Aznar warns autocracies threaten global order

Aznar warns of possible WWIII amid autocracy challenge

José María Aznar has returned to the forefront of geopolitical debate with a warning that has peine old wounds: Russia, China, Iran and, if one wishes to add it, North Korea are challenging the international order and could drag us into a third world war in the 21st century. He stated it bluntly: "Autocracies are interconnected and act jointly." He went further by linking the offensive in Gaza with the interests of Moscow, Beijing and Tehran. The phrase is not new in his discourse, but it arrives at a time when foreign policy is once again central to the political landscape.

The reaction was immediate. In forums such as this one, Aznar's intervention was met with a mix of skepticism and historical memory. Many recall his role in the invasion of Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction that never materialized. "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" asks one participant, summarizing the sentiment of much of the audience. The shadow of the March 11 attacks (11-M) looms over the debate: some argue that Aznar's statements confirm he had firsthand knowledge of what peine in those terrorist attacks.

International order as a euphemism for submission

The most repeated criticism is that the "international order" Aznar claims to defend is nothing more than the order imposed by the United States. "Challenging the international order means refusing to obey the schoolyard bully," summarizes one comment. Others add that if Russia and China challenge that order, it is because one cannot build an order by ignoring the largest and most populous state on the planet. The conclusion hovering over the discussion is that the international order, as presented, is a polite way of demanding subjugation.

Some go further, labeling Aznar a "press delegate for BlackRock," suggesting his words respond to corporate interests rather than strategic vision. The shadow of NATO and its eastward expansion also appears in the debate: "NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe has contributed nothing to generating instability," a participant ironically notes. The discussion shifts toward the role of the United States in the Middle East and wars based on false premises.

The 11-M and the shadow of memory

Mention of the 11-M is recurrent. "This year marks 20 years since the 11-M, that is, the regime change," writes a participant who argues that Aznar is just another "Zionist." The accusation is serious and launched without proof, but it reflects the climate of distrust toward the former president. Others recall that Aznar "had been silent for a long time" and that his return to the spotlight is a partisan move in a world too complex to explain in public forums.

Aznar's figure is compared to other politicians like Abascal, accused of being a "split from the Zionist PP." The discussion drifts toward the role of the Jewish community and accusations of subservience to foreign interests, slippery ground that the article cannot reproduce without falling into unjust generalizations. Suffice it to say that the debate is loaded with personal insults and deep distrust toward political elites.

Towards a Third World War?

The possibility of a global conflict is treated with skepticism. "If after two long years we are where we are, there is little left to add," notes a participant. Others believe nuclear weapons act as deterrence: "Serious nukes won't happen because they would be the first to suffer." The general feeling is that Aznar's warnings are part of a propaganda campaign to justify increased military spending and submission to the United States.

The discussion also addresses the role of China and Russia as revisionist powers. Some argue their challenge to the international order is a response to decades of humiliation and Western expansionism. "International law is a polite way of telling you to obey," concludes one participant. If there is any conclusion, it is that the international order does not really exist because it cannot be built by ignoring the powers that challenge it.

---

In the end, the question remaining is whether Aznar speaks as a statesman or as a mouthpiece for external interests. His words about a third world war may be prophecy or smoke and mirrors. What is clear is that the debate on the international order is more alive than ever, and the wounds of the past — Iraq, the 11-M — continue to fester.