Azar Majedi What Awaits People - War or Peace?

On Thursday, June 18, After about a week of consultations, speculation, various and sometimes contradictory analyses from the mainstream media, Israeli media, and on social media, the US-Islamic Republic Memorandum of Understanding was finally signed electronically by Trump and Pezeshkian, the president of the Islamic Republic, it was agreed that two delegations from the US, headed by Vance, and from Iran, headed by Ghalibaf and Araghchi, would meet in Switzerland on Friday 19th for the "next phase" of negotiations. This meeting was cancelled due to Israel's failure to comply with the Memorandum of Understanding. Israel attacked southern Lebanon in violation of the signed Memorandum. The Islamic Republic also closed the Strait of Hormuz once again.

The June 19th meeting was cancelled. The dispute escalated, but finally, on Sunday, June 21, the US and Islamic Republic delegations met in Switzerland with the mediation of Qatar and Pakistan. Vance described the meeting as very positive. But the Islamic Republic has postponed the continuation of the talks until the ceasefire in Lebanon is observed, and has conditioned the opening of the Strait of Hormuz on the ceasefire in Lebanon and Iran’s exemptions from sanctions on oil exports.

Contrary to Vance’s very positive tone, Trump has threatened Iran that if it does not silence its proxies in Lebanon, the US will attack and occupy Iran even more aggressively than before. The Israeli defence minister has also announced that the Israeli army will remain in Lebanon.

With that said, this contradiction, confusion and lack of coherence begs the question: has all the fuss about the memorandum of understanding, its contents and the debate about the victorious and the defeated gone up in smoke? And will Trump’s boasting and self-glorification after signing the memorandum at a Dinner at Versailles during the G7 summit turn into the countless jokes of his presidency? Trump ensured that the document would be signed at the Palace of Versailles, where US President Wilson signed the Armistice Agreement that ended World War I. A show of grandeur and power!

This was entirely predictable, given that Israel had all along declared that it was not bound by the agreement. In recent days, we have witnessed harsh criticism of Trump and the memorandum, from some Israeli politicians and media outlets, and from sources affiliated with the Zionist billionaires who are Trump’s financial backers. On the other hand, some US politicians, including J.D. Vance and Hillary Clinton, have taken a harsh line against Israel. Publicly harsh and controversial criticism is a rare phenomenon in US-Israeli relations. It seems that a faction is forming within US ruling class that intends to throw Netanyahu under the bus and hope that all the filth and mess would go away. These events exposes the delicate and precarious situation in which the US and Israel find themselves.

Is peace possible?

Not only this memorandum, but any kind of agreement between the US and the Islamic Republic and Israel will be completely fragile. In the last two years, Israel signed a ceasefire agreement in Gaza and has not remained committed to it for a single day. It also violated the ceasefire in Lebanon. On the other hand, Trump changes his mind every day, and even the mainstream media cannot publish his promises with certainty. But a shaky peace and a cold war can be established for a period.

It must be stated that in this world full of chaos, war and destruction, talk of lasting peace is nothing more than a dream and an illusion. To achieve lasting peace, the root cause of war, killing and destruction must be addressed and eliminated. As far as the US and Israel's war against Iran is concerned, achieving peace is a very complicated matter. The problem here is that the war against Iran did not happen overnight. It has been a long-term project in the making. If we accept that the war and slaughter we are witnessing in the region is being waged with the aim of creating a new Middle East and a Greater Israel, the war will not end until this project is shelved.

Furthermore, the project to destroy and change the landscape of the region was clearly formulated and expressed by the US government in 2001 with a plan to bomb 7 countries. The details of this project have been leaked for years. Five countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and Libya, have been “sufficiently” ruined; Lebanon and Iran are undergoing the planned destruction and transformation. Therefore, until this vast project is completely and definitively ended or shelved, the risk of war will hang over Iran.

It is necessary to briefly look at the history of the division of the region and the formation of Israel in order to better understand the root of the problem and the main issue of the current tension and conflict. The current war is the result of a century of continuous wars. The new Middle East and Greater Israel is not a new project. It did not start on October 7, 2023. This was a project, the general plan of which was drawn after the First World War; not necessarily in these words, or in all the details. But the colonial plan of Britain and France, with the agreement of the Allies after the end of the First World War, was to divide the region in such a way that their undisputed dominance over the whole region would be maintained and consolidated. Therefore, they divided the region based on their interests and power.

The formation of Israel was put on the table very quickly. The Balfour Declaration, which gave the Zionists the opportunity and power to organise terror and war to make it possible to establish the state of Israel in 1948, was signed by Britain in 1917 and addressed to Lord Rothschild (the largest banker and one of the most important, influential and decisive Zionists in the formation of Israel). The declaration stated: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people….”

War, killing, genocide and destruction have since become an integral part of the history of the region. Since the establishment of Israel, the region has not had a peaceful day. In this sense, it can be said that the project of the new Middle East and Greater Israel has been on the table of Western imperialism for a century.

Losers and winners so far

According to friends and foes of America, Trump practically announced his defeat against the Islamic Republic by signing this memorandum. On social media, political commentators with different political tendencies are talking about Trump's defeat. The mainstream media, especially in Israel, are talking about the "high cost of a fruitless war for America."They are trying to be “politically correct” when talking about America's defeat up to this stage.

Every tendency is trying to put its political interpretation on this memorandum. But the facts are clear. America started the war with the aim of destroying Iran ("returning it to the Stone Age") and turning Iran into another Syria, in other words, balkanisation of the country which is means nothing but the implementation of a dark scenario in Iran. They explained this situation with the word "regime change". It is said that Trump/the US government thought that this would be a quick operation. The situation took a different form.

The US is in a situation where it sees the continuation of the current war as being very detrimental to its interests. That is why it has signed this memorandum. A document that practically shows that the Islamic Republic has strengthened its political position vis-à-vis the US and Israel and in the region compared to before the war. The US has agreed to lift sanctions and pay $300 billion in compensation and release Iran's frozen assets. Islamic regime has agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz which was open before the war.

But to achieve even a temporary peace, it is necessary for the US to tame Israel. Or, to be more precise, the current anti-war faction in the ruling class to tame the war-mongering faction. This is difficult to predict. The fact that their differences and disputes have become public indicates how sensitive the situation is and the impasse they currently seem to be stuck in.

It is clear that we and all freedom-loving and conscientious people want an immediate end to the war. The war has brought incredible hardship and misery to the people. Poverty is rampant on an incredible scale. Millions of workers have been made unemployed. The scarcities of food, medicine, and essentials, along with skyrocketing prices, have made people's lives a hundred times more difficult and arduous than before. This war has brought nothing but poverty, misery, death and destruction, to the people. The war has greatly increased the regime's repressive power and has changed the balance of power between the regime and the people to the detriment of the people. This war must be stopped.

If the war is considered a great disaster for the people and society, it has been a blessing for the Islamic Republic. Israel and America (the Mossad and CIA narrative) pushed this war forward with the promise of “freedom and progress” for the people and Iran. A scenario was written to make the war seem acceptable. A handful of mercenaries from Iranian national fascists, Kurdish and ethnic national fascists, and some so-called leftist groups that have jumped on the bandwagon of US/Israel Regime change entered the field of war propaganda.

They blew the trumpet of war in demonstrations, conferences, speeches, and radio and television interviews. They displayed heinous scenes of fascism, thuggish-ness, and unscrupulousness as mercenaries. They begged Trump and Bibi to bomb Iran. With every bomb that tore apart a child, youth, and elderly, destroyed water and electricity supplies, and the arteries of the economy and people's lives, they danced and shouted: "Tank you Trump!""Tank you BB!" and waved Israeli flags in the streets. This group is the main losers of the war so far. They have no dignity or credibility left. They are known to the people as a bunch of unscrupulous mercenaries. They are a losing card!

The bitter irony is that in his explanatory speech about the memorandum in front of millions of viewers, Trump made these mercenaries into a piece of junk. He ridiculed them and called them “stupid”. They are exploding with anger. These mercenaries, namely Iran International and other Mossad/CIA "regime change" media have acted in such a manner that will take them a long time to recover from. This is called premature death.

Society and the Islamic Republic after the War

The course of the war so far has placed the Islamic Republic in a stronger position. In practice, the assassination of the leader and a large part of the Islamic government, which was interpreted and announced as the biggest blow to the regime, led to the strengthening of its cohesion and integrity. A kind of transformation has taken within the regime. It placed power in the hands of a faction known as the "hardliner" and practically marginalized elements such as Rouhani and Zarif, the so-called state-reformist faction, and Ahmadinejad, the figures who were considered rivals to the other faction.

The conditions and results of the war weakened the people's position against the regime. The dangers and losses resulting from the war placed the people in a more precarious and fragile situation. The regime, benefitting from people’s weakened position and using the pretext of war conditions, has tightened its grip on the people's throats and imposed more severe repression on the society. This war has changed the balance of power between the people and the regime in favour of the regime.

People had succeeded in pushing the Islamic Republic back in some areas during the uprising four years ago and the subsequent struggles. The most important achievement was gained by the women's liberation movement, which effectively led to the de facto overthrow of the Islamic Hejab and sexual apartheid. This is an important socio-political and cultural achievement that should be discussed separately, but it should be noted that the Islamic Republic has not been able to regain this huge stronghold. Many reports and films from Iran cite that during the war, women were present in the streets without Hejab, and at night in many parts of Tehran, people gathered, played music, danced, and women appeared with and without Hejab.

But in other areas, the regime has succeeded in pushing back workers and protesting people. In recent years, we have witnessed many workers’ protests, where as in the current situation, the possibility of protest has become much more difficult. Reports indicate that the regime’s forces of repression are standing on street corners and attacking any kind of protest. Number of political prisoners executed has risen. In practice, the Islamic Republic has tightened its grip on people's throats.

In the absence of a progressive, powerful, socialist and organised force that can fight against American imperialism and Israel, Islamic Republic’s resistance, defence and fighting back has elevated its stature among the world, among those who oppose and are disgusted by the genocide, killing and destruction. The vast masses of people around the world, people who are fed up with the slaughter and barbarity committed by Israel*, who are also disgusted with the bullying of the US and the West worldwide; now look at the Islamic Republic with a positive view. In the absence of a progressive, leftist, organised and well-equipped power in the world, the Islamic Republic has emerged as the only force of resistance against America and Israel. The Islamic Republic has completely won the propaganda war.

Regardless of whether the obstacles to this memorandum of understanding are removed or another agreement is reached, people must maintain their awareness of the war, its dangers and protect themselves from the attacks of the Islamic Republic; A very difficult and arduous task. But this is the only way out of the limbo we are stuck in. Focusing on being prepared, vigilant, and work on maintaining solidarity and organisation are our only guarantee for getting out of the impasse that is facing us.

*According to various polls worldwide, Israel is the most despised country in the world: Europe & North America: Disapproval rates are notably high in Western Europe. 78% in Spain, 76% in the Netherlands, 73% in Germany, and 69% in the UK hold negative view of Israel. In the United States, 60% of adults hold an unfavorable view of Israel.

Asia & Middle East: 97% in Turkey, 86% in Indonesia, and 86% in Malaysia have very negative views of Israel. In Japan, 60% of the public are against Israel.

Asar Majed is the Chairperson of Organisation for Women’s Liberation.

The Memorandum Of Understanding Is Up In The Air!

Kate Rice with a poem.

Of Meat And Men

War Makes Meat Of A Man
the white marbled slab of wealth
whole and without cut
in its red brick abode
♞♜♝
 you are no such prime slice
 bloody and tender and quick to rot
 diced and piled high
 on No Man’s Table
♞♜♝
meal of cheap cuts 
shoulder and shank 
broiled and stewed soft 
to feed the few 
 ♞♜♝
you are easy to buy
and easy to carve
butcher shop gristle
cut the baby fat off you.

Kate Rice is a peace baby.

Of Meat And Men

Christopher Owens 🔖 In some ways, the musical underground of the 1980’s is far more influential today than at the time.


Thanks to the internet and downloading in the early 00’s, it was possible to read about bands like Cocteau Twins and Godflesh in forums and then check the music out for yourself. You didn’t need to know someone with a cool record collection, nor did you even need a record store! You could download the discographies of obscure acts like Dif Juz, Meat Whiplash and Flipper, read their Wikipedia entries and become an expert instantly.

By the end of the decade, tons of those bands have reformed, garnered critical appraisal far greater than they had initially experienced and had their catalogue repressed on vinyl. All’s well that ends well, I hear you say.

But something was lost in the process: context, literacy, connections.

And, in this new book from the acclaimed writer/music commentator, Simon Reynolds muses on all of this while reexamining links between groups one may not have thought of before.

From how Cocteau Twins and early REM share a lack of conventional singing through to how the likes of Tad, Dinosaur Jr and Nirvana were a response to the punks discovering classic rock as well as an entrenchment of the more macho elements of rock music, there is much to rediscover and reappraise.

And some angles that can cause arguments . . . 

One bit that did irk me was his surface level critique of Steve Albini’s persona during this period. While some of what he said/wrote has been correctly attacked, it’s important to remember the context of the time. As one commentator wrote:

...it's worth mentioning that you sort of had to be there to understand how some of this sort of bullshit fit into the cultural miasma that was 'punk rock' in the '80s.This was before 120 Minutes...Hot Topic...'American Idiot.' Punk rock was a fairly anarchic and unstructured community full of completely ungovernable people where bad behavior was not only tolerated, but often encouraged. You had this massive gamut of subcultures within the subculture - from the very rigid and codified dress code and lifestyle of the skinheads to the ascetic straight-edge kids to the 'how many of these can I take and still stagger onstage in a wedding dress and a cow's head?' performance ethic of bands like the Butthole Surfers.
I watched a girl come out of the bathroom at 688 and throw a cup of hot piss at Henry Rollins one night because she really liked the band. Two friends of mine came out of a night club in Miami and saw Nick Cave standing in the alley. When they said 'Hey, Nick! We love you! Nick!' and he turned his back on them they got pissed and beat him up. y'know, because they loved him. Punk rock was for fucked up people...It wasn't just suburban teenagers with edgy haircuts and skateboards. It was hustlers, fuckups and untreated psychotics, it was addicts and dwarfs and that girl with one arm and a snake tattooed on her cheek.
Why does this matter? Because the terms of rebellion weren't so codified then. 'Right' and 'wrong' were pretty fluid in a lot of people's minds … How fucked up a spectacle could you make? How outrageously could you behave? These were hallmarks of quality before it all got codified into 'How many records can you sell?

Yes, it’s now considered ‘edgelord’ terrain in the online sphere. Back then, it can be argued, that one way of responding to political conservatism was through the dark underbelly. As one ages and matures, we should confine such interests to memory (although the popularity of true crime would suggest otherwise).

Similarly, while correctly noting how most of the music scene was often passively political,(directly or indirectly) he neglects to discuss how this ended up in a situation where according to Andrew Calcutt:

A new political order has emerged in which the victim is supreme, and adults are treated more like children. Meanwhile, many adults are more likely to think of themselves as victims, or to identify with the motif of the authentic, innocent child. The result is a convergence between on the one hand the spontaneous development of a cultural personality which is victimized and childlike, and on the other hand the remoulding of the individual’s relationship to the state in accordance with his supposed immaturity. The convergence of these trends is facilitated by the already existing non-adult language provided by the counterculture and the pop culture which succeeded it.

Regardless, although not on a par with other Reynolds books like Retromania or Rip it Up and Start Again this is still an immersive read that celebrates an eclectic moment in time as well as critiques it.

Simon Reynolds, 2026, Still in a Dream: Shoegaze, Slackers and the Reinvention of Rock, 1984–1994. White Rabbit Press ISBN-13: 978-1399618373

⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist and is the author of A Vortex of Securocrats and “dethrone god”.

Still In A Dream 📚 Shoegaze, Slackers And The Reinvention Of Rock, 1984–1994

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand And Twenty Eight

 

Religious Derangement Syndrome @ 6

 

A Morning Thought @ 3201

Maryam NamazieAzar Majedi and Homa Arjomand have now written two lengthy articles in response to my criticism of their position on Islamism. 

The remarkable feature of this exchange is that the more they write, the further they move away from the argument itself.

Their most recent intervention relies on distortion, deception, guilt by association, character assassination and insinuation. Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) protests outside the Iranian, Saudi, Moroccan and Pakistani embassies in solidarity with those persecuted for eating during Ramadan is equated with French colonial officers drinking wine in Algerian mosques. 

An award from a French secularist organisation becomes an award from the French government. A postage stamp depicting Marianne who the artist modelled after FEMEN’s Inna Shevchenko apparently seals the deal that FEMEN and CEMB are propaganda tools of Western imperialism.

Criticism of Islamism becomes hostility to Muslims. Secularists become agents of a geopolitical project. I myself am apparently ‘acting according to a script,’ my reputation ‘stained by hypocrisy, double standards, racism and pro-Israel/Zionist tendencies,’ and, losing my ‘use-value.’ Even the timing of my responses appears to have acquired explanatory power. There is also reference to a Dawkins-Epstein-Rothschild-Balfour chain, which one will need to be heavily intoxicated to make sense of. In their next reply to this piece, I may end up being Epstein in drag so this will have to be my final reply.

With all this obfuscation, the question I have posed to them remains unanswered and is the one that matters most: why should criticism of Islamism be treated differently from criticism of every other reactionary force?

Their position is that criticism of Hamas in the context of genocide reproduces Israeli and US narratives and benefits imperialism. If you follow this logic, it means that we must cease criticism of the Islamic regime in Iran as it risks benefiting US and Israeli militarism. Apparently, criticism of Islamism is subjected to a special burden of proof, treated as politically suspect, and dismissed as serving the enemy. They forget that the burden of proof is not on those of us who also criticise Islamism. The burden is on those who demand an exception for it.

Majedi and Arjomand never explain why political Islam alone should be exempt from the standards applied to every other reactionary system, movement and state. Why should the Left, while rightly opposing Israeli state violence and genocide, be expected to treat Hamas’s violence against Palestinians as politically secondary? Why should women opposing war and militarism be expected to treat the Islamic regime in Iran or the Taliban as secondary concerns? These are not rhetorical questions. They are fundamental to people’s lives.

Majedi and Arjomand devote enormous attention to where Islamism came from (as if we do not know the history) and almost none to what it represents. This methodological error is the foundation of their argument. Hamas may have been fostered by Israeli strategy as a counterweight to left and secular forces. Political Islam and the Islamic regime in Iran may have benefited from Cold War calculations. Of course they have. But neither fact entitles these oppressive movements to political exceptionalism. To explain the origins of a movement cannot absolve it of accountability for its crimes or ignore its political character.

Whatever role Western powers played in fostering sections of political Islam during the Cold War, Islamism constitutes an independent pole of reaction in the region and beyond. It is a political project that seeks to regulate women, suppress dissent, control class struggle through religious identity politics, and organise social life through repression. The social character of Islamism, its programme, and its consequences for women, workers, secularists, dissidents, and minorities largely disappear from their analysis. So too does Islamism’s own use of the suffering of people in the region as political capital.

We have seen this before. During the 1979 Iranian revolution, sections of the Left similarly treated US imperialism as the primary danger and Islamism as a secondary concern. Since Majedi and Arjomand are so concerned with history, this may be one lesson worth revisiting.

In keeping with this tradition of anti-imperialist politics, they conflate criticism of Islamism with anti-Muslim racism, much as criticism of the Israeli state and Zionism is often conflated with antisemitism – to shield power from scrutiny. They treat ex-Muslims as a homogeneous political category to which motives, loyalties and intentions can be assigned in order to place collective guilt and blame. I have addressed these and related arguments in detail elsewhere and will not revisit them here.

The Third Camp, however, insists that humanity has no camp among reactionary powers. Neither justifies the other. Neither benefits humanity. Neither form of domination can be overlooked. Majedi and Arjomand signed the Third Camp Manifesto in 2006. Today, however, they ask us to treat political Islam differently, to exempt it from the standards applied to every other reactionary force, to suspend criticism whenever it may prove politically inconvenient, and to subordinate the struggles of women, workers, secularists and dissidents. Mansoor Hekmat had a name for this politics. He called it petit-bourgeois anti-imperialism and identified it as the main ideological refuge of Islamic reaction.

Given this reality, the distortions, the accusations, the guilt by association, the conspiratorial chains of reasoning are hardly surprising. All serve a single purpose: to avoid confronting the one reactionary force for which they demand an exception. At its core, it is a familiar politics: an anti-imperialism that dares not speak Islamism’s name.

♞♟♜

For those wishing to follow the debate in full, the relevant articles are listed below in chronological order:

Azar Majedi and Homa Arjomand’s Islamist Propaganda and Morality, Maryam Namazie

Masks Are Torn; Ex-Muslims From Frying Pan To Fire, Azar Majedi and Homa Arjomand

Against Political Erasure: The Third Pole And The Limits Of Anti-Imperialism, Maryam Namazie

Ultimate Absurdity! Maryam Namazie’s belated reply or a timely damage control? Azar Majedi and Homa Arjomand

Maryam Namazie is a political 
activist, campaigner and blogger

Islamism And The Politics Of Exceptionalism 🪶A Response To Azar Majedi And Homa Arjomand

The Heartlands Tribune Written by Paul Knaggs
21-June-2026.

Ten Years On, We Are Changing Our Name. Here Is Why.

We did not change our name because we changed our politics. We changed it because the name no longer tells the whole truth.

We have chosen this day deliberately. Midsummer is the old turning point, the longest day, the moment the year tips and the light begins its slow return journey toward winter. It is a day for letting go of what has run its course and turning to face what comes next. That is what we are doing.

Labour Heartlands was born in a very particular moment. It came out of the political wreckage after the EU referendum, when millions of working class people across the old industrial towns, mining communities, coastal seats and forgotten regions spoke clearly, only to be treated as fools, racists, dupes or embarrassments by many of the people who claimed to represent them.

That was the gap we stepped into. Labour Heartlands was never created as a house journal for the Labour Party. It was created because the people in the heartlands deserved to be heard in their own voice.

Continue @ Heartlands Tribune.

Ten Years On 🪶 Labour Heartlands Becomes The Heartlands Tribune

Caoimhin O’Muraile ⚽ The 2026 World Cup from a footballing point of view and despite many skills exhibited by some individual players has been an unmitigated disaster. 

Firstly the malignant narcissist in the White House, Donald Trump, and his administration refused, for no good reason other than proving a point, Somali referee, Omar Artan, entry into the country. 

Secondly Trump insisted the Iranian football team reside in Mexico and commute to the US for their games immediately putting the Iranians at a disadvantage. The tournament is supposed to be played on a level playing field which, on this occasion, is clearly not the case and has now set a precedent for future World Cups. 

The FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, has shown a clear lack of courage and moral fibre in addressing the problems which clearly exist and are of Trumps making. Trump may be the root cause of the difficulties faced by the Somali referee and the Iranian national team but the FIFA President must also shoulder his share of the blame for blatant cowardice. All this man who supposedly leads world footballs international governing body could say was “relax and chill”. Once again, the FIFA chief and his managerial team have licked the arse of the US tyrant, Trump, this time with the narcissist interfering directly with a FIFA referee’s decision on the pitch. Are there no depths the grovelling FIFA President will not stoop? In order to curry favour with Trump Infantino even went as far as awarding the US warmonger and kidnapper a “FIFA peace prize at the World Cup draw” (Irish Daily Mirror 6th July). It appears now the US President calls the shots not the referee or even the hated VAR, no, Donald Trump now calls the shots it would seem.

On Wednesday 1st July the USA played Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the course of the game a US player, Folarin Balogun, was sent off for a foul on an opposition defender stomping on the defender’s ankle. The foul some would say warranted a straight red card others would disagree claiming a yellow card would have been sufficient. Either way red or yellow card is not the point, but the direct interference of Trump is! Trump contacted the FIFA hierarchy regarding this decision which was a matter solely for the referee: that’s his job, even today with fucked up VAR, and had nothing to do with the White House. The referee’s decision did appear a little harsh as the stamping looked accidental and the US team and management, which is their right, expressed ‘anger and disappointment’ at the referee. This is normal and happens every Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday or whenever a game is played when head coaches – who have replaced managers and not for the better – complain when decisions have not gone their way. It is a perfectly natural response. 

What makes this incident different in a negative sense is the direct political interference by Trump, interference which undermines the FIFA rule book and credibility. Perhaps those who maintain politics should be kept out of sport should voice a view on this quite blatant crossing of their red line. Thanks to Trump's meddling in things he cares fuck all about, apart from political opportunism, the decision which should have carried an automatic ban for the next game, in this case a last 16 contest with Belgium, has been put back until after the tournament. This is a first-time occurrence because even though other players in the past - Cristiano Ronaldo being one - have had red cards and suspensions which were incurred in games before the tournament began, the suspensions were put back till after the tournament, thus not placing any barriers to the players during the competition. This is the first time such an offence has occurred during the tournament and a suspension being lifted on the thinly veiled instructions of a world leader. Trump immediately took to social media to thank FIFA for doing the “right thing” or, roughly translated, riding rough shod over the match referee’s decision. Thankfully poetic justice was done as Belgium won the game 4-1 thus progressing to the last eight.


Referee’s today have enough problems with being undermined by VAR and now, it appears, by the President of the USA. Of course the FIFA President could and should have told Trump to do one when he issued his Presidential decree but lacks the moral fibre to do or say this. Trump only has to glance in Infantino’s direction and the FIFA President reaches for the toilet roll, and not to through on the pitch which was once traditional, but to rapidly wipe his arse.

The failure of Gianni Infantino to stand up to Trump and his meddling has ruined this competition undermining its integrity. It has been bad enough with VAR on the pitch, for example in the Mexico versus England game the referee said no to a Mexican penalty appeal only minuet’s later for VAR to order him to the screen for another look. Instead of telling VAR to fuck off and standing by his decision the referee, like the majority, though not all, of his peers went belly up and changed his mind thus allowing Mexico a penalty he had, minutes earlier, decided against! For the record the referee still has the final decision on the pitch and is not obliged to agree with VAR, though very few do go against VAR. 

Infantino failed to intervene over the blatantly unfair treatment of the Somali referee Omar Artan, the African continent's finest, not being allowed entry into the country. Fair enough - that decision, wrong as it was, is within the remit of any government, most who would not exercise such powers, but the FIFA coward said absolutely fuck all. The very least this referee could have expected was the verbal support of FIFA but did not get it. 

Then the FIFA chief failed to address the unfair treatment of the Iranian national side who were not allowed to train in the US and had to commute from Mexico for every game played in the USA placing the Iranians at an immediate disadvantage. This is not to suggest support for the religious nutters in Tehran who pass for a government, it is support for the footballers and supporters of Iran. Once again not a murmur from Infantino, not a fucking word of protest! Despite these appalling incidents and the unfairness involved, Trump putting his size tens into the ring over the sending off is in a different league. Trump cares nothing for football, anymore, it would appear, than do the pretenders of FIFA the international custodians of the game! Trump saw an opportunity for himself and even though he could not even give an idiot’s guide to the game decided to intervene knowing Infantino is shit scared of him! Trump also used this as an opportunity to compare the “unfairness” of the sending off which he had overturned with the 2020 US Presidential election which he, Trump, still maintains he won. Nobody else does apart from him and a few thousand half-witted followers and sycophants of the narcissist.

For me this tournament signals the end of the line for top flight football. It now appears any Tom, Dick, or Donald can waltz into the White House and interfere in a tournament which, frankly, is outside their remit. The games integrity already suspect is now in tatters and couple the actions of Trump with the inactions of Infantino and we have this mire masquerading as football. The narcissist could not have got away with so much without a spineless FIFA President colluding. Thanks to this pair of clowns and every other negative from VAR to bad refereeing then, to coin a phrase, ‘the games afoot’.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

RIP 2026 World Cup ⚽ As Trump Interferes Yet Again!

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Two Thousand And Twenty Seven

 

A Morning Thought @ 3200

Jim Duffy The phenomenon of 'drone parties' is a remarkable feature of Russia's war in Ukraine.


Ukrainian citizens come together often at weekends in someone's house, hold a dinner party, and assemble drones for the military from parts supplied to them. In means every weekend tens of thousands of drones are made by ordinary citizens.

They augment the drones made by companies.

Not alone does it mean Ukraine has vast numbers of drones, but they are in a constant state of upgrade and evolution. In effect a new generation of Ukraine's drones are made every seven to ten days.

Russia launched an expensive missile some time ago. Each missile costs €50m. Russia could only afford forty. Four were launched a few weeks ago. Two hit their target. One went massively off target and hit Russian soldiers. The fourth however was brought down by an Ukrainian drone. Think about it. A €50m missile was brought down by a €1500 drone. Russia has not used those missiles since.

Western experts were puzzled by how Ukrainian drones were travelling so far, as it was further than their batteries should have been able to carry them. Then they found out the reason. Ukraine ingeniously has been releasing drones tied to balloons. The balloons carry them for hundreds of miles on the prevailing winds. Only when the balloons begin to descend does the drone switch on, so Ukraine is using a brilliant low tech method to get the drones near to where they are going.

Russia often sees them but they are so high up it cannot tell if they are weather balloons or balloons attached to drones. Soldiers don't launch expensive missiles as they don't know what they are shooting at. They would get in trouble if they are firing a one million euro missile at a weather balloon. Some Russian soldiers who still have access to Telegram and admitted to having an admiration for the ingenuity of Ukraine in using something as simple as a balloon to get drones so far, hitting oil facilities in Siberia.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Drone Parties

Notes On Crime 🚔 Written by David James Smith. Recommended by Christopher Owens.

How "Notes on Crime" got mixed up with law and justice.

Although I have yet to be publicly acknowledged as the source, my reporting here in Notes on Crime was behind a significant intervention by Baroness Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, last week at the Court of Appeal - administering a rap across the knuckles of the Crown Prosecution Service that has left the CPS publicly embarrassed and at risk of further judicial retribution.

In my recent Notes on Crime article, “the misrepresentation of the Hampshire rape case” I examined the troubling errors made, both in the reporting of the case and in the resulting commentary fuelled by the public outcry over the decision of the trial judge at Southampton Crown Court, HHJ Rowland, not to send the three convicted boys to detention.

The article also drew public attention for the first time to the grievous factual mistakes in a CPS press release which was published online after the sentencing hearing on May 21st. The errors were still present in the press release when I published my “misrepresentations” article on June 9th. 

Continue @ NOC

The Hampshire Rape Case 🪶 Notes And Corrections