Helga Zepp-LaRouche: “The idea of a European security order which excludes Russia is not viable”

We had the privilege of corresponding with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute and wife of the late economist, statesman, and founder of the LaRouche Movement, Lyndon LaRouche. She responded to our questions in writing. In this exchange, she shares her analysis of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, the erosion of international law, the crisis gripping the Western financial system, and the urgent need for a new world order grounded in development as the foundation of lasting peace.

Q: Mrs. Helga, the recent US–Israeli strikes on Iran are officially framed in terms of deterrence and nonproliferation, yet many in the Global South read them as coercive signaling against strategic autonomy. How do you interpret the underlying strategic logic of these operations, and what do they reveal about the current trajectory of US power projection?

HZL: At the latest since the adoption of NSSM-200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200), a 1974 US government document that was classified until July 3, 1989, under provisions of Executive Order 12356, the US claimed, and claims now, essentially the right to control strategic resources of the world in order to “protect supply chains vital to US economic and security interests.” NSSM-200 framed population growth in resource-rich developing countries as a potential threat to U.S. access to strategic minerals. According to that logic, both the oil and gas of Venezuela and Iran really should be under the control of the US.

During his February 5, 2026, testimony before the US Senate Banking Committee, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent admitted that they had engineered a “dollar shortage” leading to the collapse of one of the largest banks in Iran in December, sanctioning every stage of Iran’s oil supply chain, causing inflation to explode, and he called that “economic statecraft.” He stated, “The rats are leaving the ship, and that is a good sign that they know the end may be near.” So that had obviously nothing to do with deterrence and nonproliferation, but everything to do with regime change, first with economic warfare, then with military means.

Q: You have warned that we are in “the most dangerous period in history.” In escalation management terms, how does the attack on Iran interact with existing flashpoints — from Ukraine to the Western Pacific — and what concrete pathways to inadvertent great power confrontation concern you most?

HZL: While all these flashpoints have their specific historic, geographical, and political reasons, there is an underlying geopolitical dynamic for all of them. When the Cold War ended, instead of establishing a true peace order for the 21st century, which would have absolutely been possible, the Anglo-American neocons attempted to establish a unipolar world and euphorically declared “the end of history,” meaning that the whole world would accept the western liberal model. The attempt to impose that model led to a gigantic blowback, and as a result, the Global South is in the process of creating a new world economic system, which allows them to overcome 500 years of colonialism.

Since these countries represent 85% of humanity and thus are clearly the Global Majority, the idea to suppress their development is clearly a delusion. The greatest danger comes from another delusion cherished by some circles in the US and Great Britain, that it would be possible to fight and win a tactical nuclear war, when it has been demonstrated by several top nuclear military scientists that the use of any nuclear weapon would escalate within five days to a global nuclear war, followed by a nuclear winter, ending all life on the planet.

The only way to avoid such a tragic end to civilization is to convince the countries of the not-so-collective West anymore that it is in their best interest that they have to give up geopolitics, which led to two world wars in the 20th century, and cooperate with the countries of the Global Majority. As of now that does not look very likely, but many of these governments have very low voter support, which means that the electorate feels not represented by them. So, things can change quickly, provided the people can see a clear alternative.

Q: Critics argue that the strikes on Iran further erode the already fragile norms of the UN Charter and international law. From your perspective, what specific precedents have been set, and how might they influence the behavior of other states seeking room for maneuver outside the US-centric security architecture?

HZL: In an interview with the NYT on January 7th, President Trump insisted that he does not need........

© New Eastern Outlook