Top PMU commander, over a dozen fighters killed in new US strikes on Iraq
The Cradle | March 24, 2026
A top commander in the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) and over a dozen others were killed in US airstrikes on Iraq overnight, marking yet another escalation by Washington and Tel Aviv against the country.
The US strikes hit a headquarters and killed at least 15 fighters as well as PMU operations commander in Anbar province, Saad al-Bayji.
“In a blatant and cowardly attack, the commander of the Anbar Operations in the Popular Mobilization Forces, Saad Dua al-Bayji, was martyred along with a group of his heroic comrades following a treacherous American airstrike that targeted the command headquarters while they were performing their national duty,” the PMU said in a statement on 24 March.
It added that “the martyrs’ blood will not be in vain,” while holding the Iraqi government “fully responsible for confronting these repeated American violations and taking clear and resolute positions to preserve the country’s sovereignty and put an end to these grave transgressions.”
A funeral was held for the commander and the 15 fighters in Baghdad on Tuesday, coinciding with more airstrikes on PMU offices in Mosul.
The deadly attacks come just two days after the Iraqi resistance targeted the US Victoria Base near Baghdad airport in at least eight separate rocket and drone strikes.
The US Victoria Base – located near Baghdad airport – has come under continuous attacks by the Iraqi resistance since the start of Washington and Tel Aviv’s brutal war against Iran. The site serves as a US military logistical center.
Footage from after an Iraqi resistance operation last week showed the US Victoria Base engulfed in large flames from an earlier attack.
Other targets which have come under heavy attack by the Iraqi resistance include Washington’s Harir Base and the US Embassy compound in Baghdad.
Deadly air raids against Iraq have been ongoing since the Iraqi resistance intervened in the war and began striking US targets in response to the brutal US-Israeli campaign against Iran.
Is Netanyahu’s war gamble threatening the future of ‘Israel’?: FT
Al Mayadeen | March 24, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s push toward war on Iran has intensified regional tensions, with the aggression reportedly enjoying overwhelming public backing in “Israel”, as more than 80% of the Israeli public supported the decision to launch the attacks on Tehran.
Yet, Gideon Rachman argues in The Financial Times that the consequences of this escalation are far from the decisive outcome that was anticipated. Rather than delivering a quick resolution, the war has expanded in scope and complexity, raising new risks for both military personnel and settlers.
Rachman notes that developments such as disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz and missile strikes inside “Israel” highlight how the war is evolving in unpredictable ways, undermining expectations of a swift and controlled campaign.
‘Israel’ rapidly losing US popular support
A central pillar of “Israel’s” long-term security has been strong bipartisan support from the United States. However, recent actions, particularly the genocide in Gaza and the escalation with Iran, are eroding that foundation.
Rachman points to shifting US public opinion, noting that for the first time, more Americans express sympathy for Palestinians than for Israelis. This shift, he suggests, reflects growing concern over the humanitarian consequences of ongoing offensives and could influence future US policy.
Rachman also highlights the evolving political landscape in Washington. Within both major US parties, there is increasing debate over the scale and nature of support for “Israel”. He warns that future presidential candidates may adopt more restrictive positions, potentially reshaping the alliance.
For example, Trump’s MAGA base has been increasingly expressing anti-“Israel” sentiments, questioning the nature of bilateral relations between the United States and the Israeli regime. This phenomenon spilled into the government itself after the resignation of Joe Kent, the Trump administration’s head of counterterrorism, who said the US was pulled into the war on Iran because of “Israel”.
Military strategy vs diplomatic solutions
Netanyahu’s approach, as described by Rachman, places significant emphasis on military power as the primary means of ensuring security. However, the outcomes of recent military actions raise questions about the effectiveness of this strategy.
Despite claims of decisive victories, Hamas remains active in Gaza, and “Israel’s” aggression against Lebanon and the Resistance did not eliminate Hezbollah, leading to renewed confrontation. Similarly, attacks on Iran’s nuclear program have not produced lasting strategic gains.
Therefore, Rachman argues that diplomatic engagement remains the only viable long-term path to stability. He references views from analysts, Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of Iran research for “Israel’s” security intelligence agency, for instance, who suggests that Iran’s leadership has, at times, signalled willingness to negotiate, particularly regarding its nuclear program, opportunities that were not fully pursued.
The most pressing threat ‘Israel’ faces
According to Citrinowicz, as cited by Rachman, the most significant long-term threat facing “Israel” may not be Iran itself, but the gradual erosion of US political and military support.
This support has historically included substantial military aid, advanced defense systems, and diplomatic backing, elements that have been crucial to “Israel’s” security. However, Rachman warns that prolonged confrontation risks weakening this relationship.
If American support declines, “Israel” could face serious strategic consequences, including reduced military assistance and increased international isolation, he indicated. Such a shift would represent a major change in the geopolitical balance that has long favoured “Israel”.
Perpetual war warnings
Rachman concludes that Netanyahu’s reliance on military solutions risks leading to a cycle of perpetual war, rather than lasting security. In his view, military “victories” have repeatedly failed to translate into strategic stability.
Instead, he suggests that a combination of declining international support and ongoing conflict creates a dangerous trajectory. Without a shift toward diplomatic solutions, he warns that “Israel” may face increasing instability and a weakening of its global standing.
Smotrich calls for annexation of South Lebanon to Litani River
Al Mayadeen | March 24, 2026
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has called for the annexation of territory from Lebanon up to the Litani River, saying “Israel” should seize vast swathes of land in southern Lebanon,
“The new Israeli border must be the Litani,” Smotrich said on Israeli radio on Monday. “The campaign needs to end with a different reality entirely, both with the Hezbollah decision but also with the change of Israel’s borders.”
The Litani River is located nearly 40 kilometers inside Lebanese territory from the South.
Since early March, “Israel” has ordered all residents of southern Lebanon to leave areas south of the Litani, citing what it called “limited and targeted ground operations against key Hezbollah strongholds.”
Expanding operations
On Sunday, the Israeli military announced plans to expand both ground and air operations in southern Lebanon. War Minister Israel Katz has also previously threatened that “Israel” would occupy Lebanese territory if the government does not disarm the Resistance.
Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron condemned “Israel’s” actions in Lebanon as “inappropriate and even unacceptable,” arguing that “Israel’s” repeated wars against the Resistance have never produced the desired results.
“Israel” has repeatedly launched military campaigns against Lebanon since 1978 and occupied most southern Lebanon between 1982 and 2000, maintaining a self-declared “security zone” until resistance operations forced a withdrawal. It is still in occupation of Lebanese territory
Israeli aggression on Lebanon kills 1,024 civilians since March 2
The number of martyrs resulting from the ongoing Israeli aggression on Lebanon since March 2 has risen to 1,024, with at least 2,740 others wounded, Lebanon’s Ministry of Health announced on Saturday.
The figures reflect the intensifying human toll of the continued aggression, which has escalated across multiple regions in South Lebanon and beyond.
Israeli airstrikes and artillery attacks continued to target Lebanon overnight Monday.
Israeli warplanes targeted a residential apartment in the town of Bshamoun in Mount Lebanon, marking a continued expansion of strikes into populated areas.
Earlier reports confirmed an Israeli attack on an apartment in Hazmieh, also in Mount Lebanon, resulting in the death of a civilian, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health.
Multiple airstrikes were also recorded on the Southern Suburb of Beirut, with at least seven raids recorded in the area.
The attacks come amid ongoing escalation targeting densely populated neighborhoods.
Israeli strikes also hit several areas in southern Lebanon, including:
- Zifta
- Al-Burghliya
- A gas station near the Rashidieh camp in Tyre
Strikes were reported in al-Bayyada, the al-Ashrafiyat area on the outskirts of al-Abbasiyah, as well as in Ayta al-Shaab, Arnoun, Qabrikha, and areas between Burj al-Shamali and al-Bazourieh.
Artillery shelling also targeted the outskirts of Kfar Kila, indicating a continued pattern of bombardment across border areas.
Earlier in the day, four martyrs were reported following a dawn strike on a residential building in Majdal Selem.
This morning, Lebanese citizen was martyred and another injured after Israeli occupation forces (IOF) stormed the town of Halta in the Arqoub region of the Hasbaya district in southern Lebanon, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported.
According to our correspondent, Israeli forces raided several homes in the al-Hara al-Fawqa neighborhood, opening fire on civilians before withdrawing from the town after abducting one resident.
Echos of Gallipoli? Hormuz and the Geography of Hubris
In a naval chokepoint, always bet on the shore over the ship
Ashes of Pompeii | March 24, 2026
“History is not a teacher, it teaches nothing. History is a warden, and it punishes for poorly learned historical lessons”
– Vladimir Putin.
The ghosts of 1915 still haunt the narrow waters of the Dardanelles. The Battle of Gallipoli remains one of history’s warnings against racist and strategic hubris. As geopolitical tensions rise and speculation grows about potential U.S. military action in the Strait of Hormuz, the shadow of the this far off battle should be casting a long, dark silhouette over modern war planning. But of course it isn’t. Technology has evolved, the fundamental truths of geography and human resilience have not, and lessons sometimes need to be repeated.
Gallipoli was born of overconfidence. The Allied powers, boasting superior naval technology and industrial might, assumed the Ottoman Empire would crumble under a naval bombardment followed by an amphibious landing. They were wrong. The geography of the Dardanelles turned the Allied advantage into a liability. The narrow strait allowed a numerically inferior force to concentrate fire, mine the waters, and utilize the high ground to devastating effect. The result was a bloody stalemate, massive casualties, and a humiliating withdrawal.
The parallels to the Strait of Hormuz are hard to miss. Like the Dardanelles, Hormuz is a maritime chokepoint, narrow, shallow, and flanked by land that can be fortified. But where the Ottomans relied on artillery and mines, Iran has, over the last 30 years at least, built a layered, modern asymmetric arsenal designed specifically to exploit this geography. Iran’s advantage isn’t in aircraft carriers or stealth fighters; it’s in the sheer density and dispersion of its missile and drone forces.
Iran possesses the largest missile inventory in the Middle East, including thousands of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and precision-guided munitions capable of striking ships at sea. Many of these systems are mobile, hidden in tunnels, or dispersed among civilian infrastructure, making them exceptionally difficult to neutralize in a first strike. Complementing the missiles is Iran’s drone fleet: the Shahed-136 and other loitering munitions that are cheap, hard to detect, and effective in swarms. In a confined space like Hormuz, a swarm of slow, low-flying drones can saturate a warship’s defenses, forcing it to expend precious interceptors or risk being overwhelmed. The Houthis defeated the US Navy in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb with far less.
This is the modern iteration of the Gallipoli lesson: a force perceived to be less advanced, fighting on home terrain, can use asymmetric tools to negate a superior adversary’s edge in firepower. The Ottomans used the high ground and narrow waters to blunt Allied naval power. Iran will use coastal missile batteries, underwater mines, and drone swarms to turn the strait into a contested kill zone. The U.S. Navy is unquestionably more powerful, but power means little if it cannot be brought to bear without unacceptable cost.
Differences, of course, exist. Modern precision weaponry allows for strikes that were impossible in the era of biplanes and battleships. Yet defense has also evolved. In WWI, mines were contact-based; today, they are sophisticated, influence-activated, and difficult to clear. Furthermore, the stakes are different. Gallipoli was a theater of war; Hormuz is the throat of the global economy. A blockade or prolonged engagement there triggers immediate worldwide recession, adding a layer of pressure the Allies never faced in the Aegean.
History offers other grim comparisons. Operation Market Garden in WWII and the battle for Gostomel Airport in Ukraine both illustrate the perils of assuming an enemy will collapse under the shock of a rapid airborne assault. In both cases, planners underestimated the defender’s ability to regroup and strike back. And both failed because the armor couldn’t reach the paratroopers, underscoring the danger of betting on shock over substance. Even if the American paratroopers were to create a beachhead in Hormuz, the operation would fail without naval support and successful landing of the marines, just as in Market Garden, where Arnhem was “A Bridge Too Far”.
Then there is Iwo Jima. While an American victory, it serves as a cautionary tale regarding fortified defenses. The Japanese forces, dug into volcanic rock, inflicted massive casualties on the Marines despite overwhelming U.S. air and naval superiority. The underground tunnels of Iwo Jima find their modern equivalent in Iran’s buried missile silos, drone launch sites, and command centers. You cannot bomb what you cannot find, and it is difficult to occupy terrain that is designed to deny you footing.
The lesson for any modern planner looking at Hormuz is not to doubt American firepower, but to respect the defender’s will, the terrain’s tyranny, and the multiplying effect of asymmetric technology. Gallipoli taught us that a narrow strait favors the shore over the ship. Iran has spent decades learning that lesson and building a force to exploit it. Market Garden and Gostomel taught us that speed and surprise do not guarantee success. Iwo Jima taught us that fortifications, and the determination behind them, multiply defensive power exponentially.
The Dardanelles remains a graveyard of ships and reputations. To ignore the lessons of that campaign while eyeing the Strait of Hormuz, especially while underestimating the disruptive potential of drones, missiles, and mines, is to invite a catastrophe not of capability, but of imagination. The map has not changed, even if the weapons have. And in a naval chokepoint, always bet on the shore over the ship.
Pakistan PM backs Iran’s right to self-defense amid tensions
Al Mayadeen | March 23, 2026
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif affirmed his country’s support for Iran, stressing that Tehran has the legitimate right to defend itself amid the ongoing joint US-Israeli aggression on the West Asian nation.
Sharif expressed “regret over the attack on Iran and the resulting martyrdom and injury of thousands of citizens and officials,” signaling Islamabad’s concern over the humanitarian and political consequences of the confrontation.
His remarks came during a phone call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, reflecting continued high-level coordination between the two neighboring states.
Call for Islamic unity to de-escalate crisis
During the conversation, Sharif emphasized the need for collective action among Muslim-majority countries to reduce tensions and restore regional stability.
He called for coordinated diplomatic efforts, stating that Islamic nations must work together to contain escalation and prevent further deterioration of the situation.
At the same time, he reiterated that Pakistan “stands alongside” Iran, underscoring a political position aligned with Tehran’s framing of the conflict.
Strait of Hormuz cooperation highlighted
Sharif also thanked Iran for its “positive handling” of recent developments, particularly in facilitating the passage of Pakistani vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.
This acknowledgment reflects the strategic importance of maritime routes for Pakistan’s trade and energy security, especially amid heightened tensions in the Gulf.
Ensuring uninterrupted navigation through the strait remains a shared priority for regional states reliant on these critical shipping lanes.
Deep-rooted Iran–Pakistan relations
Iran and Pakistan share a long border and maintain multifaceted relations spanning security, economic, and political domains.
Their geographic proximity has necessitated ongoing coordination, particularly in areas such as border security, counter-smuggling efforts, and addressing armed group activity along shared border.
In addition to security cooperation, the two countries have pursued joint economic initiatives, including energy projects and cross-border trade development.
Hungary blasts ‘fake’ EU accusation
RT | March 23, 2026
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has denied and condemned claims that he leaked the details of EU meetings to Moscow.
The allegations were reported by the Washington Post and Politico some three weeks prior to the Hungarian parliamentary election scheduled for April 12.
On Friday, the WaPo cited security officials claiming that Szijjarto had made regular phone calls during breaks at EU meetings to provide Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with “live reports on what had been discussed.”
On Sunday, Politico echoed the allegations, citing unnamed diplomats and officials who said Brussels had begun limiting the flow of confidential material to Hungary, forcing leaders to meet in smaller groups amid concerns that Budapest might leak sensitive information to the Kremlin.
“Instead of spreading lies and fake news, come to Budapest to support the opposition! Last time it worked… for us,” Szijjarto said Sunday in a post on X, responding to a comment by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who argued that the new allegations “shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.”
The Hungarian foreign minister earlier stated that Tusk was “the star speaker at the opposition rally” four years ago, stressing that back then Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party had won the election by 20%.
Szijjarto also criticized his Polish counterpart, Radoslaw Sikorski, over a similar remark, accusing Warsaw of “spreading lies to support the [opposition] Tisza Party and install a pro-war puppet government in Hungary.”
Orban has been at odds with Brussels over his criticism of open-border migration and what he calls a “suicidal” plan to admit Ukraine to the bloc.
Hungary’s prime minister and Vladimir Zelensky are involved in a standoff over the Ukrainian leader’s claim that he is unable to send Russian oil to Hungary. In return, Orban has refused to green light a €90 billion debt facility Brussels wants for Ukraine.
SAFE Debt Trap: Poland’s €43.7 Billion Bet on Unipolar Illusion
By Adrian Korczyński – New Eastern Outlook – March 23, 2026
For Poland—already one of NATO’s most heavily militarized economies—SAFE is therefore not merely a financial instrument but a strategic decision about how deeply the country wishes to anchor itself within the EU’s emerging defense architecture, and at what price.
Introduction: A “Turning Point” Built on Debt
In early 2026, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk described Poland’s €43.7 billion request under the European Union’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) programme as “a turning point for the security of Poland and Europe.” The statement was vintage Tusk—confident, sweeping, and designed for a headline. Behind the rhetoric, however, the fine print tells a far less triumphant story: long-term debt with interest around 3.17%, repayment schedules stretching toward the 2070s, and procurement rules that effectively redirect part of borrowed funds into specific defense supply chains—including those involving Ukrainian producers.
SAFE, officially presented as a major European defense investment programme, allows the European Commission to raise up to €150 billion on financial markets and lend the funds to member states for military spending. The loans come with relatively favorable terms: maturities of up to 45 years and a ten-year grace period before repayment of principal begins. On paper, the arrangement appears manageable. In practice, it represents a profound long-term commitment. Today’s political leaders can borrow vast sums for weapons systems, drones, and fortifications, while the financial burden will be carried by taxpayers decades into the future.
For Poland—already one of NATO’s most heavily militarized economies—SAFE is therefore not merely a financial instrument but a strategic decision about how deeply the country wishes to anchor itself within the EU’s emerging defense architecture, and at what price.
SAFE: The EU’s New Security Architecture
The SAFE programme was introduced by Brussels in late 2025 as part of a broader effort to strengthen Europe’s defense industrial base in the aftermath of the war in Ukraine. The mechanism is relatively straightforward. The European Commission raises funds on capital markets and redistributes them to participating states as long-term loans earmarked strictly for defense spending. Eligible projects include weapons procurement, ammunition production, and industrial modernization within the defense sector.
Yet SAFE also contains structural conditions that significantly shape how the money can be spent. One of the most consequential provisions is the so-called 65 percent rule: at least 65 percent of components used in projects financed under SAFE must originate from the European Union, the European Economic Area, or Ukraine. In practice, this requirement reinforces specific supply chains and pushes European defense industries toward deeper integration with Ukrainian production networks.
European Commission documents openly describe this as a strategic goal. SAFE, according to the Commission, will help “deepen Ukraine’s integration into the European security ecosystem” and allow member states to purchase defense products from Ukrainian manufacturers within joint procurement frameworks. This reflects the broader process of integrating Ukraine’s wartime defense industry into Europe’s defense economy since 2022.
Poland’s €43.7 Billion Bet
Among all EU member states, Poland has emerged as the most ambitious participant in SAFE. Warsaw submitted a request worth approximately €43.7 billion, by far the largest share of the programme’s €150 billion envelope. If fully implemented, the funds would finance dozens of projects, including air-defense systems, artillery production, drones, and modernization of military infrastructure. The first tranche—roughly €6.5 billion, representing about 15 percent of the total—could arrive as early as spring 2026 once all domestic legal procedures are completed.
Prime Minister Tusk has framed the programme primarily as a financial opportunity. According to the government, SAFE offers “long-term capital without pressure on the budget today,” with borrowing costs significantly below commercial rates. Yet even under favorable terms, the sheer scale of the loan carries long-term consequences. Over several decades, total repayments could exceed €60 billion, effectively committing future governments to financial obligations extending well into the second half of the century. The issue is therefore less about immediate affordability than about the cumulative strategic and fiscal trajectory that such borrowing sets in motion.
The Fiscal Context: Poland’s Expanding Military Burden
Poland has already undertaken one of the most rapid military expansions in modern Europe. By 2026, defense spending is projected to reach approximately 4.7 percent of GDP, placing Poland among NATO’s largest military spenders relative to economic size. Major procurement contracts have been signed with the United States and South Korea, including tanks, fighter aircraft, missile systems, and advanced artillery.
At the same time, Poland has been one of Ukraine’s most significant supporters since the beginning of the war in 2022. When military aid, refugee support, and financial assistance are combined, the cumulative cost is estimated at roughly 4.9 percent of Poland’s GDP over several years. Taken together, these commitments mean that nearly one tenth of national economic output has been linked—directly or indirectly—to defense and war-related expenditures.
Against this backdrop, the addition of another €43.7 billion in long-term borrowing inevitably raises questions about fiscal priorities and sustainability. Unlike Hungary, which maintains diplomatic channels open with all parties while negotiating exemptions from EU financial guarantees, Warsaw’s rigid moralism increasingly translates into a balance sheet item: billions in interest payments for weapons that may become obsolete before the loans mature. The demographic pressures, rising housing costs, and uncertain European economic outlook only deepen the gamble.
Ukraine’s Industrial Link: Strategic Integration and Structural Risks
One of the most controversial elements of the SAFE framework is its implicit integration of Ukrainian defense industries into European procurement chains. Because the programme allows member states to purchase equipment produced in Ukraine as part of joint projects, some portion of the funds borrowed by EU governments may ultimately flow to Ukrainian manufacturers. In strategic terms, Brussels presents this as a logical extension of Europe’s security policy: strengthening Ukraine while simultaneously expanding Europe’s industrial base.
However, the policy also intersects with a persistent and widely documented problem—systemic corruption within Ukraine’s wartime economy. A notable example emerged in November 2025, when Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) uncovered a major bribery scheme within the state-owned nuclear company Energoatom. Investigators alleged that contractors were forced to pay kickbacks of 10 to 15 percent in order to secure contracts, with total illicit gains estimated at around $100 million. Although the scandal did not directly involve the SAFE programme, it reinforced concerns among European observers about the governance environment surrounding large public contracts in wartime Ukraine.
For countries borrowing tens of billions under SAFE, this raises an unavoidable question: can European auditors trace billions in loans through a wartime economy where, as recent NABU cases show, contract values can include a 15 percent “risk premium” for local intermediaries?
The Domestic Political Clash: Tusk vs. Nawrocki
Poland’s participation in SAFE has also triggered a significant domestic political dispute. Although parliament has approved legislation necessary to implement the programme, the final step requires the signature of President Karol Nawrocki. Without it, Warsaw cannot fully activate the financial mechanism needed to access the loans.
Nawrocki has expressed skepticism about the programme, arguing that the structure of SAFE risks limiting Poland’s economic sovereignty and binding national defense policy too tightly to decisions taken in Brussels. In response, he has proposed an alternative financing mechanism known informally as “SAFE 0%.” The proposal, developed with the National Bank of Poland, would mobilize roughly 185 billion zloty (about €43 billion) from the country’s foreign currency reserves and gold holdings. As Nawrocki explained: “We have a concrete, Polish, safe and sovereign alternative that will not involve any financial interest costs—this is SAFE 0%.”
Yet while the proposal removes interest payments, it does not eliminate the underlying scale of the commitment. Drawing heavily on central-bank reserves could weaken Poland’s financial buffers and limit future monetary flexibility. The dispute therefore reflects not a disagreement over the scale of defense spending, but over the method—whether the burden should take the form of long-term EU loans or internal financial restructuring, and whether either path truly accounts for the opportunity cost of locking Poland into a single geopolitical silo.
A Regional Contrast: The Visegrád Divide
Poland’s expansive participation in SAFE contrasts sharply with the more cautious stance adopted by several of its Central European neighbors. Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have either minimized their involvement in the programme or avoided it entirely. At a European summit in late 2025, these countries also negotiated exemptions from certain financial guarantees tied to EU support packages for Ukraine.
Their governments argue that national budgets must retain greater flexibility and that European security policy should not become overly dependent on large-scale borrowing mechanisms. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó summarized this skepticism in early 2026, remarking that the European Union appeared “not prepared for peace.” Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, the divergence underscores an increasingly visible strategic divide within Central Europe. While Warsaw doubles down on loyalty to Brussels and Washington, its neighbors quietly preserve room to maneuver.
Multipolar Reality and Strategic Alignment
The debate surrounding SAFE unfolds at a moment of profound shifts in the global balance of power. Emerging economies grouped within BRICS+ now account for a rapidly expanding share of global economic output in purchasing power parity terms. Trade corridors across Eurasia continue to expand, while new financial mechanisms challenge the dominance of traditional Western institutions.
In response, many mid-sized states increasingly pursue strategies of strategic hedging—maintaining economic and diplomatic relations across multiple geopolitical blocs rather than aligning exclusively with any single center of power. Poland has chosen a different path: a deep and explicit anchoring within the Euro-Atlantic security framework. For Warsaw, geography and historical experience remain powerful arguments for such alignment. Yet the financial scale of initiatives like SAFE inevitably raises questions about how much strategic flexibility the country is willing to sacrifice in exchange for security guarantees, and whether future generations will thank today’s leaders for betting so heavily on a single vision of the world.
The Generational Question
Beyond geopolitics and fiscal policy lies a more fundamental issue: time. SAFE loans can extend for up to forty-five years, meaning that the financial consequences of today’s decisions may last until the 2070s. The immediate beneficiaries of the programme will be defense industries and military planners in the 2020s and 2030s. The final repayments, however, may fall on taxpayers decades later—many of whom were not yet born when the decisions were made.
For this reason, some economists increasingly frame the programme as an intergenerational transfer, in which present security priorities are financed by future public budgets. Whether that trade-off ultimately proves justified will depend less on today’s political narratives than on whether Europe’s security environment in the 2070s will remember, or care about, the promises made in 2026. For Poland, the gamble is not merely financial. It is a test of whether strategic rigidity can ever truly pay off in a world that increasingly rewards those who adapt, hedge, and keep their options open.
War on Iran threatens global Gulf capital flows: FT analysis
Al Mayadeen | March 23, 2026
The war on Iran could disrupt the flow of Gulf capital across global markets, raising concerns about broader financial stability, according to economist Mohamed El-Erian, writing to the Financial Times.
While much attention has focused on energy markets and the resumption of oil production and shipments, El-Erian argued that an equally important issue is how the war may affect the Gulf’s relationship with international capital markets in the short term.
The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, have become major global financial players over decades, investing heavily across international markets.
El-Erian noted that there is a risk of a temporary shift in capital flows as Gulf countries face increased domestic financial demands amid the war, even if their long-term investment role remains intact. Such a shift could impact global interest rates and the distribution of funding, given the world’s growing reliance on GCC capital.
Before the US-Israel war on Iran, GCC countries had already established themselves as influential forces in global finance, not only as energy suppliers but also as major hubs for transport, tourism, and liquidity.
The region generated a current account surplus exceeding $800 billion over the past four years and has deployed its financial resources across global markets, including public and private investments.
