The Pre-programmed War with Iran (Full Version) – Part 2

By CrisHam, 17 June, 2025

Proxies of Proxies

By pursuing goals and interests that are entirely different from those of the democratic nations of the West, proxy wars are insincerely induced on a broad front. These contain the use of the participating military as tools, sacrificing human life for goals that do not justify personal sacrifice, let alone the societal risk of escalation into a major war.

Today's proxy wars are even more opaque than earlier ones, as even proxies often merely represent further proxies. This is obviously what is happening in the Israel-Iran conflict.

When it comes to the question of whose interests are actually being served there, suspicion, given the history, initially falls on Great Britain. But it would be unfair to blame the British nation in general. For centuries, 'British' politics has consistently been the politics in favor of its elite. These elite were able to further consolidate their position of power by accumulating enormous wealth during the colonial period and establishing a second headquarters in the United States. 'British' and 'American' interest in Iranian oil is rooted in these circles.

Iran has shown solidarity with fellow Muslims in Palestine since 1979, but has received exactly zero solidarity in return from other Islamic countries. Turks, Pakistanis, and Arabs, all view Shiite Iran as a rival. The Turks, in particular, with their strained relationship with the Kurds since World War I, demonstrate the generally narrow limitations of their Islamic solidarity—which opens the door to other 'strategic' (i.e., opportunistic) alliances. Great Britain, or rather its elite, proved to be a suitable partner whose only constant principle is also self-interest. Their unprincipled strategy was seen through by, among others, the great Chinese statesman Dr. Sun Yat-sen.6)

1. An alliance first came about in 1853, when Great Britain intervened unprovoked in a conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Russia on the side of the Turks. The little-known war, in which France (which had already been degraded as a power at Waterloo in 1815) and Savoy (Italy) also participated, cost 1 million lives and left parts of southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule.

2. Since then, various historical events have demonstrated Britain's mostly unofficial favoritism for Muslim forces.

3. This bias also applies to Palestine during the Mandate period and now to Israel.7)

4. Although anti-Israel propaganda by NGOs and Western media has increasingly taken on the character of promoting political Islam and terrorism since October 7, 2023, too few Western citizens recognize the attack on their liberal civilization by these Islamists.

The Israeli military strike against Iran on June 13 and the subsequent US involvement have given further support to a protest movement against Israel and the US administrations. However, correctly assessing this protest requires considering the fact that all three parties to the conflict – the Trump administration, Iran, and Israel – are viewed as rivals by influential circles. Their interest lies in polarization and escalation.

Ideally motivated participants in the protests believe they were serving the cause of peace by demanding an end to arms deliveries to Israel. However, they overlook the fact that the respect that the short, hard US strike wrested from the Ayatollah regime is being undermined by such one-sided partisanship. This is especially true when large-format posters bearing the image of dictator Khamenei are displayed during the protest marches. This backs ‘morally’ his influence over the moderate, democratically elected President Pezeshkian thus torpedoing the chances of a democratic liberation of Iran.

An internet search using the keyword "Hands off Iran!" – Hands off Iran!, including the Spanish version "¡Manos fuera de Irán!" yields a very large number of results. These demonstrate a concerted nature of the action (via the major news agencies). The promoters of the parallel protest marches are easily identified as politically motivated NGOs, whose major financiers include billion-dollar foundations.

Before June 13, 2025, rallies with this call would have been appropriate, as they could have prevented Israel from falling into the trap of military confrontation long set by the polarizers.

Political Favorite Türkiye

The Crimean War alliance between influential circles in Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire was revived immediately after World War I, when the Turks were not prevented from shirking the provisions of the 1920 Peace Treaty of Sèvres. Among other things, they were 'allowed' to permanently deny the Kurds and Armenians autonomy, let alone independence.

After World War II, Turkey was admitted to NATO, received extensive assistance with rearmament, and many other benefits. It has received little more than very muted media criticism for aggressive political and military actions for which other countries would have risked sanctions or even military strikes.

These included, among others: The 1955 Istanbul pogrom against Greeks, Armenians, and Jews left 3,500 homes destroyed and 4,000 to 5,000 businesses attacked (over 90% of Greeks left the country).8)

In 1974, the invasion of Cyprus resulted in the expulsion of 150,000 to 200,000 Greek islanders; the occupation of a border strip during the Syrian civil war. Since the 2011 war against Libya, there has been a permanent presence of Turkish occupation troops in the equally permanently destabilized country, and for over 100 years, the Kurds have been subjected to varying degrees of intensity but persistent oppression and, at times, persecution.

The behavior of the British military stationed in two military bases on Cyprus during the 1974 invasion is particularly revealing for the assessment of the actual alliances - it did not contribute to the defense, but continues to blockade large parts of the of the island to this day.

After defeating Iran, Israel will not be able to occupy a single square meter of the country due to geographical reasons. Turkey, on the other hand, not only possesses the geostrategic preconditions and the military potential to occupy the entire country, but also the motive. It has created the Organization of Turkic States together with five Turkic-speaking former Soviet republics in Western Inner Asia and Northern Cyprus. Their initiatives to introduce a common alphabet and promote cooperation are highly welcome as integration efforts, especially since Hungary is a partner country that can build bridges in cooperation with Europe.

But with a combined area of these states that significantly exceeds that of India, visions of great power can easily arise in the minds of the rulers involved – in keeping with the dimensions of the presidential palace in Ankara. However, for a military superpower, there is the disadvantage of lacking access to the ocean – Iran constitutes the obstacle.

Back to sincerity and the principles of liberal democracy

The Israeli strike of June 13 occurred, in a sense, at the last minute – but not shortly before a ready-to-use nuclear bomb was available in the hands of the Ayatollahs in Tehran. The scenario of an Iran on the verge of becoming a nuclear power was already conjured up by long-time Prime Minister Netanyahu in the 1990s.

No, the current military strike came at the last minute from the perspective of polarizing forces. A peaceful settlement was 'threatened' – as had already been the case in the Ukraine conflict in March 2022, after the then Israeli Prime Minister and idealist Naftali Bennett brokered an agreement between Moscow and Kyiv that was ready for signature. Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv at the time and 'saved' the war for the MIC and NATO militarists, which has so far claimed approximately one million lives.

A peaceful settlement with Tehran had already come closer when Trump signaled a willingness to negotiate months ago. With more sensitivity, the West would have also realized that a development has been taking place in Iran for some time that could inspire hope. Unfortunately, it can't, because it's unsufficiiently covered in the media. It concerns a growing dissatisfaction among the Iranian population with the Ayatollah regime. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority would like to see a change of government rather sooner than later, bringing with it more personal freedoms, a move away from sponsoring terrorism and towards peace with Israel.9)

Should polarizing forces succeed in continuing the harsh confrontation with Israel before reforms in Iran, the atmosphere in Iran, which is initially still open to change (before the aforementioned dangerous psychological effect takes hold), offers ideal conditions for Western intelligence agencies trained in coups. As the almost seamless express overthrow of Assad by Turkish Islamists in Syria has shown, such a move is a question of political will, not of opportunity—today as it was during Mozadegh's time.

References and Internal Links