The Single War: Sovereignty Against Imperialism
The conflicts of today are not separate. They are different front lines in one war only. This is a single, US-led war against the sovereign development, growth, and real statehood of anyone else in the world. We must first see it as a whole; only then can we understand the granular fronts.
The attacks on Russia, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela—and the mounting aggression against the DPRK and China—are not isolated incidents. Ukraine performs in the European theater the same role as Zionism in West Asia and the Taiwanese independence movement in East Asia. What we are witnessing internationally are the contours of an emergent global war, launched once again by an imperialism in crisis against all humanity. That is why Iran’s anti-colonial resistance is existential; it touches all of us. Iran fights for itself, but it also fights for us—if we are dissidents, anti-imperialists, or simply humans who wish to remain sovereign in our groups and countries.
This is a war against BRICS, against the SCO, and against any alternative global governance structure the world has worked on for the last 20 years. It is a war against the UN and all its tentacles if they do not comply; if they comply, there is no war. It is a war against Latin American countries to reinstitute a colonial agenda.
We are “against” if we want to design the contours of our own lives, beliefs, and sets of values. We are “against” if we strive for clean money, honest lives, and kindness to our neighbors. This is a war shadowed by so-called religious values, but that is only the shadow on the wall. That shadow is there only to make the conflict palatable for citizens, who have themselves turned into enemies. There are no friends in this war; there are only vassals and colonies. Even Chile, in recent years a US flunky, is not safe.
Two very current events lift the veil for clarity.
The first exposes the military existentialism of this agenda. Tucker Carlson recently exposed a case apparently being built against him by the CIA. In his announcement, he highlighted a sentence from Donald Trump that, amidst a mass of belligerent statements, easily slips by the wayside. Trump stated: “We could destroy Iran, make it uninhabitable forever in one hour… We have weapons that can do that.”
Tucker Carlson states: We are talking about nuclear weapons. The President of the United States is openly saying that if the situation escalates, the US can launch a nuclear strike. There have been very few attempts to convince the public that this is in the national interest of America. In fact, the Secretary of State just spoke and said: “We did this because Israel forced us to do it.”
They are openly talking about what is happening and what the stakes might be. The President of the United States is threatening to use nuclear weapons. This is on the agenda.
The second event displays the coercive nature of Washington’s campaign in Latin America. Beyond Venezuela, this coercion is on full display. In recent weeks, the Trump administration imposed visa restrictions on three Chilean government officials, including the Minister of Transport and Telecommunications. The punishment was for Santiago’s consideration of a proposed $500 million undersea cable connecting Chile to China. Brandon Judd, the US Ambassador to Santiago, went further, warning that Chile could lose its visa waiver privileges entirely if it fails to screen Chinese investments to Washington’s satisfaction.
Consider the audacity of this position: A sovereign nation is being punished for having normal relations with a third country, for merely considering a beneficial infrastructure project. What makes this campaign particularly absurd is that it asks Latin America to commit economic suicide. Since 2000, trade between China and Latin America has experienced a 35-fold increase. This massive expansion has occurred at almost the same rate across the region, regardless of the ideological leanings of each government.
We may frame this overall as a war against Russia or a war against China, but it is more. It is a total war against sovereignty, individuality and indeed humanity.
So, where do we stand in this gathering storm? We stand with humanity against the machine. But what do we do? We do not need to become warmongers to resist war. Our resistance is not in the launch of missiles, but in the refusal of consent. It is in the building of alternative systems that make coercion impossible. It is in the solidarity that renders sanctions useless. We resist by telling the truth when lies are mandated, by trading freely when embargoes are ordered, and by recognizing that sovereignty is indivisible. If we allow Iran to fall, we fall next. If we allow Chile to be bullied, we are next in line. To resist is simply to remain human in a system that demands we become cogs. We choose life. We choose sovereignty. We choose each other. Having said this, we have two close friends that are very close to the lines of killing.
The question remains: Are we on the cusp? Will we see that nuclear assault against Iran? Will we see a final flinging of death to the world? The answer depends on whether we recognize the war before it consumes us all.