Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony

The Iranian government threatened to destroy water desalination plants in the Persian Gulf countries if the United States begins destroying its energy facilities. As a result, millions of people would face a horrific situation—assuming water production were severely disrupted—since the region’s natural water resources are insufficient to meet their needs.

With this threat—or at least by carrying it out—the Iranians would violate international agreements that prohibit attacks on infrastructure vital to civilians, such as drinking water systems and dams. In doing so, they would act just as the Russians have in Ukraine—without facing any particularly serious consequences. And they continue to do so.

Thus, in Putin’s “three-day special operation,” a precedent has been created that encourages the Iranians to act in a questionable manner. At the same time, it demonstrates the toothlessness of international law when it comes to protecting civilians.

* * *

The Houthi rebels in Yemen are one of the most significant proxy actors of Iran against other states and their governments in the region. However, they have been remarkably passive during the attack against their “patron”—perhaps purely out of self-preservation.

Now, however, the Houthis have announced their intention to join the war on the side of the Iranian government if the United States or Israel use the Red Sea against it. In practice, however, the Houthis’ capabilities would likely be limited to harassing ships traveling by sea.

Unfortunately, even that alone would have significant economic consequences for global trade. And therefore—if that were to happen—the rest of the world might have to consider whether the time has finally come to take real action to dismantle the terrorist Houthi regime.

* * *

If the two threats discussed above are extremely serious, the third case that caught my attention is rather amusing. I am referring to Russia’s threat to halt gasoline exports abroad. This comes after its oil infrastructure has been repeatedly destroyed—most recently even in ports along the coast of the Gulf of Finland.

Of course, the Russian threat shows that they have understood how to make use of the situation. They are scoring points by turning necessity into a virtue. It remains to be seen, however, whether this threat will have any impact on the course of the war, in which Ukraine has clearly gained the upper hand this year and now appears likely to emerge as the victor.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Houthi Leaders Risk Their Lives to Cling to Power

Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?

As my esteemed readers know, yesterday the United States and Israel struck Iran, killing a large number of the country’s leaders, beginning with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran, for its part, has launched its own missiles at least toward the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Syria, Iraq and Bahrain, as well as, of course, Israel. In addition, it has closed the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranians have reacted to the events—at least according to Iranians living in Finland—by celebrating in the streets. Women symbolically with their hair uncovered, and at least some shouting the name of Reza Pahlavi, the current head of the country’s former monarchical dynasty.

On the other hand, social media also contains video material of demonstrations supporting the Iranian government. Based on what I have seen, the crowds at these demonstrations appear to be quite large.

* * *

It remains to be seen, then, how the situation in Iran will develop from here. In this respect, the absolutely central factor is the Iranian army: will it remain loyal to the Islamist regime, or will it shift to the side of those demanding change? Or, as I could well imagine, will it split into two camps that begin to wage a civil war against each other?

In any case, it is clear that neither the United States nor Israel will send their ground forces into Iran. For that reason, the country’s future is still entirely open, and it would not be surprising if it were to continue its existence in a medieval atmosphere in the future as well.

This alternative becomes more likely the longer the people demanding liberation remain without military force—that is, the longer the country’s leadership is given time to recover from its losses.

* * *

In order to clarify the situation, I asked the Gemini AI for the very latest information. It replied that “there have been reports that parts of Iran’s regular army and local security forces have refused to follow orders or have even joined the side of the protesters. Wikipedia sources and news agencies now mention ‘armed civilians’ and ‘police and military defectors’ as part of the ongoing unrest.”

In addition, according to Gemini, “there have been reports of local clashes in the regions of Kurdistan and Baluchistan. In particular, Kurdish groups (such as PJAK and PDKI) have moved from a state of readiness to actively taking up positions in their own areas.” It also stated that “there have been reports within the country of arson attacks and assaults against symbols of the regime as well as local offices of the IRGC.”

I interpret this to mean that it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about Iran’s future. In any case, however, Iranians now have an opportunity to replace their Islamist theocracy with a more civilized form of government—but the window of time for doing so may not be very long.

* * *

Finally, one observation about the possible effects of a change of power on Finnish society. It may well happen that refugees set out from the country toward Europe.

In this sense, it should be understood that these people would not be ordinary Iranians, as such people would rather return to their homeland if conditions there were to normalize. Instead, those who may set out could be Islamists who have served and/or supported the country’s tyrannical regime.

For this reason, Finland should already now state very clearly that it will not grant asylum to potential Iranian refugees in the event of a change of government, but rather that Iran will be regarded as a safe country for all its citizens—and that this assessment will not be altered by possible reports of representatives of the Islamist regime being held accountable for crimes committed over the course of half a century.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
UN Congratulates an Executioner – Credibility in Free Fall
What’s Next, Iran?
Iran at a Crossroads: From Islamist Rule Toward Democracy?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Vaihtuuko Iranissa valta?

When Free Speech Is Prosecuted: Päivi Räsänen’s Case Explained for Americans

In Finland, a big uproar has arisen over Member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen’s (Christian Democrat) brief visit to the U.S. Congress, where she spoke about the attempts to restrict her freedom of speech. For this reason, it is worth reflecting on what happened in this blog as well. So let us start from the beginning.

It all began when Päivi Räsänen happened to write the words “a disorder of psychosexual development,” by which she meant a person’s sexual orientation toward their own sex. The Finnish prosecution service seized on this, interpreting the words as incitement against a group of people.

However, it is a biological fact that the sexuality of organisms has evolved precisely so that their genes can mix, that is, recombine, in their offspring. For this reason, sexuality is naturally directed toward the opposite sex, although behaviors related to one’s own sex are also common in nature.

In this sense, homosexuality—especially as the primary mode of sexual behavior—is indeed a kind of developmental disorder. However, that does not make a person better or worse than others, nor has Räsänen claimed so.

* * *

I do not know whether what I have written above has been understood in the district court and the court of appeal, but in any case it is right that they acquitted Räsänen of the charges. It seems clear, however, that the prosecutor has not understood the matter any better either before bringing the charges or after the court decisions, but is continuing the process to the Supreme Court while also continuing to violate Räsänen’s freedom of speech.

Thus, Päivi Räsänen and Finland have undoubtedly gained a bad international reputation among people who consider freedom of speech to be an important value. Such people are found especially in the United States, but of course also elsewhere, including Finland.

* * *

The case in question actually resembles a situation in which a woman living in a violent relationship goes public to tell about her husband’s actions, after which his relatives criticize her for sullying the honor of her family and spouse. In this analogy, “violent relationship” = “demands to ban freedom of speech,” “woman” = “Räsänen,” “man” = “the prosecutor,” “relatives” = “the media criticizing Räsänen.”

I do not believe that any reasonable person would think, in the above analogy, that the woman is the one sullying anyone’s honor. Nevertheless, the Finnish journalistic community has no difficulty accusing Räsänen of damaging our country’s reputation when she speaks in the United States about the continued attempts to restrict her freedom of speech.

I can only guess at the reasons for this, but I suspect that it has to do with a wokist worldview that has taken root in our journalistic community, which prevents our journalists from logical thinking, especially when a Christian worldview and a value-liberal worldview are in opposition. This view of mine is supported, among other things, by recent research findings.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Predictions Based on the Opinion Polls in the UK
Jesuit Morality in Crime Reporting on Immigrants
On Freedom, Debate, and the Murder of Charlie Kirk

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Onko Päivi Räsänen Suomen maineen likaaja?

What’s Next, Iran?

In public discussion, surprisingly little attention has been paid to what would happen if Iran’s Islamist regime were to collapse as a result of the ongoing uprising of its own citizens. Would power be taken—at least temporarily—by the son of the late shah, who ruled the country dictatorially, Reza Pahlavi? And if so, would he, as he has promised, organize free elections, allowing Iranians to establish a democratic system of government? Or would he instead follow in his father’s footsteps, becoming an undemocratic but Western-aligned leader?

Or would the country descend into civil war, with various political groups engaging in armed conflict with one another—an outcome determined partly by Iranians themselves, but also by the amount of support the different sides receive from rival great powers? That is, from Trump’s United States and Xi’s China—but hardly from Russia, bogged down in its own “special operation,” or from a Europe that is disarrayed in every respect.

* * *

Of course, it would be wonderful if Iranians were able, in free elections, to choose an enlightened father of the nation under whose leadership a modern constitution would be created and, on that basis, the rest of the legal system reformed as well. At the same time, religion would be defined as a private matter for each individual, as has been done, for example, here under the North Star.

The question, however, is whether this is what all Iranians actually want. Or do they have different aspirations? Or might the great powers—or neighboring countries, for that matter—have their own spoons in the pot, stirring it in such a way as to push Iranians from a religious dystopia into a secular tyranny?

Unless, of course, the current Islamist regime manages after all to retain its position and continues at the helm of the ship of state, using even harsher methods than before to subjugate its citizens. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran at a Crossroads: From Islamist Rule Toward Democracy?
Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Mitä seuraavaksi, Iran?

Venezuela, Antonio Guterres and the Nature of Great Powers

The United States removed Venezuela’s socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro from power and transported him to the United States to await trial. There, the deposed tyrant will be charged, among other things, with narco-terrorism and the possession of machine guns and other weapons of destruction against the United States.

In Venezuela, power was transferred to Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, and there are reportedly no longer any American soldiers in the country. Hopefully, the country’s new leader understands the situation and moves swiftly to arrange honest elections.

In those elections, whoever the majority of the Venezuelan people express their support for should win. And whether that is last year’s Nobel Prize winner María Corina Machado or someone else, may that person receive American support in restoring the country to democratic governance, rebuilding its economy on market-based principles, and orienting its foreign policy toward Western democracies instead of China.

Under Maduro, however, Venezuela has accumulated many serious problems. These include an economic collapse over the course of the 21st century, increased drug-related crime, and now—after the operation just carried out—possible claims by Trump on the country’s oil reserves. For Venezuelans, it is therefore crucial to find solutions to all of these issues that are effective and that enjoy public support.

* * *

In this context, it is worth noting the incomprehensible reaction of UN Secretary-General António Guterres to the events. Instead of expressing satisfaction at the fall of a dictator, he saw fit to be deeply concerned about the U.S. strike on Venezuela, because it does not respect international law.

Did this creep placed at the head of the world organization really imagine that Maduro’s regime did?

The silver lining is that the UN has no real means to influence the Venezuelan case, nor does there appear to be support in Western countries for Guterres’s absurd “concern” or for Maduro’s regime. And even if there were, Donald Trump would hardly care about it any more than about the shit-flies tormenting cattle on American ranches.

All in all, the future of Venezuelans looks—despite Guterres—reasonably bright, at least compared to a few days ago. Of course, dismantling the misery caused by a long-standing socialist dictatorship will take time, but with determined effort the people can get what they deserve.

For now, however, we do not know what that will mean. And so we can only wait to see what the Venezuelans themselves want—once the Trump administration first restores to them the right to decide on their own affairs.

* * *

Finally, it should be noted that some have viewed the transfer of power in Venezuela as some kind of grand conspiracy in which the United States, China, and Russia seek to divide the world among themselves. 

I do admit that in this case certain features of such a scenario can be discerned, but there is nothing fundamentally new about it. Great powers have always sought to maximize their influence—sometimes more openly and sometimes more covertly, but always using the means they have considered most effective at the time.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Elections in Venezuela Do Not Offer Reason for Optimism
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?
Lessons from Venezuela

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Maduron kausi loppu, eikä sen perään jäänyt haikailemaan kuin YK:n Antonio Guterrez

The Frog in the Pot: Russia’s Baltic Strategy

According to Ukraine’s intelligence chief, Putin is planning to seize the Baltic states as early as 2027. According to him, “the Russian Federation was supposed to be ready to launch operations in 2030. Now the plans have been adapted and revised so that the deadlines have been shortened to 2027.”

As Putin’s motive, the intelligence chief cited a somewhat undeniably mysterious idea that an empire must “always be moving somewhere in order to expand its influence and territories.” He believes the selection of the Baltics as the target of an attack, in turn, is due to their weakness in the Arctic region compared to the United States and China, which Russia would face in other directions.

* * *

The fact, however, is that all three Baltic states are members of NATO, and as such they enjoy the security guarantees of the world’s most powerful military alliance. According to Article Five, "the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all".

It further states that “each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”

* * *

However, Article Five does not define the level of force with which an attack against a member state would be answered. It therefore does not state that an attack on a member state would be met with sufficient force, or with NATO’s full military power, or that tens of thousands of NATO troops would be deployed to the Baltics after an attack.

Let alone that the attacker would be threatened with full-scale nuclear war in such a situation. Instead, Article Five merely states that the response will consist of actions deemed necessary.

* * *

Therefore, the key question from Russia’s perspective—if it wishes to attack the Baltics—is the nature and scale of the actions that NATO countries would deem necessary. And I do not consider it impossible that Russia might—most likely only after the war in Ukraine has ended—want to find out.

This could of course occur through a large-scale offensive or by carrying out—successfully—a blitzkrieg (“special operation,” po-russkii), in which the Baltics would be occupied in a matter of days. Such an approach, however, would involve enormous risks—even the possibility of nuclear war—which Russia would more likely seek to avoid by using the so-called “frog in a pot of water” method and increasing its power in small steps.

The beginning of such actions could already be seen in past hybrid operations exploiting migrants from developing countries, airspace violations, balloon flights, and most recently armed border guards entering Estonian territory. For this reason, especially in Europe, it is necessary to closely monitor whether increasingly serious border violations are directed at the Baltic states in the future. And if they occur, to raise the level of readiness.

In my view, the most sensible course for NATO would be to make it clear that it will use sufficient force in all attacks directed at NATO countries to stop the attacker’s army—i.e., that it would, if necessary, ensure by all available means that the attacker is halted.

* * *

Unfortunately, there are good reasons to doubt that all NATO member states—particularly the strongest one under its current administration, or the states of Westernmost Europe—are willing to make such a commitment. And even if they were, Putin’s Russia might still choose to observe how the “frog” reacts to cautious measures to heat the pot.

For this reason, the Baltic states, other countries bordering Russia, and—next in line to attract the interest of Russian dictators—their western neighbors must themselves ensure that any potential aggression by the Moscow regime is met decisively. And they must ensure that their military capabilities are sufficient for that purpose.

Only by acting in this way can it be made clear to Putin that Russia should not even consider taking the kind of risk that Ukraine’s intelligence chief spoke of.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Should Ukraine Trust Donald Trump After Being Let Down by Barack Obama?
Estonia Needs Its Own Air Force
Kremlin’s Provocations Echo Pre-War Rhetoric on Ukraine