From Puerto Rico, the international leader linked the recent events in the Middle East with a structural shift in the global order and the position of the nations.

Cayey, Puerto Rico – March 26, 2026

In the context of the 2026 Purim holiday, Dr. José Benjamín Pérez Matos presented a high-level geopolitical analysis of recent events in the Middle East, with special emphasis on the military operation attributed to Israel on Iranian territory and its strategic implications on a global scale.

During his presentation, Dr. José Benjamín Pérez Matos framed these events as a pivotal moment in international security dynamics, noting that the intervention succeeded in neutralizing a critical threat linked to the development of nuclear weapons. In this regard, he maintained that the operation should not be seen merely as a military strike, but as the dismantling of a structure whose aim —according to his analysis— is to eliminate the State of Israel.

In his conceptual framework, the leader drew a parallel with the historical narrative of Purim, maintaining that the current developments reflect a logic of confrontation that transcends well beyond the military domain. From this perspective, he characterized the scenario as the dismantling of a long-term geopolitical strategy designed to upend the regional balance of power through the threat of mass destruction.

One of the focal points of his address was the projection of a new international order. In that context, he declared unequivocally: “Whether nations like it or not: Jerusalem will be the capital of the entire planet Earth.” Building on this declaration, he put forward that states are facing a decisive moment in terms of strategic alignment.

Dr. José Benjamín Pérez Matos maintained that the current international political system is undergoing a phase of structural transformation, in which foreign policy decisions carry decisive weight in determining each nation’s future positioning. According to his analysis, ties with Israel are becoming a central factor within this process.

Likewise, he dedicated a portion of his presentation to questioning what he defined as an asymmetry in media coverage by international actors. In this regard, he pointed to the existence of a “double standard,” in the assessment of conflict, drawing attention to the contrast between the coverage of Israeli actions and the handling of Iran’s internal situation, particularly regarding the suppression of protests and civilian casualties.

In his view, this communicational phenomenon directly influences how global perspectives are shaped, conditioning both public opinion and the political decisions of different governments.

His closing remarks offered a clear definition of the international landscape, asserting that nations are facing a situation where remaining neutral is becoming harder by the day. In that regard, he argued that how a country positions itself in relation to Israel will serve as a decisive element in the political and strategic projection of states.