ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN – AGGRESSION AND LAST BURST OF FIRE BY LONG DECAYING WESTERN REGIMES

The brutal, targeted assassination of the Supreme Leader and Head of State has Tel Aviv and Palm Beach rejoicing. Doubts are growing in Washington over the constitutional disarray of Mar-a-Lago, now a Netanyahu proxy. Concern among the military for their opposition to expanding the theatres of war, which now risk involving the entire world. The significant resignation of Republican Joe Kent as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center

by Glauco D’Agostino

A martyr of the faith. We begin these reflections thus, because it is right to pay homage to a great religious and political-institutional leader in line with the Shiite tradition and the country’s Constitution, born after the 1979 popular revolution.

Āyatollāh Seyyed ‘Alī Khāmene’i is a martyr of the faith because he was murdered out of hatred unleashed against his religious function and against him personally. Let’s set aside international law and the Geneva Convention, which prohibits targeted assassinations, especially those directed at heads of state; the world has acknowledged that the violation of that right is now the order of the day, in the service of the powerful on duty. But the cynical personal claim of such brutality by a hostile head of state or government is truly something singular and grotesque, never before seen in modern history.

The same figures, it’s true, had already done so against Ismā’īl Haniyeh (who had nevertheless been Palestinian Prime Minister), Iranian General Qāsim Sulaimānī (a high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Guards), the Secretary General of Ḥizb Allāh, Sayyed Ḥasan Naṣrallāh (who was a revered cleric), and the countless ranks of military leaders eliminated with the same repugnant terrorist methods as they were anti-Zionist or anti-ISIS fighters. And the United States itself had inspired the assassinations of top officials in several states, but no head of the Administration had claimed personal responsibility. Tel Aviv and its Mar-a-Lago proxy now feel sacrificing their own honour by attributing to themselves a despicable and cowardly terrorist act.

Having made this necessary premise, the purpose of this writing is neither to commemorate the illustrious figures attacked and fallen nor to make a pointless ethical condemnation of the usual aggressors. Reality is what it is, and analysts must acknowledge it.

First of all, what is worrying is the disastrous drift toward extremism and the radicalisation of the US political leadership, not just Mar-a-Lago’s, let it be clear. And yet, this does not justify the dangerous last-ditch efforts to escape an existential crisis that, precisely for this reason, is internal to the American world and risks infecting (if it hasn’t done so) the remains of the Western world.

Without going into complicated details here, which undoubtedly need to be done, the basic concept is clear. Washington no longer knows where it is headed, and Mar-a-Lago (below) tries to give a simple answer, flexing its muscles. It attacks, threatens, blackmails, and bows to the Zionist teachings he had previously managed, governing it while taking into account the original ruthlessness it demonstrated throughout its century of existence. It believes it can interfere in the political and economic conduct of sovereign states to the point of cultivating the claim of approving the election of the Supreme Leader in Iran. Meanwhile, for those who didn’t understand its intentions and are proposing it for the Nobel Peace Prize, it established a rapacious Department of War that is trying and will try in the future not to be unemployed.

Washington and the major federated states don’t seem to appreciate the centralised personalised authoritarianism that has been making its presence felt since the 2000s, gaining ground under the symbolism of an artificial and imaginary identity. Mar-a-Lago, promising global peace under the Yankee banner and its America First (America über alles), despises and marginalises all those who do not bend to its will. Meanwhile, even its slogan, Make America Great Again, testifies to a perceived loss of appeal even among former allies. The unparalleled Board of Peace private initiative may not be enough to govern the world above the UN.

The unwary once-privileged allies are navigating the deepest darkness. Nourished for decades by an improbable Westernism fantasy, they are now disconcerted by the treatment the Mar-a-Lago regime meted out to them, not so much because its leader has not frankly told the truth about the self-interested dependence from which those countries have abundantly benefited, but because of the brutality of the words of the new American course.

King Charles III, Sovereign of 15 states worldwide (including the U.K., which has veto power in the UN Security Council), Head of the Commonwealth of 56 sovereign states and over thirty orders of chivalry and similar, appears not very convinced of submitting to transatlantic real estate-driven imperialist purposes. Yet the first arrows have been launched against Canada, of which he is the monarch and whose annexation is being planned.

Frederik X Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg of Denmark also seems to share King Charles III’s concerns about Mar-a-Lago’s expansionist aims, given that Greenland is the object of Yankee interventionist mania. In White House circles, it is maliciously rumoured that the Head of Administration is jealous of the lineage and titles of these struggling European monarchs and aspires to supplant them with a much higher imperial title. Given the Europeans’ indolence, this noble aspiration may soon be realised, perhaps even with the hope of installing an illegitimate puppet pro-consul with appropriate royal titles in Tehrān.

In this war context, confusion reigns supreme in the pretentious European Union, which refuses to give up its lost role as Washington’s alleged supporting actor in favour of an increasingly arrogant Mar-a-Lago. It is especially hard for Germans and Italians (not coincidentally, the WWII losers) to admit that the much-vaunted fusion of military competences and functions among member states would amount to substantial dependence on France, the only country in the Union able to exercise nuclear deterrence and, albeit with difficulty, to have a say in international highest-level policy decisions.

Let us say more clearly that the lack of will in recent decades to demonstrate one’s autonomy from the Washington-led shameful, aggressive military adventures in Asia, Africa, and even Europe has reduced decision-making capacity to the point of surrendering to a subservience to interests that were not and still are not consistent with serious geopolitics.

Perhaps some are beginning to understand that the fairy tale of exporting democracy through war violence (which always failed miserably) was a ploy to support Atlantic imperialist expansionist schemes. Realistically, perhaps someone is beginning to understand (Garbatella permitting) that he cannot promote China’s naval blockade because the People’s Republic does not apply the canons of Western democracy internally, and that he is not the one who decides a foreign country’s level of democracy. The example of a supposedly democratic state like Tel Aviv’s, yet a relentless slaughterer of peoples, is there (with the approval of the German Bundeskanzleramt) for all to see.

The Middle East is on fire again. The cynicism with which the West has viewed Middle Eastern events is now shattered by the danger of being swallowed up in conflicts far more serious than the geographically limited ones that characterised past events.

Why is this time different? Many analysts now consider it a strategic error to have attacked the Islamic Republic of Iran so forcefully without foreseeing the consequences. Tehrān is not Baġdād, Beirut, or even Kabul in terms of international importance, and it is not a testing ground for armies seeking a role. Even without considering the resilience of a neutral nation, undefeated during the world wars and resistant to heavy American pressure since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran is a geopolitical hub difficult to subdue and endowed with a refined diplomacy that well represents the Eastern nature of its people. This also means a series of international relationships that go beyond formal alliances.

Even the Middle Eastern Sunni states, which for decades have been raising a Shiite crescent spectre, playing into Tel Aviv’s hands, are beginning to grasp it. The needy Kingdom of Jordan, when it evoked this nightmare, had its reasons, as it was terrified by a violent Israel that seized without opposition its West Bank territories and the holy sites the Hāshemite dynasty has been preserving for centuries. The Saudi Kingdom, as well, belatedly realises that the anti-Shiite hatred it championed conflicts with its geopolitical interests in the area and that the role of custodian of Mecca and Medina entails more ethical responsibilities to the entire Muslim world than to Western commercialism, which, among other things, places it at the forefront, as is currently happening, of Pāsdārān, Ḥizb Allāh, and Ḥūthis’ retaliation.

And amid all this madness, Tel Aviv gloats, and Mar-a-Lago opportunistically stalls. Meanwhile, Dōḥa, Wahhābi like Riyāḍ, chooses a mediation path that does it credit, free from sectarian obsessions and far more attentive to its geopolitical role in the complex Gulf geography. Today, Riyāḍ and Dōḥa are facing the region’s true political crux: Abu Dhabi and Manāma adventurism that has led them to bow down to their new Zionist suitor in a perverse game of bewitching seduction. What’s at stake here isn’t the alliance with Washington and London, a necessity since the birth of their young countries, but rather the understanding that being allies of these capitals doesn’t mean automatic acquiescence to Israeli aggression. The Mar-a-Lago-Tel Aviv treacherous embrace has nothing to do with the interests of the Gulf, and it risks soon having repercussions on the Cooperation Council’s ability (now effectively dissected) to propose itself as a unified trade and geopolitical hub.

All of this serves Israel’s interests. Dismembering all state and organisational entities in the region strengthens its dominant position in the area.

• It began doing so in 1967, with the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Syrian Golan Heights;
• It continued with the invasions of Lebanon in 1979, 1982, 2000, 2006, and from 2023 to the present;
• With the 1993 Oslo Accords, it tamed the Palestine Liberation Organisation and turned its attacks against Palestinian resistance, invading Gaza in 2008, 2014, and from 2023 onwards;
• In 2024, taking advantage of Asad’s fall, it occupied part of southern Syria;
• With the Abraham Accords, it disjointed Arab unity, gaining the long-sought consensus of some of them;
• Last January, with the recognition of Somaliland, it laid the foundations for an anti-Somali alliance in East Africa, which will allow it to control the Strait of Bāb al-Mandeb and the southern entrance to the Red Sea (https://www.islamicworld.it/wp/horn-of-africa-and-the-red-sea-laboratories-for-verification-of-middle-east-alliances/).

In short, its geopolitical options are not so hidden, and its strategic objectives, whether legitimate or illegitimate, are clear, even if they are not very righteous in terms of the methods of acquisition. However, there is no doubt that its sphere of influence is slowly expanding, accelerating in recent years to the point of an expansionism that worries or irritates its neighbours. And not only them.

The resignation of Republican Joe Kent (above) as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, arguing that the U.S. entered the war following “pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” adding that Iran does not pose an “imminent threat” to the United States, is a wake-up call for a Mar-a-Lago now totally dependent on a dangerous power group that today too profoundly influences Washington’s stance on the international stage. But even a large portion of Diaspora Jews are beginning to declare themselves openly anti-Zionist, especially in the U.S. There must be a reason why the Mayor of New York, a Shiite Muslim, was elected with the vast support of the Big Apple Jews.

Washington is losing yet another war of aggression, and the Mar-a-Lago resident is bragging, announcing that all goals have been achieved. What goals, please?

• The leadership in Tehrān emerges strengthened, and its outraged people rally around the new Supreme Leader, still a Khāmene’i in full continuity with his predecessor;
• Its allies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, despite the blows they suffered from the Zionist aggressor, stand on the front lines in defending their respective populations that are being blindly attacked;
• Ḥamās continues to be the unyielding shield protecting Palestinian interests in the destroyed Gaza and the West Bank, a victim of a progressive, carefully timed colonisation;
• Mar-a-Lago scuttled the Iranian civil nuclear agreements, and therefore, enriched uranium continues to be in Iranian hands despite its enemies giving advance notice that they were prepared for a burglary.

No defeat could be more stinging for the White House in defending foreign interests deviating from its promised policy. If the goal was to counter China’s advance, depriving it, after the blitz in Venezuela, of its largest energy supplier, then the failure is even more pronounced, because the U.S. adventure in Iran has exposed its raw nerve: its inability to predict repercussions and to govern financial markets that are heavily dependent on oil. This is America in a serious crisis, not only of identity, as already mentioned, but also of credibility, which is beginning to worry. I don’t believe this can be overcome with communication gimmicks, such as establishing the War Department, renaming the Gulf of Mexico, and reviving worn-out slogans.

Āyatollāh Seyyed Mojtabā Ḥoseynī Khāmene’i (photo X above), Iran’s new Supreme Leader, has meanwhile received congratulations from many foreign dignitaries, including the following expressions of closeness:

• Russian Federation. President Vladimir Putin confirmed his unwavering support for Tehrān and solidarity with Iranian friends. “Russia has been and will remain a reliable partner of the Islamic Republic. I am confident that you would continue your father’s work with honour and unite the Iranian people in the face of severe trials.”
• People’s Republic of China. Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Guō Jiākūn, stated: “China opposes interference in other countries’ internal affairs under any pretext, and Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity should be respected.”
• Azerbaijan. President İlham Əliyev said: “Relations between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Islamic Republic of Iran stem from the will of our peoples, who have historically lived in an atmosphere of good-neighborliness and friendship. I hope that together we will make further efforts to develop interstate relations in a spirit of mutual respect and trust, in accordance with the interests of our peoples.”
• Tajikistan. President Emomali Rahmon, wishing him successful leadership, expressed his readiness to further strengthen and expand cooperation between “Tajikistan and Iran for the benefit of our two brotherly nations, based on goodwill, trust, and mutual respect.”
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif stated: “The martyrdom of Āyatollāh Seyyed ‘Alī Khāmene’i has deeply saddened the people of Pakistan, who stand in solidarity with the leadership and people of Iran during this difficult time.” Raja Nasir Abbas Jafari, a senior senator and opposition leader in the Pakistani Senate, said: “At a time when Iran faces relentless hostility from the forces of arrogance, may Allah safeguard your leadership and grant the Islamic Republic firmness and victory over its aggressors.” Jafari concluded with a message of solidarity: “Those who believe in the path of resistance stand firmly with you in confronting oppression and imperialism in all its forms.”
• Iraq. Adnan Fayhan ad-Dulaimi, First Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, praising the Islamic Republic’s political system, emphasised that Iraq stands with Iran against US-Israeli aggression. He stated: “While congratulating Iran, its leadership and its people, on this event, which is a significant milestone in the political system of the Islamic Republic and reflects the will of its constitutional institutions and the aspirations of its people for the continuation of the nation’s course, we declare our full solidarity with the Iranian people in the face of the brutal aggression to which they are being subjected, in violation of international laws and conventions.”

Solidarity and loyalty have also come from various political liberation movements:

• Ḥizb Allāh. The resistance movement reaffirmed its unbreakable bond with the Islamic Revolution. It renewed its commitment to the principles of its leaders and pledged allegiance to Āyatollāh Mojtabā Khāmene’i. “We are under the command of Āyatollāh Seyyed Mojtabā Khāmene’i, the new Vali-ye Faqih, and under his leadership we will resist and persevere until our last breath and our last drop of blood,” the statement read.
• Kata’ib Ḥizb Allāh. From Iraq, Aḥmed Mohsen Faraj Al-Hamidawi, Secretary General of the Shiite paramilitary group, welcoming the election of Mojtabā Ḥoseynī Khāmene’i as Supreme Leader and standard-bearer of resistance forces worldwide, said: “This is evidence of the astuteness, insight, and deep foresight of the Assembly of Experts regarding the magnitude of the fateful challenges facing the nation.” Sayyed Hāshim al-Haidari, Secretary General of the Jamʿiyyat al-ʿAhd movement, also pledged allegiance to the new Supreme Leader.
• Ḥūthis. Yemeni religious-political leader Sayyed ʿAbd al-Malik Badr al-Ḥūthi emphasised the movement’s steadfastness and solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran in the face of U.S. and Israeli aggression. Moḥammed ‘Alī al-Ḥūthi, a senior member of the Supreme Political Council, also highlighted how the succession demonstrated the “strength and cohesion” of the Islamic Republic. “It reflects the cohesion, unity, and readiness of the system and the nation,” he said.
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The second-largest of the PLO’s groups sees this moment as a continuation of Iran’s revolutionary resolve and its front-line role in countering Israeli-American aggression. “We realize that His Eminence, alongside the brave and loyal commanders, will continue the battle of confronting the aggression, in continuation of the great path of the martyrs, and will lead the battle to force the colonial powers to retreat and break,” it stated.
• February 14 Youth Coalition. From Bahrain, where about half of the Muslim population is Shiite, the advocacy group launched a call for unity around Āyatollāh Mojtabā Khāmene’i. The movement expressed hope that his leadership would strengthen Muslims and consolidate the axis of resistance throughout the region.

The Islamic Republic of Iran emerges, after all, strengthened by this latest act of unjustified aggression, and its response is consistent with defending its very existence under threat. Moreover, its leadership could demand, this time with excellent justification, nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the relentless attacks from a country that already quietly possesses them, amidst general indifference.

To be in line with the current mainstream and to paraphrase one of NATO and E.U. country Ministers, international law is only valid up to a certain point when one’s life is at stake!