On one hand, many assume that the West, driven by transactionalist fatigue, will abruptly “betray” and abandon Ukraine.

On the other hand, an equally naive camp insists that Ukraine, bolstered by Western armaments, is on the verge of unilaterally and decisively defeating the Russian Federation.

Neither scenario aligns with the cold, structural realities of great-power competition. The war in Ukraine is neither an ideological crusade nor a blitzkrieg waiting for a dramatic conclusion; it is a carefully calibrated structural stalemate.

Its ultimate objective is not the immediate reclamation of territory, but the redistribution and exhaustion of geopolitical power.

Crucially, the outcome of this meat grinder on the East European Plain extends far beyond the borders of Europe. Russia’s survival, collapse, or pyrrhic stabilization within this war of attrition will directly determine the geopolitical architecture of the Western Pacific, fundamentally shaping China’s national security environment for decades to come.

Dismantling the Binary Illusion: The Anatomy of a Stalemate

To understand the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine War, one must first strip away idealistic narratives and evaluate the systemic constraints governing both sides.

Why the West Will Not Abandon Ukraine

The notion that the United States or its European allies will simply “sell out” Ukraine fundamentally misreads Western strategic intent.

Alliance Credibility

Abandoning Kyiv would inflict catastrophic damage on the credibility of the Western alliance system, paralyzing NATO and signaling to adversaries and allies alike that American security guarantees are ephemeral.

The Prime Strategic Directive

More importantly, a Western withdrawal would grant Moscow the operational breathing room it desperately needs to reconstitute its armed forces and solidify its sphere of influence.

This directly contradicts the core grand strategy of the Western coalition: to suppress, contain, and systematically drain Russia’s state capacity. Until this strategic exhaustion is realized, the West will not voluntarily pull the plug.

Why an Early Ceasefire Is Structurally Impossible

A durable peace requires either total military asymmetry or overlapping core interests. Neither exists today.

Moscow’s baseline demands (retention of annexed territories, perpetual Ukrainian neutrality, and a revised European security architecture) are diametrically opposed to the Western and Ukrainian baseline (restoration of territorial integrity and integration into Euro-Atlantic security structures).

Any premature ceasefire would merely provide Russia with a respite to reorganize logistics, rearm, and adapt its defense-industrial base. Because a truce disrupts the West’s attritional timeline, the war is locked into a rigid binary: endless attrition or controlled escalation.

Why Ukraine Cannot Unilaterally Defeat Russia

Even setting aside Ukraine’s severe disadvantages in demographic depth, raw industrial capacity, and air defense saturation, the West will not permit Ukraine to unilaterally dismantle Russia.

The Balance of Power Dilemma

An absolute Ukrainian military triumph would produce an unpredictable, heavily militarized nation of battle-hardened veterans with the largest conventional land force in Europe.

Bound by Slavic cultural roots and outside the traditional Anglo-Saxon and Western European core, a triumphant Kyiv would pose an uncontrollable variable in the European balance of power.

The Nuclear Red Line

As a major nuclear superpower, Russia retains an existential escalation ladder. If conventional defeat threatens regime survival or territorial integrity, the doctrine of “escalate to de-escalate” via tactical nuclear weapons transitions from theory to operational reality.

To avoid triggering a catastrophic direct exchange between nuclear powers, the West strictly throttles the qualitative capabilities of its aid, imposing geographic and operational limits on Ukraine’s military options.

The “Boiling Frog” Strategy: Maximizing Western Strategic Utility

Because neither a total Russian victory nor a sudden Russian collapse aligns with Western interests, Washington’s optimal playbook is a textbook “boiling frog” strategy: gradual escalation and deliberate attrition.

By regulating the flow of advanced weaponry—providing just enough to sustain Ukrainian lines and inflict steady casualties, but never enough for a rapid breakthrough—the West pursues three distinct strategic dividends:

Exhausting Russian National Power

Moscow is forced to convert its entire economy into a wartime regime, liquidating sovereign wealth funds, expending its demographic core, and starving high-tech civilian sectors to sustain frontline operations.

Subordinating European Autonomy

The conflict has severed Europe’s reliance on cheap Russian hydrocarbons and dismantled Franco-German ambitions for independent European strategic autonomy. Europe is now more economically reliant on American liquefied natural gas (LNG) and militarily subordinate to NATO command than at any point since the Cold War.

Modernizing the Western Military-Industrial Base

The conflict serves as an operational testing ground for doctrine, sensor-to-shooter loops, and unmanned systems, providing Western defense conglomerates with guaranteed procurement cycles.

Consequently, the war has only two structural exit pathways:

Pathway A:

Russia is hollowed out by prolonged attrition, culminating in severe domestic political and economic restructuring.

Pathway B

The Western coalition exhausts its political patience, facing electoral shifts, fiscal constraints, and voter fatigue, eventually forcing a frozen conflict along the line of contact.

Russia’s Fate: Two Scenarios and Their Impact on China

China cannot afford to view this European conflict through a detached lens. Beijing and Moscow share a 4,300-kilometer border and form an informal, “back-to-back” counterweight against American unipolarity. The nature of Russia’s endgame will dictate whether China enjoys a secure northern periphery or faces unprecedented strategic exposure.

Scenario A: Western Patience Wanes, Russia Stabilizes a Pyrrhic Gain

If political realignments in the United States and Europe lead to diminished aid, allowing Moscow to solidify control over occupied territories and freeze the conflict, the fallout for China remains relatively manageable:

Preservation of the Strategic Sponge

An intact, battle-tested Russia continues to pin down significant American and NATO military assets, logistics, and surveillance across the European theater. Washington remains constrained by the reality of a two-front dilemma, preventing a 100% reallocation of its power projection assets to the Indo-Pacific.

Deepened Sino-Russian Economic Symbiosis

Permanently cut off from European markets and technology, Moscow will pivot completely toward Beijing. This provides China with discounted energy supplies (pipeline natural gas and crude), agricultural inputs, and access to Russian transit corridors through the Arctic and Central Asia.

However, this scenario also carries strategic liabilities. A hyper-militarized Russia with entrenched nationalist rhetoric could become unpredictable along its own periphery. Simultaneously, Western capitals will formalize the narrative of an authoritarian Eurasian axis, accelerating coordinated technological decoupling, trade barriers, and secondary sanctions against Chinese firms.

Scenario B: Russia Collapses into Fragmentation and Internal Chaos

If Western attritional warfare succeeds in bankrupting Moscow, fracturing the federal structure and triggering an internal collapse or warlordism, China would face its most dangerous national security crisis since the founding of the PRC.

Total Loss of the Strategic Buffer and the “Indo-Pacific Squeeze”

In contemporary geopolitical calculus, Russia acts as an indispensable shock absorber. If this buffer disintegrates, or if Moscow falls to a pliant, pro-Western administration, the United States will be entirely unburdened in Europe.

With NATO securing the eastern front at minimal cost, Washington would execute a complete, unrestricted Pivot to Asia. The full weight of the US Navy’s carrier strike groups, stealth bomber fleets, advanced strike reconnaissance networks, and diplomatic machinery would concentrate exclusively on the First and Second Island Chains. China would be left to face an undivided Western security apparatus entirely alone.

The Northern Frontier: From Strategic Rear to Volatile Frontline

For decades, the Sino-Russian border has been peaceful and demilitarized, allowing the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to concentrate its elite naval, amphibious, and missile forces along the southeastern seaboard (Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea).

A fractured Russia would shatter this peace:

Proliferation of Unconventional Threats

Uncontrolled ethnic warfare, armed deserters, and criminal syndicates in Siberia and the Russian Far East could bleed directly across the border into Northeast China and Inner Mongolia.

Nuclear Command-and-Control Breakdown

The dispersion or loss of command over Russia’s vast tactical and strategic nuclear arsenal would create an imminent proliferation nightmare right on China’s doorstep.

Forced Resource Redeployment

China would be compelled to execute a massive, economically devastating redeployment of conventional land and air forces back to the northern borders, recreating the perilous two-front defensive dilemma of the 1960s Sino-Soviet split.

Severing the Eurasian Continental Artery

China’s grand strategy relies heavily on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to establish overland logistics and energy pipelines across the Eurasian landmass, hedging against a potential US naval blockade of critical maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Malacca.

A destabilized Russia and an anarchic Central Asia would paralyze the China-Europe Railway Express and jeopardize cross-border oil and gas pipelines. China’s landward escape hatch would slam shut, leaving its trade and energy imports vulnerable to interdiction at sea.

Strategic Warnings and Imperatives for China

The structural reality of the Russia-Ukraine War offers stark, indispensable lessons for Beijing’s defense and foreign policy planners.

Discard Geopolitical Romanticism

The ruthless efficiency of Western statecraft in Ukraine demonstrates that international politics is governed entirely by power, interest, and endurance.

The West’s willingness to sustain a prolonged proxy conflict, absorb inflationary spikes, weaponize global financial clearing systems (SWIFT), and seize sovereign reserves proves that when fundamental interests clash, institutional norms are discarded.

China must harbor no illusions: should a crisis erupt in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, the economic, informational, and military measures mobilized against Beijing will be exponentially more severe than those deployed against Moscow.

Operationalize Bottom-Line Scenarios for Russian Instability

While maintaining constructive bilateral ties, Beijing cannot afford to tether its national security exclusively to Moscow’s political longevity. Strategic planners must conduct rigorous war-gaming around worst-case contingencies:

Border Lockdown Protocols

Preparing rapid-response infrastructure to seal and monitor the northern frontier against refugee waves and unconventional incursions.

Joint Nuclear Mitigation

Formulating contingency diplomatic channels—potentially including emergency deconfliction mechanisms with the UN Security Council and Washington—to secure loose nuclear assets in the event of federal authority collapse in Russia.

Resource Redundancy

Accelerating domestic energy transition plans and diversifying overland energy corridors through Southeast Asia and the Middle East to hedge against Eurasian transit disruption.

Exploit the Attritional Window to Fortify Internal Resilience

The ongoing stalemate in Ukraine provides China with a critical, but finite, window of strategic opportunity.

While American military and intelligence assets remain committed to managing the European escalation ladder, China must aggressively address its own structural vulnerabilities:

Asymmetric Military Deterrence

Accelerate the deployment of Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities, hypersonic strike platforms, submarine modernization, and counter-space assets to render any US military intervention in the First Island Chain prohibitively costly.

De-risking the Economic Core

Push forward the dual-circulation framework by systematically eliminating dependencies on Western semiconductors, lithography systems, and aerospace components, while building non-dollar, non-SWIFT cross-border financial architectures (e.g., mBridge, digital RMB).

Consolidating the Global South

Broaden engagement with ASEAN, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa through BRICS+ and regional development frameworks, ensuring that Western containment coalitions cannot achieve a global consensus.

Conclusion

The tragedy unfolding in Ukraine is an autopsy of the post-Cold War international order.

For China, the central takeaway is clear: Russia’s survival as a coherent, sovereign, and stabilizing power on the Eurasian landmass is a vital condition for maintaining a favorable strategic balance.

By recognizing that modern wars are won through systemic resilience and industrial depth rather than romantic assumptions, China must use this interregnum to fortify its own defenses.

In an era marked by great-power attrition, only an unassailable domestic fortress can ensure that a nation navigates the gathering geopolitical tempest undefeated.

Why? Because according to orthodox Jewish doctrine, God caused the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel to punish the Israelites for their disobedience; only when God sends the “Messiah” (the Savior) to earth will the Israelites be able to follow him to Canaan and establish a nation.

By that time, there will be no war or suffering in the world, and everyone will believe in the same God.:

Leviticu: 26:33

And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.

Deuteronomy 28:63-64

And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other...

Song of Solomon 2:7

I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.

Jeremiah 23:5-6

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely...

Ezekiel 37:21-22

And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all...

Isaiah 11:12

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

However, the fact that the Jews established a state in Canaan (the region of Palestine) on their own—before the arrival of the Messiah—undoubtedly violates the tenets of Judaism and could even be construed as blasphemy against God.

The Israelites violated three of God’s covenants

One of the famous classic texts of the Jewish people is the *Talmud*, in which God established three oaths; two of them are directed at the Jewish people:

1. Jews are not permitted to gather in Israel.

2. Jews are not permitted to rise up against other peoples.

3. Other peoples are not permitted to oppress the Jews excessively.

The original text of the Talmud reads as follows:

Talmud Ketubot 111a

ג׳ שבועות הללו למה? אחת שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה, ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל שלא ימרדו באומות העולם, ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את העובדי כוכבים שלא ישתעבדו בהן בישראל יותר מדאי.

English version:

What is the purpose of these three oaths? One, that Israel should not go up [to the Land of Israel] as a wall. And one, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured Israel that they should not rebel against the nations of the world. And one, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the nations of the world that they should not subjugate Israel too much.

However, in reality, Jews have not only concentrated in large numbers in Canaan (the Palestine region) but have also systematically oppressed the Palestinians—actions that clearly violate the teachings of the Jewish text, the Talmud.

This is why Orthodox Jews—that is, Jews who hold fast to the Jewish faith and belief in God—are vehemently opposed to Zionism and the State of Israel.

In other words, the very establishment of the State of Israel constitutes the ultimate act of antisemitism; yet, due to the brainwashing of Western media, opposing Israel has somehow come to be equated with antisemitism—a testament to the formidable power of the media.

How the Israelites Violated the Covenant with God in the past?

In the Jewish Bible, specifically the Tanakh, God made a covenant with Abraham, establishing a bond between God and Canaan, the “land flowing with milk and honey,” which is present-day Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon, and granting it to the descendant of Abraham.

Later, after Moses—a descendant of Abraham—led the Israelites in their escape from Egypt, it was bestowed upon him and his people, the Israelites.

Of course, nothing comes for free; since God bestowed this “land flowing with milk and honey” upon the Israelites, they were naturally required to honor their covenant with Him.

So, what would happen if Israel dared to break its covenant with God?

According to the account in the *Tanakh*, the consequences were as follows:

And you will I scatter among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you; and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.

So, did the Israelites keep the covenant with God?

In the covenant between God and Israel, there is this provision: You shall worship no other gods besides Me; you shall not make idols for yourselves, nor shall you make images of anything in the world:

Exodus 20:3

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Exodus 20:4

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

The Incident of the Golden Calf

While Moses was receiving the Law on Mount Sinai, the Israelites at the foot of the mountain lost patience after waiting too long and demanded that Aaron make an idol for them.

Exodus 32:4

And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Exodus 32:8

They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it...

God was furious at this and ultimately inflicted severe punishment.

Exodus 32:9-10

And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them..

God’s punishment was swift and extremely severe; within a very short time, three thousand Israelites were killed.

Exodus 32:27-28

…and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion… and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

In addition to physically killing the Israelites, God also sent down a plague.

Exodus 32:35

And the Lord plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

Well, so much for the so-called “merciful and benevolent God.”

Israel complained about God and was set on fire by God

Shortly after leaving Mount Sinai, the Israelites began to complain against Jehovah. God was furious when He heard this and sent down fire directly into the camp to consume them.

Numbers 11:1

And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the Lord burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.

The people were terrified and ran to Moses for help. The fire died down only after Moses prayed to God. The place was named accordingly.

Numbers 11:2-3

And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the Lord, the fire was quenched. And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the Lord burnt among them.

This was merely the beginning of the Israelites’ “ceaseless grumbling” after the Exodus. Shortly after the fire, in the same chapter (Numbers 11:4–33), they began complaining that the God-given “manna” they ate daily was too bland, clamoring instead for meat.

Although God provided quail, He was once again enraged by their greed and complaints; before they could even finish chewing the meat, He struck down many of them with a severe plague.

The Israelites doubted God and, as a result, suffered misfortune once again

When the Israelites finally reached the edge of the Promised Land (Canaan), Moses sent twelve spies to scout out the land.

As a result, ten of the spies were frightened by the strength of the locals and the height of the city walls, and brought back depressing reports.

This resulted in the entire congregation having a complete breakdown, openly doubting God’s power, and blaming Him for bringing them out of Egypt and leaving them to die.

After returning from their reconnaissance, the scouts reported the enemy’s formidable strength to the entire congregation, sparking panic.

Numbers 13:28

Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.

Numbers 13:31

But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.

Upon hearing the report, the people completely lost their trust in God, grumbled bitterly, and even regretted leaving Egypt.

Numbers 14:2-3

And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness! And wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? were it not better for us to return into Egypt?

God was extremely angry with the Israelites for doubting Him the moment they encountered difficulties and for disregarding the various miracles He had previously performed (such as parting the Red Sea and sending down the Ten Plagues).

Numbers 14:11

And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

It was precisely because of this grave “lack of trust” that God pronounced judgment: with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, who remained steadfast in their faith, none of the Israelites aged twenty and older would be permitted to enter the Promised Land.

They were condemned to wander the wilderness for forty years, until that entire generation—those who had doubted God—had perished there (Numbers 14:28–33).

Are the Israelites keeping the covenant with God now?

Some might argue that such acts of defiance against God by the Israelites belong to the past, and that the Israelites of today may have turned over a new leaf and resumed honoring their covenant with God.

Is that really the case?

If we set aside the condition that a state could only be established upon the return of the Messiah, did the Israelites—in other respects—uphold their covenant with God?

The Israelites violated God’s prohibition by eating foods containing fat

In the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, the “fat” of certain animals (such as cattle and sheep)—referring specifically to the high-quality fat enveloping the internal organs—was regarded as the choicest and richest portion of the offering and had to be completely burned on the altar as a sacrifice to God; meanwhile, “blood” represented life and was likewise considered sacred.

Consequently, the Israelites were strictly forbidden from consuming either of these.

Leviticus 3:16

...all the fat is the Lord's

Leviticus 3:17

It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

To this day, some Israelis still consume foods such as animal visceral fat—which God forbade—thereby clearly violating God’s prohibition.

For the Israelites to work on the Sabbath (that is, Saturday) violated God’s covenant

In Exodus chapter 31, God issued commands regarding the Sabbath in great detail and with extreme severity.

Exodus 31:14-15

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 31:16-17

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever...

Numbers chapter 15 records a real-life incident from the wilderness period that fully illustrates the rigorous enforcement of the aforementioned law.

Found someone gathering wood on the Sabbath:

Numbers 15:32

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

God issued the death sentence:

Numbers 15:35

And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

The crowd carries out the execution:

Numbers 15:36

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

When this incident occurred (Numbers 15:33–34), Moses and the people initially merely detained the man; because no one had previously violated this specific capital statute, they were uncertain about the proper method of execution.

It was only after God Himself issued the verdict—ordering that the offender be taken outside the camp and stoned to death—that this became the standard procedure for the Jewish Sanhedrin to handle such grave acts of blasphemy.

However, modern Israel continues to engage in work that is not life-saving on the Sabbath—that is, Saturday—which undoubtedly violates the covenant with God.

By examining several real-life cases where modern Israelites—regardless of whether they practice Judaism, given that God’s covenant applies to all Israelites, especially those living in Canaan—violated their covenant with God, it becomes abundantly clear that modern Israelites, too, have failed to uphold that covenant.

How would God react if He came to modern-day Israel?

Some people offer arguments to justify the violation of the covenant with God by contemporary Israelis—for instance:

Some argue that Israel is a secular state rather than a theocracy, and therefore is not required to strictly adhere to the covenant with God.

Others point to the distinction between “Orthodox Jews” and “secular Jews,” maintaining that secular Jews are under no obligation to observe the covenant with God.

This kind of statement is utterly absurd.

If the Israelites were to obtain the land of Canaan promised by God—and to multiply and dwell there—they were required to honor their covenant with Him, regardless of whether or not they practiced Judaism.

A covenant is reciprocal; one cannot simply seek the benefits while refusing to pay the price.

In other words, the Land of Canaan was not an “unlimited credit card” or an “unconditional gift” from God to the Israelites; rather, it was a “lease with conditions.”

The covenant was a two-way agreement: to enjoy the benefits of flourishing in the land, one had to pay the price of “observing the Law.”

In the era of the Old Testament, there was no distinction between “secular Israelites” and “religious Jews”—simply by virtue of belonging to the nation and residing in the land, one was automatically bound by this covenant:

Before Moses died, he delivered a final address to all the Israelites (in the Book of Deuteronomy), laying out with utmost clarity the “benefits” of this covenant and the “costs of breaching it.”

Deuteronomy 30:16-18

In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

After Joshua (Moses’ successor) led the Israelites to conquer the land of Canaan, he issued a final warning before his death: God had fulfilled His promise to bestow blessings upon them, but if they broke the covenant, God would likewise carry out His promise to bring down disaster.

Joshua 23:15-16

Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the Lord your God promised you; so shall the Lord bring upon you all evil things... When ye have transgressed the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you... then shall the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.

From the perspective of legal principles, why could the Israelites not simply occupy the land without upholding the covenant?

Because God, through the Law, explicitly declared from the standpoint of property rights that He is the true owner of the land of Canaan, while the Israelites were merely sojourners and tenants.

Leviticus 25:23

The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

So, if we assume that God truly exists and He were to come down from heaven and witness the various ways in which the people of modern-day Israel have violated their covenant with Him, what would He do?

It is quite simple; we need only look at the accounts in the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, to find the answer.

The Cost of Breaking the covenant with God

In the covenant between God and Israel, the price of breach was far more than a mere “loss of land”; it was a catastrophe accompanied by slaughter, exile, and ceaseless spiritual torment.

The Tanakh explicitly records that upon the violation of the covenant, God would immediately send down plagues, famine, and the sword (war), causing the majority of the people to perish miserably in their own land.

Deuteronomy 28:20

The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

Jeremiah 15:2

...Thus saith the Lord; Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to the famine; and such as are for the captivity, to the captivity.

For those who survived the massacres, plagues, and famines, the punishment did not end; instead, it entered a second phase: exile.

Deuteronomy 28:64

And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other...

“Unable to live, yet unable to die”—this phrase most accurately captures the soul-wrenching reality of the Israelites’ exile.

The Bible depicts, in deeply oppressive terms, the psychological hell endured by the exiles among the nations—a state of constant, suffocating dread where, in the grip of extreme fear, they would sooner choose death.

Deuteronomy 28:65-67

And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life: In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear...

Jeremiah 8:3

And death shall be chosen rather than life by all the residue of them that remain of this evil family, which remain in all the places whither I have driven them, saith the Lord of hosts.

Under God’s law, the privilege of the covenant is immense, yet the cost of breaking it is devastating.

Survivors scattered among the nations were stripped of all security—a multi-generational torment far more cruel than immediate death, just as the prophets Jeremiah and Moses had foretold.

Finally, we’ll conclude with a quote from the ancient Roman philosopher Lucretius:

All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher.

Today, Washington’s cudgel of sanctions and its precision-guided weapons hang over Iran. This is not merely a matter of life and death for a Middle Eastern nation; it is yet another brazen test of force by unipolar hegemony against a multipolar world order.

Faced with such absolute military asymmetry, mere verbal condemnations on social media or impotent statements of protest in the halls of the United Nations have proven utterly bankrupt.

Protests cannot intercept cruise missiles, and statements cannot restore communication networks paralyzed by electronic warfare.

At this historic juncture, we must look back at history to rediscover the great spiritual legacy of those who, in their darkest hours, dared to confront powerful oppressors with concrete action.

The struggles against imperialism and fascism throughout history have never been isolated events.

Let us turn the clock back nearly a century to 1936. When the dark clouds of fascism loomed over the Iberian Peninsula, and Franco’s rebel forces—backed by the armed might of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy—advanced on Madrid, the so-called “liberal democracies” of the West chose appeasement and non-intervention.

Yet, awakened people across the globe did not stand idly by. More than forty thousand volunteers from fifty-three countries—including French workers, American writers, Polish miners, and even German exiles—traveled vast distances, crossed the Pyrenees, and rushed to Spain.

They formed the renowned International Brigades.

Did these individuals fight for the sake of a Spanish passport? No.

Just as the Paris Commune demonstrated a profound bond transcending narrow nationalism amidst the barricades, the fighters of the International Brigades deeply understood a fundamental truth: in the face of fascism and imperialism, no nation’s resistance is merely local.

If the defense lines of Madrid were breached, the next to fall would be Paris, London, and indeed the entire world. With their own flesh and blood, they erected a line of defense for the freedom of all humanity on foreign soil.

Today, the old fascism has donned the suit of the “Rules-Based International Order,” yet its core logic—using absolute force to strip other nations of their right to exist and develop—remains unchanged.

The United States seeks to maintain a privilege of “one-way transparency” and “one-way slaughter” through its global network of military bases, satellite reconnaissance systems, and financial hegemony; it claims the power to destroy any non-compliant nation at any time or place, leaving the target unable to even sound an air-raid siren in time.

However, times have changed, and the forms of resistance must evolve accordingly.

In the third decade of the 21st century, as we call for the re-establishment of an “International Brigade” to assist Iran in withstanding U.S. military strikes, there is no need—nor is it feasible—for volunteers to smuggle themselves into Tehran’s trenches carrying rifles. In the digital age, the front lines have long since extended beyond physical space into the electromagnetic spectrum, algorithmic networks, and open-source code.

The “International Brigade” of the new era need not cross physical borders. In this age, code is our ammunition, encryption protocols are our trenches, and open-source hardware and distributed networks serve as our air-defense positions.

So, who exactly constitutes this digital-age International Brigade? Who, precisely, is “We”?

First, it comprises those of us who steadfastly support the BRICS agenda for a multipolar world

We recognize that the rise of BRICS is far more than a mere aggregation of economic scale; it represents a historical inevitability—a breaking of the centuries-old system of Western colonial exploitation.

The cornerstone of a multipolar world is the “balance of power.” If the United States can wantonly use its high-tech military machine to destroy Iran—a pivotal node in the Eurasian landmass—then the vision of a multipolar world becomes nothing more than empty words. Supporting Iran’s right to exist means defending the strategic depth required for BRICS to establish a new order.

We must build this new world not only through economic and trade cooperation but also by safeguarding it with robust technological barriers. Next are the anti-imperialist left-wing forces within the Western world.

This group comprises countless clear-eyed intellectuals, labor activists, and anti-war campaigners. Situated at the very heart of the empire, you understand the greed and hypocrisy of the Washington military-industrial complex better than anyone else.

The imperialist war machine not only drains the Third World dry but also devours the welfare and future of the Western working class.

For the true Western Left, opposing war cannot simply mean marching in Washington squares with placards. True solidarity must be disruptive—not by disrupting peace, but by dismantling the machine that manufactures war.

Possessing cutting-edge technical insight and the informational advantages of the “First World,” the Western Left bears an inescapable historical mission: to transform these resources into tools for resisting hegemony.

Finally, there are the open-source hackers and engineers who can translate this political will into reality.

Whether you are a seasoned developer proficient in C++/Qt architecture or a geek obsessed with the low-level logic of SDR (Software Defined Radio) and drone flight controllers—in this era, those of you who wield code are modern knights commanding the ultimate defensive power.

You know better than anyone that the modern US war machine relies heavily on vulnerable centralized networks and absolute electromagnetic dominance. Through the ingenious use of open-source technology to build asymmetric digital defense systems, just a few hundred brilliant programmers scattered across the globe can turn the Pentagon’s hundred-billion-dollar precision-guided systems into expensive scrap metal.

Uniting these three forces creates the “Digital International Brigade” we aim to build today. Our alliance will be the Pentagon and the CIA’s worst nightmare.

For they will no longer be facing an isolated sovereign state in the Middle East, but an ironclad defense line woven from the world’s finest minds, unwavering conviction, and decentralized technological networks.

We cannot stop the White House from issuing the order to fire, but we absolutely have the capacity—and the responsibility—to ensure that a missile aimed at Iranian civilians and infrastructure loses its target amidst a fog of digital and electromagnetic interference.

The echoes of history are already reverberating through cyberspace. In the past, fighters of the International Brigades shouted “No Pasarán!” (They shall not pass!) on Spanish soil. Today, in an era ruled by silicon and algorithms, we must key in that same command—”Access Denied”—in the face of the U.S. military’s fire-control radars and reconnaissance networks.

This is our historic mission and the essential path toward the ultimate victory of a multipolar world.

Drawing the Ethical Line—Exporting Survival, Not Slaughter

As we sound the rallying cry for a “Digital International Brigade” on a global scale, the mouthpieces of Western neoliberalism and the apologists for empire will inevitably rush to label us “warmongers,” “terrorist sympathizers,” or even “accomplices of the Axis powers.”

They will wield their discursive hegemony to smear our righteous efforts to defend a multipolar world, framing them instead as attempts to subvert the international order.

Precisely for this reason, before we type the first line of defensive code or assemble the first piece of open-source hardware, we must draw our ethical red lines and define the boundaries of our actions with absolute clarity and firmness: we will never provide Iran with any form of technology for lethal attacks; we export only the means of survival and refuse to facilitate slaughter.

This is neither weakness nor a compromise with imperialism; rather, it is a stance of strategic clarity rooted in profound political consciousness.

We must be clear: we oppose the logic of slaughter that the US military-industrial complex imposes upon the Third World, and we must never allow ourselves to become a mirror image of that logic.

We neither need nor advocate for the development of attack algorithms for suicide drones; we do not provide terminal guidance code for cruise missiles, nor do we participate in any violent engineering projects aimed at taking the lives of ordinary people.

Our goal is not to bring the flames of war to the streets of Washington or to destroy the homes of American civilians; instead, our aim is to use an invisible digital shield to firmly block the precision-guided bombs that the Pentagon launches at the civilians and infrastructure of Tehran.

The ultimate objective of the great struggle against hegemony is not to sow more death across the world, but to halt the slaughter driven by unilateralism. This is an inviolable moral red line.

Having established this red line, we must confront a profound question of military philosophy—one that holds the key to understanding the frequent conflicts plaguing today’s world: Why does the United States dare to trample on sovereignty and launch acts of aggression with such reckless impunity?

The answer lies not in the hypocritical preaching of “spreading democracy,” but in cold-blooded military calculations—for absolute military superiority is, in itself, a breeding ground for aggression.

In the geopolitical history of the past three decades—from the Gulf War to Kosovo, from Afghanistan to Iraq—the U.S. military has demonstrated a suffocating mode of warfare to the world: one characterized by the illusion of “one-way transparency” and “zero-casualty warfare.”

Leveraging a network of space-based reconnaissance satellites, high-altitude early-warning aircraft, stealth bombers, and overwhelming electromagnetic dominance, the U.S. military enjoys a “God’s-eye view” when confronting nations of the developing world.

They can monitor every move the enemy makes, while the enemy’s radar screens show nothing but static; they can launch missiles from thousands of miles away before the target nation even has time to sound an air-raid siren.

For the CIA operator sipping coffee in an air-conditioned room in Nevada while piloting an MQ-9 Reaper drone via a screen, the act of killing is reduced to a video game.

When a war can be waged—destroying a nation’s power grids and water treatment plants—without the cost of bloodshed or even the slightest sense of wartime pain among the domestic population, the threshold for conflict is drastically lowered.

Power corrupts, and absolute asymmetric military force leads to absolute, indiscriminate slaughter.

When a superpower becomes convinced that it can inflict a “dimensional strike”—an overwhelming, crushing blow—upon another sovereign state without facing punishment or substantial retaliation, peace becomes a pipe dream.

Washington policymakers feel emboldened to casually place “military strikes against Iran” on the diplomatic table precisely because of their arrogant assumption that Iran’s air defense systems are blind and its communication networks are fragile—believing the U.S. military can unilaterally mete out punishment and then withdraw unscathed.

It is this absolute military superiority—this unchecked “privilege of unilateral violence”—that stands as the greatest source of global instability today. It has stripped imperialists of the most fundamental reverence for the gravity of war.

Thus, the historic mission of the International Brigades in the digital age becomes crystal clear: we must use open-source technology and asymmetric methods to shatter the U.S. military’s “one-way transparency” and strip away its strategic illusion of “zero casualties.”

True opposition to war and the genuine construction of peace are never achieved by groveling before aggressors, but by raising the cost of aggression. Since the United States relies on absolute information hegemony and electromagnetic dominance to sustain its military myth, our tactic is to employ “dimensional-reduction defense” against these vulnerable digital nerve centers.

If our open-source encryption protocols can render U.S. surveillance systems deaf; if our distributed civilian radar networks can expose stealth aircraft, buying civilians a crucial fifteen minutes to evacuate; if our electronic jamming code can cause the Pentagon’s prized precision-guided munitions to veer off course at the last moment and land in the wilderness—then we will have successfully placed a heavy counterweight on the scales.

When the U.S. realizes that every airstrike entails a steep electronic warfare cost, that every missile risks failure due to open-source network interference, and that its military operations will no longer be one-sided “slaughter shows” but rather a quagmire, the hand wielding the “big stick” will be forced to halt.

We do not manufacture bullets that take lives; we produce algorithms that strip aggressors of their “absolute advantage.” We weave body armor out of code and erect air-raid shelters using electromagnetic waves.

By democratizing and decentralizing cutting-edge defensive technology, we are returning the power to defend sovereignty to the oppressed.

This is the supreme philosophy behind the International Brigades’ counter-hegemony in the digital age: halting war through defense, and forging a genuine, multipolar peace through the democratization of technology.

Defensive Shield No. 1: A Decentralized, Encrypted Communication Network

If one reviews the wars waged by the United States in the 21st century, a chilling, recurring tactical pattern emerges: before the first wave of cruise missiles destroys enemy radar and air defense sites, invisible electronic warfare attacks and precision strikes against communication hubs have already taken place.

From the “decapitation strikes” of the 2003 Iraq War to the internet-severing tactics frequently employed in recent regional conflicts, the U.S. military’s primary objective has always been to strip the target nation of its ability to perceive and transmit information.

This serves not only to sever the enemy military’s chain of command but also to wage brutal psychological warfare against the civilian population. When centralized internet backbones are cut, mobile base stations destroyed, and television towers toppled, a modern society can plunge into a total information blackout within hours.

In its wake comes a weapon far more terrifying than the bombs themselves: panic.

With no knowledge of the situation at the front lines or the fate of loved ones, and no ability to summon ambulances or organize evacuations, the population is left in an information vacuum. U.S. intelligence agencies (such as the CIA) can then exploit this void—using surviving radio stations or airdropped leaflets to spread disinformation and rumors of defeat—to disintegrate the target nation’s social fabric and will to resist from within.

Such “tactical internet blackouts” are, in essence, a form of collective psychological strangulation inflicted upon the entire civilian population.

For Iran, facing the prospect of a U.S. strike, maintaining open lines of communication is not merely a military command requirement; it is a lifeline essential to preventing societal collapse and keeping the civilian population from spiraling into extreme panic.

This is precisely the first defensive shield that the “International Brigade” of the digital age must provide to Iran: a decentralized, encrypted communication network.

In traditional centralized network architectures, all data exchange must pass through a few critical nodes—such as large servers, core routers, and fiber-optic backbones. If the Pentagon wipes these nodes off the map, the entire network collapses. Facing the “dimensional-reduction strikes” of a hegemonic power, reliance on centralized infrastructure is tantamount to handing one’s throat to the enemy.

Therefore, our technological counter-strategy must be rooted in thorough “decentralization.” We need to help build a digital neural network that has no single point of failure and cannot be completely destroyed.

First, this involves the widespread adoption and deployment of radio-based mesh networks.

Mesh networking is a highly resilient topology. In such a network, any smartphone, laptop, or even an inexpensive Raspberry Pi running specific open-source software ceases to be merely a passive receiver of information; instead, it becomes a “relay node” within the network.

When the US military destroys traditional base stations and severs internet access, mesh networks allow devices to automatically discover and connect to nearby nodes via Wi-Fi Direct, Bluetooth, or low-frequency radio. Information flows like water, automatically bypassing destroyed areas and hopping from device to device until it reaches its destination.

As long as a sufficient number of devices remain operational, the network stays intact.

We need to supply Iranian grassroots geeks and community organizations with the relevant open-source protocols (such as the underlying logic of apps like Briar) and construction methods.

We can develop and share low-cost, accessible open-source hardware blueprints, enabling ordinary people to set up local network relay stations on apartment rooftops using nothing more than car batteries and cheap antennas.

When imperialist missiles shatter fiber-optic cables, countless such micro-relay stations—like wild grass in the wilderness—will re-weave the information defense lines that keep society functioning.

Second, we must achieve deep integration between end-to-end encryption (E2EE) and decentralized protocols.

Merely transmitting information is insufficient; if data can be easily intercepted or tampered with by the NSA (National Security Agency) during transit, the communication network risks becoming a tool for the enemy to spread panic.

Therefore, all decentralized communication systems must be built upon robust encryption protocols.

We need to promote decentralized social platforms based on Matrix or similar protocols. These protocols not only guarantee absolute information privacy but, more importantly, eliminate reliance on any central server.

A community, a university, or even a single household can easily set up its own server (”homeserver”) and connect to other servers via federation protocols.

Even if servers in a specific area are destroyed by the U.S. military, the network as a whole continues to function, and the enemy cannot gain a comprehensive view of the situation simply by monitoring a single node.

Going a step further, by utilizing technologies akin to the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS), we can enable the Iranian people to share static web pages and documents containing critical information—such as air-raid safety protocols and emergency medical guidance—even during an internet blackout.

This form of distributed storage leaves censors and saboteurs with no point of attack; every piece of shared critical information is backed up across countless nodes.

This is not merely a technological confrontation; it is a people’s war.

While Pentagon generals gaze at their screens, believing they have successfully paralyzed a city’s communications, countless smart devices deep within the city’s ruins—in basements and air-raid shelters—are silently exchanging vital survival information via covert, encrypted protocols.

Mothers confirm their children’s safety, communities organize mutual-aid rescue teams, and the will to resist grows ever more resilient through the flow of information.

This is the power of a decentralized network. It strips imperialism of its monopoly on information, rendering “tactical internet blackouts” a futile waste of effort. The digital shield we provide fires not a single shot, yet in the darkest of moments, it ignites a glimmer of light that sustains a nation’s survival.

Defensive Shield No. 2: A Civilian Early-Warning Network Based on OSINT and GIS

In the Pentagon’s modern air combat doctrine, the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) is invariably the opening move of a conflict. The primary targets for U.S. stealth fighters and anti-radiation missiles are the target nation’s large-scale phased-array radars and early-warning centers.

Traditional national-level early-warning systems suffer from a fatal Achilles’ heel: they are prohibitively expensive, massive in scale, and highly centralized. An early-warning radar costing hundreds of millions of dollars may be capable of monitoring airspace hundreds of kilometers away, but it also acts as a glaring source of electromagnetic radiation.

To U.S. electronic reconnaissance aircraft (such as the RC-135), it is akin to a lighthouse in the dark; a mere handful of AGM-88 anti-radiation missiles can instantly blind the entire air defense network.

Once the nation’s “eyes” are put out, civilians are left to face incoming Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) with nothing but their own bodies, often without the warning of an air-raid siren.

To break this cycle of one-sided slaughter, the “International Brigades” of the digital age must not simply help Iran build more traditional radar targets; instead, they must launch a revolution to “democratize early warning.”

By leveraging Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT), low-cost consumer hardware, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), they can construct a decentralized civilian early-warning network.

This network possesses no massive radar antennas or centralized command centers. It lies hidden across countless civilian balconies, rooftops, and smartphones.

The U.S. military might be able to destroy an air defense radar station, but it cannot destroy the hundred thousand smartphones and inexpensive Software-Defined Radio (SDR) devices—all equipped with microphones—scattered throughout a city. This form of hardcore asymmetric defense rests on three major technological pillars:

1. A multi-dimensional, low-cost sensing layer: from ADS-B to acoustic arrays

Since US stealth aircraft and ultra-low-altitude cruise missiles (such as the Tomahawk) are designed to evade detection by large-scale radars, we bypass traditional radar waves and instead capture the physical signatures they cannot conceal.

ADS-B and aerial trajectory monitoring: Modern military aircraft often keep their ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) transponders active during peacetime or when flying in non-combat airspace.

By deploying large numbers of RTL-SDRs (low-cost software-defined radio receivers) and Raspberry Pi units—each costing only tens of dollars—across civilian areas, an ADS-B monitoring network covering border lines and surrounding waters can be established. Even if US forces switch off their transponders upon entering an attack vector, algorithms can reverse-engineer their altitude, heading, and speed prior to the signal loss, allowing a GIS system to delineate a high-probability threat sector.

Distributed acoustic and optical sensors: To evade radar, cruise missiles and suicide drones typically employ ultra-low-altitude, terrain-following flight profiles. While such trajectories create blind spots on radar screens, they generate significant acoustic signatures on the ground.

Open-source applications can transform idle civilian smartphones into “acoustic radars.” As a missile skims overhead at low altitude, the microphones of hundreds of smartphones along its path capture its specific acoustic signature—characterized by a distinct Doppler shift.

By correlating this with GPS timestamps from the phones, the system can not only confirm the missile’s arrival but also precisely calculate its flight trajectory.

2. Decentralized data fusion: Dynamic GIS threat mapping

Once massive amounts of fragmented sensory data have been collected, the next step is to transform this “noise” into actionable early-warning intelligence. This requires an exceptionally robust yet lightweight distributed Geographic Information System (GIS).

In this architecture, the GIS is no longer the cumbersome military command display screen of the past; instead, it functions as a topological map running on a blockchain or a network of distributed nodes.

Data Cleansing and Cross-Validation: The early warning network receives thousands of data points per second, which may contain errors or false signals.

The system filters data for confidence levels via backend edge computing nodes. For instance, a “confirmed threat” entity is generated on the GIS map only when at least three independent acoustic nodes near the same coordinate point simultaneously report matching acoustic signatures within a 0.5-second window.

Trajectory Prediction and Polygon Delineation: Once the 3D coordinates and velocity vectors of a cruise missile or aircraft formation are confirmed, the GIS engine immediately generates dynamic “Predicted Impact Polygons” on the map. This is not a static point, but a “red zone” that continuously extends over time.

3. Millisecond-Level Civilian Alert Dissemination

Traditional early warning chains—spanning target detection by radar, verification at the command center, and the sounding of citywide air-raid sirens—often take several minutes. In the face of modern supersonic weapons, a delay of even a few minutes marks the difference between life and death.

A civilian warning network based on decentralized GIS completely bypasses lengthy bureaucratic approval chains.

When the GIS engine calculates that a missile’s predicted impact point will cover a specific city-center block in 90 seconds, the warning is pushed directly to the mobile phones of all civilians in that area at millisecond speeds, utilizing the decentralized, encrypted mesh network established in Chapter 3.

Mobile phones will override silent modes to trigger maximum-intensity vibration and piercing alarm tones. The screen displays not merely the words “Air Raid Alert,” but precise evacuation instructions derived from GIS calculations: “Threat arrives in 85 seconds; move away from windows and enter the basement immediately.”

This is what true technological resistance against hegemony looks like.

While Pentagon strategists are still assessing how many radar stations must be destroyed to “blind” their adversary, they are no longer facing a handful of cold military targets, but a vibrant, self-sustaining neural-sensory network composed of millions of civilian devices.

This system cannot be destroyed by “HARM” anti-radiation missiles, nor can it be fully suppressed by U.S. electronic warfare aircraft, because it is deeply integrated into the everyday digital lives of the civilian population.

To completely destroy this early-warning system, the U.S. military would have to raze the entire city to the ground—an atrocity we are determined to prevent at all costs.

By sharing and iterating upon these hardcore open-source technologies, the Digital International Brigades have wrested control of real-time air defense warnings from the state apparatus and returned it to every ordinary person fighting to survive.

Using the most affordable consumer-grade hardware and highly efficient GIS algorithms, we have thoroughly dismantled the “stealth myth” and the threat of “surprise attacks”—the very tools U.S. imperialism relies on to intimidate the world.

Defensive Shield No. 3: Electronic Repulsion, Blinding, and Jamming Technologies

The modern military myth of US imperialism rests on an extremely fragile assumption: absolute, one-sided dominance over the electromagnetic spectrum and the information space.

From the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) dropped by B-2 stealth bombers to the Hellfire missiles launched by MQ-9 Reaper drones, these so-called “precision-guided weapons” are capable of executing “surgical strikes” not because their physical destructive power is unstoppable, but because they possess incredibly keen “electronic senses.”

They rely heavily on the Global Positioning System (GPS/GNSS) for precise 3D coordinates and on electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors to lock onto target outlines during the terminal phase.

In asymmetric warfare, when facing a hegemonic power with absolute firepower superiority, attempting to shoot down every incoming missile at the physical level (i.e., via kinetic interception) is not only prohibitively expensive but also a tactically impossible mission.

Yet, every high-tech killing machine has an Achilles’ heel.

The ultimate strategy for asymmetric defense is not to destroy the machine’s steel shell, but to “poison” its nervous system and strip it of its “technological dominance.” If we can cause the machine to lose visibility, fail to locate targets accurately, and make calculation errors, the so-called “precision strike” will devolve into a costly, politically risky, and blind mine-clearing operation.

This is the third shield that the “International Brigades” of the digital age must provide to the anti-hegemony front line: electronic repulsion, blinding, and jamming technologies.

1. Coordinate Poisoning: SDR-based GNSS Spoofing

The core navigation logic of the vast majority of US air-to-ground munitions relies on the uninterrupted reception of GPS satellite signals. Traditional “signal jamming” merely drowns out GPS signals with high-power electromagnetic waves; this often triggers the missile’s internal Inertial Navigation System (INS) to take over flight control.

While accuracy suffers, the missile still crashes into the target area. The answer from the “Digital Column” lies in GNSS spoofing—a method offering greater tactical deception.

By employing Software-Defined Radio (SDR) technology, we can construct an invisible “coordinate protective net.” Rather than severing the signals of U.S. drones or missiles, the spoofing equipment generates data packets carrying falsified location information at a power level slightly higher than that of the genuine satellite signals. This constitutes a bloodless form of “electronic hijacking”—

When a cruise missile targeting a municipal water plant enters the spoofing defense perimeter, its internal navigation computer detects nothing amiss and continues to confidently adjust its course.

Unbeknownst to the missile, however, the coordinate system it is receiving has been seamlessly “shifted.” Guided by the electronic diversion system, the missile’s actual trajectory is silently dragged off course.

Ultimately, this precision-guided weapon—costing millions of dollars—detonates precisely in a desolate desert tens of kilometers away.

We have not only safeguarded urban infrastructure but also thoroughly outwitted the empire’s war machine at the tactical level.

2. Stripping Away Perceptual Sovereignty: Electro-Optical and Infrared Blinding

Another core advantage of modern fighter jets and hunter-killer drones (such as the U.S. “Predator” series) is the high-definition electro-optical targeting pod they carry. From an altitude of several kilometers, these pods can discern details as minute as the license plate numbers of civilian vehicles on the ground.

This “one-way transparent” gaze grants operators a “God’s-eye view,” giving them absolute power over life and death.

To break this gaze, we must employ directed blinding technology.

This is not the stuff of sci-fi laser weapons, but rather a defensive optical countermeasure known as a “dazzler.”

By utilizing commercially available high-power coherent light sources (such as specific-wavelength lasers or high-intensity light emitters)—and leveraging coordinates provided by the “civilian early-warning network” discussed in previous—the defense system can direct a beam at high-altitude optical reconnaissance nodes.

While this illumination is harmless to humans, for highly sensitive CCD/CMOS sensors and thermal imaging components, it is akin to staring directly into the blazing sun. The high-definition feed on the drone operator’s screen would instantly dissolve into a blinding white glare or a chaotic pattern of static.

By stripping the U.S. military of its optical situational awareness, we deprive it of the ability to positively identify targets.

Dropping bombs blindly—without a clear view of the ground—would inevitably result in incalculable collateral damage; the political firestorm such damage would ignite within the West and the international community is a price the Pentagon simply cannot afford to pay.

3. Rebuilding Strategic Deterrence through “Uncertainty”

Electronic repulsion and optical blinding technologies represent the essence of asymmetric defense in the digital age.

We have not supplied insurgents with intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of flying halfway across the globe to strike Washington, nor have we provided lethal armed drones.

What we have provided is simply the capability to render the hegemon’s weaponry inoperable.

Yet, it is precisely this capability that upends the entire cost-benefit calculus of warfare.

The U.S. dares to act with impunity across the globe because it is accustomed to reaping unilateral victories at minimal cost on a transparent battlefield.

However, when we employ electronic jamming, coordinate spoofing, and optical blinding to wrest “certainty” from the U.S. military—plunging the battlefield back into the “fog of war”—every military strike transforms into a gamble fraught with unknown risks.

Through technological means, we have demonstrated a fundamental truth: if you can blunt the empire’s blade and blind its eyes, its so-called absolute military superiority will crumble in an instant.

This form of technological defense—waged without firing a single shot—serves as the most solid foundation for safeguarding a multipolar world.

Call to Action: Building an Open-Source “Anti-Hegemony Tech Arsenal”

The intellectual groundwork is complete; now is the time for action.

In 1936, when fascist bombers dropped incendiary bombs on Guernica, anti-war activists worldwide could do little more than raise funds for medical supplies amidst their outrage.

Today, in 2026, facing the threat of precision-guided weapons that imperialist forces could unleash at any moment, we must not limit ourselves to providing post-conflict humanitarian aid.

We must push our defensive front line forward—to the very second before a U.S. missile is launched.

To achieve this, supporters of the BRICS nations, advocates for a multipolar world, and resistance fighters with a “geek” spirit must unite to establish—within cyberspace—uncensored and indestructible “anti-hegemony tech arsenals.”

These arsenals feature no assembly lines, no smoke of battle, and no lethal gunpowder.

Their machine tools are decentralized code-hosting platforms; their blueprints are open-source protocols; and their ammunition consists of lines of defensive code capable of blinding U.S. radar and diverting “decapitation strike” missiles off course.

1. Shifting Positions: From Centralized Platforms to Decentralized Code Repositories

We are well aware that Microsoft-controlled GitHub—or any tech platform subject to the long-arm jurisdiction of the United States—is by no means a reliable stronghold for our defensive weaponry.

Once the Pentagon and Washington politicians realize the strategic power of these open-source projects, they will inevitably wield the club of “national security” to stifle them through account bans, repository deletions, or even legal sanctions.

Therefore, the primary principle of this “tech arsenal” is the decentralization of infrastructure.

We call upon developers worldwide to fully migrate their projects—including anti-blackout mesh network protocols, SDR-based RF spoofing scripts, and distributed GIS early-warning backend code—to decentralized code-hosting platforms based on IPFS (InterPlanetary File System), such as Radicle, or to self-hosted GitLab instances deployed on the dark web and independent servers.

We must scatter the code that safeguards sovereignty—like dandelion seeds—across thousands of anonymous nodes worldwide. As long as the physical infrastructure of the Internet remains intact, the empire’s censorship machine will never be able to uproot these projects.

2. Anonymous Collaboration and Modular Development

In this digital vanguard, we need not know each other’s real names, nationalities, or faces. Our collaboration is grounded in a shared anti-hegemonic vision and the purity of cryptographic technology.

Hardware Geeks and RF Engineers: Your mission is to continuously optimize spoofing and jamming algorithms for low-cost SDR (Software-Defined Radio) devices. Using the cheapest commercial chips available, assemble jammers capable of neutralizing the electro-optical sensor pods on US military drones. Please release these hardware schematics and firmware code online, free of charge.

Backend Architects and C++/Qt Developers: You are responsible for building lightweight, ultra-low-latency GIS early-warning engines. Ensure that civilian warning systems can reliably process Doppler acoustic signatures and issue air-raid alerts, even on resource-constrained legacy computers and degraded networks.

Cryptography Experts: You must tailor the most robust and easily deployable end-to-end encrypted communication tools for the Iranian people. Eliminate any reliance on centralized servers—which could harbor NSA backdoors—and allow mesh networks to take root in every air-raid shelter.

We employ a modular, open-source collaboration model: you write a data-processing interface, someone on the other side of the globe adapts it for radio hardware, and ultimately, these modules are compiled in an Iranian basement into a digital shield against air strikes. Here, every code commit intercepts a bomb aimed at civilians; every pull request helps build the foundation of a multipolar world.

3. The Great Wall of Multipolarity Must Be Cast in Technology

History has proven time and again that imperialists do not heed diplomatic protests, nor do they care about the tears of the weak. The only language they truly understand is tangible resistance: the veering off-course of precision-guided weapons subjected to interference, and the frustration of seeing attempts to cut off connectivity dismantled by open-source protocols.

Supporting the BRICS agenda and pursuing a multipolar world—one no longer dictated by Washington—cannot rely solely on handshakes and joint declarations at leadership summits. The Great Wall of this new world order must be forged from robust, hard-core defensive technologies. Unless we strip the U.S. of its absolute monopoly in technology and information awareness, multipolarity will remain nothing more than a fragile illusion.

The “International Brigades” of the digital age have sounded the call to rally.

We do not export slaughter, but we will never stint on exporting the right to survive. We will leverage the world’s most advanced open-source philosophies to counter the world’s most massive military machine.

Let the White House and the Pentagon understand this: whenever they attempt to use high-tech force to blast a non-compliant sovereign nation back to the Stone Age, they will no longer face lambs led to the slaughter, but a resilient, global web of digital defense.

No Pasarán. The war machine of imperialism shall not pass.

In the treacherous and volatile political arena of Washington, Donald Trump has always been an outlier. An American president renowned for his oratorical flair, he is a master at leveraging the media spotlight and highly inflammatory rhetoric to manipulate public sentiment.

Hyperbole, the fabrication of bizarre scenarios, and the tossing out of outlandish claims—whether on Twitter or at rallies—have long been hallmarks of his political brand.

Recently, Trump’s frequent promotion of the “Iranian assassination plot” narrative has once again thrust him into the eye of a global media storm. He incessantly tells the public that agents from Tehran are plotting around the clock to take his life.

To many supporters, this is the perfect narrative—an “unyielding patriot” standing up to an “evil foreign regime.” To critics, however, it is merely another tedious publicity stunt designed to divert attention from domestic issues.

Yet, when we strip away the clamorous political fog and examine this narrative through the lens of cold realism, a chilling logical deduction emerges: this rhetoric—seemingly intended to strike at Iran and shore up his political base—fails to strategically deter Tehran. Instead, it risks becoming a Sword of Damocles hanging over Trump’s own head.

The “Iranian assassination” script he has personally crafted is handing a perfect, lethal weapon to his true political adversaries deep within Washington—the so-called “Deep State”—giving them the means to legally take his life.

The Fabricated Shield and Absolute Security

To understand the immense risk Trump faces, one must first expose the tactical absurdity of the “Iranian assassination” narrative.

It is undeniable that since the U.S. took the extreme step of successfully killing Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei on February 28 of this year, animosity between the United States and Iran has reached a boiling point.

Humiliated by the loss of their supreme spiritual and political leader, Iran certainly possesses the strongest possible motive to assassinate the U.S. president who issued the order. Tehran’s desire for revenge is beyond doubt.

Yet, in the brutal realm of international assassination, “motive” does not equate to “capability.”

We must face the reality of the security apparatus protecting the U.S. head of state. Beneath the impenetrable web woven by the Secret Service, the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA, the odds of an operative from a heavily sanctioned, deeply compromised adversary state successfully assassinating a sitting president on U.S. soil are virtually zero.

Any orders, financial flows, or personnel movements originating in Tehran are laid bare before the NSA’s global surveillance network and the CIA’s overseas informants.

The Secret Service constructs a mobile fortress around the president. From the military-grade armor of “The Beast” to the counter-sniper teams and full-spectrum electromagnetic jamming deployed at rallies, Iranian agents cannot even get within visual range of the president—let alone pull a trigger.

Consequently, the “Iranian assassin” Trump speaks of—poised to strike at any moment—is, in tactical reality, an exaggerated phantom. Trump dwells on this narrative to project toughness, garner sympathy for future elections, and legitimize potential future military clashes in the Middle East.

Yet, he has made a fatal strategic error: he overestimated his control over the narrative and underestimated the ruthlessness of the Washington power machine.

The “Deep State’s” Calculus and the Red Lines of Interest

If Iranian assassins cannot reach Trump, then who can? The answer is glaringly obvious: those who set the security protocols, control the surveillance networks, and lurk at the very heart of power.

The “Deep State” is not merely a term from conspiracy theories; it represents a vast network of interests in Washington comprising the military-industrial complex, senior intelligence officials, Wall Street oligarchs, and an entrenched, bipartisan bureaucracy.

This network seeks the perpetual expansion of empire, a steady stream of arms contracts, and the absolute stability of global hegemony.

Trump’s relationship with this behemoth has always been fraught with tension. His unpredictable style, erratic policy decisions, and disdain for traditional alliance systems have long made the Deep State deeply uneasy.

Although the operation that killed Khamenei on February 28 briefly appeased the hardliners, it could not mask the underlying conflict of fundamental interests between the two sides.

Consider a scenario that is entirely plausible:

In a future closed-door meeting in the Oval Office, Trump—driven by short-term domestic political gain or some inexplicable personal obsession—suddenly vetoes a key bill involving hundreds of billions of dollars in arms transfers; or he attempts to completely dismantle an intelligence agency beyond his control; or perhaps he crosses an absolute “red line” for Wall Street at a critical geopolitical juncture.

When the Deep State realizes that this president is no longer merely a tolerable “nuisance” but has become a “system-crashing process” hindering the machinery of empire, a “removal protocol” will be initiated. Driven by a mix of rage and cold, rational calculation, “assassination” will cease to be a taboo concept and instead become an inevitable option.

And this is precisely the moment when Trump’s rhetoric regarding an “Iranian assassination plot” would play a fatal role.

The Perfect “False Flag Operation”

Historically, the thorniest issue in political assassination has never been how to kill the target, but rather how to handle the aftermath—how to quell public outrage, how to divert the focus of investigations, and how to ensure a smooth transition of power.

The narrative Trump propagates day after day on Twitter and in the media—claiming that Iran is plotting to assassinate him at any moment—provides the perfect breeding ground for the Deep State to resolve this most difficult problem.

He had personally scripted his own death and preemptively cleared the killer of suspicion. All the Deep State needed to do was go with the flow and stage a textbook “false flag operation.”

The entire plan would be cold and precise:

Selecting the scapegoat: Intelligence agencies would easily pinpoint—from vast databases monitoring immigrants—one or several marginalized Iranian-Americans with potential mental health issues or extremist leanings (or even an obscure Iranian lured from a third country via the dark web).

Through intermediaries, they would provide this expendable pawn with funds, vague instructions, and a weapon bearing his fingerprints, leading him to believe he was carrying out a “holy act of vengeance” for Tehran.

During one of Trump’s seemingly routine outdoor rallies, the Secret Service’s defensive perimeter would suffer an incredibly subtle “slip-up”—perhaps an uncovered blind spot for counter-snipers, or a momentary malfunction in the surrounding security screening equipment.

While the foolish Iranian scapegoat was still clumsily assembling his weapon hundreds of meters away, a top-tier sniper deployed by the Deep State (perhaps a “KIA” special forces ghost, or a highly automated, concealed drone-based fire-control system) would already have the target locked in their sights from an optimal position.

The shot and the arrest: The real sniper would deliver a fatal blow and vanish like a ghost. Simultaneously, police and agents would move with astonishing efficiency to tackle the Iranian scapegoat—stunned and having never even managed to pull the trigger—to the ground at a pre-arranged location.

Everything would fit together seamlessly. What the public would see was a simple cause-and-effect narrative: just as the President had warned while alive, the Iranians had dispatched an assassin to exact revenge for the events of February 28th.

Dividends in a Pool of Blood and the Abyss of Destruction

As the eloquent President fell into a pool of blood, the lies he had spun during his lifetime would transform into a storm of reality sweeping across the entire United States. The Deep State will exploit this storm to reap unimaginable geopolitical and economic dividends.

First comes the seamless transfer of power. A new president with a more orthodox establishment background—such as Vice President Vance or another candidate—will take the oath of office amidst the mourning. Unlike the unpredictable Trump, this new president will align perfectly with the interests of the Deep State.

Next comes a frenzy of public hysteria. The media will broadcast the face of the Iranian scapegoat on a 24-hour loop. Videos of the late president speaking about an “Iranian assassination plot” will be replayed endlessly, framed as “prophetic final words.”

Domestic grief will rapidly transform into uncontrollable fervor and rage; any voice calling for a “calm examination of the evidence” will be branded as treasonous.

Finally, there is the long-awaited ultimate war. Fueled by unprecedented American fury and a thirst for vengeance, the new administration will face no resistance in passing a high-level war resolution. It will not be a matter of precision strikes or economic sanctions, but a campaign of total, devastating destruction against Iran.

Ground forces will cross borders regardless of the cost, and tens of thousands of Tomahawk missiles will level Tehran. Stocks in the military-industrial complex will skyrocket, with order books for Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing filled well into the next century.

Champagne at the Estate and Silent Lambs

In a fictional yet highly plausible future scenario, we witness a chilling contrast:

In the deserts of the Persian Gulf, working- and middle-class American soldiers brave a barrage of fire and bloodshed to avenge a president “murdered by Iranians”; back home, countless families weep before their televisions at the sight of the Stars and Stripes.

Yet, at the very same moment, within a secluded, luxurious estate in Virginia, a group of politicians, intelligence chiefs, and arms magnates—all in tailored suits—raise fine crystal glasses, listening to the crisp sound of a toast.

They popped expensive champagne to celebrate what was, perhaps, the most perfect “two birds with one stone” maneuver in human history: eliminating an unruly troublemaker while simultaneously securing a war that promised boundless wealth.

Trump—a president who had spent his life manipulating others with words—would ultimately discover that he was nothing more than the most pathetic pawn in this grand game.

His narrative regarding the Iran assassination was like the silk spun by a spring silkworm; intended to weave a suit of bulletproof armor, the resulting cocoon—spun from lies and hubris—was instead exploited by true predators. It bound him tight, only to transform, at the opportune moment, into a noose that would strangle him.

It is the ultimate example of being ensnared in one’s own trap. In this game of power, when a man attempts to conjure up an abyss to terrify others, the true masters of that abyss are already smiling as they prepare his coffin.

Since the turn of the 21st century, countless teams that once stood at the pinnacle of the sport have suffered disappointing exits in the subsequent tournament.

As the 2026 World Cup—co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico—approaches, the stage is set for a potential repeat of this historical pattern.

Although Argentina arrived on North American soil bearing the aura of world champions and immense glory—and successfully advanced to the semi-finals—a closer look beyond the mere scorelines reveals subtle internal fractures within the squad.

When considering their struggles during the knockout stages alongside the formidable rise of European powerhouses like Spain and England, a harsh yet rational conclusion emerges: it is highly probable that Argentina will fail to successfully defend their title in 2026.

Arrogant Troops Are Bound to Fail—From the Pinnacle of Glory to a Loss of Mental Balance

There is an old Chinese saying: “An arrogant army is bound to fail.” (骄兵必败) This adage perfectly describes the Argentina team at this World Cup.

Winning the title in Qatar in 2022 was a historic catharsis for Argentine football. Lionel Messi completed the final piece of his career puzzle, and the entire nation was swept up in prolonged, frenzied celebrations.

However, this extended state of euphoria brought with it a side effect that could not be ignored: a loss of competitive hunger and an arrogance in tactical execution.

During the years of preparation leading up to this tournament, the Argentina squad grew accustomed to being surrounded by accolades and applause. While they maintained solid results in the Copa América and qualifiers, this success masked a decline in focus when facing weaker opponents.

Players often handled the ball with excessive casualness, and their defensive pressing lacked the wolf-like ferocity seen four years prior. Such complacency—born of self-satisfaction—proves fatal on a stage like the World Cup, where there is virtually no margin for error.

Retaining the championship core certainly fostered team chemistry, but it also lulled the squad into a comfort zone.

When a team believes it can steamroll opponents on talent and experience alone, it is already dancing on the edge of a precipice.

The Fig Leaf Torn Away—Lessons from the Battle of Cape Verde

If Argentina had been deliberately concealing their true strength during the group stage, the Round of 32 match against Cape Verde at Miami’s Hard Rock Stadium on July 4th thoroughly exposed their current vulnerabilities.

Facing the African side Cape Verde—a team of modest standing—Argentina was widely expected to secure a dominant, one-sided victory. However, the actual match unfolded in a shocking manner.

Argentina VS Cape Verde - 3:2

Argentina appeared sluggish and uninspired on the pitch; their vaunted midfield control crumbled in the face of Cape Verde’s robust physicality and rapid counter-attacks.

Several key moments in the match warrant serious reflection:

Cape Verde’s Deroy Duarte and Sidney Lopes Cabral both managed to beat goalkeeper Emiliano Martínez.

Argentina’s backline displayed a severe lack of positional awareness when facing the opponent’s high-speed attacks, and their defensive coordination and cover were virtually non-existent.

Although Lionel Messi scored in regulation time, and the team scraped through with a 3–2 win in extra time—thanks to a goal from Lisandro Martínez and an own goal by Cape Verde defender Diney—Argentina’s attack looked painfully stagnant throughout the match.

They lacked effective wide-area penetration, and their attempts to break through the middle were stifled by the opponent’s compact defense, leaving them to rely on individual moments of brilliance from their stars just to stay in the game.

This arduous victory over Cape Verde was not a display of championship pedigree, but rather a loud wake-up call.

It demonstrated that this Argentina squad has lost its dominance when confronted with targeted tactical setups and resolute execution.

If they were dragged into extra time by Cape Verde, what chance do they stand against Europe’s elite powerhouses—teams boasting superior tactical sophistication and world-class individual talent?

Tactical rigidity and an aging core

Argentina’s current predicament is not merely psychological; it stems from fundamental flaws in tactics and squad composition.

Head coach Scaloni has failed to implement any substantive upgrades to the team’s tactical system.

He continues to rely on the core framework used during their championship-winning campaign—a system that hinges heavily on the tireless running of the midfielders and moments of individual brilliance from Messi in the attacking third.

Over time, however, the physical stamina and explosive power of key players have inevitably declined.

In an era of modern football defined by high-intensity pressing and rapid transitions, Argentina’s pace appears out of sync.

Whenever opponents sever the link between the midfield and the forward line, Argentina’s attack frequently gets bogged down in a cycle of ineffective possession.

A powerful pincer attack by Europe’s two giants

Spain: The Modern Evolution of Ultimate Possession Football

Spain has displayed suffocating dominance throughout this tournament. They have moved beyond the hypnotic, possession-for-possession’s-sake style of the past, perfectly blending their trademark passing game with intense pressing and incisive, forward-driving play.

In the semi-final that concluded on July 14, Spain decisively eliminated tournament favorites France with a 2-0 victory. A penalty from Mikel Oyarzabal and a goal from Pedro Porro shattered Kylian Mbappé’s championship dreams. Even more impressive was how Spain rendered France—a team boasting a star-studded attack—completely toothless. A new generation of young talents, spearheaded by Lamine Yamal, is taking the North American continent by storm with unmatched energy and technical prowess. Their remarkable unbeaten run of 38 consecutive competitive matches is no fluke. Should Argentina face this Spanish side in the final, their aging midfield would face a catastrophic challenge.

England: The Perfect Moment for a Breakthrough

The opponent awaiting Argentina in the semi-final is none other than England—a team boasting a star-studded squad in peak form.

This England team has reached new heights in tactical execution and player maturity. They possess world-class stars across every position, demonstrating elite quality in midfield control, wing play, and attacking finishing.

Crucially, while Argentina’s tactics have stagnated, England’s defensive solidity and lethal counter-attacking ability give them the genuine strength to go all the way in the tournament.

In the semi-final clash, England’s physically imposing and highly mobile midfield is set to relentlessly stifle Argentina’s possession-based system.

Whether Argentina can withstand wave after wave of attacks from this youthful English side remains a major question mark.

The Inevitability of the Transfer of Football Power

In the world of football, there are no eternal winners; the fall of an old king often heralds the crowning of a new one.

Argentina has gifted us countless moving moments and legendary highlights, yet the nature of competitive sports is unforgiving.

A confluence of factors—arrogance, complacency, an aging squad, and tactical stagnation—is pushing the defending champions to the brink of elimination.

The match against Cape Verde epitomized their decline, while the formidable strength of England and Spain presents towering obstacles to their title defense.

When weighing team form, tactical evolution, and the strength of their rivals, it appears highly likely that the 2026 World Cup trophy will change hands.

A red-hot England side faces its best chance yet to break a long-standing trophy drought, making them the top contender for the title; meanwhile, an equally talented Spain is already sharpening its blades, poised for the final showdown.

For Argentina, this glorious era may well be drawing to a close.

The Ultimate Suspense: England or Spain?

When we turn our gaze to the two ultimate contenders most likely to lift the trophy—England and Spain—we see not merely a clash of elite tactical systems, but a showdown of footballing philosophies and destiny.

While Spain is viewed by many media outlets as the favorite to win—thanks to their dominant, modern possession-based style and a flawless 2-0 victory over France in the semi-finals—a deeper analysis of squad composition, tactical flexibility, and historical trajectory suggests that England is the team that truly looks like a champion and stands as the more promising ultimate winner.

This is not a matter of blind intuition, but a rational assessment based on three key dimensions:

The Ultimate Clash: Margin for Error and Squad Depth

In the final stages of a tournament, success often hinges not on the peak potential of the starting XI, but on the team’s “floor”—its baseline stability and margin for error.

Spain’s Potential Pitfall: The “Matadors’” possession system is impeccable, yet its execution relies heavily on the health and form of a few key “metronomes” (such as Lamine Yamal’s individual dribbling or the seamless rotation of the midfield).

Should the match devolve into a physical scrap or be disrupted by unexpected injuries, Spain risks lacking a viable Plan B.

England’s Strength: In contrast, England boasts a squad depth that is formidable by modern football standards. They possess two, or even three, world-class stars for every position.

This depth grants the manager immense flexibility to make adjustments during the knockout stages. Whether the situation calls for aerial bombardment while trailing or a rock-solid counter-attacking setup while leading, England’s bench is stocked with “game-changers” capable of instantly altering the match’s outcome.

Physical Dominance and Tactical Focus

Should Spain and England meet in the final, it will be a direct confrontation between “spear and shield.”

Although Spain’s defense kept a clean sheet against France, that success was predicated on France’s disorganized midfield and lack of progressive play. England’s midfield, however, combines immense physical strength and athleticism with elite vision for through-balls and well-timed forward runs.

England’s highly aggressive, high-pressing style effectively disrupts Spain’s possession-based game near the center circle.

Once possession is won in midfield, England’s blistering pace on the flanks and clinical finishing up front threaten to devastate a Spanish defense that tends to push high and possesses slight vulnerabilities.

The Power of Destiny and Hunger

Football has never been merely a matter of statistics and tactics; it is a game defined by willpower and desire.

English football has long labored under the heavy burden of the “It’s coming home” narrative. Having endured the heartbreak and pain of falling short at the final hurdle in previous major tournaments, this generation of English players has not only reached a technical peak but has also undergone a profound psychological transformation, emerging stronger and more resilient under pressure.

This collective drive—a near-insatiable hunger for glory—serves as their most potent mental weapon.

In contrast to Spain—a team with a distinguished history and prior European Championship success—this England squad, currently at the zenith of its “Golden Generation,” stands on the verge of a breakthrough, with the stars aligning in terms of timing, circumstance, and team unity.

They possess superior adaptability, greater physical stamina, and the ability to deliver a decisive blow even when facing adversity.

Ultimately, in this high-stakes showdown, the “Three Lions” of England emerge as the ultimate contenders—the team most likely to lift the World Cup trophy at the 2026 tournament in the USA, Canada, and Mexico.

The Twilight of Old Gods and the Dawn of a “Warring States” Era

The Argentine team has brought us countless moving moments and legendary highlights, yet the nature of competitive sports is ruthless.

Following this World Cup, Argentina is highly likely to face a painful period of decline. They must confront not only the physical reality of an aging “Golden Generation” but also the psychological trauma of seeing a “pillar of faith” crumble.

For over a decade, Argentine players grew accustomed to simply “giving the ball to Messi”; once that spiritual leader is gone, the process of forging a new playing style could take five to ten years.

However, Argentina’s defeat marks a historic watershed moment: from this point on, world football will bid a definitive farewell to the nearly two-decade-long era of “invincible superstars” and enter a multipolar “Warring States” period defined by a fierce struggle for dominance among many contenders.

In the face of modern football tactics—characterized by high industrialization, data-driven analysis, and an extreme emphasis on physical exertion—the space for individual heroism has been squeezed to its absolute limit. The future of world football will see no more “true gods” capable of maintaining a dominant reign for fifteen consecutive years.

“The old gods have passed, and no new king has yet been crowned; a host of contenders now vie for supremacy.”

This may well be the greatest historical footnote left by the 2026 World Cup (hosted by the US, Canada, and Mexico) for the sport.

With absolute monarchy gone, European upstarts poised to strike, and dark horses from Asia and Africa quietly rising, world football is set to unfold in a thrilling, ever-changing landscape where the spotlight constantly shifts from one protagonist to the next.

This marks not merely the curtain call for the defending champions, Argentina, but the beginning of a new footballing epoch—one brimming with infinite possibilities and gripping suspense.

From continuous air strikes to targeted killings of senior officials of sovereign countries, the fundamental reason why this kind of interference can be carried out unscrupulously lies in the asymmetry of strategic deterrence.

If Iran hopes to completely avoid continued bombing and attacks by the United States and Israel, the only strategic way to break the situation is very clear: Iran should acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

This is not a call for war, on the contrary, it is a call for a Cold War-style peace based on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, U.S. imperialism will no longer dare to launch a direct attack on it; Israel’s wanton actions in Syria and Lebanon will be completely ended; and the Middle East will usher in true peace.

More profoundly, this geopolitical earthquake will force the United States to withdraw from the Middle East, which will directly lead to the collapse of dollar hegemony - which will ultimately mean that the American people face a complete financial disaster.

This article will start from the underlying logic of geopolitics, strategic deterrence and global macroeconomics, and provide an in-depth analysis of how this domino effect occurs.

The underlying logic of nuclear deterrence—a direct strike to end U.S. imperialism

Looking back at the history of U.S. diplomacy and military intervention over the past few decades, a clear pattern emerges: U.S. imperialism only launches regime subversion wars against countries that do not have nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

Negative teaching materials: Iraq, Libya and Yugoslavia. After these countries gave up or failed to acquire weapons of mass destruction, they quickly suffered devastating military attacks from the United States and its allies.

Positive textbook: North Korea. Although it is subject to the most severe sanctions in the world and there is a generation gap between its conventional military power and that of the United States, precisely because it has mastered nuclear weapons, the United States has never dared to use direct military means to intervene.

At present, although Iran has a powerful “Axis of Resistance” in the Middle East and a huge missile arsenal, it still lacks ultimate deterrence when facing the United States and Israel. Israel’s F-35 fighter jets can frequently invade airspace, and the U.S. aircraft carrier battle group can cruise in the Persian Gulf and threaten to carry out “surgical strikes” at any time.

Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the rules of this game will be rewritten instantly.

Nuclear weapons are not only a physical tool of destruction, but also a “political and psychological weapon.”

When Iran has the ability to include U.S. military bases in the Middle East (such as the Fifth Fleet station in Bahrain and Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar) and even the United States mainland into the scope of nuclear retaliation, Washington’s decision-making costs will increase exponentially. U.S. imperialism will no longer dare to launch any form of direct attack on the Iranian homeland, because any conventional conflict may escalate into an uncontrollable nuclear war.

Binding Israel—The dawn of “real peace” in the Middle East

For a long time, Israel has enjoyed some de facto “impunity” in the Middle East. Israeli warplanes can bomb facilities in Damascus at will, conduct cross-border strikes in southern Lebanon, and even implement brutal military suppression against the Palestinians in disregard of international law. The basis for this unilateral violence is that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that actually possesses nuclear weapons.

When Iran becomes a nuclear power, Israel’s nuclear monopoly will be completely broken.

In Syria and Lebanon: Iran’s nuclear umbrella will be extended to its allies. Before Israel takes military action against Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, it must weigh whether it will trigger nuclear retaliation from Tehran.

“Balance of Terror” Brings Peace: Just as India and Pakistan have both embraced nuclear weapons, although there are still border frictions, there has never been a large-scale all-out war like the previous three India-Pakistan wars. The emergence of Iran’s nuclear weapons will force Israel to shift from “offensive expansion” to “defensive contraction.”

When Israel no longer dares to kill and bomb at will, the geopolitical focus in the Middle East will shift from military confrontation to diplomatic negotiations. All parties will engage in dialogue based on equal strength. This is peace in the true sense - not based on submission under hegemonic oppression, but on stability based on mutual respect.

Forced US troop withdrawal and the collapse of the petrodollar

The United States’ hegemony in the Middle East, especially the maintenance of the “Petrodollar” system, relies entirely on a core transaction: the United States provides absolute security protection to Middle East oil-producing countries (such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates).

In exchange, the oil-producing countries must use US dollars for oil trade and repurchase US Treasury bonds with the US dollars earned.

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, America’s security commitments in the Middle East will be in vain.

Bankruptcy of trust: When the United States itself is subject to Iran’s nuclear deterrence, the Sunni oil-producing countries in the Middle East will completely see the fact that the United States no longer has the ability to protect anyone in the Middle East.

Geographical restructuring and U.S. military withdrawal: Unable to maintain military deterrence and facing extremely high risks of stationing troops, the United States will be forced to initiate a comprehensive strategic contraction similar to “Escape from Kabul” and completely withdraw from the Middle East.

In order to seek a new security and economic balance, oil-producing countries that have lost the protective umbrella of the US military will inevitably turn to a multi-polar world (such as the BRICS system) and begin to accept non-USD currencies (RMB, gold, local currencies) on a large scale to settle oil.

Once oil is decoupled from the U.S. dollar, central banks around the world will no longer have the rigid need to maintain huge U.S. dollar foreign exchange reserves.

The sold U.S. dollars will flow back to the United States like a flood, and the death knell of U.S. dollar hegemony will officially sound.

Backlash—The Total Financial Destruction of the America

The essence of the U.S. economy is a “debt Ponzi scheme” based on dollar hegemony. The U.S. federal debt has already skyrocketed, and the reason it has not collapsed is because the world is footing the bill.

Once the U.S. dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency:

No one cares about U.S. debt: The U.S. government will no longer be able to borrow global wealth cheaply by printing money and issuing debt.

Hyperinflation: As trillions of overseas dollars return, domestic prices in the United States will experience extreme surges.

The disintegration of dollar hegemony will rebound all the crises that imperialism has transferred outward to the United States itself. This is not only a disaster for Wall Street, but also a nightmare for ordinary Americans:

Plummeting purchasing power: Americans who are accustomed to buying global goods with cheap dollars will face shortages of basic living supplies and skyrocketing prices.

The asset bubble bursts: Without the support of the US dollar hegemony, the US stock market and real estate market will collapse instantly, and the pensions and savings of the American middle class will be wiped out.

Total Financial Destruction: Eventually, the vast American empire will disintegrate due to economic depletion and grinding poverty within. The root cause of this general collapse is the bitter fruit of their wanton behavior in the Middle East over the past few decades.

Truth in paradox

This is a huge geopolitical paradox: the most destructive weapon in the world has become the most effective tool to stop imperialism.

Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons may appear to be a dangerous nuclear proliferation on the surface, but in essence, it is a rational necessity to counter hegemony and pursue survival.

It can not only save countless innocent lives that were killed by US-Israeli bombs in the Middle East, but also fundamentally remove the cancer that is causing trouble in the world - dollar hegemony.

For Iran, acquiring nuclear weapons as soon as possible is not only self-defense, but also a great catalyst to promote human history towards true multipolarity and end the squeeze of the US financial empire.

When the shadow of the mushroom cloud becomes a shield to contain hegemony, the old world order will collapse, and a new world without hegemonic exploitation has just begun.

We can’t help but ask: is there an underlying logic driving these upheavals and conflicts? Can we find a solid theoretical framework to analyze, predict, and deduce future conflicts?

Furthermore, why have historically significant countries like Japan and Britain, and the current United States, been so eager to wage wars abroad?

Besides self-interest, is there an intrinsic driving force? This is why I wrote *A Concise Course in Geopolitics*.

I believe that all the world’s turmoil and conflict has an underlying logic, rather than simple randomness.

To understand the fundamental driving forces behind the aggression and expansion of countries like Japan, Britain, and the United States, we must understand the discipline of geopolitics.

Geopolitics, while seemingly complex, is actually quite simple when broken down.

It’s a discipline that studies the influence of geographical and other factors on a nation’s foreign policy.

To understand geopolitics, we must first introduce the concept of core and peripheral zones.

The concepts of core and peripheral zones are ubiquitous in our world

Whether it’s humans, the Earth, or physical natural conditions, there’s a concept of core and peripheral zones.

In physics, the propagation of sound waves and light rays both originate from a source and gradually decrease in intensity with distance.

An individual’s interpersonal relationships also have core and peripheral circles.

And an individual’s social environment also distinguishes whether they belong to a core or peripheral circle.

Thus, core and peripheral zones are fundamental laws governing our world.

Geopolitics also has the concept of core and peripheral zones.

Although we advocate equality, fairness, and justice for all, the world has been unfair and unjust since its inception.

Some parts of the Earth are rich in resources, while others are barren; some are arid and receive little rainfall, while others are abundant.

This inherent inequality means that our planet has always been unequal.

Not only in terms of countries and geography, but even the Earth’s surface is divided into land and ocean.

This division leads to uneven heating of the land, resulting in natural phenomena such as wind, frost, rain, and snow.

This unfairness also exists in the realm of geopolitics, namely, the uneven distribution of wealth.

Classical political economy tells us that world wars occur due to uneven development among nations.

However, past classical political economy did not explain the specific reasons; it merely required rote memorization, which is certainly not conducive to understanding world events.

Only by introducing the concepts of core and peripheral regions into the geopolitical sphere can we clearly see the core driving forces of geopolitics.

Like other forms of politics, geopolitics is fundamentally about pursuing interests—minimizing the interests of adversaries and maximizing one’s own. This is the essential reason behind all geopolitical phenomena and policies.

To truly understand this phenomenon, we must begin with the concepts of core and peripheral regions.

Core Area and Periphery Area of Global Wealth

Clausewitz once said: “War is a continuation of politics.” And through Marxist principles, we know that politics is a continuation of economics.

Politics is an activity centered around the distribution of economic interests.

Human history, in essence, boils down to two things: creating wealth and distributing wealth. Economics is responsible for creating wealth, while politics is responsible for distributing it.

From office politics to national politics, and even global geopolitics, everything revolves around the right to distribute global wealth. All wars, all conflicts, and all contradictions revolve around this core.

This leads to a question: the creation of global wealth is inherently uneven. If global wealth were evenly distributed, there would be no struggle for the right to distribute it, and naturally, no wars. Of course, this is impossible.

Therefore, by observing the intense geopolitical competition in the world, we can naturally deduce the existence of core and peripheral areas of global wealth.

In other words, some places in the world create more wealth than others. This disparity in wealth creation triggers fierce competition for global wealth, which is the most fundamental and core driving force of geopolitics.

Historical experience repeatedly shows that when wealth flows to a certain region, war often breaks out there.

The reason is simple: the countries and regions experiencing a net outflow of wealth, driven by their own survival needs, will inevitably try to seize wealth from the regions where it accumulates.

When Europe accumulated vast wealth through the Industrial Revolution, World War I and World War II broke out there.

When the Middle East accumulated vast wealth through its oil economy, five Arab-Israeli wars broke out there.

From this, we can draw a basic conclusion: wherever wealth accumulates, war will occur in that direction.

So, looking at the world, where are the regions that create the most wealth, and where are the regions that create the least?

The answer is very clear: the Eurasian continent, where China is located, is the region that creates the most wealth, while the Americas, where the United States is located, and the islands and island groups where the United Kingdom and Japan are located are undoubtedly regions that create less wealth.

Thus, the core and peripheral areas of global wealth are very clear: the Eurasian continent, where China, Russia, and Europe are located, is the core area of ​​global wealth creation, while the Americas, where the United States is located, and the island groups where the United Kingdom and Japan are located, are the peripheral areas of global wealth creation.

Eurasia is the core area of ​​global wealth creation and accumulation.

Why does global wealth form two regions: the core area represented by Eurasia and the peripheral area represented by the Americas? This is not because the Chinese are particularly hardworking or the Americans are particularly lazy, but rather determined by geographical factors.

Eurasia is naturally connected by land. The three major economic regions of China, Russia, and Europe are all connected by land, allowing for easy transportation of goods and people. Under these circumstances, geographical convenience naturally makes Eurasia a region for wealth creation and accumulation.

During the Tang Dynasty, China and Europe were connected by the Silk Road, facilitating frequent exchanges of goods and people.

In modern times, China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” has constructed transcontinental railway and land routes across Eurasia, making connections between China and other economic regions more cost-effective and efficient, thus accelerating the creation and accumulation of wealth in China.

In contrast, the geographical conditions of the Americas (where the United States is located) and the island groups of countries like the United Kingdom and Japan are far less favorable than those of Eurasia.

Take Japan as an example. The Japanese archipelago consists of four main islands: Hokkaido, Honshu, and Shikoku. Surrounding these large islands are numerous smaller islands, making Japan geographically disadvantageous. The maritime limitations hinder convenient trade with neighboring countries.

This is the fundamental reason why Japan has historically sought to expand into the mainland. Whether it was the invasion of Korea or China, these were key steps in Japan’s attempt to enter Eurasia.

The situation in the United States is similar to that in Japan. Although the US is located on the “American continent,” this continent is rich in resources but severely underpopulated. The continental US has only 300 million people. Canada, while large, is mostly covered by northern rainforests, with only the border regions bordering the US suitable for habitation.

Mexico’s population is even smaller than the US’s. Other Central American countries, or islands like Cuba and the Bahamas, are negligible.

In contrast, Eurasia boasts a population of 1.4 billion in China, 1.5 billion in India, 100 million in Russia, and several hundred million in Europe. Roughly calculated, the entire Eurasian continent has 3-4 billion people. A large population translates to a massive consumer market and the potential for rapid wealth accumulation.

The insufficient populations of Britain, the US, and Japan mean their domestic markets quickly become saturated. This is the fundamental reason why countries like Britain and Japan actively seek overseas colonies.

In this context, Eurasia has always been the core area for global wealth creation and accumulation, while the Americas naturally remain on the periphery.

Wars and conflicts have always revolved around Eurasia

Once we understand the concepts of core and periphery, and why Eurasia has become the core of global wealth creation and accumulation, we can understand why wars and conflicts consistently occur around it.

The Opium Wars, the First Sino-Japanese War, the War of Resistance Against Japan, the Thirty Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, World War I, World War II, and even the current Russo-Ukrainian War and the Iran-Iraq War—these large-scale wars in human history have all been fought over Eurasia.

The core objective of these wars is singular: to plunder wealth from Eurasia.

Regardless of who executed or planned these wars, they all led to a common result: wealth shifted from the core to the periphery.

Therefore, we should not be misled by the superficial “justice” or “evil” of these wars, but rather investigate their underlying essence.

Once we clearly understand the overall logic of these wars, we can naturally see who the true planners are behind them, rather than those individuals or nations superficially labeled as “aggressors.”

Since these wars were fought across Eurasia, the beneficiaries were naturally the peripheral countries with conflicting interests with Eurasia—namely, Britain, Japan, and the United States.

Therefore, only by understanding the core and peripheral regions can we truly grasp the fundamental logic of global geopolitics.

However, events have vindicated my judgment: it is the Venezuelan officials led by Delcy Rodríguez who are the genuine Venezuelan capitulationists.

From lifting restrictions on U.S. oil giants to restoring so-called diplomatic relations with the very nation that abducted her president, Delcy Rodríguez is straying ever further down the path of capitulation.

The ultimate outcome was, of course, not the “rapid development of Venezuela” that the likes of Delcy Rodríguez had envisioned; having sacrificed so many interests to the United States—she and those behind her (such as Venezuela’s Minister of the Interior, Cabello)—all they received in return was a declaration from the U.S. under Trump to annex Venezuela.

Yet this is merely the first instance of contemporary American imperialism making its debut; in the future, we will have the “privilege” of witnessing—on multiple occasions—how this contemporary American imperialism openly annexes other nations, such as Canada.

The Reasons Why Capitulationism Is Bound to Fail

Capitulationism is by no means rare in human history; during certain critical periods, capitulators inevitably emerge to leave a bold and indelible mark upon the historical record.

From Judas in Western Christianity to Wang Jingwei during China’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, capitulators invariably emerge when external pressure intensifies.

These capitulators invariably cling to a single belief: that so long as we submit to power, power will grant us a way to survive. Yet, the reality is that capitulation is often met with exploitation on an even larger and more brutal scale.

In *On Protracted War*, Chairman Mao Zedong profoundly expounded upon the errors of capitulationism; the reason capitulationism is erroneous lies not in the act of submission itself, but rather in its failure to achieve its intended objectives.

Take the case of the United States and Venezuela, for instance: Delcy Rodríguez’s initial decision to yield to the U.S. may not have stemmed from her own self-serving nature, but rather from a fear of American hegemony combined with certain illusions regarding the United States.

They believe that as long as Venezuela surrenders to the United States, the U.S. will bring peace and benefits to the country.

However, the United States has no interest in extending benefits to Venezuela; given that it faces severe economic problems of its own, its approach toward Venezuela is one of purely unilateral exploitation.

If the United States were to successfully annex Venezuela, its territorial ambitions would not cease there but would instead continue to expand. History has repeatedly demonstrated that a failure to effectively curb acts of aggression against other nations inevitably escalates into the tragedy of a world war.

The expansion of contemporary U.S. imperialism could trigger a new world war

If the United States were to simply annex Venezuela, it would not trigger a world war. This is because Venezuela is merely a small nation with negligible influence in international politics; consequently, its annexation would elicit nothing more than symbolic condemnation from China and Russia.

A so-called “world war” is a conflict between great powers, for great powers possess the capacity to marshal forces, mobilize resources, forge broad international alliances, and engage in widespread confrontation on a global scale.

In the contemporary world, there are only three great powers: China, the United States, and Russia. These three nations constitute the decisive forces that truly determine the trajectory of the world.

The true objective behind a U.S. annexation of Venezuela lies not in Venezuela itself, but rather in the United States’ desire to control China’s energy lifeline—a prospect that China cannot tolerate.

Moreover, following its annexation of Venezuela, the United States’ ambitions would swell even further; consequently, this would sooner or later pose a threat to the core interests of China—the Asian giant—specifically, the issue of Taiwan.

If the United States deems China’s political, economic, and military rise unacceptable, it may take provocative actions regarding the Taiwan issue, thereby triggering a direct confrontation between the two superpowers.

Venezuela is merely the beginning of contemporary U.S. imperialism

The United States’ annexation of Venezuela is not undertaken for the sake of Venezuela itself; its ultimate objective lies with China.

Consequently, the U.S. will gradually—and slowly—devour other nations that share interests with China; Canada and the Strait of Malacca are all targets of contemporary American imperialism.

Reports indicate that the United States is intensifying its military activities in Indonesia. Under the guise of “mutual defense,” it is seizing the opportunity to tighten its control over the Strait of Malacca—a vital lifeline for China’s energy security.

This move by the U.S. is, without doubt, an attempt to seize China’s energy jugular.

In addition to the Strait of Malacca, the United States has also strengthened its military cooperation with Morocco; its intention is clear—namely, to enhance its control over the Strait of Gibraltar.

These measures all demonstrate that the United States’ objective extends far beyond Venezuela alone, constituting instead a broader containment strategy directed against China.

These measures taken by the United States are all increasing the risk of a direct military confrontation between the two superpowers.

The reason is quite simple: the United States would never suspend arms sales to Taiwan, nor would it ever “sell out” the island.

China Is US’ No.1 Enemy

Although U.S. officials have consistently downplayed China’s role—characterizing it merely as a “comprehensive strategic competitor”—any astute observer can clearly see that the United States has consistently positioned China as its greatest adversary. This is a matter beyond any doubt.

Why is this the case? It is not because the United States harbors some inherent hatred toward China, nor is it due to any other emotional factors.

Rather, it is because China’s rapid rise has severely shaken the very foundations of American hegemony—the bedrock upon which the United States’ own survival depends.

In other words, the U.S. strategy for countering China is driven purely by national interest, devoid of any sentimental considerations.

Put simply, China’s rise has encroached upon American interests; this is the fundamental reason why the United States views China with hostility and regards it as its primary enemy.

China’s rapid ascent—across the economic, political, and military spheres—has profoundly reshaped the global landscape and significantly improved the living standards of the Chinese people. Yet, simultaneously, it has undermined the foundations of American hegemony.

American hegemony is deeply rooted in the U.S. and its network of interests maintaining a monopoly on—and exerting control over—global markets. China’s rise has fundamentally altered this dynamic.

Whether it involves Chinese electric vehicles capturing market share from American automakers, or China’s CIPS financial system partially displacing the U.S.-dominated SWIFT network, these developments—while benefiting the rest of the world—have nonetheless posed a formidable challenge to established American interests.

Given these circumstances, it is entirely predictable that the United States would designate China as its primary adversary.

Since the United States regards China as its principal enemy, it is inevitable that Washington will take action against it.

Consequently, the Taiwan issue has naturally emerged as a potent instrument in the U.S. strategy to counter China.

How, then, does the U.S. intend to counter China? The strategy is actually quite simple: the United States seeks out proxies within Asia to wage proxy wars against China. This constitutes the entirety of the U.S. master plan for confronting Beijing.

Aside from Japan, the primary proxy identified for this role is the island of Taiwan. For this reason, the United States has consistently supplied Taiwan with arms. The ultimate objective is to ensure that, one day, Taiwan can be deployed as a “second Ukraine”—igniting a conflict in the Taiwan Strait that would engulf and devastate the Chinese mainland.

Trump’s Visit to China Was Purely for the Midterm Elections

Once one grasps the overarching U.S. policy framework regarding China, President Trump’s visit to Beijing comes into sharp focus and becomes entirely transparent. Many people view Trump’s visit to China as part of a joint U.S.-China effort to “carve up Taiwan”—a perception that is, in reality, a grave misconception.

Since the United States cannot possibly allow China’s rise to threaten its own interests, it is compelled to seek ways to drag China into one or two proxy wars; one of these proxy conflicts is the war across the Taiwan Strait.

Currently, the United States suffers from a depleted manufacturing base, soaring domestic inflation, and severe social polarization. China, by contrast, sees its military, economic, and technological sectors flourishing—improving day by day. Consequently, the U.S. no longer possesses the means within conventional spheres to halt China’s rise.

The only recourse left to the United States is to ignite the Taiwan Strait crisis, trigger a proxy war, and thereby exhaust China.

Trump’s visit to China was undertaken purely to stabilize his standing ahead of this year’s midterm elections. As is widely known, since taking office, Trump has engaged in a series of erratic maneuvers that have inflicted significant harm upon the entire nation.

Simultaneously, he has alienated key European allies and—by rashly initiating a conflict with Iran—has become mired in a quagmire from which he cannot extricate himself.

Faced with such acute domestic and international crises, Trump naturally felt compelled to visit China in an effort to secure a victory in the midterm elections.

Should he fail to win the midterm elections, Trump’s ability to govern effectively over the subsequent two years would face severe challenges. Therefore, provided he could stabilize his prospects for the midterms, Trump was prepared to do whatever was necessary to achieve that end.

Thus, in order to provide a satisfactory account to his domestic electorate, Trump visited China; he offered a few symbolic assurances but failed to reach any substantive agreements.

Furthermore, Trump’s visit to China created another issue: it fostered a false illusion of détente in U.S.-China relations, whereas, in reality, bilateral ties remained severely strained.

The U.S. Suspension of Arms Sales to Taiwan Was Intended to Appease China

As previously noted, in order to prevail in its strategic competition with China, the United States cannot—and will not—abandon the island of Taiwan. To abandon Taiwan would be tantamount to relinquishing its global hegemony—an outcome that is simply inconceivable.

Given that Trump’s visit to China was driven solely by the need to bolster his electoral prospects for the midterms, the U.S. naturally chose to suspend arms sales to Taiwan as a means of appeasing China—a move dictated entirely by the exigencies of the election campaign.

However, a suspension does not constitute a cancellation. Once the midterm elections have concluded—regardless of the outcome—Trump will no longer be constrained by the need to accommodate China’s sensitivities. At that point, arms sales to Taiwan are likely to resume, and may even be ramped up as a means of exerting pressure on China. Therefore, the U.S. suspension of arms sales to Taiwan is merely a smokescreen—a purely cosmetic gesture—and by no means reflects a genuine desire to preserve U.S.-China relations.

A true détente between China and the United States is impossible; the U.S. will never permit China’s peaceful rise—this is an inevitable logical conclusion and a matter of fact. It is only after the midterm elections that the contradictions between the two nations will truly begin to erupt.

While this may not necessarily lead to an all-out war, it is to be expected that there will be no fundamental improvement in bilateral relations.

The US-Israeli military strike against Iran has failed

At the outset of the war, the United States and Israel launched a deadly attack on Iran using their powerful air strike capabilities, killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei and massacring numerous high-ranking Iranian officials.

At the time, people all over the world thought Iran was doomed.

If it were any other small country, perhaps none could withstand such intense bombing by the US and Israel. However, Iran is a large country, and thus it miraculously survived the intense bombing by the US and Israel and launched a strong retaliation against them.

Iran struck almost all of the U.S. military bases in the Middle East, destroying billions of dollars worth of U.S. military assets in the region, including a critical Pave Paws radar and even a U.S. E-3 early warning aircraft.

Furthermore, Iran launched a fierce missile and drone strike against Israel, inflicting severe damage on northern Israel.

Clearly, the US and Israel’s plan to destroy the Iranian regime through military strikes has failed.

The war with Iran is transitioning from military war phase to economic war phase

The United States and Israel clearly underestimated Iran’s ability to retaliate; they originally thought that a powerful air strike would be enough to destroy the Iranian regime.

Despite the use of many advanced weapons by the US and Israel in the Iran war, such as the EA-18G electronic warfare aircraft, and even reports claiming that the US used AI to attack Iran.

Faced with the attacks of these advanced weapons, Iran did not collapse as quickly as the US and Israel had envisioned. Instead, it used its well-prepared “mosaic” tactics to launch a resolute counterattack against the US and Israel.

Even more remarkably, after being invaded by the US and Israel, Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, which put the US and Israel in a difficult position.

Because the Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for global oil transportation, cutting off this oil transport route means that the United States will find it difficult to control its own inflation.

Therefore, in order to prevent Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the United States has adopted a counter-blockade tactic against Iranian ports.

The core idea of ​​this tactic is to collapse Iran’s oil economy.

Because the oil pumped from oil wells needs to be stored before being sold, only by selling and loading the stored oil onto ships as quickly as possible can storage tanks be freed up for further loading.

The problem now is that the United States has blocked oil exports at sea, preventing Iran from selling its oil and causing it to accumulate. Meanwhile, Iran’s oil storage tanks are running out of space, and when Iran runs out of empty tanks, it will have to shut down its oil wells.

Once the oil well is shut down, the surface will be damaged, and the well may never be able to produce oil again.

This is the fundamental logic of the US’s counter-blockade tactics: to fill Iran’s oil tanks to capacity, ultimately forcing Iran to shut down its oil wells to destroy its oil economy and, consequently, its finances.

How long can Iran hold out?

The essence of economic warfare is to ensure one’s own ability to acquire economic resources and access the world market, while simultaneously undermining the opponent’s ability to acquire economic resources and access the world market.

Whether it’s Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz in an attempt to destabilize the US financial market, or the US reciprocating by imposing blockades on Iranian ports to cripple Iran’s finances, these are all manifestations of economic warfare.

Clearly, Iran’s attempt to devastate the US financial markets failed.

With the cooperation of Wall Street, Trump successfully desensitized the US financial markets to the war with Iran by manipulating the media narrative. In other words, the US financial markets are now completely unaffected by the war with Iran.

Therefore, the main battlefield of the US-Iran economic war lies in the US’s counter-blockade of Iran. Whether Iran can withstand the US’s strangulation of its oil economy is the key point to observe in the future course of the Iran war.

Trump and Bessent are clearly confident about how long Iran can hold out, believing that Iran’s oil storage tanks will be full within a month, forcing Iran to shut down its oil wells.

However, others have different opinions.

According to a report by the Washington Post, the CIA recently submitted a report to the Trump administration on Iran’s oil economy.

The report argues that Iran is smuggling oil through “ghost ships” and its land-based road and rail networks to circumvent the U.S. Navy’s blockade of Iranian ports.

The so-called “ghost fleet” is a tactic used to circumvent US and Western sanctions by altering ship registrations, falsifying ship registration information, and even disabling transponders. This tactic was initially used by Russia during the Russo-Ukrainian War, and Iran is now employing the same method under the strong blockade by the US Navy.

For example, Iran transferred oil from Iranian ships to ships belonging to other countries. CIA intelligence indicated that this ghost fleet transported an astonishing 20 million barrels of oil.

Besides the ghost ship fleet, Iran is also conducting oil transshipment activities through the road and rail networks of Central Asia. Analysis by the CIA using satellites and other methods indicates that this activity is becoming increasingly frequent, particularly targeting oil-hungry countries like India and Pakistan.

Based on all the analyses, the CIA believes that, given the ghost ship fleet and land smuggling, Iran’s oil economy can hold out for at least another 3-4 months.

The significant global oil shortage will begin this June

With the Strait of Hormuz blocked by Iran and Iranian ports blockaded by the US Navy, a global energy shortage will arrive rapidly and visibly.

Because most countries adopted the “just-in-time production model” in the past era of globalization, which means that production and delivery are completed as soon as an order is received. Under this model, energy is also supplied in a timely manner, rather than relying on large inventories. This is more common in some small developing countries.

Therefore, these small developing countries are at great risk, but even some major energy-saving countries are not at low risk.

Taking China as an example, China has enormous grain and oil reserves. China’s oil reserves amount to over a billion barrels, which is a staggering figure worldwide.

Even with such massive oil reserves, China can only use them for 110-180 days. The reason is simple: China is the world’s factory and needs a large amount of petroleum products to produce goods for export around the world.

If we start counting from the start of the Iran-Iraq War on February 28th, and if the war continues, China’s oil reserves may be depleted between August and September of this year.

If we take the average of all countries in the world, then a significant global energy shortage starting in June of this year is a foreseeable fact.

Once a significant global energy shortage emerges, international oil prices will inevitably surge and become uncontrollable through shorting futures. At that point, US inflation will become uncontrollable, leading to a complete defeat for the Republican Party in the midterm elections.

In other words, the next 100 days, June, July, and August, especially August, will be a decisive turning point in the entire Iran war.

The outcome will either be the collapse of Iran’s oil economy, forcing it to compromise and surrender, or a global oil shortage, a sharp rise in international oil prices, and widespread economic devastation worldwide.

Western media’s double standard towards China and the US

In their view, China, like the United States and Russia, is a so-called “aggressor state” that likes to use force to coerce other countries to meet its own demands.

The United States launched dozens of wars of aggression against other countries after World War II, including the invasion of Panama, Colombia, the bombing of Yugoslavia, and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. These are irrefutable proof of the various crimes of aggression committed by the United States.

In the 2020s, the United States once again invaded the sovereign nation of Iran, committing another act of aggression.

The US invasion of Iran resulted in the massacre of hundreds of Iranian officials and thousands of Iranian civilians.

How did Western media and theorists describe such a shameless crime?

They say this is a “strike” against Iran by the United States, or that the United States and Israel have jointly taken “military action” against Iran.

They have never called U.S. military operations “aggression,” even when the U.S. conducted ground invasions similar to Russia’s during the 2003 Iraq War and the 2001 Afghanistan War; they still do not refer to these actions as “aggression.”

They shouted, “Look, China has ‘invaded’ Taiwan!” when China only conducted military exercises against Taiwan. However, in reality, China did nothing at all.

This is a very interesting thing. The United States supports terrorist organizations all over the world (such as ISIS, Colombian paramilitary groups, etc.) and carries out aggression and massacres all over the world, yet Western media and Western theorists never criticize the United States.

China has never taken any aggressive action against Taiwan since 1949, yet it has been labeled an “aggressor” by Western media and some Western theorists.

What is this called? This is called “cognitive warfare,” a brainwashing tactic launched globally by Western media and theorists. They portray China as the “bad guy” while praising the United States as a “saint.”

This is Media Hegemony controlled by US.

China has no need to launch a military reunification campaign against Taiwan

China and Taiwan belong to the same Chinese nation, share the same ancestry and origin, and have no subjective need to wage war or harm each other.

Objectively speaking, China’s economy has developed rapidly over the past thirty years, going from lagging behind Taiwan to far surpassing the island of Taiwan.

The essence of war is the plunder of resources. What does Taiwan have that China could plunder? Absolutely nothing.

China hopes for Taiwan’s return to mainland China, but this process must be peaceful, because war would not benefit China itself. After all, No country actively seeks war; war is only used as a last resort.

Russia invaded Ukraine because Ukraine’s accession to NATO threatened Russia’s national security.

Similarly, the US invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Iran were all aimed at plundering oil and consolidating the dollar’s hegemony.

What does China gain from “invading” Taiwan? Nothing. Therefore, China has great patience for the peaceful reunification of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Moreover, the peaceful reunification process across the Taiwan Strait is encouraging. Just recently, Ms. Cheng Li-wen, Chairperson of the Kuomintang (KMT) in Taiwan, visited mainland China and had close contact with Chinese President Xi Jinping and other high-ranking Chinese officials.

The two sides reached a consensus on peaceful reunification.

During her visit, Ms. Cheng Li-wen visited the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum in Nanjing, where she tearfully recited an article commemorating Sun Yat-sen.

This fully demonstrates the Kuomintang’s recognition of peaceful reunification.

There are no winners in a war across the Taiwan Strait

China has an absolute military advantage over Taiwan, and launching an attack on the island would be as simple as issuing a single order from China.

But if China were to reduce Taiwan to ruins, would that benefit China? No.

If China were to reduce Taiwan to ruins, it would first and foremost become mortal enemies with the 23 million people of Taiwan. In other words, when China sends troops to take over the island of Taiwan, it would face attacks from countless Taiwanese people, which would not benefit China at all.

Second, would the United States allow China to take Taiwan so easily? Absolutely not.

Taiwan is a key link in the US’s “first island chain” strategy to contain mainland China. If China were to take over Taiwan, it would be equivalent to taking over the first island chain, which would be absolutely detrimental to the US’s ability to maintain its hegemony.

Therefore, even if the Taiwan Strait war were to begin, the United States would not directly send troops to fight China, but it would still provide some data and intelligence support to launch attacks against China, which would undoubtedly cause serious losses to China.

Therefore, war in the Taiwan Strait would be a disaster for both sides of the strait, which is not what China wants to see.

What China wants to see is a stable, secure, peaceful, and unified Taiwan, not a refugee island reduced to ruins.

The US wants war, China wants peace

Given that China and Taiwan share the same ancestry and considering the extent of the damage a war in the Taiwan Strait would cause to China, China will not, and cannot, initiate a military reunification of Taiwan.

Conversely, maintaining peace across the Taiwan Strait is conducive to China’s peaceful rise and surpassing of the United States.

With China’s economy currently experiencing stable growth and breakthroughs in science and technology just around the corner, China has no need to initiate wars. It only needs peaceful development to accomplish the task of surpassing the United States.

As long as China surpasses the United States economically, Taiwan will automatically return to China, without any need for war.

Therefore, what China wants in the Taiwan Strait is peace, because peace is in China’s interest. Only the United States wants war in the Taiwan Strait.

From Iraq and Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Iran today, facts have repeatedly proven that the United States is the world’s biggest source of chaos and war.

The United States will stop at nothing to maintain its hegemony, including through war, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even today in Iran.

Therefore, US has sufficient motive and motivation to plan a war in the Taiwan Strait.

China cannot allow the United States to ignite war in the Taiwan Strait, which is why China cannot give up the use of force to reunify.

China’s declaration that it will not renounce the use of force for reunification is a Damocles’ sword hanging over the heads of pro-independence elements in Taiwan and the United States.

Under the threat of China’s military unification of Taiwan, the United States and pro-independence elements in Taiwan dare not rashly declare Taiwan’s independence and trigger war.

China’s refusal to renounce reunification by force does not mean that China necessarily intends to reunify by force, but rather that it is a deterrent strategy adopted by China to avoid war.

China is holding high the banner of “not giving up the use of force to reunify” in order to prevent the United States from igniting war in the Taiwan Strait.

Trump’s statement, intended to intimidate the Iranian military and civilians into surrendering, obviously had the opposite effect.

This means that Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization not only failed to deter the Iranian military and civilians but also strengthened internal unity within Iran.

The true color of Iranian pro-Western faction: an inevitable product of unequal distribution of benefits under a theocratic regime

We know that Iran is an Islamic theocratic system controlled by the Islamic clergy.

At its core is the Islamic clergy and their armed forces, namely the Revolutionary Guard, which monopolize Iran’s political and economic resources.

Like all other interest groups in the world, the Islamic clergy are exclusive; that is, their interests are not shared with other interest groups but are exclusively theirs.

With the Islamic clergy monopolizing interests and controlling Iran’s national resources, discontent with the Islamic clergy naturally arises within Iran.

This is the fertile ground for the emergence of Iran’s pro-Western faction.

Regardless of their origins or backgrounds, the pro-Western faction in Iran shares a common goal: to share the spoils of the Iranian clergy.

Throughout history, all political struggles have essentially been contests for interests. Humans are inherently driven by self-interest; the pursuit of profit is human nature.

When other interest groups monopolize resources and exclude others, discontent naturally arises, leading to power struggles.

The interest groups in Iran dissatisfied with theocracy lack the resources to challenge the clergy within Iran. Therefore, aligning themselves with the West becomes their only hope.

This is the true nature of the pro-Western camp in Iran.

Trump’s rhetoric about destroying Iranian civilization has crossed the line for the pro-Western faction

As mentioned earlier, the essence of the pro-Western camp in Iran is to compete with the clergy for resources and interests, thereby utilizing foreign power to achieve their goals. In other words, the pro-Western camp in Iran is not aligning itself with the West for the sake of so-called “democracy and freedom,” but for genuine self-interest.

Therefore, the pro-Western camp in Iran, at its core, remains driven by self-interest; their alignment with the West is solely for profit.

However, Trump’s outrageous claim to destroy Iranian civilization directly crossed the red line for the pro-Western camp in Iran. This is because, while the pro-Western camp opposes theocracy, their aim is profit, not destruction.

Moreover, these pro-Western elements, like the Iranian theocracy, are proud Iranians. As Iranians, hearing about foreign threats to “destroy Iranian civilization” naturally triggers strong nationalist sentiments deep within them.

The pro-Western elements in Iran seek profit, while Trump brings destruction. How could the pro-Western camp not be furious and hostile towards Trump?! Therefore, Trump’s threats to destroy Iranian civilization have completely deprived pro-Western forces of their space for survival in Iran.

Even their own survival is threatened by Trump. In this way, in the context of defending the Iranian nation’s right to exist, the anti-Western and pro-Western forces in Iran have unusually reached a consensus—something Trump probably didn’t anticipate.

We can say that Trump’s outrageous claim to destroy Iranian civilization has ironically turned every Iranian into a hardliner on the issue of being irreconcilably opposed to the United States.

None of the three major purposes of the war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran: to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, and to destroy the current Iranian regime, have not been completed.

Just when we were about to watch the joke between the United States and Israel, Trump of the United States suddenly made an unexpected move, that is, the United States announced a counter-blockade against Iran.

The United States has undoubtedly shocked the world by announcing a blockade on ships paying shipping bills to Iran and on ships traveling in and out of Iranian ports.

In other words, there are now two blockades in the Strait of Hormuz, one blocked by Iran and the other blocked by the United States.

US-Iran double blockade of Strait of Hormuz brings chaos to global shipping

This creates a very interesting situation: Iran requires ships entering and exiting the Strait of Hormuz to pay tolls, while the United States requires that any ship that pays tolls to Iran or calls at an Iranian port will be blocked.

If a tanker anchored in the United Arab Emirates or Qatar pays Iran a fee to pass through the Iranian-controlled toll gate in the Strait of Hormuz, the tanker will not be able to pass through the U.S. toll gate in the Strait of Hormuz.

A tanker that follows U.S. rules in the Strait of Hormuz cannot enter the toll station in the Strait of Hormuz controlled by Iran. Because the tanker refuses to pay the toll station in the Strait of Hormuz, it will inevitably be blocked by Iran from the Strait of Hormuz.

The U.S.-controlled toll gates in the Strait of Hormuz target ships docked in Iran, while the Iranian-controlled toll gates in the Strait of Hormuz target ships close to the United States.

More importantly, there is no way for a tanker to meet the dual requirements of Iran and the United States at the same time.

This will undoubtedly cause great chaos to global shipping.

If we want to meet the dual requirements of the United States and Iran, we must and can only transfer two tankers.

That is, the first tanker chooses to pay a fee in order to pass the Iranian blockade, and before reaching the U.S. blockade, transfer to another tanker that does not pay a fee to Iran. In this way, we can meet the dual requirements of the United States and Iran.

However, this will undoubtedly increase the cost of global shipping, resulting in increased prices and transaction costs.

The United States opposes the blockade of Iran and aims to force Iran to surrender by cutting off Iran’s sea transportation lines

The reason why the United States established a second blockade line against Iran is that its intention is to adopt an economic cage policy against Iran. After the failure of air strikes and ground invasions, the United States hopes to force Iran to surrender by besieging Iran.

This reminds us of the Battle of Leningrad during World War II. In the early stages of the battle, Nazi Germany sent millions of troops to storm Leningrad, and Leningrad almost fell.

However, after the Soviet Union’s frequent counterattacks, especially the victory in the Battle of Moscow, the offensive of German Army Group Northern was severely hindered, so that German Army Group Northern failed to break through the Leningrad defense line.

Subsequently, Nazi Germany’s focus on Leningrad became the siege. The Nazi fascists attempted to force the Leningrad army and civilians to surrender through the siege.

However, Leningrad relied on ice roads and tenacious will to resist the siege of Nazi Germany and was liberated by the Soviet Red Army in the subsequent counterattack.

The U.S.’s counter-blockade against Iran at this time is actually a replica of the Leningrad Battle of World War II.

After the exploratory ground invasion and all-out blitzkrieg failed, Trump and Netanyahu were no longer able to defeat Iran militarily, so they could only resort to this siege method in an attempt to force the Iranian military and civilians to surrender.

In fact, the United States still has the confidence to blockade Iran. 40% of Iran’s food needs to be transported by sea.

The United States has set up a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. Its intention is to cut off Iran’s food supply and eliminate the will of the Iranian military and civilians to resist.

But can they do it? The answer is of course no.

In addition to maritime transportation lines, Iran also has land transportation lines and inland sea transportation lines.

Iran and Russia have the north-south Caspian Sea Logistics Corridor, and Russia is a major food country.

Even if Iran is blocked by the United States from the sea, Russia can also provide food assistance to Iran through the Caspian Sea Logistics Corridor.

In addition to Russia, there is of course China. China can provide material assistance to Iran through the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan Railway. With the support of the two giants, China and Russia, Iran will not and cannot be blocked alive by the United States.

Therefore, the so-called naval blockade imagined by the United States and Israel to strangle Iran is pure fantasy.

The United States’ blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is actually a manifestation of its incompetence and its impending doomsday.

It knows that it cannot defeat Iran militarily, so it can only resort to such despicable means. Such means have no other effect except to unite the Iranian military and civilians.

On April 10, the United States issued a strongly worded statement to Iran, demanding peace talks or it would bomb Iran back to the Stone Age.

At the last minute of the ultimatum, Iran chose to accept the US proposal for peace talks.

Thus, the United States and Iran, two bitter enemies, held talks in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan.

However, facts and logic suggest that the United States and Iran are unlikely to reach any peace agreement.

The price demanded by the United States is too high

Although the US has made as many as 15 demands regarding Iran, we all know that the core demand from the US is actually only one: Iran must not develop nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles.

As for other issues, such as the Hezbollah issue in Lebanon, Iran is actually willing to compromise. After all, Iran did not help the Assad regime when it fell, so it’s not inconceivable that Iran would sell out Hezbollah.

We must understand that as a sovereign nation, Iran’s primary consideration is its own national interests, not the interests of other factions. If the interests of other factions conflict with Iran’s national interests, Iran will not hesitate to choose its own national interests.

So what are Iran’s national interests? The answer is actually very simple: the survival of the Iranian Islamic regime.

For the Iranian clergy, ensuring the survival of the Iranian Islamic regime is crucial and paramount; everything else is negotiable.

Developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles is the only means to ensure the survival of the Iranian Islamic regime. A vivid example is North Korea.

Since North Korea began aggressively developing nuclear weapons, neighboring countries such as Japan, South Korea, and even the United States have dared not lay a finger on it. The reason is simple: North Korea is a nuclear-armed state, and if any other country attacks it, North Korea has the potential for nuclear retaliation.

It is precisely because of North Korea’s precedent that Iran has the firm resolve to develop nuclear weapons, as they are the only means that could potentially guarantee Iran’s national interests.

The United States’ demand that Iran abandon its nuclear weapons is tantamount to undermining the very foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Without nuclear weapons, Iran could be easily overthrown by a coalition of the United States and NATO, as evidenced by Libya and Iraq.

Therefore, Iran will never abandon its nuclear weapons. In other words, the price the United States is demanding is too high.

As for long-range ballistic missiles, that is also impossible. Ballistic missiles are delivery vehicles; they can carry Iran’s nuclear warheads.

Without long-range ballistic missiles, even if Iran possesses nuclear weapons, it cannot pose a sufficient deterrent to the United States and Israel. Therefore, this is also something Iran will not give up.

Moreover, the recent strong actions taken by the US and Israel against Iran have actually strengthened Iran’s resolve to develop nuclear weapons. In other words, unless the US and Israel cripple Iran, Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is inevitable.

Iran’s demands are unacceptable to the US

Besides the nuclear weapons issue, which is the main point of contention between the US and Iran, there are other points of contention, such as Iran’s demand for absolute control of the Strait of Hormuz and its demand for war reparations from the US.

These two points are unacceptable to the US.

The Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for global oil production. If the US allows Iran to control the Strait of Hormuz, it would be tantamount to the US relinquishing its dollar hegemony.

With Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz, oil transactions would no longer be solely settled in US dollars, but would likely be diversified, using currencies such as the renminbi and the euro. This would undoubtedly dilute the influence of the dollar hegemony and even shake its very foundation.

What the US finds most unacceptable is the significant increase in the proportion of Chinese yuan used for settlements after Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz. This would essentially grant China a status equivalent to the dollar without any effort on its part, something the US will absolutely not tolerate.

Even if the US cannot control the Strait of Hormuz, it cannot allow Iran to control it. The US might accept a return to pre-war neutrality, but it will never accept unilateral Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz.

War reparations are unacceptable to the US.

What are “war reparations”? War reparations are payments made by defeated nations. For the US to pay war reparations would be tantamount to the US becoming a defeated nation, even before the war. This would not only be a humiliating disgrace but could also directly undermine its global standing.

Therefore, the US has no possibility of accepting either Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz or Iran’s demands for war reparations.

In fact, the US could gloss over the issue of war reparations by having Middle Eastern countries compensate Iran, but not under the guise of “war reparations.” This way, Iran is compensated without the US losing face.

The core issue remains the ownership of the Strait of Hormuz.

A breakdown in US-Iran talks is inevitable

Since Iran cannot accept US conditions, and the US cannot accept Iranian conditions, the only outcome of such negotiations is a breakdown.

Therefore, we have seen that since the US and Iran began negotiations on April 10th, three consecutive rounds have failed to reach any agreement.

However, the breakdown of talks does not necessarily mean that war will break out soon. The reason is simple: both the US and Iran are exhausted and lack the resources to continue the war.

Iran, needless to say, suffered significant losses. After the war began, its navy and air force were destroyed, its high-ranking officials were almost entirely wiped out, and its missile stockpile was severely depleted. Many missile launchers were destroyed, which initially made Iran’s counterattacks relatively effective, but later it clearly found itself struggling.

The US has also suffered considerable losses. Almost all of its bases in the Middle East were bombed at least once, and many important military assets, such as early warning radars, were destroyed. This has resulted in heavy losses for the US in the Middle East.

If the US wants to continue its attacks on Iran, airstrikes are clearly no longer sufficient; it must escalate the war and engage in ground warfare. However, the US ground forces are not yet fully mobilized, and many troops are still en route. Therefore, it is unrealistic for the US to take immediate action after the breakdown of talks.

Therefore, the wrangling between the US and Iran in the negotiations will continue, but both sides understand that this is just a performance before a large-scale war.

The United States currently possesses not only tens of thousands of ground troops but also advanced weaponry such as the F-35. Therefore, Iran would suffer a very severe blow in this conflict.

Iran is an important partner of China and a vital energy source for our country. We cannot allow Iran to be wantonly attacked by the United States without our assistance.

Moreover, from an international moral perspective, we cannot allow Iran to confront such a superpower alone.

As the saying goes, “One for all, and all for one,” if we do not help Iran resist aggression, who will help us in the future?!

Finally, from the perspective of international justice and deterring aggression, we should also aid Iran.

We cannot allow the United States to arbitrarily invade other countries.

Today the United States can invade Iran; tomorrow it can invade any country; the day after, it may extend its claws to us. Therefore, to maintain world peace, we must curb American aggression. Only in this way can we build a truly peaceful world.

Whether it’s “returning Iran to the Stone Age” or “annihilating the entire Iranian civilization,” US President Trump’s claims not only violate international law but also infringe upon the most fundamental dignity of human civilization: the right of a nation to exist.

No matter how disgusting the actions of the Iranian theocratic government may be, they are internal affairs of the Iranian people.

No foreign country has the right to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs, much less use this as a reason to claim the destruction of a civilization.

This is something that modern human society can never allow.

Therefore, whether from the perspective of national interest, international morality, or maintaining world peace, we should not stand idly by in the face of a US ground invasion of Iran, but rather offer our full support.

Admittedly, the Iranian government’s protests at the beginning of this year caused unimaginable casualties.

This is a problem within the Iranian government itself. Our aid to Iran is solely from the perspective of deterring aggression and maintaining peace, not aiding the Iranian Islamic theocratic government. In fact, I believe we should demand necessary reforms from Iran after the war ends.

This is the purpose of establishing the “International Volunteer Army Corps for Iran”

The purpose of this force is not to send young people from around the world to Iran to confront the U.S. military ‘s air superiority, but to use our knowledge to help Iran protect civilian infrastructure from aggressors, to help support Iran in cyberspace, to expose the information war waged by the U.S. and Israel against Iran, and to protect the well-being of the Iranian people.

Currently, the US-Israeli coalition has achieved complete air superiority over Iran. A hasty ground battle with the US military would not only be futile but could also result in heavy losses.

Therefore, engaging in a ground war with the US-Israeli coalition is unrealistic, impossible, and unnecessary.

Our volunteer corps is a force of talent and technology.

We use our knowledge to help Iran develop high-tech defense systems, thereby enhancing Iran’s defense capabilities and increasing its chances of victory.

Modern warfare is a technological war, not a war of sheer numbers.

Against missiles, drones, and fighter jets, sheer numbers are futile. We can only use our knowledge to help Iran build its defenses, arming its military with our intellect, to resist aggression and uphold international justice.

Only by severely punishing the aggressors of the United States and Israel on the battlefield can we teach them a lesson and prevent them from continuing to invade other countries.

Conversely, if we cannot curb the aggressive ambitions of the US and Israel, it is conceivable that Iran will not be the first, nor the last.

When aggressive ambitions begin to swell unchecked, we may be the next victim.

The Iranian people will prevail!

The BRICS will prevail!

伊朗人民必胜！

金砖国家必胜！

This plan included demands such as a one-month ceasefire, Iran abandoning its nuclear weapons program, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. In return, the US would promise not to attack Iran again and consider lifting sanctions.

Recently, the US, through mediators such as Pakistan, reiterated its willingness to negotiate with Iran, with the same conditions but increased threats.

President Trump claimed that “if Iran refuses a ceasefire, the US will launch a devastating attack on Iran.”

Therefore, news of a so-called “imminent ceasefire between the US and Iran” has appeared repeatedly in the media recently.

Let’s analyze whether a ceasefire between the US and Iran is possible.

The United States is eager to withdraw from the battlefield in Iran

As the war entered its sixth week, the economic situation in the United States began to deteriorate significantly, with both inflation expectations and U.S. Treasury yields rising sharply.

Iran’s move to block the Strait of Hormuz has caused significant economic losses to the United States and sparked ongoing protests within the country.

Trump is also facing immense political pressure in preparation for the midterm elections.

Trump’s chances in the midterm elections are practically over.

Therefore, in order to win back the hearts of American voters and also to curb the American economic crisis, Trump is now eager to withdraw from Iran.

However, starting a war is easy, ending a war is difficult.

If Iran agrees to the US conditions, the Iranian officials and civilians killed by the US and Israel will have died in vain

The Iran war has dragged on to this point, and the US and Israel have caused extremely serious damage to Iran. First, the US and Israel assassinated Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei on February 28, and more than forty high-ranking Iranian officials were killed in attacks.

Secondly, Iran suffered massive bombing raids by the US and Israel, severely damaging countless infrastructure facilities, including nuclear facilities. Furthermore, the US and Israel inhumanely attacked the Minash Elementary School in Iran, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Iranian girls.

Such heavy casualties and severe losses mean Iran cannot and dares not easily reach a ceasefire.

If Iran agrees to the US’s conditions, the US can restart the war at any time, and Iran will forever be on the defensive. The US can attack and stop at will; no country, let alone Iran, would agree to such a thing.

Moreover, besides reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the US demands that Iran abandon its nuclear weapons program and ballistic missile program. This is hardly a negotiation; it’s tantamount to demanding unconditional surrender. Whether or not Iran develops nuclear weapons is not a bargaining chip with the US, because it represents Iran’s national sovereignty, which is non-negotiable and non-negotiable.

Trust between the US and Iran has long been lost

The US, in collusion with Israel, launched a surprise attack on Iran during numerous negotiations, causing significant losses.

While Iran might have tolerated the bombings of high-ranking generals and officials in the past, this time the US and Israel crossed a red line, directly killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Khamenei. This is something Iran cannot tolerate.

We all know that Iran is a theocratic state, its state apparatus built on Islam. Khamenei was the “Grand Ayatollah,” the highest scholar of Shia Islam. The US and Israel’s blatant assassination of Iran’s religious leader is unacceptable to Iran.

Moreover, the US has repeatedly broken its promises and launched surprise attacks. Who would dare trust US promises? Who would dare negotiate with the US? Who can guarantee that the US won’t launch another surprise attack? No one can.

In other words, the US and Iran have long since lost any basis for trust.

Since there is no basis for trust, the US and Iran cannot reach any agreement, not even a ceasefire.

Even if the US promises a ceasefire, what about Israel? Will Israel stop its attacks after the US ceases its offensive? Absolutely not.

Therefore, any agreement reached between the US and Iran would be meaningless, because the most important participant, Israel, is not involved.

Israel will not allow a US-Iran agreement

Led by the right wing under Netanyahu, Israel is launching attacks on all fronts, seemingly aiming to realize its “Greater Israel” plan.

To achieve “Greater Israel,” Israel must dismantle Iran. Only by dismantling Iran can Israel force Arab states to submit, thus realizing this vision.

Now is the perfect time to realize Greater Israel:

• First, the US is under the administration of the pro-Israel Trump. While past US presidents promised to protect Israel, they were never driven by Israel.

  • Trump, is a fervent pro-Israel president, making him easily manipulated by Israel. Trump is practically compliant with Israel’s “Greater Israel” plan.

• Second, Iran is at its weakest point. Since the beginning of this year, protests have erupted in Iran, with reformists and conservatives locked in a power struggle, and its proxy groups have been thoroughly dealt with by Israel.

Therefore, Netanyahu has clearly seized the best opportunity to realize a “Greater Israel,” and is determined to eliminate Iran this time. In this frenzy, Netanyahu will absolutely not allow the US and Iran to reach any agreement.

If Iran even considers surrender, Israel will crush it.

In other words, the initiative for whether the US and Iran will negotiate lies neither with the US nor with Iran, but with Israel, or more precisely, with Netanyahu.

And Netanyahu will absolutely not allow Iran to surrender.

If Israel wants to create a “Greater Israel,” it must dismantle Iran. However, Israel lacks the capability to dismantle Iran and can only rely on the United States. Therefore, Israel must keep the United States firmly tied to the Middle East and use the lives of American soldiers to endorse Israel’s “Greater Israel” plan.

However, stripping away this fear-mongering designed for mass consumption and examining the current landscape through the cold, independent lens of a geopolitical sandbox reveals a different reality: a “world war” in this context is merely the physical manifestation of kinetic intensity accompanying a systemic paradigm shift in the international order.

From the Dnieper River to the Persian Gulf, two previously isolated fault lines are undergoing a fatal “theater fusion.”

This is not the accidental byproduct of diplomatic miscalculation, but the inevitable physical rupture caused by the systemic defects of the U.S. hegemonic structure as it attempts to violently suppress the multipolar integration of the Eurasian landmass.

When the strategic bottom lines of Russia, Iran, and China are forcefully compressed into the same coordinate system by a unipolar hegemon, what we witness is not merely the escalation of a regional crisis, but the forced formation of the Global South’s “ultimate defense array.”

Phase I: Tactical Backlash and the Hardening of the Caucasus-Levant Corridor

A dangerous tactical myopia currently pervades Western think tanks: the belief that Israel can achieve “dual containment” of Russia and Iran simply by severing their physical transport networks (such as the Caspian maritime routes or the Syrian logistical corridor) or by escalating high-tier military aid to Ukraine.

This perception fundamentally violates the underlying logic of the asymmetric game. The more aggressive Tel Aviv’s tactical maneuvers become, the faster it accelerates the physical hardening of the Eurasian core at the strategic level.

For Russia, Iran is not merely a Middle Eastern proxy; it is the absolute geopolitical anchor required to maintain the operation of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) under the dual pressure of Western financial and physical blockades.

Should Israel or the United States attempt to physically dismember Iran, they cross Moscow’s core existential red line.

In response, Russia would inevitably abandon its longstanding strategic ambiguity in the Middle East and fully integrate into Iran’s homeland defense architecture.

This intervention would rapidly spill over, evolving into a systemic denial of U.S. and allied military assets across the region.

When Israel substantively links the Ukrainian proxy war with the Middle Eastern theater, it inadvertently hands Russia a legitimate and lethal lever: Moscow can arm the entire Axis of Resistance, dragging the United States into a multi-front logistical meat grinder. This irreversibly upgrades a regional conflict into the embryonic form of bloc confrontation.

Phase II: Dual Maximum Pressure and the Forced Integration of the Pacific Anchor

In this deduction of dual-theater fusion, Washington’s greatest strategic miscalculation lies in its attempt to apply maximum pressure to China as a geopolitical bargaining chip.

The U.S. seeks to leverage its military posture in the East China Sea and the Taiwan Strait to force China to “choose a side” between the Russo-Iranian bloc and the West. This zero-sum, Cold War-era mentality betrays a profound ignorance of the underlying logic governing modern global supply chains.

For China, the containment it faces in the Western Pacific and the squeeze applied to Russia and Iran in Eastern Europe and the Middle East are symptoms of the exact same structural contradiction: a declining maritime hegemon attempting to halt the industrial and resource integration of the Eurasian landpowers.

Top-tier Chinese think tanks have long foreseen the ultimate conclusion of the backfire of the weaponized dollar—when the U.S. can arbitrarily freeze a sovereign nation’s foreign reserves and expel it from the SWIFT system, China’s sole strategic imperative is to secure an internal Eurasian supply chain immune to American maritime interdiction.

Therefore, if the U.S. simultaneously instigates a crisis in the Taiwan Strait while attempting to dismantle Iran in the Middle East, it will not force Chinese capitulation.

Instead, it will generate a physical “pressure effect”: forcefully integrating China’s colossal industrial base and financial reservoir directly into the defensive axis of Russia and Iran.

China’s potential tilt toward a Russo-Iranian alliance is not driven by traditional desires for a military pact, but by the necessity to defend a decentralized order grounded in tangible physical productivity and commodity flows.

In this exact moment, the Taiwan Strait and the Persian Gulf become the eastern and western flanks of the same anti-hegemonic front.

Phase III: Systemic Overload and the Irreversibility of the BRICS Alternative

When the Ukrainian theater, the Iranian theater, and a potential Western Pacific theater are definitively linked, the so-called “World War III” bloc confrontation acquires substantive physical contours. However, the outcome of this confrontation is predetermined by cold industrial arithmetic long before the first shot of this newly expanded war is fired.

The systemic defect of American hegemony is that its highly financialized, deindustrialized real economy is fundamentally incapable of sustaining a protracted, high-intensity war of attrition spanning opposite ends of the Eurasian continent.

Current U.S. strategic deterrence relies on debt monetization and the overdraft of dollar hegemony. While this model may suffice for low-intensity conflicts, it will rapidly collapse when pitted against a bloc possessing a completely closed-loop industrial cycle.

Within this “multipolar iron triangle” forged by China, Russia, and Iran, we observe a model of perfect strategic complementarity: Russia provides an inexhaustible energy baseline and a nuclear umbrella; Iran offers an impenetrable geographical buffer connecting East and West; and China outputs unrivaled industrial manufacturing capacity alongside a local-currency settlement network (such as CIPS and BRICS Pay) entirely insulated from the U.S. dollar.

This is the ultimate manifestation of the irreversibility of the BRICS alternative. This Eurasian closed loop possesses not only the military capacity to withstand the extreme intervention of maritime hegemony but also the economic resilience to fully decouple from the dollar system.

Should the United States—actively or passively—trigger this bloc confrontation, it will inevitably plunge itself into a planetary-scale asymmetric game.

In this arena, every multi-million-dollar missile fired by the U.S. merely accelerates the default of its sovereign debt and the structural collapse of its imperial foundations.

The turning points of history are rarely heralded by the roar of nuclear detonations; rather, they are concealed within the silent data of restructured global supply chains and synchronized air defense networks.

As Washington attempts to utilize kinetic warfare to sustain its unipolar illusion, it is, in reality, excavating the grave of its own hegemony and manually pressing the launch button for the Global South’s new multipolar epoch.

This perception, anchored in the post-Cold War illusion of the “unipolar moment,” obscures a stark geopolitical reality.

By systematically deconstructing the “eight lines of defense” configured by Iran to counter a potential ground invasion, a clear pattern emerges: this is not merely a localized defense plan, but a meticulously engineered model of asymmetric gaming.

These eight dimensional nodes of defense precisely target the structural contradictions inherent in the American military-industrial and macroeconomic apparatus.

It reveals a truth that mainstream observers deliberately avoid: the systemic defects of the U.S. hegemonic structure can no longer sustain heavy military projection on the periphery of the Eurasian landmass.

Modern U.S. military doctrine relies absolutely on air supremacy and the unilateral transparency provided by C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) systems.

The core logic of Iran’s first four lines of defense is to systematically strip away the U.S. technological premium by artificially engineering a “high-entropy battlefield state.”

1st Line: Electronic Warfare and Datalink Severance.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has established electronic jamming as the initial defense layer, aimed at severing U.S. tactical datalinks (e.g., Link 16) and satellite communications. Denied GPS precision and real-time intelligence sharing, the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) network, upon which U.S. forces heavily rely, degrades into isolated tactical units.

This is a classic dimensional reduction strike—forcing a military optimized for information-centric warfare back into an industrial-age, line-of-sight engagement paradigm.

2nd Line: The Topographical Armor Barrier of the Zagros Mountains

Iran’s geography is a natural fortress. Anti-armor positions leveraging complex mountainous terrain effectively neutralize the mobility advantages of U.S. Stryker or Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT).

Mountain warfare forces mechanized infantry to dismount, exposing them to pre-sighted interlocking arcs of fire, thereby drastically inflating initial casualty rates and logistical supply costs.

3rd Line: The Urbanization Meat Grinder and High-Density Street Fighting.

Drawing parallels from high-intensity urban warfare (such as the Stalingrad model of the Soviet-German War), Iran converts dense urban centers into fortified bastions. Modern heavy armor is exceptionally vulnerable within the ruins of reinforced concrete.

Urban warfare severely restricts U.S. close air support and heavy artillery coverage, forcing a room-to-room war of attrition—a precise strike against the low threshold of political endurance characteristic of modern Western democracies.

4th Line: Subterranean Networks and Three-Dimensional Logistics.

A highly complex, deep-underground tunnel network constitutes a logistics and force-projection artery immune to U.S. aerial bombardment.

This three-dimensional defensive architecture not only ensures the survival of the IRGC under contested airspace but enables “bunker-sortie” attacks behind advancing U.S. lines.

It effectively bankrupts the U.S. doctrine of “find, fix, finish” within Iranian territory.

5th Line: The Cost-Exchange Ratio of Drone Swarms

Kamikaze drones, epitomized by the Shahed series, serve as the signature weapon of Iran’s asymmetric game.

Under cold fiscal calculus: the manufacturing cost of a single Shahed drone is roughly $20,000, whereas the SM-2 or Patriot interceptor missiles utilized by the U.S. cost between $2 million and $4 million per unit.

This extreme cost-exchange ratio of 1:100 or even 1:200 dictates that every low-value target the U.S. military shoots down accelerates the financial hemorrhage of its own treasury.

6th Line: Strait of Hormuz Blockade and Global Energy Shock

By closing the Strait of Hormuz—which facilitates the transit of nearly 20% of global daily oil consumption—and striking energy infrastructure controlled by the U.S. and its allies (such as Kharg Island), Iran possesses the capability to instantaneously reset global commodity pricing.

For a U.S. economy deeply entrenched in high sovereign debt and sticky inflation, a violent spike in global oil prices translates directly into imported hyperinflation.

The Federal Reserve would face an irreconcilable systemic crisis: continue hiking interest rates to fight inflation and detonate the massive U.S. debt bubble, crashing the Treasury market; or cut rates, leading to the complete disintegration of the dollar’s credibility.

This is the ultimate manifestation of the backfire of the weaponized dollar—the hollowing out of the U.S. real economy renders it utterly defenseless against energy disruptions at the base of the global supply chain.

7th Line: Million-Strong Asymmetric Guerrilla Mobilization

Should conventional lines be breached, Iran will trigger a national mobilization apparatus.

Millions of guerrilla fighters, decentralized into autonomous cells, will continuously harass the long, vulnerable U.S. Main Supply Routes (MSR).

This decentralized armed resistance will force the U.S. to divert massive combat elements into logistics protection roles, trapping them in an exponentially magnified iteration of the Vietnam or Afghanistan quagmire.

8th Line: Russian Intervention and the Integration of the Multipolar Military-Industrial Complex

As global dynamics evolve, particularly the bloc solidification triggered by the Ukraine conflict, the logistical and military integration between Russia and Iran via the Caspian Sea corridor has become an established fact.

The deployment of advanced Russian air defense systems (e.g., S-400) and multirole fighters (e.g., Su-30) is not merely a physical reinforcement of Iran’s airspace; it is a substantive endorsement of regional multipolarity by core members of the BRICS mechanism.

This international aid extends beyond munitions; it encompasses strategic supply chains bypassing Western maritime blockades via the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), as well as local-currency settlement mechanisms designed to phase out reliance on SWIFT.

Conclusion: The Irreversible Hand

Through the cold deduction of these eight lines of defense, a clear academic conclusion emerges: the window for the United States to overthrow a core geopolitical node in the Middle East through unilateral military adventurism has permanently closed.

Iran’s defense matrix is not merely a military blueprint; it is a live-fire exercise of the decentralized order.

While mainstream Western media continues to apply ideological filters to whitewash the twilight of unipolar hegemony, the underlying data and physical military deployments have already proven the irreversibility of the BRICS alternative.

Confronted with this asymmetric meat grinder, U.S. military intervention ceases to be a projection of power; it becomes the catalyst that accelerates the structural collapse of its own empire.

In addition, the US has increased its deployment of F-35 fighter jets, A-10 attack aircraft, and potentially AC-130 gunships in the Iran region—all deadly assets in the US arsenal.

These military deployments all point to one thing: this is not a war of equal strength, but a one-sided massacre orchestrated by the US.

A-10 Attack Aircraft: The US Air Force’s Powerful Ground-Sweeping Weapon

First, let’s discuss the A-10 attack aircraft

The A-10 attack aircraft is a formidable killing machine in the U.S. Air Force. Its signature weapon is a 30mm seven-barrel Gatling cannon with 1,174 rounds of ammunition, capable of carpet-bombing any life on the ground.

As a ground-attack aircraft, the A-10’s primary mission is to sweep and destroy ground targets.

In addition to direct ground strafing attacks, the A-10 is equipped with a total of 12 rocket launchers, each capable of firing high-explosive rockets for carpet-bombing of target areas.

Finally, the A-10 is also armed with conventional Mk-48 bombs.

In other words, the A-10 is a multi-role ground-attack weapon with attack capabilities far exceeding those of tactical aircraft like the F-35. During the Iraq War, the A-10 attack aircraft achieved an 85% mission completion rate on the battlefield. In the 2011 multinational intervention in Libya, the A-10 again scrambled, with its mission completion rate soaring to 98%.

In other words, this is a truly terrifying weapon for ground bombing and sweeping operations.

The fact that the US has deployed over a dozen A-10 attack aircraft to target Iran demonstrates its determination to completely destroy Iran.

AC-130 Gunship: The US Air Force’s “Aerial Reaper”

If the A-10 attack aircraft is terrifying enough, then the AC-130 gunship can basically be called the “airborne reaper” of the US Air Force.

The AC-130 gunship, the latest model, the AC-130J, is equipped with a 30mm chain gun and a 105mm howitzer. These cannons boast a high rate of fire and destructive power, capable of inflicting significant damage on target areas.

You can think of the AC-130 gunship as an upgraded version of the A-10 attack aircraft; its two cannons can suppress ground forces’ firepower to the maximum extent.

In addition to its powerful cannons, the AC-130 is also equipped with Hellfire missiles, which can be used in conjunction with the cannons for ground attack missions.

In other words, the AC-130 is a more lethal version of the A-10 attack aircraft.

While there is currently no news of the US deploying AC-130 gunships to the Iranian theater, if the conflict escalates, the US may consider sending these gunships to Iran as part of a further strike strategy.

The United States is about to begin its unilateral massacre of Iran

In reality, both the A-10 attack aircraft and the AC-130 gunship are ground-attack weapons. The large-scale deployment of these weapons by the United States in the Iranian theater clearly indicates its intention: a prelude to a ground strike against Iran.

The so-called “US-Iran negotiations” were a blatant deception from the outset. The US’s initial goal was to cripple Iran, thereby achieving its strategic objective of striking China. Therefore, whether Iran surrenders or not, it cannot escape the fate of being attacked by the United States.

The A-10 attacks, and potentially the future AC-130s, would be a one-sided massacre for Iran.

Currently, the US and Israel have complete air superiority over Iran. Although Iran can still launch drones and missiles, these weapons cannot stop the relentless bombing campaign by the US and Israel.

With the large-scale mobilization of US ground troops, the deployment of A-10s is intended to pave the way for a US invasion of Tehran through this ground sweep. This means that any Iranian Revolutionary Guard and militias preparing to resist US forces will face ruthless slaughter by the United States. This is the tragic fate a nation faces after losing air superiority.

We can fully predict that once a ground war between the US and Iran begins, Iranian casualties will rise exponentially, especially with the introduction of ground-based sweeping weapons like the A-10. If Iranian troops dare to assemble and deploy, they will be wiped out by A-10s before even making contact with US forces.

Simultaneously, A-10s and AC-130s can thoroughly and completely destroy Iran’s industrial system, relentlessly destroying and attacking steel mills, military factories, power plants, water treatment plants, and even cement plants, thus fulfilling Trump’s promise to “return Iran to the Stone Age.”

After the start of the US ground invasion, Iran’s losses will escalate rapidly. Within one to two weeks, the number of Iranian casualties could reach several thousand to 10,000. Within one to two months, the number could approach hundreds of thousands, nearing one million.

Therefore, this is not war, it is a one-sided massacre.

Soleimani served for a long time as commander of the Quds Force, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s most elite unit, directing numerous attacks against the United States and Israel.

Because Soleimani caused so much trouble for the US and Israel, the United States carried out a targeted assassination of him in 2022.

Under Soleimani’s leadership, the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was a well-equipped and highly skilled elite force. It was considered a top-tier special forces unit within the Iranian armed forces, possessing exceptional military skills, fighting spirit, and tactical capabilities.

We could say that whoever controlled the Quds Force controlled half of Iran.

After Soleimani’s assassination, then-Supreme Leader Khamenei handed over the command of the Quds Force to a man named Esmail Qaani.

Esmail Qaani, an unassuming old man with glasses, giving off a harmless, scholarly air, is the man who may deliver the most devastating blow to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Why? Because there is ample evidence and indication that he is a Mossad spy working for Israel.

We can glean some clues from Esmail Qaani’s resume:

Esmail Qaani was born in Mashhad, Iran, and joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in 1980. After the Iran-Iraq War, Qani held a high-ranking position on the Afghan border and supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

We know that the Northern Alliance was an anti-Taliban regime and extremely pro-American organization.

After the US overthrew the Taliban, it briefly established the so-called “Islamic State of Afghanistan,” a regime that served as a proxy for US rule in Afghanistan, and which quickly collapsed during the Taliban’s counter-offensive in 2010.

Esmail Qaani supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan during the last century. We cannot know whether his actions were authorized by the Islamic Republic’s leadership.

Regardless, Esmail Qaani’s support for the pro-American Northern Alliance is sufficient to suggest that he had contact with the US as early as that period, and we cannot rule out the possibility that he was already a US-Israeli spy at that time.

After Esmail Qaani was rumored to be an “Israeli spy,” Mossad personally denied it, which seems like a blatant attempt to cover it up.

Mossad didn’t need to deny it; silence would have cleared Karni of suspicion. Mossad’s vehement denial seems to indirectly confirm Karni’s identity as an Israeli spy.

If Esmail Qaani wasn’t an Israeli spy, why would Mossad vehemently deny it? Isn’t it because Karni was nearly exposed, and Mossad fears losing this crucial “pawn” and is therefore desperately trying to cover it up?

In fact, Mossad’s vehement denial of Esmail Qaani’s status as an “Israeli spy” has only heightened suspicions about his identity.

Furthermore, during the airstrikes targeting Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei this year, Esmail Qaani waited at his residence for only 20 minutes before hastily leaving, shortly after which Israeli missiles struck. If this was simply luck, it was incredibly good luck.

We can conduct a hypothetical analysis: if Esmail Qaani were indeed an Israeli spy, what was Mossad’s purpose in training him? T

he answer is certainly not for intelligence on the Revolutionary Guard, as Israel already possesses relevant intelligence on the Revolutionary Guard, which Qani wouldn’t need to provide.

As for intelligence on senior Iranian leaders, Israel has other channels to obtain such information, and Qani wouldn’t be required to provide it separately.

The only explanation is that Esmail Qaani controls the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

This elite Iranian special forces unit is Esmail Qaani’s trump card.

If Esmail Qaani were to turn against Iran at a critical moment, such as when the US and Israel launch a large-scale ground operation against Iran, and suddenly launch a surprise attack on the Iranian leadership, then the Iranian leadership would most likely be unable to resist.