Israel’s current official line is maximalist across all fronts: Hezbollah must be disarmed; Gaza must be demilitarised and Hamas disarmed; Israel intends to preserve deep security belts on multiple borders; and Prime Minister Netanyahu has said the Iran war cannot be considered over until Iran’s enriched uranium is removed, proxy support ends, and ballistic-missile capabilities are eliminated. Iran’s current official line is equally hard: the war must end on all fronts, guarantees against renewed attacks must be credible, sanctions and blockades must be lifted, Iran’s enriched uranium should remain in-country, and any renewed attack will trigger broader retaliation. Those positions are not close enough to support a durable peace; they support only coercive bargaining under threat of renewed violence. [2]

The most likely path over the next one to six months is neither comprehensive settlement nor immediate all-out regional war, but an extended period of violent bargaining: rolling ceasefires, selective assassinations, militia attacks, airstrikes, maritime coercion around Hormuz, and periodic crises in Lebanon and Gaza. The best case is a narrow diplomatic stabilisation built around an interim U.S./Iran arrangement, a continued Lebanon truce, and modest improvements in Gaza aid access. The worst case is a second, broader round of direct war involving renewed Israeli and possibly U.S. strikes on Iran, Iranian missile salvos, full Hezbollah re-entry, Iraqi militia attacks on Gulf energy sites and Western bases, and renewed Houthi-style mass disruption in the Red Sea. These scenario judgements are analytic inferences drawn from present red lines, ceasefire fragility, and observed proxy activity. [3]

For Africa, the largest near-term risks are not military contagion in the Levant itself but second-order shocks through shipping, fuel, inflation, remittances, and diplomacy. Egypt is the most exposed large African state because it combines Gaza adjacency, Suez dependence, energy import pressures, and Gulf-linked remittance exposure. Among sub-Saharan importers, Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana, Malawi, Mauritania, and others have already seen visible fuel-price shocks; Morocco has already registered transport-cost inflation from the conflict; Somalia is highly exposed through remittance dependence and Red Sea migration/security channels; and African troop contributors to UNIFIL, though limited in number, face real force-protection risk if Lebanon relapses into war. [4]

Current strategic picture

The current regional picture is best understood as a multi-front coercive equilibrium. Israel is trying to convert battlefield gains in Gaza, southern Lebanon, and the Syrian borderlands into enduring security depth; Iran is trying to convert survival, residual missile leverage, Hormuz disruption, and proxy deterrence into a settlement that preserves regime security and at least some nuclear and regional bargaining assets. Between them sit fragile Arab mediators, damaged proxy networks, and states such as Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria whose sovereignty is increasingly shaped by war spillover rather than by stable internal control. [5]

A key change since 2023 is that the old “shadow war” frame is no longer adequate. The conflict has evolved from proxy harassment and covert operations into repeated direct exchange: Iran’s direct missile-drone attack on Israel in April 2024; Israel’s retaliatory strike on Iranian soil days later; Israel’s June 2025 campaign against Iranian nuclear and military targets; and the much larger U.S.–Israeli war with Iran beginning on 28 February 2026. The present question is therefore not whether Iran and Israel can fall into direct war, but whether the present pause becomes a restrained deterrent balance or collapses into a second, wider round. [6]

Recent official positions

Escalation timeline since 2023

The timeline below condenses the events that moved the regional system from a Gaza-centred war to a multi-front confrontation involving Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the Red Sea, and direct Iran–Israel war. The key pattern is cumulative: each theatre repeatedly fed the next, and each pause proved narrower than the previous one. [13]

Two features of this timeline matter most for forward assessment. First, escalation has repeatedly jumped theatres: Gaza triggered Lebanon; Lebanon and Syria provided routes and targets for Iran-linked actors; the Damascus strike triggered Iran’s first direct attack; Iran war then re-energised the Lebanon and Gulf fronts. Second, the system now has serial ceasefires without agreed end states, which is why resumption risk remains high even when headline violence falls. [14]

Ceasefires, violations and indicators of renewed fighting

Current status by theatre

Taken together, these ceasefires are operational pauses, not stable political settlements. None of the core disputes has been resolved: Hamas’s future, Hezbollah’s weapons, Israel’s buffer zones, Iran’s uranium stockpile, Hormuz’s status, or Iraq’s militia question. That is why incident rates can fall temporarily without materially reducing strategic risk. [20]

Scenarios for a wider Iran–Israel war

The most useful way to think about “wider Iran–Israel war” now is as a renewed direct phase that reactivates multiple fronts simultaneously. The pathway diagram below summarises the main contagion routes suggested by current activity in Lebanon, Iraq, the Gulf and the Red Sea. [21]

Actor and capability matrix

Scenario matrix

My overall probability judgement is therefore: best case low-to-medium, most likely high, worst case low but dangerous enough to dominate contingency planning. That judgement is an inference, but it is tightly grounded in the present mismatch between political objectives and the repeated failure of ceasefires to convert into durable settlement. [31]

Global implications and Africa

The global strategic stakes are unusually concentrated around two chokepoints. The Strait of Hormuz carried about 20 million barrels per day in 2024, roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption, and around one-fifth of global LNG trade. Meanwhile, the Red Sea/Suez system remains fragile after the shipping disruptions that began in late 2023. By January 2024, UNCTAD said monthly Suez transits were down 49% from peak levels, and the World Bank later found that by October 2024 rerouted cargo and tankers were travelling 48% and 38% farther, respectively, with global supply-chain stress rising to 2.3 million TEUs in December 2024. That means a renewed Iran-centred war would strike both the Gulf energy artery and the Red Sea/Suez trade corridor at once. [32]

That risk is already visible in prices and diplomacy. Reuters reported Brent crude spiking above $126 a barrel on 30 April 2026 as the Iran war deepened, while Qatar, Türkiye and the UAE all warned that renewed fighting would threaten global security, energy markets and freedom of navigation. Reuters has also estimated that the war has already imposed at least $25 billion in corporate costs globally, even before any second round. [33]

Africa impact assessment

Africa’s exposure is highly uneven. Net oil importers face the sharpest near-term pain through fuel, transport, inflation and current-account pressure. Egypt is the single most exposed major African state because it combines direct adjacency to Gaza, reliance on Suez revenues, higher energy import costs, and substantial remittance dependence linked to Gulf labour markets. Some oil exporters, notably Nigeria, may receive a short-run revenue lift, but even there the net benefit is limited by inflation, market volatility and slower global growth. The IMF and Reuters both caution that energy importers have the least room to absorb the shock, while even exporters may not gain in net terms. [34]

Two Africa-specific channels deserve special emphasis. First, the conflict worsens the economics of moving goods to and from Africa. The World Bank found that the South and East Africa/Indian Ocean region accounted for 4.8% of global supply-chain stress in the later phase of the Red Sea crisis, meaning that rerouting around the Cape is not a simple continental windfall; it raises logistics costs even when some southern ports or bunkering points gain traffic. Second, monetary policy becomes harder almost everywhere: Reuters reports African central bankers and analysts warning that oil turbulence could halt easing cycles in Kenya, Ghana, Zambia and Nigeria, while Uganda and Angola were already reacting more cautiously. [43]

Peacekeeping is a smaller but still concrete African exposure. UNIFIL had 7,478 peacekeepers from 47 troop-contributing countries as of 1 May 2026. The February 2026 UN peacekeeping roster shows African contributions in UNIFIL from Tanzania (76 personnel), Kenya (2) and Zambia (2), while Zambia also had 3 personnel in UNDOF. Violence against peacekeepers in Lebanon in March–April 2026 — which Reuters says included deaths from fire linked preliminarily to both Israel and Hezbollah, plus a later attack likely by Hezbollah — demonstrates that a renewed Lebanon war would carry direct force-protection risks for troop contributors, even if current African numbers are modest. [44]

Uncertainties and assumptions

Several important uncertainties remain. Battlefield damage assessment inside Iran is incomplete; Reuters notes uncertainty over how much of Iran’s 60%-enriched uranium stock survived the 2025 strikes, even though the IAEA believes a little over 200 kg may remain at Isfahan. Casualty figures across Gaza, southern Lebanon and Iran are politically contested and often published with delays. Syria’s internal transition remains fluid, and precise current balances between local actors, Israel, Türkiye, former regime networks and residual Iranian influence are harder to quantify than in Gaza or Lebanon. [45]

The scenario judgements in this report therefore rest on three explicit assumptions. The first is that the current public red lines stated by Israel, Iran and mediators are genuine negotiating positions rather than mere tactical noise. The second is that the present ceasefires are best understood as reversible coercive pauses, because they have not settled the core issues of disarmament, buffer zones, sovereignty, uranium, sanctions or maritime control. The third is that Africa’s main exposure remains economic and maritime, not direct combat spillover, unless Red Sea and Horn routes deteriorate much further. These assumptions are contestable, but at present they are the most defensible reading of the evidence. [46]

The bottom line is straightforward: the region is not on a stable path to peace, but neither is it yet locked into immediate total war. The highest-confidence judgement is a prolonged phase of contested ceasefires and intermittent escalation — with the Iran front remaining the principal regional trigger, the Lebanon front the fastest military escalator, Iraq and the Gulf the most plausible routes for geographic widening, and Africa the most exposed external region through fuel, shipping, inflation and remittance channels rather than through direct combat. [47]

[1] [20] [29] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/board-peace-envoy-warns-un-that-gaza-division-risks-becoming-permanent-2026-05-21/

[2] [7] [31] [46] https://www.gov.il/en/pages/pm-netanyahu-s-statement-on-lebanon-and-iran-16-apr-2026

[3] [19] [28] [47] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/tehran-reviewing-latest-us-response-trump-suggests-he-can-wait-2026-05-21/

[4] [35] https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/regional-challenges-cost-egypt-around-7-bln-suez-canal-revenues-2024-sisi-says-2024-12-26/

[5] https://www.gov.il/en/pages/statement-from-pm-netanyahu-17-april-2026

[6] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-israels-open-warfare-after-decades-shadow-war-2024-04-14/

[8] [23] [45] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/supreme-leader-says-enriched-uranium-must-stay-iran-iranian-sources-say-2026-05-21/

[9] [27] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/lebanon-president-says-future-deal-will-not-cede-territory-2026-04-17/

[10] [15] https://mofa.gov.qa/en/qatar/latest-articles/latest-news/details/2026/05/18/qatar-deems-recognition-of-nakba-a-key-to-just–lasting-palestinian-peace

[11] https://ina.iq/en/politics/48637-national-security-adviser-says-weapons-control-file-will-be-highly-important-in-next-government-formation.html

[12] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uaes-gargash-sees-50-50-odds-us-iran-deal-warns-against-renewed-fighting-2026-05-22/

[13] [14] Israel-Lebanon border warfare: what is the history?

[16] [21] [24] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-lebanon-agree-extend-ceasefire-by-45-days-us-state-dept-says-2026-05-15/

[17] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-watching-syria-closely-after-historic-fall-assad-2024-12-08/

[18] [25] https://www.reuters.com/investigations/iran-spent-years-fostering-proxies-iraq-now-many-arent-eager-join-war-2026-03-06/

[22] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/israel-killed-30-iranian-security-chiefs-11-nuclear-scientists-israeli-official-2025-06-27/

[26] https://www.reuters.com/world/suez-canal-authority-says-stability-returning-red-sea-2025-01-31/

[30] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/tankers-exit-hormuz-trump-vance-talk-up-iran-deal-prospects-2026-05-20/

[32] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65504

[33] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-prices-extend-gains-us-iran-war-deadlock-keeps-supply-off-market-2026-04-30/

[34] https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2026/04/22/how-the-middle-east-war-has-affected-oil-exporters-and-importers

[36] https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/kenya-cut-diesel-price-after-protests-against-soaring-energy-costs-2026-05-22/

[37] [38] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/fuel-prices-surge-africa-iran-war-hits-supply-2026-04-01/

[39] https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/moroccos-inflation-rate-rises-17-april-2026-05-22/

[40] https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/nasikiliza/empowering-somalias-economy-beyond-remittances-for-long-term-stability-afe-0225

[41] [43] https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099253002102539789/pdf/IDU10b8b59671dbc814cfc19c4a1299ff54854ba.pdf

[42] https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/sp-lifts-nigerias-ratings-improving-macroeconomic-profile-2026-05-15/

[44] https://unifil.unmissions.org/en/unifil-troop-contributing-countries

The post SITREP: West Asia’s Cascading Conflict System & the Impact on Africa appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

The meeting has been seized upon by commentators as evidence of a major geopolitical shift: Iran, having survived the US-Israeli military campaign and retained leverage over one of the world’s most important energy corridors, is now seeking to convert battlefield resilience into diplomatic advantage. The central claim circulating on social media is that Tehran is no longer negotiating merely as a besieged state, but as a regional power setting terms with Russian backing.

Some of that framing remains political interpretation rather than confirmed fact. But the hard diplomatic signals are significant. Putin publicly praised Iran’s resistance to US and Israeli pressure and said Russia would do what it could to help Tehran. Araqchi, for his part, underlined the strategic nature of the Russia-Iran relationship, saying Moscow had consistently supported Iran. Putin also confirmed that he had received a message from Iran’s leadership shortly before the meeting. (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty)

The talks came after Araqchi’s regional diplomacy through Pakistan and Oman, two states that have become important channels in efforts to manage the crisis. According to reports, the Iranian foreign minister blamed “excessive” US demands for the continuing deadlock, while also indicating that Tehran was reviewing new American proposals. That sequence suggests Iran is widening the negotiating table, ensuring that any settlement is no longer handled solely through Washington and its allies. (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty)

At the heart of the standoff is the Strait of Hormuz. Before the war, between 125 and 140 ships normally moved in and out of the strait each day. That traffic has collapsed dramatically. Reuters reported that only seven vessels transited in a recent 24-hour period, with none carrying oil bound for the global market. The same report said the strait usually handles around 20% of the world’s daily oil and LNG supply, making its disruption a direct threat to global energy markets. (Reuters)

Iran has imposed restrictions on shipping through the strait, while the United States announced a blockade of Iran-related shipping on April 13. US forces have reportedly turned back dozens of vessels since then. This creates a dangerous dual-control situation: Iran can complicate maritime passage, while the United States can obstruct Iran-linked traffic. The result is not peace, but a tense, controlled paralysis in which both sides are using shipping as leverage. (Reuters)

The maritime problem is not simply political. It is also technical and commercial. Al Jazeera reported that Pentagon officials told US lawmakers it could take months to fully clear the Strait of Hormuz of mines, and maritime insurers warned that even a ceasefire may not be enough to restore normal traffic if the risk cannot be priced with confidence. In other words, even if diplomats announce an agreement, the strait may remain only partially usable until shipowners, underwriters and naval authorities believe the route is reliably safe. (Al Jazeera)

This gives Iran lasting leverage. A formal ceasefire may end open hostilities, but the practical reopening of Hormuz depends on guarantees, inspection, naval coordination and insurance confidence. For Tehran, that means the strait becomes not only a military pressure point, but a bargaining instrument in any wider settlement.

Russia’s role is therefore important. Moscow is not merely expressing sympathy. It is positioning itself as a necessary interlocutor. Putin has raised the possibility of Russia helping to mediate, including around the nuclear dispute, which remains a major obstacle in US-Iran talks. Analysts cited by RFE/RL suggest Russia may try to use its access to Tehran to secure nuclear concessions acceptable to Washington, while also preserving Iran as a strategic partner. (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty)

At the same time, defence diplomacy is moving in parallel. Russian Defence Minister Andrei Belousov held talks in Kyrgyzstan with Iran’s Deputy Defence Minister Reza Talaei-Nik, according to Reuters. Belousov repeated Moscow’s position that the Iran conflict should be resolved through diplomacy and said he expected Moscow and Tehran to continue supporting one another. Talaei-Nik also travelled to Belarus for talks on the Middle East situation. (Reuters)

The Kyrgyzstan setting matters because it sits within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation framework, where Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan and India are all present. China’s defence minister Dong Jun also attended the SCO defence meeting and called for deeper defence and security cooperation among member states. Reuters reported that Dong held sideline talks with officials from Iran, Russia, Pakistan and Belarus. (Reuters)

This points to the wider strategic picture. Iran is not only relying on missiles, ports or the Strait of Hormuz. It is embedding itself in Eurasian structures: the SCO, Russian-backed security channels, trade corridors through Pakistan and Central Asia, and the wider North-South and East-West transport logic linking Russia, Iran, India and China. The more these routes develop, the less decisive Western maritime pressure becomes.

The social-media claim that “Iran won the war” is a political judgement, not a settled historical fact. What can be said with more confidence is that Iran has not been isolated in the way Washington may have intended. Instead, the crisis has accelerated the visibility of a Russia-Iran alignment and brought Eurasian powers more directly into the Persian Gulf equation.

The emerging settlement, if one is reached, will therefore not be a simple US-Iran bargain. It will likely involve maritime guarantees, nuclear sequencing, sanctions questions, Russian mediation, Gulf security arrangements and the practical reopening of Hormuz. That is the real chessboard now taking shape: not a single battlefield victory, but a contested diplomatic order in which Iran is trying to convert survival into strategic influence, with Russia standing visibly beside it.

The post Russia Moves Into the Gulf Endgame as Iran Shapes the Post-War Settlement appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

The narrow waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman is only around 21 miles, or 34 kilometres, wide at its narrowest point. Yet it carries a level of strategic weight almost impossible to exaggerate. The International Energy Agency describes it as a route through which around 20 million barrels of oil per day normally pass, equal to roughly a quarter of global seaborne oil trade, with around 80% of that crude destined for Asia. It also carries a major share of global liquefied natural gas, including most LNG exports from Qatar and the UAE. (IEA)

That makes Hormuz more than a regional maritime passage. It is a global economic organ. When it is obstructed, the effects do not remain in West Asia. They move into petrol prices in Europe, fertilizer costs in Africa, factory inputs in Asia, airline schedules, food prices, inflation figures and household budgets.

Recent reports suggest traffic through the strait remains severely reduced, with Reuters reporting that daily transits have fallen from a normal range of around 125–140 vessels to only a handful in recent days. Oil prices have responded accordingly, with Brent crude reported around $108.68 per barrel and WTI near $96.96 as markets absorb the continuing disruption. (Reuters)

The immediate story is energy. But the deeper story is dependency.

Hormuz is often described as an oil chokepoint, but that understates the issue. Oil is the most visible commodity, but it is not the only one. The strait is also central to LNG flows, petrochemicals, plastics, fertilizer inputs, sulfur, aluminum-related supply chains and other industrial materials. Many of these are not easily rerouted. Pipelines can shift some crude flows, but they cannot replace the maritime movement of ammonia, urea or other bulk inputs needed by agriculture and industry.

That matters because fertilizer is food before it becomes a commodity. Nitrogen fertilizers support a large share of modern agricultural output. If key inputs fail to arrive during planting or application windows, the consequences are delayed but severe: lower yields, higher prices and pressure on already vulnerable food-importing countries.

For import-dependent economies, especially in parts of Africa, South Asia and Latin America, the Hormuz crisis is therefore not just about the cost of fuel. It is about whether fertilizer arrives on time, whether food imports remain affordable and whether governments can absorb another external price shock. Brazil, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and many African countries are especially exposed to fertilizer disruptions because their agricultural systems rely heavily on imported inputs.

Europe is also feeling the shock, particularly in aviation and industry. The head of the International Energy Agency warned in mid-April that Europe had “maybe six weeks” of jet fuel left if supplies remained blocked, with flight cancellations possible if the situation did not improve. (AP News) Lufthansa has already announced cuts to around 20,000 short-haul flights through October, citing soaring jet fuel costs and the need to save fuel. (Al Jazeera)

The aviation impact is only one visible symptom. Higher oil and gas prices feed through refineries, trucking, shipping, chemicals, plastics, construction materials and consumer goods. Energy inflation rarely stays in one sector. It spreads.

This is why the closure or near-closure of Hormuz has the character of a global stress test. It exposes how much of the world economy has been built on the assumption that a few narrow maritime corridors will remain open, insured and navigable. Once insurers withdraw war-risk cover, shipping becomes not merely dangerous but commercially impossible. No insurance means fewer vessels. Fewer vessels mean fewer cargoes. Fewer cargoes mean shortages, price spikes and production delays.

There are signs of limited movement. Reuters reported that an ADNOC-managed LNG tanker recently crossed the strait, appearing off India after weeks without transmitting a signal. But analysts cautioned that one successful crossing does not prove that the route is safe or commercially reliable. (Reuters) That distinction is crucial. A chokepoint does not need to be sealed with concrete to damage the world economy. It only has to become uncertain enough for shipping, insurance and finance to hesitate.

The crisis also underlines a strategic irony. The Gulf states themselves are deeply vulnerable to disruption in the same waterway through which they export energy. Several depend heavily on imported food, consumer goods and industrial supplies. If Hormuz becomes unreliable for outgoing oil and gas, it also becomes unreliable for incoming food and essential materials.

For Asia, the stakes are direct. China, India, Japan, South Korea and other major economies depend on Gulf energy flows. If tanker traffic remains restricted, they face higher import bills, tighter supply and stronger competition for alternative cargoes. For Europe, the shock arrives through fuel, inflation and industrial costs. For the United States, even with larger domestic production, oil is priced globally. A disruption in Hormuz still reaches American petrol pumps.

Goldman Sachs has reportedly lifted its oil price expectations, warning that Brent could move toward $120 per barrel if Gulf exports recover slowly. (marketwatch.com) That is the market’s way of saying what policymakers often avoid saying plainly: the world has no simple replacement for Hormuz.

The most dangerous assumption is that this is only a temporary regional drama. The strait has always been strategic, but the modern economy has made it systemic. A disruption there does not merely interrupt trade. It tests the architecture of globalization itself: just-in-time logistics, concentrated energy supply, specialized fertilizer production, global aviation, food security and inflation management.

The world is discovering that resilience is not the same as efficiency. For decades, economies optimized for low cost, speed and concentration. Hormuz shows the price of that model. A single corridor can connect refineries, farms, hospitals, airports, factories and households across continents. When it closes, the map of dependency becomes visible.

That is the real lesson of the Strait of Hormuz. It is not simply a strip of water between Iran and Oman. It is a global pressure point where energy security, food security, industrial production and geopolitics meet.

And right now, that pressure point is under strain.

The post When Hormuz Stops, the World Stops: Inside the Chokepoint Crisis appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

If the old American political order is breaking apart, Max Blumenthal believes one issue more than any other has forced the rupture into the open: Israel. In his interview with Glenn Diesen, the Grayzone editor-in-chief lays out a sweeping and explosive argument about how Donald Trump, the war with Iran and the internal fracture of the MAGA movement are all connected. His claim is not merely that Israel exerts influence over Washington, which few serious observers would deny. It is that this influence has become so deep, so personal and so structurally embedded inside Trump’s political world that the current confrontation with Iran cannot be understood as an American policy in the normal sense at all. For Blumenthal, it is the end result of years of cultivation, pressure, patronage and ideological capture.

This is what gives the interview its force. Blumenthal is not discussing one military episode in isolation. He is offering a theory of power. He moves from Trump’s early donor environment and the collapse of the Iran nuclear deal, to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, to the composition of Trump’s second-term inner circle, to what he sees as an open rebellion inside the movement that once rallied behind “America First”. By the end of the conversation, the argument is stark: the Iran war did not simply reveal a policy disagreement. It exposed a crisis of sovereignty at the heart of American politics.

The argument begins with Trump himself

One of the most striking features of Blumenthal’s account is that he treats Trump’s alignment with Israel not as a sudden shift, but as a long political formation. In his telling, Trump’s world has always been surrounded by pro-Israel billionaires, financiers and operators. This was not only a matter of campaign support. It was part of the wider elite environment in which Trump rose and functioned. Real estate circles, donor networks, media ecosystems and family connections all formed part of the political culture around him.

Blumenthal argues that Trump was not originally fully committed to the hardline pro-Likud worldview. He points to Trump’s early appearances before pro-Israel political audiences, when Trump still imagined himself as a dealmaker capable of producing an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. That instinct, Blumenthal suggests, was quickly disciplined. The problem was not simply that Trump used clumsy language or upset a room. It was that he hinted at outcomes, including some form of Palestinian statehood, that the strongest Israel-aligned actors around him had spent years working to block.

In Blumenthal’s reading, this mattered because it showed the terms on which Trump would be accepted. He could be useful, powerful and even indispensable, but only if he absorbed the core strategic assumptions of the Israel lobby’s most hardline faction. That process, he suggests, would soon become visible in the campaign against the Iran nuclear deal.

The JCPOA as the first major turning point

For Blumenthal, the assault on the JCPOA was not just another Washington policy fight. It was a preparatory act in a much larger agenda. He recalls Trump appearing at a Capitol Hill rally dedicated to destroying Barack Obama’s signature agreement with Iran and sees that moment as pivotal. The nuclear deal had to be broken, in his telling, because diplomacy itself was an obstacle to war.

This is a key part of Blumenthal’s logic. He does not portray the war posture toward Iran as a response to recent provocations or shifting intelligence. He presents it as the culmination of a long project. First destroy the diplomatic framework. Then replace restraint with escalation. Then fill the administration and media world with people who will normalise confrontation. In that sense, the collapse of the JCPOA becomes the first unmistakable sign that Trump had entered a deeper political bargain.

Blumenthal links this process to the donor world around Trump. He describes a political environment in which major financial support flowed toward candidates willing to take the hardest line on Iran and the most unconditional line on Israel. In his account, the machinery of donor power did not merely reward opinions that already existed. It helped produce them, sharpen them and institutionalise them.

War by personnel

The interview is especially strong when Blumenthal turns from general influence to specific people. His message is simple: personnel is policy. If a White House is filled with figures who are ideologically aligned with Israeli strategic priorities, financially dependent on pro-Israel networks, or politically shaped by those environments, then the policy outcome is not hard to predict.

Blumenthal walks through a series of names around Trump’s second administration and argues that the pattern is unmistakable. He presents the surrounding personnel as even more deeply aligned with Israel’s hardline agenda than in Trump’s first term. Figures who might once have offered some offsetting “America First” caution, he suggests, have either been marginalised or removed altogether. In their place stands a more disciplined pro-Israel camp, shaped by donor pressure, lobbying structures, ideological affinity or personal dependence.

His point is not simply that these officials are sympathetic to Israel. It is that they form a governing environment in which dissent becomes almost impossible. Once that environment is in place, foreign policy decisions are no longer being made in a genuinely open strategic field. The options have already been narrowed before the president even enters the room.

Soleimani and the road to escalation

Blumenthal treats Trump’s assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani as one of the clearest indicators that the path toward a wider war had been set long before the current crisis. In his reading, Soleimani’s killing was not an isolated retaliation or an improvised act of deterrence. It was a deliberate move deeper into an escalation trap.

This matters because it reinforces the interview’s broader thesis. If the same pattern can be seen across multiple turning points, then the war posture toward Iran looks less like a reaction and more like a trajectory. Blumenthal argues that pressure from Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israel-aligned actors was already shaping the strategic horizon of the first Trump administration. By the time Trump returned to office, the conditions for a far larger confrontation had already been laid.

The Situation Room and the meaning of proximity

One of the most vivid parts of the interview is Blumenthal’s account of how decision-making around Iran appeared to split into two camps. He describes a pro-Israel “A-team” physically closer to Trump, while more sceptical or potentially dissenting figures were sidelined elsewhere. Whether one accepts every detail of this framing or not, the political meaning is clear. Proximity to the president becomes a measure of influence, and influence determines the permissible direction of policy.

Blumenthal then describes the extraordinary image of Benjamin Netanyahu entering a Situation Room meeting and, in effect, dictating the urgency of military action. The symbolism here is as important as the substance. For Blumenthal, this is not a normal scene of alliance politics. It is evidence of a hierarchy in which the foreign leader occupies the commanding role while the American president becomes the executor of another state’s strategic priorities.

He pushes the point to its most dramatic conclusion by describing the war as the product of what he calls a coup. He does not mean a coup in the old cinematic sense of generals and armoured vehicles. He means the capture of strategic decision-making by actors whose loyalties and imperatives lie elsewhere. In that reading, constitutional appearances remain intact while real sovereignty has been hollowed out.

From Russiagate to “Israelgate”

Another major strand of the interview is Blumenthal’s argument that American political culture obsessed over the wrong foreign influence story. For years, public discourse was saturated with allegations of Russian control, Russian collusion and Russian manipulation. Blumenthal does not merely reject that narrative. He argues that it displaced attention from what he sees as the more obvious and more materially grounded issue of Israeli influence.

This is where he revives the term “Israelgate”. He points to episodes from Trump-era scandal politics and insists that, when examined closely, many of them turn out to circle back not to Moscow but to Israeli interests. The deeper scandal, he argues, was hidden in plain sight. American elites, he suggests, were willing to entertain almost limitless suspicion of Russian influence while treating Israeli intervention as untouchable, unspeakable or politically forbidden.

Whether readers agree with that judgment or not, it is central to understanding the interview. Blumenthal is arguing not only that the political class has lied about power, but that it has done so selectively and systematically. In his view, this selective blindness is itself part of the power structure.

The ceasefire that was never allowed to hold

The discussion of the ceasefire gives the interview its immediate geopolitical edge. Blumenthal argues that Israel had no intention of allowing Trump to close down the conflict on terms not dictated by Israeli priorities. In his version of events, Lebanon was clearly part of the ceasefire framework under discussion, and subsequent Israeli attacks were designed precisely to wreck that framework before it could settle into anything real.

This is a familiar theme in Blumenthal’s work: ceasefires are announced, only to be reinterpreted, narrowed or violated in ways that preserve Israeli freedom of action while leaving Washington to provide diplomatic cover. In the interview, he presents the attacks on Lebanon as an effort to provoke, sabotage and force the United States back into line. What mattered was not simply the bombing itself, but the demonstration that Israel could still determine the terms of escalation.

For Blumenthal, this is the real lesson of the so-called ceasefire. It was not an expression of American control. It was proof of its absence.

“The first Israeli president”

The most provocative phrase in the interview is Blumenthal’s description of Trump as “the first Israeli president”. He does not mean that previous presidents were independent of Israeli influence. Quite the opposite. He explicitly argues that many of them were deeply compromised by it. What makes Trump different, in his view, is the extent to which the rhetoric, tone and strategic language now sound directly imported from Israeli war politics.

Blumenthal points to expressions about bombing adversaries “back to the Stone Age”, to dehumanising language, and to a preference for regime change and state destruction over diplomacy or containment. In his reading, this is more than alliance behaviour. It is ideological convergence. Trump is not merely doing Israel’s bidding under pressure. He has internalised the worldview.

That is what makes the argument so unsettling. If Blumenthal is right, then the issue is no longer simply one of lobbying or donor capture. It is that an American presidency has absorbed the language, logic and strategic impulses of another state’s governing doctrine.

The MAGA revolt

Yet the interview is not only about Trump’s transformation. It is also about the forces now gathering against it. Glenn Diesen presses Blumenthal on the significance of public dissent from figures associated with the “America First” right, and Blumenthal treats this as one of the most important developments in contemporary US politics.

In his telling, a genuine rupture has opened inside MAGA. Voices who once defended Trump instinctively and relentlessly are now recoiling from the war trajectory. Some are doing so because they oppose foreign wars on principle. Some because they are sick of seeing American politics subordinated to a foreign state. Some because they believe this path will destroy Trump, just as unconditional support for Israel damaged Biden and the Democrats.

Blumenthal sees this fracture as historic. The populist right, in his account, is no longer united by Trump’s charisma alone. It is being forced to confront the contradiction between nationalist branding and foreign dependency. One side still chants “America First” while defending a war policy that Blumenthal says was effectively dictated from abroad. The other side has begun asking whether the slogan means anything at all if it collapses at the point of contact with Israel.

A battle over the right-wing media machine

One of the most controversial sections of the interview comes when Blumenthal turns to the MAGA media ecosystem. He draws a sharp line between those he regards as authentic “America First” dissenters and those he accuses of serving as instruments for pro-Israel messaging. He names commentators, broadcasters and influencers and argues that parts of this media world have been institutionalised through money, contracts, ownership ties and messaging discipline.

This section matters because it expands the argument beyond formal government. For Blumenthal, the battlefield is also cultural and informational. The struggle is not just over what Trump does, but over how his supporters are instructed to understand what he does. Who is being paid? Who is repeating lines handed down from above? Who is genuinely speaking from conviction, and who is reading from a script?

He suggests that this is why the current clash is so important. Once authenticity itself becomes the issue, the populist right enters a more dangerous phase. It is no longer enough to claim insurgency. One must prove independence.

Why this interview matters

The power of the Diesen-Blumenthal exchange lies in the fact that it is not timid. It does not circle cautiously around euphemisms. It names people, motives, structures and contradictions. For supporters of Blumenthal, that directness will feel like intellectual relief after years of evasion by the mainstream press. For critics, it will look like overreach or polemic. But even critics would have to acknowledge that the interview is attempting something larger than routine commentary. It is trying to explain how war, media, donors, ideology and party fracture now fit together.

Its most important contribution may be this: it frames the Iran conflict not as a stand-alone crisis but as a revelation. The war, the ceasefire failures, the MAGA civil war, the donor ecosystem, the media pressure and the changing mood of younger voters all point, in Blumenthal’s telling, to the same conclusion. The old consensus is cracking. The bipartisan assumption that Israel can demand almost anything from Washington without political cost is no longer as stable as it once seemed.

That does not mean the structure has fallen. Far from it. Blumenthal’s point is that it remains powerful enough to drive war. But it is now producing open rebellion as well.

The crisis beneath the crisis

By the end of the interview, Blumenthal has offered more than an analysis of Middle Eastern conflict. He has described a crisis beneath the crisis: the question of whether American political sovereignty still exists in any meaningful sense when the most dangerous strategic decisions appear to be shaped by foreign imperatives, donor power and a media ecosystem designed to discipline dissent.

That is why the interview resonates beyond the immediate headlines. It is about Iran, but also about empire. It is about Trump, but also about the hollowing out of democratic self-government. It is about MAGA, but also about the broader inability of both major US parties to disentangle themselves from an alliance that has become politically and morally corrosive.

Blumenthal’s case is sweeping, controversial and deliberately confrontational. But it is also coherent. Every part of the argument reinforces the rest. The result is a picture of an American political order entering a dangerous new phase, in which the costs of denial are becoming harder to hide and the fractures inside both left and right are growing too visible to suppress.

For readers who want to understand why the Iran war has triggered such an intense reaction inside Trump’s own political world, this interview is essential viewing. Watch the embedded video below and decide for yourself whether Max Blumenthal has identified the defining contradiction of the current American moment.

Follow Max Blumenthal on X:

• X

The post The Persian Gulf War Explained: Israel First and the Fracturing of Trumpism appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

A ceasefire may still exist on paper between the United States and Iran, but the region itself tells a different story. Zionist strikes on Lebanon, renewed pressure around Iran, and the continuing disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have stripped away any real sense of calm. Diplomats may still use the language of de-escalation, but the military and economic facts point to something far more brittle: a tense and deeply unstable stand-off.

What is emerging is not peace, but a suspended conflict. The guns have not fallen silent. They have merely shifted rhythm.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the Strait of Hormuz. Although some vessel movement has resumed, the waterway remains far from normal. Shipping traffic is still heavily constrained, insurers remain wary, and operators continue to treat the passage as a live risk zone rather than a restored commercial route. In effect, one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints remains under pressure, with consequences extending from Gulf ports to global fuel markets.

The strategic meaning is unmistakable. Even without a formal declaration of wider war, Iran and its allies have shown that they can continue to exert pressure where it matters most: on energy, shipping, logistics and confidence. That alone is enough to keep markets nervous and governments on edge.

The damage already done to military and energy infrastructure has only sharpened that sense of vulnerability. In Kuwait, the earlier strike on a U.S. military facility linked to the 103rd Sustainment Command has taken on renewed significance as the scale of losses becomes clearer. The attack was not merely symbolic. It exposed the extent to which forward-deployed American assets in the Gulf remain exposed to modern drone and missile warfare, even under the umbrella of supposed deterrence.

For Washington, that is politically uncomfortable and strategically serious. The image of overwhelming control is much harder to sustain when key facilities can be hit, personnel can be killed, and the region’s most expensive defensive architecture still cannot guarantee security.

Saudi Arabia has also felt the pressure. Damage to the East-West pipeline system, especially at a compressor or pumping node, has underlined the fragility of the kingdom’s alternative export routes. That pipeline matters precisely because it offers Riyadh a way to move crude to the Red Sea while reducing dependence on Hormuz. If that network is degraded, even partially, then one of the Gulf’s main fallback options becomes less reliable at the exact moment it is most needed.

This is the deeper story behind the headlines. The conflict is no longer only about dramatic military exchanges or televised political statements. It is about pressure points. The side that can raise costs, slow movement, reduce confidence and expose weakness without tipping the region into all-out war gains enormous leverage.

That is why the current moment feels so dangerous. It is not a settled peace, but a contest of controlled instability.

The political theatre has been no less revealing. Donald Trump’s effort to project influence over events has collided with the hard realities of regional power politics. Reports of mediation efforts and ceasefire understandings have been overshadowed by the Zionist entity’s own actions and Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to behave as though Washington alone can set the tempo. That matters, because it reveals a widening gap between American messaging and regional autonomy.

For years, the assumption in much Western analysis was that the United States, whatever its limits, still retained the ability to orchestrate outcomes among allies and contain adversaries through pressure, inducement and force. That assumption now looks badly strained. The Zionist colony continues to calculate according to its own security doctrine. Iran continues to test the outer limits of confrontation. Gulf states remain exposed. And Washington, despite its military reach, increasingly looks like a power reacting to events rather than fully shaping them.

Even the controversy surrounding the missing U.S. Navy MQ-4C Triton drone fits this pattern. Whether the aircraft was shot down or lost for other reasons, the episode has fed a broader perception of American exposure. The Triton is not a minor asset. It is one of the most advanced surveillance platforms in the U.S. arsenal, built for high-end reconnaissance and strategic awareness. Its disappearance over such a sensitive zone is therefore more than a technical incident. It is a symbolic blow, one that reinforces the wider impression of contested skies, contested seas and contested prestige.

And prestige matters. In crises like this, military capability is only half the equation. The other half is perception: who appears strong, who appears in control, who appears able to impose costs without suffering them. Once that balance starts to shift, even subtly, the geopolitical consequences become much larger than any single strike or lost aircraft.

This is also why the economic dimension cannot be treated as secondary. Markets may fluctuate daily, but traders are reading the region correctly. Oil did not simply react to a ceasefire headline and settle. Prices dipped, then recovered as it became clear that the ceasefire had not produced restored normality. Hormuz remains constrained. Saudi infrastructure has been damaged. Shipping remains risky. Diplomacy remains fragile. In other words, the market has begun pricing not peace, but interruption.

That may prove to be one of the most consequential features of this phase of the crisis. West Asia does not need to collapse into a formal regional war to shake the world economy. It only needs to remain unpredictable enough, long enough, to keep energy flows uncertain and freight risk elevated. In a tightly connected global system, ambiguity itself becomes a weapon.

That is what makes the phrase “ceasefire illusion” so resonant. The illusion lies not in the technical existence of a truce, but in the idea that such a truce automatically means stability. It does not. A ceasefire can exist while missiles still fly elsewhere, while shipping lanes remain threatened, while proxy fronts stay active, while allies ignore one another, and while markets continue to signal fear.

That is West Asia today: a battlefield in partial pause, but not at rest.

For the United States, this is a moment of strategic discomfort. For the Zionist colony, it is a moment of continued military assertion. For Iran, it is a moment to demonstrate endurance, leverage and the ability to impose friction without inviting immediate regime-threatening retaliation. For the Gulf monarchies, it is a reminder that infrastructure once assumed protected can still be hit. And for the rest of the world, it is a warning that global order remains deeply vulnerable to a region that is still far from resolved.

So the central reality remains unchanged. There is no true peace. But there is also, not yet, a declared and unrestrained war. Instead there is something in between: a hard, dangerous, unstable middle ground in which all sides continue to test limits while insisting they are avoiding catastrophe.

History shows that such periods can last longer than expected. It also shows they can collapse very quickly.

For now, West Asia remains suspended in that perilous space between diplomacy and escalation, where ceasefires hold just enough to prevent total war, but fail badly enough to keep the region on the brink.

The post Persian Gulf War & the Ceasefire Illusion: West Asia Still on the Brink appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

Speaking on Dialogue Works on Monday, February 23, 2026, Escobar argued that the escalation is being driven from the top, and that President Donald Trump now owns whatever comes next. “The whole thing was brought by the President of the United States himself,” Escobar said. “So anything that he does, any decision that he makes, it’s on him. It’s his personal responsibility.”

Escobar’s central claim is that Iran is no longer the isolated target Washington once imagined. In his view, Iran is strategically backed by Russia and China and embedded in the trade corridors and energy flows that bind Eurasia together. That changes the meaning of any military strike: it becomes not just a U.S.–Iran clash, but a confrontation that risks “launching a war against three BRICS at the same time” — Iran, Russia, and China.

And if the conflict escalates toward maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, Escobar warns the shock could hit the entire global economy.

A crisis with a name on it

Escobar begins with a reminder: Trump previously withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Escobar calls it “the Grand Nuclear Deal,” stressing it was agreed in Vienna and “ratified by the UN.” He describes the current moment as the return of a crisis that did not have to exist.

Now, Escobar says, Trump wants a new deal on terms Tehran sees as surrender. “Since he cannot have the deal that he wants, which is basically a capitulation of Iran, this is where we are in this fateful week,” he said.

Escobar described a potential diplomatic meeting in Geneva as a “last chance saloon,” but he expects it to start “on very, very nasty terms” after another ultimatum from Washington. Tehran, he says, has signaled it will only discuss the nuclear file — not its ballistic missile program and not its regional alliances.

That refusal matters because Escobar frames Washington’s demands as a three-part package: nuclear restrictions, missile limitations, and an end to support for the “axis of resistance.” Iran, he says, might talk about one item, but not the other two.

“The decision to attack… has already been made”

Escobar’s most alarming assertion is that Washington has moved beyond debating whether to strike and is now debating how.

“The decision to attack Iran, we still don’t know how, has already been made,” he said, citing what he described as informed signals and analysis “coming from the Beltway.” “So now we are in the how stage.”

He listed possible options: a short, intense bombing campaign in the style of Iraq 2003; a “decapitation strike” aimed at Iran’s top political and security leadership; or attacks subcontracted to Israel to provide Washington plausible deniability. In Escobar’s view, the U.S. could try to hide behind the line “it was the Israelis,” then claim it must intervene to “protect Israel.”

But he insists that tactic would not prevent Iranian retaliation. “It doesn’t matter,” he said. “Because the response from Iran will be there.”

Who is pushing — and why Escobar calls it “capture”

Escobar argues the drivers of escalation are not American national interests but the strategic priorities of pro-Israel hardliners and the system of money and influence behind them. He describes Trump as squeezed between powerful donors, the defense-industrial ecosystem, and a long-standing Washington obsession with regime change in Tehran.

“If he decides not to attack,” Escobar said, “his donors… the international Zionist axis… they’re going to go for him.” He also claimed “literally, practically all the nodes of the industrial military complex… want this attack against Iran,” listing weapons makers, intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, media, think tanks, and academia as part of a broad pro-war machine.

Readers should understand this is Escobar’s framing, not neutral language. He is making a political argument about power. But within his worldview, it explains why escalation persists even when the costs seem obvious.

The “limited strike” illusion

A key question in any crisis is whether there is a “small” option that avoids a bigger war. Escobar is skeptical.

First, he argues that Iran has prepared layered responses tailored to different forms of attack. Second, he believes the region is too interconnected for a strike to remain local. Third, he doubts Washington’s leadership can manage escalation rationally.

Escobar’s portrait of Trump is brutal: a leader surrounded by “mediocre functionaries,” trapped in an echo chamber, consuming TV soundbites rather than intelligence. “He does not read anything,” Escobar said. In that context, he suggests, even a “calibrated” strike can spiral.

And the strategic math, in his view, is ugly: if Trump attacks, he risks a regional fire; if he doesn’t, he risks rebellion from the networks demanding he does.

“Less than zero” national gain

Escobar’s assessment of U.S. objectives is striking: he says there are none that benefit America.

“He doesn’t have objectives,” Escobar said. “The objectives are the Zionist objectives. And there’s only one… Smash Iran as a regional power in West Asia. Period.”

In his view, an unprovoked strike would alienate large parts of the Muslim world, deepen hostility across the Global South, and intensify confrontation with Russia and China. “What does the United States gain…? Less than zero,” he said.

He also suggests domestic U.S. politics would punish Trump. Escobar claims “MAGA is against it,” and says “70% of the American electorate… is against this war.” His conclusion: a war could turn Trump into a “lame duck” quickly and cost him the midterms.

So why do it?

Because, Escobar argues, the U.S. system is under economic stress and war is the empire’s traditional escape hatch. “From the point of view of an empire in extreme distress,” he said, “there’s only one solution… war.” War, in that logic, is used to change the subject, reset the narrative, and shake up global markets — even if the results are unpredictable.

The twist that changes everything: Russia and China

This is where Escobar’s argument becomes the “new axis” thesis: Iran is now tied into serious strategic partnerships with Russia and China, and those ties raise the costs of attacking Tehran.

“If there is a cherry on this incandescent volatile cake,” he said, Trump would be “launching a war against three BRICS at the same time. Not only Iran, but Russia and China.”

Escobar describes Russia–Iran ties as “very serious,” including military and technical cooperation. On China, he stresses something even bigger than arms: energy security and connectivity.

For China, he says, Iran is “a matter of national security” because it supplies energy and sits on the land corridors linking East and West. He points to routes increasingly used through Central Asia into Iran, then onward to Turkey and Europe — especially as sanctions complicate routes through Russia. Iran, in his telling, is not peripheral. It is central.

He also claims Chinese support includes “research ships” and “ultra-high-tech information… passed in real time,” and notes cargo flights arriving in Iran, alongside Russian IL-76 flights. Diplomatically, he adds, Iran is supported through BRICS and could frame any attack as a war against multiple BRICS states and the Global South.

The corridor map behind the war map

Escobar pushes viewers to look beyond the military build-up and see the infrastructure struggle beneath it.

He describes Iran as an ancient bridge between East and West, and suggests Tehran could become “the capital of a new Eurasian project… somewhere between Shanghai and St. Petersburg.”

That isn’t just rhetoric. Escobar ties it to real projects: ports, rail lines, and trade corridors that reduce Eurasia’s dependence on Western-controlled routes and financial chokeholds. He highlights the International North–South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), linking Russia, Iran, and India. He says his recent documentary — produced with Iranian support and extensive access — follows that corridor from the Caspian through Iran to the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

For Escobar, corridors are power. And that is exactly why Iran matters so much. A strike on Iran is not only about nuclear claims or regional rivalries. It is also about interrupting Eurasian integration.

His slogan is the opposite of war logic: “Make connectivity corridors, not wars.” Or, in his updated protest line: “Make connectivity, not war.”

Hormuz: the fuse to a global economic shock

If Escobar has one warning designed to cut through noise, it is the Strait of Hormuz.

“If the Strait of Hormuz is blocked one way or another,” he said, “this will implode the global economy.” He links that to systemic financial fragility — especially the size of derivatives exposure — and argues a disruption could trigger cascading failures far beyond energy markets.

He also suggests Iran does not need a single dramatic shutdown. It can apply pressure gradually: an incremental blockade, “death by a thousand cuts,” using timing and tactics to disrupt flows, raise insurance costs, and shake confidence.

In other words, Iran’s leverage is global, not local. That is why Escobar believes Washington is playing with fire.

Iran’s posture: calm diplomacy, hard preparation

Escobar repeatedly describes Iranian officials as steady and prepared. He calls the foreign minister “self-confident” and “unflappable,” and says Iran’s security institutions appear psychologically ready for a serious confrontation.

He agrees with the interviewer’s point that Iran does not underestimate U.S. power. Instead, in this framing, Iran expects pain but believes it can endure — and retaliate in ways that make victory impossible for Washington.

Escobar is careful, however, to underline the human cost. He says it is easy to claim you should let an enemy “commit a mistake,” but that mistake will bring “a lot of suffering” and “blood.” War, in his view, is not a chess move. It is tragedy.

The crossroads

Escobar’s bottom line is that the world is approaching a decision point that could “seal what’s going to happen from now on in the major battlefield.”

He describes the battlefield in sweeping terms: on one side, the “empire of chaos” aligned with pro-Israel hardliners; on the other, BRICS and the Global South, building trade routes and strategic partnerships designed to outlast sanctions and coercion.

Whatever one thinks of Escobar’s language, the structure of his argument is consistent:

• Diplomacy is being squeezed by ultimatums and maximal demands.
• Military options are multiplying and may already be chosen inside Washington.
• Iran’s retaliation could expand the war across the region and into global shipping lanes.
• Russia and China’s backing changes the costs and the consequences.
• The deeper struggle is over Eurasian integration: trade corridors versus war corridors.

And that leads to his closing message: while headlines focus on bombing plans, a parallel story is unfolding across Eurasia — a push to build corridors, ports, and connectivity that shift power away from Western control.

Escobar wants readers to understand that Iran is not only a target. It is a hinge. And if Washington strikes it, the shock could travel far beyond Tehran.

The world, he suggests, is being offered two maps. One is a war map. The other is a corridor map. And which one wins may decide far more than the next battle.

“Make connectivity, not war,” he says.

The post New Axis of Power: How Russia and China Changed the Rules for Washington appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

After nearly two years of grueling conflict, 2025 saw the scales tip decisively in Russia’s favor in Ukraine. Moscow’s forces not only held their ground but expanded control over eastern and southern territories, forcing a bitter reckoning in Kyiv. By late 2025, the Ukrainian government – starved of munitions and facing economic ruin – agreed to abandon its long-held NATO ambitions and accept a U.S.-brokered peace framework that ceded territory to Russiapresstv.irpresstv.ir. This marked a humiliating end to NATO’s campaign: Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership was “a bitter acknowledgment of the strategic dead end” after a prolonged war of attritionpresstv.ir. Western officials quietly conceded that no viable alternative remained but to strike a peace deal on Russia’s termspresstv.ir.

The implications of Russia’s assured victory reverberated globally. Russia’s former president Dmitry Medvedev, in a triumphalist speech, declared that “Moscow’s victory in the Ukraine conflict will lay the groundwork for a more just world” and even suggested a new Russian national holiday would commemorate the victorygroups.google.comgroups.google.com. Medvedev stressed that Russia’s goal was to destroy the “Kiev neo-Nazi regime” – not the Ukrainian people – and vowed no hostile Western-backed regime would ever again be allowed on Russia’s bordersgroups.google.comgroups.google.com. Such rhetoric underscored the Kremlin’s confidence that it had weathered NATO’s challenge. Indeed, by year’s end, Western unity on Ukraine had fractured. European allies, exhausted by economic strain and increasingly skeptical of an unwinnable war, threw support behind the U.S. peace plan that effectively ratified Russia’s annexations as the “lesser evil” compared to endless warpresstv.irpresstv.ir. NATO’s credibility suffered a stark blow – its promises to Kyiv were broken, and its vaunted deterrence power tarnished by Russia’s resilience.

For Ukraine, the collapse was catastrophic. President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government, once adamant about reclaiming all territory, was compelled to accept a ceasefire that freezes the conflict largely on Russia’s termspresstv.irpresstv.ir. In exchange for a pause in the fighting, Ukraine must demilitarize its army and codify neutrality – a de facto abandonment of the Western integration it had pursued since 2014presstv.irpresstv.ir. This turn of events – a “strategic vacuum” as Press TV described itpresstv.ir – laid bare the harsh reality: NATO would not – and perhaps could not – rescue Ukraine from Russia’s grinding offensive. European diplomats privately acknowledged that without U.S. military weight, Ukraine “cannot withstand Russia”presstv.ir. Yet Washington under President Donald Trump had explicitly refused to commit troops, counseling Europe to handle its own neighborhoodpresstv.irpresstv.ir. The result is a Ukraine shattered and partitioned, its economy in ruins and tens of thousands of civilians deadpresstv.ir, while Moscow tightens its grip on the Donbas and Crimea.

The assured Russian victory also accelerated a global geopolitical shift. Most of the Global South refused to isolate Moscow; major developing powers treated the outcome as a lesson in Western overreach. As Medvedev put it, Russia’s success marked “the first step toward…a multipolar world order”, one based on “mutual respect and real international law” rather than Washington’s dominancegroups.google.com. In this narrative – echoed by media like RT – NATO’s defeat in Ukraine symbolized the waning of Western unilateral power and the rise of a fairer balance. While Western officials might contest that framing, few could deny that by the end of 2025, U.S.-led attempts to weaken Moscow had failed. Ukraine’s collapse became “an epic Western strategic failure”, as even some Western observers admitted, on par with past debacles like Iraqtheguardian.com. With Russia’s security goals largely met, and NATO’s eastern expansion halted, 2025 closed with Moscow ascendant in Eastern Europe – and the post-Cold War era of unchecked NATO enlargement effectively over.

Gaza Under Siege: Israeli Genocidal Campaign and Iran’s Resistance Axis

In parallel with the showdown in Eastern Europe, the year 2025 bore witness to a devastating conflict in the Middle East that many around the world labeled a genocide. Israel’s ongoing military operations in the Palestinian territories – especially the Gaza Strip – reached unprecedented levels of destruction and civilian suffering. Israeli forces pounded densely populated Gaza cities with relentless air and artillery strikes, ostensibly targeting Hamas fighters but in practice killing thousands of men, women, and children. By autumn 2025, Palestinian casualties in Gaza since the war’s onset in October 2023 had surpassed a staggering 63,000 killed (including over 20,000 children according to one Save the Children report) and 160,000 woundedpresstv.irpresstv.ir. Entire neighborhoods lay in ruins, and Gaza’s infrastructure – from hospitals and schools to water and power systems – was pulverized. International rights groups, including within Israel, concluded that Israel’s conduct met the legal definition of genocidepresstv.irpresstv.ir.

A United Nations inquiry and the world’s leading genocide scholars delivered a damning verdict: Israel was “engaged in systematic and widespread crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide” in Gazapresstv.ir. In a nearly unanimous vote, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a resolution declaring that Israel’s actions – from the deliberate leveling of homes and destruction of food and medical infrastructure to the enforced starvation siege – fulfill the 1948 Genocide Convention criteriapresstv.irpresstv.ir. As evidence, they cited Israel’s explicit tactics: “deliberate destruction of agricultural fields, food warehouses, and bakeries” combined with choking off humanitarian aid, inflicting “unlivable conditions resulting in starvation” of the civilian populationpresstv.irpresstv.ir. By late 2025, Gaza’s malnutrition crisis had turned into a famine, with hundreds of children perishing from hunger and preventable disease under the total blockadepresstv.irpresstv.ir. The international consensus in the Global South – and among a growing chorus of Western human rights voices – was that Israel’s campaign was not mere counterinsurgency but an attempt to annihilate Gaza’s societypresstv.irpresstv.ir. The International Criminal Court moved forward on investigations, and arrest warrants were reportedly issued for top Israeli officials on charges of war crimespresstv.ir.

Such was the backdrop against which resistance forces and their backers mobilized. Far from isolating and weakening the Palestinian cause, Israel’s onslaught — widely seen as “genocidal” — galvanized a region-wide “Axis of Resistance” led by Iran. The Islamic Republic, long a patron of Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups, seized the moment to ramp up support for those fighting Israel. Tehran’s leaders framed the Gaza war as a defining battle against oppression, casting Israel as a “terror ringleader” whose aggression threatened the entire regionpresstv.irpresstv.ir. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps funneled weapons and technology to Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, even as those groups waged fierce urban warfare against Israeli ground incursions. To Israel’s north, Hezbollah in Lebanon engaged in the most serious border clashes since 2006, tying down substantial Israeli forces. And in an unprecedented show of transregional solidarity, Yemen’s Houthi movement (Ansarullah) opened a new front: throughout 2025, the Houthis launched near-daily long-range drone and missile strikes against Israeli targets, from Red Sea shipping to infrastructure in Eilatpresstv.ir. In response, Israel even conducted airstrikes on Yemen’s capital Sanaa, assassinating senior Yemeni officials – a move Iran’s top commander decried as a sign of Tel Aviv’s “deep fear of the expansion of the Resistance Axis”presstv.irpresstv.ir.

Meanwhile, Iran’s regional clout hit new highs amid the chaos. As Arab publics and many Muslim-majority nations rallied to the Palestinian cause, governments traditionally aligned with Washington felt pressured to distance themselves from Israel’s actions. Iran skillfully used forums like the Islamic Cooperation Council and its diplomatic channels to call out what it termed Western hypocrisy and to demand protection for Palestinians. Tehran’s message – that Israel’s impunity is enabled by the U.S. and must be resisted collectively – resonated widelypresstv.irpresstv.ir. Even some leaders of U.S.-allied Arab states issued unusually sharp condemnations of Israel. In Syria, events underscored Iran’s growing role as a regional power-broker. Late 2024 had seen the sudden toppling of the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad – an Iranian ally – after a Turkey- and Western-backed rebel offensive reached Damascus, aided by intense Israeli airstrikespresstv.ir. A hardline Sunni coalition led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) took power in Damascus with covert Western approval, fundamentally altering the balance in the Levantpresstv.irpresstv.ir. Yet Iran did not accept this fait accompli. Throughout 2025, Tehran lent quiet support to a broad Syrian resistance front against the new HTS-led regime. In Syria’s coastal and central heartland, Alawite, Shia, and other minority communities rose up in mass protests condemning the “increasing violence” of the Islamist government and its foreign patronspresstv.irpresstv.ir. A former Syrian Army officer announced the creation of a “Military Council for the Liberation of Syria,” explicitly vowing to “topple the current regime” installed in Damascus and “liberate all Syrian land from occupying terrorist forces”presstv.irpresstv.ir. This guerrilla resistance – implicitly backed by Iran and Russia – has bogged down the HTS-led authorities and their Western supporters in yet another protracted struggle.

Iran’s multifaceted support for regional resistance has enhanced its prestige among anti-colonial and anti-Zionist movements. By positioning itself as the champion of Palestinian survival and Syrian sovereignty, Tehran strengthened the Axis of Resistance as a counterweight to U.S.-Israeli hegemony. Iranian officials noted that even non-Arab countries like Turkey openly challenged Israel’s actions in Gaza, reflecting a shifting norm: Muslim-majority nations are less afraid of breaking with the West on core issues of Israel/Palestine. In Tehran’s view, the year ended with Israel more isolated and the Resistance axis more unified. “Tel Aviv’s bloodshed only deepens its strategic nightmare,” argued Iran’s military Chief of Staff, Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi, pointing to the “growing unity among regional nations in defending the Palestinian cause”presstv.irpresstv.ir. If 2025 was a dark year for Gaza’s people, it was also a year that solidified a historic realignment: an empowered Iran-led bloc intent on checking Western allies’ dominance in West Asia, from the rivers of Palestine to the mountains of southern Lebanon and beyond.

China and India Reshape Global Power through BRICS and Diplomacy

While wars and turmoil rattled the West and Middle East, Asia’s two emerging superpowers – China and India – spent 2025 steadily expanding their global influence. Both nations harnessed their economic might and leadership of multilateral forums to push for a more multipolar, South-centered world order. Together with other rising powers, Beijing and New Delhi positioned themselves as champions of the “Global South,” emphasizing development, sovereignty, and non-interference – in stark contrast to what they describe as decades of Western hegemony. The BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) became the primary vehicle of this agenda. In 2025, BRICS completed a historic expansion, admitting six new members – Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Indonesia – and by doing so, transformed into a true heavyweight coalition encompassing over half the world’s population and a large share of its economic outputen.chinadiplomacy.org.cnen.chinadiplomacy.org.cn. By one measure (purchasing-power parity GDP), the enlarged BRICS now accounts for roughly 44% of global economic output and 50% of humanityen.chinadiplomacy.org.cnen.chinadiplomacy.org.cn, a striking symbol of the shift in economic gravity away from the G7 West.

The geopolitical and economic rise of China and India was evident on multiple fronts. China, already the world’s second-largest economy, solidified itself as the engine of South-South cooperation. Beijing doubled down on its signature Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) infrastructure program, which by this year connected some 150+ countries via railways, ports, and fiber-optic networksen.chinadiplomacy.org.cn. At the third Belt and Road Forum, President Xi Jinping welcomed dozens of Global South leaders and signed tens of billions in new trade and investment deals, from green energy projects in Africa to high-speed rail in Southeast Asia. China’s model of state-led development continued to attract developing nations’ admiration: the country’s success in lifting hundreds of millions from poverty and becoming a world leader in industries like clean technology was held up as “an inspiration for the Global South”, showing that alternatives to the Western neoliberal model existglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. Indeed, in 2025 China led the world in green innovation, filing over 100,000 low-carbon patents – more than the next several countries combineden.chinadiplomacy.org.cn. This underscored how China is leveraging its technological prowess to shape future markets (electric vehicles, solar and battery supply chains, etc.) and help fellow developing countries leapfrog ahead.

India, for its part, emerged increasingly confident on the world stage as well. Now the world’s most populous nation and fifth-largest economy, India positioned itself as the voice of the Global South in international forums. During 2025, Indian diplomacy bridged East and West: for instance, New Delhi maintained cordial ties with Washington but also refused to join Western sanctions on Russia, insisting on strategic autonomy. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India took on leadership roles in forums like the G20 (where the African Union’s admission this year, strongly backed by India and China, symbolized a more inclusive order) and in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS. Indian officials frequently echoed calls for multipolarity, arguing that “as major developing countries, both China and India hope to achieve world multipolarity” and must strengthen cooperation to reform global governanceglobaltimes.cn. Notably, India played host to a Global South Summit in early 2025 that brought together over 120 developing nations to coordinate positions ahead of U.N. and G20 meetings – a clear effort to present a united southern front on issues from debt relief to climate finance.

Crucially, China and India worked together within BRICS to challenge Western dominance of finance and trade architecture. A landmark achievement of the 2025 BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro was agreement on mechanisms to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar in international tradeglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. BRICS finance ministers announced the formation of a technical committee to study a potential joint currency or unit of account for the blocglobaltimes.cn. While a full “BRICS currency” remains a distant goal, the member states made concrete progress on de-dollarization: by 2025, China and Russia were conducting over 80% of their bilateral trade in yuan and rubles rather than dollarsglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn, and Brazil had sealed a pact with China to use yuan-real for all trade, bypassing the dollar entirelyglobaltimes.cn. Even India – traditionally cautious about challenging the dollar – began allowing its biggest refiner to purchase Russian crude oil in Chinese yuanglobaltimes.cn. These steps, coupled with the New Development Bank (BRICS’ own multilateral lender) raising the share of loans it issues in local currencies, show an accelerating “weaving of a non-dollar web” in global commerceglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn.

Strategically, both Asian giants also expanded their regional leadership. China took a lead role in mediating conflicts and fostering new security alignments in Asia. It notably helped de-escalate border tensions between longtime rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia (having brokered their diplomatic rapprochement in 2023) and supported peace talks in civil strife-torn Myanmar. India, meanwhile, projected influence across the Indian Ocean and into Africa – for example, investing in East African port projects and security cooperation with Indian Ocean island states. In South Asia, India’s economic weight made it a de facto guarantor for smaller neighbors’ stability (such as Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring). Both countries also found common cause in calling out Western hypocrisy on climate and trade. At U.N. climate negotiations, China and India led the G77 in demanding that the U.S. and EU deliver on climate finance pledges, arguing it was unjust for the West to expect developing nations to curb growth without adequate support.

It was not all smooth sailing: China and India still have a thorny bilateral relationship, marked by an unresolved Himalayan border dispute and competition for influence. Yet, pragmatism largely prevailed in 2025. As a Global Times editorial observed, “strengthening interaction [between China and India] is a rational choice in a multipolar world”globaltimes.cn. And indeed, at BRICS and other forums, New Delhi and Beijing found alignment on broad objectives: defending national sovereignty norms, pushing U.N. reform to give the Global South a greater voice, and developing alternative economic institutions not dominated by Washington. The rise of China and India thus went hand in hand with the rise of BRICS as a geopolitical force. With BRICS nations now spanning Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Eurasia, the group’s clout in agenda-setting grew. Collectively, BRICS pressed for “true multilateralism” as opposed to Western-led “clubs,” emphasizing that international rules should not be dictated by a single bloc’s interestsglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. By year’s end, analysts noted that the “Global South is now leading” in shaping key global debatesglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn – from reforming the World Bank/IMF (where BRICS countries demanded fairer representation) to establishing technology standards and supply chains outside Western control.

The ascent of these Asian powers – working in concert at times – has undeniably shifted perceptions. Western commentators fretted that Washington’s post-Cold War dominance is steadily eroding as Beijing and New Delhi gain prominence. But from the viewpoint of much of the world, 2025’s trends were encouraging: power is becoming more diffused, and voices outside the Euro-Atlantic are finally being heard. As one Global South scholar wrote, this is “the embodiment of humanity’s collective hope for a world order that respects dignity, diversity and the planet”globaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. In other words, the rise of China, India, and their BRICS partners is seen as fostering a more inclusive multipolar world, one not only about great-power rivalry but about elevating the development priorities of billions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Whether this nascent multipolar order delivers on its promise of justice and stability remains to be seen. But 2025 made one thing clear: the era of uncontested Western dominance is ending, and new centers of power are ready to assume a leading role in global affairs.

Trump’s Second Term Turmoil: US Credibility Crumbles

The January 2025 inauguration of President Donald Trump for a second term ushered in a tumultuous year for American governance – one marked by policy whiplash, infighting, and a precipitous decline in U.S. global credibility. Campaigning on an “America First” platform redux, Trump wasted no time reversing many of his predecessor’s policies and asserting a more unilateralist, even isolationist, U.S. stance abroad. The result, as seen from allies and adversaries alike, was incoherent governance in Washington – a mix of bellicose threats, abrupt U-turns, and ad-hoc dealmaking that left other nations unsure where America stood. By year’s end, the consensus among foreign policy observers (including some in the U.S.) was that America’s international standing had deteriorated markedly under Trump’s erratic leadershippewresearch.orgre-russia.net.

One stark illustration came with the release of Trump’s new National Security Strategy (NSS), which startled even America’s closest allies in Europe. The NSS – unveiled in November – espoused a throwback neo-isolationism, focusing U.S. attention on the Western Hemisphere and framing traditional European partners as nearly an afterthought. It warned bluntly that Europe faced “civilizational decline” and lambasted EU nations for “failing to end the war in Ukraine” and not controlling their internal problemsglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. In an extraordinary public rebuke of allies, President Trump gave an interview accusing Europe of “decaying” and free-riding on U.S. security commitmentsglobaltimes.cn. Such rhetoric ruptured the veneer of transatlantic unity. European leaders bristled: Germany’s new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, blasted parts of the U.S. strategy as “unacceptable” and cautioned that Europe “must prepare to manage on its own”globaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. Indeed, Trump’s withering criticism “cast a shadow over the continent,” exposing “unprecedented cracks in transatlantic relations,” according to observers in Brusselsglobaltimes.cn. Long-standing U.S. allies in NATO found themselves questioning Washington’s reliability. Was this the same America that once championed the alliance’s unity? In 2025, it seemed not.

Beyond Europe, Trump’s unorthodox approach sowed confusion and distrust. On the one hand, he talked of ending “forever wars” and pushed Ukraine into a ceasefire (as detailed earlier), positioning himself as a dealmaker for peace. On the other hand, his administration opened new fronts of aggression (for instance, against Venezuela) and ratcheted up confrontation with perceived adversaries like Iran and China in unpredictable ways. Foreign diplomats privately complained that U.S. policy could zigzag from one extreme to another on a whim – often via the President’s late-night social media pronouncements. The State Department and Pentagon frequently appeared out of sync, reflecting rival factions in Trump’s team (populist isolationists versus hawkish hardliners). This policy incoherence eroded America’s aura of leadership. Even allies in Asia-Pacific, while welcoming U.S. security presence, quietly started hedging bets – engaging China more – because they feared Washington might abruptly pull back or push them into conflict.

Quantitatively, global opinion of the U.S. under Trump II plummeted. A Pew Research Center survey across 24 countries mid-2025 found that in 19 of those countries, a majority of the public has little or no confidence in Trump’s leadership in world affairspewresearch.orgpewresearch.org. Words like “arrogant” and “dangerous” were most commonly associated with him, and majorities in most nations doubted his competence on issues from climate change to handling international conflictspewresearch.orgpewresearch.org. Strikingly, U.S. favorability ratings fell significantly in 15 countries compared to just a year prior, including a 20+ point drop in close allies like Canada and Swedenpewresearch.org. In Western Europe, confidence in Trump was only somewhat higher than during his first term (2017–2020), and still far lower than the ratings Europeans gave President Bidenpewresearch.org. A global median of just one-third of people trusted Trump to do the right thing internationallyglobaltimes.cnpewresearch.org. As the Global Times, a Chinese outlet, noted pointedly: “The US’ increasingly unilateral behavior… has led to a sharp decline in its prestige and credibility”globaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. Even many Americans acknowledge this reputational hit. Far from “Making America Great Again” in the eyes of the world, Trump’s governance style appeared to be isolating the United States and diminishing its soft power.

All this translated into concrete strategic consequences. In Europe, Trump’s berating of NATO partners and refusal to fully back Ukraine pushed EU nations to explore greater strategic autonomy – essentially planning for a future where the U.S. might not be a dependable allypresstv.irglobaltimes.cn. In the Middle East, U.S. credibility as a mediator was nil; Washington was seen as green-lighting Israeli excesses in Gaza and had zero role in ceasefire negotiations, which instead fell to actors like Qatar and Egypt. In the Asia-Pacific, countries nervously watched U.S. dealings with China: Trump imposed new rounds of tariffs on Chinese goods (resurrecting the trade war) and sent mixed signals on Taiwan, at times provoking Beijing and at others claiming he’d struck “the greatest deal” with Xi (though no evidence of any grand bargain materialized, to allies’ bafflement). Such unpredictability made regional states question U.S. steadiness in a crisis. Japan and South Korea, while still allied with Washington, quietly opened back-channel talks with Beijing to insure against an American stumble. Across Latin America, Trump’s aggressive stance on leftist governments (from Cuba to Venezuela) revived memories of Yanqui meddling; Mexico, Argentina, and others distanced themselves from U.S. initiatives.

Meanwhile, at home, governance was chaotic. The Trump White House cycled through key officials at a dizzying rate (by September, Trump was on his third National Security Advisor of the year). Partisan battles led to a brief federal government shutdown in October, further tarnishing the image of U.S. stabilitypresstv.ir. Domestic turmoil – including ongoing congressional investigations into Trump’s personal legal issues – consumed bandwidth that might have been used for international leadership. The overall picture was an America absorbed in its own divisions and led by a mercurial president who often shunned multilateral cooperation. This did not go unnoticed abroad. European public opinion polls in late 2025 showed majorities in countries like France and Germany viewing the U.S. as unreliable or even a destabilizing force internationallyglobaltimes.cnpewresearch.org. Confidence in U.S. global leadership reached near post-WWII lows.

By year’s end, many analysts concluded that Trump’s second term had accelerated an ongoing trend: the decline of U.S. hegemony. Allies were openly speaking of life “after Pax Americana”, hedging their bets between East and West. Rivals were more brazen – Russia and China certainly capitalized on the leadership vacuum. And non-aligned powers in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America felt emboldened to assert independent policies without fearing U.S. retribution as before. The world’s policeman appeared not only reluctant but also inconsistent and internally conflicted. In sum, 2025 under Trump confirmed what one Asia Times commentator dubbed the “Price of Unpredictability”: America’s friends and foes alike saw the superpower as less credible, less cohesive, and less commanding than at any point in recent memoryforeignaffairs.comglobaltimes.cn. While the U.S. remains a formidable military and economic power, its ability to lead by example or by consensus was dramatically undermined – a development that has accelerated the tilt toward a multipolar world.

Washington’s Warpath in Venezuela: Blockades and “Narco-Terror” Strikes

In a year when U.S. foreign policy often appeared disengaged or erratic elsewhere, one region felt a very direct – and violent – focus of the Trump administration’s attention: Venezuela. The oil-rich South American nation, long at odds with Washington, became the target of a dramatic U.S. military campaign in late 2025 that critics likened to a low-intensity war. Under the banner of combating drug cartels and “narco-terrorism,” the United States launched a series of lethal strikes at sea, imposed a naval blockade, and even seized vessels in international waters – all actions that inflicted civilian casualties and infrastructure damage in Venezuela and its environs.

The campaign intensified through the latter half of the year. In early September, President Trump gave the green light to Joint Task Force “Southern Spear” to use force against suspected narcotics shipments allegedly linked to Venezuela. What followed was unprecedented: U.S. drones, helicopters, and patrol aircraft began tracking and destroying small boats and ships in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, often without warning. The U.S. Defense Secretary, former Navy SEAL Pete Hegseth, touted these as “lethal kinetic strikes on vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations”presstv.irpresstv.ir. In practice, many of the targets were go-fast boats and fishing vessels the U.S. claimed were moving cocaine – but the strikes frequently resulted in all aboard being killed, with no due process or opportunity to surrender. By mid-December, the Pentagon acknowledged at least two dozen such strikes since September, with a death toll of at least 99 people – most of them killed in international waters off Venezuela’s coastpresstv.irpresstv.ir. Human rights observers raised alarms that innocent fishermen or coerced traffickers were being summarily executed from the air. One particularly egregious incident saw a U.S. aircraft, after disabling a boat, fire on survivors clinging to floating debris, killing two injured men – a act widely condemned as a possible war crimepresstv.irpresstv.ir.

Image: U.S. Southern Command released footage of a so called “narco-terror” boat being targeted by American forces in the Eastern Pacific, December 2025. The Trump administration’s campaign has reportedly killed nearly 100 people in maritime strikes since Septemberpresstv.ir.

President Trump defended the offensive unabashedly. In mid-December, he stood before cameras and declared the U.S. was engaged in an “armed conflict with the drug cartels,” likening them to ISIS and Al-Qaeda. He accused Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of turning his country into a narco-state and vowed to “smash” any networks threatening the U.S. with illicit drugs. On December 17, Trump took the extraordinary step of declaring a naval blockade on Venezuela – announcing that all sanctioned Venezuelan oil tankers would be prevented from entering or leaving the country’s portspresstv.irpresstv.ir. This blockade, enforced by U.S. Navy warships and coast guard cutters, sharply escalated the economic warfare on Caracas, essentially cutting off Venezuela’s primary source of revenue (oil exports) by force. Under the blockade, at least one Venezuela-flagged tanker was boarded and seized by U.S. forces, prompting outrage from Caracas. President Maduro lambasted the move as proof that Washington’s real aim was “regime change, not drug control,” and that the U.S. sought to “turn Venezuela into its colony”presstv.irpresstv.ir. He noted that the U.S. had simultaneously assembled its largest regional military presence in decades – including carrier strike groups and thousands of troops on exercises in nearby Guyana and the Caribbean – suggesting an invasion was being contemplatedpresstv.ir.

Inside the U.S., a few voices of caution emerged. Some lawmakers in Congress – including libertarian Republicans and progressive Democrats – questioned the legal basis for what essentially looked like an undeclared war in the eastern Pacific. They pointed out that Congress had not authorized any use of force in Venezuela, and that killing foreign nationals on the high seas in peacetime could violate both U.S. and international law. These concerns led the House of Representatives to vote on measures to limit Trump’s Venezuela aggression, but in November those measures were narrowly defeated amid partisan divisionspresstv.ir. Meanwhile, human rights groups demanded transparency. They pressed Secretary Hegseth to release video from the strikes (especially the controversial September 2 incident), but he flatly refused, even as global criticism mountedpresstv.ir. The administration insisted everything was within the bounds of “lawful warfare” – a claim many legal experts contested given the lack of a clear armed-conflict legal framework for attacking civilian boats.

The impacts on Venezuelan civilians were severe. The naval blockade caused petrol and diesel shortages inland, crippling transport and agriculture. Repair parts for the electrical grid and water systems – many of which Venezuela imported – were delayed or blocked, worsening an already dire humanitarian situation stemming from years of sanctions. And while Trump’s team touted the strikes as successful (they claimed tons of drugs were intercepted), Venezuelan officials said the U.S. attacks often hit legitimate fishing boats and cost innocent lives. Even some regional neighbors voiced disapproval. Mexico and Argentina at the U.N. raised concerns about the precedent set by attacking vessels without due process. CARICOM (Caribbean community) nations worried the aggressive U.S. actions in their waters could endanger their own citizens. The Organization of American States was largely mute (reflecting U.S. influence), but CARICOM and the ALBA bloc of leftist Latin countries called emergency meetings to discuss the crisis.

Geopolitically, Trump’s Venezuela offensive further isolated Washington in Latin America. The timing was noted: it coincided with political shifts in the region. By 2025, left-leaning governments held power in a majority of Latin America’s largest countries – Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Chile – many of whom expressed sympathy for Venezuela’s sovereignty even if they had differences with Maduro. These countries refused to join any U.S. “coalition” against Venezuela. In the U.N. General Assembly, a resolution condemning unilateral force and blockades (clearly aimed at the U.S. campaign) was introduced by the Group of 77 and China – it garnered over 120 votes in favor, though the U.S. vetoed binding action in the Security Council. The Net effect was a further loss of U.S. moral authority. As one Latin American diplomat put it, the U.S. seemed to be re-running the 1989 Panama playbook (when Bush invaded Panama) in slow motion – “but Latin America of 2025 is not the Latin America of the 1980s”, he said, noting that many countries now openly resist U.S. dictates.

Notably, Trump’s own Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, in an off-message moment, admitted to Vanity Fair that the maritime strikes were indeed part of a broader plan to weaken and oust Maduro’s governmentpresstv.irpresstv.ir. This corroborated what Maduro and others alleged: that the war on “narco-terror” was a pretext to achieve through force what the U.S. had failed to accomplish via economic sanctions and failed coup attempts in previous years. By year’s end, Venezuela remained defiant. Maduro, bolstered by continued support from allies like Cuba, Iran, and to an extent Russia (which sent a few shipments of fuel and food despite the blockade), declared that the U.S. “will simply never” succeed in recolonizing Venezuelapresstv.ir. However, the humanitarian toll on the Venezuelan people was undeniable, raising tough questions about international law and the limits of American power. As the Press TV network bluntly concluded, “Washington’s real objective is regime change”, and in pursuit of that, the U.S. exhibited a “warmongering and colonialist pretense” that global opinion strongly criticizedpresstv.irpresstv.ir.

Europe’s Decline: Ukraine Policy Blowback and Internal Fractures

For the European Union, 2025 was a sobering year of political and economic decline that called into question Europe’s global relevance in the emerging multipolar order. Having tied its fortunes closely to the U.S.-led strategy on Ukraine, the EU found itself bruised by the outcome of the conflict and riven with internal divisions. The prolonged Ukraine war – which Europe helped finance and fuel with arms – exacted a heavy price on EU economies while yielding none of the intended results. Instead of a humbled Russia and a secure Eastern Europe, the EU got a frozen conflict on its border, a resurgent Moscow, and “a costly lesson in realpolitik” about the limits of its influenceglobaltimes.cn. Meanwhile, the sanctions blowback and energy crunch from the war pummeled Europe’s industrial base and drove inflation to record levels, just as social cohesion frayed under waves of political fragmentation.

By abandoning its initial hard-line stance and acquiescing to a negotiated peace that favored Russia, Europe implicitly acknowledged a strategic failure. As Press TV reported, by late 2025 European leaders accepted a U.S. peace framework that required recognizing Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territories as fait accompli, because they saw no other choice in an “endless and devastating war with the Russian bear”presstv.ir. This capitulation undermined the EU’s credibility enormously – especially in Eastern European member states like Poland and the Baltics, which had trusted Brussels’ resolve. NATO’s inability to deliver a victory (or even a stalemate on favorable terms) for Ukraine also shattered transatlantic unity. The once-solid front between Washington and European capitals developed visible cracks: Western European powers like France and Germany became anxious to end the war to relieve economic strain, even if it meant pressuring Kyiv into painful concessionspresstv.irpresstv.ir. Eastern members felt betrayed by that pragmatism. The result was an EU more internally strained than at any time since the 2015 migrant crisis or even the Brexit saga.

Economically, the EU entered a period of stagnation. The loss of cheap Russian natural gas – pillar of German and Central European industry – had driven energy costs sky-high in 2023-2024. By 2025, the promised alternatives (LNG from the U.S., renewables, etc.) still could not fully cushion the blow. Europe’s growth flatlined; Germany narrowly avoided recession thanks only to government subsidies, while countries like Italy and Hungary saw their economies contract. “Europe is enduring a prolonged period of low growth,” observed China’s Global Times, noting that external crises (like Ukraine) and internal flaws combined to sap Europe’s economic vitalityglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. Inflation in the eurozone spiked to levels not seen in decades, fueled by energy and defense spending. Meanwhile, the massive costs of supporting Ukraine – tens of billions in aid and the expense of replenishing depleted military stockpiles – strained national budgets. Despite the fanfare of EU unity for Ukraine, by late 2025 several governments were openly balking at new funding for Kyiv. A Brussels summit in December to arrange €50+ billion in long-term aid nearly collapsed, with arguments that Europe’s own reconstruction (post-COVID, post-energy shock) should take priority. As Press TV put it, Europe faced “a shortage of funds” for both supporting Ukraine and rearming itself; its finances were “already straining” under the weight of crisesglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. The fundamental post-Cold War assumption – that Europe could afford both butter and guns in limitless quantity – was shattered.

Politically, 2025 saw social fragmentation intensify across Europe, feeding the rise of anti-establishment forces. The cost-of-living crisis – energy bills, food prices – ignited frequent street protests from Prague to Paris. Voters vented their anger at mainstream parties seen as out-of-touch or too subservient to Washington’s policies. In multiple EU states, far-right populist parties (some sympathetic to Russia or hostile to continued Ukraine aid) surged in polls. For instance, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany hit record popularity, while Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France capitalized on discontent with President Macron’s international priorities. “European citizens no longer buy into the ‘values wars’ touted by mainstream politicians,” wrote one analysis, noting people “bear the brunt of the energy crisis, soaring inflation and declining living standards” while elites lecture about abstract principlesglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. This “democratic deficit” – a yawning gap between EU policy and public sentiment – widened dangerouslyglobaltimes.cn. Trust in national governments eroded, and identification with the EU project diminished. Eastern Europe, too, saw democratic backsliding and defiance of Brussels: Poland and Hungary, already at odds with the EU on rule-of-law issues, dug in further, emboldened by what they viewed as an EU leadership vacuum and hypocrisy (e.g. Brussels preaching rule of law but cozying up to regimes like HTS-ruled Syria for geopolitics).

Europe’s strategic impotence was most embarrassingly displayed in the Middle East. As Gaza burned under Israeli bombardment, European states were deeply divided on how to respond. Some smaller nations (Ireland, Belgium, etc.) condemned Israeli actions and called for ceasefire; but heavyweights like Germany felt constrained by guilt and U.S. pressure to support Israel publicly. The EU as a bloc could say very little of substance – a paralysis that diminished its moral standing globally. Meanwhile, Europe’s pretensions to being a diplomatic power-broker – for example in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program or mediating in African conflicts – were largely sidelined by more assertive actors (Russia, China, regional powers).

Within the EU, the structure of decision-making itself showed strain. The requirement for unanimous agreement on major issues (sanctions, budgetary moves, enlargement, etc.) led to paralysis or lowest-common-denominator outcomesglobaltimes.cn. For example, Hungary single-handedly held up an EU aid tranche to Ukraine for months, demanding unrelated concessions. On admitting new members (like Ukraine’s own EU candidacy), unity was lacking. This institutional inertia, combined with divergent national interests, led a Chinese professor to quip that Europe “finds itself in a predicament where pulling on one thread unravels the entire tapestry”globaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn – meaning every major decision risked exposing internal contradictions.

Perhaps most worrying for Brussels is the loss of global influence. Once a trendsetter in trade and regulatory policy, the EU in 2025 found itself largely reacting to agendas set by others. “Europe’s hard power and influence… are diminishing,” concluded the Global Times, citing how the EU struggled to respond to simultaneous internal and external challengesglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. The United States, under Trump, sidelined Europe on key issues (making deals with Russia over Europe’s head, as seen in the Ukraine settlement negotiations run via Washington and Berlinpresstv.ir). In the Global South, Europe’s stock hit a nadir – its alignment with U.S. sanctions and its perceived neocolonial attitude (especially France’s troubles in Africa) alienated many developing countries. A telling metric: when the U.N. voted on resolutions critical of Western positions (like over Palestine or Russia’s sanctions), more countries than ever before either abstained or supported the non-West line, ignoring European exhortations. The EU’s soft power – its claim to moral high ground, democratic values, economic allure – has taken a beating in an era of rising authoritarian capitalism (exemplified by China) and Western missteps.

Yet, amid the gloomy assessments, some Europeans began charting a path forward. The events of 2025 gave momentum to voices calling for “strategic autonomy” – the idea that Europe must be able to act independently of the U.S. “Pressured by fragile defense frailties, political fractures and a stalling economy, [Europe] has embarked on profound self-examination,” one commentator observedglobaltimes.cn. President Macron of France (fresh off facing domestic unrest) and Chancellor Merz of Germany convened an extraordinary EU council on defense union. There, proposals were floated for joint EU military units and even a European Nuclear Deterrent (via French forces) to reduce reliance on the U.S. NATO remained, but Europeans signaled interest in a parallel security structure under EU control. Furthermore, Europe started rethinking its posture toward emerging powers. Recognizing it could not afford a new Cold War with China, the EU began cautiously rebuilding ties with Beijing. “Europe must carefully consider its relationship with China,” urged Global Times, advising Europe to balance its U.S. ties with a more pragmatic, “complementary cooperation” with Chinaglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn. Indeed, late in the year the EU sent its first delegation to Beijing to discuss investment and technology cooperation since relations soured – a tentative step toward strategic rebalancing.

Still, the road ahead is fraught. As former British PM Tony Blair bluntly warned in December, if the EU does not reform drastically, it risks global irrelevance in the new orderreuters.com. The collapse of its Ukraine strategy and the centrifugal forces pulling at its unity make that warning salient. In 2025, the European Union – long seen as a pillar of the liberal international order – appeared more as a cautionary tale of a bloc caught in transition: overstretched externally, undercoordinated internally. Whether it can renewal through integration and autonomy, or whether it declines into second-tier status on the world stage, remains one of the pressing questions as the multipolar era dawns.

Africa’s Anti-Colonial Turn: Ousting France and Embracing Sovereignty

Across Africa, 2025 was a year of empowerment and pushback – a continent-wide assertion of sovereignty that saw the expulsion of French influence from several former colonies and a bold drive toward Pan-African solidarity. This trend, building for years, reached a crescendo as one African nation after another severed military ties with Paris, ending decades (in some cases over a century) of neo-colonial dominance. In West and Central Africa especially, the message was unmistakable: the era of “Françafrique” – France’s post-colonial sphere of influence – is over.

The shift was dramatic. By 2025, six West African countries – Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Niger, and notably this year, Chad and Ivory Coast – had cut defense cooperation with France and demanded French troops departaljazeera.comaljazeera.com. In quick succession, long-standing French military bases were shut down. In February, France officially withdrew from its last base in Ivory Coast, a country once considered a cornerstone of French West Africapresstv.irpresstv.ir. A ceremonial handover in Abidjan saw the Ivorian flag raised over the base as French forces left, ending a continuous presence that dated back to Ivory Coast’s independence in 1960presstv.irpresstv.ir. French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu, presiding over the exit, admitted “the world is changing… our military relationship should change”presstv.ir. But in truth, the change was imposed on Paris by a wave of African “frexit” – a regional rejection of foreign garrisons. Chad, France’s staunchest ally in the Sahel, delivered an even bigger shock when its government announced on its Independence Day that it was ending all French military cooperationvocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cuvocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cu. French troops that had been stationed in Chad for over 6 decades were told to pack up. And in Senegal, a new president – swept to power on a wave of youth discontent – declared it “obvious” that French soldiers would no longer be welcome on Senegalese soil eithervocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cuvocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cu.

By year’s end, French soldiers had been expelled or asked to leave from over 70% of their bases in Africapresstv.irpresstv.ir. From the large Sahelian outposts of Mali and Niger to coastal Senegal and Ivory Coast, the footprint of France’s once-formidable Operation Barkhane and related missions was nearly erased. Only two significant French deployments remained: about 1,500 troops in Djibouti (in the Horn of Africa) and a small force in Gabon, Central Africapresstv.ir. Those too faced uncertain futures as local sentiment grew impatient with any vestiges of foreign militarism. As a senior analyst Mucahid Durmaz observed, “Chad’s decision marks the final nail in the coffin of France’s post-colonial military dominance in the entire Sahel region”, reflecting a “wider structural transformation” in Africa’s engagement with Francevocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cuvocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cu. In plainer terms, France’s influence – political, military, economic – in its former African colonies has never been weaker than it is now.

What drove this sweeping change? Fundamentally, African populations and new leaders demanded sovereignty and dignity. Years of frustration had built up: French military interventions had not quelled the Islamist insurgencies plaguing the Sahel, economies remained tied to old colonial-era currencies (like the CFA franc), and political elites propped up by France were seen as corrupt and repressive. A younger generation of Africans, connected via social media, helped ignite mass protests with chants like “France dégage!” (“France get out!”). In 2025, these sentiments were translated into policy by governments – especially military juntas that took power in Mali (2021), Guinea (2021), Burkina Faso (2022), and Niger (2023). These juntas rode populist anger to justify ejecting ambassadors and troops of the former colonial power. Even in more democratic states like Senegal and Ivory Coast, incumbent leaders pivoted to anti-French positions to maintain legitimacy in the face of public pressure and opposition gainsaljazeera.comaljazeera.com. Ivory Coast’s President Alassane Ouattara, long regarded as Paris-friendly, surprised many by announcing that French forces must withdraw because the Ivorian army is “now effective” and can handle security itselfaljazeera.comaljazeera.com. Analysts noted Ouattara likely also acted to steal the thunder of anti-French rivals ahead of elections, but whatever the motive, the outcome was clear – France was out.

The eviction of France also had an economic and symbolic dimension. Several countries moved to reclaim control over natural resources that had been dominated by French companies. Mali, for instance, revoked a French multinational’s gold mining license and invited firms from Russia and China instead. Niger, a major uranium producer, renegotiated terms with France’s Orano company amid accusations that France’s decades of mining amounted to “mass crimes” against the Nigerien peoplepresstv.irpresstv.ir. Such steps are part of a broader push to finally “decolonize” African economies – whether through establishing new currencies, diversifying trade partners, or asserting better terms for resource extraction.

The Pan-African sovereignty movement also manifested in greater cooperation among African nations themselves. Notably, the three Sahel countries under military rule – Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger – formed a defensive alliance (the Liptako-Gourma Charter) pledging mutual support against external aggression or internal destabilization. When ECOWAS (the West African regional bloc) – prodded by France and the U.S. – threatened military intervention to reverse Niger’s July 2023 coup, not only did Mali and Burkina warn they’d fight in Niger’s defense, but Nigeria’s public strongly opposed their own government’s participation. ECOWAS ultimately backed down from intervention, illustrating how Western influence via African proxies has waned. Meanwhile, the African Union showed new assertiveness on the global stage. In 2025, the African Union gained a seat at the G20 table (as a permanent member), a development championed by India and China to ensure Africa’s voice is heard in major economic decisions. African leaders used that platform to press for reforms in global finance and climate funding, often in concert with BRICS partners.

Indeed, Africa gravitated toward the multipolar ethos. Many African states deepened ties with China, Russia, Turkey, and others as alternatives to Western patrons. China is now the largest trading partner and investor for most of Africa, financing infrastructure without the political strings Western aid often carried. Russia has expanded security ties – the Wagner Group, though mired in controversy, provided training and support that some regimes found valuable after kicking out French forces. As one West African analyst put it, “They want to explore options with Russia, China, Turkey and other powers” because ties with France “have not benefited the population”vocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cuvocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cu. Even Middle Eastern players like the UAE stepped in – for example, reportedly offering Chad security aid after it expelled the French, showing that Africans are actively diversifying partnershipsvocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cu.

A palpable sense of Pan-Africanism also re-emerged. Across borders, Africans cheered each other’s moves to reclaim sovereignty. When Niger expelled the French ambassador and troops in 2023, supportive rallies were held in Mali and Burkina Faso. In 2025, as Ivory Coast joined the “French troops go home” club, many across Francophone Africa hailed it as a collective victory. Social media buzzed with slogans of African unity, and cultural exchanges (through music, film, and academic forums) stressed shared identity over colonial languages or divisions. The refrain “African solutions to African problems” gained substance: from mediating regional conflicts to joint military exercises like the “African Shield 2025” that brought together forces from 10 countries (with no Western advisers involved) for disaster response and counterterror drills.

Of course, challenges remain. The security vacuum left by departing foreign forces has in some places been filled by instability. The Sahel’s jihadist insurgencies did not disappear with France’s exit; in fact, extremist attacks rose in Mali and Burkina in 2025, testing the capacity of local armiesvocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cuvocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cu. Some critics argue that Russia or China could become new hegemons if Africa is not careful, swapping one dependency for another. But for many Africans, the immediate focus is on breaking the cycle of foreign domination. The symbolism of raising national flags over former foreign bases – as seen in Abidjan and N’Djamena – is powerful. It feeds a sense of pride and possibility: that African nations, by uniting and asserting themselves, can chart an independent course.

In summary, 2025 will be remembered as the year Africa’s post-colonial second independence truly accelerated. The strengthening of Pan-African sovereignty is evident in the way African states stood up to former metropoles, coordinated in multilateral forums, and amplified their collective voice for fairness in the international system. As Press TV noted, “the French withdrawal… reflects a broader shift in West Africa’s ties with Paris amid rising anti-French sentiment”, part of a continental trend of reclaiming agencypresstv.irpresstv.ir. In the larger multipolar narrative, Africa’s rise is essential: with 1.3 billion people and vast resources, the continent’s liberation from neo-colonial influence means a more balanced world. African nations are no longer content to be pawns in others’ games; they seek to be players in their own right. If this momentum holds, Africa’s renaissance will be a cornerstone of the emerging multipolar order – fulfilling the dreams of early pan-Africanists that a free, united Africa can stand equal among the world’s powers.

Conclusion: The New World Taking Shape

From the steppes of Ukraine to the streets of West Africa, the events of 2025 together paint a tableau of a world in transition. The unipolar moment of U.S. and Western primacy is fading, giving way to a multipolar order defined by a diverse set of powerful actors and regional blocs. This year, a resurgent Russia bluntly demonstrated that NATO’s will can be thwarted. An emboldened Iran and its allies showed that even a U.S.-backed regional hegemon like Israel could be held to account for its actions, at least in the court of global opinion. China and India underscored that economic and diplomatic leadership no longer emanates only from the West – the Global South is increasingly setting its own agenda. And across developing nations, from Latin America’s defiance of Washington’s interventions to Africa’s expulsion of European troops, there is a clear demand for sovereign equality and respect, not paternalism.

None of this is to romanticize the multipolar world as automatically peaceful or just. Indeed, 2025 also witnessed horrific bloodshed and new dangers. The collapse of old arrangements can breed instability, as seen in Syria’s turmoil after regime change or the security gaps in the Sahel after French withdrawals. Multipolarity is not a panacea; it means more centers of decision-making, which can complicate efforts to address global challenges like climate change or pandemics. But what is evident is that hegemony is being challenged on all fronts. Western powers, especially the United States and European Union, face a stark reckoning with their own shortcomings and overextensions. As even European leaders admitted, the West must adapt to a world where it “faces the risk of civilizational decline” if it fails to renew itselfglobaltimes.cn. The alternative – embracing true multilateral cooperation on the basis of mutual respect – is ironically what Western nations had long preached but not always practiced. Now, they are being held to those ideals by rising counterparts.

For the first time in generations, multiple civilizational poles – Eurasian, South Asian, Middle Eastern, African, Latin American – are asserting their interests in a way that constrains unilateral power. This “multipolar moment,” born through the trials and tragedies of 2025, could lead to a more balanced international system if managed wisely. It could force reforms in institutions like the UN Security Council and Bretton Woods financial system to be more inclusive. It could temper the impulse of any one nation to act as the world’s policeman, knowing that others can and will push back. Certainly, the Global South’s leadership, as seen in BRICS and other forums, is pushing for an order where development needs and historical justice take center stageglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn.

The key moving forward will be whether major powers avoid turning multipolar competition into a zero-sum contest. The spirit of 2025’s resistance – whether Ukraine’s survival instinct, Gaza’s steadfastness, or Africa’s unity – was ultimately about dignity and equality. If that lesson is heeded, a multipolar world could be more equitable and stable than the unipolar or bipolar eras of the past. As of the end of 2025, at least, the world has unmistakably entered a new chapter: one in which Western hegemony is no longer taken for granted, and multiple voices now write the narrative of international relations. The birth of this multipolar order has been painful, but in the eyes of many nations long marginalized, it is the overdue “rebalancing…of the world based on mutual respect” that figures like Medvedev proclaimedgroups.google.comgroups.google.com. The task ahead will be turning that proclamation into a lived reality – forging a just peace in Ukraine, real freedom for Palestine, genuine partnership with Africa, and shared prosperity rather than new great-power rivalries. The story of 2025 shows both the promise and the peril on that path, and the world will be watching how these developments unfold in the years to come.

Sources: The analysis draws on diverse independent media reports and expert commentary, including Press TV (Iran) for on-the-ground perspectives in West Asia and Latin Americapresstv.irpresstv.ir, RT (Russia) for viewpoints on the Ukraine conflict and EU politicsgroups.google.comgroups.google.com, Global Times (China) for insights on multipolar trends and European challengesglobaltimes.cnglobaltimes.cn, as well as regional outlets like Al Mayadeen and Prensa Latina for Africa’s post-colonial developmentsvocesdelsur.prensa-latina.cupresstv.ir. These non-Western sources corroborate the major events and help illuminate the growing consensus in much of the world that 2025 marked a decisive break from Western-centric narratives toward a more multipolar reality.

The post 2025: The Birth of a Multipolar World Order appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

“This wasn’t about uranium. It was about the petrodollar,” she declares.

Speaking in the aftermath of canceled travel plans to Tehran—where she was scheduled to report on the DeBlock blockchain conference—Anastacia’s commentary blends personal experience with geopolitical analysis. Her central claim: the strikes on Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility were designed to derail Iran’s integration into BRICS, the growing economic bloc that now includes several of the world’s top energy exporters.

According to Anastacia, Iran’s 2024 accession to BRICS fundamentally altered global energy politics. With 9.5% of the world’s oil and 12% of its gas reserves, Iran represents not only a key supplier but also a symbolic pillar of non-Western cooperation. In her view, the expanded BRICS threatens the 50-year-old petrodollar system by encouraging energy trade outside the U.S. dollar—a move she believes Western powers will not tolerate.

“When over half the world starts trading outside the dollar,” she explains, “Washington’s sanctions become worthless paper.”

Anastacia connects the military strike with broader strategy. Referencing reports by journalist Pepe Escobar and public remarks by Donald Trump, she suggests U.S. and Israeli coordination intended to disrupt Iran’s role in Eurasian integration. She points to the International North-South Transport Corridor and BRICS energy initiatives like the proposed Iran-Russia gas hub as examples of infrastructure threatening Western control.

The podcast also questions the neutrality of international institutions. Anastacia claims IAEA inspections were “intelligence missions” that enabled Israeli precision strikes. Following the attacks, Iran announced it would no longer cooperate with IAEA nuclear oversight, a move she frames as proof of betrayal rather than aggression.

Throughout, Anastacia casts Iran not as an aggressor but as a keystone in a rising multipolar order. She suggests that Western fears stem less from nuclear development and more from Iran’s ability to anchor a new global economic model, one outside the reach of Western banking and military power.

“This is pattern recognition, not coincidence,” she argues, referencing a history of Western actions including the U.S. assassination of General Qassem Soleimani.

The podcast also critiques the structural weaknesses of BRICS, especially its lack of military coordination. In Anastacia’s words, BRICS must evolve from a “liquid organization” to a structured alliance capable of deterring aggression—or risk being dismantled, member by member.

She warns that without such change, “the West will pick them off one by one.”

The energy data shared paints a picture of long-term transformation. BRICS nations now supply 36.4% of global primary energy, a figure expected to reach 45% by 2040. Projects like the Markan gas hub and Turkmenistan swap routes, she says, represent a non-Western energy framework entirely beyond U.S. and EU control.

In this context, the Israeli strikes appear, in Anastacia’s framing, not as a tactical maneuver against nuclear proliferation but as a last-ditch effort to preserve a dying unipolar world.

“By attacking a BRICS member,” she concludes, “the West may have just accelerated the very multipolarity they sought to prevent.”

While her views challenge conventional media narratives, Anastacia is careful to root her claims in data and named sources. Still, she admits the stakes are monumental: If Russia and China choose not to support Iran, BRICS may falter. If they do, “we are looking at World War Three.”

The podcast ends not with reassurance, but with a stark warning.

“What happens next,” Anastacia says, “will determine whether we live in a world dominated by one superpower—or balanced among many.”

As the mainstream continues to debate nuclear enrichment and regional stability, Think BRICS offers an alternate lens: one that sees in Iran’s bombed infrastructure not the fear of weapons, but the fear of economic independence.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni5q1YKOoJM

The post Israeli Strikes on Iran Targeted Global Economic Shift, Not Nuclear Threat appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

Lascaris, speaking from Montreal on Father’s Day, used the broadcast to reflect on recent developments following Israeli attacks on Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure, and Iran’s subsequent retaliatory strikes on Israeli military and civilian sites. Drawing on his contacts in Tehran and footage from alternative media sources, he depicted a scenario far more dangerous than portrayed in mainstream Western outlets.

Civilian Casualties in Iran

According to Lascaris, at least 78 civilians, many of them women and children, have died in recent Israeli strikes on Iran. He cited a source from Iranian state media and presented a list of victims that included professionals from all walks of life, including a poet, teacher, civil servant, infant, and political activist. “Their only crime,” Lascaris said, “was that they are Iranian.”

He accused Western media, particularly U.S. networks like CNN, of downplaying the severity of the Israeli strikes and focusing instead on narratives supporting Israeli intelligence operations.

Iranian Retaliation and Military Capability

In response to the Israeli assault, Iran launched a series of retaliatory strikes under an operation dubbed “True Promise 3.” Lascaris claimed these attacks targeted critical infrastructure in Israel, including an oil refinery in Haifa and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot. Video evidence shared from Telegram channels suggested hypersonic missiles were used in some of the strikes, with one reportedly reaching Mach 11 before impact.

While acknowledging he couldn’t independently verify every video, Lascaris emphasized that these sources — including Resistance News Network and the Military Media Channel — had proven reliable throughout the conflict in Gaza and other regional crises. He claimed Iran’s weapons were penetrating Israel’s air defenses more effectively than expected, including those supported by American and British military systems.

Analysis of Israeli Vulnerabilities

Lascaris argued that Israel is ill-equipped for a long-term war with Iran. “Israel has never fought an attritional war on this scale,” he said, noting that it took the Israeli military more than a year to contain Hezbollah’s attacks from southern Lebanon — a significantly smaller and more localized force.

He outlined key disadvantages for Israel:

• Iran’s population of over 90 million dwarfs Israel’s Jewish population of roughly 7.2 million.
• Iran’s vast, mountainous geography contrasts with Israel’s densely populated urban centers concentrated in a small area between Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem.
• Iran has superior missile and drone manufacturing capabilities and could receive substantial military support from strategic allies such as China and Russia.

He also cited evidence that Iran’s air defenses had already shot down Israeli F-35 jets, although this claim remains unconfirmed.

Western Involvement and Strategic Calculations

Despite official denials from Washington, Lascaris stated that the U.S. is already deeply involved in Israel’s military campaign. He pointed to American refueling of Israeli aircraft, real-time battlefield intelligence sharing, and joint air defense coordination as proof.

According to Israeli media, Israel requested direct American military intervention in recent days — a request reportedly declined by the Trump administration, which has thus far maintained a stance of limited engagement. Lascaris expressed skepticism: “The U.S. is already providing critical support behind the scenes, and a full-scale intervention seems only a matter of time.”

He argued that domestic political calculations — especially among Trump’s voter base, who oppose new wars — are delaying an open U.S. entry into the conflict.

Risk of Nuclear Conflict

Lascaris issued one of his starkest warnings about the potential for nuclear escalation. “There has never been a greater risk of nuclear war in our lifetimes — not even during the Cuban Missile Crisis,” he said. He accused Israel of violating international law by targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and warned of catastrophic consequences should radioactive materials be released.

He expressed particular concern about Israel’s “genocidal leadership,” accusing them of using inflammatory rhetoric and threatening to “make Tehran burn.” Lascaris warned that such language, when used by a nuclear-armed state, should not be taken lightly.

Strategic Context and Global Stakes

He framed the Israel-Iran conflict as part of a broader American strategy to maintain dominance in West Asia. Citing a 2009 Brookings Institution report titled “Which Path to Persia?”, Lascaris claimed that U.S. neoconservative think tanks have long envisioned using Israel to provoke conflict with Iran in a way that minimizes American political fallout. He argued that Israel is being used as a proxy to weaken Iran ahead of more direct U.S. involvement.

“This is not about nuclear weapons,” he said. “It’s about regime change. They want to put in power a puppet government that will serve Washington and Tel Aviv — not the Iranian people.”

He also warned that a U.S. victory in Iran would dramatically strengthen American and Israeli control over West Asia, threaten Chinese access to regional energy resources, and undermine Russia’s geopolitical interests. This, he predicted, would trigger strong countermeasures from both Beijing and Moscow.

Call to Action

Lascaris expressed dismay at the lack of protest in Western countries, particularly in contrast to the global demonstrations seen during the Iraq War. He urged citizens to pressure their governments to oppose further escalation. “We must act now, before it’s too late,” he said. “Nuclear terror is already being normalized.”

He concluded by emphasizing the gravity of the situation and calling for immediate public mobilization to halt what he called a slide toward disaster. “We are being dragged into a conflict that could end life as we know it. And we must resist.”

Source: https://www.youtube.com/@reason2resist

The post Mounting Escalation: Dimitri Lascaris Warns of Broader War After Israel-Iran Strikes appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

At the center of Sachs’ analysis is the deepening instability in the Middle East, which he attributes largely to the United States’ unconditional support for Israel’s hardline policies. According to him, the recent escalation in Gaza, potential military confrontations with Iran, and wider regional tensions in places like Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria, stem from what he calls “the full control of the extremist Israeli government over US foreign policy in the Middle East.”

He characterizes the Biden and Trump administrations alike as having ceded American sovereignty in regional matters, accusing both of enabling what he calls Israel’s “murderous attacks” and broader ambitions of territorial domination. In his words, Netanyahu has long harbored “a plan for regime change through war with Iran,” and this agenda has effectively hijacked American strategy. The abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) under Trump, and the Biden administration’s unwillingness to reengage meaningfully, are in Sachs’ view emblematic of a broader pattern: diplomacy is being replaced by militarism.

He bluntly asserts that the Trump administration “killed” the JCPOA “under the guidance of Netanyahu,” despite Iran’s consistent interest in diplomacy. The consequences, Sachs warns, are profound. “The only path to peace,” he says, “is a two-state solution. The only other way is ongoing slaughter.” Instead, what he sees is an Israeli strategy of “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians and a regional policy of domination backed by U.S. arms and funding.

This militarized approach, Sachs argues, is not just morally reprehensible, but strategically disastrous. He sees the current trajectory potentially leading to a full-scale war with Iran, a country with a powerful military and a long civilizational history, deeply allied with Russia. “If there were a war with Iran,” he warns, “it would be horrible, tragic, dangerous, and the potential tinder for World War III.”

Sachs’ criticisms are not limited to the Middle East. He sees a similar lack of strategic coherence in the U.S. approach to global power competition, particularly with China and Russia. Trump’s economic nationalism, expressed through sweeping tariffs and threats of decoupling, is, in his words, “economic ignorance.” Far from strengthening the U.S. position, these moves are “uniting the world against the United States.”

He calls the notion that tariffs will fix trade imbalances or restore American industry “completely fallacious.” Instead, he predicts that such policies will “isolate the United States both economically and diplomatically,” weakening its global role and encouraging other nations to build alternative trading systems.

In Sachs’ view, the Trump administration doesn’t operate according to any coherent grand strategy. Instead, he describes it as “improvisation” laced with bluster and guided largely by domestic politics and lobby interests—especially those aligned with Israel. He sees Trump’s posture toward Russia as transactional rather than strategic, guided by a crude division of influence and resources rather than a broader geopolitical framework.

Europe, meanwhile, doesn’t escape Sachs’ scrutiny. He portrays the continent as confused, fractured, and increasingly irrelevant. “Europe basically doesn’t have any foreign policy right now,” he says, lamenting the absence of coherent leadership on major crises such as Ukraine or the Middle East.

While Britain and France, he notes, have taken the most aggressive stance in supporting Ukraine militarily, Sachs finds their actions puzzling and counterproductive. He suggests that Ukraine, under martial law and led by a government increasingly unaccountable to its people, is being pushed into self-destructive behavior by its European allies. “It’s suicidal, what Ukraine is doing,” he says, arguing that serious negotiations are the only viable path forward.

The sabotage of diplomacy in Europe is especially frustrating to Sachs. He criticizes leaders like Macron and Starmer for failing to explore diplomatic solutions or initiate serious talks with Russia. “Not a moment of diplomacy,” he says, calling this absence “unforgivable.”

His critique extends to the broader political culture in Europe. According to Sachs, elections are being undermined or outright canceled, while popular anti-establishment figures are being removed from the political field. “No politician in Europe seems to act in the interest of his or her country,” he says, painting a picture of deep political decay.

Sachs saves some of his harshest words for the broader implications of current U.S. leadership on the world stage. He accuses Trump of arrogance and belligerence, not just toward adversaries, but toward allies like Canada and Mexico. “Trump is full of bluster from morning till night and full of hostility,” Sachs says, claiming that his conduct is driving away international partners.

While he acknowledges Trump’s occasional rhetorical gestures toward avoiding war with Russia, he is skeptical of the underlying motivations, seeing them as less about peace and more about carving up spheres of influence. In contrast, Iran, he argues, is viewed by Trump officials almost entirely through the lens of Israeli politics—as a target rather than a sovereign actor.

The overall picture Sachs paints is one of declining American influence, increasingly erratic Western leadership, and a world slipping toward conflict through a combination of arrogance, inertia, and ideological capture. For all the chaos he outlines, the central message is clear: without serious diplomacy, recognition of mutual interests, and respect for international law, the current trajectory could lead to unprecedented global instability.

“If anyone stands up to it,” he says, referring to current power dynamics, “the Netanyahu doctrine is kill them, overthrow them.” That doctrine, he argues, has spread beyond Israel—and unless checked, it threatens to engulf not just the Middle East, but the global order itself.

• Watch the interview here.

The post World on Fire: Why U.S. Foreign Policy Looks More Like Netanyahu’s War Map appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.