A conversation focusing on U.S. actions against Iran explains why the imperialist drive for domination will actually lead to a superpower becoming much less powerful.
Margaret Kimberley: Black Agenda Report editor and contributor, Ajamu Baraka joins me to discuss the impact of the US/Israeli attack on Iran, internationally and domestically. Thank you for joining me.
Ajamu Baraka: Glad to be here. Thank you, Margaret.
MK: So this aggression began on February 28, and despite what Donald Trump said and hoped for, that if the Israelis assassinated the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the state would fall apart, and this would be an “easy” conflict to handle. It's not working out that way because Iran is a military power as well. There's a lot we can say, but let's talk about events of the last few days.
There was a plane shot down over Iran with two airmen. One was quickly rescued, the other they searched for and found, and then they claimed something that is very strange. They said he had walked 100 miles, that two large C-130 cargo planes were also there, which seems odd, just to extract an individual. We’re told the planes got stuck in the dirt and couldn't fly out, so they destroyed them themselves and also destroyed some helicopters. It's a very odd story, not at all believable. What are your thoughts about what happened?
AB: Well, you know, Margaret is really very interesting, because what the administration says and what we see to be the reality are often divergent. We're told by the Trump administration that he and his Secretary of War, that they had total dominance of the of Iranian airspace, that they can do what they wanted to do in Iran, where the Iranians were basically helpless to defend themselves, and then, literally, a day or so later, we find that Iran does not appear to be as defenseless as the administration claim it to be because they were able to engage a US F-15 and actually shoot it down. We subsequently discovered that another plane that same day was hit by Iranian fire.
The pilot took it away from the area where it was, subsequently, where it was hit, and directed it toward another part of the country, and the pilot ejected. So we had, in the matter of just a few hours, two US planes flying very closely in Iranian space, which were struck by Iranian anti-aircraft defenses.
And I started like that, because I'm going to go back to your question in terms of how odd all of this seems. Well, the oddity of it is the fact that they thought that they had complete mastery of the air. But the other oddity that we noticed was these aircraft in the same area that ended up being shot down. And what has occurred, Margaret, is that when we saw the footage of the wreckage from the so-called successful mission to bring back the second pilot, the images did not seem to correspond to what they said was, in fact, the real mission.
We all know that when you have, and I'm not going to pretend to be a super expert on this myself, but the little bit that I do know, and hearing commentary from other people that I respect, that when you have a pilot who's down like that, and you have these special forces trained to be able to go in and extract that pilot.
The CIA knew within a couple of hours where he was, and usually you have a very small footprint that the military forces are inserted into, a place where they can bring that pilot out.
But what we had instead was a day that passed, and then we saw that all of this massive equipment was on the ground, multiple C-130s, multiple helicopters, and it sounds like there was almost a company-sized force of other soldiers, some people have said, both Delta forces and SEAL forces on the ground, all to extract one pilot.
Now, one can suggest that perhaps, maybe, the US military understood that Iranian forces were in the area, that they were also prepared to or on the verge of tracking that pilot down. Therefore, you had to insert, you know, forces at a level that you normally wouldn't when you are able, or you're trying to take out a pilot. But it started not to add up, Margaret, and then when you began to connect up where all of this took place, and compare it to where it is alleged that the enriched uranium is located, which is about 30 miles or so away, one begins to wonder, what was the real deal? And so the story is starting to unravel. People are starting to raise more questions.
But the bottom line is this one. This is another example of the kind of hubris we see coming from this administration that has been the basis, the foundation for it, making a number of tactical and strategic mistakes, and this idea that perhaps they thought that they can quietly insert a military force that can go into the area where the nuclear material is stored, secure that area, and bring In heavy equipment. That's why you have C-130s. They can then dig out, probably using Army engineers, dig out the entry points and bring out the uranium, all while they are able to defend the area from the inevitable counterattacks from Iran. I mean, this might be why you had the heads of the army who did not want to sign off, or what they saw as basically suicide missions. So all of this is starting to come together Margaret that basically this is another example of having people around, people making decisions, where there's a group think, and you therefore find yourself engaged in a reckless activity that you know ends up with the kind of political dilemma that the Trump administration is facing now that they're up on their Tuesday deadline if they're going to make or create hell in Iran, and now with the failed mission he's left with with the choice.
So this is a serious situation, a dangerous one, not only for the people of Iran, but really for the entire world, because we see that some of the tweets coming from Trump clearly indicate that this is an individual that may be losing it. That his tweets seem to be increasingly unhinged, and now that's why we have people who are now openly beginning to talk about and familiarize themselves with the elements of the 25th Amendment.
MK: The 25th Amendment allows a president to be removed through a voluntary transfer of power or involuntarily removed by the Vice President and the Cabinet if the president can't discharge his duties. But let's talk about the support, rather the lack of support for this conflict. It is not something that most people in the US want. We are seeing more protests. We're seeing soldiers seeking conscientious objector status. We've had the suspected sabotage of an aircraft carrier, and the reluctance of people of every group, but especially Black people, are quite rightly suspicious of any military action. So what do you think about these various kinds of opposition that we're seeing?
AB: I think the opposition is very interesting, because the basis of it is both moral and legal. Morally, people are not on board or not in alignment with the mission that they understand that they are involved in, or might be involved in, which is basically a mission to, in essence, conquer a people, a nation, in order to take its resources.
They see that this war was a war of choice and unprovoked attack on Iran, and that they're being expected as loyal soldiers to carry out the duties and the orders that come from their superiors. And there's a question about the legality of those orders. And so that's one of the bases of the increase in the conscientious objector cases.
The other element of this is that people are not in alignment with this war at all, and they are now being made aware of their legal rights, and they are beginning to exercise those by claiming C.O. status. What is also interesting, too, is that you have not only those C.O. cases that are increasing in numbers, but as you alluded to in your question, these acts of outright sabotage it shows the demoralization among some elements of the US military, because there's a kind of consciousness with this Gen Z, this generation that seems to be very different from any other generation.
They don't have much regard or much faith in the system. They don't see themselves being able to realize the so-called American dream, and therefore being thrust into the military, being able to see the reality of what their missions are, that they seem to be more likely to rebel than any other generation we've seen since the Vietnam generation, the baby boomers. And so that's why we think that the US has a real issue. And it's interesting to Margaret that among our people, African people, in the US, there is a new kind of recognition. Because I think it's very important that this war is not a war that’s not their war, that they are aware of the fact that they are being asked to be almost cannon fodder for an administration made up of oligarchs that seem to have an agenda that's counter to the agenda and the needs of the vast majority of the people. So that's why, you know, the Black Alliance of Peace, for example, we say that we are not going to expend one drop of blood in order to defend the interests of the white supremacist oligarchy, and that that position is a position that is resonating among the general public. So the administration has a dilemma. You see in the ranks of the military, on every level, real questions regarding this mission and the legality of it, and the morality of it.
MK: You know, the impact in the region is just incredible. Well, not really incredible. I suppose anybody who was not afflicted with this hubris you referred to could have figured this out, but Iran, in acting on its rights of self-defense, has attacked US bases in the region. US allies, these Arab states, the monarchies, which are allies of the US and Israel, and in so doing, they have really upended everything they wanted to preserve and to strengthen. But what is that going to mean for the region and internationally?
AB: What's going to mean, Margaret, is that at the conclusion of this conflict,
The US will be in a much weaker position. I predict that the US will be physically expelled from the region. It is becoming quite clear to the vassal states that have aligned themselves with the US, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, that the US was unable to defend them, and not only unable to defend them, but that they the US, made decisions that clearly appear to prioritize the defense of Israel over them. And so being in alignment with the US, allowing for US bases to exist on in their territory as a result of not only them not being able to be defended, but making them a target. And so there is a real rethinking, if you will, taking place among some of those states. Qatar seems to be indicating that it wants to be seen as neutral in this conflict. The same thing is happening with Oman, that they are not going to be drawn into this conflict as belligerents. And so what it means is that after the war, there has to be a new articulation, a new architecture around the security arrangements in the region, and it's going to be very clear to those states that for them to be able to live in peace and security, they have to come to terms with the reality of Iran and with the fact that they have to get along with Iran that’s emerging clearly as a center of global power that is a new reality that they are more probably more prepared to accept than Israel and the US.
MK: There was an op-ed in the New York Times April 6, called The War Is Turning Iran Into a Major World Power, and the author, Robert Pape, said in Twitter/X, “In my new piece in The New York Times today, I argue the Iran war has reached a point Washington still refuses to say out loud: either the U.S. escalates to a ground war—or Iran emerges as a new center of global power. Think about—what stops this future?” What are your thoughts about that?
AB: I'm in complete agreement. This is a consequence of the kind of hubris we have been talking about, a hubris that undermines the objectives, the interest of the US itself. The US has one objective, which was to basically subdue Iran. But in attacking Iran, they have created the very conditions that they were concerned with, and that is now an enhanced Iran that, as a consequence of Iran now controlling, basically through the control of the Straits of Hormuz, 20% of the petroleum trade, they have basically created the conditions for Iran with his more than 90 million person population, with the skills that it has, with its military prowess, now Iran will join the Chinese, the Russians and the US as a center of world power. And so this is the nightmare of both the US and Israel.
And I say this too. Let's add to what he laid out in that op-ed. Let's watch very closely what is developing in Iraq, a nation with a majority Shiite population that is also, you know, the fifth largest producer of petroleum on the planet. You know, this is a nightmare. The objective of the US was to try to control the region, to control Iran. That's the third largest reserve of petroleum on the planet, along with his control of Venezuela and Iraq that they still control the revenues from oil production in Iraq, all with the intent to have leverage over the Chinese and really, and they don't talk about this, leverage over their vassal states. There are significant players in the oil production and natural gas production on this planet, it all has backfired, fired, and they have a dilemma now Margaret, and this is why they have become so aggressive and so intent on trying to clean up their mess by forcing Iran to surrender, not understanding that there's no surrender with Iran, that basically they are they have a tradition of resistance, that martyrdom is something that they embrace. So how do you defeat a people that aren't afraid and aren't afraid of dying for their national dignity is a dilemma they have created for themselves through their own psychopathology of white supremacy.
MK: The law of unintended consequences, I guess. We have to always talk about repression in this country. You know, Trump, as always is, is very upfront. He spoke about fighting an “enemy within.” We have people being labeled domestic terrorists if they protest ICE immigration enforcement and so on, and so that makes it difficult for them. Well, I'll rephrase that. It's not difficult for them to practice repression, but it is connected, and I think we're going to see more protests as Trump is asking for increasing the military budget by $500 billion. The President was on camera and said we can't pay for daycare, Medicare, and Medicaid. We got to pay for war, and he's touching things that impact everybody, literally everyone in the country, except for the very wealthy, and that will increase oppression. So we already have their declarations that they aren't going to stand for protest, but then they are doing things that, by their very nature, will create more protest. How do you think this will shake out?
AB: It is going to lead toward the continued process of consolidating fascism in the US, at least in the short term. Because, as you said in your in your question, they have to find a way to contain opposition, and that opposition we see is emerging, not only in the military, but also in the broader society that people are really feeling the pain of these policies being pursued, not just by Trump, but by the Democrats also, and their commitment to the furtherance of neoliberal economic objectives. We have to be reminded that it is the neoliberal policies of the Democrats and the Republicans, they helped to produce the phenomenon that we referred to as as Donald Trump, the contradictions that were created in this vast disparity of wealth between the 1% oligarchy and and everybody else outside of the 15%, 20% of the what we call the petty bourgeoisie, that for the vast majority of the people, the vast majority of people who are working class, that their their lives are tenuous. They live from paycheck to paycheck basically. Many cannot even afford a $500 emergency.
And we see it. We're seeing all of the social stress, and contradictions, and issues related to that, and they are beginning to rebel. Now we know that some of the frustrations that they felt were manipulated by people like Donald Trump. They said that, basically, your issue is not with the system. It's not with the inability of capitalism to provide you a decent way of life, but it's those others, those racialized others, those migrants, those immigrants that are taking your jobs and driving down your wages. And that got some traction, but people are beginning to understand now that they are seeing that they may have been used. I'm talking about now, the MAGA forces that the interest of the oligarchy, the Donald Trump elements around him that seem to be all about just making big money, that they may have been used, that Trump is now governing as a neo-liberal. He's engaging in the same kind of war mongering that he said he was opposed to, and they see now that he's advancing an agenda that can only benefit the military industrial complex of the big energy companies, while increasing the cost other people are having to bear who are part of the working class, they didn't do anything to continue the health care subsidies, resulting in people's health care costs sometimes doubling and tripling.
They had no money to provide expanded social services, no money for housing and education, food subsidies, rural hospital care. All of these have been cut, medicaid, and Trump says that the agenda for them is fighting foreign wars. Whose agenda is that? What does that mean? It means that basically, advancing and expanding the power and the interest of the 1% is more important than the vast majority of the people. And so people are beginning to see through the fog of all of the rhetoric and diversions, and there is developing a real foundation for a new kind of politics, potentially here in this country.
So the kind of class consciousness that is necessary for people to understand their interests and understand the agenda of the minority of the society is really starting to take hold, and so that means that they have to engage in massive repression. They have to strengthen the repressive apparatus of the state in order for them to maintain their control. And that's why we have what I refer to as consolidating fascism in the US.
MK: You have been very active in the campaign to move the World Cup out of the United States. It's scheduled to begin within, I believe, the next couple of months, and the Olympics in two years. Talk to us about the connections of what we've been discussing with that campaign?
AB: Well, we have a campaign where we are. We have developed what we are referring to as the Anti Fascist football coalition with participants from all corners of the world, and we're raising a very simple demand with FIFA, the body responsible for organizing the World Cup, that FIFA has a responsibility to ensure the safety and security for fans, for the teams that participate in the World Cup and any particular nation that's hosting the World Cup.
Clearly that is then happening when we see the kind of activities that are occurring in the US, with the violence and repression coming from ICE, the legalized racial profiling, the reluctance on the part of the Trump administration to give guarantees that they're not going to unleash ICE in the various cities, 11 Cities that will be hosting the World Cup in the US, and that they're not going to guarantee which they were supposed to when they were awarded the games, that they were supposed to guarantee adherence to international human rights practices and standards. So that in and of itself, especially when Trump says that they cannot guarantee the safety and security of the Iranian team that qualified and is scheduled to play in the US. When they made that comment, and when it became quite obvious that they were not prepared to provide safety and security, it was enough right there for them to be disqualified and for the games to be moved. But because FIFA is committed to what they're seen as the possibility of making $11 billion in profits. They are violating their own standards about allowing the games to go forward.
We added to that our concerns about the US engaging in international lawlessness. We say that again, by the US engaging in activities that are clearly illegal, that violate the rights of people around the world. And we pointed out the kidnapping of a sitting president in in Venezuela, the siege of Cuba, and the unprovoked attack, unprovoked attack, against Iran and the support that the US gave and continues to give to Israel and the ongoing genocide, these factors, along with the domestic factors, should and be clear that the US should not be allowed to host these games. Under different circumstances with a different nation we wouldn't be having this conversation, because they would have pulled the games by now.
MK: Thank you Ajamu. Thank you for joining me.
AB: Thank you Margaret.
Margaret Kimberley is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents. You can support her work on Patreon and also find it on Twitter, Bluesky, and Telegram platforms. She can be reached via email at margaret.kimberley@blackagendareport.com.
Ajamu Baraka is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. He is the Director of the North-South Project for People(s)-Centered Human Rights and serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the U.S.-based United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC).
In this week’s segment we hear about Cuba, the challenges of Caribbean unity, and resistance to U.S. efforts to destroy the revolution. But we begin with Iran and discuss how its defense capabilities…
Iran is a more formidable foe than the US anticipated. The U.S. goal of regime change failed because of Iran's military power and determination to defend itself. In Washington the "Secretary of War"…
The United States has attempted to defeat the Cuban revolution from its earliest days and for more than 60 years has embarked on sabotage, economic coercive measures, and now a three-month long…
With the economic strangulation of Cuba by the United States, African progressive organizations and movements are calling for broader continental solidarity.
