The West is in danger. Its values are being defended by Israel’s relentless and decisive biblical defensive action against Iran’s Shiite proto-Nazism and its two terrorist arms—Hamas and Hezbollah
 |
| Tehran under Israeli bombardment - getty |
By Antonio Fernando Pinheiro Pedro
You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. We must learn from the past and understand the present context to avoid being caught off guard in the future. Even so, the current strategic landscape catches us by surprise. It’s disheartening to watch Western governments stuck in a globalist-progressive quagmire, paralyzed by a “politically correct” syndrome whose immorality is only surpassed by its chronic hypocrisy.
The West is in danger. Its most cherished values today are being upheld by Israel’s biblical, relentless, and decisive defensive action against the “axis of evil”: Iran’s Shia proto-Nazism and its two terrorist arms — Hamas and Hezbollah.
A Mirror of World War II
May 8th, 1945 — Victory Day — marked the beginning of the longest period of peace in European history. It reinforced a moral certainty: hatred as state policy must be fought relentlessly. It also brought a harsh truth — that such confrontation inevitably demands sacrifices from the people subjected to regimes of evil, innocent or not.
Just like Hitler used Berlin’s civilians as human shields, Stalin did so in Stalingrad, and Japan likewise in its final defense. The Allied Forces, however, did not hesitate to annihilate the axis of evil, even at the cost of collateral damage.
There are moments in history when hesitation is a moral failure.
The Great Lesson
Out of the ruins of Nazism (1945) and the barbarities of Stalinism (1954), emerged a fundamental understanding: pacifist hypocrisy has no place when confronting the politics of hatred.
As British historian Michael Howard once wrote: > “The establishment of peace is a task to be faced anew every day of our lives. No formula, no organization, and no revolution can relieve us of that inexorable duty.”
The ideological horrors of the 20th century — Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, tribal African hatred, and radical Islamic extremism (both Sunni and Shia) — all share a common trait: genocide and terror as political strategy. Their persistence reminds us that the duty to resist remains painfully relevant.
State Sovereignty and Hybrid Warfare
James J. Sheehan, Stanford historian, notes that most wars end when one side capitulates or agrees to a ceasefire. This was the case on November 11, 1918, when Germany signed an armistice. But on May 8, 1945, Germany had ceased to exist as a recognized state — its military surrendered unconditionally in multiple locations, while its civil authority and citizenship had collapsed.
The victors carved up the territory, and although peace treaties were signed with Germany’s allies in 1947, it wasn’t until 1991 that Germany regained full sovereignty.
Lesson learned: to eradicate evil, it must be annihilated entirely — even if this entails the dissolution of a state and collective sacrifice. This insight reshaped the concept of sovereignty and gave rise to hybrid, asymmetric warfare.
The Globalist Distortion
Globalization, a civilizational constant, differs from the aberration that is progressive globalism — a teratological phenomenon threatening genuine cosmopolitan integration. The Israel-Hamas conflict exists within this framework.
In the post–Cold War landscape, the new objective of globalists is to dissociate aggression from humanitarian discourse, cloaking conflict in misinformation, identity-based intolerance, and selective outrage.
No longer framed as capitalism vs. Marxism, the new polarization is fragmented into ideological identity bubbles grounded in “cultural Marxism”: antisemitic, anti-Christian, anti-merit, anti-culture, and iconoclastic.
Globalist militancy manipulates humanitarian crises, deciding which victims deserve empathy and which should be demonized. In doing so, it doesn’t resolve conflicts — it manufactures and monetizes them.
Selective Humanitarianism and Geopolitical Amnesia
A core trait of progressive globalist geopolitics is amnesia. In 1970, during “Black September,” King Hussein of Jordan expelled millions of Palestinians due to the destabilization fomented by the Fatah movement. This sparked the Palestinian diaspora, with humanitarian consequences for Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.
