Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iranian Armed Forces say no missile fired from Iran into Turkey

Press TV – March 5, 2026

Iran’s Armed Forces say they did not fire any missiles into Turkey, stressing Tehran’s respect for the neighboring country’s territorial integrity.

“The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran dismiss firing any missile into Turkey,” the Chief Staff of the Armed Forces said in a statement on Thursday.

It added that the Iranian Armed Forces respect the sovereignty of the neighboring and friendly country of Turkey.

The statement came after Turkey’s Ministry of National Defense claimed that NATO air defense systems had destroyed a ballistic missile fired from Iran and heading into Turkish airspace.

The ministry announced on Wednesday that the missile was shot down after passing over Syria and Iraq. The target of the missile has not been determined.

Incirlik Air Base, located in Turkey, is under the control of the country’s air force and operates as a joint Turkish-US airbase.

It is used by foreign military forces, mainly the US and other NATO allies.

Incirlik was a key logistics and air support site for US-led operations in Iraq during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and later as a cargo hub for Iraq and Afghanistan operations.

Iran is defending itself against an uprovoked US-Israeli aggression that started last Saturday. Iranian armed forces have launched multiple drone and missile operations against US military assets across the region since the start of the war.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , , , | Comments Off on Iranian Armed Forces say no missile fired from Iran into Turkey

The myth of military ‘decapitation’

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 5, 2026

The recent escalation in the Middle East has brought back to the center of strategic debate a recurring concept in Western military doctrine: the so-called “decapitation strike.” The idea is simple in appearance and politically seductive – eliminate the leadership of an adversary state in order to trigger institutional collapse, military disorganization, and ultimately regime change. However, historical reality shows that such an approach is far from the magic solution its proponents often imagine.

The bombings carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran, culminating in the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were clearly conceived under this logic. The expectation seemed to be that by removing the main political and religious authority of the Islamic Republic, the system would either collapse outright or face sufficient internal unrest to enable a forced transition. At the same time, it was assumed that Iran’s response would remain limited, as in previous confrontations.

That calculation proved mistaken. Instead of disintegration, there was internal consolidation. Thousands of Iranians took to the streets across the country, even under bombardment, to support the Islamic Republic and chant “death to America.” Moreover, there was no strategic paralysis among Iranian decision-makers, who promptly responded by striking targets throughout the Middle East.

This gap between expectation and reality stems from a structural characteristic of contemporary Western military thinking. Washington, accustomed to rapid interventions against fragile states, has consolidated a culture of short-duration warfare, marked by overwhelming initial destructive power followed by swift disengagement. Tel Aviv, due to its territorial dimensions and demographic limitations, developed a doctrine based on preventive strikes and the rapid neutralization of enemy leadership. However, this model tends to fail when applied against states with national cohesion, solid institutional frameworks, and mobilization capacity.

Iran is not a collapsed state, nor a fragmented tribal structure. With more than 90 million inhabitants and a political order consolidated since 1979, the country built mechanisms of succession and redundancy within its command structure. Khamenei’s advanced age had already made the question of transition an internal matter. Thus, the “decapitation” attempt did not strike at the functional core of Iranian power. On the contrary, it strengthened patriotic sentiment and expanded popular support for the government.

The strategic lesson is clear: complex political systems do not depend exclusively on a single individual. When institutions are deeply rooted and chains of command are distributed, eliminating a symbolic figure may generate martyrdom and cohesion rather than collapse.

This understanding helps explain why Russia did not adopt, in its conflict with Ukraine, a systematic policy of targeted assassinations against the political leadership in Kiev. Since the beginning of the special military operation, Moscow has demonstrated technical capacity to strike command centers and critical infrastructure. Even so, it has not prioritized the physical elimination of President Vladimirr Zelensky or other central figures of the Ukrainian government.

This choice does not stem from incapacity, but from strategic calculation. First, Zelensky’s removal could have produced the opposite of the intended effect, transforming him into an international symbol and further consolidating Western support for Kyiv. Second, the Ukrainian state structure – sustained by intense NATO assistance – does not depend exclusively on one individual leader. A replacement could occur rapidly without fundamentally altering the conflict’s dynamics.

Furthermore, Russian strategy has been characterized by a prolonged war of attrition focused on the gradual degradation of the adversary’s military and logistical capacity. This model stands in direct contrast to the logic of decapitation. Moscow appears to understand that in conflicts between organized states, victory is rarely achieved through a single spectacular blow, but rather through the systematic erosion of the enemy’s material conditions.

The myth of decapitation persists because it offers a simplified and politically marketable narrative: remove the “head,” and the body will fall. Yet recent experience demonstrates that this assumption ignores the resilient nature of modern states. Leaders can be replaced; institutions, when consolidated, tend to endure.

Ultimately, the obsession with decapitation strikes reveals more about the strategic limitations of those who execute them than about the vulnerability of those who suffer them. Recent history suggests that wars between powers or structured states are not decided by dramatic gestures, but by prolonged processes in which internal cohesion and industrial capacity weigh more heavily than the elimination of individual figures.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on The myth of military ‘decapitation’

Zelensky issues military threat to Orban

RT | March 5, 2026

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has issued an apparent military threat to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban over his blocking of EU aid for Kiev.

Orban last month vetoed Brussels’ planned €90 billion ($106 billion) emergency loan for Kiev in response to Ukraine preventing Russian oil supplies to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline.

Speaking at a press conference in Kiev on Thursday, Zelensky stated: “We hope that one person in the EU will not block the €90 billion… Otherwise, we will give the address of this person to our armed forces, to our guys, so that they call him and communicate with him in their own language.”

The diplomatic dispute between Hungary and Ukraine has escalated in recent weeks, spilling over into personal barbs. Zelensky launched a string of attacks against Orban, including fat-shaming him during the Munich Security Conference last month.

The Hungarian prime minister has long opposed Ukraine’s push to join the EU, and has repeatedly refused to send it weapons or approve EU military aid, calling for diplomacy instead.

Orban, meanwhile, has taken to social media to issue his own warning.

“There will be no deals, no compromise. We will break the Ukrainian oil blockade by force,” he wrote on X on Thursday, adding that oil will soon flow to Hungary again through the Druzhba pipeline.

The Soviet-era pipeline, part of which runs through Ukraine, went offline in January after Kiev claimed it had been damaged by Russian strikes – accusations Moscow denies. Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily reliant on Russian energy, have accused Kiev of deliberately cutting them off for political reasons and inventing obstacles for restarting oil flows.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Zelensky issues military threat to Orban

Is the International Norm Against Assassination Dead?

By Sophie Duroy and Luca Trenta – Verfassungsblog – March 2, 2026

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel assassinated the supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei. The joint operation marked the first time either state has directly killed a sitting head of state. As with the US’s January 2026 operation against Nicolás Maduro, what stands out is not only the gravity of the act but the manner in which it was justified. Public statements emphasised Khamenei’s record and the sophistication of US-Israeli intelligence cooperation, but they did not articulate a credible legal basis for the strike.

Khamenei’s assassination represents a new stage in the erosion of the international norm against assassination. This norm has long been understood as part of a broader framework protecting sovereignty and prohibiting the use of force outside armed conflict. Under international law, the killing of a state official outside an armed conflict will almost invariably violate the prohibition on the use of force, state sovereignty, and/or international human rights law. In an influential piece written two decades ago, Ward Thomas observed that “the directly targeted killing of foreign adversaries, once rejected as beyond the pale, has become a prominent issue in debates over U.S. security policy”. For Thomas, the shortsighted policies driving the US’s so-called “global war on terror” were undermining the norm and risked spilling over to justify the killing of state officials. Yet, in 2005, he wrote with some relief that “the word ‘assassination’ itself still carries a considerable stigma”. In the wake of Khamenei’s assassination, this statement no longer seems to hold true.

Since the early 2000s, the gradual normalisation of state-sponsored assassination has lessened the stigma attached to the practice to the point that assassinating a sitting head of state without any legal justification has now become a reality. While the international norm against assassination may not yet be fully dead, its recent trajectory offers little hope for its restoration.

A gradual normalisation of assassination

The norm’s erosion was already visible in the January 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani. The Trump administration initially invoked self-defence and imminence, before shifting to claims that Soleimani had “American blood on his hands”. International reactions were limited: a joint statement by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom focused on regional stability without directly condemning (or indeed mentioning) the killing. Subsequent cases reinforced this pattern. The Biden administration justified the 2022 killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri with the assertion that “justice has been delivered”, without any articulation of its compatibility with international law.

This apparent normalisation of assassination as a tool of statecraft rests on two interrelated mechanisms: routinisation and legitimation. Prior to the attacks of 11 September 2001, the United States was a vocal critic of Israel’s practice of assassinating Palestinian activists. After 9/11, however, it quickly adopted the practice and slowly began to legitimate it. With the US adoption of the practice, now strategically renamed “targeted killings”, assassination became increasingly routinised as a tool of statecraft.

Today, both democratic and authoritarian states employ it, and targets have expanded beyond suspected terrorists to include scientists, political opponents, bloggers, journalists, state officials, and sitting heads of state during armed conflict. Alongside covert poisoning and car bombs, methods have evolved to include drone strikes and AI-assisted targeting. The practice now spans objectives of counterterrorism, deterrence, regime security, and strategic signalling. What was once treated as an exceptional and contested measure has been bureaucratised and normalised as a tool of policy within self-proclaimed liberal democracies such as the United States and Israel. The definitional move from “assassination” to “targeted killing” facilitated this process by situating such operations within the vocabulary of armed conflict after 9/11.

In parallel, legitimation has become possible through a reinterpretation of the applicable legal framework. Since the early 2000s, the United States and Israel have been more vocal in advancing expansive readings of self-defence, imminence, and the existence of non-international armed conflicts beyond traditional battlefields to justify targeting individuals that could not be regarded as lawful targets under stricter legal interpretations. The lack of strong condemnation by other states allowed the legal justifications, however implausible, to provide a precedent for further action.

As this effort at legal justification provided a veneer of legitimacy for the routinised assassination of suspected terrorists, it became increasingly easy to rely on the newfound legitimacy of the practice to assassinate other “enemies of the state”, such as nuclear scientists or state officials like Soleimani, as well as to abandon legal justification altogether, as for al-Zawahiri.

The assassination of Khamenei as a rupture

The assassination of Ali Khamenei differs from the killings of the past two decades insofar as sitting heads of state have historically occupied a distinct normative category. As explained by Thomas, as early as the seventeenth century, “a complex combination of material and ideational factors contributed to the rise of the norm against assassinating foreign leaders” in wartime and, a fortiori, in peacetime. Even when states plotted against foreign leaders during the Cold War (for instance, the US repeatedly attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro), they always did so covertly and rarely acknowledged responsibility when exposed. In later decades, when the US targeted foreign leaders such as Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, it was careful to claim that their deaths would have been an inadvertent consequence of a strike undertaken in self-defence. Such was the stigma against targeting heads of state that, as late as 2022, some authors argued that the norm erosion triggered by targeted killings would remain “compartmentalised” to the targeting of non-state actors.

It must therefore be emphasised that the US-Israeli strike of 28 February 2026 deliberately targeted and killed the sitting head of state of a sovereign state. In addition, Khamenei’s killing was publicly embraced, and its justification was framed in moral rather than legal terms.

Despite repeated violations of the international norm against assassination, its resilience depended on states either concealing their involvement or defending their conduct through appeals to legal exemptions such as self-defence or combatant status. Both practices signalled that assassination remained normatively problematic in the international order.

When assassination is openly acknowledged and only minimally justified in legal terms, as was recently the case with Soleimani, al-Zawahiri, Haniyeh, or Nasrallah, that signal weakens. The threshold then shifts from whether the act can be legally justified to whether the target is sufficiently “bad” to warrant elimination. Whether the targets of recent assassinations “deserved” their fate is, however, less important than the implication of this shift from legality to morality for the international order. While legal arguments can be rebutted, moral claims about worthiness are less susceptible to meaningful contestation.

Alongside Jeremy Waldron, one may therefore begin to ask:“Do we want [assassination] to become a permanent capability available in principle to any of the 192 [now 195] sovereign states in the world that think of themselves as having particular persons as enemies?”

Is the international norm against assassination dead?

The systemic effects of recent assassinations, from drone strikes in Yemen to the assassinations of Soleimani and Nasrallah, are cumulative. Each muted reaction by states that style themselves as the guardians of the “international rule-based order” lowers the political cost of the next strike; each public acknowledgement unaccompanied by legal argument lowers the justificatory threshold for other states and future assassinations. Combined with the widespread availability of drone and long-range strike technologies, assassination becomes both politically easier to defend and materially easier to replicate. As a result, the practice of state-sponsored assassination, which once required covert modalities and plausible deniability, is increasingly conducted openly.

This does not mean that the norm is formally extinguished. Even under the most expansive readings of international law, as advocated by the US and Israel in recent decades, the “targeted killing” of a state official outside an armed conflict still violates the prohibition on the use of force, state sovereignty, and international human rights law. Many states continue to denounce assassination when they consider themselves as victims, and legal scholarship remains largely sceptical of expansive doctrines of imminence or “globalised armed conflict” that would render such killings lawful.

