Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘This war is Israel’s war’: World facing ‘security breakdown’, says Qalibaf

Press TV – April 4, 2026

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf says the ongoing aggression is “Israel’s war,” adding that its security repercussions and resulting losses have extended beyond the region and affected the wider world.

“This war is Israel’s war, and the resulting security breakdown and losses have affected the world,” Qalibaf said in an interview with Al Jazeera Arabic.

He added that Iran has prepared for this confrontation and proven its ability to defend itself.

“Iran was forced to target US bases and interests in the region to preserve its presence,” he said, warning that any further escalation against Iran “will be met with a decisive and broad response” directed at US interests.

According to Qalibaf, maintaining stability in the region serves the interests of all regional states, and Iran considers sustainable security a priority.

He added that countries in the region are capable of safeguarding their interests through bilateral and multilateral security arrangements “without foreign interference.”

Qalibaf further said that the key sources of regional instability must be addressed, emphasizing that security should be established “without the involvement of the United States and Israel.”

The US and Israeli regimes launched their military aggression against Iran in late February by attacking 30 targets across Tehran, assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and several senior Iranian officials.

Since then, Iranian armed forces have retaliated strongly by launching barrages of missiles and drones at Israeli occupied territories as well as US bases across the region.

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on ‘This war is Israel’s war’: World facing ‘security breakdown’, says Qalibaf

IRGC decries attack on US embassy in Riyadh, says executed by ‘Israel’

The US Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (File photo by AFP)
Al Mayadeen | April 4, 2026

The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps’ (IRGC) has rejected accusations that it was responsible for an attack on the US Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, emphasizing instead that it was a false flag operation carried out by the Israeli entity.

In Statement No. 54 of Operation True Promise 4, the IRGC’s Public Relations Department condemned the attack on the embassy, which was reported by The Wall Street Journal, stressing that, recalling the Israeli occupation’s regional strategies, “this action was certainly carried out by Zionists.”

The IRGC confirmed that the Iranian Armed Forces’ target list has been clearly identified, adding that Iran had already informed neighboring countries of the necessary warnings to “prevent further escalation.”

The IRGC also warned that West Asia “must remain vigilant against provocations from the American–Zionist current,” which aims to destabilize and destroy the region.

A series of false flags

Iran has repeatedly stressed that its operations target US-Israeli military assets and affiliated infrastructure in the region and across the occupied territories in Palestine, quickly pointing out false flags and highlighting ongoing enemy attacks that seek to disturb regional harmony.

It has also delineated target lists for its tit-for-tat retaliations for attacks on its civilian infrastructure, including US assets in the region. The US embassy in Riyadh was not among them.

Only yesterday, the IRGC condemned the targeting of water desalination plants in Kuwait, asserting that the Israeli entity “is behind this cowardly act of aggression aimed at sowing discord.” On Monday, a Kuwaiti power and desalination plant was also struck, killing an Indian worker and causing significant material damage.

Kuwaiti authorities were quick to attribute the attack to Iran, but Tehran squarely denied involvement and blamed “Israel,” with the spokesperson for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters describing the incident as “evidence of the enemy’s depravity and malice,” saying it forms part of broader efforts to inflame tensions and undermine regional stability.

Similarly, following a fire at Saudi Aramco’s Ras Tanura refinery in early March, an Iranian military source told Tasnim News Agency that the attack was “an Israeli false flag operation” aimed at distracting regional countries from “Israel’s” strikes on civilian sites inside Iran, stressing that “Aramco facilities have not been among the targets of Iranian attacks so far.”

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , , , , | Comments Off on IRGC decries attack on US embassy in Riyadh, says executed by ‘Israel’

Iran blasts EU hypocrisy as EU invokes international law over Hormuz

Al Mayadeen | April 4, 2026

The Iranian Embassy to the United Kingdom has vehemently censured the latest remarks by the Chief of European diplomacy Kaja Kallas, sharply criticizing the double standards of Western countries regarding the unprovoked US-Israeli war against the Islamic Republic.

The diplomatic mission in a post on X wrote: “‘International law’? That’s rich. What does it say about US & Israeli regimes military aggression against sovereign states and assassinating their leaders? About the Minab school attack that killed 170 students?”

“Or attacks on civilian infrastructure, pharma factories, desalination plants?” the post added.

Taking a swipe at the EU’s top diplomat, the embassy said it is ridiculous that “international law” only seems to matter when it fits “your narrative.”

“You never hold aggressors accountable, only the victims,” the Iranian embassy added.

Kallas invokes law over Hormuz

On Thursday, Kallas thanked British Secretary of Foreign Affairs Yvette Cooper for convening a call of more than 40 countries on the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

“This waterway is a global public good. Iran cannot be allowed to charge countries a bounty to let ships pass. International law doesn’t recognize pay-to-pass schemes,” she asserted in a post on X.

She further claimed that the EU’s Aspides naval mission has already assisted 1,700 ships in the Red Sea and must be scaled up. “We cannot afford to lose another critical trade route,” Kallas commented.

UK double standards

Weeks ago, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi had warned the United Kingdom that permitting the United States to use British military bases amounts to “participation in aggression.”

In a phone call with Yvette Cooper, Araghchi criticized Britain’s “negative and biased approach” toward ongoing US-Israeli military actions against Iran. He also condemned London’s decision to grant the US access to key military installations for operations targeting Iranian missile sites.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had authorized the use of RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean for what British officials framed as “defensive” strikes against Iranian positions.

In a statement posted in Farsi on Telegram, Araghchi said he had conveyed to Cooper that such actions “will definitely be considered as participation in aggression and will be recorded in the history of relations between the two countries,” adding that Iran “reserves its inherent right to defend the country’s sovereignty and independence.”

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran blasts EU hypocrisy as EU invokes international law over Hormuz

There is no military solution to Strait of Hormuz

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | April 4, 2026 

Indian media have spread misconceptions over the meeting convened by the UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper on Thursday 2nd April regarding the situation around the Strait of Hormuz. Far-fetched conclusions are drawn that the meeting marked the first step toward forming a coalition to restore safe passage; plans include clearing mines from the waterway in consultation with military planners in the coming weeks, and so on. 

We should not frighten the Indian community living in the Persian Gulf region. A military confrontation with Iran  is not even in the wildest dreams of anyone in Europe. The US didn’t even attend the London meet.  

The statement issued after the event does not contemplate coercive measures, leave alone military solution. The London statement outlined 4 action points: first, “increase diplomatic pressure on Iran, including through the UN”; second, “Explore co-ordinated economic and political measures, such as sanctions”; third, “work together with the International Maritime Organisation”; and, fourth, “Joint arrangements to support greater market and operational confidence.” 

Interestingly, Canberra, one of the few participating countries with credible maritime capability to mount amphibious operations categorically ruled itself out from any such wild adventure. The Australian FM who attended the London meeting since issued an unequivocal statement on April 3, which underscored: 

“The focus of last night’s meeting was diplomatic and civilian initiatives countries could pursue to make the Strait of Hormuz accessible and safe… Australia is not taking offensive action against Iran and we are not deploying troops on the ground in Iran. The Australian Government continues to support de-escalation and the resolution of this conflict.”

Equally, France openly opposes any military option. President Emmanuel Macron said attempts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by military means would take an uncertain amount of time and expose participants to risks from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC]. “This has never been the option that we’ve chosen, and we think it’s unrealistic,” Macron said. Italy and Germany also have opposed the entire US-Israeli aggression against Iran. 

India chose to avoid even a cursory reference to the Strait of Hormuz. Its  readout was titled, “Foreign Secretary’s participation in the meeting hosted by UK on the situation in West Asia (April 02, 2026).” India did not sign up on the joint statement. 

Meanwhile, the UN security Council postponed a vote scheduled for Friday on authorising the use of “defensive” force to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz from Iranian attacks following reservations on the part of 3 out of five veto-holding members — France, Russia and China. 

China has taken a strong position. “Authorising member states to use force would amount to legitimising the unlawful and indiscriminate use of force, which would inevitably lead to further escalation of the situation and lead to serious consequences,” said Chinese ambassador Fu Cong. 

