Sunday, March 22, 2026

Iran’s Asymmetrical War Persists Against Hegemony


On February 28, US President Donald Trump launched a joint airstrike with Israel to target the country of Iran. That attack was unconstitutional, illegal, in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is an instrument of international law. The US attack, dubbed Epic Fury, was also an unprovoked war of aggression which the Nuremberg War Crime Trials defined in 1945 as a war crime.

Iran’s response within hours was focused and far exceeded expectations with its precision guided hypersonic Fattah 2 system which is technologically superior and outpaces the Israel-US response. The Iran response exceeded whatever Iron Dome protection Israel assumed was in place.

Within that first day, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated in his office with his family and hours later 165 students (ages6-12) were killed by a double tap Tomahawk missile strike in the Shajareh Tayyiba elementary school in Teheran; thereby adding potential war crimes to the US-Israel war.

In response to the President’s air strike, Sen. Tim Caine (D-Va0 offered a War Powers Resolution vote which was defeated 53-47 with Sen. Rand Paul (Ky) the only Republican Senator ito support the Resolution. The next day, the House of Representatives also defeated a War Powers Resolution on a 212 -219 vote with two Republicans Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky) and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) voting in support.

The Resolutions would have “removed United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.”

In addition, on March 5, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla) Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee sponsored HR 1099 which affirmed US policy that Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. The vote was 372 – 53 with all Republicans voting Aye and 53 Democrats voting No. This might be qualify as the pot calling the kettle black.

In other words, if the Congress had the wisdom to adopt a War Power Resolution, the situation with Iran might not have escalated and presumably might have forced the President to diplomatically address Iran but as most of us know by now, that is not Trump’s style. Since the entire Congress, with few exceptions, are recipients to large amounts of Zionist campaign donations and the Congress, as a legislative body, has become a dormant shell of its former self.

*****


With the ever aggressive Israel as his partner, a country focused on dismantling much of the Middle East in favor of a Greater Israel project, with a Secretary of War Pete Hegseth who takes his title as a green light to kill and a President who does not know how to spell diplomacy as much as practice it, the conflict continues to escalate costing the US taxpayer $2 billion a day.

There has also been a shortage of defense interceptors to counter incoming missiles while Iran shrewdly targeted Israeli production facilities for destruction. US support for the war in Ukraine and its bombing campaign against the Houthis also contributed to a US shortage of ballistic missile interceptors while Iran maintains a scheduled sustained bombing campaign.

In other words, as the conflict was predicted to last a few days or “throughout the week’ until Monday, the President’s prediction on March 9 that the war will end “very soon” has not materialized nor has the war been the slam-dunk the President expected while less than 10% of Americans support deployment of ground forces in Iran.

Yet Trump appears fearful that his war on Iran is doomed.

On X, Jackson Hinkle interviewed retired Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar for his expertise on Trump’s war against Iran and its continuing escalation. Aguilar is a 2004 Graduate of West Point Military Academy and served as a Green Beret Special Forces Officer rising to the rank of Lt. Colonel. He spent the next twenty five years with deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, the Philippines and Tajikstan and served as a Security Contractor in Gaza. He resigned to become a whistleblower alleging severe misconduct regarding inadequate aid distribution.

During the interview, Aguilar identified the war as “unjustified” and questioned how history will judge the conflict, predicting that, as Nuremberg taught, “just following orders is not a defense” against war crimes. Aguilar reported that US CentCom has begun an active deliberate campaign to target assets in the Hormuz Strait region conducting preparatory strikes in anticipation of bringing the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit to take possession of the Kharg island which has 10,000 Iranian residents. With little clear objective, the US will conduct an amphibious assault on Kharg which Aguilar labeled born out of hubris, arrogance and ego and as well as ‘militarily stupid.’ Aguilar made the dire prediction of ‘tremendous US losses – of both personnel or equipment.”

Aguilar then explained the accelerated conflict with ‘boots on the ground’ as a pretense for the potential use of a tactical nuclear weapon on its list of possible ‘courses of action’ that are ‘on the table.’ The ground assault is little more than a pretext that may begin in a limited fashion, then escalate into a full ground assault with US ground forces on alert; like the 82nd Airborne Division and the 75th Ranger Regiment waiting to be called. While it will take time for the 31st Marine to organize for “theatre,” strategic preparatory efforts are meant to encourage Iranian capitulation – which will not happen. Aguilar state unequivocally: “It’s a lie that Iran is the Big Bad Wolf of the Region.”

When asked whether he would suggest whether current military members might refuse to fight, Aguilar said he was calling upon Admiral Brad Cooper, AF General and Chief of JCS Dan Kaine and all the Service Chiefs of Staff to stand against this illegal and unjustified war, to stand by the oath taken in support of the Constitution and to conscientiously object approaching every avenue legally. Aguilar added that he would not fight in this war and suggested using every legal avenue at their disposal to ‘get out of the war.’

If American forces are able to access the Island or nearby area, Aguilar further anticipates potential dire predicament as American troops may not be able to leave the Island as their presence will dramatically escalate the conflict. American troops may become trapped, to die or be captured, The more the US escalates the conflict, the more costly the conflict will be. Aguilar expressed concern that as escalation increases may lead to Trump who can be unpredictably irrational, consider the use of a tactical nuclear weapon which is currently ‘on the table.’

In addition, the US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has urged the US adopt the ‘no quarter, no mercy given’ position which is considered a heinous war crime under US military code and international law, even just in the verbalizing the phrase. Under international humanitarian law, “it is especially forbidden […] to declare that no quarter will be given” established under Article 23(d) of the 1907 Hague Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land.” Hegseth has received some serious push back by the military establishment; whether he will pay attention is another matter.

In military lingo, ‘no quarter’ (no dwelling) is said to mean take no prisoners, no surrender and killing enemy combatants unequivocally.

Meanwhile, back in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed that “no revolution in Iran can be accomplished from the air”, that there needs to be a significant “ground component” as well. The question arises how many Zionist or IDF ground troops will Netanyahu contribute to the effort to destroy Iran. In response, Trump stated that ”I’m not putting troops anywhere” adding that the US would do whatever is necessary to keep the price of oil down. Although Reuters reported the Trump Administration was weighing its options, according to an anonymous source.

The President recently announced he does not want a ceasefire explaining,

Well, look we could have dialogue but I don’t want to do a ceasefire. Now you don’t do a ceasefire when you are obliterating the other side. They don’t have a Navy, they don’t have an Air Force, they don’t have any equipment, they don’t have any spotters, they don’t have anti aircraft, they don’t have any radar and their leaders have all been killed at every level. We’re not looking to do that.

And yet the Iranians control the pace of the war with an asymmetrical strategy as the US plans boots on the ground; the Hormuz Strait is still blocked and costing the US taxpayer $2 billion a day as the Iranians have not yet used their strongest, most modern hypersonic missiles.

Renee Parsons has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and a staff member in the US House of Representative in Washington, DC. Before its demise, she was also a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. Read other articles by Renee.

 

Modern Day Israel: A Poisonous Concoction for Most Outsiders


Think of modern day Israel as a bowl filled with a mixture of ingredients, a few complementary, like salt and pepper. Other ingredients, however, like the intermingling of Zionism and Talmudic Judaism, while favorable to many family members who grew up among its ranks, it proves unpalatable for most outsiders. Mixed together, the concoction grows tentacles intertwined with the curse of Medusa, a vicious monster sporting writhing serpents in place of hair, fanged teeth and a face so hideous that the mere sight of her was sufficient to turn a man to stone.

Edward Said, in his Forward to Israel Shahak’s, book, Jewish History – Jewish Religion, said:

the difference between him and most other Israelis was that he made the connections between Zionism, Judaism, and repressive practices against ‘non-Jews’; and of course he drew the conclusions… unlike most others he does not allow the horrors of the Holocaust to manipulate the truth of what in the name of the Jewish people Israel has done to the Palestinians. For him, suffering is not the exclusive possession of one group of victims; it should instead be, but rarely is the basis for humanizing the victims, making it incumbent on them not to cause suffering of the kind that they suffered. [Shahak was a Holocaust victim and survivor himself]

In 1903, the British government offered 6,000 square miles of Uganda for the creation of an Israeli state. Actually several proposals were considered for the creation of a Jewish homeland located outside The Middle East. In the pre-Zionist era, Ararat City (U.S.) and Suriname, South America were considered, neither being chosen. In the 20th century, possible places taken under consideration were Madagascar, Tasmania, Australia and two locations in the USSR, Birobidzhan in Russia’s Far East near the border with China and Crimea but in the end the Zionists held out for Palestine.

The victory of Nazism ruled out assimilation and mixed marriages as an option for Jews when they were being forced to identify themselves as Jews in Nazi Germany, Dr. Joachim Prinz, a Zionist rabbi and a friend of Golda Meir, said in his book We Jews: “We are not unhappy about this.” Viewed as an actual fulfillment of Zionist’s desires, it provided for a seeming congenial atmosphere for the flowering of both the myths of the Aryan race and the Jewish race. He went on to say, “We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and Jewish race.” (Dr Joachim Prinz, Wir Juden, Berlin, 1934, p. 150-1), Shahak (p 71) said, “some zionist leaders in Germany welcomed Hitler’s rise to power, because they shared his belief in the primacy of ‘race’ and his hostility to the assimilation of Jews among ‘Aryans’.” (p 71)

The Zionists colluded (51 documents) with the Nazis whereby tens of thousands of Jews emigrated from Germany, immigrating to Palestine, setting the stage for future Israel, also setting the stage for 75 plus years of suffering of the Palestinian people.


A commemorative medal struck by Nazi Germany to mark its Zionist alliance, with a Star-of-David on one side and a Swastika on the obverse. The importance of the Nazi-Zionist pact for Israel’s establishment is difficult to overstate. According to a 1974 analysis in Jewish Frontier, between 1933 and 1939 over 60% of all the investment in Jewish Palestine came from Nazi Germany – The Transfer Agreement.

Jewish American analyst Ron Unz details facts about Zionist-Nazi cooperation in the Unz Review. He reveals in one short snippet an interesting piece of information about a former Israeli Prime Minster, Yitzhak Shamir.

during the late 1930s, Shamir and his small Zionist faction had become great admirers of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis, and after World War II broke out, they had made repeated attempts to contact Mussolini and the German leadership in 1940 and 1941, hoping to enlist in the Axis Powers as their Palestine affiliate, and undertake a campaign of attacks and espionage against the local British forces, then share in the political booty after Hitler’s inevitable triumph.

After learning about Shamir’s earlier activities, Unz offered up the following response:

… the idea of the sitting Prime Minister of the Jewish State having spent his early wartime years as an unrequited Nazi ally was certainly something that sticks in one’s mind, not quite conforming to the traditional narrative of that era which I had always accepted.

Most remarkably, the revelation of Shamir’s pro-Axis past seems to have had only a relatively minor impact upon his political standing within Israeli society. I would think that any American political figure found to have supported a military alliance with Nazi Germany during the Second World War would have had a very difficult time surviving the resulting political scandal, and the same would surely be true for politicians in Britain, France, or most other western nations. But although there was certainly some embarrassment in the Israeli press, especially after the shocking story reached the international headlines, apparently most Israelis took the whole matter in stride, and Shamir stayed in office for another year, then later served a second, much longer term as Prime Minister during 1986-1992. The Jews of Israel apparently regarded Nazi Germany quite differently than did most Americans, let alone most American Jews.

Zionist Forced Transfer & Expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine

Statement by David Ben-Gurion, founder of State of Israel and Israel’s first prime minister:

The compulsory transfer of Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own feet during the days of the First and Second Temple [a Galilee free of Arab population].
– (Zichronot [Memoirs] Vol. 4, p. 297-99, 12 July 1937.)

“What Arab cannot do his math and understand that the immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state in all of Palestine”
– (Letter to Moshe Shertok known as Moshe Sharett, Israel’s first Foreign Minister, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, p. 167-8, 24 July 1937.)

“The war will give us the land. The concepts of ‘ours’ and ‘not ours’ are peace concepts, only, and in war they lose their whole meaning.”
– (to Yosef Weitz. David Ben-Gurion, Yoman Hamilhamah [War Diary], vol.1, entry dated 7 February 1948, p. 210-11.)

When Israel came into existence in 1948 Jews owned about 6% of the land of Palestine.

Statement by Yosef Weitz: the head of the Israeli government’s official Transfer Committee of 1948

The complete evacuation of the country from its [Arab] inhabitants and handing it to the Jewish people is the answer.” – (after touring Jewish settlements in the Esdraelon Valley Ibid, entry dated 20 March 1941, p. 1127.)

I made a summary of a list of the Arab villages, which in my opinion must be cleared out in order to complete Jewish regions. I also made a summary of the places that have land disputes and must be settled by military means.” – (Ibid., diary entry, 18 April 1948, p. 2358.)

The Utopia of the “Jewish ideology” adopted by the State of Israel is a land which is wholly ‘redeemed’ and none of it is owned or worked by non-Jews. Walter Laquer, in his book, History of Zionism, wrote the following: “A.D. Gordon, a devoted Zionist and his friends wanted everybody else to just go away and leave the land to be ‘redeemed’ by Jews.”

Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies, “There are two choices which face Israeli-Jewish society, It can become a fully closed and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in existence by its influence on the US political establishment and by threats to use its nuclear power.”

The Israel of today was born out of violence, starting with Freedom-Fighting Terrorist attacks against the British in Palestine. Following that, with a little help from the British, the theft and legal chicanery allowed the land to be misappropriated and given to another. Collectively givers gave, some out of greed, making out like a bandit; others felt comfortable giving away someone else’s land out of a perceived guilt. No matter the real or feigned motivation of the givers from far off places, the injured party, told to smile, smile, even though he would end up with only half of what had been his land and before that his ancestor’s ancestors land, the ancient pre-Israelite Canaanite’s. As it turned out, he ended up with little more than a pig in a poke. Most of the remaining half of his land was also purloined, even though now for three quarters of a century and counting, the Victim has been portrayed the Victimizer.

Jimmy R. Coleman is a former President of Garon Inc, a computer consulting company, but his real work started after he began his quest to find an answer to a rather simple question - “Why is it seemingly impossible to have peace in the Middle East?” Twenty plus years have gone by – the answer proving more difficult and elusive than the question. His research has taken him to the four corners of the globe, spanning centuries, covering the rise and fall of empires, cultures and religions. He has relied on some of the best experts in their respective areas, historians, theologians, political and military mindsets, and radical thinkers from the left and right, from Zionist, Jihadist and proponents of End Times eschatology, a journey that has helped frame his thinking, not as an expert who sees the trees, but as someone with a more generalist viewpoint of the forest. Read other articles by Jimmy.

Trump and Hegseth: Two Souless Men Incapable of Remorse or Even Pity


After blowing up an elementary school killing over 160 girls, sinking an unarmed Iranian frigate, and then abandoning the crew to drown, all the US can do is deny responsibility.



Some of the crew of the sunken Dena being prepared in Iran for a mass public funeral. (Iran government photo)

Right at the launching of the US and Israeli war on Iran, itself a major war crime, the US fired a precision strike with a Tomahawk missile on an elementary school building. Some 160 girls aged 7-12 were killed, either by the powerful blast or by the collapse of the two story concrete structure. Asked about the tragedy and slaughter of innocents, Commander-in-Chief Trump, after initially pleading innocence. He later suggested it was the Iranians, whose missiles he claimed “are often inaccurate.”

When later videos appeared showing the distinct image of a Tomahawk missile striking, he slithered over to another lie, calling the Tomahawk a “generic missile that many countries have bought and can buy.”

The truth? The Tomahawk is a US missile made in the US and is strictly controlled, and offered only to a few trusted allies like Britain and Australia.

Hegseth avoided Trump’s brazen lying by saying, “The Pentagon is investigating,” even as investigators said the gruesome slaughter was looking increasingly likely to have been the US’s fault. When that investigation finally concluded definitively that Pentagon targeters had been using eight-year-old maps that allegedly identified the building as an office for the Revolutionary Guard, though — whether true or not — neither “no mercy” Hegseth nor “no truth” Trump could not find it in themselves to express remorse or regret about the “mistake. ” Three weeks later they still have not.

We saw the same callousness from both men in the case of he sinking of a Iranian Navy frigate by two huge torpedoes fired at the vessel off the southern tip of the island nation of Sri Lanka. As I wrote in an article on March 7, the Dena was in an unusual situation: It was invited to participate in the MILAN Fleet Review, an annual event that brings together naval vessels, crews and officers of the navies of dozens of countries (this year there were 74 participating countries including Iran and the US. At the time the Dena set sail for and participated in joint exercises with vessels of other countries at the event the two nations were not fighting each other. In fact, the US, which did not send a ship to the event, but did send an admiral, as wall as a P-81 Poseidon, a sophisticated sea patrol aircraft equipped to spot and track vessels including submarines over wide areas of ocean. That aircraft actually conducted an exercise with the Dena, a ship that it almost certainly already was tasked to sink once the US and Israel concluded their all-out war on Iran, no doubt picking up all kinds of useful knowledge about the Iranian ship’s capabilities, its radar and communications systems, etc.

Once the Fleet Review event had ended and the US-Israel assault on Iran had been launched, the Poseidon followed and tracked the Dena as it sailed towards a planned stop at a port at the southern end of Sri Lanka where, unknown to the Dena, a US nuclear fast attack sub, the Charlotte was waiting, submerged, with two huge torpedoes ready to sink the ship

The attack came without warning at 5:08 am on May 4. No effort was made by the sub to notify the ship that it was a bout to be blown up, which the US sub could easily done at a safe distance.

To make matters worse, after sinking the ship in two minutes with two torpedo hits the US sb left the scene of the attack. 87 sailers died in the attack, some certainly from the huge blasts ,and some no doubt of drowning while waiting two hours without flotation in the open ocean for rescue ships of the Sri Lankan Navy, moored 20 miles away, to arrive. Only 32 of the crew survived the attack, with over a dozen missing and presumed dead. The attack has been criticized a “treacherous act,” given that the Dena was not in a war zone, had gone to an India-hosted event dedicated to “peace and friendship,” was likely not armed or only lightly armed because of an Indian stipulation that participating ships be unarmed, and because in any event there was no way the ship could have joined the battle with Iran’s military in the Persian Gulf, where US and Israeli air forces have total control of the air over Iran and the waters around it. The Dena would have had no choice but to remain in a safe harbor until that war ended (whenever that is!).

All Americans heard about this incident in their news reports on the Dena’s destruction was Hegseth’s ugly boast: “This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it’s not a fair fight…We are punching them while they’re down, and that’s exactly how it should be.”

Except that abandoning injured enemy soldiers or sailors to die after a battle is over is a war crime.

It will be interesting to see what awards get handed by out to the officers and crew of the Charlotte for this “heroic” naval engagement.

Dave Lindorff has written for the NY Times, Nation, FAIR, Salon, London Review of Books and Rolling Stone. Dave cofounded the LA Vanguard, ran the LA Daily News county bureau and was a BusinessWeek Asia correspondent. He currently writes a Substack: ThisCantBeHappening!Read other articles by Dave.

 

Predicting the Next Phase in Iran, Trump’s War Plan, and Israel’s Plot to Sabotage It

Professor Jiang Xueqin on how this war is likely to go and what happens to the world.

Professor Jiang is the host of the YouTube channel ‪@PredictiveHistory‬. He studies game theory, historical patterns, and eschatology to connect the past, explain the present, and predict the future.

Tucker Carlson founded TCN because news coverage in the West has become a tool of repression and control. Reporters no longer reveal essential information to the public; they work to hide it. Journalists act as censors on behalf of entrenched power. They have contempt for the public. They hate the truth. Read other articles by Tucker, or visit Tucker's website.

 

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.