Thucydides’ Trap

In recent decades, the US strategy towards China has been based on economic opening towards the Middle Kingdom, which was particularly evident in the outsourcing of American manufacturing there. This was made possible by the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, who facilitated and advocated this opening. The subsequent leaders of the People’s Republic of China (Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao) zealously fulfilled Deng’s legacy, although the current leader, Xi Jinping, has violated one of his predecessor’s most important teachings: the famous 24 character-mantra. Deng’s testament read as follows: Observe coolly and calmly, secure your positions. Gain trust, conceal your capabilities, bide your time without stepping out of line, do not raise your head if you wish to retain your leadership.

Xi broke ranks: he flooded the West with cheap goods of ever-improving quality, sold US Treasury bonds, hoarded gold, built artificial islands for his bases in foreign waters in the South China Sea, expanded his fleet, developed hypersonic missiles, landed on the moon, helped the Serbs, Iranians, Russians, won over half of Africa, and built the world’s longest bridges, dams and cities. A colossal emperor!

Meanwhile, the US empire survived only thanks to innovation and increased productivity. That is not enough. The Americans know this and, in response to China’s abandonment of Deng’s policies, have sent Emperor Trump to the front line. The guns are now thundering against Beijing’s allies; tariffs and sanctions are being imposed. But… if this continues, it could well end in a kinetic, direct conflict between the US and China.

Many political scientists see parallels here with the so-called Thucydides Trap. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides wrote a famous work, The History of the Peloponnesian War, which describes the conflict between the two greatest city-states. The aforementioned “trap” suggests that ancient Sparta, seeing its position in Hellas under threat, sought an escalation with Athens, which claimed the role of hegemon. At that time, the Greek world was bipolar, which threatened to escalate. This occurred in 431 BC. According to Thucydides, this war was inevitable precisely because one of the city-states wanted to retain the status of hegemon and the other wanted to attain that status. However, the war ended with both the Spartans and the Athenians losing their influence.

The historian Graham T. Allison has expanded on the concept of Thucydides’ Trap and, in his study, described 16 examples of it, 12 of which ended in war, e.g.:

[1] Late 17th to mid-18th century – Kingdom of France vs. Kingdom of Great Britain – war

[2] Mid-19th century – France vs. German Empire – war

[3] Mid-20th century – United States vs. Empire of Japan – war

Allison’s concept has been criticised by many political scientists, such as Hal Brands and Michael Beckley. They argued that in many of the cases identified by Allison as the Thucydides Trap, it was not the impending overtaking of an old hegemonic power that triggered the war, but rather the rising power struck first when its rapid rise turned into stagnation.

At present, however, we are seeing that the Chinese economy may be stagnating in the face of the new oil crisis and tariffs.

Cat turned mouse

Three weeks into the war and it has emerged that the predatory cat – the United States (and Israel) – has turned into the mouse, while the mouse – Iran – has become the cat. What a turn of events! The United States has stepped into a quagmire and now has difficulties extricating itself from it. Is this the beginning of the end of the global superpower?

It was in 1979 that the Soviet Union deployed its troops to Afghanistan. The Western world condemned the action. The Soviets stayed in Afghanistan for a decade and then withdrew. They withdrew on the eve of the collapse of the first state of the workers and the peasants.

The same seems to be happening to the United States. Its troops have not put their boots on the ground as yet, but its air force and its missiles are operating against Iran, while Iran is striking back, and striking back successfully. Targets are hit not only in Israel but also in all the Persian Gulf countries that have American military bases. The leaders of those countries must have nurtured hopes of security once they had invited American soldiers on their soil, now they must regret it. It is also a signal to other countries having American bases: a warning to Poland, Romania, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Safe are they not.

In an attempt to save face, the American president has recently talked about negotiations with the Iranian leadership. The problem is that Iran denies ever taking part in any negotiations. President Donald Trump has issued a forty-eight-hour ultimatum, threatening that if the Strait of Hormuz was not made accessible to vessels from around the world, American troops would destroy Iranian power plants. The forty-eight hours did not elapse and the American president extended the period by a further five days. He is losing face. Worse, the American president is divorced from reality. And still worse, the American president has unleashed a war on purely ideological or religious grounds of ‘destroying the enemies of Israel, God’s chosen people.’ Wasn’t it the same in the case of the Soviet Union, whose military intervention in Afghanistan was dictated by the ideological urge to come to the aid of Afghan communists? Afghanistan did not threaten the Soviet Union at that time, nor is Iran a threat to the United States nowadays.

Tehran has become self-confident and daring. It is not waiting for the Americans and the Israelis to propose a ceasefire. Rather, Tehran has laid down conditions, and these are conditions of a victor:

[1] the US must withdraw from the region its military units,

[2] the US must unilaterally put an end to the hostilities,

[3] the US must pay Iran compensation for all the material damage and loss of human life.

One might say, it is Tehran that has issued an ultimatum rather than the United States.

It is not merely that Iran seems to be gaining the upper hand: almost the whole world is on Iran’s side. Why? Because the whole world saw that the United States and Israel attacked Iran unprovoked, during the negotiations; because the whole world perceives the hostilities as a war of aggression on the part of the United States and Israel; because the whole world has had enough of American bullying, of American policing.

Iranians have surprised the world with the missiles that they have at their disposal. Some of them develop speeds of more than 10 Mach. Some of them have a reach of 4000 km (Iranians attempted to hit the American base on Diego Garcia Island on the Indian Ocean). Iran has decentralized its command centre; Iran has learnt to strike back asymmetrically. Iran is militarily supported by Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and the Houthis in Yemen. Iran is also backed up by Russia and China, both of which supply it with satellite data.

What if? What if the United States will be compelled to admit its defeat? Will it be another Vietnam or worse for America? The image of a superpower will have vanished in thin air. The Gulf states might as well demand that Washington withdraw its troops from their territory. Why should they have them on their soil? To further expose themselves to attacks? Iran – in league with China – might begin the sale of its oil and gas in return for the Chinese currency. That might lead to the end of the petrodollar. And if the dollar stops being in demand worldwide, the United States will spiral into a position of a country that will have difficulties solving its financial problems. Without the dollar as the international currency all American economic might will shrink. Till now, for decades nations would have bought dollars – i.e. sold goods and services – to stock them and to have currency for purchasing oil. Once this scheme comes to an end, America will cease to be flooded by foreign goods and services: America will be compelled to manufacture things on its own. Due to the outsourcing, there are not so many factories, engineers and skilled workers in the world’s most admired democracy. Rebuilding will take time…

The war against Iran was to be a walkover. The United States has already handled, in one way or another, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Venezuela. Americans thought that Iran was to be yet another intervention of the same small calibre. How wrong they were!

When you drink alcohol, you feel good after the first couple of drams. Then slowly but surely the substance begins to impede your speech and motor activity. Eventually one of the drams becomes one too many. They say proverbially: one over the eighth. Was the attack on Iran – after Venezuela, Libya, Syria – one over the eighth?

Extraterrestrials – Donald Trump’s only hope

Yes, history has witnessed cases that are strikingly similar to the ongoing US-Iranian war. Of the many examples the most telling and revealing is the relatively recent military conflict between Italy and Greece that took place from 28 October 1940 to 23 April 1941 and has come down in history as either the Greco-Italian War or Italo-Greek War. Benito Mussolini, Italy’s ruler, wished to vie for the leadership in the axis (whose core was made up of Italy, Germany, and Japan) with Adolf Hitler. Benito Mussolini – a highly narcissistic individual – wished to assert himself, wished to show off that he, too, can pull off a blitzkrieg victory. By the end of October 1940, the German armies had walked over Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France. Benito Mussolini could only brag about conquering the economically backward Ethiopia. To be precise, he could not brag about conquering this country because Ethiopians resisted him bitterly, the Italian troops advanced but slowly, and Italy’s ruler needed to eventually resort the chemical weapons. So, to bolster his ego, Benito Mussolini decided to invade Greece. The task seemed all the easier, because Mussolini had a bridgehead across the Adriatic in Albania, a bridgehead neighbouring Greece, which he had conquered within five days in April of 1939. Hang on, you might say! So, Mussolini had his own blitzkrieg!

