Coming Full Crescent
Iran bulletin
Here at Radio Free Pizza, we’re waiting on tenterhooks for the Islamic Republic of Iran to launch Operation True Promise 3 against the State of Israel for the latter’s 26 October attack on its nuclear research facility in Parchin, twenty miles southeast of Tehran. While Israel framed the strike as a preventive measure aimed to delay Iran’s nuclear program, skeptics question its effectiveness against the overall nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic, which has naturally vowed to retaliate.
Viewers of our 2024 U.S. election spectacle will have surely noticed the concerns I voiced about the potential for an American attack on behalf of Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The U.S. would certainly justify such an attack as a defense of its primary imperial outpost in the region, and has already begun laying the groundwork for it: the aforementioned viewers may also recall mention of a chat on the Discord server for Radio Free Pizza where I posted links to a handful of articles demonstrating its efforts to do so.
Those articles begin with one dating to May—hot on the heels of Iran’s first reprisal against Israel in April for bombing its Damascus embassy (which Hayat Tahrir al-Sham [HTS] rebels stormed last week, before Israel began bombing the city) codenamed Operation True Promise, as well as the heels of the May death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi—that describes Iran as part of a “diverse and complex” threat landscape alongside Russia and China. Come June, unnamed sources from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were calling Iran a “chaos agent” known for experimenting with online tactics aimed at stirring voter anger and potentially inciting violence in efforts to influence U.S. elections.
The next month, Director of National Intelligence Sarah Haines voiced the accusations herself, alleging that Iran had been using social media to exploit U.S. protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza to undermine confidence in U.S. democratic institutions, and had even been funding protesters. Haines released her statement only: three days before the FBI arrested Asif Merchant for an alleged Iranian-backed plot to assassinate former (and now future) President Donald Trump, with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reportedly offering $1 million for the hit, as part of its ongoing campaign to avenge the 2020 killing of General Qasem Soleimani; four days before the (first) assassination attempt against Trump; fifteen days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referenced alleged Iranian plots against Trump (to avenge his 2020 order to kill Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani) during his address to the U.S. Congress; and nineteen days before the late Raisi’s successor, the reformist Masoud Pezeshkian, assumed the Iranian presidency.
The narrative of Iranian aggression against American democracy went into overdrive in August, when Microsoft’s Clint Watts reported that a hacking group affiliated with the IRGC targeted high-ranking officials in the Trump campaign with an email phishing attack. That report, of course, received immediate pushback: as noted in The Dissident that same month, it has only minimal credibility after Watts’s prior involvement in discredited narratives like Russiagate and the Hamilton 68 project. Critics highlight the report’s lack of concrete evidence linking Iran to alleged operations, such as fake websites with pro-U.S. government rhetoric, which undermine the claims of Iranian influence. Observers argue the narrative mirrors past allegations of foreign interference, repackaged to target Iran, with skepticism raised about the report’s bias and potential role in fueling anti-Iranian sentiment and censorship.
The Iranian delegation to the United Nations denied the allegations in September, but Trump’s campaign still requested unprecedented security measures in October—ten days after Iran’s second reprisal against Israel for the regime’s July assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, codenamed Operation True Promise 2—including military aircraft and heightened protection against drones and missiles.
Though at the end of the same month Trump suggested that he would encourage peace negotiations between Israel and Iran rather than seeking to overthrow Iran’s regime if re-elected, just three days after the 5 November election the U.S. Department of Justice charged Farhad Shakeri—reportedly an asset of the IRGC—along with Carlisle Rivera and Jonathan Loadholt—whom Shakeri met in a U.S. prison before being deported in 2008—in a series of alleged Iran-linked murder plots against President-elect Donald Trump, an Iranian-American activist, and two Jewish Americans in New York, as well as other U.S. and Israeli targets.
So, I really think you should feel silly if you don’t believe the U.S. has been preparing to go to war with Iran in defense of Israel after Trump takes office for the second time. However, Western imperialist interest in Iran long predates the formal invention of Israel. In the early 20th century, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), a British-owned company (renamed as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company [AIOC] in 1935) and a predecessor of today’s BP, controlled Iran’s vast oil reserves. This arrangement was extremely profitable for Great Britain, especially as British industries, government, and military depended on Iranian oil.
By the 1950s, however, growing nationalist sentiments in Iran, coupled with resentment over the unequal benefits of the oil industry, led democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh to introduce legislation to nationalize the AIOC, renaming it as the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). The British viewed Mosaddegh’s nationalization policy as a major threat to their economic interests and influence in the Middle East. For help, the British turned to the U.S., with which they collaborated to execute Operation Ajax. This involved a combination of propaganda, bribery, and support for street protests to destabilize Mosaddegh’s government and ultimately led to his removal—as well as laying the template for the “color revolutions” with which we’ve become so familiar.
After the coup, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, returned to power with the support of the West and granted foreign oil companies access to Iran’s oil industry again. This episode left a lasting impact on Iranian society, sparking widespread resentment toward Western interference lasting into the 1970s, during which Iran’s economy grew rapidly due to high oil prices while the distribution of wealth remained highly unequal. The Shah’s ambitious modernization and industrialization projects produced rising inflation and social inequalities. This economic situation, paired with a sense of cultural disconnect from the Shah’s modernization efforts, led to growing discontent among Iranians, particularly the working class and rural populations, leading to the Iranian Revolution of 1979 after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile. The revolutionary movement quickly consolidated power, establishing the Islamic Republic through a national referendum in April 1979.
Khomeini and his supporters worked to dismantle the old regime’s institutions, including the monarchy, and replaced them with a new Islamic government structure based on Shia Islamic principles and the concept of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist), which gave Khomeini supreme authority. Since then, the Islamic Republic’s opposition to Western powers have led to decades of economic sanctions in an effort to stunt the country’s economic growth and isolate it on the global stage. Even so, the revolution inspired similar Islamic movements across the Middle East, having demonstrated that a secular, pro-Western government could be overthrown by a popular religious movements, and Iran began supporting Shia movements in other countries, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansar Allah (“the Houthis”) in Yemen, to reshape the region’s geopolitical dynamics.
The Islamic Republic’s history of resistance to Western imperialism and support for its neighbors in resisting the same has set the stage for its growing stature in the region today as the Middle East increasingly unites against the genocidal Zionist regime. With a larger conflict seeming to loom over West Asia, we can turn to Islamic.Socialist Analysis for discerning insight into the strategies and goals of both Israel and Iran.
With regard to the first, the newsletter detailed its plans for “Greater Israel” in November 2023, describing the Zionist regime’s core objective as territorial maximalism, aiming to establish a Jewish-majority state across much of the Middle East, citing the strategies of violence and terrorism used by the Zionist paramilitary group Irgun prior to the State of Israel’s founding as predecessors to those of Netanyahu and the modern Likud Party. These expansionist goals align with U.S. and Saudi interests in the region, for which reason Western interventions, particularly in Syria, have served as part of a broader effort to destabilize the Middle East and advance the Greater Israel agenda. Accordingly, Islamic.Socialist Analysis calls for global opposition to Zionism, equating it with fascism and likening it to historic ideologies like Nazism.
With regard to the second, the newsletter honored the anniversary of Hamas’ 7 October 2023 uprising with a discussion not just of Israel’s slaughter of an estimated 100,000 Palestinians (as well as its own citizens killed according to its Hannibal Directive), but of its provocations against Iran, Yemen, and Lebanon, with which it aimed to escalate the conflict into a regional war. That, of course, has only swelled the ranks of the resistance forces, to the point that Islamic.Socialist Analysis reported later that month on Iran’s President Pezeshkian’s visit to Saudi Arabia shortly after executing Operation True Promise 2, where he told his Saudi counterparts that the two countries “should permanently close the chapter on our differences,” signaling the formation of a new alliance between the two nations. Following the visit, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait have collectively assured Iran of their neutrality in the Iran-Israel conflict, signaling the formation of a new alliance between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This stance restricts the U.S. from leveraging military bases in these countries in any potential conflict with Iran.
Still, that won’t necessarily keep the U.S. from trying to start one. In the assessment of former CIA analyst Larry Johnson (whom longtime Radio Free Pizza gourmets will remember from our July dispatch), the alleged murder plot targeting an Iranian-American activist may have been part of a broader intelligence operation aimed at creating a pretext for a U.S. attack on Iran before Donald Trump assumes the presidency. Johnson argues that the operation likely involved collaboration between the FBI, CIA, and DEA, including the recruitment of the aforementioned Shakeri as an informant under the guise of being an Iranian intelligence asset.
Trump, however, appears to have derailed this alleged plan by taking diplomatic steps, such as sending Elon Musk to meet with Iran’s UN Ambassador, signaling a serious interest in negotiations to avoid conflict. Of course, this move contrasts with Trump’s simultaneous nomination of hardline figures like Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Michael Waltz to key positions in his administration, and Johnson therefore speculates that these appointments may be part of a strategic negotiation tactic, presenting a tough stance while pursuing diplomacy—a hallmark of Trump’s Art of the Deal approach. Highlighting the unprecedented speed of Trump’s cabinet formation, Johnson suggests it reflects a deliberate, premeditated strategy, and while the ultimate outcome of Trump’s decisions remains uncertain, the coming months will reveal whether these moves represent poor judgment or a calculated plan to reshape U.S. foreign policy.
Nonetheless, some seem nervous about Trump’s approach. The day after Johnson published his analysis, another appeared from The Dissident critiquing Trump’s 2024 cabinet picks as evidence of deep influence from the pro-Israel lobby, drawing parallels to corporate influence during Obama’s presidency. The eponymous Dissident highlights significant contributions from Miriam Adelson, a major pro-Israel donor, suggesting her financial backing has shaped Trump’s appointments. Cabinet members like Marco Rubio, Michael Waltz, Elise Stefanik, Pete Hegseth, and Tulsi Gabbard have aligned themselves strongly with pro-Israel policies, often receiving substantial funding from lobbying groups like AIPAC. Accordingly, the writer accuses both political parties of supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza and complicity in its genocidal policies, and contrasts this support against the outcry over alleged Russian influence with the silence on “Israelgate,” arguing that pro-Israel lobbying has a far greater impact on U.S. policy than the Russian Federation might have ever had under the debunked narrative of Trump’s collusion.
That, of course, makes a U.S. attack on Iran a genuine risk—a concern which others seem to share. Writing the next day, the retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor cautions against the U.S. engaging in a potential war with Iran, emphasizing the profound risks and the need for careful deliberation. He argues that the U.S. must first clarify its purpose in such a conflict and whether it seeks to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, dismantle its government, or reduce its ability to wage war. Each objective would require a distinct strategy and significant resources, and history suggests that achieving such goals is often more complex and protracted than anticipated. The effectiveness of U.S. military power, particularly reliance on air and missile strikes, also raises questions. Macgregor points to historical examples, such as the Kosovo air campaign, which inflicted significant damage but failed to decisively impact enemy ground forces or compel surrender. Iran’s advanced defenses and powerful alliances with nations like Russia and China further complicate the prospects of success.
Additionally, Macgregor emphasizes the importance of defining a clear end-state for any conflict. Unlike the targets of previous U.S. military interventions, Iran is not isolated and benefits from regional and international support. Without a clear vision of what a post-war Middle East should look like, the U.S. risks prolonged instability and unintended consequences.
Importantly, Macgregor also questions whether the U.S. should involve itself in a conflict initiated by Israel, warning of significant strategic costs, including severe economic repercussions and destabilization of the global order. He notes that past U.S. presidents, such as Dwight Eisenhower, avoided unnecessary wars to protect national interests, and invokes the cautionary satire of Dr. Strangelove to illustrate the risks of miscalculations or of launching false-flag operations. He concludes by urging President Trump to exercise restraint and use American power wisely, advocating for deliberate planning and diplomacy over impulsive military action.
Fortunately, the Islamic Republic may be following the same logic, having reportedly decided to delay Operation True Promise 3 after Trump’s electoral victory, with some sources suggesting that Iran intends to engage diplomatically with the incoming U.S. administration, leaving the plan shelved but not abandoned. Nonetheless, such diplomatic engagement must occur in the context of escalating tensions, with further claims from the FBI this month that Kash Patel, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for FBI director, was reportedly targeted in a cyberattack attributed to Iranian hackers, though details about the breach’s success or impact remain unclear—and, of course, few mainstream journalists seem to raise the question of whether U.S. intelligence agencies might use their Vault 7 tool to frame Iran as a geopolitical adversary. Though Patel has been praised by Trump for his “America First” stance, he nonetheless urges Americans to prioritize their support for Israel, arguing that U.S. security depends on it.
Still, the escalating tensions between the U.S., Israel, and Iran reflect broader struggles for power, influence, and resistance in West Asia. In this context, the eventual execution of Operation True Promise 3 seems assured, with Major General Mohsen Rezaei, a former IRGC commander, accusing the U.S. and Israel at the start of this month of provoking Takfiri terrorists to invade Aleppo with the aim of expanding conflict from Lebanon and Gaza into Syria as a part of its broader destabilization efforts. (Israel’s occupation of Mount Hermon in the Golan Heights following the collapse of Syria last weekend seems to give his claim some further evidence—or at least demonstrates their efforts to advance the “Greater Israel” project.) Accordingly, Rezaei urged Muslim nations to form a unified army to counter U.S. and Israeli aggression, emphasizing Iran’s support for resistance movements in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Rezaei also warned of the eventual True Promise 3 retaliation against Israel, asserting Iran’s right to choose the time and place for such action.
While Israel’s actions stem from expansionist goals aligned with Zionist ideology and supported by Western imperialist interests, Iran’s role reflects its long-standing defiance of these forces, deeply rooted in its revolutionary history. The prospect of U.S. involvement in a war with Iran, ostensibly in defense of Israel, underscores a recurring theme of American foreign policy: interventions that risk destabilizing regions in the service of imperialist aims to control and profit from foreign nations’ economic output.
As Trump’s return to power looms, the path forward is fraught with uncertainty. His administration’s mixed signals—advancing hardline appointments alongside attempts at diplomacy—illustrate the complexities of maneuvering through this volatile situation. Analysts like Johnson view allegations of domestic interference within the U.S. as attempts by the intelligence community to establish a pretext for war, while those like the Dissident note how such would serve Israeli interests, and those like Macgregor emphasize the need for restraint, strategic clarity, and an awareness of the profound risks involved in a conflict with Iran. Without these, the U.S. risks embroiling itself in another protracted and destabilizing war, with consequences that could reshape not just the Middle East but the global order itself.
Ultimately, whether this period will mark a shift toward peace or escalate into a broader confrontation depends on the choices made by leaders on all sides. The lessons of history serve as powerful reminders of the dangers of underestimating the complexities of this region and the resilience of its people. Here at Radio Free Pizza, we can only hope that the next administration won’t repeat those mistakes—though, of course, we can’t help but expect otherwise.