Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Hezbollah Returns: It Didn’t Start a War, It Is Ending One

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | March 12, 2026

Hezbollah’s intervention in the war with Israel followed months of Israeli ceasefire violations in Lebanon, challenging Western media narratives about responsibility.

Key Takeaways

  • UNIFIL recorded more than 15,400 Israeli ceasefire violations in Lebanon between November 2024 and February 2026.
  • Hundreds were killed inside Lebanon during the ceasefire period, including around 150 civilians, while Israeli strikes repeatedly hit Beirut.
  • Hezbollah largely maintained the ceasefire for 15 months, cooperating with the Lebanese Armed Forces despite continued Israeli attacks.
  • Western media narratives claiming Hezbollah “dragged Lebanon into war” overlook the ongoing Israeli military actions and territorial violations.
  • Hezbollah’s battlefield performance suggests the group retained significant military capacity, contradicting claims that it had been decisively weakened.

Media Narrative vs. Reality

When Lebanese Hezbollah chose to fire on Israel, effectively transforming the US-Israeli assault on Iran into a regional war, it did so in retaliation for aggression against Lebanon. Contrary to what Western corporate media has reported, the group is not responsible for initiating the war, and its role in it is crucial to the region’s future.

At the beginning of this month, the BBC ran a story entitled “Battered and isolated, Hezbollah drags Lebanon into another war”. Written by the British State-funded media’s correspondent in Tel Aviv, the piece not only presents a biased and false depiction of events, cheap propaganda that you would expect from the Sun or other tabloids, but fails to even mention Israel in its title.

CNN and others throughout the Western corporate media landscape also published pieces with similarly worded headlines. Therefore, the first point of entry into this topic is to establish the facts, which reveal just how atrocious the BBC and others have been in their framing of the Lebanon-Israel war.

On February 25, 2026, UNIFIL, the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, had recorded over 15,400 Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement that technically went into effect at the end of November 2024. This included the killing of hundreds of people inside Lebanon, mostly Lebanese, but also Syrians and Palestinians, including around 150 civilians in total.

Thousands of civilians, over the 15-month ceasefire period, were forced to flee their homes due to bombings, while Israel attacked the capital, Beirut, a number of times. Additionally, Israel was caught spraying cancer-causing chemical substances across southern Lebanon, also illegally occupying seven points there and refusing to leave the nation’s territory.

That entire time, Hezbollah held its fire and cooperated with the Lebanese Armed Forces, even when Lebanon’s pro-US Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam, pursued a campaign against the group. He aggressively pursued Israeli-US demands, forcing the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah, while announcing his intentions to eventually normalize ties with Tel Aviv, a blatant stab in the back to his own people, who were experiencing daily bombing raids by Israel.

Israel committed more ceasefire violations of the Lebanon truce than any military has ever committed against any ceasefire in human history.

In other words, the idea that Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into a war is categorically false. Israel never implemented its side of the deal, and for the residents of southern Lebanon, the war was ongoing throughout those 15 months. The only reason we continued to call it a ceasefire is that Hezbollah chose to uphold it.

The Myth of Hezbollah’s Weakness

Following the cessation of hostilities — at least from the Lebanese side — in November of 2024, US and Israeli officials publicly bragged that they had defeated Hezbollah. In February of 2024, then US envoy to Lebanon, Morgan Ortagus, asserted publicly that Hezbollah had been “defeated” and that its “reign of terror” was over.

This theory of Hezbollah’s apparent weakness was widely accepted among Western leaderships. Evidently, the Lebanese leadership under Nawaf Salam had also gotten this impression. They believed Israel’s unsubstantiated statistics about how it had taken out the majority of the group’s weapons, believing that the terrorist pager attacks and assassinations of key leaders had, in effect, destroyed the organization. At the very least, Hezbollah was believed to have been badly degraded and hanging on by a thread.

Here for the Palestine Chronicle, I have been writing over the past 15 months against this notion, arguing that the merits of this argument do not hold up to scrutiny. The reasons for this are rather simple: the group has a ground force of around 100,000 fighters — larger than the Lebanese Army — as it also demonstrated all the way up until the last days of the 2024 war that it still possessed strategic weapons.

Hezbollah was so confident in its stockpile of drones, for example, that there were accounts of them using dozens of them in singular operations against invading Israeli soldiers toward the end of November 2024. In addition to this, at the end of the conflict, is when the group began to reveal its most deadly capabilities, which clearly still existed after the ceasefire was declared.

The fall of former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was initially interpreted as being a major impediment to the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah, yet this eventually turned out to be only partially true. There were even some sources that argued that larger quantities of weapons were being transferred than in the last years of Assad’s reign in power. Other sources alleged that weapons belonging to the former Syrian Arab Army (SAA) may have fallen into Hezbollah’s hands during the collapse of the state.

A key reason why the weapons continued to flow into Lebanon was that the new Syrian state had no real security apparatus. It is, in essence, a collection of armed groups that operate in an environment inside the country where gangsters, local militias, and groups all maintain their own arms.

As has been on display since Ahmed al-Shara’a came to power, he is unable to control many of the militias inside the country, despite his best efforts alongside his US allies to do so. The conflict in Sweida and the coastal massacres were great examples of this.

Therefore, when Hezbollah chose to retaliate against Israel after 15 months of non-stop fire against Lebanon, they did so not from a position of weakness, but with the understanding that it was waging a war effort with the most favorable circumstances for achieving victory.

A War Israel Provoked

Although there are many within the Lebanese Army that seek to resist and protect Lebanon, including its current commander — after all, it is the nation’s official armed forces — it is held back by the government and under constant pressure from the United States. The US does not allow it to possess strategic weapons and won’t allow Hezbollah to integrate into it.

This means that Hezbollah is the only force capable of defending the country against Israeli aggression. That being said, if the pro-US regime in Syria — which has already reached a security understanding with the Israelis — attempts to attack Lebanon, the Lebanese Armed Forces will likely prove capable of defending their borders.

Although the Lebanese Army is not capable of fighting Israel, the Syrian militia forces that constitute its army are clearly less well prepared. Hezbollah will also likely assist the Lebanese Army in such a defense, as it did against Daesh and Al-Qaeda militants during the Syrian War.

Hezbollah, since entering the conflict against the Israeli occupiers, has managed to inflict countless deadly ambushes, thwarted two landing attempts in the Bekaa Valley, and taken out dozens of Israeli military vehicles with guided anti-tank weapons along the border area. In addition to this, it has fired precision missiles at strategic locations south of Tel Aviv and around Haifa, accurately striking their targets with pinpoint precision.

The strength of Hezbollah this time around has shocked Israeli analysts, who are scrambling to explain the sudden revival of the group that they believed to have been weakened south of the Litani River (southern Lebanon).

It is likely that Hezbollah are seeking to drag the Israeli army as deep into Lebanese territory as possible, making them commit to a costly invasion, one in which they can then engage in all-out ground warfare. While Israel has air superiority and more advanced weapons, Hezbollah is a much more formidable ground force than the Israeli army.

In order to force the Israelis into committing to such a large-scale invasion, where their troops will be led into countless ambushes — especially if they try to invade the Bekaa Valley through Syria — we may even see some cross-border operations in the future.

All of this could have been avoided by the Israelis and their arrogant backers in the White House, yet they chose to illegally occupy Lebanese lands and to violate the ceasefire at least 15,400 times. Just as is the case in Gaza, where Israel has committed around 2,000 ceasefire violations so far, it is they who are at fault.

Despite the fact that Hezbollah’s true strength is on full display and that Israel clearly started this conflict, the corporate media will continue to lie about the situation in Lebanon. This should come as no surprise, considering their atrocious and racist reporting throughout the Gaza genocide.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Hezbollah Returns: It Didn’t Start a War, It Is Ending One

EU states seek ‘talks’ with Iran for access to Strait of Hormuz: Report

The Cradle | March 13, 2026

European countries have been reaching out to Iran for negotiations to allow their vessels to pass safely through the Strait of Hormuz, informed sources told the Financial Times (FT).

Two officials cited by FT said that France was among the EU countries participating in these talks. Another indicated that Italy had also made attempts to open dialogue with Iran on the matter.

The sources stressed that there is no guarantee of progress in the talks or of Iran’s willingness to negotiate on the issue.

There have also been disagreements among EU states, as some have expressed discomfort with direct talks with the Islamic Republic, according to the report.

China, India, and Greece have also reportedly reached out to Tehran. Iran’s Ambassador to India, Mohammad Fathali, indicated on Friday that Indian ships can expect safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

The FT report comes as the global price of oil has surpassed $100 per barrel, after dropping from $120 to $90 following US President Donald Trump’s claim that the war on Iran could end soon.

It also comes as Tehran has been targeting oil tankers that have tried to cross the Strait of Hormuz in violation of Iranian warnings.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this week that an “international coalition” could soon be escorting vessels through the strait.

“My belief, that as soon as ​it is militarily possible, the US Navy, perhaps ⁠with an international coalition, will be escorting ​vessels through,” he stated, adding that Washington still needs to gain “complete control of the skies.” Iran’s missile rebuilding capabilities also must be “completely degraded.”

Yet Trump says Washington will only escort vessels “when needed.”

Several tankers were recently hit, including a US-owned vessel in the northern Persian Gulf this week.

Tehran announced on Thursday that some countries would be allowed to transit the Strait.

“Some countries have already talked to us about passing the strait and we have cooperated with them. As far as Iran is concerned, we feel that those countries that joined the aggression should not benefit from safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi said on Thursday.

After Yemen began its pro-Palestine blockade in the Red Sea following the start of the Gaza genocide in 2023, Washington launched a naval operation under the name Prosperity Guardian – aimed at deterring Sanaa’s forces and facilitating the transit of vessels.

The US failed to secure enough partners, and the mission ultimately failed.

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on EU states seek ‘talks’ with Iran for access to Strait of Hormuz: Report

A War that Backfired: Why the US-Israeli Campaign Is Strengthening Iran

By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | March 14, 2026

Contrary to the rhetoric of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not on the verge of collapse. In fact, it appears as if this war against them could end up strengthening and cementing the government’s position, not only regionally, but among its own people.

As the regional war rages on across West Asia, it becomes more and more clear that Iran is capable of dictating the pace of the conflict. The US, with no clear goals, has failed to achieve escalation dominance. The Trump administration has therefore been searching for alternative strategies to try, and change this dynamic.

Most Western analysts, who have a warped perception of Iran, are currently struggling to get their heads around what is truly happening. It appears as if the decades of speaking to themselves have caged them within their bubble world. The only Iranians they talk to are individuals who are vehemently anti-government, most of whom have no real idea what is going on inside Iran, are members of ideological cults, and are totally ignorant of the country’s history.

The Western consensus perspective on Iran is that the Islamic Republic is a monstrous, malevolent regime, one which they portray through all the stereotypical orientalist depictions of the region that have been promoted for decades.

Although Iranians who support cult-like movements, such as the followers of Reza Pahlavi, believe that they, as Persians, are somehow excused from being victims of Western racism. Many of them, due to their notions of Persian supremacist views, those upheld by their Israeli-backed puppet leader’s father, believe that, because in their minds they are “the true Aryans”, the Americans and Israelis do not view them as sub-humans.

It is relatively unknown to Westerners that the Pahlavists think this way, but many of them are extraordinarily racist against Iran’s minority communities. Interestingly enough, these delusions that they are going to be treated better by the United States than any of their neighbors are still beliefs you will see them clinging onto. In reality, the US and Israel take these delusions just as seriously as the Taliban’s Pashtun nationalism, which also led to claims of being “the original Aryans”.

The average American or Brit cannot distinguish between Arabs and Persians; they simply know that there is a Middle East where dark-skinned Muslim peoples live. The Israelis may, on average, know a little more, but hate everyone equally.

This being said, it was this kind of orientalist thinking, lacking any nuance, that led to the historic mistake of the US-Israeli war on Iran. The concept that by waging a war of aggression, where you kill Ayatollah Khamenei and a group of top officials, the entire system will collapse like a deck of cards. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every few years, we constantly hear about the “imminent collapse of the regime”, yet it never comes. The only way that there will be a regime change is through efforts on the ground, not a bombing campaign, and not even in the event that the US invades, which I will explain below.

While Iran is an incredibly complex country and no analysis of this brief could touch on all the elements at play, there are a few key points in the Islamic Republic’s history that are key to understanding it today.

The first point to understand is what happened during the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which ushered in the revolutionary movement that governs the country today. The revolution against the Shah did not happen overnight; it was a process that took years of collective action, mass general strikes, sit-ins, and saw the participation of all elements within the society.

In the end, the 1979 revolution ended up becoming an Islamic revolution. Under the rule of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the pro-Western dictator led what was known as the White Revolution, a campaign of reforms that sought to “Westernize” the country, while undermining the Islamic clergy and leading to the repression of Islam more generally. Therefore, the revolt against the Shah included an element that sought to reinstate the former position of Islam inside the country, meaning that people used Islam as a means of resistance.

We cannot, however, leave out the fact that Leftists also played a large role in the revolution itself and that the uprising against the Shah was not just simply an Islamic movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini alone. Therefore, following the overthrow of the Shah, the newly installed system faced the tall task of forming a government that could be accepted by the people. Groups, for example, the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK), disagreed with the new leadership, as did others.

The subsequent takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, creating an immediate crisis between Iran and America, would end up setting the tone for what was to come next. In September of 1980, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was encouraged by the US to launch an invasion of neighboring Iran.

The Iran-Iraq War was fought for nearly 8 years, and at a time when the Iranians were militarily much less prepared and armed to do so. While many expected that this war would lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic, it did the very opposite. The motivating factor for many Iranians, who had not even experienced two years of their new government’s rule, was the Islamic doctrine they were fighting under.

Between 500,000 to 1 million people were killed in the war, which left around two million others injured. That meant that a significant portion of Iran’s population was either wiped out or injured, many of whom died horrible deaths, such as through chemical weapons attacks.

Although deadly and a war that drained resources, putting real strain on society as a whole, it ended up hardening the stances of many. It is not uncommon to hear from Iranians that people will use the sacrifices made during the Iran-Iraq War to justify all kinds of policies that may come under scrutiny.

The same year that the Iran-Iraq war ended, the US Navy decided to shoot down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Gulf of Hormuz, killing 290 Iranians, including 44 children. These events ended up cementing the ideals of the Islamic Republic among its people.

Fast forward now to 2009, when there was a public uproar about the Iranian Presidential election being rigged. This triggered the Green Movement, a mass mobilization across the country that called for reform. Bear in mind now that the relatively new system of governance had been under constant US sanctions since 1979, meaning that the pressure was consistently being turned up on the civilian population.

The 2009 Green Movement ended up leading to what is known as the Reformist camp in Iran attaining greater power inside the country, opposed to the Principalists, referred to in the West as the “hardliners”, who represented the Islamic revolutionary purest camp. For those who may be wondering, the reformists represent the more capitalist, or business class, inside the country. They have historically sought to mend ties with the West, and it was under reformist President Hassan Rouhani that the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was signed.

All of this time having passed since the Iran-Iraq War, where the people were left to live under ever-intensifying sanctions, brought about social change. Still, there remained a sizable bloc of the Islamic revolutionary movement’s base, but many became disillusioned and sought amendments to the system. To be clear, amendments do not mean regime change; they simply sought to achieve changes in their nation.

Although no authoritative polling exists to prove this, it’s generally thought that the base of the Islamic Republic’s support falls within the range of 30 million people, out of 93 million, with the majority falling in the zone of somewhat neutrality; they have complaints or skepticism, but don’t want the government to be toppled to install a Western puppet. Then you have the rest, which fall into the regime change camp, the size of which is often overinflated, but nonetheless certainly exists in its different flavors.

This war appears to have revived Iranian nationalism, the necessity of the revolutionary movement that governs the country, reminding the people why they overthrew the Shah and held so much animosity towards the United States government. For those young people who grew tired of the constant anti-imperialist slogans, it is all starting to make sense to them. This is the reason why their government has been spending so much money backing their regional allies (the Axis of Resistance).

For the Iranian people, they have just seen the theories being proven true that many of them once rolled their eyes at. The US and Israel are killing thousands of their countrymen and women, they slaughter their children, they bomb their oil storage tankers, and create black acid rain. On the first day of the war, the US opened the conflict with the worst civilian massacre they have committed since the Vietnam War, murdering around 180 schoolgirls with a double-tap strike.

Not only have they seen the terror that the US and Israel have unleashed on their people, but they are also witnessing the destruction of their cultural heritage sites.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the government may have been cemented in its place, but this time, there is a real difference; they are able to fight back effectively. The people are seeing the successes of their military and that they were able to lose their leader, but continue fighting. Instead of taking a beating, Iran is dictating the pace of the conflict, battering all the US’s military bases and standing up to the entire region.

Even for those Iranians who have many criticisms of their government, they have come to the streets in numbers and united with those they used to argue against, because the war has created the biggest rally behind the flag moment in decades. That is what the US-Israeli aggression has done: it has managed to unite Iranians in a way we have not seen in recent memory.

For those who have been writing about this issue for some time, this was a predictable outcome. The Iranian government is not as barbaric and stupid as it is depicted through Western propaganda. In the months following the 12-Day War last year, if you paid attention, you may have realized that the government began leaning into Iranian nationalism and symbolism more than ever, because it understood that the next war was going to require unity from across the spectrum.

So for those who believed that this war would somehow overthrow the government, the exact opposite appears to be happening. This war of aggression may end up being an event similar to the Iran-Iraq War in the way it cements the existence of the Islamic Republic. As for an American ground invasion, if they try, they will be met by millions who will mobilize to crush it, just as they did in the 1980s, but with better training and more sophisticated weapons.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on A War that Backfired: Why the US-Israeli Campaign Is Strengthening Iran

How Zionist Control Is Hurting US Interests

By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – March 14, 2026

The recent US attack on Iran has raised criticism both internationally and at home due to President Trump’s shift from America First to Israel First and over the Zionist control over the US establishment.

US-Israel Strategic Alignment: Historical Patterns

Escalating tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran have raised a critical concern in global geopolitics: has the US attacked Iran to protect its regional interests, or has it jumped into this fray to defend Netanyahu’s Zionist regime in Israel and its strategic interests? The history of American foreign policy decisions since the establishment of the illegitimate Israeli state suggests that protecting Israel’s national and strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond has become a key aspect of the United States’ strategic priorities.

Throughout history, whenever Israel felt threatened or insecure by a regional power, Washington has always supported it directly or indirectly. The historic rivalry between Israel and Iran and its escalation after the recent genocidal operation by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has rendered the situation more intense. Israel considers Iran’s missile capabilities and nuclear program as a threat to its sovereignty and security. Moreover, Iran’s regional proxies also pose a significant threat to Israel’s expansionist agenda.

Recently, the United States and Iran were engaged in negotiations over the latter’s nuclear program. Reports propose that the two sides have made significant progress in resolving the issue peacefully. However, the United States and Israel launched a combined attack on Iran, targeting its key military and political leadership. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other high-level military and political leaders of the country were killed in the US-Israel joint strikes. These strikes, despite positive progress in the US-Iran peace negotiations, created an international perception that the United States is fighting Israel’s war in the Middle East.

Domestic and International Backlash Against US Involvement

Dissenting voices regarding the US involvement in a foreign war are rising even within the United States. People from within the US Army are raising questions over the country’s involvement in a foreign war. Even former soldiers are asking whether the US military personnel should sacrifice their lives to secure the strategic interests of Israel. Reportedly, many US soldiers have expressed their concerns over their participation in this war against Iran. They seek to know the moral and legal status of a war waged merely to protect the interests of a specific allied country. The United States faced a similar issue during the Cold War, especially in the Vietnam and Iraq wars, when numerous military personnel criticized and questioned policies that led the country into those wars. Within both U.S. military and civilian policy circles, there is mounting pressure to more clearly distinguish between America’s core national interests and the interests of its allies.

Economic and Global Implications of the Conflict

The Middle East is the center of global energy politics, and the Persian Gulf is one of the key maritime routes for global oil supply. Iran has already blocked the Strait of Hormuz, leading to disruption in global oil and energy supply, causing inflation around the world. Oil and energy prices have surged across Europe, Asia, and other regions, impacting everyday consumers and households—including those in the United States. Due to the aggressive policies of former US governments, the country has lost trillions of dollars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The recent US war against Iran would prove far more expensive because of the latter’s geostrategic location and greater regional influence.

On the diplomatic front, this war will further tarnish Washington’s international image. Most of the Global South is already hostile to the United States’ interventionist policies. A prolonged war with Iran would not only widen the gulf between the US and its European allies, but it would also increase Russia and China’s global support. This war has already shifted global public opinion against the United States, weakening the country’s international credibility. Many developing nations are increasingly aligning themselves with Russia and China, signaling their interest in joining the BRICS coalition.

Washington’s involvement in this war, at the behest of Israel, has created significant intricacies for its regional allies. It has exposed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a key US ally in the Middle East, to significant Iranian attacks. Iran is repeatedly targeting US interests across the region. The GCC countries are also facing disruption in the supply chain, leading to significant economic losses, due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran. Moreover, it has undermined the security and safety of the UAE for global investors. This suggests that this war would create visible fractures in the US-GCC relations.

However, the United States’ involvement in this conflict, despite knowing that it will lead to severe public backlash and impinge on the country’s interests in the Middle East and beyond, demonstrates that in Washington, it’s not the US leadership but the Zionist lobby that actually calls the shots. The release of the Epstein files further strengthens the notion that the Zionists use such tools to blackmail and influence the US leaders, including President Trump, to mold the US policies to protect Israel’s interests in the Middle East and around the world.

Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on How Zionist Control Is Hurting US Interests

Ukrainian Embassy in Beirut sheltering top Mossad agent

The Cradle – March 13, 2026

The Ukrainian Embassy in Beirut is currently harboring a high-profile Israeli intelligence asset wanted by Lebanese authorities, journalist and The Cradle contributor Radwan Mortada has revealed.

Khaled al-Aida, a Palestinian-Syrian with Ukrainian citizenship, has been implicated in bombings and assassinations across Lebanon between 2024 and 2025.

Security investigations have proved his involvement in an assassination attempt at Beirut’s Rafiq Hariri International Airport, as well as the capital’s southern suburb.

Aida was also on the ground during the assassination of former Hezbollah secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, according to Mortada, who also reported that Aida had helped Lebanese intelligence dismantle a Mossad cell.

He was eventually caught with an explosive device hidden on a motorcycle intended for later use in southern Beirut.

“Aida managed to escape after the Israeli bombing of the building where he was being held in Beirut’s southern suburbs. The bombing provided him with an opportunity to flee, and he eventually sought refuge in the Ukrainian Embassy, ​​which is now attempting to smuggle him out with the help of the US Embassy,” according to the information obtained by Mortada.

The embassy is reportedly seeking to secure Aida’s exit, requesting a laissez-passer from Lebanese security, while US operatives, including CIA station chief Sherry Baker, are pressuring for his evacuation.

“We will not accept being told that he left in a diplomatic vehicle, or through an illegal crossing, or under the protection of the American Embassy in Lebanon,” Mortada went on to write.

In recent history, Lebanese authorities have repeatedly been coerced by Washington to release agents who have been detained.

“Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and the General Security Directorate, specifically Major General Hassan Shqeir, are all accountable to the Lebanese people. If they are truly concerned about the interests of Lebanon and the Lebanese, they must arrest Khaled al-Aida and hand him over to the judiciary. This wanted man is a valuable asset for Lebanon, one that should be negotiated for, not given away for free,” Mortada said.

Around two dozen Lebanese prisoners are currently being held in Israeli prisons, some of whom were abducted during the ceasefire.

Mortada’s report comes as Lebanon is under heavy Israeli bombardment. Around 700 have been killed by Israel since 2 March, when Hezbollah responded to over a year of Israeli ceasefire violations.

Israel has stepped up attacks on Beirut’s suburbs as well as the heart of the city, while continuing brutal and deadly attacks across southern and eastern Lebanon.

Israeli planes dropped leaflets over the capital on Friday, threatening that Hezbollah must be disarmed for “everybody’s interest.”

The Lebanese army warned citizens not to open the QR Code on the leaflets, which “link to a WhatsApp contact and another to a Facebook page to communicate with Unit 504 of the Israeli army, which is responsible for recruiting agents.”

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Ukrainian Embassy in Beirut sheltering top Mossad agent

Palestinian family displaced after settlers violently attack them in Humsa, Jordan Valley

International Solidarity Movement | March 13, 2026

On Friday, March 13, at 1:20am, around 30 masked Israeli settlers invaded a Palestinian property in Humsa, north of Jordan Valley, where a family of 12 people live. The family decided to leave their land after this latest attack.

The settlers first stormed a tent where one of the Palestinian men was asleep and Portuguese and US international activists were staying. The settlers attacked and blindfolded the man and activists and took them into another tent where they brought three other men and five children from the family. The settlers tied the hands and ankles of the Palestinian men and the activists, dragged them by the hair and ankles, beat them with sticks and kicked their faces. The settlers exerted extreme violence toward the Palestinian men and beat the eldest man with rocks.

The settlers told the family and activists to leave, stating: “We are Jewish, this is our land”. When asked by an activist what they wanted, they responded: “We want to kill you”. The settlers also took rings from the activists, asking them if they wanted their fingers cut off.

As the family’s children were crying while forced to witness the violence, the settlers told them to shut up.

The settlers opened the family’s sheep pen and let loose around 350 sheep. They stole the activists’ passports, phones, money, as well as one of their backpacks, and cut one of their jackets. They then cut the men and activists’ ties, rolled one of the activists on top of a Palestinian man, and left.

The Palestinian men and the activists were taken in ambulances to receive medical treatment.

Israeli settler attacks in the north Jordan Valley have increased sharply in the past few weeks as the Israeli government begins building a 500km apartheid wall and military road in the region. At the end of February, Israeli forces have also issued demolition orders for 10 farms and a vegetable store in the area.

These coordinated efforts are accelerating the ethnic cleansing of communities in the Jordan Valley at alarming rates. Families have left the villages of Hammamat Al Maleh, Al Miteh and Al Burj, Khirbet Yarza, and Humsa during the last month alone. Hammamat Al Burj is now completely empty, while the two remaining families in Hammamat al Maleh were badly attacked yesterday.

Since Israel-USA attack on Iran, settlers have also killed six Palestinians in the West Bank.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , , | Comments Off on Palestinian family displaced after settlers violently attack them in Humsa, Jordan Valley

Hosting Washington’s war: Bahrain faces the consequences

By Hasan Qamber | The Cradle | March 12, 2026

The Persian Gulf is entering one of the most volatile periods in its modern history. Military confrontation between Iran, the US, and Israel has, from the outset, unfolded across the Gulf geography itself. States hosting western military infrastructure – particularly Bahrain – have not merely been exposed to the conflict’s expansion, but structurally integrated into its battlefield logic.

For Bahrain, the current escalation raises urgent questions about the kingdom’s internal stability, the resilience of Gulf political systems, and the capacity of neighboring countries to absorb the security, economic, and social shocks generated by an expanding war.

Frontline kingdom

Bahrain today stands squarely at the center of the region’s intensifying confrontation. Despite its small size, the island holds outsized political and military importance. Its strategic location, heavy reliance on the energy sector, and fragile domestic balances make it one of the Gulf states most exposed to the consequences of prolonged escalation.

The kingdom’s hosting of the US Fifth Fleet headquarters cements its position as a key node in Washington’s military architecture in the Persian Gulf. This presence transforms Bahrain into a potential target in any direct clash between Tehran and Washington. As the war goes on, US installations on Bahraini soil are increasingly viewed as forward operational platforms – and therefore legitimate strategic objectives in a widening regional war.

The implications extend beyond the military domain. Bahrain’s domestic political arena remains shaped by unresolved tensions dating back to the 2011 uprising. Renewed confrontation risks aggravating these internal fault lines by tying national stability more closely to the trajectory of external conflict.

Recent developments have effectively placed Bahrain on the front line. Its role as both a logistical hub for western military operations and a regional energy services center means that any escalation in the Persian Gulf immediately reverberates across the island’s security environment.

According to reports, Iranian strikes against Bahraini-based targets began on 28 February. By early March, roughly 70 to 75 ballistic missiles and more than 120 drones had reportedly been launched. Bahraini authorities stated that most incoming projectiles were intercepted.

Targets included facilities linked to the US Fifth Fleet, Bahraini and US military infrastructure, the BAPCO refinery complex in Ma’amir, and sites in Manama associated with US personnel. Installations near Bahrain International Airport and a major desalination plant – the Abu Jarjour facility – were also reportedly struck.

While the full extent of the damage remains unclear, some accounts suggest partial destruction of base infrastructure and temporary disruption of logistical systems. Heightened alert levels were subsequently reported across US installations throughout the Persian Gulf following injuries among American personnel.

Energy pressure points

The military dimension of the crisis intersects with Bahrain’s structural economic vulnerabilities. The kingdom’s economy remains heavily dependent on the energy sector, with BAPCO Energies forming its backbone. Following recent upgrades, refining capacity has reached approximately 405,000 barrels per day – positioning Bahrain as an important, if relatively modest, contributor to regional oil supply dynamics.

Reports indicate that the refinery complex has been hit at least once during the escalation, triggering fires and forcing the company to invoke force majeure clauses on certain export commitments. Temporary disruptions to refining operations reportedly led to shipment delays and a partial pause in exports, although authorities insist domestic fuel supplies remain secure.

The situation is further complicated by the growing role of international investors in Bahrain’s energy sector. The sale of selected BAPCO assets to major global investment firms – including the US-based BlackRock – has generated political controversy.

Civil society groups have criticized such moves as part of a broader normalization trajectory aligned with Washington’s regional agenda, particularly amid mounting public debt estimated to exceed 130 percent of GDP.

Any sustained targeting of energy infrastructure would therefore carry consequences far beyond immediate production losses. It would threaten investor confidence, fiscal stability, and Bahrain’s long-term economic positioning within the Gulf.

Hormuz chokehold

The crisis acquires even greater significance in light of Iran taking control over maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz – one of the most critical arteries in the global energy system. At least 20 percent of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes through this narrow waterway. Any disruption to navigation would send shockwaves through international markets and place immense pressure on Gulf economies.

For Bahrain, whose oil export routes are heavily tied to the strait, strategic alternatives remain limited. While pipeline connections to Saudi Arabia offer partial mitigation, rerouting exports through Red Sea terminals or relying on floating storage solutions would impose logistical and financial constraints.

The implications extend to food security. Gulf states import the vast majority of their food supplies via maritime routes traversing Hormuz, with some importing as much as 85–90 percent overall. Bahrain, constrained by limited agricultural capacity, is particularly vulnerable.

Early indicators of wartime strain have already surfaced, including higher transport costs, shipment delays, and rising prices for essential imported goods. Authorities maintain that strategic reserves are sufficient for now, but prolonged disruption could test these assurances.

