Publications

The United States finds itself in the middle of a new global campaign—not a war in the traditional sense of tanks and front lines, but a comprehensive struggle for control, ideas, and influence. Facing it stands a coordinated bloc of five dictatorships: Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Qatar. These nations are uniting forces, openly and covertly, consciously and unconsciously, in an attempt to undermine and even collapse the liberal-democratic order the United States has built since World War II.

This is a conflict fundamentally different from 20th-century confrontations. It is not about formal alliances but rather synchronized, sophisticated, and unofficial action. Their tools are varied: the global economy, social networks, advanced technology, supply chains—and powerful psychological, cognitive, and political means. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the world has entered a new phase: strategic competition has become an ongoing operational arena, where warfare is conducted in cyber, cognition, and commerce as well.

Two Axes, One Goal: Dismantling the American Order

One source of the West’s confusion lies in the undeclared structure of the threat. In practice, two complementary axes operate simultaneously against it, each with a different method, but both aiming for the same objective: dismantling the American order.

• The Rational-Authoritarian Axis: Led by China and Russia, this is a conflict over resources, technology, and the structure of international power. China promotes a model of state-controlled authoritarian capitalism, penetrating Western markets and taking over strategic infrastructure. Russia, through hybrid warfare and political influence, seeks to fragment NATO, and undermine America’s self-confidence. North Korea serves as strategic depth for Russia and a proxy player for China.
• The Radical-Islamist Axis: Led by Iran and Qatar, this axis presents a distinct and complex challenge. Iran operates openly and forcefully, under a radical Shiite worldview that seeks to impose Sharia as a universal human ideal. Qatar, conversely, as a Sunni state that supports and hosts the Muslim Brotherhood, employs a quieter, more sophisticated method: It funds and promotes a global ideological intifada against American values, utilizing civil society institutions, academia, and the free media of the free world in a manipulative manner. Despite their doctrinal differences and historical rivalry (Shiite Iran versus Sunni Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood), there is a noticeable, often covert, strategic cooperation between these two currents in their shared ideological campaign against US values and the global order.

These two axes converge—ideologically, economically, and militarily—with one goal: to erode America’s self-belief and propose a new social order for humanity, whether under an authoritarian regime or a radical Islamic religious regime.

Iran: The Link That Can Still Be Severed—The Borderline of American Hegemony

Among the five dictatorships, Iran is the most vulnerable link—and the only one the United States can still act forcefully against and neutralize before it becomes an irreversible threat. Russia, China, and North Korea already possess nuclear weapons; Iran—not yet. If Iran indeed crosses the nuclear threshold, a hostile global nuclear axis will be formed for the first time against the United States. Four nuclear states, each driven by disdain for freedom, democracy, and the American order, will then dictate the rules.

Therefore, the struggle over Iran’s nuclear program is not merely a Middle Eastern challenge, but a decisive global fault line. It marks the boundary between the continuation of American global leadership and entering a new era where nuclear dictatorships dictate the rules of the game. Such an era would gravely harm US national security:

• Undermining American Hegemony and Influence: A nuclear dictatorial axis would push the United States out of global decision-making centers and diminish its ability to shape the future in favor of its interests and those of its allies.
• Increased Instability and Nuclear Proliferation: A nuclear Iran would feel immune to its aggressive actions, leading to a deadly nuclear arms race in the Middle East and dramatically increasing the likelihood of regional conflicts that could quickly escalate into a global threat.
• Direct Threat to Vital American Interests: Even without a direct nuclear threat on US soil, the existence of a hostile nuclear axis would reduce Washington’s strategic maneuverability, necessitate unprecedented defense investments, and genuinely endanger close US allies in sensitive regions—a danger that could drag the United States into undesirable conflicts.
• Damage to Global Economic Prosperity: Global security instability, disruptions to trade routes and energy supply, and arms races would severely harm the global economy, and by direct implication, the economic prosperity of American citizens.

The understanding that “rules of the game dictated by nuclear dictatorships” is fundamentally bad for the United States is critical. While Qatar, as a negative actor, can be handled through economic and regulatory means, the other four will require real military force. Any isolationist approach, seeking to reduce US involvement in the world in the name of “America First,” is likely to achieve the opposite: it will leave a power vacuum that hostile actors will quickly fill, increase risks, and diminish the United States’ ability to respond when the threat is already at its doorstep. Preventing a nuclear Iran is not just a regional issue, but a strategic investment in the long-term security, stability, and prosperity of the United States.

Time for America: Leadership in an Era of Dual Challenges

The United States is the only superpower capable—and obligated—to halt the dangerous advance of dictatorial power. This is not merely a matter of strategic interest but a determination of US destiny in a future era of difficult wars in an unstable world. Against isolationist views, it must be understood that “Peace through Strength,” as Ronald Reagan emphasized, is key to American security, in stark contrast to “Peace through Isolation,” which has proven its historical failure. America’s destiny is to be a key player in the world, and it cannot afford to withdraw.

Western Europe, as British author Douglas Murray argues in his book The Strange Death of Europe, has lost the will and ability to defend its values. It has retreated into soft power, economically dependent, toothless. The Russia–Ukraine war sharply illustrated this: Without American support, Kyiv would have fallen, and Europe would have found itself facing direct nuclear confrontation. Today, Western Europe increasingly resembles “the Sick Man of the Bosphorus”—an expression the British reserved for the Ottoman Empire on the eve of its collapse.

However, a crucial point is that the United States is not required to assist its allies if they do not help themselves and take a clear stance. Pressure from public opinion leaders under the slogan “America First” emphasizes that any American involvement must be focused on its national interest. Yet, the American interest demands action: The collapse of the global order—or legitimizing nuclear dictatorships to set the rules—would severely harm US security, its economy, and stability. Preventing such a scenario, despite the burden, is a necessary investment in preserving America’s strength and global standing.

The United States: A Dual Battle on the Internal and External Fronts

It is clear that the United States has inherited problems on two critical fronts: One is the internal front, where it struggles with its identity and social cohesion. The second is the external front, where it is forced to contend with an expanding axis of hostile dictatorships and complex global challenges. It is impossible to win on one front without losing on the other; the United States must win on both. Security and strength at home are a necessary prerequisite for effective leadership abroad, and proactive, interest-driven involvement in the international arena is vital for maintaining the prosperity and security of the American nation at home.

The Moment of Decision: America’s Dual Dilemma

The world is moving, and it is not waiting for America. This is an all-out struggle—both domestically and abroad. To try and minimize it, or ignore one of its components, means to weaken America’s power against its enemies and to endanger its future.

The United States finds itself facing a pivotal dilemma: Does it prefer to deal with a restrained Iran—but with a readily available nuclear capability—or to act now, with a strategic strike that would restore American deterrence and create a deterrent domino effect also towards the rest of the axis? This is the moment of choice—to lead or to be dragged? To act, or to merely watch from the sidelines—and ultimately discover that chaos will reach their very doorstep?

The United States can and must win on both fronts. It must act now, with determination and wisdom, to ensure its prosperity, security, and leading position in the world.