РУССКИЙ
11:24 18.04.2026 •
Pic.: mtoto.news
Control over the Strait of Hormuz could bring an end to the debt-based rule of the financial oligarchies in the City of London and on Wall Street, ‘Geopolitica Forum’ claimes.
Gospel of Matthew (21:12–13): Jesus went into the temple and drove out all who were buying and selling there; he overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. And he said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of thieves.”
Anyone who follows current world events can’t help but shake their head: The Anglo-Saxon “bully” is once again getting dragged into a war he can only lose. In Ukraine, it is already facing an adversary that is showing it the limits of its real power, and now it rubs its eyes in amazement, wondering how it is possible that the “subhumans” in Persia are not voluntarily surrendering and submitting to servitude in the face of the advancing U.S. armada.
It brings to mind Herodotus, who reports that Croesus (nomen est omen), the king of Lydia (c. 595–546 B.C.), sought the prophecy of the Oracle of Delphi before attacking the Persian Empire under Cyrus II: “Should I go to war against the Persian Empire?” The oracle’s answer was said to be: “If you cross the River Halys, you will destroy a great empire.” Croesus interpreted the ambiguous oracle’s pronouncement according to his own wishes. But in the end, Lydia was conquered by Persia, and not the other way around.
Why this war, and why now?
There are numerous theories regarding the reasons for and timing of this war by US-Israel against Iran. We would like to add another perspective here.
Many have rightly pointed out that the propaganda-driven justifications for military strikes against Iran are unfounded: Iran poses no military threat to the West, let alone to the United States — its military equipment is purely defensive in nature. Nor is Iran an exporter of terrorist attacks against the West. To the extent that it supports Hezbollah, Ansarallah in Yemen, Iraqi militias, or others, these are not terrorists but liberation forces defending themselves against the colonization of their countries by the West.
The argument that the U.S. should have launched a preemptive strike against Iran because American soldiers at bases in the region would also be attacked in the event of an expected Iranian counterattack against an impending Israeli aggression is inherently contradictory and completely confused. An Israeli attack on Iran is only possible with American permission. There can be no question of U.S. self-defense. All these “justifications” are obviously far-fetched.
But in this geostrategic world, nothing happens by chance. So what is really going on?
Explanatory approaches
In his blog The New Atlas on February 12, 2026, Brian Berletic rightly pointed out that plans for this war have been in place for decades. The strategy of having the U.S. send Israel in first, only to then “come to its aid,” was also part of this plan. The decision to attack Iran has been set in stone for decades. As soon as Iran overthrew the American puppet regime in the 1970s, the U.S. was determined to reverse this. And that is precisely what they have been pursuing ever since. And that is exactly what is currently guiding the Trump administration’s decisions. It is not suddenly making these decisions anew. Rather, this administration just happens to be the political face of the continuity of the agenda at this particular moment.
Intelligent and highly informed individuals such as Alex Krainer have put forward the theory that there were — and still are — forces within the Trump administration (and in the circles pulling the strings behind it) who foresee the impending collapse of the current debt-driven financial system and are attempting to break free from this vicious cycle. The original agenda behind Donald Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) was strongly focused on strengthening the real economy — at least in economic policy rhetoric and in several key measures of his first term (2017–2021). The primary focus was on domestic industry, manufacturing, infrastructure, and jobs — that is, sectors of the real economy as opposed to financial speculation.
A key point was bringing industrial production back to the U.S. and criticizing the deindustrialization that had been underway since the 1980s. The aim was to create incentives for companies to resume production in the U.S. Rhetorically, the MAGA strategy explicitly opposed the globalization of the 1990s and 2000s and drew on older American economic traditions such as Alexander Hamilton’s promotion of industry (18th century), economic nationalism, and protectionism.
Marco Rubio: “It was a foolish and voluntary transformation of our economy that made us dependent”
On February 14, 2026, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference that, in addition to incredibly confused remarks about the reestablishment of a neocolonialist world, also contained critical undertones regarding globalization to date:
“Under this illusion — that we were living in a world without borders — we accepted a dogmatic notion of completely free trade, even as other countries protected their markets and subsidized their companies to systematically undercut ours. This led to factories closing, large parts of our society being deindustrialized, millions of jobs being moved overseas, and critical supply chains falling into the hands of rivals and adversaries.”
“Deindustrialization was not inevitable. It was a deliberate political decision — a decades-long economic project that robbed our nations of their wealth, their productive capacity, and their independence. The loss of our control over supply chains was not the result of a healthy global trading system. It was a foolish and voluntary transformation of our economy that made us dependent.”
It is no coincidence that this passage from the speech is not mentioned in Western media coverage.
Be that as it may: If there was ever a dispute over direction within the circles of the aforementioned financial oligarchy, it now seems to been definitively settled in light of the war against Iran.
An attempt to answer the original question
So how did the warmongers behind the scenes manage to drive the U.S. into this war against Iran? Since 9/11, every American administration has avoided actually launching this war. They have relied on propaganda and sanctions, occasionally encouraging or carrying out military strikes. But a total war like the one we’re seeing now never materialized, even though Netanyahu has been spinning tales for decades that Iran is “on the verge” of building a nuclear bomb and setting the world ablaze.
Was Donald Trump blackmailed (with the Epstein files, by his major donors, or by AIPAC)? This is not a plausible explanation. A system like the American political machine cannot be seriously endangered by a decapitation strike. What about Kennedy? What about Nixon? The system simply replaced the leader and carried on with business as usual. So if Trump were to be overthrown, the continuity of the agenda would continue regardless.
In this case, therefore, the blackmail must have taken on a significantly different dimension. The thesis presented here assumes that the dominant financial oligarchy held a gun to the heads of the dissenters in American decision-making circles: either you wage this war now, or we’ll pull the plug on you — meaning that at the next auction for U.S. Treasury bonds, there will be no bids from our side.
The reason for this is likely that “the specter” of the BRICS system is growing and growing, and Iran is playing a decisive role in this. For if Iran, with the help of China and Russia, succeeds in decisively determining the world’s energy supply, the financial sharks of the West will lose their decisive leverage. Therefore, Iran must be destroyed.
The time is ripe because Russia is still tied down in Ukraine and time is of the essence, as China is gaining more and more influence in Iran and thus throughout West Asia.
If US-Israel cannot win this war (which was foreseeable from the start and is now becoming clear), then these financial sharks couldn’t care less. Europe has committed collective suicide twice, and both times they financed the carnage from all sides. They don’t care about the death of entire nations or regions — after all, they can pick up the pieces, offer themselves as lenders for reconstruction, and in the process also dictate the terms, both financially and politically. The looming destruction of the State of Israel in its current colonialist form, the destruction of American bases and the Arab vassal states, is accepted with approval. The significant damage in Iran is intentional.
What will the outcome look like?
No one has a crystal ball to show us the future. But it is becoming clear that US-Israeli power projection in West Asia is running out of steam. The world’s supply of oil from this region will in the future be determined by Iran and its allies. Iran has already effectively erected a customs barrier in the Strait of Hormuz, which could spell the end of the petrodollar: only those who pay in yuan or another BRICS currency, or who use the Chinese Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), are allowed to pass.
It appears that Iran might succeed in accomplishing what Jesus attempted, according to the New Testament legend cited above: definitively driving the money changers out of the temple and thereby undermining the foundation of the Old Testament-era power structure. It is to be hoped that this can be achieved without the former rulers resorting to the Samson option.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
