Alexander Dugin: Iran and War without Reality

 

Iran and War without Reality

Alexander Dugin on postmodern war and the collapse of truth.

Conversation with Alexander Dugin on the Sputnik TV program Escalation.

Host: To begin, I suggest we comment on the statements and ultimatums issued by the U.S. president, directed both at Iran and at other countries in the region. On the one hand, Donald Trump is demanding that Tehran immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz, threatening otherwise to launch massive strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure—he has already said he would begin with the largest power plants.

On the other hand, reports indicate that Trump has also approached the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf. According to journalists, he has presented them with an unprecedented financial demand—amounting to trillions of dollars—for the continued presence of U.S. forces. This is happening in regions densely packed with American bases, where local rulers have long relied on U.S. protection for their security.

How do you assess this moment: is it outright geopolitical blackmail, or an attempt by Trump to fundamentally rewrite the rules of the game in the Middle East?

Alexander Dugin: It seems to me that in this war—one that is teetering on the edge of becoming a Third World War—we still do not fully understand whether it has already begun or is only approaching. Perhaps these developments can still be delayed, if not entirely avoided.

In this war—and we should be careful with definitions—everything is tightly bound up with discourse, with what is being said. The words of the United States, Israel, Iran, and the Gulf states are increasingly diverging from what is actually happening on the ground and from the decisions being made in practice. This war is unfolding simultaneously on two planes: the realm of narrative and the realm of fact. And the two are becoming inseparably entangled.

Share

Classical propaganda used to glorify one’s own side and discredit the enemy—exaggerating their losses while downplaying one’s own failures. But what we are seeing now is different. In the past, reality existed independently, and propaganda merely tried to dress it up. Let me remind you: stories about “gas chambers” in Germany already circulated during the First World War—states have always accused one another of atrocities. But today’s war differs in that the balance has shifted dramatically toward narrative.

Trump’s posts on Truth Social, his public statements, and the Iranian response videos are no longer mere propaganda. The Iranians, for example, are producing highly effective content using artificial intelligence—entire visual narratives showing Iran crushing its enemies.

Fragments of real events are woven into this exchange of virtual strikes, making it nearly impossible to separate one from the other. Why, in several videos, did Netanyahu appear to have six fingers? Immediately, rumors spread that he had died and that what we were seeing was a simulacrum. Then a “real” Netanyahu appears against a backdrop of ruins—but whose ruins are they? Once again, the question arises: is this real or generated?

The same applies to the exchange of ultimatums: this is a war of narratives. Trump demands that the Strait of Hormuz be opened, and Iran responds: “There is a war underway, you have killed our leadership, the strait is under our control, and we will do as we please.” If they wish, they can sever undersea internet cables; if they wish, they can block tanker traffic or strike desalination facilities.

Do not forget: the Arabian Peninsula, aside from southern Yemen, is essentially a vast desert. Life there—including in Israel—depends on desalinated seawater, and Iran has every capability to bring that system to a halt. Tehran tells the Americans: “Leave. Abandon your bases. Pay us a trillion dollars. Take your Israel with you so that this misunderstanding ceases to exist.” Trump, in response, threatens to send ground forces, deploy a massive fleet, and force the strait open.

Israel, meanwhile, is openly talking about expanding operations: the occupation of southern Lebanon (the ground phase appears to have begun), strikes on Damascus, and the construction of a “Greater Israel.” This extends even to actions on the Temple Mount. Recently, footage circulated showing missile debris near the Al-Aqsa Mosque—precisely where radicals seek to build the Third Temple. Whether this is real or AI-generated remains unclear. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been closed and may not reopen even for Easter. There are threats of an explosion at Al-Aqsa. At the same time, Iran is clearly escalating and shows no intention of negotiating.

Israeli politicians today openly call for killing the children of political leaders—specifically Iranian leaders. Meanwhile, the Gulf monarchies keep sending contradictory signals: “Let us join the U.S.-Israel coalition against Iran,” then “leave us out of this.” They seem to be asking the Americans: “Why have you exposed us? We hosted your bases to ensure security, not to create danger. You were supposed to protect us, yet you protect only Israel. We want out of this alliance.” And moments later, the opposite message appears: “Let us attack Iran together.” The same sheikh may issue mutually contradictory statements within minutes or hours.

Since Trump himself constantly shifts his position, we begin to assume that everyone else can do the same. More importantly, we cannot even be sure whether the sheikh actually said any of this, whether it is the same person, or whether he exists at all. Yet once such statements circulate, millions—including governments—begin making real decisions based on them. The virtual dimension of this Third World War has proven its importance.

An insightful analyst, Kees van der Pijl, recently observed that modern capitalism is no longer based primarily on money, demand, or resources, but on a triad: intelligence services, mass media, and information technology. This is where everything is decided. The media create images, the IT sector distributes and embeds them across networks, and intelligence services—tasked with concealing truth and uncovering secrets—add their own layer of control. We are witnessing a new form of capitalist warfare, where this “trinity” determines outcomes, narratives, and conditions.

Now everyone is discussing Douglas Macgregor’s statement in a conversation with Mario Nawfal on X. He claimed that the Russian president had warned Israel that Russia would use nuclear weapons if Israel used them first against Iran. Incidentally, thanks to Trump, it has now been openly acknowledged that Israel possesses nuclear weapons—previous presidents avoided saying this outright, whereas Trump simply states: “they have them, and they won’t use them.” When such words come from a U.S. president, they carry weight. At the same time, Macgregor’s claim does not match the usual style of our president, who would not speak so directly. And we do not know where Macgregor obtained this information.

My central point, however, is this: this is not merely the “fog of war” or traditional propaganda. This is an entirely new mode of warfare—one that is conducted, and perhaps even decided, largely in the virtual realm.

That is what I want to emphasize.

This makes it extremely difficult to assess Trump’s ultimatums or the actual actions of the various actors. The same applies to the European Union: we see completely contradictory reports. Some claim the EU has joined Trump and is sending troops against Iran; others claim the opposite—that Europe criticizes Trump and Israel and refuses to support them. From some of Trump’s posts, one conclusion follows; from others, the exact opposite.

Is our ship heading to assist Cuba’s energy sector, or has it been turned back by U.S. forces? Even this remains unclear. Maps are circulated, positions are reported—but are we actually helping Cuba or not? Are we assisting Iran, or simply waiting? What is China doing—fully backing Tehran or holding back? In truth, we know nothing.

A popular meme now circulates about Trump’s strategy: “Since I do not know what I am doing, my enemies will also be confused and unable to understand what America is doing. In this way, we conceal our plans—even if we have none.” All of this is becoming a new, postmodern system in the spirit of Tarantino. If not for the real victims—the suffering of hundreds of thousands caught in this bloody performance—it might even seem absurdly entertaining, like films by Tarantino or Lynch. Lynch himself once advised viewers not to search for meaning in his work: why assume a postmodern creation must have one?

That warning may apply to art. In war, where children and innocent people die, it becomes monstrous. Perhaps this is the first war in human history in which meaning is either entirely absent or so deeply concealed that even its architects have lost the thread—or else it is part of an extraordinarily complex plan in which everyone pretends ignorance.

Host: Still, would it not follow that concrete actions—the observable outcomes—remain the only reliable basis for judgment? After all, we live in 2026, when any statement can be fabricated, distorted, or attributed to someone else. Should we not focus on results?

Alexander Dugin: That was true before. Reality once served as the criterion of truth. But we missed a crucial intellectual shift that took place in the West—especially in France—forty or fifty years ago.

Postmodern philosophy advanced a radical claim: reality is no longer the criterion of truth. Truth resides within discourse itself—within texts, narratives, and interpretations—while reality becomes secondary, even optional.

This is not merely the invention of eccentric thinkers like Deleuze or Guattari. It is grounded in serious structural linguistics, particularly in the work of Ferdinand de Saussure. One of the central conclusions of twentieth-century philosophy is precisely this: reality, as a stable reference point, has ceased to exist as a criterion.

We continue to say, “Let us examine real actions.” But in postmodernity, this method no longer functions. If reality is shaped by interpretation, then an action that is never articulated does not exist. Conversely, an action that is declared exists—even if it never occurred.

This method of verification belongs to the modern era. It worked when propaganda said one thing and reality could be checked against it. That framework has fundamentally changed.

Host: Then are we left in a world of endless declarations?

Alexander Dugin: History has ended. What we are living through is post-history—a fundamentally different condition. Outcomes themselves are now part of discourse. We inhabit a world that we ourselves construct.

Therefore, we must not passively wait for results to emerge. We must construct our own reality—our own narrative framework, our own civilizational perspective. Otherwise, we will remain trapped in others’ interpretations.

(Translated from the Russian)

Multipolar Press is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQgKvKNDWHCFhZrddtPsPFbRnvZ