The barbarism that rules us… and triumphs: Iran as a decisive geostrategic knot

José Goulão, Strategic Culture Foundation

The question is not simply whether Iran will endure, but whether its endurance might yet alter the trajectory of a world that appears increasingly determined to walk, eyes open, into the abyss.

The world, we are told, is balanced on a knife-edge. Or, if one prefers the language of spectacle, it resembles a tightrope walker swaying precariously above an abyss, acutely aware that there is no safety net below. On one side stand the dwindling voices of reason – those few leaders and international institutions still attempting to salvage what remains of common sense. On the other lies the void: the path towards a generalisation of terror, steadily pursued by what is habitually called the “collective West”, or, with a straight face, “our civilisation”, led by the fevered dogma of imperial Zionism.

Iran resists. More than that, it counter-attacks, still capable of demonstrating that bluster alone does not win wars, even as the principal actors in this unfolding tragedy continue to believe that their self-appointed status as the chosen of God suffices to exterminate barbarians and heretics.

Let it be said plainly: the Western governments attitudes towards confessional politics, whether in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel or even the United States, shows a remarkable selectivity in their indignation. What is intolerable in one place becomes acceptable, even commendable, in another. The “Iran of the ayatollahs” is cast as the enemy; Zionist extremism and Saudi authoritarianism, meanwhile, are welcomed as allies – useful, profitable, and reassuringly aligned with Western interests. Josep Borrell, in his tenure as the European Union’s chief diplomat, saw no contradiction in defending such double standards as necessary instruments of policy.

Iran has not been defeated, despite the assassination of its spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He did not retreat into hiding; he continued to work openly, sharing in the risks borne by his people. There is an irony, scarcely acknowledged in Western commentary, that it was Khamenei who issued the fatwa rejecting nuclear weapons. The elimination of a leader opposed to weapons of mass destruction rather undermines the oft-repeated claim that nuclear proliferation was ever the central concern.

His death has, predictably, transformed him into a martyr. The reaction within Iran – mass demonstrations, expressions of unity – has been largely invisible to a global media more attuned to amplifying opposition voices than to recording inconvenient realities. The assassination has hardened positions within the regime, strengthened the influence of the Revolutionary Guard, and fostered cohesion rather than fragmentation. The succession of Mojtaba Khamenei signals, if anything, a shift towards less moderate ground.

The Eurasian chessboard

Thirty-five years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the international balance of power resembles a stalemate. The old Western dominance – enforced through the elastic notion of a “rules-based international order” – confronts the gradual emergence of a multipolar world. Eurasia is the decisive theatre in this contest, and within it Iran constitutes a crucial node.

Geography alone explains part of this. Iran is vast, populous, and strategically situated. But it is also something more enduring: a civilisational bridge linking East and West, Central Asia and the Middle East, a repository of cultures far older than the modern Western imagination can comfortably grasp. Such depth tends to provoke not curiosity but unease. The response has been predictable: a mixture of arrogance, propaganda, and the manufacture of pretexts designed to justify Iran’s subordination to a system it did not create and does not accept.

The professed concern for the Iranian people, frequently invoked by Western leaders, rings hollow. One need only glance at the condition of those regions already “liberated” by Western intervention – lands where democracy arrived in the form of missile warheads and proxy militias – to appreciate the limits of such humanitarian zeal. When, for instance, a school in Minab was struck, reportedly due to an artificial intelligence error in target selection, the deaths of 165 young girls were dismissed as an unfortunate miscalculation. It was, coincidentally, around the same time that Melania Trump addressed the United Nations on the plight of children in conflict.

Such episodes are not aberrations; they are the logical extension of a worldview in which entire populations are reduced to potential threats. As Benjamin Netanyahu has argued with chilling clarity, a Palestinian – or now, by extension, an Iranian – is considered suspect from birth.

Iran’s centrality to the “great game” was long ago articulated by Zbigniew Brzezinski: control Eurasia, and one controls the world. It follows, then, that controlling Iran becomes indispensable. Its resistance obstructs not only the extension of Western hegemony but also the broader ambitions of projects such as a “Greater Israel”.

This war, therefore, is not merely about Iran. It reveals the convergence of globalist and Zionist agendas as mutually reinforcing mechanisms of imperial expansion.

Resistance and its meaning

Iran has responded in kind. It has threatened the Strait of Hormuz, destabilised the Gulf monarchies that host American bases, and degraded strategic radar systems across the region, including those protecting the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. These developments sit uneasily alongside confident assertions from Washington and its allies that Iran is on the brink of defeat.

War propaganda, as ever, obscures as much as it reveals. Israeli and American vulnerabilities have become increasingly apparent, particularly in the limitations of air defence systems and the strain placed upon military resources. Veteran U.S. officers have openly acknowledged that sustaining a prolonged war of attrition may exceed American capacities, especially after the depletion of arsenals in Ukraine. Whether Washington can outlast Tehran remains an open question.

Iran’s resistance matters – not because its regime is exemplary, but because it is independent. It makes its own decisions, refuses to submit to external diktat, and continues to provide support, however limited, to the Palestinian cause. More broadly, it represents a pillar of the emerging multipolar order.

Through its involvement in initiatives such as China’s Belt and Road, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the BRICS grouping, Iran contributes to the construction of alternative economic and political networks – ones that challenge the dominance of Western-controlled routes and institutions. Unsurprisingly, disrupting these alternatives has become a strategic priority for Western policymakers.

The consequences of an Iranian defeat would be profound. A government installed under Western auspices would not only weaken these emerging alliances but also remove a significant obstacle to regional reconfiguration. The path towards a “Greater Israel” would be considerably eased, while neighbouring states – Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt – lack either the capacity or the inclination to resist such a shift.

At the same time, the fusion of financial, media, and cultural influence underpinning Zionist power would accelerate the consolidation of a global order in which individuals are increasingly reduced to expendable units. China and Russia would face heightened vulnerability, particularly in light of India’s ambiguous positioning.

The stakes, then, are stark. The future of Iran is inseparable from the broader contest between a multipolar order grounded in international law and a system defined by unilateral power and selective rules. A Western victory would not merely reshape the Middle East; it would reinforce a model of governance marked by coercion, inequality, and the erosion of sovereignty.

If public opinion remains captive to war propaganda – if the steady drift from distortion to outright falsehood continues unchallenged – the consequences may prove catastrophic. The escalation of imperial violence, rooted in a toxic blend of colonial ambition and ideological zeal, risks culminating in a wider, potentially global conflict.

Such is what hangs in the balance. The question is not simply whether Iran will endure, but whether its endurance might yet alter the trajectory of a world that appears increasingly determined to walk, eyes open, into the abyss.

Between fatwa and the bomb: Is Iran rethinking its nuclear doctrine?

Farhad Ibragimov, RT

As Mojtaba Khamenei steps in, Tehran weighs whether to uphold a religious ban or embrace nuclear deterrence amid rising threats.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has recently issued a statement urging people to wait for new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to publicly declare his stance on nuclear weapons. Essentially, the Foreign Ministry has subtly indicated that Tehran is shifting from previous dogmatic certainty towards a potential revision of its nuclear doctrine.

A central element of this issue is the ‘fatwa’ (ruling) issued by former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which prohibited the development and use of nuclear weapons in accordance with Islamic law. In the Muslim world, especially within the Shia tradition to which Iran belongs, a fatwa is not merely a theological opinion; it serves as an authoritative legal ruling from the highest religious authority (the Marja’al-Taqlid) and carries significant normative weight. For Shia society, particularly within Iran’s theocratic model, such decrees hold both religious and political-legal significance, shaping the boundaries of acceptable state behavior. Consequently, for nearly three decades, Iranian officials have consistently cited this fatwa as evidence of their lack of intention to pursue the development of nuclear weapons.

Joe Kent, the former director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, stated in an interview with Tucker Carlson that American intelligence had no evidence of Iran ever violating the fatwa that has been in effect since 2004. Furthermore, he asserted that Iran was not close to developing nuclear weapons and had not shown any strategic intent to do so. This admission from a former US official significantly undermines the traditional American propaganda narrative about an “inevitable nuclear threat” coming from Tehran.

In addition to the religious-philosophical dimension, Iran’s position also has a clear legal foundation. This involves the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to which Iran became a signatory in 1968 and from which it has never withdrawn, including after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. In contrast, Israel is not a party to the NPT; nevertheless, the US and the West have long directed complaints at Tehran while remaining silent about Israel, even as they frequently invoke the principle of equality. 

However, a fatwa in the Shia legal tradition is not an absolute or unchanging doctrine. Rather, it is a theological-legal ruling that can be reassessed or even revoked based on changing circumstances, new knowledge, or shifts in the political-security landscape. Furthermore, with the appointment of a new supreme leader, previous religious and legal positions may adapt to current realities. In this context, Mojtaba Khamenei theoretically holds the full religious legitimacy to issue a new fatwa that considers the evolving international situation, including the state of conflict and national security threats.

This brings us to the concept of ‘taqiyya’ (prudence) – a key element of Shia political-religious thought. Traditionally, taqiyya allows for concealing true intentions or temporarily adjusting external behavior when faced with threats to life, faith, or community. More broadly, this principle can be applied to state strategy: in the face of existential threats, decisions aimed at ensuring the survival of the state and society are permissible, even if they require revisiting established norms. 

Discussions on whether Iran should possess nuclear weapons have been going on in the country for decades, both among experts and within the upper echelons of power. These discussions are part of a major strategic debate in which different approaches to national security clash. Advocates for nuclear armament argue from a deterrence perspective: amid constant external pressure and threats of military intervention, having a nuclear arsenal is seen as the most reliable guarantee of sovereignty. Reports suggest that similar views were present within the circle of the late supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The rationale is straightforward: external actors usually do not initiate direct aggression against states with nuclear capabilities. 

The example of North Korea is often cited to illustrate the effectiveness of such a strategy. During the early months of Donald Trump’s first presidential term, Washington’s rhetoric toward Pyongyang was harsh and confrontational. However, once it became clear that North Korea possessed real nuclear capabilities, the approach shifted: pressure gave way to negotiations, and Trump entered into a direct dialogue with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Since then, the topic of military action against North Korea has largely faded from discussion. Experts interpret this as evidence supporting the argument that nuclear weapons serve as a powerful tool for preventing external interference. In the case of North Korea, there was also a high risk of retaliation against US allies in the region (South Korea and Japan) if the White House were to pursue aggression against Pyongyang. 

The contrasting example of Libya also holds significant weight for the Iranian elite. In the early 2000s, then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi abandoned the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in exchange for promises of normalized relations with the West and security guarantees. However, by 2011, Libya faced a NATO military intervention, leading to the ousting of Gaddafi during a ‘color revolution’ instigated by European powers and Washington and ultimately, his death. This case has reinforced Iran’s perception that relinquishing deterrent capabilities  does not guarantee safety; rather, it can increase a nation’s vulnerability.

Consequently, Iran finds itself “caught between two scenarios”: the North Korean model, where nuclear weapons ensure the survival of the regime, and the Libyan model, where disarmament resulted in a foreign intervention and the collapse of the state. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s position was more complex, however. As both a religious authority and an experienced politician, he recognized the rational arguments of those advocating for nuclear deterrence while also weighing significant regional risks. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it could trigger a chain reaction of nuclear proliferation across the Middle East, with Türkiye potentially launching similar programs, followed by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt. The region, already marked by high conflict, would find itself in a precarious strategic balance with multiple nuclear actors.

This explains why, for many years, Iranian leadership has adhered to a strategy of patience and strategic maneuvering – combining the technological advancement of its nuclear program with political constraints. This approach has allowed Iran to maintain room for negotiation while avoiding drastic actions that could lead to large-scale escalation.

However, the current political environment complicates matters. The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader coincided with a sharp deterioration in foreign relations and a major escalation of the conflict. This shift suggests that the strategy of patience employed by Ali Khamenei may no longer yield the same results.

In this context, Iran’s new leadership faces a challenging dilemma: either maintain the existing course with its limitations and international legal commitments or pivot toward a more aggressive security model. The resolution of this issue will depend not only on ideological considerations but also on a pragmatic assessment of the threats facing the nation amid ongoing aggression.

Theoretically, it is possible to envision a scenario in which the issuance of a new fatwa may be justified by security concerns. In this case, nuclear capabilities (among other deterrent factors) may be declared a necessary means of protection. In such a case, the religious-legal rationale could be integrated into the state’s strategic doctrine, legitimizing a potential transformation of Iran’s nuclear policy.

The question of potentially revising the fatwa has long been anticipated. The edict issued by Ali Khamenei was shaped by different political realities, and its practical applicability is now inevitably under scrutiny. The international landscape is shifting, as is the context in which religious and legal interpretations are made. In Shia tradition, such decisions cannot be divorced from reality; they are tied to considerations of practicality and security, and can be re-evaluated in light of escalating threats. In this sense, the principle allows for adjustments to previous positions when it comes to protecting the state and society.

Thus, neglecting national security concerns in the current climate could be seen not as a virtue but as a strategic blunder. Mojtaba Khamenei, with his theological background and standing at the heart of the country’s decision-making processes, undoubtedly understands this and recognizes the significant responsibility placed upon him in this new political context.

For this reason, the statement of the Iranian Foreign Ministry should not be viewed as mere rhetoric; rather, it serves as a carefully crafted signal that Iran’s nuclear doctrine may enter a phase of potential reassessment, where religious, legal, and geopolitical dimensions are intricately intertwined.

*Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, expert and lecturer at the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.

Iran moves to Total War against the death cult

Pepe Escobar, Strategic Culture Foundation

Structural paralysis. Meticulously programmed. Inexorable. Already in effect.

Attacking Iran’s South Pars gas field – the largest on the planet – is the ultimate escalation.

Neo-Caligula, in trademark Truth Social coward vociferation mode, has been desperate to blame the death cult in West Asia for it and excuse himself from any responsibility: he claims Israel attacked South Pars “out of anger” and the U.S. “knew nothing about this particular attack”. Qatar was “in no way, shape or form involved”. And Iran hit Qatar’s LNG in retaliation “based on wrong intelligence”.

Is that all there is? Then let’s keep dancing?

Hardly. More like the death cult used openly Zionist media in the U.S. to frame it all as a joint op – pulling the Empire of Chaos and Plunder deeper into an hubristic quagmire; dragging it into a Total Energy War with devastating consequences; and turning the Gulf petro-monarchies 100% against Iran (they were already campaigning against Iran, especially Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar).

Neo-Caligula can brag whatever he wants. Yet it’s obvious that an op of such sensitivity and magnitude – as a means of “putting pressure” on Tehran – requires deep CENTCOM involvement and presidential approval.

So the privileged scenario points once again to Washington losing control of its own foreign policy – assuming there was one in the first place.

All players involved – whose incapacity of reading the chessboard has been proven again and again – could not help believing that Tehran would finally fold after an attack on its precious energy security.

The Iranian response, predictably, was the total opposite: hardcore escalation. The list of targets for the counter-attack was published in no time – and will be followed to the letter. Starting with Qatar’s Ras Laffan refinery.

Watch those LNG trains

It’s tempting to believe that neo-Caligula is trying to distance himself from the out-of-control, Total Desperation death cult; arguably offering an off-ramp to Tehran; and at the same time admitting that destroying South Pars would be catastrophic but committing himself to “massively blow South Pars” (don’t expect a rambling megalomanic narcissistic gangster to be coherent).

What’s crucially at stake in the South Pars tragedy are the LNG trains .

A “train” consists of components designed to process, purify and convert natural gas to LNG. They are named “trains” because of the sequential arrangement of the equipment – compressor trains – used in the industrial process to process and liquefy natural gas.

The Qatar 2 project in the massive Ras Laffan refinery was coordinated by Chiyoda and Technip, a Japanese-British joint venture. Same with trains 4 and 5, which compose the world’s largest LNG trains.

These trains are operated by Qatar Gas, ExxonMobil, Shell and ConocoPhillips. For all practical purposes, these are American and Western-linked installations, thus legitimate targets for Iran.

There are just 14 trains in the world – and it’s not hyperbolic to define that Western “civilization” depends on all of them. It takes from 10 to 15 years to replace one train. All of these 14 trains are within reach of Iran’s ballistic and hypersonic missiles. At least one of them was set on fire by the Iranian counter-attack. That’s how extraordinarily serious this all is.

The First West Asia High-Tech Total War

The South Pars escalation was inevitable after the new rules established by Iran on the Strait of Hormuz drove the Epstein Syndicate absolutely nuts.

It was Western insurance paranoia that closed the Strait much more than the defensive potential of the Iranian drone/ballistic missile combo. Then the IRGC announced that the Strait was open to China; to other nations who engaged in negotiations – such as Bangladesh; and to Gulf nations that would expel U.S. ambassadors.

And then, finally, a new set of rules were imposed. It works like this.

1. If your cargo was traded in petroyuan, you may get free passage.
2. You must pay the toll.
3. Only then you are free to go, navigating in Iranian territorial waters, close to the island of Qeshm, and not across the middle of the Strait.

Iranian FM Araghchi could not be more clear: “After the war ends, we will design new mechanisms for the Strait of Hormuz. We will not allow our enemies to use this waterway.” Whatever happens next, the Strait of Hormuz will have a permanent tool booth, controlled by Iran.

Prof. Fouad Azadi, whom I had the pleasure to meet in Iran years ago, already announced that ships travelling through the Strait will now have to pay a 10 % toll. That may generate as much as $73 billion a year – more than enough to compensate for war damage and U.S. sanctions.

Iran is already deep into what for all practical purposes is configured as The First West Asia High-Tech Total War.

Strategically, as defined by Iranian analysts, that implies a fascinating cornucopia of new terminology.

Let’s start with The Great Constriction, applied across the hyper-focused Surgical Attrition strategy. The target for the constriction has switched from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to collapsing the very fabric of Israeli civil society.

Then there’s the 16-Mach Shield Breaker – whose tech superstars are the Khorramshahr-4 and Fattah-2 missiles, which reach terminal speeds of Mach 16, traveling at 5.5 km per second.

Translation: as an enemy computer calculates an intercept vector, the missile warhead – a one-ton blockbuster – has already impacted, creating a Zero-Sum Defense Paradox: Israel spends millions of dollars attempting an interception with 100% probability of failure, while Iran spends a fraction to get a certified hit.

Next is The Doctrine of Four Vital Organs

Israel’s 9 million people survive thanks to only two primary deep-water ports. That has led Tehran to move to Structural Paralysis mode, systematically focusing on four “death points”: the hyper-concentrated nodes of Israeli infrastructure that, if severed, will turn the death cult into a dark, thirsty, and starving cage.

The four vital organs are Hydrological Asphyxiation (hitting 85% of Israel’s potable water in five desalination plants); The Blackout Protocol (hitting the Orot Rabin power station in the heart of the national grid); A Food Siege, hitting the ports of Haifa and Ashdod, essential for Israel’s imports of the 85% of wheat it needs; and Energy Decapitation: focused on the Haifa refineries, the sole Israeli source of refined petroleum, and even more of a key target after the attack on South Pars.

Structural paralysis. Meticulously programmed. Inexorable. Already in effect.

Iran warns of US, Israeli plots to expand aggression by involving other states, staging 'false-flag ops.'

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (R) and his Greek counterpart Georgios Gerapetritis

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned that the United States and the Israeli regime might seek to expand their ongoing unprovoked aggression targeting Iran.

The top diplomat made the remarks in a phone call with his Greek counterpart Georgios Gerapetritis on Saturday.

Araghchi cautioned about schemes harbored by Washington and Tel Aviv to expand the scope of the aggression "by compelling other countries to participate in the aggression or conduct false-flag operations against third countries."

He recalled the legal duties of countries under the international law to prevent aggressors from using their territory or resources to plan, support, or carry out acts of aggression.

Araghchi detailed the crimes committed by the duo during the now-one-month-long military aggression, noting that the attacks "constitute a clear violation of Article 4 of the United Nations Charter and an obvious case of military aggression against a UN member state."

He reminded all countries of their responsibility to condemn illegal attacks and violations of humanitarian law.

"Indifference to the unlawful and terrorist American and Israeli actions undermines the international normative and moral order, with consequences affecting all nations."

Araghchi emphasized that the Islamic Republic would continue defensive operations against the aggressors and their military bases or facilities located in regional countries.

The Iranian foreign minister also stressed that insecurity in the Strait of Hormuz was a direct result of the aggression, and that the Islamic Republic had taken measures to prevent the waterway from being exploited by the aggressors, while ensuring safe passage for other vessels.

For his part, the Greek official expressed serious concern about the consequences of the situation and expressed hope that peace and stability would return to the region as soon as possible.

Millions join ‘No Kings’ protests against Trump across US amid war against Iran

Streets in cities across the United States were full on Saturday as demonstrators took part in the “No Kings” protest movement against President Donald Trump.

Millions of demonstrators took to the streets in cities across the United States on Saturday to take part in the “No Kings” protest movement against President Donald Trump’s policies both at home and abroad.

More than 3,200 marches have been planned across all 50 states, with organizers predicting what they described as the “single largest non-violent day of action” in American history.

The flagship rally is being held in St. Paul, Minnesota, which has been in the news for a controversial federal immigration crackdown that killed two American citizens – Alex Pretti and Renee Good – recently.

Protesters who took part in the rallies on Saturday voiced anger and outrage over multiple fronts of the Trump administration’s agenda, including the ongoing war against Iran, rising gas prices, the staggering cost of living, and the president’s mass deportation initiative.

“Since the last No Kings [protests], we’re seeing higher gas prices and groceries, all while there’s an illegal war in Iran,” Sarah Parker, a national coordinator for the group 50501, was quoted as saying by US media outlets.

Protests filled major cities across the country. In Washington DC, demonstrators lined the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and packed the National Mall, carrying effigies of Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other administration officials while calling for their ousting.

In New York City, thousands crowded Times Square, forcing police to shut down streets in Midtown Manhattan. In October, the New York Police Department reported that over 100,000 people had gathered across the city’s five boroughs during a previous No Kings rally.

Smaller towns also saw significant turnout. Demonstrators gathered in Shelbyville, Kentucky, and Howell, Michigan, a city of roughly 10,000 residents, with participants holding signs protesting the war against Iran and the anti-immigration crackdown.

American expatriates joined the movement abroad, with crowds forming in Paris, London, and Lisbon, where demonstrators held signs calling the president a “fascist” and “war criminal” and demanding his impeachment.

The protests are being organized by a coalition of left-leaning groups, including Indivisible, Public Citizen, MoveOn, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the National Action Network. They note that more than half of the officially registered events are being held in Republican-leaning or battleground states, which reflects its cross-partisan appeal.

“This is not a partisan issue. It’s actually the most patriotic thing you can do,” Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, was quoted as saying. “To stand up and stand together and say that there aren’t kings in America is not controversial.”

The movement’s name, “No Kings,” draws directly from criticism that Trump has sought to expand presidential power beyond constitutional limits.

The Trump administration has previously warned that protesters would be met with “very heavy force,” though organizers said they expected Saturday’s events to remain peaceful despite the presence of federal agents deployed across the country.

"We are not going to be intimidated,” said Deirdre Schifeling, chief political and advocacy officer at the ACLU. “We are going to be safe. We are going to be peaceful. We are going to be free. So yes, know your rights, and also, we will not be scared off by this tactic.”

Organizers said they expected Saturday’s protests to far exceed previous iterations. The last No Kings day of action, held in October, drew an estimated 7 million people nationally.

Earlier this week, Academy Award-winning actor and longtime political activist Robert De Niro urged Americans to take to the streets in a nationwide "No Kings" protest against Trump and a "cowardly Congress."

In a video statement, the veteran actor drew a direct parallel between the American Revolution and what he described as a contemporary threat to democratic institutions.

"When King George—a mad, mentally ill tyrant—and his abusive Parliament threatened our freedoms and the American spirit, we did not sit idly by or complain. No, we took to the streets, and our nation was born," De Niro stated.

"Now, 250 years later, another mentally ill despot has emerged: a corrupt 'wannabe king' and his cowardly Congress, seeking to launch insane foreign wars and suppress our freedoms right here, in our own homeland."