Friday, January 30, 2026

Is the ‘New World Order’ Really New? (w/ Yanis Varoufakis) | The Chris Hedges Report

Source: Chris Hedges Report

Trump’s Board of Peace is an intricate play to maintain hegemony in the face of China’s rise, sparking talk of “a new world order” — but is the rules-based international order really worth saving?

As U.S. hegemony continues to dwindle, Donald Trump and his international allies are making preparations to maintain some grip on world power. One of these methods includes the “Board of Peace,” which was ostensibly created to reconstruct Gaza, but has demonstrated yet another attempt by Trump to undermine international law.

Yanis Varoufakis, the Secretary-General of the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25), the former Finance Minister of Greece and author of Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism joins host Chris Hedges to discuss what the Board of Peace really means and how it relates to Trump’s larger geopolitical goals, including one seeking to curb China’s rising influence on the world stage.

When it comes to the European Union, Varoufakis explains that European nations are “freaking out about the Board of Peace not only replacing the United Nations, but also targeting them. And this is what they get for ignoring the very clear signs that Trump was sending their way, that he’s out to get them, that he’s no longer interested in having vassals that think that they are part of a Western multilateral design… it seems to me that the Donald Trump policy is forcing his allies, so to speak, firstly to accept that the genocide will continue. Secondly, not to dare say anything about it. And third, go into these spasms of quasi-autonomy.”

As for China, Varoufakis says that Trump understands that the U.S. will have to coexist with the East Asian nation but must also to rein in the Europeans while maintaining control of the Western hemisphere, likening the tentacles of the American empire to a bicycle wheel. “The bicycle wheel has a hub in the middle and it’s got spokes… you can break one or two or three spokes and the wheel still works,” Varoufakis says. “As long as you are the hub and you negotiate with each spoke separately, you keep them separate and you don’t allow them to get together and negotiate with you collectively, then you can extend your hegemony and make a lot of money in the process.”

While the context Trump faces with China rising on the world stage has pushed the United States into a new paradigm, Varoufakis casts doubt on the idea that Trump’s colonialism is much different than that conducted within the liberal international world order. “Well, I don’t want to mythologize the world we’re exiting,” he says. “Because you see, this is what liberal centrists do, radical centrists. They say, everything was so good until this man [Trump] came and destroyed it. I’m sorry, it wasn’t good. You know…I grew up in a NATO country that was a fascist dictatorship. So when people say, NATO is democracy. No, I’m sorry. It’s not for me.”



Transcript

Chris Hedges

Donald Trump’s sham peace plan, which was adopted by the Security Council in a stunning betrayal of the Palestinians and a flagrant violation of international law, is overseen by the so-called Board of Peace. While European leaders have turned their backs on the Board of Peace, numerous authoritarian regimes — including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Morocco — have signed on for the charade. Trump says each board member will be required to pay $1 billion to join.

Initially designed to supposedly oversee the transformation of Gaza, it has broadened its mission to serve as a counterweight to the United Nations, which Trump and his authoritarian allies are seeking to gut.

The Board of Peace is to be headed by Trump in perpetuity. Its executive board members, composed of people with little experience in the region, all of whom gave full-throated support to the genocide, include Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, the Wall Street financier Marc Rowan, the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The board which envisions a glittering Gaza Riviera of high rises is the usual pipe dream of colonists. As in all colonial ventures, the indigenous inhabitants, in order for the vision of a new Gaza to be realized, must be ruthlessly suppressed or expelled.

Nickolay Mladenov, a Bulgarian diplomat, will serve as Gaza’s “high representative”. His advisors include Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone, who was allied with the Jewish settlers and was involved in the creation of the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, where more than 2,600 desperate Palestinians were gunned down and at least 19,000 wounded as they scrambled to grab a few food items from four poultry food dumps.

Security will be purportedly overseen by Sami Nasman, a senior Palestinian Authority security officer who was sentenced in absentia by a Gaza court to 15 years in prison for allegedly orchestrating assassination attempts against Hamas leaders, along with an international stabilization force, although few countries seem eager to volunteer their troops.

The Board of Peace, however, is dead in the water unless Hamas disarms, something Hamas has said it does not intend to do. It will serve rather as a cover for Israel’s ongoing slow-motion genocide. Israel occupies 60% of the Gaza Strip. It continues to block the delivery of humanitarian aid, construction, materials, and fuel into Gaza, where malnutrition is widespread and there’s little clean water.

It has committed over 1,000 ceasefire violations, killing some 450 Palestinians since the ceasefire began. Trump will revel in his role as the debauched imperial viceroy of Gaza, but his Board of Peace, like Trump’s sham university, is another scam. A way to thwart a Palestinian state, ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land and when they are gone, turn over rubble-strewn cities and towns to developers, whose high rises, if they are ever built, will never house Palestinians.

Joining me to discuss the ceasefire, Trump’s Board of Peace, and what it means for our new world order is Yanis Varoufakis, who is the Secretary-General of the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25), the former Finance Minister of Greece and the author of numerous books, including Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism.

Well, they can’t say that satire’s dead. The “Peace Plan” itself is a ridiculous document, as is the Board of Peace, but this absurdism is dangerous and I’m going to ask you why.

Yanis Varoufakis

Well, in 1945, the people of the world supposedly got together after a pretty bad experience of carnage, Holocaust, tens of millions of people dying. And we thought we turned the page as a species, that we declared that we’re going to have common rules and that we are going to outlaw certain things that were detrimental to the prospects of the species like, for instance, genocide, invading other people and taking over their land just because you think that you deserve it.

Now of course that was always an aspiration not so much a reality but this is the difference between the Donald and his predecessors, he doesn’t try to justify what he does, he doesn’t try to wrap it up in humanitarian foil, he just grabs and takes to the logical limit everything that George W. Bush did, even Bill Clinton.

When I hear, for instance, Europeans complain and say to me about Ukraine, we can’t allow Putin to bomb his way into changing the borders. I said, well, that’s exactly what you did in 1999, in bloody Yugoslavia, excuse my French. I mean you bomb… I mean don’t go into the discussion of whether it was a good idea or a bad idea but you can’t say that this is a principle that you uphold because you were the first ones to destroy.

Now going to, by the way, I thought that your introduction was splendid. I don’t want to add anything to it. Let me tell you how I felt when I first heard about the Board of Peace months ago with the so-called ceasefires not really ceasefire — the idea is that the Palestinians cease and the Israelis fire as they killed journalists and children only 24 hours ago.

But anyway, when I heard about this idea, I thought it was a travesty. Immediately, as you said, I thought it was something like George Lucas would have written as a script if he was on LSD or very, very bad mushrooms. But then I had second thoughts, Chris.

You know you said that this is a new order. It’s not. Maybe we are going back to a very old order. Because the idea of a corporation that is formed in a Western capital with very rich people chipping money in to join and get shares of that corporation to take over the world. That happened for the first time, at least in Britain.

It had happened a little bit earlier in Amsterdam, but it happened at a time when Shakespeare was writing Hamlet, thereabouts. It was 425 years ago. And those gentlemen who got together, they formed the British East India Company. And so this was a corporate predecessor of national colonialism. That company, as we all know, moved to India, took over India.

They moved to Indonesia, to South East Asia, similar companies did similar stuff in Africa. The British East India Company at some point had 200,000 soldiers under their command. This was a corporation. The difference is that Donald wants to do it very quickly and he doesn’t want to chip in anything. He doesn’t need to put even his own money in there. He wants other people to put in money in there and he is selected.

You watched that video, right, of Netanyahu and [Alexander] Lukashenko and all those people. It was like a bad [James] Bond movie where all the evil gang go together. They put the band back together and decide, in James Bond they have these corporations, what are they? The Spectre? They take over the world. Now, I didn’t think I would live to see that, I have to admit.

But it’s not that new an idea. I mean, it was in James Bond and it is the way that India was colonized and Africa was colonized and Indonesia was colonized. Now, one last vignette, if I may. I have to say that, you know, trying to find a silver lining, some reason to smile in a 2026, which is unfolding pretty miserably, the frustration in the faces of our European, Lilliputian leaders gives me a little bit of a smile.

Because those idiots, those pathetic fools, I mean there’s nothing, no other way I can describe them, when the Donald brought to them the idea of the Board of Peace for Gaza, they said, yeah great, as you said in your introduction, they approved of it in the Security Council and so on.

Why? Because they think, ah, that’s for Palestinians, that’s for brown people, why do we care? Now they realize it’s for them as well!

Chris Hedges

Well, because Gaza is not even mentioned. Gaza is not even mentioned.

Yanis Varoufakis

That’s right. So it’s for them as well. And it’s not to counterweight the United Nations, it’s to completely sideline the United Nations. Maybe he wants to, I think he wants to give the United Nations because he likes these stamps and he likes these logos. He’d like to purchase it at some point as well, along with Greenland.

Chris Hedges

So let’s talk a little bit about Gaza. You no doubt saw this AI-generated vision of towers along the Gaza seashore. It reminded me very much of the fantasies that were spun by the Bosnian Serbs after the war where they said they had lost Sarajevo and they were going to recreate a new city in Palais, this small ski resort.

They had similar, it wasn’t done by AI and it wasn’t digitally generated, but they had models of big stadiums and none of it ever came to pass. I can’t believe anything’s gonna come to pass like that in Gaza, I wonder if it’s more going to be the Golan Heights where they have these dreary cement boxy buildings, one of which is called the Trump Tower.

But I just wondered what your thoughts were on what their vision is. Obviously, as this kind of charter city pioneered by these people like Peter Thiel in Honduras, although there are problems there, where they’re corporate entities. They’re completely severed from the nation state that they’re in. But talk a little bit about how you see their vision, especially since you’ve kind of written about their vision in your last book.

Yanis Varoufakis

Well, there are a number of things to be said here. The first thing is that I refuse to make predictions. Why? Because I think we have a moral right, right? Duty, not right. We have an ethical and a moral duty not to predict, but to fight to stop it. This is not the weather that you can predict as a meteorologist and the weather doesn’t give a damn about your prediction, so it doesn’t matter whether you’re right or wrong.

Here we have a duty to stop that. That’s point number, you know, my first ethical statement if you want, but beyond that, look, remember, you remember this very well, but for the, for our audience, this Board of Peace and the ceasefire was what happened when Donald Trump astutely recognized that Netanyahu is losing the propaganda war.

There were four major countries, France, Britain, Australia, and Canada, that recognized the state of Palestine, which was, of course, very hypocritical of them because they only recognized it assuming that it would never happen. It was just a way of…

Chris Hedges

Well and they also kept sending weapons. I think the Brits reduced their weapon shipments by, what, 10% or something.

Yanis Varoufakis

Yeah, and they kept imprisoning people that were protesting against the use of those weapons. And they’re still imprisoning them. People are dying as we speak of hunger strikes in British prisons. So it was hypocritical, but it was a major defeat at the propaganda level for Netanyahu.

You know, Donald does have a sense of timing when it comes to public relations. So he steps in, he imposes that ceasefire, he brings in the Board of Peace by which effectively to seal the genocides continuation, allow Netanyahu to somehow recover from his propaganda loss while at the same time continuing the genocide by other means, by means of starvation, by means of not allowing medicine to go in. I mean the hospitals, what is left of the hospitals in Gaza today, they’re still operating on children without anesthetic. No anesthetic is allowed into Gaza as you and I speak now.

So this is continuing and it worked. I don’t know whether you… Maybe I shouldn’t be saying this, but the truth is our only radical weapon left for us. Even the pro-Palestinian movement has subsided to a very large extent. I mean it is increasingly difficult to stage demonstrations. You know, we do it all the time. We try to organize it.

You know what you and I experienced in Genova some time ago, it would be very hard to emulate today because Donald’s intervention succeeded in releasing a lot of the pressure on Netanyahu so that he can continue to do it. What is the essence of this AI-generated vision or dystopia that he’s presenting? The essence is this: “I don’t care,” he says, “whether it will happen or not.” But what it does, it stops people from talking about the genocide. They are talking about, “Is this going to materialize? Is it going to look like Dubai or will it resemble Miami?”

OK, but no one is discussing the fact that for this vision to be even contemplated, you have to get rid of the Palestinians. Because the Palestinian people cannot coexist with that dystopic, AI-generated vision and you don’t see that much of a discussion. You know, there is a little bit of discussion in The Guardian and in the Times and so on about, yeah, what role will the Palestinians play?

Well, the answer they give themselves, but not in so many words that they imply, is the same role that the apartheid regime in South Africa had set aside for the Blacks. That is, they will live in some bantustans as long as they are good boys and girls and they come out at 5:30 in the morning in minibuses, they’re feted in, they do all the dirty work of the whites.

And then they go back at midnight to just drop dead tired and then come back again in the same minibus at 5:30 next morning. As long as they do that, they don’t complain and they are happy to work or they tolerate terrible wages, then yeah, sure, we can keep some of them.

But yeah, and we can have the token Palestinian defeated turncoat who is going to pretend to be the manager of some part of this dystopia. You see, already, it doesn’t matter whether they build it. That dystopic AI-generated vision has already done the job of stopping us from talking about, not you and me, but, people who had started discussing the Palestinian state.

So remember, it was all about countering the recognition of the Palestinian state by France, Britain, Australia and Canada. This has completely succeeded. At the moment, Mark Carney, who’s now the doyen of almost every centrist in the world following his Davos quite interesting speech, I would say.

Albanese — not our friend Francesca — the Prime Minister of Australia, [Emmanuel] Macron, Keir Starmer and so on, they are not talking anymore about the Palestinian state because they’re freaking out about the Board of Peace not only replacing the United Nations, but also targeting them. And, you know, this is what they get for ignoring the very clear signs that Trump was sending their way, that he’s out to get them, that he’s no longer interested in having vassals that think that they are part of a Western multilateral design.

And therefore, you know, in a sense they’re getting their comeuppance. But it seems to me that the Donald Trump policy is forcing his allies, so to speak, firstly to accept that the genocide will continue. Secondly, not to dare say anything about it. And third, go into these spasms of quasi-autonomy.

You heard Mark Carney in Davos only yesterday. He made a very good speech. The first part was excellent. I could have said it. I could have written it. But then when it comes to what needs to be done, his answer is that middle powers have to get together in order to recreate the false multilateral international order which firstly they cannot recreate and secondly is absolutely dependent on American multinational corporations, Wall Street and Big Tech.

Chris Hedges

Why do you think — it was something I explored with Norman Finkelstein — but why do you think the UN Security Council passed this 20-point ceasefire when it was just a joke? It wasn’t even a particularly well-put-together document. At least these ceasefire agreements in the past had amendments and details. This didn’t. I mean, it was clearly a farce from the moment you read it.

Yanis Varoufakis

I was desperate when I saw that it passed, I have to say that I didn’t expect it and I can’t see how the United Nations can survive that. But to answer your question, well, it’s very clear why the French and the British, the Canadians and so on went along with that. They went along with that because they thought, as I said before, that this is just for brown people — Palestinians, Muslims, who cares about them?

You know, if the Donald wants it, we’re not going to risk tariffs or higher tariffs by confronting him. [Vladimir] Putin, obviously, abstained because he has a thing happening now with Donald. They are trying to work out a deal the Europeans can stomach, some kind of face-saving deal for the Europeans regarding Ukraine. I mean, Ukraine doesn’t have a say in this.

We all know that, as Kissinger said, the worst thing that can happen to you is to be the friend of the United States. Now, the interesting question is China. I spoke to people who speak to people who know how Beijing thinks, or claim to know. And the answer I got was that, what could we do? The Palestinian Authority said yes. So we felt the need to abstain. Otherwise we’d have to go contrary against the Palestinian Authority.

And I have to say, Chris, that there is something about this argument. Perhaps the worst aspect of this decision is that the Palestinian Authority did go along with that. That is the greatest source of pain for me personally, watching the Palestinian Authority slide into a morass of complicity and of, I would even use the very, very harsh word, collaboration with the Occupier.

Chris Hedges

Well Yanis, they have provided armed units, the Palestinian Authority, to gun down resistance figures in Jenin.

Yanis Varoufakis

They acted like the IDF. They did exactly what the IDF did in Gaza. They did it in Jenin. But you know, Chris, I want to respect the struggle of the Palestinian people. I’m not Palestinian. I’m not there on the ground. I consider that struggle to be my struggle as well, because I do believe it’s a universal struggle, but I also have to prioritize what they say to me.

So even people who are on the opposite side of the Palestinian spectrum, they have been calling upon me and people like me to refrain from calling out the Palestinian Authority because they still want to maintain hope that some kind of Palestinian unity, including the Palestinian Authority, is possible because I can understand that. It’s very difficult to imagine a future for the Palestinian struggle without that unity.

Chris Hedges

Let’s talk a little bit about the kind of retrograde world order Trump is putting into place, one of naked subjugation of weaker states, Venezuela, talking about Canada, Mexico, Greenland.

That’s the macrocosm but there’s also the microcosm of going after figures like Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur [on the Occupied Palestinian Territories], where they have done to her what they did to Julian Assange, which is essentially cut her off from the financial system and you also are dealing with the kind of absurdist situation where you gave an interview and I think you said you had done ecstasy or something 25 years before, or you can explain.

So on the one hand, you see the dynamiting of the old order, but that is accompanied, we mentioned the hunger strikers from Palestine Action, it’s also accompanied by a very ruthless campaign to shut down voices like yours, like Francesca’s, and you can explain what happened to you, then extrapolate on that aspect of the new configurations of power.

Yanis Varoufakis

Well, what happened to me is a tiny, tiny minor thing.

Chris Hedges

But it’s illustrative, I think.

Yanis Varoufakis

Of course, it tells a story. So just briefly, it doesn’t deserve more than one minute. I’m a figure of hatred amongst the oligarchs in this country and in the Israeli embassy, obviously. And therefore they will do whatever they can in order to create an image of me as an unserious person, a person that needs to be reined in by the law.

So I was talking in a theater to young people, ravers, people that are into music. I really enjoy talking to audiences like that, rather than the same old lefty audiences of people like us. And I was asked a question, I was asked, have you ever taken drugs, Mr. Varoufakis? And I said, I wasn’t going to do a Clinton and say that I didn’t inhale. I said, yeah, I’ve done pot at university and so on.

And I remember it was actually 37 years ago, Chris, I took an ecstasy pill in a rave party in Sydney, Australia at the gay and lesbian Mardi Gras. It was great. And I said to them that for 16 hours I was dancing, I said there was no gravity. And then I lived to regret it because for a week I had a migraine and I never did it again. And then I made the point that, you know, I’m not going to lecture you and tell you what to do and what not to do, but beware of addiction. Addiction is the Satan.

So I said that. So the governing party, right-wing party in Greece, made a big song and dance about that. They, of course, they took a tiny little portion of what I said and the Minister of Health on television, on a television panel, ordered the district attorney to prosecute me for advertising drug taking. So, compared, however, to what they did to Julian Assange and what they’re doing now to Francesca Albanese, our friend, but also to a French judge that dared participate in the International Criminal Court decision to indict Netanyahu.

I mean, this man is even worse off than Francesca because he lives in France and he can’t even book a hotel in his own country. I mean, this is a judge of the French state appointed to the International Criminal Court and the French state is not even helping him. He’s a non-person. He can’t travel. He cannot, he has no bank account.

And Francesca, course, far more so. There’s a Slovenian judge. There is all that. But regarding the macro picture, now, I want to insist that Donald Trump is not that much of a novelty. I keep coming back to this. You know, Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, trashing the United Nations. I remember how much he hated the idea of the International Criminal Court.

Obama was playing war games everyday in the White House and selecting targets, extrajudicial killings. What part of the international legal system was he not violating?

Chris Hedges

Well, including American citizens in Yemen, including a 16-year-old boy who was an American citizen.

Yanis Varoufakis

That’s right. Now the difference is, and I think that was something that came out quite strongly out of Mark Carney’s Davos speech. What Trump is doing is he’s ending the pretense that the United States can remain the hegemon around the world. In a sense, this is a quite realistic approach. What he’s saying is that we lost the New Cold War.

I started it, he started it, remember, the new Cold War against China was started by Donald Trump with the banning of Huawei, of ZTE, another Chinese company. He forced the Canadians to imprison the daughter of the Huawei owner, right? And the Canadians were very happy to do that. So that’s why I’m smiling when I see the Canadians now freaking out. So this is not a new story.

The way he understands the world, geopolitically, is as follows: he thinks that, and he’s not completely wrong on this, that because the United States has lost its capacity to impose its will the way it used to, the best way of maintaining hegemony, which has been, by the way, Chris, this has been a project that started in 1969, 1970 by Henry Kissinger when he was at the NSC, the National Security Council.

Kissinger, being Kissinger, he could see that the United States was going to lose his hegemony unless they did something about it. Why? Because from being a surplus country, it became a deficit country. And what Kissinger used to say, he didn’t know much economics, but he knew enough to know that an empire that goes into the red stops being an empire.

So the Nixon shock, the end of Bretton Woods, financialization, all that was an attempt to weaponize the dollar in order to maintain American hegemony after America slipped from a surplus position to a deficit position. And now the Mar-a-Lago paper by Stephen Miran, what Scott Bessent is all about, what Trump is all about, is how to extend this hegemony even during a time when China is making leaps and bounds in terms of industrial prowess and even AI, you know, 50% of AI experts now are Chinese. They’re not from Silicon Valley.

And his view is that he’s going to coexist with China, let China have its own territory, maybe the BRICS or part of the BRICS, and the rest of the world he’s going to look at as a bicycle wheel. The bicycle wheel has a hub in the middle and it’s got spokes. And you know, you can break one or two or three spokes and the wheel still works.

As long as you are the hub and you negotiate with each spoke separately, you keep them separate and you don’t allow them to get together and negotiate with you collectively, then you can extend your hegemony and make a lot of money in the process. So, when he sees the European Union, people don’t understand why does he hate the European Union so much?

I mean, there are many reasons, but I think the primary reason is because he doesn’t want the Europeans to be all together and to have the audacity to negotiate with him as one. So he wants to, like the hub with each different spoke, Germany one, Italy, another one and so he wants to split them up. So when they were saying, by challenging us, Danish sovereignty over Greenland, you’re destroying NATO and the EU. He says, yeah, that’s what I’m doing. And he sent [Howard] Lutnick, his Commerce Secretary to Davos just before him. And Lutnick made, I thought, what was a very interesting speech. He said, I’m not here to join you. I’m here to bury you.

And [President of the European Central Bank] Christine Lagarde walked out. But where was she walking towards? Does she have a plan for Europe? These people don’t have a plan for Europe. You see our leaders here in Europe, for 70 years, they didn’t want to be anything other than the vassals of the United States. They just wanted, they loved the idea of pretending to be, have a special relationship with the United States, but just being vassals as long as they sold more stuff to the United States than they bought and they had the surplus.

And they got dollars for that, which they then used in order to buy treasuries in order to fund the American army to pretend that it was protecting them while making a lot of money in the process. That was a great racket for them. And you know, Donald Trump says, this racket is not working for me anymore. I’ve got a better one.

Chris Hedges

What are the consequences of imploding NATO, tearing down international agreements, of course the clear violation of the UN Charter with the perpetuity of the genocide in Gaza? What kind of a world are we entering?

Yanis Varoufakis

Well, I don’t want to mythologize the world we’re exiting. Because you see, this is what liberal centrists do, radical centrists. They say, everything was so good until this man came and destroyed it. I’m sorry it wasn’t good. You know, if you were Vietnamese in the 1950s and 60s, if you, I grew up in a NATO country that was a fascist dictatorship. So when people say, NATO is democracy. No, I’m sorry. It’s not for me.

My father was abducted from my home when I was six at four o’clock in the morning by an army that was a member of NATO. So please, I’m all against communist totalitarianism in Czechoslovakia at the same time, but don’t tell me that NATO equals democracy because it really doesn’t. And we must stop ourselves from conflating everything. So the United Nations Charter is a great achievement of the human spirit and we should protect it. But NATO is not.

NATO is like a mafia that spreads insecurity in order to sell you protection. I mean, we have no reason to have NATO. After 1991, there was no point in NATO except to create new circumstances for tensions so that the American military industrial complex could continue to produce weaponry.

I remember I was talking to a gentleman some time ago, many years ago, who used to be the chief of staff of NATO, an American general. That was 16 years ago or so. And I asked him, why should we want NATO? And he said, well, no, you shouldn’t want it, you Europeans. We want it. And I said, explain to me why you want it. And he said, well, firstly, because how else are we going to create tensions so that we can keep buying ABCDE and so on from the American military industrial complex because without that the American macroeconomy will be in trouble.

Secondly, because we want to keep pushing Russia to do things that will justify us being in Europe. And thirdly, to keep the Germans down. This is verbatim what he said to me. And so, you know, doing away with NATO for me would be great. I spent all my life, all my political activism arguing for Greece to get out of NATO and for Europe to get out of NATO as well.

And the tragedy is that now you have somebody like Donald Trump, who is a fascist, right? And he will take all our countries like that in order to turn them into Miami dystopias. And he’s the one who is undermining NATO. I mean, I just couldn’t imagine that I would live to see that.

Chris Hedges

What do you think is, I’m not asking you to predict, but there are no impediments to Trump. Other than Carney, everyone in Davos was obsequious. I mean, the Europeans didn’t sign on for the Board of Peace, but they’re not confronting Trump. There’s no internal impediments to what Trump wants and very, very few external impediments.

Canada and Carney really doesn’t have a mechanism by which they can push back. Yes, they can expand trade with China, et cetera. I think Trump’s only been in power for a year, and yet the reconfiguration, both domestically within the United States and within the international order, has been huge.

Yanis Varoufakis

Well, he’s already lost one very serious battle with the Chinese. He lost the trade war with the Chinese. He tried to fight it and he lost it. He won the trade war with Europe, but lost with the Chinese. So he’s got his great constraint is China. Europe is not a constraint for him, as you say. I’m not going to add another word to that. But his major constraints are within the MAGA movement and within the United States.

So, the Supreme Court could undermine him to some extent, even though he’s appointed most of them or some of them. And forces within the United States, I mean, you know your country better than I do. There is a very deep state. There is a very intertwined set of different interests and forces. There’s a major clash happening between Wall Street and Big Tech, something that China doesn’t have to face.

In China, the Communist Party government is taking the financiers and the Big Tech people and forcing them to go into bed with one another. That’s why in China you have an application, an app like WeChat, which allows you to make free payments to anyone as long as you have one account. That will never happen in the United States because Wall Street is kicking and screaming against handing over this power to Big Tech.

But you know, Trump comes in and he takes the side of Big Tech. The GENIUS Act, I think, is a major lump of dynamite in the foundations of the American financial capital. Because essentially what he’s doing with the GENIUS Act, it’s not about Bitcoin, not about Ethereum, it’s about stablecoins, like Tether.

These are US dollar denominated cryptocurrencies that are completely out of the jurisdiction of the United States. They claim that the GENIUS Act is regulating them. It’s doing no such thing. It’s only just window dressing of regulation. And the reason why he’s doing it is because he firstly is going to make a lot of money and secondly because he’s going to allow him to expand massively the American deficit.

I have it on good authority that he’s in his negotiations with the Japanese, he said, look, you own all these long dated 30 year long or 10 year long treasuries. 1.2 trillion American dollars to be precise. I want you to sell them. I want you to buy Tether. Because what happens is this, when you buy Tether, you get, let’s say you have a hundred dollars and you buy a hundred dollars of Tether. Okay. So nothing happened.

I mean, instead of having the paper dollars, you have the Tether dollars. But what Tether does is then in order to be able to maintain its promise, to keep its promise that if you want your dollars back, you can have them. What Tether does is it goes to the American Treasury, to the US Treasury, and buys short-term Treasuries worth $100.

But that means that when you have a wall of money going to Tether away from the banking system, the Treasury Department, Scott Bessent’s department, predicted that in the next 18 months, not 18 years, 18 months, 6.6 trillion American dollars will shift from American bank accounts to Tether.

That is a huge amount of new treasuries that he will be able to issue, short-term treasuries, to fund his government while giving tax cuts. These are the things, that team, they’re not buffoons. I mean, liberals and Democrats and so on want to present Trump’s team as idiots. They’re not.

They are very well exercised and honed at making a lot of money and extending their capacity to do a huge amount of long-term damage to the American working class, to the American middle class. And he’s in the process of doing this. But all these things are going to create internal divisions. I think his MAGA base is already feeling that and you can see the tensions developing within them.

I think that is one of the reasons why he abducted Maduro. I don’t think he cares about Maduro. I don’t think he even cares about Venezuelan oil. But I think that he cares about the Cubans and the Venezuelans in Miami that support Rubio and he wants to keep them on board while at the same time denying them access to Obamacare.

Chris Hedges

And yet, if you can establish, and you lived through it in the dictatorship in Greece, if you can establish paramilitary forces, secret police, like ICE, it doesn’t really matter what the public discontent is. I can’t imagine the… it was a junta, right, in Greece was particularly popular. You had just come off a pretty brutal civil war. But authoritarian regimes, in the end, public opinion is irrelevant if you shut down any mechanism by which dissent or democratic rights are possible.

Yanis Varoufakis

In the short term, but not in the long term. This is where my optimism, my hope comes out. You know, when the CIA-inspired coup in 1967 took over this country, for a few years, nobody took the risk of demonstrating. I mean, there were some people that did and they were promptly killed and imprisoned and tortured like my mother’s brother. But, you know, it is possible to keep the lid on popular discontent using coercion, using a Praetorian Guard.

In Greece it was SI, in the United States today it’s ICE. And he’s creating, you can tell, I mean, just look at the Big Beautiful Bill, the amount of money that he’s given to ICE. Effectively, he’s building up his Praetorian Guard. But I’d like to think that history proves that you can keep a lot of people down for some time, but you can’t keep all the people down all of the time.

And at some point these ruptures will show. And, you know, we’re already seeing in the United States, solidarity movements, electoral results that are not going his way. I want to remain hopeful, even though I have no empirical evidence that it is right to hope.

Chris Hedges

Let’s just close by talking about Israel. You’re right that this essentially, this so-called ceasefire agreement, peace plan, port of peace, our cover, how are things going to play out not only in Gaza but also Israel itself?

Yanis Varoufakis

Well, like my friend, Ilan Pappé and Norman Finkelstein, our common friend, I think that in the end, there’s going to be a resolution on the basis of how a major clash, a contradiction, resolves itself. And what is this contradiction? On the one hand, as Norman Finkelstein never ceases to argue that Israeli society is being pushed in the direction of fascism, in a direction of genocide worshipping. There is opposition, of course.

Ofer Cassif, my great friend, member of Knesset, on the phone to me all the time with, you know, messages conveying the determination on behalf of our Jewish comrades in Israel to fight the good fight. But, Finkelstein is right, you know, the shift towards fascism, the shift towards the settlers away from the more liberal democratic heart of the state of Israel. That is one force and this is moving in the direction of misanthropy on a daily basis.

But then, Ilan Pappé’s analysis also comes in and I think it is also important. Israel is a political economy relying on what 300,000 people? It’s 300,000 people who are keeping Israel going in terms of its hospitals, in terms of its startups, its tech industries, which are very advanced. The universities, the technocrats, that’s about 300,000 people. That’s not that many. And they are already discontented.

It’s not that they are pro-Palestinian, it’s not that they care very much about what’s happening in Gaza. Some of them do, but the vast majority, as Finkelstein says, don’t. But they can smell in the air the odor of an impasse. And a lot of them, I see them here in Greece, they come and buy houses. They’re not just investments, they are Plan B residences in case they need to leave. And some of them have already sent their families over, not just to Greece but to various places.

Chris Hedges

Well, they hide the numbers, but aren’t the estimates that some 500,000 Israelis have left since October 7th?

Yanis Varoufakis

Yeah. So if a significant percentage of the 300,000 technocrats that are keeping Israel together leave, what are they left with? They’re left with the settlers, the fascists. They are left with the ultra-orthodox who don’t even want to join the army. So the greatest hope for the Palestinians is while they’re hammering out some kind of Palestinian unity, which is difficult, but I hope they will continue to do it and they will succeed in ways that haven’t succeeded in the past, that the capacity of Israel to reproduce itself as an apartheid state based on a high-tech sector, which is significant, but still quite small and withering if these people carry on living. Well, these are the two forces that are clashing and the resolution of which is going to determine the future.

Chris Hedges

Great. Thanks, Yanis.

 

Source: Convergence

Every day we face a constant stream of government lies. Illegal and immoral use of military force. Defiance of international law and global public opinion. Ravenous hunger for oil, and US wars to feed it. Kidnapping and torture. Rampant Islamophobia and anti-immigrant hysteria. Repression of dissent and demonization of dissenters. Killing of women and children excused as mere “collateral damage.” An “opposition party” whose leadership flinches from effective opposition. 

And we have been here before. Jeremy Varon’s new book, Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War, provides the details in its deep-dive history of the movement to stop the post-9/11 “War on Terror.” Beyond getting the story of this huge popular movement (“the world’s second superpower”) on the record, the book gives us a timely reminder that the challenges faced by peace advocates in the first decade of the 21st century still bedevil us. 

US politics today are different from 20 years ago. But it is impossible to finish Varon’s book without a bolt of déjà vu. The US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have ended, but the murderous approach to the world refined under the “War on Terror” still prevails. The Trump 2.0 strategy to maintain US global dominance diverges from the course pursued by Bush, Obama, and Biden. But the practice of deploying lies, Islamophobia, torture, and lethal force to make sure US capital remains free to exploit peoples throughout the world has been carried over from one administration to the next. Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes even admits the continuity in the pages of the New York Times:

An endless, costly, and jingoistic war on terror plowed the ground for a populist like Donald Trump to wrest control of the Republican Party from discredited elites. The machinery of the war on terror has become the foundation for Mr. Trump’s own security state — from ICE operations to the complex night raid that removed Mr. Maduro.

The biggest lesson from this déjà vu moment is this: Today’s anti-MAGA movement must resist every one of Washington’s might-makes-right policies and fight for an entirely different relationship between this country and the rest of the world. Only making serious headway in this effort will reduce the harms Washington is wreaking on vulnerable populations across the globe and make it possible for us to defeat US-style fascism at home. 

Anatomy of the world’s second superpower

Our Grief Is Not a Cry for Warbases its recounting on extensive primary sources and in-depth interviews with a wide range of anti-“War on Terror” activists. (Full disclosure: I am one of the individuals interviewed and quoted in the volume.) What emerges is a picture of a truly mass movement. Pre-existing peace groups grew and new organizations formed. People of all backgrounds got involved; their motivations and ideologies varied and often changed over time. New leaders emerged. The movement employed a wide spectrum of tactics, from vigils and large peaceful marches to civil disobedience, electoral engagement, and lobbying Congress. Coalitions formed. Tensions existed and sometimes erupted between different formations. At times broad unity in action was achieved and at other times it was not. It was a challenging time on an emotional as well as a political level, and the portraits of individual activists included in the book provide a window into the human texture of the antiwar upsurge with all its stress, pain, and determination. 

The book gives rich detail about the organizing done among veterans and military families and the extensive efforts of faith-based organizations. Groups such as the Iraq Peace Team traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to provide humanitarian aid and try to be a physical obstacle to the US dropping bombs. Our Grief recounts in depth the role of, and conflicts between, the left-initiated coalitions, United for Peace and Justice  (UFPJ) and ANSWER, which sponsored the movement’s largest demonstrations. The origins and important contributions of other prominent formations including Not in Our NameCode Pink, and September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows get their due. 

Though Our Grief points out the significance of antiwar sentiment spreading in labor and in Black, Latino, and Arab American communities, it doesn’t cover the organizing done in those sectors with the same level of detail. The AFL-CIO coming out against the invasion of Iraq gets a mention, but the organizing done by US Labor Against the War, which was largely responsible for that achievement, does not. The book credits Black Voices for Peace, the Black Radical Congress, and the Latino Peace Pilgrimage for important work, but leaves the reader hungry for more detailed coverage of their organizing.

The book discusses the racism and Islamophobia faced by Arabs and Muslims who spoke out against the war, and the conflicts over how (and in some cases, if) Palestine solidarity should be integrated into the movement’s demands and work. But with the Gaza genocide thrusting Palestine solidarity to the forefront of the global fight for peace and against all forms of colonialism, readers could wish more had been offered.

…relying on militarism abroad leads to using military-type means to solve social and political problems at home with similarly disastrous results.

The millions-strong protest on February 15, 2003 opposing a US attack on Iraq—“the day the world said no to war”—was the largest single expression of the antiwar movement’s strength. Fittingly, the chapter about the organizing that produced this milestone protest and its aftermath anchors the book. Though the volume is mainly about activism and protest in the US, in this and other places it reminds us that this was an international movement. 

Likewise, the book consistently foregrounds the fact that the main victims of the US “War on Terror” were Iraqis, Afghans, and other peoples in the Middle East and beyond. The sentiment that every human life on the planet is equally valuable permeates the volume; it is underscored in its final paragraph, a quote from Voices in the Wilderness co-founder Kathy Kelly (whose informal motto is “If you smell burning flesh, you better get to where the fire is”):

We’re supposed to do what everyone is supposed to do: live as full humans, as best we can, in a world whose destiny we can never predict, and whose astonishingly precious inhabitants can never be given enough justice, time, or love.

Posing questions of strategy

Sometimes explicitly, more often between the lines, Varon’s book highlights important considerations for building a left strategy rooted in “an injury to one is an injury to all” internationalism. It points to the need to deepen the felt connections between domestic and international issues, and the practical relationship between protest and electoral work.

Building organizations whose main focus is fighting for peace, solidarity, and a changed US foreign policy is essential. But the movement exercised its maximum political clout when groups and individuals that focused on domestic issues embraced opposition to the “War on Terror.” That embrace by trade unions, racial and gender justice organizations, and groups focused on local issues proved difficult to sustain in practice beyond high-tide protest moments. The same challenge persists today. 

Moral witness and “speaking truth to power” moved large numbers into the anti–War on Terror camp. But translating public sentiment into concrete policy changes mandated efforts to directly affect the institutions (mainly Congress and the Presidency) where policy decisions are made. Short of a revolutionary or near-revolutionary situation, both moral witness and the messiness of electoral engagement will and must be components of any truly mass movement. Navigating the tensions between them—forging a synergy in which the overall impact is greater than the sum of these two component parts—is as much of a challenge today as it was in 2004 or 2008. 

A radical core to build for the long term

A chauvinistic version of patriotism (“we-are-inherently-the-good-guys” thinking) pervades US society. The architects of the War on Terror took full advantage of that to rally the public behind their invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and various kill-alleged-terrorists–anywhere operations. When George Bush proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” shortly after the invasion of Iraq, the massive public opposition that had preceded the attack faded. And as long as claims that the US was “winning” could be credibly maintained, majority support held even as the scale of the civilian toll from bombs and torture (Abu Ghraib) was widely exposed. Only when the US got “bogged down,” US casualties mounted, and nothing like “victory” could be proclaimed did the popular consensus shift to viewing the Iraq war as a “mistake” (but not, for most, the crime that it actually was). 

There is a bitter lesson here. Beyond urgent mobilizations aimed at preventing or opposing each particular US war, a sustained effort is needed to broaden public understanding that political problems cannot be solved by military force. Moreover, relying on militarism abroad leads to using military-type means to solve social and political problems at home with similarly disastrous results. 

The thesis that the US is inherently the good guy in international affairs is a myth propped up by racist tropes and rewrites of history, designed to hide the way US militarism benefits defense contractors, transnational corporations, and the billionaire class while workers and the poor have more in common with the victims of US wars than with the warmakers. With the Trump–ordered occupation of US cities by MarinesICE, and National Guard troops, and the President calling for a half-trillion dollar increase in the military budget while cutting or freezing funds for childcareSNAPhousing, and scientific and medical research, this is more literally true than ever. 

Trump is a war president

The long-term educational work of popularizing these connections requires a core that is clear-eyed about the fundamentally exploitative nature of US capitalism. Today, both cohering such a core and building the broadest possible movement against US wars is urgent. Yes, under Trump 2.0 the US is shifting its strategy for global domination. Per the new National Security Strategy: longstanding alliances, soft power, and reliance on multi-lateral institutions to undergird a “rules based world order” (where Washington can break the rules at will) is out. Dividing the globe into spheres of influence of a few great powers, tightening Washington’s grip on the Western Hemisphere (plus Greenland), and naked promotion of white Christian nationalism is in. The US is to remain top dog: controlling the oil-rich Middle East via an alliance with Israel and police-state Arab regimes, and threatening and using overwhelming military force and economic bullying to lord it over former allies and all potential enemies alike in the rest of the world. 

“War on Terror” methods—terming anyone who does something the administration doesn’t like “a terrorist,” extra-judicial killings, torture (now outsourced to Salvadoran prisons), etc.—are integral to this strategy’s implementation. This is true of Trump 2.0’s domestic policy as well: the initial legal framework and much of the apparatus of today’s militarized repression dates from the post-9/11 moment. For example, the 2001 PATRIOT Act enhanced government tools for suppressing dissent, and enabled increased surveillance and detention for Muslims in the US. The Immigration and Naturalization Service became ICE when it and 21 other agencies were folded into the new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security in 2002. 

Today, as in the immediate years after 9/11, administration policies are being met with resistance. Yet the fights for peace, for international solidarity, and against US foreign policy are not yet as thoroughly integrated into the opposition to MAGA as they need to be given that the domestic and foreign policies of Trump 2.0 are two prongs of the same might-makes-right system. 

Fortunately the ingredients are present to change this. 

Thousands of new fighters for a different world have been forged in the last two years’ upsurge against the Gaza genocide, bringing fresh doses of urgency and courage along with them. They are flanked by earlier generations of activists who bring lessons from the 1960s movement against the Vietnam War, the 1970s upsurge for nuclear disarmament, and the 1980s anti-apartheid and Central America solidarity movements, and the anti–“War on Terror” battles recounted in Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War. The immediate outpouring of widespread opposition to Trump’s kidnapping of Maduro (and the naked we-will-take-anything-we-want rhetoric that accompanies it) shows that much of the public is not buying this round of “Mission Accomplished” jingoism. It is also heartening to see that large organizations whose main focus is on “domestic” issues, including the AFL-CIO, were quick to take a stand against the current aggression against Venezuela.  

Together, these strands are capable of developing a perspective and practice of internationalism that addresses the realities of today’s interconnected and seriously endangered world and is able to build a base among the working classes and oppressed peoples whose actions are the key to transformative change.Email

avatar

Max Elbaum (he/him), active in peace, anti-racist and radical movements since joining Students for Democratic Society in the 1960s, is a member of the Convergence Magazine editorial board and the author of Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che (Verso Books, Third Edition, 2018), a history of the 1970s-‘80s ‘New Communist Movement’ in which he was an active participant. He is also a co-editor, with Linda Burnham and María Poblet, of Power Concedes Nothing: How Grassroots Organizing Wins Elections (OR Books, 2022).

Source: Truthout

Fifteen years ago this month, a mass movement in Tunisia overthrew the 24-year reign of U.S.-backed despot Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. What seemed impossible merely weeks prior became real.

Today, living in the United States, things feel daunting, hopeless, terrifying: It is hard to imagine how to reverse the intensification of the police state, the erosion of whatever pretenses of democracy this country had, the looming fascism, the open occupation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in our cities, or the kidnapping and execution of our neighbors by masked agents prowling our streets.

Before the fall of President Ben Ali, people in Tunisia faced a situation even more difficult than the conditions that have descended on the U.S. today. For this reason, engaging with the history of the uprising that occurred 15 years ago in Tunisia can be a beckoning whisper in U.S. ears conveying how quickly things can change, how powerful we can be, and how “all that is solid” — to quote Marx and Engels — sometimes “melts into air.”

Life Under Totalitarian Rule in Tunis

Living in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia, in the early 2000s, it was clear to me that we were living in an authoritarian police state. While walking to the Sidi El Bahri market near my apartment to do my shopping, I would routinely witness cops randomly rounding up men into vans — this appeared to be a constant occurrence.

As a Western expat I had a degree of immunity from most of the police repression, but the fact that I lived in a populaire (working-class) neighborhood meant that I encountered police checkpoints multiple times a week. At the checkpoints, police would demand my identification, conduct mini interrogations, and generally be a hassle. The omnipresent portrait of Ben Ali observed people going about their days, along with constant surveillance by the state.

In February 2005, after Ben Ali announced that he was inviting Israeli President Ariel Sharon to a technology conference, a wave of crackdowns on potential protest occurred. Leading opposition figures and activists like Mohamed Abou were arrested.

I remember peeking out between the curtains of a friend’s apartment on Avenue Habib Bourguiba — Tunis’s central road. Through the window I saw rows upon rows of jackbooted cops lining the whole thoroughfare, to ensure there was no protest. A Tunisian friend of mine stepped onto the balcony to take a picture on his phone of the show of force, and within 10 minutes a plainclothes policeman knocked on our door and abducted our friend and confiscated the phone.

The internet mysteriously became especially censored and erratic over those days, and there was a rumor that the police had killed some students at a protest in one of the smaller cities. The police state was a topic as commonplace as the weather — sometimes discussed in hushed, careful, and furtive words, and sometimes alluded to through mocking jokes.

I remember walking home late from a bar in the summer of that year with a Tunisian friend named Walid, who asked to be identified here by first name only due to ongoing concerns for his own safety. An unmarked cop car pulled over, and an officer aggressively grabbed him and demanded his identification, asking him to explain why he was “with these Westerners.” Terrified, Walid yelled to not let them take him because he would “disappear.” I tried to break him free, even cavalierly trying to climb in the back of the truck and insist they take me with him until six more cop cars descended, tossed him in the back of the truck, tossed me into the street and whisked away.

With Walid’s brother’s help, we got him out of jail the next morning and saw how Walid’s wrist was swollen and bruised: the police had hung him from handcuffs in the station while interrogating him. Over breakfast, Walid told me about how he was imprisoned in his teens and tortured for several months with no charge for driving somewhere he was not “supposed” to. His family was given no information on his capture.

He also told me that his earliest memory was of the mass protests against the attempt to lower the bread subsidy in the early 1980s. His neighborhood was an epicenter of the protests, which were met with government tanks in the streets: the army shot demonstrators in the streets. His entire political life had involved contending with totalitarian rule.

The Earth Trembles

Five short years later, everything changed.

“I can’t breathe anymore,” Mohamed Bouazizi — a produce seller from the central Tunisian city of Sidi Bouzid — told his cousin one week before he was harassed by police yet again in what was a regular pattern of harassment. And in a story immortalized by the events that followed, Bouazizi set himself on fire in December 2010 in Sidi Bouzid.

In less than a month, the quarter-century reign of a “near perfect” strategic partner of United States imperialism fell, fleeing the country in disgrace. Authoritarianism was swept away with a rapidity that was completely stunning.

After his death, the police could not keep the masses of people off the streets of Avenue Habib Bourguiba — the entire country erupted in protest. What seemed improbable strode bravely into the field of history, singing like the prominent Tunisian singer Emel Mathlouthi that they were “those who are free and never fear” and a “thorn in the throat of the oppressor.” In less than a month, the quarter-century reign of a “near perfect” strategic partner of United States imperialism fell, fleeing the country in disgrace. Authoritarianism was swept away with a rapidity that was completely stunning.

Something was set loose. A dam was broken that had remained solid for decades, not just in Tunisia but also across the Middle East and North Africa. People in the millions saw in a stroke of lightning that fighting was possible, fighting could win, freedom could be grasped, and revolution was an actuality.

This is not to say the events were purely spontaneous — important networks of underground activists in numerous countries and worker organizations like the Tunisian General Labor Union played invaluable roles in trying to harness and organize an energy unleashed. But masses of people learned by doing. We often don’t grasp our power or what is possible until we actively are taking part in mass struggle.

As the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin remarked of Russia’s revolutionary events of 1905: “Only struggle educates the exploited class. Only struggle discloses to it the magnitude of its own power, widens its horizon, enhances its abilities, clarifies its mind, forges its will.”

The wave of pro-democracy protests, uprisings, and rebellions that took place in the early 2010s — which collectively came to be described in some quarters as “the Arab Spring” — shook not just the region but the world. Over the next year, in every country from Morocco to Iraq, major protests against undemocratic regimes and neoliberal economic conditions changed the political landscape, toppling governments.

The 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the 32-year rule of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, and the 42-year rule of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya were all were brought to an end either by the protests themselves or events related to mass upheaval. In total, 130 combined years of despotic rule were torn down in weeks and months.

In Syria, the despotic rule of Bashar al-Assad held on despite almost toppling, and the situation turned into an armed conflict. In Bahrain, the government almost fell. For a brief moment, Palestinians began marching from Jordan and Lebanon to the dividing lines of the Israeli occupation with raised aspirations as Palestinians in the West Bank kicked off a short-lived protest movement directing slogans of the revolutionary wave at the head of the collaborationist Palestinian Authority.

A “revolutionary process” was taking place. This process was born of local conditions in Southwest Asia and North Africa, but it was also thoroughly internationalized. The communards of Tunis, Cairo, and Homs raised aspirations of other people in struggle across the world, leading to the anti-austerity indignados movement in Spain; the anti-austerity “movement of the squares” in Greece; the Wisconsin Capitol occupation in Madison; and the Occupy movement across the U.S. In Madison I remember signs drawing parallels between the detested Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the detested Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who was kicked out by the revolution. And in Chicago I remember leading Occupy protests awkwardly in chants in Arabic marching to the Egyptian consulate in solidarity.

After a series of blowbacks and defeats, the revolutionary process reemerged years later with another wave of uprisings in 2019 in Algeria and Sudan that similarly overthrew entrenched governments. In Iraq and Lebanon, another round of governments toppled, though the states remained intact. It is not hard to argue that just like in 2011, internationally this revolutionary process reverberated into a year of revolt that saw insurgent movements challenge power in Hong Kong, Chile, Colombia, Nicaragua, and Haiti.

Weeks Where Decades Happen

The power of these movements caught nearly everyone off guard. It is a common sentiment of those involved that they were unexpected. I remember an old comrade of mine, an Egyptian revolutionary socialist who would often jokingly recount how he flew back to the U.S. literally days before the revolution in Egypt began, with no awareness that the solid ground was about to split.

Meanwhile, as Tunisia and Egypt were rising up, The Guardian asked a prominent Syrian revolutionary living abroad, Robin Yassin-Kassab, if the revolution was going to come to Syria, and he replied “Of course not.”

The swiftness that mass movements can swing into action can be stunning. And these movements transform how people see themselves, each other, their world, and their ability to act in alchemical ways. Omar Aziz — the Syrian anarchist who died in 2013 as a result of enduring torture and incarceration at the hands of Assad’s jailers, and who played an important early role in the Syrian revolution — wrote: “A revolution is an exceptional event that alters the history of society while also transforming each human being.”

Soberly we must reflect on the fact that these high points of struggle have since been tragically beaten back by counterrevolution. New police states are entrenched in Egypt and Tunisia. Sudan’s revolution — perhaps the most advanced and organized of them all — has been drowned in a genocidal civil war. Syria finally got rid of Assad, but it has now entered a complicated new situation in which the new reality under the government of Ahmed al-Sharaa still brings repression and sectarianism. The balance sheet is not positive: In the end, the mass uprisings for economic justice and democracy did not win. And a revolution half-made — as the French revolutionary Louis Antoine de Saint-Just is oft quoted as saying — digs its own grave. But people strived, and tried, and glimpsed a world that they could have taken hold of and won.

Is a Tectonic Shift Against U.S. Authoritarianism Possible?

So what of today? Here in the U.S., our society’s repression sometimes feels overwhelming. On January 24, 2026, federal agents occupying Minneapolis, Minnesota, executed a nurse named Alex Pretti on the street in full view of a crowd, as he was pinned to the ground by a half-dozen masked goons. On January 7, 2026, a federal agent shot Renee Nicole Good in the face. On September 12, 2025, federal agents killed Silverio Villegas González in Chicago — to much less outrage.

Meanwhile ICE is abducting small children. Federal immigration agents are dragging child care workers away in front of the kids they care for. People are disappeared to other countries, to concentration camps in swamps. Masked paramilitaries prowl our streets, shooting tear gas into residential streets, and shooting rubber bullets and chemical weapons at peaceful protesters.

With chaotic malevolence on the international stage, Donald Trump is now overtly talking about conquering Greenland and abducting presidents of other countries. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is doing its best to try to essentially outlaw trans people, who are told they don’t exist. A McCarthyite purge is underway in higher education. History is being erased in an unironically Orwellian fashion.

Despite the tremendously inspiring turnout of everyday people to defend their neighbors against ICE in Chicago, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and elsewhere, the U.S. still stinks of fascism from sea to shining (and warming) sea.

How can we possibly stop this? What we are up against can feel insurmountable. The presence of far right movements connected with the White House is scary; descriptors of ICE and the Border Patrol as “Gestapo” seem apt. The flurry of Trump’s attacks and how quickly things have felt to be spinning out of control is dizzying, destabilizing. Many sharp political people I know feel some sense of hopelessness. It haunts me as well. I have argued that all capitalist states should be called police states, but the current iteration of the U.S. police state is intensified, blatant, and unveiled in Trump’s fantasy of strongman authoritarianism. Will we have another election? Trump in his erratic ravings has certainly made ominous claims. The Democrats, in their flimsy charade of being a “resistance” have abandoned us all — as they always have. It all seems so bad.

Dwelling for a moment on the anniversary of revolutions that flamed into existence 15 years ago can remind us that police states do fall, and that the force of people, of mass movements, and of uprising, is swift and powerful.

Faced with this dire situation, dwelling for a moment on the anniversary of revolutions that flamed into existence 15 years ago can remind us that police states do fall, and that the force of people, of mass movements, and of uprising, is swift and powerful.

Even in crushingly difficult political environment of suffocating totalitarianism, people filled their lungs, raised their voices, and breathed fire against their oppressors. Voices and arms and feet and labor crumbled the powerful, even if briefly.

As the great historian Howard Zinn wrote: “If we remember those times and places — and there are so many — where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.”

It is far from certain that we will win liberation, but the possibility of the collective gasp of a people taking a breath before the leap should hearten us.

In more difficult times and places people have done heroic things that they themselves did not expect. If anything, the steadfastness of Palestinians who resist erasure, who refuse to leave, who stand up against all odds and still live and love amid the rubble, should be our compass. We should hold these lessons to our hearts not out of a Panglossian certainty that things will change despite us, but out of a resolve that a new world is possible if we act together.