Tag: politics

Uncategorized

Notes on Iran: regime collapse or survival?

Source: https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/in-pictures-iran-war-s-global-impact-20260302-p5o6ol

There are several reasons why one can be optimistic about the survival of the current regime in Iran following the illegal and unprovoked war on the nation waged by the USA and Israel. First, the regime managed to overcome its most dangerous and fragile moment, that is, immediately after the assassination by Israeli bombs of Khamenei, his family members and his entourage of senior leaders. At 86, and after having ruled Iran for 40 years with an iron fist, Khamenei decided to become a martyr. Hence, he was at his office – a publicly disclosed location – when he was killed. This was both a spiritual and strategic move. Martyrdom plays a vital role among the Shia faithful. The decision to die in this manner was strategic because it signalled to the Iranian population that a succession plan was in place in line with constitutional provisions. Iran is a constitutional republic that has endured for 50 years. It is not a lawless theocracy dependent on the whims of an aging Ayatollah.

Second, and this follows from the first, Trump and Netanyahu failed to understand the multi-layered structure of the Iranian regime. They thought with Khamenei and his senior entourage gone, the regime would collapse and the thankful Iranians would dance with joy in the streets and enthusiastically engage with a new pro-American and pro-Israeli political settlement. Both Trump and Netanyahu would declare victory and go home. This did not happen. Instead, the regime maintained its constitutional continuity. The bombing continues, hundreds have been killed so far (550 at last count). It is difficult at this stage for the average Iranian to treat the Americans and Israelis as liberators when they are being killed and maimed by made in USA bombs and missiles.

Third, Iran has shown that it can retaliate against the combined military might of USA and Israel by using a most potent weapon of modern warfare – long-range (but not intercontinental) ballistic missiles that draw on North Korean, Russian and Chinese expertise. According to some estimates, Iran possesses more than 3,000 of them. Admittedly, both USA and Israel have so-called interceptors, that is, defensive technology that can intercept incoming missiles. But, as Israel is finding to its cost, such a technology is not fool-proof. Most importantly, the very sophistication of this technology is also its Achilles Heel. It is extremely expensive to operate, stocks are limited and has high turnaround times to replenish. It has been suggested that neither the USA nor Israel has the capacity to sustain full-scale use of the interceptors beyond a few weeks before critical shortages emerge.

Fourth, Iran has fully adopted the tools of asymmetric warfare which weaker parties deploy against formidable adversaries. Unlike the last war (June 2025), when it was attacked by Israel, Iran decided from the very beginning that there are no ‘red lines.’ Hence, it is hitting the Arab allies of USA in the Gulf monarchies and causing them considerable grief and consternation. This is being done by inflicting damage on US bases hosted by the Gulf states, targeting sensitive civilian assets entailing airports, ports, luxury hotels and energy infrastructure. The result is mayhem. The famous airlines of the Middle East – Emirates, Etihad and Qatar – are all grounded. ‘Hundreds of thousands of travellers’ are caught in limbo. The carefully curated images of Bahrain, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha as safe playgrounds for affluent, hedonistic hustlers have been severely damaged. Most importantly, energy prices are projected to rise sharply, partly because countries such as Qatar have temporarily stopped LNG production. Iran has also choked off traffic in the Straits of Hormuz to a trickle. This is highly significant because Hormuz hosts oil tankers that supply 20-30% of the world’s oil.

The attack on the Arab allies of USA might appear that an Iranian regime is lashing out against its neighbours in desperation, but the strategic rationale is different. By attacking the Gulf states in such a brazen way, Iran is sending a clear message: US protection of its Arab allies means extraordinarily little when push comes to shove. This is a move by the Iranians that was not part of the strategic calculus of USA and its allies.

Fourth, it is by no means clear that Trump has the appetite for a long war which is deeply unpopular among Americans (75% oppose the war on Iran, according to some polls). He has brazenly broken his election pledge that there will be no more ‘wars of choice.’ Trump’s approval rating is low. His MAGA base is becoming restless, caught in the grip of a cost-of-living crisis that is likely to worsen with the projected increase in energy prices. Mid-term elections are approaching and Trump has little to show as accomplishments other than vacuous showmanship. American military personnel are paying for Trump’s war of choice with their lives – six dead so far with many more injuries. The pain threshold for the average American is low when such needless deaths occur.

In sum, ‘victory’ for Iran means regime survival even when facing formidable foes. If Iran can pull it off, it will be seen as the mythical David prevailing over Goliath. Of course, the costs will be extremely high in terms of death and destruction and adverse economic consequences that will linger for years, but the Iranian leadership could say that it did not choose this suicidal path. It was forced to defend the nation against implacable and powerful enemies.

Uncategorized

The US military aggression in Venezuela and the abduction of Maduro: global reactions and Western ambivalence

On January 3, 2026, US President Trump announced via his social media account that a special operation ‘captured’ ( a euphemism for abducted) President Maduro of Venezuela and his wife and flew them over to the United States to face criminal charges for engaging in ‘narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the US’. The opening hearing took place on 5th January at a US Federal Court, with both Maduro and his wife defiantly claiming that they were kidnapped and not guilty, and that he remains the President of Venezuela. One can foresee a protracted legal battle ahead.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/03/world/americas/maduro-photo-trump.html

Trump was candid about his real intentions. The US administration would ‘run’ Venezuela until a viable and peaceful transfer of power to local authorities took place. Venezuela, which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, would become, proclaimed Trump, the beneficiary of US technical and engineering prowess as leading energy companies embark on fixing the country’s dilapidated oil infrastructure. Wishful thinking? Probably.

Note that Trump left the Maduro regime intact, with the Vice President now constitutionally mandated to become acting President in the absence of Maduro. Trump also dismissed the possibility of the Nobel Prize-winning Machado leading the transition process, while failing to mention González, the Presidential candidate. This begs the question. What transition?

How has the global community reacted to these stunning developments? One does not need to be a legal expert to realize that the US military aggression in Venezuela that led to the abduction of Maduro and his wife is a brazen violation of international law and the UN charter. It also left at least 40 Venezuelans dead, including significant damage to private property and infrastructure. Yet, European leaders – supposedly the champions of international law and a rules-based global order have, once again, generally failed to acknowledge that in an unambiguous fashion. They are petrified to upset Trump and sought refuge in mealy-mouthed statements and carefully crafted obfuscation. Here are some notable examples, starting with the UK, which claims to enjoy a ‘special relationship’ with the USA.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK will discuss the “evolving situation” in Venezuela with U.S. counterparts while noting Britain will “shed no tears” about the demise of Maduro’s “regime”. This interview with Starmer from the British TV channel ITV is riveting to watch.

The EU expressed concern at the developments and urged respect for international law, even as it noted that Maduro “lacks legitimacy.”

French President Emmanuel Macron called for 2004 presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia to lead a political transition. On the other hand, France said the U.S. operation undermined international law, and no solution to Venezuela’s crisis can be imposed externally.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Maduro had “led his country to ruin,” but called the U.S. action legally “complex.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was the only major European leader to side with the U.S., arguing its military action in Venezuela was “legitimate” and “defensive.”

What about Canada? Well…

Prime Minister Mark Carney said on X that, “Canada has not recognized Maduro’s illegitimate regime since the 2018 electoral fraud. The Canadian government welcomes the opportunity now available to the Venezuelan people to access freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity.”

He added, “True to its longstanding commitment to the rule of law, sovereignty, and human rights, Canada calls on all parties to respect international law. We support the sovereign right of the Venezuelan people to decide and build their own future in a peaceful and democratic society.”

And Australia?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has responded to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces. “The Australian government is monitoring the situation and will provide assistance to any Australians in Venezuela,” Mr Albanese said. “We urge all parties to support dialogue and diplomacy to secure regional stability and prevent escalation. “We continue to support international law.”

These mild and conditional utterances by Western leaders on what is clearly a breach of international law contrast sharply with what China and Russia had to say.

China delivered a strongly worded message to the United States on Monday (5th January) at an “emergency” meeting of the UN Security Council, calling on Washington to abide by international law, end its illusion that it is the world’s police force and court, and immediately release Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Russia’s United Nations ambassador Vasily Nebenzya denounced US actions in Venezuela and urged the immediate release of detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during a United Nations Security Council session in New York on Monday, January 5.

India, on the other hand, appeared to adopt the Western strategy of obfuscation. Thus:

India broke its silence on the US capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro with a carefully worded statement that expressed “deep concern” but conspicuously avoided naming Washington or condemning the military strikes that seized the Latin American leader.

What about Venezuela’s regional neighbours? As expected, regional divisions emerged and reflected the ideological proclivities of different countries.

Argentine President Javier Milei, Trump’s ideological soulmate, characterized (the USA) as supporting “democracy, the defense of life, freedom, and property.”

“On the other side,” …are those accomplices of a narco-terrorist and bloody dictatorship that has been a cancer for our region.”

Other right-wing leaders in South America similarly seized on Maduro’s ouster to declare their ideological affinity with Trump.

In Ecuador, conservative President Daniel Noboa issued a stern warning for all followers of Hugo Chávez, Maduro’s mentor and the founder of the Bolivarian revolution: “Your structure will completely collapse across the entire continent.”

In Chile, where a presidential election last month marked by fears over Venezuelan immigration brought down the leftist government, far-right President-elect José Antonio Kast hailed the U.S. raid as “great news for the region.”

Left-wing presidents in Latin America — including Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, Chile’s Gabriel Boric, and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro — expressed grave concerns over what they saw as U.S. bullying.

Lula said the raid set “an extremely dangerous precedent.” Sheinbaum warned it “jeopardizes regional stability.” Boric said it “violated an essential pillar of international law.” Petro called it “aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America.”

In sum, global reaction to Maduro’s abduction by the US has been quite diverse, but one is struck by the muted response of Europe and other leaders from the West. They will face a stern test if Trump follows through on his threat to invade Greenland and forcibly take it away from Denmark. Certainly, the Danish intelligence service, traditionally a close American ally within the framework of NATO, is so worried that it has officially designated the United States as a ‘security risk’.  

Uncategorized

Mamdani wears the ‘bad Muslim’ badge as a badge of honour and scores a famous electoral victory

Zohran Mamdani prevailed over Andrew Cuomo in the mayoral election of New York City (NYC) held on November 4. Cuomo, a former governor of New York state and, more importantly, a scion of the Democratic Party establishment, was easily beaten by someone who was virtually unknown a year ago. A third Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, became a rather distant third.

Young, energetic, and infused with a great deal of personal charm and charisma, Mamdani demonstrated an exceptionally high degree of oratorical skills.  He has an uncanny ability to connect with a diverse constituency.

Mandani’s election victory is as improbable as it is memorable. He is indeed destined for the history books. At 34, he is the youngest NYC mayor in over a century and the first one since 1969 to get over a million votes. Cuomo, despite being disgraced by allegations of multiple instances of sexual misconduct, decided to run for the mayoral election as a Democratic nominee, only to find that it was the unknown Mamdani who ousted him in the primaries. Cuomo, driven by pure ambition and a sense of entitlement, decided to run as an independent only to be defeated, yet again, by a seemingly upstart politician.

Mamdani is also the first-ever Muslim mayor of the largest city in the United States. He was born in Uganda to parents with Indian heritage. His mother, Mira Nair, is a globally well-known filmmaker. His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a distinguished political scientist and anthropologist who teaches at Columbia University in his capacity as a Professorial Chair.

Mira Nair

Mahmood Mamdani

Mamdani used his religious identity like a badge of honour that reflects both his political acumen and a deep commitment to fighting Islamophobia that has become rampant in US and Western political discourse. In doing so, Zohran Mamdani seems to have been inspired by one of his father’s provocative scholarly contributions, where the author makes a distinction between ‘bad’ Muslims and ‘good Muslims’.

‘Bad Muslims’ are seen as inherently anti-American and antisemitic. They are both despised and feared as ‘Jihadists’ who reject Western hegemony. They are prepared to fight an interminable war, through acts of terrorism, against both Israel and its Western allies. ‘Good Muslims’, on the other hand, are supposed to be secular and westernised and fully prepared to accept Western hegemony. They lead quiescent lives as law-abiding citizens in both the Western and Muslim worlds. They seek to remain, as Zohran Mamdani put it, ‘in the shadows.’

In the official ‘war on terror’ that was launched by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, the underlying premise is that good Muslims need to be separated from bad Muslims through a combination of coercion and co-option. This is how anti-Americanism and antisemitism can be durably defanged. Hence, the rise of ‘Homeland Security’ (with a current budget of US$411 billion +) and a high surveillance society primarily targeting Muslims in the US-led West. Islamophobia became the norm rather than the exception.

Zohran Mamdani is certainly secular and ‘Westernised’ in the sense that he was largely educated in the United States. Still, he is prepared to step out of ‘the shadows’ by embracing the anti-establishment ethos of the ‘bad Muslim’. He openly supports the Palestinian cause and decries the genocide committed in Gaza by Israel. He uses this narrative to reinforce his ‘Democratic Socialist’ credentials where he seeks to improve the living conditions of ordinary New Yorkers through concrete measures, such as affordable rental accommodation, free public transport and universal childcare financed by modestly increased taxation of the top 1 percent of affluent New Yorkers and raising the corporate tax rate to match the rate prevailing in the neighbouring state of New Jersey.

Timorous centrist politicians in the Democratic Party must have regarded Zohran Mamdani as a misguided novice who faced certain political oblivion in a city that had the largest number of Jews outside Israel and the largest number of billionaires (more than 120) in the world in a single city. They would have chortled with derision. How could he spout anti-Israeli rhetoric, seek to tax the rich, and demonstrate his Muslim credentials?

It seems that Zohran Mamdani had the last laugh against his detractors. He read the mood of the electorate much better than his Democratic fellow travellers. More than 30 per cent of Jewish New Yorkers voted for Mamdani – no mean feat for someone painted as a Jew-hating politician. As he observed in his victory speech:

“I am Muslim. I am a democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologise for any of this.”

Of course, Zohran Mamdani has a long journey ahead. His powerful political opponents, including President Trump, will not quietly accept the electoral verdict. After all, multiple billionaires poured more than US$40 million into Andrew Cuomo’s campaign coffers. The pro-Israeli lobby will not wither away. Anti-Mamdani forces will be relentless in discrediting and vilifying a politician who is both a ‘socialist’ and a ‘bad Muslim’. Will they prevail? Only time will tell.

Uncategorized

‘From one nobel laureate to another’: the embarrassing naivete of Yunus

Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and currently Chief Adviser of the Bangladesh Interim Government, could not contain his proclivity for both publicity and magnanimity when he learned that a Venezuelan politician, Ms. Maria Corina Machado, had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2025. Bangladesh’s leading English language daily, the Daily Star, reported that Yunus was effusive in his praise of Machado. The congratulatory message that he sent reads as follows.

“I extend my hearty congratulations to María Corina Machado on receiving the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her courageous fight for democracy in her beloved Venezuela,” he said in a congratulatory message.

Machado has faced oppression with steadfast resolve, never wavering in her commitment to a freer and more just future for her country and her people, the message read.

As the Nobel Committee rightly stated: “Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended — with words, with courage, and with determination.”

She has dared to imagine a better world and worked tirelessly to make it so, the message added.

There is, unfortunately, a contentious and even dark side to Machado, the apparently fearless fighter for democracy in Venezuela. She happens to be a pro-Zionist, pro-Trump, far-right politician who is happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with notorious Islamophobic racists, such as Marie le Pen of France and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands. This prompted CAIR – a leading Muslim organization – to issue the following proclamation.

“We strongly disagree with the Nobel Prize committee’s decision to award this year’s peace prize to Maria Corina Machado, a supporter of Israel’s racist Likud Party who earlier this year delivered remarks at a conference of European fascists, including Geert Wilders and Marie Le Pen, which openly called for a new Reconquista, referencing the ethnic cleansing of Spanish Muslims and Jews in the 1500s.

“We call on Ms. Machado to renounce her support for the Likud Party and anti-Muslim fascism in Europe. If she refuses to do so, the Nobel Prize committee should reconsider its decision, which has undermined its own reputation. An anti-Muslim bigot and supporter of European fascism would have no place being mentioned alongside the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other worthy winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.”

“The Nobel Peace Prize committee should instead recognize an honoree who has shown moral consistency by bravely pursuing justice for all people, such as one of the students, journalists, activists, medical professionals who have risked their careers and even their lives to oppose the crime of our time: the genocide in Gaza.”

In her own region of Latin America, the reaction to her winning the award was mixed. As AA reports:

“The Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado on Friday drew mixed reactions in Latin America, with some leaders offering praise, strong condemnation by others, Mexico choosing to remain silent.

The announcement of the award had some pointing to her past rhetoric and actions, which were characterized as violent or supportive of foreign intervention.”

Machado’s Trumpian loyalty became evident when she dedicated her award to “the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause.” At a time when there was feverish speculation and intense lobbying for Trump to get the 2025 Nobel Prize for his ostensible role as global peace maker, Machado – the seemingly surprise winner of 2025 – made sure that Trump noted her subservience.

Given the controversy surrounding Machado, why did Yunus decide to issue such fulsome praise for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner? What was his bevy of advisers doing? Alas, this represents embarrassing naivete on the part of Yunus and dereliction of duty on the part of his advisers. Yunus, given his age, is well past his prime and does not seem to engage in due diligence before making public proclamations on global issues. Sadly, someone who heads the government of a Muslim majority country ends up supporting an anti-Muslim racist. Yunus could have simply kept quiet, just as the President of Mexico did.

