The Evangelical Pope | "Prayer is not only speaking but, above all, listening."

Each week we let Saint Pope John Paul II share meaningful signposts to spark socio-economic resolves through justice and righteousness combined with mercy and compassion; in short, love.

               7 Then a cloud appeared and covered them with its shadow, and a voice came from the cloud, “This is my own dear Son—listen to him!

               __ Mark 9: 7 (Good News Translation GNT)”

In addition to prayer, we must listen to the Word of God in Sacred Scripture, which serves as the foundation and support of our faith (cf. Dei Verbum, 21-25). True ecumenical reconciliation cannot occur without a change of heart, personal sanctification, and a renewal of church life.

In his name, let us join our efforts to promote peace and reconciliation, justice, and solidarity, especially supporting the poor and the most vulnerable. The importance of peace remains as urgent as ever, requiring special dedication from followers of Christ, the Prince of Peace. It also presents a challenge and a responsibility for the ecumenical movement.

Let us proceed with courage and patience on this journey, trusting in the Spirit's strength! It is not our place to impose time limits or deadlines; the Lord’s promise alone suffices.

Excerpted from:

Celebration of Vespers for the Conclusion of the Week of Prayer For Christian Unity, HOMILY OF JOHN PAUL II, Basilica of St Paul outside the Walls, Saturday, 25 January 2003

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20030125_christian-unity.html

THE IRANIAN DISSIDENT AND WRITER MEHDI MAHMOUDIAN DISCUSSES THE OUTBREAK OF WAR IN IRAN, HIS EXPERIENCE INSIDE THE COUNTRY’S PRISON SYSTEM, AND HIS FEARS FOR THE FUTURE.

Illustration by Chloe Cushman; Source photograph from AP

By Cora Engelbrecht
Reporting from London and New York.
New Yorker Daily Magazine
1 March 2026

The last time American bombs hit Tehran in 2025, Mehdi Mahmoudian, an Iranian dissident, was detained at Evin Prison. He described feeling "caught between the claws of foreign beasts and domestic torturers, being passed from one to another.” His words echo today, as Israel and the US bombard Iranian cities. Until recently, Mahmoudian was among thousands of prisoners suffering in Iran’s jails. He was detained in January for signing a public letter accusing the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of being responsible for the killing of thousands of protesters, shot by security forces during demonstrations. Mahmoudian estimates he has spent about nine of the last sixteen years in prison for his activism.

Earlier this week, I contacted him for a lengthy, wide-ranging conversation—his first since being released from Nowshahr Prison on February 17th. We discussed his first prison stint at age twenty, the abuses he has seen and suffered over the years, and how those experiences taught him empathy even for his abusers. This moral guidance influenced him to co-write the Oscar-nominated film “It Was Just an Accident” with director Jafar Panahi, whom he met while both were detained at Evin House of Detention.

Mahmoudian and I connected again in the hours after it emerged that Khamenei had been killed in an air strike. His reaction was not celebratory. He warned that Iran may be entering “an even more repressive and difficult era.”

What is your response to the news of Khamenei’s death? This man ruled over Iran for thirty-seven years. You were imprisoned by his regime at least six times.

I have to say, I wasn’t happy. I believe people should be held accountable, and that accountability must take place in a fair court of law so that such actions are not repeated. All those who were harmed should have the opportunity to seek justice.

Seeking justice is not about revenge. It is about ensuring that the individual is punished through due process, and more importantly, that those actions are formally recorded in history as crimes. That way, future rulers cannot repeat them. I believe death was not enough for Mr. Khamenei. He should have stood trial in a public court, before the people, and faced judgment openly and with full accountability.

You were imprisoned in Evin Prison in June, and your ward was bombarded by an Israeli air strike. You wrote an account about how the guards used the prisoners as human shields. What are your biggest fears for the prisoners in Iran right now?

The main problem with the prisons right now is that, given the collapse of some judiciary buildings and prosecutors’ offices in Iran—especially the security court that handled political and security prisoners’ cases—many case files have gone missing. If the Islamic Republic remains in power, it may take months before even basic legal review becomes possible again, and many prisoners could be left in a state of legal limbo.

I hope the Islamic Republic reaches its end; even harsher days could lie ahead for prisoners. There is a real concern that what remains of the system may seek revenge for these events, targeting prisoners and political activists who are still outside prison, detaining them, and subjecting them to executions or severe punishments.

Is it possible that we are entering into a darker moment than before?

Based on what I’m seeing, I don’t have much hope that these attacks will lead to the complete fall of the Islamic Republic. If that doesn’t happen, we could be heading into an even more repressive and difficult era, and the conditions from now on may become significantly harsher.

I truly hope my prediction is wrong, that my analysis proves to be mistaken, and that the people of Iran will at least see some measure of freedom, that our generation will be able to experience even a part of it.

But the signs indicate that once the United States and Israel resolve their foreign-policy conflict with the Islamic Republic and secure their own strategic interests, they may leave, abandoning both the regime and the Iranian people to face the aftermath alone.

For more: Read Engelbrecht’s interview with Mahmoudian, in which he speaks about the abuses he’s witnessed and endured, and the true stories behind “It Was Just an Accident.” 

WhatsApp travel warning received from friends stranded in Dubai until 8 March due to missile threats

Editorial | The Unipolar Last Stand?

By Abraham A. van Kempen
1 March 2026

Washington and Tehran face a volatile future as military action, regime-change ambitions, and energy-market risks reshape the Middle East.

On February 28, 2026, U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran heightened tensions, prompting questions about their strategic aims, regional stability, and global repercussions.

President Trump focused on stopping Iran's nuclear weapons and regime change. Disarming Iran’s missile and naval forces is a clear military goal, but regime change is complex and uncertain. The strikes, carried out without Congressional authorization, risk escalation, and uncertain outcomes.

Iran was not surprised. Anticipating that U.S. demands—such as ending uranium enrichment, dismantling missile programs, and altering foreign policy—were unacceptable, Tehran prepared militarily and politically. Facing existential threats, Iran may use all options, risking regional escalation and economic instability.

A U.S. victory could trigger instability, internal conflict, and regional spillover if Iran’s regime is removed, similar to Libya or Afghanistan post-intervention. While some expect short-term gains, such as higher energy prices or greater influence, these are fleeting and could hasten the decline of the Western-led global order.

Iran has strong deterrent capabilities, with the IRGC controlling forces and assets that could disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, potentially affecting global oil and LNG markets. Even small disruptions could raise energy prices and challenge U.S. political goals.

The conflict has broader geopolitical implications. Attacks on U.S. bases could stretch American resources, possibly aiding Russia in Ukraine by diverting air-defense systems. Russia and BRICS may also indirectly support Iran, complicating international alliances.

Diplomacy has suffered as negotiations, used as a cover for military actions, erode trust and signal a breakdown of norms. The crisis highlights the weakening of the UN system and raises concerns about dangerous precedents from attacks on nuclear-threshold states.

The U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran is a major escalation with broad risks. Focusing on quick tactical wins without a stable post-operation plan threatens regional security, impacts global markets, and jeopardizes long-term goals.

I expected a final unipolar confrontation to happen sometime in my lifetime, but I hadn't imagined it would be against Iran in our times.

If the Collective West, including Israel, fails to achieve regime change, Iran will be the victor. The regime change will then occur within the Collective West, signaling the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar balance of power. Of course, as a peace dividend, Iran will demand that the Collective West lift the sanctions to free the Iranian people to buy and sell products and services, or else Iran will pursue nuclear armament.

Iran, one of the wealthiest countries on earth, seeks to join the international community as an equal rather than a subordinate to the West. I believe that, in time, the mullahs will hand over Iran to its citizens, particularly once the Collective West stops interfering via sanctions.

The Building the Bridge Foundation in The Hague emphasizes that we must learn to understand each other and others, rather than judging them based on misinformation. Iran and the rest of the world renounce the principles of Western imperialism (neo-colonialism), characterized by:

               What is ours is ours.
               What is yours is ours also.
               It’s our way or the highway.
               You’re either for us or against us.
               If you don’t do it our way, you’re dead meat.

Sincerely,

Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor

Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know One Another and the Other

Remember! Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative —while military action is cataclysmic—destructive and catastrophic.

