Israeli Strikes Demonstrates Limits of Western Military Might

November 5, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Israel’s most recent missile strikes on Iran reveal the limits to conventional Western military power in the Middle East, reflecting wider limits globally.
While Israel’s air force conducted a sophisticated, large-scale operation requiring well-trained, well-coordinated personnel as well as capable air-launched long-range precision guided missiles, a combination of Iranian defensive capabilities and constraints on Western (including Israeli) military industrial production limited results.

While Israel and its US sponsors are capable of larger-scale military operations, this would be within the context of open warfare – warfare US-Israeli forces and their combined industrial power would struggle to sustain.

Doubts may exist regarding Iranian resolve and resilience and whether it and its allies could outlast and outfight US-Israeli forces short of either or both the US and Israel resorting to nuclear weapons. Even if the US and its proxies, including Israel, were to prevail over Iran in the Middle East, it may come at the cost of forfeiting Washington’s pursuit of primacy elsewhere around the globe, including in Ukraine versus Russia and the Asia-Pacific region versus China.

Escalation Toward War

Long-standing US policy seeks to use Israel to provoke war with Iran, absolving Washington of responsibility while creating a pretext for Washington itself to wade into the conflict once it begins. Despite Israel lacking the conventional military power required to fight and win a war against Iran, Israel has conducted a long list of provocations to draw Iran into conflict, nonetheless, specifically to fulfill this US foreign policy objective.

Exchanges of missile strikes between Israel and Iran began in April 2024 when Israel attacked the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing military personnel and civilians. It triggered a chain-reaction of strikes, assassinations, and retaliations, documented in a timeline laid out by the New York Times.

Iran’s first retaliatory strike in April 2024 consisted of a barrage of drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles two weeks after its consulate was attacked and after notifying the United States days prior, giving the US and its regional partners ample time to coordinate efforts to intercept most of the incoming weapons.

US-Israel Inch Toward Wider, More Dangerous War

October 14, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Beginning in October 2023 a renewed cycle of violence began destabilizing the Middle East. Hamas’ October 7, 2023 military operation into Israeli-held territory served as a pretext for Israel, not to dismantle Hamas itself, but to conduct an indiscriminate punitive military operation against all of Gaza.

 
Israel all but admitted as much, with Israeli Defense Forces spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari admitting “thousands of tonnes of munitions had already been dropped on the tiny strip” by October 10, 2023 and that, “right now we’re focused on what causes maximum damage.”

While the Western media repeatedly refers to Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack as “Iranian-backed,” the West itself has admitted that Iran had no knowledge of the impending operation, let alone any role in it. This resembles deliberate attempts by the US to infer Iraqi culpability regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US, despite officially admitting Iraq played no role, all to serve as a partial pretext for the eventual US invasion and occupation of Iraq from 2003 onward.

Omitted from deliberately deceptive narratives trying to link Iran to Hamas is the fact that Hamas has a long-standing history of serving as an extension of US aggression in the region, rather than serving as a bulwark against it. In 2012, Hamas publicly announced it would mobilize against the Syrian government on the side of US-backed and armed militants. For years, Hamas fighters would play a role in fighting the Syrian government and its Iranian, Russian, and Hezbollah allies.

For years, Hamas has worked in tandem with Israel itself to frustrate efforts to establish a two-state solution, perpetuating hostilities, and serving as a continuous pretext for continued Israeli aggression.

Creating an Impossible Dilemma for Iran

The ultimate goal of Israel’s punitive operation against Gaza is to create an impossible dilemma for Iran and its allies and, eventually, a permissive environment for wider conflict across the region.

While Iran does not support Hamas, it supports the Palestinian people and their right to resist what the UN recognizes under international law as illegal Israeli occupation. Iran and its allies, including Lebanon-based Hezbollah and Yemen-based Ansar Allah (referred to across the Western media as “Houthis”) were compelled to assist the Palestinians.

Hezbollah has since exchanged fire with Israeli military targets along the Israeli-Lebanese border, while Ansar Allah has conducted interdiction operations against Israeli-bound shipping through the Red Sea.

Israel has used this as a pretext to escalate further, striking Iran’s consulate in Syria on April 1, 2024, and a series of terrorist attacks and targeted assassinations against Hezbollah culminating in the death of Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.

Both escalations were met by Iranian retaliation. Iran conducted a large-scale attack on Israel using stand-off weapons including drones, cruise missiles, and long-range ballistic missiles in mid-April and a larger ballistic missile strike in early October.

Both strikes were conducted with considerable restraint.

The mid-April strike was preceded by Iranian warnings, providing the US and Israel days to prepare. The second strike, although conducted on short notice and involving a larger number of ballistic missiles, was designed to demonstrate Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses rather than to maximize damage.

Washington Sets Trap for Iran, Will Iran Take the Bait?

September 24, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and growing tensions in the Asia-Pacific, Washington is moving toward an equally dangerous, regional war in the Middle East between its Israeli proxies and a growing list of neighboring states and organizations.
This includes Lebanon and the Lebanese-based military and political organization Hezbollah, the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran, as well as Shi’a militias across Iraq and Yemeni-based Ansar Allah referred to across the Western media as the “Houthis.”

This large group of nations and organizations stretching across the region share a common denominator – they all serve as obstacles to US primacy over the region, with the US itself having waged war directly and/or indirectly against each since the end of World War2.

Just as the US has recruited Ukraine to wage war on Russia by proxy in Eastern Europe and has politically captured and used the island province of Taiwan against the rest of China in the Asia-Pacific region, the US has carefully cultivated Israel politically and militarily for decades to serve as a proxy used to carry out assassinations, terrorist attacks, military strikes, and even provoke wars the US itself seeks plausible deniability in regard to.

Toward this end, the US provides Israel with billions in aid annually, including a steady flow of arms and ammunition Israel’s various wars of aggression would be impossible to conduct without. While Washington publicly poses as seeking peace and stability in the Middle East, its continuous support for Israel enables the perpetual conflict and instability undermining the region.

Most recently, the US has repeatedly claimed to have urged Israeli restraint regarding its military operations against Gaza. In practice, however, the US has enabled the large-scale destruction of Gaza through the continual shipment of munitions including thousands of bombs used in Israeli airstrikes, Reuters reported in June of this year.

Despite both the US and its Israeli proxies claiming Israeli actions are done in self-defense, the level of violence has been one-sided, with Gaza all but flattened and tens of thousands left dead, injured, or displaced. In parallel with its operations in Gaza, Israel has carried out strikes against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran – none of whom were involved in Hamas attacks in October last year, according to the Israeli military itself.

All three nations have repeatedly resisted retaliating to these Israeli provocations.

Israel: The Original Ukraine-Style Battering Ram

The nature of Israeli belligerence is transparent, part of a well-documented US policy to provoke wider war across the Middle East the US can then justify intervening in – and war both the US and its Israeli proxies can cite when using weapons and tactics otherwise difficult or impossible to justify – up to and including nuclear weapons.

In 2009, the Brookings Institution in its 170-page paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” would detail various means to coerce, contain, and ultimately overthrow the government of Iran, including waging war against Iran.

The paper admits how difficult it would be for the United States itself to launch military strikes against Iran, stating:

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it.

It also says:

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.

An entire chapter was dedicated to the use of Israel to carry out an initial strike on Iran, allowing the US to distance itself from culpability. Titled, “Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” it explicitly states:

…the goal of this policy option would be to destroy key Iranian nuclear facilities in the hope that doing so would significantly delay Iran’s acquisition of an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. However, in this case, an added element could be that the United States would encourage—and perhaps even assist—the Israelis in conducting the strikes themselves, in the expectation that both international criticism and Iranian retaliation would be deflected away from the United States and onto Israel.

The paper notes that an Israeli strike could, “trigger a wider conflict between Israel and Iran that could draw in the United States and other countries,” giving Washington the pretext it seeks ahead of any war of aggression it itself wages against Iran.

With this policy in mind, Israel’s steady cadence of increasingly provocative attacks against Iran and its allies is easier to understand. The US, through Israeli provocations, seeks to provoke a wider war the US itself can wade into, appearing to be aiding an ally rather than initiating yet another war of aggression in the Middle East.

Ultimately, for this trap to work successfully, Iran must retaliate to one of these many provocations, and do so in a way the US and its allies can portray as disproportionate or even “unprovoked.”

So far, Iran’s responses have been exceedingly measured.

2009 US Policy Paper Planned Current Israeli-Iranian Tensions

April 15, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Since October 7, 2023 it would appear a spontaneous chain of events is leading the Middle East deeper and deeper into conflict. From Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza to its strikes on Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and repeated strikes across Syria (including the recent strike on Iran’s embassy in Damascus), to the ongoing US-led confrontation with Yemen in the Red Sea, it would appear that poor diplomacy is failing to prevent escalation and is instead leading to mounting tensions and a growing potential for wider war.

In reality, almost verbatim, US-Israeli diplomacy (or lack thereof) and military operations are following a carefully laid out policy described in the pages of the Brooking Institution’s 2009 paper, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran.” 

Washington’s Middle East Playbook 

The Brookings Institution is a Washington-based think tank funded by both the US government and military, as well as the largest corporate-financier interests across the collective West. Its board of directors and experts are among the most prominent figures in US foreign policy and political circles. What is produced in the institution’s papers is far from speculation or commentary, but instead reflects a consensus regarding the direction of US foreign policy.

Its 2009 paper is no exception. For those who read its 170 pages in 2009, they would have learned about ongoing or future plans to overthrow or contain the Iranian government.

There are entire chapters regarding “diplomatic options” which laid out plans to appear to engage with Iran in a deal regarding its nuclear program, unilaterally abandoning the plan, and then using its failure as a pretext to apply further pressure on the Iranian government and economy (Chapter 2: Tempting Tehran: The Engagement Option).

There are chapters that detail methods of creating unrest within Iran, both by using US government-funded opposition groups (Chapter 6: The Velvet Revolution: Supporting a Popular Uprising) and even through supporting US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organizations like the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) (Chapter 7: Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iranian Minority and Opposition Groups). 

Other chapters detail a direct US invasion (Chapter 3: Going All the Way: Invasion) and a smaller scale air campaign (Chapter 4: The Osiraq Option: Airstrikes).

Finally, a whole chapter is dedicated to using Israel to trigger a war the US could then appear reluctant to wade into afterwards, (Chapter 5: Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike).

