Why there will never be International Peace and Security: U.S. New World Order versus Global Resistance

Bola A. Akinterinwa

The notion of international peace and security is ambiguous because the word ‘international’ is differently used to mean different things. As founded and interpreted by Jeremy Bentham in 1780, ‘international’ means what transpires between any two nations. Whatever occurs between two countries, and not among, that is not more than two, is necessarily bilateral. When more than two nations are involved, we can talk about relations among three entities (trilateral ties). When it is more than three but not up to a universal scale, we talk about plurilateral relationships (such as ECOWAS of 15 or 12, EC of 12, EU of 28 or 27, and an African Union of 54 countries). When relationships are at the universal scale, we talk about multilateral relationships, as it is with the United Nations and its agencies.

Most unfortunately, several observers often use ‘international’, which etymologically only meant bilateral or two countries, to imply global or universal. Regardless of this, international peace, be it at the bilateral, plurilateral, or multilateral, level, cannot exist or be sustainable because the various world orders that had been put in place until now have been predicated on conflicting and competing international politics. International politics is largely that of ‘order versus counter-order’, amounting to an ‘encounter and disorder.’ Consequently, the declared quest for international peace and security by the United Nations is, at best, a myth.

And perhaps more disturbingly, the United States under President Donald Trump is sustaining the myth with its threats-driven imposition of American hegemony and American-defined new world order. Most countries are quietly resisting it because of the United States’ open disregard for international law. By so doing, President Donald Trump has turned the United States into an unacceptable terrorist state that takes much delight in kidnapping sovereign heads of state and promoting national unilateralism to the detriment of collective solidarity. If the main joy of the United States under Donald Trump is that it is the most powerful country in the world, and therefore, the purpose of the power is to oppress and replace the United Nations with Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, never can there be peace and security.    

Myths of International Peace and Security 

The U.S.-Israeli aggression on Iran is the first pointer to a foreseeable war that may last longer than the 100-yeat old, not to talk about the 30-year old, war that dovetailed into the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The Treaty laid the foundations for the modern state system, but there is nothing to suggest that the United States and Israel, as epitomes of modern states, ever wanted any sustainable peace, particularly in the Middle East. The so-called U.S. 15-point agenda for ceasefire and the 10-point agenda put forward by Iran through Pakistan as an interlocutor, are a mockery of any possible peace and security. In fact, the politics of it and the pertinent issues raised by Iran do not at all lend much credence to the feasibility of peace and security, because they all conflict with the U.S. desires. 

And true enough, the U.S. and Israel have always lent much credence to the postulation of Von Clausewitz that whoever wants peace should always prepare for war. For example, the U.S. and Israel live under a permanent fear of threats from self-chosen enemies to their sovereignty, and have therefore always gone beyond preparing for war. They actually kill and maim unarmed people within the framework of pre-emptive strikes contrarily to the spirit of legitimate self-defence. They are permanently in war with their perceived enemies and indirectly with the whole world. Unfortunately, the pre-emptive assaults are bastardising the image of the U.S. and Israel in an unprecedented manner.   

First is the myopia that has come to characterise the pre-emptive aggression on Iran on February 28, 2026. The aggression was aimed at completely neutralising the nuclear capability of Iran. Both the U.S. and Israelis have claimed to have achieved all their military objectives. They have reportedly destroyed Iranian nuclear sites. Additionally, the leading Iranian physicists were targeted and killed in the wrong belief that there will be no more of them. This belief is most unfortunate. It is on record that Iran not only has about 94% literacy rate with 80% of them having Master’s degrees and PhDs, but also has ‘the most PhDs in Nuclear Physics than any country in the world,’ to borrow the words of Scott Ritter. This partly explains the meaninglessness of the future of the ceasefire negotiations that began yesterday in Islamabad to bring the current Israelo-American imbroglio with Iran to an end.

Admittedly, the U.S. and Israel can win the battle but the likelihood of their winning the war is, at best, remote. Put differently, it is very myopic of Israelo-American strategic policy makers to think that, by totally destroying military assets and not only killing the main Iranian physicists and other scientists, but also destroying the factories for uranium enrichment, the war has been thrown into the dustbin of history. This is an error of miscalculation. Many Iranians are studying, even in the United States. There are several other Iranian scientists the world over who are not against their government. Their knowledge is an idea and the idea cannot be easily destroyed. People can always disagree with an idea, but the disagreement does not necessarily put an end to the existence of the idea. They can always reunite in defence of their patrie. What can happen to the ceasefire negotiations is the likely stoppage and suspension of battle or hot war. It does not and cannot stop the aspect of cold war that has the potential to subsist for a longer time to come. 

At the level of the ceasefire agenda, there is nothing to suggest the readiness of Iran to subject its sovereignty to any whim and caprice of the U.S. and Israel. Iran is asking for U.S. permanent guarantee of non-attack on Iran by the U.S. This means that there should never be any contemplation or dream of pre-emptive attack on Iranians. How does Donald Trump deal with this position? What is it that can change the perception of Iran as a threat to the U.S.? Will Israel, in the same vein, stop seeing Iran as an enemy? Israel is heavily bombarding Lebanon under the pretext of fighting the Hezbollah whereas the objective to seize new land for occupation. This cannot be helpful to sustainable peace and security.

Iran wants assurances of its right to full control of Strait of Hormuz. The Strait is located between Iran and Oman, linking the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. Its geo-political importance is generally explained by the fact that about 20% of global energy supplies pass through it daily. The closure of the Strait simply means stoppage of passage of about 20 million barrels of crude oil and products. In fact, it not only means countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar cannot export their goods, but will enhance a lot of revenues for Iran. This cannot but be a reason for Iran to insist on its position in Islamabad.

Iran also wants to keep the right to enrich uranium for its nuclear programmes which can be for peaceful or belligerent purposes. The Nuclear Weapons States (NWS), which are also the Permanent-5 (China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and United States) of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), want to be the exclusive nuclear powers in the world and do not want any other country considered their enemy jointly or severally to have any access to nuclear capability. Right from the time of informal negotiations for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as from 1963, and particularly as from 1965 when formal negotiations followed, France and China made it clear that they were not interested in the treaty because they did not want the treaty to limit their strategic independence. And true, they were still in the process of perfecting their nuclear capability system by then. Eventually, on March 9, 1992 and August 3, 1992, China and France lately signed the treaty respectively even though the treaty was already opened for signature in 1968. Countries that had the intention to acquire nuclear capability, such as India, Israel, and Pakistan, refused to sign it in 1968. The conventional view today is that the three of them have now successfully developed nuclear capability, but the problem of nuclear non-proliferation is yet to be generally and permanently resolved. Iran and North Korea are current cases of concern.

Iran also wants an end to the war on Iran and its allies, particularly in Lebanon. One issue in it is the problem of ‘Iranian Axis of Resistance’ (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza), also referred to as the Iranian ‘forward defence’ in the struggle against the U.S. and Israel. In the eyes of Israel, the ‘Axis of Resistance’ is nothing more than an ‘Axis of Evil.’ In this regard, Iran, considering that any ceasefire must have a holistic character, claims that Lebanon falls squarely within the framework of the ceasefire to be negotiated in Islamabad, Pakistan but the U.S. and Israel deny this and are not showing preparedness to have it included on the agenda for negotiation. 

More interestingly, there is the question of de-freezing Iranian assets and stopping all sanctions against Iran. Mohammad Bagher, Speaker of Iranian Parliament, has put the value of frozen Iranian assets at $120bn. Iran wants the freezing of its assets lifted as a condition for ceasefire negotiation in Pakistan. Iran also wants the removal of all U.S. sanctions on Iran, all UNSC and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolutions against Iran. More importantly, Iran wants all its frozen assets returned, full compensation for damages of war paid, as well as removal of U.S. combat forces from the Middle East. Additionally, Iran has been insisting that there would not be any negotiations in the absence of ceasefire in Lebanon.

 For the United States, the major point of concern is no enrichment of uranium in Iran, the Strait of Hormuz must not be closed and must not be under the control of Iran, and that ceasefire negotiations cannot extend to the allies of Iran. Iranian response is that only 15 vessels are allowed to pass through the Strait per day and that this is subject to payment of $2m transition fee. What is the fate of peace and security with this type of development?

U.S. New World Order versus Global Resistance

As noted earlier, there is no New World Order, stricto sensu, but there is an American New World Order being forcefully pushed to the world to consider and accept under a manu militari sanction. The U.S. New World Order (USNWO) is defined by President Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ foreign policies, both of which require the subjugation of all other countries to the acceptance of the whims and caprices of the United States. There are many examples to illustrate our observation. First, on Thursday, April 9, 2026, President Trump threatened 50% tariffs on all countries supplying Iran with weapons (vide Reuters.com). In this regard, how do we justify the need for one sovereign state teaching another, not to say compelling, another sovereign state how to behave in international relations? Does the openly-declared imposition of sanctions against a sovereign state not negate the provision of Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter on non-intervention in the domestic preserve of another sovereign state?

Secondly, there is the issue of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) done in 1968. Iran was a signatory to it, and by so doing, has the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. This right is enabled by the treaty. The U.S. is vehemently opposed to any enrichment of uranium in Iran. This is one major rationale for the various military strikes on Iran by Israel and the U.S. In the controversial ceasefire agenda given by the U.S. for negotiation, Americans want an end to ‘all uranium enrichment on Iranian soil.’ In the words of the U.S. Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, Iran would ‘never have a nuclear or the capability to get the path to one.’ 

In this regard, why should some countries be allowed or be helped to develop nuclear capability and some others will be prevented? Why should Donald Trump threaten and launch operation Epic Fury to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon when the same Iran is saying that building a bomb is never its own agenda? Does Trump’s threat to destroy the civilian energy and transportation infrastructure in Iran ensure the safety and security of Americans anywhere in the world?

Thirdly, the disagreement between the NWS and the Non-nuclear Weapons States (NNWS) of the world since 1968 is yet to disappear. The non-nuclear states viewed the NPT as most unfair, discriminatory, and as ‘nuclear apartheid,’ because they were unnecessarily barred from acquiring nuclear capability. Their request for a binding deadline for nuclear disarmament was also rejected by the NWS. 

This explains why Article VI of the treaty which provides for disarmament does not have any deadline. In resistance to this policy of no nuclear proliferation, the NNWS insisted on their right to use technology for development, especially in the area of energy and medicine. 

The NWS agreed cautiously as Article IV only guaranteed peaceful nuclear cooperation under safeguards. The major problem here is that the method or procedure for enriching uranium for bombs and war making is not different from the procedure for enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. This is where the issue of trust in who should have access to nuclear capability becomes another problematic entirely.  As peaceful nuclear cooperation is provided for, the need for verification and inspection also arises. While the NWS are insisting on strong inspection regimes, the non-nuclear states fear that strong inspection regimes have the potential to infringe on their sovereignty. As a result, they are asking for security guarantees and insisting on protection from nuclear threats. With the way President Trump is threatening the use of nuclear bombs, the NWS have become most unreliable in ensuring international peace and security. The NWS do not want nuclear disarmament and do not want others to acquire nuclear capability without their consent.

Fourthly, Pakistan, as an interlocutory mediator, has an international backing in undertaking to mediate the imbroglio between the U.S. and Israel, on the one hand, and Israel and its allies, on the other. Article 33 of the UN Charter stipulates peaceful methods for settling inter-state disputes: negotiations, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, etc. Pakistan has adopted the mediation approach, bearing in mind the lawful requirements of mediation.

Without whiff of doubt, Pakistan has warm relations with the U.S., Iran, and the Arab countries, which is an important requirement to qualify to be an interlocutor in the dispute under international law. Unlike a legal method of dispute resolution (such as arbitration, judicial settlement, adjudication, etc.), mediation as a method of resolving disputes in international relations is necessarily non-binding. It is voluntary and always consent-driven. All parties to a dispute must accept the spirit of mediation. They can accept or reject proposals by the mediator and they can always withdraw, as well as retain their right to accept proposals offered by the interlocutor.

A mediator must therefore show impartiality in order to build trust. Without proven evidence of neutrality in the mediation processes, the final outcome may end up being thrown into the dustbin of history. A mediator cannot impose any verdict. Parties to a dispute must show good faith to the mediation efforts. Thus, a mediator cannot but play an important role in dispute resolution, by not only initiating dialogues and identifying the conflicting interests, but also by clarifying the facts involved and proposing possible terms of settlement. His mediation efforts must not aggravate the dispute.

There is no New World Order yet, in its true sense. What is emerging is the United States New World (USNWO) to which several Member States of the international community are opposed. The USNWO is the imposition of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great’ policies of Donald Trump. The policies are defined by issuance of coercive threats and pre-emptive attacks on perceived enemies in disregard to the provisions of the UN Charter. Iran was aggressed by the U.S. and Israel twice when there were ongoing peaceful negotiations for peaceful settlement of the dispute. The last aggression on February 28, 2026 was meant to neutralise Iran militarily. In fact, the U.S. made it clear on March 6 that only unconditional surrender of Iran would be acceptable. To ensure this, Israeli missiles, drones, and bombs have destroyed Iranian nuclear assets and people in thousands but the drones and missiles have failed to destroy Iran’s strategic calculations. Iran responded, after losing the battles, with the diplomacy of Strait of Hormuz, which has shown to be more potent an instrument of war than missiles and drones. This also opened the eyes of Iran on how best to use the Strait for legitimate self-defence and economic development. Although all Israelo-U.S. war objectives in Iran have reportedly been achieved as told by Donald Trump, the achievement has also generated domestic military disorderliness. More than 30 U.S. Generals have reportedly disobeyed Donald Trump’s military directives. According to Chuck Baldwin (libertyfellowshippmt.com), the military Generals have refused to execute Donald Trump’s orders to commit war crimes and send troops to Iran. 12 of them have been dismissed, including the Commander of U.S army ground forces. U.S. power and greatness is destabilising at home and abroad. It is not helpful to the maintenance of peace and security. 

Chuck Baldwin has advised that if the U.S. Vice President, J.D. Vance, and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, have conscience, and they still want political appointment in the future, they should take advantage of the 25th Amendment and seek to impeach Donald Trump. As such, what beauty is there if, after purportedly winning the war or achieving all the target military objectives, Americans still want the removal of Donald Trump?