Nuclear multipolarism
The global realignment put to the test by the Israeli-US attack on Iran.
Today I am providing my English translation of an article by Alessandro Fanetti, originally in Italian and published on ComeDonChisciotte.org on Wednesday 25th June 2025.
(All emphasis and footnotes mine).
The final phase of World War II brought the world, among other things, the most terrible and fearsome weapon ever conceived by humankind: the atomic bomb.
A weapon of Armageddon, as demonstrated by the United States' wicked decision to use it to pulverise two cities (and everything in them) in Imperial Japan, which had already been substantially destroyed by the conflict. All this to prevent the USSR from getting there first, after having already liberated the heart of Europe by clearing Nazi Berlin in May of the same year.
A weapon, therefore, that has always been feared both by the powers that possessed it and by those that did not have it in their arsenals (and today decidedly more lethal than it was then).
A “doomsday” weapon, “used” since the beginning of the Cold War solely as a deterrent. A deterrent that discouraged any idea of provoking a confrontation between nuclear powers, as well as the expansion of conflicts beyond the “critical threshold” for one of the powers that possessed it.
It was therefore an “intelligent” use (if one can use this term for weapons of mass destruction), which in some ways also provided a certain degree of “global stability” by encouraging (and essentially forcing) the great powers to dialogue and reach an agreement before catastrophe struck.
However, the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the unipolar era radically changed the situation.
And certainly for the worse.
During this period, in fact, the only nuclear power capable of “laying down the law” to the four corners of the world was the one with its capital in Washington. This was essentially unchallenged dominance due to the dissolution of its main antagonist and the “annihilation” that this brought to the entire global socialist (and “non-aligned”) movement.
This unipolar moment saw the US engaged in reshaping the global geopolitical architecture to its liking, with more or less decisive interventions in various parts of the world. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Serbia are just a few examples. These interventions were met with resistance from the states under attack but with a substantial lack of support from other powers that were, at least in theory, capable of providing adequate support.
A “magical moment” that led analysts, strategists and politicians excited by this situation to begin to give a theoretical and ideological basis to this dominance. An “end of history” where liberalism, with the financial and stateless bourgeoisie at the political summit (and exploiting the military capabilities of the US and NATO), had triumphed “without” any possibility of regression.
And with the idea that any attempt to change the new status quo (or counter its expansionist designs) would inevitably fall under the blows of the global liberal guarantor.
A vision that, when put to the test, proved to be short-sighted and fraught with grave dangers for humanity.
In fact, while the “unipolar game” was playing out, an increasingly large part of the world began to wake up and try to emerge from its post-bipolar torpor.
And so it was that various countries in the so-called “global south” began to oppose these designs and seek new sovereign and unified paths, as well as promoting alternative models of development.
These include nuclear powers or countries with strategic agreements with powers that possess this weapon.
Thus, the world found itself (and still finds itself) in the midst of a “world war in pieces” (to quote Pope Francis), where the risk of total conflagration is becoming increasingly real.
In fact, while the weakness of various regional and global powers after the Cold War had guaranteed the US (and the West in general) the ability to intervene around the world in defence of its exclusive interests and without substantial opposition, the situation is now radically different.
Colonialism and neo-colonialism are now increasingly viewed with contempt by the vast majority of the world's population. Nations and peoples have created (and are creating) increasingly adequate capacities for resistance and response. CELAC1 and ALBA-TCP2 in Latin America and BRICS+ in the world, as well as the strategic partnership agreements between Russia and China (with various other global players) are just some of the most significant examples.
A clash between unipolarism and multipolarism, therefore, that is shaping and will shape the entire globe.
A clash that definitely also includes the nuclear issue, increasingly evoked not only as an “idea of deterrence” but also as one of the possible weapons to be used if one's objectives cannot be achieved.
This is a reckless attempt to “trivialise evil” that is pushing the bar of “geopolitical risks” ever higher, as even the use of nuclear weapons is now among the possibilities.
Israel's recent attack on Iran and the US's support for the aggression fit perfectly into this new context. In this regard, various Western analysts are gracefully wondering, among other things, how Washington and Tel Aviv could destroy Iran's nuclear power plants. So, should a deliberate attack on a sovereign country that is a member of the United Nations be carried out using “only” conventional weapons or should nuclear weapons also be used?
Below are some examples of this narrative, but dozens more could be cited:
https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/nucleare-tattico-ai-corpi-speciali-piano-b-israele-2497810.html [in Italian]
US Reportedly Assesses Only a Nuclear Bomb Could Destroy Iran Nuclear Facility
Perhaps tactical nuclear weapons, as that magic word should not alarm the public too much. The public is bombarded with fake news of all kinds, often coming from the very mainstream media that claims to be the champion of truth (in an attempt to annihilate even those who ask a few “uncomfortable” questions and never apologising when false narratives certified years later, such as Powell's test tube to justify the destruction of Iraq, have contributed to the massacre of thousands of innocent people).
As I mentioned above, however, this time the situation is very different from the fully unipolar moment, and the countries of the southern hemisphere are certainly better equipped.
In particular, while the Western invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the destruction of Libya in 2011 did not meet with much resistance from the powers that certainly had something to lose (primarily those in the “southern hemisphere”), the situation is certainly different with the “Iranian question”.
Iran is a country with a high-profile missile industry and decisive alliances, starting with Russia and China. All these countries are also part of BRICS+, an organisation without an exclusively military profile but which has every interest in not having its members crushed by external interests. The war against Iran these days is in fact primarily against the emerging world (and primarily economic in nature), with attempts to cause substantial damage also and above all to China (the “big fish” par excellence).
This is therefore a completely different context from the past, where the clash between unipolarism and multipolarism is in full swing. With the latter developing and the former seeing the ground eroding beneath its feet and trying to intervene to reverse the trend.
Returning to the specific case of Iran, therefore, if the use of nuclear weapons to destroy parts of the country is no longer considered taboo, even Iran's allies have pointed out that in extreme cases there are “countermeasures”.
In this regard, while Pakistan has publicly stated that any kind of nuclear attack against the country with Tehran as its capital would provoke a response of the same magnitude from Islamabad in solidarity and against the aggressor, it is known that Russia and North Korea have also given their “nuclear availability” (in addition to the military cooperation that has been going on for years) should certain types of attacks occur that cross all red lines.
Therefore, if the possibility of coups d'état developed in various ways and widely known for decades (see those in Latin America, such as the 2016 “white coup” in Brazil against then-President Dilma Rousseff, to name but one), as well as terrorist acts and sabotage of various kinds, are and will always be a formidable weapon, a direct military victory against Tehran certainly appears more complicated.
In conclusion, therefore, this is an explosive situation (beyond the temporary cooling of hostilities) that should lead to more moderate advice, starting with respect for the will and legitimate rights of peoples. Without impositions from outside, but with full respect for the right to “choose” one's own destiny.
Comunidad de Estados Latino-Americanos y Caribeños, Spanish for “Community of Latin American and Caribbean States”
Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América – Tratado de Comercio de los Pueblos, Spanish for “Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America – Peoples' Trade Treaty”