Archives: Articles

By Nilofar Suhrawardy

Communication strategies being exercised by the most powerful, US and Israel in their war against Iran appear to have been totally miscalculated. This is marked by a few key facts. They had apparently expected that Iran- with its “limited power”- would not be able to display much strength against the power of their strikes. This assumption has collapsed as Iran is displaying no chance of giving up. They were also not prepared for Iran’s attacks on Israel and US bases in the Gulf. Neither were probably Gulf allies of US. Paradoxically, Iran’s attacks have also exposed the limitations of so-called multi-layered “security” arrangements prepared by US and Israel. The impact of Iran’s attacks on US bases in Gulf and in Israel also seems to have shocked the two powers and apparently greater part of the world. They weren’t probably prepared for this nature of response. The war has exceeded 12 days. Last year, the war against Iran lasted 12 days. US was moved to call for a ceasefire when it stretched for this period. There is no knowing as to how long will the present war last.

There is yet another angle to this ongoing war/crisis which has probably not been totally deliberated upon. Some importance has certainly been given to role of US and Israeli intelligence agencies which led to assassination of Iran’s Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This has been viewed by certain sections as due to decades spend by Israeli secret services (Mossad) and around six months by US intelligences services, including CIA. This point can certainly not be questioned. But whether it is the question of decades, months or simply weeks/days spend by these intelligence services, it remains puzzling as to how did they fail to give substantial importance to missile-power of Iran, that has certainly stunned the whole world. Where did these “intelligence agencies” err? Or perhaps they chose not to give enough importance to this strength of Iran?

The preceding point only suggests that they chose to bank on the strength of their power by giving it substantial importance and without choosing to adequately gauge the striking potential of Iran. The latter point also suggests that they presumed Iran to be too “weak” to give them a strong fight. In other words, their communication strategies seem to have banked only on their own strength and not on adequately studying that of Iran. Or perhaps they may have given some or even substantial importance to deliberating on this aspect but definitely fell short of judging its power adequately. The impact of Iranian strikes on US bases in the Gulf and in Israel certainly indicates this.

It is also possible, over-confidence of US and Israel in achieving total victory against Iran blinded them from adequately considering the retaliation that they may have to face. Over-confidence speeded by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to rush against Iran also seems to have prevented them from taking into full account the aftermath of what they were heading for. In other words, they appear to have fallen short of estimating the retaliatory strength of Iran because of several reasons.

The assumption that Iran was too weak for them was also assumed as probably key contributor to their easy “victory” which still doesn’t seem within their easy reach. Iran is showing no chances of yielding as and when desired by US. Undeniably, US President Donald Trump has not failed to keep claiming the degree of success achieved by US and Israel against Iran. And yet, he has failed to take any specific stand on whether the war is going to end soon or not. The longer the war lasts also indicates the capability of Iran to withstand strikes of US and Israel. In addition, the hard fact- as pointed earlier- that Iran is not refraining from striking at Israel and US bases cannot be ignored. This simply also suggests that Iran has not collapsed as yet. Now, with recent reports pointing to Iranian forces striking against Israel in coordination with militant groups in the region is an indicator of their being in an aggressive posture which was probably not even considered by Trump and Netanyahu.

Give a thought, US chose to strike against Iran while being engaged in negotiations with it hardly suggests the kind of policy of Washington was considering towards Tehran. The explanation is simple. Trump had no option but to yield to what Netanyahu desired. Considering Netanyahu’s limited diplomatic credibility – which he seems to measure only by Israeli strikes in the region- Trump has apparently erred in assuming that his stand against Iran would also have similar impact. In other words, Iran was probably expected to weaken as have Syria and Lebanon in the past.

US and also Israel erred by not giving at least some importance to communication strategies of Iran and Gulf nations in the region. Iran has certainly not been caught ill-prepared by decision of US and Israel to start war against it. This had to begin sooner or later. Recent years have also been witness to Iran given importance to improving its diplomatic ties with countries in the region. Undeniably, Arab/Gulf allies of US are extremely angry at US, for their diplomatic stand being virtually ignored by Trump. They were against war with Iran. But now that it has begun, they are also not pleased by Iranian strikes in their land. At the same time, chances of their being dragged into an open conflict with Iran are practically non-existent. Trump appears to have lost their trust. The question of their ever trusting Israel apparently doesn’t prevail. The question is not that of simply war coming to an end but also that of Trump’s “diplomacy” being considered seriously. It may be, but chances of their being any stability and seriousness in Trump’s “diplomacy” and/or “diplomatic trap/illusion” are limited. US-Israel-Iran war appears to have severely punctured communication diplomacy of Washington in the region!

Nilofar Suhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialization in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy.

13 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Ram Puniyani

The joint attack by Israel and the United States on Iran has been very devastating. Like most wars, it is brutal to the core. The pretext for the war has been that the Ayatollah Khamenei regime has been very brutal, particularly regarding women’s rights, and that it has been preparing nuclear weapons. Iran, in turn, was willing to come to the negotiating table and concede some of the points emerging from the talks. However, in the middle of these negotiations, the Israel–America (I-A) axis decided to launch the war, and in its initial phase it inflicted severe damage on Iran. One was the killing of Khamenei along with some of his family members, and the other was the bombing of a school in which 165 young girls lost their lives. Many civilians have also been targeted by the I-A axis. In addition, an Iranian naval ship that had arrived in India on India’s invitation for naval exercises was torpedoed by a US submarine, killing a large number of sailors on board. Iran bravely retaliated and caused huge damage to the I-A axis.

During these developments, India’s role has been a great eye-opener regarding its evolving foreign policy. India began with a policy of non-alignment and had very amicable relations with Iran. Cultural and economic exchanges between the two countries were excellent. Now we see that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel just before the war. The goal of the visit was not disclosed to the country. He did receive the highest honour of Israel and pledged that India would stand with Israel through thick and thin. The very next day, the I-A axis attacked Iran. Mr. Modi did not tweet about the demise of Iran’s supreme leader and issued a vague statement equating the aggressor and the aggrieved country. The transition of India from being neutral to embracing the American–Israel axis came out loudly through the acts of commission and omission of the Indian Prime Minister.

Coming back to the American story, we have been watching the role of the United States particularly since the 1950s. Its role has often been one of interfering in other countries’ affairs for political and economic goals. Earlier, “saving the world from communism” was its major plank for unleashing wars, beginning with the Vietnam War. The French had colonised Vietnam, and Ho Chi Minh’s communist forces overthrew the French. A long and complicated political process led to the division of Vietnam along the 17th parallel into communist North Vietnam and capitalist South Vietnam. America launched a horrific war against Vietnam, spending millions of dollars. The Americans used chemical weapons such as napalm (jellied petrol) and Agent Orange (a powerful defoliant). These were used to clear jungle foliage that served as natural cover for the Viet Cong (the Vietnamese resistance forces). Napalm cleared much of the undergrowth, but it also stuck to human bodies and caused horrific injuries. Agent Orange killed many innocent civilians; farms were destroyed, crops were lost, and animals were killed.

The Vietnamese people largely supported Ho Chi Minh. The Viet Cong, through guerrilla tactics, eventually emerged victorious, and America, for once, had to face defeat. Its army—over five lakh strong—retreated with its morale crushed by defeat at the hands of a young nation. The Vietnam War demonstrated abundantly that America would spare no effort to defeat those who opposed its interests, often framed under the ideology of the “Free World.”

This pattern became clearer over time as America attacked country after country on one pretext or another. The second major case was Iran. With its strategic location and vast oil reserves, Iran was of special interest to Western powers, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. Britain had a major presence in Iran during the Second World War. After the war, Britain continued to retain control over Iran’s oil through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, exploiting Iran’s resources for its own interests. This arrangement changed abruptly in 1951 when the Iranian parliament, led by the nationalist and democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh, voted to nationalize the country’s oil industry. From that point, Britain began opposing the Mossadegh regime and attempted to foment opposition against him. Britain enlisted American support, and a coup was staged in Iran that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed Reza Shah Pahlavi, a stooge of the United States. Western oil interests remained secure.

The story of Salvador Allende’s elimination and the overthrow of a democratic government in Chile is fairly similar. Allende, a Marxist and a member of the Socialist Party, was sworn in as President of Chile on November 3, 1970. He decided to nationalize copper companies controlled largely by American interests. The U.S. spent about $8 million on covert actions between 1970 and the 1973 coup. According to a 1975 Senate report, U.S. officials also backed economic measures to squeeze Allende’s government. In a CIA-supported coup, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet came to power. He ruled ruthlessly and wrought havoc on Chile’s democracy and potential prosperity.

The harm inflicted on West Asia has been even more dangerous. After the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, America supported certain madrasas in Pakistan and helped train mujahideen fighters. From these networks, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda eventually emerged. America funded them to the extent of $8 billion and supplied them with about 7,000 tons of armaments (Mahmood Mamdani’s book Good Muslim, Bad Muslim). After the events of 9/11, America used this as a pretext to attack Afghanistan, where about 60,000 people were killed. To dominate the region further, it invoked the pretext of “weapons of mass destruction” to attack Iraq. Soldiers were told that Iraq’s people were being oppressed by Saddam Hussein and that the war was necessary. They were also told that Iraqis would welcome them as liberators with bouquets and chocolates. The reality was very different. Iraq was dismantled, and the rise of the Islamic State followed. Neither were weapons of mass destruction found nor were American soldiers welcomed.

Colonialism and imperialism leave dangerous marks on victim countries and on the world as a whole. In India, British policies of “divide and rule” strengthened communal forces, the consequences of which we continue to suffer today. The American media’s coining and popularisation of the phrase “Islamic terrorism” has contributed to the global demonization of Muslims. Both colonialism and imperialism lie at the roots of many of the major problems the world faces today. One can only hope that peace may be promoted by recognizing the destructive impact of imperialism.

13 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By B.R. Bapuji

It is well known that on February 28, the governments of Israel and the United States, acting together, began bombing Iran and have continued the attacks.

Many articles are being written discussing this war from different angles. Such discussions explain how this war violates international legal principles and how Israel, in pursuit of regional dominance, and the United States, in pursuit of global dominance, are conducting this war with great aggression. Examining these issues from various perspectives is certainly useful for readers.

In this article, my aim is to show that the root cause of war lies in the competition over the sale of commodities.

In any society, the production of goods mainly occurs in two sectors. First: The sector that produces the means of production required to produce commodities. Machines, raw materials, and similar items are produced in this sector. Second: The sector that produces commodities necessary for people’s maintenance, such as food, clothing, housing, healthcare, and education.

However, in a capitalist society, there is another type of production that serves neither as a means of production nor as a means of the necessities of life. That is the production of weapons. Why are these produced? To enable one class to suppress another class, or for the government of one country to keep another country under its control.

The immediate objective of the aggressive war currently being waged by the United States and Israel is to establish dominance over Iran. Through that dominance, they aim to seize not only the vast oil reserves in Iran but also valuable minerals and metals, including zinc, copper, iron, gold, coal, and lithium.

Another important point is that whenever wars occur between two countries or between two alliances, the ones who benefit the most are the capitalists who produce war equipment as commodities. Weapons are produced not only by private capitalists. Governments themselves, acting as capitalists, also undertake this production.

In the present war, news reports say that hundreds and thousands of weapons are being used, leading to shortages of military supplies. According to Reuters, the U.S. Department of Defense recently summoned representatives of major arms companies and placed orders three to four times larger than before. Furthermore, the United States has decided to sell 27,000 bombs worth 660 million dollars to Israel.

Leaders of both the ruling and opposition parties in the United States—and even their spouses—hold large amounts of shares in these arms manufacturing companies.

Two days before the United States and Israel began the war against Iran—on February 26—the U.S. State Department website published details of the weapons the United States had sold to various countries and the supplies still pending.

According to orders issued on February 6, the document listed details for nearly 40 countries: the types of weapons they required, their power levels, the number of units needed, and the delivery schedule.

Among those 40 countries are several U.S.-allied countries surrounding Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. This means those countries must purchase weapons from the United States by spending billions of dollars. Where does that enormous amount of money come from? It comes from the millions and millions of dollars in surplus value extracted from working people by their masters through the exploitation of labour.

And it is not spent on essentials like education, healthcare, or employment. Instead, soldiers are sent to foreign countries where people and soldiers there are killed, while people and soldiers here are also killed by the other side. It becomes nothing but mutual bloodshed. About such horrific situations, the Urdu poet Sahir Ludhianvi, who had communist leanings, wrote in 1965 in an anti-war song titled “O Good People”:

“Whether it is our blood or the blood of others/in the end it is the blood of humanity. /Whether war takes place in the East or in the West/ it is ultimately the blood of world peace./Whether bombs fall on homes or on borders/the soul of creation is wounded. /Whether our fields burn or the fields of others/life trembles with hunger./Whether tanks move forward
Or retreat/the womb of the earth becomes barren.
Whether there is a celebration of victory
Or sorrow of defeat/life weeps over corpses.
War itself is a problem/how can it provide solutions to problems?”

The poet Sahir does not stop with this observation; he also shows a path of struggle:

“Therefore, O good people/come—let us spread the light of thought in this unfortunate world./Let us begin struggles that strengthen peace/A struggle against politics that harvests death. A struggle against poverty and slavery./A struggle against misguided leadership./A struggle against capitalism./A struggle against the ideology of war/Peace—for a peaceful life!

Therefore, what we must do, as Sahir suggests, is struggle against the capitalist system. The first step toward that struggle is to understand how far this system is willing to go—how cruel and immoral it can become—in pursuit of profit.

Karl Marx, in his work “Capital,” quotes a trade union leader who described the nature of capital very well: “Money, they say, comes into the world with a bloodstain on one cheek; but capital comes into the world dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt. If there is sufficient profit, capital becomes very bold. With a guaranteed 10 percent profit, it will engage in any business. With a 20 percent profit, it becomes enthusiastic. With a 50 percent profit, it becomes daring. With 100 percent profit, it is ready to trample on all human laws. With 300 percent profit, there is no crime it will hesitate to commit, nor any risk it will avoid—even if it means the possibility of its owner being hanged.”

B.R. Bapuji is a former Professor, University of Hyderabad

13 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Michael K Smith

“If America attacks . . . Iranians will unite, forgetting their differences with their government, and they will fiercely and tenaciously defend their country.”

—–Shirin Ebadi, Iran’s 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate

The only thing truly epic about the current U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is the chasm between the facts on the ground and the media spectacle put forth by President Trump and his fawning aides.

Folly is the best term to capture the reality of a president who until very recently presented himself as uniquely qualified to bring peace to the world via his “Art of the Deal” genius, then turned on a dime to endlessly repeat that the U.S. would inflict maximum damage and suffering on Iran, a country he had said would be a particularly bad place to try and carry out regime change, not to mention a policy he claimed to have rejected no matter where it might be recommended, wisdom he allegedly learned from the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

After steady coaching from Benjamin Netanyahu, however, he changed his mind, becoming convinced that a quick decapitation of Iran’s leadership would lead Iran’s suffering masses to topple the mullahs and install an American-friendly government. He claimed that Iran’s clerical regime would fall in 48 hours.

That prediction failed so fast it didn’t even allow time for a G.W. Bush style “Mission Accomplished” declaration to whet the appetite for the inevitable anti-climax of disintegration and civil war a few months later. In this as in so many other areas Trump is a prodigy, failing almost as fast as he can dream up fresh lunacies to aggravate the world with. As the Ugly American, he’s way overqualified.

Since February 28 we have been treated to desperate, ever-changing, and contradictory attempts to justify the unjustifiable initiation of war, and an equally desperate, ever-changing, and contradictory attempt to define its objectives and limits, something that has proven impossible for an administration that was counting on ending the war with a single massive blow. Hence the ever-lengthening list of childish inventions: “bring the Iranians back to the negotiating table,” “obliterate the Iran nuclear program,” “liberate the people,” “strike a deal Venezuelan style,” “complete regime change,” etc. etc. None of it has anything to do with reality.

For Trump and his henchmen, where reality is not merely tinged with fantasy but subsumed by it, “nothing is impossible” is a necessary watchword. For them, thoughtlessness is a virtue, as shown by Trump’s nonchalance in admitting that they hadn’t found a replacement yet for the murdered Iranian head of state because the U.S.-Israeli attacks were so successful that all the potential replacements had also been killed. No need for woke nonsense like knowing what you’re doing.

With gas prices soaring and Americans already coming home in body bags, an obviously desperate Trump yearns to declare victory and withdraw, but he cannot do so, because the Iranian government is still very much in place. Lacking an exit strategy, his war doctrine is “flexible,” by necessity, since he has no idea how he fell into the current trap, let alone how to get out of it. Ever the narcissist, however, he gives himself an “A” for effort, assessing the initial phase of the U.S. war as a 15 on a scale of 10.

In other words, we’re watching another reality TV episode, full of kitsch and cliches, with Pete Hegseth comparing the mass killing to a football game. Iranian leaders knew the first few “plays,” said the war secretary, because they had been scripted before the war started, but once the “game” was underway they didn’t “know what plays to call, let alone how to get in the huddle.” Filled with adolescent pride at unleashing massive waves of lethality, he claimed the U.S. was “fighting to win,” even as Trump showed eagerness to negotiate a way out, an option that Teheran flatly rejected.

Badly conceived, sloppily improvised, and based on the repetition of past errors and disasters, the Trump and Bibi war moves from tragedy to farce and back again, only this time on a vaster scale and with potentially far graver consequences.

It’s difficult to recall a greater folly.

Michael K Smith blogs at www.legalienate.blogspot.com

13 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Ilan Pappé

Here is a conundrum. While stock exchanges across the world react nervously to the onslaught on Iran, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange is booming. Here is another: while millions of people in the region dread the US-Israeli military operation and its consequences, Israeli society is jubilant. According to the latest polls, 93 per cent of the Jewish population support the war. Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, one journalist captures the euphoric mood:

While we are getting rid of the monstrous Iranian Octopus, I walk down the street, the shops are open, Wolt couriers are rushing to deliver sushi, shawarma and overpriced chocolate cakes to Israeli citizens, people are jogging in the park, and at home I have electricity, hot water and internet. The Pilates studio is open, and the Israeli stock exchange is breaking records. And at this very moment, over my head in the lowlands, Air Force fighter jets take off for another sortie . . . They destroy with impossible precision another home of a mid-ranking officer in the Revolutionary Guards . . .

This is what the most critical war since the founding of the state looks like? This is what it looks like because the State of Israel is a miracle that cannot be explained.

He goes onto suggest that Israel has the great leadership of Netanyahu to thank, along with the exceptional qualities of its people and divine assistance. In Israel Hayom, another prominent journalist offers another jingoistic encomium to Israel’s Prime Minister. Even Netanyahu’s detractors must admit that he is possessed of ‘patience, cunning, determination and unwavering focus’ in his steady destruction of the enemy – total war on Hamas, then Hezbollah, now Iran – and curtailment of Trump’s foolish attempts to negotiate with the Mullahs and devise a peace plan for Gaza.

The strategy certainly seems to be one shock and awe campaign after another. Iran is currently in the crosshairs, but the message is directed at all Middle Eastern states: do not dare challenge Israel’s bid for regional hegemony or ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Achieving the first would give Israel the immunity it needs for the second: rectifying the mistake the historian Benny Morris lamented when he criticized Ben Gurion for not expelling all the Palestinians in 1948. As Bezalel Smotrich said to Palestinian members of the Knesset in 2021, ‘you are here because Ben Gurion did not finish the job’. In the eyes of the government, and the political elite in general, the moment seems to have arrived to finish the job.

This marks a break from the pre-state Zionist strategy and then Israeli regional policy, which was based on covert operations combined with crypto-diplomacy. I am often asked whether the current war is aimed at implementing what is known as the Yinon Plan. Oded Yinon was an adviser to Sharon, and in 1982 he co-authored an article outlining a strategy of divide and rule of the Arab world. Sectarianism serves Israel well, he argued, and should be promoted. This was at the time when Sharon sought to sow division in the ranks of the Palestinian resistance, including by encouraging Islamist forces in Gaza. When that failed, Sharon launched a direct assault on the PLO in Lebanon, which was widely criticized in Israel as a strategic mistake. The recent news about an attempt to facilitate a Kurdish land invasion from Iraq to complement the aerial bombardment of Iran may seem to confirm that these tactics are still in operation. But this is not the case. The old strategy was far less dramatic: clandestine intervention in the domestic politics of other states is not policy that is boasted about; nor is it based on dragging the region into a war.

Evidently, this is no longer the modus operandi of the state of Israel. Ironically, the best interpretative schema here may be that which orientalists have typically applied – not always very accurately – to the Islamic Republic: that this is a power not acting according to a ‘Western’ rational and humanist approach to politics but a fanatical ideology. Those determining the present Israeli strategy are explicit about its roots in the teaching of messianic Zionism and their vision of the present war as divine fulfilment. Netanyahu may be less ideological than his allies, and more narrowly concerned with his own political survival, but there is little doubt he accepts his glorification as both a strategic genius and messenger of God. For this camp, Israeli society itself needs to become far more theocratic. It is not yet, laments Smotrich, the ‘state of the Cohanim’, but is on its way to being ruled by a harsh biblical version of the Halachic law: ‘The State of Israel, the country of the Jewish people, with God willing, will go back to operating as it did in the days of King David and King Solomon.’ Much of the government’s domestic legislation is devoted to pursuing this end. Second, there is a need to resolve the Palestine question. Gaza is the model. Smotrich again: ‘There are no half-measures. Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat – total destruction. “Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. There is no place for them under heaven.”’

Speaking in October 2024, Smotrich declared that ‘once in a generation, there is a rare opportunity to change history, to change the balance of power in the world and reshape the future. Soon we will have to take fateful decisions that will lead to a new and better Middle East.’ For most Western political commentators, messianic proclamations – unless by Islamists – sound irrelevant to politics. But these are not hollow statements. This is a worldview that now dominates both the political and military establishments, which provides the underpinning for much of the present jubilation and unconditional endorsement by the media. The war against Iran is also supported by those with a more secular – and allegedly more rational – approach to politics, in the Mossad and academia, as well as the only politicians who can potentially defeat Netanyahu in October’s elections, Avigdor Liberman and Naftali Bennet. The justification is that Israel had to act because it faced an existential threat – a claim as plausible as Colin Powell’s justifications to the UN of the invasion of Iraq. Even more absurd is the argument that a state which systematically violates the rights of the Palestinians is fighting a war for the sake of human rights.

Judged from an economic perspective, despite the exuberance of the Israeli stock market, the course of the Israeli state is highly questionable. It costs a great deal of money – two billion NIS a day in direct expenditure and five to six billion indirectly – and will require significant continued American financial aid. The government’s logic is that this will be balanced by the economic dividends: sky-rocketing profits from arms sales, now that cutting-edge Israeli weapons are being showcased on the battlefield, not to mention the prospect of Iranian oil reserves and greater access to those of the Gulf states, as they come to realize they need Israel’s protection. Yet there is no certainty this will make up for the financial strain; the same goes for money spent on settlements and the promotion of messianic Judaism in lieu of healthcare and other social priorities.

There are further reasons why Israel will struggle to pursue its strategy over the long term. Campaigns like this in the past were abandoned the moment they faced difficulties. Loss of American life, pressure from other countries in the region, public opinion in the US, the potential resilience of the Iranian regime and continued resistance of the Palestinians may all shift the balance. An invasion of Lebanon, judging by past attempts, will benefit no one. Much depends on the global coalition that fortifies Israel’s wars: the arms industry, multinational corporations, megalomaniac leaders of powerful states, Christian and Jewish Zionist lobbies, the timid governments in the global north as well as corrupt Arab regimes in the Middle East. What is certain is that before this fiasco ends, Israel will inflict a great deal of suffering – on the Iranians, the Lebanese and the Palestinians.

Ilan Pappé is an Israeli historian and socialist activist. He is a professor of history at the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, director of the university’s European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies.

13 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Paul Krugman

It becomes clearer with each passing day that the people who took us to war with Iran had and have no idea what they’re doing — that they’re adolescents who think they’re playing video games while thousands die and the world careens toward economic crisis. The New York Times reports that Trump officials dismissed warnings that attacking Iran could disrupt world oil supplies. Among other things, the Times reports that

Mr. Trump, both publicly and privately, has been arguing that Venezuelan oil could help solve any shocks coming from the Iran war.

In 2024 Venezuela produced 900,000 barrels of oil per day; normally 20 million barrels a day transit the Strait of Hormuz. But arithmetic has a well-known woke bias.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that the Pentagon has barred press photographers from briefings about the war after they published photos of Pete Hegseth that his staff considered “unflattering.” Priorities!

Amid the bloody shambles, one big question is, who put The Gang That Couldn’t Think Straight in power? In an immediate sense, Trump was put over the top by low-information voters — defined by G. Elliott Morris as voters who don’t know which party controls Congress. But the groundwork for the MAGA takeover was laid well before by the Roberts Supreme Court and by right-wing billionaires that the court enabled.

A few weeks ago I wrote about Billionaires Gone Wild, the extraordinary influence acquired by a tiny group of ultra-wealthy men. I shared this chart on campaign contributions, based on estimates from Americans for Tax Fairness:

[https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!JHBB!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F21a23d6d-f703-4f9f-abc7-2af1d0649237_1431x869.png]

On Monday the Times published a deeply reported story about billionaires’ influence that, among other things, found that the chart above somewhat underestimates their role in campaign finance: According to the Times, they accounted for 19 percent of contributions in 2024, not 16.5 percent.

The Times also pointed out that the big money swung hard right in the 2024 election. The magnitude of the largesse showered on Republicans is clear in OpenSecrets data on the top 100 donors in different cycles:

[https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!TSML!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbaef67aa-de05-4062-b432-357cfbec7703_1240x934.png]

Moreover, the Times presents numbers that are even more extreme than the Open Secrets data:

In past elections, as ultrawealthy donors became more active, both major parties reaped rewards. But there was a stark divergence in 2024, with less money flowing directly to Democrats and a sharp increase in the amount donated to Republicans.

For every dollar donated by billionaires and their immediate families to a candidate or committee associated with Democrats, five dollars went to Republicans.

Much of that was a result of ultrawealthy people in the tech industry, who aligned with Mr. Trump’s tax and deregulation policies. More than a dozen billionaires were awarded roles in his administration.

And these explicit money flows don’t capture the immense effect of other deployments of billionaires’ wealth, notably the subversion of both conventional and social media. Elon Musk purchased Twitter in 2022 and quickly began converting it into the Nazi-friendly cesspool it is today — and no, that’s not hyperbole. How much did this contribute to the degradation of public discourse? Paramount, controlled by Larry Ellison and run by his son, has taken over CBS News — which is rapidly going downhill — and is on the verge of taking over CNN too. And Jeff Bezos is gutting The Washington Post, although kudos to the remaining reporters who are still trying to do their jobs.

There is, however, something that is still puzzling me: To a large extent billionaires bought themselves a government friendly to their interests. Trump and company have granted many items on the tech broligarchy wish list, from tax breaks to deregulation to promotion of crypto and unregulated AI. But why the abject incompetence? Couldn’t billionaires find political allies who wouldn’t plunge the country into a potentially disastrous and historically unpopular war without considering the risks?

I have two tentative answers.

One is that no, competent allies weren’t available. Money buys a lot of influence, but to actually take over the U.S. government requires more than money — it requires politicians who are utterly corrupt. In his first administration, Trump learned that hiring people who were even modestly competent eventually presented barriers to his authoritarian instincts – for example, his former Vice President Mike Pence. Hence Trump learned that in choosing his political hires the more incompetent, the more venal, the more bigoted, and the more cruel, the better.

You might think that presidential pardons for scammers, money launderers and outright crooks are unrelated to the ill-advised war on Iran. But corruption is a key feature of a billionaire-installed regime, and corruption and incompetence go hand in hand.

My second answer is that the vast wealth of tech billionaires has made many of them unconcerned with the little people’s lives — and deeply unpatriotic. If Americans are being brutalized and murdered by rogue ICE agents…well, that’s not their problem. If the Justice Department and the FBI are totally subverted and operate as Trump’s enforcers, they know that vindictive, unlawful tactics will never touch their lives. If Republican budget cuts decimate rural hospitals and deprive hundreds of thousands of health insurance…well, they have their own private doctors and clinics. If Trump starts an ill-conceived war that doubles the price of oil…well, they can certainly afford the higher gasoline bills for their limousines and yachts. And it won’t be their kids hunkered down in a bunker in the Middle East.

So if you want to understand how this country has degenerated to such a state, how we can be spending nearly $2 billion a day attacking Iran without a clear endgame in sight, while children go without healthcare, nursing homes are understaffed because their workers have been deported, home electricity bills skyrocket due to data centers, consider who benefits and who isn’t hurt.

This is a billionaire’s war, waged at everyone else’s expense.

MUSICAL CODA

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Oc1UE7SS4]

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

13 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“The geopolitical genie is out of the bottle: by capitalizing on geography to disrupt global trade, countries can strengthen their strategic position at relatively low cost.”

Alex Mills, The Atlantic Council, March 12, 2026

With each day of glorified actions against Iran, with each cloudy press session claiming supreme success through sheer force, the Trump administration is struggling to keep up appearances. Through an approach of existential attrition, the clerical regime in Tehran is now causing shocks and tingles in the global market, striking where influence is strongest: the petrol pump, the cash register, the hip pocket. Its missiles, drones or projectiles may not be able to reach the United States or Australia, but a note of panic is setting in.

Even before shipping was attacked (threats sufficed), the Strait of Hormuz was already being emptied of traffic. Fearing losses, major shipping firms such as Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and CMA CGM ceased transiting cargo through the waterways. Since the war commenced on February 28, transits through the Strait have virtually stopped. This putative closure imperils the transfer of a fifth of the world’s oil supply, a fifth of the global trade in liquified natural gas, and some 13% of the global share in chemicals, including essential fertilisers. Freight rates for oil tankers, war risk insurance premiums and costs of marine fuel are all rising steeply.

A social media post from Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi brimming with satisfaction captured the mood: “9 days into Operation Epic Mistake, oil prices have doubled while all commodities are skyrocketing. We know the US is plotting against our oil and nuclear sites in hopes of containing huge inflationary shock. Iran is fully prepared.” He also promised that Iran had “many surprises in store.”

On March 11, a spokesperson for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters resolutely declared that any vessel linked to Israel, the United States or their allies would be “considered a legitimate target”. He also rejected the effectualness of efforts to suppress price rises. “You will not be able to artificially lower the price of oil. Expect oil at $200 per barrel,” he warned. “The price of oil depends on regional security, and you are the main source of insecurity in the region.”

An effort to halt the rise of the oil price was made with a decision by 32 member states of the International Energy Agency (IEA) to release 400 million barrels of oil. “This is a major action aiming to alleviate the immediate impacts of the disruption in markets,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol explained in his address. “But to be clear, the most important thing for the return to stable flows of oil and gas is the resumption of transit through the Strait of Hormuz.”

Over March 11 and 12, in what seemed to be an effort to counter this move, the IRGC made good its word, attacking some six vessels, using projectiles and explosive-laden unmanned surface vessels. Targets included the Marshall Islands-flagged Safesea Vishu and the Malta-flagged Zefyros, both carrying fuel cargoes from Iraq. The Thai-flagged Mayuree Naree dry bulk vessel was hit by what was described as “two projectiles of unknown origin”. Mines have also been deployed to further complicate the prospect of transit.

The response from President Donald Trump and his officials to the price rises has been one of unrelenting fantasy. “The recent increase of oil and gas prices is temporary,” stated White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, “and this operation [attacking Iran] will result in lower gas prices in the long term”. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was also unjustifiably confident that the price shocks would endure for a matter of “weeks, not months”.

After attending a classified and seemingly confused briefing on the war on March 10, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut was left unimpressed. “I can’t go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait,” he revealed, “but suffice to say, right now, they don’t know how to get it safely back open.” This was “unforgivable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.” The primary war goal of the administration, as Murphy understood, was “destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories.” Such visionaries.

The Trump credo of estranged reality ignores the growing and enduring consequences of the strait’s closure and the war. A backlog of tankers on both sides of the waterway is growing. Ports are becoming congested with overstaying vessels. Production of oil and gas, impaired by Iranian attacks and continued closure, will have to resume in such states as Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Anas Alhajji, a global energy markets boffin, offers a grim analysis: “Ending the war does not mean ending the crisis. We have countries that literally shut down production because their storage is full. To bring back that oil to a pre-crisis level takes time. For [liquified natural gas] in particular, it takes a very long time.”

Asked on whether vessels should still brave the journey through the Strait of Hormuz, Trump spoke with unfounded optimism. “I think they should. I think you’re going to see great safety”. The new round of strikes on shipping by Iran, initiated at a fraction of the cost of the US-Israel campaign against it, coupled with the inexorable rise of prices, suggests otherwise. In this regard at least, economics may well prove to be destiny.

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

13 March 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

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