Roman-Parthian Wars – a Repeat

The Roman-Parthian Wars were a series of wars that took place between the years 54 BC and 217 AD. The Parthian Empire covered a large area, among others of today’s Iran and Iraq. Sometimes the Romans were victorious, sometimes the Parthians. It was a clash of civilisations, a clash between occidental Rome and oriental Parthia. Today’s war between the United States and Iran appears to be a continuation of that old conflict that extended over centuries. The United States is a descendant of ancient Rome. The names of state institutions like Senate, the names of certain buildings like the Capital, the architectural style – all testify to it. Also, the English language whose vocabulary is almost 80% ultimately of Latin origin (including such common words like money, tender, nice, car, train, pay, peace, pound, face, battle, soldier, navy, missile, message, digital, computer, autumn, dinner, office…) shows in no uncertain terms (with the two last words also being of Latin origin) that the American-Iranian hostilities are a prolongation of that ancient feud.

The American-Israeli Operation Epic Fury, which began on 28 of February 2026 with a launch of 900 strikes within the first 24 hours marked the beginning of something that we do not yet know how it will develop. The United States had hoped for a quick and spectacular victory, a victory guaranteed by the decapitation operation in which Iran’s highest religious leader Ali Khamenei (and his daughter, and his son-in-law, and his granddaughter) was killed. But Iran rather than surrender has struck back and has struck back successfully. Sure, the Persian state cannot stand up to the American might in an old-fashioned duel. It can, however, bite back where it hurts most, and compel Washington to reconsider its policy. Iran is smaller than the United States, both in terms of population and territory, but – as unforgettable Aesop wrote in many of his fables – even a mouse can have its revenge on a lion.

So, Iran struck where it is most painful: Iran struck at the oil refineries, and effectively blocked the Straight of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important choke point through which more than 20% of the global oil trade passes. The incapacitation of oil supply translates into higher prices of anything that is connected with oil, which in turn triggers a chain reaction of price rises, which is actually happening around the globe.

Washington appears to be surprised by Iranian resilience and Iranian defiance. The Americans had hoped for Iran to capitulate within days. Washington had hoped for a repeat of the 12-day war that took place in June last year. Nothing like that is anywhere in sight. Iran is launching missiles against American and non-American targets in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordania, and Israel. The targets are American military bases and the important infrastructure of those countries which host American bases. The oil refinery in Haifa, Israel, that is said to be hit processed 40% of Israel’s oil.

Two facts testify to America’s miscalculation and America’s second thoughts. First, Americans – Americans! – have proposed to Iran a ceasefire through a third party; second, President Donald Trump has called President Vladimir Putin to talk about… the war against Iran. What they discussed is not known: we can only guess that Washington is looking for off-ramps from the conflict.

Now, Iran seems to be to the United States what Ukraine has been to Russia for the last four years. For years the West has been sending munitions of war to Kiev; now it is Russia which is sending munitions of war to Tehran. The deal about selling Iran the advanced Russian S-400 antiaircraft and anti-missile complex has just sent shockwaves around the globe. The United States is about to taste its own medicine.

It is popular in the West to assume or even believe that Iranian people are against the religious ‘regime’ as the Western journalists are used to saying. Let us assume that it is true. If so, then the savage attack on Iran and the murder of 170 girls by the American Tomahawk missile compelled Iranians of all political persuasions to rally around the same ‘regime’. A historical repeat, again, just like it was in the thirties of the previous century in the Soviet Union. At that time there were many Soviet citizens who hated the Stalinist regime till… till the same regime was brutally attacked by the armies of the Third Reich. Precisely the same phenomenon was triggered in the Soviet Union which has been just triggered in Iran: those people who disliked communism and communist regime rallied around the communists and their leader.

The current Roman-Parthian war is going on. It is not merely a war between present-day Rome and the present-day Parthian Empire; rather, it is a war whose economic and political repercussions afflict the whole globe. India, China, South Korea, and Japan – they all depended very much on the oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. The said countries may wish to remain neutral in the ongoing hostilities, but if push comes to shove, if their economies become strangled by inadequate supplies, they may reconsider their policies and exert pressure on the participants. When Romans and Parthians fought against each other, either side would have looked for allies. Much the same is true of the present conflict. The American-Israeli alliance is facing the solidification of the political, economic, and military cooperation between Russia, Iran, and China. How long will the other countries watch from the sidelines?

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?

2 million draft dodgers

On Jan 30. 2026, Czech Radio Plus (Český rozhlas Plus) conducted a thirty-minute interview with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The journalist kept asking questions in English, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy kept answering in Ukrainian.

Most of the time the talk was predictable and boring. President Zelenskyy is giving such interviews by the hundreds, and there is really nothing new he might say. The war is going on as it has been going on for four years now. The president’s pleas and requests that he has been making throughout this time – at first embraced with understanding – have slowly begun to fall on deaf ears: Europe is no more capable of supporting Ukraine while the United States has reversed political course. If the European Union cannot send more aid to Kiev, what could Czechia do?

Towards the end of the talk there emerged an interesting piece of information. The journalist quoted Ukraine’s current minister of defence saying that there are as many as two million Ukrainian men avoiding draft, men who are for the most part outside Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was asked what he would like to say to those men and whether he would not like European governments – among others the Czech government – to push those men back to Ukraine. What may come as a surprise Volodymyr Zelenskyy neither condemned military dodgers nor did he call for measures to make them join the Ukrainian army. Ukraine’s president tried to understand the different motivations behind the decision that made those men quit their homeland. He also grew philosophical when he began describing the war-seasoned soldiers in the front and saying that they would not be too happy to have among themselves guys who are unwilling to fight. Fighting men necessarily hugely rely on their brothers in arms because they depend on them for their life. A dodger forced into military service might bring more detriment than be of any use.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s lenient stance on draft evasion poses questions. Has the president become soft on dodgers because he feels politically insecure? Has he become soft because he fears being imprisoned at the war’s end and accused of sending hundreds of thousands to the front to be killed and mutilated, knowing full well that the war cannot be won? Has Volodymyr Zelenskyy understood the senselessness of the hostilities? Does he anticipate the near end of the war? Or maybe he has realised that Ukraine will need men – lots of men – after the war for reconstruction? Has he understood that even if Ukraine won the war, the huge lack of men would make it impossible for the country to rebuild its economy?

One of the final questions was whether Volodymyr Zelenskyy considered being elected for the second term. The reply was that he did not know yet whether he would run again for president, but – yes – he kept thinking about it. Now, the Western listener might remain indifferent to this statement on the part of Ukraine’s president, but Ukrainians – at least some of them — remember that Volodymyr Zelenskyy promised to act in the capacity of president for only one term. What has changed? Has Volodymyr Zelenskyy tasted the flavour of power? Are the powers that be still backing him? Do the powers that be still wish him to occupy the highest post in Ukraine?

Two million draft dodgers and their families are not likely to vote Volodymyr Zelenskyy into office again. They remember one more thing: Volodymyr Zelenskyy promised to stop the hostilities in the Donbass. They remember that he even performed theatricals in the public in that he knelt down to show how urgently and humbly he would be in his talks with Moscow only to deescalate the conflict and bring peace. People remember. Instead of peace they got war and bussification – abducting people from the streets in broad daylight and sending them to the front. Two million draft dodgers are the tip of the iceberg. There are certainly more others who would have followed suit but for one reason or another could not. Ukrainians voted for Zelenskyy precisely because he promised to end the hostilities. Does he not know it? Does he cherish hopes of still being liked by the people? Does he think he might be elected?

It is often said that people vote with their feet. Yes, two million (officially) draftable men have already voted against Kiev’s bellicose policy. Add to this the women and the men that cannot be drafted, add the silent resistance inside the country and you will get the picture. Some commentators say that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is divorced from reality. His statement that he thinks about being re-elected – i.e. about being liked by the majority of Ukrainians – confirms that he is.

Iran in turmoil

Again and again, we hear news from Iran. We are hearing it right now. There are street demonstrations, there are street riots, there are arrests. We’ve been hearing about it for some time now, and we are hearing it at present. Obviously, the Iranian government does not suit the political plans of the powers that be or else there would be no riots, no demonstrations. What is happening in Iran has been practised in many other places around the globe, be it Syria or Libya, be it Serbia or Georgia, be it Venezuela or Kazakhstan. There is no evidence, but all the fingerprints point to the culprit behind the riots, and the culprit is always the same: CIA or MI6… or both.

What is again occurring in Tehran is a typical example of a colour revolution, of a revolution from outside. It makes one think about the two Russian revolutions of 1917. Those, too, were instigated from abroad. The result, initially at least, was astonishing. The grand Russian Empire disappeared; Russia sank into a prolonged, atrocious civil war that was also a war of attrition. When the country eventually surfaced onto the political stage, barely anyone reckoned with it because it was so weakened.

Such revolutions, or regime changes as they are called, have been applied very frequently during the second half of the former century, and continue to be applied in the current century. They are very often successful. They were successful in Serbia and Libya, in Syria and in Ukraine. Attempts were made in Belarus, Georgia and Kazakhstan, but they failed. Recently, in Venezuela, another approach has been adopted: that of abduction.

Iran is supported by (first of all) China and Russia. China purchases large quantities of oil from Iran. Iran is a BRICS member. Iran forms a slightly remote underbelly of the Russian Federation. But Iran is also a thorn in Israel’s flesh, and since the United States serves Israel just as the European Union serves Ukraine, so Washington feels obliged to support Israel. We do remember – do we not? — last time when Iran was bombed while the Washington-Tehran negotiations were under way?

The West will either achieve its goal of regime change – like in Syria – or it will lose its grip on Iran for good – just like it lost its grip on Belarus. Let us not forget that it was the British and the Americans who toppled Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and paved the way for the monarchical political system to be installed in Tehran. It might be that the same political actors would not mind at all if monarchy were to be restored in Iran. No, it is not monarchy that they are after, we know. It might be monarchy, it might be oligarchy, it might be as well as democracy – or, indeed, any other system of government so long as it is compliant with the managers of the world.

Stated goals – genuine goals

Among the twenty-eight points of the peace proposal that has been drafted by the Americans is one that – if agreed upon – promises amnesty to all the participants of the conflict in Ukraine. This point reveals a huge lot.

For a long time now we’ve been fed the narrative that it was the Russian soldiers who were cruel and inhumane. Stories were spun and, indeed, pictures shown in the media about the atrocities committed by the Russians on Ukrainians. Do you still remember the notorious Bucha massacre? The intended pun on words – Butchery in Bucha or Butchers from Bucha – and the village carefully and intentionally selected to make the headlines sound alarming?

At the same time we’ve been fed the narrative that Ukrainian soldiers behave themselves gallantly. They are not the ones who commit atrocities, they are not the ones who assault civilians. Such things are only done by those evil Russians.

Let us assume the veracity of such statements. Then, like a bombshell, we can read one of the points of the peace proposals about pardoning the perpetrators of war crimes or other atrocities. If it was the Russians who committed those crimes, then the pardon extends to them and them alone, right? Why does the United States want to spare the Russian ruffians in uniform? Why such magnanimity? Didn’t the collective West – the United States and the European Union – label Russia’s president a killer, didn’t the commissioners want him on trial in the Hague? They wanted to hold accountable no less a figure than Russia’s president: surely they would be much stricter while handling figures of a lesser caliber!

Reading this point of the peace proposal you suddenly learn that atrocities and war crimes are not worth prosecuting. Are the Americans genuinely trying to shield the hated Russian evil-doers? Do the Americans genuinely suggest that justice should not be done? No, certainly not.

As usual, we need to distinguish between stated goals and genuine goals. The stated goal is the amnesty, something enticing for the Russians who are allegedly up to their hilts in blood. The genuine goal is – yes, you guessed it right – to protect the Ukrainian soldiers and the multiple mercenaries fighting on the Ukrainian side who have committed atrocities and downright war crimes. They are to be shielded from justice, they are to be protected, they are to be saved for future conflicts when they will come in handy.

Barely anyone remembers or, indeed, knows about the 2014 Odessa fire, a fire that burnt fifty or so (Russian) men and women alive in the Trade Union House, which was set ablaze by Ukrainian political activists. Still fewer people took notice when Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced in one of his speeches at the very beginning of the conflict in Ukraine that Moscow knew the identity of the perpetrators of that fire and was about to track them down with the purpose of bringing them to book. Europeans or Americans may not have taken notice of those words; most probably they wouldn’t have heard them, since they only consume the news from the official channels. Yet, the wrongdoers would certainly have heard those words and consequently must have had the fright of their lives. The influential ones, those with connections to the powerful figures in the West, must have used all their influence to extract that kind of guarantee for themselves from their Western overlords.