Connexion
Are we watching NATO’s Strategy of Tension plan unfolding right before our eyes? Two potential false-flag attacks over the weekend. One on Bondi Beach in Australia killing 15 people one in Rhode Island at Brown University where 2 students were killed. Both reportedly targeting jews.
And
Bondi Shooting Reporting is a Mess!
– Shooters are Indian Nationals not Pakistani
– Younger shooter’s mother is Italian & father is Indian
– Pakistani man wrongly labeled shooter, social media fails to correct
– Netanyahu falsely claims Ahmad al Ahmad (Syrian Muslim) aka the… https://t.co/pIdyINQ9aC pic.twitter.com/9Nx5h9xett— GenXGirl (@GenXGirl1994) December 15, 2025
The European ruling strata now stand isolated, widely unpopular and bereft.
Alastair Crooke at Strategic CultureA National Security Strategy (NSS) is produced periodically by U.S. Administrations (Trump authored one during his first term). Mostly these documents lay out an idealised version of an Administration’s foreign and security policy, and do not have great practical import – because of what is left out – i.e. entrenched U.S. political and economic interests; the deep foreign policy consensus overseen by the curator class of the deep security state; and the policies espoused by the mega donor collective.
Nonetheless, this recently-released NSS reads rather differently by putting a distinctive ‘America First’ gloss to U.S. foreign policy, eschewing global hegemony; ‘domination’ and ideological crusades in favour of pragmatic, transactional realism focused on protecting core national interests – homeland security, economic prosperity, and regional dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. thus will “no longer prop up the entire world order like ‘Atlas’ and expects Europe to shoulder more of its own defence burdens”.
It critiques the U.S.’ earlier pursuit of global primacy as ‘a failure’ that ended up weakening America – and situates Trump’s policy as a ‘necessary correction’ to the earlier stance. It therefore accepts the tilt towards a multipolar world.
Two key foreign policy aims are nuanced rather than radically recast:
First, China is downgraded from ‘primary threat’; ‘pacing threat’ to economic competitor (Taiwan is treated as an instrument of deterrence).
And in respect to Russia, it says,
“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state”.
The document does not mention ‘strategic peace’ with Russia, but only a ‘cessation of hostilities’, i.e. a ceasefire. The careful choice of language used may signal that Trump does not intend a full settlement with Russia on its security concerns, but only a truce, a “cessation of hostilities”.
It terms European relations with Russia as “deeply attenuated”:
“The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis”.
Essentially, Ukraine is pushed on the Europeans as their responsibility from now on. More generally, Allies are expected to foot the bills – as the U.S. builds at home.
One of the biggest NSS shifts is that America is defined now as a fortified hemisphere power in place of a global hegemon:
“We want a Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations. In other words, we will assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine”.
In terms of military presence, the Strategy states that this entails “a readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere”.
Perhaps the most meaningful aspect in terms on practical impact is the reference to “ending NATO as an ever-expanding alliance” – and to Europe, which is critiqued in the most astringent terms:
The NSS is highly critical of Europe’s economic stagnation, its demographic decline, the loss of sovereignty to EU institutions and its “civilizational erasure”:
“We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation”.
The document declares the liberal/technocratic elites of the EU and many Member States to be a threat to Europe’s future, regional stability – and to American interests. It makes it clear that supporting the Patriotic Right in Europe, and “cultivating resistance” to Europe’s current trajectory are in the American interest.
It calls out population replacement (immigration) as the gravest long-term threat to Europe and American interests, openly questioning whether some European nations will remain reliable allies given their current trajectory.
The transatlantic relationship therefore remains in place but is no longer the centrepiece of U.S. foreign policy.
The European elite’s panic:
European leaders, including former Swedish PM Carl Bildt, called the NSS reference to Europe as being “to the Right of the extreme Right”. In the U.S., Democrats, such as Rep. Jason Crow, deemed it “catastrophic”. for alliances, i.e. for NATO.
To understand fully the panicked outcry issuing forth from Europe, a little context is required:
Liberal-woke identity politics allowed no ‘otherness’, not difference of opinion.
Washington Post columnist and MSNBC contributor Jennifer Rubin (long cited by the Washington Post as their ‘Republican columnist’ for ‘balance’), writing in September 2022, rejected the very notion of an argument having ‘sides’ since any contrary argument imputed a rationality to conservatives:
“We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them – because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again … The Kabuki dance in which Trump, his defenders and his supporters are treated as rational (clever even!) comes from a media establishment that refuses to discard … this false equivalence”.
And then-President Biden, in a speech that same month, said pretty much the same as Rubin: In a set-up bathed eerily in red and black light, at the historic Independence Hall, Biden unequivocally extended the threats from abroad to warn against the threat of a different terror, closer to home – from “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans”, who he said, “represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic”.
The core precept to this apocalyptic message duly crept across the Atlantic to capture and convert the Brussels’ leadership class. This should not be surprising: The EU’s regulation-based internal market was precisely intended to replace all political ‘contention’ with Tech-Managerialism. The Euro-élites were in desperate need of a Values System to fill the EU identity lacuna. The solution, however, was at hand:
“Appetites of the autocrat cannot be appeased. They must be opposed. Autocrats only understand one word: “No.” “No.” “No.” (Applause.). “No, you will not take my country.” “No, you will not take my freedom.” “No, you will not take my future … A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never be able to ease [erase] the people’s love of liberty. Brutality will never grind down the will of the free. And Ukraine — Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never”. (Applause)”.
“Stand with us. We will stand with you. Let us move forward … with an abiding commitment to be allies not of darkness, but of light. Not of oppression, but of liberation. Not of captivity, but, yes, of freedom”.
Biden’s later speech (above) in Warsaw – complete with lighting effects and a dramatic backdrop reminiscent of his Liberty Hall speech – sought to portray the domestic MAGA opposition as a grave security threat to America and lent on radical Manicheanism to depict – this time – Russia (Russia being the external counterpoint to the related U.S. MAGA threat). This was his framing to the epic battle between the forces of light and of darkness that needed to be fought endlessly and won crushingly.
Once again, Biden was trying to cement America’s deep-seated missionary ethos as the ‘City on the Hill’ a beacon to the world – to a ‘forever’ cosmic war against Russian ‘evil’. He hoped to tie the American ruling class to the metaphysical struggle for the ‘light’.
David Brooks, author of Bobos in Paradise, (himself a liberal New York Times columnist), admits that initially he was taken by this liberal ideology, but later admitted this was a big mistake: “Whatever you want to call them [the liberals] have coalesced into an insular, intermarrying Brahmin élite that dominates culture, media, education, and tech”.
He acknowledges: “I didn’t anticipate how aggressively … we would seek to impose élite values through speech and thought codes. I underestimated the way the creative class would successfully raise barriers around itself to protect its economic privilege … And I underestimated our intolerance of ideological diversity”.
Put plainly, this thought-code precisely gave the Euro-élites their shiny new cult of absolute purity and stainless virtue – filling the for the EU its all too evident identity-gap lacuna. It resulted in the summoning of a vanguard whose proselytizing fury is to be focused on ‘the Other’.
Von der Leyen, in giving her ‘State of the Union’ address to the European Parliament in 2022 echoed Biden almost exactly:
“We should not lose sight of the way foreign autocrats are targeting our own countries. Foreign entities are funding institutes that undermine our values. Their disinformation is spreading from the internet to the halls of our universities … These lies are toxic for our democracies. Think about this: We introduced legislation to screen foreign direct investment for security concerns. If we do that for our economy, shouldn’t we do the same for ‘our values’? We need to better shield ourselves from malign interference … We will not allow any autocracy’s Trojan horses to attack ‘our democracies’ from within”.
Despite the cleaving together of the American ‘Bobos’ with the EU liberal warriors, many around the world nonetheless were astonished at the sheer alacrity by which the leadership in Brussels embraced the Biden ‘line’ advocating for a long war against Russia – a compliance that appeared so clearly to run contrary to European economic interests and social stability.
Simply put, it was a war of choice that seemed to be rooted ultimately in radical Manicheanism.
The initial formation of NATO in 1949 was generally opposed by the European Left due to its explicit anti-communist stance. However, with NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the military alliance metamorphosed for some on the broader Left (including social democrats and liberals) as an instrument for liberal transmission and consolidation of ‘our democracy’ (this was Biden’s language at the time).
The fusion of the EU leadership to NATO and with the Biden project was complete. Germany’s Foreign Minister at the time Annalena Baerbock – every bit as intent on “ruining Russia”as Biden – in an address in New York in August 2022, sketched out a vision of a world dominated by the U.S. and Germany. In 1989, President George Bush famously offered Germany a “partnership in leadership”, Baerbock claimed. But at the time, Germany had been too busy with reunification to accept the offer. Today, she said, things had changed fundamentally: “Now the moment has come when we have to create it: A joint partnership in leadership”.
Harking on the ‘leadership partnership’ being understood in military terms, she said:
“In Germany, we have abandoned the long-held German belief in ‘change through trade’ … our goal is to further strengthen the European pillar of NATO… and the EU must become a Union capable of dealing with the United States on an equal footing: in a leadership partnership”.
Thus, the European élite’s outcry at the NSS’ devastating critique of Europe is not just that of America very obviously turning its back on an European ruling class who had dropped all to fawn on America. The NSS castigates their subversion of democracy – and even questions whether they will be suitable as allies for the future.
NATO is now declared to be “not forever”.
The European ruling strata now stand isolated, widely unpopular and bereft.
