Glenn Diesen | November 3, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi outlines how both Israel and Iran are preparing for the next war, and how the “America First” movement keeps distancing the US from Israel.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/ X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen
Support the research: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/Diesen79 Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09FPQ4MDL
Press TV – October 31, 2025
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi has issued a warning in response to Washington’s announcement to resume nuclear weapons testing, calling it a regressive and irresponsible move.
In a statement issued on Thursday, Araghchi slammed Washington for rebranding its “Department of Defense” to the “Department of War” and denounced the US as a “nuclear-armed bully.”
“The same bully has been demonizing Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and threatening further strikes on our safeguarded nuclear facilities, all in blatant violation of international law,” the Iranian foreign minister said.
He condemned the US for its longstanding criticism of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program while simultaneously resuming its own atomic weapons tests, actions he claims violate international law.
“Make no mistake: The US is the World’s Most Dangerous Proliferation Risk,” Araghchi stated, arguing that the resumption of nuclear tests poses a serious threat to international peace and security.
He further urged the global community to unite in holding the US accountable for normalizing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, calling the announcement of renewed testing a regressive and irresponsible move.
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday boasted that Washington’s nuclear arsenal is the largest in the world, and attributed this status to updates and renovations made during his administration.
Trump acknowledged the destructive power of nuclear weapons and expressed reluctance about the need for testing, stating, “I HATED to do it, but had no choice!”
He elaborated that due to the nuclear developments in other countries, he had directed the newly named so-called Department of War to initiate nuclear tests, asserting that this process would begin immediately.
In June, Trump again made the debunked claims of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
In response, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, said that there is no evidence Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Grossi acknowledged what Iran has repeatedly stated and the UN nuclear agency has also confirmed in its reports.
Press TV – October 29, 2025
An Iranian Oil Ministry official says that the country requires up to $180 billion in investment to increase its oil production by at least 1 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2028, as outlined in its national development plan.
Nasrollah Zarei, who serves as CEO of Petroleum Engineering and Development Company, said on Wednesday that Iran’s Seventh National Development Plan targets an output of 4.8 million bpd within three years.
However, Zarei said that the target may be out of reach due to financial constraints caused by foreign sanctions.
He said that even a more modest target of 4.5 million bpd would require $170 to $180 billion in investment, of which the government can only allocate $10 billion. He called for an immediate revision of funding schemes for oil projects in Iran, saying the country’s sovereign wealth fund could play a larger role in financing such projects.
Despite stringent US sanctions that restrict oil sales and reinvestment, Iran has maintained its production at approximately 3.5 million bpd in recent years. Nearly 2 million bpd are exported, with the remainder used for domestic fuel and petrochemical production.
While Iran has faced challenges in meeting its oil output targets, it has achieved significant breakthroughs in the production of natural gas. The country is now the world’s third-largest gas producer, with a daily output of nearly 1 billion cubic meters, which experts believe is equivalent to approximately 6.3 million barrels of oil.
This solidifies Iran’s position as a leading hydrocarbon supplier, whose petroleum industry has a key role to play in global energy markets.
Chairman of Iran’s Geological Society, Mansour Ghorbani, said on Wednesday that the country holds some 36 trillion cubic meters of gas, representing 16% of global reserves, adding that the figure could rise to 50 trillion cubic meters with new discoveries.
Ghorbani also said that Iran’s oil reserves are estimated at 157 billion barrels, ranking among the world’s largest.
By Robert Inlakesh | Al-Mayadeen | October 28, 2025
In order to understand the Israeli-US agenda underlying the so-called “peace plan” set forth by US President Donald Trump, it is important to examine the objectives of the Zionist regime and then assess how these aims might be realized. Such an analysis helps reveal what the future may hold and whether the fragile ceasefire is likely to endure.
On October 19, the Gaza ceasefire appeared to have collapsed after the Zionist regime launched over 100 airstrikes, dropping at least 153 tonnes of explosives across the besieged coastal enclave, and killing around 44 civilians. Even Israeli media outlets reported that the ceasefire had broken down and that the war had re-started, before the situation calmed down by the next day.
Initially, the Israeli establishment claimed that two of its soldiers had been killed by Palestinian fighters in an ambush involving RPGs and automatic weapons, asserting that its subsequent attacks were merely a response to this incident—one that Hamas categorically denied any involvement in.
Yet, it wasn’t long until American, Palestinian and even Israeli reporters began to reveal the truth. In reality, while Israeli soldiers, alongside settlers contracted for demolition work, were violating the ceasefire by destroying Palestinian infrastructure, they accidentally drove over an unexploded ordnance. The consistency of reports from multiple sources lent credibility to this account, yet the Zionist military quickly imposed a publication ban on the incident, before later partially admitting to what had truly occurred.
This meant that the Israelis had, in essence, killed their own soldiers by violating the ceasefire and sending their forces to destroy infrastructure within what was effectively an active minefield, then blaming the Palestinians as a pretext to kill more civilians. Up until that point, the Israelis had already committed at least 80 ceasefire violations and killed more than 100 innocent people.
From day one of the ceasefire, the Israelis had also adopted a strategy of outsourcing the Gaza front’s combat operations to three ISIS-linked proxy militias – each stationed in different areas behind the Israeli imposed ‘Yellow Line’ – instead of engaging Hamas directly. The Zionist regime began pursuing a policy of using these proxy forces to carry out assassinations and ambushes against prominent figures and members of Gaza’s security apparatus.
The Israeli strategy, backed by the United States – according to anonymous sources who spoke to Axios – is to begin using reconstruction funds, to build structures behind the Yellow Line, which represents around 54-58% of Gaza’s territory where the occupation refuses to withdraw and works alongside its proxies to control the enclave. At the same time, the Israelis sought to strangle the civilian population living in areas under the Hamas-led civil authority, while offering them the alternative of living under the joint Israeli-collaborator occupation.
This strategy has already begun to crumble, as many of the families which the Zionist Entity sought to co-opt have sided with the resistance and rejected the collaborators in the midst. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Resistance continues to pursue these collaborator death squads and prosecutes them for their various crimes, including acts like murder and aid theft.
Like other similar strategies proposed by the Israeli regime and greenlit by their subservient American backers, this one is likely to fail under pressure and does not make logical sense given the realities on the ground and the fact that the Zionist proxies have no popular support.
So, then, what do the US-Israeli alliance have in store? It is quite simple, they are seeking to achieve some of their goals under the guise of a ceasefire, which they only partially respect by allowing in limited aid supplies and killing less people than they did prior to the so-called “peace deal”.
Similarly, in Southern Lebanon, the Israelis hatched a scheme after the ceasefire was imposed to seize control of more territory than they managed to capture during the war, all while committing daily ceasefire violations. carefully calibrated to stop short of triggering a return to an all-out war.
If they fail to achieve their aims through limited military measures and aggressive maneuvers dressed up as diplomacy, they will resort to full-scale force, because “peace” is not an option.
In order to understand this line of thinking, you first must conclude that the Israelis have pursued their policies up until this point as a means of collapsing the regional resistance against them, eliminating each and every threat posed to their rule.
To the Zionist regime, there is a perceived imperative to produce an “answer to the Gaza question”, a formulation that, in their view, amounts to the elimination of the people of Gaza: an ethnic cleansing campaign and genocide accompanied by the destruction of the entire territory’s infrastructure. This is not only the objective of the Israeli leadership, but a project implicating Israeli society as a whole, a national project of elimination.
October 7, 2023, represented a major blow to the Zionist project, one that collapsed the illusion of its military superiority and shook its ideology to the core. So, it has since pursued a project to teach its adversaries a lesson and to destroy the ability of regional actors to resist them. Gaza is a statement, rise up against us, and we will pulverize you.
To a certain extent, this strategy has so far succeeded to deter any Arab population from rising up. Immediately after October 7, the Jordanians and Egyptians, for example, had started to join mass demonstrations, attempted to breach the border, and clashed with regime forces. Yet the daily scenes of devastation in Gaza, along with the propaganda pushed by the Arab Regimes, crushed their pride, determination, and willingness to continue resisting, at least for now.
The regional resistance, however, remained undeterred, which is why the US-Israeli alliance now seeks to destroy it, or at least to weaken it so severely that it no longer poses a significant threat.
If the Israelis experience another October 7-style military defeat that includes the penetration of its defensive lines, this will represent a decisive, even mortal, blow to the project, and the Zionist regime is well aware of that.
What occurred on October 7 irrevocably transformed the regime and set in motion a series of irreversible changes. Senior Zionist leaders now view current events in stark binary terms: either the re-birth of “Israel” or its gradual demise. If the former is achieved, the regime would secure de-facto control over the region and bury its security issues; if it fails to eliminate Gaza, to break the Lebanese resistance, and to sufficiently weaken Iran, it will be one step away from a crushing defeat.
In the Zionist regime’s thinking, now is a historic opportunity to exterminate all those who resist it, eliminate Gaza entirely, and impose uncontested dominance over the region. Although it has so far failed to achieve these goals, it perceives any inability to secure a “total defeat” as an existential threat to its own survival. Therefore, if “Israel” does not accomplish during the ceasefire what it set out to do, it is likely to pursue those objectives through renewed military action, with Lebanon and Iran expected to become the principal fronts in the future.
Press TV – October 27, 2025
China will act to respond to the sanctions imposed against Iran if they harm its interests, the country’s ambassador to Iran has said.
Cong Peiwu said on Monday during a press conference in Tehran that China will not hesitate to act if its economic interests are affected by restrictions imposed on trade with Iran.
Cong made the remarks in response to questions about China’s way of dealing with recent United Nations sanctions on Iran, which were re-imposed in late September after European parties to a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers accused Tehran of failing to observe its obligations under the agreement.
Along with Russia and Iran, China believes that the move by Britain, France, and Germany to return UN sanctions on Iran was illegal, signaling that it would not necessarily abide by the UN sanctions.
The Chinese ambassador said that Beijing seeks closer cooperation with Tehran as he reiterated that Iran and China share a common stance opposing unilateralism in the world.
China is Iran’s largest trading partner, as it buys 29% of Iran’s total non-oil exports while being responsible for 25% of imports into the country.
Estimates suggest that more than 92% of Iran’s oil exports also end up in China, despite a harsh regime of US sanctions that imposes heavy penalties on buyers of Iranian oil.
Those estimates show that China’s total trade with Iran, including its oil purchases, amount to $65-70 billion per year.
Experts believe China counts on the smooth and affordable supply of oil from Iran for maintaining growth in its industrial sector.
Figures published in late August showed that China had relied on Iran for 13.6% of its total oil imports in the first half of 2025 as shipments reached an average of 1.38 million barrels per day (bpd) over the period.
Privately-owned refiners receive the bulk of Iranian oil shipments arriving in China as they enjoy discounts of up to 8% per barrel offered by Iran to circumvent US sanctions.
Recent data by international tanker tracking services suggest Iran’s oil exports to China reached records of more than 1.8 million bpd in September.
Press TV – October 24, 2025
Iran, China, and Russia have written a joint letter to the UN nuclear watchdog chief, affirming the termination of Security Council Resolution 2231 and the agency’s reporting concerning the Islamic Republic’s nuclear energy program.
In a post on his X account on Friday, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, Kazem Gharibabadi, said ambassadors and permanent representatives of China, Iran and Russia sent a letter to Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Mariano Grossi.
It came after the three countries’ joint letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations and President of the Security Council declaring the termination of Resolution 2231 on October 18, he added.
In the letter to the IAEA chief, he noted, the three countries reaffirmed the “illegal” move by the European trio — Britain, France and Germany — to invoke the so-called snapback mechanism and the expiration of all provisions of Resolution 2231 on October 18, 2025.
“But there is another key point which relates to the end of the mandate of the IAEA Director General’s reporting on verification and monitoring under the Resolution 2231 and the implementation of the JCPOA,” Gharibabadi emphasized, referring to the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
According to the Iranian diplomat, the letter asserted that in the IAEA, “the implementation of the JCPOA, as well as verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of UNSCR 2231, were enacted by the resolution of the Board of Governors of 15 December 2015(GOV/2015/72).”
He said, “Operative paragraph 14 of this Resolution unequivocally stipulates that the Board ‘decides to remain seized of the matter until ten years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the Director General reports that the Agency has reached the broader conclusion for Iran, whichever is earlier’.”
“Consequently, as of 18 October 2025, the related agenda item has been automatically removed from the agenda of the Board of Governors, and no further action is required in this regard,” Gharibabadi pointed out.
Iran has rejected the legality of E3’s triggering the snapback of UN sanctions, calling the mechanism “null and void” and a “fabricated” term.
On October 18, Tehran declared an end to all UN restrictions on its nuclear program following the expiration of Security Council resolution 2231.
Iran has faced sustained economic pressure in recent years, particularly after the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and re-imposed sweeping sanctions under the so-called “maximum pressure” policy.
Despite these pressures, Iran has sought to adapt through increased domestic production, non-dollar trade mechanisms, and expanding economic ties with partners in Asia and neighboring states.
Press TV – October 22, 2025
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Iran will not return to negotiations with the United States so long as Washington continues its policy of excessive demands.
“Until the Americans abandon their excessive and maximalist policy and stop making unreasonable demands of us, we will not return to the negotiating table,” Araghchi told reporters upon arrival at Mashhad’s Hasheminejad Airport on Wednesday, where he was attending a provincial diplomacy conference.
The foreign minister said the previous talks collapsed precisely due to Washington’s overreach.
“The negotiations that were previously underway with the Americans, as well as the New York talks, were stopped and did not progress due to the excessive demands of the American side,” he said, referring to five rounds of nuclear talks before the US-Israeli aggression against Iran in June.
Araghchi said the two sides could also reach a “reasonable, mutually beneficial solution” during the recent annual UN General Assembly meeting in New York, but that opportunity was also lost due to a similar reason.
Araghchi said Iran has consistently demonstrated its commitment to peace and diplomacy, even while facing an adversary unwilling to honor such principles.
“We have shown we are always committed to diplomatic solutions, but this does not mean giving up the rights of the Iranian people.”
“Wherever the interests of the Iranian people and the higher interests of the country can be secured through diplomacy, we have acted. But we are dealing with those who have never adhered to diplomacy,” Araghchi said.
He said Iran recently exchanged messages and contacts with US negotiator Steve Witkoff through intermediaries, but he made it clear that Iran will not re-enter talks unless the US fundamentally changes its approach.
“As long as this spirit exists in negotiations with the Americans, naturally, there is no possibility of returning to negotiations, unless the American approach changes and they accept that negotiations must be based on mutual respect and from equal positions.”
The Iranian minister said Washington’s failed strategies will yield no results. “They have tried other paths and have not succeeded, and if they continue on this path again, they will once more achieve nothing.”
For the first time, Israel and the United States launched large-scale strikes on Iran in June, hitting nuclear and military facilities.
Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories and a major US military base in Qatar.
US President Donald Trump claimed afterward that Iran was close to producing nuclear bombs, but without providing any proof for his claim. Iran says it does not seek nuclear weapons.
In the previous nuclear talks, the Trump administration repeatedly asked Iran to dismantle its nuclear and missile development infrastructure altogether, a demand Tehran rejects.
Press TV | October 21, 2025
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has hit back at Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski over his “baseless claims and meddlesome remarks” against the Islamic Republic.
Araghchi made the comments in Polish on X, one day after Sikorski alleged that Iran was selling drones to Russia for use in the Ukraine war.
The top Iranian diplomat said that in an earlier X post, he had invited Sikorski to a substantive dialogue and exchange of documents to clarify facts following the display of a drone in the British Parliament, falsely and maliciously attributed to Iran.
“Avoiding responses, repeating baseless claims, and making meddlesome remarks will not solve the problem,” he added.
Araghchi also referred to Iran’s hospitality towards the Poles during the hard times of World War II, with the country providing shelter to over 100,000 Polish people and helping them form their own army.
“The friendship between the people of Iran and Poland was proven in challenging times, and it is our duty to protect this historical and cultural heritage,” he said.
He said the Iranian nation traces its roots to a glorious and significant past and that it will build its future on the path of progress and prosperity.
On October 14, Sikorski participated in an anti-Iran presentation at the UK Parliament in cooperation with a US-Israeli-affiliated group, displaying the wreckage of what they claimed to be an Iranian-made drone used by Russia in its war in Ukraine.
Iran summoned Poland’s chargé d’affaires in Tehran to protest Sikorski’s involvement in the anti-Iran event.
Araghchi also took to X to say that the “pathetic show” was staged by the Israel lobby and its supporters.
He said certain actors opposed to friendly Iran-Europe relations are creating fabricated narratives inconsistent with the long-standing ties between the two sides, including between Tehran and Warsaw.
Both Iran and Russia have repeatedly rejected allegations that Tehran supplied Moscow with drones, ballistic missiles, and related technology for use in the military campaign in Ukraine.
Russia has repeatedly warned against the flow of Western weapons to Ukraine, saying it prolongs the conflict.
The Cradle | October 18, 2025
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei announced on 18 October that Tehran is launching a comprehensive legal campaign to hold Israeli officials accountable for crimes against humanity.
Speaking at a specialized meeting titled Legal Response to the 12-Day Aggression: From Criminal Justice to Restorative Justice, Baghaei said the legal challenge aims to end what he described as Israel’s “entrenched impunity.”
“Iran will pursue justice through international legal channels,” he said, warning that the absence of accountability has emboldened Israel’s continued violations across West Asia.
He emphasized that the Foreign Ministry has been documenting legal evidence since the beginning of the 12-day aggression, which has been compiled into a book detailing human rights violations committed by Israel.
Baghaei noted that, although Iran is not a state party to the International Criminal Court (ICC), it engages with the court and supports global efforts to confront Israeli crimes.
The Iranian diplomat also rejected Israeli claims of “preventive attacks,” calling them legally baseless, and asserted that Iran’s response represents an act of legitimate defense.
He accused western governments of shielding Israel from accountability despite overwhelming evidence of war crimes.
Baghaei added that 120 countries have expressed strong support for Iran’s opposition to Europe’s attempt to reimpose sanctions through the snapback mechanism unlawfully, highlighting this consensus during the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) ministerial meeting in Uganda.
He argued that European maneuvers undermine the integrity of the UN Security Council and lack legal standing, and that they face opposition from permanent members China and Russia.
Separately, Baghaei condemned the thousands of Israeli ceasefire violations in southern Lebanon, and blamed France and the US—both ceasefire guarantors—for enabling these actions through their continued appeasement of Tel Aviv.
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 19, 2025
For decades, Turkey was considered a pillar of NATO’s eastern flank — a key piece on the chessboard of containing Russia. Since joining the alliance in 1952, the country has played a dual role: on one hand, a strategic partner of the West; on the other, a regional power with ambitions of its own. This balance was always unstable — and now, it is beginning to undergo substantial change.
What was once whispered behind closed doors is now being openly voiced by central figures in Turkish politics. In September 2025, an unexpected statement from the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli, sent shockwaves through Ankara and beyond: he openly proposed the formation of a strategic alliance between Turkey, Russia, and China, directly opposing what he called the “US-Israel evil coalition.”
Though shocking to some Western observers, this proposal did not emerge in a vacuum. According to analyst Farhad Ibragimov, Bahçeli’s remarks mark “the deepest ideological shift in Turkish nationalism since the Cold War.” A nationalism traditionally aligned with the West now appears skeptical — if not openly antagonistic — to the Washington-led structure.
It is important to note that Bahçeli is not alone in this shift. The idea is echoed with enthusiasm by other sectors of Turkish political life, such as Doğu Perinçek, leader of the Patriotic Party. For him, this reorientation is neither a tactical maneuver nor a veiled threat to NATO — it is, rather, a “civilizational project.” In his words, it is a historic decision: either Turkey remains a satellite of the Atlantic powers, or it fully integrates into the Eurasian civilization, alongside Russia, China, and Iran.
In this context, the suggested alliance should not be seen merely as a military or diplomatic pact, but as an attempt to redefine Turkey’s role in the 21st century. The proposal carries an implicit — and at times explicit — critique of the decadent, domineering, and unsustainable liberal world order.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s position has been more ambiguous. He stated he was “not fully familiar” with Bahçeli’s idea, but added: “Whatever is good, let it happen.” This phrase summarizes Erdoğan’s strategy in recent years: keeping the country in a bargaining position, flirting with Moscow and Beijing while still participating in Western institutions. However, there are signs that even this balancing act may be giving way to more definitive choices.
The growing instability in the Middle East, the erosion of European institutions, and constant pressure from the U.S. have pushed Turkey toward a new posture. As Perinçek aptly put it, “this is not a choice, but a necessity.” Remaining within the Atlantic system, in his view, offers no guarantees of sovereignty, economic development, or territorial security.
Although short-term technical obstacles remain, Turkey’s path toward Eurasian integration is not only viable — it is necessary. The country’s economic dependence on the West, inherited from decades of participation in the liberal-globalist architecture, is not a fixed destiny — but a chain that must be broken. Remaining in NATO, far from providing security, leaves Ankara a passive target of American strategy. In contrast, a strategic alliance with Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran — while demanding structural adjustments — offers something the Atlantic has never guaranteed: full sovereignty, mutual respect, and active participation in building a new international order based on multipolarity.
More than a geopolitical alignment, the proposals of Bahçeli and Perinçek carry a profound civilizational dimension. By drawing closer to Russia, China, and Iran, Turkey is not merely seeking strategic partners but also reconnecting with the historical and cultural space of Turkic populations within those countries — from the Arctic-Siberian frontiers in Sakha to the Uyghur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang and Iranian Azerbaijan. This reconnection creates fertile ground for a broader alliance that could also involve the Central Asian republics — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan — and Mongolia itself. This is, therefore, not just a political axis, but an identity-based one, capable of forming a cohesive civilizational bloc with shared roots and converging interests in the face of the moral and structural decline of the liberal West.
The trend is clear: a significant part of Turkey’s political and military elite no longer believes the country’s future lies in Brussels or Washington. Instead, they look to the heart of Eurasia — where emerging powers are gradually drawing the contours of a new multipolar world.
At this moment, Turkey seems to be standing in front of a mirror: it can continue acting as a peripheral extension of Western will, or it can take a more independent course. The statements from Bahçeli and Perinçek may be just the beginning of a turn that, if consolidated, will shift the geopolitical balance of the region for decades to come.
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | October 17, 2025
Trump’s claim that Prime Minister Modi had promised to end the purchase of Russian oil was obviously false; in fact, there was apparently no phone call between the two leaders at all. Such fabrications, portraying world leaders as deferential to him and as praising his greatness, constitute a recurring pattern—one that parallels his militaristic approach to peace.
As the president of a declining hegemon, Trump is convinced that the weakness of his predecessors was the source of decline. Trump has therefore concluded that projecting strength can reverse the erosion of American power. In constructing himself as the ultimate strongman—allegedly respected by all—he positions himself as the sole saviour of the US. The image of a powerful, decisive and respected leader capable of restoring US dominance also functions domestically to consolidate political support and project stability during the country’s uneasy transition from a unipolar to a multipolar international order. The American public is seemingly prepared to look the other way or justify the dishonesty and moral disgressions as the price worth paying for a return to greatness.
The central problem with the strongman image is that it sustains unrealistic expectations of reviving US primacy rather than adapting to the realities of a multipolar world. The outcome is a pattern of deception and conflict that ultimately undermines, rather than strengthens, the United States.
When the strongman cannot coerce his counterparts into subservience, the only recourse is retreat into fantasy. In this imagined world, other leaders allegedly regret their decisions of not falling into line, tremble as Trump wags his finger, shower him with compliments, offer tribute to the United States, and in Trump’s own words, line up to “kiss my ass.” Within the Trumpian bubble of superpower cosplay, these scenes of deference are celebrated as signs of a return to greatness, yet in the real world, American credibility declines and decadence deepens. As the gap between fantasy and reality widens, Trump becomes increasingly reckless. Case in point, the threats against India to sever ties with Russia and India backfired spectacularly as Prime Minister Modi instead went to China to cement India’s relations with Russia, China and the SCO.
Great powers and independent states cannot simply fall in line, for doing so would predictably lead to their destruction or subjugation. The ultimate aim of an aspiring hegemon is not to reconcile differences in pursuit of peaceful coexistence, but to defeat rival powers and capture independent states. The objective of the economic confrontation with China is not to renegotiate trade agreements, but to undermine China’s technological capacity and contain it militarily to restore US primacy. The purpose of the proxy war against Russia is not peace in terms of finding a new peaceful status quo, rather it is to use Ukrainians and increasingly Europeans to bleed and weaken Russia until it can no longer sustain great-power status. Similarly, the goal of the confrontation with Iran is not to reach a new nuclear accord—Tehran has already accepted such terms in the past—but to achieve Iran’s capitulation and disarmament by linking the nuclear issue to restrictions on missiles and regional alliances. Any power that concedes even marginally to US pressure ultimately finds itself in a weaker and more vulnerable position—one that the aspiring hegemon will inevitably exploit. Any peace agreements are therefore temporary at best, as an opportunity to regroup.
India presents an intriguing case, as it is not an adversarial power. Its commitment to non-alignment makes strong relations with the United States desirable, yet the very same non-alignment necessitates strategic diversification to reduce excessive reliance on Washington. Should India be persuaded to sever ties with other major powers such as China and Russia, it risks becoming too dependent on the United States and absorbed into a bloc-based geopolitical system. Subordination to a declining empire would be perilous, as the United States would predictably use India as a frontline against China, and simultaneously demand economic tribute and cannibalise Indian industries in pursuit of renewed dominance. In essence, India must avoid becoming another Europe.
The strongman act is most effective with weaker and dependent states—such as those in Europe—that are willing to subordinate themselves entirely in order to preserve American commitment to the continent. European states lack the economic capacity, security autonomy, and political imagination to envision a multipolar world in which the United States wields less influence and holds other priorities than a close partnership with Europe. Consequently, European leaders appear willing to sacrifice core national interests to preserve the unity of the “Political West” for a little while longer. In private, they may express disdain for Trump; in public, they pay tribute to “daddy” and line up diligently in front of his desk to receive praise or ridicule. Yet this subservience is inherently temporary: leaders who disregard fundamental national interests are, in time, swept aside by the very forces they seek to suppress.
The strongman does not create any durable peace the underlying problems are never addressed. The mantra of “peace through strength” can be translated into peace through escalation, with the assumption that the opponent will come to the table and submit to US demands. However, rival great powers that have nowhere to retreat will respond to escalation with reciprocation. The delusions of the strongman in the declining hegemony will therefore inevitably trigger major wars.
Glenn Diesen | October 14, 2025
Colonel Jacques Baud is a former military intelligence analyst in the Swiss Army and the author of many books. Baud discusses the temporary pause in the Gaza conflict and the absence of a new status quo and clear Israeli borders.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 