News Breakdown | Bangladesh & the looming Iranian retaliation

Okay. So this is gonna be a news breakdown and sort of a recap of some of the more high profile stories that have been happening or that are going on right now. First, Bangladesh, which proceeded pretty much exactly as I sort of feared that it would proceed in the the video that I did or that was, I think, an excerpt from a livestream that we did about the situation in Bangladesh. It sort of unfolded the way, I anticipated, unfortunately. As you know, I think it was my suspicion that the student protests, had been infiltrated by Western intelligence and that they were being manipulated by Western intelligence in order to accomplish regime change in Bangladesh.

And I think I talked about it at the time. The aim being to basically unplug Bangladesh from China and from BRICS and the alternative funding and investment sources that are provided that that were being provided to Bangladesh via China and via BRICS. The idea to basically undermine the potentiality of Bangladesh joining BRICS, which they had applied for or they were in the process of applying for with the help of Brazil. And so to me, that that that appears to be exactly what has happened in Bangladesh. Now let me clarify.

I don't believe that the protests actually caused the resignation of sheikh Hasina, and I don't think that her departure from the country was caused by the protests. It provided a pretext for that happening to make it appear that her removal was the result of popular will. But let's be honest, the student protests were not powerful enough and were not widespread enough, and they didn't last long enough to actually be able to achieve that. Certainly not in that short a period of time because it's only been a couple of weeks now. In my opinion, her departure was undoubtedly engineered and facilitated by more powerful actors, more powerful actors inside Bangladesh, and working in concert, with the Americans.

I mean, The US literally welcomed her resignation and her departure from the country, which kind of lets you know precisely how they wanted things to go in Bangladesh, which is precisely the way things did go in Bangladesh. The student protest started out, in my opinion, as a legitimate cry for justice, a cry against, an unfair, employment policy, and they had every right to to, to protest that policy. But as I said in my, initial clip about that, once you've got a concession on that policy, you should have, and and and normally would have, ended the protests because you got what you asked for. And when it when it continues beyond that point when it continues beyond the point of what you are initially protesting, that looks like instigation. That looks like there's there are there are agent provocateurs who are who are actually using the initial grievance as just a pretext for creating a momentum for regime change, or as I say, creating a momentum for creating the the a believable convincing pretext for regime change.

But as I was talking about in that clip, I think that the that the protest movement ended up being hijacked because I think it was legitimate from the beginning. I I believe it was legitimate from the beginning, but I think it was hijacked by the very forces of oppression that we are fighting against. Now, as I said in my initial comments on the situation of Bangladesh, the brutal tactics of the police, the violence of the police, the murders that they committed against protesters, contributed to the degradation of the of the situation and the further inflaming of the the passions of the protesters. But I would I would just say this, that any country in the global South is going to react with enormous suspicion, particularly if that country doesn't have particularly if that country doesn't have a good relationship with The United States. Any any country that doesn't have a good relationship with The United States, any government in the global South that doesn't have a particularly good relationship with The United States, they will react very suspiciously to any protest movement in their country with the suspicion that this protest movement is actually part of a regime change operation being conducted against them by The United States.

So they will predictably respond with an iron fist because they will believe, and often rightly so, that this protest movement is actually an externally engineered effort to unseat them and to and to topple their government. That is that is external interference into the affairs of their country. So they will respond quite viciously. That's not to excuse it, but it's just to explain that this is a predictable response for any country that doesn't have particularly good relations with The US, that they will respond with a great deal of suspicion to any protest movement. And on the basis of that suspicion, meaning on the basis of what they think that protest movement is actually about, they will respond violently and brutally.

As I think has proven to be the case, and it will become even more clear later on, I'm afraid, the the that suspicion would have been correct in the case of Bangladesh because in my opinion, there is a more sinister force at play here. And it's a force that deliberately fueled the flames of unrest in Bangladesh, to achieve their own purposes. And this force, of course, is the Western imperialist machine. They used social media in Bangladesh to spread lies, to spread misinformation, and to manipulate the young people, to manipulate the protesters, and to incite them into calling for the toppling of the government. They exploited the legitimate grievances, and and this is again, what I talked about in in my first comments on this, they exploited the, the legitimate grievances of the students, and used the students as pawns in their game, the game of divide and conquer.

And this is not unique. This isn't unique whatsoever. It's a pattern that we've seen again and again and again. I mean, when you've seen a dozen people fall down a flight of stairs, they may not all fall the same way, but when you see someone start slipping on those stairs, you know how it's gonna go. You know how it's gonna end.

You know where they're gonna end up. Everybody may fall a little bit differently, but it's the same set of stairs. It's the same trajectory, and it's the same the same destination. I mean, Bangladesh, it has, like, what, a 170,000,000 people, and they have a a a very important strategic relationship with China, a a strategic relationship with India, a strategic relationship with Russia. China is Bangladesh's main partner, investing billions in the Belt and Road Initiative.

And Bangladesh has been building, strong ties with India and with Russia and was wanting to join BRICS, as I mentioned. This is obviously a threat to Western imperialism, to, the Western oriented OCGFC. So what's the the result? Sheikh Hasina resigns. The army takes over.

They establish an interim government. The, the interim government is gonna be comprised of handpicked individuals, probably with ties to Western powers. They'll crack down on dissent. They'll crack down on protest, using the pretext of, maintaining order to silence any opposition. The student protesters may have gotten them into power, but once they're in power, they they're not gonna have very much tolerance for the student protesters.

Well, we can look at we you can go back as far as you want. Can go back to '19, what, 1953 when the CIA overthrew the government of Mossaddegh in Iran. That led to an interim government. They cracked down on dissent. They cracked down on political opposition, the the national front, and so on.

Same in Chile in 1973, when the CIA backed a coup, which led to an interim government that led to crackdowns on trade unions, on student organizations, and left wing parties and so forth. This is just, as I say, this is the pattern. When you become familiar with the pattern, you can recognize it. And once the the once the, pattern starts being implemented, you know what the next steps are gonna be. You know where that's gonna end up just like watching someone fall down the stairs.

So what I would expect is, they'll implement economic shock therapy on Bangladesh, privatizing state owned enterprises, opening up the economy to Western, corporations just like in Poland in the nineteen nineties, when the IMF and the World Bank imposed shock therapy, leading to mass privatization, deregulation, trade liberalization, and so forth, which benefited Western corporations, and local elites. Just like even in Russia, a lot of people don't don't remember this because you think of Russia, in 2024, you don't remember what it was like in 1992. The IMF imposed shock therapy on Russia leading to mass privatization, deregulation, trade liberalization, and so forth, benefited which Western corporations and local, oligarchs. And then I suppose at a certain point, you you will have elections in Bangladesh. Those elections will be rigged to ensure that Western backed candidates win, and this rigged election process will be monitored and validated by Western organizations who will assure you, that you have a vibrant democracy.

And this, again, is something that happens repeatedly. This is why you kind of already know what's gonna happen because we've seen the story play out many, many times. The new government, whether it's under, what's his name, Mohammed Yunus or or or some some other Western puppet, the government will pursue aggressive privatization, deregulation, trade liberalization, benefiting Western corporations and local elites at the expense of the majority of the population. They will align Bangladesh's foreign policy with Western interests, including supporting US led wars, sanctions, and interventions Just like in Ghana in 1983, when the IMF and the World Bank imposed structural adjustment reforms leading to mass privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization, which benefited Western corporations and local elites, just like in Argentina in the nineteen nineties, when the IMF and the World Bank imposed structural adjustment programs leading to mass privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization. You get the point.

They will crack down on civil liberties using the pretext of national security to suppress freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association and so on. And obviously, will be marginalized as much as they can. They'll marginalize China as much as they can, and you'll probably be offered Bangladesh will probably be offered a new IMF and World Bank loans, which you will immediately accept even though you already owe over $12,000,000 to the IMF and the World Bank. And your your your new government will agree to the loans and agree to the conditions on the loans, and Bangladesh can forget about any aspirations of achieving economic sovereignty or political independence. That's what the future that's what you achieved by these protests and by the toppling of Sheikh Hasina.

The United States is engaged in a concerted effort to regain its sphere of influence globally, particularly in region in regions where the BRICS nations are gaining traction. This strategy involves a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military measures, and political manipulation, political infiltration, political coercion, political interference to sway countries to the, towards The US orbit and prevent them from falling under the influence of, BRICS. We're seeing this all over the world. In Venezuela, The US has been actively seeking to oust Maduro's government, imposing economic sanctions and providing, support to the opposition. First, was Juan Guaido, now it's Gonzales.

We saw it, of course, in Pakistan. Everyone is aware of what happened in Pakistan. The US had been pressuring Pakistan to distance itself from China and to distance itself from Russia. Imran Khan didn't do that. They also wanted them they they also wanted, Pakistan to succumb to IMF control and impose, neoliberal reforms, and Imran Khan refused to do that, and he was removed as we know.

Then you can look in Georgia, you you can look in Moldova, same in Kazakhstan. In South Africa, I've talked about it many times, The United States backed the democratic alliance to infiltrate the ANC government, with radical neoliberals. In Bolivia, The US supported the ousting of Evo Morales. In Ecuador, The US supported the protests against Moreno's government. Nicaragua is another example.

The US supported protests against Daniel Ortega's government, and so on and so on. The the the situation in, Nicaragua was also, originally because of, pension reforms. So it was a legitimate grievance based on a policy, which then morphed into calls for the toppling of the government. It just goes on and on, not to mention the Arab Spring. This is all quite transparent to me, and the reasons for it are obvious.

The US wants to collect as many pieces on the board as they can before they completely lose any relevance, on the global stage and before they lose any ability, to influence the transition of the global economy to the global South. Bottom line is America is not gonna go down without a fight, so they're trying to collect as many pieces on the board as they can before they lose the game completely. So I'm terribly sorry to have to tell Bangladeshis who may be celebrating right now that, what you're celebrating today, you are soon going to regret. Your celebrations will soon turn to regret, and you will end up actually missing the days that you lived before this happened. You'll miss the way Bangladesh was before this happened because the the powers and the players that are operating behind the scenes are worse than the government that you just toppled, and they will do much worse than what was done by the government that just got toppled.

So the real struggle in Bangladesh is actually just beginning now. But, again, if the pattern plays out, as it has played out everywhere else, the opposition is not likely to even understand, what the real struggle is. And even if they do understand what the real struggle is, I would expect that the repression in Bangladesh is gonna be so severe and so comprehensive that the, national trauma, will likely be so bad, that most people will simply succumb. Now, you know, everybody told me, because they always tell me this, they told me that I don't understand Bangladesh, and that, it's a unique situation, that Bangladesh is unique, that Sheikh Hasina's government was uniquely corrupt, and the protests were unique in their nature and so forth. Well, the the fact of the matter is that nothing has happened nothing that has happened so far is even remotely unique in any way whatsoever.

So now would be the opportunity for Bangladesh to actually assert their uniqueness, and that would mean maturing their opposition, maturing their political understanding, maturing their resistance against what is going to be a much more challenging form of oppression than what they have faced thus far. And I sincerely pray that they will be able to do that. Now on to the situation with Iran and Israel. So, obviously, no retaliation has happened yet over the assassination in Inan by Israel of Ismail Hania. But, anyway, I wouldn't have expected anything to have happened immediately.

I mean, it took them, I think, over two weeks when the, when the Israelis bombed their, the Iranian embassy in Syria. It took them two weeks to respond to that. So I wouldn't expect any response, immediately anyway. Also, in my opinion, any response from Iran is likely going to be determined, by consultation with Russia, with China, and Saudi Arabia, and The Gulf. I don't think that this is a decision.

When they decide what they're going to do, I don't think that that that decision is going to be made in a vacuum. I think they're going to make that decision on the basis of consulting with regional partners and partners within Brix. Now based on the news stories and based on moves that have taken place, the expectation appears to be that Lebanon, it will be the primary or at least the initial arena of conflict, as foreign nationals are being advised to evacuate the country from all different foreign foreign nationalities. As we know, the Americans have mobilized their military in the region, and they're trying to recruit from Europe coalition partners to form us a a western coalition to help defend Israel. But allegedly, they're finding this a bit harder to do than last time, and they're and it's a bit harder for them to do than expected because it seems that most countries are finding it increasingly difficult to justify defending a genocidal regime.

A genocidal regime that is continuously provoking escalation. So it's it's not an easy sell. It's not as easy a sell as it used to be, particularly since, again, we've seen a very coordinated and orchestrated effort by Saudi Arabia specifically to engage with European countries and to recruit European countries into accepting and acknowledging and recognizing a Palestinian state and advocating for recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations. So sentiment is changing globally. So it's maybe going to be a little bit more difficult for The US to recruit people to support defending Israel.

Now the the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and the Jordanians have all said that their airspace may not be used in any attacks by either side, which also further complicates matters for the Americans. Of course, that does mean that Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia will not allow Iranian missiles over their airspace to attack Israel, but it also means that they won't allow Israeli missiles or planes or drones or American ones to fly over their airspace in order to hit Iran either. The Israelis, their part, are continuously hyping an imminent Iranian attack, which has a useful purpose for domestic political control and suppression of protests against Netanyahu. Now while we're waiting to see if a hot war breaks out between Iran and Israel, a war is already waging between the neocon faction of the OCGFC and the more globally oriented, more bricks aligned faction of the OCGFC, and this is playing out in the stock market, which has dropped, let me see, over a thousand points and shed $2,000,000,000,000 in just one day of market capitalization. It's plummeting all except for the weapons sector.

And as I've said many times, the weapons sector, the military industrial complex is represented by the neocons. That's the neocon faction, and they're staunchly pro Israel and obviously pro war. So we're seeing a visualization in the market, in the stock market. We're seeing a visual visualization when we look at the stock market, how the neocons, the military industrial complex is basically standing against the interests of every other economic sector. They're standing against the interests of every other industrial sector, which are more aligned with the globally oriented, more bricks aligned OCGFC.

That's the faction that's more interested in the development of the global South, that's more interested in managing their position in the transition, of the global economy to the global South, and they're the faction that sees, Zionism as being bad for business. These two factions are slugging it out right now, and we are seeing that play out, as I say, in the stock market. So we'll see who emerges victorious. It should also be mentioned that the global oriented OCGFC are likely in communication with more regional actors than the neocons are, than the military industrial complex faction of the OCGFC are. The the OCGFC faction that is more aligned with BRICS and that's more aligned with the Global South or is more interested in the Global South and has more interests in the global South in terms of economic interests, they're gonna be talking to more people.

They'll have access to talk to more people than the Neocons. The Neocons are basically only gonna be talking to Israel, while the globalized faction of the OCTFC are gonna be coordinating with players in the region, in the wider region, potentially including Iran. They might even be having a communication and influence inside of Iran, and, of course, in Washington and in Israel as well. But, I mean, the the whole GCC, the whole region, and including China and including Russia. So the the global oriented OCGFC, in my opinion, have a greater advantage, in influencing how this is gonna play out.

The neocons, for example, don't have any sway over Iran, but the globally oriented OCGFC might have some sway. And I would also say that you have to factor into your calculations and into your analysis, the role that is played by hyping the war and the threat of war, the role that that plays in inflating the share prices of the, weapons industry. The more the war is hyped and the worse they make it sound, the worse they say that the war is gonna be, well, the more their share prices will go up. So you have to consider that, with regards to your evaluation of how serious the threat really is. I'm not saying that there isn't a threat.

The neocons are certainly dangerous, and they're completely delusional, and they genuinely don't care about how any of their plans, will play out in reality. They're extremely dangerous. So that's a fact. There's no question about it. But in my opinion, it is still dubious, whether or not they have the upper hand, whether or not they have the advantage.

And to what extent what we're seeing in terms of military buildup in The Middle East and warmongering propaganda, the extent to which these are performative gestures being made for political and economic reasons, sometimes domestic political reasons even. I believe that Iran will retaliate. I do believe that Iran will retaliate. I don't see how they can't, but I do maintain my suspicion about the assassination of Hania. To me, the whole story is, still very strange to me.

The whole story around his assassination. There's many different versions, and even any single version of what took place seems to evolve over time. It is still true that his elimination serves the interests, of GCC and BRICS negotiations on the political future of Gaza, which I don't believe they want to see Hamas involved in. I think they would like to see, as I've said many times, they wanna see Hamas either sidelined or completely shut out of any political future in Gaza. So that interest was served by his elimination, but, of course, it is possible that that was coincidental and not orchestrated.

But in my opinion, it was orchestrated. I still maintain that I believe it was orchestrated. Now people have said that if Israel had just simply wanted to assassinate Hania, they could have done it elsewhere. They could have done it in Qatar where he actually lived, and that they only chose to do it in Iran, exclusively because they wanted to provoke escalation, and a war with Iran. That's sort of the obvious logic that you're hearing from most geopolitical, analysts.

But, of course, carrying out an assassination in Qatar, especially via a missile strike, is just completely unthinkable. That's it's absurd to think that that was could have even been a possibility. Arguably, it would have been even more provocative than doing it in Iran. I mean, Qatari is officially a US ally. They have considerable influence in The US.

They have considerable influence in Europe through their investments and through their lobbying and so on. So, no. If they wanted to do it, if they wanted to assassinate Hania, I think Iran was really their only choice. Now, realistically, Israel cannot afford a war with Iran. Let's be honest.

Neither can The United States, really. Even a war with Hezbollah is too much for either of them. It's too much for Israel, certainly, and it's too much for America. I don't think that anyone really wants this to happen. Mainstream media coverage in The US, even though it is obviously pro Israel, it is pro Zionist and supportive of Israel and so on, you nevertheless have seen an increasing amount of criticism of Israel being expressed in the mainstream media in The United States and even some degree of sympathy for the Palestinians.

Young people in America are largely pro Palestinian and anti war. So it's kind of hard for me to see how the Biden administration can enter into a war with Iran just a few months before the election, just, like, two, three months before the election, how they could enter into a war with Iran, and how that would how that would be received positively by their demographic constituency, their core demographic constituency. I don't see that the that the that the Democratic core voters are going to be pro war with Iran, And I don't see, that they would it would make I don't see how it would make sense for them to do this, and undermine the chances of, Kamala Harris' undermine the chances of Kamala Harris' victory being plausible. And, of course, everyone, Washington, the EU, and so on, are all begging it on not to retaliate or to at least retaliate in a limited way. That's what they're asking.

Obviously, this is absurd. Like, on a on a on a moral level, obviously, this is completely absurd. Since Israel is the one that's constantly escalating, Israel is the one that's that's constantly pursuing escalation, that's constantly provoking. That's Israel. But, you know, to the West, fighting back is escalation.

If you fight back, it's escalation. If a person is being aggressively attacked, the the attacker is not escalating the situation. The situation only escalates when the victim starts defending himself. That's according to western thinking, American thinking specifically. The only one that they should be telling, obviously, to not escalate is Israel.

But, basically, what they're asking Iran is to, not respond in a way that will embarrass them, embarrass the West, if they don't react by going to war. So this is what they're asking Iran. They they they they are asking Iran, please don't retaliate so severely that we have to go to war just to not look weak or to not look weak and to also not alienate Jewish voters back home. Obviously, right and wrong has nothing to do with it. International law has nothing to do with it.

They're always only worried about narrative and optics, and the optics would be very bad if Iran levels a devastating attack against Israel, and then The US doesn't jump into the fight in defense of Israel and level a correspondingly or even disproportionately more devastating attack against Iran. The the for for Americans, the that's bad optics. But I honestly still don't think that anyone genuinely wants any of this to happen, and I'm still not convinced that it will happen, Insha'Allah. But frankly, I'm at a loss in trying to understand or trying to identify how actually Iran can retaliate in a way that would sort of amount to a kind of military diplomacy because that's basically what they did in April. Their response to the attack on their embassy was basically a form of military diplomacy.

It was highly orchestrated. It was measured. It was disciplined and basically multilaterally agreed upon between Iran, The US, and Israel. Everyone knew what they were going to do. They told them exactly what they were gonna do.

They told them where they were gonna do it, when they were going to do it, and so on. So it was basically a a kind of military diplomacy on Iran's part, but I don't know how they could do that this time. I'm not sure what kind of action they could take this time that would amount to the same sort of controlled military diplomacy. Now if Iran was actually involved in the killing of Hania, which I still believe that they were, if it was actually an assassination by consensus, which again I believe it was, then they will definitely work out some form of military diplomacy in response. But I can't imagine what it will be, to be honest.

Again, I'm not a military man, so I don't know what exactly their options are in that regard. But especially with all the hype and all of the saber rattling that they've been doing, it's very hard for them to sort of back down or to do something at any sort of a half measure, again, just because of the optics. But, again, like I said, I think it will likely happen after the OIC meeting, which they've called. Iran has called for an OIC meeting. So they wanna get full consultations with the the Arab and the Muslim states, and they wanna have a full consultation, I believe, with the most important BRICS members.

And it has become apparent to me that once a country has joined BRICS, then their foreign policy sort of falls under collective management of the of the total organization, of the whole organization, whereby they want the foreign policy of any individual country within BRICS. They want it to align with the plans and the aims of the BRICS project, and I think BRICS expects them to do that. I think they I think that each individual country wants their own foreign policy to align with the BRICS project, and BRICS expects them to make it align with the BRICS overall project. It seems to be important to BRICS for them to have a political policy coordination and cohesion to one degree or another, particularly when it comes to any sort of a major conflict issue or any issue of contention between countries, like, say, for example, the border dispute between India and China, which is now in the process of being worked out, whereas previously, it didn't look very hopeful that it could be, but it's inshallah, it's working out now. BRICS seems to operate on a somewhat consultative basis, on these sorts of issues, these sorts of contentious issues and foreign policy issues.

And, personally, I think that's one of BRIC's most important assets as an organization, this creation of cohesion, in terms of foreign policy and in terms of the relationships between not just between BRICS countries, but between BRICS countries and non BRICS countries, between BRICS countries in the West, between global South countries and the West. They're they they want the policies up to all be coordinated, and I don't think that the this situation is going to be any different. I think that the response of Iran is going to be a coordinated, response, through consultation with the most important BRICS members and The Gulf States and so on. So that's basically what I have to say with regards to those situations with Bangladesh and Iran. I hope that it was informative to you.