The Trials and Tribulations of Zionist-Imperialism

Diego Alcalá: Hello everyone, welcome back to the Anti-Imperialist Scholars Collective podcast, or as our friend Bikrum calls it, the AIASC podcast.

Bikrum Gill: What?

Diego Alcalá: Here with episode number 5. We are so excited to have you here. My name is Diego Alcalá and I'm joined by— why don't you guys introduce yourself?

Bikrum Gill: Go ahead.

Navid Farnia: I'm Navid Farnia.

Bikrum Gill: When when did I ever say ice? I never said ice.

Diego Alcalá: Sir, what is your name?

Navid Farnia: What is your name?

Bikrum Gill: My name is Bikram.

Diego Alcalá: Bikram, you have said it's the ice podcast. Ace podcast.

Navid Farnia: I don't know.

Diego Alcalá: I'm just obsessed with ice.

Navid Farnia: I'm sorry.

Diego Alcalá: So guys, welcome back to the podcast. We're very excited to be here. We are looking forward to this episode. We'll have a few topics. Some of them include. The buildup in the Caribbean. Um, I'll talk a little bit about Puerto Rico, but we'll look primarily at the military buildup of the United States in the area. How does that, uh, influence Venezuela, Colombia, and some statements. We'll also be looking at Lebanon, and, uh, we'll talk about Russia. And we remind everyone that we have our first event, uh, on Russia today, so we will be talking about that in the next podcast, hopefully.

Navid Farnia: Yeah.

Diego Alcalá: And then we'll talk a little bit about other issues of importance. So let's get right to it. I think we already went through the really cool background music, so now we're just going to jump right in, right? There's a war in the Caribbean, guys, again.

Bikrum Gill: Ongoing.

Navid Farnia: Yes, there is.

Diego Alcalá: Okay. Do you guys want to elaborate on that, or would you guys—

Bikrum Gill: I mean, who wants to take the first couple of minutes?

Navid Farnia: Yeah, I can pick up. You know, as you all know, like, there's a U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean that seems to be accelerating by the day. Daily, almost daily drone strikes on fishing boats, what the U.S. government calls drug boats, that, you know, they cannot conceivably be drug boats. Like, they're little boats that There's no way they can get from Venezuela to Miami or to even Haiti or whatever. But nonetheless, this is what the U.S. government is calling them. You know, the Venezuelan, the Venezuelan state and the people are building up as well. They're getting ready for, they're getting ready for a military confrontation. You know, I'm, it's interesting, like what Gustavo Petro said with Colombia, in Colombia yesterday, talking about The proposing the formation or the reformation of Gran Colombia. I don't know if you all saw that.

Diego Alcalá: Yeah.

Navid Farnia: That is, you know, like, if there's any follow-through on that, that would be quite the thing.

Diego Alcalá: I think there's a bunch of stuff that you just threw out there. Let's just slow it down, give Bikrum an opportunity to get more coffee in him, and that way we can make sure he activates his synapse.

Bikrum Gill: Why did you assume it was coffee?

Diego Alcalá: You're just going to jump in, aren't you?

Bikrum Gill: No, no, I wasn't. I'm saying, why did you assume it was coffee, though?

Diego Alcalá: Let's call it coffee. It's better for the kids. Okay. All right, Bikrum. Navid, we have a situation in which the United States has declared war against what they call international drug cartels, and it's using international humanitarian law to justify the attack, direct attack of fishing vessels. In the Caribbean and in the Pacific Ocean, but let's concentrate on the Caribbean. Um, that is one of the many actions that have been going on, and you then jump into Venezuela. So let's walk us through the whole Venezuela. Why are they getting ready? What's going on with that?

Navid Farnia: Bikrum, you want to take that?

Bikrum Gill: Uh, you go ahead, and then I'll— I, there's a couple points that you, um, that you had mentioned that I wanted to just like follow up on. But I think like the question of why, why targeting Venezuela Yeah, go ahead, Navid.

Navid Farnia: Yeah, so we've talked about this previously on the podcast, right? So, you know, like part of it is Venezuela's, you know, resources, obviously oil being the major one. Venezuela has the greatest oil reserves in the world, of any country in the world, including Saudi Arabia, including Iran, including Russia, including the United States. So that is a major aspect of it, right? And then the other aspect of it is like this sort of Monroe Doctrine, political, military, you know, sort of the US playing an increased role, particularly as it recedes on the global sphere and on the global landscape with respect to China and Russia, you know, playing an increased military role, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, right?

Diego Alcalá: Right.

Navid Farnia: So those are the 2 major aspects to it. And yeah, I mean, I— and I'll also say, like, a lot of people talk about Monroe Doctrine, which they should, but also, like, it's also a reflection of, like, in the early 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt made the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which also gave, like, international police powers to the United States, right? So it's a continuation of all this. And yeah, you can— Bikram, you can—

Bikrum Gill: Yeah, so I think the point that I would just add, it's one that I've raised in earlier episodes that we've had, Navid, is— and I think, like, you know, Diego, when you're talking about the targeting of drug, supposed, like, drug-running boats, whether off the coast of Venezuela or elsewhere, you know, it reminds us of a point that we've come to is, what is imperialism? You know, like, so I think, like, there's one point targeting a country's resources, but there's something else that I think we need to emphasize again and again. Imperialism, especially under capitalism, is concerned very much with questions of flows and not just with place and territory. Right. So what is the relationship between states? What is the relationship of the movement of goods between states? Right. That's what imperialism really seeks to control. And so, like, one element is to establish the projection of power, a price-setting power in terms of the movement of oil into and out of Venezuela.

Navid Farnia: Right.

Bikrum Gill: Or like out of Venezuela, the movement of goods into the Caribbean, the movement of goods into and out of the Americas. It's a way to establish that control. So you might not even need ownership over the oil, but what you want is to ensure that the Chinese or the Russians don't have direct access. So the imperialist power seeks to maintain domination over the relations between states. This is what will provision a price-setting power. And that's where I find very interesting Petro's comments, because we've seen in recent years a contradiction of sanctions, for example. Sanctions are meant to actually control relations between states, not simply punish the targeted state, but also make it difficult for other states to trade with that state. But we've seen this contradiction there, where targeted states are deepening their relation with one another, right? So we'll see Iran and Venezuela or Cuba deepening their relations out of almost material necessity. And if one element of the buildup in the Caribbean and the Monroe Doctrine is to Balkanize the Americas, Right, is to keep it fractured and to keep Washington as the glue that holds whatever it is together. You see, Petro is actually— it seems like this process is generating an impulse towards potentially unity, unity of the Americas, right? Like in that way. So that's an interesting kind of dynamic we're seeing at play here.

Diego Alcalá: Yeah, I wanted to jump in because you mentioned something important as to the flow and control of flow, and we saw that when Trump got into power and his claim to the Panama Canal, right? It wasn't necessarily— it wasn't necessary for the United States to actually invade Panama and take over that route, important, extremely important trading route. But it was enough to trigger the government of Panama to back off whatever relationship they had with a Chinese company that was going to be administering the canal. So, as you correctly point out, it's the flow that is as important as the physical nature of the control. Now, I'll also add to the dimension of physical control. I happen to be from Puerto Rico, the oldest colony in the world, who happens to be controlled by the United States. And I get so frustrated every time I listen to Bikrum talking about sovereignty and the control, and I'm like, why is he talking about me again? He doesn't need to. I understand. Puerto Rico is a colony. I get it. But in this particular moment, we see why Puerto Rico is a colony. We are primarily not only a market, but more importantly, it is a military outpost. It's been forever where the Spanish wanted Puerto Rico in order to control all flow from the European states to Latin America. And Puerto Rico sitting in its position is the most important Island militarily in the area. There's a big issue going on in Puerto Rico currently. There's a lot of resistance to the increased military presence. For those who may not remember, back in the '90s, Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans united in doing mass mobilizations, protests, in order to ensure that the U.S. Navy leaves the island of municipal island of Vieques. Uh, which is off the coast of Puerto Rico to the east. Um, it's one of 2 islands that the United States Navy utilized and rented out in order to train Marines and within, um, and other exercises, which created— and we still have significant pollution from that area. That increase in military activity in the Caribbean has reactivated not only the Roosevelt Roads facility, but other, uh, facilities that were running on minimum but also, uh, maybe abandoned too. Um, so those particular locations have been taken over by US personnel, which brings not only those memories but also a fresh bunch of soldiers. We have reports coming in from island of Vieques in which Marines or other soldiers are asking the local community where they can get girls and, and, and other matters that would be attuned to what, uh, underground economies, uh, sustain these type of militaries. But the damage has been done. It isn't that far off since we were able to ensure some mass movement against the US military, and seeing that come back has been very, very, uh, fresh. I think most people Right. We don't want that, but it's out of our hands right now. We've seen images for the past month of not only equipment being brought in, but training exercises off the coast of 1, 2, or 3 municipalities that are near the southern coast of Puerto Rico, and there's nothing we can do about it, right? We have to remember that we still have massive environmental damage associated with the bombings of the locations in the area, which the U.S. Navy has, like many other instances, refused to take any responsibility for. Um, and we also have the current, um, um, practices also damaging many areas in the locations that they're practicing. So, um, just throwing that out there because there is a real harm, aside from the obvious prospect of war or the theoretical aspects of what geopolitical steps are being taken within empire and outside of empire. But currently we are, along with others, of course, it's not unique to the Puerto Rico population, but it is an important component of the naval strategy of the United States.

Navid Farnia: Yeah, I mean, absolutely. I'll also say that to what both of you are saying, I think there Like, I think naval power, the importance of naval power is at the forefront of like what's happening around the globe and particularly in the Caribbean, as we see, right? Like, I mean, China just commissioned a new aircraft carrier, I think was last week. You know, I think nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, right? But, you know, the— so I've been thinking about this question of like the utility of sanctions, right? I think, you know, Bikram, we've talked about this, and I think we're going to talk about it with respect to Russia later on.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah.

Navid Farnia: I think, you know, a lot of, like, a lot of these sanctions are not— are less and less producing the intended effects of the United States. And because of this, I think we're witnessing a lot more, as you all have pointed out, like physical, physical, like physical power in the seas, right? And so I think we're going to continue to see more and more of these kinds of physical blockades as a sort of way to, you know, as a way to try to counter— or not counteract, but try to like, uh, make up for what sanctions are not doing, like financial sanctions are not doing in terms of their intended effect, right? Because of the receding power of the US dollar in the global economy and these kinds of things. So yeah.

Diego Alcalá: I wanted to add something before Bikrum jumps in. Um, it was based on the fact that you mentioned something around Petro and the Gran Colombia scheme. I think that is important to, to remember or for to inform our viewers that, um, through these strikes, it's not only Venezuelan fishermen that are being affected. We have multiple nationalities such as Trinidad and Tobago and Ecuador and Colombian nationals being affected by these strikes. And one of the people, uh, Gustavo Petro, was in one of his declarations was accusing the United States of extrajudicial killings, um, along with many others, right? But Petro's comments Um, created or accelerated opposition from Washington in which sanctions were imposed. And now the government is not only experimenting the possibility of additional sanctions, but also Petro himself is sanctioned. But also he's being tied as a gang leader of this narco-state. We have this vocabulary of always utilizing drug dealing as a police law enforcement type of tactic. Uh, but now we're seeing that tie between narco traffic, terrorism, and there hence, uh, we can legitimately, uh, overthrow you. That's what Lindsey Graham, Senator of the United States, mentioned today, uh, equating the Panama, uh, arrest, the arrest of, uh, Manuel Noriega, um, in the '90s, um, and just justifying today's actions, uh, based on that precedent. Um, of course, he doesn't mention that there are many Latin American useful, uh, officers and personnel and government officials that are actually tied to drug trafficking, but the United States do not— does not act on those particular moments based on the fact that that particular person is currently, um, helping the United States versus what is going on right now. Anyone that is a hindrance to the United States is labeled as a drug trafficker, drug trafficker leader, and hence a terrorist. I just wanted to throw that out there.

Navid Farnia: Yeah, go ahead, Bikrum.

Bikrum Gill: Well, no, I was just thinking about this, this point, Diego, that, that you're kind of returning us to, which is like a fundamental, I think, uh, relation of, of imperialism and the contemporary world order. And it's, it's demonstrative of where things are, maybe where they're going, either in terms of the challenge to U.S. Imperialism, or maybe it's a kind of continuing power in the sense that the striking of these ships, it's an attempt to reproduce this question of impunity. Who is able to raise up the threat of force and then inflict it, but with impunity? But I think this has been the rule of the imperialist system for centuries now, is that when The colonized or the non-European or the non-Western strike, that violence is considered existential, a threat to civilization, whereas the reverse, the strikes from north to south, the strike of the imperialist, is always granted impunity because it's attached to some higher purpose, right? So whether it's fighting terrorism, fighting drug runners, etc. So I think however much— this is something that I'm kind of— I've been struggling with of late. It's not like an existential issue for me in some ways, but it's just something I'm trying to come to terms with, is what does it mean to speak of the challenge to US imperialism, but exist in a world where it's still able to be the one force that can strike with impunity. You know, like you're not, you can, like we see, you can launch raids on Libya, but you won't see Libya lead a collection of states to launch raids on France, right? That we can't even, we can't even imagine that world. But at the same time, what you're also seeing in this impunity though, You know, I think like there's some— what underlies like a lot of this is, you know, Trump wants a deal, right? Or the Americans, they always want to use force to get other states to sign on to something, you know, like so there's an impunity that's demonstrated and then say, okay, sign a deal with us. So there's like a constitutionalism with which they seek to legitimize their imperial power. That question seems to be no longer assured, right? It's not like Diego Petro is being sanctioned and backing off.

Navid Farnia: Right.

Bikrum Gill: Right. Although, you know, you may have seen, you may see India now saying, we'll stop buying Russian oil, or whatever, right? But you're seeing Petro actually double down, right? And then you're also seeing this lead to more sharpening of contradictions within the imperialist bloc. I think it was the UK that said they don't agree with the targeting of— I may be mistaken, because—

Diego Alcalá: No, they stopped sharing intelligence briefings with the United States based on these particular attacks.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah. So it's like the— it's, I think, the blatant— how blatant it is, the disregard for any form of law of war or any rule of engagement, any rule of war, like any— in any sense is, I think— and then, I mean, I've brought this up in previous episodes, and I don't know enough here. I think the other thing to put on the table— that's interesting. I didn't know there's the stopping of sharing of intelligence. But like, there is a link that's worth exploring at some point between the US's gambit on oil and gas, artificial intelligence, And the way they're launching these raids. You know, because we know in Gaza, for example, the role that Palantir and these firms played in constructing kill lists using artificial intelligence. You know, there's an open question, like there's this military finance AI intersection we're seeing in this kind of U.S. attempt to renew its mode of accumulation. So, yeah, I don't know how the British decision Fits in on that. And yeah, so Diego, you were right, but I'm not going to tell you about what.

Navid Farnia: But—

Diego Alcalá: Oh, I know. I know exactly what you're going to say. But I'll let Navid jump in, because we want to hear from him now.

Navid Farnia: Just a couple of things, right? In addition to the UK, I did see that Panama's president also is saying that they're not going to allow the U.S. to use their territory as a sort of, I guess, launching pad to strike and hit Venezuela. I don't know how true that is. You know, one one can say something and and you know that that might be totally different from the reality, right? Like I don't Diego. Do you know the name of Panama's president or no?

Diego Alcalá: But you know the magic of the internet. Hold on. But you know, like this person, you know, the president, you know, José Raúl Molino. I'm sorry, Navid.

Navid Farnia: Molino.

Diego Alcalá: Molino. Yeah. Yeah. Molino. Muy bueno.

Navid Farnia: Molino? Okay. Yeah, so—

Diego Alcalá: M-U. Yep.

Navid Farnia: Yeah, he talked a big game on the canal, but I think he quickly acquiesced to the US's demands with the Panama Canal. So what we hear from him might not be what the reality is, right? The other thing I'll say, I think Petro is an interesting character, right? Because I think we've talked about this, others in our group have talked about this. Petro has been very outspoken with respect to Palestine, with respect to the genocide. He's been outspoken with what's going on with respect to in this region now, in the Caribbean. But he also has a pretty poor record when it comes to Haiti, right? He's basically an interventionist with respect to Haiti. So, you know, these are some kinds of— these are also contradictions that need to be resolved, and, you know, like those of— for those who identify as anti-imperialists, right? I would say that Petro seems to be shifting in the leftward direction again, but it's also about like, you talk the talk, can you walk the walk, right?

Diego Alcalá: He did mention just recently about how the United States, in order to protect pedophiles, is willing to invade Venezuela. So to get off the Epstein file list, he was making— he was Making sure that everyone understood that this is part of that calculus too. It's a way to distract from the issues in domestic— so war may also be used in order to shift attention, right?

Bikrum Gill: Yeah, although if we do make it to that point of the discussion, like around the Zionism-imperialism relationship, we'll see that maybe these aren't simply distractions. Yeah, maybe that issue is entangled in all of this as well, right?

Diego Alcalá: We'll get there. We'll get there. But any, any final words about this? I mean, this for sure will not be the final conversation that we have in this podcast. We just wanted to touch base on where we were right now. We know that the biggest, um, naval ship has arrived at the Caribbean already. So it's, I think, somewhere around 10% of all US naval forces are now in the Caribbean. Which is an unprecedented move, or an unprecedented strategic move, not since the Iraq War, that has been made in these past couple of days. So I'll just stop now, and if anyone wants to jump in with our final words, by all means, regarding this topic.

Bikrum Gill: Sorry, go ahead, Navid. Bikrum, go ahead.

Navid Farnia: I do have a word.

Diego Alcalá: No, no, go ahead, Navid. No, I don't want Bikrum to talk anymore.

Navid Farnia: Okay. I want to say something from the anti-imperialist position in the United States, the anti-war against Venezuela position in the United States, because we haven't seen— others have said this— we haven't seen the level of resistance to strikes against Venezuela and even Colombia and Trinidad and Tobago that we saw against— like in the war in Iraq. Obviously the genocide in Palestine and so on and so forth, right? It's it's kind of of course it's troubling. It's very troubling that you know this socialist country in the in in the Caribbean and in Latin America is not generating the kind of you know anti like anti war sentiment that we would wish for, right? But at the same time, like I talk about Venezuela, what's happening in Venezuela with my classes, and it clearly resonates with these students. Like what what like you know I talk about like the the power of sanctions and how sanctions. Have, you know, led people to like starve, right? Like 40,000 deaths, right? Um, you know, like in, in one year in Venezuela because of the sanctions, right? Um, if you all, if you all haven't heard, like, uh, heard of the report by Venezuela Analysis, A War Without Bombs, talking about the impact of sanctions, right? Um, and that's from a few years ago, um, you know, and it sort of talks about the impact in various sectors of Venezuelan society. All these things actually resonate like with young people. So how is it like that these things resonate, but it doesn't drive like, you know, those people who are organizers and activists and those who might become mobilized for anti-genocide protests to go out in the streets to talk about Venezuela, right? You know, I think that's, that's, you know, maybe that's too long of a discussion for right now, but it's something that is worthy of further analysis.

Bikrum Gill: There's never such— there's no such thing as too long.

Diego Alcalá: What discussion. And we, I mean, what a great transition to Bikrum. Why don't you go ahead and start our next topic? Well, I mean, I would—

Bikrum Gill: no, I'm going to stay here.

Diego Alcalá: Okay, go ahead.

Bikrum Gill: Can I just quickly— quick, quickly, quick.

Diego Alcalá: That's completely false, but it's not going to be quickly. Take your time. We're not in a hurry. Take your time.

Bikrum Gill: Okay. So like the— this question of— I don't know if that's entirely like accurate, Navid, because I think the comparison is not necessarily Iraq with Venezuela. But, you know, we do know that there was a war on terror that conducted drone strikes from South Asia all the way to the Horn of Africa that did not lead to antiwar protests and mobilizations either. So I think, yeah, and student people would have been upset about this, but there is a question to ask more generally about sanctions and the quote-unquote targeted strikes or the way things are presented as police-type actions. You know, because even when they bombed Iraq and Afghanistan, the response was, whoa, whoa, whoa. You should have surgical police type rather than all-out war, right? So I think there's this question of, I think it returns us to normalized violence, right? That there is a way in which there's an assumed-to-be rationality that's attached to police actions that are presented as policing contained, that aren't in the scope of explicit regime change war, right? It seems like all of us are able to live with that on a daily basis without being moved, right, to that. And I think it's an important question to ask, but it's like the war on terror. There was a war on drugs, there's a war on terror. Back to the logic of the war on drugs, but there seems to be some way that that is normalized. And that was like—

Diego Alcalá: Well, it is the matching. I think you hit it. It's both are getting united at this particular juncture in time. And now we see the force of attacking terrorists with the justification of the war on drugs. And with that great finale on my end, we'll move on to the next topic. And we're going to shift gears now, if that's okay with both of you. Okay. I was wondering if we can jump into Lebanon. I know, Navid, you wanted to talk a little bit about Lebanon, and I want to give you the opportunity just to explain what's going on. Where do you want to go?

Navid Farnia: I mean, obviously, with respect to Lebanon, since the ceasefire, the so-called ceasefire, and was it Bikram, help me out. When was that ceasefire in Lebanon? November of '24?

Bikrum Gill: Yeah, at the end of November.

Navid Farnia: Yeah, so yeah, a year now. Oh yeah, because it was right, like the day after the HTS offensive began, right? So, but since then, the Zionists have committed thousands of violations, literally thousands, like I think over 5,000. And so, you know, what are they doing? Like, why are they hitting Lebanon continually, particularly southern Lebanon, but also like the suburbs of Beirut, right? So there was a report, you know, there was Zionist reports coming out, I think, in the last few days that Hezbollah is rebuilding the supply lines in Syria that were sort of cut off after the coup in Syria in December are being reestablished to connect back Iran to Lebanon and Hezbollah. So, you know, it's interesting to see like this rhetoric, you know, we can talk about whether it's a psychological operation or whether it's real.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah.

Navid Farnia: So I think there's, I think there's some real elements to it. But yeah, I know Bikram or Diego, I don't know if you guys want to elaborate on some of these points.

Bikrum Gill: I mean, I think the— well, you know, it's interesting. One thing that you saw a report, there's like the headline on Al-Mayadeen right now about an Israeli border wall crossing into Lebanon, violating the Blue Line. It's, you know, if we think Lebanon and Gaza together in some ways, We know, like, in Gaza, for example, they have 52% under Israeli occupation. And I think there's a way in which you can see in both Lebanon and Gaza, again, what we were talking about in Venezuela, is there's a demonstrative effect that they're going for, is that we possess escalation dominance. We possess the power to escalate, and we possess the power to occupy. I think this is what they're trying to demonstrate. And the reality in Gaza and Lebanon is that the resistance is not only not disarmed, but it continues to be present in such a way that really prevents any attempt at a permanent occupation. But you can still see that doesn't undermine the point that there is clearly a gambit at a normalization of an occupation, both in the south of Lebanon and in Gaza. And I think the Americans are really trying to advance this even further. And I think with Lebanon, there are a couple of objectives. One is I think there is this objective of anxiety around Hezbollah and the rearmament of Hezbollah. Or even if that's not happening, it's clear they haven't disarmed them. But then on the other hand, it's like, I think it's a process of shaping the character of the Lebanese state as a whole as well. You know, there's an attempt to do what they're trying to do in Latin America. And we see Petro responding in a particular way. And the question is, which way will it go in Lebanon? Which way will the social forces Is it going to be, well, the problem with the bombing is Hezbollah, we must isolate Hezbollah? Or is it going to be clarification that the real enemy is Zionism, as we've heard the Lebanese leadership, you know, off and on come to that realization? But, you know, the Saudis have an objective, the Gulf states have an objective of isolating the resistance. Is this a way that they're trying to shape the character of the Lebanese state as well?

Navid Farnia: Yeah. I mean, I think the Lebanese state, like, the Lebanese state is, you know, I think the Lebanese state is coming to the realization that they cannot, like, you know, they cannot take essentially a pro-Zionist normalization position conceivably, like, in any sort of, and be legitimate, seen as legitimate in any particular way, right? So I think the objectives of the Zionist imperialists in Lebanon are failing. Frankly, you know, I watched a podcast with that that was an interview with Leif Marouf from Palestine TV the other day, and he talked about how like if the Israelis invade Lebanon again, they'll probably do it from occupied Syrian territory. And if they do so, that'll unleash a whole like series, like a whole domino effect in terms of Syria itself, and talking about the potential. of then the Syrian resistance, like whatever underground resistance that exists, that's, you know, probably organizing as we speak, to then take advantage of like the weak Syrian state, right? And so there's all these kinds of forces at play. And that's not even to talk about like the Syrian government and Jolani, right? Like, I'm not totally convinced that, you know, that he's 100% in the pockets of the United States and the Zionist imperialists. I think that the— Yeah. That there's particular machinations by Russia that, you know, that are, that are still present there. Um, there's particular machinations by the region's resistance forces, the Axis of Resistance, that are still playing a role in what's happening in Syria as well, right? And then therefore that filters also into Lebanon, right? So I think, I don't think the objectives, even if, even if the Zionists can claim that they're achieving their objectives, the reality on the ground does not like, and they can continue to strike as much as they want, But the reality on the ground does not bear out in that way, right?

Diego Alcalá: I would just jump in just because it— I think it reminds me of something that was said as to the Greater Israel plan, right, to extend Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, by the prime minister of the wanted ICC for war crimes, minister of Israel, and compare that to what you mentioned earlier as to Petro's comment as to the Gran Colombia, right, the confederation of Latin American countries versus the occupation by force, uh, and the plan of Israel to occupy these spaces with or without anyone's consent. We're just going forward with this and how that plays into the impunity rule that you mentioned earlier, Bikram, as an extension of the American imperialism's impunity and a reflection of it in the Caribbean right now, right? How Israel has for years acted with impunity in front of the international community. And now we see the United States being the United States, performing the same— or obviously not the same functions, but acting with the same impunity, right? And I just wanted to throw that out there because I am not as versed on the specifics of what's going on currently, and that, I mean, in general I am, but not in specific terms as you guys. But I just wanted to throw that out there.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah, uh, well, so no, and the one thing that I was, um, uh, thinking as well was— see how self-conscious you got me, Diego? Uh, so the, uh, but no, the, the, like, you know, there's this, um, uh, the Central Bank of Lebanon today just announced like they're going to be, um, Tightening, I think, rules and regulations around money transfers, right? And this is like around financial flows. And this was like, I think, the day after or a couple days after the United States explicitly called for containment of the transfer of funds to Hezbollah or the movement of resources. And I think, you know, we can think about the way that relates to the Israeli— we can speculate, right? Like the constant Israeli airstrikes and then the United States saying Can be like, in maybe the similar way they were with Qatar, right? Yeah, Israel apologizes to Qatar, but like it's also this guy. You guys may have heard that I enjoy reading Giovanni Rigi. You know, he talks about imperialism as a protection racket, right? Like that that they'll be like, hey, you want to get smashed or you want to get protected? It's your choice, right? So like if if they're hitting South Lebanon and then you say, well, okay, these airstrikes are happening. And maybe you can stop the money transfers happening, like crack down on those more so, right? So you see the way in which that's happening right now as maybe a continuation of what they're— how they're trying to shape the character of the Lebanese state. But I think in relation to Petro, the question that's very clear is negotiations— I think this is what Hezbollah has been saying— negotiations under fire must be rejected, right? There has to be a unity of the state. Vis-à-vis this, because this is the strategy of imperialism. You apply force, and then you try to turn to a strategy of constitutionalism or treaty-making that like authorizes the rule of imperialism under say law, right? Like or what the central bank is doing. So I think Petro recognizes that, right? Like it's time to meet force with force, and I think that's what Hezbollah has been also speaking of.

Navid Farnia: Yeah, I mean, I also say that like. You know, these acts of impunity that both of you have mentioned, to me, reflect the reality that the hegemonic forms of, like, you know, constitutionalism and these things are, again, failing, and increasingly so. Like, the fact that the Zionist regime has to act with impunity, right? And, like, let's be clear, has to, has to, right? Like, because if it doesn't, then it'll continue to lose ground in the region, right? Right. And so, but that in and of itself escalates the contradictions in the region and thereby drives support to the resistance, right? And so to me, like, you know, it's a lose-lose situation for the Zionist imperialists, right? Even again, I go back to Jalani. One of the things that he said about for stipulation with normalization with the Zionists is that they withdraw from the pre-coup, you know, pre-coup invasion and occupation of Syrian territory, right? So, like, that is a demand that he perhaps probably wouldn't have made, I don't think he made 6 months ago, right? And so, like, again, what are the forces that are coming into play in the region that draw, like, and even embolden someone like Jolani, who is, you know, frankly, a CIA asset, right, to say something like that?

Bikrum Gill: Yeah, it's worth keeping an eye on, for sure.

Navid Farnia: Can I— I'll say one more thing. I'll say one more thing. People, a lot of people criticize Hezbollah for acting with such restraint, right? People have criticized Iran for acting with such restraint. But the primary task of any resistance movement, or the primary task of a state, like, should be to protect its own people, right? So you can't, like, ask these resistance forces to constantly engage in military actions, because if they're, like, if they derive their legitimacy and support from the general population, from the popular cradle, then it's self-defeating to continually have to engage with these more powerful military forces, right? So you have to do the dance of what the Vietnamese resistance leader Lê Duẩn talks about, talking and fighting, right? How do we sort of negotiate talking on the one hand versus fighting on the other? When do we talk? When do we fight, right? And so we have to be clear that these negotiations are not meaningless, right? They're designed to produce particular contradictions, or at least expose those contradictions, to thereby give legitimacy to actually more overt forms of resistance. And I think, so anytime we talk about the criticisms of Hezbollah for acting with such restraint, even beyond the discussion of they've been hit hard, we have to be clear, like, okay, they have a strategy, right? And part of that strategy is to engage in negotiations, even if those negotiations are with bad faith actors, right? So, you know, I really think it's important to bring that up as well.

Diego Alcalá: No, I remember you mentioning this in one of our last episodes that you and Sherif were talking about and the need of the resistance to feed, you know, the population, because the population is the substance of the resistance and that reciprocal relationship needs to occur and that you need to sometimes engage in these negotiations just so that the people see that you're actually trying to and set up a system in which, you know, they're going to fail, but to the people, you tried. Navid, just one comment. Your camera is shaking too much and I'm getting sick. It's sort of all over the place. And I know that Bikrum can't say anything because he's drinking coffee, but I can say something about it. I think that this could be a good point of departure to another topic. But I mean, it's up to you guys if there's anything else we can jump into. And, uh, I'm looking at you, Bikrum. Is there anything else you'd like to say about this topic?

Bikrum Gill: There was something I wanted to say, but now that you, you mentioned me drinking coffee, I, I have forgotten what it was. So I guess it wasn't that important.

Diego Alcalá: No, no, it'll come back. Don't worry about it. I know you're jet-lagged and all. But we do have our next topic. It's going to be on Russia. Just so that everyone is aware, we will be hosting our first event on Russia, and we have a great panel showed up. So for those who are listening to this, it may be too late, but certainly we'll talk about this next week or our next episode when we'll be inviting some of the members who were at that panel. But aside from that, there is news. Coming out of the Russia sphere. So, Navid, do you have anything that you want to share with us about this?

Navid Farnia: I mean, yeah, really quickly, I'll just say that speaking of failures, right, like Zionist imperialist failures, imperialists in this case, Marco Rubio comes out today and says that basically we're running out of, we're running out of ways to sanction Russia and, and like, and basically calling on the European partners, quote unquote partners, really adjuncts of the United States, to increase their pressure, their economic pressure on Russia. So, again, speaking to reality—

Diego Alcalá: Yeah, it came out like, guys, come on, help us out. We're the good guys. We're really trying here, but you guys keep doing stuff. And I mean, we're trying to contain them, and yet they find a way to get out, and it's all your fault. We can't do anything else. It's on you.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah.

Diego Alcalá: But at the same time, you need to adopt our philosophy and our vision as to what works and what doesn't work. So it wasn't a really strong statement coming out of Marco Rubio, like the ones he routinely throws out when he talks about the Caribbean, right? This was a much more measured response to his audience out in Europe and also at the same time the adversary, which is Russia.

Bikrum Gill: Right. But, you know, it's interesting because Rubio, I think way back, like at the beginning of the administration, also was— there was some strange comment he made about like recognizing that— I feel like he said like that the world is shifting to a multipolar world. I believe Rubio had kind of made that concession almost. But I mean, I think, Diego, though, like what can Rubio do, right? Like, you know, the language may be different, but he's But still a Republican.

Navid Farnia: Right.

Bikrum Gill: they don't have the means of sanctioning Russia. Like, to— like, you're here, we are like, what, over 10 years now into this? You know, I know that the sanctions accelerated post, uh, 2022, but like, we're talking 2014 to 2025 now. And, you know, like, we haven't mentioned, uh, China yet, which always comes up, especially when I'm on the show. But like, uh, uh, you know—

Diego Alcalá: Yes, we are aware.

Navid Farnia: I want to say I did mention China earlier with their aircraft carrier, but—

Bikrum Gill: Oh, that's great.

Diego Alcalá: True, true, true, true.

Navid Farnia: I think like There's not a—

Bikrum Gill: there's not an ability to sanction Russia because of the way China has established control again over the flow of global economic surpluses.

Navid Farnia: Right.

Bikrum Gill: So they are able to purchase Russian oil and they are able to help construct like alternative economic and financial architecture that can facilitate the bypassing of, of US sanctions. Right. In a way that wasn't possible before. So I'm hearing like a train in the background.

Diego Alcalá: Oh, that's me. That's me. I appreciate that. Thank you. I live near a train track down by the river. Oh wow. Yeah, listen, uh, our producer Sina just, uh, wanted to send, send over the statements from Marco Rubio that you made reference before, um, in an interview with Megyn Kelly. And again, thank you to our great producer. Of course, feel free to donate at the end of the show. This is what he said. So it's not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not—that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you are going to reach back to the point—I'm sorry—where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet. We face that now with China and to an extent Russia. And then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with. So, end quote.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah. So I think, I think like there's a, there's a hard fact that, you know, they have to confront. But I think the, the other like component of this, I think Rubio making this like plea for more like support from their allies or whatever as it comes to targeting Russia, you know, they've been putting a lot of pressure on India, for example, because India was a key state That was not abiding by U.S. sanctions. But I think there's a second component beyond simply their inability to impose sanctions. I know this has been a running theme through some of our episodes, but it is necessary to take into account how the United States, across, I think, the last 4 administrations, from Obama, Trump 1, Biden, Trump 2, is clearly going all in on oil and gas, right? On that the— there's a link that's being identified, recognized, and advanced between the maintenance of U.S. power Maybe not U.S. alone, but the U.S. as the major power amongst other powers. That that the that oil and gas will be the mechanism through which they do so by maintaining oil and gas as the heart of the world economy, which you can understand then. It's not simply ideological. The attack on climate change, like the attack on the idea of climate change, that there's something quite material that is driving this is the the role that. Control over the flow of oil and gas plays in U.S. hegemonic power, and the way that Russia had threatened that in its relationship with Europe, right? And so, I think like— and the way the Trump administration is even more aggressively seeking to establish U.S. control. There's a direct profitability question that U.S. firms make, but then there's another deeper question about how this allows them to exercise power over contending states. by keeping oil at the center of the world economy, how this props up the dollar. And I don't mean to be a broken record, but there's also a link in the way in which they're seeking to power their AI sector, I guess, in opposition to—

Diego Alcalá: No, I was actually going to jump in right there on that specific point, because you made that point, I think, in an earlier episode as to how the United States missed the boat when it came to climate change by doubling down on oil and gas. And now this entire new energy sector and its profitability, they're lagging years, if not decades, in technology to China and other other nations, right? So now they don't want to miss the boat on the AI thing, and that's when you see that doubling down impact. But it is having a significant issue of data centers being actually nuclear power plants being brought back online, not to. Reduce costs, but to ensure that some random company has access to infinite energy. This is like a— like, this is what superhero movies, they start off like this, right? When, when the villain actually comes off and just buys off nuclear power plants in order to entertain their energy needs, uh, and everything around it just is this destruction mode. But yeah, I, I do appreciate that, that link, because it is an important link. We see how Back in during the elections, there was a big push by big tech to equate China and AI with like a survival of nations, right? It's a competition to death, right? Where it's an all-or-nothing, right, game that we were in. And I do believe that the United States is doubling down in that investment just so that they can survive the next capitalist phase modification or Yeah, I mean, I, I—

Navid Farnia: there's a couple things I want to say about this. Uh, so first of all, I mean, both of you know, for example, that, um, the US, the Trump government recently basically bailed out Argentina, right? Um, was it $20 billion bailout?

Diego Alcalá: $40 billion. So $20 billion now and $20 billion later.

Navid Farnia: Okay, good. So yeah, so, and what did, what did Argentina turn around and do? Like, they, uh, increased their— or like, they increased their consumption of Chinese Was it soy products or— I don't, I don't remember what it was, but—

Diego Alcalá: Well, the, the, the, the Milei is— it's all over the place now, right? He's facing corruption charges. But as you say properly, right, um, excuse me, um, as you're properly indicating, that investment in Latin America is coming back according to Trump.

Navid Farnia: Yeah. Um, but, you know, so yeah, so the bailout money, like, you know, is actually going toward trade with China, is the point I'm getting at. The second thing I'll say is actually directly related to Russia and its relationship with Europe, right? So one of the authors of our Russia issue this month, um, or last month I should say, uh, talked— I think his name is Arto Artinian, I may be mispronouncing that— talked about how like during the 1970s and '80s there was a crisis of accumulation in the West, right? And how in fact the collapse of the Soviet Union, um, mitigated and in fact, uh, you know really rectified that crisis of accumulation for at least 20 years so that it opened up new markets for the West in not just Russia, but particularly the post— other post-Soviet states, right? And so what we're seeing now is like this crisis of accumulation on steroids, essentially, right? That Russia is, you know, the West is closing off Russia itself, right? But also, you know, because of that, you know, access to, you know, Russian oil and gas, right? Now the US is trying to replace that access In, in the European market, but it's not enough to, to equip the needs of the people in Europe, right? So this accumulation is escalating the contradict— uh, this crisis is escalating the contradictions on, in a, on, uh, on geopolitical terms as well, right? So I think it's really important to think about that as well.

Bikrum Gill: I mean, it's, it's, um, it's, it's quite shocking the, the way in which German elites have committed a form of national suicide almost, right? Like the Like European elites more generally, but you see what's happened to German industry, especially since 2022. Like German petrochemical industries, of course, like a big part of the story is something Diego you were talking about is the Chinese really starting to outcompete the Germans on say capital goods manufacturing, right? Which is which was like a strength, right? For let's say German automotive engineering or German German engineering in general. But one part of how they're outcompeting. If you're being outcompeted, and what the Chinese really outcompete them on is on costs, right? That the Chinese can now produce the same capital goods but at a fraction of the cost. But surely it wasn't to Germany's advantage to start paying much more in energy costs than they would have been doing before, right? So like there's a— but there's a way that accumulation crisis in the '70s, it's interesting, you know, that you mentioned that because it's an accumulation crisis that is both generated by decolonization, right? The fact that you have national development projects that might make it difficult now to continue to recycle value from periphery to core, especially cheap resources. But there's also a sharpening contradiction between core states, right? So Germany, Japan, and the United States entering into more intensive competition. And the United States will often try to resolve it, right, by squeezing their allies. You know, they do that to eventually Japan. You know, Japan's been a stagnant economy now for like so many decades. And, you know, by the— in the 2000s, they start to squeeze the Europeans a little bit, right? And this is one objective of their war on Russia, is to try to appropriate more profits to their firms that they're being outcompeted by in relation to Europe, right? So I think the contradictions exist in multiple ways of world capitalism and imperialism. But yeah, I think that continues to be a key through line in what might be a 50-year crisis. Some people call it from the '70s till today. But yeah, I think the accumulation crisis is a key part of the story.

Diego Alcalá: I think this reminds me of Vice President J.D. Vance's statements regarding China, how the entire neoliberal project was meant to keep China producing the world's low-end products. And without knowing how they turned that around and became high-end producers, which as Bikrum correctly points out, now they're outproducing the major nations around the globe, and the detriment that it had along the chain of what periphery, semi-periphery, and colonized nations in the economic sector, how that realization by the United States has reshifted its its entire calculus as to geopolitics around the world at an accelerated rate, and how the Chinese, taking advantage of the American taking for granted Latin America, how they just basically shifted to West Asia and addressing Europe, the Chinese came in with investment deals that were highly preferable in terms of competition, um, when it comes to what the Americans were offering, right? Um, there is a diplomatic soft power, uh, issue that, that, that has been, uh, abandoned by the United States, and we see it now, right now. It's the Monroe Doctrine. I think there were statements yesterday by Rubio, or 2 days ago, saying that the United States should be allowed to bomb anything anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, um, based on— because Because yes, that's the actual policy position. Because yes, maybe I should trademark that. So basically, I'm sorry, I just went off.

Bikrum Gill: Let's go back to China and Bitcoin. Oh, interesting. Interesting. Came back. Look who— You're welcome. I set you up. Well, so I know I was just going to say for folks listening in, like the point you made, Diego, around JD Vance saying China was meant to remain. That is the truth. And it's interesting, I didn't know J.D. Vance said that, but that's like actually the reality of the situation. Even granting China access to the World Trade Organization. There's an article that I— for folks who don't mind reading academic pieces by— I don't remember the first names, but Machado and Natalini. It's in the Review of African Political Economy. It's called Samir Amin in Beijing. So, you know, Rigi obviously has his book Adam Smith in Beijing. These guys have this book, Samir Amin in Beijing, which actually traces how the Communist Party was able to counteract the capitalist law of value and to constantly engage in technological upgrading and moving their labor into higher-value sectors over a period of decades. And, you know, we can't get into that kind of right now. But what's really interesting also is, you know, you have a situation where the Europeans are basically, in the pages of the Financial Times and elsewhere, They're saying, how are we going to convince China? We have to engage China because they're outstripping us now. They're outcompeting us, not just in the manufacture of cell phones, right? They're outcompeting us in the manufacture of the very machines that produce the cell phones, right, in capital goods production. So how can we— we need to cooperate with China in order to gain access to Chinese technology. Can you believe, right? So they're talking about technology transfer from China to Europe, right? And they're trying to— they're speaking almost like developing countries now in relation to China. They're saying, how do we, uh, put conditions on Chinese investment so we have to insist on technology sharing? And that's a, that's a, that's a dramatic transformation from the 1980s and '90s when, you know, it was China that was actually putting conditions on Japanese firms or other firms, uh, in regards to technology transfer, right? So Yeah, just, I think, just in relation to what you were saying, I think that's a really— I noted that in that— I noticed that in the article about the German, the collapse of German industry, which I really encourage everybody to look into right now, because it is shocking how rapidly. And what's going to replace that in Germany? I don't know, because I don't think there's a German Wall Street waiting to step up to replace industrial output.

Navid Farnia: So, Bikrum, if I can— sorry, if I can jump in. Uh, Diego or Bikram, like, why do you— why do you all think that the German— the German government is basically spiting itself in order to double down on this war against Russia? And, you know, um, you know, like, to— it has this increasing accumulation crisis. Is— I agree, like, acting essentially is a developing country at this point compared to China. So why, like, why double down? I mean, I have, like, I have an opinion on this, but, like, I'm interested to hear you all. Like, why double down on this war? When it in fact is escalating, like it is elevating and heightening the contradictions within the German, within German society itself, right?

Diego Alcalá: I think that I wanted to— I, I'll, I'll address that in this answer. I remember Bikram mentioning right now how Europeans were requesting or dealing with the technology transfer, and what I wanted to bring up was how the United States is against that. No technology transfer from the Chinese, and now we're placing all technology from China as spy networks, right? Where everything is spy-related, everything has to do with the fact TikTok must be—

Bikrum Gill: Even buses.

Diego Alcalá: Yeah. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

Bikrum Gill: No, even like buses. I think it was in the UK or some other European country. They're like, oh, are these buses spying on us, right?

Diego Alcalá: TikTok is a spy tool, even though what they do is what every other technology company in the United States does. Right? So it's that fear. And I think it goes with your question, Navid. It's the fear of commerce. It's the fear of who is the metropole, who's semi-periphery, and who's— and right now you have nations that were sort of more getting to the point of being the core, and now they're being pushed back into the periphery. And yet the United States is doubling down on its own survival. Right. And to do that, we have to force these conditions on the semi-peripheral states such as Japan, who has lasted all this time and is still trying to get out of this cycle. Germany is falling into that cycle too, something that has happened throughout Europe. It's not just unique to Germany. You see states like other states as Greece, Spain, and many more who have. But I wanted to highlight the contradiction in that even though the states and the leaders are acting away, we have a population that has been very vocal against these type of actions, against the let's throw away our relationship with the Russian oil, and of course I want to pay 400% more, uh, in gas prices because of this. And there have— there has been local resistance all across these, uh, countries, uh, trying to push back on the policies implemented by their leaders. So I want to highlight that because we need to be aware of the state and its people. It's like the United States, it's not Trump, it's everything. Now, we can debate how different it is, but I want to highlight also that there has been pushback in all these countries, not necessarily in electoral— it doesn't translate to electoral wins, but certainly there is a resistance all over these countries.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah. And like, Navid, I think like it's important to remember that like, you know, we can broadly think about like an Atlantic project, like an Atlanticist project, and a Eurasian future, right? Which is like, you know, you can think of— and there's like a really interesting— that, you know, mindful of Diego's concerns, I'm not going to get into it in depth, but, you know, there's an interesting Yeah. —theoretical point around how the Americas changed the world, right? I think Michel-Rolph Trouillot makes this point, the Haitian anthropologist, theorist, that— and you think about the way in which, like, the United States, as a settler colonial power, really reshapes even Europe's relations with the rest of the world, you know, after the conquest of the Americas. That aside, I think, like, you know, the place of Germany in Europe has obviously been a vexing question since the 19th century, right? Like, and the question of German power and what to do with it. Maintaining a balance of power on the continent. But, you know, in the early 2000s, you have, after the Iraq War, you have the French and Germans actually speaking and operating sometimes as a bloc with the Russians and Chinese, really explicitly identifying the United States as this kind of, if not rogue, but that the U.S. is the threat to world order, right? Like with the invasion of Iraq, you know, and, you know, like Putin Before then is actually trying to work with the Americans. Vancouver to Vladivostok, you know, universal security architecture, whatever it is. Then after Iraq, they're kind of like, wow, this is a very irrational power, the United States. You can't trust it. The French and the Germans at the time, you can remember, especially the Germans, they have different relations with the Russians, but also with the West Asian states. Like, you know, there's— it's not clear. And at that time, Robert Kaplan writes an essay you know, like the coming war with China, where basically he makes this point that the United States cannot lose the Europeans to Eurasia because they will have to fight China. Like Kaplan is saying, there is a war that will come with China in the coming decades, and it's very important the Europeans are on the side of the Americans. And one way he said to do this was to instigate war in the Balkans. So, you know, like, and we know very shortly thereafter in 2007, In Georgia, and then obviously the rolling crisis or instability in Ukraine, the color revolutions and so forth. But Kaplan is very clear that if you instigate war on the borders of these European countries, that will drive them back into the NATO fold, right? And like, it will generate the conditions for an ideological, I guess, framework that would make it very hard for the Europeans. So I think that's one way to make sense of how the wars— sorry, maybe the Balkans is not the right word to use, but like, you know, the wars on the—

Navid Farnia: The Caucasus.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah, the conflict is like the wars on Russia's borders, right? That kind of is bringing— brought Europe back into the American fold. Now, why would the Germans do that when Merkel, even Angela Merkel, had a different, had a slightly more measured, sober policy, right? Like, so why do they walk into that? I don't really know, Navid. Like, it is going to be a historical question as to how German elites Right now, beyond economic rationality, the question of racism is something to think about, like the way in which—

Navid Farnia: Yes, sir.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah, I think the way in which they understand Russia to be— and this is a question going back to the 19th century— Russia to be a quasi-European country. Is it European? Is it Asian? You know, they had the Putin and the Mongol hordes kind of COVID So, yeah, I don't know, like maybe if you would speak on that, but like the question of racial identity, racial supremacy.

Navid Farnia: Yeah, no, absolutely. I think another article in the Russia issue, Paweł Wargon— I may be mispronouncing it once again— the article titled Whither Russia, in which he talks— he cites Brzezinski, and sort of— who— Brzezinski, who talks about the prevention of this Eurasian bloc as a way to oppose NATO domination of the world, right? So I think it's very much racial. Um, I think amidst this crisis of accumulation, there are political factors at play that, you know, I mean, we have to be clear, right? Like, for the first time since basically the 15th century, a power, a world power is emerging that is going to be atop the world order that is non-European, non-North American, a non-white power, right? And so there are very clear, um, stakes at hand, right? And, and, and, and, you know, this brings China back into the discussion as well and the relationship between China and Russia. So to me, that, that, like, the, the political, the political machinations— and we can talk about this with, with respect to domestic politics in the U.S. as well— the political machinations in certain respects are dictating the economic realities, right? Um, the political and racial machinations and the, and the realities that come from those, right? And so, you know, to me, I mean, there is a very real fear of what a China-led order, world order, looks like. And that fear generates increasing irrationality with respect to racial contradictions, right? And I think that's particularly what's happening. Yeah.

Diego Alcalá: Great. I think that's a great spot to end this segment. We have 2 more to go, which is Zionism and the United States wagging the dog— the tail wagging the dog, right? What say you, Bikrum? This is something you've been following online. No, absolutely not. No?

Bikrum Gill: What are you saying? I don't—

Diego Alcalá: Absolutely not. I live online. No, but I think it's an important— why don't you give us some background on this?

Bikrum Gill: Well, yes. I mean, I think it's— I think, yeah, we have seen, obviously, politically, we're seeing this crisis, right, like across the political spectrum in the United States. And I think this links— this kind of ties together almost everything we've talked about in this episode. But, you know, this brings our very mysterious figure Epstein back into the mix. You know, I think maybe historically, like, is Epstein the— not the conjuncture, that's not the right word, but is that the place where these questions come into a personification or like an embodiment? Like, which way? Zionism, imperialism? Who's wagging who, right? Like, so— Yeah. But this question, like I think, and it's an interesting question, like why the deflection from Epstein? How does this relate to the relationship between Zionism and American power? But you're seeing like the right, the MAGA right, for example, really, really not turning on Trump, but asking questions. And it's funny, right? Because like Trump is such a— is so shameless. Like, you know, he's like, oh, I was opposed to all the wars, and we're talking the Caribbean. He's reproducing the very logic of forever endless war. And so his base is questioning this. But on the question of Zionism in particular, you're seeing this questioning happening by Tucker Carlson, by Marjorie Taylor Greene. And it's posing a question for those who are urgently, for very rightful reasons, right? Like, I think the past 2 years have brought so much to a standstill for so many of us that the question of Palestinian liberation is urgent. So what do you do tactically whatever it is, to sharpen those contradictions that are emerging, for example, in the MAGA movement, is it to say then that Zionism is a really counter— is a force that is counter to US national security, that is counter to the long-run interests of the US state, that it is controlled? You'll see things like the majority of financial power is controlled by Zionists in the United States and so forth. So I think that's a question that is I think increasingly now spilling into questions of where does the movement go next, right? Where does the organizing against genocidal forces go next? And I think what I would just say, and Diego, cut me off at any time, I won't take offense to it, but like, what I would say is like conceptually and theoretically, there may need to be a discussion of the relationship between colonialism and imperialism, like as one beginning point. These are not the same. Right. So there is a Zionist colonialism. There is a Zionist colonialism that does lobby the US state, right? That is predominantly targeted upon the conquest and colonization of historical Palestine. And like you're saying, Diego, a greater Israel project in the region itself that draws forth necessarily regional questions. But you can't understand that absent this question of imperialism. So colonialism might be about the territorial conquest, but like we've been talking about, imperialism is about maintaining control. Control over the region, the flow of resources into and out of the region. So the United States does need Zionism as a proxy power, right? And it's a mistake to seek— I think this is— I would defer to Ghassan Kanafani here. It may be a mistake to seek recognition and an alliance with US imperialism, right? To say, can Marjorie Taylor Greene, if she was at the helm of US imperialism, would that change the fact that the US is losing to China and that the US needs to maintain existentially, it needs to maintain control over West Asian oil. It needs to prevent a Saudi-Iranian détente. And the projection of power through Zionism is essential to this. So I think that this question is definitely on the table, but I don't think that has to necessarily undermine the question of centering Zionist power specifically as a core dynamic or at the center, at the heart of imperialist power. I remember hearing somebody say one time the Zionist lobby is like walking through an open door. So it's not like they're not functioning as a fraction of the U.S. elite or something, but it's still very much aligned with the objectives of U.S. power. And last thing I'll say before turning it over to you guys is like the, you know, the United States is having an accumulation crisis, but there is also record profitability that's being recorded. Not record profitability, but let's say a restoration of profitability in some ways that we see, right? Now, how does this happen through military power, the projection of military power, right? Like, what role does that play? So yeah, I think like those are some questions that I think this political moment is putting forward tactically, strategically, etc. And yeah, would be curious to hear what you all think.

Diego Alcalá: I think that one of the comments you made regarding the relationship between settler colonialism and imperialism And how the imperialist project in the area for the United States— there was, I think, from Kamala Harris when she was vice president, she said, our support for Israel is also tied to our capitalist system. There is a relationship between our support with the fact that we get goods that are on prices that we can afford and we can sell products all over the world.

Navid Farnia: Right.

Diego Alcalá: And it's tied. I mean, I don't know, this is, I think, the first episode that we can go trace our conversations to what the US government and other leaders are actually saying, because they're saying it out loud. It's just, unfortunately, there's just too much going on for people to pick up and make those connections. And I think that's why it's really important what you said, Bikram, regarding that project, the Zionist settler colonial project. Yeah. Plus the interaction of the United States. I would say though that there is a specific reason why that connection has been made with Israel, but I don't think that the United States will go down with Israel. What I mean to say is that you can see the United States easily shifting horses in the middle of the race and dumping one for another. Now, I don't see that happening soon, but it is something possible. We saw how In previous eras, the United States aligned itself all over Latin America with military juntas and dictators all around the world. So I don't foresee that as also a possibility in order to continue the imperialist project, which does not necessarily mean that that's what's going on. There is also an affinity when we come to race according— and how white nationalists Christian nationalists actually are intimately tied to the Zionist project. And it's primarily due to bias and racism and xenophobia. And I mean, things that— those do play a role in these particular moments. So I just— that would, I guess, be my contribution at this moment.

Navid Farnia: I'll say a couple of things, and I think they're related, actually. So the first thing I'll say, it's good, Bikram, that you started with Epstein, because what we're— to me, like, the whole focus on Epstein and Petro, like, what he says about Epstein and, like, you know, Trump and the government engaging in military operations as a way to cloud the whole Epstein thing, is, for one, it's a clear parallel to what— with Netanyahu and his corruption trial. Every time, like, he has a court date, He strikes, you know, like he re-engages in military operations, whether in Gaza or Lebanon or elsewhere, right? This to me reflects the trend, the increasing trend toward like the personal politics that reflect fascism, right? Like this is, you know, the fact that these people are aiming to preserve themselves amid like imperial decline, right, is a reflection of like, you know, the contradictions that creates between, for example, the the MAGA people and the neocons here in the US, right? Or between the— I don't know, what do you want to call them— the liberal Zionists and like the, you know, whatever, right? They're all genocidal. But anyway, like, but you know what I mean, like in Israel, right? To me, this all reflects the reality that there is an irreconcilable contradiction in imperialism. And this issue is going to become more and more sort of explicit over time, right? Yeah. So, to me, and to the other point, like, to the second point, which is related, is that the answer to that— and Bikrum, you mentioned this, right? And I think you cited Ghassan Kanafani— that the answer is not to align ourselves with the MAGA folks, right? Because those folks are the ones who very much support ICE being out in the streets in Chicago or LA or, you know, whatever city, right? So, the answer is not that. The answer is, in fact, a reinforcement of internationalism, right? So that Palestinian liberation be linked to Venezuela, that Venezuela be linked to Los Angeles, and so on and so forth, right? That is how we as anti-imperialists address the crisis that is being generated through fascism to then basically set fire to the world, right? So yeah.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah. And I think there's a there's an internationalist question and a class question that should be foregrounded, right? I think, like, you know, what corresponds with the U.S. projection of power through Zionism from the 1970s onwards is the rise of a certain type of financial class power in the United States, right? So, and the hollowing out of the working class in the United States. But, like, there's this question of, is the question the control that Zionists hold over U.S. Which is true, that is a question to ask. But what that really signifies is what is the power that a capitalist class holds over your society, whether that capitalist class is— I mean, and why is that capitalist class universally Zionist, right? Because Zionism provisions U.S. capital, you know, with the military projection, with the control over West Asia. So then the question that is attached to this, that can the mega forces, the populist forces, be pushed in this direction or not? But the question is, like you're saying, tied to Venezuelan liberation. But why not also pose the question, should the United States maintain domination over West Asia? So it's not simply about should the United States maintain a relationship with Israel. Should it maintain— I think, Diego, getting to your point, should the United States maintain this sort of domination over the flow of oil into and out of West Asia? Do they need to be conducting themselves in this way? And should class power in the United States be structured in this way? Because if the concern is the power that Zionism have, what that really is a concern with is that there's such dramatic economic inequality that allows particular actors to shape the political system in a certain way. That is where the discussion needs to move towards. Because if it just fixates on this question of, is the United States being controlled by an alien power, it's going to miss the way in which that's only possible within a certain class structure. And the questions that I think, and I think there's a space here to ask, I don't know, like, is it the case? I don't think Americans want to go to war with Venezuela. Like, I think if people really put the question, you know, like, is this something that you want to do? Do you want to, is it really important to you to maintain control over West Asia? Do you want to have a war in the South China Sea? Right? Like, so I think, yeah, that's, I think in addition to internationalism, the class question Um, is another one that should be foregrounded.

Navid Farnia: Yeah, absolutely. Really quick, I'll just say, like, you know, the question of Venezuela is also interesting with the MAGAs because— who is it, like, Alex Jones, the guy with Infowars? He talked about being anti-war with respect to West Asia, but in fact actually supporting war in Venezuela, right? So, like, you know, so this is why, like, these people, you know, cannot be trusted, right? Like, and so, um, yeah, yeah. I mean, I just, you know, it's It's really— yeah, I'll just stop there. Yeah.

Diego Alcalá: I think that it's not just these people. I think that earlier we talked about how Latin America's left completely ignores Haiti. I also think there's a, a belief within the United States that anything that happens in Latin America is our backyard, and we're— we have a right to interfere in many of these locations. And that's been proven Hundreds of times with many things. I mean, the number of times I have to push back regarding Puerto Rico and what it is, it's amazing. It's because that's how it's been projected within the United States. I do—

Navid Farnia: Diego, can I intervene on one quick thing too as well? Yeah, go ahead, go ahead. To what you're saying, Bikrum, I think it's also important, and I know both of you know this, right, that the Zionist project is built on anti-communism. Right. And so, like, that is a clear class dynamic that reflects that why, for example, as you pointed out, Bikram, are all the billionaires Zionists, right? And at the same time, like, in fact, many Jews are anti-Zionist, right? So, like, it's— yeah. So I think we should really elevate that because that also brings into questions of, like, the anti-socialist project with respect to Venezuela. And, you know, and all these things are related. Yeah.

Diego Alcalá: Excellent. So I think that we have come to the last segment, which is, Bikrum, why are you jet-lagged? What's going on? Where were you?

Bikrum Gill: You think I'm drinking coffee at 6 in the evening?

Diego Alcalá: Of course you are. Of course you are. This is a family-friendly show. This is what I tell my kids to listen.

Navid Farnia: Does that cup have US flags on it, Bikrum?

Bikrum Gill: Oh, no, no. Is that US flags? Is that US flags? Oh, I shouldn't put that. Edit that out, Sina. Well, you know, where'd you come from?

Diego Alcalá: Where are you?

Bikrum Gill: It says made from plants in the USA.

Navid Farnia: Oh, made from plants. Okay.

Bikrum Gill: That makes it better. Yeah, plants make everything better, even though I have zero plants in here. Um, I'm like the anti-ecology political ecologist. Um, so yeah, I was at, um, I was at a, uh, I was at a conference in Tunis that was under the title Development, War, and Agriculture: Rethinking the Agrarian Question. It was put on by the Tunisian Observatory for Food Sovereignty. And it was, I think, yeah, it was basically a discussion. I mean, the title is pretty self-evident. Like, it was a really rich set of discussions around this thing that, you know, the agrarian question is a pretty central question of Marxism. Also of anti-imperialism, right? What role does agriculture play in, say, let's say, in the capitalist system, but also the transformation of agriculture and agrarian social relations? So yeah, there was like a rich set of discussions because this brings you to questions of land and armed struggle, right? Like, I think these are really core questions, like what is sovereignty? How do you construct a sovereign development project?

Navid Farnia: Right.

Bikrum Gill: In the world as it is today, what role does sovereignty over land play in constructing broader sovereign industrialization and whatnot? And like, and I can just, if you can indulge me, I can just, you know, I can share what I presented on in like 30 seconds.

Diego Alcalá: Bikrum, Bikrum, we will indulge you.

Bikrum Gill: Okay. All right. So take your time.

Navid Farnia: Before, before, and we'll indulge you, but I also want to hear Diego talk about Bad Bunny. But go ahead, Bikrum.

Diego Alcalá: Yeah, always, always. He won 5 Latin awards last night.

Bikrum Gill: So, like, I presented a paper for— just as an example— that was trying to put Zimbabwe's land reform in the 2000s, the fast-track land reform program, into conversation with the Second Intifada in Palestine. And I think, like, the idea was, like, thinking about this framework of the agrarian question of national liberation. Bringing questions of national liberation into conversation with the agrarian question. And the agrarian question for the colonized and for the South is a question, like, in some ways of, to put it very simply, reclaiming land from the settler or from the colonizer, establishing a form of popular sovereignty that distributes land, whether on a collective or household basis, to the peasantry, which can then ground a universal sovereign development project. Right now, it's the case that In both Palestine through Oslo and in Zimbabwe through the Lancaster House Agreement at the quote unquote end of history when the Soviet Union falls, in both of these places there was an end of the land question, right? It was imagined that you don't now the Third World project of like the Fanonian project through force you reclaim land and through force you establish the basis of a different type of sovereignty. So in both Lancaster House and Oslo, it's like no you don't. You don't do that by force. You do that through the market, right? And Palestinians, you'll eventually get your state in the West Bank, economic development and so forth. Put down your guns. And to Zimbabwe, it was the same thing, right? Like, do not take land from white settler farmers by force. The market will do it. But we know by the 1990s, in both Zimbabwe and Palestine, no land is being redistributed. So I try to think about how it's a return to armed struggle. It's a return to the question of force in the 2000s. It's like, and I try to frame this as like 2 major shots that are fired against the US unipolar moment, the US anti— the US imperialist moment, and how this really grounds the renewal of anti-imperialism in the 21st century, right? Like that the way in which the Second Intifada is a key part of what eventually leads to the Al-Aqsa Flood. And in Zimbabwe, you actually have finally the redistribution of the majority of white settler land to indigenous Africans in Zimbabwe as well. So those are the type of discussions that we were having, you know, like broadly focused on the West Asian region. Yeah. And it's interesting to think about at this moment, right, because you have a moment with the Gaza peace plan and elsewhere where it seems as though the application of overwhelming military force is trying to return people in the region to a disarmed and disorganized condition through which you can impose a series of agreements or a constitutional power, right, that forces people to abide by rules which undercut their sovereignty. But as we saw in Zimbabwe and Palestine at the turn of the century, history is seemingly moving in the direction of like where anti-imperialist force continues to respond. And we're seeing that in Gaza today, right? So yeah, that was that. And there was a lot of comrades from our collective Who were at the conference, Max Ajl, Carina Mullen, Helyeh Doutaghi, Mohamed Abdou Tall. Now I feel bad because if I forget anybody, but yeah, I think ICEC, I don't know however you said it, ICEC was well represented, Diego.

Navid Farnia: Shout out to Sam Moyo.

Bikrum Gill: Oh, so yeah, and Paris Hero, Sam Moyo's co-author, was there. And yeah, Sam Moyo, a major influence, I think, on our collective, who tragically passed away 10 years ago in a car accident, actually, in India, and is a founding member of the Agrarian South Journal. Which everybody should check out all the time. Really, we can talk about that another time, the significance of the agrarian South as a site of knowledge production. But yeah, shout out Sam Moyo. The Patnaiks were there. I think some of our intellectual influences were definitely very present. So yeah, it was a good conference.

Navid Farnia: Yeah, listeners, read Sam Moyo, Paras Yeros. Yeah, for sure.

Bikrum Gill: Absolutely, absolutely. Like required reading.

Navid Farnia: Uh, Diego, before, before I want you to talk about Bad Bunny, like, what's your beef with Bad Bunny? I don't know if it—

Diego Alcalá: I'll, I'll get, I'll get to it, but I just wanted to add, because what you're saying, Bikrum, it resonates so much in the Caribbean right now due to climate change and how the entire calculus is shifting, what land is used for, how it's used for. Are, are we using agricultural land for solar energy? Or are we— I mean, Puerto Rico pre-Hurricane Maria, which is in 2017, statistics were like 95, 99% of all food supplies were imported. And how much in, uh, what dependency issues are, are going in. So it's a fascinating discussion, um, which I would love to look at through the lens of the Caribbean and, and climate change. I remember some comments from Belize and the president. I think that Belize has like One of the biggest reserves in the world that, along with the Amazon, is one of the biggest in the Western Hemisphere that is used as one of the hearts of— lungs, I'm sorry, of the world. So it's that calculus. Should we charge the Western Hemisphere for that resource? How do we play into that role? So it's just so many things that can come out.

Navid Farnia: Right.

Diego Alcalá: But the important thing is that we're going to talk about Bad Bunny.

Navid Farnia: Let me, let me say one thing, one serious thing. Okay, okay, okay. Um, because you mentioned like 98% of the food is imported in Puerto Rico before—

Diego Alcalá: before '98, '99.

Navid Farnia: Yeah, yeah. I mean, I, I was in the Virgin Islands in St. Croix a couple years ago, and it was something, something similar, like 95%. And it's like, you know, these countries, they grow their own food, and then they have to export them and then re-import them, right?

Bikrum Gill: Like, that's the, that's the contradiction Yeah, actually, and, you know, just to build on that, that's like the agrarian question of our time in many ways, is like this way in which food is integrated into a global kind of network of accumulation that's very irrational when it comes to actually sovereign national development, right? And I think, like, yeah, so those are really important questions that the Patnaiks really talk about a lot, talked about at the conference again.

Diego Alcalá: Yeah, and one thing when it comes back, it's coming back in merchant marine boats. And those are 75% more expensive than normal prices. So your same banana, the one you're producing in Puerto Rico, goes back and forth and it's shipped to us at a higher rate. So yeah, it's increasing prices. So that's a great thing to talk about. Let's switch gears to what really everyone was waiting for, which is my review of Bad Bunny. So I just wanted to add something. One second, please.

Bikrum Gill: Was there a new album?

Navid Farnia: No.

Diego Alcalá: Well, he hasn't come with a new album, but just in general, just Bad Bunny's existence. Just wanted to let you know that I have bought his vinyl. Everything is in here. This is his latest record, the one that he made famous by the Puerto Rican tour that he had, 30 shows in like 2 months.

Bikrum Gill: That you couldn't get tickets to.

Diego Alcalá: No, I didn't get tickets. So how dare he? So I think that he got 5 Grammys last night, Latin Grammys. So good for him. And remember, folks, to learn Spanish if you want to understand anything that's going on with the Super Bowl coming up, which was funny because obviously when that came out, everyone was like, oh my God, how do we have a foreigner talking something else in our entertainment?

Navid Farnia: Mm-hmm.

Diego Alcalá: And they tried to do like a side project or an alternate Super Bowl show for the people that were pissed at Bad Bunny and they couldn't get anyone to go up against him. So I guess that's where we end. So be like Bad Bunny, speak another language and piss me off. There you go.

Navid Farnia: Very good.

Diego Alcalá: Does anyone have any projects coming up? Anything coming up besides Thanksgiving and taking some time off, correct, to start grading?

Bikrum Gill: Well, yeah, I have a move coming up, but maybe I'll hold off on speaking about that for the future.

Diego Alcalá: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You have a right to remain silent. I'm an attorney, so you're good.

Bikrum Gill: Yeah, I'm not very good at upholding that right, but I'll—

Diego Alcalá: Oh, we know, we know, we know. That's why I'm here. Don't worry about it. Navid, do you have anything you want to share? You're good?

Navid Farnia: I mean, I'll just quickly say, really quickly say, we had a A conference on Black internationalism at our campus this week. A shout out to Sherice Burden-Stelly, one of the members of our collective who was the main organizer for that conference. And it was excellent. We had Akinyele Umoja, who has a book out on Robert and Mabel Williams, an edited book memoir, I think. We had Natanya Duncan and other folks on campus, Kido Swan. So it was very, it was very, very, it was excellent.

Diego Alcalá: Yeah.

Navid Farnia: And I'll just say quickly, it's really, really big shout-out to Akinyele Umoja, who talked about not just— like, he talked about Black internationalism, not just in a global sense, but also talked about supporting struggles for, obviously, Native American liberation struggle, talked about Puerto Rico, talked about Hawaii. I just want to shout out Dr. Umoja. Yeah.

Diego Alcalá: Excellent. So just to sign off, before we do, just want to say thank you To everyone who's listening, make sure you subscribe to both. You can subscribe to our podcast at your favorite platform, just like Apple Podcasts. If you leave a review, a positive one of 5 stars would be great because that helps our ratings and it makes sure that other people find our podcast. I also want to encourage you to visit our website at antiimperialistnews.com. Thank you. That's anti-imperialist.com. And visit our blog. It's called The Pen Is My Machete, and you will find our latest issue. Also at our website, you can subscribe to our newsletter. We try to publish something every week that's of interest of what we do, our publications, and some highlights Upcoming events and anything that we think that you might enjoy. And finally, you can visit all of our socials at @penandmachete. That's @penandmachete, M-A-C-H-E-T-E. Again, this is the Anti-Imperial Scholars Collective podcast, or as I call it, the Ice Podcast. Uh, Bikrum calls it something else, but he's Ace Podcast. But he's a lot smarter than me. That's why he gets paid the big bucks. So signing out. See you guys next time. If not, I hope you miss us. Take care, guys. Nice seeing you.

Navid Farnia: Bye.