Iran

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?

 

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.

 

 

Rules for thee but not for me

On June 13 2025, Israel carried out air strikes against targets inside Iran. Tel Aviv has thus arbitrarily administered punishment to Tehran for allegedly developing Iran’s capabilities of constructing a nuclear bomb. A few remarks.

① There are politicians and journalists, political analysts and other pundits who condemn the Russian intervention in Ukraine, which began in 2022, and in the same breath they justify the military action performed by Israel. Both Moscow and Tel Aviv claim they were compelled to carry out strikes against Ukraine and Iran respectively because the said countries posed an existential threat to Russia and Israel respectively. Ukraine wanted to join anti-Russian NATO and possibly acquire nukes, while Iran sought to manufacture nuclear weapons with the intention of wiping Israel out of the surface of the earth.

Why is Israel justified in its action while Russia is not? Notice that Ukraine borders on Russia, while Iran is divided from Israel by Iraq, Syria and Jordan.

② Tel Aviv stands on guard not to let any of the Middle East countries to have nuclear weapons while Israel itself has an arsenal of such weapons.

Why should one country have nuclear weapons while any other be prohibited from possessing them? What is the moral or rational explanation? It might be that those who have weapons of mass destruction are likely to say that they are angelic warriors who are not likely to use them or to use them without justification while the other countries are the bad guys who certainly would use them without justification. Yes, such is the narrative, but then it does not require much stretch of imagination to realize that the so-called bad guys think along precisely the same lines with this difference, however, that they regard themselves as angelic warriors and others as villains.

What if South Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? Reason? Because North Korea has them. Reason enough. We may rest assured the United States would have nothing against, so much so that South Korea might also be employed as an ally against China, allegedly America’s life-threatening rival. Why, the United States might not have anything against Japan acquiring nuclear weapons. Again, Japan might be used against China and – who knows – against Russia.

What if Tehran were rabidly anti-Russian? Would then Iran not be allowed to have nuclear weapons? If the idea of Ukraine possessing such weaponry was seriously considered at a time, then certainly an anti-Russian Iran would be given free rein in this respect.

③ Are American attempts at bringing international peace worth anything? President Donald Trump is helpless in brokering peace both in Ukraine and in the Middle East. The question arises whether the American leader is simply incompetent or… or whether these peace initiatives are only make believe. If the United States is a superpower, why cannot Washington project its political leverage on Ukraine and Israel? If a superpower cannot control much smaller states, then something must be the matter. What? It might be that Washington does not serve American interests. Is such a thought substantiated? Of course, it is. One only needs to look at the European leaders and their entirely anti-European policies whether it is the ethnic replacement or green economy or the anti-moral agenda.

④ What is the credibility of the American president? The Israelis have decapitated some of Iran’s military and civilian management precisely while talks were held between Washington and Tehran. It is obvious President Donald Trump must have known about the preparations for the attack. If by any chance he did not because he would have been against and the American powers that be desperately wanted to hit Iran, then his reliability as an American leader is even worse: why talk to a president who does not control his own country, his own agencies and his own underlings?

⑤ Iran lashed out, and lashed out successfully. Israel was hailed with missiles and the famed Iron Dome that was supposed to protect the country’s territory proved to be quite penetrable. Now Tel Aviv might request missiles and anti-aircraft systems from the United States to make up for the depleted stocks of their own missiles. What will then remain for Ukraine? Certainly Israel rather than Ukraine is Washington’s priority.

⑥ Will the United States army be drawn into war against Iran? That might mean splitting American military and other resources between the Middle East, Ukraine and China. Is that not too much even for a superpower, especially a superpower with domestic problems caused by – some say – thirty million unregistered aliens who flooded the country during the Biden administration and earlier? A civil war or a wave of terrorist attacks at home, an involvement in Ukraine, a military engagement in the Middle East, and muscle flexing in Washington’s dealings with the Middle Kingdom – is that not a huge overreach?

Whichever way you look at the events, one thing should strike you immediately: one attack is justified while another is not. Rules for thee but not for me.