Ursula Asta, a geopolitical analyst from Argentina, views the actions of the Zionist regime in West Asia as part of a broader project aimed at preserving Western hegemony and preventing the decline of the U.S.-led unipolar world order. In this interview, she emphasizes the political fragility of the Israeli regime and the prominent role of neoconservatives in the U.S. political structure, arguing that the regime’s resort to war and targeted assassinations against Iran stems not from genuine security concerns, but from a strategic effort to maintain geopolitical dominance and block Tehran’s integration into an emerging multipolar global order. Asta also criticizes the double standards of international institutions, the West’s silence in the face of war crimes, and the role of mainstream media in distorting reality. She stresses the urgent need to build an independent front to counter the West’s imperial agenda. What follows is the full text of our exclusive interview with this Argentinian analyst.
"These days, the world is witnessing blatant acts of aggression by the Israeli regime against Iran and its people. In your view, why does this regime commit such crimes against defenseless civilians in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran? What drives it to continue these aggressions, including targeted assassinations?"
It could be said that Netanyahu has some fundamental reasons for why he initiated the attack and the escalation of the war with Iran, an increase in hostilities that involves the United States, a country already previously engaged in the defense of Israel, but this time through a direct attack.
Among those factors, Netanyahu’s political—and even legal—weakness, as well as that of his political coalition, can be considered. From this, it seems he needs to cling to war as a central element for holding onto power and ensuring his own political survival.
On another level, in his pursuit of projecting a "Greater Israel," Iran is an obstacle just as it is a hindrance to Israel’s attempt to maintain a nuclear monopoly in the region.
The Trump administration in the United States is facing strong internal disputes, and the Zionist or neoconservative factions—who have a strong presence—appear to be an "opportunity" for Israel, as these American sectors consider control of the West Asian region to be strategic, with Israel seen as more than just an ally in that effort.
"The Israeli regime claims to be targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, yet it clearly strikes hospitals, infrastructure, and media institutions, with many of the victims being women and children. How can this contradiction be explained? What is the real objective behind these actions?"
The situation demonstrates that Israel has sought—and continues to seek—by all means to prevent a nuclear agreement between Washington and Tehran. In other words, beyond the narrative it tries to promote, the attacks appear not only to prevent what Israel has argued—that a nuclear weapon should not be developed, something that U.S. intelligence services, according to media reports, and the IAEA itself have ruled out—but specifically to block an agreement, which had already gone through nearly six rounds of working meetings between Iran and the United States. Moreover, it is relevant to mention that Israel later combined that argument with the claim that it wanted a “regime change” in Iran—essentially a return to the pre-1979 revolution period, referring to the Pahlavi dictatorship, which was more aligned with the Western geopolitical bloc and, therefore, also with Israel.
"Although the UN and many human rights organizations have documented the war crimes of the Israeli regime, Western governments continue to support it militarily and politically. Why do you think Western countries largely remain silent in the face of these crimes?"
Netanyahu is aware that there are neoconservatives and Zionists within the Trump administration who support the plan for a “Greater Israel,” one that would absorb Palestinian territories and confront Iran as the main regional enemy. Therefore, the fundamental objective for these neoconservatives in their project for a new American Century—similar to efforts decades ago—is to control West Asia. With that control, it becomes possible to reestablish U.S. global primacy. This intention was evident during the Bush administration with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, among other actions.
Pope Francis once said, “We are living a third world war, but in pieces, in chapters.” Perhaps, to better understand the global situation—one that many characterize as a Hybrid War—it is important to reflect on how these same Western sectors we are referring to perceive ongoing changes in the Afro-Eurasian region, where power dynamics are shifting progressively to the detriment of Western geopolitical interests. Within that context, Israel acts as a stronghold in the region.
"Western media often portray the Israeli regime as acting in 'self-defense,' while ignoring its massacres of civilians in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, as well as its assassination campaigns. How do you interpret this media bias, and what can be done to counter it?"
Just as the mythical Iron Dome has proven not to be invulnerable—as Israeli official propaganda once suggested—there emerges the paradox that those claiming to be winning the war cannot celebrate in their own territories, but instead face pain and mourning.
Just as we previously discussed power relations, the media cannot be understood outside that arena of struggle. From where I respond, South America, we are in a hemisphere dominated by U.S. and British narratives. Nevertheless, despite the dominance of major media outlets, there are always alternative media sources that contribute from a different perspective and engage in a more thoughtful search for information, offering a counterbalance to the mainstream.
Perhaps, due to the advance of information and communication technologies, we are now more than ever exposed to mass killings as they circulate on social media. Some narratives that deny these events appear obscene, especially when considering the grave humanitarian crisis faced by peoples such as those in Gaza.
"What do you believe is the long-term goal of the Zionist regime’s aggressive and expansionist policies? What threats do these ambitions pose to its neighbors in the Middle East?"
As mentioned earlier, the balance of power in the Middle East is shifting to the detriment of Western geopolitical interests. The region is increasingly turning toward the emerging world, such as the BRICS, which poses a challenge for an Israel that is pursuing aggressive policies.
For example, it is important to highlight the Iran–Saudi Arabia diplomatic agreement and China’s significant role in facilitating it. Likewise, Iran, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates have joined BRICS+, and Saudi Arabia is in the process of defining its position in relation to the group. Turkey is also involved as a BRICS partner. Additionally, there is the comprehensive strategic agreement between Iran and Russia, as well as Iran’s agreement with China involving infrastructure, industry, and oil along with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
For these reasons, this entire region—a historically and currently vital global logistics hub, and a major producer of hydrocarbons and oil—is seeking to become part of the construction of an emerging world order. In contrast, Israel, aligned with Western neoconservatism, appears determined to move toward war in an attempt to halt these trends that are unfavorable to its strategic interests.
"What is your personal reaction to the recent attacks by this regime against Iran and the killing of civilians? What message would you like to share?"
I condemn the killings and believe it is crucial to focus on the humanitarian aspect when discussing geopolitical events—because we are talking about lives, and each one is valuable. The moral dimension of any regional reconfiguration remains absent from the strategic calculations of those who seek war, as human deaths continue to be counted. In this way, the enormous hypocrisy becomes blatantly clear.
Just as with the killing of civilians in Iran, the dramatic situation and the genocide in the Gaza Strip should prompt reflection across the entire world. Israel’s decision to block humanitarian aid is another form of warfare. Even many journalists have been killed—once again—with the aim of concealing information and distorting the narrative.
"The United States routinely vetoes UN resolutions condemning the Israeli regime's crimes. In your opinion, do U.S. policies enable and sustain these aggressions? How can both regimes be held accountable?"
Israel acts as a stronghold of the geopolitical West in the region, and certain sectors perceive that this region is progressively shifting its balance of power in a direction that undermines their interests.
It is not possible to fully understand the dynamics of vetoes at the United Nations without considering this broader picture, which reveals a reality of declining U.S. economic and military power. While this decline is neither absolute nor definitive, it is evident. This also helps explain U.S. policies such as the imposition of tariffs, rising tensions with China, the exponential increase in military spending, and the push to expand that spending within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
If we start from the thesis of a Hybrid and Fragmented World War, there are key elements that align with the logic of U.S. hegemonic decline. And what stands behind Israel is, in fact, the United States.
Multipolarity is no longer just an aspiration—it is now an operational reality. The U.S.-led unipolar order is collapsing not only due to the rise of rival powers but also because of its own internal contradictions and the imperial overreach that has characterized the last decades of its global dominance.
"The Israeli regime possesses illegal nuclear weapons without any IAEA oversight, yet it attacks Iran under the pretext of nuclear concerns. Isn’t this a clear example of double standards in global norms? How should the international community address this hypocrisy?"
Iran has been Israel's main enemy in the region since 1979, following the Iranian Islamic Revolution. As previously discussed, Israel is determined to prevent at all costs a nuclear agreement between Iran and the United States. In fact, in 2018, the U.S. withdrew from the multilateral talks that included other countries on Iran's nuclear development policy. Clearly, there is a significant contradiction in the fact that Israel is not subject to any IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) oversight, while other countries are.
At this point, it is imperative to bring into discussion the effectiveness of the international mechanisms established after World War II. The new era emerging from current geopolitical debates points directly to this issue and must not be overlooked.
I return to this last point due to its relevance in any serious discussion of the international community and the hypocrisy within it. In this context, at least three major conflict zones are currently unfolding in the world—and they are all, in one way or another, interrelated. All of them are located in Eurasia. The United States’ economic and technological weakness—partly due to intense competition from China, among others—and the rise of emerging powers such as the BRICS, help explain the military strategies being pursued by the U.S.
As previously stated, key developments align with the broader logic of U.S. hegemonic decline. This includes everything we’ve discussed regarding West Asia or the Middle East, Ukraine and NATO facing setbacks in the conflict with Russia, and growing tensions between the U.S. and China over Taiwan. While important developments are also taking place in Africa and Latin America, the focus on these Eurasian zones is due to the direct involvement of major powers and their significance in shaping the future global order.
MNA/
Your Comment