Here it is, before our eyes, the New World Order. It was supposed to be a world capable of coexistence at all latitudes once it was freed from the grip of nuclear bipolarism. When the Wall fell, the USSR collapsed, communism disintegrated, and all possible enemies disappeared from the horizon, it seemed, at the end of the last century, that we were moving toward lasting tranquility. Instead, we are in the middle of a storm. And for good reason. If History, as Benoît Breville writes in his editorial (Le Monde Diplomatique, October 2024), were not constantly manipulated in its narrative, it would be easy to trace the origins of the threatening instability that besieges us, consisting of rearmament and nationalism. And of wars. It would be enough to follow the events and decisions as they happened, starting in 1991, the watershed year. The illusion that the younger generation in power in America (Clinton, Al Gore) is truly peace and progress oriented only lasted a few months. The time came to realize, first and foremost for Bill Clinton, that not only is the Story not over, it will continue as before. Because Eisenhower was right: American politics must deal with those who have the power to influence it. He called it the “military-industrial complex.” A system that, despite the lack of challenges to Western supremacy, was able to present them. It managed to increase the US defense budget by a third during Clinton’s double mandate, when his campaign promise was to cut it drastically. The rest came as a result. Outbreaks are created to legitimize the intervention of firefighters. See Bosnia as told by Sara Flounders through the documents of the CIA. The apparatuses that former General and then twice President Eisenhower spoke of are poised to collect the dividends of chaos. More than thirty years later, we are here counting the shards of a shattered dream. Instability, suffering, mass murder, and destruction is our present. The Middle East, with the deliberately unsolvable Palestinian question, is the most disconcerting example of this. For decades, Washington has considered Israel’s security needs paramount and the Palestinians’s right to a state of their own secondary. As a result of this strategic choice, based on the power of the Jewish lobby in America and the desire for a Western military presence in the critical Gulf region, the Israeli government was allowed everything. Deny the Palestinians their part of Palestine, expand the occupied territories, support Hamas extremists in order take the political leadership of Arafat’s heirs out of the game, make unbearable the captivity of two million Palestinians behind the insurmountable wall of Gaza. All of this – and this is the paradox – is now proving embarrassing for the White House. Which is increasingly being listened to by the Israeli government, with a prime minister like Netanyahu who throws into confetti every draft agreement laboriously agreed upon between all parties that is not for peace, or an armistice, or a ceasefire. But for the sake of a modest respite of a few days. Netanyahu was called “provocative” for his last week’s speech to the UN General Assembly. Biden is reportedly “outraged” that he was not informed from time to time about targeted assassinations, pager attacks with explosives, bombings of enemy bases in the West Bank, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen… Right up to the assassination of Nasrallah in Beirut and the “limited” invasion of Lebanon. Biden is clearly powerless, Kamala Harris is willfully silent, Trumpian hawks are demanding further carte blanche from Congress for Netanyahu. But it could also just be role-playing. An organized chaos to finally reach the real objective: with Israel as the military dominus of the Middle East, a privileged vassal of Washington, a proxy garrison of US maneuver space in an area where Russia, Turkey, Iran and China have gained importance in the eyes of public opinion and the Arab and Muslim masses. The decline of an empire is also managed in this way, assigning a role to provincial governors. A way of trying to slow down the tendencies of History, the unfolding of its cycles: from birth to apogee and decline. Roger Cohen wrote in the New York Times, in recent days, that “the United States does have enduring leverage over Israel, notably in the form of military aid that involved a $15 billion package signed this year by President Biden But an ironclad alliance with Israel built around strategic and domestic political considerations, as well as the shared values of two democracies, means Washington will almost certainly never threaten to cut — let alone cut off — the flow of arms.” Just a seeming contradiction. Similarly, the position in favor of Ukraine seems contradictory. Zelensky’s last tour in New York was generous on promises but stingy on results. Biden has reaffirmed his support while he is in office. Harris has stated that she is ready to continue the line of her predecessor. But Trump played a different tune and Zelenski had to get in tune so as not to clash with a possible new president intent on boasting about the title of peacemaker. No one, or few, know what Trump will do if he returns to the White House, but the uncertainty itself weakens the granite confidence of a world rallying around Kiev’s positions. It’s not just European leaders, for example Scholz, who are suddenly reverting to terms like “negotiations” and “agreements” with Russia. It’s not just military experts who claim there is no “game changer” despite F-16s and long-range missiles. But even the majority of the media that supported Ukraine’s line sic et simpliciter, going so far as to confuse story and fan base, are now mercilessly photographing the reality of things: fewer weapons and ammunition, fewer troops, low morale, eighty thousand deserters, soldiers criticism of commanders, popular discontent with Zelensky…The state of affairs is illustrated by Gianandrea Gaiani in his detailed analysis of the development of the conflict on the ground. And Pablo Iglesias, the protagonist of an intense pacifist season, explains the dramatic parable that has led the Spanish left to become one of NATO’s most zealous supporters.