NEO: Israeli-US-Iran War: The Trap of Asymmetric Conflict and the Geopolitical Failing of American Power: Ricardo Martins: ***********25-03-2026

Security Israeli–US–Iran War: The Trap of Asymmetric Conflict and the Geopolitical Failing of American Power Ricardo Martins, March 25, 2026 Trump walked into a trap set years in advance: a war he cannot win, on terms he does not control. What was meant to project strength is now reshaping the Middle East and accelerating a broader shift towards a fractured, post-hegemonic world order. trump - netanyahu - hamenei Trump Is Caught in Netanyahu’s Trap In his campaign, Donald Trump promised to end the cycle of “endless wars.” Yet, paradoxically, he has become the first U.S. president to enter directly into a large-scale confrontation with Iran, precisely the scenario that previous administrations had cautiously avoided. Netanyahu had previously unsuccessfully set various traps to drag Obama, Biden, and Trump into a war against Iran in his first term. This time, he was successful. The Epstein files might have played a role. What emerges from this trajectory is not merely a policy miscalculation but a structural trap: one long cultivated by Benjamin Netanyahu and rooted in the logic of asymmetric warfare. At the core of this trap lies a fundamental mismatch between political ambition and military reality. Netanyahu’s long-standing objectives—regime change and weakening Iran—rest on a conventional understanding of military superiority. Trump, however, entered the conflict without a coherent strategic vision, effectively inheriting an escalation dynamic he neither designed nor controlled. As it was said, “the person without a plan… is Trump,” while Iran had anticipated precisely this scenario and prepared accordingly. Trump did not simply enter a war with Iran. He entered a different kind of war, one that the United States has historically struggled to fight and even more to exit An Asymmetric Conflict This is where the concept of asymmetric conflict becomes central. In international relations, asymmetric warfare refers to conflicts in which weaker actors avoid direct confrontation and instead exploit the vulnerabilities, such as economic, technological, and political, of stronger opponents. Classic examples include U.S. engagements in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where initial military dominance gave way to prolonged attrition and strategic exhaustion. As former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis notes, the United States has repeatedly entered such conflicts with “immense confidence” only to exit “with its wings clipped.” Iran has internalised these lessons. Lacking conventional superiority, it has deployed a doctrine aimed not at decisive victory but at protracted destabilisation. The so-called “mosaic defence strategy,” a decentralised system of command with multiple layers of succession, ensures operational continuity even under decapitation strikes. This is combined with the use of low-cost drones and older missile systems to exhaust the adversary’s high-value interceptors, effectively transforming the battlefield into a domain of “attrition economics”— death by a thousand cuts. The implications are profound. The cost asymmetry is staggering: while Iran spends relatively little to sustain pressure, the U.S. and Israel incur enormous daily expenditures—estimated in the billions—to maintain defensive systems. This inversion of cost-efficiency is precisely the trap. It forces the stronger actor into a position where continuing the war becomes economically and politically unsustainable. The withdrawal of the USS Abraham Lincoln symbolises this shift. Once considered the backbone of U.S. naval dominance, aircraft carriers are increasingly exposed in environments saturated with precision missiles and drone clouds. As several analysts suggest, this moment may mark a turning point in military doctrine, where “large and expensive targets” replace the notion of “impregnable fortresses.” Whether overstated or not, the symbolic damage to U.S. credibility is undeniable. Yet the trap extends beyond the military domain. It is also geopolitical. Trump now finds himself increasingly isolated. European allies — already alienated by unilateral decision-making and broader trade tensions — have shown little willingness to participate. The U.K., Poland, Germany, and Italy’s explicit refusal to join the war illustrates a broader trend: a growing reluctance within Europe to underwrite U.S.-led interventions, particularly when excluded from the decision-making process. The attempt to pressure NATO allies into securing the Strait of Hormuz only reinforces this perception of coercion and weakness. The Gulf Monarchies Reassess Their Security Calculus More significantly, the Gulf monarchies—long considered pillars of the U.S. regional order—are reassessing their security calculus. The war has exposed a paradox: the presence of U.S. bases may increase, rather than reduce, their vulnerability. These states were effectively asked to defend American assets on their own territory, while U.S. operations prioritised Israel’s security. This inversion undermines the credibility of the U.S. security guarantee and accelerates hedging strategies, including a diversification towards China. The partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz further illustrates the global dimension of the conflict. Crucially, the disruption is selective: it targets U.S.-aligned economic flows while sparing those of alternative networks, particularly those not denominated in dollars. This introduces a structural challenge to the dollar-based global energy system and signals a broader shift towards fragmented economic blocs. The Changing Geopolitical and War Dynamics In this context, the future of neoliberal globalisation — particularly in the Gulf — is called into question. The region’s economic model has historically depended on stability, open trade routes, and U.S. security guarantees. The current conflict destabilises all three. If sustained, it may accelerate a transition towards more state-centric, security-driven economic arrangements, with significant implications for global markets. Meanwhile, internal dynamics are shifting across all actors. In Iran, the war appears to have reinforced national cohesion and psychological resilience. The capacity to absorb initial shocks—including significant leadership losses—and to respond immediately has strengthened the perception of strategic preparedness and institutional continuity. In Israel, by contrast, the tone of political and military discourse seems to be evolving: less marked by overconfidence and increasingly attentive to the limits of air power when confronted with a dispersed, adaptive adversary capable of inflicting substantial damage on critical infrastructure. In Washington, the prevailing mood is no longer one of anticipated military success but rather of crisis management and containment. The pressure of the coming midterm elections also plays a role. This brings us back to the central question: what would constitute a “victory” for Trump? In conventional terms, victory would imply regime change or decisive military degradation. Neither appears achievable. Instead, Trump’s objective seems to have shifted towards narrative management: seeking a symbolic success that allows for withdrawal. Yet even this is constrained by Iran’s position: Tehran insists that the war is not over and explicitly rejects American diplomacy, as they no longer believe in it, and has called upon its conditions to end the war. Netanyahu’s Counterproductive Vision The deeper issue, however, is structural. Netanyahu’s vision of regional hegemony—potentially through the fragmentation of Iran into a failed state— is strategically counterproductive. As experiences in Libya, Syria, and Iraq demonstrate, state collapse tends to generate prolonged instability, undermining not only regional order but also U.S. interests. In this sense, the trap is double-layered: a war that cannot be won and a victory that would be self-defeating. Ultimately, this conflict reflects a broader transformation in global politics. The combination of asymmetric warfare, shifting alliances, and economic fragmentation points towards a post-hegemonic international order, in which traditional metrics of power are increasingly insufficient. Iran, despite its relative weakness, is shaping the rules of this new environment, demonstrating how resilience, adaptability, and strategic patience can offset material inferiority. Trump did not simply enter a war with Iran. He entered a different kind of war, one that the United States has historically struggled to fight and even more to exit. Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

NEO: The End of Western Civilization: Why the World No Longer Needs a Western Model : Taut Batut : **********

Society The End of Western Civilization: Why the World No Longer Needs a Western Model Taut Bataut, March 23, 2026 Western dominance is no longer a prevailing reality, yet it is invoked to sustain influence and control. Emerging civilizational models — particularly China’ — offer credible alternatives rooted in pluralism. A shift away from Western frameworks is essential for a more balanced and multipolar global order. The End of Western Civilization: Why the World No Longer Needs a Western Model The Trump 2.0 administration, since January 2025, has been continuously selling a narrative to the western public to realize the supremacy of western civilization. Explicitly criticizing the liberal world order, the US officials are invoking the civilizational rhetoric to pursue their coercive aims against their intended rivals. “We are part of one Western culture. Throughout the centuries, we have been united by the most significant connections: our shared history and traditions, from Christian faith to language and heritage; wisdom towards common descent; and sacrifices made by our forefathers for the common civilization of today” (Marco Rubio – US Secretary of State, 2026) Such blunt statements raise several questions: why is this politicization of Western culture once again resurfacing? Why is the state, which considered itself the ‘birthplace of democracy,’ now heading towards a coercive and imperial path whereby both friends and foes are being subjugated under the pretext of so-called Western or white supremacy? The answer lies in a fact: when powerful states start weakening, they initiate civilizational debates out of anxiety and fear. The very argument of saving the world through reviving Western civilization is wrong in every sense Myth of a Unified West “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do” (Clash of Civilization – Samuel Huntington) The current emphasis on a unified version of the West by the Trump administration contradicts sharply with historical evidence and traditional realities. Western civilization has never been a monolithic entity; rather, it has been socially, politically, and culturally segregated. But, in modern times, these divergences and fragmentations are being portrayed to the general public as a long-consolidated history of intellectual superiority. The ‘Great Books Tradition’ is its best manifestation, whereby a complete educational curriculum, known as the ‘Canon,’ was designed to provide a foundational text shaping the so-called Western civilization. It represents a ‘grand dialogue’ between various scholars, including Plato, Augustine, Einstein, etc., across three millennia. Through these academic developments, it has been portrayed that the West is the pinnacle of human development. This idea marginalizes significant contributions from other civilizational discourse, including ancient Chinese philosophy, mathematical innovations of ancient India, and scientific knowledge of the Islamic world. This superiority complex is grounded in conservative obsession, presenting a world order characterized by a contest between Western and other civilizations. Why only the West? The western academic or cultural discourse has been designed and disseminated in a way that all other civilizational discourses are being judged critically. This universal standardization of Western civilization is, in fact, misleading and biased. Other major civilizations, such as those in India, China, the Arab world, or Africa, have also contributed in tandem or even before the Western colloquy. For instance, modern mathematics, in particular the Pythagorean Theorem, is solely associated with Western scholars. However, it was already known in China, India, and Egypt. Similarly, Metaphysics by Aristotle was rivaled by Buddhist philosophical discourse known as “Nagarjuna’s Madhyamakakarika.” In addition, “Guanzi” and the “Discourse on Salt and Iron” were key Chinese economic texts that explained the functioning of trade and governance, even before Adam Smith’s economic model. However, the West has always painted itself as the ‘mother of reason’ or ‘nursemaid of science.’ Drawing attention to this discrimination, Edward Said, in his monumental work titled ‘Orientalism,’ clearly indicated, “The West treated non-Western societies as inferior because they needed to control them politically, culturally, and economically.” Therefore, knowledge is no longer a product of a particular civilization; instead, it has been shared throughout the world. The World Needs a Reset The current geopolitical situation is characterized by a global disorder where established powers, i.e., the US, are now anxious to protect their past position of eminence. From the very first day, the Trump 2.0 administration has been striving to convey a message to the entire international community that the so-called supreme Western civilization is under grave threat. Rhetoric such as immigrants taking over the natives and hatred towards foreigners is being used constantly to influence public perception, reviving the imperialist past of the West. The US National Security Strategy (NSS), released in November 2025, explicitly mentioned that the West, in particular Europe, is at the brink of ‘civilizational erasure.’ The US is trying to portray that the world requires only one dominant civilizational model to thrive and prosper. However, the question here arises: Why should the modern world rely on a single model? “When power evades, identity takes the front seat.” The current multipolar world provides various civilizational frameworks that can coexist with each other, further enhancing the human intellect. Kwame Anthony Appiah, in his work Cosmopolitanism, argued, “It’s better to view cultural identities as adaptable and interdependent, allowing ideas from different backgrounds to interact with each other and challenge each other’s ideas rather than being fixed to any single model that is supreme or inflexible.” Instead of accepting the fact that civilization is a shared human achievement, the US is weaponizing it to be imposed on all other discourses. The ongoing geopolitical uncertainties are a result of this civilizational dominance. What the world got at the end was another series of regional wars that could lead to a greater catastrophe. Therefore, the upcoming world order should be characterized by a plurality of civilizational frameworks where the doors of intellect are not confined to a few. The Turning Point The world is now in a phase of order transition where multiple power centers are occupying the stage. The rise of middle powers and resistance from the entire international community against civilizational subjugation have isolated the West, in particular, the US. The United States has plunged into a situation of civil disorder and violence. The country is witnessing some of the largest protests in multiple cities against the kingship of the Trump 2.0 administration. Approximately 3000 demonstrations are expected this year. Moreover, the hostilities by ICE agents and harsh immigrant policies have further exacerbated the situation. Indiscriminate killings by executive authorities are now becoming a daily routine. Attacks on synagogues and anti-Muslim incidents are increasing at an alarming rate. “The entire empire has sunk into a quagmire of extravagance from which they cannot extricate themselves” (Liu Cixin). The resurgence of the far-right wave in the West has resulted in civil disobedience and domestic instability. Here, the world needs to completely shift its focus from a West-originated civilizational framework to other alternatives. The PRC has long been identified as a peaceful rising power whose economic model benefits its domestic needs and provides substantial advantages to the international community. From military to economic, and cultural to academic, Beijing has provided the world with a suitable alternative to the Western model. This does not mean shifting from one dominant framework to the other; rather, it contends that the Chinese model is shaped in a way where every other civilizational framework is provided equal space to contribute to human advancement. Conclusion The very argument of saving the world through reviving Western civilization is wrong in every sense. This rhetoric is being used as a weapon by the US to preserve its declining power. From Plato to NATO, the so-called unified version of Western civilization is a myth designed to confine power to a few hands while subjugating others. From ancient Chinese to African civilizational frameworks, the world is comprised of a number of successful models that could coexist with each other. The current multipolar world order provides ample opportunity for the international community to take advantage — breaking the shackles of Western dominance to usher in a new era of progress and development. Taut Bataut is a researcher and writer that publishes on South Asian geopolitics

NEO: The Donroe Doctrine: After Impact: 24-03-2026: ****************

Politics The Donroe Doctrine After Impact Phil Butler, March 24, 2026 The internal transformation of power in the United States and the foreign policy decisions of the Trump administration are leading to a systemic weakening of American influence and an increase in global instability. The Donroe Doctrine After Impact Fourteen months into Donald Trump’s second term, the “revolution of loyalty” has become a graveyard for its own architects, and the consequences are no longer contained. What began as promises of peace through strength is hardening into a doctrine of abandonment, provocation, and self-inflicted isolation, leaving allies exposed, adversaries emboldened, and the global order edging toward fracture. The Sidelined Revolution The second Trump administration was sold as a “revolution of loyalty.” Fourteen months later, that bench has become a graveyard for the disruptors who built the 2024 mandate. Tulsi Gabbard at DNI and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at HHS hold offices of immense title. Still, negligible influence, sidelined as the administration advances a conflict in Iran that their own coalition once warned would be catastrophic. Allies are benched, adversaries iterate, and the American presidency drifts into a kind of performative reassurance, gestures meant less to command reality than to confirm it still exists The first public fracture came on March 17, when counterterrorism director Joseph Kent resigned in a scathing letter describing the war as “manufactured.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation moved immediately to investigate Kent for “leaks,” clarifying the governing logic of the Donroe era: loyalty is not a virtue but a requirement, and dissent, even from within, is recoded as criminal exposure. This sidelining is not incidental; it is architectural. A coalition once defined by ideological outsiders has been reconstituted as a closed hierarchy of functionaries, in which proximity to power confers visibility without agency. Figures like Gabbard and Kennedy now operate less as policymakers than as symbolic anchors, preserving the image of insurgency while its operational core is quietly redirected toward conventional interventionism. What emerges is not a betrayed revolution but a processed one, its sharpest edges absorbed and repurposed into something far more familiar. The result is a hollowed executive structure that still speaks the language of rupture while behaving with the instincts of continuity. In that gap between rhetoric and action, the “revolution of loyalty” takes its final form not as a break from the system but as its latest adaptation. A Maritime Stranglehold While Washington fixates on “annexing Canada” and starving a defiant Cuba to satisfy executive whim, the rest of the world has quietly executed a double-lock on global trade. By coordinating with the Houthis to choke the Bab-el-Mandeb, Iran has not only closed the Strait of Hormuz but has effectively padlocked the Suez Canal. For Europe, this is terminal. Qatari LNG is stranded; ships now face a 14-day detour around the Cape of Good Hope, adding millions in fuel costs to a continent already reeling from winter gas storage at a lethal 30 percent. While the United States insults its NATO allies, those allies watch their industrial base dissolve in real time. The most reckless gamble of the Donroe Doctrine is the abandonment of Japan. On March 19, during a bilateral meeting at the White House, President Trump met Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi just as Japan’s energy grid teetered on the edge of total blackout. Japan relies on the Middle East for over 90 percent of its crude; with the Strait closed, Tokyo is burning through strategic reserves at a rate that will leave the country dark by summer. If the United States breaks this alliance with transactional insults, it will lose the First Island Chain. Without bases like Yokosuka, the Pacific becomes a “No Man’s Land” where a U.S. carrier takes 20 days to reach a flashpoint from Hawaii while China sits just hours away. The danger is not simply disruption but a cascade. Once insurers begin classifying both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb as active war zones, underwriting collapses and shipping halts. Energy markets then decouple from physical supply and begin pricing pure uncertainty, a feedback loop that drives spot prices beyond what even emergency reserves can stabilize. Europe’s fragile equilibrium snaps first, but the shock does not remain regional; it transmits through derivatives exposure, sovereign debt stress, and currency volatility, pulling even insulated economies into contraction. At that point, the crisis ceases to be about Iran or maritime chokepoints. It becomes a full-spectrum systemic event in which logistics failure, financial contagion, and alliance fracture reinforce one another in real time. In that environment, a single miscalculation, whether a naval incident in the Gulf or a forced rationing decision in Tokyo, does not remain isolated but risks triggering a chain reaction far beyond the control of any one state. Pacific Abandonment As the United States cannibalizes its own future, flying mattresses from unfinished ships to patch a sidelined carrier in Crete, the “axis of the sanctioned” does not merely survive; it coheres. Trade corridors are being redrawn in real time, with Russia and India advancing routes that render the Suez Canal increasingly irrelevant. At the same time, China consolidates its position as both beneficiary and broker of selective stability. The imbalance is no longer rhetorical; it is logistical. Where the U.S. once guaranteed the flow, it now improvises scarcity and, in doing so, teaches its rivals how to build a system that no longer requires it. The Donroe Doctrine promised “Peace through Strength,” but what it has produced is something colder, an atmosphere of strategic evaporation, where presence lingers but power does not. Allies are benched, adversaries iterate, and the American presidency drifts into a kind of performative reassurance, gestures meant less to command reality than to confirm it still exists. This is the gravity at the center: not collapse as spectacle, but erosion as process, the slow realization that the architecture of control has already been outgrown by those it once contained. For those still looking for markers of continuity, the symbolism has turned almost too precise. The United States Commission of Fine Arts, now fully aligned with the administration, has approved a 24-karat gold commemorative coin for July 4, 2026. Its design, a stern-faced president leaning forward with fists pressed to a desk, reads less like a celebration than stabilization, as if the figure itself were bracing against unseen momentum. Priced as a luxury artifact and minted as a national keepsake, it risks becoming something else entirely: a relic issued in advance of recognition, a polished object marking a milestone the country may struggle to inhabit by the time it arrives. Phil Butler is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, and an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

NEO: Israel and Its Staunch Allies : Turning Friends into Bitter Enemies.19-03-2026: ******

Politics Israel and Its Staunch Allies: Turning Friends into Bitter Enemies Seth Ferris, March 19, 2026 The global crisis around Israel and Iran reveals deeper processes that are changing the balance of power in the world and calling into question previous ideas about international politics. Israel and Its Staunch Allies: Turning Friends into Bitter Enemies The Bible says the entire world will turn against Israel at the end of times. It implies that Israel is on God’s side, and anyone opposing Israel is anti-God, so when you are fighting Israel, you are fighting God. What it doesn’t say is, what does Israel do to force everyone to hate it? Unfortunately, we are finding out, in real time, and it is only too obvious, why so many are turning against the modern State of Israel; even Jews are questioning what was never questioned before. Future generations will look back and wonder why we didn’t stop Trump and Netanyahu before they started WWIII. There is something else happening in the background, something even greater at work. There are many factors to consider in both the starting and stopping of these stupid attacks, as both attacking sides are greedy and want to cling to power. They are definitely not thinking of the people. It is becoming all the more obvious that the Iranian state is not the root cause of the war, but China and India are. A concerted effort is being made to slow down and stifle those economies; however, it is not going to plan. Even longtime allies in Europe and the Caucasus are being asked to cut off their noses to spite their faces, propping up losing bets in Ukraine and the Levant for the sake of political survival Proxy Wars of Choice Just stop and reflect. For instance, the damage that other proxy wars of choice, such as the US starting a war in Ukraine back in 2014, inflicted on the European Union is already evident. The sad part is that most European Union countries still want to support the losing side, not out of a principled position but for self-interest and political survival. This can be summed up as clearly a case of cutting off one’s nose to spite your face. It is ironic, with the age of AI and easy access to historic information, that few want to look back to reflect on when Iran held its first democratic elections and elected its first democratic government, which was led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh back in the early 50s. This was not in the interests of Britain and the US, as within the span of two years they conspired to implement “Operation Ajax,” which overthrew this democratically elected government. The reason was that the Iranians had nationalized the drilling and export of Iranian oil. How dare the Iranians take control of their own resources! Targeting China, India, even the EU! Less obvious is that the collective West wants to hurt China and India by disrupting the continuity of supply of oil products and thereby put the brakes on their economic growth, which rate currently far exceeds that of the West. Nobody should be so naïve as to accept the current justifications, lame at best, for an illegal war, as neither the US nor Israel has ever been interested in the democratic freedoms of Iranians. They want Iranians to live under the dictatorship of a US-backed leadership — just as the people of Arab countries across the Middle East suffer today. It seems like nobody wants to remember history, as it is too inconvenient and will show who is the most right and who is dead wrong! Even lesser friends are being turned into foes! Even now, in small countries like Georgia, the Embassy of Israel is upset and has started a social media campaign to highlight that Georgia has to garner support for its aggressive and illegal policies against Iran and other neighbors in the Middle East, especially Lebanon. The Israeli Embassy in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, expresses concern about Georgian society. According to the embassy, friendship is not measured only by words; it is highlighted in difficult situations — who are on the side of life and who are on the side of violence and terror. They are trying to use the 2600-year historical connection between Georgian and Jewish people for political leverage and describe how it is based on respect and common values. It is these values that define the essence of true friendship: support, solidarity, and moral strength in difficult times, says the statement of the Israeli Embassy in Georgia. True friendship between peoples is measured by the ability to distinguish between those who choose the path of life, stability, and cooperation, and those who continue to cultivate terror, extremism, and violence. Such statements, and others, have been repeated on Georgian Public TV and various news sites, as this confirms the need to access Georgia as a staging area for actions from Azerbaijan and perhaps Armenia, two countries already taken under the control of Israel and the United States. It was also pointed out, in response, by Georgian politicians and commentators alike, that during the 2008 war, the Jewish state allegedly provided kill codes to the Russian government that enabled the shutting down of drones the Georgian military had purchased from Israel. So much for friendship, which the Israelis forget is a two-way street! Everything that is going on in the world, particularly the Middle East, was planned long before all the recent issues people talk about now. Everything recent is tactical; the strategic goes back much further. It is difficult to understand what is going on even if you have an understanding of where history, religion, markets, and geopolitics intersect. It comes down to the future of American and Western financial dominance and keeping the dollar as the global reserve currency. We can’t have Iran selling oil in other currencies, and the same is true for Venezuela or anyone else. When the game ends, many countries, starting with the US, will collapse from their debt and economic decline. It is anybody’s best guess as to what will happen to a lot of the rest of the world as well! I was just looking at the futures markets; they had dropped a lot by closing each Friday, now opening lower and dropping more. I think the financial implications are here. We will have to see how Trump and his team react to that. And there is the issue of possible attacks on desalination plants. Iran was in a serious drought already, and Tehran was running out of water, not sure the Gulf countries are ever out of drought. Things could empty out in a hurry without a safe and constant water supply. It is really akin to the beginning of the end of times, as I see no light at the end of the tunnel. The architects of war and destruction in Tel Aviv and Washington appear blind to the blowback. Even longtime allies in Europe and the Caucasus are being asked to cut off their noses to spite their faces, propping up losing bets in Ukraine and the Levant for the sake of political survival. Future historians will not ask why the world turned against Israel at the supposed “end of times.” They will ask why Israel — and its enablers —worked so relentlessly to make that prophecy self-fulfilling. The age of unchallenged Western dominance is ending not with a divine trumpet but with the grinding mechanics of greed, hubris, and overreach. And when the dust finally settles, it may not be God’s judgment the world remembers, but humanity’s long-overdue reckoning with how it could allow all this to happen. Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs

NEO: "A One-Sided Game " Has Failed: Trump Flounders in the Iranian Tap He Set Himself: 17-03-2026: ********

Politics “A One-Sided Game” Has Failed: Trump Flounders in the Iranian Trap He Set Himself Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid, March 17, 2026 The Middle East blitzkrieg promised by Donald Trump is turning into a protracted agony for his own administration. Sad Trump Just two weeks after the assassination of Iran’s spiritual leader and the start of the military campaign, the White House resembles a sinking ship issuing contradictory orders. Washington is vacillating between bravado about a “short incursion” and panicked signals about seeking a way out. The truth is simple and brutal for the American leader: Iran is not just resisting, but is prepared to fight for years, with the goal of expelling the US from the Middle East once and for all. Trump, blinded by his own arrogance, has made a fatal miscalculation, the price of which is America’s prestige as a great power and the lives of American soldiers. Trump is trying to find an “honorable exit,” hinting at the end of the operation, but Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz immediately declares a war with “no time limits” Information has emerged in the Western press that during a recent telephone conversation, US President Donald Trump, finding himself in a difficult position due to the escalating conflict in the Middle East, asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to act as a mediator in the settlement between Washington and Tehran. However, according to published reports, Putin expressed his willingness to help with the Iranian settlement, to which Trump unexpectedly refused, effectively rebuking his Russian counterpart. As the well-informed press writes, Trump ungratefully stated, “You could be more useful if you ended the war between Ukraine and Russia. That would be far more helpful.” This was said by a completely flustered Trump during a press conference in Florida on March 9, 2026, where he recounted to journalists the content of his conversation with Vladimir Putin. Although it is well known that it was the West, led by the United States, that incited the neo-Nazi regime of Kiev against Russia and promised to fight to the last Ukrainian, which they are still doing. Blindness Bordering on a Crime: Why Trump Didn’t Heed Tehran’s Warnings History teaches that those who do not remember the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Donald Trump, judging by the developing situation around Iran, hasn’t just forgotten history—he has demonstratively burned the textbooks. At the very beginning of the conflict, after the barbaric assassination of the spiritual leader, Rahbar, the Iranian leadership stated clearly and unequivocally: the US and Israel have once again crossed the red line. The response to this act of aggression would be a war of annihilation—a war until the last American soldier leaves the region and the statehood of Israel is erased from the map. What did Trump do? Like a seasoned casino gambler, he bet everything on Iran collapsing from a single powerful blow. His statements in the early days of the war breathed arrogance: “Four or five weeks—and it’s done,” “This won’t be difficult.” He behaved not like the commander-in-chief of a nuclear power, but like a capricious child who thinks that just stamping his foot will make the enemy disappear. But the East is a delicate matter. Iran is not Iraq in 2003, which was crushed in a few weeks. Iran is a civilization with a thousand-year history and a culture of perseverance, where the readiness for martyrdom for one’s land is part of the national code. In his shortsightedness, Trump ignored this. He relied on the power of bombs but forgot about the strength of the spirit. He did not expect that after the leader’s death, the Iranian military machine would not collapse, but would only become more fortified in its rage. The words of IRGC General Ibrahim Jabari about being ready to fight for “ten years” should have sobered any sensible politician. But in the White House, apparently, they still don’t understand the kind of trouble they’ve stumbled into. “I’ll End It When I Want To”: Weakness Disguised as Strength Donald Trump’s statements over the past week are a clinical case of political schizophrenia. On March 2nd, he claims everything is on schedule; on March 6th, he demands “unconditional surrender”; on March 9th, he says the war is “largely over”; and on March 11th, he declares there’s “practically nothing left to target in Iran,” yet Israel is preparing for strikes for at least another two weeks. This isn’t a strategy. This is the thrashing of a cornered animal. It’s an inability to lead a great power. When the US president contradicts his own Secretary of Defense (Hegseth talks about a war that is “not endless,” and Trump immediately promises to “go further”), when the White House press secretary is forced to “soften” her boss’s ultimatums, it demonstrates a complete paralysis of power to the world. The outcome will depend on when Iran decides that the US has paid a sufficient price for its arrogance Trump tries to play the role of peacemaker, hinting at a swift end, but his own military and Israeli allies immediately disavow these statements. What’s going on here? The fact is that the miscalculation regarding Iran has proven fatal. The war, which was supposed to be an easy stroll and boost his ratings, has turned into a bloodbath. Iran is inflicting painful strikes on US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Syria. American servicemen are dying. Oil prices are gyrating wildly, hitting the pockets of ordinary Americans whom Trump promised prosperity. His remark about not having “won enough yet” is the cry of a man who realizes his initial plan has failed. He no longer knows what kind of “victory” to present to voters. Destroyed Iranian infrastructure? But the enemy keeps firing. Killed Iranian generals? But they are replaced by new, even more determined ones. The People’s Wrath and a Ten-Year War: Iran Has Cornered Trump The scariest thing for Trump in this situation is not a military defeat (yet), but a strategic dead end. The Iranians told the truth from the start: they will fight to the end. General Jabari voiced not just military tactics, but the will of an entire nation: “We will continue the war until the US is expelled from the region and forced to retreat.” Iran understands that any ceasefire now would only be a respite for the US to regroup and strike again. Therefore, Tehran is not looking for easy ways out. They are ready to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, ready to sink American ships and tankers, ready to fight for years. They have turned the war into a matter of principle. And it’s precisely here that the rottenness of Trump’s approach to governance is fully exposed. He thinks in terms of cheap deals, transactions, and instant profit. But war, especially with Iran, is not a real estate deal. You can’t say, “Okay, I destroyed your military facilities, let’s call it quits,” when the enemy declares they will fight until you leave for good. Trump is trying to find an “honorable exit,” hinting at the end of the operation, but Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz immediately declares a war with “no time limits.” Who should one listen to? The American president or his ally, who is dragging the US even deeper into the quagmire? This confusion is precisely the result of the absence of a coherent strategy in the White House, the result of replacing professionalism with loyalty, the result of shortsighted self-admiration. The Price of Arrogance Donald Trump entered this war as a man confident in his exceptionalism and his right to dictate his will to the world. But history has already judged otherwise. Iran has shown that a nation’s spirit cannot be destroyed by missiles. Trump’s miscalculation lies in mistaking silent fury for weakness, and a readiness for dialogue for cowardice. Today, the world sees a leader who doesn’t know how to end the war he himself started with such fanfare. His contradictory statements are not a subtle diplomatic game, but the nervous tic of a politician who realizes that instead of an easy victory, he has dragged his country into the quagmire of a long and bloody conflict. The Iranians warned. They were not believed. And now the American president, who fancies himself a great strategist, is frantically searching for a way out of the trap that has snapped shut behind him. The outcome of this war no longer depends on when Trump “wants it to end.” The outcome will depend on when Iran decides that the US has paid a sufficient price for its arrogance. And judging by the statements from Tehran, that bill is going to be very, very long. Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, political scientist, expert on the Arab world

NEO: The Third Gulf War: America's Strategic Overreach and the Rise of a New Order: 18-03-2026: ********

Security The Third Gulf War: America’s Strategic Overreach and the Rise of a New Order Aleena Im , March 18, 2026 The US–Israel war against Iran is accelerating the decline of American global dominance, exposing strategic overreach and weakening its alliances. As the conflict reshapes energy flows and security dynamics, Russia and China are capitalising on the chaos to accelerate a shift toward a multipolar world order. The Third Gulf War: America’s Strategic Overreach and the Rise of a New Order Introduction Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” The current geopolitical situation exactly fits into this paradigm. As the world order heads towards multipolarity, the international system is witnessing a sort of anarchy, which became even more prominent when US President Donald Trump assumed his office in January 2025. The Trump 2.0 administration is pursuing a ‘conservative internationalist’ foreign policy approach that contends that the US will now opt for personal interests – even at the cost of its allies. No matter who gets thrown under the bus, the so-called American national interest would be preferred under a zero-sum approach. From Venezuela to Greenland and now Iran, the US is acting like a bull in a China shop. The ongoing Third Gulf War has the potential to decide – or at least set the foundational principles of power transition from the West to the East After illegally abducting Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela – a move that was labelled as insanity by the masses – the confidence of the Trump administration was boosted in the sense that they could repeat this event anywhere in the world, i.e., change the leadership of a country with no questions asked: that’s what they did in Iran. People were surprised at the lack of a reaction by Russia when Maduro was captured. However, Russia was likely just waiting for Trump to make his next blunder, which could potentially become self-destructive for the US. Lo and behold, the US-Israel joint military operation against Iran has set fire to the Middle East, becoming a strategic battle point that might actually cement the shifting of the world order from the West to the East. Third Gulf War On 28 February 2026, the US and Israel launched joint operations, named ‘Operation Epic Fury’ and ‘Operation Roaring Lion,’ respectively, against Iran. As a result of the ongoing war in the Middle East, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been martyred, along with top IRGC leadership. However, the war is still very much ongoing, as the Iranian regime under its “Mosaic” doctrine is inflicting heavy blows on Israel and the US military infrastructure in the Middle East. Iran has deliberately closed the Strait of Hormuz, which controls approximately 20% of the world’s energy shipments, allowing only like-minded nations and allies (including Russia and China) to transit through it. In retaliation for US aggression, Iran is conducting missile strikes on the American military bases in the Gulf states, which has altered the entire war landscape. The war in the Middle East is no longer regionally constrained; rather, the whole world is under great economic shock. The end of this war, in one way or another, would decide the future of the upcoming world order. But one thing is pretty clear: the US grip over the international arena is now loosening at a much greater pace as the war in the Middle East rages on. Russian Opportunism at its Peak “Wars do not determine who is right – only who is left” (Bertrand Russell). To pressure Russia and to end the Ukraine conflict on Trump’s terms, the Trump 2.0 administration started encircling the Russian Federation economically and politically. By imposing worldwide tariffs on countries buying Russian oil, in particular India, President Trump was trying to compel Russia to retreat. Likewise, exploiting the opportunity, President Trump concluded a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus – an area long dominated by the Russian Federation. Moreover, the US established a Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) in the region. Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad, who was closely allied with Moscow, was removed through external intervention and replaced by a puppet of the US. The abduction of Venezuelan President Maduro was also done on the pretext that Russia is probably not in a condition to militarily intervene there. But the war against Iran has reversed the entire US strategy in just a few days. Russia’s strategic approach towards the Iran war is centred around three major objectives: to support the current Iranian regime, which is an ally of Moscow – especially because of Western brutality globally; to inflict economic blows on the US; and to further compel the Ukrainians to retreat and end the war on Russia’s terms. As for the first objective, even after the killing of the former supreme leader of Iran, the administration is intact, which means Russian support for Iran is ongoing. Second, as Iran is destroying key military facilities of the US in the Gulf states using cheap drones and missiles, this war is becoming too costly for the US. Third, as the US has shifted its defence deployments to the Middle East, Ukraine has been left alone, which provides significant breathing space to Russia. Likewise, Trump’s strategy of pressuring Russia through cutting off its energy supplies to the world has turned out to be a failure. As Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz, Russian oil is now the best alternative for Asia-Pacific nations. To control the ongoing surges in oil prices, the Trump administration has given a thirty-day waiver to India for buying Russian oil — a clear retreat from its tariff policy. Last week, the price of Russian oil that is used for taxation reached 6,105 roubles per barrel, which is 82% higher than the price on February 27, the day before the United States and Israel began their military assault against Iran. Moreover, Moscow can supply its arms to Iran to fulfill Tehran’s ammunition shortage, which will further strengthen the Russian economy. Behind economic opportunities, the Middle Eastern states, in particular the Arab world, have sensed the US’s unreliability and are diversifying their partnerships, which means the degradation of US influence in the region. Moreover, Russia can be a suitable (more stable) alternative for the Gulf States. Additionally, Russia has also offered to mediate the ongoing Gulf War, which reinforces Russia’s diplomatic prominence in the region. This sense of strategic autonomy or diversification has also made serious dents in the tacit political build-ups of the US in the region, in particular TRIPP in the South Caucasus. Shifts in Global Power “It is important to ask ourselves, as citizens, whether a world power can provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski) According to Power Transition theorists, wars ultimately decide the actual pattern of power transition from one side to the other. History is witness: After every major war, new realities have emerged in the international system. Whether it is the bipolar order after WWII or the unipolar moment in the post-Cold War era, wars have reshaped the global balance of power. The ongoing Third Gulf War has the potential to decide – or at least set the foundational principles of power transition from the West to the East. The current geopolitical order is marked by the rise of middle powers, and the Middle East is no exception. Gulf monarchies are now diversifying their defence partnerships, apart from the ones they have with the US. The US war against Iran has made them realise that American bases on their territories no longer serve the function of their security and defiance, and will not serve as a deterrent for foes of the US. Resultantly, both Russia and China now seem to be the best alternatives for Gulf states. Conclusion The war against Iran has turned out to be a complete failure for the US. Iran is not like Venezuela or Greenland. It has spent decades learning to survive and thrive under intense economic pressure from the West. The Iranian regime has created a domestic hierarchical order whereby, in the case of the absence of top leadership, its Armed Forces can still act firmly and according to their plans. Although a long-term war in Iran is not directly aligned with Russian interests, it provides imminent opportunities to be exploited and to make the West realise the mistake they have made. Both Russia and China are now gaining influence in the region and have emerged as the ‘Champions of the New World Order.’ Aleena Im is an independent researcher and writer and is interested in international relations and current affairs

NEO: "It's Impossible to cut a deal with the Bazaar". How Elementary Ignorance of Iran Led to Trump's Strategic Catastrophe. 20-03-2026: *******

Security “It’s impossible to cut a deal with the Bazaar”: How Elementary Ignorance of Iran Led to Trump’s Strategic Catastrophe Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid, March 20, 2026 Suffering from a “cognitive glitch” and a dependence on politically biased experts, the U.S. President’s team attempted to apply templates that worked in Venezuela to a civilization with a 3,000-year history. Ayatollah Khamenei The result is a multi-billion dollar gamble that has turned Ramadan into a holy war. When the U.S. President’s Special Envoy for Iran, Steve Witkoff, decided to share details of a private conversation with Donald Trump with journalists, he likely didn’t realize he was creating a document for the ages. He described the sincere surprise of the Oval Office occupant: “Why, under such pressure, with the amount of naval and military power we’ve concentrated there, haven’t they come to us yet and said, ‘We declare we do not want to develop nuclear weapons, and here’s what we’re willing to do to prove it’?” This question, posed against the backdrop of a “beautiful armada” massing in the Persian Gulf and the demise of the Islamic Republic’s top leadership, will enter geopolitics textbooks as a textbook example of a superpower’s “analytical catastrophe.” Trump, thinking in the simple categories of a New York developer, genuinely believed the Iranians, as rational players on his field, would capitulate before the game even began. He failed to grasp the essential point: Tehran plays by rules written long before the U.S. appeared on the political map of the world. Trump’s Iranian gamble will go down in history as “one of America’s greatest mistakes” “Crazy but Calculated”: Why the American Establishment Only Tells Trump What He Wants to Hear The failure of Washington’s Middle East policy is not merely an intelligence mistake; it’s a systemic crisis within the expert community. The U.S. has virtually no research institutions or think tanks left capable of providing an objective picture of what’s happening in Iran while remaining independent of political bias. The few structures that could offer in-depth analysis are either marginalized or subjugated to a rigid ideological agenda. As a Bloomberg columnist noted, Trump “lacks a precise and comprehensive understanding of Iran,” a structural problem dating back to the fall of the Pahlavi regime. The President’s administration, behaving like an eastern despot punishing dissent, has created an atmosphere of fear in Washington. In such an environment, only those “think tanks” survive that are willing to supply “positive” analysis, tailoring reality to the master’s desires. An example of such bias is JINSA, a Washington propaganda outlet that explicitly called on Trump to destroy Iran, leveraging protests inside the country. These experts spoke of a “rarest strategic window” and a “finest hour” to eliminate the regime. Not a word about the cultural code, not a word about millennia of history—only a predatory reflex and pandering to the image of a “strong leader.” Trump, surrounded by sycophants, found himself trapped in an information bubble. He received reports confirming his own correctness: a little more pressure, and the “regime would fall,” as it supposedly did in Venezuela. Comparing Iran to Venezuela was a fatal error, demonstrating the fundamental ignorance of the Trump team. In Caracas, the U.S. dealt with a deep internal crisis and weak institutions. In Iran, they confronted a state possessing a “networked deterrent system” and the ability to project power from Sana’a to Beirut. Clash of Civilizations: From a Deal with the Shah to War with the Imam Trump viewed Iran as a giant bazaar where everything is for sale and everything can be bought. But as seasoned experts have long noted, “the Iranian bazaar isn’t just a place of trade. It’s also an intellectual club.” Haggling is part of the culture, but at its core lie concepts of honor, dignity, and historical memory that cannot be nullified by an ultimatum. The American administration demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Iranian identity. For the average American, Iran’s history begins in 1979 with the embassy takeover. For an Iranian, it begins with Cyrus the Great and includes the 1953 coup (Operation Ajax), when the CIA and MI6 overthrew the popular Prime Minister Mossadegh, who dared to nationalize oil. That wound has yet to heal. That’s why, in response to the Americans’ brazen question, Iranian diplomat Abbas Araghchi replied with a dignity rooted deep in the centuries: “Because we are Iranians.” But the most terrible blasphemy Trump committed out of ignorance was the strike on religious sanctums. Experts studying Shia eschatology conclude the U.S. made an unforgivable mistake by not understanding the significance of symbols. The killing of the top religious figure occurred during the holy month of Ramadan, and the day of the attack coincided with Saturday—the day dedicated to the “hidden Imam,” Mahdi. For a Shia, the death of a leader on such days is not a defeat but a sacred event. Trump, thinking he was decapitating the state, instead created a holy martyr. In the Shia tradition, founded on the tragedy of Imam Hussein in Karbala, death for the faith is a spiritual victory, imposing upon the community a sacred duty of vengeance. The conflict instantly shifted from the geopolitical plane into the realm of apocalyptic confrontation. Washington aimed to demoralize Iran but instead got a nation prepared for the religious ecstasy of self-sacrifice. Murphy’s Law for the “Beautiful Armada” Trump, dancing on stage and extolling the beauty of his aircraft carriers, behaved like a character from a 19th-century colonial novel or a mere clown on a backwater circus runway. But “gunboat diplomacy” doesn’t work in the 21st century against a country possessing modern deterrent technologies. Iran demonstrated to the world what multidimensional defense looks like. Americans prepared for a swift victory, counting on internal divisions. However, as Iran experts state, 90% of Iran’s population, despite dissatisfaction with sanctions, identifies with their state’s 3,500-year history and is proud of their national belonging. External aggression, especially during the holy month, only consolidated society around the idea of resistance. Moreover, Iran became woven into the fabric of the new geopolitical reality. Membership in BRICS and the SCO, and strategic partnerships with Russia and China—which provided Iran with satellite data and bolstered its air defense—shattered U.S. plans for a blitzkrieg. While Trump demanded a “nice-looking picture” of surrender from his subordinates, Iran reopened old American wounds by reminding them of Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, when the U.S. Navy, faced with Iran’s asymmetric response, was forced to retreat, and the American nervous system failed, leading to the shooting down of a civilian airliner. The End of Illusions Trump’s Iranian gamble will go down in history as “one of America’s greatest mistakes.” It’s not merely a military fiasco—it’s the collapse of an arrogant approach where centuries-old culture is measured by the yardstick of short-term political gain. Washington became a hostage to its own propaganda. A system with no room for independent academic research, where associations and foundations fear contradicting the “master,” and analysis is replaced by slogans, inevitably breeds catastrophe. Trump acted like a despot, demanding flattery and reports of imminent victory from his subordinates, and he got what all despots get: a revolt of reality. Special Envoy Witkoff wasn’t wrong to call his revelation a “puzzle of defiance.” For America, Iran’s behavior truly is an enigma. But the Iranians solved this puzzle long ago: freedom and honor, for a nation that has survived millennia of wars and empires, are worth more than a deal with a foreign “merchant” who understands neither their faith nor their history. Iran is not Venezuela, and Ramadan 2026 became the month the U.S. learned that lesson too late. Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, Political Scientist, Specialist on the Arab World