Coin Press - Rebellion against Trump: "Ready for War?"

NYSE - LSE

RBGPF	0.12%	82.5	$
BCE	-0.43%	25.57	$
BCC	0.54%	70	$
NGG	0.1%	90.9	$
GSK	-1.67%	53.39	$
AZN	-1.37%	189.9	$
CMSC	-0.65%	22.99	$
RELX	-0.12%	34.14	$
BTI	0.07%	59.93	$
RYCEF	-7.01%	16.12	$
RIO	-3.27%	87.83	$
CMSD	-0.48%	22.99	$
JRI	-1.83%	12.59	$
VOD	0.69%	14.41	$
BP	1.2%	42.67	$

Rebellion against Trump: "Ready for War?"

Donald Trump’s re-ascension to the U.S. presidency in January 2025 has sparked a series of protests and statements of defiance across multiple continents, with some activists and commentators adopting the provocative slogan, "We are ready for war." While the phrase has gained traction among certain groups, it remains a symbolic expression of opposition rather than a literal call to arms, rooted in concerns over Trump’s policies and their global implications.

The unrest began shortly after Trump’s inauguration on 20 January 2025, when he reinstated his "America First" doctrine, announcing plans to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement for a second time and impose tariffs on European and Chinese goods. In response, demonstrations erupted in several major cities. On 25 January, an estimated 10,000 people gathered in Paris, according to French police figures, where activist Élise Moreau, a known figure in the climate movement, coined the phrase "We are ready for war" during a speech outside the U.S. Embassy. Moreau clarified in a later interview with Le Monde that her words were metaphorical, intended to signify "a battle of ideas and values" against what she called Trump’s "anti-globalist agenda."

In Europe, the backlash has been particularly pronounced. On 3 February, Berlin saw a protest of 8,000 people, per German authorities, with banners reading "Nein zu Trump" ("No to Trump") and demands for the European Union to strengthen its autonomy from U.S. influence. The German Foreign Ministry issued a statement on 5 February, expressing "concern" over Trump’s proposed NATO funding cuts, which he reiterated in a speech on 1 February in Florida, threatening to reduce U.S. contributions unless allies increased their defence spending.

Across the Channel, the United Kingdom has also witnessed dissent. On 10 March, approximately 5,000 protesters marched through London, according to Metropolitan Police estimates, organised by a coalition of environmental and human rights groups. Labour MP Zara Khan addressed the crowd, criticising Trump’s tariff threats, which the UK Treasury warned could cost British exporters £2 billion annually based on 2024 trade data. Khan called for "resolute opposition" but avoided endorsing the "war" rhetoric directly.

In Asia, reactions have been more restrained but no less significant. South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed "deep unease" on 15 February after Trump suggested renegotiating the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, a move analysts say could disrupt Seoul’s economy, which exported $84 billion in goods to the U.S. in 2024, per Korea Customs Service data. Meanwhile, in Japan, a small demonstration of 300 people occurred in Tokyo on 20 February, according to local police, with participants citing fears over Trump’s hints at reducing U.S. troop presence in the region, as reported by The Japan Times.

Trump has dismissed the international criticism. At a rally in Ohio on 12 March, attended by an estimated 15,000 supporters per local officials, he labelled the protests "a tantrum by sore losers" and vowed to prioritise American interests "no matter the noise from abroad." His administration has yet to respond formally to the growing unrest, though White House Press Secretary John Carter stated on 16 March that "the president welcomes dialogue with allies" but will not bow to external pressure.

Experts caution against overinterpreting the "war" rhetoric. Dr. Maria Costa, a political scientist at the University of Oxford, told this publication, "The phrase is a hyperbolic signal of frustration, not a policy proposal. It reflects genuine fears about trade wars, climate inaction, and geopolitical instability." Data from the World Trade Organization supports some of these concerns, projecting that Trump’s proposed 20% tariffs could reduce global trade volume by 1.5% in 2026 if implemented.

As of now, no official coordinated international response has emerged, though activists are planning a "Global Day of Action" on 1 April, with events scheduled in at least 12 cities worldwide, according to organisers’ statements on X. Governments, meanwhile, appear focused on diplomacy. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Anna Berger are set to meet U.S. Secretary of State Michael Hayes in Brussels next week to discuss NATO and trade, per a 17 March EU press release.

While the "rebellion" remains largely symbolic, its scale and intensity underscore the polarising impact of Trump’s leadership on the global stage. Whether it evolves into a substantive challenge or fades as rhetoric will depend on the actions of both his administration and the international community in the months ahead.

Japan’s right‑turn triumph

EU India deal gains unveiled

AI sparks Wall Street panic

India defies U.S. tariffs

EU misstep on mercosur Deal

Argentina reshapes oil

Power at the Heart of Iran

Cuba Strangled by US Pressure

Trump's attack on the Dollar

Greenland Deal – and now?

Trump's hesitation in Iran

Cuba’s bleak oil crisis

Featured

Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Да здравствует Украина

Es lebe die Ukraine - Да здравствует Украина - Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Nech žije Ukrajina - Länge leve Ukraina - תחי אוקראינה - Lang leve Oekraïne - Да живее Украйна - Elagu Ukraina - Kauan eläköön Ukraina - Vive l'Ukraine - Ζήτω η Ουκρανία - 乌克兰万岁 - Viva Ucrania - Ať žije Ukrajina - Çok yaşa Ukrayna - Viva a Ucrânia - Trăiască Ucraina - ウクライナ万歳 - Tegyvuoja Ukraina - Lai dzīvo Ukraina - Viva l'Ucraina - Hidup Ukraina - تحيا أوكرانيا - Vivat Ucraina - ขอให้ยูเครนจงเจริญ - Ucraina muôn năm - ژوندی دی وی اوکراین - Yashasin Ukraina - Озак яшә Украина - Živjela Ukrajina - 우크라이나 만세 - Mabuhay ang Ukraine - Lenge leve Ukraina - Nyob ntev Ukraine - Да живее Украина - გაუმარჯოს უკრაინას - Hidup Ukraine - Vivu Ukrainio - Længe leve Ukraine - Živjela Ukrajina - Жыве Украіна - Yaşasın Ukrayna - Lengi lifi Úkraína - Lank lewe die Oekraïne

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Iran and the holy War risk

For now, Iran does not appear to be launching a formal holy war. But the question is no longer rhetorical. After the bombings that turned a long shadow conflict into an open regional war, religious language has moved from symbolic background noise toward the center of state messaging. The more important issue is not whether Tehran will suddenly summon the Muslim world into a single, borderless struggle. It is whether the Islamic Republic will fuse military retaliation, political succession, proxy activation and sacred rhetoric into a broader campaign that functions like a holy war without ever formally declaring one.The current crisis is already historic. Since the joint U.S.-Israeli attack of February 28, which killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and struck Iranian state and military targets, the conflict has spread across Israel, Lebanon, the Gulf and the energy corridors that underpin the global economy. Public death tolls inside Iran alone have climbed into the four figures. Even though international nuclear inspectors said early in the campaign that they had no indication several key nuclear installations had been hit or that radiation had spread beyond normal levels, later stages of the war clearly broadened toward oil storage, airports, command sites and urban infrastructure. This is no longer a contained deterrence exchange. It is a live contest over regime survival, regional order and strategic endurance.That is precisely why the phrase “holy war” must be handled with care. In January, influential voices inside Iran had already warned that any attack on the Supreme Leader would amount to a declaration of war against the wider Islamic world and could require a jihad decree. That language mattered then, and it matters even more now because the red line was crossed. Tehran can plausibly argue to its own hard-line base that the highest religious and political authority in the Islamic Republic was not merely challenged but assassinated. In ideological terms, that transforms retaliation from a policy choice into a sacred obligation. In political terms, it gives hard-liners a ready-made framework for widening the war.Yet rhetoric is not the same as doctrine, and doctrine is not the same as operational behavior. Iran’s response so far looks less like an uncontrolled call to universal religious uprising than a grim, state-directed campaign of calibrated punishment. Tehran has struck back with missiles, drones, maritime pressure and pressure on regional hosts of U.S. military power. It has also tried to impose costs on the world economy by turning the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz into instruments of leverage. This is not the behavior of a leadership abandoning strategy for blind zeal. It is the behavior of a regime trying to survive by making the war too costly, too wide and too economically dangerous for its enemies to sustain indefinitely.That distinction matters. A genuine, formal holy war would imply a sweeping call for open-ended religious mobilization across borders, one that subordinates ordinary state interests to an all-consuming theological struggle. Iran has not done that in any clear, universal sense. It has instead behaved as a revolutionary state that uses sacred language to reinforce legitimacy, discipline supporters and justify retaliation. That model predates the current crisis. The Islamic Republic has always blended theology, nationalism, martyrdom culture, anti-Western resistance and hard security logic. The bombings have intensified that blend, but they have not erased the regime’s instinct for calculation.The strongest evidence against an immediate full holy-war scenario is inside Iran itself. The system’s first imperative has not been global mobilization; it has been continuity. Even after decapitation strikes, the state moved to preserve command structures, delegate powers downward and push the Assembly of Experts toward selecting a successor. By March 8, that succession process had reportedly advanced to the point where a decision had been reached, even if the name had not yet been publicly revealed. That is a survival reflex. Regimes preparing for limitless religious war do not usually prioritize constitutional succession, elite cohesion and internal control. Regimes fighting for their lives do.Iran’s regional behavior also shows tension between ideological fury and strategic restraint. President Masoud Pezeshkian’s apology to Gulf neighbors was extraordinary, not because it ended the war, but because it exposed the conflict inside Tehran’s own response. On one side sits the logic of escalation: punish every state that hosts U.S. forces, widen the crisis, raise oil prices, frighten shipping markets and prove that the bombardment of Iran cannot remain geographically contained. On the other side sits the logic of isolation avoidance: do not drive every Arab state irreversibly into the opposing camp, do not convert every neighbor into an active launchpad for anti-Iran operations, and do not make regime survival impossible by fighting the entire region at once.This internal contradiction is one reason the phrase “holy war” can mislead. What is unfolding is more dangerous in practical terms and more limited in formal terms. Iran may never issue a clean, universal call for a civilizational war against all enemies of Islam, yet it can still encourage clerical sanction, mobilize militias, inspire cross-border attacks, bless cyber retaliation, empower covert cells and unleash proxy violence under a sacred frame. That would be a hybrid escalation: not a single global summons, but a diffuse religious legitimization of a long, dirty regional war. For civilians, ports, airports, desalination plants, shipping lanes and energy markets, the difference may feel almost academic.The role of Iran’s allied armed networks reinforces that point. Hezbollah has entered the conflict, but not from a position of unchallenged strength. Its intervention has deepened political strain in Lebanon and highlighted how even Iran’s most loyal partners are balancing solidarity against self-preservation. Other aligned groups face similar pressures. The so-called axis can still hurt Israel, U.S. assets and regional infrastructure, but it is not a frictionless machine awaiting one theological command to move in perfect unity. The more Tehran leans on proxies, the more it reveals that its preferred method remains layered coercion, not a single dramatic declaration of holy war.There is also a sectarian and geopolitical reality that limits the holy-war model. The Muslim world is not a single mobilizable bloc waiting for instructions from Tehran. Iran is a Shiite theocratic state with revolutionary ambitions, but its appeal across Sunni-majority states is uneven at best and sharply contested at worst. Gulf monarchies, already targeted by Iranian missiles and drones, are not natural participants in an Iranian-led sacred struggle. Many of them fear Tehran at least as much as they oppose the bombing campaign against it. That means Iran’s religious messaging may galvanize sympathizers, militants and ideological fellow travelers, but it is unlikely to unify the wider Islamic world behind one war banner.Still, dismissing the danger would be a grave mistake. The holy-war language matters because words can widen the menu of violence. Once a conflict is framed as sacred defense rather than national retaliation alone, thresholds can drop. Assassinations, sabotage, maritime attacks, strikes on civilian-linked infrastructure and violence by semi-deniable actors all become easier to justify. A state under bombardment, mourning its supreme leader and fighting for institutional survival may decide that conventional retaliation is not enough. If Tehran concludes that it cannot win symmetrically, it may authorize a looser, more ideological pattern of warfare stretching from the Gulf to the Mediterranean and beyond.The economic front is equally important. Iran understands that energy fear can be weaponized. Even limited disruption in the Strait of Hormuz sends shockwaves through insurance, shipping, aviation and inflation expectations worldwide. That leverage is politically valuable because it turns a military confrontation into a global pressure campaign. A formal holy war would demand maximal ideological mobilization. A survival war, by contrast, rewards selective disruption, ambiguity and controlled chaos. Tehran’s actions so far fit the second model more closely than the first.This is why the most serious answer to the headline question is not a simple yes or no. Iran is unlikely to launch a classic holy war in the simplistic sense of a formal, total religious call to arms that instantly unites the Muslim world under its banner. But it is already moving toward something more contemporary and, in some ways, more destabilizing: a war of survival wrapped in sacred legitimacy, regional coercion and asymmetric retaliation. The bombings have not merely invited revenge. They have strengthened the argument of those in Tehran who believe compromise invites death and that only resistance sanctified by faith can preserve the system.So the real risk is not that Iran suddenly abandons strategy for theology. The real risk is that strategy and theology fuse more tightly than before. If that fusion hardens, the war will not remain a sequence of missile exchanges and air raids. It will become a broader contest over succession, legitimacy, energy, maritime freedom, proxy warfare and the right to define resistance as a religious duty. In that environment, the phrase “holy war” may remain officially ambiguous, but its practical effects could become visible across the entire region.