Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iran: The Eurasian Lock

Iran’s geography makes it a strategic hinge – one that anchors Russia’s southern depth and gives China an escape from US maritime containment

By Abbas al-Zein | The Cradle | January 22, 2026

In the corridors of US strategic decision-making, Iran is no longer treated as a discrete regional file. Dealing with Tehran has become inseparable from great-power competition itself. Coordination between Iran, Russia, and China has moved beyond situational alignment, coalescing into what western analysts increasingly describe as a form of “structural synergy” that undermines Washington’s ability to isolate its rivals.

This assessment overlaps with conclusions reached by the Carnegie Endowment in its report on America’s Future Threats, which identifies Iran as a “central node” in the Eurasian landmass – one that prevents Russia’s geographical isolation while securing China’s energy needs beyond the reach of US naval control.

Any serious destabilization of the Islamic Republic would not remain confined within its borders. It would translate into a dual strategic blockade targeting both China and Russia: reviving security chaos across Eurasia’s interior while striking at the financial and energy platforms that emerging powers increasingly rely on to loosen unipolar dominance.

Geography as strategic depth

For Moscow, Iran’s importance begins with geography. It offers Russia a vital geopolitical opening beyond its immediate borders. According to studies by the Valdai Club, Iran’s significance lies not in formal alliance politics but in its function as the sole land bridge connecting the Eurasian heartland to the Indian Ocean via the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC).

This route provides Russia with insulation from NATO’s maritime pressure in the Baltic and Mediterranean, effectively converting Iranian territory into strategic depth protecting Russia’s southern flank.

This geographic interdependence has produced a shared political interest that goes beyond tactical coordination. The stability of the Iranian state acts as a safeguard against the Caucasus and Central Asia drifting toward the kind of fragmentation that preceded the Ukraine war. Research by the Russian Council for International Affairs (RIAC) frames Iranian geography as a cornerstone of the “Greater Eurasia” concept, central to Moscow’s effort to dilute western hegemony across the continent.

For Beijing, Iran plays a comparable role within a different strategic equation. As US naval pressure tightens across the Pacific, China’s westward extension through Iran has become increasingly difficult to replace. Research by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) identifies Iran as one of the most critical geographic nodes in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), providing Beijing with a land-based corridor into West Asia that bypasses US-controlled maritime choke points – from the Taiwan Strait to the Mediterranean approaches.

Iran’s intermediate position between the Eurasian interior and open seas has therefore imposed a durable entanglement between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. In this configuration, political alignment is driven less by ideology than by physiogeographic necessity.

Any attempt to destabilize the Iranian plateau would likely trigger a cascading shock across Eurasia’s interior, escalating a regional confrontation into a systemic blockade aimed at arresting the rise of rival power centers.

Buffer state and security firewall

Beyond logistics, Iran functions as a stabilizing buffer within East Eurasia’s security architecture. One research report by RAND on “Extending Russia” speaks of adversary exhaustion strategies that emphasize the use of peripheral instability to drain rival powers. From this perspective, Iran represents a critical firewall.

Instability inside Iran would mechanically undermine security coordination across Russia’s southern periphery, particularly in the Caucasus and Central Asia. RIAC assessments warn that such a breakdown would open pathways for extremist networks, transcontinental smuggling, and militant spillover – threats Moscow has repeatedly classified as existential.

For China, the concern lies in contagion. Iran’s stability limits the transmission of unrest through Central Asia’s mountain corridors, where Tehran functions as an integral security partner within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This role provides Beijing with a degree of security insulation, allowing it to pursue global ambitions without being drawn into attritional border conflicts.

Energy and financial sovereignty

Economically, Iran’s role extends beyond conventional trade logic. Its partnerships with Russia and China increasingly form part of an alternative financial and energy architecture designed to blunt western leverage.

From Beijing’s perspective, Iranian oil has become a form of strategic insulation. Data indicates that China purchases roughly 1.3 million barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian crude – around 13.4 percent of its seaborne oil imports – with close to 80 percent of Iran’s exports flowing eastward. Increasing settlement through non-dollar mechanisms, including the digital yuan, has further reduced vulnerability to US pressure, particularly at choke points such as the Strait of Malacca.

Reports from the Electricity Hub confirm that China imported more than 57 million tons of Iranian – or suspected Iranian – oil in 2025, often routed via intermediaries such as Malaysia. The figures underscore the diminishing effectiveness of sanctions when confronted with geoeconomic necessity.

Russia’s calculus follows a different path to the same outcome. Cooperation with Iran has emerged as one of Moscow’s most important routes around SWIFT-based isolation. Government of the Russian Federation data shows bilateral trade rising by 35 percent following the Eurasian Economic Union free trade agreement implemented in May 2025.

A central shift has been monetary. In January 2025, the Central Bank of Iran announced full connectivity between Russia’s MIR and Iran’s Shetab payment systems, creating a protected financial corridor. According to Iranian officials, Iran and Russia aim to expand bilateral trade to $10 billion over the next decade, while Iran’s exports to Russia are expected to rise to about $1.4 billion by the end of the current Iranian calendar year (March 20, 2026).

Tehran has increasingly functioned as a re-export hub for Russian technologies and goods, frustrating efforts to economically isolate Moscow.

Washington’s strategy of separation

Against this backdrop, US strategy has evolved. Rather than relying solely on pressure or open confrontation, Washington has gravitated toward what western policy circles describe as a “strategy of separation.” This is an attempt to loosen the interdependence binding Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing by offering alternative pathways rather than confronting the bloc directly.

On the Chinese front, energy has emerged as the primary point of leverage. As the world’s largest oil importer, Beijing remains sensitive to supply stability and pricing. US moves in Latin America – particularly regarding Venezuela – are widely interpreted as efforts to reintegrate large oil reserves into global markets under western regulatory frameworks, potentially diluting Iran’s role in China’s energy security calculus.

In parallel, Washington has expanded its naval and coalition presence across key trade corridors stretching from the Indian Ocean to the western Pacific. This posture is framed not only as deterrence but as a persistent reminder that maritime supply security remains tied to US-led power balances.

On the Russian front, Ukraine occupies a central role. While sustained military and economic pressure aims to drain Moscow’s capacity, intermittent diplomatic signals suggest interest in compartmentalized understandings over European security. The underlying wager is that Russia’s core interests might be partially accommodated in Europe, reducing the long-term value of its partnership with Iran.

US engagement has also intensified across Central Asia and the Caucasus – regions that constitute strategic depth for Russia and critical corridors for China’s BRI. From Moscow and Beijing’s view, expanded security and investment ties in these areas represent an effort to geographically encircle Iran and weaken its role as Eurasia’s connective knot.

Why the bet fails

Despite the breadth of these efforts, the strategy of separation runs up against entrenched distrust in both Moscow and Beijing. For the two powers, the issue is not the scale of incentives on offer but the structure of the international system itself – and the accumulated experience of sanctions, coercion, and volatile western commitments.

From Russia’s vantage point, any trade-off between Iran and Ukraine constitutes a strategic trap. Iran anchors Russia’s southern access to the Indian Ocean; its collapse would expose the Caucasus–Central Asia arc to chronic instability. Gains in Eastern Europe would offer little compensation for a structurally weakened southern flank.

China’s reasoning is similarly grounded. Alternative energy suppliers remain embedded within supply chains that Washington can influence or disrupt. Iranian oil, by contrast, offers a higher degree of geographic and political autonomy. Its value lies less in price than in resilience.

The last barrier

At its core, the contest over Iran pits two logics against one another. One assumes geopolitical networks can be dismantled through incentives and selective realignment. The other recognizes that geography, accumulated experience, and the erosion of trust render such guarantees fragile in a world moving steadily toward multipolarity.

Iran’s collapse or prolonged internal destabilization would not merely reorder energy markets or regional alignments. It would reopen West Asia as a zone of near-exclusive US influence, completing a strategic arc across Western Eurasia. For more than a century, the region has served as a central theater of global power competition – from imperial rivalries to the Cold War and into the present transition toward multipolarity.

Therefore, Iran becomes more than a pivotal state. Much as Venezuela once represented the outer limit of resistance to US power in the Western Hemisphere, Iran now stands as the final geopolitical barrier to the consolidation of American hegemony across the heart of Eurasia.

Its cohesion serves not only its own national interest but also the broader objective shared by Moscow and Beijing: constraining unilateral dominance and preserving strategic autonomy in their immediate neighborhoods.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russian gas exports to China soar – data

RT | January 22, 2026

China sharply increased its purchases of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) in 2025 and reached a record monthly volume in December, according to Chinese customs data cited by RIA Novosti.

In 2025, the Asian nation imported 9.8 million tons of the super-chilled fuel, up 18.3% from the previous year, the outlet reported.

December saw particularly strong growth, with imports rising to 1.9 million tons, a 114.6% increase from the 889,482 tons delivered in the final month of 2024.

Data also showed that in October, Russia became China’s second biggest LNG supplier, overtaking Australia and coming in slightly behind Qatar. Russia’s total gas supplies to China – via pipeline and in liquefied form – reached 5.8 billion cubic meters (bcm) in November 2025, a 33% increase from the same month a year earlier.

Imports of Russian LNG by China, one of the world’s largest gas consumers, have been rising steadily for several years. Alongside pipeline flows, Russia has expanded seaborne shipments from projects in the Arctic and the Far East, including Yamal LNG, Arctic LNG 2, and Sakhalin-2. Cargoes are transported largely via the Northern Sea Route during the summer navigation season and via longer southern routes in winter.

Moscow has sought to expand LNG exports via the Arctic corridor due to Western sanctions targeting key parts of its energy sector.

The surge in gas deliveries reflects a broader shift of Russia’s energy exports toward Asia following the sharp reduction of pipeline supplies to the EU since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

Russia also delivers natural gas to China via the Power of Siberia pipeline, which began operations in 2019 and reached full operational capacity in December 2024.

Moscow and Beijing are also advancing the planned Power of Siberia 2 pipeline through Mongolia. President Vladimir Putin has said that, together with existing and future pipelines, Russian gas deliveries to China could exceed 100 bcm a year.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

France seizes tanker ‘coming from Russia’

RT | January 22, 2026

French commandos have boarded and seized a sanctioned tanker “coming from Russia,” President Emmanuel Macron announced on Thursday. The ship, Macron claimed, is part of Russia’s supposed ‘shadow fleet’.

The ship was intercepted by the French Navy in the Mediterranean, Macron said, adding that the vessel was “subject to international sanctions and suspected of flying a false flag.” The tanker has since been diverted to port, he added, where a judicial investigation will take place.

The ship, named ‘Grinch’, was sailing from the Russian port of Murmansk. According to publicly available maritime tracking data, ‘Grinch’ is a 250-meter crude oil tanker flying under the flag of Comoros.

The seizure was carried out by French naval forces with assistance from the UK, the French military said in a statement. According to an AP report, Britain provided intelligence support for the operation.

“We will not tolerate any violation,” Macron wrote in a post on X. “The activities of the ‘shadow fleet’ contribute to financing the war of aggression against Ukraine.”

There is no Russian-operated ‘shadow fleet’. Instead, the term refers to any vessel that transports Russian oil outside the coverage of London-based insurance brokers. While their cargo may be sanctioned, Western powers have no legal basis to enforce these sanctions on the high seas, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

According to Macron, the operation took place on the “high seas” in the Mediterranean, but was carried out in “strict compliance” with the convention.

The seizure took place a week after British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper promised to take “a much more assertive and robust approach” against “the Russian shadow fleet.” In October last year, Macron said that France and other EU countries would adopt a “policy of obstruction” against these vessels.

”Russian oil must be stopped, confiscated, and sold for Europe’s benefit,” Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky said at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos on Thursday. “Why not? If Putin has no money, there is no war,” he added.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

European leaders’ shift in their Davos addresses exposes Europe’s strategic anxiety

Global Times | January 21, 2026

The World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting recently kicked off in the Swiss resort city of Davos. This year’s forum took place amid rare transatlantic tensions triggered by the US intention to acquire Greenland. The focus of European leaders’ speeches pivoted noticeably from global economic issues to geopolitics, reflecting Europe’s deepening strategic anxiety amid structural contradictions with the US.

French President Emmanuel Macron said the EU should not bend to “the law of the strongest,” while Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever said the bloc was “at a crossroads” where it must decide on how to get out of a “very bad position” after trying to appease Trump. Even European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen highlighted the “geopolitical shocks” and “a dangerous downward spiral” brought by the US.

“The forum sends a clear political signal of Europe’s growing strategic awakening,” Zhao Junjie, a senior research fellow at the Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

The maximum pressure exerted by the US on the Greenland issue has shaken the long-standing value consensus between Europe and the US. Its unilateral and bullying actions have triggered strong fear and anxiety across Europe, which is a key reason for the heightened emotions and intense reactions toward the US among European representatives at this year’s forum.

The statements made by European leaders at the forum appear to have demonstrated Europe’s resolve to stand firm to the world. Yet it remains to be seen whether such firm commitments can be translated into practical, unified, and effective actions. As senior bankers and corporate executives at Davos noted, they believe the current responses of European leaders to the US are more emotional than pragmatic. Moreover, due to long-standing structural constraints – its deep entanglement with the US in security, energy, and economic affairs – Europe’s response is weak and constrained. Zhao further noted that Europe still lacks systematic measures to effectively counter American unilateralism, with current efforts largely limited to soft multilateral mechanisms.

Europe’s response to US unilateral pressures has been sluggish and lacking in internal coordination. The EU countries have not reached a consensus on the activation of Anti-Coercion Instrument. Meanwhile, Europe continues to grapple with “double standards” in its multilateral engagements. Despite the leaders’ calls for trade diversification, restrictive market-access policies toward certain foreign products have fueled ongoing trade tensions. This contradiction is illustrated by Macron’s appeal for Chinese investment in key sectors, even as the EU moves to phase out components and equipment from tech suppliers such as Huawei in some sectors – a policy that inevitably raises questions about Europe’s consistency and sincerity in pursuing cooperative partnerships.

Canada has already taken action. Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that middle powers are not “powerless” facing “a rupture in the world order.” He called for “honesty about the world as it is” and for building “something bigger, better, stronger, and more just.” Recently, Canada established strategic partnerships with China and Qatar to promote the diversification of its foreign relations. Such strategic sobriety may offer some inspiration for Europe.

Ursula von der Leyen declared in her special address that “Europe will always choose the world, and the world is ready to choose Europe.” Yet Europe must now answer a more pressing question: what path will it choose for itself in the changing global order?

The statements at Davos have sent a clear political signal of Europe’s awakening. Moving forward, Europe must consolidate its strength through unity, steer its own course with greater autonomy, and expand its strategic space through diversification. Confronted with external pressures, only by reinforcing internal solidarity, advancing pragmatic actions, and broadening multilateral cooperation can Europe truly safeguard its own interests and uphold the international multilateral order. Only in this way can Europe genuinely protect its interests amid profound changes. History does not wait for the hesitant – it is time for Europe to act.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Utility disaster in Ukraine as the fate of the country plays out

By Dmitri Kovalevich | Al Mayadeen | January 22, 2026

In the second half of January 2026, the largest cities of Ukraine — Kiev, Odessa, Dnipro, Kharkiv — and others are experiencing complete electricity blackouts. In some, there has been no electricity, heating or running water for more than one week. (Cities in Ukraine are all heated by modern, central heating systems, dating from the years of Soviet Ukraine and the Soviet Union). With cold weather (minus 20 degrees Celsius) having persisted for almost two weeks over the entire country, heating pipes and sewage drainage pipes have burst, even in the Ministry of Energy building in Kiev.

Between 100,000 and 150,000 Kiev residents whose pipes have burst will be left without heat this winter, reports Oleg Popenko, chairman of the Ukrainian Union of Utility Consumers, as reported on Telegram on January 16 by the Strana.ua online news service.

Kiev residents are warming themselves in their apartments with candles, gas cylinders, and gasoline stoves. In Kiev, Kharkiv, and Odessa, supermarkets where people could buy food are closing. Where stores are still open, food prices are skyrocketing. People are blocking roads, demanding electricity for at least a few hours a day. However, the situation overall appears to be nothing less than a collapse of the electricity system in the affected cities and regions.

One of the reasons for the collapses, as detailed in previous reports to Al Mayadeen English by this writer, is the large-scale theft that has taken place for years of Western aid funds otherwise intended to maintain energy sources. These were intended to help construct protective structures around energy producing and transmission facilities. Late last year, anti-corruption agencies in Ukraine began to report such large-scale schemes from which many in the entourage of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have profited handsomely. Many of the accused have since managed to flee to Israel.

Legislator Alexei Goncharenko, a pro-Western, ultra-nationalist loyal to former President Petro Poroshenko (2014-2019), has spoken out in Ukraine’s legislature about the energy crisis, as reported on Telegram by Politnavigator on January 16. “Nothing good is happening here, not with the war, not with energy supply, and not for peace. Ok, we are not talking about peace for now, but what about negotiations? There is complete silence from the government. Meanwhile, Miami basks at 23 degrees (Celsius) and Tel Aviv sits at 17 degrees (Celsius). Many of Zelensky’s friends now reside there, while here in Ukraine, ordinary citizens are struggling to survive in minus double-digit temperatures.”

Many Ukrainian analysts cite another reason for the societal disaster now taking place in the country, and that is the so-called energy infrastructure war which Zelensky has been waging against Russia since 2025, as part of what his administration calls “asymmetric actions”. But Ukraine under Zelensky is a much weaker state than Russia and cannot wage such a war on equal terms. It is Kiev’s Western allies that have advised Ukraine to undertake such a war, in the name of reducing Russia’s profits from oil sales. According to their fantastic claims, attacks against Russia’s fossil fuel production and revenues would cause both to decline, leaving insufficient funding for Russia to respond to the aggression by Ukraine and its Western imperialist backers.

Kiev has carried out several strikes against Russian oil tankers in the Black Sea and against Russia’s oil refineries. It was following such repeated attacks, and not before, that Russia commenced systematic retaliatory strikes, crippling Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Indirectly, ordinary Ukrainians became hostages in a war being waged by Western corporations to redistribute the sales and flows of oil and natural gas in world markets by reducing Russian capacities. Another side of this war is now on full display before the world in the form of U.S. aggression against Venezuela, including the kidnapping of the country’s president on January 3 and pirate-like seizures of oil tankers transporting Venezuelan oil.

Zelensky was warned in 2025 about the dire consequences of waging an infrastructure war with Russia. But the decision was made in the autumn of 2025 to barrel ahead. Zelensky’s presidential office apparently remains confident that it can withstand the pressure of harsh, public reaction to its actions and calmly continue its strategy of protracted war without concessions.

Analysts, however, warn of new problems as the critical situation in energy supply not only leads to blackouts but also hits the country’s economy and provokes new crises, comments the Ukrainian opposition Telegram channel ‘Resident’ carried on January 15. It wrote, “Analysts warn of new problems as the critical situation in the energy industry leads not only to blackouts but also hits the country’s economy and provokes new crises. It is simply impossible to now restore the energy production and distribution network because this will require major repairs for which there are neither financial resources nor time. A new energy strategy is needed, but for now the government is simply reassuring Ukrainians and advising them to ‘keep calm’”.

What Ukrainians want

Western politicians, especially in the European Union and the United Kingdom, following Zelensky’s lead, are fond of speaking on behalf of Ukrainians. They purport to know what conditions that Ukrainians will or will not accept in order to achieve an end to the war. But how can they know? There are no referendums nor elections in Ukraine in wartime conditions, and polling is simply unreliable. Ukrainian citizens live under an authoritarian, wartime regime and do not feel safe in expressing opinions. This has been true since at least the escalation of threats and provocations against Russia which escalated in late 2021.

The constant retreats by Ukraine’s army along the military front lines under the relentless steamroller of the Russian army, the terror of Ukraine’s forced, military conscription, and living in unheated homes without electricity are causing widespread depression among the people of the country. There is also great resentment directed against Zelensky and his administration, blaming them for forcing the population to endure the unendurable.

Even the Western media is being obliged to acknowledge this. Against the backdrop of attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, many Ukrainians believe the largely Russian-speaking and -loyal region of Donbas should be ceded to the Russian Federation in order to end the war and the bombings, writes the New York Times on January 15. The newspaper cites Kiev lawyer Vladimir Dorodko saying “many in Ukraine are tired”. According to him, “the difficulties are causing some Ukrainians to argue that the war should be ended even at the cost of great sacrifices such as territorial concessions.”

Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba (2020-2024) believes that Ukrainians are willing to accept territorial concessions in order to end the war. “What everyone sees in the ratings and opinion polls is one thing. But what people say on the streets and in their kitchens is quite another”, reports Strana on January 12.

Legislator Anna Skorokhod has voiced her own indignation over the deteriorating situation in the country, Poliltnavigator reports on January 16. “People have so much hatred for everything that is happening. Every day begins with negativity. People are so angry and so tired. I heard yesterday from a stranger saying ‘I don’t care what flag I live under, as long as my family can live in peace’”, she acknowledges. Skorokhod was elected to the Rada (legislature) in April 2019 as part of Zelensky’s party/machine. She was expelled from the party six months later for voting against bills to liberalise Ukraine’s land market and break up the Naftogaz monopoly of the natural gas industry.

Either Zelensky or millions of Ukrainians

As Strana.ua wrote on January 16, Zelensky says he is entirely unwilling to make concessions in any peace talks with Russia. This was confirmed in a recent statement by Donald Trump, Strana reported, with Trump going so far as to rhetorically accuse Zelensky of impeding a peace process. All signals from the Office of the President, Strana continued, indicate it intends to continue fighting, believing that its military front will not collapse, that the energy industry and the population will somehow hold out until the end of winter, and that a collapse by Russia is ‘just around the corner’ due to the weight of Western sanctions, Ukrainian strikes on oil facilities, and other problems.

Former advisor to Zelesnky’s office, Alexei Arestovich (Dec 2020-Jan 2023), says that only a rapid change in Ukraine’s foreign policy can save the country from outright defeat. According to him, Zelensky is unable to change course because he is hostage to the established policy. “It is safe to say that the continuation of the anti-Russia foreign policy project and the domestic policy of monocultural ethno-nationalism will leave Ukraine in ruins and lead not only to military defeat but also to historic defeat. In the short term, five to seven years, I think the Ukraine state [ethno-nationalist as it became following the demise of Soviet Ukraine in 1991] will be finished”, Arestovich predicts.

Vasily Volga, a former businessman and legislature member, more recently leader (in exile) of the Union of Left Forces, believes that Ukraine’s worsening crisis is caused by the fact that Zelensky is personally trying to survive at any cost and therefore clings to power and a continuation of the war course. “I believe that Zelensky will cling to power with his teeth, to the last. When his teeth are pulled out, he will then use his claws, whatever it takes. He will not leave until the very end. Resignation is becoming less and less likely for Zelensky with each passing day”, says Volga, who is convinced that Zelensky is destined to suffer grave personal consequences at the hands of those still fighting for his government.

On January 14, Alexander Dubinsky, a legislator from Zelensky’s party from 2019 to 2021 and imprisoned since November 2023 under accusations of ‘treason’, has also written that for Zelensky, continuing the war is a guarantee of his personal safety. “He will do everything to disrupt any negotiations. It seems obvious that if this should require striking Russian nuclear facilities, he would do so. From the first days of his presidency, Zelensky surrounded himself with incompetent but very greedy friends who began frantically to plunder the country. There is a huge amount of compromising information on him in the hands of all Western intelligence services.”

All this, however, does not mean that Western imperialists will not try to place a new warmonger in Zelensky’s place. The problem with the current war is not only how quickly the Russian army seems poised to capture the city of Zaporizhia (fifth largest city in Ukraine). It is that the main issue for Russia is not the capture of territory but the creation of the common security system, which was disrupted by the West following the demise of the USSR in 1990-91.

The current war in Ukraine has now lasted longer than the war by Nazi Germany against Soviet Ukraine from June 1941 to October 1944 (1,418 days). The Russian authorities have repeatedly emphasized that what they consider to be the root causes of the current conflict must be settled in any peace agreement. For them, a major root cause is the threat of further NATO expansion to include Ukraine.

As if to mock Russian concerns, the risible ‘peace plans’ of Kiev’s supporters in the European Union constantly refer to ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine in the form of the introduction of French or British troops onto Ukrainian soil. This, they say, must be part of a peace agreement. This stance is a continued reminder of the EU’s unwillingness to end the war, and a reminder of its crazed goal of establishing British military bases, at any cost, on our Ukrainian soil.

January 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Max Otte: How Germany Destroyed Itself – No Turning Back

Glenn Diesen | January 20, 2026

Max Otte discusses how Germany began to ignore and undermine its own national interests after the Cold War. Max Otte is an entrepreneur, political economist, investment manager, philanthropist and political activist. With 141 votes, he was the runner-up for the election of the President of the Federal Republic of Germany on 13 February 2022.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen Patreon:   / glenndiesen  

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng

Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/…

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Why Trump’s ‘Board Of Peace’ Is Destined To Crash And Burn

By Robert Inlakesh –  The Palestine Chronicle – January 21, 2026

The recent announcement of US President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” (BoP) has stirred intense debate over what Phase 2 of the Gaza Ceasefire will look like. In reality, figuring this out is rather simple: it is a mission destined to crash and burn, similar to how the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) and the Floating Aid Pier did.

Proponents of the Trump administration’s BoP have little to show other than fancy rhetoric, churned out unironically, due to their lack of any basic understanding of Gaza’s predicament.

The Board Of Zionist Failure

As of the White House press briefing issued on January 16, the so-called Board of Peace was initiated with seven appointed members to its “Executive Board.” None of them is Palestinian, let alone from Gaza, and none possesses even the slightest credibility in dealing with such a sensitive and arduous task.

They include Trump administration officials Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio, Robert Gabriel, and the demonstrably incompetent son-in-law of the US President, Jared Kushner. Then there is former British Prime Minister—the butcher of Baghdad himself—Tony Blair. That leaves pro-Israel billionaire Marc Rowan and World Bank Group President Ajay Banga.

However, the individual granted the most consequential role, the High Representative for Gaza, is none other than Nickolay Mladenov. While serving as a United Nations envoy to the Middle East, he developed a relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He also earned the favour of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and was awarded the ‘Grand Star of the Order of Jerusalem’ by its President, Mahmoud Abbas.

Mladenov is presented as a man who maintains relations with all sides, yet those citing his ties to the PA as evidence of this are doing so disingenuously. Setting aside questions of the PA’s legitimacy, it has not ruled Gaza since 2006. As such, his relationship is not with the governing authorities of the besieged territory.

In addition, Mladenov left his UN post to become director-general of the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy in Abu Dhabi. He not only resides in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) but also serves as a Segal Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

His affiliation with WINEP should raise major red flags. The institute is often referred to as the think-tank wing of the Israel Lobby in Washington and, according to the Quincy Institute’s ‘Think Tank Funding Tracker,’ is funded by dark money. Mladenov is also a passionate supporter of the Trump administration’s so-called “Abraham Accords,” an initiative aimed at pushing Arab states to abandon the demand for a Palestinian state before normalizing relations with Tel Aviv.

While there is much more to be said about the so-called BoP, it suffices to note that it is a pro-Israel endeavour—one that reportedly demands a $1 billion sign-up fee for participating nations, as though it were a subscription service, a kind of Netflix for states.

The mere existence of the BoP constitutes a clear violation of international law and even contradicts the US’s own newly adopted National Security Strategy doctrine. None of this would have been possible, however, without the utter cowardice of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members back in November.

UNSC Resolution 2803 authorized this colonial throwback board—an unelected, illegitimate authority imposed upon Gaza—while effectively rewarding Israel for committing genocide. Every state that voted in favor is complicit, with no exceptions. The resolution erased decades of UNSC and UN General Assembly resolutions, undermined the Geneva Conventions, and authorized a plan that violates rulings issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s own legal body.

Why It Will Fail

As for what the BoP is actually meant to do, meaningful analysis is nearly impossible at this stage. It has no clear vision—only a pro-Israeli orientation. The BoP is a cash grab, trafficking in vague concepts such as “peace,” “accountability,” and “reconstruction,” while offering no substance. Its continued existence rests largely on the unwillingness of states to challenge it, out of fear of the occupant of the White House.

What is clear is that this project has no viable options. Already, the Israeli government has begun objecting to it, as members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet openly call for the permanent occupation of the Gaza Strip to facilitate illegal settlement construction. Netanyahu himself is demanding the return of the body of Israel’s last captive and the disarmament of Hamas—both demands that remain unresolved.

Under only one condition are Israeli leaders prepared to consider extending the ceasefire into Phase 2: the violent overthrow of Hamas through “disarmament.” In a Monday address to the Knesset, Netanyahu echoed Trump’s threat—“we do it the easy way or the hard way”—in reference to demilitarisation.

Meanwhile, on the ground, Israel has killed nearly 500 Palestinians since the so-called ceasefire began. It has also refused to halt attacks on civilian infrastructure and violated the “Yellow Line” meant to separate the 53 percent of Gaza under occupation, instead seizing roughly 60 percent of the territory.

These ceasefire violations—including the restriction of agreed-upon aid flows—have been monitored by the Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), led by the United States and involving more than 20 national militaries.

The CMCC does not engage in combat; it merely monitors violations—a mission it has clearly failed. It has made little to no tangible difference, aside from rendering the US military directly complicit in facilitating Israeli war crimes.

For the BoP to coordinate an “International Stabilization Force” (ISF) tasked with disarming Hamas, it would require not tens of thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands. Alternatively, as suggested by Israeli and American officials and private military contractor UG Solutions, private mercenary forces could be deployed to compensate for an incoherent and vastly outnumbered ISF.

Compounding this is the existence of five Israeli-created ISIS-linked militias operating in Gaza, reportedly backed by the UAE, which may be used as cannon fodder in such a conflict.

Israeli officials themselves previously estimated that occupying Gaza City alone would require approximately 200,000 soldiers and could take up to a decade, simply to replicate a West Bank-style occupation. How, then, are tens of thousands expected to succeed where Israel could not?

If the ISF, under the direction of the BoP’s Zionist loyalists, truly wages war on Hamas, it would likely collapse—and in doing so, confirm that the so-called international community has chosen to resume Israel’s genocidal campaign. The proposition borders on madness.

Either Trump’s “peace plan” will be subordinated entirely to Israeli dictates, or it will be blocked altogether—leaving regime change in Gaza and foreign occupation as its core objectives. Phase 2 was supposed to begin months ago, yet it remains stalled because no one is willing to confront the current ultra-Zionist American administration.

On October 8, even before the ceasefire was announced, I wrote in The Palestine Chronicle that what lay ahead was a prolonged limbo between Phases 1 and 2. I warned it would amount to little more than a glorified pause—one Israel would violate whenever it suited its interests. Thus far, that prediction has proven accurate.

A BoP may well be assembled, and an ISF may even be deployed, but it will neither deliver sustainability nor realize the fantastical visions being proposed. Eventually, something will break—and this prolonged stalling, misleadingly labelled a “ceasefire,” is likely to backfire catastrophically.

Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Board of Peace’ resembles a club that turns the world into the ‘law of the jungle’

By Li Zixin | Global Times | January 21, 2026

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to impose 200 percent tariffs on French wines and champagne after French President Emmanuel Macron was reported to be unwilling to join his “Board of Peace” on Gaza, according to media reports.

The so-called Board of Peace is part of a “20-point peace plan” proposed by the US to end the Israel-Hamas conflict in the Gaza Strip. According to the draft charter of this board, it will be chaired by Trump. Membership would be by invitation from the chairman, who would hold key authority over terms, renewals and removals. What shocked the international community even more was that the US plan openly priced the board’s “permanent seats” at $1 billion each. This act of “privatizing” international affairs and “commodifying” regional peace not only disregards the will of the Palestinian people but also poses a huge challenge to the existing international governance system and norms of conduct.

The current Israel-Palestine conflict has lasted nearly 30 months, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues to worsen. The White House’s push to form a “Board of Peace” is primarily aimed at demonstrating US influence over the situation in Gaza. However, this institution, which should be responsible for peace in Gaza, is a typical product of “transactional diplomacy.” The nomination list is filled with US politicians and their cronies, but conspicuously absent is the most critical stakeholder – the Palestinians. This “absence” has drawn widespread criticism from the international community, with some even suggesting it reveals the institution’s “colonial” nature – attempting to privately outline Gaza’s future without the consent of the Palestinian people.

Even more shocking is the White House’s explicit offer of a “permanent seat” for $1 billion. This move reduces the solemn cause of international peace to a game of money. Gaza’s future should not be a commodity to be bought; under the influence of capital and hegemonic will, it will find it difficult to achieve true peace.

Judging from the proposed charter of the “Board of Peace,” this mechanism is unlikely to resolve the current crisis and may even poison the political landscape of the Middle East. First, it has not prioritized the imminent humanitarian crisis in Gaza, instead focusing more on the capital operations of postwar reconstruction.

Second, this board seriously hinders a comprehensive and just solution to the Palestine-Israel issue. The US-led Gaza peace plan not only eliminates the political role of the Palestinian National Authority in Gaza but also establishes a so-called Board of Peace controlled by external forces above the Palestinian technocratic committee. In essence, this replaces sovereign governance with external intervention, undermining the political foundation of the “two-state solution.” The US thereby deprives Palestinians of their fundamental right as a state to handle their own affairs, effectively further dividing the Gaza Strip from the West Bank and making a just and lasting peace even more unattainable.

Third, this move has severely impacted the global governance system. The current Gaza crisis is a brutal illustration of the disorderly state where “might makes right.” If peace seats can be bought and major powers can arbitrarily establish their own systems outside the existing international order, the fairness of the postwar international order will be undermined. This “club governance” model reduces international law to a private contract among major powers, forcing the world back into the law of the jungle.

To truly resolve the Israel-Palestine issue, we must return to the international order of fairness and justice. Any arrangements regarding the postwar governance of Gaza must be discussed within the framework of the UN and must fully respect the fundamental principle of “Palestinians governing Palestine.” Genuine peace should be built on the basis of the “two-state solution” and the restoration of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, not on a “small group” privately established by a hegemonic power. The international community should be wary of the dangerous tendency to place geopolitical games above international law and ensure that the reconstruction of Gaza is the reconstruction of justice, not an expansion of hegemony.

The author is a research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

After the headlines fade: Gaza, abandoned while the genocide persists

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | January 21, 2026

A colleague, an editor at a widely read outlet that centered Gaza throughout the two-year genocide, recently voiced his frustration that Gaza is no longer a main focus in the news.

He hardly needed to say it. It is evident that Gaza has already been pushed to the margins of coverage — not only by mainstream Western media, long known for its structural bias in Israel’s favor, but also by outlets often described, accurately or not, as ‘pro-Palestine.’

At first glance, this retreat may appear routine. Gaza during the height of the genocide demanded constant attention; Gaza after the genocide, less so.

But this assumption collapses under scrutiny, because the genocide in Gaza has not ended.

According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, nearly 500 Palestinians have been killed and hundreds more wounded since the so-called ceasefire was declared in October 2025, despite repeated claims that large-scale massacres had ceased. These are not isolated incidents or “violations”; they are the continuation of the same lethal policies of the last two years.

Beyond the daily death toll lies devastation on an almost incomprehensible scale. More than 71,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023, with entire neighborhoods erased, infrastructure pulverized, and civilian life rendered nearly impossible.

To grasp the depth of Gaza’s crisis, one must confront a brutal reality: well over one million people remain displaced, living in tents and makeshift shelters that collapse under winter storms, floodwaters, or strong winds. Infants have frozen to death. Families are swept from one temporary refuge to another, trapped in a cycle of exposure and fear.

Beneath Gaza’s ruins lie thousands of bodies still buried under rubble, unreachable due to Israel’s destruction of heavy machinery, roads, and emergency services. Thousands more are believed to be buried in mass graves awaiting excavation and dignified burial.

Meanwhile, hundreds of bodies remain scattered in areas east of the so-called Yellow Line, a boundary claimed to separate military zones from Palestinian “safe areas.” Israel never respected this line. It was a fiction from the start, used to manufacture the appearance of restraint while violence continued everywhere.

From Israel’s perspective, the war has never truly stopped. Only Palestinians are expected to honor the ceasefire — compelled by fear that any response, however minimal, will be seized upon as justification for renewed mass killing, fully endorsed by the US administration and its Western allies.

The killing has merely slowed down. On 15th January alone, Israeli attacks killed 16 Palestinians, including women and children, across Gaza, despite the absence of any military confrontation. Yet as long as daily death tolls remain below the psychological threshold of mass slaughter — below 100 bodies a day — Gaza quietly slips from the headlines.

Today, more than two million Palestinians are confined to roughly 45 percent of Gaza’s already tiny 365 square kilometers, with only trickles of aid entering, no reliable access to clean water, and a health system barely functioning. Gaza’s economy is effectively annihilated. Even fishermen are either blocked entirely from the sea or restricted to less than one kilometer offshore, turning a centuries-old livelihood into a daily risk of death.

Education has been reduced to survival. Children study in tents or in partially destroyed buildings, as nearly every school and university in Gaza has been damaged or destroyed by Israeli bombardment.

Nor has Israel abandoned the rhetoric that laid the ideological groundwork for genocide. Senior Israeli officials continue to articulate visions of permanent devastation and ethnic cleansing — language that strips Palestinians of humanity while framing destruction as policy, a strategic necessity.

But why is Israel determined to keep Gaza suspended at the edge of collapse? Why does it obstruct stabilization and delay movement to the second phase of the ceasefire agreement?

The answer is blunt: Israel seeks to preserve the option of ethnic cleansing. Senior officials have openly advocated permanent occupation, demographic engineering, and the denial of Palestinian return to their destroyed areas east of the Yellow Line.

And the media?

For its part, Western media have begun rehabilitating Israel’s image, reinserting it into global narratives as if collective extermination never occurred. More troubling still, even parts of the so-called ‘pro-Palestine’ media appear to be moving on — as though genocide were a temporary assignment, rather than an ongoing moral emergency.

One might attempt to justify this neglect by pointing to crises elsewhere — Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Greenland. But that argument collapses unless Gaza has truly emerged from catastrophe, though it has not.

Israel has succeeded, to a dangerous degree, in systematically dehumanizing Palestinians through mass killing. Once violence reaches genocidal proportions, lesser — yet still deadly — violence becomes normalized. The slow death of survivors becomes background noise.

This is how Palestinians are killed twice: first through genocide, and then through erasure — through silence, distraction, and the gradual withdrawal of attention from their ongoing collective suffering.

Palestine and its people must remain at the center of moral and political solidarity. This is not an act of charity, nor an expression of ideological alignment. It is the bare minimum owed to a population the world has already failed — and continues to fail — every single day.

Silence now is not neutrality; it is complicity.

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Introducing Mossad Farsi, the Motto and the Methods

By Ilana Mercer • Unz Review • January 21, 2026

I’ll stifle the impulse not to say the obvious, and say it: An Israeli-American regime-change operation is underway in Iran.

It’s “right out of the US-Israel playbook” for such operations, notes Professor John Merisheimer, a scrupulous scholar of “great-power politics,” or, more precisely, of naked imperial power.

First, the US “wrecked the country’s economy through crippling sanctions, making the populace profoundly unhappy, poor, desperate, hungry.” Next, cheek-by-jowl with Israel, massive protests were fomented, confirmation for which came in a December 29, Jerusalem Post article, the headline to which read as follows:

“Mossad spurs Iran protests, say agents with [the] demonstrators, in [a] Farsi message: As protests grow across Iran, the Mossad posted an unusual Farsi message urging demonstrators to act, saying it is with them in the streets, amid rising economic pressure and public unrest.”

To Israel, the United States of America offers service and subservience.

Thus, comments from Trump on Truth Social and Mike Pompeo, more openly, backed the fact of an orchestrated, malevolent intervention, in what were initially organic, peaceful protests that stemmed from ruthless economic warfare (American) against the Islamic Republic.

Duly, on January 2, 2026, Pompeo, former U.S. Secretary of state and CIA director, wrote: “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also, to every Mossad agent walking beside them…”

As reported by the Times of Israel, on January 16, “Channel 14, seen as close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” initially said that “‘foreign actors’ are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed.” A little later, a typically oleaginous Israeli source quipped: “Everyone is free to guess who is behind it.”

We’ve sensed as much. The Iranian January 2026 protesters are acting out-of-character. More like Israelis than ordinary Iranians. These protesters appear thoroughly Israelized—it is certainly unusual historically for the generally demure, respectful Iranians to burn down and desecrate their own holy sites; acts that conform, however, to the rules and customs of Israeli “transnational terrorism.”

Historically, Iranians in protest have targeted government symbols, but not national and religious symbols.

And, Lo: These Iranian protesters had enjoyed access to 40,000 StarLink terminals, a news tidbit confirmed by the Times of Israel and Fox News, in bursts of good cheer and cheerleading. The “live” firearms provided were in keeping with Israel’s terror-state tactics. Recall that, in June of 2025, in connivance with the CIA, Mossad, MI5 and Trump—Israelis had smuggled needed materiel into Iran for their war of aggression. Trump had done his part in the subterfuge by pursuing “diplomacy-as-deception” with his trusting Iranian interlocutors, thus distracting and deceiving them.

The third stage in the “US-Israel Axis’” “four-part regime change playbook,” avers Mearsheimer, is the disinformation campaign.

Before their respective, well-coordinated air forces and armies alight on their Iranian victims in targeted attacks and assassinations—the “transnational terrorists” of the “US-Israel Axis” have a trifling task: Convince the most-propagandized minds in the world, Westerners, that this grotesque burlesque of a regime-change farce is a naturally occurring thing.

In other words, that America’s color-coded, plant-based “democratic” revolutions, you know the kind—“Purple” in Iraq, “Blue” in Kuwait, “Cotton” in Uzbekistan, “Grape” in Moldova, “Orange” in the Ukraine, “Rose” in Georgia, “Tulip” in Kyrgyzstan, “Cedar” in Lebanon, “Jasmine” in Tunisia, “Green” in Iran, still un-christened in Russia and Syria—these are but natural uprisings, led by noble patriots, who just happen, all-too frequently, to be aligned with and sponsored by Foreign Policy Inc., the clubby DC foreign-policy establishment and its Israeli offshoots and operatives.

Mearsheimer appears to imply that the stages of regime change are consecutive, or sequential. I would argue that, as in all formulaic stage theories—the stages of regime change overlap, run into each other, reoccur and repeat. To wit, Iran has and will continue to endure this devilry for decades.

Over and above regime change, Israel, by Mearsheimer’s careful estimation, has a “deep-seated interest” in “wrecking Iran,” in breaking the Islamic Republic apart, and fracturing the surrounding nations.

“At bottom,” I posited during the 12-day war on Iran, “If Israel wanted to enjoy its neighborhood; it would not perennially reduce it to a primordial, pre-civilization stage, as in Gaza, by wiping out knowledge, experience, strength; smarts, beauty and goodness. … These Israeli atavists—who during the 2025 offensive in Iran murdered nearly 900 Palestinians in Gaza—don’t want educated, erudite neighbors; equals with whom to make magic in the region; they want subjects they can sanction and slaughter into submission.”(“IRAN: Everything You Need To Know But Were Too Afraid Of The Israel Lobby To Ask,” July 1, 2025.”)

I should revise that: According to the twinned belief-systems of Jewish supremacy and American exceptionalism; all ‘good,’ ‘happy’ human beings are either those who are like Americans or like Israelis, or en route to becoming clones of the one or the other.

Those involved in these foreign-policy drives honestly believe that to be American or Israeli is the existential Gold Standard. Lowly humanity is a pilgrim en route to the Promised Land, whether they know it or not —sometimes by hook or crook. Ultimately, the lives of all the Others being roused to revolt are just not worth much until they “arrive.”

As to their deep involvement in inciting regime-change riots in Iran: News tidbits to that effect have come to us directly via the Israelis themselves.

By now you know that Israel is “amoral,” it acts outside the laws of both man and God. By now you know that bursts of pride accompany Israeli barbarity. As is often the case, Israelis and their media openly report their crimes. And they are especially proud to be inciting regime-change in Iran. On the ground.

Take the X account titled “Mossad Farsi.” So nauseatingly audacious in content is it, that I doubted its authenticity.

In sickeningly sugared tweets, “Official Mossad in Farsi” and its bots (the programmed, online Artificial Intelligence responders or Israel’s paid lickspittles) profess the love Israelis have for the largely pro-Palestinian Iranians.

These are the same Israelis, still mid-murder in Gaza and the West bank, who were posting and celebrating imagery of murdered Palestinians with the flesh hanging on their bones in ribbons. That amoral Israel is now “loving on” the Iranians, a people who have generally resisted for Palestine.

Filled with love, “Mossad Farsi” has been loud and proud about its role in attempting to break the Islamic Republic. Here is the Mossad Farsi tweet that got world attention. Dated December 29, it reads as follows: “Let’s come out to the streets together. The time has come. We are with you. Not just from afar and verbally, we are with you in the field as well.”

Speaking in unison, Israeli media—Channel 14, i24, Israel Hayom, and others, no doubt—confirmed the authenticity and impetus of this account. In identically scripted messages, all outlets announced that a “Mossad X account in Farsi urges Iranians to protest as unrest sweeps the country.”

The criminal Svengali Bibi tips the nose toward Iran (allegedly), in a December 29 meeting at Mar-a-Lago, and Trump runs. “Fetch,” says Netanyahu to a pack of dreadful American curs, and they fetch. (Apologies, again, to animals for using them as the source of metaphor for things stupid and evil. It’s a regrettable feature of the English language.)

What might I add to the information provided by Mearsheimer (and reported by Max Blumenthal) in hashing out the finer points of the Israeli scheme? I can provide a translation from the Hebrew of the motto embedded by Mossad Farsi in its X account’s graphic. It reads as follows:

“Without connivance [as in scheming], a nation will fall”:

באין תחבולות יפול עם

Mossad Farsi’s motto is The Message. Israel’s message.

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

How Syria’s Kurds were erased from the US-led endgame

Paris marked the moment Washington quietly aligned with Ankara and Tel Aviv to close the Kurdish chapter in Syria’s war

By Musa Ozugurlu | The Cradle | January 21, 2026

For nearly 15 years, US flags flew over Syrian territory with near-total impunity – from Kurdish towns to oil-rich outposts. In the northeast, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) manned checkpoints, American convoys moved freely, and local councils governed as if the arrangement was permanent.

The occupation was not formal, but it did not need to be. So long as Washington stayed, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) had a state in everything but name.

Then, in the first week of January, that illusion was broken. What had passed for a military partnership was quietly dismantled in a Paris backroom – without Kurdish participation, without warning, and without resistance. Within days, Washington’s most loyal proxy in Syria no longer had its protection.

A collapse that looked sudden only from the outside

Since late last year, Syria’s political and military terrain shifted with startling speed. Former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s rule came to an end, and shortly afterward, the SDF – long portrayed as the most disciplined and organized force in the country – followed the same trajectory.

To outside or casual observers, the SDF collapse appeared abrupt, even shocking. For many Syrians, particularly Syrian Kurds, the psychology of victory that had defined the past 14 years evaporated in days. What replaced it was confusion, fear, and a growing realization that the guarantees they had relied on were never guarantees at all.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – an extremist militant group stemming from the Nusra Front – advanced with unexpected momentum, achieving gains few analysts had predicted. But the real story was the absence of resistance from forces that, until recently, had been told they were indispensable.

The question, then, is not how this happened so quickly, but why the ground had already been cleared.

The illusion of fixed positions

To understand the outcome, it is necessary to revisit the assumptions each actor carried into this phase of the war.

The SDF emerged in the immediate aftermath of the US-led intervention against Damascus. It was never intended to be a purely Kurdish formation. From the outset, its leadership understood that ethnic exclusivity would doom its international standing. Arab tribes and other non-Kurdish components were incorporated to project the image of a multi-ethnic, representative force.

Ironically, those same tribal elements would later become one of the fault lines that accelerated the SDF’s disintegration.

Militarily, the group benefited enormously from circumstance. As the Syrian Arab Army fought on multiple fronts and redeployed forces toward strategic battles – particularly around Aleppo – the SDF expanded with minimal resistance. Territory was acquired less through confrontation than through absence.

Washington’s decision to enter Syria under the banner of fighting Assad and later ISIS provided the SDF with its most valuable asset: international legitimacy. Under US protection, the Kurdish movement translated decades of regional political experience into a functioning de facto autonomous administration.

It looked like history was bending in their favor.

Turkiye’s red line never moved

From Ankara’s perspective, Syria was always about two objectives. The first was the removal of Assad, a goal for which Turkiye was willing to cooperate with almost anyone, including Kurdish actors. Channels opened, and messages were exchanged. At times, the possibility of accommodation seemed real.

But the Kurdish leadership made a strategic choice. Believing their US alliance gave them leverage, they closed the door and insisted on pursuing their own agenda.

Turkiye’s second objective never wavered: preventing the emergence of any Kurdish political status in Syria. A recognized Kurdish entity next door threatened to shift regional balances and, more importantly, embolden Kurdish aspirations inside Turkiye itself.

That concern would eventually align Turkiye’s interests with actors it had previously opposed.

Washington’s priorities were never ambiguous

The US did not hide its hierarchy of interests in West Asia. Preserving strategic footholds mattered. But above all else stood Israel’s security.

Hamas’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in October 2023 handed Washington and Tel Aviv a rare opportunity. As the Gaza genocidal war unfolded and the Axis of Resistance absorbed sustained pressure, the US gained a new and more flexible partner in Syria alongside the Kurds: HTS leader Ahmad al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Muhammad al-Julani when he was an Al-Qaeda chief.

Sharaa’s profile checked every box. His positions on Israel and Palestine posed no challenge. His sectarian background reassured regional capitals. His political outlook promised stability without resistance. Where the Assads had generated five decades of friction, Sharaa offered predictability.

For Washington and Tel Aviv, he represented a cleaner solution.

Designing a Syria without resistance

With Sharaa in place, Israel found itself operating in Syrian territory with unprecedented ease. Airstrikes intensified. Targets that once risked escalation now passed without response. Israeli soldiers skied on Mount Hermon and posted selfies from positions that had been inaccessible for decades.

Damascus, for the first time in modern history, posed no strategic discomfort.

More importantly, Syria under Sharaa became fully accessible to global capital. Sanctions narratives softened while reconstruction frameworks emerged. The war’s political economy entered a new phase.

In this equation, a Syria without the SDF suited everyone who mattered. For Turkiye, it meant eliminating the Kurdish question. For Israel, it meant a northern border stripped of resistance. For Washington, it meant a redesigned Syrian state aligned with its regional architecture.

The name they all converged on was the same.

Paris: Where the decision was formalized

On 6 January, Syrian and Israeli delegations met in Paris under US mediation. It was the first such encounter in the history of bilateral relations. Publicly, the meeting was framed around familiar issues: Israeli withdrawal, border security, and demilitarized zones. But those headlines were cosmetic.

Instead, the joint statement spoke of permanent arrangements, intelligence sharing, and continuous coordination mechanisms.

Yet these points were also clearly peripheral. The real content of the talks is evident in the outcomes now unfolding. Consider the following excerpt from the statement:

“The Sides reaffirm their commitment to strive toward achieving lasting security and stability arrangements for both countries. Both Sides have decided to establish a joint fusion mechanism – a dedicated communication cell – to facilitate immediate and ongoing coordination on their intelligence sharing, military de-escalation, diplomatic engagement, and commercial opportunities under the supervision of the United States.”

Following this, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office “stressed … the need to advance economic cooperation for the benefit of both countries.”

Journalist Sterk Gulo was among the first to note the implications, writing that “An alliance was formed against the Autonomous Administration at the meeting held in Paris.”

From that moment, the SDF’s fate was sealed.

Ankara’s pressure campaign

Turkiye had spent years working toward this outcome. Reports suggest that a late-2025 agreement to integrate SDF units into the Syrian army at the division level was blocked at the last minute due to Ankara’s objections. Even Sharaa’s temporary disappearance from the public eye – which sparked rumors of an assassination attempt – was linked by some to internal confrontations over this issue.

According to multiple accounts, Turkiye’s Ambassador Tom Barrack was present at meetings in Damascus where pro-SDF clauses were rejected outright. Physical confrontations followed. Sharaa vanished until he could reappear without explaining the dispute.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan was present in Paris and played an active role in the negotiations. Its demands were clear: US support for the SDF must end, and the so-called “David Corridor” must be blocked. In exchange, Turkiye would not obstruct Israeli operations in southern Syria.

It was a transactional alignment – and it worked.

Removing the last obstacle

With the SDF sidelined, Sharaa’s consolidation of power became possible. Control over northeastern Syria allowed Damascus to focus on unresolved files elsewhere, including the Druze question.

What followed was predictable. Clashes in Aleppo before the new year were test runs. The pattern had been seen before.

In 2018, during Turkiye’s Olive Branch operation, the SDF announced it would defend Afrin. Damascus offered to take control of the area and organize its defense. The offer was refused – likely under US pressure. On the night resistance was expected, the SDF withdrew.

The same script replayed in Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh. Resistance lasted days. Supplies from east of the Euphrates never arrived. Withdrawal followed.

The American exit, again

Many assumed that the Euphrates line still mattered. That HTS advances west of the river would not be repeated in the east. That Washington would intervene when its Kurdish partner was directly threatened.

The shock came when HTS moved toward Deir Ezzor, and Arab tribes defected en masse. These tribes had been on the US payroll. The message was unmistakable: salaries would now come from elsewhere.

Meanwhile, meetings between Sharaa and the Kurds, which were expected to formalize agreements, were delayed twice, and clashes broke out immediately after.

Washington had already decided.

US officials attempted to sell a new vision to Kurdish leaders: participation in a unified Syrian state without distinct political status. The SDF rejected this, and demanded constitutional guarantees. It also refused to dissolve its forces, citing security concerns.

The Kurdish group’s mistake was believing history would not repeat itself.

Afghanistan should have been enough of a warning.

What remains

Syria has entered a new phase. Power is now organized around a Turkiye–Israel–US triangle, with Damascus as the administrative center of a project designed elsewhere.

The Druze are next. If Israel’s security is guaranteed under the Paris framework, HTS forces will eventually push toward Suwayda.

The Alawites remain – isolated and exposed.

The fallout is ongoing. On 20 January, the SDF announced its withdrawal from Al-Hawl Camp – a detention center for thousands of ISIS prisoners and their families – citing the international community’s failure to assist.

Damascus accused the Kurds of deliberately releasing detainees. The US, whose base sits just two kilometers from the site of a major prison break, declined to intervene.

Washington’s silence in the face of chaos near its own installations only confirmed what the Kurds are now forced to accept: the alliance is over.

Ultimately, it was not just a force that collapsed. It was a whole strategy of survival built on the hope that imperial interests might someday align with Kurdish aspirations.

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump presses aides to draw up ‘decisive options’ for strikes on Iran: Report

The Cradle | January 21, 2026

US President Donald Trump is pressing his team to draw up “decisive” options for an attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, after canceling a planned strike earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 20 January.

Officials told the outlet that Trump repeatedly used the word “decisive” when telling his aides what desired outcome he wanted from striking Iran.

As a result, the Pentagon has devised several scenarios including attacks that aim to overthrow the Iranian government, the report said.

One of the options is described as more limited, however, and includes strikes on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facilities.

The officials added that Trump has not yet authorized an attack and that his final decision is still unclear at this point.

Washington is moving the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier toward West Asia after redeploying it from the South China Sea.

Aerial refueling tankers and additional squadrons of fighter jets are also being moved to the region.

The report coincides with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s most stern warning yet, which was conveyed in his own op-ed for the WSJ.

“Unlike the restraint Iran showed in June 2025, our powerful armed forces have no qualms about firing back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack. This isn’t a threat, but a reality I feel I need to convey explicitly, because as a diplomat and a veteran, I abhor war,” Araghchi said.

He also commented on the recent unrest in Iran. “The White House ought to be impervious to the wave of demonstrably false stories in western media about recent events in Iran, but it may be necessary to clarify some points. The protests began peacefully and were recognized as legitimate by the Iranian government.”

“They suddenly turned violent when foreign and domestic terrorist actors entered the scene, so blocking communication among organizers of the rioters and terrorists was an imperative. As those cells are being wrapped up by our intelligence and security agencies, the internet and all communications are slowly being restored,” the foreign minister added.

Over the past few weeks, Iran faced widespread riots after protests turned violent following the collapse of the Iranian currency, caused by years of brutal US sanctions.

Western-based rights groups claim thousands of peaceful protesters have been killed. Iran has detained hundreds of armed rioters, many of whom have been found with links to the Mossad, and are behind the killing of scores of civilians.

A former CIA director recently admitted that Mossad agents were on the ground in the protests.

Multiple reports confirmed Iran’s use of military-grade GPS jammers to shut off Starlink, which had been deployed to Iran in a US-backed effort to ‘aid’ protesters amid an internet shutdown.

As a result, Iran was able to significantly reduce riots and foreign-backed sabotage operations – which included the killing of over 100 security forces and police officers. Tens of thousands of Starlink devices were seized or shut off.

“The Americans and Israelis are shocked,” former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke, previously a British diplomat as well, told The Cradle in an interview.

Trump called off his planned attack on Iran earlier this month, after vowing to hit the country “hard” and “rescue” protesters. The president claimed he changed his mind after Iran decided against executing hundreds of detained rioters.

Abd al-Bary Atwan, a Palestinian-British journalist and editor of Rai al-Youm newspaper, said Trump “was forced to call off his attack” after US-Israeli destabilization efforts failed to weaken the government.

According to the WSJ, Israel requested that Trump call off the strike because Tel Aviv was not prepared for an Iranian retaliation.

January 21, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries