Friday, 2 October 2026

ROAD TO THE FRONT 3 - THE GAME EXPLAINED

The Road to the Front looks like a cheerful board game. Underneath, it's a map of something real: the way a country that doesn't want a war can be talked, step by step, into being ready to fight one.

This post explains what the game is showing you, why it works the way it does, and what it is not saying. It's written so that anyone in the family can follow it, from the youngest player at the table to the oldest.

A trick as old as war itself

Nobody wants to go to war. It's frightening, it's dangerous, and it means people get hurt. So when a government believes a war is coming, it has a problem: how do you change millions of minds?

About a hundred years ago, after the First World War, researchers started studying exactly how this had been done. A man called Harold Lasswell compared the campaigns run by Britain, France, Germany and America, and found something surprising. They all used almost the same steps, in almost the same order. Others, like Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann, wrote about how opinions could be shaped on purpose, the way an advert shapes what you want to buy.

Those steps have been used ever since. They aren't a secret. They're written about in books and taught in universities. Most people just never get shown them.

Once you know the steps, you can spot them happening. That's the whole point of the game.
Why it's harder today

Think about cheering for a team. If everyone in a stadium supports the same club, getting them all to sing together is easy. They already share the songs, the colours and the history.

A hundred years ago, the people persuading Britain to fight could talk to the country a bit like that stadium: one main story about who "we" were, with the same history lessons, the same church on Sunday, and the same idea of home.

Britain today is more like a whole school than a single team. It's made up of many communities, with families whose roots are all over the world, different faiths, and different ideas about what "home" means. Many people care about places far beyond Britain. That's simply how the country is now.

So the old way of saying "fight for your country, your people, your God" doesn't reach everyone. Anyone trying to bring the whole country together has to find a bigger team that everyone can join. That's why you hear words like "our values", "Europe", "the free world" and "democracy". Those are teams almost anyone can sign up to, wherever their family comes from.

The six steps, in plain words

Every card in the game belongs to one of these steps. Next to each one is a short list of words to listen for.

1It's about YOU now

A war far away doesn't feel like your problem. So the first step is to make it feel close: your bills, your street, your safety. Fear works on everyone, which is why it always comes first.

Listen for: "your", "Brits could", "on our doorstep", "every family will feel it".

2We're all in this together

Next, everyone is gathered into one big "we". It's the moment the teacher says "this class doesn't let each other down". Suddenly a foreign war becomes our war, because we all share the same values.

Listen for: "we", "our", "together", "Europe stands", "play our part".

3A trusted face says so

People believe people they already trust. A message lands harder from a famous footballer, a faith leader, a doctor or a top general than from a politician. The message is the same; only the face changes.

Listen for: "says army chief", "warns expert", "star backs", "leaders unite".

4It's not them, it's their rulers

In a country of many communities, nobody wants neighbours turning on neighbours. So the enemy is described as a ruler or a government, never ordinary people. It keeps everyone at home on side, and it makes the cause feel fair.

Listen for: "Putin's war", "the regime", "the Kremlin", "not in your name".

5Service is cool now

This is the slow step, and it can take years. Joining the forces is made to look normal and exciting through TV shows, school visits, adverts, games and sport. Nobody is frightened into it. It just starts to feel like what people like us do.

Listen for: "career", "opportunity", "national service", "skills for life".

6Then, the moment

Finally, something shocking happens: an attack, a poisoning, a disaster. Opinion moves fastest when people are scared and upset, so the shock is followed quickly by one simple ask. There's no time to think, only to act.

Listen for: "after yesterday", "we will not stand by", "now or never", "are you with us?".

What the finish line stands for

In the game, the road ends at the front line. In real life, there's one more stage before that. Once enough people feel it's their duty to fight, that duty can be written into law, which is what conscription means. At that point, persuading stops and rules begin.

The original Living in the Air analysis argues that this is the hardest step of all for a country made of many communities. The early steps, fear and outrage, work on almost anyone. It's the final step that needs everyone to give the same answer to one question: who is "we"? That's why politicians usually avoid talking about conscription for as long as they can.

Why spotting the spin keeps you safe

In the game, if you name the step a headline is using, you stay back near home. If you miss it, you're swept forward. That's how it works in real life too.

A trick only works when you don't notice it. The moment you think "ah, that's step 2, they're trying to make me feel part of the team", you get a second to stop and ask whether you actually agree. You might still agree! But now it's your decision, not the headline's.

Two things the game does not say

It doesn't say every warning is false. Sometimes the danger is real. Real attacks happen, and real threats exist. The game isn't teaching you to ignore the news. It's teaching you to notice how the news is trying to make you feel, so you can judge the facts for yourself.

It doesn't say the newspapers are lying or working together. The headlines in the Russia edition are real, and many come from honest reporting. A step can show up in a headline simply because a journalist reported what a politician said. Spotting the step is about understanding persuasion, not about deciding who the villains are.

That's also why some cards are labelled "No spin: it pushes back". Those are writers arguing against the popular view. Hearing the other side is one of the best protections there is.

Questions for the breakfast table

Next time a scary headline appears, try asking these together:

  1. How is this headline trying to make me feel?
  2. Which of the six steps is it using, if any?
  3. Who is saying it, and why might they want me to believe it?
  4. What might someone on the other side say?
  5. Would I feel the same if the countries were swapped round?
Ready to play?

Start with the first edition to learn the six steps with made-up headlines, then try the Russia edition with real ones from the British media.

For the full analysis behind the game, including the history and the sources, read To Mobilise a Fractured Society for War. 

Sunday, 27 September 2026

LIFE IS FOR LIVING

27 September 2026

1 Noël Coward

There is a line I remember from Noël Coward, in his song “A Bar on the Piccola Marina”, written in 1954 - so the generation of my father - about a respectable English widow, Mrs Wentworth-Brewster.

Coward himself introduced the song by saying that its heroine had:

“discovered in the nick of time that life is for living."

And then, no interest in grieving, she goes off the rails completely in one of the most improper widowhoods ever written about.

So, Mrs Wentworth-Brewster has spent most of her life as a model wife and mother, but not a woman in her own right. But now, her rather dreary husband has died. At the funeral wake, she suddenly realises that she has been living according to everybody else’s expectations and she makes up her own mind on what comes next, according to her own dreams and desires and imagination.



Her immediate conclusion, in the song at least, is that the old life is over, her real life is only now beginning, and it is high time she had some fun!

She goes to the island of Capri,  off Sorrento, and discovers the bar on the Piccola Marina. There, she drinks, flirts with fishermen and sailors, and discovers a new and quite different version of herself.

2 But what actually made life worth living?

Ahaa... this is the interesting part... It wasn’t simply pleasure, ok!

Coward’s joke is that Mrs Wentworth-Brewster discovers aliveness.

She had been existing rather than living.

Her life had been organised around

  • duty
  • respectability
  • family expectations
  • convention
  • being a “good” wife and mother.

In short, supressing or postponing personal pleasure for the good of the family and the expectations of others.

Then suddenly she experiences

  • novelty
  • adventure
  • sexuality
  • friendship
  • spontaneity
  • freedom
  • pleasure

ie, the feeling of being noticed as an individual rather than just as somebody’s wife or mother.

That is why the phrase works so well - living here means actively participating in your own existence not just fulfilling a role assigned to you.


3 And there is a deeper philosophical point

This is very close to something I have been exploring in Joseph Campbell's writings. We discover that there's a difference between having a life and living a life.

  • Existence is biological: you are alive.
  • Living is experiential: you are engaged with the world.

That can involve pleasure for sure, but also curiosity, love, friendship, creativity, discovery, risk, achievement and simply paying attention to the extraordinary fact that you and I are here at all.

There is an interesting parallel with William James:

“Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact."

James was making a serious philosophical point: the value of life is not necessarily something we first discover objectively and then decide to participate in it. Our willingness to engage with life helps create the experiences that subsequently make it valuable. Quite encouraging to know we can shape our world and our destiny.

4 So Coward’s joke is actually quite profound

Mrs Wentworth-Brewster doesn’t discover why life is worth living in some grand philosophical revelation, no. She discovers it by living itself.,, isn't this the point?

You cannot necessarily sit in a room  at your desk or in a comfy chair and reason your way into discovering the value of life. Sometimes the value is generated by getting on down and boogeying: go somewhere, meet somebody, fall in love, learn something, make something, laugh, take a risk, go see something beautiful.

Or, in Coward’s very English formulation:

"She discovered, in the nick of time,
that life is for living."

And the delicious irony is that she discovers this only after her husband dies.

Friday, 25 September 2026

FROM "RUSSIA DOES OUTREACH" TO "RUSSIA IS WAGING WAR ON YOUR BRAIN"

25 September 2026

*How "Russia does outreach" -> "Russia is waging war on your brain".*

Is the Institute for the Study of War trying to say that Russia spreads propaganda? Who'd'uve thought. 

But it is interesting how they go from the usual international media influence to "cognitive warfare".

I mean, Russia operates RT, Sputnik and TASS; it works with foreign media organisations; it runs journalism-training programmes; these are all expanding esp. in Africa, Asia and Latin America + some must offer paths into Russian state media as we see the likes of Pilger and Galloway on RT.

The trick for a good contrarian as always is not to automatically oppose what the official media anywhere are telling us, but just simply to separate fact from the v slick way the ISW interprets what is an everyday media influence op - it is PR.

https://www.livingintheair.org/2026/08/edward-bernays-man-nobody-had-heard-of.html 

A "partnership" -> "recruitment pipeline", so nefarious enlistment techniques worthy of Mossad. 

The people involved all become a "cadre" -> a putinist network subverting and shaping under SSB orders. 

And we finish with -> "cognitive warfare infrastructure", that's some fancy language, putting diplomacy into the asymnetric crypto military division. 

The stated Kremlin strategic goal, known to ISW we know not how, is to "shape the decisions and will of its opponents". 

And the goal of the ISW? To make us fear and hate the enemy.

Thursday, 24 September 2026

DID YOUR PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE MEET YOUR GOAL

If a portfolio rises by 5% in a year while the cost of living rises by 8%, has its owner gained or lost?

Fast Track (30 seconds)

  • A result means nothing until it is set against a goal: the same return can be a triumph or a failure.
  • Seven goals form a ladder, from “do not lose my money” to “earn the most for the least pain”. Each has its own test.
  • Every test needs a yardstick: inflation, a safe government bond, or a tracker index that simply copies the market.
  • Diversification is the simplest way to stop one mistake wrecking the plan.

Introduction

A portfolio can rise in value and its owner can still be poorer. That points to a neglected fact: a result means nothing until it is set against a goal.

This article sets out seven such goals, arranged as a ladder, and shows the yardsticks that make each one testable, from inflation to an index that copies the market.

Saturday, 19 September 2026

THE ROAD TO THE FRONT 2 - RUSSIAN EDITION

The Road to the Front

Russian edition: real headlines

Spot the spin, or get swept towards the front line.

How to play

Take turns rolling the die. Each roll reveals a real headline from the British media. Name which step of the campaign it carries, or spot when a headline pushes back against the narrative.

Spot it and you hold your ground, stepping one square back towards home. Miss it and you're swept forward by your roll.

The game ends when someone reaches the front line or the headlines run out. Whoever is furthest from the front wins.

The six steps
    How many players?
    Player 1's turn

    ?
    Spot the spin

    Which step does it carry?

    PlayerSquares from the frontSpins spotted
    Spot the steps. Ask the questions. Real headlines from UK outlets, shown with outlet and date. A headline appearing here doesn't mean the reporting was false or coordinated, only that it carries a persuasion technique worth noticing.

    MIDDLE EAST RESET - WEST ASIA EMERGES

    The Geopolitical Reset of West Asia:
    The Breakdown of Western Hegemony and the Resurfacing of Indigenous Power

    The geopolitical landscape of West Asia - historically referred to in the West as the Middle East - is undergoing an epochal transformation. This realignment is fundamentally driven by the collapse of the post-World War II American security architecture and the squeezing out of Western military hegemony. Crucially, this exit is not creating a political vacuum to be filled by rival external superpowers like Russia or China. Instead, the region is experiencing a profound reversion to its pre-colonial civilisational, historical, and tribal power structures - dismantling the artificial borders and client-state dynamics imposed during the era of Western imperial dominance.


    1. The Collapse of the American Security Architecture

    For decades, Western strategic dominance in West Asia rested upon an artificial security framework designed to control energy flows, protect key proxy states, and maintain regional hegemony. This framework was explicitly articulated in strategic blueprints such as the 1996 "Clean Break" strategy (crafted by Richard Perle, David Wormser, and Benjamin Netanyahu) and Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2006 regional realignment policy.

    These policies sought to re-engineer West Asia by placing the entire weight of American energy dominance and Israeli security onto a narrow pillar: the Al Saud monarchy and the Sunni sheikdoms of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). To secure this arrangement, Western strategy actively sought to neutralise historic regional powerhouses like Syria, Iraq, and Iran through military intervention, sanctions, and the deployment of proxy forces.

    That Western-constructed architecture has now entered terminal collapse:

    • Military Vulnerability and Forced Retreat: High-precision resistance attacks on critical US installations - such as the major strike on the American airbase in Jordan that destroyed vital aviation and logistics infrastructure - have demonstrated that forward US military positions across the Persian Gulf and Levant are unsustainable. American forces are being squeezed out of peripheral bases and forced to consolidate within Israel, where they represent an increasingly concentrated and vulnerable target.
    • The Failure of American Guarantees: Washington’s inability and refusal to protect its regional partners from devastating strikes on core petroleum infrastructure - such as Saudi Aramco’s Abqaiq processing plant and the East-West pipeline - shattered confidence in the US security umbrella. When Washington repeatedly declined emergency Saudi requests for direct military intervention against Ansar Allah in Yemen, it signalled the end of active American security management in the Persian Gulf.
    • Depletion of Military and Economic Resources: The US military and its regional allies have largely exhausted their stocks of advanced air defence interceptors. Coupled with the total disruption of maritime shipping through the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb Strait, and bombing of the East-Weest pipeline, the petrodollar energy framework that underpinned Western economic hegemony for half a century is rapidly dissolving.

    Glossary

    Ansar Allah - also widely known as the Houthis, are a Zaydi revivalist and Shia Islamist political and military organization that emerged from Yemen in the 1990s.


    2. The Non-Vacuum: Why Russia and China Do Not Simply Replace the Hegemon

    Standard Western geopolitical analysis assumes that when a global hegemon retreats, it inevitably leaves a "political vacuum" that rival global superpowers must fill. The evidence from West Asia contradicts this imperial assumption:

    • Indigenous Security Ententes: Rather than seeking a replacement foreign patron, regional actors are building independent security mechanisms designed to exclude external superpowers. A prime example is the emerging tripartite entente between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey - an arrangement explicitly formed to replace Western security management with local forces beholden neither to Washington nor to Beijing or Moscow.
    • Multilateral Rules vs. Imperial Commands: While Russia and China maintain significant diplomatic presence through forums like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), their engagement differs fundamentally from Western military hegemony. Chinese and Russian diplomatic involvement focuses on promoting consensus-based international law, trade frameworks, and non-aligned de-escalation rather than establishing replacement military blocs or deploying occupying forces.
    • Rejection of Foreign Alignment: The overarching movement across West Asia and the Maghreb (North Africa) is an anti-colonial national liberation wave. Regional populations and leaderships are asserting sovereign self-determination, explicitly seeking to prevent any foreign power - Western or Eastern - from dictating their internal affairs.

    3. The Resurfacing of Historic Civilisational and Tribal Power Structures

    With the unravelling of Western-imposed borders and client regimes, West Asia is undergoing a historic reversion to the deep-seated civilisational centres and tribal networks that governed the region for centuries prior to Western colonial intervention.

    3.1 The Historic Civilisational Balance (Iran and Iraq)

    Historically - prior to twentieth-century Western line-drawing and British-American backing of the Al Saud family - the authentic institutional, intellectual, and civilisational power centres of West Asia were Iran and Iraq (Mesopotamia). The era in which small Gulf sheikdoms exercised outsized geopolitical influence was an artificial anomaly built strictly on temporary petrodollar wealth and Western protection. Power is now shifting back to its historic civilisational roots, as reflected in the massive popular mobilisations across Iraq and the Levant that transcend Western-imposed political boundaries.

    3.2 Tribal Sovereignty and Border Dissolution

    The revolution led by Ansar Allah in Yemen represents a central catalyst in this regional reset. As the original Arabs of the peninsula, the Yemenis possess deep historical and tribal connections that ignore modern state lines:

    • Penetration into Saudi Arabia: Yemeni tribal networks extend directly into the northern Saudi provinces of Asir, Jizan, and Najran - territories annexed by Ibn Saud in the early 1930s without local consent.
    • Resurgence of Disenfranchised Tribes: Regional actors are engaging directly with traditional tribal leaders within Saudi Arabia who remain aggrieved by the historical suppression of their rights and authorities under Al Saud rule. This tribal resurgence directly undermines the centralisation established when St. John Philby and later US Vice President Dick Cheney attempted to anchor Western influence onto one ruling family's victory over its historical rivals.

    3.3 Cultural and Esoteric Islamic Rebalancing

    Culturally, the rigid, reductionist Wahhabi and Salafi doctrines exported from the Najd desert are losing their dominant grip. They are being supplanted by a resurgence of the region's older, esoteric Islamic traditions - including Zaidi, Ismaili, and traditional Shi'i heritage - that historically anchored West Asian civilization. Furthermore, the Sunni-Shia sectarian divisions previously exploited by Western strategy are diminishing, giving way to pragmatic realpolitik, shared indigenous identity, and regional anti-colonial solidarity.

    Glossary

    Iran - For more than two and a half millennia, the West called this land Persia while its own people called it Iran. In March 1935, Reza Shah Pahlavi formally asked foreign governments to use 'Iran' in all official correspondence — and a diplomatic note settled a question that had been waiting since Herodotus and “Arabia Felix”.


    4. Regional Realignment and the Crisis of Post-Colonial Constructs

    The breakdown of Western hegemony is creating severe crises for post-colonial state structures and entities that depended on Western backing:

    • Saudi Arabia’s Credibility Trap: Riyadh finds itself caught between its inflated narrative as a global Islamic leader and the stark reality of its military and economic exhaustion. Faced with depleted missile interceptor stocks, halted grand Vision 2030 megaprojects (window dressing), lost oil revenues, and the need to sell its gold (selling US Treasuries was made difficult) and seek World Bank loans, Saudi Arabia has been forced to accept defeat and request Iranian mediation to negotiate peace with Ansar Allah.
    • Israel’s Strategic Isolation: Israel’s long-term strategy of using Gulf monarchies as a shield while maintaining regional military dominance has been demolished by resistance control over vital maritime choke points like the Bab al-Mandeb and Strait of Hormuz. Facing seven multi-front strain that its military leadership acknowledges would require multiple duplicates of the IDF to sustain, Israel is experiencing severe internal political disarray, economic contraction, high-level professional emigration, and growing global isolation, leaving a population that have little connection to the original Ashkenazi colonisers from Europe.
    • Fragility of Artificial Border States: Western-created buffer states are suffering acute internal strains. Jordan, for example, remains heavily dependent on dwindling financial subsidies and faces deep internal fractures between its Hashemite Bedouin establishment of long date and its Palestinian majority from the time of the Naqba, leaving it highly vulnerable to regional collapse.

    5. Conclusion

    The geopolitical reset of West Asia marks the end of an era defined by Western line-drawing, military occupation, and client-monarchy management. As American power is squeezed out, the region is not collapsing into an empty void for new global empires to claim. Instead, West Asia is re-establishing its own historical balance - driven by civilisational continuity, tribal sovereignty, and indigenous self-determination.

    Friday, 18 September 2026

    THE ROAD TO THE FRONT 1 - IRANIAN EDITION

    The Road to the Front: Spot the Spin

    The Road to the Front

    Spot the spin, or get swept towards the front line.

    How to play

    Take turns rolling the die. Each roll reveals a headline, advert or slogan. Name which step of the campaign it's using.

    Spot it and you hold your ground, stepping one square back towards home. Miss it and you're swept forward by your roll.

    The game ends when someone reaches the front line or the headlines run out. Whoever is furthest from the front wins.

    The six steps

      How many players?

      Spot the steps. Ask the questions. A hypothetical playbook based on how governments have built support for past wars. All headlines are invented.

      Thursday, 17 September 2026

      WHY AMERICA ISN'T THE BOSS ANYMORE

      17 September 2026

      High prices at the petrol pump and supermarket are episodes in a story that started 200 years ago.

      You've noticed it at the till. A tank of petrol, a trolley of groceries, the heating bill: all of it keeps creeping up. Most explanations stop at "inflation" or "the war." But to understand why your money buys less, you need three old stories, and you need to see where they collide.

      An Old Fear of Russia

      Two hundred years ago, Britain ruled India and called it the "jewel in the crown." Russia was a vast empire pushing south and east across Asia, and British leaders grew frightened that it might one day reach India and seize their jewel. For most of the 1800s, the two empires spied on and outmanoeuvred each other across Central Asia. People called it the Great Game.

      In the 1850s that fear turned into real war, when Britain and France fought Russia in Crimea. Fifty years later, a British geographer named Halford Mackinder gave the fear a theory. Whoever controlled the "Heartland," the great middle of Europe and Asia where Russia sits, could dominate the world. The lesson his followers drew was simple: never let Russia grow too strong.

      That idea never died. Britain handed it to America, and many European leaders still carry it today. Whatever Russia actually does, it is cast as the dangerous giant.

      The Playground With One Big Kid

      For most of the last century, there were two big kids on the playground: America and the Soviet Union. Neither could push everyone around, because the other would stop them. Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. America was suddenly the only big kid left, and it decided to run the whole playground, forever.

      Israel's Story

      To understand the Middle East, or West Asia as many now call it, you need one more story.

      For centuries, Jewish people in Europe were persecuted and attacked in violent riots called pogroms. In 1897, Theodor Herzl led the founding of Zionism, a movement with a dream of a homeland where Jewish people would finally be safe.

      Then came the Holocaust, when Nazi Germany murdered six million Jews. In its aftermath, the UN proposed dividing Palestine, and in 1948 the state of Israel was declared, although the conditions were not fulfilled. But Palestinians already lived there. Thousands were killed in the war that followed, and around 700,000 were driven from their homes and never allowed to return.

      In 1967, Israel won another war against its neighbours and took more land: the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and Syria's Golan Heights. A dream of safety had become something very much darker: a drive to hold and expand that land, build settlements on it, displace or exterminate hundreds of thousands, rule over millions of Palestinians who have no say in their future. Some call this the vision of a "Greater Israel" a  grave updated Zionist ideology: The West Bank (which the Israeli government calls Judea and Samaria) and Gaza are the very lands the world has long treated as the basis of a future Palestinian state, some also describe this as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide".

      Over time, Israel's leaders came to believe their country could only be safe if every neighbour was weak, submissive or broken up: Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and now Iran, as well as Gaza and the West Bank.

      This is about the zionist policies and actions of the Israeli state and its leaders, not Jewish people overall, those living around the world - many Jews oppose these policies on religious and moral grounds.

      Where the Stories Meet

      Israel's leaders and their supporters have long pushed America to fight Israel's enemies. And America, wanting to stay boss of the playground, has often agreed. For decades it has fought, openly or in secret, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and now Iran. It has spent staggering sums and rarely achieved what it promised.

      Meanwhile, the rest of the playground moved on. China grew strong by building roads, railways and trade links instead of fighting. Russia got back on its feet. Countries like India and Brazil started making their own choices.

      Why Your Shopping Costs More

      Now America and Israel are at war with Iran. The fighting began at the end of February and has now dragged into its eighth month.

      Iran sits beside the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel that before the war carried roughly a fifth of the world's oil. For months, Iran choked it almost shut. Lately crude tankers have started flowing again, helped by US naval escorts and pipelines that route around the strait, but shipments of refined fuels like diesel and jet fuel are still running at a fraction of pre-war levels, and ships are still being struck near the strait. Peace talks are stuck: Iran offered to reopen the strait within a week if the US lifted its naval blockade and oil sanctions, and President Trump rejected the offer.

      Same demand, less supply, more risk: prices go up.

      And oil is in almost everything. If it isn't in the product you buy, it's in the process that makes and delivers it. It fuels the lorries that bring food to the shops and the tractors on the farms. The Gulf's oil and gas also feed the fertiliser that grows our crops. So expensive oil means expensive food, heating and travel.

      Wars also cost governments fortunes. When they spend more than they have, they borrow or print money, cut public services, or raise taxes. Whichever they choose, money loses value. That's inflation: your money simply buys less.

      The Simple Story

      An old fear of Russia. An ally that wants its rivals crushed. A superpower determined to stay boss. Together they have dragged the world into war after war. The playground bully is getting weaker, and ordinary people everywhere are paying for it at the petrol pump and the supermarket.

      A boss who has to keep fighting to stay the boss is a boss who is losing.

      Saturday, 22 August 2026

      DEBT EMPIRE AND THE DEATH OF A FINANCIAL SYSTEM

      Debt, Empire and the Death of a Financial System

      A summary of Michael Hudson's interview with Glenn Diesen

      If every civilisation before ours understood that debt must periodically be cancelled to survive, why did the West alone forget it - and what happens now that the West's debts can no longer be paid?

       

      Fast Track (30-second summary)

      Michael Hudson argues that the defining crisis of Western economies today is not new: it is the ancient, recurring tendency of debt to grow faster than the economy's ability to pay it. For three thousand years, Near Eastern rulers managed this by periodically cancelling agrarian debts and freeing bonded labourers. The West never adopted this practice, and Hudson traces the consequence in a straight line from Rome's collapse to the Crusades, which he says gave birth to international banking as a tool of Church and royal warfare, through to today's financialised, deindustrialising US and European economies. China, by keeping credit creation a public function, has avoided the same trap. Hudson concludes that the United States, unable to pay its foreign debts in any real sense, is now trying to extract tribute from allies and adversaries alike - through tariffs, NATO cost-shifting and pressure on Gulf oil producers - a strategy he sees as accelerating the same collapse it is meant to postpone.

      1. Introduction

      This piece summarises a wide-ranging interview between geopolitical analyst Glenn Diesen and economic historian Michael Hudson, whose fifty-year body of work spans ancient Mesopotamian debt records to the modern history of international finance. The conversation moves from Bronze Age debt jubilees to the Crusades, from the founding of the IMF to Donald Trump's tariff diplomacy, tracing a single thread throughout: the tendency of debt to outgrow the economy's capacity to repay it, and the political consequences that follow when societies fail to correct that imbalance.

      Hudson's central claim is that this is not a new crisis but the return of the oldest one in economic history - and that the West is now the last major economic bloc still without a mechanism to resolve it.

      Why It Matters

      Hudson's framework reframes the current Western debt crisis not as a cyclical downturn but as the terminal stage of a five-thousand-year pattern last avoided by rulers who understood that unpayable debt must periodically be written down. If he is right, the policy tools currently being used - austerity, tariffs, pressure on allies to fund military spending - are not solutions but symptoms of a system approaching the same point every prior Western financial order reached before it broke.

      Contents Cover the Following

      • The ancient pattern: debt jubilees and why the West never adopted them
      • How Rome's debt dynamics differed from - and destroyed - classical antiquity
      • The Crusades and the Church's invention of international banking
      • The rise of the fiscal state and the transfer of power from Church to bankers
      • Financialisation versus industrial capitalism in the modern West
      • China's alternative model of state-controlled credit
      • The present crisis: tariffs, oil, and the declining reserve status of the dollar

       

      2. The Ancient Pattern: Debt Jubilees and the Rulers Who Understood Debt

      Hudson opens with the observation that most of his career has been devoted to writing a history of debt and banking, prompted originally by the global South debt crises of the late 1970s. Every economic recovery, he found, took place at a progressively higher level of debt - an unsustainable trajectory he later traced back to the very beginning of recorded economic history.

      Leading a Harvard research group for twenty-five years, Hudson studied the economic history of Mesopotamia, Egypt and the ancient Near East, and found a consistent pattern across three thousand years: rulers - whether Sumerian kings, Babylonian rulers or Egyptian pharaohs - periodically cancelled personal agrarian debts, freed bonded labourers, and returned pledged land to cultivators. Business debts were left untouched; it was the debt of ordinary citizens, accumulated through drought, flood or bad harvests, that was written off. The practice recurs from Hammurabi's Babylon through to the Jewish Jubilee year described in Leviticus 25.

      "The great destabilising force was the growth of debt, growing faster than the economy to pay it - and that was the basic political guideline of all rulers."

      This was not benevolence, Hudson argues, but statecraft: rulers depended on a free peasantry for their armies and their labour on public infrastructure, and understood that allowing citizens to fall into debt bondage would eventually undermine the state itself. Crucially, this tradition required a strong central authority - a king, pharaoh or emperor - with the power to override creditor interests when the wider stability of the state demanded it.

      Glossary

      Debt jubilee: A periodic, ruler-mandated cancellation of personal agrarian debts, freeing bonded labourers and returning pledged land, practised across the ancient Near East from Sumer to Israel's Leviticus 25.

      Clientage / bondage: A condition in which a debtor, unable to repay, becomes obligated to work for or serve a creditor - a precursor to serfdom that ancient debt cancellations were designed to prevent.

      3. Why the West Diverged: Rome, Plato and the Absence of a Debt-Cancelling Authority

      The West, Hudson argues, never developed an equivalent institution. He references Plato's Republic, in which Socrates uses the metaphor of a debt owed to a hostile creditor to interrogate the corrupting effect of money and property on rulers, ultimately proposing a ruler free of financial self-interest - a proposal that, as Hudson notes dryly, was never realised.

      Without such a check, Rome's own debt dynamics followed the pattern Hudson describes as recurring throughout history: creditors captured political power regardless of who was elected, driving the wider population into debt bondage, clientage and, ultimately, serfdom. Hudson argues this dynamic - not external invasion - was the underlying force that destroyed the Roman Empire, and the same dynamic, he suggests, is operating in Western economies today.

      Glossary

      Oligarchy: Rule by a small class of the wealthy or well-connected; Hudson uses the term for the creditor and landowning class that captured Roman political power regardless of who was formally elected.

      Political economy: The study of how economic systems and political power shape one another - the broad discipline Hudson's work sits within, tracing how debt structures determine who holds power in a society.

      4. The Crusades and the Invention of International Banking

      Perhaps the most striking section of the interview concerns Hudson's forthcoming book on the origins of international banking, which he traces to the Roman Church during the Crusading era. According to Hudson, the papacy - lacking an army of its own - recruited Norman warlords such as William the Conqueror, offering to sanctify their conquests in exchange for feudal fealty, tribute, and the Church's right to appoint bishops who would control local church finances.

      To fund the resulting wars, the Church backed north Italian bankers from Lombardy, who began lending not to merchants or the poor, as in antiquity, but to kings - for warfare and territorial conquest. This, Hudson argues, inverted centuries of Christian anti-usury doctrine and created something genuinely new: an international banking class whose primary business was financing sovereign war debt.

      "It was the church itself that created international banking and sponsored the international banks, thereby reversing all of the Christian anti-usury teachings."

      Hudson links this history directly to English constitutional history, describing the Magna Carta dispute of 1215 as, in part, a fight by barons against taxation levied to service war debts owed to Church-backed bankers (Riccardi, Frescobaldi, Bardi, Peruzzi; 1290s-1340s, alongside the Cahorsins) - a dispute severe enough that the Pope excommunicated the barons who resisted it.

      Glossary

      Usury: The lending of money at interest; in medieval Christian doctrine any charging of interest, not merely excessive rates, was classed as usury and forbidden - a ban the Church's own banking arrangements later circumvented.

      Cahorsins: Merchant-bankers named for Cahors in south-west France, reviled alongside Italian lenders in medieval England as foreign usurers; the label was often applied loosely to continental moneylenders generally.

      5. The Birth of the Fiscal State

      As royal dependence on international banking deepened, city-states such as Florence, Genoa and Venice - along with the emerging Dutch Republic - developed a structural advantage over kings: the ability to tax their entire population and pledge that revenue as collateral, effectively acting as collection agents for international creditors. Hudson identifies this as the origin of the modern "fiscal state" - a government whose policy is fundamentally organised around servicing debt - and argues that the resulting model allowed these city-states to borrow, and owe, far more than any royal autocracy ever could.

      Over subsequent centuries, this arrangement secularised: the supranational financial control the Church had exercised over European kingdoms in the eleventh to thirteenth centuries passed into the hands of the international banking class itself.

      Glossary

      Fiscal state: A form of government, pioneered by Italian and Dutch city-states, organised primarily around taxing its population to service debts owed to international creditors.

      6. Financialisation Versus Industrial Capitalism

      Hudson traces a second major turning point to the settlements following the two World Wars. The Franco-Prussian War reparations of 1871, and later the pro-creditor peace terms imposed on Germany after 1918, entrenched a system that favoured creditor nations. After the Second World War, the United States - designing the postwar order - again chose pro-creditor rules over Keynes's proposal for an international mechanism (his "Bankor") that would have written down the debts of chronically deficit countries. The result was the International Monetary Fund, whose austerity-based lending, Hudson argues, has never actually enabled debtor nations to repay their debts, but has instead diverted their income away from productive investment and toward debt servicing.

      Hudson contrasts this with the classical economics of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Marx and the American economists, all of whom shared a nineteenth-century industrial-capitalist project: to tax away economic rent, prevent monopoly, and make credit serve tangible production rather than speculative wealth accumulation. In his account, post-2009 US economic growth has been overwhelmingly financial rather than industrial in character, with the resulting wealth concentrated among the wealthiest ten percent of the population - a dynamic he links directly to America's ongoing deindustrialisation.

      Glossary

      Financialisation: The shift of an economy's growth and profit generation away from industrial production and toward the creation of wealth through debt, asset price inflation and financial leverage.

      Economic rent: Income derived from ownership or control of an asset - land, monopoly position, or financial claims - rather than from productive economic activity; a central target of nineteenth-century industrial capitalism's reform agenda.

      Bankor: John Maynard Keynes's proposed international reserve currency and clearing mechanism, put forward at Bretton Woods as an alternative to the IMF, designed to write down the debts of chronically deficit nations.

      7. China's Alternative: Credit as a Public Utility

      Hudson's comparative point is that China's economic trajectory diverges from the West precisely because it never allowed an independent financial oligarchy to form. By keeping money and credit creation under the control of the People's Bank of China, Beijing has avoided the pattern in which finance profits primarily from leveraged asset purchases - real estate, stocks, bonds - rather than from funding factories, infrastructure and productive capacity. This, in Hudson's reading, is what current Western political rhetoric mis-describes as "autocracy": in his terms, it is simply a mixed economy of the kind the nineteenth-century West itself once regarded as sound economic policy.

      Caveat: Hudson's claim here deserves scepticism. China's property sector, built on debt-fuelled land sales and speculative construction, produced exactly the asset-price-driven bubble his framework says state credit control should prevent - Evergrande and the wider developer defaults are hard to square with "no financial oligarchy". The more defensible version of his point is narrower: Beijing retained the administrative capacity to intervene and force restructuring once the bubble burst, rather than letting it cascade privately through the system - a difference in crisis management, not proof that China avoided the underlying dynamic altogether.

      Note: China's historical wars were financed differently from the West's - through direct state taxation, conscripted labour, and (from the Song dynasty onward) state-issued currency, not through borrowing from an independent banking class. There was no equivalent to the Crusade-era pattern Hudson describes, where private international bankers financed royal warfare and thereby gained leverage over state policy. Chinese war finance stayed a state function throughout, which is consistent with Hudson's point even though the property-bubble caveat above complicates it.

      A further irony worth noting: it was Christian, papally-sanctioned banking houses - not Jewish lenders - who built the international credit system described in Section 4, and their success is part of what displaced Jewish moneylenders from that role in England by the end of the thirteenth century.

      Glossary

      Credit as a public utility: The principle, associated with Hudson's reading of China's system, that money and credit creation should serve public production and infrastructure rather than being left to private finance to allocate for profit.

      Property-sector overinvestment: China's construction and land-sale-driven property boom, which produced widespread developer defaults (Evergrande among them) and is a live challenge to claims that state credit control prevents asset bubbles.

      8. The Present Crisis: Tariffs, Oil and the Retreat from the Dollar

      The interview closes on the current geopolitical and financial moment. Hudson notes that roughly forty percent of the American population, according to Federal Reserve data, holds no savings at all, relying on income and then credit card debt at interest rates that can exceed thirty percent once penalty rates are included. Because consumer debt is compounding faster than wages are rising, spending among lower- and middle-income households has contracted even as spending by the wealthiest ten percent, concentrated in luxury goods, has risen. The structural result, in Hudson's account, is deindustrialisation: income is diverted to debt service rather than circulating back into the purchase of domestically produced goods.

      On the international front, Hudson connects this domestic fragility to the declining willingness of other countries to hold US Treasury debt, framing this as reserve managers actively fleeing the dollar for gold. The ECB's June 2026 report shows a real shift, but a more precise one: gold overtook US Treasuries in global central bank reserves in 2025, reaching 27 percent of official holdings against 22 percent for Treasuries and 15 percent for the euro - though a significant part of that shift reflects gold's sharp price appreciation rather than only fresh buying; central banks were still purchasing several hundred tonnes of gold a quarter through 2026, but valuation gains account for much of the increase in gold's reserve share.

      He frames the current Trump administration tariff policy - demands that European allies fund NATO-related costs, and pressure on OPEC states over Middle Eastern oil trade and the Strait of Hormuz - as an attempt to extract tribute from allies and adversaries alike, in lieu of debts the United States cannot otherwise service. Hudson suggests this approach, rather than resolving the underlying imbalance, is likely to accelerate a wider economic downturn as disruption to oil, fertiliser and related trade weighs on Europe and Asia.

      Glossary

      Reserve currency: A currency held in significant quantities by foreign central banks and institutions to settle international trade and debt; the US dollar's reserve status underpins much of the financial leverage Hudson describes.

      Tribute: Payment extracted by a dominant power from weaker or dependent states, historically in exchange for military protection; Hudson's term for tariffs and cost-shifting demands he sees the US making of its allies.

       

      9. Bottom Line

      Hudson's argument is that the West's current financial distress is not a departure from historical norms but a return to the default condition of unmanaged debt - the same condition that periodic Near Eastern debt cancellations existed to prevent, and that Rome's absence of such a mechanism allowed to run its course. Without a modern equivalent to the ancient jubilee, and with credit creation controlled by private finance rather than the state, Hudson sees the United States repeating a pattern of financial polarisation and deindustrialisation that has recurred, in different forms, throughout recorded economic history - and now attempting to offset it by extracting tribute from allies rather than addressing the debt itself.

      Optional Deep Dive

      Readers wanting the fuller argument should note Hudson references three of his own books directly in this interview: Forgive Them Their Debts (on ancient Near Eastern debt cancellation and its Harvard research origins), Temples of Enterprise (collected articles from the same research programme), and a forthcoming, as-yet-unnamed book - due within a month or two of the interview - covering the history of international banking from the Crusades to the First World War. This last title is the primary source for the Crusades/Church-banking material summarised in Sections 4 and 5 above, and would repay direct citation once published.

      References

      Source interview: Glenn Diesen interviews Michael Hudson, "The West's Financial System Is on the Brink of Collapse"

      Further Reading

      • Michael Hudson, Forgive Them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year
      • Michael Hudson, Temples of Enterprise
      • Michael Hudson, ...and forgive them their debts (Harvard Peabody Museum research series background)
      • Michael Hudson, forthcoming book on the history of international banking from the Crusades to World War One (publication pending at time of interview)

       


      Tuesday, 18 August 2026

      HAS IRAN GONE BACK TO “OLD WAYS OF THINKING?

      18 August 2026

      HAS IRAN GONE BACK TO “OLD WAYS OF THINKING?”

      Has Iran really gone back to an older way of thinking, or has it simply changed the level at which it understands the conflict?

      This is an interesting point raised by Alistair Crooke : that Iran thinks "holistically", this kind fo thinking starts from the whole rather than the parts. Instead of asking:“What are the separate problems?”, it asks:“What is the relationship between all these things, and what larger reality do they collectively reveal?”

      While Western thinking tends to think linearly and break down a subject into smaller packets, essentially reductionist / decompositional thinking: data → variables → components → relationships → model → strategy.


      1. The question: a different way of seeing the same world

      Western governments tend to approach complex problems by breaking them into manageable parts. We collect data, analyse it, construct models, identify objectives, devise strategies and then organise programmes of action. Everything is laid out separately, rather like washing hanging on a clothesline.

      This is not a criticism. It is one of the great strengths of modern Western thought. It makes complex problems measurable, manageable and operational.

      But Iran increasingly appears to be looking at the conflict at a different level. Nuclear capability, missiles, regional alliances, Israel, America, sanctions, the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz are not necessarily seen as separate problems. They can be understood as interconnected parts of one larger strategic system.

      At first sight, this can look like a return to an older way of thinking. But that description is misleading.

      The important change is not that Iran has abandoned modern analysis. It is that it may be integrating the results of that analysis into a broader systemic picture.

      Key concepts and glossary

      • Analytic thinking — breaking a complex problem into separate components and analysing each one.
      • Systemic thinking — understanding a problem through the relationships between its components.
      • Level of analysis — the scale at which a problem is examined, from individual events to the wider international system.
      • Perspective — the conceptual frame through which reality is interpreted.

      2. The American approach: identify the issues

      The contrast is particularly visible in the way the American objectives of the war can be expressed. At their most basic level, they can be reduced to four principal military problems:

      • nuclear capability — prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon
      • ballistic missiles — destroy or substantially reduce Iran's missile capability
      • naval power — destroy Iran's ability to threaten maritime traffic and American or allied forces
      • regional armed groups — reduce Iran's ability to support organisations such as Hezbollah and the Houthis.

      This is classic issue-based thinking. Each problem can be identified, targeted and measured. Has the missile force been sufficiently degraded? Has the navy been neutralised? Has the nuclear programme been disabled? Have Iran's regional partners been weakened?

      There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. Indeed, military operations require precisely this kind of decomposition. The difficulty arises when the separate operational problems are mistaken for the entire strategic problem.

      Key concepts and glossary

      • Issue-based analysis — treating distinct problems as separate objects of policy.
      • Capability — the practical ability to perform a military or political function.
      • Operational thinking — translating strategic objectives into concrete actions and measurable results.
      • Objective — a defined outcome that policy or military action seeks to achieve.
      • Proxy — an actor through which another power pursues interests indirectly.

      3. Iran's “issues” are harder to separate

      We can certainly construct an Iranian list: regime survival, strategic autonomy, military deterrence, preservation of its nuclear programme, regional influence, economic survival, sanctions relief and leverage over Hormuz.

      • End all US threats against Iran and its allies
      • Permanently stop US military action
      • Iran develops its military and nuclear programs unhindered
      • Withdraw US blockade forces
      • Recognise that Hormuz is under permanent Iranian control
      • Compensate Iran for war damage
      • Lift US sanctions
      • Release Iran’s frozen assets 

      But once the list is made, something interesting happens. The items do not appear to be independent issues. They become instruments serving a larger strategic purpose.

      The missile programme is not merely a missile issue. It is part of Iran's deterrence.

      The nuclear programme is not merely a nuclear issue. It concerns technological sovereignty, deterrence and the ability to resist external control over Iran's security choices.

      Iran's regional relationships are not merely a collection of “proxies”. From Tehran's perspective, they also provide strategic depth and complicate the ability of its enemies to concentrate their power directly against Iran.

      Hormuz is not merely a shipping issue. Geography gives Iran an extraordinary source of leverage over a vital artery of the world economy.

      The pieces therefore fit together. They are different manifestations of one strategic problem.

      Key concepts and glossary

      • Strategic autonomy — the capacity of a state to make fundamental security decisions without another power being able to dictate them.
      • Deterrence — discouraging an opponent from acting by making the anticipated costs unacceptable.
      • Strategic depth — geographical, political or military space that makes it harder for an adversary to attack a state directly.
      • Leverage — an advantage that gives one actor influence over another's behaviour.
      • Sovereignty — the authority of a state to determine its own political and strategic affairs.

      4. This is not “old” thinking

      Calling this a return to an ancient or traditional way of thinking risks confusing two different things.

      Iranian institutions are perfectly capable of modern technical analysis. They use intelligence, economics, military technology, operational planning and quantitative information just as other modern states do.

      Nor is holistic thinking uniquely Iranian, Persian or Eastern. Clausewitz, Sun Tzu and modern Western systems theorists all recognised that complex conflicts cannot be understood simply by adding together isolated components.

      The distinction is therefore not really old versus modern. It is analytic versus synthetic.

      Analytic reasoning asks: “What are the separate components of the problem?”

      Synthetic reasoning asks: “What do those components mean when viewed together?”

      A sophisticated strategist needs both. The important question is which level dominates the final judgement.

      Key concepts and glossary

      • Holism — understanding a whole system rather than treating its parts as independent.
      • Synthetic reasoning — combining separate observations into an understanding of the larger whole.
      • Strategic culture — historically developed assumptions and habits that influence how a state understands security and power.
      • Systems thinking — examining relationships, feedback, dependencies and interactions within a system.
      • Strategic patience — accepting short-term costs in pursuit of longer-term objectives.

      5. The crucial shift: from issues to the system

      This produces two very different questions.

      The American question: How do we remove the capabilities that make Iran dangerous?

      The Iranian question: How do we prevent America and Israel from acquiring the ability to determine Iran's future?

      These questions are not symmetrical.

      The first is primarily about capabilities. The second is about power relationships.

      Washington can therefore regard the Iranian missile programme as one problem that might be traded for sanctions relief. Tehran can regard the same missiles as one component of the security architecture that protects the Iranian state.

      The disagreement is consequently deeper than a dispute about missiles.

      It concerns the nature of the relationship itself.

      If Tehran believes that the underlying American and Israeli objective is to prevent Iran becoming a sufficiently powerful and autonomous regional actor, then individual negotiations over missiles, uranium enrichment or sanctions become secondary. They are symptoms of a larger strategic contest.

      Key concepts and glossary

      • Power relationship — the relative ability of actors to influence one another.
      • Security architecture — the military, political and strategic arrangements through which a state seeks security.
      • Grand strategy — the coordination of military, economic, diplomatic and political resources in pursuit of fundamental national interests.
      • Structural conflict — conflict arising from incompatible positions within a wider system rather than from one disputed issue.
      • Strategic contest — prolonged competition over relative power and the rules governing a political system.

      6. Why diplomacy becomes so difficult

      This may help explain why negotiations can become increasingly sterile.

      If the dispute is genuinely about an individual issue, diplomacy can produce a bargain. But if one side believes the underlying problem is a struggle over strategic autonomy, an agreement concerning one particular capability may appear inadequate.

      Iran could reason that surrendering missiles in exchange for promises of sanctions relief leaves it vulnerable if the fundamental power relationship remains unchanged.

      Washington can reason that sanctions relief without removing the underlying Iranian capabilities simply gives Iran the resources to rebuild them.

      Both sides can therefore regard the other's proposed solution as treating a symptom rather than the disease.

      This does not mean that Iran necessarily believes diplomacy is useless. A more precise interpretation is that diplomacy becomes subordinate to the balance of power.

      Once a state believes that the fundamental issue will ultimately be decided by relative power, negotiations become useful mainly when they reflect, reinforce or change that balance.

      Key concepts and glossary

      • Coercive diplomacy — using threats or limited force to persuade an opponent to change behaviour.
      • Bargaining — exchanging concessions to reach an agreement.
      • Balance of power — the distribution of capabilities among competing states.
      • Credible commitment — a promise that the other party has reason to believe will be honoured.
      • Strategic coercion — using economic, military or political pressure to alter an opponent's strategic choices.

      7. The insight — and the danger

      There is a genuine advantage to systemic thinking. A state that sees the whole system may recognise connections that an issue-by-issue bureaucracy misses. It may understand that destroying one capability does not necessarily remove the strategic problem that produced it.

      But there is an equally serious danger.

      Once a leadership becomes convinced that it has discovered the underlying reality, almost every subsequent event can be interpreted as confirmation.

      This is confirmation bias. A coherent worldview can become so comprehensive that contradictory evidence is absorbed rather than allowed to challenge it.

      That warning applies equally to Tehran, Washington, Moscow and Jerusalem.

      The argument should therefore not be that Iran has suddenly discovered the truth while the West remains trapped in linear thinking. That would simply replace one simplistic model with another.

      The more defensible proposition is that Iran may increasingly be operating at a different level of strategic abstraction.

      Key concepts and glossary

      • Confirmation bias — favouring evidence that confirms an existing belief and discounting evidence that challenges it.
      • Worldview — an overarching interpretation of how the world works.
      • Strategic abstraction — reasoning about underlying structures rather than individual events.
      • Paradigm — a general framework through which information is interpreted.
      • Cognitive trap — a systematic error produced by the way a problem is framed.

      8. The bottom line

      Has Iran gone back to “old ways of thinking”?

      No.

      It may instead be shifting from issue-based thinking to systemic thinking.

      Western policy tends to begin with the individual problem: missiles, nuclear enrichment, regional armed groups, sanctions and shipping.

      Iran increasingly appears to see these not as separate problems but as components of one larger question:

      What will the future balance of power in West Asia look like, and who will have the power to determine it?

      Once the question is framed in those terms, missiles, nuclear technology, regional alliances, economics and Hormuz cease to be independent pieces of washing on a clothesline.

      They become threads in the same garment - That is not a return to the past.

      It is a different way of seeing the present.

      Key concepts and glossary

      • Systemic perspective — interpreting individual events as parts of a larger interconnected system.
      • Geopolitical order — the distribution of power, influence and security relationships across a region.
      • Strategic autonomy — freedom to make fundamental strategic decisions without external coercion.
      • Grand strategic problem — the fundamental long-term challenge determining how a state organises its national power.
      • Strategic perspective — the frame used to understand the relationship between events, interests and power.

      References