Today Iran, Tomorrow Russia

Iran, Trump, and the moment the world order finally broke

Alexander Dugin on Iran, the Katechon, and the war that could reshape the world.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: Dear friends, today we are addressing a large and serious topic. Everyone is talking about it right now, and understandably so, because a historic event is unfolding. Let me remind our listeners: on February 28, 2026, a joint operation was launched by the armed forces of the United States of America and Israel. Strikes were carried out against Iran, as a result of which Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed. In addition, many other high-ranking figures were eliminated in the attack. Iran has begun responding with strikes against both Israel and American bases, and as we speak, military clashes are taking place. There are many questions about what the consequences will be, who will suffer most from these developments, and whether Iran will be able to withstand the pressure. But the first thing one wants to understand is: where is all of this leading?

Alexander Dugin: This is indeed an extremely important event. It is entirely possible that it could become the beginning of the Third World War, because forces of enormous scale are now involved. The actions of the Americans—Trump together with Netanyahu—directed against the political leadership of Iran were extraordinarily abrupt.

This is already the second such case. First, the United States abducted Maduro, establishing direct control over Venezuela and effectively occupying that country. Now they have destroyed the entire military-political and religious leadership of Iran. In significance, this is comparable to destroying the Pope or an Orthodox Patriarch, because the spiritual leader of the Shiites—the Rahbar, Ayatollah Khamenei—was revered not only in Iran. He was effectively the head of the entire Shiite world, which includes hundreds of millions of people across the globe. Before this, Israel eliminated the leadership of Hamas—a more limited case—and then the leadership of Hezbollah, which was already more serious.

Now the leadership of Iran has been directly and openly destroyed. This means that there are no longer any international norms, no rules, and the United Nations effectively no longer exists. That organization now belongs to the past, like a phantom limb from a vanished world. Trump himself essentially said as much: there is no international law; whatever he does is moral. This changes everything. The previous world order has collapsed. We had been gradually moving in this direction, but now the point of no return has been crossed. If a country can destroy the military-political and religious leadership of a sovereign state without any grounds whatsoever, then we are living in a completely different world—a world where everything is permitted, where law is replaced by force, where the principle operates: “If I can do it, I will.”

Trump’s behavior is particularly striking. All of this happened during negotiations involving Kushner and Witkoff, and according to available information Iran had agreed to almost all American demands—literally to almost everything. Despite this, such a strike followed directly against the leadership of the country. First of all, we must understand that in this situation we are next. Venezuela, Iran, and before that Syria and Hezbollah—these are all regimes or political systems currently targeted by the United States, and they are our allies.

In effect, if such actions can be taken against our allies, if all of this goes unpunished, if Trump succeeds in everything he attempts, then at the next stage—perhaps even during negotiations between Kirill Dmitriev and Kushner and Witkoff—a similar operation aimed at regime change in our country could occur.

And what protects us from such a scenario? Nuclear weapons? Even here the question remains whether we would actually use them. In an extreme situation, the West has serious doubts that we would be prepared to take that step—we issue threats too often and fail to follow through. At the same time, efforts are underway to surround and isolate our president. Our president, beyond any doubt, is the figure upon whom everything rests. In our country, and perhaps even in the world, everything depends on him. He is the one who restrains—the Katechon, as our Orthodox tradition describes it. Today this is simply a fact of geopolitics, a fact of the global order.

But if the Americans—Trump himself—become convinced that other Russian leaders who might, God forbid, replace our president would be more accommodating towards the West—and this was precisely the calculation in Iran, when the sovereign leaders of that country were physically eliminated because they pursued policies that did not align with American interests—then what would prevent them from attempting to implement the same scenario here?

Trump is conducting a completely consistent neoconservative geopolitical strategy of attack. The states that were targeted by globalists under Biden, under Obama, and under Clinton are exactly the same states being targeted now. Nothing fundamentally new has appeared. Despite the scandals and disputes with European NATO allies, in the end those allies align themselves behind the United States and adopt the same position. For us, therefore, this is extremely serious. It is the final warning.

Host: Let me return to the question of the Third World War. I remember that last year we discussed the situation around Iran—there was the so-called “twelve-day war”—and at that time we also said it might lead to a global crisis. Yet that did not happen. Could it be that this time as well everything will last perhaps twelve or thirteen days and then come to an end? Or are we now dealing with a completely different scale of events?

Alexander Dugin: Theoretically, no one knows whether this will become the Third World War or not. The problem is that when we say too often—and I have experienced this personally—“this is the Third World War,” or “that is the Third World War,” and then it turns out not to be the case, and later again we say, “now the Third World War has begun,” an opposite feeling eventually arises: the impression that a Third World War simply cannot begin at all, that it will never begin, that everything is under control. And this is precisely where the danger lies. When you say it too early once, say it too early twice, then when it actually begins you may even become afraid to say openly what is unfolding before your own eyes.

Therefore we must be cautious in assessing what is happening. What we are seeing resembles the beginning of the Third World War, but it may not turn out to be one; perhaps this crisis will pass. You formulated the question correctly. At this moment almost everything depends—and indeed even our own fate, if you like—on how long Iran can resist. Because if the American-Israeli coalition manages to suppress Iranian resistance quickly during the operation the Americans call “Epic Fury”… although many people now add the phrase “Epstein’s Epic Fury.” In fact, it is quite obvious that Trump launched this operation partly to divert attention from the Epstein files, where he undoubtedly appears in an extremely compromising light. Many observers believe Israeli pressure and blackmail also play a role in this situation.

The Israelis themselves are operating along an entirely different ideological line. Here we are dealing with an eschatological project: the construction of a “Greater Israel,” the expectation of the last days, and the coming of the Messiah. This is a very serious motivation within the war that Israel calls “The Shield of Judah.” And the Iranians—the Iranians have now entered what they see as the final battle. It was already clear during the previous stage, during the twelve-day war, that it was not a fully developed war; it resembled preparation. Iran did not fully engage at that time. Perhaps even now Iran would not have fully entered the conflict if the Americans themselves had not taken such radical steps. Now Iran has no choice but to fight to the very end: to attack every possible target, to close the Strait of Hormuz to American or Western vessels and to ships belonging to countries that have acted against it, to strike military bases and any other targets it can reach, to ignite Shiite uprisings across the Middle East and wherever else influence can reach, and to wage this struggle—the final battle—all the way to the end.

Iran had previously been willing to avoid such a confrontation, but that possibility has now been taken away. The Iranians have named their operation—and this is important to note—they have named it “The End of the Flood.” Recall that the Hamas operation from which everything began—the events in Gaza, the genocide in Gaza, and before that the Hamas attack on Israel—was called “The Flood,” or “Al-Aqsa Flood.” Al-Aqsa is the second most sacred site in the Muslim world. It is the mosque located in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount. The Palestinians launched their uprising in order to defend this sacred site. Why did they believe it needed defending? Because Netanyahu and his closest associates—Ben-Gvir and Smotrich—have openly discussed plans to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque in order to clear space for the construction of the Third Temple, an event that would mark the beginning of the messianic era. In fact, all preparations for the project of “Greater Israel” ultimately point towards this goal. The Palestinian movement Hamas therefore sought to defend the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which Ben-Gvir has personally and repeatedly promised to blow up and level to the ground. What followed instead was the devastation and destruction of Gaza.

Now the Iranian operation called “The End of the Flood” represents what they see as the final battle. In Iranian Shiite philosophy—and in Islamic eschatology more broadly—the end of times will bring a final confrontation between the forces of Islam, led by the Mahdi (the Hidden Imam whom Shiites believe will return), and the Dajjal, the figure often described as the Islamic Antichrist. The battle between the Mahdi and the Dajjal is understood as the central drama of the end times. According to these traditions, it will take place in Syria and the Holy Land. In Islamic theological interpretations, both Shiite and Sunni scholars commonly identify the forces associated with the Dajjal with the United States—seen as the “Great Satan”—and Israel. For that reason the stakes are perceived as absolute.

However, speaking in more strategic and analytical terms, the central question remains how long Iran will be able to resist. With every day that Iran continues to resist and defend its sovereignty, the strategic situation may begin to change. Trump clearly expected a very short war. He assumed that after the destruction of Iran’s military-religious and military-political leadership, the situation inside Iran would collapse quickly. In other words, he was counting on a “fifth column.”

Host: Let us turn to the question of the possibility of maintaining stability in Iran. After events like these—the destruction of the supreme leader and a significant part of the elite—has it been possible to quickly restore the hierarchy and appoint new leaders, or is there a risk that the system could “break,” that at some point there could be a sharp reversal, for example if missiles suddenly end up aimed at Tehran

Alexander Dugin: You know, history is open-ended. We do not fully know what is happening in Iran right now: the internet has been completely shut down there. According to my sources, there are currently no protests whatsoever against the regime. Even those who were previously opposed to the regime of Velayat-e Faqih—after the brutal killing of about two hundred innocent schoolgirls by an Israeli missile—the opinion of the Iranian opposition has become radically directed against the United States and against Israel. Accordingly, there are absolutely no grounds, in my view, to expect that power will simply be handed to Trump.

In other words, Iran is probably more united now than at any time after the death of its entire leadership and after this brutal strike on the school. This has changed the consciousness of many people. The Iranian people are very proud and very strong, and perhaps some people did not like the regime of Velayat-e Faqih—although this too was exaggerated in the West by Israeli services—but nevertheless now everyone will rally around Iran under the national idea. Moreover, I think the current leaders will understand the need to move somewhat towards the secular circles of Iranian society, among whom there are practically no liberals. There are Iranian nationalists there who are not quite as strictly religious as the political regime, but they are still nationalists, they are patriots of Iran. If their energy and their will are directed towards resisting Zionist-American aggression, then resistance may last quite a long time, because even Gaza resisted for a long time, and Iran is not Gaza—it is an enormous country.

Shiites constitute a significant part of the population of the Middle East. The elites of these pro-American, pro-Arab regimes are thoroughly corrupt; it is simply an extension of “Epstein Island”: all these Qatars, Dubais, and Bahrains. In Bahrain, for example, the population itself is largely Shiite. I think that Shiite uprisings and revolutions could now erupt everywhere. In principle, if Iran holds out, it is completely unknown who will emerge victorious in this war. Especially since we see that the Afghan–Pakistani conflict is escalating. And it is still unclear who—Pakistan or Afghanistan—might come out in support of Tehran. Israel, by the way, does not like either of them, neither Pakistanis nor Afghans. As a result, all of this could ultimately end in catastrophe for Trump, for the United States, and for Israel. The vast Muslim world could simply wipe it from the face of the earth. The “Iron Dome” has already been penetrated, Tel Aviv is in flames, and some of the images already resemble Gaza. People are fleeing from there, and many are saying that this is how it will end: Iran will certainly win.

For now it is still unclear. But Iran did not surrender on the first day; it did not surrender after this most terrible strike—precisely what Trump had been counting on. Now Trump is speaking about several weeks, perhaps a month. Legally speaking, he has the possibility to conduct a war for roughly three months without congressional approval, and Congress might also support him. But if this war becomes prolonged, if Iran resists desperately and has sufficient strength, internal energy, potential, and power, then the outcome of this battle is far from predetermined. Especially because, if you look closely, the wager on the operation “Shield of Judah” may be the weakest and most vulnerable point for the American–Israeli coalition. What kind of shield is this, when they attacked and killed the leadership of a country that, in fact, was not even at war with them? This is an attack—it is the attack of Judas, a treacherous attack carried out during negotiations. There is a great deal of Judas here, but very little shield. If events continue in a certain way, the changes in the world could in fact be extremely radical.

Therefore the question now is perhaps not so much who will win. The first days have been endured, the first blow has been survived—at least by the Iranians. Their political leadership, which has now stepped forward to replace Rahbar Khamenei and his family—who were also killed, incidentally… A monstrous thing: a granddaughter, a little girl, fourteen months old—just one year and two months. Children, grandchildren… everyone.

As usual, we saw this in Gaza: the cruelty of American–Israeli aggression and hegemony is so monstrous, their lies and treachery so immense, that humanity should in fact have recoiled in horror at what we are dealing with. But it did not recoil, because instead people will be told other stories; they will say that Iran itself is to blame, that it killed itself. As for lies coming from the American regime, from the West in general, from the Zionists—we are already accustomed to that; we have heard it all before. Therefore Iran cannot count on the indignation of world public opinion. Iran can rely only on itself and on those forces that might support it.

If Iran now regroups and manages to conduct this war for a sufficiently long time, at any cost, then of course Israel will attempt to turn Iran into Gaza. In fact, it has already begun doing so. But Iran is still a very large country. Moreover, Iranian missiles are reaching Israeli territory and striking important strategic targets. After some time of this kind of bombardment and missile exchange, I think Israel will begin to feel somewhat uncomfortable.

And accordingly the Americans will feel it, and the Europeans will feel it as well. To sink those battleships now—we know this ourselves, because we suffered heavy losses in the Black Sea during the war with the Kiev Nazi regime: sinking a warship today is incredibly easy. With modern drones—underwater and surface—it is a very simple technological task to send this much-praised fleet to the bottom. We are already living in a completely different technological age of warfare. All that carrier power is, in reality, something inflated; it is simply pretty pictures.

Helicopters—given the speed at which they flew into Venezuela—could survive perhaps thirty seconds if they faced normal people with rifles, or proper drones, or the kinds of weapons our ordinary units have along the front line in Ukraine. Under such conditions a helicopter would not last long—thirty seconds. In reality they still do not know what war is. Neither the Americans nor the Israelis know. Now they will find out.

If Iran holds out, anything is possible. I am not saying they are destined to win. I am not saying that victory is guaranteed for anyone. But if victory is not guaranteed, and if it is not quick in the case of Trump and Israel, that alone would already represent a colossal victory for all supporters of a multipolar world. In fact, this war is directed against us as well. We must understand that we are next. Iran right now is what? A shield. The shield of the Katechon. That is what Iran is. In a sense, they have taken upon themselves a blow that was ultimately intended for all of us. If they hold out, it will be an enormous success, including for us.

Host: Let us talk about cooperation—particularly from the Russian side. Moscow is issuing statements right now: Dmitry Peskov says that Moscow is in constant contact with the leadership of Iran. Russia remains committed to a political and diplomatic settlement even after the U.S. attack on Iran. Vladimir Putin today held international telephone conversations connected with the situation around Iran. The president will also meet today with the governor of the Amur region, although that is another matter. What do you think: what actions should we take now—should we move towards harsher measures, or should we take a wait-and-see position? But frankly, it is unclear what exactly we would be waiting for.

Alexander Dugin: If we simply adopt a wait-and-see position, that means waiting for Iran to collapse—and then the next strikes will be directed against our own military and political leadership.

Host: In what way?

Alexander Dugin: A war is being waged against us in Ukraine, and it is quite intense. But after Trump came to power—with what initially seemed to be a fairly rational strategy and policy—an impression arose in our country, within our leadership, that Trump might withdraw from this confrontation and that it was therefore necessary to negotiate with him through figures like Witkoff and Kushner, or others, in order to reduce the escalation, at least with America. The thinking was that we are fighting Ukraine, we are confronting the European Union, but Trump might step away from this because he holds a different position. Indeed, he did have a different position up to a certain point. Yet after only a couple of months in the White House as president, he suddenly changed course and became an even more radical neoconservative, pursuing the same globalist and hegemonic policies but now more openly, more brutally, and more bluntly.

This moment of Trump’s transformation—from the MAGA position, which in fact made the Anchorage meeting possible, to a radical hegemonic dictate, especially when it appears to be producing results quite quickly in other operations—is perhaps something we did not fully register in time. Trump changed. He turned out to be a conduit for a will that is not his own. He has completely abandoned his core electorate. He has effectively become a hostage of the very same forces that launched the war against us in Ukraine.

In this situation, in my view, the attack on Iran puts a final end to the idea that Trump could still be seen as a bearer of the MAGA ideology—the idea that the United States would focus on its own domestic problems, stop interfering in international affairs, and deal with its own enormous failures in politics, the economy, and culture, which was in fact Trump’s original program. None of that will happen. Trump will continue to pursue the policies of the neoconservatives. For us this is an extremely important moment.

He is attacking our allies. In fact, if Iran falls—or rather, if Iran does fall and when Iran falls—we will find ourselves facing forces far stronger than those we already confront today. Trump, like a bull charging towards its target, intoxicated by blood and convinced that everything is working for him and that everything comes easily, may interpret our rationality and restraint, our consistency and our adherence to principles simply as weakness. And then he will have no other terms or concepts with which to interpret our policy.

Host: How, then, should we act right now?

Alexander Dugin: I think we must act very decisively—but that decision belongs to the president. You know, there are many advisers now, and all of us—from taxi drivers to experts, both military and civilian—are telling him with one voice that a strike is necessary. First of all, it is clear that international law no longer exists; we can do whatever we want, because victory will justify it all. Undoubtedly, the military-political leadership of Ukraine must be eliminated. That is absolutely certain. They did this to our ally, and by the rules of the great game we are simply obliged to do the same to their proxy, to those structures that are waging war against us.

I believe it is extremely important to use very serious types of weapons—ones so powerful that they cannot be ignored or overlooked. I also do not rule out that it may be necessary to bring certain countries into line—countries that are supporting the war in Ukraine while feeling completely immune from consequences and interpreting our politeness and consistency as weakness. Russia can no longer afford to appear weak. We are not weak, but that is how we appear. They see us as weak, indecisive, hesitant, uncertain of ourselves, lacking sufficient potential. The aggression of any hegemon can be resisted if there is will and strength—and a nuclear power is certainly capable of that. Great Russia is capable of it. But they believe we lack the will.

That, I think, is a mistake: we do have the will; we have simply been carefully concealing it, packaging it neatly within the negotiation process. Now that approach is beginning to work strictly against us, and very quickly. But everyone is advising the president in this direction—that is my impression, although perhaps some think differently.

A consensus has now formed that Russia must fundamentally reconsider its strategy for conducting the war against Ukraine. We need to take decisive and unconditional actions that cannot be interpreted in any other way. In other words—a strike, and Bankova Street is gone, the leadership is gone, Zelensky is gone, no one is left, and it becomes unclear with whom negotiations should continue. We can then propose that they themselves appoint people with whom we would be prepared to conduct dialogue. This simply suggests itself.

Host: Alexander Gelyevich, on the other hand, it could happen that after their leadership is eliminated they will choose new leaders, perhaps even more radical ones—as essentially happened in Iran, where the leadership was replaced almost instantly.

And here your view of the Iranian scenario is interesting: what if we take harsh measures in its support? Suppose Russia, together with China, sends its fleet to the Persian Gulf. What do you think that would lead to?

Alexander Dugin: We would be respected. And we would be feared. That is what would happen, if we speak honestly. That is all.

Host: Would that not lead to direct confrontation?

Alexander Dugin: Direct confrontation is already underway. They simply believe that they control and direct us, while we still think we are conducting partner negotiations. There is a fundamental divergence in perspectives—a difference in how we read the very fabric of what is happening. However, I do not advise our president to do anything; he understands everything perfectly well himself.

As for the concern that eliminating the leadership in Kiev would bring even more radical forces to power: there are no more radical ones left there. They may bring in similar figures. But if they also do not suit us, we must do the same to them, and to the next ones, and the next ones—removing them layer by layer. Especially since Ukraine is not Iran. If we truly enter this confrontation now, we will gain not only a chance for victory but also the opportunity to stop escalation and prevent the Third World War. Trump is demonstrating that the politics of force has begun, and force does not recognize words. It stops only where it encounters countervailing power. That power must be demonstrated. We constantly speak about our nuclear potential and about the “Oreshnik,” but the time has come not merely to speak but to show this strength. This is what is expected from us. Only then will Trump understand that the Russians are truly angry and that he has gone too far.

What is needed now is a massive strike that cannot be ignored or dismissed as boasting or as attacks on secondary targets. Where and how this will occur is not for us to decide, but the course of history and the mood of our soldiers at the front—who have been somewhat demoralized by peace negotiations—demand decisiveness. When every day the message is broadcast that “everything will end soon,” it becomes psychologically impossible to fight; a false feeling arises that it is enough simply to wait a little longer. We must honestly acknowledge that the war will not end until we achieve all the goals of the special military operation. We must steel our will and do what has long been necessary. Earlier it was possible to postpone it, but now there is nowhere left to wait.

It is important to understand that words carry enormous significance. Look at the name of the operation “Epic Fury”—even Americans who opposed the attack on Iran are inspired by that slogan. “My country is furious, and I will stand for it”—that works. Meanwhile we have the bureaucratic term “SMO,” which cannot inspire anyone; it carries no deeper meaning. “Epic Fury,” “Shield of Judah” for the Israelis, “End of the Flood” for the Shiite world—these are powerful codes of meaning. I believe we must rename the special military operation “The Sword of the Katechon”: we are the restrainers; this is our mission, our Russian role, our Orthodox identity. Muslims will support us in this as well, because they understand the unity of the struggle perfectly well. We must mobilize society, give the war renewed momentum, rename it. At the beginning there were the symbols “Z,” “V,” “O”—that was a public-relations approach without depth. Now we must emphasize what we are fighting for, without concealing the scale of the victory. We must be honest with those who give their lives for the Fatherland, for the state, for authority, and for the people. We are fighting for something shared, and people must feel that meaning.

Today enormous forces are in motion—military, political, religious. We are not observers or arbiters here; we are participants in a Great War. Perhaps the last one. There is no need to rush ahead speculating about when the end will come—Orthodox Christians know that no one knows it; even Christ said that only the Father knows. But we know that there will be an end, because God created this world and God will judge it. This is part of our faith and our traditions—an essential part. Therefore there is no reason for panic.

We live in the last times—look at the West, at the Epstein list. What details we are learning about the elites that govern the West: this is truly a civilization of Baal. It is a cult of Satan—a cult. What do the elites do? They corrupt minors, eat people, hunt African Americans. The Epstein files contain direct indications: they rape children, they organize orgies. And that is on the other side. That is the civilization we are fighting. It is no coincidence that in Iran a statue of Baal was burned on the eve of this invasion, and in response missiles began to fly. In the consciousness of the Islamic world these things are connected: the Epstein list, Baal—and those who burn his idols. The war is acquiring a profound religious character. American dispensationalists, interpreting the Scofield Bible, are convinced that at the moment of the clash between Iran and Israel Russia will inevitably enter the war on Iran’s side. For them, “today Iran, tomorrow Russia” is already a settled fact. In their minds we are already there.

It is important to understand the psychology of the enemy: it does not coincide with facts or with our rational perceptions. Combined with Trump’s furious energy and the eschatological exaltation of the Israeli leadership—which believes that it is now or never, that the Messiah must come now and that “Greater Israel” must be created now—this reality leaves us no chance to concern ourselves with ordinary affairs. History, geography, religion, and politics deprive us of the possibility of being outside observers. We stand at the very center of events, and we have our own role.

Host: How would the geopolitical alignment change if Europe truly decided to participate directly in the bombings? For example, reports have come from an Israeli radio station that Germany is discussing with the United States the possibility of its direct participation in the operation. In other words, they may begin carrying out their own attacks rather than limiting themselves to supplying weapons. How would the situation change in that case?

Alexander Dugin: That is exactly where things are heading. The problems between Trump and the European Union have now either been resolved or pushed aside, because in essence Trump has shifted to a policy fully aligned with the interests of the globalists and neoconservatives. Earlier Trump’s conflict with Europe was driven by the MAGA movement, by his rejection of globalism and of the “deep state.” But if Trump is now drawing closer to these structures, then disagreements with Europe naturally move into the background. The West should be viewed as a single whole—the collective West. In effect we have returned to the situation that existed before Trump. That historical moment when other ideas and other plans for the United States were proclaimed has unfortunately passed. Now we are dealing less with Trump himself and more with the same “deep state” that stood behind Nuland, Blinken, or Kamala Harris—essentially the same forces.

Accordingly, all contradictions between the United States and the European Union have been leveled in the face of radical confrontation with forces that are ideological and geopolitical opponents of the collective West—above all the supporters of a multipolar world, among whom are ourselves and China.

As for your question about our direct participation: let the president decide. Personally, I believe participation is necessary. The more actively, boldly, and decisively we behave in every respect, the better. Otherwise any other action will be interpreted by them as weakness, and weakness is a direct provocation—a call to do to us what they did to the Iranian leadership. After all, our president met with Rahbar Khamenei, and before that with President Raisi and other political leaders, just as he met with Maduro.

Host: Developing this theme further: should we act alone, or within a coalition with China? What should our strategy be?

Alexander Dugin: Of course it would be better to act in a coalition with China. But China will wait. Look: if, God forbid, Iran falls, direct confrontation with us will inevitably follow, and after that—China, because that is their ultimate target. Anyone who thinks they can sit this out—whether us, China, or Iran itself, which did not enter the war after the IDF’s ground operation against Gaza began (Hezbollah kept waiting and waiting until they were all destroyed)—is making a mistake. The longer we wait, the later we enter a full confrontation with the collective West, the greater the chance that it will defeat us one by one.

We have been deceived again—Lavrov spoke about this: Israel passed along information that it intended to attack Iran. Once again they lead us by the nose: “You stay aside for now, do not enter the conflict under any circumstances,” and in the end there will be no one left who could support us. Therefore I am convinced that we must respond as harshly as possible, on all fronts. It is not necessary to enter this specific conflict immediately, but we must deal with our direct enemies—the Nazi regime in Kiev—with the utmost decisiveness. There is no doubt about that. And we must do it in such a way that no one will have any illusions left: if the Russians want to—they can. And if we cannot, then we will be in a very bad situation.

Our response must be symmetrical and maximally harsh. Ideally in a coalition. But if not in a coalition, then alone. If we act now, we will not be alone. If we wait, we will remain alone. Or China will wait and remain alone. We must stop evil, stop the civilization of Baal. That is our sacred mission.

(Translated from the Russian)