Geopolitics is deadly. Not only for its purveyors, but, as we are in the midst of learning firsthand, for the entire human species. This should be no surprise, given that the evil beliefs about human beings at its core—that man is but a clever beast to be herded and culled—are in violation of natural law.
“Are we out of our minds that we are risking the civilization of humanity by playing these geopolitical games?” Helga Zepp-LaRouche asked during her international webcast on May 6. “For what?... I think it’s high time that we rethink the entire strategic situation and say that the fact is that conventional wars cannot be won anymore. If there is one proof necessary, it was just delivered by Iran successfully preventing the U.S. and Israel’s very superior military forces from winning. You cannot win such a war…and if you want to cross the threshold to nuclear war, you’re risking the existence of the entire human civilization. So why not draw the conclusion out of the fact that these interventionist wars cannot be won? They were not won in Vietnam, not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, not in Libya, not in Ukraine, and now not in Iran. So why not stop a game which cannot be won? I think it’s an urgent need to start seriously the discussion about the new security and development architecture, which we have been talking about since the beginning of the Ukraine war four years ago.”
This is exactly the direction of thinking of many “adults in the room” who are attempting to steer not just the situation in Southwest Asia, but the entire global paradigm, into more stable waters. The Russian government continues to back a resolution to the Iran conflict “with due regard for the interests of all regional states,” as Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova insisted on Tuesday, proposing, once again, Russia’s “Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf.” China is also playing a crucial role. While Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Beijing on Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lin Jian, responding to questions about China’s role in resolving the conflict, stated, “We… support a regional architecture for peace and security established by regional countries with common participation for common interests and common development.”
It’s exactly and only that kind of anti-colonial, non-geopolitical approach that can fully free humanity from the danger, hanging over all our heads, that the US-Israeli war against Iran will ignite again and quite possibly turn nuclear.
This is no idle concern. Late on Tuesday, Trump announced that, at the request of Pakistan and other nations, he was pausing “Project Freedom,” which managed to escort a measly two ships out of the Persian Gulf, “to see whether or not the Agreement,” a draft memorandum from the US side with a proposal to end the war, “can be finalized and signed.” On Wednesday morning, the Iranian side confirmed that they are evaluating the proposal, and at roughly the same time Trump posted, “If they don’t agree, the bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before.”
While headlines about Iran occupy the front burner of world attention, provocations toward war against larger targets, Russia and China, continue. On Wednesday, Japan participated in joint military exercises with the US and the Philippines, during which it fired its Type 88 offensive missile in foreign waters for the first time, to which China responded sternly that the “malevolent emergence of neo-militarism in Japan… put regional peace and stability under threat.” True to form, the establishment’s Anglophile Council on Foreign Relations shamelessly published an article the day before celebrating Japan’s remilitarization and its moves away from a pacifist security policy.
“We are…in an extremely dangerous situation,” Zepp-LaRouche insisted. “The illusion people may have is that since the big catastrophe has not yet happened, that things will continue like that forever. But I think if you look at it from a historical point of view, one can clearly determine the point when it was too late to stop World War I and when it was too late to stop World War II. And I think we are in such a pre-war situation, where fateful events could happen more quickly than anybody thinks. I think the need to go to a New Paradigm is more urgent than ever.”
Become active. The International Peace Coalition and EIR will hold an emergency roundtable discussion on May 15 to mobilize for exactly such a new paradigm. Join that meeting and bring others into the fight.
