Our Monday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

Photo by Sarah Sheedy on Unsplash

Living Words from John Paul II | ‘One Human Family – A Call to Solidarity in a Divided World’

“When we look upon the face of the earth, we see not one simple landscape,
but a world marked by valleys of want and mountains of abundance,
by nations clothed in plenty and peoples still waiting at the threshold of hope.

Across the human family there run invisible frontiers—between the developed and the developing, between those who possess and those who are deprived, between voices that are heard and voices that rise like prayer from the margins.

May the Lord open our eyes to the wounds of the world,
strengthen our hands for the work of justice,
and make of us one human family, gathered in truth,
sustained by charity, and led along the path of peace.”

Saint Pope John Paul II
St. Peter’s Basilica, 30 December 1987

Building the Bridge Foundation

Click here for Part 78

Click here for Part 77
Click here for Part 76

Click here for older Parts

EDITORIAL | Repairing the World, One Neighbor at a Time

By Abraham A. van Kempen
17 August 2026

When the world cracks open, faith teaches us how to cross the fault line together

I want to begin where the ache is: the world feels cracked beneath our feet, and these two books ask whether faith can still teach us to carry a lantern across the fault line together.

Against that bruised skyline, Healing Our Broken Humanity, by Grace Ji-Sun Kim and Graham Hill, and Part VII, “Repairing Our Shared World,” in My Neighbor’s Faith, edited by Jennifer Howe Peace, Or N. Rose, and Gregory Mobley, shine like lanterns in hard rain. They ask not only what we believe, but what we practice when the room goes dark.

Kim and Hill start in the welcoming Christian home, not with applause but by gently reflecting ourselves, even if the mirror of our realities fogs up. Their approach is like a spiritual renewal: encouraging us to reimagine the church, mourn, repent, let go of power, restore justice, open hearts, strengthen agency, mend relationships, and rediscover community. Before rushing to fix the world, they guide us to kneel among the wreckage, grieve, confess, and loosen our grip on privilege. Healing requires disciplined transformation—dust on our clothes and deep, genuine mercy.

My Neighbor’s Faith invites us to explore understanding in a lively, welcoming way, like a street festival at dusk rather than a classroom. Sharing faith stories sparks conversations: doorways become desks, dinner tables turn into discovery maps, steam from tea rises with questions, and unfamiliar prayers open like windows. We cross boundaries, listen with open hearts, see our traditions anew, and work together to nurture our world. Part VII’s message, ‘Repairing Our Shared World,’ is to choose a story that resonates, team up with someone of a different faith, or support interfaith initiatives. Kim and Hill highlight this guiding principle—Peace and Rose, Mobley, and others bring it to life with faces, voices, front porches, and lamps left on to warmly welcome strangers.

Both works highlight the stark contrast between unipolar autocracy and multipolar autonomy. Unipolar autocracy is like a marble throne room with one ruler and story, enforcing peace from above. Multipolar autonomy, more free, like many suns in the sky, can scorch if powers cling to their orbits and resist sharing gravity. Both books reveal a deeper issue: power disconnected from relationships. Kim and Hill say we can challenge domination by relinquishing privilege and empowering individuals. Similarly, My Neighbor’s Faith shows suspicion can be broken through crossing borders and working together. These works remind us that a compassionate world depends on a network of responsible neighbors.

_________________________________________________

“Healing begins when power kneels, strangers pull up chairs, and neighbors light the street together.”

_________________________________________________

Tomorrow morning, as headlines light up our phones and coffee cools, we face the tough realities of war and exclusion together. We create gentle spaces of reflection that help us see the truth—asking ourselves who speaks up, who makes decisions, and who carries the burdens. We invite communities often seen as just recipients of policies to step into leadership roles. By coming together, churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and secular groups can work to heal shared wounds—whether welcoming a refugee family, tackling local pollution, or fighting prejudice in schools. Truly, our success isn’t about whose flag flies the highest but about lifting up everyone’s dignity from the shadows.

Listen closely: humanity's healing isn't about replacing one dominant power with smaller ones. Our geopolitical tension resembles a fault line—on one side, steady unipolar autocracy; on the other, autonomous regions worried about upheaval. By building bridges across this fault, we can reduce the disruption from seismic shifts, protecting homes, schools, and neighborhoods.

These books matter because they give us inner tools—lament like a candle in rubble, repentance like clean water, justice like an unlocked door. My Neighbor’s Faith shows us that healing starts when domination loosens, fear quiets, and ordinary people repair the world with their own hands.

The future isn't defined as unipolar or multipolar. Instead, it revolves around relationships and connectivity.

• Imagine a bridge lit from both ends at dusk, cool railings beneath our hands, or a torn map sewn back together with bright thread.
• Picture a streetlamp flickering above neighbors who might have almost forgotten each other’s names.
• Hope is like spring pushing green shoots through cracked concrete after winter, with the air moist from thawing, dark soil under our fingernails, and the first birdsong piercing through smoke.

Our shared world isn't only restored by distant giants but also by people like us—crossing thresholds with grief in one hand, a warm lamp in the other, holding seeds for tomorrow close to our hearts.

We’re on our way to Yalta in peace, slowly but surely.

To be continued on Friday, 04 September 2026.

With every good wish to you, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor

Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know One Another and the Other

Remember! Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative —while military action is cataclysmic—destructive and catastrophic.

When faced with the options to be good, bad, or ugly, let’s build bridges, not burn them. After all, mutual deterrence reigns.

FROM TEHRAN | SEYED M. MARANDI: FROM "ECONOMIC D-DAY" TO NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST IRAN?

• Western policy toward Iran is portrayed as strategically blind, shaped by arrogance, propaganda, and coercion rather than genuine understanding.
• Marandi’s central argument is that pressure has failed to break Iran. Sanctions, threats, and military pressure have instead hardened the country and strengthened its doctrine of survival.
• Sanctions are framed as a form of siege warfare, aimed not only at the state but at ordinary life: jobs, medicine, food security, currency, markets, and families.
• Iran’s response has been strategic reorientation. Western pressure has pushed Tehran toward a resistance economy and deeper ties with Russia, China, BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the wider Global South.
• This broadens the critique to hegemony itself. He argues that dominant powers lose the ability to understand others when they become trapped inside their own narratives.
• The piece warns that Western policy may create the dangers it claims to prevent, especially by strengthening Iran’s incentive to seek or value deterrence.
• The nuclear argument is especially stark: states that possess deterrence are treated cautiously, while vulnerable states may invite attack.
• Economic warfare may backfire. If escalation affects oil exports, ports, pipelines, markets, and financial confidence, the damage may spread beyond Iran.
• The moral core of the piece is intellectual honesty: to see sanctions as human suffering, hegemony as blindness, and humiliation as something that may produce resistance rather than submission.
• The closing warning is that Iran is no longer merely trying to survive pressure; it is preparing to make that pressure costly. The West’s failure to listen may become a form of strategic self-injury.

Watch the Video Here (59 minutes, 09 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
23 August 2026

Essay | How Western Blindness Shaped Iran’s Resistance – Sanctions, Deterrence, and the West’s Inability to Listen

By Abraham A. van Kempen
31 August 2026

What Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi is asking us to see is not merely Iran. He is asking us to see the machinery built to make Iran unseen—except as menace, myth, target, caricature. For decades, Western power has not listened to Iran; it has narrated Iran, flattened Iran, punished Iran, and then mistook its own propaganda for knowledge.

That is the heart of Marandi’s case. Washington’s strategy, whether by bombs, sanctions, or what he calls siege warfare, rests on a fatal arrogance: the belief that pressure will crack a civilization into obedience. But Iran, in his telling, has not been a collapsing house of cards. It has been a nation hardening under fire, learning the grammar of survival, turning wounds into doctrine, and sanctions into eastward diplomacy.

Prof. Glenn Diesen’s scrutiny sharpens the frame. He reminds us that hegemony does not merely dominate territory; it colonizes imagination. A hegemon, drunk on its own story, stops asking what its adversaries fear, need, remember, or intend. It reduces every conflict to a morality play: liberal virtue versus rogue darkness. In that little theatre, no one has security concerns except the West; no one has history unless the West grants it; no one has sovereignty unless Washington approves the script.

First came the “axis of evil,” then the nuclear specter, then maximum pressure, then the endless drumbeat that Iran was always about to fall. Yet the same states that preached law tore up agreements, squeezed civilians, and called economic strangulation diplomacy. Sanctions, in Marandi’s view, were never neutral pressure tools. They were meant to touch jobs, medicine shelves, food security, currency, markets, and family life until pain became politics.

But the wager did not break Iran in the way its authors imagined. It pushed Tehran to build a resistance economy, weaken dependence on Western-controlled finance, and deepen ties with Russia, China, BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the wider Global South. What began as survival became strategic reorientation. The old internal argument—that better relations with Washington or Europe might still be salvaged by patience—lost force under the weight of threats, sanctions, and war.

And this is where Marandi’s assessment darkens. Iran, he suggests, has moved from endurance to deterrent retaliation. If siege is war, resistance is not irrational. If oil exports are weaponized against Iran, Iran will not pretend the battlefield is only Iranian soil. If foreign bases, regional partners, pipelines, ports, financial arteries, and energy routes join the campaign, then, in his assessment, they become part of the conflict’s architecture. One may dislike the warning. One may fear it. But one cannot honestly call it mysterious.

Iran’s alliances, then, are not decoration around the argument; they are part of its spine. Marandi’s claim is that Western coercion pushed Iran away from the West and into a firmer Eurasian, multipolar alignment. This widens the lens: Iran is not merely a sanctioned state trying to endure. It is becoming a southern pillar in a changing Eurasian order, where Russia, China, and non-Western institutions offer strategic depth against isolation.

The most haunting point is nuclear. Marandi argues that the West’s own behavior teaches the wrong lesson: those who possess deterrence endure; those who abandon it may be destroyed. Diesen sees the same danger in the incentive system. Bombing a country to prevent deterrence is like striking a match in a room full of gas and calling it fire prevention. If vulnerability invites attack and deterrence commands caution, then Western policy may be creating the very nuclear incentives it claims to oppose.

The economic warning is no less severe. Marandi believes Washington is more vulnerable than it appears: dependent on Gulf stability, energy flows, fragile financial markets, and allied wealth stored in Western systems. If regional escalation threatens oil exports, pipelines, ports, and financial confidence, the pain may not remain neatly contained inside Iran. Economic warfare, once unleashed, does not always obey the map drawn by those who begin it.

What makes this exchange powerful is not that it asks us to adore Iran, or America, or any state. It asks for something rarer: intellectual honesty. To see sanctions as suffering. To see hegemony as blindness. To see that humiliation does not breed submission forever; sometimes it breeds memory, discipline, and steel.

So listen closely. Beneath the policy jargon—maximum pressure, economic D-Day, strategic leverage—there are families, markets, medicine shelves, ports, pipelines, soldiers, elections, currencies, and futures. There is a world trembling because empires too often confuse dominance with wisdom.

Iran, in Marandi’s assessment, is no longer asking merely how to survive the Western chokehold. It is asking how to make the hand that tightens it feel the cost. Diesen’s warning cuts deeper still: when a hegemon loses the ability to understand others, it loses the ability to protect itself from the consequences of its own blindness. That is the thunder in this interview: not simply that Iran refuses to kneel, but that the West may have forgotten how to stand unless someone else is made to bow.

The main argument is that Western policy toward Iran has been driven by arrogance, coercion, and narrative blindness rather than genuine understanding. Through Marandi’s perspective, the piece argues that sanctions, threats, and military pressure were meant to break Iran but instead hardened it—pushing the country toward deterrence, resistance economics, and deeper alignment with Russia, China, BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the wider Global South.

Diesen’s contribution broadens the argument: hegemony not only dominates materially; it also distorts perception. The West, by refusing to understand Iran’s history, fears, and security concerns, may be creating the very dangers it claims to prevent—especially by incentivizing nuclear deterrence and escalating economic conflict.

The closing warning is that Iran is no longer merely trying to survive Western pressure; it is preparing to make that pressure costly. The deeper critique is that the West’s failure to listen may become a strategic self-injury: a hegemon that demands submission from others may lose the ability to protect itself from the consequences of its own blindness.

Concluding Analysis

The argument ultimately exposes a security dilemma disguised as a morality play. Western coercion is intended to narrow Iran’s choices, yet repeated pressure has widened the strategic value of resistance, alternative partnerships, and deterrence. Sanctions can inflict severe economic pain, but pain is not the same as political compliance; without durable diplomacy and credible assurances, coercion may deepen mistrust and encourage the very nuclear hedging it seeks to prevent.

This does not make Iran’s conduct beyond criticism, nor does it erase the legitimate security concerns of its neighbors. It does, however, demand a harder distinction between punishment and strategy. A policy that measures success by the intensity of pressure rather than by changes in behavior can become self-defeating: it strengthens hardliners, discredits engagement, and turns economic isolation into an argument for deeper Eurasian alignment.

The strategic alternative is neither appeasement nor romanticism. It is disciplined realism: pair verifiable limits with reciprocal guarantees, reopen channels that survive political cycles, and recognize that security cannot be built by making another state permanently insecure.

The West’s decisive test is therefore not whether it can tighten the hand around Iran, but whether it can loosen its grip long enough to hear what its own pressure has produced.

BREAKING: U.S. JUST BOMBED IRAN, CASUALTIES CONFIRMED – w/ Prof. Glenn Diesen

This analysis explores increasing geopolitical tensions in two key regions: the renewed tensions between the United States and Iran, and the declining strategic position of Ukraine and NATO in the Russia conflict.

• Mario Nawfal and Prof. Glenn Diesen interpret the reported U.S. strike on Iran’s Larak Island as a dangerous move that might justify Tehran's retaliation.
• They also emphasize that Russia’s advances on the battlefield and NATO’s restricted choices are raising the risk of a broader conflict.
• Overall, the discussion stresses the dangers of misjudgment, escalation management, diminished deterrence, and fewer diplomatic options.

Watch the Video Here (45 minutes, 01 second)

Host Mario Nawfal
Nawfal
30 June 2026

AGAINST ALL TOTALITARIANISMS

ABRIDGED OP-ED VERSION

We recognize totalitarianism when it arrives in black boots, with barred windows, secret files, and the midnight knock. But its quieter forms are more dangerous precisely because they do not look like chains. They look like comfort. They sound like progress. They ask only that every living difference bow before one final truth.

Elk Eber's 'That Was the S.A.' shows that totalitarianism is often intolerant of differing beliefs and harsh on alternative viewpoints. Totalitarian ‘liberalism’ also shares this trait; it sometimes overlooks the bravery and dignity in non-liberal ideologies, especially when labeled as 'reactionary’ or 'racialist '. Remember that every ideology creates heroes and villains, a truth most totalitarian systems rarely admit.

By Michael Walker
Multipolar Press
29 August 2026

We condemn totalitarianism so readily that the word has become almost weightless. It is hurled like a stone, but rarely examined like a blade. That laziness is costly. If the word is to warn us rather than flatter us, it must be sharpened again. A totalitarian order is not simply a harsh or brutal one. It is an order that wants the whole of life: the schoolroom and the marketplace, the family table and the public square, the memory of a people and the imagination of a child. It recognizes one truth, one authorized way of being, one acceptable story of history. Everything else must be converted, marginalized, or made to disappear.

The obvious examples still burn in the mind. Marxism and national socialism both behaved like secular religions, complete with chosen peoples, promised redemptions, enemies to be eliminated, prophets, heretics, and sacred texts. Their methods—terror, propaganda, surveillance, regimentation and murder—made their totalitarian character unmistakable. Yet if we stop there, we comfort ourselves too easily. Violence may reveal totalitarianism, but it does not define it. The essence lies deeper: in the ambition to make one idea rule all of life, like a sun that permits no other light.

The cage of the future may not be made of iron.
It may be made of convenience, applause, distraction and debt.

That is why the uncomfortable question must be asked with courage: can liberalism, usually presented as totalitarianism’s cure, acquire a totalizing character of its own? The answer is yes—not because liberal democracies are identical to dictatorships, but because liberalism can also turn one principle into a universal command. It promises emancipation of the individual: freedom from authority, inherited obligation, and collective claims. But when individual autonomy becomes the single measure of all social and political life, liberalism begins to flatten the world it claims to liberate. It takes the mountain range of human belonging and presses it into a shopping catalog.

This does not mean that consumer democracy is a police state in softer clothes. It means only that conformity can arrive without sirens. A society need not burn books if dissent can be made commercially invisible. A difficult book may remain legal yet vanish from shop windows, classrooms and recommendation lists. A controversial speaker may not be arrested; he may simply become “unplatformable,” unfashionable, professionally radioactive. Opposition can be turned into lifestyle branding, therapy or niche entertainment. Heresy need not be censored if media, bureaucracy and market incentives already decide which voices are amplified, which are mocked, and which are left outside the bright circle of attention, speaking into the dark.

The cost is a thinner, lonelier freedom. The citizen is praised as a chooser while being shut out of meaningful participation in common life. Education becomes training for mobility and utility rather than initiation into a shared inheritance: schools teach skills for employment, but less often the long memory of language, place, myth, duty and civic courage. Politics becomes spectacle: expertly staged, professionally interpreted and passively watched, like a televised contest in which the public is invited to cheer but not truly govern. Even rebellion is dressed for the camera: protest becomes a logo, dissent becomes a hashtag, anger becomes content. The amateur activist is treated as a nuisance; the specialist and the consumer are welcomed. Desire is multiplied, but will is weakened. We are offered a thousand mirrors and fewer windows.

A fishing town becomes a weekend resort.
A farmhouse becomes an investment property.
A local craft becomes a souvenir, stripped of the world that gave it meaning.

Economic life completes the pressure. Communities and nations are told to submit to the same imperatives: growth, development, mobility and consumption. A fishing town becomes a weekend resort. A farmhouse becomes an investment property. A local craft becomes a souvenir, stripped of the world that gave it meaning. Self-sufficiency gives way to dependency. Landscapes become assets, cultures become attractions, and quality of life is measured by the quantity of goods available for purchase. The language is reassuring—progress, opportunity, standard of living—but beneath it runs a colder music: the drumbeat of sameness. A world of distinct peoples and ways of life is steadily reorganized around the autonomous consumer.

This is the paradox liberal societies must confront honestly. The champions of freedom of choice may end by destroying the conditions that make genuine choice possible. Choice has meaning only where different forms of life can endure: villages with memory, languages with songs, families with duties, peoples with a sense of destiny. A grandmother teaching an old prayer, a neighborhood defending its common square, a people preserving its festivals, cemeteries, dialects and seasonal rhythms—these are not decorative leftovers from the past. They are the living soil from which freedom grows. If every community is drawn into the same economic, cultural and psychological order, individuals may choose endlessly among products, pleasures and opinions while peoples lose the deeper freedom to remain themselves.

A genuinely non-totalitarian outlook would therefore ask more of us than tolerance for private eccentricity. It would defend the right of other peoples and traditions to exist on their own terms: the monastery and the market town, the minority language and the inherited craft, the stubborn local custom that refuses to become a tourist performance. It would value attachment, memory, discipline and participation alongside self-expression. It would resist the sweet poison of moral vanity: the fantasy that our own language contains all virtue while rival creeds contain only corruption. No political vocabulary is innocent forever. Every banner can become an idol. Every creed can become a cage.

The temptation of every totalitarianism is the easy way out: one truth to obey, one road to march, one system strong enough to file down every rough edge of human difference. We should not answer that temptation by romanticizing coercive ideologies or forgetting their crimes. We should answer it by refusing every empire of simplification, even when it comes smiling, even when it calls itself freedom. A free society is not a shopping mall with flags. It is a living inheritance: families that remember, communities that argue, citizens who judge, peoples who are permitted to remain themselves. Freedom is not the quiet right to drift through illuminated aisles choosing between prearranged options. It is the harder duty to stand somewhere, belong to something, protect what is fragile, and keep open the many doors through which human life enters the world. The free person is not merely an isolated chooser. The free person is a witness, a guardian, a maker of loyalties—and, when the hour demands it, a fighter against every cage, even the one lined with comfort.

Today's democratic consensus claims to be “non-totalitarian," but both fascism and modern “democracy" rely on artificial processes accepted by masses, often unknowingly, creating a shared sense of approval.

• Totalitarianism is not defined only by terror: uniforms, prisons, secret police, and censorship are its most visible instruments, but they are not its essence. At its core, totalitarianism is the desire to make one idea, one story and one measure of value rule over every corner of life—from politics and education to memory, culture and private conscience. For example: a classroom that teaches history only as proof of one ideology, or a public culture that treats every disagreement as moral treason, is already moving toward that totalizing habit.
• The danger can arrive quietly: conformity does not always announce itself with violence. It can enter through comfort, debt, distraction, bureaucracy, market pressure, and mass entertainment, gradually teaching people to accept narrow lives as free lives because they are surrounded by choices that do not threaten the system itself. For example: opposition may not be banned; it may simply be turned into a brand, a television segment, a therapeutic complaint or a niche product that can be safely consumed and forgotten.
• Real freedom needs more than choice: a society is not truly free simply because individuals can consume, criticize, or select among prearranged options. Genuine freedom requires communities with memory, citizens with judgment, cultures with endurance, local loyalties that are allowed to survive, and peoples who can live by more than one authorized story. For example: a village able to preserve its customs, a language kept alive by songs and stories, or a family that passes down duties as well as rights may express freedom more deeply than a marketplace full of interchangeable choices.

Please read the original 5,000-word essay ...

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GET TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're seeking the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge fosters understanding, dispels prejudice, and sparks a desire to learn more about the subject. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet, its misuse can cause untold harm, leading to misunderstandings, prejudices, and conflicts.

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

• We won’t ask for your credit card number.

• Just enter your e-mail address to receive your complimentary free-for-life subscription to our newsletter.

• Please include your First and Last Name.

• We won’t share or sell your e-mail address.

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of the Building the Bridge Foundation