Iran and the Axis of Assistance

Well, you know, there's a whole narrative a whole narrative that has spread over the Middle East, the Israel Palestine conflict, the whole Middle East. And it's like a canvas onto which a very different picture of the situation has been painted than the reality of the situation that's underneath the canvas. And everyone talks about the situation, based on what has been painted on the canvas, and no one talks about, the reality that it's covering. And I'm talking about Iran and the so called axis of resistance. This is a carefully crafted narrative designed to obscure the reality of the region and the relationships in the region.

Look, I was 10 years old when the Iranian revolution occurred, And I was following events even at that time, news at that time. It was a big story in America, especially with The US hostages, you know, the embassy hostages and so on. So I've been listening to this narrative ever since for forty five years. We've been told for forty five years that Iran is just about to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has told us this, Iran has told us this, and America has told us this without interruption for nearly half a century.

And for at least the last twenty years, Iran has been two weeks away from possessing nuclear weapons. So in other words, supposedly, Iran and Israel have been on the brink of catastrophic total war since I was 10 years old. Well, that's quite a wide brink. No one ever stepped in to try to ease the tensions either. Isn't that something?

I mean, for half a century these two countries have been allegedly engaged in hostilities in technically a state of war. And there's never been any negotiations, you know, no memorandums of understanding, no truces, no nothing. And no one, not The US, not the EU, not the United Nations, not even Jimmy Carter has ever made any attempt, to try to bring these two sides to a table, to try to take the region back from the alleged precipice of war. Now look at any other major conflict. The US and The Soviet Union during the Cold War were on the brink of nuclear annihilation, but still they found a way to negotiate.

India and Pakistan sworn enemies with nuclear weapons pointed at each other, still they sit down and talk. Even North Korea and South Korea who are technically, still at war. They've had countless negotiations, but here, with Iran and Israel, nothing for almost half a century. This is virtually unheard of, in the history of global politics. In almost any conflict and every conflict around the world when the animosity drags on for too long, international players step in, mediators step in.

They try to bring, you know, both sides to the table to try to broker some kind of understanding. If only for the for the sake of regional security, the UN, the EU, somebody comes in, but not here. There's been no major international push ever to resolve this supposed attention, not from The United States, not from Europe, not from the United Nations. Why is that? Why has no one ever tried to ease the tensions between these two nations?

And yet somehow, without any peace efforts, without any negotiations, somehow, without any attempt to avert this catastrophic war that they keep scaring us with, war has never happened either. It's remarkable. Well, I'll tell you why. Because Israel and Iran have a symbiotic relationship. Not a genuinely hostile relationship, no.

They both have a common interest, which is to divide and undermine the Arab world, and that's exactly what they've been doing for decades. This is a toxic marriage of convenience. I'm not saying that they like each other, but they're useful for each other and useful to America. Or anyway, that's the way it's been. That's that that's that's been the case for a long time.

I mean, many things are changing. As I've talked about many times, the regional and global order, world order for the past fifty years is no longer viable. And we're in a period of transition, and it's a very rough transition, and it's a very dangerous transition particularly for Iran. It's a very dangerous transition for Iran, and I'm not sure if they can transition. You know, after 1979, Iran made a very public commitment, to a particular style of government, a sectarian religious style of government.

And then they had an accompanying ethos as a nation with that, and that locked them in to a great extent on how, how they have to present themselves to the world, and how they have to interact with the world, and and in the region. You know, in the early days during the time of Khomeini, it was even more radical than it is now, relatively speaking, and maybe even more genuine than it is now. But even then, even when they presented themselves as anti West, anti Israel, anti imperialist, and so on, Even at that time, Iran was still always pragmatic and practical and practiced realpolitik. You know, for the first ten years of the so called Islamic Republic, at the very same time that they were calling for the destruction of Israel, they were buying weapons from Israel and engaged in high level, military intelligence cooperation. In fact, the more they cooperate and the more they coordinate, the more they have to proclaim their hostility.

It's a performance to mask their pragmatism. They were fighting Saddam Hussein in the nineteen eighties and buying weapons from Israel, and getting weapons from America. Sanctions notwithstanding, an anti American anti Israel rhetoric notwithstanding. In 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon, there were a lot of resistance groups fighting them in Lebanon. Sunni groups, secular groups, and other Shi'i groups.

But Iran created Hezbollah, funded them, armed them, and trained them to the hilt to where they eclipsed everyone else. This gave Iran the ability to dictate and control the resistance to Israel. It also gave them the ability to sow a sectarian division in Lebanon, radicalize the population, and exacerbate the civil war, all of which increased their influence in Lebanon, and it undermined the Sunnis, and undermined the power and the authority of the Lebanese government. I mean, fact of the matter is Hezbollah has killed many many times more Lebanese and Syrian Sunnis than they have ever killed Israelis. This is just a fact.

I mean, we were to go by the body count, we would have to conclude, that Hezbollah's main mission, has been against Sunni Muslims, not against Zionists. You know, the government of Lebanon by the way, has always traditionally historically and now been much more aligned with Saudi Arabia, and supported by Saudi Arabia, and supported by The Gulf. Iran has not really invested much in Lebanon outside of Hezbollah. In fact, Iran has primarily only been investing in militancy across the region, not in infrastructure, not in hospitals, not in business, and so forth. And that's been enough for them.

That's been enough to make them useful until now. So they were able to basically take control of opposition to Israel in Lebanon in the eighties. And then in the nineties and the early two thousands, they provided the most significant funding for Hamas in Gaza in the early days, thereby giving them control to one extent or another over the opposition to Israel there. They also funded the Islamic Jihad in Gaza at that time. So they established their their hold over opposition groups, over opposition to Israel, resistance to Israel in the North and in the South.

And then they more or less lost interest in supporting Hamas once Hamas came to power in Gaza. This this people overlooked this. When they became a government, when Hamas became a government, when the blockade was imposed, and when active resistance operations were no longer their main concern and they just had to survive, at that point, Qatar took over, and they became their main supporters. It's because of them that Hamas was even able to have an administration in Gaza for all these years. Once they posed less of a threat to Israel, Iran lost interest.

It was no longer important to them to control them. Now, you might interpret this as being because Iran was just so committed to militant resistance against Israel that when Hamas became a government and necessarily deemphasized active resistance operations, Iran was no longer interested. But you might consider the fact that between the creation of Hamas and 2007 with Iranian backing. Hamas's main method for confronting Israel was by means of suicide bombings, not by sophisticated technology. Meanwhile, Hezbollah was being armed to the teeth, while Gazan resistance fighters from Hamas and Islamic Jihad still had to strap on bombs, and deliver them with their own bodies.

Now Iran did help them get the, their first Qassam rockets, But compare the Hassan rockets with the missiles that Hezbollah has, and and that Hezbollah had at that time. No. In my opinion, it looks like Iran was controlling the resistance in Gaza, not empowering it. They were restricting the resistance. And they armed and funded Hezbollah in Lebanon to the point that they became a a a a rival state in and of themselves.

They became a parallel power structure in Lebanon, and no one else could emerge in terms of resistance. It's also worth noting that most outside funding for Gaza in terms of infrastructure, hospitals, schools, clinics, and so on, that's also come from the Gulf countries predominantly, not Iran. And the same goes for Lebanon, like I said. Spending and, investment, in terms of, things that that that promote social stability, all of that's coming from The Gulf. I'm saying that Iran has only ever acted pragmatically in the region for the purpose of increasing their own influence and undermining the stability, the unity, and the security of the Arab Sunni Muslims.

And part of that has been to gain leverage and control over the anti Israel resistance in the region. This is simply irrefutable. And in this regard, Israel's interests and Iran's interests coincide. Now, this will sound conspiratorial or maybe even insulting to Iran if you are fully and heavily invested in Iran's rhetoric and in that narrative, that they're standing against Israel and they're standing against the West and so on. This is the narrative that Iran, Israel, and America have committed to, and it gives Iran credibility which increases their influence.

And it gives Israel the perfect pretext, for their claim of being under a constant existential threat, a claim which serves the purpose, of the American military industrial complex funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into the weapons sector to protect Israel supposedly. It's a symbiotic relationship, mutually beneficial for all three of these countries, Iran, America, and Israel. Iran has been extremely pragmatic and cunning and strategic, and they've actually positioned themselves as much more useful to America and to Israel than threatening. That's why no war has ever actually broken out in fifty years despite all the hype. That's why Iraq was attacked after nine eleven instead of Iran.

Why Baghdad got shocked and awed instead of Tehran, why Saddam Hussein was the one who got hanged instead of Khamenei, and why basically delivering Iraq to Iran's sphere of influence was not an accident. All this time you thought that that The US and Israel were trying to contain Iran. No. They have observably and demonstrably done nothing but expand Iran's reach. That's not accidental because they are useful, not threatening.

Not threatening anyway to to America, not threatening to Israel, no. This is why the missile attacks, in April and this week were coordinated, were orchestrated, and were choreographed, and why they did not result in any deliberate casualties, and why very little damage was actually done, because this is a form of political or or geopolitical theater. Now having said all of that, this is just to give you an understanding, a more accurate understanding of the role that Iran has actually played in the region for the last fifty years because it's radically different from the narrative that we've all been fed for decades. However, as I have talked about many times, the global order is changing. Everybody's role in The Middle East is being altered, including Israel and including Iran.

The BRICS aligned faction of the OCGFC, as again I've mentioned many times, I've mentioned it repeatedly, they appear to be supportive of Mohammed bin Salman's vision for the Middle East, which will mean stability and end to conflict, development across the whole Arab side of the Mediterranean, and so on. Now, in my opinion, at least three, elements in the region will need to be removed for any of this to work. Elements which have, until now, defined the region. They are Zionism that has to go, militancy that has to go, and the sectarian religious regime in Iran. So for the first time in fifty years, it's actually possible that Iran might actually be in danger.

I don't think anyone seriously wants regime change in Iran to happen by means of war because the collateral regional damage will be so massive. But for the first time in half a century, it could it could really happen at this point. I personally don't think that it will, but for the first time, it is a possibility. I think that Iran is making what you could call good faith gestures, even though that's a pretty grimly ironic term to use in this case. Gestures of good faith to try to show bricks and to show the OCGFC that they can cooperate.

Like I said, they boxed themselves in, with their staunchly ideological posturing and public ethos. And now they have to try to prove that they can pivot away from that. I think this is why they allowed the assassination of Ismail Hania, and why they cooperated with Israel in the pager attacks, which is Israel does not have the intelligence capacity to have done that alone. No. And it's why so many senior Hezbollah, officers have been successfully eliminated by Israel, and why Hassan Nasrallah was sacrificed.

Because, yes, I believe he was sacrificed. Because look, it has been an understanding for decades between America, Israel, and Iran that Hassan Nasrallah was not to be killed because they had a belief that were he to be assassinated, it would it would necessarily result in escalation and retaliation by Iran, and nobody wanted to see that happen. Because again, for the sake of their image, Iran necessarily would have to do that if Nasrallah was murdered. However, now, I believe that everyone agrees that these groups, both Hamas and Hasbullah have to be dissolved. Well, you can't just disband them.

That's not feasible. So you have to dissolve them, amidst the fog of war behind smoke screen, the the screen of gun smoke. And no matter what anyone says, the killing of Hassan Nasrallah was a massive blow to Hezbollah. And the fact that Iran retaliated for Hania, the pagers, and the killing of Hassan Nasrallah altogether in one visibly dramatic, but practically unsubstantial attack. Well, says volumes.

It says to me that Iran is trying to not only distance themselves from these militant groups, from both Hamas and Hezbollah, but especially Hezbollah, but they're actually cooperating in their gradual elimination. This is what the this is what's going on with Israel and Lebanon right now, in my opinion. The idea is for both Israel and, Hezbollah to get involved, in a grinding stalemate that will weaken both of them. Their, airstrikes in Syria are also mostly targeted towards, Hezbollah targets. And Bashar al Assad has not responded in any meaningful way.

These, the the the locations that they're targeting are not being defended. I believe that Israel has, been given the green light, not only by The US, but, I think that this green light has been given by The US because, Iran has signaled that they will not seriously respond. And this is to demonstrate to BRICS and to the OCGFC that Iran is ready to play ball, and they're ready to participate in this new vision for the region. By doing this, they think, and they might be right, that they can save themselves from regime change and from actual war and invasion. Now understand, I don't think that Israel, or anyway Netanyahu, I don't think they understand any of this.

They're doing what they're doing because they're psychotic fanatics. But after decades of dealing with them, everyone in the region has fully understood how to predict their behavior, and predictable behavior can be manipulated, and I think that Israel is being manipulated. They truly do not understand that all of their actions are doing nothing but weaken them. Their belligerence and their hubris is causing them to think that they're winning. But they're doing nothing but lose steadily.

You know, Iran is not making any decisions today without consulting BRICS partners first. They're talking to Russia, they're talking to China, they're talking to Saudi Arabia, and the whole region now is following one playbook. So the advice that Iran is getting from these other countries, these BRICS nations is all based, on the grand strategy, for achieving regional cohesion and stability and prosperity. And I think to a great extent, America's reactions are also being guided by the BRICS aligned OCGFC and by Saudi Arabia and by The UAE because the neocons, the political faction of the military industrial complex, their influence has decreased considerably over the last several years. Not to mention the fact that even for the neocons and even for the Zionists, destroying Iran is not a long term profitable idea.

As I said, Iran posing, as a a a the big bad threat to Israel has been an incredibly lucrative premise, for The US and for Israel. So if Iran is destroyed and either becomes an occupied country, or gets shattered into a chaos and a it becomes a playground for militant groups or what have you, it will be significantly reduced as a plausible threat. So I think that for even the most warmongering faction in The US, which is the neocons, I think even for them, they understand that destroying Iran is something that they can always talk about, but they should never actually pursue in real life. I mean, maybe only Lindsey Graham is dumb enough to really think annihilating Iran is a good idea. I think even those who wanted still try to hang on to the post World War two world order understand that Iran has served as a valuable asset to Western imperialism, and it has maintained a beneficial balance of power in the Middle East for them, and has been a source of division and destabilization alongside Israel.

But for the more forward thinking officials in The US, war with Iran is understood as the worst possible, move they could make. The only question is whether regime change can be achieved without war in Iran. And that's an open question. Like I said, I think, the Iranian government, is trying to save itself from regime change by proving that they can abandon their historical role in the region, and actually start cooperating with the Arabs and with The Gulf. And the Arabs and The Gulf are reciprocating in good faith by declaring their neutrality.

They they said that they're not gonna cooperate in any attack against Iran because the priority for them now, and the priority for Briggs, and the priority for this faction of the OCGFC is to isolate America from the region and try to reduce American interference as much as possible. But the Iranian regime has a lot of baggage. I mean, think they're trying to jettison some of that baggage now, but it remains to be seen, whether or not this is gonna be sufficient. People need to understand that there there's only one permanent power game in The Middle East, and that's between the Persians and the Arabs. Every outsider, whether it's the Crusaders, whether it's colonizers, whether it's the Zionists, the Americans, or even the Russians, or the Chinese.

Outsiders are all viewed as transient players in the region who are basically only tools. They're either tools or obstacles or weapons or or impediments of some kind that have to just be factored in by the indigenous people when they strategize how to achieve their own dominance in that permanent power game between the Persians and the Arabs. Now, Iran has heavily relied on being aligned with the imperialists covertly for decades. And while they have enjoyed significant expansion of their influence as a result, into Iraq, into Lebanon, into Syria, into Yemen, and so on. The boogeyman role that they have historically played is is working against their long term interests now.

And the countries that are really leading the, the the, effort for remodeling the Middle East, and who have a real vision for the region is the Arabs. And they're pursuing it by means of money, not militancy, by means of diplomacy and politicking, not collusion with the colonizers, and subversion of Arab governments, by building unity, not sowing division, promoting stability, not disruption. So Iran has a massive amount of adapting to do. I wouldn't be surprised if maybe within the next five years or so, maybe sooner, maybe later, depending on several variables, I think we'll see Iran actually proposing their own normalization with Israel. I'm quite sure that that's the end game.

If the Saudis, for example, are unable to successfully pressure for the establishment of a Palestinian state, well then Iran can offer normalization on the same condition as the Saudis, meaning the establishment of a Palestinian state, or maybe they can demand a one state solution in exchange for normalization. But either way, normalization is actually the best card that they're still holding. Even though, you know, a huge amount of preparation domestically would be necessary before you could get the the the population to accept it. But their proxies are gonna be ground down over the next few years, and they're gonna have to completely modify, their national ethos in order to participate in the regional BRICS project. And if they don't normalize with Israel, then the GCC and Turkey are gonna get the lion's share of the economic leverage over Israel, and over Lebanon, and over Syria.

And all of the gains that, Iran has made in in in the expansion of their sphere of influence is gonna evaporate. And their sphere of influence has always been their main concern. Let me be clear about that. I'm not saying that Iran has been working with Israel and with America because they love them. No.

They've been doing it for very pragmatic reasons. Now, that might be incredibly offensive to to highly ideological people, but this is how states operate in real life. Iran has been operating this way pragmatically for the purpose of expanding their influence, and they have been quite successful. And part of their strategy has been to mask, their violence, and their destabilization against Arab Sunnis by means of loud but factually limited opposition to Israel, and by posturing as Israel's big boogeyman without ever seriously posing a real threat to Israel. To the point that they can actually launch hundreds of ballistic missiles against Israel, without causing, any major damage or casualties to Israel.

But it has to be understood that none of these parties are friends. I'm not suggesting that America, Israel, and Iran. No. They simply have had aligned interests. Like I said, Hezbollah has killed Sunnis by orders of magnitude far more than they killed Israelis.

And if you add to that Iranian backed militants in Iraq, and then add to that the Houthis in Yemen, while the number of Muslims that Iran has killed directly or through their proxies is off the charts. And through these means and through supporting Bashar al Assad against the majority Sunni population of Syria, Iran has been able to simultaneously divide the region, destabilize the region, gain greater influence in the region, strengthen Israel, collaborate with the Americans against Iraq, against the Taliban, against Syrian rebels, even against Turkey, all while maintaining their image as defiant of the West. And with them and their proxies being able to call themselves the axis of resistance. And there's many people who genuinely believe it's true. But I'm asking resistance against what?

Resistance against who? But, again, this has worked for them very well up until now, but it's not gonna work anymore. Ending Zionism makes Iran's sphere of influence unsustainable. Ending militancy makes Iran's sphere of influence unsustainable. Because these two things have been the key factors in how they achieved their sphere of influence.

Regional conflict ending makes their sphere of influence unsustainable. You can't keep a sectarian armed parallel government in Lebanon whose whose only rationale for existence is opposition to Israel. If you wanna participate in a in a in a project for regional stability and prosperity, which includes integrating Israel into the region, and includes a permanent resolution to the Palestinian conflict. So most of what Iran has depended upon to build this sphere of influence is becoming obsolete or is going to become obsolete. I don't know if the so called revolutionary Shia government of Iran as it is currently configured, I don't know if they can make the transition.

But frankly, whether or not they can convince BRICS and whether or not they can convince the OCGFC that they can make that transition, that might just be their best bet for averting regime change by means of either war or assassination or color revolution because I think that these are the only options that they have with regards to the future of their of their state, the future of their government. But in in the long term, Iran does have to prove that they can play ball, and that they they can, approach the region in some way other than through the creation of malicious.