Interview
“The Cuban people are making it clear that they do not want to return to the bondage of capitalism”
The Cuban Revolution, which succeeded with Batista’s flight on January 1, 1959, is striving to preserve its socialist character despite the U.S. blockade, which has reached genocidal proportions. Imperialist attempts at invasion, which reached their peak with the Bay of Pigs intervention, have been significantly “spiced up” with elements such as biological attacks, assassinations, economic aggression, and the support of counterrevolutionary fascist groups. With the second Trump administration, the operation to strangle Cuba—clearly carrying the tone of regime change and led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who harbors the resentment of his counter-revolutionary parents who fled and were dispossessed from Cuba—appears to have sworn to destroy not only the Revolution but the Cuban people as a whole.
Frank Josué Solar Cabrales, a Cuban historian, writer, and academic who answered our questions from the island—where power outages have become routine due to the U.S. blockade—says the Cuban people will resist U.S. imperialism to avoid losing both socialism and national sovereignty. In his view, what the U.S. sees in Cuba is a small island just 150 km away defying the odds to demonstrate that another world is possible—that is, serving as a “model” not only for the peoples of Latin America but for the entire world.
Cabrales, who candidly acknowledges the challenges of the socialist construction process in Cuba, points out that market reforms—accelerated particularly after 2011—have significantly increased inequality. He argues that while taking steps backward may be legitimate, he objects to the presentation of tools drawn from the capitalist toolkit as a means to build socialism. He argues that the “trench” mentality is rational due to the American threat; however, he believes efforts must be intensified to ensure the continuous renewal and revitalization of popular participation. He considers the warnings of Fidel and Che to remain relevant today.
He suggests that if the U.S. were to invade Cuba, imperialism would face not only an armed Cuban people and a “war of the entire people,” but also a continent-wide counterattack by the peoples of Latin America.
Cuba is struggling with a terrible blockade imposed by the US immediately after the revolution. The “Donroe Doctrine” announced during Donald Trump’s second term and the rogue actions against Venezuela, one of Cuba’s most important allies, appear to have exacerbated the negative effects of this blockade. Can you describe both the historical effects of the blockade and the distinctive features of the new era ushered in by the Trump administration? What concrete dangers do the Cuban Revolution and the Cuban people face today?
The U.S. economic, commercial, and financial blockade against Cuba, which began in 1962 under the administration of John F. Kennedy, has been the spearhead, the central core of a total war waged by U.S. imperialism against the Cuban Revolution throughout its more than six decades of existence.
When history books about this era are written in the future, Cuba’s heroic resistance will have to be recorded in capital letters and gold. The epic story of a small, underdeveloped island with scarce economic resources resisting the longest siege by the most powerful empire in history is a modern version of the legendary confrontation between David and Goliath. Against that small nation, ninety miles from its shores, the United States has employed nearly every means available in its arsenal.
And in this broad strategy of subversion, where everything has been tried, from terrorist sabotage and personal attacks to direct military aggression, including biological warfare, the main battering ram has always been the economic blockade, the attempt to cut off any possibility of trade or formal economic relations for Cuba, not only with the United States but also with other countries. Any company or business in the world that dares to do business with Cuba risks fines or sanctions from the U.S. government.
The relentlessness of the United States, which devotes an army of officials and a massive amount of federal funds to pursuing Cuban commercial operations, stems from its refusal to forgive the Caribbean island for the audacity of being rebellious and upholding its independence. They have gone to great lengths to ensure the failure of a revolutionary experiment in building a different society, one of prosperity, justice, and dignity for all, so that its example does not spread throughout Latin America.
While the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc existed, the effects of the blockade were greatly mitigated by favorable economic relations with the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance [COMECON], which allowed Cuba to successfully overcome its obstacles. When the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR disintegrated, Cuba found itself in very difficult circumstances, losing almost all of its international trade and the market where it sold its products and procured vital supplies.
In those circumstances of extreme weakness and isolation for the Cuban Revolution, when it seemed it had only months left to live, U.S. imperialism believed the time had come to deliver the coup de grâce by tightening the economic blockade. Two new laws, the Torricelli Act in 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, tightened the screws of commercial suffocation against Cuba. The latter has been particularly damaging because it codified the blockade into legislation that can only be repealed by the U.S. Congress, and established a series of requirements for doing so that imply Cuba’s total surrender and the loss of its sovereignty. It also accentuated its extraterritorial nature by allowing foreign companies to be sued in U.S. courts for conducting business on properties or lands that were expropriated by the Cuban Revolution.
Against all odds, Cuba survived the severe blow dealt by the fall of the USSR. With Fidel Castro still at the helm of the country, the market-opening measures, inevitable but temporary in nature, taken during the “special period in peacetime” allowed its productive apparatus to withstand the onslaught of intensified imperial pressure and come out on top. This trend was later reinforced by a favorable context of progressive governments across Latin America and by the brief period of thaw and rapprochement attempted under the Barack Obama administration.
Donald Trump’s rise to power marked a return to a policy of maximum pressure against Cuba, implemented with even greater force. Already during his first term, he took some 240 measures that reinforced the blockade, sought to strike at every sector of our economy, and targeted any commercial exchange with the rest of the world. And in this second term, with Marco Rubio serving as Secretary of State, a direct representative of the far-right Cuban counterrevolutionary lobby, he intends to finish the job and fulfill the long-cherished dream of U.S. imperialism: the overthrow of the Cuban Revolution.
The first thing he did, on the very day he took office, was to re-include us on the list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism, which automatically prevents us, among other things, from opening accounts and conducting financial transactions at many banks around the world. Being on that list imposes additional restrictions on our country regarding the use of the dollar for international trade and access to credit or loans. Cuba cannot access any of the international financing mechanisms that all nations rely on in today’s highly interconnected economy. Threats of retaliation by the world’s leading imperialist power act as a strong deterrent, causing many companies and financial institutions to refrain from doing business with Cuba.
Far from being a trade embargo on specific goods, as the United States portrays it, the blockade is a full-scale, broad economic war, with a variety of measures that have extended, strengthened, and deepened it over the past six decades. The blockade has been a policy designed with the express purpose of causing the greatest possible harm to the Cuban people, in order to bring about a regime change through a counterrevolutionary uprising.
This is reflected in official U.S. government documents, such as the memorandum by Lester Mallory, Under Secretary of State, in April 1960, which clearly states that the objective of the blockade is to deprive the country of material and financial resources to achieving the surrender of the Cuban revolution through hunger, need, suffering, and despair. Acknowledging the reality that the revolutionary government enjoyed majority popular support, the document proposes economic suffocation as the most effective means for its overthrow, to create conditions that would provoke discontent and opposition among the people. In the reasoning of that memorandum, one can see, in all its starkness, the cynicism of imperialism and how it treats peoples who break free from its domination.
Surrender or death is the dilemma that U.S. imperialism imposes on peoples who, like the Cuban people, dare to be free and dignified, and to take their destiny into their own hands. Such a policy has inflicted enormous damage on the Cuban economy: official figures show that since the date of its imposition, the blockade has cost Cuba some $164 billion. Every sector of the economy—industry, agriculture, and services—has been affected by the imperial siege, which in recent times, under Trump, has been characterized by systematic persecution and surgical damage to any activity that brings foreign currency revenue to the country, primarily tourism and international medical collaboration.
Beyond figures and macroeconomic indicators, the blockade is felt in all its harshness in the daily lives of Cubans, in the difficulties in providing social and public services such as health care, education, transportation, electricity, and water supply, and in the shortages of food, medicine, and basic consumer goods necessary for daily life. The daily existence of Cubans is truly very hard and complicated by the effects of the blockade, not only due to the lack of supplies and resources, but also due to the deterioration of the entire economic and civil infrastructure.
The recent measures taken by Donald Trump, declaring Cuba an unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. national security, threatening to impose tariffs on anyone who sends oil to the island, and cutting off the main source of crude oil for Cubans, along with the armed aggression against Venezuela on January 3, have exacerbated a deep economic crisis that the Cuban people were already suffering. The impacts of more than three months without receiving a single drop of fuel are already being felt in the daily lives of the country’s inhabitants, in the most diverse ways, affecting above all two dimensions that cut across the entire society and economy and ensure their vitality: transportation and electricity generation. The lack of electricity not only affects households, with more than twenty hours of daily blackouts and all the difficulties this entails, for example, in food preservation and cooking, but also paralyzes industry and productive activity.
The absence of fuel for transportation, for its part, practically brings the country to a standstill and affects the functioning of all its spheres and structures. In general, there is already a noticeable rise in prices for food and consumer goods, and the material conditions of life for Cubans are becoming even harsher.
Faced with such a difficult situation, the decision of the majority of the people is firm: to continue resisting and not submit to the vassalage that U.S. imperialism seeks to impose on us.
We read that the US government is planning a Venezuela-style invasion operation for Cuba. How is Cuba preparing to respond militarily to such an action? What is Revolutionary Cuba’s war strategy? How will Havana’s relations with Moscow and Beijing, and primarily with the peoples of Latin America, be mobilized in the event of a possible American intervention?
Cuba relies on regular troops and a professional armed forces for its defense, where all young people receive training during their military service.
But the main bulwark against external aggression stems from the involvement of the entire population in a comprehensive armed defense strategy known as the “War of the Whole People.” This military doctrine of widespread popular struggle, conceived by Fidel Castro in the 1980s, ensures that every citizen has the means, a place, and a mission to resist the invader, and seeks to deter and defeat any enemy, regardless of their military superiority, by confronting them with political and human costs they cannot bear. In the face of renewed threats of attacks from the U.S. administration, we Cubans have strengthened our preparedness by increasing the frequency of periodic training exercises on the basic aspects of armed conflict.
Without modern technologies or sophisticated weaponry, but with a long historical tradition of guerrilla warfare, we share the conviction that foreign troops who dare to enter Cuba “will only gather the dust of its blood-soaked soil, if they do not perish in the fight,” in the words of Antonio Maceo¹, one of the heroes of our struggle for independence.
Unlike the relationship with the Soviet Union or the socialist camp, or even with Venezuela, which was not only an economic but also a political and ideological alliance, in the case of today’s Russia, China, or the BRICS in general, these are friendly nations that condemn the blockade and wish to maintain normal trade relations with Cuba, but which operate under capitalist logic, and whose business dealings and interests with Cuba are not driven by altruistic or humanitarian purposes, but rather by the pursuit of their own profits and geopolitical advantages.
The international economic crisis of capitalism also limits any potential alternative that the BRICS might represent for Cuba. Russia is embroiled in a war; China’s growth figures are no longer what they were in previous decades, and it faces certain economic difficulties. The support from Russia and China has been strategic, for example, in recent times, in the implementation of large-scale solar energy projects through the installation of photovoltaic panels, and in the recovery and modernization of the country’s electrical infrastructure. Without Russian and Chinese cooperation, it would have been more difficult for Cuba to address the current electricity generation crisis, caused by oil shortages and the precarious state of its power grids and thermoelectric plants.
But I believe it would be naive to expect any kind of military aid from their governments if Cuba were to come under attack. It is not in their calculations to risk triggering a third world war to defend the Caribbean island. The safeguarding of national sovereignty and the Cuban revolution depends on the Cubans themselves, and the defeat of imperialism, ultimately, will only be guaranteed by the international advance of revolutionary, socialist processes that propose alternatives for radical transformation and break with capitalism.
Amid its relative decline as a global imperialist power, the United States seeks to rebuild its hegemony and regain direct control over the territory it has historically considered its backyard. Under the cynical and crude guise of a supposed fight against drug trafficking, this revival of the Monroe Doctrine and the big stick actually seeks to ensure its unchallenged dominance south of the Rio Grande, where it can impose its will without disobedience or rebellion.
If U.S. imperialism dares to set foot on the sacred soil of our homeland, it must face the united response of our peoples.
We must make it pay dearly for its audacity, and not limit ourselves to resistance, but move to the counteroffensive. Let Bolívar’s sword and Che’s rifle multiply from one end of the continent to the other. Let not a single Yankee soldier or base remain in Latin America. Let our peoples rise up and direct their struggles not only against the foreign military presence but against the local oligarchies and puppet governments that serve as their accomplices and supporters in the imperialist adventure. May the revolutionary wave knock on the doors of Wall Street and inspire a rebellion there, in the belly of the beast, against the rule of the millionaires and the 1%, who send the same old people, the dispossessed of the North, to fight the wars of the powerful. In the face of the imperialist military onslaught, let us turn Latin America into a zone of revolutions and popular power.
History has amply demonstrated that no abstract appeal to respect for sovereignty and international law, no appeal to the UN and other international bodies, based on a supposed rules-based world order, will be capable on its own of stopping the missiles or preventing the bombs from falling. The imperialist war machine will only be stopped by the organized and combative strength of the working class, by the power of struggle and resistance demonstrated by the oppressed when they unite and fight for common causes of freedom and justice.
In an article you wrote in 2024 (“Cuba’s Socialism: Certainties and Crossroads”), you point out that reforms carried out in Cuba, primarily with the aim of improving economic efficiency, carry the threat of capitalist restoration. Is it possible to transform the Cuban economy and improve the material conditions of workers while maintaining a system where inequality increases and market mechanisms take root for a long time?
Following the release of the Cuban Communist Party’s “Guidelines on the Economic and Social Policy of the Party and the Revolution” in 2011, a reform process began, known as the “update” of the Cuban economic model, that embraces a series of market-oriented, capitalist-style measures, all within a socialist legal, state, and political framework. These measures could potentially help overcome the economic crisis that has plagued the island since the “Special Period,” by relying on practical approaches that seem to have always worked, such as material incentives to boost production, encouraging foreign investment, and greater openness to the private sector, which began with self-employment and later expanded to include small and medium-sized enterprises.
This model, which seeks to address economic problems through the growing strengthening of the market and private property, constrained from above by a socialist legal and state infrastructure, could, under certain conditions of necessity such as those Cuba has been experiencing, and for a limited time, help revive some sectors of the economy. However, it will always pose a threat to the existence of socialism. Without a counterweight, without real and effective popular control, it generates its own logic that does not work in favor of a socialist direction, but rather in the interest of capital accumulation and the pursuit of profit above social and collective interests, and which ultimately aims at the restoration of capitalism.
This is the path that has been followed since the Guidelines, and many of these measures have even been intensified, which has generated all kinds of negative phenomena, harmful to the socialist project of the Cuban Revolution.
One of the most painful and worrying, with an enormous impact because it is also clearly visible in the daily life of Cubans today, is inequality, which had already emerged very timidly during the crisis of the 1990s, a crisis that Fidel later tried to address with the Battle of Ideas, but which has been intensifying and accelerating since the start of the reforms. A minority segment, associated with private economic activities, reaps significant profits, grows wealthy, and experiences a considerable rise in its standard of living, while another significant portion of the population survives in conditions of severe material deprivation.
One of the most painful signs of this inequality is the increased presence on the streets of our major cities of begging and elderly people wandering the streets, living on the streets. Other harmful phenomena, related to the advance of capitalist dynamics, include mass emigration, with many young people who see no way out of the crisis or no life plan in Cuba and seek it beyond our borders, and corruption, a fertile ground where opacity, favoritism, and the direct and indirect ties of the bureaucracy to certain businesses and ventures flourish. Pro-capitalist reforms promote a type of relationship and common sense that are not conducive to socialism as a project, not only political, but also cultural, aimed at creating a better society that ends all injustices and guarantees real equality for all human beings. Individual solutions and the reliance on money as the primary means of accessing consumer goods are dangerous elements for socialism in Cuba.
The main mistake with this reform, in my opinion, has been presenting it as a way to build socialism through the market, using capitalist tools, when history has proven time and again in practice that the instruments of capitalism only serve to produce more capitalism and in no way contribute to creating socialism. They can help us survive in a situation of extreme crisis and revive the country’s economy, but if they are prolonged over time and without real workers’ control, they will give rise to a series of effects contrary to our goals of justice and emancipation.
As early as the 1960s, Che warned against the danger of using the blunt weapons of capitalism in his analyses of the socialist transition. Fidel, too, when he launched the process of rectifying errors and negative tendencies in the 1980s, called for a return to Che’s conception, the same one that guided the Cuban Revolution in its early days, of building socialism without resorting to the economic categories of capitalism. And during the Special Period, when he had no alternative but to use them and explained that we were forced to live with them and their effects, he always presented them as temporary, necessary at that moment, but antithetical in the long term to the ideal society we sought to achieve.
You point out that the restoration of capitalism in Cuba would not only mean a return to poverty and misery for workers, but also a humiliation for the Cuban nation. What is the connection between the suffocating blockade of US imperialism and the capitalist restorationists within the country? Furthermore, would a possible American invasion also mean a class-based civil war for Cuba? What kind of “non-socialism zones” do you have in Cuba and does not that mean there are enclaves that the Cuban (national) sovereignty could not reach?
The regression we have experienced in property relations, economic relations, and relations of production inevitably has its political and ideological counterpart. If you teach that any criticism or disagreement with decisions and policies approved by higher-level structures is a political problem, and is harmful because it undermines unity, you cannot expect a response to emerge to views that are antithetical to our social project, no matter how evident they may be, when they come from above. We must educate people to engage in debate about our core principles and to be able to identify threats to our liberation project, whatever their origin. The socialist revolution is much more than a government or a political power; it is a broad emancipatory project that seeks the liberation of human beings from all the chains that oppress them. It needs that power to be realized, and it needs that power to be firm, to confront the formidable opposing forces of reaction and imperialism.
But it must always serve the higher interests of the project. The day it ceases to serve that project and becomes an obstacle to the achievement of its emancipatory goals, when, instead of responding to the ultimate aims of liberation, it serves the conservative and narrow interests of power groups, even while usurping the name, symbols, and traditions of the liberation project for its own benefit, we must fight to redirect or replace it. The reins of that power must always remain in the hands of the people, to prevent its degeneration. Socialism is a movement, a permanent change, not a fixed model of society, state, or government.
Prolonged resistance is synonymous with success, but only up to a point. The cost of the siege can lead to defeat. Systematic attrition can slowly work in favor of capitalist restoration, not only through the formation of objective and common-sense factors, but also through the creation of social sectors inclined toward it, who would view it as desirable and preferable. A revolution is not undertaken for the sake of indefinite resistance and sacrifice, nor to replace one order of domination with another, even if of a different nature, but to bring freedom, justice, and well-being to all people through their conscious mobilization.
To accomplish tasks of such magnitude, socialism needs, for a limited time, a state apparatus of coercion, violence, and consensus that allows for the defeat of internal and external reaction and the organization of all of society toward an unprecedented elevation of the productive forces and the creation of a new culture, but this apparatus must begin to disappear from day one and must be in the hands of the workers from the very beginning.
The resistance capacity of the Cuban people and the revolution seems to depend on the advancement of that same revolution. What measures is the leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba taking today to deepen the socialist transformation and strengthen resistance against imperialism? You point out that one of the biggest obstacles to these measures is the blockade, noting that “while digging trenches on one hand, you are trying to establish a parliament on the other.”
Cintio Vitier’s metaphor about our need to build a parliament in a trench serves to illustrate the constant tension between power and the project, which, according to Fernando Martínez Heredia, is the fundamental contradiction in any experience of socialist transition.
The trench is necessary, even more so in a process like Cuba’s, 90 miles from the United States, where unity has been fundamental to resisting nearly seven decades of attacks from the most powerful empire in history. But at times, that necessity has also served as a justification for the trench to swallow up the parliament, and it becomes a convenient argument for those in power, who can label any differing opinion as divisive or fifth-columnist.
Among the negative and perverse impacts of the blockade and imperialist hostility, we must always include the limitations on our democratic functioning. While prioritizing the trenches over parliament may yield short-term benefits in defending the revolutionary process, because it allows those in charge greater control over internal order, prevents cracks from forming, and effectively counters the enemy’s work, it is harmful in the long run to socialist construction, which needs workers’ democracy and control from below as much as the human body needs oxygen to function and move forward.
Fidel’s leadership, with its charisma and historical legitimacy, was a major factor in the balance between these two poles, between power and the project. Under current conditions, of economic hardship, the intensification of the blockade and enemy activity, and growing social unrest, and now without Fidel’s physical presence, there is a risk of entrenchment and of believing that the most effective way to ensure the defense and continuity of the Revolution is through the strictest political control, which views any divergent opinion with suspicion and sees it as a threat.
In a closed environment, marked by bureaucratic control and a trench mentality with no room for debate, where criticism and dissent are viewed as dangerous, corruption, inefficiency, and reactionary thinking flourish; and calls for unity to defend sovereignty and collective achievements often serve, in reality, to mask the defense of the privileges and interests of powerful groups, which thus shield themselves from the scrutinizing and watchful gaze of the rank and file.
What is the position of young people born during Cuba’s post-Soviet “special period” regarding the threat of an American invasion? You insist that the Cuban Revolution is not a finished project, and the improvement of material conditions on an individual basis is not a solution for the shortcomings of the Revolution. What could be done in front of a gargantuan, and a permanent invasion threat, to raise up the spirit of the communist utopia?
Despite the blackouts, shortages, and intense pressure, the overwhelming majority of the Cuban people have decided to continue resisting. The survival of socialism in Cuba also depends on the success of revolutionary movements in other parts of the world.
Cuba lacks significant natural resources, no viable oil reserves, no major rivers, and no rare earth minerals that might attract direct invasions for their extraction, which makes its example of resistance all the more remarkable.
The economic situation has caused unrest, as evidenced by the protests on July 11, 2021. This event was a “perfect storm”: the pandemic, the tightening of the blockade, food shortages, and a massive social media propaganda campaign funded from abroad with federal funds, using influencers and YouTubers to incite an uprising. However, a majority of the population took to the streets to defend the Revolution, understanding that the alternative, a return to neocolonial capitalism, would be worse, as demonstrated by the cases of Haiti, Puerto Rico, or the Dominican Republic, where there are power outages, even without a blockade, and levels of violence unknown in Cuba.
Migration is exploited politically by the United States through the Cuban Adjustment Act, which encourages illegal emigration to destabilize the country. Cubans are encouraged to “flee” illegally to propagandistically portray them as escaping a dictatorship, when in reality they emigrate for economic reasons exacerbated by the blockade.
Despite the difficulties, mechanisms for popular participation exist in Cuba. Candidates for municipal assemblies are elected by direct vote in neighborhoods without party intervention. Laws, such as the Family Code², recently approved with 70% support following an intense public debate, are discussed in all workplaces and communities. While there are bureaucratic limitations justified by the need for unity against the external enemy, a single party to prevent division that would benefit the empire, there is an effort to deepen a socialist, direct, and participatory democracy.
What truly bothers the hegemonic power and explains its relentless hostility toward Cuba is that on this island a way of life has been put into practice that has proven to be far more just, humane, and dignified than that found in other parts of the world. A way of life where equality, healthcare, education, and housing are guaranteed for all under a socialist model of a planned national economy.
The very existence of Cuba, ninety miles from the United States, is a dangerous example that the empire seeks to destroy at all costs so that it does not spread to the rest of Latin America and the world. The very fact that the blockade exists is tangible proof of the superiority of the Cuban example; if socialism were so inefficient, the United States could lift the blockade and let the revolution fail on its own, but they do not do so because they need the blockade as an excuse to justify the shortages.
The main way out of Cuba’s crisis is international solidarity and the advancement of the global revolutionary movement. Socialism cannot be fully built in a single isolated country. Meanwhile, Cuba remains a beacon of hope, demonstrating that it is possible to prioritize human beings over business, even under pressure from the empire. The Cuban utopia is a reality that resists and continues to advance. The Cuban people are clear that they do not want to return to the slavery of capitalism and subordination to imperialism, and they are willing to pay whatever price is necessary for their dignity, sovereignty, and social justice.
Frank Josué Solar Cabrales (Santiago de Cuba, 1981). Essayist and researcher. Bachelor’s degree in History (2005) and Master’s degree in Cuban and Caribbean Studies (2007) from the University of Oriente; Ph.D. in Historical Sciences (University of Havana, 2016). Historian at the University of Oriente. Full Professor in the Department of History and University Heritage at the University of Oriente. Vice President of the Scientific Council of the University of Oriente. Member of the Leonardo Griñán Peralta Chair of Historical Studies of the State and Law, and President of the Honorary Chair for the Study of the Thought and Work of Fidel Castro at the University of Oriente. Member of the National Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba (UNEAC) and of the National Committee of the Union of Historians of Cuba (UNHIC). Associate researcher at the Office of Historical Affairs of the Presidency of the Republic of Cuba. National corresponding member of the Cuban Academy of History. Member of the La Tizza publishing collective. “Juan Pérez de la Riva” Historical-Social Essay Award (UNEAC), 2017. “Ramiro Guerra” National Historical Criticism Award (UNHIC), 2021. “Hortensia Pichardo” National Historical Criticism Award (UNHIC), 2023. Scientific and Technical Criticism Award (ICL), 2023. He has published The Labyrinths of Unity in Insurrect Cuba (2019), Between the Letter and the Assault (2021), Stories of Rebellion (2021), and July 26: The Assault That Set the Clouds Ablaze (2023).
¹ One of the generals of the Cuban Liberation Army, which fought for independence from Spain and the abolition of slavery. The famous quote attributed to Maceo is as follows: “Whoever tries to take power over Cuba will only get the dust of its soil, drenched in blood, if he doesn’t perish in the struggle.” (Editor’s note)
² On September 25, 2022, Cuba approved a new Family Code in a referendum, repealing the one in place since 1975. The period of public debate around the new Family Code began in 2018, and the new code includes more rights for women and legalizes same-sex marriages. (Editor’s note)
Retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel and military analyst Daniel Davis discussed the US military operation against Iran, decision-making mechanisms in Washington, US-Israel relations, transformations in modern warfare doctrine, and the global balance of power in an interview with Harici Media.
Answering questions of Harici Editor-in-Chief Tunç Akkoç regarding the Iran war, retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis stated that the US administration lacks an achievable military strategy on the ground. Davis said: “I would say the US has a desire, not a strategy. It wants to subjugate the Iranian side, corner them, seize control of the Strait of Hormuz, prove they pose no threat to anyone in the region, and ensure they never possess nuclear weapons. That is our desire. But there is no strategy to achieve any of these goals.”
Drawing on his past military experience, Davis detailed the geographical and technical challenges on the ground: “As a soldier with direct combat experience, having gained combat experience in some of these mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, for example, I know that many of the mountains inside Iran belong to the same mountain category. I knew what a difficult military task it would be to conquer a country as large as most of Western Europe, where such mountain ranges cover the entire western front. Therefore, I knew you could do nothing on the ground. However, I also knew that you could not subjugate a country with this kind of defense capacity and of this nature through air power alone.”
Pointing out that Iran’s defense infrastructure spans many years, Davis continued: “You cannot do this, especially when they have anticipated this for twenty years and made all kinds of preparations by constructing underground caves, production facilities, and storage facilities, and developing production capabilities for their unmanned aerial vehicles and missiles. There is no way you can defeat them. Because such facilities were designed not only to withstand all our strike missiles, such as Tomahawk, Jasmine cruise missiles, PSM, or ATAC, but also to survive. Most are capable of surviving nuclear explosions as well. I have been inside some of these here in the US. I have been in some physically located beneath a mountain. I know they were specifically designed when constructed to withstand the largest nuclear weapons the Soviet Union might possess. The ones there are of the same kind. If you know before embarking on an act of starting a war that the enemy is this large, possesses these types of defenses, and everyone knows these are resistant to our non-nuclear conventional munitions, why would you start a war to force them into something you clearly cannot achieve?”
Addressing the assumptions behind the war decision, Davis said: “I think this is a fantasy stoked by Benjamin Netanyahu. It was said, ‘If we assassinate their leaders, the same thing will happen as happened to Maduro in Venezuela. You went there, captured him, and disabled him; when you did that, you took control of the entire government, they basically handed the country over to you, and the same will happen here.’ Anyone who thinks Venezuela is like Iran has paid attention to nothing. The culture, history, religion, experiences, and everything that has transpired over the last 47 years are radically different from those in Venezuela, and you do not have an insider to facilitate the process as we had in Venezuela. But President Trump appears to have thought this way.”
“When he started the war on February 28, he sealed our fate; we lost this war”
Pointing to inconsistencies in US President Donald Trump’s decisions and the trajectory of the operation, Davis stated: “This situation is proof that he is stuck. Because, in my view, when he started the war on February 28, he sealed our fate. We lost this war. Even if it is ongoing right now, there is no logical way for us to win it. Because we cannot eliminate the trump card held by the Iranian side.”
Stating that military pressure mechanisms are insufficient, Davis explained: “We still have our missiles, aircraft, aircraft carriers, and all such elements. That is why it appears feasible. It is thought, ‘Maybe if we make a good enough deal, or put enough pressure on them, or impose a blockade and leave the public in a dire enough position to change the government’s mind.’ This is a fantasy. This is the only thing President Trump has. Because if he were acting based solely on military reality, strategic reality, and cultural and religious reality, he would know this was an unwise move, but he does not know.”
Describing Trump’s negotiation approach and the breakdown of the reached agreement, Davis used the following expressions: “He is a transactional individual who wants relationships resolved overnight. For example, during the memorandum of understanding period, this duration was to be 60 days. After starting the war, no achievable military objectives remained. Whatever your desires were, you can no longer reach them because you have confronted reality. Now he is trying to find an exit route, but even within this understanding, he cannot arrive at a rational and consistent perspective. Any rational person would think that when the memorandum of understanding was signed on June 17, it provided him with an exit route. You implement the terms of this memorandum, the crisis is resolved, the dual blockade is lifted, and the Strait of Hormuz could reopen.”
Addressing the clauses of the agreement text and subsequent developments, Davis said: “The terms Trump signed stated that Iran had administrative control of the Strait of Hormuz but could not demand any transit fees for 60 days. Iran accepted this, but accepted only one condition: the ‘for 60 days only’ stipulation. Subsequently, they publicly announced that they would collect fees later, but not during these 60 days. The US was not mentioned in the text in any way. We had no say. The authority to decide how operations would run was left to Iran together with Oman. We gave them 30 of the 60 days to prepare their plan for this. But after four or five days passed, the US suddenly declared a new southern corridor together with Oman.”
Detailing the process of reversing the decision, Davis noted: “While a step to reopen the strait had been agreed upon, traffic had risen to approximately one-third of pre-war levels, and many shipments had passed directly on the first day, Trump personally turned back this development toward finding a reasonable exit route from the unfolding disaster. According to reports from some sources in Washington, he came under intense pressure from pro-war figures in his inner circle and those on the Israeli side. He backed down under this pressure and modified the terms by inserting himself into the fifth paragraph. He never made Israel implement the first paragraph, which covered Lebanon and envisioned a ceasefire on all fronts. We did not even give them 30 days; we intervened before five days had passed. Trump has a goal, fails to reach it, puts forward another condition, and then withdraws that as well. He is very easily manipulated; he reaches a decision, then someone speaks with him, and he changes his mind.”
Recalling that a similar situation occurred in relations with Saudi Arabia, Davis said: “He said he made a great deal with Saudi Arabia, and the next day he changed the condition by saying, ‘as long as they sign the Abraham Accords.’ Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, announced that this was not part of the agreement and had never been discussed. This situation shows that President Trump constantly makes concessions when pressured. On this basis, how can any agreement be reached with the US? This situation means that no military or diplomatic exit point remains because he does not permit it.”
“Control is no longer an economic matter; it is a national security imperative”
In response to a question about whether a mutual exit opportunity remains from the current impasse, Davis said: “We had the memorandum of understanding; we had secured this agreement. However, President Trump and his Secretary, Scott Bessent, said, ‘as long as it is a deal we like, we want a new deal.’ You already had a deal; what deal are you talking about now? Why would the Iranian side negotiate a new deal that differs from an agreement made two months ago? This is completely illogical. The Iranian side holds military superiority through its missile cities and half a dozen alternative methods to control the strait. As their official authorities stated on social media, control of the strait is no longer merely an economic matter; it is a national security imperative because it is the only tool with which they can balance their American adversary, who is far stronger militarily.”
Evaluating the impact of the oil crisis, Davis stated: “Strategic Petroleum Reserves are declining. This situation has prevented a crisis so far, but it cannot cover products like jet fuel, diesel, and fertilizer. If it continues this way and the problem is postponed, the reserves will be depleted one day, and economic activity cannot be sustained without oil. Pressure is on President Trump, and the Iranian side is aware of this. They know the blockade will harm them, but they have calculated that they can endure much longer and deeper pain than our side. This is an existential matter; they know that if they surrender their only trump card to an unpredictable president, they will be attacked again later.”
“Reflexive support for Israel in society has been broken”
Touching upon relations between the US and Israel, Davis said a clear divergence has begun in American society. Davis noted: “In the past, across all segments of society and all generations, it was reflexively said, ‘Of course we are pro-Israel, they are our democratic ally.’ This situation continued until the Gaza process following October 7. Israel was attacked on October 7, and no one found it strange that it responded. However, what happened afterward created problems. Israel used this opportunity to destroy the Gaza Strip, increase pressure in the West Bank, bring in new settlers, and discuss annexation.”
Describing the rift between political elites and the public, Davis explained: “There is a major divide in America. Elites are unaffected by genocide or the killing of women and children in the West Bank and Gaza; they close their eyes, arguing that Israel is an ally. However, the eyes of the American public are not closed. They see human suffering on social media and do not carry the memorized assumptions of the past. These elites are not merely bought with money; for decades, they genuinely believed that our interests and Israel’s interests were one and the same. In their minds, saying something negative about Israel is equivalent to saying something negative about the US. Younger generations in particular, and a growing portion of all generations, recognize that our interests are not the same.”
Drawing attention to the cost of the war to the US, Davis noted: “We elected President Trump to apply the America First principle, not Israel first, Britain first, or Germany first. There is anger against those who sacrificed America’s needs by entering the war. According to figures reflected in the public domain, at least 600 Americans were injured; according to what I have heard, this number is over a thousand. Money has been spent, our facilities have been damaged, and our aircraft destroyed; around 40 to 50 of our aircraft were damaged or destroyed. Our bases were ruined and will likely never be rebuilt. We have also lost our geopolitical influence in the region. I doubt that relations with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait can return to their former state. Because the foundational assumption of this entire structure was that we could protect them; we could not even protect ourselves.”
“We are still living as if it were 1992”
Evaluating the shift in military technology, Davis stated that the US has lost its traditional military superiority. Davis said: “A large number of people in America are still living as if it were 1992. The Soviet Union had just collapsed, China was a peasant army developing militarily and economically, and we held absolute dominance following Operation Desert Storm. We are no longer in 1992. The Russians corrected their mistakes after the initial phase of the Ukraine war in 2022; they became a much stronger land force, missile, and drone force. China, meanwhile, reached immense technological and industrial capacity.”
Explaining the current situation through the example of Iran, Davis said: “We thought we could crush Iran like a fly, but we could not do so due to their missile cities and technologies. If we cannot eliminate Iran, what can we do against China or Russia, which possess power far beyond that? We have fallen behind in categories such as hypersonic missiles and the new Oreshnik missile. When I saw the Bayraktar TB2 vehicles used by the Turks in the 2020 Armenia-Azerbaijan war, as someone with an armored unit background, I understood that the nature of war had changed. The US, meanwhile, talks about producing 300,000 drones by 2030. In an environment where tactics change every six weeks on the Ukrainian and Russian battlefield, our systems remain extremely slow. Ukrainian soldiers mocked the tank platoon manual published last year, saying that with these methods, one could not survive on the battlefield for even ten minutes.”
“The idea of containing China is a fantasy”
Criticizing the US military approach toward China, Davis evaluated: “There is talk of a strategy to militarily contain China. Will you prevent their activities within their own borders, their technological developments, or the expansion of their military? You cannot stop a country with a strong economy and a massive population. We can achieve no result other than entering a war with China in the Asia-Pacific region and losing it. China’s shipbuilding capacity is approximately 200 times ours; they are vastly superior to us in artillery ammunition, aircraft, and missile production. Our methods left over from the Cold War no longer work. What we need to do is keep our own defense strong and ensure deterrence, not spend billions of dollars in the region to establish forward bases that will be hit.”
Touching upon the potential for diplomatic relations between the two countries, Davis said: “I think President Trump personally knows that going to war with China is unwise. However, the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex view China as a constant enemy, demanding more budget, more bases, and more missiles every year. No one considers diplomacy. Yet we can develop peaceful, stable relations with China based on mutual benefit, even if not friendly. Regarding Taiwan as well, I think leaders realize after seeing what occurred in the Middle East and Ukraine that help will not come, and they will adopt a more cooperative stance by withdrawing independence rhetoric. China does not want to start a war; it desires a model similar to Hong Kong. Even if a conflict breaks out in the worst-case scenario, it is between China and Taiwan; the US should not choose to join the war and lose.”
Emphasizing that the arms lobby inside the US maintains its power, Davis stated: “The military-industrial complex remains extremely powerful and holds all levers of power. They maintain control through members of Congress, the media, and public relations networks; I see no sign that this structure is weakening.”
“They did not want someone who would tell the truth about Israel”
Providing information about the process surrounding the cancellation of his appointment within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Davis recounted the issue in these words: “When Tulsi Gabbard came to me and asked me to become the number three executive in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, I said I would be honored to serve my country. However, I stated that I had openly opposed the policies pursued by Israel since October 7 and the war in Gaza and Lebanon, and that these views might not be welcomed within the administration. She thought my accurate past analyses would compensate for this situation. One of my duties was to present the daily intelligence briefing to the president.”
Describing the stage at which his candidacy was withdrawn, Davis said: “Articles against me appeared in the Israeli press and American media. I never hid my views; I said Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies were harming Israel and dragging us down as well. I advocate the ‘America First’ principle, but there are many people within the administration who say ‘Israel First’ and have zero tolerance for any criticism directed at Netanyahu. They did not want someone who would tell the truth regarding Israel. The process expanded following posts by figures like Laura Loomer. On the day I passed the CIA polygraph test and was set to begin duty, Susie Wiles was informed that I had put the president in a difficult position regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. While Trump was saying there would be a ceasefire, I stated on my program that Vladimir Putin would not agree to a ceasefire given his current advantage. Although I stated that I supported a ceasefire, this was made a pretext, and my appointment offer was withdrawn,” completing the interview.
In an interview with Harici Media, Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, stated that global unipolarity is coming to an end, transitioning into an increasingly multipolar order.
Parsi addressed shifting global power dynamics, US foreign policy toward China, structural domestic pressures in Washington, and the strategic miscalculations surrounding the ongoing US conflict with Iran.
Parsi noted that while many analysts declare the arrival of a post-American world, the transition will not be an abrupt moment. Instead, he described a phased emergence where it becomes clear that no single superpower possesses deterministic influence over global affairs.
Parsi observed that many governments have been slow to internalize this reality or adjust their policies accordingly, creating the superficial illusion that a unipolar system remains intact. “Whether it’s fully multipolar or other configurations, we can be debated. What I think is clear is that the unipolarity is coming to an end,” Parsi said.
“Unipolarity is an aberration, an abnormality”
Regarding Washington’s readiness for a multipolar world, Parsi asserted that the US political establishment remains unprepared and has historically denied the shift. He recalled that during the first two years of the Biden administration, describing the world as multipolar was dismissed as a Russian propaganda narrative.
However, Parsi highlighted a shift under US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stated in a February 2025 interview that unipolarity was an anomaly. Parsi explained, “He actually went further. He said that unipolarity is an aberration, an abnormality, a historical accident. If you believe that it’s a historical accident, if you believe that it’s an abnormality, then I think it comes from that, that any effort to try to restore unipolarity should be rejected.”
Addressing US policy toward China, Parsi noted that despite the summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, there is no structural indication that Washington views Beijing as a potential partner rather than a rival.
He contrasted the Biden administration’s aggressive posture—which assumed an existential struggle for dominance—with the Trump administration’s softer but poorly planned approach.
Parsi argued that neither power can decisively defeat the other, making mutual coexistence and co-governance essential to avoid a catastrophic zero-sum confrontation.
“An effort to indefinitely contain China is a recipe for disaster”
Parsi rejected the feasibility of military containment against Beijing, warning of severe consequences. “I think an effort to indefinitely contain China is a recipe that will bring about great power competition and a confrontation between the US and China that is going to be completely disastrous,” Parsi stated.
He observed that despite significant US strategic errors, such as the conflict with Iran, China has exercised restraint rather than exploiting American vulnerabilities. Parsi argued that if Beijing were dead-set on aggressive power competition, it would have acted differently.
Economically, Parsi argued that containing China through tariffs or Soviet-era containment models is a losing proposition.
Unlike the Soviet Union, which maintained an isolated economic model, China is deeply integrated into global trade and serves as the primary trading partner for most nations, including those in Latin America such as Brazil. Parsi emphasized that economic containment is unviable against a state with such vast global integration.
“This confrontation will be the deadliest conflict in human history”
Evaluating the risk of the “Thucydides Trap,” Parsi criticized the Washington foreign policy establishment for its structural inability to envision peaceful coexistence.
He noted that the political culture in Washington is built around zero-sum competition and conflict rather than diplomatic management.
Parsi emphasized that while historical precedents exist, humanity is not bound to repeat them, particularly when the stakes involve existential risks. Parsi warned that an unmanaged confrontation between the US and China “would be the deadliest conflict in human history if it is allowed to happen,” threatening human survival itself.
Parsi attributed this narrow strategic focus to structural domestic forces, particularly the US military-industrial complex and influential lobbying groups. Working alongside the grand strategy of liberal hegemony, these forces require US military dominance worldwide, especially in Asia.
Parsi explained that institutional inertia makes it extraordinarily difficult for Washington to alter its strategic trajectory.
“The US had an unrealistic plan A and no plan B”
Turning to the conflict with Iran, Parsi asserted that Washington lacks a coherent strategy, having relied on an unrealistic plan that failed within the first three days.
He stated that the US expected a swift regime collapse or surrender within four days, but faced horizontal escalation from Iran, including threats to the Strait of Hormuz and regional strikes.
“The United States had a very unrealistic plan A and no plan B, and it’s been stuck in that situation ever since,” Parsi said, adding that Washington has been improvising and executing tactical operations without strategic success.
Parsi attributed President Trump’s shifting decisions on Iran to this absence of strategy and his personal demand for immediate results. When military action failed to yield swift progress, Trump turned to diplomacy, only to lose patience within three weeks and resume military strikes. Parsi questioned whether the global community could afford a superpower acting in such an erratic manner.
“Without Israel’s push, there would not have been a war with Iran”
Addressing Israel’s role, Parsi stated that Israeli pressure was a decisive factor in driving US policy toward confrontation with Iran.
“Without Israel’s push, there would not have been a war with Iran. Without Trump agreeing to the Israelis, there would not have been a war with Iran. Both of them were needed,” Parsi remarked, noting that Israeli efforts since 1995 elevated Iran into a primary US national security concern disproportionate to actual US interests in the region.
Parsi identified a growing divergence between US and Israeli interests in the Middle East. While the US benefits from reducing its regional military footprint of 50,000 troops, Israel requires continuous US military presence and intervention to maintain a favorable regional balance of power.
Parsi noted that this divergence has created a visible rift between Washington and Tel Aviv following the poor execution of the war and subsequent diplomatic maneuvers.
“Israel’s standing amongst the American public has plummeted”
Parsi highlighted a major shift in American public opinion regarding Israel, noting that sympathy for Palestinians has surpassed sympathy for Israel across almost every demographic category, except Republicans over the age of 65.
He attributed this decline directly to Israel’s military actions in Gaza and its perceived role in drawing the US into a disastrous war with Iran, which mirrored earlier public grievances over the Iraq War.
Regarding a resolution to the conflict, Parsi stated that a dignified exit for both the US and Iran remains possible, though the window is narrowing due to personal hostility and political miscalculations.
Finally, addressing Trump’s political image, Parsi clarified that Trump was never strictly anti-war, but rather anti-risk.
He explained that Trump entered the conflict because Israeli officials convinced him that war with Iran posed little risk and would be concluded within 100 hours. Parsi concluded that had Trump not been misled into believing the operation would be a swift success, he would not have initiated it.
Conflicting statements from the US and Iran regarding the potential resumption of diplomatic negotiations have emerged, while ongoing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have once again brought global energy concerns to the fore.
Addressing these developments on the Harici live broadcast of Strategic Compass, international relations scholar Prof. Dr. Hasan Unal and Alptekin Dursunoglu, journalist, author, and Editor-in-Chief of Yakin Dogu Haber (YDH), evaluated the internal, regional, and strategic dimensions of the conflict. The discussion focused on the shift in Iran’s military doctrine, the political strain within the US administration, the economic vulnerability of Gulf monarchies, and the broader realignments reshaping Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Why did Trump step back from a decision to launch a new attack on Iran?
Opening the discussion, Prof. Dr. Hasan Unal offered a sharp critique of the political rhetoric originating from Washington, contrasting executive declarations with the tactical outcomes on the ground. Unal argued that public statements made by former US President Donald Trump increasingly lack analytical consistency, complicating efforts to decipher official US strategy.
“He has reached a point where he tells more lies than the daily meowing of stray cats,” Unal remarked during the broadcast. “I do not know which part of his statements we ought to analyze, but if we evaluate him within a broader framework, it becomes possible to reach certain conclusions.”
Unal described the military confrontation between Washington and Tehran as an uneven cycle of escalation, noting that US forces continue to suffer casualties and incur immense financial costs without altering the strategic baseline. “The situation has effectively transformed into something like a defeated wrestler who never grows tired of wrestling; America repeatedly approaches and confronts Iran, yet the outcome is obvious from the outset,” Unal stated. He added that American military personnel are being deployed into conflict zones where national interests remain obscure: “I am certain that American soldiers there largely believe they have no personal interests at stake… and that it serves at most the interests of Israel.”
Dursunoglu contextualised the current phase of hostilities as part of an extended campaign, comparing the recent clashes to a second round of a broader regional conflict following earlier engagements in 2025. He noted that despite assertive claims from Washington regarding the destruction of Iranian military infrastructure, operational continuity on the Iranian side forced a shift in US messaging.
Reflecting on official declarations from US Central Command (CENTCOM) and executive statements following intensive strikes, Unal highlighted the internal contradictions in Washington’s narrative: “Trump claimed Iranian naval forces were sent to the bottom of the sea, the air force beyond the atmosphere, and the ground forces deep into the magma. Yet suddenly he declared, ‘I have forgiven Iran,’ while CENTCOM figures suggested they had reached ‘target saturation’—as if there was simply nothing left to hit.”
Is Iran insisting on its conditions regarding the Strait of Hormuz?
A central focus of the analysis was Iran’s response mechanism following the breakdown of initial ceasefire frameworks. Dursunoglu highlighted a significant structural transition in Tehran’s military posture, moving from traditional reactive containment to proactive deterrence across multiple theatres.
Dursunoglu pointed out that during the escalation, Iran did not restrict its target matrix to immediate points of contact. Instead, Iranian forces conducted strikes against US installations and logistical networks across the region, including facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Oman.
“Iran’s traditional defence doctrine was defensive and based on proportional retaliation,” Dursunoglu explained. “However, after the US halted strikes, Iran proceeded to target assets in Jordan and Kuwait without immediate prior attacks on those specific vectors. This indicates that Iran has begun executing preemptive strikes, effectively adapting its strategic posture.”
Unal underscored the severity of these strikes on regional logistics, noting that Iranian counter-strikes targeted the port of Aqaba and airport infrastructure in Jordan, alongside American operational facilities in the Gulf. “According to the accounts, Iranian forces began hitting American installations in Gulf states and Jordan within minutes of initial strikes, effectively neutralizing the operational depth the US relied upon,” Unal noted.
The operational status of the Strait of Hormuz remains a decisive point of leverage. Under previous draft frameworks negotiated through Omani mediation, administrative oversight of maritime traffic through the Strait was slated to transition to Iran in coordination with regional littoral states. However, subsequent US efforts to establish an independent naval corridor along the Omani coast triggered a fresh wave of Iranian interdictions.
Dursunoglu outlined the ongoing negotiations surrounding the maritime passage, noting that attempts to bypass Iranian oversight proved unviable for commercial shipping. Under the latest proposals under discussion via Omani channels, incoming maritime traffic into the Gulf would pass through Iranian-designated corridors under Iranian authorization, while outgoing traffic would proceed along Omani coastal waters following notification and approval.
“If an agreement is finalized on these terms, it represents an explicit recognition of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz by the US regime,” Dursunoglu said. He noted that while initial terms provided free passage during a temporary 60-day window, long-term frameworks anticipate structured administrative mechanisms for commercial vessels. Unal added: “Whether designated as transit fees, environmental charges, or security provisions, formalizing maritime oversight secures a permanent structural advantage for Tehran.”
Under what conditions will negotiations begin?
The economic ramifications of maritime disruption have also altered the calculations of Gulf export nations. Following attempts by Saudi Arabia to engage Ansar Allah (Houthi) forces in Yemen, retaliatory actions against critical infrastructure—including the Yanbu crude oil pipeline on the Red Sea—severely constrained alternative export routes.
“By drawing Yemeni forces back into active conflict, Saudi Arabia inadvertently placed its secondary export avenues under direct fire,” Unal observed. “The vulnerability of the Yanbu pipeline demonstrates that reliance on the Gulf cannot be bypassed easily, effectively increasing regional dependence on stability within the Strait.”
Beyond the maritime domain, the broadcast addressed heavy Iranian military engagements in northern Iraq, targeting opposition groups including the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), Komala, Pak, and Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK) along the Erbil-Suleimaniyeh axis.
Dursunoglu and Unal noted that cross-border strikes destroyed substantial ammunition depots established near border regions, followed by reported ground operations conducted by specialized Iranian units.
“Iranian special forces executed targeted ground operations across the border,” Dursunoglu stated, pointing to secondary explosions captured in operational footage as evidence of extensive pre-positioned armaments.
Unal noted that these operations underscored the strategic limitations of non-state actors aligned with Washington: “The expectations placed on armed factions in northern Iraq collapsed when confronted with direct military pressure. The narrative that these groups could serve as an internal wedge against Tehran proved to be a costly miscalculation for US planners.”
Reports indicating the start of a repositioning of US personnel and heavy military equipment from bases in Iraq and the Gulf toward Jordan and Israel were identified as a direct consequence of this vulnerability. “US forces are consolidating toward Jordan and Israel because their facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait sustained structural operational damage,” Dursunoglu observed. “When a state can no longer defend its forward command centers—such as the 5th Fleet infrastructure in Bahrain—it is forced to retreat to secondary defensive perimeters.”
How effective is the pressure from Gulf countries for negotiations?
Concluding the evaluation, Unal and Dursunoglu examined the broader diplomatic landscape, focusing on security dialogues among regional powers, including Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Both analysts agreed that any sustainable security architecture in the Middle East must incorporate Iran rather than seek its exclusion.
“How can you construct a new regional order by excluding the very nation that demonstrated the capacity to neutralize external military dominance?” Dursunoglu questioned. “An architecture that relies on Western guarantees or Israeli alignment fails to address the underlying security dynamics of the region.”
Unal reflected on the historical trajectories of Turkish foreign policy, criticizing past ideological approaches that fuelled regional fragmentation and sect-based antagonisms. He noted that realpolitik dictates close functional coordination between Ankara and Tehran despite historical differences.
“Iran’s resistance ultimately prevented the imposition of a security framework dictated entirely by external actors,” Unal concluded. “Responsible analysis requires recognizing that stability in the Middle East cannot be achieved through foreign intervention or regional fragmentation, but through direct, autonomous security coordination among the region’s core nations.”
Bundeswehr troop figures mask severe structural imbalances
Europe builds drone defence walls along eastern flank against UAVs
US formally redesignates Hezbollah as Iranian proxy under sanctions
Israeli envoy warns red line crossed over Turkish moves in Syria
Denmark trains first conscripts in Greenland amid Arctic tensions
-
Middle East2 weeks agoTrump’s Board of Peace drafts first Gaza base contract
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoUS lawmakers seek terrorist designation for Polisario Front
-
Europe2 weeks agoCDU unrest raises doubts over Merz’s future as chancellor
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoNATO faces severe structural and logistical deficits, Professor Erenel warns
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan set to sign defence pact
-
America2 weeks agoWealthy Americans drive surge in New Zealand golden visa demand
-
Interview5 days agoDaniel Davis warns US strategy fails against Iranian defense grid
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia defense agreement: An attack on one will be considered an attack on all
