By ANDRÉ MÁRCIO NEVES SOARES*

The war in Ukraine and the conflicts in the Middle East reflect the complexity of modern geopolitics, where strategic and ideological interests intertwine

1.

Regarding the 89 seconds remaining until the midnight Judgment Day, scholars of the macabre clock for the apocalypse claim that, apparently, since Russia's invasion of Ukraine we are reducing this already short time before the occurrence of a catastrophe of great proportions.

But before presenting my personal considerations on the matter, I think it is important to make some considerations.

First of all, I understand that it is very difficult for the lay reader, even if interested, not to be carried away by the demonization of Russia for having invaded Ukraine. The horrors of this war – which is not very different from any other war – are not ignored, but it is essential that we be as honest as possible: from Russia's point of view, what other option did Vladimir Putin have, seeing himself on the verge of being completely surrounded by NATO?

For those who want to delve deeper into the subject, there are countless articles and news reports that denounce the military crackdown that NATO has been unleashing against Russia since the 1990s. Boris Yeltsin, the drunken, dancing puppet that the United States put in power after the implosion of the Soviet Union, favored American capitalist interests for almost a decade inside Russia, so he did not have the political strength to prevent Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic from joining NATO.

And the entry of other Eastern European countries into NATO, already in the Putin era, was marked by the explicit manifestation of discomfort from Putin, who, despite not having sufficient political, economic or military strength to dissuade such a move, always established Ukraine as the border line.

In other words, if Ukraine had remained neutral, the war would most likely not have happened. You see, dear reader, this is very important: all serious opinions, devoid of ideological bias, are practically unanimous in pointing out that the best path for Ukraine has always been neutrality.

No Western outbursts, nor already seen socialist. Especially because the aforementioned country has a territorial extension large enough to house distinct ethnic groups, both pro-European and pro-Russian. However, anyone who thinks that this war only began at the beginning of 2022 is mistaken (the mainstream Western media is mass-producing this narrative). In fact, the conflict has been dragging on since the late 1990s, the beginning of the new century, with the rise of Vladimir Putin to power.

The first peak occurred in 2014, with the fall of the democratically elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, which was pro-Russian, after a “pseudo” revolution promoted by the main Western powers. From then on, the new Ukrainian government, headed by President Petro Poroshenko, began to massacre the predominantly Russian population of eastern Ukraine, in the Donbass region, which led Vladimir Putin to intervene in the conflict indirectly, through pro-Russian militias, and retake the Crimean peninsula.

We can therefore say, with a good margin of certainty, that if the Ukrainian “pseudo” revolution had not occurred – in reality a coup d’état, disguised and quickly legitimized by the West – the invasion of Ukraine by Russia would not have occurred eight years later.

2.

Secondly, there is no excuse for the genocide that Israel has been carrying out in Gaza, following the Hamas terrorist attack on October 07, 2023. Israel’s conduct is unspeakable! Even Jewish scholars, such as Omer Bartov, a professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University in the United States, who is also a historian and an Israeli and American citizen, considered one of the world’s leading experts on genocide, have stated that “What Israel is doing in Gaza is unprecedented in the 21st century.”^[1]

In fact, the Zionist project of territorial expansion for its settlers involves the displacement of large contingents of the Palestinian population, which unequivocally characterizes, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, the practice of genocide against the Palestinian people, as stated by philosopher Georges Didi-Huberman:

“This is an approach that is as obvious to make as it is difficult to accept in terms of the Jewish history of ethics. If there is any legitimacy, it has a very simple corollary: the situation in Gaza – an ‘enclave’, it is said, that is, a starving, bombed-out ghetto on the brink of liquidation – constitutes, in fact, the supreme insult that the current government of the Jewish State inflicts on what should remain its own anthropological, moral and religious foundation. I refer to its most ancient biblical commandment: Zakhor – Jewish memory itself.”^[2]

It is essential to highlight, as appropriate, that we are not talking here about two sovereign countries, but only one, Israel, the “mad dog” of the United States, officially created in the region with a predominantly Arab population in 1947, according to the historic vote in the UN General Assembly, under a regime of “sharing” the territory of Palestine.

Now, the Palestinian State was never officially recognized by the international community, and Israel, with the support of the United States and the criminal omission of the main European countries, took advantage of this to promote all sorts of atrocities in the Palestinian territories, starting the following year, 1948, when the first Nakba (Palestinian “catastrophe” or “disaster”).

It should be noted that there were no terms of comparison between the military capacity of the Zionist Jews installed in power – and fortified by the main land power – and that of the Palestinians, who did not even have a sovereign state.

Even today, comparing Jewish military power, which includes nuclear weapons, with that of militias like Hamas, Hezbollah, or perhaps the Houthis in Yemen, is worse than comparing the United States and Brazil.

In this context, it cannot be ignored that almost 80 years have passed since the approval of the State of Israel and, in that period, the Jewish population has grown significantly, with an increased demand for space and land for its settlers. And given the lack of a precise definition of the Palestinian State, with official demarcation by the UN, Israel is taking advantage and rushing to take everything it can, if possible, everything.

In this sense, the Hamas terrorist attack on October 07, 2023, was the perfect excuse for the second Nakba – there are serious investigations into possible negligence by Benjamin Netanyahu's government, which, in some way, would have facilitated the attack –, with the Zionists' firm intention that this will be the last.

It should be noted that, if we expand our focus, it is easy to see that the destruction of Gaza gives rise to a series of instabilities in the Middle East, both from an economic and social point of view as well as from a public security point of view.

3.

Thirdly, Israel's preemptive strike against Iran just over 10 days ago, without any basis in international law, much less concrete evidence of the existence of uranium enrichment by Iran for military purposes – despite the Western media hysteria, which began to lash out at public opinion after the reprimand Iran received from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) for not collaborating with transparent inspections in recent years –, denotes a scoundrelly opportunism to sabotage the already slim chances of reaching an agreement regarding Iran's nuclear program, on the eve of yet another round of negotiations between Donald Trump's government and the government of the ayatollahs.

Now, Israel could not and cannot be certain that Iran enriches uranium for military purposes, since even American intelligence had already stated, earlier this year, that there was no factual evidence to that effect. The IAEA itself has never stated that Iran was building a nuclear bomb.

Now, bombing a sovereign country based on suspicions explicitly violates the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, jeopardizes the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of social development, with improvements in the living conditions of individuals.

In fact, it is obvious that war against Iran has been a political project of Benjamin Netanyahu for 20 years. It is also obvious that Iran is a threat to the West, not because it is a potentially nuclear nation, but because it is the only Arab nation that, at the moment, does not accept orders from the United States.

Finally, it is also obvious that Iran has become even more of a nuisance with its recent political alignments with Russia and China. And the United States knows that if Russia or China, or both, start supplying Iran with military technology, the region could become truly explosive. However, what bothers Western powers most at this moment is the geographical issue in relation to resources.

Indeed, with shale oil refining capacity in decline, the United States knows that Middle Eastern oil will be crucial for the next 50 years. Iran has one of the world’s five largest known reserves, and it also controls—or at least has the ability to create serious obstacles to the flow of shipping—the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil trade passes.

For these reasons, a change to a pro-Western regime, with or without civilian casualties, would be perfect. However, Donald Trump has received a lot of pressure from both inside and outside to stop the Zionists' attempts to turn Iran into another Gaza. Internally, the support group representing MAGA (Make America Great Again), in the person of its main ideologist, Steve Bannon, was categorically against the involvement of the United States in this war.

Externally, European sycophants, notably England and France, have tried to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. In addition, statements of disapproval from Russia and China and from the entire Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, have made Donald Trump uncomfortable.

The solution he found seemed like a farce, namely, to bomb Iran's known nuclear plants (there are others that are unknown), especially Fordow, with GPU-57 bunker buster bombs, and histrionically claim victory, and then impose a ceasefire by force. This solution may work for a while, but it is not the definitive solution.

4.

Given the instability resulting from the facts highlighted above, as well as the countless other conflicts currently taking place in the world – such as the bloody fighting in Sudan since 2023 and in the Democratic Republic of Congo – the question that seems most pressing is how many seconds are left until the Doomsday Clock strikes midnight. And we certainly no longer have the 89 seconds mentioned at the beginning of the text!

A brief exercise of imagination can consider a dirty bomb dropped by the Nazi-fascist Ukrainian state, and the Russian nuclear response, albeit with tactical bombs of lesser impact.

The resumption of hostilities between Israel and Iran can also be foreseen in the near future. In this context, the repeated statements by Argentine diplomat Rafael Grossi, head of the IAEA, that Iran could have nuclear bombs within a few months are irresponsible.

It is no wonder that Iran has already announced that it will withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory. It seems that the West's eagerness to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb has only increased the Persian desire for atomic autonomy.

As for the Palestinian genocide carried out by Israeli security forces, there is no indication that it will escalate into a nuclear threat against the Jewish state in the short term. But if the famine imposed by Israel as a tactic of extermination continues, who can predict the future? What if China takes advantage of the turmoil and decides to reclaim Taiwan?

If someone asked the “White Rabbit” from the book Alice in Wonderland” what time is it now, he would probably repeat his mantras: “It's late, it's late!”, “I have to go! I have to go!”, “Attention, attention!”, “I don't have time for explanations!”. How much time is left?

* André Márcio Neves Soares He holds a PhD in Social Policies and Citizenship from the Catholic University of Salvador and is a federal public servant..

Notes

[1] https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/cpqe0n4qn3eo;

[2] https://aterraeredonda.com.br/gaza-o-intoleravel/;

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE