The book seeks to point out ways that a truly irenic American global strategy needs to work more diligently to resolve a number of the crucial geo-political conflicts so as to minimize the real possibility of wider regional conflicts, if not that of major power war. It is argued that homo geopoliticus is entering a "danger zone" over the next 50 years in which the risks of war will be heightened in disputes over burgeoning world energy and resource demand, shifts in technological capabilities, coupled with conflicting geostrategic, military-technological and political-economic interests, as well as considerations of state power and influence.

The book critically examines the role of the "neo-conservatives" (regarded as a hybrid of Plato's "Timocrats" and Kant's "Moralizing Politicians") in the essentially unilateral American intervention in Iraq. In arguing that there are essentially four forms of terrorism (anti-state, state-supported, totalitarian, as well as street terrorism), the book identifies the key political-ethical dilemmas and a number of "double standards" involved in the "war on terrorism." It is argued that if the US is going to oppose "terrorism," as well as preach "democracy" and "human rights," it likewise needs to practice what it preaches. By contrast with the Fukuyama "end of history" thesis, it is argued that the US model of liberal democratic federalism based upon "majority rule" and "minority rights" (and which itself is in dire need of substantial reforms) is now confronted with a number of ideological rivals, including "consensual democracy," "social democracy," "illiberal democracy," "democratic communitarianism" and "national democracy." American foreign policy emphasis upon Wilsonian national self-determination has tended to be counter-productive and destabilizing, and needs to consider consensual and confederal models of political formation and state and national development.

By way of explicating the four-fold nature of "terrorism," the book concomitantly critiques Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations thesis as it has been applied to the ideological aspects of terrorist activities.  The dangers of nuclear proliferation and Weapons of Mass Destruction are then examined (with a focus on differentiated approaches to Pakistan, India, Israel, Iran and North Korea). The risk that NATO and American military expansionism may likewise provoke "blowback" and differing forms of counter-reaction by Russia, Belarus and China, among other states, through the formation of a Eurasian alliance, for example, should not entirely be discounted.

While not deemed a panacea, it is argued that strengthening the UN (in the spirit of the 1948 Vandenberg Resolution that helped to establish the North Atlantic Treaty) through reforming the UN Security Council and by creating regional councils and a "World Citizen's Assembly" represents one way to help avert conflict by establishing the formal basis for "real dialogue" between disputing political factions and states. The creation of regional "security communities," backed by multilateral US/NATO, EU and Russian security accords, can then help stabilize those regions most susceptible to conflict.

The US needs to develop a more consistent multilateral approach to the "war on terrorism" (bringing the US, EU and Russia together, and the Chinese where possible) while more appropriately balancing US national and international interests in such a way that the world community can begin to concentrate on the truly vital need for sustainable global social and economic development, but in recognition of real energy scarcity and ecological limitations, and the crucial need for investment in alternative energies. Opting for a truly multilateral approach (without overlooking the significant difficulties involved in implementing a concerted US-EU strategy alone) likewise represents the key means to avert wider regional and major power conflicts.