‘War in Iran means the end of the Zionist project and the definitive decline of US hegemony,’ says Daniel Jadue
Member of the Communist Party of Chile comments on strategies and the future of Iran after war against the US and Israel
Originally published on Brasil de Fato by Marco Fernandes
Republished with permission. You can read the first part of the interview here.
Daniel Jadue is part of the large Palestinian community living in Chile. There are around 500,000 people, including those born in Palestine and their descendants—the vast majority of whom are Christian—forming the largest diaspora of this stateless nation outside the Middle East. They have even set up a football team, Club Palestino (1920), which has won the Chilean league twice and the Chilean Cup twice.
In the second part of his interview with Brasil de Fato, Daniel Jadue, who was a militant with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) for 15 years, analyses some of the implications of the war that the US and Israel started by unjustifiably attacking Iran, including Palestinian sentiment in the face of the largest military attack suffered by Israel in its history.
This interview was conducted a few days before the scandal surrounding the resignation of Joe Kent (18)—the CIA’s counter-terrorism chief—who denounced the absence of any Iranian threat to US national security and confirmed suspicions that Donald Trump had initiated the war solely at the insistence of Benjamin Netanyahu. For Jadue, this war is the second historic mistake of the Zionist project. The first was the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, for “the fact that the Zionist project presented itself to the world—even if it was a lie—as a response to the Nazi Holocaust, to genocide, and that today it finds itself involved in precisely what gave rise to it, but with them as the perpetrators, destroys its historical narrative, destroys its coherence.”
Jadue set out his thesis about two months ago, before the start of the war in Iran, in an article entitled “Israel is dead.” In his view, Iran’s sound strategy, which he termed the “war of the poor,” based, on the one hand, on cheap weaponry and, on the other, on economic pressure, with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to nations hostile to Tehran, should mark the “end of the Zionist project (…) but also signals the definitive decline of US hegemonic power.”
Despite the contradictions exposed among BRICS countries regarding the war—with India and the UAE very close to Israel—Jadue believes the group is learning to deal with the diversity of ideologies and political orientations but warns of its main challenge: “We need a multipolar world. We need a multilateral world. We do not need to move from one country exploiting the world’s population to four countries exploiting the world’s population. We need a world where no one exploits anyone.”
Read the second part of Daniel Jadue’s interview:
Brasil de Fato: You are a long-standing activist for the Palestinian cause and have dedicated a great deal of time to this cause over many years. After more than two years of this brutal genocide against the Palestinian people—which we see every day on our mobile phones—how do you view the unprecedented attacks Israel is suffering from Iran? You have been speaking to people in Palestine; how are they reacting? How are they viewing these historic attacks against Israel?
Daniel Jadue: Imagine how the Palestinian people must feel seeing, for the first time in 70 years, someone striking back at those who have humiliated, persecuted, murdered, tortured, and raped them without the world uttering a word, with the complicit tolerance and a cloak of immunity and impunity for the State of Israel. I believe this has generated great expectations, a shift in mood, and a change that is also affecting the structure of the ‘Palestinian leadership,’ which is highly discredited, very distant from its own people, and no longer respected. The Palestinian National Authority is a fiction, but the Palestinian resistance has re-emerged, so to speak, and over the last two years has waged a formidable battle against genocide. Israel has failed to achieve any of its objectives, and the undeclared objective has been revealed: the surgical strikes they carried out in Iran to assassinate the leader of the Islamic Revolution and to attempt to assassinate his successor and the entire “leadership” of the Iranian government. We could say, “Well, if they wanted to attack the Palestinian ruling class, they never had more information than they did about the Iranians.” So, in Gaza, the undeclared objective has always been genocide and complete extermination, hasn’t it? So, having lived through this latest period, I think that today the Palestinians, in one way or another, feel there is a measure of justice in what Israel is going through, because how can one not feel a measure of justice when seeing all the illegal settlers fleeing and returning to their countries of origin? And the Palestinians have nowhere to go because they are from there. The irony is clear, isn’t it? Now all the Israelis want to return to their countries of origin. They’re leaving. They have no connection to that land, no attachment to it other than being a tool of transnational capital for the domination of the entire globe. And today they’re suffering the consequences and desperately trying to get out, but they have no way of doing so.
What consequences do you think these attacks might have? For example, we recently published an interview with the Iranian professor Mohammad Marandi, in which he says that this appears to be the beginning of the end for the Zionist regime in Israel. Well, we shall see. But if that happens, if the Zionist regime, or at least the faction currently in charge of Israel, really does weaken, what do you think the consequences might be for the Palestinian people in the coming years?
Look, I wrote an article a couple of months ago called ‘Israel is dead.’ It put forward exactly the same argument. It was published, amongst others, in the newspaper El Desconcierto, which states that Netanyahu and his coalition believe they are writing the final chapter of the conflict, but if Zionism survives this episode, it will never be able to erase from its history what it has done. The physical and political grave of their project is coming to an end, because where there is imperialism, there is resistance, and where there is genocide, there will be justice. I think there was a fabricated ‘aura’ of morality surrounding the Zionist project.
The fact that the Zionist project presented itself to the world—even if it was a lie—as a response to the Nazi Holocaust, as a response to genocide, and that today it finds itself embroiled in precisely what gave rise to it, but with them as the perpetrators, destroys its historical narrative and destroys its coherence. I believe the Zionist project will never survive this because, moreover, I believe these are the two greatest mistakes in its history: the miscalculation in Gaza and in Iran. I think they never anticipated Hamas’s response, even though they themselves had formed and funded Hamas to weaken the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1980s. They never imagined that Hamas would manage to recruit virtually all the military personnel from the other Palestinian factions, unifying them. Not because they were fundamentalists, but because it was the only force that offered them a space to continue doing what their hearts told them they needed to do and also to do the only thing they had known how to do over the last 70 years. And this is very important because the Zionists did not foresee this there, nor did they foresee it in Iran.
Iran has clearly developed an extremely intelligent strategy. The fact that Iran is attacking all its neighbors, all the American military bases, without any neighbor daring to respond, is its greatest success. Because now the countries in the region are considering whether it might not be less costly, more useful, and safer to incorporate Iran into their regional defense strategies rather than the US, which is so far away. It seems that Iran can defend itself far better against any internal or external threat than the US, which has failed completely. Moreover, despite the information blackout, despite the pro-Israel American censorship against everything they have done, everyone knows they are losing the war and that they will lose it because Iran is waging what is now known as the ‘war of the poor.’ Weapons that cost far less than those possessed by the US, which are manufactured in far less time than those possessed by the US and Israel, and which can be reloaded using resources that neither Israel nor the US possesses. Furthermore, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has put the whole world on alert, and nobody wants to attack Iran, and everyone is blaming the US, so this signifies the end of the Zionist project, on the one hand, but also marks the definitive decline of US hegemonic power.
I have studied Iranian strategy a little, and one thing that fascinates me is that Iran has been planning for over 30 years to reach this level of development. On the one hand, yes, there are very cheap weapons, and this is what is known as the ‘war of the poor,’ but Iran has also planned, in certain sectors including missiles and aerospace, a high-tech development project that has been underway for decades. It starts with the expansion of university education, then they expand postgraduate studies; the Revolutionary Guard creates a research center that links the university with the armed forces, and they work together. In other words, it’s a 30-year plan in the Chinese style. Recently, we’ve become accustomed to thinking that only the Chinese plan for the long term, but the Iranians are brilliant too, aren’t they?
The point is that the Iranians and the Chinese have something the West does not: thousands of years of history. These are cultures that have survived all modes of production and hundreds of invasions throughout the history and prehistory of humanity.
Therefore, the fact that some naive, arrogant, criminal, and murderous Westerners believe they can overcome two ancient cultures with technology demonstrates that they understand absolutely nothing about history. Universities are just for show.
How do you see the future of the region? Well, you’ve touched on this subject a little by mentioning Iran as a potential defense partner. But what is happening now is that, on the one hand, Ali Khamenei’s assassination seems to be generating a sort of unity between Sunnis and Shias. There are several countries where people are protesting. But, on the other hand, it is clear that Iran’s retaliatory actions—the bombing of US bases and other assets in countries across the region—are also causing tension at the state level. But do you think that what is happening now, this instability, could lead to popular uprisings in any of these countries in the region? Could this be one of Iran’s strategies? For example, in Bahrain, which has an 80% Shia population, it seems that things are heating up there.
I think this part of the world has become accustomed to viewing the East through the distorted lens of the Crusades, and this prevents it from seeing or remembering certain things. In the Christian world, Christians have waged war against one another more frequently than Muslims. The two world wars we know of were between Christians. They did not involve any other religion. It is important to remember this so as not to overestimate the differences between the leaderships of Islam. Ultimately, the great division between Shia and Sunni arises at the level of power, within the power structures of societies. But Muslims, whether Shia or Sunni, are Muslims. And, of course, except when they come into conflict with one another—which can last for some time—they possess an ethical and moral unity, as well as a formal unity, far stronger than that which exists amongst Christians. One of the reasons why no country dares to attack Iran is because they know that, at this moment, all peoples—Sunnis, Shiites, everyone—stand with Iran. And if any reactionary government, any absolute monarchy, or any government were to ally itself with the United States and Israel at this moment, it is likely to fall.
These are the sort of governments the West adores, which are its main partners, including the progressives who sign agreements with them, such as the Boric government that has just ended, which condemns progressive projects in Latin America (Venezuela and Cuba), but signs cooperation agreements with the United Arab Emirates. They are unbelievable. Even the progressives in the Arab world know this, and when I say ‘including the progressives in the Arab world’, I am thinking of Qatar with Al Jazeera. Look at what happened on the last Friday of Ramadan, World Al-Quds Day [a day in honor of Jerusalem, for the Palestinian cause]. In every capital across the Arab world, there were the most impressive marches in solidarity with Palestine, yet they were still accompanied by images of the assassinated Iranian leader.
Whilst nation-states have a history spanning 300 years, the Muslim world has a history stretching back 1,400 years. We must therefore also take into account the historical processes involved. You see, from the birth of Christianity to the separation of church and state, 1,648 years passed until the time of the Peace of Westphalia [a series of treaties that brought an end to long wars between European monarchies, laid the foundations of the modern nation-state, and established principles such as territorial sovereignty and legal equality between states. It is regarded as a kind of birth of international law]. Therefore, it can be said that there is a gap of 600 years in relation to the Islamic world. From 1648 to 2200, it is highly likely that, in a few years, or perhaps in another 100 years, Muslims will be discussing the separation of church and state, following the same path of historical development as all cultures. Because what we are experiencing today was experienced by the Christian world 500 years ago. Remember that, in the Christian world, women were burned at the stake for studying and were called witches. Christians committed horrific crimes during the Crusades, and they are Christians. And they claim that these are Western values. Therefore, all these things are relative when viewed from the perspective of history itself. We have a horizon that stretches 80 years back, 80 years forward. The history of our parents, the history of our children. But this history is nothing in the history of nations. So, of course, the West forgets what it had to go through to become the so-called semi-secular world it is today. I believe that Islam is following the same path, and I believe that other cultures are too. The Chinese went through this too, and today they are a completely secular society, although they remain, with this fusion of Marxism and Confucianism, an extremely traditional society. Therefore, I think we should not look at what is happening in the world now from a perspective different from the one we use to analyze all processes in the West.
Yes, I agree. I’d like to return to Iran’s strategy: how do you think they view their relationship with the Arab countries in the region?
At this moment, I believe it is more than a strategy of resistance; it is no longer merely a defensive strategy, it is a strategy to win the war. And it is a strategy composed of various elements, the first of which is to mobilize all their regional adversaries and bring them over to their side. And that is very notable and very important. Today, even Iraq, which was at war [with Iran] for eight years, is fully on Iran’s side. Because it knows that the Iraqi people would not tolerate them giving in. You see, do you know what that reminds me of? Iraq’s first invasion of Kuwait in 1991. When Yasser Arafat never supported the Iraqi occupation, he knew he could not support the international coalition [led by the US] that was formed to defeat Saddam Hussein. And that meant complete isolation from the whole world. But Arafat knew that such isolation was better than betraying his own people and bringing an end to his national leadership. Because allying with the United States and Israel to attack Iraq would have meant a living death for him. I believe that what Arafat understood at that time is understood today by all Arab and Muslim governments, including those in the region of Asia.
What do you think will happen to the BRICS? We have a conflict where, on the one hand, there is already ample evidence that China and Russia are supporting Iran with intelligence technology, data, geolocation, etc. And, on the other hand, we have India—Modi was in the Knesset [Israeli parliament], embracing Netanyahu, days before the start of the criminal attacks—and the United Arab Emirates, which also has very close ties with the Zionists. At the same time, Iran is defending itself and bombing the United Arab Emirates, not just American bases but also hotels, airports, and other targets. However, BRICS has not yet made a public statement on the most important issues currently unfolding in the world. How do you see the future of BRICS? Is the group’s future threatened by this conflict?
No, no. It is like ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The BRICS have already realized that the future will be characterized by diverse ideologies and that there will not be a single hegemonic power dominating the entire planet. But the BRICS still have debts to pay. We need a multipolar world. We need a multilateral world. We do not need to move from one country exploiting the world’s population to four countries exploiting the world’s population. We need a world where no one exploits anyone. And where we understand that our common home, which is nature, just like our inorganic body, as Karl Marx defines it in terms of alienated labor, cannot be exploited beyond necessity. That we cannot continue to allow the Chilean desert to be filled with new clothes that cannot be sold every year. That we cannot continue buying cars just to replace them every two years simply to keep companies profitable—a capitalism that has established planned obsolescence, both technical and emotional, as a means of survival. So, we will have to start thinking about other things. Laws requiring that the products we buy have a lifespan like in the old days, of 20, 30, or 50 years. And that we have the right to repairs. In this way, we need to slow down and change our relationship with nature towards a form of exchange that is, firstly, freer and, secondly, guided by necessity rather than the accumulation of capital. In other words, we need to stop fighting poverty and start fighting wealth. We need to stop debating the minimum wage and start debating the maximum wage.
The problem is that the left has learned to speak the language—the language of economics—imposed on us by the World Bank and the IMF. If we do not realize this, we will continue to reproduce a kind of extractivist culture, a culture where nature becomes a commodity—rather than our inorganic body, something we must overcome. If that is not clear, we are lost. Because the destruction of the planet, whether capitalist or socialist, is equally bad. Therefore, we need to change our lifestyles. We need to decolonize bodies, language, and desire. The problem is that there is a section of the left that wants to live like the establishment. There is a section of the left that has become excessively institutionalized and wants to appear on the covers of magazines read by the world’s richest 1%. There is a section of the left that wants to change cars every year. There is a section of the left that wants to live off investments without working. There is also a section of the left that has been enchanted by the power to exploit others. This is what we must prevent. Therefore, we need to decolonize—I repeat—language, bodies, and desire. And the hardest thing to decolonize is desire.
📌 Subscribe to Think BRICS for weekly geopolitical video analysis beyond Western narratives.
You Wrote: "Therefore, we need to decolonize—I repeat—language, bodies, and desire. And the hardest thing to decolonize is desire."
I expect we must add all politics to that list! Then we will finally reach peace on earth, and be guided by the most evolved humans rather than least evolved humans, because we are all humans who must harmonize together.