Opinion by Greg Ray. May 11, 2026
We are all being dragged, slowly but surely, into a global war. Shouldn’t we be asking why? And if we think we know why, shouldn’t we be asking if those reasons justify the known and unknown costs?
War is a big deal. Ask any of the unfortunate people whose countries have been subjected to violent assault from one direction or another over the past several decades. War can take away everything you care about. It can strip away the thin veneer of civilization that we who still have it take too easily for granted. It’s a misfortune you should want to avoid, if you can. It’s a thing worth going to great lengths to prevent.
We are being told there must soon be a great war to stop the rise of China. We have to arm, urgently. We have to spend more of our budget on weapons. We have to make ever-higher tribute payments to the imperium to help it arm in readiness. We must shun the enemy and goad them when we can.
The think tanks, the corporate press, the defence advisers tell the same the story: we must be ready for the war. But why? Many empires have risen and fallen. Trade and wealth have always ebbed and flowed. Surely the days when kings could order armies of serfs to fight and die for the good of the royal treasury are gone? It seems to me that this proposed war of the future represents little more than that.
In the First World War one side told its people the war was about carving a rightful place in the world and pushing back against those who would unfairly deny that rightful place. The other side told its people that it was a war of civilization against barbarism. The result? Vast fortunes made by banking and industrial interests and indescribable misery for ordinary people on both sides of the propaganda divide.
In the Second World War it was somewhat the same. People in the Axis countries were told they were being unfairly held back and people in the Allied countries were told they needed to put their lives on the line to defend freedom and democracy against evil totalitarian and militaristic regimes that wanted to enslave them. Again, great fortunes for a few and death and misery for tens of millions – mostly civilians.
The Cold War – which was really just a continuation of the two “world wars” – retained similar propaganda themes. One side warned its people of the vicious global capitalist class that wanted to enslave the world. The other side warned its people that evil communists wanted to take away their freedom. Korea, Vietnam and the long string of lamentable coups and massacres contained within that dishonestly named “Cold War” usually shared the same propaganda basis.
And here we are again. The next eruption of global war has begun in earnest; the nations are again beating their ploughshares into swords and testing their respective mettles in a plethora of proxy battles. But what is it we are being asked to defend this time? What is it we are being asked to attack? Given that our lives and those of our children and our grandchildren may well be fodder for this unfurling conflict I think it is worth asking these questions.
Messy propaganda
At this point the propaganda surrounding the preliminaries is confused and messy. We are told that Russia’s attack on Ukraine was “unprovoked”, despite much evidence to the contrary. Russia is demonized as seeking to rebuild its lost empire, providing justification for the full range of punitive actions that have been brought to bear against it. The coup in Venezuela was because that country’s ruler was a bad guy. Israel’s slaughterhouse strategy is all because October 7. The unprovoked and illegal attack on Iran was because Iran – already bludgeoned by decades of crippling sanctions – was about to build a nuclear bomb. (Shades of Iraq and its “weapons of mass destruction”, don’t you think?)
Behind all this it is acknowledged that the US is desperately trying to prevent China from increasing its power and influence – hence the need for US “allies” from Japan to Australia to arm themselves in preparation for the inevitable hot war.
It is also acknowledged that the US is also desperate to preserve the role of its over-valued dollar as the global reserve currency. Indeed, I believe that defence of the US dollar’s global role is the real motive behind this snowballing war: in one sense, the stakes for the US are existential. The “exorbitant privilege” the US enjoys by virtue of the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency is the true root of American superpower status. Without it, the value of the dollar would shrink to a realistic level, the US would have to shut most of its military bases across the globe and become just another ordinary country among many. A nation, that is, with a mind-blowing debt, unaffordable deficits and a much softer voice in world affairs.
Dollar dominance is what we are being asked and required to defend. But few people seem to be asking whether the dollar and the US hegemony it supports are worth defending. Wouldn’t we all be better off if global trade was mediated through a neutral medium instead of the currency of a single privileged nation that uses the benefits of that situation ruthlessly against everybody else? I would say so.
To be blunt, it is no longer very easy to suggest or believe that either the USA or global capitalism occupy any kind of moral high ground that makes them worth fighting and dying for. The US demand, for example, that empire vassals provide unstinting support and cover for Israel’s Palestinian genocide has alienated many people in many countries. The joint US/Israeli attack on Iran is also highly unpopular outside of governing circles. Donald Trump’s erratic and offensive behaviour has brought the already shaky image of the office of US President into deeper disrepute. And the seemingly determined push towards fascist-style rule in the US and among its allies and vassals removes the old argument that fighting for empire and flag means defending democracy and freedom. With each passing year we are seeing less true democracy, less freedom of speech and expression, less accountability from government and corporations, less respect for people, communities and the environment, but more cronyism and corruption, more dishonesty and more cruel economic policies.
This trend suggests the kind of future that the governing axis of Western corporatism is aiming for. We know its proposed future contains intense surveillance, severely restricted freedom of expression, more powerful and partisan police forces, harsher penalties for dissent and increased freedom for corporations to abuse individuals and the environment in a myriad ways. The future envisaged by the corporate ruling class appears to involve dramatically increased inequality and all the harms that will bring.
A new Gulag Archipelago
The US is building an archipelago of “gulags” (apologies to Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn) with a holding capacity seemingly far beyond the population of “illegals” said to be within its borders. The private operators of these prisons are paid according to how many people they arrest and lock up. Some members of the troupe of clowns in Trump’s inner circle have already declared that any opponents of the regime should be treated as traitors and enemies, so who knows what is coming next?
Trump’s corporate donors are doing very nicely from the public purse, and it seems one of their main projects is to build an immense, all-powerful panopticon – powered by AI in those huge data centres being built everywhere – to monitor all citizens at all times.
Given all this, is it really worth bleeding and dying to help maintain this system and further its goals? Perhaps it might be argued that the alternative – a world swayed by a powerful China – could conceivably be even worse. This “lesser of two evils” argument is very common these days in politics and elsewhere. While it might help justify the reluctant election of a party that appears less bad than its rival, it’s scarcely an argument to inspire overwhelming loyalty to either of the evils.
Nevertheless, if the ruling classes and the powerful forces that direct them are set on war then history suggests that war will come, whether ordinary people approve or not. And assuming it comes to us – as it has already come to many unfortunate people in other places – we can expect it to follow the new and cruel rules of engagement that have emerged on the front lines in Ukraine and in the Middle East and Africa. Drones, missiles, software-mediated murder, systematic destruction of civil infrastructure and the whole phalanx of new and cruel weaponry that is already on display will be deployed against us and against our citizen counterparts elsewhere. And of course, nuclear weapons will not be off the table in such a high-stakes contest.
Some people still keep insisting that Donald Trump is a genius, playing a five-dimensional game of chess with the world and its resources. Others argue that, alternatively, he is every bit the idiot he seems, but in that respect is the perfect front-man for the aims and aspirations of the corporations that now run most of the world. I’d say he’s a classic grifter, using his position to materially enrich himself and his family to the maximum extent possible. In that role I believe he simply facilitates the aims of the world’s richest and worst people and organisations, in return for lucrative personal favours.
With that, what about Iran?
Two notable theories about what is driving the US/Israeli attack on Iran are really two sides of one coin. One theory holds that the attacks on Venezuela and Iran – and on Russian oil facilities and tankers, using Ukraine as a proxy – are a calculated strategy designed to culminate in the US and Israel holding the keys to almost all the world’s energy supplies. The other theory suggests that the attack is a lashing out by a fading empire, furiously trying to maintain its pre-eminence, with little strategic thought other than the maximisation of profit for the fossil fuel and weapons industries.
Richard Medhurst is a commentator who argues the first case. He lays out his thesis in detail here, and it’s certainly persuasive. He sees the US striving to replace the petrodollar with a new and more potent alternative that will help it maintain its grip on the planet for decades to come.
Keeping China down
As Medhurst argues, seizing Venezuelan oil, blocking Iran, causing Qatar to scale back gas production, neutering OPEC, ruining Russia and Ukraine and bringing about the de-industrialisation of Western Europe can be seen as steps along a strategic path to dominate energy markets, keep China down and “make America great again”.
I annoyed some people when, months ago, I suggested that oil and gas were possible factors in Israel’s decision to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Some people find it hard to accept the idea that money and resources could be a major driving force behind this atrocity, preferring to believe it’s mostly a clash of civilizations or religions. I haven’t changed my opinion, however, and I note that Medhurst has marshalled some strong evidence in support, most importantly drawing attention to deals inked in recent times by US energy giant Exxon.
Certainly, the current mess in the Middle East is producing immense profits for US oil and gas companies and generating billions in orders for its weapons manufacturers. All while creating huge headaches for much of the rest of the world. Not only has the blockade cut oil supplies, it has done the same for the chemicals used to make fertilizers, plastics and other products.
I’ll say it again: I believe preservation of the dollar’s reserve role is an existential matter for the USA’s global hegemony. If the rest of the world stops accepting the dollar’s reserve status then the greenback becomes just another currency. The US will be obliged to confront its vast debt without the rest of the world as guarantor. That’s when it will stop being a superpower. The reckoning will be dire when that time arrives, so I suggest that the US and the corporate interests that pull its strings will do whatever it takes to delay the day.
If that includes a war with China then I suppose there will be a war with China. I’d like to think that enough people will rally to prevent this horrific possibility. If people stop to ask themselves what it is this proposed war is designed to achieve – and whether those goals are actually worth fighting for – they may, perhaps, think twice. I hope so.
