I am not a prophet, but in my article, “An Analysis of the War on Iran” (https://femiakogun.substack.com/p/analysis-the-war-on-iran?r=3wwyw), I offered some advice to the Iranians on the peril of not signing security pacts with China or Russia. I cautioned against their notorious Persian pride.
Unfortunately, they paid no heed. Under the craving delusions of being accepted by the West, Iranian officials continue to grovel like a love-sick puppy seeking a pat on the head.
Of course, the West, which treats vassals with the contempt they deserve, used the same tactics to, once again, wipe out the cream of their political and military leadership.
There is a point at which tragedy ceases to be tragic and becomes an instructional manual. And there comes a point when a nation must look in the mirror and ask itself whether it is being outmaneuvered — or whether it is complicit in its own humiliation.
What we are witnessing in the ongoing war against Iran is not an impulsive eruption of violence, but the methodical execution of long-held doctrine. The United States is not improvising, and Israel is not acting in a vacuum.
Their strategy of conquest has been promoted almost to the level of praxis.
All serious studies of American power begin with reading and understanding the work of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Kissinger’s worldview was brutally simple: the international system is an arena of competing great powers; stability emerges not from goodwill but from a strong power; and regions of strategic value must never fall under the control of a rival hegemon.
In Kissinger’s brutal geopolitical calculus, morality in international relations was purely ornamental. Power was the substance that also served as an aphrodisiac.
Per Kissinger, the Middle East, sitting atop the world’s greatest energy reserves, was not a moral theater but a strategic chessboard.
Brzezinski sharpened this Kissingerian logic into an even more explicit Eurasian doctrine. He argued in “The Grand Chessboard” that whoever controls Eurasia controls the world’s decisive economic and political arteries.
In his calculations, preventing the rise of a rival Eurasian bloc, especially one knitting together Russia, China, and resource-rich states like Iran, was not optional. It was an existential imperative.
Check the map of Western Asia, and you discover that Iran is not merely a regional actor. It is the pivotal hinge state. It borders Russia through the Caspian basin, interfaces with Central Asia, and sits across from the Gulf monarchies. To cap it all, the country lies along corridors coveted by China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
An autonomous, strategically aligned Iran is a bridge between Moscow and Beijing and a barrier to Atlantic supremacy in West Asia.
The Globalists understand this.
In this Kissingerian logic, such a state must be constrained and ultimately subdued. Iran must be prevented from anchoring a rival bloc.
Many American think tanks enunciated this. General Wesley Clark warned us about the machinations of the empire’s controllers.
All American presidents of whatever party’s hue understood this. Little wonder that Donald Trump, who campaigned on being a peace president and told us that the Nobel Prize is his by right, was unable to resist the uniparty pull to attack Iran.
Not once, but twice. Not only that, he had previously employed the same tactics he is using now, hiding behind the smokescreen of “negotiation.”
Last June, Tehran was ushered into talks under the familiar language of de-escalation and stabilization. Diplomatic atmospherics were carefully cultivated and choreographed. Analysts breathlessly spoke of “off-ramps.”
Then came the decapitation strikes as the Iranians were lulled into complacency. Senior Iranian political figures eliminated. Key military commanders assassinated.
It was a devastating blow, and it took the Iranians a while to gather their wits to launch their counterattacks.
One would think that such an episode would purge illusions.
Instead, we witnessed a near mirror image a few months later. Again, diplomatic overtures, tactical calm, deep penetration of Iran’s security envelope. This time, the blow was even more audacious: the upper crust of Iranian leadership was wiped out, including the sick 86-year-old Ayatollah Khamenei himself.
The symbolic head of the Islamic Republic was erased in a campaign that was as psychological as it was kinetic.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
A state that cannot protect its apex leadership cannot claim robust deterrence. A state that falls for the same stratagem twice advertises systemic miscalculation.
And yet, within certain Iranian circles, there persists a belief that the “Collective West” will eventually relent, that compliance with inspections, restraint in retaliation, and calibrated diplomacy will soften the Atlanticists’ resolve.
We should ask the Persians: on what historical evidence?
Iraq complied with inspections; it was invaded. Libya dismantled its weapons programs; it was destroyed. Agreements, in the absence of leverage, are temporary instruments — binding only so long as they serve the stronger party’s design.
The frustrated Omani interlocutor spilled the beans, revealing the depth of the Americans’ perfidy.
North Korea stood firm, built its nuclear deterrence, and was left alone.
Did the Iranian leadership inform themselves about Kissinger and Brzenski?
Kissinger did not believe in permanent friends or enemies, only in permanent interests. Brzezinski did not envision a plural Eurasia; he envisioned managed fragmentation to prevent a rival consolidation.
Viewed from the points of view of the two geopolitical heavyweights, Iran’s weakening, through sanctions, cyber sabotage, internal dissent, and leadership decapitation, is not an aberration. It is a feature.
Israel’s role fits seamlessly within this architecture. Its doctrine of preemptive strike and escalation dominance functions as the forward mechanism of enforcement.
Decapitation is not random; it is designed to paralyze decision-making, erode elite cohesion, cause maximum confusion in society, and result in state collapse, aka regime change.
Tehran, meanwhile, appears caught between ideological defiance and operational hesitation. Last time, it retaliated symbolically yet avoided crossing thresholds that might trigger full-scale war. It signaled restraint even as it absorbed blows that hollowed out its command structure.
Would it do better this time? Hope is neither a doctrine nor a strategy.
The harsh truth, as we have written several times, one that nations across the Global South ignore at their peril, is that sovereignty without hard power is conditional sovereignty. You may draft constitutions, wave flags, and deliver speeches, but if your adversary can strike your leadership at will, your autonomy is provisional.
Iran’s predicament is therefore not simply external. It is internal. Who misread the adversary’s continuity of intent? Who believed that a shift in tone signaled a shift in doctrine? Who assumed that strategic patience would be reciprocated rather than exploited?
The Iranians, among the world’s most educated people, must certainly know that while corporate managerial incompetence costs dividends, at the national level, managerial incompetence costs blood.
Tehran now stands before a stark reckoning. It can continue oscillating between indignation and misplaced faith in diplomatic atmospherics, or it can undertake a sober reassessment grounded in the actual doctrines that shape its adversaries’ behavior.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
If Iran fails to internalize that lesson, then it is not merely being outplayed; it is abdicating responsibility to its own people.
Students of political realpolitik know that history does not reward naivety. It punishes it.
And in the unforgiving arena of great-power politics, illusions are not harmless. They are lethal.
Would the Iranians wake up, or would they continue the folly of waiting for approval from the Empire, now ruled by the depraved Epstein Elite?
As a citizen of the world who does his best to contribute to a better understanding of a world without isms and schisms, a world of peace and harmony, I wish the Iranian people all the best wishes in their epic struggle against the Epstein Elite.
Adieu, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. RIP. Allāhumma ighfir lahu wa irḥamhu.
The best homage Iranians can pay to their martyred leader is to promptly purge themselves of the illusion of being accepted. As North Korea did, they should withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, and accelerate the building of their own nuclear weapons.
The hyenas in Washington and Tel Aviv will not relent until they know that their adversary has the ultimate deterrent.
©️ Fẹ̀mi Akọ̀mọ̀làfẹ̀ (1st Dan)
(Farmer, Writer, Published Author, Essayist, Satirist, Social Commentator, Geopolitical Analyst.)
My Mission: Ignorantia et stultitia delendae sunt / Ignorance and stupidity must be destroyed.
I am an unapologetic Pan-Africanist who is unconditionally opposed to any form or manifestation of racism, fascism, and discrimination.
I thank you for reading my articles and watching my podcasts. I will continue to make them free, and I will not accept advertisements. But you can show your appreciation by pledging a future subscription. You won’t be charged unless you enable payments.
Pan African Digest is a reader-supported platform. Your support is invaluable. If you enjoy my articles and podcasts, I would greatly appreciate it if you would subscribe to my Blog: https://femiakogun.substack.com to support my work and help me continue providing you with detailed, well-researched, and thought-provoking content like this.
Help post URLs to my articles in the comment sections of your favorite YouTube channels, podcasts, and blogs.