Not exactly. Albania was small and weak and backward. Its conquest was easy. Albania to Italy was not even like Denmark or Norway to Germany. Greece, however, appeared to be the right morsel. Neither too large, nor too small: just the right size for an impressive conquest. Greece’s area amounted to 110 thousand sq km as compared to Italy’s 300 thousand sq km, whereas Greece’s population stood at 7 million as opposed to 44 million of Italy’s.

The pretext for war? It was not hard to create one. Well, Italy, as Germany’s ally, had already been at war with the United Kingdom, so Rome needed only to accuse Athens of being on friendly terms with London and consequently of posing a threat to Italy’s security. Never mind that Greece was much smaller than Italy; never mind that Greece and Italy were separated by the Adriatic Sea; never mind that Greece’s military and economic potential was no match to that of Italy’s. Greece posed a threat to Italy. Period. Therefore, Greece needed to be conquered.

So, on October 28, 1940, Italian armies launched an offensive from Albania into northern Greece. Benito Mussolini was in for a big, big surprise. It did not take much time for the Greek troops to take the initiative and push the Italian divisions back across the border and into Albania! Small Greece retaliated and retaliated successfully! Europe was stunned, the British papers printed huge titles and elaborate articles about brave Greeks and their tenacious resistance. The war, which was planned for weeks at the most, protracted for half a year, and had Germany not intervened aiding its Italian ally, the war would have protracted for a couple of months more. The Italian soldiers and officers did not want to fight, as they righteously recognized that war as a war of aggression.

Eighty-six years fast forward and we are seeing the incarnation of Benito Mussolini in the person of American President Donald Trump, who is as narcissistic as the Italian ruler, strikes similar poses and presents to the world similar facial expressions. Donald Trump had walked over Venezuela, just like Benito Mussolini had walked over Albania, and decided to move in for the kill against Iran. Just like Benito Mussolini, Donald Trump had hoped for a quick, impressive campaign, for a blitzkrieg, and just like Benito Mussolini he was in for a big, big surprise. Iran, just like Greece eighty-six years earlier, has struck back and has struck back successfully. Iran’s population of approximately 90 million is smaller than the 350 million of the American population, while Iran’s area of 1.650 sq km is a few times smaller than that of the United States, which amounts to 9.800 sq km and still, and despite that, Iran is fighting back.

Now, Mussolini had the big brother in the person of Adolf Hitler and a big ally in the form of the Third Reich. Germany eventually came to Italy’s assistance. True, it was predominantly Germany that could enjoy the spoils of war: Italians were only granted small parts of Greece as their occupation zone, but at least Italy was rescued. Who is going to salvage America from the trouble it has got itself into? There is no big brother, there is no ally powerful enough to do it. The United States’ allies are smaller and weaker, and even they have refused to provide military aid. Russia and China might influence Tehran to stop the hostilities, but why should they do it? Both Moscow and Beijing remember that Washington has been hostile to them for years. Moscow remembers America’s involvement in the Ukrainian war, while Beijing is aware of the fact that Washington views China as America’s archenemy. Both Moscow and Beijing would certainly rather derive benefits from the current political circumstances. Besides, Iran is an economic partner of both Russia and China. Iran has been providing Russia with drones in the latter’s conflict with Ukraine. Now Russia feels obliged to show gratitude to Tehran and to give Washington the taste of its own medicine: now it is Russia that provides Iran with satellite intelligence and munitions of war, just as the United States has been doing it for years in reference to Ukraine.

That Greece in 1940 posed a threat to Italy was at least more convincing than that Iran poses a threat to the United States, as President Donald Trump has said. The straight-line distance between Italy and Greece is some 80 km, across the Adriatic, whereas the straight-line distance between the United States and Iran is… 10.000 km, across continents and oceans. The distance separating America from Iran is 125 times larger than that separating Italy from Greece. In 1940, theoretically Greek aircraft could reach Italian soil and bomb it; neither Iranian aircraft nor Iranian missiles can reach the United States’ territory.

There is one significant difference between narcissistic Donald Trump and narcissistic Benito Mussolini, and a similar significant difference between the ruling class of the United States and that of Italy eighty-six years ago. Mussolini and his clique at least acted on their own: there was no third country, political entity or foreign lobby to pressurize them into attacking Greece. It is much different in the case of the United States: American presidents and the American ruling class do the biddings of the Israeli lobby, which through such organizations as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) or through the so-called Christian Zionists (American Christians mentally hijacked to follow Israel’s political agenda) are capable of drawing the United States into wars waged in the interests of Tel Aviv rather than Washington.

Let us face the same question again: Mussolini, once he had got himself in deep trouble, was saved by his big German brother. President Donald Trump has no big brother because the United States is the biggest brother on Planet Earth. The smaller brothers are either unwilling to extend a helping hand (Western Europe) or are America’s – how shall we put it? – opponents (Russia, China), or prefer to sit on the sidelines (India). Who for goodness’ sake will bail out poor Donald Trump? Extraterrestrials?

MAGA or maga?

Symbols are designed to concisely put across grand, political, religious or social meaning and to rally people around the cause that the symbols represent. Yet, symbols – which is the nature of symbols – sooner or later diverge from reality, and so when what they were supposed to imply changes, so does the meaning of the symbol. Think about the hammer and sickle, the worldwide recognizable symbol of communism. Few people know that initially the symbol pointed to the revolutionary union between the German industrial working class (hammer) and the Russian agricultural peasantry (sickle). The Bolsheviks had hoped at that time that the Russian revolution would be supported by its German counterpart, and together the two nations – Germans and Russians – would spark a worldwide revolution. As we know, the German revolution was nipped in the bud, and so Russia remained alone on the political stage as a socialist country. What was to be done? The hammer-and-sickle symbol needed to be reinterpreted and so it was: the hammer began to imply the Russian working class, while the sickle – the Russian peasantry.

The promises of communism were slow to materialize. Party bosses would have regularly announced that communism was close by, but somehow this communist bright future obstinately refused to arrive. Soviet people began joking about it. One of the jokes ran like this. A factory party committee holds a rally with a group of factory workers. The first secretary of the local party organization says solemnly, We will achieve communism in five years. Hearing that, somebody from the audience asks him, Will we achieve it as well?

The hammer-and-sickle symbol was immortalized by sculptor Vera Mukhina in a 1937 statue known as the Soviet Worker and the Collective Farm Woman, which later became the readily recognizable logo of the Mosfilm film studio. From the world revolution to the revolution in one state alone, to the symbol of a film studio…

That’s, however, not the end of the story of the hammer-and-sickle symbol. Since the ideals of communism – as said above – refused to materialize, since economic and social reality loomed worse and worse, the Soviet people composed a quatrain, which ran something like this:

Grab the sickle, grab the hammer, / Слева – молот, справа – серп,

grab the Soviet emblem’s glamour: / Это наш советский герб:

whether you will mow or hit, / Хочешь жни, а хочешь куй,

the reward for work is shit. / все равно получишь хуй.

Such was the epic failure of the communist dream as felt by and expressed by the common people.

Though President Donald Trump did not come up with a visual symbol – a counterpart of the hammer-and-sickle sign or something akin to the Soviet Worker and the Collective Farm Woman statue – he came up with the MAGA political slogan, which translates into Make America Great Again. No, it is not a promise of communism, but it is, nonetheless, a promise, a promise of something great, grand, fascinating, attractive. This MAGA slogan included in itself a call to stop the forever wars. America was to rebuild itself and rebuild its international standing, while wars were to be a thing of the past.