GCC’s growing role in global finance
El-Erian highlighted the growing presence of global financial institutions in the Gulf, where sovereign wealth funds, offices, pension funds, and banks actively manage and allocate capital internationally.
Over time, GCC countries have expanded their investment strategies, now playing a leading role in sectors such as artificial intelligence, life sciences, and robotics.
However, the war on Iran has caused a near “sudden stop” in the energy sector, creating short-term revenue pressures. Governments are expected to increase spending to shield populations from the impact of the war, even as some expenditures decline.
El-Erian emphasized that GCC countries are not uniform, noting that outcomes will depend on financial reserves, revenue recovery speed, and the balance between domestic spending and international investments.
He also warned that any disruption in global capital flows comes at a difficult time, with advanced economies facing large deficits and rising debt issuance, alongside major financing needs driven by technological shifts such as artificial intelligence.
The result is sustained high borrowing costs, which could affect countries, companies, and households, while amplifying financial risks and exposing new vulnerabilities.
Despite the challenges, El-Erian said the GCC will recover its energy exports and maintain its role as a global financial and logistical hub, but stressed that temporary shifts in capital flows must be considered in assessing the broader economic impact of the Iran war.
Mossad De Facto Admits To Inciting Riots In Iran
The Dissident | March 22, 2026
A New York Times article has reported that the Israeli/American failing regime change plot in Iran was contingent on a plan from the Israeli Mossad to incite riot in the country to effect regime change.
The article wrote, “Within days of the war’s beginning, said David Barnea, the Mossad chief, his service would likely be able to galvanize the Iranian opposition — igniting riots and other acts of rebellion that could even lead to the collapse of Iran’s government. Mr. Barnea also presented the proposal to senior Trump administration officials during a visit to Washington in mid-January.”
The article added:
Mr. Netanyahu adopted the plan. Despite doubts about its viability among senior American officials and some officials in other Israeli intelligence agencies, both he and President Trump seemed to embrace an optimistic outlook. Killing Iran’s leaders at the outset of the conflict, followed by a series of intelligence operations intended to encourage regime change, they thought, could lead to a mass uprising that might bring about a swift end to the war.
“Take over your government: It will be yours to take,” Mr. Trump told Iranians in his initial address at the war’s start, after saying they should first seek shelter from the bombing.
In the run-up to the war, current and former American and Israeli officials said, Mr. Netanyahu invoked Mossad’s optimism about a possibility of an Iranian uprising to help convince Mr. Trump that bringing about the collapse of the Iranian government was a realistic goal.
This is a de facto admission that Mossad was behind the violent riots that took place in Iran in January of this year, and used those riots to convict Trump that regime change in Iran was viable.
When the protests began in late December of last year, a Mossad connected account wrote in Persian , “Let us come out to the streets together. The time has come.
We are with you. Not just from afar and in words. We are with you in the field as well.”
Following this, former Secretary of State and CIA director Mike Pompeo wrote , “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also, to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”
When the protests turned from peaceful to violent riots, Israel Channel 14 reported that , “foreign actors are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed” an obvious reference to the Israeli Mossad.
The admission from the Israeli Mossad that their push for regime change in Iran was based on the idea that the Mossad could ignite, “riots and other acts of rebellion that could even lead to the collapse of Iran’s government” is further evidence that Israeli Mossad infiltration caused the Iranian riots in January, which Israel then used to sell a regime change war in Iran to the Trump administration.
But the plan backfired once the Israeli/American war on Iran began.
Since its inception, the war was clearly an attempt to turn Iran into a failed state and not just remove the current government.
As Vali R. Nasr, professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies put it, “under constant bombardment Iranians are growing increasingly worried about the devastation of their country. They worry that U.S. and Israeli support for Kurdish and maybe even Azeri and Baloch separatists will break up the nation. These concerns are constantly circulating in public forums and are seen nightly in the form of antiwar demonstrations across the country and are morphing into an emerging sense of national resistance” adding, “If Iranians come to see this war as waged against Iran — and not just the Islamic republic — then Iranian nationalism may be mobilized in the service of resistance. America and Israel’s strategy of regime change by bombing military and government industries and infrastructure in Iranian cities, towns and neighborhoods and threatening Iran’s territorial integrity by arming Kurdish militias will not drive a wedge between the population and the regime and produce a popular revolution.”
In reality, the U.S./Israeli attempts to destroy Iran have only caused many Iranians to rally around the flag.
Nonetheless, this critical admission shows that the Israeli Mossad helped incite the riots in January and hoped it could be used to enforce regime change once the American/Israeli bombing began.
Tehran: World grown thoroughly exhausted with US-Israeli ‘false flag storylines’
Press TV – March 23, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman says the world has grown thoroughly exhausted with the US-Israeli “false flag storylines.”
In a post on his X account on Monday, Esmaeil Baghaei reacted to the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s stance, which rejected the recent claims by Israeli regime officials regarding Iran’s missile program posing a threat to Europe.
“That even the NATO Secretary General (who is infamously pressing Alliance members to appease the US and support their illegal war on Iran) declines to endorse Israel’s most recent disinformation, speaks volumes: the world has grown thoroughly exhausted with these tired and discredited “false flag” storylines,” he noted.
Israeli officials, over the past two days, claimed the interception of an Iranian missile targeting a British military base in Diego Garcia.
They presented Iran’s missile program as a threat to continental Europe.
The event reportedly happened between Thursday night and Friday morning, according to US media.
The Wall Street Journal and CNN reported that one of the missiles failed mid-flight while the other was hit by a US interceptor fired from a warship.
This comes amid heightened US and Israeli aggression against Iran, where the United States and the Israeli regime launched an unprovoked war of aggression on Iran on February 28, assassinating the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, as well as several top military commanders.
Iran immediately began to retaliate against the aggression by launching barrages of missiles and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories as well as on US bases in regional countries.
Iran has repeatedly warned against US-Israeli “false flag” operations.
Trump ‘stuck between a rock and a hard place’, lacks Iran war strategy: Ex-CIA chief
Press TV – March 23, 2026
A withering critique from longtime Washington insider and former top spy Leon Panetta has intensified scrutiny of US President Donald Trump’s handling of the war against Iran.
In an interview with the Guardian newspaper on Sunday, Panetta, who previously also served as the US defense secretary (now war secretary), warned that the United States finds itself ensnared in a rapidly deteriorating crisis with few viable paths forward.
He portrayed an administration led by Trump that has slipped into a precarious position after weeks of unprovoked and unjustified aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which began with the assassination of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, on February 28.
He said Trump is “stuck between a rock and a hard place” and warned that his administration’s approach projects an image of weakness on the international stage.
Panetta, a veteran of Democratic administrations spanning decades, did not hold back in his critique of the incumbent US president’s decision-making style.
He said Trump has displayed a tendency toward naivety regarding the unpredictable nature of wars, saying the president appears to operate under the belief that simply repeating assertions might make them come true.
Such conduct, Panetta noted, was more “befitting of children than of presidents.”
His remarks came as the Iranian retaliatory operations continue to inflict heavy blows on the US military infrastructure in the region, decimating radars, drones and fighter jets.
The strategic waterway of the Strait of Hormuz also remains closed to US vessels, which has led to a dramatic rise in energy prices across the world.
Drawing on a career that has included stints as CIA director, secretary of defense, and White House chief of staff, Panetta underscored that Iran’s ability to disrupt global energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz has been a long-established concern within American national security circles for generations.
That long-feared contingency, he warned, is now unfolding in real time.
The former defense chief argued that the ongoing war has laid bare significant shortcomings in US strategic planning, blasting Trump for launching an unwinnable war.
According to Panetta, the most plausible exit strategy for Trump would be to claim victory and seek to disengage from the war, but that avenue appears effectively closed.
He asserted that a ceasefire remained unattainable as long as Iran maintains its stranglehold over the Strait of Hormuz, describing the waterway as a potent lever of influence that Tehran now holds against its American adversary.
Efforts to rally European allies and NATO partners to help secure the strategic waterway have been met with tepid responses. Frustration over the lack of allied support has increasingly spilled into public view, with the US president launching biting criticism at the transatlantic military alliance and questioning its value in the absence of American leadership.
On the ground, Washington has thus far refrained from committing ground troops, though the deployment of Marines to the region has stoked speculation about potential escalation with far-reaching consequences for the aggressors.
Trump’s bombardment of fake news so far is working quite well. But where is it heading?
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 23, 2026
Trump’s latest move in Iran, to consider mobilizing a second larger tranche of troops, might be the act of a lunatic who genuinely believes there can be a positive outcome for America and Israel in the Iran War. What we may be witnessing is a new, more desperate, extreme strategy after he has come to terms that virtually all of the first strategy has ended in disastrous consequences. Certainly we can assess that he is considering such a move.
Yet despite all the hype from U.S. media, it is important to stress that Trump has not yet acted. He is looking at the possibility of a deployment of 8,000 troops with the view of taking Kharg Island in combination with an 800-mile stretch of the Iranian coastline, heavily fortified with troops and missiles aimed at both the choke point of the Straits of Hormuz and also beyond it.
Any military strategist will surmise that this idea is even more whacky than the initial plan, which, it has transpired, was carried out with no planning or assessment whatsoever.
The assumptions are simply preposterous. To take Kharg Island, it would mean that any amphibious landing would have to come from a U.S. battleship which would pass through the Straits of Hormuz. And secondly, the island itself is heavily fortified as you would expect it to be, given that it produces [transfers] most of Iran’s oil. Even if a ship could by some act of a miracle reach it, the resistance by the Iranians who would be ready and waiting would be intense and might well result in all of the U.S. marines sent there being wiped out. The present 2,200 marines who are on their way to the region from Asia are not airborne, which means they can only land by boat. This idea is madness on a level that we have never seen before, with some military experts comparing it to Gallipoli in 1915, where British, French, Russian and Australian navies lost 250,000 men as they failed over almost a year to take the peninsula — resulting in the rise to prominence of the Turkish commander at the time, Mustafa Atatürk, who finally became president of the new republic of Turkey later in 1923.
What is more likely is that Trump is panicking and constantly creating media fodder for journalists to report on, while he buys time to work out how to get out of the hellhole that he has created for himself. Practically begging allies via social media or press conferences to help gives a clue to the level of desperation. But Trump’s ability to create fake news to distract U.S. media away from the reality is impressive.
When U.S. bombers left UK bases and dropped their load over a few days on the island, this threw the spotlight on the island and created a new subject to focus on. But what U.S. journalists did not look too closely at was the impact of the bombing. All the bombers did was to put a crater exactly halfway up the runway of the main airstrip, depriving planes from landing or taking off. It was hardly a great military victory. In fact, it actually deprives the Americans themselves of landing huge air transport military aircraft there, suggesting that they have no real intention of ever taking the island.
The truth is that the snake island is just media chaff which has been thrown up in the air to cause a distraction. If we examine a number of stories in the press in recent days, in fact, there have been a number of such stories to distract journalists away from asking tougher questions to Trump.
Fake story number two: allies “supporting” Trump. Barely 48 hours after France, UK, Germany and others all sent a very quick “no” back to Trump after he asked them for help in securing the straits, it would seem they all did a U-turn. A statement which the UK government issued seemed to say that they were all ready to help Trump, which shocked many. So why wasn’t this story put on the front pages of all major UK and U.S. newspapers as an extraordinary event in itself, as a drastic change to the crisis? Because journalists were sceptical and read the small print. They also read Reuters’ sceptical interpretation of it and noticed that those world leaders didn’t take to social media and announce the new initiative to “support” Trump. This word “support” was buried in the text, but the interpretation was only in the sense that these countries — including Japan — were sympathetic to Trump, similarly to your neighbour coming to the wake of one of your loved ones, eating your sandwiches and taking your drink, but then leaving while muttering condolences — without making any contribution to the funeral expenses.
But there’s more fake news.
Fake news #3 was the Japan stunt. Almost immediately we saw the arrival of the Japanese Premier at the White House who, when getting out of her car, embraced Trump for the whole world to see. What a spectacle! But what was this hug all about? Yes, of course the Japanese needed to quickly sign an energy deal to stabilize their own economy, but the compliments that the Japanese PM paid on Trump during the press conference would have some believe that Trump’s own people wrote the script. Praising Trump as a world leader on a level that none other can match left the buffoon in the White House stumbling on his own words, with him finally blabbing out a poor taste joke about Pearl Harbour. What was behind this banal performance? Was it real?
Of course it was not. EU leaders, probably led by Sir Keir Starmer’s media experts, had no doubt staged the whole thing and prepared her speech and her behaviour, as they too are panicking, knowing only too well that Trump isolated could possibly drag America into a Vietnam-type war which could go on for years. Their reckoning was: ’We can’t support him, but let’s at least issue a statement and get the Japanese PM to give him a hug.’ All Trump needs is a hug and a few absurd compliments which would leave most Americans pushing fingers down their own throats.
But of course such vomit-inducing sycophancy can’t keep relations warm for very long.
With both American aircraft carriers far from the Straits of Hormuz now (one damaged by an Iranian missile) and no real options for Trump to turn to, to settle world oil prices and come down hard on the Iranians, he’s looking like the greatest loser America has ever had as a president. It is not inconceivable that he will send ground forces to the region if the situation gets worse. This decision is more or less taken for him as his own rationale must constantly come up with media fodder which keeps him in the news as the main story. Sending troops to the region though is not the same as sending them in, although the bombing which is now going on along Iran’s coastline would suggest that he believes U.S. marines could control and contain those Iranian military installations, which is worrying as a second colossal failure of joined-up thinking seems to be heading our way.
But what is even more worrying is the extent of how much Trump lies both to journalists in press conferences and to the American people about his victory in Iran. In a country which sometimes feels like an irony-free zone, you would think he would be more ridiculed for this, but this is not the case. The real worry here is how naïve and frankly stupid Americans are, as one option that Trump has, other than using nuclear weapons in Iran, is creating a false flag attack on U.S. home soil. Not only would that allow him to announce a ’state of war’ which would justify cancelling the midterms, but it would also force EU countries and Japan to ramp up their ’free hugs’ policy to a whole new level. Free hugs are not free, by the way.
Featured Video
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Zeolite Book — First Edition, 2026, Paperback
The volcanic mineral medicine will not patent — for the toxic burden medicine will not name
Lies are Unbekoming – October 30, 2026
Zeolite is old. It is in Roman concrete that has held for two thousand years. It’s in the water filters of ancient cisterns. It’s in the stomachs of Pacific livestock whose keepers knew, somehow, that this grey crumbling rock made the animals healthier. It’s in Soviet clinical protocols from the 1960s. It’s in the standard emergency response to the Chernobyl explosion.
In 1986, after the Chernobyl reactor failure, the Soviet Union manufactured and distributed natural zeolite at industrial scale — for soil remediation, for livestock feed, for human consumption, for the cleanup itself. Karl Hecht, who had been director of the Institute for Experimental and Clinical Pathophysiology at the Charité of Humboldt University Berlin, spent the six decades after that building the clinical research base — on silicon’s role in human health, on zeolite’s clinical safety, on its applications in ageing. In 2018, Pavelić and colleagues published a comprehensive clinical safety review of natural clinoptilolite in Frontiers in Pharmacology. In 2019, Mastinu analysed its binding affinities. In the Western medical literature, these works sit largely uncited.
What has not been treated at book length, until now, is how a volcanic mineral with six decades of Soviet clinical work behind it, two major peer-reviewed Western reviews, and ongoing clinical use across the former Eastern Bloc, remains almost entirely absent from Western medical practice — and what the toxic burden it’s meant to address actually is.
The Zeolite Book gathers the Soviet clinical record, the Western peer-reviewed studies, three contemporary practitioner voices, and three serious counterviews into one honest treatment. That’s why the book runs to seven appendices. 288 pages, four parts, three practitioner voices, three counterviews, seven appendices. The honest treatment is the argument.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- London tourism expo promotes Israeli agency linked to theft of Palestinian land
- Dockworkers launch global strike against Israeli and US military shipments
- Europe facing gas price shock – Gazprom chief
- Ukraine continues recruiting people with disabilities
- Weaponized Journalism: 2021 Sayer Ji Interview with NPR
- Beyond Netanyahu: what Israel’s election means for Palestinians
- Lithuania plans universal conscription
- Lies, Damn Lies, and Ukraine News
- Financial Times rejects Nordic demands to correct Putin call story – media
- The Case for Less Unity in Europe
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
