From Iran to China: Is a new world order emerging?

by David Goeßmann

[This article posted on 7/5/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Von-Iran-bis-China-Entsteht-eine-neue-Weltordnung-10474994.html.]

 

The US and its allies want to reorganize the Middle East, says Vijay Prashad in an interview. The fight against China is also about US hegemony. Can the Global South hold its ground? (Part 1)

In an interview with Telepolis, Vijay Prashad, Indian historian, internationally renowned intellectual, and director of the Tricontinental Institute, puts the latest events in the Middle East, the militarization of NATO, and the confrontation with China into a broader context. Have Western economic and geopolitical policies failed, while a new world order is emerging?

Telepolis author David Goeßmann met Vijay Prashad in Berlin-Mitte on the sidelines of a conference and spoke with him. In the first part of the interview, the events in the Middle East, Iran, and Gaza, as well as the rise of China, are placed in a historical and global context. The second part is devoted to Brics+, Western hypocrisy, and the opportunities for a global progressive turnaround.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writer and chief correspondent for Globetrotter, editor-in-chief of LeftWord Books, and director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. He is the author of numerous books, including “The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power” with Noam Chomsky.

 

▶ Iran was bombed by Israel and also by the US without any credible pretext. Tehran responded with missile attacks on Israel and on a US base in Qatar. Israel’s genocide in Gaza continues after more than 600 days, with no end in sight, while the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) continue to attack Lebanon. All these attacks by Israel and the US are aggressive acts and illegal under international law. They destabilize the region. How do you assess the current conflict situation and the future of the Middle East?

Vijay Prashad: To answer that, it’s worth looking first at India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan were at war for three days. In fact, last month, during those three nights, it became clear that when two military powers, both of which have so-called 4.5 generation weapon systems, i.e., really good air defense, drones, a system that can be integrated with fighter jets, etc., in other words, countries with similar weapon systems, no one can win.

Neither the Indian nor the Pakistani air force was able to break through and destroy the enemy’s air defense systems. In fact, Indian jets did not fly to Pakistan and Pakistani jets did not fly to India. They sent swarms of drones across the border.

 

Vijay Prashad. Image: Private

I say this because when you look at the conflict between Israel and Iran, if you only consider military capabilities, it is clear that neither can win, that both can strike each other, but neither can really win a conflict. Israel will not invade Iran, Iran will not send ground troops into Israel.

But in terms of air defense systems, missiles, and so on, they are fairly evenly matched, just like India and Pakistan. The only thing that could tip the balance would be the intervention of the United States, which has by far the greatest firepower, far more than Iran, Israel, India, or Pakistan.

But if it’s just Israel and Iran against each other, neither can win. That was clear on the first and second days of fighting. And then the US comes in and flies three bombing raids. But that was pretty inconsequential.

Iran responded with an attack on Al-Udeid [US military base in Qatar], which was basically choreographed, with the message: “We have struck back.” I therefore have the impression that the military strategists in these countries are now sitting down together and realizing that as long as they do not achieve a significant breakthrough in military technology or Israel does not use nuclear weapons against Iran, it will be impossible for these countries to prevail.

That is the military’s view. From a political perspective, Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. That is illegal. There is no such thing as illegal genocide. Genocide is illegal in itself. They are committing genocide, and the United States is supplying the weapons.

Europe is also providing weapons, including Germany. They are participating in an illegal action. Israel’s attack on Iran violates Article 2.4 of the UN Charter. This is the same article that [EU Commission President] Ursula von der Leyen was so outraged about when Russia invaded Ukraine. But the Europeans do not condemn Israel.

Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians and its attack on Iran are on the same level. Both are violations of international law. Iran has not attacked Israel. There was no pretext for self-defense.

There is no UN Security Council resolution that would have allowed Israel to attack Iran under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. There was no Iranian provocation, not even verbal threats against Israel, nothing of the sort. There was simply no reason to attack Iran. In fact, high-ranking Israeli officials have publicly stated why they attacked Iran. They said that Iran is currently weak. They said that the situation should be exploited.

That is a war of aggression. War of aggression is not just a word. It is a legal term. It is illegal to wage a war of aggression. It is a war crime; it violates the Geneva Convention.

I believe the military has realized that no one can win. Iran will probably announce in two or three months that it has a nuclear bomb. And then it will be over for regime change in the Iranian government.

Read also:

The US, Israel, and the invention of the Iranian threat

Telepolis

Countdown to disaster: Donald Trump’s risky game with nuclear weapons

Telepolis

▶ Is the motivation for the military interventions to create chaos in the region and then profit from it?

Vijay Prashad: I don’t think they want chaos. I think they are seeking a so-called reorganization of the Middle East. Israel believes that it can wipe out Hamas in the Palestinian territories. They want to drive the Palestinians out of large parts of the Gaza Strip, create a secure Israel, exploit the situation and basically drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or at least demoralize them so that they no longer fight against the settlers.

This is a very compelling and central goal for the Israelis: to discourage the Palestinians so that they leave the Palestinian territories. Israel is no longer interested in a two-state solution, if it ever was, which it probably never was. The Israelis will never allow a one-state solution.

They prefer the three-state solution. The three-state solution looks like this: All Palestinians are sent to Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, i.e., to the three states bordering the Palestinian territories. They are to disappear. That is what they have wanted for a very long time.

This is effectively a policy of social destruction: you can physically destroy people, i.e., commit genocide, or you can destroy them socially by simply driving them into other countries—which is also contrary to international law, as this is an occupied territory protected under United Nations provisions.

It grants the Palestinians protected status. The resettlement of population groups from a war zone is illegal under international law. It is prohibited and violates the Geneva Convention.

So much for the Palestinians. As for the Iranians, the US and its allies have been seeking regime change in Iran since 1980. It was the West and the Gulf Arabs, the Saudis, who urged Saddam Hussein in 1980 to illegally invade Iran and start a war that lasted until 1988. They supported Saddam the entire time.

One reason why Saddam invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, was because he was angry that the sacrifices made by the Iraqi people had not been compensated. He was frustrated that the Gulf Arabs were not supporting Iraq financially.

He invaded Kuwait and claimed that they had drilled sideways into the Rumaila oil fields. In fact, he was angry: the Saudis weren’t paying, the Kuwaitis weren’t paying. The United States wasn’t paying. He said they had fought for them for eight years to overthrow the Islamic Republic, albeit unsuccessfully.

After 1988, when Iraq decided not to invade, there were isolated statements by senior US officials that Iran would be attacked. After September 11, the United States then made a strategic mistake when it overthrew the Taliban government in Afghanistan in 2001 and Saddam Hussein in 2003. Two historical enemies of Iran, the Sunni hardliners in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein, were eliminated by whom? By the Americans, which gave Iran an enormous advantage in the region. Iran began to spread its wings and exert influence on events in the Arab world.

The US said that Iran must return to its borders. So what did Washington do? They passed the Syria Accountability Act and tried to put pressure on the Syrian government of Assad Junior, the young Assad who had just come to power. There, they tried to open up a democratic space in Syria with a kind of “Damascus Spring.”

The US imposed sanctions, not to put pressure on Assad, who was committed to more democracy, but to put pressure on the Iranians. Then, in 2006, the US gave Israel the green light to destroy Lebanon and weaken Hezbollah. The invasion of Lebanon took place in the same year, also a completely illegal invasion.

In the midst of these events, the accusation that Iran wanted to build a nuclear weapon was suddenly invented. The US began illegal talks with Iran. These talks on Iran’s nuclear program are illegal because Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is subject to control by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), already allows inspections, and is talking to UN representatives.

There was no reason to initiate an unlawful process with the United States, the Europeans, the Iranians, and the UN outside the IAEA and outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to discuss a hallucinatory nuclear weapons program that did not exist. The only issue was enrichment, namely how much they were allowed to enrich in their country.

The whole thing is a farce. Because while Iran was being pressured, India, which is not a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is not inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, has tested a nuclear weapon twice and is receiving an exemption from the United States to obtain nuclear material from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. This is extreme hypocrisy.

Israel also has nuclear weapons, is not a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and receives material from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. But Iran had to be pressured. So the attack on Iran is nothing new. It is part of a long process aimed at overthrowing this government.

They want to “clean up” the Middle East, bring the Shah’s son back to power in Tehran, force the Palestinians to leave the area, and reorganize the region. In Syria, there would be an al-Qaeda government that would be pro-Israel. In Lebanon, there would be a pro-Israel government. For the Israelis, everything would be perfect. Benjamin Netanyahu would have a golden statue of himself erected in Tel Aviv. His government would last forever.

The Hasidim will not dare to leave the government over the issue of exempting ultra-Orthodox Jewish men from military service. One day before the Israeli attack on Iran, the arrangement was hanging in the balance. Some people point to such domestic problems facing Netanyahu. That is why he attacked, they say. But that is not why he attacked Iran, even if the timing was convenient.

▶ After 500 years of Western colonialism, neocolonial or neoliberal hegemony in the Global South, and the structural adjustment programs of recent decades that have strangled poor countries, how do you assess the West’s treatment of developing countries? To what extent could one speak of a shift in power?

Vijay Prashad: That’s two questions. The first concerns attitude. In that regard, there has been no change. The position remains that the West owes these countries nothing: “Listen, we colonized you, we’re sorry. But we built railroads and bridges, we taught you our languages, and you gained reason and science.”

This attitude still prevails. It is even taught in schools. In Germany, for example, children learn nothing about the genocide of the Herero and Nama. It is not taught.

In England, you hear nothing about the concentration camps for Kenyans after the Second World War. The British set up concentration camps during the Boer War. The Nazis got the idea for their camps, the Treblinkas and Buchenwalds, etc., from the concentration camps of the Boer War. After the war and the Holocaust, the British then built concentration camps in Kenya to house the fighters of the Mau Mau uprisings.

So it’s not that they “learned their lesson” and “will never forget.” After the war, they did the same thing again. Is that what children in the UK are taught? No, they are still taught that Churchill is a hero. The first Labour government was heroic. But it was the Labour government that built those concentration camps in Kenya.

As far as attitudes are concerned, I don’t blame people in the West, because they haven’t had the opportunity to learn the truth about colonialism. You can’t go to people and say, “How can you not know this?” Well, they don’t know because the education system is colonial, it’s not their fault.

They have a colonial education system, they don’t learn anything about history. So, unfortunately, I don’t see much change in attitudes. I don’t mix with the top elites of Western societies. Maybe they are more liberal and open-minded.

But what I hear in their public speeches is quite frightening. [French President Emmanuel] Macron told Africans that they should be grateful to them. That’s outrageous. A modicum of decency should prevent a world leader from asking someone he colonized to be grateful. How can you say something like that? It’s vulgar. Even by bourgeois standards, it’s vulgar. It’s brutal.

Secondly, I don’t see any change in policy. A good place to examine this methodically is the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Fund is a democratic institution because it has member states. Every state that joins the IMF abides by the IMF’s rules.

Each of them, as a member of an organization, should have the democratic right to make proposals about what it wants to do and what it doesn’t want to do.

I understand that there are unequal voting rights in the IMF. Western governments control a larger share of the voting rights in the IMF. That is not fair. That should be democratized.

If you put $50 on the table and I put five, you should have ten times more say because of the money you put on the table. But you and I are both living human beings. Why shouldn’t we each have one vote? Why should money determine voting rights?

That’s a good question, because in a democracy, for example in Germany, your bank account doesn’t matter in an election. Technically, everyone should have an equal say. But at the IMF, votes are cast according to the amount of money paid in. I find that a little unfair and undemocratic.

So that means that the richer countries determine the rules of the IMF. They also determine how the IMF bureaucrats, who are supposed to serve the member countries, talk to the countries. They go to Senegal, for example, and say: You have to do this, otherwise you’ll get a bad report from us.

Basically, they behave like the mafia. When it comes to development aid agencies, it’s a mafia strategy. They tell these countries: If you don’t do what we say, you won’t get any money. And then the borrowing costs for the countries go up. Has anything changed? I don’t really think so.

Read also:

Horn of Africa: Why Trump ordered the “biggest air strike in history”

Telepolis

How Israel is running out of soldiers for its Gaza cleansing plans

Telepolis

▶ But do you see power shifts when, as has happened, France and the United States are driven out of Niger and other African countries? At the same time, China is pushing into developing countries, building the infrastructure of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI, “New Silk Road”) and investing in poorer nations. Do you see a power shift in this regard, with the Global South moving further and further away from the West?

Vijay Prashad: It’s happening too slowly. Take the case of Senegal and Sri Lanka, where both elected progressive center-left governments have had to return to the IMF. Why? Because alternatives have not emerged quickly enough. The BRICS process, for example, has created a new development bank.

However, its lending is extremely slow. A so-called emergency reserve agreement was created to provide an alternative to the IMF. However, this has not really come into effect yet. So these institutions are acting too slowly.

The Belt and Road Initiative is different. It provides money for infrastructure. It builds infrastructure, which is great because it strengthens the capacities of these countries. A power shift is taking place here. But when it comes to loans for financial problems, balance of payments, foreign exchange reserves and so on, the IMF is the only or the most important player.

Interestingly, Chinese banks are not so keen on lending for the debt crisis. They prefer to lend for infrastructure projects. They don’t want to give countries loans to deal with their long-term debt crisis. Then the governments would have to turn to the IMF again.

So the countries in the South are undergoing a transformation, but it is happening too slowly and not where the mountains of debt are growing. People in the Global South do not currently have the power to turn to bondholders and say, “Sorry, you took a risk by investing in our countries. The risk did not pay off. You have to write off the loans.”

People are not yet strong enough to say that. But you are right, change is happening, but it is happening far too slowly, and we should not overestimate current developments.

▶ At the same time, there is a lot of talk about China’s rise on the world stage and the decline of the United States. Economically, China is growing much faster than the US and Europe. If you look at purchasing power parity, China has already overtaken the US. And sanctions and tariffs imposed by Western countries are not working to contain China. Then there is the Belt and Road Initiative, which I mentioned earlier, through which Beijing is building a global trade and transport infrastructure by investing in over 150 countries. Are we already living in a multipolar world – at least economically – and what does that mean for societies, especially in the South?

Vijay Prashad: Your phrase “at least economically” is tricky, because “at least economically” nothing is happening. First of all, it is true that China is certainly leading the way in terms of economic growth. But many Asian countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and India are all growing much faster.

That’s pretty impressive. But we should also recognize that these are growth rates and that these countries are growing from a position of great disadvantage. So in terms of absolute living standards, they are still quite far behind the richer countries.

And as environmentalists tell us, we would need seven planets if everyone on Earth lived like people in the United States. Living like that is not possible.

So absolute living standards may never converge. And I hope that people don’t take the US as a model. We need to find a different way of life. Do we really all need refrigerators the size of a small apartment? I don’t think we need walk-in freezers in our homes. Do we need walk-in closets with enough clothes to last a month without washing?

We also need to change our way of life; perhaps a little more modesty would be a good idea.

So absolute living standards have obviously not converged. But it is true that the growth rates are impressive. It is also true that China trades much more with most countries and has more surpluses to invest in infrastructure and industry in those countries.

China has actually created a new development model that the IMF and Western creditors have failed to create. They have spent my entire life lending money for debt rather than for infrastructure and industrialization. China has changed the rules of the game, that is absolutely true, 100 percent.

But we do not yet live in a world where the balance of power has shifted. Western countries, led by the US, still control the weapons systems. Nearly 80 percent of global military spending is carried out each year by the NATO Plus countries [NATO members plus Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and Israel]. Their military power is extraordinary, and they control the information.

We work in the world of journalism. We are exposed to an enormous flood of Western media. They determine the world. There may be media in other countries, in India and so on, but when it comes to world news, they follow CNN, Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France-Press. They define events.

How quickly a consensus was reached that genocide is taking place in Xinjiang [Chinese persecution of the Uyghur population], how quickly the outrage came. But what is happening in Palestine cannot be genocide, it must be something else, they say, because Israel is under attack.

In the world of information, the West has global dominance. One example is an African internet stream with five or six people working for a small Instagram account. The US State Department took action against it and had it shut down this week. It is no longer operating. They don’t allow little people to speak up and say that they have a different view of what is happening in the world.

And because of factors such as language and the inability to combat so-called disinformation, Chinese or Russian media have not been able to gain a foothold globally. On YouTube, Western companies that control the hardware write: “This is Russian state media, this is disinformation.” It is impossible to control the world of discourse and ideas; the West dominates.

Multipolarity? Maybe sometime in the future. But right now, I think we need to be sober and realistic, because that’s not the case yet.

The second part of the interview on BRICS+, Western hypocrisy, and progressive solutions to pressing contemporary crises can be found here.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writer and chief correspondent for Globetrotter, editor-in-chief of LeftWord Books, and director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. He is the author of numerous books, including “The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power” with Noam Chomsky.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NATO against BRICS+: Has the West’s aggressive geopolitics failed?

by David Goeßmann

[This article posted on 7/6/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Nato-gegen-Brics-Ist-die-aggressive-Geopolitik-des-Westens-gescheitert-10475595.html.]

NATO is the most dangerous organization in the world, says Vijay Prashad in an interview. BRICS countries could free themselves with their own reserve currency. But how? (Part 2)

In the first part of the Telepolis interview with Vijay Prashad, Indian historian, globally recognized intellectual, and director of the Tricontinental Institute, the latest events in the Middle East, the militarization of NATO, and the confrontation with China were placed in a broader context.

In the second part, in light of NATO’s militarization and the rise of the so-called BRICS+ group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), the question is raised whether Western economics and geopolitics have failed as a new world order emerges. At the same time, Prashad talks about Western hypocrisy and a global progressive trend reversal.

Telepolis author David Goeßmann met Vijay Prashad in Berlin-Mitte on the sidelines of a conference.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writer and chief correspondent for Globetrotter, editor-in-chief of LeftWord Books, and director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. He is the author of numerous books, including “The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power” with Noam Chomsky.

 

▶ We have seen how the US wanted to bring Ukraine into the NATO military alliance, thereby provoking a Russian invasion. Now, in response to the war in Ukraine, Sweden and Finland have joined NATO, and Europe is on an unprecedented path toward militarization. Although the United States already has a huge military, Pentagon spending continues to rise. Following Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” military partnerships and bases—some call it an “Asian NATO”—are encircling China, while Washington is provoking Beijing in the South China Sea and around Taiwan. You run the Tricontinental Institute. In a dossier, NATO is described as “the most dangerous organization in the world.” What is the West’s military strategy?

Vijay Prashad: The title of the dossier is a fact. It is not an exaggeration. NATO is the military pact that destroyed and dismembered Yugoslavia. NATO is the organization that, together with the United States, invaded Afghanistan to advance the destruction of the country. NATO is the organization that basically dismantled Libya and refuses to allow any kind of investigation.

Regarding the war crimes in Libya, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 from 2011 merely states that a no-fly zone should be established over Libya. That is the wording of UN Resolution 1973. NATO immediately violated this resolution and began bombing the Libyan state apparatus, thereby destroying the Libyan state and Libya.

There is no longer a state in Libya. Building a state takes hundreds of years. NATO destroyed it in a matter of days, and it cannot be rebuilt so easily. Because it has been completely destroyed, and that is dangerous.

No other military pact in the post-war period has destroyed and fragmented so many countries. I cannot think of any military pact that has done such a thing, simply destroying countries at will, in violation of international law. There is no mandate for this, there is no mandate for what they have done in Libya.

Now they say that there was a UN Security Council resolution. Read the resolution. It does not say that state institutions may be bombed. That violates the UN resolution. Peter Olson, NATO’s lawyer, issued a statement after the attacks in which he essentially denies that NATO can ever be investigated. In an arrogant tone, he states that NATO cannot commit war crimes.

Why? Because it is not an uncivilized organization, but a European one. But it is not European. Mark Rutte, the current Secretary General [of NATO], went to Washington, sat next to Trump and said: In The Hague, we will turn the NATO summit into a great demonstration of American power – not the strength of NATO or its European partners, but that of the US. NATO is therefore a Trojan horse for US dominance.

NATO sent a message to Trump, which he posted on Truth Social, saying, “We love you, you’re doing a great job. We’ll get five percent of GDP for you, Mr. Trump.” There is no independent European foreign policy within NATO. NATO is an instrument of US power.

What is the strategy of the military alliance? Quite simple: it uses its European allies in NATO and close partners in Asia, such as South Korea and Japan, to contain threats to the United States that are not threats to Europe. Is China a threat to Europe? I don’t think so.

Was Russia a threat to Germany? Is the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline worse for Germany than wasting money on buying liquefied natural gas from the United States? What is better for the climate, dear Greens in Germany? A direct question to the former great feminist chairwoman of the Greens, who has not said a word to this day about the women killed in Iran by Israeli and US attacks. Where is your feminism when it comes to the killing of women in Iran or Palestinian women? I have heard nothing from Annalena Baerbock on this subject. There is a great silence on this issue.

The Western strategy is that the United States decides who poses the greatest threat to US power. Most people in the Trump administration believe that China is the greatest threat. And they admit that China does not pose a military threat.

China accounts for four percent of global military spending, while the expanded West [including countries with close ties to the EU and NATO] accounts for 80 percent. The United States alone accounts for over 50 percent. China is not a military threat. It is an economic threat. It is moving toward the production of advanced seventh or eighth generation technologies.

Yesterday, I took a high-speed train from Leipzig to Berlin. The speed was supposedly 180 km/h. In China, however, it is up to 300 km/h. The trains are faster, much better, run more smoothly, and are on time. That is a threat.

Not to Europe, but to the multinational US companies in which the European bourgeoisie has invested. The German propertied bourgeoisie invests more in Black Rock and on Wall Street than in the DAX. It is the so-called patriotic bourgeoisie that has a strong interest in protecting the interests of US companies. So Europeans are being drawn into an international conflict in the name of the United States and the interests of its monopolies. It is not a European conflict.

What is the West’s strategy? For Europe, it is subordination to the United States and its interests, not to European interests. And for the United States, it is about protecting its economic hegemony, and it will use force against China to prevent its development.

Read also:

Study: Is the world’s population shifting from the US to China?

Telepolis

Pentagon order: US military to prepare for war against China

Telepolis

▶ In your opinion, what is the significance of Brics+, the group of emerging economies comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, which is attracting more and more countries that want to join? Economists are even talking about de-dollarization and new reserve currencies that could challenge the US dollar, which would have a significant impact on the global financial system. Are we witnessing the emergence of a new world order that is not based on Washington’s unilateral dominance, while we experience chaos, political authoritarianism, and violence around the world?

Vijay Prashad: That’s a great question. It’s interesting when you look at the BRICS+ countries, the new additions to the original five. Saudi Arabia and Iran have joined. First of all, these countries have completely different political systems. Some are monarchies, others are republics, some are led by communist parties, others by right-wing extremist parties, such as India. They have completely different political worldviews.

What is interesting about the “plus,” however, is that the BRICS countries have brought almost all major oil producers except the United States on board.

So if you add Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and so on, you have the most important oil and gas producers, even Egypt. These are very important developments that show that this is basically OPEC+ [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries]. OPEC+ also includes Russia. So we actually have an OPEC+ within a BRICS process.

The BRICS+ and OPEC+ overlap enormously. And when they start thinking about alternative currency systems, they could think in terms of a new currency that is essentially based on oil as an asset.

That’s not exactly good news for environmentalists, of course, but to be honest, oil will be with us for a while before we can make a real change. It is a very sad reality that our civilization cannot switch from oil to renewable energies so quickly. It will take time.

So perhaps the currency can initially be based on oil as a commodity. In other words, oil becomes what the currency is based on, just as gold was in the past. In the transition period from 1971 to the present, it was US assets. Fundamentally, a currency must be backed by an asset.

If I have a lot of this paper, i.e., dollars, I have to be able to do something with it. If no one else wants to take my dollars, I should be able to buy land, a company, a factory, or whatever in the United States. It has to be an asset that guarantees that my money doesn’t just become paper that can be burned.

In the past, it was gold, which was called the gold standard. During the transition period, it was US assets. No BRICS country is currently willing to sell its assets to stabilize a currency. The Chinese have capital controls. They do not allow foreigners to buy their land. I don’t think they will ever allow that. Otherwise, the socialist process would be completely ruined. So no BRICS country will make its assets available as an anchor for the currency. That simply won’t happen.

Let’s assume India says it will participate. What assets could I buy in India at present? If I had 20 billion rupees, what would I buy? Or would the rupees just sit in a bank account? I don’t think that’s credible.

For most OPEC+ and large BRICS+ countries, however, oil futures could be considered as assets. So if I have a BRICS currency and no one else accepts it, the oil reserves belong to me. With enormous wealth, I could buy oil for ten years. In exchange for the currency, I have to be given something. So that could be a possibility.

▶ The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock was set to 89 seconds before midnight this year. We have never been so close to the end of humanity. A key threat is a possible nuclear war, which would ultimately wipe out human civilization. How do you assess the nuclear risks and what needs to be done?

Vijay Prashad: I think the Doomsday Clock is anachronistic. It should be closer to midnight. The attack by the United States and Israel on Iran sent a very serious message to many countries around the world.

A message that was already sent a decade ago, namely: If you don’t have nuclear weapons, we will destroy your state. This signal was sent when NATO countries invaded Libya, attacked the country and destroyed it. Why? Because Libya used to have a nuclear weapons program. The country voluntarily gave it up in order to be integrated into the Western world order.

After that, it had to pay a very high price: the state was destroyed. North Korea, on the other hand, has nuclear weapons, and no one dares to attack the country. I assume that the Iranians will have a nuclear bomb before the end of the year and will announce this.

They will start enriching uranium to build a bomb, why not? They have to protect themselves. They will do it. In fact, the attacks on Iran were not aimed at nuclear non-proliferation, but at the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I can guarantee you that the junta in Myanmar has already called the North Koreans and said: Send us a bomb, send us missiles. Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran – all these countries will arm themselves with nuclear weapons. This will move the Doomsday Clock to 59 seconds.

▶ Another important risk factor is the climate crisis or climate catastrophe. The industrialized countries are primarily responsible for this. But they refuse to take the necessary steps to respond to the emergency. They continue to produce enormous amounts of greenhouse gases and are unwilling to provide adequate climate financing. Climate injustice also has an impact on the consequences, which are borne primarily by developing countries. How is this refusal by rich countries perceived in the Global South?

Vijay Prashad: It’s actually a familiar picture. It’s not unusual for these international meetings and events to feature a lot of high-flown speeches, not just about the climate and the climate catastrophe. This has been going on for decades. The West comes to the conferences, talks about development, and then promises some money. But that never happens. Development aid is supposed to amount to 0.7 percent of GDP. That has never been achieved. So it’s a familiar game.

They talk about women’s rights, they talk about the importance of reproductive health. But no money is put on the table. They come to these meetings, they talk about disarmament and how terrible war is. Then they arm each other and expand the arms industry. What’s new about that?

Why should the climate problem be any different from the fundamental ontological hypocrisy of Western democracies? They are hypocritical on every issue, going back to World War II, when they said after the Holocaust, “Never again.” The convention against genocide was adopted. What is happening in Palestine right now? Where is the “never again”?

And not just in Palestine. What is happening in Sudan and Congo? Maybe there are no Western actors there, but who are the arms manufacturers? I am very interested in arms manufacturers and arms deals. Together with Jeremy Corbyn and others, I have published a book called “Monstrous Anger of the Guns.”

In it, we shine a light on the arms companies. They make incredible profits. In fact, with this five percent of GDP and the “Let’s build a European army” rhetoric, they are behaving like pigs at a trough, simply gorging themselves. They will get all this public money. It’s disgusting. This is the ontological hypocrisy of Western democracy.

Read also:

The sympathy factor: How NATO is winning the hearts and minds of Europeans

Telepolis

Why the US’s aggressive encirclement of China is a disaster

Telepolis

▶ Social movements and the so-called left in general seem to be in a weak position in many countries around the world. They often lose, while right-wing extremist or neo-fascist parties are on the rise. On the other hand, there have been powerful protests and campaigns in recent decades, from Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring to climate campaigns and political resistance to repression, especially in the Global South. Nevertheless, the world continues to race toward the abyss and the crises are intensifying. How do you see this, and where do you find the “optimism of the will,” to use Gramsci’s phrase?

Vijay Prashad: If you look out the window [of the hotel lobby in the middle of Berlin], you will see a delivery driver or an Uber driver pass by within ten seconds. When I looked out just now, two delivery drivers passed by. The working class around the world has been “uberized.” People work long and irregular hours for low wages. Even when they don’t work long hours, their working conditions are largely unorganized.

They don’t work together in factories. When they do work together in factories, they are not allowed to talk to each other. There is strict discipline, and it is very difficult to organize people into unions. Trade union membership has declined.

The working population is not organized worldwide. But this is precisely where the reservoir of the left lies, namely in an organized working class, a trade union movement, and an organized peasant movement. These are much weaker today.

Because our organization is weaker, it is more difficult for us to build large movements. But that doesn’t stop us from mobilizing, because you don’t need to be organized to get people to come out to a demonstration. You don’t need two million organized people. You just send them an Instagram post saying, “Come and protest against what’s happening in Palestine.” People will come. But they’re not necessarily organized among themselves.

Mobilization actually helps the right more than the left, because the right doesn’t need to build mass organizations of the working class and peasants. It can survive through mass mobilizations. In many countries, however, the right does not benefit in election campaigns. In Germany, the AfD is growing, but in many countries the extreme right is still unable to win elections.

Only when the traditional right and the extreme right join forces do they achieve major successes. Since the traditional right brings its money and apparatus with it, it has a financial advantage. With a lot of money, you can mobilize people to go out and vote. The left relies on volunteers.

It is easier to mobilize people to demonstrations than to vote for a particular strategy. We live in a time of mobilization, not organization. Mobilizing is easier than organizing. Social media has made mobilization easier. You publish posts, they spread, people come to events, and so on. But we should not confuse mass mobilization, huge protests for Palestine, with an organized left.

On the other hand, there are breakthroughs like now, where a democratic socialist has won the primary election in New York City, Zohran Mamdani. I know his parents very well. His father is a Ugandan intellectual, his mother is an Indian filmmaker, Mira Nair. She has made great films like Mississippi Masala, she is a great filmmaker. Her son is a great 33-year-old democratic socialist.

He comes from a Muslim family, his middle name is Kwame, named after Kwame Nkrumah [the first president of Ghana]. Such breakthroughs exist, they can happen in Germany at any time. Someone dynamic can emerge, because that’s part of modern, telegenic election politics. You mobilize a lot of people, get them excited, and you can win an election.

Our institute deals with the question of what happens when you take power. What happens when you succeed without changing the balance of power? If a progressive became mayor of Berlin, for example, what would the agenda look like? What would need to be done?

We have put together a whole range of ideas. I would say that public transportation should be free. You pay for it with your taxes anyway. Why should you buy tickets instead of just getting on the bus? You don’t have to double tax the working class by making them pay for their travel costs and then taxing them again every day when they go to work. That’s ridiculous. I would say make it free.

How would that be paid for? A way would be found. You could tax companies, for example, tax every hotel that has two branches in the city. Why should there be two Ibis hotels? The second one would be taxed at an additional eight percent. Maybe people would say that this would drive Ibis out of town. Fine, then let a family own and run the hotel.

So there are always possibilities. You can achieve breakthroughs. There are mass organizations in the world. Two million farmers in Brazil are part of the landless movement. They produce the largest share of organic rice in Latin America, which is incredible.

We need to learn more about these organizations. There needs to be more knowledge transfer from the North to the South or from the South to the North, depending on where you live. It’s very important that we tell the stories about the work we all do, especially from hidden, remote places.

It’s inspiring that, for example, a young girl reading an article might be moved and motivated by something. She starts a reading group in her neighborhood, wants to build an organization, gets involved in politics, and says that the streets should be cleaned up. She becomes well-known, is eventually elected in her community, does one or two good things, and inspires other people. That’s how change happens.

The first part of the interview with Vijay Prashad, “From Iran to China: Is a New World Order Emerging?”, can be found here.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writer and chief correspondent for Globetrotter, editor-in-chief of LeftWord Books, and director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. He is the author of numerous books, including “The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power” with Noam Chomsky.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From Kiev to Tehran: International law à la carte

by Harald Neuber

[This article posted on 6/23/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Von-Kiew-nach-Teheran-Voelkerrecht-a-la-carte-10456465.html.]

The West is selectively outraged by violations of international law. While Russia’s war of aggression is met with harsh sanctions, other conflicts remain without consequences. This Telepolis editorial discusses where this is leading.

The spiral of escalation in the Middle East continues to turn, and the West is playing a dangerous game—a kind of Russian roulette with total military escalation. It seems as if someone is turning a cog over and over again until it clicks and then bangs.

That moment may have come now, after the US intervened directly in the conflict between Israel and Iran with airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

US President Donald Trump spoke of a “spectacular military success.” He claimed that the uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordo had been “completely and totally destroyed.” There has been no independent confirmation of this so far. Satellite images show impact craters at the facilities, but no reliable statement can yet be made about the extent of the damage.

Read also

Humanitarian crisis in Gaza: When baby food becomes a weapon

Telepolis

Israel’s war in Gaza: When hunger becomes a weapon

Telepolis

International law vs. power politics: When everyone wins, who loses?

Telepolis

The limits of self-defense: Why Israel has crossed the red line

Telepolis

Israel’s “dirty work”: Chancellor Merz and the violation of international law

Telepolis

Iran has announced that it will respond militarily to the US attacks. “My country has been attacked, we must respond,” said Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Tehran is also threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, which is important for global oil exports.

This would have devastating consequences for the global economy. One-fifth of the world’s oil and gas is transported through this strait. Experts warn that if Iran were to close it, the price of oil could rise to over $120 per barrel.

However, China, as the largest buyer of Iranian oil, is also likely to try to prevent such an escalation. More than 80 percent of the oil that flows through the Strait of Hormuz is destined for Asian countries. A blockade would hit China’s economy hard. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called on Beijing to use its influence on Tehran to prevent an escalation.

Under international law, the US is skating on extremely thin ice with its attacks. According to the Constitution, only Congress, not the president, has the authority to declare war. Many Democrats accuse Trump of a clear violation of the Constitution. The attacks are “clearly and obviously grounds for impeachment,” said Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

But with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, they can hardly stop the president. Impeachment is currently considered out of the question.

Trump’s hints at “regime change” in Iran are also extremely dangerous. In a social media post, he wrote: “If the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why shouldn’t there be regime change?” If the mullah regime were to collapse, a failed state could emerge in the middle of one of the most unstable regions in the world – with unforeseeable consequences.

Trump’s claim that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons also contradicts the assessments of the US intelligence services in March. They confirmed that Tehran is not currently building nuclear weapons. No evidence to the contrary has been presented so far.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has called for an immediate ceasefire so that it can inspect the damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

At the same time, the West’s blatant double standards when it comes to compliance with international law are once again being exposed. Israel’s actions against the Palestinians, its occupation and settlement construction, which are contrary to international law, are largely tolerated. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, on the other hand, is unanimously condemned as a violation of international law.

According to local sources, almost 56,000 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip in October 2023. The West’s response has been muted. In the case of the war in Ukraine, however, unprecedented sanctions against Russia were quickly considered.

This double standard is hard to beat in terms of hypocrisy and undermines the credibility of the West. The West urgently needs to return to a common approach based on international law. Only through negotiations and concessions on all sides can further escalation be prevented. But at present, the logic of war seems to prevail.

Israel is continuing its attacks on Iranian targets with “unprecedented severity,” according to Defense Minister Israel Katz. Iran, in turn, continues to fire missiles at Israel and threatens a “decisive response.”

It is a game of chance with an uncertain outcome. The West continues to spin the wheel of Russian roulette. As I said, it will click once before it eventually bangs. Let’s hope that reason prevails in the end. Otherwise, there will be devastating consequences far beyond the region. A regional conflagration would have unforeseeable consequences for global security and stability.

It is high time to break the spiral of escalation and return to the negotiating table. This is the only way to avert disaster.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Iran-Israel conflict: Former top diplomat sounds the alarm

[This interview with Martin Kobler posted on June 21, 2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Iran-Israel-Konflikt-Ehemaliger-Spitzendiplomat-schlaegt-Alarm-10454923.html.]

The Iran-Israel conflict is coming to a head. A former diplomat warns of a conflagration in the Middle East. The exclusive interview will be published today at noon on Telepolis.

Telepolis, the independent online magazine for politics and society, is publishing an exclusive podcast interview with Martin Kobler, former German ambassador to Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan and UN Special Representative for Iraq and Libya, today, Saturday, June 21, 2025, at 12 noon. The in-depth interview was conducted by Dietmar Ringel, who worked for Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg for many years.

In the interview, Kobler analyzes the current escalation of the conflict between Israel and Iran and assesses the danger of a conflagration in the Middle East. The interview is preceded by a dramatic analysis of security policy: if war breaks out between Israel and Iran, it could lead to a conflagration throughout the Middle East – or worse: the next world war.

Read also

From Iran to China: Is a new world order emerging?

Telepolis

After Iran mission: US military plans super bunker buster 2.0

Telepolis

Arms lobby at Fox News: The hidden profiteers of the Iran war

Telepolis

Iranian Oscar winner: “I want to film women without headscarves”

Telepolis

What next for Iran? A possible diplomatic way out

Telepolis

In the Telepolis podcast, Kobler highlights the role of the US and European countries and emphasizes the need for diplomatic efforts alongside military action. “There must be a channel for negotiation from the outset, and open channels must be established. And I think Wadephul and his colleagues are doing exactly the right thing. That is the order of the day,” says Kobler.

Appeal for strengthening diplomacy

The former top diplomat advocates strengthening diplomacy and warns against leaving the field to the military. “This means that diplomacy must be much more self-confident, much more stringent, much more offensive, and also more aggressive than has been the case so far,” he demands.

At the same time, Kobler sees responsibility on the part of Iran, which has been propagating the destruction of Israel for decades. “We must not forget that Iran has been saying for 30 years that it wants to destroy the state of Israel. I agree with all those, including Chancellor Merz, who are siding with Israel. Iran’s state philosophy is to destroy another state,” he clarifies.

Assessment of the situation in Israel

In the interview, Kobler also addresses the domestic political situation in Israel and suspects that the conflict with Iran is intended to distract attention from the problems in Gaza. “I have a very strong feeling that this is also intended to distract attention from the current situation. Netanyahu is losing support among the population when it comes to the Gaza war,” he analyzes.

The full interview will be published today at 12 noon on Telepolis. The magazine is thus continuing its tradition of providing free and honest analysis of security policy, uninfluenced by pressure groups, lobbyists, or political constraints. Telepolis sees itself as a platform for independent journalism and in-depth background reporting between mainstream and alternative media.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Serious setback for SpaceX: Starship explodes during ground test in Texas

by Marcel Kunzmann

[This article posted on 6/19/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Schwerer-Rueckschlag-fuer-SpaceX-Starship-explodiert-bei-Bodentest-in-Texas-10453140.html.]

Explosion of Starship 36 during refueling on a test pad on Wednesday

(Image: NSF/YouTube)

Explosion destroys rocket for next test flight. Program already struggling with three consecutive failures. Schedule for Moon and Mars missions in jeopardy.

Private space company SpaceX has suffered another major setback. During a ground test at its test site in Boca Chica, Texas, a Starship spacecraft scheduled for the next test flight exploded and was completely destroyed on Thursday night.

As can be seen on live images from cameras around the facility, the rocket exploded completely unexpectedly shortly after 11 p.m. local time (6 a.m. CEST), triggering fires in the area of the launch pad. Residents up to 50 kilometers away reported seeing and feeling the explosion.

 

No comment from Elon Musk

SpaceX confirmed in a post on social media platform X that Starship number 36 had experienced problems during preparations for a so-called “static fire test” and spoke of a “major anomaly.”

During these system tests, the engines are fired for a few seconds while the rocket remains attached to the launch pad. They are one of the final milestones before a test flight. According to SpaceX, the explosion occurred when the spacecraft was almost finished being fueled with cryogenic liquid methane and oxygen.

The area had been evacuated beforehand and there were no injuries. The company said there was no danger to surrounding communities. Elon Musk himself, who is not usually shy about making bold statements, has not yet commented on the accident. The exact cause must now be determined by engineers.

Possible causes include weak welds, burst pressure tanks or valves.

In 2016, there was a similar explosion of a Falcon 9 rocket, which was attributed to frozen oxygen in a burst helium tank, reports the specialist portal Ars Technica.

Series of errors with Starship 2

For SpaceX, this is already the fourth serious setback in a row with the new version 2 of the Starship spacecraft (Telepolis reported). Three test flights ended prematurely this year after the previous version made great progress in 2024 and successfully landed the Super Heavy booster for the first time.

Read also

SpaceX’s Starship fails again: Does the concept still have a future?

Telepolis

SpaceX wins billion-dollar contracts from the US military

Telepolis

38 billion dollars in start-up aid: Musk’s forgotten state affair

Telepolis

Musk’s billion-dollar deal: How SpaceX landed in the White House

Telepolis

Elon Musk declares humanity the enemy of the US

Telepolis

During its maiden flight in January, Starship 2 lost fuel due to severe vibrations, which led to the premature failure of the Raptor engines. The second flight test in March also failed, but due to a hardware fault in one of the engines.

In the most recent test flight in May, Starship was able to complete the planned ascent phase for the first time, but after the engines were shut down, a fuel leak caused the spacecraft to spin out of control, making a controlled re-entry impossible.

Despite the series of mishaps, Elon Musk recently insisted on conducting the test flights at intervals of only three to four weeks. According to a report by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), SpaceX had set June 29 as the date for the next launch – but that will now not happen.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Israel’s war against Iran: “Trump is trapped”

by Harald Neuber

[This article posted on 6/19/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Israels-Krieg-gegen-Iran-Trump-sitzt-in-der-Falle-10452697.html.]

Iranians around a traditional campfire. Image: Nicky Urban/ Shutterstock.com

Israel’s attack on Iran is exacerbating the crisis in the Middle East. The US is divided. And the president has his back to the wall, according to our interview partner Christian Hacke.

Israel’s military offensive against Iran, dubbed “Operation Lion’s Roar,” has dramatically exacerbated the already fragile security situation in the Middle East. With a surprise large-scale attack on military leadership, infrastructure, and nuclear facilities, the Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu is pursuing its stated goal of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program and destabilizing, if not overthrowing, the country’s political leadership.

But while the operation is considered a technical masterpiece, international concern about further escalation is growing: Iran is threatening retaliation, the US is divided in its stance, and the global public fears for the stability of the region. In an interview with Telepolis, political scientist Christian Hacke explains why Israel’s strategy is risky and what consequences can be expected for the Middle East and beyond.

 

▶ Mr. Hacke, how do you assess the Israeli attack on Iran?

Christian Hacke: The surprise attack “Rising Lion” on the military leadership, infrastructure, and nuclear research facilities is a spectacular military masterpiece. It is reminiscent of the destruction of Russian nuclear bombers with the help of the Ukrainian secret service. For over a year, the Mossad positioned drones undetected near Iranian military facilities, which then severely disrupted Iranian air defenses in parallel with the air strikes. Netanyahu is now taking a huge risk.

▶ How do you understand this?

Christian Hacke: On the one hand, his goal is regime change. As despicable as the mullah regime is, a war of aggression from outside and the encouragement of a domestic opposition that does not exist in an organized form are questionable. It is unlikely that Netanyahu will succeed. The mullahs are trying to consolidate their rule: forces critical of the regime are neutralized by appeals to national unity or brutally monitored and persecuted. Patriotism based on the motto “Better our own oppressor than a foreign aggressor” prevails. Israel’s decapitation strategy is likely to only temporarily paralyze the leadership and ultimately bring new faces to the top. Decapitating Khamenei could increase anger against Israel.

▶ Can the second goal, the destruction of the nuclear facilities, be achieved?

Christian Hacke: Israel alone cannot completely destroy the deeply bunkered facilities; this would require the American super bomb, whose use is uncertain. Experts are divided on whether even the “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” can severely damage or destroy facilities such as Fordow. It is to be expected that Iran will not give up its nuclear ambitions.

 

Christian Hacke is a political scientist. Image: Raimond Spekking, CC BY–SA 4.0

On the contrary, there is a growing danger that Iran will withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, move its facilities deeper underground, and develop nuclear weapons more quickly. Israel’s justification for the war, to preempt an attack by Iran, is contrary to international law and politically controversial. Iran is not planning an attack on Israel; that would be suicidal. Its pursuit of nuclear weapons has defensive motives. Dictatorships without legitimacy, such as North Korea, want to deter others and secure their rule by possessing nuclear weapons.

▶ But doesn’t Israel feel directly threatened?

Christian Hacke: Israel’s argument suggests that the mere possession of nuclear weapons implies their use. It is a fallacy to infer aggressiveness from capability. There has never been and is no immediate nuclear threat to Israel from Iran. Israel therefore attacked Iran in violation of international law. Eighty years of experience show that nuclear weapons do not promote war, but prevent it. Because whoever launches a nuclear attack would also die, only second. Both the Israelis and the mullahs know this.

Instead of media hysteria, verbal disarmament is needed. The global concern is that Israel’s attack could fuel the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Authoritarian regimes could conclude that only nuclear weapons can secure their rule against attacks. If Iran already had nuclear status, Israel would probably not have dared to attack.

▶ What reactions can be expected from Tehran?

Christian Hacke: Iran has been extremely weakened since its allies fell like dominoes after the terrorist attack by Hamas. The axis of resistance is broken, and the mullah regime is fighting for survival in the war. Tehran is seeking a quick negotiated solution, but is also preparing for a war of attrition. Iran has learned from the war with Iraq and developed a ruthless will to survive.

In addition, Iran is planning to use its military arsenal, primarily drones and missiles, in the long term. Iran could expand its counterattacks on Israel, close the Strait of Hormuz, attack oil facilities, call on its proxies to fight, and attack American military bases. In a ground war, the technically inferior but fanatically committed Iranian army, including the Revolutionary Guards, would face its enemies.

▶ What can be expected from Israel?

Christian Hacke: Israel is capable of successfully starting wars, but it shows an inability to end them successfully, as seen in Gaza. Tactical victories cannot hide the fact that strategic defeats are looming. Gaza represents a catastrophe that Netanyahu is trying to distract from by waging war against Iran.

The costly war on multiple fronts is hanging in the balance. Israel must seek a quick victory in the war against Iran, otherwise the country could soon be economically overwhelmed. Every day of war costs half a billion dollars, and fears of further attacks from Iran remain acute. For now, Iran is still being fought “from the inside out” with the hope of success, i.e., through simultaneous attacks on the leadership, nuclear facilities, and military installations. America’s support is becoming increasingly urgent.

▶ How do you assess President Trump’s stance on the war?

Christian Hacke: Trump is trapped. He pretends to be the great anti-war president and peacemaker, but his promises are proving hollow. Now he faces further trouble in this conflict, and he seems politically overwhelmed: he makes ill-considered and contradictory statements about the Israeli-Iranian war.

One moment he is belligerent, the next he is issuing ultimatums to the mullahs to negotiate. His dilemma is that some of his advisors and many of his supporters are advising him against involvement or the use of the super bomb. These isolationists fear that the US will become embroiled in a war that could spread to the Middle East: “This is not America’s war.” On the other hand, the hawks are pushing for intervention on Israel’s side.

▶ How do you assess Netanyahu’s influence on the US?

Christian Hacke: Netanyahu knows the corridors of power in Washington like no other head of state. He understands how to flatter Trump. Now we will see whether he can drag him into this war or whether Trump will follow his refusal to go to war with Iran, as he did in his first presidency.

▶ What do you expect in the coming days?

Christian Hacke: It’s touch and go. Everything depends on this unpredictable president who has allowed himself to be lulled by Netanyahu. We are observing the phenomenon of “the tail wagging the dog.” The Middle East and Europe seem powerless. The world is wavering between fear and powerlessness because the US has so far shown little sign of being a wise broker and peacemaker. Without the super bomb, the war between Israel and Iran will probably remain limited. With the bomb, there is a risk of a conflagration that could have unforeseen consequences beyond the Middle East.

Christian Hacke is a political scientist and has taught as a professor at the University of the Federal Armed Forces in Hamburg and at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Iran conflict 2025: Donald Trump’s military turning point

by Harald Neuber

[This article posted on 6/18/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Iran-Konflikt-2025-Donald-Trumps-militaerische-Zeitenwende-10451562.html.]

USS Nimitz. Image: Rawpixel.com/ Shutterstock.com

Trump hints at war against Iran. Martial rhetoric and troop deployments. The consequences would be profound and historic. A Telepolis editorial.

The latest statements and actions by US President Donald Trump indicate that the US could become embroiled in a new war in the Middle East. Within a few days, Trump’s position has dramatically escalated: from asserting that the US had nothing to do with Israel’s war of aggression against Iran, he swung to the statement on the short message service X: “We now have complete control of the skies over Iran.”

This U-turn raises disturbing questions.

 

Flashback: On June 13, Israel launched extensive air strikes on Iranian military and nuclear facilities. The attacks, which have killed at least 220 people so far, are aimed, according to Israel, at destroying Iran’s nuclear program before Iran is able to develop nuclear weapons. The attacks have since been extended to economic sites, broadcasting buildings, and government facilities.

Iran, which denies seeking nuclear weapons, responded by firing around 400 missiles at Israel, dozens of which penetrated Israel’s missile defense system.

Read also

From Iran to China: Is a new world order emerging?

Telepolis

After Iran mission: US military plans super bunker buster 2.0

Telepolis

The arms lobby at Fox News: The hidden profiteers of the Iran war

Telepolis

Iranian Oscar winner: “I want to film women without headscarves”

Telepolis

What next for Iran? A possible diplomatic way out

Telepolis

Trump’s contradictory messages about the conflict have further increased uncertainty. His public statements ranged from military threats to diplomatic overtures. On the one hand, he demands Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” while on the other, he offers negotiations.

Now, however, he seems to be increasingly open to the idea of direct US involvement in the war. According to US media reports, he is reviewing various options with his security team, including participation in attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Military preparations

Military preparations for this option are already underway: The US has deployed additional fighter jets to the region and extended the deployment of other aircraft and units, as well as tankers and tanker aircraft.

The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz has been ordered to the Middle East ahead of schedule.

Particularly explosive: According to CNN, Trump is increasingly toying with the idea of using the US Air Force to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.

Bunker-busting weapons

Specifically, the use of 13.6-ton bunker-busting bombs is being considered to take out the Fordo enrichment facility hidden deep under a mountain – something the Israeli armed forces cannot do alone.

Rumors are already circulating on social media that the US is already conducting joint operations with Israel, although this has been officially denied.

Experts warn

But what would a direct US attack mean? Experts warn of a conflagration. Iran, which has already announced retaliation for the Israeli attacks, would certainly strike back – whether through missile attacks on US bases, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or cyberattacks.

A further spiral of escalation with unforeseeable consequences would be set in motion and would likely accelerate.

The illusion of a limited military strike

Even a “limited” military strike, as some hardliners are calling for, carries enormous risks. It would not only weaken the mullah regime militarily, but also strike it at its political core.

The danger of state collapse would be real. In the resulting power vacuum, radicals and terrorist groups could gain strength, ethnic conflicts could break out, and millions of people could be forced to flee.

No lessons learned from history

A look at recent history shows where such interventions lead: whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, the US’s military adventures in the Middle East and North Africa have done more harm than good in recent decades.

They have left behind chaos, failed states, and new breeding grounds for terror. The lessons learned seem to have been forgotten in Washington. Or were they ever learned there in the first place? And how willing are Berlin or Paris to accept such lessons?

Once again, no exit strategy

It is all the more alarming that no one in the White House is currently talking publicly about how a war against Iran should end. There is no exit strategy whatsoever. It should be clear to everyone that the Islamic Republic cannot simply be brought to its knees. With its 90 million inhabitants, mountainous topography, and oil and gas reserves, Iran has enormous potential for resistance.

Domestically, too, entering the war would be highly risky for Trump. After all, he has always portrayed himself as an opponent of foreign military interventions and branded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as disasters. Large sections of his “America First” supporters strictly reject military involvement in the Middle East.

In their view, Trump would be betraying his political principles.

Will Trump become a war president after all?

But the temptation to present himself as a decisive warlord and score a quick foreign policy victory could prove too great – especially since Trump is still reeling from the recent snubs by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. His ego is bruised, and pressure from the Israel lobby is growing.

The seemingly favorable military situation in Iran comes at just the right time for him.

Mistakes of his predecessors

But the US president would be well advised to learn from the mistakes of his predecessors instead of repeating them. The US soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve an explanation of what will happen next. So does the American public, which needs to be prepared by its president for a possible armed conflict. So far, there is no sign of this.

 

Instead, there are many indications that the decision to attack Iran has long since been made. Trump’s bellicose rhetoric, the military preparations, the calls for “regime change” in Tehran – all this is likely to be more than just empty threats. As in Iraq in 2003, Washington seems determined to go to war without thinking through the consequences.

So what is the interim conclusion? The looming US entry into war against Iran marks a turning point. It would be the final break with a foreign policy that, at least on the surface, was based on compromise and negotiation, which the political West has claimed for itself. Instead, the United States would finally side with aggressive revisionism that seeks to overthrow the existing world order by force.

New geopolitical order

Criteria of international law no longer play a role; it is solely a matter of morally embellished, hard-nosed power politics and geostrategic interests. The international community is divided into hardliners and followers on the one hand, and a security-conscious camp on the other. The latter has so far done too little to counter the advance of the warmongers.

A new geopolitical order is emerging that not only replaces the post-Cold War order, but also recalls the period before the Peace of Westphalia in 1648—a time of unrestrained wars between states, when the law of the strongest prevailed. From now on, these conflicts are no longer likely to be fought out regionally, but between the major geopolitical blocs.

This is the new dimension of a world disorder that is emerging.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

World order on the brink: Why the escalation between Israel and Iran is a turning point

by Harald Neuber

[This article posted on 6/16/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Weltordnung-am-Abgrund-Warum-die-Eskalation-zwischen-Israel-und-Iran-ein-Wendepunkt-ist-10448024.html.]

Israel and Iran are trading blows. A diplomatic solution is nowhere in sight. This Telepolis editorial argues that this is a sign of things to come.

The military escalation between Israel and Iran has clearly demonstrated how fragile the geopolitical order in the Middle East and beyond is. While fighter jets and missiles from both sides bomb targets in each other’s countries and the number of civilian casualties continues to rise, established and emerging powers are vying for influence and supremacy in the region.

The conflict threatens to become a conflagration that extends far beyond the borders of the two adversaries. The international community is facing one of the greatest challenges of recent years, if not decades.

The war between Israel and Iran is not only an expression of the historically grown enmity between the two states. It symbolizes a tectonic shift in the global balance of power. This shift has been looming for years and is now becoming apparent.

The dominance of the West, led by the US, is crumbling. New powers such as China and Russia are pushing onto the stage and demanding their place at the negotiating table. They see the conflict as a great opportunity to massively expand their influence and reshape the architecture of international relations.

Moscow clearly has a vital interest in supporting Iran and preventing Tehran’s defeat. From Russia’s point of view, it is clear that the war between Israel and Iran is part of a geopolitical domino theory that has been circulating for a long time, and not only in the Kremlin.

Iran would be the next target

After Syria and Iraq have already been intervened in by the West and forced into regime change, Iran would be the next target. And after that, it is feared, Russia itself could be next.

Moscow will prevent this at all costs: from this perspective, this scenario must not be allowed to happen. This is also the view of China, which sees some of Beijing’s high-ranking representatives as another link in the chain.

Kremlin as mediator

At the same time, the Kremlin is trying to act as a mediator and arbitrator. President Vladimir Putin has spoken on the phone with both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and expressed his willingness to mediate between the parties to the conflict.

Russia is presenting itself as a responsible major power. Unlike the US, Russia appears interested in a diplomatic solution. Moscow claims this role not only in the Middle East, but also in other trouble spots such as Afghanistan and Libya.

This political communication strategy is successful outside Western countries. In the West, however, Russia is seen exclusively as an aggressor because of the war in Ukraine.

China’s new role – and its interests

China also strongly condemns the Israeli attacks and sees itself as a mediator. Beijing is aware of its growing economic interests in the region and is determined to defend them even against a larger war.

Iran is an important energy supplier and sales market for China. The conflict in the People’s Republic is a great opportunity to challenge the US’s leadership role in the Middle East and position itself as an alternative power. Beijing is also pursuing this ambition vigorously in other parts of the world, such as Africa and Latin America.

India plays a key role

India plays a key role in this conflict. New Delhi is currently maneuvering between the fronts, but is increasingly leaning toward the Western camp. India is an emerging economic power and rival to China. That is why India is seeking closer ties with the US and its allies. Taking a clear side with Iran, as Russia and China are doing, is not an option for India.

A wedge between the BRICS countries

It is to be expected that the BRICS countries, which include China and Russia as well as Brazil and South Africa, among others, will split. The cohesion of these emerging economies, which see themselves as a counterweight to the West, would then be severely weakened. Washington is likely to note this development with satisfaction.

We in Europe must observe all this with great concern. Washington and the EU capitals are reacting poorly. It is obvious that their influence in the region is waning.

G7: Self-image and world view

The G7 summit in Canada is therefore not looking promising, as the situation in the Middle East is becoming increasingly tense. The Western industrialized countries appear helpless and overwhelmed. Their ability to shape events has definitely declined in recent years. Now other players are stepping into the power vacuum.

It is absolutely crucial that diplomacy does not take a back seat now. Only through negotiations and compromises can further escalation be prevented.

In the end, everyone talks

Even if positions seem entrenched, it is an irrefutable fact that there can be no solution without dialogue. This truism also applies in war situations. In the end, there will always be negotiations. The question is how many people will die before then.

Preventing unnecessary casualties requires constructive contributions from all parties involved, including Russia and China. Moscow and Beijing should now exert their influence on Tehran to bring the Islamic Republic to the negotiating table. Washington, meanwhile, must urge its ally Israel to exercise military restraint.

Trump was probably in on it

But that does not seem to be the case at present. The administration of US President Donald Trump knew exactly what was going to happen. It is inconceivable that hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu did not inform them of the attack plans, which were apparently in the works for some time.

The US is also a major supplier of weapons and ammunition to Israel. Washington therefore bears direct responsibility for the escalation of the war.

It is crucial that Western media and political actors maintain a clear perspective. The double standards with which Russia’s actions in Ukraine are condemned, while Israel’s actions against Iran are accepted, if not approved, are more than counterproductive.

Double standards and their consequences

Such double standards reinforce the impression of hegemonic Western politics and drive other states into an anti-Western stance. What we need is balance, reason, and prudence. The West must credibly stand up for international law and peaceful conflict resolution.

Only in this way can it develop a moderating influence. The fact is, however, that with their current attitude, Western states are destroying the trust in a global order based on international law that has been built up over decades, and not only in the Middle East.

A hint of “Annalena Merz”

It is no coincidence that veteran security and foreign policy politicians from the era of Hans-Dietrich Genscher (FDP) are shocked. They are shocked by the behavior of the last and current federal governments. Their attitude toward the international peace order has not changed significantly since the departure of Green Party politician Annalena Baerbock.

Military solo efforts such as those by Israel against Iran are the wrong way to go and further fuel the spiral of violence. They may appear to be a sign of strength in the short term, but in the long run they weaken the legitimacy and credibility of the international legal order as established after the Second World War.

It is high time for a change of strategy. The escalation in the Middle East must be stopped immediately. And that can only happen if we return to the principles of multilateralism and the international legal order – and not to the so-called rules-based order.

The clock is ticking. With every day that the weapons speak, the danger of a regional conflagration grows. The images of destroyed homes in Tel Aviv and burning oil facilities in Iran are a stark reminder.

It is obvious where this path could lead if we do not change course immediately. The international community is walking a tightrope. Missteps and ill-considered provocations could have far more fatal consequences than we are currently witnessing.

The coming weeks and months will show whether the international community can muster the diplomatic strength and political will to prevent the worst from happening.

The war between Israel and Iran is a warning sign of the fragility of the global order.

Now is the time to take decisive action. Otherwise, this will herald a new era of instability and conflict that will extend far beyond the Middle East. Today, the fate of humanity is being decided.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Harvard dean: Trump’s ban on students “unprecedented in US higher education history”

[This interview with Hopi Hoekstra posted on May 25, 2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Harvard-Dekanin-Studentenverbot-von-Trump-beispiellos-in-US-Hochschulgeschichte-10395981.html.]

Elite US university closes ranks. Legal action against ban on international students. An internal email reveals how tense the situation is.

In an internal memo obtained by Telepolis, a high-ranking representative of the elite US university Harvard confirms that the university will take legal action against President Donald Trump’s administration. A few days ago, the administration had banned Harvard from accepting international students. The conflict reveals a culture war between the conservative government camp and liberal universities.

 

“As a global academic community, Harvard attracts remarkable students and scholars from around the world to our teaching and research programs,” emphasizes Hopi Hoekstra, dean of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, in the email.

Foreign scholars bring new perspectives, questions, and approaches that have contributed to creating the dynamic learning environment that Harvard is today throughout its long history.

Read also

Harvard vs. Trump: What everyone is overlooking in the battle for the educational elite

Telepolis

Trump vs. Harvard: The showdown over academic independence

Telepolis

New Harvard president: “Protect freedom of expression, promote understanding”

Telepolis

Hoekstra describes the moment as “unprecedented in the history of American higher education.” In fact, the attack on Harvard is symptomatic of the Trump administration’s culture war against liberal strongholds. Five central motives can be identified:

First, Trump is waging a campaign against diversity policies perceived as “woke,” for which Harvard stands like no other university. The attack is intended to send a signal against what is perceived as a “too left-wing” orientation.

Second, Harvard considers far-reaching control and reporting requirements for foreign students to be a fundamental attack on academic freedom. The university therefore refuses to cooperate.

The dean warns that this government measure would “heartlessly disrupt individual lives.” She adds that it must be recognized that excluding these individuals would deprive everyone at the university of the benefits of their contributions to campus discourse and the academic mission.

Thirdly, accusations that Harvard tolerates anti-Semitism serve as formal justification for sanctions. Critics, however, see this as a pretext to punish the university for its liberal orientation.

Fourthly, Harvard has become the target of a foreign policy-driven campaign against Chinese influence. Without evidence, the university is accused of colluding with Beijing’s communists.

Fifthly, the attack is part of a culture war against a supposedly aloof, out-of-touch academic elite. It feeds anti-pluralist resentment and is intended to intimidate unpopular intellectuals.

To bring Harvard to its knees, the government is pursuing a dual strategy of economic pressure and political stigmatization. Trump has already frozen billions in funding. By revoking visa certification for foreign students, he is now hitting the university where it hurts economically.

Hoekstra acknowledges that many questions remain unanswered at this stage, as the situation is developing rapidly.

However, she promises that as the legal dispute progresses and further information becomes available, real-time updates with updated information will be provided as necessary.

This is because international students make up around 27 percent of the student body. They pay higher tuition fees and contribute significantly to Harvard’s income and global reputation. Poaching them is a matter of academic and economic survival for the university.

In the long term, the government aims to restructure the higher education landscape. Liberal beacons are to be weakened and replaced by conservative institutions. By influencing admissions and teaching content, it also aims to re-educate future elites.

Harvard’s resistance is thus setting a precedent in the battle for interpretive authority at universities.

But the government is not acting alone: its attacks are supported by a network of right-wing informants – from the Chinese exile community to Netanyahu supporters to radical Cuban exiles.