Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

I might get killed for posting this

Harrison H. Smith | February 3, 2026

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | | Leave a comment

The EV Car Crash

With the petrol and diesel car ban less than four years away, there’s one big problem: nobody wants to buy electric cars

By Paul Homewood | The Climate Skeptic | February 6, 2026

With the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars less than four years away now, there remains one seemingly insurmountable obstacle: nobody wants to buy electric cars.

Last year, sales of EVs achieved a market share of just 23.43%. Newly released figures for last month show this fell to 20.6%. The Government has set a target this year of 33%, rising to 66% in 2029.

Once petrol and diesel cars (known as ICE vehicles, short for Internal Combustion Engine) are banned in 2030, zero emission cars must make up at least 80% of the market, with the rest filled with hybrids. However, the latter will also be gradually phased out by 2035. Zero emission essentially means battery-electric, although hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles would also qualify.

To enforce the switch to EVs, the government introduced the ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle) mandate. Motor manufacturers who fail to hit their ZEV target for the year must either buy credits from manufacturers who have exceeded targets or pay a fine of £15,000 for every car below target.

There are certain allowances available, but these are not significant. The only other option open to manufacturers who fall short is to carry forward their deficit, in the hope they are in surplus in a year or two time. Understandably, this has been likened to taking out a payday loan!

The first year of the ZEV mandate was 2024, when the target was 22%. Actual EV sales that year only reached 19.6%, leaving an effective shortfall of 47,000 cars. At £15,000 a time, that means a fine of around £700 million. The Department for Transport will publish its full analysis next month, which will list surpluses and shortfalls by manufacturer and the actions they have taken to comply, e.g. pay a fine, buy allowances or carry forward.

Last year, EV sales increased to a share of 23.9%, but this was still well below the target of 28%. Motor manufacturers it seems are building up massive deficits in EV sales, which sooner or later will have to be paid for.

Worse still, most EV sales go to fleet and business sectors, driven by generous tax breaks. It is estimated that only about 10% of private buyers go for electric.

The reasons are well known. EVs cost much more to buy, and most models don’t have the range that drivers need. On top of that, buyers face massive losses when trading them in because second hand prices are so low.

But there is one other factor which is often overlooked.

It is reckoned that four in 10 households don’t have off-street parking, so cannot easily charge at home. Using a public charger means that running costs would typically be triple those of a petrol car when fuel duties are excluded. That is, I should point out, if you can actually find one on the way home from work that is not already in use.

Local councils such as my own have already made it clear that trailing cables across the pavement is not permitted and that enforcement action will be taken. Where then will EV drivers be able to charge their cars?

There are plenty of fine words from central and local government about installing more public chargers. But the simple reality is that there will never be enough – local councils don’t have the money, and it is not their job anyway to waste taxpayer money in this way.

Cardiff City Council are a case in point. It is estimated that there are about 200,000 cars in Cardiff, about half of which don’t have access to off street parking. The City Council has just announced plans to install 80 new EV charging stations, plugged into lampposts outside residents’ homes.

The plan won’t make the slightest difference when there are 100,000 cars which all need charging. But it will create real difficulties for the poor beggars who happen to live next to one and will have to find somewhere else to park. The thought of all the other motorists on the street competing to get to that lamppost first every night and the aggro which will undoubtedly follow is frightening.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the objective of successive governments and council planners all along has been to force us out of our cars and onto public transport.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

How Objectivists Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Zionist Regime Change Wars

By Jose Alberto Nino – Occidental Observer – February 6, 2026

In 1964, Ayn Rand told Playboy magazine that any free nation had the moral right to invade Soviet Russia or Cuba. “Correct. A dictatorship — a country that violates the rights of its own citizens — is an outlaw and can claim no rights.” Instead, she preferred waging economic warfare against these rogue governments. “I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else, economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia, and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.”

Six decades later, her disciples are advocates of a ground invasion of Iran, crushing Palestinian society, and not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons to bring the Islamic Republic of Iran to heel. A secular ideology devoted to laissez faire capitalism now sounds indistinguishable from the most hawkish neoconservatives and aligns with religious nationalist movements in Israel that openly advocate territorial expansion and Palestinian expulsion.

Rand, who is of Russian Jewish extraction, set the tone in her 1979 appearance on the Phil Donahue Show. “If you mean whose side should we be on, Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because it’s bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation,” Rand stated.

She doubled down. “The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”

Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s designated heir and also of Russian Jewish extraction, continued his predecessor’s hawkish legacy. published a full page advertisement in The New York Times on October 2, 2001. “Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.”

He identified Iran as the central threat. “The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran.” Iran “is the most active state sponsor of terrorism, training and arming groups from all over the Mideast.” His analogy was stark. “What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad mongers only by taking out Iran.”

Peikoff demanded total war to address the issue of Iran. “Eliminating Iran’s terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation.”

The potential for mass civilian casualties was of no concern to Peikoff, who firmly believed that only full-fledged military force could put Iran in its place. “A proper war in self-defense is one fought without self-crippling restrictions placed on our commanders in the field. It must be fought with the most effective weapons we possess [a few weeks ago, Rumsfeld refused, correctly, to rule out nuclear weapons]. And it must be fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire.”

In a 2006 podcast, Peikoff advocated using nuclear weapons against Iran if necessary. On Israel and Palestine, Peikoff’s 1996 essay dismissed Palestinian territorial claims entirely. “Land was not stolen from the nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain, any more than the early Americans stole this country from the primitive, warring Indians.” He called land for peace “a repugnant formula for Israel’s self-immolation.”

Yaron Brook, the current Ayn Rand Institute board chairman, extended these radical Zionist principles to the 21st century. After October 7, 2023, he called for Hamas’s total destruction. “Israel must destroy Hamas, everything about it. Its political leaders, wherever they are hiding must be assassinated, their entire military infrastructure destroyed, its supporters, brought to their knees.”

At a January 2024 event, Brook argued Israel should see “the Palestinian population at large as an enemy” and called for “a fundamental shift in Palestinian culture.” Such a scenario can only be achievable when Palestinians “have lost every ounce of hope that they can beat Israel.”

Brook would not allow aid, electricity, or internet into Gaza. He argued Israel shows excessive restraint despite death tolls exceeding 70,000, which includes at least 20,000 children. “So many Israeli soldiers are dying on the field because Israel refrains from defending them and places the lives of civilians on the other side as more valuable than its own soldiers: He described Gaza as “a primitive society” requiring fundamental transformation like Germany and Japan after World War II.

On Iran, Brook advocated for regime change as the only solution to this geopolitical dilemma. “Israel cannot take out the Iranian nuclear facility. So what is the only other way to stop the Iranians from getting a bomb? The only other way is regime change.” He specified acceptable outcomes for Israel in a confrontation against Iran. “It has to go for an internal revolution in Iran taking out the current mullahs, whether with more moderates who are committed to doing away with the nuclear program or whether it’s all out, you know, liberal democracy-type revolution but or whether it’s the shah coming back. Right the son of the shah, but it has to be regime change.”

Objectivists are a quirky bunch when it comes to their ideology, which may appear critical of mainstream political currents. Brook’s 2007 essay “Neoconservative Foreign Policy: An Autopsy” condemned neoconservatives for advocating democracy promotion rather than rational self-interest. Yet on Israel and Iran, Objectivists and neoconservatives find common ground. Both support unlimited Israeli military action, Iranian regime change, opposition to Palestinian statehood, and framing the conflict as civilization versus barbarism.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently declared “absolute” support for Greater Israel, Jewish sovereignty from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. Such a Jewish supremacist vision is suffused with religious rhetoric. At first glance, one would think that Objectivism’s atheistic nature would dismiss such religious appeals. But yet again, the Ayn Rand Institute’s positions end up aligning with the Greater Israel framework through the rejection of Palestinian statehood and framing Palestinian aspirations as illegitimate.

Netanyahu’s far-right allies, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”), make no secret of their top goal: Israeli control over Palestinian lands, including Gaza resettlement, West Bank annexation, and the expulsion of Arabs, echoing Rabbi Meir Kahane’s calls for the imposition Jewish law and Arab removal.

Many observers scratch their heads at this odd alliance between Objectivism—an atheistic, free-market creed that Ayn Rand branded as anti-mystical—and religious Zionists appealing to biblical land promises. But when one grasps the Jewish question and how Jews maneuver politically across divides, it all snaps into focus: the Jewish racial will to power drives Jews of all political stripes. Objectivists and religious Zionists clash on faith and domestic policy yet unite to subjugate gentiles like Palestinians and seize their territory.

Objectivism preaches against initiating force and upholds individual rights, yet Leonard Peikoff pushes for invading Iran and Yaron Brook calls for pulverizing Palestinian society to kill their hope. Strip away the lofty appeals to reason and rights, and Objectivism emerges as intellectual camouflage for Jewish racial dominance—a political vehicle that harmonizes Rand’s heirs with Smotrich’s zealots, prioritizing gentile dispossession over any philosophical consistency.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Collapsing Empire: US Bows To African Revolutionaries

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | February 6, 2026

On February 2nd, the BBC published an extraordinary report on how the Trump administration “has declared a stark policy shift” towards Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, the governments of which have sought to eradicate all ties to Western imperial powers, and forged the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). The independent bloc is a revolutionary enterprise, with the prospect that further countries will follow its members’ lead. And Washington is under no illusions about the new geopolitical realities unfolding in Africa.

The British state broadcaster records how Nick Checker, State Department African Affairs chief, is due to visit Mali to convey US “respect” for the country’s “sovereignty”, and chart a “new course” in relations, moving “past policy missteps.” Checker will also express optimism about future cooperation with AES “on shared security and economic interests.” This is an absolutely unprecedented development. After military coups deposed the elected presidents of all three countries 2020 – 2023, the trio became Western pariahs.

France and the US sought to isolate and undermine the military governments, halting “cooperation” projects in numerous fields. Meanwhile, the Economic Community of West African States, a neocolonial union of which all three were members, first imposed severe sanctions on Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, before its combined armed forces prepared to outright invade the latter in summer 2023. The three countries didn’t budge, and in fact welcomed Western isolation, forging new international partnerships and strengthening their ties. ECOWAS military action never came to pass.

In January 2025, the trio seceded from the union and created AES. Western-funded, London-based Amani Africa branded the move “the most significant crisis in West Africa’s regional integration since the founding of ECOWAS in 1975,” claiming it dealt “a significant blow to African… cooperation architecture.” Meanwhile, Burkina Faso’s leader Capt Ibrahim Traoré has become a media hate figure. A disparaging May 2025 Financial Times profile slammed him as a cynical opportunist leading a “Russia-backed junta”, and his supporters a “cult”.

As the BBC unwittingly explains, such antipathy towards Traoré stems from establishing himself “as a standard-bearer in resisting ‘imperialism’ and ‘neocolonialism’.” Via “vigorous social media promotion, he has gained huge support for this stance and personal popularity among young people across the continent and beyond,” ever since seizing power in September 2022. Far from just talk, Traoré and his fellow AES “junta” leaders have systematically sought to neutralise malign Western influence locally, while pursuing left-wing economic policies for the good of their populations.

France and the US have proven markedly powerless to hamper, let alone reverse, this seismic progress. While officials in Paris and Washington hitherto relentlessly hammered AES’ members over “democracy and human rights” concerns, the BBC reports such considerations will be wholly “absent from the agenda” when State Department officials now visit Mali. In other words, the Empire recognises it no longer has the ability to dictate the composition or policies of regional governments and must engage administrations on their own terms.

‘Despotic Governments’

While generating only occasional mainstream interest, the push by Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to rid themselves of Western imperialism has been remarkable in its scope and efficacy. French and US media programmes and channels have been blocked throughout AES. In August 2022, Paris’ forces were sent packing from Mali after a nine-year-long occupation. Two years later, Russian soldiers took over an airbase in Niger housing American forces at the government’s invitation, after authorities demanded Washington withdraw from the country.

These purges have had a knock-on effect in the wider region. For example, in November 2024, Chad abruptly terminated a military agreement, ending France’s long-running occupation of the country. Around the same time, Senegal demanded that the French close their military base in Dakar. The last troops departed in July 2025, leaving Paris with no permanent installations in Central or West Africa. Meanwhile, efforts by AES members to drive Britain, France, and the US out of every major sector of their economies are ongoing.

Right when Chad and Senegal were bidding bon voyage to French forces, Niger seized control of local mining firm Somaïr, a component of state-owned French nuclear company Orano. Somaïr provided a quarter of the uranium supply to European nuclear power plants. Resultantly, EU imports of uranium from Russia rose by over 70%, despite the supposedly crippling sanctions imposed over the Ukraine proxy war. In another bitter irony, Moscow has concurrently cemented itself as a close partner of AES member states in economic and military fields.

This burgeoning relationship has triggered a predictable chorus of condemnation and fearmongering from Western journalists, politicians, and pundits. Yet, a March 2024 poll published by the German Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Foundation found 98% of Malians approve of their country’s bond with Russia, with 83% being “very satisfied” and 15% “rather satisfied”. More generally, the same survey highlighted how Mali’s “junta” enjoys overwhelming public support, about which Western governments can only fantasise.

In all, 81% of respondents believed life in Mali had improved since the military administration took power. A staggering 99% expressed satisfaction with the work of security forces, 95% were optimistic about the country’s future prospects, and 87% rejected calls for an election. Similar results were found in a poll of Burkina Faso’s population in August. A stunning 66% of citizens said it was legitimate for the military to seize power, if “elected leaders abuse their power for their own interests.”

As a fascinating paper by Senegalese academic Ndongo Samba Sylla forensically details, ever since supposed independence was granted to Africa in the 1960s, France and other imperial powers have worked concertedly to ensure its constituent countries are ruled by pliant puppets. Along the way, the West has “shown no scruples in backing odious civilian or military regimes” favourable to their interests. This produces “choiceless democracies” across Africa, with “despotic governments” that come to power “through fraudulent elections and… do not create any welfare for their people.”

‘Lasting Solutions’

Sylla cites the example of Chad, where France sustained a corrupt, brutal dictator, Idriss Deby Itno, in office 1990 – 2021. Following his death, Emmanuel Macron diplomatically backed his son’s “unconstitutional succession”. The French President’s unabashed advocacy for an illiberal, nepotistic power grab is to be contrasted with Macron’s furious censure of the military coups in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, demands they hold elections, and calls for “financial sanctions from African countries, the West and its financial institutions.”

France could impose sanctions directly on the trio due to Paris’ control of the Central Bank of West African States, the financial arm of ECOWAS. Membership ties states to the CFA Franc, a currency created after World War II that allowed Paris to maintain grossly iniquitous trading relationships with its African colonies, when its economy was ravaged and its overseas empire rapidly unravelling. The CFA Franc makes it cheap for members to import from France and vice versa, but prohibitively expensive for them to export elsewhere.

Such forced dependency creates a captive market for the French, and by extension, Europe, decisively blunting local development. Member states are impotent to enact meaningful policy changes, as they lack control over their own economies, forced to take orders from the IMF, World Bank, and Western investors. As Sylla remarks: “No matter who you elect, they will have to stick with the basic economic policy blueprint.” Creating a replacement currency is AES’ next major challenge – although its members have already started constructing a central bank.

AES’ continued existence and successes are anathema to Paris. Since “decolonisation” in Africa in the early 1960s, the French have launched 50 overt interventions in Africa, which doesn’t account for assassinations of anti-imperialist leaders, palace coups, rigged elections, and other skullduggery employed to maintain France’s mephitic, exploitative grip over its former holdings. Delusions of keeping the continent wedged under their heels have not faded, despite the dramatic collapse of French power locally. In April 2024, General Francois Lecointre, former French Army Chief of Staff, declared:

“What we Europeans have in common is the Mediterranean and Africa, where our destiny is at stake… Europe will have an obligation to return to Africa to help restore the state and bring back administration and development. It’s not China, Russia, or Wagner [Group] who are going to provide lasting solutions to the very great difficulties facing these African countries and their people.”

Residents of AES evidently beg to differ, and stand ready to defend their leaders from foreign destabilisation. US officials aren’t unwise to the region’s new power dynamic. In an October 2025 interview with Le Monde, Trump confidante and State Department senior advisor for Africa, Massad Boulos, rejected any suggestion Washington would criticise the Sahel’s military governments, as while “democracy is always appreciated… people are free to choose whatever system is appropriate for them.” The anti-imperialist struggle continues apace in Africa – and for now, revolutionaries are winning.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Muammar Gaddafi’s son assassinated in Libya amid reports of French ‘meddling’ in Africa

The Cradle | February 6, 2026

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the prominent son of former Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, was assassinated by unknown gunmen in Libya on 3 February.

Gaddafi was killed in his home in the town of Zintan, 136km southwest of the Libyan capital, Tripoli.

Gaddafi’s political team released a statement saying that “four masked men” stormed his house and killed him in a “cowardly and treacherous assassination.”

The statement said that he tried to fight off the attackers, who shut off the security cameras at the house “in a desperate attempt to conceal traces of their heinous crimes.”

Gaddafi served as his father’s close advisor from 2000 until 2011, when Muammar Gaddafi was killed by NATO-backed militants with links to Al-Qaeda.

As part of the so-called Arab Spring in early 2011, British and Qatari intelligence organized an army led by members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) to topple the Libyan state.

A UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over the eastern city of Benghazi allowed US and NATO planes to bomb the country, and help the LIFG, which was formed to fight alongside Osama bin Laden’s “Afghan Arabs” in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, take control of the capital Tripoli and topple the government.

Muammar Gaddafi was murdered by the NATO-backed militants after fleeing his hometown, Sirte, in a military convoy following a battle there in October 2011.

Sirte later fell under the control of Libya’s branch of ISIS, serving as its most significant base outside of West Asia, while the country descended into civil war and chaos.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was captured and imprisoned in Zintan in 2011 after attempting to flee the North African country following his father’s killing.

He was released in 2017 as part of a general pardon and had lived in Zintan since.

Saif al-Islam’s assassination comes as France has reportedly been preparing “neo-colonial coups d’etat” in Africa and seeking opportunities for “political revenge” on the continent, according to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service’s (SVR) press bureau.

French influence in African countries it had formerly colonized is waning, as African nations refused “to serve as puppets of the financial and political oligarchy of French globalists,” the press bureau stated.

“Whether inspired by the American operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro or imagining himself as the arbiter of the fate of African peoples, Macron has authorized his special services to launch a plan to eliminate ‘undesirable leaders’ in Africa,” the SVR press bureau claimed.

The SVR added that France was involved in the attempted coup against military leader and President Ibrahim Traore in Burkina Faso last month.

“Our intelligence services intercepted this operation in the final hours. They had planned to assassinate the head of state and then strike other key institutions, including civilian personalities,” said Burkina Faso security minister Mahamadou Sana.

In September 2022, Traore led a coup against then-Interim President Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba to take power. His government quickly distanced itself from France while helping to found the Alliance of Sahel States, comprising Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger.

The SVR said France was also seeking to destabilize the governments of Mali, the Central African Republic, and Madagascar.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Why the Push for a US–Iran Nuclear Deal is Not Serious – and Never Was

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | February 5, 2026

The United States has been pushing for a renewed set of negotiations, aimed at reaching a deal over Iran’s nuclear program, the very same move that was used to set up an Israeli surprise attack last year. This is not a serious effort and appears more than anything to be aimed at stalling.

In mid-January, it appeared as if a US attack on Iran was imminent, as some reports even suggested he was planning to launch airstrikes before backing out. The reason for the absence of any military action can be put down to a series of evolving factors at play, including the security concerns of Israel.

Considering that an enormous amount of the reports published in both the US and Israeli media are drip-fed from their CIA, Mossad, and government contacts, it is reasonable to assume that most of what we are hearing “leaked” from anonymous sources is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign.

Prior to Israel’s surprise attack on Iran in June of 2025, a similar deception campaign was implemented throughout both the Western and Israeli media. In addition to the constant mixed messages regarding Israeli-US intentions, there was also an effort to build the narrative of a feud between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump. Soon after the 12-day war began, Israeli media outlets admitted as such.

Therefore, it is safe to assume that most of what we are being fed through the “anonymous” sourcing of the corporate media is false. Nowhere is this more evident than in the outlandish claims being published, as a means of manufacturing consent for a regime change war, than with the outrageous Iran protester death toll statistics being peddled without any evidence at all.

Disinformation aside, the current attempt to revive US-Iran nuclear negotiations is already being premised on non-starters. Not only are the US going back to their maximalist demands, which prevented any serious progress through multiple rounds of discussions last year, but they are also actively threatening war on a near-daily basis, as more American military assets continue to flood into the region.

In addition to this, the Israelis have demanded the exact same prerequisite conditions they always do, that being the end of Iran’s ballistic missile program, no nuclear enrichment on Iranian soil, and a halt to all of Tehran’s regional alliances with resistance groups. Evidently, none of these conditions is even going to be entertained by the Iranians.

Unless by some miracle the Trump administration decides to totally defy Israel and its top donors, choosing to negotiate a reasonable deal that, at least in part, replicates the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), there will be nothing achieved. Instead, if negotiations are to even proceed, they will simply be designed to stall the inevitable: a military confrontation.

Donald Trump, since his first term in office, has been the most aggressive US president toward the Islamic Republic, unilaterally pulling out of the nuclear deal, implementing a criminal sanctions regime, bowing to every Israeli demand, and even assassinating Iran’s most prominent general at the time, Qassem Soleimani.

This time around, the Trump administration decided to go all the way in its support of Israel’s demands. The US came to Israel’s aid in the 12-day war and directly struck Iran, doing damage to three nuclear sites. More recently, the entirety of the collective West has stood behind a regime change attempt, led by Israeli intelligence agents on the ground. Not a single Western mainstream media outlet has even been critical of the narrative they have been fed on the issue, with some openly advocating military intervention.

Why is the US Stalling?

Unlike during the previous buildups to confrontation between the US-Israeli alliance and Iran, this time appears much more consequential. We are now far closer to an all-out regional war, which was avoided last June. Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has made it clear that any attack on Iran will result in a total war, something that was not previously threatened in this way.

What happened last month was an Israeli-led attempt to drag Iran into a bloody civil war, an attack using agents that targeted cultural sites, places of worship, the nation’s emergency services, banks, and resulted in the murder of around 300 police officers and security force members. If this ground campaign had proven successful, a series of US strikes—while still a gamble—may have proven a serious threat to the stability of Iran.

In the thinking of US and Israeli military strategists, they hoped that an American strike package could have inspired an even greater uprising against the government. Even if this led to a long and bloody civil war, like what occurred in Syria, the idea would be that over time it would cripple the nation as a whole, effectively eliminating the Iranian challenge posed to Israel for the foreseeable future.

However, Iran swiftly cracked down on the failed operation within two days, totally eliminating the ground threat posed to it. Without a ground component against the Islamic Republic, any US-Israeli air campaign—however costly—will ultimately fail to effect regime change.

The best possible outcome for Tel Aviv and Washington is an attack that will work to cripple the nation’s civil infrastructure. Although easier said than done, especially given the fact that Iran’s infrastructure was built with wartime damage in mind, the tactic would be to inflict such a significant blow that, over time, combined with the “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign, the Iranian government will fall, similar to how Syria did.

Standing in the way of such an option are a myriad of issues. There is the anxiety of the Arab regimes, such as Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and beyond, who understand the potential earthshattering implications of an all-out war with Iran. The US and Israel use their nations to stage attacks on Iran, operate air defense systems, and therefore, there are valid military targets there for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to go after.

In addition to this, the threats that have been coming out of Iraq are of major concern to the US, Israel, and the Arab regimes alike. The Hasd al-Shaabi, or Popular Mobilization Forces, number around 250,000 men strong. Kataeb Hezbollah, the strongest faction within the Hashd, has vowed to defend Iran. We have also heard threats that, in the event Ayatollah Khamenei is targeted, this will trigger fatwas (religious declarations) ordering jihad.

Khamenei is not only the leader of Iran, but a major Shia religious and spiritual leader who is central to the belief system of Shia Muslims worldwide. Assassinating him could therefore trigger uprisings and the mobilization of millions of Shia Muslims throughout the entire region and beyond.

Total war with Iran means significant strikes on US bases all throughout the region, a halt to the flow of oil through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. It also means the kind of firepower directed at Israel will much more likely be heavier than what we saw in June of 2025, missile attacks that could be combined with strikes from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarallah in Yemen.

Keeping all of this in mind, the Israelis are clearly attempting to secure the best possible air defense strategy in order to help minimize the damage that will inevitably be inflicted upon them. Tel Aviv still has not rebuilt its infrastructure that was struck last year by Iranian ballistic missiles.

No analyst can truly predict the outcomes of a total regional war, especially if Ayatollah Khamenei is assassinated. There are simply too many factors at play. Such a war could even inspire revolution in Bahrain, Jordan, and an Iraqi war with forces inside Syria. It could bring about regime change in the UAE, even if only by an internal coup. While none of this is certain, it is nonetheless well known. Nobody is truly safe.

In addition to this, even the pro-Western Arab nations do not favor either side in such a conflict. It may work in their favor to see a weakened Iran, for instance, but not a regime change that destroys the country and places Israel as the uncontested regional hegemon. In other words, they thrive off a multipolar West Asia. In the event that Iran wins and Israel is destroyed, they also realize that this could result in their own regimes falling.

Another major question mark hangs over the roles of China and Russia in all of this. As it seems, Beijing views Tehran as an essential partner and even vowed to provide all the necessary support to Iran during the foreign-backed riots. Moscow’s stance at the time was much more neutral. Both maintain relations with Iran and have sold military equipment.

There is no difference between the opinions of the Trump administration and the Israelis on Iran, which means that no deal will be reached without war. The best possible outcome that the US could hope for is a limited conflict, one that can be managed, even if it drags on for over a month. Then, following such a war, they attempt to further weaken Iran, and due to the costly nature of the conflict, neither side seeks direct confrontation for some time.

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

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran Adamantly Rejects US Attempt to Control Upcoming Negotiations Over Iran’s Nuclear Program

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR | February 5, 2026 

What a day!! Lots of negotiation and non-negotiation action on the Iranian front. In the span of two hours, starting at 1 pm and ending around 3 pm eastern time, the world was whipped sawed with news that the bilateral negotiations between Iran and the US was cancelled — that was the 1 pm news — and then, at 3 pm, the talks were back on. The initial reports that the meeting in Oman would not take place cited Iran’s reaction to a US demand that Iranian ballistic missiles and Iran’s support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah must be on the agenda or there would be no negotiations. Without a moments hesitation, Iran barked back and said, “Ok, no meeting.”

Axios reported that US officials were surprised by Iran’s reaction and scrambled to come up with a response to Iran. Within two hours, the US retreated and accepted Iran’s position that the Friday meeting in Oman would only address nuclear bombs and uranium enrichment. Iran won this first round.

While all of this was taking place, Pentagon officials announced that the US carrier strike force had shot down an Iranian drone that was flying towards the USS Abraham Lincoln again… No word about the make and model. Three days ago, Iran successfully overflew the USS Abraham Lincoln and showed the video footage on Iran’s Press TV. I think Pete Hegseth and his team of sycophants were embarrassed by that episode and decided to retaliate with force.

And if that was not enough, Iran dispatched a bevy of small boats to harass what the press described as a US tanker navigating the Strait of Hormuz. I think Iran was simply trying to remind the US that it is serious about taking action against the US military and economic presence in the Persian Gulf if the US acts on its threat to attack Iran.

Danny Davis, Doug MacGregor, and I have heard active duty military officers in recent days insist that any Iranian attacks would be easily repulsed by US forces in the region. We all think that those officers do not understand the full capabilities of the Iranian navy and air force to overwhelm US defenses with a combination of drone and missile swarms if the US carries out an attack on targets inside Iran. King Solomon, writing in Proverbs, accurately described this attitude… Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

If the US is going to attack Iran it will want to launch in the next two weeks because Russian and Chinese warships are headed to the area to participate in the annual Iran-Russia-China joint-naval military exercise. Iran, Russia, and China are scheduled to hold their joint naval military exercise, known as Maritime Security Belt 2026 (the eighth edition of the series), in the northern Indian Ocean (including areas near the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea) in late February 2026. Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Shahram Irani announced on January 31, 2026, that the exercise will involve units from Iran’s regular navy (Nedaja), the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, and naval forces from China and Russia.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

OSCE on verge of self-destruction – Lavrov

RT | February 6, 2026

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is in a “profound” crisis and close to unraveling, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned on Friday during talks with the body’s leadership.

Speaking to OSCE Chairman-in-Office Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis and OSCE Secretary-General Feridun Sinirlioglu, who arrived in Moscow on Thursday for what they described as dialogue on the Ukraine conflict, Lavrov suggested that there are too many examples to mention of how the organization has “come close to the real threat of self-destruction.”

The reason for this is “very simple” and is due to the “radical departure of most Western countries” from the foundational principles and declarations of the organization, Lavrov added.

The OSCE, a 57-member body that includes Russia, the US, Canada, and most European and Central Asian states, was created in 1975 to promote security and cooperation across the region. However, Moscow has repeatedly accused the organization of being hijacked by its NATO and EU members to advance Western interests at the expense of pan-European goals.

In December, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko said the OSCE was effectively being turned into an instrument of “hybrid war and coercion” against sovereign states, who are “subjected to threats, blackmail, and the harshest pressure using the lowest methods,” for pursuing their national interests.

He also condemned what he called the total “Ukrainization” of the agenda of the OSCE, saying it had narrowed the organization’s work and reduced cooperation to “tiny islands” of engagement.

Talks between Lavrov and the OSCE officials continued on Friday. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova previously explained that the discussions are focused on “searching for ways to overcome the current deep crisis of the OSCE” and restoring its operations in the “military-political, economic-environmental, and humanitarian, security dimensions.”

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

NATO member blasts bloc chief’s ‘pro-war’ remarks in Kiev

RT | February 6, 2026

Hungarian officials have accused NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte of overstepping his authority and making “pro-war” statements that put the bloc on course for a military clash with Russia.

Rutte visited Kiev this week in a show of support, saying member states would maintain military aid to Ukraine, possibly including troop deployments on Ukrainian soil. Moscow has repeatedly called such a scenario unacceptable.

“We call on the NATO secretary-general not to make pro-war statements,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Thursday, adding that NATO leaders have long agreed not to provoke direct conflict with Russia. Rutte’s comments contradict that policy, he asserted.

Rutte suggested troops deployments could be approved by Moscow as part of a US-backed peace deal. Budapest fears pro-Kiev nations – including France, Germany, and the UK – would push to send troops despite Russian objections. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban reiterated his concerns Friday, calling the potential move a threat to his country.

“If the Western plan is implemented, then the war will come closer to Hungary, we will be much more directly affected by this,” he said. “Then not only the economic effect, but also the physical destructive effect could reach Hungary.”

Orban’s government has opposed Brussels’ Ukraine policy, arguing that bankrolling Kiev and imposing sanctions on Russia have damaged the EU’s economy while pursuing an unwinnable cause.

That stance and Budapest’s resistance to the Ukrainian bid to join the EU has strained relations with Kiev. Ukrainian forces have targeted Hungarian oil supplies from Russia, and Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly verbally attacked Orban. At last month’s World Economic Forum, Zelensky said the Hungarian leader should be “smacked” for purportedly “liv[ing] off European money while trying to sell out European interest.”

Budapest says Zelensky is interfering in Hungarian politics ahead of April’s parliamentary election, and that Kiev is hoping for a more compliant government to take power.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment