Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US Threats Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Violate International Law – Iranian Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 22.07.2026

Statements from the US that it might bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities violate international law, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Wednesday.

“The repeated US attacks and threats against Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities not only constitute a flagrant violation of the core principles of the UN Charter, international law, and the relevant resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors, General Conference, and UN Security Council, but also reveal the United States’ deep-rooted enmity toward Iran’s scientific progress and technological development,” Baghaei wrote on X.

Iran does not conduct any nuclear activities in the area of the Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La Mountain, otherwise known as “Pickaxe,” which the United States wants to strike, the diplomat said, adding that the relevant remarks are just an excuse for more aggression.

On July 21, US President Donald Trump threatened to attack Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, where, per Israeli intelligence assessments, a fortified nuclear enrichment facility is located.

The US has been conducting strikes against Iran since July 8, in violation of the provisions of the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US Threats Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Violate International Law – Iranian Foreign Ministry

Ukrainian human rights commissioner warns of growing public anger at forced conscription

By Ahmed Adel | July 22, 2026

Ukrainian society is approaching a violent confrontation with its political leadership because of the apparent shortcomings of current mobilization efforts, said Dmitry Lubinets, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada (unicameral parliament) Human Rights Commissioner. In a recent TV interview, Lubinets warned that rising tensions could spiral into chaos if not addressed promptly.

Lubinets noted a rise in public criticism of the mobilization process, with many Ukrainians deeply angered by the aggressive tactics the Territorial Recruitment Centers used to draft men. He cautioned that unless reforms are implemented, Ukraine could face worsening social divisions and even violent confrontations between civilians and authorities.

The ombudsman explained that Ukrainian citizens notice the lack of legal accountability for the actions of recruitment officers. As a result, citizens are taking matters into their own hands, which could potentially lead to escalated conflicts and greater instability in the future. This self-help approach, Lubinets said, reflects a breakdown in trust between the population and state institutions responsible for defense matters.

Lubinets expressed concern over the high levels of desertion and evasion occurring even before soldiers reach the front. Many conscripts reportedly escape from enlistment centers or while being transported to training sites. He noted several instances of unauthorized desertion from assigned positions. As a result, although official records may indicate a growing army, the real number of active combat-ready troops is decreasing. This gap highlights significant inefficiencies and morale issues within the military.

Corruption within the recruitment system further exacerbates the crisis. Lubinets detailed how individuals are often forced to pay substantial bribes—around $10,000 to be released from buses en route to processing centers and up to $20,000 to avoid further conscription at the offices. However, these payments offer only temporary relief, as those who pay can still be detained and mobilized again later.

Ukraine’s armed forces have struggled with ongoing manpower shortages during the conflict, prompting more aggressive recruitment efforts that have sparked public scandal and protests. Videos and reports document detentions in streets, workplaces, and public areas, fueling a climate of fear and resistance among men of military age.

Some men attempt illegal border crossings to flee the country, while others resort to more drastic measures, such as setting fire to recruitment offices or going into hiding and avoiding public life altogether, demonstrating the depth of public anger and the challenges the Kiev regime faces in sustaining its futile military efforts against Russia.

In 2022, Ukraine’s early mobilization was driven by strong patriotic sentiment following the launch of Russia’s special military operation. Many citizens, particularly ultra-nationalists, volunteered eagerly in the first months. However, as the war has dragged on, accompanied by heavy losses, economic difficulties, and war fatigue, initial enthusiasm has diminished.

Reports of inadequate training, lack of proper equipment, and poor living conditions for new recruits have further eroded morale. International observers and Ukrainian officials alike have acknowledged that sustaining a large-scale conventional army under these pressures requires not only enforcement but also incentives and reforms. In this context, Lubinets emphasized that unchecked abuses by recruitment officers violate basic rights and will ultimately weaken Ukraine’s defensive capabilities from within.

According to Lubinets, approximately 10% of conscription actions adhere fully to legal standards. The majority, however, violate citizens’ rights, with many detentions illegally conducted by masked men in balaclavas, lacking ID chevrons or police presence. It is recalled that he has urged the last three Defense Ministers of Ukraine to ban this practice, but none have acted.

Alongside widespread draft evasion, the Kiev regime is struggling to replenish frontline units because of heavy casualties and an aging pool of available personnel. Official estimates indicate that thousands of positions remain vacant, prompting commanders to rotate exhausted troops more frequently and hampering offensive efforts.

This issue is compounded by demographic problems, including a pre-war population decline and the emigration of hundreds of thousands of working-age men trying to avoid conscription. Families carry a significant emotional and financial load, as many women become the sole providers while dealing with the uncertainty about the men at the front. Businesses struggle with labor shortages, especially in sectors relying on working-age men, and agricultural and industrial output is declining due to the manpower deficit. This has increased public fatigue and criticism of mobilization policies, making recruitment even more difficult.

Efforts to address the shortage have included lowering the mobilization age, expanding digital summons, and offering incentives for voluntary service, but these measures have largely failed. Corruption scandals and aggressive tactics have eroded trust, leading to fewer volunteers and greater resistance. Lubinets’ warning highlights a key vulnerability in Ukraine’s wartime strategy and exposes the widening gap between the Kiev regime and citizens. Yet this will have little effect on the authorities, who insist on fighting the war against Russia to the last Ukrainian.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Comments Off on Ukrainian human rights commissioner warns of growing public anger at forced conscription

The Zumwalt-class destroyer is an ever-growing boondoggle

By Stavroula Pabst | Responsible Statecraft | July 22, 2026

After ten years of upgrades, repairs, and program-related issues, the lead Zumwalt-class destroyer is finally returning to service this September. But it will have to go without the hypersonic missiles many hoped would give the troubled program a purpose.

Thanks to ongoing modernization efforts, the lead Zumwalt-class destroyer now has a launcher, making it the Navy’s first hypersonic strike ship. But the missiles themselves will not be tested until next year, as the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missile rollout is about two years behind schedule.

Experts tell RS the problem is par for the course for the Zumwalt program.

“The Zumwalt program had extraordinary promise,” Ben Freeman, the director of the Quincy Institute’s Democratizing Foreign Policy program, wrote to RS. “But it was curtailed from 32 ships to just 3 for a reason: it didn’t come close to living up to that promise.”

The Zumwalt’s initial role as a land-attack ship was scrapped in 2016 after ammunition for its land-attack gun became prohibitively costly, reaching $800,000 to $1 million per round.

Beyond that, “they couldn’t get the [ship’s] weapon to work properly,” Dan Grazier, who directs the Stimson Center’s National Security Reform program, told RS.

In the end, the military built three Zumwalts at a cost of $9.5 billion per ship. Now, efforts to convert the remaining vessels into hypersonic strike ships have only steered the program into more procurement issues

“They foisted an unproven missile system with its own checkered acquisition history onto the Zumwalt seemingly in hopes that two wrongs would make a right,” Freeman said. “Spoiler: they didn’t.”

The Pentagon plans to invest $50 billion into developing and fielding its CPS hypersonic capability across Army and Navy programs. But a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published last week found the project “does not have a comprehensive strategy” to accomplish its objectives.

Canceled and failed test flights and quality control issues also plague the hypersonic missile program. One test, for example, was canceled in 2023 after a battery failure during a pre-launch check. Lockheed Martin can only make six or seven hypersonic missiles each year, short of the military’s target of 12 missiles, jeopardizing the program’s ability to scale.

Meanwhile, costs are compounding for the Zumwalt, with questionable payoff.

The hypersonic missile capability will tack on about $452 million to the cost of each destroyer. Each ship will only be able to carry 12 hypersonic missiles, which leaves them with far fewer munitions than their naval counterparts. The missiles themselves are estimated to cost tens of millions of dollars each.

As Freeman concluded, “taxpayer dollars will still be wasted until the Navy comes to its senses.”

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | | Comments Off on The Zumwalt-class destroyer is an ever-growing boondoggle

Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s new PM, wants to end homelessness by fueling militarism and war

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 22, 2026

Andy Burnham took over as British prime minister this week, promising to bring “hope and change” to poverty-stricken Britain amid a political crisis in which public contempt for governing parties is at record levels.

In his first speech outside 10 Downing Street on Monday, Burnham said: “I will put the care of people at the heart of everything I do… Let us make this the moment when Britain starts to believe again, the moment we bring back hope.”

British media headlines were swooning over this supposed radical new beginning for Britain. At 56 years old, Burnham brings a fresh face to tired British politics.

Notably, he said his top priority was to end “rough sleeping” on the streets for thousands of homeless Britons. And he announced a budget of £340 million (€400 m, $450 m) over the next five years to fix the problem by building affordable homes.

This apparent commitment to improving social conditions may sound laudable. It buffs Burnham’s image as a caring politician on the side of working-class Britons. He likes to talk about his North of England credentials and empathy for popular concerns during his tenure as Mayor of Greater Manchester (2017-2026).

But let’s put his homeless budget in a realistic context. On his first day in Downing Street, Burnham also made Britain’s military support for Ukraine another of his priorities. He said there would be “one hundred per cent” continuation of the policy under his predecessor Keir Starmer that made Britain one of the most gung-ho backers of the Kiev regime in NATO’s proxy war against Russia.

Significantly, Burnham appointed former defense minister John Healey as the new Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister). Healey will be London’s man in control of all government budgets. As defense minister in the previous Starmer Cabinet, Healey was an ultra-hawkish figure when it came to supporting Ukraine and calling for greater military spending. It was Healey’s shock resignation on June 11 as defense secretary that was the last nail in Starmer’s premiership. Healey quit because he claimed that Starmer had not allocated enough money to enable Britain’s NATO commitments for reaching a military spending target of 3.5 per cent of GDP. He claimed that Starmer was undermining Britain’s national security and leaving it vulnerable to an alleged Russian threat. Healey and the military establishment wanted additional funds amounting to at least £15 bn more than what Starmer could muster in his Defence Investment Plan.

If Healey gets his way as the new finance minister, he will commit Britain to increasing its annual military spending from £63 bn to £90 bn. This will have to be paid for by massive cuts in public services and social welfare, austerity that has already driven British society into widespread poverty, where one-in-three children live in deprivation.

That Burnham has surprised many observers with the appointment of Healey to the second-most powerful position in Downing Street is a sure sign that he, as prime minister, is fully committed to Britain ramping up its militarism and support for Ukraine.

Burnham’s first phone call in office was to U.S. President Donald Trump. His second call was to Vladimir Zelensky, the puppet president of Ukraine, to assure him of Britain’s ongoing support.

Doesn’t it seem a bit incongruous that “caring, sharing Andy” should make support for Ukraine and assurances about NATO spending his first foreign policy priority while at the same time posing with concern about homelessness in Britain?

Under a bilateral defense pact between Britain and Ukraine signed last year by Starmer and which Burnham will uphold, London is committed to supplying £3 billion (€3.5 bn, $4 bn) in military aid to the Kiev regime every year over the next five years and “for as long as Ukraine needs support”. This is on top of Britain’s own national military spending.

Burnham’s budget to end homelessness in the UK works out at £68 million per year over five years. This is paltry, equivalent to only 2.3 per cent of the money that his government will be supplying every year to a NeoNazi regime to fight a futile war against Russia – paid for by British taxpayers.

What’s going on in Britain is not a supposed renaissance of people-centered democracy. The British media are hyping Burnham as a “people’s prime minister”. He is talking about decentralizing political power from London to create a “No 10 of the North”. All the sentimental aspiration about hope and change is reminiscent of when Barack Obama became U.S. president in 2008. It’s all hokum and empty rhetoric.

Lord Peter Ricketts, a former British national security advisor, let the cat out of the bag when he told CNN in an interview that Burnham’s task will be to use his populist communication skills to “sell” the agenda to the public of Britain continuing its support for Ukraine and intensifying the militarism of the British economy. This agenda depends on convincing the British public that Russia is a threat to Europe.

Already, Burnham has shown that he buys into that geopolitical project of making Britain ready for war against Russia. He is being an obedient politician to promote the interests of the British imperialist deep state and the military-industrial complex. As soon as he announced the appointment of Healey as chancellor, the stock prices of British weapons companies spiked.

Before he became prime minister, Burnham gave an interview to the London Times in which he pointedly said that he would not be “squeamish” about cutting social welfare funds to pay for increasing military spending. He was signalling to the British establishment that he would be a “safe pair of hands” in Downing Street.

During his first speech outside Downing Street this week, he said he would find a “sustainable way to bring the welfare bill down, to meet our fiscal rules, and honor our commitments on defense to our international partners.” For “international partners” read “NATO and Ukraine.”

If Burnham were genuinely seeking to overhaul Britain’s politics and economics to serve the pressing democratic needs of the British people, he would be challenging the irrational, undemocratic and reckless agenda of pushing NATO militarism and a proxy war in Ukraine. He would reject the relentless propaganda demonizing Russia that is driving Britain and Europe to the abyss of all-out war.

Andy Burnham is not going to save Britain from political and economic collapse. He’s just another manikin brought in to fob off the mass of angry people while the British imperial state siphons more money out of the economy for war. Under Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s homelessness problem will take on a whole new meaning if he lets the country slide into a world war.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s new PM, wants to end homelessness by fueling militarism and war

China hawks are losing the public opinion battle

Despite a Beltway push for confrontation, polls show that average Americans want a normal relationship with Beijing

By Frank Yuwen Chen | Responsible Statecraft | July 22, 2026

It sometimes seems easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of Washington’s anti-China obsession.

Congressional Republicans, on one side, are championing a staggering $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget that would cannibalize domestic programs to “deter China.” Meanwhile, many of their Democratic colleagues are attacking President Donald Trump due to his apparent lack of enthusiasm for confronting China.

Yet under the surface, a crack is widening between how Beltway elites talk about China and how ordinary Americans view the U.S.-China relationship. In particular, younger Americans are roundly rejecting tough-on-China politics. Over time, this chasm will challenge the very foundation of Washington’s indefinite strategic competition with Beijing.

While the Blob whips itself into an anti-China frenzy, Americans are backing away from the so-called “China consensus.” Over the past two years, national surveys by reputable pollsters have consistently found that Americans are warming up in their views on China and seeking closer ties between the two superpowers. There are reasons to believe this trend will continue.

Indeed, as Americans increasingly struggle with affordability, AI dislocations, and the rising cost of a possible forever war in the Middle East, Beltway China hawks — fixated on commandeering ever more national resources to confront Beijing — are revealing themselves to be a self-sustaining industry detached from both public sentiment and material reality. This gap creates political space for a more grounded and productive approach to U.S.-China relations.

Americans across the political spectrum are moving on from endless China-bashing. Their opinions about China, after years of declining, are meaningfully recovering. Gallup shows China’s favorability climbing 19 points and unfavorability dropping 23 points between 2023 and 2026. Polls from Pew and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs/Ipsos found similar warming trends. Though Republicans are still more hawkish towards China than independents and Democrats, even their views have appreciably moderated.

Concurrently, Americans support closer ties with the rival superpower. The Chicago Council/Ipsos and the Searchlight Institute/Hart show most Americans now favor improving relations and cooperating with China (53% in Ipsos, 50% in Hart) over limiting China’s power (44% in Ipsos, 40% in Hart), a sharp reversal from recent years’ antagonistic attitudes.

Overall perception of China remains negative, with 61% of Americans telling Gallup this year that they had an unfavorable view of the country. But crucially, the “enemy” framing has crumbled. Pew and YouGov surveys show double-digit declines in percentages of Americans calling China an “enemy” over the past two years. Instead, Americans are developing more nuanced views. A characteristic 2026 NPR/Chicago Council/Ipsos poll found Americans more likely to describe China as a “rival” (37%) than an “adversary” (21%); 18% of respondents described Beijing as a “partner.”

Notably, most Americans still see China as some form of threat. Hawks may welcome this as evidence of popular backing for their tough-on-China agenda, but that would be a grave mistake. While public perception of China as a threat is still broad given a decade of hawkish narrative dominance, that perception is increasingly shallow.

From 2023 to 2025, The Economist/YouGov found fewer and fewer Americans describing China’s various threats as “immediate and serious.” Polls by the Institute for Global Affairs/YouGov and the Chicago Council/Ipsos also reveal that Americans view China’s threats as “moderate” rather than “severe.” Indeed, IGA/YouGov found that only 3% of Americans worry about competition with China in their daily lives, underscoring how abstract the “China threat” is for most people. Americans may continue to hold unfavorable opinions of China, but there is little indication they will accept the enormous costs needed to contain China.

Stark generational divides — fueled by radically different life experiences and information environments — are propelling this opinion shift. Throughout all surveys, across party lines, adults under 45 and especially those under 30 simply do not see China as an adversary, ideological nemesis, or existential threat

An illustrative 2025 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace/YouGov study found that 52% of Americans over 65 say China surpassing the U.S. in global power would make their lives worse; however, those under 30 completely disagree, with 73% saying their lives would not worsen. Even on the right, younger Republicans are much more dovish towards China than their older counterparts. The Manhattan Institute found that 45% of Republicans under 50 see China as a global power to cooperate with, and only 24% see it as an adversary; that ratio transforms to 18% vs. 67% for Republicans over 65.

This shift is not occurring in a vacuum. Americans’ warming views on China coincide with China’s rising global approval, which has overtaken that of the U.S. Simultaneously, Americans increasingly accept the fact of multipolarity. Contra Beltway consensus, Americans now want the U.S. to either share leadership roles with other powers or drastically scale back international involvement rather than clinging to global dominance. These mutually reinforcing trends further deflate any popular enthusiasm for the hawks’ grandiose project of leading a global coalition to take on China.

What explains this unmistakable change in public opinion? Americans are not becoming pro-Beijing; they have simply become skeptical of Washington’s interminable crying wolf about China. Meanwhile, they see that their own government, which frames confronting China as essential to safeguarding American democracy and prosperity, consistently ignores their democratic will and increasingly fails to meet their basic needs.

The rapprochement Americans want is not about capitulating to China, as some hawks claim, but smart pragmatism. More and more voters recognize the reality of China’s rise and want peace and mutually beneficial outcomes, not ideological crusades the country can’t afford and is unlikely to win.

Skeptics of this public opinion shift may attribute changes only to Trump’s reshuffling of U.S. foreign policy priorities and the backlash against him, expecting faith in U.S. hegemony to recover and robust strategic competition against China to return once Trump leaves office. But that would be foolish.

While those factors (along with fading COVID-related hostilities) certainly played a role, they can’t explain, for example, why Democratic voters — who oppose nearly everything Trump does — still predominantly support improving ties with China despite the fact that Trump is the one driving that approach. Nor can they explain the stark generational divides, and why younger Americans across party lines simply refuse to see China as an enemy.

Rather, Americans’ rejection of Beltway China hawkishness is likely driven more by bigger forces like young people’s near-total disillusionment with the American dream and American exceptionalism, growing weariness with U.S. hegemony, mounting constraints on America’s ability to coerce China, and increasing acceptance of China’s still-rising power. Public sentiments may fluctuate, but these structural trends will persist.

If policymakers ignore these trends and insist on an unrealistic grand strategy centered on confronting China, they risk not only profound policy failures but also a dangerous democratic deficit. As the “guns vs. butter” tension heightens and politicians choose sustaining militarism over addressing worsening domestic needs, populist anger and political instability will only intensify.

But the good news is that the political space for averting a “New Cold War” with China is real and growing. If the U.S. wants to focus on domestic regeneration, it needs to secure a peaceful and productive relationship with China.

The lane is wide open for a potent vision of renewal that promises to shift Washington’s focus away from dominating the world and confronting China and toward solving urgent problems and bettering Americans’ lives at home, offering voters tangible benefits from peace and cooperation. The question is whether any political coalition — particularly after Trump leaves office with his improvisational détente with China still unfinished — will have the courage to occupy it.


Frank Yuwen Chen is a China analyst and media strategist. He is currently Manager, US-China Relations at ReThink Media. He researches international political economy, US-China diplomatic history, domestic politics of US foreign policy, and the future of US-China relations. Previously, he had extensive experience leading media and digital strategy for political campaigns and nonprofits.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Comments Off on China hawks are losing the public opinion battle