This week NATO’s plan to strike deep inside Russia went public and NATO’s nuclear storage on its northern flank went up. The Wall Street Journal reported Nov. 3 that the alliance held its “first-ever Deep Strike Symposium” in June under Supreme Allied Commander Alexus Grynkewich, whose “theory of victory” is that if a Russian attack continues, “we will break the warfighting system engaged against us” by hitting “anything and everything that supports, sustains, or controls that force”—bases, depots, industrial plants “thousands of miles from NATO borders.” Two days later the Federation of American Scientists published satellite images of security fencing around 22 nuclear-capable shelters at RAF Lakenheath and called the posture change, with Britain’s coming F-35A nuclear mission and France’s “forward deterrence,” “the most significant enhancement of NATO’s nuclear posture in Europe since the end of the Cold War.” Elbridge Colby was in Bucharest and U.S. negotiators in Warsaw on permanent bases. (((the previous sentence does not parse))) In Washington, Trump told reporters the midterm wipeout changes nothing: “If we have to do the rest of the Iran thing, we’re very much locked in,” with a decision “coming soon.” Tucker Carlson warned Sunday that the option on the table for Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain is a tactical nuclear weapon—a warning Helga Zepp-LaRouche repeated to the International Peace Coalition on Friday. She said that in the three years of the IPC’s weekly meetings, “never has the situation been so close” to nuclear conflict.

But there is also motion in another direction. Tehran sent a nuclear proposal to Washington through Qatar on Thursday; Qatar’s draft has the U.S. lift its blockade on day one and Hormuz reopen on day two, and the Emir told Trump by phone today that “preventing further regional escalation was crucial.” Wang Yi met the Saudi and Iranian defense ministers this week; Putin received Rezaei (((add brief id))) with a message from Khamenei; and the Kremlin says the agenda for Putin, Trump and Xi at Shenzhen Nov. 18-19 is being agreed.

The escalation against Russia and the escalation against Iran are one war. The best opportunity to advance the solution of both simultaneously—by putting in place a security architecture that draws on the need for development and security to go hand in hand—lies in the potential for the trilateral U.S.-Russia-China meeting.

There is a precedent for what could be achieved. On March 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan proposed to the Soviet Union that they collaborate on making nuclear missiles obsolete. The proposal was Lyndon LaRouche’s; he had spent a year carrying it between Washington and Moscow, and the next day, from Wiesbaden, he said “there is, at last, hope that the thermonuclear nightmare will be ended.” When Moscow refused, he wrote to Georgi Arbatov that September: “we must either end up agreeing to what the President has offered on March 23, 1983, or destroy one another.” Reflect that today. Will an agreement be brokered in Shenzhen?

Israel shows what the choice looks like inside one country. Gadi Eisenkot, who gets the mandate Sunday, declared “a state of genuine, tangible and dangerous emergency” and a plan for a government whose fourth principle now reads “dismantling” Hamas rather than “destruction"—a word chosen so the Arab parties can sign it; Lieberman says his seven seats will vote against any government that rests on them; five hundred Diaspora leaders wrote that the exclusion of Arab citizens “must now change.” Europe, meanwhile, is arguing about who may speak. Meloni wants one EU voice, Merz phoned Trump for a seat, and Peskov observed that the Europeans “have not even been able to decide who can speak on their behalf,” while Kushner’s five objectives for Abu Dhabi next week specify that no country will hold a veto over another’s choices. Kiev, this week, had neither power nor water.

LaRouche wrote in 2004, addressing “the presently emerging adult generation… to whom we are implicitly entrusting the future of mankind,” that “although man has the mortal attributes of an animal (a mammal), the human individual’s existence, as human rather than bestial, is nonetheless defined by, and depends for its continued existence upon the immortal aspect of man, as expressed by his cognitive powers…. It is the immortal aspect of the life of the human individual, the creative powers of the individual, the soul whose existence is to be comprehended in this light, which sets man apart from all other living species.” Tactical nuclear weapons and deep-strike doctrines reject that view.

With respect to Russia and China, the United States has a choice confronting it in Shenzhen: agree to a new paradigm, or destroy one another.