The audio version of this essay is here:
Unforeseen Icebergs
The recent upheaval in Russia reminded me of an old screenwriting adage: no-one knows anything. Neither I nor any other of the thousands of analysts, journalists and academics who study Russia seems to have anticipated the mutiny of mercenary boss Yevgeni Prigozhin and his march on Moscow. Possibly even Prigozhin himself did not expect or intend things to fall out as they did.
A US intelligence officer tried to explain this oversight: “It’s so hard to tell how much is talk and how much is real… The tension had been building for so long without anything actually happening.” Remember these words. This essay will show how they may become relevant to others too, in time.
At heart, the mutiny seems to prove once again that life is violently unpredictable. Something similar is happening with the climate this month: the seas are heating and the ice at both poles melting faster than any model predicted. Something has shifted and invisible processes that we did not even see, let alone understand, are running away with our fate.
That truth goes to the heart of my intention with this project. Not to be “right” or predict the future; that’s impossible. Instead, I want only to expand our perceptions to take in currents of thought and belief that our culture overlooks, yet which nonetheless have power. For as I have said, an appreciation of these forces can make the inexplicable comprehensible and – if not identify the exact iceberg in our path – at least help us to know better the nature of the sea through which we sail.
Part I explored the ideology of the Katechon in Russia and the ways it might explain some of Russia’s extraordinarily violent behaviour. In Part II, I will consider three other countries who I believe may also be in the grip of wild, irrational visions that we do not heed.
The parallels with Putin are manifold, the evidence once again in plain sight: a calling back through history spanning thousands of years; the leaders’ conviction of their own historical significance; a sense of divine purpose.
As for us, the West, we stand much as we did before Ukraine: eyes shut to the nature of the danger; ears closed to the howls of warning; caught in a slumber from which we will only wake when another leader answers his inner calling and makes a calamitous leap.
Iran’s Second Coming
The first stop is Iran and a crisis that once again has nuclear weapons at its heart.
I will briefly sketch out the background, though you’re probably familiar with it: for years, Iran has had a nuclear energy programme which it insists is purely for peaceful civilian ends, yet which many in the West suspect is cover for the development of weapons. In the last decade. a delicate diplomatic dance took place allowing the Iranians to proceed while monitoring their activity closely for signs of anything more menacing. Donald Trump cancelled that deal in 2018 and, despite recent rumours of its resurrection, it has not yet been restored.
In the years since, many suspect the Iranians intensified their progress towards weapons capability, a fear apparently confirmed in February this year when UN inspectors discovered uranium enriched to 84%, just shy of the 90% required to make a bomb. Other troubling activity has been noted, including the construction of a facility alongside one of Iran’s key nuclear sites that is buried so deep underground it is impervious to even America’s biggest conventional bombs. Iran’s hardline Islamic regime have dismissed any allegations of impropriety as a conspiracy.
You probably know too that the regime is barbaric and cruel, even poisoning hundreds of schoolgirls as a means of terrorising recent protests led by women and girls against their oppressive rule. Yet what you might not yet be aware of is that they too have an apocalyptic ideology of the End Times, with extraordinary parallels to the Russian theology of the “Katechon”, one that has possessed their religious and military elites.
The doctrine prophesies the return of a messianic figure known as the Twelfth or Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, a vision with echoes of the Christian second coming. Just as in the Book of Revelations, the Mahdi’s return will be presaged by a time of bloodshed, disease and disaster, culminating in a final apocalyptic battle in which the forces of light will conquer those of darkness and usher in a golden age of peace.
There is significant evidence that those at the top of the Iranian regime not only embrace this vision, but believe it is their duty to pave the wave for the Mahdi’s return by challenging the evil powers that stand in his way. Just as in Russia, they see us, the West, as that evil.
Once again, thanks to the blind spot of our rationality, we ignore the doctrine’s power to our peril. Iranian analyst Saeed Ghasseminejad echoes my warnings about Russia almost exactly:
“While many experts tell us Iran is a rational, pragmatic regime like any other in the world, all the facts shout that it is not. A large number of Iranian officials and decision makers have deeply rooted apocalyptic beliefs… This apocalyptic aspect of the Islamic regime in Tehran is usually overlooked by analysts in the West probably because God is more or less dead among the elite in the West, and it is hard for them to imagine that apocalyptic religious thought can turn into actual policies pursued by the State. Ignoring it leads to misinterpretation of Tehran's decisions.”
As terrifying as this is, it is not the only mythic thinking that colours this crisis. The other, perhaps even more significant, is found in Iran’s nemesis, Israel, and its current leader Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu.
Churchill’s Ghost
Israel has every reason to fear Iran. Since the 1979 revolution that put it into power, the Iranian regime has used rhetoric that would have not been out of place in Nazi Germany in terms of its hatred of Israel and the Jews. “Death to Israel” is a staple chant of government rallies. Their Supreme Leader has referred to Israel as a “cancerous tumour” that will be destroyed. The familiarity of this language may have actually lulled many observers into missing how the rise of the Mahdi doctrine has elevated the threat to new heights, for it has become a core tenet of the regime’s ideology that Israel must be eradicated before the Twelfth Imam can return.
Since the 1960s, Israel itself has possessed nuclear weapons as an ultimate guarantor of its existence, trusting that however much it may be hated, no rational state would dare attack it too forcefully for fear of annihilation. Yet, as we saw in Russia, an ideology like Mahdism sweeps those guarantees away. There is no deterrence against someone who believes they are already fighting the final, apocalyptic holy war.
Netanyahu has been obsessively warning of the threat from Iran from as far back as 1993. The country’s longest serving Prime Minister, his time in office has been marked by corruption, conflict and colonial brutality against the Palestinians. Yet the significance of even these traits may ultimately be eclipsed by his vision of his own mythic role.
Benjamin lived in the shadow of his father, Benzion, a historian whose life’s work was devoted to arguing that, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, Jews were always too slow to heed the violent omens and act to save themselves. This mantra has been thoroughly inculcated in his son who asserted in his recent autobiography:
A necessity for any living organism is the ability to identify danger in time to do something about it, a quality that was lost to our people over the course of centuries in exile. That is why I led the effort and took boundless risks to [tackle] Iran…
Netanyahu believes he personally has the responsibility to break this ancient cycle of pogrom, perhaps taking too literally the English-translation of his name: “God-given”. In an interview he gave in June 2022, he said:
“You are either charged with an historical mission or you're not. I was, and still am. And it's largely due from [my father’s] influence without a question… it's very hard to be a leader of consequence if you don't have historic purpose.”
Netanyahu sees himself as a second Winston Churchill, who spent years in the wilderness warning of the danger of Hitler when such views were deeply unpopular, yet who achieved vindication and ultimately led the forces of civilization to victory. For decades, Netanyahu has sought to characterise Iran as the Nazi Germany of the 21st century, which would perpetrate a second holocaust if they had the means. And as we have seen, he may not be wrong.
Yet his vision goes beyond even that. In echoes of the doctrines of the Mahdi or Katechon, his rhetoric suggests he too sees the stand-off in apocalyptic terms, more than just Iran versus Israel, rather a decisive confrontation between archetypal forces over the fate of mankind.
“For today, a great battle is being waged between the modern and the medieval. The medieval forces of radical Islam… are bent on world conquest. They want to destroy Israel, Europe, America. They want to extinguish freedom. They want to end the modern world. I am sure of one thing. Ultimately they will fail. Ultimately, light will penetrate the darkness.”
On the wall of many government offices in Israel hangs a photograph of Israeli F-15s flying over the gates of Auschwitz, a symbol of the faith in Israel’s military power to prevent a second Holocaust. To that end, Israel has struck the nuclear programmes of its neighbours before, in Iraq and Syria. For decades, Netanyahu has threatened to do the same to Iran. By several criteria, time has run out.
For example, there is the red line that Netanyahu physically drew during a speech at the UN in 2012, declaring that he would never allow the Iranians to reach 90% enrichment. As we’ve seen, that point may be within reach. Yet even more significantly, he must suspect his moment has almost passed.
When Netanyahu’s previous 12 year run in the top job ended in June 2021, many thought it was the end of him, as he was indicted for fraud and accepting bribes in a pile-up of scandals.
To pull off the miracle of returning to power in December last year, he literally went to extremes, allying himself with fanatical Jewish nationalist parties that many decried as a threat to Israeli democracy. Within weeks of taking power, they ignited the largest protests in the country’s history over new legislation to dilute the judiciary’s powers over the government.
With these scandals and unrest, Netanyahu must know that these four years are likely to be his last in office. That makes it his last chance to fulfil his God-given mission to save his country, his people and the world from the forces of darkness. He has made clear his belief that no-one else, not even America, has the guts to do what must be done. The words of Churchill must be ringing in his ears: “History will cast its verdict with those terrible, chilling words: too late.”
The drums now beating for war are deafening; yet they have sounded loudly before and nothing happened. As ever, the experts provide comforting rational reasons why it never will: a strike against Iran would be impossibly difficult, involve multiple waves of attacks, mid-air refuelling, to say nothing of the likely ferocity of Iranian retaliation. No sane Israeli leader would risk it. Once again, they drastically underestimate the propellant force of mythic vision.
Netanyahu knows this is the moment of truth . He fears the US might strike a new diplomatic deal, which would provide cover for the Iranians as before. In his far right coalition, he has political allies who wouldn’t just support but might even salivate over a strike. Faced with destiny’s final call, I believe he will act.
The Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev wrote to President Kennedy in the months after the Cuban Missile Crisis:
“Any fool can start a war, and once he's done so, even the wisest of men are helpless to stop it… I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom, they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence."
Inflamed by the vision of the Mahdi, Iran would strike back with everything: missiles, suicide bombers, perhaps even chemical or biological weapons. Such a fight would quickly become existential for both sides and in such a clash, Israel itself might resort to nuclear weapons to survive. In such a way, the prophecy of terrible catastrophe might come to pass.
Hero
Can you take any more? If so, we come to the last of our trouble spots: Taiwan.
Here at least you might think we can breathe a sigh of relief as there seem to be no religious fanatics in sight. Yet in China’s leader Xi Jinping, I believe we face a man whose sense of mythic destiny is as strong as any zealot. A man who has ensured that his vision will direct the destiny of his vast nation.
Xi has set about claiming greater power than any Chinese leader since Chairman Mao, demolishing checks and balances specifically put in place after Mao’s era to prevent an egotistical leader leading the country into disaster. He has ruthlessly purged all internal sources of opposition, overseen brutal crackdowns in autonomous regions from Xinjiang to Hong Kong, as well as imposing the world’s most draconian system of Covid control. A man does not exercise power in this way for no reason.
The motivations of China’s political leaders have always been opaque, even for expert analysis. Under Xi, this has intensified to the point that “insights into decision-making are harder to get than they have been for 50 years.” Faced by this vacuum, I would like to offer a theory, though I’d never claim to be an expert. True to my roots, my starting point is one of the most successful Chinese films of all time, Hero (2002).
Hero offers a striking window into ancient currents of Chinese thought. Helmed by the country’s most famous director, Zhang Yimou, it is set at one of the most significant historical moments in Chinese history, the end of the warring states period, which lasted from 475 to 221 BC. It is hard to overstate the influence of this time on the Chinese imagination, an epoch in which most of its most significant poets and philosophers lived, from Confucius to Lao Tzu.
The film tells the story of a plot to assassinate the King of Qin, the brutal leader of the most powerful of the warring kingdoms, who was the first historical ruler to unite the kingdoms of China into the territory that we could recognise as the core of the modern state. He was the ruler who built the Great Wall.
Here comes a spoiler: at the critical moment when the lead assassin has managed to come close enough to the King to kill him, he holds back and lets the King live, persuaded that he is the only one who can bring centuries of war to an end by unifying the country. Many read the film as a vindication of authoritarian rule, though Zhang Yimou always denied it had a political message. Yet for the sake of this essay, the crucial detail is what the film presents as the instrument of peace: unification.
Throughout its history, the great prize for any Chinese leader is to emulate the glory of the King of Qin and bind the country together, though the notion of what that territory should include has expanded. The principal is known as the “Great Unification” or Dayitong 大一統 in Chinese, an idea as ancient and intertwined with the idea of “China” or “All under Heaven” itself1[1]. The idea is articulated as far back as 221 BC, when a scholar Li Si praised the King by saying, “It is entirely possible to complete the Emperor’s great undertaking and realize the ‘Great Unification’ of ‘all-under-Heaven.’ This is a unique moment in history.”
This principal serves as fuel for the militant Chinese nationalism and hatred of the West prevalent in China today. The last time China was united was two hundred years ago under the Qing dynasty. Then, in the nineteenth century, Western colonial powers, and Britain in particular, conspired to shatter that unity, plunder the country and take profitable parts for themselves. It’s worthy to note that one way we sought to achieve this was through drug-running, pushing hundreds of thousands of Chinese to become addicted to opium, the base substance of heroin.
We conveniently do not dwell on this aspect of our illustrious imperial past. But the Chinese have not forgotten. Xi himself spoke of this history in 2021, referring to the Opium War of 1839-42 in which he said China was “gradually reduced by foreign powers to a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society that suffered greater ravages than ever before”, bringing “intense humiliation for the country” and “great pain for its people.”
Xi clearly sees righting this wrong as his historic mission. In his very first speech after securing an unprecedented third term as president, he announced that the “essence” of his great rejuvenation campaign for China was “the unification of the motherland.” Our ears, accustomed to the bland aspirations of our technocratic politicians do not hear the mythic resonance of this goal for the Chinese. In invoking this principal, Xi is positioning himself as heir to the greatest of China’s Emperors, who will achieve unification after the centuries of division and chaos caused by Western intervention. Not even Mao achieved this.
This vision wraps a very different context around Taiwan, the island that has been effectively independent from the mainland since the remnants of right-wing nationalist forces fled from Mao’s conquering armies to seek refuge there at the end of the Chinese civil war. We see it as an admirable, liberal democracy whose rights of self-determination should be respected. Yet for Xi it is the last missing piece in his vision, the only part of the Qing Empire not under his control. And once again, it is the West that is interfering and promoting dismemberment, as he sees it.
Xi consistently stresses he prefers peaceful reunification, while emphasising that force will always remain an option. Yet what is non-negotiable in his vision is that he will have Taiwan back.
His own actions have made the path of violence more likely. Witnessing his draconian style of government, notably his brutal crackdown on Hong Kong where democratic rights were meant to be enshrined, fewer Taiwanese than ever seem willing to submit to his rule. Yet in this way, Xi is also following the path laid down by history. In two thousand years, force is the only way that unification has ever been achieved.
Two Evils
Where does this leave us, as the West? We face terrible choices. Yet there is an opportunity here, albeit deeply unpalatable.
It is the tendency of Western analysts to assume China seeks to supplant America as the world’s new superpower. Yet this assumption betrays the persistence of our own colonial mindset. We assume every country wants to conquer and dominate as we did. This perspective assumes Taiwan would only be the first to fall as China marched forth to subjugate the region, in the manner of a nineteenth century Western power. A similar misreading of Ho Chi Ming’s motivations led to America’s disastrous intervention in Vietnam.
My theory suggests a different myth drives Xi Jinping. If his goal is restoration, not conquest, then Taiwan could be the end of his ambitions for actual territory2. By signalling that we will physically defend the island, as some experts advise, we will not deter him. As we have seen, there is no deterrence against a man driven by myth and it certainly seems that Xi, like the Emperors before him, has little care for how many Chinese are sacrificed for the fulfilment of his vision. In this way, by once again fatally misreading the other side’s mindset, we are making war inevitable.
If my analysis is correct, there is another way. Perhaps diplomacy could create new peaceful possibilities to speak to Xi’s vision while safeguarding Taiwan’s future. A timeline for reunification of mainland and island could be outlined over decades or include the strictest guarantees of freedoms, hoping that Xi’s successor would be more likely to honour them.
Some would decry this approach as appeasing a dictator, but terrible choices must be made in the effort to avoid world war. We could still offer all the support we could, short of military intervention, as we have done to other places that have suffered under Xi’s iron grip like Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. It is a sorrowful choice, but I believe those who advocate a more bellicose approach to Taiwan fail to appreciate what war would mean.
As with Iran and Israel, a conflict between China and the United States would quickly become existential for both sides. Like all dictatorships, Xi would know that his regime could not survive defeat. Yet even if America managed to beat back their invasion, it would undoubtedly incur a terrible cost, perhaps the loss of aircraft carriers or, at the very least, tens of thousands of casualties. The definitive end of the era of America’s dominance would beckon. With so much at stake, both sides would be unbearably tempted to use nuclear weapons to stave off defeat.
It seems China is preparing for just such a scenario. The Pentagon has alleged that Beijing is pushing forward with a massive expansion of its nuclear arsenal, seeking to have 1,500 weapons by 2030. Satellite pictures show huge new missile fields under construction.
Again, I fear we may be running out of time to stop what is coming. For if Xi has concluded war is inevitable, he must also be aware that an attack sooner rather than later would be to China’s advantage. US stockpiles of munitions have been heavily depleted by the war in Ukraine but it is beginning to wake up to the deficiencies in its manufacturing base. At this moment, China has a significant material advantage but every year that passes will see the United States catch up. There is a terrible logic for Xi to strike before his head start is eroded too far.
Chain Reaction
Inside a nuclear chain reaction, when the first atom is split, a few charged particles smash into other nuclear material, causing those atoms to split and hit others, all at incredible speed, causing the bomb to explode. This is a good metaphor for our world. For while this series has looked at three of our most precarious flashpoints in isolation, we have not considered how each one might crash into another, creating a chain reaction that explodes into world war.
The first atom split in Ukraine and its particles are still rippling out. Before the war, China declared a “no limits” partnership with Russia and, recently, rumours have swirled it is preparing to follow through on that promise and supply Russia with military aid to bolster its flagging invasion. At the very least, China has done a great deal to soften the blow of Western sanctions by buying Russian oil. “China has chosen a side,” the US announced earlier this year.
Iran for its part has more decisively cast its lot in with Russia. US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby described “unprecedented defence cooperation” between the two countries, with Iran providing suicide drones to strike Ukrainian cities in return for billions of dollars of military equipment, including fighter jets. China too has a close diplomatic relationship with Iran and proved pivotal in brokering an astonishing peace deal between Iran and another of its diehard adversaries, Saudi Arabia.
Thus you can already see the contours of the global conflict to come: an alliance of Russia, China and Iran, along with any other state who hates America and the West – a coalition that could include North Korea, possibly South Africa and even Brazil under President Lula, alongside others.
Of course, the experts would say this argument is a gross oversimplification, riding roughshod over the intricacies of the relationships between nations on either side of the divide. Netanyahu, for example, is friends with Putin. For years, the Russians and Israelis have operated a working relationship that gives a free pass for Israel to strike Russia’s allies, including Iranian forces, in Syria. For this reason, Israel has been notably silent about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, despite Iran’s involvement.
Yet war is the most powerful tribalizing force known to man. The adage that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” ultimately matters more than the intricate theories of international relations. Should another atom split on a faultline between the two blocs, it would hasten the day when everyone picks a side. So even if Israel attacked Iran without American help, the Iranian retaliation would very probably target US forces in the Middle East too, dragging them into the firestorm.
And there is one final devastating aspect of the chain reaction that I believe has been overlooked. For the US now faces two nuclear-armed opponents. In the event that a conflict with either one goes nuclear, a terrifying logic dictates that America retaliation should strike the other too, even if it was not directly involved; for the US could not risk being devastated by a strike from one direction only to face the second power still at full strength. A similar logic drove Germany’s decision to attack France at the start of the First World War, though only Russia had officially declared war on them.
So it would spread: if China faced a massive strike from the US, it would likely launch against India too, as not so long ago Indian and Chinese soldiers beat each other to death on the high mountain passes that link their two countries. Thus China would destroy India for the very same reasons it had been hit by America: to avoid leaving a potential nuclear aggressor unharmed. If India faced Chinese missiles, they would strike Pakistan for the very same reason, on and on into a chain reaction that would engulf much of the world.
Wither Hope
You probably need a drink right now. And in the embrace of a wine or a whiskey, you might ask in all fairness what is the point of writing all this? Even if my analysis is accurate, it stands little hope of reaching those with the power to affect events, if indeed anyone does. And if I am right, well, won’t we all be dead anyway? There’ll be no-one around for me to say, “Told you so.”
That chimes with the main criticism levelled at my last essay, which was not over any of its arguments or evidence, but rather that the promise of this Substack was to search for hope and yet I had found precious little. Some said they were left feeling helpless, in despair, that faced with such a nightmare they could only turn away. If you’re falling from that skyscraper, at least enjoy the view on the way down.
It’s funny but I think the Force I mentioned in my introduction may, in its inimitable way, just have given me an answer. For when I went looking for the image above, probably the only memorable thing in the film Terminator 3, I happened to hear these words in the main character’s final speech, “I should have realised our destiny was never to stop Judgment Day. It was merely to survive it… together.”
In truth, that is my deep message to you in this series. For while the scenario I have outlined may be unlikely, it is not impossible; the risk is real. Yet through these essays, you have something very few people will get: a warning.
With that warning, you also have an opportunity few others will have: time to prepare.
For it is also a myth to believe that no-one will survive a nuclear war. Many will, more than we imagine. We all stand a chance, more so if you make yourself ready now3. For though the survivors will have endured the greatest ordeal, they will immediately face another even greater: the struggle to rebuild from the ruins. I hope that some of us may do so together.
But even if, as we all hope, this nightmare never happens, at the very least what I hope these essays have shown is that our current frameworks of understanding are profoundly limited.
This does not just apply to geopolitical tensions; if you look at almost any of the terrifying ways in which our world is unravelling , from climate breakdown to all-consuming technology, from the pandemic of depression to ever-intensifying fanaticism, you discover the same thing: bewilderment at what is happening and our apparent inability to stop it. In a nutshell: why have we gone so wrong?
The third essay in this series will propose one possible answer to that question, one that will probably demand a drastic shift in your view of the world. Yet by piecing together the clues, we may be able to discern shapes in the shadows and gain new insights into what lies behind our troubles. And if we can see it clearly at last, there is hope that we will find new ways to face it, perhaps even to change it, before history casts its verdict “too late”.
For the sake of brevity, I have hugely simplified the term “all under heaven”, a concept with wide nuances of interpretation. Yet beyond the pedantry of academia, its core meaning referring to China is clear.
China’s encroachment on maritime rights in the South China Sea could be interpreted in the same way.
There are a surprising number of practical books on the subject, for example: https://amzn.eu/d/9kXaLmF