The Evangelical Pope | The Mirror Image of God

Each week we let Saint Pope John Paul II share meaningful signposts to spark socio-economic resolves through justice and righteousness combined with mercy and compassion; in short, love.

               64 The earth is filled with your love, LORD;
               Teach me your decrees.

               __ Psalm 119:64 (New International Version)

Fulda, Deutschland -- 18 November 1980 | When young people, in particular, ask deep questions about the meaning of life, provide them with a clear, convincing answer!

               When our right to life and the essential values of humanity are under threat, let's stand up to defend individual rights and preserve the truth for all!

               When we look at formation and upbringing, I would prefer an approach that sees humans as the mirror image of God, especially in contrast to a limited, purely functional view of humanity. Such an approach can help us appreciate people for who they truly are.

               Society's outlook is shaped by our longing for enjoyment and the pursuit of more, alongside concerns about the limits of growth. This blend motivates the development of new lifestyles that beautifully reflect the hope and promise found in Christ.

As with other stages of progress, many still face difficulties or haven't yet fully benefited from development. It's vital to uphold everyone's rights and well-being. Let's work together to build a peaceful, just global society.

Excerpted from:

Apostolische Reise in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, PREDIGT VON JOHANNES PAUL II, Fulda, 18. November 1980

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/de/homilies/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19801118_fulda-germany.html

Editorial | A Cliff Hanger in the Making

By Abraham A. van Kempen
23 March 2026

Who’s wise? Your guess is as good as mine. We will know more soon.

I haven't met any Iranians—whether residing in Iran or part of the diaspora—who value living under theocratic rule. Likewise, here in the United States, I know many Christian Nationalists whose aim is to create a Christian autocracy for Americans and people globally.

But let’s focus on the Iranians. Many Iranians tell me they feel crushed by tyranny, harassment, repression, and subjugation.

“Is living under the mullahs that bad?” I ask.

“What mullahs?” I hear. “No, we’re under siege by Western imperialism. Since 1953, they’ve been trying to carve Iran into multiple states and plunder our natural resources, similar to their failed attempts in Russia.

“What about the Shah?”

“In the 70s, he began to make it clear that he wanted an honest price for our oil.

“Is that why he was disposed?”

Iran's people have faced more repression from the EU-US/NATO and its Coalition of the Willing through sanctions since 1953 than from the mullahs. Few remember that the mullahs were installed by the Collective West after the EU-US/NATO coordinated internal dissent to overthrow the Shah.

Agreed! The mullahs have enforced a black-and-white constitution. It lacks a Bill of Rights. At least Iran, under the mullahs, operates under a constitution. In contrast, Israel lacks a formal constitution. They rule as they go. Like the mullahs, Israel is known to kill at will whoever is in their way. In American democracy – aka American hypocrisy – those who are more equal than others often have the ability to vote at almost any time with their money, without waiting for polling stations to open. In many countries, especially those where freedom rings, people are serving time in prison for opening their mouths too freely.

As I mentioned in previous editorials, it seems unfathomable that Iran could withstand the full brunt of Western military prowess, especially our nuclear death stars. Will Iran’s allies step in to help achieve Iran’s goals, such as evicting Western imperialism from the Middle East?

Is upholding Western dominance truly worth the potential danger of sparking a third World War? This conundrum encourages us to consider the balance between hegemonic power – the obsession with homogenizing other nations into our image –and the pursuit of peace.

Who is wise?

Enjoy your week.

Abraham A. van Kempen
Sr. Editor

“BRAZEN AGGRESSION!” NORMAN FINKELSTEIN VS JONATHAN CONRICUS ON ISRAEL-LEBANON OPERATION + IRAN WAR

Prof. John Maersheimer: On March 18, 2026, I appeared on “Piers Morgan Uncensored” to discuss Iran.

• Piers and I often strongly disagree on foreign policy topics, but in this instance, we were largely in agreement about the current state of the war and its likely trajectory.
• After my interview, Piers facilitated a debate between Norman Finkelstein, one of the most insightful experts on the Middle East, and Jonathan Conricus, who serves as a spokesperson for the Netanyahu government.
• Unlike Piers and me, Conricus predicts a significant victory for Israel and the US.

Watch the Video Here (50 minutes, 23 seconds)

Host Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan Uncensored
20 March 2026

00:00 Introduction
04:39 Professor John Mearsheimer on Iran and the Israel lobby
10:52 How can Trump get the US out of this war?
15:58 Norman Finkelstein VS Jonathan Conricus
22:25 Finkelstein: "Israel's supreme crime of aggression."
26:07 The UN failed to stop this war of aggression!
28:40 Is the Iranian regime a 'noxious' entity?
31:04 'Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has been the aggressor.'
36:56 Does Norman think Israel has the right to defend itself?
44:18 Conricus: "It's right to take care of enemies who want to destroy you!"

IS AMERICA POSSIBLE?

… an invitation (and some news)

By Krista Tippett
Substack.com
21 March 2026

From Krista,

We’re sharing this special edition of the Pause to inform you about an upcoming event at Riverside Church in New York City.

On Saturday, April 4, I will interview Michelle Alexander with my longtime colleague Lucas Johnson. Both studied under Vincent Harding, a wise civil rights leader. My 2011 conversation with Harding remains a cherished episode, filled with lasting wisdom. He led the Mennonite House in Atlanta, helped develop nonviolence strategies, and contributed to Martin Luther King's speech on the Vietnam War, citizenship, and morality.

Vincent asked, "Is America possible?" at Riverside, 59 years after King’s speech. No tickets needed, ample space. In the New York area? Join us at 3 p.m. (doors open at 2:30) for a dramatic King speech reading by surprise guests and a three-way talk.

This event is partially sponsored by Union Theological Seminary. I am currently in residence there as a public theologian and Founding Fellow of 'Into the Crowd,' a five-year project uniting Christian leaders and storytellers to promote healing.

Dr. King mentioned two other teachers from the On Being archive: Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and Zen monk Thich Nhat Hanh. I recommend revisiting these episodes.

It would be wonderful to have you with us!

FROM TEHRAN | SEYED M. MARANDI: TOTAL WAR - ATTACKING NUCLEAR PLANTS, DESALINATION & INFRASTRUCTURE

Professor Glenn Diesen’s conversation with Professor Marandi centers around a critical perspective on global instability, attributing much of it to Western arrogance and unpredictable leadership.

• Prof. Marandi warns that the combination of volatile elements—such as oil, gas, and geopolitics—could lead to catastrophe unless humility and awareness prevail.
• Despite acknowledging the darkness of current times and the pain caused by empires in decline, Professor Marandi expresses cautious optimism that resistance will eventually bring about a hopeful future, even as he personally faces threats for his views.
• Prof. Diesen echoes concerns about the lack of wise leadership and the uncertain days ahead.

Watch the Video Here (50 minutes, 23 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
22 March 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen’s interview features Prof. Seyed M. Marandi’s view on the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict, which he sees as driven by U.S.-Israeli strikes and Iran’s retaliation. Marandi explains that threats to target Iranian infrastructure aim to pressure Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. He also notes Iran’s deterrent includes threats—and possibly actions—against Gulf states’ energy and water infrastructure perceived as complicit.

The focus is on escalation management, with Prof. Diesen questioning if Washington believes it has “escalation dominance.” The guest argues Iran does, citing vulnerable assets in the Persian Gulf and global reliance on Gulf energy. They discuss risks of attacking nuclear sites, such as regional contamination and economic effects. The guest predicts conflict could expand through the “axis of resistance” and into areas like Azerbaijan. They describe a scenario where even a U.S. “walk-away” wouldn’t quickly reopen shipping through the Strait of Hormuz without ground-level changes and compensation.

Prof. Glenn Diesen: Main Assertions and Framing

• Israel attacked Iranian nuclear sites Bushehr and Natanz, leading Iran to retaliate near Dimona.
• Attacks on nuclear facilities could increase the danger of a “de facto nuclear war” because of possible fallout.
• Trump issued a 48-hour warning to open the Strait of Hormuz, threatening to strike Iran’s main energy fields.
• The Iranian military warned of retaliation against Gulf energy facilities and desalination plants if the U.S. attacks Iranian infrastructure.
• U.S. messaging appears inconsistent, with an “off-ramp” tweet then escalating threats.
• Unknown variables like Iran's missile range, escalation in Yemen or the Red Sea, Europe's involvement, and disruptions in fertilizer and energy supplies complicate the conflict and could have global consequences.

Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi: Main Assertions and Predictions

• The conflict begins with U.S.–Israeli aggression, while Iran’s actions are portrayed as retaliatory.
• Gulf states are considered complicit as they enable U.S. operations like bases, airspace, and refueling, making them legitimate Iranian targets.
• He claims Iran has escalated by retaliating after an alleged strike on South Pars, targeting energy assets in Qatar (including LNG) and in Saudi Arabia/UAE.
• He argues Iran has “escalation dominance” due to the Persian Gulf's valuable, vulnerable assets. Losing them could trigger a global economic collapse, more damaging to the U.S. and the West than to Iran.
• He claims U.S. and allied institutions and media condemned Iran’s retaliation but ignored initial strikes, and Iran has little trust in international bodies like the UN Security Council.
• He warns that striking the Bushehr nuclear power plant could contaminate the Persian Gulf and thereby disrupt energy markets, accelerating global economic collapse.
• He describes Trump as unpredictable and lacking credibility; therefore, Iran plans for worst-case scenarios even if Washington signals de-escalation.
• He predicts that escalation could topple Gulf monarchies, expand conflict to additional theaters (including Azerbaijan), and involve allied forces in Iraq and Yemen (including shutting the Red Sea).
• He argues that even if the U.S. attempts to “walk away,” Iran would not simply accept a ceasefire; it would demand changes on the ground and compensation, potentially leveraging its control over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
• He forecasts major secondary crises (petrochemicals, fertilizer, food supply, migration) as conflict intensifies or persists.

GUEST PERSPECTIVE | TODAY IRAN, TOMORROW RUSSIA

Alexander Dugin on Iran, the Katechon, and the war that could reshape the world –
Iran, Trump, and the moment the world order finally broke

By Alexander Dugin
Substack.Com
5 March 2026

Annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

“This phase of Donald Trump’s transformation—from supporting MAGA and the Anchorage meeting to adopting a more radical approach amid rapid global developments—may have gone unnoticed.

Trump has shifted, acting as a conduit for a will that isn’t truly his.

Sadly, he has distanced himself from his original supporters
and aligned with forces that began the conflict against us in Ukraine.”

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: Today, we address a serious issue following a historic incident on February 28, 2026, when the US and Israel jointly attacked Iran, killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and other officials. Iran responded with attacks on Israel and US military targets, escalating tensions. Questions loom about future actions, impacts, and Iran's resilience. The key concern remains: what is most likely to happen next?

Alexander Dugin: This event is highly significant and could affect global stability, potentially triggering the Third World War, given the scale of the forces involved. The United States, under Trump and Netanyahu, responded quickly to Iran's political leaders.

This is the second incident. Previously, the U.S. kidnapped Maduro, taking control of Venezuela. Recently, they dismantled Iran's leadership—similar to removing the Pope or Orthodox Patriarch—since Ayatollah Khamenei was the Shiite spiritual leader and head of the global Shiite community, numbering hundreds of millions. Earlier, Israel removed Hamas's leadership with limited effect, then targeted Hezbollah's leadership, which had a greater impact.

Iran's leadership has been openly dismantled, reflecting a decline in international norms and exposing the UN's struggles. The organization seems outdated, like a relic. President Trump acknowledged this, implying a decline in international law and justifying his actions. This signals the end of the old global order. Though gradual, we've now reached a point of no return. If a country can unilaterally remove foreign leaders without cause, we enter a new world—where force replaces law, and the rule is: “If I can do it, I will.”

Trump’s actions are conspicuous. During discussions with Kushner and Witkoff, reports indicated that Iran was close to accepting most of the American demands. The strike targeted the country's leadership. Remember, we (Russians) are next. Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah are under U.S. actions and are considered Russian allies.

If Trump's success allows actions against allies without repercussions, it could lead to a regime-change operation in our country during future negotiations with Kirill Dmitriev, Kushner, and Witkoff.

What safeguards us from such a scenario? Nuclear weapons are one, but the key question is whether we would actually use them. During difficult periods, the West doubts our resolve because we threaten without always following through. Meanwhile, efforts are underway to isolate our president, who is central to our nation and potentially to the entire world. He acts as the restrainer—the Katechon, from Orthodox tradition. Today, this role is a real part of geopolitics and the global structure.

If Americans—particularly Trump—think other Russian leaders might assume power and be more receptive to the West—like Iran, where leaders are ousted for policies against American interests—what stops them from trying to replicate that here?

President Trump maintains a neoconservative stance on international issues. Countries highlighted by globalists during the Biden, Obama, and Clinton administrations are being targeted again, with no new nations added. Despite scandals and disagreements with European NATO allies, they largely align with the US and share similar views. This situation is critical and should serve as a final warning.

Host: Let me revisit the Third World War. Last year, we discussed Iran—called the 'twelve-day war’—and noted it could trigger a global crisis. Luckily, it didn't. Does this mean conflicts last about twelve or thirteen days before resolution? Or are we facing larger events now?

Alexander Dugin: It's hard to definitively say whether this will trigger the Third World War. The real challenge is the inaccurate claims that 'this is the Third World War' or 'that is the Third World War,' leading to declarations like 'now the Third World War has begun.”

Careful analysis of current events is vital. The situation resembles the early stages of the Third World War, but optimism persists that it won't escalate and can be resolved peacefully. Your question is excellent. Much depends on Iran's resilience to pressure. If the American-Israeli alliance quickly weakens Iran in operations like “Epic Fury”—sometimes jokingly called “Epstein’s Epic Fury”—it's possible that Trump aimed to distract from the Epstein case, where he's viewed complexly. Experts also believe Israeli influence and blackmail play roles.

Israeli ideology is driven by an eschatological outlook, aiming to establish a “Greater Israel,” prepare for the end times, and await the Messiah's arrival. This strong motivation influences Israel’s military campaign, 'The Shield of Judah.' Conversely, Iran sees itself on the verge of a final confrontation. During the recent twelve-day conflict, Iran’s role seemed more preparatory than fully committed. Now, Iran must engage vigorously—targeting all military and strategic goals, blocking the Strait of Hormuz to Western and American ships, and supporting Shiite uprisings across the Middle East and beyond—actively participating in this critical conflict until the very end.

Iran, previously avoiding conflict, now appears to accept it, officially naming its operation 'The End of the Flood,' a significant title. The original Hamas operation related to Gaza and Israel was called “The Flood' or “Al-Aqsa Flood.” Al-Aqsa, a key Islamic site on Jerusalem's Temple Mount, was defended by Palestinians amid threats from Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich, who proposed demolishing the mosque to build the Third Temple, marking the start of the messianic era. This effort aims for a 'Greater Israel,' with Hamas defending Al-Aqsa against Ben-Gvir’s pledge to destroy it, resulting in Gaza's destruction.

The Iranian operation, called “The End of the Flood,” is seen as the final confrontation. In Islamic belief, the end of the world involves a key battle between the Mahdi, expected to return, and the Dajjal, called the Islamic Antichrist. This encounter, likely in Syria or the Holy Land, is considered the most critical end-times event. Both Shiite and Sunni scholars often link the Dajjal with the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel, making its symbolic importance highly significant.

Reflecting on the situation, the key question is how long Iran can sustain its resistance. Each day, Iran defends its sovereignty, which might shift the strategic landscape. President Trump expected a quick conflict, believing removing Iran’s military and religious leaders would cause an immediate collapse, assuming a prepared 'fifth column' would support this.

Host: Let's assess stability in Iran. With recent changes, such as the removal of the supreme leader and elites, can leadership quickly restore and appoint new leaders? Or might the system collapse, especially if missile strikes hit Tehran suddenly?

Alexander Dugin: History is filled with uncertainties, and current details about Iran are scarce due to the complete internet shutdown. There are no evident protests against the regime at present. Some former regime opponents shifted stance after about two hundred schoolgirls died from an Israeli missile. This incident strengthened the Iranian opposition's anti-US and anti-Israel sentiments. Overall, a simple power transfer to Trump seems unlikely.

Iran is probably more unified now than ever since its leadership was eradicated after the school attack. The event increased awareness, and the Iranian people showed pride and resilience. While some resent the Velayat-e Faqih regime—exaggerated by Israeli agents—the current situation may unify Iran under national identity. The leadership might also realize the need to engage more with secular and nationalist sectors, who are less religious but patriotic. If they focus their energy on opposing Zionist-American aggression, sustained resistance is possible, as Gaza has endured long-standing resistance, and Iran's larger territory offers more space for defense.

Shiite communities make up a large part of the Middle East. Many elites in pro-American, pro-Arab governments are seen as highly corrupt, similar to “Epstein Island,” as seen in Qatar, Dubai, and Bahrain. In Bahrain, most residents are Shiite, and widespread Shiite uprisings are expected. If Iran resists mounting pressures, the conflict's outcome is uncertain, especially with rising tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's unclear if Pakistan or Afghanistan might support Tehran. Israel does not back either, complicating matters for Trump, the U.S., and Israel. There's a risk the Muslim world could overthrow these regimes. The “Iron Dome” has been breached, unrest in Tel Aviv is rising, resembling Gaza, and many believe Iran could win.

The situation remains uncertain. Iran didn't surrender immediately or after the strike, defying President Trump's prediction. He may extend military actions over weeks or months, with legal authority for about three months and possible support from Congress. If Iran resists strongly, the outcome is unpredictable. The “Shield of Judah” operation may be the most vulnerable for the American–Israeli alliance—attacking a non-warring leadership seems like betrayal, similar to Judas, during negotiations. This treachery offers little real protection, and if events develop in a certain way, major global changes could occur.

Recent developments shift focus from who will prevail. The initial phase is over, and Iranians have overcome the first obstacle. Now, political leaders replace Rahbar Khamenei and his family, who also faced losses. It's heartbreaking: a girl, just fourteen months old. Children and grandchildren are all affected.

Gaza often shows a pattern of overwhelming American–Israeli actions, lies, and betrayals that cause horror. Usually, alternative stories circulate, blaming Iran or suggesting Iran harms itself. Misinformation from the U.S., West, and Zionist groups is familiar—it's the same old story. Iran can't count on global outrage but must rely on itself and potential allies.

If Iran keeps reorganizing and sustaining the conflict, Israel may try to reduce Iran to Gaza's level. This process has already begun. Iran still ranks as a major country, with missiles hitting key locations in Israel. After prolonged bombardments and missile exchanges, I believe Israel will become increasingly uneasy.

The Americans and Europeans will notice this. Sinking battleships is easier now, as we've seen from losses in the Black Sea during the conflict with the Kyiv Nazi regime. With modern unmanned aerial and underwater vehicles, taking down a renowned fleet is feasible. We're in a new era of warfare where carrier power is often overstated; it mostly serves as a visual spectacle.

Given Venezuela's rapid helicopter deployment, they likely only last about thirty seconds against threats like firearms, drones, or frontline equipment in Ukraine, indicating limited effectiveness. There seems to be a misconception among Americans and Israelis about the realities of combat, but they are beginning to grasp modern warfare.

If Iran persists, all options become possible. Victory isn't guaranteed for any side, but if Trump and Israel don't succeed quickly, it would be a major win for a multipolar world. The conflict concerns us as the next targets. Iran acts as a shield — the protection of the Katechon — bearing a burden for all. If Iran withstands, it would be a significant achievement for us.

Host: Let's reflect on the importance of cooperation, especially from Russia's perspective. Moscow stated they stay in contact with Iran, pursuing diplomatic solutions despite the U.S. attack. Putin discussed Iran today and plans a meeting with the Amur governor, unrelated to Iran. What are your thoughts? Should we tighten measures or wait? It's unclear what developments we're awaiting.

Alexander Dugin: Adopting a passive stance and waiting to see what happens suggests uncertainty in Iran. Future developments could directly impact our military and political leaders.

Host: In what way?

Alexander Dugin: The Ukraine conflict remains intense. When Trump took office, many hoped he’d ease tensions and withdraw from confrontations. Talks with Witkoff and Kushner aimed to de-escalate U.S. conflicts. Though disagreements with Ukraine and the EU persisted, Trump’s different outlook was seen as a path to peace. Initially, he seemed to hold a different stance. However, within months, he shifted to a more radical neoconservative position, openly and aggressively pushing for globalist goals.

This phase of Donald Trump’s transformation—from supporting MAGA and the Anchorage meeting to adopting a more radical approach amid rapid global developments—may have gone unnoticed. Trump has shifted, acting as a conduit for a will that isn’t truly his. Sadly, he has distanced himself from his original supporters and aligned with forces that began the conflict against us in Ukraine.

The attack on Iran marks a pivotal moment, challenging the idea that Trump is only focused on MAGA, domestic issues, and avoiding international conflicts. It seems unlikely these goals will be met, as Trump is expected to push neoconservative policies. This is a crucial point for everyone.

He targets our allies. If Iran collapses—soon or later—we'll face stronger forces than current enemies. Trump, like a bull charging recklessly, may see our calmness, restraint, and principles as weaknesses, driven by his obsession with victory and invincibility. He might lack the perspective to understand our policies.

Host: How, then, should we act right now?

Alexander Dugin: Acting swiftly is crucial, but the final decision is with the president. Advisors from taxi drivers to military experts agree that a strike is necessary. International law no longer applies, allowing us to act freely toward victory. Removing Ukrainian military-political leadership is non-negotiable, as they targeted our ally. We are justified in retaliating against proxies and enemies on realpolitik grounds.

I believe deploying powerful weapons—ones that can't be ignored—is essential. Working with certain nations that support Ukraine may be necessary, as they view our civility as a weakness. Russia can't afford to appear weak. Though we are strong, they perceive us as feeble, indecisive, hesitant, and lacking strength. Any dominant power's aggression can be challenged if there's the will and capability, and nuclear weapons prove that. Greater Russia has the ability, but thinks we lack the will.

I believe there's been a misunderstanding: our intentions are clear, but we've been discreet during negotiations. This approach now causes complications, and the problems grow quickly. It seems everyone is influencing the president in this direction, though others may see it differently.

There is a consensus that Russia must rethink its strategy toward Ukraine. Decisive actions, such as a military strike to incapacitate Bankova Street, could remove the leadership and challenge Zelensky, complicating negotiations. Then, proposals for dialogue might follow. This approach seems straightforward and effective.

Host: Alexander Gelyevich suggested that after replacing the current leadership, new leaders with potentially more radical views could be appointed, similar to Iran's rapid leadership changes.

Your take on the Iranian situation is interesting! Have you considered what could happen if we took more supportive actions? Imagine Russia and China deploying fleets to the Persian Gulf—it's worth pondering. What might be the possible outcomes?

Alexander Dugin: We would gain respect and instill fear. That is the outcome of honest speech. That's all.

Host: Would that not lead to direct confrontation?

Alexander Dugin: The confrontation has started. They see themselves as leaders, while we consider ourselves negotiation partners, showing a clear difference in perspective. I advise our president not to act now, as he understands the situation well.

Concern about Kyiv's leadership changes shows no radical groups remain; they may be replaced by similar figures, but if they don't serve our interests, we should consider measures against them to eliminate threats gradually. Ukraine differs from Iran, and engaging now offers a chance for success while slowing escalation to prevent a Third World War. Trump proves force is crucial; it stops only with resistance, not words. We must demonstrate strength beyond nuclear capabilities and the 'Oreshnik,' showing power as expected. Only then will Trump see that Russians are upset and realize he’s overstepped.

We need decisive action that can't be seen as bravado or trivial. Though timing and strategy are uncertain, history and front-line soldiers—whose morale has damidipped from peace talks—show that swift, firm measures are vital. Repeated promises that “everything will end soon” cause false security, making us think waiting longer is okay. We must admit the war will end only when all goals of the special military operation are met. It’s time to boost our resolve and take the measures we've delayed. No more excuses for delay.

Recognizing the importance of words is vital. For example, the slogan “Epic Fury”—which even opponents of the Iran attack find inspiring—shows how words matter. It sends a message like “My country is furious, and I support it,” which resonates. In contrast, “SMO” lacks emotional impact. Titles like “Epic Fury,” “Shield of Judah,” and “End of the Flood” serve as powerful symbols. Renaming the military action to “The Sword of the Katechon”—symbolizing restraint, our Russian identity, and Orthodox faith—would be meaningful. Muslims understand this unity and likely support us. Society needs unity, strength, and a meaningful name for the war. Symbols like “Z,” “V,” “O” seemed simple PR tactics, but now it’s time to show our purpose and pursue victory openly. We owe transparency to those who risk their lives for the Fatherland, the state, and the people. It’s a collective effort, and everyone must understand this.

Today, military, political, and religious forces shape events around us. We are actively involved in a Great War, perhaps the last. There's no rush to predict its end, as Orthodox Christians understand that only the Father knows the timing, a point Christ mentioned. We can be sure there's an end because God created the world and will judge it. This core belief underpins our faith and traditions. So, there's no reason to panic.

We observe turbulence marked by recent West events and Epstein revelations. Allegations suggest Western elites are connected to a civilization based on Baal worship, akin to Satanic cultism. These elites are accused of serious crimes, including minor exploitation, cannibalism, and targeting African Americans. Epstein's documents reveal child abuse and orgies. This civilization opposes our values. Iran destroyed a Baal statue before the recent invasion, prompting missile retaliation. In the Islamic world, these events are seen as linked: the Epstein list, Baal worship, and desecration of idols, adding a religious dimension to the conflict. American dispensationalist groups, interpreting the Scofield Bible, believe Iran’s conflict with Israel will draw in Russia. They think "today Iran, tomorrow Russia" and expect US involvement.

Understanding the enemy's psychology is crucial because they often disregard facts and logic. Trump’s tactics and the religious zeal of Israeli leaders—believing it must happen now, expecting the Messiah soon, and viewing "Greater Israel" as urgent—leave little room for daily issues. History, geography, religion, and politics are intertwined, making us part of the story.

Host: Given Europe’s possible involvement in armed operations, what are the implications for the geopolitical landscape? For instance, an Israeli radio station reported that Germany is discussing with the US the potential to participate, possibly supplying weapons or taking part in direct military action. How could this alter the geopolitical balance?

Alexander Dugin: This situation shows conflicts between Trump and the EU are declining as Trump aligns with globalists and neoconservatives, shifting from opposition to the deep state and globalism to a more unified West. We've returned to pre-Trump dynamics, focusing on entrenched “deep state' forces behind figures like Nuland, Blinken, and Harris.

Disagreements between the U.S. and the EU have been temporarily paused due to the urgent need to confront ideological and geopolitical opponents of the West, primarily supporters of a multipolar world like China and ourselves.

Regarding your inquiry about our role, leave the final decision to the president. Active involvement is vital, as strength, confidence, and assertiveness often lead to better results. Hesitation may be perceived as weakness, possibly provoking a harsher response, like with the Iranian leadership. The president has already met with Rahbar Khamenei, President Raisi, other political leaders, and Maduro.

Host: Expanding on this theme: should we act alone or as part of a coalition with China? What should our strategy be?

Alexander Dugin: Working with China is promising, but they may adopt a cautious approach. If Iran collapses, it could trigger a conflict involving our country and China, their main interest. Those who think they can avoid this—whether our nation, China, or Iran (which didn't join the war after the IDF’s Gaza operation, with Hezbollah waiting before being eliminated)—may be wrong. Delaying action increases the risk of a full-scale confrontation with the West, which could overwhelm us.

Once again, we face hard truths. Lavrov said Israel has intelligence on plans to attack Iran. They often tell us to stay out of it: “Stay out for now, avoid involvement," but in the end, no one might support us. I believe we must respond firmly. Immediate action isn’t always necessary, but we must be prepared to stand up to the Kyiv regime. Our actions should show that if Russia intervenes, we have the capacity. Ignoring this risk could lead to greater danger.

Our response must be firm and resolute. We should act within a coalition if possible; if not, we will proceed alone. Decisive action now prevents isolation, while delay risks us being alone or China waiting silently. We have a duty to oppose evil and prevent Baal's civilization from spreading.

(Translated from the Russian)

GUEST EDITOR | THE EU NEVER LEARNS – EXCEPT FOR THE WRONG LESSONS

The bloc’s economic situation was dire even before the shocks of the Iran war, and yet it doubles down on supporting the US and Israel

FILE PHOTO: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen in Jerusalem, Israel, 12 May 2015 © Michael Kappeler / picture alliance via Getty Images

HomeWorld News
13 March 2026

By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

@tarikcyrilamartarikcyrilamar.substack.comtarikcyrilamar.com

Some critics of the current EU ‘elites’, myself included, believed their main trait—besides engaging in genocide, fighting wars with Israel and the US, holding xenophobic views toward Russia and China, and corruption—was their total inability to learn.

We must admit that EU leaders can learn but often focus on the wrong lessons, resisting growth despite new experiences, which leads to regression.

Their response to their US-Israeli overlords starting a war to cut the most affordable energy for the EU reveals much. Large EU nations struggle, with France barely afloat and Germany on the verge of collapse.

Germany, the EU's largest economy with nearly a quarter of the bloc’s GDP, saw an over 11% drop in factory orders in January. German Manager Magazine calls this slump “drastic,” and the Financial Times says the “very weak” start casts doubt on signs of recovery after years of stagnation. Notably, this data was collected before the Iran war fallout.

Regarding the latter, it will be severe. Even Berlin’s Ministry of Economics admits that the risks from the war’s fallout, most still emerging, are considerable.

The Eurozone faces challenges: Eurostat lowered its Q4 growth forecast from 0.3% to 0.2%, reflecting widespread hardship.

Read more
Iran war reality check: Why the US miscalculated Tehran’s political resilience

The Eurozone faces risks from conflicts involving America, Israel, and Iran, which could escalate the crisis. ECB chief economist Philip Lane warned that declining Middle Eastern oil and gas supplies might boost inflation and reduce economic output.

What is the EU leadership’s response to this grim economic outlook and Europeans’ dependence on it? Let’s be honest. If the EU’s ‘elites' truly put European interests and prosperity first, they would probably oppose both the US and Israel vehemently, and reconsider their close ties with London if it remains too aligned with Washington.

If EU leadership truly valued these principles, it would have criticized the US for exploiting allies, for NATO expansion, for high military costs, for outsourcing the Ukraine conflict, and for harmful tariff disputes. It would also have severed ties with Israel over its genocide and wars, which destabilize the Middle East, threaten global stability, and endanger Europe.

The EU's issues stem from poor management in Europe. If it had been more assertive and challenged the US and Israel instead of aligning with them, it might have helped prevent the illegal war against Iran.

However, this does not reflect the EU's true nature, which functions more as a secondary tool of NATO and the US, supporting global oligarchic networks. Ordinary Europeans are only significant if they align with the EU ‘elite’ priorities; dissent leads to suppression.

Ursula von der Leyen, the unelected and legally challenged EU Commission head—arguably the EU’s de facto ruler and US envoy—shows disregard for the severe energy price hike affecting Europe's fragile economies.

Read more
A new war is threatening the Eurasian economy, and it’s not Iran

With tanker ships aflame off the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices soar past $100 a barrel, and reserves decline. EU gas prices have jumped 50%, with the IEA calling this “the largest supply disruption in history.” In response, von der Leyen reverts to the outdated 2022 strategy amid the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine.

The focus remains on ineffective price caps, taxes, fees, market structures, distortions, renewables, and subsidies—despite stretched budgets. Many governments have expressed frustration over this inaction and lack of strategy.

Von der Leyen called the reintroduction of Russian supplies a "strategic blunder," emphasizing the EU’s need to continue phasing out Russian gas and oil. She expressed concern that some EU ‘elites' might abandon this strategy, even reverting to Russian fossil fuels, which she opposes. Despite her stance, her leadership seems to hinder the EU's goals of peace and economic ties with Russia, especially in the energy sector.

This highlights a leadership style that repeats errors, with von der Leyen’s policymaking—covering sanctions and pipeline issues—resembling negative natural selection: ineffective strategies are used repeatedly. The concern isn't if EU "elites" will stop this cycle, but if they will lose control. Poor handling of shocks from the US and Israel could lead to opposition strong enough to replace von der Leyen. Europe should hope for a positive outcome, even from imperfect sources.

Tarik Cyril Amar, PhD, is a German historian and expert on international politics.

He has a BA in Modern History from Oxford University, an MSc in International History from the London School of Economics, and a PhD in History from Princeton University.

Dr. Amar has held scholarships at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and directed the Center for Urban History in Lviv, Ukraine. Originally from Germany, he has lived in the UK, Ukraine, Poland, the USA, and Turkey.

His book 'The Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv: A Borderland City between Stalinists, Nazis, and Nationalists' was published by Cornell University Press in 2015. A study of the political and cultural history of Cold War television spy stories is forthcoming, and he is currently working on a new book on the global response to the war in Ukraine. He has given interviews on various programs, including several on Rania Khalek Dispatches and Breakthrough News.

Dr. Tarik Cyril Amar’s website is https://www.tarikcyrilamar.com/; he is on Substack at https://tarikcyrilamar.substack.comand tweets at @TarikCyrilAmar.