In the following I’m linking to the so called “ecumenical framework concept” that Dr. Ulrike Guérot shared with me in a recent talk (German version here, English version coming soon). It’s a scary read, because it shows how far the war-psychosis has already gone in Germany. Summary by AI, full paper (in German) here.

Subscribe now

Summary

Dated September 2025, the “ecumenical framework concept” is considerably more than a document of pastoral planning. It is a sober preparation document for the eventuality of war — and as such, a telling indication of how seriously German institutions, including the churches, now regard the possibility of military conflict in Europe.

The document’s starting point sets the framing for everything: according to the assessments of all relevant actors from the military, intelligence services, and academic research, Russia could be in a position to attack NATO territory before the end of this decade. Germany is already preparing institutionally for this scenario — through a National Security Strategy published in 2023, a Bundeswehr operational plan for Germany, and framework guidelines for comprehensive national defense. The churches’ framework concept is explicitly presented as a contribution to this broader societal preparedness logic, which the state has consolidated under the concept of “integrated security,” in which ecclesiastical actors are expressly designated as civil-society partners.

The concrete demands of the paper are radical. It calls for the systematic preparation of all fields of church pastoral care — from parish and hospital chaplaincy to military, police, and prison chaplaincy — for scenarios involving large numbers of wounded soldiers, fallen combatants, prisoners of war, and refugees. The churches are not expected to improvise; rather, they are called upon to establish crisis management teams now, to keep notification chains current, to clarify lines of responsibility, and to train personnel in advance. The guiding motto is telling in its directness: “In a crisis, know your people.”

Particularly revealing are the concrete scenarios for which the document prepares the churches. In the alliance case — assessed as the most probable scenario — Germany would function as a logistical hub for NATO forces. This entails the transit of troops and materiel through German territory, the repatriation of large numbers of wounded and fallen soldiers, refugee movements from Eastern Europe, and potential attacks on critical infrastructure and cyber systems. Drawing explicitly on lessons from the war in Ukraine, the document anticipates that casualty figures will be very high. Hospital chaplains are expected to prepare for triage situations; emergency chaplains for mass traumatization events; parish chaplains for accompanying bereaved families on a scale previously unknown in peacetime Germany.

The paper further demands close institutional coordination between church structures and state authorities at both federal and state levels. Church offices attached to state governments are to function as permanent institutional interfaces. At the federal level, the establishment of an approximately ten-member ecumenical crisis staff is under consideration. The churches are to know precisely who holds supervisory authority in an emergency — over emergency chaplains, hospital chaplains, and church employees who simultaneously serve in volunteer fire brigades or the Federal Agency for Technical Relief. This clarity is anything but self-evident; it presupposes extensive legal and organizational preparatory work.

Taken as a whole, what this document makes visible is a society that is — at the institutional level — preparing for war, without publicly naming it as such. Churches are being called upon to become part of a national preparedness infrastructure. While the paper is careful to assert that it does not touch the peace-ethical commitments of either church, it nonetheless enacts a substantial operational reorientation in practice: away from an abstractly peace-ethical posture and toward concrete crisis planning within a state-coordinated framework of comprehensive national defense.

For Germany, this means that preparation for a possible war is no longer a purely military affair. It now increasingly permeates all societal institutions — reaching all the way down to the individual parish.

Full paper here.

Note: The following text was written by Rainer Rupp, a former NATO intelligence official and East German spy. Translated and edited from German.

By Rainer Rupp

The disappearance without a trace of a US reconnaissance drone over Iran has unsettled American officials — not only because such aircraft are rare and difficult to replace, but also because there are renewed fears that a cutting-edge American technological marvel may have fallen intact into Iranian hands.

On April 9, 2026, just days after the US and Iran agreed on a fragile ceasefire, one of the US Navy’s most expensive and advanced reconnaissance drones vanished over the Strait of Hormuz. The aircraft in question was an MQ-4C Triton — a high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) platform on routine patrol over the Persian Gulf. Suddenly, it stopped responding to its pilot’s commands and veered autonomously to the northeast, directly toward Iranian territory. It transmitted the emergency squawk code 7700 before rapidly descending from its operational altitude of approximately 16 kilometres to barely one kilometre. Communications then ceased entirely. A subsequent search for wreckage yielded nothing. Washington has yet to issue an official confirmation of the loss, and Tehran has maintained an equally conspicuous silence, even as reports suggest a growing sense of unease within Pentagon circles.

Subscribe now

The MQ-4C Triton is the flagship of US naval reconnaissance: a flying fortress equipped with radar, infrared cameras, and signals intelligence systems capable of monitoring ships, submarines, and aircraft across thousands of kilometres. It operates at altitudes above 15,000 metres, can remain airborne for up to 30 hours, and covers vast maritime areas. Built by Northrop Grumman, it is the maritime counterpart of the RQ-4 Global Hawk. Its unit cost ranges between 200 and 250 million dollars, though some analyses — when accounting for development and programme expenditures — place the figure as high as 618 million dollars.

The US Navy currently operates approximately 20 of these aircraft, with seven more on order. The original programme of 70 units was cut to 27 due to cost overruns, meaning a loss of this magnitude is far from trivial: it creates a gap in global surveillance coverage, particularly across the Indo-Pacific, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East. Replacement is not a near-term option, as production is winding down and scheduled to end in 2028. To maintain surveillance coverage of the Persian Gulf, the Navy would need to redeploy a Triton from another region of the world, creating a corresponding gap elsewhere.

Yet the material loss is not what is generating the most anxiety in the Pentagon. The real question being asked is whether Iran has managed the seemingly impossible: either detecting and shooting down a stealth-equipped drone at extreme altitude, or — far more alarming — electronically hijacking the aircraft and forcing it to land intact. Either scenario would effectively rule out any further Triton operations in Iranian airspace.

Subscribe now

The disappearance of the Triton on April 9 immediately calls to mind the most spectacular Iranian drone operation on record: the electronic capture of a US stealth drone in December 2011. In that incident, Iran intercepted an RQ-170 Sentinel deep inside its own airspace near Kashmar. The highly classified, stealth-capable CIA drone had been on a covert mission. Iranian electronic warfare specialists subsequently claimed to have disrupted its satellite link and then fed its GPS system with spoofed signals, causing the aircraft to believe it was returning to its home base in Afghanistan — only to land gently, intact and undamaged, on Iranian soil. The imagery of the nearly pristine drone in the hands of the Revolutionary Guards was difficult to dismiss, and Iran was reportedly able to reverse-engineer elements of its stealth technology and sensor suite. Russia and China are also understood to have taken a keen interest in examining the captured aircraft.

The parallels between the two incidents are striking. Both involved advanced US reconnaissance drones operating in sensitive areas near Iranian territory, and both point toward electronic warfare — jamming and GPS spoofing — as a possible explanation. At the same time, the current case remains unresolved: it is not yet known whether the Triton’s disappearance was caused by technical failure or by Iranian intervention, whether kinetic or electronic.

The Pentagon’s long-delayed statement, finally issued on April 15, 2026, does little to clarify matters. Officials confirmed only that the missing drone constitutes a “Class A Mishap” — a total loss — and that the MQ-4C Triton crashed on April 9, with a declared value of 238 to 240 million dollars, making it the first total loss of an MQ-4C since the type entered service in 2018. The circumstances, location, and cause of the crash were withheld, officially on security grounds. The term “crash/mishap” implicitly excludes hostile action, though this framing has done little to quell speculation in military-technical forums and on social media platforms, where the theory persists that Iranian air defences either shot down the Triton or, as in the case of the RQ-170 Sentinel, electronically hijacked it and brought it down intact for detailed technical examination.

The latter scenario would represent a catastrophe for the United States and an extraordinary windfall for Iran — and potentially for its Russian and Chinese partners — one that could inflict serious damage on American technical intelligence capabilities for years to come. It is precisely for this reason that both sides appear to have an interest in keeping the true circumstances opaque. Should the Triton have gone down due to technical failure, the Pentagon would naturally seek to conceal the crash site until its special operations units have recovered the classified technologies, whether from the seabed or a mountainside. And should Iran have succeeded in capturing the drone intact, Washington would be even less inclined to publicise what would amount to a humiliating demonstration that Iran has achieved parity with American military technology in the domains of drones, missiles, and electronic warfare.

Iran has made no official reference — even implicitly — to having shot down or captured the Triton. So long as Tehran maintains its silence, Washington may be inclined to assume that the other side does not yet possess the drone’s sensitive technologies. This could encourage continued Triton operations — even as engineers in Tehran may already be working to find ways to exploit the remaining US fleet for their own ends. The story continues to unfold, and it is one worth watching closely.

Pascal‘s Note: Text by Dr. Yakov M. Rabkin, Professor Emeritus of History at the Université de Montréal, scholar at the Montreal Centre for International Studies (CERIUM) and founding member of Canada’s Independent Jewish Voices. He is the author, most recently, of Israel in Palestine and Zionism Decoded in 101 Quotes.

By Yakov M. Rabkin

A synagogue is bombed in the middle of Passover. This would be, prima facie, an antisemitic act. Few would argue otherwise—unless, of course, the bombing was carried out by the Israeli Air Force. Many people conflate Jews with Israelis, and Judaism with Zionism. They cannot imagine that Israel would act against Jews—in other words, commit antisemitic acts.

The synagogue in question is in Tehran, home to one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world. Jews have lived in Iran for over two millennia and are no less Iranian than Muslims, Christians, or Zoroastrians. However, for most Israelis—and certainly for their government—Iran’s Jews are not Iranian. They are seen as belonging to a different nation, for whom the state of Israel ostensibly exists, regardless of the actual attitudes of Jews around the world toward “the historical homeland.”

The bombing of the Tehran synagogue was not the first antisemitic act committed by Israel. In January 1951, Israeli agents threw a grenade into a synagogue in Baghdad. This was one of a series of acts designed to encourage Jews to leave Iraq and relocate to Israel. Similar provocations against local Jews were organized in Egypt and Morocco. The new Zionist state, which had expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs, needed Jews to fill empty houses and villages. Avi Shlaim, who was five years old when he left Iraq, recalls his mother telling him, “Zionism is an Ashkenazi thing.” Indeed, Jews in Muslim lands, who lived in far greater peace than their counterparts in Europe, played no part in the emergence of the Zionist movement at the turn of the 20th century. To force them to relocate to Israel, antisemitic acts were deemed a convenient tool—staged for political ends.

Antisemitism, a mutation of European racism and xenophobia, grew in the second half of the 19th century. Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, recognized that antisemitism could be harnessed to Zionist purposes, since both Zionism and antisemitism sought to rid Europe of its Jews. He wrote in his diary: “The antisemites will become our most loyal friends, the antisemitic nations will become our allies.” His words proved prophetic. The first instance of imperial support for Zionist colonization of Palestine came in November 1917 from Arthur Balfour, a British politician who a decade earlier had opposed the admission of Russian Jews to his country. It was therefore logical that Edwin Montagu, the only Jew in the British cabinet, denounced Balfour’s support for Zionism as antisemitic:

I wish to place on record my view that the policy of His Majesty’s Government is antisememic in result and will prove a rallying ground for antisemites in every country in the world. … Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom. … When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home … you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country…

Like Herzl, Montagu uttered prescient words. In the interwar period, Zionists across Europe established cooperation with antisemitic authorities eager to rid their countries of Jews. These included Nazi officials, who treated Zionist organizations in Germany exceptionally well compared to other Jewish institutions. A high-ranking SS functionary even toured Zionist colonies in Palestine in the company of a German Zionist leader. After their visit, the Nazi newspaper *Der Angriff*, founded by Goebbels, published complimentary articles about the Zionist enterprise, and a medal was struck to commemorate the visit—a swastika on one side, a Star of David on the other.

Subscribe now

The Zionists’ exclusive focus on establishing an ethnic nationalist state in Palestine explains their success in scuttling rescue efforts that could have saved many European Jews by resettling them elsewhere. In 1938, following Kristallnacht, which unleashed physical violence against German Jews, Ben-Gurion said:

If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.

This view of people as “human material” to be used for the benefit of the Zionist state also explains the antisemitic acts that Zionists committed in Muslim countries in their effort to Judaize Palestine.

Before Zionism harmed Palestinians, it did violence to Jews and their heritage. While other nationalist movements—Polish, Ukrainian, or Lithuanian—sought an ethnic state to preserve cultural continuity, Zionism strove to uproot Jews from their traditional culture and language (Yiddish) and create a “Muskeljude” (“muscular Jew”): a strong, cynical, brutal individual inspired by Aryan prototypes. The Nazi genocide reinforced the Zionists’ resolve to rely on naked force to achieve their goals. Thus, Israel has become one of the most militarized societies, committing violent crimes with impunity.

Predictably, Israel is the most dangerous place for Jews. Since the late 19th century, critics of Zionism warned that a Zionist state would become a death trap, endangering both colonizers and colonized alike. For these critics—especially those outside Israel—the Zionist experiment is a tragic mistake. They argue that the sooner it ends, without harm to its inhabitants, the better for humanity as a whole.

The danger of Zionism to Jews is not only physical but also moral and spiritual. The Zionists’ claim to Palestine and their behavior contradict drastically the teachings of rabbinic Judaism. Jewish religious opponents of Zionism see the persistent and recurring violence since the foundation of Zionist settlement in Palestine as a consequence of Zionism’s radical rupture from two thousand years of Jewish tradition. In this worldview, the physical appropriation of the Holy Land can lead only to perdition. In the words of Rabbi Isaac Breuer: “Zionism is the most terrible enemy that has ever arisen to the Jewish nation. … Zionism kills the nation and then elevates the corpse to the throne.”

In 1948, during the war triggered by the Zionists’ ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Hannah Arendt, the prominent Jewish intellectual who fled Nazi Germany for the United States, wrote:

And even if the Jews were to win the war … the ‘victorious’ Jews would live surrounded by an entirely hostile Arab population, secluded inside ever-threatened borders, absorbed with physical self-defense. … And all this would be the fate of a nation that—no matter how many immigrants it could still absorb and how far it extended its boundaries—would still remain a very small people greatly outnumbered by hostile neighbors.

Israel is also a constant danger to—rather than protector of—Jews living outside its ever-expanding borders. Soon after the IDF bombed the Tehran synagogue, Dr. Younes Hamami Lalehzar stated the obvious: “The Israeli regime’s claim about defending Jews is nothing more than a shameful lie.”

Moreover, Israel’s brutality and its claim to represent all Jews provoke acts of violence against Jews worldwide. Israeli leaders actively encourage the conflation of Jews with Israel, as it serves highly strategic purposes. It legitimizes the Zionist state, reinforces its ideology and fuels antisemitism by making Jews abroad appear complicit in Israeli policies, ultimately driving Jews to emigrate to Israel. Antisemitism offers a win-win scenario to Israel: new immigrants contribute intellectual, entrepreneurial, and financial resources, while also expanding the pool of potential recruits for the IDF.

Decades of discrimination, deportation, and murder of local Palestinians have produced anger, resentment, and hatred. Contrary to the prevailing self-pity and indignation that followed the attack from Gaza in October 2023, the legendary Israeli warrior General Moshe Dayan understood the predicament of the Palestinians. Speaking at the funeral of an Israeli killed by a Palestinian from Gaza in 1956, he said:

Let us not today cast blame on the murderers. Who are we to argue against their potent hatred for us? For eight years they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been turning the land and villages in which they and their forefathers lived into our own inheritance…

Dayan, in one of his brutally honest moments, confessed that “there is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

Such words are rarely heard in Israel today. Self-righteousness reigns supreme. The vast majority of non-Arab Israelis support the genocide in Gaza and stand behind their armed forces in the current attacks on Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen. The habitual use of violence has inebriated Israelis, and it seems that only force can stop them from committing further crimes against humanity. It remains to be seen whether such force can be found.

Subscribe now

The Tehran synagogue was reportedly bombed by planes marked with the Star of David. When I visited it ten years ago, Iranian Jews seemed safe. Unlike in Paris or Berlin, there were no guards at the entrances to synagogues and Jewish institutions. I also visited Tehran’s Jewish hospital. Unlike Montreal, where the Jewish hospital was a response to the antisemitism of the medical establishment—which would not hire Jewish doctors in the 1920s and 1930s—the Jewish hospital in Tehran was a voluntary Jewish contribution to the city’s population. I hope the hospital did not share the same fate as the synagogue. Above the entrance to the hospital, I noticed a Torah verse in the original Hebrew and in Farsi: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

We believe in open access to information. If you found value in our work and want to support us on keeping things free for everyone, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you!

Subscribe now

[Pascal‘s Note: the following is the statement by Iran‘s Supreme National Security Council, as posted in Farsi, in Tasnim News, a news agency close to the IRGC. Translation by AI, no guarantee for accuracy. It was forwarded to me by an Iranian source, critical of the government. They judge it to be the official position Iran is broadcasting within its borders.]

Subscribe now

A statement by the Supreme National Security Council regarding the publication of America’s acceptance of Iran’s conditions

The enemy, in its unfair, unlawful, and criminal war against the Iranian nation, has suffered an undeniable, historic, and crushing defeat. By the blessing of the pure and sacred blood of the martyred leader of the Islamic Revolution, Grand Ayatollah Imam Khamenei (peace be upon him), the guidance of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and Commander-in-Chief, Ayatollah سید مجتبی خامنه‌ای (may God protect him), the struggle and bravery of the fighters of Islam on the fronts, and especially your historic, enduring, and epic presence, dear people, in the field from the very first days of the war, Iran has achieved a great victory and forced criminal America to accept its 10-point plan. In this plan, America has in principle committed itself to guaranteeing non-aggression, the continuation of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of enrichment, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, the termination of all Security Council and Board of Governors resolutions, payment of compensation to Iran, the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region, and the cessation of war on all fronts, including against the heroic Islamic Resistance in Lebanon. We congratulate all the people of Iran on this victory and emphasize that, until the details of this victory are finalized, there remains a need for the steadfastness and prudence of the authorities and for preserving the unity and solidarity of the people of Iran.

Islamic Iran, together with the brave fighters of the resistance in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and occupied Palestine, has in the past 40 days dealt blows to the enemy that the historical memory of the world will never forget. Iran and the Axis of Resistance, as representatives of honor and humanity against the most savage enemies of mankind, after a historic battle, have taught them an unforgettable lesson and have crushed their forces, capabilities, infrastructure, and all of their political, economic, technological, and military capital so thoroughly that the enemy has now fallen into disintegration and helplessness and sees no path before it except surrender to the will of the great nation of Iran and the noble Axis of Resistance. On the first day that the criminal enemies of Iran began this unjust war, they imagined that in a short time they would achieve complete military domination over Iran and, by creating political and social instability, force Iran to surrender. They thought Iran’s missile and drone fire would quickly be extinguished and did not believe Iran could respond with such force beyond its own borders and across the entire region. Treacherous global Zionism had convinced the ignorant American president that this war would finish Iran and that, by removing this last bastion of humanity and civilization, they would henceforth be able to commit any crime against whomever they wished with ease. They dreamed of dividing beloved Iran and plundering its oil and wealth, and in the end leaving Iranians immersed and abandoned amid chaos, instability, and insecurity for many years.

The brave fighters of Islam and their courageous allies in the Axis of Resistance, although their hearts were wounded and torn apart by the martyrdom of their Imam, resolved, relying on Almighty God and following the example of the Lord and Master of Martyrs, to teach these enemies a historic lesson once and for all, to take revenge for all their previous crimes, and to create conditions in which the enemy would forever abandon any thought of aggression against beloved Iran and would fully taste humiliation and disgrace before the great nation of Iran.

With this strategy, and relying on the unprecedented political and social unity that had been created in the country, Iran and the Resistance began one of the heaviest combined battles in history against America and the Zionist regime, and during this period achieved all the objectives they had set for this battle. Iran and the Resistance almost completely destroyed America’s military machine in the region, dealt crushing and deep blows to the mass of infrastructure and capabilities that the enemy had created and deployed around the region over many years for this war against Iran, inflicted extensive casualties on the criminal American army on a regional scale, and struck devastating and crushing blows inside the occupied territories against the enemy’s forces, infrastructure, facilities, and assets. They constricted the enemy on all fronts so severely that not only did none of the enemy’s principal objectives materialize, but the enemy realized about 10 days after the start of the war that it had no possibility of victory. For this reason, through various channels and methods, it began efforts to contact Iran and request a ceasefire.

The noble people of Iran should know that, thanks to the struggles of their sons and their own historic presence in the field, the enemy has been begging for more than a month for Iran and the Resistance to stop their intense fire. But the country’s officials rejected all such requests, because from the very beginning it had been decided that the war would continue until the objectives were achieved, including the enemy’s becoming remorseful and desperate and the removal of the long-term threat against the country. Thus the war has continued until today, the fortieth day. Iran has also repeatedly rejected the deadlines set by the American president and continues to stress that it attaches no importance to any kind of deadline imposed by the enemy.

Trump’s retreat post; agreement to use Iran’s 10-point proposal as the basis

Now we give glad tidings to the great nation of Iran that almost all the objectives of the war have been achieved and that your brave sons have brought the enemy to a historic helplessness and an enduring defeat. Iran’s historic decision, backed by the unified support of the whole nation, is to continue this battle for as long as necessary until its great achievements are consolidated and new security and political equations are created in the region based on recognition of the power and primacy of Iran and the Resistance.

Accordingly, and in line with the guidance of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah سید مجتبی خامنه‌ای (may God protect him), and with the approval of the Supreme National Security Council, and given Iran’s upper hand in the battlefield, the enemy’s inability to carry out its threats despite all its claims, and its official acceptance of all the rightful demands of the Iranian people, it was decided that, in order to finalize the details, negotiations would be held in Islamabad so that, within a maximum of 15 days, the details of Iran’s victory in the field would also be consolidated in political negotiations.

In this regard, Iran, while rejecting all plans put forward by the enemy, drafted a 10-point plan and presented it to the American side through Pakistan. In it, Iran emphasized fundamental points such as controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz in coordination with Iran’s armed forces, which grants Iran a unique economic and geopolitical position; the necessity of ending the war against all components of the Axis of Resistance, which would signify the historic defeat of the aggression of the child-killing Israeli regime; the withdrawal of American combat forces from all bases and deployment points in the region; the establishment of a secure transit protocol in the Strait of Hormuz in such a way that Iran’s dominance according to the agreed protocol would be guaranteed; full payment of Iran’s damages according to assessments; the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions and all Board of Governors and Security Council resolutions; the release of all Iranian funds and assets frozen abroad; and finally the adoption of all these matters in a binding Security Council resolution. It should be noted that passage of this resolution would turn all these agreements into binding international law and create a major diplomatic victory for the Iranian nation.

Now the respected Prime Minister of Pakistan has informed Iran that, despite all its apparent threats, the American side has accepted these principles as the basis of negotiations and has surrendered to the will of the Iranian nation. On this basis, it was decided at the highest level that Iran would engage in negotiations with the American side in Islamabad for two weeks and solely on the basis of these principles. It is emphasized that this does not mean the end of the war, and Iran will accept the end of the war only when, given acceptance of the principles envisaged by Iran in the 10-point plan, the details are also finalized in negotiations.

These negotiations will begin in Islamabad on Friday, 21 Farvardin, under complete distrust toward the American side, and Iran will allocate two weeks for them. This period may be extended by agreement of the parties. It is necessary during this time to preserve complete national unity and to continue the victory celebrations with strength. The current negotiations are national negotiations and a continuation of the battlefield, and it is necessary for all people, elites, and political groups to trust and support this process, which is under the supervision of the Supreme Leader and the highest levels of the system, and to strongly refrain from any divisive statements. If the enemy’s surrender on the battlefield is transformed into a decisive political achievement in negotiations, then together we will celebrate this great historic victory; otherwise, side by side on the battlefield, we will continue to fight until all the demands of the Iranian nation are achieved. Our hands remain on the trigger, and the slightest mistake by the enemy will be met with full force.

Supreme National Security Council

19 Farvardin 1405

End of Message.

Text by Guest-Contributor: John Snow.

It is unprecedented to see a president of the United States, the most powerful nation on Earth, express himself the way Donald Trump does: at times brutally frank, at others lying brazenly for all to see, and regularly contradicting himself from one sentence to the next. The man seems to have completely lost his mind and has become either the laughingstock of the world, or the most feared person on Earth. And yet, the Israel-first camp on the one hand, and die-hard QAnon conspiracy theorists on the other, continue to support him. What are we to make of it?

A Molotov Cocktail in Global Governance

In November 2016, on the eve of Donald Trump’s election, filmmaker Michael Moore described the future president as a “human Molotov cocktail thrown into the American political system.”

Nearly ten years later, it is clear that this human Molotov cocktail has wreaked havoc on the international stage, right in the heart of the Middle Eastern powder keg. Since February 28, Trump’s words and actions have been like missiles and live grenades hurled not only at Iran, but, through a perfectly predictable chain reaction, at every Gulf state, all the way to Israel and Lebanon. And since the near-total blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the entire world is now threatened by an economic crisis of staggering proportions.

The French lawyer and commentator Régis de Castelnau used an expression that is almost impossible to translate into English, yet perfectly fitting: “Non seulement Donald Trump dit n’importe quoi, mais il fait n’importe quoi.” Google Translate renders this as “Trump says whatever comes to his mind.” That is partly right, but not enough. The expression n’importe quoi conveys something both unpredictable and irrational.

Since the beginning of this war of aggression against Iran, President Trump has done nothing but shout victory from within his parallel world, a fantasy world in which he seems to retreat between brief visits to reality.

Trump’s statements are so contradictory and erratic, not just from one day to the next, but from one sentence to the next, as many online commentators have pointed out, that they raise legitimate questions about his mental health. How could a sane man display so little coherence in his speech without being crushed by shame and ridicule?

Moreover, seeing him regularly break into little dance steps in the middle of a deadly war adds insult to injury. He has been compared to Boris Yeltsin. The man seems to be reaching new heights of indignity (though, for that matter, had we not already reached similar heights of indignity during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, with all those choreographed dances by masked nurses while hospitals were supposedly overflowing with dying patients?).

As we saw especially in the controversy over the bombing of the school in Minab, Trump appears as immature as a spoiled eight-year-old child, incapable of admitting the slightest fault. And the former Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba confirmed this sign of worrying immaturity. At the same time, the US President and his secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, who has revealed himself to be a religious fanatic, never stop boasting about their destructive power and about having won the war. Yet at the same time they have asked NATO and the Gulf countries, and even others beyond them, for help in unconditionally reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which is in fact controlled by that same supposedly defeated Iranian state.

While all experts agree that any land or naval operations to reopen the strait would have very little chance of succeeding in the long term and would sooner or later almost certainly end in disaster for the troops involved, Trump at some point declared that the problem of reopening the strait, whose closure he himself caused, was no longer America’s problem. The insult to the rest of the world was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness.

And when Trump recently mentioned discussions with new Iranian leaders whom no one could identify—even as Iranian officials who had survived the mass killings, such as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, denied that any negotiations were taking place—the credibility of the United States seemed to have sunk to depths likely never before seen in its history.

But then, we learned on April 3 that an Iranian negotiator, Kamal Kharazi, a former foreign minister, who was reportedly in contact with the Pakistani foreign minister—who himself was in contact with JD Vance—had just been seriously injured in a new strike. What kind of perverse individual attempts to systematically assassinate all opponents who might wish to negotiate? One might recognize the modus operandi of those who draw inspiration from the Book of Esther, following the Book of Ezekiel (see previous article) to justify the systematic massacre of all their enemies. And as Tucker Carlson points out, among them are people from the Protestant faith. But Joe Kent, the former director of counterterrorism, does not hesitate to accuse Israel. When Trump said he did not want to name who his administration was talking to so that they would not be killed, one had to understand “killed by Israel,” as had already happened at the very beginning of the war. The goal would be to drag the United States ever deeper into the war. If that is the case, it is extraordinary to note that Trump is apparently letting it happen without a peep.

And more and more observers believe that Israel’s objective is not merely to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program or the mullahs’ regime, but to destroy Iran as a functioning state, as Libya and Syria were, Lebanon as well and in a different way. Former Israeli Minister of Defense, Yoah Gallant, who called Palestinians “animals,” believes that the US has the means to destroy everything in Iran, even razing Tehran, to force them to capitulate. And the recent bombing of as many as 30 Iranian universities - which is a series of war crimes - seem to demonstrate that goal.

Subscribe now

Iran Still Holds the Stronger Hand

IIran, a nation under attack that is fighting for its survival with every means at its disposal, would refuse to negotiate with the United States, given that the Trump administration has now demonstrated its treachery on three separate occasions. Trust in the United States had already been shattered on 28 February. Now more than ever, with the U.S. government having proven itself once more agreement-incapable - because, ultimately, it lets its partner, or rather its handler, decide - only the balance of power matters. Iran has now fully understood the American-Israeli lesson and has no choice but to continue applying the same principle in return.

Between the latest American demands on the one hand, expressed in a fifteen-point plan that more than ever looks like a mere wishlist, and Iran’s demands on the other, no compromise appears possible. Iran logically rejected the US ultimatum and keeps demanding the withdrawal of American troops from the Gulf, guarantees against future aggression, and financial compensation for the colossal material losses the country has suffered.

Let us also remember that it is not only the Islamic Republic regime that has faced an existential threat for the past month; Iran itself is fighting for survival as a state. Under such conditions, it is hard to imagine how those still in charge of the country could yield to new threats, especially since Iran still possesses considerable means of pressure and disruption. Strengthened by its ability to withstand a shock for which it has been preparing for twenty years, including by organizing against decapitation strikes through three to seven levels of automatic succession for all sensitive leadership positions, and by burying its main military installations deep underground, Iran still retains the capacity to strike any country in the region, as well as the major card of its effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil and gas trade passes, as well as nearly 30% of fertilizers.

Subscribe now

Strategic Defeat of the Empire

The narcissistic Trump, who himself admits to being susceptible to flattery, seems to have been manipulated by the representatives of the Zionist lobby who surround him and who have figured out exactly how to handle him. On the other hand, Susan Wiles, the president’s chief of staff, reportedly asked her staff to stop shielding Trump from reality. This would confirm that the information reaching him is being filtered. And that he is somehow unaware of the disaster unfolding.

Yet, it is hard to imagine that he would not be aware that the US military had to evacuate their Victory Base in Bagdad,after 23 years of occupation, but also the US Navy 5^th Fleet base in Bahrain. While it was reported on 26 February that the US Navy staff had been reduced to “Misson critical level”, with the recent announcement of 1,500 sailors having being urgently evacuated, it is unclear how many US personal would remain there.

Having failed to force Iran to back down despite intense bombing, and unwilling to admit that his strategy has failed, Trump is threatening to bomb the country even more to send it back to the Stone Age. Out of sheer vengeance? Or as a last-ditch, desperate attempt to intimidate the adversary before withdrawing and letting the rest of the world negotiate the right to transit the Strait of Hormuz? Or might he be tempted by one final, spectacular move to declare victory—a move that could end in disaster?

That would mean a strategic victory for Iran and a historic defeat for the United States, far worse than the fiascos in Vietnam or Afghanistan, which were only local conflicts disconnected from the global economy. With this suicidal war against Iran, more than eighty years of American domination over the Middle East and its oil and gas industry now appear to be nearing their end. It was on February 14, 1945, aboard the USS Quincy, that the foundations were laid for cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia: oil in exchange for security. Yet in recent weeks the United States has demonstrated that it is incapable of guaranteeing the security of the Gulf states.

Beyond that, it is the entire system of American economic domination over the world, based on the petrodollar, that Iran is now in the process of blowing up, since it took the initiative of allowing passage through the Strait of Hormuz only to non-hostile countries, those that pay a transit fee, or those pay for their oil in yuan or in a currency other than the dollar. And China, America’s number one commercial rival, will hardly complain.

The United States can go on blustering and destroying as much as they like; the Israeli-American operation is shaping up to be a historic failure, perhaps even one of biblical proportions.

Subscribe now

Is Trump Mad, Desperate or Manipulated?

John Mearsheimer suggests two possibilities for explaining Trump’s behavior. Either he has become a mad king. Or he is aware that he has trapped himself in an inextricable situation with potentially catastrophic consequences, and no longer knows how to get out of it, thrashing about in desperation, alternating between moments of magically optimistic thinking and moments of pessimism whenever he is forced back into the real world. Hence the utterly erratic discourse.

There is the third option that a weak-minded Trump has been disconnected from reality by his handlers. Those messianic Zionists, whether Jewish or Christian Protestant, continue to support the current war, believing they are on the right path, convinced, or at least hoping, that a last-minute divine miracle will bring about the return of the Messiah and the victory of the chosen people and their armed wing over all their enemies. The most fanatical figures, such as Paula White, the Senior Adviser at the White House’s Faith Office, compare Trump himself to Jesus. And another fanatic, such as the evangelist Pastor Franklin Graham, declares in front of an impassive Trump that the Iranian regime wants to kill all Jews in a nuclear firestorm. Clearly, he is unaware that Judaism is protected as an official minority religion in Iran and local jews even have a reserved seat the Parliament. The level of ignorance—or propaganda—among these people is abysmal. This said, there are some human rights issues in Iran. But is it worse than Saoudi Arabia? Or worse than the Western world that allows the super-elite to rape children?

These religious Zionists, still backed by all those convinced by media outlets such as Fox News that the Islamic Republic of Iran represents Evil on Earth are undoubtedly the most dangerous people in the world, because they do not operate on the basis of a balanced and rational view of reality.

So, Trump could be mad, desperate and manipulated at the same time. But the scary part is that those who manipulate him appear as crazy and unhinged as he is.

Subscribe now

Playing the Game of the Globalized Empire in Order to Destroy it Better?

Finally, there is a fourth possible interpretation, that of Q supporters, who still want to convince themselves that Trump is carrying out a divine plan, but one exactly opposite to the one embraced by the Zionists. In the French-speaking world, the Canadian Alexis Cossette is one of them, as is the Frenchman Black Bond. In this theory, Trump only pretended to play the game of the Zionists and other supporters of the globalized American Empire in order to push them toward self-destruction, while ultimately giving the United States a pretext to withdraw from NATO, something that has tempted Trump for years. Supporters of this theory emphasize that even if the method may be shocking, given the destruction and casualties it entails (this said, Cossette insists there are no images of the bodies of the girls said to have been killed in Minab and suggests it could be propaganda), the results objectively stand a good chance of being achieved: the end of NATO, the end of the petrodollar, the end of the American Empire, the end of American popular support for Israel, and therefore the eventual end of the power of the Israeli lobby in the United States, the collapse of Israel’s image around the world, perhaps even its end, at least in its current form. In short, it is the domination of the American-Zionist globalized oligarchy over the world that now seems to be on the verge of collapse in the short or medium term.

Having already survived two assassination attempts, Trump is said to have understood that openly confronting the Zionists and the neoconservatives was too dangerous, and that the strategy of pretending to follow them, acting crazy, until their plans failed would be the only way to put an end to the grip of this globalized mafia that has governed the Western world for the last decades.

But if that were a strategy, it would be a very risky one. If Trump loses the midterms and is impeached? What will happen then? Given Trump’s behavior, his daily lies, his constant reversals, and even his indignity, especially in the contemptible way he treats the courageous men and women who oppose his war, such as Joe Kent, Thomas Massie or Marjorie Taylor Greene, it seems very difficult to believe that he could consciously be playing such a subtle and risky game of multi-cushion billiards while sacrificing his own image in the process.

Especially since the latest news regarding the dismissal of several administration officials seems to indicate an attempt to reassume control of key positions in a way that might not necessarily please those in the MAGA base who voted to end the wars and prosecute those on the Epstein list.

Thus, Attorney General Pam Bondi is being replaced by Todd Blanche, her deputy, who is becoming acting Attorney General. Blanche was Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and has already stated scandalously that the Department of Justice should “move on” from the Epstein files.

At the Pentagon, three generals have been dismissed: first, the Army Chief of Staff, General Randy George, as well as General William Green, commander of the Army Chaplain Corps. Given that the question of deploying ground troops to Iran has been raised, it is likely that George expressed strong reservations about what would appear to be a suicide mission. His deputy, who is replacing him on an interim basis, General Christopher LaNeve, was previously Hegseth’s Military Aide, so one can imagine that the latter will be more compliant.

Furthermore, one can also imagine that the Chief Chaplain did not appreciate Pete Hegseth citing the Old Testament to support his messianic war policy, like the Archbishop Timothy Broglio, head of the Archdiocese for the US Military Services, who, in the steps of the Pope, another American Catholic, also condemned the US War against Iran. It seems the US is on the verge of some kind of new religious war amongst Christians.

While these dismissals appear to strengthen the executive branch’s control over its administration in the short term amid multiple crises, it remains to be seen whether those dismissed will be tempted to voice their views in the media, as Joe Kent (another Catholic) did, and how this will be perceived by the electorate.

In any case, these dismissals do not bode well for future operations in Iran. And rumors are swirling about an imminent and highly risky ground operation to seize Iran’s enriched uranium, with a string of US C-17 military cargo planes being spotted flying towards the Middle-East, while the latest news between 3 and 4 April mention 4 US aircrafts shot down or damaged, and a costly operation to rescue 2 American pilots in Iran on 5 April, leaving more aircrafts destroyed, up to 12, according to Iranian sources, while images show at least one C-130 and one MH-6 helicopter destroyed on the same location, thanks to various spare parts identified. Arnaud Bertrand went through the official narrative of President Trump about this near debacle presented as a victory and underlines the many implausibilities. Since no names or photos of the pilots were released, some speculate the heroic rescue story may have just been a cover for a failed special operation to seize uranium in Isfahan, which would further explain the Mad King’s rage on his Easter message.

Then remains the hypothesis that Trump, with his very particular qualities and flaws, might despite himself be an instrument of Providence for changing the world in a positive direction after a period of deep chaos. But only people open to a spiritual view of the world can entertain such a hypothesis. It remains that what Trump is doing, allegedly for the sake of Israel, looks like the best way to bring about the downfall of the American-Zionist Empire, while revealing in the process to the entire world how it operates. Is Alexander Dugin wrong when he states:

Massive Calls for Trump’s Removal from Office

On 5 April, following Trump’s latest unhinged message of threats towards Iran, a massive wave of alarming messages from former major Trump Supporters and others flooded X. Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene or Candace Owens immediately made public calls for the removal of Donald Trump for office, invoking his madness. Candace refers to him the “Mad King”, “surrounded by religious fanatics who have convinced him that he is a messiah.” Even the rather moderate and once mainstream British Commentator Piers Morgan dares to suggest Trump “lost his marbles.” Some think Trump’s marked disinhibition is “a classic symptom of frontal neurodegenerative disorders”, “particularly the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia”, an age-related disease. When the US president calls Iranian leaders “crazy bastards”, he is like the mad man blaming the victim for making him beat him up. Yet, he seems to have fun about it at the same time, inventing days of destruction such as “Power Plan Day and Bridge Day.”

The democrat Bernie Sanders, who had challenged Hillary Clinton in 2016 to win the right to run for president, published an appeal calling Trump “a dangerous and mentally unbalanced individual”, urging the Congress to “act now” and “end this war”. More Democrat Senators and Representatives followed.

Already, on March 21, after Trump’s first ultimatum to Iran over reopening the Strait of Hormuz, retired U.S. lieutenant colonel turned commentator Daniel Davis had sounded the alarm. According to him, this president, who had already been making incoherent and contradictory statements for weeks, appears to be clinically insane, and it may be time to consider invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Under that amendment, if the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet consider the president unfit to discharge the duties of office, they may remove his powers in writing. The vice president then immediately becomes acting president. If the president contests the declaration, Congress must decide the matter, requiring a two-thirds majority in each chamber to uphold the transfer of power. In other words, it still seems highly unlikely that the president would be removed through this procedure. But the simple fact that some people who had previously supported Trump are beginning to contemplate it is a measure of the gravity of the situation.

All the more so because Daniel Davis is no fringe figure. In March 2025, he had been considered for the position of Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Mission Integration under Tulsi Gabbard. But his appointment was abruptly withdrawn on 12 March 2025, because of growing criticism of his past statements… on Israel. He had notably described American support for the war in Gaza as a “stain” on the nation’s character.

As long as the Zionists remain as influential as they are today around the American president and in Congress, it remains hard to see how a strong parliamentary majority could form against Trump, at least in the short term. While some Democrat Representatives call for the implementation of the 25th Amendment, inviting the Republicans to join, prominent figures such as retired General Flynn, once considered a moderate, double down on endless escalation, “Like it or not, the war is engaged and we have only one acceptable outcome for America—Victory!” And commentators like Mario Nawfal with 3,3 million followers blame Iran for not “accepting Trump’s off-ramp”. In those crazy days, some people lose their common sense.

With the expected change in the balance of power in Congress after the midterms, impeachment would become a serious possibility. But, depending on the scale of the disaster unfolding in the Middle-East, things could go much faster.

Subscribe now

The Nuclear Threat that Does Not Come from Iran

On 19 March, referring to “the power of some weaponry that is unthinkable”, Trump suggested the war in Iran could be over “in two seconds if you wanted to”. And everyone understood he was referring to the possible use of nuclear weapons. Then, he added, “but we are being very judicious”, before starting two different sentences he did not finish, showing the amount of confusion in his mind.

But if the destruction of Iran’s civilian infrastructure does not bring the results they want to get, faced with their growing frustration of not being able to defeat Iran, how far Trump and his handlers are ready to go up the escalation ladder?

The more US aircrafts are lost in and around Iran, the more they could be tempted to use the supreme weapon. And, from the psychology displayed by the lunatics in power, they would then probably blame Iran for giving them no other choice. While some others may believe this would make the coming of the Messiah even more imminent, or simply reveal Trump is the Messiah.

It is safe to assume than both Russia and China probably discreetly warned the US that the use of nuclear weapons could not be tolerated. But, concretely, what would they do if Trump would not listen?

Right now, we live day by day. And every day brings more surprises.

We believe in open access to information. If you found value in our work and want to support us on keeping things free for everyone, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you!

Subscribe now

[By Dr. Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake, PhD, Princeton University, social and medical anthropologist, international development and political economy. First published in Daily FT]

By Dr. Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake

The bodies of eighty-four Iranian sailors who died in a US torpedo attack in the seas of Sri Lanka were repatriated yesterday, 13 March 2026. Describing the scene of the rescue of some of the sailors who survived the dastardly attack, the Sri Lanka Navy Commander Buddhika Sampath said that the boats that reached the location of the distress call on March 4 had observed only an oil slick.

In Washington Donald Trump and his War Secretary had boasted that they had finished off the Iranian Navy. “An American submarine sank an Iranian warship that thought it was ​safe in international waters,” U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said at the Pentagon. “Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. Quiet death.”

“We found people floating in the water and rescued them,” Sri Lankan Navy officer Sampath told reporters. “Later on, we found upon inquiring that they belonged to the Iranian ship.”

The sunken IRIS Dena was unarmed having just participated in the International Fleet Review in India’s Nagapatnam. Had the Colombo regime of President Anura Kumara Dissanayaka not delayed providing safe habour to the IRIS Dena due to US pressure, the war crime would likely not have happened in the island’s maritime Exclusive Economic Zone. Subsequently a second Iranian Ship was given habour in Sri Lanka enabling the Colombo regime to play up its humanitarian role while citing UNCLOS.

Subscribe now

Environmental Damage

A couple of days after the sinking of IRIS Dena, fishers and coastal communities in Hikkaduwa, Galle and Unawatunna noticed a thick oil patch along the coast, impacting the coastal economy, fisheries and tourism in the island nation. These are some of the most pristine coastal belts in the south of Sri Lanka, frequented by tourists throughout the year with a peak tourism season from December to March.

It is increasingly clear that a proper inquiry must be held into the sinking of the Iranian ship and response, as well as an environmental damage impact assessment. If responsible for environmental damage the United States must pay reparations to Sri Lanka for harm caused to fisheries livelihoods and the Tourist sector by the sinking of an unarmed Iranian ship in Sri Lanka’s maritime Exclusive Economic Zone. The new spiritual leader of Iran has stated that the US and Israel must pay reparations for the war they started.

The US is in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and has no right to bring its environment polluting war machine to the Indian Ocean. The US should return it war toys to the Atlantic Ocean and remove all its military bases from the Indian Ocean. So too its NATO partners UK and France.

Peace Campaign needed to evict US-UK-France and Israel from Indian Ocean

India despite aspiring to lead the Global South has failed to liberate the Indian Ocean from Euro-American neocolonialism and military bases, having fallen prey to the Euro-American Imperialist Divide and Rule narratives and policies-- given fear of the Rise of China and the CIA’s “String of Pearls”.

Hence, it is increasingly clear that small Indian Ocean littoral states and islands need a peoples’ Peace Campaign to mount a campaign for closure of US-UK-French neocolonial military bases, to de-militarise and de-colonise the Indian Ocean Region.

The US war machine uses the huge Diego Garcia military base on the occupied Chagos Islands, not far from the Maldives Islands and Sri Lanka to stage attacks in it war of aggression on Iran and to wage hybrid economic warfare on Rising Asian and Indian Ocean countries, particularly South and Southeast Asia.

Geoengineering and weather warfare in the Indian Ocean and the use of “Weather as a force Multiplier’ on emerging South and Southeast Asian countries to “Make the Economy Scream” like the Ditwah Twister storms that hit Sri Lanka and Aceh Indonesia last December are apparent at this time. Staged Environmental disasters are reminiscent of ‘Operation Popeye’ during the Vietnam War which gave rise to the Environmental Modification Technologies Treaty or the ENMOD treaty.

Previously the 2004 Christmas/ Boxing Day Earthquake and Indian Ocean Tsunami destroyed coastal areas in the same countries of the Indian Ocean World. A pattern of ‘plausibly deniable’ hybrid economic warfare on emerging South and Southeast Asian economies of the Indian Ocean is apparent, also targeting China’s maritime Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), for global trade and connectivity.

Subscribe now

US-Israeli Aggression Spreading in Indian Ocean

Once upon a time the Indian Ocean was called a ‘British Lake’ or Pond, when ‘Britannia Ruled the Waves’. Now increasingly, Israelis have set up the Chabad Lubovitch Spider web across Sri Lanka, which is front and center of the Indian Ocean of the world’s busiest trade, energy and submarine Data cable routes, and across the Indian Ocean world’s tourist hotspots-- also to stage ‘climate disasters’. Meanwhile, Israeli surfers claim they ‘own the waves’ in Arugam Bay on the East.

Coast of Sri Lanka!

Protests outside the British Courts in London over the US-UK illegal Occupation of the Chagos Islands where there is a huge military base, Diego Garcia, which is located near the Maldives and Sri Lanka. A US Submarine attacked the Iranian Frigate ISIS Dena killing 87 sailors and causing environmental damage in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

Although not an Indian Ocean county, France has claimed more than ten percent of the total Indian ocean surface and more seabed as its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) at UNCLOS!!1

France uses small islands it colonised centuries ago that are scattered in the Indian Ocean for military bases and to loot Indian Ocean fisheries resources. France and Spain with huge industrialised fisheries trawler fleets, along with Japan and Taiwan, China, are the biggest Ocean Grabbers of Indian Ocean fishery.

These industrialised Distant Water Fishing States deprive impoverished Indian Ocean littoral communities of their ocean resources according to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Data. It is hence too, that British, French and US military bases in the Indian Ocean should be shut down and the Indian Ocean decolonised to enable impoverished littoral communities to harvest their marine resources.

At this time the US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran is spreading across the Indian Ocean World, which must be liberate from past and present US-UK-French military bases, occupation, and neocolonialism, and the exploitation of Indian Ocean fisheries and mineral resources.

The US, UK, French (NATO) war machine which is highly environmentally polluting must be expelled from the Indian Ocean and sent back to the Atlantic Ocean where they belong.

These imperialist and neocolonial countries have a terrible habit of waging war in other peoples’ lands and seas causing massive environmental pollution. It is time for peoples of the Indian Ocean world, particularly small islands to call for an end to US-UK-French neocolonial occupation, aggression and Hybrid Economic warfare against the Rise of Asian economies, particularly South and Southeast Asia in what Singapore academic Kishore Mabubani termed ‘the Asian 21st Century”.

The Indian Ocean must be decolonised so that its rich resources may be sustainably harvested and used by Indian Ocean littoral countries and people, many of whom are dirt poor.

We believe in open access to information. If you found value in our work and want to support us on keeping things free for everyone, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you!

Subscribe now

In the fall of 2026, the Swiss will vote on a popular initiative (a referendum) called ‘Preserving Swiss Neutrality,’ which aims to enshrine strict neutrality in the country’s constitution, prohibiting the government from joining military alliances or participating directly or indirectly in military conflicts. While the constitution currently only mentions the word ‘neutrality’ but does not define it, this amendment would, for the first time, explicitly prohibit not only military involvement in conflicts but also unilateral coercive measures—aka sanctions—and reverse the dangerous trend of Switzerland copy-pasting EU sanctions.

While some denigrate the initiative as ‘right-wing’, ‘populist’, or even ‘pro-Putin’, a left-wing, internationalist committee has recently formed in support of the initiative. It advocates for Switzerland to be non-aligned and peaceful on the international stage. The committee’s founding text is the following.

Subscribe now

A Pacifist and Internationalist Committee for Neutrality

Convinced that Switzerland must urgently put a stop to its dangerous rapprochement with NATO and to the automatic adoption of the bellicose rhetoric of the Euro-Atlantic camp, progressive organizations, political parties, and figures on the left have come together to form a pacifist and internationalist committee for neutrality. Although the concept of neutrality has been misused by this country’s bourgeois forces and its application has often been inconsistent, we believe that, in the present situation, it is a central task of progressive forces to defend this neutrality in our country.

This committee holds that:

1. Switzerland is accelerating its rapprochement with NATO by opening a permanent liaison office in Geneva and by participating in the alliance’s joint military projects such as Sky Shield, PESCO, or ReArm Europe. A report commissioned by the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) and published in August of 2024 bluntly recommends loosening our neutrality policy in order to move closer to NATO, by taking a more active part in the alliance’s military exercises and authorizing weapons exports on a larger scale. We must recognize the gravity of this situation and the disaster it would bring for future generations in our country, especially the risk that they may be sacrificed in a future major war under the NATO flag. This risk is even openly desired by the outgoing army chief, who made no secret of his wish to send 200 Swiss soldiers to Ukraine. The initiative “Safeguarding Swiss Neutrality” prevents our country from joining a supranational military alliance such as NATO.

2. Switzerland should remain non-aligned and should not take part in the imperialist policies of the European Union and the United States, but instead convey a message of peace. Today, however, Switzerland has lost its voice on the international stage and has become little more than a mouthpiece for Atlanticist and warmongering discourse. This is a dangerous position, one that turns Switzerland into a party to the conflict. These distortions of Swiss diplomacy have repeatedly been denounced by former ambassadors and staff of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. At the outset of a new Cold War, the neutrality initiative allows the Swiss people to express their rejection of this systematic alignment, which only worsens an already delicate global situation that gives reason to fear the worst. Europe has a long tradition of non-aligned peace movements that have spoken out against rearmament and bloc confrontation. We want to strengthen this tradition and make Switzerland the only truly non-aligned country in Western Europe. The principle of neutrality, which guarantees and promotes dialogue between states, in no way prevents citizens, associations, and political parties from taking positions outside that framework.

3. Neutrality is not complicity. This message, expressed by 250 officials of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and 56 former ambassadors in open letters to Ignazio Cassis, takes on its full significance in light of the genocide in Gaza. Today, Switzerland is scandalously adopting the war propaganda of the Netanyahu government. Yet respect for human rights and international law was once the compass of Swiss foreign policy, albeit with certain deviations. A Switzerland that offers its good offices should recognize the State of Palestine (Israel is recognized by Switzerland) and work toward ending the colonization of the West Bank.

4. Switzerland should not adopt arbitrary sanctions. Economic sanctions are not only largely ineffective and in violation of the sovereignty of the countries concerned; they also starve populations and primarily damage the living conditions of the lower social classes. Nevertheless, Switzerland is at the forefront of these measures through the mechanical application of illegal EU sanctions, for example against Venezuela and Nicaragua, and through its adoption of the 15th sanctions package against Russia and Belarus. Cuba, too, is affected through the enforcement of the blockade by Swiss banks. This also has negative consequences for the European population, which, because of these sanctions, must face drastic price increases, especially in the areas of energy and food. As provided for in the initiative, Switzerland should implement only those sanctions that have been decided by the international community.

   ---

Pacifist and Internationalist Committee for Neutrality

• Swiss Party of Labour (PdAS/PST-POP)

• Communist Party (Switzerland)

• Swiss Peace Movement

• Switzerland-Cuba Association

• Front for Neutrality and Work (No UE – No NATO)

Their homepage in french can be found here: https://www.comite-gauche-neutralite.ch/le-comité

[Pascal’s Note: The following is a short description by my friend and colleague, Lasha Kasradze of a recently released parliamentary report in Georgia about the abuses during the Saakashvili government.]

Subscribe now

By Lasha Kasradze

The publication of the English-language report by the Temporary Investigative Commission of the Parliament of Georgia marks an important moment in reassessing the country’s political trajectory since the 2003 Rose Revolution. The document examines the record of President Mikheil Saakashvili’s United National Movement (UNM) government, which ruled Georgia from 2003 to 2012. Spanning more than 300 pages, the report details human rights abuses, institutional failures, and patterns of political pressure during that period.

For more than a decade, debates over the legacy of the Saakashvili government have remained among the most polarizing issues in Georgian politics. Supporters of the United National Movement highlight the sweeping modernization reforms introduced after the Rose Revolution, including anti-corruption measures, institutional restructuring, and closer integration with Western political and security structures. Critics, however, argue that these reforms were accompanied by serious abuses of power and violations of fundamental rights, as the rapid consolidation of authority within the executive weakened democratic accountability and enabled the misuse of law-enforcement and judicial institutions.

The parliamentary report represents the most comprehensive official effort to examine these allegations. Drawing on witness testimony, citizen submissions, reports from international organizations, and rulings by Georgian courts and the European Court of Human Rights, the commission reviewed approximately 778 applications for review. The committee conducted 46 investigative sessions, including 139 individual interviews. The report offers an opportunity for broader reassessment of the complex legacy of the post-Rose Revolution era.

Subscribe now

Systemic Problems in the Criminal Justice System

One of the central findings of the commission concerns systemic problems within Georgia’s criminal justice and penitentiary systems during the early years of the Saakashvili administration. According to the report, the government’s “zero tolerance” policy toward crime—introduced as part of an effort to dismantle criminal networks and restore state authority—led to a dramatic rise in incarceration rates.

Within a relatively short period, Georgia’s prison population expanded rapidly, placing significant pressure on correctional infrastructure. Detention facilities became severely overcrowded. Sanitary conditions deteriorated, and access to adequate medical care was often limited.

Beyond these structural deficiencies, the report cites evidence that coercive practices were used during interrogations and detention. Reports by Georgia’s Public Defender and international human rights organizations documented cases in which detainees were subjected to physical abuse, intimidation, and degrading treatment in order to extract confessions or secure cooperation. Although the government at the time defended these measures as necessary in the fight against organized crime and corruption, the commission concludes that the resulting policies undermined basic human rights protections and weakened the rule of law.

Violence, Impunity, and Political Pressure

The report also examines several high-profile incidents involving violence or deaths connected to state officials. Among the most widely discussed cases is the killing of Sandro Girgvliani, which became one of the most controversial episodes of the Saakashvili era and sparked significant public outrage.

According to the commission’s findings, such incidents revealed serious deficiencies in oversight and accountability within Georgia’s law-enforcement institutions. Investigations were frequently incomplete or delayed, and in some cases those responsible avoided meaningful legal consequences. These failures contributed to a broader perception among citizens that state officials could operate with a degree of impunity.

Sulkhan Molashvili, the former chairman of the Georgian Chamber of Control, was tortured because he raised concerns about corruption within the government. Mr. Molashvili eventually died as a result of injuries sustained while in prison. His case became emblematic of broader concerns about the use of criminal justice institutions to silence dissent.

According to the commission, such practices were facilitated by structural features of Georgia’s political system at the time, including the concentration of power within the executive branch and the limited independence of the judiciary.

Subscribe now

Economic Pressure and Media Freedom

The report also documents confiscations of private property and businesses from individual families and entrepreneurs, involving economic pressure on businesses. According to the commission, certain companies were compelled to transfer ownership stakes or provide financial contributions in exchange for protection from prosecution or regulatory scrutiny. The document further raises concerns about media pluralism during the period. The raid by police special forces of Imedi TV during live broadcast remains to be the example of UNM’s autocratic governance.

Why the Report Matters

The significance of the parliamentary report extends beyond documenting individual incidents. First, it represents one of the most substantial institutional efforts within Georgia to confront unresolved questions about the country’s recent political past. For victims and families who have long sought recognition of alleged abuses, the report provides a measure of official acknowledgment.

Second, the report challenges simplified narratives that have often characterized Georgia’s post-Rose Revolution transformation. During the 2000s, the Saakashvili government was frequently celebrated in Western policy circles as a model of democratic reform in the post-Soviet space. While many meaningful reforms did occur—including anti-corruption initiatives and the modernization of public institutions—the report suggests that these achievements coexisted with serious institutional shortcomings.

Third, the availability of the report in English significantly expands its international relevance. Policymakers, scholars, and analysts studying the South Caucasus now have access to detailed documentation concerning a critical decade in Georgia’s modern history. Greater transparency may contribute to more informed discussions about governance, reform, and democratic development in the region.

Subscribe now

In Conclusion

The parliamentary investigation into the United National Movement government (2003–2012) represents an important step in reassessing Georgia’s post–Rose Revolution trajectory. By documenting human rights abuses, institutional weaknesses, and patterns of political pressure, the report provides a detailed account of this period in Georgia’s recent history.

Its publication offers an opportunity not only to reflect on the past but also to strengthen the institutional safeguards necessary for Georgia’s democratic future. For Georgian society and the international community, the report is a reminder that lasting democratic development depends not only on reform agendas or democracy-promotion efforts, but on the consistent protection of the rule of law and fundamental human rights.

The Report

Read the full report here: https://docsend.com/view/p6kx2fkustqn43qs

More by Lasha Kasradze on ACURA:

From Promise to Punishment: How Washington Turned on The Republic of Georgia

From Promise to Punishment: How Washington Turned on The Republic of Georgia, Part II

Yakov M. Rabkin

Much of the discussion surrounding the current war on Iran focuses on its potential outcome for the United States. One of the most frequently asked questions is whether Washington will suffer yet another loss of face in the Middle East. But this is the wrong question. Even if the war produces chaos and ultimately harms the United States and Europe—as earlier interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria did—the more important issue is what benefit Israel, the war’s proponent and initiator, stands to gain. After all, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he had been planning this war for 40 years.

Subscribe now

The reason for this is Iran’s principled stance on justice for the Palestinians. That commitment transcends religious divisions: Iran is predominantly Shia, while Palestinians are predominantly Sunni. Iranians and their allies in Lebanon and Yemen are prepared to die as martyrs, and many have already been killed by joint Israeli and American strikes. Yet the yearning for justice has proven to be both profound and resilient.

Iran remains the principal stronghold of resistance to Israel. It not only decries Israel’s apartheid regime and genocide in Gaza but also supports armed resistance groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. By contrast, almost all governments in the region are only opposed to Israel’s occupation and oppression of Palestine in principle, while cooperating with Israel in practice.

Turkey is an important transit point for oil and gas supplied to Israel. Egypt has helped Israel isolate Gaza and starve its inhabitants. During the last Israeli attack on Iran in 2025, Jordanian and Saudi air defences protected Israel from incoming Iranian missiles. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan formalized relations with Israeli through the 2020 Abraham Accords. Elbit, an Israeli company, accounts for 12 percent of Morocco’s total arms imports, and other Arab regimes openly or tacitly purchase Israeli weapons and surveillance equipment. This pattern is exhibited by many other countries, particularly in the West.

Without mentioning its own nuclear arsenal, Israel has been sounding the alarm about the imminent threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Brandishing diagrams, Netanyahu has argued for decades that Iran is just weeks away from manufacturing the bomb. These repeated claims have only served to confirm the conclusions of US and other intelligence professionals that Tehran was not seeking such weapons. Nevertheless, these baseless accusations have been invoked by Donald Trump and others, such as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who have expressed support for war with Iran. This symptom of the West’s political demodernization—the retreat from rational debate towards evidence-free emotional assertion—is also evident in the current militarization campaign based on alleged threats from China and Russia.

Israel’s concern for the human rights of Iranians is equally hollow. In reality, Israel seeks to fragment, debilitate, and disarm Iran, thereby eliminating the Islamic Republic as the last major state to oppose Israel in the region. Israel wants Iran to accept Israeli/Western tutelage in the form of Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the last Shah of Iran, or another collaborator. But the main objective is to remove the last defence of Palestinian rights and to render the Iranian state dysfunctional.

The root cause of the military assault on Iran is therefore the question of Palestine. All of Israel’s wars have been fought to perpetuate the Zionist nature of the state—that is, to resist the idea of equality for all inhabitants of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, Zionism is the main cause of violence in the region.

Subscribe now

The ideology of Zionism is enshrined in one of Israel’s Basic Laws, which function as its constitution. It is officially a Zionist state and describes itself as “the nation-state of the Jewish people.” This includes Jews living outside Israel, regardless of their attitude to the Zionist state—whether they are enthusiastic supporters, opponents, or indifferent. This effectively takes Jews around the world hostage, making them vulnerable to opprobrium and even violence from those appalled by Israeli actions.

A growing number of Israelis believe that Palestinians, including those who avoided expulsion in 1948 and are now Israeli citizens, have no place in the country. Several ministers in the current government are actively pursuing ethnic cleansing through hardship, forced exile, or genocide. The tragedy of Gaza is the most convincing embodiment of Zionist ideology.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has admitted that his country’s strike was triggered by Israel’s planned attack on Iran. Washington believed that the Israeli attack would prompt retaliation against American assets in the region, so it launched its own “pre-emptive operation.” This explanation is significant. It suggests that Israel was given the green light to begin bombing Iran at the time of its choosing. This may seem surprising, given that much of Israel’s advanced weaponry is US-made and deploying it on such a large scale would require coordination with Washington. Rubio’s admission has revived the long-standing argument among critics on the political right and left that US actions in the Middle East have been largely driven by Israeli, rather than American, strategic priorities.

It therefore matters little whether American wars in the region benefit the US economically, militarily, or politically. Nor does the price Americans have paid in blood and money. The real question is whether Israel has profited from them.

It could be argued that Israel has been the sole beneficiary of America’s misadventures in the Middle East. The 2003 invasion of Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath Party, thereby removing Iraq as a major regional military power. The Syrian civil war, which was fuelled and prolonged by the involvement of the CIA and its European counterparts, has severely weakened another long-standing adversary of Israel. Meanwhile, NATO’s intervention in Libya led to the collapse of a government that had long supported Palestinian resistance. In each case, states that had opposed Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians, and which had the power to act independently, emerged far weaker than before.

These US-led actions implement ideas set out in a 1996 policy paper titled *A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm*. This paper was prepared for the incoming Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu by a study group led by the American neoconservative strategist Richard Perle, who later became chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Other members of the group included Douglas Feith, who would later become the US undersecretary of defense and is often considered the architect of the 2003 Iraq War, as well as David Wurmser, who would go on to serve as Middle East adviser to Dick Cheney and John Bolton. The report proposed a new, far more ambitious regional strategy for Israel. This document, produced by Washington insiders often called ‘Israel-firsters,’ was publicly released, meaning that its ideas are a matter of record rather than conjecture.

Israel has been both focused and flexible in rallying support from great powers. At the beginning of the state’s existence, it relied on Soviet political backing and weapons. Stalin sought to weaken Britain in West Asia and hoped, albeit in vain, that Israel’s socialist rhetoric would make it an ally of the USSR in the region. Israel later embraced Britain and France when they were clinging desperately to their colonial empires. However, it found its most enduring support in Washington.

This support has been mobilized and organized by a powerful lobby consisting of Christian and Jewish Zionists. This is well-known and documented in various sources, including John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s 2007 book *The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.* During the current war, it has been reported that Christian Zionists have been indoctrinating deployed US troops by presenting the attack on Iran as a holy war and a means of bringing about the second coming. Commanders have invoked extremist Christian rhetoric about the biblical ‘end times’ to justify their involvement in the war with Iran. One commander said that “President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark His return to Earth.” While Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has not explicitly endorsed this kind of propaganda, his—and many other members of the Trump administration—views broadly align with it.

However, cracks are appearing in the formerly solid support for Israel in the US. The genocide in Gaza has alienated many American Jews and Christians. For the first time in the history of US–Israel relations, more Americans expressed support for the Palestinians than for the Israelis in 2026.

Subscribe now

Sensing that this disaffection might eventually loosen Israel’s grip on American foreign policy, Netanyahu acted fast, visiting Trump seven times in less than a year. Succumbing to this pressure, Trump also had no time to waste. The World Cup is to be hosted in North America in the summer, and more importantly, the midterm elections are in November. Therefore, regardless of the advice of his intelligence and military advisors, he ordered US forces to join Israel in attacking Iran on February 28.

Israel has long openly disdained international law, brazenly using its military and technological superiority against its neighbours. The US, on the other hand, used to at least pay lip service to international law. Now, however, Trump openly states that he does not need it, instead relying on his “own morality.” His deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, explained, “We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else.” He added that the world is “governed by strength, by force, by power. These are the iron laws of the world.”

Many experts, including retired American and British senior officers, doubt that the US will prevail in Iran and anticipate another debacle. They may or may not be right. However, what matters to Netanyahu is not the success of the American military, but the idea that Iran is likely to be weakened, whatever the outcome. If this does not materialize and Israel’s apartheid regime faces an existential threat, it has nuclear weapons to use as a last resort. All the talk about ‘Iran’s nuclear threat’ should not obscure the fact that two nuclear powers have jointly attacked a non-nuclear country.

If Israel’s gamble fails, its cynical and self-centred political culture suggests it would use nuclear weapons rather than abandon Zionism and negotiate a political transformation of the current regime into a more inclusive system. Decades of weaponizing the Holocaust have convinced most Israeli Jews that only ‘the Jewish state’ can guarantee their survival. Israel would rather obliterate Iran, a country of 93 million people, than accept equality with the Palestinians it now controls in Gaza and the West Bank.

While it is important to assess America’s chances of retaining world hegemony in the wake of this war, it is imperative to pay attention to the possible outcomes for Israel, the war’s initiator. The Zionist state—“super-Sparta,” as Netanyahu characterised Israel a few months ago—is capable of unleashing an unprecedented catastrophe that would make the genocide in Gaza seem insignificant by comparison. As the ongoing genocide in Gaza has shown, nobody dares to stop Israel.

*Yakov Rabkin is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Montreal. He is the author, most recently, of Israel in Palestine and Zionism Decoded in 101 Quotes.*

By John Snow

After only 48 hours of American-Israeli bombardments against Iran, the all-out retaliation of the Islamic Republic and its refusal to negotiate a ceasefire, as well as demonstrations of support for the regime, seemed to clearly show that the United States and Israel have lost their gamble. As the reciprocal bombings continue, the consequences will likely be cataclysmic for the two states that initiated the hostilities. Ultimately, Trump—who had promised an end to regime-change wars—not only will have betrayed his electorate, but paradoxically will very likely be the American president who accelerated the decline of U.S. influence over the rest of the world.

American-Israeli Hubris

Officially, the aim of the operation “Epic Fury” was to decapitate the Islamic Republic of Iran, thereby creating favorable conditions for regime change and forcing the country to abandon any nuclear program. Later, the objective of annihilating Iran’s missile fleet was added.

Supreme Leader Khamenei thus became one of the first victims of these targeted strikes against the regime’s political and military leadership.

Trump immediately openly called on Iranians to take their destiny into their own hands—clearly meaning to overthrow the regime.

But far from triggering a popular uprising against the mullahs, the assassination of Khamenei brought hundreds of thousands of Shiites into the streets—not only in Iran—for whom Khamenei was above all a spiritual leader. Once again, as in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, American neoconservatives and their Israeli messianic counterparts deceived themselves about what they could expect from their violent actions, apparently due to cultural ignorance and arrogance.

In 2003, the American invasion did indeed topple the secular regime of Saddam Hussein. But it also handed the keys of the country to the Shiite majority while triggering a Sunni insurgency that lasted for years, culminating in the creation of the Islamic State eleven years later.

And in 2026, while Iran retaliates by bombing all Western bases in the Middle East as well as the energy infrastructures of Gulf countries allied with the United States, Iraqi Shiites are attacking American interests in their country. Khamenei reportedly refused to shelter in a secret bunker despite rising tensions and died in his residence. At nearly 87 years old, the Supreme Leader most likely preferred to depart as a martyr rather than end his life bedridden. And it shows profound ignorance of Shiite Islam to have underestimated this, since Shiism has built its identity around the cult of its martyrs since the death of Imam Hussein ibn Ali, grandson of Muhammad, at Karbala in what is today Iraq.

Glenn Diesen is also familiar with this. Trump and Netanyahu, therefore, strengthened Shiite and Iranian identity through this initial Pyrrhic victory. Iran—a country six times larger than Iraq, populated by 92 million people and with a multi-millennia-old history—cannot be defeated.

Already, American strategists in the Pentagon are worried that their campaign, planned for only a few days, could drag on until ammunition stocks are depleted—especially anti-air defense missiles, which are extremely expensive and whose reserves had already been heavily consumed by the war in Ukraine and the previous twelve-day war of June 2025. There is even talk of redeploying air-defense systems currently stationed in South Korea and Japan to replace equipment missing or destroyed in the Middle East.

America, which has deindustrialized for decades, is no longer capable of producing munitions commensurate with the needs of its aggressive hegemonic power. It takes a remarkable degree of hubris and blindness to have started a war against Iran under these conditions. This is one of the clear signs of the inevitable decline of the West, and first and foremost of the United States of America. In trying to halt or reverse this decline, Trump has only accelerated it.

Subscribe now

Netanyahu’s Messianism

As for Netanyahu—the true instigator of this war, he has demanded for thirty years—his actions are partly motivated by a religiously inspired messianic belief against those he calls the “people of Amalek,” enemies of the chosen people.

One may recall a video from 1990 in which a young Netanyahu, newly elected to the Knesset, was blessed by the American grand rabbi known as the Rebbe, the leader of the powerful religious group Chabad-Lubavitch (to which Trump’s son-in-law and envoy Jared Kushner is close). The Rebbe asked the young Netanyahu, who listened reverently, to do what was necessary to bring about the coming of the Messiah. Later, the same rabbi reportedly prophesied that Netanyahu would be the last Prime Minister of Israel before handing power to the Messiah.

In Jewish as in Christian tradition, however, the return of the Messiah is associated with a final eschatological conflict—the war of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38–39)—in which nations allied under the influence of Satan, including Persia (one of the few explicitly mentioned), attack Jerusalem.

When one reads the text, one realizes that “God” himself provokes Gog to attack Jerusalem in order to intervene afterwards and demonstrate his power. The war ends with Gog’s total defeat and the final reign of God on Earth.

According to Wikipedia, Judaism interprets this as follows:

“According to the Malbim, the war mentioned in chapter 38 of the Book of Ezekiel will be preceded by a confrontation between the world of Edom—meaning Rome and by extension the West—and that of Ishmael, meaning the Islamic world. These two entities will confront each other and seek to harm the Jewish people; then, in the final phase of the conflict, seventy nations will come to wage war against Jerusalem and the Messiah and attempt to destroy the Jewish people.”

Apparently, this is what Netanyahu—or those who support him—believes. (there are various videos showing Israeli soldiers singing “I believe in the return of the Messiah” before going into combat operations in Gaza).

When one is convinced of fulfilling a biblical destiny, a prophecy, one can believe oneself invincible. One attempts the most reckless actions. Until now, this strategy has worked rather well against the Palestinians, Hezbollah, and the Syrians. So why not take on the biggest opponent?

Today Iran is physically striking Jerusalem after having been provoked into doing so by those who believe themselves to be the armed hand of God. It feels exactly like the prophecy. All that remains is to wait for the Messiah.

American Christian Messianism coming out in the open

And American Christian evangelicals, including those in the military, also believe in this myth, which is also found in another form in the Book of Revelation. They are convinced that Trump is fulfilling God’s plan. And in their prophetic delusions, some even predict that Russia, Turkey, and others will attack Israel before being annihilated. When one reads this, one can understand that the argument of the Iranian nuclear program is just a pretext to attack, like the alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction of Iraq were in 2003.

Yet reasonable experts like Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer, Douglas Macgregor, Scott Ritter, and Larry Johnson, who do not believe that killing children in Gaza or Tehran could be in accordance with the will of any God worthy of the name, have been warning for months about the enormous risks of a war against Iran. Even the neoconservative John Bolton called the attack risky.

While Netanyahu may have the “excuse” of extreme religious zeal, one would be tempted to believe Trump has no reason to be swayed by this argument. Until one sees this video of Paula White-Cain, looking possessed, asking repeatedly for “strikes” against “enemies”, calling “angels” for help in this endeavor. And she happens to be “Senior Advisor to the White House Faith Office” since 2025. It only got worse when the following videos and photos appeared, Paula White claiming “to say no to President Trump would be saying no to God”, and then this scene of the two dozen pastors in the White House praying around their leader as if he was their Guru. And then, this other video shows her talking in some unknown tongue, and then screaming. Reason seems to no longer play a role here. Trump’s sanity can now be seriously questioned. But not only his.

Eternal warmonger Lindsey Graham now openly admits that this is a “religious war.”

And Trump’s Secretary of War Pete Hegesth, who promised “Death and destruction” upon Iran until they let the USA choose their leader, was seen fantasizing about building the Third Temple in Jerusalem, as mentioned by Pascal.

But who really runs the United States? Former Iranian President Ahmadinejad – whom some say died in a bombing while others claim he survived – explained that it doesn’t matter who officially runs the United States because it is a shadow government - which could also be called the deep state or financial oligarchy - that sets the objectives.

The “Epstein Coalition”

Some, such as Representative Thomas Massie—one of the last true American heroes—suggest that the war against Iran is merely an attempt to divert global public opinion from the Epstein affair.

Indeed, reading many comments on social networks, one sees the American-Israeli coalition being renamed the “Epstein Coalition” or the “Epstein Empire.” The operation itself has even been renamed “Epstein Fury.”

If one adds Western Europeans to this coalition, the same label could still apply, since the entire West appears entangled in this sordid affair with international ramifications—particularly the United Kingdom and France. The three Western permanent members of the UN Security Council are among those most directly implicated in the Epstein affair.

Public opinion—at least a growing portion of it—is discovering with astonishment the extent of the moral rot of Western elites. The absence of judicial consequences or adequate political reactions only confirms that the entire system of governance must be reconsidered. It is a system that failed to protect the most vulnerable while protecting the most powerful, a system that tolerated—and still tolerates—the intolerable. A handful of resignations will not suffice.

For years, the West’s moral authority had been steadily eroding. With the Epstein affair, it has literally collapsed. No one in the world can respect the Western elites who govern us anymore.

Furthermore, the Trump administration’s modus operandi demonstrates a complete lack of morality. For the second time in eight months, the Trump administration attacked Iran in the midst of negotiations. This comes after it kidnapped the president of a sovereign nation, Venezuela, on the basis of false pretenses.

In the United States, many prominent figures who once supported Trump are furious and denounce Israel’s complete control over American politics. According to Jeffrey Sachs, this has been going on for 20 years, since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That said, some trace this influence back to the assassination of President Kennedy, who opposed Israel acquiring nuclear weapons. The name of James Angleton, head of counterintelligence at the CIA in the 1960s, only surfaced in the latest revelations about US government archives in 2025. He was very close to Israel and appears to have played a dubious role in this affair, which was long and skillfully concealed.

But it seems that Trump’s binary, naive, and narcissistic personality makes him particularly susceptible to flattery, and therefore to manipulation. Besides the influential Israeli-American widow Miriam Adelson, who made the enormous $100 million donation to Trump’s campaign on the condition that he support Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly boasts of personally controlling Trump, according to Tucker Carlson. The same Netanyahu was filmed in 2001 explaining that the US was “easy to manipulate.”

But above all, it is the colossal financial power of the Zionist lobby in the United States, via AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), that controls Congress. In 2022, 365 candidates for the US Congress (out of 470 seats to be filled) received funding from this organization, and 98% of them were elected, including the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in both houses.

Subscribe now

Marco Rubio’s Admission

Then came a dramatic twist. Trump’s Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, Marco Rubio, let the cat out of the bag. He declared unambiguously that the United States decided on preventive strikes against Iran because it knew Israel would attack Tehran anyway—and that Iranian retaliation, unlike during the twelve-day war, would also strike American interests. In short, Netanyahu forced the Trump administration’s hand, placing it in a situation where it felt compelled to act despite the risks. The loss of face for Trump is immense. Even though Rubio later attempted to walk back his remarks amid the growing scandal, no serious observer is fooled. The Pentagon itself further deepened the unease by admitting that its assessment had been that Iran was not preparing an imminent attack against the United States.

Rafael Grossi, the Head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), also stated that, in spite of some concerns, they could not say that Iran was weeks or months from acquiring a nuclear weapon, a claim Netanyahu has consistently put forward for the last 30 years.

Even though an army of influencers is trying to justify the attack on Iran in the media and on social networks, both in Europe and the United States—demonstrating that this kind of action is always accompanied by a massive propaganda campaign and bots, to which many useful idiots latch onto—Trump’s aura has taken a serious hit. And his posturing on Truthsocial to try to mask the American strategic failure can only convince the most fanatical. There is now talk of sending US troops on the ground into Iran, in a kind of desperate escalation, which worries even the most fervent supporters of regime-change wars. It is worth remembering that it was the failure of a helicopter operation to free the American hostages held captive in their embassy in Tehran that largely sealed Jimmy Carter’s electoral defeat in 1980.

What Future for the United States?

With Trump having betrayed his base and a geopolitical catastrophe looming unless a miracle occurs, the mid-term elections in November look grim for Republicans. Among others, conservative influencer Nick Fuentes announced that he will never again vote for Trump, Vance, or Rubio.

According to CNN, 59% of Americans oppose the attack on Iran, including 23% of Republicans, despite Fox News’ unconditional support for the war. Apparently, false polls are published on X alleging 98% of support for the war from MAGA voters, not confirmed when you check the source, like Fox News.

The only factor that might prevent Democrats from benefiting from the implosion of Trumpism is their near absence from the debate since their humiliating defeat in 2024.

When one remembers that the best candidate the party of the Clintons and Obamas could present was Kamala Harris—whose main quality seemed to be her tendency to laugh foolishly at every opportunity—one measures the enormous void within the party. Moreover, the “woke” ideology that had become the Democrats’ alpha and omega was massively rejected at the ballot box.

American politics thus resembles a field of ruins. And it is difficult to see what could emerge from it. If Democrats were to win by default, Trump’s impeachment might once again be considered—and this time it might succeed if the Iranian war truly ends in disaster for the United States and Israel. But there is another problem: Vice President JD Vance also supported this suicidal operation against Iran. He has therefore discredited himself as well.

Saving the United States will require many figures like Thomas Massie—the man whose revelations finally began to expose the Epstein affair—whom Trump himself has repeatedly insulted and threatened politically. Someone more stable and determined than Trump would have to retrieve the MAGA movement from the gutter and transform it into something reasonable. In a normal world, figures such as Thomas Massie would deserve the highest office. But is that possible in an America still largely dominated by financial power?

Nevertheless, the strategic American-Israeli defeat now looming should mark the end of the United States’ military domination of the world, as Colonel Macgregor predicts in an interview approaching 3 million views. Your humble servant had chosen the title of this article before hearing those wise words. From evil, some good might emerge.

As for Israel, if Netanyahu truly proves to be its last Prime Minister, that may not bode well for the state’s very existence. And if Trump is the armed hand of God, it may well be against his own will—part of a complex three-cushion billiard game that could produce the exact opposite of what those who launched this war intended.

[Pascal‘s Note: This is a contribution by Michael von der Schulenburg, a German former high ranking UN official and current Member of the EU Parliament]

By Michael von der Schulenburg

In the Western world today, there are an alarming number of politicians and media outlets that justify or even welcome military action by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Driven by the self-righteousness we are so familiar with, many believe that the US is once again standing up for good in the fight against evil. That is precisely why it is urgently necessary to pause and reflect. For with this war, the US and Israel are committing a crime of enormous proportions - not only against Iran, but ultimately also against themselves and against all of us. This war could have opened a gate to hell, at the end of which the West will stand as the loser.

This war is likely to be long and bloody.

Much of this is reminiscent of the start of the Iraq War in 2003. Back then, too, an American president was obsessed with the idea of ‘liberating’ Iraq from its dictator. Back then, George W. Bush also claimed that the regime had weapons of mass destruction from which the world needed to be protected. And a servile British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, even declared that Saddam Hussein could attack London within 15 minutes. None of this was true. The war was supposed to be over quickly; just one month later, Bush announced ‘mission accomplished. But that, too, proved to be an illusion. Iraq sank into a brutal civil war, and one of the most dangerous terrorist organisations of our time arose from the ruins of the country: the so-called Islamic State. Many of the Iraqis who were supposedly to be ‘liberated’ paid with their lives and with the destruction of their country. Estimates speak of up to one million dead, some even of two or three million. The consequences of this war still weigh heavily on Iraq today, 23 years later.

We should remember all this, because much of it now seems to be repeating itself. The US and Israel are currently waging war against Iran, justifying this with alleged nuclear weapons - knowing full well that Iran does not possess any nuclear bombs and is not building any. Once again, it is said that the Iranians must be ‘liberated,’ and once again, everything must happen quickly. But in Iran, the consequence of this invasion could be even more devastating than in Iraq. The population is twice as large, highly educated, and despite internal tensions, the country is more stable in terms of organisation. It has a stronger military, and its political system will not collapse with the elimination of individual leaders. In addition, Iran is now a member of the BRICS and is supported - albeit not openly - by Russia and China. While the Bush administration at least claimed to be rebuilding Iraq politically and economically, the actions of the US and Israel today are aimed exclusively at destruction from the air. This will certainly not improve the chances for this invasion to succeed.

Subscribe now

Could the US and Israel lose this war too?

Contrary to President Trump’s announcements, this conflict is unlikely to end quickly. On the contrary, there are many indications that we are facing a long, extremely bloody and costly war - a war that the US and Israel could lose both militarily and politically and morally. The consequences for the entire West would be considerable.

The outcome of this war could be decided less on the battlefield than by internal political developments in Iran, the US, Israel and neighbouring Arab states. In this respect, the US and Israel appear to be at a disadvantage. Their strategy - if one can speak of a clear strategy at all - is based on a ‘decapitation strike’. The hope was that the rapid elimination of the Iranian leadership would lead to massive uprisings in Iran and that parts of the armed forces would switch sides to the insurgents, causing the Islamic Republic to collapse. Although the decapitation strike appears to have been successful, neither an uprising nor a military coup has occurred so far - despite repeated appeals from Trump. We are already on the fourth day of the war, and the Iranian leadership has absorbed this blow remarkably well. There are no reports of tensions between the numerous centres of power in Iran. With each passing day, the likelihood of an internal uprising and military coup decreases. This would mean that the US-Israeli strategy has failed.

The war is extremely unpopular in the US - especially among Trump voters who trusted his promise not to start any new wars. With every new report of destruction, civilian casualties - including the 160 schoolgirls killed - and fallen US soldiers, domestic political resistance will grow. Added to this is the danger of a political rift between the US and Israel, whose interests in this conflict are far apart. Israel is already losing support in the US, even among evangelical groups in the Bible Belt. The drastic rise in energy prices as a result of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is further dampening the mood. Trump is facing midterm elections in November. If he fails to end the war quickly with a victory, the elections could be disastrous for him. Time is running out for him - while it is working in Iran’s favour. It is therefore not surprising that Trump has now raised the possibility of new negotiations with Tehran on several occasions. But Tehran is unlikely to respond.

A rethink could also be underway in the Arab Gulf states, which are densely dotted with US military bases. Iran is not only attacking US bases there, but increasingly also targets in the Gulf states themselves. With simple, inexpensive drones, it is forcing the US and its partners to deploy expensive and difficult-to-replace defensive missiles. Many Gulf states are therefore likely to question how reliable American security guarantees really are especially since the US has so far been unable to counter Iranian attacks.

For Israel, the question arises as to how long it can withstand even more intense Iranian missile attacks. Iranian missiles are already breaking through the Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow 2 and 3 systems. The situation could escalate further. Israel has exposed itself to enormous risk with this war. It has not been able to decisively win any of its recent conflicts neither in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, nor against Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen. A defeat in the war against Iran could therefore present the Israeli state with unprecedented existential challenges.

Subscribe now

The war against Iran is causing serious damage to the West

The war against Iran began on 28 February with a ruthlessness that is hard to surpass. Even while promising negotiations were still ongoing and contrary to all international norms, Israel killed a large part of the Iranian leadership in a massive surprise missile attack - including the religious and state leader and members of his family in their residence. The images shown on Al Jazeera reveal only pulverised remains of walls; the intention was clearly to ensure that no one was spared. Describing the attack as a ‘decapitation strike’ is in itself evidence of a profound moral decline. The fact that European governments are also remaining silent on this action will weigh heavily on the entire West for a long time to come.

Yet Iranian negotiators had made significant concessions in Geneva on 26 February. A senior US government official confirmed to Axios magazine that considerable progress had been made. The Omani foreign minister, who acted as mediator, also spoke of a breakthrough. On 27 February, President Trump stated that he preferred a diplomatic solution to war. However, by that point, the decision to attack the following day must already have been made. So was it the case, as many observers suspected, that the US and Israel were only pretending to negotiate in order to lull the Iranian government into a false sense of security? Such a move would be an unprecedented breach of trust in the modern world.

This war has not only destroyed trust in the sincerity of the West. It has also finally destroyed international law based on the UN Charter - the very law that the West itself once created. Relations with the UN Charter have always been tense, especially in Israel and the US. But the breach in connection with the attack on Iran is unprecedented. Whereas President George W. Bush still attempted - albeit in vain - to obtain a Security Council mandate for the Iraq war in 2003, President Trump did not ask anyone, not even his own Congress. In doing so, he has thrown open the door to a world order based solely on the law of the strongest. The fact that all this is happening without any outcry in the Western world says a lot about the intellectual and moral state of our societies.

The war will also undermine all efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Although the US and Israel claim that this war is intended to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, they are likely to achieve the opposite. Their actions will reinforce the conviction in many countries that only the possession of nuclear weapons can protect against such attacks. The US and Israel - both nuclear powers - were only able to attack Iran because it does not possess nuclear weapons and was not on the verge of developing them. If Iran had nuclear weapons, this war would most likely never have happened.

And what does all this mean for us Europeans? Once again, we are unable to find the right words and the right attitude. As in the lost war in Ukraine, we are adopting the same bellicose rhetoric and the same empty threats, without any influence of our own. But long after the Americans have crossed the Atlantic to safety, we will be left sitting on the ruins and the enormous costs of a lost war in Iran. Europe may end up paying not only for the fall out of a lost Ukraine war, but soon also for a lost Iran war.

Many American politicians once regretted ever having gone to war in Iraq. We will all soon lament the current war with Iran as a cardinal mistake. But by then it will be too late. The damage will already have been done.

[Pascal’s Note: The following is part of an email from my colleague, Dr. Stephen R. Parsons, that I publish here with his kind permission. I find the observations quite valuable about the dangers of Iranian support for regime change intervention.]

Subscribe now

By Stephen R. Parsons

At the moment, I have a strong feeling of deja vu as I’m experiencing my fifth iteration of the Iranian diaspora, each of which, over the years, has been tragically reduced to following events in their own country, and with an escalating burning hatred for those in power. Virtually all the iterations ended up being isolated in their own political bubbles, and in the case of several, even though I sympathize to varying degrees with them, ended up being seen as ‘anti-Iranian’ by the vast majority back home.

First, at Lancaster University there were those political exiles who identified with the Tudeh party, communists, with a long history of fighting against the Shah through trade union activity and civil rights campaigning – they were very well-meaning progressive secularists but they were hampered by their orthodoxy (a starry-eyed view of the Soviet Union) and the huge popular uprising around the persona of Khomeini seemed to take them by complete surprise. They returned to Iran and probably all died in the maelstrom of the Islamic revolution (incidentally, this was undoubtedly the fate of the Iraqis I got to know – Saddam Hussein had been a CIA asset, and he was helped to power by the Americans but at some stage he reemphasized the secular nationalist project of the Ba`ath Party and the Iraqi CP called on its members to back Saddam in his struggle to ´defend Iraqi sovereignty`, they went back home and were eliminated – the US embassy provided long lists of names of communists to the Iraqi authorities which would have included all those I knew at Lancaster – sorry for the long digression).

The next iteration, the followers of Khomeini, came in our second year, and they completely dominated, had their own ´imam`, and kept irreligious westerners at a distance – an attempt was made to involve them in Palestinian solidarity work but they had instructions not to have any personal relations with us (the university left). After Lancaster and in my first years in Denmark, I experienced those Iranian exiles associated with the Shah. They considered themselves to be pro-American but generally ended up being very bitter about their fall from social grace and being reduced to immigrant status. I remember one of them complaining about not being given top marks in his English language exam - ´how dare you, I was a powerful and rich man in Iran!`Some of them even imagined that they would return to power in time.

Subscribe now

Then there was the Islamic left, those who wanted the revolution to lead to a redistribution of economic wealth and the establishment of ´people`s power` and the liberation of women, etc. These were the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) and I met several of their members in the Danish language class I attended in the first year I moved to Denmark. I had quite a few discussions with them and tried desperately to convince them that throwing in their lot with Iraq in their armed struggle with the Iranian Islamic Republic was madness – that they would be seen forever as enemies by the great mass of the Iranians. Numerous martyrdoms (public hangings) of their members achieved, as far as I can see, nothing. This is often the fatal logic of believing that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This brings me to the current crop of Iranians I have something to do with at the University of Southern Denmark – young Iranian men and women, postgraduate researchers, who are part of the staff at the university (there are quite a few of them - ´a brain drain`) – they are very westernized and the women now seem all to have dropped wearing headwear. They still have family in Iran. I ended up in a conversation with one of them the other day and undoubtedly made myself very unpopular. A woman in her early thirties who told me that 40,000 people had been killed in the two-day protest in January, and although her parents still lived in the country, she put her faith in the coming military attack by the US (´the only hope`). Again, a case of my enemy`s enemy is my friend.

First, of all I told her that a figure of 40,000 was absurd and I asked her how she as a scientist could believe in such a number? I said I`m not in doubt that the authorities in Iran are ruthless when it comes to repressing opposition but any serious person knows that such a high number of fatalities would require bombs, tanks, and machineguns and for people not to run away. The Israelis have needed 2 years and an estimated 200,000 tonnes of explosives on a population confined to an area 141 sq. miles to kill about 100,000. Moreover, if really tens of thousands had been killed, mass burials would be necessary, given that every inch of Iran is under satellite observation – the Americans would have released pictures of such a thing. I`m afraid I`m getting crotchety in my old age – it makes me angry when educated people don`t use their common sense and just swallow such obvious propaganda. One believes something because one wants to believe it (on one occasion, another colleague told me she believed the report in her newspaper that the Russians had blown up the Nord Stream pipeline).

If 40,000 had been killed, then an attack using 500 missiles or even a tactical nuclear weapon seems less outrageous. Since when have unprovoked (Iran has not attacked another country – it has been the victim of attacks by Iraq, Israel, and America) aerial attacks not led people in the said countries to back up their government/state? Even if such a military action collapses the existing power structure (which I doubt – recently, an estimated 30% of the population were out on the streets to mark the founding of the Islamic Republic), what would come in its place? As I said to the woman in question, ´don`t think something cannot be worse than it already is`(there needs to be some coherent political strategy that doesn`t mean you end up as a fifth column for foreign powers that are not motivated by the interests of the Iranian people). Ethnic division and bitter civil war, and a splitting up of the country as has happened in Libya and Syria? In Syria, the Kurds (who put their faith in the Americans) are now being militarily suppressed, and the country has a former ISIS/al-Qaeda leader as its president, with areas under Israeli and Turkish occupation. As with Iraq, the historic presence of Christians has now ended.

Note: On the sorrowful occasion of the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine, Michael von der Schulenburg MEP addressed Open Letters to Kaja Kallas, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs, and to President of the European Parliament Roberta Metsola, calling for intra-European peace talks aimed at achieving a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine.

Subscribe now

Letter to Kaja Kallas

At the sorrowful occasion of the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine war.

To: Ms. Kaja Kallas
High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice‑President of the European Commission

Dear Ms. Kallas,

WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS (are) DETERMINED TO SAVE SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS FROM THE SCORGE OF WAR, WHICH TWICE IN OUR LIVEFTIME HAS BROUGHT UNTOLD SORROW TO MANKIND …

These are the opening words of the Charter of the United Nations. They were written in 1945, in the shadow of two devastating World Wars. For us Europeans, these words carry particular weight. Both World Wars began on our continent, and it was Europe’s peoples who suffered the greatest share of their destruction. We therefore bear a profound responsibility to ensure that such catastrophes never happen again.

On 24 February, the terrible war in Ukraine will enter its fifth year. It is the largest and by far the most dangerous conflict on European soil since 1945, and it carries the grave risk of engulfing the entire continent. As this war involves four nuclear powers, including the world’s two largest nuclear powers, any further escalation could get out of control and endanger humanity as a whole. Particularly worrying are the plans and rhetoric suggesting that the war should be continued indefinitely in the belief that this might one day produce a “victory”. What Europe needs is not victory through endless war, but the restoration of peace. That we Europeans have failed to prevent this war—and that after four years we have still not found a path to a peaceful settlement—should fill all parties to the conflict with deep shame.

Of the 750 million Europeans, 450 million live within the European Union. The Union therefore carries a special responsibility for peace on our continent. We must ask ourselves why we focused so much on arming the EU, while, at the same time, we neglected almost entirely any diplomatic efforts pursuing a peaceful solution. After four years of fighting, we have not even spoken to the other conflict party, Russia. Yet all EU member states, as well as Russia, have ratified the UN Charter and are therefore obliged “to take collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” (UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 1(1)).

After so much bitterness and hatred, it will require great courage from all sides to sit together and talk in pursuit of peace. But that is precisely what must now be done. I listened carefully to your remarks at the Munich Security Conference a few days ago, and I hope you will keep an open mind: this is a war on the European continent, and it will ultimately have to be resolved through diplomacy by Europeans.

In this context, I would like to draw your attention to a proposal for intra‑European peace talks aimed at achieving a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine. A group of eminent German personalities1 and I have drafted this proposal under the title “Ukraine and Russia: How this war can be ended with a negotiated peace.” A copy is attached.

The core idea of our proposal is to appeal to the shared responsibility of both the European Union and Russia for Ukraine as a European state and for the future peace and security of our continent. In this spirit, we propose that all sides agree in advance on three overarching objectives to guide future negotiations:

• To secure the future of Ukraine as a sovereign, independent, and functional European state and, after four years of a devastating war, to restore hope for its people.

• To lay the foundations for a pan‑European security and peace order that takes into account the legitimate security interests of both Ukraine and Russia, by building on existing international treaties such as the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe.

• On this basis, to identify possible solutions to the key issues that—given a corresponding willingness to compromise by all parties—could bring the war to an end.

Agreeing on such predetermined objectives could help break through the entrenched atmosphere of hostility and war rhetoric and place future negotiations on a more constructive footing. To elaborate on these ideas, General Kujat and I have written an article entitled “Europe now needs the courage to pursue peace – A call for peace on the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine.” A copy is attached.

General Kujat was once the highest-ranking officer of the Bundeswehr and former Chairman of the NATO-Russia Council and the NATO-Ukraine Commission of Chiefs of Defence. He has extensive knowledge and experience of Ukraine and Russia while working for Federal Chancellors Schmidt and Kohl as well as Head of the Military Policy Department and Head of the Planning Staff at the Federal Ministry of Defence.

As for myself, I draw on 34 years of living and working for the United Nations and shortly the OSCE in countries at war or affected by armed conflict around the world, including eight years as UN Assistant Secretary General reporting directly to the UN Security Council. Together, we bring extensive experience and insight relevant to addressing complex crises such as the war in Ukraine. If you consider it useful, we would be glad to meet with you and your colleagues to discuss our peace proposal in greater detail.

Pursuing peace requires not only knowledge—it requires, above all, courage. I wholeheartedly wish you this courage. The people of Europe, on whatever side of the front line they may find themselves, will be grateful.

With the assurances of my highest consideration,

Yours sincerely,

Michael von der Schulenburg

Letter to Roberta Metsola

At the sorrowful occasion of the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine war

To
Ms Roberta Metsola
President of the European Parliament

Dear Ms. Metsola,

WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS (are) DETERMINED TO SAVE SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS FROM THE SCORGE OF WAR, WHICH TWICE IN OUR LIVEFTIME HAS BROUGHT UNTOLD SORROW TO MANKIND …

These are the opening words of the Charter of the United Nations. They were written in 1945, in the shadow of two devastating World Wars. For us Europeans, these words carry particular weight. Both World Wars began on our continent, and it was Europe’s peoples who suffered the greatest share of their destruction. We therefore bear a profound responsibility to ensure that such catastrophes never happen again.

On 24 February, the terrible war in Ukraine will enter its fifth year. It is the largest and by far the most dangerous conflict on European soil since 1945, and it carries the grave risk of engulfing the entire continent. As this war involves four nuclear powers, including the world’s two largest nuclear powers, any further escalation could get out of control and endanger humanity as a whole. Particularly worrying are the plans and rhetoric suggesting that the war should be continued indefinitely in the belief that this might one day produce a “victory”. What Europe needs is not victory through endless war, but the restoration of peace. That we Europeans have failed to prevent this war—and that after four years we have still not found a path to a peaceful settlement—should fill all parties to the conflict with deep shame.

Of the 750 million Europeans, 450 million live within the European Union. The Union therefore carries a special responsibility for peace on our continent. We must ask ourselves why we did place our focus almost entirely on arming the EU while we have done so little to pursue a peaceful solution. After four years of fighting, we have not even spoken to the other conflict party, Russia. Yet all EU member states, as well as Russia, have ratified the UN Charter and are therefore obliged “to take collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” (UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 1(1)).

I am convinced that the European Parliament, representing people in 27 Member States, carries a particular responsibility to seek peaceful solutions to armed conflicts that impact or threaten our citizens. Unfortunately, the many resolutions adopted in support of Ukraine focus almost exclusively on military measures and fail to consider diplomatic avenues. This approach is not in line with the UN Charter. Moreover, there are currently no contacts—neither direct nor indirect, not even through the United Nations—with Russia. In all the wars I have encountered during my professional life, such a situation has never existed. There was always at least a small window kept open, if only to prevent the worst.

Despite the ongoing hostilities, I am convinced that it would be wise for this Parliament to reach out to Russia. After all, Russia is part of Europe and will remain our large neighbour.

In this context, I would like to draw your attention to a proposal for intra‑European peace talks aimed at achieving a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine. A group of eminent German personalities2 and I have drafted this proposal under the title “Ukraine and Russia: How this war can be ended with a negotiated peace.” A copy is attached.

The core idea of our proposal is to appeal to the shared responsibility of both the European Union and Russia for Ukraine as a European state and for the future peace and security of our continent. In this spirit, we propose that all sides agree in advance on three overarching objectives to guide future negotiations:

• To secure the future of Ukraine as a sovereign, independent, and functional European state and, after four years of a devastating war, to restore hope for its people.

• To lay the foundations for a pan‑European security and peace order that takes into account the legitimate security interests of both Ukraine and Russia, by building on existing international treaties such as the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe.

• On this basis, to identify possible solutions to the key issues that—given a corresponding willingness to compromise by all parties—could bring the war to an end.

Agreeing on such predetermined objectives could help break through the entrenched atmosphere of hostility and war rhetoric and place future negotiations on a more constructive footing. To elaborate on these ideas, General Kujat and I have written an article entitled “Europe now needs the courage to pursue peace – A call for peace on the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine.” A copy is attached.

General Kujat was once the highest-ranking officer of the Bundeswehr and former Chairman of the NATO-Russia Council and the NATO-Ukraine Commission of Chiefs of Defence. He has extensive knowledge and experience of Ukraine and Russia while working for Federal Chancellors Schmidt and Kohl as well as Head of the Military Policy Department and Head of the Planning Staff at the Federal Ministry of Defence.

As for myself, I draw on 34 years of living and working for the United Nations and shortly the OSCE in countries at war or affected by armed conflict around the world, including eight years as UN Assistant Secretary General reporting directly to the UN Security Council. Together, we bring extensive experience and insight relevant to addressing complex crises such as the war in Ukraine. If you consider it useful, we would be glad to meet with you and your colleagues or at any of the Commissions to discuss our peace proposal in greater detail.

Pursuing peace requires not only knowledge—it requires, above all, courage. I wholeheartedly wish you this courage. The people of Europe, on whatever side of the front line they may find themselves, will be grateful.

With the assurances of my highest consideration,

Yours sincerely,

Michael von der Schulenburg

Pascal’s Note: General (ret.) Harald Kujat, NATO’s former top military official and Count Michael von der Schulenburg, a former senior UN official and current MEP, have once again published an extraordinary analysis and plea to Europe, which they will introduce in the EU Parliament.

By Harald Kujat & Michael von der Schulenburg

The world is currently experiencing one of the most profound geopolitical upheavals since the end of the Second World War – an upheaval in which the European Union is scarcely perceived as a formative force anymore. As a result, it risks becoming the big loser in this global realignment.

The EU now finds itself in what is probably the most difficult situation since its inception. In the east, it faces an increasingly hopeless war in Ukraine; in the south, Israel, one of its closest partners, is engaged in several military conflicts that it can no longer win. At the same time, the transatlantic alliance is being put to the test by its hopeless commitment to Ukraine. While Russia is demanding Ukraine’s permanent neutrality and the annexation of areas in eastern Ukraine that are important in terms of security policy and geostrategy, the US wants to expand the American hemisphere by reaching for the strategically important Greenland of its NATO ally Denmark. In Iran, there is the threat of a completely uncontrollable war that would plunge Europe’s neighbouring region of the Middle East into years of unrest. And with China, the emerging global power, the EU cannot find a stable mode of cooperation. The new group of BRICS-plus countries, which now outnumbers the EU demographically and outperforms it economically and technologically, is being negligently ignored by Europe.

The European Union has been weakened, not least by the war in Ukraine, and has fallen behind in the power arithmetic of the major powers. This is compounded by the fact that Europe’s structural problems of security, energy, and technological dependence further reduce its influence in global politics. And the sanctions against Russia have exposed our vulnerability, exacerbated internal divergences and fuelled centrifugal forces.

These developments are already having serious geopolitical and economic consequences — consequences that will have a lasting impact on the security and prosperity of future generations. Nevertheless, the EU and — with a few exceptions — its member states can think of little else to do but respond with empty threats, self-defeating sanctions and a hasty, extremely expensive rearmament programme. At a time that calls for sober analysis and prudent action, Europe is sinking into self-righteousness and hubris, caught up in a moralised information war that obscures its view of reality.

We Europeans — and that includes all non-EU states on our continent, including Russia — must finally summon the courage to seek a new path to self-assertion and peace. To this end, the EU, as Europe’s largest political community, must free itself from the moral straitjacket it has imposed on itself, which prevents it from even talking to an adversary. It must begin to face up to the new realities in order to give diplomacy a real chance.

Subscribe now

The top priority now must be peace on the European continent.

The European Union and Russia will have to continue to live together – or at least side by side – on the European continent in the future. How we Europeans shape this relationship among ourselves will therefore be decisive for how well and how securely we and future generations can live in Europe. The relationship between the two sides is therefore of fundamental importance. Due to its geographical location and limited raw material base, the EU is probably even more dependent on a stable and peaceful relationship with Russia than vice versa.

If we want to live together in peace, we must do what we have consistently refused to do over the past four years: negotiate with Russia on a peaceful solution to the war in Ukraine. Only in this way can we create the conditions for a lasting pan-European security and peace order in the interests of all Europeans.

Despite the war rhetoric that continues to characterise the language of many European political elites, the first faint signals are now being heard that a negotiated solution should also be considered. After four years of war, the German Chancellor has finally acknowledged that Russia is also a European country with which we should seek reconciliation. The Italian Prime Minister and the French President are calling for Europe to resume direct talks with Russia in order to contribute to a possible peaceful solution to the conflict in Ukraine. Meloni is also calling for the EU to appoint a special envoy so that we can speak with one voice. However, no concrete steps have been taken so far, nor have any peace proposals been put forward. Too many still believe that Russian military power will soon collapse and hope that Ukraine will still be able to win the war on the battlefield.

With the detailed proposal for peace negotiations that we have developed together with Horst Teltschik, Peter Brandt, Hajo Funke and Johannes Klotz, we want to make a contribution here. In our recently published document, ‘Ukraine and Russia: How this war can be ended with a negotiated peace,’ we present precise proposals for the framework conditions for possible negotiations: on the resolution of territorial issues, on the role of NATO and a possible neutrality of Ukraine, on security guarantees, on the future strength of the Ukrainian army, and on a peace treaty and a ceasefire. In addition, we develop approaches for a regional security architecture and a future European peace order - without which there can be no sustainable peace treaty for Ukraine. (https://tinyurl.com/3juk76t6)

In the following, we would like to discuss three central prerequisites for successful peace negotiations that are implicitly included in our proposal.

An atmosphere of understanding must be created

The biggest problem facing the EU and its member states is that they are currently caught up in their own war propaganda. Public statements comparing the Russian president to Hitler; saying that ‘Russia will always remain our enemy;’ that Russia could be ‘wiped out of history’; that the Russian state must be smashed and divided into independent units; are statements that testify to blind hatred and are more typical of losers. But hatred is a poor advisor and is completely unsuitable if one seriously wants to pursue peace negotiations.

As long as Western politicians believe that they can bring Russia to its knees by prolonging the war indefinitely, negotiations will not be possible. This belief is also dangerous. Following the withdrawal of the US, the European NATO states - which are not even in agreement among themselves - have neither the financial nor the military resources to maintain such a course. A situation could arise in which the Ukrainian armed forces’ defences collapse. This must be prevented at all costs, because a military collapse could inevitably lead to a political collapse of Ukraine. The Ukrainian state would then be barely viable. That is why we need negotiations now!

Given the current military situation, we must therefore also see negotiations as an opportunity for Ukraine to prevent military defeat. This requires a fundamental change in our attitude towards the Ukrainian government and towards Russia. Anyone who seeks a negotiated peace must also change their language. Diplomatic efforts require respect, listening and a willingness to understand - especially towards the enemy. This is true of all diplomatic efforts to end a war, and the war in Ukraine is no exception.

The realities created by the war can no longer be ignored

In the EU, the war in Ukraine is predominantly viewed through a moral lens. Certainly, every war is immoral. But wars are not about moral categories, but exclusively about conflicting interests. This sobering and, for many, irritating insight is indispensable for serious peace negotiations.

Wars arise when central interests - especially those considered existential by one or both sides - can no longer be balanced politically or diplomatically. Clausewitz’s statement also applies to the war in Ukraine: ‘War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.’ For war is not an autonomous or exclusively military event; rather, even in war, political goals continue to guide action. Since the scope, intensity and, above all, the end of a military conflict are always aligned with political objectives, politics and diplomacy must not be suspended in a war.

Those who want peace should therefore be wary of insisting on maximal demands. Demands that Russia must first vacate all occupied territories, pay high reparations, bring its political leaders before a special court, and abandon any objection to Ukraine’s NATO membership or even accept the stationing of troops from NATO countries on Ukrainian territory would effectively amount to Russia’s surrender. However, the course of the war has created a different reality. Ukraine’s situation is extremely critical. If Russia achieves its goals through a military defeat of Ukraine, it would mean that negotiations - if they take place at all - would be based on Russian demands. In all wars, the victor sets the agenda - and this will be no different here.

Negotiations should be geared towards a positive prospect of peace

If the war can no longer be won militarily, the only option left is to negotiate an acceptable solution. The aim is then to find conditions that are acceptable to the defeated side through diplomatic compromise. History offers many examples where this has been achieved - and Ukraine has excellent diplomats at its disposal.

In our peace proposal, we therefore name three overarching negotiation goals that all parties involved should agree on in advance. They are based on the shared responsibility of Russia and the EU for an independent, stable and sovereign Ukraine, as well as for future security and peace in Europe. These are therefore primarily pan-European peace goals:

1. Ensuring the continued existence of Ukraine as a sovereign, independent and functioning European state - and restoring prospects for the future for the population after four years of cruel war.

2. Laying the foundation for a pan-European security and peace order that takes into account both Russia’s and Ukraine’s security interests.

3. Building on this, developing concrete solutions to the central points of conflict so that tho war can be ended if both sides are sufficiently willing to compromise.

Since, as in all peace negotiations, deeply hostile warring parties will be sitting across from each other in these negotiations, setting positive peace goals together in advance of talks could create a more positive atmosphere for negotiations. There will certainly continue to be disagreement about how these goals can be achieved. But then the negotiations would no longer be between winners and losers, but rather about what a united Europe with an EU and a Russia and a sovereign Ukrainian state at its heart should look like.

These goals would have a further advantage: they would not stand in the way of American peace efforts, but would complement them in a meaningful way through an independent European negotiating track. This would allow American interests to converge with those of Europe. The result would certainly be a much more stable and forward-looking peace - but a still-stubborn Europe must also be willing to participate.

Subscribe now

A brief afterthought on Germany

The German government seems to be striving for a leading role in the EU, and the Chancellor has made this clear with regard to the war in Ukraine. It would therefore make sense for Germany to also take on a leading role in the search for a peaceful solution. Germany’s Basic Law is a peace constitution. The preamble points the way forward for responsible politicians: Germany should ‘serve world peace as an equal member of a united Europe’.

Germany is by far the largest financial supporter of Ukraine and should have an interest in ensuring that its billions in aid payments are spent on rebuilding the livelihoods of the terribly suffering Ukrainian people and not on weapons and further destruction. This would open up access for Germany to the raw materials and markets of economically emerging Asia. The German economy, which has fallen into a downward spiral, would benefit most from a cooperative relationship with Russia.

In addition, there is a special historical responsibility. Germany was Russia’s enemy in the First and Second World Wars, during the Cold War, and now once again. That is precisely why it must be possible to find another way - in Germany’s own best interests. Just as Germany and France once overcame their so-called hereditary enmity, Germany should now strive to achieve a lasting understanding with Russia. Such a step could finally secure the peace that the European continent, repeatedly torn apart by countless wars, so desperately needs.

We hope that our peace proposal will make a small contribution to this.

Subscribe now

An Overwhelming Victory

Japan’s snap general election is done. Yesterday, Sunday, February 8, the population was asked to decide who should run the country for the next four years. The election was a gamble by its new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, who only became the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)—and thereby PM—barely three months ago. She dissolved parliament in the hope that her personal popularity, being the country’s first female PM, would translate into electoral gains for the scandal-ridden and struggling LDP. And boy oh boy, was she right.

She won a whopping 316 out of 465 seats in the Lower House. That is six seats above a two-thirds supermajority (68%)—even without the help of her coalition partner, Nippon Isshin (Japan Innovation Party). It’s also a historical victory, as this is the largest majority in the Lower House ever won by a single party. What a landslide for the LDP, which just recently, in the Upper House elections, did so poorly, winning only 101 of 248 seats there (40%). In this election, Takaichi wiped out the opposition.

And, sure, there is plenty to be said about the poor performance of most other parties. For instance, the main opposition, the liberal CDP, decided to commit political harakiri by merging with the much smaller Komeito (a former LDP ally) and put most of their candidates first on the new (common) party list. 🤦‍♂️

But that’s beside the point.

The most consequential aspect of this election is that its result was a personal victory for Takaichi, a conservative anti-foreigner China hawk. While general elections in Japan are usually a moment for parties to appeal to voters with their policy ideas and differentiate themselves from the competition, this time the main parties were more or less on the same page when it came to consequential local issues like tax reductions, social support, economic stimuli, etc. Takaichi made this election about herself and about who Japan’s leadership should be. She never tired of saying so outright, and she threw her full weight behind the local candidates she backed. Just have a look at this public political advertisement board in Kyoto, where she had her face printed next to that of her candidate on the party poster.

Subscribe now

A Victory, but…

With this said, there are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting the mandate. First of all, while it is an impressive comeback for the LDP, the victory does, as so often in Japan, look larger than what the actual support on the ground is.

Turnout did improve compared to 2024, but at around 55%, it is still nothing to crow about. Almost every second eligible voter stayed home. Furthermore, Japan’s electoral system accounts for at least half of Takaichi’s victory as it disproportionately benefits the most popular party.

Roughly one-third of Lower House seats are allocated proportionally through list-voting and two-thirds through first-past-the-post (FPTP) district voting. On the proportional list vote—the best indicator of genuine nationwide support—the LDP secured about 36%. That is a good result, sure, but it is nowhere near a supermajority. However, once this vote share is run through the FPTP machinery, it turns into around 49% of district votes, which, in the end, translates into the 68% of all seats in the Lower House. Takaichi’s LDP is the beneficiary of Japan’s considerable winner’s bonus that is baked into the system.

As I keep telling my students, parliamentary democracy is ultimately a translation exercise: you translate a very large group of people into a much smaller one. And the Japanese system—much like the British one—does this in a way that strongly favors the largest party. A bit over one-third of voter support can become a two-thirds majority. It happened before under PM Shinzo Abe, and it will probably happen again.

So yes, the Diet numbers look huge, but the real mandate should not be overestimated. For instance, in order to change the Japanese constitution—something her party has been dreaming about for a long time—Takaichi would need a two-thirds majority in both houses, and she would also need to win an additional public referendum. Furthermore, to make changes to any of the controversial issues important to the opposition (for instance, the three non-nuclear principles) would mean risking much of this political capital and would probably also strengthen her party-internal opponents.

Subscribe now

A New Russia Policy?

Which brings me to my final point. The largest foreign policy opening I see that this LDP dominance and the personal strength of its leader imply is the potential for a new policy towards Russia. While I can’t recall Takaichi ever talking about this, nor is her party particularly Russophile, there is this one structural issue Takaichi will have to somehow come to grips with if she wants to deliver on her domestic promises (an even larger budget deficit to spend heavily on welfare). And that’s the seemingly unstoppable weakening of the Yen combined with Japan’s dependency on foreign oil and gas.

On the campaign trail, Takaichi, in fact, talked up the benefits of a weak currency and how large the potential was for Japan’s export industry. Much could be said about this argument. Many of Japan’s signature exports are already manufactured abroad (in China, Southeast Asia, the USA, even in Europe) to benefit from cheaper production costs and deal with regulatory barriers. It would take many years to bring these manufacturing lines back home, and the Yen is not yet cheap enough to justify such moves, nor can this strategy grapple with the post-WTO world economic order of national tariffs. However, the main problem this approach faces is the country’s inescapable energy dependency. Nippon doesn’t have the oil or gas needed to sustain itself, let alone a large (domestically produced) export industry.

A cheap yen will automatically mean higher energy import costs. You simply can’t have it both ways... unless... You can.

There is this one foreign policy option Japan has that Europe (literally) blew up. The Russia card. While Tokyo did put sanctions on Russia, it never antagonized Moscow to the point that European capitals did. Japan did not send weapons to Ukraine, nor did it completely shut down the joint oil and gas exploration projects in the northern region (Sakhalin-I and Sakhalin-II). The potential for revamping the projects and starting to import even more hydrocarbons from Russia is tremendous.

There has never been a better time to explore such a move than now. With the popular indignation over Trump tariffs, the recent deadlock with China, US saber-rattling against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, and Takaichi’s designs for Japan’s export industry, something’s gotta give. And one benefit she can reap from her public support would be to dare a limited shift in foreign policy. While any large compromise on China would be seen domestically as weakness, shifting on Russia might just be thinkable—and now also doable.

Yes, Japan is dependent on the United States for protection, and the US-Japan Alliance is to Tokyo what NATO is to Paris, Berlin, and Rome. However, Japan’s trust in the US as a reliable partner is gone for good, and the US itself is rekindling its relationship with Russia anyhow. At the same time, a rapprochement with Moscow would help assuage China indirectly, and even give Japan some more leeway in dealing with North Korea, with whom Russia struck a strategic partnership agreement back in 2024.

Maybe I’m just being a hopeless optimist, trying to read something positive into the victory of this right-wing, anti-immigrant conservative in my country of residence. But I do think the nationalists in Japan are still “properly” nationalist, the way Hungary’s Orban is, or, for that matter, even how Donald Trump is. They care about the development of their countries.

A new energy strategy would make sense to Tokyo, so a rekindling of the Russo-Japanese relationship might be on the cards after this victory.

If you came this far, you might also be interested in this election analysis: https://youtube.com/live/miDVY47BgPk?feature=share

Subscribe now

[Quick Background: Between 1991 and 2026, the two largest nuclear powers operated under agreements that limited their nuclear arsenals. Starting with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), followed by New START, agreed in 2010 and extended for five years in 2021. As ICAN explains, New START “limited the United States and Russia to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads on 700 deployed nuclear delivery systems (…) and to 800 deployed and non-deployed nuclear launchers of those missiles and airplanes that can launch nuclear weapons.”]

By Professor Steven Starr

Trump has to date failed to accept Putin’s offer to continue to abide by the terms of New START for another year. Tomorrow is the final day that the New START nuclear arms control treaty remains in effect.

Unless Trump agrees to have the US continue to respect the terms of New START, the last nuclear arms control agreement between the US and Russia will end at midnight tomorrow, February 4, 2026.

The end of New START means that the US and Russia will each move quickly to add thousands of additional strategic nuclear weapons -- now held in reserve -- to each of their deployed nuclear arsenals.

This will quickly lead to the doubling of the number of deployed US and Russian strategic nuclear weapons.

First to be added will be hundreds of nuclear armed air launched cruise missiles carried by their strategic nuclear bomber forces.

Then the process of “uploading” nuclear warheads to land based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) will commence.

The charts copied below illustrate the approximate numbers of nuclear weapons that will be moving to deployed status following the end of New START:

Trump still has the option of accepting Putin’s offer, which would require the US and Russia to abide by the terms of New START for an additional year. This would provide the opportunity to negotiate a follow-up nuclear weapons agreement that could include/return to the process of actually reducing the number of nuclear weapons through the dismantlement of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems.

Otherwise, we stand on the brink of an uncontrolled expansion of US and Russian nuclear arsenals -- as well as a global nuclear arms race -- that will progressively increase the probability of a civilization-ending nuclear war, which would almost certainly wind up creating a mass extinction event for many forms of animal life, including human beings.

And for those who wanna know more, watch Professor Starr and Professor Ivana Hughes explain what a nuclear war would actually mean.

Subscribe now

By Luis Roberto Zamora Bolaños

Unilateral Sanctions against States are Illegal.

Can states do whatever they want within their own borders and jurisdictions? On the one hand, under the Lotus Principle, states (and more generally, subjects of international law) are indeed allowed to act freely as long as they don’t contravene other rules of international law, customary rules, or peremptory norms. Nonetheless, the freedom of action of a subject of international law (IL) is limited by the rights of other States, most notably the principle of sovereignty.

While unilateral acts like sanctions are not explicitly codified in IL, that doesn’t mean they are unrecognized or exempt from scrutiny. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has dealt with them in several cases, most notably the Nuclear Tests case (also in the UK-NOR Fisheries Case). Moreover, in 2006, the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC) issued its “Guiding Principles applicable to unilateral declarations of States capable of creating legal obligations,” which should be fully applicable to other subjects of international law. Principle 9 establishes that:

No obligation may result for other States from the unilateral declaration of a State. However, the other State or States concerned may incur obligations in relation to such a unilateral declaration to the extent that they clearly accepted such a declaration.

In its commentaries about this principle, the ILC indicated that: “It is well established in international law that obligations cannot be imposed by a State upon another State without its consent.”

The same idea applies to sanctions, which is precisely the reason State consent in the form of jurisdiction acceptance is needed to be subject to a ruling by the ICJ. The UN Charter is less clear about the limits of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to impose sanctions. However, it has been widely accepted that the Council has that capacity. The European Union, on the other hand, as a normal subject of international law, shouldn’t have the capacity to create obligations on other subjects of international law.

The issue is further complicated if the sanctions are imposed following a proposal from a member State. Unless the proposing State abstains from voting, the principle of impartiality would be grossly violated.

Additionally, it can be said that the EU, by imposing sanctions against non-member States, would be confiscating functions reserved for international adjudicatory bodies, such as the ICJ or the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It would be highly contradictory, even immoral, if the EU justified its action by pointing to the lack of jurisdiction acceptance by the sanctioned non-member States, since several EU members have not accepted compulsory universal jurisdiction before the ICJ.

Unilateral Sanctions against Individuals are Contrary to International Law

A second level is the human rights question of the people targeted by sanctions. Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms establishes that:

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Although it has been recognized that administrative bodies can impose certain types of sanctions, the right to be heard and to exercise a defense is absolute. No one can be subject to a sanction without an opportunity to exercise a defense or challenge the sanction—before the measures take effect—which doesn’t happen with EU Council sanctions.

Moreover, Article 7 of the European Convention established the principle of nulla pena sine lege previa, meaning that the conduct and its sanction must be clearly established in a law before its imposition. The EU doesn’t have a “criminal code” or anything like that.

Furthermore, EU States (or any State) can create a subject of international law to avoid obligations that they would otherwise bear. This would be fraud on law.

To illustrate with a case, EU member states cannot authorize the EU Council to impose the death penalty, even when the EU itself is not a party to the EU Human Rights regime.

Substantively, depending on the content of the sanctions, they could violate the freedoms of thought and conscience, the right to private property, privacy, movement, and family. It could further be claimed that the conditions imposed by certain sanctions are equivalent to torture.

There is a fundamental distinction to highlight here: between rights and freedoms. Unlike rights, which require positive action by the States for their fulfillment, freedoms demand negative action. States should refrain from intervening in the enjoyment of freedoms unless a lawfully established excess has been committed. Thought and expression are freedoms, not rights, meaning that States (and the EU) should minimize their intervention and limitation, especially sine lege previa.

I think that the issue can be tackled from several fronts. Internationally, in addition to EU internal mechanisms, complaints should be submitted to the High Commissioner on Freedom of Expression and the Committee against Torture. I think this could be a particularly interesting scenario.

Join us on Thursday this week for a Webinar with Roberto, Alexandra Hofer (another International Lawyer), and Jeffrey Sachs for an expert panel on the Sanctions Question.

https://youtube.com/live/9A0r8C9r0sg?feature=share

Pascal’s Note: The following is a speech by Ambassador Chas Freeman from December, which I wanted to share but that remained on my desktop due to the sheer number of events taking place in the past months. However, Ambassador Freeman’s observations about the mistakes of a hostile China policy—by the US or Europe—are as important in 2026 as ever.

Subscribe now

By Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr.

It is human to imagine that change lays bare the ambitions of those who benefit from it. China has successfully returned to wealth and power. But there is little evidence that, in doing so, the Chinese have sought anything other than their own enrichment, international respect, national unity, and reassurance against renewed subjugation by foreigners. We Americans nonetheless fear our eclipse. Our fears are augmented by our lapse into xenophobia and authoritarianism.

As Hannah Arendt so presciently explained,

“Authoritarians arise when economic, social, political, or religious change makes members of a formerly powerful group feel as though they have been left behind. Their frustration makes them vulnerable to leaders who promise to make them dominant again. A strongman downplays the real conditions that have created their problems and tells them that the only reason they have been dispossessed is that enemies have cheated them of power.”

Americans attribute to China an aggressive desire to replace us as the global hegemon. This conjecture may or may not have a basis in anything other than neuroses born of fears of lost supremacy. It really doesn’t matter. We Americans once insisted, as the Chinese do now, that we would never emulate Great Britain’s imperious dominance of world affairs. Then we did.

At present, the Chinese shrink from replacing us in leading the causes and institutions we have ceased to lead or outright abandoned, like climate change, official development assistance, setting the rules for international trade and investment, or countering nuclear proliferation. But like us, the Chinese will surely have regional and global leadership thrust upon them. We cannot know whether they will eventually follow us into our current experimentation with global despotism.

China’s new global prominence reflects its ongoing national rejuvenation and the reality that:

• China once again accounts for more than one-third of everything humanity produces.

• In purchasing power terms, China’s economy is now much larger than ours and, in nominal terms, the greatest driver of global growth.

• China has become the largest source of financial and material support for the economic development of poorer nations.

• China is the world’s largest trading nation. It is destined to become the world’s biggest market for imported goods, supplanting the United States.

• China is a civilizational state with what is possibly the most entrepreneurial population on the planet and the world’s largest community of scientists and engineers.

• American efforts to stifle Chinese innovation have instead galvanized it. China now leads the world in the production of intellectual property and innovation in almost every field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. And China’s increasing dominance of key consumer, industrial, and energy technologies enables it to set global standards for them.

• The United States is severing or attenuating ties to international institutions and other countries, while China is strengthening them. China now has the world’s largest and most widespread diplomatic presence abroad. It is also the most prominent member of new institutions that complement and expand the purposes and programs of those the United States sponsored after World War II. By contrast, we Americans have chosen to oppose reform in legacy institutions and to exclude ourselves from the new ones.

• China tries hard to be inoffensive. Beijing practices strategic neutrality. It keeps its commitments limited, its ideology both idiosyncratic and vague, and its ambitions restrained. It makes itself available as a conciliator but avoids entangling itself in foreign quarrels. It does not seek to impose its political system or ideas on others.

• As the United States gains a reputation for bullying behavior, double standards, and indifference to crimes against humanity, China is self-consciously and somewhat improbably emerging as the global moral leader.

The United States has chosen to treat China’s rise as a national-security threat rather than as an opportunity to benefit from global economic and technological advance. So, we have launched economic warfare against China and invested in its military containment. This stance is intended to sustain American military primacy in Pacific Asia by preventing the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) from conquering Taiwan, thereby completing its victory in the unfinished Chinese civil war. Empathy for Taiwan as a newly robust Chinese democracy, ironically now considerably more devoted to the rule of law than we are, reinforces this stance. But the principal result of our policies has been to stimulate Beijing to modernize the PLA and to expand its nuclear arsenal so that it can prevail in a war with us if we again intervene to perpetuate Taiwan’s separation from the rest of China.

We have declared China to be our “pacing threat.” Nonetheless, what we are doing to compete with China and other rising and resurgent powers is more self-debilitating than invigorating and more rhetorical than real.

• We are in the midst of a Great Leap Backward or Cultural Revolution-style assault on the domestic institutions that made America great – the rule of law, freedom of speech, academic freedom and scientific excellence, federal partnerships with research universities, openness to foreigners and their ideas, policies based on evidence and expertise rather than fake news and unsubstantiated prejudice, and the prioritization of objectivity over political correctness.

• We have abandoned reliance on diplomacy as a means of threat reduction or an alternative to economic and military warfare that can achieve adjustments in our relations with other nations or groups of nations. More compelling interests overwhelmed our much-ballyhooed “pivot” or “rebalance” to Pacific Asia, and it never took place. Our armed forces remain pinned down in other regions. We have made only minor adjustments to our alliance relationships even as we alienate former partners and friends.

• Meanwhile, the balance of naval and air power on China’s periphery has turned against us. In the absence of a strategy implemented and backed by diplomacy, huge increases in our so-called “War Department’s” budget will not persuade China not to do what it feels it must in its region.

• Rather than increasing our political and economic involvement in Pacific Asia, we have absented ourselves from its councils. We skip or make only cameo appearances at most of its gatherings. We have adopted visa and other policies that discourage Asians from visiting, studying, working, or investing in our country. Strategic abdication and self-isolation are not effective responses to shifting balances of regional and global power.

• The Biden administration’s effort to replace the United Nations Charter and international law with a so-called “rules-based order” dictated by the United States and other members of the G-7 utterly failed to gain traction. Instead of buttressing the global leadership of the West, we Americans discredited our pretentions to exemplify a civilization entitled to impose its allegedly superior values on others. Consider:

  • our abandonment of the rule law and endorsement of indefinite detention without charge both at home and abroad,

  • our participation in kidnapping, torture, and regime-change operations,

  • our egregious application of double standards in our stand on foreign wars,

  • our turn from enablement to active participation in Israel’s mass murder, starvation, denial of medical care, assassination of journalists, and other war crimes,

  • our indifference to cruel and unusual punishment, including torture, sodomy, and rape,

  • our politically vindictive suppression of dissenting opinions, and

  • our abandonment of constitutional democracy in favor of what Latin Americans call “caudillismo” -- a form of authoritarianism characterized by a personality cult.

• We have ceased to offer others access to our market, provide foreign assistance, or build institutions to meet challenges to regional and global interests that legacy bodies lack the capacity to address. We have withdrawn from or are sabotaging the institutions we created to promote and regulate global cooperation and commerce, substituting for them unilateral American attempts to exercise dominance coercively through economic warfare, punitive tariffs and sanctions, extortion, the operation of a protection racket involving the expropriation of foreign real estate and resources, and the lawless use of force. We are now seen as cruel and profiteering rather than caring.

• At home, the United States is adopting a novel form of ‘state capitalism with American characteristics.’ This grifter-directed economic order is a parody of our distorted understanding of the Chinese system. It is based on political payola, the protection of vested industrial interests, subsidies to offset the damage done by deleterious policies, and the rake-off of private profit from government activities by a privileged class of plutocrats. Among other things, our version of state capitalism entails:

  • disregarding conflicts of interest to enable private enrichment at government expense,

  • subsidizing uncompetitive economic sectors and protecting them from foreign competition,

  • disinvesting in education, scientific research, infrastructure, and government services,

  • curtailing investment in new technologies like electric vehicles, wind, and solar power to make the U.S. market safe for coal, oil and gas, and the internal combustion engine,

  • snatching partial government control of key industries by extorting equity shares from them in return for policy favors, and

  • relying on credit rollovers rather than revenue to finance unprecedented levels of government debt.

The world economy no longer revolves around the volatile, contracting, and increasingly inaccessible American market. It is fragmenting into multiple regional trade and investment regimes whose only common characteristics are (1) their exclusion of the United States and (2) their commitment to restoring and enhancing the open trading regime once embodied in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Smaller economies are shifting toward reliance on larger ones that can guarantee trade and capital. The United States is no longer a dependable source of either.

America also no longer leads most fields of science and technology. Recent polls suggest that as many as three out of four scientists in our country – both native and foreign born – have considered or are considering emigration. We are making the United States an ever-smaller yard with an ever-higher fence.

Exporting scientific talent is an increasingly damaging blow to our ability to compete with China or other rising or resurgent powers. This is political self-mutilation resembling what happened when ultra-nationalist xenophobia took hold in Germany in the 1930s. As Germans forfeited their global leadership in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the United States absorbed it. We are now following the German example by driving our most inventive STEM workers to greener pastures. Increasingly, these are in China.

In the last half of the 20th century, Americans were the primary guarantors of international law and of other nations’ security. But in the third decade of the 21st century, others see us as the most powerful threat to both. Other nations that once felt safe in the Pax America now feel obliged to protect themselves against an America they view as bellicose, not benign; selfish, not generous; cruel, not compassionate; inhospitable, not welcoming; and inimical, not companionable.

In short, we Americans are now well along in our withdrawal from the world order we once championed and helped establish. Our country is becoming an ever-smaller participant in global decision-making, supply chains, trade, value-added investment, and a world economy no longer dominated by the West. We prioritize the gratification of our political elite over strategic calculation, propelling other nations, including those in our own hemisphere, toward China and other great powers able to fill the void created by our retreat from globalization and our retirement from constructive participation in world affairs.

China’s expanding influence must be seen in this context. China’s new prominence is not a measure of threatening Chinese ambition but the inevitable consequence of our retreat from leadership and our alienation of other nations. But to the regret of much of the world, China is not moving to occupy the leadership void we are creating.

An authoritarian, caprice-based order is no substitute for one based on the predictable foundation of international law. Ego-driven petulance is no substitute for strategy. Protection rackets and cronyism are no substitute for diplomacy. Intemperate insults do not promote partnership. Disregard for the sovereignty of others enrages them and disincentivizes their cooperation. It is generally considered wise to divide, not unite one’s adversaries. We have done the opposite.

China and other rising powers are well aware that they owe their prosperity to their embrace of the international system created by the consensus of the United States and other capitalist powerhouses. The BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) do not want to set that system aside. To the contrary, they seek its reinstatement, free from American dominance and empowered to address neglected global challenges through consensus-based incremental change. They are groping for ways to restore or reinvent the beneficial consensus-based rules that America led the world in creating and has since demolished.

If the WTO cannot be rescued from the U.S. sabotage of it, its market opening and dispute-resolution functions must be recreated in sub-global form. The challenge is to create substitutes for the growing number of institutions the United States now shuns or blocks. Doing so requires resorting to ad hoc conferences and gatherings to address planetwide issues that the United States officially denies exist and won’t allow international organizations to address. It demands developing trade settlement mechanisms that flank the increasingly weaponized U.S. dollar. It suggests looking for ways to preserve value that reduce reliance on the dollar as a reserve currency. It means forming new defensive coalitions, ententes, and alliances to make up for the lost protections of international law and the transformation of the United States from military protector to uninhibited predator.

Meet the proposed “new world order “– same as the old one, but under new pluralistic management and regulated by new institutions. America has turned its back on globalization. But the world beyond the transatlantic community continues to globalize.

American strategy has always aimed at preventing the rise of a Eurasian hegemon that might menace our global primacy. But our confrontations with China and Russia have pushed them into a close embrace, to which other U.S. policies have now added Iran and North Korea. This unnatural grouping – China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia – has nothing in common beyond its discordant members’ enmity to U.S. dictation. Current U.S. policies, statements, and actions are bringing into being the very Eurasian counterweight to our power that we have traditionally sought to preclude.

Three months ago today, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, the leaders of three of the four major power centers on the Eurasian landmass – China, India, and Russia – joined in a defiant response to American unilateralism. The gathering was attended by Iran, all Central Asian, and almost all Southeast Asian countries. Only Arab states (except for Egypt) and Europe were missing.

Once the home of the world’s colonial overlords, Europe is now “the sick man of Eurasia.” The European Union (EU) lacks the institutional capabilities, unified Weltanschauung, resolve, and steadfastness needed to pursue either strategic or tactical objectives effectively. It has many of the attributes of a geoeconomic superpower but seems determined to remain less than the sum of its parts and thus politically impotent. Having invented modern statecraft, it has forgotten how to practice it.

Europe’s malaise and declining competitiveness will not be restored by the weird combination of austerity, rearmament, and embargo of Russian natural resources most of its governments have adopted. No European has come up with a coherent response to deteriorating transatlantic relations, Russian advances in Ukraine, energy insecurity, China’s increasing technological prowess, or the emergence of a world order no longer centered on the West. In short, Europe is adrift. No one can now confidently predict Europe’s future geoeconomic role or geopolitical orientation.

The other major absentee at the Tianjin gathering was Japan, whose defeat in World War II was celebrated two days later in a grand military parade in Beijing. For its own reasons, India did not attend the parade, but Japan’s efforts to persuade other Asians not to do so failed. The military might on display succeeded in demonstrating a convincing ability by China to defend itself against the United States if Americans contrive a bloody rendezvous with Chinese nationalism, something we increasingly risk, as does Japan.

The United States is seven thousand miles away from the East and South China Seas. Distance attenuates power. Great distance attenuates it greatly. Together, the SCO meeting in Tianjin and the Beijing parade raise unwelcome questions. How long should we Americans expect to retain the politico-military dominance we have enjoyed in Pacific Asia since the defeat of Japan eighty years ago?

Beyond that increasingly ripe conundrum, what is our strategic view and focus?

To what extent does our view of Japan’s role as an actor in Pacific Asia or the Indo-Pacific coincide with Japanese aspirations? Must we follow Japan’s recent threat to extend its defense perimeter to include Taiwan? Do we imagine we can move India, a resolutely independent player, on the geopolitical chessboard? If so, where, and how? What of Pakistan and its apparent extension of nuclear deterrence to Saudi Arabia against our nuclear-armed Israeli client state? Can we extricate ourselves from the moral turpitude and alienation of the global majority that complicity with Israel in genocide has entailed? Will Latin America accept a return to lawless U.S. overlordship of the sort that we seem to be pursuing? How do we propose to deal with the countries of Africa as they rise in demographic and economic weight in association with China, Arab states, Brazil, India, Russia, Türkiye, and other resurgent powers? Are we capable of minding our own affairs? Is building barriers to cooperation with other countries a feasible way to do so?

All these issues impinge on our relationship with China for the simple reason that for the first time in its long history, China is a world power – a nation whose economic, political, and other interests and policies must be considered everywhere on the planet, as ours must. Anywhere we appear to push other countries around, they will seek to enlist China in opposition to us. China will not necessarily accept such invitations, as its cautious policies in West Asia and the Western Hemisphere suggest, but we cannot rule this out.

After all, we are currently engaged in a strange version of self-containment, retreating politically and economically while uniting allies, friends, and foes against us. Our media curate reality rather than reporting it. Our government is systematically stripping itself of expertise and competence. While other governments are willing to talk to us, they no longer follow our lead or replicate our policies in their relations with other countries. We may inadvertently be creating a world divided between the United States and a few vassal states and a global coalition or sphere of influence animated by aversion to our selfishness and bullying behavior and aligning against us with China. At the Sino-American summit in Busan, our president acted as though he understood that we can neither outcompete China nor win a war with it.

China has learned from us how to use export controls, sanctions, boycotts, and embargoes to put pressure on countries that challenge it. Will it wield its growing strength as unilaterally as we have as our power diminishes? Will it emulate our new disdain for international comity? Is the West up to countering a China behaving like we do? Western international prestige and privilege have been overtaken by events, and the West – as we have known it since the late 1940s – is moribund. It still has three permanent members to cast vetoes in the UN Security Council, but it lacks both the cohesion and the authority to control the direction of world events.

China has many problems, but most of them do not conform to those that career anti-China polemicists have predicted. China shows no sign of collapse. It is not growing old before it grows rich. It is instead growing rich through automation and offshoring those labor-intensive industries that cannot be manned by robots. Negative population growth plus steady economic growth and gains in productivity foretell higher per capita incomes for the Chinese people. Most Chinese do not share our distaste for their political system. Unlike us, China is not at war with other countries. It may yet be able to conclude its civil war through shows of force – assimilating Taiwan by making the island an offer it cannot refuse rather than through outright warfare. We better hope so. Our current mindless drive toward war with China over Taiwan can end only in tragedy for all concerned.

It is, of course, not inevitable that China’s progress toward greater affluence and global leadership will continue without interruption. Many things have gone wrong for China in the past. Much could again go wrong for it. But hoping that China will suffer unanticipated setbacks is not a strategy.

The fact is that the United States does not have a plan for dealing with the most probable scenario before us – a world in which China has returned to the preeminence of past millennia. We need to conceptualize one. This means we must nurture a realistic understanding of China and the Chinese, not indulge in spurious reasoning by analogies.

China does not seek to conquer or abridge the sovereignty of its neighbors. It is not engaged in a search for Lebensraum or foreign colonies. It has no theory of “manifest destiny.” Its “warring states” period – in which it resembled Europe or India in the viciousness of its internal rivalries – is long past. It is unlikely to follow either our path or that of other civilizations.

Tragically, whatever the source of our current approach to managing relations with China, it is not expertise. We are now led by “China hawks” who have never been to China or studied it but who are convinced they know everything they need to know about it. Our president’s first and only visit to China was as president – in the security cocoon and perceptual bubble that presidential visits involve. Neither our secretary of state, who was sanctioned by Beijing for his vituperative comments about it, nor our ‘secretary of war’ have ever been to China.

The architect of the administration’s trade and investment war on China, Peter Navarro (also known as ‘Ron Varro’) made his career with decades of China bashing but had his first and only visit to China in 2018. He has not been back. The small army of China hands that used to populate our diplomatic and intelligence services has been decimated. Those who remain have no real input into China policy. In any event, there is no coherent policy process in today’s Washington in which their expertise might play a role.

The past quarter-century has seen an unbroken series of defeats, disappointments, and political and economic crises for our country, most recently the scuttle from Afghanistan, the failure of our proxy war in Ukraine, our entanglement in the genocide in Palestine, a forever war on behalf of Israel with Iran, dysfunctional policies that have made North Korea a nuclear threat to our cities, and escalating confrontation with Venezuela and its neighbors. We are engaged in combat with so-called terrorist forces in at least eighty-two countries.

But instead of learning from this sorry record, the United States has adopted an approach to international relations that combines the belief that the right combination of pressures can bring foreign nations to heel, that personal chemistry can overcome conflicting national interests, and that military action should precede diplomacy rather than back it. Our leaders habitually avoid the hard political choices that statecraft demands while throwing money, sanctions, weapons, and soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines at problems. They like flashy signing ceremonies – pseudo-events – that celebrate their resolution of problems they have not in any way resolved.

We cannot afford to apply this self-indulgent methodology to China, which is destined to play a role at least equal to ours in world affairs. We must be realistic.

We had better come up with a way to coexist with the Chinese, leverage their rising prosperity and technological competence to our own, and reduce the danger of pointless confrontation with them. Such confrontation promises to be catastrophic for us as well as for them.

To conclude: Our current China policy is as ruinous as our repudiation of the world order we played the major role in creating. It cannot and must not be sustained.

Pascal’s Note: Thanks for reading. If you made it this far, you might also be interested in my talk with Ambassador Freeman in early January.

Subscribe now

By Yana Afanasieva

It was very clear that many Americans and especially American media came to Davos in a very gleeful mood anticipating humiliation of the European elites. Sort ot “we are here to tell you what is going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it”. I was expecting to see some Danish or Greenland flags on the streets and I saw none.

Europeans, on the other side, kept repeating that “we need to get stronger militarily ... to be able to defend Ukraine and defeat Russia, but there is nothing we can do now”. For some strange reason, the European public has adopted a very fatalistic approach to whatever may happen to Greenland, but is refusing to accept what is about to happen to Ukraine. If I had to describe the European public vibe, it would be apprehensive and in denial, as if they know something bad is about to happen, but refuse to acknowledge this.

Many Davos visitors are from the world of consulting and various corporate services, and they are in Davos with a goal to find customers and figure out what corporations are ready to buy. I talked to a business owner who previously was offering team building events and leadership training to large companies. Now, with the cancellation of many DEI programs, the budgets for these corporate trainings have been cancelled, and this business is trying to figure out what else they can sell. ( Unfortunately, this person is not technical and unable to sell AI, and AI is still very much the only thing that most people are ready to buy and sell).

Subscribe now

About AI, I had the impression that the consensus in Davos is that everyone is denying the potential AI bubble, big IT and consulting companies, almost everyone from Tata Consulting to Cognizant to Deloitte to BCG want Google, Microsoft and Nvidia and others to continue investing into AI, continue the conversation that AI will bring a lot of growth, productivity, and continue riding the AI wave, because as long as AI “producers” declare that they are making progress, all other big companies continue investing into AI adoption projects and continue paying their consultants for AI implementation projects. 10 years ago big companies were investing into “digitalization”, then into “cloud infrastructure”, now it is AI adoption collusion.

Another big theme in Davos was related to “governance”. There is an admission that old governance at all levels is failing and disintegrating at all levels - international laws, demographic decline, youth unemployment, regulations around technology. Whoever is coordinating the top-down agenda for the conversations in Davos is clearly trying to convince the public that we need “more governance” to avoid the “apocalypse” of lawlessness and uncertainty. On the positive side, however, and contrary to some statements of Christine Lagarde, I do not believe they are going to introduce CBDCs in the form of government issuing wallets to people and restricting payments. I believe she was talking about expanding SEPA and other payment rails for intra-bank settlements, and was misunderstood for the purpose of creating sensation. I am not suggesting that there are no forces trying to introduce CBDCs, however, I do not see the government pushing this as an immediate project, and most people I talked to at Davos within the crypto and blockchain community agreed that CBDCs are not imminent.

I did not see any meltdown or panic or even profound sentiments within the public about the end of the global world order from anyone I talked to. I feel like this topic is only important for the puppets of the top. Americans from the media and business community still believe they rule the world and are in Davos openly celebrating their “might”, Europeans are in denial and view the world through Kipling’s poem where everyone outside of Europe is wild half-devil and half-child:

Take up the white man’s burden
Send forth the best you breed
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need.
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

[You can find Yana on LinkedIn here]

If it weren’t so tragically linked to one of the worst genocides in my lifetime, it would almost be funny what Trump is doing with his “Board of Peace.” Last week, he seemed to have finished the envisioned charter and sent it out over the weekend to dozens of governments around the world; he even invited Vladimir Putin to join the board.

While some have speculated that he might be building a United Nations rival organisation, what he is really doing is much more Trumpian. He is working on creating his own, highly personalized International Organization (IO)—one designed to concentrate authority in his hands and persist beyond his presidency of the USA. Let’s look at what this monstrosity is envisioned to be.

A Personalized IO

The whole endeavour rests on UN Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted in November 2025, which “welcomes” the establishment of the Board of Peace (BOP) as a transitional administration with international legal personality. This, in my view, is key: it grants the BoP legitimacy under the UN Charter. The idea expressed in UNSCR 2803 is that the BoP deals with Gaza, but we see clearly how Trump is going far beyond that.

In fact, the BoP Charter doesn’t mention Gaza even once. Instead, it establishes the entire organisation basically as a personal little kingdom, with the Chairman as its supreme ruler. It even mentions Donald J. Trump explicitly as the first Chairman. What nonsense. International organizations normally designate offices that will be filled according to procedures, or with personnel ex officio (e.g., being the president of a central bank makes a member state also a board member of the Bank for International Settlements, etc.), not private individuals. Here, however, the charter embeds Trump by name as the organization’s permanent linchpin.

The actual board itself is currently being built as a political body, with membership restricted to states—except for the position of Chairman, who can really be anyone with a pulse. Trump is inviting countries to join the organisation by signing and ratifying the charter, and then either their head of state or government will sit on the board. However, membership is time-limited to three years, unless a state contributes over one billion dollars within the first year (clearly intended as a scheme to make interested parties pay up at the very beginning and fill up the BoP coffers). You can be sure that Trump will offer renewal of membership, but will fix a big price tag on that one. So membership in the BoP will be a very expensive pay-to-play scheme. Oh, and it goes without saying that the three-year membership rule does not apply to the Chairman. That position is for life (and for free).

Subscribe now

Limitless Powers to the Chairman

Although the charter stipulates that the BoP would work by a one-country-one-vote rule and majority decision, in fact, the powers of the Chairman at any time reign supreme. He has sole discretion over who gets invited to join the BoP and who must stay out. He has a veto over all board decisions, and he alone gets to create sub-organs of the organisation.

Beneath the political board sits the Executive Board, also appointed by Trump. Its founding members include, at the moment, Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and Tony Blair. This board will probably function analogously to a UN Secretariat, managing day-to-day operations. This board, too, remains fully subordinate to the Chairman’s will. Agenda-setting power rests with the Executive Board but requires Trump’s approval, ensuring that no discussion or decision occurs without his consent.

Member states purchasing permanent seats in the organization and later injecting probably even more money through donations transform the BoP into an international wallet for Trump. The charter authorizes the BoP to establish accounts, hold assets, and receive funds without meaningful external oversight or even a dispute resolution mechanism (the charter states that the Chairman has ultimate decision-making power in case of disputes. Ha!). Combined with its international legal personality, this creates a vehicle for large-scale capital aggregation and investment insulated from national laws.

Succession rules further entrench Trump’s power. Replacement of the Chairman may occur only through voluntary resignation or incapacity, as determined unanimously by the (political) board. If unanimity cannot be reached, no succession occurs. Trump may personally designate his successor, who can be anyone, which means the BoP might well become a tool for his dynasty-building. Trump could simply appoint one of his kids as his successor.

The charter also contains an unprecedented “kill switch.” In addition to the Chairman having the power to dissolve the BoP at will, unless renewed every odd-numbered year by him, the organization automatically dissolves. This is really an extraordinary setup, showing that Trump wants a strong international organisation, but not one that he could not eliminate in case something goes wrong.

Subscribe now

Legal Status and Immunities

Once ratified by three states, the charter acquires treaty status under international law and, in conjunction with UNSCR 2803, the BoP even becomes a United Nations-approved international organisation. Its officers and subsidiaries thereby gain diplomatic immunity and extraterritorial privileges. Like the UN, it will operate outside host-state jurisdiction, shielding its leadership—including Trump—from prosecution or domestic legal constraints.

A future host state agreement will likely mirror UN headquarters arrangements, preventing local authorities from entering BoP premises. Such immunity transforms the organization into a legally autonomous zone—a feature which, in theory, would give Trump’s BoP the ability to acquire land and then build establishments on it outside national laws (much like embassies are not part of the territory they rest on). One can easily see how this must appeal to a property developer and businessman like Trump. The possibilities for unregulated international business are tremendous.

And Gaza?

Where does Gaza feature in this whole plan, you might ask. Good question. It doesn’t.

Through Trump’s executive decision-making power (as granted by the charter), the nascent BoP has created a third board to deal with Gaza separately, meaning not as part of the BoP Charter setup itself. Trump announced last weekend that a “Gaza Executive Board” shall be tasked with liaising with the newly formed “National Committee for the Administration of Gaza” (NCAG). This Palestinian technocratic body, created on January 16, is designed to administer Gaza post-conflict. Yet it enjoys no sovereignty. It is strictly an implementation partner, subordinate to the BoP’s international oversight. This is, of course, why all human rights people out there are so appalled by the entire approach of transforming Gaza into a modern-day UN protectorate—implemented through Trump’s private IO.

Subscribe now

Under this branch of the scheme, the structure also envisions an International Stabilization Force (ISF) for Gaza—a military force. The ISF is not part of the BoP but rests on the authorization by the Security Council under UNSCR 2803, and is operationally coordinated through the BoP.

This is probably the only “good news” about this scheme, that the BoP is not designed to be an alliance or a military intervention force. The BoP itself has no military component. The ISF is strictly tied to UNSCR 2803 and not to Trump’s international organization. He is not establishing his own paramilitary or anything like that—at least not internationally through the BoP. Most likely, Trump is already trying to separate the Gaza aspect of the BoP from the rest of the organization, as he wants to use it for completely different purposes in the future. So the structure will probably soon look like this:

Sad Conclusion

The Board of Peace is not a rival UN. It is something more idiosyncratic: a personalized international organization that will most likely function as a business vehicle for Trump and his (family) entourage. Hence, the new charter speaks of “Peace Building” as the organization’s main goal. In the context of what we know about Trump, we'd better assume that this means mainly “building” stuff and doing business without much peace to be expected.

The shamelessness with which Trump is using the office of the President and the Genocide in Gaza to build an IO centered around him and him alone is quite breathtaking. But it seems the Wild West of the Multipolar Era belongs to the bold and the shameless. He will probably find enough support to make this thing a reality.

Subscribe now

(And here is the above explanation in video form)