Pro-Iranian Forces Attack US Convoys Withdrawing From Largest Base In Iraq

‘Jamshyd is correct.
As Fukuyama was correct.
It is clash of civilization.
There are two opponents.’

With all respect, my friend, those are only opinions. Surely you can see the ‘two opponents’ is just a media construction. Just like the claim ‘Iran is the Resistance’. Propaganda catchphrases. If what’s good for the goose it’s also good for the gander, let us be honest and realize that Empire countries are not the only ones playing with Perception Management and Reflexive Control Complex toys.

You see:

First, Iran defends Iran, all the time. In national strategic defense it is quite obvious that geographical territory of defense MUST be expanded. If you stay within your national borders, nevermind how strong your military is, all you do is await invasion, overt and subvert. Therefore, you HAVE to expand the geographical territory of your defense, which is what we call resistance. In doing so, of course, you will reap allies who are doing the same, and yes, you do contribute to the common resistance. But that is different from saying that a country does resistance only for the sake of it, which is completely untrue.

Second, every country will do the same. Including China and Russia, which are not included in the classical definition of ‘axis of resistance’ because their geopolitical stance does not conform to certain clauses, but are nevertheless performing resistance. China upholds Pakistan not because the Chinese were in love with that country, but because Pakistan is in the back of India’s rearguard, and thus the Chinese avoid being surrounded, and it’s not a bad idea to also avoid being cut off by India from access to Indo ocean.

Third, within that contemplation, even countries like Mexico are doing resistance. Because resistance implies not allowing a nation to be consumed by the Empire. ‘Ah,’ you will say, ‘but here’s the President of Mexico signing commercial agreements in the White House with Trump’, and to you this would mean there is not resistance at all. But those commercial agreements turn out to be very favorable to Mexicans. Many things the US was buying from China it will not buy from Mexico, without a loss of dignity for Mexicans. If you look at history, Mexicans regard themselves in resistance to the US for centuries, ever since the loss of all their northern states to the US. And for them this resistance will never stop. And for some of them this resistance means reconquering those territories, whether by overt or subvert means. In fact, many Mexicans regard their massive presence in such territories as sacred duty to their nation.

Fourth, someone may say ‘ah, but that is not ARMED resistance, hence the difference’. But then no one can deny that Russia has been in armed resistance to the Empire for centuries, and in the Putin era it only surged upwards in armed resistance to stand above the Empire in military technology. Perhaps there has not been an overt classical war (yet), an encounter of armed aggression against armed defense, but that does not mean subversive war has not been and is not going on as well. In fact, on that score, China is also in armed resistance to the Empire, even if the overt armed struggle has not manifested. Yet.

Fifth, now, this statement:

‘Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Venezuela would have fallen to the empire if it weren’t for Iran’s actions.’

is a typical product of Perception Management Concepts. Countries in the region there are one thing. One would argue that Iran alone coming overtly to try to save Syria would have only invited a massive military intervention by Empire with the perfect excuse. They would not fear fighting Iran by proxy to the last stupid mercenary, in fact would celebrate a marvelous opportunity to weaken Iranian fighters and cause financial loss to Iran. And they would have gone that way, but Russia also came and established air control operations enough to avoid the Empire using its preferred method of destruction, which is massive air bombing campaigns. Empire has no problem attacking Iranian fighters in the region, outside Iran’s borders. But going against Russia overtly is a not a good idea. So one would not easily accept that Iran saved Syria only by itself.

Sixth, Venezuela? Venezuela has not fallen because of Venezuela. It has achieved something marvelous on its own, a process that took many years, started by Hugo Chavez. That process is conscience of nation by its military men. Latin American countries have militaries forever infiltrated by Empire assets that do not allow the growth of such conscience among the ranks. It takes decades to purge military bodies from such assets and it then more decades to slowly mature the love for the nation into dynamic resistance. Venezuela has barely made it, but it make it just in time. That its territory has been embraced in the resistance vectors of other countries for common but also their own reasons is undeniable. But no amount of Russian weapons and Iranian oil will save Venezuela without a national will to resist by her military men. AND ALSO, Venezuela also worked hard to expand its territory of resistance, all over Latin America and even out of it, establishing ties with countries such as Iran and Turkey that have turned out to be very positive for them. In Latin America they established initiatives such a ALBA and PetroCaribe, that took the Empire’s attention for some years and bought enough time to keep strengthening sovereignist military doctrine. It paid off big time. When the times have come, traitors are few and they have been unable to break the military to turn it against Bolivarian government.

Seventh, resistance is not exclusive to countries opposed to absorption by Empire. There are also orders of resistance among all other countries themselves. To ascertain that all non Empire countries would magically not engage in the defense of their own interests against each other in the absence of Empire is a naive proposition.

Eighth, finally, even Empire countries have resistance movements within their own populations. Latin America, for example, abounds in them. So you would despise a country like, say, Colombia, because its government is firmly in the toxic grip of the Empire, but in doing so you would dishonor all those brave Colombian resistance heroes being killed every day for their stance, those in social justice movements and also the armed guerrillas such as FARC and ELN. Same goes for Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and even small countries like Honduras and El Salvador. So its morally imperative to not contemplate resistance exclusively through national views. Diametrically opposed it is also true that Iran itself has a small but significative pro-Empire segment of population.

As for ‘western imported materialistic liberal capitalistic democracy’, even resistance countries have a version of it and all the values associated. China adopted the capitalistic, materialistic, liberal driven approach and it paid off. So did Russia. And so does Iran, when it comes to aspects like production, development, commerce and financial, obviously with its own characteristics and improvements.

One would say that the problem lies not with the model, but the executors of the model. Or rather, that the problem is not simply the message, but the messengers who use the message when it fits them, but also go against it when they need to. Empire has no problem with democracy at some places while it also pushes non democracies at other places. Same with markets, economy, culture and other values.