iran

3 Comments Posted on by Azad Sameer Indian Army

Study Leave in the Enemy Camp

By Brig Azad Sameer (Retd)

​In 2004 I had a brain wave that a break from the Army would perhaps do me some good. I applied for a year’s study leave. The Indian Army did something rather brave: they granted me leave as requested. The mission? Head to Pune University, enroll in the M.Phil program for Defense Studies, and return  with a sharper mind, hopefully well versed with matters of national security. Little did I know that I was walking into the enemy camp in civvies?

​I arrived on campus as a seasoned “Realist.” For nearly two decades, my worldview was built on the sturdy foundation of hard power, deterrence, and the immutable logic of Si vis pacem, para bellum—if you want peace, prepare for war. I was a walking, talking embodiment of the military establishment, albeit a very academic one for that year.​

Then, the curriculum happened.

​An Officer and a Pacifist?

​The irony began the moment I opened the syllabus for a mandatory core subject: Peace and Conflict Studies. There I was, a serving officer whose entire career was defined by the necessity of the military, sitting in a classroom where the prescribed reading list included a direct assault on my profession.​

The book at the top of the list? “Peace: An Idea Whose Time Has Come” by Anatol Rapoport.

​Imagine an executive from Kentucky Fried Chicken being sent to attend a mandatory seminar on the spiritual wonders of strict vegetarianism. My plight was more or less the same. My employer—the Army—was literally footing the bill for me to study a text that argued, with devastating conviction, that militaries aren’t just unnecessary; they are a curse on global society. I was a “Realist” behind enemy lines, reading a manual on why my own uniform was really a part of the problem.

​The Book: “Peace: An Idea Whose Time Has Come”

​Anatol Rapoport doesn’t pull his punches. With a single burst from his “AK”, he brings down Clausewitz, Sun Tzu and Hegel, all in one go. In this work, he explores the evolution of war not as a glorious necessity of statecraft, but as a tragic, systemic failure.

​Rapoport’s View: War as a Disease

To Rapoport, war is not a rational tool used by states to achieve goals. Instead, he presents a perspective that was, for a soldier, undoubtedly quite jarring:

  • The Pathological View: Rapoport argues that war is essentially an outcome of a “diseased human mind.” He views the institution of war as a social pathology – a chronic illness that has infected human civilization. To him, the “need” for war is a psychological glitch we haven’t yet outgrown. He hopes that the evolved human being will outgrow this “need”.
  • Abolition, Not Management: While my many Realist stalwarts call for “Conflict Management” or “Limited War,” Rapoport was calling for the total de-legitimization of War and the military. To him, peace isn’t just a ceasefire; it’s the total rescue of humanity from a long-standing mental disorder.
  • ​The Parasitic Cancer. Anatol Rapoport famously employed a biological metaphor to describe the global military apparatus as a malignant cancer on human society. His view wasn’t just a rhetorical insult; it was a systemic analysis of how military institutions function. Here are the core reasons behind his perspective:
    • Self-Perpetuation (The “Parasitic” Nature). Rapoport argued that like a cancer cell, the military-industrial complex has its own “genetic code” focused solely on growth and survival. It does not exist to solve a specific problem (like winning a final war) and then disappear. Instead, it creates conditions (fear, perceived threats) that ensure it continues to receive funding and power. It thrives even if it harms the “host” (society).
    • Diversion of Social Energy. In biology, a tumor consumes nutrients that the body needs for healthy organs. Rapoport saw the military in the same light. Massive amounts of wealth, scientific intelligence, and human labor are “sucked” into the military machine. This prevents society from addressing real existential threats like poverty, disease, and environmental collapse
    • Decoupling from Human Conscience. Rapoport criticized military strategists for treating war as a “game” or a mathematical problem. By removing the moral and human cost from the equation, the military functions like a soulless biological process. This “blind growth” occurs without regard for the pain or destruction it causes to the global social fabric.
    • The Autotelic Nature of Arms Races. The term autotelic describes an activity or experience that is an end in itself, rather than a means to an end.He viewed the arms race as a classic symptom of this cancer. Each “cell” (nation) grows its military because the neighboring “cell” is growing. Each military has a symbiotic relationship with the adversary’s military. One is entirely dependent on the other for its own survival. This leads to a state of metastasis where the growth becomes uncontrollable and serves no defensive purpose, eventually reaching a point where it can destroy the entire global organism (through nuclear war).
    • Host Destruction. The ultimate tragedy of a tumor is that by successfully killing its host, it also kills itself. Rapoport warned that the global military establishment is on a path to a Nuclear Holocaust. In its quest for “security” and dominance, it creates a world so dangerous that total annihilation becomes a statistical probability.

