World Conflicts: what we see is an exercise of imperial power and control

Across the world people are being killed in an exercise imperial and colonial power. In 1953, the path towards democracy in Iran was killed by the United States and by Britain. They both wanted Iranian oil and gas resources but a democratic regime stood on their way. Without hesitation, United States and Britain distabilized Iran and appointed the Shah as ruler of Iran. 

A puppet regime was the perfect solution to satisfy American and British greed, but this was not going to last. With the rise of the Islamic Revolution, the Shah was deposed and a theocratic regime took over control of Iran.

The plan has always been to steel Iran´s resources and the present war by proxy against Iran is very much part of the plan. The criminal regime that rules Israel has no qualms in going around mass bombing and mass murdering. So the unprovoked attack against Iran comes as no surprise. It has been planned all along. Did they do the same about Iraq? Of course they did, but it backfired. It totally destabilized Iraq and produced a wave of violence that goes beyond the borders of Iraq.

Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that a war with several fronts was serious mistake and it was precisely a war on several fronts that brought the demise of National Socialist Germany. As the Roman Empire and many other empire before and after fell down, the so called West faces dangers that itself contributed to create.

There is a direct link between geopolitics and national politics and it goes without saying that actions on the international arena are generating consequences at national level. The words of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz were "this is the last chance for Germany". Well, he is doing everything possible to get Alternative für Deutschland elected as the new government of Germany. The more he engages Germany in a disastrous set of foreign policy actions, the sooner the rotten CDU/CSU will fall to bits. Bridges falling in Germany. Public buildings that cannot be repaired. The images of bridges falling and public buildings that cannot be repaired are the best images to represent what CDU/CSU are doing to Germany.

 

Sudan: Yet another Civil War and more problems related to migration affecting EU and United Kingdom

 

Sudan: Another ongoing Civil War and the consequences for the rest of the world

On April 15th 2025, G7 countries issued a declaration regarding an ongoing civil war in Sudan that has taken more than a 100,000 lives. The mess is not merely a Civil War as the factions involved in the conflict are getting support from external operators, thus transforming a Civil War into a Geopolitical Conflict.

The rich northern region of Sudan is inhabited by Arabs and Muslims and the poor souuthern region of the country is inhabited by Christians. Oil and Gold are very much part of the picture.

After Sudan became independent, after being part of a protectorate shared by Egypt and the United Kingdom, the country endured a dictatorship and now, since 2023, has been the scenario of a bloody civil war.

Of course, Sudan is a huge market for the illegal weapons trade. A Civil War is de facto a market for selling weapons and this creates a financial incentive for organised crime to earn vast amounts of money.

As any conflict does, it generates vast numbers of refugees that have been flocking to Europe and one of the countries affected is Britain. Some of them seen as refugees are economic migrants that are draining national economies that offer welfare support. This complicates even more the already complex situations affecting Western Europe. Money is being spent as welfare payments and monies are being spent to support those who flee to neighbouring countries and there are even aid organisations operating inside Sudan. Looking at the geographic location of Sudan, we see that south of Sudan we find the Democratic Republic of Congo where another military conflict is taking place. Conflicts can spread into other countries that themselves have been suffering from internal conflicts.

So there are massacres everywhere. Just across the Red Sea we have got Palestine, Lebanon and Syria where there are also ongoing armed conflicts and there is also the potential of new conflicts spreading across the Middle East and Asia Minor. And there is also the very possible surge of armed struggles in Asia as economic wars could turn into armed conflict between big operators.

Israel vs Iran: is this the real show?

 Is Israel versus Iran the real show?

We hear the news and see mass media flooded with articles about the dangers of widespread war in the Middle East and Asia Minor. We hear the news about North Koreans joining the fight in Ukraine. It is difficult to ascertain the real dimension of what we have been told. 

The real issue of widespred war in the Middle East and Asia Minor are not Israel or Iran, for that matter. The real issue are the vast amounts of oil and gas spread across the entire region. Kuwair, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and so forth. If the Middle East and Asia Minor were to go up in smoke this will be a catastrophe for the world economy as a whole and there would be massive political consequences.

Both Israel and Iran have to play according to the rules. The United States of America might care about Iran, but the USA cares more about money and as long as money is being made the lives of hundreds of thousands don't matter at all, but the monies being made by shareholders matter more than human lives.

As long as the business of war keeps going and does not get out of control threatening the value of shares it is business as usual. Don't attack nuclear facilities! Don't attack oil reserves! Don't do anything that could ruin the business of war. Both Israel and Iran have to play for their own public and therefore they have to do something to prove that they are doing something.

We are dealing with Jews that do not give a damn about Jews, people for whom their own people matter very little as long as they get what they want. We are dealing with the Bernie Madoffs of geopolitics. Benjamin Netanyahu is a Bernie Madoff of geopolitics. The massacres carried out by Israel will continue. Israel has a license to kill as long as the business of war goes on as usual and monies are being made, but the Bernie Madoff also know that there are limitations. When Iran threatens to attack all those who help Israel there are direct references to oil and gas countries in the region. So any action against Iran has to be limited not to push Iran to attack the real targets in the Middle East and Asia Minor. We know how things are now under the present US Administration and I reckon that things will not change dramatically under a new US Administration because the interests are the same and the people actually running the circus are the same.

With regards to North Korea, I reckon that Ukraine is for North Korea what the Spain's Civil War was for the Wehrmacht: a training ground. North Korea has been in isolation and has not had any opporunity to test its Army in real battles. Although the number of North Korean troops is minimal, Ukraine can provide valuable opportunities. It also sends the message of unity: boys, we are all in it together. Military cooperation at every level. About 3,000 North Korean troops will not make any major difference in the conduct of the war, from a Russian standpoint as the Russian Federation has mobilized hundreds of thousands of troops.

Much of what Western politicians say is no more than chit chat, a propaganda effort to justify the existence of people who are absolutely irrelevant. NATO is a business to keep money rolling in for shareholders. Any monies that go into the pockets of shareholders are not monies that serve the general public. They are not invested in health, education, transport, infra-structure and so forth. The most important problems remain forever unsolved and this is why we have got the problems that we have got with more and more people facing miserable lives.  

Oil and Gas: they never learn

When in the 1970s, Britain was going under, North Sea Oil and Gas saved the day. When the war in Ukraine started the conflict led to a shortage of oil and gas that led many European countries and Britain to harsh economic realities.

Now, Britain has a Labour government that is bent on taxing oil and gas companies to the hilt. Companies pay almost 80% as taxes. There comes a point when exploration and production costs are no longer sustainable and the natural consequence is that the oil and gas business can become no longer viable. We already have the experience of what happened to British shipyards that could not remain competitive. They went under. They could not survive.

Now, we have a vociferous government that is bent in getting Britain into several wars, wars that could make oil and gas unattainable, unreachable. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and others happen to be in a region that could be engulfed by war and if that happens access to oil and gas produced in such region will no longer be a possibility. What will happen then? What happened before when we had no access to oil and gas?

The British Prime Minister that does not know what a woman is believes that carbon capture is energy production. The level of stupidity has risen exponentially. He talks about alternatives. Well, private business might not be interested in such alternatives when they don't make sense for business. In fact, in recent times that been public tenders and the private sector showed no interest in bidding.

It could be the case that everything will have to be financed mostly with public monies coming from taxation and not with private investment. But in the meantime, while the British governent struggles to transform dreams into reality we might find ourselves facing blackouts and mass unemployment should there be a military conflict that prevents from having access to present energy sources. 

If Israel persists, things will be worse for all concerned

 

If Israel persists in its attempts to provoke Iran, economies around the world will suffer and the chances of a widespread all out war will increase.

The Middle East is still one of the richest nations when it comes to energy resources that most countries in the world need. If for whatever reason, the Middle East ceases to be what it is in terms of energy resources, energy prices worldwide will skyrocket and world economies that are now on the brink or already in crisis will fall apart with tragic social and political consequences.

The Red Sea and the Suez Canal are still key areas for world energy and world trade. Already insurance premiums in certain parts of the wold are rising - if a region is seen as dangerous, then transport across the said region will cost more in accordance to the danger. If an oil cargo is sunk then the spread of oil and damages to sea life and the environment will be added to financial costs. But there are also other risks that must be taken into consideration. If the Jordan River were to be poisoned, a vital supply of water for local and regional populations will be compromised. You can have as many weapons you could possibly have, but the absence of drinkable water can make any amount of weapons absolutely useless. Chemical or biological contamination could render habited areas uninhabitable. Water is a make or break resource. When one country threatens to use a harsher response, you don't forcefully think about weapons or troops. You must think about vital resources and if you cannot protect vital resources then your country has no future at all. For Israel, no amount of American aide can replace water. Without usable water, Israel or any other country will be finished.

Israel/Iran: another chapter. Israel deliberately provoked Iran

 

Israel deliberately provoked Iran. It was Israel that targetted research Iranian installations in Iran some years ago and has always had on its agenda a direct attack against Iran.

Iran chose to respond moderately and pre-announced the launching of drones and missiles to minimize the number of potential casualties. This was a message to deter Israel from continuing a murderous campaign in Palestine and against its neighbours.

The next chapter has not been written. It will depend on Israeli actions in the near future. Nostradamus predicted a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East as the start of World War Three. Will it come to pass?

Iran seizes a ship heading towards Israel, a measured response

 

After a murderous Jewish attack that killed Iranian diplomats in Syria, Iran promised retaliation. Up to now it has not been a violent attack. In fact, Iran seized a ship transport cargo for Israel.

Until now, Iranian actions have been measured, controlled, very much unlike Jewish actions that led to death of more than 36,000 men, women and children, adding to the toll the assassination of aid workers, journalists and UN personnel.

We don't what the end of the saga will be, but there are some indications that in Israel all is not well. Orthodox Jews, traditional exempt from military service, are now under pressure to get involved and thi is leading to internal conflict in Israel and beyond.

The actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and of those who support him are promoting anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish sentiments across the world. American Senador Chuck Shumer, himself of Jewish ancestry, called for the resignation of Benjamin Netanyhu whose actions are now forcing the US government to deal with disaster management. A mere issue of numbers tells us that should there be a widespread conflict in the Arab World, the survival of Israel cannot be guaranteed. This is the direct consequence of the massacres and ethnic cleaning operations carried out by the present Israel government.

Palestine: Present troubles were triggered by the United Kingdom

Until 1948, Palestine was Palestine, but then Britain intervened and troubles began. After tne initial partition of Palestine, Israel went on swallowing bits and pieces of whatever was left of Palestine and this could only come at a price: a series of wars and atrocities that led to what is happening right now. Western powers completely ignored the local populations and newcomers from all over Europe settled down in what is now Israel. Present inhabitants mainly came from Eastern Europe and fron the then Soviet Union. Instead of integrating with the local populations, they brought their own customs and their own laws and their own systems of Apartheid in which local inhabitants were treated as second or third class citizens. Those who did not want to submit to the powers of the newcomers were isolated in ghettos that we know now as 'the occupied territories'. In fact, the whole of Palestine is 'occupied territories'.

British imperial myopia led to decades of atrocities and later on British mypia was replaced by American myopia and tragedies became a normal occurrence. We can talk about natural divisions and confrontations in the Middle East and Asia Minor, but we must also talk about how Western Powers benefitted from those divisions and confrontations to exploit natural resources that fed the industrial apparatus of the Developed World. For the USA, Britain and others people did not count at all. All they cared about was oil and their own geopolitical interests. They, the supposed heroes of Democracy, have no hesitation when supporting the exploitation of local populations by tyrannical rules. Tyrannical rulers only bother them if they are tyrannical rulers that they cannot control. As long as Saddam Hussein followed the diktats of the USA, he was a good dictator. The moment he turned againt US interests, he had to be eliminated. The same rules applied and apply to other regimes across the world. 

In Latin America, Henry Kissinger was the big mover of the so called Condor Plan, a system of cooperation between Latin American military dictatorships. The USA trained killers that terrorized their own peoples and torture and murder became commonplace with the full support of the US State Department. Now, President Biden talks about 'full support for Israel'. He does not even bother to mention that there are two sides in the conflict, but it is understandable since US has only cared for one side of those in the conflict. The USA does not give a damn about justice and human rights and this is easy to understand since certain peoples are not even seen as human beings. Those who are not part of the US geopolitical calculations do not exist and are totally expendable.

  

Democrats have two houses of Congress and Biden fails to push legislation through?

 

President Biden in the first two years of his presidential mandate fails to push legislation through Congress despite having majorities in both houses.

He travelled to Saudi Arabia to persuade Saudi Arabia to produce more oil to lower market prices, failed to persuade Saudi Arabia and managed to push up oil prices.

And what will happen in the mid-term elections? Will Democrats lose legislative control with President Biden turning himself into a lame duck President?

This is what America has to face at a very dangerous time in its history.

On the other side of the Atlantic, President Zelenskiy cannot trust his own intellgence officers and sacked none other than the chief intelligence official saying that Ukrainian intelligence services have been infiltrated and this is happening during an ongoing military conflict that Ukraine is losing despite the best propaganda efforts of the BBC, SKY, CNN and other Western media that want to maintain the 'Stalingrad ilusion of a winning Wehrmacht' but this time in Ukraine.

As temperatures soar we might be inclined to forget that temperatures will fall and that Europe will pay a very high price for the so called energy crisis and it is not going to be merely about economics, and issue that is already generating social unrest and will ultimately lead to political crisis and more.

If things don't change soon, this will be the Democrats' Vietnam. Jimmy Carter lost the opportunity of a second presidential mandate because of Iran and the failed rescue attempt of the hostages in Teheran. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was a clear indication that the present American government is not on top of its briefing. It was a popularity disaster as well as a military disaster. Could yet another crisis - this time a financial crisis - sink the Democrats' ship and open to the way to a return of the Republican Party?  

Einstein on Ukraine: Doing the same over and over again expecting to get different results is the definition of insanity.

 Dear Helen Hayes MP,

Thank for your prompt reply. I must say that in terms of what came first and what happened second, I do disagree with you. Right after the point when the Soviet Union came to an end and Ukraine returned nuclear weapons, everything was alright. Ukraine was facilitating passage of gas and oil from the Russian Federation to the rest of Europe, consuming Russian gas and oil itself and paying for the delivery of gas and oil that it consumed.

The second stage was the time when it became clear that the economic situation was not the best and some Ukrainian oligarchs were shown to be benefitting while the rest of Ukraine was suffering.

The third stage when payments for gas and oil were not made, the Russian Federation asked for payments that were not forthcoming and the political situation become turbulent and made worse by American politicians and EU politicians that saw an opportunity to damage the relationship with the Russian Federation and this we saw on the streets, is on record and it includes records of pseudo demonstrators that were paid to demonstrate.

The fourth stage was the rise of the paramilitaries that with or without authorization of the central government of Ukraine started to alienate ethnic Russians.

The fifth stage was the actual rise of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine when nothing was done to deter paramilitaries and ethnic Russian had to arm themselves and ultimately declared independence. Even at this point in time, they wanted autonomy, but not total separation from Ukraine. It would have been up to the Ukrainian government to tackle the paramilitaries to prevent a civil war.

For years on end, about eight years, the Ukrainian government could have used whatever degree of authority it had to impose the rule of law and prevent the actions of the paramilitaries.

Instead of providing support to bring the situation under control, the West aka USA used Ukraine as part of its anti-Russian strategy. It was done with Iran because Iran at the time was a close ally of the Russian Federation since the Russian Federation provided nuclear fuel for Iranian reactors and it was done in Syria that was also a close ally of the Russian Federation.

Iraq used to be a buffer zone. In fact, Iraq itself was used before against Iran and at the time the West looked the other way when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. What happened was that with Iraq out of the way the whole balance in the Middle East changed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraq flee Iraq after the American bombardment and ended up in Turkey, in Lebanon, in Syria – to name a few places. With Iraq out of the way, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel started their quest to fill up the gaps to create a new status quo. What happens in Yemen is very much part of the same game with Britain, Saudi Arabia and USA cooperating with each creating one of the worst human catastrophes because of their conflict with pro-Iranian forces.

So the issues of refugees is not new. It started big way with the disappearance of Iraq and of Libya as buffer zones. Nowadays, the mass media have blamed Belarus from the refugee flood. Let’s not forget that at one point EU was paying Turkey to prevent the waves of refugees desperate to reach Europe.

President Reagan promised Mikhail Gorbachev that with the Berlin Wall gone there would be no further expansion towards the East. Promises that were not fulfilled. Expansion continued apace with the threat of missiles right across the borders of the Russian Federation. What happened with Ukraine was the trigger, but it was not unexpected. The Russian Federation spoke about red lines that were crossed one after another, completely disregarding the concerns of the Russian Federation. Instead of delivering what had been promised, the so-called West – aka USA started to implement sanctions after sanctions and this was rubbing salt in an open wound.

Nothing has changed and the same failing strategies of imposing sanctions go on, antagonizing the Russian Federation ever more.

With regards to energy, despite the conflict in Ukraine, the Russian Federation continues to pump oil and gas towards European countries via Ukraine. Oil prices and gas prices are rising and will keep rising and we will soon see political changes not just in Europe, but most importantly in developing countries that can ill afford the rising costs of energy. This happens at very bad time when we are still recovering after two years of a pandemic that has generated vast financial damages.

We had a choice of bringing about changes via increased trade and development and now we are back again implement the policy of guns. The new German Chancellor speaks about increasing Germany’s defence budget by investing not less than 200 billion Euro. How is this going to work? It is going to pump up debt at the expense of everything else in a country in which there is galloping inflation. Let us remember how we got to this point. In 2017, CDU/CSU with Angela Merkel barely managed to form a coalition. She failed to form a coalition during the first round of negotiations with SPD that refuse to form a coalition. She then tried to form a coalition with FDP and Grünen and didn’t manage to do it. Then, as last resort, she managed to persuade SPD to come onboard again. That was 2017. In the recent Federal Elections, CDU/CSU collapsed from 41% to less than 25% and SPD that didn’t increase its votes was in charge of forming a coalition and did so with FDP and Grünen.  How stable such a coalition will be remains to be seen and energy costs will be a major factor.

If there is growing unemployment, the patience of AG Metal, the biggest union in Germany, will run out and support for SPD that is only represented in 11 of 16 Federal States will collapse meaning the collapse of the German coalition.

Rebuilding the German Armed Forces will not be green. It will require a lot of industrial power mainly based in fossil fuels – coal being the major German resources because Angela Merkel after the Fukushima disaster opted for dismantling German nuclear plants. If Germany becomes unstable – since Germany is the main support of the EU – the EU becomes more unstable.

The situation both in political terms and in geopolitical terms will be solved with more economic activity. Not less economy activity. Sanctions promote less economy activity. Less economic activity promotes unemployment. Unemployment promotes political instability. Political instability that the European continent does not need. You can then cross to France and see what is happening in France. The Socialists after Hollande are out of the game. What is left? Macron and two branches of the so called Far Right.

I haven’t even mentioned the Developing World. Argentina is drowning once again. More than 50 per cent of Uruguayan exports go to China. To name just these two countries, what effect do you think financial issues and the rise of energy prices will have in those two countries? They are not the worst off. Think about the others. In the 1950s and 1960s the collapse of agricultural exports as agricultural prices started to fall led to massive indebtedness followed by massive budget cuts leading to political instability followed by military regimes. Countries live in a cycle of unpayable debt and constant negotiation to refinance debts. How much so-called democratic regimes can take before we are facing another cycle of de facto regimes? In Argentina, there was a cycle of Justicialistas and Radicales. Both of them have proven to be equally ineffective. In Uruguay, the once powerful Partido Nacional and Partido Colorado have only been able to survive by forming a coalition and this is something extraordinary, and this coalition comes after the exhaustion of the so called Frente Amplio that itself is in crisis. What are the political alternatives? Is there a political alternative? What happens in Chile that was once one of the most promising countries of Latin America?

You need to look at the bigger picture. The sooner the present impasse comes to an end, the sooner sanctions are lifted, and trade re-starts in a big way, the sooner we stop talking war and start talking about economic development, the better we all will be.

Look at the big picture. What good came out of the struggle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and of other military adventures? Is the world a better place because of it? Have you thought about Lebanon and the human tragedy that Lebanon is today?

We keep following the same failed strategies of the US that it itself is a mess with Congress having to pass again and again legislation to increase borrowing to prevent paralysis of the entire Administration and ensuing chaos. Is this the model that we want Britain to follow? Is this the model that we want Europe to follow?

I keep repeating myself and saying that Britain needs its own independent Foreign Policy. We voted for Brexit not to be attached to the designs of the European Union, we talk about trade opportunities, and the first thing we do is to use the same past failed recipes that lead to confrontation, waste, and social chaos.

As Paul Samuelson used to say, the choice is between butter and cannons.

Best regards

Karl Hohenstauffen

Nazanin: British outside Iran, but Iranian in her country of birth

The time to understand the way International Law works is long overdue. To hear a British minister talking about Iran using British citizens as hostages when in fact they are Iranian and hold British citizenship because of double nationality is appalling. 

Such kind of statements completely misrepresent what is actually going on. Iran is duly entitled to deal with its own citizens. While in Iran, British citizens born in Iran are de facto Iranian and not British. 

With regards to obligations Britain has regarding Iran, it is well known that Britain owes monies to Iran, monies that Britain is mandated to pay. This has been going on for ages and it is an issue that has poisoned British/Iranian relationships. Is it due to geopolitics? Is Britain failing to comply with international obligations contracted with Iran because of geopolitical considerations? 

It is thought that if Britain paid its debts Iranian attitudes would change, but what has happened for decades hasn't helped. Iran has been under siege and British history of interventions in Middle East and Asia Minor has made matters a lot worse. Since the fall of the Shah of Iran, USA and Britain have been involved in actions against Iran. They used Irak under Saddam Hussein to wage a chemical war against Iran because Iran dared to claim ownership of its oil resources. They never forgave Iran for daring to stand as an independent country.

When USA and Britain decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they created a vacuum that is now being filled up by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran with other countries being affected in the whole process. A mass exodus created by Britain and the USA led to neighbouring countries being flooded with refugees and this completely destabilized the entire region. The conflict in Syria very much started with the so called Arab Spring that both Britain and the USA promoted. The conflict in Yemen is perhaps and without perhaps the biggest tragedy that Britain and the USA actively contributed to create. What happened in Libya, what happened in Egypt, what is happening in Syria, what is happening in Yemen, what is happening in Lebanon and what is about to happen in Jordan could have been avoided. 

A knee-jerk reaction led to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and this was followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and what happened then is history leading to the mess we are in nowadays.

When we look for an explanation of why Iran could ever want to have nuclear weapons, the explanation is self-evident. Iran would look for nuclear weapons to deter any aggressor. Isn't this the explanation or justification for Britain to have its Nuclear Deterrent. Well, Iran is also entitled to have its Nuclear Deterrent to protect itself for external aggression.

In order to lower tensions, Britain will have to change its attitudes towards Iran. Paying debts could be a first step in the right direction. Britain will have to change its attitudes towards Saudi Arabia to reassure other players in the Middle East and Asia Minor that Britain will not support aggression against Iran and Britain will not be involved in wars by proxy like the ongoing conflict in Yemen. All regime-changing attempts must come to an end. All military interventions on foreign soil must come to an end. All demonizing campaigns by the political establishment and the mass media must come to an end. All economic warfare must come to an end. Normalization of relationships is the best way to prevent cases like the case of Nazanin from ever happening again.

 

Britain is committing suicide

The announcement in the House of Commons that Britain is going to proceed to disarm itself coincides with increases of numbers and combat readines in China, in Russia and elsewhere. What the announcement made by Ben Wallace MP - Secretary of Defense - shows is that Britain has failed to recruit enough numbers. In a desperate effort to increase conscription, there was an attempt to contract forces from overseas to beef up the numbers in the United Kingdom. It also failed and now to try and hide the fact that not enough able men and women show any interest in joining British Armed Forces or are physically fit to join British Armed Forces, the Secretary of State brought to the House of Commons a bill that is nothing more than the official acceptance of the fact that Britain is in trouble. 

Immigration does not provide Britain the right candidates for its Armed Forces. There is an inherent risk of bringing into the Armed Forces individuals whose values, religion and ideology together with the fact that they have roots in countries Britain could be forced to engage in wars make them a liability.

As events in Manchester, in London and in other cities have proven, even those born and bred in Britain show no allegiance to Britain. They even choose to travel abroad to join the enemies of Britain.

In 1982, Margaret Thatcher made a mistake that proved to be catastrophic in spite of the fact that Britain managed to expel Argentinian forces from the South Atlantic islands. It came at a huge cost. Deprived of enough airpower, Britain sent British troops to their death to be killed before they even landed on the islands. Argentina was not a major player. It was not a naval power, its armed forces were made up mainly of conscripts that joined at a late hour and only had its Airforce as a major asset with missiles provided by Israel and France.

Today, the dangers are much greater. Britain's enemies very well know Britain's weaknesses. Whether there is Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Yemen - of all places, Britain can only play second fiddle to American forces and American capabilities.

Ben Wallace MP's idea is basically wars by proxy using elements on the ground or supporting elements on the ground. No one rational would think that you can face the world in a real conflict with merely 70,000 men and women under flag. Lower number of men and women under flag dramatically increases the risk of a rising number of casualties should a real conflict occur. Ben Wallace MP also underestimates the risk of internal operations in Britain by individuals acting as proxy forces for foreign countries. What are the potential targets? British nuclear reactors, Communications and Transport to name a few. 

Some time ago, Dame Stella Rimmington, then head of MI5 stated loudly and clearly that the Security Services didn't have the necessary manpower to follow every lead and that people who were potential risks for Britain were going under the radar. In real war, Britain used commandos with relative success. The actions of foreign commandos in the United Kingdom is not unthinkable in a world with very open borders. In a then European Union with extremely porous borders and easy access to passports in which people could travel across the continent without any controls, it was reasonable to expect that potential aggressors would go easily undetected.

But even today, with Britain out of the EU, the danger is considerable. For the moment, attacks have been against civilians by individuals driven by hatred and a desire for revenge or trying to make a point. Britain still has to face a deliberately planned military attack from within against key targets. If terrorists had targetted, for example, the London Underground by flooding tunnels, instead of tens of victims, we would be potentially talking about hundreds of thousands dead on a busy day. Such kind of attack is not inconceivable given the fact that despite permanent efforts, the underground system is prone to flooding.

Ben Wallace MP's approach to defense is extremely short-sighted. Let's be reminded of the words of Sergei Ivanov, once again.: wars in Europe will be carried out with conventional weapons. The use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable because it would involve mass destruction of all sides. 

The build up of military capabilities in the Sea of China is not about nuclear weapons. It is about conventional forces. Any aggression would become a fait accompli because Western Nations couldn't possibly commit enough forces to prevent or to reverse any aggression. This is why in recent years, we only hear about economic sanctions and counter economic sanctions and a war of words. 

Dear Ben Wallace MP,

You might think that reducing the number of troops make good sense because you intend to carry on waging wars by proxy using local combatants or guerrillas to do the job and you might think that this strategy can be maintained for ever and ever. But in the real world it doesn’t work.

You might be too young to remember what happened in 1982, right before the Argentine invasion. Margaret Thatcher was mothballing the British Armed Forces. In a panic, Britain had to rethink the strategy overnight and had not been the for the Harrier Jump Jets Britain would have lost the war in the South Atlantic because after Argentina captured the one and only airstrip on the islands there were no available airstrips to provide British forces the crucial air cover that they needed. Now again, you are making the same mistake and there is talk again of potential trouble in the South Atlantic. How are you going to react if you don’t have the means to do the job? In a few years, Britain lost about 30,000 troops after successive reductions. How are you going to manage in a real conflict?

I know you have been having trouble recruiting new personnel. Most of those who come forward to join the Armed Forces are not fit for purpose. This is why the Conservative government launched a scheme aimed at recruiting personnel from overseas. It hasn’t worked either. Now, you talk about reducing then level of British Armed Forces by natural wastage – you were asked in Parliament about redundancies and you said that redundancies were going to be avoided by depending only on natural wastage when people leave the Armed Forces without being pushed out.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently announced an increase of 44% of  nuclear missiles, but this doesn’t change the reality that nuclear missiles are a weapon that will only be used when everything else has failed. I bring to your attention the words of Sergei Ivanov who said that any conflict in Europe – and presumably elsewhere – will still be fought with conventional forces. You know as well as I know that nothing is won until the ground is secured. Lack of enough manpower leads to bigger casualty numbers and lack of effectiveness.

You talk about standing up to China. How are you going to do that when China mobilizes its military machine? Talk about the Sea of China and the territorial disputes between China and India related to rich oil deposits. Talk about the Philippines that recently expressed alarm when vast numbers of Chinese ships got closer to their shores as part of a Chinese effort to assert its predominance in the region? Drones? Un-manned aircraft? Nuclear missiles?

When we came out of the EU, you and your colleagues spoke about enforcing Britain’s rights in British territorial waters? How are you going to do that? Do you have enough ships to patrol British waters?

For years and years, the Conservative Party has had a tendency to cut down while talking about increasing investment to keep up with NATO quotas.

You only have to look at the trends in the East to understand that you are saving the penny and losing the pound and you are doing it in a way that will cost lives.

They say that Keir Starmer is failing as Labour Party leader because he is not offering effective Opposition. I am copying this message to Helen Hayes and to Keir Starmer as Leader of the Opposition. You are living Britain wide open. You don’t face real conflicts with commandos or elite troops only.  It is said that Britain is less prepared today than Britain was prepared on the eve of World War Two.

When it comes to other issues, like the movement towards independence in Scotland, the wave of discontent in Scotland has something to do with Conservative policies in Scotland regarding defence. It was called the amalgamation of British regiments when regiments that were the pride and honour of Scotland and had a long record in history books were wiped out by Margaret Thatcher. Once, again, saving the penny and losing the pound and threatening to partition the United Kingdom. It was David Cameron that moved military contracts from Portsmouth to Scotland to try to push away the danger of a successful vote for independence in Scotland.

You are barely 50 years of age. You have no real memories of the process that led to rising votes in favour of Scottish independence. You have no real memories of the conflict in the South Atlantic and about the disadvantages that the British fleet faced in the South Atlantic. Do you know why British troops were killed before they ever set foot on the islands? Lack of air cover.

Helen Hayes might not be aware of it. I saw it when it happened. The Sir Galahad and other ships were easy prey of the Argentine Airforce because there was no air cover available. This brings memories of another military disaster that took place under a Conservative government. Have you about the history of the Royal Navy and the sinking of the Prince of Wales by the Japanese air force that used torpedo planes against British ships that went to war without air cover?

Have you read about what happened in Narvik, Norway? Are you aware of why it happened? It happened because British troops went to Norway without air cover and without artillery. They were attacked by the Wermacht from the sea, on land and from the air. This led to the downfall of Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister. If anything happens in the South Atlantic or elsewhere that is remotely similar to what happened in Narvik, you will only have yourself to blame.

Don’t play with British lives. Don’t risk British lives by reducing British military capabilities.

 

Targetted assassinations: Murdering an Iranian scientist is not a step towards peace

We usually hear people talking about the 1930s and 1940s. Well, the 1930s and 1940s have not left us. We are in the 1930s and 1940s. Political radicalisation. streets turned into battlefields, education centres transformed into indoctrination centres, corrupt Judiciary, politicized Police forces and targetted political assassination.

Social disintegration, economic stagnation and massive intrusion into peoples' private lives are a recipe for disaster. When those running a country like Israel think that it is acceptable and desirable to kill a foreign scientist in his own country of birth then triggers appear. As action is followed by reaction, this is just the beginning of a tit for tat progression because of which nobody is safe.

The virus of social disintegration is spreading faster than Covid-19. Wars within nations will be followed by wars between nations. Police brutality is also spreading and in countries like France the state of disarray is so obvious that the French government thinks that the best solution is to put the rubbish under the carpet by trying to hide abuses of authority. The French government is seeking to criminalise those who tell the truth about what is actually happening in France. Liberté, égalité and fraternité are no more. They have been replaced by water cannons and naked aggression. 

The spirit of Lessez-faire, lessez-passer used to justify the assassination of a foreign scientist means that killing is alright because it justifies the ends. This will also apply to what happens within countries. Democracy in handcuffs. 

 

Crisis in the West is very good news for China

Crisis in the West is very good news for China

As chaos spreads in so called Western countries, China advances apace towards the great opening. China works long term and it has the numbers and the brains to do what is needed to ensure that the Twenty-First Century belongs to China.

China has a powerful weapon that Western countries have been rapidly losing: racial homogeneity that fuels strong Nationalism.

In the coming months, as Western countries face social, politic and economic disintegration, China will be pushing forward to firstly restore its territorial unity by taking total control of Hong Kong and taking over Taiwan. 

The next stage is to take control of its territorial waters and exercising total sovereighty coupled with military expansion. The Sea of China is a crucial theatre and China - like Japan before it - will be exerting pressure on India and its neighbouring countries. One by one, neighbouring countries will be feeling the pressure.

In the meantime, Western countries weakened socially, politically and economically in a world in which men pretend to be women and women pretend to be men will soon lose the capability to defend themselves. Stong armies can only be supported by strong economies and Western countries wealth is merely an illusion based on mountains of debt both private and public.

All Western countries can do is to protest in vain because China will do what China wants to do. China is no Syria. China is not Iran. China has the capablity to use nuclear weapons and, if the sheer number of its military is not employed, China will use its nuclear power without hesitation. China needs Lebensraum and China needs vital resources and China will take territory and the resources that come with territory.

The mentally disabled politicians of the West and those who believe in them will continue their labour of destruction of Western economies, will destroy Western national identities, will destroy racial homogeneity and are planting the seeds of the fall of the Western World.

Brexit: January 31st 2020 11pm London

Brexit: January 31st 2020 11pm London

Tonight is the night. After years or wranggling, a Referendum and two General Elections, Britain has come a long way. What next? Next is decision time about the future relationship with both the EU and the USA plus dramatic geopolitical stances. Massive repositioning is on the way. This is about Iran, China, and the Russian Federation. From now on, the old status quo is on the way out.

Germany stood firm to protect its national interests linked to an pipeline that will bring oil and gas to Germany directly from the Russian Federation. The 5G revolution is very much part a key piece of geopolitical struggles. Every step of the way new issues will arise that will not lead to unity but to divisions. Old alliances are being tested to the limit.

The outome of the present struggles will define a new status quo in which there will be new political realities. Old allegiances will be no more. National interests will prevail. The creation of new defensive/offensive structures is already ongoing. The future of NATO is by no means guaranteed. Pesco is not just a new defensive/offensive project. It is much more than that. It is a geopolitical statement. Very much promoted by Germany and France, Pesco brings NATO into question.

And then, threre is the economics war. While USA applies sanctions against the Russian Federation, China and Iran, the tariffs and tax confrontations between USA and EU are the equivalent of sanctions. 

 

2019 Iran/USA: Nothing new, but merely the historical consequence

2019 Iran/USA: Nothing new but the historical consequence

Qasem Soleimaini 

The conflict between Iran and the USA started a long time ago. In 1953 there was a coup d'état in Iran organized by the United States and the United Kingdom. Democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was deposed and the USA and the UK supported Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as monarchical ruler of Iran.

USA and UK wanted a puppet that they could control to manage Iranian mineral resources. The Shah as Reza Pahlavi was known lasted until 1979 when an Islamic Revolution deposed the Western puppet and replaced him with a theocratical regime that has runned Iran until this day.

The Iranian Revolution happened during Jimmy Carter's Presidency and it was at that time that the revolutionaries took over the US Embassy in Teheran and kept hostages and this remarkably determined the outcome of the US Presidential Election of 1980. The Democrats led by Jimmy Carter were literally wiped out. Jimmy Carter got 49 electoral votes while his Republican counterpart Ronald Reagan got 489. It was a disaster for the Democratic Party and something they never forgot. Having lost control of Iran, the USA embarked in a series of foreign politicies that included supporting Saddam Hussein and the use of chemical warfare against Iran by Saddam Hussein.

But sooner than later, the US Establishment decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein after it became clear that they could no longer control Saddam Hussein. The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was landmark. Under a mandate of the Organisation of the United Nations, a military operation was launched and ultimately served to contraint Iraq within its borders but also imposed restriction zones that Saddam Hussein and his regime couldn't possibly tolerate. As sooner as Iraqi forces were forced to withdraw from Kuwait the planning started to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This effectively happened in another military operation without an UN mandate. American and British forces dismantled the power structure in Iraq that spiralled out of control. The state of disarray led to the rise of Islamic State that was effectively created by the power vacuum that was the direct consequence of the invasion of 2003.

With the disappearance of Iraq as buffer zone, other regional powers strived to feel up the space that Iraq no longer commanded. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran are now the new players and most of the conflicts in the region were the direct consequence of US and UK military actions. The state of imbalance affected Africa Middle East and Asia Minor.

With every additional US/UK intervention, the situation was made worse and when US and UK proved unable to take control then conflicts became the norm. To sum up, US belligerance against Iran started a long time ago when US and UK acting together destroyed a democratic opening in Iran and replaced it with a monarchical puppet that couldn't last long. Sunni and Shia are coming together and this has significant implications with regards to any controlling attempt by Western powers. We are not in the 1800s. We are not in the 1900s. The world has changed. The bipolarity of the 1950s has been replaced with a multipolarity. Former colonies are no longer willing to be treated as colonies or puppet states. The new cowboys haven't been able to understand that the new indians are not just more numerous but also better prepared and that in the present context the new cowboys could end like General Custer.

 

Brexit, Government, Parliament and the Courts: And now what?

Brexit, Government, Parliament and the Courts: And now what?

The solution implemented by David Cameron as Prime Minister to have a stable Parliament in coalition with Lib Dems - Fixed Term Parliament Act - has turned into a nightmare that has led to a political. crisis of major proportions. In a catch 22 situation, both sides of the argument have ended up in the courts to try and find a way out while at the same time whatever is left of a democratic system is simply falling apart. 

A Remain Parliament was always going to resort to legal tricks not to respect the will of the Electorate that voted to get Britain out of the European Union. Despite several attempts by the British Prime Minister to call a General Election, Parliament used the Fixed Term Parliament to prevent a General Election and this is the Parliament that calls itself Democratic.

The Scottish Court was always going to play the game in favour of SNP. It remains to be seen what will be the position of an United Kingdom Courts. The verdict is expected to be announced on Tuesday next week. The Fixed Term Parliament Act has destroyed separation of powers and is creating a climate of confrontation that at the moment is about heated arguments but could easily turn into violent confrontation.

Today, the reasons why Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want a General Election - although he talks about it but doesn't want to vote for it - became apparent once again when John Watson - Labour Party Deputy Leader - contradicted the Labour Leader and was attacked by from within the Labour Party. How many Labour Parties there are? Who knows? And this is the Labour Party that according to some of its representatives aspires to govern Britain.

A Labour Party that is anti-Semitic, supporter of terrorist organisations including the IRA, that despises Britain's greatest ally - the United States of America - and stands to defend and protect its foes is a recipe for disaster both nationally and internationally.

Just a few days ago, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Number 10 Downing Street. Can you imagine British/Israeli relations with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister? British weapons for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah? Partition of the United Kingdom and unification of Ireland? 

The SNP's only agenda is to cause as much disruption as possible - even Civil War - because the SNP couldn't care less about Britain. SNP wants to partition Britain to get Scottish Independence. It is going to take advantage of every British crisis to get its way.

What will happen next week? Well, we don't know what will happen tomorrow or the day after. Remember the old Yugoslavia.    

With Angela Merkel's tremor, German faces political tremors

With Angela Merkel's tremor, German faces political tremors

There is fantasy and there is political reality. At ta time when the EU faces extraordinary challenges, to see the German Leader going through what was justified as dehidration is extremely worrying, no matter what they say to justify what is in plein view.

The EU faces a potentially extraordinarily damaging set of circumstances. The struggle with the USA in terms of economics, the upheaval affecting several key EU countries and also some later newcomers into the EU, the prospect of a war in Asia Minor and the Middle East that could make other conflicts looks like minor incidents and the set of circumstances that have led to the loss of faith in so called centre parties are very much part of the picture.

None of those set to replace Angela Merkel is well known enough or has the necessary profile to keep the German ruling coalition together. Let us remember how the present coalition was born. In 2017, the CDU/CSU won a very narrow victory with an ever smaller majority. Because of the reluctance of SPD to form a coaltion after SPD was severely beaten, Angela Merkel had to go for FPD and Grünne. When her attempt to form a coalition with |FPD and Grünne, in despair, she went back to SPD that seeing that the absence of a coalition would lead to yet another Federal Election in which much more could be lost decided to agree terms with Angela Merkel. After that, came several regional elections - one in Bavaria and another one in Hesse where CDU, CSU and SPD lost ever more ground for the benefit of Alternative für Deutschland and Grünne.

As a consequence of loss after loss, Angela Merkel agreed to resign as CDU Leader while remaining German Chancellor until the end of her term in office. Now, the possibility of Angela Merkel having to resign as Chancellor brings back the reality of yet another Federal Election that in view of what is happening right now could lead to major electoral losses and the rise of other political forces including Alternative für Deutschland.

So what you see could herald significant political changes with enormous geopolitical implications.

Who will benefit from war in Middle East and Asia Minor and who will suffer because of it?

Who will benefit from war in Middle East and Asia Minor and who will suffer because of it?

A brief look at EU oil importers tells us that the Russian Federation produce 28.9 % of petroleum related products consumed in the European Union, followed by Norway with 12%. Around 8.9% comes from Saudi Arabia, 4.6% comes from Iraq, 4.6% comes from Azerbaijan, 6.5% comes from Kazahkstan (to name countries close to the conflict zone). About 20% of oil exports come through the straight that is going to be at the centre of a conflict between Iran and USA.

Depending on reserves and the duration of the conflict, the price escalade could and would force countries to recalculate national budgets across the European Union. The financial Tsunami that would be the direct consequence would lead to extraordinary political extremes across Europe. If you think that Democracy is already fragile, think again. What could happen would send nations towards the political abyss.

This, my friends, is the image of Armageddon and is very much a possibility should there be widespread war in the Middle East and Asia Minor. We are entering Nostradamus territory. 

Now, because of the implication of such conflict, how united will old allies be in this regard? Will economic considerations and the potential serious political repercussions be a reason to challenge old alliances? For the United States of America, such a conflict comes with the territory. The number of military bases spread across Iraq and other neighbouring countries of Iran has both a political and an economic dimension. In order to maintain its image as major Superpower, the United States cannot be seen as walking away from conflict after so many statements about 'consequences'. It comes a time when statements that are not supported with actions become not just an embarrassement but a sign of weakness.

Let's look at another issue that very much involves NATO and it is about Turkey's position as member of the alliance. Turkey recently acquired anti-missile defenses and Russian jets are on the way. Calls by the USA to prevent Turkey from acquiring Russian jets and Russian anti-missile defenses have fallen on deaf ears. President Erdogan is not going to do something that goes against Turkish interests. It is well known that Turkey is moving in to fill up a void created by what happened in Iraq and dealing with its own regional agenda that sometimes collides with the interests of the United States of America. As a member of NATO, Turkey is seen as getting too close to the Russian Federation. What can USA do about it? At the moment, it is all about talking and saying 'if you get this, we will not give you that'. Some people might be asking how reliable Turkey would be if there was a massive regional conflict.

How reliable would other members of NATO be if USA actions go against their crucial interests? Britain has been playing a waiting game not to go against agreements signed with Iran and the same attitude has been adopted by others in Continental Europe. USA has been telling Germany that Germany has to stop buying Russian oil and Russian gas. Easier said than done when 28.9% of energy supplies to the European Union come from the Russian Federation. I reckon that Germany and the rest of the EU will be reluctant to engage or support any actions that could undermine their own national interests.

Going farther East, China has been told by the USA that it has to protect its own ships going through waters that could be in the conflict zone if there is war against Iran and what about Japan? A possible confrontation in Asia Minor and in the Middle East would affect the entire world economy. It can be safely said that everybody will be affected in more ways than one and not just economically but politically. What is the Organisation of the United Nations saying about the possibility of such a conflict? Is the USA going to bypass - once again - the Organisation of the United Nations? 
 

Iran: Misreading signals and cultural misunderstandings

Iran: Misreading signals and cultural misunderstandings

The greatest defect of Western Diplomacy is the huge capacity to misread signals and the inability overcome cultural differences. The more the stakes are raised the more entrenched positions become. 

World War Two offers many examples of how bad things can be. One of the said examples involves cultural differences between Japan and Western nations. Japanese soldiers were cultural averse to any surrender. Surrender was seen as shameful, as an act of weakness. For those who shared British heritage, surrender was very much part of the game. If things were bad enough, then surrender was a way out. Those who surrendered to Japanese forces were seen as inferior and treated badly because they were seen as subhumans. When the wheels of war started moving in the opposite direction, many Japanese military and also civilians chose death. There are records of civilians who died jumping off from heights. 

The assumption is that increasing pressure on Iran, Iran will be brought to the negotiations table. Instead, it is fatally weakening moderate politicians that want an agreement and reinforcing hardliners that would choose open war instead of what they see as a surrender.

While some in Britain see a dual-national as somebody that needs rescuing, in Iran they see her as an Iranian national that has engaged in anti-Iran activities.

Geopolitical factors will make positions in Iran ever more entrenched. Increased military presence and sanctions are not fomenting generosity.