SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nuclear nonproliferation treaty
Trump’s Iran Attack Was a Dangerous Showcase of Why Nuclear Apartheid Must End
Counterproductively, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war on Iran may hasten Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state.
Jun 29, 2025
Over many years, I have had the extraordinary privilege of working with Japanese and other atomic and hydrogen bomb survivors. These are people who have endured and transformed the worst imaginable physical and emotional traumas into the most influential force for nuclear weapons abolition. Their fundamental call is that “human beings and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.”
Their courage, their call, and their steadfast advocacy of nuclear weapons abolition earned them the Nobel Peace Prize last December. In awarding the Hibakusha the Nobel Prize, the Nobel Committee sent the world a powerful message. With the possible exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world is closer to the danger of catastrophic nuclear war than it has ever been, and we must act for nuclear weapons abolition.
There are just over 12,000 nuclear weapons in the nine nuclear weapons state’s stockpiles, 93% in the U.S. and Russian arsenals. The average strategic, or hydrogen, bomb is 20 times more powerful than he Hiroshima A-bomb, and some have been 1,000 times the power of the two comparatively small A-bombs that destroyed those two cities, killing 200,000 people almost immediately, and hundreds of thousands more as a result of radiation diseases.
As with the 1953 CIA led coup that overthrew Iran’s democratic Mosaddeq government, the attack’s negative impacts will be long lasting.
As Daniel Ellsberg, who was the principal author of Presidents John F. Kennedy’s and Lyndon Johnson’s nuclear warfighting doctrines, testified, the U.S. has repeatedly threatened to initiate nuclear war during wars and international crises. Presidents have used them in the same way that an armed robber uses a gun when it points it at his victim’s head. Whether or not the trigger is pulled, the gun has been used. In my book Empire and the Bomb, I documented about 30 times that U.S. presidents have done this, most frequently to reinforce U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and Asia.
Each of the other nine nuclear weapons states has prepared and threatened to initiate nuclear war at least once. Russian President Vladimir Putin has used the U.S. nuclear playbook in his war in Ukraine.
I’ve been asked to say a little about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, one of the seminal treaties of the 20th century. Iran signed it, but following U.S. President Donald Trump’s attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the Iranian parliament has voted to stop cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and there is talk of leaving the treaty altogether. Israel refused to sign the treaty and lives outside its obligations.
In the 1960s, the U.S. and the Soviet Union recognized that the science creating nuclear weapons was no longer beyond the reach of many countries. They feared that as many as 40 countries could develop nuclear weapons by the end of the 20th century. The treaty they negotiated with the vast majority of the world’s nations rests on three pillars: Nonnuclear weapons states forswear becoming nuclear powers and have the right to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes—a flaw in the treaty. Article VI of the treaty obligated the initial five nuclear powers to engage in good-faith negotiations for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons: creating a nuclear weapons-free world.
I have had the privilege of working with several Nobel Peace Prize recipients. Joseph Rotblat, the only senior scientist who resigned from the Manhattan Project because of his moral objections, was clear that because no nation will long tolerate an unequal balance of power—in this case terror—unless nuclear weapons are abolished, proliferation and the nuclear war that would followed are inevitable. Mohamed ElBaradei, who led the IAEA, decried the double standard of nuclear apartheid. Like Rotblat, he insisted that the only way forward was nuclear weapons abolition.
And on the question of double standards, our government and media have long and consciously turned blind eyes to the one nuclear weapons state in the Middle East: Israel. Few know that during the 1973 war, Golda Meir threatened to use Israel’s “Temple Weapons” to extort Henry Kissinger to open the floodgates of weapons and spare parts to turn the tide of the war.
Do not forget that the bombings were grossly unconstitutional and should be grounds for an impeachment. Only Congress has the legal right to declare war.
Counterproductively, Trump’s and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war on Iran may hasten Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state. This in turn would trigger nuclear weapons proliferation across the Middle East. We need to remember the fatwa stating that possession of nuclear weapons is contrary to Islam. But we should also acknowledge the Shiite tradition of continuing revelation—not unlike the Mormons here in the U.S. Enriching uranium to 60%, almost to weapons grade, was certainly not necessary for nuclear power generation.
But diplomacy, not war, was and remains the way.
As some initially feared, the Iranian government apparently moved some of its fissile materials from Natanz and Fordow before the attacks. And contrary to President Trump’s claims that he obliterated Iran’s nuclear project, and pathetically that the bombing was equivalent to the Hiroshima A-bombing, the Pentagon reports that they do not know how much or where enriched uranium is now stored, if the fissile materials remain accessible should Iran now opt to develop a nuclear arsenal, or what if any radioactive fallout has occurred. And with Iran’s foreign minister traveling to Moscow, the multi-dimensional Iranian-Russian-Chinese-North Korean alignment may have been strengthened by the U.S. attack and lead to future nuclear collaboration between Teheran and Moscow.
The attacks will spur nuclear weapons proliferation. Knowledge about how to build a nuclear weapon has not been eliminated, and the attacks will likely redouble Iranian will to build a nuclear weapon, at the very least to defend its independence. Other nations will take the lesson that their sovereignty and independence require having a retaliatory nuclear arsenal, as was the case in North Korea.
As with the 1953 CIA led coup that overthrew Iran’s democratic Mosaddeq government, the attack’s negative impacts will be long lasting. Coming in the tradition of that coup, of U.S. support for Iraq in its calamitous 1980s war to overthrow the Iranian government, and Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement, the U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure came a day before scheduled negotiations. This reinforces the lesson that the U.S. cannot be trusted, and the loss of trust in the U.S. word and commitments will not be limited to Iran. It is being learned or relearned by the nations and people of the world, with negative consequences for the U.S. people for decades to come.
Do not forget that the bombings were grossly unconstitutional and should be grounds for an impeachment. Only Congress has the legal right to declare war.
The bombings were gross violations of international law. They undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the increasingly fragile post WWII United Nations charter order. A world in which there is no respect for law and diplomacy opens the way to international chaos, autocracies, wars, and devastating human suffering.
Even as we must rally to prevent renewed and widening war and press for nuclear disarmament and abolition, we must not be diverted from the urgent work of stopping Israel’s brutal genocide in Gaza, its attacks across the West Bank, for an Israeli-Iranian cease-fire, and for a just and sustainable Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Common security is the only path and foundation for Israeli, Palestinian, and Middle East peace and security.
No War with Iran!
Work for a Just, Peaceful, and Nuclear Weapons Free World!
Keep ReadingShow Less
No, Trump Doesn’t Deserve Credit for the Israel-Iran Cease-Fire
In truth, this was always a joint U.S.-Israeli war—one planned, executed, and justified under the pretext of defending Western interests while laying the groundwork for deeper intervention and potential invasion.
Jun 25, 2025
On June 24, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a truce between Israel and Iran following nearly two weeks of open warfare.
Israel began the war, launching a surprise offensive on June 13, with airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, missile installations, and senior military and scientific personnel, in addition to numerous civilian targets.
In response, Iran launched a wave of ballistic missiles and drones deep into Israeli territory, triggering air raid sirens across Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Beersheba and numerous other locations, causing unprecedented destruction in the country.
What we are witnessing is a staged political performance—a carefully orchestrated spat between two partners playing both sides of a dangerous game.
What began as a bilateral escalation quickly spiraled into something far more consequential: a direct confrontation between the United States and Iran.
On June 22, the United States Air Force and Navy carried out a full-scale assault on three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—in a coordinated strike dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer. Seven B-2 bombers of the 509th Bomb Wing allegedly flew nonstop from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to deliver the strikes.
The following day, Iran retaliated by bombing the Al-Udeid U.S. military base in Qatar and firing a new wave of missiles at Israeli targets.
This marked a turning point. For the first time, Iran and the United States faced each other on the battlefield without intermediaries. And for the first time in recent history, Israel’s long-standing campaign to provoke a U.S.-led war against Iran had succeeded.
Strategic Fallout
Following 12 days of war, Israel achieved two of its goals. First, it pulled Washington directly into its conflict with Tehran, setting a dangerous precedent for future U.S. involvement in Israel’s regional wars. Second, it generated immediate political capital at home and abroad, portraying U.S. military backing as a “victory” for Israel.
However, beyond these short-term gains, the cracks in Israel’s strategy are already showing.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not achieve regime change in Tehran—the real objective of his years-long campaign. Instead, he faced a resilient and unified Iran that struck back with precision and discipline. Worse still, he may have awakened something even more threatening to Israeli ambitions: a new regional consciousness.
Iran, for its part, emerges from this confrontation significantly stronger. Despite U.S. and Israeli efforts to cripple its nuclear program, Iran has demonstrated that its strategic capabilities remain intact and highly functional.
Tehran established a powerful new deterrence equation—proving that it can strike not only Israeli cities but U.S. bases across the region.
Even more consequentially, Iran waged this fight independently, without leaning on Hezbollah or Ansarallah, or even deploying Iraqi militias. This independence surprised many observers and forced a recalibration of Iran’s regional weight.
Iranian Unity
Perhaps the most significant development of all is one that cannot be measured in missiles or casualties: the surge in national unity within Iran and the widespread support it received across the Arab and Muslim world.
For years, Israel and its allies have sought to isolate Iran, to present it as a pariah even among Muslims. Yet in these past days, we have witnessed the opposite.
The message from Tehran is unmistakable: We are here. We are proud. And we will not be broken.
From Baghdad to Beirut, and even in politically cautious capitals like Amman and Cairo, support for Iran surged. This unity alone may prove to be Israel’s most formidable challenge yet.
Inside Iran, the war erased, at least for now, the deep divides between reformists and conservatives. Faced with an existential threat, the Iranian people coalesced, not around any one leader or party, but around the defense of their homeland.
The descendants of one of the world’s oldest civilizations reacted with a dignity and pride that no amount of foreign aggression could extinguish.
The Nuclear Question
Despite the battlefield developments, the real outcome of this war may depend on what Iran does next with its nuclear program.
If Tehran decides to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—even temporarily—and signals that its program remains functional, Israel’s so-called “achievements” will be rendered meaningless.
However, if Iran fails to follow this military confrontation with a bold political repositioning, Netanyahu will be free to claim—falsely or not—that he has succeeded in halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The stakes are as high as they’ve ever been.
A Manufactured Farce
Some media outlets are now praising Trump for supposedly “ordering” Netanyahu to halt further strikes on Iran.
This narrative is as insulting as it is false. What we are witnessing is a staged political performance—a carefully orchestrated spat between two partners playing both sides of a dangerous game.
Trump’s Truth Social post, “Bring your pilots home,” was not a call for peace. It was a calculated move to reclaim credibility after fully surrendering to Netanyahu’s war. It allows Trump to pose as a moderate, distract from Israel’s battlefield losses, and create the illusion of a U.S. administration reining in Israeli aggression.
In truth, this was always a joint U.S.-Israeli war—one planned, executed, and justified under the pretext of defending Western interests while laying the groundwork for deeper intervention and potential invasion.
Return of the People
Amid all the military calculations and geopolitical theater, one truth stands out: the real winners are the Iranian people.
When it mattered most, they stood united. They understood that resisting foreign aggression was more important than internal disputes. They reminded the world—and themselves—that in moments of crisis, people are not peripheral actors in history; they are its authors.
The message from Tehran is unmistakable: We are here. We are proud. And we will not be broken.
That is the message Israel, and perhaps even Washington, did not anticipate. And it is the one that could reshape the region for years to come.
Keep ReadingShow Less
From Fordow to Fallout: Global Hegemony on Trial
The U.S. strikes on Iran must be seen as part of a broader strategy by a declining global hegemon to reassert authority over an increasingly fractured world order.
Jun 24, 2025
This article was written and submitted before the latest development in the Iran-Israel-U.S. crisis: the announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump of an agreed cease-fire between Iran and Israel, subsequently confirmed by Iranian state television. While the situation on the ground remains fluid (with continued missile exchanges and uncertainty about the durability of this truce), we have chosen to publish this analysis in its original form for two key reasons. First, the cease-fire itself aligns with one of the primary scenarios outlined in this piece: tactical deescalation driven by exhaustion, geopolitical recalibration, and the recognition of strategic costs. Second, the structural drivers, historical context, and geopolitical stakes detailed in the article remain critical for understanding both the path to this truce and the uncertainties that lie ahead. Rather than rendering the analysis obsolete, this new development reinforces the paper's central argument: that the confrontation is not simply a regional affair, but part of a broader crisis of global order and legitimacy in which militarized interventions are used to mask systemic decline. This moment, precarious as it is, remains a potential turning point. The following reflections aim to illuminate the forces that have shaped it and what may still come next.
The recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape of the ongoing Iran-Israel-U.S. confrontation. While the situation has been deteriorating since the escalation of Israeli hostilities in Gaza and subsequent Iranian retaliations, Washington's decision to bomb key Iranian sites (including the Fordow underground uranium enrichment facility, Natanz, and Isfahan) marks a game-changing shift. The strikes on Iran, justified under familiar pretexts of "non-proliferation," "peace," and "defense," serve as a warning to emerging multipolar blocs, particularly BRICS and China-led alliances, that deviation from Western geopolitical orthodoxy will not be tolerated, even when conducted within the boundaries of international law.
This piece examines the unfolding dynamics of the crisis, analyzes potential trajectories, and evaluates the broader implications for national sovereignty and global security in an increasingly fragmented world order marked by legal erosion, intensified conflict, and competing hegemonies.
Crisis as Strategy: Manufacturing Conflict in the Shadow of Decline
On June 22, 2025, the U.S. intervened in the Iran-Israel war by attacking Iran, through an operation dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer," which involved the deployment of B-2 stealth bombers armed with GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs. It targeted sites previously thought impenetrable and marks the first time Washington has taken direct military action against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. American officials frame it as a limited, preventive measure designed to halt Iran's nuclear progress, signaling that no further strikes are currently planned. Yet such rhetoric must be critically evaluated. The scale and precision of the bombings, along with U.S. President Donald Trump's ambiguous "Make Iran Great Again" statement, raise suspicions about the administration's longer-term goals, including the possibility of engineered "regime change" by nontraditional means, escalating tensions, draining resources, and exploiting internal fractures.
What began as a regional confrontation has been instrumentalized into a global warning: a demonstration of force aimed at deterring the momentum of multipolar alternatives.
Iran's initial response has been carefully calibrated. Shortly after vowing retaliation, Tehran launched a limited missile strike on a U.S. military base in Qatar, likely coordinated in advance with Qatari and possibly even American authorities to minimize casualties. This symbolic yet pointed action appears designed to send a strategic message: Iran will respond, but not recklessly. The move suggests a preference for controlled escalation, signaling strength while leaving space for deescalation. Other retaliatory options remain on the table: cyber-attacks on U.S. infrastructure, disruption of maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), or asymmetrical operations via allies such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, or Hashd al-Shaabi. Each carries serious risks for Iran, the region, and global stability. Tehran's leadership seems intent on avoiding the U.S.' trap of full-scale escalation while assessing the fallout, recalibrating strategy, and consulting closely with allies like Russia and China to secure diplomatic backing and military preparedness. The U.S. response to this measured strike will shape the next phase of confrontation.
The Possible Scenarios Ahead
In the wake of the U.S. military strikes on Iran's key nuclear and military facilities, and the intensified hostilities between Iran and Israel, four major strategic trajectories now seem plausible. Each hinges on complex interactions between military calculations, geopolitical alignments, and domestic constraints. These are not mutually exclusive and may bleed into one another depending on evolving events.
Scenario A: Intensified but Contained Confrontation
This scenario envisions a continuation of calibrated escalation; Israel, backed by the United States, continues precision strikes on Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure, while Iran retaliates through means carefully modulated to avoid triggering direct U.S. engagement. Proxy confrontations across Iraq and the Red Sea may intensify, but red lines may be respected regarding attacks on American personnel or sovereign territory.
The strategic aim on all sides is to inflict sufficient costs to assert deterrence and save face, without tumbling into full-scale war. Israel preserves its posture as the self-designated regional enforcer, the U.S. projects its global policing role without deep involvement, and Iran upholds its position as a sovereign actor refusing to be subjugated. This scenario is already in motion.
Its durability, however, depends on multiple pressure points: the endurance of Iran's infrastructure and internal cohesion; Israel's appetite for military risk, enduring the already growingly backbreaking economic costs of the conflict and decreasing political gain; the U.S. election and economic calculus; and the reaction of regional and global powers. As weapon stockpiles diminish and war fatigue grows, the possibility of shifting into another scenario becomes more likely.
Scenario B: Direct Iran-U.S. Military Confrontation
This high-stakes scenario envisions a significant escalation whereby Iran targets U.S. military assets (such as bases in Iraq, Syria, Qatar, or Bahrain) or naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Any such action would almost certainly provoke a forceful U.S. military response, including sustained air and naval operations, with the potential to spiral into a broader regional war.
The recent limited Iranian missile strike on the U.S. base in Qatar, reportedly carried out with prior warnings to local and possibly American authorities, suggests that Tehran is testing this boundary carefully. It was likely intended as a symbolic gesture (assertive yet calculated to avoid immediate escalation), demonstrating Iran's capability while keeping the door open for deescalation.
The U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, despite Iran's continued NPT compliance, have shattered the perceived legitimacy of the global security architecture.
Despite this, the broader risk of uncontrolled escalation remains. Miscalculations, false-flag provocations, or misunderstood retaliatory acts could still trigger a more direct and sustained confrontation. A scenario where Iran disrupts the Strait of Hormuz or targets high-value U.S. assets without prior signaling would heighten the risk of full-scale conflict.
Strategically, this path remains the most perilous for Iran. A direct war would stretch its already burdened military apparatus, require multi-front engagement, and risk massive infrastructural and civilian losses. For this reason, both Iran and the U.S. appear reluctant to pursue it, but it cannot be ruled out. Should this scenario unfold, it may quickly slide into Scenario C: a prolonged war of attrition aimed not at conquest but at systemic destabilization and regime fatigue.
Scenario C: Shock Doctrine and "Soft Regime Change"
This scenario imagines a prolonged campaign of attritional warfare (military strikes, economic destabilization, disinformation, and psychological operations) aimed at gradually eroding the legitimacy and capacity of the Iranian state without formal invasion. The goal here is not decisive battlefield victory but strategic disintegration.
This would involve more calculated acts of destruction (such as the recent strikes on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow), imposition of even harsher sanctions via mechanisms like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) snapback, and deliberate amplification of dissent within Iran. Western powers and Israeli intelligence would continue cultivating fractures within the Iranian elite and broader society, particularly among the disillusioned middle class and peripheral ethnic communities.
However, this is a dangerous gamble. Iran's memory of the 1953 coup and decades of resistance to imperial interventions has hardened its political institutions. The state has adapted to high-pressure conditions through robust security apparatuses, ideological cohesion, and crisis-driven legitimacy. Large sections of the Iranian public, despite the internal divisions, tend to consolidate around national sovereignty during times of external threat. Thus, while slow erosion remains a strategic goal for some in the West, the plan may backfire, further entrenching authoritarian reflexes and exacerbating regional volatility.
Scenario D: Exhaustion, Tactical Deescalation, and Renewed Covert Warfare
This scenario becomes increasingly plausible if the cumulative costs of confrontation (military, economic, and political) begin to outweigh perceived strategic gains for both Iran and Israel. For the United States, a prolonged regional conflict also carries serious geopolitical risks. While Washington becomes further entangled in a high-stakes escalation with no clear exit strategy, Beijing quietly consolidates its economic recovery and enhances its military capacity. The longer the U.S. remains embroiled in Middle Eastern entanglements, the more it risks losing strategic ground in its broader rivalry with China.
Within this context, signs of weapons fatigue, infrastructure degradation, and growing global disapproval could push the belligerents toward tactical deescalation. Iran, aware of the long-term humanitarian costs and the strategic risks of total war, may choose to delay or modulate its retaliation to maintain room for maneuver. Israel, facing mounting international criticism and potential strain on its domestic cohesion, may similarly reduce the intensity of its military operations. However, such restraint would likely represent a pause rather than peace, a recalibration rather than a sustainable resolution.
Such a pause would be fragile and conditional. It would not represent peace but rather a shift back from overt to covert conflict. Iran may strengthen its nuclear policy by shifting further into opacity, denying or limiting International Atomic Energy Agency access, decentralizing enrichment activities, and tightening information control. Western powers would find it easier to interpret this as nuclear escalation and would more decisively push for the reactivation of the JCPOA snapback mechanism that will lead to new layers of global sanctions. Internally, Iran would enter a phase of intensified securitization, i.e., greater surveillance, suppression of dissent, and policing of civil society. Externally, Israel and Western intelligence agencies would likely continue to support dissident networks, cyber operations, and economic sabotage.
Key Factors Determining the Next Phase
1. The Role of Great Powers
Russia and China have condemned Israel's unprovoked aggression and the recent U.S. strikes. Both countries have critical stakes in Iran: China relies on it for energy security and Belt and Road transit; Russia views it as a strategic partner in countering Western hegemony. While neither country seeks war, they may offer Iran advanced air defense systems, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic cover. Reports of Chinese cargo flights into Iran hint at a subtle but increasing strategic alignment.
2. Geoeconomic Implications
Oil prices surged after the strikes, with Brent crude nearing $75-80 per barrel. Financial markets responded with caution, as investors fear extended volatility. Inflationary pressures have intensified in Europe and Asia, driven by rising energy costs. Central banks in the West may now hesitate to cut interest rates, fearful of stagflation. This economic pressure acts as both a constraint on war and a bargaining chip: All actors now operate in a context where geopolitical decisions carry immediate economic costs.
3. Public Opinion
Trump's decision to strike Iranian facilities is a high-stakes gamble. It appeals to Republican hawks who view it as a show of strength, but most Americans remain wary of another Middle East entanglement. With public memory still shaped by Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump must appear decisive without triggering fears of endless war. His framing of the attack as "surgical" and "defensive" may hold for now. But a single U.S. casualty, oil price spike, or market shock could swiftly erode support, turning the move into a political liability in an already polarized election cycle.
4. Iran's Structural Resilience
Despite years of economic sanctions, internal unrest, and now direct military assaults, Iran's political structure has not fractured. The IRGC, Basij, and Artesh continue to demonstrate institutional cohesion and loyalty. While widespread discontent persists, no unified or credible opposition force has yet emerged with the capacity to rally the population against the state. The historical memory of foreign interventions still serves as a potent source of nationalist resilience. Many external analysts underestimate Iran's ability to endure crises, overlooking its layered, pluralistic, and historically adaptive modes of governance. However, the most serious threat to Iran's resilience may come not from external aggression but from within: decades of neoliberal structural adjustment have hollowed out public services, deepened inequality, and eroded economic sovereignty. By binding the national economy to global market fluctuations and dollar-based trade systems, these reforms have made Iran acutely vulnerable to inflationary shocks and currency instability. Above all, they have rendered international sanctions far more effective, magnifying their impact on everyday life and intensifying mass dissatisfaction. The current government continues to adhere to an economic model that prioritizes fiscal orthodoxy over redistribution or self-sufficiency. This approach is fundamentally ill-suited to the demands of wartime mobilization. It places the burden of conflict squarely on working people and makes the economic pressures of protracted confrontation increasingly unbearable.
Implications of the Crisis for Security and Sovereignty Beyond Empire
From a critical scholar-activist perspective, the current escalation must be seen as part of a broader strategy by a declining global hegemon to reassert authority over an increasingly fractured world order. Confronted with deep internal crises and the erosion of its unipolar dominance, the United States has exploited the Iranian nuclear issue, first by pressuring Iran into fruitless negotiations, then enabling its regional proxy, Israel, to manufacture escalation, ultimately militarizing the conflict as a calculated strategy to reassert geopolitical discipline. What began as a regional confrontation has been instrumentalized into a global warning: a demonstration of force aimed at deterring the momentum of multipolar alternatives, particularly the rising influence of China, the BRICS bloc, and other emergent alliances challenging Western supremacy.
Through this confrontation, Washington seeks to reassert the primacy of its security architecture and dollar-based economic order, even at the cost of further destabilizing international norms. Military action under the banners of "non-proliferation," "defense," or "regional stability" masks a deeper agenda: disciplining dissenting states, undermining autonomous alliances, disrupting China's Belt and Road Initiative, and reminding the Global South that any deviation from the unipolar script will be met with force. Yet this strategy is paradoxical; while aiming to halt decline, it simultaneously deepens the crisis of legitimacy facing global institutions, erodes faith in international law, and accelerates the very multipolar shifts it seeks to suppress.
This is not a time to restore a failed status quo. What's needed is a radical rethinking of security, sovereignty, and development, beyond the coercive logic of militarized capitalism.
The core issue is not whether Iran is building a nuclear bomb (there is no credible evidence that it is) but whether sovereign states are permitted to pursue energy independence, chart autonomous foreign policies, or forge alternative economic alliances. The strikes make clear that even legal adherence to international treaties offers no shield against coercion when a state resists the dominant script. What is being punished is not a violation of norms, but defiance of empire. And yet, resistance (both armed and diplomatic) endures.
The stakes are extraordinarily high. One misstep could ignite full-scale regional war, disrupt global energy markets, and deepen economic inequality. Yet beneath the immediate crisis, the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, despite Iran's continued NPT compliance, have shattered the perceived legitimacy of the global security architecture. The NPT's foundational bargain (non-nuclear states forgo weapons in exchange for peaceful technology and protection) has been exposed as hollow. Compliance has not shielded Iran from unilateral aggression, eroding faith in international law.
Amid this breakdown, new possibilities are emerging. Multipolar diplomacy, South-South cooperation, and grassroots transnational solidarity are rising as alternatives in a world long denied inclusive governance. This is not a time to restore a failed status quo. What's needed is a radical rethinking of security, sovereignty, and development, beyond the coercive logic of militarized capitalism. Whether we spiral into catastrophe or move toward a more just world depends on the courage and imagination of those who still believe another future is possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular