IMPORTANT NOTE: To understand this article it is essential to read it in the order shown.
PART ONE
Translated from Spanish with PROMT. It may contain translation errors.
Causes of counterproductions in the Administrations of Joe Biden and Donald Trump
The administrations of US Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump have been characterized by the counterproductions of their actions. As for this characteristic of the Biden Administration, I already wrote in my book Applying Anti-Nuclear Attack Vaccine, listing many of its counterproductive actions and analyzing its causes, which are reduced to one: excess, excess, abuse.
Applying Anti-Nuclear Attack Vaccine - Download
The most disastrous and obvious so far of Donald Trump's counterproductive actions is his war on Iran, while there are others much more serious, such as his management of the economy, the hostile relationship with China, its relations, also hostile, with the rest of the world and the handling of the migratory problem, although in these cases the disastrous and contrary to what was intended in its consequences is not yet as evident as against Iran it is already being. This, of course, is also due to excessive and inadequate actions, which do not correspond to the necessary, but favor, stoke and worsen it.
I will analyze in the case of Trump the origin of these serious problems, although from another perspective that is complemented by the one exposed in said book, framed more now within my Theory of Universal Equilibrium (TUE), regarding which I have already published a summary, which you can read here:
Theory of Universal Equilibrium
This is something I did not write about in detail in TUE, although it is implicit in the Law of Equilibrium between opposites that I enunciate in it and in other analogous examples that I present and analyze there of the concrete world.
It should be noted the very important fact that a fundamental cause of the problem with Iran is having much more notorious and pressing counterproductive consequences is not only due to the magnitude of this conflict (much larger than the one so far unleashed against China directly, for example), but also the fact, of utmost importance, that this conflict is a result of a whole psychological behavioral pattern of Donald Trump, his Administration and those that precede him, especially since the end of the Cold War, consisting of exceeding, in all his actions (intranational and international) the more they see possible that they can do it.
Pointing out this fact is extremely important because it implies a vicious cycle that feeds itself, like a snowball that the more it falls downhill the bigger it becomes. It's a problem that gets bigger with every action and with every passing minute, even, however, in the case in question compared, when nothing to the contrary is done to resolve it, even if the ball stopped, but nothing was done to reduce it to a reasonable and sustainable size, according to the laws of physics and the Theory of Universal Equilibrium, which in a way are also physical (and astrophysics), in addition to what we normally describe as social or international relations.
I will define here now in a deeper way the reasons for the counterproductive effects, including, primarily, among the examples that I will give, those committed by the Trump Administration and the United States for decades, which are causes, and symptoms at the same time, growing of the decadence that this country and the West suffer.
As I have explained in my book Theory of Universal Equilibrium, every isolated system tends to equilibrium, to divide itself first into two poles opposite each other, which are balanced by acquiring quantitatively equal opposite forces. And that tendency always materializes, or recovers when for any event it has been lost, even if the process takes some time.
Thus, for example, for this reason, the world was divided into two poles that were balanced during the Cold War; subsequently, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, that equilibrium was lost, but, as I predicted in that book, immediately afterwards there was, by universal nature, a tendency to the recovery of the balance lost on the political, economic and military levels on the planet (an isolated system), which is currently taking shape.
In fact, although in international politics it is normal today to talk about the world transitioning towards a multipolarity, the reality is that this is nothing more than an intermediate path to a new bipolarity, analogous to the one that existed during the Cold War, although with the replacement of the Soviet Union by Russia, China and other countries.
Even if politicians foresaw this reality of where we are heading, they would still say, today, for mere political reasons, that we are heading for a multipolar world, only as a way to show a degree of restraint (and avoid counterproductions) that does not produce an appearance of activism to conform only two poles. The mere observation that we are heading to a multipolar world, arouses rejection and adverse reactions in countries, almost all Western, who have constituted the unipolar side, and speak, henceforth, of a tendency to a new bipolarity would exacerbate the rejections and not only in those countries, but also the fears and reservations in those on the side that are currently heading to form the new pole; which would hinder and slow down, inconveniently for everyone, this transition process.
Even countries that do not want to belong to any of these poles will be forced to take sides to survive in an interconnected, interinflaced and interdependent world. Some of them, even, will not make the decision completely by themselves, but will be coerced to do so or will be absorbed or kidnapped by force by other stronger countries, as in the case of Venezuela.
I cannot speak much here as to why isolated systems always reach a state of equilibrium, anywhere in the Universe. To better understand this, I recommend reading my book Theory of Universal Equilibrium. Here I will only say that when an isolated system, such as planet Earth, or a house isolated from the rest of the world, enters into imbalance, the strongest part, block or group tends to abuse the remaining part and even itself (of the parts that constitute it) and, consequently, the pole, faction or weaker side, the abused, tends to oppose the abusive party more strongly, at the same time that the constituent part of the oppressor or stronger part do the same, weakening this part, when internal cohesion is lost and even when parts of them that decide to migrate to the opposite side are lost. This unfailingly happens in every isolated system, anywhere in the Universe, even 10.000 million light years from planet Earth, however advanced a civilization may be.
This characteristic of the Universe not only makes all isolated systems tend to justice and progress, but guarantees, to the maximum, these states. Thus, an isolated system not only always tends to balance, but at the same time also, always, to justice and progress to the maximum possible degrees.
Why can I assure that it is so in every corner of the entire Universe, and not only on planet Earth or among human beings? Because this is not an optional feature of the Universe, but the only way it can exist. That is to say, it is not only a question of maximizing and guaranteeing progress and justice throughout the Universe, but that the Universe could not exist in any other way. Here are the causes of this:
If there were not that process always tending towards equilibrium in each isolated system (in direct proportion to its isolation, that is, the more isolated it is), as is the Earth at present, then the entire Universe would not be in equilibrium, and we can safely presume that it is at present, because it could be in imbalance (without any limitation, without any tendency against, towards equilibrium), then it would soon reach (long ago I would have predicted) a state of extreme, absolute imbalance, consisting of a monopolarity or singularity so compressed, a black hole so infinitely small and dark, that there would be nothing perceptible in the whole Universe, except the tendency to be dragged all into that hole (although soon there would be nothing to drag). The whole Universe would be a black hole, and to talk about what inside that hole might have made as little sense as to talk about what on its outside might have. In other words, there would be absolutely nothing in the Universe, either inside or outside that single black hole that would constitute it. And since talking about an infinitely compressed and small black hole will be the same as talking about nothing, it would be practically nothing more than talking about a mere abstraction, as in mathematical idealities (although there would be no living being or machine to talk about it).
The tendency to equilibrium in isolated systems is what allows the existence of the Universe; it is an extremely fundamental or essential characteristic of it, without which not only justice, progress and life could not exist, but also the Universe itself, no matter, space or time.
Without the progress and justice that balance brings, life could not exist either, for the same reason that matter, space and time would not exist: In any isolated system in which an unlimited imbalance could exist, there would be an unlimited reduction of justice and progress, which would put an end to life, in any form, or prevent its emergence. Life is the result of the opposition between the parts, and is directly proportional to the balance between such parts.
In short, balance is synonymous with justice and progress and imbalance is synonymous with injustice and backwardness. Moreover, justice and progress influence each other. The greater the justice, the greater the progress and vice versa. And the greater the injustice, the greater the backwardness, and vice versa.
In the case of the problems that the Trump Administration is generating, the analysis of why progress depends on balance is essential. The explanation, in essence, is so elementary that anyone with a minimum of knowledge of economics should know: progress depends on competition, as is well known.
But this also implies that the degree of progress depends on the degree of competence. Which in turn means that the more a country or a person is closed to competition, the more it is protected against it, the less it progresses, the more it is delayed. This backwardness is one of the most serious US problems that the Trump Administration is generating through its protectionism, by refusing to compete freely with China and other countries, an issue to which I will return.
For overcoming the decline of the West (the United States and much of Europe), it is essential to know its causes, or the cause to which they are reduced: the imbalance, also growing, generated with the end of the Cold War, which stripped the United States of the counterweight that the communist bloc meant to it.
From the point of view currently prevailing in Western countries, this freed them from a despicable, unnecessary weight, which they had been trying to get rid of. However, the fall of the Soviet Union is the worst thing to have happened to the United States in its entire history, and one of the gravest calamities to have struck Europe.
The worst thing that can happen to any living being or living entity (a country, for example) is that its main competitor disappears or weakens markedly, since its own progress and justice, and its life, depend on that competence. The American "victory" against the USSR was in fact a huge catastrophe for the United States itself, which has been atrophying it, in all respects, ever since. Meanwhile, at the same time, has been happening what, by universal law of nature, always happens in these cases: Since the injustice of the United States in its international and intranational relations was increasing, it was at the same time stimulating and producing a growing progress and justice (awareness and thirst of its need, and its consequent implementation) in Russia, China and other countries, which have been victims and witnesses of the worse American abuses every day.
After a few decades, in which the "winning" and increasingly oppressive side, the West, was stagnating, atrophying and degrading in all aspects (economic, military, social, cultural, etc.), due to that lack of competition and rivalry, at the same time the "losing" or defeated and increasingly oppressed side, the East, was gaining in progress in the same aspects, until the time arrived, inevitable and predictable, to begin to face the oppressor part, which is the time in which we find ourselves.
Before proceeding, I must make an indispensable clarification so that this can be understood. The equilibrium to which I refer always occurs in an isolated system, in every isolated system in the Universe, although it is not necessarily so in communicated systems. It is very necessary to know this difference in possibilities between these two possible conditions of the systems: isolation and communication with respect to other systems.
For example, in the case of a family living in an isolated house with any other persons or living beings who can exert significant influence, there will inevitably be a balance of two forces when there are conflicts between their parts. If the father is too strong in confronting his wife, one or more of the children will side with her, or vice versa, but the opposing forces will balance out. If one of them dies or leaves the house, those who remain will change their positions so that the balance that has been lost is restored. If in the house lives only a couple, without children, and the man is physically stronger than the woman, this will become more aggressive to the extent that, causing an imbalance, the aggressions of the man become abuses, and will do so to the extent sufficient to neutralize that imbalance.
On the other hand, in the case of a family that lives in a house communicated with other people, for example, in a colony, the outcome can be different. There will not necessarily be a balance between the members of the family, since other people from another or other houses, or the police, or, sometimes, by the mere threat of this happening, may intervene.
The common thing in communicated systems or subsystems is imbalance, and people usually only know of cases of this type of systems, the communicated, in imbalance. For example, in the newspaper every day we see news such as that one person or several beat or killed another or other people, or, from time to time, that one country attacked and defeated another. In the case of these systems, it is not even usually known how many parts they are composed of or what other external systems are influencing, because either they are not composed of the victim and the perpetrator alone, or because there are other parts outside of that system that are influencing.
But in the general system, which is not in relation to any other significant influence, and in which all the actors are visible, the result is always predictable (predictable): equilibrium, although within it, in the subsystems, imbalances may occur, which neutralize each other.
Understand that the cause of the decline of a "winning" country or bloc of countries is imbalance (which has atrophied, stagnated and made him abusive towards others and against himself), and who, therefore, is not actually a winner, but a loser and victim of his circumstances, is indispensable to overcome decay.
Otherwise, that country, instead of seeking balance by moderating its actions, will feel threatened by those who defend themselves from its abuses, and will attack those healthy balancing attempts of other countries, worsening the situation, for those countries; but above all for itself, because every oppressor country or person, within any isolated system, is at a disadvantage in relation to the oppressed party.
Any act that seeks to maintain or defend an imbalance is counterproductive, because it is excessive, and it is much more so if what it seeks is to increase that imbalance.
In my book Applying Anti-Nuclear Attack Vaccine, I explained, with multiple examples, that counterproductions are effects of acting excessively, abusively, of exerting any influence (even beneficial) excessively, with quantitative abuse. If, for example, you want to strengthen a regiment of soldiers by incentivizing them with something, such as freedom or gifts, and that incentive is disproportionate or disproportionate to what they need or deserve, they are weakened, rather than strengthened. And so it is also when another person or a country is attacked, for any cause. The effect is counterproductive in all these cases and in all their analogues of excesses.
How to know in advance if any war is going to be won or lost
Based on the above, the United States has lost all its wars because all its wars have been in order to increase a geopolitical imbalance. So a very simple way to know in advance if a war (in the isolated Earth system) that is considered to be waged is going to be won or lost is to answer this question:
Is it considered to be carried out in order to achieve a balance (or approach it) or in order to produce (or increase) an imbalance?
If the plan is with the first of the objectives, it is almost certain that the war will be lost. If it is with the second end, the war will most likely be won.
The degree of probabilities that I mention here, by saying "it is almost certain that" and "most likely," depends on the degree of equilibrium or imbalance already existing in the system and the degree of imbalance or equilibrium that is intended to be established.
Thus, the greater the existing imbalance, the greater the difficulty in winning a war in which it is intended to further increase that imbalance, and the more difficult the greater the imbalance it is intended to add.
America is like a spirited (and hyperactive) boy who looks and walks everywhere in search of something to do (for his benefit). There is nothing wrong with this in itself. This is what allowed this country to achieve a level of progress for which it could compete with the Soviet Union. When this country disintegrated, the boy (USA) had the opportunity to appropriate many things that were abandoned by the USSR, and he did, which is natural. On a planet where for the first time this happens (a unipolarity), that boy does not know that what he found abandoned and took for himself, in a way does not belong to him or belongs to him only temporarily, while the owner reappears.
In any system or planet (isolated) anywhere in the Universe, there are always two egalitarian owners of that system. Two are always owners equally, equally, and are always in competition with each other. This is a universal law that implies two abstract owners, who always take a concrete form that can vary or change over time. The USSR, like the US, was never the eternal owner of that place. Each owner owns it and keeps it while he achieves it, but all the others also have the opportunity to be the owner of one, and only one at most, of those two halves of the system.
Life, interaction, interrelation, "game" or international relationship within any isolated system (such as, for example, a planet like Earth), the terrain (court, board, arena) as in many sports, is always divided into two parts that are always equal in size and shape (otherwise the game would not be fair), which can, by turns, be occupied by many different teams; and it is in this sense that although a team dominates a game, for example football, it never corresponds, in its own right, more than half of the playing field. And here the analogy ends, because any sport takes place within a communicated system, not in an isolated one, and therefore in sports one competitor can beat the other; but in an isolated system (like Earth), winning the competition is very rarely possible and that victory is always temporary, for a very short time.
The Theory of Universal Equilibrium does not say that imbalance is impossible (it does not say that it is impossible for one side to beat the other within an isolated system); what it explicitly says is that whenever this happens, the equilibrium is restored as soon as possible. It is not, therefore, a fulfillment of a rigidity or mathematical accuracy in its details (although yes in its essence), ideal or abstract, but of something concrete flexible in details, as, for example, in the case in the essentials analogous that individuals and species of living beings (as they are known on Earth) always depend on water (as of balance) to live, although they can withstand brief periods of scarcity of this element. In real or concrete life, perfection does not exist in the details, but in the essentials.
Civilization on planet Earth is too young to have more than once experience of geopolitical unipolarity, and since this is the first time this has happened here, the boy "winner" now walks the world in the belief that what in recent decades has been found, forsaken, and taking to himself, is his, to such a degree that, possibly, during that time he became convinced even that God granted him that privilege, for some extraordinary merit, which makes it even more difficult for him to live with others who, after a time of absence, they approach to recover what corresponds to them.
It is not that Russia and China have known this in a rationalist (a priori) or empiricist (a posteriori) scientific way, and that is why they do it, because for the case that knowledge is dispensable: They do it by a survival instinct, which translates into common sense, that inhabits all living beings of the universe, by which when we see that a part is being abusive as a result of an excess of power that has accumulated, it is vitally necessary that the rest of the system unite its forces to limit it and return it to moderation, for the benefit of justice and the progress of the whole system. It is like when a group of people (even if they are unknown to each other) see in the street a dog with rage attacking others; they immediately come together and coordinate to do something about that problem; and if four people are not enough, call another or others. And if all of them are not enough, then they use smarter, riskier, more aggressive or more violent methods.
Because of such human inexperience, it is understandable that when a boy first finds himself in that situation, he will react with skepticism, disbelief, disappointment, disillusionment, indignation, and resistance. However, is the knowledge of balance really bad news? No, of course not. It is actually the best news there can be, for any living being or group of these, because it implies a guarantee of justice (and equity), progress and survival in an isolated system.
The acquisition, acceptance and application of this knowledge of the equilibrium that governs the whole Universe is the best way out of the serious problem of the decadence of a country. The only other way out that the oppressor or usurper has is to wait for others to force him to moderate himself.
If starting a war that seeks to increase an imbalance leads to failure or is counterproductive, why could the United States take Venezuela? Because that was not a war, but a delusion and self-deception counterproductive. A deception of the president of that country, through a surreptitious negotiation, which possibly involved the payment of the reward that was already offered, or undoubtedly the simple payment of keeping that power, shared. And at the same time a self-deception of the United States towards itself, by which it was convinced that it could the war against Iran, which it immediately undertook.
In stricter terms of the Theory of Universal Equilibrium, when the US took Venezuela, it increased the imbalance that already existed and, with it, at the same time, it proportionally increased (enormously, since it was a kidnapping of enormous weight, economic and political) the tendency to equilibrium, that is, the pressure, from other parts of the world, towards equilibrium. That was not very noticeable in the following weeks, because Russia and China, due to the sobriety and moderation that assists them as accustomed to being oppressed, fighters and patients for decades, almost kept silent. They expressed, of course, their disagreement. But Trump, accustomed to expressing his indignation without limitations and immediately, expected Putin and Jinping to react from him and that if they did not do so it was because they were not giving it the importance it had (due to a shortage of intelligence and/or cowardice). This was part of the self-deception. From those moments, knowing that increased pressure towards balance generated by Donald Trump appropriating Venezuela, I knew that Russia and China, despite their astute silence, were going to react in a very different way to the next US attack on Iran than they did in the June 2025 bombings. And so it has been.
As long as Donald Trump continues to consider the healthy and sensible restraint of Vladimir Putin and/or Xi Jinping as weakness (stupidity or fear), he will continue to generate counterproductions in every important thing he does in the international arena, including every action that does not directly relate to Russia and/or China.
The problem of the spirited young man who suddenly stumbles upon the deceptive "gift" of something valuable thrown on the ground and clinging to the idea that he is the owner, is that if he does not return it by his own decision he will be taken away, by violence or by another means depending on how much and how he opposes it.
The increase in imbalance through that form of invasion of Venezuela and its illegal appropriation, then very counterproductive for the US, only that the payment for it was deferred to a later event, in Iran. That is where Russia and China above all and Iran are taking the toll on Donald Trump, doubly: For his excesses against Venezuela and for his excesses against Iran. At the same time, apart from that unpaid bill, there is another debt of the United States and other Western countries to these countries, and many others, for the accumulation of their countless excesses over decades.
In my book Theory of Universal Equilibrium I talk about the fact that there is a type of pleasure (sexual and other types) that I call infractive pleasure, which is naturally propitiated in people when they feel well-being or euphoria. This phenomenon explains decadent results such as that of child exploitation in the Epstein case.
It is necessary to be aware of this and know how to decide how to channel that well-being, euphoria or excess energy. These states are not in themselves bad in any way. And neither is always the infractive pleasure, obtainable from doing forbidden things, as long as such infractions do not contravene any law, but only break taboos and social conventions. As I mention in the book, for a man, for example, to call a woman who wants and consents to this treatment a "whore," can be a healthy way (as long as it is by mutual agreement) to obtain pleasure (somewhat sadomasochistic, which at relatively moderate levels is completely natural and healthy), by discharging, thus, a surplus of energy, the containment of which can become unpleasant and even unbearable. For this, I have adjective this pleasure as infractive, and not as rapist.
An excess of energy is a privilege that not everyone achieves, and that can be very productive and creative, if channeled properly. China and Russia are among the countries that best channel such excesses, in moderate and therefore successful ways. Finding and choosing moderate (non-illegal) ways to release excess energy is the intelligent way for individuals and nations to re-establish their internal energy balance and relationships with others.
This does not mean that China and Russia are smarter countries than the United States. The only country that in recent history on this planet has lived the experience of remaining alone in a contest and appropriating the gloves of the opponent is the United States. And it is certain that Russia and China would have acted in the same way, bewildered and bewildering, that the US is doing now, had they had that same experience. No country or party to conflict within an isolated system can stand in balance on its own. By nature, all living beings (and anything else existing in the Universe) need an external influence to keep us in balance. However, this does not prevent the knowledge of the law of balance between opposites from being of use to us to help ourselves when any situation arises in which an imbalance in "our favor" has occurred.
It is therefore important to know how to identify an imbalance. In recent years there has been talk that, due to the growing strengthening of countries such as Russia, China and others (within the BRICS, for example), and the weakening of the United States, a counterweight is being created against the abuses of the American power. Has such a balance already been reached, or at what point will we be able to know that it has already been reached? No, the balance has not been reached. Three very clear signs that there is still a big imbalance in today's world, although it is already very close to being balanced, are the following facts:
1. While the United States has the luxury of sending warships to attack an ally of Russia and China that is very close to these countries and very far from it, without Russia or China openly acknowledging the full extent of their factual opposition to these US attacks, he still dares to announce that he intends to continue with the doctrine of America for the Americans with respect to Cuba, while attacking, and threatening further aggression, illegally, against this country, which is an ally of Russia and China.
2. While Israel has nuclear weapons and is not concealed or punished for it, the United States and Israel do, in various ways, reproach and punish Iran, denying that it has the same right as them to have nuclear weapons.
3. The United States insists on openly sending weapons to Taiwan against China itself, while threatening this country on the sole suspicion that it is sending weapons to Iran to defend itself against the illegal aggressions of the United States and Israel.
These three facts, which indicate a clear geopolitical imbalance, at the same time constitute three counterproductive processes for its manager, who in a very short time will restore the balance on the planet.
The only way in which the United States can overcome its current multiple serious problems and its current decline is by becoming aware that the cause of all this is the imbalance in which it finds itself and that, itself, it must abandon its current path towards forcing an increase in the imbalance (which is totally counterproductive) and take the path of moderation, which is the only one that, truly, will strengthen it. The opposite is only regression and self-destruction.
The recognition of this implies, in particular, undoing many excessive changes made and begun or going back on them, or redirecting them through channels of profit, and undertaking other truly productive paths.
How to get out of the war against Iran
The United States has two ways out of the war it initiated with Israel against Iran. One is to continue with their excesses and those of Israel, as has been done so far, making the situation much worse, and reaching a point where Donald Trump will either be forced to resign from office or be removed from office. It is absolutely certain that this is what is going to happen as we continue down this path, because there is no way for the United States to win this war.
And there is still a way, currently at very high risk of being irretrievably lost soon, for Donald Trump to come out of this war in such a way that he is not seen in the United States or the rest of the world as a loser, but as a benefactor, and that with the appropriate subsequent actions he recovers and does not lose the presidency.
For Donald Trump to regain his popularity within the United States, postwar actions are essential. Without them he will have only managed to get out of this successful war, to continue with the same mistakes and undo what he has achieved in this trance.
For this reason, I have taken the time to expose all the above, because it is necessary that the change be systematic and applied to all cases, on which it will depend whether or not Trump continues in the US presidency.
As is well known, every problem is an opportunity to get off on a better footing than how you got in, and this is no exception, yet.
Before continuing to talk about this, I will make a brief parenthesis to talk about the certain fact that escalating this conflict a little more, militarily, will lead to Donald Trump being totally impossible, whatever he does next, to regain his popularity and continue in the presidency this year.
From the moment the US and Israel started the war against Iran, and to date, the Iranians have always been able to sink any of the largest warships, including aircraft carriers, that the US has deployed there, and even an entire fleet. It has the right missiles for it. And the sinking of any of these vessels would be something from which Trump could in no way recover. Once sunk one of these ships (a destroyer or an aircraft carrier), there would be absolutely nothing with which Donald Trump could stay in the presidency, since his only possible reactions to it would be to escalate the conflict much more, producing greater world problems, or withdraw, without more, declaring himself an absolute loser. None of that would solve anything and such a huge loss would be absolutely unforgivable for Americans.
The Iranians know this well and yet they have not proceeded like this since the beginning of the war, for a very logical and very convenient reason: They planned their reaction in such a way that they had the opportunity to destroy the US military bases in the region from which they were attacked, and to weaken and subdue the countries that host them, as well as Israel and the US.
Since before the beginning of this war, largely for the reasons I already mentioned in my article The disastrous defeat of the United States and Israel in the Middle East, the Iranians knew that although they could send back the US Navy totally defeated, it would have left in the Middle East very unfavorable circumstances, which would not have been possible to change for political and media reasons. They would not have had the opportunity to get everything they have achieved had they destroyed one of those ships from the beginning.
The behavior of Iran, like that of Russia and China, in the military and economic conflicts that these countries are facing with the West, develops with such restraint that their attacks are counterattacks and, although forceful, without excess. The West, to its own misfortune, has not known, of course, how to interpret this as acts of sensible sobriety, which wins in the media sphere and in international politics, but as weaknesses, a very typical error of perception of those who have lost the ground due to arrogance and other excesses.
However, the war has not only reached a point where the aforementioned Iranian objectives have already been achieved, but, amazingly, even the US, for the blockade it is carrying out, has brought some of his navy's ships closer to Iranian shores, so that it is now much more feasible, and much more likely, to sink them. Thus, any aggravated aggression of the United States or Israel will have as a very probable, if not certain, Iranian reaction the irreparable destruction of one of those ships at least, or those necessary for the people of the United States to end the conflict immediately. And then there will be nothing Trump can do to recover from this.
But there is still one way, and only one, in which it is possible to negotiate the end of this conflict in such a way that, depending on whether Trump's subsequent actions, in other cases and in other spheres, are consistent with a sensible way of acting, systematically, there will be a remarkable recovery.
To negotiate with Iran the solution to this conflict, we must take into account its causes and the situation that has given rise to it. Symptomatic or palliative solutions are temporary and, strictly speaking, do not constitute true solutions, but only appearances or simulations that they are. The point is to attack the problem at its roots. To attend merely to the superficial, in any problem, is like trying to cure leprosy with pure ointment. The solution must be etiological, substantive, to last or be definitive.
The problem in the Middle East is too complex to be solved completely right now, in a single negotiation, even beginning to address its causes; but, thus, through an etiological treatment, it is possible to make significant advances, whose effects are not fleeting and, through other changes, a much more lasting peace is achieved.
Before continuing, I must also speak about the decisive difference between "medical" treatments - in all areas of life by extension - superficial and those applied to the root.
Next, I will mention four specific cases of international current affairs that clearly show the total ineffectiveness of applying symptomatic treatment to a conflict and the entire effectiveness of truly resolving it, from its root. Solving a problem completely requires, in addition, that its treatment be integral, systemic, as I show below.
1. During the current conflict in the Middle East, due to the partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz carried out by Iran, it has been seriously considered that, as a lesson of such adverse effect for almost all countries hostile to Iran in the Persian Gulf, it has been learned that one way to circumvent that obstruction is simply to build pipelines connecting with the Red Sea.
The futility of this attempt at a solution becomes evident if we consider that its construction is very expensive, and very difficult politically, and takes years, while putting it out of service, by means of a missile or a drone, is comparatively very cheap and takes only minutes or hours.
Pipelines, gas pipelines and cables, like bridges, are normally, in wars, among the most vulnerable and principal of the enemy's military objectives. There is very little that can be done to prevent them from being destroyed. Indeed, it would be far less difficult and more economical for Iran to disable an oil pipeline, or a number of these, than to keep the Strait of Hormuz blocked.
2. Reducing illegal migration in the United States has been extremely costly economically (for the expense in the construction of the border wall, surveillance and detection, persecution, deportation and imprisonment, and the reduction in productivity after that labor loss) and in domestic politics (for the numerous and very serious incidents with ICE). However, these problems are really solvable at much lower costs, much faster, in a lasting or definitive and very productive way (for the US), if they are addressed from their origin, to prevent them from reaching that point.
3. In the case of drug trafficking, the distance between the ineffectiveness of efforts or combats and the cost in health, and in all other aspects, by mass drug addiction, is much greater than in the analogous case above. And yet, this serious problem is also solvable at much lower costs, without violence, by contributing to its care from its origin.
4. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 between the United States and Iran in order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is another clear example of an attempt at a solution that is totally useless in reality, due to not addressing the causes of the problem, but being limited to mechanisms that, however much they are revised, "improved," increased and refined, they will always be useless. Not coming to this knowledge is a consequence of the same lack of empathy for which the vulnerability from which Iran tries to protect itself in the face of an openly genocidal Israel due to that aforementioned imbalance has not been understood, consisting of its possession of nuclear weapons, unique in the region, and the unrestricted support of the United States.
If the United States saw things from Iran's perspective, putting himself in his place, he would understand not only his own position as to his need to protect himself, but also, if you think about it seriously, thoroughly and in detail - as you would have to do in the face of such a disadvantageous prospect -, that there would be no way that by foreign inspections on their territory, however insightful and thorough they were, they prevented him from developing a nuclear weapon.
In this regard, for example, this article says:
The director general of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Mariano Grossi] considers it unrealistic to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear bomb.The head of the IAEA pointed out that, although uranium enrichment is complex, it does not require an unattainable level of sophistication. As an example, he recalled that during the lifetime of the Obama-era nuclear deal - the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - Iran used very basic centrifuges. Instead, in the three or four years following the pact's collapse, Tehran quickly managed to develop much more precise and efficient ultracentrifuges. Grossi warned that, since these machines can be manufactured in small workshops in any city, curbing that Iranian military capacity is now practically impossible.
This information contains a contradiction, because it immediately adds:
Asked how to stop Iran's nuclear program, Grossi opined that "what should be stopped is a nuclear weapons program, since any country can have a nuclear program." According to the expert, this could be achieved through "an inspection regime" that allows "the IAEA to do its job."Grossi on Iran: "You can't completely destroy a country"Abr 20 2026 21:51 GMT
The important thing here is that America can know the truth about this simply by asking these two questions:
1. In what way could we create, from scratch, a nuclear weapon despite inspections such as we intend to perform on Iran to avoid it?
2. Do we have anything that Iran does not have for the scope of this goal?
I think one thing we could answer in relation to the second of these questions is that Iran does possess something that the United States does not: A vital, existential desire to protect oneself, which the US could omit in this imaginary experiment of empathy, and which, for that and only for that, in addition, the answer to the first of these questions could also be neglected or even rigged, and false or at least - dangerously - defective.
Why not subject it, with a prize to whoever achieves it (to be realistic), to a brainstorming of university students (not necessarily at MIT), without mentioning Iran, but, instead, the United States in the hypothetical state of imbalance, threat and vulnerability of environment that the Persian country currently lives?
In any case, if the US decides to try to impose that useless treatment on Iran (again inspections, of any nature), this country will reject it, because, currently, not only is there no reason for it to accept it, but there are, very strong, to reject it, and the same as for its missiles.
However, if we insist on imagining that Iran, for some impossible or incredible reason, could accept that treatment, the problem would be incomparably more serious than at present and that in the whole history of this conflictive relationship, because an American government, like Trump's, for example, that, for any political or other cause or error, presumed or advocated that Iran could not develop a nuclear weapon through such agreed inspections, then the roots of the conflict would remain intact, Iran would develop nuclear weapons, would receive them from an ally or would take refuge in a nuclear umbrella (the latter options being unnecessary, since Iran can even alone do it) before a people and/or an uninformed and unprepared American government, and, possibly, in another serious abuse of the US and/or Israel, Iran would detonate one of them in some city of the North American country. I consider this unlikely, considering that Iran is not inclined to it; but it is indisputable that any nation that is as pressured as Iran has been could come to it, by nature of survival.
Therefore, it is necessary to answer the above questions seriously and carefully.
The only reasonable, viable option leading to a profitable way out of the conflict is to address its root, and this is in the imbalance.
Since, moreover, in this conflict, Iranian confidence, logically, has already fallen to minimums that make its solution more difficult, it is precisely more indispensable that it be attended to from its roots and not at its epidermal level.
Due to the increased erosion in confidence, for its prompt and less costly resolution, it is essential to manage here, in this negotiation, fundamentally solid elements, concrete and significant facts towards balance, carried out immediately before or in its course, and not after, and avoiding promises that sound empty, but legal resolutions for its immediate, firm and continuous execution.
The essential awareness that the end of this war (and the solution to all the evils that afflict the United States) is in a systematically acting with balance, without excesses, includes, of course, Israel, since it is a decisive part in the conflict. Not because it alone succeeds, but because of its unrestricted alliance with the United States.
The only way Donald Trump can emerge from this relatively unscathed conflict is to choose between the United States and Israel. Israel, by itself, is not at present in a position to make any sensible decision in this regard. Therefore, the complete decision can only fall to the United States, without negotiations with this ally, but only with declarations of what has been decided.
Israel has committed a lot of very serious excesses in the Middle East, and will continue to do so as long as the US continues to support it. So it all depends on what Trump chooses about it: the excesses of Israel, which means losing America and, of course, losing himself politically; or the United States, which implies limiting Israel.
For this negotiation, as for any other, it is imperative, as I mentioned before, to understand Iran's position by putting itself in its place, empathically. Without this requirement it is impossible to reach an agreement, when the other party is not in a position to bow before injustices, and seeks only balance.
Something that greatly facilitates for Donald Trump the solution of this conflict in a way that is favored by the Americans and the rest of the world, is that in the United States, as in much of the world, there is already a great repudiation, an irrepressible and undeniable weariness, of the abuses that Israel has been committing against Palestine, among other disproportionately disproportionate aggressions in the region.
Since the only way for the United States and Donald Trump to get out of this conflict is by addressing its causes (attacking its symptoms is making it worse), this form of negotiation implies a recognition of what most of the world and the people of the United States currently want, and with determination, in addition to Iran: a firm, determined, honest and continuous movement towards balance and just moderation, which are sorely lacking in the region. This will restore peace throughout the region, as if by magic, if the US acts really and firmly against Israel's excesses, and avoids its own. This will automatically cause Iran and its allies to lay down their arms.
This requires a genuine understanding of the causes of the problem. For this, I have included background explanations. It would not be possible to solve it, truly, by trying to create a convenient appearance, but only by understanding what is happening.
For this reason, seeking a lasting peace, through a very realistic agreement focused on this end, I suggest starting this negotiation or, better still, preceding it with the recognition before the UN of the Palestinian State, together with that of Israel. Force Israel, by all means, not to attack, and not only to sign agreements, any other country as long as it is not attacked and, if the need arises, not to do so disproportionately, at all costs to Netanyahu.
I suggest that in the full and sincere awareness of the need for a balance in the region so that there can be lasting and solid peace among all countries, the United States, with neutrality, dialogue with Iran regarding such a need and ask for its views and proposals to negotiate.
Inducing Iran not to develop nuclear weapons is only going to happen, quite simply, if that Iranian nuclear need to defend itself is suppressed, and since Israel's excesses are what is fueling that need, suppressing these abuses will at the same time suppress such an Iranian project.
The promise of an Iran not threatened with hostile acts (nor verbally) in terms of not developing nuclear weapons is incomparably more valuable, more solid and reliable than any reaction, even of favorable appearance, of an Iranian people threatened and concerned for their security.
For this negotiation to be successful, it is essential not to try in any way to reach an agreement that implies any increase in the existing imbalance.
Keep in mind that what I propose here is not to completely eliminate the imbalance (although this would be ideal). A balance in the region would mean that Israel would cease to have nuclear weapons. If the United States is not going to demand this from Israel, but only to put a stop to its abuses (a grave latent nuclear threat persists), it would not be acceptable for Iran to surrender its uranium.
The valuable - for the entire Middle East and for the world - outcome of this war has a cost that will be reflected in the toll that Iran will take on the Strait of Hormuz.
This way of negotiating will result in these benefits for Donald Trump:
1. He will emerge unscathed from this war and, in a way, victorious, because he will have achieved the fundamental purpose and, finally, in the best possible way: the most reliable promise achieved so far that Iran will not have nuclear weapons.
2. The way he will have achieved it will attract sympathy from much of the world.
3. Its popularity will improve considerably in the United States.
4.If he manages to maintain congruence and systematicity with this understanding of the problem and its movement towards equilibrium and, therefore, sustains a moderation towards the Persian country, it will do the same towards him during the postwar period.
5. These actions will contribute significantly to the remarkable progress of the United States, of which I will speak in detail below.
PART TWO — How to Avoid the Fracture of the United States
Translated from Spanish with Google Translate. It may contain translation errors.
NOTE: When, at the end of Part One, I say that the U.S. “will emerge unscathed from this war and, in a sense, victorious,” I do not use the latter word in the sense of “victor,” but rather “benefited,” to the extent that it has made a difference.
How to Reduce Extreme Political Polarization in the United States
As I predicted in another article, written in December 2024, the U.S. is headed for territorial fragmentation for political reasons, and the likelihood of this happening has been increasing all this time, as a consequence of the serious internal and international problems the country suffers from (economy, drugs, immigration) being neglected or addressed unproductively, and most of the work has consisted of attempts to increase the—inherently unjust—geopolitical imbalance, and thus is proving counterproductive.
Another source of the fracture toward which the United States is heading is the growing and excessive internal polarization, which is not only being neglected but is being fostered and worsened day by day.
To prevent these problems from leading to the country being divided in two, it is essential to understand their causes and solutions. All of this is symptomatic of the decline the United States is suffering as a consequence of its excesses in all areas.
The Democratic and Republican parties are increasingly acting, in everything they do—and this has been particularly egregious in recent years—as if they are competing with each other to see who is the most excessive, unjust, and illegal, both internationally and domestically.
I offer as an example what recently happened after the Puerto Rican singer Bad Bunny's performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. Immediately afterward, some Republican politicians committed this excess:
In the US, Republican members of Congress condemned Puerto Rican singer Bad Bunny's performance at the Super Bowl halftime show, calling for sanctions not only against him but also against the National Football League (NFL) and NBC, the network that broadcast the event.Representative Randy Fine asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fine and imprison the artist, whose show he described as "repugnant" and "illegal" for allegedly using inappropriate language.On his social media account, the congressman posted the English translation of the song "Safaera," which includes words like "fuck," which cannot be used on broadcast television.“If he had said those lyrics, and all the other disgusting and pornographic obscenities in English on live television, the broadcast would have been suspended and the fines would have been enormous,” Fine pointed out, failing to consider that singers avoid such words at concerts, and Bad Bunny was no exception.Despite this, the Republican said they would send a letter to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to “demand dramatic action, including fines and a review of broadcast licenses against the NFL, NBC, and Bad Bunny.” “Lock them up,” he concluded.Representative Andy Ogles joined Fine, requesting that the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigate the NFL and NBC for "facilitating this indecent broadcast.""Republicans call for Bad Bunny to be fined and jailed for his Super Bowl performance."Feb 12, 2026 15:22 GMT
Which led to this other excess:
Former US President Barack Obama spoke out on Saturday in an interview about Puerto Rican artist Bad Bunny's Super Bowl halftime show, which sparked an international debate regarding the artist, his talent, and representation."It resonated. It was smart," Obama said. "It was demonstrating and showcasing: this is what a community is. And people who didn't speak Spanish and had never been to Puerto Rico saw that older woman serving a drink and the children dancing with their grandmothers, and it was intergenerational, and it was a reminder of what Dr. [Martin Luther] King called the 'beloved community' can be, [...] which is not perfect and is sometimes chaotic," he added."Obama speaks out about Bad Bunny's Super Bowl show"Feb 14, 2026 22:51 GMT
Although Obama highlights details that, in isolation, can be considered positive about Bad Bunny's performance, he omits something much more important: the fact that this "singer's" musical career is characterized by a very high degree of harmfulness and, like many others, is contributing enormously to the decline of the West, by seemingly playing the role of a fool or an extremely mentally retarded person in almost all of his songs, both through his lyrics and his babbling, with the obvious intention of profiting from the cultural backwardness that this side of the world suffers from and fostering it to take advantage of this massively destructive vicious cycle. In fact, as his fans and anyone who has ever taken the time to examine this subcultural phenomenon well know, while his interview appearances portray him as someone with a notable educational and intellectual deficit, barely able to speak his own language, when he "sings" these qualities are drastically exacerbated, clearly revealing that much of it is a carefully crafted act, designed to financially exploit the masses, who are prone to easy distractions devoid of reason and riddled with extremely crude emotions. It is a deliberate exaltation of systemic crudeness, which, unfortunately, is no longer merely an occasional curiosity for ordinary people to escape their daily routine, but is becoming the pernicious norm of entertainment for millions, who even admire and imitate his mannerisms.
Because of the abuse that all of this implies, the details that, on the surface, appear to be in favor of or in defense of Hispanic Americans, are, in reality, nothing more than hypocritical and opportunistic commercialism.
For the central purpose of this article, the fundamental problem to point out regarding what has been cited and analyzed is that former President Obama defended Bad Bunny, in a way that is completely contrary to reality, calling him "smart," as a reaction to an equally extreme Republican attack. This demonstrates the fact that extreme criticism generates extreme reactions, and thus, ultimately, neither side in the conflict is right, to the detriment of both and the entire country, because nothing beneficial comes of it and, on the contrary, it increases polarization.
If, on the other hand, Republican politicians who disagreed with that action had limited themselves to offering constructive criticism, or at least criticism based on truthful arguments, rather than merely resorting to labels, they would not have provoked Obama's excessive reaction. And even if such a reaction had occurred, it would very likely have found less support than the Republican position, as the latter was perceived as more moderate.
The excessive political polarization currently plaguing the U.S. is a consequence of the two dominant parties systematically launching excessive attacks against each other. They are thus trapped in a vicious cycle that continually exacerbates this polarization and these opposing extremist behaviors, not only in their foreign relations but also by generating counterproductive effects on all sides, which is extremely self-destructive.
The gradual increase in these excesses, during the process of their normalization, has kept them largely unknown to Americans, as well as to the rest of the Western world. However, it is evident that for people who, like the Russians, have maintained their sobriety, this process is indeed visible. Thus, note, upon visiting the article, that the aforementioned text begins with the phrase, "The former US president stated that the spectacle 'resonated' and was 'smart,'" highlighting, in this position, the terms "resonance" and "smart," alluding to the puerile and vainly destructive—for the entire country—contradiction between the parties mentioned above, which is indeed noticeable to them, as it is to many other countries of the opposite, more moderate pole of the planet. From their point of view, only for Westerners are the causes of their decline entirely unconscious, invisible, and, therefore, the solution eludes them, completely beyond their reach. But Easterners are not currently in a position to point this out, because, coming from a rival or seen as such, it would be interpreted, suspiciously, as an attempt to manipulate for their own benefit through lies.
Breaking the vicious cycle that is excessively exacerbating this polarization is the only path to its solution and to preventing the division toward which the United States is heading. To achieve this, it is essential to recognize this and, immediately, for one or both sides to systematically and consistently curb their excesses toward the other and abroad (so that extreme conflicts or absurdly contrary outcomes to the other party's interests are not produced there either).
The abandonment of one party's excesses will discourage the other from doing the same, and therefore, it is very likely that the latter will also abandon them or at least reduce them immediately. In the unlikely event that the second party does not abandon its excesses immediately, the first party will increase its standing with the people, a standing it will have already gained from the moment it began to break that harmful cycle. It will be perceived as the most realistic, the most level-headed, and the most reliable choice, which will increase the incentive for the second party to also moderate its policies and move closer to the first.
As a result of this change, there will be a rapprochement between the two parties, which will notably facilitate governance at the executive level, both federal and lower, and in Congress.
The most important quality for achieving that state of moderation, which allows us to break that cycle, is empathy: the ability to put oneself in another's shoes and consider their point of view, treating them—even when contradicting them—as a friend to whom it is necessary to show another perspective, with rational arguments that one would accept in the other's position, in order to collaborate harmoniously in the pursuit of a productive common good. And the same applies to any other negotiation.
Therefore, when discussing the benefits for Donald Trump that will result from the aforementioned approach to negotiating an end to the war in the Middle East, I concluded by saying that "these actions will significantly contribute to remarkable progress for the United States." While a stance in favor of recognizing the Palestinian state is more common within the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, this move, by fostering a rapprochement with liberals, will be a step toward reducing the self-destructive and excessive polarization. By systematically applying this moderation, it will break this vicious cycle, increase internal cohesion in the United States, and decisively decrease the risk of division. All of this benefits the entire country and, consequently, Donald Trump as the initiator of this return to the path of reason, productivity, and the end of the currently systematized counterproductivity.
The intentional reduction of intranational polarization to healthy and productive levels is an essential step to avoid political territorial division in the United States, along with the solution of its international and other internal problems, such as massive illegal migration, the massive entry and consumption of drugs, and commercial competition with China, which I address below.
PART THREE — The solution to the main problems of the United States
Translated from Spanish with Google Translate. It may contain translation errors.
The root cause of the United States' current major problems
As I have explained on several occasions, the current decline of the United States is a result of its systematic excesses, which are generating systematic counterproductive effects. The advanced stage of its decline has involved allowing China to surpass it, long ago, in terms of commercial and industrial capacity, which suggests that this country will very soon surpass the United States in all other aspects, including, to some extent, of course, the military.
While there are voices in the U.S. that recognize that the main challenge facing the United States today is China, the Trump Administration, as I have said before, and as I predicted more than a year ago, is thus far completely avoiding genuine competition with China, and every day and every second that passes in this situation is increasing China’s advantage and the American lagging behind.
Once we have identified American decline as a result of its excesses (which in turn are a consequence of its inadequate reaction to the disappearance of the Soviet Union), almost all, or primarily all, attention must be focused on how to react appropriately (without excesses, arrogance, or authoritarianism) to the unhealthy imbalance that the world still suffers from today, to the grave detriment of the United States itself and the rest of the world.
In the decades since the collapse of the USSR, a now deeply entrenched and comfortable belief has taken root in the US that it was rewarded with an eternal period of respite (from competition) and simple authority over other countries. This is so false and so damaging to the United States itself that not only will none of it last forever (fortunately for the entire planet), but it was never a reward at all; rather, it was a curse for the United States. It placed the country in a position of illusory triumph, when in reality it was a defeat for the entire world, with very serious consequences for the country itself. Ironically, these consequences are, by nature, worse for the "winner" than for the "loser," as the former becomes complacent, deludes itself, and falls into a period of increasing backwardness resulting from its own systematic excesses (in all possible forms of corruption and authoritarianism, against others and against itself).
Understanding this reality will determine whether the United States solves this serious problem or whether it will be its downfall, its ultimate self-destruction.
And here lies a fundamental obstacle from which many of the US's problems, and consequently those of the rest of the world, are stemming: the United States' stubborn refusal to compete with China. Imposing sanctions and tariffs is not competition, but rather confronting it in a way that is close to a war in the strictest sense. It is a kind of light military attack, which seeks to destroy the adversary, instead of self-construction. And since this punishment also involves the excess of extending it to other related countries, it certainly only worsens the US problem, isolating it even further, while simultaneously strengthening the ties of many countries with China. It is a perfect counterproductive measure, as if it were a very carefully planned self-destruction. But this is perfectly logical, given that all excess, to the extent that it is committed, is self-destructive.
Specifically, all the other serious problems that the United States is currently suffering from (absurd wars destined to be lost; massive drug addiction and drug trafficking; massive illegal immigration; extreme internal polarization that is rapidly heading towards a territorial fracture; growing international isolation, which further increases its weakening) are stemming from a simple fact of which the Trump Administration is totally unaware: procrastination in the face of the urgent need to really (adequately; effectively) address the problem of truly and seriously beginning to compete with China.
Due to the aforementioned decades of comfort, relative leisure, and the entrenchment of arrogant and authoritarian false ideas among Americans after the Cold War—ideas that have allowed China's advantage to grow at an accelerated pace—there is an unspoken terror and unconscious, paralyzing rejection in the United States at the mere prospect of having to truly compete with China, without protectionist entrenchments or traps, but on an open playing field, with complete freedom on both sides to act constructively.
And, of course, the longer this problem goes unaddressed, the wider the gap becomes (the US lagging behind China), the more this inner horror grows, and the more the resulting procrastination hardens and prolongs, in a vicious cycle that is very serious not only for what it entails in itself, but also for the grave consequences that stem from it, primarily for the US and the rest of the world. The absurd, utterly fruitless, and self-destructive wars that the United States has been waging are, precisely, veiled attempts to find solace in the face of this terror regarding China. They are attempts to acquire trophies (unattainable, by their very nature, always) of consolation to bear this pre-assumed defeat in the face of the prospect of real competition with China; as happens, in many analogous ways, in all forms of procrastination.
From such procrastination also stems the anxious pursuit of quick and impactful achievements through ill-considered actions aimed at creating highly favorable, yet unrealistic, impressions on others. It is a desperate (and increasingly anguished) search for urgent protection against the extreme helplessness that prevails in the United States regarding the prospect of properly (constructively and effectively) confronting China in the industrial and commercial spheres, even though this is not acknowledged and is considered as shameful and reprehensible a truth that it remains buried in the unconscious.
The anxiety that China's ever-increasing and ever-faster advance is generating in the United States is so profound that its leaders, feeling powerless, instead of rushing to tackle the massive fire they are responsible for solving, are rushing to create other, supposedly smaller and more manageable, distractions and comforts for themselves and others from the true source of the problem. Meanwhile, the most serious problem (the one with China) worsens (further exacerbating the vicious cycle), and, as if that weren't enough, the problems created to console others and themselves become larger than expected because, being mere fabrications, injustices born of excessive fear of the central issue, they are counterproductive.
Indeed, all procrastination stems from the fact that what one hesitates to do seems, to the procrastinator, too difficult to begin, continue, or complete. That prospect, monstrously difficult, completely discourages and paralyzes him, and then comes a phase of self-deception, consisting of the false belief that there are other things he must do before that, and that even those other things constitute means, falsely indispensable preparations, for the attainment of that greater goal, without, in that way, that goal ever being achieved, unless he sets aside those false beliefs of needs and faces the real and pressing one.
The most effective method for overcoming procrastination is to view the pending task not as something that must be resolved completely and immediately, but rather to consider only a small part of it when beginning or continuing its solution. Only in this way, after a short period of time—the shortest possible time—will it be fully resolved. Always return, at each step, to the method of not focusing on large, paralyzing parts, but only on those small enough to begin or continue working on their solution to completion, little by little.
This solution involves a positive self-deception, in which one resolves to do nothing more than a clearly defined little bit, and, once that brief action is completed, resolves to do nothing more than another small thing, and so on.
The more repulsive and daunting a task seems to us, the smaller the steps need to be to begin, continue, or complete it.
Focusing, on the other hand, on actions aimed at achieving quick and impressive successes, as a result of procrastination, since it implies an excess of anxious impatience and an irrational deviation from real problems, not only delays genuine solutions to what is truly needed, but also never leads to genuine solutions, instead leading to a precipice from which it becomes essential to retreat, having lost valuable time.
A clear concrete example of this is the pursuit of quick and impressive success—with the conscious or unconscious aim of consoling oneself after giving up on competing with China—by attacking Iran. And this is a consequence, as previously noted, of another serious excess committed against Venezuela.
This is partly due to the self-deception that this prior action produced in the US, fueling its arrogance and recklessness, and partly due to the reaction of reasonable existential alarm and indignation that it provoked among Iran's allies (Russia and China). As a result, the supposedly rapid success has led to a problem that now poses a real risk to the Trump Administration, simultaneously causing a significant setback in the US position in the Middle East.
On the other hand, if the "slow" path of addressing the problem with China reasonably had been taken from the outset, competing with it without protectionism, without underhanded tactics, without dirty tricks, the progress—real progress, though perhaps less impactful than that sought through these unnecessary international wars—would already be palpable and recognized by the American people and the rest of the world.
Thus, while the unnecessary war against Iran is now seriously jeopardizing Donald Trump's presidency, due to the anxious impatience that fueled it as a result of his refusal to compete with China, this latter action, on the other hand, would not only have achieved truly laudable results, but also, precisely because it is a long-term project already underway and inherently promising, with the potential for greater scope, would imply a greater likelihood that Donald Trump, or at least the Republican Party, would prolong their stay in the White House.
Running too fast leads to stumbles, setbacks, and ultimately, losing the race. Running while managing energy without impatience is the winning strategy. In this case, the strategy that truly leads to success is to concentrate on the real and genuinely urgent problems (the most fearsome, and rightly so), addressing them with the tactic that breaks them down and makes them relatively easy to overcome: in small steps.
The problem of US competition with China is so fundamental that, due to its neglect, major real problems have arisen from it (that is, they have been created, with Venezuela, Iran, and, supposedly, Cuba), which further hinder the resolution of the fundamental issues. Other problems, when addressed with such an impatient desire for quick and dazzling results, have yielded extremely unproductive outcomes (immigration, drug addiction, and drug trafficking), as I will analyze below.
The fact that the US-Israeli war against Iran is essentially (entirely on the part of the United States) based on its denial of the existence, or the denial of priority, of the problem—perceived as fundamentally insoluble by the US—of China devouring the world, while it watches in horror as it falls further behind each day, implies that as long as this real and fundamental problem remains unaddressed, the US government (regardless of the party in power) will continue to seek alternative and inappropriate ways to find or create problems. By addressing these problems, it deems it viable or easy to demonstrate to its citizens that it is doing something recognizably beneficial, even though it always reaps counterproductive results, self-destruction, and a worsening of its growing lag behind China, as has been happening day after day, creating a ticking time bomb.
The projected military aggression against Cuba
For the United States, ending the war with Iran implies the need to immediately replace it with something that contributes to or promises some significant achievement soon. It needs to generate flattering expectations, or expectations that can be presented as such, among Americans. Given this vital need for the Trump Administration, and considering that there is nothing else on the horizon in that regard other than what has been considered so far, the option of a military attack on Cuba is the only feasible one, albeit with far worse consequences for Trump, than a war against Iran.
Even if Donald Trump were to emerge relatively unscathed from the war with Iran, reaching an agreement like the one I proposed, attacking Cuba would not only completely undo any benefit gained from exiting the Middle East war in this way, but would also present him with two problems far greater, in some respects, than those with Iran:
1. A military response that, while perhaps not as extensive as Iran's, would be unexpectedly more effective and lethal than what was mistakenly expected of Iran, for the reasons I have already outlined here and in my article The disastrous defeat of the United States and Israel in the Middle East. What I have said previously regarding Iran's capacity to lethally attack US warships in their vicinity is entirely valid for Cuba.
2. In a war against Cuba, because it is a much smaller country and, therefore, because it is closer to the much larger enemy, making it more vulnerable, as well as due to substantial differences between the region and the Middle East, it will react in a substantially different way than Iran did: faster and more decisively, aware that its victory or its sovereignty will depend on the speed with which it manages to inflict a significant casualty on the US military as soon as possible after any major attack, so as not to risk any irreparable aggression, and thus induce, in one way or another, Trump's removal from the presidency as soon as possible.
3. The opposition of a significant portion of the American people, which will almost certainly be violent, to the extent that there is destruction or civilian casualties on the island, or significant U.S. military losses in personnel or equipment, which are impossible to conceal. This opposition in Cuba will be fueled far more than in the case of Iran by the large Hispanic population in the United States and by the fact that the false accusations (nuclear terrorism) that U.S. administrations have been leveling against Iran for a long time are far more serious than the mere disagreements that have been imposed on Cuba for so long, also through sanctions, with which almost the entire world has expressed its disagreement.
4. One of the worst adverse effects of this other war waged by Donald Trump, and/or among what will be remembered of him as President of the United States, will be a similar but more threatening and worse (much worse in domestic politics) counterproductive effect, due to its proximity, to Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz: the militarization of Cuba, which, in view of that illegal and unjustified attack, will be justifiable for many years, for the legitimate protection of the island.
Thus, after some time, and taking into account the US nuclear military presence very close to Russia, and the conventional presence in Chinese territory (Taiwan), the step for this to also occur by Russia and China through Cuba would be much shorter, and would happen during a period of decline and weakening of the United States (accelerated by its excesses and counterproductive actions), to the point that it would eventually become normalized. From there, it could spread to other countries, such as Nicaragua, and very likely others, largely in light of that attack on Cuba, which will undoubtedly be interpreted in many other Latin American countries as an attack or, at the very least, a very serious threat to them as well.
The growing, unbridled European belligerence against Russia, along with this decline of the United States, which is leading that country to commit all kinds of abuses and illegal acts, is the perfect formula for this to happen. Nothing attracts aggression like the combination of weakness and aggression.
Furthermore, as a result, the ties and alliances (in all areas, including the military, of course) between Cuba and its allies Russia and China will become much closer, gradually but steadily leading to numerous Chinese investments in Cuban territory for sale in various countries of the Americas.
There is only one way to prevent all of this from happening: avoid attacking Cuba, lift the blockade and sanctions, invest there alongside China (without any underhanded tactics against this country), and win in that industrial and commercial competition. Failing to win in this free and fair competition would not lead to militarization; nor would it discourage Chinese investment. Doing otherwise would only produce counterproductive results.
5. Furthermore, if this war were to use Puerto Rican soil or the coast of any other country in the region to attack its Cuban neighbor, it would result in forced defensive attacks by Cuba against those other countries, generating even greater opposition among U.S. citizens against the Trump administration than analogous events in the Middle East caused within the United States.
Therefore, although Cuba may seem, at first glance, an easier target for military excesses than Iran, as was initially considered, there are circumstances that make a U.S. aggression against that country more unfavorable.
Any of these possibilities, on its own, would be enough to remove Trump from office as soon as possible, considering his already particularly vulnerable position and the fact that—in the best-case scenario of his withdrawal from the current conflict with Iran—it is contingent on demonstrating that he has truly adopted a radically better stance than before.
If Donald Trump allows the war against Iran to continue on its current trajectory, he will surely emerge so badly damaged, so obviously and scandalously defeated and humiliated, that he will be powerless against Cuba, no matter how much he might want to, because it will be strictly forbidden by its people and the United States government. For a long time after this war, even in the least disastrous of cases, Iran will rightly boast internationally of its victory, which will only increase the humiliation for the United States, which will relentlessly and harshly criticize Trump, with a political cost that will, at the very least, lead to his immediate replacement, one way or another.
Now that Donald Trump, indirectly as a consequence, in part, of his excessive attack on Venezuela, has gotten himself into this serious mess, what is at stake in his exit and in the post-war period is his presidency.
If he manages to leave office in the manner I suggest above, his retention of the presidency will depend both on how he leaves and on what he does afterward. It will depend on the consistency between how he leaves and what he does subsequently. This means that even if he leaves in a relatively positive and favorable way, if he then takes advantage of that situation to commit another serious transgression, such as a military attack on Cuba, the negotiations with Iran, or a positive decision regarding the problem that would have allowed Trump to emerge from the war relatively unscathed or even better off, he will retain that advantageous power only because he is seen by Americans and the world as very sensible, intelligent, and understanding of the root causes and sound solutions to the problem. Therefore, launching an attack against Cuba after that withdrawal will demonstrate that, in reality, there was never any of the aforementioned regarding Iran (neither common sense, nor intelligence, nor understanding of the problem), and it will become evident that all of this was done hypocritically, solely to appease Iran and create a false appearance from a despicable position, combining falsehood with personal gain.
However, regardless of this moral failing resulting from such conduct, there would be another, far more decisive one against Trump in the political arena: It would clearly reveal that what Trump disguised as an understanding of the situation was, in reality, nothing more than concessions made to Iran because, evidently, he lost the war and could only extricate himself from it in this abject manner.
The important point here is that, regardless of such moral depravity, it will become crystal clear that Donald Trump made very significant concessions to extricate himself from that lost war.
The initially assumed favorable intelligence will thus turn into unfavorable concessions and a lost war, as well as hypocritical vileness (which, for practical purposes, may be of lesser importance). Due to the current American decline, vileness or hypocritical abjection of other kinds is, to a certain extent, tolerable by its people and, above all, by its politicians, as has become increasingly clear in numerous cases over the last few decades. What, however, will not be acceptable in the U.S. is the knowledge, thus revealed, of such a disastrous defeat.
Moreover, in such a scenario, even if Iran did not feel compelled to criticize in this way, Russia and China, close observers of the Middle East and also allies of Cuba, would certainly do so, along with dozens of other countries, with acrimony, sharpness, and sarcasm, further humiliating the United States and thus fueling internal opposition against Donald Trump.
On the other hand, the weaponry the United States is currently squandering is primarily a remnant of what it produced in times when its decline and backwardness compared to China and, in many respects, to Russia were much less pronounced.
And in fact, although the U.S. government does not explicitly acknowledge it, it is clear that this behavior, persistently squandering what remains of its military capabilities, is precisely a result of the enormous competitive disadvantage that this country perceives as growing daily. It's a desperate clinging to weaponry, like someone grasping at a plank in a shipwreck, when a boat is nearby, a lifeboat they prefer to ignore. If they were to use that opportunity to row to some port, they couldn't deny their responsibility for its fate.
The option of resorting to this inherited and readily available resource seems, at first glance, ingenious and brilliant, if viewed in the very short term, for the time it might give Trump and his administration a brief, illusory sense of comfort by slightly avoiding the reality they so fear: the need to compete, once again, as they did against the Soviet Union, now against China, Russia, and many other countries that are emerging powerfully and that will not halt their economic expansion simply because any other country threatens them militarily.
This military option, finite and fleeting in the U.S. today, has come as a last gasp to that anguished American flight from competition, offering refuge in the remaining weapons, with the obviously illusory and vain aim of subduing or entertaining, even for a while, those who persist in the uncomfortable and odious competition and progress.
However, since the reality is that any country's military power depends directly on its economic performance, this last gasp of the United States, its refusal to compete, is numbered; and when this comes to an end—and we are very close—it will be forced to do so, fortunately for it, albeit with greater delays and difficulties. Unless it awakens now to the reality in which the world currently finds itself and takes the bull by the horns, entering the competition.
The Alliances and Competitions to Come
What I will mainly discuss here, briefly, are the trends that will inevitably shape the world more clearly than it is now, and the fact that, based on this reasonable prediction, appropriate decisions must be made in advance in order to survive and progress to the fullest extent in the near and distant future.
In the world, three very powerful factors determine which countries form alliances: the aggression of third parties, the similarity or affinity (cultural, political, economic, etc.) between them, and geography. With the growth of international interaction in all fields, such as trade and military strategy, geographical proximity has become increasingly important. These two factors have simultaneously favored the alliance between Russia and China, in addition to, above all, the threat and military, economic, political, financial, and other forms of aggression that the United States is carrying out against these countries, and against the world as a whole, to varying degrees, but especially against these two Asian giants, both directly and indirectly.
Trump's initial intention, during his current term in the United States, to ally with Russia against China lacked real foundation, due to the three factors mentioned above. In reality, everything is against it, and in favor of Russia and China, under current circumstances, maintaining their alliance in every respect, and even strengthening it significantly as the world continues its march toward rebipolarization, which I mentioned earlier as the next geopolitical destiny.
Europe is a special case in the world due to the inconsistency between its similarities and its geographical location: It is close to Russia, but differs greatly from it politically; and it is culturally close to the United States, but geographically very far away. Thus, Europe is like an island, seemingly superfluous in today's world. It is like a guest at a party who can't find anyone to talk to.
As I have explained in my book, Theory of Universal Equilibrium, and in many other publications, the "weight," "mass," or power of a country or group of countries forming a bloc or alliance, relatively independent of their size, number, or "volume," is what essentially determines which other countries will join together to compete with that bloc or country.
The current situation of the United States in this context is quite peculiar, in part because alliances on the other side have not yet been sufficiently consolidated; but above all, also because the United States has not only failed to do so, but, especially under the Trump administration, has been progressively and dangerously isolating itself, a trend that, nevertheless, will be reversed due to the circumstances that lie ahead.
While Donald Trump has been acting before the world as if the United States alone could stand against the rest of the planet, this is unrealistic. This is true even if numerous companies were to relocate from other countries to the US or be established there to avoid tariffs, as Trump intends.
Even if the trade alliance between Canada, the United States, and Mexico were to become freer and stronger, it would still not be enough to compete successfully with the rest of the world. Furthermore, it is foreseeable that in the not-too-distant future, the European Union and the United Kingdom will overcome their decline and corruption and, in doing so, will once again draw closer to Russia, after having previously drawn closer to China. This will reduce the likelihood that the United States, under a different administration, will find a true ally there, one that excludes China and Russia.
China is expanding so rapidly across almost the entire world that the longer the United States fails to truly compete with this Asian giant, the more difficult it will be for it to do so successfully. In any case, as with all procrastination, a moment will eventually arrive when the U.S. will be completely compelled to undertake this competition, despite all its accumulated fears and disadvantages. Therefore, the most opportune moment to truly begin this task is right now.
The problem with trade protectionism is that, to the extent that it protects a nation from competitors from other nations, it discourages competition with them and, consequently, reduces the nation's progress relative to others, thus leading to a loss of competitiveness.
This can be better understood through the following analogy, in which we consider planet Earth to be an island inhabited by only 10 individuals. From time to time, serious fights break out among them, which is inevitable and necessary by nature. This is equivalent to military conflicts. If you want to understand the reasons for this in depth, read my book, Theory of Universal Equilibrium. At the same time, all, or almost all, of them constantly play at fighting with each other, which is equivalent to economic competition. (This is analogous to what happens among young animals, such as felines, without their parents' involvement.)
Here, then, are two possible situations for its inhabitants and their outcomes:
1. One of them considers it unacceptable to play at fighting like the others, and does not do so, while all the others do. The reason for his reluctance might be, for example, a desire to avoid socializing, to avoid getting dirty, or because he considers it ridiculous or unnecessary (perhaps due to a sense of superiority), or out of fear of being hurt. But whatever the cause, the result is that, because he never fights, he will not learn to fight and/or will become weak and be dominated and even abused by others who, because they have fought frequently, have learned to fight and have grown stronger through that activity. When someone else tries to subdue him, he will be forced to fight seriously, and then he will either not fight and submit, or he will fight and, as mentioned before, will be subdued anyway.
Play fighting, like among puppies, is meant to teach fighting skills and build strength so that when the need for a real fight arises, they are already trained and prepared to win.
The benefits of these aggressive games for winning real fights are clear (skill and strength); and in the case of economic competition, the valuable contributions to military conflicts are the learning of essentially analogous strategies (knowing how to fight, skill) and having money (strength, power) to acquire or build the weapons necessary to win a war.
2. One of them considers it unacceptable to play-fight with anyone else, and only two of his friends or relatives do so. Each of these two also refuses to fight with the other two members of this group of three, while everyone else on the island fights with everyone who is willing to fight; that is, each of these seven fights with six of the others. Taking this into account, who acquires greater skill and strength in fighting: those in the first group, who fight only two opponents each, or those in the second group, who fight six each? The answer is clear: Fighting with a greater variety and number of rivals trains and strengthens more than fighting with fewer.
What China has been doing for a long time, and increasingly so, is precisely what Group 2 does: open itself up to competing freely wherever it is allowed. And this is fundamentally why its capabilities (economic, industrial, financial, technological, military, and in every other aspect) are growing rapidly. What the United States is doing now, on the other hand, is a mixture of what Subject 1 in Case 1 does and what Group 1 in Case 2 does: remain comfortable and falsely secure, heading toward a daily, accelerated deterioration that will lead to subjugation by others who are better trained and stronger.
In a world where one side doesn't compete, the one that does will devour the other.
For at least the next 7 days I won't be able to write anything about this, because I'll be completely occupied with my work.
In the fourth part of this article, I will continue to discuss how to compete successfully with China and how to solve the problems of migration and drug trafficking to the U.S.
Backups of this publication:
May-04-2026
https://archive.is/L2kaGAbr-25-2026
https://archive.is/ofWXNAbr-23-2026