When he declared at the end of the 16th century that "whoever controls the sea controls the world,"
the explorer Walter Raleigh was far from imagining that he was formulating a geopolitical equation destined for
a long posterity, but also to provoke heated debate. In a world where globalization is
resulting in the maritime transformation of spaces, how can we understand today's strategies regarding
maritime spaces? In this context, we will examine the various concepts developed
throughout history in order to see what makes them converge or diverge before exploring more contemporary avenues.
Geopolitics, as an autonomous discipline, has deep roots in the geographical and strategic thought developed
between the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Although the term "geopolitics" was officially coined only in 1916-17
by Swedish and German researchers, notably Rudolf Kjellén, systematic reflections on the interaction between space
and power already existed before then. Among these reflections, Halford Mackinder's contribution stands out,
even though he never used the term, as he is considered one of the principal founders of this discipline.
Mackinder defined himself as a geographer and considered his writings a contribution to the advancement
of geographical science, rather than the foundation of a separate discipline. However, his thought is in line with t
hat of other key figures such as Alfred Mahan, theorist of maritime domination, and Friedrich Ratzel, who
developed the concept of "living space." Unlike these authors, Mackinder introduced an integrated approach,
centered on the idea that geography possesses intrinsic political and strategic value, determining the possibilities
for expansion, defense, and economic growth of nations.
One of the fundamental aspects of his thinking was the idea that geography was a determining factor in the distribution
of global power, but while geography shapes national strategies, technological innovations can alter their strategic
significance over time. His analysis rests on the idea that each historical era is characterized by a different balance
between geographical constraints and the opportunities offered by technological innovation.
Thus, Mackinder argued that with advances in transportation and communication, distances no longer constituted
an insurmountable obstacle, thereby radically changing the strategic value of certain regions.
From the perspective of states, geography represents a fundamental element in the quest for power, but a state's ability
to exploit its geographical resources depends largely on the technologies available at a given time.
Throughout history, maritime powers have always had an advantage over land powers thanks to their ability to project
force across ocean routes. However, with the advent of the railway in the 19th century, this balance shifted.
Continental states, which had previously been disadvantaged by the difficulty of transporting goods and troops
over long distances, could now move more quickly and coordinate their economies and militaries more effectively.
This technological evolution had profound consequences on the organization of world powers
and allowed land powers to compete on equal terms with maritime powers, thus reducing
their traditional strategic disadvantage.
According to Mackinder, the geographical method had to answer four fundamental questions:
The "why" of a given geographical phenomenon had to be explained by physiography,
that is to say, by the study of the physical characteristics of the Earth.
The "where" was related to topography, which analyzed the position of geographical elements on the map.
The question "why is it located there?" had to be analyzed by physical geography, which studied
the influence of climate, natural resources, and the morphology of the territory.
The question of "how it interacts with society" fell within the domain of political geography,
which analyzed the impact of geographical characteristics on the social and political organization of nations.
This approach represented a break with the traditional view, which treated physical geography and political geography
as two separate fields. Mackinder insisted that geographical knowledge had to be integrated to understand
the true nature of international relations.
One of the fundamental concepts developed by Mackinder is the idea that geography is not simply a neutral backdrop
to history, but an element that conditions the power strategies of nations and that each historical era was
characterized by a specific balance between land and sea powers, influenced by the technological capacity
to overcome geographical obstacles.
Dans le passé, les États dotés d’une forte tradition navale, comme le Royaume-Uni et les Pays-Bas,
dominaient le commerce mondial et la politique internIn the past, states with a strong naval tradition, such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands,
dominated world trade and international politics through their control of ocean routes.
However, with the introduction of railways and land transport infrastructure, continental powers,
such as Germany and Russia, acquired a new capacity for power projection,
which until then had been the exclusive privilege of island nations.ationale grâce à leur contrôle des routes océaniques.
Toutefois, avec l’introduction des chemins de fer et des infrastructures de transport terrestre, les puissances
continentales, telles que l’Allemagne et la Russie, acquirent une nouvelle capacité de projection de puissance,
qui jusqu’alors avait été le privilège exclusif des nations insulaires.
This technological transformation led Mackinder to develop a theory that would revolutionize geopolitics:
the concept of the Heartland, a geographical region which, thanks to new means of transport and communication,
could become the nerve center of world power.
Heartland Theory: The Pivot of Modern Geopolitics
In 1904, Mackinder presented his famous essay, *The Geographical Pivot of History*, to the Royal Geographical Society,
in which he introduced the concept of the "Pivot Area" or Heartland. According to his analysis, the central region
of Eurasia, once isolated and difficult to access, was becoming the strategic center of the world thanks to technological
advances.
This area, characterized by vast plains devoid of significant natural obstacles and difficult to attack by sea,
had historically been inhabited by nomadic peoples, such as the Huns and the Mongols, who, over the centuries,
had threatened Europe and Asia with their raids. However, with the development of railways, control of this region
could be stabilized and used as a base for exerting global dominance.
Mackinder identified three strategic areas :
The Heartland (Central Zone): comprising the Eurasian steppes, Russia, and part of Central Asia.
According to Mackinder, whoever controlled this region would have a tremendous strategic advantage.
The Inner Belt: including Western Europe, China, India, and the Middle East. These areas were economically
developed and culturally advanced, but vulnerable to expansion by the Heartland powers.
The Outer Belt: encompassing island and oceanic powers, such as the United Kingdom, the United States,
and Japan, which controlled global trade routes.
For Mackinder
Whoever controls Eastern Europe dominates the Heartland.
Whoever controls the Heartland commands the World Island (Eurasia and Africa).
Whoever commands the World-Island controls the World.
This theory implied that domination of the Eurasian landmass was the key to global hegemony and that maritime powers
had to prevent any single nation from consolidating its control over this region.
Mackinder applied his method of geographical analysis to history, demonstrating how control of the Heartland had been
a determining factor in past political and military events. He emphasized how the nomadic empires of Central Asia,
such as that of Genghis Khan, had used the Heartland's strategic position to launch raids into Europe, the Middle East,
and China.
Similarly, the expansion of the Russian Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries demonstrated that control
of the Eurasian steppes was a crucial factor in the global balance of power. According to Mackinder,
Tsarist Russia had become a major power precisely because of its ability to exploit the resources and strategic
position of the Heartland.
Another historical example cited by Mackinder was the rivalry between Rome and Carthage.
Rome, thanks to its strong territorial base, had been able to develop a naval power capable of defeating Carthage
in the Punic Wars. Rome's ultimate success stemmed from its control of the hinterland and its ability to integrate naval
and land power. This principle, according to Mackinder, remained valid in the 20th century and would continue
to shape the course of world politics.
One of the key factors that, according to Mackinder, altered the geopolitical balance was the Industrial Revolution.
He pointed out that, prior to the transportation revolution, maritime powers enjoyed a distinct advantage over land powers,
as ocean routes offered a faster and more economical means for trade and military mobilization.
With the advent of the railway and large-scale transport, however, the continental powers could now organize
and exploit their resources much more efficiently. The Heartland, once considered a marginal region, was now
becoming the nerve center of world politics.
This transformation, according to Mackinder, implied that maritime powers, such as the United Kingdom
and the United States, needed to revise their strategies to contain the expansion of continental powers.
In particular, he suggested that the United Kingdom should establish a series of alliances with the nations
of the Inner Belt in order to counter the influence of the Heartland.
Nicholas Spykman and the Rimland
Nicholas John Spykman (1893-1943) is one of the pillars of classical geopolitics, alongside figures such as
Halford Mackinder and Alfred Thayer Mahan. Born in Amsterdam, Spykman moved to the United States in 1921,
where he pursued a brilliant academic career, culminating in his appointment as a professor at Yale in 1935.
His geopolitical thinking, however, differed markedly from that of his contemporaries: for Spykman, the true
center of world power was not the Heartland of Eurasia, as Mackinder argued, but the Rimland, the coastal belt
surrounding the Heartland.
Spykman’s most famous insight concerns the Rimland, the coastal belt of Eurasia that includes regions such as
Western Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, and the Far East. Unlike Mackinder, who saw the Heartland as the linchpin
of global power, Spykman argued that the Rimland was more important because it combined population density,
economic resources, and access to sea routes.
This theory, expounded in detail in his posthumous work The Geography of the Peace (1944), has had a lasting
influence on the political and military strategies of the United States, particularly during the Cold War.
Friedrich Ratzel and the "Lebensraum"
Lebensraum, or living space, is a geopolitical concept that refers to the idea of territory
sufficient, firstly, to ensure the survival, particularly cultural, of a people and, secondly, to promote its growth
through territorial influence.
The term Lebensraum was coined by Friedrich Ratzel towards the end of the 19th century.
Ratzel believed that the development of a people is primarily influenced by its geographical location and
that a people who have successfully “adapted” to one place will naturally expand into another.
According to him, available space must be filled.
Expansion is therefore a normal and necessary mechanism for all “healthy species.
In the twentieth century, these ideas were developed by Karl Haushofer and Friedrich von Bernhardi.
They are linked to the concept of Volks- und Kulturbodenforschung (People's and Cultural Research), coined
by the Stiftung für deutsche Volks- und Kulturbodenforschung (Foundation for German People's and Cultural Research),
a circle headed by Wilhelm Volz and created at the initiative of the Ministry of the Interior, which held its first session
in October 1923 and became the main representative of the alliance between scientific research and German nationalism
during the interwar period.
This concept distinguishes three concentric zones: the Reich, that is, the territory controlled by the state;
the Volksboden, or "ethnic territory" inhabited by Germanic populations;
and the Kulturboden ("cultural zone"), where the influence of Germanic culture is felt; and
the German government concludes that colonization is necessary as a means of increasing both the empire
and "living space."
The Great Game
The Great Game is the colonial and diplomatic rivalry between Russia and the United Kingdom in Asia in the nineteenth century,
which led, among other things, to the creation of the borders of current Afghanistan, with the Wakhan corridor as a buffer state.
These struggles for influence opposed the Russian Empire and the British Empire from 1813 until the Anglo-Russian convention of 1907.
Central Asia was then a “soft underbelly” still independent of the colonial powers. The two powers continued to confront each other in secondary conflicts,
inherited from the Great Game, between the October Revolution (1917) and the independence of India (1947).
In the Heartland theory of 1904, Halford John Mackinder expressed that the world is comparable to a global ocean where the World Island is located.
made up of Asia, Europe and Africa. Around it are the large islands “outlying islands”: America, Australia, Japan and the British Isles.
He who controls the heart of the Island World, commands it, and he who holds the Island World, holds the world. Great Britain, being a maritime power, cannot hope to reign over the island world,
so it must ensure that no continental power manages to control this island. Great Britain therefore worked hard to divide this island and increase conflicts there.
Mackinder's theory was not a new idea but the formulation of British policy throughout the nineteenth century.
Thus at the beginning of the century the number one enemy was Napoleon's France, after Waterloo, it was the Russian Empire, then after the industrial revolution, Prussia and the German Empire.
The alliance with France and Russia had as its sole aim the destruction of Germany. The First World War destroyed the Russian, German and Austrian empires
and shook the British Empire which disappeared shortly after the Second World War. It was then that power gradually passed from London to Washington without questioning the theory of Mackinder.
And today, the USA still with the British wants to dismember Russia and Ukraine has been used for this purpose.
But the contempt they had for Russia made them underestimate the capacity of this country and this contempt became hatred.
For now, Ukraine is paying the price. Russia has greatly strengthened itself and is preparing for any eventuality and even the worst.
Peace is still not in sight because despite the failure of the British and the USA, their desire to dismember Russia is still alive.
Peace requires the capitulation of Kyiv and the denazification of Ukrainians, the dissolution of NATO,
and the closure of American military bases in Europe, but it is not for tomorrow.
By the end of 2025, the situation in Ukraine is catastrophic, and the prolongation of this war, whose victims number
in the millions, is still encouraged by Great Britain and the European Union. America's behavior is
more ambiguous because it realizes that Ukraine's defeat is inevitable and that Russia, in order to integrate the majority
of Ukrainians into the Russian Federation, will have to make them understand that they were victims of a conspiracy hatched
by Great Britain and America with the help of neo-Nazis in Galicia and Volhynia. The idea of finding itself in the dock
with these neo-Nazis and the British in a major trial like Nuremberg fills it with panic. Any political attempt by America
towards Russia to avoid such an outcome seems doomed to failure because
given its aggressive and deceitful behavior in the rest of the world, in the Caribbean, the Middle East,
in Southeast Asia, and also towards China and Korea, it has lost all credibility
Continuing this game will lead Great Britain to bankruptcy
US ties with Great Britain
Ukraine Corruption & Russian Assets
They had already lied about Munich in 1938
The War of Liberation in Palestine
In February 1947, there was talk of the departure of the English from Palestine,
of a tripartite government project (Arab, Jewish, English), and even of a trusteeship regime under
the aegis of the United Nations. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted on the
plan to divide Palestine into three entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and Jerusalem placed
under international control. (Resolution 181, Plan to be submitted to a referendum of the populations concerned).
On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the State of Israel.
The absence of the referendum means that Israel has no legitimacy and that it relies only on force
and the unconditional support of the US.
The USSR under Stalin had in 1934 created a Jewish state: Birobidjan and this country still exists.
Why then have a second state been created? It seems that this was done under the pressure of Christian Zionists,
heirs of the thought of Olivier Cromwell who wanted the return of the Jews to Jerusalem and their conversion to
Christianity in order to bring about the return of Christ and the "Last Judgment". However, the first Zionist Jews
were socialists, often atheists, and it is only recently that the Israeli right has become religious or even fanatical
again. But these fanatics have not converted to Christianity so why are they still supported by Christian Zionists
In Palestine under the Ottoman Empire, Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in peace for centuries.
Following this act of piracy, the Zionists rushed to expel the Palestinians from their country and since 1949,
many of them have lived in refugee camps in neighboring countries and the territory of Gaza has become
a concentration camp . This peaceful country became hell and Israel was only able to remain there with the direct
support of the USA. Their behavior in the region made them unbearable and this affected all neighboring countries:
Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.
On October 7, 2023, the Palestinians began a war of liberation against the Israeli occupiers and peace will only return
to the Middle East after the departure of the Zionists from the region. Wanting to help them stay there would amount
to becoming co-responsible for an unprecedented genocide and generating a global conflict which could well be the last.
I hope that Netanyahu provokes Iran and that this country pushes them to leave the region like many French people had
to leave Algeria when they became unwanted.In June 2025, Iran seemed to be moving in this direction, but a sudden ceasefire
between Israel and Iran makes me fear the worst for the Palestinians.
This ceasefire between Iran and Israel, obtained by Trump to save Israel in dire straits, is an act of treason by Massoud Pezechkian
and Abbas Araghchi. It is a betrayal of the Palestinian cause and all the values defended by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The genocide will continue in Palestine.
Already upon his arrival in power, Pezechkian wanted to reconcile with the US and, to do so, attempted to establish a ceasefire between
Hezbollah and Israel, which allowed the US to locate Hassan Nasrallah's hideout and the Israelis to assassinate him. Trump wants to impose
regime change in Iran, and Pezechkian, this Judas, has become the one on whom all his hopes rest.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the worm is in the fruit and already in the government, this government elected by those whose only true value
is money and who would be willing to trade with the Devil for three cents. This is why Iran's security service was unable to prevent or allowed
this attack to take place, which partially decapitated the country's elite, on the first day of Israel's aggression, which Pezechkian has just
saved with this ceasefire.
This is the secret US-Israeli plan to take over Gaza
The ongoing struggle of the Islamic revolution Ali Khamenei June 4 2025
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
All praise is due to God, Lord of the Worlds, and may peace and greetings be upon our Master, our Prophet,
the beloved of our hearts, the physician of our souls, Abul-Qasim al-Mustafa Muhammad, and upon his untainted, pure,
chosen, guiding, well-guided, infallible, honored Progeny, particularly the Remnant of God on earth.
Before anything else, I would like to send greetings on the pure soul of the magnanimous Imam [Khomeini]. And during
these days of worship, reflection, and remembrance, I ask Almighty God to elevate his status [in the Hereafter].
Tomorrow is the Day of Arafah, which is the springtime of supplication, humbleness, reflection, and invoking God.
God willing, we should all make the best use of this opportunity. I especially urge the youth to take full advantage of the Day
of Arafah — to pray; invoke God; talk to Almighty God about their wishes, needs, and goals; and to seek His help and guidance.
I particularly recommend to the youth that in addition to reciting the deeply moving supplication of Imam Hussain on the
Day of Arafah, which is filled with his love for God, they also recite Imam Sajjad’s supplication, which is the 47th supplication
in Sahifah al-Sajjadiyyah. It is a lengthy supplication, of course, but recite as much of it as your energy and time permit.
There's no need to recite the entire supplication if you don't have the time, spiritual state, or energy to do so.
The topic that I have prepared and would like to share with you today is about the late, venerable Imam Khomeini.
After that, I will briefly touch upon a national issue that is beneficial for the people to know, God willing. I'd like to start the
discussion from this point that our country's political system — which, praise God, is a system that has growth, stability,
and authority — was brought about and emerged from a great revolution. The leader, founder, and architect of the Islamic
system that arose from that revolution is a great man whose presence is still felt in the world today, more than 30 years
after his passing away. One can clearly see his profound impact and the impact of his revolution in today's world.
The multipolar international order of the world is influenced by his revolution. The decline of major powers is influenced
by his revolution. The sharp decline in the US’s global status & influence is an effect of his revolution. The widespread hatred
of Zionism, which is clearly being seen in the world today, is influenced by his revolution. The outspokenness of many nations
and especially their youth in rejecting Western values, which is being seen today, is influenced by his revolution.
Today in the Western world, in Europe, even in America, and in countries dependent on them, one can see people moving
toward an aversion to Western values. The revolution of our magnanimous Imam, the revolution of the Iranian nation,
has undoubtedly been greatly effective in all the matters I’ve mentioned, leaving its impact. Such a revolution was brought
about by Imam Khomeini with the help of the people.
They were caught by surprise. They never felt or imagined that a single cleric without any equipment and without substantial
financial resources could bring an entire nation out into the field. In the West, no one believed or imagined such a thing
was possible. The Islamic Revolution of Iran took the Western world by surprise! They never thought it was possible that
this nation under the leadership and guidance of this religious scholar and with their bare hands could overcome
the heavily armed regime ruling Iran — a regime supported by all the global powers, both Eastern and Western.
They didn't think this regime would be overthrown. They didn’t imagine it was possible that this Revolution and this Imam
could sweep away the Americans and Zionists — who had been comfortable in Iran for years and were dominating
everything — and could expel them from the country without a trace of them left behind.
The next surprise came with the formation of the Islamic Republic. Had a conciliatory government come to power following
the Revolution — and there were some indications in the early stages that a government willing to compromise with the West
may come to power — if such a thing had happened, the Westerners would have become hopeful that they could re-establish
their influence in Iran and ensure their illegitimate interests in the country. However, Imam [Khomeini] clearly and
unequivocally declared his position on establishing an Islamic system in the country.
In other words, Imam declared both in word and in action that the system emerging from this Revolution would be an Islamic
system, a religious system. It was from this point that the conspiracies began. After the Westerners realized the direction
the Revolution was taking and where the Iranian nation was headed, the enemies' plots and destructive schemes
for our beloved country and nation began.
I don’t know of any revolutionary system in the world throughout the history of revolutions over the past two or three centuries
that has been subjected to this extent of conspiracies, hostilities, and enemies’ plots. You see, from the very beginning
of the Revolution, [there have been such efforts] — from inciting ethnic tensions and provoking ethnic groups to arming
leftist factions, which already existed to some extent in Iran. They armed them, planted them in universities and other places,
and prepared them to work against the system. They provoked and supported a bloodthirsty wolf like Saddam Hussein
who was incited, coerced, and encouraged to attack our borders. [They also conducted] targeted assassinations, such as
the assassination of Martyr Motahari, the assassination of Martyr Beheshti, the assassination of Martyr Mofatteh,
the assassination of Martyr Rajai, and the assassination of the Martyrs of the Mihrab. These assassinations continued
relentlessly, reaching nuclear scientists and many active Revolutionary youth.
You see, all of these are some of the schemes that have been carried out against the system that arose from the Revolution
in Iran. Then came the comprehensive sanctions, which were followed by direct attacks like the US attack on Tabas [in 1980]
and that well-known, miraculous event [that happened there], or the attack and downing of the [Iranian] passenger
plane [in 1988], and other such acts. These kinds of actions against the system that arose from the Islamic Revolution
began right from the start. Of course, such actions have continued to this day. In terms of their variety, intensity, and the
malicious nature of these plots and schemes, I believe no other known revolution in the world has faced anything
comparable.
Who was behind these schemes? Sometimes it's terrorist groups that do something, but that wasn’t the case in Iran.
These conspiracies, schemes, and malicious acts were carried out by the Arrogant Powers — primarily the United States
and Zionism — as well as by well-known global spy agencies, such as the US’s CIA, Britain’s MI6, and the Zionist
regime’s Mossad.
The Islamic system, the Islamic Republic, has endured all these plots, schemes, and hostilities, and it has been able
to thwart them. If we were to count them, perhaps more than a thousand conspiracies have been foiled by the Islamic
Republic, and it has even answered some of them. What matters is that [even though] these conspiracies were carried
out to weaken the Islamic Republic, not only has the Islamic Republic not become weaker, its strength and capabilities
have grown day by day. Its various capabilities have increased not just within the country but also beyond its borders.
Right here and now, I would like to tell the Iranian nation and all those who care about Iran that from here onwards,
with God’s help, we will continue to further strengthen our comprehensive national power as much as we can.
Let me make an important point here before beginning the main topic that I wish to speak about. That point is this that
social uprisings throughout the world usually take shape with the help of emotions. Emotions help shape social uprisings
and drive them to success. Even if there is an ideology and rationality behind those emotions, they often get lost or fade
amidst the opinions and interpretations arising from those emotions. Very often, emotions overshadow the rational
objectives of uprisings.
What is the outcome of this? The outcome is that when emotions subside, the course of action for which the revolution
was created changes. This is because the rationality that was behind the uprising has either been lost or has diminished.
Therefore, the course changes. There are many examples of this in history. For instance, the French Revolution in the
18th century emerged to oppose the monarchy of the Bourbon dynasty. After the revolution succeeded — and they even
killed the king and his wife — varied emotions took such strong hold of society that people forgot why they had risen up,
fought, and come out in the first place.
Some 15 years later, Napoleon’s monarchy was established in France. And after his departure, the very same dynasty
that the revolution had overthrown returned to power. France, which had fought a revolution against monarchy,
continued living under monarchial rule for almost another 70 or 80 years. In other words, the rational basis behind
that uprising and revolution was completely lost and destroyed. This is something we see in almost all or most of the
revolutions around the world.
The main thing I want to say is that Imam [Khomeini] safeguarded the Islamic Revolution against such a destructive blight
and gave it immunity. With divine insight and a rationality rooted in faith in God and belief in the unseen, the magnanimous
Imam [Khomeini] took measures to prevent such an affliction from affecting the Islamic Revolution. In other words,
he ensured that emotions — and there were strong emotions in our revolution as well — weren’t able to divert the revolution
and the people’s movement from its original, correct, primary path or lead people away from that true course.
[So,] what did Imam do? The manifestation of Imam Khomeini’s rationality — the very rationality that enabled him to
accomplish this — had two fundamental pillars. One pillar was “Wilayat-e Faqih” [Guardianship of the Jurist], and the
other was “national independence.” The idea that existed in the noble mind of the Imam and was repeatedly emphasized
in his words is best represented in my view by the term “national independence.” When I think about it, I see that no
expression is more fitting than “national independence.”
Much has been said about Wilayat-e Faqih, so I don’t want to enter that discussion. Wilayat-e Faqih preserved the religious
dimension of this Revolution. Had it not been for Wilayat-e Faqih, this Revolution, which was born out of a religious
motivation and sacrifices stemming from faith in God, would have deviated from the path of religion. So the first pillar
was Wilayat-e Faqih. This was a result of the noble Imam’s rationality — a rationality that was behind this popular movement,
propelled it forward, and guided it. I won’t speak about Wilayat-e Faqih more than this.
The second pillar is national independence. Many of the key themes repeatedly emphasized in Imam Khomeini’s statements
fall under the title of national independence. Of course, “independence” does not mean severing ties with one’s surrounding
environment or isolating oneself from the rest of the world. Some may try to distort the meaning of this and say that we have
isolated ourselves. No, independence doesn’t mean refusing to have relations with other countries.
The meaning of independence is that Iran, the Iranian nation, should stand on its own feet without relying on others.
[It means] Iran needs to make its own judgments, make its own decisions, and take action itself. This is the meaning
of “national independence.”
Independence means that Iran shouldn’t wait for a green light from the US or others like it, nor should it worry about a red light
from the US or others like it. The Iranian nation themselves should judge and decide matters for themselves and take action
wherever necessary. Whether others — global powers, the US, or others — agree or disagree is irrelevant. That is what
“independence” means.
As I mentioned, many of the recurring themes in the Imam’s words fall under this title of “national independence.”
I will speak about a few of these themes.
One key theme is the principle of “We can.” Imam [Khomeini] taught us to say and believe that we can. Under the previous
regime, people were told and made to believe that we can't, that we are incapable, and that others must do things for us.
But Imam [Khomeini] entered the exact opposite of this, a 180-degree turn about, into the national identity of the Iranian
nation: “We can.” He revived self-confidence in the nation and in the youth. Let me also add here that this “We can” is
so important that plots are devised to negate it.
Right now with respect to the recent nuclear issue and the negotiations currently taking place with the mediation of Oman,
the proposal put forward by the US is entirely against “We can.” The Imam revived self-confidence in our youth and
in our politicians. He said we can, and we put this to the test and saw that yes, we can. Our advancements in science,
our advancements in technology, our defensive capabilities, and the major accomplishments that different administrations
have achieved over the years in helping the country to develop — we never believed these were possible. We were told
that these things couldn’t be done, but we tried and saw that the Iranian nation can, and we can.
is one of the key themes and core principles involved in “national independence,” which was repeatedly
stated by Imam [Khomeini].
The next principle is “resistance.” Resistance means not bowing to the will of major powers. [It means] if a person believes
in something, sees something as being necessary, or considers something to be forbidden, they should act according
to their own beliefs without bowing down to the enemy’s will, the enemy’s impositions, or the enemy’s coercion.
This is what resistance means. Resistance is one of the components of national independence too.
Another principle is the "advancement of the country’s defensive power." Advancement of the country’s defensive power.
At the beginning of the Revolution, we lacked defensive capabilities. Our production in the area of defense was so minimal
that it was practically zero. Whatever little amount we did produce was negligible. Imam [Khomeini] taught us that we
must increase our defensive power. I went to Imam and informed him that our young people were working on producing
an anti-tank missile with such-and-such capabilities and that they had set a specific timeline for its completion too.
I told the Imam that they would do it by a certain time.
The Imam was so overjoyed in such a way that I had rarely seen such happiness on his face! He encouraged us to increase
our defensive power. And what has been the result of this? The result is that today, those who evaluate global defense
capabilities judge that Iran ranks first in this region in certain categories. And they are surprised that despite sanctions,
Iran can launch satellites into space and similar feats, for example. This is the outcome of our capabilities in defensive power,
which is also one of the key themes that was in Imam Khomeini’s words of guidance.
Another principle is “clarification.” Imam [Khomeini] firmly believed in clarification. Clarification means presenting matters
that the people need to know in a proper, understandable manner. From the very beginning of the [revolutionary] movement
in1962, the Imam himself would speak to the people and explain matters to them. He continued this until the final year
of his life. And that final year saw some of his best writings. These writings were addressed to the people, the religious
seminaries, scholars, students, academics, and others.
It’s worth noting that when Imam clarified issues, it wasn’t merely a matter of exciting emotions. His explanations guided
emotions, and they also provided reasoning and convinced the intellect. He convinced people’s thinking.
He spoke to both hearts and minds. He was able to clarify matters in this manner. This clarification is also a part of the
overall concept of "national independence" for our country, which was the main pillar of Imam’s activities.
Another principle is the principle of "steadfastness." Steadfastness is different from the resistance that I previously spoke of.
Steadfastness means pursuing a path, not abandoning the Straight Path, following matters up, and persevering.
This is the meaning of steadfastness.
"National independence" is a collection of these principles and others. Imam [Khomeini] entered these principles into the
Iranian nation's identity, familiarizing the people, their hearts, minds, and the youth with them. Today, our youth are familiar
with the concept of “self-belief,” the notion of "We can," the concept of “resistance,” and the idea of continuing
on the [Straight] Path. Their minds and hearts are familiar with these concepts. The revered Imam did this, and that's
why the Revolution's identity has been preserved. This is the rationality by way of which the Imam was able to keep
the Islamic Revolution and the system that emerged from it on the same course for which it was created and in accord
with its original outline.
Today, we sometimes hear the word "rationality" used in some discourses. They invoke “rationality,” but what they mean
by it is for us to bow down to the US. This is how they describe "rationality!" What they want is for us to surrender
to an aggressive power. This is what they consider "rationality" to be! This isn’t rationality. Rationality is the rationality
of Imam [Khomeini]. It’s the very thing that was able to lead this nation forward, to make it strong, to make it powerful,
to make it respected, to make it dignified in the world, and to build a bright future for it. God willing, with the rationality
that the Imam established, the country can progress, can achieve a sustainable security, can improve public welfare,
and it can further elevate its standing in international fields. These were the matters concerning Imam.
Now, let me clarify a national matter, which is the nuclear issue. Regarding the nuclear issue, I would like to say a few words
to inform the Iranian nation. My dears [, brothers and sisters]! Thanks to the intelligence of our youth, the dedication
of our scientists, and their tireless efforts, Iran has succeeded in achieving a complete nuclear fuel cycle.
This means that today, we are capable of producing nuclear fuel starting from the mine and all the way
to the power plant itself, and we have done this. This has been accomplished by our youth and our scientists.
The number of countries in the world that possess this capability is perhaps fewer than the number of fingers
on a person’s two hands. The Iranian nation has achieved this.
Let me first clarify a point. Nuclear technology isn’t solely for energy [production]. Some assume that nuclear technology
is only for generating clean electricity. Indeed, it does serve that purpose and is a clean, affordable energy source.
This comes from the nuclear industry. But it isn’t limited to that. That is merely one of the benefits of the nuclear industry.
The nuclear industry is a basic industry. It’s a basic industry. Experts, scientists, and professionals in this field have explained
this to us, and I hope they will offer further clarification for the public as well about how numerous scientific fields are
affected by the nuclear industry. Various fields of science, including high-precision and sensitive technologies such
as in the areas of medical equipment, aerospace, precision sensors, and electronics, are related to and influenced
by the nuclear industry. This includes fundamental sciences and engineering fields, such as nuclear physics, energy
engineering, and materials engineering. And it is used in medicine and pharmaceuticals, both in diagnosis and treatment.
These are all influenced by the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry plays a leading role in the treatment of certain serious
illnesses, both for diagnostics and therapy. [It also has applications] in industries related to agriculture and the environment.
There are numerous examples of this kind that are dependent on or influenced by the nuclear industry.
The nuclear industry is a basic industry. It’s a main industry.
Now, in the nuclear industry, there is one point that is a key element, and that is uranium enrichment.
Our enemies have focused all their attention on this very process of uranium enrichment. They have concentrated their
efforts on this. The nuclear industry of such immensity is useless without having the capability for enrichment,
because we would then be dependent on others in order to obtain fuel for our power plants.
It’s like having crude oil in your country but not having the right to build a refinery or produce gasoline. You have crude oil,
but you must buy gasoline from someone else. And that country, will sell it to you — if it wants to — at any price it chooses.
And if it doesn’t want [to sell it to you], it won’t. It will come up with an excuse and refuse to sell it. [It will say,] "Do this or that,
otherwise I won’t give you any gasoline." This is their goal.
If we have 100 nuclear power plants but no uranium enrichment capability, it will be of no use to us, because a nuclear power
plant needs fuel. If we can’t produce that fuel domestically, we will be dependent on the US. And they may impose tens of
conditions for giving us nuclear fuel.
We have already tried this. Regarding 20% enriched fuel in the 2000s, the US President personally asked two presidents of
countries who are friends with us to act as intermediaries. He told them to ask Iran to give a portion of its 3.5% enriched
uranium, and the US would then provide the 20% enriched uranium that Iran needed.
We needed 20% [enriched uranium]. Our officials accepted their proposal, and it was agreed that the exchange would take
place. I said the deal must proceed in this way that they bring the 20% [enriched uranium] to Bandar Abbas, and
we would then test it to ensure its authenticity. Only then would we give 3.5% [enriched uranium] to them.
When they saw we were careful and insistent about receiving 20% [enriched uranium], they broke their promise and
didn’t deliver it
Of course, during that time when our officials were engaged in those political talks, our own scientists inside the country
were able to produce the 20% [enriched uranium] themselves.
The US’s main demand is that they don’t want you [Iran] to even have a nuclear industry. Iran not have a nuclear industry.
They want you to be reliant on them for radiopharmaceuticals, energy, desalination equipment, and in tens of other
critical fields. They don’t want you to even have a nuclear industry.
Thousands of scientists and researchers have been
trained in Iran. Today, we have thousands of young scientists [trained] in nuclear and nuclear-related fields in our country.
These individuals have been trained in just the past few years. Should we disappoint them, make them unemployed,
and take away their hope in the future of our country? This is what the US wants. This is what they’re saying.
This is what they’re demanding from us. The rude, insolent US leaders keep repeating this demand in different ways.
They’re opposed to our progress. They’re opposed to Iran's progress. They’re opposed to self-sufficiency
for the Iranian nation.
I’m saying this so that our beloved nation can be informed about what’s happening on this issue to some extent,
but of course further explanation is certainly needed [from the authorities].
Our response to the absurd remarks of the loudmouthed, imprudent US administration is obvious. Our answer is obvious.
One day a few years ago, one of the US presidents said he would dismantle and eliminate the nuts and bolts of Iran's nuclear
industry if he could. Of course, he admitted that he couldn’t. Since that day, the nuts and bolts of our nuclear industry
have even become much stronger. Of course, he confessed that he couldn’t dismantle them. He said, "I can’t, but I would
if I could." Those in power today — the Zionists and the Americans — should know that they can’t do a damn thing in this area.
Of course, before these matters and before anything else, the first thing we would like to say to the side of the US and
others regarding the nuclear issue is, “What business is that of yours?” Why are you interfering and trying to say whether
Iran should have uranium enrichment or not? That’s none of your business. You have nuclear capabilities.
You have nuclear bombs. You have the ability to cause massive destruction in the world. What business is that of yours
whether the Iranian nation should or shouldn’t have uranium enrichment or whether it should or shouldn’t have a
nuclear industry? This is a nation with its own sovereignty. This has nothing to do with you. You have no authority in this.
From what legal standpoint do you make such remarks? This is what we had to say about this matter. T
his was regarding the nuclear issue.
The final thing I would like to talk about is regarding the Zionist regime’s appalling crimes in Gaza. It’s truly appalling.
It’s hard for a human being to believe that they could devise such criminal schemes. Look at it! They would drop a bomb
and one or two homes would be destroyed. For example, 10 or 15 people would be martyred. They said it wasn’t enough.
So what are they doing now? They set up a center and called it a food distribution center, because there is no food entering
Gaza. People rushed there to receive food, and they opened fire with machine guns, killing ten times more than they did
with bombs.
Killing people was becoming costly for them, so they found a cheaper way. Instead of using bombs, they now use bullets.
This is appalling. This crime truly makes one wonder how vile, wicked, ruthless, and evil a person can be to commit
such an atrocity. Of course, the US is also complicit in this crime. The hands of the US are also stained with these crimes.
This is exactly why we say, repeat, and insist that the US must leave this region.
I would also like to say a few words to Muslim governments. Muslim governments have heavy responsibilities today.
I want to tell them clearly that this isn’t a time for pleasantries, being considerate, or being neutral. Today isn’t the time
to remain silent. If any government among the Muslim governments backs the Zionist regime in any form and under
any pretext — whether it’s in normalizing relations, blocking aid to Palestine, or justifying the Zionists’ crimes —
let them know with certainty that an eternal mark of disgrace will stain their reputation.
Of course, there’s the reckoning in the Hereafter as well. A Day of Judgment exists and divine punishment exists too,
and they’re very hard and severe. They won’t be able to answer before God. But there isn’t just a punishment in the Hereafter.
In this world too, nations won’t forget their treachery. Governments should know that relying on the Zionist regime
won’t bring security for any government. They cannot bring security for themselves by relying on the Zionist regime,
because the Zionist regime is collapsing based on a definite divine decree. And God willing, it won’t last much longer.
O Lord! Increase Your favors for the Iranian nation day by day. Overpower and subdue the enemies of the Iranian nation.
O Lord! Bring to realization the lofty goals and aspirations of the magnanimous Imam for the Iranian nation.
Make the sacred heart of the Imam of the Time (may our souls be sacrificed for him) pleased and satisfied with us,
the Iranian nation, and all those who serve [the nation]. Place the pure soul of the magnanimous Imam in the highest
levels of Paradise and in the place of Your divine pleasure.
May God’s greetings, mercy, and blessings be upon you.
Iran strikes back after Israel, US launch war
One might think that Netanyahu feels compelled to hasten the coming of the Messiah and, to that end,
to unleash a war that will destroy all powers not yet subject to Jewish authority.
He would even be willing to offer Israel as a burnt offering in order to force his God to send the Messiah and thus fulfill his promise.
The aggression against Iran would then aim to trigger this final world war to enslave all non-Jews.
Iran's victory will be the departure of the Americans, accompanied by that of the Israelis, from the Middle East.
This will take time, but the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could trigger a global depression and undermine those who run the deep state
of the Jewish/Anglo/Saxon empire, who are already suffering from their failure in Ukraine, despite their desire to impose a major reset on the whole world
by 2030. As for the Gulf states, they will find themselves orphaned and will have to contend with Iran and Palestine, which will finally reclaim its land
and peace.
Israel’s Defenses Overwhelmed Overnight
What is said, is brimming with intelligence and remarkably well-articulated. What's less so is the reason for having reached this point.
The aggression of the US and Israel toward the rest of the world is unprecedented and makes these two countries rogue states.
The CIA and Mossad are criminal enterprises. Their sense of superiority, their belief that they are above the law, and their contempt for others
make them intolerable, as does their sanctions regime. Their clientele consists of the wealthy who only think about their well-being,
but others are overcome by a feeling of revolt that will be very difficult to suppress.
Professor MARANDI respond to TRUMP'S ultimatum
The worst part is that the US and Israel are indifferent to the consequences of their actions on their Persian Gulf allies.
It is likely they want to use this war to eliminate all those who could oppose the 'Greater Israel' project. The Gulf countries have sold themselves
to the Devil, who will now roast them. If Russia and China don't put a stop to the US and Israel now, it will soon be their turn.
I see Professor Marandi's face and I suffer with him. The only thing left for us to do is sing
"Nearer to Thee, my God, nearer to Thee; the shadow veils my eyes but I have faith."
The Anglo-Saxon slavers are not dead
These days I was struck by a video from Geopolitical Economy report
in which Ben Norton gets a whole bunch of American leaders talking about “high technology”.
They explain that competition was made for losers
and that they must eliminate competitors to establish monopolies. For them, a multipolar world would mark the beginning of the end from the US.
It is therefore a question of maintaining American power over the rest of the world and control over energy sources, raw materials and
the technologies of the future.
This is also what Trump expresses, who wants to put his country back in the forefront.
He does not seek for Americans to become the best again but to eliminate all those who compete with them.
It is a mentality of cheats who want to enslave the world for the benefit of a few oligarchs. This is a Stalinist mentality.
But today, I agree with Richard Wolff who says that the American Empire is in decline and that nothing can stop it,
especially since his word is no longer worth anything and the whole world aspires to free themselves from colonial empires.
The Great Game is the colonial and diplomatic rivalry between Russia and the United Kingdom in Asia in the nineteenth century,
which led, among other things, to the creation of the borders of current Afghanistan, with the Wakhan corridor as a buffer state.