As salaamu alaykum, dear readers:
Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares have a new article:
If not stopped soon, this war could easily turn into a global conflagration, effectively into World War III
Jeffrey D. Sachs & Sybil
Fares | March 16,
2026 | Common Dreams
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/how-to-end-the-iran-war
They propose a five-step process.
First, "Israel and the US would stop their aggression and withdraw their forces. In turn, Iran would cease its retaliatory strikes. This would not be a mere ceasefire. Rather, it would be the first step of an overall peace agreement and collective security arrangement."
This is a mostly good statement, but the "overall peace agreement and collective security arrangement" is problematic. It is impossible to make "agreements" with USA or isra3l; all the pressure of war lies on their side - when they stand down and end their hegemony, there is peace and security. Furthermore, the state of isra3l must cease to exist, and it has almost been erased by now.
Their second point is: Return to the JCPOA "under which Iran must strictly comply with IAEA monitoring and agreed limits on its nuclear program, while economic sanctions on Iran would be lifted."
The JCPOA was a supposed agreement with USA, which, as you have seen, can be dismissed on the whim of the next ideologue entering office in the administrative churn of "democracy." And why would nuclear control and inspections apply only to Iran? The occupied territory of Palestine, with that cancer called isra3l, must have its nuclear arsenal eliminated, and if it is allowed to exist, have its military capability eliminated.
Their third point is "the Strait of Hormuz would be quickly reopened, with safe passage jointly guaranteed by Iran and the GCC. The GCC countries would assert sovereignty over the military bases in their countries to ensure that the bases would not be used as launchpads for renewed offensive strikes against Iran."
The U.S. must be removed from all bases surrounding Iran, not just in the Persian Gulf. The bases between Iran and isra3l were never intended to protect the fat little Gulf monarchies, but rather were intended for the defence of isra3l.
Their fourth point is The Two-State Solution.
The supposed "Two-State Solution" is bullshit, a remnant of an imaginary policy developed decades ago with absolutely no understanding of Palestinian's attachment to THEIR homeland. There absolutely must be just one state - Palestine. It would be up to the Palestinians, of the own volition and under no other coercion, to decide if they wish to LEASE any portion of their land to any zionist settlers, who would be on good behaviour if they hope to extend their lease by renewal. These settlers would be required to disarm, their security would be guaranteed by their Lessor, and they would be prohibited from arms and surveillance systems development and manufacture, especially since they have no captive population (Palestinians) to demonstrate these systems on.
Their fifth point is "An End to Armed Belligerency - In conjunction with the two-state solution, all armed belligerency in the region would end forthwith, including the disarmament of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other armed non-state actors. In the case of Palestine, the disarmament of Hamas would underpin the authority of the Palestinian state. In the case of Lebanon, the disarmament of Hezbollah would restore Lebanon's full sovereignty, with the Lebanese Armed Forces as the sole military authority in the country."
People talk of "HAMAS" being disarmed. HAMAS is a democratically elected government in Gaza. Gaza (or all of Palestine) has a right to defend itself and with the belligerence if the zionist settler colony and its goal of total genocide of Palestinians, the right to resist unlawful occupation. HAMAS is an acronym. The word itself means "zeal" or "bravery" and the letters stand for "harakat almuqawamat al'iislamia."
With the One State of Palestine along with the abolition of the PA (Palestinian Authority) which is under control of the zionist settler colony, there would obviously be no more internal battles within Palestine nor with their Lessee. In Lebanon, which is a Western aid-state, totally existing on foreign aid, the existing "Lebanese Armed Forces" have come under the influence of the zionist settler colony and are not interested in defending Lebanon. Lebanon has a right to defend itself; Hezb-Ollah (Party of God - Allah) would rightly take its place as the actual defence forces of Lebanon. There is no reason to expect there to be any violence between Lebanon and an actual state of Palestine.
In overall world affairs, there has been much discussion of the passing of the last "Arms Control Treaty" but this problem can be corrected along with the ending of the Ramadan War - since at every step of the arms race, with the U.S. being the instigator, the U.S. could begin unilaterally to dismantle their nuclear arms program, creating the opportunity for the rest of the world to follow suit.
This illegal attack on Iran fully demonstrates that the U.S. should come under international sanctions until it totally abandons its presumed role as "World Policeman," and ends it system of surrounding other nations (including China) with military bases, and attempting to control the world via its Military Commands system, and also returns to international climate-change mitigation efforts.
The authors go on to state that "Who, then, could champion a peace plan that the US and Israel will resist with every means at their disposal, until the weight of global opposition and economic catastrophe leaves them no choice but to accept it?"
They claim that the group which could do this is BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and now including UAE, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia. But let's get up-to-date here, please. India just kicked BRICS to the curb, by severely sucking-up to the zionist settler colony (isra3l) on February 26, two days before the Ramadan War started. Modi forsake a century-old relationship with Iran by his visit and hugging of Netanyahu just two days before the Ramadan War, and sacrificing the Iranian ship (just leaving India from an invited visit) to the U.S. to be attacked, then not helping to rescue the crew.
Sachs and Fares also talk about bringing these issues to the UN Security Council, but before that is a meaningful forum, any UNSC member involved in a "conflict" would be required to abstain from voting, and that is not counted as an abstention, but as an ineligibility. Furthermore, as I have recommended before, UNSC members must be chosen solely by the UN General Assembly, from a list of nations which HAVE NOT in the past five years, violated any part of the UN Charter. There would no longer be "Permanent Members." "isra3l" should be voted out of the General Assembly, since it is totally belligerent in its present form, and under a lease-agreement with Palestine, is no longer a nation. Furthermore, while the Ramadan War and transit restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz may cause economic calamity and increase a threat of nuclear attacks by certain unhinged hegemons, the greater threat of WW-III lies in Europe, with the increasing use of NATO-designed and built missiles aimed into Russia from Ukraine, as if Russia's security concerns have no validity and NATO can continue with its war on Russia until Russia is defeated and broken up for exploitation. All these WW-I type block-politic allegiances such as NATO and now the G-7 must be dismantled, and all international discussion, dispute resolution and diplomacy returned to a newly-functional United Nations. The UN Headquarters must be relocated to an actually neutral nation.
Leave a comment! This is a re-direct to my Substack page.
Return to Limits to Progress Main Page
If you would like to send a donation, please send an Interac eTransfer to email address below. Thank you!
©2026 Kathleen McCroskey
Send your e-mail comments and questions to: