Connect with us

Diplomacy

The return of ‘the political’ to world politics along Schmittian lines

Published

on

Translator’s Note: Daniel Hoffmann—the financier renowned for deciphering clandestine sovereign bond purchases within the Eurosystem, thereby unsettling the European Central Bank, and widely recognized for his mastery over the opaque corridors of global finance—interprets contemporary geopolitical fractures through the lens of Carl Schmitt’s “friend-enemy” dichotomy. Hoffmann posits that neoliberal globalization has reached its terminus. He asserts that the Trump administration, via the “Mar-a-Lago Accord” (The Miran Plan), has explicitly militarized foreign trade to avert the collapse of the U.S. dollar and arrest the ascent of China. In this process, the Israel-Iran tension is framed as a strategic “trigger” designed to restructure the global financial system. According to the author, the U.S. effort to escape its staggering $10 trillion debt spiral by branding China an “existential foe” and coercing its allies in Europe and Asia under a security umbrella is driving the world toward a new and potentially explosive “state of exception.” Ultimately, Hoffmann emphasizes that symbolic maneuvers, such as the augmentation of defense budgets and the renaming of departments to the “Ministry of War,” constitute the rhetorical infrastructure of a hegemonic “war for survival.” This article, published in the March issue of Politik Spezial, has been translated from the original German at the author’s request; it is recommended to be read alongside the translator’s annotations.

The Return of “The Political” to World Politics along Schmittian Lines

The Iran War as a “Trigger” for the Execution of the Mar-a-Lago Accord

Daniel Hoffmann

Politik Spezial

March 2026

From Economic Competition to Economic Warfare

As early as the second Obama administration, there was a strategic shift toward the “Pivot to Asia” to counteract China’s rise. The “heated competition” between the U.S. and China that erupted then is now, under the second Trump administration, transforming into an overt political issue—specifically, a “political” matter in the precise sense intended by Carl Schmitt.[1] We are currently experiencing a profound “politicization.” With the Biden administration’s de facto declaration of Russia as an enemy, and the second Trump administration’s subsequent designation of China as such, we are witnessing the politicization and militarization of “world trade,” and consequently, the finality of “neoliberal globalism” in both ideological and practical terms.

In this context, the Iran-Israel war appears poised to serve as a trigger for the implementation of the Miran-Trump Plan, also known as the Mar-a-Lago Accord. The objective of this plan is twofold: to prevent the uncontrolled collapse of the U.S. dollar system and to forestall China’s emergence as a dominant economic and military power.

The “Concept of the Political,” the Identification of the Enemy, and the State of Exception in Carl Schmitt

According to Carl Schmitt’s famous maxim: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”[2] A political entity (specifically the state) must possess the power to decide upon the “state of exception.” This decision-making authority is the very essence of the power to designate the enemy and preserve the community.

“The Political” arises when a group (e.g., a state, nation, or community) defines itself through—and in contrast to—an “enemy.” The enemy here is not a personal adversary, but rather a “public, existential foe” that threatens one’s own existence.[3] Enmity is not mere competition or debate; it is a conflict fraught with violence, possessing the potential to escalate into actual war. The friend-enemy grouping shapes political unity and establishes internal solidarity.

According to Schmitt’s 1932 work, The Concept of the Political, this “friend-enemy distinction” constitutes the specific criterion that categorically separates the political from other domains such as morality, economics, or aesthetics.

“The concepts of friend, enemy, and combat derive their real meaning precisely because they refer to and preserve a real possibility of physical killing. War follows from enmity, for enmity is the ontological negation of another existence.[4] War is only the most extreme manifestation of enmity.”

The “Twelve-Day War” and the Essential Casus Belli for Round Two

With the successive heavy strikes launched by Israel and the U.S. against Iran in June 2025 during the so-called “Twelve-Day War,” such an “ontological negation of another existence” evolved into an actual war that lay dormant until early 2026. But now—as anticipated—following Trump’s Venezuelan coup, the war is entering its second round, primarily as a result of official pressure from Israel.

The violent uprisings that erupted in Iran, incited by a U.S. hybrid financial warfare attack and networks of foreign agents, and their subsequent repressive suppression by Iranian security forces, provide the “morally justified casus belli” essential for Western public opinion—paralleling the precursors to wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

The “Mar-a-Lago Accord” (Miran Plan) – The Bifurcation of the World into Friend and Foe

In November 2024, Prof. Stephen Miran presented an implementation guide for the restructuring of the global trade system, which has now assumed the status of a Handlungsmaxime (maxim for action) for Trump’s endeavor to “Make America Great Again.” By analyzing the U.S. twin deficits arising from the U.S. dollar’s role as the international reserve currency and the associated “Triffin Dilemma,” Miran identifies that a subsequent collapse of the U.S. industrial base would imperil not only national prosperity but existential national security.*

(Author’s Note: The Triffin Dilemma describes the fundamental conflict of objectives faced by a country whose currency serves as a global reserve. To fulfill this role, the currency must be available in vast quantities worldwide. However, this inevitably leads to current account and balance of payments deficits, which ultimately erode confidence in the currency’s sustainability.)

