The US’ self-directed ‘China nuclear threat’ will only be a waste of effort: Global Times editorial
Global Times | February 27, 2026
On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio again touched upon China in terms of nuclear weapons negotiations, claiming that any nuclear arms treaty must include China. In the same few days, CNN published an “exclusive report,” citing so-called intelligence sources, to hype up the so-called “Chinese nuclear test.” These coordinated efforts are just a carefully orchestrated show by Washington. Earlier this month, Christopher Yeaw, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Arms Control and Nonproliferation at the US Department of State, disclosed a so-called “breaking news,” claiming that China conducted nuclear testing in 2020, causing a stir in international public opinion. Since then, the “China nuclear threat” rhetoric, directed by Washington, has been launched.
With high-ranking officials making statements, the so-called “insiders” disclosing information to the media, and a number of mainstream media outlets echoing the sentiment, Washington’s elaborate efforts are clearly driven by self-interest. The intention is obvious: Simultaneously with Yeaw’s alleged “Chinese nuclear test” revelations, he also conveniently stated that the US will return to testing on an “equal basis.” This timing coincides with the expiration of the New START Treaty between the US and Russia, a time when the US faces immense international pressure. Clearly, hyping up the “Chinese nuclear threat” is a two-pronged approach: It allows the US to deflect responsibility for deliberately delaying or even abandoning US-Russia nuclear negotiations, while simultaneously providing a fig leaf for its shady ambition to resume nuclear testing.
Washington’s close monitoring of China’s nuclear development is no secret. Take last year as an example. The Arms Control Treaty Compliance Report published in April focused solely on Russia’s suspected supercritical tests, while the Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China released in December detailed the so-called ‘China’s nuclear arsenal expansion and missile deployments,’ making no mention of so-called nuclear tests. It’s worth noting that these reports, in order to prove the so-called “China threat,” gathered various rumors from different sources. If there were truly “concrete information,” would Washington have kept it hidden from 2020 until now? Why didn’t it disclose it in official reports, but instead waited until the expiration of the New START Treaty between the US and Russia to release it? Moreover, global seismic networks, including the US Geological Survey under the Department of the Interior, did not record any abnormal seismic events at that time.
But this blame-shifting spectacle isn’t merely friction between China and the US. The US possesses more than 5,000 nuclear warheads, a considerable number of which are deployed in a ready-to-launch posture. It also stations tactical nuclear weapons in six NATO countries capable of conducting nuclear strikes. Under such circumstances, how could China engage in so-called “equal negotiations”? As the country with a vast nuclear arsenal and the greatest impact on global strategic balance, the US should shoulder special and primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament and demonstrate genuine sincerity. The reality, however, is that Washington not only shows no intention of reducing its arsenal, but is accelerating nuclear expansion. Should Washington fail to restrain its nuclear ambitions, the consequences for the world would be disastrous.
Facts indicate that the US itself has become the greatest hidden danger to global nuclear security. It has withdrawn from multiple international arms control agreements, while continuing to modernize its nuclear arsenal, develop new nuclear weapons, expand the scope of nuclear strike capabilities, and even lower the threshold for nuclear use. By introducing nuclear deterrence into regional conflicts, it has seriously undermined the stability of the global nuclear security architecture. More ironically, while frequently accusing other countries of “developing nuclear capabilities,” the US simultaneously engages in nuclear deterrence cooperation with its allies, transfers nuclear technology, and deploys nuclear equipment abroad. The double standard is evident.
It is the strong expectation of the international community that the US assumes its due responsibility as a major power in safeguarding global nuclear security. What Washington should do first is stop shifting blame. It should immediately resume strategic stability dialogue with Russia and discuss follow-up arrangements to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. In addition, AUKUS, which has raised concerns about nuclear proliferation, should be halted, and Washington should exercise restraint over its “close ally” Tokyo’s increasingly swelling nuclear ambitions. The waste contamination left behind by dozens of US nuclear tests in the South Pacific also urgently requires remediation. In the nuclear issue, Washington has many pressing responsibilities to fulfill, rather than “finding faults” with China.
Nuclear arms control is a shared security issue for all humanity. Safeguarding it requires major powers to take proactive responsibility. During the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, China said it is willing to maintain communication with all parties and exchange views on the work of the Conference and on the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. China has long participated in and supported a range of arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation mechanisms – actions and contributions that are visible to the international community. Washington’s elaborate scheme, full of hidden motives, lacks both persuasiveness and credibility, and will ultimately be a waste of effort. Hopefully, it could do something genuinely meaningful that contributes to world peace and security.
Female Iranian academic sentenced to 4 years in prison in France over protesting Israel’s genocide in Gaza
Press TV – February 26, 2026
An Iranian academic woman in France has been sentenced to four years in prison after she protested Israel’s genocide in the besieged Gaza Strip, with a permanent ban on her entry into the European country.
A court in France on Thursday, sentenced Iranian citizen Mahdieh Esfandiari, who had been detained on alleged charges of “public defense of terrorism,” to four years in prison, France 24 reported.
According to the court ruling, Esfandiari, a linguist and French language graduate, received a four-year sentence, three years of which were suspended and one year to be served.
The 39-year-old Iranian citizen had previously spent eight months in pretrial detention before being released under conditional terms.
The court also permanently barred Esfandiari from entering French territory.
Esfandiari graduated from Lumière University, where she worked as a professor, translator, and interpreter. She has also been a prominent pro-Palestinian activist with a significant online presence.
Her arrest last year came amid a crackdown in the United States and other Western countries targeting scholars, students, and activists who opposed Israeli genocide and advocate for peace, both on campuses and in public spaces.
The Paris Prosecutor’s Office charged the Iranian academic with “apologie du terrorisme” over Telegram posts that allegedly supported the Hamas-led Operation Al-Aqsa Flood against Israel in October 2023.
US university cancels Palestine conference citing sanctions concerns
Al Mayadeen | February 26, 2026
The University of Southern Maine has withdrawn permission to use a campus venue for a conference centered on Palestine, just days before it was scheduled to begin, triggering a dispute over sanctions law and First Amendment protections.
The event, titled “Consequence of Palestine,” had drawn more than 300 registrants and was organized by the Maine Coalition for Palestine, Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights, and the university’s department of criminology and sociology. It was expected to feature virtual remarks by Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, who has been under US sanctions since last year.
University officials said the decision was based on federal sanctions law. Samantha Warren, chief external and governmental affairs officer for the University of Maine system, told The Guardian in an email that “hosting a conference that is being actively promoted as including a speaker sanctioned by the US government would put our public university in violation of federal law”. She said organizers should have obtained authorization from the Treasury Department before proceeding.
Sanctions regulations prohibit US entities from providing “any goods or services” to individuals designated under sanctions regimes. Violations can carry severe penalties, including heavy fines and potential prison time. However, legal scholars argue that the scope of what constitutes a “service” remains ambiguous.
Campus rights clash
In December, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) clarified in correspondence with the Middle East Studies Association that “no authorization” was required to include Albanese in an academic event, provided that she did not receive payment, reimbursement, or “training or assistance”. That clarification emerged after concerns were raised about the impact of sanctions on academic exchange.
Xiangnong Wang, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute who had sought clarification from OFAC, said the cancellation reflects broader concerns about the chilling impact of sanctions on constitutionally protected speech. “It’s very concerning that sanctions continue to have such a broad deterrent effect on speech that is undoubtedly protected by the First Amendment,” he said.
Organizers said they were caught off guard by the abrupt cancellation. Abigail Fuller, a sociology professor involved in planning the conference, stressed the constitutional implications of the decision. “We’re a public university; the university system is subject to First Amendment laws,” she said. “We feel we have a very, very strong case that they are suppressing our free speech.”
According to organizers, they attempted to clarify that federal guidance did not require special permission to include Albanese. They even proposed removing her from the program in an effort to preserve the event. They were subsequently told there was insufficient time for administrators to evaluate the conference’s “risk”.
Speech under pressure
The dispute comes amid reports that Republican lawmakers had written to the system’s chancellor requesting “information on steps the university is taking to ensure the safety and well-being of its Jewish students”. Organizers believe such political pressure contributed to the reversal and said administrators had also expressed concern about possible federal funding consequences.
Albanese was sanctioned last July, with US authorities accusing her of “unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism, and open contempt for the United States, Israel, and the West”. She has previously rejected those allegations and criticized the move as politically motivated, describing the United States as “a country of contradictions, full of ideals and principles and still, plotting against democratic values”.
The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the university’s interpretation of sanctions law.
Despite losing access to their campus venue, conference organizers say they are seeking an alternative location and are exploring possible legal action. Fateh Azzam, a member of the Maine Coalition for Palestine, said canceling the conference outright was not an option.
“That would mean that they have effectively silenced an open and public debate on the issues,” he said. “This controversy will probably bring in more people.”
Senate Majority Leader: Any War with Iran Should Result in Regime Change
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | February 26, 2026
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that any strikes on Iran should be aimed at causing regime change in Tehran.
“In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change,” the Senator said on Thursday. “If you’re going to take some sort of action, I think you want to achieve a result that actually brings about the transformational change that I think we want in the region.”
Thune is among several Senators who have argued that Tehran is historically weak, and President Donald Trump should order an attack on Iran to cause regime change. “The Ayatollah lost to Israel in the 12-day war. They are weaker. The regime is weaker than it ever has been. And what I’ve urged the president, do not miss this opportunity,” Cruz told CNBC host Joe Kernen on Wednesday. “If the Ayatollah is removed from power, it will make America much safer.”
Trump is threatening to attack Iran if Tehran does not agree to a deal that severely restricts its civilian nuclear program in exchange for minimal sanctions relief.
While Senators and administration officials have asserted that the US must attack Iran to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the Islamic Republic does not have a nuclear weapons program and is not currently enriching uranium.
“The President, I don’t think, to my knowledge, has made any decisions, but I think they’re gaming out what contingencies might look like and what’s in our national security interests.” Thune added, “Of course, first and foremost is to prevent them from having a nuclear capability but there are also other threats that they represent in the region.”
Iraqi Resistance warns of action if US forces remain
Al Mayadeen | February 26, 2026
Iraqi Resistance factions have issued a firm warning to Washington, declaring that continued US military presence on Iraqi soil will not go unanswered.
In a statement released Wednesday, the Iraqi Resistance Coordination Committee, an umbrella body bringing together six anti-terror formations, said it stands ready to act if the United States refuses to end the “ongoing occupation” and persistent interference in national affairs.
The committee accused Washington of failing to respect its obligations under its agreement with Baghdad, which provides for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq. Despite repeated official declarations that the US combat mission ended years ago, Resistance groups argue that foreign troops remain entrenched under different titles.
“The US actions in Iraq ‘leave us with no choice but to assume our legal and moral responsibilities in taking positions befitting the dignity of our people and their legitimate right to end the occupation, if American forces insist on maintaining their presence and imposing their will on the country,” the statement said.
The coalition also charged that US forces continue to violate Iraqi airspace and undermine the country’s stability, describing such conduct as a “blatant violation” of national sovereignty and dignity.
Advisory mission pretext
While Washington claims that approximately 2,500 American troops remain only in an “advice and assist” capacity following the declared end of combat operations in December 2021, resistance factions view this designation as cosmetic. They argue that the continued deployment, however limited in scale, preserves military infrastructure, intelligence networks, and rapid-response capabilities that entrench US influence rather than end it.
From their perspective, the counter-ISIS mandate increasingly functions as a framework that justifies a long-term strategic foothold in a country central to regional power balances. Even a reduced presence, they contend, enables Washington to retain leverage over Iraqi decision-making while projecting influence across neighboring theaters.
Beyond the security dimension, the Resistance Coordination Committee pointed to direct American meddling in Iraq’s political process, saying that Washington effectively determines which Iraqi political figures may assume senior government positions.
Maliki pressure campaign
The reference was widely understood as relating to Nouri al-Maliki, whose potential return to the premiership has faced US opposition. Washington threatened sanctions on Iraqi individuals and institutions should Maliki take office. Recent reports indicate that the United States has given Iraq’s largest parliamentary bloc until February 27 to withdraw his candidacy, despite Maliki’s insistence that he will not step aside.
For Resistance factions, such moves are examples of direct political coercion, reinforcing their claim that Iraq’s sovereignty remains constrained more than two decades after the US-led invasion of 2003, a war launched on the now-discredited allegation that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction.
China, Russia slam US threat, force against Iran ahead of talks
Al Mayadeen | February 26, 2026
China on Thursday called for restraint and dialogue between the United States and Iran, as Washington continues a significant military buildup in the Persian Gulf ahead of renewed diplomatic talks.
Speaking in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said China was “closely following developments in Iran” amid rising regional tensions.
“China advocates the resolution of issues through political and diplomatic channels and opposes the use of threat or force in international affairs,” Mao told reporters when asked whether Beijing would join Moscow in backing Tehran against what was described as potential US aggression.
Mao emphasized the longstanding ties between the two countries, stating that the “Chinese and Iranian people are traditionally friendly.” She added that China supports the Iranian government and people in safeguarding their “legitimate rights, interests, and national stability.”
Reiterating Beijing’s position, Mao stressed the importance of de-escalation. “We hope all sides exercise restraint and solve disputes through dialogue,” she said, adding that China is ready to continue playing a “constructive role as a responsible major country.”
Russia blames US ‘irresponsible escalation of regional tensions’
Likewise, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Moscow sees the constant threats against Iran, as well as the irresponsible escalation of regional tensions by the United States.
“We see constant threats against Tehran and saber-rattling, intimidation, and Washington’s irresponsible escalation of regional tensions,” Zakharova said during a briefing.
Moscow and Tehran are developing mutually beneficial cooperation, despite Washington’s escalation of regional tensions, the Russian spokesperson added.
US build-up escalates significantly
Amid these developments, US military buildup in the Middle East has expanded significantly, with Washington assembling 16 warships, about 40,000 troops, and at least seven air wings in the region, the Financial Times reported, citing rising US-Iran tensions.
US President Donald Trump said on February 19 that he will decide within 10 to 15 days whether to pursue diplomacy with Iran or take military action, Axios reported. Speaking in Washington, he said the coming days would be decisive for US policy. “Now we may have to take it a step further, or we may not,” Trump said, adding, “Maybe we are going to make a deal [with Iran].”
The United States had already maintained five air wings, command units of roughly 70 aircraft each, at bases in Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. It has since added two more aboard the aircraft carriers USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford, reinforcing what Trump described as a “massive armada” of 16 vessels and expanding Washington’s operational reach.
The overall US troop presence in the region now stands at around 40,000 personnel. Citing data from Tel Aviv University, the Financial Times reported that Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti military base hosts at least 66 fighter jets, including 18 F-35s, 17 F-15s, and eight A-10s, along with EA-18 electronic warfare aircraft and transport planes. Satellite data also show an increase in fighter jets at a Saudi air base, reflecting the broader expansion of the US air footprint across Jordan and the Gulf.
US fears Iran war will ‘deplete’ air defenses stretched thin by Ukraine, Israel: Report
The Cradle | February 26, 2026
Military officials and lawmakers in Washington have warned that a prolonged war with Iran could stretch US military stockpiles of air defense interceptor missiles “to the brink and make the country more vulnerable,” POLITICO reported on 26 February.
“Gen. Dan Caine, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, has raised concerns about the military’s shortage of air defense interceptors since January,” POLITICO wrote, citing a person familiar with the matter.
“But the fears have magnified in recent weeks as the Pentagon amassed the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the Iraq War,” the magazine added.
Since returning to the White House a year ago, US President Donald Trump has won praise from Israelis while supporting the genocide in Gaza and overseeing a massive expansion of US military operations, including in Venezuela, Yemen, and Nigeria.
Crucially, Trump ordered US warplanes to join Israel’s 12-day war on Iran to bomb Tehran’s nuclear sites in June 2025.
Interceptor missiles were used not only to protect US forces from Iranian and Yemeni counterattacks but also to protect Israel from Iran’s barrages of ballistic missiles and drones.
During these operations, US forces “burned through” significant numbers of Standard Missile-3s, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors, and Patriot missiles, POLITICO observed.
Since then, the Pentagon has been unable to replenish its interceptor stocks due to the complexity and slow pace of their production.
Six current and former US officials and members of Congress told POLITICO of their widespread worries that a sustained war with Iran could deplete remaining US air defenses and “leave tens of thousands of American troops in the region unprotected against Tehran’s missile salvos.”
An Israeli intelligence official stated on Thursday that the US only has the capacity to sustain four or five days of intense aerial assault on Iran, the Times of Israel wrote, citing the Financial Times (FT).
Israel is pushing for a major war, claiming that limited US strikes on Iran could only “embolden the regime,” the Times of Israel added.
Since January, President Trump has assembled what he called an “armada” of US naval ships with accompanying war planes in the region in preparation for a possible renewed attack on the Islamic Republic.
Analysts have suggested that Iran will retaliate much more strongly in the event of a second war, including against US bases in the Gulf, leading to a much longer and more devastating war than last June.
“Do we have enough interceptors to sustain a retaliation?” said the person familiar with the talks. “We don’t have a discretely focused objective. Is it regime change or is it [just] ballistic missiles?”
A US military spokesperson responded to the POLITICO report by saying its weapons stockpiles are sufficient.
“The Department of War has everything it needs to execute any mission at the time and place of the president’s choosing and on any timeline,” said spokesperson Sean Parnell.
However, some US lawmakers say that the defense industry is not producing enough Lockheed Martin-built Patriot interceptors or RTX’s Tomahawk long-range missiles, nor quickly enough.
“There have been urgent calls for reforms in procurement, but the net result is that we are seemingly unable to meet all of the needs for defense production – for Ukraine, for our partners in the Middle East,” said Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic congressman.
“It may be problematic to think about moving Patriot missile interceptor systems from the Middle East because now we’re going to have to protect our embassies, not to mention our bases,” he added.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank, estimated the US had used up to 20 percent of the Standard Missile-3 interceptors and between 20 and 50 percent of its THAAD missiles.
Could Hungary’s fight over oil change course of Ukraine War?
By Ian Proud | Responsible Statecraft | February 26, 2026
The EU’s plan to impose its 20th package of sanctions against Russia crashed against a seemingly immovable wall of Hungarian resistance this week, when the Central Europe country used its veto to block it.
That is not necessarily the end of the matter, yet I hope it is the beginning of the end, with Europe finally choosing peace over war.
At a fraught EU Council meeting on February 23, agreement could not be reached on a new round of EU sanctions, leading the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security, Kaja Kallas, to announce, “I deeply regret that we did not reach an agreement today, given that tomorrow [February 24] is the solemn anniversary of the start of this war.”
Hungarian resistance to collective decisions on Ukraine policy has been overcome before. In June 2025, Prime Minister Viktor Orban stepped out of the European Council meeting to allow a unanimous vote of those present to extend existing EU sanctions against Russia. Yet, this latest blockage is fueled by growing bad blood between Hungary and its eastern neighbour Ukraine, over the issue of oil.
It is an uncomfortable reality that Europe has continued to purchase Russian oil and gas throughout the war, in the face of President Trump’s exhortations to stop purchases. Gas imports still accounted for 12% of Europe’s total as of October 2025. And while Hungary and Slovakia are the largest importers, other western European powers such as France, the Netherlands, and Belgium, have also continued purchases. The addiction is a hard habit to break, and for largely domestic reasons.
As Gladden Pappin, the American President of the Hungarian Institute for International Affairs, has pointed out, if Hungary agreed to sanction Russian oil and gas, “Hungarian gas at the pump doubles overnight. Household energy prices triple or quadruple, and the German industry moving to Hungary immediately halts. Whatever government imposes that policy will collapse within weeks.”
While sanctioning Russia is a geopolitical tool, it has real world consequences for regular citizens across Europe. Germany has seen its economy tip into deindustrialization since the start of the war in Ukraine and the progressive cutting off of access to Russian [energy], shedding over 250,000 industrial jobs, a contraction of 4.3%, amid widespread factory closures.
Sanctions require European states voluntarily to choose economic self-harm ahead of an end to the war in Ukraine. And in Hungary and Slovakia, that is not a palatable choice, not least ahead of a hotly contested election in Hungary on April 12. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has framed the election as a choice between “war or peace.”
Four years after the war in Ukraine started, increasing numbers of Europeans are desperate for peace and not war, not just for their long-term personal security, but for the benefits to their check books.
Yet that runs counter to Ukraine, which frames the war as existential to them. So, they have pushed Europe to go tougher and faster against Russia’s economy and are doing everything they can to add further pressure. Ukraine launched drone attacks against the Druzhba pipeline network which supplies oil to Hungary and Slovakia, cutting this supply route on January 27.
It is a statement of the crazy world in which we live, that Ukraine can attack facilities that supply EU and NATO countries without opprobrium in the west. Unfortunately, out of sympathy for Ukraine’s war plight, EU member states are quick then to criticize Hungary and Slovakia for taking retaliatory action. Poland’s Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, labeled the Hungarian veto as “an escalation.” And yet he doesn’t have to answer to Hungarian voters.
Blocking the EU’s 20th sanctions package is one measure. Hungary and Slovakia have also blocked the promised 90 bln euro loan package for Kviv to keep the war effort going. They have also threatened to cut off supplies of gas, electricity, and diesel to Ukraine (as it no longer imports gas from Russia, Ukraine relies of supplies piped in from proximate EU countries). Ukrainian media has predictably labeled this energy blackmail. Not least given the enormous electricity and heating shortages Ukraine faces in light Russia’s campaign of strategic bombing against their energy infrastructure.
At a TV interview that I attended recently, a Ukrainian MP pointed out that she uses a local app that tells her how many hours of electricity her building will receive each day. Who in Europe would want to live in such conditions, not the least during a bitterly cold winter?
Of course, the stark brutality of the air attacks and Ukraine’s energy crisis drives Europe’s mainstream politicians to pursue more punitive actions against Russia, including economic sanctions. Yet the inescapable reality is that the EU’s 20th sanctions package amounts to more of the same — tactical scrapes at the bottom of the barrel — to bear down on Russia’s energy exports and financial services sector, together with small beer restrictions on some other goods’ exports.
The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, claims that Russia’s energy exports were cut by 24% in 2025. And yet, look at the real data, and you’ll see that Russia’s exports in 2025, at $419.4 billion, were down just 3.3% on 2025, with an overall current account surplus of $41.4 billion. That surplus will go into purchases of gold, which now accounts for almost one half of Russia’s soaring international reserves, which stand at $833 billion.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s current account deficit more than doubled to $31.9 billion in 2025, or 14.9% of GDP, liquidity that will need to be met by printing money or donations from Europe.
At some point, European leaders need to ask themselves, after 19 rounds of sanctions already, “is this really working?”
It’s not only that economic sanctions against Russia hit diminishing marginal returns soon after the war in Ukraine started four years ago. But that the addition of new sanctions, self-evidently, disincentivizes Putin from settling for peace. Yes, Russia’s economy is undoubtedly feeling the pain, through high inflation and interest rates, plus slowing growth. But there has never been a time when it appeared that, for economic reasons, Russia was under greater pressure to end the war than Ukraine and its European sponsors.
So, and as I have said before, sanctions, and their phased removal, could play a positive role in leveraging an end to the war. Continuing to blame Hungary and Slovakia for the continued intransigence in blocking yet another round of EU sanctions misses this point.
Ian Proud was a member of His Britannic Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. He served as the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019. He recently published his memoir, “A Misfit in Moscow: How British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019,” and is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute.
North Korea Open to Rapprochement If US Respects Its Nuclear Status – Kim Jong-un
Sputnik – 26.02.2026
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said that Pyongyang has no reason not to pursue rapprochement with the United States if Washington abandons hostility and respects North Korea’s nuclear status.
“If the US respects the present position of our [nuclear] state specified in the Constitution of the DPRK and withdraws its hostile policy toward the DPRK, there is no reason why we cannot get on well with the US,” Kim was quoted by KCNA as saying at a military parade commemorating the Ninth Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK).
He added that over the past five years, the WPK has permanently enshrined the country’s status as a nuclear state, signaling to adversaries that until the world completely changes, Pyongyang will under no circumstances abandon nuclear weapons.
Kim said that further expanding and strengthening the state’s nuclear armed forces, the core of the armed forces in implementing war deterrence and war-fighting strategy, and consistently exercising the right of a nuclear state, represents the party’s unwavering will.
“We have a long-term plan to strengthen the national nuclear force on an annual basis in the future and will concentrate on increasing the number of nuclear weapons and expanding the means and space for nuclear operation,” the leader said.
Kim added that Pyongyang intends to modernize strike capabilities and nuclear weapons control systems, enhance nuclear force combat readiness through exercises, and improve nuclear crisis response systems. He also prioritized equipping the country’s naval forces with nuclear weapons as part of efforts to strengthen the military.
“The DPRK’s position as the nuclear weapons state plays an important role in deterring the potential threat of its enemies and maintaining regional stability, and the state nuclear force is a basic guarantee and powerful security device reliably ensuring the country’s security, interests and rights to development,” the leader said.
Kim added that the expansion and strengthening of aggressive US-led blocs in the Asia-Pacific region and their military actions, which exceed limits, are creating an unusual situation that seriously threatens security on the Korean Peninsula and in the region.
John Mearsheimer: The Case for a Nuclear Iran
Glenn Diesen | February 25, 2026
John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982. Prof. Mearsheimer argues why Iran should be considered a rational actor, and why Iran should develop nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
- X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
- Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
- Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Featured Video
Iran Is Not Our Enemy
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Excerpt
“Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism!” The Science is Settled. Right?
ICAN urges the IACC to actually study infant vaccines and autism
By Aaron Siri | Injecting Freedom | March 16, 2026
On behalf of ICAN, we just sent a copy of chapter 11 of Vaccines, Amen to the newly appointed members of the federal Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).
If you haven’t already read this chapter, you can read the whole thing in the attached letter. I trust that after you read it, you’ll see why the statement “vaccines do not cause autism” is a belief, not science!
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israeli Journalist Demands Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens Be Placed in WWII-Style Internment Camps
- No Liability, No Studies, No Accountability: The Vaccine System Aaron Siri Exposed in Federal Court
- No time for losers: Why the war meant to save Israel may destroy it
- Top US Counterterrorism Official Resigns in Protest of Operation Against Iran
- Just Get Out! Now!
- Unpacking glaring contradictions in US-Zionist justifications for war against Iran
- Iranian model of warfare bleeds US dry while Persian Gulf states watch and learn: Analyst
- IRGC orders ‘defeated’ US to evacuate industrial facilities in region
- Hegseth’s call for ‘no mercy’ to Iranians deemed war crime
- Iran War Exposes Limits of US Military Power – Journalist
- If Americans Knew
- Trump’s counterterrorism chief, whose own wife was killed by ISIS, quits over Iran War saying Tehran posed ‘no imminent threat’
- Here’s what US could fund instead of Bibi’s war on Iran
- Israel Killed Over a Dozen Lebanese Paramedics in Three Days, Now Claiming That Ambulances Are “Hezbollah” Targets
- War on Iran: These are the heritage sites devastated by US and Israeli attacks
- Four news stories from Israeli media that illustrate Israeli “justice”
- CIA Prepares Criminal Referral of Tucker Carlson, as Israel and Its Loyalists Demand His Arrest
- Top US counterterror advisor resigns in protest of “war manufactured by Israel” – Not a ceasefire Day 157
- ‘I Liked the House’: When Israeli Soldiers Turn Palestinian Homes into Barracks
- ‘They Were All I Had’: Lebanese Father Buries Parents, 4 Daughters Killed by Israeli Bombing
- Israel and its supporters are causing attacks on Jewish institutions. Case in point: Michigan synagogue tragedy.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
- Televised! Leading German Political Candidate Tells Schoolchildren CO2 Makes Sun Hotter!
- New Study: A Century Warming Of 1.1°C Is ‘Commonplace’ And ‘Not Unusual’ During This Interglacial
- New Study: ‘Internal Noise’ And Volcanic Forcing Can Trigger 10-15°C Warming Within Decades
- Glaciers Worldwide Are Suddendly Surging, Experts Blame Warming!
Aletho News 