Pepe Escobar at Sputnik
FLORENCE, Italy – The new US National Security Strategy, the December 2025 version, is an intriguing, quirky, Bosch-style hybrid beast. It does not exactly look as it seems.
A tsunami of headlines across the discombobulated West focused on an apparent drive towards normalization between Washington and Moscow. But that’s far from the main focus of this Beauty and the Beast creation.
For starters, which Centaur designed the NSS Beast? Could it possibly be Trump? Unlikely. Could not be the clownish Secretary of Forever Wars. Could not be Marco Rubio – who can barely point to anything outside of Venezuela and Cuba on a map. So, who did it?
The fire in the belly of the NSS Beast is on the Russia-China strategic partnership: to try to undermine it by any means necessary. Trump, instinctively, and the old money, classic American ruling classes may have finally concluded that it’s idle to invest in a frontal war against twin, strategically-aligned peer competitors Russia-China. So it’s back, once again to Divide and Rule. And for everyone else, Plunder.
The NSS apparently offers Moscow a series of geoeconomic and geopolitical carrots while meticulously embedding the sticks in hybrid formats – prone to either provoke Russian elite fragmentation by attracting them back to the American market and American “values”, or to plunge the Russian Federation into ethnic “tensions”, coordinated by cyber-warfare.
There are no guarantees Team Trump 2.0 will be sophisticated enough to pull it off. In a nutshell, in no-diplo language, this would amount to simultaneously “isolate” Moscow all over again while “containing” China. Moscow and Beijing won’t fall for it.
What is clear so far is that with the new NSS, the Forever War ethos remains. But now rebranded: wars will be mostly hybrid, indirect and low cost.
Welcome to Managed Multipolarity
Even stripping down the NSS to the role of yet another narrative – the Empire of Chaos is a master producer of narratives – substantial rhetorical shifts seem to be afoot. The former “indispensable nation” now is characterized no more as a Global Robocop enforcing its hegemony, but as a Regional Robocop, in selected latitudes (mostly the Western Hemisphere). Europe and West Asia have been downgraded to the status of second-tier priorities.
To compound the (pragmatic?) realpolitik shift, this is now, at least in thesis, a Non-Ideological Empire. “Autocracies” are fine, as long as they play the imperial game; now it’s the EU chihuahuas who are branded as “anti-democratic”. Trump 2.0 will support a slew of “patriotic” European parties: that predictably set off serial heart attacks all across the vassalized Brussels sphere.
The NSS also brands its own version of the multipolar world. Call it Managed Multipolarity – as in Japan “managing” East Asia and Israel-Arab vassals “managing” West Asia via the Abraham Accords, with “counter-terrorism” enforced by the slimy Gulf petro-monarchies. In both cases, we will have the Empire of Chaos leading from behind.
NATO has been thrown, for all practical purposes, into Beggars Banquet territory. The Empire monopolizes everything: weapons, distribution of funding, nuclear guarantees. It’s up to the vassal collection to adjust to every imperial demand, especially 5% of their puny budgets for weapons purchases.
There will be no more NATO expansion: after all the real priorities are the Western Hemisphere and the “Indo-Pacific”, that non-existing formulation applied to the real-life Asia-Pacific.
The NATO/EU combo from now on qualifies at best as a nuisance – like mosquitoes in a five-star resort. Even with Article 5 and the nuclear umbrella still in place. Yet it’s up to the Euro-chihuahuas to pay, and pay and pay. Otherwise, the Empire will punish you.
The Global South/Global Majority can barely contain their expectations when the day will come – and it will come – of Russia sealing the definitive strategic defeat of the collective West in the black soil of Novorossiya.
In a sense, the NSS is already anticipating that day, with the new narrative making it clear the Empire has already moved on.
Containing China all over again
Latin America, as in the Western Hemisphere, will be under maximum pressure per the NSS – which explicitly reasserts a “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The Empire wants its own backyard back – the whole combo, so it can be properly looted.
This is all about natural resources: it applies to Venezuela and Colombia, but also, ominously, to Brazil and Mexico. “Non-hemispheric rivals” – as in China – will be “countered”. Hybrid War in effect – all over again.
The NSS narrative does its best to mask the obsession with China. The mask falls when it addresses the First Island Chain”:
“We will build a military capable of denying aggression anywhere in the First Island Chain. But the American military cannot, and should not have to, do this alone. Our allies must step up and spend – and more importantly do – much more for collective defense.”
Translation: the “First Island Chain” – from the Kuril islands in Russia, through Okinawa and Taiwan, across the Philippines, and down to Borneo – will be the Apex of Militarization in Asia-Pacific. The NSS being a narrative, it presents this Cold War encirclement strategy as a protection shield. Beijing will not be fooled: this is for all practical purposes China containment in Asia-Pacific on overdrive.
Is Beijing impressed? Not really. Especially when China’s trade surplus for the first time has shot up beyond $1 trillion, even considering the fall of exports to the US under Trump’s Tariff Temper Tantrum. Make Trade, Not Containment.
Back to Chihuahuastan. The whole planet now knows that the EU/NATO combo is preparing for war with Russia before 2030; it could even be next year. And they are also considering a pre-emptive attack against the world’s number one nuclear and hypersonic power.
Away from the comic relief inbuilt in the European slow motion political suicide, in real life both the US and vassal Japan refused to join the European obsession in stealing Russian funds.
The collapse of the EU – an artificial construct to start with – is as inevitable as death and taxes: looming in the dark horizon is a toxic cloud of Brexit-style exits; an ungovernable euro-zone; serial capital flights; rising and rising bond yields; unsustainable public debt; a collapse of the single market; institutional paralysis; and total, irretrievable, final loss of the legitimacy they never had in the first place.
A book just published in Italy by a young economist, Gabrielle Guzzi, tells it all in the title: Eurosuicidio. Spengler remarked that every civilization sooner or later dies; this current European project may be the swansong – political, military, spiritual – of a geographical area, a peninsula of Eurasia, playing its final role in History, after learning nothing from two previous suicide attempts:
WWI and WWII.
Does the Empire care? Not at all. The Beauty expires as the Beast moves on.
Jeff J. Brown writing for Sputnik
Svetlana Ekimenko
The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) may look softer on paper, recasting China from a “threat” into a “near-peer competitor” with seeming potential to “reshape” US-China relations, Dr. John Gong, economics professor at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, tells Sputnik.
The wording in the new US NSS is just a thin veneer of peaceful “palliatives,” China expert Jeff J. Brown tells Sputnik.
In reality, US allies “Japan, Taiwan, Philippines and Australia, are being armed for confrontation, and a hot war is still likely in the next 2-3 years,” says Brown, who is also founder of Seek Truth From Facts Foundation.
Washington “still flogs the Asian Quad – “obviously structured to counter China militarily,” he notes, adding that the NSS:
Australia, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea urged to “spend more on arms to ‘deter adversaries’ “which are obviously China, DPRK and Russia”
US tariffs also remain in force.
‘Behind-The-Scene Rogue Actors’
The CIA, US Departments of War and State, US Legislature, and Israel’s Mossad don’t want to relinquish the profits generated by forever wars, noted the expert.
These Western deep state actors learned a long time ago to ignore or sabotage any directives that threaten their filthy lucre,” he says.
No Shift in West’s Power Pyramid
The US plans to keep its allies buying its weapons to “contain China,” believes Brown. US “fealty” to the West’s war machine has been bought by billionaire donors who “don’t get richer with peace.”
Since 1963 and the presidency of John F. Kennedy, “no US president has been free to be ‘presidential’ in their governance, like Putin and Xi are,” he remarks.
Since 1963 and the presidency of John F. Kennedy, “no US president has been free to be ‘presidential’ in their governance, like Putin and Xi are,” he remarks.
As far as China is concerned, it will likely “play to Trump’s megalomania,” while quietly prepping for a potential hot war,” concludes Brown.
Original Q&A with Sputnik
1 Do you think the new strategy changes the US policy towards China? If yes, how? Is it possible that it is paving the way for some new steps from the US?
No, not really. While congratulating himself as the greatest peacemaker since Jesus Christ and pro-offering a few palliatives about the necessity of avoiding war with China, Trump is still flogging the awkward Asian Quad (US, India, Australia and Japan). It was Trump who revived this 2004’s dead grouping in 2017 and he can’t put it down. It is obviously structured to counter China militarily on all of its flanks, except the north, which is brother-in-arms Russia.
This National Security Strategy still insists on arming Taiwan to the hilt, to counter China with “military overmatch”. It still insists on militarily occupying the vast South China Sea (SCS), using the completely absurd notion of preventing a hostile country (obviously China) from forcing maritime shipping to pay passage tolls!
The SCS is not Malacca, Bering or Hormuz Straits. Since most of its traffic comes and leaves the Mainland, it would be a self-imposed tax on the Chinese people. It’s an utterly farcical excuse to keep up NATO’s naval and air presence there.
Trump wants to push Australia, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea to spend more on arms,
“…to deter adversaries and protect the First Island Chain. We will also harden and strengthen our military presence in the Western Pacific, while in our dealings with Taiwan and Australia we maintain our determined rhetoric on increased defense spending”.
“Adversaries” are obviously China, DPRK and Russia.
Trump further lists all the Sino-bogey bears that afflict America, including,
For Beijing, what is there to like?
2 How might the updated US security strategy influence the trade tensions between the US and China — exacerbate or resolve them?
China will play to Trump’s narcissism and megalomania, by spinning it as positively as possible, but tariffs are still in force, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines and Australia are being armed for confrontation and a hot war is still likely in the next 2-3 years. Mossad-CIA, US Departments of War and State, and the US Legislature are behind-the-scene rogue actors with too much profit and corruption to give up, and all that grift comes from forever wars. These Western Deep State actors learned a long time ago to ignore or sabotage any directives that threaten their filthy lucre.
3 What reaction do you expect from China to the new US strategy? What actions might China undertake?
China has been practicing statecraft diplomacy for 5,000 years and has endured many Trumps, Bidens and Macrons over the millennia. Good diplomats are eternally optimistic, patient and communicative. Just ask the Russians, who are also at this level of expertise. Beijing will publicly be positive and complimentary, while preparing for the worse – hot war.
4 How could the strategy shift the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific Region? What message does it send to US allies in the region, such as South Korea and Japan?
There will be no change in the West’s balance of power. Uncle Sam still expects to be the Big Kahuna and its “allies” (repeated 31 times in the NSS) are to be second-class vassals. For South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, India and Australia, the message is clear: buy more and more US weapons to contain China.
An important and overlooked observation
In closing, there is something important to note. The National Security Strategy reports by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barak Obama and Joe Biden (I did not go further back) did not address anyone in particular. The reports just started off with impersonal, expository writing.
Trump’s 2025 NSS starts out with, “My Fellow Americans”. This is very telling. He knows that since reassuming office, his forever wars in Palestine, Ukraine, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela and elsewhere have alienated his MAGA base and he risks losing their support. The NSS talks to the American people, not policy wonks, explaining the meaning of strategy, diplomacy and policy, like a classroom text. In this sense, it is very similar to how Beijing communicates governance to the Chinese people, treating them like adults and not talking down to them like children, which is the Western norm.
This NSS is at least as much of an effort to shore up his in-country popularity – probably more so – as it is to communicate with foreign friends and foes alike.
It will be very difficult for Trump to realize this NSS’s main goals of avoiding forever wars. His fealty to this Western cancer has been bought, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in “campaign donations” by influential and powerful (mostly Jewish) billionaires, who don’t get richer with peace. War means usury, arms and resource theft, which fill their and the Judeo-City of London’s coffers with trillions of your preferred currency.
I think Trump is sincere in trying to stop this imperial-colonial train, but the last US president who tried to do so was John F. Kennedy, and the Deep State blew his brains out in Dallas, Texas. Since 1963, every US president knows what happened, and has not been free to be “presidential” in their governance, like Putin and Xi are.
The first comment from China’s Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson yesterday, is perfectly down China’s well-known diplomacy line. No new comments of any nature were spken out, only what has been said before. This may be an indication that they are going to flatly ignore it as if it is more bluster.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/fyrbt/202512/t20251208_11768841.html
Reuters: What is the Foreign Ministry’s reaction to the Trump administration’s newly released National Security Strategy, given that it says that the U.S. does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait and also discusses the U.S. and its allies’ capacity to deny any attempt to seize Taiwan? What do you make of the document’s mentioning of the Quad grouping of nations as well?
Guo Jiakun: We noted the “National Security Strategy” report released by the U.S. government. China always believes that China and the U.S. stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation. Upholding mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation is the right way for China and the U.S. to get along with each other and is the only right and realistic choice. China stands ready to work with the U.S. to sustain the steady development of the bilateral relationship and at the same time will firmly defend its sovereignty, security and development interests. We hope the U.S. will work with China in the same direction, act on the important common understandings reached between heads of state of the two countries, step up dialogue and cooperation, properly manage differences, promote the steady, sound and sustainable development of China-U.S. relations, and inject more certainty and stability into the world.
On the Taiwan question, we stress that Taiwan is China’s Taiwan and is an inalienable part of China’s territory. The Taiwan question is at the core of China’s core interests and the first red line that must not be crossed in China-U.S. relations. Resolving the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese people and Chinese people only that brooks no external interference. The U.S. needs to earnestly abide by the one-China principle and the three China-U.S. joint communiqués, honor its leaders’ commitment, approach the Taiwan question with extra prudence, stop abetting and aiding separatist forces’ attempt to seek “Taiwan independence” and resist reunification through military buildup. China will never flinch in defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
I was waiting for Brian Berletic to speak his piece, but there is more. I find a bunch of Americans liking this, but not understanding it. We wanna believe a US strategy because they say so? Where have they been over the past years, after, say, the 2nd WW, to bracket a timespan? Dmitry Medvedev recognized a diplomatic break for Russia (for now). But we have not heard from China. And the ‘western hemisphere’ is being claimed, as is West Asia.
It is primacy, but selected for this moment and changeable, as they decide with the required ‘burden-sharing’ to share US proxy wars. They’re going to sqeeze the hell out of so-called allies.
East Calling has provided this for us, quickly. Thank-you!
Before we go there, let’s take a quick look at Dmitry Peskov: Peskov’s first comment after the publication of the updated US national security strategy:
And this, of course, is a very gratifying, on the one hand, but on the one hand, we know what happens when everything is written very beautifully as a concept, but what they call a deep state does everything differently. <…>
Therefore, of course, it is necessary to closely monitor what kind of implementation this concept will find.
Deputy Chairman of the Security Counsel of the Russian Federation – Dmitry Anatolievich Medvedev on his VK:
The Americans continue to tame the crazed European Union. Naturally, so that the sick animal remembers who’s the real boss. Even Musk (in response to the fine against X) contributed to this, wishing for the EU’s disintegration. Not bad! Overall, this is to our benefit. Better Trump’s great-power pragmatism than Biden’s globalist insanity.
In this regard, the new National Security Strategy prepared by the current White House administration stands out. It is notable for its realistic assessment of many modern challenges. I should point out that the significance of such a strategy should not be exaggerated. It is merely a collection of political declarations. What matters is what’s in their heads. And not only in the minds of the inconsistent Washington brass, but also in the notorious “deep state.” And yet…
1. This time, a very interesting document has emerged from the depths of the White House. This is not just another pile of arrogant American diplomatic formulas. It’s more like an attempt to turn around a huge ship that has been sailing along by inertia for a long time and has finally decided to change course. For the first time in many years, Washington is openly talking about the need to restore “strategic stability” in Eurasia and improve relations with Russia.
This is no longer the language of the money-grubbing Derzhimorda, who, under Biden, declared a virtual crusade against Moscow. The overseas superpower has begun to realize that playing superhero on its own is too costly. It hurts its own interests the most.
For us, this means that space is emerging for more or less civilized diplomacy. This is not a friendly embrace, but a fairly clear signal: the US is ready to discuss security architecture, not just slap on endless, and most importantly, senseless sanctions (although new restrictions on Russian oil mean a continuation of the current course).
2. Washington is effectively admitting that the global world no longer rests on American shoulders alone.
The sky has become too heavy for a country that so zealously portrayed itself as an Atlas. Now it’s looking for those who can share the unbearable burden.
And here, inevitably, Russia appears as one of the few countries with a real influence on European security.
For the first time in many years, our country is not called a “threat” in an American document, but a participant in a dialogue on stability. It’s noteworthy that it mentions halting NATO expansion, and Ukraine doesn’t figure at all in this context. This strategy unexpectedly resonates with what we’ve been saying for years: security must be shared, and the sovereignty of states must be respected. Russia has long proposed reaching agreements, rather than arrogantly imposing a world order based on rules that aren’t even enshrined in international law. Now, the window of opportunity for dialogue has been cracked open.
3. The United States is proposing that an imbecile Europe, bloated from parasitism, become more independent in matters of defense. For Russia, this is a double signal. On the one hand, there’s a risk that the Europeans will aggressively build up their military capabilities. This will completely destroy their economies and require the establishment of regimes bordering on dictatorship. Europe already has such a tragic experience: Hitler himself came to power with harsh militaristic slogans.
On the other hand, the easing of endless financial injections from the United States creates opportunities to reduce tensions on the Eurasian continent and engage in negotiations. This is simply because Russia is a major global player, and constructive cooperation with us is more beneficial, as it was for many years, before the events in Ukraine.
4. As I already noted, strategy is a political declaration, and certainly not, to use the words of our beloved Lenin, “a change in all our views on socialism.” Fierce disagreements within the American and European elites continue to flare up, and habits are also strong.
Russia will look not at fine words, but at concrete steps: is there any movement toward reaching an agreement? Are the US and the EU ready to discuss security with us without ultimatums? Not just guarantee the security of the half-dead country 404, but ensure pan-European security?
The Strategy doesn’t answer this. As they say, we’ll see. Especially since the arrival of another rabid Biden in the White House would quickly nip any vestiges of great-power pragmatism in the bud of the current MAGA team.
Brian Berletic: More on the US National Security Strategy paper…
Here are Sputnik’s questions and my complete answers regarding the recently released US National Security Strategy document below – I will also be doing an article/video this coming week…
Question 1: In the recently published National Security Strategy of the US, NATO’s expansion is criticized, and Russia is no longer presented as a threat, but as a country with which strategic stability is important for stability in Europe.
What prompted the US to make such changes in the Strategy? Why now?
Answer: Upon reading the entire National Security Strategy, it is clear there is no fundamental change. The very first sentence of the introduction is a declaration of continued pursuit of global primacy. The paper lays out plans of continued war and preparations for war against all of America’s “adversaries” both directly and through “burden sharing,” by proxy.
While it briefly mentions “preventing the reality of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance,” the same paper also boasts of the vast sums of NATO spending that the US coerced European member states into committing to.
Regarding the paper’s characterization of Russia, it should be pointed out that the US desperately seeks to freeze the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, not end it. As suggested in the paper and explicitly stated by US Secretary of War Pete Hegesth in February of this year, Europe will assume more costs and risks in forcing a freeze while the US focuses on containing China.
In other words, this is merely a narrative to implement “burden sharing” and “strategic sequencing,” focusing on China’s containment now and circling back around to containing Russia later.
Question 2) The Ukraine settlement is mentioned as the US’s core interest. The document says that the peace process is crucial for reestablishing strategic stability with Russia. How could it influence the ongoing peace talks?
Answer: The US began this proxy war by overthrowing the Ukrainian government in 2014, leading efforts to train and reorganize Ukraine’s armed forces from 2014 to 2022, while the CIA assumed control over Ukraine’s intelligence services. The US began arming Ukraine with lethal aid (under the previous Trump administration), and now admittedly directs Ukraine’s armed forces from a military base in Wiesbaden, Germany, including overseeing attacks on targets deep within Russian territory itself – all while posing as an impartial mediator in a war the US itself started and is driving.
This is wholly a US proxy war on Russia; the US, and the US alone, can bring to an end. It simply doesn’t want to. What it wants instead is a “Minsk 3.0” freeze, to rebuild both Ukraine and Europe’s military capacity, all by offering Russia the same empty promises of peace, stability, and even economic cooperation that have been repeatedly betrayed since the end of the Cold War. An added bonus would be driving a wedge between Russia and China during this temporary freezing of the conflict to weaken China, so that when the US turns its attention back to Russia, China will no longer be able to offer significant support.
Question 3) The Strategy criticizes NATO expansion, which Russia had been calling a critical issue and a key reason for the Ukraine conflict. What are the realistic chances of the alliance’s expansion being limited in the future, now that the issue has been acknowledged by the US?
Answer: Even though the US ambiguously acknowledged NATO’s expansion in the paper, it also bragged about the vast sums of money the US has coerced European member states into spending on NATO – spending specifically vis-à-vis Russia – as NATO and its various member states face no actual national security threats requiring such vast sums of expenditures.
In other words, the US is telling Russia what it wants to hear in the hopes of appealing to both Russia’s and the rest of the world’s desperate desire for peace and stability and luring Russia into a ceasefire the US even says it will use in the paper to advance its primary foreign policy objective, “to ensure that America remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come,” or simply, “primacy.”
Question 4) What signal does this move send to warmongers in the US and especially in Europe?
Answer: Considering the paper begins with US President Donald Trump boasting about vastly expanding US military spending (up to $1 trillion), the unprovoked, unjustified war of aggression the US launched on Iran under the current Trump administration, and the growing threat of military aggression against Venezuela, it would seem the paper itself was authored by warmongers.
The paper outlines an unprecedented military build-up and containment strategy targeting China, which is at the top of the list of US-European warmongers. The outlined strategy is simply trying to put the proxy war with Russia on hold, considering how poorly it is going for the US and its proxies at the moment, until a time later when the US once again has the advantage, just as it did with its proxy war in Syria, which it finally, successfully won late last year.
Unfortunately, wishful thinking will only play into Washington’s hands, hands that – without exception – are bloodied by decades of military aggression, aggression that sees no signs of slowing any time in the foreseeable future.
These two videos are important. What they again confirm, is that the Chinese State do not move, if the Chinese citizens don’t indicate that move. Those that now are making a career of criticising China do not understand this. I have also criticised China in terms of their business ties with Israel. A criticism is not a career.
Why Chinese Netizens Call Palestinian Fighters “Dandelions”
China’s Silence Gaza
The strategy of empire, thus far, has been the denial of world development through chaos creation, and it is unravelling. Nevertheless, imperialist aspirations still endure and the fight is going to be until the bitter end. The pattern has shifted toward attempts to utilize dwindling economic rights as a wedge for military intervention to expand the hegemonic stake through unrestricted warfare across all domains.
The pretense of peace lies irrevocably torn asunder, its remnants eclipsed by the unrelenting tide of violence that reigns without pause.
Balance is being restored, oh so slowly. The central Sovereign Civilizational States have now reached a clear definition: the magnificent duo China and Russia, the plucky DPRK (North Korea), and meritorious Iran. We stand at a unique nexus point, a pivotal moment in our planet’s history. Other Sovereign States developing and becoming, willingly contribute and participate in the Great Endeavor: the definitive and definite end of the Western colonial/neo-colonial order.
The enemy is the system that needs an enemy, and even that —the existence of an enemy —is now being denied to the empire, in economic, military, and civilizational terms. Viva! The ongoing and resolute resistance exists in places like GlobalSouth.co and those we feature.
Despite our victories, we face an increasingly complex form of warfare, sometimes referred to as 5th Generation War. In the 1999 book Unrestricted Warfare, by colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui of the People’s Liberation Army, they noted that in the years since the 1991 Gulf War, conventional military violence had decreased, which correlated to an increase in “political, economic, and technological violence”, which they argued could be more devastating than a conventional war.
We face an “omnipresent battlefield” with a mixture of kinetic and non-kinetic force.
The non-kinetic, or 5G Warfare:
This book outlines the concept of Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW) and demonstrates its relevance for understanding contemporary conflicts.
Non-kinetic modes of attack and war waged by groups or non-state actors at the societal level has been termed 5GW. This book discusses the theory of generational warfare and explores the key ideas of 5GW, such as secrecy, the manipulation of proxies, the manipulation of identity and culture (including disinformation and big data), and the use of psychological warfare.
These techniques are used to achieve strategic objectives, such as inducing desired behaviour and controlling human terrain, without resorting to overt war or overt violence.
The text expands the debate on 5GW by exploring emerging technologies and how they could be used for maliciously shaping human society and even for maliciously changing the genetic makeup of a population for the purpose of unprecedented social control. The work closes with comments on the possibility of a Sixth Generation of Warfare, which targets technical systems to possibly collapse a society through strategic sabotage. Overall, the book demonstrates the relevance of 5GW for understanding contemporary conflicts, from the Arab Spring to the war in Ukraine, in terms of the need for dominating the human domain.
This book will be of interest to students of security and technology, defence studies and International Relations.
https://www.routledge.com/Fifth-Generation-Warfare-Dominating-the-Human-Domain/Krishnan/p/book/9781032501208?srsltid=AfmBOopOVYxa87lcAfYriV8grirVxnEMO3BQRLwiuFlQfky2trIk7_zt
“Either the U.S. lets Iran become nuclear, or the U.S. has to engage diplomatically.”
In this interview, Negar Razavi speaks with @vali_nasr about his new book, Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History — and the choices ahead for U.S. foreign policy.
It was pleasure to speak with Security in Context on my book Iran’s Grand Strategy https://t.co/7By3bceGnS
— Vali Nasr (@vali_nasr) July 16, 2025
“Professor Vali Reza Nasr is an Iranian-American academic and political scientist, specializing in Middle Eastern studies and the history of Islam. He is Majid Khaddouri Professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C.”
This eloquent expat may provide the most balanced and rational analysis to be seen in the West, even if must operate within rigid overton windows. Born in Tehran and understanding of the current Iranian world view and spirituality, he can look through their eyes and cogently present their point of view to us
Interview with Mohsen Rezaei, former IRGC Commander-in-Chief, on June 16, 2025, during the third day of the Iran-Israel War.
Translated by lecridespeuples for Resistance News Unfiltered: Resistance News Unfiltered
Mohsen Rezaei is an Iranian politician, military commander, and economist. He is best known for serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) from 1981 to 1997. Appointed at the age of 27, he led the IRGC through the critical years of the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988). Rezaei holds a PhD in economics and later transitioned into politics. He served for over two decades as Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council, an advisory body to the Supreme Leader that plays a key role in Iran’s strategic decision-making. Rezaei is considered a prominent figure within Iran’s conservative and military-political circles. In 2021, he was appointed Vice President for Economic Affairs in the administration of President Ebrahim Raisi.
Source: Youtube (Part 1 & Part 2)
Journalist: Peace be upon you, and may the mercy and blessings of God be upon you. We thank you for being with us on this program.
Mohsen Rezaei: May God reward you with goodness. In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Allow me to begin with a few brief words addressed to our dear people.
First, I offer both congratulations and condolences: Congratulations on the great victories achieved by our noble people through the valor of their heroic sons in the armed forces. And condolences for the martyrdom of a number of senior commanders in our armed forces—for whom martyrdom was a long-cherished wish. I also extend my condolences to the innocent children, women, and men who were unjustly martyred.
On the other hand, I express my deepest thanks and appreciation to our honorable people, who, during this critical period, have stood firmly behind the armed forces, supporting them across all domains, and voicing their clear endorsement of the armed forces’ response through their presence in public demonstrations.
I especially thank His Eminence the Supreme Commander, who promptly issued the order for the armed forces to defend and respond. I am at your service. If you would like, we can begin by reviewing the background.
Journalist: Thank you very much. Yes. What is the history of our relationship with the Zionist entity? What have been the key moments in our confrontation with it so far? And in particular, what led to this latest round of escalation?
Mohsen Rezaei: Yes. As our people know well—especially analysts at home and abroad—since the triumph of the Revolution, we have been engaged in a continuous political confrontation with the Zionist entity. We have always believed that entering into a direct war with Israel would only be justified once the Islamic world stands united, when all Muslim countries come together as one to uproot this malignant tumor. Accordingly, we never believed it was right to go to war alone, without the support of other Islamic nations. Instead, we adopted a different strategy: to support the Palestinian people, standing by them when they are attacked, and when they fall unjustly as martyrs.
Even during the Israeli assault on Lebanon [in 1978 and 1982], we deployed a brigade—not to invade Palestinian land or to initiate a direct military confrontation with Israel, but to defend Lebanese territory. When the Syrian government asked us for assistance in the fight against ISIS, we answered the call, despite the fact that we were positioned very close to Haifa—only 50 to 60 kilometers away. Had we wanted to wage war on Israel at that time, we could have utterly destroyed both Tel Aviv and Haifa. But our conviction then, as now, was that Iran should not engage in a unilateral war with Israel.
Yet despite this restraint, it was Israel that initiated aggression against us. First, it attacked our consulate, resulting in the martyrdom of our dear brother, Mr. Zahdi. Then, when we responded, they assassinated Mr. Haniyeh inside Iran. And even after their repeated attacks following that, we halted True Promise 3 and opted for wisdom and self-restraint.
This demonstrates that from the very beginning of the Revolution until today—despite our slogans against Israel and our view of it as an occupying entity—we have consistently exercised restraint. However, over the past year or so, Israel has initiated a different kind of confrontation and engagement with us, culminating in recent days in what has become, in effect, a full-scale war.
Journalist: What is your assessment of Israel’s plan and objectives in this confrontation?
Mohsen Rezaei: In reality, Israel is implementing a multi-phase plan. The first phase was the assassination of our nuclear scientists. They had planned to carry out further assassinations of key figures inside Iran on the following Saturday, but our series of successive strikes thwarted their efforts. Nevertheless, they managed to target certain sites, including the Asalouyeh refinery. I will speak later about our proportional response to those attacks.
What we are facing today is an ongoing war, and it is expected to continue over the coming weeks. God willing, with another crushing defeat, they will be forced to retreat and withdraw.
Journalist: In your view, why did the United States approve Israel’s attack on the Islamic Republic?
Mohsen Rezaei: Some aspects of the American position—especially that of the Trump administration—remain unclear. However, what has become evident thus far is that Trump gave Netanyahu the green light to proceed with the attack. Statements made by Mr. Witkoff confirm this as well.
The reason is that, during the sixth round of negotiations, we were on the verge of presenting our plan. But before they had even reviewed its contents, they assumed we would insist on the issue of uranium enrichment, and so they told Israel: “You must act now.”
I believe the United States perceived us to be in a position of weakness, and believed that with a single blow, Israel could compel Iran to capitulate. Perhaps developments in Lebanon and Syria contributed to reinforcing this perception. However, what has become clear from this American escalation is that the Israeli attack had been premeditated—whether or not we entered into negotiations.
What is positive in all of this is that the political wisdom of the senior leadership—in particular, His Excellency the Supreme Leader’s decision to initiate negotiations—has exposed their true intentions to the world. Had we not entered into negotiations, they would have told the domestic public: “We wanted to reform the economy, and we aspired to attract $1 trillion in investments, but we were prevented from doing so.” Now, however, their cards have been laid bare. It is clear who seeks war—and who seeks peace.
They told the outside world that Iran was seeking to acquire the atomic bomb, and that this was the reason it refused to negotiate. But when the Leader of the Islamic Revolution demonstrated his far-sighted wisdom and said, “No, negotiate,” even if indirectly, the Iranian people came to understand that the true objective of the other side was to dismantle both the enrichment program and the missile program.
In fact, following those covert actions and in the wake of this military strike, it became clear that their ambitions extended beyond merely eliminating our missile and enrichment capabilities. They appeared to have further demands—namely, that in order to solidify their control over West Asia [the Middle East], they had to bring Iran into their fold. In their view, Iran must align itself with Israel and the United States so that they may dominate the region.
Journalist: Now, based on your experience during the eight years of the Holy Defense, how do you anticipate this confrontation will end?
Mohsen Rezaei: Let me begin by explaining when the idea of attacking Iran first took shape. About a month ago, amid the events unfolding in Gaza, I sensed—based on the shift in Israel’s behavior—that Gaza was merely the initial spark in a broader war that would eventually reach Iran. Roughly 25 days after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, while Israel continued to bomb Gaza, its tanks had yet to enter. At that point, I foresaw the conflict expanding to Lebanon and Syria, before turning toward Iran—and possibly even extending, in a limited way, into Iraq. Why? Because Iran holds a position I describe as “the geography of the sword and the treasure.” It is akin to a strategic summit: when global powers ascend it, they wield a sword with which to settle scores with one another.
Consider the past two centuries. In earlier times, the British and the Tsars were vying for influence in Iran, and we were used as an instrument of reconciliation between them. Later, the Americans arrived and made our country a tool for accommodation with the Soviet Union. But since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, we have refused to let that sword fall into the hands of America—or anyone else. We have taken it up ourselves.
And as for why it is also a treasure: in addition to its vast mineral wealth, Iran grants whoever controls it command over the oil and gas of the north, the oil and gas of the south, and the country’s internal resources. That is why Iran is considered a global energy hub. To control Iran is to control the world’s energy supply.
Now that they have begun this new course of action, it is clear to me that the United States—driven by economic motives and seeking to settle its scores with China—is pushing this trajectory forward, from Gaza to Lebanon, then Syria, and ultimately Iran. In other words: why does Washington want Israel to launch the initial strike, only to intervene from behind? Because this is how it intends to impose the regimes it desires across the region—just as it did during the era of the Shah. Why? Because this is the path to salvaging its ailing economy.
I have written in two or three recent newspaper articles that the continuation of war is what guarantees the continued dominance of the U.S. dollar. At the same time, American intervention here would undermine China’s efforts to expand its meaningful presence in West Asia. In essence, over the next two decades, we risk being used once again—as a battleground for the settling of scores between America and China, only this time on Iranian soil. That is why this event, now unfolding, is of the utmost seriousness—for our people, our armed forces, and our government alike.
We must stand firm here. If not, we will once more be drawn into America’s conflicts with China and others—and we will never be able to progress or rise. Why? Because they do not want Iran for Iran’s sake, or for the sake of its people. They want it for entirely different purposes.
Journalist: Well then, in all seriousness—what is the future of this confrontation?
Mohsen Rezaei: We have no future without steadfastness, resistance, and decisive victory. It has been thirty-five years since the [Iran-Irak] war, and our country enjoys complete security and stability. Because we stood firm, resisted, and prevailed back then, we secured Iran’s national security for at least the next fifty years. That is why steadfastness is a duty, and defending our future is worth every sacrifice.
But if—God forbid—they succeed in their aims, Iran will face severe crises over the next ten to twenty years. This war is dangerous. I say it plainly: it is a dangerous war. Yet with God’s help, and through the sacrifices of our valiant armed forces, we will crush them once more on the soil of this homeland.
Journalist: Commander, what is your assessment of the balance of power between the two sides? What does Iran possess, and what does the Zionist entity possess?
Mohsen Rezaei: Look, we are still exercising restraint. That is, we have not yet employed all our capabilities. Why? Because we must win over global public opinion, and also the opinion of our own people.
Today, public sentiment is calling for retaliation—yes, it demands it. But it is also a trust, and we must act wisely. We have the capacity to carry out large-scale operations that would destabilize the entire region. And we may, in time, be compelled to move into new phases of confrontation.
Just as we began with the “True Promise,” you now see that we are using increasingly advanced weaponry—warheads with ever-greater destructive power. Just yesterday and today, we deployed missiles with warheads weighing one and a half tons. And we possess even more powerful ones, capable of causing massive devastation.
At the same time, we are closely observing the position of the Zionist entity’s backers. Will they step back or not? The wise figures in the U.S. and Europe must, as soon as possible, pull their leaders out from behind the Zionist entity.
If they do not, the battle will no longer be limited to arming Israel. Their aircraft—British, French, or American—will enter our skies and collide with our missiles. This would mark a more dangerous stage of war, and we are preparing for that. Yet we continue to strive never to be the ones who initiate—but we will be the ones who conclude.
In other words, if this support continues, the supporting parties may find themselves directly involved in the battle. I believe that is a very real possibility.
Journalist: And if that happens, do you believe the odds will be in our favor?
Mohsen Rezaei: Yes, absolutely. We have undisclosed tactics. We hold cards that have yet to be played. God willing, with His Help and Grace, we will continue to follow a policy of ambiguity—and we will catch them by surprise.
Journalist: Do you believe our armed forces have surprised the Zionist entity so far?
Mohsen Rezaei: Yes, yes! Just look at what the U.S. ambassador in Tel Aviv himself said: he said that during a single night, they had to take shelter in bunkers five times within a few hours! And their own statements say: “We have never seen a war like this in our history—on the soil of occupied Palestine. We never expected Iran to respond in this manner.”
And yet, we still have capabilities that remain unused. God willing, if they persist in their attacks, we will unveil them at the right moment.
Journalist: So, for now, we hold the upper hand.
Mohsen Rezaei: Yes—at this moment, we have the upper hand.
Journalist: We were discussing last night how the Zionist regime is deploying small drones to fly over Tehran and other areas.
Mohsen Rezaei: In fact, what happened yesterday and today was preceded by a breach two or three months ago: small drones were smuggled into the country—into forests, onto rooftops, even into Tehran itself. I urge the dear people of Tehran to check the roofs of their homes… They brought in various models of these drones and pre-positioned them. These are remotely activated aircraft, directed to strike specific targets.
However, according to the news I heard today, their supply of precision-guided bombs is very limited. They are now trying to manage the situation carefully to avoid depleting their ammunition. Their only real asset at this point is these so-called smart bombs.
