Just International

The U.S. War on Cuba’s Doctors

By Nuvpreet Kalra

In ‘Freedom Park’ (S’kumbuto) outside Pretoria (South Africa), there is a Wall of Names that honors the men and women who died in the fight to liberate South Africa from apartheid. Amongst these are the names of two thousand and seventy Cuban soldiers who died in Angola between 1975 and 1988 for the liberation of southern Africa. It is said, however, that two thousand two hundred and eighty-nine Cubans died in that period in the region. In August 1975, the first group of Cuban military advisors arrived to assist the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) against the Angolan forces (mainly UNITA) backed by the South African apartheid state. Their numbers swelled to 375,000 Cuban soldiers and pilots as well as civilians (including doctors and teachers). It was these Cubans, alongside the MPLA troops, that defeated the South African apartheid forces and their UNITA allies at the battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1988. When he was released from prison, the first place outside South Africa that took Nelson Mandela was Cuba. In Havana, in 1991, Mandela said, “Without the defeat of Cuito Cunavale, our organizations would not have been legalized. Cuito Cunavale marks the divide in the struggle for the liberation of southern Africa.”

The Cuban mission in Angola was named Operation Carlota, in homage of the enslaved woman who led a rebellion in Matanzas against slavery during the Year of the Lash (1843-44). When Africa needed help, Cuba answered the call.

Today, Cuba needs solidarity. It has been under an illegal blockade for nearly seventy years and now for several months has been under a genocidal oil blockade. The United States has prevented all energy lifelines from entering Cuba, blocking ships from Venezuela and Mexico and threatening to sanction freight and insurance companies that assist Cuba. Blackouts plague the island nation of ten million people, whose ability to live their bare life has been called into question. This is an emergency. There is no other way to describe it.

Angola is one of the world’s largest producers of crude oil and—at its Luanda Refinery—it produces refined oil products. The oil in Angola is owned by the state company, Sonangol, which has contracts with a range of Western oil firms from TotalEnergies (France), Eni (Italy) and Chevron (United States)—all countries that defended its enemies during the war. Angola’s offshore reserves have made it a key player in global energy markets. Oil revenues have transformed Luanda into a city of obvious contrasts: gleaming skyscrapers alongside informal settlements, with the wealth of the oil unevenly distributed, and the development of the country hamstrung by structural inequalities. The MPLA has governed the country since 1975, although this is not the MPLA that fought alongside the Cubans till 1988. José Eduardo dos Santos, who led the country from 1979 to 2017, abandoned Marxism and shaped the oil industry and privatized lucrative state assets to benefit a small rentier elite (including his family).

Despite the limitations of the situation in Angola, in 2015, the government of Angola erected a large bronze statue at Cuito Cunavale that depicts an Angolan (MPLA) soldier and a Cuban soldier standing across from each other and together holding up a map of Angola. It is a powerful symbol of the reality of how Angola won its sovereignty—with Angolan and Cuban sacrifice and struggle. Without Cuba’s intervention, it is entirely plausible that Angola would have fallen under the control of forces aligned with apartheid South Africa and Western interests, its resources extracted under conditions far less favorable to its people. The oil that Angola now sells on the global market might never have been under Angolan control at all. In this context, the question of Angola providing oil to Cuba is not merely economic, but historical and moral.

Both the MPLA and Angola’s government have condemned the illegal US blockade against Cuba. In September 2025, Angola’s President João Lourenço said that the “unjust and prolonged” blockade which causes serious harm to the Cuban people must be “unconditionally lifted.” Since then, the US has only tightened its grip on the Cuban economy.

A Russian oil tanker, the Anatoly Kolodkin, arrived in Matanzas (Cuba) on 30 March to break the siege. That tanker is named after a famous Soviet jurist who was one of the men who drafted the UN treaty on the Laws of the Seas (1982) and who sat on the International Court of Justice. Perhaps the Russians wanted to send a message about international law when they selected that tanker to carry oil to Cuba against the illegal US blockade. Perhaps President Lourenço can provisionally rename one of the Angolan oil tankers Carlotain honor of the Cuban operation that helped in his country’s liberation. Sonangol would face legal challenges, but so be it: Cuba surmounted any number of threats and challenges to assist Angola, and then left without asking for anything.

History does not move along neat moral lines. It is jagged, contradictory, and often indifferent to the sacrifices made in its name. Yet there are moments when the ledger of history becomes clear enough that we can speak, without hesitation, of obligation—of debts incurred not through coercion, but through solidarity. The relationship between Cuba and Angola is one such moment. It is a relationship forged not in trade agreements or diplomatic formalities, but in blood, in sacrifice, and in a shared commitment to the liberation of Africa from colonial and apartheid domination.

We live in a time when the language of solidarity has been hollowed out, replaced by the technocratic vocabulary of ‘partnerships’ and ‘investments.’ Yet the history of Cuba and Angola reminds us that another kind of relationship is possible—one based not on extraction or profit, but on mutual commitment to human dignity. Cuba did not send its sons and daughters to Angola because it expected oil in return. It did so because it believed that the freedom of Angola was inseparable from its own revolutionary ideals. That belief, whatever one thinks of it, had real consequences. It changed the course of history in southern Africa. Today, Angola can respond—not out of obligation imposed from outside, but out of a recognition of shared history. To provide oil to Cuba would be to say that the sacrifices of the past are not forgotten, that internationalism is not a relic, and that the Global South can still act in ways that defy the narrow logic of profit.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist.“Cuban eye doctors in Jamaica are the only reason why my grandmother didn’t go fully blind in one eye after she got a botched surgery. The work they’ve done for rural and poor Jamaicans is immeasurable”, wrote a Twitter user last week after the first set of Cuban doctors and nurses left Jamaica.

Two weeks ago, hundreds of Jamaicans marched in a “gratitude walk” to thank Cuba for the 50 years of medical solidarity that they have received. Meanwhile, others on the island have been reportedly rushing to get eye treatment at clinics before Cuban doctors were set to depart. A few weeks ago in Honduras, people were in tears as they applauded and thanked Cuban doctors for their years of service, particularly in providing free eye surgeries. If this is clearly contrary to the interests of people, why are all Cuban doctors, nurses, biomedical engineers, and technicians leaving?

They are not leaving because these countries want them to, but because the United States is forcing them to.

Last year, the United States threatened to cancel U.S. visas for leaders of countries that have Cuban doctors working in them, as part of a decades-long campaign of aggression to destroy Cuba’s medical solidarity, which has saved over 12 million lives across the world. In reaction to this coercion, the governments of Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Paraguay, the Bahamas, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Guyana have formally ended the Cuban medical missions after decades. The governments of Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, and Calabria in Italy have committed to gradually reducing Cuban medical missions. The US is forcing countries to end decades-long relationships with Cuba to further isolate the island from the world, all at the expense of the access and quality of healthcare for millions of people.

Cuba has carried out 30 million medical consultations in Honduras, 900,000 surgeries, and 80,000 eye surgeries. Many of the doctors were working in a free ophthalmology clinic in San Jose de Colinas in Santa Barbara as part of the Venezuelan-Cuban Operation Miracle, which provided free eye care to millions. Now, 150 Cuban doctors have left the country after the newly elected right-wing government immediately cancelled the medical mission. In Guyana, 200 doctors have left after 50 years of providing health access for people who otherwise would not have had any. Last week, Cuban doctors began leaving Guatemala after the government ended Cuban medical missions, which began in 1998 following Hurricane Mitch to provide critical health services to indigenous communities underserved by the Guatemalan health system. Now, 412 Cuban health personnel are beginning to end their service following a closing of ties with the government of Guatemala and the United States, and a clear willingness to bow down to coercive measures. The Bahamas has terminated its Cuban brigades, opting for discussions with the United States over building a workforce based in Canada to serve the medical system.

During this time, Cuban doctors cared for more than 8,176,000 patients, undertook 74,302 surgeries, attended the births of 7,170 babies, and saved 90,000 lives. With the end of the Jamaica Cuba eye care programme, after 16 years of solidarity and 25,000 instances of people regaining their sight. Despite initially saying that “I will prefer to lose my visa than to have 60 poor and working people die,” the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines has chosen to let the 60 patients receive dialysis and critical care from Cuban doctors lose their care with the end of the Cuban medical missions to the country.

Not all countries are accepting this attempted coercion and sacrifice of the health of their nation. Trinidad and Tobago and Calabria in Italy have refused to cancel the Cuban medical missions. The Trinidadian President said, “I just came back from California, and if I never go back there again in my life, I will ensure that the sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago is known to its people and respected by all.”

History of medical solidarity

In 1960, medical aid was sent to Chile after the Valdivia earthquake. But it was 1963 that marked the start of Cuban medical brigades. 58 medical personnel travelled to Algeria to support in rebuilding the health system after the victory of the independence movement in booting out French colonialists. Fidel Castro gave a speech at the opening of a new medical school in Cuba, hours after meeting Ben Bella, Algeria’s President:

“Most of the doctors in Algeria were French, and many have left the country. There are four million more Algerians than Cubans, and colonialism has left them with many diseases, but they have only a third — and even less — of the doctors we have…That’s why I told the students that we needed 50 doctors to volunteer to go to Algeria.

I’m sure there will be no shortage of volunteers…Today we can only send 50, but in 8 or 10 years’ time, who knows how many, and we will be helping our brothers…because the Revolution has the right to reap the rewards it has sown.”

This act of revolutionary solidarity, just four years after the revolution, marked the start of decades of solidarity from Cuba to the world. Since then, more than 600,000 Cuban doctors and health workers have provided healthcare to 165 countries. In fact, there are still Cuban medical brigades operating in 15 Algerian provinces, mainly to reduce maternal and infant mortality.

In 2004, Cuba and Venezuela launched Operación Milagro (Operation Miracle), aimed at providing free eye care and surgeries for people suffering from preventable blindness and other visual impairments. The program restored vision to more than 4 million people across 34 years in just 15 years. This historic program is being forcibly shut down as the US pushes Cuban doctors out of countries today, breaking one of the world’s most remarkable progressions in health provision.

In 2005, following Hurricane Katrina’s devastating impacts in the United States, Cuba created the Henry Reeve International Contingent to respond to natural disasters and health epidemics. While the Bush administration refused Cuban help in responding to Hurricane Katrina, this incredible mission has sent 90 brigades to 55 countries to respond to COVID-19 in Europe and Latin America, Ebola in West Africa, cholera in Haiti, and more. In 2020, the Henry Reeve International Contingent was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In 2014, Cuba provided the only permanent brigade to support Sierra Leone, Guinea-Conakry, and Liberia in dealing with the Ebola epidemic. No other country or international organisation provided long-term support for the countries. It was Cuban doctors who managed to successfully contain the epidemic.

In March 2020, as COVID was declared by the World Health Organization as a pandemic, Cuban doctors immediately travelled to Lombardy in Italy, the epicenter of the pandemic, Angola, as well as Latin American countries, including Venezuela and Suriname, to provide support. When a COVID-positive cruise ship with over 600 people onboard was refused docking in every Caribbean country, it was Cuba that allowed them to dock in “a shared effort to confront and stop the spread of the pandemic.” As the US blockade prevented Cuba from accessing vaccines, they manufactured their own – and five of them at that. The blockade slowed down the process significantly, given the lack of medical equipment permitted into the island, the limited research laboratories, and the inability to access enough syringes for mass vaccination. It is only because of the resilience and humanity of Cuban doctors and researchers and the international solidarity of organisations, including CODEPINK, in donating syringes, that Cuba managed to not only protect its population from the pandemic but also export them to the world. In fact, the vaccines produced by Cuba did not require refrigeration, unlike most manufactured in the Global North, given the lack of access to facilities, particularly as they were distributed far across the island. This meant that the vaccine could be sent successfully to countries across the Global South with similar lack of access to refrigeration to protect those otherwise shut out of Global North supply chains. In the face of attacks, Cuba’s resilience is a benefit for all humanity.

Campaign of destruction

The United States has sought to interrupt, discredit, and dismantle this enormous feat as part of its attempts to destroy the Cuban revolution. Cuba’s ability to provide medical missions, despite the 66-year-long genocidal blockade, is a testament to the indestructible resolve of the Cuban people and the country’s commitment to humanity.

On February 23 of this year, the State Department sent a sensitive memo to Marco Rubio, which outlined a strategy of coercing countries in Latin America to boot out Cuban medical missions over the next 2-4 years. These attacks on Cuba’s medical missions were an escalation in the US’s war of imperialist aggression on the island for daring to commit to solidarity and peace, rather than welcome greed and destruction. On March 2nd, Congress approved a law to impose sanctions on any country that has Cuban health workers operating in it. Last August, the Trump administration imposed restrictions and revoked visas from countries working with Cuba on medical missions. Since then, countries have been pulling out of medical missions in fear of US retribution.

Under George W Bush’s presidency, the US set up the “Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program,” which aimed at getting Cuban doctors to desert from their mission and get residency in the United States. This ended under Obama’s administration.

This policy has been carried by a vicious propaganda war that has sought to label Cuban medical missions as “forced labour” and Cuban doctors as “slaves”. While this is a frankly offensive and disrespectful attempt to discredit a revolutionary act of solidarity, it is not only a ruse to justify attacks on Cuban doctors but also a fundamental revelation about the US. The descendants of slaveowners can tell Cubans they are slaves for supporting countries made victims of colonialism and imperialism, but refuse to acknowledge that the transatlantic slave trade was the greatest crime of our time.

Cuba’s medical missions, beyond providing critical health services for millions of people, also provide support for the Cuban healthcare system and economy. When doctors are paid in the countries where they work, their money goes into the public healthcare system to pay the doctors, provide support for their families, as well as patients, doctors, and the healthcare system for the entire island. This is a remarkable act of solidarity for Cubans and the world. The Cuban health system works; in fact, it works so well that Cuba has the highest rate of doctors per capita in the entire world. Whereas, in the United States, people survive depending on whether a company decides they can have a medicine, or if they can afford to pay another large corporation thousands of dollars for the privilege of treating an illness. The US dares to lecture Cuba while more than one-third of Americans cannot afford to access healthcare; while 1.3 million diabetic people ration insulin because the price skyrockets year on year as greedy pharma execs decide; and while over 66% of bankruptcies in the US are because of the costs of healthcare.

It is no wonder that healthcare is a significant target of the US empire’s attacks. Cuba maintains that healthcare is a right, whereas the US affords it as a privilege and arena for profits.

Another critical dimension to Cuba’s medical solidarity is its world-renowned Latin American School of Medicine (ELAM). Founded in 1999, the school provides tuition-free medical education for students from across the world who might otherwise not have access to medical studies. They gain a free medical degree in Cuba, then return to serve their communities back home to develop medical self-sufficiency and sovereignty for their countries. There are over 250 Palestinian students from Gaza studying medicine in Cuba, completely free of charge, in the hopes they will travel back to Palestine and care for their people. Today, there are more than 31,000 doctors in 120 countries who have been trained at ELAM. This truly extraordinary and selfless act of material solidarity is also met with attacks. The U.S. has told St Lucia to stop sending doctors to Cuba for medical studies, which the Prime Minister has warned would cause a “major problem”.

I visited ELAM last year and spent time speaking with two female medical students from Sri Lanka, who were quite excited to see someone else from South Asia in Cuba! I asked them how they found studying at ELAM, living in Cuba, and being taught medicine for free to go back to their communities. They were ecstatic and told me how much they loved being there, and what a unique opportunity it was to become doctors from backgrounds where they otherwise would not have been able to. Their only issue with Cuba was the lack of spicy food!

Also on this trip to Cuba, I met with doctors working in a local hospital outside of Havana. They each shared with pride the different countries they had served in: Angola, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Italy. A similar situation you might find in the United States, or elsewhere in the Global North, is of someone in the military who might tell you with pride how they served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. While Cuba’s missions save lives and serve people, U.S. missions massacre people and serve Lockheed Martin.

As more U.S. soldiers are sent to West Asia as part of threats to invade Iran and to kill for the interests of imperialism, it is truly devastating to see Cuban doctors leave hospitals in the Caribbean to the tears of locals who have been helped by them.

The poles could not be more stark. Cuba, the most blockaded country in history, has saved more than 12 million lives with its medical missions. The U.S., a belligerent empire with the biggest economy in the world, has killed as many as 23 million people in 28 countries since the 1950s.

Cuba reveals the unfettered barbarity of the United States. That is why they fear a tiny island 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Cuba shows us that the world does not have to be dominated by one empire that violently exploits people, extracts resources, and imposes its own will through F-35s and 2,000lb bombs. Cuba reveals humanity to people who have been propagandised into believing that every person has to look out for themselves, and there is danger and violence at every corner. Cuba unravels the lies that the United States is based on.

So, every single time the U.S. attacks Cuba, discredits its government, its economy, its people, its society, it is trying to protect itself. This has nothing to do with Cuba and everything to do with the U.S. The only future for humanity is an end to the U.S. empire.

Nuvpreet Kalra is CODEPINK’s digital content producer. She completed a Bachelor’s in politics and sociology at the University of Cambridge, and an MA in Internet Equalities at the University of the Arts London.

2 April 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

Angola’s Debt to Cuba is Unfinished

By Vijay Prashad

In ‘Freedom Park’ (S’kumbuto) outside Pretoria (South Africa), there is a Wall of Names that honors the men and women who died in the fight to liberate South Africa from apartheid. Amongst these are the names of two thousand and seventy Cuban soldiers who died in Angola between 1975 and 1988 for the liberation of southern Africa. It is said, however, that two thousand two hundred and eighty-nine Cubans died in that period in the region. In August 1975, the first group of Cuban military advisors arrived to assist the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) against the Angolan forces (mainly UNITA) backed by the South African apartheid state. Their numbers swelled to 375,000 Cuban soldiers and pilots as well as civilians (including doctors and teachers). It was these Cubans, alongside the MPLA troops, that defeated the South African apartheid forces and their UNITA allies at the battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1988. When he was released from prison, the first place outside South Africa that took Nelson Mandela was Cuba. In Havana, in 1991, Mandela said, “Without the defeat of Cuito Cunavale, our organizations would not have been legalized. Cuito Cunavale marks the divide in the struggle for the liberation of southern Africa.”

The Cuban mission in Angola was named Operation Carlota, in homage of the enslaved woman who led a rebellion in Matanzas against slavery during the Year of the Lash (1843-44). When Africa needed help, Cuba answered the call.

Today, Cuba needs solidarity. It has been under an illegal blockade for nearly seventy years and now for several months has been under a genocidal oil blockade. The United States has prevented all energy lifelines from entering Cuba, blocking ships from Venezuela and Mexico and threatening to sanction freight and insurance companies that assist Cuba. Blackouts plague the island nation of ten million people, whose ability to live their bare life has been called into question. This is an emergency. There is no other way to describe it.

Angola is one of the world’s largest producers of crude oil and—at its Luanda Refinery—it produces refined oil products. The oil in Angola is owned by the state company, Sonangol, which has contracts with a range of Western oil firms from TotalEnergies (France), Eni (Italy) and Chevron (United States)—all countries that defended its enemies during the war. Angola’s offshore reserves have made it a key player in global energy markets. Oil revenues have transformed Luanda into a city of obvious contrasts: gleaming skyscrapers alongside informal settlements, with the wealth of the oil unevenly distributed, and the development of the country hamstrung by structural inequalities. The MPLA has governed the country since 1975, although this is not the MPLA that fought alongside the Cubans till 1988. José Eduardo dos Santos, who led the country from 1979 to 2017, abandoned Marxism and shaped the oil industry and privatized lucrative state assets to benefit a small rentier elite (including his family).

Despite the limitations of the situation in Angola, in 2015, the government of Angola erected a large bronze statue at Cuito Cunavale that depicts an Angolan (MPLA) soldier and a Cuban soldier standing across from each other and together holding up a map of Angola. It is a powerful symbol of the reality of how Angola won its sovereignty—with Angolan and Cuban sacrifice and struggle. Without Cuba’s intervention, it is entirely plausible that Angola would have fallen under the control of forces aligned with apartheid South Africa and Western interests, its resources extracted under conditions far less favorable to its people. The oil that Angola now sells on the global market might never have been under Angolan control at all. In this context, the question of Angola providing oil to Cuba is not merely economic, but historical and moral.

Both the MPLA and Angola’s government have condemned the illegal US blockade against Cuba. In September 2025, Angola’s President João Lourenço said that the “unjust and prolonged” blockade which causes serious harm to the Cuban people must be “unconditionally lifted.” Since then, the US has only tightened its grip on the Cuban economy.

A Russian oil tanker, the Anatoly Kolodkin, arrived in Matanzas (Cuba) on 30 March to break the siege. That tanker is named after a famous Soviet jurist who was one of the men who drafted the UN treaty on the Laws of the Seas (1982) and who sat on the International Court of Justice. Perhaps the Russians wanted to send a message about international law when they selected that tanker to carry oil to Cuba against the illegal US blockade. Perhaps President Lourenço can provisionally rename one of the Angolan oil tankers Carlotain honor of the Cuban operation that helped in his country’s liberation. Sonangol would face legal challenges, but so be it: Cuba surmounted any number of threats and challenges to assist Angola, and then left without asking for anything.

History does not move along neat moral lines. It is jagged, contradictory, and often indifferent to the sacrifices made in its name. Yet there are moments when the ledger of history becomes clear enough that we can speak, without hesitation, of obligation—of debts incurred not through coercion, but through solidarity. The relationship between Cuba and Angola is one such moment. It is a relationship forged not in trade agreements or diplomatic formalities, but in blood, in sacrifice, and in a shared commitment to the liberation of Africa from colonial and apartheid domination.

We live in a time when the language of solidarity has been hollowed out, replaced by the technocratic vocabulary of ‘partnerships’ and ‘investments.’ Yet the history of Cuba and Angola reminds us that another kind of relationship is possible—one based not on extraction or profit, but on mutual commitment to human dignity. Cuba did not send its sons and daughters to Angola because it expected oil in return. It did so because it believed that the freedom of Angola was inseparable from its own revolutionary ideals. That belief, whatever one thinks of it, had real consequences. It changed the course of history in southern Africa. Today, Angola can respond—not out of obligation imposed from outside, but out of a recognition of shared history. To provide oil to Cuba would be to say that the sacrifices of the past are not forgotten, that internationalism is not a relic, and that the Global South can still act in ways that defy the narrow logic of profit.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist.

1 April 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

Pakistan’s Grand Strategy of Appearances

By Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad

Diplomacy occasionally produces documents that clarify reality; more often, it produces documents that elegantly conceal its absence. The China–Pakistan five-point statement on Iran belongs firmly to the latter category — a text so carefully balanced, so impeccably reasonable, that it quietly exposes how little of consequence it contains. Ceasefire, sovereignty, humanitarian access, shipping security, the United Nations — each clause is correct, each sentiment agreeable, and the cumulative effect strategically weightless. This is not policy. It is performance.
That is not accidental. In moments of genuine geopolitical transition, such statements function as diplomatic camouflage — allowing disagreement to masquerade as consensus and indecision to pass for prudence. Pakistan’s recent activism fits this pattern with almost studied precision. Islamabad is eager — conspicuously eager — to present itself as a central broker: useful to Washington, acceptable to Tehran, indispensable to Beijing. The ambition is expansive. The credibility, however, remains stubbornly absent.

Pakistan’s predicament is simple, almost embarrassingly so. Mediation requires trust; brokerage requires leverage; Pakistan has little of either. Tehran may tolerate messages passing through Islamabad, but tolerance is not confidence. Iran is not about to outsource strategic judgment to a state whose governing establishment has elevated inconsistency into a diplomatic method. Pakistan excels at looking busy. It struggles to demonstrate that it matters.

China, by contrast, appears almost allergic to this kind of self-deception. Beijing’s caution is not passivity; it is discipline. It has no interest in underwriting a “peace framework” that can be undone by the next American escalation or Israeli strike — both of which now resemble routine instruments of policy rather than exceptional events. Washington continues to confuse force with strategy, veering between excess and impatience with little regard for consequence. Israel, meanwhile, has normalized escalation to the point of doctrine, treating regional destabilization as a deliberate tool of policy. The UAE completes the triad with its polished opportunism — projecting efficiency while quietly inserting itself into conflicts it helps complicate. It is a neat division of labor: one destabilizes brazenly, one erratically, and one profitably.

Against this backdrop, the so-called Muslim Quad — Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt — resembles less a coalition than a carefully staged photograph. Egypt contributes presence but little initiative. Türkiye seeks influence without committing to its costs. Saudi Arabia wants Iran constrained but not chaos at its doorstep. Pakistan, predictably, wants everything: relevance, prestige, economic dividends, and the flattering illusion of centrality. It is not strategy. It is wishful thinking with a press release.

And by now, the fiction of GCC unity has not merely cracked — it has collapsed in plain sight. This is no longer a matter of interpretation; it is an observable fact. Oman and Qatar have little appetite for performative confrontation with Iran. Saudi Arabia calibrates cautiously beneath its rhetoric. The UAE continues its preferred role as a sleek facilitator of instability. The Gulf is not united. It is a collection of states managing shared anxiety while pursuing divergent interests.

Iran, in contrast, has approached the moment with a level of strategic clarity that its adversaries seem reluctant to acknowledge. It has recognized, with precision, that geography is not merely context — it is leverage. The Strait of Hormuz is not just a maritime corridor; it is a strategic fulcrum embedded in the architecture of global energy flows. Tehran’s maneuvering reflects a calculated effort to translate that reality into durable bargaining power. This is not reactive behavior. It is deliberate, layered statecraft — patient, adaptive, and acutely aware that in geopolitics, position often matters more than posture. Any framework that imagines Iran can be sidelined while its geography remains indispensable was always intellectually unserious.

Pakistan, meanwhile, surveys this shifting landscape and imagines itself at the center of it. In Islamabad’s preferred narrative, pipelines will flow, Gwadar will flourish, corridors will bind continents, and Pakistan will emerge as the indispensable bridge between regions and empires alike. The confidence is remarkable. The evidence is thin. A handful of summits, a few carefully staged handshakes, and an excess of optimistic briefings are taken as proof of strategic trust. It is diplomacy as self-belief — earnest, energetic, and only loosely tethered to reality.

Above it all hovers Washington — still powerful, still interventionist, and still strategically erratic. The United States retains the capacity to disrupt regional arrangements even where it lacks the coherence to construct them. That is why China remains cautious, Iran remains skeptical, and the Gulf monarchies oscillate between caution and compliance. The old order has not disappeared. It has simply become unstable — and instability, in geopolitics, rarely remains contained.

The real story, then, is not that Pakistan has emerged as the architect of a new Gulf order. It is that the region is fragmenting faster than Pakistan can convincingly narrate it. China is measured. Iran is calculating. Saudi Arabia is cautious. The UAE is opportunistic. Pakistan is enthusiastic — but enthusiasm, in geopolitics, is not mistaken for influence.

The Gulf will not be reordered by those who issue polished statements or host well-attended meetings. It will be reordered by those who understand that in an age of imperial drift, access is not influence, proximity is not power, and diplomacy without leverage is often just theater delivered with confidence.

Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), Islamabad, Pakistan.

2 April 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

The Great Reset: How the Iranian-Led Axis of Resistance is Defeating US-Israel and Redrawing the Geopolitical Multipolar World Order

By Feroze Mithiborwala

The geopolitical architecture of West Asia, long defined by the imposition of US hegemony, established after the Cold War, is undergoing a violent and decisive transformation. What we are witnessing is not merely a regional war, but the final war of liberation of West Asia, the Global South and the World. For decades, the United States utilized a network of bases and the power of the petrodollar to dictate terms to sovereign nations. Today, that structure is crumbling under the weight of a coordinated multi-front campaign led by Iran and the Axis of Resistance.

As the war crosses its first month, the strategic landscape has shifted so fundamentally that even the most seasoned analysts in Washington are struggling to keep pace. From the total blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to the retreat of the U.S. Navy’s carrier strike groups, the “unipolar moment” has officially expired. Iran has not only anticipated this confrontation but has successfully withstood the massive firepower of the US-Israel combine, achieving its primary strategic targets within the first thirty days.

The Asymmetric Shield: Missiles, Drones, and the “Swarm” Strategy

The cornerstone of Iran’s defiance lies in its mastery of asymmetric warfare—a strategy designed to turn an adversary’s technological superiority into a liability. Over the last decade, Tehran has built the largest and most diverse missile arsenal in West Asia, transitioning from simple deterrents to high-precision strike capabilities. This “long arm” of the Resistance ensures that no U.S. base or Israeli facility is beyond reach.

Central to this strategy is the drone program, specifically the Shahed and Mohajer families, which have redefined modern attrition. By deploying low-cost, “suicide” loitering munitions in massive swarms, Iran effectively saturates and exhausts expensive Western air defence systems like the Patriot and Iron Dome. In the first 30 days of the current war, these “birds of prey” have systematically dismantled radar installations and command centres across the region. As Scott Ritter notes, the Iranian missile program has evolved into a force that “nullifies the American advantage in conventional air power,” forcing the U.S. to choose between an unwinnable escalation or a humiliating retreat.¹

The New Celestial Guard: BeiDou-3 and GLONASS

One of the most critical factors in the success of the Resistance is the breaking of the Western monopoly on Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT). For years, the U.S. could effectively “blind” regional militaries by degrading or spoofing GPS signals. That era ended with the full operationalization of China’s BeiDou-3 (BDS-3) constellation and Russia’s GLONASS system.

The BeiDou-3 system, comprising 30 satellites in three orbital regimes, offers Iran and its allies a secure, high-precision alternative to GPS. By integrating BDS-3 and GLONASS, Iranian strike systems have achieved a positioning reliability rate of approximately 98%, even under intense Israeli electronic warfare (EW).² This Sino-Russian “celestial shield” allows the Axis of Resistance to conduct surgical strikes with sub-five-meter accuracy, ensuring the “kill chain” remains unbroken by Western jamming. This technological sovereignty is the technical bedrock of the Multi-Polar World Order.

The Fall of the Base Network: From Bahrain to Iraq

The first month of the war saw the systematic neutralization of 13 major U.S. military and airforce bases in the region. Targeted strikes hit facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, sending U.S. personnel scurrying for cover in hardened bunkers. In Iraq, the situation reached a breaking point with a total EU-NATO withdrawal, leaving remnants of U.S. troops hiding in the Kurdish North.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor has frequently warned that U.S. forces in West Asia are “stationed in death traps,” isolated and vulnerable to the overwhelming regional fire superiority of the Axis of Resistance.³ The failure of the U.S. to protect these assets has signalled to regional monarchs that the American security umbrella is effectively shredded. Furthermore, the strategic failure to incite ethnic minorities—Iranian Baluchis and Kurds—has left the U.S. without internal levers of destabilization, as these groups have resolutely refused to cooperate with Washington after witnessing the recent betrayal of the Syrian Kurds.

Lebanon and the Resilience of Hezbollah: A Graveyard of Armour

The Israeli Occupation Force (IOF) has once again discovered that while it can dominate the skies through the bombing of civilian infrastructure, it remains just about average in land wars. Recent battlefield reports provide a staggering look at the attrition faced by Israeli armoured columns. Since hostilities escalated, a grand total of 1,169 Merkava tanks and vehicles have been reported destroyed across the Northern and Southern fronts.

In the Rshaf Sector of South Lebanon, Hezbollah’s anti-tank teams have utilized Al-Mas ATGMs and Kornet-EM missiles to devastating effect, while the Al-Qantara Sector has seen a significant shift toward FPV drone strikes targeting light armour and Hummers. Hezbollah alone is credited with the destruction of 240 units using complex ambushes. Meanwhile, in Gaza, local factions have neutralized 929 Merkava 3 & 4 tanks through the use of Al-Yassin 105 rockets and tandem IEDs during 131 total attacks since the resumption of hostilities.

George Galloway has noted that this tactical discipline has turned the region into a graveyard for Israeli pride. “The IOF is a colonial police force that knows how to kill children from 30,000 feet, but it cannot hold ground against a motivated, indigenous resistance armed with precision asymmetric tools,” Galloway remarked during a recent broadcast.⁴

Yemen’s Strategic Chokehold and the Naval Retreat

Complementing the Iranian and Lebanese fronts, Yemen’s Ansarullah has entered the war with a decisive blockade of the Bab-el-Mandab Strait. Controlling 10–12% of global energy flow, Yemen’s entry has rendered the Red Sea and Suez Canal impassable for ships associated with the aggressors. This maritime pressure, combined with Iran’s takeover of the Strait of Hormuz, has created a dual-chokehold on the global economy.

The U.S. Navy has found itself in a state of redundancy. The withdrawal of the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald Ford mark the first time in history that American carrier strike groups have fled a theatre of war to avoid total destruction. The skyrocketing costs of international insurance for ships and goods are now a silent but deadly weight on Western economies, a factor rarely discussed in mainstream media but felt in every treasury.

Transatlantic Fracture: The NATO Refusal

In a massive blow to U.S. isolation, the EU-NATO bloc has officially refused to join the war on Iran or assist in reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Germany has stated the conflict is “not NATO’s war,” while France and Italy have denied airspace and base access for strikes on Iranian territory.⁵ This unprecedented refusal underscores the total collapse of Western unity. For the first time, the U.S. is heading into a major war with its allies standing firmly on the sidelines, sinking Washington deeper into a strategic abyss.

Rise of the Multipolar Financial Order: Rise of Petroyuan and Decline of Petrodollar Hegemony

While the kinetic war rages, a more significant war is being won in the halls of finance. The hegemony of the petrodollar is being dismantled in real-time. With all regional oil, LNG, and LPG that flows through the Strait of Hormuz now being traded in Petroyuan, the dollar has lost its primary support mechanism.

Journalist Pepe Escobar describes this as the “birth of a multipolar financial order.”⁶ In a move described by critics as “bizarre and laughable,” the Trump administration has been forced to remove sanctions from Russian and Iranian energy to stabilize domestic fuel prices—effectively funding the very resistance that is defeating them. This mockery of Western “sanctions diplomacy” reveals the desperation of a declining empire.

Social Cohesion: Tehran vs. Tel Aviv

The internal dynamics of the warring parties could not be more polarized. In Iran, the people are more united than ever, standing resolutely with their leadership. Every evening, Iranians gather at 7:30 pm in town squares to demonstrate their resilience, while Israelis are forced to hide in bunkers as their air defences fail.

Prof. Mohammad Marandi emphasizes that this unity is the ultimate deterrent. “The West fundamentally misunderstood the Iranian people,” Marandi stated. “The leadership and the army are one with the population. We are not a nation that can be broken by bombing hospitals or schools, as the IOF has attempted in Tehran and Gaza. These atrocities only serve as a sign of their inevitable defeat.”⁷

Conclusion: The Multipolar Dawn

The war is the catalyst for a massive change in West Asia. After this conflict, Iran and its allies will refuse to return to the status quo. There will be no more U.S. bases, and access to the region’s energy will be reserved for those who respect Iranian sovereignty and that of the Axis of Resistance.

The alliance of Iran, Russia, and China is forging a new “central pole” in global politics. As Praveen Sawhney argues, the integration of Iranian hardware and Russian electronic warfare with Chinese economic might represents a “peer competitor” that the U.S. simply cannot defeat.⁸ BRICS+ is no longer just a trade bloc; it is emerging as the central pole in a geostrategic, geoeconomic and geopolitical Multi-Polar World Order, with West Asia at its heart.

References and Citations

  1. Scott Ritter, “The Death of the Carrier Strike Group,” The Scott Ritter Extra, October 12, 2024.
  2. “Iran turns to China’s BeiDou satellites to outfox Israeli anti-drone electronic warfare defences,” bne IntelliNews, March 10, 2026.
  3. Gen. Douglas Macgregor, Interview with Nima Alkhorshid, Dialogue Works, YouTube, October 18, 2024.
  4. George Galloway, The MOATS Podcast, Episode 518, January 20, 2026.
  5. “European allies refuse US request to help open Strait of Hormuz,” Middle East Eye, March 16, 2026.
  6. Pepe Escobar, “Axis of Resistance: from Donbass to Gaza,” The Cradle, February 20, 2024 (Updated March 2026).
  7. Prof. Mohammad Marandi, “Resistance will escalate if US-Israeli aggression continues,” Al Mayadeen English, March 16, 2026.
  8. Praveen Sawhney, “How the Axis of Resistance neutralized US Electronic Warfare,” The Force Analysis, October 5, 2024.

Feroze Mithiborwala is an expert on West Asian & International Geostrategic issues.

1 April 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

Full text of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s letter to the American public

By Masoud Pezeshkian

Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian has released an open letter, addressing the American people, calling on them to question the motives of the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran.

Below is the full text of his letter.

_________________________________________________

“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

“To the people of the United States of America, and to all those who, amid a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives, continue to seek the truth and aspire to a better life:

“Iran — by this very name, character, and identity — is one of the oldest continuous civilisations in human history. Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination. Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers — and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbours — Iran has never initiated a war. Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.

“The Iranian people harbour no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighbouring countries. Even in the face of repeated foreign interventions and pressures throughout their proud history, Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness — not a temporary political stance.

“For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful — the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.

“Within this same framework, the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran — a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war. Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is. Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done — and continues to do — is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defence, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.

“Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or tension. The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d’etat — an illegal American intervention aimed at preventing the nationalisation of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward US policies. This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of the 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression — twice, in the midst of negotiations —against Iran.

“Yet all these pressures have failed to weaken Iran. On the contrary, the country has grown stronger in many areas: literacy rates have tripled —from roughly 30 per cent before the Islamic Revolution to over 90pc today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past. These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives.

“At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impact of sanctions, war, and aggression on the lives of the resilient Iranian people must not be underestimated. The continuation of military aggression and recent bombings profoundly affect people’s lives, attitudes, and perspectives. This reflects a fundamental human truth: when war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible.

“This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behavior? Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country ‘back to the stone ages’ serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?

“Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its commitments. The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation, and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the US government —choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.

“Attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure — including energy and industrial facilities — directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions carry consequences that extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension, planting seeds of resentment that will endure for years. This is not a demonstration of strength; it is a sign of strategic bewilderment and an inability to achieve a sustainable solution.

“Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians? Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar — shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?

“Is ‘America First’ truly among the priorities of the US government today?

“I invite you to look beyond the machinery of misinformation — an integral part of this aggression — and instead speak with those who have visited Iran. Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants —educated in Iran — who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West. Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?

“Today, the world stands at crossroads. Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come. Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors. All that remains of them are tarnished names in history, while Iran endures —resilient, dignified, and proud.”

2 April 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

In genocidal rant, Trump vows to send Iran “back to the Stone Ages”

By Andre Damon

Trump declared that the “objectives” of the war were “dismantling the regime’s ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders.” Yet this aim has plainly not been achieved—Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz. The conclusion is that in order to achieve America’s “objectives,” Iran must be totally destroyed. The “Gaza model” is being applied to Iran.

Trump gloated over his murder of Iran’s leaders. “Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They’re all dead.” Accept our terms, or suffer the same fate as the leaders we already murdered. Trump calls this “negotiation.” It is the language of the mafia, issued from the White House.

The phrase “bomb them back to the Stone Ages” is associated with Curtis LeMay, the far-right Air Force general who directed the firebombing of Tokyo in World War II—killing over 100,000 people in a single night—and oversaw the bombing of North Korea during the Korean War, when US air power leveled every city in the country. During the Vietnam War, a faction of the US military and political establishment advocated the removal of all restraints on the bombing of Vietnam—a course that risked nuclear war with the Soviet Union or China.

In his 1965 autobiography Mission With LeMay, he laid out what he wanted done to North Vietnam: “My solution to the problem would be to tell them frankly that they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.” Behind such language was the threat to use nuclear weapons, which American imperialism at the time opted not to do.

This is the mood that now prevails in the White House. War Secretary Pete Hegseth set the tone on March 2 when he announced there would be “no stupid rules of engagement.” Three weeks later, at a Pentagon prayer service, he asked God for “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

A criminal underworld is in power. The war against Iran is the product of decades of escalating violence—from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, through the destruction of Libya and Syria, through the genocide in Gaza—each crime more brazen, each carried out with greater impunity.

Under Trump, however, a qualitatively new stage has been reached, with the abandonment of any even pretense of legal restraint, the proclamation that there are, as they say, no “red lines”—including the use of nuclear weapons—in the pursuit of imperialist domination.

Trump’s pledge to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages” was the third time he used this exact language in two days. But his earlier calls were barely mentioned as news items, let alone made the subject of condemnation on the editorial pages. The same newspapers that peddle lurid claims about the Iranian government killing tens of thousands of protesters earlier this year, that gasp in horror at the actions of the Russian government, do not find a call to annihilate a country’s civilization worth mentioning.

In the media commentary that followed Trump’s prime-time address, discussion was dominated by whether he had “made his case,” not that the president of the United States had issued a criminal declaration of intent to carry out mass murder.

Not a single Democratic leader has responded to Trump’s “Stone Age” statements. Five weeks into the bombing, not one committee in either chamber has held a public hearing.

Trump’s genocidal threats are not simply the ravings of one man. He speaks for a capitalist oligarchy—for a ruling class that can no longer defend its interests through democratic forms and legal methods, and that answers deepening crisis with violence abroad and dictatorship at home.

The same day as his address on Iran, Trump told attendees at an Easter lunch at the White House that he had ordered the Office of Management and Budget to cut all federal daycare funding. “We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare,” he said, adding: “It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.” Trump added, “We have to take care of one thing, military protection.”

The war against the people of Iran and the war against the working class at home are two sides of the same policy. A government that prepares mass murder abroad prepares social counterrevolution at home: the shredding of what remains of democratic rights and social reforms, the intensification of austerity and the drive to establish a fascistic dictatorship. The crisis now confronting humanity is posed as socialism or barbarism.

2 April 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

Hands Off Venezuela: Historic Stance at the United Nations against US Imperialism

By Carla Stea

Of utmost relevance to unfolding events marks by acts of U.S illegal invasions of sovereign nation states and member states of the United Nations, not mention the the deliberate killing of civilians in violation of the UN Charter and the Laws of Armed Conflict (LAOC)

In a spectacular display of solidarity and strength, envoys from such distant capitals as Beijing and Havana, Moscow and Tehran, Pyongyang and Caracas, Damascus and Managua and numerous other states stood together, side by side, in front of the United Nations Security Council, declaring their determination to protect the UN Charter and International Law, and holding sacrosanct the sovereignty and inviolability of each member state.

All these present, and approximately 50 more aligned, are states whose combined populations comprise more than half the people of the world, and all have been victimized and pauperized by the predations of neoliberal capitalist states bleeding the wealth of their peoples.

As Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza read out their new statement, declaring the illegality of unilateral coercive economic sanctions, and territorial invasions, it became obvious that the power of this new solidarity, which includes China, Russia, Cuba, DPRK, Syria, Iran, Palestine, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc. constitutes a formidable force which Western capitalism will antagonize at its own peril.

This is a long overdue counterforce to Western domination of the United Nations, a domination based on money, on the large payments enabling the US and other capitalist powers to bribe, threaten and otherwise control the direction of the UN, and distort and destroy the independence, impartiality and integrity which the UN requires in order to maintain its legitimacy, and implement the sustained global peace and justice for which Franklin Delano Roosevelt created it

Since the collapse of the USSR it has become blatantly clear at the UN (and virtually everywhere else) that money talks – indeed money shrieks .

It therefore now seems obvious that the combined UN dues of these newly affiliated nations probably exceeds the contributions of the United States to the United Nations, and, if skillfully managed, this new organization of hitherto ravaged states will now have the power to threaten to withhold their combined dues, threatening a strike would could paralyze the United Nations unless their own interests, and not solely the interest of the United States and Saudi Arabia, are respected, and their own voices honored. There is incessant talk of the need for reform of the United Nations. It is probable that this new organization within the UN is the reform that is necessary – indeed inevitable.

*

Carla Stea, is a distingished author and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

6 April 2026

Source: globalresearch.ca

Trump and Netanyahu: Two Madmen Playing God

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

When deranged leaders invoke divine catastrophe as a political instrument, it is not only their enemies who are consumed. Unless they are stopped, we will all be victims of these two psychopaths.

Here is Donald Trump’s Easter message to the world:

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP

Donald Trump and his partner in war crimes, Benjamin Netanyahu, are jointly waging a war of murderous aggression against Iran, a nation of 90 million people. They are in the grip of three cascading pathologies. The first is personality: both are malignant narcissists. The second is the arrogance of power: men who possess the power to command nuclear annihilation and feel, in consequence, no restraint. The third, and most dangerous of all, is religious delusion: two men who believe, and are told daily by those around them, that they are messiahs doing God’s work. Each pathology exacerbates the others, so that together they put the world in unprecedented danger.

The result is a glorification of violence not seen since the Nazi leaders. The question is whether the world’s few grownups—responsible national leaders who remain committed to international law and are willing to say so—can restrain them. It will not be easy, but they must try.

Let us start with the underlying psychological disorder. Malignant narcissism is a clinical term, not an insult. The social psychologist Erich Fromm coined the phrase in 1964 to describe Adolf Hitler, as a merger of pathological grandiosity, psychopathy, paranoia, and antisocial personality into a single character structure. The malignant narcissist is not merely vain. He is structurally incapable of genuine empathy, constitutionally immune to guilt, and driven by paranoid conviction that enemies surround him and must be destroyed. Already back in 2017, psychologist John Garnter and many other professionals were warning of Trump’s malignant narcissism.

Several respected psychologists and psychiatrists have evaluated Trump for psychopathy using the standardized Hare Scale and have come up with scores well above the diagnostic cutoff. See, for example, here. Psychopathy is best characterized as a lack of conscience or compassion for other human beings.

Both Trump and Netanyahu fit this profile with precision. Trump’s psychopathy was on full display when US forces destroyed a civilian bridge in Tehran, of no military significance, with at least eight civilians killed and 95 or more injured. Trump did not grieve. He gloated and promised more destruction. Netanyahu’s Passover address similarly contained not one word for the dead. No pause. No shadow of doubt. Only the triumphant catalog of enemies he has destroyed.

Paranoia drives the threat that Trump and Netanyahu have manufactured. Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in writing that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated” and that the intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.” The IAEA stated flatly there was no evidence of a bomb. Trump’s own counterterrorism official resigned in protest, writing that “we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” The paranoid does not need a real threat. He will make one up if he must, to match his feelings of exaggerated fear.

The Machiavellianism operates without shame. Trump told the world that diplomacy was always his “first preference,” while boasting in the same breath about ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran: “I was so honored to do it. I was so proud to do it.” He destroyed the diplomatic framework with his own hands, then blamed Iran for the wreckage. He then admitted, casually, that the war has no self-defense rationale: “We don’t have to be there. We don’t need their oil. We don’t need anything they have. But we’re there to help our allies.” Under the UN Charter, self-defense is the only legal basis for force. Trump has confessed that no such basis exists.

There is a particular deformation that power inflicts on certain personalities, and it is especially acute when the power in question is unbounded or seems to be so. With the command of nuclear arsenals, Trump and Netanyahu do not experience the world as others do. The availability of nuclear weapons, for these malignant narcissists, is not a burden of responsibility but an extension of their grandiose selves: I can do anything. I can level anything. Watch me. There will be no self-restraints by Netanyahu and Trump on this delusional grandiosity.

Trump has completely internalized this sense of impunity. On April 1, he stood before the cameras and promised to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.” The phrase “where they belong” is the verdict of a man who feels divinely licensed to judge the worth of 90 million people and dehumanizes them without hesitation. He has repeatedly threatened to destroy Iran’s civilian electrical infrastructure—a war crime under the laws of armed conflict, announced openly as a negotiating position, to a global audience that mostly changed the channel.

Netanyahu commands a state with an estimated 200 nuclear warheads, has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and operates under no international inspection regime. He has watched Trump wield American military power with unchecked aggression and concurs that there are no consequences. The second madness feeds the third: when power faces no limit, the only remaining internal check is conscience. And the psychopath has no conscience.

The lack of conscience is the most dangerous pathology of the three, because it is the one that removes the last possible internal brake. The strategist who wages an unjust war may eventually calculate that the costs exceed the gains and stop. The malignant narcissist who wages war for ego may eventually exhaust the ego’s demands and stop. The psychopath escalates because there are no limits.

And, if you can believe, it gets even worse. Both Trump and Netanyahu are would-be messiahs. They are self-proclaimed agents of God. For them, stopping the war on Iran would mean God was wrong. And the self-proclaimed messiah cannot be wrong, either, because the messiah and God have become, in the grandiose psyche, effectively the same.

Both Trump and Netanyahu have claimed this messianic identity explicitly. Trump has called himself “the chosen one.” Regarding the assassination attempt on Trump in 2024, he declared, “I felt then and believe even more so now that my life was saved for a reason. I ⁠was saved by God to make America great again.” Netanyahu, in his address on the eve of Passover, did not merely invoke God. He appropriated God’s role in the Exodus narrative—enumerating ten “accomplishments” of what he calls the “War of Redemption” and naming each one a plague. The killing of Ayatollah Khamenei he named the “Plague of the Firstborn.” He then warned the world:

After the ten plagues of Egypt, I remind you that Pharaoh still tried to harm the People of Israel, and we all know how that ended.

In the Book of Exodus, that ending is the drowning of Pharaoh’s entire army. Netanyahu was threatening the annihilation of Iran, on television, in the language of holy scripture.

Surrounding each of these men is a court of flatterers and fanatics whose function is to sustain the delusion and prevent reality from entering their consciousness.

Trump’s Court: Hegseth, Huckabee, and the Christian Nationalists
Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, has turned the Pentagon into a theater of holy war. He sports a Jerusalem Cross tattoo on his chest and the words “Deus Vult,” “God Wills It,” the battle cry of the medieval Crusades, on his arm. He hosts monthly Christian worship services in the Pentagon’s auditorium. He has asked the American people to pray “every day, on bended knee” for military victory in the Middle East “in the name of Jesus Christ.” At one of these services, he prayed aloud for US troops to inflict:

Overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy … We ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ.
At a press briefing on the Iran war, Hegseth said the United States “negotiates with bombs.” He described Iran’s leaders as “religious fanatics” seeking nuclear capability for “some religious Armageddon,” while presiding over monthly prayer services at the Pentagon and declaring that “the providence of our almighty God is there protecting those troops.” He appears to have no awareness of the mirror he is holding up. A defense secretary who prays for “overwhelming violence” in the name of Jesus, while calling his enemies religious fanatics, has defined the word “projection.”

Mike Huckabee, the US Ambassador to Israel, provides the theological architecture. A Baptist minister and avid Christian Zionist, Huckabee believes the Israel-Iran conflict is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy—a necessary step toward the Rapture and the second coming of Christ. He sent Trump a message—which Trump then posted on social media—comparing the moment to Truman in 1945 and the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, urging Trump to listen to “HIS voice,” meaning God.

In an interview, Huckabee was asked about the biblical land grant stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates—encompassing Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq—and whether Israel had a divine right to it all. His answer was direct: “It would be fine if they took it all.”

Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Smotrich, for his part, posted on social media: “I ♥ Huckabee.” Christian Zionist pastor John Hagee, whose organization Christians United for Israel has been a major driver of US evangelical support for Israel’s wars, looked at the Iran war and said simply: “Prophetically, we’re right on cue.” Franklin Graham, at a White House Easter prayer service, fed Trump’s messianic delusions: “Today the Iranians, the wicked regime of this government, wants to kill every Jew and destroy them with an atomic fire. But you have raised up President Trump. You’ve raised him up for such a time as this. And Father, we pray that you’ll give him victory.”

Netanyahu’s Court: Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and the Messianic Settlers
On the Israeli side, the inner court is composed of two figures whose radicalism is so extreme that they were considered political pariahs until Netanyahu used their votes to stay in power. Itamar Ben-Gvir, the National Security Minister, is an admirer of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose Kach party was designated a terrorist organization. Bezalel Smotrich, the Finance Minister, draws his ideology from Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, who taught that Israel’s 1967 military victory was divinely mandated and that the settlement of Palestinian territory is the will of God. Together, they hold 20 seats in Netanyahu’s 67-seat coalition. They do not merely advise the prime minister, they share in his messianic beliefs and vision.

Ben-Gvir has used his control of the Israeli police to enable settler paramilitaries operating against Palestinians in the West Bank. He has consistently blocked ceasefire negotiations and has openly claimed credit for delaying them. He pushed for Jewish ritual rights on the Temple Mount in defiance of a status quo maintained for decades, a move Israeli security officials warned would lead directly to bloodshed. In August 2023 he declared: “My right, and my wife’s and my children’s right to get around on the roads in Judea and Samaria, is more important than the right to movement for Arabs.” The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, the Netherlands, and Spain have all sanctioned him for inciting violence, yet the United States, under Marco Rubio, defended Ben-Gvir and criticized those sanctions.

Smotrich is the more methodical of the two: less theatrical and more dangerous. He has systematically transferred civilian governance of the West Bank from the Israeli military to his own ministry, channeling hundreds of millions of shekels to settler infrastructure while Palestinian Authority budgets are deliberately strangled. He has directed his office to formulate “an operational plan for applying sovereignty” over the West Bank. During the Iran war, he called for Israel to annex southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, declaring that the war “needs to end with a different reality entirely.” Smotrich’s ideology draws on Kook’s teaching that the settlement enterprise is not political but sacred—a divine obligation that must be completed regardless of international law, Palestinian rights, or the opinion of the world. The 1967 borders, in this theology, are not a temporary military reality. They are God’s unfinished business.

Neither Ben-Gvir nor Smotrich was anything more than a fringe extremist before Netanyahu legitimized them by bringing them into government and his inner court. He gave them power over Israeli society, and they gave him the religious-nationalist firepower to call his wars a divine mission.

Into this landscape of holy war, one voice has spoken with world-saving grace and clarity. Pope Leo XIV has consistently called for an end to the violence. During a Holy Thursday Mass in Rome, he addressed the arrogance of power:

We tend to consider ourselves powerful when we dominate, victorious when we destroy our equals, great when we are feared. God has given us an example — not of how to dominate, but of how to liberate; not of how to destroy life, but of how to give it.
On Palm Sunday, the pope was again direct, saying that Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.” Hegseth followed up by holding another worship service at the Pentagon, where he again prayed for “overwhelming violence” in Christ’s name.

Professor John Mearsheimer has stated precisely that the crimes now being committed by Trump and Netanyahu are the same crimes for which the Nazi leadership was hanged at Nuremberg: aggressive war, annexation of foreign territory, deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, and collective punishment. This is not rhetorical excess. These are legal categories. The Nuremberg Tribunal called the crime of aggression the “supreme international crime”—the one that “contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”—because it is the crime that makes all the other crimes possible. These men have confessed to it, publicly, in speeches carried by international broadcasters.

The institutional mechanisms that exist to prevent exactly this kind of catastrophe, including the UN Security Council, the International Criminal Court, the non-proliferation regime, and the laws of armed conflict, are being actively subverted by the United States.

And yet the world’s grownups must try to stop the madness. The multilateral effort in Islamabad, including the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, working alongside the China-Pakistan five-point peace initiative, is an important start. It should be joined by the full weight of the BRICS nations, the UN General Assembly, and every state that wishes to live in a world governed by rules rather than by the delusions of two malignant narcissists.

When deranged leaders invoke divine catastrophe as a political instrument, it is not only their enemies who are consumed. We will all be the victims of Netanyahu’s plagues and Trump’s bombing of Iran to the stone ages, unless other leaders place limits on these two madmen.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development.

6 April 2026

Source: commondreams.org

New World Busy Being Born while Old One Is Busy Dying

By Pepe Escobar

26 Mar 2026 – The 15-point plan that Team Trump presented to Iran is already D.O.A.

It’s an imposed capitulation: a surrender document disguised as “negotiation”.

The non-plan plan – imposing demands while begging for a one-month ceasefire – includes zero uranium enrichment on Iranian soil; full dismantlement of Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow installations; all enriched uranium out of Iran; the missile program extremely restricted; no funding for Hezbollah, Ansarallah and Iraqi militias; the Strait of Hormuz totally opened.

All that in exchange for a vague “cancelling the threat of reimposing sanctions”.

The only realistic Iranian response to this accumulated wishful thinking might be Mr. Khorramshahr-4 showering his business card across selected targets – consistent with leveraging economic and military deterrence to dictate the real terms.

And the real terms are harsh:

Closure of ALL US military bases in the Gulf; guarantee of no more wars; end of the war on Hezbollah; lifting of ALL sanctions; war damage reparations; a new order in the Strait of Hormuz (already in effect: collecting fees just like Egypt in Suez); missile program intact.

Conclusion: the infernal escalation machine keeps rolling.

Member’s Club With an Entrance Fee in Petroyuan

Meanwhile, oil and gas prices are mired in a kaleidoscope of volatility, affecting currencies, equities, commodities, supply chains, inflation scares. This is already an out-of-control global economic shock with devastating consequences in progress.

Before the war, Iran was producing a little less of 1.1 million barrels of oil a day, sold at $65 a barrel with a $18 discount: thus, in practice only $47. Now, Iran has increased production to 1.5 million barrels a day, selling at $110 (and counting), mostly to China, with a maximum $4 discount.

And that does not even include petrochemical sales: on the up and up, and for an array of extra customers. To round it all up, all payments are conducted via alternative mechanisms. Which brings us to a startling fact: for all practical purposes, this is sanctions relief in effect.

Now for the Holy Grail in the war: the Strait of Hormuz. It is de facto open, but with a toll booth controlled by the IRGC. A toll booth with a twist: veto power over the guest list. Like entering an exclusive private club.

To get the IRGC clearance, a tanker needs to pay the toll: $2 million per vessel. This is how it works. You contact an IRGC-linked broker. The broker relays to the IRGC the essential info: vessel ownership, national flag, cargo manifest, destination, crew list, and AIS transponder data.

The IRGC runs background checks. If you are not US-linked, not shipping any Israel-linked cargo, and your flag is not part of “aggressor states”, you’re in. Japan and South Korea, for instance, still have not been cleared.

Then you pay the toll. In cash – whatever currency you have – but preferably in yuan. Or in crypto.

It’s a complex mechanism. The IRGC uses multiple addresses; cross-chain bridges to other networks; over-the-counter desks in jurisdictions way beyond American reach; and integration with all sorts of yuan settlement channels.

After the toll is paid, the IRGC issues a VHF radio clearance – complete with a specific time window linked to a narrow 5-mile nautical corridor through Iranian territorial waters, between Qeshm and little Larak island, where the IRGC Navy can visually identify your vessel. You’re free to go. No need for an escort ship.

All of the above applies, for now, to tankers from China, India, Pakistan, Turkiye, Malaysia, Iraq, Bangladesh, Russia. Some don’t need to pay the full toll. Some get exemptions – on government-to-government basis (as in Sri Lanka and Thailand, both described as “friendly nations”). And some don’t pay anything.

So welcome to a member’s club with an entrance fee mostly in petroyuan. It took a single move from Iran to achieve what endless global summits could not: establishing an alternative settlement system – under fire, tested under supreme stress, and on top of it applied in the most consequential chokepoint on the planet.

Each toll paid in petroyuan bypasses the petrodollar, SWIFT and US sanctions – all in one go. The Iranian parliament will approve legislation institutionalizing the toll booth as “security compensation.” No one saw this coming – and so fast: legalized chokepoint monetization. Without firing a shot. This is what de-dollarization trade is really all about.

The problem is what is not transiting Hormuz: fertilizers. Over 49% of urea for export comes from the Persian Gulf. Ammonia needs natural gas; but Qatar declared Force Majeure after the Epstein Syndicate attack on South Pars and the Iranian counter-strikes. The IRGC is focused on oil because oil finances the tool booth and long term, is at the heart of the post-dollar energy settlement system, fully supported by the Russia-China strategic partnership.

So it’s no wonder the Empire of Chaos and Plunder has gone bonkers. In a flash, in three weeks, we have the petroyuan ruling over the – de facto privatized – most important naval connectivity corridor on the planet. So CENTCOM will go all out Terminator to demolish the tool booth, attempting everything from bombing IRGC installations along the coast and setting up naval escorts for allied tankers to a tsunami of sanctions on toll booth brokers.

What CENTCOM cannot bomb is the precedent of the petroyuan in effect. The whole Global South is watching and doing the math. The whole demented war is actually helping a new payment infrastructure to come to light. The war’s financial dimension is even more crucial than missile breakthroughs.

hat Awaits the GCC

Qatar warned Trump 2.0, over and over again, that attacking Iran’s energy infrastructure would destroy Doha’s own energy infrastructure. That’s exactly what happened. Qatar’s energy minister al-Kaabi revealed that he warned the US Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, as well as executives at ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips day after day.

To no avail. Qatar ended up losing 17% of its LNG capacity: $20 billion in lost revenue, and as many as 5 years to fix it. Al-Kaabi: oil could hit $150 a barrel, and this war could “bring down the economies of the world.”

We reach absurdist territory when it’s clear that striking Iran’s South Pars generated less than zero strategic advantage. On the contrary: the counterpunch hit the Persian Gulf energy sector. Yet perversity actually rules. Who ultimately benefitted? American gas companies.

Iran is betting – and that is immensely ambitious – that the Gulf monarchies will eventually do the math. It’s as if Tehran is making it quite clear: if you learn to do business with us, we will let you continue to do your own business.

The new rules include everything from the GCC bypassing the petrodollar to getting rid of US data centers. And if the GCC wants a new security arrangement, better talk to China. All that while the GCC also has to learn how to deal with this oil shock permanently repricing the risk premium on their energy supply. Structural reset does not even begin to describe it.

As it stands, there’s only one certainty: the GCC will be instrumental in the international financial system implosion as it gets ready to pull at least $5 trillion out of the US market so they may be able to fund their survival.

The Long and Winding Petro-Gold Road

To sum it all up: after the attack on the South Pars gas field – the largest on the planet – and the toll booth in the Strait of Hormuz, it’s yuan-gold settlements, all across the spectrum, that are giving the Russia-China strategic partnership an upper hand unthinkable only a few weeks ago.

The strategic partnership is locking in no less than a new, rising global settlement mechanism, where petroyuan trades flow straight into physical gold.

As Russia sells massive volumes of oil and gas not touched by the war on its ally Iran, China as the top refiner buys Russian energy while at the same time trying to support its Southeast Asian partners outside of the US dollar.

Russia is converting yuan payments into physical gold at the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Iran is accumulating yuan payments in Hormuz – boosting yuan oil contracts that are convertible to gold. And China is building overseas gold vaults and corridors. The new Primakov triangle, RIC (Russia-Iran-China) is in control via real physical energy and gold.

So this is the major take away of the Epstein Syndicate war on Iran. Russia-China reach the Holy Grail: energy dominance and a gold-backed yuan settlement that bypasses the petrodollar to Kingdom Come.

For all practical purposes, the architecture set up by the “indispensable nation” since the 1990s is showing structural cracks for everyone to see, with global markets updating every possible model variation in real time.

It’s as if the Persians had reinterpreted Sun Tzu, Clausewitz and Kutuzov (the conqueror of Napoleon) into a whole new hybrid. And as a bonus, accomplishing in only three weeks what years’ worth of summits could not.

The petrodollar is on the way out. Alternative payment systems are up and running. And the Global South is watching in real time how the Empire of Endless Bombing can be brought to a standstill by a decentralized war of attrition engineered by a sovereign nation with one-fiftieth of the imperial defense budget.

Multipolarity won’t be born by suits reading papers in executive rooms. Multipolarity will be born in the battlefield, under fire, against all odds.

“Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool’s gold mouthpiece the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying”

— Bob Dylan

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, and Bangkok.

6 April 2026

Source: transcend.org

How Iran Should End the War

By M. Javad Zarif

A Deal Tehran Could Take

3 Apr 2026 – Iran did not start its war with the United States and Israel. But more than a month in, the Islamic Republic is clearly winning it. US and Israeli forces have spent weeks incessantly bombing Iranian territory, killing thousands of people and damaging hundreds of buildings, all in hopes of toppling the country’s government. Yet Iran has held the line and successfully defended its interests. It has maintained continuity of leadership even as its top officials have been assassinated, and it has repeatedly hit back at its aggressors even as they strike at its military, civilian, and industrial facilities. The Americans and the Israelis who started the conflict with delusions of forcing capitulation thus find themselves in a quagmire without an exit strategy. The Iranians, by contrast, have pulled off a historic feat of resistance.

To some Iranians, this success is reason to continue fighting until the aggressors are adequately punished rather than to search for a negotiated ending. Every night since February 28, large crowds of proud Iranians have gathered across the country to show their defiance by shouting, “No capitulation, no compromise, fight with America.” After all, the United States has proved that it cannot be trusted in talks and that it will not respect Iran’s sovereignty. By this logic, there is no reason to engage with the country now and offer it an off-ramp. Instead, Tehran should press its advantage, continuing to strike U.S. bases and blocking commerce in the Strait of Hormuz until Washington fundamentally alters its regional presence and posture.

Yet although continuing to fight the United States and Israel might be psychologically satisfying, it will lead only to the further destruction of civilian lives and infrastructure. These actors, desperate after failing to achieve any of their objectives, are increasingly resorting to targeting vital pharmaceutical, energy, and industrial sites and randomly hitting innocent civilians. The violence is also slowly drawing in more countries, threatening to turn a regional conflagration into a global one. And regrettably, international organizations have been bullied by the United States into staying silent in the face of Washington’s many atrocities, including its massacre of nearly 170 schoolchildren on the first day of the war.

Tehran, then, should use its upper hand not to keep fighting but to declare victory and make a deal that both ends this conflict and prevents the next one. It should offer to place limits on its nuclear program and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for an end to all sanctions—a deal Washington wouldn’t take before but might accept now. Iran should also be prepared to accept a mutual nonaggression pact with the United States in which both countries pledge to not strike each other in the future. It could offer economic interactions with the United States, which would be a win for both the American and the Iranian people. All these outcomes would enable Iranian officials to focus less on protecting their country from foreign adversaries and more on improving the lives of their people domestically. Tehran, in other words, could secure the new, brilliant future Iranians deserve.

U.S. President Donald Trump, despite his weakened position or maybe because of it, continues to issue contradictory and confusing statements about negotiations. On Wednesday, Trump gave a speech in which he simultaneously insulted all Iranians by pledging to bomb Iran “back to the stone ages, where they belong” while promising, as he has time and again, that Washington’s military campaign was just a few weeks from being complete. But the White House is clearly worried that rising energy costs, which were created by the American bombardment, are a political liability, and this plan would offer Trump a well-timed off-ramp. In fact, it could turn his huge miscalculation into an opportunity to claim a lasting victory for peace.

TAKE THE WIN
Iranians are intensely angry with the United States—and not just because of its present aggression. Since the turn of the millennium, the Islamic Republic and its people have been repeatedly betrayed by U.S. officials. Iran provided assistance to the United States against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, only for President George W. Bush to include Tehran in his “axis of evil” and threaten to strike it. President Barack Obama’s administration negotiated and struck the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran’s leaders, but Tehran’s verified, meticulous compliance with the agreement did not lead the administration to normalize Iran’s global economic relations, as it had promised. Iranian compliance also did not stop Trump from tearing the deal apart and then following it with a vicious campaign of “maximum pressure”: strict sanctions designed to impoverish Iran’s 90 million people. Those policies continued under President Joe Biden, even though he had promised to resurrect diplomacy.

When Trump returned to office for a second term, Washington’s approach became even more misleading. The White House said it was interested in striking a new deal, and Iran sent its most capable diplomats and experts to negotiate. But Trump quickly proved to be unserious. Instead of deploying experienced envoys, he sent two real estate developer confidants—his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his golf buddy Steve Witkoff—who were completely illiterate on both geopolitics and nuclear technicalities. When they predictably failed to understand Iran’s generous offers to reach a deal, the White House launched its massive, armed assault against Iranian civilians.

As a result, a large portion of the Iranian population views as heresy any talk of ending this war through diplomacy instead of through continued resistance and pressure against embattled aggressors. Iranians have little interest in speaking to American officials who have betrayed them repeatedly. But although this perspective is understandable, the Islamic Republic will ultimately be better off if it can end the war sooner rather than later. Prolonged hostility will cause a greater loss of precious lives and irreplaceable resources without actually altering the existing stalemate, particularly as the United States and Israel keep targeting Iranian infrastructure. Although Iran is capable of obliterating the region’s infrastructure in retaliation, that hardly matters to the United States, which views all its so-called Arab allies in the region merely as shields it can use in defense of Israel. And the destruction of the region’s infrastructure will not compensate Iran’s losses. Continued fighting might also produce a U.S. ground invasion. Although it would be a desperation move that would drive Washington into an even deeper quagmire, a ground invasion would hardly provide gains for Iran. Finally, if the United States packs up and leaves before the two sides reach a deal, Iran will not be able to cash in on all the proceeds of its valiant resistance to Washington’s aggression.

If the two sides do manage to opt for talks, they can pursue one of two outcomes. The first is a formal or informal cease-fire agreement. At first glance, this might seem like the best way forward. It is certainly the one of least resistance. To get a cease-fire, after all, Tehran, Washington, and their allies would only have to lay down their weapons. They would not need to resolve the underlying tensions that have plagued their relationship for decades.

The current conflict could make reaching a comprehensive agreement easier.

But any cease-fire would, inherently, be fragile. The two states would remain deeply suspicious and skeptical of each other precisely because they wouldn’t have addressed their fundamental disagreements. It thus wouldn’t take much—another miscalculation, misplaced political opportunism—for the shooting to resume. Officials should therefore aim for the second outcome: a comprehensive peace deal. They should, in other words, use this catastrophe as an opportunity to end 47 years of belligerence.

The current conflict, horrible as it is, could make reaching such an agreement easier. That is because it has revealed certain truths about West Asia that Tehran and Washington can no longer ignore. For starters, it has shown that the United States is incapable of destroying Iran’s nuclear or missile programs, even when it operates alongside Israel and with the financial and logistical support of its Persian Gulf partners. These programs are simply too entrenched and too dispersed to be bombed away. In fact, when it comes to nuclear questions, all the U.S. and Israeli strikes have done is animate debate about whether Iran should actually abandon the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and change its nonproliferation doctrine. The strikes have also made it abundantly clear that the news of the demise of the “axis of resistance”—Iran’s network of regional partners—was greatly exaggerated. If anything, the aggression has reenergized resistance to U.S. foreign policy across the global South, in some parts of Europe, and even in parts of the United States, where some of Trump’s MAGA supporters have rejected his “Israel first” policies.

For the region, meanwhile, the war proves that trying to outsource or purchase security from the United States is a losing strategy. For years, Arab countries have believed that they could safeguard themselves by paying the United States to establish military bases in their territory. Meanwhile, they largely rejected or ignored Iran’s offers of regional security arrangements, starting with its 1985 suggestion—enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 598—that the coastal states of the Persian Gulf establish a regional security arrangement and continuing with its offers of a nonaggression pact in 2015 and its Hormuz Peace Endeavor in 2019. Arab states thought that such proposals were unnecessary because, when push came to shove, U.S. officials would help them manage relations with Iran and protect them from any regional conflict. But instead, the United States decided to start bombing the Islamic Republic despite their verbal—and for some, sincere—objections and used its bases on their territory to carry out its campaign, as anyone in their right mind should have expected. As a result, Arab countries have become theaters of war, which is exactly what they wished to avoid.

All these outcomes validate Tehran’s long-standing assertions about both itself and the regional order. But with its strengthened self-confidence, Iran has its own lesson to internalize. It must accept that its nuclear technology has not deterred aggression. If anything, it provided a pretext for Israeli and U.S. attacks. Iran has, of course, also proved that Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons program cannot protect Israelis from a daily barrage of piercing missiles and inexpensive drones. This failure is all the more reason to be skeptical that a nuclear program will safeguard Iran’s security, no matter how advanced it grows. Instead, Iran’s civilian and military officials have all confirmed that the most effective component of the country’s successful defense has been its resilient people.

PREPARING PEACE
These facts mean that reciprocity will be key to any settlement, including at the earliest phases. To start the peace process, for example, all parties in West Asia would have to agree to stop fighting against each other. Iran, in cooperation with Oman, would have to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. But American officials must permit the Strait of Hormuz to be open for Iran, too. The biggest irony of geography is that, although it borders Iranian territory, the strait has been effectively closed to Iran for years because of U.S. sanctions. This has caused tremendous corruption inside Iran and huge profiteering by some ungrateful neighbors. Thus, even before a final agreement is reached, the United States must allow the unhindered sale of Iranian oil and its byproducts and the safe repatriation of their proceeds.

As Iran and the United States take these immediate measures, they can start articulating a permanent peace deal. Much of this agreement would likely address nuclear issues. Iran, for instance, would commit to never seeking nuclear weapons and to down-blending its entire stockpile of enriched uranium to an agreed level below 3.67 percent. Simultaneously, the United States would move to terminate all Security Council resolutions against Iran, eliminate U.S. unilateral sanctions against Iran, and encourage its partners to do the same. Iran must be allowed to actively participate in global supply chains without hindrance or discrimination. The Iranian parliament, in turn, would ratify the International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol, thus placing all its nuclear facilities under permanent international monitoring. The United States has, of course, asked for more stringent conditions—namely, zero enrichment. But U.S. officials know full well that such demands are fanciful. The United States will not be able to get from Iran what it tried and failed to achieve in two unprovoked wars of aggression.

These compromises would not resolve every atomic dispute between Tehran and Washington. But they would settle most of them, and outside countries could help address the biggest remaining challenge: what to do with Iran’s uranium. China and Russia, together with the United States, could help establish a fuel enrichment consortium with Iran and interested neighbors in the Persian Gulf, which should then become the sole fuel enrichment facility for West Asia. Iran would transfer all its enriched material and equipment to that space. As another regional component of the peace plan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen—together with permanent members of the Security Council and possibly Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey—should begin cooperating on a regional security network to ensure nonaggression, cooperation, and freedom of navigation throughout West Asia. That includes establishing formal arrangements between Iran and Oman for the continuous safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

Washington will not be able to get from Iran what it tried and failed to achieve in two unprovoked wars.

To further consolidate peace, Iran and the United States should initiate mutually beneficial trade, economic, and technological cooperation. Iran, for example, could invite oil companies, including interested American ones, to immediately facilitate exports to buyers. Iran, the United States, and Persian Gulf countries might all partner on projects involving energy and advanced technologies. Washington should also commit to financing the reconstruction of damages caused by the wars in 2025 and 2026 in Iran—including by compensating civilians for their losses. Some U.S. officials might balk at having to make such payments. But Iranian diplomats will not be able to proceed with a deal otherwise, and the cost of financing Iran’s rebuilding will likely be far less than continuing to wage this expensive and unpopular war.

Finally, Iran and the United States should announce and sign a permanent nonaggression pact. By doing so, they would commit to not use or threaten to use force against each other. Iran and the United States would then terminate the various terrorism-related designations they have affixed to each other. They would explore dispatching diplomats to serve in their respective interest sections, restoring consular services, and removing travel restrictions on each other’s citizens.

This agreement will not be easy to make. Iranians will remain deeply skeptical of Washington’s intentions throughout negotiations. Trump and his officials, meanwhile, will continue to view Tehran with doubt. China and Russia, probably along with some regional states, may have to provide guarantees to address these serious mutual anxieties.

But this war, horrible as it is, has opened the door for a durable settlement. Iranians may be outraged, but they can push forward knowing that they stood tall in the face of a massive and illegal military onslaught by two nuclear-armed powers. U.S. officials may still dislike the Islamic Republic, but they now realize that the government isn’t going anywhere—and that they will have to live alongside it. Emotions may be high, and each side is boasting about its war-front victories. But history best remembers those who make peace.

M. Javad Zarif is Associate Professor of Global Studies at the University of Tehran and Founder and President of Possibilities Architects.

6 April 2026

Source: transcend.org