When faced with the options to be good, bad, or ugly, let’s build bridges, not burn them. After all, mutual deterrence reigns.

LARRY JOHNSON: THE U.S. WILL EXHAUST ITSELF & LOSE WAR AGAINST IRAN

Former CIA Intelligence Analyst, Lary Johnson, explains why the US will lose the war against Iran.

Watch the Video Here (38 minutes, 21 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
1 March 2026

Larry Johnson is a former CIA intelligence analyst who also worked at the US State Department's Office of Counterterrorism.

FROM TEHRAN | PROF. SEYED M. MARANDI: WAR OF ATTRITION - IRAN'S RETALIATORY STRIKES

Iran anticipates it will prevail through a war of attrition

Watch the Video Here (35 minutes, 04 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
1 March 2026

While the US and Israel seek a swift regime change, Iran anticipates it will eventually prevail through a war of attrition. Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a professor at Tehran University, is also a former advisor to Iran's Nuclear Negotiation Team.

JEFFREY SACHS: US & ISRAEL ATTACK IRAN - WAR IS SPREADING ACROSS THE REGION

President Trump’s huge miscalculation

Watch the Video Here (33 minutes, 24 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
28 February 2026

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs discusses the US and Israeli attack on Iran. Trump has made a huge miscalculation as the war is spreading fast across the region, and could also destroy Israel and the US.

SCOTT RITTER: FULL-SCALE WAR AS IRAN ATTACKS ALL U.S. TARGETS

A Terrible Mistake ... Iran Will Likely Prevail

Watch the Video Here (44 minutes, 02 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
28 February 2026

Scott Ritter is a former US Major, Intelligence Officer, US Marine, and UN Weapons Inspector. Ritter discusses why the US made a terrible mistake by attacking Iran, and Iran will likely prevail.

US-ISRAELI WAR ON IRAN IS NOT ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. IT'S ABOUT IMPERIALISM.

The US and Israel are waging a war of aggression against Iran. Non-existent "nuclear weapons" are the absurd fig leaf. Trump and Netanyahu admitted they want regime change, to put a puppet in Tehran.

(Leer en español aquí)

By Ben Norton
Geopolitical Economy
Substack.com
28 February 2026

The U.S. and Israel wage an aggressive war on Iran, not about nuclear weapons but imperialism.

Early February 28, Trump posted a video saying, “The United States military began major combat operations in Iran."

As the US and Israel bombed Tehran, Donald Trump said their goal is regime change.

Trump told Iran’s military to “lay down your weapons" or face "certain death”.

The US president urged Iranian opposition supporters to “take over your government," saying, “It will be yours to take. This might be your only chance for generations."

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the war would overthrow Tehran’s government to bring freedom and peace-loving values to Iran. Meanwhile, he faces an arrest warrant from the ICC for crimes against Palestinians in Gaza, with US support.

Iran retaliated by striking US military bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE, including the Pentagon’s largest region base, Al-Udeid in Qatar.

Washington and Tel Aviv claim they conducted “preemptive” strikes—illegal under international law—because they say Tehran seeks nuclear weapons.

Iran signed the JCPOA in 2015, agreeing not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for the US and European countries lifting sanctions.

The IAEA confirmed Iran follows the nuclear deal, but Trump withdrew from it in 2018, violating international law, as the JCPOA was endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which the US had supported under Obama.

Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, is ironically a reformist who aimed to negotiate another deal with the US, whom he previously accused of sabotaging the last agreement.

When Trump began his second term in 2025, he oversaw failed "negotiations” with Iran. During these talks, the US and Israel unexpectedly bombed Iran in June 2025. The Wall Street Journal noted: "U.S. diplomacy served as cover for Israeli surprise attack."

In February 2026, the Trump administration engaged in fake “negotiations” with Iran.

On February 27, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who moderated the talks, said they had made “substantial progress” and a “peace deal is within our reach.”

Mere hours later, Trump and Netanyahu launched a massive bombing campaign in Iran.

The reality is that the US and Israel do not want peace.

The goal of this war is clear: Washington aims to topple Iran’s independent government and overturn the 1979 Iranian Revolution, a pillar of the US empire’s “twin pillars” strategy in West Asia.

The US empire and its large corporations seek to control resources in Iran and the broader region, which is rich in oil, natural gas, critical minerals, and other key commodities.

Washington also hopes to cut off China’s access to its top energy providers.

Wesley Clark, a former US general and NATO commander, revealed over twenty years ago that after 9/11, Pentagon strategists planned to topple seven West Asian and North African governments.

On the US empire’s target list was Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

Washington destabilized governments in six of seven cases, Iran being the exception.

Through its war, the United States aims to install a puppet in Tehran, similar to the son of the former shah, the brutal monarch who took power after a CIA-backed 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

A Fox News correspondent reported VOA Persian, linked to the CIA, broadcasts propaganda in Iran supporting the exiled crown prince, Reza Pahlavi, who spent much of his life in the US. His father, known for dictatorship and US support, terrorized Iran until the 1979 revolution.

In January, Barak Ravid, a former Israeli intelligence officer, reported that top US officials have been secretly meeting with the so-called “exiled crown prince." On Twitter, Reza Pahlavi praised Trump, claimed that "the Islamic Republic is collapsing," and urged the Iranian people to help him gain power.

US imperial strategists see Iran as weak and are taking aggressive steps.

In doing so, the billionaire self-described “populist” Trump is fulfilling the ambitions of neoconservative hawks — despite claiming to be a “peace president.”

________________________________________

In the following video, Geopolitical Economy Report editor Ben Norton explains the real reasons behind the US-Israeli war of aggression, and debunks the lies being spread by Washington:

Watch the Video Here (21 minutes, 49 seconds)

Timecodes:

0:00 USA & Israel bomb Iran
1:21 (CLIP) Trump threatens Iran’s military
1:49 (CLIP) Trump calls for regime change
2:33 Iran retaliates, hitting US bases
3:26 Iran is not Venezuela, or Iraq
4:18 (CLIP) Trump fears US casualties
4:52 Israel’s PM Netanyahu
6:08 US Empire’s plans for West Asia
7:39 (CLIP) Wesley Clark: 7 countries targeted
8:14 Nuclear weapons
9:15 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA)
10:31 Fake US “negotiations.”
12:21 Oil & gas in the Middle East (West Asia)
12:45 USA wants to cut off China’s oil supplies
13:55 Trump’s oil blockade of Cuba
14:25 Israel: US empire’s aircraft carrier
15:26 CIA coup in Iran in 1953
16:04 US-backed dictator, the Shah
16:54 Iranian Revolution
17:20 Iran-Iraq War
17:52 US puppet, “crown prince” Reza Pahlavi
19:56 US-backed regime change in Syria
21:01 Imperialism
21:24 Outro

JIHAD IS COMING? WHAT KHAMENEI’S DEATH MEANS FOR THE REGION AND THE WORLD

Eliminating the Supreme Leader doesn’t end the conflict. It transforms it into a matter of principle and raises the odds of a wider Middle East war

© Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

By Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

@farhadibragim

HomeWorld News
1 March 2026

Overnight, Tehran announced the death of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, after US and Israeli attacks targeting his residence early on February 28. Strategically, this represents a pivotal shift in the structure of the Middle East conflict. It was not just a tactical operation or a symbolic display of strength but a decisive decapitation strike against the highest levels of Iran’s government.

The conflict involving Iran against the United States and Israel has entered a new, more significant phase. From Tehran’s viewpoint, killing a top political and religious leader during active military action is a clear justification for war. This is no longer just a small-scale clash but also signals a move toward a wider, possibly systemic confrontation.

From 'decapitation strike' to regional firestorm

On February 28, reports emerged of strikes and increased military activity across the Persian Gulf, including the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Even isolated incidents in nearby airspace highlighted a stark reality: the conflict has expanded beyond its original scope. The regional security framework is under intense pressure, with the already unstable Middle East now dangerously close to widespread war.

Politically, this move appears to be a bold gamble by President Donald Trump's administration, aiming to deliver a decisive blow by targeting Iran’s leadership. However, this action significantly raises the stakes and leaves little room for diplomatic options. Removing the leader doesn't freeze the conflict; it speeds up escalation, initiating a cycle of retaliation.

Read more
Khamenei is dead: What’s next for Iran?

For Iran, this involves managing a very sensitive leadership transition amid direct military threats. The security services are likely to strengthen their control, and the influence of both the military and clerical authorities is expected to grow. The chance of a forceful retaliation rises. Regionally, risks also escalate, including an expanding battlefield, threats to maritime routes and energy infrastructure, and potential disruptions to global stability.

Tehran’s situation is clear. With Khamenei’s assassination, the stakes have risen sharply, and the conflict has entered an unusually intense phase, which nullifies previous limitations. Iran will likely target American military sites in the region, as this is the primary area where Tehran can cause real damage to the United States.

This reasoning is central to Iran’s stance and the challenge faced by Gulf Arab states. While Gulf nations and other Arab allies see Iranian retaliation as a direct threat to their security and fear being pulled into another conflict, they also recognize the practical limitations:

               Iranian missiles are not capable of reaching the continental United States. However, they can target US bases, logistics centers, command hubs, and air defense sites within the region. If Iran responds to Washington, it will do so regionally, despite risking significant political fallout with neighboring countries.

No collapse is coming: Why Iran’s system is built to endure

Washington and West Jerusalem seem to assume that killing Khamenei would incapacitate Iran’s government, but this is fundamentally flawed. In Iran’s political system, while the Supreme Leader holds immense authority, the system itself is built to withstand personal losses. Power is spread across the security services, religious bodies, and official state institutions. Within the Iranian establishment, it is well recognized that the Supreme Leader always faces significant risks; succession is an immediate and ongoing concern, not just a theoretical possibility.

The main question is no longer whether Iran remains governable, but how that governability manifests itself now. The biggest danger in the region is shifting towards a stricter, more mobilized style of governance. Although Khamenei has been seen as someone who could balance factions and manage escalation, his death could lead to leaders who view war and security as their primary purposes rather than crises. In this context, 'compromise' seems like weakness, and 'restraint' appears to be a failure.

Read more
‘This could spark the largest regional war yet’: Russian analysts on the Iran strikes

Interim governance mechanisms in Iran also play a role. Official procedures exist to handle shocks, allowing leadership roles to be redistributed among major institutions until a new Supreme Leader is chosen. This makes an immediate collapse unlikely. However, the main risk remains an escalation of the force spiral, where Iranian attacks on US targets could provoke more retaliation, expanding the conflict geographically.

The main point about President Donald Trump is that assuming removing Khamenei will solve the problem or weaken Iran’s resolve is a serious strategic mistake, potentially leading to high costs. Tehran views removing the Supreme Leader as turning the conflict into a matter of principle, making inaction politically unacceptable. Instead of calming the situation, this increases the risk of major war, including attacks on bases, infrastructure, and shipping routes, which could have ripple effects throughout Middle East security.

Trump’s assertion that hitting "decision-making centers" and removing the Supreme Leader would instantly "free the Iranian people" is nearly absurd. History in the Middle East demonstrates that external coercive efforts seldom lead to liberalization of mobilization systems. More often, they cause social consolidation around a symbolic leader and strengthen radical factions.

Today's events in Iran illustrate that pattern. Despite ongoing Israeli and American airstrikes, large demonstrations took place in Tehran and other cities, with crowds demanding a decisive response to Khamenei’s assassination. For many Iranians, he was more than a political leader—he embodied national identity, religious authority, and resistance against outside forces. In this context, external attacks do not weaken the ideological base; instead, they bolster and reaffirm it.

Additionally, it's impossible to overlook the existence of hundreds of thousands of dedicated hard-liners in Iran and the wider Muslim world. For them, Khamenei’s ideas are not mere rhetoric but a core part of their identity. These groups are supported by institutions within security agencies, religious seminaries, and political groups. Many hold a deep loyalty to his legacy and are willing to commit violence in his name. There have already been calls for jihad. The more concerning scenario is not necessarily immediate retaliation, but delayed revenge—potentially one, two, or even three years later. Insurgency and guerrilla warfare could erupt unexpectedly.

Read more
This is why desperation – not strategy – is driving the US-Israel strikes on Iran

Iran’s transition points toward escalation, not restraint

By March 1, just hours after confirming Khamenei’s death, Ayatollah Alireza Arafi was appointed as the acting Supreme Leader. Although he lacks Khamenei’s level of political stature and authority, he is seen as a close associate with similar ideological views. His main strength lies in the trust he holds—trust from Khamenei—and his deep roots in the clerical system. Born in 1959 in Meybod, a city in Iran’s Yazd province, Arafi comes from a clerical family; his father, Ayatollah (Sheikh Haji) Mohammad Ebrahim Arafi, was close to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic. Arafi now leads the Al-Mustafa International University in Qom, established in 2009 and closely linked to Khamenei. He is fluent in Arabic and English, authoring 24 books and articles. Since 2019, he has been a member of the influential 12-member Guardian Council, which has veto power over government policies and electoral candidates.

The biography of even a temporary Supreme Leader indicates that Iran's leadership transition is likely to be controlled and orderly rather than chaotic. However, without Khamenei’s personal political influence, there may be an incentive to adopt a firmer stance to demonstrate strength and uphold systemic stability.

Additional concern arises from the rhetoric of religious and security leaders. Ayatollah Shirazi reportedly issued a jihad against the United States and Israel, adding a religious-ideological layer to the conflict. Previously, Iran’s National Security Council secretary warned of strikes with “unprecedented force.” This language indicates a move towards a phase where the scale and severity of responses are key components of deterrence.

In summary, instead of resolving the crisis, the region is experiencing rapid escalation, increased religious mobilization, and the genuine possibility of direct attacks on US military targets throughout the Middle East. A conflict initiated under the guise of liberation could develop into a prolonged confrontation with much higher stakes, and the political repercussions for Washington might be far greater than initially expected.

Ali Khamenei's death is not just a tactical event; it marks a definitive turning point for the entire Middle Eastern security framework.

GUEST EDITOR | WHY ARE AMERICANS KILLING AND DYING FOR ISRAEL, AGAIN?

The US doesn’t benefit from a war with Iran in any way, but you know who does?

By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

@tarikcyrilamartarikcyrilamar.substack.comtarikcyrilamar.com

© Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Israel and its US allies have launched an attack on Iran. Under international law and basic justice, it is unequivocal that this is an act of aggression. However, in Israel’s situation, this distinction no longer seems to matter much.

Israel's list of ‘highlights’ encompasses apartheid, ethnic cleansing, unlawful detention, torture, sexual violence, and genocide. Its record of violations under international law, including human rights and humanitarian law, is so extensive and continuously expanding that additional incidents scarcely seem significant anymore. This state is a monster, and monsters will continue to act monstrously as long as they can.

The US, of course, is also experienced in treating international law – and indeed any law – as a doormat, often violating fundamental ethics and simple rules that most people instinctively understand, like "don’t murder, lie, or steal.”

While Israel can easily be seen as one of the most criminal and morally wrong countries, the US unquestionably holds the title of the most powerful rogue state. Empirically, no other nation combines deep-seated and openly growing contempt for law and morality with sheer military might and ongoing violence. The kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, prior to the current Iran conflict, served as a stark reminder of this reality—so evident that it caught the attention of some Western analysts.

Read more
The war they wanted: Netanyahu and Trump light the fuse in Iran

While some issues are so obvious that they don't require more debate, others are quite fascinating. Let’s begin with the biggest mystery: Why is the US once again aligning with—indeed, obeying—Israel and its influential American lobby in going to war in the Middle East? Was Iraq in 2003 not a sufficient disaster? Are American elites truly incapable of learning from past mistakes?

From a US perspective, going to war with Iran is entirely unjustified. Iran is not near building a nuclear bomb and has a religious and ethical position—difficult for Washington to understand—against acquiring one. Even if Iran were working on nuclear weapons or keeping the option open as a countermeasure to persistent Israeli and US threats, military intervention would provide no advantage and would carry considerable risks.

Conversely, the JCPOA agreement with Iran—destroyed by the US during Trump’s first term—demonstrated that resolving the Iranian nuclear issue through compromise is feasible. Regarding recent, exaggerated US claims about other WMDs and "intercontinental missiles," it’s time to stop paying attention to these false, simplistic lies. Enough with the propaganda.

Regime change? Can someone explain why installing a compromised Pahlavi prince—if it ever could work—in Tehran benefits Americans? Honestly, no one can. And if you bring up geopolitics, that just means risking a long, damaging war for the US and its allies. Maybe it’s all about plunder? It’s true, the US has a history of exploiting others, much like Israel. But even exploitation only makes sense if it yields profit. Good luck achieving that, as billions are poured into a war for Israel.

Read more
Russia blasts US-Israeli ‘hunt’ for leaders as Iran conflict widens: Live Updates (VIDEOS)

The only plausible explanation, albeit grim, is that the US—like most Americans—has no interest in going to war with Iran. Similarly, there's little support for proxy wars with Russia or a Cold War with China—both strategies are unlikely to succeed. In all three scenarios, most Americans would benefit from peaceful, cooperative relations.

However, Washington opts for ongoing conflict and war with Iran regardless. The underlying reason is that US policy in the Middle East—among other regions—has been heavily influenced by Israel and its lobby. As John Mearsheimer, a leading scholar in international relations theory and co-author of the definitive book on the Israel Lobby, has long stated, Israel’s influence on the US is significant, often contradicting American interests. This influence presents an exception to the realist theory, as Washington consistently harms its own country.

In the eyes of reasonable observers, this case is considered closed. When the US devastates the Middle East, it is not acting in its true national interest but according to Israel's distorted view of its own interests: subjugating and, if necessary, destroying neighboring sovereign states to establish and maintain Israeli dominance, aiming for a 'Greater Israel' — a nightmare reminiscent of ‘Lebensraum’ for Zionist settlers from at least Egypt to Iraq.

But again, why? This is where the Epstein scandal becomes relevant—especially to open-minded individuals. We must recognize that Jeffrey Epstein was not just a wealthy and perverse criminal with many connections, but possibly an agent of Israel, potentially linked to its Mossad agency involved in espionage, assassination, and sabotage. His main operation aimed to collect highly sensitive blackmail material on major figures in the US and Western elites. FBI assessments reportedly include Trump as one of those compromised. The aggressive and seemingly criminal attempts by Trump’s Justice Department and FBI leadership to erase references to himself and allies in files further suggest that Trump may be under Israel’s influence.

Read more
Israeli strike on Iranian school kills over 100 children – media (GRAPHIC VIDEOS)

Remember ‘Russiagate’ (really, of course, Russia Rage)? The irony is that Russia was never close to or even attempting to control a US president. This was all false. However, ‘Russiagate’ ended up serving two main purposes: it gave Trump a somewhat valid but exaggerated feeling of being a victim of a smear campaign, and it helped him make a strong comeback with voters. Without this, he might not be in power today. The falsehood and hysteria surrounding ‘Russiagate’—which was essentially a trivial controversy—paved the way for the true power that influences Trump and causes significant harm to America: Israel and its lobby.

Will Americans ever free themselves from the dominant power and influence of a single state and network that has historically orchestrated the most successful subversion and control operations? It's uncertain. We know that ending blackmail like Epstein's is not enough. Recently, even Trump’s staunchest opponents, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, demonstrated that the American 'elite' is deeply tied to Israel and its actions, driven by corruption and shared Zionist ideology.

To regain independence from Israel, the US must sever these ties entirely.

Tarik Cyril Amar, PhD, is a historian and expert on international politics.

He has a BA in Modern History from Oxford University, an MSc in International History from the London School of Economics, and a PhD in History from Princeton University.

Dr. Amar has held scholarships at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and directed the Center for Urban History in Lviv, Ukraine. Originally from Germany, he has lived in the UK, Ukraine, Poland, the USA, and Turkey.

His book 'The Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv: A Borderland City between Stalinists, Nazis, and Nationalists' was published by Cornell University Press in 2015. A study of the political and cultural history of Cold War television spy stories is forthcoming, and he is currently working on a new book on the global response to the war in Ukraine. He has given interviews on various programs, including several on Rania Khalek Dispatches and Breakthrough News.

Dr. Tarik Cyril Amar’s website is https://www.tarikcyrilamar.com/; he is on Substack under https://tarikcyrilamar.substack.com, and tweets under @TarikCyrilAmar.