The more difficult question is whether the norm still meaningfully constrains powerful states. Norms do not disappear simply because they are violated. They erode when violations become routine, when justificatory standards decline, and when adverse reactions diminish. The 28 February 2026 assassination of Ali Khamenei features as the culmination of these three dynamics. It suggests that, at least for some states, assassination has moved from a covert and contested practice to an overt, politically defensible, and even desirable instrument of policy.

Should other states emulate this model, and should international responses remain muted, the norm will continue to hollow out. Conversely, sustained contestation, coordinated sanctions, and renewed insistence on legal justification could restore its constraining force. As such, whether the norm against assassination will effectively disappear depends less on the existence of prohibitive rules than on future practice.

Reactions by other states to Khamenei’s assassination will be decisive for the norm’s future trajectory. At present, however, that trajectory points much less toward a restoration of the stigma than toward a full normalisation of assassination as a tool of statecraft.

Dr. Sophie Duroy is a Lecturer at Essex Law School and Human Rights Centre, University of Essex.

Dr. Luca Trenta is Associate Professor of International Relations at Swansea University.

March 5, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Comments Off on Is the International Norm Against Assassination Dead?

Larry Johnson: AIR POWER CANNOT BEAT an ENTRENCHED ENEMY LIKE IRAN

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – March 4, 2026

Larry Johnson argues that Iran will not back down because it sees the conflict as existential, while the U.S. lacks the long-term resolve to sustain another major war—citing failures since the Vietnam War.

He claims Iran has effectively neutralized much of the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, rendering bases such as Al Udeid Air Base, Prince Sultan Air Base, and U.S. naval facilities in Bahrain combat-ineffective, and destroying key radar systems. He argues that airpower alone—referencing “shock and awe” from the Iraq War—cannot secure victory without ground forces.

The discussion questions statements by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, contrasting his current rhetoric with past criticism of U.S. interventionism. The speaker suggests current leadership is overstating progress and creating unrealistic expectations that Iran will soon collapse.

He further argues that despite heavy bombardment, Iran remains capable of striking Israel and that damage inside Israeli cities is being underreported due to social media censorship. He claims missile defenses such as Patriot, THAAD, and Iron Dome are being depleted or are ineffective.

Strategically, he contends the U.S. and Israel lack the capacity to conquer Iran, noting its vast size, mountainous terrain, and the logistical impossibility of a ground invasion—drawing comparisons to difficulties in Afghanistan. He also points to Israel’s ongoing struggle in the Gaza Strip since October 2023 as evidence that overwhelming airpower does not guarantee political or military victory.

Overall, the speaker concludes that U.S. leadership is misrepresenting the situation, underestimating Iran’s resilience, and setting itself up for strategic and political failure.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Larry Johnson: AIR POWER CANNOT BEAT an ENTRENCHED ENEMY LIKE IRAN

Report- U.S. and Israel Are Targeting ‘Hospitals, Residential Buildings And Schools Across Tehran’

The U.S. and Israel Are Repeating The Gaza Strategy In Iran

The Dissident | March 4, 2026

Failing to achieve regime change, the U.S. and Israel are bombing civilian areas in Tehran, in an attempt to destroy Iran as a nation.

A report in the Telegraph, a mainstream British newspaper, wrote , “Tehran an ‘apocalypse’ of hospitals in flames and children buried beneath rubble”.

The report noted, “American and Israeli aircraft bombed hospitals, residential buildings and schools across Tehran on Tuesday in what residents described as ‘an apocalypse’” adding, “Millions of civilians are trapped under relentless bombardment as food and medical supplies dwindle and the death toll mounts.”

One resident of Tehran told the paper, “They have been bombing us without pause today, and the sound of explosions never stops. They don’t care where they are hitting. I have felt the shockwaves several times already”.

He added, “They are striking buildings where families live. After each explosion, people rush to help – and then another bomb hits the same area.”

The report added:

Families ration meals to make supplies last. Children go to bed hungry. Elderly residents with medical conditions cannot find their medications.

Diabetics run out of insulin. Parents water down milk to make it stretch further. Some families have not eaten in two days. Bakeries that remain open face long lines.

It went on to write:

Areas around Revolution Square in central Tehran were struck on Tuesday, causing extensive damage to residential homes in one of the capital’s most densely populated districts.

The Haft-e-Tir neighbourhood, also in central Tehran, was hit. Video footage showed destroyed apartment buildings and rescue workers digging through rubble.

A hospital in southern Bushehr was destroyed, with emergency workers frantically evacuating newborn babies as the building was struck.

Kamran ( Tehran resident) said: “Many people are trapped under the rubble. Hospitals are filled with injured patients, and staff are overwhelmed. They are even striking hospitals where the wounded are being treated.”

The scene echoed strikes on Gandhi Hospital in Tehran and multiple other medical facilities across the country.

The destruction of hospitals means the wounded have nowhere to go. Nurses carry premature infants through smoke-filled corridors as bombs fall on maternity wards.

Burn victims lie on floors because all beds are full. Surgeons operate by torchlight when electricity fails.

Medical staff work until they collapse from exhaustion, then wake and work again. Some doctors have not left their hospitals in three days, sleeping in supply closets between emergency procedures.

Millions remain trapped in Tehran, a city under sustained aerial assault.

The report added, “‘An apocalypse is unfolding here,’ said Ashkan, another Tehran resident. ‘Today has been the worst day. Those who had cars fled. Those of us without cars are left here under the bombs.’”

It went on to note:

The strikes have created a humanitarian crisis that casualty figures do not fully convey.

Food supplies have become scarce in several parts of the city as distribution networks break down and stores close.

‘I don’t know if any of my relatives are dead or alive,’ Ashkan said. ‘One kilo of potatoes is now 200,000 tomans. That was 30,000 tomans last week.’

The report also documented the repeated use of “double tap” strikes on rescue workers, writing:

The Red Crescent said more than 100,000 rescue and relief workers across the country are on full alert, but residents said help often arrives too late or cannot reach victims at all.

“By the time rescuers arrive, another bomb falls on the same place,” Kamran said, describing what appeared to be “double-tap” strikes where initial attacks are followed by secondary strikes targeting first responders – a tactic that violates international humanitarian law.

Middle East Eye reported that the U.S./Israeli slaughter 165 children at the school for girls in Minab was also the result of a “double tap” strike, writing, “The girls’ school in Iran, where 165 people were killed by an apparent US-Israeli attack, was hit with two strikes, with the second missile killing sheltering survivors, two first responders and the parent of a slain child have told Middle East Eye.”

One Red Crescent member told the outlet, “When the first bomb hit the school, one of the teachers and the principal moved a group of students to the prayer hall to protect them. The principal called the parents and told them to come and pick up their children. But the second bomb hit that area as well. Only a small number of those who had taken shelter survived.”

The father of one victim told the outlet that, “his daughter survived the first strike and was moved to the prayer hall. The second strike hit before he could reach her.”

The outlet documented other instances of “double tap strikes” used in Iran wiring:

Since the US and Israel launched a war on Iran on Saturday, some Iranians have reported attacks that resembled double-tap strikes.

A video circulating on social media shows one woman in central Tehran in distress saying: “They dropped one bomb, people went inside, then they bombed again. They killed people.”

Another shows two men on a motorcycle, with one of them describing a near-death experience.

“We went to drag out people from under the rubble, and then the jet returned twice and pounded the same location four more times. We would have been dead if we weren’t still under the rubble,” he says.

A resident of Tehran who left for Turkey told Reuters , “We saw a lot of buildings destroyed, especially on the way leaving the country. There were a bunch of buildings, a bunch of cars and streets ​were destroyed. People are panicking to leave the country. They don’t know what to do”.

According to the Western group “Human Rights Activists News Agency, “the total number of reported civilian deaths stands at 1,114, including 181 children”.

As academic Glenn Diesen noted, referring to this report , “The US and Israel are bombing hospitals, schools, residential buildings, and Mehrabad international airport in Tehran. Having failed to regime change Iran, the new objective appears to be terror-bombing Iran into submission”.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Report- U.S. and Israel Are Targeting ‘Hospitals, Residential Buildings And Schools Across Tehran’

Witkoff undermined Iran talks by peddling lies to build case for military aggression: Report

Press TV – March 4, 2026

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to West Asia, Steve Witkoff, undermined the negotiations with Iran by peddling lies to build a case for military aggression, according to a report citing regional diplomats.

“In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly, […], that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60%,” Witkoff said Monday in a Fox interview, referring to the uranium’s level of enrichment.

“And they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance,” he claimed.

“They were proud of it,” Witkoff further claimed. “They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place where they could deliver 11 nuclear bombs.”

However, a Persian Gulf diplomat with direct knowledge of the talks told MS NOW that Witkoff’s description of the conversation was false.

The Iranians told Witkoff that Iran was willing to give up the enriched uranium as part of a new agreement with Trump, according to the unnamed Persian Gulf diplomat.

The Iranians also told Witkoff that Iran enriched the uranium after Trump pulled out of a 2015 nuclear agreement brokered by the Obama administration.

“I can categorically state that this is inaccurate,” said the diplomat, referring to Witkoff’s account. “He was explaining that all of this material can all go away should we have a deal and Iran can be relieved from sanctions.”

A second person with knowledge of the talks confirmed that Iranian officials declined to discuss their country’s ballistic missiles and the resistance groups with Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and said those issues could be discussed in regional talks.

While Iran was engaged in the negotiations, on Saturday, the US and Israel, similar to previous times, started their unprovoked military assault, launching attacks on multiple cities across the country.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei Khamenei was assassinated in the terrorist US-Israeli attacks.

Iran began to swiftly retaliate against the criminal aggression by launching barrages of missile and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories as well as on the US bases in regional countries.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Comments Off on Witkoff undermined Iran talks by peddling lies to build case for military aggression: Report

Iraqi Resistance reports drone attacks on US targets in Erbil

Al Mayadeen | March 4, 2026

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq – Saraya Awliya al-Dam announced that its fighters carried out an attack using a swarm of drones targeting a US forces base near Erbil International Airport, a hotel in Erbil used by US forces as accommodation for their soldiers, and a vital target in Jordan.

The group said the operations came in retaliation for the assassination of Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei, and as a deterrent against the aggression that led to the martyrdom of several young Iraqi resistance fighters.

In a separate statement, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq said its fighters carried out 27 operations on Tuesday, using dozens of drones and missiles targeting “enemy bases in Iraq and across the region.”

In a related development, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) announced that US occupation forces targeted one of the headquarters belonging to the Al-Jazira Operations Command in Jurf al-Nasr, confirming that the attack did not result in any casualties or losses.

Iraq asserts stance with Iraq

In a separate development, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in Baghdad reported that a vehicle belonging to Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) was targeted on the Musayyib–Iskandariya road, north of Babil province.

The correspondent added that the Iraqi government has taken what were described as significant positions regarding the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, reflecting Baghdad’s official stance amid the escalating regional tensions.

He also noted that mourning gatherings have been held in most Iraqi cities for Sayyed Ali Khamenei, with councils of condolence organized in several provinces.

US Bases Targeted

The developments come amid a widening regional confrontation following the US-Israeli military aggression on Iran, which has triggered a series of retaliatory actions by groups aligned with the Axis of Resistance across the region.

In recent days, Iraqi resistance factions have warned that US military installations in Iraq and neighboring countries would remain legitimate targets as long as Washington continues its military operations against Iran and its allies.

The escalation has raised concerns about the growing vulnerability of US bases across West Asia, many of which host American troops as part of the so-called “anti-ISIS coalition” but have increasingly come under attack since the outbreak of the broader regional conflict.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , | Comments Off on Iraqi Resistance reports drone attacks on US targets in Erbil

Iran warns all Israeli embassies ‘legitimate targets’ if Lebanon embassy attacked

Press TV – March 4, 2026

Iran has warned that all Israeli embassies worldwide will be legitimate targets if its diplomatic mission or representatives in Lebanon are hit by the regime.

The warning, issued by General Abolfazl Shekarchi, spokesman for the Iranian Armed Forces, follows an ultimatum from the Israeli war machine demanding that Iranian representatives leave Lebanon immediately within 24 hours.

In a statement, General Shekarchi addressed recent Israeli threats against the Iranian embassy in Lebanon. “Until now, out of respect for the countries of the world, despite our capabilities, we have not taken action against Israeli embassies around the world,” General Shekarchi stated.

However, he warned that any strike on Iranian diplomatic soil would result in a total shift in that policy.

“Should Israel commit such a crime, we will be forced to treat everyone of their embassies across the globe as a legitimate target.

This will certainly be carried out, as Iran is determined to bring Israel and the United States to their knees.”

The threats came against the backdrop of U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran, which began on Saturday with airstrikes assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. The following strikes have killed over 1,000 people and damaged civilian infrastructure.

In the meantime, Israeli airstrikes across Lebanon have intensified, killing at least 50 people and injuring 350 in the last 48 hours alone.

The Lebanese group Hezbollah has launched waves of attacks on Israeli military sites, citing both the defense of Lebanon and the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei.

Iran has launched massive waves of drone and missile attacks at the Israeli-occupied territories and US assets across West Asia.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Comments Off on Iran warns all Israeli embassies ‘legitimate targets’ if Lebanon embassy attacked

Russia could end gas supplies to EU immediately – Putin

Hungary to become new EU powerhouse while Germany degenerates in more ways than one

RT | March 4, 2026

Russia may withdraw from the European gas market and redirect its supplies elsewhere without waiting for the EU to ban its imports, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The president made the remarks on Wednesday after he hosted Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto at the Kremlin.

“There’s no political motive here. But if we’re going to get shut off in a month or two, we’d be better off stopping now and moving to countries that are reliable partners, and establishing ourselves there. But that’s not a decision yet, it’s just me thinking out loud, so to speak. I’ll definitely instruct the government to work on this issue with our companies,” Putin told Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin.

Moscow could redirect supplies to “emerging markets” instead, given the EU’s repeatedly stated intention to phase out Russian resources completely, Putin suggested. The energy crisis in the EU is the result of the “misguided policies” pursued by the bloc’s authorities over “many years,” he said.

Russia “has always been and remains a reliable energy supplier” for all its partners, including the European nations, the president noted. Moscow is ready to continue work in such a manner with those partners “who are themselves reliable,” he added.

“For instance, with those in Eastern Europe, Slovakia, and Hungary. We supply them with our energy resources, both oil and gas, and we intend to continue to do so in the future. And the leadership of these countries will pursue the same policy as today, namely, being reliable for us,” the president explained.

Following the meeting with Putin, Szijjarto revealed that Budapest has secured oil and gas supply guarantees from Moscow. Russia and Hungary have agreed to work on diversifying energy resource supply routes, he said.

“We agreed that if transport routes become unavailable for various reasons, we will always seek alternative solutions. For example, if pipeline oil transportation continues to face difficulties, we will consider maritime transport options,” the diplomat said in a video address posted on Facebook.

Hungary, as well as Slovakia, has recently experienced a disruption in Russian crude supplies after Ukraine shut down the Druzhba oil pipeline in late January. Kiev has claimed the artery was damaged in Russian long-range strikes, which Moscow has denied. Budapest and Bratislava have accused Kiev of “blackmail,” alleging it deliberately halted the supplies for political reasons and threatened retaliation.

Slovakia ended its emergency electricity supply scheme for Ukraine, while Hungary vetoed a proposed €90 billion ($106 billion) EU loan for Kiev as well as the latest package of anti-Russian sanctions.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Comments Off on Russia could end gas supplies to EU immediately – Putin

Veteran War Correspondent Reveals How to Tell When Analysts Talking About Iranian Losses Are Lying

Sputnik – 04.03.2026

“In every war, destroying a launcher is a very popular claim because it implies that the Israelis have reduced future attacks. This is a domestic and international message that ‘we have achieved the main objectives of the military campaign’,” says Elijah Magnier, a prolific journalist and war reporter covering Middle East conflicts since the 80s.

“But the standard of evidence it’s another matter,” the veteran observer told Sputnik.

“What is credible is before and after imagery. So showing an identifiable launcher vehicle, and they have to be authentic, not a decoy. And then geolocated strike footage, with clear launcher signature, and [a] pattern of fire decline consistent with launcher attrition,” Magnier explained.

“The Americans and the Israelis can claim that they’ve hit a ‘suspected’ launch site and they’ve used this term a lot, which means there is no proof of a launcher present, or there are strikes on empty pads or decoy equipment,” Magnier stressed.

Pointing to the intensity of Iran’s counterstrikes in the first days of the conflict, and its adoption of the strategy learned during the June 2025 war that enemy defenses start running out of interceptors after a few days of intense fire, Magnier says the real measurable sign of whether enemy attacks are degrading Iran’s capabilities will be whether its missiles continue firing after ten days or more.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Veteran War Correspondent Reveals How to Tell When Analysts Talking About Iranian Losses Are Lying

Did Kuwait really shoot down three US F-15s?

There are some technical holes in the Pentagon’s official “friendly fire” story

RT | March 4, 2026

The US military wants you to believe that its worst day of air combat losses since the Vietnam War was the result of a “friendly fire” mishap. But do some digging and that story begins to look far-fetched.

Three US F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets were shot down over Kuwait on Monday morning in what US Central Command (CENTCOM) called “an apparent friendly fire incident.” All six crew members – two per plane – ejected safely and suffered no serious injuries.

The incident made Monday the joint worst day of losses for the US Air Force since the Vietnam War. Only once in the five decades since Vietnam has the USAF lost three fighter jets in a single day: when two F-16s and an F-15 were shot down over Iraq on the second day of Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

CENTCOM claimed that the F-15s “were mistakenly shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses.” While this story may well be true, some inconvenient plot holes suggest that someone else may have been responsible.

The Patriot problem

Video footage suggests that the F-15s suffered hits to their engines, indicating that they were taken out by heat-seeking missiles.

However, none of Kuwait’s surface-to-air missiles operate this way. Kuwait has 35 M902 Patriot missile batteries, and a smaller number of HAWK, NASAMS, and Italian-made Spada 2000 systems. Those systems all fire radar-guided, not heat-seeking, missiles.

The Patriot’s PAC-3 missiles physically slam into the center mass of incoming jets or ballistic missiles, while the missiles fired by Kuwait’s other systems detonate a fragmentation warhead in close proximity to incoming threats. Used against jets, they typically detonate between the target’s fuel tanks and cockpit.

The trails typically left behind by PAC-3 and similar missiles were not visible in the sky at the time the F-15s were shot down.

Assuming Kuwait used its most numerous and modern Patriot systems against the F-15s, the fact that all six crew members survived is a statistical anomaly. No pilot, friend or foe, has ever survived a successful Patriot missile interception. Ukrainian fighter pilot Aleksey Mes was killed when his US-supplied F-16 was shot down by a US-supplied PAC-3 missile in 2024, while both the pilot and navigator of a British Tornado reconnaissance jet were killed instantly when a PAC-3 missile hit their aircraft over Iraq in 2003.

Friends and foes
Patriot and other US air defense systems are equipped with IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) technology. IFF transponders on US warplanes broadcast an encrypted signal that ground radars can read, indicating that the aircraft is friendly and preventing the release of weapons against it. It is extremely unlikely that American jets would have been operating over Kuwait without an IFF connection with Kuwaiti air defense, although such mistakes have happened before: the deaths of Aleksey Mes in 2024 and the British crew in 2003 were blamed on failure by air and ground crews to share IFF codes before missions.

Clues in the statements

CENTCOM’s statement includes one potentially telling line, stating that at the time of the shootdowns, “attacks from Iranian aircraft” were ongoing. The presence alone of Iranian jets does not mean that they were responsible for shooting down the F-15s, just that the possibility cannot be excluded at present.

CENTCOM said that “Kuwait has acknowledged this incident,” but a statement by the Kuwaiti Defense Ministry made no mention of any friendly fire. Instead, it said that “several” US aircraft crashed, and that there were “a number of hostile aerial targets” overhead at the time.

Who shot down the F-15s?

There are two competing theories. CENTCOM’s “friendly fire” explanation is not technically watertight and isn’t backed up by Kuwait, but remains possible. The Pentagon is currently investigating the incident, and has promised that “additional information will be released as it becomes available.”

On the other hand, the Iranian military has claimed responsibility for downing at least one of the jets. In a statement on Monday, the Khatam Al-Anbiya Air Defense Base said that “an F-15 fighter jet [belonging] to the intruding US army which intended to attack the country has been targeted by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Air Defense and brought down.”

Located in Tehran, Khatam Al-Anbiya Air Defense Base coordinates air defense activity between Iran’s army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

It is possible that Iranian interceptors could have reached the skies over Kuwait, but Iran’s medium-long range air defense systems also fire large radar-guided missiles that typically obliterate enemy aircraft. Therefore, it may seem an obvious conclusion that the planes were taken down by short-range heat seeking missiles like the R-73 or R-74 projectiles used by the Iranian Air Force. However, with only official statements from both sides to work with, RT cannot speculate as to whether this was the case.

Two wartime constants are that mistakes happen, and militaries lie about their wins and losses. For the US, neither explanation paints a positive picture: it either lost three jets in one day to incompetence and confusion between its personnel and their allies, or to an enemy deemed inferior and on the verge of defeat. For now, the truth remains shrouded in the fog of war.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , | Comments Off on Did Kuwait really shoot down three US F-15s?

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »