Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Strategic Ambiguity (If We Must)

By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | June 18, 2026

In recent years, critics on both sides of the aisle have taken aim at the longstanding policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan. They argue that Washington should abandon ambiguity and embrace “strategic clarity,” explicitly pledging to fight China over Taiwan. Others, such as Hoover Institute Fellow Eyck Freymann, have offered more sophisticated sounding alternatives like “structured ambiguity,” attempting to codify precisely what America would and would not do in various contingencies, particularly involving gray zone activities.

But abandoning a long-established policy that, whatever its faults, has prevented a major war between great powers for over half a century, in favor of a new policy, would be a serious mistake.

To understand why, let’s start with strategic ambiguity. Its origins lay in Richard Nixon’s opening to China. Years of increasing Sino-Soviet tensions opened the door to this diplomatic revolution of the early 1970s. With Washington and Beijing both seeing value in balancing against Moscow, efforts at normalizing diplomatic relations between the two began in earnest.

Taiwan was the major sticking point.

The resulting framework for normalization, the only one possible, was a carefully constructed kicking of the can down the road. In the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué, the United States acknowledged that Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintained there was but one China and that Taiwan was part of China. Importantly, Washington did not itself endorse Beijing’s sovereignty claim. Instead, it merely acknowledged the Chinese position.

This balancing act became even more delicate in 1979 when the Jimmy Carter administration formally completed the recognition of the People’s Republic of China while severing official diplomatic relations with Taipei. Congress, in response, passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which established an unofficial relationship with the island and authorized the sale of defensive arms.

With the prior mutual defense treaty of 1954 now gone, a new policy evolved: strategic ambiguity.

The genius, if one can use the term, of strategic ambiguity was that it created uncertainty for everyone involved.

Beijing could not know with certainty whether an invasion of Taiwan would provoke American military intervention. Taipei could not know with certainty that Washington would ride to its rescue if it formally declared independence. Both sides therefore had incentives to avoid unilateral changes to the status quo.

The arrangement was intentionally awkward. It was also remarkably successful.

For decades, the Taiwan Strait remained relatively stable. Taiwan developed into a prosperous democracy. China experienced its meteoric economic rise. The United States maintained productive, if often contentious, relations with both. Trade flourished across the strait even as political disagreements persisted.

The policy’s success rested on a simple but often overlooked reality: ambiguity restrained both Beijing and Taipei.

Today, however, a growing chorus in Washington insists that ambiguity itself invites aggression. Drawing heavily on analogies to the war in Ukraine, advocates of strategic clarity argue that the United States should make an explicit commitment to Taiwan’s defense.

The theory is straightforward. If Beijing knows with absolute certainty that America will intervene, deterrence will be strengthened.

The problem is that deterrence is a two-way street.

An explicit American security guarantee could just as easily embolden Taiwanese politicians inclined toward formal independence, believing that the United States had effectively removed the military risks associated with such a declaration. From Beijing’s perspective, strategic clarity might appear less like deterrence than a gradual abandonment of the understandings that have governed Sino-American relations since the 1970s, crossing a clearly delineated “red line” and provoking the very conflict it purported to prevent.

A somewhat more cautious proposal is “structured ambiguity,” which seeks to clarify certain commitments while preserving flexibility elsewhere. Specifically, its advocates hope to eliminate misunderstandings by clearly outlining what actions would precipitate what responses, including gray zone activities, while avoiding the rigidity of strategic clarity vis a vis U.S. military intervention in the event of an unprovoked invasion from the mainland.

But one suspects that this is merely ambiguity with additional paperwork, and a landscape filled with potential tripwires and chances for uncontrollable escalation.

For one of the central problems of diplomacy is that it is to a great extent a contest of perceptions. The more policymakers attempt to specify precisely where every line is drawn, the more opportunities arise for those lines to be tested.

A more restrained foreign policy would seek to reduce the risk of entanglement rather than refine the conditions under which American forces might eventually be committed to war.

Of course, from the non-interventionist perspective the entire debate is misguided. The United States has no treaty obligation to defend Taiwan—and needs none. American taxpayers have little interest in another potentially catastrophic conflict halfway around the globe; the American and world economy has everything to lose from such a confrontation; and there is little reason to think Washington would “win” such a conflict 90 miles from China’s coast in any event.

Unfortunately, that option receives little consideration in establishment circles. The debate instead centers on how Washington can more effectively manage a rivalry with Beijing while maintaining its existing commitments.

If those are the available choices, prudence suggests preserving the arrangement that has kept the peace.

Strategic ambiguity is imperfect. It frustrates politicians, pundits, and think tank analysts precisely because it lacks the satisfying certainty of a formal guarantee. But diplomacy is often successful because it leaves room for uncertainty. Not every problem requires a definitive answer. As my undergraduate professor used to say, paraphrasing Bismarck: diplomacy is the art of the possible.

The greatest danger to peace in the Taiwan Strait at this point may not be ambiguity itself but the temptation in Washington to move beyond it. History is filled with policymakers who believed they could engineer a more stable international order through greater precision and firmer commitments.

History is also filled with the unintended consequences of those efforts.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on Strategic Ambiguity (If We Must)

Finland shreds nuclear weapons ban

RT | June 18, 2026

Finland has lifted a long-standing ban on nuclear weapons, allowing them to be transported through or held on its territory. The Finnish parliament claims the move will “strengthen the security” of the country, but opponents say it makes Finland “a target for nuclear strikes.”

Finland’s parliament voted on Wednesday to amend the country’s Nuclear Energy Act and Criminal Code to allow the import, transit, supply, and storage of nuclear weapons on its soil. The measure passed by 125 votes to 61.

Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen celebrated the result, declaring on social media that “this historic reform strengthens the security of Finland and of NATO as a whole.”

The removal of the ban comes three years after Helsinki renounced its decades-long policy of military neutrality and joined NATO. Finland’s accession into the US-led military bloc cratered its relations with Russia, with which it shares a 1,340 km border.

Earlier this year, Moscow cautioned Helsinki against repealing the nuclear ban, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov telling reporters that it could “lead to an escalation of tensions on the European continent.” He added that “by deploying nuclear weapons on its territory, Finland is beginning to threaten us. And if Finland threatens us, we take appropriate measures.”

Finnish President Alexander Stubb, a Russia hawk whose government has encouraged Kiev’s use of Finnish arms “against military targets also on Russian soil,” insists that he has no plans to permanently host nuclear weapons.

However, Finland is interested in participating in a French scheme that would potentially see French fighter jets armed with nuclear weapons stationed at its airbases, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said earlier this month. France has around 290 nuclear warheads, and President Emmanuel Macron has said he intends to increase that number, and position them at airbases in friendly countries, in a strategy of “advanced nuclear deterrence” against Russia.

In Helsinki, European Parliament candidate Armando Mema described the lifting of the ban as “a big historical mistake for Finland.”

“This is a highly regrettable decision that undermines the security of Finland,” he wrote on X, adding that it “is not going to make Finland safer, [it] is going to make Finland a target for nuclear strikes. Russia’s posture is going to change drastically after this irresponsible decision.”

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on Finland shreds nuclear weapons ban

Kiev turns to ‘systematic killing’ of Zaporozhye plant staff – Russia’s nuclear chief

RT | June 18, 2026

Kiev has resorted to the “deliberate and systematic killing” of people employed at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), Rosatom CEO Aleksey Likhachev has said, warning a potential catastrophe at the facility is bound to spread well beyond Ukraine and Russia.

An attack took place on Wednesday in Energodar, the city adjoining the ZNPP, when a Ukrainian drone strike wounded four civilians. Two of the victims were employees of the facility, one of whom later died from his injuries, Likachev said on Thursday.

“The Ukrainian armed forces have resorted to the deliberate and systematic killing of staff at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant,” the Russian nuclear chief stated.

“Hunting down nuclear power plant workers is an inhumane act by Ukrainian drone operators, who fail to realize the scale of the consequences of their actions. And the scale of those consequences could be such that they affect Ukraine, Russia, and a significant part of Europe,” he added.

The incident marked the second killing of the plant’s employees by Ukrainian forces this year, Likachev noted. In late April, a staffer at the plant’s transport department was killed in a Ukrainian strike on his workplace.

“From strikes on auxiliary facilities, the Ukrainian armed forces moved on to attacks on energy infrastructure, then to the strikes on the main equipment of the nuclear power plant, and now to a targeted hunt for our comrades,” he said.

In late May, a Ukrainian fiber-optic-guided drone struck the machine hall of the sixth power unit of the plant. The drone punctured a large hole in a metal technical access hatch, inflicting minor damage inside the building.

Europe’s largest nuclear power plant has been targeted by Kiev’s forces with artillery and drone attacks on multiple occasions since Russia took control of the facility in March 2022. The plant has been operated by Rosatom since the Zaporozhye Region voted to join Russia in a referendum in the fall of 2022. Kiev has also increasingly targeted local infrastructure linked to the plant, including kindergartens, schools, roads, transport enterprises, and vehicles carrying supplies for the community, according to Rosatom.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Nuclear Power, War Crimes | , | Comments Off on Kiev turns to ‘systematic killing’ of Zaporozhye plant staff – Russia’s nuclear chief

Censored Lavrov article Politico refused to publish (FULL TEXT)

RT | June 18, 2026

The pro-establishment, Brussels-based publication Politico Europe, owned by Germany’s Axel Springer SE, has refused to publish an exclusive article written by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Lavrov’s article was initially planned for publication in the Brussels-based Politico Europe, but due to a “last-minute decision by the outlet’s editorial team,” the publication was canceled, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

In the article, Russia’s highly experienced top diplomat outlined Moscow’s view of the Ukrainian conflict, Europe’s role in escalating the crisis, and the broader implications for global security. Lavrov accused European leaders of using diplomacy as a cover for NATO and EU expansion, while arguing that the West has sought to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian foothold. He also warned that the EU’s growing militarization, including discussions about nuclear deterrence and “strategic autonomy,” could increase the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia.

Below is the full text of Lavrov’s article, as published on the Russian Foreign Ministry website:

Some reflections on resolving the Ukrainian crisis, Europe and global security

At a meeting in London on 7 June 2026, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, as well as Vladimir Zelensky, laid out five preconditions for Russia to secure a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. United Europe now presents this list of demands as the basis for dialogue with Moscow.

Background

More than two decades of negotiations with Europe, as part of the collective West, lead to only one conclusion: engaging Russia in dialogue has served as a diplomatic smokescreen for the geopolitical expansion of Western institutions, above all NATO and the European Union, eastwards, right up to Russia’s borders.

Europe’s complicity in fueling the Ukrainian crisis is undeniable. Together with the United States, European countries orchestrated the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004. To create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine, they spent years buying off politicians and entire parties, rewriting history and educational curricula, cultivating and nurturing Ukrainian nationalism, and going to great lengths to pull Ukraine away from Russia.

In 2013, the European Union outright rejected our proposal for a compromise on the association agreement – a deal Brussels had long been pressing Viktor Yanukovich to sign. It is worth recalling that Ukraine was offered unilateral market opening without reciprocal commitments – terms that would have proved incompatible with Kiev’s continued membership in the CIS free-trade zone. When Viktor Yanukovich requested a deferral, the Europeans incited street riots that swiftly escalated into a coup d’état in Kiev in February 2014.

Germany, France, and Poland then proved themselves to be equally treacherous. Having guaranteed that the agreement reached between the opposition and Viktor Yanukovich would be honored, they washed their hands of it the moment that same opposition, their own handiwork, took power. “Democracy,” they shrugged, “takes unexpected turns.”

Europe thereafter lent its backing to the new authorities. In Odessa on 2 May 2014, the burning alive of dozens of innocent supporters of closer ties with Russia did not draw a single word of condemnation from European capitals.

As co-guarantors of the 2015 Minsk Agreements, France and Germany effectively encouraged the Ukrainian regime to sabotage its own commitments. As Angela Merkel and François Hollande later conceded – after the special military operation had already begun – Kiev’s implementation of the Minsk Agreements, unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, was never genuinely intended. The objective, they admitted, was merely to buy time: to shore up the Armed Forces of Ukraine and flood them with Western weaponry.

Russia, for its part, explored every diplomatic avenue to defuse Europe’s security crisis. However, in January 2022, the United States and NATO rejected Russia’s proposal for legally binding mutual security guarantees. European NATO members actively endorsed that rebuff.

Following the launch of the special military operation, United Europe threw its support behind the British prime minister’s efforts to sabotage the Istanbul negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Boris Johnson’s appeal to Kiev – “don’t sign anything, just fight” – slammed the door on genuine diplomacy for the foreseeable future.

Current situation

So what has prompted European leaders to suddenly shift their rhetoric and start talking about negotiations, and what are they aiming to achieve with these statements? For instance, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has stated that the purpose of any dialogue with Russia is to dictate Europe’s terms. These include paying “reparations” to Ukraine; withdrawing troops from Transnistria and the South Caucasus; abolishing the “foreign agents” law; and accepting strict limits on the size of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces. In her framing, “there can be no just and lasting peace without accountability for Russia.” During the UN Security Council session on 19 May 2026, an EU representative made the point unequivocally: “Supporting Ukraine militarily does not contradict the pursuit of peace, but rather serves as a fundamental prerequisite for any credible, good-faith negotiations.”

Europe’s plan is to talk with Russia while simultaneously pressing ahead with a campaign of legal warfare orchestrated through the Council of Europe. Within this once-respected organization, an entire infrastructure is being assembled for the express purpose of “holding Russia accountable”: a Register of Damage, a Claims Commission, and a Special Tribunal.

The European Union has also given the green light to detaining merchant vessels on the high seas. Several incidents have already taken place in the Baltic and the Atlantic. At the same time, the West studiously averts its gaze from the terrorist acts of sabotage perpetrated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

The real objective of Europe’s leaders, then, is not to negotiate with Russia. It is to shore up the Zelensky regime and preserve it as a launchpad for continued confrontation against Russia. With this in mind, European leaders are scrambling to secure a ceasefire as quickly as possible and for one reason only: to prevent the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the battlefield. The plan is to “freeze” the conflict without addressing its root causes, and then rapidly deploy military contingents from the Anglo-French “coalition of the willing” onto Ukrainian soil.

It is widely known that European elites have invested their “political capital” in the confrontation with Russia, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into propping up the Kiev regime and ramping up the military budgets of EU member states and NATO. Europe now aims to achieve “defense readiness” against Russia by 2030. Until then, they mean to buy time by whatever means are available. In a strikingly candid remark this April, Belgium’s chief of staff put it bluntly: “We still have a few years. Thanks to the courage and blood of the Ukrainians, who are buying us that time.”

United Europe continues to dream of expansion. It intends to absorb Ukraine and Moldova while pulling Armenia into its sphere of influence. NATO has already expanded eastward, swallowing up Finland and Sweden. As for Ukraine, it is increasingly being eyed as the “striking fist” of a future European military force, independent of the United States and independent of NATO.

Risks to global security

This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences.

Under the banner of “strategic autonomy,” Europe is witnessing a significant build-up of its military capabilities, including in the nuclear sphere. Paris’s intention to extend its “nuclear umbrella” to several EU and NATO member states is a source of deep concern. This will do nothing to strengthen the security of France itself or of the recipients of its so-called protection.

For all that, Europe’s political and military establishment continues to attribute aggressive plans to Russia – plans that, they claim, reach far beyond Ukraine. The Russian president has stated on numerous occasions that all of this is nonsense, provocation, and disinformation, aimed solely at extracting budget funds for the fight against Russia. That is scarcely the climate for substantive dialogue.

Russia’s position

As for negotiations, Vladimir Putin reiterated at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that Russia is not opposed to contacts with any party. We see Europe, however, as a party bent on Russia’s defeat – a stance the Europeans themselves openly avow. Dialogue with Europe, therefore, cannot be conducted as though it were an impartial third-party observer.

Russia would prefer to achieve the goals of the special military operation through diplomacy.

That requires reliably guaranteeing security along Russia’s western borders and ensuring respect and dignity for our citizens and compatriots, including the right to speak their native Russian language and practice the Orthodox Christian faith. Further military, political, and economic expansion by the West is unacceptable: it runs counter to the imperatives of a multipolar world.

European leaders should recognize that the model of regional security built in Europe over decades, ever since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, has been destroyed by their own hands. And it will never be restored. We must now move toward creating a continent-wide security architecture open to all Eurasian countries and reflective of today’s multipolar reality.

The principle of equal and indivisible security, trampled upon by the Euro-Atlanticists, can be embodied within a new Eurasian architecture. When the time is ripe, Europe too will be able to join this great effort.

The key point is that meaningful dialogue requires the restoration of trust, shattered by the anti-Russian actions of the West, and Europe as part of it, in the post-Cold War era. Trust can be recovered only through concrete steps that demonstrate a sincere commitment to moving away from using diplomacy as a cover for expansionist ambitions. Trust cannot be restored, nor can dialogue be resumed, through ultimatums such as the one issued to Russia in London on 7 June 2026.

P.S. It is noteworthy that the London ultimatum was unequivocally reaffirmed by the ambassadors of Britain, France, and Germany at the meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on 11 June 2026 – a meeting they had so insistently requested. That was the sole purpose of their visit to the ministry.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Censored Lavrov article Politico refused to publish (FULL TEXT)

Israel’s censor silenced 5,700 reports in 2025

Israeli forces detain a photojournalist in Hebron, West Bank on October 3, 2024. [Wisam Hashlamoun – Anadolu Agency]
MEMO | June 18, 2026

Israel’s military censor blocked or altered more than 5,700 news reports in 2025, an average of 15 items per day, making it the second-highest year for media censorship in Israel since records began 15 years ago, according to new data published by +972 Magazine.

The figures, obtained through a freedom of information request submitted by +972 and the Movement for Freedom of Information, show that the censor demanded redactions in 4,974 news items in 2025, while completely barring 753 further items from publication. Both totals remain far above the previous annual average of around 2,300 redactions and 320 full bans recorded between 2011 and 2023. The year 2024, the height of Israel’s genocide on Gaza, still holds the record for the highest number of interventions.

The censor, a unit embedded within Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate, received 17,176 article submissions from media outlets in 2025, compared to a pre-2024 annual average of just under 12,000. Israeli law requires media organisations to submit material touching on “security” issues for censor approval before publication, under emergency regulations enacted at the time of Israel’s founding that remain in force today.

According to +972, censorship was most intensive during Israel’s war with Iran. Police, municipal inspectors, and at times civilians enforced severe restrictions on reporting the locations of Iranian missile strikes on Israeli cities, with Arab and foreign journalists disproportionately subjected to obstruction in the field. Television studios regularly hosted a representative of the censorship authority to monitor live broadcasts in real time.

Media outlets are legally barred from informing their audiences that the censor interfered in a published article. The censor is also authorised to intervene retroactively, ordering the removal of articles published without prior approval as it did last year when it demanded the deletion of a column in Haaretz that disclosed the locations of Iranian missile strikes in Tel Aviv.

The censor holds sweeping powers of enforcement, including the authority to indict journalists and to fine, suspend, shut down, or file criminal charges against media organisations that fail to comply with its orders.

The data raises questions about the political direction of the censorship apparatus. The two men who led the censor over the past two years — Kobi Mandelblit, who served as chief censor until April 2025, and Netanel Kula, who replaced him — are both relatives of senior legal figures from Israel’s religious-Zionist movement.

Three months after Kula assumed the role, reports emerged that he had suppressed coverage of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s son purchasing an undisclosed property abroad. The story eventually reached the public through other channels.

The data also points to a striking double standard in enforcement. The far-right Channel 14, a broadcaster aligned with Israel’s ultranationalist camp, repeatedly published sensitive combat plans and military intelligence tools that security officials determined had caused “actual harm” to national security. Despite this, the channel was not penalised on any occasion.

“It is particularly important during times of emergency to receive reliable information about changes regarding the censor’s activities,” said Or Sadan, an attorney from the Movement for Freedom of Information. “Although there has been a slight decrease from last year, it is hard not to notice the alarming rise in the number of news reports being hidden from the public. Democracy is based on the transfer of information from the government to the public, and any infringement upon this is a direct infringement upon democracy.”

+972 notes that military censorship, while severe, is not the most acute form of press freedom violation committed by the Israeli military. Since 7 October 2023, more than 250 journalists have been killed across Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran — some of them in strikes that investigators have concluded were direct and deliberate, including so-called “double-tap” attacks targeting rescue workers who arrived at the scene of a first strike.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel’s censor silenced 5,700 reports in 2025

After US-Iran deal, Israeli minister threatens war on Syria ‘sooner or later’

MEMO | June 18, 2026

Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli threatened Thursday that Israel would wage war on Syria “sooner or later,” claiming that Syria and Turkiye pose a greater challenge to Israel than Iran, Anadolu reports.

“We will wage war on Syria, sooner or later, because it and Turkiye are far more worrying than Iran,” Chikli said in an interview with Israeli radio station 103FM, affiliated with Maariv newspaper.

The remarks by Chikli, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, came hours after Iran and the US signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending war in all fronts, including Lebanon.

The Israeli minister has repeatedly criticized regional countries involved in diplomatic efforts to end ongoing conflicts.

On Wednesday, Chikli voiced opposition to what he called the “Qatar-Turkiye-Pakistan axis,” alleging that the three countries played a role in shaping the agreement between Washington and Tehran.

“The agreement taking shape is worrying, and what worries me least is the rehabilitation of the Iranian economy,” he said, referring to damage caused by the war and years of sanctions.

Chikli claimed that his primary concern was what he described as “the axis that shaped this agreement: Qatar, Turkiye and Pakistan.”

“What we see before our eyes is the rise of a new axis,” he said, describing it as “an extremely dangerous radical Sunni axis.”

Israel occupies territories in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon and is accused of committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. It continues its military campaign despite international calls and UN resolutions urging an end to the occupation and support for a two-state solution.

Pakistan and Qatar have played mediation roles between Washington and Tehran, while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed the US-Iran memorandum of understanding, describing it as “an important development” for strengthening peace and stability in the region.

Since October 2023, Israel has launched several wars in the region, beginning with genocide in the Gaza Strip, in addition to two wars on Lebanon and Iran, strikes on Syria and Yemen, and a strike on Qatar.

Israel was established in 1948 on occupied Palestinian land, and it has occupied Palestinian land as well as territory in Lebanon and Syria for decades. It refuses to withdraw from those territories or allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian state as outlined in relevant UN resolutions.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | Comments Off on After US-Iran deal, Israeli minister threatens war on Syria ‘sooner or later’

When the Iran War is over: Why the West Bank may be Netanyahu’s next front

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | June 17, 2026

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing perhaps the most precarious moment of his political career. He knows it. His allies know it. And his rivals—both within his coalition and across Israel’s political spectrum—are preparing to capitalize on his growing weakness.

Former Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon, who also served as deputy prime minister between 2007 and 2009, is among the latest Israeli political figures to join a growing chorus of criticism directed at Netanyahu.

“In the final result,” Ramon said in an interview with Radio Galey, cited by the Israeli outlet Srugim, “we did not win.” He then broke down that failure in blunt terms: “We did not win in Lebanon, we did not win in Iran, and we did not win against Hamas.”

Another prominent critic is former Israeli army chief Gadi Eisenkot, who joined Netanyahu’s emergency war government following the events of October 7, 2023, before resigning with Benny Gantz in June 2024.

Beyond accusing Netanyahu of failing to protect Israel on October 7, Eisenkot argues that the prime minister has effectively surrendered Israel’s political decision-making to US President Donald Trump, thereby strategically weakening Israel.

Ironically, Netanyahu’s coalition partners have often been even more opportunistic than the opposition.

Since the formation of the current coalition government on December 29, 2022—widely regarded as the most right-wing government in Israel’s history—figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have repeatedly used Netanyahu’s political vulnerability to expand their own influence. Whenever Netanyahu needed political support to remain in power, they demanded concessions in return.

For Israel’s far-right extremists, Netanyahu’s inability to secure decisive strategic victories has often translated into opportunities to advance their own agendas. Every setback on the battlefield became an opening for greater settlement expansion, harsher measures against Palestinians, and deeper entrenchment of extremist policies.

Unable to deliver ‘victory’, Netanyahu turned perpetual war into a political strategy in its own right. The result has been a genocidal war in Gaza, widespread devastation in Lebanon, and a dangerous confrontation with Iran that has repeatedly brought the region to the brink of a wider catastrophe.

For a time, this formula proved politically sustainable. Netanyahu successfully enlisted unwavering US support to keep the fires of war burning.

At the same time, the failure of Europe and much of the international community to hold a wanted war criminal accountable provided him with the political space necessary to continue his bloody calculations.

Yet that formula may be nearing its limits. While this possibility may appear encouraging, it comes with a serious warning. If Netanyahu can no longer sustain the wars that have prolonged his political life for nearly three years, he may escalate where resistance is weakest: the occupied West Bank.

Regarding Iran, there is growing recognition that the current confrontation is unsustainable indefinitely and that some form of arrangement will eventually emerge. Likewise, regardless of whether Lebanon is formally included in any future agreement, Israel’s ambition of permanently occupying parts of Lebanese territory remains untenable.

Historically, when Israel fails to secure a strategic breakthrough on one front, it seeks compensation on another—typically where Palestinians are most vulnerable and where international scrutiny is weakest.

As Israeli elections approach, it is therefore reasonable to fear a further escalation of the genocide in Gaza, pushing both the death toll and the level of destruction to new heights. According to Gaza health authorities, nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire agreement was announced in October, bringing the overall death toll of Israel’s genocide in Gaza to 73,000 Palestinians.

Though Israel’s war has already failed to break Palestinian steadfastness, the broader objective remains unchanged: the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza and the transformation of the Strip into a space that can no longer sustain Palestinian life.

The West Bank, however, presents a different challenge.

There, Israel faces a fragmented political landscape and a Palestinian Authority that refuses to develop an effective strategy for confronting accelerating Israeli violence, ethnic cleansing, home demolitions, land confiscation, and the relentless expansion of illegal settlements.

This vulnerability has enabled Israel to move from discussing annexation to implementing it in practice. The strategy rests on two interconnected pillars: extreme violence and displacement on the one hand, and rapid settlement expansion on the other.

According to an Oxfam International study published on June 12, Israel has killed 1,244 Palestinians, including 268 children, in the occupied West Bank since 2023—more than the total number killed during the previous seventeen years combined.

This bloodshed has been accompanied by large-scale displacement that has already uprooted nearly 46,000 Palestinians, many of them from refugee camps and vulnerable communities across the northern West Bank.

An Amnesty International report published on June 10 documented the full or partial displacement of at least 117 Palestinian Bedouin and herding communities between January 2023 and April 2026.

Expectedly, the violence, displacement, settlement expansion, and land seizures are not isolated developments but components of a coherent political project. In September 2025, Smotrich openly proposed the annexation of 82 percent of the occupied West Bank. What was once presented as a political vision is now steadily being translated into facts on the ground.

The era of Netanyahu may be nearing its end, but before this bloody political chapter closes, countless more Palestinians may be forced to bear the cost.

Arab and Muslim countries, along with their allies in the international community, must not wait for Israel to launch a much larger assault on the West Bank before responding.

The matter demands urgent attention and immediate action.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Comments Off on When the Iran War is over: Why the West Bank may be Netanyahu’s next front

Israeli forces launch fresh ground incursions into Syria’s Quneitra, interrogate locals

Press TV – June 18, 2026

While Israeli military incursions and activities in southern Syria, along with harassment of local citizens under the inaction of the ruling Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) regime, have become recurrent over the past year, Syrian sources have detailed a recent ground incursion.

The sources stated that Israeli forces, onboard nine military vehicles, raided the village of al-Asbah on the outskirts of Syria’s southwestern province of Quneitra near the occupied strategic Golan Heights early on Thursday.

Israeli forces on Wednesday carried out a series of raids on residential homes in the southern countryside of Quneitra, including the interrogation of a local journalist.

Local sources said the incursion targeted ten homes in the town of Saida in southern Quneitra countryside.

Among the properties searched was the home of Sanad al-Hindawi, a journalist and employee of the Quneitra Media Directorate. Sources said Israeli soldiers questioned Hindawi inside his residence during the raid.

No arrests were reported during the incursion.

The raids came two days after Israeli forces broke into the village of Saida al-Golan in southern Quneitra countryside, and established a temporary checkpoint at the village junction, where pedestrians and passing vehicles were subjected to inspections.

Following the fall of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government in early December 2024, the Israeli military has been conducting airstrikes targeting military installations, facilities, and arsenals previously operated by the Syrian army.

Israel has faced widespread criticism for ending the 1974 ceasefire agreement with Syria and taking advantage of the chaos in the war-torn nation to seize territory.

The UN, along with several Arab nations, condemned Israel’s actions as breaches of international law and violations of Syria’s sovereignty.

Despite the HTS’s pledges of cooperation with Tel Aviv, Israel has remained unwilling to withdraw from Syria.

The two sides have been engaged in on-and-off talks to reach a “security agreement”, but no deal or concrete progress has been announced.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered his forces to push deeper into Syrian territory beyond the 1967-occupied Golan Heights and seize several strategic locations.

The bulk of the Israeli attacks have been concentrated in the southern Syrian governorates of Quneitra, Dara’a, and Damascus, which account for nearly 80 percent of all recorded Israeli attacks.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , | Comments Off on Israeli forces launch fresh ground incursions into Syria’s Quneitra, interrogate locals

Syria ‘unwilling, unprepared’ to attack Lebanon despite US pressure: Report

Damascus is reportedly prepared to reconsider its position if Tel Aviv were to withdraw its occupation troops from Syria

The Cradle | June 17, 2026

Syrian President and former Al-Qaeda chief Ahmad al-Sharaa is “unprepared and unwilling” to launch a military offensive against Lebanon despite growing US pressure, Israel’s Broadcasting Corporation (KAN) reported on 16 June.

KAN cited an informed Syrian source who said that Sharaa is “concerned” that an attack by Damascus against Hezbollah will be seen across the region as “serving” Israel’s interests.

This could negatively impact Damascus’s “legitimacy.”

For now, the self-appointed Syrian president is ruling out an attack against Lebanon and its resistance forces unless Israel decides to pull its forces out of Syria, the report states.

Israel has rejected withdrawal from both Syria and Lebanon.

KAN also said that Turkiye – a longtime backer of Sharaa since his days as Abu Muhammad al-Julani, founder and leader of Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front – has urged Damascus against such an incursion.

Ankara is reportedly concerned that a Syrian assault on Lebanon would “embolden” Tel Aviv and “strengthen” its position.

“Trump proposed a framework in which the Syrian military would play a central role in a future effort to disarm Hezbollah,” i24 reported on Wednesday.

Lebanese authorities reportedly felt uneasy about the idea during recent US-backed direct talks with Israeli officials, which have taken place despite Lebanon’s legal restrictions.

Additionally, Israeli authorities are reportedly concerned about the effectiveness of a Syrian attack on Hezbollah.

“Some of the arrangements currently under discussion could ultimately strengthen Hezbollah politically and militarily rather than diminish its influence,” i24 reported.

Sharaa said earlier this week that talk of a Syrian incursion into Lebanon was a “rumor.” “Syria’s approach aims to end the war in Lebanon, not to expand it or get involved,” he stressed.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on Syria to attack Hezbollah.

Iraqi resistance groups allied with Hezbollah have cautioned the Syrian government and its forces that they will act if Damascus initiates an attack on Lebanon.

Syria experienced a significant geopolitical change following the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, as Sharaa’s government aligned with Washington and engaged in discussions with Israel.

The US has largely lifted sanctions on Syria and called Damascus a “partner” in the global fight against ISIS — overlooking Sharaa’s past as an Al-Qaeda leader and earlier as deputy to ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Hezbollah fought in Syria for years with the former government, helping recapture areas from extremist groups like Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, and others considered by the west as the “Syrian opposition.”

The Nusra Front, led by Sharaa, was rebranded into Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and ended up toppling Assad’s government in 2024.

HTS and other extremist factions with links to ISIS currently dominate what has become the new Syrian Defense Ministry and military.

Tom Barrack, US special envoy to Syria and Iraq, threatened Lebanon last year with a Syrian incursion, and said Damascus would “actively assist us in confronting and dismantling … Hezbollah.”

He also said Syria viewed Lebanon as its “beach resort” and would carry out an assault against the country unless Hezbollah is disarmed.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Syria ‘unwilling, unprepared’ to attack Lebanon despite US pressure: Report

Hezbollah thwarts Israeli advances into Kfar Tebnit-Ali al-Taher

Al Mayadeen | June 18, 2026

The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon – Hezbollah released a detailed statement regarding confrontations along the Kfar Tebnit-Ali al-Taher axis in South Lebanon, after four days of failed Israeli attempts to advance toward the area via multiple axes under the cover of aerial surveillance, heavy artillery, and smoke screens.

The Operations Room stated that its fighters have consistently engaged all Israeli advance attempts by targeting troop movements and concentrations with rockets, drones, and FPVs, inflicting significant losses in personnel and equipment among Israeli officers, soldiers, and armored vehicles.

It added that, as a result of these engagements, Israeli occupation forces were compelled to withdraw and conduct nighttime helicopter evacuations under smoke cover and artillery fire to recover casualties.

According to the statement, on Wednesday, June 17, at 8:00 pm, following the detection of an Israeli infantry unit attempting to establish positions on the northeastern outskirts of Kfar Tebnit, Resistance fighters engaged the force using a swarm of drones and Ababil FPV drones, confirming casualties among its members, including killed and wounded. The operation was subsequently followed by rocket salvos and artillery fire directed at the same area.

Several hours later, at approximately 01:50 am on Thursday, June 18, amid enemy attempts to regroup in a crossing area, Hezbollah fighters targeted a Merkava tank with the appropriate weapons, achieving a direct hit and forcing the withdrawal of the Israeli force from the sector.

The Resistance confirmed that Israeli occupation forces remain present on the southern outskirts of Kfar Tebnit toward Arnoun, vowing that the Kfar Tebnit–Ali al-Taher axis will remain inaccessible to enemy advances.

The operations come as Hezbollah defends Lebanese territories from ongoing Israeli violations of the April 17 ceasefire and the memorandum of understanding reached between the United States and Iran, which clearly stipulates “Israel’s” withdrawal and cessation of attacks in Lebanon.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , | Comments Off on Hezbollah thwarts Israeli advances into Kfar Tebnit-Ali al-Taher

The final war or final deal: Why the MoU?

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | June 18, 2026

The Israeli-US plot to inflict “regime change” upon Iran has been turned into a strategic failure of historic proportions – in the end, Washington and Tel Aviv were forced to confront the reality. The newly signed Memorandum of Understanding is either a gateway to a final deal or simply another strategy to buy time.

Forty days of all-out war, followed by two months of dead-end negotiations, led to two final options: Submit to a deal that works heavily in Iran’s favour or keep on fighting until the end. What ultimately comes of this equation will completely reshape West Asia and perhaps geopolitics globally.

US President Donald Trump had tried every single avenue to pressure the Islamic Republic of Iran into surrender. He suddenly found himself in a new phase where the walls were closing in and decided to make a diplomatic move. The Iranians managed to reunite their allied fronts across the region, taking de facto ownership of the Strait of Hormuz, while proving they can fight the world’s top military superpower to a standstill.

If you were to listen to the rhetoric coming from the White House, it was like hearing a radio broadcast from a parallel universe. According to Trump, Iran was defeated all the way back in March, its military is destroyed, nobody knows who is running the country, it has no air defenses, no missiles left, no navy, and is on the verge of collapse. But quite frankly, nobody bought his nonsensical ramblings.

Beneath the egotistical exterior is a system that was running out of gas and whose operator was in panic.

In order to accurately assess the situation, we have to factor in precisely why the US leader is managing this war so incredibly poorly. The Trump administration is not composed of competent and experienced individuals; it’s a who’s who of Israeli Lobby shills and hardline ideological fanatics – a tech billionaire’s dream administration. While the Israeli Lobby and other lobby groups have for long had sway over American presidents and foreign policy, it has never been this severe.

Donald Trump exemplifies this through his total incompetence and constant inability to say no to the Israelis when it matters the most. There is, after all, a reason why no other US president agreed to go to war with the Islamic Republic upon the request of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, even when Iran was far less prepared for it militarily.

Finding out the hard way, the US president found himself caught in a quagmire– if he escalated the war, then the entire region would go up in flames, but if he backed out, he would face the wrath of the same billionaire class that put him in power to begin with.

The Zionist regime can’t defeat the Iranians alone, nor does it believe that the US will defeat Tehran conventionally. Yet, the Israeli leadership does not want to give up, for if they fail, then the Iranians will become the dominant regional power and the “Greater Israel Project” will not be able to succeed.

Therefore, they are only really left with two actual options, both involving the United States: The first is a fight to the death that could go so far that nuclear weapons become involved; the second is a large-scale attack on Iranian infrastructure.

The second option is more likely to be favoured by the Israelis than the first, and its goal will be to continue battering Iranian civilian infrastructure until the Israelis can’t take the punishment coming back its way any longer. For the US, this would represent a catastrophe, because the Iranians have long pledged to wipe out the entire region’s oil and gas infrastructure, even going after water desalination and power plants if it comes down to it.

For Washington, this means their Gulf allies will be destroyed. Keep in mind that the Trump administration previously bragged about the alleged Trillion that the Gulf Arab States had pledged to invest in the United States. All of that is gone overnight, and a global economic meltdown would be underway. Trump personally has a lot of investments in the Gulf, which means sacrificing this too.

The Israelis, on the other hand, want the Arab Gulf States weakened. This is for the very same reason they threaten Turkiye constantly – they do not want any potential competitors. Tel Aviv doesn’t even like other regional nations, who are their allies, to get the latest US fighter jets. So, the hypothetical annihilation of rich Gulf States doesn’t likely bother them at all.

As long as the primary goal is achieved, they will be happy. They want a weakened and battered Iran, an Islamic Republic that is susceptible to future color revolutions, one that can no longer impose deterrence equations. But the Americans were facing an economic tidal wave and had no good options in front of them.

If a deal is signed on the terms of the Iranians as a result of the MoU, the Israelis have been strategically defeated. The war that began on October 7, 2023, would have been completely lost for them, and they will only have two options available to them: try to linger on and delay the inevitable implosion of their expansionist project, or sign a deal with the Palestinians in order to allow for a State of Palestine to come into existence. Realistically, the so-called “Two-State solution” is their only hope of long-term survival. All of this assumes they won’t simply blow the deal up before it can come to fruition.

June 18, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on The final war or final deal: Why the MoU?

Iran declares victory over US

RT | June 18, 2026

Iranian officials have portrayed the newly signed memorandum of understanding with the US as a diplomatic victory achieved through strength and as evidence that Washington failed to achieve any of its objectives militarily.

The 14-point document was signed remotely by President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, late Wednesday and immediately entered force, according to the Pakistani mediators.

The US side has been unusually muted in its public response. The White House has also yet to publish the final text of the memorandum, although an unnamed senior US official read out the 14-point document to journalists after days of criticism over the secrecy surrounding the deal.

Meanwhile, Iran’s parliament speaker and chief negotiator in the talks, Mohammad Ghalibaf, described the memorandum as proof of US surrender.

“The agreement is a record of US failure,” Ghalibaf said in a televised interview on Wednesday. “People will see it and judge.”

Tehran has argued that the document reflects a series of concessions by Washington, including the lifting of the US naval blockade, sanctions waivers for Iranian oil exports, access to frozen Iranian funds, and a US-backed economic reconstruction plan worth at least $300 billion. Washington has also agreed not to impose new sanctions or deploy additional forces in the region while the sides negotiate a final agreement.

In response, Iran “will make arrangements” to restore freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz – something that had not been an issue before the US-Israeli attack. However, Tehran has signaled that the key waterway will not simply return to prewar conditions.

“I emphasize again that the Strait of Hormuz will never return to the previous conditions,” Ghalibaf said. “Iran has the right to sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, and of course, we will receive a fee for services.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei added that a framework was being developed to manage the key waterway, with consultations already held with Oman, as outlined in the MOU.

Tehran has also highlighted the memorandum’s language on Lebanon. “If the Israeli regime’s attacks on Lebanon continue, it will be considered a violation of the other party’s commitments under the memorandum of understanding,” Baghaei said.

The memorandum is not a final peace agreement, but launches a 60-day negotiation period during which Washington and Tehran are expected to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, frozen assets, the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz, and a final settlement to be endorsed by the UN Security Council.

The nuclear language in the document states that Iran “reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons” – something Tehran has been stating for years, including during both previous US-Israeli attacks. The MOU adds that the sides will work out a mechanism for the disposition of stockpiled enriched material, with the minimum methodology being down-blending on site under IAEA supervision.

Trump made multiple unrelated posts on Truth Social hours after signing but said nothing about the deal. Earlier in the day, he defended the memorandum, threatening to “bomb the hell out of” Iran if it failed to comply.

June 17, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Iran declares victory over US

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »