Sunday 18th of January 2026

the systematic encirclement of emerging powers....

When the shadow of Washington and Tel Aviv looms over Tehran, the aspiration for change becomes intertwined with the power games of a reinvented Cold War.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has become a geopolitical obsession for the United States and Israel. But far from being a simple regional antagonism, their hostility is part of a broader strategy: the systematic encirclement of emerging powers, foremost among them Russia and China.

 

The United States And Israel Are Joining Forces Against Iran To Contain China And Russia

BY Mohamed Lamine Kaba

 

Iran, by virtue of its geographic location, its colossal energy resources, and its stubborn refusal to submit to the Western order, represents a strategic obstacle that Washington dreams of dismantling. And to achieve this, all means are justified – including the cynical manipulation of social movements.

Indeed, the demonstrations that have periodically shaken Iran since 2009, and more recently in 2019 and 2022, as well as those currently underway in several major cities such as Tehran, Isfahan, and Mashhad, have become a favorite playground for Western intelligence services. While the popular demands seem quite real – rampant inflation, endemic corruption, political repression – their exploitation by exiled figures, lavishly funded by American and Israeli lobbies, betrays a desire for subversion. Reza Pahlavi, heir to the deposed throne, is the caricature of this. Having lived in the United States for over forty years, he repeatedly calls for a “democratic transition” while carefully avoiding condemning the sanctions that are strangling his own people. In April 2023, he even visited Israel, praising “the most stable democracy in the Middle East” – a calculated provocation, applauded by the hawks in Tel Aviv.

But this meticulously orchestrated destabilization scenario took an unexpected turn. In response to calls for insurrection, massive counter-demonstrations erupted across Iran, bringing hundreds of thousands of citizens into the streets of Qom, Yazd, and Tabriz, waving portraits of Ayatollah Khamenei and denouncing foreign interference. This popular uprising, largely ignored by Western media, revealed a more complex reality: far from being unanimously rejected, the regime retains a mobilized social base, ready to defend national sovereignty against attempts at recolonization.

Ironically, the flames ignited abroad have turned against their instigators. In the United States, massive protests against police brutality, racial inequality, and the social crisis rocked New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, exposing the internal fractures of a declining empire. In Israel, protests against judicial reform and the authoritarian drift of the Netanyahu government paralyzed the country for months, revealing a deeply divided society. These internal upheavals, far from being anecdotal, undermine the moral legitimacy of those who claim to export democracy through drones and sanctions.

This is not an isolated case. The Iranian scenario is part of a broader pattern of interference, where the United States, flanked by its European vassals, positions itself as the architect of a planned chaos. In Ukraine, they orchestrated the overthrow of elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, triggering a proxy war against Russia. The recent evolution of the conflict has reached a new level with the spectacular attack on Vladimir Putin’s state residence in Valdai, in the Novgorod region, claimed by armed groups from Kyiv supported by the West. In Caracas, they attempted in 2019 to impose Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president, in a sham democracy supported by NATO and European governments. Continuing their pattern of despising and destabilizing regimes that refuse to submit to Washington’s dictates, on the night of January 2-3, 2026, US special forces conducted an exceptionally violent helicopter-borne operation, bombing the Venezuelan capital before capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, who were then exfiltrated to the United States to stand trial. This operation, resembling a coup d’état, was hailed by Donald Trump as a “successful television spectacle.”

This operation sent shockwaves around the world. While Russia immediately denounced a flagrant violation of international law, the European reaction was strikingly ambivalent. In an initial statement, Emmanuel Macron affirmed that he “acknowledged the end of the dictatorship” of Nicolás Maduro, hailing a “hope for democratic renewal” in Venezuela. On X (formerly Twitter), he added: “Venezuelans are rid of the Maduro dictatorship and can only rejoice.” This stance, without the slightest mention or condemnation of the American military intervention, was perceived as a straightforward alignment with Washington’s position.

But faced with mounting criticism, including from within French diplomacy, Macron attempted to backtrack. During a cabinet meeting held on January 6, he softened his stance: “The method used by the United States to capture Nicolás Maduro is neither supported nor approved by France.” This embarrassing about-face reveals the tension between his professed moral posturing and the reality of strategic subservience.

China, for its part, firmly condemned the US operation, denouncing a “serious violation of Venezuelan sovereignty” and calling for “respect for international law and the UN Charter.” Beijing warned against the “unpredictable consequences” of such unilateral actions, stressing that “military intervention cannot be a tool of global governance.” This position is consistent with Chinese diplomacy, which advocates non-interference and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Regarding the protests in Iran, China also expressed its support for the Iranian government, calling for “respect for internal stability” and denouncing any attempt by external powers to ” politically exploit internal unrest.”

This duplicity was repeated in the face of the protests in Iran, the United States, and Israel: European elites, quick to denounce the repression in Tehran, were far more discreet regarding police violence in Tel Aviv or Minneapolis. This selective indignation betrays their subservience. While Paris cautiously alluded to “consequences for global security” and called for “a lasting political solution,” Berlin and Brussels retreated into an awkward silence, revealing their strategic alignment.

But the most scathing reaction came from Moscow. On January 5, 2026, Dmitry Medvedev, vice-president of the Russian Security Council, declared that Maduro’s abduction set a precedent “legitimizing any symmetrical operation.” He even raised the possibility of Russia capturing European leaders, starting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, similar to what Washington did in Venezuela. A provocative statement, certainly, but revealing of a world where rules are respected only by those who are subject to them.

In Taiwan, they (the United States) are stoking tensions with Beijing, deliberately violating the One China principle. American provocations are multiplying on the island, while in the South and East China Seas, naval incursions are becoming more frequent, directly threatening Chinese sovereignty, in defiance of international law. In Africa, Nigeria was recently the scene of an American military intervention under the pretext of fighting terrorism, but whose true objectives – securing oil resources and containing Chinese influence – fool no one. And throughout Latin America, Donald Trump recently threatened “preventive interventions” against any government that refuses to align itself with Washington’s interests, in barely veiled neocolonial rhetoric. Everywhere, the same pattern: destabilize, divide, weaken.

Iran, in this context, is a key player. Its rapprochement with Russia – sealed by military and energy agreements since 2022 – and its integration into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2023 make it a pillar of the Eurasian axis. Beijing, for its part, signed a 25-year strategic partnership with Tehran in 2021, including $400 billion in investments. In short, Iran is no longer isolated: it is now anchored to a multipolar bloc that neither Washington, nor Brussels, nor London can contain.

Faced with this global reshaping, the United States is reacting like a declining empire: with brutality, lies, and manipulation. Its hybrid warfare operations – sanctions, cyberattacks, targeted assassinations, and propaganda – betray a strategic panic. The assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, in flagrant violation of international law, was a turning point that laid bare the mafia-like nature of American foreign policy. Since then, provocations have intensified, with the active complicity of Israel, which regularly bombs Iranian positions in Syria with impunity.

And what can be said of Europe, except that it has transformed into a docile satellite? Incapable of defending the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), betrayed by Donald Trump in 2018, the European Union contented itself with tepid protests before ultimately falling in line with American sanctions. Its silence on the assassinations of Iranian scientists, the sabotage of nuclear facilities (such as Natanz in 2021 and the planned strikes in 2025), and cyberattacks ( Stuxnet in 2010) speaks volumes about its servility. Europe, once supposedly humanitarian, is now nothing more than a strategic appendage of NATO, incapable of independent thought.

In contrast, Russia and China are moving forward. Moscow, by intervening in Syria as early as 2015, shattered the Western dream of balkanizing the Levant. Beijing, by extending its economic reach from Asia to Africa, offers a credible alternative to the neoliberal order. Together, they provide Iran with a strategic space to resist, develop, and assert itself. And this is precisely what Washington cannot tolerate: that nations refuse to back down.

It is now clear that behind the slogans of “democracy” and “human rights” lies a brutal reality: that of an empire which, unable to dominate by example, now attempts to rule through chaos. Wherever it intervenes – from Venezuela to Iran, from Ukraine to Nigeria, from Taiwan to the Caribbean, from Iraq to Libya, from Afghanistan to Syria, from Somalia to Yemen – Washington and its vassals sow discord, war, and misery. But the results are undeniable: a lamentable failure of the unipolar order they claim to defend. History is in motion. And Iran, far from being a pawn, has become a central player in the reshaping of the world. The arsonists in Washington and Tel Aviv may well fan the flames: the wind is changing, and it is now blowing from the East.

It can be said that in this game of shadows and power, each maneuver brings the world closer to a tipping point, where the balance wavers and history is written in the ink of future conflicts.

 

Mohamed Lamine KABA is a Sociologist and Expert in the geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University.

 

https://chinabeyondthewall.org/the-united-states-and-israel-are-joining-forces-against-iran-to-contain-china-and-russia/

 

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

PICTURE AT TOP: SARCASTIC COVER OF CHARLIE HEBDO RE IRAN.... TRANSLATION BY JULES LETAMBOUR.

 

 

exile?....

Why did Ayatollah Komeini choose exile in Paris?
On this day 40 years ago, 1 February 1979, the Iranian revolutionary cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini left exile here in Paris to return to Tehran. Only weeks before Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi left Iran on a "vacation", that would in fact become the beginning of his own exile until his death in 1980.

Issued on: 01/02/2019

 

The Ayatollah came, reluctantly, to France after asylum deals with Iraq and Kuwait had been declared nul and void with the cleric. Paris was set to become the seat of the Iranian Revolutionary Council in exile under Khomeini, which seemed anathema when one looks back at relations beween France and Iran in the 1970s.

 

https://www.rfi.fr/en/middle-east/20190201-why-did-ayatollah-komeini-choose-exile-paris?ysclid=mkislbkzxh877479736

 

=====================

 

WHY PAY ATTENTION TO CHARLIE HEBDO:

IN ONE OF ITS SATIRICAL(?) ARTICLE, CHARLIE HEBDO POINTS OUT THAT FRANCE IS READY ONCE AGAIN TO HARBOUR THE Iranian Revolutionary Council in exile...

THE CARTOON THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS SUGGESTION:

NO DOUBT THAT HE WILL INTEGRATE WELL IN OUR BEAUTIFUL DEMOCRACY...

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.france24.com/en/20150713-timeline-history-iranian-nuclear-diplomacy

Timeline: A history of Iranian nuclear diplomacy

 

ARTICLES AND CARTOONS PUBLISHED HERE WITH NO DISRESPECT TO THE IRANIAN PEOPLE.

democratically....

 

Scott Burchill

Protests and consequences: Gaza and Iran

 

Australians can condemn repression in Iran and still focus on Gaza, where our government’s leverage is real and our moral responsibility is direct.

In his discussion of the conflict in Kosovo, Noam Chomsky outlined three broad principles:

  1. People are responsible for the anticipated consequences of their choices of action (or inaction), a responsibility that extends to the policy choices of one’s own state to the extent that the political community allows a degree of influence over policy formation.
  2. Responsibility is enhanced by privilege, by the opportunity to act with relative impunity and a degree of effectiveness.
  3. For profession of high principle to be taken seriously, the principles must first and foremost be applied to oneself, not only to official enemies or others designated as untrustworthy in the prevailing political culture.

These principles can be invoked again today in response to claims that those who have campaigned to criticise Israel and end its genocide in Gaza have been conspicuously absent from the streets in support of protestors in Iran confronting the repressive apparatus of that state.

Interestingly, there is an implicit acceptance here of the killings in Gaza from those demanding consistency about human rights violations in both places. It places the anti-demonstrators in a quandary. Israel’s supporters can’t seem to decide between denying that mass civilian deaths have occurred (“Hamas propaganda”) and justifying them as self-defence (“what else could we have done?”).

For brevity we can put to one side the extent to which the protests in Iran have been aided and abetted by agent provocateursand Western intelligence agents on the ground. Whatever happens, the legitimacy of a new political dispensation in the country would depend on it being seen as endogenously driven, not exogenously imposed - as in the past.

Several additional points are worth raising.

It is Israel, not Iran, which claims to be defending Western values and Western civilisation. Its leaders have argued that attacks on Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Yemen constitute a great war for civilisation, with Israel as the spearhead in an existential struggle that must be won.

Perhaps as it slaughters innocent civilians in Gaza, it is doing precisely this? After all, the history of the West is replete with violence, colonialism, slavery, the seizure and occupation of other people’s land, regime changes, resource extraction and genocide.

Protests against the Gaza genocide in capital cities across the Western world are a reminder, however, that not everyone defines Western values in the same terms as the Netanyahu Government and large swathes of Israeli society. The ‘West versus the rest’ binary may play well in Washington and London, but as a cover for the worst crimes in international law it is little more than a pretext for mass murder, ethnic cleansing and the theft of other people’s land.

No-one should turn a blind eye to Iran’s crimes. The question is what can we do about them. What leverage do we have? Unlike with Israel, we do not provide the mullahs with arms, finance, intelligence and diplomatic protection so they can massacre their enemies. Our “opportunity to act with relative impunity and a degree of effectiveness” is therefore extremely limited.

Protestors concerned about the slaughter in Gaza can oppose the visit of Israel President Herzog, pressure the government to stop arms sales to Israel, demand Canberra recognise Palestine, demolish the Albanese Government’s argument that Israel was engaged in “self-defence” as it slaughtered women and children, support votes against Israel’s killings at the UN, broaden the public’s understanding of Palestine’s history and undertake acts of civil disobedience.

Beyond expressions of solidarity with the people of Iran, which are worthy and should be encouraged, what else can be done here to attenuate the violence there?

We are morally complicit in Israel’s violent attacks against Palestinians and the country’s neighbours. Where we have a shared responsibility for violence and have the opportunity to end it, we are morally bound to do so. This is particularly so when we can act “with relative impunity and a degree of effectiveness,” although some supporters of Israel pushing for a Royal Commission into the Bondi massacre seek to end this impunity.

Although economic sanctions have crippled Iran’s economy and driven much of the population to deprivation and despair, we are not making it possible for Tehran to repress its citizens as we are for the holy state. This distinction seems lost on the political right who seem blind to our joint responsibility for Gaza’s destruction.

Some external opponents of the “regime” in Iran may wish to reprise 1953, when the US and UK overthrew the only democratic government in Iran’s history, ushering in years of brutal repression by the tyrannical Shah and ultimately paving the way for the Islamic revolution in 1979. Others may consider the country’s vast oil reserves “ours” as the Trump Administration does with Venezuela’s.

No-one, however, should be fooled into believing that the actions of the West are motivated by what is in the best interests of the people of Iran, especially if they involve military strikes by the US and Israel in coming days. As in 1953, this has never been a priority and there is no evidence that circumstances have or will change.

As Chomsky’s last point reminds us, if our so-called crusade for democracy, respect for sovereignty and the ‘rules-based international order’ is to be taken seriously, these principles “must first and foremost” be applied to ourselves. Failing to do this will only again remind the rest of the world that the West is violent, unprincipled and hypocritical – a dangerous threat they must resist and overcome at any cost.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/01/protests-and-consequences-gaza-and-iran/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.