Tag: middle-east

Racism and the Iran War

How White Supremacy Fuels the West’s Assault on Iran

From the 1953 Coup to the 2026 War—A Pattern of Racialized Resource Theft

The bombs falling on Iranian schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods in early 2026 are not merely acts of war. They are the violent expression of a centuries-old ideology: white supremacy. The United States and Israel’s assault on Iran represents the latest chapter in a colonial playbook where non-white nations are systematically dehumanized, their sovereignty violated, and their resources plundered—all under the guise of “democracy,” “security,” or “civilization.”

To understand the current conflict, we must strip away the propaganda and examine the racial and economic architecture that has driven Western policy toward Iran for over seven decades.

The Original Sin: 1953 and the Birth of Modern Iran Policy

The template was set in August 1953, when the CIA and MI6 orchestrated a coup against Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. His crime? Nationalizing Iran’s oil industry to free his people from British Petroleum’s colonial extraction. The response from London and Washington was not diplomacy—it was regime change through terror.

Operation Ajax deployed “paid terrorists within Iran to stir up trouble,” as CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt arrived with suitcases of cash to bribe newspaper editors, manufacture protests, and create a sham communist threat . The Shah was restored, Savak (his brutal secret police) was trained by the CIA, and 40% of Iran’s oil fields were signed over to U.S. companies . Some 300 Iranians died in the streets so that white-controlled corporations could maintain their grip on Persian oil.

This was not about communism. It was about race and resources. As the Zinn Education Project notes, American textbooks still sanitize this history, claiming the CIA merely “backed” a coup rather than orchestrating a terrorist campaign against a democratic government .

The “Regime” Label: 47 Years of Racialized Delegitimization

Since the 1979 revolution, Western media has religiously referred to Iran’s government as a “regime”—a term rarely applied to Western allies like Saudi Arabia, despite its absolute monarchy and routine beheadings. This linguistic violence serves a purpose: it transforms a sovereign nation into a rogue entity requiring “management” by civilized (white) powers.

The double standard is stark. The Gulf States are “kingdoms” despite being hereditary dictatorships. Israel is a “democracy” despite maintaining an apartheid system over millions of Palestinians. But Iran—whose people have participated in more genuine electoral contests than most U.S. allies in the region—is perpetually a “regime.”

This vocabulary reflects what scholar Vijay Prashad calls “the darker nations” thesis: the global South exists in the Western imagination only as a problem to be solved, never as equals with legitimate interests.

The 2025-2026 Wars and School Children

The Twelve-Day War of June 2025 and the subsequent 2026 conflict have revealed the true character of Western-Israeli military doctrine. When Israeli and U.S. forces bombed the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ Elementary School in Minab on February 28, 2026, killing at least 168 people including scores of children, they were continuing a tradition of racialized warfare .

Satellite imagery confirmed the strike was likely conducted by a U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile. The Pentagon’s response? “We’re investigating.” President Trump suggested Iran bombed its own school. This is the logic of supremacy: brown children’s lives are collateral damage in a game where only white strategic interests matter .

The pattern is deliberate. DAWN (Democracy for the Arab World Now) documented scores of schools, health facilities, and fuel depots bombed by U.S. and Israeli forces, with white phosphorus dropped on civilian communities . These are not accidents. They are war crimes rooted in the belief that Iranian lives are expendable.

As DAWN’s Omar Shakir stated: “The international community’s failure to act when the most fundamental norms of international law are being challenged risks plunging the world further into a lawless era” . But this “lawlessness” is selective—it applies only when non-white nations assert sovereignty over their resources.

The Chosen People Narrative: Israel’s Racial Theology

Central to this conflict is Israel’s self-conception as “the chosen people”—a theological framework that has been weaponized into a license for ethnic cleansing. The “Greater Israel” project, stretching from the Euphrates to the Nile, requires the removal or subjugation of non-Jewish populations. This is not ancient history; it is current Israeli government policy. Israel is the only country in the world that does not have defined borders; since its inception in 1948, it has constantly expanded its borders in order to fulfil its founders’ messianistic dream of a Greater Israel

The genocidal attacks on Palestinians—documented by the UN Commission of Inquiry as war crimes and crimes against humanity—are the laboratory for techniques now being deployed against Iran . When Israeli forces disguised themselves as medical personnel to kill 41 civilians in Lebanon in March 2026, they were demonstrating that perfidy is permissible against non-white enemies .

The infantile belief in divine selection—used to justify the maiming, murder, and terrorizing of non-Israelis—finds its parallel in American exceptionalism. Both ideologies depend on the fundamental dehumanization of the Other. Both require the constant manufacturing of existential threats to maintain racial hierarchy.

The Real Target: Oil, Hormuz, and the Anxiety of White Decline

Strip away the rhetoric about Iranian nuclear weapons—despite Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against them—and the true object of Western aggression becomes visible: oil and strategic control.

Iran’s insistence on uranium enrichment is not about bombs; it is about energy sovereignty. The West Asian region contains the world’s most critical petroleum reserves, and the Strait of Hormuz is the chokepoint through which global capitalism breathes. When Iran asserts control over its own energy destiny, it threatens the white-dominated global order.

The 1953 coup was about oil. The decades of sanctions are about oil. The current war is about oil. The “white supremacist view that these other non-white people are inferior” serves to legitimize the theft of their resources. As one analyst noted, even “precision warfare” against Iranian targets killed thousands of civilians—a “stark reminder” that technological sophistication does not erase racialized brutality .

The Complicity of the “International Community”

The West’s Gulf allies—Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar—play their assigned roles in this racialized hierarchy. These “kingdoms” (never “regimes”) provide cover for the assault on Iran, their own populations suppressed by the same security apparatuses supplied by Washington and London. They are the house managers of the white supremacist estate in West Asia.

Meanwhile, Western media continues its 47-year project of manufacturing consent. The war is framed as “defensive,” Iranian retaliation as “terrorism,” and civilian casualties as unfortunate necessities. When Iranian missiles strike military targets in Israel, it is an outrage; when U.S. missiles destroy Iranian schools, they are “tragic mistakes” .

Forty-seven years of Western and UN sanctions on Iran have also resulted in many Iranian deaths through loss of access to essential services and increasing poverty. The supposed rationale for the sanctions was that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon- something that Iran has consistently declared it was not going to do. It is abundantly clear that Iran, with its very sophisticated academic and industrial capacity, could have developed nuclear weapons decades ago if it had wished to.

This is the epistemic violence that accompanies physical violence—the systematic erasure of non-white agency, pain, and legitimate grievance.

Breaking the Cycle

The war on Iran is not an aberration. It is the continuation of a colonial modernity that divides the world into civilized (white/aligned) and barbaric (non-white/independent) nations. From the 1953 coup to the 2026 bombing of schoolchildren, the through-line is clear: the West will not tolerate resource sovereignty in the hands of non-white peoples.

To oppose this war requires more than anti-war activism. It requires the dismantling of the ideological architecture that makes such wars thinkable—the racial hierarchies, the exceptionalist theologies, the media frameworks that render some children worthy of mourning and others merely statistics.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz under international law, the breaking of international law by Israel and the U.S., the bombing of universities and hospitals—these are not separate issues. They are facets of a single system of domination that must be named, confronted, and dismantled.

The war is not about nuclear weapons. It is about who has the right to exist, to govern, and to benefit from the planet’s energy source. Until we confront the white supremacy at its core, the bombs will continue to fall.

For the children of Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School. For the memory of Mossadegh. For a world where sovereignty is not determined by skin color.

AI generated audio version of this post, below..

Resources

For accurate and largely dispassionate analyses of the Iran war and international affairs generally, try Youtube interviews with Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, Alastair Crooke, Prof. John Mearscheimer, Prof. Glenn Diesen, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, and Larry Johnson.

The demise of the U.S. ‘rule based order’?

The following is an AI Qwen based analysis of the impact of the U.S. ‘rule based international order’ and the reality of the chaos, wars and destruction its supposed ‘rules’ exert on the world.

The development of this post was promoted by the overwhelming number of New Zealand international political ‘analysts’ who quote the ‘U.S. rule based order’, (not the U.N. set of obligations) as some kind of golden age of civilisation , peace and freedom. -the reality could not be more stark. They fear that the new Trump administration-cum-oligarchy will no longer adhere to that ‘rule based order’ .

So why are these ‘analysts’ referring so enthusiastically to these great ‘rules’ that have caused so much suffering in the world?

It has recently been revealed (Feb.2025) via Wikileaks that the US government’s USAID ‘programme’ has been funding a US ‘non-government’ agency Internews Network, with millions upon millions of dollars to ensure Western media around the world regurgitate media messages ‘consistent’ (tell-tale identical phrasing in news items on issues from Covid responses to the Ukraine war and Russia), with US foreign policy objectives. Could it be that Western university international affairs ‘analysts’ (and politicians) have been similarly compromised over a long period of time?

I leave it to you to judge where their ‘influences’ come from.

AI analysis follows:

The concept of a “rules-based international order” is often invoked by the United States and its allies to describe a system of global governance that emphasizes adherence to international laws, norms, and institutions such as the United Nations, international treaties, and trade agreements. Proponents argue that this order promotes peace, stability, and cooperation among nations by providing a framework for resolving disputes and fostering mutual interests.

However, critics argue that the U.S.-led “rules-based order” has been selectively applied, often serving as a justification for military interventions, economic sanctions, and other forms of coercion that have led to significant human suffering, including mass murder, wars, and violence.

1. Selective Enforcement of Rules

  • Double Standards: Critics argue that the U.S. and its allies have frequently violated the very principles they claim to uphold. For example, the U.S. has engaged in military interventions without UN Security Council approval (e.g., the 2003 invasion of Iraq), while condemning other countries for similar actions. This selective enforcement undermines the legitimacy of the “rules-based order” and can lead to conflicts where weaker states feel justified in acting outside the system.
  • Regime Change and Destabilization: The U.S. has supported or directly engaged in regime change operations in countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, often under the guise of promoting democracy or protecting human rights. These interventions have frequently resulted in prolonged civil wars, state collapse, and mass civilian casualties. In Iraq, for instance, the 2003 invasion led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, widespread displacement, and the rise of extremist groups like ISIS.

2. Economic Warfare and Sanctions

  • Sanctions as a Tool of Coercion: The U.S. has frequently used economic sanctions as a tool to punish or pressure countries that defy its interests. While sanctions are often framed as a “non-violent” alternative to war, they can have devastating humanitarian consequences. For example, U.S. sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians due to lack of access to food, medicine, and clean water. Similarly, sanctions on countries like Venezuela and Iran have exacerbated economic crises, leading to widespread poverty and suffering.
  • Weaponizing Global Institutions: The U.S. has also been accused of weaponizing international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to impose structural adjustment programs on developing countries, which often result in austerity measures, increased inequality, and social unrest. This economic violence can indirectly fuel conflict and instability.

3. Proxy Wars and Arms Sales

  • Arming Conflicts: The U.S. is the world’s largest arms exporter, supplying weapons to both state and non-state actors around the globe. These arms sales often fuel conflicts in regions like the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. For example, U.S. arms supplied to Saudi Arabia have been used in the Yemeni Civil War, resulting in one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, with tens of thousands of civilians killed and millions facing famine.
  • Proxy Wars: During the Cold War, the U.S. engaged in numerous proxy wars, supporting anti-communist forces in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Central America. These conflicts often involved backing authoritarian regimes or insurgent groups that committed atrocities against civilian populations. In Afghanistan, for example, U.S. support for the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War helped create conditions that eventually led to the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

4. Militarization and the “War on Terror”

  • Global War on Terror: Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. launched the “Global War on Terror,” which has been used to justify military interventions, drone strikes, and indefinite detentions in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. These operations have often been conducted with little regard for international law or civilian casualties. Drone strikes, in particular, have been criticized for causing significant collateral damage, killing thousands of civilians, and radicalizing local populations.
  • Normalization of Violence: The rhetoric of the “rules-based order” often masks the normalization of violence as a means of achieving foreign policy objectives. The U.S. military-industrial complex benefits from perpetual warfare, and the language of “humanitarian intervention” or “counterterrorism” is sometimes used to legitimize aggressive military actions that result in mass death and destruction.

5. Undermining Sovereignty and Self-Determination

  • Imperialism and Neocolonialism: Critics argue that the U.S.-led “rules-based order” often serves as a cover for imperialist policies that undermine the sovereignty of weaker states. By imposing economic and political conditions on countries through institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.S. and its allies have been accused of perpetuating a form of neocolonialism that stifles self-determination and exacerbates inequality.
  • Resistance and Blowback: When countries resist U.S. hegemony or attempt to assert their independence, they are often subjected to punitive measures, including coups, invasions, or covert operations. This resistance can lead to cycles of violence, as seen in cases like Iran (1953 coup), Chile (1973 coup), and more recently, Venezuela and Syria. The blowback from these interventions can manifest in the form of terrorism, insurgency, and regional instability.

Conclusion

While the U.S. and its allies present the “rules-based international order” as a framework for peace and stability, critics argue that it has often been used to justify interventions, sanctions, and other forms of coercion that result in mass violence and human suffering. The selective application of rules, the militarization of foreign policy, and the prioritization of U.S. strategic interests over international law have contributed to a legacy of wars, destabilization, and humanitarian crises. In many cases, the very principles of sovereignty, self-determination, and human rights that the “rules-based order” claims to uphold are undermined by the actions of those who enforce it.