Author: Barry

By John Ross

The second Trump presidency differs from previous US administrations in rhetoric and tactics.

It is carrying out military attacks and intensified blockades against Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran. But it simultaneously imposes tariffs, insults allies, and makes threats such as seizing Greenland from  Denmark.

Against China, early in this presidency, the US threatened 145 per cent tariffs before retreating and Trump has attempted to negotiate an end of the Ukraine war with Russia.

All this has led some to argue Trump is fundamentally changing US goals. It is suggested he is proposing the US retreat into the western hemisphere or is prepared to divide the rest of the world into “spheres of influence” with countries such as China and Russia.

No change in US goals

These ideas are wrong and dangerous, as will be demonstrated as events unfold, because they leave countries unprepared for what is happening. They are also used to suggest that it is not so vital to defend countries such as Cuba, because the US is only interested in the western hemisphere, and will not attacks other countries if they do not interfere with US goals there.

Such views are in contradiction with even the Trump presidency’s words in its two new major policy statements — the National Security Strategy and National Defence Strategy.

Certainly, these stress US desire to control the western hemisphere.

The Security Strategy states: “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert … American pre-eminence in the western hemisphere.”

But it makes clear that its target is not only Latin American countries seeking independent development but also China — which is the chief trading and construction partner of many Latin American countries.

The Security Strategy says of Latin America: “We want other nations to see us as their partner of first choice, and we will (through various means) discourage their collaboration with others … we should make every effort to push out foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region.”

US targets China

Far from retreating from other parts of the world, both the Security and Defence Strategies specifically target China. The Defence Strategy states: “the NSS [National Security Strategy] directs DoW [Department of War] to maintain a favourable balance of military power in the Indo-Pacific.”

It states: “We will erect a strong denial defence along the First Island Chain.”

The Security Strategy emphasises US military support for Taiwan: “A favourable conventional military balance remains an essential component of strategic competition. There is, rightly, much focus on Taiwan …  because Taiwan provides direct access to the Second Island Chain and splits north-east and south-east Asia into two distinct theatres… preserving military overmatch, is a priority.”

US policy in Europe

The Defence Strategy specifies that reducing US military forces in Europe is to concentrate them against China: “Although we … will remain engaged in Europe, we must — and will — prioritise defending the US Homeland and deterring China.”

The US is indeed at present seeking some agreements with Russia, with the aim of attempting to break up good relations between China and Russia. But the facts show this is purely a short-term tactical manoeuvre. If Trump really sought good strategic relations with Russia he would promote mutually lowering military expenditure and detente as the basis of security relations between western Europe and Russia, while establishing mutually beneficial energy links between the two. Instead, he is urging western Europe to increase military spending, which can only be strategically aimed against Russia, and entirely opposes re-establishing energy relations between Russia and western Europe.

Trump’s foreign policy in action

Even more significant than words are actions. During the second Trump presidency, Venezuela was attacked and an oil blockade imposed against Cuba, but six of the seven countries the US bombed are outside the western hemisphere — Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria and Iraq.

Trump proposes increasing this year’s annual US military budget from $1 trillion to $1.5trn — far more than required to deal with the western hemisphere.

US attempts to acquire a first strike nuclear capacity

The Defence Strategy emphasises building the Golden Dome anti-ballistic missile system not against countries with small numbers of intercontinental missiles, such as North Korea, but those with large numbers such as China and Russia: “The Department [of War] will prioritise efforts to develop President Trump’s Golden Dome… with a specific focus on options to cost-effectively defeat large missile barrages and other advanced aerial attacks.”

Golden Dome’s reality is an attempt to acquire an offensive US first-strike capacity against countries such as China. At present the US is deterred from launching nuclear war because it faces a devastating nuclear response.

Golden Dome’s strategy is that if the US launches a first nuclear strike, against China or Russia, Golden Dome will knock out the small number of missiles that would survive to be launched at the US after such a first strike.  

Trump’s purely tactical manoeuvres to attempt to achieve US strategic goals

The US is not retreating into the western hemisphere. Some people put this idea forward because the US withdrew its attempt to impose 145 per cent tariffs on China and accompanied this by less aggressive anti-China rhetoric.

This wishful thinking misunderstands the situation. The US retreated from attacking China solely because it faced strength. China was the biggest force opposing the US, with its economic countermeasures, But China had other countries aligned with it — Russia and many in the global South.

Trump 2.0, therefore, decided it was mistaken tactics to start by attacking the strongest force it opposes — China. Instead, it was necessary to first attempt to change the relation of forces against China by defeating other, weaker, countries friendly to China. Then, having overturned them, it could turn round and attack what it hopes would be a more isolated China, hoping to weaken it by those means. Hence US attacks on numerous countries coupled with temporary less harsh rhetoric against China.

The US is not retreating into the western hemisphere, it is just adopting more subtle tactics to attempt to maintain and strengthen its global hegemony and dominance.

Trump’s military assault on the global South

The conclusions that follow from this reality is clear. Global South countries at present under direct attack by the US, such as Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, are today in the front line of fighting the US attack on all independent, progressive and socialist forces in the world. These countries therefore must receive the maximum support both for reasons of moral solidarity, and the interests of these countries, but because if they were to be defeated the US will be strengthened in its attack on every other country and progressive movement.

The evidence, both in words and actions, is that if the US were allowed to succeed in its attacks in the western hemisphere, against Cuba and Venezuela, it would not stop at that and accept a division of the rest of the world. It would simply follow up its attacks on Cuba and Venezuela, in a somewhat strengthened position, by attacks on other countries.

In short, the idea that the US is retreating simply into the western hemisphere is entirely wrong and extremely dangerous.    

John Ross is a member of No Cold War Britain.
The above article was originally published here by the Morning Star.

Marco Fernandes speaks with Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi 

Shortly after the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Deputy and former President of the National Assembly, Cilia Flores, in the first days of the year, the White House directed its “regime change” machine towards another energy power, Iran. About to celebrate its 47th anniversary, the Islamic Revolution has always been a thorn in the side of the U.S. and, especially, Israel. Tehran is the biggest supporter of the Palestinian cause in the world and, in practice, the biggest obstacle to the Zionist project of “Greater Israel,” which presupposes the expulsion or extermination of the Palestinian people from their land. For this reason, overthrowing the Iranian revolutionary government has always been among the priorities of Washington and Tel Aviv.

Like Cuba, Iran has also been the target of heavy sanctions from the West – imposed in different waves – since the revolution that overthrew the dictatorship of Shah Reza Pahlevi. These sanctions have caused countless damage to its economy and its people, and since October, they have been aggravated by a new round of sanctions imposed through the UN. To make matters worse, the U.S. has admitted to carrying out financial attacks to devalue the Iranian currency in recent months, causing enormous economic pressure, which initially triggered legitimate and peaceful popular protests. However, after a few days, mainly on 8 and 9 January, these protests were infiltrated by agents organised by external forces from the U.S. and Israel (as publicly admitted by both), causing much destruction and death on the streets of the country, and were strongly repressed by the Iranian security forces. As a popular reaction, massive street demonstrations in support of the government took place on 12 January.

Since then, the U.S. has been deploying numerous military forces to the region and Trump has spent days threatening to bomb Iran, but in recent days he seems to have backed down after Iranian threats that a U.S. attack would result in a regional war. A first round of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran took place last Friday (6) in the United Arab Emirates, apparently without significant results. But both countries have stated that they are discussing the possibility of a second round of negotiations.

To analyse this situation, BdF‘s geopolitical analyst Marco Fernandes spoke with Mohammad Marandi, professor of English literature at the University of Tehran and one of the leading authorities on geopolitical analysis of Iran in Western media. Marandi is the son of an important figure in the Islamic revolutionary movement, paediatrician Alireza Marandi (who served twice as Minister of Health of the Islamic Republic), and was born in the United States, where he lived until the age of 13, as his family was exiled to escape the dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi. Shortly after returning to Iran at the age of 16, Marandi volunteered for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to fight in the war against Iraq, where he escaped death four times – having been shot twice and targeted by two chemical attacks.

Read the full interview

BdF – In recent days, the U.S. has sent its navy to the Persian Gulf region and Trump has threatened to attack Iran, trying to force negotiations for the country to suspend its nuclear programme, hand over its ballistic missiles and stop supporting the Palestinian resistance in the region. What are the chances of negotiation on these terms? What is the Iranian government willing to negotiate?

Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi – The Iranian position is quite clear. In fact, it is quite clear that it will not negotiate its military capabilities. Therefore, its missile programme is out of the question. Nor will it negotiate its regional alliances. Therefore, these are also out of the question. The nuclear programme is something Iran is willing to discuss, but not enrichment itself. That is also out of the question. What can be negotiated is a mechanism to ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme is peaceful. This is something we have done before and which Trump himself destroyed.

The JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), the 2015 nuclear agreement. So that is what Iran is willing to negotiate. Of course, Iran will expect a much better deal than the 2015 one at the negotiating table. Because Iran has moved on since then and has been betrayed by the U.S.’s violation of that agreement. And Iran has suffered because of it. Therefore, the only thing really open for negotiation is a framework in which Iran’s uranium enrichment programme can operate and address, or take into account, the concerns, or potential concerns, of Western countries.

The Iranian government has responded in recent days that any attack on the country will be met with a regional war against the U.S. and its allies. If that happens, what are the possible military and economic consequences of a regional conflict? The Wall Street Journal published an article stating that Trump has backed away from an attack at this time due to a lack of sufficient defence for his allies in the region in the event of an Iranian counterattack. How do you assess that statement?

Yes, this is a position that the Iranians have stated, and they will definitely follow through on what they have said they will do. If the United States attacks Iran, even if it is a limited attack, the Iranians will respond with full force. Iran will not accept aggression and will not allow the United States to be encouraged to commit aggression. Therefore, if the United States decides to attack Iran, there is no doubt that the United States will suffer a very strong attack.

The recent protests, which began over a legitimate economic issue – the devaluation of the rial – were clearly exploited by external forces, such as Mossad (acknowledged by both Mike Pompeo and Israeli authorities), to destabilise the revolutionary government. The Western media has stirred up a “scandal” over the alleged thousands of deaths attributed to the crackdown on protests, but nothing is said about the number of police officers and officials murdered by foreign intelligence agents. What really happened during those days?

It is quite clear what happened. The West is making up a story. They carried out a conspiracy against the country, first by putting pressure on the rial, something that the U.S. Treasury Secretary has already admitted twice and even boasted about. Then there were peaceful protests, which did not result in arrests or police persecution. But after a few days of protests, which were not very large, we saw a sudden influx of very well-trained protesters, provocateurs and terrorists. They killed a large number of police officers on the night of Thursday, 8 January. And on 9 January, the police and security forces clashed with them. And 3,117 people were killed, including police officers and many innocent bystanders who were targeted by these terrorists because they wanted to increase the number of casualties to justify U.S. intervention. And of course, as you correctly pointed out, Mossad admitted its role. They issued a statement in Persian saying that they are on the ground. [Mike] Pompeo [former Secretary of State in Trump’s first term] stated twice in a tweet, and also on Israel’s Channel 13, that the United States and Israel are on the streets with the protesters. And on Israel’s Channel 13 news, he said that the U.S. is involved. In addition, Israel’s Channel 14 said that they brought weapons into Iran, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of police officers. After that, we saw this Western media campaign with ridiculous numbers, basically to justify the war. But the Iranian government released the number of victims and the names of each person, along with their identification details. And, in general, the Western media ignored this, even without having a response to it. But the United States and the West are unable to provide alternative numbers, because they simply make up numbers.

Recently, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly boasted about a financial attack on the Iranian currency, which allegedly caused the sharp devaluation of the rial. Apart from this alleged “financial attack,” have the new sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the EU through the UN, via the snapback mechanism related to the end of the JCPOA negotiations (since October), had any effect, making foreign trade even more difficult for Iran? How much has the economic war imposed by the West damaged the Iranian economy?

The snapback mechanism failed largely because the Russians and Chinese refused to recognise it. The U.S. and Europeans coordinate with each other, and also with certain countries in the region, to exert pressure on other entities, other countries. So we have decades of sanctions and maximum pressure sanctions. We have also had them for years. But this was a coordinated effort to suddenly bring down the currency in order to start and inflame violent unrest. As I said, during these riots, these protesters were like ISIS [Islamic State]. They burned 15 people alive. They destroyed hundreds of banks. In 48 hours, they literally destroyed hundreds of very expensive ambulances and fire engines, public buses, hundreds of educational centres and libraries, and hundreds of mosques. It was extraordinary how fast they were, how well trained they were to carry out this operation.

After all, why does the U.S. insist on wanting to overthrow the Islamic revolutionary government after almost 50 years, even though it has failed so far?

In fact, there are two reasons. One is that after the revolution, Iran became independent from both the Western and Eastern blocs, and this independence was something that neither the U.S.-led bloc nor the Soviet Union and its bloc liked. Therefore, they cooperated together against the country. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States continued to antagonise Iran. In addition, Iran’s support for liberation movements around the world, whether in South Africa, Latin America, and of course Palestine, was also one of the main reasons for their hostility. The liberation movement that most bothers Americans is that of the Palestinian people. In fact, at the moment, this is the biggest reason for U.S. hostility towards Europe.

Both Western governments and the media have promoted the son of former Shah Reza Pahlavi as a possible “option” in an eventual regime change operation. Mr Pahlavi has been away from Iran since the revolution. How popular is he in the country today?

He is not popular among the Iranian people. He has never lived in the country in the last 50 years. His father and grandfather were extremely corrupt, and his father created the feared secret police SAVAK [Organisation for National Security and Intelligence]. When the revolution happened, they stole billions of dollars and took it abroad. Today, he is constantly seen with Netanyahu and is asking the Israelis and Americans to bomb Iran. Obviously, a person like that will not have support among the people. He is also a somewhat ridiculous character, and his family has many problems that are constantly ridiculed by ordinary Iranians. Therefore, he has no legitimacy or popular support. He is just a tool of the empire to mobilise its resources against the country.

What has been the role of Iran’s strategic partners, China and Russia, during the last tense weeks of attacks by the US and the Zionist regime? Are they supporting Iran economically or militarily? To what extent can an attack on Iran at this point be interpreted as an attack on Brics?

The Russians, Chinese and Iranians cooperate a lot. They have extensive trade and business relations. They do not provide assistance in the sense of giving something to Iran for free. Iran buys what it needs from Russia and China, and to a large extent, especially from Russia. The cooperation is very close. Russia also buys what it needs from the Iranians, both military and civilian. Trade routes between the three countries are also expanding. The north-south corridor between Iran and Russia and the New Silk Road with China. All of this is moving forward. The relationship with Russia has evolved more quickly in some respects because both countries are fully sanctioned, and that facilitates cooperation. But because of China’s weight, the relationship with China is obviously very important. And yes, there is no doubt that an attack on Iran is an attack on the Brics. It is an attack on a multipolar world. The United States is desperately trying to preserve its empire.

A common criticism of Iran from progressive and anti-imperialist circles in Latin America is to label the country a so-called “theocracy,” since the head of state is the Supreme Leader, an Ayatollah. At the same time, Iran has democratic elections for both the president – with a rotation of different political orientations – and the Parliament. How would you characterise the Iranian political system?

I think that in Latin America, the left is often influenced by Western narratives. And therefore, they are very mistaken about Iran. Iran is an Islamic republic and therefore not a theocracy, it is an Islamic democracy. All democracies have their limitations, and an Islamic democracy is also a limited democracy. Of course, I do not consider Western countries to be democratic. And I think that, after Epstein, it became very clear that the West is ruled by the “Epstein class.” And democracy is just a facade. But in Iran, the leader himself is chosen by a council of experts. And he can be removed by the council of experts. We have the president and parliament, who are chosen by the people, and we have local elections for cities and municipalities. And there are also elections. It is not a utopia, but Iran is much more open and democratic than the U.S. allies throughout our region. And, as I said, the West has exposed itself for what it really is, especially after Epstein.

The revolution is approaching its 50th anniversary and has shown impressive resilience, having been targeted by the U.S. since the first day of the popular movement that led to the revolution. Take, for example, the development of science, where Iran has made many important achievements (pharmaceuticals, military, nuclear programme, etc.) despite heavy sanctions imposed by the West. What do you think are the main achievements of the revolution for the Iranian people after almost half a century of resistance and attempts to build a sovereign path for their country?

Iran has achieved a great deal under the maximum pressure sanctions and the war that the U.S. and the West have imposed on Iran through Saddam Hussein and, more recently, through Israel, and despite the terrorism that the West has imposed on the country. We see that the country has made great strides in areas of high technology, and I think its defence capabilities reflect that. The very fact that Iran was able to defend itself against the joint attacks by the U.S. and Israel and was able to respond in a way that forced them to retreat shows, in my opinion, Iran’s broader capabilities as a technologically advanced country. Universal education in Iran, which was very low before the revolution, especially for women, is now among the highest in the world, both at the school and university levels. And if there were no sanctions, Iran today would probably be ahead of most of the more developed countries in the global South, and even many of the countries in the West. It was under wars, terrorism and sanctions that Iran achieved so much. And so I think that with the rise of the Brics and the decline of the Western Empire, the coming years will be easier for Iranians to develop, and we hope to have the opportunity to address the shortcomings we have today as a result of global power hostility.

The above article was originally published here by Brasil de Fato.

By Mikaela Nhondo Erskog

Khaled Abu Jarrar, a 58-year-old Palestinian from Beit Hanoon, now shelters in Gaza City’s former Legislative Council building—one of thousands of structures repurposed as displacement camps after Israel’s genocidal assault reduced entire neighborhoods to rubble. His wife was recently diagnosed with liver cancer. She needs urgent treatment abroad, but the Rafah crossing remains sealed.

As international powers announce frameworks and phases, Abu Jarrar watches the gap between diplomatic language and ground reality: “In the media, they talk about withdrawals and reconstruction, but on the ground, the bombing continues from the north and the south, and things seem even more complicated… On the ground, the shelling never stops.”

This gap—between the lived reality of Palestinians in Gaza and the geopolitical frameworks imposed upon them—defines the current moment. On one side stands the so-called Board of Peace, a US-led body designed to assert Western control over Gaza’s reconstruction and governance. On the other, Palestinians themselves have formed a technocratic committee, supported across factional lines, attempting to deliver services and preserve unity under catastrophic conditions. Understanding this moment requires holding both realities simultaneously: the imperial architecture of the Board of Peace, and the Palestinian political sophistication navigating within and against it.

The Gaza Peace Board: Imperial Trusteeship by Design

The so-called “Board of Peace” was established through UN Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted on 17 November 2025 (what one former director of the New York UN High Commissioner for Human Rights office described as a “day of shame.” The resolution was drafted by the United States and passed with 13 votes in favor, zero against, with China and Russia abstaining. This voting pattern reveals the stark geopolitical contradictions of the contemporary international order.

Critically, eight Arab and Muslim-majority countries issued a joint statement supporting the US draft before the vote: Qatar, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Turkey. This endorsement provided essential political cover that made opposition politically untenable for other Council members. China and Russia abstained rather than vetoed, signaling discomfort with the framework while respecting Palestinian decisions made under catastrophic conditions.

The resolution establishes two main mechanisms: the Board of Peace as “a transitional administration with an international legal personality”, and an International Stabilization Force (ISF) authorized to “use all necessary measures” to demilitarize Gaza, decommission weapons from non-state armed groups, and secure borders. The ISF will operate “in close consultation and cooperation” with Israel and Egypt, with Israeli withdrawal conditional on “standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization” that Israel helps determine.

The Board’s imperial ambitions extend far beyond Gaza. While Resolution 2803 limits the Board’s mandate to Gaza until December 2027, the Board of Peace charter itself—sent to dozens of world leaders invited to join—makes no mention of Gaza. Instead, it establishes “an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” The charter’s preamble starts off with criticizing existing institutions that “have too often failed” and calls for “a more nimble and effective international peace-building body”—language revealing Trump’s vision of the Board as a US-led alternative to the United Nations for managing global conflicts.

The charter explicitly names Trump—not a U.S. President—as Chairman and grants him unprecedented unilateral power: he alone decides which states to invite (architect of the illegal Iraq War, Tony Blair was one of the first invited board member), holds final approval over all decisions despite nominal majority voting, and can remove member states. Most brazenly, the charter requires countries to pay $1 billion in cash for permanent membership, while others serve renewable three-year terms at the Chairman’s discretion. This pay-to-play structure transforms “peace-building” into a mechanism for wealthy states to purchase influence in interventions serving US strategic interests and a source of funding for Trump’s machinations globally.

An Obscenity Wrapped in the Language of Peace

That Trump chairs this body and proposes Blair as a member is obscene. Blair’s “Institute for Global Change” has marketed the same formula throughout the Global South: disempower popular movements, install amenable administrators, open markets to Western corporations, call it “development.” His involvement in Gaza follows this script exactly.

The framework treats Palestinian self-determination as something to be granted by Washington and London—contingent on Palestinian compliance with Western-Israeli security demands. It demands a “non-militarized Palestinian state” while leaving intact the regional military apparatus that just devastated Gaza. It calls for technical, apolitical Palestinian governance—code for excluding Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and Islamic Jihad from any political role.

As UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese stated, Resolution 2803 “runs counter to the Palestinian right to self-determination, consolidates Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory, including ongoing unlawful policies and practices, and therefore risks legitimating ongoing mass violence.” Unlike UN administrations in East Timor or Kosovo, this framework imposes governance without Palestinian consent and makes sovereignty conditional on benchmarks determined by the occupying power.

The National Committee for Gaza Management: Unity Under Impossible Conditions

Yet, whilst Hamas, the PFLP, and Islamic Jihad have rejected this foreign “guardianship”, Palestinians must survive the devastation wrought by Israel’s genocidal war—over 70,000 dead, 90 percent displaced, infrastructure almost entirely destroyed. “The situation in Gaza is beyond difficult,” explained 49-year-old Mohammad, who lives in a stairwell in a crumbling destroyed building with his wife, Asmaa Manoun. “We can barely manage. For many months, we haven’t received aid, food parcels, or tents. Things are chaotic, and Israel is interested in this chaos, and in using aid as punishment.”

It is within this reality that the National Committee for Gaza Management (NCGA) — under 15-member Palestinian technocratic committee headed by Ali Abdel Hamid Shaath, a former Deputy Minister of Planning and former chair of the Palestinian Industrial Estates Authority—was established. The Palestinian Authority backed it. Hamas affirmed its readiness to hand over administration and facilitate the committee’s humanitarian mission. However, Resolution 2803 subordinates the NCGA to the Board of Peace, with Bulgarian former Defense Minister Mladenov overseeing the committee. This creates the fundamental contradiction: Palestinians selected the NCGA to govern Gaza’s daily affairs, but it operates under a colonial framework designed to defer self-determination indefinitely.

Yet, the unity is significant. Unlike 2006, when Hamas’s electoral victory led to Western-backed isolation and internal Palestinian division, 2026 finds all major factions cooperating. In July 2024, fourteen Palestinian factions signed the Beijing Declaration in China, committing to form an interim national unity government and end Gaza-West Bank division. They understand that factional antagonisms under current conditions serve only the occupier.

Abu Jarrar’s situation—and that of millions more—captures the impossible position Palestinians face. He needs the committee to succeed, to open the Rafah crossing, to create conditions where his wife can receive treatment. Yet he is acutely aware of how Israeli actions contradict diplomatic announcements. Hamas, PFLP, and Islamic Jihad reject “foreign guardianship” while recognizing that Palestinian children need food, hospitals need medicine, and homes need to be reconstructed. Their pragmatic cooperation does not legitimize the Board, it demonstrates political maturity in distinguishing between survival imperatives and strategic objectives.

This is the dialectic we must understand: Palestinians working within an unjust framework while maintaining commitment to transcending it, cooperating tactically while opposing strategically.

What This Moment Represents

The NCGA’s formation with support from Hamas, Fatah, the PFLP, and Islamic Jihad marks a shift. This unity complicates Western-Israeli strategy: Netanyahu welcomed Resolution 2803 for demanding “full demilitarization, disarmament, and deradicalization of Gaza”—language criminalizing Palestinian political plurality. Yet Palestinians from across the political spectrum have tactically accepted the “technocratic” committee as Palestinians governing Gaza’s daily affairs within imposed constraints, rather than ceding administration entirely to external actors.

The NCGA represents neither liberation nor capitulation, but Palestinians navigating catastrophic constraints with political nuance. Whilst opposing the Resolution 2803, pressure should simultaneously be mounted to hold its implementation accountable, as Albanese urged, in a manner “consistent with binding international law” rather than treating Board oversight as legitimate governance. Resolution 2803 authorizes the Board until December 2027—Palestinian civil society emphasizes using this period to strengthen institutions capable of full sovereignty when the mandate ends. As Shaath stated, the NCGA’s mandate is to “embrace peace” through which they can build the foundations “to secure the path to true Palestinian rights and self-determination.”

Mikaela Nhondo Erskog is a member of the No Cold War collective. She is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

By Biljana Vankovska

Anyone from the former Yugoslavia will immediately understand the title. Mujo is a legendary (though fictional) Bosnian character, the protagonist (together with his inseparable friend Haso) of countless jokes that generations of Yugoslavs grew up with. Wars took many lives, erased towns, and destroyed futures, yet Mujo survived even the darkest days of the Bosnian conflict. One particular joke has stayed with me for more than three decades, because it captures, better than most analyses, the arrogance of superficial Western “expertise.”

The scene unfolds in a small Bosnian town, in a local tavern where a foreigner (from the West, of course) is instantly recognisable. One day Mujo walks in, notices the stranger, and—warmly, as locals do—approaches him. He asks when he arrived and how long he plans to stay. “Yesterday,” the foreigner says. “Tomorrow, I leave.”
“And what are you doing here?” Mujo asks.
“’I’m writing a book about Bosnia.”
“And what will the book be called?”
The answer is unforgettable: Bosnia: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.

This is how ignorance dressed as authority looks. A brief visit or two, or no visit at all, some borrowed impressions, a few media clichés, and suddenly one claims mastery over an entire country, its people, its history, and its future. So let me be unequivocal: I have never been to Iran. I say this openly, unlike many loud voices who pretend otherwise. I work with Iranian colleagues; Iran has long been a dream destination for me. I hoped to visit it before the pandemic, but now I genuinely wonder whether such a moment will ever come.

As someone who knows what war is, not from books but from lived experience; as someone who has seen “colour revolutions,” military interventions, and humanitarian lies unfold in real time; as someone who studies peace and conflict; and as a leftist by conviction, I refuse to remain silent while the orange creature in the White House prepares, once again, to drag another country into catastrophe.

I am not an Iran specialist, but I know imperialism when I see it. It follows a rigid, almost mechanical script: demonize the state or its leader; delegitimise them relentlessly; remove them—by “soft” means or brute force; instrumentalise genuine social grievances and internal divisions; pour fuel on the fire; wait for blood—and then unleash the “American cavalry.” Wherever the United States intervenes, life withers. Grass does not grow again. What grows are new client states, puppet-like leaders, sometimes even ISIS executioners with new branding. And, inevitably, the large-scale extraction of resources.

Democracy? Human rights? Spare us. These are rhetorical decorations, not objectives. The only constant is imperial interest.

A population that may already have suffered under imperfect or even harsh governance is then disciplined into obedience; this time under the supervision of an U.S. ambassador acting as governor-general. And if the necessary bloodshed does not occur organically, it can always be staged, exaggerated, or manufactured to justify a “humanitarian” intervention.

This is why the death toll speculations from peaceful protests turned violent by intent have become a moral fault line. It separates those who genuinely care about the Iranian people from those who merely weaponise their suffering. This divide does not run only between left and right; it cuts through the left itself. Such moments are political and ethical litmus tests. They force us to confront our principles or expose their emptiness. Too often, we fail this test.

Marx’s line from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte keeps returning these days: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” This applies not only to revolutions but also to our naïve desires to see Iran transformed overnight into a peaceful and prosperous state. Yet, many genuine Iranian voices, women and men, speak from within the society itself, alongside credible sources. The Western media do what they usually do: don’t care about information, but serve as a gauge of propaganda, which, depressingly, works even on well-educated people with good intentions. It’s hard, if not arrogant, to claim full understanding of a complex and huge country of 90 million people, with immense ethnic, religious, generational, and ideological diversity. But one thing is beyond dispute: Iran’s social development was violently derailed the moment it became a strategic target of Western greed, and later, the victim of exceptionally cruel sanctions. Now they face new, terrible prospects.

The evidence is overwhelming. Sanctions, especially unilateral ones, and Iran’s were never legal under international law, always devastate societies from below. They starve populations, hollow out the middle class, and radicalize politics (or make it impossible), while elites adapt and survive. Iranian society has been subjected to a slow, deliberate suffocation: an invisible form of social engineering designed to block economic growth, social mobility, and political evolution. We are all complicit in failing to build a sustained global movement against sanctions. Not that success was guaranteed; Cuba stands as a permanent warning.

Changing leaders does not dismantle structures forged under siege. A state surrounded by military bases, subjected to constant threats, and punished simply for existing will inevitably develop defensive elites and securitised politics. Pointing to the “external enemy” is not paranoia; it is reality. Thus, external rather than internal forces actively shaped Iran’s political system and culture. Like it or not, these structures are legitimate expressions of a certain historical condition.

What deepens the violence is the cultural humiliation: the endless demonization of Iranians and their civilization as such. Persia, one of the world’s great civilizations, has been reduced to caricatures of “mullahs,” veils, and backwardness. In stark contrast, brilliant Iranian women provide a deeply insightful and nuanced analysis of the country’s vibrant civil society, highlighting how women’s groups, trade unions, and social movements strive (within existing constraints) for dignity and better lives. This reality is systematically erased in Western narratives.

After Venezuela, and the long list of leaders eliminated before it, Iran is now in the crosshairs. For the moment, the authorities have blocked the Western script. But blood has been spilled, and blood leaves scars. Some now demand even harsher sanctions, punishing a “regime that kills its own people”—as if states under attack never resort to repression. Others openly cheer for Trump’s next “quick and spectacular” military adventure.

We are standing at the edge of multiple scenarios, all dangerous. Trump has already imposed new trade restrictions; the EU obediently follows, theatrically “concerned” about Iranian civilians, while remaining silent, blind, and complicit in Gaza. The obscenity is staggering: genocidal states and imperial predators prepare their next move, Iranian suffering will multiply across all social classes, and “Mujo’s guests” debate whether this is a moment for morally condemning authoritarianism before delving into a critique of the West.

Whenever Western powers—or certain intellectual circles—invoke “human rights,” my stomach turns. Yugoslavia. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Every intervention was a lie, a tool of imperial domination. Every actor was cynical, serving capitalist interests. Every operation was profitable, while the people paid the price. Needless to say, any external interference violates the right to political self-determination. Any use of force without UN authorization is a crime, and under current conditions, a crime against humanity. These principles must apply universally.

The Iranian people have been battered for generations, and this must end. Yes, many endure harsh lives, and yes, the younger generation is exhausted by the constant sense of living in a cage. But these people are neither naïve nor infantile, and they do not need imperial “guardianship.” They are fully capable of understanding their own reality and shaping their own future. They love their country, and they do not wish to see it reduced to a client of Western imperial power.

Anyone who genuinely wishes to see a flourishing Iranian society should begin by demanding the immediate lifting of all illegal sanctions, a halt to covert operations, an end to military threats and interventions carried out by actors with no legal, political, or moral legitimacy.

Biljana Vankovska is a professor of political science and international relations at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, a member of the Transnational Foundation of Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and the most influential public intellectual in Macedonia. She is a member of the No Cold War collective.

This article was produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War.

By Lotte Rørtoft-Madsen

On 14 January, a few hours before the historic meeting in Washington between representatives from Greenland and Denmark and their U.S. counterparts, J. D. Vance and Marco Rubio, Denmark and several of its NATO allies reinforced their military presence in Greenland and announced that more reinforcements would follow.

Some interpreted this move as pressure on the Trump Administration before the meeting. But anyone familiar with NATO-Denmark politics would recognise that appeasement with the empire is the more likely explanation.

At the Washington meeting, the U.S. reiterated its firm demand for “having Greenland”: “It is clear that the president wants to conquer Greenland,” declared the Danish foreign minister after the meeting. The parties agreed to establish a “high level working group” in an effort to contain the crisis.

But the crisis continues, and its magnitude is huge.

The reality is that for over a year, the nearly 57,000 Greenlanders and their vast island have been turned into a bargaining chip, a pawn to be moved at will on the great chessboard of U.S. imperialism.

Trump has repeatedly stated that the U.S. seeks to control and own Greenland, by military means if necessary. The brutally effective aggression against Venezuela on January 3 and the kidnapping of the country’s head of state and his wife have erased any doubt that the White House administration is capable of putting Trump’s words into action.

The threat is imminent, and it is felt acutely among the Greenlandic people. The population is stuck in a vice, and the country’s politicians must fight hour by hour simply to get a seat at the table and be heard. Not only by the U.S., but also by Denmark.

Greenland, or Kalaallit Nunaat, has been inhabited for 4500 years, and its people are linked to the Inuit communities across the Arctic. It is the world’s largest island, with an area larger than France, Germany, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland and Belgium combined. It became a Danish colony with the establishment of the state-owned Royal Greenland Trading Company in 1774. The Royal Greenland Trading Company functioned as the de facto colonial administration until the early 1900s, when trade and administration were separated. During this period, Danish companies extracted various minerals, including cryolite, iron, zinc, lead and silver.

The colonial era formally ended in 1953, but political equality with Denmark did not follow. Following a referendum, so-called home rule was introduced in 1979, which was replaced in June 2009 by the current status of self-government. Under self-government, Greenlanders hold the rights to the island’s subsoil and the minerals found there. However, foreign and security policies remain decided in Denmark, which is why Greenland is considered NATO territory.

Greenland is not a member of the European Union. In a 1982 referendum, 53 percent of the Greenlandic people voted to leave the European Economic Community, now the EU. Today, Greenland is classified as one of the EU’s Overseas Countries and Territories.

In 1951, a secret agreement between the U.S. government and Denmark’s envoy to the United States granted U.S. military involvement in Greenland. The agreement was highly controversial and in detriment to official Danish policies at the time. Nevertheless, it remains in force today and has been repeatedly confirmed. In practice, it grants unlimited U.S. military rights over Greenland.

Thus, for decades, the U.S. has maintained several military facilities in Greenland. The history of these facilities includes forced evictions of Inuit families in 1953, the crash of an American B-52 plane carrying four atomic bombs in 1968, and other harms inflicted on the local population.

The Danish government repeatedly states that Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders and is not for sale. But in reality, Denmark has been selling off Greenland to the U.S. for decades. “We already have a defence agreement between the Kingdom and the United States today, which gives the United States wide access to Greenland,” the Danish Prime Minister stated in an official statement earlier this week.

This raises the question: Why does the Trump Administration seek an annexation of Greenland, when the U.S. empire already holds extensive rights over Greenland? The answer lies in a new security strategy and the demand for unquestioned and unlimited control over oil, control over minerals, and military dominance.

Greenland possesses at least 25 of the 34 minerals designated as “critical raw materials” by the European Commission. Greenland has significant deposits of rare earths, copper, nickel, zinc, gold, diamonds, iron ore, titanium, tungsten and uranium. Trump wants U.S. companies, many of which have invested heavily in his re-election, to have unfettered access to Greenland’s mineral deposit resources.

Moreover, Greenland’s geographic position near the Arctic is important. Control over northern sea routes, such as the Northeast Passage, is becoming increasingly important as climate change advances. A fully controlled, militarised and rearmed Greenland is also intended to serve as an advanced base against both Russia and China. Beyond the prospect of super-profits, keeping socialist China far away from Greenland is a strategic goal for both the U.S. and Denmark.

Until a few years ago, Greenland was undergoing a process of independent decision-making and freeing itself from neo-colonialism. But the current era of intensified imperialism emanating from the White House has caused a serious setback to Greenland’s ability to determine its own destiny. The threats and pressures are enormous.

It is so important to hold on to the principle of right to self-determination. How Greenland organises its society, with whom it collaborates, and what alliances it enters to realise its self-determination in practice should be determined solely in Nuuk.

Lotte Rørtoft-Madsen is the chair of the Danish Communist Party. She was the editor-in-chief of Arbejderen.
This article was produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War Perspectives.

By Dae-Han Song

In a flagrant disregard for international law and national sovereignty, the Trump administration invaded and kidnapped Venezuela’s President Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. Rather than being an isolated event, the increasing bravado of and remarks from President Donald Trump open the terrifying possibility that, if not opposed, Trump’s war machine will proliferate its aggressions, with next possible targets being Cuba, Mexico, and Colombia or Greenland. US hyperimperialism is dividing and unraveling the world at a time when we should be coming together to address our most existential crises.

Key in this strategy for military domination are ‘AI, quantum computing, and autonomous systems, plus the energy necessary to fuel’ them. South Korea’s pledge of $350 billion dollars in factories, manufacturing know-how, and technology in these sectors will strengthen Trump’s war machine. Opposing this memorandum of understanding is one front in resisting the Trump administration’s hyper-imperialism.

Robbing the Mouse

Since his “Liberation Day”, Trump’s tariff war has extorted pledges for trillions of dollars from the rest of the world, accusing it of taking advantage of the US and creating the US trade deficit. This narrative conveniently ignores the ultra-rich in the US whose trillion dollar companies were built on these global supply chains. More specifically, over 70 percent of the US S&P 500 companies rely on global supply chains (as noted by COVID 19’s impact on them). Most spectacularly, Apple grew into a $3.8 trillion company by selling products manufactured by the rest of the world. If it were a country, Apple would be the 7th largest. Amazon grew into a $2.6 trillion company (greater than Italy’s GDP, the 8th globally) by trading mostly (71 percent) goods manufactured in China. If countries, nonetheless, developed and industrialized by producing US goods, they did so despite earning pennies on the dollar. For instance, China earned 2 pennies for every dollar from the sale of an iPhone; Apple earned over 50 cents. The bulk of the US trade balance went not into the coffers of countries around the world but into those of the ultra-rich in the US, who took the lion’s share of the wealth. Now, Trump is gunning for the mouse’s share.

Much has been made of the fact that the EU’s $600 billion investment pledge lacks enforceability, with most investment happening on its own through the markets. Yet, the enforcement mechanism for Japan and South Korea’s investment pledges of $550 billion (42 percent of Japan’s foreign reserves) and $350 billion (83 percent of South Korea’s foreign reserves) is far more direct and brutal. Both countries must invest in Trump’s projects or risk reciprocal tariffs. More specifically, the Trump administration will propose investments in strategic sectors. If they refuse, Trump can simply impose the reciprocal tariffs and, despite South Korea’s bragging that it has gotten a better deal than Japan (through assurances that the US would consider the destabilizing effects of investments and would limit investments to $20 billion a year), it still has the same unequal profit sharing scheme: South Korean and Japanese investors would bring all their capital and manufacturing know-how into a project, but contrary to the principles of the market, they would still hand over 50 percent and, once the investment is recovered, 90 percent of the project’s profits to the US. In effect, the US gets 50 percent and then 90 percent of profits without putting a penny of its own money. Furthermore, it’s not yet clear what impact the funneling out of such massive investments from South Korea and Japan will have on their people. By building factories for and training future competitors, it’s hard not to rule out a hollowing out of each country’s industrial base and a dulling of their competitive advantages.

Upgrading the War Machine

Worst of all, these investments do not build a world centered on the needs and interests of people in the United States or of the world nor make the world safer or more sustainable. On the contrary, they help Trump preserve and advance ‘cutting-edge military use technology and dual-use technology’ to intimidate, bully, and invade other countries. More specifically, South Korea will be investing $150 billion to expand the US capacity (which is suffering from backlogged orders) to build warships and potentially nuclear powered submarines. Additionally, South Korea will invest up to $20 billion a year for 10 years on sectors Trump’s National Security Strategy has identified as deciding ‘the future of military power.’ Semiconductor factories would create the chips for the data centers that will allow the US to dominate AI, which is becoming central to waging war. To power these electricity-hungry data centers, South Korea will provide the nuclear power plants. Finally, South Korea will be providing smelting technology and know-how for refining critical minerals for defense.

Not Set in Stone

While Trump has managed to extract many concessions through his tariff war, the memorandum of understandings (MOUs) that are reached are not set in stone. Not only are the legality of Trump’s tariffs (the extortion mechanism) being deliberated upon by the Supreme Court, the MOUs are not legally binding. In other words, their enforceability will be determined by a struggle between Trump’s tariff pressure and a government—and more importantly, its people’s—willingness to resist Trump’s extortion and war machine.

South Korean progressive political parties and civil society created the Organizing Committee of the International People’s Action Against Trump’s 1st Year Anniversary to resist Trump’s aggressions. Jeong-eun Hwang of the Organizing Committee explains, ‘The US doesn’t need more submarines, warships, and AI to get better at intimidating, bullying, and destroying the world. Opposing South Korea’s $350 billion investment offers one specific way to resist Trump.’

Dae-Han Song is a part of the International Strategy Center and the No Cold War collective and is an associate at the Korea Policy Institute.
The above article was produced by Globetrotter.

Por Biljana Vankovska

El Año Nuevo no comenzó con esperanza ni alegría, excepto para los traficantes de armas. Más precisamente, para el complejo militar-industrial-mediático-académico-ONG que se alimenta de la guerra permanente. Los pedidos fluyen, las ganancias se disparan y la sangre se ha convertido una vez más en un sector en crecimiento. Para cualquier sociedad normal, los piratas pertenecen a las películas de aventuras, no al corredor del poder civil. Sin embargo, Venezuela, más precisamente su presidente legalmente elegido, Nicolás Maduro, se convirtió en el primer trofeo del Año Nuevo.

Una semana después del grotesco “espectáculo” del asalto y el secuestro, los analistas siguen confundidos. No es porque los hechos no estén claros, sino porque a menudo están presos de narrativas prefabricadas, muchas de las cuales ellos mismos fabrican. Tal es el caso de la “cuestión de Taiwán” desde hace bastante tiempo. Sobre Venezuela, ya se ha dicho mucho de una manera brillante y perspicaz. Pero centrémonos en el resto de la historia. Gran parte de ella fue contada por Trump personalmente, sin vergüenza y sin restricciones. En una grotesca parodia de Kant, se declaró abiertamente “por encima del derecho internacional”, limitado únicamente por la “ley moral” interior. Invocar la moralidad y a Trump en la misma frase, a la sombra de Epstein y los escuadrones de la muerte de la ICE, no es ironía, sino obscenidad.

Sin embargo, incluso cuando Venezuela se encuentra bajo una enorme presión, este Nerón moderno ya está preparando los próximos objetivos en lo que cada vez se parece más a una nota de suicidio imperial. Los nombres se suceden como apuestas: Cuba, Groenlandia (arrastrando a la OTAN y a la UE a la locura), Irán, Gaza, convenientemente borrada una vez más, permitiendo a Israel continuar su exterminio “pacífico” sin distracciones. En esta grotesca secuencia, destaca un territorio, ni siquiera un Estado, sino un peón: Taiwán.

En tiempos de engaño generalizado, hay que repetir incansablemente hechos bien conocidos: Taiwán es la provincia insular de la República Popular China. Así lo establecen las resoluciones de la ONU, el derecho internacional e incluso la propia política exterior de Washington. El principio de “una sola China” no se discute en el ámbito jurídico ni diplomático; solo lo cuestionan los halcones, los especuladores y los idiotas útiles. Y, sin embargo, Taiwán ha sido deliberadamente insertado en la narrativa imperial como la próxima “víctima”. Lo vimos claramente cuando un periodista del New York Times le preguntó a Trump si el asalto a Venezuela sentaba un precedente. Inmediatamente se invocó a Taiwán: ¿Y si China ataca a Taiwán porque se encuentra en su “hemisferio”? (Por cierto, China respondió de inmediato a esta idea de un mundo de hemisferios). El peligro no radica en la respuesta de Trump, sino en la pregunta en sí. Equipara a Venezuela con Taiwán, un crimen internacional contra un Estado soberano con los asuntos internos de otro Estado, sosteniendo así la ficción de una “pequeña y democrática Taiwán” amenazada por una China monstruosa.

Lo que el discurso occidental evita decir claramente es que Taiwán es histórica y legalmente parte de China. Las mismas personas viven a ambos lados del estrecho, separadas por una historia sin resolver, el residuo de una guerra civil inconclusa. No se trata de una cuestión de seguridad internacional. Es una cuestión interna de China.

Lo que convierte a Taiwán en una “crisis global” no es Pekín, sino Washington.

Durante décadas, y con una intensidad creciente en los últimos años, Estados Unidos ha convertido a Taiwán en un arma: política, ideológica y militarmente. Justo antes de Año Nuevo, Washington cerró el mayor acuerdo armamentístico de la historia de Taiwán, canalizando miles de millones a las empresas de defensa estadounidenses. China respondió como siempre lo ha hecho: con calma, legalidad y firmeza. Los ejercicios militares en su propio territorio (un hecho que los medios de comunicación occidentales ocultan sistemáticamente) enviaron un mensaje claro: China no permitirá el desmembramiento de su soberanía.

Como era de esperar, los expertos occidentales claman que China se está preparando para una solución militar. En realidad, son ciertos políticos taiwaneses los que están jugando a la ruleta rusa, alimentando la maquinaria bélica estadounidense y poniendo en peligro a su propio pueblo. Arman la isla contra su propio país, contra una superpotencia nuclear, mientras fingen que se trata de “autodefensa”. Es un teatro político que roza la locura.

Algunos comparan Taiwán con Ucrania, y tienen razón, aunque no en el sentido que pretenden. Ucrania fue militarizada, instrumentalizada y sacrificada. La situación de Taiwán es peor. Ucrania era al menos un Estado. Taiwán no lo es. No puede adherirse a la ONU. No puede adherirse a la OTAN. Y a pesar de las ilusiones cuidadosamente cultivadas en Taipéi, ningún soldado estadounidense morirá por Taiwán. Taiwán tampoco es capaz de disuadir el avance militar de China, si se toma una decisión de ese tipo en Pekín.

Entonces, ¿por qué Washington está agotando los recursos de la isla? ¿Por qué imponer un gasto militar del 5% del PIB a un territorio fuera de la OTAN? ¿Por qué fabricar histeria donde no había ninguna guerra inevitable? La respuesta es obvia: beneficios, contención y sabotaje geopolítico.

El resultado es una reacción política adversa. El líder del Partido Democrático Progresista, el “Zelensky” taiwanés, se enfrenta ahora a un proceso de destitución. El descontento público va en aumento. La gente común entiende la aritmética de la guerra: menos hospitales, menos escuelas, menos pensiones, más armas, más miedo, más dependencia.

La llamada cuestión de Taiwán es un asunto interno de China, y Pekín la ha abordado con una paciencia sin igual en la geopolítica moderna. Un proverbio chino dice: “Un chino no levanta la mano contra otro chino”. La guerra nunca ha sido el plan. La reunificación se ha perseguido a través del tiempo, el desarrollo y la moderación.

La verdadera imprudencia está en otra parte. Algunas élites taiwanesas creen en las promesas de los Estados Unidos, a pesar del largo cementerio de aliados abandonados. Desperdician recursos persiguiendo una independencia imposible. Y sabotean su propio futuro, que claramente reside en la reconciliación con una China en ascenso, una China que construye su poder a través de la economía, las infraestructuras, la educación y la tecnología, no a través de la ocupación y la destrucción.

La propia sociedad taiwanesa no quiere la guerra. A pesar de las divisiones políticas, existe una coexistencia interna y la capacidad de llegar a un compromiso pacífico sobre cuestiones delicadas. ¿A quién beneficia destruir este equilibrio? Por supuesto, se trata solo de una pregunta retórica.

Venezuela y Taiwán no tienen nada en común. Excepto por una cosa: ambos han sido colocados en la mira de Washington. El único peligro real proviene del centro hiperimperial que, como un drogadicto al borde de la sobredosis, corre el riesgo de arrastrar al mundo entero con él.

Biljana Vankovska es profesora de Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales en la Universidad Ss. Cyril and Methodius de Skopje, miembro de la Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF) en Lund, Suecia, y la intelectual pública más influyente de Macedonia. Es miembro del colectivo No Cold War.

Este artículo ha sido elaborado por Globetrotter y No Cold War.

By Biljana Vankovska

The New Year did not begin with hope or joy, except for the arms dealers. More precisely, for the military-industrial-media-academic-NGO complex that feeds on permanent war. Orders are flowing, profits are booming, and blood has once again become a growth sector. For any normal society, pirates belong in adventure films, not in the civilian power corridor. Yet Venezuela, more precisely, its legally elected president Nicolás Maduro, became the first trophy of the New Year.

A week after the grotesque “spectacle” of assault and kidnapping, analysts remain confused. It is not because the facts are unclear, but because they are often imprisoned by prefabricated narratives, many of which they themselves manufacture. Such is the “Taiwan issue” for quite some time. About Venezuela, much has already been said in a brilliant and insightful way. But let’s focus on the rest of the story. Much of it was delivered by Trump personally, with no shame and no restraint. In a grotesque parody of Kant, he openly declared himself “above international law,” constrained only by the ‘moral law’ within. To invoke morality and Trump in the same sentence—under the shadow of Epstein and ICE death squads—is not irony but obscenity.

Yet even as Venezuela is under tremendous pressure, this modern Nero is already drafting the next targets in what increasingly resembles an imperial suicide note. Names roll out like betting odds: Cuba. Greenland (dragging NATO and the EU into the madness). Iran. Gaza, conveniently erased once more, allowing Israel to continue its “peaceful” extermination without distraction. In this grotesque sequence, one territory stands out—not even a state, but a pawn. Taiwan.

In times of general deception, one has to repeat well-known facts tirelessly: Taiwan is the island province of the People’s Republic of China. It is according to UN resolutions, international law, and even Washington’s own foreign policy. The “One China” principle is not contested in law or diplomacy; it is challenged only by hawks, profiteers, and useful idiots. And yet, Taiwan has been deliberately inserted into the imperial narrative as the next “victim.” We saw it clearly when a New York Times journalist asked Trump whether the assault on Venezuela sets a precedent. Taiwan was invoked immediately: What if China attacks Taiwan because it lies in its ‘hemisphere’? (By the way, China immediately responded to this idea about a world of hemispheres.) The danger lies not in Trump’s answer, but in the question itself. It equates Venezuela with Taiwan, international crime against a sovereign state with the internal affairs of another state, thus sustaining the fiction of a ‘small, democratic Taiwan’ threatened by a monstrous China.

What Western discourse avoids saying plainly is that Taiwan is historically and legally part of China. The same people live on both sides of the Strait, separated by unresolved history, the residue of an unfinished civil war. This is not a matter of international security. It is China’s internal question.

What turns Taiwan into a ‘global crisis’ is not Beijing, but Washington.

For decades, and with escalating intensity in recent years, the United States has weaponized Taiwan: politically, ideologically, and militarily. Just before the New Year, Washington concluded the largest arms deal in Taiwan’s history, funneling billions to U.S. defense corporations. China responded as it always has: calmly, legally, and firmly. Military exercises on its own territory (a fact Western media systematically suppresses) sent a clear message: China will not allow the dismemberment of its sovereignty.

Predictably, Western experts scream that China is preparing for a military solution. In truth, it is certain Taiwanese politicians who are playing Russian roulette, feeding the U.S. war machine while endangering their own people. They arm the island against its own country, against a nuclear superpower, while pretending this is “ self-defense.” It is political theater bordering on insanity.

Some compare Taiwan to Ukraine, and they are right, though not in the way they intend. Ukraine was militarized, instrumentalized, and sacrificed. Taiwan’s situation is worse. Ukraine was at least a state. Taiwan is not. It cannot join the UN. It cannot join NATO. And despite illusions carefully cultivated in Taipei, no U.S. soldier will die for Taiwan. Nor is Taiwan able to deter China’s military advancement, if a decision of that sort is made in Beijing.

So why is Washington draining the island’s resources? Why force military spending of 5 percent of GDP on a territory outside NATO? Why manufacture hysteria where no war was inevitable? The answer is obvious: profit, containment, and geopolitical sabotage.

The result is political backlash. The leader of the Democratic Progressive Party, the Taiwanese “Zelensky”, now faces impeachment. Public dissatisfaction is growing. Ordinary people understand the arithmetic of war: fewer hospitals, fewer schools, fewer pensions—more weapons, more fear, more dependency.

The so-called Taiwan question is China’s internal affair, and Beijing has approached it with patience unmatched in modern geopolitics. A Chinese proverb says: “A Chinese does not raise a hand against a Chinese.” War has never been the plan. Reunification has been pursued through time, development, and restraint.

The real recklessness lies elsewhere. Some Taiwanese elites believe U.S. promises—despite the long cemetery of abandoned allies. They waste resources chasing an impossible independence. And they sabotage their own future, which clearly lies in reconciliation with a rising China—one that builds power through economy, infrastructure, education, and technology, not through occupation and destruction.

Taiwanese society itself does not want war. Despite political divisions, there is internal coexistence and the skills to reach a compromise over sensitive issues peacefully. Who benefits from destroying this balance? This is just a rhetorical question, of course.

Venezuela and Taiwan have nothing in common. Except for one thing: both have been placed on Washington’s chopping block. The only real danger comes from the hyper-imperial center that, like a drug addict nearing overdose, risks dragging the entire world down with it.

Biljana Vankovska is a professor of political science and international relations at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, a member of the Transnational Foundation of Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and the most influential public intellectual in Macedonia. She is a member of the No Cold War collective.

The above article was produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War.