Published on: 2025-10-08

Intelligence Report: Straussians take control of the United Nations and NATO by Thierry Meyssan – Red Voltaire

1. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

The analysis presents two competing hypotheses regarding the influence of Straussians on international organizations like the United Nations and NATO. The hypothesis that Straussians are strategically positioning themselves to influence these organizations is better supported, though evidence remains circumstantial. Confidence level is moderate due to the complexity and opacity of the geopolitical landscape. Recommended action includes increased monitoring of key decision-making processes within these organizations to detect shifts in policy that align with Straussian ideology.

2. Competing Hypotheses

1. **Straussian Influence Hypothesis**: Straussians are actively working to control or significantly influence the United Nations and NATO to further their geopolitical agenda, which includes promoting conflict and undermining multilateral peace efforts.

2. **Overstated Influence Hypothesis**: The perceived control of Straussians over these organizations is exaggerated, and their influence is limited to specific individuals rather than institutional control. The narrative may be used to distract from other geopolitical maneuvers or internal issues within these organizations.

3. Key Assumptions and Red Flags

– **Assumptions**: The Straussian Influence Hypothesis assumes a coordinated effort by a cohesive group with the capacity to influence major international entities. The Overstated Influence Hypothesis assumes that the narrative of control is used as a strategic distraction.
– **Red Flags**: Lack of concrete evidence linking specific actions within the UN and NATO to Straussian ideology. Potential cognitive bias in interpreting geopolitical events through the lens of Straussian influence.
– **Inconsistent Data**: Contradictory reports on the influence of Straussians and the outcomes of key meetings within these organizations.

4. Implications and Strategic Risks

– **Geopolitical Risks**: If Straussians are indeed influencing these organizations, there could be increased tensions and conflicts, particularly in regions like Ukraine and the Middle East.
– **Economic Risks**: Potential destabilization of international markets due to increased geopolitical tensions.
– **Cyber Risks**: Increased likelihood of cyber operations targeting entities perceived as opposing Straussian interests.
– **Psychological Risks**: Erosion of trust in international organizations and their ability to mediate conflicts.

5. Recommendations and Outlook

• Enhance intelligence collection on key decision-makers within the UN and NATO to assess potential Straussian influence.
• Develop contingency plans for increased geopolitical tensions in regions of interest.
• Scenario Projections:
  • Best Case: Limited Straussian influence results in minimal disruption to international peace efforts.
  • Worst Case: Significant Straussian control leads to escalated conflicts and weakened international institutions.
  • Most Likely: Influence is present but not dominant, causing sporadic disruptions.

6. Key Individuals and Entities

– Donald Trump
– Benjamin Netanyahu
– Elliott Abrams
– George Bush Jr.
– Barack Obama
– Joe Biden

7. Thematic Tags

national security threats, geopolitical influence, international relations, strategic deception