If U.S. President Donald Trump was taken by surprise by the resilience of the Iranian regime—particularly regarding the global repercussions of a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—this reflects an oversimplified and naive view of interconnected processes.

By Klaus Moegling

Epistemic Violence as a Threat

The creation and enforcement of knowledge—and the attitudes and stances it contains—have not only served in the past to legitimize acts of violence and establish structures of power that advanced the economic and political interests of powerful social groups. Historically, societal interpretive authority was enforced through a combination of armed force and religious dogma and formed the basis for colonization, chauvinistic patriarchal rule, as well as wars and genocides.

The Austrian political scientist Claudia Brunner demonstrates, using many historical examples, how systems of knowledge and belief were imposed on cultures attacked by armed force. The near-total annihilation of the existence and cultures of indigenous peoples in North America and their classification as “savages,” the eradication of alternative worldviews through the “witch burnings” carried out by the Catholic Church, and the enforcement of racial theory to enslave millions of African people are examples of this epistemic violence. It led to mass murder, environmental destruction, and the cultural annihilation and destruction of identities.

When U.S. President Trump is criticized for wanting to “destroy Iranian civilization” and his intention is cited to “bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, where it belongs,” we are addressing a current form of epistemic violence that stands in continuity with such historical acts of violence.

An analysis of past and current political structures and processes should identify connections and adopt various perspectives before forming a judgment. In the context used here, this means that such an analysis and judgment should be holistic.

Holistic Social Analysis

Due to its conceptual misuse by totalitarian regimes, the category of “holism” has long been viewed with reservations in the social sciences. Nevertheless, a politically well-considered understanding of holism offers an enormous opportunity for insight, and the category of holism deserves to be revitalized in social science discourse.

First and foremost, the aim is to reveal the connections between various social processes and facts. Are there overarching perspectives that establish a connection between individual events and allow them to appear in a broader context? The expertise of the specialist in details must thus be combined with the abilities of the generalist in recognizing connections. Furthermore, social perspectives must be analyzed and assessed multidimensionally from various viewpoints to enable a more comprehensive evaluation in the context of opinion-forming. Anyone who views Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine—misleadingly termed a “military special operation”— – as fully justified in light of Russia’s security interests in the face of a NATO expanding eastward, is grossly disregarding the existential interests of the Ukrainian population, the state’s interest in self-preservation, and the principles of international law enshrined in the UN Charter, which prohibit a war of aggression against a sovereign state. However, anyone who also disregards Russian security interests and ignores the “red lines” drawn by Russia is unlikely to find a diplomatic way out of the war in Ukraine.

Overly Simplistic Perspectives are Dangerous

Areas that are often treated as separate—such as body, mind, psyche, and society; environment, economy, and health; or identity, religion, and war—cannot merely be viewed in isolation and with high specialization; they should also be understood as interconnected domains in a holistic sense. Here, too, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Sub-areas interact systemically and can have a dynamic and global impact. For instance, the spread of the coronavirus shows us how society’s response to a virus can lead to fears of infection among people, altered interpersonal behavior, economic crises such as a slump in corporate revenue and mass layoffs, as well as political crises. Similarly, the coronavirus crisis demonstrates that a neoliberal economic regime—under which the healthcare system is being privatized and commercialized—is ill-suited to successfully combat a pandemic. The terrible price is a vast number of seriously ill patients and deaths.

Failing to understand how everything is interconnected can therefore be extremely dangerous. Underestimating the effects of everyday behavior—that is, at the micro level—can also be extremely dangerous. To underestimate what the daily media exposure to murders and interpersonal cruelty, as well as virtual participation in such events, can do to young people is to overlook people’s psychological vulnerability and limited mental capacity to process such experiences. Mass shootings in schools and deadly attacks, as well as the willingness to kill in war, are, among other things, expressions of this ignorance or of the profit-driven interests of the relevant media conglomerates.

Climate Destruction From a Holistic Perspective

The connection also becomes clear when we consider the burning of lignite or hard coal for heating as well as for industrial energy production in relation to the release of additional greenhouse gases. The global warming caused, among other things, by CO2 emissions leads to a wide range of effects, from changes in ocean currents, to the formation of deserts, the increased occurrence of violent storms, the melting of glaciers, rising sea levels, and even the thawing of permafrost and the corresponding release of methane, which in turn affects the climate. These climatic and ecological shifts and upheavals result in climate-related deaths, mass exoduses, and population migrations, which in turn are often not willingly accepted by the local population and lead to violent conflicts as well as a shift in the political balance of power toward the far right.

Water – A Holistic Perspective

Water still seems to be taken for granted in the Global North. In the Global South, however, it is a central issue that determines life and death. In February 2026, government representatives from 55 African states gathered in Addis Ababa for the 39th Ordinary Session of the African Union. The main topic of this assembly was the issue of water. A report by Chilean journalist Claudia Aranda (2026) highlights the need for a holistic approach to the problem of water supply on the African continent:

“The continent is facing persistent droughts in the Horn of Africa, water shortages in large parts of the Sahel, and urban demographic pressure, which is straining sanitation and production systems. The decision to place water at the center of Agenda 2026 is not merely a rhetorical phrase: it reflects a fundamental assessment. Without water security, there is no resilient agriculture; without agriculture, there is no food security; and without food security, there is no political stability.

From an African perspective, this approach is consistent with Agenda 2063, which was confirmed in the final communiqué as a shared roadmap for inclusive and resilient development. Water security is not merely environmental policy; it is an essential building block for state-building.”

Lack of rain, pollution of groundwater and springs, the privatization and commercialization of clean water sources, and population displacement from water-scarce areas are issues that a comprehensive water policy must address. The solution cannot lie in selling African springs to corporations from the Global North. Then the springs, previously freely accessible, will be surrounded by protective fences and guarded by security firms. Locals will then only be able to buy the water in plastic bottles at exorbitant prices.

The Global Plastic Crisis Can Only be Viewed and Solved Holistically.

The raw material for plastic is oil. Plastic production increases every year, and with it the entry of micro- and nano-plastic particles into the environment and ultimately into the human body and internal organs via the food chain and the inhalation of fine dust. This can lead to cancer, heart attacks, and strokes. This clearly illustrates how corporate profit interests within a capitalist economy—with the support of governments—take precedence over human health and well-being. Accordingly, international efforts to establish a comprehensive plastic agreement that addresses both plastic production and irresponsible plastic disposal are being blocked by plastic lobbyists and oil-producing nations. Attempts at solutions would therefore need to focus on civil society resistance—enforced, for example, through legal action—on changing our own consumption and disposal habits, as well as on transforming capitalist social structures that are oriented toward economic growth and an increased commodification of nature.

Wars as an Expression of Economic and Geostrategic Interests of Power

On the one hand, wars arise when the political means available to the actors involved to resolve a conflict have failed. On the other hand, wars are also presented and enforced as the legitimate assertion of economic and geostrategic interests. Russian President Putin speaks of an ideologically constructed Russian world (Russkij Mir) that must also be protected in Ukraine. However, this may merely be a pretext to gain access to Ukraine’s extensive mineral resources and expand Russia’s sphere of influence. U.S. President Trump justifies the military attack on Venezuela, among other things, by citing the removal of an unjust regime in that country, yet he is content with the abduction of the presidential couple—a violation of international law—as well as extensive contracts for oil supplies with the very same Venezuelan power apparatus. He negotiates contracts with representatives of a government that possesses the world’s largest known oil reserves. Trump further claims to be liberating the people of Iran from a repressive mullah regime, yet he orders the bombing of civilian infrastructure and accepts the deaths of thousands of civilians. He is unable to change the power structures by military means, yet seeks to participate in the profitable control of the Strait of Hormuz through a toll system—now in collaboration with the Iranian regime.

A holistic perspective, based on both complexity and multiple viewpoints, attempts to clearly identify the interests underlying wars. Rarely are the stated reasons the true ones; most often, there are largely hidden interests behind them that are not openly communicated by those who profit from them.

On the one hand, the category of holism can pave the way for totalitarian systems to reach the younger generations by focusing on the “whole person” in its educational institutions. However, holism as an approach to understanding can also mean a social analysis that reconstructs complexity and adopts multiple perspectives in the sense of critical understanding. The accusation of misusing the category of holism cannot therefore be directed at the concept itself, but rather at its semantic content and social application.

A Critical and Holistic Approach is not Always Desired by Everyone.

An epistemological approach that combines criticism with the recognition of interconnections and the consideration of divergent viewpoints in a holistic sense is often viewed by those in power as a threat to their interests. social scientists and journalists who advocate this approach are then stigmatized, marginalized in the media, and in extremely repressive systems, even persecuted or murdered.

Power and hegemonic interests thus stand in the way of free journalistic activity and independent research by critical scholars.

The Frankfurter Rundschau reports that over 200 journalists have already been killed in the war in Gaza by Israeli shelling:

“Many of those killed were clearly marked as members of the press and were attacked nonetheless. Cars marked as press vehicles were fired upon. They were not always safe even in their newsrooms, as the attacks on the offices of Al Jazeera and AP demonstrated. In several cases, reporting teams were even fired upon during live broadcasts.”

Certainly, in the context of criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, the horrific terrorist acts committed by Hamas as well as the constant shelling of the State of Israel must also be mentioned. Nevertheless, this in no way justifies the killing of approximately 70,000 Palestinians, nor the murder of the journalists reporting on these events.

The empirical study by an institutional research network (KAPAZ) further examined the current threats facing scientists and attributed hostilities—such as hate speech and even death threats—in part to the cognitive and emotional overload experienced by those making the threats regarding the scientifically developed solutions to political problems:

The study makes clear “that hostility, disparagement, or even attacks against scientists are occurring with increasing frequency because the relationship between society and science is becoming ever more complex. Research findings and scientific expertise are increasingly being negotiated and communicated in public debate, which generates growing tensions. This is particularly the case when scientific findings serve as the basis for socially and politically controversial decisions.”

The consequence of hostility toward scientists cannot, of course, be to dispense with scientific expertise in politics or to downplay the complexity of the social phenomena being addressed, thereby simplifying them in an unacceptable manner. The key can only lie in socio-political and science-oriented education beginning in schools and continuing through subsequent educational contexts, in order to foster competencies for a complex and multi-perspective perception of the world—in the sense of critical analytical and judgmental skills—among the younger generation. Such an epistemological approach to the world is, among other things, a prerequisite for countering the current epistemic violence aimed at suppressing scientific and journalistic criticism through civil society means.

Politicians, on the other hand, who perceive the world in an oversimplified and reductive manner—and who, in doing so, also pursue their own corrupt economic interests—pose a danger to humanity given the complexity and multifaceted nature of political processes in an era of highly advanced weapon systems.

(This article is based on Chapter 8 of Klaus Moegling’s open-access book: “Reorganization: A Peaceful and Sustainably Developed World Is (Still) Possible,” freely available at: https://www.klaus-moegling.de/international-edition/)

Prof. Dr. Klaus Moegling, a political scientist with a postdoctoral qualification (Habilitation) in political science, has taught at various universities and teacher-training institutions, most recently at the University of Kassel as an adjunct professor in the Department of Social Sciences.