Connexion
Verily, it is Victory or Martyrdom.
Venezuelans have a “true sense of belonging to a project worth saving.. This is a project of collective self-emancipation. .. Those who are committed to the Bolivarian revolution assume themselves as subjects of transformation, not as victims. And this is something to be reckoned with.”
Video Description:
“I’m joined by Cira Pasqual Marquina, author and educator at the Pluriversidad Patria Grande and co-host with Chris Gilbert of the Marxist education program and podcast Escuela de Cuadros.
I ask her:
≈≈≈
Cira Pascual Marquina interviews at Venezuelanalysis.
The Imperialist Offensive is Nothing New for the Bolivarian Revolution’: A Conversation with Ana Maldonado
A Chavista organizer examines the US militarization of the Caribbean and the Bolivarian Revolution’s enduring resistance to imperial aggression.
In recent months, Washington has stepped up its military presence in the Caribbean, sending warships, aircraft, and even a nuclear submarine to waters near Venezuela amid extrajudicial attacks on fishing vessels. For many, this new phase of aggression is all too familiar — part of a decades-long campaign of hybrid warfare designed to undermine Venezuela’s sovereignty.
In this context, Cira Pascual Marquina spoke with Ana Maldonado, a sociologist, international relations coordinator for the Francisco de Miranda Front—a national Chavista movement—and member of the Venezuelan chapter of ALBA Movements. In this interview, Maldonado offers her perspective on how Venezuelans are experiencing the latest imperialist escalation, reflects on the country’s long resistance to hybrid war, and situates the current threat within the broader struggle for sovereignty in Latin America and the Caribbean.
How are the Venezuelan people experiencing this new imperialist escalation?
President Nicolás Maduro has said that in this scenario of maximum pressure, our response must be maximum preparation. At the same time, he has called on us to combine vigilance with calm, to continue our daily lives, and to defend the peace with social justice that has cost us so much to build and preserve.
You can see this clearly in the fact that, even amid the current military escalation, the new school year began normally across the country. More than 20,000 educational institutions opened their doors without disruption, and over six million children and youth returned to class, as they do every year around this time.
While we are indeed facing a serious threat of war, people are also carrying on with their everyday lives and that, in itself, is a victory, since the enemy seeks precisely to disrupt our life.
People abroad are often surprised to learn that daily routines here continue undisturbed and that Venezuelans are not living in a state of panic. How do you explain this?
This is far from our first encounter with imperialist aggression. The tactics may shift, but the strategy remains unchanged: hybrid warfare. For years, US imperialism and its allies have waged a relentless campaign against Venezuela, beginning in earnest in April 2002 with the coup d’état and the people’s heroic counteroffensive that restored democracy. That was followed by the oil sabotage, mercenary incursions, and global media campaigns against our democracy.
After Comandante Chávez passed in 2013, a new and sustained period of aggression began. Initially, they bet that we would fail to hold peaceful elections or that President Maduro would never be elected. The dominant narrative was “Maduro is not Chávez.” With that simplistic argument, they sought to demoralize the Chavista social base, implying that the Bolivarian project would not withstand the loss of the Comandante. Yet we won the elections and, even as we mourned Chávez, the project continued.
But the US and their local agents were determined not to let us go on with our revolution. In 2014, the opposition launched a violent campaign called “La Salida” [The Exit], led by Voluntad Popular and María Corina Machado, the same factions now openly calling for foreign intervention. The following year, the United States took another war-like step: Obama’s 2015 executive order declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
That decree was followed by the 2016 economic strangulation, marked by deliberate shortages aimed at making everyday life unbearable. Ten years later, we remain under a blockade that has killed tens of thousands.
In 2017, the most extreme factions of the opposition returned to the streets with fascist violence, committing atrocities such as the burning alive of a young Black man, Orlando Figuera, targeted simply for looking like a Chavista. More than 100 people were killed during this period of intensified fascist terror.
President Maduro responded by calling for a National Constituent Assembly, once again raising the banner of peace and democracy in the face of fascist violence. People from all sectors, including residents of middle-class neighborhoods whose polling centers had been attacked, were able to vote in peace at the Poliedro de Caracas.
Since then, we’ve lived through multiple phases of hybrid war: Juan Guaidó’s self-proclamation as “interim president” in 2019 and the “Battle of the Bridges,” when the opposition attempted to stage a false-flag operation on the Colombian border under the guise of a humanitarian aid effort. That was followed by massive blackouts that left the country in darkness for days and the 2020 Operation Gideon, recently further exposed in a Max Blumenthal interview with its US organizer, Jordan Goudreau, a former Green Beret.
None of these were isolated incidents: they are coordinated fronts in a sustained hybrid war combining political, psychological, economic, and military aggression.
Yet, in each of these moments, the government and the organized pueblo have responded effectively. During the 2019 electrical sabotage, for example, communities mobilized to ensure access to water and basic needs, while Operation Gideon was defeated by the same fisherfolk who are now being attacked in the Southern Caribbean.
So, to return to your original question: yes, people are alert because the threat is real, but we are also seasoned and organized. We know we are capable of defending the Revolution with unity and discipline. We are in a phase of maximum preparation, with millions voluntarily enrolling in the militia and preparing for the defense of the Patria [homeland].
Indeed, people are not only enlisting in the Bolivarian Militia but also preparing collectively. You’ve given us a historical account of the attacks faced by the Bolivarian Revolution over the past 25 years. But as we know, the current military buildup in the Caribbean is not only against Venezuela: it is an attack on the continent. How do you understand its broader implications?
The imperialist onslaught on the Caribbean is nothing new. Haiti, still punished today for its revolution more than two centuries ago, remains under siege. Now, armed gangs tied to the Dominican Republic are also involved. Puerto Rico continues to endure capitalist dispossession, with five million Puerto Ricans now living in the US while barely three million remain on the island. All the while, revolutionary Cuba has faced a brutal blockade for many decades.
However, the recent imperialist military buildup should deeply concern the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, since it signals a shift in Washington’s military policy. Around 10,000 US troops are currently stationed in the Caribbean, mainly in Puerto Rico, to say nothing of the destroyers, nuclear submarine, and air force deployments.
They are not there only to threaten Venezuela; this is the revival of the Monroe Doctrine. As Trump once said, “Why pay for Venezuelan oil, if we can just take it?” That’s how they think about the resources of the continent.
When it comes to Venezuela, beyond seizing our resources, the US also aims to strip away our sovereignty and destroy the example that we represent. If our project succeeds, it will inspire the entire continent. From Canada to Patagonia, people are struggling for liberation, and the Bolivarian Revolution represents a living example of how that can be done.
Attacking Venezuela serves two purposes: to loot our resources and to extinguish the example of participatory democracy. Since 2021, Venezuela has experienced renewed economic growth and the strengthening of its communes and popular power.
That is precisely what Washington wants to halt: they fear that the peoples of Latin America, and even within the United States, will draw inspiration from our experience.
Why the military escalation at this particular moment?
Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” is itself an admission of decline. The US is no longer what it once was, and its elites are desperate to recover lost ground. Yet even within those elites, fractures abound between the neoconservatives, the Zionist zealots, and the MAGA bloc. Their internal contradictions often produce erratic foreign policy decisions.
However, on one point they all agree: war is profitable. The military-industrial complex remains central to sustaining the US economy. So even amid domestic tensions, there is a bipartisan consensus around war as business.
Before the recent attacks on Venezuelan vessels, President Maduro warned that they might attempt to recreate a Gulf of Tonkin incident, because their hunger for war is insatiable. He was right: this aggression is ultimately driven by the economic imperative of feeding the war machine. In a post-Cold War world, it survives through perpetual “hot wars”—and what better front than Venezuela, which is rich in resources and defiant of imperial domination?
Let’s close with Chávez. He declared the Bolivarian Revolution anti-imperialist in 2004, but in truth, it always had a sovereign and anti-imperialist character. Could you reflect on Chávez’s anti-imperialism?
Indeed. The formal declaration came during a historic rally at the Botanical Garden in 2004, but the Revolution was Bolivarian from the start, and Bolívar himself was profoundly anti-imperialist. He warned that the United States seemed “destined by Providence to plague the Americas with misery in the name of liberty.” That same spirit lives in our revolution since day one.
Chávez revived Bolívar’s anti-imperialist legacy as early as 1977, when he created the People’s Army for the Liberation of Venezuela, whose founding document enshrined Bolivarianism and anti-imperialism as guiding principles. Later, in The Blue Book [1991], he outlined the vision of sovereignty and dignity that still guides us. President Maduro calls that text a “historical compass” pointing us steadfastly, no matter how much we have to maneuver, toward our strategic goal: the defense of sovereignty and the rejection of imperial domination.
For us, being anti-imperialist means not only refusing to surrender our resources, but also defending our identity, our dignity, and our very being. The empire’s elites belong nowhere; they want the world to belong to them. We, by contrast, define ourselves by belonging to a land, to a pueblo, and to a history.
That is why even symbolic aggressions, such as the attempt to erase “Bolivarian” from the Republic’s name during the 2002 coup, or mocking us as “venecos” in an attempt to erase our identity, are part of the war.
Bolivarianism and anti-imperialism are also deeply rooted in your organization, the Frente Francisco de Miranda. Can you tell us about it?
Indeed. In 2003, Fidel and Chávez founded the Frente Francisco de Miranda as a movement of Bolivarian, anti-imperialist social workers. However, anti-imperialism isn’t limited to my organization; it’s in the bloodstream of millions of Venezuelans who have resisted International Monetary Fund impositions since 1989 and continue defending the Bolivarian project today.
To be Chavista is to be anti-imperialist. Chávez was the first Latin American president to recognize Palestine, to support the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and to speak of our historical debt to Haiti. His backing of these and other liberation struggles was not just a matter of words but also about material support. He also linked the defense of Haiti to a history that, for him, didn’t begin with Pétion and Dessalines, but with Hatuey, the first known hero of an anti-colonial Caribbean rebellion.
That is our Chávez—the anti-imperialist Chávez—whose legacy continues to guide us!
≈≈≈
Cira Pascual Marquina is a Political Science professor at the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela in Caracas. She is also co‐producer and co‐host (with Chris Gilbert) of the Marxist education program Escuela de Cuadros. She is actively engaged with grassroots organizations in Venezuela and abroad, and is dedicated, both as a militant and as an investigator, to communal initiatives.
I’m so glad Pepe Escobar paid attention as I did not. That EU nomenclature is so off-putting and when I saw Kaja Kallas, I left the room.
Pepe says: “Petro absolutely RIPPED at the CELAC-EU summit in Santa Marta. A historical/civilizational lesson – delivered in fabulously articulated Spanish. Wonder whether those EU warmongers could even begin to get the message.”
Gustavo Petro is a leader. He needs some seasoning but he has all the talent, the force and presence of personality and the deep knowledge of his region and its history, necessary. History was made.
Gustavo Petro is now, even if only in my eyes, the Ibrahim Traoré of Latin America. Those that know me, know that I act on these impulses and I will send a recommendation to the Foreign Offices of both Burkina Faso and Colombia to “Get together and be alright”. Traoré has combined in the Sahel Alliance the areas that were torn apart through abject colonialism. Petro is only starting the process. They are both sons of guerrilla movements who selected peace as the path forward. They may just have something to talk about. https://sovereignista.com/2025/07/21/ebrahim-traore-a-new-african-covenant/
I formally hand my personal crown to Gustavo Petro, since Evo Morales, the first indigenous leader in Bolivia and in the LAC, lost it via extreme meddling. (Of course one cannot have an indigenous leader on the pink side succeed. What will people say? This was a sad story). There are also strong historical similarities with Jose “Pepe” Mujica (rip), that wonderful man from Uruguay who was the first Latin American leader that I adored. We have the talent and the knowledge. We only need to get rid of the empire.
You can turn on English subtitles on the video, but I so hope some kind soul translates it for us, to try and maintain that articulated quite exceptional but also flowing, non-complicated and non-pretentious Spanish. Early on, he talks about barbarians and barbarity. He then goes into the LAC history, in a way that I’ve never seen it expressed. He touches on his call to again revive and unify Gran Colombia, a confederation of Latin American nations, echoing Simón Bolívar’s integrationist vision. https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/petro-renews-call-for-gran-colombia-union-to-unify-latin-ame
—
Colombian President Gustavo Petro delivers a historic address at the 4th EU–CELAC Summit in Santa Marta, highlighting the struggle for democracy, the importance of global dialogue, and Latin America’s role as a beacon for free humanity. He calls for action against modern barbarity, honoring Indigenous and Afro-descendant heritage while promoting peace, diversity, and cooperation.
DRM News Provides Live Coverage From SANTA MARTA Where Leaders from Latin American, Caribbean, and European Union nations gather for the CELAC–EU Summit, focused on strengthening bi-regional cooperation, sustainable trade, and investment partnerships.
Hosted in the vibrant coastal city of Santa Marta, the summit features discussions on economic growth, climate resilience, digital transformation, and social inclusion — all under the theme of shared prosperity and global partnership.
The event opens with a traditional indigenous ceremony, symbolizing unity between regions and respect for cultural heritage, followed by the official heads-of-state photo and plenary sessions with European and Latin American leaders.
tomorrow, 27ᵗʰ September 2025, the 2015 JCPOA “snap-back” sanctions will come into force. With disavowal from China and Russia, it will become a milestone day in the disintegration of the post-WW2 UN system.
with appreciation to Dr. Karl at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium.
One Major FM statement and two by main UN Representative Vassily Nebenzia
On 20 September, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a major statement about its views on the snap-back sanctions issue which was followed by two separate statements by Mr. Vassily Nebenzia that were made to the assembled UN Security Council. It should be noted that China, Algeria and Pakistan all hold similar positions as they expressed orally and via their vote. When this move was announced back in August, Russia published a paper expressing why this move is illegal and violates the JCPOA that I reported on in full. We’ll begin with the MFA Statement then go to the two statements by Mr. Nebenzia.
On September 19, the UN Security Council voted on a draft resolution submitted by the Republic of Korea as President of the UN Security Council as a follow-up to the August 28 appeal by the United Kingdom, Germany and France regarding Iran’s alleged material failure to comply with its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The Russian side has repeatedly pointed out the provocative and illegal nature of the actions of the European countries participating in the JCPOA and the South Korean chairmanship of the UN Security Council, which is under their influence. These actions have nothing to do with diplomacy and only lead to a further escalation of tensions around the Iranian nuclear program. Until the last moment, we explained in detail and in a well-reasoned manner the reasons why the above-mentioned European appeal cannot be considered a notification within the meaning of paragraph 11 of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which the British and the European Two are trying to shamelessly manipulate. Accordingly, the presidential draft put to a vote in the Security Council does not meet the requirements of Resolution 2231 and a priori cannot lead to the restoration of the previously lifted UN sanctions against Iran.
During a meeting of the UN Security Council on September 19, Russia, together with China, Algeria and Pakistan, strongly supported the preservation of the regime for the lifting of previous sanctions resolutions on the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). Predictably, the European instigators of the current growing crisis around the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as the United States, which together exerted unprecedented pressure on the non-permanent members of the Security Council, forcing them to show solidarity with their unsuitable position, spoke out against this. As a result, those who succumbed to blackmail and threats have not been able to clearly explain the essence of their objections to the fact that the restrictions that have long lost their relevance and were in effect before the conclusion of the JCPOA remain lifted.
The position of the Republic of Korea, which abstained on its own draft resolution, is noteworthy in this context. We perceive this as self-exposure and a sign that Seoul is well aware of the legal and procedural nullity of its initiative, as well as the inconsistency of European claims on snapback. Apparently, the chairmanship is aware of the likely disastrous consequences of the political campaign unleashed against Iran, which threatens to negate constructive cooperation between Tehran and the IAEA and push the Iranian leadership to take tough retaliatory decisions.
The results of the vote on the South Korean resolution only indicate that this document did not find support and was removed from the agenda. This fact does not impose any obligations on other states to revive past restrictions against Iran. The notorious “snapback” cannot be considered to have taken place. Claims by the Western camp to the contrary mean that these countries are desperately seeking to legitimize their earlier gross violations of Resolution 2231 and to subordinate the rest of the world to their confrontational and fundamentally flawed policies. Their diktat and their legal nihilism in international affairs must be resolutely rebuffed, and attempts to use the authority and powers of the UN Security Council to settle political scores with Tehran must be rejected.
For the United States and European countries, the moment of truth has come. They will finally have to answer the question with certainty whether they are seeking a political and diplomatic settlement or are they once again preparing for the “dirty work” of plunging the Middle East into a new tragedy, similar to the one that took place in June, when the nuclear facilities in Iran under IAEA control were the target of missile and bomb strikes by Israel and the United States.
The Russian-Chinese draft UN Security Council resolution on a technical postponement of the implementation of the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 for six months, which is on the table, provides a real opportunity to rectify the situation, create conditions for the effective implementation of the agreements reached between Iran and the IAEA in Cairo on September 9, and provide space for a vigorous search for negotiated solutions that will make it possible to remove any suspicions and prejudices regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy with due reliance on international law and consideration of the legitimate interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran. [My Emphasis]
Here’s the first Nebenzia statement:
Mr. President,
We have to take the floor on a point of order, because we do not see any legal, political or procedural grounds for any steps to develop the European claims to launch the snapback mechanism, including voting on the draft resolution submitted by the South Korean presidency.
We have repeatedly explained at various venues that the European parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) simply have no right to launch the mechanism provided for by OP11 of UN Security Council Resolution 2231. The United Kingdom, France and Germany themselves have chronically violated UNSC Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA, including by imposing illegal unilateral sanctions against Iran to replace the restrictions that expired in accordance with the Plan. These countries also grossly violated the procedure for considering disputes provided for by the JCPOA, in particular, they did not launch the Dispute Settlement Mechanism in accordance with the prescribed procedure at the Vienna platform.
We would like to remind you that Resolution 2231 is an integral document and does not allow for a gap between it and the JCPOA, which has been and remains an integral part of it. Attempts by European countries to present the situation as if they have the right to use the “punitive” provisions of the resolution without fulfilling their part of the obligations are hypocritical and untenable from both a legal and political point of view. That is why we do not recognise the complaint submitted by Berlin, London and Paris to the Council within the meaning of UNSC Resolution 2231.
In this regard, we do not see any need for the Chairman-in-Office to take any steps, including the introduction of a draft resolution. The hasty putting of it to a vote by the South Korean chairmanship, although there is still more than a week before the expiration of 30 days, is also perplexing. We regret that the Republic of Korea has chosen the path of playing along with Western destructive approaches, to the detriment of its duties as an impartial chairman.
On the whole, what is happening today evokes the feeling of a clumsy spectacle aimed at creating a false “parallel reality” that has nothing to do with the political and legal foundations of the work of the Security Council. After all, it is no secret that the United Kingdom, France and Germany do not care at all about the fate of the JCPOA or the authority of the UN Security Council. Their only goal now is to use the Council as a tool in their unscrupulous game, as a lever of pressure on an undesirable state that defends its sovereign interests.
Here is a clear illustration of the fact that our European colleagues reject diplomacy at the root, preferring the language of blackmail and threats. Last week in Vienna, we officially proposed holding a meeting of all the original participants in the JCPOA in order to discuss, so to speak, “in the family circle” ways out of the current crisis. Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States responded to our proposal with a refusal.
Therefore, in other circumstances, we would not even take part in such a shameful spectacle in the Security Council, which is now unfolding at their behest. We are doing this today only because the content of the submitted document implies the preservation of the regime for lifting sanctions against Iran, which is in line with our long-standing principled position. However, this does not lend an ounce of legitimacy to either the European statements about the launch of the snapback, or the actions of the presidency to develop them. I ask you to record this in the minutes of the meeting.
Thank you. [My Emphasis]
And here’s the second:
Mr. President,
Today we have already stated our principled position of rejection of either the attempts of European states to launch a snapback or the actions of the presidency to develop them, including the introduction of this resolution. Our position on this matter remains unchanged. The fact that the Russian Federation voted in favour of the draft should not be interpreted as a change to it.
We supported the draft for only one reason: its only operative paragraph was on maintaining the lifting of UN sanctions against Iran. This is the only correct, politically and legally justified decision, which we have been talking about for all these years. The logic laid down in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) assumed the gradual lifting of all restrictions on Iran, and we are firmly convinced that there is no reason why they should not expire on October 18 of this year. and we have all witnessed how Iran fell victim to the aggressive actions of Israel and the United States in June of this year, and then trying to “crush” it with UN sanctions is immoral, unfair and illegal.
However, this is exactly what our Western colleagues are now trying to do. We would like to remind you that everything, including Iran’s interaction with the IAEA, was going according to plan exactly until the United States took a destructive path in 2018 and officially withdrew from the deal. This was the “trigger” of the crisis around the JCPOA, the consequences of which the Council has to deal with now, but Western delegations are diligently hushing up this fact. Despite Washington’s illegal and brutal actions, Tehran showed restraint at that time and continued to comply with its obligations in good faith for more than a year – I emphasise that for more than a year. Only after another round of pressure on it, Tehran took retaliatory steps, while regularly noting that these actions were reversible. Unfortunately, our European colleagues were not interested in returning to diplomacy even then and did not follow the path of a normal conversation, which was a chance in 2022, when the parameters for restoring the JCPOA were discussed.
Violations by the United Kingdom, France and Germany of their obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA have long become chronic. We are talking about their inability to comply with their obligations to ensure economic returns for Iran from the lifting of EU sanctions that were in effect until 2015, and their illegal decision to resume unilateral sanctions pressure after the JCPOA Transition Day on October 18, 2023.
Our country has repeatedly brought to the attention of the members of the Security Council its position that the United Kingdom, France and Germany do not have the right to use the procedure for restoring the UN Security Council sanctions regime against Iran, as provided for in paragraph 11 of the operative part of UNSC Resolution 2231. A party that fails to comply with its obligations under any contract or agreement deprives itself of the right to use the tools provided for therein. This is clearly evidenced by the so-called “clean hands doctrine”, the principle of pacta sunt servanda, and the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice.
Against this background, the so-called “notification” of the “European Three” about the launch of the “snapback”, distributed in the Council on August 28, has no legal and procedural force. It cannot serve as a basis for any decisions or actions of the Security Council. This position is set out in detail in the joint letter of the Foreign Ministers of Russia, China and Iran dated August 28, which was circulated in the Council.
Let us emphasize once again: from our point of view, there is no launch of the snapback procedure. The introduction of the draft considered today is a direct violation of Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA, which is an integral part of it. For this reason, the Russian Federation does not recognize either the alleged steps taken or any further steps in this context.
We would like to remind you that there is a real alternative to the lawlessness taking place today in the Security Council hall. This is the Russian-Chinese draft resolution, which is in the blue, which provides for the technical extension of Resolution 2231 for six months while demanding that all original participants in the JCPOA immediately resume negotiations in order to find a diplomatic solution. We call on all sensible members of the Security Council to support it when we put it to a vote.
Thank you. [My Emphasis]
Seems pretty basic: The E3 violated basic contract law and thus voided their ability to do anything, almost as if they had dropped out like their Outlaw US Empire Master. I haven’t read anything by China, Pakistan or Algeria, but do know that they echoed Russia’s position meaning Russia wasn’t the only nation pointing to the illegality of the E3’s actions and the unseemly behavior by the South Korean UNSC Chair. Maybe Trump should have attacked some more Korean factories so they’s know where they stand in his racist eyes.
The Cairo Agreement between Iran and IAEA has already been annulled by Iran as a result of the illegal UNSC happenings. Here’s the key quote from RT’s report:
“The ill-considered actions of three European countries regarding the Iranian nuclear issue… will effectively suspend the path of cooperation with the Agency,” Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said in a statement cited by state news agency IRNA. [Emphasis Original]
The UNSC action is very powerful proof that Law and Justice are absent within the world and need to be made reality via another institution; otherwise, what we’ll have in the law of the garden, which in reality is the jungle. As I have suggested, a UN Charter 2.0 is now needed more than ever with modifications made to the Security Council eliminating the veto and other past mistakes in its organization. Obtaining consensus can remain provided all UNSC members are not in current or past violation of the UN Charter—some form of strict disciplinary measures must be added to the Charter for those members who violate it.
It’s become very clear that Iran’s nuclear program isn’t the issue. It’s Iran’s government and the fact it remains independent despite 46 years of attempts to destroy it led by the Outlaw US Empire and its Zionist proxy. The only weapons not used against Iran are nuclear—chemical and biological weapons were used at the behest of the Empire by Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War who covered up their use by Iraq. The longstanding crime spree that was begun by the Outlaw US Empire and UK proxy in 1953-4 so Iran’s hydrocarbon riches could be controlled by the Empire continues. When the Shah was in power, the Empire, nor any of its proxies had any trouble with Iran having a nuclear program because the Empire controlled the Shah. That all changed when Iranians revolted and regained their independence, and all signs today are they relish it greatly and will not cede it under any circumstances. And to defend their independence, Iran has developed very sophisticated high-tech missile and drone capabilities that have shocked the Empire and its Zionist proxy, although they lie about everything about Iran. Today’s Iran isn’t that of 2015—it has very powerful allies and is much better economically. Plus, as the 12-Day War showed, Iran’s populace came together in mass solidarity with the government and military against what are called the Two Satans—Big and Small.
The Genocidal Don and Bibi will again attack Iran with the big question being will either use nukes to attain their goal. And the other big question is, did Iran obtain a considerable upgrade to its AD suite? For if Iran can kill the planes and/or missiles bringing the nukes, it will save itself and much more—but if it does so, how will we know nukes were used? Obviously, in a properly governed world, this crisis wouldn’t exist. If Humanity survives the next war on Iran, global governance will need to be altered whether some nations like it or not.
And as an ending by-note, Venezuela has held talks with Russia on what the MFA called, “Russian-Venezuelan consultations on international legal issues.” Here’s the important portion of the Press Release:
We discussed in detail the issues of coordination at the relevant platforms of international organisations and practical steps to combat the practice of illegal unilateral restrictive measures (sanctions). The issues of the functioning of international justice bodies, including criminal justice, are considered separately. Specific mechanisms and tools for the implementation of common positions have been outlined.
The consultations confirmed the parties’ firm conviction of the need to strengthen the rule of international law. Illegitimate sanctions were condemned, and rejection of the politicisation of international justice was expressed. The Russian side reaffirmed its full support for Caracas in its efforts to protect its sovereignty in light of current threats. [My Emphasis]
Trump has now blown up three boats and killed several dozen which merely adds to his bloody total—Genocide Don and Killer of Ukrainians. He had no business being at the Charlie Kirk funeral.
As most know, Trump yet again delivered bombast instead of truth, although Khamenei was able to pick out the one shred of truth that tumbled from Trump’s maw.
with appreciation to Dr. Karl at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium.
What sort of admission it will become in time is unknown at the present. But it will bolster the Iranian nation even more than the attacks themselves. And in that case alone, Trump made yet another major mistake. I won’t spoil Khamenei’s words by telling readers now. The speech is short, and you’ll soon find out:
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
My greetings and best wishes to the dear, great nation of Iran. First, I would like to honor the memory of the esteemed martyrs from recent events – the martyred generals and scientists who were truly, genuinely valuable for the Islamic Republic. They dedicated their lives to serving others. Today, they are with God receiving the reward for their outstanding services, God willing.
I find it necessary to offer my congratulations to the great nation of Iran. I congratulate the nation for several reasons.
First of all, I offer my congratulations on the victory over the fallacious Zionist regime. With all that commotion and all those claims, the Zionist regime was practically knocked out and crushed under the blows of the Islamic Republic. The thought that the Islamic Republic could inflict such blows on that regime never even crossed their minds and they never imagined such a thing, but this is what happened.
We thank God for helping our Armed Forces. They were able to break through the enemy’s advanced, multi-layered defense and raze many of their urban and military areas under the pressure brought by Iran’s missiles and powerful attacks using advanced weaponry. This is one of the greatest divine blessings. It has shown the Zionist regime that attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran carries a heavy price. It will be costly for them. It will result in and generate a heavy cost for them. And praise God, this has happened. This honor is due to our Armed Forces and our dear people who’ve built, trained, and supported these Armed Forces from within themselves, enabling and empowering them to carry out such a great task.
My second congratulations is related to our dear Iran’s victory over the US regime. The US regime entered the war directly because it felt that if it didn’t, the Zionist regime would be completely destroyed. It entered the war in an effort to save that regime but achieved nothing. It attacked our nuclear facilities, which warrants an independent criminal prosecution in an international court, of course. But they weren’t able to achieve anything significant. The US President used a bizarre exaggeration in describing what happened. It’s evident he needed such an exaggeration. Whoever heard his remarks knew that beneath the surface of these words lay another truth, which was that they weren’t able to accomplish anything. They failed to achieve their intended goal and they exaggerate things to cover up and conceal the truth.
Here too, the Islamic Republic has been victorious and delivered a heavy slap to the US’s face in return. It [Iran] attacked and inflicted damage on the Al-Udeid Air Base, which is one of the US’s key bases in the region. The same people who made exaggerated claims in the previous case, tried to downplay this one, claiming that nothing much had happened. But in fact, a major event had taken place. The fact that the Islamic Republic has access to key US centers in the region and can take action whenever it deems necessary is a significant matter. It’s quite significant. Such an action can be repeated in the future too. Should any aggression occur, the enemy – the aggressor – will definitely pay a heavy price.
My third congratulations is for the remarkable unity and solidarity shown by the Iranian nation. Praise God, a nation of approximately 90 million people stood together as one, were united in voice, stood shoulder to shoulder, and didn’t show any differences in their demands or the goals they expressed. They stood together, chanted slogans, spoke out, and supported the actions of the Armed Forces, and this will continue to be the case in the future. The Iranian nation demonstrated its greatness and its distinguished, exceptional character in this event. It showed that when it’s necessary, a unified voice will be heard from this nation, and praise God, this is what happened.
The key point I wish to emphasize in my speech is this that in one of his remarks, the President of the United States declared that Iran must surrender. Surrender! The issue isn’t about enrichment or the nuclear industry anymore. It’s about Iran surrendering. Needless to say, this statement is too big to come out of the US president’s mouth.
For the great country of Iran – a nation with such a history, such a rich culture, and a steadfast national determination – any talk of surrender is nothing but a mockery in the eyes of those who truly know the Iranian people. But his statement revealed a certain reality, which is that the US has been actively opposing and trying to harm Islamic Iran from the very beginning of the Revolution. And each time, they come up with a new pretext. One time, it’s human rights. Another time, it’s defending democracy. Then, it’s women’s rights. Sometimes it’s uranium enrichment, and at other times it’s the nuclear issue itself. Or it’s the matter of missile development.
They bring up all kinds of pretexts. But at the core, it all boils down to one thing, which is that they want Iran to surrender.
The previous administrations never openly stated this because it’s something unacceptable. It isn’t justifiable by any human logic to tell a nation that they must surrender. That’s why they were disguising this objective behind other titles and pretexts.
This person let the truth out. He showed this reality that the US will only be satisfied with Iran’s surrender and nothing less. This is a crucial point. The Iranian nation must know that the core of the conflict with the US is over this point. The US is greatly insulting the people of Iran, and such a thing will never happen. It will never happen.
The Iranian nation is a great nation. Iran is a strong, vast country. It possesses an ancient civilization. Our cultural and civilizational wealth is hundreds of times greater than that of the US and other similar countries. Anyone who expects Iran to surrender to another country is spouting nonsense that will surely be ridiculed by wise, knowledgeable people. The Iranian nation is noble and will remain noble.
The Iranian nation is victorious and will remain victorious, by the grace of God. We are hopeful that Almighty God will continuously protect this nation under His grace, preserving it with dignity and honor. May He elevate the spiritual rank of Imam [Khomeini (ra)]. And may Imam Mahdi (may our souls be sacrificed for him) be pleased and satisfied with this nation, and may he support it with his assistance.
May God’s greetings, mercy, and blessings be upon you. [Dr. Karl: my Emphasis]
Given that Iran now knows with 100% certainty what the Outlaw US Empire demands, they’re no longer any grounds for negotiations excepting one: Iran will rejoin the NPT when the Zionists enroll themselves. I expect the papers Iran has incriminating Grossi and the IAEA will be published when Iran votes to withdraw from the NPT. I expect other outcomes will occur as a result of the conflict, some obvious like becoming closer to Russia and China militarily and a change in relations with Azerbaijan, and some not so obvious like the degree of further isolation of the Collective West from the Global Majority. I’m also curious to see what happens with Japan and South Korea’s relations with the Empire once the tariff deadline arrives as this conflict IMO will have a bearing on what occurs. And then there’s Taiwan. Its separatists can’t like what they just observed as the Empire’s most important proxy was partially thrown under the bus.
Iran, the West, and the Illusion of Choice. The war launched by the United States and Israel inflicted not only physical damage, but ideological clarity; Tehran is turning to a posture of permanent resistance.
By Elijah J. Magnier on Twitter (X).
Iran appears unwavering in its resolve to retaliate in the face of the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war. Following American strikes on its nuclear infrastructure, Iran’s Army Chief, General Abdolrahim Mousavi, delivered a stark warning: “Every time the United States has committed a crime against Iran, it has faced a decisive retaliation—and this time will be no different. We will fight with all our means to defend our independence, our unity, and the integrity of our ruling system. We are not fighting for survival — we are fighting for victory.”
More than twenty-four hours after the U.S. assault, Israel was struck by a missile targeting Haifa — an attack that slipped past its air defense systems without triggering a single siren or interceptor. The breach exposed a serious vulnerability in Israel’s defensive shield and underscored the gravity of the unfolding conflict. It also sent a clear message:
Tehran is not backing down.
Far from deterred, Iran appears ready to escalate with precision and intent. The Haifa strike was not an isolated incident; it was followed by a series of additional missile attacks. The Iranian missiles are forbidding the Israelis from returning to a normal life until it is satisfied to say the last word in this war, signalling Iran’s willingness to shape the terms of any future ceasefire on its own terms.
Meanwhile, Israel’s calls for de-escalation appear driven less by diplomacy than by tactical self-interest. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, far from bowing to pressure, is wary of deeper and potentially uncontrollable damage within Israel’s borders. With the U.S. having already targeted Iran’s nuclear sites and Iran proving its capacity to strike back — inflicting significant harm on Israeli cities — Netanyahu now seeks to freeze the conflict while claiming strategic victory. His aim is to end the war on his terms, with another party brokering a ceasefire, allowing him to retain political capital while keeping Israel’s military posture intact for future contingencies.
President Donald Trump played a central role in shaping this dynamic. His decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities ensured a quiet night for Israelis—an action widely celebrated across Israel, and particularly by Netanyahu. At the Knesset, American flags flew beside Israeli ones in a show of unity, while digital billboards in Tel Aviv thanked Trump for defending Israel. These public displays reflected not just gratitude but the deep strategic synchronization between the two leaders — Netanyahu and Trump — waging a war defined by deception, calculated surprise, and tightly coordinated military operations.
Further underscoring its defiance, Tehran has declared its intention to continue enriching uranium — directly challenging U.S. and Israeli claims that the Iranian nuclear program has been dismantled. The move signals not only resilience but a calculated rejection of the narrative that Iran’s strategic capabilities have been neutralized.
Moreover, any Iranian retaliation at this stage threatens to shatter Israel’s carefully crafted narrative of having reestablished deterrence against Tehran. Netanyahu now seeks to conclude his war on favourable terms, having claimed that his actions have fundamentally reshaped the Middle East—weakening Iran, isolating its allies, and advancing normalization with moderate Arab states.
His broader ambition appears to be the imposition of a new regional order in which Israel serves as the undisputed security arbiter — a self-appointed policeman with the authority to strike pre-emptively at any actor perceived as a threat. Netanyahu believes he has inflicted serious damage on the so-called “Shia Crescent”— the axis of resistance stretching from Tehran through Yemen, Baghdad, and Beirut — which has grown more formidable over the past two decades. He now seems equally determined to prevent the emergence of a rival Sunni coalition, potentially led by Turkey, a country he has repeatedly criticized for its growing influence in Syria. In Netanyahu’s vision, no regional force — Shia or Sunni — should be allowed to patrol, shape, or challenge the strategic architecture of the Middle East. That role, he believes, belongs solely to Israel.
Meanwhile, the U.S. bombing of Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities — combined with what Tehran sees as unlawful declarations of war by both Washington and Tel Aviv — has only deepened Iran’s determination to build a more formidable deterrent.
Iran is now expected to accelerate development of its missile capabilities and may reconsider its participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), potentially restricting international inspections conducted under United Nations oversight.
Beyond bolstering its internal defense, Tehran may also double down on its support for regional allies such as Yemen’s Ansar Allah and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, viewing them as vital pillars of strategic depth in the face of a hostile alliance.
Yet, Iran now faces a critical and immediate challenge: the reconstruction of its damaged nuclear and military infrastructure. To address this, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may tap into off-budget institutions like Setad or draw from sovereign reserves such as the National Development Fund of Iran — estimated to hold tens of billions of dollars — to support rapid recovery. Though the exact sums remain unclear, these financial mechanisms offer Tehran flexibility in responding to wartime damage and rebuilding key strategic assets.
At the same time, Tehran is expected to deepen military and technological cooperation with key partners such as China and North Korea, accelerating efforts to rebuild and modernize its defense capabilities.
Meanwhile, Iran’s trust in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been deeply shaken — if not entirely eroded — by the silence of its Director, Rafael Grossi, following the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Under the IAEA’s mandate, any attack on safeguarded sites should be unequivocally condemned, regardless of the political context.
Yet no such condemnation was issued. For Tehran, this omission signals not neutrality, but complicity. The agency’s failure to defend the integrity of civilian nuclear infrastructure has led Iranian officials to increasingly view the IAEA not as an impartial international body, but as an extension of U.S. and Israeli intelligence interests. In this context, continued cooperation with an institution perceived as politically compromised appears untenable.
The war has also exposed the alarming effectiveness of multiple espionage networks operating within Iran —many believed to have directly supported U.S. and Israeli military operations. These spy rings, some reportedly embedded in critical infrastructure and government institutions, played a decisive role in enabling the precision and coordination of the attacks. In response, Iran’s security and intelligence services are expected to launch a sweeping and uncompromising crackdown to dismantle these networks and seal internal vulnerabilities.
However, this intensified focus on counterintelligence is likely to come at a domestic cost: tighter surveillance, increased repression, and a contraction of civil liberties. In this wartime atmosphere, the balance between national security and personal freedom is already shifting decisively toward the former.
Sanctions, once framed as a tool of last resort, have become a default mechanism of Western policy toward Iran— regardless of who holds power in Tehran. They are no longer reactive but structural. Iran is sanctioned not for what it does, but for what it represents: an independent, resource-rich nation capable of projecting power beyond its borders, outside the Western sphere of influence.
In this context, sanctions serve a dual purpose. First, they aim to economically weaken Iran, constraining its ability to invest in domestic growth or regional influence. Second, they are designed to sow internal discontent —fueling protests, shortages, and public dissatisfaction. The strategy is simple: if Iran cannot be coerced into compliance, it can be pressured until it collapses or capitulates.
This approach reflects a broader regional logic — one that seeks to enforce a strategic imbalance across the Middle East.
The Israeli Exception
Nowhere is this imbalance more visible than in the contrasting treatment of Israel and other regional powers. Israel maintains a sophisticated military, a known (though undeclared) nuclear arsenal, and a history of extraterritorial operations that would provoke global condemnation if undertaken by any other state. Yet it faces little to no accountability. Its dominance is not only accepted — it is protected.
When Iran develops defensive capabilities, asserts deterrence, or supports regional allies, these actions are labelled as aggression. When Israel carries out assassinations, sabotage, or airstrikes in neighboring countries, these acts are broadly justified as self-defense. This double standard is not born of legal nuance — it stems from strategic favoritism.
Seen from this perspective, the conflict is not about behavior, but about status. Iran is not punished for its actions, but for what it dares to become: a counterweight. And no counterweight to Israeli hegemony is tolerable under the current U.S.-backed regional order.
The core issue is the West’s refusal to accept strategic parity in the Middle East. For decades, the United States and its allies have worked to ensure that only one power — Israel — enjoys overwhelming superiority in military, intelligence, and technological domains. Any actor that seeks to challenge that monopoly, whether Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Syria under the Assads, or even Turkey when asserting independent policy, is treated as a threat.
Iran is the most resilient of these challengers. It has survived a revolution, a devastating war with Iraq, decades of sanctions, cyberattacks, and assassinations. Despite this, it remains a regional actor with influence extending from the Gulf to the Mediterranean. For the existing power structure, that persistence is unacceptable. Thus, parity is not just denied — it is criminalized and bombed.
The consequences for Iran are profound. Sovereignty can no longer be assumed; it must be actively defended. And that defense is no longer limited to military doctrine — it is now a principle that governs economics, foreign relations, technology policy, and even cultural identity. In Tehran’s view, the rules are selectively applied and strategically weaponized.
While the global narrative often casts Iran as a disruptor, Tehran sees itself operating within a system that punishes moderation and rewards submission. If peace can only be purchased at the cost of strategic paralysis, then for many Iranian leaders, peace itself becomes a trap.
Sovereignty as Resistance
The war launched by the United States and Israel has inflicted not only physical damage, but ideological clarity. It has stripped away the last illusions that diplomacy or moderation could earn Iran a place of respect within the Western-dominated order. The belief that strategic restraint would be rewarded has collapsed under airstrikes, sanctions, and the silence of institutions tasked with upholding international law.
The lesson for Iran is unambiguous: sovereignty is not granted — it must be asserted, relentlessly. Denied parity and recognition, Tehran is turning to a posture of permanent resistance. Its future will be shaped not by appeals to the West, but by the pursuit of autonomy, strategic alliances, and hardened deterrence.
What Israel and its allies call deterrence; Iran now sees as provocation. What the West labels aggression, Iran views as survival. And in this asymmetrical war of narratives, one truth remains: as long as sovereignty is punished and power is monopolized, peace will not prevail — only a shifting and dangerous balance of confrontation.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)