Yet this refugee crisis, weaponized by militant factions, catalyzed civil war in Lebanon, effectively dismantling a once-democratic and predominantly Christian nation. The sovereignty of Lebanon was hollowed out — replaced by chaos fueled by Syria and Iran.
Similarly, NATO intervened in Bosnia without formal war declarations, criminalizing Serbian leaders with little hesitation. Later, in Iraq and Syria, a naive push for regime change destabilized entire regions, paving the way for ISIS’s rise — with globalists reluctant to act until Russia decisively stepped in.
Such missteps reflect strategic foolishness stemming from a blend of U.S. Democratic foreign policy and Eurocentric globalist naiveté. Instead of countering terror, this ideological framework replicates Neville Chamberlain’s fatal appeasement of fascism.
Pacifist Rhetoric as Political Cover
It is necessary to draw a parallel between:
• Leninist pacifism, used to mask strategic alliances under the pretense of peace; and
• The “Chamberlain Syndrome”, a naïve belief that dialogue will soften those who preach annihilation.
The both attitudes sustain cycles of destruction. These attitudes recalls how Khomeini’s Iran, Gaddafi's Libya, and Taliban's Afghanistan directly supported terrorism, and how today’s Iran continues that tradition — now backed by Russia, Turkey, North Korea, Brazil and China.
Through proxy warfare and a web of narcotics trafficking across continents, Iran exerts strategic influence in Latin America, with ties to populist regimes and organized crime.
Iran: The New Nazi Threat
Terror has long been Iran’s favored political weapon — since the rise of Khomeini’s regime. But the deeper issue lies in the ideological structure of its Revolutionary Guard, which follows not the model of traditional military forces, but a doctrinal foundation that is both Nazi and Islamic in origin.
Though Reza Pahlavi swore allegiance to the Allies, Iran maintained strong Nazi ties during and after WWII. The turning point came with the death of General Zahedi in the early 1960s, when the Shah began an effort to “denazify” Iran’s military — a move perceived by Muslim fundamentalists as a betrayal of antisemitic legacy and Western alignment.
Khomeini, recognizing this ideological fracture, revived Iran’s past by modeling his Revolutionary Guard after the Shahrbani, a security force trained under Nazi influence. This continuity echoed the alliance between the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, and Hitler — a historical link often overlooked in Western discourse.
Forgotten History, Unhealed Wounds
Time to rescue the past: the clandestine operations led by Otto Skorzeny — a prominent SS officer — who maintained relationships with both Peronist Argentina and pro-Nazi Iranian generals, like Zahedi.
Skorzeny’s 1943 “Operation François” involved paratroopers, deployed in southern Iran to rally the Qashqai people for sabotage missions against Allied supply lines.
Decades later, this invisible network echoes in the 1994 AMIA bombing, in Argentina — orchestrated by Hezbollah, planned by iranian commander Soleimani, and carried out with support from Peronist neo-Nazis (or, as some classify it, a typical Latin American mix of anti-Semitic leftists and covert Nazis).
The assassination of prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who linked the plot to Iran, remains a chilling reminder of what’s at stake when geopolitical cowardice allows terror to fester.
This buried history — fusing Nazism, anti-Zionism, leftism and Islamic extremism — now underpins Iran’s strategic project. The Ayatollahs’ revolutionary aims are not just theological but racialized and expansionist, tracing back to a Persian-Aryan supremacy cloaked in religious dogma.
The War of the Fourth Generation and the Necessary Response
Against Israel, a Fourth Generation War (4GW) is underway — a disgraceful operation by Hamas and Hezbollah, backed by Iran, and amplified by widespread propaganda.
This narrative is echoed by progressive-identitarian movements on the global left, aiming to discredit Israel’s legitimate right to respond with force.
We must ask: who benefits from ignoring the hard lessons of World War II and the post–Cold War era in confronting political hatred?
As in every major conflict in history, human suffering will occur — as it did with German and Japanese civilians in the 1940s, with the victims and perpetrators of ISIS, with Russians and Ukrainians, and now with the people of Israel, Gaza and southern Lebanon, whose lands have become cancerous strongholds of hate-fueled politics. Iran will suffer damage on its own soil – to the disgrace of its regime and likely relief of its people - it is inevitable
Asymmetric, hybrid warfare thrives on propaganda, moral confusion, and global hypocrisy. There must be no tolerance for intolerant movements, especially those that consciously manipulate humanitarian narratives to demonize Israel and undermine the West’s cosmopolitan resistance to hatred.
Brazil’s Role in the Global Equation
Brazil today has become a testing ground for the globalist-progressive experiment. Under the cloak of false pacifism, it is governed by an antisemitic administration, aligned with the “Axis of Evil” — Iran, terrorist groups, narco-states, Cuba and North Korea.
The current Brazilian government operates through institutional manipulation, suppressing dissenting political voices in the name of “recivilization.” This pseudo-salvationist regime, judicialized and non-consensual, deems opposition unconstitutional — an Orwellian inversion of democratic principles.
The episode of the docking of Iranian ships in Rio de Janeiro, in 2023, the blatant fraternization between Iranian and Brazilian agents and the suspicion of shipment of weapons materials and uranium - placed the leftist Brazilian government under the watchful eye of Western intelligence.
This poses a real geopolitical threat to Israel and to the West.
The Strategic Threat of Narco-States
To fully understand the enemy, we must understand the modern battlefield. The concept of Fourth Generation Warfare was developed by Israeli military thinker Martin van Creveld. In his 1991 work The Transformation of War, he warned that traditional warfare was becoming obsolete.
Van Creveld foresaw a world in which terrorist networks, drug cartels, and ideological insurgents replace conventional armies. Conflict would become diffuse, low-intensity, and highly asymmetric, fought through propaganda, urban terror, and psychological manipulation.
Iran, aligned with globalist militants and Latin American narco-states, now orchestrates such warfare. In this hybrid ecosystem of crime and ideology, human rights are distorted, identity politics becomes a tool of warfare, and “minorities” are used as human shields for lawfare — legal battles meant to dismantle constitutional order.
The result is a transnational, asymmetric alliance of barbarians disguised as victims — coordinated under a perverse strategic umbrella, empowered by globalist complacency.
Final Word
Radical Islam may be today’s preferred tool — tomorrow, it may be something else. What matters is the intent to destroy cosmopolitanism, pluralism, and democracy, in favor of a monolithic, totalitarian world.
Israel must stand firm — not only for its survival but for the survival of the free world. To tolerate hatred is to betray freedom. To equivocate in the face of terror is to side with it.
In this fight, Israel is the West!
About the Author
Antonio Fernando Pinheiro Pedro is a lawyer (University of São Paulo), journalist, and environmental consultant. He served as the first-ever Executive Secretary for Climate Change of the City of São Paulo (June 2021–July 2023). He is the founding partner of the law firm Pinheiro Pedro Advogados, director of AICA – Corporate and Environmental Intelligence Agency, and a member of the Brazilian Institute of Lawyers (IAB). He is Vice-President of the São Paulo Press Association (API), former President of the Environment Commission of the OAB/SP, President of the Legislative Chamber of CEBDS, and chaired the Environment Committee of AMCHAM. He led the drafting of the bill that became Brazil’s National Climate Change Policy Law, and has been a consultant to the Brazilian government, the World Bank, the United Nations, and numerous organizations working to enhance the country’s legal and institutional frameworks. He is a member of the Strategic Studies Center at Think Tank Iniciativa DEX, sits on the Superior Council for National Studies and Policy at FIESP, serves as President of the University of Water Association (UNIÁGUA), and is Editor-in-Chief of Portal Ambiente Legal and author of the blog The Eagle View.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Seja membro do Blog!. Seus comentários e críticas são importantes. Diga quem é você e, se puder, registre seu e-mail. Termos ofensivos e agressões não serão admitidos. Obrigado.