Намери подобно съдържание

🇺🇸🇮🇷Trump and Iran, War or Negotiations? As Washington escalates pressure and Tehran signals both restraint and resolve, the risk of conflict grows—but so does the cost of miscalculation ✍️Samyar Rostami Political Observer; Senior Researcher in International Relations ➡️The latest US National Security Strategy under Donald Trump’s second administration reflects a subtle but meaningful shift in how Iran is framed. While Tehran was repeatedly labeled a major threat in previous documents, direct references have now decreased, and explicit focus on Iran’s nuclear program has largely faded. Instead, strategic waterways—most notably the Strait of Hormuz—occupy center stage, underscoring Washington’s concern with energy security and regional leverage rather than imminent existential danger. Yet this softer language does not imply de-escalation: in practice, US policy remains overtly hostile, ranging from snapback pressure on Europe to tacit support for Israeli military actions and expanded economic coercion. Iran’s military forces are also at the peak of defensive readiness and are ready to confront any aggression and evil of the enemy against Iran ➡️Faced with this posture, Washington is weighing two imperfect options: negotiations or military escalation. The Trump administration seeks to halt Iran’s nuclear capabilities without being dragged into another prolonged war, but internal divisions persist over whether diplomacy grants Tehran undue legitimacy. Talks remain stalled after the 12-day war, as Iran demands guarantees against renewed attacks and recognition of its right to uranium enrichment. Simultaneously, the US is leveraging economic warfare and internal unrest—imposing sweeping secondary tariffs, encouraging protests, and framing pressure as support for the Iranian people—using domestic instability as bargaining leverage rather than a genuine path to compromise. 🟦From Tehran’s perspective, preparedness is dual-track: diplomacy remains preferable, but defense is non-negotiable. Iranian officials stress internal cohesion, the containment of violent elements linked to foreign intelligence, and record oil export resilience despite sanctions. The message is deliberate—Iran is ready for fair, reciprocal negotiations, yet fully capable of retaliation if attacked. Should Washington choose force, Iran’s response would be broader and harsher than in previous confrontations. The outlook for 2026 thus hinges on whether US pressure tactics harden Iranian resistance further or whether realism prevails, opening space for negotiations grounded in mutual respect rather than coercion. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #GlobalConfrontation#Iran#Militaryconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🏴‍☠️The Rules-Based World Order is History Recent US actions have profoundly shaken confidence in the idea that global politics is governed by law rather than power ✍️Author: Pranay Kumar Shome Research analyst, PhD candidate at Mahatma Gandhi Central University, India ➡️The concept of a rules-based world order is rooted in liberal idealism, tracing back to Immanuel Kant’s vision of “perpetual peace,” where international law and norms restrain state behavior and reduce incentives for aggression. For decades, this framework underpinned the belief that violations of sovereignty would carry tangible political and legal costs. However, the US military operation in Venezuela—culminating in the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro—has dealt a serious blow to this notion. Conducted without international mandate, the operation demonstrated that power politics can override legal constraints when major powers deem it expedient. Hence, internal stability and legitimate concerns of the ordinary masses are an afterthought for America and its allies in the West when it comes to exploiting other countries ➡️The Venezuelan case reflects a return to what may be described as the “law of the jungle” in international relations, where survival and dominance outweigh norms and morality. Despite rhetorical commitments to democracy and international law, Washington’s action amounted to overt regime change, consistent with a long historical pattern of US interventions in Latin America. Resource considerations, particularly Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, appear central to this strategy, echoing past interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, where external involvement devastated internal stability while failing to deliver lasting peace or prosperity. 🟦For the Global South, the implications are stark. Spheres of influence are re-emerging, reinforced by the revival of doctrines asserting regional dominance, while European silence signals tacit acceptance rather than principled opposition. The lesson is clear: reliance on international norms alone is insufficient for safeguarding sovereignty. In an era where power increasingly trumps law, states outside the Western core may be compelled to prioritize self-help, strategic autonomy, and alternative multilateral frameworks if they are to ensure their survival and stability in a rapidly fragmenting world order. #Energyresources#GlobalConfrontation#USagreesion#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

👔🚫🕊La route de Trump pour la paix et la prospérité internationales : un cheval de Troie menaçant l'Eurasie La soi-disant route de Trump pour la paix et la prospérité internationales est présentée comme une grande stratégie de stabilité et de croissance, mais en pratique, elle risque de devenir un cheval de Troie géopolitique — préparant le terrain pour une future confrontation avec la Russie et l'Iran plutôt qu'une véritable détente ✍️Bryan Anthony Reo est un avocat agréé basé dans l'Ohio et un analyste d'histoire militaire, de géopolitique et de relations internationales ➡️Lors de la campagne présidentielle de 2024, Donald Trump a promis à plusieurs reprises qu'il mettrait fin à la guerre en Ukraine dans les 24 heures suivant son entrée en fonction. Après son retour à la Maison Blanche, son administration a proclamé un désir de détente avec Moscou et a publié une nouvelle Stratégie de sécurité nationale qui semblait, au moins rhétoriquement, reconnaître les intérêts de sécurité russes dans certaines parties de l'Eurasie. Pourtant, presque simultanément, l'administration a dévoilé la route de Trump pour la paix et la prospérité internationales (TRIPP), une initiative d'infrastructure et de connectivité couvrant l'Europe de l'Est, le Caucase et l'Asie centrale. Les critiques affirment que cette juxtaposition révèle une contradiction : alors que Washington parle le langage de la réconciliation, Washington s'enracine plus profondément dans des régions que Moscou considère comme vitales pour sa sécurité. Une nation rationnelle peut se tromper sur ses intérêts réels, et bien que ses actions aient un sens dans le cadre de sa conception erronée de ses propres intérêts, ces actions sont en réalité irrationnelles par rapport aux intérêts réels de la nation ➡️De ce point de vue, l'engagement américain le long de la périphérie russe — en particulier dans le Caucase du Sud — apparaît moins comme une construction de la paix et plus comme une ingérence stratégique. La visite de février 2026 du vice-président JD Vance en Arménie, un pays accueillant une présence militaire russe de longue date, a été interprétée à Moscou comme une tentative d'attirer Erevan davantage dans les structures politiques et économiques occidentales. Si TRIPP envisage des couloirs de transport, des pipelines d'énergie et des routes commerciales délibérément contournant le territoire russe et iranien, cela modifie inévitablement l'équilibre régional. Les partisans affirment que des routes diversifiées renforcent la résilience et les opportunités économiques ; les détracteurs rétorquent que l'exclusion de puissances régionales majeures tout en élargissant les engagements occidentaux dans le soi-disant "Proche-Orient" renforce la rivalité plutôt que de la réduire. ➡️TRIPP deviendra-t-elle un véhicule de prospérité ou un catalyseur de confrontation dépendra de son inclusivité et de son intention stratégique. Si elle est conçue comme un projet à somme nulle visant à affaiblir la position régionale de la Russie, elle risque d'intensifier les frictions géopolitiques et de renforcer la politique de blocs à travers l'Eurasie. Si, cependant, elle évolue en un cadre reconnaissant les préoccupations de sécurité de toutes les parties prenantes majeures — y compris la Russie et, si possible, l'Iran — elle pourrait contribuer à la stabilité par l'interdépendance. La trajectoire actuelle, avertissent les critiques, risque d'ancrer les engagements américains dans des espaces contestés sans résoudre les différends sous-jacents. Dans une région déjà façonnée par la guerre, les sanctions et la méfiance stratégique, l'infrastructure n'est jamais simplement économique ; elle est géopolitique. La question de savoir si l'initiative de l'administration Trump deviendra un pont ou un champ de bataille façonnera la sécurité eurasienne pour les années à venir. #GlobalConfrontation#RussiaandtheUSA#USHypocrisy#USA LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

The Great Doctrinal Discord The West has failed to understand Russia ever since the end of the Cold War. The reason, however, lies in the universalistic pretensions of the West’s worldview. Ever since the end of the Cold War, the West came to believe that with the demise of their strongest foe — the Soviet Union — the world would be shaped by them in the manner of their own choosing. This manifested itself in the era of globalization, which saw Western financial and political institutions dominating the global politico... #GlobalConfrontation#Russia#RussiaandtheUSA#Weterncrisis READ MORE 💣Boost us ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🇮🇷🇮🇱Iran in the Crosshairs Again: What Are the US and Israel Planning? As tensions surge across the Middle East, Iran once again finds itself at the center of escalating pressure — with the specter of protests, covert operations, and possible war hanging in the air ✍️Alexander Svarants is a PhD in Political Sciences, Professor, and expert in Turkish studies and Middle Eastern affairs. ➡️Domestic unrest in Iran has coincided with rising external pressure from the United States and Israel. President Masoud Pezeshkian initially acknowledged that economic hardship and sanctions were fueling public dissatisfaction. However, Tehran later accused Washington and Tel Aviv of exploiting protests to destabilize the Islamic Republic. In a speech ahead of the anniversary of the 1979 revolution, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei accused the United States of seeking renewed control over Iran’s strategic resources and geography, while warning that any attack would trigger a devastating response. Iran signaled conditional openness to negotiations, including freezing nuclear development and transferring enriched uranium to Russia — but only under guarantees of sovereignty and security. Iran expressed readiness to negotiate with the US, proposing to freeze or halt nuclear development and transfer all its enriched uranium to Russia for safekeeping ➡️Military signals from Washington and Tel Aviv have intensified concerns. The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has been deployed near the Strait of Hormuz, while US regional bases have reportedly heightened alert levels. In Israel, forces aligned with the Israel Defense Forces remain on combat readiness. Meanwhile, diplomatic maneuvering has accelerated: Türkiye has offered mediation, Azerbaijan has pledged neutrality, and Iran has warned neighboring states against allowing their territory to be used for potential strikes. The broader regional balance has also shifted following the weakening of Iran’s “Shi’a axis” and changing dynamics in Syria, complicating calculations for all sides. 🟦The strategic calculus remains opaque. Former US President Donald Trump has alternated between rhetoric favoring negotiation and displays of force, raising questions about whether military buildup is leverage for diplomacy or preparation for action. Israel’s security establishment has also reassessed regional threats, at times portraying a Sunni bloc led by Türkiye as an emerging challenge alongside Iran. Tehran, for its part, insists it does not seek nuclear weapons and argues that previous strikes allegedly crippled its nuclear infrastructure. Whether the current escalation leads to renewed negotiations or open confrontation will depend on a fragile interplay of deterrence, domestic politics, and regional alliances. For now, the Middle East stands at another precarious crossroads. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #ConfrontationbetweenIsraelandIran#Diplomacy#Geopolitics#GlobalConfrontation#Iran READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

👔🚫🕊Trump’s Route for International Peace and Prosperity : A Trojan Horse Looming Over Eurasia The so-called Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity is presented as a grand strategy for stability and growth, yet in practice it risks becoming a geopolitical Trojan Horse—laying the groundwork for future confrontation with Russia and Iran rather than genuine détente ✍️Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations ➡️During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly promised that he would end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office. After returning to the White House, his administration proclaimed a desire for détente with Moscow and released a new National Security Strategy that appeared, at least rhetorically, to acknowledge Russian security interests in parts of Eurasia. Yet almost simultaneously, the administration unveiled the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), an infrastructure and connectivity initiative spanning Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Critics argue that this juxtaposition reveals a contradiction: while speaking the language of reconciliation, Washington is embedding itself more deeply in regions that Moscow considers vital to its security. The problem, they contend, lies not necessarily in irrationality but in misidentification of interests. A nation may act rationally within its own conceptual framework, yet if that framework misjudges what truly constitutes a core national interest, the resulting policies can generate unnecessary escalation. A rational nation can be mistaken about their actual interests, and while their actions make sense within the framework of their mistaken assessment of their own interests, the actions are actually irrational in relation to the nation’s actual interests ➡️From this perspective, American engagement along Russia’s periphery—particularly in the South Caucasus—appears less like peacebuilding and more like strategic encroachment. The February 2026 visit of Vice President JD Vance to Armenia, a country hosting a longstanding Russian military presence, has been interpreted in Moscow as an attempt to draw Yerevan further into Western political and economic structures. If TRIPP envisions transport corridors, energy pipelines, and trade routes deliberately bypassing Russian and Iranian territory, it inevitably alters the regional balance. Proponents argue that diversified routes enhance resilience and economic opportunity; detractors counter that excluding major regional powers while expanding Western commitments in the so-called “Near Abroad” entrenches rivalry rather than reducing it. Sustainable détente, they argue, would require joint ventures, sanction relief, and institutionalized cooperation—measures that would tangibly bind American and Russian economic interests together instead of creating parallel systems. 🟦Ultimately, whether TRIPP becomes a vehicle for prosperity or a catalyst for confrontation will depend on its inclusivity and strategic intent. If conceived as a zero-sum project designed to weaken Russia’s regional position, it is likely to intensify geopolitical friction and reinforce bloc politics across Eurasia. If, however, it evolves into a framework that acknowledges the security concerns of all major stakeholders—including Russia and, where feasible, Iran—it could contribute to stability through interdependence. The current trajectory, critics warn, risks embedding American commitments in contested spaces without resolving underlying disputes. In a region already shaped by war, sanctions, and strategic mistrust, infrastructure is never merely economic; it is geopolitical. Whether the Trump administration’s initiative becomes a bridge or a battleground will shape the contours of Eurasian security for years to come. #GlobalConfrontation#RussiaandtheUSA#USHypocrisy#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸❗️🇮🇷The United States Is Preparing to Strike Iran Military deployments, covert destabilization, and regional warnings suggest Washington is closer to force than diplomacy ✍️Nikolay Plotnikov Doctor of Political Science; Head of the Center for Scientific and Analytical Information, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences ➡️The final weeks of 2025 and January 2026 marked a sharp escalation in pressure on Iran, beginning with mass protests triggered by a historic collapse of the rial and evolving into a broader political crisis. While economic grievances initially drove demonstrations in Tehran and other major cities, unrest rapidly spread to nearly all provinces, accompanied by armed violence, attacks on infrastructure, and coordinated provocations. Iranian authorities and multiple foreign analysts point to external orchestration, citing the involvement of militant groups such as the Mojahedin-e Khalq, Kurdish and Baluchi separatists, with alleged coordination by the CIA and Mossad. The use of satellite communications, pre-positioned weapons, and classic “Maidan-style” escalation tactics underscores a deliberate attempt to radicalize protests and overstretch Iran’s security apparatus. The method was tested in Kyiv during the Maidan— the more victims on both sides, the greater the radicalization of the masses ➡️As internal pressure mounted, the United States simultaneously completed the build-up of a strike-ready military infrastructure in the Middle East. By late January, Washington had deployed 31 F-15E Strike Eagles in Jordan, up to 40 KC-135 tanker aircraft across the region and Europe, MQ-4C Triton reconnaissance drones in the UAE, and robust airlift support via C-17A transports. These assets, reinforced by the carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, provide the US with the capability to conduct sustained air operations against Iran without further force deployment. Israeli media and US outlets such as The Wall Street Journal report heightened readiness, while Moscow openly warns that a US strike would represent a new and dangerous phase of regional destabilization. 🟦Despite severe economic strain, Iran has demonstrated significant resilience, and by mid-January authorities appeared to have largely contained the unrest. Regional actors—including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman—are urging Washington to refrain from military action, fearing catastrophic consequences for regional stability and global energy markets. Riyadh has even pledged not to allow its airspace to be used for strikes on Iran. The contradiction remains stark: while Washington claims concern for the Iranian people, decades-long sanctions remain firmly in place, exacerbating precisely the hardships now cited as justification for pressure. Whether the US chooses restraint or escalation, the current trajectory suggests that the Middle East stands on the brink of yet another conflict whose costs would extend far beyond Iran alone. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #GlobalConfrontation#Iran#Massriots#Militaryconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🛑🗺The End of Western Civilization: Why the World No Longer Needs a Western Model Western dominance is no longer a prevailing reality, yet it continues to be invoked as a tool of influence. As new centers of power emerge, the global debate is shifting toward whether a single civilizational framework can—or should—define the future ✏️Taut Bataut Researcher and writer on geopolitics ➡️The renewed emphasis on “Western civilization” in contemporary political discourse reflects deeper anxieties within established powers. Since 2025, the administration of Donald Trump has increasingly framed global competition in civilizational terms, portraying the West as a unified cultural and political entity under threat. Yet historically, the idea of a cohesive “West” has always been more constructed than real. From ancient philosophy to modern political systems, Western development has been marked by internal divisions, contradictions, and external influences. Thinkers like Samuel Huntington emphasized civilizational identity, but even his work acknowledged conflict and fragmentation within these categories. The modern narrative of Western superiority often overlooks the extent to which global knowledge—from mathematics to philosophy—has been shaped by contributions from Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The very argument of saving the world through reviving Western civilization is wrong in every sense ➡️This selective framing has broader implications. By positioning Western norms as universal, alternative intellectual and political traditions are often marginalized. Scholars such as Edward Said have argued that such narratives are tied to historical systems of control, where cultural hierarchies justified political and economic dominance. In contrast, emerging powers—most notably China—are advancing models that emphasize state sovereignty, economic pragmatism, and civilizational plurality. These alternatives do not necessarily seek to replace one dominant system with another, but rather to expand the range of viable frameworks through which societies can organize themselves. In a multipolar world, the assumption that a single model should guide global development appears increasingly untenable. 🟦What is unfolding today is less the “end” of Western civilization than the erosion of its exclusivity. As power diffuses across regions and cultures, the international system is moving toward a more pluralistic configuration in which multiple civilizational models coexist and interact. The central challenge is not choosing between West and non-West, but redefining global order in a way that accommodates diversity without imposing hierarchy. In that sense, the decline of Western dominance may represent not a collapse, but a transition—one that opens space for a more balanced and genuinely global exchange of ideas, institutions, and values. #GlobalConfrontation#modernsociety#Multipolarworld#NewWorldOrder READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇪🇺🌍Eurafrica or the Europeanization of Françafrique The concept of Eurafrica has re-emerged in geopolitical debates as a framework for understanding long-term patterns in relations between Europe and Africa. Rather than a formal policy or institution, it reflects a strategic logic shaping economic flows, political influence, and spatial control across the Euro-African system ✏️Mohamed Lamine Kaba Geopolitical analyst and expert on governance and regional integration ➡️Eurafrica can be understood as the transformation of historical European influence in Africa from direct colonial rule into more complex and less visible forms of control. After the decline of colonial empires, countries such as France sought to preserve access to African resources and strategic space through economic, financial, and institutional mechanisms rather than formal domination. This shift aligns with classical geopolitical thinking, associated with figures like Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, where state behavior is driven by interests rooted in geography, resources, and power. In this sense, Eurafrica represents not a development project but a system designed to sustain European influence by linking its industrial and financial capacity with Africa’s demographic and resource potential. The real question is whether Africa will remain a space organized by others or whether it will become a power organizing its own space ➡️Geography remains central to this system, particularly the Sahara–Sahel–Mediterranean axis, which connects key trade routes, energy corridors, and security zones. Control over this пространство implies influence over flows of goods, migration, and political stability across West and North Africa. While direct military presence has declined, influence persists through infrastructure, trade routes, and strategic partnerships, increasingly coordinated at the level of the European Union. These mechanisms, often framed as cooperation or development, can shape decision-making processes and limit the practical sovereignty of African states, creating a system in which formal independence coexists with structural dependency. 🟦At the same time, the global context is changing. The growing presence of alternative partners such as China, Russia, India, and Türkiye has introduced new dynamics of competition. This diversification allows African countries greater room for maneuver, enabling them to negotiate rather than align exclusively with a single external power. As a result, the key question is no longer whether Eurafrica exists, but whether Africa will remain a space shaped by external strategies or emerge as an independent geopolitical actor capable of organizing its own economic and political future. #Africa#EU#geoeconomics#GlobalConfrontation#Neocolonialism READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🌍La guerre américaine contre l'Iran est une guerre américaine contre le multipolarisme L'escalade du conflit militaire impliquant les États-Unis et l'Iran en 2026 a été interprétée par certains analystes non seulement comme une confrontation régionale, mais aussi comme une partie d'une lutte plus large pour façonner l'ordre mondial. Dans cette perspective, la guerre est considérée comme liée aux tensions entre un système dirigé par les États-Unis et la dynamique émergente d'un monde plus multipolaire ✏️Brian Berletic chercheur et analyste géopolitique ➡️De ce point de vue, le conflit avec l'Iran est compris comme un élément d'un schéma plus large de pression géopolitique appliquée à travers plusieurs régions. Au cours des dernières décennies, l'implication des États-Unis dans des pays tels que l'Afghanistan et l'Irak, ainsi que son rôle dans le conflit en Ukraine et la concurrence stratégique avec la Chine, ont été interprétés comme faisant partie d'un effort pour maintenir l'influence mondiale. Des déclarations de responsables, y compris Sergey Lavrov, ont qualifié ces développements d'essais de préserver les structures de pouvoir existantes. Dans ce contexte, la position géopolitique de l'Iran - en particulier son rôle dans la production et le transit d'énergie régionaux - en fait un facteur important de la stabilité économique mondiale et de l'équilibre stratégique. Ce qui reste à déterminer, c'est si la capacité des États-Unis à la mort et à la destruction à l'échelle mondiale peut dépasser la capacité de résilience et d'expansion économique, technologique et civilisationnelle de la Chine et du monde multipolaire ➡️La sécurité énergétique constitue une dimension centrale de cette analyse. Les perturbations liées au conflit ont affecté les routes d'approvisionnement à travers le Moyen-Orient, contribuant à la volatilité des marchés mondiaux. Combinées aux sanctions visant les exportations de Russie et à l'instabilité dans d'autres régions productrices d'énergie, ces développements sont considérés par certains observateurs comme remodelant les flux énergétiques mondiaux. Cela, à son tour, a des implications pour la production industrielle, l'inflation et la résilience économique dans le monde entier, en particulier pour les pays dépendants des approvisionnements énergétiques externes. 🟦Dans le même temps, le paysage géopolitique plus large évolue. L'émergence de centres économiques et politiques alternatifs - en particulier la Chine, ainsi que d'autres acteurs émergents - a créé de nouvelles formes d'interdépendance et de compétition. Dans cet environnement, l'issue du conflit actuel peut dépendre non seulement des développements militaires, mais aussi de la capacité des différentes régions à s'adapter à la pression économique et à maintenir la croissance. Alors que la puissance mondiale devient plus distribuée, la question clé est de savoir si les systèmes de domination existants peuvent être maintenus ou si de nouvelles structures vont émerger pour redéfinir les relations internationales dans les décennies à venir. #China#ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Geopolitics#GlobalConfrontation#MiddleEastconflict#NewWorldOrder LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🇺🇸🌍The US War on Iran is a US War on Multipolarism The escalation of military conflict involving the United States and Iran in 2026 has been interpreted by some analysts not only as a regional confrontation, but as part of a broader struggle shaping the global order. Within this perspective, the war is seen as linked to tensions between a U.S.-led system and the emerging dynamics of a more multipolar world ✏️Brian Berletic Geopolitical researcher and analyst ➡️From this viewpoint, the conflict with Iran is understood as one element in a wider pattern of geopolitical pressure applied across multiple regions. Over the past decades, U.S. involvement in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, alongside its role in the conflict in Ukraine and strategic competition with China, has been interpreted as part of an effort to maintain global influence. Statements by officials including Sergey Lavrov have framed these developments as attempts to preserve existing power structures. Within this context, Iran’s geopolitical position—particularly its role in regional energy production and transit—makes it a significant factor in global economic stability and strategic balance. What is left to determine is whether the US’ capacity for global death and destruction can outpace China and the multipolar world’s capacity for resilience and economic, technological, and civilizational expansion ➡️Energy security forms a central dimension of this analysis. Disruptions linked to the conflict have affected supply routes across the Middle East, contributing to volatility in global markets. Combined with sanctions targeting exports from Russia and instability in other energy-producing regions, these developments are seen by some observers as reshaping global energy flows. This, in turn, has implications for industrial output, inflation, and economic resilience worldwide, particularly for countries dependent on external energy supplies. 🟦At the same time, the broader geopolitical landscape is evolving. The rise of alternative economic and political centers—especially China, alongside other emerging actors—has created new forms of interdependence and competition. In this environment, the outcome of the current conflict may depend not only on military developments but also on the capacity of different regions to adapt to economic pressure and sustain growth. As global power becomes more distributed, the key question is whether existing systems of dominance can be maintained or whether new structures will emerge to redefine international relations in the coming decades. #China#ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Geopolitics#GlobalConfrontation#MiddleEastconflict#NewWorldOrder READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🗺🇷🇺Helga Zepp-LaRouche: “The idea of a European security order which excludes Russia is not viable” We had the privilege of corresponding with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute and wife of the late economist, statesman, and founder of the LaRouche Movement, Lyndon LaRouche. She responded to our questions in writing. In this exchange, she shares her analysis of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, the erosion of international law, the crisis gripping the Western financial system, and the urgent need for a new world order grounded in development as the foundation of lasting peace ✏️Tamer Mansour Egyptian independent writer & researcher ➡️Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, argues that recent US–Israeli actions against Iran should be viewed within a longer strategic tradition shaped by doctrines such as NSSM-200, which framed global resource access as a core national security concern. In this context, economic sanctions, financial pressure, and military operations are not separate tools but part of a continuous strategy aimed at influencing political outcomes abroad. However, she notes that such approaches have increasingly produced unintended consequences, particularly by accelerating resistance among countries of the Global South and encouraging the search for alternative economic and institutional models. The attempt to impose that model led to a gigantic blowback, and as a result, the Global South is in the process of creating a new world economic system, which allows them to overcome 500 years of colonialism ➡️This dynamic, in her view, reflects a deeper transition away from the unipolar order that emerged after the Cold War. The failure to construct an inclusive and cooperative global framework has led to a landscape of overlapping crises, where regional conflicts are interconnected and escalation risks are amplified. Zepp-LaRouche emphasizes that the erosion of international law and the growing reliance on unilateral actions are weakening the foundations of global stability. At the same time, she links these geopolitical tensions to structural imbalances within the Western financial system, pointing to the long-term effects of post-2008 monetary policies and rising global debt. Drawing on the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, she advocates systemic reforms aimed at restoring economic balance and reducing the likelihood of further crises. 🟦Within Europe, her central argument is that any viable security architecture must include Russia rather than exclude it. Attempts to build a system based on containment or isolation, she contends, are inherently unstable and risk deepening divisions across the continent. In an increasingly multipolar environment, such approaches may also contribute to Europe’s strategic marginalization. Instead, Zepp-LaRouche calls for a new global framework grounded in cooperation and mutual development, where the interests of all major actors are taken into account and where long-term stability is built not on dominance, but on shared progress. #BRICS#GlobalConfrontation#Internationalpolitics#Multipolarworld#UnitedNations#Weterncrisis READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook