Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why Washington will take Greenland

By Timofey Bordachev | RT | January 14, 2026

American political culture is drifting openly toward the annexation of Greenland. This may sound surreal to European ears, but it is not an exotic idea in Washington. It follows a logic that is deeply rooted in how the US historically became a great power and how it still proves its strength today.

The United States rose through territorial expansion at the expense of weaker neighbors. It seized land from those who could not defend it. There is no serious reason to assume that this instinct has disappeared. The only reliable guarantee of borders is the ability to fight for them. And history shows something very simple: the US does not attack those who can resist.

Modern world politics suggests that Western Europe is no longer among those who can resist.

That is why, from Washington’s point of view, the real question is not whether Greenland will eventually be absorbed into direct American control, but when. Western European states, and Denmark specifically, are among the least dangerous targets imaginable. They are harmless not only militarily, but psychologically: they are unlikely to respond in any serious way.

In American strategic culture, refusing to exploit such an insignificant position would contradict the fundamentals of foreign policy thinking. The conclusion becomes unavoidable: the annexation of Greenland, peacefully or by force, is inevitable.

Over the past few days we have seen an escalating series of statements and initiatives from American representatives. They range from internet “teasers” and political provocation to official remarks and even draft bills in Congress. The overall message is clear: Greenland should fall under direct US control. And just as importantly, the discussion itself is meant to create an impression in Europe, and in the wider world, that the outcome is pre-determined.

Western European politicians have responded with predictable panic.

Germany, for instance, has proposed a joint NATO mission called Arctic Sentry. The initiative is absurd, but revealing. It is Berlin’s attempt to respond to claims from the American president and others that Greenland is threatened by Russia and China, and that the island is supposedly defenseless. Direct consultations between senior German and American diplomats are reportedly scheduled in the coming days.

But it is difficult to imagine Washington taking Germany’s proposal seriously, because the issue is not about deterring mythical threats from Moscow or Beijing. It is about Washington’s own intentions.

The German idea draws inspiration from NATO’s Baltic Sea operation Baltic Guardian, which has been running for several years. But the Baltic Sea has little to do with American military or economic interests. Even the least intelligent member of the Finnish parliament should be able to understand this. That is precisely why NATO and Western Europe are free to play their games there.

Greenland is different.

Any attempt to frame Greenland as a NATO matter only exposes the alliance as a theater production, performing threats in order to justify foreign policy rituals. These Europeans are accustomed to imitating danger and imitating response. They appear to believe they can do it again.

It is unlikely to work.

Meanwhile, most of the world views this spectacle with indifference. Russia, China, India and many others see the Greenland drama primarily as another lesson in how relations inside the so-called “collective West” are structured. It is simply a more visible version of what has always been there.

There is nothing new in the fact that Americans are prepared to violate norms, including international law. The difference is that this time they are openly testing these norms against their own allies.

From Russia’s perspective, the situation does not pose a direct threat to our interests. The US can deploy weapons in Greenland even today. Its presence does not fundamentally change the military situation in the Arctic, nor does it threaten shipping along the Northern Sea Route. The US still lacks a serious fleet of military icebreakers, and it remains unclear when – or whether – it will acquire one.

China, too, is essentially indifferent to Greenland becoming American property. Greenland does not threaten China’s trade in the Arctic because the only real issue of interest to Beijing is the Northern Sea Route. And the US military presence on the island does not materially affect Chinese security interests.

On the contrary, in the context of Taiwan, Beijing watches with curiosity as the Americans undermine their own empire’s ideological foundations, including the principles of international law. Once the balance of power settles, it is always possible to return to old norms. Or indeed to codify new ones.

But for Western Europe, Washington’s aggressive noise around Greenland feels like the death sentence for what remained of the half-continent’s relevance.

For decades, its politicians considered themselves a “special” element of global affairs. Not fully sovereign perhaps, but privileged. They were happy to violate the sovereignty of other states across the world, insisting that this was humanitarianism, democracy, civilization. Yet they never seriously imagined the same logic could be applied to them.

The entire content of what Western Europeans loudly call “transatlantic solidarity” or a “community of values” lies precisely in this exceptional status. Their part of Europe’s role was to serve as a morally decorated extension of American power, a satellite that believes it is a partner.

Now it is the US itself that is delivering a potentially fatal blow to that illusion.

Even if the annexation of Greenland is postponed, watered down, or delayed by unforeseen complications, the fact that it is being discussed seriously is already catastrophic for Western European political legitimacy. It undermines what remains of their credibility in the eyes of their own citizens and the rest of the world.

Every state must justify its existence.

Russia’s legitimacy rests on the ability to repel external threats and pursue an independent foreign policy. China justifies itself through organization, stability and prosperity for its citizens. India’s legitimacy is grounded in holding together peace in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious civilization.

In every case, legitimacy is tied to the state’s ability to influence the most important aspects of people’s lives. Not to mention being able to rely on internal resources to do so.

But modern Western European states justify themselves differently. They justify their actions to their citizens through the idea of exceptional status, the right to look down on other countries and civilizations. If Americans can simply deprive the EU of territory, then they become equal to countries like Venezuela or Iraq: states which Washington attacks with impunity.

This is why Greenland matters more than Greenland.

Western European politicians still do not understand the main point. The US wants Greenland, of course, because it is valuable Arctic territory. Geography that matters in a changing world. Direct control over territory is often preferable to indirect use through allies.

But the deepest motive is more psychological and political: Washington wants to act as it sees fit.

In the US, disregarding all external norms – recognizing only internal American rules – is increasingly part of how the state gains legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. The ability to seize something from a weaker neighbor becomes proof that such a state is not only strong, but necessary.

Donald Trump was elected precisely because he promised to restore American statehood. Greenland will not be the only issue where this restoration expresses itself.

In other words: Greenland is not a dispute about the Arctic. It is a demonstration of how American power is validated, and a demonstration that Western Europe is no longer protected by the very system it helped to build.

Timofey Bordachev, Program Director of the Valdai Club

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Former Head of Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate: There’s a ‘very significant influence operation by the US’ in Iran

The Dissident | January 14, 2026

Recently, the Israeli newspaper Maariv interviewed the head of the Military Intelligence Directorat in Israel from 2018-2021, Tamir Hayman, who revealed that the United States currently has a “Significant Influence Operation” on the ground in Iran.

In the interview, Hayman said, “If the question is, is there zero operation right now? The answer is no, because there is already an operation. There is currently a very significant influence operation by the US” referring to the current unrest happening in Iran.

He added, “The sequence of news that is received from within Iran, rumors that are coming, videos that are coming, there are many things that are happening that have no explanation. It could be a coincidence, and it could be something else. Simply put, an influence effort is an effort that operates primarily in the cyber realm, and in the realm of local disruption and subversion, and there are some.”

Along with this, Tamir Hayman, acknowledged that U.S. sanctions were the cause of the economic issues that in Iran that sparked the initial protests in Iran which are apparently being exploited by American and Israeli intelligence, saying, “there is the attempt, as we heard tonight from Trump, that this is a path of negotiation with the Americans, that this is really the only thing that can save the Iranian economy, the lifting of sanctions”.

This comment comes at the same time that Tamir Morag, the Diplomatic Correspondent for the Netanyahu-linked Channel 14 in Israel, reported that “foreign actors are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed.”

American and Israeli officials have been fairly open about the fact that Israeli intelligence is currently operating on the ground in Iran, with the former Secretary of State and CIA director, Mike Pompeo saying, “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also, to every Mossad agent walking beside them” and the Israeli Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu saying, “When we attacked in Iran during ‘Rising Lion’ we were on its soil and knew how to lay the groundwork for a strike. I can assure you that we have some of our people operating there right now”.

But now, Tamir Morag has revealed that there are “very significant influence operations by the US” in Iran, which include “operates primarily in the cyber realm, and in the realm of local disruption and subversion” and according to Tamir Morag, apparent operations to arm protestors in Iran to kill Iranian government officials.

Referring to the protests in Iran, the U.S. government connected private intelligence firm Stratfor, wrote, “the United States may also try to intervene, such as by covertly helping to organize the protesters”, something that is apparently already underway through American “influence operations”.

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel–Syria security pact stumbles as Tel Aviv rejects withdrawal: Report

The Cradle | January 14, 2026

Israel has refused any withdrawal from Mount Hermon and the other areas of Syria it occupied after the fall of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government, while rejecting Russian patrols in the country’s south and demanding that Damascus be prohibited from ever possessing air defenses, Hebrew media revealed.

“The Israeli position is clear and non-negotiable: there will be no withdrawal from Mount Hermon,” an Israeli official was cited as saying by Hebrew newspaper Maariv on 14 January.

According to the report, talks are stalling due to Damascus’s demand that a security agreement with Tel Aviv be linked to a withdrawal of Israeli army forces from Syria.

The Israeli report added that Tel Aviv is concerned with a Syrian attempt to re-establish a Russian military presence in southern Syria. Israel considers this move a direct threat to its “freedom of action,” Maariv claimed.

The source told the newspaper that Israel is obstructing plans to deploy Russian forces in southern Syria, and that Tel Aviv has conveyed to Damascus, Moscow, and Washington that it will not allow a Russian presence.

Russian media had reported last year that the Syrian government was requesting a resumption of Russian military patrols in the south in order to help limit continuous Israeli raids and incursions.

The sources add that Tel Aviv is following with concern reports that Damascus is hoping to purchase weapons from Russia and Turkiye.

“The Israeli message conveyed to all relevant parties [is that] Israel will not agree that in any future security arrangement, Syria will have strategic weapons, primarily advanced air defense systems and weapons that could change the regional balance of power,” according to Maariv.

“The Israeli goal is clear: freezing the existing situation – without an IDF withdrawal from Mount Hermon, without Syrian reinforcements, and without a foreign military presence that limits the IDF.”

In particular, Israel is demanding a complete demilitarization of southern Syria. “Israel’s security-strategic interest comes first. For now, Trump accepts this position.”

The report also says that the two rounds of Syrian–Israeli talks in Paris last week made “no breakthrough was achieved,” only a “limited understanding” for “the establishment of a coordination mechanism aimed at preventing clashes on the ground, with active US involvement.”

A joint statement by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Damascus on 6 January said that Syria and Israel have agreed to establish a US-supervised “joint fusion mechanism” to “share intelligence” and pursue de-escalation.

Damascus and Tel Aviv “reaffirm their commitment to strive toward achieving lasting security and stability arrangements for both countries,” the statement said, adding that they agreed to “establish a joint fusion mechanism – a dedicated communication cell.”

This mechanism aims “to facilitate immediate and ongoing coordination on their intelligence sharing, military de-escalation, diplomatic engagement, and commercial opportunities under the supervision of the US.”

“This mechanism will serve as a platform to address any disputes promptly and work to prevent misunderstandings,” according to the statement, published by the US State Department after the two rounds of Paris talks.

The Israeli army occupied large swathes of southern Syria as soon as Assad’s government fell, declaring the 1974 Disengagement Agreement null. It has since established permanent outposts and has seized control over vital water sources – practically encircling the Syrian capital.

The occupation continues to expand as Israeli forces carry out almost daily raids. In a span of one year, the Israeli army attacked Syria over 600 times.

Tel Aviv and the new Syrian government have been engaged in direct talks for nearly a year to reach a security arrangement. Damascus has vowed that it has no interest in confronting Israel and has reportedly made commitments to coordinate with Tel Aviv against Iran, Hezbollah, and the Axis of Resistance.

Despite this, Israel has shown no willingness to pull out of Syria.

Negotiations stalled for several weeks before Hebrew media reported in late December that “significant progress” had been made and that a deal could be announced “soon.”

A Syrian source told Israeli outlet i24 on 27 December that there was the possibility of a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Syria’s self-appointed President Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former Al-Qaeda chief.

US President Donald Trump is reportedly pressuring both sides to reach a deal quickly.

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

The Ukraine Snare Still Beckons

By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | January 14, 2026

Despite the widespread expectation that President Donald Trump would end Washington’s entanglement in NATO’s proxy war using Ukraine against Russia, it is increasingly evident that the fundamental features of U.S. policy remain unaltered. Trump personally has sent an array of mixed signals about his intentions. Although he has pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to accept the reality that Kiev must be willing to make territorial concessions to Moscow in any peace accord, he also has been receptive to Zelensky’s demand that Ukraine be given reliable “security guarantees” in such a settlement. Indeed, during the recent summit meeting between the two leaders, the main point of disagreement appeared to be that Zelensky wanted a commitment lasting fifty years, whereas Trump was prepared to offer only fifteen years.

Not only is Kiev insisting on a firm, detailed guarantee of protection, but also Ukraine’s European supporters in NATO are doing so. Worse, Trump seemed to sign onto a new 20-point “peace plan” being pushed by Zelensky and his European backers. Only Russia’s curt rejection of the scheme has so far prevented it from further consideration.

A potentially deadly snare lies in wait for the United States which our leaders must avoid at all costs. Throughout the years of the Ukraine crisis, most attention has focused on Kiev’s desire for formal membership in NATO and Russia’s repeated refusal to tolerate that option. Indeed, the principal cause of the current war was the clash between Russia and NATO regarding that issue.

However, the substantive issue has never been merely the prospect of Ukraine’s formal membership in NATO. Instead, the real threat to Russia’s security, from Moscow’s viewpoint, has been NATO’s attempt to turn Ukraine into a significant military asset for the alliance. It matters little whether that development occurs because of Kiev’s official membership in NATO or because of new, separate Western security guarantees.

Indeed, the ties would not have to be all that formal to constitute a dangerous provocation toward Moscow. Several NATO governments have repeatedly engaged in loose talk about sending their troops as “peacekeeping personnel” to Ukraine to enforce a settlement. Indeed, some of those countries appear willing to incur such a risky commitment to implement a mere “truce” between the feuding parties. Both Great Britain and France have stated that they intend to establish “military hubs” across Ukraine with their forces. In one of his more reckless, irresponsible moments, President Trump expressed his willingness to consider having the United States “backstop” such European efforts.

Washington must emphatically reject any attempted ploys of that nature. Even a paper security guarantee to Kiev would put any and all guarantor powers at risk. A decision to deploy so-called peacekeeping forces would be even worse. The Kremlin has made it emphatically clear that the presence of any troops by a NATO member in Ukraine is intolerable. Moscow likely would view a troop presence by NATO’s European contingent, much less the United States, as an existential threat to Russia’s security.

It would be folly for U.S. policymakers to rely excessively on the language contained in the North Atlantic Treaty to limit the danger of an undesirable military entanglement. Article 5 obliges NATO signatories to regard an act of aggression against any NATO member state as an attack against them all. The actual language regarding the obligation under Article 5, though, is so vague as to be meaningless, if a member seeks to evade taking serious action. The provision merely requires allies to render (undefined) assistance to the victim of aggression. Crucially, there is no commitment to launch military strikes against the alleged aggressor or to send troops into combat to aid the beleaguered ally. Merely providing logistical aid could fulfill a member’s obligation. The NATO countries that have sent weaponry or provided targeting and other intelligence data to Ukraine have easily met or exceeded any implied Article 5 obligation, even if Kiev had been a member of the alliance.

But in the real world, multiple NATO governments would seek to inflate the U.S. commitment under Article 5 to deepen Washington’s entanglement in the Alliance’s proxy war against Moscow. A pervasive myth persists in America and the rest of the world that the United States has an official treaty obligation to go to war if another NATO country comes under attack. Giving Ukraine a security guarantee would consolidate and strengthen that myth. In other words, U.S. leaders would find themselves under enormous pressure to launch a direct military intervention to support NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine regardless of the actual language contained in Article 5.

That is why any NATO troop presence in Ukraine, or any official security guarantee to Kiev, would be so dangerous. Given the enormous political and military pressures that would be coming from Kiev’s fan club throughout the West, it is highly improbable that U.S. leaders could avoid an armed clash with Russian forces merely by citing the limited, conditional language in Article 5. Legalistic quibbling is not the way events proceed when raw, wartime emotions are in play.

Trump administration officials need to spurn proposals for any alliance security guarantee to Ukraine, much less a deployment of NATO peacekeepers. Washington must emphatically reject schemes that would include a U.S. military presence of any size or nature in Ukraine. President Trump’s casual musings about supporting a NATO peacekeeping contingent not only are irresponsible, but also constitute a betrayal of his political supporters in the last election. They believed that their candidate was committed to extricating the United States from an unnecessary and debilitating geopolitical venture. Unfortunately, Donald Trump appears to be on course to disappoint advocates of a more prudent U.S. foreign policy yet again.

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Italy and the drone that isn’t there

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 14, 2026

Damn: it was all so well orchestrated that it seemed authentic. But no. The story of Russian drones flying over Italy – and in particular the Joint Research Center (JRC) in Ispra – has been revealed for what it was: a grotesque fabrication, devoid of any real basis. Sergio Barlocchetti had already written about the absurdity of it all, well in advance, in Dronezine Magazine (issue 66). Now comes the official confirmation: the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office has asked the investigating magistrate to close the investigation into serious allegations ranging from political and military espionage to terrorism and subversion.

To tell the truth, we Italians were never particularly impressed by this narrative of Russian ‘hybrid attacks’, with Moscow invading Europe inch by inch with drones that were never identified or shot down. But then the so-called Drone Zero entered the scene, the progenitor of all drones, naturally sent by Putin directly to Italy. In the spring, according to reconstructions, the powerful security system of the JRC in Ispra – apparently more vigilant than Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas – intercepted it repeatedly: nine times between March 20 and April 14 and thirteen times between April 16 and May 27. What was the purpose of its presence? According to the media and television news, the aircraft was spying with ill-concealed eagerness on both the European Union laboratories and Leonardo’s helicopter unit, the pride of the national military industry, located nearby.

Some newspapers even went so far as to describe its technical characteristics: Russian production, night-time filming capability, high-precision three-dimensional mapping. Others evoked the specter of “hybrid warfare,” Moscow intelligence activities, and even suspicious pro-Russian presence in the Varese area. The situation was so serious that the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office opened a file for espionage, terrorism, and attacks on transport security. Some people even alerted their tattoo artists.

Then, however, reality knocked on the door. Technical checks revealed that the sophisticated anti-drone system suffered from structural limitations: software that could not withstand continuous use, decoding errors, and incorrect classifications. The ‘Russian drone’ turned out to be a simple phantom signal, generated by a GSM amplifier purchased on Amazon by a local family to improve cell phone reception. There was nothing in the sky above Ispra and Vergagliate, no drone, no Russia, no conspiracy.

The narratives about alleged Russian drones flying over Italian skies can be interpreted as part of a broader hybrid communication strategy, fitting into a media and political ecosystem in which the Atlantic Alliance and various European governments use the frame of the Russian threat – including the drone dimension – to strengthen internal consensus and legitimize rearmament and a posture of deterrence towards the East.

The Ispra case is truly emblematic and shows how mainstream media and institutional actors have constructed an emergency narrative of Russian “hybrid warfare” in the absence of solid technical evidence; a narrative that has been amplified by alarmist headlines, talk shows, and social networks, contributing to the consolidation of a negative image of Russia in public opinion, shifting the emotional center of gravity from rational debate to fear.

On a strategic-communicative level, this climate of perception serves three objectives: to promote acceptance of NATO programs to strengthen anti-drone defense and increase military spending; to reduce the legitimacy of positions critical of Atlantic policies, which are easily labeled as “pro-Russian”; consolidating a dichotomous friend/enemy frame in which Moscow is the threatening Other, and NATO-integrated Europe is the defensive and ‘rational’ subject.

These are fairy tales that are no longer even good enough for children. These Russians who fight wars with washing machines and horses, as Italian newspapers report, but who are capable of sending drones to disturb the naps of the average Italian in upper Lombardy, are not to blame this time. Maybe next time for the next fake news story!

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Knesset advances bill mandating death by hanging for Palestinian prisoners

The Cradle | January 13, 2026

Israeli lawmakers are advancing a bill that would introduce executions by hanging for Palestinians convicted under military law, according to a report by Haaretz published on 13 January.

The report detailed the proposal and internal objections following its approval in a first Knesset reading in November.

The legislation, formally titled the “death penalty for terrorists” bill, was initiated by Israeli lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech of the Otzma Yehudit party and approved by a vote of 39-16.

It would allow Israeli military courts to impose death sentences without a prosecutor’s request and by a simple majority rather than unanimous verdicts.

Under the proposal, executions would be carried out by hanging and completed within 90 days of a final ruling, following a judge-signed order and under the supervision of the Israel Prison Service.

A designated prison officer would perform the execution, appointed directly by the prison service commissioner.

The bill mandates near-total isolation for prisoners sentenced to death, with visits restricted to authorized personnel and legal consultations limited to visual contact via video calls only, with no possibility of sentence reduction once imposed.

Prison officers and the state would be granted full civil and criminal immunity for carrying out executions.

While execution details would be published on the prison service website, the Freedom of Information Law would not apply, and those involved would remain anonymous.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir celebrated the vote by handing out sweets and wearing a gold noose pin.

He later said the noose represented “one of the options,” adding that “the electric chair” and “lethal injection” were also possibilities.

Legal advisors to the Knesset’s National Security Committee warned that the bill raises serious constitutional and legal concerns, saying it would apply only to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, creating a separate legal regime and risking violations of international treaties.

Human rights groups condemned the proposal, with The Association for Civil Rights in Israel saying it would grant the state power to carry out “the intentional taking of a human life,” calling it another step toward a “racist legal system” built on selective and oppressive enforcement against Palestinians.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Eilat port faces worst crisis as Red Sea shipping collapses

Al Mayadeen | January 12, 2026

The southern port of Eilat in occupied Palestine is facing the most severe crisis in its history, with operations nearly paralyzed for more than two years amid disruptions to Red Sea shipping routes, attacks on vessels, and escalating regional tensions, according to Yedioth Ahronoth.

The newspaper reported that port workers arrive each morning to empty docks, prepared to work, but with no ships docking. Once generating around 240 million shekels annually, the port’s revenues have dropped to almost zero, while government assistance has amounted to just 15 million shekels.

According to the report, the General Federation of Labor, the Histadrut, pledged an additional 5 million shekels to prevent layoffs, but the funds have yet to be delivered due to a suspected conflict-of-interest scandal involving its head, Arnon Bar-David.

The crisis has been compounded by a recent decision by the finance and transport ministries not to extend the port’s operating concession, citing failure to meet required conditions. Port management is reportedly preparing to challenge the decision and demand that the government reverse its stance.

Yedioth Ahronoth noted that operations at the Port of Eilat came to a complete halt after Sanaa seized a vessel bound for the port in November 2023. This followed what had been a record year, with around 150,000 vehicles handled by October 2023 and expectations of another 15,000 arrivals.

Port finance vice president Batya Zafrani said that on the day of the incident, shipping companies NYK and ZIM suspended deliveries for several months. “We thought the government would intervene, but after three months we began worrying about the workers’ future,” she said, adding that the 15 million shekels in government aid would only cover two months of operations.

Avi Hormaro, chairman of the Eilat port and chief executive of the Nakash Group, criticized the government’s handling of the crisis, saying the Israeli occupation authorities had neglected the port. “The transport ministry is making efforts, but other ministries are not interested,” he said.

Hormaro added that just as Kiryat Shmona had been forgotten, the port was also being sidelined, arguing that “a group in Yemen is deciding for the Israeli occupation whether it has a southern port or not.” He stressed that responsibility for keeping Red Sea shipping lanes open lies with the government, not the port authority.

Eilat port shut down due to debt

The Israeli economic media outlet The Marker reported in July that the port of Eilat will completely cease operations starting next Sunday after the city municipality froze its bank accounts due to millions of shekels in accumulated debts.

This development comes as the port has faced near-total paralysis since November 2023, when Yemen imposed a naval blockade on ships heading to “Israel”, leading to a sharp decline in revenue and a collapse in commercial activity at the facility.

The Eilat Municipality announced that it had frozen the port’s bank accounts due to massive accumulated debts, and according to the Israeli economic outlet The Marker, all operations will come to a complete halt starting Sunday, signaling a total economic shutdown of the port.

The crisis at Eilat Port began when Yemeni forces imposed a naval blockade on ships heading to “Israel,” prompting international shipping companies to avoid the Red Sea route, which brought the port’s operations to a near standstill and caused a collapse in its revenue.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | 1 Comment

Iran protest-riots can only achieve US-Israeli intervention, ‘shadow CIA’ concludes

By Max Blumenthal | The Grayzone | January 13, 2026

Stratfor, the “shadow CIA” which contracts for US intelligence and advises US-backed opposition movements, published an important assessment of the protest-riots in Iran this January 7.

Stratfor concluded that the ultimate utility of the unrest is to create an opening for a US-Israeli bombing campaign:

“While unlikely to collapse the regime, the ongoing unrest could open the door for Israel or the United States to conduct covert or overt activities aimed at further destabilizing the Iranian government, either indirectly by encouraging the protests or directly via military action against Iranian leaders.”

The private spying contractor explained that the external, US-backed Iranian opposition is too fractious and weak to affect change inside Iran, and that the institutions of the Islamic Republic remain united. Therefore, the only impact the protest-riots can achieve is to ease the path for a military campaign by the US and Israel.

Stratfor’s assessment ends by predicting that “renewed military strikes on Iran would also likely put an end to the current protest movement by leading instead to a wider display of Iranian nationalism and unity, a pattern observed after U.S. and Israeli strikes in 2025.”

This is one of the more sober pieces of analysis of the unrest in Iran to emerge from any US intel-aligned outfit. However, with CIA director and “Mossad stenographer” John Ratcliffe controlling Trump’s Iran briefings alongside White House chief of staff and former Netanyahu campaign advisor Suzie Wiles, the president may not have the benefit of such clarity.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

The Coming War on Iran: What Has Really Been Happening?

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | January 13, 2026

The unrest inside Iran was effectively brought to a halt by the authorities, culminating in mass pro-government demonstrations in the millions across the country. Yet, the specter of a US-Israeli regime change operation continues to lie in the wake.

If you have been following the course of the protests/riots inside Iran on social media or in the corporate press, the impression given since the beginning of the year has been that Tehran is on the verge of collapse. Countless false claims were issued regarding the fall of entire cities, the collapse of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a massacre of peaceful protesters and even that Ayatollah Khamenei was seeking to escape to Moscow.

Evidently, the reality on the ground couldn’t have been more opposite of what the pro-regime change news outlets and social media influence operations have been portraying. Therefore, to understand what is happening, it is important to understand what truly transpired.

The Road to another Regime Change War

Ever since the conclusion of the 12-Day War between Iran and Israel last June, foreign policy hawks have made it abundantly clear that another round of fighting was only a matter of time. In fact, on July 7, 2025, Axios News reported that Israeli officials were already seeking a green-light, from the US President for them to attack Iran again.

Influential pro-Israeli Washington-based think tanks – such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and the Atlantic Council – all agreed that another round would be necessary, yet argued in different ways that the next round would have to result in the closure of the conflict for the foreseeable future.

The reasoning behind this was clear: if the next round was to mirror the 12-Day War, then another round would again become an inevitability. This scenario would mean that every 6-12 months, the conflict would go from Cold to Hot, a predicament that would actually heavily favour Iran.

If Tehran manages to keep repeating a similar series of rounds to what we saw in June of 2025, the Israelis will be at an enormous disadvantage. Not only does Israel have a smaller territory in which to operate, making taking out vital infrastructure easier, but it cannot produce weapons and rebuild at the rate Iran can. For example, the air defence munitions it depleted last year have still not been fully replenished, and many of the sites struck in Tel Aviv remain in ruins.

Iran, on the other hand, has been able to mass-produce ballistic missiles and drones. Western publicly released estimates greatly vary, but often indicate that the Iranians have replenished their arsenals, whereas the indications coming from Iran itself appear to suggest that they have superseded what they previously possessed, both in quantity and quality.

The US and Israel, nevertheless, have clearly been threatening to attack Iran once again for months, using varying excuses about why. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has recently been complaining about Iran’s missile program, which quickly became a talking point of the Trump administration, too.

Yet, the moment to attack Iran clearly hadn’t presented itself. There were simply too many variables, too many unknowns, and too many doubts for them to commit any action. We also saw this when it came to Israeli threats against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Even got to the point late last year that Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Naim Qassem, publicly stated that Israel is just bluffing and that although something may happen in the new year, he essentially told the Israelis to shut up and just attack if they were set on doing so.

Why didn’t Israel attack Lebanon? Perhaps the biggest reason why they didn’t is because of Iran and the fear of how far such a war could go. The Israelis attempted assassinations and ramped up their air attacks as a means of attempting to draw a retaliatory strike from Hezbollah, but this failed. Instead, the option left on the table was full-scale war or no war at all.

Then came the pivot to Iran, at least in terms of public propaganda and ramping up rhetoric.

Riots In Iran as A Prelude to War

On December 28, the Israelis spotted a new opportunity. Protests erupted throughout cities across Iran, as mainly shopkeepers took to the streets in order to express their outrage at government mismanagement amidst the ongoing sanctions-induced economic crisis.

To be clear, these protests were totally organic and genuine; they had the backing of major Unions inside the country, and the Iranian government appeared to be quickly engaging with them in order to reach concessions. There was no violence at these protests initially. Even when suspected agent provocateurs had attempted to chant for regime change, shopkeeper protesters had forced them out of their crowds.

By December 29, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett then posted a video on social media, in which he claimed that Israel was standing with the Iranians “rising up” against their government. Bear in mind that when this address was issued, the situation in Iran was in fact relatively calm, and the widespread riots had not yet taken place.

However, on social media, old videos and AI-generated clips were suddenly spread like wildfire, in a clearly coordinated campaign led by the Israelis and their Iranian opposition allies.

Almost out of nowhere, rioters began to spring up in small groups, primarily in the West of Iran. Some of these rioters carried weapons, but most just committed vandalism and burned down cars or shops. At this point, the protests over the economic crisis began to reduce, to be replaced by anti-government protests. Despite the violence and escalating rhetoric, the authorities in Tehran made sure to distinguish between rioters and legitimate protesters, not bringing down full force against them.

Then came the first day of the New Year, when the violence suddenly exploded. Iranian opposition channels began claiming cities had fallen, which never happened; they claimed millions were rising against the government, which also was not the case. On January 1, two Iranian police officers were murdered, and rioters even executed a young man who belonged to the Basij paramilitary force in the country.

The day after saw all the major Unions condemn the violent rioters, as Israel’s official Persian-language account posted AI-generated images depicting Iran’s police forces hosing down peaceful protesters. Again, the riots escalated and more members of the security forces were murdered, as rioters committed arson attacks.

All of this ended up coming to a head on January 8, as the riots escalated dramatically and this led to Iran shutting down the internet across the country as it took the gloves off and sent its IRGC forces in to stabilise the situation.

The largest recorded anti-government protests, as one called for by the Shah’s son from the comfort of California, numbered no more than in the tens of thousands. It is estimated that at their peak, there were around 40,000 that showed up.

The footage that began emerging from the streets of Tehran and elsewhere was nothing short of shocking, mass destruction and arson against public transit, the burning of mosques, attacks on schools, medical clinics, shops, homes and streets left in ruins as dumpsters were overturned and set alight, along with all the vehicles in sight.

In total, Iran claims that over 100 members of its security forces were murdered, 350 Mosques were set ablaze and 150 ambulances were damaged or destroyed. Civilians were also brutally murdered by the rioters, reportedly including a three-year-old child and a nurse who was burned to death; multiple police officers were also burned alive.

Without needing to go any further, there is copious evidence of armed militants firing on security forces and mass violence committed against civilian infrastructure. What started as a totally normal and organic series of protests was hijacked and turned into an Israeli-backed riot campaign. This was not comparable to the likes of the 2022 or 2009 unrest, which were evidently taken advantage of by Iran’s enemies, but had support from a sizable portion of the population nonetheless.

In the end, it appeared that by January 12, when millions of Iranians came to the streets across the country in solidarity with their government and against the rioters, the Israeli-backed operation had failed.

Yet, the US government had begun to ramp up its direct threats of intervention as the riots died down. Leaving the question open as to when the next round of American strikes would occur, following Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Iran last year.

The real question is whether these riots were a desperate and failed regime change attempt in and of themselves, or this was simply a prelude to what’s coming next. If the Israelis were truly betting on these riots equalling regime change, then perhaps the calculation is for the US to attack in order to revive the riots on the ground.

Alternatively, the instability was only for the purpose of setting up a larger attack, which would mean a much larger war could have been planned. In order for the US and Israel to achieve their desired outcome, that being either regime change or a massive blow that will end the war between Israel and Iran for the foreseeable future, they will likely go after Iran’s infrastructure.

In such a scenario, expect the kitchen sink to be thrown at Iran. Armed terrorist militia insurgencies, airstrikes, agents on the ground, and more riot activity. In particular, attacks on the electrical grid, water, oil, agriculture, and everything that makes the economy function. In other words, an attempt to achieve regime change this way, or to simply make war so costly that Iran won’t seek it for some time afterwards. Perhaps the goal could be to weaken Iran to a degree where it would negotiate on US terms, yet this is highly unlikely.

Iran dealt with these threats by issuing its own, doubling down and adopting an ultra-aggressive posture. What comes next could go many ways, so we are left to wait and see.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US Cargo Planes Have Flooded the Persian Gulf Since the First of December

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR | January 13, 2026 

In December 2025 and January 2026 (through early/mid-January), open-source intelligence (OSINT) and flight-tracking data indicate a significant surge in US military transport aircraft (primarily heavy lifters like C-17 Globemaster III and C-5M Galaxy) flying to or toward US bases in the Persian Gulf, such as Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, with reports consistently describing “dozens” of such movements.

Al Udeid Air Base (also known as Abu Nakhlah Airport) is the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East, located in the desert approximately 20–35 km (12–22 miles) southwest of Doha, Qatar. It serves as a critical strategic hub for U.S. and allied operations in the region. Al Udeid is the headquarters for the forward element of US Central Command (CENTCOM), US Air Forces Central Command (AFCENT), and the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) — which commands and controls airpower across a 21-nation area from Northeast Africa to Central Asia. It also hosts elements of the US Special Operations Command Central and allies like the Royal Air Force (RAF)’s No. 83 Expeditionary Air Group.

Al Udeid is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the US presence in the Persian Gulf is concerned. Here are the other bases:

Naval Support Activity Bahrain (Bahrain, in Manama):

Headquarters for the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet (NAVCENT), responsible for maritime operations in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean.

Hosts ~9,000 personnel (military and civilians).

Key for naval presence, including ships, patrol craft, and support for regional security.

Camp Arifjan (Kuwait, near Kuwait City)

Forward headquarters for US Army Central (ARCENT).

Major logistics, supply, and command hub for ground forces and prepositioned equipment.

Ali Al Salem Air Base (Kuwait, ~40 km from the Iraqi border)

Known as “The Rock”; supports airlift, refueling, transport, and expeditionary air operations (home to the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing).

Camp Buehring (Kuwait, near the Iraq border)

Staging post for Army units deploying to Iraq/Syria and training/operations support.

Al Dhafra Air Base (United Arab Emirates, south of Abu Dhabi)

Shared with UAE Air Force; critical US Air Force hub for reconnaissance, intelligence, fighter operations (e.g., F-22 Raptors), and missions against threats like ISIS.

Prince Sultan Air Base (Saudi Arabia) — Hosts US fighter jets and air defense; reactivated for regional deterrence.

Multiple reports from OSINT sources, flight trackers (e.g., FlightRadar24), and media outlets (including Israeli, European, and international sources) describe dozens of heavy transport aircraft (C-17s and C-5s) departing from US bases, the UK (e.g., RAF Mildenhall), and Germany, heading eastward to Persian Gulf hubs. This activity ramped up notably in early January 2026, with ongoing reports of C-17s, C-5s, and related support aircraft (including tankers like KC-135 and KC-46) en route.

The movements are most likely preparations for an attack on Iran (e.g., protests, air defense boosts), and analysts note similarities to prior buildups. No exact daily or total count is publicly confirmed by the Pentagon, but the scale is described as a “major redeployment” or “heavy airlift,” often in the range of dozens (20–50+ individual aircraft movements, though some may be round-trips or rotations).

In my last piece I listed the deployment of a US carrier task force as a possible indicator of an impending US military attack on Iran. I may be wrong. The surge of US military cargo planes over the last 40 days suggests that the US may opt for an air campaign and is deploying air defense systems to all of the bases listed above in preparation for such an attack. I believe that US planners believe they can knock out Iranian missile sites and, with a bevy of Patriot and THAAD air defense systems, defeat any Iranian retaliation.

All of the information I’ve presented above comes from open source intelligence (OSINT). If I can read it so can the Iranians, the Russians and the Chinese. Would you be shocked to learn that the Russians and the Chinese have satellite systems that are collecting intelligence on these bases as well and passing that information to Iran? Iran will know the location of the US air defense systems.

Based on the Iranian response to the surprise attack on June 13, I expect Iran will initially flood the US bases with drones and older missiles that will drain the US anti-missile defense systems… The US does not have an unlimited supply of Patriot missiles. If Iran has swallowed it pride and has accepted a robust supply of Russian and Chinese air defense units, then it has a better chance of surviving a US attack intended to neutralize Iran’s ability to launch ballistic missiles, which are stored in a number of underground bunkers scattered around Iran.

I still think that the first move by the US will be a cyber attack on Iran’s military command and control system. However, Iran has a robust cyber capability as well and would likely respond in kind to any such attack. Trump will receive a full briefing from Pete Hegseth’s War Department today (Tuesday) and a decision on the US courses of action is likely to follow.

I discussed these issues today with Judge Napolitano and Danny Davis. We also analyzed the war in Ukraine.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Video | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Deep-state forces from abroad instigated violence in Nepal – former foreign minister

RT | January 13, 2026

External deep-state forces were instrumental in instigating the September 2025 violence in Nepal that led to the ouster of the government, its former foreign minister has told RT India.

K.P. Sharma Oli resigned as Nepal’s prime minister after violent clashes – known as the Gen Z protests – killed 77 and injured more than 2,000.  Pradeep Kumar Gyawali, a former foreign minister, has now backed Oli’s assertion that Gen Z protests that led to the ouster of the government were backed by external forces.

“Those elements who were actively engaged with the deep state, who used the cross-border misinformation and disinformation to instigate the violence, they were active,” he told RT India in an exclusive interview.

The remarks came after Oli told RT India about external influences in the uprising last year.

Gyawali said Kathmandu’s growing engagement with India and China and its aspiration of being a bridge for the economic development of Nepal between the two neighboring countries “was not a very good message to some powers.”

He added, “[They] wanted to use Nepal’s geostrategic location for their policy in their favor. So maybe our engagement with our neighboring countries may have some grievances to the big powers as well.”

The Grayzone has cited leaked documents to reveal that the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars tutoring Nepalese young people to stage the protests.

The Gen Z protests happened as the US sought to neutralize Chinese and Indian influence over Kathmandu, Grayzone investigations revealed.

The NED is officially a US State Department-funded nonprofit that provides grants to support ‘democratic initiatives’ worldwide.

The International Republican Institute (IRI), a NED division, has been accused of funding clandestine activities in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, apart from funneling tens of millions of dollars to Ukrainian political entities and anti-Russian interests.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception | , , , , | Leave a comment

Rare Earths—or Arctic Control? Greenland’s Riches May Just Be Excuse

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 13.01.2026

Greenland holds the world’s eighth-largest rare earth reserves—1.5 million tons—but US interests extend far beyond minerals, Ruslan Dimukhamedov, chairman of the Association of Producers and Consumers of Rare and Rare-Earth Metals, tells Sputnik.

Greenland is rich in iron ore, graphite, tungsten, palladium, vanadium, zinc, gold, uranium, copper, and oil. It also hosts two of the world’s largest rare earth deposits—Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled US ambitions to secure leadership in rare earths to advance semiconductors, AI, and robotics. Against this backdrop, it seems like it’s no coincidence that he set his sights on Greenland.

“That means permanent magnets—for electric vehicles, drones, and robotics,” Dimukhamedov says. “If we’re talking about the so-called magnetic group, that includes dysprosium and terbium. If we look at lanthanum and cerium, those are used in petrochemicals and optics.”

Greenland’s rare earths are technologically complex and relatively poor deposits, located in challenging conditions—not just climatically, but geographically as well, in mountainous terrain, the pundit explains.

“If we’re talking about commercial extraction—that is, mining that is economically viable at today’s price levels, rather than production for appearances’ sake,” Greenland’s rare earths hold limited appeal for US companies, according to Dimukhamedov.

His experience in the rare earth industry shows that the conditions of these deposits indicate that rare earth metals themselves are not the main object of the US’ interest. What is it then?

“Territorial control? Yes. Control of the Arctic? Yes. Preventing Russia from freely using the Northern Sea Route, making our lives difficult with military bases? Yes,” the expert says.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »