SAEDNEWS: An American academic said that Iran had succeeded in overcoming the recent aggression by the Israeli regime and its ally, the United States, relying on its national unity and home-grown defensive power.
David Yaghoubian, a professor of history at California State University in San Bernardino, has said that the aggression of two nuclear-armed regimes, the Israeli regime and the United States, ended in failure and was thwarted by the unity of the Iranian people and Iran’s self-reliant defense capabilities.
What follows is the full interview:
Interviewer: What is your assessment of the joint military campaign and aggression by the Israeli regime and the United States against Iran during ongoing negotiations, including attacks on military, nuclear, and civilian infrastructure, the bombing of residential areas, the killing of innocent civilians, and the violation of Iran’s national sovereignty, international laws, and the United Nations Charter? What are the regional, international, and even economic consequences of this aggression for all parties involved, the region, and the world?
Yaghoubian: Considering the stunning scope of the deception and treachery displayed openly and gleefully by the Israeli and United States regimes, and the assortment of laws and taboos broken in their desperate attempt to effect regime change in Iran, it is far too soon to predict the regional, international, or economic consequences of this aggression. I believe divining the future more broadly will first necessitate understanding and analysis of what the world just witnessed: two nuclear armed powers that have been at the core of the global economy and arms trade for the past seven decades, grossly violated international law by attacking Iran’s legal nuclear facilities, and were ultimately defeated by the unity of the Iranian people, fortified with domestically-produced armaments that were developed and manufactured while under 45 years of sanctions. Iran’s ingenuity and ultimate triumph before the world, however, do not achieve the legal accountability required if there is to be any weight to international law and the institutions that are supposed to maintain it.
Interviewer: Can one, under the pretext of preventing nuclear weapon acquisition—especially when no credible international report indicates that Iran's nuclear program has deviated from peaceful purposes—legitimately violate a nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity during negotiations and justify it as a “preemptive strike”?
Yaghoubian: Only within the amorphous rules based international order (R.B.I.O.) which is the worn-out catchphrase the United States, its European vassals, and its proxy, the apartheid state of Israel, use to obfuscate such actions in gross violation of international law, could U.S. and Israeli actions in attacking Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program be justified as a “preemptive strike.” Despite this being an evidently specious, self-created, self-justifying concept in the eyes of the global community, they will nevertheless continue to deploy it.
Interviewer: While the United States initially claimed neutrality regarding Israel’s attacks, its later involvement in the aggression exposed the falsehood of those claims and revealed that the campaign was fully coordinated and supported by Washington. In your opinion, could the Israeli regime have undertaken such an attack without U.S. support? And how were such operations planned and executed?
Yaghoubian: The apartheid state of Israel relies on its patron, the United States of America, for the provision of the “baby buster” bombs, artillery rounds, aircraft, satellite intelligence, diplomatic cover, legal defense, and a steady stream of cash that wholly enable its continual warmongering, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and expansionism. “Israel’s military strength” is simply rebranded American military strength. The case is the same with Israel’s negotiating strength. Recall that the United States has openly threatened I.C.C. and I.C.J. judges and touts its “Hague Invasion Act” to assure immunity for American and Israeli war criminals. The United States waged war on Yemen in what I refer to as “Operation Genocide Guardian” to prohibit Ansarullah from acting on its R2P responsibilities outlined by the United Nations. It is clear that the Israeli and American national security states have increasingly acted as one entity. Therefore, any argument suggesting that Israel acts on its own and defends itself, or that the United States is a “neutral arbiter” amid ongoing genocide, or between the Israeli regime and Iran, is simply not serious.
Interviewer: The U.S. President speaks of diplomacy on the one hand, yet on the other hand launches an attack on Iran in collaboration with Israel, even speaking of unconditional surrender and regime change. However, after facing the unity and resistance of the Iranian people and the country's defensive forces, he proposed a ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table. How do you interpret this contradictory rhetoric?
Yaghoubian: This contradictory, and frankly, clownish rhetoric illustrates what an opportunist the current U.S. president is, as well as the explanatory power of Iranian ballistic missiles. Trump finally received the message after it was announced in occupied Palestine.
Interviewer: How should the slogan “peace through strength” used by the U.S. President be interpreted? Is this peace truly global, or is it solely for the interests of the U.S. and its allies through force, sanctions, and war? What is your assessment of this concept in light of the 12-day war against Iran?
Yaghoubian: Based on his actions and statements from both presidential terms, as expressed by U.S. president Trump, “Peace through strength” should be interpreted as a signal that the American military-industrial complex will continue to take priority over the health and welfare of the American people, and an effective slogan through which to sell increased debt, inflation, homelessness, crime, and social dissolution to a weary public that is susceptible to propaganda.
Interviewer: Given the contradictory behavior of the U.S. government—particularly the President—towards Iran, including launching an attack during negotiations, can the talks with the United States be considered a deception operation and a cover for military action? Can President Trump’s claims about diplomacy and returning to the negotiation table be trusted at all?
Yaghoubian: I fail to recall another example in modern political and diplomatic history of a major international power, let alone superpower, acting so insincerely, erratically, and aggressively as the Trump administration has, both domestically and globally. That fact alone is indicative of the acceleration of American imperial decline and can enable us to clearly identify the terminal stage of American imperial collapse that the international community is currently witnessing. Therefore, in conjunction with an understanding of the long, shameful history of the United States’ breaking of promises and treaties and/or resorting to violence, President Trump’s claims about diplomacy and returning to the negotiating table cannot be trusted. With that said, in light of the outcome of this most recent failed attempt to undermine the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the regional and geopolitical implications of Iran’s ultimate victory, reality might dictate that trust in Trump or the U.S. is ultimately no longer obligatory for Iran, which will continue to advance its nuclear energy program in the ways that it determines best serve Iranian economic and security interests. Should Iranian leadership determine that some sort of deal or framework would be beneficial for Iran going forward, I believe cognizance of the nature of the declining imperial power they will be negotiating with, and memory of its long history of treachery, must guide a process that relies on action and verification rather than trust.
Interviewer: Considering the war-mongering nature of the Israeli regime and its continued involvement in regional conflicts, can a ceasefire with such a regime be trusted? And does this ceasefire mark the end of its threats?
Yaghoubian: History illustrates how the apartheid state of Israel will, as a matter of policy and strategy, openly and instantaneously violate ceasefires with any adversaries who do not have the capacity to immediately inflict corresponding damage. Physical, diplomatic, and legal impunity have been essential in enabling this ongoing tradition. Zionists have learned that Iran has the capacity to defend itself by responding with devastating, unstoppable kinetic force; therefore, I do not believe Israel will openly violate this unwritten ceasefire as it has done almost daily in Lebanon. Certainly, both the United States and the Israeli regime will continue to try to attack and weaken Iran via covert and hybrid warfare tactics that create plausible deniability, and verbal threats remain cost-free, but to prohibit equal or greater damage to its own population, its economy, and its infrastructure I do not anticipate that Israel will make the mistake of attacking Iran again.
