Today, information reaches us in a fragmented way, and we often lose sight of the broader picture. Regarding Iran, the media tell us that a popular uprising is underway and that the Tehran regime is repressing it by force. At the same time, the media report that Trump has threatened to intervene harshly, even militarily.
According to Daniele Perra:
“A first phase of more or less spontaneous protests linked to rising living costs (largely due to the heavy U.S. sanctions regime) and to an environmental crisis that has reduced water supplies, especially in the capital; a second phase, however, of open revolt against the ‘regime’ and of hybrid warfare (the use of flamethrowers by the ‘protesters’ is particularly striking). I say ‘more or less spontaneous’ because the timing of their outbreak (immediately after the meeting in Washington between Trump and Netanyahu) raises more than a few doubts… the Mossad has openly stated that it is present on the ground in the streets of Iranian cities.”
According to Jeffrey Sachs:
“The mechanism is now well known. The United States imposes sanctions, crushes the economy, and provokes internal unrest. Then comes the message: if you suppress those disturbances, we will go to war against you. It is an old game, a well-established pattern in the American operational playbook. First the economy is strangled, then social tensions are fueled; if the state reacts, that reaction becomes the pretext for attempting regime change, in the name of ‘protecting the people’.”
These observations are not intended in any way to justify the Tehran regime, whose crisis is not only due to external factors but is also the result of deep internal contradictions. However, interference by foreign powers can only produce even more serious disasters. What makes the situation particularly delicate is the fact that we are dealing with a highly militarized region. Iran is a major regional power, with strong geopolitical influence and vast natural resources. For this reason, it has long been in the sights of U.S. policy. Today, however, what concerns Washington most is Iran’s cooperation with China and Russia.
According to analyst Jiang Xueqin:
“Iran is the geographic and strategic pivot of an alternative Eurasian trade system. If this alliance were to consolidate, the United States would lose commercial access to the Eurasian continent, and the dollar-based system would collapse. For Washington, this is a matter of life and death. It is not necessary to win wars, but to create enough chaos to prevent the emergence of an alternative order.”
“The world is interconnected. A conflict in the Middle East could close the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a global energy crisis. The consequences would spread to Europe, Asia, and beyond, in a classic domino effect.”
“All this fits into a broader pattern of Western decline. As Oswald Spengler observed, civilizations are born, grow, and die. The West shows all the signs of a terminal phase: hyper-urbanization, demographic collapse, extreme inequality, wars fought through proxies, cultural decline, and the loss of social cohesion.”
This, then, is the broader picture—a deeply concerning one. These reflections make it clear that the decline of the United States—and, consequently, of Europe—is not merely rhetorical.
As early as the 1990s, Silo spoke of an inevitable and mechanical transformation of the System, while emphasizing that the direction events would take would depend “on the intention of individuals and peoples, on their commitment to changing the world.”
The future is uncertain, and many paths lie ahead of us. Every ending, however, also contains a new beginning, and every action aimed at peace, nonviolence, and cooperation among people and peoples can open a new path toward the future.