FRANÇOIS VADROTWhen the Hôtel Matignon Turns into a War OfficeA Prime Minister of war without a war: Macron elevates the Defense portfolio to Matignon — a peacetime first

 François Vadrot, Sept. 14, 2025

Macron as war leader: the gesture points East, while the words lie reversed — the political language itself turned inside out.

An unprecedented appointment under the Fifth Republic

Since the creation of the Fifth Republic in 1958, no sitting Minister of Defense has ever been elevated directly to the post of Prime Minister. Pierre Messmer, Minister of the Armed Forces from 1959 to 1969, only returned as Prime Minister in 1972 after three years of retreat — hardly a direct succession.

The only true precedent is Maurice Bourgès-Maunoury, under the Fourth Republic in 1957, at the height of the Algerian war. In the aftermath of the Suez expedition, he authorized the transfer of nuclear technology to Israel, paving the way for the Dimona program.

👉 In peacetime, Lecornu’s promotion is therefore a historic first under the Fifth Republic.

The 2023 law as a legal lock

The 2023 Military Programming Law (2024–2030) gave the executive a reinforced legal arsenal. It allows the state, in the event of an “actual or foreseeable threat,” to requisition people, goods, and services, with penalties for refusal. This is not full mobilization, but rather a ready-made legal toolbox for partial militarization. Macron can thus rule by decree within a war logic.

The American parallel

In the United States, Trump has resurrected the title of Secretary of War, abandoned in 1947 in favor of the softer Secretary of Defense. This is not bureaucratic trivia but a political signal: calling war by its name. In France, Macron lifts a Minister of Defense straight to Matignon — a first in the Fifth Republic. Two gestures that reveal the same climate: the West is settling into open confrontation.

Governing by decree

By appointing Lecornu, Macron has no reason to risk a confidence vote that could topple him. The institutions of the Fifth Republic allow him to maintain a Prime Minister without passing through parliament, as long as no motion of censure succeeds. Matignon thus becomes a command tower, governing by decree and 49.3, sidelining the Assembly. The narrative shifts: it is no longer about reform, but about “holding” and “protecting.”

Projection without crossing the line

In this logic, France can reinforce its military presence in the East — Romania, Poland, the Baltic states — without crossing into Ukraine. It is the strategy of pre-positioning: visible troops, stockpiled materiel, logistical cooperation, training exercises. This allows Macron to:

• Restore international credibility by posing as Europe’s driver.

• Reframe the domestic scene under the banner of national security.

• Prepare the military apparatus for future escalation.

Macron’s calculus

What does he gain from triggering or embracing war? No electoral victory, no reform to rescue. But a cold rationality of survival:

• To dissolve domestic failure beneath the martial narrative.

• To shield himself from political irrelevance by becoming the “war president” rather than the “useless president.”

• To consolidate the state apparatus through militarization and exceptional authority.

• To reclaim Western centrality by posing as Europe’s leader, while Washington is absorbed by its own fractures, the Caribbean, and Israel.

The paradox

The United States will not open a European front: too polarized, too absorbed by other priorities. They will leave Europeans to hold the line, while directing from afar. Macron’s bet is to turn France into the standard-bearer of a front Washington itself will not carry.

👉 In short: Lecornu at Matignon is not a stopgap but a signal. Macron can no longer govern civil France, so he prepares military France. After “En Marche” and “Renaissance,” only one word remains: the “Standard.”

MOSTAFA GHAHREMANI “The Iranian Atomic Bomb”! - Without a doubt, I would be very pleased to hear such news

Mostafa Gahremani, 30/7/2025

John Mearsheimer, renowned professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago and theorist of “Offensive Realism” in foreign policy:

“I’d be willing to bet that Iran is probably developing a nuclear weapon behind closed doors — and neither the U.S. nor Israel are capable of stopping it. They have not only failed to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but have in fact worsened the situation. I would not be surprised at all if Iran ends up building a nuclear weapon.”

Those who describe the terrorist attack on Iran, the killing of over a thousand innocent people, and the open genocide in Gaza as a “necessary dirty job” carried out by a war-addicted and violence-driven regime (Israel) in the service of “the West and its interests,” deserve neither moral nor legal trust.

For this culturally unrestrained West, the old adage still holds true:

“The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”

The only effective means of deterrence and of safeguarding national independence and security is the establishment of a balance of terror.

And this must finally be acknowledged: such a balance cannot be achieved without deterrence capabilities based on non-conventional weapons.

This merciless and compassionless world order — dominated by Western values and knowledge systems — is no charity.

Rights are not granted; they must be fought for. And the West never yields them without resistance.

The West’s dehumanizing and authoritarian logic recognizes no moral boundary when it comes to destroying states or peoples who resist the exploitation of their resources, the violation of their sovereignty, or their subjugation to Western power structures.

Neither international law nor the supposedly universal moral and philosophical authority — claimed primarily by the European West — is able to stop it.

In this context, even Kant’s categorical imperative — once hailed as the highest moral-philosophical achievement of Western civilization — is today nothing more than a trivialized variant of “pure reason” placed entirely in the service of domination.

And this “pure reason” is, especially in relation to the non-Western human being, essentially untouchable — and thus immune to any criticism.

In its actual function, Western philosophy is not a path to justice but rather an ideological construct used to legitimize domination, discrimination, and hegemonic power.

Nothing more — and nothing less.

And so, in the end, only one question remains: Does the West even know what morality is anymore??!