly violated international law, even though Trump openly boasted that his goal was to steal Venezuelan oil.

Nor do European governments raise any criticism of the destruction of democracy in the US, the terror of the ICE Gestapo, the instrumentalisation of the judiciary, and the unpunished murder of peaceful citizens such as Renée Nicole Good, even though they are otherwise relentless in condemning human rights violations when it comes to Russia or China. Instead, the European governments are competing to flatter the fascist gangster in the White House.

Even with regard to Greenland, the Europeans’ claims are not as clear-cut as they pretend. Although the island belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark under international law, it enjoys a high degree of autonomy. Copenhagen only has a say in foreign policy and defence; the Greenlanders themselves regulate internal affairs. The 2009 Self-Government Act expressly guarantees them the right to self-determination: they can therefore decide for themselves at any time whether they want to remain part of Denmark or not.

Greenland is also not, as is often claimed, part of the European Union. In 1973, it became a member of the European Community (EC), the predecessor of the EU, as part of Denmark, even though 70 percent of Greenlanders had voted against it. After gaining internal autonomy, Greenland held its own referendum in 1982, in which 53 percent voted in favour of withdrawal, which was completed in 1985. Since then, Greenland has only been associated with the EU as an overseas country or territory.

Greenland’s relationship with Denmark, which exploited the island as a colony for over two centuries, is also not as close as the government portrays it to be. Between 1966 and 1991, the Danish government implemented a brutal contraception program on the island to reduce the birth rate. For a quarter of a century, every second woman, including many girls, had an intrauterine device inserted without their knowledge. The Danish government did not apologise for this crime until 2025—six years after Trump first laid claim to Greenland.

Greenland, which has a population of only about 55,000, is dependent on financial support from Denmark. However, at €80 million per year, this support is very modest. It is therefore quite possible that Trump will try to bring Greenland under his control with an “offer they cannot refuse”—a combination of threats, blackmail and incentives. This is likely to be the subject of the negotiations agreed upon by the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland with Vance and Rubio.

The Europeans are not concerned with justice and self-determination in Greenland; rather, they fear losing out in the ruthless struggle for raw materials, markets and profits that is once again defining the relationship between the imperialist powers. They fear that Trump will break up NATO before they are strong enough to wage wars on their own. That is why they are rearming on a scale not seen since Hitler, and reintroducing conscription to recruit cannon fodder for the next war.

The conflict over Greenland is a convenient excuse to close political ranks and stifle resistance to rearmament and war. All parties in the Bundestag—from the Left Party to the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD)—are in agreement on the Greenland issue. All three opposition parties stand behind the government.

Left Party leader Jan van Aken demanded: “Not a single millimetre of Greenland will go to the US.” He called on the government to “make it clear who calls the shots.” Trump’s behaviour reminds him of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, said van Aken: “Everyone criticised it at the time, then turned away and carried on as if nothing had happened.” If there is “no clear statement from Germany, from Friedrich Merz,” said the Left Party leader, the US will continue to do the same.

For Green Party leader Felix Banaszak, this is not enough. He accused the Left Party of talking about US “state terrorism” but failing to answer the question of what “Germany and the European Union actually want to do to survive in a changed world order.” What is needed, he said, is “European sovereignty, European resilience, European strength.” This also includes greater defence capabilities.

For the AfD, which maintains close ties to Trump’s MAGA movement and Vice President Vance, German interests also take precedence in the case of Greenland. Party leader Alice Weidel accused Trump of “violating a basic campaign promise—namely, not to interfere in other countries.” Co-party leader Tino Chrupalla accused Trump of using “Wild West methods.” It is clear, he said, “that the end does not always justify the means.”

No one should be carried away by this war propaganda under the guise of “defending Greenland.” Not only Trump, but also Merz, Macron, Starmer and Meloni are preparing new wars to defend imperialist interests in a world where only the law of the strongest applies.

The answer to Trump’s annexation plans is not European military strength, but the mobilisation of the international working class against war and capitalism. The workers of Europe and the US are allies in this struggle.

16 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org