Twenty-seven years ago, the United States bombed the Al-Shifa factory in Sudan, one of the largest pharmaceutical industries on the African continent. Its destruction caused a severe shortage of medicines, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. Located in the territory that was once home to the famous kingdom of Kush, Sudan still struggles today to overcome the obstacles left behind by its colonial past. The country became independent in 1956, but was unable to overcome the serious internal divisions that led to successive civil wars.

Political instability, sanctions and foreign intervention have always made it impossible to continue development projects. In the 1990s, Sudan was among the poorest nations in the world, with about 60% of its population living below the poverty line. In 1990, the country had one of the highest infant mortality rates on the planet and a life expectancy of 51 years. The magnitude of these challenges explains the excitement generated by the announcement that the country would be home to a large pharmaceutical industry.

Opened in June 1997, the factory became known as the “pride of Africa.” The institution was born as one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on the continent, with modern facilities and state-of-the-art equipment. Al-Shifa Pharmaceuticals strengthened the Sudanese health system and, more than that, represented the materialisation of the dream of scientific sovereignty shared among the nations of the global south. The factory employed 360 people.

Even though it was a private enterprise, it received strong support from the Sudanese state. The construction was financed by donations and loans from several African countries and international organisations. 

Al-Shifa enabled Sudan to make enormous strides towards self-sufficiency in the manufacture of medicines. Domestic production rose from 3% to 50% with the industry. The factory was responsible for producing 90% of the medicines used to treat the seven leading causes of death in the country. These medicines cost 1/5 of the price of similar products manufactured in Europe and the United States. The Sudanese government distributed 15% of all production free of charge to low-income families, reaching one of the most disadvantaged populations in the world.

In this way, the country became an exporter, supplying several African and even Asian nations. Much of the medicine consumed in Iraq during the criminal US embargo came from Sudan.

The historic moment when the factory was inaugurated was also marked by the deterioration of US diplomatic relations with Sudan. The White House wanted to prevent Omar al-Bashir’s government from establishing closer ties with Iraq, the Palestinian resistance and other Islamic movements. Bill Clinton’s strategy was to accuse Sudan of providing logistical support and refuge to terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda. In December 1997, an embargo was imposed.

The United States military launched an aerial bombardment of the Al-Shifa factory in Sudan on the 27th of March 1991. This pharmaceutical manufacturing facility was one of the largest in Africa at the time of the attack. The destruction wrought by the conflict gave rise to a severe shortage of essential medicines, with the result that thousands of lives were lost. Situated in the territory that was formerly home to the renowned kingdom of Kush, Sudan continues to grapple with the challenges emanating from its colonial past. The country gained independence in 1956, yet was incapable of surmounting the profound internal divisions that precipitated successive civil wars.

The perpetual challenges posed by political instability, sanctions, and foreign intervention have invariably rendered the continuity of development projects unfeasible. During the 1990s, Sudan ranked among the world’s poorest nations, with approximately 60% of the population living below the poverty line. In 1990, the country exhibited one of the highest infant mortality rates globally, with a life expectancy of 51 years. The magnitude of these challenges is evidenced by the excitement generated by the announcement that the country would be home to a large pharmaceutical industry.

The factory, which was inaugurated in June 1997, was soon distinguished by its reputation as the “pride of Africa.” The institution was established as one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on the continent, with modern facilities and state-of-the-art equipment. Al-Shifa Pharmaceuticals has been instrumental in fortifying the Sudanese health system, thereby serving as a tangible manifestation of the aspirations for scientific autonomy that are shared among the nations of the global south. The factory employed 360 people.

Despite its status as a private enterprise, it received substantial support from the Sudanese state. The construction of the bridge was financed by donations and loans from several African countries and international organisations.

Al-Shifa played a pivotal role in Sudan’s advancements towards self-sufficiency in the domain of pharmaceutical production. Domestic production exhibited a marked increase, rising from 3% to 50% in alignment with the industry. The factory was responsible for producing 90% of the medicines used to treat the seven leading causes of death in the country. The cost of these medicines is one-fifth of the price of similar products manufactured in Europe and the United States. The Sudanese government distributed 15% of all production free of charge to low-income families, thereby reaching one of the most economically disadvantaged populations worldwide.

Consequently, the country became an exporter, supplying several African and even Asian nations. A significant proportion of the pharmaceuticals consumed in Iraq during the period of the US-imposed embargo were sourced from Sudan.

The inauguration of the factory coincided with a period of deterioration in US-Sudan diplomatic relations. The administration of the White House was intent on preventing Omar al-Bashir’s government from forging closer ties with Iraq, the Palestinian resistance, and other Islamic movements. The strategy pursued by Bill Clinton entailed the accusation that Sudan had provided logistical support and refuge to terrorist organisations, including Al-Qaeda. In December 1997, an embargo was imposed.

On 20 August 1998, the pharmaceutical factory complex was completely destroyed by 13 missiles launched by US ships in the Red Sea. The bombing was ordered by the White House in retaliation for terrorist attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania two weeks earlier. Despite the absence of any organisational claim of responsibility, the White House administration has expediently attributed the blame to Al Qaeda.

The factory was completely destroyed, causing significant outrage among the Sudanese government and population. In the absence of any concrete evidence, any hypothesis pertaining to a potential connection between Sudan and the embassies that had been attacked must be considered as speculative. The only commonality that could be identified between the two groups was that both inhabited the same continent, which was located in the Global South.

Clinton made a direct and unequivocal assertion that the factory had provided chemical weapons to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He further stated that the White House had obtained “concrete evidence” of the manufacture of lethal XV gas at the pharmaceutical factory. However, the evidence presented was limited to a sample of contaminated soil that had been collected in the vicinity of the factory. When researchers requested independent tests, the US government refused to comply with this demand. Factory officials collected soil samples, which were analysed at Boston University. The results of these tests revealed no abnormalities. In the debris, only artefacts consistent with a conventional pharmaceutical factory were found.

The Sudanese government called for the UN Security Council to undertake an independent assessment, a proposal that was subsequently vetoed by the US government.

The timing of the bombing was strategically aligned with the peak of the sex scandal involving Bill Clinton and his intern, Monica Lewinsky. A grand jury testimony was scheduled to take place on the exact same date as the bombing of the factory. Surveys indicated that 70% to 80% of Americans expressed approval of the bombings against the alleged “terrorists”. The violation of several conventions of international law by the US was not called into question. This is customary.

The situation was further exacerbated by a critical shortage of essential medicines, compounded by the already dire circumstances of famine, civil war, and economic embargo. The absence of a domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing facility, which was responsible for supplying half of all medicines produced in the country, resulted in the intensification and dissemination of outbreaks and pandemics.

In the aftermath of the criminal US bombing, a meningitis epidemic struck Sudan, which, in the absence of antibiotics, had limited capacity to protect itself. The disaster resulted in a significant loss of life, akin to the loss of lives due to the 1999 floods.

It is estimated that tens of thousands of people died as a result of dysentery, malaria and other treatable diseases. The nation made appeals to the United Kingdom and other Western nations for assistance in procuring chloroquine for the treatment of malaria, but these requests were declined.

Moreover, the efforts of humanitarian agencies to combat hunger were hindered by the escalation of the conflict. It is estimated that more than 70,000 Sudanese people perished as a result of starvation.

Despite the passage of several decades, the nation continues to grapple with a persistent shortage of essential medications, a situation that has been compounded by the utilisation of a criminal bombing as a diversionary tactic in the context of an American sex scandal.

It is evident that Sudan never received an apology from the US. Conversely, the United States government has expanded its sanctions against the country since the onset of the conflict in Darfur, and has provided financial support to a separatist movement in the southern region.

The independence of South Sudan was proclaimed by the separatist movement with the support of the United States. This situation had repercussions for the Khartoum government, which consequently experienced a depletion of 75% of the country’s oil reserves.

At present, the country is experiencing widespread famine, with the United Nations (UN) confirming that Sudan is currently the only place in the world where famine has been officially declared in several locations.

An American journalist — a recurring theme in such publications — provoked controversy by publishing on the cover of The Atlantic magazine that the current war in Sudan is a war about nothing. However, the prevailing perspective within Sudanese society posits a divergent viewpoint, attributing the war to a multitude of factors. Indeed, the conflict is not merely one in nature, but rather several discrete and often concurrent struggles, each with its own unique context. These include, but are not limited to, issues of gold, identity, land for agricultural purposes, and social philosophies.

At present, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) exercise control over the north, north-east and the Nile River states, as well as Khartoum, Port Sudan, the Red Coast and parts of North and South Kordofan. In these areas, it operates government ministries and major ports and airports.

The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and allied militias have been observed to exercise control over approximately 45% of Sudan, representing a decline from 75% in the early months of the war. The aforementioned regions encompass the majority of the Darfur area, with the exception of the northern capital, El Fasher.

In certain regions, the authority of the state is not yet fully implemented, and local leaders offer protection in exchange for wealth or resources. These leaders are not affiliated with either the SAF or the RSF.

According to analysts, the war is now being fought over economic interests.

The Arab emirates have been active participants in the war, seeking to protect their economic interests, primarily in the form of gold mining and arable land in the border area between Ethiopia and eastern Sudan. The RSF has been active in its role as a proxy force for the Arab Emirates, however, in recent battles, mercenaries from Niger and Colombia have superseded them. Official data demonstrate that in 2024, 100% of declared gold exports were destined for Egypt. Prior to the war, the majority of Sudan’s gold was exported to the United Arab Emirates. The war had a significant impact on mining operations in areas under the control of the RSF, particularly in regions where mining was predominantly conducted by hand.

The Egyptian government was a beneficiary of this situation, and subsequently abolished all gold import taxes one month after the commencement of the current war in Sudan. This action resulted in Egypt becoming the primary destination for Sudanese gold, both in official and illegal contexts.

However, it should be noted that the preeminence of gold in Sudanese politics is not a recent phenomenon. It is estimated that fifteen years ago, 90% of trade was derived from oil, which is located in the area that is now occupied by South Sudan. The loss, which was promoted by the US and its own interests, led to a situation where the population was compelled to engage in artisanal gold mining, which resulted in a significant escalation in violence. The leader of the RSF, Mohamed Hamdan Degalo, has become a billionaire warlord.

Subsequent texts will address identity, arable land, and social philosophies.

It is imperative to contemplate the current state of affairs in Sudan. It is imperative to closely monitor the actions and policies of the United States, as they consistently demonstrate a propensity to prioritise their own interests, often at the expense of other nations.

Think about Sudan today. Keep an eye on the US war machine.

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death’s construction

In the fields, the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait ‘til their judgement day comes, yeah

Now in darkness, world stops turning
Ashes where their bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour

Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing, spreads his wings

War pigs, Black Sabbath

A long, long time ago, the US declared a strategic goal: to mess with the autonomic development of Brazil (and, after that, the whole Latin America.

It’s no coincidence that Trump recently declared that Brazil should return to being ‘America’s backyard’*.

For more than a century, the US doctrine has been based on the idea that Latin America should always be under their influence.

When the US Republicans finally succeeded in abolishing the Brazilian monarchy — the last one in LATAM — they believed that the US would see them as a source of inspiration and a saviour who would kindly help to solve all the country’s problems.

This is obviously far from the truth.

The brazilian Republicans were in power during Brazil’s transition from empire to republic, and they were faced with a bitter reality. The US was rather disinterested in this new regime. Even worse, it became clear that the sole objective was to expand US territory in Latin America.

Getúlio Vargas, the 14th and 17th president of Brazil (who had the infamous reputation of being an ally of Nazi Germany), promoted a rupture with the oligarchic republic that served the wishes of the US. The opposition then sought foreign intervention. If you follow the news, you may notice a recurring pattern: it’s the same strategy used by Bolsonaro’s militia now. Brazilian politicians would periodically travel to the US to beg for support in staging a coup.

Vargas was chaotic, but he did seem to support nationalism. At the same time, he kept the country in a ‘neutral’ position, opposing both US and URSS intervention.

Seeking to forge an independent path and improve negotiation leverage with both sides of the Cold War was a decisive moment in the US changing its partnership with Brazil for other countries in the region, such as Colombia and Venezuela.

Brazilian participation in the Second World War — a contradiction in itself, given that Vargas would rather have remained neutral — raised expectations of strong US support and investment in Brazilian industry. This didn’t happen, however, except for the CSN (the national steel company).

Popular frustration with US promises paved the way for the nationalism of João Goulart and Leonel Brizola. This new form of nationalism, seen by the US as radical, was perceived as a major strategic threat. Both presidents were monitored and their communications were bugged.

In 1964, a military coup occurred. They finally managed to gain US support since they believed that Brazilian nationalist bias would pose a threat to US interests in the region. The goal was to create local competitors and promote Brazil’s autonomous development.

Nevertheless, the military finally realised that US interests in Brazil were not the same as those in Europe under the Marshall Plan. The investments and innovations promised to the Western bloc against the communists never materialised in Brazil.

This fuelled frustration during a population boom, which in turn resulted in a large number of people living in poverty. This led the generals to adopt a more pragmatic approach to international relations, including reopening relations with communist China.

Ernesto Geisel was obsessed with development and championed the idea of ‘Grande Brasil’, seeking partnerships with countries with which the Brazilian dictatorship had no existing connections. This marked the beginning of the weakening of the military’s grip on power.

The gradual process of Brazil reopening during the 1970s was greatly influenced by the revolutionary wave that occurred in the Western bloc during the 1960s. This sparked popular discussions on anti-racism, gender and decolonisation. Leonel Brizola was the face of this revolution. This marked the beginning of a new left-wing party in Brazil. Inspired by May ’68 in France and the Communist uprising in Italy, PT gained traction.

There were two main groups in opposition to the military dictatorship that praised the US: The workers, who were isolationist and rejected any alignment, and the internationalists, who argued that Brazil should join the communist bloc.

The Communist Party and PT were clearly internationalists. Brizola was an isolationist who defended nationalism.

The lefties fought against the same adversary: the subservient right wing, corrupted by foreign influence, which would often use technology and support from Washington to increase internal tension in the country.

The Communist Party and the PT sought alliances with left-leaning countries, primarily the USSR, in the hope of combatting US intervention. Brizola was sceptical.

The workers believed that both the US and the USSR would exacerbate internal divisions and that this would impede the formation of a united workers’ group with the main goal of developing the nation.

Brizola allied himself with high-level businessmen, but did not form partnerships with leaders of the black and native movements. His main goal was to develop the poorer classes.

The dissolution of the USSR weakened the left’s foreign allies, affecting their ability to maintain a local dispute with right-wing US allies who also had Israeli technological support.

As the allies were a weakened force, the Brazilian left became more isolationist.

Nevertheless, the US continued to interfere in Latin America, and leaders such as Correa, Cristina, Chávez, Evo Morales, Humala, Castillo and Lula were imprisoned following coordinated interference by the US and its counter-intelligence apparatus.

During the 2000s, left-nationalists were falling victim to similar operations, where corruption allegations were selectively used to discredit those calling for national sovereignty.

Recently, US technology has caused US-style phenomena in Latin America, such as the rise of US puppets like Bukele, Milei and Bolsonaro. Fake news, mass shooting software and the manipulation of public opinion are still being used.

Bolsonaro was a low-level politician with no significant achievements, but after US influence, he was elected president (even then, he continued to speak out against electronic voting systems). He never hid the fact that he was a mediocre, ignorant man, but his controversial views turned into massive success — and right-wing views such as racism, classism and other problematic themes gained popularity. The same happened with Milei in Argentina.

So, it’s safe to say that US actions against Brazil are nothing new. They have been interfering in our internal affairs for decades. It’s the same old strategy: A group of politicians, judges and military personnel are co-opted and sell the nation for a low price.

The left is facing the same dilemma again: as Brizola discussed with communists and later with the PT, should we fight against US interference by denouncing it and appealing to Brazilian nationalism and patriotism, or should we seek international support?

Will a discourse of nationalism have any traction outside the left bubble? Would it be better to seek international support to balance the dispute?

Would China compromise some of their interests to support allies such as Brazil?

Paz entre nós, guerra aos senhores.

*America is a continent, not a country.

The financial implications of a coup must be thoroughly examined. So, how much does a coup coasts?

In April 1953, the CIA was granted a budget of 1,000,000 US dollars to fund the operation. This could be used in any way to overthrow Mosaddegh. Another important factor influencing US interests was the fear of a communist takeover and its spread in the region due to the growing influence of the Communist Tudeh Party and the Soviet Union.

As usual, the US decided that it should control a larger share of Iranian oil supplies.

Operation Ajax, also known as TPAJAX, was conceived and executed by the US Embassy in Tehran. The operation had four main parts:

• A massive propaganda campaign to ruin Mosaddegh’s reputation and accuse him of having communist affiliations
• Encouraging disturbances within Iran
• Put pressure on the Shah to select a prime minister to replace Mosaddegh
• Support Zahedi as Mosaddegh’s replacement

The operation was a collaboration between the CIA, the British government and the Shah, coordinated with his twin sister, Princess Ashraf.

Moreover, an internal CIA memorandum, entitled “Campaign to Install Pro-Western Government in Iran”, specifies that one of the CIA’s primary objectives in Iran was to “disenchant the Iranian population with the myth of Mossadegh’s patriotism, by exposing his collaboration with the Communists and his manipulation of constitutional authority to serve his own personal ambitions for power.”

The reputation of Mosaddegh was subject to deterioration as a consequence of propaganda campaigns that erroneously associated him with communism and denigrated the Iranian people. A plot was initiated with the objective of deposing the democratically elected leader.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allocated a significant budget to facilitate the operation. The final cost is estimated to vary between $100,000 and $20 million, depending on the expenses to be counted. Following the overthrow of the Zahedi government, the Central Intelligence Agency provided the new regime with $5 million, with Zahedi himself receiving an additional $1 million.

The consequences of the coup was the subsequent Iranian Revolution (1979), which occurred 25 years later, resulted in the establishment of an Islamic republic in Iran that was anti-Western and based on the concept of Velâyat-e Faqih .¹

The following discussion will explore the manner in which the 1953 coup d’état established the foundations for the 1979 revolution.

• 1. Deepened Anti-Western Sentiment

The Iranian populace viewed the coup as a brazen act of foreign interference, which undermined national sovereignty and served to reinforce the prevailing perception of Western powers as both hostile and exploitative. This sentiment found resonance with various groups, including religious leaders and intellectuals, who perceived the coup as a symbol of Western dominance and a betrayal of Iranian interests.

• 2. The Shah’s authority was strengthened.

The military takeover effectively reinstated the Shah to his former position of authority, thereby removing a popularly elected leader and consolidating the monarchy’s hold on power. However, this also resulted in the deepening of the Shah’s reliance on Western powers, thereby engendering a sense of resentment among a significant proportion of the Iranian populace who perceived the Shah as having become a puppet of foreign interests.

• 3. Fueled Nationalist and Islamist Movements

The coup provided a unifying catalyst for both the burgeoning nationalist and Islamist movements that were experiencing a period of heightened popularity in the 1950s and 1960s. These movements regarded the Shah’s pro-Western policies and his reliance on the military as a betrayal of Iranian values and national interests.

• 4. The creation of a vacuum of legitimacy was a key element of the strategy.

The Shah’s government lost its legitimacy as a result of the coup, and an alternative political and religious groups were able to gain influence due to the vacuum of leadership that was created. This vacuum was subsequently filled by Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters, who successfully exploited the anti-establishment sentiment and the Shah’s waning popularity.

• 5. The catalyst for the Iranian Revolution.

The sequence of events that led to the 1953 coup, in combination with the Shah’s escalatingly authoritarian policies and his mounting unpopularity, engendered a conducive environment for revolutionary action. The revolution, which commenced in 1978, ultimately succeeded in overthrowing the Shah and establishing the Islamic Republic of Iran.

1. Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, from the Persian  ولایت فقیه is the concept under discussion is that in the twelve Shia Islamic laws, which stipulates that until the reappearance of the “infallible Imam” (sometime before Judgement Day), the religious and social affairs of the Muslim world should be administered by righteous Shi’i jurists (Faqīh). In the system of absolute authority of the jurist, the Faqīh is invested with authority over all public matters, including the governance of states and all religious affairs, such as the temporary suspension of religious obligations, including the Salah prayer or Hajj pilgrimage. According to proponents, obedience to him is considered more significant than the performance of religious obligations. However, this viewpoint is not universally held among Shi’i Islamic scholars. Indeed, some contend that guardianship should be limited to a more circumscribed scope, encompassing only matters such as mediating disputes and providing guardianship for orphaned children, the mentally incapable, and others lacking someone to protect their interests. ↩︎

The setting is Iran in the year 1882. Tehran. A child was born. His father, Mirza, held the position of Minister of Finance in Iran, while his mother, Najm, was related to the ruling Qajar dynasty ¹. At the age of ten, Mohammad was bereaved of his father, who passed away due to cholera. He was subsequently left to care for his mother and sister.

At the age of 12, the monarch Nasir al-Din Shah bestowed upon him the title of “Mossadegh al-Saltaneh“. Subsequently, he adopted the surname “Mossadegh“, which translates as “true and authentic“.

His professional life commenced at the age of 15, when he was designated Mostofi (Chief of Finance) of Khorosan Province in honour of his father.

The constitutionalist movement of 1905–1911 held active participation in the events that led to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, thus substituting the former system of arbitrary monarchical rule. In 1906, at the age of 24, he was elected to the first Majles (Parliament) as a representative of the people of Esfahan. However, he withdrew his name from consideration, since he was below the legal age requirement.

He pursued his studies in political science in Tehran, subsequently continuing his education in Paris. During his sojourn in Paris, the young man exhibited symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. This ultimately compelled him to return to Iran.

Subsequently, he relocated to Switzerland to pursue his Law education. In 1914, he became the first Iranian to be awarded a doctorate in law, and returned to his homeland on the eve of the First World War.

In 1917, he was employed by the government in the capacity of Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, with the objective of combating corruption. In 1919, the subject self-exiled to Switzerland in protest at an agreement between Iran and Britain. The agreement stipulated the transfer of responsibility for the supervision of Iran’s army and financial systems to British advisers. Following the rejection of the agreement by the Majles, he returned to Iran.

Following his return to Iran, he was invited to assume the role of governor of Fars province. However, a few months later, he resigned in protest at the 1921 British-inspired coup in Tehran², which ultimately led to the establishment of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1925.

Following his tenure as governor of Fars, he assumed the role of Finance Minister in the government of Prime Minister Ghavam. Subsequently, he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, and subsequently served as Governor of the Azerbaijan province for a brief period. In 1923, he was elected to the 5th Majles, thus marking the inception of his historic opposition to the establishment of the Pahlavi dynasty by Reza Khan, who was British-supported and at the time the Prime Minister of Iran.

The reign of Reza Shah was very oppressive and had amongst the greatest threats to the new administration the Persian Soviet Socialist Republic, which had been established in Gilan, and the Kurds of Khorasan. In 1928 he withdrew from social and political activism and retreated to his village, about 100 kilometers outside Tehran, during a decade. 

In July 1940, Reza Shah’s police squad raided his residence. Despite the absence of incriminating evidence, he was imprisoned in the central prison in Tehran. He was subjected to interrogation and subsequently transferred to a prison in Birjand, with no charges brought against them. As an individual held in high esteem by the community and recognised for his opposition to the arbitrary rule of Reza Shah, he was anticipated to be targeted for assassination.

By the age of 13, Khadijeh, his daughter, had been profoundly traumatised by her father’s violent arbitrary arrest and was subsequently institutionalised in psychiatric hospitals for the remainder of her life.

In November 1940, Reza Shah released him and transferred Mossadegh to Ahmedabad (India), where he was to reside until his death. A year later his house arrest ended when the British forced the abdication of Reza Shah and his 22 years old ascended to the throne.

As a consequence of the events which took place in 1944, Mossadegh was elected with overwhelming support as Tehran representative, thus returning to political activities. During his tenure, he was instrumental in the fight for Iran’s political and economic independence from foreign influence. A key element of this was the renegotiation of the unfavourable oil agreement with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a move that garnered significant popular support.

The contemporary history of Iran has been inextricably linked to oil, a highly sought-after energy source by the West. The origins of this matter can be traced back to 1901, when an exclusive rights agreement was granted to William Knox D’Arcy, a British national, for the purpose of oil exploration. This agreement was valid for a period of 60 years.

The issue of exploitation in Iran’s southern provinces is a contentious one. The year 1908 marked the discovery of oil in the region, leading to the establishment of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. In the period preceding the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, the British government acquired a 51% stake in the company’s shares. The British thus established a beachhead and effectively colonised the southern west corner of Iran, exerting a direct and indirect influence on the political affairs of the entire country. APOC demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the principles of equitable remuneration by withholding a substantial portion of the agreed profit sharing payment to Iran, amounting to a mere 16%. This egregious act was further compounded by a flagrant display of disdain and racial prejudice towards Iranian oil workers within their own country. The situation reached a critical juncture in July 1946, when approximately 6,000 Iranian oil workers initiated a strike in the oil city of Aghajari. The conflict with government troops resulted in significant fatalities and injuries among the workers, with more than 200 casualties.

Mossadegh’s objective was to terminate 150 years of British political interference, economic exploitation and the plundering of Iran’s national resources, and to proceed with the nationalisation of the oil industry. The primary objective was not revenue generation, but rather, the attainment of independence from the British.

The initial presentation of the nationalisation plan to the Majles “Oil Commission” was made on 8 March 1951. The following day, a coalition of several political parties held a major rally in support of the nationalisation of the oil industry. On the occasion of the Iranian New Year, which was celebrated on 20 March 1951, the National Front Bill for Oil nationalisation was accepted by the Senate. Exactly one month later, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh was nominated for the position of prime minister, which he subsequently won by securing the support of almost 90% of the representatives present.

The dispute with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (hereafter AIOC) led to an escalation in tensions between Iran and Britain. In response, the British government implemented economic sanctions and cautioned military intervention. In June 1951, the Iranian government uncovered a British spy network that exposed subversive activities by a significant number of politicians and journalists.

In response to the aforementioned events, the Iranian government took the decision to close the British consulate. In October 1951, Prime Minister Mossadegh travelled to New York with the intention of defending Iran’s right to nationalise its oil industry in front of the UN Security Council. He then proceeded to Washington, where he engaged in a meeting with President Truman, but ultimately did not achieve his objective.

Upon his return to Iran in November 1951, he made a stopover in Cairo, where he was greeted by a group of admirers who had gathered to express their enthusiasm for his return.

In June 1952, Jue presented nearly 200 documents to the International Court in the Netherlands. These documents revealed the highly exploitative nature of the AIOC and the extent of its political intervention into the Iranian political system.

Upon returning to Iran, it became evident that the economic and security conditions were rapidly deteriorating, and that the subversive activities of foreign powers were increasing. In July 1952, Mossadegh submitted a formal request to the monarch, Reza Shah, who concurrently served as the head of the military, seeking to assume control of the armed forces. The Shah’s refusal to comply led Mossadegh to tender his immediate resignation as Prime Minister.

On the following day, the nomination of the new Prime Minister, Ahmad Ghavam, was announced. He was selected by the Shah, at the behest of the British and American governments. Massive protests occurred, resulting in hundreds of casualties. Intimidated by the people’s support for Mossadegh, the Shah’s pointed Mossadegh to the dual role of prime minister and minister of defense. In the ensuing days, the International Court delivered its decision in favour of Iran with regard to the ongoing oil-related dispute. Subsequently, the UN Security Council dismissed the British complaint against Iran. At this juncture, Moosadegh wielded considerable political influence, both within Iran and across the broader Middle Eastern region.

As a political leader of Iran, he was responsible for the sponsorship of legislation for independent court systems, the defence of freedom of religion and political affiliation, and the implementation of social reforms. He was a defender of the rights of women, workers and peasants, created a fund to pay for rural development projects and followed a principle of negative equilibrium, an idea that led to the formation of the non-allied nations, refusing also to grant the oil concession to the soviet Union. The objective of the programme was to foster national self-sufficiency, balance the budget, increase non-oil productions and create a trade balance. The policies enacted by the aforementioned leader were often met with opposition from the Shah, in addition to the governments of Britain and the United States.

Concurrently, the British government pursued a policy of subverting Mossadegh’s authority, fomenting domestic discord, and intensifying the global embargo on Iranian oil exports, while also freezing Iranian assets. In the face of mounting challenges and setbacks, the British initiated a collaborative effort with the US CIA, formulating a strategy to depose the democratically elected government in power.

On 15 August 1953, the CIA, with the involvement of the Shah and other Iranian collaborators, drafted a plan entitled Operation Ajax. This plan was intended to dislodge Mossadegh from power; however, it was unsuccessful. The second attempt was made on 19 August 1953, and the violent overthrow of the government was accomplished. The second attempt was made on 19 August 1953, and the violent overthrow of the government was accomplished. Mossadegh managed to evade capture, yet his residence was subsequently raided and set alight.

On the subsequent day, Mossadegh submitted to the authorities and was promptly imprisoned. During this event, hundreds were killed or wounded. He was subjected to a military trial on charges of treason on 19 December 1953. He was convicted of treason and consequently sentenced to a period of solitary confinement lasting three years, followed by house arrest for the remainder of his life. He passed away at the age of 84.

Mossadegh committed the grave transgression by endeavouring to safeguard the interests of his nation, namely by ensuring the continued nationalisation of Iran’s oil industry, with a view to circumventing the political and economic exploitation perpetrated by the British and the US Americans.

---

1. The Qajar dynasty was founded in 1789, by the clan of the Turkoman Qajar tribe. It lasted until 12 of december of 1925, when Iran’s Majilis, convening as a constituent assembly declared Reza Shah as the new shah of Pahlavi Iran (the Imperial State of Iran). ↩︎
2. The coup d’état of 1921 was partially assisted by the British government, which wished to halt the Bolshevik’s penetration of Iran, particularly because of the threat it posed to the British Raj. The British Raj was the colonial rule of the British Crown on the Indian subcontinent, lasting from 1858 to 1947. ↩︎

Questi referendari sono un referendum abrogativi.

Quattro i quesiti referendari proposti dal sindacato CGIL che hanno a tema questioni d’impatto sulla vita dei lavoratori. La CGIL, la Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro, è il maggiore sindacato dell’Italia, con 5.5 milioni d’iscritti. Nata a Roma nel 1944, fu l’antica organizzazione italiana. Ideologicamente, c’è socialista, con due forte componenti interne, una legata al Partito Comunista e l’altra al Partito Socialista.

La prima questione dei referendari è sull’abolizione del contratto a tutele crescenti. 

Il decreto legislativo vigente dal 2015 introduce una nuova disciplina delle conseguenze dei licenziamenti illegittimi, individuali e collettivi, per i lavoratori assunti a tempo indeterminato successivamente alla sua entrata in vigore (7 marzo 2015).

Licenziamento discriminatorio

Il D.Lgs. 23/2015 non modifica sostanzialmente la disciplina recata dall’articolo 18, commi 1-3, della legge 300/1970, che prevede la tutela reale (reintegrazione nel posto di lavoro) del lavoratore illegittimamente licenziato, il risarcimento del danno (minimo 5 mensilità della retribuzione globale di fatto) e, fermo restando il diritto al risarcimento del danno, la facoltà (cd opting out) del lavoratore di chiedere al datore di lavoro, in sostituzione della reintegrazione nel posto di lavoro, un’indennità pari a 15 mensilità dell’ultima retribuzione globale di fatto.

Licenziamento per giustificato motivo soggettivo o giusta causa (cd licenziamento disciplinare)

La tutela reale (reintegrazione nel posto di lavoro) viene limitata alle sole ipotesi in cui sia dimostrata in giudizio l’insussistenza del fatto materiale contestato al lavoratore (rispetto alla quale resta estranea ogni valutazione circa la sproporzione del licenziamento) e il datore di lavoro è condannato al pagamento di un’indennità risarcitoria che non può essere superiore a 12 mensilità dell’ultima retribuzione globale di fatto. Nei casi in cui non si applica la tutela reale, al lavoratore viene corrisposta un’indennità crescente con l’anzianità da minimo 4 a massimo 24 mensilità (tutela obbligatoria).

Anche nel licenziamento disciplinare è riconosciuta al lavoratore la cd opting out (vedi supra).

Licenziamento per giustificato motivo oggettivo (cd licenziamento economico)

Non è prevista la tutela reale e, in caso di licenziamento illegittimo, il giudice dichiara estinto il rapporto di lavoro alla data del licenziamento e condanna il datore di lavoro al pagamento di un’indennità non inferiore a 4 e non superiore a 24 mensilità.

Licenziamento collettivo

La tutela reale è prevista solo nel caso in cui il licenziamento sia stato intimato senza forma scritta (anche in questo caso il lavoratore può esercitare la cd opting out), mentre negli altri casi vi è un’indennità crescente con l’anzianità, da un minimo di 4 ad un massimo di 24 mensilità.

Con la vittoria di sì tornerebbe in vigore il sistema precedente al Jobs Act, che consente la reintegra nel posto di lavoro anche per chi è stato assunto dopo il 7 marzo 2015. Nelle imprese con più di 15 dipendenti, le lavoratrici e i lavoratori assunti dal 7 marzo 2015 in poi non possono rientrare nel loro posto di lavoro dopo un licenziamento illegittimo. Sono oltre 3 milioni e 500mila ad oggi e aumenteranno nei prossimi anni le lavoratrici e i lavoratori penalizzati da una legge che impedisce il reintegro anche nel caso in cui la/il giudice dichiari ingiusta e infondata l’interruzione del rapporto. 

Il secondo quesito è sull’indennità di licenziamento nelle piccole imprese. In esse si può votare se voi l’abrogazione dell’articolo 8 della legge 15 luglio 1966, n. 604 che stabilisce 

1. Quando risulti accertato che non ricorrono gli estremi del licenziamento per giusta causa o giustificato motivo, il datore di lavoro è tenuto a riassumere il prestatore di lavoro entro il termine di tre giorni o, in mancanza, a risarcire il danno versandogli un’indennità di importo compreso tra un minimo di 2,5 ed un massimo di 6 mensilità dell’ultima retribuzione globale di fatto, avuto riguardo al numero dei dipendenti occupati, alle dimensioni dell’impresa, all’anzianità di servizio del prestatore di lavoro, al comportamento e alle condizioni delle parti. La misura massima della predetta indennità può essere maggiorata fino a 10 mensilità per il prestatore di lavoro con anzianità superiore ai dieci anni e fino a 14 mensilità per il prestatore di lavoro con anzianità superiore ai venti anni, se dipendenti da datore di lavoro che occupa più di quindici prestatori di lavoro

Si tratta di una condizione che colpisce gli impiegati delle piccole imprese (circa 3 milioni e 700 mila). L’obiettivo è quello di aumentare la protezione di chi lavora, annullando il limite massimo di sei mesi di risarcimento in caso di licenziamento ingiustificato in modo che il/ il giudice a determinare l’equo risarcimento senza alcun limite.La vittoria del sì porterebbe all’abrogazione del limite massimo di risarcimento che permette al giudice di determinare la portata della compensazione in base alle circostanze specifiche del caso.

Il terzo quesito, è finalizzato all’abrogazione parziale di norme in materia di apposizione di termine al contratto di lavoro subordinato, durata massima e condizioni per proroghe e rinnovi.

Il decreto in vigori stabilisce 

Art 19 – 1.

Al contratto di lavoro subordinato può essere apposto un termine di durata non superiore a dodici mesi. Il contratto può avere una durata superiore, ma comunque non eccedente i ventiquattro mesi, solo in presenza di almeno una delle seguenti condizioni: 

a) nei casi previsti dai contratti collettivi di cui all’articolo 51;  

b) in assenza delle previsioni di cui alla lettera a), nei contratti collettivi applicati in azienda, e comunque entro il ((31 dicembre 2025)), per esigenze di natura tecnica, organizzativa o produttiva individuate dalle parti;

b-bis) in sostituzione di altri lavoratori.

1.1. COMMA ABROGATO DAL D.L. 4 MAGGIO 2023, N. 48. 

1-bis. In caso di stipulazione di un contratto di durata superiore a dodici mesi in assenza delle condizioni di cui al comma 1, il contratto si trasforma in contratto a tempo indeterminato dalla data di superamento del termine di dodici mesi. (10) (11) 

Art 21 –  01.

Il contratto può essere prorogato e rinnovato liberamente nei primi dodici mesi e, successivamente, solo in presenza delle condizioni di cui all’articolo 19, comma 1. In caso di violazione di quanto disposto dal primo periodo, il contratto si trasforma in contratto a tempo indeterminato. I contratti per attività stagionali, di cui al comma 2 del presente articolo, possono essere rinnovati o prorogati anche in assenza delle condizioni di cui all’articolo 19, comma 1.

1. Il termine del contratto a tempo determinato può essere prorogato, con il consenso del lavoratore, solo quando la durata iniziale del contratto sia inferiore a ventiquattro mesi, e, comunque, per un massimo di quattro volte nell’arco di ventiquattro mesi a prescindere dal numero dei contratti. Qualora il numero delle proroghe sia superiore, il contratto si trasforma in contratto a tempo indeterminato dalla data di decorrenza della quinta proroga.

In Italia circa 2 milioni e 300 mila persone hanno contratti di lavoro a tempo determinato. Ora è possibile stabilire relazioni temporanee per un periodo massimo di 12 mesi, senza alcuna ragione obiettiva per giustificare il lavoro temporaneo. Per ottenere una maggiore stabilità sul lavoro, la scelta di sì è il primo passo.

L’ultimo quesito di impatto ai lavoratori è sull’abrogazione dell’art. 26 comma 4 del decreto legislativo 9 aprile 2008, n. 81, che stabilisce 

4.

Ferme restando le disposizioni di legge vigenti in materia di responsabilità solidale per il mancato pagamento delle retribuzioni e dei contributi previdenziali e assicurativi, l’imprenditore committente risponde in solido con l’appaltatore, nonché con ciascuno degli eventuali subappaltatori, per tutti i danni per i quali il lavoratore, dipendente dall’appaltatore o dal subappaltatore, non risulti indennizzato ad opera dell’Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) o dell’Istituto di previdenza per il settore marittimo (IPSEMA). Le disposizioni del presente comma non si applicano ai danni conseguenza dei rischi specifici propri dell’attività delle imprese appaltatrici o subappaltatrici.

Questo quesito interviene in materia di salute e sicurezza sul lavoro. Arrivano fino a 500 mila, in Italia, le denunce annuali di infortunio sul lavoro. Circa 1000 persone hanno perso la vita, il che significa che in Italia muoiono tre lavoratori al giorno sul posto di lavoro.

Le norme attuali impediscono in caso di infortunio negli appalti di estendere la responsabilità all’impresa appaltante, favorendo  il ricorso ad appaltatori privi di solidità finanziaria, spesso non in regola con le norme antinfortunistiche. Abrogare le norme in essere ed estendere la responsabilità dell’imprenditore. Se passasse il sì quindi i lavoratori dipendenti dell’impresa in subappalto che hanno un infortunio sul lavoro vedrebbero ampliata la possibilità di ottenere ristoro dei danni subiti non solo da parte dell’impresa della quale sono dipendenti ma anche dall’appaltatore e dal committente.

Il quinto referendum è circa il diritto a cittadinanza italiana. Mira a modificare

l’art. 9 della Legge n. 91/1992 comma 1, lettera b

che definisce

b) allo straniero maggiorenne adottato da cittadino italiano che risiede legalmente nel territorio della Repubblica da almeno cinque anni successivamente all’adozione.

Oggi, circa 2 milioni e 500 mila cittadine e cittadini di origine straniera abitano l’italia. La maggioranza di paesi europei seguono determinazioni simili, con obiettivi di aumentare l’integrazione. 

In caso di vittoria ‘sì’, l’acquisizione della cittadinanza sarebbe agevolata per molti stranieri sopra l’età della maggioranza e di conseguenza anche per i loro figli minori che vivono insieme, che diventerebbero cittadini con la naturalizzazione dei genitori.