Connect with us

Foreign

US, Israel’s True Intentions In Iran Debate

Published

on

US, Israel's True Intentions In Iran Debate

In his 2002 testimony to the United States Congress, then former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told US lawmakers that an invasion of Iraq was necessary for winning the “war on terror” and preventing Iraq and terrorist groups from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. He further claimed that the war would be quick and would usher in a new age of Western-friendly democracy, not just in Iraq, but across the region, including Iran. Neither proclamation was true.

As many experts and officials already knew before the 2003 invasion began, Saddam Hussein’s regime did not have weapons of mass destruction and held no ties to al-Qaeda. The war was bound to cause widespread devastation, instability, insecurity, unspeakable suffering, chaos and the breakdown of governance. And that is what happened. Iraq today is at best a fragile state with enormous economic and political challenges.

After Israel and then the US attacked Iran earlier this month, many analysts rushed to comment on how the two allies have supposedly failed to learn the lessons of the Iraq war and are now repeating the same mistakes in Iran. These analyses would have been accurate had the actual goals of the 2003 invasion been to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to establish democracy. But they were not.

For the US and Israel, the desired outcome of the war was an Iraq that would not pose any resistance to the Israeli settler-colonial project in Palestine and its role as an agent of US imperial power in the region. This is also the desired outcome in Iran today.

Just like the claims about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proved completely false, the claims that Iran was on the “verge of” developing a nuclear weapon have no grounds. No real evidence that Tehran was in fact close to gaining nuclear capabilities has been put forward. Instead, we have been presented with a truly unmatched level of hypocrisy and lies.

Here we have a situation where two nuclear powers – one which stands out as the only state in history to use, not once but twice, a nuclear weapon and another that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a mass-murder-suicide type of nuclear doctrine – are undertaking illegal “pre-emptive” aggression under the guise of stopping nuclear proliferation.

Clearly, the US and Israel are not after Iran’s nuclear programme. They are after Iran as a regional power, and that is why regime change has already been floated in public.

In addition to multiple statements from Netanyahu, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz, and other Israeli officials, US Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz have also called for toppling the Iranian government. On Sunday, US President Donald Trump joined the calls for regime change in Iran with a post on social media.

The Iranian people are now being encouraged to “stand up” and fight for their “freedom”. But freedom and democracy in Iran are certainly not what Israel and the US aim for. Why? Because a free and democratic Iran would not serve their interests and accept the brutalities of a settler-colonial project in its vicinity.

They would rather see Iran return to the violent, tyrannical monarchy under the Pahlavi dynasty, which was overthrown in a popular revolution in 1979, or any other political force willing to do their bidding.

If that doesn’t happen, Israel and the US would rather have a fragmented, weak, chaotic, destabilised Iran, marred by a civil war. That would suit their interests, just as a war-torn Iraq did.

Weakening regional powers in the Middle East and spreading instability through subversion and aggression is a well-established policy goal that the political elites in Israel and the US have jointly embraced since the 1990s.

A policy document called Clean Break, authored by former US Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle and other neoconservatives in 1996, outlined this strategy of attacking Middle Eastern states under the pretext of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to secure Israel’s strategic interests.

Perle et al did not come up with something radically new; they simply built on the well-known imperial strategy of sowing division and chaos in order to facilitate imperial domination.

But this strategy is not without risks. Just like the collapse of the Iraqi state paved the way for violent non-state actors to emerge and for Iran to solidify its position as a regional power challenging US-Israeli interests, a weakened or fragmented Iranian state can result in the same dynamics.

On a more global scale, the actions of the US and Israel are encouraging more countries to pursue nuclear weapons. The lesson that states are drawing from the US-Israeli aggression on Iran is that nuclear weapons are necessary to acquire precisely to prevent such attacks. Thus, we are likely heading towards more proliferation as a result of this war, not less.

The Israeli state does not seem to be concerned about proliferation as long as the chaos and destruction it spreads in the region allows it to achieve its strategic goal of eradicating the Palestinian struggle once and for all, and ending all resistance to its settler colonisation project. Israel, in a nutshell, wants the entire region on its knees and will stop at nothing to achieve that objective. This is because it does not really have to foot the bill of regional instability.

By contrast, US interests are directly impacted when the Middle East descends into chaos. A dysfunctional Iraq or a weakened Iran may serve the US in the short term, but in the longer term, the instability can disrupt its grander plans for control of global energy markets and containing China.

The rest of the world will also feel the ripple effect of this unjustified aggression, just as it did after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Given the brutal, decades-long fallout of that war, the global response to the US-Israeli aggression against Iran has been self-defeatingly subdued; some European countries have appeared to endorse the attack, despite the many negative economic impacts they could face as a result of this war.

If governments truly desire to make the world a safer place, this complacency with imperial violence needs to end. It is past time that they come to the sober conclusion that the US and Israel are agents of destruction and chaos by virtue of their racist colonial design.

The Israeli settler colonial project is an unjustifiable project of displacement, expulsion and genocide; US imperialism is an unjustifiable project of robbing people of their resources, dignity and sovereignty.

To establish peace and stability in the Middle East, the world needs to put pressure on Israel to give up its settler colonial project and become part of the region through a decolonial existence with the Palestinians in a decolonised Palestine; and to compel the US to release its iron grip on the region, allowing its people to live in freedom and sovereignty.

This is the only way to avoid perpetual chaos, instability, suffering and pain.

Aljazeera.com

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Foreign

Fight Back: Kemi Badenoch Breaks Silence On Media Attack Over Reckless Comments

Published

on

Kemi Badenoch

If there is anyone in the world that is not happy or feeling serious criticism, it has to be nobody except, Kemi Badenoch, UK business secretary and Conservative Party leader.

The British politician with Nigerian heritage has been consistently getting serious backslash from different media users by Nigerians and some British citizens over her reckless statement against immigrants in the United Kingdom.

Recently, the British electorate has decided to reject Kemi Badenoch, marking a significant moment in the political landscape.

Critics argue that her outspoken remarks betray a certain level of disregard for her Nigerian roots, suggesting that she is more aligned with her identity as a British citizen than with her heritage.

This perception has been fueled by her rhetoric, which some interpret as prioritizing British values and culture over the traditions and issues of her ancestral country.

As a result, a segment of the public and political observers feel that Badenoch’s actions and statements may contribute to a narrative of disavowal of her Nigerian background in favor of assimilation into her adopted home, the United Kingdom. This tension highlights the complexities faced by individuals straddling multiple identities and the scrutiny they encounter in the political arena.

Responding to media critics, she declared that she no longer identifies as Nigerian and has not held a Nigerian passport for over 20 years.

Badenoch, who was born in London and raised in Lagos, made the statement while speaking on a podcast.

She said that while she knows Nigeria well and has family ties there, she no longer feels a sense of belonging to the country.

Her words: “I have not renewed my Nigerian passport, I think, not since the early 2000s,” she said. “I don’t identify with it anymore. Most of my life has been in the UK and I’ve just never felt the need to.

“The Conservative Party is very much part of my family, my extended family, I call it.

“I’m Nigerian through ancestry, by birth despite not being born there because of my parents, but by identity I’m not really.

“I know the country very well, I have a lot of family there… but home is where my now family is.”

Continue Reading

Foreign

Uganda Election: Museveni Confirms Bid To Extend 40-Year Rule

Published

on

Uganda Election: Museveni Confirms Bid To Extend 40-Year Rule

The 80-year-old leader pledges economic growth from today’s GDP of $66bn to $500bn within the next five years.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has confirmed he will contest next year’s presidential election, setting the stage for a potential extension of his nearly 40-year rule.

The 80-year-old announced late on Saturday that he had expressed his interest “in running for … the position of presidential flag bearer” for his National Resistance Movement (NRM) party.

Museveni seized power in 1986 after a five-year civil war and has ruled ever since.

The NRM has altered the constitution twice to remove term and age limits, clearing the way for Museveni to extend his tenure.

Rights groups accused him of using security forces and state patronage to suppress dissent and entrench his power – claims he denies.

Museveni said he seeks re-election to transform Uganda into a “$500bn economy in the next five years”. According to government data, the country’s current gross domestic product stands at just under $66bn.

Ugandans are due to vote in January to choose a president and members of parliament.

Challenger
Opposition leader Bobi Wine, a pop star-turned-politician whose real name is Robert Kyagulanyi, has confirmed he will run again. Wine rejected the 2021 results, alleging widespread fraud, ballot tampering and intimidation by security forces.

Ugandan opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi, also known as Bobi Wine, poses for a photograph after his press conference at his home in Magere, Uganda, on January 26, 2021. – Ugandan soldiers have stood down their positions around the residence of opposition leader Bobi Wine, a day after a court ordered an end to the confinement of the presidential runner-up. He had been under de-facto house arrest at his home outside the capital, Kampala, since he returned from voting on January 14, 2021.

Tensions have risen in recent months after parliament passed a law allowing military courts to try civilians, a practice the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in January.

The government insisted the change is necessary to tackle threats to national security, but rights organisations and opposition figures argued it is a tool to intimidate and silence critics.

Uganda for years has used military courts to prosecute opposition politicians and government critics.

In 2018, Wine was charged in a military court with illegal possession of firearms. The charges were later dropped.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has criticised Uganda’s military courts for failing to meet international standards of judicial independence and fairness.

Oryem Nyeko, senior Africa researcher at HRW, said this year: “The Ugandan authorities have for years misused military courts to crack down on opponents and critics.”

Aljazeera.com

Continue Reading

Foreign

Nike To Hike Prices Amid Trump’s China Tariffs

Published

on

Nike To Hike Prices Amid Trump's China Tariffs

Nike joins companies like Walmart, Target and Mattel that have said they will need to raise prices.

Nike has said it will cut its reliance on production in China for the United States market to mitigate the impact from US tariffs on imports, and forecast a smaller-than-expected drop in first-quarter revenue.

The sportswear giant’s shares zoomed 15 percent at the opening bell on Friday morning after it announced the change in conjunction with its earnings report released on Thursday.

US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on imports from key trading partners could add about $1bn to Nike’s costs, company executives said on a post-earnings call after the sportswear giant topped estimates for fourth-quarter results.

China, subject to the biggest tariff increases imposed by Trump, accounts for about 16 percent of the shoes Nike imports into the US, Chief Financial Officer Matthew Friend said. However, the company aims to cut the figure to a “high single-digit percentage range” by the end of May 2026 as it reallocates Chinese production to other countries.

“We will optimise our sourcing mix and allocate production differently across countries to mitigate the new cost headwind into the United States,” he said on a call with investors.

Consumer goods are one of the most affected areas by the tariff dispute between the world’s two largest economies, but Nike’s executives said they were focused on cutting the financial pain. Nike will “evaluate” corporate cost reductions to deal with the tariff impact, Friend said. The company has already announced price increases for some products in the US.

“The tariff impact is significant. However, I expect others in the sportswear industry will also raise prices, so Nike may not lose much share in the US,” David Swartz, analyst at Morningstar Research, told the Reuters news agency.

CEO Elliott Hill’s strategy to focus product innovation and marketing around sports is beginning to show some fruit, with the running category returning to growth in the fourth quarter after several quarters of weakness.

Having lost share in the fast-growing running market, Nike has invested heavily in running shoes such as Pegasus and Vomero, while scaling back production of sneakers such as the Air Force 1.

“Running has performed especially strongly for Nike,” said Citi analyst Monique Pollard, adding that new running shoes and sportswear products are expected to offset the declines in Nike’s classic sneaker franchises at wholesale partner stores.

Marketing spending was up 15 percent year on year in the quarter.

On Thursday, Nike hosted an event in which its sponsored athlete Faith Kipyegon attempted to run a mile in under four minutes. Paced by other star athletes in the glitzy event that was livestreamed from a Paris stadium, Kipyegon fell short of the goal but set a new unofficial record.

Nike forecast first-quarter revenue to fall in the mid-single digits, slightly better than analysts’ expectations of a 7.3 percent drop, according to data compiled by LSEG. Its fourth-quarter sales fell 12 percent to $11.10bn, but still beat estimates of a 14.9 percent drop to $10.72bn.

China continued to be a pain point, with executives saying a turnaround in the country will take time as Nike contends with tougher economic conditions and competition.

Looming trade deal as prices rise
Nike’s woes come as a trade deal with China could be on the horizon. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett said on Friday that the administration could have a deal with Beijing by Labor Day, which is on September 1.

Under the deal, the US will likely impose 55 percent tariffs across the board on Chinese goods, down from 145 percent, still a significant burden on businesses.

o a survey from Allianz Global Trade last month, 38 percent of businesses say they will need to raise prices for consumers, with Nike being the latest.

In April, competitor Adidas said it would need to eventually raise prices for US consumers.

“Cost increases due to higher tariffs will eventually cause price increases,” CEO Bjorn Gulden said at the time.

Walmart said last month that its customers will see higher price tags in its stores as the nation’s biggest big box retailer prepares for back to school shopping season.

Target, which had a bad first quarter driven by boycotts and the looming threat of tariffs, also has been hit as the big box retailer gets 30 percent of its goods from China.

Aljazeera.com

Continue Reading

Trending