Nazio Batuen Erakundea (NBE) eta Nazioarteko Arlo Penaleko Epaitegia (NAPE) (46)

Mundu multipolarra versus unipolarra

NBE (Nazio Batuen Erakundea) gaindituta, ICC (NAPE) (International Criminal Court) alboratuta, eta Mossad nagusi… aspalditik gainera…

******

Mao Ning 毛宁@SpoxCHN_MaoNing

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028422188290965963

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028443279184785864

Aipamena

Going Underground@Gunderground_TV

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028441024394104974

Aipamena

Going Underground@Gunderground_TV

How have the Epstein Files scandal’s revelations about Peter Mandelson shaken the political establishment’s power in Britain?

How morally bankrupt is Sir Keir Starmer and the political establishment?

What was the Royal Family’s role in protecting Prince Andrew from the consequences of his crimes?

Will the Epstein Files be the end of the British monarchy?

All this and more on this episode of Going Underground. .

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028407232644169827

oooooo

China pulse @Eng_china5

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/20284369999638

oooooo

China live@ChinaliveX

oooooo

Radar ?￢ﾀﾋ Archie@RadarHits

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028554899085038056

oooooo

Owen Jones@owenjonesjourno

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028568587519033821

oooooo

Al Jazeera English@AJEnglish

oooooo

Andrés @andres20ad

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028128808088240444

oooooo

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028504087520498116

oooooo

Senator Chris Van Hollen@ChrisVanHollen

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028638240282914992

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028609479596744848

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028540909357568425

Aipamena:

Rick Sanchez@RickSanchezTV

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028535670499577934

Aipamena

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028526900021240015

oooooo

Ounka@OunkaOnX

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028635185668092413

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028509750296490047

Aipamena

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028501227344949627

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2028617747534430335

oooooo

ooo

The New York Times’ Long History of Endorsing US-Backed Coups

(https://www.mintpressnews.com/long-history-new-york-times-endorsing-us-backed-coups/263059/)

Bolivian President Evo Morales was overthrown in a U.S.-backed military coup d’état earlier this month after Bolivian army generals appeared on television demanding his resignation. As Morales fled to Mexico, the army appointed right-wing Senator Jeanine Añez as his successor. Añez, a Christian conservative who has described Bolivia’s indigenous majority as “satanic”, arrived at the presidential palace holding an oversized Bible, declaring that Christianity was re-entering the government. She immediately announced she would “take all measures necessary” to “pacify” the indigenous resistance to her takeover. 

This included pre-exonerating the country’s notorious security services of all future crimes in their “re-establishment of order,” leading to massacres of dozens of mostly indigenous people.

The New York Times, the United States’ most influential newspaper, immediately applauded the events, its editorial board refusing to use the word “coup” to describe the overthrow, claiming instead that Morales had “resigned,” leaving a “vacuum of power” into which Añez was forced to move. The Times presented the deposed president as an “arrogant” and “increasingly autocratic” populist tyrant “brazenly abusing” power, “stuffing” the Supreme Court with his loyalists, “crushing any institution” standing in his way, and presiding over a “highly fishy” vote. 

This, for democratic-minded Bolivians, was “the last straw” and forcing him out “became the only remaining option,” the Times extolled. It expressed relief that the country was now in the hands of “more responsible leaders” and stated emphatically that the whole situation was his fault; “There can be little doubt who was responsible for the chaos: newly resigned president Evo Morales,” the editorial board stated in the first paragraph of one article.

The Times, according to Professor Ian Hudson of the University of Manitoba, co-author of “Gatekeeper: 60 Years of Economics According to the New York Times,” remains America’s most influential news outlet in shaping public opinion.

“Despite the changing media landscape and the financial troubles of old school journalism models – including the New York Times – it remains the agenda setter. Social media often use or respond to Times stories. It is still probably the single most referenced news outlet in the U.S. Other websites, like Yahoo get more hits, but they do not report or create their own stories. The New York Times still ranks as the top investigative and opinion setting news organization” he told MintPress News.

The first draft of history

Newsrooms across America are sent advanced copies of the Times’ front page so they will know what is “important news” and adjust their own coverage accordingly. In this way its influence extends well beyond its nearly 5 million subscribers, its output becoming the first draft of history. Yet, when it comes to U.S. intervention, the Times offers its “consistent support” for American actions around the world, Hudson says, claiming that the latest Bolivia example “very much followed this trend.” Indeed, there has rarely been an effort at regime change that the paper did not fully endorse, including the following six examples.

Iran 1953

In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup against the administration of Mohammad Mossadegh, installing the Shah as an autocrat in his place. Mossadegh, a secular liberal reformer, had angered Western governments by nationalizing Iran’s oil industry, arguing that the country’s resources should be owned by and used to benefit the people of Iran. The Shah presided over decades of terror and human rights abuses, finally being overthrown in the revolution of 1979.

The front page of the New York Times on August 20, 1953. Photo 

The Times expressed a “deep sense of relief,” many felt that Mossadegh, a “fanatical power-hungry man” and a Kremlin stooge who had “wrecked the economy” in his “bid for dictatorship” had been deposed. The editorial board gave a warning to others who might try to nationalize industries owned by American corporations: “Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism,” it wrote, two days after Mossadegh’s ouster.

Brazil 1964

Like Mossadegh, Brazilian President Joao Goulart was far from a communist; the center-left reformer who had been in power since 1961 modeled himself after John F. Kennedy. He was overthrown in a U.S.-supported military coup d’état that brought about over twenty years of fascist dictatorship that saw tens of thousands of people arrested and tortured.

Two days after the event, the Times’ editorial board announced, “We do not lament the passing of a leader who had proved so incompetent and so irresponsible.” As with Bolivia, it refused to use the word “coup,” instead claiming that Goulart, who “had almost no supporters,” was deposed in “another peaceful revolution.”

One month later, a report entitled “Brazil relieved by Goulart’s Fall” claimed there was “no outcry or even concern” over the events, but instead a “widespread feeling of deep relief and optimism” in the country. It stated that all of Brazil had “written off” the “extremist” and “far leftist” “regime” and supported the “revolt” against him. In particularly Orwellian fashion, it claimed that the “nation appears to have been yearning” for a “political clean up” of “extremists,” applauding the widespread imprisonment of officials in the Goulart administration on the grounds that they were “communists.”

Chile 1973

The overthrow of the democratically-elected Chilean socialist Salvador Allende in 1973 and his replacement with the fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet is one of the most well-known and infamous events in CIA history. The fallout from Pinochet’s economic mismanagement and reign of terror continues to this day and provides the backdrop for the enormous anti-government protest movement currently engulfing the country.

As soon as Allende was elected, the Times began a campaign to demonize the new leader, claiming that Chile’s “free institutions” likely would not survive the “sharp turn to the left” he was proposing. The day after the coup, when Pinochet’s forces bombed the presidential palace and forced Allende to commit suicide, the Times editorial board blamed the President for his own downfall, just as it did with Morales and with Mossadegh, claiming:

No Chilean party or faction can escape some responsibility…but a heavy share must be assigned to the unfortunate Dr. Allende himself. Even when the dangers of polarization had become unmistakably evident, he persisted in pushing a program of pervasive socialism for which he had no popular mandate.

The front page of the New York Times on September 12, 1973. Photo 

It also pre-determined that the very obvious involvement of the U.S. government, conducting a campaign of economic war against Chile, in order to “make the economy scream” in the words of President Nixon and Henry Kissinger to the CIA, was non-existent. The board advised that “It is essential that Washington meticulously keep hands off the present crisis…There must be no grounds whatsoever for even a suspicion of outside intervention.”

Venezuela 2002 and 2019

In April 2002, the U.S. government bankrolled and supported a coup attempt against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In a consistent pattern, the Times editorial board came out to heartily endorse proceedings, again deliberately refraining from using the word coup. Two days after the event it noted:

 With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chavez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.”

And like with other coups, the Times immediately treated the idea of U.S. involvement as utterly impossible, adding, “Rightly, his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair.”

What was unique about this event was that the coup was dramatically overturned by hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, who convinced military units loyal to Chavez to retake the presidential palace. Since then, successive U.S. governments have dedicated significant resources to regime change in Venezuela. The Times also applauded self-declared President Juan Guaidó’s attempt to gain power earlier this year, presenting him as a man of the people, claiming he was “cheered on by thousands of supporters in the streets and a growing number of governments, including the United States.” 

But as Guaidó’s attempt collapsed under the weight of its own unpopularity, the Times expressed its anger that Maduro, a corrupt Russian agent, who pushed Venezuela “to utter ruin,” remained in power. “It would be a great relief for Venezuela to be rid” of Maduro, the editorial board mused, “the sooner the armed forces evict the thieves” the better, it said, disappointed that, for once, it could not celebrate a successful U.S. coup.

Manufacturing consent

Studying the Times’ coverage of U.S.-orchestrated coup attempts, it becomes clear that there is a checklist of talking points it employs time and again to justify events.

1.   Blame all economic and political problems on the government; ignore the effect of any U.S. sanctions.
2.   Constantly present the targeted leader as a tyrannical autocrat crushing dissent, no matter what the reality is.
3.   Insist that the leader is actually a Russian plant controlled by the Kremlin.
4.   Refrain from using the word “coup”. Prefer instead words like “uprising”, “revolt” or “transition”.
5.   Express ridicule at the idea that the U.S. could be involved in the affair.
6.   Depict the new U.S.-backed rulers as democratically-minded and downplay any violence they commit in establishing their rule.
7.   Blame the deposed leaders for their own overthrow.

To be sure, the New York Times is not the only major media outlet guilty of reflexively supporting every U.S. action around the world. The Economist and the Washington Post both came out to support the coup in Bolivia, as they had done before with Venezuela. But the Times’ position as “the paper of record” sets it apart in terms of importance. 

This position makes it a crucial weapon in the propaganda war waged on the American people in order to manufacture consent for regime change abroad.

Feature photo | Graphic by Claudio Cabrera

Alan MacLeod is a MintPress Staff Writer as well as an academic and writer for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. His book, Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting was published in April.

oooooo

The Regime Change Machine Is Turning on Iran Again

(https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-israel-iran-protests-regime-change/290644/)

Make no mistake: the U.S. and Israel are ready to seize this moment in Iran’s mass protests to drive a regime change operation. And it’s not even subtle.

Trump has openly threatened airstrikes against Iran — and he’s told protesters to keep going, promising: “Help is on the way.”

And Israeli security analysts are already gaming out a collapse scenario — suggesting the Israeli military could hit Iran’s strategic infrastructure and government targets if the state begins to crumble — to weaken the Islamic government and shape the outcome towards regime change with a plan to install Reza Pahlavi, the son of the brutal dictator, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

And the timing matters. Iran sits at the heart of the Axis of Resistance, and Israel has been hit with many political and regional losses from resistance in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen. With its global reputation destroyed after the genocide in Gaza and stalled normalization plans with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Israel’s default issue is to attack Iran, as the Islamic Republic is the number one target of the apartheid state.

This is why Israel is seizing this moment now. Its own intelligence agency posted on its Farsi-language account urging Iranians to join the protests, even claiming that Mossad was with them “in the field.”

What began as legitimate protests over the collapsing rial, rising prices, economic hardship and calls for real political reforms is now bwwwwwweing hijacked by pro-monarchy rioters waving Shah-era flags, openly calling on Israel and the United States to help overthrow the government.

Reports indicate these rioters who are openly backed by Israel have burned down over 30 mosques, and committed attacks and killings against civilians and pro-government demonstrators, using military-style weapons, hunting rifles, knives, axes, and blades, while targeting police and state institutions.

MintPress has documented how Israeli intelligence covertly transfer weapons into Iran through its eastern border and often times through Israeli-tied Cargo Ships that travel past Yemen through the Red Sea. A MintPress investigation revealed that Zodiac Maritime, operator of the Mercer Street, has deep ties to the IDF and Mossad — using commercial ships to move arms and operatives for covert operations, including assassination missions inside Iran.

Phony Human Rights Groups

Despite these facts, Western corporate media are pushing out bogus casualty and mass arrest numbers that are being shared by diaspora Iranians in the push for regime change. But we at MintPress News traced these numbers back to one source:  the Human Rights Activist News Agency – an arm of the Human Rights Agency in Iran (HRAI).

A new MintPress investigation found that this agency and its news arm are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA cutout organization.

They’ve become the go-to source for some of the most inflammatory claims and shockingly high casualty figures reported in the press. In the past week alone, their numbers have been repeated across outlets like CNN, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, ABC News, Sky News, and The New York Post, among others.

Even mainstream liberal commentators repeat these claims as settled fact. One example of this is Owen Jones, who wrote in The Guardian that Human Rights Iran is a “respected” group, and that their death toll claims are “probably significant underestimates.”

But what these reports almost never disclose is the funding pipeline connecting it directly to the CIA. Human Rights Activists in Iran presents itself as independent, but it’s based in Fairfax, Virginia — right inside the Washington intelligence ecosystem of the CIA. On its website, it describes itself as “non-political,” and even claims it does not accept financial aid from political groups or governments. Yet in the same paragraph, it admits its major donor is from the National Endowment for Democracy, a group created by the CIA to covertly do what the CIA once did openly.

And Human Rights Iran isn’t the only “human rights” NGO being signal-boosted into Western headlines. Another organization widely cited in coverage of Iran is the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, led by Roya Boroumand — cited by outlets including  The Washington Post, PBS, and ABC News.

And again, the proximity to the U.S. foreign policy apparatus is rarely mentioned.

Although the Boroumand Center does not prominently advertise it in its funding disclaimer, it has been supported by the National Endowment for Democracy. A 2024 NED press release described the center as a “partner” organization — and the NED awarded Boroumand its 2024 Goler T. Butcher medal for democracy promotion.

At that ceremony, NED officials openly praised the Boroumand Center’s work as an “indispensable resource” and said the NED was “proud to support” their advocacy toward what it called a “democratic future for Iran.”

And sitting on the center’s board is Francis Fukuyama — a former NED board member, and an editor of the NED’s own publication, the Journal of Democracy.

So when Western corporate media presents these organizations as neutral, independent referees while using them to justify escalations, sanctions narratives, and regime change pressure, understand what’s happening.

Revealed: The CIA-Backed NGOs Fueling The Iran Protests

Western outlets cite HRANA and U.S.-based “rights” NGOs for Iran protest death tolls. This report traces their funding ties to the National Endowment for Democracy, a longtime CIA-linked cutout.

Propaganda Onslaught

These messages are being reinforced digitally on social media through coordinated media messaging, diaspora amplification, and bot-driven campaigns traced back to hubs including Tel Aviv, Virginia and LA, boosting hashtags calling for the downfall of the Islamic government.

Of course, Iranians have the right to self-determination But what is happening now is unfolding inside a long-standing U.S.-Israeli framework built around sanctions, information warfare, and “democracy promotion” pipelines, including CIA-linked front structures like the National Endowment for Democracy, designed to steer unrest and manipulate Iranian diaspora toward regime change.

We have to remember: Israel has spent decades pushing the nuclear red-herring — the claim Iran is always “months away” from an atom bomb — to justify sanctions, sabotage, and escalation.

This summer, Israel and its allies tried to pull the U.S. into direct strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. But instead of a clean victory, Israel took a major blow when Iran retaliated, hitting military targets and causing damage reportedly worth billions, including in and around Tel Aviv.

Israel can’t win a full-scale war with Iran on its own.

So the strategy shifts from direct confrontation to destabilization from within, through sabotage, information warfare, and regime-change pressure. That is why unrest inside Iran is being treated as an opening to exploit. That has been the official US and Israeli strategy for decades. And Israeli officials are already framing this like a Syria scenario.

In the last year alone, Israel has been deploying an AI enabled operation on X targeting Iranians in the diaspora — using fake bot accounts, AI-generated personas, fabricated crisis content, and synchronized posting to push regime change messaging — pushing the idea that Iran must be de-Islamicized, that the Islamic Republic must fall, and that the “solution” is a secular, Western-aligned order. Ironic, of course, considering it is being pushed by an ethnic-Jewish state.

And when they say “de-Islamicize Iran,” Israel means destroy its revolutionary spirit from its roots.  Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew a US and British backed Monarchy is rooted in Islamic history and stories of Imam Hussain and Karbala, standing against a tyrannical system of exploitation, class warfare and oppression no matter the cost even if it means to stand alone.

That story is the moral backbone of Iran’s resistance identity, including why it backs Palestinian liberation, working class movements, independence and rejects U.S. and Israeli imperialism in the region and is part of a resistance movement for liberation.

Therefore, weakening that Islamic identity weakens resistance, targeting not just Iran, but Hezbollah, Yemen, and Gaza. That is why secularization is being sold as “liberation,” even though Iran is a majority-Muslim country.

This AI signal boosting promoting secularism, the monarchy, and regime change to the diaspora is not new. During previous unrest, hashtags like #WomenLifeFreedom and #IraniansDetestSoleimani were aggressively signal-boosted by bot networks — with MintPress analyses showing major traffic patterns tied not to Iran, but to hubs in Los Angeles and Tel Aviv, and even MAGA-linked account clusters pushing the messaging. In some cases, over 80% of the traffic tied to these hashtags was coming from outside of Iran, according to X activity patterns and Google Analytics.

This is all built to shape diaspora perception — and then feed Western headlines. Israel and the United States aren’t operating separately; they operate as an ecosystem. Israel drives the information war: narrative shaping, psychological operations, and online influence. The U.S. provides the infrastructure layer: funding pipelines, Persian-language media influence, pro-democracy NGO networks, and diaspora-facing institutions that convert narrative momentum into political pressure.

Modern regime change against Iran doesn’t start with tanks. It starts with civil society capture — shaping what people believe, what they protest for, and what outcome they’re pushed toward through “pro-democracy NGOs” that are CIA cutouts. The stated goal and policy is to covertly do what the CIA once did openly.

That pipeline runs through a network of “democracy promotion” groups tied into U.S. foreign policy that can be traced back to the CIA’s National Endowment for Democracy, and organizations in its wider orbit like Foundation for Democracy in Iran, United for Iran, Tavaana, NUFDI, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, and Farashgard. Different branding — same function: media narratives, activist training, diaspora pressure campaigns, and political steering toward one destination: regime change.

One of the pressure points repeatedly weaponized is culture, especially women and the hijab, framing Islamic governance as backward, while selling “freedom” as secularization and Western capitalism as the future of freedom.

Now here’s the part most people never hear: it’s an influence architecture, where Washington-linked NGOs generate the numbers, Western outlets repeat them as fact, and the funding networks behind them stay off-screen and are represented as “independent.”

In Washington, Iran policy runs through institutions that are funded by weapons manufactures like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and pro-Israel billionaires with board members that read like a war criminal roster.

The pressure campaign is sustained by think tanks like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, American Enterprise Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Atlantic Council, pushing maximum pressure, sanctions escalation, and regime change year after year.

These institutions are fueled by donor networks tied to hardline pro-Israel politics — billionaire megadonors like Miriam Adelson, Paul Singer, and Haim Saban — who bankroll the ecosystem that keeps Iran framed as the permanent enemy and regime change as the permanent solution.

GAMAAN: The Polling Op That’s Gaslighting the West About Iran

A deep dive into GAMAAN, the Dutch polling group shaping Western views of Iran through flawed methods and U.S.-funded regime-change links.

Imperial Games

And of course, Iran sits inside a broader U.S. Cold War framework targeting Russia, China, and Iran as the core adversarial bloc. Iran’s “crime” is refusing to submit — standing independent, backing resistance, and defying U.S. and Israeli power.

So the policy becomes familiar: isolate, sanction, destabilize. And if that fails, destroy.

Israel’s strategic doctrine has long treated the region’s strongest adversarial states  – Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran – as targets for destabilization, because these states and alliances block Israeli dominance.

Its plan to weaken these states is documented in its Yinon Plan — the argument that Israel’s long-term security is strengthened when major states are broken into smaller sectarian and ethnic entities.

In 1996, a strategy paper written for Netanyahu’s circle called “A Clean Break” argued for reshaping Israel’s environment by weakening hostile states and rolling back adversaries. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Brookings Institute published “Which Path to Persia?” treating regime change in Iran as a standing policy option, while outlining methods from pressure campaigns to covert destabilization.

If regime change doesn’t deliver a compliant Iran, partition becomes the fallback. The plan is to carve out a Sunni statelet across western Iraq and eastern Syria — specifically to cut the land corridor that connects Iran to its allies. That corridor runs Iran → Iraq → Syria → Lebanon — the route that links Tehran to the Mediterranean and to Hezbollah. And if you break that corridor, you isolate Iran, weaken the Axis of Resistance, and sever the regional link that makes Iran such a strategic problem for Israel.

The plan has already been partially executed with the U.S. and Israel’s proxy war in Syria, the new HTS leadership, the arming of Kurdish separatists, and breaking off Kurdistan into its own state in Iraq. This is called the Sunnistan plan inked by neocon war hawk John Bolton, and it is being put into action through policy by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, AEI, and the Washington Institute.

This has been the official plan for Iran and the region to target any resistance to U.S. and Israeli imperialism. So when bystanders call for regime change under the guise of humanitarianism, they do not realize they are falling into the trap of imperialist propaganda and war planning that is fueled by a very sophisticated messaging system.

Even if Iranians overthrew their government today, that does not mean Iran’s future would suddenly be decided freely. Because the moment a state collapses, a vacuum opens. Washington and Tel Aviv will fill that vacuum. They will intervene politically, economically, and through media and proxy networks to shape the outcome.

And that’s why the replacement is being preloaded right now. If the Islamic Republic falls, the preferred answer is ready: Reza Pahlavi, a secular figurehead. A pro-West, pro-normalization with Israel, reversing the Islamic Revolution’s economic independence, and reopening Iran’s strategic industries — oil, gas, infrastructure — to Western capital and privatization. That’s the sad truth.

Iran is not a chessboard. It is 90 million human beings, with a civilization, culture, and identity far deeper than any foreign policy narrative. This is a people shaped by deep history and resilience, not a caricature in a policy playbook. And if the world truly believes in self-determination, then Iran’s future cannot be decided by think tanks in Washington or intelligence agencies in Tel Aviv.

Yet Western governments — where police state repression is increasingly the norm at home — are acting like they have the moral authority to tell Iranians to overthrow their own government.

In the United States, Trump has unleashed ICE in ways that have involved grave abuses, all while that same government lectures the world about human rights and “freedom.”

And history shows us this clearly: when the empire intervenes, it’s ordinary people who bleed first. Iran’s future belongs only to Iranians.

Feature photo | Police speak to demonstrators as they hold placards, banner and flags as they protest outside the Iranian Embassy in London, Jan. 16, 2026. Alastair Grant | AP

Mnar Adley is an award-winning journalist and editor and is the founder and director of MintPress News. She is also president and director of the non-profit media organization Behind the Headlines. Adley also co-hosts the MintCast podcast and is a producer and host of the video series Behind The Headlines. Contact Mnar at mnar@mintpressnews.com or follow her on Twitter at @mnarmuh.

oooooo

ooo

Jeffrey Sachs: We Are Now in the Early Days of World War III

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeRETBWnNWA)

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs argues that the world may already be entering the early stages of World War III, as the rapidly escalating conflict involving Iran begins to draw in additional countries and regional actors. The initial strikes and retaliations risk triggering a wider chain reaction across the Middle East and beyond, particularly as allied militias, regional powers, and global powers become increasingly involved. The traditional mechanisms of escalation control—diplomatic restraint, clear red lines, and international mediation—appear to be breaking down, raising the danger that what began as a regional confrontation could evolve into a far broader global conflict.

Transkripzioa:

0:00

Welcome back. Professor Jeffrey Saxs joins us today to discuss uh well

0:06

seemingly the unraveling of the world. So uh thank you very much for coming back on.

0:11

These are dramatic moments. No question about it. Absolutely uh unbelievable.

0:18

Well, we are seeing now though the that we’ve entered the second week of the war

0:23

against Iran and it’s uh well the regime change operation is not going as planned

0:29

obviously. Uh what do you see being the strategy of the United States now that

0:35

they failed in the initial objective? Strategy is a big word when it comes to

0:40

Donald Trump. I I don’t think there is a strategy. I we don’t really uh know and

0:48

of course at wartime uh we will not be told what is going on behind the scenes

0:55

but what we can gather is a tremendous amount of confusion. A confusion about

1:02

expectations of what would happen a confusion about war aims uh a confusion

1:09

about the real situation on the ground. So fog of war is uh is is the usual

1:16

simile. I think we are uh absolutely befoged right now when it comes to

1:22

Washington. Uh the only public outlet we have is uh Donald Trump’s uh posts on

1:30

true social. These are the ravings of uh of a madman. Uh and um this is also part

1:38

of what we are experiencing. Uh we have a war with uh great danger and

1:46

complexity and we have a president that is uh in my view mentally unhinged.

1:55

Well, I’ I’ve repeatedly warned that um well the illusion of escalation control

2:01

is what could take us to a third world war because this war is spreading fast and it’s very much out of control.

2:07

Indeed, it’s not just a war in Iran. Uh we see of course Iran taking credit for hitting uh US bases in several countries

2:15

yet it also denies the attack on Saudi Arabia, Azarbajan and Turkey which doesn’t seem to make much sense and

2:22

could be of course the US and Israel attempting to pull in proxies. Well, we don’t know but we do know that the US is

2:28

arming and pulling um Kurdish fighters uh as a proxy into the war. And uh

2:34

there’s now arguments that Russia is giving Iran intelligence which um I’m not sure is true but it seems likely as

2:41

the US gives Ukraine intelligence. And also after the decapitation strikes on Iran there is immense pressure

2:49

uh on Moscow now to restore its uh deterrence uh from further NATO attacks

2:55

while the Europeans talk about more nuclear weapons in quantity and spreading it around. Are we already

3:01

moving into a World War II here? We are probably in the early days of

3:07

World War II and the question will be whether it is contained. But we’re

3:13

already in a global war because there’s a war in the Western Hemisphere underway. Uh and even as uh the

3:23

attention is on Iran, Trump is signaling in his not so subtle way that the US

3:31

will take Cuba. Uh this could very well happen. Uh the war in Ukraine uh of

3:38

course continues. The war in the Middle East is now across the Middle East. Uh

3:46

the war between Pakistan and Afghanistan uh is perhaps somehow related to this.

3:53

Uh Iranian vessels, an Iranian naval vessel was sunk off the coast of India.

4:00

Um and uh for all of these reasons

4:06

uh fighting is across the world. the uh fighting is uh at least loosely

4:15

linked. We don’t know how closely linked it is. Part of uh

4:21

American strategy seems to be to try to corner and control the energy markets.

4:28

Uh this is not playing too well because the energy supplies are being blown up

4:35

by the hour. Um and so we’re entering also a worldwide energy crisis that is

4:41

likely to be extremely serious and as they say it’s not yet been priced into

4:47

the markets. This is uh the usual way that cataclysmic global events are

4:53

turned into financial jargon. But the point is we’re going to enter a an

5:01

energy crisis that is extraordinarily severe as well. This will hurt Europe

5:07

considerably. It will threaten Asian countries deeply. Uh it will probably

5:14

mean spreading war. So there’s no doubt, by the way. Well, I shouldn’t say no

5:20

doubt. I’d be shocked. Absolutely. If Russia and China were not supporting

5:25

Iran, why wouldn’t they? They have a strategic relationship with Iran. Uh

5:32

China depends on Iran for oil. The United States is basically at war with

5:38

China and much of what the United States is

5:43

doing is really aimed at China. For example, cutting off Venezuelan oil

5:50

supplies to China. Now, aiming to cut off Russian oil supplies to China,

5:55

though the waiver was just lifted because of the chaos, uh aiming to cut

6:01

off Iranian supplies to China. Uh, so if

6:06

China isn’t supporting Iran, something’s wrong with all our textbooks. That’s for sure. If China

6:13

were to stand by and uh let the US take over the world, that would be quite

6:20

strange. Yeah. Just Well, this efforts to take

6:25

over the world energy markets, it’s very blatant. I mean, I just watched a clip

6:31

on Fox News where they have an interview going, “Well, yes, any any price we’re paying in this war will be outweighed by

6:38

the massive benefits once we get uh control of Iran’s oil as well.” And um

6:44

well, it made me think about the article you wrote um recently about uh arguing

6:49

that the USIsraeli attack on Iran is also an attack on the United Nations.

6:55

And indeed, well, international law obviously has been violated in the past, but now there doesn’t even seem to be a

7:02

pretense to abide by it. Indeed, there seems to be a pride in it. For example, Hegath, he dismisses the rule of

7:09

engagement as being uh politically correct and weak. So, there seems to be almost um direct

7:17

efforts to dismantle international law as you know, the board of peace more or less uh makes this clear. I I was

7:23

wondering if you can flesh out that argument. Well, the uh US government uh under

7:32

Trump, but I would say more generally, but still to a dramatic extent under

7:38

Trump uh despises the UN uh wants to

7:44

kill it. uh is aiming to kill it uh both through a thousand cuts and through a

7:50

devastating blow. If you believe that you are the world’s

7:57

hegeimon, as Emperor Donald believes, uh then anything that tries in Lily Pucian

8:07

ways to hold you down is pathetic. So they want to smash the United Nations.

8:14

Uh and they’ve been absolutely clear about it. Uh earlier this year, the

8:20

United States walked out of more than 30 UN agencies. Uh the US has repudiated

8:29

fundamental UN treaties and objectives. Uh we’ve had

8:35

an end of the nuclear arms control agreements which were part of the UN

8:41

system. Uh the US doesn’t pay it bill its bills to the United Nations. uh the

8:47

US doesn’t respect the institutions of the United Nations and it’s clear uh at

8:55

least Trump and this US government and I

9:01

would say the CIA and the deep state more generally aim for global hegemony

9:09

and the UN is the opposite of that or not maybe not quite the opposite of it

9:15

but it’s co-responsibility with other countries and the US does not accept co-responsibility

9:23

with anybody. So everything that is being done uh completely

9:30

sneers at the UN and if the topic is raised those are as you said whether

9:36

it’s by HEG or by the White House those are pathetic nicities in a world of

9:44

power we’ve not really seen this kind of brutality of sentiment of

9:52

rhetoric and of action since 1945 by anybody by the way whether it’s by

10:00

the Soviet Union or by the United States in an earlier vintage uh or by any other

10:07

country nothing remotely close to this. I calculate each year with my colleagues

10:14

an index of UN aligned multilateralism which we report annually in a report

10:21

called the sustainable development report. And even before this war, the

10:28

United States, far and away, and not even close, Glenn, was the least aligned

10:36

with the United Nations of all 193 UN member states in terms of engagement

10:45

with UN processes, including votes in the General Assembly, where the US

10:51

almost always votes in a tiny minority. ority with Israel and Paraguay and a

10:57

couple of other countries against the will of the rest of the world uh in

11:02

terms of uh not signing treaties or leaving treaties. Uh the US is simply uh

11:12

rogue or out to destroy the UN. Let’s put it that way. And um this has all

11:19

accelerated in recent weeks. What is disturbing,

11:25

if I could use a light term because I’d love to use a stronger terms,

11:31

Europe is completely complicit in this. Uh Europe doesn’t show one morsel of uh

11:41

support for the UN system processes or most importantly the UN charter. The

11:50

core of the UN charter, the very purpose that you find in the preamble and then

11:56

in the opening articles is to stop the use of force and the threat of force by

12:04

one nation against another nation. This is the essence of the whole UN system.

12:11

Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN charter, which I encourage people to go

12:16

online and read, says that no nation may threaten force or use force against

12:24

another nation. It’s simple and as the uh opening words of the UN charter make

12:31

clear, this is to prevent the scourge of war. Well, we have a US president who

12:40

does believe that the US rules the world and that violence is a core instrument

12:49

of ruling the world and that if countries don’t exceed to US demands,

12:56

what Trump calls unconditional surrender, with Trump picking the new leader of

13:03

Iran, well then force will be continued until that outcome occurs. It’s in the

13:11

mold of Hitler or Napoleon or other delusional

13:17

actors who thought that they could uh rule. But even in those earlier cases,

13:25

they did not believe that they ruled the world. They aimed to rule their neighborhood. They aimed to rule Europe.

13:32

uh they Hitler aimed for living space in the Slavic lands. Uh

13:40

Trump Trump’s rhetoric and behavior is that he believes that he rules the

13:48

world. By the way, he believes it on a personalistic level

13:54

as well as at a political level. And I’m not exaggerating.

14:01

And it’s not Trump delusion syndrome.

14:06

It’s just the overt behavior. The man’s looney. Uh and you can watch

14:13

it. He’s got every trait of megalomania, grandiosity, narcissism.

14:20

And it’s quite clear by the way that the US

14:26

governmental processes where US foreign policy is typically run by the CIA is a

14:34

little bit uh being run ragged right now because they can’t keep up with this

14:41

madness. uh so there’s a lot of unpredictability and a lot of danger in

14:46

what’s happening because we have a mix of US normal grandiosity which is a deep

14:55

trait of the United States. It was true during Bush Jr. Obama

15:02

and Biden, but with Trump, it adds uh

15:07

the usual US institutional grandiosity

15:12

and militarism with a uh a personal level delusion of

15:19

leaders. We know this through history. This is not for the first time. It is

15:25

for the first time though in the nuclear age. We’ve never had uh a circumstance

15:31

like this in the nuclear age. Uh and I would say the world is in a more

15:37

dangerous situation than it is ever been period.

15:43

You mentioned um a European response to this and uh well we see that Germany is trying to position itself as the number

15:49

one supporter of Trump uh hoping almost explicitly that this obedience in

15:57

Iran would be rewarded by with a deeper US involvement in Ukraine war also for

16:03

US to make no concessions towards peace in Ukraine. uh while UK and France are

16:09

looking now to enter the war in a more direct way and this of course comes at

16:14

the backdrop as Macron arguing that uh the reason why they need more nuclear

16:19

weapons is because for France to be secure it has to be feared same as

16:26

Europe they have to be feared this is the path to security right how how do you make sense of this this is very

16:31

different than the peace project uh that you know I was uh teaching ing students

16:36

only 15 20 years ago. Yeah, Europe has completely lost uh any

16:46

uh any identity and any sense. I would say that just as the European uh as the

16:54

UN is uh dying uh right now um the European Union project uh is not coming

17:02

together uh in strategic autonomy. The European project is falling to pieces uh

17:09

as a vassel of the United States. We have the weakest leadership in Europe uh

17:16

in generations. Again, we have the the worst German leadership

17:24

in particular and Germany is key to the European project. Uh if you think about

17:31

German chancellors, I’d known uh several of them.

17:37

Do you think about Billy Bronze or Helmet Schmidt or Helmet Cole or

17:46

Schroeder or Merkel? Uh these were

17:51

personalities. Uh they were also decent.

17:57

uh they understood German interests, but they also understood uh the idea of

18:05

Europe as uh a an aim of peace after uh

18:11

centuries of European devastating war. Um

18:18

the last two German chancellors have been uh out of uh this uh um approach.

18:27

Schultz was simply the weakest uh chancellor, a complete non- entity.

18:33

People said that the US had the goods on him so that he was suborned in one way

18:39

or another. I don’t I have no idea whether that’s true. And uh with Mertz,

18:45

you get the idea that um oh my god, you you get the idea that uh

18:53

this man wants a reversion to German militarism. I I could be less polite,

18:59

but uh when when you look at Mertz, you see somebody who seems to know nothing

19:06

of modern history. I he’s belligerent,

19:12

ignorant, uh a mix of fawning to the US on the one hand um and uh wararm

19:20

mongering uh on the other hand, incoherent

19:26

and uh not in Europe’s interest or Germany’s interest in the slightest. He

19:33

doesn’t understand his job. I’m sorry to say his job on the first day should have

19:39

been to pick up the the phone and called his counterpart in Russia, President

19:45

Putin, and begun to discuss uh this vital uh relationship between Germany

19:53

and Russia to head off disaster uh and to rebuild some kind of collective

20:00

security on the continent. He hasn’t lifted the finger one time. Hasn’t even

20:07

hasn’t even crossed his mind that this is his job. So between uh Trump’s

20:15

madness uh and Europe’s subservience,

20:20

it’s really uh an extraordinarily depressing scene. I was at the UN

20:27

Security Council last week uh after Israel and the US attacked Iran uh and

20:36

there were the German uh I’m sorry, not the German, the European ambassadors, excuse me, at the UN Security Council

20:44

one after another on the day that the US and Iran

20:49

on the day that the US and Israel had attacked Iran.

20:55

All of them berating Iran. Most of them not mentioning the Israel US attack on

21:04

Iran. You can’t even believe, Glenn, how surrealistic it is. I was especially uh

21:15

perturbed and beused by the Danish ambassador.

21:21

Denmark is a country that will be invaded by the United States sometime soon with very very high likelihood. The

21:29

US will declare that Greenland is America’s because of national security.

21:35

Watch that space. That is basically underway right now. So, you might think

21:41

that uh Denmark would have some notion that international law uh might be

21:49

important because someday they’re going to come crying to the world. Look how

21:54

unfair uh Emperor Donald is to us. He’s taking away our territory. But there was

22:02

the Danish ambassador uh full out fulminating against Iran

22:10

without mentioning the war that Israel and the United States had started against Iran. I went

22:19

up to her afterwards to exchange my concern about this, but she looked at

22:25

me and turned around and walked away. Uh they don’t want to engage. they don’t want to have the discussion. Um,

22:33

but the pathetic nature of this is really something sad for Europe. Uh, to

22:41

simply completely fall into line with American and Israeli madness is

22:48

something that you wouldn’t not have thought of Schumann or Monet

22:55

or the other architects of Europe. people who knew what World War II had

23:02

meant uh and who aimed to stop a World War III uh they would have behaved

23:08

differently as would generations of leaders in Europe. Uh again whether it

23:16

was Billy Bront or Helmet Cole or De Gal or

23:23

Mitron uh you would have had a completely different idea a Europe

23:30

that’s Europe that is the error of thousands of years of civilization that

23:38

knows something or two that has seen war and wants peace. But this is not at all

23:44

what we see. We have Vanderlayan, we have Mertz. Uh you just can’t make this

23:50

up right now. Uh how this project has collapsed. And that’s why we’re in the

23:58

early days of World War II because nobody has sense right now to say to

24:05

Emperor Donald that this is not a good idea.

24:11

Well, not only it’s becoming more wararmongering though, but we also see as in many wars the the rule of law

24:18

weakens. Uh and I wanted to ask how you see the rule of law and the division of power is being weakened because uh um

24:26

again well unlike continental Europe the US has strong traditions on on you know

24:33

democracy the division of power um and ask because democracy and freedom uh

24:39

doesn’t tend to farewell uh under a wars uh as we saw during the cold war this

24:44

was not great either for liberalism and during times of external threats We see

24:49

governments often develop authoritarian tendencies and we had this now for more

24:54

than a decade. That is we went from Russia gate to the Ukraine war. We had the we have the economic war with China.

25:02

None of these things actually stop by the way. They just you know stack on top of each other. And now of course the

25:08

Middle East is set on fire. Uh under these conditions um it one would expect

25:14

that the rule of law would weaken. Certainly I see the case here in Europe

25:19

as well. We we have the EU sanctioning u you know its own citizens. We have any

25:26

disscent or criticism of the government’s wars is essentially well then you stand with the enemy and you

25:32

will be punished accordingly. But how do you see it in the United States though? Because u you know if if it’s game over

25:39

there on the rule of law then it doesn’t bode well for Europe.

25:44

I think in the United States uh foreign policy has been in the hands of the CIA

25:52

as lead for many decades. Uh and CIA is convenient because it can be completely

25:59

secret. Uh it uh is uh operating through a network of so-called intelligence

26:06

agencies. These are not intelligence agencies. These are offthebook militaries. uh and this has been true

26:14

for many decades. Uh especially if you are a the US government where the

26:22

foreign policy is an imperial policy of uh regime choice and regime change.

26:31

Trump just says out loud and in a crazier way I have to say what has been

26:38

US policy. Trump because he is really uh what he is

26:45

psychologically says that he will pick the next supreme leader of Iran. Okay, this is uh rather

26:55

startling. Of course, I have to add, no European leader murmurss a word that

27:03

this is at all strange, that this is a good way to have a war escalate and

27:09

continue and on its way to getting us all killed. Not a single European leader

27:15

scratches her head or his head to say, “Oh, that’s our ally saying the weirdest

27:21

goddamn things you could possibly imagine.” No, they don’t say that. But in any event, that mindset you might

27:29

think is a little odd, but remember the CIA has always had that mindset. Uh, and

27:37

in 1953, without public scrutiny, without explanation, uh, the US did choose who

27:44

would lead Iran. They installed the uh

27:50

police state that overthrew a democratic government in 1953

27:56

and the US backed that police state until 1979 when lo and behold the public revolted

28:03

against it as that police state leader was dying of cancer. That’s where the

28:10

Iranian revolution came from in the first place in 1979. not out of the blue

28:15

but out of a USimposed police state. Well, you look all over the world,

28:21

including in Europe, the US imposes governments of choice. And that means

28:27

that the rule of law in the United States when it comes to foreign policy

28:32

has always been a veneer. I find it very notable. I think it’s very important for

28:40

historians and analysts to reflect on the famous farewell

28:45

address of Dwight D. Eisenhower uh who was the supreme allied commander, the

28:52

top general of the United States who became president uh from 19 January 1953

28:59

to January 1961. And in his farewell address of the 17th of January 1961, he warned famously of

29:07

the military-industrial complex, we should

29:13

understand that farewell message in in a different way. What Eisenhower was

29:19

saying to the American people is it’s already happened. This is already a

29:25

military state. uh the institutions of government have already been

29:31

fundamentally weakened. I think Glenn, and you know, not to take

29:37

us too far aside, um but I think the evidence is quite overwhelming that the

29:43

CIA killed Kennedy in 1963. And that’s not

29:50

meant as a, you know, flamboyant remark or conspiracy theory or something else.

29:56

It’s meant in an explanatory way that no American president since Kennedy took on

30:05

the uh security state. uh Johnson reversed all of Kennedy’s peace uh

30:13

initiatives and every president since has essentially gone along with the uh

30:21

agenda of the US security state including nice people like Obama who

30:28

came in and then presided over several regime change operations and Obama

30:33

thought yes I’ll choose who leads Syria I’ll choose who leads Libya. They didn’t

30:40

put it that way. They had manners. Trump has no manners. Trump has grandiosity.

30:48

But it was the same. Uh Obama and his deputy, who’s now my colleague, Victoria

30:54

Nuland, and Hillary Clinton, also my colleague at Columbia University. And I

31:01

say it uh with interest. um they decided

31:07

who would lead uh Ukraine in February. Uh actually it’s probably late January

31:16

uh 2014. Victoria Nuland is uh picked up by the Russians on a phone call on an

31:23

open line to the US ambassador talking literally about who would lead Ukraine

31:28

and she picks a man in Yatsanuk who became the leader after the coup. Uh, so

31:34

when Trump says, “I’ll choose who the supreme leader is,” it sounds

31:40

outlandish, and it is, and it is a step of World War II, but it’s also US

31:48

behavior. Uh, it just is the usually unsaid part of US behavior. So, I’m

31:55

unfortunately not very impressed with the so-called checks and balances of the US system uh or with the Constitution.

32:03

We’ve had a military state for decades. I often think that just as the Roman

32:10

Republic became uh the Roman Empire and the US Republic has become the US

32:19

Empire. uh what is the actual date of that happening? I in the normal

32:27

discourse, people point to the Roman history as a warning to the US. Don’t

32:33

let this happen. But I think it’s quite arguable that not only has it happened,

32:38

but that it happened several decades ago. And I wonder if we were in Rome in 27 BC uh when Augustus declared himself

32:49

princes whether we would have felt that that was a dividing line. That’s historians dividing line. But there was

32:56

still the Senate. They still the senators still wore togas. There were still consoles. It looked like the Roman

33:03

Republic institutions were still intact. And I I have a sense that this is the US

33:10

situation that maybe the US Republic ended in November 1963 with Kennedy’s

33:17

assassination and since then we’ve been in the US Empire. I don’t know. But I

33:24

just raised the point to say that Trump is uh outlandish.

33:30

He’s he he has this dark triad personality of

33:37

extreme machavelianism uh malignant narcissism and

33:46

psych psychopathy which we can see when he expresses absolute lack of interest

33:52

in who’s dying. There is no feeling there. So we know

33:58

that this is a very unusual psychological character, but he’s on top of a machine

34:05

that already existed. Well, on this issue though, this is the

34:11

last question. The this insistence of choosing other leaders of other countries and uh the reluctance to find

34:18

peaceful solutions with adversaries and primarily other rising powers be it Russia, China, Iran um

34:27

To what extent do you think this is linked to the reluctance or the the

34:32

unwillingness to see uh hedgeimonyy go away? Because the Europeans at least

34:38

they they very much bought into the whole idea after the cold war about a world order based on the collective

34:44

hedgeimonyy of the political west led by the US. But I remember this whole unipolar moment when it was introduced

34:51

that as a concept by Charles Crowhammer back in 1990. you know he just he framed

34:57

it as you know this is the distribution of power all power is in America but he was making a point as well in this

35:03

article once um the world shifts to a more multipolar international distribution of power then we shift away

35:09

as if this would be a rational uh decision that would be made but uh after

35:15

35 years of having this uh political class raised on the ideology that the

35:21

dominance on perpetual hedgemony of the west would essentially be this you know

35:26

democratic peace theory. It would destabilize the world. It would transcend the chaos of the past. So essentially uh the hedgeimonyy was yeah

35:35

essentially humanity’s salvation after you had 35 years of politicians like this. Uh it you know there there won’t

35:43

be a peaceful transition to multiparity. I just do you see this as being the

35:48

reluctance to even accept to have other powers to that the that the west won’t

35:55

dominate anymore? Why there’s no alternative to plunging the world into World War II? Because uh you know this a

36:03

lot of people criticize Marco Rubio at the Munich Security Conference, but I

36:08

don’t see this is essentially the logic I hear from political leaders across

36:13

Europe as well. Well, not all but many. Well, I I think this is another case

36:20

where this is a a profound uh process that has been underway

36:27

actually for 80 years. The idea of multipolarity

36:33

was both born and died in 1945 for the following basic reason.

36:41

uh the brainchild of the United Nations uh was also the brainchild uh of uh the

36:51

victory in uh in World War II. Uh and that was Franklin Roosevelt who

36:57

understood that he and Stalin and Churchill

37:02

and with the Franklin Roosevelt’s insistence Shankai who was head of a

37:09

struggling and invaded China in the 1940s invaded by Japan of course um

37:17

jointly had to operate uh to defeat Hitler. uh

37:24

this was a collective enterprise. It was an enterprise of the United Nations, a

37:30

term that was used early in World War II. And uh Roosevelt believed in the

37:37

that unity uh that these uh nations together uh had to stick together to

37:46

defeat Hitler and then afterwards to make the world safe. and he really

37:53

believed in world peace and safety. Now on the ground uh the Soviet Union bore

37:59

the brunt of defeating Hitler by far, losing 27 million people and being uh

38:07

the the uh key to breaking uh Hitler’s war machine. And Roosevelt knew that the

38:16

United States played its particular role as the industrial backbone of the defeat

38:23

of World War II, providing uh weapons, air airplanes, technologies, radar, and

38:30

so forth. Uh that helped this. But the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the war.

38:40

Roosevelt was absolutely intent and capable of cooperating with Stalin

38:49

uh throughout the war, often pushing Churchill to the side. Uh Roosevelt

38:54

wasn’t much taken with the British Empire. Uh Roosevelt saw that major

39:00

powers and that there really would be major powers after the war, four in particular, uh the US, Britain, uh

39:08

Russia and China. France was led in uh late in the day for tactical reasons.

39:15

But the idea was that these countries would cooperate. Cooperate,

39:22

not fight each other, not veto each other in the UN, but cooperate to help keep the

39:29

global peace. And Roosevelt believed that lesser powers, the rest of the

39:36

world should have its place. and he was the opposite of uh US arrogance. He had

39:44

that he introduced from the first moment he came in as president, the good neighbor policy towards the Americas. He

39:51

said, “We’ve got to stop invading the Americas like Trump has done recently in

39:56

Venezuela and is about to do in Cuba.” So that’s how the UN was born. Just one

40:05

problem. Roosevelt had uh untreated high blood pressure and he died on April

40:12

12th, 1945. And that was the end of uh the American

40:19

multipolar vision because Truman, his successor, was a much lesser person, not

40:24

experienced. FDR was a gifted individual also. and Truman bought in immediately

40:32

to the idea that this is now a war with bullsheism.

40:38

FDR wasn’t much impressed with these labels. I have to say he was just a great pragmatist. Uh he didn’t care who

40:45

called what whom what labels, titles, ideologies. He was going to get along

40:51

and he was going to get along and he was going to be practical. But already in

40:56

the second half of 1945 uh and that’s why the bomb was dropped twice on Japan to impress Mr. Stalin uh

41:06

the US was now at war for global control. The idea of uh shared

41:13

responsibilities was already out the window in the American mentality. And

41:19

this was of course put most vividly in uh in NSC memo 68 in 1950 uh that this

41:28

was going to be the US battling world communism for dominance. I say all of

41:35

this, Glenn, because when the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the insanity of a country of 4% of the

41:44

world population deciding it would run the world went into overdrive. And it

41:50

went into overdrive and it’s been in overdrive since 1991.

41:55

uh the US has viewed itself and by US I mean the CIA uh the militaryindustrial

42:02

digital complex uh the ones that uh make the war decisions that have brought us

42:09

non-stop into war uh that allocate the trillions of dollars and so on they

42:15

believe they run the world when China uh rose in power uh over

42:23

several decades and and that was noticed by the United States sometime around

42:28

2010. This freaked out these would be hegeminists. Uh now there’s an enemy.

42:35

Russia was dismissed as anyway has been useless. Uh so not really to worry.

42:44

So we don’t have to listen to anything Russia says. Uh but the attention turned to China and we have to defeat China the

42:51

same way. That’s been the US foreign policy for the last 15 years. Just

42:59

quickly, a couple Floy flies in the ointment. First, uh all of this is

43:05

delusional. That’s the first starting point. The idea that the US runs the

43:10

world, rules the world, dominates the world, can have its way is a madness.

43:15

It’s been a madness for decades. Uh but it’s been a repeated madness that leads

43:20

to millions of deaths all over the world whether in Vietnam or across wars of the

43:26

Middle East. Second, the misjudgment about Russia is the reason for the

43:33

Ukraine war. The US never expected Russia to resist NATO enlargement. Uh

43:41

never expected to be able to stand up to the United States for one moment. This is a both a denigration of Russia and a

43:52

profoundly delusional exaggeration of American power. Both go hand in hand.

43:58

But the war in Ukraine is fundamentally the result of an American delusion

44:05

spelled out helpfully by his big new Bjinsky in 1997 because he spelled out

44:10

in the Grand Chess board exactly what the delusion is and he concluded Russia could not resist the eastward

44:17

enlargement of NATO and Europe. So that’s uh and then the the other fly

44:24

in the ointment is Israel. Israel is a crazy rogue state with the

44:34

half its political leadership in the mindset of the fifth century BC. reading

44:41

some text from King Josiah and

44:47

there Israel has just plunged the world into

44:53

probably the third world war but into a phenomenal economic crisis. This is the

45:00

the timing, the instigation is Israel’s. Uh the fact that the US goes along with

45:07

it is because it’s completely coherent with the US hegemonic project. But this

45:13

is Israel. Complete madness. And uh because of the

45:19

hold of the Israel lobby in the United States, that madness isn’t even

45:25

examined. Excuse me. I we had a have an ambassador

45:31

uh in Israel. The US has an ambassador named Mike Huckabe who is a uh let’s

45:37

just say a minor uh Protestant evangelical theologian if I could put it

45:42

that way, but that’s a very polite way to put it. Uh and um he said two weeks

45:48

ago, yes, Israel owns the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. And when Tucker

45:56

Carlson asked him Excuse me. They own the land. Could they take it? Said,

46:01

“Sure. Yeah, sure they could take it.” This is again uh what’s sometimes called

46:09

by psychologists or psychiatrists fully ad this is a craziness of Israel matched

46:16

by a craziness of the United States. Israel wants to be the hegeimon from the

46:22

Nile to the Euphrates or beyond. The United States wants to be the hedgeimon

46:27

of the world. Uh that’s a long-standing project. And here we are in the early

46:33

shooting of World War II unless unless somehow somebody stands up and stops the

46:40

madness. The ones that are most likely to do it in the end uh are China and

46:47

Russia uh because they are mature aware

46:54

and not really uh so happy about this US hegemonic project. If India would

47:01

recognize its own interests clearly it would also play a very major role in

47:07

this. But India has signed on to the US project to some extent. Uh and it raises

47:13

a big question. What is India thinking? Uh what are the Indian leaders thinking?

47:18

They had the British Empire for a couple of centuries. It should have been enough. Uh they should have good

47:26

instincts to know don’t follow the US Empire in this kind of madness.

47:32

Yeah. Well, I think um pragmatism as you say is what we need. In 2003, Condalisa

47:39

Rice, she made the comment that the multipolarity. It’s a she called it a theory, not the distribution of power

47:44

about competing interest and competing values. So, she said no, no one should want this at all because uh this is uh

47:51

you know, if you value freedom, you don’t want to put a check on it. So, this is kind of the logic that is we

47:57

need to have dominance. Without dominance, there can’t be freedom. And I think this is uh the Europeans as well.

48:03

We buy fully into this. When I listen to our politicians, journalists, this is why they’re willing to go to war with

48:09

Russia. They’re willing to go to war with China. They’re willing to go to war with Iran and burn down the world

48:14

because uh otherwise there can’t be freedom. This there has to be dominance. This is kind of the virtue of dominance

48:22

that is selling us freedom. Absolutely. And incidentally, you know, I’ve been thinking about this from the especially

48:29

the AngloAmerican mindset because Britain and the US have

48:34

done the most to wreck things for a couple of centuries uh in this way. Um

48:42

the mindset goes back uh to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes uh who said

48:48

that in the state of nature life is uh life is solitary,

48:55

poor, nasty, brutish and short. And uh

49:00

Hobbes said that to get out of the war of all against all you need a Leviathan,

49:08

he called it. you need a uh a superior power. And that was his theory of

49:14

national government uh that uh people would give up their sovereignty to kill

49:19

each other, their their freedom to kill each other uh to a sovereign who would

49:25

then keep order and everyone would be better off because they wouldn’t be killing each other. Then you turn that

49:32

logic to the global order. And the way that that is turned into the

49:38

global order by the CIA or by MI6 or by these intelligence agencies in the west

49:45

is to say well we don’t have a supreme ruling uh Leviathan. So it is a war of

49:52

all against all and we have to be brutally realistic. it’s us or them and

50:00

sometimes you have to strike first like uh Israel and the United States striking

50:06

Iran. That’s the mindset. But another part of the mindset is the United States

50:11

says um we’ll be the Leviathan. Thank you. Uh Britain was the Leviathan in the

50:18

19th century. The only way to be safe is if we are the Leviathan. In other words,

50:24

there can only be one that runs the world and will be the one that runs the

50:30

world. Now, uh there is another way in life, which is that you get along with

50:37

each other. You make some common rules. You share the sandbox. We teach our

50:43

five-year-olds uh to to do this. uh it’s not impossible uh that you don’t need

50:50

one ruler of the world to have peace and this is what the American uh hegeminists

50:59

or supremacists cannot understand but I think it’s partly

51:05

they’re trapped at an emotional level maybe before age five I don’t know uh they don’t really see that there’s

51:12

another way that in a multipolar world we actually really could get along. We

51:19

could make some rules of the road. We could have some cooperation. The one who

51:24

understood that, as I said, in the United States was Franklin Roosevelt. Uh, another one who understood that more

51:30

recently was John F. Kennedy and probably he died because he held that belief and he was killed from the inside

51:38

because he held that belief. So, this is a tough struggle and we’re in an extraordinarily dangerous moment in the

51:45

world. uh were if this continues, if uh Mr. Trump continues uh to believe that

51:52

he will pick Iran’s next leader and that this is going for unconditional surrender, of course, things will then

51:59

depend on military outcomes. But one real possibility is

52:04

an economic crisis globally uh instigated by Israel and the United States, the likes of which we’ve not

52:11

seen for a long time. I wish we could have finished on a more

52:16

optimistic note, but thank you very much for taking the time. I know you have a busy day in Rome there, so try to enjoy

52:22

it in this perilous times and uh yeah, hope to see you soon. See you soon. Thanks.

oooooo

Geure herriari, Euskal Herriari dagokionez, hona hemen gure apustu bakarra:

We Basques do need a real Basque independent State in the Western Pyrenees, just a democratic lay or secular state, with all the formal characteristics of any independent State: Central Bank, Treasury,

proper currency¹, out of the European Distopia and faraway from NATO, being a BRICS partner…

Euskal Herriaren independentzia eta Mikel Torka

eta

Esadazu arren, zer da gu euskaldunok egiten ari garena eta zer egingo dugun

gehi

MTM: Zipriztinak (2), 2025: Warren Mosler

(Pinturak: Mikel Torka)

Gehigarriak:

Zuk ez dakizu ezer Ekonomiaz

MTM klase borrokarik gabe, kontabilitate hutsa

Anthony Anastosi: Estatu dirua, Klase borroka

---