reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @NewOrder_TV
reSee.it AI Summary
I ask what place the US will have in a new multipolar world as Prof. Charles Kupchan discusses the US’ “schizophrenic” foreign policy, the death of the US-led world order, and whether BRICS will still let the US shape outcomes after the war on Iran and the Gaza genocide. We also examine how effective US sanctions are as BRICS accelerates de-dollarisation.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨 SEASON PREMIERE OF NEW ORDER 🌐 The US’🇺🇸 SCHIZOPHRENIC Foreign Policy & Death of the US-Led World Order —Prof. Charles Kupchan What place will the US have in the new multipolar world? Will BRICS nations allow the US to shape the new order even after the war on Iran and the Gaza genocide? How much power will US sanctions really have as BRICS accelerates de-dollarisation? All this and more on this episode with Prof. Charles Kupchan, who served as Barack Obama’s and Bill Clinton’s Director of European Affairs at the US National Security Council.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Ratanji introduces New Order’s new season, arguing that the war in West Asia has moved beyond regional containment and is reshaping energy flows, alliances, and “neutrality.” Ratanji cites US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking to a Senate hearing in Washington, saying the Trump administration wants to end the license allowing countries such as India to continue buying Russian oil. He links this to Prime Minister Modi’s planned visit to Moscow for the annual India-Russia summit later this year, and to Modi’s trip to the G7 in Evian, France, in under two weeks—potentially his first face-to-face with Trump since February 2025—where Russian oil, tariffs, and the Strait of Hormuz are expected to be discussed.
Ratanji then interviews Professor Charles Kupchan, former US National Security Council director for European affairs under Clinton and Obama, and author of The End of the American Era and Bringing Order to Anarchy: Governing the World to Come. Kupchan frames the current moment using Gramsci’s “Prison Notebooks,” saying “the old is dying and the new cannot be born,” and describes the liberal international system anchored by the United States and democratic allies as having peaked in the 1990s and now ending without a clear replacement order. He characterizes Trump as “the demolition man” rather than an architect of what comes next, calling the period a historical hiatus between twentieth-century order and a twenty-first-century one.
On whether the US is prepared for its empire to go the way of the British empire, Kupchan says the United States shows “schizophrenia”: a foreign policy establishment committed to American hegemony and dollar/military anchoring, alongside a MAGA approach emphasizing being “done being the Atlas of the world,” returning to a Monroe Doctrine focus, and pushing allies to carry more burdens. He argues Trump has shifted from an America-first posture into a pattern similar to predecessors by launching or escalating conflicts in the Middle East without achieving goals, contributing to unpredictability. Kupchan also says domestic political fracture has replaced an earlier bipartisan centrist coalition, leaving the US oscillating between incompatible visions of its role.
Discussing Ukraine and Iran, Kupchan argues there is “no clear strategic vision” guiding Trump, describing him as acting “on instinct,” with shifting justifications. He says on China there has been a shift from early-term confrontational tariff-driven policy and escalated confrontation during Biden’s presidency, to a more cooperative posture in a recent trip to Beijing where Trump sought to lower the temperature and pursue trade deals with Xi Jinping, while noting the outcome depends on reciprocal Chinese moves.
Kupchan addresses domestic political backlash: he says civil society, courts, Congress, and Republicans have increasingly pushed back, especially regarding executive authority and constraints around the Iran war. He describes a possible peak in Trump’s presidency, with uncertainty about midterms and 2028, and adds that Democrats lack ideological unity between moving to the center or the left, expecting voters to “throw the bums out” because no party answers key affordability and economic questions. He links this to the impact of technological change, automation, and hollowing out of the political center.
In a sanctions segment, Kupchan argues sanctions will remain a “go-to” tool because they are politically easy for the US but says sanctions repeatedly fail to achieve stated goals in an interdependent world. He describes how Russia redirected supply chains after Ukraine-related sanctions, and says Iran has not been toppled or deterred despite long-standing US/EU sanctions and blockade measures. He connects the declining effectiveness of sanctions to de-dollarization trends, including Chinese payment system development and BRICS efforts for internal payment mechanisms, which he says reduce US leverage over dollar-denominated transactions.
On global governance and the US role, Kupchan says the US “damaged its brand” but believes it is not permanent, tying recovery to rebuilding the American middle class through employment and education for the digital era. He argues China and Russia want multipolarity and an end to American hegemony but “don’t really know what” multipolarity means in terms of governing proposals. He calls for sustained cross-bloc dialogue rather than fly-in, fly-out summits, pointing to G20-like structures and emphasizing that ongoing dialogue between China, Russia, India, Europe, the US, and global-south countries is lacking.
Regarding whether the US is too poor or too isolated to participate in a new order, Kupchan says the US remains dominant in GDP and maintains unmatched military capacity and global bases, while noting China faces demographic and economic problems and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have consequences “for generations,” though the US also has problems. He says the US is likely to remain among the most influential for decades.
Zara Khan then fields audience questions. One asks about Trump and the midterms; Kupchan says he “never makes predictions” but indicates Trump may lose. Another asks whether Israel is sovereign or an extension of US foreign policy; Khan frames it as a “full duplex” relationship. The session ends with a question to viewers: whether “secondary sanctions” turn “middle powers into frontline actors” in great power rivalry, inviting responses on X at neworder_underscore_tv.
Full Transcript
I'm Ashwin Ratanji, and welcome to a brand new season of New Order, we're broadcasting around the world, including to nearly one and a half billion on RT India. New Order explores how India and its allies are helping define the geopolitical landscape of the twenty-first century. The war in West Asia is no longer contained by geography. What began as a regional conflict has now spilled into the arteries of the global economy, reshaping energy flows, alliances, and the politics of neutrality. This week, in Washington, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a Senate hearing that the Trump administration wants to end the license allowing countries such as India to continue buying Russian oil as soon as possible. The timing is exquisite. Prime Minister Modi has confirmed he will visit Moscow later this year for the annual India Russia summit, and in less than two weeks, Modi heads to the G7 in Evian, France, for what could be his first face to face with Trump since February twenty twenty five, with Russian oil, tariffs, and the Strait of Hormuz all on the agenda. From energy security to war in West Asia, from sanctions regimes to the rise of BRICS diplomacy, the question isn't no longer whether the world is becoming multipolar, it's whether multipolarity can survive contact with power Politics that still expects obedience at its core. At the end of the show, we'll be joined by New Order's Zara Khan to answer questions from you, the viewers. With me now, though, is the former director for European affairs on the US National Security Council under both Clinton and Obama. He was also special assistant to President Obama. Professor Charles Kupchan is now senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He's the author of The End of the American Era and the forthcoming Bringing Order to Anarchy: Governing the World to Come. Professor Charles Kupchan, welcome to New Order. You Just over a year since I, I spoke to you, and now you're penning pieces for Council on Foreign Relations with quotations from the founder of the Italian Communist Party. How, how does, how does Gramsci inform your understanding of what we're seeing in the Strait of Hormuz, let alone what's going on in the United States? Well, Gramsci, when he was sitting in prison, thrown there by the fascists, he wrote what we call the "Prison Notebooks, " and one sentence that he wrote in nineteen thirty really speaks to me about our moment and that is, he wrote. The old is dying and the new cannot be born, and in this interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear. I think that's where we are, Ash, in that the old is dying, and that is the liberal international system that was anchored by the United States and its democratic allies, in some ways peaked in the nineteen nineties, the era of what we call unipolarity, Pax Americana. That era is coming to an end. And we haven't even begun a conversation about what comes next. In many respects, I think Donald Trump is the demolition man who's taking a wrecking ball to that old order, but he's not an architect. He's not gonna take us to the next order, to something that, as you put it, "multipolarity meets power politics. " So right now we're in this weird historical hiatus, if you will, between the old order Order of the twentieth century and a new order for the twenty-first century that we haven't even begun to imagine. I don't know, Donald Trump would probably reject your remark that he's not an architect. He's busy building lots of things in Washington, D. C. Including the reflecting pool, of course. But Gramsci himself, he actually he wrote about the importance of Gandhi, of nonviolent resistance. Is the US prepared for its empire to go the way of the British empire? As its client states revolt against the IMF, World Bank, CIA interference, is it's now widely being described as, as openly? Well, you know, I, I think the United States now is, is going through a period of what I would call schizophrenia on the one hand, you have the traditional foreign policy community, what we call the blob, if you will, and they're still committed to American hegemony. They're still committed to a world anchored by the dollar and anchored by American military power, which still, after all, remains unchallenged, even though it is its superiority is waning over time. And then you have The MAGA movement that Trump at least seemingly heads, which has kind of said, "Been there, done that, this isn't our problem anymore. " In fact, you have a line in the twenty twenty-five national security strategy that says very explicitly. We are done being the Atlas of the world. We are going back to the Monroe Doctrine. We're gonna focus on the Western Hemisphere. And Donald Trump as a candidate, and when he first came to office, basically said, "Hey, we're gonna look to our allies in Europe and in Asia and the Middle East to carry their own water. This isn't fair to us. No longer are we gonna fight these forever wars that don't produce much good. The problem is..." That Trump himself has fallen into the same dark hole as his predecessors, launching a war in the Middle East that isn't proving to be very effective in achieving its goals. and so in that sense, I really think we're, we're see- and seeing a tug of war here an America that, if you will, doesn't know its own mind, and that is in part because the domestic political situation has fractured. There used to be- A bipartisan centrist coalition behind a steady American role in the world. That coalition, that center, is no longer in existence, and that's why I think you see the United States oscillating between two incompatible visions of its role in the world. Yeah, I mean, if you were a special assistant to Obama, I don't know whether he would have done what he was told by the Israelis in the same way that Trump has done so before, because as you say, Trump came to power as a a person who was America first. Obama, famously, the person you served was a arguably behaved like a neocon if you, if you're a Libyan right now or an Afghan. You know, I think that, that President Obama wanted to be the pivot president. He wanted to be the guy who moved to the next world. I think he understood the importance of avoiding overcommitment because he had witnessed what happened in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but he had a very hard time holding back, and I think he got pushed into Libya, pushed into Syria, pushed into- Increasing the commitment in Afghanistan in some respects against his, his better instincts. so I, I think in, in some ways he could have been the president who pivoted the United States to a, to the next grand strategy, but it didn't work, and in some respects that set the stage for Don-- for Donald Trump coming to office on what he called an America first agenda. You know, I don't think that, that- Trump does what he has told by the Israelis. In some ways, I think right now it's the opposite. I think it's Trump telling the Israelis what to do. My own view as to why Trump invaded Iran is that he was thinking about his legacy. He had had successes in using military power in Venezuela, in various countries in the Middle East, and including the airstrikes against Iran last year, and he wanted to go down in history as the American president who had the guts to do what none of his pres- predecessors would do, topple the Islamic Republic. Well, guess what? It didn't work. That war went sideways, and Donald Trump is now figuring out. How to get an off-ramp, an end of war that has caused huge disruption to the global economy and skyrocketing oil prices and food prices here in the United States and all around the world, notably fuel prices affecting India and the global south, of course. Obviously, and I would say the Lebanese would then start to blame Trump for what's happening in Lebanon if he has any control of what's happening here in West Asia. He's uniting the BRICS countries. He's been uniting China and India, arguably by his policies. So you have no sympathy with the idea that there is actually great power strategy behind Trump in that these are attacks on China. the kidnapping of Maduro was an attack on China Venezuela being a source, of course, of resources for China, and obviously China being Iran's biggest customer, the attack on Iran is also an attack on China. No, Austin, I, I don't think that's what's going on here. You know, I think it would be a fool's errand to try to identify some clear strategic vision that is guiding Donald Trump. Right? This is a president who's acting on instinct, not on strategic thinking. He has around him a very small inner circle. He isn't sifting through the advice that's being provided to him. Him by the intelligence community and the State Department and Defense Department. He's really sort of flying by the seat of his pants, if you will, and that's why I think you see such inconstancy and unpredictability in American foreign policy, where, for example, his justifications for attacking Iran seem to shift multiple times per day. I do think on, on China, we- We've seen a, a shift from a president who, in his first term, I think was decidedly confrontational, resorted to to tariffs of various sorts and, and ramped up confrontation with China, which then increased during the Biden presidency. But I do believe that most recent trip to Beijing, where he attempted to be nice to Xi Jinping, was really a sign of a different approach, where he's chaffing- Challenging an American foreign policy community that is in many respects very hostile to China and saying, "No, I wanna find a way to work with Xi Jinping. I wanna lower the, lower the temperature. I wanna fashion various kinds of trade deals. Whether the Chinese are now prepared to reciprocate, we'll have to wait and see." Yeah, they're, they're making threats, if, if anything. So where does that leave the Council on Foreign Relations, where you work and scholars who work there? There, because presumably they're always scrambling every hour to find out what's going on, but you will be back to advising a future president, 'cause Trump's time is very limited now. Well, you know, I think that there has been a, a, a shift here in the United States. during Trump's first year, there was very, very little pushback Put little pushback from civil society, from the courts, from Congress, from the media, companies were taking a knee, and now I think you really have seen an inflection point where not just Democrats and disaffected voters are, are starting to stand up and speak up, but you're beginning to see the courts push back more decidedly. You're beginning to see Congress push back. Really for the first time in his presidency, Republicans are beginning to distance themselves from Donald Trump. They're beginning to take steps, such as hemming him on, hemming him in on the Iran war that we haven't seen. So it feels as if the Trump presidency has peaked. That the system is finally working to hem Trump in and to push back against his claims to extending executive authority. We don't really know where the midterms are gonna go or where the twenty twenty-eight presidential elections are going to go, but judging by, by where we are today, judging by a president who promised to ease the affordability crisis but has only made that affordable Ability crisis worse, I do think we're gonna see the pendulum swing back toward the Democrats. Do the Democrats have a plan that's ready to go? I, I think no, the Democrats are ideologically divided. They're not sure whether to move to the center or move to the left. So we're in a country that I think it will be divided for, for quite some time, and when we have elections- I think in general the voters will throw the bums out because nobody seems to have the answers to the problems that are confronting the American electorate, and this is a phenomenon that we see in, in many democracies today, where I think what we're witnessing is the impact of technological change on automation, on workers, the decline of the middle class, the hollowing out of the political center. This to me is a, is a feature of- Of our current moment that, that I think explains a lot of what's going on. Professor will continue after the break. Keep watching New Order. You're watching New Order. Professor Kupchan, you were talking about the new order and the new order to be on on how the world is changing. Let's just take sanctions, for instance. I'm not sure what the views are in the Washington think tank world are about sanctions. I mean, the, and often quoted recently very much quoted by people like Jeffrey Sachs, for instance, is the thirty-eight million killed by US sanctions between nineteen seventy and twenty twenty-one in the, in the Lancet medical journal. India just ignored post Ukraine conflict NATO nation sanctions. Do you think- Do you think sanctions will ever play the role that they have done? They played under the Obama administration, which you served. do you think it's the end of the United States sanctioning so many countries all around the world as an attempt to try and influence policy? No, I, I think you're going to see sanctions remain on the shelf as a go-to policy, in part because it's easy, right? It doesn't involve- Not for the thirty-eight million that were killed, obviously. No, I'm talking about politically easy for the United States. It doesn't involve sending out boots on the ground and aircraft carriers, it doesn't involve running the risks of military force So it's a, it's a sort of go-to way of expressing displeasure. But I do think actually that we've seen time and again the inability of sanctions to achieve their goals, especially in today's interdependent and globalized world. Right after the Russians invaded Ukraine, the Europeans, the United States effectively unplugged Russia from the Western economy. Well, what did Russia do? It just- Look to the east and to the south, it moved its supply chains. Iran has been hit by biting sanctions for years, now including a US naval blockade in the Gulf of Oman. Has that succeeded in toppling the Iranian government or convincing Tehran to back away from policies seen as destabilizing by the United States? No. So it's very difficult to find- Find clear examples where sanctions succeeded in achieving their goal, and I think that's simply going to be the reality that we live in today, simply because countries have, have so many options when their ties to the US economy or the US banking system are cut off, and that will be increasingly true option as we see alternative payment systems emerge. The Chinese are pushing out Their payment system. The BRICS are developing their own internal BRICS payment system. This is a way of facilitating de-dollarization and moving away from the ability of the United States to impair transactions that are dollar-denominated. So I do think that increasingly over time, sanctions will become a less effective tool. I mean, there are clearly people in Washington that don't share your view about the imminence of it. Of a new order I don't know, maybe you can give me an indication of how prevailing is is your view and perspective. But you want the United States to take the lead in, quote, "fashioning a new consensus." Do you think, though, after the US support for, say, the genocide in Gaza the US obviously war on Iran that anyone in the global south or, say, at the BRICS summit in September in New Delhi will be thinking the United States shouldn't have any role? In fashioning the new consensus? You know, has the United States damaged its brand? You bet. Is American democracy now underperforming? You bet. but I don't believe that this is the new normal, right? I do believe that once we figure out how to rebuild the American middle class, how to build an employment and education ecosystem for the digital era, democracy will again prove that it can deliver for citizens better than alternatives, and so I do think that the United States will come back to being a country that is out there putting ideas In the hopper about how to organize global governance, and I do worry that others aren't contributing to that effort at least for now, right? What are Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin saying? They're saying, "We want multipolarity, we want the end of American hegemony." They know what they don't want, right, which is the old world order, Pax Americana, but they don't really know what- Multi-polarity means they don't have proposals for governing a world of multi-polarity. So I don't think they're gonna be discussing in Delhi at, at the meeting. It's been-- It's took-- It's taken a while. Obviously, it took a while for the British Empire to be destroyed. Well good luck to them. I, I hope that at that summit they come up with some, with some good ideas. But in the end of the day, it's going to take conversations across geopolitical and ideological dividing lines. Where is the United States in this? I mean, I don't know whether there's gonna be a representative in Delhi for the BRICS conference. And in fact, I asked Jim O'Neill, the famous banker who came up with the term BRICS, whether he could envisage the United States joining BRICS. I mean, is that something you Should be on the table the United States joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS. Well, to the best of my knowledge, the United States isn't invited and I'm not sure it would join if it were invited. But in the end of the day, what we will need are groupings that cut across these dividing lines. We have one, the G20, right, where you have BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization Members meeting with the G7 and NATO members. The problem is it, it's fly-in, fly-out summits, it's anodyne communiques. I think what we really need are sustained dialogue among these key players, with the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians talking to the Europeans, to the United States, to other countries from the global south. That's not happening yet. We're still, I think In some ways, trying to trying to manage the decline of the old order. But this conversation, actually, and the conversation that hopefully will happen at the BRICS summit, that's exactly the kind of direction that I think we need to head in. But isn't the United States just poor, too poor to participate if the dollar, as you say is gonna reduce in its importance as a, a global reserve currency? If you just look at literacy rates if you look at life expectancy rates you just see the poverty of the United States, it just doesn't compare with what's happening in the rest of the world. Anacostia, DC, sixty-three years is the life expectancy, in Cuba it's seventy-eight, North Korea, seventy-four, Venezuela, sev-seventy-six. Now, even Gaza was eighty-one, let alone Russia and China at seventy-seven, seventy-nine, and, and India sim-within that kind of re-is, is the United States just too- Far gone, and as you said, the sanctions are continuing, so it's isolating itself to be able to be part of the new order. No, I, I think you are counting out the United States in an extraordinarily premature way, right? The United States still has by far the world's largest GDP, still by far the most capable military, with bases in just about every quarter of the globe. But a military that still has become weak- Despite Donald Trump's efforts, the best universities in the world, the best high sec- sector, sector and venture capital and entrepreneurship, that's not gonna change, right? So the United States is going to be at or near the top of the heap for decades to come. And when I look at China, I see a country that's doing well, but boy, does it have problems. A demographic crisis, a real estate crisis Crisis, growing popular discontent because younger Chinese, including those with the best degrees, can't find jobs. Russia has made the terrible mistake of trying to invade and conquer Ukraine. Putin is gonna be paying for that mistake for generations. And so a lot of different countries all have problems, does the United States have problems? Yes. Is it likely to remain the most influential country in the world, probably alongside China for, for decades to come? Yes, it will. Professor Charles Kupchan, thank you. My pleasure, good to be with you. And now I'm joined by Zara Khan with some of your questions. Professor Charles Kupchan, special assistant to Obama there embracing the new order, maybe he wants to come and work here. I think he might be gunning for my position here, so I have to make sure to get all these questions in from our audience as soon as possible. Thanks to our foreign relations, they can come and work as our interns anytime. An open letter to them. They're impressed by a new world order, and the new order. So INTp one has asked how Has Trump given up on the midterms? Could the lobby not promise to protect him from impeachment votes in any case? Questions from the viewers. Already, while we were away, the I, I've gotta say it looks like he's given up on the midterms if you look at the polls, because sixty, the record lows, it's as if he doesn't care at all, sixty-one percent strongly disapproving of him, but he pretends not to, Capuchin said he hasn't given up on the midterms, but as for Loses the midterms, which I think he definitely will. Look at Prince Andrew, the Israeli lobby, they don't they don't protect people, do they? they didn't protect Peter Mandelson, the British ambassador to the United States. Once they use you, the Israeli lobby they throw you away when you're not in power anymore. And when Trump loses power, he loses importance for the Israeli lobby. So Trump has a very poor future ahead of him, arguably, even though he's done everything. Netanyahu wanted to, regardless of people saying, like Charles Kupchan, that, "Oh, he told Netanyahu he was a crazy person as he did in the interview earlier in this, this week." But your prediction is loss in the midterms. I think I never make predictions, but I think that's pretty, pretty sure, yeah. Senate needs two-thirds majority for its impeachment definitely the House will impeach him. Interesting. And the here for D is asked, is Israel a sovereign nation or is it an extension of US foreign policy? Now that is a really good question, isn't it? I think it's full duplex. They both run each other. although if you were just to look at financial terms, thirty-four billion is the estimate for the genocide and for the Israeli wars, forty-six million dollars a day coming from US people where a country where forty-three million can't eat without federal assistance, all that cash being poured into a mass slaughter of men, women, and children in Palestine and today. in Lebanon who wins out of this? I think it's a, it's a relationship both ways round both gain out of this terrible lack of humanity. Now, provided you don't get one of our guests to replace me, I'll be here next week with more questions from the audience. Thanks, Sarah Khan. And that's it from me also, Afshin Rataee. Remember to follow us on social media, and here's a question for you: Are secondary sanctions turning middle powers into frontline actors in great power rivalry? See if you can Figure that one out before you answer it. Send us your answer on x at neworder underscore tv. Join us next Sunday as we continue to track shifting global power and where India sits in this new order.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m seeing Prof. Richard Sakwa argue that we’re witnessing the “twilight” of US unipolarity and the Political West. He asks where Europe stands in a multipolar world amid war fever against Russia, how the international order has shifted as post-colonial states like India and Brazil resist US-led hegemony, and whether European groupthink will lead to war with Russia.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨SEASON FINALE EPISODE OF NEW ORDER🌐 Prof. Richard Sakwa: We Are Witnessing the TWILIGHT of US🇺🇸 Unipolarity and the Political West Where does Europe🇪🇺 stand in the multipolar world as it is gripped by war fever against Russia🇷🇺? How has the international order changed as post-colonial states like India🇮🇳 and Brazil🇧🇷 resist US-led hegemony? Will groupthink in Europe lead to war with Russia? All this and more with Prof. Richard Sakwa, Emeritus Professor of Politics at the University of Kent and author of The Putin Paradox.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashton Rutansi introduces New Order’s first season finale, arguing that India and its allies sit at the center of a wider transformation in world history as conflicts and geopolitical pressure spread beyond West Asia. Rutansi describes the BRICS foreign ministers meeting in Delhi under India’s 2026 chairmanship, with senior officials from the UAE, China, Russia, and Iran in attendance. He also links India’s diplomacy—Prime Minister Modi touring the UAE and Europe—with the need to balance energy security, trade stability, Western partnerships, and global South leadership. Rutansi frames the situation as sensitive due to Iran’s demands for stronger BRICS political backing against US and Israeli violations of the UN Charter, amid Saudi Arabia and the UAE attempting to avoid direct confrontation.
Rutansi interviews international relations scholar Professor Richard Sakwa. Asked whether a unipolar order is ending in real time, Sakwa says the unipolar model has been on its way out and is giving way to unilateralism in the United States, producing what he calls the “twilight” of the Atlantic/Political West. He argues that multipolarity is only a symptom and that the alternative model aligns with UN norms, international law, and the post-1945 international system, which he says the Political West challenged while it still held power.
On global war, Sakwa says the Russo-Ukrainian war has become a Russo-European war and Europe is experiencing “war fever,” comparing the language to the atmosphere before World War I. He says commentators argue the West is in the thick of it, but that “we’re only in the foothills,” and that the global South has more balanced talk.
Rutansi highlights European resistance to diplomacy and questions the impact of weapons and sanctions. Sakwa says the EU is adopting its twentieth sanctions package and working on a twenty-first, noting they are running out of “things to sanction” but “digging and digging their heels in.” He adds that US sanctions under Trump after an Alaska meeting in August 2025 affected Russian oil exports and deeply impacted India, while sanctions dependence persists.
Sakwa responds that many countries, including China, can withstand tariffs and sanctions; he contrasts China’s scale with India’s vulnerability given reliance on imported oil, including from the Gulf. He notes Russia’s survival under heavy sanctions while taking a “very heavy toll.”
On whether India exemplifies successful multipolar power, Sakwa is skeptical of the term multipolarity and argues the UN Charter system and postwar decolonization have matured into a “multiplex world,” where many states—including middle powers such as Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, the Philippines, Indonesia, and others—refuse being “bossed around” by a traditional hegemon. He emphasizes that international organizations and corporations also function as quasi-state actors, and he argues Western arrogance about being hegemonic has not matured.
Rutansi raises criticism that the UN has struggled to act during a Gaza genocide and discusses an alleged UN leadership role of Annalena Baerbock. Sakwa calls the UN’s crisis its most desperate stage since 1945, argues that the solution is to double down to support the UN rather than dismiss it, and says India should be an essential permanent member. He also suggests resetting elements of the UN system by adding Brazil, India, and other countries—especially Africa—as permanent Security Council members.
Later, Sakwa discusses NATO and US participation, saying the United States has historically retained autonomy and that Trump has left dozens of international organizations, including UN agencies such as the World Health Organization. Sakwa says the US “go[es] it alone,” meeting China as equals and that US-India relations have faced the most difficult period in decades amid sanctions and threats.
Rutansi asks about whether human rights “weaponization” will continue, including references to freedom of expression in Western Europe and Sakwa’s detention at Heathrow on June 13, 2025. Sakwa says he was detained under the 2019 Counterterrorism Act and that refusing to answer or saying “no comment” could be taken as indicating guilt, allowing arrest. He describes questioning as a “fishing expedition,” says his views are open to debate, and says the case later went quiet.
Sakwa argues that Western Europe exhibits groupthink, permanent war, militarism, remilitarization, and “profound Russophobia,” and he says global South countries increasingly treat US and European actions with contempt. He also argues secondary sanctions are irresponsible and illegal, and that attempts to defend international law by undermining it create double standards.
The show then shifts to viewer questions via Zara Khan (Azarakan). One asks how to stop the US and Israel from mass killings; Khan and Rutansi respond by identifying complicit states and supply chain links, including countries Rutansi lists as providing Israeli weaponry, warplane components, and related support. Another asks what alternative security architectures India should prioritize in the Indian Ocean if it exits the Quad; Rutansi says India could expand cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, strengthen a Russia-India-China format (RIC) as a possible “new quad,” and consider strengthening the North South transit corridor involving India, Russia, and Iran.
Rutansi closes by asking viewers: how India and the global South should deal with Western Europe’s war fever against Russia.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashton Rutansi, and you're watching the first season finale of New Order broadcasting all around the world, including to nearly one and a half billion on RT India. We, New Order, trace how India and its allies sit at the center of a transformation in world history. As the Trump and Netanyahu war in West Asia rages on with millions killed, wounded, or displaced, the pressure is no longer confined to West Asia, though Saudi Arabia has reportedly floated a non aggression pact with Iran for West Asia. Geopolitical shock waves are reaching the heart of the multipolar world itself. This week, India hosted UAE, Chinese, Russian, and Iranian to name it a few top officials at the BRICS foreign ministers meeting under its 2026 chairmanship.
At the same time, prime minister Modi launched a major diplomatic tour across The UAE and Europe as Delhi attempts to balance energy security, trade stability, western partnerships, and global South leadership all at once. The timing could hardly be more sensitive. Iran is demanding stronger political backing from BRICS against The US and Israeli violations of the UN Charter. Trump and Netanyahu bombed hospitals, schools, and power stations amidst an avowed intent intent to commit genocide against such a civilization. The two Gulf GCC members, Saudi Arabia, and where I am, The UAE, are trying to avoid direct confrontation.
And looming in the background is self proclaimed enemy of BRICS, president Trump, internationally last seen with a team of US ruling oligarchs in Beijing. As wars expand, economic blocs harden, and major powers compete for influence across energy, trade, and security, can the global South still successfully navigate between rival systems, or is the world moving towards a moment when neutrality itself becomes impossible? At the end of the show, we'll be joined by New Order's Zara Khan to answer questions from you, the viewers. With me now is one of the world's most influential voices in contemporary international relations scholar, professor Richard Sarkwa, has refused British totalitarian groupthink, dismissing the Russiagate hoax that tried to depict Trump as a Russian agent, let alone the reasons for the conflict in Ukraine. His most recent books include Frontline Ukraine, The Putin Paradox, and the Russo Ukrainian War, Follies of Empire.
Professor Richard Sakwa, welcome to New Order. After Iran, the war in Iran, The The UAE and Iranian ministers meeting at the BRICS meeting in Delhi, let alone Trump in Beijing, Do you think we are witnessing the death of a unipolar order in real time?
Speaker 1: We definitely are. The unipolar order has been on its way out for quite a long time, but unfortunately unipolarity has in The United States begun to give way to unilateralism, which isn't much better. So what we're witnessing is the twilight of that model of world order, which Russians love to call it the collective West. I call it the Political West. The as I just call it, the Atlantic West, the split between Western Europe and The United States.
But that whole model of world order established after 1945 is now giving way to, yes, a multipolarity, but, you know, an alternative model of world order. And multipolarity is only a symptom, so it's not actually a world order in itself. What, this alternative order is, is a vision which is in conformity with the norms of the international system. By that, I mean, the United Nations established also in 1945, international law, the whole system, the whole setup, after 1945, which was challenged by this collective West, by this Atlantic West. But as this Atlantic West is losing power, it's it's going berserk, you could argue.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, there's reasons for optimism clearly, but there's in the dying embers of unipolarity, I mean, how I mean, it's a strange question to ask, but how how close are we to global war?
Speaker 1: We've had a lot of discussions in Europe over the last few months. And the way that the Russo Ukrainian war has become a Russo European war in the last few months, and that many commentators would argue that we're in the thick of it. But clearly, we're only in the foothills. Fortunately, it's not entirely kinetic. Of course, the European powers are supporting Ukrainian.
It's to own another tax, and it's, of course, militarizing itself and is trying to warn of a coming war with Russia. But the language is in terms of it's like the war fever in 1914. It's a very frightening sort of atmosphere at the at this time. And indeed, it's fortunate, of course, that European war talk is balanced by more sensible talk in most of the rest of the global South.
Speaker 0: I mean, can you understand though that in Western Europe, they're losing the global South? I mean, there's no real talk about Western Europe apart from, I suppose, as a target market for the BRICS countries that are meeting in Delhi, the foreign ministers that are meeting in Delhi. And in that context, then Western Europe only has its war with Russia as a means to exist militarily. That's how they seem to define themselves.
Speaker 1: And, of course, if it started backing off and if it actually began to talk to Russia, some leaders have suggested earlier, of course, Viktor Orban, who's no longer in power in Hungary, Bard de Weyver in Belgium has said, well, hang on. It may be sensible to talk to the Russians. The astonishing thing is that in just a couple of months, well, less than in just about a month, this war, the Russia Ukrainian war, be longer than the First World War. But even by 1916, the second, third year of the First World War, people were saying, look. We need to talk to Germans.
The Germans put forwards peace proposals and so on. It's this stubborn how can I put it? Stub stubborn refusal to engage in diplomacy is one thing which marginalizes the European Union and the European leadership more more widely.
Speaker 0: And they're pouring billions of dollars worth of weapons into the Zelensky regime, and simultaneously, they are introducing more and more sanctions packages on Russia. Do you think another notable aspect is the death of the NATO sanctions? I mean, famously, it's, what, 38,000,000, the Lancet said. Yeah. Have been killed by US sanctions between 1970 and 2021.
The world of sanctions by NATO countries is also over.
Speaker 1: Well, it's unfortunately, it's not over. The European Union has just adopted its twentieth package, and it's now working on its twenty first. They're running out of things to sanction, course, because it's now as it were the rubble is bouncing in in sanctions terms. But nevertheless, they're digging and digging their heels in. The United States, of course, under Trump has made and in particular after the Anchorage meeting in Alaska in August 2025, The Russians love to talk about the spirit of Anchorage, but this hasn't really been much in evidence, especially last autumn when Trump imposed severe sanctions on the Russian oil exports, which of course affected India deeply.
And of course, it had 25% extra tariffs imposed on it for continuing its import of Russian oil. Of course, after Iran war, they have lifted these sanctions, but still it was a warning sign of a power which simply does not know. It's addicted to sanctions, and I'm afraid it's gonna be a very hard process to let them kick that bad habit, that addiction.
Speaker 0: But my point was they don't really care. You know? As the Russian, Chinese, Indian foreign ministers meeting, and South African and Brazilian in Delhi, they don't really appear to care that much anymore about the impact of tariffs or sanctions. I mean, obviously, at the Trump Xi Jinping meeting, Xi Jinping has been shrugging off threats of tariffs.
Speaker 1: And indeed, refusing to accept the second year sanctions on on oil companies in China that continue to import Russian oil or and any other Iranian oil oil in particular. So indeed, China is big enough to withstand it. India has been in a more difficult position because of its huge dependency on, you know, over I think 78% of India's oil is imported and in particular from The Gulf. So but China is big enough to withstand it. Other countries can't.
Russia, of course, is also big enough to be the most sanctioned country in the world and still to survive, but is taking a very heavy toll.
Speaker 0: I mean, do you think India has become one of the clearest examples of what a successful multipolar power looks like? It maintains relations, very close relations with Iran, close relations with Russia, and of course close relations with The United States and China.
Speaker 1: Yeah. This is why I'm a bit skeptical about using the word multipolarity. Yes, it's an important feature, but we have to be very careful how to define it. I personally believe that we've you know, in terms of the Charter International System, that is The United Nations, that we've seen you know, the the decolonization in the postwar years, and this system has now matured. India became independent obviously in 1947, but even before that it was made a a founder member of the United Nations.
Today, we have a 193 states in the world. These they these states have matured. The postcolonial states have matured. None of them were are willing to be bossed around by the traditional hegemon. So in other words, in normative terms, that is in ideological terms, we have a 100 a 193 Poles.
Of course, some are bigger, some are smaller. But even the middle powers, as Carney put it, the Canadian prime minister at the Davos meeting, the middle powers now have to step up step up. We're talking about Brazil. We're talking about South Africa. We're talking about Nigeria, The Philippines, Indonesia, many other countries.
All these countries now playing in them, and Saudi Arabia, so many. So in other words, the traditional US definition of a poll, which is the whole the whole panoply of power, simply doesn't hold. So what we're talking about is a you know, the great scholar Amrita Vacharya calls it, a multiplex world. There's so many different actor states. Of course major corporations today act as quasi state organizations.
There's also international organ like the international organizations like United Nations itself, which of course stands above them all in normative terms. So the world is more complex. There are as I say, the system has matured, and what there's only one thing which has not matured, and that is the Western arrogance or belief that it has some sort of god given to be hegemonic, to be dominant, and today even The United States to be dominant even over its former allies in the Atlantic power system.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm not sure about your emphasis on the UN, though. I mean, let alone that someone called Annalina Baerbok I think she lied on her TV, didn't she? She's been she's become the president of the UN General Assembly, but, obviously, the UN has become come under increased scrutiny after its inability to appear to do anything during the Gaza genocide. Yeah.
Surely, the UN without without India on the security council, as some might say, or Saudi Arabia on it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm glad you raised that. It's the biggest crisis. Today, we're seeing a crisis of the political West, the collective West with the Trumpian disruption. Let's call it that.
But at the same time, the United Nations is, as you absolutely rightly point out, at in its most desperate stage since 1945. The response to that is, yes, indeed, they foisted Annalene Baerbok, this militant former German foreign minister, Wernan Russopher.
Speaker 0: Green party.
Speaker 1: But that has been and the Green party. Yep. Well, they some people even in Germany, I heard her saying that she's been a magnificent example of a feminist foreign policy. Well, if that's a feminist foreign policy, then, well, I could I think we could do without it. Yeah.
But the thing is to double down to support the UN, not to dismiss it is my view. And of course, India should be, well, mean, absolutely essentially a permanent member. So the crisis of this, know, of the United Nations today may be an opportunity to reset some elements, including of course bringing Brazil, India, some other countries, Africa, obviously, to be become permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. I can understand some Indian sentiments who are being because we've been talking about it for so many years, and it hasn't happened. Professor There's a lot of disappointment.
Speaker 0: Professor, we'll continue after the break. Keep watching New Order. You're watching New Order. Professor Richard Salkwa, you were talking about how the UN should be reformed. Trump, in fairness, seems to understand the significance of why different transnational institutions need to be reformed.
Do you think it's important for Trump to dissolve NATO if he's gonna be part of the or if The United States is gonna be part of this new I don't know whether I should say multipolar after what you were saying in part one, but multinodal world?
Speaker 1: It would be logical because what The United States has always done is ensured to defend its own sovereignty. Even when it established the Atlantic system, the political West, the collective West, it always retained its autonomy. And one of the conditions for to joining the United Nations as opposed to the League of Nations in 1919 was the veto power in the Security Council. And, of course, Trump earlier this year left 66 international organizations, half of them UN agencies, including important ones like the World Health Organization. No.
So The United States is going it alone. It is the most powerful country in the world. It it still has a booming economy despite increased petrol prices and so on and rising inflation. It's a booming economy. 2.7% growth this year.
Obviously, not as much as India, which is the world's fastest growing economy, but it's doing very well for a mature economy. And it it says it doesn't need these allies. It doesn't need the what Joseph Nye called soft power. It doesn't need anyone, but it respects power. And that's why when Trump meets talks with Xi Jinping, they talk as equals because China is not gonna be pushed about.
And, of course, India has been much buffeted over the last year or so given the sanctions, given the threats, because clearly over the last year or two, the India had sought to rebuild the relationship with Washington, but the events of the last year have made this perhaps the most difficult time in US Indian relations over the last three decades even, one could say.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We don't know what's gonna be the fastest growing economy by the end of this year, as there has been so much turbulence that has been catalyzed by the war in West Asia, clearly. And it's interesting that there was less of the weaponizing of human rights in the run up to the Trump Xi meeting in in Beijing. I mean, that traditionally has been a means and a way of trying to belittle BRICS nations and the global South in Western Europe, I suppose, specifically. In Britain, in fact, in parliament, it was only a couple of months ago that people were talking about the fact that India had no freedom of expression.
Do you think we'll continue to see that weaponization of human rights as much? And I suppose I kind of ask it, in the context of you and what happened to you in Heathrow Airport on the June 13. I understand. 2025. Freedom of expression is a is a value is a value for Western Europe.
It's
Speaker 1: a crucial value. It's for for for all peoples, one has to say, this isn't a privilege, something just for the mature Western powers, but it has to be understood in context. It has to be understood as a evolutionary process. And of course, as you say, the human rights has been too often instrumentalized, and so you have this systemic double standards. You use it as a weapon against opponents, and you give a free pass to your friends.
But, you know, I'm a rather old fashioned person and do believe, and that this is why at the core of the BRICS charter and its documentation is precisely this this appeal to the UN Charter, which of course also maintains the whole stack of elements of human dignity. And of course, in later years, including social rights and so on, these things are fundamentally important. But they become degraded when they become an instrument of geopolitical com competition and contestation.
Speaker 0: So what did happen to you in Heathrow?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. So I was detained. They were waiting for me as I came off the did
Speaker 0: you do, professor Thakwa? As I started this interview off by saying you were a scholar renowned all around the world for your work on international relations. What what possibly could you have done?
Speaker 1: Well, it's it's interesting. This the the the detention is under the 2019 Counterterrorism Act, and they're allowed to hold you for up to six hours without charge. And it was a peculiar quirk of this or feature of this law is that if you say no comment and you refuse to answer a question, it is taken as an indication of guilt. So they can immediately arrest you if you say no comment or refuse to answer a question. In other words, this goes against the fundamental principles of British common law where you assume to be innocent, presume to be innocent rather than guilty until proven guilty.
It's astonishing thing. So we they there are four hours of questioning, which tried to it was a fishing expedition. And, course, I have nothing to hide, and my views are open out there. I'm very willing to debate with anyone. I mean, even by the way, coming on this TV show is carries a certain element of jeopardy.
Let me put it this way. But, you know, I'm not gonna be intimidated, but if anybody else asks me to to speak,
Speaker 0: So so so they stopped you hate it. Because of what? Your differing perspective on intellectual debate currently raging in global international relations circles?
Speaker 1: It was never specified. It was never specified. And fortunately, maybe not after this discussion, but fortunately the case has gone quiet. I've also got some very good lawyers involved in in the case, and they've been been excellent.
Speaker 0: I mean, why I draw attention to it is it's there's such vibrant debates going on amongst Shanghai Cooperation Organization member states, officials, scholars, academics, and in BRICS countries about what this future world is rearranging into. Whereas then you hear about what you just said. I mean, there a group think going on in Western Europe?
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. We've seen that many cases on the continent, the the famous case of the Swiss scholar Jacques Baud, who's been stuck in Belgium for the last few months. Yes. There is. And of course, Starmorism is the most vivid expression of closing down of debate.
We already saw saw the way he came to power in instrumentalizing various charges against Corbyn. And, of course, he was the one who said that that to be opposed to NATO membership is incompatible with Labour Party membership. Now this is an astonishing phrase because the Labour Party was always a broad church. It's got the The British Labour Party. The British Labour Party.
Yes. And it was a movement. And, of course, the peace movement has been an integral part of it. And of course, it's now being chased out of the Labour Party. So yes, there is a closing of the West European mind, and it's very frightening.
And it's closed on positions of permanent war, militarism, remilitarization, and of course a very profound Russophobia, which, you know, goes you know, you could look at its historical context, but in my view, it's being fed by this Atlantic power system since 1945 with the first Cold War and now what we could call a second Cold War.
Speaker 0: I mean, if if these roxophobic threats against global South countries don't seem to have any traction. Modi didn't seem to care about what he's being told to act how he's supposed to act with Putin. He always talked about his warmth with Vladimir Putin. If the threat of tariffs couldn't prevent India from going to the Tianjin Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting, what are these powers gonna do? What is Washington?
How is it gonna retaliate if none of its threats seem to spur any kind of action that they desire?
Speaker 1: In fact, quite the opposite. These actions of The US and the West European powers are treated with contempt, increasingly with contempt amongst great swathes of the global South. This sort of irresponsible bullying, this sort of attempt to, you know, to to impose endless sanctions, and, of course, secondary sanctions are totally irresponsible. And more than that, by the way, illegal because only the United Nations has the right, the Security Council, to impose multilateral sanctions. So all of this, they they say it's in defense of international law, but the very act in trying to defend the international law in this way is an undermining and repudiation of international law.
It's a classic case of double standards defeating the norm which they're meant to be upholding, like the anti disinformation campaigns, which in themselves are a form of
Speaker 0: disinformation. Professor Rajasagwa, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And now, Azarakan, New Order's Azarakan is here for the season finale of New Order. Richard Sakwa. Professor Richard Sakwa was stopped at Heathrow Airport in London under terrorism. Can't believe that it's the
Speaker 2: big year of 2026. We're still talking about people not having the freedom of expression and speech.
Speaker 0: You're gonna go to London on holiday?
Speaker 2: Not. I don't think it's on my list anymore after hearing that story.
Speaker 0: Give me some questions from the viewers.
Speaker 2: And one of them, I think you might recognize them because they've, written to us before, June RTCB, who's asked, how can the world stop The US Israel from the mass killings?
Speaker 0: I mean, that that's obviously the question of our times. Every person should be asking that themselves. I think, you can't stop Israel from the killing. 93%, I think, in a recent poll supported, say, the bombing of Tehran. So who knows what they say about Gaza and Southern Lebanon.
What about The United States? I don't think you can necessarily stop. But I tell you, the countries that are complicit, arguably, in the killing, Germany, 31% of Israeli weaponry coming from them. Britain supplied the f 35 components with which Israel uses its warplanes to to destroy. Turkey, Seyang Porte involved in the transit of oil France.
BNP Paribas, the primary dealer in the bond market. Italy continued to export throughout the Gaza genocide. Holland parts warehouses. South Africa, a BRICS country, Israel's top coal supplier. Perhaps people in those countries could do something.
Speaker 2: I I mean, this was just assumption that maybe June and I had the same thought that when they asked how can the world it meant meant things like blocks, light bricks, you've mentioned South Africa. But interesting to see that they might be complicit. Om has asked what specific alternative security architectures or regional alliances should India prioritize to protect its maritime interests in the Indian Ocean if it exits the Quad? And I think that's something to do with what you said last week.
Speaker 0: The quad. Yeah. Alright. Because I was saying that India should leave the quad. There are loads of them, but I suppose they're not so military.
The quad is about military ties of India with The United States. I think it could expand on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that it joined in 2017. Obviously, there's BRICS. I'm not saying the new development bank can be militarized so much. North South transit corridor between India, Russia, and Iran could be strengthened in some way.
But I think the Primakov, he had a meeting in New York in 2002. The RIC, Russia, India, China, that should be perhaps resurrected. They met, you know, 18 times by 2019, and somehow it was dissolved. So maybe the RIC should be the new quad. How about that?
Speaker 2: I mean, quad, think, would require four members, but I see you've tried to sneak it in just as the season is ending, but thank you so much for answering all of those questions.
Speaker 0: See you in a couple of weeks. Thanks, Zara. That's it for me. Akshay and Rutansky on New Order's season finale. Remember to follow us on social media, and here's a question for you.
How does India and the global South deal with the threat of Western Europe's war fever against Russia? Send us your answer on exit the order underscore TV. We'll be back on Sunday, June 7. Join us for the next season as we continue to track shifting global power and where India sits in this new order.
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore how the US-Israeli war on Iran is framed as a desperate bid to stop imperial decline, and how it could reshape the global economy. I ask when the oligarch class will pull support for Trump and what the global south faces as US hegemony and the dollar weaken.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨NEW EPISODE OF NEW ORDER🌐 Prof. Richard Wolff: US’ War on Iran is a DESPERATE ATTEMPT to Stop Imperial Decline How will the US-Israeli war on Iran reorder the entire global economy? When will the oligarch class pull its support for Donald Trump? What now for the global south as US hegemony and the power of the US dollar decline? All this and more on this episode of New Order with one of America's greatest economists @profwolff
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rifansi discusses New Order’s focus on how India and its allies sit at the center of a shifting global order, noting that the West Asia conflict involving Trump, Netanyahu, Iran, and Lebanon has repeatedly broken ceasefires and that Pakistan publicly thanked Trump for de-escalation efforts before its consulate in Peshawar was shut down as the US deemed the location too dangerous. New Delhi is about to host the BRICS foreign ministers meeting, with Iran likely sending its deputy foreign minister. India’s chair aims to balance Gulf energy ties with a broader multi-aligned strategy, positioning it as the broker able to keep competing sides in the same room. The last BRICS meeting failed to reach consensus; this time the stakes are higher, divisions sharper, and billions hinge on deli decisions. The question posed is whether this emergent order can hold together or reconcile internal contradictions.
Professor Richard Wolff, a prominent economist, joins to discuss who pays for the Trump–Netanyahu war. Wolff identifies the cost as ultimately borne by a combination of American taxpayers and the global community that finances the war through borrowing. He says the government relies more on borrowed money than on taxes, noting that an explicit tax burden on American families would be politically unsustainable, while the bill is effectively deferred to future generations. He points out that parts of the global South are lending to the US to finance the war, citing that Japan is the largest creditor to the United States, with China as the second-largest, while the US remains the world’s largest debtor.
Wolff explains that the crisis of supply lines stems from long-standing corporate decisions since the 1970s to relocate manufacturing abroad for profitability, particularly to China. He argues politicians—including Trump—present the narrative as if foreigners (China, India, Brazil) forced these changes, thereby portraying the US as a victim rather than the perpetrator. This framing disguises the revenue gains American capital reaped from overseas production, which in turn produced long supply lines as goods must travel back to markets. The discussion emphasizes the strategic political use of this narrative to manage domestic anger at lost jobs and wages.
The conversation then turns to potential futures for supply chains and localized production. Wolff suggests that global factors push toward localization and diversification of production within the United States and BRICS countries, with the Hormuz Strait being a model for potential disruptions elsewhere (e.g., the Malacca Strait). He predicts a major, long-term reorganization of where production happens and how the global economy is organized, arguing the conflict could catalyze a renaissance of regionalized or localized production, even if not immediately after the current war.
On the political economy side, Wolff notes that Trump’s political support is shrinking outside the extreme right and the business elite who benefit from his tax policies and fossil-fuel ties. He warns that if the Iran confrontation undermines Trump’s ability to assert U.S. power, oligarchic support could wane, threatening his presidency. Wolff also forecasts that the defense budget under discussion—proposed to rise from about $900 billion to $1.5 trillion—would far outpace any social program cuts, intensifying pressure on workers who are already relying on food stamps and other supports.
The discussion touches on the global South’s response to a declining U.S. empire, including potential non-dollar settlements and the challenges of unwinding dollar-denominated debt. Wolff notes the dollar is weaker but remains central; the process toward a multi-currency system is gradual. He observes that global South students are increasingly looking elsewhere for education and investment, signaling a broader trend away from the United States as a safe or dominant hub for capital.
The program closes with questions about the Quad and ASEAN’s roles, and whether India should stay in the Quad. Wolff’s perspective frames a dynamic, multi-polar trajectory as BRICS and other blocs potentially gain influence in the face of U.S. decline. The show teases a future discussion with Khan about how viewers can engage with these questions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rifansi, and you're watching New Order broadcasting all around the world, including to nearly one and a half billion on RT India. We on New Order will trace how India and its allies sit at the center of a transformation in world history. After millions killed, wounded, or displaced because of the Trump Netanyahu war in Iran and Lebanon, the so called ceasefire in West Asia broke down again and again this week. Pakistan publicly thanked Donald Trump for de escalation efforts. It was rewarded for all its work by having its consulate shut down in Peshawar because The US considers it too dangerous a place.
In just days, meanwhile, New Delhi is to host the BRICS foreign ministers meeting, a critical test for the global South. Iran is likely sending its deputy foreign minister. India's chair is balancing Gulf energy ties with a broader multi aligned strategy positioning itself as the one actor able to keep competing sides in the same room. Last time, BRICS failed to reach consensus. This time, the stakes are higher, divisions sharper, and billions hang on any deli decisions.
So the question is now, can this emerging order hold together or find a way to reconcile lingering internal contradictions? At the end of the show, we'll be joined by new order czar Khan to answer questions from you, the viewers. But first, Whitby is one of America's greatest living economists. He might have been to Harvard and Stanford and have a Yale PhD, but you won't see him on US propaganda networks like CNN or Fox. Professor Richard Wolff has taught at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the Sorbonne.
He is the cofounder of Democracy at Work, the host of Economic Update, and he's in New York. Professor Richard Wolff, welcome to New Order. So as I said, millions have paid with their, lives through deaths, injuries, and, displacement. Americans are playing paying at the pump, billions paying for more prices higher prices on food and medicine. Who's actually paying for the Trump Netanyahu war?
We heard figures of around $12,000,000,000 in the first six days, the cost to The United States. But who's actually paying for it?
Speaker 1: Well, in the end, it's a combination of the tax monies of the American people, because we pay not only the costs of The United States, but to be honest, we pay the costs of Israel as well. So it's a total bill that has to come due here. Because it is dangerous to tax the American people if you want support, The government is resorting more to borrowed money than it is, to tax money. The opposition in The United States, already a majority of people polled are against the war in Iran and the American participation in it. If you actually tax them, if the president had to go to the people and say, every one of your families is going to have to cough up 500 or a thousand or $2,000 to pay for this war, then the opposition wouldn't be big.
It would be enormous, and there would be no war. It couldn't he couldn't survive it politically. So the payment is being, you can kind of say, postponed. We're borrowing it, and so the future generations will have to pay what the cost of this war is. And In the short run?
In the short run, the irony is that parts of the global South are participant in sending the money, the loans to The United States, which it uses to fight the war.
Speaker 0: It's being borrowed from Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, The UAE where I'm speaking to you from, Kuwait. It's global South countries that are buying the bonds, which are enabling the borrowing for the war and for, say, a 168 schoolgirls to be slaughtered in Menab in Southern Iran?
Speaker 1: To be accurate, they are paying part of it. That's absolutely right. Part of it is part of the lending to the US government comes from American individuals and American corporations, but part of it comes, as you correctly said, Japan is the largest creditor of The United States. The United States is the world's largest debtor country. And if you want irony, the People's Republic Of China is the second biggest creditor after Japan for The United States.
China, which is backing Iran on one side, lending money to The United States to pay for the war on the other side of that war.
Speaker 0: No wonder Xi Jinping is meeting Trump supposedly later later in the later in the week. And I know you've been talking about the fact or implying that Trump clearly has no comprehension of supply lines. It seemed to have come as a shock to the oligarchs in your country and the the the powerful in your country where things come from in your country. Explain how people are beginning to understand supply lines a little better, in the present straight of almost crisis.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the the clue lies in the fact that their lack of comprehension is a very interested lack. It doesn't come out of innocence. It comes out of a very important political issue. Americans are wondering about those long supply lines, and there's only one explanation for them. Starting in the nineteen seventies, maybe a little earlier in a few cases, but as a mass phenomena, starting in the nineteen seventies, American corporations moved, particularly manufacturing, out of The United States.
No one held a gun to their heads. No one required it, neither the American government nor the Chinese government. They went because it was profitable to go. And the ones who went earliest reaped enormous profits, forcing their competitors who may have been more hesitant to basically join and move to China or India or Brazil or a variety of other places, although China is still number one in that process. So the corporations, if they were honest, would be telling the American people, we have long supply lines because it profited us to do that, to move production from Chicago or Saint Louis or New York or Boston to Shanghai or somewhere else in China.
We're making out like bandits, and that makes a very long supply line because the stuff we produce in China has to be shipped all the way back to be sold where the market was, US, Western Europe, Japan. They didn't wanna have to say that because then the anger of the people in this country would have turned on the corporations. They had to come up with a different way. And the way they did it, which is a real lesson in propaganda, is by having the leading politicians, including mister Trump, but not only mister Trump, constantly talk as though the decision to go there was something done by China or by India or by Brazil. In in other words, to remove the key decision maker from the story and to imagine that the world economy changed because of something done, get ready, by foreigners, not by Americans.
That way, mister Trump can portray The United States as the victim of this process rather than the perpetrator. The victim has been the American working class, which lost its jobs and its incomes because cheaper workers for American capitalists were available in India, China, Brazil, and so on. That story still cannot be told in The United States. It's considered taboo.
Speaker 0: So if the risk premium is gonna be permanent, regardless of this short term war, the consequences, although, of course, as I said, millions have been displaced, thousands have been killed in it, What happens to future supply chains? Could there be a good side effect of this? Some renaissance of localized production within The United States and within BRICS countries. India, I should say, one of the biggest worker self directed enterprises, the Amul Milk Dairy Cooperative, 3,600,000 farmers. Can localized industries in your country and in BRICS countries be a have a renaissance after this war?
Speaker 1: I think so. I think even if it's not after this war, many large global factors are pushing in that direction. I mean, there's going to be all kinds of adjustments. We are we haven't even begun to see all the adjustments that every corporation involved in global trade, which is most of the big one, they're having to rethink. Will we use the ocean in the future?
Will we use railroad? Will we use trucking? Will we localize production? Those are all very big decisions that weren't on the agenda before and have now been put on the agenda. What the Iran war is teaching many, many across The United States and globally is what the Iranians did in the straight straight of Hormuz can be done by Indonesia in the straight of Malacca, can be done in many different parts of the world.
And when you let your imagination go as these planners have to do, otherwise, they waste billions in investment, you're going to see adjustments across the board. We're gonna be talking, you and I hopefully, in twenty years, if we're still here, about a very big change over that period of time in where production happens, where it's distributed, how the whole global economy is organized. And that's one of the reasons I stress in my talks to people to see this in historical perspective. This is not another war even in the way that Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Ukraine might be considered. This one is rearranging the whole globe, and and we will be talking about it no matter what the outcome is immediately for a long time.
So far so possibly optimistic. Of course, though India said no when it was threatened by The United States over importing energy from Russia, If, these different BRICS countries start to rearrange their supply structures,
Speaker 0: let alone the dollar, which I know, is talked about widely, the settling of, bills in other currencies, What is what are the most powerful oligarchs in The United States going to do? And are they going to pursue increasingly kinetic ways of preventing a future which is better for workers and for bosses all around the world?
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think anyone does. And if you have someone who's very confident answering, my advice would be to go talk to somebody else. But that is being debated at the highest circles. To this point, let me put it to you this way.
The political support for mister Trump has been shrinking, and in recent months, shrinking by a great deal and very quickly. Why is that important? Because the single most important two supports for him that remain are a mass base of the extreme right wing of the political spectrum in the country, and I'm talking here maybe ten, fifteen, possibly 20%, not more. The rest of his support is very iffy. The other big supporter is the oligarch, the business class.
Because remember, for them so far, he's been wonderful. The first major legislation he passed in his first presidency was the tax cut of 2017. The first legislation he passed in his second presidency was what he called the big beautiful tax bill of April. His priorities are obvious. He takes care of the people who fund his campaign.
His refusal to break away from fossil fuels is a payoff to the fossil fuel companies in this country who have been very generous in supporting him. He will remain as president as long as the business community sees him as a net positive. But if he cannot prevail in Iran, which it now looks from here, and I'm talking to you from New York, he can't. He cannot do. He has not neither the military nor any other mechanism to defeat Iran at this point.
If that is the outcome or perceived to be the outcome, he risks losing the support of major parts of the oligarchy, and then he's gone. Whether he goes in person or is replaced or fades away, he'll be gone because they will be looking for somebody else. And our government now, I must tell you in all honesty, is as we like to say when we've had a drink or two, the best government money can buy.
Speaker 0: Professor, we'll continue after the break. Keep watching New Order. You're watching New Order. Professor Wolfe, you were talking about the huge significance of the war in West Asia for Trump and for all of us. I suppose I I'm gonna ask whether the military of the United States, the military industrial complex, it's clearly using its force against the people in The United States.
I understand that tens of millions cannot eat without food stamps in The United States. What is it? It's gone down a little. It's now, what, 39,000,000. It was 43,000,000 up until recently.
Cannot eat without food stamps. But what if it decides to impose its military will when it can't can't use its economic will?
Speaker 1: Well, we're already as you're suggesting, we are already in that position. Let me give it to you as it's coming down on us now. President Trump has proposed an increase in the military budget for the coming year, fiscal twenty twenty seven. And let me tell you what the size of it is. It's to go from $900,000,000,000, that's the current year budget outlay for defense, to 1,500,000,000,000.
That's a $600,000,000,000 increase on a base of 900,000,000,000. That would make it by far the largest annual increase in defense spending, in our history as a nation, certainly in peacetime history. What is going on at the same time are cutbacks in virtually every social program, whether it's food stamps or education support or transport support or housing.
Speaker 0: How will how will the working classes cope with that if they really were to do that? Because these are cushions out there, aren't they?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And the working class is already answering it. It's answering it by saying that the support for mister Trump among workers, which was crucial to his getting elected, is much, much less now. And the only way he will survive politically at this point in the elections coming up in November is if he can develop mechanisms to deny people the vote, and that's the priority of the Republican Party. But You are going to have to go
Speaker 0: for the global South, which sees a duopoly of power. It doesn't really make any difference whether it's Democrats or Republicans. So how will the global South have to cope with The United States in decline as it sees its supply chains disordered, as it sees more nondollar denomination deals being done? I mean, what is gonna happen? Is it gonna lash out The United States against the global South, against India, against Brazil?
Obviously, as against Yes.
Speaker 1: And and it does. Let me warn people if they haven't paid attention. For the last six months, The United States officially has killed it's now about 200 people, mostly fishermen in little boats in The Caribbean and The Pacific. They are hit with missiles. They are immediately killed, and the boats are sunk.
And they are accused by the president and our minister of defense excuse me. He's changed his name, the minister of war. They are accused of being drug traffickers. Now let me explain briefly. We have drug traffickers in The United States.
They get arrested all the time. When they're arrested, they get a lawyer, and they have a a right to a trial where they can confront their accuser. Only if they are found guilty are they punished, and they are not punished by being killed. It is not a capital crime in The United States if you are found guilty. So we are killing people in international waters, no trial, no lawyer, no judge, and a death penalty without appeal.
Why would we be doing that? And the American Navy used to board ships and inspect them, etcetera, etcetera. The answer is we are sending, we, The US, a message to Latin America, for sure. But to the global South, Yes. What is the message?
That a part of our leadership will strike out in a way that befits a desperate hegemon when the empire they've presided over over the last century is in decline as the American empire is. But there is another perspective, and that's fighting inside The United States, at higher levels of our government, that says, no. We ought to face the decline and come to terms with it. Make a live and let live arrangement with India, China, Russia, and so on, so we don't destroy ourselves. And the question is, which of the the two tendencies will prevail in The United States?
If you ask my opinion, at this point, I think it's the bad one, the one that is going to strike out, because I think that's what the Iran war really is. A desperate attempt, not well thought through and therefore unsuccessful, to to do something to stop where the world seems to be going. That's why it may be important, not if the Democrats win, you're right. It isn't such a big difference. But among Democrats, there's a larger proportion of those who want to work something out and a smaller proportion of those who think they can bully or bull their way through this.
Just finally, how carefully do global South countries have to be when unwinding their faith or positions in the dollar then and US debt. Clearly, China has been reducing its bond commitment.
Speaker 0: The the India is still paying in dollars. And, of course, the region I'm speaking to you from is still part of the petrodollar. How carefully must it be unwound before the death of the dollar can be announced?
Speaker 1: It's still gonna take a while. The the dollar is definitely weaker. The direction of change is crystal clear, but the dollar remains an important currency, arguably the most important, albeit less so than it used to be. But I think we're getting to a point, if we're not already there, where this is happening pretty automatically. Country after country, more or less, is gonna be reducing.
You can see it. I'm talking to you from Downtown Manhattan, New York City, where half the apartments on 5th Avenue are owned by people from the Global South who invest and keep their money here. I have friends who are realtors. The apartments are being sold. People are not looking at The United States the way they did in the second half of the twentieth century.
It isn't a safe place for wealthy people to keep their money. It isn't the secure beacon of capitalism. It just isn't. And slowly and steadily, each family is working that out. I'm a professor.
I used to have many more students from the Global South than I'm having now. And they're they're telling me why they're not coming back, or they're interrupting their vacation, or they're rethinking alternative places to get a degree. The United and that's why all of these things need to be contextualized as symptoms, as details in a declining empire. And you in India, if I may say so, because of your history with Britain, the the empire that declined before the American one, in a way, you probably know better than most what is going on, how it will work, and the multiple layers and levels at which this kind of a decline plays itself out. We here in The United States, people like me, born, lived, and worked here all my life, My job is to undercut the denial that's going on, the the refusal to face the reality, and make people begin to think like that in the hopes that it'll lead to that better way of coping that we were talking about.
Speaker 0: Professor Richard Wolff, I'm not in India, but I suppose you were talking to the people of India who are watching this program. Professor Richard Wolff, thank you.
Speaker 1: My pleasure, and thank you for the invitation.
Speaker 0: And now Sarah Khan on her birthday with some questions. Professor Wolff, endless failure, not epic fury is what he seemed to be saying as regards the Strait Of Hormuz. We'll be remembering this war in West Asia forever.
Speaker 2: And I must say, as somebody who needed a tutor during economics in high school, having someone on who helps break down economics in a way that somebody like me could understand commendable. But Danny Gonzales has asked, what would be the best and worst outcomes of the quad meet in May? And I think that referencing the foreign minister's meeting that will happen at the May.
Speaker 0: Quad. Quadrilateral security dialogue. So who is in the quad? Australia, India, Japan, and The United States. Australia, I mean, is that even a country?
It's part of the British Commonwealth. Gough Whitlam tried to lead his country after being democratically elected. It was overthrown by the by the queen, I think, if people try and look it up. It has Pine Gap, a US occupying surveillance base, which Julian Assange and Edward Snowden highlighted as a way to surveil people in South Asia. There's Japan with Okinawa.
So many criminal criminal trials because of their US occupying base in Okinawa in Japan. People can look up what happened on those criminal cases. There's The USA and Marco Rubio who, let's face it, is part of what professor Wolff is talking about as to the slaughter of all those fishermen in The Caribbean. And then there's Jaishankar of India. There's one man on one country.
That's the odd country out here. India should get out of the quad, I think, rather than be in a in a sort of grouping with these satellite vassal states of The United States.
Speaker 2: The best outcome, you think?
Speaker 0: That would be the best outcome, I think.
Speaker 2: And worst is for India to stay in?
Speaker 0: No. Obviously, the so the best outcome be that. Worst outcome would be India listening to Marco Rubio, who's associated right around the global South with, I don't know, the war here in West Asia, the war in Cuba, the kidnapping of leaders like Maduro in Venezuela.
Speaker 2: And speaking of all the countries that are meeting, just the Quad, Sylvia Ninerjen has asked, we keep talking about BRICS, but overlook ASEAN's power. Where have they been in this war?
Speaker 0: ASEAN. That's another grouping that one always wonders about. So who's in ASEAN? Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos
Speaker 2: Malaysia.
Speaker 0: Malaysia. Yeah. But let's just look at Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, for instance. 15 to 20,000,000 killed, wounded, or displaced by the wars of the United States on those countries. Of course, you mentioned Indonesia.
They overthrew Sukarno famously, killed a million people there. People holiday in Bali, don't they? They don't think about the 20% of the population of Bali slaughtered by US backed troops. And then there's The Philippines. How many were killed in the wars on The Philippines?
Malaysia, I suppose, is one outlier, Mahatir, famously, and then Singapore and Thailand. ASEAN is another vassal state grouping with some honorable exceptions and some honorable exceptional leaders. But I think ASEAN power versus BRICS power, I think it's clear who wins potentially. And, well, it'll be up to New Delhi. It'll up to up to Delhi to prove that it's better than what happens in The Philippines.
Speaker 2: Thank you for answering those options. See you again next week.
Speaker 0: Happy birthday again, Zara. Thank you. Clarence. And that's it for me, Ashton. Returns your new order.
Remember to follow us on social media. And here's a question for you. If The US can't raise taxes and can't borrow cheaply, how does it afford a long war? Send us your answer on x at New Order underscore TV. Join us every Sunday as we continue to track shifting global power and where India sits in this new order.
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore whether the US and Israel have decimated Iran’s military, if Tehran can’t be pressured over the Strait of Hormuz, and whether the Iranian people want regime change, in a New Order episode with Afshin Rattansi challenging Amb. John Bolton.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨NEW EPISODE OF NEW ORDER🌐 WAR ON IRAN: Afshin Rattansi CHALLENGES Amb. John Bolton Over His Demand For Regime Change Have the US and Israel really decimated Iran’s military capabilities? Can the US break Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz? Do the Iranian people really want regime change? All this and more on this episode of New Order with @AmbJohnBolton
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Ratansi presents New Order, noting that the UAE quit OPEC effective May 1, signaling a fractured cartel and positioning Abu Dhabi as a key diplomatic hub while Modi focuses on energy security ahead of Europe. Kyrgyzstan hosts Indian defense minister Rajnath Singh with Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani counterparts at Shanghai Cooperation Organization meetings, signaling new cooperation away from NATO dominance. In a world where old mechanisms are breaking down and the Strait of Hormuz could be threatened, the question becomes who stays in the room with everyone at once. Zahra Khan will take viewer questions at the end.
Ashwin then welcomes Ambassador John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, former national security adviser to President Trump, and former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, joining from Washington, DC. They begin with Bolton’s reaction to the indictment of James Comey. Bolton calls it “retribution,” noting it could involve attorney’s fees and process, and labels it a “creative legal theory.” He distinguishes between retribution and rule-of-law concerns, comparing the approach to what he views as an authoritarian pattern.
The conversation shifts to Iran and the prospect of regime change. Bolton says the war in Iran “isn’t over” but argues the necessary work to solve the problem through regime change hasn’t been done. He emphasizes that the Iranian regime was in trouble economically and domestically well before the war, citing water shortages and irrigation policies that have devastated groundwater, and the perception among Iranians, especially the young and women since the death of Masa Amini, that the regime’s legitimacy is undermined. He notes that 30-year-olds make up 70% of the population, and that the regime’s legitimacy is further eroded by ethnic discontent among Kurds, Azeris, Beluchis, and others. Bolton asserts a significant portion of Iranians blame the United States and argues 75–80% would oppose the regime if a free public opinion analysis were possible; those who support the regime tend to be bureaucrats and the Revolutionary Guard.
On sanctions and public sentiment, Bolton argues sanctions contribute to economic hardship and that the Gulf states’ attacks on UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have shifted attitudes toward Tehran, making Tehran a pariah. He contends the regime is under pressure from internal dissent and external pressure, and that bombing can be discriminating against the regime’s targets—state power institutions rather than the Iranian people.
Bolton discusses strategic options: continue to blockade Iranian oil, open the Strait of Hormuz, and counter Iranian anti-ship missiles, drones, and swarms. He argues that Iran has conducted limited attacks so far and has alienated Gulf Arab states; he says the missiles and drones manufacturing capacity has been degraded in the first wave of attacks, though others say underground facilities remain. He asserts that defections could increase as the regime weakens, and that external support to opponents—telecommunications, resources, and weapons—could help the opposition.
Regarding leadership and public support in the United States, Bolton notes isolationist voices in the administration advocating an early exit. He references his own belief that, in 1990–1991, coalition-building can be effective without boots on the ground, and that regime change in Iran could succeed if pursued decisively with allied support.
Bolton observes that BRICS and the global south face divergent interests, with Delhi likely pivotal in determining outcomes. He insists the objective remains regime change in Iran, and that the administration should have briefed allies and prepared a comprehensive plan.
The interview closes with Bolton leaving the segment as Zahra Khan collects viewer questions about BRICS currency, the ability of BRICS to reshape the world order during crises, and whether the US war in Iran could rank as a larger disaster than past neocon wars. The show promises to revisit these themes next week.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Ratanzin. You're watching New Order broadcasting all around the world, including to nearly one and a half billion on arty India. We, New Order, will trace how India and its allies sit at the center of a transformation in world history. The global order isn't collapsing. It's being rewritten.
And this week, several chapters changed at once. The UAE quit OPEC, a unilateral exit effective May 1. The cartel that has impacted the price of oil for half a century is fracturing, and the country that just walked out of it is the same country that prime minister Modi is flying to in about a week's time on his way to Europe. Modi will focus on energy security and its regional and the regional situation following national security adviser Doval days ago and Jaishankar the week before. Abu Dhabi is now arguably the most diplomatically trafficked city on Earth.
Meanwhile, Kyrgyzstan hosts Indian defense minister Rajat Singh and his Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani counterparts at Shanghai cooperation meetings that signal new cooperation far away from NATO nation attempts to dominate Eurasia. In a world where the old mechanisms are breaking down, where OPEC can be walked out of, where the Strait Of Hormuz can be closed, where a ceasefire between a superpower and a theocracy gets brokered in Islamabad, the question is no longer who leads the world. It's who stays in the room with everyone at once. At the end of the show, we'll be joined by New Order Zara Khan, who will be with us to get questions from you, the viewers, and we'll try and answer as many of your questions as we can at the end of each show. With me today is the man who spent decades in the engine room of American foreign policy.
He served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations as national security adviser to president Trump in his first term and as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. He joins me now from Washington DC. Ambassador, John Bolton, thanks so much for coming on, New Order. Before we get to, what you've called the most consequential decision of Trump's presidency, I have to ask a quick question. Your reaction to the Comey ex head of the FBI being indicted for trying to assassinate Trump.
Ridiculous or fair revenge for his Russia hoaxing?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I think it is retribution. We'll we'll see what they can actually make of the case. I think Comey said in his response, expects more coming too. And and part part of the retribution is just making people go through the process, paying attorney's fees and and doing all that. So we'll see how it turns out.
It's a it's a creative legal theory. Let's put it that way.
Speaker 0: I mean, do you think I mean, your first indictment was anyway dismissed. I know the next trial is on completely different grounds. Do you think the DOJ is weaponized? Do you think you're a kind of Julian Assange figure almost? I mean, the the next trial is guy.
Well, the next trial is more like that, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you know, I I don't wanna get into specifics, but I do think retribution is part of of the Trump agenda. I said that in the forward to my book, the new edition of the book that came out in January 2024. And I I think it's a mistake whether either party does it. I I don't like to see it ratcheted up.
There was some of it in the Biden administration. There's no doubt about it. But, you know, it's the characteristic of an authoritarian society is the former head of the NKBD, The Soviet Union's great spy network, as Laurenti Beria once said to Stalin, you show me the man and I'll show you the crime. And that's not the way a rule of law society should function.
Speaker 0: Well, of course, there is arguably a oblique reference to what's happening now in this region with the war on Iran. Millions killed, wounded, or displaced, mainly displaced, of course. You've intimated, I see, that you believe the war in Iran may nearly be over.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think it's over because I don't think we've done the necessary work to to solve the problem in the way I think it has to be solved, which is through regime change. I think there were a lot of things that needed to be done that haven't been. It's not too late to do them, but it's not clear to me at this point that Trump really knows what his objective is. And, of course, that makes it a lot harder to figure out how to achieve your objectives if you're not sure what they are.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, what do you mean regime change? I mean, background forces going in. Of course, they may have already gone in by the time this interview is being broadcast.
Speaker 1: No. I don't think it's necessary. I think if you look at Iran with a with, I think, a sophisticated, well educated population, this regime was in trouble long before the war started. For years, its economy has been in desperate straits. That's what the people were demonstrating about all over Iran in December and January before the government
Speaker 0: The economic situation isn't demonstrating necessarily for a complete change of regime. I mean, in 10 No.
Speaker 1: I think the people understand. Yeah. I think the people understand that the regime is the problem. You know, not only is the economy bad, they're running out of water. The the irrigation policies of the government to develop what they consider what the Ayatollah Homenei, the original supreme leader wanted, which was complete agricultural autonomy, has devastated the groundwater.
I mean, they're even talking about having to move the capital out of Tehran. That that's how bad it is.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But I mean So the economic situation polluted water. That's not a reason for changing the regime in The United States. I mean, do you well, who is telling you? Let me tell you.
The people Where are you getting this information from?
Speaker 1: From from people who know the situation inside Iran. There there wouldn't have been the demonstrations on the economy have gone on since 2018 almost annually as the situation has continued to deteriorate. But there are other causes of dissatisfaction. You know, young people, people 30 comprise 70% of the Iranian population. They know they could have a different way of life.
They can see it on the Internet when the government allows the Internet to function. They can see it across the Gulf in places like Doha and Dubai. So the young people are dissatisfied. The women for over three years now since the murder of Masih Amini, the young Kurdish woman who was killed by the, besieged militia for violating the Ayatollah's dress code, the women have fundamentally challenged the basic legitimacy of the Ayatollahs themselves who say, you know, they speak with the word of God, and the women say, not on the dress code. And it's not just about what they wear.
That that says
Speaker 0: The Iranian government said that was no. That case has completely been hijacked by those supporting, I don't know, the shah. You don't believe that the country blames the Let me just tell you.
Speaker 1: It's Like, percent they blame The United States. Percent of the population don't like the what happened to Massiamini. And when 50%, meaning the women, turn against you, that's a serious problem. You know, there are grandmothers in Iran who remember what life was like before 1979. And and the the the reality is it's not just about social mores.
It's about the legitimacy of the regime itself. Because if the Ayatollahs don't speak the word of God on the dress code, they don't speak the word of God on anything. And then finally, just so your listeners are are completely filled in, Ethnic groups in Iran are significantly dissatisfied. Kurds, Azeris, Beluchis, and others. So the regime is at, I think, the weakest point it's ever been since it took power in 1979.
Speaker 0: I mean, I I should say I lived in in Iran. I didn't really see any of this. And I've gotta say, surely they would blame the sanctions as the reason for the economic problems, and the sanctions come from Washington. And as regards economic problems, no one in the world was saying that the United States regime needed to be overthrown because Occupy Wall Street was on the front pages of headlines all over the world. Well, I think I will blame the sanctions.
Speaker 1: Oh, occupied Wall Street amounts to about one one thousandth of 1% of the American public opinion. I I think in Iran, if you if it were possible to take really a free and fair public opinion analysis, it'd be 75 to 80% of the people opposed to the regime. And and those supporting it were largely those who depended on the regime, the bureaucracy, the revolutionary guard, and the military. This is really, I think and we've had other developments because of the war that showed that the Gulf Arab states who tried to appease Iran I mean, they tried to find a way to allow Iran to do what it was doing as long as they didn't challenge them directly. I think the Iranian attacks on The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Gutter, not on US bases, not on Israel, but on civilian targets in the Gulf Arab states have fundamentally changed attitudes there as well, making the regime in Tehran even more of a pariah than it was before the war began.
Speaker 0: Yes. Certainly, there are complications in the GCC for those attacks. But you don't believe that given Donald Trump's lack of popularity that even Donald Trump will be supported by a majority of Americans if The United States was being bombarded. You just don't I mean, you're a former national security adviser. You would never advise a president that bombing another country leads to a rally around the flag mentality within that country.
Speaker 1: Oh, I I listen. I tell you the people in Iran today, by and large, understand that the targets that we've gone after, first the air defenses, then the instruments of state power that repress the people, like the revolutionary guard, like its besieged militia, like the Quds force that threatens its neighbors, the military infrastructure, the military production, they can see that these attacks are discriminate and that they're not aimed against the Iranians. Telling me that.
Speaker 0: Because all the Iranians Listen. What Okay. That's what's interesting. History here. It's an intel situation, isn't it?
You're hearing from some Iranians. Others are hearing from other Iranians. It's a country of 90,000,000 people. We know from prior interventions after nine eleven that, again and again, the consequences of US actions have not led to what the intelligence led the perpetrators
Speaker 1: And this is not from intelligence. This is this is from people talking to people inside Iran. And I think history is important to look here. I mean, under the theory that bombing always turns the inhabitants of a country against the, the, those doing the bombing, that would imply that the German and Japanese populations have hated America since 1945. And in fact, we can see the exact opposite because the people understood under the Nazi regime in Germany and under the imperial government in Japan, it was the people who were the victims of the government and that the destruction of those governments was for their benefit.
And and the same is true in the case of Iran.
Speaker 0: I knew you'd go to the Nazis that quickly. Look. Clearly, in this region, there are still conversations being had, The UAE, with Iranian counterparts. India is still talking to Iran. Russia and China and Wausau.
Iran doesn't see itself as isolated at all since this war began. Why do you believe Trump did this? Was it Miriam Adelson? What why did he do this?
Speaker 1: Well, let's let's go back to The UAE for a minute. I mean, I think there's significant events that are occurring here. I think the withdrawal of The UAE from OPEC, the Organization of Patrolling and Exporting Countries, won't have a direct effect on the war, but it's a sea change in the region. And I think will will allow The UAE to draw closer to Israel. And I think it will also result in lower prices of oil as The UAE and others pump more when they're not constrained by OPEC, quotas.
Look. Yeah. It's true that Iran is close to Russia and China. That's not a recommendation. That's a problem.
Because axis I should say the China Russia axis because China is clearly the dominant partner unlike the Sino Soviet alliance of the Cold War. That is a threat not just in Europe and Ukraine, not just to Taiwan across the straight from from China, but but really all along the China Russia periphery. So it's something that when you see a a an outrider like Iran that's that's really buttressed by China and Russia, that that should be something that does concern people.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, it wasn't so much Russia and China, the big bugwears of US foreign policy wonks. It's the entire global south, isn't it, that can keep United States as the aggressor?
Speaker 1: I I don't I don't see I don't see the deal.
Speaker 0: I deals with Iran.
Speaker 1: Look. The the issue here is the oil that that that you can you can get from countries in the region. So I think the answer here is we continue to blockade Iranian oil, but open the Strait Of Hormuz so that the Gulf Arab states can export oil. And as for The Philippines, they look at the South China Sea. They see China building airstrips and naval bases on rocks and reefs that are about a quarter of an inch above the water on a good day.
They see the threat of China. They they that's why they're growing closer to The United States, not farther away from it.
Speaker 0: Ambassador, we'll continue after the break. Keep watching New Order. You're watching New Order. Ambassador John Bolton. Well, you mentioned OPEC, of course, in in part one.
What do you think that decision actually means? Do you think it's oversold in The United States media that this signals immediately that The UAE is gonna somehow do America's bidding at the expense of a more unified Arab world? Or do you see
Speaker 1: it No.
Speaker 0: I think UAE forging alliances within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS. Of course, The UAE and Iran, the newest members of BRICS.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Look. I I think The UAE is is showing its growth and and maturation. I I think I think all cartels eventually break down. And, you know, in many respects, I think it'll benefit the Saudis in the long term as well.
But the point is that just shows that even momentary coalescences like that ultimately don't survive. But I think it's really a problem more for Iran because as alternative sources of oil, finance, and other things open up, Iran just becomes less necessary. I mean, one thing that The UAE did very early in the war is cut off Iran's use of Dubai's financial institutions to launder its money in out into the international banking system. So it's another major blow for the Iranian regime.
Speaker 0: Although there have been conversations between The UAE and Iran, but, you know, in in that respect. I mean, you you you appear to say that although Trump doesn't have objectives, which you'd like outlined, you more or less applaud his war, and you smiled when I said it was at the behest of Miriam Adelson. Why does he need to announce the objectives if the actual process is one that you actually support?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't I don't support the way he's gone about it. I think he failed to make the case to the American people, which is a very compelling case about why regime change in Iran is necessary. He didn't make the case to congress. He didn't brief our allies and friends, not just NATO. He didn't brief the Gulf Arabs.
He didn't brief countries in the Indo Pacific, allies and friends alike like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia.
Speaker 0: You were at you were at Colorado University the other day with Susan Rice, who I should say is a controversial character in her own in her own right. I'd love to have seen that debate. And you said there's never been a rule based international order. Why do you suddenly want Trump to be wandering around getting the okay from all these different countries? You said it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Not not getting the okay. Look. I I learned a lot of what I know about diplomacy under George h w Bush. He did assemble an international coalition to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. It worked.
And I think the same was possible here, not necessarily using boots on the ground, but but helping the Iranian opposition that need resources, they need telecommunications equipment, they need money, they need weapons so that they can stand up against the besieged militia. Who, by the way, with our blockade in place, are now soon not gonna be paid, and they're gonna be very unhappy with the regime. There there's more to come here. This regime, I think, is fracturing at the top and every reason to think if we could keep up the pressure that eventually it would fall.
Speaker 0: Can you give me two sides to this? If your intelligence is completely wrong, which I think a lot of the world sees it as they're very strong, that regime, and they're all coming around and rallying around the flag. How would you advise the Iranian government as it stands now? I know you're gonna say the Iranian government is very disparate and disassociated and localized. So if your intelligence is correct and it's on its last legs, how would you advise the government?
And if it's not and it's getting stronger, and as I say, Iraq, she was in Moscow recently. Chinese, Indian, Russian, Pakistan defense ministers have been in Kyrgyzstan for Shanghai cooperation meetings. The the where you where I sit here in Dubai, looks like Iran is in communication with all the countries of this region. How would you advise the Iranian government?
Speaker 1: Well, I think foreign minister Araki is probably in Moscow checking out the apartments where he might live in exile after the regime falls. I I think that there are many people inside the regime that the opposition can contact who can see the regime can't defend itself. And, ultimately, if it can't defend itself, it's not gonna survive.
Speaker 0: They defend itself with the It has a something as powerful as a nuclear
Speaker 1: can break their control. I think we can break their control on the Strait Strait Of Of Hormuz. We should have been doing it earlier. I'm not sure why we didn't, but we should have. I think you're gonna get defections from the regime.
I think this is as it crumbles from the inside, it could collapse quickly. But we need to do more to help the opponents who are really the overwhelming majority of the population of Iran.
Speaker 0: How sorry. How regarding the Strait Of Hormuz? How can you open the Strait Of Hormuz?
Speaker 1: Look. I I think we can clear the minds very quickly. I think I hope that we're actually doing that now. The real threat is the anti ship missiles provided to Iran by China and the swarms of fastboats and and drones that they can throw against convoys of tankers. But we have ways of dealing with that too.
And I think
Speaker 0: Like kind of.
Speaker 1: Presume well, you you finished destroying the missiles, the missile launchers, the drones. We've already destroyed their production facilities. They're not making any new drones, missiles, or mines in Iran because they've been destroyed. And in the first wave of attacks, we've eliminated most of their capacity. Some say there's perhaps 25 more to destroy, so I say, fine.
Let's get on with it.
Speaker 0: That's not what the is being said at all in this region. They have massive underground installations of these missiles, and their manufacturing is going full speed ahead.
Speaker 1: Well, that may be what the Iranian government says, but they'd be wrong on that. And and it shows how they treat the people of Iran. Like like the Hamas fortresses tunnels under the Gaza Strip while the people were in dire economic straits on top of it, the people of Iran have been neglected by the Revolutionary Guard and the government to help entrench themselves in power. So they've been at it for forty seven years to build this super deep state. We've been after them for six weeks.
I think we're making good progress. It takes forty seven years
Speaker 0: by the long comparison then. Gaza's still there despite what's happened and the onslaught of I mean, isn't there another element to this, which is Iran hasn't even started to launch Qorumshah missiles at Israeli targets? So it's using the Strait Of Hormuz as its weapon at the moment.
Speaker 1: Look. They've they've launched the best they've got, and they've caused minimal damage. What they have done is alienate the Gulf Arab states who have been trying to appease them during the past several years, a a critical mistake by the regime in Tehran.
Speaker 0: So you believe that it is possible right now to win the war on Iran. Do you believe Trump is gonna take your advice and try and rectify what is seen as mistakes, or is he not going to do that? In which case, the outcome will be just another defeat after Afghanistan, Libya, I don't know, all the way back to Vietnam.
Speaker 1: I don't call those defeats. I I call I call Afghanistan mistaken withdrawal. I think if Trump did what I suggested in order to achieve regime change, he would succeed, but I have no idea what he's actually gonna do.
Speaker 0: Did you put a plan on the table when you were national security adviser?
Speaker 1: I I urge that our objective be regime change. That's correct. By the way, so did Bibi Netanyahu. Bibi's been saying the same thing in the first term and and in the second term, so there's no change in what Trump has been hearing from him. I I don't know what caused Trump to launch this attack, but it wasn't Bibi Netanyahu.
That's for sure.
Speaker 0: Did you believe Blinken when he said, look how strong the Biden administration was in saying no to Netanyahu?
Speaker 1: Look. The the Biden administration, I think, missed a lot of opportunities, and they spent four years trying to get another nuclear deal with Arakshi and his predecessors. And I think that just gave the regime more time to dig in and build those large underground storage facilities for the Shahed drones.
Speaker 0: And so your plan to Trump when you were national security adviser included the important context of the Strait Of Hormuz, which appears to have taken some people by surprise in Washington.
Speaker 1: Well, I can tell you in the in the first term, all of the potential contingencies were discussed, and anybody who's ever looked at a map knows the Strait Of Hormuz is a potential choke point. And that the likelihood of the the regime in Iran attacking The Gulf's Arabs had to be taken into account. If Trump didn't see that, I I can't explain that.
Speaker 0: So why did Trump say he was surprised?
Speaker 1: Maybe he wasn't paying attention. It wouldn't be the first time.
Speaker 0: He was reading your national security advice presumably. Pardon me? He was reading your national security advice about your version of the war in Iran.
Speaker 1: Well, he didn't follow it if he was reading it.
Speaker 0: And is it your understanding that there are now elements of dissent, JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard? There's spaces there in the cabinet who are now arguing for an early exit, an off ramp as it's called in the mainstream media?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think there are isolationists in the administration who are arguing that point. I'm gonna have to go here in a minute. We've gone a little bit longer than anticipated. Not that I didn't enjoy every minute, but I do have to go here.
Speaker 0: Ambassador John Bolton, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Always a pleasure.
Speaker 0: And now I'm joined by Zahra Khan with some of your questions. Zahra, ambassador Bolton there, who would have known he told Trump to invade Iran even before this present invasion that's affected billions around the world, all the people in India, all the people in the global South?
Speaker 2: See, that's why it's great for viewers who are watching New Order. We always get insights like that. And questions ones. Questions that we have, and something that's already come up in your conversation with James Rickards in the past. Anton Morik has asked, why is Bricks having so much trouble coming with a hard asset, resource based currency?
Speaker 0: Clearly, there's obviously gold, but that's as we've said in previous, new order editions. India would win too much, wouldn't it, out of it? Because, perhaps the Chinese, the Russians, the Brazilians, and the South Africans realize that that would mean India would win. Should they pursue the BRICS currency? Clearly, there is an urgency for it, and they should have really pushed for it in the sanctions or in the out fallout of the sanctions regime after Russia's eventual response to NATO provocation in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: And Lily Chan, continuing on the BRICS, has asked if they can't even agree during a crisis, can they really reshape the world order?
Speaker 0: That is a good question. There are lots of people that are asking that question or on the side of BRICS, and, of course, lots of those on the, asking that question on the side of those opposed to BRICS. It is in the interest of NATO powers to destroy BRICS. Trump has avowedly said it. He's always been transparent about the motives of United States empire and hegemony.
Clearly, it's not looking as good as it should look given the crisis in NATO hegemony right now. Can they do this before the war in Iran destroys global South economies and economic prospects for billions of the poor all around the world? That's the big question. It's all gonna hinge on Delhi, really.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your answers, Ashwin. Unfortunately, we're all out of time, but we'll pick this up again next week.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Sarah. And that's it for me. Ashwin Rutansi on New Order. Remember to follow us on social media. And here's a question for you.
Will the US war in Iran rank as a bigger disaster than the neocon wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Send us your answer on x at New Order underscore TV. Join us every Sunday as we continue to track shifting global power and where India sits in this new order.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨Former Pentagon Advisor Jim Rickards: Trump WANTS the Persian Gulf CLOSED. Petrodollar 2.0 Is in Action. 'This is Petrodollar 2.0. The USA🇺🇸 and Russia🇷🇺 are the only ones whose oil can get out if you block the Persian Gulf. Trump wants the Persian Gulf closed so he can increase the power of US exports. That actually reinforces the role of the dollar. GCC countries have the power of oil exports, but that has been choked off. You have to go through two toll booths. First toll booth is Iran. Second is the US Navy. The US Navy will let GCC oil out, but Iran will not, if it is heading to Western Europe or Japan. It is a two-factor test: do we let you out at all, and then do you pay the toll? Trump is in no hurry to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. It strengthens the US position and, by extension, Russia. The US has suspended certain sanctions on Russian oil exports that have been in place since 2022. The Secretary of the Treasury has issued orders to suspend those sanctions, which lets Russia back into the game as far as Europe and the West are concerned. It looks like the only people with oil these days are Russia and the United States.' — Former Pentagon Advisor and Guest Lecturer at Johns Hopkins University, James Rickards, on the latest episode of New Order Watch the full interview in the quoted post below 👇
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss with ex-Pentagon advisor Jim Rickards the imminent global economic crisis and mass starvation, whether the Iran conflict ends dollar hegemony or the petrodollar, the consequences of Hormuz closure, and how a multipolar world forms as energy shocks mount.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨NEW EPISODE OF NEW ORDER🌐 Ex-Pentagon Advisor James Rickards Warns of IMMINENT Global Economic Crisis, Mass Starvation Will the war on Iran mark the end of dollar hegemony or the end of the petrodollar? What are the devastating consequences if the Strait of Hormuz remains shut? How is the multipolar world shaping as the energy shock worsens? We discuss all this and more with Ex-Pentagon Advisor Jim Rickards.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutansi hosts New Order, examining how India and the global South are calculating in a world of competing financial and geopolitical systems. He notes Ramanujan’s death in 1920 in Tamil Nadu and asks if there is a shift toward a multipolar order or a recalibration of power. Tehran remains the epicenter of geopolitical upheaval, with Trump-Netanyahu wars on Iran and Lebanon affecting civilians. India’s strategic moves unfold on multiple fronts: Defense Minister Rajnath Singh travels to Germany for defense cooperation with the Indian Navy, including potential submarine deals valued around $12 billion; India and China engage at Delhi-Shanghai Cooperation Organization meetings; with Russia, India negotiates S-400 missile deliveries and Pantsir anti-drone systems, plus a Moscow-Delhi Arctic access deal.
The program highlights energy costs and humanitarian costs of conflict, noting the UN estimate that Iran-related funding could have saved 87,000,000 lives if redirected to aid rather than conflict, while in India alone 354,000,000 may be pushed into poverty. Zara Klahn will later field audience questions.
Jim Rickards, best-selling author and former financial war games adviser to the Pentagon, joins from New Hampshire. He asserts a grave danger: the Strait of Hormuz is closed, which matters because 20% of the world’s oil and a high share of LNG transit there. He explains that while some vessels pass Iran’s choke point, the US Navy often stops them, either by seizure or missiles, making bypassing the blockade unlikely in the near term. He describes a “floating pipeline” during the crisis: ships traveled from the Persian Gulf to destinations such as South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and India; as refineries begin to feel the impact three weeks to two months in, the world will face energy shortages and fertilizer disruptions due to nitrate imports, threatening planting seasons and potential mass hunger. He notes that the blockage’s continuation will worsen the situation, since turning refinery operations back on is a slow process.
Regarding Indian and Chinese responses, Rickards states they’re not yet pivoting aggressively due to limited power to alter the bottlenecks. He says China is in a vulnerable position; the US has built a military alliance with Indonesia controlling the Strait of Malacca, and Washington intends to interdict Iranian vessels regardless of Iran’s actions. He characterizes a US-Russia duopoly that diverts oil away from the Persian Gulf, while Russia benefits from sanctions evasion and managed reserves. He disputes the idea that the petrodollar is collapsing, calling it “petrodollar 2.0” and arguing that the dollar remains strong as a reserve currency, though China and others may seek dollars through Treasury securities rather than dump them.
Rickards explains China’s sale of treasuries does not signal de-dollarization but a need for cash to support its currency and banks, given dollar dependencies. He emphasizes that BRICS has a currency in gold and has developed the New Development Bank and a contingent reserve fund, but the crucial factor for a global reserve currency is a robust bond market and settlement infrastructure, which he argues China does not yet have. He discusses India’s position, noting India’s balance with Russia and the US, and its continued dollar-based oil purchases, while noting yuan’s limited liquidity and India’s access to dollars.
The program moves to an audience Q&A with Zara Khan. Questions touch on whether Trump seeks to break BRICS, the impact of BRICS success on ordinary people, whether BRICS currency could be gold-backed, and why non-aligned regions are quiet. Khan notes that a BRICS currency would likely involve gold and infrastructure rather than a simple currency switch. She emphasizes gold as a potential anchor and cautions that BRICS’ progress is gradual, with gold holdings being a notable strength for India and Russia. The host invites further questions and signs off, asking listeners if the U.S. war on Iran could mark the beginning of the end of the petrodollar.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutansi, and this is New Order broadcasting globally, including to nearly one and a half billion on RT India. That's India where today in 1920, one of the greatest mathematicians in history, Ramanujan, died at the age of 32 in Tamil Nadu. On this program, we examine how India and the wider global South are calculating on a world of competing financial and geopolitical systems. Are we witnessing a genuine shift toward a multipolar order or a recalibration of existing power? Tehran continues to be the epicenter for the current geopolitical earthquake, the Trump Netanyahu wars on Iran and Lebanon that have killed, wounded, or displaced millions of civilians.
At the same time, India's strategic positioning is unfolding across multiple fronts. Defense minister Singh arrived in the economic basket case Germany for a three day visit. The aim was to deepen war cooperation with the Indian Navy potentially spending $12,000,000,000 for submarines that critics question in the age of underwater drone warfare. This is mutual cooperation agreements were compounded between India and China at Delhi Shanghai Cooperation Organization meetings. With Russia, India continued to negotiate s 400 missile deliveries and new Pantsir anti drone defense systems.
And all that comes after ratification of a military deal between Moscow and Delhi for Arctic access. But as well as the millions killed, wounded, or displaced by Trump's war, billions have been pushed into hardship by higher energy prices. The UN claimed that reported war on Iran funding could have saved 87,000,000 lives if allocated to helping people instead of killing them. It added that in India alone, 354,000,000 may be pushed into poverty that Trump and Netanyahu stopped bombing instead of the 351,000,000 today. Later in the program, New Order's Zara Klahn will bring us your questions, and we'll answer as many as we can.
Right now, I'm joined by best selling author and former financial war games adviser to the Pentagon, Jim Rickards. He's the author of Currency Wars, The Death of Money, The Road to Ruin, The New Great Depression, Sold Out, and MoneyGBT, and he's in New Hampshire. Jim, welcome, to New Order. So clear that Iran aren't, going anywhere. They defeated US backed Iraq, Saddam Hussein.
The Soleimani defeated US backed ISIS and Al Qaeda. Are there grave dangers, though, that the global South now face regardless of how the Trump war ends?
Speaker 1: Well, are a number of dangers, Ostrand. I agree with you and your audience. The the biggest danger is is is front and center. It's happening now is the the the Strait Of Hormuz is closed. Now, you know, when you do intelligence analysis, always say
Speaker 0: But it's open it's open to some vessels that pay the toll.
Speaker 1: Well, that that that's not clear. Well, the Iranians have let certain vessels go through. You signal the Iranians, you tell them who you are, they put you on a list, they approve you, you pay a toll, and you're allowed through. But no sooner do you get through than a day or two later, you're turned around or seized by the US Navy, either marine for US marine seizures or in some cases, they're actually targeting the vessels and hitting them with missiles. So you're right.
A very small number of vessels have have got through the Iranian choke hold, but then they encountered the US Navy. And and maybe one or two got through. That's that's certainly possible. But you
Speaker 0: you I think there are official figures that it's scores of ships are getting through. I mean, they were Iran have announced with great fanfare the amount of money coming through to them, and some people have been talking about how you can hug the coast from the Strait Of Uruz around Pakistan to Mumbai from coast.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Smuggling smuggling is is as old as civilization. I don't doubt that a couple get through, but you're talking about a a conduit that usually does a 120 vessels per day. So if you say 10 got through, that's fine. That that's that's possible, but the US Navy is waiting for you when you get into the Arabian Sea.
But my my point is is this is not I don't see anything changing this in the short run. So everything else is noise. So J. D. Vance, going to Islamabad, that's noise.
Iranians boycotting the peace talks, that's noise. The ceasefire is noise. Iranian threats of retaliation if The US resumes bombing, it's all noise. I'm not saying it's not important if you happen to be on the wrong end of the bomb, but it's all noise. The the the signal because you're separating noise and signal.
The signal that counts is the Strait Of Hermosa is closed. It's been closed for fifty six days. I don't see what's gonna open it for the foreseeable future. At some point, sure things will change, but not for the foreseeable future. It's 20% of the world's oil energy, a high percentage of the world's or 20% of the world's liquid natural gas.
It's not it's not going anywhere. You only certain vessels can get past the Iranians, and those that do cannot get past the US Navy. Again, maybe a few exceptions. But basically and you say, why hasn't kind of the world come to an end? Why haven't industrial economy shut down already if this has been going on for going on eight, nine weeks, which it is, which it has.
The answer is there were a lot of vessels outside the Persian Gulf when the war started on February 28. So it's I call it a floating pipeline. There were oil tankers headed for South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and others, and India. And and they've been unloading. Well, the last ones have now unloaded.
It takes two to three weeks to get from the Persian Gulf to South Korea. So for a while, you had new arrivals, and they were filling up storage tanks, etcetera. But that has now dried up. That floating pipeline has gone to zero. There's nothing more on the way.
And now it's really just now, nine weeks into this, where we're gonna start to see refineries shut down, industrial plants shut down. New Zealand has no natural resources, at least no oil or natural gas. They're 100% dependent on imports, and the pipeline is dried up. So we're gonna start to see the impact beginning about now.
Speaker 0: That's throughout the world, let alone just the global South.
Speaker 1: Well, that's correct. As for the global South, they have that problem, which we just described, which is energy inputs. But also they're they're very dependent on when nitrates come from the Persian Gulf and they're used for for fertilizer, basically. This is a planting season in a lot of the world. And if you can't get those nitrates and you can't fertilize the fields, you can't plant your crops, you're looking at potential mass starvation on top of the industrial impact in terms of shutting down refineries and and and industrial plants.
And by the way, when I say shut down, this is not like throwing a switch where you can turn it back on again. If you shut down a refinery because you don't have inputs, you don't have the oil to to create the refined product, it takes weeks or months to gear it back up again. As I say, you can't just throw a switch. You've got temperatures and pressures and a lot of fine tuning that has to go on. So even if the Persian Gulf opened tomorrow, which it will not, but if it did, it could take weeks or months to get, as I say, refineries going again.
But if this blockage continues, which I expect it will, then that situation will get much worse.
Speaker 0: The reason I was offering some skepticism as regards the number of ships that can get through and bypass the US Navy. The US Navy, after all, officially lost its boss last week when Trump fired him. Is perhaps because you'd expect then, given what you've just said, that India and China, for instance, so reliant on supplies, would have been much more assertive on the world stage if the situation was as desperate as you made out. That's why I was I was showing some skepticism there because if it was that desperate, they'd be saying a lot more than they are. Are they not getting the secret stuff out bypassing the US Navy blockade?
Speaker 1: No. They're get they're getting some from Russia. Those that has been in the works actually since since 2022, the beginning of the war in Ukraine when The US or the West, NATO, and The US put sanctions on Russian exports. Russia just pivoted and said, okay. If we can't sell it to Germany, we'll sell it to China.
And so that relationship has expanded, but it's not big enough yet to replace what we're talking about, which is basically the the oil tankers and the the seaborne cargos. China is in a very vulnerable position. Again, part of the reason you haven't heard more, and it's a good question, is what we just talked about, which is there has been there have been deliveries since the February, but those deliveries right now are just starting to dry up. Again, one tanker is not gonna power China for more than more than a day or a few hours at the most. They do have a pretty robust coal coal generated power system, and they have a lot of coal.
That's one thing they do have, and they're they're relying on that to some extent. But the problem is China is even more vulnerable than the Persian Gulf because The United States just struck a very high level military alliance with Indonesia, which controls the Strait Of Malacca. And there's more seaborne cargo going to China that goes through the Strait Of Malacca than comes out of the Persian Gulf. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Your understanding, that's just a rumor that has spread like wildfire when supposedly president Supianto of Indonesia was gonna charge a toll on the Strait Of Malacca.
Speaker 1: Well, he's he's not he's not charging a toll, and I I don't I I I actually hadn't heard that. Add it to my rumor list. No. He's not charging a toll. I'm saying he struck an alliance with The US, and they can sit tight.
But at this point and then what you have to ask yourself is does Trump may want the Straits Of Hormuz closed. He may want that. In other words and actually, United States has said that. Even if Iran woke up tomorrow and said, hey. It's all good.
You know, free free commerce. Anyone can go through. The US Navy is still sitting there, they've said, we're gonna interdict Iranian vessels, vessels leaving Iranian ports, ghost vessels, so called shadow fleet, etcetera. If we think it's coming from Iran, we're gonna interdict it whether the Iranians ease ease up or not. But the reason for that is what's going on.
If you look at the bigger picture, Ashwin, I think this is the key. So The United States has taken over Venezuela and oil. By extension, we've got Guyana and oil. We're opening up Alaska. We're giving drilling oil natural gas drilling permits as fast as we can.
We have the Gulf Of America. The US has taken control of the Panama Canal from China. The Straits Of Famuzia are closed. This is what JD Rockefeller did. JD Rockefeller was not a great oil explorer.
What he did, he controlled transportation and he put his competitors out of business. So what's happening is that The US and Russia are creating a global duopoly and cutting off the Persian Gulf supply. So if you don't have oil from the Persian Gulf, you can pretty much only get it from The US and Russia.
Speaker 0: Although, of course, technically, Russia is has been supplying military equipment to Iran to Sure. Force Yeah. Its ability to to bypass the blockade. So you don't think that one byproduct is really the end of the petrodollar. It's working against them despite their supposed strategy of trying to control the strait.
Actually, it's the end of the petrodollar because it's being bypassed as we speak.
Speaker 1: There is small amounts. It's really loose change. I mean, the the petrodollar is actually getting stronger. I call it petrodollar two point o. By the way, I was in the in the White House with the working with Henry Kissinger's deputy when we set up petrodollar one point o in 1974.
Was working on plans to invade Saudi Arabia, which was the that was the stick. We had a carrot and stick. So secretary William Simon and Jerry Parsky had the carrot, which is, hey. Arribes, you charge sell oil in dollars. And since everyone needs oil, that means everyone needs dollars, and that establish the dollars, the global reserve currency after the end of the gold standard.
This is petrodollar 2, which is the only people who have oil are The United States and Russia that can get out if if you block the Persian Gulf. But this is my point. Trump wants the Persian Gulf closed so he can increase the power of US exports, and that actually reinforces the role of
Speaker 0: the dollar. So from what you're saying there, I I don't know what those people around the table would say today. Some of them some of them obviously no longer with us when you were at that meeting for the petrodollar. How important is it then for Iran to react and Saudi Arabia, GCC countries, against this Trump policy? I'm not sure whether you believe it's a conscious policy or it's a byproduct a byproduct of Israeli policy.
How important is it now for GCC countries and China and India and the new order to react very assertively?
Speaker 1: Well, it's very important. China is well, would say South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and China are in the most vulnerable position. So it's one thing to say how would they react is a very good question, but how do you react when you don't have the power? Now the GCC does have the power of oil exports, but that's been choked off by first yeah. You have to go through two tollbooths.
First tollbooth is Iran, second tollbooth is the US Navy. The US Navy will let the GCC oil out, but Iran will not because it's heading to Western Europe,
Speaker 0: which I'm letting can tolls presumably.
Speaker 1: Well, no. There there's there's it's a two factor test. One is do we let you out at all? And then secondly, then pay the toll. You have to you're right.
You have to do both things. But if it if that oil is going to, you know, to Germany or or Rotterdam or Australia for that matter, will the Iranians let that cargo out toll or no toll because they support the West? They support The United States? So that that's the problem. And then, again, beyond that, The US yeah.
If a if a UAE if a Abu Dhabi oil tanker got through the Strait Of Hormuz, the US Navy is going to let that go. Unless perhaps if it's heading to China, we'll have to see. But, again, this is this appears to be intentional on the part of The United States that Trump is in no hurry to reopen the Strait Of Hormuz because it strengthens The US position and by extension Russia. Russia is a big winner out of all this because they're they can and The US has suspended certain sanctions on Russian oil exports. Those sanctions have been in place since 2022.
Now you're right. The Russians got around them pretty easily, but they're still in place. They still have some impact. They increased the expenses. The secretary of the treasury has issued orders to suspend the sanctions, which lets Russia back into the game, least as far as Europe and and and and and the West is concerned.
So it it looks like the only people with oil these days are Russia and The United States.
Speaker 0: Jim, we'll continue after the break. Keep watching New Order. You're watching New Order. Jim Rickards, you were talking about, how it could be, intentional to close the Strait Of Homewoods on Washington's part. I don't know whether you, picked up on the fact that India previously pushed, back against paying for Russian oil in Yuan.
It it said, no way are we paying in Yuan for it. This again arcs a little back to my skepticism about how much oil is actually getting through. And then the other day, Sujata Sharma at the India's energy ministry said to NDTV, meeting our domestic need is the important thing for us. State energy companies are operating within the rules. India was fine importing Russian oil despite Washington and NATO nations telling them they could there seems to be a reticence about the fact that they may be paying for oil in Yuan that as we were talking about in part one, it's difficult to ascertain how much is coming through.
Speaker 1: Well, that's right. But you can always just pay in dollars. Russians will take them, they have their channels, and the Indians have access to dollars without too much difficulty. India is really the Indian political class are really masters at diplomacy. I wish we had more diplomats in The US.
We seem to have a lot of warmongers. But India has for for seventy five years has done a very good job of balancing Russia and The United States. They've never been enemies with either. They've been closer to Russia for a long period of time, warmed up to The United States in in recent years. Now there's a bit of a terror fight going on.
But Russia had or sorry. India has done a very good job of of maintaining relations with both superpowers, so now it's a credit to them. But, yeah, they they bought Russian weapon systems, and it looks it sounds like they're in the market for anti aircraft systems, but they'll also be able to pay for oil and dollars. The the thing about paying in yuan, where where is India going to get the yuan? They they can buy it on the markets, guess, but it's not that liquid, and they don't export that much to China.
Oh, sorry. Yeah. Exactly. So where they would get paid in yuan, they don't want to anywhere. They want they want to it's still in a it's still a dollar based world, Ashok.
I mean, yuan is a as Chinese yuan as a percentage of global transactions is about 3%. You know, the US dollars in terms of reserve currency's nomination, US dollar is about 60. The euro is about 26, 27%. So the the dollar and the euro together 87%. Everyone else Yeah.
In the place.
Speaker 0: I mean, the the show is called New Order, and you know, there's that infamous graph of removal of US treasury bills from China's sovereign wealth funds as it were. They they don't have they've been reducing their amount of US treasury bills. And I suppose we're all seeing this war in terms of how does it proceed. Are we getting Right. Like intimations of the future from the Strait Of Hormuz toll as it were, whether it be crypto, whether it be the dollar, whether it be the yuan?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You're getting into intimations, but the question is what does it mean? So you're right. The Chinese holdings of US treasury securities, that information is publicly available. We all have access to it.
The United States treasury produces a monthly report in spreadsheet form, and you can look at country and security and so forth and see what's going down. It has been going down a little, not massively, but, yes, they have been selling treasuries. But the narrative around that is this is de dollarization. This is the debasement trade. Get out of treasuries.
Get out of the dollars, the end of the dollar, etcetera. That narrative is nonsense. They are selling them, but here's why. They're desperate for dollars. People talk about the dollar as a reserve currency.
There are no reserve currencies. There are reserve assets denominated in a currency. The reserve assets are US treasury securities. And, yes, they're denominated in dollars, but they're not dollars. If you want dollars, you have to sell the treasuries and get the dollars, get the cash.
And then they're using the cash to prop up their own currency and to prop up their banks, which have dollar loans, which are going into default. So when you see China selling treasuries, it doesn't mean they're dumping them. They wish they had more. What it means is that they're short of cash. There's a global dollar shortage China going
Speaker 0: doesn't say once more in fairness. And we don't know what the dollars are being spent on, presumably on their own infrastructure spending or No. Around the world.
Speaker 1: Well, no. Not really. They don't they don't need they don't need dollars for their for internal infrastructure. They just pay everyone that you you want. No.
They they're using the dollars to prop up their own currency on foreign exchange markets because they don't want it to go down too much and also to to bail out their banks. So they do want they do want dollars, but this is not dumping treasuries. This is converting assets as securities into cash because they're desperate for the cash.
Speaker 0: Okay. So all of this So perspective By the way, so is the rest of it. All this perspective you're offering doesn't look very hopeful regarding any talk of a BRICS currency at the Delhi BRICS summit later this year.
Speaker 1: There is a BRICS currency. The BRICS have the BRICS have a currency. It's called gold. In other words, the the idea of the BRICS launching a separate currency, you know, I mean, they had they had the institutions. They have they basically replicated the Bretton Woods institutions on their own terms, most of them based in Shanghai.
So they have the new development bank, is the equivalent of the World Bank. They have a contingent reserve fund, which is the equivalent of the IMF. They build up their own payment channels secure, which It's all a bit slow,
Speaker 0: is it? Do you think it's a bit slow, Jim?
Speaker 1: I think they've come a long way in just five years. I mean, these things let's just say let's just say that you wanted the yuan to be the global reserve currency. If you want that well, it has nothing to do with the currency. It has everything to do with the bond market. Show me the Chinese bond market.
It scarcely exists. And even if you have it, do you have do you have repurchase agreements? Do you have futures? Do you have forwards? Do have one issue trading?
Do you have primary dealers? Do you have settlement and clearance? Do you have a rule of law? The answer to all those questions is no. So the key to being so called reserve currency is not printing money.
It's having securities that people want to invest in. The Chinese don't have that. They're not even close. Could they do it in ten years? I doubt it.
Fifteen years, maybe.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, in fairness, India, for instance, the big member in BRICS, which is holding the the presidency of BRICS doesn't want Chinese yuan as the new BRICS currency, clearly. Probably wants a new one, which is is which is gold. But then perhaps other members of BRICS wouldn't want that given that India supposedly has the highest reserves of gold in the world according to private holdings.
Speaker 1: Well, if you include private holdings, they have the most gold. I think that's correct. But officially, it's it's it's a large amount, but it's relatively modest compared to The United States, Russia, and China. The big winner in gold is is Russia. That's one of the ways they got through the whole Ukraine war sanctions.
Avira Nabilina, who's the head of the Central Bank of Russia, who we say she's the only central bank in the world who actually understands her job, she put 25% of Russia's reserves in physical gold bullion as safe storage in Russia so it couldn't be basically seized by The United States. So that number at the beginning of the war in Ukraine in 2022, Russia had about $600,000,000,000 in reserves. 150,000,000,000 of that was in physical gold bullion, and that has helped Russia weather the storm. Now US and EU and NATO seized about $200,000,000,000 of Russian treasury securities Russian reserve assets and foreign treasury securities on in custody in Sudell in Brussels. I think that was completely illegal, but they did it.
It was frozen. And that hurt Russia to some extent, but ironically, this caused a run to to the gold market. This is where the beginning of gold, practically tripling from about $2,000 an ounce, up to 5,500 at the top Yeah.
Speaker 0: Around We're running out of time our last, Jim. Just on the buying buying me on that point, surely inflation rises because of the war in Iran, though, mean that it's I mean, it'll be good if you're having a wedding in India because gold prices will go down. Will gold prices go down now as interest rates go up in in response to the higher inflation caused by the war in Iran?
Speaker 1: The answer is no because for a couple of reasons. Gold got smashed. It was 5,400, went down to about 4,600. It's made its way back to about 4,800, but it's on its way back up again. That was because it was the same thing with China and the treasury securities.
People were selling gold to get cash because they were desperate for cash to meet margin calls because they were losing money in other markets. That's over. Gold is on its way back up again. As far as inflation is concerned, we're gonna have inflation. There's no question about it.
But it's not demand driven inflation. It's coming from the supply side.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But the central banks don't listen to that argument, do they? They just raise the interest rates.
Speaker 1: Well, they'll probably just hold them hold them steady. They won't cut them. You're right about that. But the the central banks are kind of impotent. They only affect the very short end of the market.
Yeah. So one a one month bill, a three month bill, maybe it would be a little higher than it would be otherwise. The five year note, ten year note, thirty year bond, German bonds, Japanese government bonds, those are affected by the market, not by the central banks. And interest rates are gonna come down a lot because this this inflation driven by the supply disruption is gonna cause a global recession. You're gonna start you're gonna watch unemployment's gonna spike, factories are gonna be shut down, output's gonna be shut down, transportation's gonna be affected negatively.
That's what's going to happen if we can't reopen straight up from losing. I don't see that don't see the straight opening anytime soon.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jim Rickards. We'll be sure to have you on as the war progresses.
Speaker 1: Thanks.
Speaker 0: Now I'm joined by Zara Khan to answer some of your questions. Amazing to hear from Jim Rickards, the man who was in the room when petrodollar one point zero was invented, although, he didn't believe that there's much oil being smuggled through.
Speaker 2: And so many of those questions have already been answered for our audience, but they have some more for you, which you've not even heard before. No.
Speaker 0: I haven't heard them.
Speaker 2: The first one is from June RTCB who's asking, is Trump trying to break up bricks? The war seems to indicate that.
Speaker 0: Clearly, Donald Trump wants to break up bricks. He said so on Truth Social before, then he had tariffs on bricks countries, then he didn't. But the fact is Trump is visiting Xi Jinping. So how can he break up BRICS and still smile along with the head of the Chinese Communist Party? This isn't just a war in Iran.
This is a war on BRICS.
Speaker 2: And has asked, let's say BRICS succeeds in building alternative systems. Will it affect how ordinary people save, spend, or invest their money?
Speaker 0: That's a good question. I mean, Jim Riccards was talking about the fact that everything goes down to gold, which, of course, is great for India because as he said, no central bank has the reserves of gold that Indian families do private in their home. Surely, they'll still be buying gold rather than any particular BRICS currency. But then again, the BRICS currency could somehow be tied to gold in a way that, native nation currencies, aren't. They're just political instruments, which are wielded, through sanctions and through other methods.
Speaker 2: So, basically, you're saying we should invest in more gold?
Speaker 0: I'm not gonna give investment advice. It's dangerous, isn't it, that? Gold went down a little anyway during the latter stages of the war, the medium stages of war. We don't know where the Iran war's at now.
Speaker 2: And finally, somebody who's asked questions before as well, Christopher Dobby. Why is the world, those not subject to American domination, so quiet about the state of things?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Which parts of the world aren't subjected to American domination? That's what I want to ask mister Dobby. I suppose there are some places in the middle of the rainforest. Oh, no.
There are huge fact American conglomerates that own parts of that which is chopping down the rainforest. There is nowhere on earth that hasn't been touched by American capitalism, and this war and the way The United States have waged it has created a situation where there is no living thing on earth that is not affected by Trump and Netanyahu to their detriment, but hopefully in the future to some sort of positive outcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your answers, Avshin. I mean, these questions just keep coming in every week, so we'll continue this next time.
Speaker 0: Sarchan, thank you. And that's it from me, Afshan Radansi, on New Order. Remember to follow us on social media. And here's a question for you. Will the US war on Iran be the beginning of the end of the petrodollar?
Send us your answer on x at New Order underscore TV. Join us every Sunday as we continue to track shifting global power and where India sits in this new order.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss with Col. Lawrence Wilkerson how Iran’s outcome signals the US cannot stop the rise of BRICS and the Global South, how China is positioning to capitalize on Washington’s Iran policy, what BRICS and the Global South should do as the US leans into war to preserve its hegemony, and why Moscow, Beijing, and Washington must cooperate despite their differences.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨NEW EPISODE OF NEW ORDER🌐 Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Iran WON, US CANNOT STOP the Rise of BRICS & the Global South How is China🇨🇳 positioning itself to capitalise on the US' disastrous mistake in Iran? What should BRICS nations and the Global South do as the US increasingly resorts to war and destruction to maintain its hegemony? Why must Moscow, Beijing, and Washington urgently work together despite their differences? All this and more on this episode of New Order with Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff at the State Department under Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshun Ratanjee hosts New Order, examining how the global South is navigating a more fragmented world shaped by West Asia tensions, disrupted trade corridors, volatile energy markets, and a realignment of power. She notes the Trump-Netanyahu war in West Asia has killed, wounded, or displaced millions and is reshaping the global economy in real time. China, as the largest buyer of Iranian oil, warns against U.S. escalation, while Russia’s Lavrov is shown as helping China with energy shortfalls. Modi and Trump spoke for forty minutes in what is described as reflecting India’s delicate diplomatic balancing act as India prepares to host a BRICS foreign ministers meeting in New Delhi, with Lavrov and Wang Yi expected to attend. The BRICS gathering will test India’s 2026 presidency amid the West Asian war. April 19 marks fourteen years since India tested the Agni five missile, underscoring a world of renewed great power tension, deterrence, alignment, and active strategic choices.
The program then turns to an interview with Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff at the U.S. State Department, live from Virginia. The discussion centers on a BRICS dimension to the conflict and a provocative claim that Trump may be a tactical mastermind. Wilkerson cautions that he does not think Trump “even hints at this” and suggests the actions are orchestrated by others behind the scenes, potentially inside the Pentagon, who aim to exploit crises (including Ukraine, Arctic tensions, and the Baltic) to confront China and use a southern rail corridor as an opportunity. The bombing of the China–Iran railway is discussed as an action with potentially strategic aims, though Wilkerson emphasizes China’s inertia and preference not to disrupt a successful overland route that could shift Asia–Europe trade onto land routes, reducing reliance on maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz.
Wilkerson explains China’s strategy of building overland railways to divert commerce from sea routes, arguing this would reduce costs and increase security, and notes China’s rail networks and pipelines tie into a broader aim to move significant commerce into Europe via faster land routes. He mentions Saudi Arabia reconfiguring its pipeline plans to move north through Turkey and Syria, altering traditional transshipment dynamics and potentially diminishing Hormuz’s importance. He argues Russia will supply energy if needed, and asserts a long-term Caspian Sea supply base, with LNG and petroleum waiting to be tapped, potentially outside U.S. reach. Iran, he contends, is well-placed to resist pressure and may avoid major strategic losses, while Israel’s position in Lebanon appears precarious as Hezbollah gains influence.
Regarding U.S. policy, Wilkerson argues that Trump’s behavior is driven by political savvy and a desire to claim victory, while Netanyahu pursues Lebanon policies that may backfire. He advises global South foreign ministers to maintain their course and not disrupt their advantages, highlighting BRICS as a growing, profitable alternative hub for renewables and advanced technologies, including EVs and batteries. He cites Xi Jinping’s push to replace the dollar with the renminbi in world trade, the removal of SWIFT sanctions, and China’s aim to shift financial power away from the United States, which he says has imposed sanctions responsible for millions of deaths, per a controversial statistic.
Back from the break, the program returns to questions from viewers, including how BRICS should respond to Trump’s blockade claims and whether America is becoming a theocracy. The hosts emphasize that global South populations oppose the Trump–Netanyahu war and highlight the potential BRICS expansion as a counterweight to U.S. hegemony, with attention to the broader two existential global challenges: nuclear weapons without treaties and the climate crisis. The show closes with a prompt for audience participation on whether Iran should pursue a nuclear deterrent similar to North Korea and a teaser for next week’s episode.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshun Ratanjee, and this is New Order. We're broadcasting globally, including to nearly 1 and a half billion on RT India. On this program, we examine how the global South are navigating an increasingly fragmented global landscape shaped by escalating tensions in West Asia, ongoing disruption to trade corridors, volatile energy markets, and the wider realignment of geopolitical power. The Trump Netanyahu war in West Asia has killed, wounded, or displaced millions of civilians, harming and restructuring the global economy in real time. Major global South economies are already absorbing the impact.
China, the largest buyer of Iranian oil, has warned against US escalation, while Russia's foreign minister Lavrov has proved Moscow can help China make up for the energy shortfall crisis. Amidst this, Indian prime minister Modi and US president Trump held a forty minute call, their second since the war in Iran and Lebanon began. The conversation reflects the increasingly complex diplomatic balancing act India is managing next month. India is set to host a foreign minister level BRICS meeting in New Delhi where both Russia's Lavrov and China's Wang Yi are expected to attend. The gathering will be the first major multilateral test of India's twenty twenty six BRICS presidency since the West Asian war began.
April 19 also marked fourteen years since India first successfully tested the Agni five, a nuclear ballistic missile with a range exceeding 5,000 kilometers. The broader context is clear. In a world of renewed great power tension, deterrence and alignment, and strategic autonomy. They're all no longer theoretical. They're active choices.
Later in the show, new order Zarakhan will bring me your questions, and we'll answer as many as we can. But first, joining me from Virginia in The USA is the US state department's former chief of staff, colonel Larry Wilkerson. Colonel, thanks so much for coming on, New Order. Let's begin with a bricks, dimension to the conflict as it were and, pose the idea that Trump is not an idiot. All these people have got it wrong.
I personally have interviewed for various shows, former EU policy advisers, the former president of Israel, advisers to the UN secretary general. They're all saying, you know, Trump is a crazy person and so on. But, in fact, he may be a tactical mastermind because the bombing of the China Iran railway may signal a strategy behind what looks like madness to the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: First, let me say categorically that I don't think Trump even hints at this and I don't think he knows about it. I think it's being orchestrated by people behind the scene and I would put my finger without much evidence, but an inclination and intuition directly on the deputy at the Pentagon right now. But other people in the Pentagon who understand what I'm talking about and who have been planning for this for some time In various and sundry ways, they have been planning for exploiting things like Ukraine, things like the crisis that's building in the Arctic right now, and maybe one in the Baltic as well in order to confront China. And this one gave them on a golden platter an opportunity to go after that base road southern most railroad.
Speaker 0: Does it surprise you China's apparent inertia with respect to let alone what's happening in the Strait Of Hormuz with respect to the plan to disrupt the Belt and Road Initiative's artery of the China Iran railway? There's no tactical reason or strategic reason of for bombing it, I understand, as far as as you understand it.
Speaker 1: Well, not really because China's very circumspect and they're winning and they don't wanna interrupt that victory. A war would interrupt it or hard action would interrupt it. And they know, they've studied history. You go back and look at World War II, when we dropped more ordinance on German and other rail that was serving the Wehrmacht and the Germans in general, then you can shake a stick at. They rebuilt it the next day.
So it's not it's a financial hit, if you will, because you gotta pay for the ties and the rails and everything else. But with China, financial is not that serious. So they're not gonna take umbrage at this. They will just mark it down in their book of US eras, and when it gets too high for them to tolerate, then they'll take action. But I doubt even then they'll take military action.
Speaker 0: I mean, just explain the significance. Sorry. Explain the significance to our audience.
Speaker 1: Well, what China has done essentially is build railroads that will take about 60 to 70%, probably even more once they get going, of all the commerce that it generates and Asia with it off the sea and put it on land. And they did this on purpose. They studied empires of the past, several did this. One did it in a really dramatic way and put a couple of other empires that were basically Portuguese, for example, that were basically maritime empires out of business overnight virtually. Because you drop the cost of commerce so dramatically that people come to your overland routes rather than go by sea.
You're also more secure. So they've got four or five railroads right now debauching in the heart of Europe. Two of them are stopped mostly by the Iran's special military operation. But their intent is to go on to Bremerhaven and Lhabar and other European Atlantic ports. And, of course, to put all the commerce that China produces into the heart of Europe in sixteen hours instead of two and a half days and more costs by sea.
So just the Bab El Mandeb goodbye, you know. You sure won't need to go through the Strait Of Hormuz or the will still coming out for war and such. But maybe not even for that because look what Saudi Arabia is planning right now. They've just shifted all their plans. The sovereign wealth fund is now going behind a northern pipeline headed for Turkey and Cheon probably.
But it was going through Israel. It was going through Haifa, where they would get transshipment fees and they would get product. Not anymore. He shifted it over to going through Syria and on up. So that's changing too.
And maybe even the straight up Hormuz, that's the real reason the Saudis are doing this, will fall into less use than it is now. Probably a great deal less use given their route to the Red Sea too across near Jeddah. So all of these things are happening right now. And look at the pipelines that China's building with Russia. They don't run east west, they run north and south.
So anybody talking about China being hurt and needing petroleum is a fool because all of this is gonna come down from Russia in a pinch. It's gonna come from the Caspian Sea. Ultimately, there's a hundred years of LNG and petroleum underneath the Caspian Sea waiting to be tapped. And I can get I'll let you know who's gonna tap it probably, ultimately. It's not gonna be anybody from this end of the world.
It's gonna be out there. So they are self sufficient for a long time to come, and they're mostly pipelines and railroads. Much safer and much more controllable.
Speaker 0: And of course, Iran isn't gonna allow it to happen. I mean, the scenario you just painted there, actually all the BRICS countries benefit. I mean, Russia benefits. India wouldn't benefit if the railway bypassed from the Chabahar Port Bandar Abbas way, but it would benefit because the region becomes economically more powerful. But you have been talking to Ted Postal, who I know from when he exposed with Cy Hirsch the fake Syria chemical hoax operation, claiming that there were chemical weapons there.
Iran can stop the plans of any clever strategists at the Pentagon you suspect anyway, I understand.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's too far a stretch. I think Iran is perched right now exactly where Habaret said they were. That all they have to do to win is not lose. And all The United States and Israel have to do is achieve a spectacular victory. And they aren't gonna do that.
So Iran's already won. The question is, how much damage is Donald Trump and what's left of the American military going to do in the interim? That's my big question. And how much damage is going to be done to that military, particularly its maritime elements? They have not unleashed anything significant yet on a US warship.
They could and they might. And that's the end of that warship if they do. And I don't think well, we have shown that we realize that with regard to the biggest one, the carrier. She is and all others like her are holding off at least 1,300 kilometers. And that's not just because of range, because of course there are some missiles that can go that far.
It's because the carrier is so capable of getting up to flight speed so fast that once it has a warning of a missile launch, it can itself defend fairly successfully without subsurface, surface, or airborne assets. It'll have them, but they would ultimately fail with a hypersonic missile. But if the carrier moves at the right moment at at speed it's capable of achieving, then it's gonna be very hard to hit in that terminal phase.
Speaker 0: Yeah, but I was referring to MIT's Ted Postle of course because of the other horror.
Speaker 1: He's done work on that too. He's done work on that too. But the thing you're referring to I think is Iran's possibility of building a nuclear weapon. And Ted is very right on that I think. And I take my experience from Kang Seok Kyu and Lee Gun in North Korea in February I believe it was, when we went to present them with an economic package that was robust and that the president and even the vice president thought would be persuasive in terms of getting them to back off their nuclear program.
And I think it was Xi Gruen looked right at us and said essentially in Hong Kong, which was translated dramatically, We already have nuclear weapons. So I know how we were fooled by North Korea. I know North Korea in 2002 was working with Iran, not just on underground fortifications and how to do them, but also on nuclear weapons, how to match warhead to missile and such. So Ted Ted, I think, is right that if Iranians want a nuclear weapon, they'll make one.
Speaker 0: And they might be close to being able to make one that can fit on the Kormuzhah missile. Do you think previously, people said it's good at least from Trump, he's more open than previous presidents about policy. There's a transparency there about the aims of United States empire as it were. Do you think he has been open? Does he understand that this is about bricks and not about Israel after all?
Speaker 1: Or you It depend yeah. It depends on what you mean by open. I don't think he's open at all. I think he's crude
Speaker 0: Destroying a civilization.
Speaker 1: I I think he's foul mouthed. I don't think he meant that for
Speaker 0: a
Speaker 1: minute. I hope he didn't anyway. I mean, he's declaring a war crime out of the mouth of the president of The United States for everyone to hear. I think he's crude, rude, but very savvy politically speaking, domestically politically Yeah.
Speaker 0: But totally he is more open than this president you served when you were at the State Department. George W Bush went through acrobatics along with your boss Colin Powell.
Speaker 1: Well, went through acrobatics because he was led through those acrobatics by his intelligence community. Certain ones of them, not all of them, particularly George Tenet and John McLaughlin. Trump's not being led around by anybody. Pulsi Gabbard is ruining her future right now, opening a new investigation into the attempt to impeach Donald Trump. She's beyond me.
Can't figure out what she's about anymore. But she's ruined her future completely. And back to Trump, I think Trump is operating now on a principle of I've got to, despite Bibi Netanyahu's protest to the contrary, find a way to end this and declare victory. And he's desperate to a certain extent to do that. And is desperate to keep him from doing it.
And Netanyahu is operating on a different sheet of music with regard to Lebanon too. And Trump has got no persuasive power there. And Bibi is about to do himself in in Lebanon. Last place I thought he would do himself in, but he's about to do that. Hezbollah is handing the IDF its worst defeat in a long time, if not ever.
Certainly worse than the one they handed him in 2006. And he's reacting by killing more and more innocent Lebanese and tightening the grip that Hezbollah will have eventually on that government because they'll soon get fed up with it just like they always do and back away from any negotiations. So these negotiations in Lebanon are farcical too as the ones in Pakistan are. But they're all designed to cover Trump's retreat and make it not look like a retreat.
Speaker 0: Colonel will continue after the break. Keep watching the order. Welcome back. We have a lot more to cover. Colonel, we were talking about the West Asian, dimension to the current conflict.
More broadly I mean, specifically in in this part of the world though, what advice would you give if you were chief of staff to a foreign minister in a global South country as to how to deal with the Trump administration, with Trump, Vance, and Rubio?
Speaker 1: Be very simple, really. Stick to your guns, you're winning. Don't do anything to disturb the victory.
Speaker 0: Despite threats, that Trump always comes for you and the fact that he Right. He he did pull through and kidnap Maduro and he has assassinated leaders.
Speaker 1: And that of course is working out really well, isn't it? He claims he owns the oil. I don't see anybody owning the oil really other than those nasty characters who were raided around Maduro in the first place. They're still there and they're still taking money out of the system. So I think all the China and India and Russia and all the other countries that are more rapidly moving towards that complex called BRICS than I would have thought, And it's principally because of the mistakes we're making, I think, and their fear of those mistakes, as well as their comfort with China and the other members of the organization.
But what's happening in real time is that so much of the commerce of the world is being generated there. So much of the meaningful commerce of the world. When I say that, I mean things like renewables, like EVs, batteries, and so forth. All things that are gonna be essential if we make or to make it through this period of enormous climate crisis and change. All are being generated there and they're being generated there for profit, massive profit in some cases as compared with what we're doing in this country.
So Bricks just has to hold on to what he's got and watch what Xi Jinping has said in his latest edict. Following right on from Deng Xiaoping and all the series of manifestos, if you will, of Chinese communism or cap Chinese capitalism with communist characteristics. The latest one being, I am now going to after triumphing in every field of state power, the one I lack is financial. And I'm going now to substitute the renminbi for the dollar in world trade. And that's gonna make me the number one financial power in the world.
And furthermore, it's gonna get rid of SWIFT. It's gonna get rid of sanctions. It's gonna get rid of all the nasty things the empire does to other nations in the world. And that's gonna endear, at least momentarily, China to a lot of these other countries because we have so many people. We have almost 2,000,000,000 people in the world under sanctions.
If we suddenly tomorrow morning decided that we were gonna lift sanctions on those 2,000,000,000 people, it'd probably take us ten years to do it because OFAC would have so much trouble sorting through all the different intricacies and such that are involved in sanctions. And Xi Jinping is gonna get rid of it. It's gonna get rid of the power of The United States to sanction other people. We have killed by one study, and I think it's a good study, we have killed thirty eight million people in the world, men, women, and children, with the women and children being about 50% or better of it, through our sanctions. That's really made the world angry in a significant way.
And Xi Jinping's gonna do something about it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's a sanctions statistic. I know that's being quoted not on so called mainstream media at all. But what are the lobbies in Washington that would want Trump to destroy the BRICS dream then? There's nothing as strong as the Israeli lobby because corporate elites presumably would embrace that future you're talking about because given all the resources and the economic dynamism of this region, they're gonna embrace that too.
And I mean, technically, the waiver on Russian oil expired for India in the past few days.
Speaker 1: I've been watching Israel, b b Netanyahu in particular, but Israel in particular with regard to what we just discussed. Right now Israel is covering both flanks as it were. They're trying to keep warm relations with all those who might be triumphant in a distant future, maybe not so distant future, as well as keep the old guard happy or at least keep sucking money out of the old guard and keep the Epstein file enabling them to suck that money out because I believe that's the real thing they have over Donald Trump is what is in the Epstein files about him and his wife, Melania. That's the real hold that Beebe has on Donald Trump, in my view. But he's got his eye on both camps.
He's looking at Turkey. He's looking at India. He's looking at China. Go back and look at his visitation schedule before he got really admired in this conflict. And I mean, the initial October 7 initiated Gaza conflict.
He's been making friends all over this world, but particularly in Asia. He's been making contracts in Asia. And he sees what might be happening. He's not a stupid person. I'd never say was a stupid person.
Probably one of the most brilliant leaders in the world. Cruel, homicidal, genocidal, maniacal, maniacal, maniacal, extremely smart. And so he's got his eye on both camps. And I think he knows the one is receding and the other is growing. And when the time comes, he'll shift his flag, as will a lot of other people too, who are watching this from places like Davos, and Geneva, and Zurich, and other places.
Even New York and Miami, they are watching it. And when it comes time to jump ship, put their flag somewhere else, they will do so. Such as it been for five thousand freaking years.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But we already talked about Saudi Arabian pipelines via Turkey in part one. How on earth is it gonna be easy for Israel to be able to navigate this world? I mean, even India is now again talking to its historically close partner of Iran despite that meeting with Netanyahu. China of course has been condemning Israel and Russia has in recent years distanced itself.
Speaker 1: But remember I was talking about pre Gaza. I think the state of Israel is a Jewish state and Levant is done, it's gone. There's no way a Jewish state in Levant can survive now. Maybe a democracy could survive and it would have Palestinian Arabs, Christians, and others in it, as well as Jews. And eventually, as Arafat used to opine from time to time, the Palestinian Arabs are probably gonna outnumber the Jews.
But that's alright, even if they're a minority and it's a state that they can have a safe haven in. Remember, that was what they were promised, a safe haven. It isn't a safe haven anymore, anything but the exact opposite. So I think that state's gone. I wasn't saying Netanyahu was smart for the future in terms of what's happening now.
I was saying before the October 7
Speaker 0: The DRIP has shared quite widely across the global South. Just on The United States, I mean, does this leave a future US president vis a vis the new order and and BRICS? I mean, assuming what Trump will be arrested on leaving office either way. What will a future president have to do to navigate the new world order?
Speaker 1: Well, he's gonna have to he's gonna have to back up to the time when the Cold War ended and maybe do a little history search and figure out what we should have done at that time. It's quite clear because we were starting to do it. And then along came Bill Clinton and every president after that just murdered it. We need to look at the world and understand that major power is shifting and the magnet of that shift is China. That bricks is 60 to 70% of the world once it gets its act together and everybody's in there.
Look what China just did. They offered Manila oil in case they have a problem. And Manila went, wow. Okay. Let's talk.
That's one of our principal allies in the region being peeled away from us by this very crisis. So I think what's gonna have to happen is we're gonna have to accommodate this power shift, and then we're gonna have to work with Beijing, Moscow, Tokyo, all the other places that have some dog in the fight, and we're gonna have to help the global global south in this regard meet the two challenges we have that are existential for all of us. One of them being nuclear weapons without any treaties, and we're getting ready to spend trillions on new weapons. China and Russia will follow suit. And the other is the climate crisis.
If we don't get together, major powers in the world get together, put aside our differences, put aside our our competition to a certain extent, and work on these two problems, why even compete? Why even compete? We won't be here. We'll be gone because we'll either blow ourselves up in mushroom clouds all over the place or the climate will kill us.
Speaker 0: Colonel Larry Wilkerson, thank you for joining us on New Order. Thank you for having me. Now I'm joined by New Order's Zara Khan to answer some of your questions. Colonel Larry Wilkerson, always important to hear what former chief of staff at the state department says, Iran not far off from joining India and having nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: And there were some excellent points that he made, but we have so many questions to get through, none of which you've heard before.
Speaker 0: None of them. Don't give me a mathematical problem.
Speaker 2: That might be one of them. The first one is at vets for butchware who's asked, how will BRICS respond to Trump's blockade of Iranian oil?
Speaker 0: I think they're responding incredibly well to the supposed Trump blockade of the, straighter for Muirs. Why is it NATO nation, propaganda media, corporate media is lying about Trump's blockade? Ships are getting through on an hourly basis. Shiptracker.com will show you exactly how many ships are getting through, oil tankers, cargo. There are vessels going through, perhaps ones that are paying the Iranian toll.
The media in Western nations lying to their populations that somehow NATO nations have any pull in this region.
Speaker 2: And the next one is at the skin man who's asked, is America turning into a theocracy? And is that form of governance why we're constantly at war?
Speaker 0: It is a religious war, isn't it? All one has to do is listen to Pete Hegseth. While, the rest of the global South, the BRICS nations have, secular and religious, modes of understanding with their populations, multifaith, multipolar. The United States, singularly evangelical, worshiping a strange evangelical Christian viewpoint that is held by a minority of people that worships only one thing seemingly, the destruction of the Arab world and a belief that Israel must expand until all the Jews are eventually killed before select Christians ascend into heaven. That sounds like fundamentalism.
Speaker 2: A very complex thing that is at play right now. At may dream eight seven eight two three has pointed out that the propaganda machine is clearly shifting gears. And do you think that the power behind the curtain is setting up shop into an anti war crowd early with narratives and people like Joe Kent?
Speaker 0: I love the handles of some of the people asking questions to New Order for a start. But, certainly, the global population, not just the global South, clearly don't support Trump's, the Trump Netanyahu war, and there are billions suffering. Just look at what's happening in India. Look what's happening in, Indonesia. All around the global South, countries with huge populations are suffering.
And, Joe Kent, the former, head of counterterror for the Trump administration, is just one little manifestation of the fact that even in the power bases of The United States, working class, people are, realizing it's over for US hegemony, and we'll see that at the Indian BRICS Summit this year as India's presidency finally has a chance to shine and show the world a different way forward, the end of NATO empire, the end of Washington hegemony. So it's gonna be an exciting year despite all the tragedy, all the millions killed, wounded, or displaced this year because of what Donald Trump has done.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your answers, Akshin. The questions keep rolling in when we continue this next week.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Zara. And that's it from me, Akshin Rutansi, on New Order. Remember to follow us on all our social media channels, and here is a question for you. Should Iran pursue the same strategy as North Korea in developing a nuclear deterrent? Let us know your thoughts on x at new order underscore t v.
Join us every Sunday as we follow the forces reshaping the world in this new order.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨Iran’s Chabahar Port VITAL for the global south, India’s🇮🇳 PM Modi may be the ONLY ONE capable of bringing peace to the region ‘The US or Israelis have attacked not only the Bandar Abbas Port, there has been attack on the Kharg island which happens to be quite an important port for energy exports. Now Chabahar Port will definitely play an important role, but there is ambiguity towards that. India was working on developing the Chabahar Port. Given the recent political issues, there has been a slowdown on the development of Chabahar Port. So whether that will be reactivated by India, that needs to be seen. 85% of the exports from that region is catered to the Global South. So it’s not only India that will benefit, the entire Global South will benefit out of this. Iran has been under embargo and sanctions for decades now. India has taken the initiative to develop that port, and they have achieved considerable success in that, and they wanted to move forward on that. However, in the recent past we have seen that there had been a slowdown. We feel that India should relook into activating that port, and to bring sanity, as that could be part of one of the peace talks. As far as BRICS is concerned, BRICS has become a very strong body. The next BRICS meeting is in a couple of months, so they may play a very important role to bring sanity in this region. The Global South should stand up to this and find sanity. There has been talk that the Prime Minister of India is perhaps the only person who can bring peace to this region. The Israelis have said they don’t want to accept Pakistanis as a mediator. So the world may have to go back to India, to Prime Minister Modi. Whether he’ll accept or not accept, that remains to be seen. But for the sanity of the world, probably he may have to look at that positively and come forward for peace.’ -Dr. S. V. Anchan, Chairman of the Safesea Group, which owns the Safesea Vishnu which was attacked by the IRGC Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Only Putin🇷🇺, Modi🇮🇳, and Xi Jinping🇨🇳 can stop ‘PSYCHOPATH’ Trump’s and ‘DELUSIONAL’ Netanyahu’s war on Iran ‘Trump has a kind of mental instability called the dark triad personality. He is a narcissist. He is an extreme Machiavellian, which means don’t trust him for one moment. He is a psychopath, meaning, kill people. Not my business, not my concern. But people think that it is getting worse, that there’s an added frontotemporal dementia that could be part of this mix, losing control. And they give certain kinds of clinical evidence, the way he speaks, the way he makes up. I regard what Israel and the United States have done as a flagrant, reckless, utterly illegal, hugely dangerous war of aggression for no reason. It’s been called a war of choice. A better term that I heard a few days ago, a war of whim. And I think that this is correct. I would say, by the way, that Netanyahu has similar psychological qualities to Trump. And Netanyahu’s speech just before Trump’s speech is equally alarming, equally delusional. Netanyahu speaks about the 10 plagues that he has put on Iran. Now, mind you, the ten plagues were, in the Hebrew Bible, plagues that God put on. Now, Netanyahu is playing God, vis-à-vis Iran, and he lists the 10 plagues. This is a kind of madness. This is not political rhetoric. This is a kind of madness because it’s also associated with a real war of murder and destruction. And as Mr. Trump said, also a kind of madness to put Iran back into the Stone Ages. This is not normal. We have not heard this rhetoric. This has to be stopped, and it has to be stopped by grown-ups. And there are only three grown-ups in the world right now that are in a position to stop this, and they should stop it together, and that is Prime Minister Modi, President Xi Jinping, and President Vladimir Putin. They are the leaders of the other three superpowers of the world. They absolutely have a stake in the world not blowing up. It’s not a matter of not stopping Trump while he’s making a mistake, because the mistake in this case is not Trump’s mistake. It is the world’s disaster.’ -Prof. Jeffrey Sachs on the latest episode of New Order Watch the full interview in the quoted post, or watch it on Rumble, link below in the replies👇
reSee.it AI Summary
In this New Order episode, I hear Prof. Jeffrey Sachs argue only India, Russia & China can stop Trump’s war on Iran. I explore how Iran might retaliate if Trump bombs Iran back to the Stone Age, how the Global South faces the economic crisis, how India should position itself diplomatically as the crisis deepens, and why Trump misreads the economic fallout.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨NEW EPISODE OF NEW ORDER🌐 Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Only India🇮🇳, Russia🇷🇺 & China🇨🇳 Can Stop ‘PSYCHOPATH’ Trump’s War on Iran How will Iran retaliate if Trump tries to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age? How will the unprecedented economic crisis hit the Global South nations? How should India position itself diplomatically and geopolitically as the crisis deepens? Why has Trump completely misunderstood how catastrophic the economic consequences of the war will be? All this and more on this episode of New Order.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutansi hosts New Order, exploring how India and the global South navigate new alignments catalyzed by West Asia’s war. Tehran’s rejection of direct peace talks with Washington sits beside regional powers—from Beijing to Islamabad—pushing for negotiated outcomes that safeguard security. The Gulf anchors India’s energy security and now becomes the pivot of a new order as the U.S. loses control over key sea lanes, including the Strait of Hormuz. Global energy prices rise, compelling New Delhi to reassess sourcing and diplomacy as India tries to navigate between major powers to protect economic and security interests.
Jeffrey Sachs, adviser to UN secretaries-general and Padma Bhushan recipient, joins from New York City. He emphasizes that if Iran is bombed into the stone age and energy in West Asia ignites, the entire world would suffer. He describes a global energy system where disruptions affect fertilizer, food production, industrial petrochemicals, and the broader supply chain. He warns that a war of the length Trump talks about could lead to catastrophic energy supply collapse in weeks, affecting not just Hormuz, but production across Middle East fields, pipelines, ports, and refineries. He argues Trump misunderstands the link between U.S. energy resources and Hormuz, noting a broader energy vulnerability.
The discussion shifts to why India might resist intervening in a Iran-Israel crisis. Sachs critiques U.S. foreign policy as pursuing perpetual hegemony and describes Trump’s behavior as part of a broader pattern. He characterizes the American president as lacking a “foot on the brake” for war machine expansion, contrasting it with past attempts to restrain aggression. He describes Trump as displaying a “dark triad”—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—with possible frontotemporal dementia factors, and he attributes alarming rhetoric from Netanyahu to a similar mindset in Israel’s leadership. He contends this policy approach is dangerous and urges restraint.
On why Modi, Delhi, and BRICS should avoid entanglement with Israel and push for a negotiated settlement, Sachs argues India should not align with Israel, which he says has committed genocide in Gaza and launched a “war of whim” against Iran. He stresses that India, as BRICS president, should advocate a multipolar world rooted in international law and the UN Charter, collaborating with Russia, China, and other BRICS partners to counter American delusions of a unipolar order. He asserts that BRICS can serve as a stabilizing force for the world and that India can be a peacemaker given its long-standing ties with Persia. He calls for India, China, and Russia to cooperate and to recognize the 1914 Simla line as an historical footnote, not a barrier to current cooperation; BRICS, he says, can build practical institutions like the New Development Bank to support a multipolar framework.
The program shifts to audience questions with Zara Khan. She asks if BRICS could create a new clearinghouse for world commerce. Sachs remains optimistic about BRICS, noting that sanctions-heavy Russia still conducts substantial trade and that Gulf Hormuz deals illustrate transactions independent of the U.S. petrodollar and SWIFT. Another question concerns how Iran could bypass sanctions via BRICS and overcome SWIFT, with Sachs noting SWIFT’s days may be numbered and suggesting BRICS-enabled trade could proceed without Western financial systems. Shaila from Johannesburg asks why BRICS leaders still entertain a two-state solution; the host invites reconsideration of that stance in light of genocide accusations and calls for a broader, more principled approach.
The show ends with a prompt for viewers: How can Modi, Putin, or Xi pressure Trump to end the war in Iran? The program invites continued discussion on Sunday, tracking shifting global power and India’s central role in the new order.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutansi, and this is New Order. We're broadcasting globally, including to nearly 1 and a half billion on RT India. On this program, we look at how India and the wider global South are navigating new alignments catalyzed by the war in West Asia. Which partnerships are emerging, and how are these structural changes rippling around the world? Diplomatic fault lines are widening, challenging long held assumptions.
Tehran has ruled out direct peace talks with Washington even as regional powers from Beijing to Islamabad push for negotiated outcomes that safeguard their own security. The Gulf, a cornerstone of India's energy security, has become the pivot of the new order. The loss of US control over strategic sea lanes, including the Strait Of Hormuz, are in the spotlight. Global energy prices are rising, forcing New Delhi to reassess both its sourcing and its diplomatic strategy. India continues to seek careful navigation between the structures built by major powers as it tries to safeguard its economic and security interests.
And as global markets real and alliances shift, India's choices are emerging as a central pivot in a world struggling to contain another military defeat for The USA. Later in the programming order, Zara Khan will bring you questions to the table, and we'll answer as many as we can. But before that, I'm joined by an adviser. He's been an adviser to UN secretaries general, including Antonio Guterres. He's been awarded one of India's highest awards, the Padma Boshan, and has worked with more than 20 governments, including Brazil, Russia, China, Venezuela, and India.
Carnegie University's professor Jeffrey Sachs has called the Iran Israel US conflict a war of losers, and he joins me again from New York City. Professor, thanks so much for, coming on New Order. It's a fast, moving, war, obviously, dependent on the whims of, Donald Trump. But maybe if I can just start by asking you what happens to, just say, Indian fuel supplies, obviously, it affects Filipino supplies, Indonesia supplies, If Iran is bombed into the stone age and energy in West Asia is ablaze.
Speaker 1: Of course, the whole world will suffer, and I I have to break the news to Donald Trump as well. The United States will suffer as well If you disrupt, in fact, of course, crush a significant part of the world energy supply, you will get a global economic contraction and a major crisis across the world. Because as everyone's learning in a crash course on basic energy economics, it's not only oil for the gas tank, it's oil for fertilizer, for food production, for industrial petrochemicals, for an entire global supply chain that is deeply hurt by what is happening. And if Donald Trump carries out what he said he would carry out of attempting to bomb Iran to the stone age, and Iran retaliates as most military experts and most of us expect it to do, the catastrophe will be enormous in just a few weeks. What Donald Trump gets wrong, and he gets wrong almost everything, but one thing that he really gets wrong is the idea that because it's a quote short war, it's nothing important.
In his speech, he compared the length of various wars, but in just a few weeks, the world's energy supplies could be catastrophically collapsed, actually, not only the Strait Of Hormuz, which is where the attention is now, but on the physical production from the oil and gas fields across the Middle East. And these are not protected heavily by anti missile defenses. These are out in the open, the gas fields, the oil fields, the pipelines, the port facilities, the refineries, and they're already being badly hit by both sides. And if Trump carries through, it's likely that the destruction will multiply enormously in just a very short period of time.
Speaker 0: Now I wish you were appearing on Trump's favorite channel, Rupert Murdoch's Vox News, but you are appearing a lot, giving it twenty four seven for peace, I I noticed. And I only want to dwell on it for a short moment because there there are many other issues. You have been, talking a lot about, I suppose, I mean, what you just said about how Trump can't understand that there is a relationship between United States energy resources despite it being a net exporter and what's happening in the Strait Of Hormuz. And you've been talking about the 20 amendment basically and that he is suffering clinical illness. I mean, there any rational explanations that you can understand for his strategy of destabilizing the world?
Obviously, thousands killed, billions immiserated, and a million displaced. That's just in Lebanon.
Speaker 1: You know, and and people who know my thoughts about this know that I believe that The United States foreign policy in general for decades has been oriented around US hegemony. In other words, a US control of the world. I regard that as delusional and dangerous, and that The US has fought many terrible wars, killing many millions of people in the quest for this kind of hegemony. And this in some sense is part of that overall process. So it's not that Trump is going against deep US forces.
He's not. But clearly when we watch Trump, we see the added personal and psychological dimension at work as well. There's an added level of delusion. I have said for decades that the main job of an American president is to keep the foot on the brake of the war machine. If you put in a trillion dollars a year, that's actually not the right number.
The number right number is about 1 and a half trillion dollars a year into a war machine. It revs all the time. Everyone can find a reason for war. Everyone wants to sell new military goods. Everyone wants to test their drones.
Everyone wants to do all sorts of terrible things. And the job of a president is to stop that. Most presidents fail. The war machine revs in The United States all the time. There are wars all the time.
A good president can stop almost all all of it. One president in my lifetime really tried to stop, and that John f Kennedy, and they probably did him in for that reason. I think there's good reason to believe Trump does not have a foot on the brake. He doesn't even know there's a brake. He's got foot on
Speaker 0: Can I just say that Yep? But can you then understand the reticence of, say, a Modi in, Delhi who has good relations with Netanyahu and, Iran, and the leaders in Iran from intervening as the BRICS president, given that's the context of who you're talking. I mean, I I don't like The Economist magazine. We've done a program. People can watch our program on The Economist magazine, but they're a cover about Napoleon's maxim, don't interrupt an enemy when they're making mistakes.
Can you see why India was reluctant to get involved in any negotiated settlement between Iran on the one hand and well, you've explained the kind of mental state of the
Speaker 1: Not not not quite, and I'll let me try to explain. But let let me just finish if I might about Trump. And it's it's a little bit sad, alarming, and again, I'm neither a military expert nor a trained psychiatrist or psychologist, but I speak to these people all the time, both the military experts and the psychologists and psychiatrists. Trump has a has a kind of mental instability called the dark triad personality. He is a a narcissist.
He is an extreme Machiavellian, which means don't trust him for one moment. He is a psychopath, meaning kill people, not my business, not my concern. But people think that it is getting worse, that there's an added frontotemporal dementia that could be part of this mix, losing control. And they give certain kinds of clinical evidence, the way he speaks, the
Speaker 0: way he But back to makes up words. Way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And just to come back to this Yeah. I believe that this is a real concern, and I just raise it because I think we're in very serious territory right now in the world. Now having said all of that, I regard what Israel and The United States have done as a flagrant, reckless, utterly illegal, hugely dangerous war of aggression for no reason. It's been called a war of choice, a better term that I heard a few days ago, a war of whim.
And I think that this is correct. I would say, by the way, that Netanyahu has similar psychological qualities to Trump. And Netanyahu's speech, just before Trump's speech, is equally alarming, equally delusional. Netanyahu speaks about the 10 plagues that he has put on Iran. Now mind you, the 10 plagues were in the Hebrew Bible, plagues that God put on.
Now Netanyahu is playing God vis a vis Iran, and he lists the 10 plagues. This is a kind of madness. This is not political rhetoric. This is a kind of madness because it's also associated with a real war of murder and destruction. And as mister Trump said, also a kind of madness, to put Iran back into the stone ages.
This is not normal. We have not heard rhetoric
Speaker 0: I'm like trying to get to I
Speaker 1: know. Now I'm gonna come to your point. I'm I'm going to come to your point. This has to be stopped, and it has to be stopped by grown ups. And there are only three grown ups in the world right now that are in a position to stop this, and they should stop it together.
And that is prime minister Modi, president Xi Jinping, and president Vladimir Putin. They are the leaders of the other three superpowers of the world. They absolutely have a stake in the world not blowing up. It's not a matter of not stopping Trump while he's making a mistake. Because the mistake in this case is not Trump's mistake, it is the world's disaster.
The grown ups need to explain, Donald, sit down, have a tea, put your feet up, you're not going to drive Iran into the stone ages. You're not going to do it. This is not how we do things in the twenty first century, how we do things in the nuclear age. You've got to stop this. We have to understand, and it's again a sad truth, that Israel has part of its political leadership in a sixth century BC mentality.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I that people do understand. Exaggerate. I do not exaggerate. It was Pakistan, actually, weirdly, that got involved there, albeit with some China.
There are negotiations separately about the strait regarding Oman.
Speaker 1: Yes. My view is that the only ones that can do this really are the Bricks. India has the presidency of the Bricks. One should not be a friend of Benjamin Netanyahu right now. India, as a great country and a superpower, should not be aligning with Israel, which has just committed a genocide in Gaza, and now has launched a war of whim against Iran.
This is not a friendship. This is not a strategic alliance. This is not a partnership. This is not in India's interest. I regard India as a great country, as a great civilization, as a absolute core to global stability.
And I regard Israel as a rogue nation that is, I think, suicidal, but is definitely homicidal. Professor Sachs. Professor That should be understood.
Speaker 0: Professor Sachs, we'll continue after the break. Keep watching New Order. You're watching New Order with me and professor Jeffrey Sachs. Professor, in part one, we were talking about India's role perhaps in any negotiated settlement for West Asia and why it should seek an independent line. India has done over Ukraine, refusing NATO nation admonition for importing Russian oil, and Modi completely rejected Trump's claim that somehow Donald Trump had solved the peace between Pakistan and India.
So do you want to see more of that?
Speaker 1: India definitely has the stature, the power, the dignity, the precision to say no to American delusions. India is four times The United States in population. It is, I don't know, 10 times and longer actually in its civilizational history, it can say to The United States, stop misbehaving. But I am suggesting that India do this together, not by itself, but together with Russia and with China, with Brazil, with the the other BRICS countries. I'm saying that for a couple of reasons.
First, institutionally, India is the president of the BRICS this year. I regard the BRICS as tremendously important, as consequential, and as beneficial for the world, as a stabilizer for the world. Half the world's population, half the world's GDP, major countries, and to be able to say we're not in a US run world. We're not in a world where The US can declare it's going to put another country into the stone ages. We're in a civilized world based on international law and the UN Charter.
So the BRICS presidency is a particular reason. Second, it isn't pleasant dealing with mister Trump. I have no doubt about it. So it's better to do it together with partners. I like to think, and this is also another issue, but I like to think of India and China and Russia as partners.
Not only as fellow members of the BRICS, but as partners in saying we want a multipolar world, not a world of blocks, and not a world in which The United States continues its thirty plus year delusion of hegemony. So to my mind, safety in numbers, good company, BRICS presidency, this is all a case for India's leadership. I also happen to believe in India that it can be a peacemaker, that it can really contribute consequentially. India's relations with Persia also go back a very long way. And so India's relations with Iran are deep and go back a long way.
Part of the problem here is that the Western world is completely nuts because it's owned and operated by The United States. And so you have an attack on Iran, and then every European reaction is Iran is attacking. And you say, excuse me. Iran was just attacked. No.
No. Iran is attacking. It's attacking these innocent countries in The Gulf, forgetting that Israel and The United States just bombed Iran. So what I would suggest is everybody watch Donald Trump again, the tape, where he says, we're gonna put them back in the stone ages. He was very helpful.
Thank you, mister Trump. You explained the American purpose. Okay? Then India can say, that's not a good idea. We're not going to repeat the fanciful lines of Europe, which are vassal states of The United States, and just repeat that Iran is doing something terrible.
No. We're going to actually be dignified and proper and say that this started with a vulgar aggression by Israel and The United States against Iran, and it's gotta stop that way too. So a solution has to ensure security for everybody, not just passage through the Strait Of Hormuz. That's how the UK empire talks about or would be empire, former empire talks about it. That's how Europe talks about it.
As a matter of convenience, look at how terrible Iran is. But what I'm asking India and China and Russia to do is to speak honestly. We can't have wars of aggression to drive countries into the stone age. We can't have the president of The United States proudly talking about decapitation as if this is normal. Yeah.
Maybe ISIS would do that, but that's the president of The United States talking about decapitation? Come on.
Speaker 0: No. The United States The United States did, of course, back ISIS Daesh. Okay. No.
Speaker 1: It it created it. So, yeah, let's be clear. Okay. But That's a but the point I'm making is when it's so vulgar and so clear, I don't expect most of Europe to stand up. I understand they are occupied countries by The US, but India is not.
And that's why I expect India and China and Russia to be able to be clear about these issues. And they constitute by themselves 3,000,000,000 people and three superpowers and three dignified countries. So that's why I expect them to be able to help Donald Trump to stop himself. He's an impulsive personality. The US is an impulsive country.
It's a very young, not very clever country. It's celebrating its two hundred fiftieth year. It's a baby in the world's civilizations. It needs some help to stop misbehaving.
Speaker 0: Well, there may still be some strategic thinkers there, who knows, who will have heard what you just said and will be developing ways themselves of trying to manipulate and create differences between Russia, China, and India to prevent the new order, a more peaceful order that you've By the
Speaker 1: way, this is a very Do what what we
Speaker 0: be looking for as to how they will be manipulating these those three countries in particular, but say, trying to make India not be part of the new order?
Speaker 1: Look. I I have a basic theorem, excuse me, that all the world's problems go back to the British. And then I get complaints from people in Scotland and Wales to say, don't blame us. It's it's the English. Okay.
I let's be precise. All the world's problems may go back to the English. I'm not sure whether it's British or English. But the problem between India and China goes back to 1914 to a line drawn on a map arbitrarily in a conference in Simla by a mister McMahon who had never been to the places where he drew the line with the British Empire putting its desired border of the British Raj someplace on the map in the middle of the Himalayas. And this has created the border disputes with China.
It's a long fascinating story. The point that I try to make to both leaders in both countries who are, in my view, you know, leaders of two great civilizations, is that a line drawn on the map in 1914 should not hinder cooperation between the two great giants of the world today who have a mutual interest in a multipolar world operating under international law. So I very much want China and India to cooperate with each other. I want them to see the border dispute for what it is. It's real.
It's caused by the British. It's caused by events of the British Empire in 1914 in particular, and it should not dominate the current policy, political, and economic interests of two great countries that should actually get along with each other. And I think that the BRICS is a very good mechanism for fostering that kind of cooperation because it also builds institutions like the new development bank and other initiatives on behalf of the world in which India and China are joined in a very practical, positive way.
Speaker 0: Thank you, professor Jeffrey Sachs.
Speaker 1: Great to be with you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Now I'm joined by New Order Zara Khan to answer some of your questions. Zara, I thought, professor Jeffrey Sachs, I think he better get on the phone to, Antonio Gutierrez and say, end this war now and use some of those, blue berets, I think. Because
Speaker 2: I mean, as people who are living in the conflict zone, I think that's something we would all love to see if peace was on the cards. But quickly getting into the questions by our audience, Christopher Dobby wants to know, is BRICS going to create a new clearinghouse for world commerce?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Professor Sachs was very optimistic about BRICS. At least he's always been a big supporter of it. A clearinghouse, I'm not sure, is even necessary. If we think about it, Russia is the most sanctioned country in the world, manages to do business no problem, has the highest GDP by PPP in the whole of Europe since the Russian response to NATO provocation, in Ukraine.
Countries have managed to, clear, funds without any problem, it seems. And, of course, if you look at the deals being done at the moment here in the Gulf Of The Strait Of Hormuz, it's clear the deals are being done, without any need for, the US petrodollar, let alone SWIFT.
Speaker 2: Right. And it's great that you bring up SWIFT because Mariam wants to know how can Iran bypass economic sanctions more quickly through BRICS, and how does Iran overcome the Swift hurdle, as well as secondary sanctions that might limit other countries trading with it?
Speaker 0: I actually lived in, Iran for a year, and there was no Swift, and the country ran perfectly fine. In fact, the largest, shopping mall in the world is in Tehran. I think China and Iran are are competing for that. And, of course, Dubai Mall used to be it. So, SWIFT, I think, its days, are over as a system unless it's gonna be recycled in some pro post Iran war, post Ukraine war, kind of peace settlement.
This really is a pivot in world history where the SWIFT system, the Bretton Woods system, they're over. It's, it's finished, and BRICS doesn't even need to go into the complex negotiating, that must have gone on in 1945. Already, these processes are afoot so that global South countries can trade without any ability for western nations, NATO western nations, to understand how the trade is done Mhmm. To understand the amounts of trade that are done, let alone stop the trades.
Speaker 2: So maybe we'll have to look at where SWIFT stands in the new order. Shaila from Johannesburg is asking why do BRICS leaders still entertain a two state solution?
Speaker 0: That is a question that I always want to throw it back to the audience. The fact that BRICS members keep talking about a two state solution shows, some kind of diplomatic, lethargy. They've called out a, genocide after all. Saudi Arabia called out a genocide. So who wants a two state solution with a sharing it with a genocidal
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: War criminal state? I think that is a question that is going to have to be asked. But then again, The United States has to, after its defeat against Iran, leave Israel alone and stop subsidizing it. Israel only exists because of the subsidy.
Speaker 2: Right. Thank you for your answers, Avshin. And the questions keep coming, and we'll continue this next week.
Speaker 0: Alright, Zara. Thanks. And, that's it for me, Ashwin Rutansi, on New Order. Remember to follow us on social media, and here's a question for you. How can Modi, Putin, or Xi Jinping pressure Trump to end the war in Iran?
Send us your answer on x at New Order underscore TV. Join us every Sunday as we continue to track shifting global power and how India's decisions are central in this new order.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨ICYMI, Prof. John Mearsheimer: Iran ‘HOLDS ALL THE CARDS’ in war of attrition against US and Israel ‘President Trump believed, and the Israelis believed, that we could win a quick and decisive victory, that we could decapitate the Iranian regime, give them some shock and awe for the first few days, and the Iranians would throw up their hands and surrender. President Trump and his closest advisors all thought that we would not end up in a long war where these massive problems that are now beginning to surface would face us… But the problem is that President Trump did not have a coherent strategy or a viable strategy for winning a quick victory. And once the war turned into a war of attrition, it turns out that it’s the Iranians, not the Americans and the Israelis, who hold almost all of the cards.’ -Prof. John Mearsheimer, one of the world’s most respected realist International Relations scholars, on the first ever episode of New Order
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨If the US🇺🇸 withdraws from the war on Iran, Israel may use NUCLEAR WEAPONS ‘The US Government, especially under Republicans, is so tethered to the Israeli agenda, we can’t pull out even if we wanted to. Because let’s just say Trump wakes up tomorrow and he tacos out. I’m done. I’m out. I’ve done everything I wanted to. The problem is that might actually put the Israelis into a use it or lose it mentality, and they’ll start popping off the nukes. And that is the concern here, I think, among some people in D.C., is that even if we wanted to quit, first of all, the Iranians aren’t going to necessarily let us quit right now. And second of all, our partners, who we are basically in hock to, the Israelis, are not going to want this to end.’ -@WeTheBrandon on Going Underground
@afshinrattansi - Afshin Rattansi
Since the US-Israeli war on Iran began, Iran’s number one target overwhelmingly in the GCC has been the UAE🇦🇪. Iran’s strategy of targeting the UAE may come to economically bite it hard after the war is over. Despite the UAE’s close ties with the US, the UAE served as Iran’s https://t.co/hLKRdyAnQv
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
‘IRAN WON’T BE CONQUERED…THE US WILL HAVE TO REMOVE ITS BASES’- Former US🇺🇸 Congressman Dennis Kucinich ‘There is no victory. Iran will not be defeated. Iran will not be conquered. It is folly to even think about it. Those who think about it don’t know anything about the Persian culture. They don’t know anything about the Iranian people. They don’t know anything about geography. They don’t know anything about how Iran has prepared for decades for the moment of a full-scale invasion of their country. So, you know, this is a moment when if we send troops to Kharg Island and nearby islands off the Iranian coast to try to facilitate the opening up of the Hormuz Strait…our troops could get massacred. To me, it is the height of dishonour for an American administration to send young men and women to their certain deaths. In this case, there will be high casualties. And if we do this, and I am unalterably opposed to everything this administration is doing with respect to Iran, it has started with one lie after another, and Iran will never trust the United States. Iran, on the other hand, will dictate the terms of this settlement. The US, as a result of this, will have to remove its bases from the region. And that’s just the beginning of the effects on the US position geopolitically here.’ -@Dennis_Kucinich on the latest episode of New Order Watch the full interview in the quoted post, or watch it on Rumble, link below in the replies👇
reSee.it AI Summary
I break down why Russia and China are seen as winners in the US-Israeli war on Iran, how Iran holds all the cards, and how multipolarity might benefit from the conflict, plus Prof. Mearsheimer’s advice for BRICS and rising powers on Afshin Rattansi's NEW ORDER.
@NewOrder_TV - New Order with Afshin Rattansi
🚨FIRST EPISODE OF NEW ORDER🌐 Prof. John Mearsheimer: Russia & China are WINNERS of US-Israeli War on Iran, Iran HOLDS THE CARDS Why does Iran hold 'all the cards' in the US-Israeli war on Iran? How could multipolarity possibly benefit from the war? What advice does Prof. Mearsheimer have for BRICS and the rising powers of the global south? All this and more on the first episode of @afshinrattansi's brand new show, NEW ORDER
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutansi introduces New Order, a global show tracing how India and its allies sit at the center of a transformation in world history. The program aims to explore partnerships, shifting alliances, and how structural changes ripple from global powers to streets, villages, markets, and boardrooms. The show promises to examine diplomatic architecture, networks of power, money flows, and levers of influence, presenting a fundamental reordering rather than mere turbulence. Zara Khan will join later to field viewer questions.
Guest: John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago professor and coauthor of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. The discussion opens with the recent incident of Iran firing missiles at an F-35 and what it implies given anticipated US and allied arms purchases. Mearsheimer notes that aircraft over adversary territory face real risks from surface-to-air missiles and air defenses, even if the US and Israel have degraded Iran’s defenses. He suggests this is a factor behind why the US and Israel refrain from flying over Iran.
Geopolitical framing: Who benefits from the ongoing war (in Iran) at the time of the interview? Mearsheimer identifies two clear winners: Russia and China. Russia benefits from sanctions relief on oil and gas pushed by Trump-era policies, and the war diverts munitions away from Ukraine, aiding Russia in its position. China gains as US credibility in foreign policy deteriorates, increasing its influence in the Middle East and globally as nations worry about an unreliable US, with Europe showing signs of leaning toward China.
India’s position is discussed as a potential loser in this new order. The discussion asserts that India’s relations with Israel and Iran, and its ties to both the US and the Gulf, place it in a precarious position. The possibility of a summit or peace conference is deemed unlikely to solve inflation, gas prices, fertilizer costs, or Indian food production challenges; the war is characterized as bad news for India, as reflected in Indian media.
On US policy and the Israel lobby: Mearsheimer contends that the Israel lobby has significant influence over US foreign policy and that its role in dragging the United States into wars, including Iraq in 2003, was central. He notes with some irony that the lobby’s power is increasingly in the open, referencing Joe Kent’s statements and public figures like Tucker Carlson and Bernie Sanders endorsing similar criticisms. He points to Francesca Albanese, UN official on Palestinian territories, describing the Israeli actions in Gaza as genocidal, and notes the lobby’s efforts to undermine her career.
Policy advice for the Global South, focusing on India: Mearsheimer argues that India should maintain distance from excessive US alignment to avoid heavy leverage over Indian policy. He suggests speaking up against US policy when it harms national interests but avoiding becoming overly dependent on the United States. He cites examples such as Indonesia where maintaining friendly ties with China while balancing US relations would be prudent. He warns that excessive closeness to the US invites sanctions and pain, whereas diversifying partnerships could reduce vulnerability.
BRICS and multipolarity: The war could benefit BRICS and the Global South, with Russia and China gaining, while some BRICS members like India and possibly Indonesia could suffer. The conflict may prompt a strategic rethinking of US ties, encouraging greater independence from Washington. The discussion also touches on Europe’s economic strain and NATO’s perceived setback if Russia prevails in Ukraine, describing a “double whammy” for European leadership from the Gulf conflict alongside Ukraine.
End of interview: The program teases future exploration of the Israel lobby’s influence and the potential for a broader discussion on the end of the Israel lobby era, followed by viewer questions. Zara Khan presents questions from the audience, including whether the broader humanity will gain a say on the world stage and how the Iran war might differ from Vietnam and Afghanistan, emphasizing asymmetrical warfare and the risk of ground involvement. The show signs off, inviting viewers to follow and watch future episodes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutansi, and this is our new show, New Order, broadcasting all around the world, including to nearly one and a half billion on Arty India. We on New Order will trace how India and its allies sit at the center of a transformation in world history. Power is moving. Alliances are shifting, and the rules of trade, technology, and security are being rewritten. How are India and the wider global South navigating the new alignment?
Which partnerships are emerging? And how do these structural changes ripple across the world into the streets, into the villages, the markets, the boardrooms, and metropoles alike? New order is not just about headlines. It's about diplomatic architecture, the networks of power, the flow of money, and the levers of influence that determine who gains and who loses in a world of tectonic transition. Because what we're witnessing is not just turbulence.
It's a fundamental reordering. This is New Order. At the end of the show, we'll be joined by New Order's Zara Khan, who will be with us to get questions from you, the viewers, and we'll try and answer as many of your questions as we can at the end of each show. With me for our very first episode is the University of Chicago's professor, John Mersheimer. He's one of the world's most influential thinkers in international relations theory.
Recently, the coauthor of the seminal bestseller, the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, addressed Mumbai's ideas of India Summit twenty twenty six. Professor, thanks for coming on this inaugural episode of New Order. And before we get to the geopolitics, so much happening, of course, in this region and beyond because of the war. Given that you were at West Point, you were a captain in the US Air Force before you became a scholar, what did you make of the fact that Iran hit a fifth generation warplane, the f 35, with a missile given that so many NATO countries are gonna spend they're in line for spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these things. We've had Chuck Spinney, the Pentagon procurement whistleblower on in the past about these sorts of purchases.
In August, India rejected the JD Vance and Trump overtures to buy them. What do you make of the f 35 being hit by a missile?
Speaker 1: I'm not surprised. The fact is anytime you buy aircraft, matter how sophisticated they are, and you fly them over an adversary's territory, and that adversary has at least some surface to air missiles down on the ground or triple a, you know, antiaircraft artillery, you stand a a real chance of losing a few, if not many aircraft. We found this out in the Vietnam War time after time. And although I think The United States and Israel have greatly degraded Iran's ground based air defenses, there's no way they can completely eliminate them. So somewhere down on the ground, there are surface to air missiles and triple a.
And this is just a case which we should expect where the Iranians actually brought down an aircraft. And by the way, this is what makes The United States and the Israelis, despite all their bombast, reluctant to fly airplanes over Iran itself.
Speaker 0: Not what Pete Hegseth, of course, says with his air of invincibility. But let's get to the geopolitics. Who benefits from this war? That's a a question, obviously, over the dead bodies of all the men, women, and children that are that are dying, that have been killed, the school in Southern Iran, which, was shattered by these, red hot pieces of titanium from the Tomahawk missiles. Who benefits from the war?
Speaker 1: I think that they're probably, at this point in time, two winners. The clearest winner is Russia. You wanna remember that, what president Trump has had to do because of the oil and gas problem is take sanctions off of Russian oil and gas. This is a huge boon for Russia. Furthermore, because we're now bogged down in this war against Iran, that means we have limited munitions and limited weapons that we can send to Ukraine to help deal with the upcoming Russian offensive once the spring and summer comes.
So if you look at what's happening in terms of Russia's position in the international system, they're clearly benefiting. And one could argue that the Russians have a vested interest in making sure that the war in Iran goes on and on and that The United States remains bogged down in that conflict. China has also been a big winner. First of all, China's influence in The Middle East will grow with the passage of time as The United States will be seen increasingly as an unreliable ally. And furthermore, China's influence around the world will increase because, again, The United States looks like it can't run a rational legal foreign policy, that it's really out of control, that it's run by the gang that can't shoot straight.
So if you're another country in the world and you're thinking about leaning toward China or leaning toward The United States, in almost all cases, you're gonna lean toward China. And you already see evidence of this happening in Europe, unsurprisingly.
Speaker 0: What about, India, which, of course, has good relations with Israel? Modi and Netanyahu photographed just in the days before Trump, launched the campaign. Good relations with Iran as well. The North South Corridor, is Iran and India very close on that. And India, of course, close to The United States.
Speaker 1: There's no question that India is gonna be a loser. The only interesting question at this point in time is how big or a loser it's gonna be.
Speaker 0: Could it not hold the summit? Could it not hold the peace summit?
Speaker 1: That's not gonna do much good for dealing with inflation, dealing with the cost of gas, the cost of fertilizers, what this is gonna do to to the production of food inside of India, what it's gonna do to its inflation rate, and so forth and so on. This is all bad news for India, and that's clearly reflected in the Indian media. There is no question that, all Indians understand that this war is disastrous for India.
Speaker 0: I mean, Trump did telegraph ahead of time that he was gonna do this. Did you don't really need a Indian secret spy network or a Russian one or a Chinese one to figure out that he was going to do this, or is it the point that no country could actually believe that The United States could make such a strategic mistake?
Speaker 1: I look at it somewhat differently. I think that most people did not appreciate how the war would play out. I think president Trump believed, and the Israelis believed that we could win a quick and decisive victory, that we could decapitate the Iranian regime, give them some shock and awe for the first few days, and the Iranians would throw up their hands and surrender. So I think that countries in The Gulf and countries like India and president Trump himself and his closest advisers all thought that we would not end up in a long war where these massive problems that are now beginning to surface would face us. So what happened was that India did not protest.
The Gulf States did not protest when president Trump was talking about going to war and then when he went to war. But the problem is that president Trump did not have a coherent strategy or a viable strategy for winning a quick victory. And once the war turned into a war of attrition, it turns out that it's the Iranians, not the Americans and the Israelis, who hold almost all of the cards.
Speaker 0: Could they be forgiven for underestimating the power of Iran given that Iran was clearly opposed to the Gaza genocide? And if Iran had really shown solidarity with the Palestinians, it could have blocked the Strait Of Hormuz during the genocide of our times. It could
Speaker 1: have done that. As we know, the Houthis blocked the Red Sea, and the Iranians could have done that. But the Iranians were in so much trouble or are in so much trouble economically that they did not wanna block the Strait Of Hormuz. They thought that that would have serious negative consequences, so they didn't do it. But the fact is that there's no question when you look at oil markets around the world and you look at the importance of oil flowing out of the Middle East that Iran had very powerful cards to play once a war of attrition set in and once you began to march up the escalation ladder.
Speaker 0: I mean, The Gulf States would protest that they did try and persuade Trump against this. Of course, there's lots of misinformation around, but I suppose I've got to ask you personally, twenty years after your bestseller that you coauthored the Israel Lobby, did you ever imagine that the Israel Lobby could be so powerful that the former I mean, the just resigned former counterterror chief in the Trump administration could appear on Tucker Carlson and claim that the whole war was because of Israel and the Israel lobby in the resignation letter, and even to the extent of saying that Charlie Kirk's assassination investigation was sabotaged by the Israel lobby?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not surprised at all that the Israel lobby is principally responsible for the Iran war. You wanna remember that when Steve Walt and I wrote the book on the Israel lobby, which, of course, was well before this Iran war, we talked about the war in Iraq, the two thousand three war in Iraq. And there is no question that the Israel lobby played a central role in causing that war. And we argued in the book that absent the presence of the Israel lobby, there would have been no invasion of Iraq in March 2003. So I'm not surprised to see what's happening here.
What does surprise me and really surprises me is that this is now all out in the open. And when you think about what Joe Kent said, it's quite remarkable that somebody resigned from the Trump administration and said so boldly and so clearly that Israel and the lobby are principally responsible for dragging The United States into this war. Again, I don't find that fact that that happened surprising. What I find surprising is that Joe Kent said it, and so many other people are saying it. People like Tucker Carlson, people like Bernie Sanders, people all over the political spectrum in The United States are agreeing with what Joe Ken said.
I find this quite remarkable because what's happened here is that for the first time in my lifetime, the Israel lobbies operations are out in the open for everyone to see.
Speaker 0: Albeit that you were very brave twenty years ago when you wrote that book. You might have to remind us what you were on the receiving end for that. And Tucker Carlson claims that he's under investigation by John Rakove's CIA. And clearly, Joe Kent's arguably afraid for himself.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I mean, this is how the lobby works. It is relentless and ruthless. It's smearing people and trying to destroy them if they're at all critical of Israel or The US Israeli relationship. And I think the best example of this these days is Francesca Albanese, who is the principal person inside the United Nations dealing with the Palestinian territories.
And she has very bravely and correctly described what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. She's made it very clear that this is a genocide that's taking place in Gaza. And for doing that, of course, the lobby has gone to enormous lengths to destroy her career. But this is hardly surprising. It's just the way that the lobby operates, and it's no surprise that you see what's happening with regard to Joe Cat.
Speaker 0: Professor, we have to take a break right there. We'll be back on New Order after this. Welcome back to this first episode of the new series, New Order. Professor, we were talking about the threats to, people who oppose, the Israel lobby in The United States, albeit in a country where polls show now The United States by a big majority is aware of the Israel lobby, that term that you, much publicized in your seminal work. What should countries, prepare for as regards the aftermath of this war if indeed there is no nuclear aftermath to this war?
How should they prepare? You already said the Gulf countries will have had to recalibrate their relations with The United States. Countries that have relations with Israel, what should they do?
Speaker 1: Well, let's focus on India. My argument has long been that India should keep a good distance from The United States. You don't wanna get too close to The United States because you don't wanna give The United States too much leverage over you. You remember when president Trump took office last January, this is January 2025, India and The United States had very good relations. And president Modi was one of
Speaker 0: the
Speaker 1: first leaders to visit president Trump. And it looked like they were going to have an excellent relationship moving forward, but then that relationship deteriorated. And president Trump played hardball with India, and the Indians, of course, were outraged by this. The message that I would give to the Indians after that experience is don't get too close to The United States. Don't allow The United States to be in a position to cause you great pain.
So that's the first point I'd make. The second point I'd make is if you think The United States is doing something that is foolish and is gonna damage your interest, you should speak loudly and clearly against American policy. This is the big mistake that the Europeans make. The United States does certain things that European leaders think are remarkably foolish. But do the European leaders speak up?
No. They remain silent, and they basically go along with The United States. This is not in their national interest. So I think any country, and this certainly applies to India, that is dissatisfied with American policy should make that clear while at the same time not getting too close to The United States so that The United States can't cause too much pain.
Speaker 0: But can you understand that advisers to global South powers who still favor closeness with The United States will be saying, look at that UN Security Council resolution that only condemned Iran and not The United States and Israel. Look at the way The United States is talking about, I don't know, overthrowing the government of Cuba again and, working with Ethiopia against Eritrea. Look at this full spectrum power on show while they have simultaneous wars in Europe and in West Asia. You have to be close to The United States, far from a dying empire. Even if they are a dying empire, they're still strong, and then they're still the most powerful military in the world.
There's no question about that.
Speaker 1: The United States is a remarkably powerful country, and this is why so many people kowtow to president Trump or appease president Trump. I fully understand that. But the point is that you wanna go to great lengths to minimize the leverage that The United States has over you. You wanna look for alternative ways of doing business.
Speaker 0: But sorry, professor. But if you as soon as you do that, you run into sanctions and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: Not necessarily. I think the Indians have actually done a pretty good job in recent months of having decent relations with The United States, but not getting too close to The United States. I think Modi is fully aware of the danger of getting too close to The United States. But a lot of countries in the global south can move closer to China or remain neutral in terms of The US China relationship. For example, if I was a country like Indonesia, I would advise Indonesia not to get too close to The United States and to remain on very friendly terms with China.
There's no question that Indonesia has to worry about China, but it also has to worry about The United States because The United States is basically a rogue elephant. And if you get too close to that rogue elephant, it may trample you. None of this is to deny your point that The United States can cause you pain if it's unhappy with you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Quick reminder to Indonesian government ministers, a million killed in The US backed war in Indonesia after all, the site of the Bandung conference. And speaking of which, does that mean that, this war, assuming it doesn't go nuclear, might be good for the multipolar BRICS vision, despite it seeming like a failure at the moment? No no, BRICS summit was convened. The UAE and Iran, both members of BRICS, the newest members of BRICS, both at war, kind of.
I think there's no question
Speaker 1: that this war will work to the benefit of the global south or to the BRICS countries. As we're talking about before when we pointed out which countries have benefited the most from this war, it's clearly Russia and China, and they're both members of BRICS. But at the same time, I think a lot of the BRICS countries are gonna be badly hurt by this war. India is one of them. Indonesia may be another.
But the end result of that is it will cause those countries to rethink their relationship with The United States and make sure that they don't get too close to The United States. And I would I would expect that even even criticize The United States moving forward because they understand that when The United States, despite all its powers, does something foolish, it has huge negative consequences for them.
Speaker 0: At the time of recording this interview, of course, Trump, did put out on Truth Social a minor criticism of Israel. I I don't know whether I can really say minor, but perhaps in the context of such a cataclysmic situation, it is minor, criticizing Israel for bombing the South Parr's gas field, the joint gas field owned by Qatar and Iran. How far can The United States go in criticizing Israel before Israel further exploits its messianic ideas of existential crisis? I mean, should we think that they will use nuclear weapons? Because how how does Israel get out of this war?
Speaker 1: Well, let's just talk about criticizing Israel first. Up until now, it's been almost impossible for the United States to put real pressure on Israel not to do certain things. But you wanna understand that when Israel attacked the South Parris natural gas installations, it was precipitating a march up the escalation ladder that could have catastrophic consequences for The United States and for the world economy. The last thing that The United States wants is a war between Iran on one side, The United States, the Gulf States, and Israel on the other side, where both sides are destroying oil and gas installations in the Middle East. This would be catastrophic to the world economy.
So what happened is that president Trump landed on the Israelis like a ton of bricks. There's no question about that. He told them that what happened was unacceptable, and that cannot happen again. Now I would think that if this conflict continues to escalate and both sides begin or continue to attack oil and gas installations, that The United States will get tough on Israel like it has never been tough on Israel in the past. So what I'm saying to you is I think we need a catastrophic situation in terms of the world economy, or we need to be on the verge of a catastrophic situation involving the world economy for The United States to really get rough with Israel.
And I think we're not that far away from that point.
Speaker 0: We could do a we could do a It is. We could do a whole new order show on the end of the Israel lobby. Maybe we should do that, but we're running out of time. Just I had better ask you about Western Europe, which people are forgetting about nowadays because it's in such a financial mess very quickly. As Russia wins the NATO proxy war on it through Ukraine, what happens in the debt throws of the coalition of the willing and the like in Western Europe as the prices spiral, even if the war comes to an end in the next few weeks, spiral up because of the way the prices are fixed in already for fertilizers and helium and petrochemical products.
Well, if
Speaker 1: you marry defeat a in the war in Ukraine to what's happening to the European economies, you see very quickly that this is going to represent a devastating defeat, for the European elites. And by the way, it's also going to be a devastating defeat for NATO. NATO effectively went went to war against Russia. And in a situation where the Russians win the war against Ukraine, which they are going to do, you see that this is going to have hugely negative consequences for NATO and for the European governing elites. So they are in really deep trouble.
The last thing the European governing elites needed was this crisis in The Gulf. The Iran war on top of the Ukraine war is a double whammy for the European leadership.
Speaker 0: Professor John Mosheimer, thank you.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: And now I'm joined by New Order's Zara Khan with some of your questions.
Speaker 2: The audience has sent in tens of questions, but we only have time for a few. The first one is Nouri Vittachi, who, by the way, is very excited to see the new show. But they're asking, the international media has been committing credibility suicide for years, demonizing China, Russia, Iran. Will the majority of humanity finally get a say on the world stage? And if so, when?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, demonizing, India, arguably, as, as well, let alone Latin American, countries. Amazing, Zara, the people have sent in so many questions, and this is the first episode of New Order. Can I just say at the beginning? But as regards whether finally the rest of the world gets a say, I suppose as professor John Mersheimer was implying, it just depends on whether Israel used the tactical nuclear weapons or not.
If not, there is hope, I think, for everyone in this world despite the thousands killed, wounded, or displaced.
Speaker 2: It's a great thing that you said enthusiasm is absolutely being shown because our audience has more questions like Mohammad Agla who has asked, what are the similarities and differences between the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars? And how will this Iran war differ from both?
Speaker 0: I think military theorists are already saying there are great similarities because this is about asymmetric warfare. Goes back all the way to the Algerian war of independence against France. The reason Vietnam defeated the United States, the reason Afghanistan defeated the United States was the asymmetry of the conflict. And should ground troops be involved, US ground troops be involved on the coast of Iran, The United States will certainly be defeated. There are hundreds of thousands of Iranian troops, conscripted troops, and, clearly, there is no way The United States can defend their positions on the coast of the Islamic Republic in any way.
They will lose, and they will die. And I think there will be plenty, including the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who professor Mersheimer was implying was against it. The deep state is against it. They'll be arguing, do not turn into Vietnam or Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: I think on ground troop is, like, a big question that everybody has on their mind. But Neil from The UK wants to ask, how do we stay focused and positive when the Western leadership is so divorced from its populations and about how there's hideous criminality of international law and the world is just sitting by?
Speaker 0: Well, at least this has established that international law has been a sham since Yugoslavia, arguably. And, as for I mean, is it even the West? Even the idea of the West, I think, is a debatable point. Those nations, that NATO hegemonic empire is dying, and the nail in the coffin arguably will be this war on Iran As, again, our guest, the greatest one of the greatest theorists of international relations was implying, this is a new world order that is beginning, and Trump is help helping to inaugurate it. The question is whether Zionism and Israel can put a spanner in the works by ruining it for everyone.
We're talking about the lives of millions, billions actually in the balance because of food shortages, energy shortages right around the world, and whether Israel really uses those nuclear weapons that finally Trump himself appears to have conceded Israel has. Israel has weapons of mass destruction.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Avshin, for your answers, and I'll be back next week with more questions from our audience.
Speaker 0: And that's it for me, Abhin Rattanzi, with our new show, New Order. Hope you enjoyed it. Make sure to follow us on social media where you can watch all our shows. We'll be bringing you a brand new show every Sunday on each show. We'll continue to investigate shifting global power in this new order.