1987–Now: Iran, Israel, & the U.S. Killed Millions of Civilians in Fits of Anunnaki Inculcated Domination Dementia
By Sasha Alex Lessin, Ph.D. (Anthropology, UCLA)
See the many studies on Iran/Persia at www.enkispeaks.com, and watch the video below for more on Iran.
The dominator seeks control—even through destruction; The cooperator seeks survival—through restraint. When these systems collide at scale, the outcomes are escalation, accelerating escalation, intensifying narratives, and costs borne by civilians. Whether framed as strategy, destiny, or belief, the consequences are real, immediate, and irreversible. History does not end in abstraction; it ends in lived experience.
Oslo Accords of 1993
The 1993 Oslo Accords opened a path to peace between Israel and Iran, but Iran chose proxy war instead. The Accords created a framework for Palestinian self-rule through negotiation with the Palestinian Authority. For a moment, diplomacy appeared to offer a way to peace. But Iran, emerging from the Iran–Iraq War, had already decided to avoid any direct wars and instead built influence through terrorist networks, starting with Hamas.
1987–1993: Hamas Emerged from the First Intifada
Iran did not create Hamas. It arose inside Palestine during the First Intifada. But once the PLO entered negotiations with Israel, Iran increasingly treated Hamas as the more useful force—militant, uncompromising, and positioned outside the Oslo framework.
Hamas, though Sunni in origin, became a key partner in Iran’s Shiite-led regional network—not through shared theology, but through shared enemies and converging strategic aims. Over the next fourteen years, that alignment helped transform Gaza from a testing ground for negotiated peace into a separate political and military arena.
The First Intifada was a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, beginning in 1987 and lasting until the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. Youth protests, civil disobedience, and grassroots mobilization initially drove the uprising. It evolved into organized resistance led by factions such as Hamas and the PLO.
The Israeli response involved military crackdowns, curfews, and administrative detentions. The Israelis killed over 1,000 Palestinians, who killed 200 Israelis. The Intifada altered international perception of the conflict and led to the recognition of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as a negotiating entity, setting the stage for the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Israeli Oppression Triggered Palestinian Intifadas
Twenty years of Israeli military occupation after the 1967 Six-Day War left the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip under Israeli control, where Palestinians lived under martial law with restricted movement, land expropriations, home demolitions, and frequent arrests.
By 1987, over 1.5 million Palestinians lived in the occupied territories.
The Israeli settler population grew to 60,000 in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians suffered high unemployment, poor infrastructure, and limited access to farmland and water. Many Palestinians worked as day laborers in Israel with no job security.
The spark that ignited the Intifada was an Israeli military vehicle crashing and killing four Palestinians. Palestinians spread the rumor that the Israelis deliberately rammed the Palestinians. Israel forced the Palestine Authority (PA) to govern from exile and instead organized itself into student unions, local charities, religious factions, and neighborhood committees.
In December, 1987, a spin-off of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood criticized the secular PA and called for armed resistance in reaction to the deadly vehicle crash.
Unlike the PA, Hamas was Islamist rather than secular nationalist, rooted in mosques and social networks, and adamant that Palestinians must reject permanent Peace with Israel.
When an existing leadership loses legitimacy, new movements arise from below — often more ideological and more absolute–and in Israeli-occupied Palestine, Hamas was that movement. The Iran-Hamas cooperation worked because the two had Israel and the U.S. as their shared enemies. Hamas and Iran set their sectarian differences aside to pose their common enemies.
1988–1995: The Palestinian Authority Chose Diplomacy — Iran Rejected It
In 1988, the PA recognized Israel and began negotiations. The Oslo Accords (1993–1995) formalized that path.
Iran opposed this shift as an attempt to stabilize a Middle East that aligned with U.S. and Israeli interests and instead aligned with those who rejected Oslo—including Hamas. The Accords did not resolve the conflict—they restructured it under unequal power dynamics, leaving room for rejectionist movements to grow.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), led by Yasser Arafat, entered direct negotiations with Israel through the Oslo Accords. These agreements created the Palestinian Authority (PA) as an interim governing body to administer parts of the West Bank and Gaza.
Arafat secured leadership of the PA because he already headed the PLO, internationally recognized as the representative of the Palestinian people; he formally recognized Israel’s right to exist, and he renounced certain forms of armed struggle. The U.S. and Israel accepted him as a negotiating partner, calculating that a centralized authority could stabilize the territories. With this, Arafat returned from exile (1994) and became head of the newly formed PA, exercising limited self-rule under Israeli security oversight.
Iran renounced the PLO for recognizing Israel & renouncing armed struggle. From Iran’s perspective, Oslo legitimized Israel and entrenched U.S. regional influence, replaced armed struggle with negotiated compromise, and elevated Arafat and the PA for their willingness to coexist with Israel.
Iran instead backed terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, viewing them as the more effective vehicle to resist and ultimately derail the Oslo process.
The PA ostensibly represented a cooperative structure imposed from above. Iran’s alignment with Hamas cultivated a counter-system of domination from below.
2000–2005: The Second Intifada Violently Broke the PA-Israeli Peace Attempt
By 2000, the Oslo framework had failed to produce a final settlement. Frustration, mistrust, and unresolved core issues (Jerusalem, borders, refugees, settlements) reached a breaking point. Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount was the immediate trigger, but the underlying system was already unstable. Sharon led Israel’s Likud party (the main opposition party in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset) and was a former general and defense minister under Prime Minister Ehud Barak. In early 2001, Sharon was elected Prime Minister, partly due to the shift in Israeli public opinion during the violence.
The Second Intifada rapidly transformed from protest into sustained conflict. This time, the Intifada expanded with suicide bombings inside Israeli cities, armed ambushes, and roadside attacks. The Israeli military responded with intensified large-scale incursions into PA-controlled areas, targeted killings of militant leaders, and reoccupying key West Bank cities. Civilian casualties rose sharply on both sides.
The violence reshaped the political landscape. Israeli public opinion shifted toward security-first policies. Palestinian society is fractured between PA governance structures and armed factions (especially Hamas). Trust between the leaderships collapsed almost completely, and the Israelis undermined the PA. In Oslo, the Intifada unraveled. Joint Israeli–Palestinian coordination mechanisms broke down, movement restrictions and closures intensified, Israeli settlement expansion continued amid conflict, and negotiations became politically untenable. Oslo negotiations did not formally end—but they ceased to function as a viable pathway.
For Iran, the Intifada validated its earlier rejection of the Oslo Accords. The Intifada strengthened ties with Hamas and other armed groups, supported continued resistance rather than negotiation, and demonstrated that violence could disrupt diplomacy.
As the PA weakened, non-state militant networks gained relative power. The cooperator pathway (Oslo/PA) narrowed under pressure from unmet expectations and loss of legitimacy, but the dominator pathway (armed resistance/counterforce) expanded through visible impact and external backing. The system did not gradually fail—it flipped modes from negotiated coexistence to mutual coercion and fragmentation
1993–2000: Iran Built Relationships with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon
Iran provided funding, training, and weapons support, Hezbollah acted as a model and intermediary, and Hamas expanded its military and political reach into Palestine and harassed Israel without triggering a direct Iran vs Israel war.
2000–2002: The Second Intifada Intensified Israeli-Palestinian Violence & the Collapse of Trust in the Oslo Accords
In 2002, Israeli forces intercepted a ship carrying weapons. Israel and the U.S. linked it to Iran and Palestinian actors (some journalists questioned whether the evidence fully proved direct top-level involvement).
The SHIP, Karine A, carried 50 tons of rockets, anti-tank missiles, and explosives.
Israel and the United States said the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat arranged the shipment. Arafat denied direct involvement. The incident convinced Israeli leadership that negotiation on the surface could coexist with militarization beneath it.
The Palestinian arena became connected to broader regional supply and support networks, and the Iranian model of pressuring Israel developed from a localized territorial dispute into a networked, multi-front pressure system.
The dominators on both the Israeli and Iranian sides concluded that peace was temporary. The voices in Israel that called for peace concluded that without trust, even legal treaty agreements could not bring peace. By 2002, the Oslo framework collapsed and a shadowy network of proxies and escalating distrust took up the struggle against the Jews.
2004–2006: Hamas Prevailed in Gaza
In 2004, Arafat died, perhaps murdered. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.
In 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian elections; Hamas was no longer just a militant group; it became a governing force. Iran increased support for it.
2007: Hamas Took Gaza & the Split Between the Palestinian Authority and Gaza Became Permanent
In 2007, violent clashes between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority led to Hamas’s control of Gaza and the PA’s control (sort of) of the West Bank. The arrangement meant an end to unified Arab leadership in the Palestinian territories and to the Oslo Accords’ territorial vision. Hamas emerged from social breakdown and failed leadership legitimacy, not foreign invention.
Oslo structured inequality rather than resolving it, and proxy warfare between the feuding PA and Hamas in the Gaza area.
Iran had neither conquered Palestine nor created Hamas. But Iran supported hostile movements in areas Israel had conquered. Iran sustained its proxy terrorists’ fight against Israel with money, training, and alignment, and helped Hamas survive long enough to become a governing power. Gaza became a forward node in Iran’s network strategy that shifted the war between the Israelis and Palestinians to a war between two networks, the Iranian network vs the Israeli-American network.
2023 On
October 7, 2023, the entire Middle East war exploded with intensified U.S. and Israel vs Iran and its Hamas supporters in Gaza. All belligerents enacted the ancient Anunnaki ideology of unremitting domination dementia.
From Lebanon, Hezbollah fired missiles and drones at Israel; Houthis in Yemen fired similar flying bombs at Israel and at ships in the Red Sea. Israel’s multi-layered air defense system and U.S. warships intercepted most of the ordinance that flew at them.
2026: America & Israel Attacked Iran During Peace Negotiations
February 28, 2026: While nuclear negotiations were still underway, the United States and Israel launched massive coordinated 900 airstrikes on Iran’s military, governmental, and religious leadership.
All sides in this conflict repeated the ancient Anunnaki-inculcated pattern of competition to dominate. Programmed for greed, rulers took ever-greater control of resources for their wars and profits; opposition to them built, violence escalated, civilians suffered, children died, and infrastructure collapsed. Only arms production surged. Trauma embedded itself into the next generation.
This sequence is DOMINATION DEMENTIA—a pathological pattern in which governing powers dictated the theft of society’s resources, snuffed out cooperative efforts, and destroyed the sustainability of life in the countries attacked, creating suffering for all of us.
Middle Eastern Power Systems Heated Up; Strike Logic Fails Humanity
A U.S. strike on a structure in Iran in 2026—believed to have military relevance—resulted in the deaths of schoolgirls. Reports indicated that the building’s function may have changed, or intelligence assessments misidentified its use.
Whether through miscalculation, flawed intelligence, or systemic bias toward aggressive action, the result remained the same: children died.
This is the defining signature of dominator systems: When uncertainty arises, they strike anyway.
This moment exposes the core logic of dominator warfare: once escalation overrides restraint, civilian life becomes expendable, reduced to a targeting variable within systems designed for control rather than protection. The language of “precision” collapses under the weight of shattered classrooms.
Following the strikes inside Iran, the conflict widened rapidly. Hezbollah intensified cross-border fire from Lebanon, and Iraqi militias targeted U.S. bases, Houthi forces escalated Red Sea interdictions, and Israeli strikes expanded deeper into multiple theaters. The region entered a state of continuous retaliation, where no strike stood alone.
Trump Attacked Iran to Serve His Armageddon Apocalyptic for Bringing Jesus Back
Iran and the U.S. both employed maximal military projection as their primary policies with which to assert themselves against the other.
Civilians in Iran and Lebanon suffered from drone, artillery, and missile attacks by America and Israel. Israeli settlers in areas of Palestine supposedly reserved for Palestinians looted, tortured, and mutilated them. Missiles from Iran and its allies started hitting Israel once it spent most of its shielding counter-missiles.
War was and still is a lucrative industry for the U.S. and Iran. Civilian lives, infrastructure, and health become business expenses to warmongers.
Civilian Reality: The True Battlefield
Civilians fled collapsing urban zones as conflict expanded. The dominant narrative frames war as strategic maneuvering between states, but the lived reality is displaced families, buried kids, cities reduced to rubble, and whole generations of innocent people who die from the ambitions of Trump and the Iranian leadership. The vast distance between decision-makers and the horrid conditions they spawned lets them continue the slaughter and destruction. When will we ever learn WE MUST–in my humble opinion–SEEK MUTUALLY ENHANCING PEACE.
Break the Pathological Pattern That Imprisons Us All
The domination and destruction persist because they reward politicians like Trump, Putin, and the Iranian Ayatollahs, who use war and their control of the public narrative to consolidate their power and sell weapons. To break the cycle, we must expose how its incentives facilitate it, refuse to accept war as normal, and instead shift toward a cooperative framework for all peoples. Without these changes, the people of Earth will escalate wars, create mass starvation and exposure deaths, and lose more children.
Did TRUMP attack IRAN to serve HIS ARMAGEDDON APOTHEOSIS for bringing Jesus back?
Miller, Trump, his ideologue Steven Miller (who wrote the 2025 plan Trump follows), and U.S. War Secretary Hegseph wield the ARMAGEDDON vision of John of Patmos to justify the mass murder of Iranians & U.S. Soldiers’ deaths. Miller invokes the Anunnaki ethos of unremitting competition and obsessive domination dementia continues to infect nations to this day. Miller directs an Iran war scenario in which U.S. President Trump creates an attack on Iran that will feature him as the dude who brings Jesus back to Earth for the Golden Age of Trump.
Dominators Deal Death Despite Cooperators’ Cry for Compassion
Recent reporting from Ali Velshi, Thom Hartmann, and Amy Goodman—along with eyewitnesses interviewed on Democracy Now features a familiar framing of human governance that employs the Anunnaki obsession with unremitting competition.
Trump’s handlers dramatize dominator dementia demands despite cooperators’ counsel to create compromises. U.S. War Secretary Hegseth expands naval and air power across the Persian Gulf, deploys myriad drones, and steps up surveillance and strikes civilian infrastructure to reduce Iran to rubble and render it unlivable. The U.S. continues negotiations, renews attacks, while at the same time, Trump’s son-in-law, Kushner, and VP Vance attend “peace” negotiations that Iranian officials interpret as cover for planned attacks.
Miller, Trump, and Hegseph Wield the Armageddon Vision of John of Patmos to Justify the Mass Murder of Iranians & U.S. Soldiers’ Deaths
The Book of Revelation, associated with John of Patmos, describes a final confrontation—Armageddon—centered in this very region. Within this interpretation, War is not merely avoided or fought; war is anticipated, even staged for patsies like Trump who align themselves with roles inside a narrative that need only their leaders’ beliefs and their usurpation of power.
America’s Armageddonists and Iran’s Islamists struggle over the Strait of Hormuz, which holds the world in a stranglehold.
The Strait of Hormuz is not merely geography; it is leverage. The Strait’s a narrow passage through which flows a vast portion of the world’s oil and fertilizer—its closure ripples instantly across every industrial society. Whoever controls Hormuz holds the pulse of the global system in their hand.
The Dominators’ impulse is to control the choke point; the Cooperators counsel, Keep keeping it open.
America Negates Negotiations as Theater & Escalates Earth’s Agony
Iranian officials accuse the United States of negotiating in one register while applying force in another. To the dominators, this is a strategy; to the cooperators, this is betrayal. When diplomacy becomes theater, trust becomes impossible.
The conflict expands outward—into the Red Sea, into shipping lanes, into the arteries of global trade. Dominator systems do not contain conflict; They extend it. War spreads along the pathways of commerce.
When Power Perps Prevail, Civilians Suffer
War Reality Dispels the Lie of Control–as It Did in Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan & Milwaukee
Trump sees force as strength; Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warns America about Trump’s unauthorized and illegal war, and Senator Sanders says to exercise diplomacy rather than the mass murders of Trump’s war in Iraq.
Iran Resists Trump as America Kills Its People, Crumbles Heritage Sites & Bombs Its Hospitals & Markets
The Iranian leadership frames U.S. actions as deception and aggression. Iranians experience defiance, fear, and exhaustion. When dominator leadership in Iran and in America shout defiance, ordinary people die, become maimed, lose their homes, and become broken wretches in consequence.
U.S. Allies Reassess Trump’s Dominator Alliance
Gulf allies recalculate protection vs exposure & alliance vs entanglement.
Voices
IRANIAN OFFICIALS / IRGC: We negotiate—and are struck at the same time.
ORDINARY IRANIANS: We are tired. Sanctions, threats, now war again.
AMERICAN GIs:
GI 1: “We’re stopping something worse.”
GI 2: I don’t know if this is lawful. I may refuse.
Ideological Voices
Some interpret escalation as strategic dominance; others see escalation as movement toward a symbolic/apocalyptic narrative.
GULF ALLIES SAY, We rely on them—but will we be drawn in?
The dominator seeks control—even through destruction; The cooperator seeks survival—through restraint. When these systems collide at scale, the outcomes are escalation, accelerating escalation, intensifying narratives, and costs borne by civilians. Whether framed as strategy, destiny, or belief, the consequences are real, immediate, and irreversible. History does not end in abstraction; it ends in lived experience.
#Iran #USIran #StraitOfHormuz #DominatorVsCooperator #MiddleEastConflict #WarAndPeace #Geopolitics #HumanCost #NoWar #SashaAlexLessinPhD
Please share this post to promote understanding and peace, to inhibit violence, and to embrace compassion, and, ultimately, to balance competition and cooperation by addressing the needs of all peoples and beings, and the ecological demands of the Earth itself.