Uncategorized

The bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the USA and the ‘vassalization’ of its Western allies

A vassal state is defined as ‘a state with varying degrees of independence in its internal affairs but dominated by another state in its foreign affairs and potentially wholly subject to the dominating state’. Is this what Western allies (Europe, especially the EU, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) have become vis-à-vis the United States, especially under the Trump administration? This appears to be the case following the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States in support of Israel’s ongoing war on Iran.

Eldar Mamedov, from Quincy Institute, laments:

The European Union’s response to the U.S. strikes on Iran Saturday has exposed more than just hypocrisy — it has revealed a vassalization so profound that the European capitals now willingly undermine both international law and their own strategic interests.

Mamedov goes on to say that…

Europe’s leaders …betray international law not for tangible gains, but out of reflexive obedience …

This notion of ‘reflexive obedience’ is manifested in the following statement by the so-called E3 (France, Germany, and the UK) after the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

We have discussed the latest developments in the Middle East earlier today.

We reiterate our commitment to peace and stability for all countries in the region. We affirm our support for the security of Israel.

We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security. 

Earlier today, the United States has conducted targeted military strikes against nuclear facilities in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. Our aim continues to be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program. We stand ready to contribute to that goal in coordination with all parties.

We urge Iran not to take any further action that could destabilize the region.

We will continue our joint diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions and ensure the conflict does not intensify and spread further.

As if to show that Australia must not be left behind in the demonstration of ‘reflexive obedience’ to the US, the Australian Prime Minister (representing the centre-left Labour Party) decided to join the EU chorus. As Reuters reports:

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Monday that Canberra supported the United States strike on Iran and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy.

The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent that,” Albanese told reporters in Canberra on Monday.

What about Canada? More of the same! CBC reports

Prime Minister Mark Carney says U.S. military attacks on Iranian nuclear sites were designed to alleviate the threat of the country’s nuclear program, and he reiterated that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

In the case of New Zealand, the Opposition (Labour and Green) has called ‘…on the Government to denounce the US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites as a breach of international law’. In response, the government observed through the Foreign Minister Winston Peters that New Zealand:

“consistently opposed Iran’s nuclear programme” and the country couldn’t be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

“In that context, we note the United States’ decision to undertake targeted attacks aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” the statement read.

“We also acknowledge the US statement to the UN Security Council that it was acting in collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter.”

At least there is a reference to the UN Charter, albeit this is the self-serving position of the United States and its interpretation of the UN Charter.

One wistfully recalls a time when both France and Germany got together to oppose the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. In Canada, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien ”stated in the House of Commons that Canada would not join the US-led war in Iraq after President George W. Bush gave the UN Security Council (UNSC) a 24-hour ultimatum to approve the resolution to invade Iraq.”

These examples from the recent past show that the Western allies did not always show unconditional support to the USA when it unilaterally undertook major military actions overseas.

Why this has changed remains a topic for further investigation, although some analysts have suggested that the Ukraine war accelerated the process of vassalization of Europe. Meanwhile, the EU and its fellow travellers have not gained any respect or reciprocity from Trump. He considers himself to be the most powerful man in the world, running the most powerful country in the world, and is not beholden to anybody, even if they are credentialled members of the white man’s club.

At the same time, the Western allies of the USA are ceding their moral standing to the Global South, led by China and Russia. For example, in the recent deliberations at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) following the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the US, the representative from the Russian Federation noted that the ’..United States leadership “actually flaunted” and demonstrated “wholesale disregard” for the norms of international law and the UN Charter’. There is a draft resolution co-authored by China, Russia, and Pakistan that condemns the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and calls for an unconditional ceasefire of the current Israel-Iraq war. This draft resolution appears to have been overtaken by the latest statement by Trump that Israel and Iran have now reached a ceasefire agreement. It remains to be seen whether it is another example of Trumpian self-glorification or an enduring agreement.

Once again, Trump has blindsided his Western lackeys. They are hapless onlookers as Trump makes unilateral decisions on the global stage, whether it is bombing a sovereign nation or announcing a ceasefire. The Western allies of the US can only react and endorse meekly whatever decision Trump takes. Pity!

UNSC meets to discuss Israel-Iran war, but Trump has his way>>>