Suffice to say, it is hard to see Russia and China supporting a resolution that treats stability in the Strait of Hormuz exclusively as a security issue. Also, disagreements over the resolution have arisen among the 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. On its part, Tehran has forewarned against any intrusive resolution. “Any provocative action by the aggressors and their supporters, including in the UN Security Council regarding the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, will only complicate the situation,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.   

The Strait of Hormuz has a formidable geography, which favours Iran. The narrow coastline is littered with caves on the cliff. CNN carried a feature article last week titled Mines, missiles and miles of coastline: Why Iran has the upper hand in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Trump in his speech on Wednesday regarding the war virtually acknowledged that the US understands that it cannot open the Strait of Hormuz through the use of force. He said it is up to countries dependent on the strait for economic livelihood, to open the waterway. 

The only way to resolve the crisis is through an agreement with Iran which of course requires that the concerned country is not hostile towards Iran, not sanctioning Iran or facilitating the US military operations against Iran from its territory. Provided it is a benign interlocutor, such a country can approach the IRGC for a permit to take its ship through the strait. Certainly, in the present war conditions, the IRGC personnel will board the ship, inspect the its cargo, verify the ownership, check the nationality of sailors on board, where the cargo was loaded and its destination, etc.

Once the IRGC green lights the vessel, it will give a code with which the ship can signal Iran’s coastal defences and go through the strait. China, India, Turkey, Japan, Bangladesh, South Korea, etc have shown the way by taking up the issue bilaterally with Iran.

The Strait of Hormuz lies in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. These two countries are presently drafting a protocol for the joint management of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran may be gaining out of this situation. After all, it has already shaken off the embargo on its own exports and the US had to issue a waiver allowing its oil exports. Tehran can expect the acquiescence of the international community eventually to its de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz. It will be undoubtedly a historic shift in the geopolitics of the region. Some sort of modus vivendii amongst the regional states may ensue once the war ends and it becomes clear that there is no military solution to the Strait of Hormuz. 

Israel is spreading alarmist stories that Saudi Arabia is following the footfalls of the UAE to get the US to intervene militarily to force open the Strait of Hormuz. On the contrary, Saudis are working with like-minded countries to create underpinnings of regional stability in the fluid situation adjusting to the shift of tectonic plates. The leitmotif of the Islamabad meeting of FMs recently — Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia plus Pakistan — was actually more about regional and global stability than for arranging a meeting between JD Vance and Steve Witkoff with Iranian officials. 

The Islamabad meeting reached some sort of an agreement following which the Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar paid a hurried trip to Beijing. A major outcome of the visit has been a 5-point initiative by China and Pakistan on March 31 on the Gulf and Middle East Region with focus on

  • Immediate Cessation of Hostilities,
  • Start of peace talks as soon as possible,
  • Security of nonmilitary targets,
  • Security of shipping lanes, and,
  • Primacy of the United Nations Charter. 

Significantly, two days later, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman also spoke on the phone reconnecting after some interlude to discuss and revive the pursuit of their congruent interests , including OPEC Plus. The Saudi and Russian readouts omitted any reference to the Strait of Hormuz. 

Advantage goes to Tehran geopolitically. Iran will use this as trump card to get the western sanctions lifted. Tehran has offered to negotiate an agreement with the EU on the use of the Strait of Hormuz.

To be sure, Trump blundered by attacking Iran and creating war conditions unilaterally, thereby handing over to Tehran the perfect alibi to come out of isolation and even make the Strait of Hormuz a big revenue earner. The Suez Canal fetches Egypt approx. $700 million as toll annually. In comparison, the Strait of Hormuz is estimated to bring in anywhere up to 1 billion dollars annually. 

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on There is no military solution to Strait of Hormuz

NATO’s structural collapse – the outcome of deviation from reality

Global Times | April 3, 2026

When Donald Trump threatened to withdraw the US from NATO, Western capitals seemed not to show particular surprise; it was clear they had anticipated it. But the more important question is why, at this particular moment, such a statement could be made at all.

NATO’s current crisis is the consequence of a slow, structural erosion that has been underway for decades. It is also due to its inability to keep pace with the rapidly developing multipolar world.

The alliance’s original logic was straightforward. The Soviet Union posed a clear and present danger. Western Europe needed American protection. Washington needed strategic depth on the European continent. The threat was real, shared, and sufficient to hold divergent interests together.

That threat disappeared in 1991. NATO did not. Instead of dissolving, the alliance tried to consolidate its coherence. Therefore, it had to find a new target.

It began expanding eastward, then globally. Some voices have called for extending its reach into the Indo-Pacific, even to form an “economic NATO” against China, raising questions about NATO’s strategic focus and relevance in a changing world.

An alliance that must continually invent new enemies to justify its existence is already in structural trouble.

In an increasingly multipolar world, NATO’s attempt to wield military power, primarily through American power, to manage global affairs is no longer possible. However, some within NATO have not recognized this change.

The deeper problem is that Western interests have quietly but fundamentally diverged. When the Russia-Ukraine conflict erupted, Europe absorbed the consequences, including soaring energy prices, industrial outflow, and waves of refugees. Today, Europe’s economic outlook is sluggish, and trade friction with the US persists.

Europe has begun asking an uncomfortable question: Are we defending shared values that unite us, or merely subsidizing others’ strategic ambitions? This distinction has raised doubts about the alliance’s purpose.

The war in Iran has sharpened that question considerably.

European governments refused to participate. Even Britain, Washington’s most reliable partner, declined. This was not betrayal but a calculation rooted in domestic political shifts and strategic priorities, illustrating how internal political changes in key NATO members influence alliance cohesion and decision-making.

Trump’s rise is itself a symptom of deeper forces. America’s middle class has hollowed out. The US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq destroyed the domestic legitimacy of overseas intervention. Younger Americans show little attachment to the idea of their country as the world’s indispensable guarantor.

The fiscal arithmetic is unforgiving. The US federal debt has exceeded $36 trillion. Interest payments now surpass the defense budget. The cost of maintaining a global military presence is real, recurring, and increasingly unsustainable. This is not ideology. It is arithmetic.

As for an economic NATO directed at China, the very ambition reveals the depth of Western strategic anxiety. But if the military alliance is already fracturing, what would hold together a coalition that would ask its members to prepare for a long economic war with China, the world’s second-largest economy? Such a move would be fatal for NATO member states.

The idea of using NATO to expand Western ideology globally is either out of touch with the times or simply foolish. NATO no longer possesses that kind of power.

History offers no example of a great power that maintained its global commitments indefinitely after internal contradictions, economic decline, and domestic fractures. The US will not be the exception, highlighting the need for strategic adaptation.

NATO’s story is not yet finished. But the forces pulling it apart are not the invention of any single administration. They are the accumulated weight of unresolved contradictions, contradictions that have been building since the wall came down.

Trump did not create that weight. He simply brought forward the moment it hit the ground.

The war in Iran has provided the world with a window into what awaits hegemonic powers if they fail to keep pace with global progress. The fate of NATO is no exception.

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Comments Off on NATO’s structural collapse – the outcome of deviation from reality

Poll finds world views China better than US

Xinhua | April 4, 2026

A poll conducted by Gallup found that China surpassed the United States in global approval ratings in 2025, with a median of 36 percent approving of China’s leadership, compared with 31 percent for the United States.

Gallup’s report published Friday said China’s five-percentage-point advantage over the United States is the widest it has recorded in China’s favor in nearly 20 years.

The recent shift reflects a decline in US ratings alongside an increase for China. Median approval of US leadership fell from 39 percent in 2024 to 31 percent in 2025, returning to earlier lows, while China’s approval rose from 32 percent to 36 percent, according to the report.

The latest results are based on Gallup surveys conducted in 2025 in more than 130 countries, with around 1,000 respondents in each country. They do not account for recent U.S. foreign policy moves since the beginning of 2026, including its attack on Iran and its withdrawal from 66 international organizations.

Approval of US leadership has declined across many US allied nations, including many NATO partners, and sunk the most in Germany by 39 percentage points.

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Poll finds world views China better than US

One Of America’s Leading Neo-Cons Has Turned Against The Iran War And Israel

The Dissident | April 3, 2026

There are few American Neo-conservatives more influential than Robert Kagan.

In 1997, Kagan co-founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the Neo-con think tank responsible for staffing the Bush administration with hawks such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, and played a large role in the Iraq War in 2003.

In 2010, Kagan founded a new think tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) which was instrumental in pushing for a new Cold War with Russia.

Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland was instrumental in the proxy war in Ukraine, playing a leading role in the maidan coup of 2014 ,as Assistant Secretary of State for the Obama administration, and again played a leading role in the proxy war in Ukraine as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs for the Biden administration, including in blocking the peace deal in Istanbul in April of 2022 and in the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline.

However, Kagan has begun to change his tune since Trump launched a war on Iran for Israel, sounding more like a John Mearsheimer realist than the leading champion of American regime change that he has always been.

Kagan is still an American imperialist, but the Iran war has forced him to admit that the war is actually doing more to destroy the American empire and its ability to wage a new Cold War on Russia and China, and that Israel is a strategic liability- even for the U.S. empire.

In a recent podcast with his fellow neo-con, Bill Kristol, Kagan lamented that because of the war on Iran:

-the skyrocketing oil prices … are even before Trump took the action of lifting sanctions against Russia was going to increase Russian income

-American forces are … burning through major stocks of weaponry and particularly Patriot and other forms of interceptors on which Ukraine depends heavily because those are the interceptors that defend their major cities from constant Russian attacks

-very few countries in the world are more dependent on Middle East oil, including the oil that comes directly through the Strait of Hormuz, than Japan. Japan I think, depends on something like 95% of its oil supplies come from the Middle East and 70% of that runs through the Strait of Hormuz. So once again the Japanese were not consulted

-the Japanese will notice that the United States has sent significant forces that are dedicated both to the defense of Japan and are sort of critical to any response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. Those forces are now being sent or some of them are already there, and some are being sent to the Middle Eas

-the bottom line for the Gulf States is that the United States undertook this war and then was not able actually to protect them

-I don’t think it’s hard to persuade certain Gulf states like the UAE and others that maybe China is also a pretty good partner or at least as much of a reliable partner as the United States has turned out to be

In other words, Kagan is lamenting that because of the Iran war, the U.S. is losing allies and losing its ability to wage a new Cold War on Russia and China, as well as its ability to use the Gulf States and proxies.

This is why Kagan was forced to admit that Israel is now a strategic liability-even for the U.S. empire- saying, “I find it a little bit it’s kind of a syllogism when people talk about what a great ally Israel is. It it is a great ally in defense of Israel, at the end of the day, Iran is a much greater threat to Israel than it is to the United States.”

Kagan doubled down on this in a recent article for the Atlantic, essentially saying that the war in Iran will be the death of the American empire, writing that it is “driving deeper wedges between the United States and former friends and allies; strengthening the hands of the expansionist great powers, Russia and China; accelerating global political and economic chaos; and leaving the United States weaker and more isolated than at any time since the 1930s.”

Kagan again reiterated that:

-Even before Donald Trump lifted oil sanctions on Russia, oil prices were skyrocketing—and filling Vladimir Putin’s war chest with billions of dollars, just as Russia’s wartime deficits were starting to cause significant pain

-the Persian Gulf states are burning through U.S.-provided stocks of air-defense interceptors, drawing on the same limited supply that Ukraine depends on to defend its largest cities from Russian missile strikes.

-Japan gets 95 percent of its oil from the Middle East, and 70 percent of that passes through the now-blocked Strait of Hormuz. Yet Japanese and other Asian diplomats in the first weeks of the war complained that they were ‘not receiving any communication from the Trump administration.’

-the United States has dispatched an aircraft-carrier battle group and other warships from the Western Pacific to the Persian Gulf, including elements of the Tripoli amphibious ready group, that would be needed for an American response to Chinese aggression, including an attack on Taiwan.

-Gulf state leaders are ‘privately furious’ with the U.S. for ‘triggering a war that put them in the crosshairs.’

Because of this, Kagan is forced to make some shocking admissions, including that supporting Israel is not in America’s interests, that no Middle East state poses a threat to America, and that “terrorism” is often just a backlash to U.S. foreign policy.

Kagan wrote that supporting Israel, “never had anything to do with American national-security interests” adding:

American officials from the beginning regarded support for Israel as contrary to U.S. interests. George C. Marshall opposed recognition in 1948, and Dean Acheson said that by recognizing Israel, the United States had succeeded Britain as ‘the most disliked power in the Middle East.’ During the Cold War, even supporters of Israel acknowledged that as a simple matter of ‘power politics,’ the United States had ‘every reason for wishing that Israel had never come into existence.’ But as Harry Truman put it, the decision to support the state of Israel was made ‘not in the light of oil, but in the light of justice.’

“One would be hard-pressed to find any nation in the world that has been reassured by the Israeli and American war against Iran, other than Israel itself,” Kagan added.

As if this wasn’t shocking enough, Kagan even admitted that Iranian anger at America stems from the U.S. backing the 1953 coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh and supporting the brutal Shah dictatorship until 1979, writing:

Even the threat of terrorism from the region was a consequence of American involvement, not the reason for it. Had the United States not been deeply and consistently involved in the Muslim world since the 1940s, Islamic militants would have little interest in attacking an indifferent nation 5,000 miles and two oceans away. Contrary to much mythology, they have hated us not so much because of ‘who we are’ but because of where we are. In Iran’s case, the United States was deeply involved in its politics from the 1950s until the 1979 revolution, including as the main supporter of the brutal regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The surest way of avoiding Islamist terrorist attacks would have been to get out.

Kagan added, “No state in the Middle East (including Iraq in 2003 and Iran today) ever posed a direct threat to the security of the American homeland. Iran has no missiles that can reach the United States and, according to American intelligence, would not until 2035. Access to Middle Eastern oil and gas has never been essential to the security of the American homeland. Today, the United States is less dependent on Middle Eastern energy than in the past, which Trump has pointed out numerous times since the Strait of Hormuz was closed.”

Kagan has no doubt done major damage to U.S. foreign policy, and his role in the Iraq war and proxy war in Ukraine should not be discounted, but nonetheless, it is notable that even he acknowledges that the Iran war is crippling the U.S. empire, and being forced to admit that his critics were more or less correct about U.S. policy in the Middle East.

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on One Of America’s Leading Neo-Cons Has Turned Against The Iran War And Israel

Attack in the Bosphorus exposes NATO weaknesses and tensions among allies

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 3, 2026

The recent attack on the Turkish oil tanker M/T Altura, which took place on March 26, 2026, near the Bosphorus region, makes clear a problem that many analysts still avoid acknowledging: NATO can no longer guarantee the security of even its own members. The operation, carried out by Ukraine, should not be seen as an isolated episode, but as part of a broader pattern pointing to the alliance’s practical erosion.

NATO was founded on the principle of collective defense. However, when a member state has its interests directly affected by the actions of an actor supported by the alliance itself, that principle loses coherence. The M/T Altura case highlights a contradiction that is hard to ignore: the alliance has proven unable to limit the actions of external partners against the assets of its own members.

The lack of an effective response to the incident is also striking. There are no clear signs that NATO’s internal mechanisms have been activated to hold anyone accountable or to prevent similar actions. This suggests not only institutional weakness, but also failures in coordination and strategic direction. In practice, some actors appear to operate with broad autonomy, even when their decisions directly affect the security of member states.

In this context, Ukraine’s role becomes central. Heavily funded and armed by NATO countries, Kiev has been adopting an increasingly direct and, at times, reckless posture. The fact that such an operation targeted the interests of a country like Turkey reveals a lack of alignment within the alliance. Instead of coordination, what emerges is a dynamic in which tactical decisions produce broader consequences for formal allies.

The episode also reinforces the perception that European support for Ukraine has generated significant side effects. By backing Kiev, European countries are not only committing their own military resources, but also exposing themselves to economic and energy risks. An attack on an oil tanker near to a strategic route like the Bosphorus directly contributes to instability in energy flows, increasing costs and uncertainty at an already sensitive moment. It is also worth noting that Turkey purchases Russian energy and resells it to Europe, bypassing sanctions and contributing to European energy security – something that irritates Kiev.

For Turkey, the implications are even more serious. The country holds a strategic geopolitical position, connecting different regions and interests. Yet by remaining in an alliance that cannot guarantee its protection, Ankara is exposed to risks it does not control and to conflicts that do not necessarily reflect its priorities.

The attack on the M/T Altura should therefore be seen as a warning. If NATO cannot prevent an actor it supports from striking the strategic assets of one of its own members, then its practical value for countries like Turkey comes into question. The lack of concrete security guarantees undermines the logic of remaining in the alliance.

Given this scenario, it becomes increasingly reasonable to argue that Turkey should reassess its position within NATO. Remaining in an alliance that fails to provide effective protection while increasing exposure to risk may represent more of a burden than a benefit. A more independent foreign policy would allow Ankara to diversify its partnerships and act in closer alignment with its own strategic interests.

Ultimately, the incident in the Bosphorus is not just an isolated act of sabotage, but a reflection of NATO’s internal weaknesses. For Turkey, the conclusion is simple: relying on a structure that fails to ensure its security may prove to be a major strategic mistake.

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Attack in the Bosphorus exposes NATO weaknesses and tensions among allies

BREAKING: US JET SHOT DOWN OVER IRAN /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Nima Alkhorshid

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – April 3, 2026

Prof. Ted Postol: Iran Already Achieved NUCLEAR DETERRENCE Against Israel

Dialogue Works | April 3, 2026

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on BREAKING: US JET SHOT DOWN OVER IRAN /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Nima Alkhorshid

Now everyone is dumping US government bonds

Inside China Business | April 3, 2026

Foreign central banks and institution are selling off their holdings of US Treasury bonds. The war against Iran is driving bondholders to dump US government debt at a record pace, and foreign Treasury holdings at the NY Fed are at the lowest level in nearly fifteen years. The heavy liquidations are driving bond yields in the United States higher, and borrowing costs for government, and American households and businesses, are spiking higher. 

Resources and links:

Foreign Central Banks Cut New York Fed Treasury Holdings To 2012 Lows https://finimize.com/content/foreign-…

China is dumping US treasuries and buying Gold https://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/chi…

Foreign central banks sell US Treasuries amid war in Iran https://ft.pressreader.com/1389/20260…

China’s Years-Long Retreat From US Treasuries Flags Bigger Risks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…

Chinese Bonds Are Appealing as Reserve Assets, Gavekal Says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…

China surpasses $1 trillion trade surplus despite Trump tariffs https://businessreport.co.za/business…

Lesson 3 (above). Balance of Payments — Why Current and Capital Accounts Net Out. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/khan-a…

April 3, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Video, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Now everyone is dumping US government bonds

Brazilian Congressman seeks to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil

By Eman Abusidu | MEMO | April 3, 2026

A Bahia state lawmaker has formally urged President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil, following a series of controversial incidents involving Israeli tourists in Bahia. The measure argues that individuals who took part in military operations in Gaza and Lebanon could be held accountable for acts described in the document as genocide.

The proposal, submitted by state representative Hilton Coelho of the Socialism and Liberty Party (Psol), calls on the federal government to adopt measures preventing individuals linked to alleged human rights violations from using Brazil as a tourist destination or refuge. The document characterises such acts as potential genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Coelho grounds the request in Brazil’s Federal Constitution, which prioritises human rights, peace, and the rejection of violence in international relations, as well as the Migration Law (No. 13.445/2017), which permits authorities to deny entry to foreigners suspected of serious violations.

The proposal outlines operational measures, including monitoring arrivals through the Federal Police to identify individuals who participated in military operations, immediate denial of entry where applicable, and international coordination to restrict cross-border movement of those under suspicion.

The initiative comes amid increasing controversy in Bahia, particularly in coastal destinations such as Itacaré and Morro de São Paulo, which have become popular among Israeli tourists, many of whom travel after completing mandatory military service. Local businesses have adapted to this demand, offering Hebrew-language services and tailored hospitality, making the segment economically relevant.

However, tensions have escalated. On 14th March, three Israelis were arrested during a protest in Itacaré against the presence of Israeli tourists. Footage from the scene showed clashes between demonstrators and police intervention. Authorities reported simultaneous opposing demonstrations, reflecting a divide within the local population.

Residents have also reported incidents involving alleged racism, aggression, and public disturbances attributed to some visitors. In parallel, there have been legal complaints filed in Brazil against Israeli individuals over alleged actions during the war in Gaza, with reports indicating that some left the country before investigations could advance.

Congressman Coelho argues that allowing entry to individuals linked to such allegations risks normalising human rights violations and contradicts Brazil’s foreign policy principles.

He is calling for coordinated action by the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs to enforce stricter entry controls.

The proposal will undergo review within Bahia’s Legislative Assembly before being forwarded to the federal government. The administration of President Lula has not yet issued an official response.

Critics of the proposal contend that the measure could be viewed as discriminatory and may create legal and diplomatic challenges for Brazil.

Simultaneously, several lawmakers and members of the Brazilian parliament, particularly from left-wing parties, have withdrawn their signatures from a bill seeking to define “antisemitism” in Brazil, in a significant political reversal that came only days after the proposal was introduced.

The withdrawals followed Palestinian criticism and warnings that the bill could be used to curb criticism of Israeli occupation policies.

According to documents, Bill No. 1424/2026 was submitted to the Brazilian Congress on 26th March 2026, by lawmaker Tabata Amaral and others under the title: “Definition of Antisemitism for the Purpose of Guiding National Public Policies.”

The bill defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward them.” It also states that manifestations of antisemitism “may target the State of Israel as a collectivity representative of the Jewish people,” while adding that “criticism of Israel similar to that directed against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

The proposal further links antisemitism to the crime of racism under Brazilian law and recommends using a list of examples issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, as guidance in interpreting the concept.

But the bill, which initially appeared to enjoy support from lawmakers across different party lines, quickly faced pushback inside Congress.

According to procedural texts, the withdrawal requests used direct language, including: “Requests the withdrawal of the signature from Bill No. 1424/2026, which defines antisemitism for the purpose of guiding national public policies.” One request stated: “I request the removal of my signature from Bill 1424/2026.”

The deputy Heloiza Helena said her name had been included among the signatories without her authorisation, describing the move as unacceptable. She also pointed to the sensitivity of the issue for Palestinians amid what she described as daily attacks, including the killing of children and the destruction of hospitals and schools.

While the deputy Ana Paula Lima said she removed her signature after a deeper assessment of the proposal, in order to avoid any possible restrictions on what she called “legitimate political debate.”

April 3, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Brazilian Congressman seeks to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil

Official reveals evidence of Arab states’ involvement in US-Israeli war on Iran

Press TV – April 3, 2026

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has revealed hard evidence on the involvement of some Persian Gulf Arab states in the unprovoked US-Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic.

In a post on social media platform X on Friday, Baghaei published photos of a drone, which was shot down in southern Iran on Thursday, noting that only two regional states possess this drone, without naming them.

“This drone was downed by our brave armed forces over the beloved city of Hafiz and Saadi, Shiraz,” he said, referring to the two prominent Persian poets.

“It could be another (hard) evidence of direct participation and active complicity of some states of the region in US-Israel crime of aggression and war crimes against Iran,” Baghaei said.

The spokesman demanded “clarification” by “either of the TWO STATES of the region that are the users of this drone!”

The downed drone initially appeared to be an American MQ-9. However, military experts say it is actually a Wing Loong-2 drone, which is operated by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Last month, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran’s neighboring countries should “promptly” clarify their position regarding their role in the “slaughter” of Iranian civilians by the Israeli regime and the United States.

In a post on his X account in mid-March, Araghchi said hundreds of Iranian civilians, including children, have been killed in Israel-US bombings.

“Reports claim that some neighboring states that host US forces and permit attacks on Iran are also actively encouraging this slaughter,” the top Iranian diplomat stated.

He said positions should be promptly clarified on the mass killing of Iranian civilians.

The US and Israel started the latest round of unlawful military aggression on Iran on February 28, some eight months after they carried out unprovoked attacks on the country.

The attacks led to the martyrdom of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and hundreds of Iranian civilians, including women and children, as well as several senior military commanders.

Iran has carried out extensive retaliatory attacks on US assets in the region and on locations in the Israeli-occupied territories since the very first day of the US–Israeli aggression.

The Islamic Republic says it respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors and that its reprisal attacks are directed at US assets and bases on their soil.

It has also warned regional countries not to allow their territory to be used for attacks against Iran.

April 3, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Official reveals evidence of Arab states’ involvement in US-Israeli war on Iran

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »