Connect with us

Diplomacy

Schiller Institute forum warns of global nuclear war, urges new security architecture

Published

on

The Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) and the Schiller Institute convened an emergency international online forum on Tuesday, titled “Epstein and the bottomless depravity of the elites: Urgent need for a cultural renaissance.” Bringing together a diverse panel of international scholars, former legislators, and analysts, the event painted a stark portrait of a global order allegedly on the precipice of thermonuclear conflict, driven by what speakers characterized as the moral and institutional bankruptcy of Western political elites.

The forum, moderated by representatives of the EIR, opened with an urgent assessment that the current global crisis must be comprehended through the lens of long-term historical processes rather than fleeting “current events.” Central to the discussion was the recent military escalation involving the US, Israel, and Iran, which participants described as a catalyst for a potential third world war.

The specter of war and the LaRouche legacy

The forum opened with a retrospective on the geopolitical strategies established nearly two decades ago. Organizers invoked the 2007 disclosure by American General Wesley Clark, who claimed that in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the US military had adopted an objective to “take out seven countries in five years”—a list that included Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and Iran.

Attendees were played a 2007 speech by the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche, who warned at the time: “The time has come to make some history, to make a turning point in history because there is no alternative.” LaRouche cautioned then that the world monetary financial system was in the process of disintegrating and that war with Iran would represent a “different form of World War II,” asserting that the prevailing US political institutions were incompetent to manage the unfolding collapse.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and chairwoman of the International Schiller Institute and editor-in-chief of Executive Intelligence Review, opened the panel by warning that “it is more than likely that World War III has already begun.”

“With the unprovoked attack by the United States on the Republic of Iran, we have entered now a spiral of escalation which could escalate within a short period of time to a global nuclear war,” Zepp-LaRouche stated. She cited reports indicating that the Pentagon had informed the US Congress prior to the attack that there was no evidence Iran intended to strike the US first.

Zepp-LaRouche drew parallels to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, arguing that the recent hostilities were based on fabricated intelligence regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. “The US attack on Iran is a repetition of the US attack on Iraq in 2003, where it is now 100% documented by the testimony of active participants in the process that all relevant US responsibles knew ahead of time that neither did Saddam Hussein possess weapons of mass destruction, nor was there any threat from Iraq to other countries,” she argued.

Institutional degeneration and the ‘law of the jungle’

Professor Zhang Weiwei, Director of the China Institute at Fudan University in Shanghai, argued that current global crises—ranging from the conflicts in the Middle East to the Epstein files and domestic social divisions—are fundamentally interconnected.

“To my mind, they are in fact deeply interconnected,” Zhang stated. “They have challenged the bottom line of human conscience, the foundations of peace and justice, international law, and basic human rights.”

Zhang posited that these crises are the “inevitable outcome” of the alienation of power from the people, the practice of the “law of the jungle,” and widespread moral depravity among Western elites. “The Western democratic model as practiced in the US and in many other countries is trapped in a deep structural crisis—a crisis of institutional degeneration and governance failure, marked by poor leadership, governance incompetence, and moral collapse,” he said.

Regional perspectives: Brazil, India, and the Global South

Professor Beatrice Bisio of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro emphasized the gravity of the situation for Latin America and the BRICS nations. She characterized the aggression against Iran as an attack on the entire BRICS bloc.

“The truth of the matter is that the aggression against Iran—and we have to understand this—this has been an aggression against the BRICS nation,” Bisio said. She noted the severe consequences of this regional instability, arguing that the “current version of the Monroe Doctrine… finds echoes here within our area.” She called for a massive mobilization of civil society to demand a return to diplomacy.

Professor B.R. Deepak, former Director of the Center of Chinese and Southeast Asian Studies at JNU, New Delhi, focused on the necessity of a “dialogue of civilizations.” He rejected the “clash of civilizations” thesis proposed by Samuel Huntington, noting that history proves civilizations prosper through mutual learning rather than isolation.

“At a time when geopolitical tension threatens international stability, the example of past civilizational dialogue reminds us that cooperation across cultures is not only possible, it is essential,” Deepak asserted.

The US legislative and economic crisis

Former US Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who served from 1997 to 2013, offered a sharp critique of American foreign policy, framing the conflict as a “war of choice.”

“This is a further expression of a long-standing colonial mindset and one that is now tethered to a type of megalomania that is obsessing some of our leaders in the US,” Kucinich stated. He urged the US Congress to utilize the War Powers Resolution or proceed with impeachment to halt the executive branch’s unchecked military actions. “The US Congress must go forward not just with the War Powers Resolution, but this is certainly a cause for impeachment,” he added.

Professor Ding Yifan of the Institute of Global Governance and Development at Renmin University, Beijing, shifted the focus to the economic repercussions of current US policy. Ding argued that the US is risking an economic collapse comparable to, or worse than, the 2008 financial crisis.

“The US economy is on the verge of a crisis… because the New York stock market was relying heavily on these AI companies,” Ding explained. He warned that diverting funds into military actions would “poke the bubble,” forcing an economic contraction. He further noted that protectionist tariffs implemented by the Trump administration had failed to protect domestic manufacturing, instead causing widespread bankruptcies among small and medium-sized businesses by raising costs across global supply chains.

The Epstein nexus and the decline of the West

Namit Verma, an Indian author and security analyst, addressed the panel’s titular theme—the “Epstein” scandal—framing it not merely as a criminal case, but as a mechanism for elite blackmail and the subversion of international governance.

“The Epstein scandal… is representative of the decline of American governance,” Verma contended. He alleged that the scandal was inextricably linked to the manipulation of the United Nations and the erosion of diplomatic independence. “The individual corruption of all who are plenipotentiaries and other significant representatives of participating nations is today a tool which the CIA is a master of,” Verma asserted.

The forum also heard from youth and security representatives from Africa. Timothy Nimsilma, a 25-year-old from Uganda, spoke of the dangers of oligarchic control. “If power is overconcentrated in the hands of the few, the system ends up decaying,” he stated. Kwame Amua, a security expert from South Africa, emphasized the “descent of leadership” and the lack of a moral compass in global governance.

A call for a new paradigm

The forum concluded with a plea for an immediate shift in the global paradigm. Father Harry Bury, a 96-year-old Catholic priest and anti-war activist based in Minnesota, delivered an impassioned argument for “active nonviolence” and development-oriented peace-building.

“The way to have peace is for all nations to be able to equally get what they need,” Bury argued, advocating for the “Oasis Plan,” which seeks to foster peace through the mutual development of infrastructure and resources across the Middle East. “We need to put it in operation right away. It’s about thinking differently.”

In her closing remarks, Helga Zepp-LaRouche issued a final call to action, urging the formation of an “international movement of citizens” that prioritizes the interests of humanity as a whole over narrow geopolitical or nationalistic ambitions.

“If the governments fail, if the establishments turn out to be too corrupt to address the urgent self-interest of humanity as a whole, then our response is that we need an international movement of citizens,” Zepp-LaRouche declared. She advocated for the implementation of a “new security and development architecture,” urging a departure from the “might makes right” doctrine that she and her fellow panelists argued has brought civilization to the brink of annihilation.

Diplomacy

Iran rejects Turkish foreign minister’s comparison of regional policy to Israel

Published

on

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei strongly criticized Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s recent statements comparing Iran’s regional actions to those of Israel, calling the comparison “astonishing and incorrect” during his weekly press conference.

In a comprehensive briefing on Monday, Baghaei addressed a wide range of foreign policy developments and regional security matters, including relations with Türkiye, the current state of diplomatic understandings with the United States, and Iran’s nuclear program.

“Hakan Fidan’s comparison is astonishing and incorrect”

When asked about Fidan’s assertions regarding Iran and his comparison of Iranian actions to those of the Israeli government, Baghaei sharply rejected the assessment.

“It is astonishing that a figure of Mr. Fidan’s standing would make such an unwarranted comparison,” Baghaei said. “He knows very well that the Israeli regime is expansionist by nature and seeks to harm the entire region, including Türkiye. How they arrived at such a bizarre comparison remains a major question for us.”

Baghaei asserted that Iran maintains no proxy forces in the region and argued that Israel represents the only true proxy entity in the Middle East. “We ask our Turkish friends to align their analyses with existing realities and to avoid repeating analyses that serve the exploitative interests of the Israeli regime,” the spokesperson added.

The remarks follow recent statements by Fidan, in which he addressed the ongoing conflict involving Hezbollah and Hamas, describing them as Iranian proxies in the region.

“We need to return to a situation where the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every nation is fully recognized,” Fidan had stated. “Iran has long claimed to pursue a preventive security policy by maintaining proxies in these countries, just as the Israelis occupy the rest of the region as part of their own security.”

“The Islamabad Agreement has entered a crisis phase”

Responding to a question regarding the status of the Islamabad Agreement, Baghaei stated: “There is no doubt that this agreement has entered a crisis phase.”

While emphasizing that Iran approaches all negotiations with seriousness and precision, and fulfills its commitments in good faith once an agreement is reached, Baghaei accused the opposing party of failing to honor its pledges.

“They were so eager to breach the agreement that they did not even allow the one-month period specified in Article 5 regarding the Strait of Hormuz to run its course. They began backsliding from the very first days,” Baghaei said. “Looking at the 14 articles of the memorandum of understanding, the Americans dismantled different components of the agreement within this short timeframe. We have maintained from the beginning that it is a matter of ‘commitment for commitment.’ As long as the other party fulfills its obligations, we will remain committed to ours.”

“We reject the IAEA’s request to access damaged facilities”

Asked about the request by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi for inspectors to return to Iran and visit damaged nuclear facilities, Baghaei delivered a flat rejection, stating that the request would not be granted.

Addressing separate reports regarding satellite imagery of nuclear facility reconstruction, Baghaei noted that he had not yet seen the satellite images in question and therefore declined to comment.

“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to be threatened by the US”

Commenting on maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz and allegations that the United States is providing military escorts to 20 vessels, Baghaei reiterated Iran’s opposition to the presence of extra-regional forces.

Baghaei stated that regional security can only be achieved without foreign intervention, through consultative mechanisms among regional countries. He added that the US military presence is a source of insecurity in the region.

“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to become an area of threat against Iran’s interests,” the spokesperson said. “We made genuine efforts to ensure navigation security, but the US was the party that undermined the process. The claims regarding vessel escorts demonstrate that the US is continuing its interventionist and aggressive policies in the region.”

Regarding the interpretation of Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding, Baghaei stated that the text is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

He noted that provisions designating the management of the strait to Iran, in consultation with Oman, were included in the text to protect Iranian interests. He added that the US is attempting to establish parallel routes by provoking regional countries, which he warned causes environmental issues and jeopardizes maritime safety.

“The declaration by the three European countries is null and void”

Referring to a joint declaration issued by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Baghaei dismissed the statement as entirely invalid, accusing the European nations of attempting to distort facts.

He stated that the actions of the US and Israel are the source of instability and harm in both the region and the wider world, adding that such declarations do not contribute to any resolution.

Addressing claims made by the French Foreign Minister, Baghaei added that French officials should cease attempting to assume roles in matters that do not concern them.

“We have not conditioned cooperation with Afghanistan on recognition”

Baghaei provided details on a recent visit to Afghanistan by Alireza Jalalzadeh, the Deputy Foreign Minister for Consular Affairs, noting that discussions were conducted within the framework of consular affairs and people-to-people relations.

Highlighting that Iran shares a border of more than 900 kilometers with Afghanistan, hosts a large number of Afghan migrants, and maintains extensive commercial ties, Baghaei said: “We have not conditioned the official recognition of the Afghan administration on the cooperation necessary for the interests of both countries. The recognition process is a legal procedure, and a decision on this matter will be made when the time comes.”

“We do not make decisions on behalf of Lebanon”

Rejecting allegations that Iran is interfering in the internal affairs of Lebanon and Oman, Baghaei said: “We do not make decisions on behalf of anyone. The inclusion of Lebanon’s name in the memorandum of understanding demonstrates Iran’s sense of responsibility toward maintaining international security. In the first article of the text, we emphasized the need to end the war on all fronts, including Lebanon. This is not a matter of decision-making; the decision belongs to the Lebanese people.”

Addressing international pressure regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, Baghaei stated that the Lebanese people are best positioned to understand the value of the resistance’s weapons in protecting their sovereignty, and that any decision on the matter rests solely with them.

“Trump’s claims are false”

Baghaei denied claims made by former US President Donald Trump regarding Iran’s conduct during nuclear negotiations.

“Lying has become a behavioral pattern and an addiction for the US,” Baghaei said. “The talks held in Muscat on Saturday focused exclusively on the Strait of Hormuz. We attempted to establish a mechanism to ensure the safe passage of vessels through Omani mediation, but this outcome was not reached due to pressure exerted on Oman.”

He added that alleged assassination plots against Trump were never a subject of negotiation.

“The death of Lindsey Graham will not grieve free people”

When asked to comment on the death of US Senator Lindsey Graham, Baghaei remarked:

“The Angel of Death is just. One cannot expect the peoples of the region to mourn a figure who built his life philosophy on aggression, war, and terror, and who boasted of being the greatest supporter of genocide. The death of this aggressive senator will not grieve the heart of any free person.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

NATO leadership sees no evidence of Russian preparations for attack on Baltics by 2030

Published

on

The military and political leadership of NATO sees no evidence that Russia is preparing for a potential attack on the Baltic states by 2030, according to a report by The Times, citing a senior alliance source.

“I see absolutely no sign that Russia is interested in engaging in any conflict with NATO,” the high-ranking source told the newspaper. The official added that they had no intention of speculating on the date of a potential conflict, as some other officials within the alliance have done.

The Times noted that rhetoric suggesting an open military conflict between NATO and Russia could begin in 2030 is primarily being used to mobilize the resources of the alliance’s member states. The report stated that this framing aims to encourage members to meet a defense spending target set at 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. Speaking to the newspaper on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Martin O’Donnell, spokesperson for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), said that allies currently have a “window of opportunity” to build up the capabilities already agreed upon.

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has previously stated that the militarization of Europe would require Russia to take additional measures to guarantee its national security.

As the implications of these developments continue to play out in the military arena, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda announced on July 9 that NATO leadership has converted the mandate of the Baltic air policing mission from air patrol to a combat footing.

The day before this decision, leaders attending the NATO summit in Ankara pointed to the “long-term threat Russia poses to Euro-Atlantic security and stability” in a joint declaration.

NATO has repeatedly expressed concerns over a potential conflict with Russia. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has urged member states not to be “naive” about threats coming from Russia and to increase their defense spending. Similarly, the commander of the German Army, Christian Freuding, asserted on June 12 that his country must “be ready for a Russian attack” by 2029 or sooner, stating, “We must be ready for war.”

In contrast, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko claimed in a June 22 interview with the Izvestia newspaper that NATO and the European Union are preparing for a military conflict with Russia on the horizon of 2030. Grushko noted that from a military perspective, there is now little difference between NATO and the EU regarding aggressive ambitions toward Moscow, and that their main objective is to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.

The Moscow administration has repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of attacking Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that there are no geopolitical, economic, or military reasons to fight the alliance. Nevertheless, Putin has also stated that “all NATO countries are virtually at war with Russia.”

Last year, representatives of NATO countries approved a declaration agreeing to raise military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Under this target, 3.5% of spending is projected to go directly to the military budget, while 1.5% is to be allocated indirectly to defense through cybersecurity and the modernization of highways.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Zelenskyy announces sweeping Ukrainian cabinet shakeup as Prime Minister Sviridenko resigns

Published

on

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has announced a sweeping structural overhaul of the government, confirming that a new prime minister will soon take office.

Following the announcement, the Ukrainian leader held a series of meetings over a two-and-a-half-hour period with potential candidates positioned to succeed Yulia Sviridenko as prime minister.

“Political strategy is changing”

Writing on his Telegram channel, Zelenskyy announced that the structure of the cabinet of ministers will change and that Sviridenko, who is stepping down from her post, will be assigned to a new role.

The Ukrainian president stated that the country is renewing its political strategy. Under the new approach, specific individuals with extensive experience will be put in charge of each priority foreign policy direction to implement agreements reached at the leadership level and to meet the expectations of the Ukrainian people.

Approximately one hour after Zelenskyy’s statement, Sviridenko confirmed her departure from the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine via a message on social media.

Thanking the president for his high valuation of her work, Sviridenko stated that she and Zelenskyy had discussed future steps.

Sviridenko began her career in the Ukrainian government in 2019 as Deputy Minister of Economy. Between 2020 and 2021, she served as deputy head of the presidential office, during which time she participated in negotiations regarding the Donbas.

In November 2021, she assumed control of economic management as First Deputy Prime Minister. In the spring of 2025, she signed a resource agreement with the US on behalf of Ukraine.

Zelenksyy proposed that Sviridenko lead the government in July 2025, and the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, approved her candidacy with 262 votes in a session held on July 17, 2025.

Prior to Sviridenko, Denys Shmyhal had led the cabinet since March 2020. He currently serves as the Minister of Energy.

Priority targets of the new cabinet established

Zelenskyy outlined the primary areas of focus for the renewed government, listing relations with the US—specifically licensing agreements for the production of Patriot systems and security cooperation—as top priorities.

Other core objectives include the European anti-ballistic missile project, the European Union accession process, relations with neighboring states—particularly Poland and Hungary—cooperation with the Middle East, the Gulf countries, and China, as well as relations with international organizations.

The Ukrainian leader also stressed the need to strengthen operations along the front lines and border regions, increase weapons supplies, complete winter preparations, accelerate the transformation of state-owned enterprises, and implement agreements reached with partners regarding the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Who could succeed Sviridenko as prime minister?

The last major reshuffle in the Ukrainian government took place a year ago, with Sviridenko assuming the premiership in July 2025.

Under Ukrainian law, the candidate for prime minister must be proposed by the majority coalition in the Verkhovna Rada.

Once appointed, the prime minister submits the majority of the cabinet members to parliament for approval.

Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated that the only legitimate power in Ukraine is the Verkhovna Rada. According to Putin’s assessment, the only authority qualified to participate in peace talks is the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, asserting that Zelenskyy lacks legitimacy and therefore has no authority to sign any document.

According to a report by the Ukrainska Pravda newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, potential candidates being considered for the premiership include:

  • Sergiy Koretskyy, Chairman of the Board of Naftogaz and Director of Ukrnafta
  • Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Energy
  • Mykhailo Fedorov, Minister of Defense
  • Ihor Terekhov, Mayor of Kharkiv

Zelenskyy announced that he met with all of these officials, as well as Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko, during the day.

Sources familiar with the matter who spoke to RBC-Ukraine stated that the president’s decision to renew the government came as a surprise to many. The sources informing the publication also put forward Koretskyy’s name for the premiership.

Sources speaking to Bloomberg also pointed to Koretskyy alongside Shmyhal. The agency reported that both Koretskyy and Shmyhal possess extensive experience in the energy sector, which partially explains their candidacy to succeed Sviridenko.

Meanwhile, Verkhovna Rada Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak reported that the parliamentary vote on the prime minister’s resignation could take place on July 13 or 14.

Zheleznyak stated that following this vote, the entire government will function in an interim capacity, with Shmyhal temporarily leading the administration in his capacity as deputy prime minister.

According to information shared by Zheleznyak, Sviridenko will become Ukraine’s new ambassador to the US. The Financial Times also reported, citing two sources, that the outgoing prime minister will be appointed to this post.

Zelenskyy stated that he had offered Sviridenko the opportunity to head a new and important direction in relations with a key partner, though he did not share specific details regarding which country or organization this would involve.

Subsequently, a report by the Interfax-Ukraine agency, citing sources, stated that Olga Stefanishyna, who currently serves as Ukraine’s Ambassador to the US, wishes to end her diplomatic service due to personal reasons.

Stefanishyna has held the post for less than a year, with Zelenskyy having signed the decree for her appointment in August 2025.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey