NPT Review Summit: Confronting nuclear hypocrisy amid Iran war

The NPT review conference in session at the UN headquarters in New York

Nuclear weapons are not humane and do not belong to humanity. Yet nations continue to possess them, pursuing their deterrence value as much as their use as tools to dominate and bully weaker nations.

As nations meet in New York this week for a United Nations summit reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, disarmament activists insist, “A world free of nuclear weapons is both possible and necessary.”

The 1968 treaty is premised on the principle: “Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none.” Under the NPT, states without nuclear weapons agree not to acquire them, while those that possess them commit to eventual disarmament. While non-nuclear states have largely honoured their part of the deal, no nuclear-weapon state has taken meaningful steps toward total disarmament. The only nation that did so was South Africa, under the leadership of its visionary president and freedom fighter Nelson Mandela.

At best, what the U.S. and the Soviet Union did under the pretext of nuclear disarmament during the NPT’s heyday was reduce the number of warheads in their arsenals. That made little sense, for they still retained thousands of warheads capable of ensuring mutually assured destruction (MAD).

The ongoing review summit assumes double significance because, on the one hand, it seeks to revive treaty ambitions and the ground rules for non-proliferation, and, on the other, it is being held amid the Iran war, at the centre of which is the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme.

The treaty allows signatories to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran has been doing just that, while abiding by NPT rules and denouncing nuclear weapons. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s spiritual leader, assassinated in a US-Israeli attack on February 28, was a staunch opponent of nuclear weapons. His fatwa labelled nuclear weapons as un-Islamic, since they kill not only combatants but also non-combatant civilians.

The US and Israel have no moral authority to call on Iran to dismantle its nuclear programme while they themselves remain armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons capable of destroying our planet several times over.

Although we call nuclear weapons inhumane, the paradox is that they assure peace through deterrence, whereby a nuclear-armed nation uses the threat of massive retaliation to dissuade an adversary from attacking. If nuclear weapons offer peace, Iran may be justified in setting aside the former leader’s fatwa and pursuing a bomb. After all, its adherence to the NPT has invited wars, not rewards.

Iran has ratified the NPT and therefore has not only a legitimate right to develop peaceful nuclear technology but also the international community’s support for its programme. United States President Donald Trump, who, along with Israel, launched an illegal war on Iran on February 27, is going beyond the NPT by calling on Iran to forgo any enrichment whatsoever as part of a permanent peace deal with the US. Needless to say, Iran has rejected Trump’s demand.

Trump claims that the US‑Israeli attacks have obliterated Iran’s nuclear programme, and whatever enriched uranium Iran possesses now lies several hundred feet underground at nuclear facilities destroyed by 5,000‑pound bunker‑buster bombs. His war secretary, Pete Hegseth, in testimony to Congress this week, admitted that Iran’s nuclear facilities were no more but justified the war on the ludicrous claim that Iran still harboured nuclear ambitions.

Nuclear disarmament cannot be lopsided. If Iran cannot have a bomb, no country on the planet should. This is meaningful nuclear disarmament. If a disarmament regime allows some powerful states to possess thousands of nuclear weapons without international supervision while calling on Iran to disown its peaceful right to nuclear technology, it is hypocrisy.

If the disarmament community fears an Iranian bomb on the premise that the “mad mullahs” cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, they should be equally, if not more, worried about the war criminals in democratic garb in the US and Israel. President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are trigger‑happy fanatics who have scant respect for international law. In the US and Israel, political fanatics regularly call for the use of nuclear weapons against Muslim nations. “Nuking Makkah” is not only the title of a work of fiction but also a rallying cry among Islamophobic fanatics in the US and Israel. Israel possesses nearly 100 nuclear weapons, yet the IAEA says nothing. The UN imposes no sanctions. The US pretends ignorance and treats Israel as a non‑nuclear state, while providing it nearly US$4 billion in aid every year.

The US has some 10,000 nuclear warheads—each capable of devastation several hundred times more intense than Hiroshima, where some 200,000 Japanese died as a result of history’s first nuclear attack carried out by the US on August 6, 1945. Russia also has a similar number of nuclear weapons, if not more.

In a recent interview with the media, Trump was asked whether he would nuke Iran, following his outrageous remark about eliminating the entire Iranian civilisation. He replied that he would never use nuclear weapons. But can we trust Trump? After all, he is adept at resorting to deception. Twice he held talks with Iran, and twice he attacked it when those talks were nearing a breakthrough.

On February 27, the day the current war broke out, mediator Oman announced that Iran had agreed to “zero accumulation”, “zero stockpiling”, and full verification of its existing stockpile by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), while also committing to downblend whatever enriched uranium it possessed. Trump had what he wanted before the war, but he squandered the Iranian offer and went to war.

Trump is not a peace president. For him, peace is pretence. His claim to the Nobel Peace Prize is theatre. At least his predecessors, especially Barack Obama, were seen as campaigning to promote nuclear disarmament through the NPT. Obama set the tone for the success of the 2010 NPT Review Summit and later, together with five other great powers, signed the landmark Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran to formalise Iran’s commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon.

The NPT recognises only five nations as nuclear powers—all five permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council, the key UN organ entrusted with maintaining world peace. In addition, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel also possess nuclear weapons.

With Trump and Netanyahu relying more on war than on peace to resolve international disputes, nations without nuclear weapons may only wish they had them. If Iran had nuclear weapons, it might have deterred a war. The US would never go to war with nuclear‑armed North Korea.

As long as nuclear hypocrisy persists—condemning Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme while allowing Israel to maintain nuclear bombs—disarmament and NPT review conferences have little meaning. 

The ongoing review conference, if serious about its goals of assessing the treaty’s implementation, strengthening nuclear non‑proliferation, advancing disarmament, and promoting peaceful nuclear energy use, should work out a solution to the standoff between the US and Iran. It must assert and send a message to Trump that Iran, as an NPT member, has the right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and that denying this right through military force will only lead to further proliferation.

Meloni’s Revolt: Italy Suspends Israel Defense Pact as Trump Turns on Rome

 On 14 April 2026, Giorgia Meloni delivered a decision that instantly disrupted the post-Cold War assumption of automatic alignment within the Western security architecture.

Adrian Korczyński

A Sovereign Break in the Western Security Chain

The Italian prime minister announced the suspension of the automatic renewal mechanism of the Italy–Israel defense memorandum — signed in 2003 and ratified by Israel in 2005–2006 — a framework covering military technology exchange, equipment cooperation, and defense industry procurement.

The move was not symbolic. It was structural.

The sequence of events — escalation in Lebanon, suspension of the defense memorandum, and the Trump–Meloni confrontation — reveals a widening fault line within the Western alliance system

It halted a system that had renewed itself every five years without friction for over two decades — a mechanism that embodied the very logic of unquestioned alignment. In Rome, the decision was framed as a matter of national interest and strategic reassessment. In Tel Aviv and Washington, it was read for what it was: a rupture in the chain of automatic Western cohesion.

This was not a policy adjustment. It was an assertion of sovereignty against external strategic pressure.

Lebanon, UNIFIL, and the Political Shockwave

The immediate backdrop was the intensification of Israeli military operations in Lebanon, marked by mass civilian casualties and strikes affecting areas near UNIFIL positions where Italian peacekeepers are deployed — incidents widely seen as crossing the line from counterinsurgency into destabilizing escalation.

For Rome, the situation ceased to be distant. It became immediate, tangible, and politically untenable.

Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani stated that attacks on Lebanese civilians were unacceptable, signaling a rare and explicit divergence from Israel’s operational narrative. The presence of Italian troops under a UN mandate only sharpened the stakes: what was unfolding was not abstract geopolitics, but a direct exposure of Italian personnel to a widening conflict.

The combination of indiscriminate battlefield escalation, diplomatic friction following incidents involving UNIFIL, and mounting domestic pressure accelerated Meloni’s decision — turning caution into action.

The 2003 Memorandum: From Automaticity to Sovereign Control

The Italy–Israel defense memorandum represented a deep layer of Western military integration: cooperation across defense industries, training of personnel, research and development, and advanced technology transfers.

Its defining feature was inertia — automatic renewal every five years unless explicitly challenged.

Meloni’s government challenged it.

By suspending the renewal mechanism, Rome reintroduced political control into what had long functioned as a self-perpetuating system. The agreement was not terminated, but its underlying logic — continuity without consent — was decisively broken.

In geopolitical terms, this injected uncertainty into a previously stable axis. In political terms, it marked a shift from alignment as default to alignment as choice.

Trump vs. Meloni: From Alignment to Open Confrontation

On 14 April, the rupture expanded into the transatlantic sphere.

In an interview with Corriere della Sera, Donald Trump launched a direct attack on Meloni, criticizing her refusal to allow Italian bases to be used for US military operations related to Iran. His words were unambiguous: “I’m shocked at her. I thought she had courage, but I was wrong.”

What lay behind the criticism was not only disagreement, but expectation — the assumption that allied territory remains available for strategic use when called upon.

Meloni rejected that premise.

The trigger for Trump’s remarks was her defense of Pope Leo XIV after he criticized the Iran war. Meloni called Trump’s attack on the pontiff “unacceptable.” Trump escalated further: “She’s unacceptable because she doesn’t care whether Iran has a nuclear weapon.”

What had once been framed as ideological proximity between Trump and Europe’s conservative leaders dissolved in real time. The episode revealed something deeper than a personal clash: a structural tension between national decision-making and external strategic demands.

Italy’s Strategic Reality

Italy’s position in this crisis is defined less by ideology than by geography and responsibility.

It maintains UNIFIL peacekeepers in Lebanon. It faces direct energy and security exposure to instability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Its constitutional framework carries a historical aversion to foreign military entanglements imposed from outside national consensus.

These are constraints no government can ignore.

Meloni’s decision, therefore, was not a sudden departure from alignment, but the inevitable result of competing imperatives — alliance expectations on one side, national risk and responsibility on the other.

Spain under Sánchez has moved along a parallel trajectory, refusing to provide bases for operations against Iran and articulating a legal framing of the conflict that diverges sharply from transatlantic orthodoxy. Despite profound domestic differences, Rome and Madrid converge on one principle: sovereignty cannot be outsourced.

The Fracturing Atlantic Order

The sequence of events — escalation in Lebanon, suspension of the defense memorandum, and the Trump–Meloni confrontation — reveals a widening fault line within the Western alliance system.

At its core lies a contradiction: global military commitments shaped in a unipolar era confronting governments that must answer to national electorates in an increasingly multipolar world.

For decades, alignment functioned as an operating system. Today, it is becoming a negotiation.

Italy’s refusal to make its territory available for operations it did not authorize crystallized this shift. It was not a tactical disagreement, but a rejection of predefined roles within an inherited geopolitical framework.

Conclusion: The Moment of Decision

What unfolded between 13 and 15 April is not an isolated dispute. It is a signal.

The era of automatic alignment is giving way to an era of conditional sovereignty. Governments are no longer willing to translate alliance membership into unconditional compliance — especially when the costs are immediate, and the risks are borne domestically.

Meloni’s decision, the backlash from Washington, and the rupture with Israel all point in the same direction: the gradual erosion of hierarchical order within the Atlantic system.

One line now defines the moment:

Italy has chosen to decide for itself.

And in doing so, it has exposed a reality others are only beginning to confront — that in a multipolar world, sovereignty is not declared.

It is exercised.

Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research

A new world order is taking shape

The American-Israeli aggression against Iran has become a pivotal moment in international relations, having undermined American ambitions for dominance in the twenty-first century.

Mohammed Amer

On 18 April, Bloomberg, in an article by Hep Brandis, clearly expressed this argument, emphasising that the global consequences of this event will have a staggering effect.

A blow to American ambitions, a victory for China

The fact that the Iranian regime withstood and skillfully confronted the overwhelming military power of the United States has prompted many Global South media to declare that ‘the clear winner in this war between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran is China. Although Donald Trump has repeatedly declared his victory, in reality, the only ones who can legitimately claim success in this military campaign are the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.’ This is precisely the idea voiced on Al Arabiya by Raghida Dergham, a Lebanese journalist highly respected in the Arab world.

Persia was not merely a bridge between East and West; it was a ‘melting pot’ in which the intellectual energies of many civilisations converged and flourished

It is noteworthy that on 19 April 2026, The Wall Street Journal reported that the United Arab Emirates had asked the United States for financial assistance, since the United States military operation against Iran had inflicted significant damage on the country’s oil and gas sector. At the same time, the Emirati authorities made it clear that otherwise they would be forced to sell oil and petroleum products for yuan.

The war in the Persian Gulf has once again vividly shown the declining role of Western Europe in global affairs. Not only did Trump practically sideline the leaders of Western European states from participating in resolving the Ukrainian crisis, but he also subjected them to unambiguous criticism for refusing to join his war against Iran. Moreover, the American president openly stated that in its current form, the NATO alliance is outdated, and many of its previous operational provisions must be revised.

Europe is losing its moral authority

Donald Trump’s new line took the leaders of Western European states aback to such an extent that they are still unable to formulate any coherent policy in this confrontation between the United States and Western Europe. The painful process of shifting from complete obedience to Washington to opposing most of the White House initiatives is proceeding very unevenly, especially since there is no unity within the European Union per se.

It should be borne in mind that the European economies are being hit hard by the unfolding energy crisis. Furthermore, the growing corruption scandals involving influential figures and the intensification of interfaith squabbles are undermining the European Union’s position in the world, as more and more people begin to doubt that Europeans are not the legislators in the field of moral values. The fact that the Austrian police recently unearthed rat poison in jars of baby food – carrot and potato puree – prompting the police in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia to take urgent measures to remove the product from supermarkets, has shocked many residents of Western Europe.

The current United States administration consistently proceeds with its policy of weakening the European Union, perceiving it as a competitor. Trump, who is criticised by many for inconsistency in his actions and statements, is in fact purposefully seeking dominance in the extraction and transportation of energy resources in order to make as many countries as possible dependent on America: this explains his actions in Venezuela and Iran. It is first and foremost the American capital that benefits from rising oil and gas prices and the disruption of fertiliser supply chains.

The process of strengthening all world civilizations will continue at the expense of the weakening of the positions of the West

Donald Trump, on the eve of the truce in the war with Iran, is known to have promised to destroy Persian civilization, stating that it would never bounce back.

It is symptomatic that the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, also long portrayed Iran as a relic of medieval backwardness, presenting Israel as an oasis of progress and democracy in the twenty-first century.

Americans often depict their confrontation with Iran as a struggle between civilization and barbarism. However, even a mundane command of history permits to understand that Persian civilization is among the oldest and most enduring in human history. It traces its history and roots back thousands of years, forming a rich tapestry of cultural and intellectual background. During its heyday under the Achaemenid and Sassanian empires, Persia offered remarkably advanced models of governance and administration, supported by sophisticated infrastructure. Among its more significant achievements was the Royal Road, whose extensive network facilitated trade, communication and imperial cohesion across vast territories.

Persia: a bridge between East and West

In the realms of thought, Persian philosophy and the Zoroastrian tradition formulated 7 profound ethical concepts – above all, the enduring struggle between good and evil – ideas that later resonated in many philosophical and religious traditions. Persian literature, in turn, left behind a legacy of extraordinary depth and sublimity, where poetry and storytelling merged seamlessly with aesthetic sophistication. Persia was not merely a bridge between East and West; it was a ‘melting pot’ in which the intellectual energies of many civilisations converged and flourished.

Within the walls of Gondishapur, often considered one of the oldest centres of medical education, the foundations of modern medicine were laid. In the administrative traditions of the Persian state, the principles of governance were refined with astonishing complexity. Figures such as Avicenna, the ‘Prince of Physicians’, Al-Khwarizmi, who revolutionized mathematics and awarded us with the word ‘algorithm’, and Al-Farabi, who reached great heights in philosophy, are enduring testimonies to this intellectual heritage.

At the level of human consciousness and cultural memory, the legacy remains just as profound. The quatrains of Omar Khayyam continue to resonate as reflections on existence, and Ferdowsi’s ‘Shahnameh’ remains a treasure trove of collective identity. Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Hafez of Shiraz transformed divine love into a universal philosophical language, transcending borders and creeds, turning words into mirrors that reflect the highest manifestations of the human spirit.

Today’s world is characterized by a new balance of power: the powers of Western civilization are retreating before the vigorous advance of Asian and Latin American states. According to data recently published by the International Monetary Fund, the status of the world’s largest economy by purchasing power parity at the end of 2025 still belongs to China, whose GDP grew to $41.2 trillion (from $38.2 trillion in 2024).

Second comes the United States with $30.8 trillion.

India comes third with $17.3 trillion.

Russia ends up fourth with $7.26 trillion.

Japan finishes as the fifth economy with $7 trillion.

In sixth place is Germany with a GDP of $6.2 trillion.

In seventh place is Indonesia with $5 trillion.

In eighth place is Brazil with $4.99 trillion.

In ninth place is France with $4.56 trillion.

In tenth place is Britain with $4.55 trillion.

After the end of the American-Israeli war against Iran, the enormous shifts in the global balance of power will continue in favour not of Western civilization but of other world civilizations.

Mohammed Amer, Syrian publicist

Why the US is at War with Iran and Why the War Might Pause but Won’t End

While much discussion of the US war of aggression against Iran has focused on region-specific factors, including the myth that the US is fighting Iran on “behalf of Israel,” there are far more realistic and important global factors that have led to the war and will unfold because of it. 

Brian Berletic

The war on Iran is part of a decades-spanning US project to assume complete control over the Middle East and the oil and gas that is produced and exported from the region. This is not as a means of taking the energy for the United States’ own use but to establish and enhance a US monopoly over energy production and exports from the US itself and from the nations and regions the US is assuming control over.

This includes most recently Venezuela in Latin America. The early 2026 US war of aggression against the Venezuelan state, kidnapping of the Venezuelan president, and taking hostage of the remaining Venezuelan government led to the almost immediate cutting of Venezuelan oil exports to China and the distribution of Venezuelan oil wealth to US corporations.

What the US often refers to as “security guarantees” for its “allies” is merely a euphemism for US military occupation, political capture, and control of what are actually proxies — not allies

A similar war of aggression by the US against Russia through Ukraine is also quickly expanding into a war directly against Russian energy production, storage, and export infrastructure through the use of drones that — while attributed to Ukraine — the New York Times has revealed are actually overseen by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US military.

Likewise, the US is encouraging its European proxies under a “division of labor” to expand maritime tracking, interdiction, and seizure of tankers carrying Russian energy exports, as well as a US campaign using maritime drones to attack the tankers. Again, the NYT has identified the US CIA and US military as having “supercharged” what are nominally claimed to be “Ukrainian” operations.

Together with the war on Iran, a clear, global pattern emerges of what is the deliberate US disruption, destruction, and even shutting down of energy exports to Asia in general, but to China specifically.

While the US was likely also attempting to quickly topple the Iranian government to enhance its control over the region and further isolate both Russia and China, a much wider and more global-focused objective was to cut off energy not just from Iran to Asia and specifically China, but from the entire Middle East to Asia and China.

The most recent phase of US aggression against Iran — beginning in late February and as a continuation of violence launched against Iran in both 2025 under the Trump administration and even 2024 at the end of the Biden administration — involved targeting Iranian energy production as well as strikes on Kharg Island, Iran’s key energy export facility.

US strikes on Iranian energy production led to retaliatory strikes by Iran on America’s Persian Gulf Arab state proxies, including Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.

Collectively, this violence led to reduced production across the entire region, subsequently leading to lower energy exports of gas and oil from the entire Middle East to China when compared with pre-war levels.

From the late-February start of hostilities to the recent ceasefire agreement, energy exports from the entire region to China dropped from approximately 52% of China’s total imported needs to around 30%, according to Reuters.

A March 2026 Politico article makes it clear that beyond just China’s dependence on the region for energy, Asia as a whole depends on energy imports from the Middle East for between 70% and 90%+ of their total energy import needs — especially US proxies like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the island province of Taiwan.

Isolating China, Controlling Asia 

Just as the US had previously done to Europe through its instigation of war with Russia in Ukraine, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, and the implementation of sanctions on all other energy imports from Russia — and now including the striking of Russian energy production, storage, export facilities, and actual tankers carrying Russian energy exports — all of this forcing Europe into energy dependence on US exports — the US is now pursuing a similar policy targeting China and the rest of Asia by deliberately disrupting access to Middle East energy exports.

The war on Iran has led to the close regulation of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, followed by a US-imposed blockade primarily targeting ships exporting energy from Iran to China. While US claims of completely controlling maritime traffic to and from Iran are false, the US blockade has turned back or seized at least half of all maritime traffic attempting to leave Iran onward, mainly to China, the Financial Times reported.

This means that the total energy exports from the region to China have dropped yet again — with many other options held by the US in reserve to decrease regional exports to Asia and specifically China even further.

One option is the threat of resumed US military aggression against Iran, which could see both the deliberate targeting and wider destruction of Iranian energy production and export infrastructure and further Iranian retaliatory strikes on energy production across the US’ Persian Gulf Arab proxies.

The emerging consequences of the US war on Iran and the regional impact it is having are analogous to the US-destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines and the incremental targeting, sanctioning, and restriction of Russian energy flows to Europe, leaving only US energy exports as an option — an option that was not economically viable until the US eliminated existing, cheaper, and reliable alternatives.

With the US war open-ended — having continued from late 2024 to today — with only months of relative calm between US campaigns of military aggression, the prospects of accessing affordable and reliable energy from the Middle East  for China and the rest of Asia are steadily fading.

“Serendipitously,” the US has already begun the expansion of an already massive energy production and export industry targeting Asia specifically.

In 2025, US-based energy corporation Glenfarne and its CEO Brendan Duval repeatedly mentioned the fact that their new  LNG project under construction in Alaska could export energy to Asia “through uncontested and safe shipping lanes.”

No mention was made at the time that it would be the US itself contesting shipping lanes and making them unsafe and thus enhancing the viability of both Glenfarne’s Alaska LNG project as well as the expansion of US energy export capacity in general.

It should be noted that Glenfarne had honed its expertise in exporting/importing LNG through a project in Colombia made possible only by the US sanctioning of neighboring Venezuela and the closure of pipelines that would have otherwise supplied Colombia with gas. Only because of the US-imposed pipeline closure in Venezuela did the importing of Texas LNG to Colombia by Glenfarne make any economic sense.

Similarly, only through US threats of conflict and actual conflict endangering vital maritime chokepoints around the globe does the exporting of LNG to Asia and beyond make any economic sense — just like exporting US LNG to Europe only made sense after Nord Stream was destroyed and sanctions were placed on much cheaper and more readily available Russian energy.

The Cart Before the Horse, But for a Reason  

By the early 2030s, the US is expected to double its LNG export capacity, making it capable of meeting the demands of key Asian proxies, including South Korea and Japan, as well as the island province of Taiwan — but again, only if cheaper and more reliable alternatives remain off the market.

This means that while the US is essentially placing the cart before the horse, it is ensuring that when the horse finally arrives, conditions are ideal for the US and the US alone to benefit.

Just like with Europe and the elimination of their access to cheap Russian energy imports, complete energy dependence on the US of America’s Asian proxies will transform them further and fully into extensions of US geopolitical ambitions in the region and around the globe.

Just like with Europe, serving US interests will come at the cost of each US proxy in Asia as well as at the cost of peace and stability for the entire region, and specifically at the expense of China’s continued rise, just as Europe has been used to target Russia at the expense of both Russia and the rest of Europe.

In addition to the US political capture of these Asian proxies, the presence of US military forces on their territory, and now the imposition of energy dependence upon them, a recent US Senate hearing has made it clear nations like Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines will be shaped into military industrial outposts of US power in the region, helping minimize the “tyranny of distance” the US is faced with when provoking war with China on the other side of the planet from where the US is actually located.

The creation of factories making US weapons in Asia and port facilities in the region for implementing repairs on US ships is already underway, with Japan having manufactured and, in some cases, even sending back to America Patriot missile interceptors and South Korea securing deals to maintain US naval cargo vessels.

All of these preparations are taking place ahead of what the US sees as an inevitable confrontation with China itself – which is ultimately the priority driving US conflict against Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and many other nations in the first place, all as a means of first isolating and containing China before confronting it directly.

Considering the costs Europe and Persian Gulf Arab states are paying for their subordination to the US and their role in hosting and facilitating US wars of aggression in their respective regions of the world, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines are likewise painting targets on themselves ahead of any confrontation with China.

What the US often refers to as “security guarantees” for its “allies” is merely a euphemism for US military occupation, political capture, and control of what are actually proxies — not allies. The purpose of maintaining a global network of proxies from Europe to the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific is specifically to have other nations pay all the costs for US foreign policy, allowing the US to assume any and all benefits solely for itself.

The prospect of US war around the globe continuously escalating in the near to intermediate future is inevitable because the wars taking place now are being fought specifically to prepare for a future confrontation with China itself. For this reason, the prospects of the US arriving at any sort of “peace” deal with Russia or Iran are near zero.

Until the interests driving US foreign policy — including the arms industry, big oil and gas, big tech, the automotive industry, and many others — are displaced around the globe by the alternatives offered by multipolarism, and until the multipolar world can create sufficient deterrence against not only US military aggression but also the economic coercion, political interference, and capture that lead to that aggression, the US will continue to hold global peace, prosperity, and stability hostage to its demands for continued unipolar hegemony over the planet.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.