GENERALLY WE MAKE IT SOUND AS BLACK OR WHITE BUT THE SOLUTIONS ARE MOSTLY GREY....!!!
Sensible and rational opinions in plain words, some of my thoughts and opinions about current events. Mostly current events, or any set of interesting ideas our minds could envision and suggest.
Through-out the years, I write about what is happening in our world , what is shaping and affecting it , and whatever preoccupy , dominate or engross our minds about it.
The Iranian dissident and writer Mehdi Mahmoudian on the outbreak of war in Iran, his experience inside the country’s prison system, and his fears for the future.
His words resonate today, as Israel and the United States bombard Iranian cities.
Mahmoudian was one of thousands of prisoners languishing in Iran’s prisons. He was arrested in January for signing a public letter that blamed the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for the murders of thousands of protesters, who were cut down by security forces after taking to the streets. By Mahmoudian’s count, he has spent about nine of the past sixteen years in prison for his activism.
His response to the news of Khamenei’s death
I have to say honestly that 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 insuring that the individual is punished through due process, and more important, 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.
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, otherwise 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 Iran 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.
Parts of an interview with Cora Engelbrecht, published by "The New Yorker". I got it by email, and resending it through our blog, not to justify in any way the unlawful and futile war being conducted now against Iran, but to show how futile and with no responsible aim is the entire exercise conducted by the two powers against a third entity, whereby nothing will change afterwards, on the contrary it will worsen the reigning situation over the entire region and the entire world, maybe and only maybe, the only beneficiaries will be personally for the two leaders conducting this masquerade and futile show.
Omar, I wanted to share the opening statement that I read to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today. You can find it below in full. - Hillary --- Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee… as a former Senator, I have respect for legislative oversight and I expect its exercise, as do the American people, to be principled and fearless in pursuit of truth and accountability.
As we all know, however, too often Congressional investigations are partisan political theater, which is an abdication of duty and an insult to the American people.
The Committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Let me be as clear as I can. I do not.
As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that.
Like every decent person, I have been horrified by what we have learned about their crimes. It’s unfathomable that Mr. Epstein initially got a slap on the wrist in 2008, which allowed him to continue his predatory practices for another decade.
Mr. Chairman, your investigation is supposed to be assessing the federal government’s handling of the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein and his crimes. You subpoenaed eight law enforcement officials, all of whom ran the Department of Justice or directed the FBI when Epstein’s crimes were investigated and prosecuted. Of those eight, only one appeared before the Committee. Five of the six former attorneys general were allowed to submit brief statements stating they had no information to provide.
You have held zero public hearings, refused to allow the media to attend them, including today, despite espousing the need for transparency on dozens of occasions.
You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files. And when you did, not a single Republican Member showed up for Les Wexner’s deposition.
This institutional failure is designed to protect one political party and one public official, rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors, as well as the public who also want to get to the bottom of this matter. My heart breaks for the survivors. And I am furious on their behalf.
I have spent my life advocating for women and girls. I have worked hard to stop the terrible abuses so many women and girls face here and around the world, including human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual slavery. For too long, these have been largely invisible crimes or not treated as crimes at all. But the survivors are real and they are entitled to better.
In Southeast Asia, I met girls as young as twelve years old who were forced into prostitution and raped repeatedly. Some were dying of AIDS. In Eastern Europe, I met mothers who told me how they lost daughters to trafficking and did not know where to turn. In settings around the world, I met survivors trying to rebuild their lives and help rescue others – with little support from people in power, who too often turned a blind eye and a cold shoulder.
If you are new to this issue, let me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein was a heinous individual, but he’s far from alone. This is not a one-off tabloid sensation or a political scandal. It’s a global scourge with an unimaginable human toll.
My work combatting sex trafficking goes back to my days as First Lady. I worked to pass the first federal legislation against trafficking and was proud that my husband signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which increased support for survivors and gave prosecutors better tools for going after traffickers.
As Secretary of State, I appointed a former federal prosecutor, Lou CdeBaca, to ramp up our global antitrafficking efforts. I oversaw nearly 170 anti-trafficking programs in 70 nations and directly pressed foreign leaders to crack down on trafficking networks in their countries. Every year we published a global report to shine a light on abuses. The findings of those reports triggered sanctions on countries failing to make progress, so they became a powerful diplomatic tool to drive concrete action.
I insisted that the United States be included in the report for the first time ever in 2011. Because we must hold ourselves not just to the same standard as the rest of the world but to an even higher one. Sex trafficking and modern slavery should have no place in America. None.
Infuriatingly, the Trump Administration gutted the Trafficking in Persons Office at the State Department, cutting more than 70 percent of the career civil and foreign service experts who worked so hard to prevent trafficking crimes. The annual trafficking report, required by law, was delayed for months. The message from the Trump Administration to the American people and the world could not be clearer: combatting human trafficking is no longer an American priority under the Trump White House.
That is a tragedy. It’s a scandal. It deserves vigorous investigation and oversight.
A committee endeavoring to stopping human trafficking would seek to understand what specific steps are needed to fix a system that allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes in 2008.
A committee run by elected officials with a commitment to transparency would ensure the full release of all the files.
It would ensure that the lawful redactions of those files protected the victims and survivors, not powerful men and political allies.
It would get to the bottom of reports that DOJ withheld FBI interviews in which a survivor accuses President Trump of heinous crimes.
It would subpoena anyone who asked on which night there would be the “wildest party” on Epstein’s island.
It would demand testimony from prosecutors in Florida and New York about why they gave Epstein a sweetheart deal and chose not to pursue others who may have been implicated.
It would demand that Secretary Rubio and Attorney General Bondi testify about why this administration is abandoning survivors and playing into the hands of traffickers.
It would seek out officers on the front lines of this fight and ask them what support they need.
It would put forth legislation to provide more resources and force this administration to act.
But that’s not happening.
Instead, you have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump’s actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers.
If this Committee is serious about learning the truth about Epstein’s trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press gaggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement; it would ask him directly under oath about the tens of thousands of times he shows up in the Epstein files.
If the majority was serious, it would not waste time on fishing expeditions. There is too much that needs to be done.
What is being held back? Who is being protected? And why the cover-up?
My challenge to you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, is the same challenge I put to myself throughout my long service to this nation. How to be worthy of the trust the American people have given you. They expect statesmanship, not gamesmanship. Leading, not grandstanding. They expect you to use your power to get to the truth and to do more to help survivors of Epstein’s crimes as well as the millions more who are victims of sex trafficking.
I received it by email, while the Senate committee refused to make it public, and insisted to keep it behind closed doors, otherwise I have no comments, you make your own judgement.
Well, Hakeem Jeffries really disliked my direct questions about why he won’t support ABOLISH ICE or why he continues to take money from AIPAC. Instead, he gave me a bunch of nonsense word salad filled with plastic fruit and vegetables.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi has thrown her weight behind Governor Newsom, even as he actively goes against the Democratic base when it comes to his positions on Israel’s genocide, ICE, and taxing the billionaires.
Democrats believe they can waltz their way to power by ignoring their own base, repeating their donors’ talking points, and simply reminding people they are better than Trump.
There is a specific kind of condescension that only the Democratic establishment can master. It’s a flavor of arrogance that suggests if you have a pulse, a conscience, and a set of demands for your tax dollars, you are simply too “radical” to be understood.
We saw it play out in real-time recently during an interview with Representative Hakeem Jeffries. When presented with a mountain of facts—that ICE is spending $38 billion to convert warehouses into what are effectively concentration camps, that 60% of Americans now disapprove of the agency, and that its history of terrorizing Black and brown communities is documented and visceral—the response wasn’t a defense of policy. It wasn’t even an argument.
It was: “I don’t understand anything that you just said.”
It wasn’t spoken in a different language. It was spoken in the language of the majority. But to the “Big Club” of establishment politics, the majority is a fringe group to be managed, not a constituency to be led.
The “Word Salad” Shield
Establishment leadership has become a master of the “four-quadrant” strategy. In Hollywood, that means making a movie so vanilla it doesn’t offend 18-year-olds, 49-year-olds, men, or women. In politics, it results in a lackluster “word salad” designed to obfuscate and distract.
When Jeffries says, “I’m going to use the language that I want to use,” what he really means is: I will not stand for anything.
The bar has been set so low that we are expected to celebrate “restoration” instead of “transformation.” The Democratic elite is currently spiking the ball because they think they’re winning elections by simply not being Donald Trump. They believe that as long as the “D” is behind their name, they don’t have to do an audit of their failures. They don’t have to stop supporting the brutalization of Palestinians. They don’t have to tax billionaires.
They think you’ll vote for them anyway because the other side is the devil. But choosing between the devil and the devil’s helper isn’t a choice—it’s a hostage situation.
The Party That Hates Its Base
It is a bizarre phenomenon: the Democratic establishment seems to hate its own base more than Republicans hate theirs.
Republicans, for all their faults, meet their base where they are. They amplify the anger, they pivot their messaging, and they embrace the terms “right-wing” and “conservative” with pride. Meanwhile, Democrats use “leftist” or “progressive” as slurs. They are embarrassed by the very people who put them in power.
The Popularity Gap
If you want to know who is actually winning, look at the numbers. The politicians who stand “ten toes down”—those who don’t use kid gloves with leadership and aren’t afraid to say “Abolish ICE” or “Free Palestine”—are the ones with the highest approval ratings.
The bottom of the list is populated by the “safe” fundraisers. The top is populated by the fighters.
Selective Outrage and the Normalization of Hate
Nowhere is the establishment’s cowardice more visible than in their selective silence. Take Representative Randy Fine, who recently tweeted: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”
Where is the censure? Where is the press conference? Where is the leadership standing against this dehumanization?
When Rashida Tlaib criticizes a foreign government, the establishment moves with lightning speed to censure her. When a representative compares an entire religious group to animals, the “Big Club” chooses to do nothing. This is how hate speech becomes normalized political language—through the calculated silence of those in power.
By the time this rhetoric turns into physical violence and death, they’ll act surprised. But it starts with words, and it’s sustained by their “feckless, impotent” refusal to act.
Radicalized in Real Time
While leadership stammers, the people are waking up. We are seeing a new phenomenon: the radicalization of the “average” American.
Take the Navy veteran from Indiana who spent eight years in the military and now looks at ICE yanking people out of cars and says, “This is not what I signed up for.” Or the white man in New Jersey, holding an American flag and near tears, who watched masked ICE agents waiting at a school bus stop for fourth and fifth graders.
“I watched fourth and fifth graders run from our government today... in our country, not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. I love my country, but I just can’t. They’re going after children.”
These aren’t “left-wing activists.” These are people seeing the “Gestapo” tactics of a 2003-era agency being turned against their neighbors. And yet, Democrats continue to fund the beast, terrified of being called “soft on crime,” repeating the same mistakes Joe Biden made with the 1990s crime bill.
Sand in the Gears: The Minnesota Lesson
The establishment wants us to sit silently, to not protest, and to wait for the next midterm as if we aren’t being sprayed with bear spray today. They want us to follow the “law” even as the law is used to smash car windows and batter bodies with rubber bullets.
But the people in Minnesota have shown us a different way. They didn’t wait for a governor or a mayor to tell them what to do. They linked arms. They created meal trains and laundry trains so their neighbors could stay safe inside. They became “sand in the gears” of an injustice.
The Tide is Turning
Even with the flood of “dark money” from groups like AIPAC, which spent millions to unseat progressives like Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, the strategy is failing. In New Jersey, AIPAC tried to knock out a Democrat for being “off-script” on Israel, only to see a pro-Palestinian, “Abolish ICE” organizer, Ana Lilia Mejia, take the victory.
We have been fed crumbs for ten years. We have been told to be moderate in the face of extremism. But moderation in the face of a burning house is just a slower way to let it turn to ash.
The “Big Club” is real, and they are more comfortable with center-right Republicans than they are with you. It’s time we stopped asking for an invitation to their table and started building our own.
There's no doubt, the democratic party is going through a crisis of confidence between the majority of its base and its aging and too shy top leadership and management, it could lead to some big losses in the upcoming Nov. elections, and further down the line, this report and analysis describes it in detail and thoroughly, I thought of sharing the article for better understanding of this situation.
Arab News published a new report discussing LebanonAnd its current situation, especially in light of the Israeli continuation of its attacks and military operations against the country, the report said that "Lebanon should focus on achievable goals."
The report, translated by "Lebanon24 ," states that "amidst this tense regional climate, one wonders if Lebanon will offer a glimmer of hope," and continues: "This is a country and a people who have suffered greatly as a result of war."Syrian war". This led to a refugee crisis, as well as an economic collapse, not to mention the port explosion. BeirutIsrael's war in 2023-2024."
The report noted that "Lebanese people need real relief," but at the same time asked: "What is the reason for optimism in the country? For various reasons, a pivotal moment may soon come in which a weak and fragile state can assert its sovereign control and break free from the aggressive ambitions of external powers, primarily Israel and Iran."
It continued: “Firstly, Lebanon, represented by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who have been in power for about a year, has a ruling duo that enjoys broad credibility at the local, regional and international levels. But this situation may not last, so the two need support that is not only economic, but also political.”
It added: "Secondly, in its efforts to consolidate the role of the state, non-governmental actors must relinquish some of their positions and respect this role, and this represents a weakness for "Hezbollah" This is a golden opportunity to achieve that. Indeed, the assassination of the party's charismatic leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who led the party for a long time, and many of his aides, damaged the organization's standing, whose military capabilities have clearly declined in the war
with Israel, and it has also lost a key ally in the Assad regime.
The report concluded that "Hezbollah is no longer capable of deterring Israel, but has become a primary target of attacks by Israel, it continued, "Also, Iran no longer retains its former strength thanks to the US sanctions regime and last year's June war. In reality, Iran can no longer provide its allies, including Hezbollah, with the same weapons, training, and funding it once did. At the same time, Iran still maintains considerable influence over Hezbollah, but it has more pressing domestic concerns.
Furthermore, the report states that "the Israeli leadership, as with Gaza, is having difficulty understanding what a ceasefire with Lebanon entails," and continues: "According to a report of the United NationsIn Lebanon, Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement signed in November 2014 more than 10,000 times, and has repeatedly targeted the UN agency itself. These violations have escalated in recent months, leading some to wonder whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is planning another large-scale attack on Lebanon in an Israeli election year.
It added: "What will encourage the Prime Minister of Israel, It is the lack of international response to these violations. It is true that Some US steps have been taken in this direction, but not with the full force that the US president's administration can muster, or the president can use. Instead of condemning the attacks on UNIFIL forces, the Security Council stipulated that its mandate would end at the end of 2026, largely at the insistence of the United States, which is a reckless decision given the history of these borders and the wars and clashes that turned in this small area clearly demonstrate the need for a multinational presence."
It continued: “To take advantage of this limited opportunity, key international actors must pressure Israel to fulfill its obligations under the ceasefire agreement, including UN Security Council Resolution 1701. This means a complete withdrawal from the five hills occupied by Israel in southern Lebanon. This withdrawal should be implemented immediately, and if it is not, a suitable timetable should be set for it as a minimum.”
It continued: "The United States has led efforts to disarm Hezbollah, and that makes sense. Likewise, the Lebanese state should... and exercise full monopoly on the use of force, and Hezbollah has undermined this right for a long time."
It said: “But the Lebanese government faces a real dilemma. Removing weapons from south of the Litani River is one thing, and completely disarming Hezbollah without a political agreement is quite another. All parties should be careful not to drag the Lebanese army into a military confrontation with Hezbollah, as it is unlikely to achieve victory. Also, it is crucial that the army has the credibility of a national institution that protects all communities.”
It said: “Some political offer must be made to Hezbollah regarding how to integrate its fighters into the country’s armed forces, while Shiite communities will demand guarantees that they will not be harmed politically and economically. In return, the Israeli government and the United States are pressuring Lebanon to agree to normalization, and Israeli officials have sought to hold inter-ministerial meetings instead of the ceasefire mechanism as a means of moving towards full relations. The United States has even had to allay concerns by emphasizing the continuation of this mechanism.”
The report argued that "normalization should not be rushed," stating that "Lebanon is a frontline state, has been invaded by Israel many times, and its territory has been occupied for long periods, while the Lebanese people are not yet ready for that."
In contrast, the report found that "reaching a security agreement between Lebanon and Israel may be possible," noting that "a final demarcation of the borders is also possible," and concluded: "Therefore, it is better to focus on what can be achieved rather than being preoccupied with illusions."
A good analysis reporting the very factual situation between Lebanon, Israel and consequently Hezbollah, retranslated to fit our blog and to help better understand the hairy situation over that part of the world.
It must be understood that, in firmly rejecting US/Israel demands, Iran is effectively dictating terms — and this strongly confirms what many of us have argued since last summer: Iran was the clear winner of the 12-Day War. Israel knows it, the United States knows it, and Iran knows it. I have no way of confirming the veracity of the following report, but it is unquestionably consistent with other confirmed reports emerging out of Iran these days. Former UK ambassador and intelligence officer Alastair Crooke, on Geopolitika, writes as follows: (Over the past two weeks, two important messages were conveyed to Iran, both of which were rejected. One came from the U.S. and the other from Israel. The former was: “We [the U.S.] will carry out a limited attack and you should accept it; or at least, give only a symbolic response.” Tehran rejected this request, saying that it would consider any attack to mark the beginning of a full-scale war. Israel’s message, delivered through one of the various mediators, was: “We will not participate in the American attack.” It asked Iran therefore, to not target Israel. This request also met with a negative response, together with the explicit clarification that were the U.S. to commence military action, Israel would be immediately attacked. In parallel, Iran informed all states in the region that any attack launched from their territory or airspace, would result in an Iranian attack on whomsoever facilitated such U.S. military action.) These reports are actually quite astounding, for not only do they parallel perfectly what happened in the final 48 hours of the 12-Day War, but they reveal a profound degree of self-doubt and hesitation percolating in Washington and Tel Aviv. The Pentagon and the IDF are coming face to face with something I have been shouting from the house tops for several years now: There are no easy wars left to fight. And, contrary to the perceptions of most Americans and others around the world, making war against Iran in its own backyard here in 2026 is all but certain to produce disastrous results for both the US and Israel — and has pronounced potential to spark a regional war, spiral out of control, and ultimately draw in Russia, China, and North Korea. In any case, it must be understood that, in firmly rejecting US/Israel demands, Iran is effectively dictating terms — and this strongly confirms what many of us have argued since last summer: Iran was the clear winner of the 12-Day War. Israel knows it, the US knows it, and Iran knows it. It is undeniably evident that Washington is angling for an exit from this march to madness. But, given that the Iranians are now dictating the terms of that exit and will not agree to a reprise of the orchestrated Operation Midnight Hammer, and its fictitious B-2 bunker-busting strike, and given the massive concentration of American military power in the region, and given the huge investment in menacing bravado Trump has already made in this ill-conceived adventure, {war may now be unavoidable}.
Received through a forward on my phone, a good analysis and very factual scene, of course it comes against the open assumptions and discussions of the situation for this conflicts, and his conclusions of the coming war, that I believe the present American administration is trying to avoid, but the Israeli connection might think differently and work to ignite a war for different reasons of their own.
*How was Khomeini created to manage the chaos in the Middle East to this day?*
Noël Lechâteau was not an exile… but an operations room…
In politics, there are no "innocent coincidences" when it comes to changing major regimes... No revolutions descend from the sky without ladders. What happened in Iran in the late seventies was not just the fall of the Shah and the rise of a religious man, but a calculated transfer of power from an expired instrument to one more suitable for the next stage. Anyone who reads the documents on which I based my articles, and which will be published when I publish my book, will realize that Khomeini was not an incident, but a project... And that "Noël-le-Château" was not a quiet French village, but a "stage" where the leader was tailored to fit international needs...
This may seem shocking to those still captive to the romantic narrative of the "revolution of the oppressed," but history, when read from the angle of interests rather than from the angle of slogans, exposes itself. The real question is not: Why did the Shah fall? But: Why was Khomeini specifically chosen? And why did France, which supposedly prohibits political activity on its territory, open all doors for him to turn a remote village into a global broadcasting center?
The truth is clear: The Shah was not overthrown because he was an enemy of America, but because he overstepped his bounds a little... He began building a strong army. He hinted at buying weapons from the Soviets. - Raising the oil ceiling - And he closed off hotspots of tension that Washington preferred to keep simmering... *Herein lies the principle that summarizes the behavior of empires: It does not first bring down its opponents, but rather it brings down its tools when it thinks that it has become a "state" and not a "job".
Henry Kissinger says – with painful realism – that great powers do not reward loyalty, but rather utility. This is not a personal cruelty on his part, but rather a description of a global system that discards allies like one discards gloves when they get dirty. The Shah was a useful glove, then he became a disturbing glove that scratched sensitive American skin!
And here's where the most clever part of the script begins: The goal was not to replace the Shah with a strong, independent adversary, but with an alternative capable of generating long-term chaos, without completely severing ties with the West... Therefore, the choice was not a nationalist officer who might lead a nationalist coup that would break away from the house of obedience. No leftist would throw themselves into Moscow's lap. There is no weak liberal without a street... The choice was a religious man, because a religious man does not need an economic program or an institutional vision to rule; it is enough for him to possess a “sanctity” that absolves him of accountability, and to possess a “street” that protects him with anger.
*In the 1953 Musaddiq experiment, the CIA learned the most important lesson: religious figures are the quickest key to the minds of the masses...* *When the first coup failed, the CIA did not save its plan with tanks, but rather by activating the network of religious figures and buying loyalties with money, then pushing the street to revolt against Mossadegh...* This is not a novel, but a recurring pattern: money + the pulpit + the street = a successful coup.
Therefore, when Washington wanted to get rid of the Shah, it did not go to the political parties or the elites, but went directly to the religious figures. She was not interested in who "hated" her in his speech, but rather in who could control the masses and turn politics into a religious ritual, because ritual is not up for discussion.
And so Khomeini awoke from his long slumber in Najaf.... He was not transferred to a nearby Muslim country, but rather smuggled out across the border and then taken to France. France supposedly stipulated that he refrain from political activity, but the opposite occurred: Noël Le Chateau has turned into a media beehive working twenty-four hours a day... It was as if the whole world had suddenly discovered that a man in a French village deserved to have broadcasting towers erected for him, radio stations opened for him, and newspapers racing to report his words.
This is not support for a revolutionary, but rather the creation of a symbol.
George Orwell said: “He who has the power to shape language has the power to shape consciousness.”
Khomeini did not initially triumph through weapons, but rather through the language that was formulated for him, and the image that was portrayed of him. He became a “leader,” not because he was the most knowledgeable or the wisest, but because he was the most likely to be the embodiment of the entire scene. And here came the moment of the great deception: a religious man was polished as the “voice of the people,” while other political forces were more organized and present.
The most ironic thing is that the wave of glorification was not limited to the media, but was also joined by great philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir...!! Foucault, who was supposed to see the mechanisms of power, fell under the spell of "spiritual revolution," and later apologized after seeing the blood... But the belated apology doesn't change the fact that he contributed to marketing the myth. *Here we understand the meaning of Hannah Arendt's statement:* "The most dangerous thing about totalitarian regimes is not that they lie, but that they make people get used to lying until it becomes reality!"
*When Khomeini returned to Tehran, he did not begin building a state, but rather began eliminating his partners...* Because the systems we use do not allow for multiple heads.... Getting rid of the men of the moment: Yazdi, Qutbzadeh, Abolhassan Banisadr, then it was the turn of the most difficult number: Beheshti. *This pattern is not random, but a rule:* Everyone who helped in the ascent becomes a danger after the arrival.
Then came the hostage drama, which credible documents indicate was not merely a revolutionary act against America, but a card played within the American elections between Carter and Reagan.
*Herein lies the essence of Khomeiniism:* -Open hostility boosts popularity -And deep understandings that preserve the job.... ** The job was clear: to create a permanent regional adversary, to frighten the Gulf, to drain Iraq, to lay the groundwork for a long sectarian conflict, and to make the whole region need an "international mediator." It never disappears. From here, the connection with today becomes clear and effortless.... What is happening in the region now is not a "breakaway" from the past, but a direct extension of it...
Iran today, under Khamenei or whoever comes after him, is not a normal state project, but rather an influence project based on proxies. She doesn't need to win militarily as much as she needs to keep the fire burning.... Because when the fire goes out, the question that every ideological system fears returns:
What is your legitimacy domestically? And why should we pay the price for your projects?
Therefore, the developments in Iran today are not just an economic crisis or social protests, but rather the beginning of a crack in the equation: The Iranian people no longer see a "revolution," but rather the price they are paying. They believe that Khomeiniism has turned into a privileged class. And that the Revolutionary Guard has become a state within a state And that doctrine has become a meaningless means of control....
This is the most dangerous thing that regimes face: when people lose faith, only fear remains, and fear does not build a future.
Khomeini, therefore, was not the antithesis of the Shah, but rather the most suitable alternative for managing a new phase: A phase of calculated chaos, a protracted conflict, and a bleeding equilibrium. Today, when we look at the burning maps from Iraq to Syria to Yemen, we don't need much intelligence to understand that Khomeiniism was not just an internal Iranian event, but a re-engineering of the Middle East.
*I repeat the conclusion that should be said at the end of every article, and with coldness:* Khomeini died, but what was created for him did not die; because systems do not live by individuals, but by functions.... *When the job ends, the symbol falls away, even if its image remains hanging on the walls.* *=================* *Ihsan Al-Faqih.* *From the book Khomeini and Khomeinism... The Origin of the Story.*
As received by email, originally in Arabic, translated and forwarded to the benefit of our blog readers.,, I haven't read the book myself, but the idea in this short summary is pretty clear.
The release of a new, draft Special Report from the UN Rapporteur for Palestine (officially, “the UN Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967”) should have been headline news around the world. Regrettably—and unsurprisingly—it was not.
“The ongoing genocide in Gaza is a collective crime, sustained by the complicity of influential Third States that have enabled longstanding systemic violations of international law by Israel. Framed by colonial narratives that dehumanize the Palestinians, this live-streamed atrocity has been facilitated through Third States’ direct support, material aid, diplomatic protection and, in some cases, active participation. It has exposed an unprecedented chasm between peoples and their governments, betraying the trust on which global peace and security rest.”
The summary concludes:
“The world now stands on a knife-edge between the collapse of the international rule of law and hope for renewal. Renewal is only possible if complicity is confronted, responsibilities are met and justice is upheld.”
The report states that the complicit nations’ “disregard for international law undermines the foundations of the multilateral order painstakingly built over eight decades by States and people within the United Nations.”
Many observers have concluded the same thing. The open disregard for international law and human decency reflects the ongoing collapse of the 20th-century world order, with increasingly catastrophic results.
The report adds, “This will stand in history as an offence not only to justice, but to the very idea of our common humanity.”
Indeed.
Another important aspect of the report is the way it highlights the complicity of many Arab and Muslim nations in the genocide of Palestinians, despite their professions of solidarity. While it correctly notes that “Many States, primarily Western ones, have facilitated, legitimized and eventually normalized the genocidal campaign perpetrated by Israel,” this betrayal is evident throughout the report.
Richard (RJ) Eskow from The Zero Hour Report.
A Newsletter from Richard (RJ) Eskow. eskow@substack
As received by email from this excellent and courageous site.
again forwarded to the benefit of our blog readers, as this
United Nations report summarizes the situation completely .
And nothing more than the board of peace and its invitees
and adherents to sideline the United Nations and marginalize
it. ending its role in world peace.
the full report with many more detailed figures and numbers
describing the complicity
of European and Arab countries are in the full UN report itself.