US Withdrawal from Syria and Iraq: The Worst-Case Scenario

January 29, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Rumors and announcements have swirled recently regarding the presence of US troops in Syria and Iraq, and the prospect of at least a drawdown of troops taking place in one or both locations. This follows escalating violence between local militias and US forces, who have traded missiles and airstrikes amid the ongoing Israeli invasion of Gaza and a resulting decline in regional security.

While the Pentagon was quick to deny claims that US forces might withdraw from Syria, CNN in a January 25, 2024 article, “US and Iraqi governments expected to start talks on future of US military presence in the country,” would note that discussions would “focus on whether and when it will be feasible to end the US military presence in Iraq.”

A similar process took place preceding the eventual withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan in Central Asia, completed in August 2021.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan was interpreted at the time as a symptom of waning US power, and while that may be a contributing factor, other analysts feared it was merely a means of freeing up US resources to expand conflict elsewhere.

This fear was confirmed by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken during a press conference in December 2022, in which he admitted:

When it comes to Russia’s war against Ukraine, if we were still in Afghanistan, it would have, I think, made much more complicated the support that we’ve been able to give and that others have been able to give Ukraine to resist and push back against the Russian aggression.

It should be noted that the US had been deliberately drawing Russia into a wider conflict in Ukraine for years leading up to Russia’s Special Military Operation. The RAND Corporation in a September 2019 policy paper titled, “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground,” would include an entire chapter titled, “Provide Lethal Aid to Ukraine,” explaining that:

Expanding U.S. assistance to Ukraine, including lethal military assistance, would likely increase the costs to Russia, in both blood and treasure, of holding the Donbass region. More Russian aid to the separatists and an additional Russian troop presence would likely be required, leading to larger expenditures, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

The following month, under the Trump administration, the US would begin supplying Ukraine lethal aid in the form of Javelin anti-tank missiles, ABC News would report. It was clearly the beginning of a policy meant to draw Russia in and draw as much “blood and treasure” from Russia as possible. It was at this time a withdrawal from Afghanistan was under serious consideration. It would begin under the Trump administration and finally be fully implemented under the subsequent Biden administration.

The withdrawal, in hindsight, was a clear prerequisite for freeing up the resources required for the upcoming US proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.

US Recruits Elon Musk's SpaceX for Iran Regime Change Op

October 26, 2022 (The New Atlas) - The US is now openly involving itself in what was from the beginning US-engineered unrest in Iran.

Providing material support including communication equipment is a stated policy of US plans for regime change and specifically in regards to Iran.

Evidence from 2009 onward exposes the US government's use of US-based tech giants - Google, Twitter, and Facebook - and now Elon Musk's SpaceX - to advance US foreign policy in violation of international law and the UN Charter.

US “Iran Nuclear Deal” Ploy Coming Full Circle

July 23, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - Hopes for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) simply known as the Iran Nuclear Deal seemed to fade further during US President Joe Biden’s recent trip to Israel where the US and Israeli governments signed a pledge to use force against Iran should it pursue nuclear weapons (weapons both the US and Israel possess).

US-based ABC News in its article, “Biden left with few options on Iran as nuclear talks stall,” would claim:

President Joe Biden made a clear promise on Iran, declaring that the country would never become a nuclear power under his watch. But during his time in the White House, the path towards upholding that promise has only become murkier.

During his trip to the Middle East, the president said he would consider using force against Iran only as a “last resort,” although Israel, the US.’s most ardent ally in the region, has pushed for the administration to issue a “credible military threat” against Tehran.

The article would mention the Iran Nuclear Deal specifically, claiming:

…while the administration initially hope to cut a “longer and stronger” deal with Iran, over a year and half of indirect negotiations has produced little movement towards restoring even the original terms of the agreement.

After a monthslong stalemate, a 9th round of talks took place in Doha, Qatar, at the end of June. A State Department spokesperson did not sugarcoat the outcome, saying “no progress was made.”

The 2018 unilateral withdrawal of America from the deal by the administration of US President Donald Trump is blamed for the deal’s failure. Yet the Trump administration’s withdrawal was predicted long before President Trump took office, and in fact, long before US President Barack Obama even signed the deal in the first place. President Biden’s recent activities are only wrapping up what was always a diplomatic ploy meant to trap Iran.

The Nuclear Deal Was Always a Trap

When President Obama signed the Iran Nuclear Deal, it was celebrated as a breakthrough in US diplomacy and a departure from the previous Bush administration’s expanding wars of aggression spanning Iraq and Afghanistan while threatening Iran next.

America's Predictable Betrayal of the 'Iran Nuclear Deal'

April 10, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - Despite campaign promises made by now US President Joe Biden to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal - Washington's return to the deal has predictably stalled. 

In February 2021, AP would report in its article, "Biden repudiates Trump on Iran, ready for talks on nuke deal," that: 

The Biden administration says it’s ready to join talks with Iran and world powers to discuss a return to the 2015 nuclear deal, in a sharp repudiation of former President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” that sought to isolate the Islamic Republic.

The US had unilaterally withdrawn from the 2015-2016 deal brokered under the Obama-Biden administration in 2018 under US President Donald Trump. The deal was deemed "defective" and much more stringent conditions were demanded by the US with crushing economic sanctions under a policy of "maximum pressure" imposed until Iran capitulated. 

Despite Biden's attempts to distinguish his administration from Trump's, his promise to return to the deal was conditional, requiring Iran to recommit to the deal's conditions before the US lifts sanctions - and only after additional conditions are discussed - and until then, sanctions and other mechanisms of political pressure will be applied to Tehran. 

In other words - Biden's policy is exactly the same policy pursued by the Trump administration. 

Desire to Overturn "Trump's Policy" an Admission it was the Wrong Policy 

Biden's apparent desire to return to the table with Iran is in itself an admission that the Trump administration's decision to leave the deal was a mistake. 

The US - as self-proclaimed leader of the international community - would be expected to demonstrate good leadership by not only admitting to its mistakes, but assuming responsibility for them - returning to the Iran Nuclear Deal unconditionally and approaching additional concerns only after the original terms of the deal were back in place - with Iran in full compliance, and US sanctions lifted as promised under the original agreement. 

West's Information War Continues

April 8, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - YouTube has recently deleted the latest channel used by Iranian state media's PressTV. The move follows attacks on the Iranian media outlet by US-based social media giant Facebook earlier this year. 

PressTV's own take on the deletion in its article, "Google renews attack on YouTube account of Iran’s Press TV," would note: 

Google has for the seventh time targeted Iranian broadcaster Press TV, blocking the English-language news network’s access to its official YouTube account without any prior notice.

The US tech giant shut YouTube accounts of Press TV late on Tuesday, citing "violations of community guidelines."

Iranian state media is only the most recent target of US censorship and information warfare, with YouTube, Facebook and Twitter having also recently de-platformed government accounts in Myanmar as well as a concerted effort by these same networks to either de-platform or undermine the credibility of Russian and Chinese state media.  

The use of ambiguous justifications like "violations of community guidelines" which themselves can be ambiguous and open to interpretation, helps demonstrate the political nature of what is clearly a campaign of censorship. 

YouTube and other US-based social media platforms, still dominating the global social media industry, attempt to portray targets of what is clearly politically-motivated censorship as "fake news" or somehow engaged in dangerous "disinformation," while the accounts of Western-based media organizations actually involved in very real disinformation, often times in promotion of sanctions and warfare having a direct impact on millions of lives, remain online and in good standing. 

Western Monopoly Challenged 

Beyond social media, the UK had recently ousted Chinese state media, CGTN, which was met by Beijing in turn shutting down BBC broadcasts in China. 

More recently, China-based BBC reporter John Sudworth would flee to Taiwan, fearing legal actions for his outrageous, one-sided propaganda regarding Xinjiang.

The BBC's own article, "BBC China correspondent John Sudworth moves to Taiwan after threats," deliberately attempts to portray Sudworth as a victim of "threats" rather than a foreign agent involved in political interference under the guise of journalism finally facing legitimate legal actions. 

The Greater Danger of Israeli Provocations in Syria

February 19, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - Continued airstrikes carried out by Israeli warplanes in Syria presents - at face value - an obvious and persistent threat to Syria. In a wider context, the threat runs much deeper and extends to Syria's allies in Tehran. 

Israel has been an eager participant in the US-led proxy war on Syria beginning in 2011. It has provided safe-haven and support for Western-backed militants along and within its borders. It has also at various junctures carried out airstrikes in Syria in a bid to impede Damascus' ability to reestablish peace and stability within Syria's borders. 

And according to US policy papers written before and after the beginning of the 2011 proxy war against Syria - Washington had long ago slated Israel a role in undermining and aiding in the overthrow of the Syrian government - and admittedly as part of a wider strategy to isolate and eventually target Iran. 

The most likely current goal is to continue ratcheting up tensions with Iran - a nation that has committed significant resources and manpower toward the goal of stabilizing Syria and ending the highly destructive conflict. 

As tensions continue to rise across the region, Israel and its backers in Washington will likely seek a pretext for Israel to strike Iran directly - a plan US policymakers had devised as early as 2009 - in the hopes Iran would retaliate and provide a wider pretext still for the US itself to intervene. 

US policymakers had noted that an Israeli-led first strike on Iran would be complicated by its problematic relationship with all the nations its warplanes would need to fly over in order to carry out the attack. 

But recently - efforts have been underway to "repair" those relations, paving the way - or in this case - opening the skies for - the long-planned Israeli strikes. 

Articles like the New York Times', "Morocco Joins List of Arab Nations to Begin Normalizing Relations With Israel," would take note of this process and how nations like Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates have all begun this process - and how these first few nations would help make it easier for others - like Saudi Arabia - to follow suit. 

Iran's Warning to US-funded Agitators

January 19, 2021 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - CNN would report in its article, "Iran executes dissident journalist Rouhollah Zam," Iran's swift and severe punishment for what the American media company suggested was "alleged attempts to overthrow" the Iranian government. 

CNN glosses over Iran's claims that Zam and his media operation helped incite deadly violence during protests targeting the Iranian government in 2017 and 2018 and instead cites Western government and corporate foundation-funded "rights" groups who condemned the execution. 

Near the end of the article, CNN briefly mentions Fars News Agency which detailed the security operation Iran carried out to capture Zam in France and bring him back to face justice in its article, "Riot Provocateur Rouhollah Zam Executed." 

Fars News Agency also provided details omitted in the CNN article including mention of Zam's Telegram group for "Amad News" with which he and those working with him promoted unrest including violence. Fars News Agency also noted Zam's ties to Western governments who were backing his work. 

And while the Western media portrays Iran's claims and charges against Zam as somehow embellished or disproportionate in the wake of his execution - the Western media had previously admitted as much about Zam and his activities in Iran themselves. 

In a 2018 Daily Beast article titled, "The App Powering the Uprising in Iran, Where Some Channels Pushed for Violence," it would admit that Zam ran "Amad News" and that (emphasis added): 

Two channels on the encrypted messaging app Telegram, Amad News and Restart, have become major players in Iranian political discourse in recent weeks. The best-known figure associated with Amad News is Ruhollah Zam, while Restart is run by Mohammad Hosseini. Both channels have been accused of inciting violence.

Then managers of Amad News announced that the person responsible for encouraging violence had been fired.

The Daily Beast even admits that Zam - as well as fellow agitator Hosseini - had both been involved in the US State Department's Voice of America media platform, admitting (emphasis added): 

In recent months, the Restart group has gained support from the Bayan Media Network, the director of which is Bijan Farhoodi who used to work with the Voice of America (VOA). Also, the program Last Page on VOA TV network, which is hosted by Mehdi Falahati, has frequently invited Ruhollah Zam on its broadcasts. There is no evidence that this proves a systematic connection between them, but what is clear is that Restart and Amad have succeeded in securing powerful platforms for their agendas.  

While the Daily Beast - even in 2018 - tried to downplay the significance of Zam's media operation inciting violence, undermining the Iranian government, and promoting unrest all while appearing on US government-funded media networks - US policymakers themselves have admitted in detailed policy papers that this would be precisely the plan used by the US government to overthrow the government of Iran. 

US Plans for Iranian Regime Change 

The 2009 Brookings Institution paper, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," would extensively lay out this plan under chapter 6 titled, "Supporting a Popular Uprising." 

Iran Prepares Next Satellite Launch

January 12, 2021 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The Iranian Space Agency (ISA) is preparing the launch of another satellite into orbit, the Zafar 2, which is described by Tehran Times as being capable of "taking color photos and [surveying] oil reserves, mines, forests, and natural lands." 

This capability can be used for monitoring seasonal environmental changes as well as for creating detailed maps.

Zafar 2 has been developed entirely within Iran by the Iranian University of Science and Industry.  

Zafar 2's predecessor failed to reach orbit, but Iran has previously, successfully launched satellites to orbit including Omid in 2009, Rasad in 2011 and Navid in 2012.

Iran's current satellite launch vehicles consist of the Safir and Safir-2 rockets, the latter of which is also referred to as Simorgh. 

These are considered as small-lift orbital launch vehicles or small launch vehicles (SLVs) comparable to Rocket Lab's Electron, Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology's Start-1, Orbital Sciences Corporation's Minotaur I, China's Long March 6 and Long March 11 as well as Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's (JAXA) Epsilon and the European Space Agency's (ESA) Vega. 

Why this is Important

Iran now belongs to an exclusive club of nations capable of building and launching vehicles and payloads into orbit.  This small club includes Russia, the US, France, Japan, the UK, India, Israel, Ukraine, and North Korea. Many of these nations have previously developed the ability to send payloads into space but are not currently continuing to do so, meaning Iran belongs to a much more exclusive club still. 

Iran has achieved this despite immense economic, political and military pressure from the US and its allies. This pressure manifests itself in the form of intense and enduring economic sanctions, political subversion and even covert and semi-covert military operations. 

Dangerous Provocations Ahead for Iran

December 9, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The recent assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has been framed by an almost gleeful Western media as an attempt to ensure incoming US President Joe Biden does not return to the so-called "Iran Nuclear Deal" signed while he was Vice President in 2015. 

The story goes that Biden had hoped to return the US back to a prominent leadership role upon the global stage and that making peace with Iran was among his priorities. 

There was a rush by the Western media to blame the Israeli government - who in turn appears to be in no rush to discount or disprove these accusations. The purpose of this is to make the US appear uninvolved in the recent escalation. The race to shape public opinion and depict the US as helpless amid growing tensions between Israel and Iran is meant to make any possible US involvement in the near future look uninvited, unplanned, and reluctant on Washington's part.  

However, the goal of undermining and overthrowing the Iranian government has been an obsession for US foreign policy for decades - spanning multiple presidencies including that of Barack Obama's. 

US policymakers have - since as early as 2009 - specifically laid out plans to use these sort of tactics to move the US and its allies further toward conflict with Iran - and to do so in a way to minimize to make Iran - not the US - look like the aggressor.  

Those holding their breath, waiting for President-elect Joe Biden to reverse the dangerous course US foreign policy is on forget who - for 8 years as Vice President - helped steer it in this direction in the first place. 

Assassination of Iranian Scientist brings US-Israel Closer to War with Iran

November 29, 2020 (Brian Berletic - LD) - Reports on the death of senior Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh signals another dangerous turn in Washington's systematic attempts to undermine and overthrow the current government of Iran.  

The Western media is framing the assassination as a unilateral operation carried out by Israel with the New York Times in an article titled, "Assassination in Iran Could Limit Biden’s Options. Was That the Goal?," claiming: 

Intelligence officials say there is little doubt that Israel was behind the killing — it had all the hallmarks of a precisely timed operation by Mossad, the country’s spy agency. And the Israelis have done nothing to dispel that view. 

The article also claimed: 

But Mr. Netanyahu also has a second agenda.

“There must be no return to the previous nuclear agreement,” he declared shortly after it became clear that Mr. Biden — who has proposed exactly that — would be the next president.

The New York Times assumes that Biden genuinely wanted to return to the 2015 nuclear agreement - officially known as the The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - and insists that it is up to Iran whether or not that possibility still remains. 

The article claims: 

If Iran holds off on significant retaliation, then the bold move to take out the chief of the nuclear program will have paid off, even if the assassination drives the program further underground.

And if the Iranians retaliate, giving Mr. Trump a pretext to launch a return strike before he leaves office in January, Mr. Biden will be inheriting bigger problems than just the wreckage of a five-year-old diplomatic document.

But there is a third option - if the US or Israel - or both - stage an event meant to look like an Iranian retaliation to help ensure the nuclear deal is permanently buried and only a path toward escalation lies ahead for Washington. 

And this third option is the most likely. More than mere speculation - this conclusion is drawn from US policy papers produced by corporate-funded policy think tank - the Brookings Institution. 

Their 2009 paper (PDF) titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran," had not only called for the US to disingenuously offer Iran an opportunity to escape from under US sanctions, but admitted that the offer would be deliberately sabotaged by the US and used as a pretext toward further escalation. 

Thus the JCPOA was doomed before it was even signed in 2015 - with US policymakers fully determined to scrap it at the most opportune time and then incrementally ratchet up pressure on Iran.

"Biden's America" Will Continue Pressure on Iran

November 19, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US President Donald Trump famously took a hardline approach against Iran - withdrawing the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - or the "Nuclear Deal" - and opting instead for a policy of "maximum pressure" against Iran diplomatically and economically. 

But there is a major misconception that the previous administration of former US President Barack Obama and then Vice President Joe Biden - had somehow sought to resolve US-Iranian tensions and offer Iran an opportunity to escape out from under decades of economic sanctions imposed by one US administration after another. 

In fact - the US strategy regarding Iran required by necessity a feigned rapprochement - via the "Nuclear Deal" - followed by a sharp and hostile pivot aimed to make Iran appear unreasonable in the face of attempted peace offered by Washington. 

This two-part strategy was planned during the administration of US President George Bush and executed by the Obama and Trump administrations respectively. 

Far from mere speculation - this strategy was laid out in an extensive 2009 policy paper published by the Brookings Institution - a prominent US-based think tank funded by the largest, most powerful corporate-financier interests in the West. 

The paper titled, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF)," stated explicitly (emphasis added): 

..any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

For the policy to be executed within the current political environment in the United States - it required one administration operating under liberal left cover - and another under a more hardline right-leaning cover.  

The paper having been published in 2009 and the policy laid out in it executed over the course of the following decade illustrates the continuity of agenda in Washington regardless of who is elected into office - and how corporate interests - not the American people or even the rhetoric of their elected representatives - drive US foreign policy.  

And even when the Obama administration extended its feigned "Nuclear Deal" to Iran - it had deliberately engineered proxy war in Syria aimed directly at one of Iran's closest regional allies. 

US Envoy for Iran Brian Hook Steps Down, Replaced by Elliott Abrams

What new plans does Washington have for Iran?

August 9, 2020 (21st Century Wire) - This week, one of President Trump’s longest serving foreign officers, Brian Hook, announced his departure from the State Department position as special envoy for Iran.



This move is not particularly encouraging for Iran, considering that his replacement will be rabid neoconservative relic and Iran hard-liner from the Bush Administration, Elliott Abrams.

Previously, Abrams was the State Department’s special representative for Venezuela, and presided over a series of failed coups which were supposed to depose Venezuela’s President Nicholas Maduro.

Based on his past exploits in South America and unabashed support for Israel, one can only surmise that Washington is planning to raise tensions with Iran, which would surely raise them in the Middle East in general. Certainly, Abrams is unlikely to want to pursue anything nearing detente with Iran, and certainly not a diplomatic solution to the collapse of the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal set in place by the Obama Administration in 2015.

Presently, the Iran policy pursued by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been one of “maximum pressure” in the former of crippling economic sanctions in the hopes of bringing Iranian leadership back to the nuclear negotiation table, and but really its goal is achieving regime change in Tehran.

It goes without saying that any renewed aggressive stance towards Iran will also amplify US pressure already in place on Syria, Lebanon and any Shia elements in Iraq.

Hook, 52, leaves after 4 years of service to the Trump Administration, and has been the face of US sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Although Hook gave the outward appearance of diplomacy towards Iran, the policy was harsh and effectively immobile.


READ MORE IRAN NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Iran Files

BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

US Policy Vs. Iran: Apex Desperation

February 5, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - US policy versus Iran has reached new heights of desperation and new lows in terms of undermining international law and norms.

In Washington's losing battle to maintain hegemony in the Middle East at the expense of the actual people and nations that exist there - it has resorted to high-level assassinations, unilateral strikes against targets within sovereign nations against the expressed will of the governments presiding over them, all while exposing what appears to be growing American military, political, and economic impotence.

In sharp contrast, nations like Russia and China have made gains as Washington's flagging fortunes create a power vacuum in the region. Rather than replacing the US as regional hegemons themselves - Moscow and Beijing are extending their multipolar concept into the Middle East - assisting nations in rebuilding themselves after years of US-engineered and led conflict, warding off additional conflict the US is attempting to use to reassert itself in the region, and allowing nations to stand on their own and pursue their own interests independently of the traditional spheres of power established during the age of empires.

US Think Tanks Out of Ideas   

Corporate-funded US policy think tank - the Brookings Institution - and one of its senior fellows Daniel Byman - recently published an article titled, "Is deterrence restored with Iran?," in which several good points are made - but many more revealing aspects of America's increasingly sick and out of touch foreign policy are exposed particularly in regards to Iran.

Byman's writings are important to consider since Byman signed his name alongside several other prominent Brookings fellows upon the institution's 2009 paper, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), in which the groundwork for everything that unfolded before and since 2009 regarding US policy toward Iran was laid out in great detail.

The 2009 paper included US plans to undermine Iranian political and social stability through targeting its economy and funding opposition groups and protests - which the US subsequently did. It included plans to fund and arm militants to carry out violence aimed at coercing or overthrowing the Iranian government - which the US also did. It also included plans to covertly provoke war with Iran to serve as a pretext for US-led regime change - which the US is clearly and repeatedly attempting to do.

More interesting still is that the paper also included plans to lure Iran into a peace deal specifically for the US to make claims Tehran failed to honor it and to serve as a pretext for war. It is interesting because not only did the subsequent "Iran Nuclear Deal" fulfill the paper's requirements, the machination unfolded over the terms of two US presidents - Barrack Obama and Donald Trump - serving as a reminder that special interests drive US foreign policy, not America's elected leaders, and that the agendas of these special interests transcend US presidential administrations rather than find themselves subjected to them.

Byman's recent article - one might expect - would be full of revisions and fresh ideas regarding US foreign policy in the Middle East and policy regarding Iran - considering the plans laid out in the 2009 paper have dramatically failed.

Instead it is filled with tired narratives including unfounded accusations that Iran seeks nuclear weapons or is funding "terrorism" across the region rather than reacting to real US-sponsored terrorism in the form of Al Qaeda, its affiliates and the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

It is now common knowledge that these terrorist organizations have been openly armed and backed by the US and its allies in their failed bid to overthrow the government of Syria, pressure the government of Iraq, and defeat Houthi fighters in Yemen.

Other tired narratives laid out by Byman include feigning knowledge of Israel's role as a US proxy and that Israeli aggression is used as an intermediary for Washington's regional designs.

If US policymakers are this detached from reality - or at least their explanations to unwitting audiences they are attempting to sell policy to are this detached - the policies they are attempting to sell will be entirely unsustainable. The growing public backlash and increasing lack of cooperation from opposing nations, neutral states, and even long-time US allies is testament to this.

US War of Terror Continues: Assassinating Iran's Top Anti-ISIS General

January 16, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The US has eagerly taken credit for the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani amid a series of military strikes carried out by US forces across Syria and Iraq. The assassination was shortly followed by Iranian missile strikes aimed at US bases in Iraq.

The BBC in its article, "Qasem Soleimani: Strike was to 'stop war', says Trump," would claim:

President Donald Trump said the US killed Iran's top military commander Qasem Soleimani "to stop a war, not to start one".

He said Soleimani's "reign of terror is over" following the strike at Iraq's Baghdad airport on Friday.

The strikes also targeted infrastructure supporting a network of Iranian-backed militias known as Popular Mobilization Units or PMUs.

The US claiming these strikes were meant to end "terror" are particularly surreal.

The PMUs along with General Soleimani and his special operations Quds Forces have played a key role in fighting and defeating US and Saudi-sponsored terrorism across the Middle East. This includes fighting terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, its many affiliates, and the so-called "Islamic State in Iraq and Syris" (ISIS) - all of which have been extensively exposed as recipients of US cash, weapons, and other forms of material and political support.

The War of Terror Continues 

Even the clumsy and often-manipulated Wikipedia lists Iran's Quds Forces as opposed against Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and ISIS alongside nations like the US and its allies. While Wikipedia doesn't overtly connect these terrorist organizations with their Western sponsors it is clear to even the casual observer that both appearing on the Quds Forces' opponents list carries with it many implications.

Beyond mere implications  - however -  it was the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) itself in a 2012 leaked memo that admitted, "the West, Gulf monarchies, and Turkey" were behind the rise of a what at the time was being called a "Salafist principality."

Strikes in Iraq and Syria: US Terror for the New Year

January 13, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) US strikes against targets in Iraq in Syria belonging to Iranian-linked militias operating across the territory of both Middle Eastern nations directly before New Year's marked a new low for US foreign policy in the region.

The strikes were soon followed by the assassination of senior Iranian military leader General Qasem Soleimani who headed Iran's renowned Quds Forces.

The combined provocations have led to a proportionate - and so far effective - counterstrike by Iran aimed at US military bases in Iraq. 

The US is Goading Iran, Not Defending Against It 

CNN in its article, "US strikes 5 facilities in Iraq and Syria linked to Iranian-backed militia," it was reported that:

US forces conducted airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against five facilities the Pentagon says are tied to an Iranian-backed militia blamed for a series of attacks on joint US-Iraq military facilities housing American forces.

The article would also claim:

Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman described the strikes against the group as "precision defensive strikes" that "will degrade" the group's ability to conduct future attacks against coalition forces.

And while the US would describe the strikes as defensive in nature - in reality the US is illegally occupying Syria and is coercing the government of Iraq to accept its open-ended and unwanted occupation there.

Worse still is that the Iranian-backed militias the US struck constitute one of the most formidable forces operating in the region arrayed against terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, its various affiliates, and the so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS).

The US narrative of protecting its troops - who occupy the region illegally and in direct contravention to international law - attempts to paper over continued efforts to cling to US hegemony in the Middle East and reverse its flagging fortunes - particularly in Syria where its regime war has unraveled.

Strikes on Iranian-backed militias and their senior leadership are a vain attempt to redraw the quickly changing geopolitical landscape in the Levant where Syria and its allies - particularly Russia and Iran - have come out on top.

Stabbing Iraq in the Back...

All while the US attempts to portray its actions as underwriting regional or even global security - the very nations it has carried out its attacks in have unequivocally condemned them. In Iraq - where there is at least a semblance of legitimacy to America's ongoing occupation, the Iraqi government has described the attacks as treacherous.

The assassination of General Qasem Soleimani  was likewise condemned widely across the region.

Thus - the US has carried unilateral actions inside a nation it attempts to portray as an ally and partner - actions condemned by the Iraqi government itself.

Finally, the CNN article would point out that the recent US strikes represent an escalation between the United States and Iran - amid a wider conflict that spans the region from Syria and Lebanon, to Iraq, to the south in Yemen, and even as far as in Afghanistan where US forces have been waging war for nearly 2 decades along Iran's eastern flank.

Within Iran itself, the US has organized ongoing efforts to destabilize the nation economically and politically aiming to either coerce Tehran or remove the government of Iran entirely.

The irony of the US claiming it is striking Iranian-backed militias in self-defense or in an attempt to combat "terrorism" is multifaceted.

The US which claims to be waging a global war on terror - has just struck the very forces serving as the front line against Al Qaeda and ISIS. Furthermore, when considering the US and its Saudi allies are Al Qaeda and ISIS' primary state sponsors, the irony deepens.

When the nations the US claims it is protecting protest US unilateral actions - nations who are the primary benefactors of Iranian-back militias and their efforts to combat Al Qaeda and ISIS and their terrorism aimed at dividing and destroying their nations and the wider region - US foreign policy and its most recent belligerence lays fully exposed.

One must also consider that US actions serve as one of the most disruptive factors driving ongoing regional instability.

The US continues to isolate itself by doubling down on failed policies - and in the process it is resorting to increasingly dangerous and desperate tactics that threaten regional and global peace and stability. Resorting to high-level assassinations represents a rarely resorted-to measure fully illustrating the growing depths of Washington's desperation.

For nations enduring US belligerence - the process of slowly exposing and countering US foreign policy must continue in earnest. Iran's pinpoint missile strikes aimed at US bases in Iraq, avoiding casualties represents just such patience - a show of force reminding Washington of what could happen if hostilities widen - and a show of restraint illustrating to the rest of the world that Iran is reasonable even in the face of unreasonable provocations.

The US is already increasingly exposed and isolated. For the US which has waged large scale war across the region with diminishing returns - a handful of additional US airstrikes and assassinations will do little to diminish Iranian-backed militias or their ongoing efforts to move the region out from under decades of US hegemony, aggression, terror, division, and destruction.

For the New Year - the US gifts the Middle East with yet more violence and terror - ensuring the region, its nations, and their people labor under no delusions regarding the source of the region's ongoing instability and violence. During the coming new year and the years to come, the process of slowly and surely uprooting US hegemony and all that it entails will continue.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

Firing Bolton: Bait and Switch or Changing Tack?

Editor's Note: This article was written before the strike on Saudi oil infrastructure. An article covering that incident can be found here. The US reaction and continued military build-up against Iran makes it more than clear predictions Bolton's "firing" was a bait and switch were accurate. 

September 22, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - News of US National Security Adviser John Bolton's departure was followed by hopeful commentary both within the US and abroad that so too would follow the aggressive foreign policy he advocated - particularly in regards to Iran.

However, US foreign policy - including its decades-long belligerence toward Iran - is a function of powerful corporate-financier special interests dominating Wall Street and Washington, with figures like Bolton merely bureaucratic interfaces between these interests, the government, and the public.

While one would hope the news of his departure as National Security Adviser meant a fundamental changing of tack of US foreign policy, it is much more likely an exercise in managing public perception at best - and a cynical bid to bait and switch the public with promises of peace ahead of the next round of US provocations and false flags aimed at triggering wider conflict with Iran.

A Change in Heart Unlikely     

One must consider what is more likely - that US foreign policy toward Iran is about to fundamentally change from decades of economic warfare, sanctions, regime change operations, US-sponsored terrorism, lies, deceit, and attempts to trigger all-out war - to an attempt to foster genuine "peace?"

Or that the "firing" of US National Security Adviser John Bolton is merely an attempt to portray the US as attempting to "chose peace" before the next round of US provocations and even false flag operations?