COMMENTARY: Israel at the centre of a U.S. war against Iran

Image credit: Adobe Stock.

If a catastrophic, no-holds-barred war breaks out between the United States and Iran and thousands of American troops are killed by Iranian ballistic missile attacks on US bases in the Gulf region and on U.S. Navy vessels within range of the Iranian coastline, an angered American population will need to reflect on why such a conflict broke out.

They will need to ask the following questions:

1. Does Iran pose a threat to American national security?
2. How many Iranian-allied Shia militias in Iraq and Lebanon have carried out attacks on defenceless American citizens?
3. What is the true reason why Iran was threatened and attacked?

The answers are:

1. No, Iran does not pose any threat whatsoever to America. It has not invaded another country for over 200 years, and it has only responded to attacks on it when:

. Invaded by the Western and Sunni Arab backed action by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussien in 1980
. The Donald Trump-approved assassination of General Qassem Soleimani
. The Donald Trump approved preemptive attack on Iran in June 2025 and the US bombing of Iranian nuclear energy development sites.

2. A range of statistical data shows that attacks on Western civilian targets by Muslim extremists have come from Sunni groups of the al-Qaeda variety -the very groups supported by the CIA and Israeli intelligence in various theatre conflicts such as the ‘dirty war’ in Syria.

3. America's reason for attacking Iran is because of pressure from the State of Israel and Zionist lobby groups in the United States.

This is a plain and simple fact.

Zionist Israel operates under an ideology which entails that Israel must expand it territory which was ruthlessly taken from Palestinian inhabitants and must maintain undisputed military and economic hegemony in the region.

Iran is hated by Israel because it backs the Palestinian cause. It also backs Hezbollah, the Shia Lebanese party, which has prevented Israel from expanding its border into southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.

Now, the U.S. Senator named Lindsay Graham recently invoked the name of the late President Ronald Reagan in an attempt to pressure Trump into acting against Iran.

What Graham does not grasp is that Ronald Reagan correctly believed that the United States had been lured into Lebanon by the Israelis when embarked on a murderous invasion of that country in the early 1980s. When American (and French) troops were massacred by Shia forces in Beirut (a reponse to massacres of Shia civilians when U.S. navy carriers were shelling the Bekaa valley), Reagan did not spark an all out war against Lebanon - he withdrew American forces because he realised that Israel wanted to use the U.S. to wage war against Lebanon on Israel's behalf.

Subsequent U.S. Presidents have been unable to resist Israeli pressure aimed at luring the United States into West Asia to fight wars on its behalf. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and “Operation Timber Sycamore”, the CIA orchestrated covert war against the secular Ba'athist government in Syria begun in 2011, are two examples.

Iran has been targeted for destruction by Israeli interests for decades. Binyamin Netanyahu has long spearheaded this campaign since the 1990s, continually and erroneously citing Iran being on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Other Israeli leaders have also called for the same. For instance, in 2003 when the United States was on the verge of attacking Iraq, the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called on America to disarm “Iran, Libya and Syria”.

Pro-Zionist think tanks have also promoted the idea of attacking Iran. These include the now defunct neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) which was co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan and the Israeli-affiliated Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), which produced the 1996 document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”.

The recollections of retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark pertaining to what he described as the “hijacking” of U.S. foreign policy by neoconservative figures in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks are also revealing. Clark told of how former colleagues at the Pentagon alerted him to the existence of a secret memorandum detailing how the United States was going to “take out seven countries in five years”. They were to be Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

The rationale here was to bring down key states who were opposed to Israeli domination of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria and Libya were led by secular Arab nationalist governments, while Lebanon’s Shia Hezbollah military force resisted Israeli expansion and Shia Iran supported Hezbollah, as well as the cause of Palestine.

These pressures to remould the Middle East in a way to favour Zionist hegemony go far back to the time of the creation of Israel. for instance in on March 31^st, 1948, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States presented a paper entitled “Force Requirements for Palestine”, part of which read that 'Zionist strategy will seek to involve (the United States) in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.'

But this warning went unheeded.

In 2019 wrote the following in an essay I titled "An Examination of the History of the Pro-Zionist Lobby":

'Many of America’s most important military commanders at that time were of the opinion that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine would adversely affect the strategic interests of the United States in “the Near and Middle East” and that Zionists would lobby the American government to pursue actions and policies that would not be in the country’s interests. This was clearly the opinion of General George Marshall, a Chief of Army Staff, who later as Secretary of State clashed with President Harry Truman over US recognition of Israel.'

Sadly, this blind obedience of the U.S. political and military class to the interests of a foreign state is leading America into an abyss from which it will be unlikely to recover because its leaders are bought off and/or blackmailed to act against its own national interests.

 © Adeyinka Makinde (2026).

 Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

A critique of Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s claim that Britain has been “colonised” by immigrants who are draining resources from the state

In an interview with Sky News, the English billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe claimed that Britain has been "colonised" by immigrants who are draining resources from the state.

But what does "colonised" mean?

. Do these "colonisers" control the levers of political power? No, they don't.

. Do many of these "colonisers" come from countries which were exploited by the British Empire when it colonised a good deal of the earth? Yes, they do.

. Do many of these recent "colonisers" come from countries where Britain participated in or supported illegal overt and covert wars overseen by the U.S. Empire? Yes, they do.

. Are many of these "colonisers" used as cheap labour? Yes, they are.

. Do the majority of these "colonisers" pay business and income taxes? Yes, they do.

. Do these "colonisers" staff vital institutions such as the National Health Service as doctors and nurses where they are overrepresented, albeit underrepresented as senior management in its bureaucracy? Yes, they do.

. Meanwhile after "draining" resources from the nations where these "colonisers" originate during the era colonisation and now through the usurious global financial system and corporate primacy in the age of neoliberalism, this odious tax exile and his supporters wallow in their self-satisfied "telling-it-like-it-is" delusion.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2026).

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Project Overthrow: The Iranian Exile Community and the Dream of Destroying the Islamic Republic

Iranian exiles deserve a place in the pantheon of global exiles along with the Miami Cubans.

With the exception of the Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK) terror group, they are not as deadly as those Cubans who affixed themselves to the US National Security State. Think: Bay of Pigs, Watergate, the drug lords who worked in the service of the CIA and, of course, the Cuban CIA man Felix Rodriguez's role in tracking Che Guevara and overseeing his execution by soldiers of the Bolivian army.

But the level of hatred and willingness to "liberate" their countries from "usurping" Communist and theocratic governments by any means necessary and at any cost is a thing to behold.

As for the Iranian exiles who are concentrated in places such as "Tehran-geles" on the US West Coast, I am simply bemused as to how they are taken in by every negative about the anti-Islamic government regardless of its truth, semi-truth or untruth.

I will say that much of the Western media-disseminated narrative about the protests in Iran has consisted of many distortions and outright untruths.

Yet many in the Iranian diaspora who listento the anti-Mullah propaganda on BBC, US and Gulf Arab-owned Persian-language stations are either oblivious of this or do not care that the aim of those foreign actors who wish to destroy the Islamic government care nothing about the harm and destruction to ordinary Iranians if any of their so-far failed regime change plots ever come to fruition.

First of all, the US government together with Israel and its Arab Gulf allies attacked the Iranian currency through a series of currency manipulations that led to the collapse of one Iranian bank and misery for the Iranian population and its business class known as the Baazaris.

How can you be an Iranian "patriot" if you know the sort of harm crashing a currency does to the wider population?

The Bazaaris staged peaceful protests due to the hardships caused by the devaluation of the currency but this led to stage two of an intended regime change plot.

The discontent created the opportunity for Israeli intelligence, no doubt with the backing of their American counterparts, to infiltrate the protests and expand them.

I ask myself whether those in the exile community backing the so-called protests are aware that among those who took to the streets were Mossad and CIA-trained and directed Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs. Many of the Baluchis and Arabs were sleeper cells activated for the purpose of stirring violence, while Kurdish infiltrators (many of who were caught trying to enter Iran because of a tip off by Turkish intelligence) sought to join in the mayhem. It is also likely that members of the Iranian MEK who commit acts of terror within Iran at the behest of Israel and the United States were shipped in from their base in Albania.

These gunmen and saboteurs destroyed mosques, government buildings and attacked Iranian police, killing over 300 of them.

They also shot and killed ordinary Iranians.

Thus, what happened earlier this month were not a series of "peaceful protests" organised by democracy-loving members of the Iranian populace but was in fact an armed insurgency orchestrated by foreign actors with motives which are far from wanting to engineer the creation of a powerful and successful Iranian nation state.

The violent insurrection was put down not by the Iranian government mowing down thousands of "peaceful protests" with gunfire, but by the Iranians -perhaps with the help or either Russia or China- hacking into Starlink to cutoff the instructions being relayed to the puppet gunmen by their Mossad handlers.

The falsehoods in relation to the amount of casualties and the duration of the disorder still seem prevalent among Iranian exiles.

What all should bear in mind, especially those among the Iranian exile community, is that if the attempt at regime change had succeeded, the result would not be the enthronement of "democracy" with the promise of "peace" and "prosperity" but the balkanisation and impoverishment of Iran including the Persian heartland.

The largely non-Persian (apart from the MEK) gunmen belong to separatist movements whose goals fit into the long-term objective of Zionist Israel to split the neighbouring Arab and Muslim world into small ethno-states.

The present United States government for its part, just as the predecessor administration which authorised "Operation Ajax" in 1953, wants American oil companies to control the oil and gas resources in the Persian Gulf region.

It also wants to end Iran's pivot towards the emerging Eurasian world by blocking an essential part of China's new "Silk Road". An important component of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which seeks to consolidate a trade route from China to Russia via Iran.

If any of the exiles stop to think rationally about their support for the dismantling of the Iranian government they would discover that both Israel and the American government would not care if what remains of a fractured Iran lives in poverty and is engulfed in perpetual wars among ethnic Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis and others.

There is no opposition waiting within Iran to succeed the Mullahs. The narrative that the son of the late Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi would be a unifying figure capable of amassing huge levels of support is a laughable one which covers up the reality of the chaos which would follow the toppling of the Islamic government.

It is doubtful that any figure or movement within the Iranian diaspora has any influence in US government circles. But even if they did, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves about Niccolo Machiavelli’s frequent warnings about the danger of using desperate and emotionally-driven exiles in foreign policy and statecraft.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2026).

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

The American Gangster State: A Brief Comment on Matt Wuerker's Cartoon Depicting Donald Trump in the Mould of a Prohibition Era Gang Leader

Artwork: Matt Wuerker (Politico).

This image should include the military figures who blindly carry out illegal orders from an out-of-control, Wotan-like figure of a president who is using the US armed forces to promote his nefarious agenda of maritime blockade, regime change and resource theft.

As U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler wrote in his book War is a Racket which was published in the 1930s:

"I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."

© Adeyinka Makinde (2026).

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Nigeria's First Military Coup: Transcript of Major Nzeogwu's Speech Broadcast on Radio Kaduna on January 15th, 1966

Major Patrick Chukwuma Nzeogwu being interviewed by a foreign news crew a few days after the army coup of January 15^th, 1966.

January 15, 1966: Major Patrick Chukwuma Nzeogwu's Speech broadcast on Radio Kaduna around noon.

 

In the name of the Supreme Council of the Revolution of the Nigerian Armed Forces, I declare martial law over the Northern Provinces of Nigeria.

 

The Constitution is suspended and the regional government and elected assemblies are hereby dissolved. All political, cultural, tribal and trade union activitites, together with all demonstrations and unauthorized gatherings, excluding religious worship, are banned until further notice.

 

The aim of the Revolutionary Council is to establish a strong united and prosperous nation, free from corruption and internal strife. Our method of achieving this is strictly military but we have no doubt that every Nigerian will give us maximum cooperation by assisting the regime and not disturbing the peace during the slight changes that are taking place.

 

I am to assure all foreigners living and working in this part of Nigeria that their rights will continue to be respected. All treaty obligations previously entered into with any foreign nation will be respected and we hope that such nations will respect our country's territorial integrity and will avoid taking sides with enemies of the revolution and enemies of the people.

 

My dear countrymen, you will hear, and probably see a lot being done by certain bodies charged by the Supreme Council with the duties of national integration, supreme justice, general security and property recovery. As a interim measure all permanent secretaries, corporation charimen and senior heads of departments are allowed to make decisions until the new organs are functioning, so long as such decisions are not contrary to the aims and wishes of the Supreme Council. No Minister or Parliamentary Secretary possesses administrative or other forms of control over any Ministry, even if they are not considered too dangerous to be arrested.

 

This is not a time for long speech-making and so let me acquaint you with ten proclamations in the Extraordinary Orders of the Day which the Supreme Council has promulgated. These will be modified as the situation improves.

 

You are hereby warned that looting, arson, homosexuality, rape, embezzlement, bribery or corruption, obstruction of the revolution, sabotage, subversion, false alarms and assistance to foreign invaders, are all offences punishable by death sentence.

 

Demonstrations and unauthorized assembly, non-cooperation with revolutionary troops are punishable in grave manner up to death.

 

Refusal or neglect to perform normal duties or any task that may of necessity be ordered by local military commanders in support of the change will be punishable by a sentence imposed by the local military commander.

 

Spying, harmful or injurious publications, and broadcasts of troop movements or actions, will be punished by any suitable sentence deemed fit by the local military commander.

 

Shouting of slogans, loitering and rowdy behavior will be rectified by any sentence of incarceration, or any more severe punishment deemed fit by the local military commander.

 

Doubtful loyalty will be penalized by imprisonment or any more severe sentence.

 

Illegal possession or carrying of firearms, smuggling or trying to escape with documents, valuables, including money or other assets vital to the running of any establishment will be punished by death sentence.

 

Wavering or sitting on the fence and failing to declare open loyalty with the revolution will be regarded as an act of hostility punishable by any sentence deemed suitable by the local military commander.

 

Tearing down an order of the day or proclamation or other authorized notices will be penalized by death.

 

Ths is the end of the Extraordinary Order of the Day which you will soon begin to see displayed in public.

 

My dear countrymen, no citizen should have anything to fear, so long as that citizen is law abiding and if that citizen has religiously obeyed the native laws of the country and those set down in every heart and conscience since 1st October, 1960. Our enemies are the political profiteers, the swindlers, the men in high and low places that seek bribes and demand 10 percent; those that seek to keep the country divided permanently so that they can remain in office as ministers or VIPs at least, the tribalists, the nepotists, those that make the country look big for nothing before international circles, those that have corrupted our society and put the Nigerian political calendar back by their words and deeds. Like good soldiers we are not promising anything miraculous or spectacular. But what we do promise every law abiding citizen is freedom from fear and all forms of oppression, freedom from general inefficiency and freedom to live and strive in every field of human endeavour, both nationally and internationally. We promise that you will no more be ashamed to say that you are a Nigerian.

 

I leave you with a message of good wishes and ask for your support at all times, so that our land, watered by the Niger and Benue, between the sandy wastes and Gulf of Guinea, washed in salt by the mighty Atlantic, shall not detract Nigeria from gaining sway in any great aspect of international endeavour.

 

My dear countrymen, this is the end of this speech. I wish you all goodluck and I hope you will cooperate to the fullest in this job which we have set for ourselves of establishing a prosperous nation and achieving solidarity.

 

Thank you very much and goodbye for now.

 

Public domain.

 

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Global Spheres of Influence?

My take:

There are those who note the use of the phrase "spheres of influence" and the world "multipolarity" in the National Security Strategy (NSS) document issued by the Trump administration in November 2025.

This and the segment on the so-called "Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine", may be interpreted as dividing the globe into areas within which other powers will not insinuate themselves.

However, I maintain a contrary view.

My belief is that the NSS document is simply a redesigned "Wolfowitz Doctrine". That doctrine, which was enunciated during the immediate post-Cold War period in the 1990s, stated that after the dissolution of the USSR the United States would do what it could to prevent the rise of another power to take the place of the USSR. And in maintaining this unipolar world, the United States would dispense with multinational agreements and the strict rule of international law.

The United States will therefore continue to exert different forms of pressure to continue weakening Russia, as well as to contain China's economic rise.

Russia.

The claim that Trump is "abandoning" Ukraine as a proxy charged with helping to weaken Russia is an ill-informed one. Members of the Trump administration have previously spoken of a "division of labour" whereby Europe takes over the burden of financing the Ukraine war with the US profiting by providing the weapons.

After all, the NSS document also refers to "burden sharing" with a network of partners around the globe. This is where the Trump administration's insistence that its NATO allies increase defence spending comes in.

It is also pertinent to note that the CIA is heavily involved in aiding Ukraine in its attacks on Russian territory using drone warfare. Ukraine has been militarily defeated by Russia in a conventional war but the United States (and its NATO allies) will help it continue to fight Russia not only through drone attacks, but by using insurgency techniques which include sabotage and conducting assassinations. The precedent for this was the support given by the CIA and MI6 to the repurposed remnants of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) which attacked the Soviet state in the early period of the Cold War.

China.

The attempt to seize Venezuela's natural resources is predicated on cutting off China's access to oil and other resources. The idea is to weaken China economically by targeting countries that trade with China and disrupting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) where and when the opportunity arises.

Back in 2018, a paper by the US Naval War College Review addressed the issue of hurting Chinese trade by means of blockade. Titled "A Maritime Oil Blockade Against China—Tactically Tempting but Strategically Flawed", the paper contended that economic warfare against a competitor is not a substitute for defeating them in a military campaign.

But defeating China in a war is not a realistic prospect.

The Chinese provided this lesson during the Korean War when after General McArthur's brilliantly executed amphibious landing at Inchon, Chinese forces inflicted losses on U.S.-led United Nations forces when they got too close to the Chinese border. A naval campaign spearheaded by the U.S. Navy anywhere close to the Chinese coast would be destroyed by drone and missile attacks.

The NSS document is vague on the means by which China will be weakened, but American strategy will necessarily be focused on economic means and the document refers to working with partners such as Japan and Australia to weaken Chinese global influence.

Conclusion.

Thus, far from dividing the world into spheres of influence, for the United States, the objective still remains global hegemony in the military, financial and informational spheres.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2026).

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He has an interest in geopolitics.

US Missile Strikes on Sokoto: Positing Nigeria's Political Leaders as Useful Idiots For the American Empire

The US strikes on purported Islamic State positions in Sokoto, Nigeria raise two fundamental questions.

1. Why on earth is Nigerian President Bola Tinubu subcontracting Nigerian sovereignty to the United States?

2. When did Tinubu and his political and military advisers get the idea that missile strikes alone (whether from air or sea) can defeat an indoctrinated and determined insurgent militia?

I strongly suspect that this action is a strictly performative gesture aimed at insinuating American military forces onto Nigerian territory as a prelude to launching attacks on neighbouring Niger from where both United States and French military personnel have been expelled in recent years.

The military regime in uranium-rich Niger, as is the case with its counterparts in Burkina Faso and Mali, has pivoted towards China and Russia, and the United States is keen to prevent a scenario where it is starved of Rare Earth Minerals of which Niger potentially has large deposits.

But US interests lie not only in seeking a means of reversing Chinese and Russian entrenchment in the Sahelian region, it also lies in Nigeria which has substantial, though untapped, reserves in Rare Earth Elements.

Are you getting the picture?

The goal is gaining untrammelled access to the mineral resources of Nigeria and its minerally-rich Sahelian neighbours.

It is not about "targeting" Islamic State because:

. The US (as was the case with previous powers such as Britain and Wilhelmine Germany) has a history of using Islamic extremists both as proxies and bogeymen.

. The US backed the Muslim Brotherhood against the secular socialist Arab government of Egypt which was led by Gamal Abdel Nasser during the 1950s.

. It backed both domestic and foreign Mujahedeen in the anti-Soviet War in Afghanistan from 1979. Both groups formed the basis of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

. It backed al-Qaeda groups against the anti-Zionist secular Arab nationalist governments of Libya and Syria.

. It is presently backing the al-Qaeda-originated regime in Syria whose leader Ahmed al-Sharaa (nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani) was the deputy emir of Islamic State in Iraq and the leader of the al-Nusra Front in Syria before it was rebranded as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

. Jolani had a 10 million dollar bounty on his head issued by the US State Department scrapped in December 2024 just after the fall of Bashar al-Assad's Ba'athist government.

It is not about "protecting" Christians:

. US President Trump whose statement on social media after the strikes referred to the "slaughtering of Christians" plays up to the Christian Nationalist crowd in the United States many of who are white identitarians with little sympathy for black or brown people.

. Zionist Israel has in recent times destroyed Christian churches and artefacts in Gaza and southern Lebanon with Trump failing to issue either a rebuke or a protest to the Netanyahu government.

. HTS forces have murdered Christians in Syria, again with no rebuke or protest emanating from the White House.

. It should also be noted that neither the Biden nor Trump administrations raised any objections to the persecution by the Ukrainian authorities of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church due to its historical ties with the Moscow Patriarchate through measures including the seizure of churches and monasteries. In August 2024, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law which effectively banned the Russian Orthodox Church and affiliated bodies.

Therefore this is just another episode of the United States "manufacturing consent", a duplicitous method of shaping public opinion via the mass media.

Unfortunately the present leadership in Nigeria appear to be ignorant of the aforementioned facts and analysis. Elements of Nigeria's leadership may also be compromised by external forces.

How else does one explain the ceding of its sovereign powers to enable an attack to be made on its own soil by a foreign power?

The point regarding the inability to defeat an insurgent army by unleashing powerful missiles and bombs is worth reiterating.

The use by the US military in 2017 of the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (AKA The Mother of All Bombs) in Afghanistan did nothing in the long run to prevent its humiliating exit from that country in 2020.

It is worth reminding Nigeria's leaders that the longest war in America's history, namely the near 20-year anti-insurgent campaign during its post 9/11 occupation of Afghanistan, ended in abject failure.

It prompted the American scholar Norman Finklestein to opine the following:

If you ever feel useless, remember it took twenty years, trillions of dollars and four US Presidents to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

Insurgencies are difficult to defeat but it is a task which Nigeria can do if it possessed a capable and united political leadership with a sound counterinsurgency strategy that is ably executed by its armed forces.

The forces of Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP) and Boko Haram can only be defeated if Nigeria's armed forces have developed a specific "national style" and a resulting "strategic culture" related to dealing with insurgent forces in a low-intensity conflict.

It cannot rely on foreigners -including the well-armed but flawed United States- to accomplish this.

But as mentioned above, the United States has no intention of defeating jihadism. It is merely using Nigeria as a means to an end. That end is its determination to preserve its global dominance; a task which, in line with the Trump administration's National Security Strategy (NSS) document, is about positioning America as a perpetual hegemon.

The NSS, a repurposed "Wolfowitz Doctrine", entails that the United States must prevent the rise of competing powers such as China and Russia. And one aspect of this is to seek to control access to as much of the world's mineral resources as it can - even at the cost of the destruction and exploitation of other countries whether they are cast as "friends" or as "enemies".

© Adeyinka Makinde (2025).

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He has an interest in geopolitics and history.