People burn tyres during the recent protests in Iran. File photo.
The full English version of the interview that Russian-American political analyst and journalist Andrew Korybko recently gave to Iran’s Kayhan newspaper, which was reported on by the Tehran Times, is presented here.
1. Do you confirm that the recent unrest that occurred in Iran is connected to Hybrid Warfare?
Yes, the latest events were the result of external forces exacerbating preexisting fault lines within Iranian society for the purpose of catalyzing street clashes between civilians and the security services. Some participants were misled by foreign information warfare narratives while a few among them are directly coordinating with hostile intelligence services. The purpose of these provocations was to set into motion a self-sustaining cycle of destabilization caused by attacks against the security services.
2. Internal turmoil and terrorist operations have been happening simultaneously during the last month in Iran. How could these two instruments be interpreted as parts of Hybrid War?
Hybrid War can be conceptualized in different ways, but the model pioneered in Syria, Ukraine, and Libya is of weaponized protests (Color Revolutions) evolving into terrorist campaigns (Unconventional Warfare). This transition is guided by foreign forces through a combination of information warfare and their intelligence services. Provoking clashes with the security services is intended to artificially manufacture the perception of “democracy versus dictatorship” in order to justify terrorism as a result.
3. What are the major features of the Hybrid War against the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Information warfare and sanctions exacerbated preexisting fault lines in society by generating more anti-government sentiment, after which a trigger event (in this case the unexpected death of a detained individual due to a medical incident) was exploited for setting the preplanned destabilization into motion. Hybrid Warriors in the targeted state and abroad then collaborated to manufacture false perceptions about the on-the-ground dynamics in order to justify preplanned terrorist campaigns.
4. Who gains from waging Hybrid Wars in different countries?
The US is the master practitioner of Hybrid Warfare, having perfected these subversive methods over the decades and especially since the start of the century. Its academia, experts, intelligence services, media, and policymakers closely study targeted societies in order to identify preexisting fault lines that they then conspire to externally exacerbate through information warfare, sanctions, and terrorism. The purpose is to provoke civil conflict in order to divide and rule the targeted country in the aftermath.
5. Is there any relationship between Hybrid Warfare and Color Revolutions?
Color Revolutions, or externally weaponized protests, are a form of Hybrid Warfare that often precedes the second preplanned destabilization of terrorism (Unconventional Warfare). The first is intended to artificially manufacture the false perception of “democracy versus dictatorship” in order to then justify all forms of anti-state violence. Those illegal actions are explained by the US-led West’s Mainstream Media to the rest of the world as being “the desperate reaction of democratic freedom fighters.”
(Substack)
Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
