Friday, July 25, 2025

The Gospel of Empire:: How Myth, Zionism and the Market Conspired to Dismantle Peace. Phil Butler

 

The Gospel of Empire: How Myth, Zionism, and the Market Conspired to Dismantle Peace

Phil Butler, June 26, 2025

The modern global order is driven less by diplomacy and more by ancient myths, militarized theology, and a gospel of endless war masquerading as divine and democratic duty.

The Gospel of Empire: How Myth, Zionism, and the Market Conspired to Dismantle Peace

There is an unspoken gospel driving global policy today, and it is not found in the dusty books of theologians or the calm chambers of diplomacy. It is a gospel cloaked in ancient scripture and printed in military-industrial budgets. It is a gospel of profit, divine mandate, and permanent conflict.

As Israeli bombs fall once more on Gaza and missiles murder Iranian scientists and poets — backed by ironclad American rhetoric and weapons — the world is witnessing more than a regional war. We are witnessing a revelation: the modern geopolitical order draws not just from resources and realpolitik but from myths older than any state and more potent than any weapon. In Ukraine, for instance, merciless fascism has taken hold of many and beneath the spires of some of the world’s most ancient tabernacles. But the Ukraine-Russia affair threatens to obliterate Orthodox Christianity. And who would want to do that?

The God we all know within us does not sanctify the murder of unarmed women and children

The Temple Was Never Destroyed — It Was Privatized

Zionism, particularly in its current ethnonationalist form, does not stand alone. It is the theological twin of American exceptionalism (See Obama), born from the same mother: the belief that one people — whether chosen by Yahweh or baptized in the Constitution — are destined to rule, redeem, or “police” the Earth.

Today’s Israel no longer wears the rags of the refugee. It is a militarized state supported by billions in U.S. aid, armed with nuclear weapons, and entrenched in an ideology that fuses divine inheritance with demographic engineering. The occupation is not a tragedy — it is doctrine.

And that doctrine has become global. Whether by necessity or out of some warped divine business proposition, The Israelis have been the nexus for the carnage in Eastern Europe, and particularly the Middle East. Either wittingly by the London bankster, or unwittingly by the young Israeli settler in Palestine, a tiny nation is managing to hold sway over 99.999 percent of the rest of the world. Israel is the antithesis of a multipolar world and, in the end, the enemy of equality, in my opinion.

When the Pentagon Became the New Mount Sinai

One need not look far to see how ancient paradigms of chosen-ness now inform 21st-century imperialism. When George W. Bush called the War on Terror a “crusade,” it was not a gaffe. It was prophecy fulfilled. From Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya to Syria, American interventions have often carried the subtle language of salvation — liberating the oppressed, spreading freedom, and bringing light to dark places.

But the bombs always fall on the brown and the poor. And the oil always flows uphill. We all know this. It’s right before our eyes. But will still cling to what’s comfortable. We do not want to tear down our belief systems to be better people or citizens of the world. That would be hard.

Behind the scenes, the real God is the market. BlackRock, Lockheed, Raytheon, and Boeing do not preach, but they tithe handsomely. What began as theology has become economy. War is no longer the failure of diplomacy — it is a quarterly strategy. And the strategists who’ve killed hundreds of millions are now afraid. It seems like WW3 and a new Dark Age are all that can save their strategies.

Gatekeepers of a Manufactured Apocalypse

There was a time when prophets warned against such a thing, when Jesus overturned the tables in the Temple. When Muhammad condemned tribal greed. When the Gnostics whispered that the God of this world — the Demiurge — was a false creator, a jealous pretender, and there are hundreds of other examples in almost every religion on Earth.

Today, those voices are censored or criminalized. Julian Assange is in prison. Peace activists are called traitors. Palestinians are labelled terrorists for burying their children. The world’s conscience is throttled by algorithms and threatened by surveillance. And all the while, the war machine marches on — sanctified by scripture, funded by taxes, protected by silence, and fuelled by fear and ignorance.

A Line in the Sand, Written in Blood and Belief

It is not antisemitic to question Zionism, any more than it is anti-Christian to question televangelists who build mansions on the backs of the poor. Israel, like America, has become a mirror — reflecting what we worship. If we look into that mirror and see only righteousness, we are blind. If we see blood, checkpoints, censorship, and genocide — we must speak.

Not because we hate, but because we remember what justice means.

Not because we are prophets, but because silence now is complicity. We must be part of the solution if our world is to be preserved. And for President Trump, blowing up more innocent people or creating Chernobyl in Iran is not a solution. When will the New York Times talk about what happens when a nuclear power plant or enrichment facility is blown to pieces? Shall we irradiate Iranians without B-2 Bombers launching 20 megatons of nuclear warheads? Think, people, for God’s sake, think.

Closing Thought:

The ancient myths are not dead. They have been hijacked. The burning bush speaks no longer from Sinai — it flickers on screens, interrupted by drone footage and talking heads from New York to London and Brussels to Berlin.

And somewhere, buried beneath rubble and rhetoric, lies the real covenant: that we are all human, and none of us are chosen for the right to kill. The God we all know within us does not sanctify the murder of unarmed women and children. The innocents are the true “chosen” people, no matter what Temple overshadows their daily lives.

It’s time we all sacrificed some deep thought over this. Otherwise, we are doomed.

 

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books

More on this topic
Industrial Chains as a Political Leash: What the PIPIR Program Conceals
BRICS Summit-2025 and Trump’s Threats: BRICS – The Alliance That Radiates Optimism and Threatens Washington’s Doom  
Why Lee Jae-myung Did Not Attend the NATO Summit
Allegiance Summit between Washington and its African vassals
From Ally to Afterthought: The Shifting US-Pakistan Relationship

Thursday, July 24, 2025

The BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro symbolizes a geographical shift away from the West

 

The BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro symbolizes a geopolitical shift away from the West

Mohamed Lamine KABA, July 07, 2025

In the heart of Rio de Janeiro, the 17th BRICS summit propels the Global South to the forefront of the international stage and challenges Western supremacy in an era marked by hybrid conflicts and a major geopolitical reconfiguration.

The BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro symbolizes a geopolitical shift away from the West

These hybrid (and proxy) conflicts are redrawing the landscape of global powers, exacerbating the rivalry between China and the United States, and relegating the West to a peripheral role. This context is crystallizing at the BRICS summit in Rio, which celebrates the emergence of the Global South under the evocative theme: “Strengthening cooperation among the countries of the South for more inclusive and sustainable governance”. In Ukraine, the conflict pits Russia (supported by the BRICS Alliance member countries and the entire Global South, including South Africa, China, Iran, and North Korea) against a fragmented West in a war where drones and information strategies are predominant.

In the Middle East, the US-Israeli alliance is faltering in the face of Iranian resistance, while proxy wars persist in Yemen and Lebanon. In Africa, the Sahel, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo are the scene of violence exacerbated by geopolitical rivalries. In Asia, the South China Sea, the Indo-Pacific, and Myanmar are all zones of hybrid tensions. In Latin America, organized and internalized crime in Mexico and Colombia is fueling instability. The BRICS summit, representing an alliance of nearly half the world’s population, is advocating dedollarization and marginalizing NATO, strengthening the autonomy of the Global South in the face of these crises.

The unipolar system of international relations, which served the interests of the golden billion, is disappearing. It is being replaced by a more just, multipolar world

Putin’s iconic speech and the summit’s final declaration

The highlights of the concluding statement from Rio, along with the main points of the Russian President’s address delivered via videoconference during the plenary session, are as follows: BRICS leaders unanimously condemned the terrorist attacks targeting bridge and railway infrastructure in the Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh regions. They expressed hope for a settlement of the Ukrainian conflict. They also condemned the Israeli and American offensives against Iran and its nuclear facilities, while expressing concern about the escalation of tensions towards a nuclear conflict. A call was made for the continuation of armistice talks in Gaza, and the view that Gaza and the West Bank should form a unified state was shared. They advocated for Syrian territorial integrity, welcoming the lifting of sanctions, and called for the abolition of unilateral sanctions and reform of the WTO. Opposition to the proliferation of a space arms race was affirmed, proposing the adoption of an ad hoc document. They defended the creation of a secure and stable digital space, and reiterated their commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms.

Although Vladimir Putin did not attend the summit in person, he made his presence felt at the key plenary session of the 17th BRICS Summit via videoconference. His signature speech, which echoed the content of the Alliance’s previous summit in Kazan in 2024, addressed the complexity of the current geopolitical situation and the changing global order, compared the BRICS economies to those of the G7, highlighted the close cooperation within the bloc, and shared notable achievements and new missions for the Alliance.

The President first highlighted the deepening of collaboration between the BRICS member countries in key sectors such as politics, security, economy, finance, and cultural and humanitarian exchanges. In his speech, Putin stated: “We all see that fundamental changes are taking place in the world. The unipolar system of international relations, which served the interests of the golden billion, is disappearing. It is being replaced by a more just, multipolar world. The process of transforming the global economic order continues to accelerate”, he said. He added that everything points to the conclusion that the liberal globalization model is running out of steam and that the epicenter of economic activity is shifting to emerging markets. This is generating a significant wave of growth, particularly within the BRICS countries. To fully capitalize on these emerging opportunities, it is essential to intensify intra-association cooperation, the president concluded.

The rise of the BRICS and the marginalization of the collective West

Under the Brazilian presidency, the BRICS summit of July 6-7, 2025, in Rio de Janeiro symbolizes the irrefutable rise of the Global South and the loss of influence of the West. The BRICS, expanded to eleven nations and nine partners, represent nearly half of the world’s population, contributing approximately 40% of global GDP (G7 less than 29%) and more than 50% of global economic growth, surpassing the G7 in purchasing power parity. Their agenda, focused on global governance reform and economic integration through initiatives such as the New Development Bank and the cross-border payment system, aims to get rid of the monetary Nazism of the US dollar, unanimously perceived as a tool of Western domination. It is in this logic that Brazilian President Lula called for an upgrade, declaring: “BRICS countries hold 84% of the world’s rare earths, 65% of manganese, and 63% of graphite”. Despite the absence of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, the alliance’s expansion momentum remains, with many countries applying for membership. This summit comes at a time when the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum has already eclipsed the G7, signaling a shift in the geopolitical center of gravity to the South.

In short, meeting yesterday and today at the summit in Rio, the BRICS are confirming the irresistible rise of the Global South and relegating the West to a defensive posture in a multipolar world order redefined by hybrid conflicts.

 

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in Geopolitics of Governance and Regional Integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

More on this topic
Moscow, Baku, and the Armenian Factor: A Region on the Edge of a HIGH Cliff!
His Royal Highness Mwanta Ishima: “Russia and Africa are moving in the same direction hand in hand”
BRICS Summit-2025 and Trump’s Threats: BRICS – The Alliance That Radiates Optimism and Threatens Washington’s Doom  
The Decline of Western Europe’s Influence and Prestige 
Rio de Janeiro Summit: Strengthening Multilateralism in the Face of U.S. Pressure

Saturday, July 5, 2025

Does the AUKUS have a future? NB: AUKUS is US diabolical plot to stir conflicts and to destroy China and should be dibanded or destroyed.

 

Does the AUKUS have a future?

Salman Rafi Sheikh, July 03, 2025

The Trump administration’s review of the AUKUS pact exposes deep uncertainties in U.S. commitment and capabilities, offering Australia a strategic opportunity to reconsider its role in the trilateral alliance.

Does the AUKUS have a future?

Conceived during the Biden era to counter China in the Indo-Pacific region, the trilateral treaty involving Australia, the UK, and the US appears to have been hit by the Trump administration’s distaste for multilateral defence pacts. Underneath, however, also lie serious problems affecting American ability to live up to the pact’s demands, presenting Australia a rare opportunity to walk away from the pact.

The AUKUS in Disarray

The purpose of the AUKUS is not simply to enhance Australia’s capability, but also to establish it as a proactive player in the Indo-Pacific region

When the Trump administration launched early in June a “review” of the multibillion-dollar AUKUS pact, it sent a shockwave across the Pacific, causing Canberra to tremble. The review announcement, according to the US Department of Defence, is meant to ensure that the pact is properly aligned with the President’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) agenda. In effect, part of it means asking both Australia and the UK to raise their shares of the cost of the programme, which was originally supposed to supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia before the allies make a new fleet by sharing cutting-edge research and technology. Both the UK and Australia have thus far not confirmed their readiness to meet America’s demands. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told his Australian counterpart in early June that the country should increase defence spending to 3.5 percent of its gross domestic product, echoing demands that the Trump administration has been making of allies in Europe. But Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia said this week that “I think that Australia should decide what we spend on Australia’s defence. Simple as that”. There is, thus, a very clear disagreement affecting the pact.

In reality, this dissonance is not difficult to understand, given that the pact was signed by leaders in all three countries no longer in power. This is particularly the case in the US, where the Trump administration has a credible history of withdrawing from agreed pacts. The first Trump administration, for instance, withdrew from the Iran-nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration in 2015–a decision that directly paved the way for the Iran-Israel war and the US recent bombing of Iranian nuclear infrastructure. In addition, President Trump also withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) immediately after assuming office in 2016. Will the AUKUS be put into the dustbin of history similarly?

Many in the US share this fear. A letter addressed to defence secretary Pete Hegseth, signed by five Republican and Democrat lawmakers, urged the Pentagon to back the Pact. Their fears are only compounded by the fact that the review is headed by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of the AUKUS. In a speech last year, he publicly questioned why the US would give away “this crown jewel asset when we most need it.” In Australia, however, the review means not only a potential end of the pact itself but also an assessment about the extent to which Canberra can rely on Washington to build its defences. If Trump scraps the AUKUS, or even if he significantly alters its provisions, Washington’s standing in the Indo-Pacific region will be majorly diminished.

Facing Practical Problems

For the US, however, what matters more than its standing in the Indo-Pacific region is its capacity to project power in an uncompromising manner. At the heart of the review—which once again is aimed at making the pact properly align with Trump’s America First agenda—are practical problems facing America’s ship building industry. Can America build enough (Virginia-class) submarines for its own use by 2030, i.e., when it is supposed to transfer (some of its) its existing submarines to Australia?

For the pact to work—which is supposed to transfer 18 submarines to Australia by 2040–the US needs to be able to produce at least two submarines every year until 2028 and 2.33 per year thereafter. However, reports show that the US shipbuilding industry is in serious disarray, facing workforce shortages and budget constraints, making it problematic to meet sales to Australia and address a production backlog. These challenges have limited production to about 1.2 submarines per year since 2022. Because the US is unable to meet the pact’s demands and because meeting these demands could put Washington’s own strategic needs in jeopardy, the Trump administration might find the pact violating its America First agenda. In that case, the AUKUS might hit the bottom of the Pacific sooner than expected.

Is this bad news for Australia?

If the US withdraws from the AUKUS, does it necessarily mean bad news for Australia? While AUKUS might give Australia access to (used) submarines, the downside of this pact is that it also massively increases Canberra’s dependence on the Anglo-American axis. On the contrary, if the US withdraws from the pact, it gives Canberra strategic flexibility to manage its ties with the US and the EU and China in ways that best serve its national interests. In fact, the second scenario works best for Australia in all possible ways.

The purpose of the AUKUS is not simply to enhance Australia’s capability, but also to establish it as a proactive player in the Indo-Pacific region. However, there is little denying that China and Australia don’t have any direct disputes between themselves, making it highly unlikely that China will ever want to attack Australian territory. On the other hand, Australia can do well to manage its ties with China—which is also its largest trading partner—by further deepening its trade ties with Beijing.

The Trump administration’s decision to review—and possibly scrap or downgrade—the AUKUS could be a blessing in disguise for Canberra. A realistic counter review by Canberra should allow it to pursue alternative approaches.

 

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

More on this topic
NATO Summit 2025: Europe’s Capitulation to American Imperialism
Washington’s unprecedented political war on Europe
The Gospel of Empire: How Myth, Zionism, and the Market Conspired to Dismantle Peace
Trump-Asim Summit Sparks Fears of Renewed U.S. Demands on Pakistan
From Grassroots to Iron Fist: How Trump’s Populism in America Reversed Its Course

USA robs Congo and other African countries of their mineral wealth by deception and obscure conflicts.

 

Trump Steals Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC) Minerals and Exposes US Minions

Simon Chege Ndiritu, July 04, 2025

On 27th of June 2025, DRC and Rwanda signed a peace agreement in Washington, on mainly hidden terms.

According to Donald Trump, the said agreement gave the US immense rights to DRC’s minerals, which confirms that the US has been driving this decades-long war using Rwanda. Washington gives Rwanda a blank cheque to ravage the region using the 1994 genocide as a justification, a trend also noted in US-Israel relations.

Trump and Washington’s Minions

Surprising, Rwanda was one party signing the said peace agreement, despite repeatedly claiming that it was not involved in the war. Paradoxically, its claims that Tutsi people in Congo have been marginalized and needed protection from Rwanda, which also funds the M-23 rebel group, views that are now discredited. For instance, if both M-23 and Rwanda will stop fighting after the US gets rights for minerals in the DRC, as the peace agreements states, it means Tutsis never needed protection in the first place. Tutsis probably never had significant security or economic grievances, and have been instrumentalized by their backers to secure resources for the US.

Washington’s access to Congo’s rare earth through its wars has not necessarily made it more competitive in developing computers, smart devices, and the internet over those that obtained these resources through legal means

Nonetheless, Donald Trump boasted in his bombastic style how people in his administration, were helping him broker the aforementioned ceasefire in a region, and described how people in Eastern DRC had been hacking each other with Machete for decades. This statement revealed his complete lack of understanding of how war is waged in this region. He admitted that he did not know much about the region, which is not surprising for a figurehead of the US empire. In reality, Washington has been driving the war in Eastern DRC for decades, including through Belgium, Rwanda, and Uganda. Noteworthy, the nuclear bomb the US used to decimate Hiroshima in 1945 was made using uranium from Congo, which was obtained without concern for ‘mineral rights’ making it curious why Trump wants them now.

Trump Does Not Know Much About DRC, but the Empire Does

The US empire has been interfering in the Congo since the 1950s, including by engineering chaos and divisions that led to a coup against the country’s democratic Leader Patrice Lumumba in 1960. Washington’s Office of The Historian would later craft a narrative justifying the coup by blaming it on the fear of a supposed communist takeover, which in a real sense is a psychopathic explanation designed to absolve The US of responsibility for blood thirst, and neocolonialism. It is palatable for Washington’s elites to hide schemes for stealing Congo’s minerals behind imaginary communist threats. In reality, the possibility that Lumumba, would control his country’s immense mineral resources for the benefit of his population made Belgians and Europeans to sponsor separatism in the eastern Katanga region and the US to engineer a coup and bring a dictator to power. Notably, DRC’s eastern region remains a playground for countries with imperial ambitions, including Uganda, and Rwanda, which support the M-23 rebel group. The Trump administration is pretending to bring these countries to the negotiating table, while his real interest is securing minerals, a reality that reveals how his countries have been driving them. Otherwise, how transferring the region’s mineral rights to US corporations is supposed to erase the supposed grievances of Tutsi tribe or M-23 rebel group is completely unclear. Therefore, this conflict occurring in a poor region that does not manufacture weapons, but still uses advanced weaponry, points to Western interference.

Washington has historically managed to maintain poverty and instability in Congo after deposing Patrice Lumumba by propping up, Mobutu Sese Seko, and endless wars perpetrated by rebels supported by Uganda and Rwanda. Mobottu was a dictator that caused numerous deaths through executing dissidents, causing regional conflicts, and economic collapse for 32 years, ending in 1997. The US frames this unacceptable loss to Africans as a justifiable cost for its unsolicited fight against communism, which shows the West’s entitlement to others’ lives and resources. Over the long period of crises in Congo, Washington did not mention that minerals were being stolen and taken to the West.

The level of destabilization caused by the US in Congo has enabled Uganda and Rwanda, to repeatedly invade DRC, with their leaders admitting in some instances that such adventures brought financial gain. From as early as 2009, the Global Policy Forum stated that the Rwandese government was conducting military operations in Congo for over a decade, the cost of which was being paid through plundered minerals. This war was being conducted through various Tutsi militias, a trend that has continued to date using the justification of trying to protect Congolese Tutsis in Southern and Nothern Kivu provinces, claims that make no sense. As noted earlier; had Tutsis faced a real threat from DRC authorities, they would not stop fighting simply because the US will gain mineral rights in their region. Unfortunately, some African leaders do not perceive that they are being manipulated to plunder DRC for foreign interests. Neither Rwanda nor Uganda have industries that can make use of rare-earth minerals being plundered, meaning they have only been facilitating the theft and transfer of these to the West. It would make more sense if these countries concentrated on trade by purchasing these raw materials and establishing processing and manufacturing firms to generate long-term wealth for the region. However, their preference for militarism and plunder condemns the region to never-ending war that has resulted in the deaths of millions.

Washington’s Theft Does Not Equal Competitiveness

Trump’s attempts to secure through agreements what his empire has traditionally secured through continuous destabilization may signal the waning of his empire’s confidence in chaos. One way of interpreting Trump’s actions is by borrowing from past experiences where colonial powers bound newly independent countries with agreements when their military force waned. However, this possibility is undesirable for Africans, since neocolonial control continues through these agreements. Also, Trump’s action can be interpreted as bragging about Washington’s power to its competitors to show others that it still retains the power to force countries to pass over their strategic resources to the US. However, the overall effect of this swindling is dubious since Washington will not gain anything new, but what it has been stealing in the past. Noteworthy, these resources have not necessarily made Washington any competitive over its appointed adversaries.

For instance, while the US developed its first nuclear weapons through stolen resources, other countries were able to secure these resources through other means. In addition, Washington’s access to Congo’s rare earth through its wars has not necessarily made it more competitive in developing computers, smart devices, and the internet over those that obtained these resources through legal means. For instance, China has been able to develop cheaper and more efficient alternatives to American computers, internet network systems, and electric vehicles using resources obtained legally, defeating Washington’s oligarchy driven by state-backed plunder.

Therefore, Trump’s latest efforts to brag about swindling DRC of its strategic resources through minions will historically amount to a confession of burglary in the medium term rather than securing appreciable advantage.

 

Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa

More on this topic
John Dramani Mahama calls for condemnation of colonial injustices
Iran vs Israel: An African Perspective
Niger accuses EU and USA of attempting to destabilize Sahel region
Media-Kenyans’ Divide over Michael Langley and Usefulness of The US Africa Command (AFRICOM)
Climate change as a factor of instability in the Sahara-Sahelian zone

USA and Zionist Israel use of hybrid and proxy conflicts to contain China and undermine BRICS and other countries of the South.

 

From the spirit of containing the East to the outbreak of proxy conflicts, Trump is sitting on a live grenade

Mohamed Lamine KABA, July 04, 2025

In the United States, whether Democrat or Republican in power, the driving force of Washington’s foreign policy remains unchanged: containing the Eastern powers and controlling Eurasia.
Trump Putin

In this perspective, Russian President Vladimir Putin states a truth that no one dares to say: “The real power in the United States does not rest in the hands of presidents, but in those of men in dark suits who work in the shadows and dictate to them the course of action. This is why each leader always ends up adopting the same policies, while presenting them differently”. Hence, the emergence of Trumpism, in rebellion against the institutional establishment. This article, written in sociometric language, analyzes in a diachronic and synchronic manner the dynamics in the Near and Middle East, where the revival of the Arab Spring, associated with the subversive maneuvers of the deep state, represents a thorn in Trump’s side.

Containment strategies and hybrid wars

The Russo-Chinese alliance, reinforced by bilateral and multilateral initiatives, challenges US hegemony, while pressure from the G7 for de-escalation places Trump in a delicate position

Donald Trump’s foreign policy, a synthesis of the Truman Doctrine of Containment and Brzezinski‘s geostrategic vision, uses hybrid conflicts to counter Eastern powers. In Ukraine, US military support for a controversial ultranationalist regime aims to weaken Russia in a conflict of attrition. Meanwhile, the confrontation between Israel and Iran, initiated by Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and followed by reprisals against Tel Aviv, is part of a strategy to contain Iran through a strategic partnership with the United States. This conflict, marked by cyberattacks and exchanges of drones and missiles, is part of a logic of hybrid warfare. At the same time, the Washington administration is actively promoting a program of talks aimed at prohibiting Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while its rival, Israel, possesses and flaunts this arsenal as a token of its supposed coercive military preeminence within the regional sphere. In the Indo-Pacific, US sanctions against Chinese semiconductors and military maneuvers around Taiwan are exacerbating Sino-American rivalry, with the risk of escalation in a context interconnected with regional conflicts. India and Pakistan are tearing each other apart, and the forgotten wars of Africa in Latin America, whose fuel is being poured on the embers by the disbanded West, are wreaking havoc.

Internal tensions and strategic fragility

Trumpism, oscillating between isolationism and interventionism, is weakened by internal contradictions and heightened polarization. The fight against the “deep state“, an antagonistic bureaucratic entity, coincides with pro-Palestinian protests and challenges to US migration policy under the new Trump administration. The Russo-Chinese alliance, reinforced by bilateral and multilateral initiatives, challenges US hegemony, while pressure from the G7 for de-escalation places Trump in a delicate position. The 2025 summit of this group of seven major Western economic powers (which takes place from June 15 to 17 in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada) is marked by international tensions, notably the conflict between Israel and Iran, which led the US president to leave the meeting prematurely. This tense geopolitics, where every decision can trigger a global chain reaction, highlights the limits of Trumpism in a context of multipolarity.

The parallel with the attack on Russian aeronautical infrastructure by NATO, disguised as Ukraine, aimed at blaming Putin for a nuclear conflict likely to plunge the world into World War 3.0, did not resonate with the Russian president, who is experienced and resistant to such provocations.

It can be said that between containment strategies and internal divisions, Trump finds himself on the threshold of a potential systemic crisis in the face of the escalation of the Israel-Iran conflict and the intensification of global rivalries.

 

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in Geopolitics of Governance and Regional Integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

More on this topic
Donald Trump’s mistake
The collapse of the Western rear front and its geopolitical implications
Behind the Scenes of “Triumph”: Why the West Doubts the Success of the Strikes on Iran 
MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN — Made in Israel?
The Illusion of Ceasefire: A Shift in the Balance of Power in West Asia