Politics of Iran-Israel war

 

As the war between Israel and Iran rages on over the latter’s nuclear program, a look at its antecedents and underlying politics provides the right context to comprehend the circumstances surrounding it. 

Iran's nuclear program dates back to the 1950s, under the then Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini led a revolution in the country, overthrowing the Shah and establishing a theocracy that declared enmity against the United States and vowed to expand the revolution across the Middle East and beyond.

Until 1979, Iran’s nuclear program was Western-supported and civilian-oriented, aimed at achieving rapid technological advancement.  

Following the revolution, the West terminated its support for the program, while the new regime in Tehran suspended it, arguing that it was un-Islamic in the first place.

However, in the 1990s, Iran quietly resumed nuclear development, citing its need for nuclear energy for peaceful use. By 2000, Iranian defectors and Western intelligence agencies had begun suspecting Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

The United States and its Western allies oppose Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon for fear that its regional rivals, e.g. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, may equally pursue their own nuclear programs, thereby triggering a nuclear arms race across the already volatile Middle East. 

The US is worried that a nuclear-armed Iran could be more audacious in supporting its proxy militias in Iraq, Yemen, and, until recently, Syria and Lebanon, which threaten U.S. interests and allies in the region. There are also concerns that with nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands, the risk of accidental or intentional nuclear conflict in the region is greater.

Besides, the US believes that if, by any means, Iran manages to acquire nuclear weapons, its (US) allies in the region and elsewhere will lose confidence in its security guarantees, which will hugely affect the potency of its ‘global leadership’ and diplomatic influence.

Meanwhile, Iran, which is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful use, hence doesn’t contravene the treaty that bans non-nuclear-weapon states from developing or acquiring nuclear arms.

Of course, the US and Israel never believe Iran. Israel is particularly worried as it considers Iran’s nuclear program a direct threat to its very existence. After all, Iran’s anti-Israel rhetoric and threats to eliminate the Jewish state have been particularly constant. Interestingly, in their tactical PR strategy to attract the solidarity and sympathy of global powers, successive Israeli politicians have always exaggerated Iran’s threats against Israel; that way, they secure disproportionately favourable concessions and privileges for Israel on the world political stage.

Furthermore, Israel always leverages its strong alliance with the United States and its Western allies to push for sustained pressure on Iran to compel it to abandon its nuclear program.

Ironically, it's an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, which it, for tactical reasons, neither confirms nor denies.

On their part, and regardless of their professed solidarity with Iran in this war, Persian Gulf Arab countries, Egypt, and Jordan, believe Iran pursues a nuclear weapon capability to leverage the political weight that comes with it to dominate them in geopolitical struggle.

Now, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which had been involved in Iran’s nuclear program before the 1979 revolution, resumed inspecting Iran’s nuclear sites in 2003 after some Iranian opposition exposed undeclared Natanz and Arak nuclear facilities in Iran in 2002.  

Since then, the United States has accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapon capability, which Iran has always denied, insisting that its nuclear program is peaceful.

The United Nations Security Council imposed economic sanctions on Iran, while the United States unilaterally imposed more sanctions on it.

Many diplomatic initiatives failed to break the resultant deadlock, while tensions in the region continued to rise. 

There was, however, a temporary breakthrough when the United States, during the Barack Obama administration, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, in addition to Germany, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other, signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under which Iran agreed to reduce uranium enrichment, dismantle atomic reactors, and accept regular inspections of its nuclear facilities by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In return, economic sanctions were lifted. 

Israel was never happy with that agreement, crying foul that it was designed in such a way that it would eventually allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon capability.

Saudi Arabia was also suspicious about some provisions of the agreement and equally concluded that the agreement provided a window for Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons eventually. Since then, it reportedly went ahead to secretly launch a nuclear program with China, Russia, South Korea, France, and, speculatively, Pakistan, as technical partners.  However, there has been no confirmed report about the level it has achieved so far.

In 2018, President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, rendering it effectively useless. He also went ahead to restore U.S. sanctions on Iran. In return, Iran resumed limiting the IAEA's access to its nuclear facilities as it resumed uranium enrichment.  

As economic sanctions continued to cripple Iran’s economy, it accelerated the process of uranium enrichment anyway. Meanwhile, Israel, using its notorious intelligence agency, Mossad, managed to assassinate several key Iranian nuclear scientists and conducted many aerial attacks on Natanz and other nuclear facilities in Iran.

Upon his return to the US presidency, Donald Trump demanded Iran submit to fresh negotiations. Though Iran initially resisted, insisting on reviving the JCPOA, it gave in, paving the way for the negotiations to start in Muscat, Oman.

However, after several rounds of talks without headway, tensions began to rise again as the end of the 60-day ultimatum given by Donald Trump for the talks to conclude was fast approaching. Trump had warned Iran of military action should the talks fail.   

Meanwhile, on 13 June 2025, and less than two days before what could have been the last round of talks between the United States and Iran, Israel surprised the whole world by launching aerial bombardments on Iran and ground operations by Mossad agents scattered across Iran.

A full-scale war erupted between the two countries, with Iran firing hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones into Israel, and Israel using fighter jets and drones to attack Iran.

Now that the United States has attacked Iran’s three major nuclear facilities, including the purportedly 800-meter-deep Fordow nuclear facility bunker, it remains to be seen to what extent the US involvement will affect the course of the war and its implications in the aftermath.

Though there have been cease-fire initiatives, the war doesn’t seem to come to an end anytime soon, given the rigidity that characterises the stances of the parties involved. This is particularly true as the longer the war lasts, the greater the risk of further escalation and wider regional conflict.    

    

Return of Sunusi: The dilemma ahead

 

The return of Muhammadu Sunusi ll as Sarkin Kano is yet another manifestation of the influence of politics on the traditional Masarauta establishment, which, after all, has always been used and abused by politicians.

Since the British conquest of the Usman Dan Fodio Islamic sultanate in what subsequently became part of today’s northern Nigeria, the enthronement and dethronement of emirs (Sarakuna) have always been motivated by underlying political interests. 

Throughout the colonial era, the British would only enthrone aspiring princes deemed the most loyal to the British colonial establishment as leaders of their respective emirates. This practice enabled them to maintain their colonial grip through those proxy-Sarakuna. And since then, successive generations of military and civilian administrators have followed suit, enthroning and dethroning Sarakuna literally at will. 

The only shift in this regard is that, in the past, the influence of political leaders would mostly come to play only when a throne became vacant mainly due to the death of the Sarki, when the incumbent governor would influence the emergence of his successor, as it happened in 2014 in Kano that led to the enthronement of Sunusi. However, now that the trend is becoming systematic, it will indeed, if left unchecked, render the reins of Sarauta effectively tenured, subject to the tenure of the governor behind it. 

After all, just like his enthronement in 2014 by then-Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso and his subsequent dethronement in 2020 by then-Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, Sarki Sunusi’s return to the Kano throne remains politically motivated within the context of the power struggle in Kano politics between Kwankwaso and Ganduje, two provincial vindictive enemies hell-bent on finishing off each other.  

By the way, as a subservient Kwankwaso ‘boy’, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf himself is a mere fighting tool in the hands of his godfather in the struggle. 

Interestingly, Kwankwaso has tactically put his vengeful mission against Sunusi on hold for now, pending finishing off Ganduje and his legacy. 

Sunusi incurred then-Governor Kwankwaso’s wrath as a then-Lagos-based bank executive when he kept dishing out disparaging criticisms against Kwankwaso and his government. For instance, in an article he titled “The Kwankwaso Phenomenon”, Sunusi described then Governor Kwankwaso as a “rural aristocrat” who “surrounds himself with provincials and places key posts in the hands of rural elite”. He also compared Kwankwaso’s government to “the classic comedy of the Village Headmaster in a village council”. 

Kwankwaso got mad at Sunusi and demanded his sacking by his then-employer, United Bank for Africa (UBA). He threatened to stop his government’s dealings with the bank in case of non-compliance. 

Anyway, now that Sunusi is back, it remains to be seen how it plays out between him and Governor Abba, considering Sunusi’s penchant for publicity stunts involving controversial utterances against government policies and wrongdoings. 

As much as Sunusi is excited about his return to the Kano throne, the development represents a tricky dilemma for him that also tests his supposed commitment to outspokenness against government wrongdoings. 

On the one hand, Governor Abba won’t tolerate his stunts in the name of outspokenness; no governor will, either. And unless he (Sunusi) has, this time around, decided to desist from his stunts to keep his throne, Governor Abba, under Kwankwaso’s influence, won’t hesitate to go to any extent, including dethronement, to deal with him. 

On the other hand, his desistance from his stunts would undoubtedly mean the end of the reputation he has somehow earned as an outspoken critic of government wrongdoings.  

Electoral victory: Whose Addu’a does Allah accept?

 

There is a general but simplistic assumption that electoral victory necessarily implies Allah’s endorsement of the winner and His disapproval of the loser. 

Politicians, potential beneficiaries of the electoral victory of politicians, and overzealous followers engage in supposedly wholehearted Addu’a for their and their benefactors’ electoral victory.

The practice of Addu’a for electoral victory has grown into a phenomenon and has indeed become an integral part of politicking in Nigeria. It has, in fact, turned into an industry of a sort where huge amounts of resources are invested in engaging amateur, part-time and professional Addu’a service-providing malamai who provide their services to the highest bidders or whom they expect higher gain from them of whatever kind.

Besides, with the growing phenomenon of holding the so-called special prayer sessions in public places for the success of one politician or another, the ‘political Addu’a industry’ has been growing further, attracting more investments from politicians. This is even though such so-called special prayer sessions bear the hallmarks of Bid’a.

On their part, winners in elections and their followers brag that their electoral victory necessarily implies Allah’s acceptance of their Addu’a hence His endorsement of them. They equally mock their opponents and attribute their loss to Allah’s disapproval of them. Whereas, in reality, nobody knows for sure whether or not a particular electoral victory implies Allah’s endorsement, or whether or not a particular loss implies His disapproval.

Because, the fact that politicking under democracy is inherently characterized by gross dishonesty, hypocrisy, cunning, deceitfulness, bribery and other serious vices, which arguably all politicians perpetrate in their struggle to outmanoeuvre one another, makes the whole system too filthy for Allah to have anything to do with it, in the first place,  let alone endorse any politician against another.

The winner, therefore, only wins thanks to his ability to somehow outdo his opponents in that regard, and the losers only lose due to their failure to outplay the winner, while none enjoys Allah’s endorsement, for all are equally guilty of the same grave sins, regardless of the extents of their involvements, respectively. After all, they actually never take that Addu’a seriously in the first place; they only feign commitment to in the context of their manipulation of religion for political interests.

Electoral victory under democracy is just like winning in gambling, which obviously never implies Allah’s endorsement.

Though craving for power and the temptations of what comes with it are irresistibly tempting, they aren’t worth the price of politicking under democracy, with all that it entails, which those involved pay in the hereafter.  

Nigerian economy and the Washington package

 

Now that Nigeria has finally embarked on the total implementation of the Washington Consensus package of neoliberal economic policies, what becomes of the country’s economy, in the long run, remains to be seen. 

As a product of consensus among the Washington-based World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United States Department of the Treasury, the package was purportedly designed to guide developing countries bedevilled by protracted economic crises to recovery and achieve sustainable economic development. 

Also, as a capitalist template with inherent and unmistakable lopsidedness in favour of the rich and those with access to public resources, the package encourages governments to literally but gradually wash their hands of the critical economic sectors in favour of profit-oriented local and foreign investors.

Under pressure from neoliberal international financial institutions, successive Nigerian governments have gone to various extents in selective and partial implementation of the package, triggering rounds of controversy. 

However, now with the country going fully and irreversibly capitalist, there is no more time to waste in criticising capitalism and romanticising some obsolete socialist and populist ideas that are no longer realistic. After all, the reform policies can still work out if the federal government pursues requisite measures, which include, among other things, total transparency in governance, governance cost-cutting and prioritisation of the strategic sectors of the economy that have a direct bearing on people’s lives. 

In other words, for the reform to be effective, governance at all levels must be too transparent to accommodate any act of corruption; and anti-corruption measures, including appropriate punishments, must be in force and deterrent enough to deter any would-be perpetrator. 

Likewise, appropriate governance cost-cutting measures must be implemented judiciously to save resources without prejudice to productivity and efficacy.   

Equally, public spending must strictly follow the public’s priorities that entail appropriate investments in strategic sectors with clear short, medium and long-term goals measured not by mere figures but by their real effect on people’s living conditions. 

With these and other requisite measures in place, the investment atmosphere in the country will be transparent and competitive enough to attract local and foreign investors with appropriate job-creating investments that would facilitate real and sustainable economic development. 

That way, and with time, the local and foreign rent-seeking opportunists and profiteers, who have dominated the business sphere in the country, making hugely disproportionate returns compared to their real investments, will have to follow suit to remain relevant or simply lose out. 

Unless the Tinubu administration pursues these measures with appropriate commitment, the reform will end up counterproductive, thus making life even more unbearable to most Nigerians. At the same time, a tiny politico-business clique continue to wallow in abundance.

Interestingly, there has been conspicuous silence on the part of our local West-admiring Washington Consensus apologists, who have advocated total capitalist reform as the only panacea to the country’s persistent underdevelopment. Ordinarily, having passionately advocated it, they should now feel morally obliged to show some understanding, or at least fake it, over the ensuing escalating hardship in the country. 

Besides, though supposedly experts in economics and other related fields, none have developed a viable alternative economic recovery package or even introduced viable inputs to the Washington Consensus package to make it relevant to our peculiar circumstances and other underlying challenges.

Daddy

Counting the cost of Kano demolitions

 

Notwithstanding the appropriateness or otherwise of the recent and unprecedented wave of demolitions in Kano by the newly inaugurated governor, Abba Kabir Yusuf, it may have triggered a vicious circle of the incumbent governors and their predecessors taking turns revoking, converting and reallocating public land and facilities in the state. 

Though purportedly guided by relevant legislation and overriding public interest, successive Kano state governors have been involved, to various extents, in controversial public land and facility-related scandals. However, the immediate past governor, Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, having literally overdone it, has been particularly notorious in this regard. 

Now with the recent demolitions, Governor Abba has proven that it’s indeed his turn. The way they were conducted, which made the operation look more like mob action, has been effectively set as a precedent for future similar operations in the state. 

So, unless this looming vicious circle is averted, Kano may, after every four or eight-year tenure, witness similar operations with persistently worsening intensity and impacts.   

Having monitored the situation from afar, thanks to the viral video clips on social media, I felt not only sad but extremely embarrassed watching helplessly how my city, a supposedly aspiring mega city, was being systematically bastardized.

I watched in shocked dismay how the lives of innocent traders, who simply happened to be tenets in the targeted buildings, were being turned to, perhaps, perpetual misery overnight by crowds of sadist creatures feigning being human looting their (traders) merchandise. Some buildings had already been looted even before the demolition team got there. There are verified heartbreaking stories about the plights of many victims. In a particular instance, one was reliably reported to have gone mad out of frustration. 

The sheer ferocity with which the mob plundered traders’ goods suggests deep-seated populist sadism and sheer envy in a society where tacit gloating over the misfortune of any real or perceived wealthy person has become normal. I have also observed tacit attempts on social media by many otherwise reasonable people to underestimate the plights of the victims and even put the blame on them for their ‘failure’ to evacuate their goods in time. 

Meanwhile, the cumulative impacts of this vicious circle on the state’s economy and other strategic interests cannot be overestimated. It’s already seriously affecting local investor confidence, for no one will consider the viability of any significant investment, especially in, say, real estate development and other related sectors, knowing that the land allocation is prone to arbitrary revocation and the structures are subject to impulsive demolition at any time. 

Equally, banks and other financial institutions will have to discontinue recognizing Kano government-issued certificates of property ownership as collateral, knowing that they may at any time be rendered as worthless as takardar tsire. 

Likewise, the state’s attractiveness to direct foreign investment (if there is currently any) will be hit even harder, for no prospective foreign investor, being typically particularly sensitive to any red flag suggesting policy inconsistency, will consider investing in Kano knowing that whatever policy or incentive attracted him can be impulsively terminated at any time. 

Now, obviously, Governor Abba is aware deep down that that wasn’t how he was supposed to handle the situation in the first place. His approach is enough to vindicate those who insist that he is simply on a vengeance mission with a premeditated resolve to settle scores with political opponents and their associates on behalf of his political godfather, Rabi’u Kwankwaso. 

He can address whatever land use abuses his predecessor committed, which are so many, by the way, but he should do it in a civilized way through due process leading to the demolishing of what indeed deserves to be demolished and sparing what deserves to be spared for the purpose of reclaiming and converting it into a public facility.