Executive Summary

As Poland prepares for the possibility of a wider war, a deeper and more unsettling question emerges: what if the greatest threat is not only Russia’s military advance, but the political alliances it is quietly building across Europe?

This article explores how history may be repeating itself—from the partitions of Poland to the collapse of interwar Europe—and warns that today’s assumptions about NATO and European unity could prove dangerously misplaced. The piece, by Dr David Bennett, makes the case that the rise of nationalist forces in key countries like France and Germany may fundamentally reshape the continent’s ability to resist Russian influence.

With Ukraine at the centre of this unfolding crisis, it argues for bold, pre-emptive action—including the potential deployment of European troops to western Ukraine—not only to deter further aggression, but to defend the very foundations of European democracy.

If these warnings are ignored, the consequences may not simply echo history—they may recreate it.

It has been said that Poland is militarily preparing for an eventual Russian invasion should Putin succeed in conquering Ukraine. However, the assumption in Warsaw that a Russian-dominated Europe would still be prevented even if all of Ukraine were to fall to Moscow may prove erroneous. This is because the Russian Federation is currently cultivating tactical and strategic alliances in Europe with political parties which, should they come to power, may also seek to revise European borders in ways detrimental to nations such as Poland.

Poland has suffered from partitions before, most notably in 1795 and, most infamously, in 1939. Concerning the 1939 Soviet–Nazi partition, contrary to accepted wisdom, Poland put up effective resistance to the Nazi invasion and might have fought the Third Reich to a stalemate had the Soviet Union not treacherously invaded from the east. Indeed, had the Soviet Union invaded Poland alone in 1939, an argument could be made that Warsaw might have defeated Stalin.

The fundamental reason why the 1939 partition of Poland occurred so rapidly was the strategic alliance between revisionist powers—Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Today, the spectre of neo-revisionism is again emerging in Europe, with Putin’s Russia cultivating de facto alliances with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, as well as with hard-right nationalist parties in France and Germany.

Should Russian-backed nationalist forces come to power in France, Germany, or both, Poles would not need to be warned of the dire consequences for their nation. Under such circumstances, Poland would be unable to effectively counter future Russian aggression—regardless of how formidable its armed forces are—due to hostile revisionist alliances being constructed by Moscow.

Assumptions that NATO will automatically come to Poland’s defence may also prove misplaced if far-right nationalist parties gain power in key member states such as France and Germany. The futility of Poland relying on others was tragically illustrated in 1939, and this pattern could yet repeat itself.

It is often overlooked that Poland mobilised its armed forces in March 1936 in preparation to invade Germany following Hitler’s remilitarisation of the Rhineland. Such an invasion did not occur because France declined to support it. With the benefit of hindsight, Poland might have been justified in acting alone against a then comparatively weak Nazi Germany with the objective of facilitating regime change—an outcome that would have benefited not only Poland, but the world.

Today, Poland may again risk the fatal mistake of waiting for others when deciding whether to defensively deploy troops to western Ukraine. Such a deployment could be purely defensive in nature, undertaken in cooperation with—and with the consent of—Kyiv. It would send a powerful signal to Putin that any Russian advance into western Ukraine would be met by fresh Polish forces capable of halting further aggression.

For good measure, France should also be prepared to defensively deploy troops to western Ukraine. This would not only help block a westward Russian advance into Ukraine—and by extension into Europe—but also serve as a public policy initiative to reinforce the beleaguered political centre within France.

It should not be forgotten that since the July 2024 French legislative elections, the extreme right and extreme left together have held a parliamentary majority. This balance has been used by the far-right National Rally (RN) to bring down successive centrist minority governments.

Les Républicains, the modern successor to the Gaullist tradition, have acted honourably in refusing to enter into any alliance with the RN (although, alas, a hard-right breakaway party has chosen to do so). Whatever President Emmanuel Macron’s personal or political failings, Les Républicains have been correct to cooperate with his Renaissance Party and the Democratic Movement (MoDem) of former Prime Minister François Bayrou. This cooperation is both politically and ethically justified, as not only France’s democratic continuity is at stake, but also the survival of a democratic Europe.

The French Socialist Party (PS) can now follow the principled lead of its former rival by leaving the four-party New Popular Front and supporting President Macron. While it was tactically understandable for the PS to join this alliance to prevent an RN majority in 2024, the party’s relatively strong performance in the March 2026 local elections suggests it is now sufficiently robust to return unambiguously to the democratic centre.

Two of the four parties within the New Popular Front—Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed and the French Communist Party (PCF)—raise serious concerns regarding their democratic credentials. While Mélenchon has supported Ukraine, his party’s strident positions on other issues complicate the PS’s continued association. Both the PS and the Greens should consider leaving the alliance and instead entering into a parliamentary and electoral coalition with Renaissance, MoDem, and Les Républicains in the interests of French democracy and European unity. For good measure, the French Radicals—France’s oldest party and a politically moderate party—should also be included in such an expanded alliance.

President Macron should be supported not because he is beyond criticism, but because he is no Paul von Hindenburg—the German president who fatally undermined democracy by appointing Adolf Hitler as Chancellor in January 1933. Yet there are unsettling parallels between contemporary French politics and the final years of the Weimar Republic: a narrowing base for centrist parties, disunity among democratic forces, and a naïve belief that the extreme right can be contained or co-opted.

There also remains the challenge of reclaiming electoral support that has shifted to the RN. One possible response would be for a future French Government of Democratic Consolidation, together with Poland, to deploy troops to western Ukraine to form a defensive barrier against further Russian expansion. Such a policy would undoubtedly be opposed by the RN, thereby exposing its role in facilitating, whether directly or indirectly, a Russian-dominated Europe.

Highlighting Russia’s ambitions may also revive in France the memory of Europe’s darkest chapter—Hitler’s domination between 1940 and 1945—and help erode support for the RN. Although Putin’s imperial ambitions continue to be frustrated by Ukraine’s resistance, his broader strategy remains on track due to Moscow’s effectiveness in manipulating international relations.

Having once been victims of Hitler’s duplicity, France and Poland cannot now allow Ukraine to fall entirely to Putin. To do so would risk history repeating itself.

Arguments as to why the Trump administration cannot terminate ‘Operation Epic Fury’ prematurely and why Poland maybe the solution to saving Ukraine are advanced in this article by Dr. David Bennett

The Trump presidency is at a defining crossroads. Will Operation Epic Fury will be prematurely terminated?  Should President Trump prematurely terminate Operation Epic Fury with Iran still possessing the capacity to develop (and use) nuclear weapons either immediately or in the future then this military campaign might subsequently become known as ‘Operation Epic Failure’.  Iran’s clerical /military regime has already fired ballistic missiles reaching American military bases as far away as Diego Garcio (Chagos Archipelago)and reputedly has the capacity to fire ballistic missiles which could reach London.!

Consequently, for President Trump to now declare ‘victory` concerning the American air campaign against Iran with the regime still left in place along with its still formidable military, even in its current degraded state will be a colossal disaster for the United States and indeed the rest of  the world.  Additionally, that Iran still has the capacity to block. or at least disrupt, oil tankers moving through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf demonstrates how dangerous the Tehran regime is to the global economy.  The global ramifications of an American defeat in Iran will therefore be profound because Putin’s Russia will be able to continue its war against Ukraine to a successful conclusion while mainland communist China will be emboldened to invade the Republic of China in Taiwan. These two aforementioned horrifying scenarios are plausible because an American defeat in Iran will be correctly perceived by Moscow and Beijing as fundamental signs of weaknesses and flawed public policy on the part of the Trump administration.

By contrast an expeditious landing of US marines in Iran to facilitate regime change will solve more problems then will be created. The precepts of the brilliant British general Orde Wingate (1903 to 1944) of landing troops, securing the targeted territory and then quickly withdrawing in favour of friendly forces can be applied to Iran by the United States. The United States could and should have applied a Wingate strategy in Indochina in the l960s in accordance with the counsel of the great US General Douglas Mac Arthur (1880 to 1964).

There are political dangers for the Trump administration concerning the despatching of US marines (‘boots on the ground’) to Iran because the Democrats will scaremonger that this will lead to another ‘forever war’. However, if a Wingate military strategy is applied by the Trump administration the United States could withdraw troops in the time for the 2026 mid-term congressional election campaign.  Even if a Wingate strategy is applied by the Trump administration the Democrats will of course scaremonger.  Already there are Democrats are calling into question whether Iran can actually develop nuclear weapons in an attempt to delegitimize Operation Epic Fury.   However, should this Democrat ‘anti-war` perspective prevail so that Operation Epic Fury becomes Operation Epic Failure, then American power around the world will be severely diminished Severely diminished due to the fundamental importance of the Persian Gulf to the global economy. 

The profound challenge which the Iran situation poses to Washington is heightened by the fact that Beijing and Moscow are strategically attempting to dominate the world at the expense of the United States.  Ironically while Putin’s Russia is far weaker than mainland communist China and the United States, Moscow is strategically ‘on track` to achieving its objective (in conjunction with Beijing) of a a change in the currently US dominated strategic and economic order. 

The strategic effectiveness of Putin’s Russia is evident if the contemporary politics of   contemporary Germany and France are analysed. Putin is having far more success than his communist predecessors ever did in relation to manipulating German politics.  Ironically, even though the Soviet Union fulfilled a vital role in defeating German Nazism in World War II, Russia is greatly influencing German politics via its covert support for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party.

The AfD agenda and stated policy objective is to secure a closure of American military bases in Germany so that Berlin effectively withdraws from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Despite the avowed Marxism of Xi Jing Ping’s regime, the far-fight AfD is also aligning with Beijing regarding its desire to possibly invade the Republic of China in Taiwan.  Alas, the sinister foreign policy agenda of the AfD encompasses effective support for Putin’s attempt to conquer Ukraine!

Poland is a nation, which to say the least, should be concerned by the revival of a German far-right party which is strategically aligned with Moscow. Unfortunately, for the Poles their mainstay ally of France may in the next year (2027) fall to the pro-Putin far-right under the National Rally.  

It is therefore imperative that Warsaw move to save Ukraine before political events overtake Poland.  This can be achieved by Poland, in co-operation and with the consent of Kyiv, deploying troops to western Ukraine to initially assume defensive positions. Should Russians troops therefore reach western Ukraine then Putin will know that his forces will have to fight Poland with the prospect of defeat being a real possibility. Ideally, other European NATO nations beside Poland, such as Finland and Sweden, should also promptly deploy to western Ukraine, but because time is of the essence, Warsaw should consider going it alone.

For Poland is a nation which has often been defeated by time. This was the case in September 1939 when Britain and France failed to promptly come to Poland’s effective rescue by launching an invasion of Germany within the first fortnight of hostilities as the Poles initially held off against the Nazis.  That is not to say that Poland has not previously successfully confronted the Russian threat alone. During the Russo-Polish War (1919 to 1921) Poland effectively saved Europe from the Russian communist threat by brilliantly winning the vital Battle for Warsaw (‘The Miracle on the Vistula`) in August 1920. However, the Ukrainians are now reaching a point where they can no longer alone fight the Russians in combat without ‘boots on the ground’ from neighbouring countries such as Poland.

The post-Cold War world is a confronting one due to regimes such as a would be nuclear armed Iran and Putin’s Russia not being prepared to operate within rational boundaries. These two regimes present the world with a profound challenge which has not been seen since the rise of the far-right in Europe in the 1930s.  However, it cannot be said that the Trump administration and European nations (particularly Poland) should not now know what to do.

Dr David Bennett argues that the Trump administration should consider the option of despatching American troops to Iran to facilitate regime change.  In this article Dr Bennett advocates that Anerican troops be deployed according to the precepts of the late British general, Orde Wingate. 

The current military action undertaken by the United States and Israel against Iran is necessary because Tehran was on the brink of developing nuclear weapons.  This was inspite of the fact that the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear enrichment plants in June 2025 as part of 'Operation Midnight Hammer`.  Therefore had the United States not launched its bombing campaign (‘Operation Epic Fury`) in late February 2026 then Iran would have developed nuclear weapons which it probably would have used against Israel.

Indeed, should Operation Epic  Fury be prematurely terminated by the United States with the clerical/miltary regime in Tehran left  in place, then Iran might still be able to proceed to develop nuclear weapons!   Consequently, the objectives of Operation Epic Fury should be expanded to encopass regime change in Iran by the United States sending in ground troops (‘boots on the ground`) to expiate such an outcome.  President Trump as a neo-isolationist leader is inherently loathe to take US military action outside of ‘America’s backyard`.  However, had President Trump not approved  Operation Epic Fury, then Iran would have possessed and subsequently used nuclear weapons against Israel.  Future historians will hence judge that President Trump not only acted correctly by initiating  Operation Epic Fury but that under the circumstances he had no choice but to do so.  

The question therefore remains as to whether the United States will expand the objective of Operation Epic Fury by quickly despatching American troops to Iran to dislodge the regime and then expeditiously withdraw once this has been achieved.   At the moment the military advantage is with the Iranian regime of the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khameini.  This is becasue the United States and Israel will relatively soon exhaust their stockpiles of misiles which they are using in Operation Epic Fury.  

The impending exhaustion of American missile stockpiles is also putting paid to any notion that the United States or its allies will supply Ukraine with the weapons which the Ukrainians need to stop Russia from eventually overrunning their nation.  It is therefore a matter of urgency that European NATO nations despatch troops to western Ukraine to deter the Russian Federation from advancing into that part of Ukraine.  If it is beyond realms of possibilty that European NATO nations will act collectively to save Ukraine (and therefore themselves from future Russian expansionism) then Finland, Poland and Sweden could do so by militarily entering western Ukraine to deter Vladimir Putin from continuing his westward advance.   Time is therefore of the essence with regard to European nations acting to save Ukraine.

Concerning the factor of time, all the Iranian regime has to do is wait it out until the American missile supply is exhausted and to be in a position to crush any post-bombing internal revolutionary uprising.  Given the the decntralised command structure of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, combined with their mobility, these security forces will be in a position to adapt to maintain the regime once the US led aerial bombing campaign has ended. This adaptability of the regime has already been demonstrated by the speed in which Mojtaba Khameini suceeded his father Ayotollah Ali Khameini after he was killed in an Ameircan aerial bombing at the commencement of Opertion Epic Fury.  The American expectation that the Iranian regime would disintegrate from within by killing Ayotollah Khmeinin has not been met.  Furthermore, the American hope that Revolutionary Guard commanders would defect or refrain from supporting the gvenrment has not yet, and probably will not evenuate given the regime’s ideological and stratgic cohension.

There is the option of the United States and Israel funneling arms to anti-regime ethnic minorities such as the Arabs, Baluchis and  Kurds as well as to the Iraninan people themselves .  However, an internal rebellion willl take too much time to come to fruition with regard to achieveing the regime’s ouster.  Indeed, time is of the essence with Mojaba Khameini’s regime now effectively blocking the narow Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf through which over twenty-percent of the world’s oil passes.  The resulting economic disrupiton to the world’s economy (as already reflected by higher oil prices) is another factor which necessitates that American troops be quickly despatched to Iran to help facilitate regime change.  While higher oil prices are a short-term ramification of the clerical-military regime staying in place there are wider ramifications which imperil the viablity of the United States if regime change is not achieved in Iran.

The wider ramifications of an American failure to achieve regime change in Iran will be to embolden mainland China to invade the Republic of China in Taiwan due to a lack of American resolution becoming apparent.  It should also be pointed out at this juncture that should there be a regime change in Iran, that leverage to prevent a Chinese communist regime’s invasion of Taiwan will be tremendously expanded because over ninety percent of mainland China’s oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz. The United State also must take care to ensure the American dollar remains the currency with which American Treasury bonds are purchased.  BRICS nations are already trying to arrange that there be an alternative currency to the American dollar for the buying and selling of oil transactions in order to bankrupt the United States. Having a post- clerical regime in Tehran will consequently invaluably help anchor the oil-producing Gulf nations in the pro-American camp by ensuring that oil transactions remain denominated in American dollars so that the United States remains financially solvent. 

 Due to the stakes being so high with regard to facilitating regime change in Tehran, the policy option of the United States sending combat troops into Iran must be seriously considered by the Trump administration.  The adoption of such a policy will invariably raise the spectre of another so-called ‘forever war` which could cause the Democrats to unfortunately win the crucial November 2026 mid-term congressional elections.  However, if the ideas of the late British general, Orde Wingate (1903 to 1944) are applied by the United States to the current Iran context, then a quagmire can be avoided.  The essence of General Wingate’s ideas were that flexiblity and mobility be assiduosly applied to a military context.  Under the Wingate paradigm American troops could be landed to fight in Iran so that once their military objective had been achieved, they could be speedily withdrawn.   The vaccum could be soon filled by US and Isreali armed Iranians who are opposed to the clerical-military regime. 

The application of the Wingate type military strategy by the United States in Iran will entail a pardigmatic shift in US military strategy.  It should not however be forgotten that perhaps the greatest twentieth century US army general, Douglas Mac Arthur, had warned President Kennedy against deploying combat troops to Indo-China on a permanent basis.  With the considerable benefit of hindsight American troops could have been deployed to Indochina on a combat needs only basis before expeditiously withdrawaring to US warships off the coast. It is only a matter of willpower that this Wingate type of military strategy be applied by the United States so that by the second half of 2026 there are no American troops stationed in an Iran which is free from a very dangerous world-threatening dictatorship.   

It is only a matter of willpower that this Wingate military type of strategy be applied by the United States in Iran so that by the second half of 2026 there are no American troops stationed in an Iran which is free from a very dangerous world-threatening dictatorship. 

Three The three broad scenarios which could occur concerning the current crisis in Iran are analysed as follows by Dr. David Bennett

Scenario One:

The Trump administration abandons the Iranian people by not providing military support to aid their revolt.

Scenario Two:

 The positive ramifications of American military intervention leading to Reza Pahlavi becoming Iran’s transitional leader.

Scenario Three:

American military intervention facilitating a mutually beneficial political settlement.

Scenario One:  The Trump administration abandons the Iranian people by not providing military support to aid their revolt.

The first scenario is alas, currently the most probable based on the most recent developments in Iran. The successful American air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 have probably led to an expectation amongst many Iranians that the United States will provide military support for those who have risen up against the regime. Even though thousands of the Iranians are being slaughtered, the American president now seems to be backing away from his previous public announcements that implied that the United States would militarily intervene to support the Iranian people’s revolt against the regime.

This development is alarming and will lead to consequent understandable bitterness on the part of Iranians who have had the courage to demonstrate against the ruling Mullahs. It is therefore of concern that much of the western media appear to be downplaying the extent of the killings (as President Trump now also seems to be doing) until the revolt is crushed.

The Trump hating media seems to be complicit in this misrepresentation of events in Iran because the popular uprising is apparently supportive of the former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. A popular revolt in favour of the former Crown Prince goes against the prevailing popular liberal-left narrative that his father’s rule did not have profoundly positive ramifications for Iran.

The other major reason why the mainstream media is downplaying the extent of the bloody crackdown in Iran is because it goes against their belief that American military intervention can lead to positive outcomes such as the attainment of democracy.

However, once the Iranian revolt has been crushed the mainstream media will then undoubtedly report on the extent of the bloodshed in order to discredit President Trump. This shift in media concerning Iran reporting will feed into an anti-Trump narrative for the November 2026 mid-term congressional elections which may well be the most important in recent American history.

It should therefore be pointed out that centre-right Republicans (who are generally supportive of the Iranian people’s quest for freedom) will also go down with the Make American Great Again (MAGA) wing of the Republican Party unless they can affect a re-orientation in American defence and foreign policy.

For the 2026 midterm congressional elections will be because they could produce an unprecedented victory by the hard left of the Democrats. Such an election victory will at the very least cripple the second Trump presidency (providing that the president is not subsequently removed by impeachment) to lay the groundwork for the election of a far-left American president in 2028. A far-left American president will not stand in the way of a still clerical ruled Iran acquiring nuclear weapons to again threaten the world, particularly Israel, Arab nations and the United States.

An American failure to assist the Iranian people at such a critical juncture to help remove such a profoundly dangerous regime will also lead to a discrediting of American credibility that could be fatal to the economic interests of the United States. Already there are moves by the BRICS nations to devise an alternative method/system of paying for oil exports in American dollars and the subsequent purchase of US Treasury bonds.

Due to the fundamentals of the American economy being so vulnerable due to the massive budget deficit and incredibly high level of public foreign debt, the United States cannot afford to allow either an undermining of the American dollar or of US Treasury bonds. Already the Russian inspired ten member BRICS intergovernmental organization is trying to harness growing anti-American sentiment around the world in an attempt to sink the US economy by devising new international financial system.

President Trump’s focus on acquiring natural resources of other nations (such as the autonomous Danish territory of Greenland in the Arctic) is immeasurably aiding this Chinese and Russian campaign to destroy the American economy. This is because other nations, such as European Union (EU) member states and Canada, (yes Canada!) are possibly gearing to enter into new financial and trading relations at the expense of American economic interests.

It goes without saying, that as an oil-producing hub, the Middle East is a region of the world that the United States cannot afford (either economically or politically) to alienate. If the United States forgoes the opportunity of militarily supporting the Iranian people in their uprising against the regime, then American standing in the Middle East may be expected to plummet.

President Trump may not be bothered by an American loss of loss of power in the Middle East because he believes that the United States’ ‘sphere’ of influence is the western hemisphere. However, the current trajectory of American foreign policy is leading to a situation where the United States is losing its current allies. By contrast China and Russia have no qualms about establishing a sphere of influence which encompasses the entire world in which the United States is effectively destroyed.

The United States should therefore reverse this destructively downward spiral by assisting the ninety million people of Iran. The ultimate establishment of an internationally co-operative Iran would not only remove a tremendous source of trouble in the world but would also crucially help stabilize the global political order s which is sorely needed.

Scenario Two: The positive ramifications of American military intervention leading to Reza Pahlavi becoming Iran’s transitional leader.

This scenario is, to say the least, a positive one. The array of problems which a clerical-ruled Iran has posed to the United States and the world will be overcome if this regime is removed. That is not to say that there will not be challenges in removing the regime by the United States providing military assistance to the Iranian people’s uprising.

However, via the use of satellite technology the United States will be able to undertake precision aerial bombing of selected targets, such as Revolutionary Guard sites, so that pressure can be brought to bear on the regime of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to give way. The American aerial bombing campaign can be proportionate to the repression which Khamenei’s security apparatus applies against demonstrators so that the security forces will have an incentive to desist from killing and/or oppressing people.

However, because the Iranian security forces are possibly embedded amongst the population an aerial bombing campaign by the United States could present logistical challenges. A possible alternative to a US aerial bombing campaign might be for Washington to funnel weapons to Iranian opponents of the regime. Such a course of action would require careful planning and intelligence analysis. At the very least, the supply of weapons to Iranian opponents of the regime could supplement a targeted American aerial bombing campaign.

If however, Khamenei chooses the Assad/Ceausescu option of refusing to compromise, then American support to the Iranian people can continue so that provisional authority is transferred to a transnational government headed or at least supported by Reza Pahlavi. Masses of Iranians, whether they be monarchist or republican have decided that Reza Pahlavi represents both a symbolic and a practical focal point for which authority can be transferred to, in order to provide a provisional transitional government for Iran.

History has shown with regard to American led intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965 or Grenada in 1983 that it has been successful when there has been a capable leader to fill the immediate vacuum. The selection by the American Organization of States (OAS) of Hector Garcia-Godoy as provisional president of the Dominican Republic was a masterstroke because he ably dealt with a myriad of challenges to take his country to democratic elections in 1966.

Similarly, in October 1983 American led forces of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States liberated Grenada from Marxist rule by ensuring that executive authority was transferred to the Governor-General Sir Paul Scoon (who was freed from regime custody at the time of this military intervention). The Governor-General then took over the day-to-day administration of Grenada until democratic elections were held in December 1984 which restored representative government.

Reza Pahlavi could also make an excellent transitional leader for Iran. He has already demonstrated great diplomatic and political skill in founding an umbrella group in 2013 called the Iran National Council for Free Elections (The Iran National Council). The Iran National Council has avowed republicans within its ranks who respect the former Crown Prince’s commitment to democracy.

Therefore, a Reza Pahlivi led transitional government would be able to utilize a wide-ranging talent pool to help govern Iran until elections to a constituent assembly are held. As important as it will be to hold Iranian democratic elections, a Reza Pahlivi transitional government would also probably see the good sense in influencing neighbouring oil producing Arab nations to continue to crucially support the American dollar should it come under dangerous attack from anti-American nations.

There is much to recommend this second scenario, but the so-called liberal left will undoubtedly be opposing American support being provided to the Iranian people because it fundamentally goes against their prevailing view concerning the efficacy of American military intervention in the Middle East and the long term positive legacy of the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The most potent argument against American assistance to the Iranian demonstrators which will be used will be that such a policy will lead to the United States becoming involved in yet another so-called ‘forever war’ in the Middle East. The American left will undoubtedly accuse the Trump administration of unnecessarily embroiling the United States in yet another ‘forever war’ similar to Iraq and Afghanistan if the administration provides aerial and/or material support (as distinct from ‘boots on the ground’) to the people of Iran.

However, the American-led occupation of Iraq between 2003 and 2011 was ultimately a success but the socio-political price for the United States was high because the prolonged military campaign precipitated the re-emergence of both left-wing and right-wing American isolationism. An overview of why the American led occupation of Iraq was ultimately a success is reviewed in relation to analysing the third scenario concerning the situation in Iran.

Scenario Three:   American military intervention facilitating a mutually beneficial political settlement.

The American led occupation of Iraq was ultimately successful in bringing democracy to that nation due to the statesmanship of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The Grand Ayatollah, who is actually Iranian, provided crucial support to the American led occupation of Iraq because he knew that the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussien was so effectively repressive that it could only be removed with external assistance.

The media and the anti-American Left portrayed resistance to the US led occupation of Iraq as opposition to foreign ‘imperialism’. Actually, this Iraqi resistance was an alliance between the ousted Baathist regime and Al-Qaeda aimed at restoring the political domination of the Arab Sunni minority (who make up about forty percent of the population) which had ruled Iraq since that nation’s creation in 1921.

Because of the Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s stance, Iraq’s majority Shia Arab population gave their grudging support to the American-led occupation on the correct assumption that their interests would ultimately be secured in the long-term. Similarly, the once severely repressed Kurdish minority endorsed the occupation on the correct basis that their rights would also eventually be advanced.

Furthermore, the interests of Iraq’s Arab Sunni minority have also been respected since the end of the occupation, due to the statesmanship of the Grand Ayatollah Sistani who could arguably be described as the Nelson Mandela of the Middle East.

Accordingly, selected and carefully targeted American aerial bombing of the regime’s military positions and/or the provision of arms in support of the Iranian people’s revolt could precipitate a scenario in which elements within the regime depose Ali Khamenei as Supreme Leader in favour another cleric nominated by the Grand Ayatollah Sistani. A new Sistani anointed Supreme Ruler could be accepted by the United States on the basis that he subsequently appoints a broad-based interim government which will take Iran to genuinely democratic elections to a constituent assembly.

Conclusion

These three scenarios for Iran as well as their ramifications will have a major global impact so careful consideration as to what the Trump administration does or does not do has to be considered. Ultimately history will be the judge of whether the Trump administration rises to the occasion with regard to whichever scenario eventually comes to pass in relation to Iran at this juncture.

The potential linkage between an American failure to help rescue Ukraine and the consequent outbreak of World War III is analyzed in this article by Dr. David Bennett. 

The current farce of the Trump administration in trying to once again persuade Ukraine to accept unfavorable terms with Moscow, which will eventually lead to that nation being overrun by Russia, has to end.  The termination of this diplomatic charade would not only be beneficial to Ukraine but also for the world.

This is because if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, then a powerful signal will be sent that the United States will also likely stand by to allow communist mainland China to invade the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan.

A resumption of the Chinese civil war will be catastrophic for the world economy due to the ROC’s strategic position in Asia. Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that a second Chinese civil war will draw Japan and South Korea in, thereby potentially paving the way for World War III. Even if the United States under a neo-isolationist Trump administration decides to remain neutral in the context of a world war, this will likely do the United States no good.

This is because the economic distortion of an Asian centered major war will disrupt international trade therefore plunging the United States into an economic abyss potentially far worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s. The two wings of the American Republican Party, the Trump inspired Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and the establishment wing, the Centre-right, will consequently be buried by history.

Such a development might be poetic justice for the Republican Party for having betrayed Ukraine and the ROC in Taiwan.  Alas, however the Democrats will probably not on this occasion subsequently produce a Franklin Dealano Roosevelt (FDR) to save the United States and the world from catastrophe, because there is now a highly organized hard-left organization within the Democratic Party, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

                                                                                                                                                                                                          The DSA Danger

It is therefore not beyond the realms of possibility that a future DSA backed president of the United States will take office due to the political polarization that the Trump administration has so far generated. Depending on the character and judgement of a DSA backed American president, he or she might attempt to impose a dictatorship on the United States. Such a development would be vigorously opposed by the Republicans which in turn could precipitate a major American civil disturbance.

The above cited scenarios are not all that far-fetched given Donald Trump’s efforts in attempting to overturn the 2020 US Presidential election.  However, for President Trump to have ‘gotten away’ with such a draconian action would have required the support of Centre- right Republicans.

These Republicans thankfully refrained from giving their support to this action but were nonetheless sufficiently shrewd to offer their endorsement to Trump for him to run again for president in 2024.  Similarly, Trump was sufficiently astute to realize that he could not win in 2024 without the support of the Centre-right Republicans so that the then outgoing president drew back from contesting the 2020 presidential result to its potentially ruinous climax.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      The Need for Centrists to be Centered

So far, the deal that the Centre-right Republicans have made with Trump has succeeded, even though pacts on the part of political centrists with leaders on the extreme of the political spectrum rarely work out for democracy.  Two examples:

Example 1:

The then ruling Italian Liberal camp eventually ‘came a cropper’ for facilitating Mussolini’s rise to power in 1922, rather than giving way to Italy’s two mass-based parties, the Socialists and the Christian democratic Populari.

Example 2:

Geographically closer to the United States the minority faction within the Cuban Liberal Party gave its support to Fulgencio Batista as he sought the presidency of Cuba in 1952.  The then former Cuban president undoubtedly would have been defeated in the scheduled June 1952 elections.  Instead, due to a confluence of incredible events, Senator Batista was able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by returning to power in a bloodless coup on March 10, 1952.

The pro-Batista faction within the Cuban Liberals inevitably gained the ascendancy within that party so that its leader Dr. Gus Inclan was elected vice-president of Cuba in November 1954 as Batista’s running mate.  Unfortunately, too many Cubans were deceived by Fidel Castro into believing that Batista was an anti- democratic usurper so that they supported the 1957-1958 anti-Batista rebellion.

With the considerable benefit of hindsight, the Cuban Liberal Party should have supported the courageous opposition presidential candidate Carlos Marquez Sterling in the November 1958 general elections.  Instead, the Cuban Liberals supported the ruling Progressive Coalition presidential candidate, the financially honest Andres Rivero Aguero, who won due to a successful boycott instigated by the mainstream of the Cuban opposition. Had Rivero served as president he probably would have followed the strategic advice of Dr. Inclan by stepping down mid-term in order to conciliate with the mainstream of the democratic opposition, so as to block Castro’s rise to power.

Although the Cuban Liberal Party under such a scenario would have been consigned to the opposition, Cuban democracy would have been preserved, while the Liberals would have emerged as the main force within Cuban Centre-right politics. The fundamental problem with Dr. Inclan’s planned political strategy was that it was overwhelmed by events for the Cuban people, in the grossly mistaken belief that Fidel Castro was a democrat, foolishly rallied to Castro’s cause thereby preventing Rivero from assuming office.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Marco Rubio

The relevance of this overview of pre-totalitarian Cuban politics is that American Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s political lineage is arguably descended from that of Dr. Inclan’s faction within the Cuban Liberal Party and the youth wing of its senior coalition partner, Fulgencio Batista’s Progressive Action Party (PAP). Accordingly, Secretary Rubio should be aware of how dangerously vulnerable the political centre is to socio-political polarization.

This political awareness on Secretary Rubio’s part should be heightened because the current direction of the foreign and defence policies of the Trump administration could ultimately serve to either prevent or precipitate domestic social political polarization which could be fatal to the United States of America.

                                                                                                                                                                                      The Politics of Cause and Effect

Secretary of State Rubio is therefore ideally placed to help ensure that the United States does not fall into the abyss by allowing Ukraine to be overrun by the Russian Federation. For if this was to occur, then there will most probably be a Chinese communist invasion of the ROC in Taiwan and with that an economic catastrophe which will have severely adverse economic consequences on the United States and the world.

This politics of cause and effect was previously apparent in that Russia’s dictator Vladmir Putin probably would not have invaded Ukraine in February 2022 had the Biden administration not willfully (and shamefully) abandoned Afghanistan in August 2021.  Similarly, the communist Chinese will now be watching to see if the United States abandons Ukraine as a factor in deciding whether to invade the ROC in Taiwan.

                                                                                                                                                                                               Avoiding World War III

The catastrophic consequences for the United States and the world arising from a communist Chinese invasion of the ROC in Taiwan have already been canvassed in this article.  Consequently, if Secretary Rubio is to short-circuit such a horrific chain of causation, he must convince President Trump to publicly announce that the United States will supply Ukraine with the munitions necessary for it to continue meaningful resistance (including the supply of Tomahawk missiles). Even the credible threat by the Americans that these munitions will be supplied to the Ukrainians may well be sufficient to compel the Russians to attend an international peace conference to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.

At such an international peace conference substantial concessions will have to be made by both the Ukrainians and the Russians to ensure that there is a lasting peace. Alas, from the Ukrainian perspective most of the eastern half of Ukraine might have to be de facto conceded to the Russian Federation.  However, in return for this horrendous concession, the Russians must be compelled to accept European North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces being deployed to western Ukraine so that Moscow cannot later re-invade Ukraine.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Conclusion

Due to Secretary of State Rubio’s political lineage, he is ideally placed to secure a termination of the Russo-Ukrainian War and in so doing by displaying American resolve prevent a subsequent communist Chinese invasion of the ROC in Taiwan, the ramifications of which would be catastrophic for the Trump administration, the United Staes and the world.