That’s why they’ve had to resort to using these small aircraft—even though they’re still too afraid to send F-15s or other jets into Iranian airspace. They are compelled to launch their strikes from Iraqi airspace. At times, one, two, or even three F-35 aircraft enter and quickly exit our airspace.
Our armed defense forces, praise be to God, are solid and strong. We have managed the situation well so far, and the war is being conducted efficiently. There may come a time when we choose to cross the border—but that is another matter altogether. Since the outbreak of hostilities, however, we have proceeded step by step, with logic and deliberation.
Journalist: What do you mean by crossing the border?
Mohsen Rezaei: We may arrive at certain conclusions that necessitate specific actions.
Journalist: In any case, the tools you’ve mentioned—such as the small unmanned aerial vehicles deployed in various locations and activated remotely—must, by their very nature, be limited in capability. How could anyone imagine that with such limited resources, deep within a country of this vast expanse and this scale of missile arsenal, they would be able to sustain a confrontation?
Mohsen Rezaei: Our country, God willing, is spacious enough to contain twenty European nations. It is vast and sprawling. Therefore, the scale of the capabilities they are employing is extremely small—yes, very small. Much of it consists of spare parts assembled locally. That is, they conceal these components in vehicles, for example—just as they do in fuel and drug smuggling—since these are not large or obvious systems that can be directly targeted. Typically, some of these parts are transported to specific points, or remote areas like forests, and assembled on-site. From there, they’re moved in trucks or enclosed vehicles and installed elsewhere later.
Currently, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization is cooperating with them. Inside Iran, there is collaboration between this organization and such groups. Some of their operatives, who have received payments in U.S. dollars, are actively participating in these transportation operations.
Journalist: Then there’s the issue of the leadership vacuum the Zionist entity sought to create by assassinating leaders of the Revolutionary Guard, followed by subsequent operations. But what we witnessed instead was the strength of our armed forces: leadership positions were filled within just three to four hours, and the command structure was swiftly and efficiently reorganized. What did the people witness afterward? How do you assess the Zionist entity’s belief that creating a leadership vacuum would weaken you?
Mohsen Rezaei: I believe Israel made a grave military miscalculation. They assumed Iran was similar to Hezbollah, even though they themselves have failed to dismantle Hezbollah. They should have learned from that experience.
Look at the leadership figures that have emerged within our armed forces. Major General Pakpour, for example, is an exceptionally strong field commander—courageous, with a remarkable operational vision.
Amir Hatami, who joined from the regular army, is a brave and seasoned officer. The same goes for Mr. Mousavi in the aerospace sector. And also for Mr. Mousavi who succeeded the martyred General Bagheri in the General Staff—he is a dedicated man, aligned with the resistance movement.
Though they come from the regular army, there is full coordination between them and the Revolutionary Guards. What the enemy did failed to create any structural void within the armed forces. In fact, it could be said that certain aspects have grown more effective, as recent events have shown.
That’s one point.
Secondly, we now have no fewer than ten additional layers of trained commanders and officers—some from the generation that fought in the war, and others who gained valuable field experience in later years, particularly in the fight against ISIS. Many of our forces who fought in Iraq and Syria against ISIS have, through those field experiences, become akin to senior war commanders like Hussein Kharrazi and Ahmad Kazemi—young, capable leaders fully prepared to command the armed forces.
It was a profound error on the part of the Israeli military not to recognize the deep hierarchical structure and the robust bench of ready leadership within our ranks. This internal architecture and the organizational evolution of the armed forces entirely compensated for any potential gaps. In my view, this challenge has already been overcome. And in the near future, our dear people will see that those who have stepped into the shoes of our fallen leaders will ensure that no imbalance or vacuum arises in the management of the armed forces.
The high command—led by His Eminence, the Commander—is fully acquainted with each of these leaders. They have been selected with care and discernment. I am absolutely confident that there will be no void in leadership.
Journalist: In light of the current circumstances and the wartime situation we are going through, what should we expect from the people? What is expected from the political factions? And what is expected from the government? Please explain each of these separately.
Mohsen Rezaei: First of all, I would like to extend my sincere thanks once again. Our enemies believed that by igniting a war and launching strikes on specific sites, the people would distance themselves from the regime, and that political factions would begin trading accusations, with each blaming the other for what had happened.
But what we witnessed was that even opponents of the Islamic Republic—whether abroad or within the ranks of the opposition—indeed, even some who had previously been interviewed, declared: “I’ve been imprisoned three times so far, but today it is about Iran, and for me, this is Iran, and I would gladly give my life for it.”
Once again, the Iranian people have shown that they are the same people who brought about the revolution on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11, 1979, victory of the Islamic Revolution), who stood by the system, stood by Iran, and defended its national independence.
I want to stress this: just as our heroic defense against the brutal Iraqi army gave us 35 years of security, today we must face this ordeal with all the strength we possess—patiently, calmly, and with confidence. War, after all, is filled with developments and turns of fate. We strike, and they strike. But the most important thing is that we manage the coming weeks with cohesion, solidarity, and unity—all factions and all segments of the nation, God willing—with patience and steadfastness, hand in hand.
The enemy has also staked a great deal on this front: the stronger our national unity, the deeper its despair and frustration. It will know that Iran’s doors are shut to it. The door to repeating the Qajar and Pahlavi eras has been firmly closed. The Iranian people have come to know themselves and are now striving toward progress. They do not seek enrichment for war, but for development. They seek independence to safeguard their security.
So, God willing, we will emerge victorious from this war, and Iran will enjoy security for the next fifty years. I want to point out that, historically, Iran has faced a war roughly every 35 years. Look: from 1320 to 1359 (1941 to 1980) in the solar Hijri calendar—nearly forty years passed—then a war erupted. And now, 35 years later, another war has broken out.
What matters is that we emerge from the depths of these wars with our heads held high.
After the Iran-Iraq War, we emerged with our dignity intact, and we built our strength. I say to you, the Iranian people—based on my deep familiarity with the Iranian mujahideen, both during the era of the Sacred Defense and today—we will come out of this war many times stronger than we were before these recent events. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
The hidden potential of our youth will rise to the occasion with pride, and they will deliver to you an Iran greater than it was before this war, God willing. But the condition is synergy. The condition is solidarity.
Journalist: Sardar, some believe that the difficult economic situation may have become too heavy a burden for the people, and that they might be exhausted and unable to remain patient. What is your view?
Mohsen Rezaei: Yes, I agree. We have suffered—and continue to suffer—in Iran from inflation, and we face real economic challenges. We have been under severe economic sanctions for more than ten or fifteen years.
But it is victory that opens all doors. These same Americans, after your victory, will come to us humbled, pleading to be allowed—just like others—to come and invest here.
So our victory in this war is the gateway to wealth, to production, to openness. All doors will be opened to us. This war we are fighting now is merely a bottleneck, or a pivotal turning point on the path to the summit. It is the final obstacle we must overcome.
And when we reach the summit of this climb, I promise you—through our victory in this war—the doors of investment, of production, and all avenues of prosperity will be opened to our people.
Therefore, I ask you, as a soldier of this homeland, and I ask all political factions within this great Iranian nation, to continue standing behind your sons in the armed forces—in the Revolutionary Guard, in the army, in the security forces, and in the Basij—just as you have supported them until now. God willing, we will all overcome this trial with our heads held high.
Journalist: Once again, the enemies have made a grave miscalculation. They sought to sow division within Iranian society, perhaps imagining that in the event of war, polarization would emerge—with some supporting and others opposing the stance toward the Zionist entity. But the moment events unfolded, unity prevailed. Everyone, regardless of political affiliation, stood as one. The enemy likely did not expect such swift formation of national cohesion and solidarity.
Mohsen Rezaei: Yes, they had heard about internal discontent—about inflation, soaring prices, and other domestic issues. But they failed to understand the Iranian people. They did not grasp that this nation is capable of offering up four or five of its sons in sacrifice for Iran. They were ignorant of the character of this nation. The Iranian people stand by their homeland, rally behind Islam, defend their revolution, and are prepared to make great sacrifices.
Indeed, they thought that if they targeted our leaders and nuclear scientists, people would pour into the streets shouting, “Stop the war! Surrender! Do whatever America demands!” Yet why are we, on our part, optimistic? Look: America says, “Come to the negotiating table,” while at the same time ordering Israel to launch attacks. What does this tell us?
It tells us they do not count on Israel’s success. They are keeping the door to negotiations open so that, should Israel be defeated, they don’t walk away empty-handed. In fact, this contradiction itself—the US calling for negotiations while Israel strikes—is a sign of despair. They expect no good to come of this war, nor do they anticipate surviving it unscathed.
As for us, we cannot afford such duplicity, under any circumstances. Their aim is to later say: “Very well, let’s declare a ceasefire, then negotiate.” But how long would that ceasefire last? If Israel intends to strike Iran again in a few months, or to resume acts of sabotage down the line, we cannot allow Iran to become another prolonged quagmire—like Syria, lasting a year, two, five, or more. We must decisively put an end to these aggressions—with firmness, resolve, and full dedication—relying on the popular support that has coalesced behind our armed forces, so that, God willing, security and stability may prevail in our country for many years to come.
Journalist: What role should the government play in this context?
Mohsen Rezaei: Thank God, the government is rising to the occasion and working in full coordination with the armed forces. Mr. Bazrpash (Minister of Roads and Urban Development) is in constant communication with the military, as is Mr. Araghchi (Foreign Minister).
Very constructive meetings took place before the incident, and follow-up meetings are now being held. Political officials, military leaders, and the armed forces all stand united, as one.
So far, Mr. Bazrpash has been following in the footsteps of the Leader of the Revolution without hesitation. He still possesses the same spirit of jihad he had in the 1970s. We call him a “Sacred Defense fighter,” for he was on the front lines during the war. This is the blessed approach he follows. Today, we are one hand: the Foreign Ministry, the government, and the armed forces. This very coordination is a tremendous blessing in the defense of Iran.
Journalist: I’d like to return to your phrase about “the sword and the treasure.” If this conflict ends in victory for the Islamic Republic of Iran and the sword remains in its hand, how will this more powerful sword alter the balance of power?
Mohsen Rezaei: Many equations will shift. A number of countries around us will seek sincere and friendly relations with us. In my view, Iran and its neighbors will come together in a union—somewhat resembling the European Union.
Eventually, we will adopt a unified currency. We will forge an alliance with all of our neighboring states. In fact, I envision the creation of a unified Islamic army—bringing together Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, the four major powers—along with other countries, to form a force capable of preventing foreign powers from imposing their hegemony upon us.
Naturally, we believe in the necessity of establishing economic and trade relations with all countries of the world, with the exception of Israel. We must strive to elevate the region, just as the Europeans and others have done.
All of this is possible if we unite, if we become brothers and allies. The key to this transformation is an Iranian victory.
On the day when we, God willing, deliver a harsh lesson to Israel in this war, you will see it for yourselves. Even over the past few days, look what has happened: most Arab states have reached out and declared their support for us. Pakistan has openly stated that if Israel drops a nuclear bomb, it will respond in kind.
Muslim sentiment across the region will be inflamed like never before. The stronger our positions become, and the greater our people’s support for their armed forces, the more we will be able to pass through this dangerous strait and reach the far shore—where an ocean of political, military, and economic progress awaits our nation, God willing.
Journalist: God willing. And what will become of the Zionist entity in that case?
Mohsen Rezaei: Look, our vision for the future of Palestine is based on the return of all Palestinians—Muslims, Christians, and Jews—to the land of Palestine, where a popular referendum will be held and they will draft their own constitution.
Ultimately, we still believe in the necessity of removing the Zionists from the occupied territories through a democratic process. The people must return, elect their own representatives, and write their Constitution themselves.
Once we unite with the Islamic countries, following the crushing defeat that Israel will suffer, I believe that most of the Zionists will leave voluntarily, and the occupied territories will be restored to the Palestinians without a single bullet being fired.
Everything depends on our ability to pass through this critical juncture, to reach that summit, and to bring the Islamic nations alongside us. We must establish a union of Islamic countries in the Persian Gulf region. Not a single Zionist will remain in occupied Palestine—they will all flee, and the land will return to its rightful Palestinian owners, without war.
Journalist: Ma’ariv newspaper itself, in the wake of the recent wave of attacks carried out by Operation True Promise, acknowledged last night that the Zionist entity has never in its history come under such intense missile fire. That’s a direct quote. The report continued: “Where is the prime minister? Where is he?” So, what is your assessment of the Prime minister’s current situation?
Mohsen Rezaei: Most likely, he is no longer in the occupied territories, but has relocated elsewhere. That alone reveals their intention to press on.
Let me stress this point: I am absolutely certain about the outcome of this battle. And I speak of this certainty with the same hope I expressed a moment ago—rooted in a careful analysis of the geopolitical realities in the region.
That said, I constantly remind myself and my brothers of the need to beware of arrogance. Yes, we are engaged in a difficult war—but the victory that lies ahead is ten times greater than the one we achieved in the imposed war. The scale and grandeur of this accomplishment demand our steadfastness on the battlefield, and the suppression of Israel, God willing.
Journalist: During the eight years of the Sacred Defense, what was achieved was considered a great accomplishment in itself. But now you’re saying that what we will achieve will surpass that many times over… Honestly, truly, could you explain the dimensions of this difference?
Mohsen Rezaei: I’ve already explained this. Today, we are in a position that combines the summit, the sword, and the treasure. I know these expressions were also used during the Sacred Defense, but just look at the difference.
Compare our capabilities today with what they were after the Sacred Defense. That victory brought us to where we are now in the development of missiles, drones, tanks, artillery—and even in the media. Our victory over Israel in this war will bring about a transformation in the geopolitical landscape of the region. After that, neither America nor Israel will be able to impose their hegemony on West Asia.
Their defeat here will mean their defeat across the whole of West Asia, and this loss will completely reshape regional dynamics in Iran’s favor. Starting the day after Israel’s defeat, all forms of intermediary, ambiguous relations—like those we have with countries such as the UAE, the Caucasus, or the Republic of Azerbaijan—will come to an end.
The kings and princes of the region will come to Iran and shake our hands in brotherhood—not because, God forbid, we harbor expansionist intentions, but because they will come to the conclusion that relying on Iran is better than being dependent on America or Israel. Iran is their sister, and Iran wants progress for them.
This is a true geopolitical shift. The region is witnessing a new realignment, while the world is moving toward a multipolar order—whereas America is striving to maintain a bipolar one. If we win here, a multipolar world will emerge. China will be a pole in itself, Russia will be another, and we—together with the Arab and Islamic countries—will form our own. Europe will also have its own pole.
In the next 200 to 300 years, the world will be governed by a five-pole system, not a bipolar one. And where does it all begin? With Israel’s defeat in this aggression against Iran. Here, with God’s help, the blessings of the Almighty, and under the guidance of our Imam Mahdi (may God hasten his reappearance), we will achieve victory. Doors will open for our nation that many never even imagined.
Yes, despite the economic difficulties, inflation, and the hardships you see, the entire scene will change. And although I repeat that the war is harsh and difficult, we must persevere—God willing.
My message is this: if we wage this war with cooperation, understanding, reason, creativity, and prudence—and without haste… Yes, I acknowledge there are voices calling for an escalation in operations and efforts, but this war must be managed wisely.
And it is indeed being managed wisely—from the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to the field commanders, everyone is involved in steering this war. And this leadership, God willing, will lead to a decisive victory. We will all witness achievements that will be etched into the nation’s collective memory.
Journalist: And by that point, where will we stand in terms of technology and progress—particularly in the nuclear field?
Mohsen Rezaei: We will continue to refrain from pursuing a nuclear bomb. Naturally, we don’t know what the future holds, but we will remain committed to the fatwa of His Eminence, the Leader, and proceed accordingly. We must wait and see how events unfold, but for now, we have no intention of pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Journalist: In the realm of media—where it plays a central role in times of conflict—the situation today is following a familiar path. What is broadcast across various media networks, or circulated in cyberspace, often provokes concern among the public, particularly given the confusing blend of accurate and inaccurate information found online.
Some people tend to believe this information to be true. To date, we’ve seen a surge of reports about various public figures allegedly being targeted in airstrikes—whether inside Tehran or elsewhere—linked to operations conducted by our armed forces inside the occupied territories. Most of these reports are rife with rumors and conflicting narratives, some true, many false.
In such a context, managing the scene—especially the media file—and informing the public about the real nature of what is being reported becomes critically important. At the very least, we must work to ease people’s anxiety and tension. After all, this too is a form of warfare: the media operates on the battlefield.
Mohsen Rezaei: Look, Mr. Khosravi—these media outlets are tied to elites, political movements, and factions across the spectrum. As a soldier in the ranks of the Iranian people, I urgently call for serious discussions about the nature of this war and its broader consequences.
Why were the negotiations abandoned midway, and why was the path of war chosen instead? Why? Is the issue limited solely to the nuclear file? Or is the missile file also a target? And what comes next?
These questions must be analyzed thoroughly. If our elites can arrive at a unified strategic and interpretive understanding of the nature of this war, that consensus will influence all media outlets and political groups alike.
Our problem today is that some still cast doubt on the very possibility of Israel launching an attack on Iran. From our vantage point, this skepticism lingers because the depth of the issue has not yet been grasped.
They believe it is simply a matter of uranium enrichment. But if the true nature of this war were revealed—if it became clear what the other side is really after, and why they turned to war in the midst of ongoing negotiations, even as Iran was preparing to present its proposal—then the picture would be different.
What interest would Iran have in derailing the talks? Mr. Araghchi was scheduled to go on Sunday to present our negotiation plan. So it’s obvious: we were not the party that broke off the talks.
Journalist: Do you believe that even if we had—hypothetically—agreed to a complete halt in enrichment, war would still have broken out?
Mohsen Rezaei: Whether we had negotiated or not, they would have attacked us. No matter what form of enrichment we might have agreed to… even if we had accepted zero enrichment, it would have made no difference.
Enrichment stands as a barrier to the next stages. As we fighters say, it is a trench. This enrichment, in and of itself, is a form of resistance. It is the first trench that blocks the imposition of American and Zionist demands and dictates. We held this trench so they could not push deeper into Iran. Otherwise, the missile issue would have come next. And after that, they would have moved to restrict our movements from Iraq and other neighboring countries, and beyond. No form of communication would have been allowed.
They would have proceeded step by step. After Iran—yes, after Iran—they would have moved on to Iraq.
The Iraq issue is serious. They had already debated whether to start with Iraq or Iran. In the end, they decided: let’s hit Iran first—then Iraq will fall into our hands like ripe fruit, without dragging us into a quagmire of confrontation.
I can’t help but think: if our dear analysts and respected elites were to hold serious, reasoned debates—even within the national broadcasting authority itself (and I call on my dear brother Mr. Jebelli [Director‑General of IRIB, Iran’s state-run media organization] to open this door)—we could very easily reach a national consensus on the true nature of this war.
And if we defeat them—God Almighty willing—a vast horizon will open before Iran, in terms of its national security and national progress.
Journalist: Because some current analyses suggest that, anticipating Iran’s firm stance on enrichment—and its refusal to accept the principle of zero enrichment—they deliberately blew up the negotiating table and launched their aggression. Some people simply don’t see the full picture.
Mohsen Rezaei: Look, enrichment has two dimensions. One is that it is an industry—so why should we give it up? But more importantly, industrial enrichment represents a defensive trench that prevents the enemy from continuing its advance. And this aspect, unfortunately, is rarely given the attention it deserves.
Journalist: Is enrichment, in your view, a realistic objective?
Mohsen Rezaei: Yes, enrichment is a realistic necessity. If we do not possess it, we will eventually be forced to spend billions of dollars to import enriched materials—whether for medical purposes or to generate electricity. That much is true.
But more importantly, enrichment is a defensive stronghold that shields us from further demands. Had the issue been limited to enrichment alone, negotiations would have continued. So why did they resort to war?
The very fact that they launched a war proves that they are after more than just the cessation of enrichment. If enrichment were truly the only problem, we would have presented our proposal, entered into talks, and explored possible compromises. We might even have arrived at a third formula on a specific matter.
But where? They rejected the premise from the outset. And that, in itself, is clear evidence that they want more than just to halt enrichment. What they seek is the destruction of the defensive line that enrichment represents.
So even if we were to completely suspend enrichment—if we believed in it, accepted it, signed off on it—they would simply come forward with the next demand.
Journalist: So, do you believe that by agreeing to enter negotiations, the Islamic Republic of Iran effectively stripped the Americans of all the pretexts they had been using—yet they still returned to a premeditated scenario?
Mohsen Rezaei: Exactly. That is precisely what I have seen time and again. There is genuine wisdom in the measures taken by His Eminence the Leader.
I myself was among those who opposed the negotiations—not out of obstinacy, but because I recognized the gravity of the situation and took the prospect of war with the utmost seriousness. I used to say: even if we do negotiate, war is inevitable.
Several commanders were martyred—some of them, may God have mercy on them, I used to tell: war is a foregone conclusion. That is why I had doubts about the usefulness of negotiations. But today, I fully understand just how far-sighted and effective the wisdom of the Leader of the Revolution truly was. He saw through the situation. He exposed the enemy’s cards.
They have now proven that they never intended to negotiate on equal footing. With the war they started, they openly declared their true objectives. They laid bare their demands. And in doing so, they revealed their intentions.
Today, the unity of our people, the overwhelmingly positive response we’re seeing from global public opinion, the support of other nations for our front, and the solidarity between the people and our armed forces—these are all major gains.
It has turned into an ever-growing force. In other words, the wisdom of the Leader of the Revolution has produced a rising power in defense of Iran.
Journalist: Very well. We have about two minutes left. Would you like to offer any final thoughts as we conclude?
Mohsen Rezaei: Yes. Perhaps the best way for me to close is to say, from this very place: I hope to kiss the hand of His Eminence the Leader. And I ask that he assign me a field mission. You, who have donned your combat uniforms—may His Eminence assign me a mission on the front.
God willing, I will be present on the battlefield, shoulder to shoulder with my mujahideen brothers, on the front lines.
Journalist: Thank you very much.
US Vice President JD Vance revealed the Trump administration’s “generational shift in [foreign] policy”, emphasizing “great power competition” and preparation for war with China. They’re abandoning soft power and focusing on “hard power” and “overwhelming force”, in a return to blatant, 19th century-style imperialism.
S Vice President JD Vance has announced what he calls a “new era” in military strategy.
“What we are seeing from President Trump is a generational shift in [foreign] policy”, he claimed.
The Donald Trump administration is abandoning the US government’s previous emphasis on soft power, Vance explained, and is instead focusing on “hard power” and “overwhelming force”, in a return to blatant, 19th century-style imperialism.
According to Vance, Washington’s top priority is now “great power competition”, and preparation for potential war with China.
The vice president laid this out in a speech at the commissioning ceremony of the US Naval Academy on 23 May.
JD Vance lamented the fact that the US empire has lost its unipolar dominance, as the world has become more multipolar.
“In the wake of the Cold War, America enjoyed a mostly unchallenged command of the commons, airspace, sea, space and cyberspace”, Vance recalled.
“Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, our policymakers assumed that American primacy on the world stage was guaranteed. For a brief time, we were a superpower without any peer, nor did we believe any foreign nation could possibly rise to compete with the United States of America”, he added.
“But the era of uncontested US dominance is over”, Vance warned. “Today we face serious threats in China, Russia, and other nations, determined to beat us in every single domain”.
The US vice president complained that, in the past, “our leaders traded hard power for soft power”. He argued that this was an error, and that the US empire should have focused on containing China.
“Instead of devoting our energies to responding to the rise of near-peer competitors like China, our leaders pursued what they assumed would be easy jobs for the world’s preeminent superpower”, Vance said.
“Our government took its eye off the ball of great power competition and preparing to take on a peer adversary, and instead, we devoted ourselves to sprawling, amorphous tasks, like searching for new terrorists to take out while building up far away regimes”, he added.
The vice president argued that it was a mistake to think that, by deepening economic integration and trade with China, the US could pressure Beijing to change its socialist system.
“Too many of us believed that economic integration would naturally lead to peace by making countries like the People’s Republic of China more like the United States”, he lamented.
In other words, Vance was acknowledging that many officials in Washington wanted China to become an obedient proxy, like Japan. They thought they could pressure Beijing to subordinate itself to the US, but they ultimately failed.
So now, the Trump administration is redirecting US foreign policy to prepare for potential war on China.
Some Trump supporters have taken Vance’s comments out of context to claim that the Trump administration is supposedly moving away from a hyper-interventionist foreign policy and toward a more restrained, isolationist one. But that is not what is happening.
Vance’s speech made it clear that the Trump administration wants to return to a more overt, traditional form of imperialism.
What is changing is that the Trump administration is dropping the cynical propaganda narrative that US foreign policy is supposedly motivated by “democracy promotion” or “human rights”.
Vance indicated that the US empire will continue to wage wars, and will try to win those wars through the use of “overwhelming force”. However, this will no longer be done in the name of “democracy” or “human rights”.
Vance warned US Naval Academy graduates that they are in a “very dangerous era”, and will have a new “mission”.
The vice president stated openly that US troops will be sent to more wars, and that it is not a matter of if, but rather when.
“We’re returning to a strategy grounded in realism and protecting our core national interests”, Vance said. “Now this doesn’t mean that we ignore threats, but it means that we approach them with discipline, and that when we send you to war, we do it with a very specific set of goals in mind”.
As an example of the new Trump Doctrine, Vance proudly pointed to the Pentagon’s bombing campaign in Yemen, the poorest country in West Asia.
Vance boasted that the Trump administration used “overwhelming force against Houthi military targets”. This was a reference to the so-called “Houthis”, the armed group officially known as Ansarallah that governs northern Yemen.
Trump’s war on Yemen was “how military power should be used: decisively, with a clear objective”, Vance said.
“We ought to be cautious in deciding to throw a punch, but when we throw a punch, we throw a punch hard, and we do it decisively, and that’s exactly what we may ask you to do“, he told the Naval Academy graduates.
Vance added, “With the Trump administration, our adversaries now know when the United States sets a red line, it will be enforced, and when we engage, we do so with purpose, with superior force, with superior weapons, and with the best people anywhere in the world”.
In fact, instead of promoting isolationism and opposing interventionism, the Trump administration is boosting the US military budget to more than $1 trillion per year.
“I’ll be supporting a record-setting $1 trillion investment in our national defense”, Trump said in a speech at a US military base in April. “We’re going to go $1 trillion, the largest in the world, the largest ever in our country”.
“No other country has invested that much”, Trump bragged. “We have a $1 trillion budget for military this year, and we have tremendous plans”.
In one of the most hypocritical parts of his speech at the US Naval Academy graduation ceremony, JD Vance claimed that the Trump administration is carrying out a “shift in thinking, from ideological crusades to a principled foreign policy”.
This was deeply ironic, because Trump’s extremely hawkish secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, is a self-declared “crusader”.
In his 2020 book “American Crusade”, Hegseth — a former Fox News host — wrote with pride that the US right wing is waging a “holy war” against China, the international left, and Islam.
Hegseth, an ardent hawk, has sought to rebrand US soldiers as “warfighters”, constantly using the term in his public remarks.
In his speech at the Naval Academy, Vance did the same, repeatedly praising US soldiers as “warfighters”.
Top officials in the Trump administration have made it clear that the main target of the US empire is China.
JD Vance conveyed this in his speech at the US Naval Academy.
It has also been repeatedly emphasized by Marco Rubio, a lifelong neoconservative war hawk, who is serving simultaneously as Trump’s secretary of state and national security advisor (making him only the second person in US history to hold both positions at the same time, following Henry Kissinger).
In his Senate confirmation hearing in January, Rubio stressed that this entire century will be built on Washington’s new cold war against China.
Rubio said (emphasis added):
The Communist Party of China, that leads the PRC, is the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted. They have elements that the Soviet Union never possessed. They are a technological adversary and competitor, an industrial competitor, an economic competitor, a geopolitical competitor, a scientific competitor now — in every realm.
It’s an extraordinary challenge. It’s one that I believe will define the 21st century. When they write the book about the 21st century, there’s going to be some chapters in there about Putin; there’s going to be some chapters in there about some of these other places; but the bulk of that book about the 21st century will be not just about China, but about the relationship between China and the United States, and what direction it went.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)