While the mullahs’ rhetoric is clearly anti-Israeli, relations between the two countries are far more complex than one might think. There are in fact two opposing groups in Iran, one intent on doing business by all means with the rest of the world, while the other aims to liberate peoples from colonization. The former has never stopped doing business with Israel, while the latter fights against it, just as it fights against the imperialism of the United Kingdom and the United States.
Despite the Israeli propaganda campaign to persuade Western media that the Iranian response didn’t cause any damage, the truth is emerging. Tehran did not seek to attack the Israeli civilian population, but to test the IDF defenses. For the first time, it used hypersonic missiles that neither Israel’s allies nor its own army were able to intercept.
Wars have considerable costs. The war against the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine is mainly borne by Europeans, while that against the Arabs of Palestine is borne by the United States. All these expenses serve the same strategy, that of Anglo-Saxon global domination.
A controversy has arisen over my analyses of the personal responsibility of former Chancellor Angela Merkel and former President François Hollande in the current war in Ukraine. My colleagues claim that I made it all up and that these two personalities are innocent. I’d just be peddling Russian disinformation. 
Upon instructions from my Government and pursuant to our letter dated 1 April 2024 concerning the Israeli regime’s armed attacks against the diplomatic premises of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic, which led to the martyrdom of seven Iranian senior military advisers (A/78/838-S/2024/281), I would like to inform you that, in the late hours of 13 April 2024, the Islamic Republic of Iran carried out a series of military strikes on Israeli military objectives. (...)
Atomic war is possible. World peace hangs on the finger of the United States, blackmailed by Ukrainian "integral nationalists" and Israeli "revisionist Zionists". If Washington doesn’t deliver weapons to massacre the Russians and Gazans, they won’t hesitate to launch Armageddon.
The massacre of 33,000 Palestinian civilians by Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet, followed by his refusal to take the steps ordered by the International Court of Justice, and finally his refusal to comply with the demands of Security Council Resolution 2728, are reminiscent of the Masada syndrome. This fanatical extremism is more the stuff of psychiatry than politics.
Who knows the history of the Ukrainian "integral nationalists", "Nazis" according to the terminology of the Kremlin? It begins during the First World War, continues during the Second, the Cold War and continues today in modern Ukraine. Many documents have been destroyed and modern Ukraine forbids under penalty of imprisonment to mention their crimes. The fact remains that these people massacred at least four million of their compatriots and conceived the architecture of the Final Solution, that is, the murder of millions of people because of their real or supposed membership in the Jewish or Gypsy communities of Europe.
Everyone has an opinion to explain the massacres committed by the State of Israel in Gaza. While in the 70s and 80s, it was seen as a demonstration of Anglo-Saxon imperialism, many interpret it today as a conflict between Jews and Arabs. Reviewing the long period of history - four centuries -, Thierry Meyssan, a consultant to several governments, analyzes the origins of Zionism, its true ambitions and determines who the enemy is.
We reproduce the text of Thierry Meyssan’s speech in Magdeburg (Germany), at the conference organized by the magazine Compact, "Amitié avec la Russie" , on November 4, 2023. In it, he explains what, in his view, constitutes the fundamental difference between the two conceptions of the world order now clashing from the Donbass to Gaza: that of the Western bloc and that to which the rest of the world refers. The question is not whether this order should be dominated by one power (unipolar) or by a group of powers (multipolar), but whether or not it should respect the sovereignty of each. He draws on the history of international law, as conceived by Tsar Nicholas II and Nobel Peace Prize winner Léon Bourgeois.