The mission of the plan in this context is: To make America great (and magnificent) again, while “keeping China small.” Accordingly, the following objectives have been declared:

  • The aversion of sovereign default and the assurance of war’s financial viability.
  • The elimination of the U.S. twin deficits through the “re-industrialization” of the United States.
  • The securing of military superiority over the rest of the world, particularly China, Russia, and Iran.

To achieve these goals, the following methods and narratives are envisioned:

  • The “militarization” of foreign trade through the distinction between friend and foe.
  • The narrative that America is being exploited by the rest of the world. The prosperity of others is possible only because Pax Americana permits it.
  • Friends must pay a price for Pax Americana in the future (the 5% “NATO target”); otherwise, they will lose their security umbrella.
  • Enemies will be kept “outside” through tariffs, sanctions, etc.
  • The aversion of U.S. sovereign default through “burden-sharing.”
  • Debt restructuring via 100-year bonds that are interest-free but can be used as collateral with the Federal Reserve (Fed).
  • The use of tariffs as a tool to balance “exchange rate misalignments” to compensate for trade imbalances.
  • The imposition of 100% punitive tariffs on countries exiting dollarization.

Regarding the consequences and issues arising from the Miran Plan, the text translated into German states:

“Firstly: A much sharper boundary will be drawn between friend, foe, and neutral trading partners. Friends are under the security and economic umbrella, but this involves a stronger burden-sharing. (…) Those outside the security umbrella will also find themselves outside friendly agreements aimed at international trade and easy access to the U.S. consumer. Higher costs will be imposed upon them through tariffs and other measures. This will have obvious effects on asset prices. Secondly: The very threat of withdrawing the security umbrella without burden-sharing will have potentially explosive consequences. (…)”

The new U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) published in November 2025 already articulates these considerations quite clearly. The renaming of the U.S. Department of Defense to the U.S. Department of War completes the rest of the picture.

The $10 Trillion Debt Issue and the Initiation of the Next Phase of the Miran Plan – The Branding of China as an Enemy

Since 2024, the U.S. government has allocated more than $1 trillion to interest payments—a sum exceeding the budgets for security and the military. Furthermore, this occurs against a backdrop of sovereign debt exceeding 120% of GDP, far beyond the 90% sustainability threshold.

After Trump halted Elon Musk’s DOGE savings program, increased the war budget by 50% to approximately $1.5 trillion, and initiated active measures against Russia and China’s allies (including Venezuela and Iran), the U.S. will be forced to restructure more than $9 trillion of its approximately $30 trillion sovereign debt in 2026 and will seek an additional $1 trillion in borrowing.

Against this backdrop, the BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, are now accelerating their de-dollarization efforts. Consequently, it is clear that the time for the next phase of the Miran Plan has arrived—indeed, it is overdue.

To officially brand China an enemy and to unsettle U.S. friends in Europe and Asia enough to submit to the Miran Plan—specifically to the restructuring of U.S. sovereign debt—only a pretext is now required. With Trump’s so-called “Peace Board,” the core for a new “Coalition of the Willing” (Koalition der Willigen) has already been formed.

Trump’s provocation—verging on the resurrection—of an Iranian war (having already dispatched a third carrier strike group to the region) provides an ideal “trigger” for China to be forced to take an overt stand against the U.S. and Israel, lest it lose its next “independent oil supplier” and witness the “sabotage” of its New Silk Road and currency plans.

China—alongside Russia—has supported “U.S. enemy” Iran for years, and since the Twelve-Day War, has been intensively fortifying it with high-tech defense weaponry, rocket fuel, intelligence data, etc.; it is highly probable that Iran would effectively deploy this equipment against the U.S. war machine in a limited conflict.

The ensuing international tensions are likely to produce the expected effect. The increasingly aggressive rhetoric between Japan (Takaichi) and China, as well as between Russia and Germany (Merz) or the remaining NATO countries, already casts the shadows of the approaching storm before us.[5]

(About the Author: Daniel Hoffmann is a financier specializing in accounting, public finance, and monetary theory. He serves as a political consultant in economics, finance, monetary policy, and geopolitics, and is also affiliated with the Institute for Collective Economic Policy (IKW). In his 2015 thesis as a guest researcher, he revealed that certain national central banks within the Eurosystem had been secretly purchasing sovereign bonds on a massive scale for their own accounts under the Agreement on Net Financial Assets (ANFA), which he personally exposed. This disclosure plunged then-ECB President Mario Draghi into a significant crisis of accountability, leading to the revelation of the previously classified agreement.)

[1] “The Political” (Das Politische): In German, everyday pragmatic politics is denoted by the word die Politik; however, Schmitt uses the neuter substantive (das Politische) to construct it as a “domain” or an ontological ground. It is the reduction of the Ancient Greek concept of Polis to an absolute field of existential distinction. Against the parliamentary “chatter” of the Weimar Republic, Schmitt grounds the essence of politics in the “decision” (Decisionism). (Trans. Note)

[2] “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”: Original: „Souverän ist, wer über den Ausnahmezustand entscheidet.“ Ausnahme (exception) and Zustand (state/condition). The uncanny void where rules and law are suspended. This is the opening sentence of Political Theology (1922). Schmitt states, “The exception is to jurisprudence what the miracle is to theology.” This concept, also heavily treated in Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer, describes how the modern state establishes a monopoly on violence by suspending the law. (Trans. Note)

[3] “Public, existential foe”: Original: „öffentlicher, existenzieller Gegner“: Hoffmann draws a thick line here between private enmity and public enmity. In interpreting the biblical command (Matthew 5:44) “Love your enemies,” Schmitt argues that the Bible refers to the private enemy (Latin: inimicus, Greek: echthros) and not the public political enemy (Latin: hostis, Greek: polemios). One may not hate the political enemy, yet their existence must be negated. (Trans. Note)

[4] “The ontological negation of another existence”: Original: „seinsmäßige Negierung eines anderen Seins“: The word Sein (Being) is the jugular vein of German philosophy. It is an act of negating the presence of being, orbiting the Heideggerian concept of Dasein. Translating seinsmäßig as “ontological” rather than merely “existential” was essential to carry the heavy philosophical tone (Klang) of post-German Idealism into English. The life of one side is predicated upon the ontological rejection of the other. (Trans. Note)

[5] Current Political Context and “German-Russian” Rhetoric: Original: Rhetorik zwischen (…) Russland und Deutschland (Merz): The mention of “Merz” is not a random parenthetical. It signals that the conservative line occupying the Chancellorship in Germany has shed the relative caution of its predecessor to enter a “Schmittian” friend-enemy polarization within the U.S.-NATO axis, militarizing its rhetoric just as Hoffmann describes. (Trans. Note)

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

India’s Russian oil imports hit record high as Middle East tensions disrupt markets

Published

14 hours ago

on

23/06/2026

By

India is increasing imports of Russian oil and coal as supply chain disruptions and rising prices linked to tensions involving Iran reshape global energy flows.

According to a Reuters report citing data from analytics firm Kpler, shipments from Russia to India reached record levels in June.

Kpler estimates that Russian oil deliveries to India will rise to a record 2.55 million barrels per day in June.

That would surpass both the 2.13 million barrels per day recorded in May and the previous high of 2.16 million barrels per day registered in May 2023.

Russia’s share of India’s total oil imports in June is expected to come in at just under 50%. Before the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East, the figure averaged 23% during the three months preceding February 28.

India’s shift toward Russian crude followed the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran and a temporary suspension of sanctions on purchases by the administration of US President Donald Trump in an effort to increase market supply.

However, the sanctions waiver expired on June 17 and was not extended by the US Treasury Department.

Reuters noted that this could lead to a decline in purchases of Russian crude, although the outcome will depend on the willingness of Indian refiners and government officials to return to sourcing shipments from Middle Eastern suppliers.

According to Kpler forecasts, imports from Saudi Arabia are expected to remain at 349,000 barrels per day in June. That compares with an average of 832,000 barrels per day during the three months before the conflict.

A similar trend is visible in coal imports. Imports of Russian coal across all grades are expected to reach 3.16 million tonnes in June, compared with 3.27 million tonnes in May.

Both figures would rank as the second and third highest on record, respectively, behind the peak of 3.76 million tonnes registered in May last year.

Russia is also expected to overtake Australia in June to become the second-largest supplier of coal to India, the world’s second-largest coal importer after China.

According to Reuters, Russia is likely to maintain its role as one of India’s key coal suppliers. Future purchases of Russian oil, however, will depend on whether Washington moves to tighten sanctions against Moscow.

New Delhi says oil shipments will not be affected by sanctions

Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said in mid-June that the country had increased purchases of Russian oil since 2022 at Washington’s request in order to help contain global energy prices.

Jaishankar criticised US restrictions on Russian commodities and urged policymakers not to present such measures as matters of grand principle.

Sujata Sharma, a representative of India’s Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, also said in May that shipments from Russia were continuing and would do so regardless of US decisions concerning sanctions waivers.

Indian refiners reduced imports from Russia in 2025 and turned to suppliers in Saudi Arabia and Iraq amid pressure from the United States and threats of a 25% tariff on Indian goods.

However, Reuters data show that following the outbreak of war in the Middle East and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Indian companies began increasing purchases of Russian crude again in early March.

Russia’s ambassador to New Delhi, Denis Alipov, said at the end of April that Moscow was prepared to supply as much raw material as India was willing to accept.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later confirmed that Moscow remained committed to its agreements on energy shipments to India.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

EU, US and China intensify competition over Africa’s strategic minerals through Lobito Corridor

Published

14 hours ago

on

23/06/2026

By

Africa is becoming an increasingly intense arena of competition among China, the US and the European Union over access to strategic raw materials.

According to an analysis by German Foreign Policy, the Lobito Corridor, a rail link connecting the copper belt of Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Atlantic port of Lobito in Angola, is playing a pivotal role in that contest.

The infrastructure project is regarded as one of the flagship initiatives of the EU’s Global Gateway strategy and is also viewed by Washington, which is investing in the region, as a means of reducing dependence on China.

In the future, copper, cobalt, lithium and other raw materials essential for the production of batteries, electric vehicles, digital technologies and military equipment will be transported westward via this route.

The initiative builds on infrastructure originally constructed during the colonial era to facilitate the export of African raw materials.

Critics argue that the expansion of the Lobito Corridor perpetuates existing patterns of resource extraction under new conditions.

Global Gateway as a counter to the Belt and Road

The European Commission approved the Global Gateway programme in September 2021.

Under the programme, nearly €300 billion is to be invested in infrastructure projects across Africa, Asia, Oceania, Southeast Europe, and South and Central America by 2027.

The programme is widely viewed as a response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

One of its central objectives is to diversify Europe’s imports of critical raw materials, particularly by reducing dependence on supplies from China.

During a visit to China in late May 2026, German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche of the CDU underscored the importance of secure access to critical raw materials and rare earth elements. This is the area in which Germany remains most dependent on China.

Colonial-era infrastructure remains intact

One of the clearest examples is the 1,300-kilometre Lobito Corridor, which runs from the edge of the Zambia-Southern Congo copper belt to the port of Lobito in Angola.

The core infrastructure of this trade corridor was established through the Benguela Railway, which was built as early as 1902 at the height of European colonial expansion. The railway extended eastward from the port city of Lobito through what is now Angola, providing access to the mineral-rich regions of southern Congo and Zambia.

In 1931, following completion of the initial railway line, the British mining and railway company Tanganyika Concessions transferred its 99-year concession rights to Portugal’s colony of Angola.

The concession expired in 2001, after which the infrastructure, previously controlled by Portuguese authorities, was transferred to the Angolan government.

By 2030, annual copper shipments through the route are expected to reach one million metric tonnes.

Both the EU and the US are relying heavily on the Lobito Corridor in an effort to counter China’s dominant position in Africa’s raw materials sector.

Estimates indicate that roughly two-thirds of global cobalt production originates in the Congo, where Chinese companies are particularly active in mining operations.

China also accounts for approximately 75% of global cobalt processing capacity.

The colonial-era rail line leading to Lobito is intended to redirect exports of copper, cobalt and other raw materials, which have until now largely been shipped eastward via Tanzania, toward western markets, enabling processing in Europe or North America rather than China.

Europe seeks to reduce dependence on China for the green transition

In addition to copper and cobalt, the region holds substantial deposits of lithium, coltan, nickel and rare earth elements, giving it significant economic importance.

These materials are used in electric vehicle batteries, stationary energy storage systems and alloys required for military aircraft production.

Until now, the EU has sourced much of these materials from China. Strategic investment in a new logistics hub in Luau, Angola, located along the Lobito Corridor, is intended to reduce that dependence.

The railway line along the corridor is already operated by a European consortium.

The consortium includes Swiss commodities trader Trafigura, Portuguese construction group Mota-Engil and Belgian rail company Vecturis.

However, the majority of the mines remain under Chinese control. In the Congo, 24 of the country’s 33 cobalt-exporting companies are Chinese-backed.

The Lobito Corridor is being developed through an EU-US partnership

EU efforts to secure influence over the Lobito Corridor are advancing in parallel with similar initiatives by the United States.

In early 2022, the US signed a memorandum of understanding with the EU and other G7 members to mobilise more than $600 billion for infrastructure projects worldwide over the following five years as part of the G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII).

The Lobito Corridor is one of five key trade, transit and development corridors in Southern Africa designed to improve transport efficiency.

During the administration of President Joe Biden, financing for the Lobito Corridor was launched under the G7’s PGII framework as a flagship project in cooperation with the Global Gateway initiative.

The EU also regards the expansion of the Lobito Corridor as a critical project and has committed more than €2 billion in funding.

That support could increase further. The next EU budget cycle beginning in 2028 envisages nearly doubling spending on development and external assistance, from €108 billion to €200 billion.

EU officials present the strategy as an effort to offer a more comprehensive approach to infrastructure financing than China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

‘America First’ in Africa

The US has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars for the expansion of the Lobito Corridor.

In the final quarter of 2025 alone, it provided $553 million in loans for the project’s expansion.

An additional $200 million in support came from the Development Bank of Southern Africa.

Unlike the Biden administration, which frequently described the initiative as development assistance, the second Trump administration openly characterises the project as an effort to weaken China’s influence, strengthen US control over critical raw materials and diversify supply chains.

For example, Frank Garcia, a former naval officer appointed in late May as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, praised the Trump administration’s continuing engagement on the continent.

Highlighting the Lobito Corridor in particular, Garcia said the project aligns key US interests in Africa with the “America First” approach.

Germany in Africa for the energy transition

Last autumn, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier travelled several kilometres on the newly restored railway line along the Lobito Corridor and described it as “a strategic infrastructure project of enormous economic importance.”

The German politician added: “Of course, this infrastructure connection also creates investment opportunities for European and German companies along its route.”

Portuguese construction company MCA is currently building solar energy parks in 60 municipalities across Angola at a cost of just under €1.29 billion.

The client is Angola’s Energy Ministry, while the German government is supporting the project through export credit guarantees.

Should Angola fail to meet its payment obligations, Germany would step in. A total of 95% of the project value is guaranteed by the Federal Republic of Germany.

In return, Angola agreed to allow German companies to participate in the project. For example, the battery storage system is being supplied by SMA Solar Technology, based in Niestetal near Kassel.

German solar technology provider Gantner Instruments Environment Solutions is supplying the digital control system.

Critics of the Lobito Corridor expansion warn that the project will primarily benefit the EU and the US.

In their view, the initiative promotes the export of African raw materials rather than strengthening intra-African trade.

Although the EU presents these measures as a development project aligned with African interests, critics argue that they ultimately represent a continuation of Western exploitation of African resources.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

EU presses Türkiye for non-Russian gas supplies under future energy contracts

Published

2 days ago

on

22/06/2026

By

The European Union is insisting that natural gas delivered to member states via Türkiye under new supply agreements must not be of Russian origin.

German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche said after an official visit to Ankara that “Türkiye understands that the EU attaches great importance to ending the supply of raw materials originating from Russia and accepts this reality.”

Reiche added that Turkish officials had made it clear that replacing supplies from Russia could not be achieved overnight, either economically or in terms of available alternative sources.

As of June 17, a ban on pipeline natural gas imports from Russia under short-term contracts signed more than a year ago entered into force across the European Union.

The measure was approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament at the end of last year. In January 2025, EU member states also voted to phase out Russian gas completely by 2027. Under that decision, member states are required to verify the origin of gas supplies before authorizing deliveries.

Meanwhile, Swiss-based company Nord Stream 2 AG, the operator of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, has launched legal action challenging the regulation imposing the ban on Russian gas imports.

Türkiye, for its part, is continuing negotiations with Gazprom on natural gas supplies for the period after 2026, as existing contracts are approaching expiration.

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Alparslan Bayraktar previously said the parties had yet to reach agreement on potential shipment volumes and the duration of any new contracts.

In December 2025, Ankara extended by one year two agreements with Gazprom covering gas deliveries through the TurkStream and Blue Stream pipelines.

Türkiye is seeking to reduce Russia’s share of its gas supply mix. Russia’s share of Türkiye’s natural gas imports has already fallen below 40%.

As part of its energy diversification strategy, Ankara plans to replace part of Russian gas imports with supplies from the United States and Central Asia.

Bayraktar previously said that despite US calls to abandon Russian energy resources, Türkiye would continue purchasing natural gas from Russia.

“We cannot tell our citizens there is no gas available. We have agreements with Russia. Winter is approaching. We need gas from Russia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan,” Bayraktar said.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey