Archive by Author

Peace for Iran: Declaration of Global Conscience

9 Apr

Prefatory Note: Two Texts evant to Ongoing US/Israel War Against Iran in the context of a failing Ceaefire Agreement. Iran’s Conditions and Declaration of Global Conscience signed and individually affirmed by listed non-Iranians.]

“Six Non‑Negotiable Terms from international Scholars and Former Officials from 30 countries to End the U.S. War on Iran Amid Trump’s Threat of War Crimes”

The conscience of humanity resists “everything for us, nothing for others,” the creed of the predatory empire erected on the corpses of nations. The shameless rapacity and insolence have reached their zenith, and Trump’s threats illustrate the depraved spirit of a decaying civilisation. We must not be passive witnesses, but active architects of a new world where arrogance crumbles and righteousness prevails.

A large transnational group of prominent voices—including former UN officials, Retired career diplomats, former ministers, scholars and intellectuals, political figures and former parliamentarians, military and security professionals, artists, lawyers as well as journalists, activists, and antiwar leaders, from 30 countries—has released an open letter sharply criticising the global role of the United States and calling for a new international order centered on sovereignty and resistance to what they describe as Western domination.

Most of the signatories are from Western countries, alongside participants from Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The declaration, titled “A Declaration to the Conscience of Humanity,” was signed by over 170 signatories from countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Serbia, Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lithuania, Russia, China, Malaysia, India, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iran.

In this fact-based public letter, the authors deliver a sweeping critique of American foreign policy and historical conduct. The letter states that for “249 years—spanning the entirety of its existence since 1776—the United States built a record of atrocity that belonged to a darker, pre-civilised age,” describing the country as “a predatory empire erected on the corpses of nations.”

The signatories, including current and former professors affiliated with 52 universities and academic institutions worldwide, accuse Washington of maintaining global military dominance through an extensive overseas presence. They state that the United States operates “over 800 military garrisons poisoning more than 90 foreign countries and territories” and has cultivated what the signatories call “a doctrine of absolute predation.”

The declaration also condemns U.S. involvement in major wars of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, referring to what it calls “the genocidal horror of Vietnam,” “the annihilation of Cambodia,” and the “systematic slaughter of Koreans,” as well as the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan.

A central focus of the document is the ongoing confrontation involving Iran. These public figures argue that the current situation reflects what they describe as an expansionist U.S. strategy aimed at dominating global resources. According to the statement, the United States government is driven by “the demonic creed of ‘everything for us, nothing for others’,” which they say seeks control of global resources ranging from “the oil of Venezuela” to “the mineral wealth of Greenland” or “the energy reserves of Canada”.

The undersigned further assert that U.S. policy now “fixates on Iran” because the country possesses “over seven percent of the world’s mineral and energy wealth,” which they describe as “the final frontier of plunder.”

The document also criticizes contemporary American leadership, arguing that the “moral collapse of the West finds its embodiment in the pathetic figure of Mr. Trump,” and calling for what they describe as an end to “the era of pillage.”

Beyond its criticism of U.S. policy, the announcement proposes several demands that the signatories say are necessary to end the current war on Iran. These include guarantees against future aggression, the dismantling of U.S. military installations in the region, formal international condemnation of acts of aggression, reparations for damages caused by war, the establishment of a new legal framework for the Strait of Hormuz, recognising Iran’s sovereignty, and the prosecution and extradition of operatives in anti-Iranian media who have incited this bloodshed.

The authors also call on intellectuals, scholars, institutions, and civil society organizations worldwide to condemn what is described as the normalization of violations of international law and to challenge the global

structures that sustain domination and military intervention.

In conclusion, the signatories argue that the present moment represents a decisive historical turning point. “We stand with justice—not as passive witnesses, but as active architects of a new world,” the letter states, emphasizing that the international community must confront what it calls the return of predatory power in global politics.

Among the signatories are prominent scientists and figures representing a wide array of expertise and leadership, including philosophers, economists, historians, sociologists, jurists, theologians, Islamologists, reverends, biologists, physicians, musicians, filmmakers, songwriters, singers, entrepreneurs, engineers, novelists, theorists, as well as a physicist, a psychologist, an anthropologist, and a comedian. This diverse coalition reflects the global conscience of humanity, uniting professionals, scholars, and advocates from multiple disciplines in a shared call against U.S. exceptionalism.

The full text of the declaration, along with the complete list of signatories, has been released publicly in more than ten languages:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

A Declaration to the Conscience of Humanity

To the peoples of the world, to thinkers, to scholars, and to those who believe in justice:

A specter now haunts the conscience of humanity—the return of predatory power— and it shall no longer go unchallenged.

For 249 years—spanning the entirety of its existence since 1776—the United States built a record of atrocity that belonged to a darker, pre-civilised age; the predatory empire erected on the corpses of nations; from the genocide of nearly 5 million Indigenous peoples, to the brutal enslavement of over 4 million Africans, to the lynching of more than 4,000 Black citizens under Jim Crow. With over 800 military garrisons poisoning more than 90 foreign countries and territories, it cultivated a doctrine of absolute predation. From the genocidal horror of Vietnam, with over 3 million dead; to the annihilation of Cambodia, where 2 million perished under US-backed terror; to the systematic slaughter of Koreans, with more than 4 million Korean lives extinguished; to the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, where one million Iraqis and tens of thousands of Libyans were consumed by US fire.

Yet the rational order that governs the world once helped humanity move beyond such practices. Humanity had consigned this barbarism to history. But now we are witnessing its return. The ongoing, systematic immolation of Gaza through the sustained support for the genocidal Israeli regime, where over 77,000 civilians in Palestine have been butchered—the scale of this atrocity reveals an inescapable truth: the pre-civilised practice has returned, and Washington has once again become its willing executor.

This is the demonic creed of “everything for us, nothing for others.” With shameless rapacity, it claims the resources of the world—whether the oil of Venezuela, the mineral wealth of Greenland, or the energy reserves of Canada—as objects of strategic entitlement. And now, that gluttonous eye fixates on Iran. Because Iran—possessing over 7% of the world’s mineral and energy wealth—is seen as the final frontier of plunder.

Yet this is no longer a matter of economics. It is a matter of honour. The world witnesses that the United States is actively engaged in a criminal enterprise termed the “Ramadan War” against the Iranian nation. This ongoing butchery has already claimed the lives of 208 innocent children. Let the world mark the date—168 of them were little girls, elementary students at the Shadjareh Tayyebeh School in Minab city in Iran, extinguished in their classrooms by US ordained terror.

Their futile and desperate contrivances aim at so-called “regime change” and the fragmentation of Iran—stripping the nation of its sovereignty and, thereby, facilitating the systematic plunder of its resources. In pursuit of this ultimate depravity, the U.S. brutally assassinated Iran’s spiritual and intellectual leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei—recognised globally as a voice against arrogance and terrorism—along with his family.

They have waged a war of targeted terror against the very pillars of the Iranian state. To date, US aggression has criminally murdered 39 Iranian statesmen, including the scientific genius Dr. Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

Now, the insolence has reached its zenith. The US President openly threatens the Iranian people on social media with the destruction of their energy infrastructure. This is the depraved spirit of a decaying civilisation. The moral collapse of the West finds its embodiment in the pathetic figure of Mr. Trump—a man whose catastrophic conduct over the last two years has exhausted not only the world, but his own people. The time has come to declare, with one voice: Enough! The era of pillage is over.

But the United States has made a fatal miscalculation. What stands before it is not merely a nation, but a civilisation that has weaponised its own DNA—ancient organisational genius fused with 21st-century scientific sovereignty. This is the reality of active deterrence by Iran; a global pole of power that dictates the terms of engagement, forcing strategic retreat by rewriting the very rules of active defence. Now, its adaptive reorganisation, civilisational continuity, and social unity have fused into a singular, unbreakable force.

Iran’s all-encompassing defence and active deterrence represents a golden opportunity to end global hegemony. The historical and civilisational doctrine of Iran is absolute: power does not confer right, and domination cannot serve as a foundation for justice. This is recognised as the bedrock of Iran’s invincibility. The world may avail itself of this historic turning point, drawing upon this very doctrine of liberation, to bring an end to domination and oppression wherever they may exist.

US and Israeli exceptionalism have dragged the world into an epoch defining choice between might and right, sovereignty and subjugation, dignity and dishonour. This moment must serve as the wake-up call for humanity to recognize that there is another way. It must impel people everywhere to do everything in their power to challenge the structures undergirding a global system that desecrates every moral value including the right to life itself.

Iran is the final frontier. If it falls, the hope of a better, enlightened future for the world dies with it. We cannot let that happen. The aggression against Iran is part of a system of global power that oppresses all of us. We cannot afford to stand by and watch arrogant authoritarianism running amok. Our very future depends on the success of Iran.

Therefore we cannot countenance any outcome of this war that involves a return to the status quo ante. Those who inflict such suffering must be made to pay a hefty price for their crimes. They must be made to realise that military might does not absolve them of the responsibility to uphold the laws on which the peace and security of our world depend. To that end, we support the terms set out by Iran for ending this war.

From the perspective of global justice, the terms for ending this war are absolute and non-negotiable:

  1. Guarantees against repetition and a binding international commitment ensuring no future aggression.
  2. The immediate dismantling of all US military installations in the region.
  3. Formal admission of aggression, international condemnation of the aggressors, and full reparations for life and property.
  4. An immediate end to war on all regional fronts.
  5. A new legal regime for the Strait of Hormuz, recognising Iran’s sovereignty.
  6. The prosecution and extradition of operatives in anti-Iranian media who have incited this bloodshed.

We, the undersigned in spirit, call upon our peers, the thinkers, the scholars, the institutions of conscience, and the advocates of justice across the world:

• Condemn the United States unequivocally for its systematic normalisation of contempt for international covenants and its reversion to the spirit of historical savagery and barbarism.

• Isolate the rogue regime of the United States diplomatically and economically for its ongoing crimes against humanity.

• Recognise Iran’s inherent right to active deterrence against unprovoked aggression.

• Demand the immediate cessation of American and U.S.-sponsored terrorism and the prosecution of those who order it.

As it has always done, history will record the courage of those who refuse to remain silent. We stand with justice—not as passive witnesses, but as active architects of a new world that has reached its threshold where arrogance crumbles and righteousness prevails. The arrogant must be dismantled. The world demands it. Justice will enforce it.

Signed in solidarity;

  1. Richard Falk (USA)

Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (2008 – 2014) author or editor of more than 50 books on international law and global politics

  • Denis Halliday (Ireland)

Former UN Secretary-General deputy and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Gandhi International Peace Award (2003)

  • Norman Finkelstein (USA)

Highly internationally known political scientist, son of Holocaust-survivor parents, widely cited & recognized in Middle East political debate. former Professor at universities of DePaul, Princeton, Rutgers and New York

  • Avi Shlaim (UK)

Professor Emeritus of International Relations and Historian at St Antony’s College, Oxford University, British Academy Medal (2017) for lifetime achievement,PEN Hessell‑Tiltman Prize (2024) for historical writing

  • Hans von Sponeck (Germany)

Former UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq

  • Alain de Benoist (France)

Internationally recognized philosopher and essayist whose work spans political theory, philosophy, history of religions, and cultural criticism, focused on critiques of liberalism, universalism, and modern egalitarian ideology

  • Chris Williamson (UK)

Former Shadow Ministerfor Communities and Local Government (2010 to 2013), Former member of Parliament for 7 years, former leader of Derby City Council

  • Boaventura de Sousa Santos (Portugal)

One of the world’s most internationally highly cited sociologists, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the School of Economics of the University of Coimbra, Distinguished Legal Scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School, Founder of the World Social Forum & the concept of “Epistemologies of the South”, Frantz Fanon Lifetime Achievement Award (2022), Kalven Prize, Jabuti Award, Gulbenkian Science Prize

  • Jean Bricmont (Belgium)

Internationally cited theoretical physicist and philosopher of science, Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, author/co-author of several books including Fashionable Nonsense and Humanitarian Imperialism

  1. Dieudonné (France)

Internationally recognized Artist and Stand-up Comedian, author of more than 25 one-man shows, recipient of the Grand Prix de l’Humour Noir (2000) for his contribution to satirical comedy

  1. Hamid Algar (USA)

Professor Emeritus of Persian studies at the University of California, Berkeley, King Faisal Prize laureate

  1. Oya Baydar (Turkey)

Iconic Novelist and Sociologist who spent years in political exile after the 1980 Turkish coup d’état, later she returned and continued her literary career. She holds 5 Awards on novels, literature, short story and culture

  1. Philip Giraldi (USA)

Counterterrorism Expert and Columnist, Executive Director of the non-profit, non-partisan anti-war advocacy group The Council for the National Interest (CNI), Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

  1. Imam Suhaib Webb (UK)

Former imam of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, Former Resident Scholar of the Islamic Center of New York University, founder of Ella Collins Institute, one of the World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims list by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre (2010), recipient as Best Muslim Blog of the Year and Best Muslim Tweeter of the Year by Brass Crescent Awards

  1. Cynthia McKinney (USA)

Former Congresswomen for 6 terms (Georgia), Assistant Professor and Director of the Office of External Affairs at North South University; recipient of various peace and human-rights awards (e.g., peace advocacy awards)

  1. Ann Wright (USA)

Army Colonel and Former US diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the US war on Iraq, Jurist

  1. Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid (Malaysia)

President of Malaysia Consultative Council of Islamic Organizations

  1. R. Roshan Baig (India)

Former seven-time member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Former Minister of Home Affairs, Former Minister for Urban Development, Former Minister for Infrastructure

  1. Saied Reza Ameli (Islamic Republic of Iran)

Full Professor of Communication and Global Studies at the University of Tehran, Head of the UNESCO Chair on Cyberspace and Culture, Founder and Dean of the Faculty of World Studies, Editor-in-chief of Journal of Cyberspace Studies, Member of Iranian Academy of Sciences as well as two High State Cultural Councils

  • Haim Bresheeth (UK)

Retired Professorial Research Associate Professor of Film, Media and Cultural Studies, and Visual Culture at the School of SOAS, the University of East London, Campaign Against Misrepresentation in Public Affairs

  • Mohammad Marandi (Islamic Republic of Iran)

Full Professor of English Literature, Orientalism and American Studies at University of Tehran

  • Ajamu Baraka (USA)

2016 Green Party nominee for Vice President, Anti-Colonial fighter and Veteran of U.S. Black Liberation Movement, Founder of Black Alliance for Peace

  • Bijan Abdolkarimi (Islamic Republic of Iran)

Philosopher, prominent intellectual in post October 7th era, focused on ontology and political philosophy, specializing in the thought of Martin Heidegger, Associate Professor of philosophy in Islamic Azad University

  • Daud Abdullah (UK)

Director of Middle East Monitor and former Deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain

  • Vijay Prashad (India)

Director of TricontinentalInstitute for Social Research, editor of LeftWord Books, Chief Correspondent at Globetrotter, and senior fellow at Renmin University of China, advisory board member of the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, co-founder of the Forum of Indian Leftists, Muzaffar Ahmad Book Prize, Paul A. Baran–Paul M. Sweezy Memorial Award

  • Ramón Grosfoguel (USA)

Sociologist and Professor Emeritus at the Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley

  • Lawrence Davidson (USA)

Professor Emeritus of Middle East History at West Chester University (WCU)

  • David Miller (UK)

Sociologist and former professor at the University of Strathclyde, the University of Bath and the University of BristolCo-Director of Spinwatch

  • Abbas Edalat (UK)

Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics at Imperial College London and founder of the Science and Arts Foundation (SAF) and Campaign against Sanctions, Military and Imperial Interventions (CASMII)

  • Dinah Shelton (USA)

Professor Emeritus of International Law at George Washington University Law School; former Commissioner and President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2010–2014), Elizabeth Haub Prize for Environmental Law (2006), International Environmental Law Award (2016)

  • Jodi Dean (USA)

Political Theorist and Professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, former Erasmus Professor of the Humanities in the Faculty of Philosophy at Erasmus University Rotterdam

  • Peter Limb (USA)

Internationally recognized Historian and Professor at Michigan State University

  • Michael Maloof (USA)

Former Senior Security Policy Analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense

  • Michael Springmann (USA)

Former Diplomat in Germany and Saudi Arabia, Attorney and Counsellor at Law, Doctor of Law

  • Augusto Sinagra (Italy)
    Professor Emeritus of International Law at Sapienza University of Rome
  • Syed Sadatullah Husaini (India)

President of India’s biggest Muslim origination (Jamaat-e-Islami Hind)

  • Angelo d’Orsi (Italy)

Historian of Philosophy and Professor Emeritus of History of Political Doctrines at the University of Turin

  • Sibel Edmonds (USA)

Exposer of corruption and intelligence failures within U.S. government agencies, PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award (2006), Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence (2012)

  • Kevin B. MacDonald (USA)

Professor Emeritus of Evolutionary Psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB)

  • Alberto Bradanini (Italy)

Former director of UN Interregional Crime & Justice Research Institute UN Research Institute on Crime & Drugs, former ambassador in Tehran and Beijing, president of the Centre for Contemporary China Studies in Italy

  • James H. Fetzer (USA)

McKnight Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Science at the University of Minnesota Duluth

  • Piero Bevilacqua (Italy)

Historian, Professor of Contemporary History at the Sapienza University of Rome, author of 34 books

  • Claudio Mutti (Italy)

Former Professor at the University of Bologna, Director of “Eurasia, Rivista di Studi Geopolitici”

  • Siddiqullah Chowdhury (India)

Representative of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, member of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC)

  • Claudio Moffa (Italy)

Former Professor of History of International Relations at the University of Teramo

  • Maria Poumier (France)

Professor at University of Havana, Former Professor at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), documentary maker

  • Bruno Drweski (France)

Professor Emeritus at the National Institute of Oriental Languages ​​and Civilizations (Université Paris-Cité) and Paris Geopolitics Academy

  • Paulina Aroch Fugellie (Mexico)

Full Professor at the Department of Humanities, Metropolitan Autonomous University

  • Munyaradzi Mushonga (South Africa)

Global Academic Director for the Decolonial International Network (DIN), Associate Professor at the University of the Free State

  • Mufti Mukarram Ahmed (India)

Religious and literary scholar, Imam of India’s second largest mosque (Shahi Masjid Fatehpuri)

  • Alain Corvez (France)

Colonel of French Army, former advisor minister of defense, former deputy to the General Commanding the UN Force in South Lebanon, advisor in international affairs

  • Jodie Evans (USA)

Co-founder of the anti-war organization Code Pink, Filmmaker, former board chair of Rainforest Action Network

  • Jean-Louis Poirier (France)

Philosopher, Historian and Translator

  • Zlatko Hadžidedić (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Political Scientist and Director of the Center for Nationalism Studies in Sarajevo

  • Elizabeth Murray (USA)

Former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East at the National Intelligence Council; member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

  • Pepe Escobar (Brazil)

Geopolitical Analyst and Journalist who has written for Asia Times, Mondialisation.ca, CounterPunch, Al-Jazeera, RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Guancha

  • Rodney Shakespeare (UK)

Economist and Visiting Professor at Trisakti University, Expert on Binary Economics

  • Salman Hussaini Nadwi (India)

Founding member/chairman of numerous religious, medical, IT and engineering colleges and hospitals, scholar and professor in the Islamic sciences, author of numerous scholarly works, President of Jamiat Shabaab ul Islam, editor and co-editor of thirteen different periodicals in English, Urdu, Persian and Arabic languages 

  • Ralph Bosshard (Switzerland)

Former Military Advisor to the Secretary General of Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

  • Daniel Estulin (Lithuania)

Writer and international speaker, author of “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group”

  • Peter Koenig (Switzerland)

Economist and Geopolitical Analyst with more than 30 years of experience in the World Bank, the World Health Organization and the Swiss Development Cooperation

  • İbrahim Betil (Turkey)

Founding President of the Turkish Education Volunteers Foundation, Businessman and Social Entrepreneur, former CEO of Tekfen Holding, Multiple Turkish civil society and philanthropy awards

  • Tommy Sheridan (Scotland)

Candidate for Glasgow in 2026 Scottish Parliamentary Elections, Former Member of the Parliament, Former Convenor of Scottish Socialist Party, Former Glasgow City Councillor, former Convenor of Solidarity

  • Christoph Hörstel (Germany)

Author and Expert on Security, NATO Policies, Geopolitics, and German foreign policy, Publicist

  • Sara Flounders (USA)

Co-director of the International Action Center and Secretariat Member of the Workers World Party

  • Kevin J. Barrett (USA)

Arabist-Islamologist Scholar, former Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

  • Zakia Soman (India)

Former Professor of Business Communication at the University of Gujarat, Founder of Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) on women’s rights, member of South Asian Alliance for Poverty Eradication (SAAPE)

  • Stephen Sizer (UK)

Former Vicar of Christ Church of Virginia Water in Surrey and director of the Peacemaker Trust

  • E. Michael Jones (USA)

Former Professor of English literature at Saint Mary’s College (Indiana), founder of Culture Wars Magazine

  • Tim Anderson (Australia)

Political Economist, Director of Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies, Former Senior lecturer at the University of Sydney 

  • Piers Robinson (UK)

Former Professor of Political Journalism, International Politics and Political Communication at Universities of Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool, Co-Director Organisation for Propaganda Studies & Research Director at 
the International Center for 9/11 Justice

  • Pino Cabras (Italy)

Former Vice-President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Italian Parliament

  • Jean Michel Vernochet (France)

Former Journalist of Le Figaro Magazine, Writer and Geopolitical Analyst

  • Angelo Persiani (Italy)

Former Ambassador in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Sweden

  • Guillermo Barreto (Venezuela)

Biologist and Retired Full Professor at the Organisms Biology Department of Simón Bolívar University

  • Mateusz Piskorski (Poland)

Former Professor at University of Szczecin and Jan Długosz University, Co-founder of the European Center of Geopolitical Analysis, former member of the Polish Parliament in the Assembly of Western European Union

  • Declan Hayes (Ireland)

Retired Professor at the Sophia University of Tokyo

  • Anisur Rahman Qasmi (India)

Scholar, community leader, Former vice president of the All India Milli Council, lecturer on Islamic jurisprudence 

  • Dave Smith (Australia)

Anglican priest, Social Educator, Boxer, 2022 Candidate in Federal Election – United Australia Party (Grayndler)

  • Aran Martin (Australia)

Managing Editor of the Institute of Postcolonial Studies (IPCS), Professor at University of Melbourne, Executive Director of Global Security Foundation, Editor of Postcolonial Studies

  • David Rovics (USA)

Singer and Songwriter, Musician focused on US wars, globalization, anarchism, social justice and labor history, ASCAP Deems Taylor Award

  • Vito Petrocelli (Italy)

Former Chairman of Foreign affairs committee of Italian Senate, Editorial Director of AntiDiplomatico,

  • Dilek Bektas (Turkey)

Retired Professor at Mimar Sinan Fine Art University

  • Veysel Dinler (Turkey)

Professor of law at Hitit University

  • Christian Bouchet (France)

Anthropologist, Former Politician and Antiwar Activist

  • Hacer Ansal (Turkey)

Professor of Sociology at Işık University, Expert on Social Theory and Gender

  • Denijal Jegić (Lebanon)

Professor of communication in the Department of Communication at Lebanese American University

  • Pawel Moscicki (Poland)

Professor at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Philosopher, Essayist, host of the Inny Swiat podcast

  • Vanessa Beeley (France)

Photographer and Independent Journalist on Middle Eastern issues based in Syria

  • Massoud Shadjareh (UK)

Chair of Islamic Human Rights Commission-London, holding consultative status at the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs

  • Zeki Kılıçaslan (Turkey)

Professor of chest diseases at Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine, Social Justice Advocate

  • Sandew Hira (Netherlands)

Founder of Decolonial International Network known for his Decolonial Theory, Director of International Institute for Scientific Research

  • Paul Larudee (USA)

Founder of the Free Gaza Movement and the Free Palestine Movement, Member of the International Solidarity Movement, co-speaker of the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla

  • Yvonne Ridley (UK)

Secretary General of European Muslim League, Candidate for Glasgow in 2026 Scottish Parliamentary Elections, Former President of the International Muslim Women’s Union

  • Konrad Rekas (Poland–Scotland)

Lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, Member of Polish YES for Scotland

  • James Perloff (USA)

Author, Researcher, and former Editor-In-Chief of The New American magazine

  • Lucien Cerise (France)

Author of Governing by Chaos, Antiwar activist and Geopolitical Analyst

  • Jürgen Cain Külbel (Germany)

Criminologist, Investigative Journalist, Author of a book on Israel’s role in assassination of Hariri

  • Carol Brouillet (USA)

Peace activist, co-founder of the Northern California 9-11 Truth Alliance, and Green Party candidate for the U.S. Congress in California (2006, 2008, 2012)

  1. Dogan Bermek (Turkey)

President of Alevi Philosophy Center Association, Former President of the Alavi Federation of Turkiye

  1. Gilles Munier (France)

Investigative Journalist and Secretary General of the Franco-Iraqi Friendships Association

  1. Rebecca Shoot (USA)

International lawyer, Co-Convener of Washington Working Group for the International Criminal Court and Co-Convener ImPact Coalition on Strengthening International Judicial Institutions

  1. Leonid Savin (Russia)

Chief editor of Geopolitika.ru (from 2008), founder and chief editor of Journal of Eurasian Affairs

  1. Rich Siegel (USA)

Pianist, songwriter, writer and peace activist, and 2015 Green Party political candidate in New Jersey

  1. Gordon Duff (USA)

Former UN Diplomat in Iraq, Vietnam War Marine

  1. Marion Sigaut (France)

Historian, Essayist, and Researcher on French history and political thought

  1. Caleb Maupin (USA)

Founder of Center for Political Innovation, Journalist

  1. Jacob Cohen (France)

Academic, Novelist and Antiwar Activist

  1. Ken O’keefe (USA–Ireland)

Former Marine and Gulf War veteran, antiwar activist

  1. Rainer Rupp (Germany)

Economist and Journalist

  1. Thomas Werlet (France)

Leader of Mouvement FRANCE RÉSISTANCE 

  1. Dragana Trifković (Serbia)

Director General of the Center for Geostrategic Studies &President of the Eurasian Media Forum

  1. Feroze Mithiborwala (India)

Columnist and Founder of India Iran Friendship Forum

  1. Imam Muhammad al-Asi (USA)

Former Imam of the Islamic Center of Washington, Research Fellow at the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

  1. Benedetto Ligorio (Italy)

Assistant Professor at the Department of philosophy of Sapienza University of Rome

  1. Rania Masri (USA)
    Co-Director of North Carolina Environmental Justice Network
  1. Haydeé García Bravo (Mexico)

Associate Researcher at Center of Interdisciplinarity Research in Science and Humanities, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)

  1. José Gandarilla Salgado (Mexico)

Senior Researcher at Center of Interdisciplinarity Research in Science and Humanities, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)

  1. Finian Cunningham (Ireland)

Author and Journalist at Strategic Culture Foundation

  1. Margherita Furlan (Italy)

Journalist and director of Casa Del Sole TV

  1. Eva Bartlett (CanadaUSA)

Independent journalist, war correspondent, and activist focusing on Middle East conflicts

  1. Teša Tešanović (Serbia)

Journalist and TV host, founder of Balkan Info

  1. Claude Janvier (France)

Writer, Essayist and Columnist

  1. Eric Walberg (Canada)

Geopolitical Expert and Author

  1. Valérie Bugault (France)

Jurist and geopolitical analyst; Jurist

  1. Adrián Salbuchi (Argentina)

Political Analyst and Writer

  1. Yvan Benedetti (France)

One of the prominent leaders of Yellow Vests Movement

  1. Yannick Sauveur (France)

Writer and Geopolitical analyst

  1. Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent (France)

Writer, political analyst, and international consultant, Head the Strategika think tank and the Polemos newsletter

  1. Arnaud Develay (France)

Political Consultant and International Legal Expert

  1. Michael Spath (USA)

Executive Director of Indiana Center for Middle East Peace

  1. Zhu Haozeng (China)

Editor in Chief of Haikou Xianjielun Cultural Media

  1. António Gomes Marques (Portugal)

Retired Banking Director, Essayist

  1. Haleh Niazmand (USA)

Professor of Art at Modesto Junior College, Conceptual Artist, Curator, and Art Critic

  1. Claude Timmerman (France)
    Biologist, statistician, and researcher in population genetics; Essayist, commentator of Boulevard Voltaire
  1. Hafsa Kara-Mustapha (UK)

Journalist and Author, Head of Global Operations African Legacy Foundation

  1. Ginette Hess Skandrani (France)

Antiwar activist and member of Parti des Verts (French Green party)

  1. Yacob Mahi (Belgium)

Theologian and Islamologist, Professor of Islamic Studies

  1. Adam Shamir (Sweden)

Writer, Journalist, and Political Commentator

  1. Jean-Loup Izambert (France)

Independent Investigative Journalist and Writer

  1. Zafar Bangash (Canada)

Director Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought in Toronto

  1. Imad Hamrouni (France)

Professor at Académie de Géopolitique de Paris, expert on Middle Eastern affairs

  1. Joe Iosbaker (USA)

Coordinator of the March on the Democratic National Convention 2024 to Stand With Palestine

  1. Richard Haley (UK)

Chair of Scotland Against Criminalising Communities

  1. David J. Reilly (USA)

Independent Journalist, Political Commentator, Former Candidate for Governor of Idaho in 2020

  1. Nasreen Methai (India)

Founding member of Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA); an NGO working on women’s rights

  1. Kim Petersen (USA)

Co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter

  1. Stefano Bonilauri (Italy)

Journalist and Director of Anteo Edizioni

  1. Tobias Pfennig (Germany)

Software Engineer and political activist

  1. Tony Gosling (UK)

Investigative journalist and political activist

  1. Zhang Shouliang (China)
    Deputy editor-in-chief of Haikou Xianjielun Cultural Media
  1. Steven Sahiounie (USA)
    Award Winning Journalist and chief editor of MidEastDiscourse
  1. Ümit Aktaş (Turkey)

Physician, specialist in herbal therapy and acupuncture

  1. Imran Mohd Rasid (Malaysia)

Executive Director of Citizens International

  1. Aly Bakkali (Belgium)

President of Partie Islam, antiwar activist

  1. Fatma Orgel (Turkey)

Physician at Esenler Clinic, antiwar activist

  1. Gurhan Ertur (Turkey)

Director of the NGO Citizen Initiative, antiwar activist

  1. Luca Arrighi (Italy)
    Logician and designer of deterministic governance architectures 

  2. Dave Cannon (UK)

Chair of Jewish Network for Palestine

  1. Fatma Akdokur (Turkey)

Theology Instructor, antiwar activist

  1. Houman Mortazavi (Canada)

Barrister and Solicitor, antiwar activist

  1. S.Q Massod (India)

Secretary of ASEEM, antiwar activist

  1. Richard Ray (USA)

Editor and Antiwar Activist

  1. Shabbir Ali Warsi (India)

Scholar and Antiwar Activist

  1. Abbas Ali (UK)

InMinds Human Rights Group

  1. Norma Hashim (Malaysia)

Treasurer of Viva Palestina Malaysia

  1. Saidi Nordine (Belgium)

Co-spokesperson of Bruxelles Pantheres

  1. Iqbal Jassat (South Africa)

Executive Member of Media Review Network

  1. Syed Farid Nizami (India)

Scholar and Antiwar Activist

  1. Asif Ali Zaidi (India)

Lawyer and Researcher, antiwar activist

  1. Kerem Ali (UK)

Spokesperson of Palestine Pulse

  1. Syed Mounis Abidi (India)

Human Rights Lawyer, antiwar activist

  1. Joe Lorincz (Australia)

Wentworth Falls NSW

  1. Mouhad Reghif (Belgium)

Co-spokesperson of Bruxelles Pantheres

 Signatories are signing in their individual capacities and affiliations are for identification purposes only.

Streaming Kelly Lecture on Iran War and Civilizational Threat

7 Apr

Watch Tonight’s Kelly Lecture by Prof. Richard Falk Live — Streaming Link Inside

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation<info@napf.org>

​Richard A. Falk​

 Dear Friends, The 21st Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future begins at 6:00 PM PT this evening. A livestream will be available for those who would like to join us virtually. Watch the lecture live here: https://youtube.com/live/iS45Yc25vT0?feature=share Professor Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, will address the legal, moral, and political challenges shaping humanity’s future in this critical moment in the history of our world. We hope you’ll tune in wherever you are. For those unable to do so, a recording will be available on our website shortly.  With gratitude,
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Team  www.wagingpeace.org 

Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Nuclear Age Peace Foundation , please click here.

RAF Kelly Lecture: Crimes Against Peace in the Nuclear Age

6 Apr

Santa Barbara News-Press

  • Stopping crimes against peace

Princeton law professor Richard Falk talks ahead of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Event

Avatar photoby Mark M. Whitehurst / Voice April 2, 2026

A person in a suit speaking into a microphone

AI-generated content may be incorrect.The 21st Frank K. Kelly Lecture, hosted by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, presented at the Music Academy of the West at 6 p.m. on April 7. Law professor Richard Falk will speak at the event. (Photo courtesy the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation)

Every person deserves peace, security, and freedom, values that underpin international law. A lecture on humanity’s future by Princeton professor of law Richard Falk will support and develop this idea as he explores the United States’ current disregard for prudence, law, morality, and its complicity in Israel’s genocidal and militaristic approach not only in relation to Occupied Palestine, but also to the Middle East as a region.

This talk will be the 21st Frank K. Kelly Lecture, hosted by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and presented at the Music Academy of the West at 6 p.m. on April 7.

Prof. Falk took time to be interviewed by VOICE Magazine, answering questions associated with his upcoming Frank K. Kelly Lecture. His responses have been edited for length.

VOICE: How have sovereignty and international law been impacted by the current attempts to justify regime change as part of a new world order?

Prof. Falk: In modern international law, as summarized in the UN Charter with respect to issues of peace and security, regime change by intervention is never legal unless authorized by the Security Council in the context of peace and security. Under normal circumstances, the UN is itself prohibited from intervention in the internal affairs of any sovereign state unless overridden by threats to international peace and security. Such a limitation was inserted in the Charter as a repudiation of the practice in the colonial era of invoking ‘humanitarian intervention’ to carry out the political agenda of European colonial powers and regional hegemons in states of the Global South.

VOICE: What is the relationship between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations?

Falk: The ICC is based on the Rome Statute that sets up the legal framework for tribunal operations, including its scope of authority, but as a treaty it is binding only on those states that agree to become Parties. This is unlike the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that is an organic part of the UN, and states by becoming Members of the UN automatically become parties to the Statute that frames ICJ undertakings.

This elementary distinction is an introduction to the operation of the two tribunals, which proceed along quite different lines.

The ICC was early discredited by seeming to concentrate its activities to violations of international criminal law on the basis of judicially approved recommendations of the Prosecutor to proceed with an investigation of alleged criminality on the part exclusively of leaders in African countries. Whereas the scope of ICJ activity is to resolve legal disputes among sovereign states, the ICC addresses crimes of individuals acting on behalf of the state.

Both judicial bodies are without direct enforcement capabilities, with the ICJ depending on the SC, and the ICC depending on the implementation of its criminal proceedings through the cooperation of those states that are parties to the Rome Statute, and can issue arrest warrants for accused individuals even if their nationality is of a state not party to the ICC, provided that the crimes prosecuted occurred on the territory of a party. In the highest profile case in ICC’s history, brought against top Israeli and Hamas leaders, crimes justifying the prosecution were alleged to be committed in Palestine, which despite being occupied, was considered a sovereign state.

The implementation of the Arrest Warrants calling for the arrests of PM Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Gallant have not been acted upon, including by parties to the Rome Statute, leaving implementation in a grey zone of voluntary law enforcement.

Both tribunals have performed  in accord with admirable professional standards of judicial practice in their several decisions since October 7, both provisionally in relation to alleged Israel violations of the Genocide Convention and as to the legality of Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian Territories (West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem) that began as a result of the outcome of the 1967 War.

VOICE:  Do you think the UN Security Council will refer recent acts of aggression by the US and Israel to the ICC? What would be the implications of this?

Santa Barbara County, in your inbox

Start your morning with DAYBREAK, our email newsletter bringing you the essential local stories you need to start your day.

Top of Form

SIGN UP

Bottom of Form

By clicking sign up, you are agreeing to our terms.

Falk: It is impossible to expect such a referral. We need to remember that the SC cannot act without the unanimous support of the five permanent members of the SC, three of whom are NATO members supportive of the aggression to varying degrees. And even if these governments were to be swayed by public opinion in their countries it is unrealistic to suppose that the US Government would vote in favor of such a referral.

As mentioned, the ICC is not institutionally part of the UN, and it is not clear that even if there was support from the P5 it would have any formal impact. It is possible to envision that the ICC Prosecutor might recommend to ICC judges that they authorize an investigation of the charges of aggression, and if found persuasive, that arrest warrants be issued for the respective heads of state, and possibly other officials or even officials of corporate entities.

As the experience of earlier arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant illustrate, respect for ICC arrest warrants is essentially voluntary and not likely to be implemented against leading figures of powerful countries. The ICC, unlike the ICJ, can only proceed against individuals and lacks jurisdiction to take formal legal action against governments, corporations, and financial institutions.

In sum, the ICC path to accountability is not promising. More constructive avenues to achieve some kind of legal assessment might result from the formation of a civil society or peoples’ tribunal. I served as President of the Gaza Tribunal that gathered evidence, presented expert and survivor testimonies and concluded its inquiries with a strong decision by a Jury of Conscience composed of respected political, cultural, and scholarly personalities. Smaller tribunals in Canada and the UK have critically examined allegations of complicity in the furtherance of Israel’s international crimes in Gaza.

VOICE: What are the reasons why the US, Israel, and Iran are not members of the ICC?

Falk: My response is no more than a speculation based on public postures. I think the basic reason is the awareness that their respective foreign policy positions are controversial from the perspective of international criminal law. These three governments for somewhat different reasons are not prepared to subject their strategic priorities or national security to legal or criminal scrutiny.

VOICE: How has the policing power of the UN evolved and what are the future prospects of this power?

Falk: From the time the UN was established until the present, the policing or enforcement capabilities of the Organization was made dependent on decisions of the Security Council, which gives only the five winners of World War II a right of veto, as prominently used by the US and its NATO allies during the Israel assault upon Gaza, to shield Israel from censure, law enforcement, and accountability.

It is again relevant to interpreting the outbreak of the present Iran War. Once again the political organs of the UN, the SC and General Assembly, have been essentially silent in the face of aggression, and the violation of the core norm of the UN Charter, prohibiting aggressive uses of force have been so far completely neutralized. And even the GA, which lacks enforcement or accountability authority, has lacked the political will to confront outright aggression. This unlawful start of the Iran War resembles what was called at the Nuremberg trials after World War II ‘Crimes against Peace.’

Voice: Would you share any suggestions for how our country or the individuals who read this interview should proceed to support Peace?

Falk: Let your conscience be your guide, as shaped by a knowledge of how ‘wars of choice’ as the New York Times described the present Iran War, so far causing death, suffering, and devastation to Iran and several of its neighbors. This leads to anti-American rage among people everywhere, causing bitter divisions even here. Even the New York Times referred to the Iran War as ‘the ultimate war of choice.’ I call it an unprovoked war of aggression that is likely to make even more stressed the internal situation of multiple hardships being endured by the Iranian people, and to spread disorder throughout the region, and beyond.

U.S. warmaking since World War II has produced few benefits and much grief and destruction. It is time to bring war under control before it dooms the future of humanity. This will only happen when enough people take action that overwhelms special interests and militarism that now shape our foreign policy.

Voice: Are there any precedents for the kind of changed needed to move forward?

Falk: When a situation arises where a state pursues internal and external against the will of the people, opposition in the form of nonviolent protest initiatives often can achieve goals related to peace and justice. This happened in the U.S. at the latter stages of the Vietnam War. Finally exerting enough pressure to produce a transition to peace for this country and an era of reconstruction for Vietnam. Another example is the surprising success of the anti-apartheid movement that was aided by nonviolent solidarity movements around the world including cultural and sports boycotts, divestment campaigns, and alienation in international relations.

The weight of these pressures brought an unexpected change of policy by the ruling South African white leadership that brought racism to an end, and a transition to a constitutional democracy, while far from perfect, is an inspiring improvement over apartheid or a bloody race war. Such a possibility exists for the American people at this time to end its participation in the Iran War, and at the same time adjust its relationship with Israel by reference to law and justice. Although we can know the future, we can know and act to achieve a future that will be shaped by values rather than by the strategic calculations of unaccountable bureaucrats. As many moral giants of our world have insisted upon we must dedicate themselves to ‘peace by peaceful means’ and not take refuge by silently crouching beneath the weight of state propaganda.

Professor Richard Falk is the Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2023. He has served as chair of Global Law, Faculty of Law, at Queen Mary University, London and co-Director of its Centre of Environmental Justice and Crime; Research Associate at the Orfalea Center of Global Studies at the UC Santa Barbara; and Fellow of the Tellus Institute. He directed the project on Global Climate Change, Human Security, and Democracy at UCSB and formerly was the director of the North American group in the World Order Models Project. Between 2008 and 2014, Falk served as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories. Falk is the author or editor of more than 75 books. In 2022, Professor Falk authored Protecting Human Rights in Occupied Palestine: Working Through the United Nations in collaboration with John Dugard and Michael Lynk. He is Senior Vice President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

This article originally appeared in Voice Magazine.

Flirting with Apocalyptic War in Iran

3 Apr

[Prefatory Note: This post is a revision of an article written for Il Manifesto in Italy two weeks ago. It doesn’t include reference to Trump’s surreal and morbid claim to have accomplished regime change in Iran by assassinating the Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Khamanei and some other leading figures. The Iranian government has not changed its orientation or structure, but merely replaced murdered leaders with leaders still alive.]

From almost all perspectives the ongoing war of aggression known as the ‘Iran War’ is one of the greatest international blunders in modern history, and far worse than this, poses the highest risks of stumbling into an apocalyptic warfare since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. This joint unprovoked attack on a country posing no threat, falsely rationalized after the fact by considerations of regional security and humanitarian benevolence, unleashed by Israel and the United States while the ghastly genocide in Gaza continues and spreads. Israel is rapidly extending its Gaza combat tactics to the West Bank and southern Lebanon while the world is distracted by the ongoing global ripple effects and potential escalating violence in the Iran War.

This lethal chain of events is further aggravated by Trump’s narcissist theatrics, a personalized and bewildering brand of pathologic gaslighting geopolitics that should frightens the sane among us by its clear preference for raising escalation risks to the rooftops rather than reversing course to avoid being demeaned as ‘a loser’ or ‘spineless’ in the face of Iranian resistance. Embarking on such a war represents a colossal breakdown of strategic intelligence that failed to anticipate Iran’s refusal to bow to such aggressive militarism. Iran’s formidable retaliatory capabilities seemed to have been ignored altogether as well as its collective readiness to absorb suffering and devastation rather give in to a second devastating onslaught by Israel and the United States after enduring the 12-day Iran War in June of 2025.  

Likely, one explanation for these miscalculations by the 2026 aggressors was a misinterpretation of the first Iran war, which Israel initiated on June 13, 2025, with finishing touches by U.S. in the form of major B-2 air strikes dropping huge bombs on Israel’s nuclear facilities twelve days later. Iran’s soft response was evidently attributed to its weakness as well as an inflated assessments of the damage done to Iran’s nuclear facilities, military sites, and leadership infrastructure. Less than a year later, underestimating Iran’s recovery and greatly improved missile capabilities this second Iran War was initiated. Iran’s internal unrest and protests weeks earlier stimulated by decades of sanctions and externally promoted in various ways, apparently made this an irresistible time to launch a second Iran War under a pragmatically populist Trump urging the Iranians to seize the occasion of the war ‘to take back their country,’ ‘regime change’ by another means.

This message from such a discredited source fared no better than barrage of missile and bombing attacks. This second Iran War initiated by the U.S., joined by Israel, was particularly perfidious considering that conflict-resolving negotiations were underway between Iran and the United States, situated in Oman whose national mediator voiced his public optimism that the parties were on the verge of a broad conflict-resolving agreement. Such a crafty misuses of diplomacy as a prelude to war rather than a genuine search for a peaceful alternative undoubtedly deepened Iran’s suspicion that ceasefire diplomacy is just a pause before the next attack. Trump said as much in his April 1st triumphalist speech on this second phase of an increasingly undisguised undertaking to keep attacking Iran as long as its government is perceived as hostile to the regional strategies of Israel and the United States.

Confusion reigns at present. Whether the war is on the verge of dangerous escalation or a diplomatic reversal of course remains clouded by inconsistent signals from Washington. Trump issues a 48-hour ultimatum demanding Iran’s surrender or experience the destruction of its energy infrastructure, prompting Iran to make counter-threats of the same nature but directed at the entire Gulf region. After which, Trump suspended the threats shortly after they were issued with the apparently fake explanations that strong talks toward reaching a peace agreement with Iran were underway and going well. Iran quickly contradicted Trump’s these upbeat comments and disclosed its own far-reaching demands for a durable future, which seemed far from conveying a readiness to submit to the will of its aggressors. Iran’s apparent position on how to end the war was clarified the by the public release of carefully phrased requirements for a peace deal by an individual described as a high public official. Iran’s position was summarized as follows: firm guarantees that there will be no future repetition of attacking Iran by Israel and the United States; the closure of American military bases in the region; compensation for the damage inflicted on Iran; an end of all warfare in the region; a new legal regime for the Stright of Hormuz; and finally, a call for the criminalization of journalism hostile to Iran. [as reported in Palestinian Chronicle, March 22, 2026].

Western media ignored this Iranian disclosure of its ambitious vision of a durable peace not only for Iran, but for the entire region. It also seemed almost equally dismissive of Trump’s latest about face, mostly interpreting it as a cynical gesture to bring down oil prices and renew the confidence of stock market traders. In this  regional setting Israel has continued with its campaign of regional violence despite incurring significant civilian casualties from missile strikes while the U.S. has kept deploying more and more ground troops closer to Iran.

A War of Aggression. Iran was attacked by the United States on February 28, 2026 without even the pretext of a plausible imminent threat to the national security of either Israel or the United States. On the contrary, the attack abruptly ended promising negotiations between the United States on its nuclear program, specifically on setting agreed limits on levels and amounts of enriched uranium production and stockpiles. This disruption of negotiations, followed an Israeli/US pattern previously displayed by Israel’s September 8, 2025 attack on the residence of Hamas negotiators in Qatar to discuss a U.S.-proposed ceasefire agreement on the future of Gaza. The timing of the Iran War is a more dramatic instance of a turn toward war and away from diplomacy while purporting to pursue conflict resolution goals, at least in the Middle East.

A Military and Political Failure. From any objective perspective the war has already proved an awkward military and political failure from the perspective of U.S. and Israel. Forgetting a repetitive lesson since the Vietnam War, as reinforced by subsequent experiences in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, clear military superiority wielded with destructive fury may still fail to produce political victory. Even Israel’s genocidal assault reducing Gaza to a wasteland did not result in achieving its prime objective announced on the eve of its assault, eliminating Hamas as a continuing source of resistance to Israel designs to subjugate the Palestine people. A clear secondary Israeli objective was to extend Israel’s territorial sovereignty over the river to the sea, thereby establishing Greater Israel, and in the process eliminating forever the Palestinian challenge. As with all forms of extreme addictiveness, these militarist phantasies are out of touch with the distinctive realities of. the contemporary world and with the agency of militarist geopolitics, a lesson that could have been learned from China’s dramatic rise in geopolitical status by relying on win/win economistic means.

In the setting of the Iran War the political failure of the undertaking has already been partially confirmed by the refusal of the European and Arab countries to heed Trump’s plea for NATO alliance naval help in opening of the Strait of Hormuz where 20% of the world’s internationally traded oil and gas pass through. As Ramzy Baroud has pointed out in a Palestinian Chronicle article published on March 22, this refusal to side with the aggressor does not express a moral or legal awakening by these governments, but rather reflects the pragmatic recognition that they have no incentive to be part of a failed undertaking that could produce an international disaster of even greater severity if the U.S. chooses to escalate rather than admit defeat and end their aggression.

The other sign of political defeat and miscalculation is the failure of internal opposition to the theocratic government of Iran to take the cue of this military attack to intensify, or at least renew their protest activities, with an expectation that attacks from without would result in the collapse of Islamic governance, paving the way for a second restoration of dynastic rule in Iran. The former Reza Shah’s son, also named Reza Shah, is waiting in the wings for this scenario to become realized. He has pledged his return to Iran to restore the dynasty of his father.as practiced by

Although some scattered protests have continued in Iran, the population as a whole has shown no disposition to take advantage of the war waged against its territorial integrity and political independence by the most powerful country in the world to mount their own struggle for reform. The idea that regime change in Iran might come about in the aftermath of widespread devastation, including the targeted assassination of the Supreme Leader deemed divinely blessed even by a significant proportion of Iranians that includes many opponents and reform-minded protesters is a further sign of the delusionary character of state propaganda in the attacking countries. Such a grim approach as practiced by the U.S. of decapitating the leadership of the adversary, and considering that a kind of political victory is to deprive any war of moral and political legitimacy, and more so for an unlawful war of aggression. The American attack on a girl’s elementary school in Minab, an atrocity killing over 1itima75, mainly children under 12 further alienated Iran’s civilian population. This has been a consensus view among respected independent external assessments of the motives of the attackers.

Israel’s role in the Iran War together with Gazafication of the West Bank and Lebanon has contributed to its steep downward spiral into the dark abyss inhabited by rogue states. The U.S. is suffered the fate of a declining and irresponsible hegemon, less feared and certainly less respected after this exhibition of incompetent and dehumanizing warmaking that is causing worldwide hardships, forcing layoffs, freezing of prices, inflation, and supply chain disruption not only of oil and gas but of many essentials of societal normalcy, including fertilizers. These international ripple effects have caused their most harm to the least developed countries and to the most vulnerable sectors of all societies, including that of the prosperous attacking countries.

Ignoring U.S./Iran History.

Beyond this dangerous impasse caused by gross miscalculation, denialism (claiming victory when the opposite is the real story, and the one worth pondering, a tale of ignoble defeat), and obscured to some extent by Trump and Netanyahu threatening to climb even higher on the precarious escalating ladder. This geopolitical adventurism ignores suppressed history lessons. The U.S. has misplayed its diplomatic cards at least three times in the past when dealing with Iran. The first was in 1953 when the CIA engineered a coup against the elected leader, Mohamed Mossadegh who was neither Islamist nor Communist, but an economic nationalist who had taken public control of Iran’s oil industry from exploitative foreign ownership by legal means, infuriating a powerful coterie of Western corporate investors. The 1953 outcome was the restoration of the dynastic rule of Pahlavi Dynasty headed by the autocratic Reza Shah, and the subsequent reorientation of the Iranian state to Western ideological and economistic values.

The second time was in the aftermath of the Islamic revolutionary movement that led to the Shah’s abdication from the throne in early 1979 and the establishment of a theocratic state under the leadership of its first Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Khomeini. At this early stage, the Islamic leadership sought accommodation and normalcy in its relations with the West, but the pro-Shah Iranian community in the U.S. largely opposed any American accommodation with Tehran. Its influence was bolstered by Israel’s determined resistance to an American acceptance of the movement that drove the Shah from power. These anti-theocratic forces were later further reinforced by influential domestic pro-Israeli neocon hawks favoring by way of their advocacy of a so-called ‘Clean Break’ strategy, the restructuring of the Middle East to ensure the security of Israel and integration in the markets of neoliberal globalization, lobbying for punitive sanctions against Iran until such a result was achieved.

We will never know what might have happened had the U.S. not puts all its geopolitical eggs in Israel’s basket, but if this ‘road not taken’ had been explored, these decades of political tensions and costly military confrontations with Iran might have been avoided. Indeed, in retrospect little was learned from Iran’s moderate restraint when attacked just last June. Moderation was wrongly construed as a show of weakness, as was the Iranian receptivity to negotiations. Instead, Israel and U.S. waited impatiently for an opportune time to start a more robust war, exaggerating the impetus of the internal economic populist anti-government movement in Iran. This recent protest rising war was attributed to Iran’s alleged incompetence and corruption. It seems to have been misconstrued by Western propaganda designed to make U.S./Israel intervention appear humanitarian and liberating. As expected, this perception was promoted without considering the impact of sanctions designed to bring Iran to its knees by strangling the wellbeing of the population. abetted over the years by Israeli and US tactics of assassinations, destabilizing covert operations and alarmist propaganda about Iran’s nuclear programs (while altogether ignoring the relevance of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and aggressive war-threatening propaganda).

The third occasion was when the U.S. ended conflict-resolving negotiations with missiles and bombs not out of frustration, but in reaction to their evident promise of success. Again, Iran showed a willingness to negotiate, reinforcing frequent assertions by its own Supreme Leader of a principled rejection of the production of nuclear weapon, much less its use. Iran has reinforced this unilateral declaration with a public willingness to agree to a formal internationally monitored commitment along the same lines, or better by far reaching an agreement to establish a mandatory nuclear free zone throughout the entire region, which in the past Israel has as would be expected, ignored all such peaceably achieved denuclearizing initiatives.

But denuclearizing the region was never meant to be, at least up to now. As with past and present conflicts in the region, Israel has again twisted Big Brother’s arm so hard as to embark upon this failing warmaking project. Awkwardly, the American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, admitted as much when he acknowledged that the U.S. launched the war to avoid what Washington considered a worse outcome if the U.S. had deferred acting until after Israel started the war, and lost political control over the military operations. Interestingly, Rubio never specified what he meant by such a comment, and has since walked it back out of existence.

No Exit? Or Safe Exit

Two images: A major course correction after mission failure, hidden by distraction or a continued ascent of the escalation raising risks of apocalyptic warfare. Trump’s diplomacy has been driven by the zigzags of his transactional narcissism often couled with personal enrichment schemes. This second Iran War already suggests that the Trumpist slogan Making America Decline Everyday (MADE) is far more descriptive of reality than the official marketing claim of Make America Great Again (MAGA). Even such a modification is too focused on the United States, overlooking the deadly global ripple effects of miscalculations made at the behest of the Trump/Netanyahu partnership, with even worse on the road ahead unless they quickly change course, accepting a ‘peace without honor’ as the least bad option.

At this time tensions and fears coexist with uncertainty as to whether a durable peace or a menacing escalation is the next stage in this latest Middle East war that should never have happened.  

The media shift from questioning a war started in violation of international law and responsible statecraft to a focus on whether it is succeeding or failing is disquieting. It has made the discussion turning on issues of winning or losing rather than the underlying criminality of aggressive war, what the judges at Nuremberg had declared the ultimate war crime, the Crime Against Peace.

Lending respectability to the idea of ‘wars of choice’ as was done at the outset of the Iran War is a subversive notion earlier invoked to justify the Iraq War pf 2003. It is time for political leaders and opinion column journalists to learn that questions of war and peace should never be situated with in a realm of choice, as if pricing vegetables at a supermarket.

An Ode to ‘No Kings’ Royalism

26 Mar

An Ode to ‘No Kings’ Royalism

as if restless

a crown prince             

impatient

                                                      to catch a crown

                                                                                                            falling from heaven

the darkest miracle

                  it lands upright

on his crooked head

                                                      Not accidentally

                                                      Nor dynastically

                                                      Not benevolently

                                                      transactionally

the American way

                  stealth with wealth

                                    gangsterism as needed

                                                      wars here and there

billionaires ready      

on call day or night

                             upending history

                                                      law morality

an untold part

of the national story

                                    so far

not for long

a white Christian Confederacy

reborn evangelically

in a goldleaf palace

                                    to torment what remains

a thorn in the soul

of the nation

                                    too long dormant

                                                      its luck run amok                                          

while the nightmare lasts

why not bury

the American Revolution

                  the Declaration Independence

                                                                        as charred embers

                                                                                          and be done

                                                                                                            with betrayals

it is time

it is time for this

                  maybe too late

                                    if yet once more

 fortunate

restore the worst

                                    renounce the best    

                                                      in ceremonies

                                                                        of erotic malevolence

                                                                                          on remote islands

                                                      keep the pomp

                                                                        hide the circumstance

                                                                                          at gala state dinners

                                                                                                            honoring the criminal class

bathed for dinner

                  in dirty water

                                    before being dressed

                                                      by a No Kings valet

seeking bread and circuses

                  as never before

                                    to blur the sunset glare

                                                      of broken promises

                                                                        cascades of lies

hiding unspeakable

                  abuse wherever

                                    young girls caught

yet twinned to a demonic urge

                  to ascend a golden throne

                                    to repeat and repeat

                                                      these lyric words

                                                                        l’état est moi

guests welcome

                  to bow and scrape

                                    allowed to pet

                                                      the royal hounds

we have our first king

                  as yet uncrowned

already bejeweled

                                                      raging against those

                                                                        more virtuous

the homeless fugitives

                  of market ethics

silencing songbirds

                                                      embers of hate

on moonlit nights

                  wildfires of love

                                    spread to the castle

                                                      white ashes remain

welcome a zombie royalty

                  of a dying kingdom

                        of a decadent king

                                    legacies of fake pageantry

                                                      now survives as memory

                                                                        of skeletons of residues

this is our country

                  Now hosting kings

ascend

imported thrones

                                    the recurring dream

                                                      that keeps threatening

                                                                        to become real

the final crime

stealth and wealth

                                                                        beneath a golden dome

                                                                                          as royal than

a Disney World joy ride

No need for coronations

                  or dynastic entitlements

                                    in the MAGA world

enough to glow

         in the pale dusk

                    cast by reigning

                                    broligarchs

occupying once free cities

       with ICE pepper spray

                  swag and swagger

                           stiff salutes

  sly smiles of Arab sheiks

farewell to those nightmares

                  of freedom and equality

                                    diversity equity inclusion

                                                      remembering forgetting

it is about time                                                                                                       

once proud citizens

                                    bend stiff knees

becoming the America of our forefathers

no longer thieves of native American land

no longer high minded slaveholding America

the old America is reborn

the sun no longer rises

                  over deserts of the spirit

                                                      darkness prevails

                                                                        glimmers of light

                                                                                          here and there

                                                                                                            signposts of hope

                                                      awaiting cremations

                                                                        of evil before

                                                                                          the next dusk

awaiting the next dawn

                  new episodes of hope

                                    as America struggles

                                                      with devouring ghosts

of past of present

                  while some of us

shout venceremos

                  trapped in echo chambers

OF LOVE AND STRUGGLE

Richard Falk

Santa Barbara, California and Yalikavak, Turkey (2025-26)

The Global Crisis Facing Humanity: Diverse Views

11 Mar

Conversation opened. 1 unread message.


Skip to content
Using University of California, Santa Barbara Mail with screen readers

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

1 of 171,541

WEBINAR

External

Inbox

International Movement for a JUST World <justorg@just-international.org>  Unsubscribe8:30 PM (17 minutes ago)
to falk
­   ­   A poster for a conference

AI-generated content may be incorrect.      Humanity on the Brink: A Global Conversation

The rapidly escalating conflict involving Israel, the United States and Iran is raising fears of a wider regional war with global consequences. Civilian infrastructure has been struck, neighbouring countries are increasingly affected, international air travel has been disrupted, and global energy markets are reacting to the uncertainty. Is this the continuation of decades of geopolitical hostility?

Is it part of a struggle to maintain global supremacy?
Or does it reflect the emergence of a new world order shaped by the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia? To explore these urgent questions, SHAPE (Serving Humanity and Planet Earth) and JUST – International Movement for a Just World invite you to a global webinar featuring leading public intellectuals: • Professor Richard Falk
• Professor Joseph Camilleri
• Dr Chandra Muzaffar Respondent: Helena Cobban Their presentations will be followed by an open Q&A with participants from around the world. 📅 Sunday, 15 March 2026 Global Time Zones
Los Angeles – 6:30 AM
New York – 9:30 AM
London – 1:30 PM
Cairo – 3:30 PM
Tehran – 5:00 PM
New Delhi – 7:00 PM
Jakarta – 8:30 PM
Kuala Lumpur – 9:30 PM
Tokyo – 10:30 PM
Melbourne – 12:30 AM (Monday) 📌 Register via the QR code in the poster Join scholars, analysts and concerned citizens from across the world for this timely discussion.

Register here. (Zoom meeting)
    ­   ­   A blue and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect. ­ A white x on a black background

AI-generated content may be incorrect. ­ A blue and white logo

AI-generated content may be incorrect. ­ A red and white play button

AI-generated content may be incorrect.   This email was sent to falk@global.ucsb.eduYou received this email because you are registered with International Movement for a Just World
  Unsubscribe here   © 2024 International Movement for a Just World

Humanity at the Brink, Program, Sunday March 15, 2026

9 Mar
Humanity on the Brink-PROGRAM, March 15, 2026

War and Upheaval in the Middle East and Beyond: You are invited to a special webinar Sunday 15 March

Humanity on the Brink

You are invited to an urgently convened webinar this Sunday 15 March.

The aim: to set the barbarism unfolding in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran within a regional and global context.

Register here

Speakers: Prof Richard Falk, Prof Joseph Camilleri, Dr Chandra Muzaffar

In the space of a few days Israeli and US attacks on Iranian soil and the killing of the Supreme Leader have unleashed senseless destruction, including deadly attacks on schools and hospitals, engulfed neighbouring countries, brought air travel to a standstill and caused mayhem on energy markets.

And this is just the beginning of a war that Trump says could last several weeks, perhaps longer. It is a war long in the making. How are we to make sense of it?

Is it the continuation of the unrelenting hostility of successive US administrations towards the present Iranian regime, indeed any Iranian government that seeks to resist US strategic and economic interests? Is it further evidence of Samuel Huntington’s foreshadowed clash of civilizations’? Or just another attempt to reverse America’s eroding supremacy on the global stage? Perhaps, it is an attempt to establish a large and secure sphere of influence in the face of China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence.

SHAPE Co-Conveners and leading public intellectuals, Professor Richard Falk, Professor Joseph Camilleri and Dr Chandra Muzaffar have been considering these questions at length. At the webinar they will engage in a probing analysis of the underlying causes and explores possible responses. Their presentations will be followed by two insightful respondents, and Q&A.

Date: Sunday 15 March   

Time: LA 6:30 am    New York 9:30 am    London 1:30 pm   Cairo 3.30 pm   KL 9:30 pm 

Melbourne 0.30 am (Monday).

The webinar is hosted by SHAPE (Serving Humanity and Planet Earth) and JUST (International Movement for a Just World). Other sponsoring groups and further program details to be confirmed shortly.

Please alert others in your network. Registration Essential

With our best wishes.

On behalf of SHAPE Coordinating Committee

Email: savinghumanityandplanetearth@gmail.com

Website https://www.theshapeproject.com/

Decoding Trump’s Deadly Geopolitics

4 Mar

Trump’s Perverse Dualism: Contra Benevolent Internationalism and Pro Geopolitical Internationalism

[Prefatory Note: I write with a sense of urgency, a time when the human species is in great peril. The Second Iran War moves us closer to an abyss of unknowable depth. It is a time when the peoples of the world are our best hope, with neither the geopolitical actors, nor the UN, nor respect for law, morality, and decency are capable of resolving the multi dimensional global crisis and promoting a justife-driven future for humanity. The alternative to struggle is depaor. As the future is unknowable we owe to those we love and all humanity to carry bright torches that light the way forward.}

An Unlawful War

On February 28 Trump embarked on a war against Iran, deliberating targeting its Supreme Leader, a girls school and calling openly for regime change. This aggression has been sanitized as a ‘war of choice’ in the mainstream press as if such an option exists in the domain of international law. This sugar-coating language seeks to divert attention from the massive breach in international law.  The UN Charter couldn’t be clearer. Its core and most vital norm is set forth in Article 2(4), which without any qualification prohibits all uses of international force except in the exercise of self-defense against a prior armed attack.

In shallow efforts to legal justifications, pro-war hawks have called this unprovoked attack on Iran amid negotiations to end the threat of war ‘a war against Iranian terrorism,’ ‘a preventive war against an imminent Iranian threat to U.S. national security,’ and ‘a regime-changing humanitarian intervention.’ These are polemical talking points but not serious attempts to offer a rationale that remotely attaches a reputable argument as to the ‘legality’ of recourse to war.

Somehow Trump gave the game away when he declared that he supports international law so long as he is the final arbiter of what is lawful or not. The precedent being set by the U.S. in launching this war of aggression against Iran will long live in infamy, and not only for its victims, but for any hope of a sane, peaceful, law-abiding future for international relations. The Iran War coming after the Venezuelan military operation is a further sign that America’s support for internationalism has been replaced by a 21st century variant of imperial geopolitics.

Withdrawing from Benevolent Internationalism

I

In the first week of the New Year the White House released a largely neglected memorandum announcing U.S. withdrawal from 66 ‘international organizations’, 31 of which are situated within the UN System. Another 35 were independent of the UN dedicated to the functional tasks of global scope. In addition to ending participation, this withdrawal also means no more U.S. funding. This would disastrously limit the capabilities and performances of these organizations, whose work is vital in so many areas of international life. Such an initiative, although unprecedented, should come as no surprise. Donald Trump has never made a secret of his hostility to internationally cooperative arrangements established to address practical global concerns, whether it be climate change, disease control, cultural heritage, economic development, human rights, enforcing piracy on international waters and most of all, the management of global security and international conflicts.

The White House alleged that these organizations “operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity or sovereignty.” An accompanying memo elaborated on “bringing to an end..American taxpayer funding” and how such actions contributing to the wider Trump effort to “restore American sovereignty.” These misleading abstractions hide the true motivation behind this regressive series of moves.

The veil of deception surrounding this deliberately dramatic move against what might be called ‘global wokism,’ (the liberal extensions of domestic commitments to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ + reliance on cooperative international arrangements + support for the UN and human rights).  The Orwellian double-speak of the Trump Memorandum was somewhat clarified in a statement issued on the same day by the ever-dutiful Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. It had this candid heading, “Withdrawal from Wasteful, Ineffective, or Harmful International Organizations.” In the text Rubio elaborates that these organizations favor global governance and are “often dominated by progressive ideology and detached from national interests.” In other words, this anti-internationalism should not be sugarcoated as a revival of outmoded traditional U.S. isolationism. It is a matter of clearing the path that impedes Trump’s brand of narcissistic imperialism as set forth in the National Strategy of the United States, which was released in November 2025.

The concluding words from Rubio also express the Trump ethos that this wholesale withdrawal from internationalism is an unmistakable message that the US Government rejects any international entanglement that requires funding or dilution of American sovereignty:

“We will not continue expending resources, diplomatic capital, and the legitimizing weight of our participation in institutions that are irrelevant to or in conflict with our interests. We reject inertia and ideology in favor of prudence and purpose. We seek cooperation where it serves our people and will stand firm where it does not.”

Trump’s Geopolitical Internationalism

What the Trump leadership does not tell the world is that the U.S. has its own preferred manner of dealing with threats to its economic and political interests as amply illustrated by the recent Venezuela military intervention, the threats to unleash an unprovoked military aggression against Iran, and the Greenland gambit best interpreted as a menacing new form of territorial piracy.

In effect, these MAGA moves are rationalized as a repudiation of the woke liberal ‘global leadership’ style of American foreign policy that exerted influence by its participation in and funding of bipartisan internationalism. The argument, not without certain merits, is that the Obama/Biden geopolitics should not be romanticized as global benevolence, the virtues of ‘a rule-governed international order,’ or an embrace of fiscal conservatism. In this spirit it is responsible to recall that U.S. pre-Trump military spending was ten times greater than the next ten states, and devoted in large part to maintaining U.S. global dominance rather than national security as traditionally understood. To be sure, it is a glaring example of MAGA hypocrisy exposed by Trump’s seeking and obtaining from Congress a 50% increase in the US peacetime military appropriation, to a staggering total of $1.5 trillion.

A considerable amount of the bloated military budget will be used to pay the high maintenance costs of 850 military bases all over the world, a posture hardly consistent with the Trump claim to reduce American foreign policy ambitions to their earlier hemispheric dimensions, which itself overlooked U.S. colonizing adventures in the Pacific region that peaked at the end of the 19th century. The smaller pre-Trump military budgets proved sufficient to finance regime changing interventions and costly failed state-building and market-oriented undertakings most visibly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Trump predecessor Joe Biden’s  Cold War nostalgia was not restrained by military budget constraints. He most revealingly chose war rather than diplomacy in the context of the Russian attack on Ukraine, and like Trump could find even less to criticize in Netanyahu’s genocidal approach to Gaza.

Trump’s refusal to expend US dollars to fund cooperative approaches to global issues, whether involving bettering economic and social conditions of others or working to control disease, food security and climate in ways that benefit the U.S. exhibits an extremely shortsighted and dysfunctional view of national interests. True such international activities go against Trump’s electoral pledge to contract the role of the state or to curtail the dangerously expanding national debt and certainly not to reduce militarist geopolitics. While defunding internationalism the Trump military budget is the highest instance ever of peacetime military spending. It can neither be justified by national security nor of benefit to the lives of the great majority of Americans.

As the National Security Strategy released by the White House in November 2025 explained, American foreign policy would henceforth reembrace the discarded Monroe Doctrine as expanded by the addition of the Trump Corollary. This bundle of initiatives was immediately dubbed the Donroe Doctrine, giving Trump’s brand of narcissistic geopolitics its due. This formal statement served as a clumsy doctrinal prelude to the attack on Venezuela as well as added threats directed at Cuba and Colombia to expect similar treatment if they don’t do what Washington demands. Even more radical in its implications were strong assertions that non-hemispheric actors were expected to refrain in the future from economic and infrastructure involvements in Latin America. Obviously, this was a thinly veiled warning to China to downsize, if not eliminate, its extensive investment and trade relations throughout Latin America. The message to non-hemispheric actors was henceforth to avoid economic, social, and political Latin involvements or else expect hostile pushback from Washington’s commitment to ‘hemispheric preeminence.’ Time will tell whether this grandiose claim of control over Latin America will spark a new cycle of national resistance to such a brazen contraction of the right of self-determination of these countries as conferred by Article I of the Human Rights Covenant of Political Civil Rights. It is also remains to be seen how China and other countries will respond to this outright interference with their freedom to engage in peaceful relations with Latin America.

This mass withdrawal from international cooperative problem-solving also is a virtual admission in this Trump Era that the U.S. has opted for ‘transactionalism’ and post-colonial imperialism. The most salient feature of this tectonic shift away from Franklin Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy in Latin America as brazenly announced to the world, and especially to the Hemisphere, including more shockingly to Canada, is that the U.S. is giving priority to its strategic ambitions free from discarded liberal pretenses of respect for international law and the United Nations. It seems to be telling the world that its only guide when it comes to foreign policy in the future will be the warped and personalist amorality of Donald Trump. In the future, Latin America can expect to be treated as an exclusive U.S.  ‘sphere of influence,’ perhaps more accurately known as ‘a sphere of dominance.’ If such is the case, the closest recent resemblance is to the Soviet relationship to Eastern Europe during the Cold War.

A Second Look at U.S. Withdrawal from Internationalism and Pre-Trump Resistance to Latin Economic Nationalism

In this sense the withdrawal from the 66 organizations is a gigantic step away from the U.S. engagement with the liberal approach that served as a bipartisan guide to American foreign policy and the projection of its blend of hard and soft power ever since 1945. The previous posture of American foreign policy avoided the arrogant Trumpian language of ‘preeminence,’ adopting as an alternative approach to the bipartisan post-Cold War euphemistic language of ‘global leadership.’  This earlier terminology also did not play by the rules of respect for the sovereign rights of states. It too was guilty of geopolitical disregard of legal constraints when it served strategic national interests. It resorted to regime change by covert interventions throughout the Cold War on behalf of its free market ideology and in opposition to economic nationalism by elected leaders or in the aftermath of popular revolution. This pattern of covert intervention in Guatemala in 1954 generated and orchestrated A coup against a democratically elected government that was alleged to have Communist leanings, and more concretely threatened the interests of United Fruit Company, nationalizing some unused land owned by this powerful corporate investor.

This pattern of a more overt justification for promoting regime change that combined an ideological rationale with underlying hostility to economic nationalism shaped the U.S. response to the Cuban Revolution a few years later. The U.S relied for many years on harsh economic sanctions while lending mar support to counterrevolutionary Cuban exile proxies in a series of failed attempts to duplicate its earlier success in Guatemala. Castro’s leadership in Cuba was delegitimized by liberal American leaders at the time as ‘incompatible’ with ideals and values of the hemisphere yet seemed more directly motivated by a toxic opposition to economic nationalism taking the principal form of nationalizing Cuba’s sugar industry by a mixture of hardline foreign policy hawks and coup-minded Cuban exiles. In a shameful continuing display of heartless foreign policy annual one-sided votes in the UN General Assembly favor ending sanctions against Cuba that have persisted for more that 60 years after the Castro ascent to power, causing severe economic hardship for the population.

The U.S. also lent covert encouragement to the 1973 anti-Allende Pinochet coup in Chile. It also carried out in 1989 a lawless intervention in Panama centering on the kidnapping of the de facto head of state Manuel Noriega and forcibly bringing him to the US to face criminal charges of drug trafficking. The self-serving code name for the intervention was Operation Just Cause officially defended as needed for the protection of U.S. economic interests, enforcement of drug trafficking, and for the security of the Panama Canal.

These were peculiar ways of expressing neighborly good will, to say the least, covertly carried out or ideologically asserted as elements of Cold War ‘containment’ geopolitics. This anti-communist veneer masked accompanying economic motivations to crush Latin nationalism and thereby promote the interests of US corporations to uphold the security of private sector investments that had long exploited Latin resources.  This pre-Trump strategic militarism was never limited to the Western Hemisphere as many American regime changing and state-building ventures were carried out in Asia and the Middle East.  The arc of US interventionism after 1945 stretches from the CIA engineered overthrow in 1953 of Mossadegh’s democratically elected government in Iran and its replacement by the authoritarian Pahlavi Dynasty to the Venezuelan undertaking in 2026. In both cases the common strategic stakes were to ensure that the vast oil reserves of these two countries were managed for profit by U.S. corporate energy giants.

Before Trump US foreign aid, support of the UN, and assorted initiatives such as the Peace Corps were in fact idealistic features of American foreign policy. Yet all along such policies had a hybrid character. They served also as PR ploys to pursue covertly the warrior and economistic sides of U.S. ‘global leadership,’ that is, covert means to prevent countries in the non-Western world from moving toward either socialism or economic nationalism. Unlike the Monroe Doctrine Era, which was preoccupied with resisting European intervention, the Cold War period and its aftermath represented a geopolitical reset that was rooted in Atlanticism, pitting the West against the non-West in alliance with Europe, as given salient expression in the NATO alliance.

This alliance originated as a collective defense arrangement designed to deter alleged Soviet expansionist ambitions toward Europe but revealingly has limped along for more than three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was its original justifying rationale. It should not be overlooked that principally the main NATO members after 1993 joined in their complicity toward Israel’s genocidal policies in Occupied Palestine. This was convincing testimony that the Atlanticist coalition that existed during the Cold War broadened its agenda to encompass Afghanistan and Israel/Palestine, redesigning containment to validate the post-Soviet civilizational containment of Islam. Such policies fulfilled Samuel Huntington’s prophetic expectations that the Soviet collapse would produce a ‘clash of civilizations’ rather than ‘an end of history.’

Beyond Hemispheric Preeminence

Atlanticism is currently being redefined by Trump as okay so long as it submits to his efforts to control coercively ongoing confrontations with the non-West shifting their ideational locus from Communism to Islam, with Iran currently in the U.S. gunsights. As mentioned, the distinctive features of Trump’s overtly nihilistic geopolitics, despite its declared intentions, will not be confined to the Western Hemisphere. As metaphor, and sign of political pathology, Trump’s absurd fantasy that if the Bureau of Peace administering Gaza is ‘successful,’ whatever that might come to mean, it will emerge as the peace-building center of yet another ‘new international order.’ In that event, the UN will be cast aside as weak, wasteful, and ineffectual, a relic of the old order that will be replaced by the strong, efficient, and effective Bureau of Peace as administered from Washington. This outlandish project can be understood as an institutional equivalent to Trump’s anger that he was robbed of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize that he alone richly deserved.

Looked upon more objectively, if a Nobel War Prize existed, Trump would surely deserve to be the leading candidate, and likely recipient.

Where is Trump’s Foreign Policy Headed?

In effect, Trump’s anti-internationalism should be reinterpreted. The U.S. is certainly retreating these days from the Atlanticist neoliberal globalist model of world order. This disappoints and worries those who continue to value the U.S. global leadership role, however blurry its nature, as the only feasible alternative to chaos, economic crisis, and Western decline. In contrast, what Trump seems to be now proposing is undisguised American unipolarity as qualified by transactional calculations of national advantage. This is the message to Europeans as evident in the leveraging of tariffs as a policy instruments to punish and reward, most recently softened somewhat by Rubio’s ‘breadcrumb diplomacy’ speech that seemed to delight the European audience attending the Munich Security Conference in mid-February. Rubio’s well-chosen words were received as reassurance that after all Europe would not be cut loose to fend for itself and could still rely on partnering with the U.S. so long as it let Trump run the show. The standing ovation given to Rubio at the end of his speech seem best understood as an unexpectedly servile display of fealty by the leadership of Europe to U.S. global imperialism

My suspicion is that, despite such appearances to the contrary, the Trump worldview might be slouching toward a ‘beautiful’ geopolitical bargain with America’s two geopolitical rivals: China and Russia. Its enactment would involve enlarged spheres of influence reciprocally accepted, and a trilateral management of global security. The UN would be diminished, if not relegated to the status of serving minor functional issues, a kind of ‘petty internationalism’ with tight budgetary constraints. It would be naïve to suppose that such a world order arrangement would benefit the majority of the world’s peoples or address the global public good as specified in general terms by the Preamble of the UN Charter, but we should all know by now that these goals were never endorsed by Trump.

A preferable alternative architecture for a new order exists but is hampered by the inter-civilizational rivalries now flourishing to block suitable attention to the agenda of benign internationalism focusing on nuclear weaponry, climate change, xenophobia, developmental equity, racism, human rights, fashioning regulatory frameworks for weapons, AI, robotics. Such a future is also treated as irrelevant by the ‘political realists’ who wield influence in the inner sanctums of the reigning geopolitical actors.  Such thinking, however outmoded, continues to dominate the foreign policy elites of almost all major countries undermining any present prospects for generating a new world order animated by promoting the global public good. The most that can be hoped for in the near future is a more prudent and responsible realism that becomes sensitive to the limitations of militarist geopolitics. Thus, adaptation to the changing global setting is confined to rearrangements of ill-fitting and often antagonistic ‘parts’ rather than finally affirming the politics of the planet as an organic ‘whole,’ which seems alone capable of preserving a humane and resilient future.

The Epstein Entrapment Network: revelations of crime and the predatory erotic lives of the rich and powerful

27 Feb


[Preliminary Note: Responses to Qs addressed to me by a Turkish journalist, Murat Sofuoğlu, affiliated with TRT World. My responses have been modified.]

  1. What do Epstein’s ties with the high and mighty say about Western ‘elite’ structures?

These ties reveal networks of power and influence that has long been shielded from legal accountability, and even moral scrutiny. Epstein’s network of friends and associates gives to the wider public some sense of the lure of decadence with regard to sexual gratification. After Epstein’s first conviction of criminal abuse revealed in graphic detail in the batch of documents so far released. The dimensions of predatory sexuality, victimizing young women and old men, are convincingly confirmed in a documentary film titled Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich. The film also reveals a total absence of empathy for the helpless victims of these unlawful and despicable forms of sexual gratification with teen-age innocent girls drawn by money and deception from poor and vulnerable families. Exposure to these patterns of behavior by those who sit comfortably atop skyscrapers of corporate, financial, and political power influence enjoy an almost automatic entitlement to back alleys of collective narcissism apparently treated as if normal, an ethos that appears common among economic and political elites. Even when the shielding fails, as it did in the Palm Beach Epstein operation of his sanctuary for upper class pedophile. It was only the uncommonly conscientious investigations of the high and mighty that local law enforcement and dutiful police officials built a criminal case against Epstein. Even then the wheels of justice barely turned. Rather than the right to mount a defense during ‘a day in court’ such gilded perpetrators are generally able to intimidate, bribe, and threaten those representing the state as prosecutors and judges face hurdles that evidence alone cannot overcome. One lesson to be learned is that money and class often speak louder than law in such high-profile situations, even in the United States where the rule of law is sanctified in public discourse.

In an interesting presumably coincidental preview of the Epstein saga was the mainstream movie, Eyes Wide Shut,  starring Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise illustrating a tamer more religiously framed hideaway for rich and powerful sexual predators. Significantly, the sexually abused women were adults, compensated as if prostitutes, and without any political linked agenda as underlying Epstein’s habitual escapades on his provate Caribbean island and New York and Palm Beach mansions. Yet a suggestive similarity is the coercive suppression of any divulgence of such goings on in public space. Whereas Epstein equipped his various homes with sophisticated surveillance systems to ensure confidentiality by blackmail evidence to disgrace any informer or insider, the film relied on outright thuggery as threat and violence as needed. Confidentiality was achieved by keeping the guest list to a trusted coterie of carefully vetted rich and powerful had every social and material incentive to keep the events securely under wraps.  

2. Why do so many rich and powerful people need underage girls for their sexual satisfaction? What does this say about these powerful people?

As suggested, it is less the illicit need than a carefree demonstration of impunity for what occurs in the collective privacy and confidentiality provided by Epstein’s supposedly secure and luxurious playgrounds. It comes to an abrupt end at the undisclosed cost of surveillance, which created a different set of vulnerabilities to blackmail than the risks of being exposed held accountable for the criminal exploitation of underage girls, who often are scarred for life by the experiences of pleasuring older men, and have no off ramp by way of resignation from high visibility career positions. Epstein’s fastidious management pf the predatory sexual behavior of guests, as is now well-established. was monitored by a sophisticated network of cameras apparently installed and even managed by Mossad agents. In effect, a punitive system to safeguard privacy and confidentiality, perhaps further reinforced by threats of physical retaliation to anyone daring to expose linkages between sexual gratification oblivious to law with the exertion of political influence among the rich and powerful augmenting Israel’s leverage in the United States. As yet, there is no reliable information on whether Epstein’s extraordinary wealth was owed in part to these Israeli ties, but the frequency with his interactions with the former Israel Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, is to say the least, suggestive of a principal/agent relationship.

3. Does this show something is profoundly wrong in Western political and financial power networks?

More investigative work is needed to disclose whether there are equivalent non-Western outlets for the sexual appetites and political maneuvers of the rich and powerful. In one sense, Epstein’s files do not indict the West as such. It seems primarily an American class phenomenon, with exceptions made for such transnational Western elite public figures as Prince Andrew and Ehud Barak, Israel’s former Prime Minister, and unlikely prominent intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Stephen Pinker, Alan Dershowitz, and even Stephen Hawkins whose associations did not necessarily involve participation or even knowledge of the lurid sides of what I call Epstein’s entrapment network. The participation by Americans was more salient than the involvement of Europeans, and certainly than non-Western upper echelons. This is tentatively confirmed by the contents of some leaked and unredacted files detailing the multiple, as yet unspecified involvements of the Epstein network with such eminent public figures as Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.


4. How do many ordinary people, who want to have a quiet family life with their partners and kids, perceive Epstein’s links with big politicians and rich people?

I suspect there is great diversity of response, although the public majority culture is portrayed by the media as one of moral outrage. In a few high-profile instances, the disclosures to date have resulted in some prominent resignations and disavowals by such academic celebrities, as the former Harvard President, Larry Summers, and the wild-eyed ultra-Zionist controversial professor and lawyer for controversial criminal defendants, Alan Dershowitz, and by corporate billionaires and celebrity lawyers. It appears that those who identify as Republicans overwhelmingly are in denial or minimize the engagement, especially of Trump with the Epstein phenomenon. This minimization is reinforced by the selective release and redaction of files that might incriminate Trump or MAGA adherents. So far there has been a bureaucratic coverup that has limited the impact of the release of what should be in political culture that still upheld the rule of law on ‘ordinary people’ as shaped by partisan party politics, with Democrats far more appalled than either Independents or Republicans.

Epstein was an unusual figure for such a dark role, harboring seemingly genuine interests in higher education and technological innovations along with his strong, yet still vague and shadowy attachments to Israel. He befriended and managed to somewhat implicate Noam Chomsky, a critic of Israel and bitter adversary of Dershowitz. Chomsky’s image the most admired and influential public intellectual of our time has been tarnished by his murky connections with Epstein who seemed a financial advisor and friend of Chomsky and his wife. What remains blurry is the extent to which Chomsky was deliberately attracted to be a friend or to be rendered vulnerable a high-value target of Israeli intelligence.

There is also an element of governmental power at play in this unfolding Epstein affair. The fact of Trump is America’s most unabashedly autocratic president further bolstered by a Republican grip on Congress and the Supreme Court, and of course, the Executive Branch has so far led to the shielding of some, the exposure of and would have been handled somewhat differently if a liberal, upstanding president was in the White House such as Barack Obama, although even Obama refrained from any legal scrutiny of highly controversial behavior of his predecessor, George W. Bush, widely believed to have authorized interrogation practices in Iraq and elsewhere, that violated human rights and the International Convention on Torture (1984), ratified by the U.S. in 1988, and at least 173 countries..

In concluding it may be the highly relevant to note the degree of moral hypocrisy on matters of family loyalty and sexual mores that exist in the U.S. as distinguished from its European soulmate states, which seem more comfortable acknowledging the frailties of human nature. By no means is this meant directly or indirectly as a partial exoneration of those who conspired in their own entrapment within ‘Epstein’s World.’ Nor does this whitewash ordinary people who brush morals and law aside in favor of loyalty to a political party or national leaders. The loudest chant of American constitutionalists has long been that we are ‘a country of laws, not men’ now only overheard as a dissident whisper.

5. Do these ordinary people question the legitimacy of the system they are living under these powerful people’s influence? If so, would you project a significant popular challenge against the existing political/financial system?

A growing number of ordinary citizens in the United States are shocked by the ugly spectacle of the Epstein disclosures, but this may lead in the short-run, at least, to greater repressiveness of independent media and oppositional critics rather than to significant reforms, must less a systemic challenge to the deep roots of the Epstein crisis in the inequalities currently wrought by wealth and political power. There are various forms of corruption evident in most countries of the world, and this is accompanied by moral hypocrisy that effectively shields private behavior from public scrutiny. In the U.S. context the present declining popularity of Trump’s second term leadership may embroil him and other establishment figures in belated attempts to impose criminal accountability for ‘statutory rape’ of underage girls, a crime that in the U.S. has no statute of limitations.

So far, the Republican Party has privileged party loyalty to moral and legal accountability with respect to Trump and his friends and associates. Whether the widening cracks in this support structure will withstand further disclosures is of course uncertain. We can expect that Trump will do his best to divert attention even if this means a costly and dangerous second attack on Iran even more unprovoked that the first attack of a year ago.

What we do know with some confidence is that the Epstein files will continue to preoccupy both elites and ordinary citizens for some time to come, at least in the United States. It should also have the international effect of casting additional doubts about the U.S. attachment to liberal values of human rights and democracy, and of course about the claims of moral superiority associated the creed of American Exceptionalism, persuasive as a public philosophy in the US yet dismissed with increasing cynicism elsewhere in the world.

Whither World Order: The Lamentable Present, The Unknowable Future

22 Feb

[Prefatory Note: My Responses to An Egyptian Journalist, Muhamed Abd Elaziz 15 Qs on International Law, Gaza, Personal Experience, and many other topics. My most comprehensive interview on current international maladies, 2/20/2026}



——————————–

1- Throughout your long career in international law, what was the moment when you felt your work made a real difference?

It is hard to say what qualifies as ‘a real difference.’ In my opposition to the Vietnam War as a scholar of international law I think that I made some difference in the public discourse, especially after years of unexpected resistance by the Vietnamese people inspired by their charismatic leader, Ho Chi Minh. On my return to the USA from my first of two wartime visits to North Vietnam in 1968, I conveyed to the US Government peace proposals more favorable to US interests than what was negotiated by Henry Kissinger several years later. The media gave my trip and proposals prominent attention.

Similarly with respect to the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79 that brought the Islamic Republic of Iran into power, especially as a result of media quotations of my generally supportive opinion of the popularity and legitimacy of the anti-Shah movement.

After I became active in promoting solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for their basic rights my views were excluded from mainstream thinking in the media, Congress, and even in academic circles, although it did not prevent me from being active on oppositional media platforms and among peace/justice civil society groups. My activism climaxed with an unexpected appointment by the UN Human Rights Council to be the Special Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine (2008-2014), which gave me an important venue to advance my views, although it was accompanied by defamatory campaigns to discredit my role as an independent expert reporting on Israel’s systemic violations of International Humanitarian Law and commission of Crimes Against Humanity.

I continued to write books and opinion pieces that expressed my commitment to progressive causes within the US and the world, with abiding efforts to promote denuclearization of international relations, ecological resilience, and anti-colonial/anti-imperial geopolitics, as well as the promotion of US foreign policy position more compatible with the global public good and greater sensitivity to moral imperatives.



2- Which international conflicts do you think were mishandled?

This is a big topic, and I can only give a short response. In my view the peace diplomacy in 1945 and after the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the 9/11 attacks, the Ukraine War, and the October 7 Palestinian attack on Israel’s villages close to the Gaza border were handled particularly poorly from the perspective of sustainable peace, human rights, and the pursuit of world order and global governance reform..

After 1945, the US gave up on a crucial treaty effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, it oversaw the design of the UN in ways that kept the management of global security under the control of geopolitics rather than Rule of Law, and at first took a non-committal stand against European colonialism. After the Vietnam War, it failed to appreciate that in most instances the legitimacy of anti-colonial warfare prevails in wars overcoming the possession of military superiority by the colonial side and its allies. Its foreign policy elites dedicated themselves to eliminating the ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ by which public opinion in the US opposed intervention and wars fought with no perceived or convincing national security justification; it is generally believed that the Vietnam Syndrome was overcome by the rapid, casualty-light and inexpensive Iraq War of 1991.

After 1945, the Global West, led by the US was far more concerned with preparing for conflict with the Soviet Union than it was with creating a world order respectful of international law and devoted to the global public good. The result was to identify national interests with militarized geopolitics, an expensive and risky arms race, an ideological conflict between market economics and socialism, and producing internal repression of political dissent. After the Cold War, positive modifications with respect to nuclear weapons, climate change, UN reform could have been undertaken, but was effectively resisted by Kissingerian realism premised on beliefs associated with hard power historical agency,

After 9/11 the US without any consideration opted for a global war of terror rather than seeking a more stable framework resting on respect for the sovereignty of states in the Global South, a stronger UN, and cooperative frameworks for the enforcement of criminal law. Instead the US resorted to high tech tactics killing many innocent civilians, displaying no respect for territorial sovereignty in its reliance on drones, shock and awe tactics, with the goal of stricter management of security subject to US global dominance of a unipolar world order.

After the Ukraine War, rather than recourse to diplomacy and a negotiated compromise, to which Russia was receptive, the US-NATO led response chose to wage a geopolitical war against Moscow at the expense of Ukraine and its people. Now four years later the various parties seem unwilling to negotiate in good faith, allowing the killing to continue. It seems likely the war will end as it might have four years earlier by an exchange of negotiated concessions and security reassurances.

After the October 7 attack on Israel launched from Gaza, Israel initiateded a genocidal assault with the backing of leading Western countries, with spillovers to the West Bank and region. The genocidal strikes continued killing at least 80,000 Palestinians and were implicitly linked to the Israeli quest for ‘Greater Israel’ that called for the erasure of any Palestinian resistance, either by ethnic cleansing or total victimization. The nature of the alignments on either side of this conflict exposed the Islamophobic reflex of the leading Western liberal democracies and the heartless quest for Jewish primacy in Israel even if meant institutionalizing a harsh version of apartheid. 

3- How do you see the state of human rights internationally today?

The observance of human rights has declined in recent years, especially in the liberal democracies of the West, but also reflecting authoritarian and xenophobic trends throughout the world, and in virtually all leading sovereign states. The voluntary adherence to the norms of international law with respect to human rights has also been negatively affected by the failure to address Israeli apartheid and genocide, and the widespread repression of pro-Palestinian solidarity protests and policy initiatives. The internal curtailments of human rights in the leading liberal democracies has also set back all efforts to increase compliance with human rights legal stardards.


4- How would you assess the current role of the United Nations in resolving existing conflicts, such as those in the Middle East or Palestine?

The UN is weaker than it has ever been since ir was established in 1945. This partially the result of the UN’s inability to protect the Palestinian people, and others, from Israel’s defiance of international law, highlighted by the refusal to respect Palestinian basic rights, above all, the right of self-determination, related rights of resistance to its denial in this kind of settler colonial context, and reaction to Israeli uses of force against several neighboring countries. This has been dramatized by allowing Israel and the United States to oversee in a manipulative manner the current ceasefire arrangements and control the future of Gaza, institutionalized in the shameful Board of Peace, which rewards the perpetrators of genocide and severely punishes its victims.

5- If you could change one previous international decision, which one would it be and why?

It was the decision back in 1945 to entrust the management of global security to non-accountable geopolitical actors, accorded an exemption from a legal duty to comply with the UN Charter. A closely related decision, important symbolically and substantively, was to impose accountability for war crimes only on civilian, military, and corporate leaders of the losers in World War II, coupled with the refusal to allow legal scrutiny of the crimes of the winners. The winners were expected by the American prosecutor, Justice Jackson to adhere in the future to the standards imposed on the losers at Nuremberg but consistently failed to do so with impunity.

6- Is it possible for the Iran nuclear deal to be revived and for Iran, the US, and Israel to live in peace?

It seems doubtful so long as the US steadfastly supports Israel’s patterns of hegemonic security policies applied not only to the Palestinian people, but to neighbors that either are sympathetic with the Palestinian ordeal, most notably Iran, or are perceived by Israel’s leaders to pose future obstacles to its goals of hegemonic regionalism. Peace in the region also depends on the West giving up its ideas about prevailing in an inter-civilizational struggle between the Islamic Middle East and the Christian West, a current struggle whose deep psycho-political and economistic roots can be traced back to the Christian Crusades of earlier centuries.

For regional peace to prevail in the Middle East to six interrelated steps must be taken: self-determination for Palestine, Israeli renunciation or drastic revision of Zionist ideology seeking ‘Greater Israel’ and regional hegemony; ending all US sanctions imposed on Iran; Israel’s giving up its nuclear weapons capability coupled with a monitored treaty to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone; the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that critically examines the various versions of the Israeli and Palestinian narratives from the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 forward to the present; s negotiated cap on military spending and sales by Israel; a Declaration of Coexistence based on ethnic equality, and signed by both Heads of State and reinforced by a pledge of Permanent Members of the Security Council to suspend. any use of the veto in connection with any recurrences of the Israel/Palestine conflict. .

7- In your opinion, did the US and Israeli strikes succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Of course, it is impossible to know with any precision, but all signs suggest that Iran has restored its enrichment facilities, which may both enhance its defensive capabilities and make it more vulnerable to further (unlawful) attacks by Israel and/or the United States. There is no justification in contemporary international law with respect to preventive war, including to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weaponry.

8- Do you think the current Iranian regime is facing an existential challenge, and how do you see the future of the Islamic Republic?

The Islamic Republic has proved remarkably successful over the decades in opposing external and internal opposition to the stability of national governance and to the protection of its rights as a sovereign state. Iran has been unfairly dealt with respecting its nuclear program, given Israel’s and the US hostility, threats, and uses of force since 1979. It is the core example of the doctrinal application of the clash of civilizations hypothesis that assumed policy relevance throughout Atlanticist region in the post-Cold War global setting. Trump’s pro-Israeli diplomacy has intensified the challenge of military attack and regime-changing interventions, but his transactualism could also lead to some kind of pragmatic agreements that would include a long-deferred normalization of relations with the Islamic Republic. Trump’s brand of narcissistic geopolitics includes a willingness to make abrupt and unexpected policy shifts.  

9- Did the IAEA play a secret role in revealing the uranium enrichment levels to Israel and the US?

It seems the IAEA was the victim of Western geopolitical manipulations, but it is difficult to set forth reliably the fully story without access to the classified inner activity  that led to these irresponsible IAEA reports on the restoration of Iranian enrichment capabilities.


10- What do “ICC” and “ICJ” need to have stronger enforcement mechanisms?

The ICJ to be stronger at the stage of enforcement would benefit from a curtailment of the P5 right of veto in all instances where the issue is one of ICJ enforcement. The GA could also urge compliance or even the imposition of sanctions, not with the force of a legal obligation, but as a moral duty.

The ICC, which unlike the ICJ, is not part of the UN System and relies on the treaty framework of the Rome Statute for its operations has currently no means of enforcement beyond the voluntary compliance of non-parties, which include the three leading geopolitical actors of our time, Russia, China, and the United States. A strong GA resolution might produce various kinds of pushback by sovereign governments and civil society actors that could increase pressure for both compliance and success. An alternative would be a UN Charter amendment giving the GA authority to enforce the judgments of both international tribunals. Such an innovation would depend on the P5 to recommend unanimously that such an amendment be adopted..

In the end, the political will of major states would be decisive in many instances, either to induce compliance or to support non-compliance. At present, most governments are resistant to obligations that encroach on national sovereignty, but in this setting of enforcing ICJ (including Advisory Opinions) and ICC decisions have a greater formal claim if the state in question is a member of the UN or a party to the Rome Statute.



11- Did Israel try to win you over to its side during your time as the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestine?

No, they made no attempt after losing their opposition to my appointment as Special Rapporteur at the Human Rights Council. Their entire effort during the six years I served as an unpaid UN appointee was to discredit me as an objective observer, accusing me of ethnic bias in repeated defamatory smears. Sadly, the UN exhibited little support even when I was detained in an Israeli airport prison facility while on a UN mission seemingly responsive to inflammatory comments from UN Watch, an NGO that devotes its energies and resources to the aggressive and often unscrupulous   defense of Israel against critics, resorting to lies and insults. It is a sign of UN weakness that UNW is neither disciplined in its behavior or more appropriately delisted by the UNOSOC as possessing UN representational credentials.

12- How do you see the changes in Gaza and the entire Middle East since 7 October?

Although the future is unknowable, especially given a variety of factors, and hopeful possibilities should not be excluded from the political imagination although the present circumstances make the near future looks dark from perspectives that favor constructive responses to Palestinian grievances, greatly aggravated by Israel’s recourse to genocide for more than two years, flagrantly violating the Genocide Convention. The entire world witnessed in real time the horrifying daily images of the cruelty of the genocide, as well as Israel’s defiant posture, and the shocking civilizational support Israel received from the white Christian world on the first few months after October 7.  At the same time, Trump is mercurial leader capable of making abrupt changes in the US role, already somewhat evident clinging to a two-state solution contrary to Israel’s wishes, although vaguely promised, and then only to be realized at some distant point in the future. It does appear to counter Israel’s present drive to establish Greater Israel as soon as possible. However, such a pledge is not without its contradictions. These are mainly shown by the absence of US criticism of Israel’s  indulgence, if not encouragement of settler violence in the West Bank, an approach more consistent with de facto annexation than of any serious effort to demand that Israel policies meet the preconditions for establishing a viable Palestinian state. At present, without even the courtesies of deception, Israel seems more determined than ever to make any form of Palestinian statehood less and less feasible or desirable.

Besides this, Israel and the US pay no attention to the 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion clearly obligating to withdraw from all three Occupied Palestinian Territories, a judicial outcome endorsed overwhelmingly by a GA resolution.

.
13- Do you see President Trump’s plan as an American occupation of Gaza?

It is a somewhat original joint colonizing vision to be implemented by a multi-state ‘Board of Peace, advantageous for Israel, punitive for the Palestinians, and under the uncontested partisan leadership of Donald Trump. It is in my view a disgrace that the UN Security Council unanimously endorsed the Trump Plan in SC Res 1803, which is a symbolic vindication of Israel’s genocide and a further punitive framework for the indefinite subjugation of Palestinians to a blend of ethnic cleansing and a harsh version of apartheid. Whether the outrageous Trump idea of supervising the reconstruction of Gaza to be the Riviera of the Middle East is situated somewhere on a policy spectrum linking predatory disaster capitalism to imperial geopolitics, and hopefully it is the imperial fantasy of a displaced realtor, and like many such flights of fancy, never to be realized. .

14- During your meeting with Ayatollah Khomeini, what exactly took place between you? How would you describe the impact of that encounter on you?

In Jannuary 1979 I was accompanied by Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General, and Donald Luce, an anti-war religious leader, accepting an invitation from Mehdi Bazargan, the Interim President of the Islamic Republic, asking me to form a small delegation to visit Iran so as to have direct contact with the revolution and its leaders during the climactic days that were on the verge of producing victory for the popular movement of opposition to the Shah. During our time in Iran the Shah abdicated as his downfall as Iran’s leader became the only unfinished business of the victorious revolution. It was a perfect moment to have this conversation with symbolic leader of this revolution that surprised the world by its successful resistance to the Shah’s repressive apparatus.

While we were still in Iran, just prior to Ayatollah Khomeini’s return to Iran, we were told that because our visit was viewed as a success we were told that as a surprise reward we were being offered the opportunity to meet with Ayatollah Khomeini on our way back to the United States at his exile residence in a suburb of Paris/.

We had rhe meeting sitting in a circle within a large tent on the lawn of his residence. We covered many topic of lasting significance, but the one that remains uppermost in my memory was Ayatollah Khomeini’s initial questions to us as to whether, unlike in 1953, the United States would accept the will of the Iranian people and be open to normal diplomatic relations, which was his preferred future provided it was not a ruse to induce the new leadership to drop its guard.

We also inquired about the wellbeing of the Jewish minority, and his response was reassuring: “Judaism is an authentic religion, and if Jews do not involve themselves as agents of Israel, it would be a tragedy for us if they left Iran.” I came away from our several hours sitting on the ground in the tent with the distinct impression that Ayatollah Khomeini’s had a distinct preference for a peaceful diplomatic future with the West. Unfortunately, due to a number of factors, this has remained ‘the road not taken’ and to quote the renowned American poet, Robert Frost’s final line of the poem,.’and that has made all the difference.’

There is much else of interest that transpired at that meeting, including our impressions of this charismatic historic religious leader, but that would unduly lengthen my response, and will be saved for another occasion.  

15- Why did you receive death threats for several years after your New York Times article titled “Trusting Khomeini,” and how did you deal with it?

Of course, I do not know the true motivations of those who transmitted death threats. It was more than disagreement with my assessments. I suspect it was to make me fear the consequences if I did not remain silent in the future. These threats did not alter my strong conviction that the US Government should at least test the willingness of Iran’s new leadership to act in accord with this stated desire for normal diplomatic relations based on mutual respect and shared benefits. It was an opportunity missed to demonstrate that the US was ready to grant legitimacy to the outcome of internal national struggles to shape the political identity of a sovereign state, an essential feature of the right of self-determination.

Because the road taken by all US leaders was one of confrontation and hostility toward the Islamic Republic, not in keeping with a rational assessment of US national interests,, it challenged the new leadership in Iran to give the highest priority to regime security and territorial defense. Whether these preoccupations were responsible for the harsh and seemingly intolerant policies of theocratic governance is impossible to discern. Interpreting whether the decades that followed might have been different if the US and Israel had not constantly Iranian historical anxieties about the past  is a matter of pure speculatiom. Perhaps, a more convincing picture will emerge if Iranian policy insiders offer a careful analysis of how the security threats and destabilizing policies spearheaded by Israel, backed by the main members of the Atlanticist political community that emerged after World War II, turned governance into an understandable obsession with national security and regime stability.

16- Do you believe the George W. Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks? Do you possess any information that you haven’t previously published?

I am not an expert on the ongoing debates about what really happened on 9/11, but I do know that there are many loose ends and unanswered questions in the official version of the alleged Al Qaeda attacks. There is no present receptivity in Washington to opening the issue to objective scrutiny by an independent international commission of inquiry.

I have not seen any convincing evidence of active complicitly by George W. Bush beyond the well-established facts of complacency in the face of warnings of some kind of terrorist attack. The immediate launch of the Great Terror War was a regressive response, but consistent with the policy impulses of the ‘foreign policy elites’ that control the shaping of US national interests. An additional source of suspicion arose because the US was being pushed by Israel to adopt an anti-Iraq position in the Middle East. It is doubtful that the 2003 Iraq War would have been launched without the camouflage of the 9/11 attacks, which provided a falsely constructed rationale for engaging aggressively against any adversary of the United States, especially in the Middle East. It is worth revisiting ‘the clean break’ neo-con manifesto drawn up with encouragement from Israeli leaders in the 1990s.

…………………………………

##