The Author: Who was Anatol Rapoport?

​Anatol Rapoport (1911–2007) was a true polymath—a concert pianist, a mathematical psychologist, and a pioneer in Game Theory. Despite my hard core “Realist” foundations, it was hard not to respect a man who was nothing short of a genius. He had won a famous international tournament on cooperation with the simplest possible strategy: “Tit for Tat.” He was a co-founder of the Peace Research Institute in Oslo and spent a life time trying to apply rigorous academic logic to the often irrational pursuit of human conflict.
​
The “After-Action” Report

​So, was I converted? Did I trade my combat fatigues for a khadi kurta and a start a protest against the military industrial complex? ​Not exactly. I didn’t leave Pune University ready to dismantle the world’s arsenals in a hurry. However, the irony of the situation did its work. Being forced to study Rapoport’s “Peace” didn’t make me a pacifist, but it did make me a sort of “thinking Realist.” When I consider the military industrial complex of the USA, Rapoport’s perspective looks every bit real.

​I realized that while hard power is a reality on our borders, viewing the world only through a gun sight is a form of tunnel vision. The Army sent me to Pune to learn about the defense of the nation from an academic perspective; ironically, I learned that truly defending it might involve understanding the mind of a man who thought my very existence was a symptom of a sick world. Surprisingly, even today Peace and conflict Studies is still part of the university’s core curriculum for Defense Studies. But I wonder if Anatol Rapoport is now on the reading list.

​Looking back at 2004, I realize that the most dangerous thing in a conflict may not be the enemy’s hardware—it could just as well be the inability to see the world from a different angle. Even if that angle thinks you’re the problem!
 

2 Comments Posted on by Azad Sameer International

The Paradox of Operation Epic Fury: Hollow Victory Against Unbroken Will

By Brig Azad Sameer (Retd)

To understand the strategic paradox of Operation Epic Fury, we can juxtapose the empirical data of Iran’s physical devastation into the broader narrative of its psychological and political survival. Who lost or won and whether the conflict achieved anything more than mindless devastation is a million dollar question. The history of modern warfare is littered with victors who mastered the battlefield only to find themselves paralyzed by the peace that followed. As of now Operation Epic Fury stands as the ultimate testament to this phenomenon. While the United States has functionally dismantled Iran’s conventional military capacity, the stalled diplomacy in Islamabad suggests that military obliteration has failed to translate into strategic submission.

​The scale of the beating endured by the Islamic Republic is historically unprecedented for a 38-day campaign. According to IHS Jane’s Defense and satellite analysis from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the kinetic degradation of Iran’s sovereignty is almost total. Neutral observers estimate that 90% of the Iranian regular Navy and approximately 55% of the IRGC’s fast-attack fleet now rest at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Iran’s Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), once a formidable layered shield of S-300 and Khordad-15 batteries, has been degraded by over 80%, leaving the nation’s skies effectively under the management of Allied air power.

​Furthermore, the bleeding extends deep into the industrial heart of the regime. Combined data from European intelligence agencies and neutral maritime monitors suggest that 85% of Iran’s defense industrial base—specifically the facilities responsible for the Shahed drone series and the Fateh ballistic missile families—has been reduced to rubble. With over 2,000 command-and-control nodes neutralized, the Iranian military is currently a headless giant, possessing the mass of a nation but the coordination of a ghost.

​Yet, despite being bombed back to a pre-industrial state, the Great Wall of the Iranian state remains standing. Like a heavyweight boxer who has lost every round and is bleeding from every pore, Tehran refuses to throw in the towel. This defiance is not born of military strength, but of a calculated asymmetric resilience. By mining the Strait of Hormuz and retreating into a deep state of guerrilla governance, the regime has ensured that the U.S. cannot claim a total victory. The very fact that U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance found himself at a negotiating table in Islamabad—rather than accepting a formal surrender—proves that Iran has achieved at least a defensive draw. Many analysts continue to argue that the much talked about US rescue operation was indeed a delightful smokescreen for a strategic operation aimed at seizing the enriched uranium located at the Isfahan facility. The fact that this operation failed implies that not all the operational objectives of the US have been achieved. Before the Operation commenced the Strait of Hormuz was well and truly open. For over six weeks now the maritime traffic through the strait is just a trickle, causing severe economic migraine to the global community. These two facets further reinforce the defensive draw hypothesis.

​In this light, the net effect of Operation Epic Fury is a stalemate of extremes. The U.S. has achieved most of its kinetic objectives: the missile factories are dust and the nuclear infrastructure is severely compromised. However, the political objective—a fundamental change in the regime’s behavior or its collapse—remains elusive. Iran has traded its physical infrastructure for a hardened, singular narrative of survival. As U.S. destroyers now are in the close vicinity of the treacherous, mine-laden waters of the Gulf, they do so not as conquerors, but as co-custodians of a fragile ceasefire. Iran may be broken, but as long as it refuses to concede, it has not truly lost. The hurricane has passed, the wall is scarred and crumbling, but it has not yet fallen.

4 Comments Posted on by Azad Sameer International

The Trojan Ceasefire: Naval Encroachment and the Prelude to Amphibious Escalation

By Brig Azad Sameer (Retd)

The chronicles of military history are awash with peace periods used not for de-escalation, but for the strategic repositioning of offensive assets that would be too vulnerable during active hostilities. As of 11 April 2026, the transit of U.S. guided-missile destroyers into the Persian Gulf under the mantle of a humanitarian mine-clearing mission appears to be a classic war college case of this maneuver. While the Islamabad talks superficially aim for a diplomatic exit to the conflict, the physical movement of the USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. and USS Michael Murphy into the heart of the Gulf suggests that the United States is not preparing for peace, but may well be instead maximizing it’s configuration for the failure of talks and more lethal phase of Operation Epic Fury.

​A ceasefire, by definition, is a standstill agreement intended to freeze the tactical map to allow for negotiation. By moving high-value combatants through the Strait of Hormuz and into what Iran considers its territorial waters the U.S. has fundamentally altered the military status quo. If the introduction of front-line warships into a contested combat zone during a cessation of hostilities does not constitute a violation, the term ceasefire loses all functional meaning and will need to be redefined. It is a confrontational act of naval encroachment that weaponizes the diplomatic process to bypass the very A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) barriers that kept the U.S. fleet at bay during the height of the kinetic exchange.

​The skepticism surrounding the mine-clearing narrative is justified. Heavy destroyers are not the tools of maritime sanitation; they are the tools of power projection. The reality is far more clinical: the U.S. is possibly shaping the battlefield. By establishing a permanent naval presence inside the Gulf now, they get rid of the bottleneck risk of the Strait of Hormuz for the future. These warships serve as the vanguard for a much larger logistical build-up. With the Iranian fast boat threat suppressed by the ceasefire terms and the coastal missile batteries momentarily silenced by diplomacy, the U.S. is free to conduct the hydrographic surveys and coastal reconnaissance necessary for terrestrial operations. It is also a high stake method of testing Iranian resolve.

​The true objective likely lies in the preparation for full-scale amphibious operations. An invasion of the Iranian littoral requires more than just air superiority; it requires a sanitised Gulf where amphibious assault ships (LHAs) and transport docks (LPDs) can operate without the incessant threat of a closed door behind them. By this maneuver now, the U.S. is in essence pre-staging the heavy lifters. The current destroyers are the scouts ensuring that when the ceasefire inevitably collapses – or is deemed expired by Washington – the heavy iron of the Marine Expeditionary Units will already be in position to strike the Iranian mainland.

​In conclusion, the U.S. naval movement is possibly a classic example of strategic opportunism. By taking cover under the ceasefire, the U.S. has achieved through a peaceful transit what may have been far more dangerous during active war. This is not the behavior of a nation seeking a durable exit; it is the behavior of a superpower positioning its pieces for a final, knockout blow on the terrestrial plane. Operation Epic Fury is not ending; it is possibly just reloading. What we cannot figure out now is whether the ceasefire is entirely an eyewash or some serious effort towards peace during which the pawns are being moved quite unfairly, to prepare for the contingency of failure of talks.

5 Comments Posted on by Azad Sameer International

The Isfahan Rescue : A Classic Military Overkill or a Cover for Something Bigger?

Brig Azad Sameer (Retd)

According to the official Pentagon narrative, the rescue of DUDE 44 B was the most devoted act of camaraderie in human history. After an F-15E Strike Eagle went down on April 1, 2026, the pilot (DUDE44A) was whisked away within hours. However, the Weapons System Officer (WSO: DUDE44B) took a bit longer, leading to a mission that can only be described as a tactical overkill. To save one man, the U.S. launched an armada of 155 aircraft and landed two $100-million MC-130J Commando II transports on a wet, sandy farm field. It’s a touching story, provided you don’t look at a map—or a balance sheet.

Holes in the Narrative

In the world of standard Search and Rescue, you send a couple of agile HH-60W Jolly Green II helicopters or maybe a CV-22B Osprey. You do not land two massive, 70-ton fixed-wing transports in the mud 100 miles away from the guy you’re looking for. Using an MC-130J to rescue a single airman is like using a cruise ship to pick up a stranded jet-skier: it’s flashy, but it’s a logistical nightmare that puts hundreds more people at risk. By putting 96 personnel on the ground in the heart of Iran, the Pentagon didn’t just plan a rescue; they accidentally invited a hundred people to a potential hostage crisis party.

The geography of the mission is where the official story really starts to sink – much like those MC-130Js in the Isfahan mud. The landing site was uncomfortably close to Iran’s primary underground nuclear facilities and missile infrastructure. Furthermore, the cargo involved—four MH-6 Little Bird helicopters that had to be offloaded and reassembled – is the textbook signature of a Direct Action raiding party. You don’t bring an assembly-required helicopter kit to a time-sensitive rescue mission unless you were already heading there to kick open a very specific, very nuclear door.

Strategic Mission

The logical conclusion is that the rescue of DUDE 44 Bravo was a mission of opportunity. The 96 personnel and their heavy-lift aircraft were almost certainly on a primary strategic mission – likely a counter-proliferation raid or a high-value target seizure near Isfahan. That also explains the use of 155 combat aircraft for the rescue mission. The Iranian airspace had to be sanitised for a strategic mission which involved the move of two clumsy, elephantine transport aircraft. When the F-15E crashed nearby, the Pentagon pivot was swift: if the secret raid failed (which, given the stuck in the mud outcome, it seemingly did), they could blow the sensitive gear to smithereens and tell the world it was all a heroic, albeit a bit expensive, effort to leave no man behind. It’s much easier to explain losing $300 million in hardware as saving a brother than as getting the tyres stuck during a botched nuclear heist. Also, a new word got added to our glossary of military terminology: scuttle. To be used when the getaway car gets stuck in the mud.

The Great Escape

However, we must give credit where it is due: the eventual extraction of those 96 personnel was a genuine feat of professional airmanship. When the heavy-hitters failed, the U.S. successfully pivoted to three lighter CASA CN-235 aircraft. These nimble turboprops did what the massive Commandos couldn’t – they landed on that same soggy strip, packed in nearly a hundred elite soldiers, and hummed their way back to safety. While the Official Version might be a tall tale, the fact that all the personnel returned home without a single casualty remains the highlight of the story that holds water. It is tactical brilliance that really needs a standing ovation. Someone took a very smart abort mission decision, early enough to make the great escape possible. It’s a bit funny though, 96 went in to save one and then the 96 had to be rescued!

The Concluding Question

One odd question remains.  Why were the CASA CN235 aircraft not used for the special mission in the first place, when it was evidently clear that these were more suited for the sticky airstrips available? They could not obviously carry the Little Bird choppers, necessary for the onsite move.Logically, it appears that ONLY MC130Js had a mission appropriate pay load capability. Something really heavy had to be brought in or taken out or probably both ways. We generally know that enriched uranium is normally carried in very heavy lead lined steel containers. It’s also a probable reason why the aircraft refused to take off from the sand after they landed. It’s a different matter that these special containers, now melted and mangled, maybe somewhere amongst the aircraft wreckage.

1 Comment Posted on by Azad Sameer International

The Murder of Sovereignty: A Moment of Global Reckoning

​By Veteran Brigadier Azad Sameer

As of today, the world stands on the precipice of a contrived calamity. The joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran represents a profound breakdown of the international rules-based order. By targeting sovereign leadership and infrastructure during active diplomatic negotiations, these actions do more than ignite a regional war; they dismantle the very concept of Just War Theory and the sanctity of the UN Charter.

​​A Violation of Law and Logic

​Under the pretext of preventing nuclear proliferation, the aggressors have sidestepped the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN Security Council. It is a bitter irony that the United States—the only power to have ever deployed atomic weapons and a nation currently retaining a stockpile capable of ending civilization multiple times over—is now the primary actor in an unprovoked assault to prevent a hypothetical threat.

​Just war theory requires last resort, legitimate authority, and proportionality. None of these pillars are present here. To attack while diplomats are at the table is to acknowledge that force is the first choice, not the last. To carry out political assassinations is to engage in extrajudicial state-sponsored violence that invites a cycle of retaliation, which we are now witnessing as the Middle East descends into chaos. Historically we have seen that this type of unilateral use of force has been the cause of breeding and growth of terrorism. The current situation only aggravates that problem.

The Fallacy of the Global Policeman

​A dominant rationalization offered by the aggressors is the tyrannical nature of the Iranian government and its history of internal oppression. However, this argument is primarily inconsistent and legally hollow. The in-house political struggle of a nation belongs solely to its people; it is not a mandate for foreign powers to act as global judge, jury, and executioner. By initiating a military operation for regime change under the facade of liberation, the U.S. and Israel have unilaterally appointed themselves as global policemen—a role that violates the foundational principle of state sovereignty.

​The idea that a state can be bombed into democracy is a historical absurdity. If the Iranian people seek to challenge or change their leadership, that is their inherent right and their struggle to wage. When external powers interfere through high-altitude strikes and political assassinations, they do not bring freedom; they bring chaos, martyrdom, and the destruction of the very civil society required for internal reform. International order cannot survive if tyranny becomes a subjective thumbs up for any nuclear-armed power to dismantle a sovereign neighbour.

Historical Amnesia

This historical pattern of interventionism is not an anomaly, but a continuation of a destabilizing doctrine. From the decades-long morass in Afghanistan to the 2003 invasion of Iraq—launched under the false pretences of weapons of mass destruction—the United States has repeatedly bypassed international law to pursue regime change. The 2011 intervention in Libya further illustrates this catastrophic cycle; what was framed as a humanitarian mission to protect civilians quickly devolved into the state-sponsored assassination of its leader, leaving a power vacuum that turned the nation into a failed state, a civil war and a marketplace for modern slavery. The western intervention in Iraq resulted in the country being fractured to pieces and the establishment of the dreaded Islamic state and organizations like the ISIS. Until the sanctions hit hard Iraq was near ideal secular state. What a demonic transformation? Afghanistan marked the return of the Taliban. Dreaded Terrorists have returned to power in Syria too. In every instance, the forced dismantling of sovereign structures did not yield the promised democracy. Instead, it fractured civil society, displaced millions, and created fertile breeding grounds for extremist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. By ignoring the lessons of these ruins, the current aggression against Iran risks repeating a history where liberation serves only as a precursor to enduring regional chaos and the global proliferation of terror.

The BRICS Response: Rhetoric without Resolve

​The expanded BRICS+ bloc has issued a joint statement strongly condemning the violation of Iranian sovereignty. However, this response remains strategically way too insufficient. While China and Russia have categorized the attacks premeditated aggression, they have stopped short of offering any material or military deterrent. By limiting their intervention to diplomatic notes and calls for dialogue at a toothless UN, BRICS has apparently highlighted its inability to propose a functional security alternative. This disinclination signals to the aggressors that while the Global South may dissent morally, it lacks the resolve to stop the dismantling of sovereign states by force.

The Connivance of Continental Silence

Simultaneously, the response from the European Union has been characterized by a lukewarm, strategic ambiguity that borders on moral bankruptcy. Rather than acting as a principled mediator or a champion of the international legal framework it claims to uphold, the EU has issued hollow pleas for de-escalation that fail to name the aggressors or acknowledge the illegality of the strikes. This paralysis stems from a deep-seated reluctance to break ranks with Washington, yet such subservience effectively signals that the rules-based order is a selective privilege rather than a universal right. By offering only bureaucratic hand-wringing in the face of a sovereign nation’s dismantling, Brussels is setting a catastrophic precedent that erodes the security of all mid-sized and smaller states. This collective silence is not merely a diplomatic failure; it is an invitation to future lawlessness. If the sanctity of borders and the immunity of leadership can be discarded today in the Middle East without a forceful European rebuke, there is no logical or legal barrier to prevent similar military adventurism in other strategic territories. Today the target is Tehran, but a world without enforceable sovereignty is a world where even the quietest corners of the globe—perhaps even the resource-rich expanses of Greenland—could tomorrow find themselves in the crosshairs of a nuclear power’s unilateral security interests. Failure to act now transforms the EU from a bystander into an architect of a new era of global anarchy.

​The Need for Urgent Action

​The retaliation from Iran and its allies is the predictable result of a sovereign state being pushed to the brink. When the world allows one or two nations to dictate the internal politics of others through fire and steel, it signals the end of global stability.

​The rest of the world must react. If the international community does not move beyond urging restraint to an explicit condemnation and active diplomatic isolation of the aggressors, we are effectively endorsing a world where might is the only right. We must demand an immediate cessation of hostilities. The alternative is a total war where the primary casualties are the innocent millions who have no say in the games of nuclear-armed titans. Are we heading into global anarchy? Time is running out.