Three The three broad scenarios which could occur concerning the current crisis in Iran are analysed as follows by Dr. David Bennett

Scenario One:

The Trump administration abandons the Iranian people by not providing military support to aid their revolt.

Scenario Two:

 The positive ramifications of American military intervention leading to Reza Pahlavi becoming Iran’s transitional leader.

Scenario Three:

American military intervention facilitating a mutually beneficial political settlement.

Scenario One:  The Trump administration abandons the Iranian people by not providing military support to aid their revolt.

The first scenario is alas, currently the most probable based on the most recent developments in Iran. The successful American air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 have probably led to an expectation amongst many Iranians that the United States will provide military support for those who have risen up against the regime. Even though thousands of the Iranians are being slaughtered, the American president now seems to be backing away from his previous public announcements that implied that the United States would militarily intervene to support the Iranian people’s revolt against the regime.

This development is alarming and will lead to consequent understandable bitterness on the part of Iranians who have had the courage to demonstrate against the ruling Mullahs. It is therefore of concern that much of the western media appear to be downplaying the extent of the killings (as President Trump now also seems to be doing) until the revolt is crushed.

The Trump hating media seems to be complicit in this misrepresentation of events in Iran because the popular uprising is apparently supportive of the former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. A popular revolt in favour of the former Crown Prince goes against the prevailing popular liberal-left narrative that his father’s rule did not have profoundly positive ramifications for Iran.

The other major reason why the mainstream media is downplaying the extent of the bloody crackdown in Iran is because it goes against their belief that American military intervention can lead to positive outcomes such as the attainment of democracy.

However, once the Iranian revolt has been crushed the mainstream media will then undoubtedly report on the extent of the bloodshed in order to discredit President Trump. This shift in media concerning Iran reporting will feed into an anti-Trump narrative for the November 2026 mid-term congressional elections which may well be the most important in recent American history.

It should therefore be pointed out that centre-right Republicans (who are generally supportive of the Iranian people’s quest for freedom) will also go down with the Make American Great Again (MAGA) wing of the Republican Party unless they can affect a re-orientation in American defence and foreign policy.

For the 2026 midterm congressional elections will be because they could produce an unprecedented victory by the hard left of the Democrats. Such an election victory will at the very least cripple the second Trump presidency (providing that the president is not subsequently removed by impeachment) to lay the groundwork for the election of a far-left American president in 2028. A far-left American president will not stand in the way of a still clerical ruled Iran acquiring nuclear weapons to again threaten the world, particularly Israel, Arab nations and the United States.

An American failure to assist the Iranian people at such a critical juncture to help remove such a profoundly dangerous regime will also lead to a discrediting of American credibility that could be fatal to the economic interests of the United States. Already there are moves by the BRICS nations to devise an alternative method/system of paying for oil exports in American dollars and the subsequent purchase of US Treasury bonds.

Due to the fundamentals of the American economy being so vulnerable due to the massive budget deficit and incredibly high level of public foreign debt, the United States cannot afford to allow either an undermining of the American dollar or of US Treasury bonds. Already the Russian inspired ten member BRICS intergovernmental organization is trying to harness growing anti-American sentiment around the world in an attempt to sink the US economy by devising new international financial system.

President Trump’s focus on acquiring natural resources of other nations (such as the autonomous Danish territory of Greenland in the Arctic) is immeasurably aiding this Chinese and Russian campaign to destroy the American economy. This is because other nations, such as European Union (EU) member states and Canada, (yes Canada!) are possibly gearing to enter into new financial and trading relations at the expense of American economic interests.

It goes without saying, that as an oil-producing hub, the Middle East is a region of the world that the United States cannot afford (either economically or politically) to alienate. If the United States forgoes the opportunity of militarily supporting the Iranian people in their uprising against the regime, then American standing in the Middle East may be expected to plummet.

President Trump may not be bothered by an American loss of loss of power in the Middle East because he believes that the United States’ ‘sphere’ of influence is the western hemisphere. However, the current trajectory of American foreign policy is leading to a situation where the United States is losing its current allies. By contrast China and Russia have no qualms about establishing a sphere of influence which encompasses the entire world in which the United States is effectively destroyed.

The United States should therefore reverse this destructively downward spiral by assisting the ninety million people of Iran. The ultimate establishment of an internationally co-operative Iran would not only remove a tremendous source of trouble in the world but would also crucially help stabilize the global political order s which is sorely needed.

Scenario Two: The positive ramifications of American military intervention leading to Reza Pahlavi becoming Iran’s transitional leader.

This scenario is, to say the least, a positive one. The array of problems which a clerical-ruled Iran has posed to the United States and the world will be overcome if this regime is removed. That is not to say that there will not be challenges in removing the regime by the United States providing military assistance to the Iranian people’s uprising.

However, via the use of satellite technology the United States will be able to undertake precision aerial bombing of selected targets, such as Revolutionary Guard sites, so that pressure can be brought to bear on the regime of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to give way. The American aerial bombing campaign can be proportionate to the repression which Khamenei’s security apparatus applies against demonstrators so that the security forces will have an incentive to desist from killing and/or oppressing people.

However, because the Iranian security forces are possibly embedded amongst the population an aerial bombing campaign by the United States could present logistical challenges. A possible alternative to a US aerial bombing campaign might be for Washington to funnel weapons to Iranian opponents of the regime. Such a course of action would require careful planning and intelligence analysis. At the very least, the supply of weapons to Iranian opponents of the regime could supplement a targeted American aerial bombing campaign.

If however, Khamenei chooses the Assad/Ceausescu option of refusing to compromise, then American support to the Iranian people can continue so that provisional authority is transferred to a transnational government headed or at least supported by Reza Pahlavi. Masses of Iranians, whether they be monarchist or republican have decided that Reza Pahlavi represents both a symbolic and a practical focal point for which authority can be transferred to, in order to provide a provisional transitional government for Iran.

History has shown with regard to American led intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965 or Grenada in 1983 that it has been successful when there has been a capable leader to fill the immediate vacuum. The selection by the American Organization of States (OAS) of Hector Garcia-Godoy as provisional president of the Dominican Republic was a masterstroke because he ably dealt with a myriad of challenges to take his country to democratic elections in 1966.

Similarly, in October 1983 American led forces of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States liberated Grenada from Marxist rule by ensuring that executive authority was transferred to the Governor-General Sir Paul Scoon (who was freed from regime custody at the time of this military intervention). The Governor-General then took over the day-to-day administration of Grenada until democratic elections were held in December 1984 which restored representative government.

Reza Pahlavi could also make an excellent transitional leader for Iran. He has already demonstrated great diplomatic and political skill in founding an umbrella group in 2013 called the Iran National Council for Free Elections (The Iran National Council). The Iran National Council has avowed republicans within its ranks who respect the former Crown Prince’s commitment to democracy.

Therefore, a Reza Pahlivi led transitional government would be able to utilize a wide-ranging talent pool to help govern Iran until elections to a constituent assembly are held. As important as it will be to hold Iranian democratic elections, a Reza Pahlivi transitional government would also probably see the good sense in influencing neighbouring oil producing Arab nations to continue to crucially support the American dollar should it come under dangerous attack from anti-American nations.

There is much to recommend this second scenario, but the so-called liberal left will undoubtedly be opposing American support being provided to the Iranian people because it fundamentally goes against their prevailing view concerning the efficacy of American military intervention in the Middle East and the long term positive legacy of the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The most potent argument against American assistance to the Iranian demonstrators which will be used will be that such a policy will lead to the United States becoming involved in yet another so-called ‘forever war’ in the Middle East. The American left will undoubtedly accuse the Trump administration of unnecessarily embroiling the United States in yet another ‘forever war’ similar to Iraq and Afghanistan if the administration provides aerial and/or material support (as distinct from ‘boots on the ground’) to the people of Iran.

However, the American-led occupation of Iraq between 2003 and 2011 was ultimately a success but the socio-political price for the United States was high because the prolonged military campaign precipitated the re-emergence of both left-wing and right-wing American isolationism. An overview of why the American led occupation of Iraq was ultimately a success is reviewed in relation to analysing the third scenario concerning the situation in Iran.

Scenario Three:   American military intervention facilitating a mutually beneficial political settlement.

The American led occupation of Iraq was ultimately successful in bringing democracy to that nation due to the statesmanship of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The Grand Ayatollah, who is actually Iranian, provided crucial support to the American led occupation of Iraq because he knew that the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussien was so effectively repressive that it could only be removed with external assistance.

The media and the anti-American Left portrayed resistance to the US led occupation of Iraq as opposition to foreign ‘imperialism’. Actually, this Iraqi resistance was an alliance between the ousted Baathist regime and Al-Qaeda aimed at restoring the political domination of the Arab Sunni minority (who make up about forty percent of the population) which had ruled Iraq since that nation’s creation in 1921.

Because of the Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s stance, Iraq’s majority Shia Arab population gave their grudging support to the American-led occupation on the correct assumption that their interests would ultimately be secured in the long-term. Similarly, the once severely repressed Kurdish minority endorsed the occupation on the correct basis that their rights would also eventually be advanced.

Furthermore, the interests of Iraq’s Arab Sunni minority have also been respected since the end of the occupation, due to the statesmanship of the Grand Ayatollah Sistani who could arguably be described as the Nelson Mandela of the Middle East.

Accordingly, selected and carefully targeted American aerial bombing of the regime’s military positions and/or the provision of arms in support of the Iranian people’s revolt could precipitate a scenario in which elements within the regime depose Ali Khamenei as Supreme Leader in favour another cleric nominated by the Grand Ayatollah Sistani. A new Sistani anointed Supreme Ruler could be accepted by the United States on the basis that he subsequently appoints a broad-based interim government which will take Iran to genuinely democratic elections to a constituent assembly.

Conclusion

These three scenarios for Iran as well as their ramifications will have a major global impact so careful consideration as to what the Trump administration does or does not do has to be considered. Ultimately history will be the judge of whether the Trump administration rises to the occasion with regard to whichever scenario eventually comes to pass in relation to Iran at this juncture.

The potential linkage between an American failure to help rescue Ukraine and the consequent outbreak of World War III is analyzed in this article by Dr. David Bennett. 

The current farce of the Trump administration in trying to once again persuade Ukraine to accept unfavorable terms with Moscow, which will eventually lead to that nation being overrun by Russia, has to end.  The termination of this diplomatic charade would not only be beneficial to Ukraine but also for the world.

This is because if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, then a powerful signal will be sent that the United States will also likely stand by to allow communist mainland China to invade the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan.

A resumption of the Chinese civil war will be catastrophic for the world economy due to the ROC’s strategic position in Asia. Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that a second Chinese civil war will draw Japan and South Korea in, thereby potentially paving the way for World War III. Even if the United States under a neo-isolationist Trump administration decides to remain neutral in the context of a world war, this will likely do the United States no good.

This is because the economic distortion of an Asian centered major war will disrupt international trade therefore plunging the United States into an economic abyss potentially far worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s. The two wings of the American Republican Party, the Trump inspired Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and the establishment wing, the Centre-right, will consequently be buried by history.

Such a development might be poetic justice for the Republican Party for having betrayed Ukraine and the ROC in Taiwan.  Alas, however the Democrats will probably not on this occasion subsequently produce a Franklin Dealano Roosevelt (FDR) to save the United States and the world from catastrophe, because there is now a highly organized hard-left organization within the Democratic Party, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

                                                                                                                                                                                                          The DSA Danger

It is therefore not beyond the realms of possibility that a future DSA backed president of the United States will take office due to the political polarization that the Trump administration has so far generated. Depending on the character and judgement of a DSA backed American president, he or she might attempt to impose a dictatorship on the United States. Such a development would be vigorously opposed by the Republicans which in turn could precipitate a major American civil disturbance.

The above cited scenarios are not all that far-fetched given Donald Trump’s efforts in attempting to overturn the 2020 US Presidential election.  However, for President Trump to have ‘gotten away’ with such a draconian action would have required the support of Centre- right Republicans.

These Republicans thankfully refrained from giving their support to this action but were nonetheless sufficiently shrewd to offer their endorsement to Trump for him to run again for president in 2024.  Similarly, Trump was sufficiently astute to realize that he could not win in 2024 without the support of the Centre-right Republicans so that the then outgoing president drew back from contesting the 2020 presidential result to its potentially ruinous climax.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      The Need for Centrists to be Centered

So far, the deal that the Centre-right Republicans have made with Trump has succeeded, even though pacts on the part of political centrists with leaders on the extreme of the political spectrum rarely work out for democracy.  Two examples:

Example 1:

The then ruling Italian Liberal camp eventually ‘came a cropper’ for facilitating Mussolini’s rise to power in 1922, rather than giving way to Italy’s two mass-based parties, the Socialists and the Christian democratic Populari.

Example 2:

Geographically closer to the United States the minority faction within the Cuban Liberal Party gave its support to Fulgencio Batista as he sought the presidency of Cuba in 1952.  The then former Cuban president undoubtedly would have been defeated in the scheduled June 1952 elections.  Instead, due to a confluence of incredible events, Senator Batista was able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by returning to power in a bloodless coup on March 10, 1952.

The pro-Batista faction within the Cuban Liberals inevitably gained the ascendancy within that party so that its leader Dr. Gus Inclan was elected vice-president of Cuba in November 1954 as Batista’s running mate.  Unfortunately, too many Cubans were deceived by Fidel Castro into believing that Batista was an anti- democratic usurper so that they supported the 1957-1958 anti-Batista rebellion.

With the considerable benefit of hindsight, the Cuban Liberal Party should have supported the courageous opposition presidential candidate Carlos Marquez Sterling in the November 1958 general elections.  Instead, the Cuban Liberals supported the ruling Progressive Coalition presidential candidate, the financially honest Andres Rivero Aguero, who won due to a successful boycott instigated by the mainstream of the Cuban opposition. Had Rivero served as president he probably would have followed the strategic advice of Dr. Inclan by stepping down mid-term in order to conciliate with the mainstream of the democratic opposition, so as to block Castro’s rise to power.

Although the Cuban Liberal Party under such a scenario would have been consigned to the opposition, Cuban democracy would have been preserved, while the Liberals would have emerged as the main force within Cuban Centre-right politics. The fundamental problem with Dr. Inclan’s planned political strategy was that it was overwhelmed by events for the Cuban people, in the grossly mistaken belief that Fidel Castro was a democrat, foolishly rallied to Castro’s cause thereby preventing Rivero from assuming office.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Marco Rubio

The relevance of this overview of pre-totalitarian Cuban politics is that American Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s political lineage is arguably descended from that of Dr. Inclan’s faction within the Cuban Liberal Party and the youth wing of its senior coalition partner, Fulgencio Batista’s Progressive Action Party (PAP). Accordingly, Secretary Rubio should be aware of how dangerously vulnerable the political centre is to socio-political polarization.

This political awareness on Secretary Rubio’s part should be heightened because the current direction of the foreign and defence policies of the Trump administration could ultimately serve to either prevent or precipitate domestic social political polarization which could be fatal to the United States of America.

                                                                                                                                                                                      The Politics of Cause and Effect

Secretary of State Rubio is therefore ideally placed to help ensure that the United States does not fall into the abyss by allowing Ukraine to be overrun by the Russian Federation. For if this was to occur, then there will most probably be a Chinese communist invasion of the ROC in Taiwan and with that an economic catastrophe which will have severely adverse economic consequences on the United States and the world.

This politics of cause and effect was previously apparent in that Russia’s dictator Vladmir Putin probably would not have invaded Ukraine in February 2022 had the Biden administration not willfully (and shamefully) abandoned Afghanistan in August 2021.  Similarly, the communist Chinese will now be watching to see if the United States abandons Ukraine as a factor in deciding whether to invade the ROC in Taiwan.

                                                                                                                                                                                               Avoiding World War III

The catastrophic consequences for the United States and the world arising from a communist Chinese invasion of the ROC in Taiwan have already been canvassed in this article.  Consequently, if Secretary Rubio is to short-circuit such a horrific chain of causation, he must convince President Trump to publicly announce that the United States will supply Ukraine with the munitions necessary for it to continue meaningful resistance (including the supply of Tomahawk missiles). Even the credible threat by the Americans that these munitions will be supplied to the Ukrainians may well be sufficient to compel the Russians to attend an international peace conference to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.

At such an international peace conference substantial concessions will have to be made by both the Ukrainians and the Russians to ensure that there is a lasting peace. Alas, from the Ukrainian perspective most of the eastern half of Ukraine might have to be de facto conceded to the Russian Federation.  However, in return for this horrendous concession, the Russians must be compelled to accept European North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces being deployed to western Ukraine so that Moscow cannot later re-invade Ukraine.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Conclusion

Due to Secretary of State Rubio’s political lineage, he is ideally placed to secure a termination of the Russo-Ukrainian War and in so doing by displaying American resolve prevent a subsequent communist Chinese invasion of the ROC in Taiwan, the ramifications of which would be catastrophic for the Trump administration, the United Staes and the world.

The vital importance of not missing historical chances is analyzed in this article by Dr. David Bennett. 

It has been correctly said of the political leadership of the Palestinian people that they never missed a chance to miss a chance. The correctness of this observation can be illustrated by analyzing the leadership patterns and decisions of the Palestinian people’s two principal leaders, the Grand Mufti of Palestine, Amin al-Husseini, who died in 1974, and Yaser Arafat (1929 to 2004).   Had these two leaders accepted post-World War I Jewish settlement in the territory (then a British held Mandate from the League of Nations) or supported a two-state solution in which there would have been a respective Jewish Palestinian state and an Arab Palestinian state then the position of the Palestinian people would be infinitely better than it is today.

The position of the Jewish people in what became the State of Israel after May 1948 also would have been tremendously strengthened by the co-establishment of an Arab Palestinian state because this would have helped facilitate acceptance of the Jewish nation in the Arab world.  It would therefore be a mistake on the part of Israeli prime minister, Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu if he was now to move his country away from arriving at a two-state solution.

Indeed, it would be a tragedy if the Iranian instigated attacks undertaken by Hamas on October 7^th, 2023, ultimately have their intended impact of diverting Arab nations under the Abraham Accords away from recognizing Israel.  Ironically at this juncture the Netanyahu government may be moving away from a two-state solution when there may be widespread hostility among the population of the Gaza Strip toward Hamas for using them as human shields in the conflict that followed the October 7^th, 2023, terror attacks.

Therefore, even if Gaza is temporarily divided into two zones of military occupation, an Israeli one and a multi-national zone, the overwhelming majority of Gaza residents would probably accept these occupation arrangements, so long as a political settlement was quickly reached.  For this political solution as envisaged by the Trump Administration to be arrived at, the Gaza Strip is to eventually rejoin, administratively and politically with the Palestinian Authority (PA) on the West Bank.  However, in the interim, it is proposed that the Gaza Strip will be governed by an internationally supervised technocratic administration, It has been suggested that the British statesman Tony Blair would be an ideal candidate to lead such an interim administration until democratic elections in the Gaza Strip could be held. Subsequent reunification of the Gaza Strip with the West Bank should be contingent upon there also being elections for the Palestinian Authority (PA) so that a future Palestinian State could be truly democratic.  The international negotiating process (which would hopefully include Arab nations) by which the Gaza Strip is returned to the PA could be part of a broader Israeli Palestinian negotiating process that would enable a two-state solution to be finally concluded.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Palestine Recognition: Horse and Cart

Until there is finalization of such a negotiating process the de jure international recognition of a Palestinian state should be withheld.  Centre-left governments in Australia and Britian have therefore made a mistake by recently moving to formally recognize a Palestinian state.  This is because recognition of a Palestinian state should be conditional upon such a future nation recognizing Isreal’s right to exist and also agreeing to secure border arrangements so that there can be no repeat of the measures such as the October 7^th, 2023, terrorist attacks and anti-Israeli hostilities in general.

To help prevent such terrorist outrages from ever re-occurring Hamas should be ejected from the Gaza Strip by Israel or by an international military force that should include a significant contribution by middle eastern military nations.  The establishment of a two-nation solution would depend upon the success of such an operation.

Crucial to the successful finalization of such a process would be the involvement of the United States.  Under the leadership of the Trump Administration there has been tangible progress toward peace in the Middle East. Military action such as the recent American aerial bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities advanced the Middle East peace process.  This has been because the acute danger of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons has been eliminated and Hamas was induced to agree to a cease-fire and to release the remaining Israeli hostages.

If the Trump Administration’s dual approach in undertaking military action followed by diplomatic maneuvering is to continue to succeed, then the negotiating process must continue to be focused upon reaching a two-state solution vis a vis Isreal and Palestine.  Therefore, it would be a grave mistake on the Netanyahu government’s part if it were to fall into Tehran’s strategically set trap of Isreal responding to the October 7^th 2023terror attacks by re-occupying the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The Scourge of Antisemitism

Furthermore, an abandonment by Isreal of a pursuit of the two-state solution would, alas further generate antisemitism around the world.  The antisemitic demonstrations which have occurred since the October 7^th, 2023, terror attacks, have spanned Europe, the United States and Australia.  As an Australian organization, Social Action Australia (SAA) is appalled and disturbed by the antisemitic demonstrations which have occurred in this nation.

Alarmingly, antisemitism is also on the rise in the United States, which is Isreal’s main backer.  This rising antisemitism has been manifested by anti-Israel demonstrations which have spread across America in the wake of the October 7^th, 2023, terror attacks.  Particularly concerning is that antisemitic elements – which are avowedly ‘anti-Zionist’ – are currently infiltrating the Democratic Party via far-left organizations, such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Already there are DSA congressmen and congresswomen, which is a possible indication that the mainstream of the Democratic Party may eventually transition to an anti-Israel position.  For it should not be forgotten it was a Democratic Party Administration that originally committed the Unites States to militarily support South Vietnam in the 1960s and, it was the Democrats in the US Congress, who eventually and fatally undercut American support for that nation in the 1970s as part of that party moving to the far-left.

The lesson for Isreal is that this historical pattern (which was manifested by the Biden Administration’s shameful abandonment of Afghanistan in August 2021) of the United States betraying its allies could re-occur should the Democratic Party continue to move leftward.  From Israel’s perspective the negotiation of a two-state solution would therefore vitally help in bringing Arab nations onside should American abandonment of Israel eventually occur.

Even during the Obama Administration (2009 to 2017) there were dangerous signs of American Israeli estrangement. Had it not been for the political intervention of the then House Speaker, the Democrat Nancy Pelosi, there might have been a rapture in relations between Washington and Jerusalem.

                                                                                                                                                                                      Why the United States Must Help Save Ukraine

It was also due to Speaker Pelosi’s leadership intervention that the United States did not abandon Ukraine following Russia’s invasion of that nation in February 2022.  Then president of the United States, Joe Biden was prepared to abandon Ukraine to Russian conquest and would have done so had it not been for the Pelosi intervention.  Whether Donald Trump’s administration will be recognized as one of the worst or the best in US history will in part depend on whether the United States vitally assists in helping to facilitate a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine and if America is able to assist in helping to rescue Ukraine from the Russian invasion.

For if the United States does not help save Ukraine, mainland communist China will have a green light to invade the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan.   A Chinse communist conquest of this island would fatally undercut the American position in the Asia-Pacific region and in world affairs overall.

It is therefore of concern that the Trump Administration’s recently imposed oil sanctions against the Russian Federation seem ineffective because they will take too long to become effective so that Russia now appears to be on the brink of conquering Ukraine.  Unfortunately, Russia has all but conquered eastern Ukraine as Kyiv alas cannot retake this part of the nation.  Furthermore, because the European nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will not defensively deploy troops to western Ukraine a consequent Russian takeover of Ukraine now seems inevitable.

However, the Trump Administration can still save Ukraine by an expeditious approval to supply Tomahawk missiles and related munitions and operational systems to that nation.  Such an action would send an unequivocal message to Moscow of the commitment of the West to support Ukraine and to not allow it to be consumed by the Russian state.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin knows that the dispatch by the United States of Tomahawk missiles can significantly tip the balance in Ukraine.  Consequently, the Russian dictator is upping the ante by warning of Armageddon should the United States provide Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles. The United States can still however, restrain Ukraine from using those missiles even if they possess them, on the condition that Moscow agrees to attend an international conference to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Such an international conference could be American mediated and if the territorial concessions to Russia are sufficient, then Moscow might end its war of aggression against Ukraine.  Kyiv might have to concede substantial territory to Russia, but this could be off-set by European NATO troops being defensively deployed to western Ukraine as a guarantee that a negotiated political settlement to the Russo-Ukrainian War would be effective.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     Why Chances must not be Missed

The world therefore needs American diplomatic and political leadership if conflicts such as the Israel/Palestine dispute and the Russ-Ukrainian War are to end.  The resolution of these two conflicts could, in turn could help prevent a Chinese communist invasion of the ROC on Taiwan thereby helping to prevent the possible outbreak of a catastrophic global conflict.

Dr. David Bennett argues that in the wake of the failure of the Putin-Trump Alaska Summit that European NATO troops need to be defensively deployed quickly to western Ukraine.

The August 2025 Alaska Summit between) Presidents Trump and Putin was destined to fail because no pressure was placed on the Russian dictator to end his war against Ukraine. Therefore, the Russians will continue their war against the Ukrainian people until they have fully conquered Ukraine.   Even though the Russian Federation’s military progress against Ukraine has been relatively slow, it has still been consistent, and it is likely that a Russian military victory will unfortunately happen unless there is direct European military intervention to prevent it.

Already there are signs that Russia will expand its war of aggression against Ukraine into Central Europe as demonstrated by recent instances of Russian drones being shot down over Poland.

Alas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership may not necessarily provide the nations of central and eastern Europe with the protection which they expect.  This is because either the extreme Left  or the extreme Right in France, which are both pro-Putin, may relatively soon come to power in that nation. There is also the prospect that the hard-right Eurosceptic UK Reform Party could also come to power in Great Britian in the not-too-distant future.

Either one or both of these above-cited developments would render NATO obsolete when it comes to countering any future Russian aggression into Europe after Moscow has subjugated Ukraine. Already, the consequences of the United States pursuing a neo-isolationist foreign policy is apparent because Putin has been emboldened to embark on his war of conquest against Ukraine.

However, American foreign policy under President Trump is often subject to his changing whims.  It is clear that President Trump wants Russia to end its war against Ukraine.  However, the American president is resolutely opposed to deploying US troops in Ukraine, let alone fighting against the Russians.

                                                                                                                                                            Why Time  is of the Essence

It is therefore imperative that European NATO nations expeditiously deploy combat troops to western Ukraine to form a defensive barrier to block further Russian military advancement.   Such a despatch of European NATO troops would not have to necessarily initially engage in combat as their deployment would be defensive in nature.  To reiterate, European NATO troops based in western Europe would only engage in combat should Russian troops cross the defensive line which Brussels will hopefully establish.

There well may be logistical challenges with regard to deploying European forces in Ukraine even just to form a defensive line.  Challenges should however be overcome! If NATO Europe cannot defensively deploy in western Ukraine, then what hope will NATO have when it comes to co-ordinating any subsequent Russian aggression in Europe if Ukraine falls? It is therefore not an impossible task to deploy European NATO troops provided that the will is there.

The European will to assist Ukraine has been manifested to date by the provision of weapons and financial support. There has also been a professed willingness by some European nations to deploy NATO forces (‘Re-Assurance Troops’) to Ukraine after a political settlement to the Russo-Ukrainian War has been reached.

Tragically, this European desire to help Ukraine falls short of deploying European NATO troops while the Russo-Ukrainian War is currently under way. President Putin knows this, which is why following his August 2025 Alaska Summit, the Russian dictator stepped up offensive military operations against Ukraine with the distinct prospect of expanding his war of conquest into eastern European nations such as Poland.

There are signs that Poland, Finland and the three Baltic States are co-ordinating in constructing a defensive military barrier against Russia. While this proactive step is to be applauded, it would be strategically flawed and ethically dubious for these five nations to have the perspective that Ukraine can do all the fighting and the dying in order to gain time for them in the meantime build a defensive military barrier.

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the Soviet Union in the 1939-1940 Soviet Finnish War still eventually overcame the brilliantly constructed Mannerheim Line. That is not to say that defensive military lines cannot always work, for it often depends on the context. The Mannerheim Line was eventually breached because time was on Stalin’s side as the western allies could not then at that point, save Finland.

However, the prompt defensive deployment of European NATO troops to western Ukraine will provide the only feasible prospect of saving Ukraine – and therefore Central and Eastern Europe- from future Russian conquest because Russia is currently relatively beleaguered. The leaders of European nations need to recognise this time imperative, which means also appreciating that President Trump will not militarily intervene to save Ukraine.

That is not to say that the Americans cannot mediate a political settlement to the Russo-Ukrainian War. For this development to occur, NATO Europe will have to up the ante (as President Putin has done following the Alaska Summit) by defensively deploying troops to western Ukraine. Whether any future European NATO ‘Re-Assurance Troops’ remain in western Ukraine and/or who might replace them, can be determined by an American mediated peace settlement to the Russo-Ukrainian War when and if it ever occurs.

Dr. David Bennett argues that given the lack of current Anglo-French resolve that Sweden, Poland and Finland should expeditiously consider intervening militarily in the Russo-Ukrainian War to save both the Ukrainian people and Europe from Russian domination.

The recent Ukrainian drone attack (in June 2025) which destroyed millions of dollars’ worth of Russian military aircraft (43 nuclear capable bombers) may lead to an inaccurate perspective that Ukraine can win its war of independence without external military intervention.  Unfortunately, the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is tenacious, and he knows that time is ultimately on his nation’s side.  This is because Russia has a substantially larger population and military economy to draw on to replenish its military manpower and equipment losses so that the Russian Federation can eventually prevail militarily against Ukraine.

It will take Russia a long time to subdue a conquered Ukraine, but after Moscow has achieved this, Russia will be able to exploit Ukraine as a launching base to invade Central and Eastern Europe.  Because of the neo-isolationist policy of the United States, the possibility of an effective American military assistance to a Europe threatened by a Russian invasion is somewhat dubious.

The necessary European unity required to counter Russian invasions of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) continental nations will alas, be in considerable doubt as a result of a Moscow induced domestic political discord within NATO member states. Romania is currently a case in point where recent Russian disruption has brought that NATO nation to the brink of civil war.  Hungary is also of dubious resolve.

Social Action Australia (SAA) has previously advocated that France (‘Why France Must Lead the Struggle to Save Ukraine’) should take the lead in co-ordinating a direct European NATO military intervention in Ukraine against the Russian Federation to save the Ukrainian people.  Unfortunately. France is currently wracked by political instability as this nation is bedevilled by strong far-right and far-left forces which are both pro-Putin!

Even in Great Britain there is a potentially strong far-right political force in the form of Nigel Farage’s UK Reform Party which could displace the Conservative Party as the main opposition after the next British general election. Such an outcome could provide the basis for there eventually being a Farage led Euro-sceptic government which would probably allow Russia a free hand to re-assert its dominance in Central and Eastern Europe and very possibly go onto threaten Finland and the Scandinavian nations.

This preceding scenario of future Russian aggression in Europe following its ultimately probable conquest of Ukraine is as frightening as it is viable.  Consequently, Putin must be stopped now by direct foreign military intervention in the Russo-Ukrainian War before it is too late.  Although Britain is currently revamping its military nuclear deterrent, London (along with Paris) will not lead the charge to help save Ukraine via direct military intervention due to their previously cited respective domestic political weaknesses. 

The Trio of Nations

The three European nations (The Trio of Nations) which have the combined and current military capacity to expeditiously save Ukraine via direct military intervention should Russia launch a massive 2025 Spring Offensive are Sweden, Poland and Finland.  These three nations have distinct respective military strengths which if combined and co-ordinated could rescue the Ukrainian people and ultimately Central and Eastern Europe from Russian conquest.

Sweden is one of the world’s most technologically militarily advanced military forces.  This kingdom arguably has the world’s best fighter aircraft, the SAAB Grippen warplanes. Swedish naval power is also outstanding in that the Swedes possess very advanced non-nuclear sub-marines considered by many to be significantly superior to those of Russia.

It would be unfair to expect Sweden to alone directly militarily intervene to help save Ukraine should the Russian Federation launch a massive 2025 Spring Offensive.   Alternately, it would be naïve to expect either Britian or France despatch significant forces of ground troops as well as well as utilizing its naval and air power due to the respective political situations in both of these nations.

Therefore, Poland and Finland will hopefully join with Sweden to come to Ukraine’s defence. Both Poland and Finland have experience in fighting against Russian military aggression in the 1930s and 1940s. These two nations now have formidable armed forces, -which if soon deployed- in the context of advanced Swedish technological military technology being applied - could provide Ukraine with a conventional military advantage which Putin would not be able to overcome.

There is of course also the acute concern that if there is direct military intervention by foreign powers to save Ukraine, that Putin’s Russia will retaliate by unleashing its tactical nuclear weapons.  However, should this frightening scenario come to pass, then Britian and France would hopefully respond (in spite of domestic political divisions) in kind against Russia so that this should serve as a deterrent to Putin.

The best form of proactive maintenance to prevent Europe descending into nuclear conflict while at the time thwarting possible future Russian aggression in Europe by saving Ukraine is for The Trio of Nations to communicate their preparedness to directly militarily intervene to save Ukraine.  Such a communication could be the catalyst for Russia to quickly agree to an American mediated ceasefire as a prelude to an internationally negotiated peace settlement.

Europe in 2025 stands at a very similar position to that occupied by the British and French in 1938 as they contemplated the Nazi German demand for the surrender of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. The Allies were cowed by the prospect of a renewal of the warfare that had ended in 1918, and they missed their opportunity.

Had they been able to look back from the viewpoint of 1945, what decision would they have made? There is little doubt that had the Allies resisted the Nazis in 1938, at that point the French forces could have rolled into  Germany and brought the Nazis undone and as a result of that in 1945  they would not have been confronted with a powerful, dictatorial Soviet Union / Russia staring back at them from an Eastern Europe oppressed by an iron curtain spread across their continent. Nor would Europe have had to contemplate the almost incomprehensible carnage and destruction that had occurred in the war.

Europe is at a similar sliding door right now!

If the Russian / Ukraine War shows nothing else, it is that had NATO or even some of its members opposed Russia from the start they would have easily defeated the invaders. It is still possible to achieve that outcome now. The major reason for the timidity of NATO / Western Europe is their concern with the threat of Russia utilising its stockpile of nuclear weapons (allied to Putin’s belief that the NATO nations would never have the gumption to use such ordnance themselves).

If this is true, then NATO is doomed. If Russia succeeds in this belief, then they will use it to advance to ultimately recover its lost European empire. However, it is possible that a firm resolve by NATO now will terminate this Russian nuclear threat. If the Russian nuclear weapons threat is used successfully at this time, then it will continue to be used by Russia until they finally feel compelled to actually use it – and then all will be lost.

We are now at the equivalent of the 1938 Sudetenland opportunity.