Showing posts sorted by date for query DRUZE. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query DRUZE. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, April 17, 2026

Lebanon, Iran, and the Forgotten Plight of the Shia “Infidel”



 April 17, 2026

Image by Chloe Christine.

As a badly battered Middle East hangs off the edge of a cliff by a string with a temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran, peace or anything remotely resembling it looks even less likely for Southern Lebanon than it does for the rest of that treacherous map drawn by dead British arseholes. Even if Israel were the kind of creature that could be trusted to respect a ceasefire with anyone, much of the damage is already done.

Long before the latest peacetime artillery pogrom, the IDF had already spent the better part of a month attempting to empty out every square inch of the region south of the Litani River with the same kind of scorched earth campaign they used to cleanse Gaza before obliterating every bridge crossing said Litani River. 600,000 people have been herded north to join another 600,000 Lebanese citizens in being internally displaced by Zionist terrorism.

Israel has made their intentions for this slice of the Levant sickeningly clear. They have already publicly abandoned their mythic crusade to disarm Hezbollah in favor of focusing exclusively on the blatantly illegal goal of simply annexing another chunk of the Holy Land and declaring it a “buffer zone.” They aren’t the least bit shy about just what they are attempting to “buffer” either.

Israel has released official statements reassuring the region’s Christian and Druze populations that they will be allowed to return home to Israeli-occupied rubble, but have also harshly warned these populations against so much as even sheltering any member of that region’s Shiite majority, who have very pointedly not been welcomed to return.

There is a word for this, and it starts with a ‘G,’ but even the most progressive First World observers don’t seem to want to use it. This seems particularly strange considering how many westerners have finally broken the taboo of accusing Israel of committing genocide in Palestine, but the word feels pretty damn appropriate here too.

Israel has openly declared war on Lebanon’s population of Shia Muslims, successfully removing many of them from the region of that nation that has long been their stronghold and instructing them in no uncertain terms never to come back, but still most westerners continue to avoid using the G-word here and I do believe that the reason why tells us a great deal about the violent current of First World depravity informing the larger regional war that has grown to engulf the entirety of the Middle East.

In a word, it all comes down to Shiaphobia.

Shia Muslims have long found themselves the victims of rampant and frequently brutal discrimination across the Muslim world, going all the way back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad. A minority among an already besieged faithful, Shiites provoked the wrath of the Umayyads with their critique of what they saw as the unjust power of the Caliphs and have never been forgiven for this rebellious trespass against theological conformity.

All other theocratic differences aside, it appears to be this population’s willingness to confront the corruption of the majority that has defined their plight above all else, a plight which has not only seen eleven of the twelve Shia Imams murdered at the hands of a variety of despotic autocrats, but has also led to the construction and proliferation of entire extremist Sunni sects like the Wahabi and the Salafi who are largely defined by their advocacy for genocide against all infidels, with the Shia serving the role of the original transgressors.

We have seen this play out in one horror show after another across the Muslim world, whether it be the systematic displacement of over 50% of Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Shia Hazara community or the glorified Sunni apartheid state of Bahrain, which has long shackled that oil-rich nation’s slim Shia majority with the status of second-class citizens.

More often than not, it has been Western imperialists fueling the bigotry, too, targeting Shia communities for their inability to capitulate and conform to our pseudo-Islamic Wahhabi quislings and generally using them as convenient scapegoats to keep the Sunni majority distracted while we rob them blind, too.

In many ways, for better or worse, Iran’s consistently defiant Islamic Republic is the natural result of the systemic plight of the Shia. After centuries of being raped and pillaged by one corrupt caliphate after another, the Twelvers formed a caliphate of their own, defined not only by their spiritual resistance to the West and its proxies but their willingness to put their money where their mouth is and support Shia and occasionally even Sunni resistance to colonial subjugation anywhere and everywhere it surfaces.

Sadly, this has also led Tehran to play the part of the foreign interloper, intervening even where they aren’t wanted by a Shia community far too vast and diverse to ever be properly represented by any kind of centralized authority. On more than one occasion, we have seen the Mullahs falling victim to that old Nietzschean trope and resembling the very same kind of corrupt caliphs they once defined themselves by disobeying.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has undoubtably become a corrupt and venal hierarchy of bloodthirsty fundamentalist imposters who have become totally disconnected from Islam’s roots as a force for social justice that had originally put them to the left of their Abrahamic cousins, but they must not be confused with the merciless beasts that even liberal westerners have convinced themselves that they are and they certainly must not be tarred by the downright absurd farce that they are somehow “the greatest state sponsors of terrorism on the planet.”

This simple act of historical sanity seems to be an obnoxiously challenging feat for the West to even attempt to grasp but after having our asses handed to us on a tarnished brass platter by the Islamic Republic, even after we assassinated the first two or three layers of their government, I feel like any form of peace is compulsory upon grasping it.

I guess, at the end of the day, you probably have to ask yourself a few hard questions before you can swallow the truth.

First, who is Hezbollah? Hezbollah is a militia formed by Lebanese Shia clerics during Israel’s brutal invasion of their already war-torn nation in the 1980s. They were trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard but formed well before this to defend a marginalized community subjected to near-routine massacres and pogroms during the Lebanese Civil War.

Now, who are the Houthis? The Houthi rebels, otherwise known as Ansar Allah, were actually a relatively moderate theological movement advocating for the revival of the Zaydi school of Shia Islam endemic to the mountains of Northern Yemen until their criticism of an American-backed dictator got their founder murdered and the Zaydi were forced to rely on the rifle to affect change. The Revolutionary Guard doesn’t actually appear at all during their rise until well after the Houthis established themselves as a force to be reckoned with.

But just who exactly are the Revolutionary Guard anyway, aside from a branch of the Iranian military connected to the so-called terrorists above? Well, they are the force responsible for organizing the Shia militias that crippled Al-Qaeda in the post-apocalyptic wasteland of post-Saddam Iraq. They are also the force that united a vast and diverse coalition known as the Axis of Resistance, more responsible than any conventional army for breaking the back of the genocidally Shiaphobic Islamic State.

Contrary to Western mythology, Iran’s Islamic Republic has found itself serving the role of the greatest state sponsor of grassroots antiterrorism on the planet. Now, with that being said, there is a very fine line between terrorism and antiterrorism, what with Nietzschean monsters being what they are, but let us at least get the score right and let us do so with a few more uncomfortable questions too.

First, who exactly is Al-Qaeda? Al-Qaeda is a loose network of Salafi-Wahhabist killers who spawned from the armies Jimmy Carter organized to kill communists in Afghanistan. And who are ISIS but the bastard sons of Al-Qaeda, not-so secretly funded by forces outside of the Levant for the purpose of destabilizing the pro-Russian Shia dictatorship of the Assad Dynasty in Syria. Their biggest donors are old Jimmy’s friends in the Persian Gulf

And just who are these friends in the Gulf? A clique of Salafi-Wahhabist billionaires defined by a series of Faustian bargains made with the British Empire and Big Oil after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. They are also the source of nearly every dollar that has ever lined the pockets not just of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but Al-Shebab, Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, and nearly every other organization advocating for distinctly global, aka imperial jihad.

Now, for the million-dollar question. Who is the United States? The US is the empire that arms, funds, and defends those nefarious Gulf States, along with the blatantly genocidal state of Israel, with trillions of dollars in tax-pilfered funds and millions of pounds of military hardware, much of which mysteriously and repeatedly finds its way into the ungrateful hands of Salafi-Wahhabist killers across the globe.

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States of America is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet, and Iran is our number one target in the Middle East because they are the fucking monsters defined by destroying our fucking monsters.

The Russians have an old saying that the communists were wrong about everything but capitalism. I guess you could probably sum up this latest rant of mine by saying that the Mullahs were wrong about everything but the Great Satan.

They oughta know, Satan always seems to go after the Shiites and the communists first, and there ain’t many communists left.

Nicky Reid is an agoraphobic anarcho-genderqueer gonzo blogger from Central Pennsylvania and assistant editor for Attack the System. You can find her online at Exile in Happy Valley.




Friday, April 10, 2026

Inside Israel's expansionist ambitions


Djamilia Prange de Oliveira
DW
10/04/2026 




Israel has never officially defined its borders, but Israeli settlers and ministers are flirting with the biblical idea of extending them far beyond the current state. What's behind the concept of "Greater Israel"?



Daniela Weiss holds a laminated map of the Middle East with the title "The Promised Land" into the camera and says: "This is the promise of God to the patriarchs of the Jewish nation."

The map shows a Jewish state that encompasses parts of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia – extending way beyond the 1949 armistice line, the so-called Green Line that defines Israel's territory according to international law.

"It's 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles) – almost as big as the Sahara desert," Weiss adds.

Weiss – sometimes nicknamed "the godmother of the Israeli settler movement" – is referring to the idea of "Greater Israel", or in Hebrew "Eretz Israel HaShlema" – "Complete Israel." It's an expansionist concept popular among the Israeli far right that originates in the Bible.

Settler leader Daniela Weiss at a right-wing rally near the Gaza Strip in July 2025Image: Menahem Kahana/AFP

"For the proponents of the settlement policy like Bezalel Smotrich, the current finance minister, or Itamar Ben Gvir, the national security minister, it's not about making Israel greater than it actually should be," Gil Shohat, a historian and director of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in Tel Aviv, tells DW.

"It's about completing the job. This means that the claim to the whole of historical Palestine or 'Eretz Israel', as they frame it, is a divine promise," he adds.

Some Israelis interpret "Complete" or "Greater Israel" to include the territory Israel seized in 1967: The Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) — the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza — as well as the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights in Syria and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt that Israel returned decades ago. Others aim for the entire area promised in the Bible, stretching from the Egyptian Nile River to the Euphrates River, which flows through Turkey, Syria and Iraq.

Weiss' words are from a 2014 interview with Australian channel ABC News, but her ideas have only gained traction in Israeli politics since, as Israel continues its multi-front war across the Middle East.

'Greater Israel' in current politics

In March 2023, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich caused diplomatic turmoil when he spoke at a Paris memorial behind a podium featuring a "Greater Israel" map that included not only the territories Israel currently occupies but also Jordan.

A year later, he told the German-French channel ARTE that "the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus," referring to the Syrian capital.

Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich holds a map of the settlement project known as E1 in the occupied West Bank in August 2025Image: Ohad Zwigenberg/AP Photo/picture alliance

In September 2024, when speaking about his plans for "the day after" the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a map that fully annexed the West Bank.

In August 2025, he told the Israeli channel i24NEWS that he was "very much" connected to the vision of "Greater Israel," prompting Egypt and Jordan to demand clarifications from Israel.

And just a few months ago, in February 2026, the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, told American talkshow host Tucker Carlson that it would be "fine" if Israel took over the entire Middle East.

The origins of 'Greater Israel'


In the biblical story (Genesis 15:18-21), God promises Abraham and his descendants a territory from the Nile to the Euphrates River. This vision was later picked up by some Jewish religious and nationalist thinkers and became a foundational element of Zionist ideology.

Zionist thinkers including Theodor Herzl and Ze'ev Jabotinsky referenced these biblical boundaries in their writings. Herzl called the idea of the biblical homeland "excellent" in his diaries, and Jabotinsky echoed this vision in his song "The East Bank of the Jordan". Each verse ends with the line: "The Jordan has two banks – this one is ours, and so is the other."

The song later became the theme of Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionist youth movement, "Betar." Benjamin Netanyahu's father, Benzion Netanyahu, was active in Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionist movement and served briefly as a close aide to Jabotinsky before his death.

Historian Gil Shohat says that for figures of Israel's far right, "Greater Israel" is a divine promise
Image: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung

Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, also flirted with the idea of "Greater Israel" but ended up taking a more pragmatic approach. Before thinking about expansion, he tactically prioritized the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state. But he deliberately left Israel's borders undefined in the 1948 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, creating strategic ambiguity for future expansion.

In a 1937 speech, he said: "The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan: one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them."

Expansion is already reality

Israel expanded its borders beyond what was proposed in the UN Partition Plan in 1947. The plan allocated about 56% of former British Mandatory Palestine to a future Jewish state, but after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Israel controlled about 77%.

Since occupying East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in 1967, Israel effectively controls nearly all of former Mandatory Palestine, in addition to the Golan Heights.

The international community does not recognize these areas as part of sovereign Israeli territory. But most Israelis do, says Shohat: "It's been almost 60 years since Israel occupied these areas. Even in textbooks of more liberal schools in Tel Aviv, the map of Israel includes the West Bank and Gaza."

Today, more than 700,000 Jewish Israeli settlers live in the occupied West Bank and in East Jerusalem, according to the United Nations. Estimates for the Golan Heights range between 23,000 and 31,000 settlers, along with some 20,000 Druze who remained there when Israel seized the area.

The UN views all Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line as a violation of international law, and in an advisory opinion of 2024, the International Court of Justice found the occupation to be illegal.

After the territorial expansion following the 1967 war, the idea of "Greater Israel" gained momentum. Today, it remains influential among some far-right Israeli religious and nationalist groups, but is not a mainstream position in Israeli society, says Shohat.

"The occupation of historical Palestine — so basically Israel, the West Bank and Gaza — is normalized. I do not yet see the trend of normalizing permanent settlements in southern Lebanon, or even in parts of Syria. But this does not mean that the situation in these regions cannot develop into permanent settlement if there is no meaningful international and internal opposition to it."

But even though it is not a mainstream position in Israeli society, the idea of territorial expansion has long permeated key parts of the Israeli government. In March 2026, Finance Minister Smotrich called for the annexation of southern Lebanon.

In a 2024 conference hosted by Nahala, Weiss' settler organization, Finance Minister Smotrich, Security Minister Ben Gvir and settler leader Weiss lobbied for the "voluntary emigration" of Palestinians from Gaza.
Itamar Ben Gvir celebrates Israel's new death penalty law for Palestinians on March 30, 2026 in the Knesset
Image: Oren Ben Hakoon/REUTERS

On stage, Ben Gvir said: "If we don't want another October 7, we need to go back home and control [Gaza]. We need to find a legal way to voluntarily emigrate [Palestinians] and impose death sentences on terrorists."

Two years later, Ben Gvir got a step closer to what he wanted. On March 30, the Knesset, Israel's parliament, approved a law imposing the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of fatal attacks.


Edited by: Kyra Levine and Sarah Hofmann

Djamilia Prange de Oliveira Reporter with a special focus on women's rights, culture, social policy and Brazil.

Friday, April 03, 2026

ANALYSIS

'An eye for an eye': Israel’s death penalty law is retaliatory and electorally motivated


The Israeli parliament's adoption of a law establishing "the death penalty for terrorists" – which in practice will only apply to Palestinians – has provoked an international outcry. The reasons for it passing are not just retaliatory, but politically motivated.

2/04/2026 - FRANCE24
By: Marc DAOU

Israel's Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, center, at the Knesset in Jerusalem Monday, March 30, 2026. © Itay Cohen, AP

"This is historic! With God's help, soon we will execute them one by one!"

These were the words spoken by Israel’s far-right Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir on Monday, March 31, just after a 62–48 vote in the Israeli Knesset that passed a law to apply the death penalty to convicted ‘terrorists’.

Ben-Gvir celebrated the Death Penalty for Terrorists Bill by popping open bottles of champagne and embracing fellow supporters at the Knesset. In the run-up to the vote, he had worn a lapel pin in the shape of a noose, symbolising his support for the legislation.

Limor Son Har Melech, a member of Itamar Ben-Gvir's nationalist party, Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power), was in tears as she read out the results. Melech had introduced the law along with Nissim Vaturi, Knesset deputy speaker and member of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party.

© FRANCE 24
10:32


The law effectively enshrines capital punishment for Palestinians who "intentionally cause the death of a person with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel”.

It has sparked fierce criticism in Israel, the Palestinian territories and abroad for its retaliatory nature, de facto targeting of Palestinians and electorally motivated reasoning.
Death by default

The law says that Palestinians in the occupied West Bank – referred to as Judea and Samaria in the text – would face the death penalty by default if the homicide is classified as an act of terrorism by the Israeli military court, barring specific appeals.

The Knesset stated in Hebrew that the bill mandates that a “resident of the area, except for an Israeli citizen or Israel resident, who intentionally caused the death of a person in an act of terrorism, shall be imposed with the death penalty, unless the military court finds that special circumstances exist under which it is appropriate to impose a sentence of life imprisonment”. It remains unclear what the “special circumstances” are.

“Resident of the region”, in this case, refers to anyone registered in the region's population register or who resides in the region, according to the law. It excludes Israeli citizens or residents, which in this case means settlers.

READ MOREBedouins in Israel’s Negev desert face bomb shelter shortage

The law is not retroactive and will only apply to Palestinians arrested after it comes into effect. Death sentence "by hanging" would be carried out within 90 days of the final conviction, with a possible postponement of up to 180 days.

The Gaza Strip is not mentioned in the text, but a separate bill, which is currently being debated in the Knesset, is intended to establish a special court for the prosecution of those who participated in the October 7 massacre. The bill is set to be presented in parliament in the first week of the Knesset summer session, which begins on March 10.

Although the death penalty has been technically legal in limited forms since Israel's founding, the country has only carried out two state-authorised executions. The first took place in 1948, against an army captain wrongly accused of high treason. The second was against Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who was hanged for genocide and crimes against humanity in 1962.
Condemned at home and abroad

Palestinians were horrified by the law, and shuttered shops and public institutions across the main cities of Hebron, Ramallah, and Nablus in the West Bank on Wednesday. Dozens of citizens – including activists, political factions and civil society groups – also gathered to protest the law on the streets.

Ramallah-based psychologist Raman, 53, told news agency AFP that "there isn't a single person standing here who doesn't have a brother, a husband, a son, or even a neighbour in prison. There is no Palestinian family without a prisoner".
Palestinians demonstrate against the decision by Israel's parliament to approve the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis in Nablus, West Bank, Tuesday, March 31, 2026. © Majdi Mohammed, AP


Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah party called for general strikes, while Hamas said the passing of the law "reflected the bloody nature of the occupation and its policy based on killing and terrorism".

Minutes after the adoption of the Death Penalty for Terrorists Bill into law, Israeli human rights organisation Association for Civil Rights in Israel said they had filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court.

In a damning post on their website, they described the law as “depressing and infuriating”, condemning the “disgraceful jubilation surrounding such a repugnant law by the racist and extremist Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir and other members of the government”. They had earlier described the law as discriminatory, racist, and unconstitutional.

The Knesset "is not authorised to legislate directly for the West Bank, since the military commander is the legal sovereign in the occupied territory”, they pointed out.


© France 24
09:15



Israeli rabbi and researcher Elhanan Miller shares that view. In an interview with FRANCE 24’s Arabic channel, he said he expected the law to be overturned by Israel’s Supreme Court – “It is illegal to apply Israeli law in the West Bank to Palestinians as it is an occupied territory under military control," he explained.

Several European countries have expressed their concern as well. Spain said the law was "a further step towards apartheid", and the EU urged Israel to “abide by its previous position”, saying that the approval of the Death Penalty Bill “marks a grave regression”, noting its “de facto discriminatory character”.

The Council of Europe has threatened to revoke Israel's observer status, while the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights believes that the application of this law would be considered a war crime.

Human rights organisation Amnesty International denounced the law as "carte blanche to execute Palestinians while stripping away the most basic fair-trial safeguards", and pointed out that Israeli military courts had a "conviction rate of over 99% for Palestinian defendants."
A politically motivated law

“This judiciary is a stain on Israel, with its discrimination between Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank,” said Miller. “It is an unjust law for developed and advanced Western countries, introduced by the extremist minister Itamar Ben-Gvir in an attempt to score points before the elections.” The next parliamentary elections must be held before October 27, 2026.

“Netanyahu is afraid of the coming elections and wants to curry favour with the Israeli ideological right, at the expense of Israel’s image in the world and in the West in particular [where this law is criticized],” Miller added.

Ben-Gvir doesn't deny the political context, gloating on X about fulfilling his election promise, saying in Hebrew, " We promised. We delivered."

Akram Hassoun, an Arab member of the Israeli parliament and member of Benjamin Netanyahu's governing coalition, voted in favour of the bill and acknowledged the political motivations.

READ MORE  Israel's new death penalty law is more of 'an annexation law'

"This law was proposed by the coalition to which I belong," he explained on FRANCE 24's Arabic channel. "If you want this coalition to support you on an issue that concerns Israeli Arabs, you have to support what concerns them."

Lamenting what he considers "a misinterpretation of the text by the media in an electoral context", Hassoun said that, fundamentally, the law targets "terrorists who want to kill innocent people" and "is intended as a deterrent for any citizen who does not believe in the sanctity of life, so that no one is killed, neither Arab nor Jew".

He added: "Anyone who takes another person's life without any reason must be executed. They can be Jewish, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Druze, or of any other faith."

When asked if he supported applying the law to an Israeli settler who killed a Palestinian in the occupied West Bank, he said: "I don't think about that kind of case, but anyone who takes the life of a Palestinian in a terrorist attack will have this law applied to them."

The law, however, explicitly excludes this scenario.

This article has been translated from the original in French.

Sunday, March 22, 2026

 

The Coup, the Nakba, and the Black Rain


Tehran’s rain turned black the other day, a fitting weather report for a civilization still drunk on the very fossil fuels it’s now setting on fire. After the first week of US–Israeli strikes on refineries and oil depots, the Iranian Red Crescent warned residents that the downpour sluicing off balconies and satellite dishes was “highly acidic,” laced with burned hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides from the great fire rings encircling the capital. People were told not to go outside, not to run their air conditioners, not to breathe too deeply beneath a sky their enemies had decided to weaponize. The footage that did leak past censors—streets running with flaming fuel, smoke columns punching into low clouds, umbrellas useless under the toxic drizzle—looked less like a modern air war than the planet trying to cough its lungs out.

America did not arrive at this moment by accident, nor did Israel. A country whose secret government learned in the 1950s how to topple elected leaders over oil now targets the petroleum infrastructure of the same nation it “saved” from democracy three generations ago. And a state built on the ethnic cleansing of one people under the banner of “security” now exports that operating logic into another country’s airspace, treating a foreign capital the way it once treated the villages of the Galilee. The black rain over Tehran is more than a war crime in progress; it is blowback vaporized and condensed, falling on the city we remade and then declared irredeemable.

And this new war does not start on a blank slate. It comes directly after Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, where the official ministry tallies of tens of thousands killed—many of them children and women—are now understood as only a fraction of the dead, and conservative analyses drawing on Lancet studies and UN data point to at least 115,000 people killed directly by bombs, bullets, and collapsing buildings, and more than 400,000 Palestinians dead overall1 once you count those killed by hunger, disease, and the destruction of every system that kept 2.3 million people alive. UN officials described the 2024 siege of northern Gaza as “apocalyptic,” and by August 2025 Israeli siege policies had produced a man‑made famine, with images of starving children becoming commonplace worldwide. Israel has spent an estimated 352 billion shekels (around 112 billion dollars) on the Gaza war, including roughly 243 billion shekels (around 77 billion dollars) in direct defense costs, while the US has poured roughly 31–34 billion dollars into military aid and regional support operations for Israel’s wars since 2023. The UN now estimates that rebuilding Gaza’s blasted cities and infrastructure will cost around 70 billion dollars and take decades, after a campaign that has “significantly undermined every pillar of survival” for its remaining population. The techniques perfected there—prolonged bombardment of dense civilian areas, siege by hunger, deliberate infrastructural annihilation—are the immediate prelude to what is now unfolding over Iran.

The Coup That Wrote the Script

David Talbot’s The Devil‘s Chessboard follows Allen Dulles from his days as a Wall Street lawyer for banks and oil companies to his reign as CIA director, where he engineered coups, backed dictators, and helped build an unaccountable “secret government” that often ran ahead of, or against, elected presidents. Nowhere is that clearer than in Iran in 1953.

In Talbot’s account, Dulles arrives at Rome’s Hotel Excelsior just as Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the young shah of Iran, flees there in fear that his dynasty is finished. Back in Tehran, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh has nationalized the Anglo‑Iranian Oil Company, the British state‑backed giant that controlled Iran’s oil for much of the first half of the 20th century (later becoming BP), and taken his case to the Iranian public; his government rides a wave of popular legitimacy and a simple conviction that 20th‑century Persians should not live as sharecroppers to a British oil monopoly. MI6 and the British establishment see the move as an existential threat, but their embassy has been shut and their networks crippled, so they turn to Washington and the newly empowered CIA.

The Dulles brothers barely bother to disguise their motives. Through Sullivan & Cromwell, a powerful New York–based corporate law firm, they have long represented US oil majors; Allen sits on the board of the J. Henry Schroder Bank, financial agent for the Anglo‑Iranian Oil Company. Both brothers had helped quietly kill a US antitrust case that threatened the giant “Seven Sisters” oil cartel. Mossadegh’s offense is not ideological—it is commercial. He has interrupted a flow of rents from Iranian ground to Western balance sheets. To sell the coup to Eisenhower, Allen and John Foster simply launder oil politics through Cold War language: if Iran falls to nationalism, they warn, it will fall to Communism next; if the Tudeh Party gains, Moscow will control 60 percent of the “free world’s” oil.

The plan they present, drawn up by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt, becomes a template for a generation of coups. CIA money hires mobs and muscle, corrupts senior officers, and underwrites a campaign of intimidation and murder against those loyal to Mossadegh. General Mahmoud Afshartous, tasked with purging the military of conspirators, is kidnapped and found dumped on a roadside; other loyalists turn up in the mountains with their throats cut. When CIA‑paid crowds finally surge through Tehran and pro‑shah units move, Mossadegh is undone not only by brute force but by his fatal belief that Washington will accept an independent Iran. Ambassador Loy Henderson threatens to withdraw US recognition and evacuate all Americans if Mossadegh does not clear his own supporters from the streets; when he does, Roosevelt’s mobs take their place and tanks drive on his home.

It works. Mossadegh is overthrown, the shah returns on a KLM flight Dulles himself may have helped arrange, and CIA cash ensures there are staged, ecstatic crowds waiting at the airport. The “man of destiny” is restored to his throne; in reality he is now a client monarch, his security apparatus rebuilt and trained by Americans, his country’s oil opened to a new cartel that includes US firms. For Allen Dulles, this is one of his two “greatest triumphs,” alongside Guatemala the next year; for Iranians, it is the moment when a fragile parliamentary experiment is replaced with a police state whose tools—torture, disappearances, one‑party rule—will define their lives for a quarter century.

The blowback is not a mystery. A US‑installed shah rules through SAVAK, jails and kills his opponents, and deepens the perception that sovereignty itself has been outsourced. When the revolution comes in 1979, it is not a polite turnover of elites; it is a volcanic rejection of the 1953 settlement and of the Western powers behind it. The Islamic Republic, with its Revolutionary Guards and anti‑imperialist theology, is the regime that grows in the crater left by Allen Dulles’s “victory.” Every drone flight, every missile launch, every entrenched IRGC network that Washington now condemns is a branch on the tree Dulles planted.

The Ethnic Cleansing Operating System

Ilan Pappé’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine uses Israeli archival material to show that the 1948 expulsions of Palestinians were not chaotic wartime accidents but the implementation of a coordinated plan—what he and others link to Plan Dalet—to permanently remove most of the Arab population from the new Jewish state. He traces how a small inner circle around David Ben‑Gurion, known as the Consultancy, shifted from retaliatory actions to a doctrine of initiative and intimidation aimed at making Palestinian life untenable.

The Consultancy listens in December 1947 as intelligence officer Ezra Danin explains that Palestinian rural life is still largely normal; villages greet him as a customer, not an occupier, and there is no general mobilization or offensive intent. If left alone, these people will simply go on living where they are, within the borders of the future Jewish state. This is the problem. The solution, Danin argues, is violent action designed not to answer aggression but to change the mood entirely: destroy lorries carrying produce, sink fishing boats from Jaffa, shut shops, starve factories of raw materials, “terrify” the population so that outside help is meaningless. Ben‑Gurion likes the idea. In a letter to Moshe Sharett, he writes that the goal is to put the Palestinian community entirely “at our mercy,” able to do with them “anything the Jews wanted,” including starving them to death.

What follows is not an accidental fog of war but a campaign of calibrated brutality. Night “violent reconnaissance” raids on undefended villages—Deir Ayyub, Beit Affa—where troops enter after dark, fire on houses, distribute threats, and leave corpses behind. The assault on Khisas, where Palmach units blow up homes at night, killing fifteen people, and Ben‑Gurion later classifies the “unauthorized” operation as a success. In Haifa, Jewish forces use their high ground above Arab neighborhoods to roll down oil‑soaked, burning rivers, ignite streets, and machine‑gun residents as they run out to extinguish the flames. Haganah intelligence officers compile detailed “village files” and, once communities are captured, select men for execution or long detention while others are expelled or packed into camps.

This is not restrained reprisal; it is ethnic cleansing, backed by legal and bureaucratic follow‑through. When refugees try to return in 1949 to harvest fields or retrieve possessions, they are labeled “infiltrators” and frequently shot; homes are demolished to prevent repatriation; a “Minority Unit” of Druze, Circassian, and Bedouin soldiers is tasked explicitly with blocking Palestinian return. In some cases, such as the Christian villages of Iqrit and Kfar Birim, courts briefly side with displaced residents, only for the army to respond by leveling the villages under cover of “military exercises” and fabricating retroactive expulsion orders. The pattern is clear: terrorize, expel, destroy the physical basis of return, then legislate the new demographic reality into permanence.

If the CIA in Talbot’s book is the hand that topples governments for oil and empire, Pappé’s Consultancy is the hand that learns to erase communities and call it security. Both are schools in which today’s war planners were implicitly educated, even if they have never read a page of either book.

Gaza, Then Iran: A Single Arc

The Gaza genocide is the recent culmination of that Nakba logic. As Al Jazeera’s accounting shows, Israel has used an immense share of its national wealth to “level” Gaza and destroy its institutions, killing tens of thousands outright and, on conservative estimates, ultimately hundreds of thousands of Palestinians through direct violence and siege‑induced deprivation, and pushing the survivors into engineered starvation. The Bank of Israel puts the war’s economic toll at around 352 billion shekels (around 112 billion dollars), with roughly 243 billion shekels (around 77 billion dollars) in direct defense costs, while daily spending estimates in early 2025 imply a mechanized routine where, on average, around 100 Palestinians were killed each day for months. The UN’s projection of 70 billion dollars and decades to rebuild only scratches at what it means to strip an entire population of housing, water, sanitation, and schools.

For Washington, the Gaza operation has been an investment as well as a crime: Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates that the US has spent over 21.7 billion dollars in military aid to Israel since October 2023 and another roughly 10–12 billion on its own regional military operations in support of Israel, including in Yemen and Iran. That is the same US polity now underwriting “Epic Fury” in Iran, with the same industrial base profiting from the munitions and the same political class insisting that this is how “civilization” defends itself.

The step from Gaza’s pulverized neighborhoods to Tehran’s black rain is not conceptual; it is logistical. Israel’s army has already normalized the total destruction of dense urban environments, the use of siege to induce famine, and the long‑term crippling of a society’s “pillars of survival.” Extending that logic to the refineries, depots, and industrial plants of a sovereign state—and to the atmospheric consequences that follow—is an escalation of scale, not kind. The Nakba, Gaza, and now Iran form a continuous line of experimentation in how far a settler‑colonial and imperial alliance can go in making other people’s territories uninhabitable.

Two Traditions Converge Over Iran

Fast‑forward to 2026, and those two operating systems—the Dulles coup logic and the Nakba/genocide logic—have fused into a single project.

On the US side, the pattern is recognizably Dullesian: a national security elite steeped in the idea that certain countries are too important to be left to their own politics, especially when hydrocarbons are involved. The immediate pretext today is Iran’s drones, missiles, and nuclear program; the structural fact is that the Strait of Hormuz carries a fifth of global oil and a large share of gas and refined products, and that the region hosts irreplaceable LNG capacity. When war disrupts shipping, Qatar declares force majeure on gas exports after Iranian drone attacks, and Saudi’s Ras Tanura complex goes dark under missile fire, global prices spike and storage tanks back up; the same logic that made Dulles panic about Mossadegh now drives planners to treat Iranian military capacity as an intolerable threat to world commerce.

On the Israeli side, the 1948 template has been portable for decades. Gaza’s repeated pulverizations, the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure in 2006 and again in this war, and the casual talk among ministers about “voluntary migration” for Palestinians all follow the line Pappé traces from Haifa and Safsaf to the Galilee “mopping up” operations. What is new is the geographic ambition. With Tehran’s depots, refineries, and oil docks now deliberately targeted, the tools once used to empty villages and pressure a stateless people are aimed at a regional state of nearly ninety million. Acid rain over a capital is ethnic‑cleansing logic upgraded to atmospheric scale.

The succession in Tehran underscores the perversity of the project. US–Israeli strikes kill Ali Khamenei and much of the senior leadership; Donald Trump and his allies sell the decapitation as an opening for moderation or even regime change. Instead, Iran’s Assembly of Experts elevates Mojtaba Khamenei, the dead leader’s son, a man long entwined with the IRGC’s networks and hardline clerical currents. A revolution that once swore it had ended dynastic rule now becomes a family inheritance precisely because an external shock tips the balance in favor of the security organs and the war party. The pattern is familiar: relentless external pressure cements the most intransigent forces inside a system, in Tehran as surely as in Gaza or Moscow. It is also a specific echo of 1953: American and allied forces once again snuff out a constrained but real space for political contestation and midwife an even more openly authoritarian successor.

Meanwhile, US domestic politics repeats another old script. An interagency bulletin warning of elevated homeland terror risk linked to the Iran war is drafted by the FBI, DHS, and the National Counterterrorism Center, only to be blocked or chilled by the White House, which insists that anything “concerning Iran” be cleared before dissemination. Local law enforcement is kept in the dark so that the administration can avoid admitting that its distant war is raising the threat level at home. The intelligence community is told to mute the connection between an aggressive foreign operation and domestic vulnerability—just as earlier generations were told to ignore or downplay the role of US policy in triggering anti‑American militancy elsewhere. Blowback, once again, is not a lesson to be learned but a reality to be managed through censorship.

War as a Symptom of Civilizational Breakdown

All of this would be grim enough if it were “only” about Iran and the Middle East. But this war sits atop, and accelerates, a broader unraveling of modern industrial civilization.

First, the energy system that underwrites everything else is being weaponized against itself. The same tankers and pipelines that built the post‑war boom are now targets; the Iran war has already suspended around a fifth of global crude and gas supply, as ships avoid Hormuz and producers shut in fields while storage fills. Oil and gas prices jump; power futures for cities like Tokyo spike; import‑dependent economies across Asia and Europe scramble for alternatives in markets already distorted by earlier crises.

Second, the food system that lets eight billion humans stay fed is chained to the same machinery. Modern agriculture runs on nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers made from natural gas and sulfur, much of it sourced, processed, or shipped through the Gulf. Iran is the world’s third‑largest producer of ammonia, and the wider region supplies a large share of global urea and sulfur exports. When war knocks out LNG terminals, disrupts gas flows, and chokes off Hormuz, it does more than raise input prices for a season; it quietly shrinks the amount of food the world can grow months and years down the line. Today’s “global fertilizer supply shock” is tomorrow’s unrest in import‑dependent states from North Africa to South Asia, another round of blowback seeded in fields far from the front. The pattern is familiar from 2008 and the Arab Spring: when global food prices spike, brittle regimes do not just face higher subsidy bills, they face angrier streets. Today’s disruption of Gulf‑linked fertilizer flows is thus not only an agronomic problem but the seeding of future political crises far from the Strait of Hormuz.

This is what collapse looks like from the inside: key subsystems—energy, food, finance—becoming so tightly coupled and so brittle that a single regional war threatens to “bring down the economies of the world,” as Qatar’s energy minister bluntly put it. The war does not create fragility from nothing; it reveals and amplifies fragility that decades of just‑in‑time efficiency, deregulation, and geopolitical gambling have baked in.

Third, the political and informational organs meant to detect and correct danger are themselves compromised. In the US, intelligence about rising domestic terror risk linked to the war is suppressed for political convenience. In Iran, external attack helps install a dynastic hardliner with deep ties to the security apparatus. At the global level, institutions that might once have mediated or constrained this kind of conflict are sidelined. States that solemnly pledge to phase down fossil fuels at climate summits are, within months, using those same fuels and their transit routes as instruments of coercion and siege.

Finally, the ecological base that sustains any complex society is being treated as just another theater of operations. Acid rain over Tehran is not just an environmental accident; it is the direct result of deliberate strikes on oil depots and industrial plants whose combustion products seed toxic precipitation. Historical analogues—from Kuwaiti oil fires to Ukrainian chemical depot explosions—show that such “war weather” leaves long‑lived scars in soils, water, and human bodies. Launching a campaign that knowingly produces black, acidic rain over a megacity is a choice to trade long‑term habitability for short‑term military signaling.

In earlier work I argued that an empire staring down climate chaos and financial exhaustion chose not to slow but to gamble—on carbon capture schemes, militarized borders, and ever more extractive finance. This war is simply that same wager placed in real time. It assumes that the system can absorb: a prolonged interruption of energy flows through its most vital maritime artery; a fertilizer shock that ripples through global harvests; a new hardening of regimes in Tehran and Jerusalem; a further erosion of political trust and institutional competence in Washington and beyond.

The histories Talbot and Pappé excavate show how we got here: by normalizing coups and ethnic cleansing as tools of order, by treating other people’s sovereignty as a tweakable setting in a larger game, by externalizing the costs of “civilization” onto peripheries we assumed would never speak back. Gaza’s genocide and Iran’s black rain mark the point where those peripheries vanish. The atmosphere is shared; the choke points are global; the feedbacks—whether in the form of soot‑laden storms, spiking food prices, or panicked energy markets—arrive everywhere at once.

The black rain over Tehran, in other words, is not just the weather over someone else’s catastrophe. It is civilizational weather, written in the language of blowback. It marks the moment when an order built on fossil extraction, covert empire, and demographic engineering and ethnic cleansing discovers that there is no outside left to dump its consequences into.

The men who ordered this war will tell you it was an emergency, a deviation, a tragic necessity. They will not say that it is the logical expression of the world they built: a world where energy is extracted, markets are sacralized, people are sorted and sacrificed, and any tremor in the periphery is met with airstrikes. They will not say that the missiles over Shiraz and the oil slick in the Strait are the same policy as the eviction notice in Phoenix or the closed clinic in Ohio, just written in a different dialect.

We live, still, as though there were somewhere else to send the costs. For two centuries, the rich world pushed its carbon into the sky, its waste into the sea, its coups and debt and demographic projects into other people’s homelands. The promise at home was that the check would always be mailed to someone else. But the sky is a single system. The food chain is a single system. The weapons supply chain is a single system. There is no longer any “over there” sturdy enough to carry what this order needs to throw away.

The black rain over Tehran is one expression of that closure. The flooded subdivision, the burned town, the empty grocery aisle are others. They are not aberrations. They are how a system this large, this brittle, and this unaccountable keeps its books. The only real decision left is whether we continue to let the same people roll the dice with larger and hotter stakes, or whether we treat this as a final credit‑limit notice from physics and from history.

When power finds itself cornered, it does not reform; it digs in. It narrows the circle of those who decide, expands the list of those who can be sacrificed, and treats each new disaster as proof that harsher measures are required. The question that remains is not just what everyone else is prepared to do, but how much they are prepared to lose, and how late, before they decide that doing nothing costs more.

Note:

  • 1
    Conservative excess‑mortality estimates that correct Gaza Ministry of Health body counts for under‑reporting and add indirect deaths from hunger, disease, and infrastructural collapse now put the toll well into the hundreds of thousands; see Adam Rzepka, “The Real Gaza Death Toll is Impossible to Know Today, But the Minimum Isn’t,” CounterPunch, August 19, 2025, building on recent Lancet analyses and UN data, and Ralph Nader, “The Vast Gaza Death Undercount,” CounterPunch, March 31, 2025.
Michael Longenecker is an independent writer, activist and healthcare worker in Arizona, chronicling U.S. empire, endless war and the slow collapse of industrial civilization. Read other articles by Michael.