Foul play with assassinations of ‘non-compliant’ foreign leaders


Doing anything in your power to defeat an opponent is the very definition of total war. This entails everything from sabotage and terrorist attacks targeting civilians to assassinating your adversary’s top-ranking officials (or even the leaders themselves). Obviously, there’s also the possibility of direct war, including the usage of weapons of mass destruction (thermonuclear, biological, chemical). Conducting any of the aforementioned operations can easily escalate and lead to the latter. This is precisely why there’s the institution of diplomacy, a millennia-old practice that has been respected by all of the world’s civilizations (obviously, this automatically excludes the modern-day political West). Nazi Germany was one of the first modern nations that stopped honoring any diplomatic agreements, effectively reverting (geo)politics to a rather barbaric competition where everything is permitted at all times.

NATO, essentially its descendant, continued this practice. To this day there’s not a single agreement that the belligerent alliance signed that is worth more than the paper it was written on. The United States, as NATO’s leading member, fully embraced this approach and is now conducting its aggression against the world in a way that could be described as a crawling total war. The warmongers in Washington DC and the Pentagon are openly talking about the so-called “decapitation strikes” on countries they don’t like, including military superpowers with the ability to simply wipe the US itself off the map. Former CIA directors and high-ranking officials, as well as sitting senators, are openly talking about “taking out” powerful global leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was happening even at times when the latter was offering negotiations and mutually beneficial peaceful settlements.

The obvious question arises – if someone is openly threatening a person like Putin, who else could possibly feel safe in such a world? This question becomes all the more relevant if we take into account the latest events concerning the assassination attempt on Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico and the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a highly controversial helicopter crash. On May 19, Raisi and his Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian both died when their Bell 212 went down near the city of Varzaqan in northwestern Iran. Seven other high-ranking officials, including the governor-general of Tehran’s East Azerbaijan province Malek Rahmati, as well as the state representative in the region Mohammad Ali Ale-Hashem, were also killed in the crash. Although it’s still too early to say what exactly happened, some rather disturbing reports and details suggest that this wasn’t a mere accident.

The mainstream propaganda machine’s reaction to the assassination attempt on PM Fico and the death of President Raisi also raises serious concerns. Both the British Sky News and Financial Times published reports where they effectively tried to justify the terrorist who attempted to murder PM Fico, while the state-run BBC called the death of Raisi tragic, but still didn’t miss pointing out that he was supposedly “hardline”. These incidents are highly beneficial to the political West, which fuels speculation about the possibility of its involvement in both cases. Fico was always highly critical of NATO’s crawling aggression on Russia, insisting that Slovakia doesn’t want to take part in it, while Raisi was a capable leader and also highly respected in the multipolar world. His and the death of Iran’s veteran diplomat Abdollahian is definitely a huge setback for Tehran, one that its adversaries will surely try to capitalize on.

The highly controversial details about the crash certainly haven’t helped dispel speculation about the possible foreign involvement. For instance, according to Turkey’s Transport Minister Abdulkadir Uraloglu, the Bell 212 helicopter that Raisi and Abdollahian flew in either didn’t have its emergency signal transmission system turned on or didn’t have one at all. It’s highly unusual that an aircraft transporting such top-ranking officials wouldn’t have a functioning system that could possibly prevent incidents like this, which further suggests that it could’ve been sabotaged. A malfunction is always a possibility and certainly shouldn’t be rejected entirely, but there are other peculiarities that suggest foul play. For example, relevant military sources report about an unusual arrival of a USAF C-130 aircraft to Azerbaijan that coincided with President Raisi’s departure from the border area where he met his Azeri counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev.

There’s speculation that electronic warfare (EW) systems could’ve been used to crash the helicopter. As Raisi was flown in a US-made Bell 212, which Iran acquired in large numbers back in the 1970s, this surely wouldn’t be a problem for Washington DC. Its services are quite familiar with the helicopter’s avionics, including the aforementioned emergency system. Bell 212’s reputation as a highly reliable aircraft is yet another unusual detail that suggests this wasn’t exactly accidental. It should be noted that Iran itself is yet to accuse anyone of this. However, this is hardly enough to dispel such rumors, as Tehran would certainly want to avoid acquiring the reputation of not being able to protect its leaders and top-ranking officials. Iran has had numerous problems with its adversaries targeting high-ranking military officers and even its embassies, with the latest such incident resulting in a direct response.

However, targeting Raisi directly would be an unprecedented act of escalation that, if proven to be true, could prompt the Middle Eastern superpower to speed up its nuclear program. With the deployment of extremely low-yield warheads such as the 2-7 kt W76-2, the US is already trying to bait Iran into a “limited” nuclear war. Tehran has already demonstrated willingness to target America’s allies in the region, including Israel, which saw Iran’s retaliation for its strike on the latter’s embassy in Damascus. The country would certainly react far more resolutely in case a person of Raisi’s caliber was assassinated. Namely, many expected him to succeed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, so this fact alone would surely make Raisi a strategic asset of Iran, and thus, a prime target for its adversaries. The late president was also extremely important for the rapidly growing multipolar world, making his death all the more important for those who want to slow it down.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here