May 16—The EIR Emergency Roundtable May 15 on “The Iran War and the ‘Controlled Disintegration’ of the World Economy,” jointly convened with the 154th weekly meeting of the International Peace Coalition, to produce a substantive convergence of policy proposals and actions that may, if pursued, alter the trajectory of current history.

This was the fourth such EIR online international forum since January this year, sponsored to further dialogue and initiatives toward putting the world on a pathway to a new paradigm of economic development, security and peace. During the three-hour deliberation, video archived in full, eight experts, from six countries in Asia, the Americas, and Europe, made presentations and discussed follow-on action.

Former Turkish Prime Minister (2014-2016) and Foreign Minister (2009-2014) Ahmet Davutoğlu set out the proposal he had issued in Project Syndicate last month for “A New Security Architecture for the Middle East,” including proposals on the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program, regional security, and the Palestinian people. He framed the moment as a political earthquake shaking the world, and stressed that what the world most needs now is predictability—a quality not particularly associated with the current U.S. President Donald Trump.

In the dialogue that followed, EIR Editor-in-Chief Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, intervened to ask Davutoğlu whether he would personally contact the mediator nations he had proposed—Türkiye, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia—and put before them not only his own new security architecture, but Lyndon LaRouche’s Oasis Plan for economic development in the region. This could be funded by sources such as the Gulf States’ sovereign wealth funds. Davutoğlu agreed, and developed the point even further: combining his geostrategic vision with the economic-development perspective put forward by Zepp-LaRouche, he said, is the right approach. The best path to peace, in his words, runs through economic interdependence.

This combined approach was endorsed by Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus from Princeton University, and leading world scholar on human rights and international law. He said that the morality of the entire world is being tested at this moment; the answer cannot be containment or attrition, but a substantive cooperation that goes beyond diplomacy.

Zepp-LaRouche identified a concrete opening: China currently holds the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council, and has set the revitalization of the UN Charter as one of its three principal priorities during this month. That, she proposed, is an immediate venue in which the combined economic-development perspective–Oasis Plan framework could be advanced. The Roundtable’s convergence of concepts gives the proposal a constituency it has not previously had.

On May 26, the UN Security Council will conduct a high-level open debate on “Upholding the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter and Strengthening the UN-Centered International System.” Held at the ministerial level, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi is expected to personally moderate the proceedings.

Danger of Dark Age

Zepp-LaRouche warned that if the Iran war continues, we face the danger of a global depression that may possibly devolve into a dark age. The Pentagon has revised its estimate of the cost of the war to $29 billion, but EIR, taking into account the cumulative effects on the global economy due to inflated energy costs and disruption of supply chains, estimates $4 trillion. None of the goals stated by the architects of the war has been achieved. According to international agencies, the war has thrust 45 million more people into acute hunger, due in particular to shortages in fertilizers which are essential for agriculture.

Zepp-LaRouche reviewed the solutions which have been offered by the LaRouche movement, including the Oasis Plan, the World Landbridge, and her own Ten Principles for a New Security and Development Architecture.

H.E. Abolfazl Pasandideh, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Mexico, concurred that the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran has created a global economic crisis which affects everyone. “Iran plays a key role in global energy security,” he emphasized. The problem is not just a rise in oil and gasoline prices, but there is also a ripple effect which causes rising costs for many basic commodities around the world and a disruption of supply chains, with the developing nations suffering the most. But this has also placed “a heavy burden on the U.S. economy.” Israel has also experienced deleterious effects. “This war showed us how fragile the world economy really is,” Pasandideh said, adding that the war revealed one important truth: No complex problem can be solved through war and destruction. In addition to the loss of life and economic and environmental devastation, cultural sites which are the shared heritage of all humanity have been damaged. Pasandideh asked the listeners to imagine where the world could be today, if that path of dialogue and peace had been chosen. Billions of dollars could have been invested in economic development instead of war.

Prof. Falk charged that Trump’s “bullying geopolitics” represents an attempt to create and exploit crises for political ends. In Israel, Trump’s policy rewards the criminals and punishes the victims. Falk referred to Trump as a “leader of demonstrated mental instability…. This should be an intolerable situation for the entire world.”

Falk went on to say that “the UN has shown its helplessness before such diplomatic abuses” by endorsing the “Board of Peace,” which represents an outcome of rewarding genocide. The idea that a war of choice is an acceptable policy option represents the negation of international law. However, commenting on Trump’s visit to China, Falk described his “appetite for positive relations with geopolitical rivals” as “a brighter side” of U.S. diplomacy.

Falk concluded by saying that, “Iran has demonstrated a courageous resilience” in the face of naked, hypocritical aggression, whose authors are alleging an Iranian plan to acquire nuclear weapons while hiding Israel’s real nuclear arsenal.

Proposal for Security in the Region

Davutoğlu said that predictability is necessary for the world economy to function. Trump has destroyed this, he said, replacing it with a world where, if you have power, you can do anything you want. The significance of maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz has been highlighted by this war (which underscores the importance of overland transportation routes like those envisioned in the LaRouche World Land-Bridge concept).

Davutoğlu agreed with Zepp-LaRouche that the cost of the war is in the trillions, not billions of dollars. In his view, Trump has an “egoistic approach, some sort of psychological problem.” He proposes that a neutral third party control the Strait of Hormuz on an interim basis, naming as possible candidates Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Türkiye.

Davutoğlu went on to charge that Trump’s Board of Peace is really a “board of neocolonialism.” He added that if Israel is permitted to have nuclear weapons, no one in the region will renounce them; a regional nuclear-free zone is needed.

Zepp-LaRouche responded by suggesting that Davutoğlu’s proposals be combined with the Oasis Plan. She noted wryly that the Gulf States have massive sovereign wealth funds which could contribute to this, instead of “building ski resorts in the desert.” She suggested that Davutoğlu could approach the four nations he mentioned with this proposal. Davutoğlu, replying affirmatively, said that he agreed with her insistence that economic interdependence and development are the best route to peace.

Prof. Falk warned that giving a third party control over the Strait of Hormuz deprives Iran of its main leverage. The United States and Israel are not to be trusted, he said. “Is it reasonable to expect Iran to forfeit its one main means of protection” without some reliable guarantees? In response, Davutoğlu clarified that under his proposal, the UN must provide a guarantee that during this interim period there will be no attacks on Iran, to allow for diplomacy. If the U.S. or Israel breaks its promises, control reverts to Iran.

‘Controlled Disintegration’

Prof. Lier Pires Ferreira is a researcher at the BRICS Center (Núcleo BRICS NuBRICS), located at Fluminense Federal University in Niterói, Brazil. He spoke in defense of the central role of the BRICS as a bastion against the hypocritical policies of the United States. The U.S., he said, is implementing “controlled disintegration,” provoking crises in order to reorganize the world to the benefit of oligarchical interests. This is the unstated agenda behind the Iran war, which is not an isolated incident, but part of a coordinated pattern intended to disrupt the ongoing shift to a multipolar world. Trump has pressured Brazil to collude with these policies. If it succumbs to the pressure, Brazil becomes a collateral victim of these policies. South American integration is needed, Pires Ferreira said, and Mercosur (the customs union comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) should be used as a shield against U.S. aggression.

The topic of “controlled disintegration” was explored in greater depth by EIR Ibero-American Editor Dennis Small (U.S.). The Strait of Hormuz, he said, was not closed by Iran—it was closed by the unprovoked U.S.-Israeli attack. He then developed some of the global repercussions, taking as examples one big country, India, and a small one, Honduras. In the case of India, he asked, why has the price of gasoline in India not risen at the pump? The government took the hit. In Honduras, with a population of only 11 million, 11% of the population has already fled to the United States, due to U.S. policies. The circumstances there are about to get much worse because of the Iran war. The point, Small emphasized, is that the global devastation is intentional. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said in 1978, “A controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate objective for the 1980s.” This policy came from an essay published by former editor of the London Economist Fred Hirsch at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), in the CFR’s “1980s Project.” Small described this policy as a continuation of Malthusianism, citing quotes from Thomas Malthus, Bertrand Russell, and Prince Philip, the late father of the present British monarch King Charles III.

H.E. Donald Ramotar, former President of Guyana (2011-2015), observed that over the past three decades we have had more frequent and widespread wars. The hopes we had at the end of the Cold War have been dissipated. The astronomical costs of these wars don’t tell the whole story, which is that they are accompanied by a descent into barbarism. The U.S. drive for world domination is a colonialist mentality. The Global South is seen simply as a huge source of raw materials. “The U.S. has a President who doesn’t seem to be very much informed or educated about what is taking place in the world…. The U.S. is hostile to any country or countries that offer any alternatives,” he said. Citing regional examples, he recalled that the United States pressured Panama to remove a normal, legitimate commercial agreement with China. “Cuba is not a failed state; Cuba is being made to fail” by economic pressure from the United States. This did not begin with Trump. “What seems to be a sign of strength is also a sign of weakness on their part,” because the United States acts out of desperation.

Frank Bornschein, a member of the City Council of Schwedt, Germany, described the deleterious effects of the global conflicts on the industrial economy of his city. He and his colleagues propose to make Schwedt a “peace city” rather than re-tool their failing industry for military production.

Sanjay Tripathi, a high-level civil servant in various Indian ministries, charged that the United States and Israel had exploited conflict to provide a pretext to carry out policies that they had already planned. “The stalemate must be broken” so that the world can move ahead, he said.

Dialogue Among the Panelists

Zepp-LaRouche returned to the topic of controlled disintegration, agreeing that the damage being done to the world economy by the neocon wars is intentional; the Malthusians fear that cameralism might join forces with socialism to break their intended sabotage of the economy.

Moderator Dennis Speed raised the point that, in addition to the CFR’s 1980s Project, we had Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), which targeted leading nations of the Global South for depopulation in order to secure resource control by the Anglosphere.

Dennis Small elaborated on the importance of this document, and mentioned Stephen Miran, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) under President Donald Trump. Miran is the primary architect of the so-called “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” a proposed economic strategy aimed at restructuring the global financial system to benefit the U.S. economy, with the threat of the use of military force to obtain this objective. Miran writes:

Because power projection is inextricable from the global security order America underwrites, we need to understand the question of reserve status as intertwined with national security. America provides a global defense shield to liberal democracies, and in exchange, America receives the benefits of reserve status—and, as we are grappling with today, the burdens.

A Heightened Level of Activism

There was a discussion of previous decades when there were major demonstrations against war plans, and the fact that such a level of activism is missing today. Small spoke of the possibility of middle-level countries joining forces to influence events, as the Non-Aligned Movement did in the middle of the last century. Brazil stood up to Trump, but Brazil can’t do it alone. The new trade routes which have emerged between Iran and India are very important. The Iran and Ukraine conflicts were chosen, in part to prevent the consolidation of trade routes between Asia and Europe.

Zepp-LaRouche said that we need the nations of the Global South to speak with one voice, because they collectively are the majority. Ramotar commented that the BRICS lacks the programmatic unity of the Non-Aligned Movement, and that in particular they need a unified position on de-dollarization to extract concessions from the Anglophile bloc.

Regular IPC meetings resume May 22, with a continued focus on the importance of people from all nations and ideological persuasions joining forces to stop the war juggernaut.

—Jason Ross contributed to this article.