A War For The World? Will Trump Roll The Dice?

Naturally we’re all focused on the immediate threat to what’s left of our republic—the threat of a president to unilaterally go to war against a sovereign nation without any vote in Congress. Yes, that has happened before but, to my recollection, this has always been done with some sort of fig leaf of international approval. This time may be on a similar continuum, but it is different. Part of that difference—apart from the utterly reprehensible spectacle of an American president threatening assassinations and demanding immediate evacuations of major international cities—is that it’s part of a project to establish a global Anglo-Zionist Empire. That has been one of my major theme’s here.

Today I came across two articles that hammer on that theme. The first is one of Alastair Crooke’s regular articles. In it Crooke presents some context for the rise of Trump, in a movement that unites the financial elites and the populist masses. While this may seem to be a long excerpt, I have left a fair bit out—so, follow the link if you find this interesting. I will say that Larry Wilkerson discussed one aspect that I left out, maintaining that 30% of Trump’s billionaire donors in 2024 were dual citizens. I mention that because I’m not suggesting that this excerpt is the total picture of what’s going on in America, but it’s better than a lot of things you might read.

I begin at the point that Crooke raises the point that I’ve repeatedly stressed. Trump 2.0 is the product of a deal, and his job was supposed to be to shore up the financial foundations of Empire, without which it can’t continue, much less thrive. Crooke focuses heavily on Trump’s policy with regard to Russia but, as we’ve seen, Iran is the key part of the Southern Front and the overall war on BRICS. We’ll see how this ties into the current Iran crisis in the second article.

Is the Trump Project unravelling?

Alastair Crooke June 17, 2025

...

Trump was obliged to do a deal in order to be elected. He had to do a deal with the U.S. ‘money circus’ (the ultra-rich), not only on how to rescue the U.S. economy, but he then had to ‘square’ this with the panjandrums of the ‘dark’ Establishment who control much of America’s political ‘life’.

These panjandrums serve as the ‘gods’ protecting a ‘sacred’ security architecture: the U.S.’ unqualified, bi-partisan support for Israel and the ancient visceral phobia towards Russia. However, they also harbour deep qualms for the security of America’s financial fortress – which is expressed as ‘China cannot be allowed to win the war for the future of global finance’.

So what brought such disparate parts together?

In a new book, The Haves and the Have-Yachts, Evan Osnos describes how one man, Lee Hanley, significantly shaped American Right-wing politics over recent decades. Steve Bannon, the original architect of Trump’s MAGA platform, called Osnos [Hanley] one of the “unsung heroes” of American history. “He had a real love of the hobbits, the deplorables”, Bannon said, “and he put his money where his mouth was”.

...

What is going on? Du Toit quotes Osnos outlining how Hanley “uncannily prefigured Trump’s electoral strategy” by assembling “a coalition of conservative élites and the white working class”. In brief, members of America’s élite accepted the terms of Trumpism as the price that would need to be paid, were they to have keep the prospect of holding on to their power.

“After Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, Hanley commissioned a pollster to look deeper into the underlying mood in the U.S. He was informed that “the level of discontent in this country was beyond anything measurable”. Hanley became convinced that Trump was the only politician capable of channelling this energy in a favourable direction, and set about converting other wealthy donors to the cause. It was a canny investment. Even as Trump gave expression to the anger of Bannon’s “hobbits”, his presidency brought immense material rewards [to these wealthy oligarchs]”.

“Trump is a creature of the money-world, and, specifically, of a period of American thinking about greed, fairness, liberty, and dominance”. This was the ‘other revolution’ to that of the MAGA populists, Osnos points out.

Over the years, “a section of America’s élite has increasingly rejected constraints on their ability to accrue wealth, disavowing the notion that their great resources entail any special responsibility towards their fellow citizens. They have embraced a radical libertarian ethos which casts them simply as private individuals, responsible for their own fate, and entitled to enjoy their riches – as they alone see fit”.

This brings us to the Trumpian riddle that Osnos sets out at the start of his book: “To understand why a voter could revile ‘the élite’ and [yet still] revere the billionaire scion of a New York real estate fortune”. ...

The problem here is obvious: The values of the Populist revolutionaries run counter to those venture-capitalist backers of Trump – such as Peter Thiel, David Sachs, Elon Musk or Marc Andreessen.

...

What makes these contradictions potentially incendiary is that none of Trump’s main foreign policy planks –dealing with China, bringing Iran and West Asia into normalisation with Israel, and striking a relationship with Russia – are proceeding as planned. Yet Trump needs quick tariff deals, because America’s debt and fiscal situation require it.

These main geo-political proposed deals were predicated on America having negotiating dominance (holding the ‘aces’). Yet events have shown that Trump does not hold the bigger cards. ...

...

Trump Team’s thinking that the attempted assault on Russia’s nuclear deterrence would pressure Putin into accepting a ceasefire on U.S. terms has backfired roundly.

..., Russia takes the situation very seriously: ...

Here, of course, is the key paragraph:

In Moscow, this episode has opened the question of whether Trump’s true aim – all along – has been to pressure Putin to accept a ceasefire that would weaken him politically, as well as to bind Russia into a situation of endless conflict with Ukraine – a framework that would allow Trump to pivot directly against China (an objective dating to 2016 and one which would be endorsed by all of America’s power centres).

...

But his Team’s misreading of the Russian temper has strengthened Russian and many others’ resolve to resist Washington’s attempts to compel outcomes that run against their own interests. Trump’s strategy to maintain the dollar as the primary trading currency, however, depends on the confidence others have in the U.S.

Confidence is everything.

And that ‘capital’ is being eroded rapidly.

Here we go, with excerpts from an article at RT. This article sees the big picture as well, but focuses on the Iran angle. The author extensively quotes a Syrian analyst who, like Crooke, sees current crises as part of “a broader geopolitical agenda” for Empire. He explains lucidly how Iran is key to that Imperial Project. And we all know that Empire is incompatible with our republican values.

‘If Iran falls, we all lose’ – Why Tehran’s allies see this war as civilizational

…

“They want regime change”

According to Marandi, Israel’s true objective lies far beyond neutralizing a nuclear threat.

“It’s always been so-called regime change,” he said. “Whether it’s the Israeli regime or the Americans or the Europeans. That’s how they are. They don’t want independent countries, and especially countries like Iran, which support the Palestinian cause.”

... Syrian analyst Taleb Ibrahim, a longtime commentator on Iranian affairs and an author of several books on the Islamic Republic, agrees that Western powers – particularly the United States – are pursuing a broader geopolitical agenda.

“If the United States will put its hands on Iran again [like it was before 1979],” Ibrahim told RT, “they will block the Russian southern wall. This means that Russia will not be able to expand its influence beyond the Caspian Sea. And it will be restricted to a very narrow place between Central Asia and the Arctic.”

Ibrahim warns that China, too, would suffer consequences from a weakened Iran. “China will not be able to reach the Middle East. Because if Iran becomes part of the Western bloc, it will sever China’s access. And the most important thing of all – a new world order will emerge. It will be a new American world order.”

Ibrahim believes this is not a regional conflict, but part of a sweeping strategy to restore American hegemony.

“To make America great again is to regain American control across the globe. The war in Iran is just a chapter in that plan.”

Trump’s denial – and strategic silence

…

… Ibrahim is unconvinced.

“In strategy, if you want to make war, talk about peace,” he said. “The United States is preparing for a very big war – first against China, then Russia. After this, they will try to build an American century. One government for the world, headquartered in the White House. That’s the final goal.”

A Dangerous Gamble

Both Marandi and Ibrahim agree that forced regime change in Iran would unleash chaos across the region.

…

… a collapse in Tehran could trigger cascading violence across the Middle East. Global oil markets, already rattled, could see disruptions on a historic scale.

...

“This war,” Ibrahim concluded, “will be the starting point of reshaping the world. If Iran wins – and I believe it will, eventually – the world will shift to a multipolar order. That is the shared vision of Iran, Russia, and China. But if Iran loses, we will all live under an American empire. The White House will rule from Washington to Beijing. This is a decisive battle – not just for Iran, but for the destiny of the world.”

As missiles fly and rhetoric intensifies, what began as a regional standoff may ultimately determine the balance of power in the 21st century.