In his theses on German thinker Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx famously declared, "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Crucially, he did not reject the necessity of interpretation altogether, and neither should we. It is through consistent and sufficient interpretation that we form a clear conception of the world, which in turn provides the foundation for meaningful change. Perhaps we can take a teleological stance and say that it is primarily for the purpose of changing the world that we begin to interpret it in the first place and form a conception thereof that is not only true but also actionable. In fact, multiple conceptions of the world can simultaneously hold elements of truth depending on the context, despite apparent clashes. The task for us, therefore, cannot only be to determine which one of them is true but also to identify which is most conducive to effective action.

Consider, in this connection, a world where Israeli terror reigns freely. (It sounds all too familiar, of course.) How can such a world be changed? And what kind of world conception would that change demand? It is tempting, driven by justified outrage, to expect that nations act decisively – if not militarily, then at least through economic sanctions. Yet we know such approaches, while emotionally resonant, are not actionable on a global scale. The conception of the world that is presupposed here, although usually held in good faith, is not realistic. It is based on the mistaken assumption that the system operates on fair terms. Thus, beyond the justified and lawful resistance within the region, which remains essential, we must seek a conception of the world that offers a pathway toward tangible change – however long it may take. The starting question must be this: How is this world possible? Or, more specifically, how is Israeli terror possible?

It has become common knowledge that, without the "ironclad" support of the U.S., Israel would not have been able to terrorize the people of the region. In his recent U.N. speech, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, when addressing the genocide in Gaza, emphasized this point, urging that "the killing of Palestinian civilians by American weapons must immediately be ended." This presents us with two potential strategies for effecting the desired change: the severance of U.S.-Israel relations, or the weakening of U.S. capacity to provide support for Israel.

Evidence suggests that the former may be even less attainable than the latter. This realization is critical as it serves as the foundation for the conception of the world through which we ought to seek change, and to make that conception intelligible, it is necessary to understand why the weakening of the U.S.' capacity to provide support for Israel is at least conceivable whereas severance of U.S.-Israel relations is not. I contend that the most plausible explanation offered so far is that the U.S. and Israel, when considered as political constructs, are not really separate entities in terms of their role and function in international affairs. Occasional news reports, usually written by the likes of Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, that claim that Washington and Tel Aviv have some dispute over this or that are designed to conceal this fundamental reality. The inseparability lies in their common character – as mere tools of Western oligarchs for complete dominance and hegemony over the entire planet through various forms of neocolonialism and imperialism.

It was none other than Hasan Nasrallah, who was murdered in a recent Israeli atrocity in southern Beirut, who once warned against the misconception that U.S. support for Israel was simply a result of the enormous influence of the Israeli lobby in that country. The Hezbollah leader maintained that the U.S. itself has been the decision-maker in the region and that it has been making decisions in line with the interests of major corporations, i.e., of Western oligarchs. Another U.N. speech, this time by Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil, was extremely instructive on this point: "Over these last few days, we have heard in this General Assembly two narratives: one, the discourse of the oligarchs and their satellites who seek to rule the world, and another, that of the dignified peoples who fight for their sovereignty and independence. The oligarchs, led by the government of the United States, are attacking the charter of the United Nations to destroy this organization, from both outside and within, and have nearly achieved this already. To this end, they promote the involvement of private corporations, nongovernmental organizations and other strategies that disregard the sovereignty of states. They have called this a "rule-based order."

Gil’s diagnosis conjures up a path in which meaningful change involves a reckoning with the system of oligarchy that is currently shaping international affairs, and only by facing that system can we ever hope to make the world a better and fairer place. Of course, the empire of the oligarchs, with its military might, has made itself apparently undefeatable. It crushes whoever stands in its way, and it seems to be virtually impossible to stop it in any conventional way, especially by diplomatic means. What can be done, then?

That the international order is based on the rules set by the oligarchs means that, if we are genuinely interested in a world change, we need to find out what those rules really are and how they can be challenged. In other words, we need to understand first and foremost what a defeat for the oligarchs would look like.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump, in a recent interview with CNBC, provides us with a clue: "I hate when countries go off the dollar. I would not allow countries to go off the dollar, because when we lose that standard, that will be like losing a revolutionary war.

"That will be a hit to our country, just like losing a war. And we can’t let that happen."

If, as Trump says, losing the dollar as the world currency really amounts to losing a war for the U.S., then any country that is capable of getting off the dollar, as much as it can, would have won a war against the oligarchs whose empire oversees and indeed facilitates crimes against humanity almost daily. The role of BRICS is paramount in this effort, and Türkiye’s consideration of joining it should be viewed in this light.