Partition plans have been conceived many times to redesign the shape of the Middle East. Are we now facing the same thing about Persia? Everybody knows an actual military occupation of Iran is unthinkable. A regime change perspective in the sense imagined in the West (an Iraqi-style solution) is even less plausible, just like it is the idea of putting a Western agent to play Iran. The Country whose élite knows Iran the best is Israel. What is, therefore, behind the failing Israeli idea of pushing someone like Prince Pahlavi to manage an “after-régime”? The answer may be: “divide et impera”. Isreal wants to avoid the rebirth of Iran as a free and successful State because Israel needs no competitors in its own geographical area. Is Tel Aviv proposing an impotent figure like Prince Pahlavi to divide Iranian society, and supporting independentist movements in Southern Azerbaijan and other areas to fuel internal chaos once the bombings have done enough damage?
Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the existence of different entities peeped into the various peace (or war) conferences, proposing solutions that would be more or less successful as events unfolded. As an example, an independent Kurdistan was conceived in Sèvres, only to be wiped out of the map in Lausanne in 1923: a move that would determine the exchange population that redesigned the social and ethnic maps of today’s Greece and Türkiye. At those times, all that happened at the expense of millions of people. It was functional to building up Kemalist Türkiyeand to execute the nationalist agenda of the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi. The need to perfect this process would later bring to the bloody unrests of the ‘50es, finalized at de facto eliminating Istanbul’s remaining Greek minority. The same finality was eyed by the Varlık Vergisi of 1942, that would hit all Turkish non-Muslim minorities, to transfer wealth from them to the nascent Turkish bourgeoisie. All that interested Türkiye in its process of transformation from an empire into a republic. The same phenomenon of internal contrast – in different manners – interested the island of Cyprus after the Britons left, probably through British ands, and for the sake of Britain itself.
For the same reasons, the Britons built-up inconsistent States – such as Iraq – to define political entities whose very existence would be continuously jeopardized by the irreconcilable positions of Kurds, Shia and Sunnis, making of Britain a necessary power in the region. Mutatis mutandis (dividing instead of unifying) same went with India and Pakistan, who are right now again (what a coincidence!) at war.
Different plans, same goal.
Such things, such operations, nevertheless, could not hit Iran – at least until now.
Iran is an imperial State, such as Russia or the Unites States. Other realities, especially a couple of European ones, have not been for decades now but they believe they still are and they act as they were, for reasons to me unknown, only to raise hilarity in the world context.
A true imperial State does not conceive history if not as a tool to justify its own grandness, and that assumes that the élite of this empire lives in a a-historical conception: according to them nothing can change the Empire, the Country is safely unified under the Law (that can be religious or secular, but always “blessed”), other subjected people are under the dominating class and they shall be grateful for the occasion given to them to live under the rule of the biggest political entity ever existed.
Independentist movements in Southern Azerbaijan may be one of the tools used by those who positively seek the final downfall of the Persian Empire (namely: Israel, the United Kingdom, the globalists) to dealing blows to the empire from within: this, and only this seems to be the way out of what we are witnessing these days. Destroying infrastructures and beheading the military élite has not only the end of infer damage, but rather to make reconstruction impossible, to be the starting point of a more complex design.
If an agreement (not the nuclear one, but a ceasefire) is achieved the next weeks, after the essential infrastructure of Iran is destroyed, a “phase two” may be implemented through promoting internal unrest promoted by the cultural minorities:
- Ahwazi resistance, in Khuzestan,
- Komala Party, in Kurdistan (mostly linked to the United States)
- A series of resistance movements in Southern Azerbaijan (linked mainly to Israel).
Last week, news come about meetings between European, American and Kurdish resistance leaders.
A certain sense of urgency leaks out from these meetings, for evident reasons:
- Not too much time shall be given to Iran to hit Israel, a ceasefire shall be found under some pretexts (even humanitarian),
- The Supreme Leader may be eliminated in a Soleimani-style operation, after certain objectives are achieved and right after the ceasefire, to disorientate and distrust the Sepah (the IRGC),
- Evidently, the huge Israeli penetration into the Islamic Republic has already guaranteed the possibility to open supply lines, mostly probably at the borders between Iraq and the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Events in the current and next week will confirm – or not – such a reading.
