Knowwhy

1.What a world: It is easier to count where there is no war in the world: nowhere, if you look at the political regions of the world and disregard East Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia, and New Zealand (and if you don’t count the war between Thailand and Cambodia). 

The clean-up operation to make America not just great but greater again, which began innocently enough with the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, is continuing apace. After South America with Venezuela, Cuba and Greenland announced as next, it is now the turn of the Middle East with Iran.  No, that’s not true at all, because the war that razed Palestine to the ground, that purged Lebanon of the influence of Hezbollah, which is also an Iranian arm in Lebanon, and the war against Iran in August, was also against Iran. So you have to say it’s Iran’s turn again, or to put it another way, it’s actually the whole world’s turn. And it’s happening all the time. And what is the new—and the old—war against Iran about now?

2.This world, in which wars can no longer be counted, would not exist if there were not so many people around the world who criticize this or that war aim, but approve war if it only attacks the right people. Just like many opponents of the Islamic political system in Iran, which treats its citizens as brutally as all states do when they attack its monopoly on power. That is why linking the war against Iran with the hope that it might massacre its political leaders in the same way that they massacre their rebellious subjects, and proclaiming “bomb Iran,” or something similar, shows how successful state propaganda has been in convincing people that the madness of citizens identifying the state’s existence with their own existence to such an extent that killing people in the service of their political power seen as a means of securing the existence of citizens, this madness is no longer noticed. [1]Waging war states can make good use of such fanatical state supporters, so that in addition to their propagandistic auxiliary function in the war mongering against other enemy states, they can pick up further commands for all kinds of other services from the rulers to whom they are committed with such nationalistic fantasies – if they have survived their war service enriched with nationalistic desires for revenge. And if they are unlucky and the state’s definitions of friend and foe change, they may become victims of their own beloved masters. The Kurds have seen this happen many times.     

3. Anyone who dislikes this war but still wants to see their aversion to Iran’s Islamic state ratio served by this war (as, incidentally, many Iranians themselves do – see the demonstration in Munich) and is betting on a different state ratio should get rid of this misconception and perhaps take a look here at how again not only the Kurds have been rewarded for their services to the US. This has nothing to do with an attack on Iran’s Islamic state ideology, as can be seen once again from the fact that the takeover of Syria by Islamists, who had previously been fought by the US, has led to promising cooperation for the US. Not to mention all the Islamic states with which the US cooperates very well.

4. USA

– Even though this is how it is presented in the media and has been discussed by the political parties involved at the forefront of their diplomatic negotiations, it is not even about preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons. There are other countries that have nuclear weapons or have developed them, and the USA is not bothered by this at all. So this is about much more than weapons, and these negotiations on nuclear weapons were probably more of a ploy to make Iran and the rest of the world believe that there was something to negotiate, so that the war, which, as we now know, had been months in the making, could be launched with a greater surprise effect. The Western public, with its incorrigible belief in the good West, which always seeks peaceful solutions with the evil Iran, falls for it and wonders why a war is being started in the middle of negotiations instead of trying to negotiate, which, as in Venezuela, is not possible, the transfer of state sovereignty to another state, i.e., its state self-surrender.

This war can be better understood if it is seen as a continuation of what began with Venezuela, as mentioned above, even earlier with the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, then led to Greenland, landed in Cuba in between, and is now continuing in the Middle East again what began in terms of war with the war in Palestine and demonstrated its warlike approach with the medieval-style targeted killing of people, including so-called civilians. And when you understand why Venezuela is suddenly considered by the US to be a state with which the US now has an excellent relationship, you come closer to the answer on the question of why – also – this next war against Iran is now going on. What has Venezuela done? Venezuela has transformed its state sovereignty into a kind of formal sovereignty by allowing the US to dictate its state rationale, and the US-dictated state rationale includes, first and foremost, removing the access of the competing world powers Russia and China to Venezuela from its state program. That is why the beautiful oil is only of interest insofar as it does not go to Russia or China and lubricate economic growth there. The rest is of no further interest to the US, so they can continue with their Bolivarianism as before. This transformation of Venezuela into a state that obeys the interests of the US in its reorganization of the world is now in place and is proceeding with the gradual expulsion of all political, economic, and military interests of Russia and China from Venezuela and, beyond Venezuela, from Latin America as a whole. Let’s see what’s next.  Clearly, Cuba and, with Cuba, certainly the Caribbean world. 

So if you also view the war against Iran as an activity aimed at reshaping the world in order to curb the global power ambitions of Russia and China—and, as is often downplayed in Europe, Europe itself—then you can better understand the war against Iran. Make America greater again, in other words. And if we don’t misunderstand the US’s statement that it no longer wants to be the world’s policeman in a typically European way, i.e., that the US wants to withdraw from parts of the world, then it becomes clear what the war against Iran is all about. The exact opposite of how it is often interpreted in Europe. In American terms, no longer being the world’s policeman means no longer being the service provider for other countries, as the US defines its history as a world power in retrospect, but rather – as it has always done, of course – serving nothing but the interests of the US and nothing else, which now means defending its monopoly as a world power against other countries with world power ambitions, i.e. against Russia, China, and, once again, not to forget the EU. Incidentally, in response to this, the value-driven EU quickly pushed the Mercosur Agreement into force, bypassing all legal proceedings. Like Trump, who in times of wrangling over world power issues also dislikes this annoying division of state powers, but in contrast to the EU, this in the case of „Trump“  is then branded by the Europeans themselves as a step towards autocracy.  

And as can be seen from what they are doing in Venezuela and from the statements published by the US about its global political plans, including the presentation of strategies to implement them, the US is concerned with reversing all the successes of its rival world powers, Russia and China and – in bit different way – the EU, in all regions of the world in order to regain its attacked monopoly of world power. It then becomes clear why the US is not satisfied with Iran’s renunciation of nuclear weapons in these sham negotiations and what is really at stake: turning Iran from a regional power in the Middle East that does not belong the US like Israel, does not dance to the US’s tune, and has political friends in Russia and China, into a regional middle power under the regional control of Israel and thus the US; in other words, as done in Syria, tegarding Russia in order to further reverse Russia’s militarily competitive world power ambitions in the Near and Middle East, which is currently tying up and wearing down its military potential in the war in Ukraine, and regarding China to stifle the commercial sources of economic exploitation of the world for the growth of the economic world power China, which obtains a huge part of its oil from Iran, as it has done to date from Venezuela, and to reject the Europeans’ attempts to establish their own networks in this region, independent of the US.

5. Iran

Modern Iran is the result of a state’s successful struggle for sovereignty independent of the US. It was the anti-capitalist groups in Iran, together with the Islamic groups, who ended US domination of Iran with their struggle against subordination to the US, until the religious groups gained the upper hand in Iran against the anti-imperialist forces after the US was kicked out and have ruled the country ever since. And it was these religious rulers who, amid the struggle between the Muslim factions, the Shiites and the Sunnis, built Iran into a regional power in the struggle of capitalist states for regional supremacy and directed it into this struggle. And it was this religiously charged conflict over regional domination by capitalist states that drove Israel and Iran into this enmity of religiously fanatical state power competition over who has supremacy over the other states in this region. With such states, with their mutual “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” enriched nationalism, wars can be waged with the utmost brutality, including those they wage on behalf of the US. The whole demonization of the Iranian state as a “mullah regime” by means of the insurgent citizens killed by this state is the usual hypocrisy of war propaganda. What has been rubber-stamped in the case of Palestine is being served up here to justify the correction of this 50-year-old defeat of the US in the ideological service of its current clean-up program to restore its old world power monopoly against its world power challengers Russia, China, and Europe. To this end, to restore its old world power monopoly in this region, the Iranians are being bombed by the US into revolt for the US, to fight for a mullah state that is subservient to the US, as long as it is under US command as it was in the past – this, too, makes America greater again.

6. Russia

Even though Russia is threatened  after Syria that Iran is the next country in the region could be lost if the US succeeds in making Iran its vassal, similar to Venezuela, Russia is criticizing the war with warnings about international law, knowing that the US is not interested in this anyway, in order to at least signal to the states of the world in its remaining global political alliances that they can be sure that Russia does not share the US’s approach, but on the other hand does not want to spoil its relationship with the US because it now needs the US for its struggle to force recognition  as a world power by the US and Europe through its war in Europe.

7. China

China provides a case study of the pitfalls of a capitalist state pursuing purely economic access to the world of nations in order to expand its global power, while postponing military access to other sovereign states—a form of soft imperialism with Silk Roads around the world, entirely in line with Deng Xiaoping’s old slogan, “Hide your strength, bide your time.” This works as long as the competing world powers allow it, as in Africa and Latin America, because they do not see their military access to parts of the world that are being prepared by China for its economic exploitation of the world being challenged — until the US realized that China was using its growth into an economic world power not only to undermine the economic sources of the US world power, but also to develop itself into a military world power. China then had to change course and supplement its economic access to the international community in such a way that it could equip itself to supplement this with military access in order to be ready, in the inevitable dispute with other world powers, which in turn see the international community as a source of growth for their national wealth, over who is allowed to exploit this wealth for the growth of its own wealth, to have what every capitalist state acquires as its basic equipment. This cannot be achieved without violence between monopolists of power, even if and because this dispute is being fought out economically. Among capitalist nation states without the threat of violence, nothing can be achieved. And because China is not yet as far along in Iran as the US with its countless military bases, China is doing something similar to Russia and is protesting vehemently. 

8. Europe

Bad luck: In the course of the reorganization of the world, Europe had distanced itself a little from the US/Israel connection, particularly with regard to the Middle East, in order to establish a more independent position in the region. The war against Iran has now ruined this for the Europeans, who now face the dilemma that the war against Iran requires them to take sides between friend and foe, and since they do not simply want to side with the US as before, because they no longer want to be used for European interests, Europe is solving the problem by positioning itself in a somewhat strange way on the side of the US, criticizing Iran for not simply accepting this war and instead doing what a warring party does and trying to deter the attacker from further attacks with counterattacks.  With this half-hearted partisanship for and half-hearted distancing from the US, Europe is at least trying to keep open the option of working with the Arab world after the war, trying again to build its own connections independent of the US. Let’s see if they might not change course and see supporting the US war as the better option for having a say in the region. Third-category states may well like this strategy of dealing with the options of different world powers.  

9. The surrounding Arab states are what they have allowed the US to make them, speculating on US support for their regional ambitions: fairly concessionary sovereigns whose policies are determined by the US in accordance with its global political projects. Currently, the US is simply ignoring at least the objections of some of them, except Saudi Arabia, to waging war against their neighbor Iran from their territories, as if these sovereign states were nothing more than US aircraft carriers, mere launch pads for US wars. (In the case of Oman, this sovereign state is allowed to play along with the game of negotiations.) The effect for all of them is that these states are forced to participate in wars that are not only not theirs, but which they did not want. But perhaps they are only saying this to signal to the surrounding states that the war against Iran is not their business and to show the world what they are: concessionary sovereigns of the US.

10. Israel: This is what happens when, in response to state violence, one pursues the idea that the best way to protect oneself against such violence is to place such a state within the community of states. So everything that has been experienced is not negated, but immitated and perfected, which is what characterizes these political constructions of state societies, above all those equipped with all kinds of means of violence, especially military power. The more means of violence, the better. The data on military service in Israel says it all, including about the priorities in the lives of Israeli citizens. It is obvious that the establishment of such a violence-oriented political entity can only be enforced with excessive force and cannot be achieved without the recognition of the existing states, which decide on the welfare and woes of these political subjects in the world of states. Thus, the State of Israel was placed primarily under the protection of the world power monopoly of the USA and pays the price for its recognition with the political services that the USA wants from it, for which it promoted the establishment of this state. And these services consist of acting as a local force for order on behalf of the US in this region of the world, which is rich in natural resources, to ensure order in the regional community of states, the order that the US wants to see there. In return, the state of Israel is allowed to realize the national dreams that are so characteristic of these political entities, namely to expand their ever-too-small dominion, but here in the case of Israel only within the framework that suits the US as their state master. This was the case with the recent rebuke of Israel when it simply did not want to end its war against the Palestinians as envisaged by the US in its peace plan, because Israel saw its vision of expanding its state power coming closer to reality. So they were given a brief dressing-down. Now they are allowed to go after Iran again with their special war techniques, in particular the killing of the political personnel of the attacked states, thus adding to their approximately 75-year history in which this country has been allowed to operate primarily as a war machine in a state of permanent war with short interruptions – for preparations for the next war. Now with the next war against Iran, and thus continue to pursue their vision of Greater Israel a little further, until the US tells them when to stop and then, as always between these wars, prepare for the next go at the next war.

11. The rest of the world is here and there complaining and watching.

[1] Based on this logic of war-mongering thinking, war between states then becomes the warmongering service of revenge-driven massacres of political leaders such as those in Iran – as in the article in Overton on February 28, 2026, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”