Ex-Director of Serbian Central Bank Destroys Myths About Money And Debt | Dejan Šoškić

The explosion of military force against Iran, announced in a blunt and rhetorically charged address and accompanied by coordinated strikes, marks an inflection point in contemporary geopolitics. The conversation captures more than the immediate horror of smoke over Tehran and rising casualty counts; it dissects the legal, rhetorical, and strategic seams that have been stretched to breaking by a preventive—indeed, declarative—use of force. What emerges is a portrait of a major power reverting to old habits of unilateral coercion, even as the international order and regional stability teeter on the brink. The stakes are not only for Iranians and Americans, but for every neutral and nonaligned state watching how the rules of war and diplomacy are being rewritten in real time. ## A Turning Point: War Declared in the Night The announcement of large-scale military operations—delivered in the early hours and framed as both righteous and urgent—does something beyond signaling force: it changes the diplomatic landscape overnight. The conversation underscores that a formal declaration of war, whether couched in pious language or framed as preemption, is a decisive step with cascading consequences. Historical analogies are unavoidable: past presidencies have deployed similar moralistic narratives to justify force, yet each episode leaves a legacy of distrust. In this instance, the simultaneity of strikes and the tone of the speech convey not a calibrated response to an imminent attack, but an attempt at regime change under the guise of national security. That matters because it erodes the last threads of predictable state behavior and makes future dealings with the aggressor less tenable. Declarations of this magnitude are not simply signals to the target state; they are messages to allies, adversaries, and neutral states. The conversation emphasizes how states that once relied on negotiated channels—mediators, third-party intermediaries, regional convenings—now confront a reality in which those channels can be rendered meaningless overnight. That dynamic recalibrates the incentives for other states’ foreign policies, pushing many toward hedging, militarization, or deeper alignment with alternative security providers. ## The Legal and Moral Fragility of Preventive War At the core of the discussion is a sustained critique of preventive war as both legally dubious and morally corrosive. International law recognizes narrow categories—self-defense against an imminent attack and Security Council authorization—for the use of force. Preventive war, by contrast, rests on a speculative calculus: the belief that a future threat justifies present violence. The conversation draws attention to how this logic overturns the presumption against unilateral violence that the UN Charter sought to protect. Beyond legality lies the moral question of proportionality and discrimination. When a state announces the obliteration of military-industrial complexes and threatens “certain death” for those who resist, the line between combatant and non-combatant blurs. The conversation notes a particularly troubling dimension: the rhetorical conflation of security objectives with messianic promises of liberation. Such framing not only sanctifies violence but delegitimizes peaceful avenues of change, including internal reform movements whose fate becomes hostage to foreign military designs. The narrative also makes clear that national constitutional arrangements—in which war powers are vested in representative institutions—are sidelined when executives employ force unilaterally. That domestic bypass has ripple effects for democratic legitimacy and rule of law. ## Narratives, Lies, and the Manufacture of Consent A persistent theme in the exchange is how narratives—half-truths, selective memory, and outright falsehoods—build a scaffolding for military action. The conversation dissects the rhetorical techniques in the speech: historical grievance compressed into a continuous threat narrative, selective citation of past incidents, and the projection of absolute malign intent onto an entire regime. When such narratives are broadcast to domestic and global audiences, they serve to manufacture consent or, at least, to mute dissent. The discussion also underscores the fragility of the evidentiary claims underpinning the intervention. Reports that earlier attacks “obliterated” a nuclear program are now contradicted by recent diplomatic exchanges suggesting offers to suspend enrichment. That contradiction raises questions about the accuracy of intelligence assessments and the temptation of leaders to conflate rhetorical certainty with empirical proof. For neutral states and multilateral institutions, the erosion of a shared factual baseline complicates conflict resolution: when basic facts are contested, no impartial mediation can proceed from common ground. ## Regional Dynamics and the Logic of Escalation When the conversation shifts from rhetoric to regional consequences, a stark logic of escalation emerges. The coordinated nature of the initial strikes, followed by retaliatory missiles and proxy actions across the neighborhood, illustrates how localized interventions rapidly translate into theater-wide conflict. A crucial observation is that, once a state perceives it faces existential threat, its strategic calculus changes. With “nothing to lose,” deterrence frays; restraint gives way to maximal leverage, including asymmetric, proxy, and maritime interdiction tactics. The fragmentation of the region into overlapping conflicts—airbases struck, commercial shipping endangered, ports and cities at risk—creates multiple pressure points. States that previously managed crises through backchannels find themselves forced to pick sides or to reinforce neutrality through costly measures. The conversation notes the particular hazard of conflating territorial strikes with systemic decapitation of a state’s capacity to govern: the political vacuum such measures create can empower non-state actors and harden popular resistance, making the original objectives unattainable and the conflict more protracted. ## Domestic Politics and the Presidency’s Calculus Another strand of the discussion concerns the domestic political logic that can drive militarized foreign policy. Even when grand strategy is offered in noble terms, electoral optics, institutional survival, and the concentration of executive power often shape decisions. The conversation points out how a leadership facing domestic uncertainty—midterms, declining approval, factional pressure—can view military action as a means of agenda-setting or distraction. Such incentives interact dangerously with the media cycle: decisive, dramatic military moves produce immediate political salience, even as the long-term costs mount. The exchange also raises the worrying prospect of democratic erosion. When executives initiate major military operations without robust legislative endorsement, it normalizes bypassing parliaments and public debate. Over time, that practice can erode checks and balances and tilt national governance toward perpetual emergency, where foreign policy becomes a tool of short-term political survival rather than deliberative, accountable statecraft. ## What Neutral and Nonaligned States Can Do For states committed to neutrality or nonalignment, the crisis presents both peril and opportunity. The conversation emphasizes that neutrality cannot be passive: it requires active diplomacy, credible deterrence of coercion, and institutional resilience. Neutral actors can serve as mediators precisely because they are not parties to the conflict—but only if their impartiality is real and their channels remain open. That implies rapid, coordinated diplomatic outreach to de-escalate messaging, insistence on fact-based transparency, and protection of civilian infrastructure and personnel. Nonaligned states and regional organizations also have leverage

USA Attacks Iran. Trump Declares War. | Live with Warwick Powell The war has begun. Support us on substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com #Pascal Welcome, everybody, to a very sad and not unforeseen live stream—one I hoped we wouldn’t have to do. In fact, just a few hours ago, the big war between the United States, Israel, and Iran started, and it started in a way that some people predicted: a joint attack. Although I must say, the latest chatter was, of course, that Israel would strike first and then provoke a reaction by Iran, which would then draw in the United States. But no, that’s not what happened. It is a joint strike, and Donald Trump has already declared it. The pictures coming out of Tehran look pretty bad—large plumes of smoke—and I am very happy to be joined by my friend and colleague, Dr. Warwick Powell, in Brisbane, Australia. Warwick, welcome. #Warwick Powell Well, what terrible circumstances to be with you tonight—but it's always a pleasure to join you. Thank you. #Pascal No, and it is absolutely horrible. Thank you for making the time, because we just need to discuss what this now means. I do think that this day, the 28th of February, 2026, will be remembered the way we remember the 24th of February, 2022—you know, the time when the big, full-out war, the so-called “special military operation,” between Russia and Ukraine started. This changes things. But before we start, I’d just like to go very briefly over what we know so far. This war began with a U.S.- Israeli joint attack. We don’t have many pictures right now from Iran. I know that Glenn Diesen managed to speak to Mohammad Marandi already, so it seems that some kind of communication with Iran is still possible. And most importantly, what we have is a speech—a pretty unhinged speech by Donald Trump. Before you and I talk, I want us to listen to that, because basically, in my view, he just declared war, and he did it in one of the most difficult ways for the United States to ever come out on top of this. Here is Donald Trump speaking to us from a few hours ago. Again, for everybody, it’s the middle of the night in the United States—the attack began at around 1 a.m. U.S. time. It must have been about 6 or 7 a.m., maybe 8 a.m., in Tehran when the attack started. And here’s Donald Trump, in the dead of night, giving a speech. -- 1 of 24 -- #Donald Trump The United States military has begun major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime—a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world. For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted “Death to America” and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops, and innocent people in many, many countries. Among the regime’s very first acts was backing a violent takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding dozens of American hostages for 444 days. In 1983, Iran's proxies carried out the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American military personnel. In 2000, they knew of and were probably involved in the attack on the USS Cole. Many died. Iranian forces killed and maimed hundreds of American service members in Iraq. The regime's proxies have continued to launch countless attacks against American forces stationed in the Middle East in recent years, as well as U.S. naval and commercial vessels and international shipping lanes. It's been mass terror, and we're not going to put up with it any longer. From Lebanon to Yemen and Syria to Iraq, the regime has armed, trained, and funded terrorist militias that have soaked the earth with blood and guts. And it was Iran's proxy, Hamas, that launched the monstrous October 7th attacks on Israel, slaughtering more than 1,000 innocent people, including 46 Americans, while taking 12 of our citizens hostage. It was brutal—something like the world has never seen before. Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror and just recently killed tens of thousands of its own citizens in the streets as they protested. It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again: they can never have a nuclear weapon. That is why, in Operation Midnight Hammer last June, we obliterated the regime's nuclear program at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. After that attack, we warned them never to resume their malicious pursuit of nuclear weapons, and we sought repeatedly to make a deal. We tried. They wanted to do it. They didn’t want to do it. Again, they wanted to do it. They didn’t want to do it. They didn’t know what was happening. They just wanted to practice evil. But Iran refused, just as it has for decades and decades. They rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can’t take it anymore. Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland. Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had, and were actually armed with, nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message. For these reasons, the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing -- 2 of 24 -- operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally—again—obliterated. We are going to annihilate their navy. We are going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world, attack our forces, or use their IEDs—roadside bombs, as they’re sometimes called—to so gravely wound and kill thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans. And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. It’s a very simple message: they will never have a nuclear weapon. This regime will soon learn that no one should challenge the strength and might of the United States Armed Forces. I built and rebuilt our military in my first administration, and there is no military on earth even close to its power, strength, or sophistication. My administration has taken every possible step to minimize the risk to U.S. personnel in the region. Even so—and I do not make this statement lightly—the Iranian regime seeks to kill. The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we're doing this not for now; we're doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission. We pray for every service member as they selflessly risk their lives to ensure that Americans and our children will never be threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran. We ask God to protect all of our heroes in harm's way, and we trust that, with His help, the men and women of the armed forces will prevail. We have the greatest in the world, and they will prevail. To the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces, and all of the police, I say tonight: you must lay down your weapons and you will have complete immunity—or, alternatively, face certain death. So lay down your arms; you will be treated fairly, with total immunity, or you will face certain death. Finally, to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your homes. It’s very dangerous outside—bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will probably be your only chance for generations. For many years, you have asked for American help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let's see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass. May God bless the brave men and women of America's armed forces. May God bless the United States of America. May God bless you all. #Pascal Thank you. Unhinged, insane, incredible—a declaration of war, a declaration of war crimes. I just must remind everybody: police forces are civilian forces. Police forces are not legitimate targets in war. Even more insane than anything before. Please, Warwick, your reaction. -- 3 of 24 -- #Warwick Powell Well, I'm glad, firstly, that you played it on fast forward, because it's the second time I've watched it in the last few hours, and I don't think I could have sat through it again at normal speed. A number of reactions. Obviously, this is the “peace president” explaining how he is the peace president. I'm being facetious, of course. If we actually break down a little bit of what's happened to date, and also what is included in that speech, I think it's quite clear that the United States has, for a long time— and particularly this administration and the machinery of state that supports it—had the Iranian government in its sights. And we have had a clear declaration of regime change tonight. The fact that this particular attack was launched while the United States was supposedly in the middle of negotiations with the government of Iran really reinforces that, particularly in recent months, the United States has shown an inability to negotiate in good faith. This is going to have long-term ramifications for how other nations—bigger and more powerful ones—will ultimately view the United States. Nothing can happen without consequence. I also noticed that he talked a lot about—you know, well, I mean, you pointed out that he essentially declared war—and he talked about it in both religious terms and noble terms. This, of course, has been the mantra of the United States for at least the last 35 years, and arguably going back to some of its other conflicts during the Cold War period, particularly when it mobilized wars in the name of fighting communism. American scholars Monica Duffy Toft and her colleague Sidita Kushi published a book a couple of years ago—which I might add, I would highly recommend people read—called *Dying by the Sword: The Militarization of American Foreign Policy.* And it goes through in great detail the data on American military interventions over the course of the last 249 years—250 years now, since the founding of the United States—and concludes that the United States is a nation addicted to military intervention. And sadly, what we’re seeing again today is the behavior of an addict that can’t let go of military interventions as a way of dealing with the challenges of the world. If I might say one last thing, Pascal—if I may say one last thing—the United States, in pursuing this particular action, clearly is not acting in a narrowly defined sense of American national interest. President Trump talked about the supposed threat that Iran posed to the United States. I don't think there is any reasonable observer or analyst who would say that Iran has posed a threat—let alone is in a position to pose a threat—to the United States, especially the United States mainland. The idea that President Trump speaks about concerns for American military bases in other parts of the world simply reminds me that the United States has military bases all over the world. And you have to wonder why, in fact, they're there. What we're seeing today is the United States acting out, in its desperation, the role of the 21st-century rogue. It's a role that it accused others of about 24 years ago. -- 4 of 24 -- Everything about today smacks o