President Donald Trump has barely finished his first year of the second term and he has already managed to abduct Venezuela’s president and attack Iran – twice. But the military operation designated Epic Fury has apparently misfired. It has misfired so badly that commentators have coined a new designation for it: Epic Failure. Iran is fighting back, Iran is biting back, while Americans willy-nilly are seeking the ways to back out of the conflict. MAGA has reinterpreted itself as maga, a Latin word for witch. The American president seems to act as a magus – a magician – who promises the moon while MAGA or maga appears to be (or, rather, to have been) the Pied Piper/Rat Catcher of Hamelin, whose task it was to seduce as many Trump’s followers as possible. While the maga and magus succeeded to a larger extent at first, they are now on the losing end. The end of the war against Iran is nowhere in sight, American top leaders – the president himself, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defence/War Pete Hegseth – are losing sleep over it, while Donald Trump’s political basis is shrinking with his voters being increasingly disappointed about him.

President Donald Trump’s narcissism is too strong to give in to criticism or sheer common sense. He thinks himself king of the kings, a ruler of the globe if not of the Solar System. He strikes poses like Benito Mussolini, and is in constant demand for narcissistic supply. Here, too, one can have associations with the Soviet Union, or with Joseph Stalin, to be precise. Donald Trump – just as Joseph Stalin – has never enough of praise and admiration. Donald Trump – just as Joseph Stalin – is ready to blatantly warp reality if that serves his purpose of elevating himself in the eyes of the people. Just as Joseph Stalin could not stop from falsifying history, so can’t Donald Trump. The closing scene in the 1950 feature movie The Fall of Berlin (Падение Берлина) shows – contrary to historical fact – Stalin’s visit to Berlin by plane and his elevation by the thousands of people of various nationalities as the saviour of the planet. President Donald Trump has precisely the same cast of mind: he desperately needs praise and he desperately needs to be looked up to not only by his followers but by the whole world. Hence his contrary-to-fact statements about winning wars and bringing peace to different corners of the world, hence his pontificating about policymaking, international justice and what not. He is a magus or wizard (or astrologer) who keeps deceiving people (along the Orwellian lines that war is peace, while peace is war) because he desperately needs narcissistic supply. Donald Trump – Benito Mussolini – Joseph Stalin… You know the man by the company he keeps, don’t you?

Mirror reflection

The similarity cannot go unnoticed. First Russia struck Ukraine because it felt threatened by it, now the United States has struck Iran because – well – because it felt threatened by it. Russia struck its neighbour, whereas the United States has struck a country thousands of miles away. Never mind, according to the Western political experts Moscow should not have felt threatened by neighbouring Ukraine, while the United States should feel threatened by a nation half a globe away.

The reverse phenomenon is also noticeable. While Ukraine is supported by the Western world and enjoys the inflow of mercenaries from many countries, including those located in South America, it is not Iran that is supported by the other countries but the United States: militarily by Israel, politically – by the Western world.

The similarity does not stop here. Russia attacked Ukraine out of fear that Kiev might join NATO and out of fear that Kiev might have its won nuclear weapon. Similarly, the official reason for attacking Iran is the possibility that Tehran is about to manufacture its own nuclear weapon.

And again a reverse phenomenon. Just as in the case of Ukraine the Western world claims to be defending itself from Russian aggression, so do Israel and the United States claim to be defending the peace in the region against Iran’s aggression.

In both cases oil and gas play a major role. Russia and Iran are some of the world’s largest suppliers of both fossil fuels. The hostilities in these two parts of the globe translate into raised prices of gas and oil, which in turn translates into difficulties in obtaining the fuels.

The Special Military Operation in Ukraine accelerated the outflow of people from Ukraine. Yes, it did not trigger but merely accelerated the outflow of people because Ukrainians had been fleeing their country for more than two decades prior to the outbreak of the hostilities. Now since Iran is effectively targeting industrial and military facilities in Israel and those Arab countries which support the United States, and since Iran itself is being hit by American and Israeli missiles, one can only expect another wave of refugees into Europe. Will the year 2015 be repeated? Will Chancellor Friedrich Merz follow in Angela Merkel’s footsteps and repeat after her ‘Wir schaffen das’?

During the four years of hostilities in Ukraine the West has desperately looked for acts of atrocities committed by the Russian soldiers so as to be able to present Russia as the heinous aggressor. They found none, or at least nothing particularly spectacular. The Western media attempted to turn the Bucha incident as a repulsive act of atrocity committed by Russians, but the case was flimsy, unfounded, and so it quickly died out. It is different in the case of the war in Iran. Almost at the start of it, American missiles hit a school and killed some 170 girls aged between 7 and 12. Nothing like that could have been pinned on Russians for the entirety of the four years.

Moscow had hoped to carry out the Military Special Operation within weeks and coerce Ukraine to sign a deal: no NATO membership. Now it seems that the United States and Israel had hoped for more or less the same: a few days of aerial combat, decapitation of the Iranian leadership, the resultant riots in Tehran, and the collapse of the regime – as they call the Iranian government – with the new authorities being all too willing to sign a deal with the United States, a deal turning Iran into an American colony. It looks like we are in for a protracted war.

Talking about the decapitation operation. Since Washington – in cahoots with Tel Aviv – tried to decapitate the Iranian leadership and was largely successful, Tehran has all the moral right to reciprocate the move. Who knows, it might be that an Iranian killer is already stalking the American president, lying in wait, and just about to pull the trigger. Or, an Iranian killer might be stalking Benjamin Netanyahu. If the Iranian leadership is a legitimate target, why should the American or Israeli leadership not be a legitimate target as well?

If Iranians pulled off something like that, there would be an outcry across the Western world: there is none if the Americans decapitate another country’s head of state. In the same vein, there is no outcry over the killing of 170 Iranian girls, but just imagine the uproar if it were the Iranians killing 170 Israeli girls!

The two wars reflect themselves in each other with similarities and dissimilarities. The judgement that is passed over the actors depends on political persuasion. Justice will not be rendered. We do not mean legal, international justice – we merely mean moral justice.

Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz – possible consequences

The 2022 energy crisis was an unprecedented shock for Europe. The sharp decline in Russian gas and oil supplies following the invasion of Ukraine, which resulted from irresponsible decisions by politicians in Brussels, led to record prices for energy sources and a rise in inflation. At its peak, gas on European exchanges cost ten times more than the average in previous years, and EU countries competed for every LNG delivery to avoid disruptions to energy supplies.

Before the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022, Russia supplied about 45% of all imported gas to the European Union. In the case of oil, Russia’s share was slightly lower, but still very high. In the years before the war, Russia supplied about 25 to 30% of the oil needed in the EU.

After abandoning Russian oil in 2022, Europe increased its imports of this raw material from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait). Currently, around 15 to 25% of the oil imported by Europe comes from the Gulf region. The vast majority of this oil has to be transported through Hormuz. This is a major dependency, but there are other suppliers for Europe: Norway, the US, West Africa and Brazil. Norway and the US together account for around 30% of EU oil imports, which is roughly the same amount that Russia was responsible for before 2022.

And what about gas? Following the reduction in supplies from Russia, the EU has increased its LNG imports, mainly from Qatar. However, the main supplier of LNG to Europe was the US, with a share of approximately 55%. Qatar has a significant but not dominant share (approximately 10-14%). The rest of LNG imports come from many smaller sources (e.g. Algeria, Norway or other countries). Therefore, dependence on the Middle East for oil and gas imports into the EU is currently much lower than dependence on Russia was before 2022.

Although Hormuz is mainly associated with oil and LNG, it is also an important trade route for many other types of raw materials. Plastics, ethylene, propylene and even fertilisers (urea, ammonia) travel through the strait. Therefore, disruptions in transport there can also lead to rising prices for plastics, packaging, car parts, fertilisers, etc. The UAE and Bahrain are among the major aluminium exporters (energy-intensive production based on cheap gas). In return, electronics and machinery pass through the ports of Dubai (Jebel Ali), Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

In summary, rising energy prices are inevitable and will affect both Europe and the rest of the world. However, Europe should not be as severely affected as it was in 2022, as the Old Continent’s energy independence has increased significantly. If the conflict escalates, Asian countries such as India and China will be most vulnerable to problems with energy availability.

Hormuz is also very important for countries in the Middle East because ships carrying agricultural raw materials arrive there. The Gulf states are heavily dependent on food imports because the climate (hot, dry, desert) limits local agricultural production. A protracted blockade is therefore unlikely.

Iran war

So, the United States has attacked Iran. Some held it for impossible, others are not surprised at all. To be precise, it was not merely that United States, but the United States in cahoots with Israel that carried out the assult. Talk of the impending war with Iran has been present in the media for years, so the recent events are merely a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Two most spectacular events stand out: the intentional killing of Al Khamenei, the top spiritual leader of Shiite Muslims, and the (unintentional?) destruction of a school, where approximately 150 schoolgirls were killed. These two events are potent enough to enrage Iranians, and to upset the Muslim world.

Iran is striking back. How much the retaliation is effective is hard to say since the Western media will not report such data.

Picture to yourself a similar event launched by Russia… Yes, there would be a deafening howl across the Western world, while Putin would be called another Hitler. As it is, the American president justifies the assault on Iran, saying, that the United States had to defend itself because it felt threatened by Tehran… Weird. When Russia says it feels threatened by Western military presence in Ukraine, then such a claim is dismissed as unfounded; when, however, it is the United States that claims to be threatened by Iran, a country located thousands of miles away from America, then such a claim is legitimate.

One might tend to think that even the blind can see the hypocrisy, but rest assured: there are many who do not see it. As the saying goes: no one is as blind as the one who won’t see.

Why did the United States attack Iran? The answers are many. One is that Iran posed a threat to Israel, America’s most important and influential ally. Another is that that West wants to lay hold on Iranian oil and gas reserves. Still some others hold forth that it is the almost sixty-million strong Christian-Zionist community in America that did all in its power to necessitate the war. Christian Zionists identify more with Judaism than with Christianity, and since some of their members are the influential politicians and billionaires, they have much political leverage. President Donald Trump is believed to share the religious convictions of the Christian Zionists. After all, his daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism after she had married a Jewish man.

Sure enough, it is not only money that makes politicians act. Ideologies and religions are equally potent. The medieval Crusaders were motivated by religious principles; Montezuma, the ruler of the Aztec state in Mexico, rather than resisting the Spanish incursion, gave in to them, being convinced that the Spaniards were God’s messengers. American Christian Zionists are doing the same. Their loyalties lie with the state of Israel in the first place. Split loyalties is a phenomenon testified by history many a time. Religious minorities very often did not feel the ethnic ties with their compatriots. Rather, they felt and acted in unison with other ethnicities against their own so long as the other ethnicity shared the same creed. The same was true of ideologies.

Now what was the purpose of killing Ayatollah Al Khamenei? This act can only stiffen Iran’s resistance. The murder of a spiritual – religious – leader sets the war in a different dimension. Add to this the murder of the 150 schoolgirls: Iranians of whatever ethnicity will rather rally around the government than betray it. While the school event might be understood as a miscalculation, the killing of the Ayatollah was beyond a shadow of a doubt purposeful.

Despite what the Americans and the Israelis had expected, Iran has not disintegrated nor has it collapsed. Iranian did not take to the streets, so regime change is nowhere in sight. What can be envisaged is a protracted war. Washington had not reckoned with it, or did it?