Public mood and internal pressure

Bahrain’s domestic political environment adds another layer of complexity. The kingdom is often described as the only Gulf state where a Shia demographic majority lives under Sunni political rule, though the absence of official statistics makes precise figures contested. Estimates have fluctuated significantly since the introduction of political naturalization policies in the early 2000s.

The 2006 “Bandar Report” controversy – which alleged systematic demographic engineering – remains a reference point in debates about representation and legitimacy. Today, observers suggest Shia citizens may constitute between 55 and 65 percent of the population, with Sunnis forming a substantial minority. Expatriates account for more than half of Bahrain’s total population, further complicating social dynamics.

Against this backdrop, public reactions to regional escalation diverge sharply from official state positions. While Gulf governments continue to emphasize strategic partnership with Washington, segments of Bahraini society openly express support for strikes targeting US military facilities in the region. Social media circulation of footage from recent attacks reflects this polarization.

Authorities have responded with sweeping security measures aimed at preventing internal destabilization. Arrests have been reported against individuals accused of documenting strikes or organizing demonstrations. Restrictions on public gatherings and curfews in sensitive areas underline official concerns that regional war could reignite domestic protest movements.

According to human rights and field sources speaking exclusively to The Cradle, at least 114 people have been arrested since the beginning of the events. The Public Prosecution has sought the death penalty for a group of citizens and residents accused of “communicating with the enemy” for documenting missile and drone strikes on military targets.

This reflects the scale of the political challenge Bahrain faces as it attempts to balance internal stability with its security and external commitments amid a divided public mood regarding the regional war.

Strategic dilemmas

Manama’s predicament reflects a broader Gulf reality. The kingdom faces simultaneous pressures stemming from its geographic exposure, reliance on external military guarantees, and unresolved internal political tensions. Crisis management under such conditions becomes increasingly complex as regional confrontation deepens.

There is also uncertainty surrounding the stance of neighboring Gulf states. Should escalation expand to include widespread targeting of energy infrastructure or maritime trade routes, regional economic interdependence could magnify the impact on domestic stability across the peninsula.

A sustained Iran–US–Israeli confrontation threatens to reshape the political calculus of Gulf states. For decades, security architectures across the region have been anchored in strategic partnerships with Washington. Direct confrontation between Iran and the US, therefore, places these states in a structurally vulnerable position.

Three major risks loom. First, the physical targeting of military bases and oil facilities could undermine deterrence frameworks. Second, prolonged disruption to trade and energy flows may generate severe economic stress. Third, divergent popular attitudes toward the conflict risk fueling internal political tensions.

In Bahrain, these dynamics intersect with an already active opposition and a politically engaged society. Continued escalation could heighten domestic sensitivity to government policies and widen the gap between official narratives and public sentiment.

Paths ahead

Several trajectories remain possible. Rapid containment of escalation would restore the familiar pattern of managed tension in the Persian Gulf. A prolonged exchange of strikes, however, could intensify economic pressure and gradually erode political stability across Gulf states.

The most dangerous scenario would see the region transformed into an open theater of great-power confrontation – fundamentally altering the balance of power and exposing smaller states like Bahrain to sustained instability.

The kingdom now finds itself navigating an exceptional moment in regional history. Escalation is now shaping the island’s economic stability, political tensions, and security calculations in real time. Efforts by authorities to enforce internal control underline the depth of official concern that external conflict could reopen unresolved domestic fault lines.

The kingdom’s experience points to a wider shift across the Persian Gulf: strategic alignment with Washington’s military order is increasingly transforming allied states into operational terrain. In Bahrain’s case, the distance between the forward base and the front line has effectively collapsed.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Hosting Washington’s war: Bahrain faces the consequences

The US fell for its own Iran propaganda

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | March 13, 2026

The US government’s mistake with Iran has been that it clearly fell into believing its own lies. Think tanks, donors, paid advisors, lobby groups, and establishment analysts are all responsible for the catastrophic mistakes that have been made in attacking the Islamic Republic.

What was supposed to be a war, destined to be all over in four days, quickly turned into weeks, months, and now, in US President Donald Trump’s own words, a “forever” war. In order to understand why, we have to assess the way the political system in Washington works.

As we now know, US politicians are oftentimes chosen by the donor class. Most of the US Congress and Senate take considerable sums from AIPAC and affiliated pro-Israeli, pro-war donors. The Israeli Lobby not only pays its chosen politicians, but also hands them materials to run through, so that they skip to the Zionist script and position themselves as attack dogs against anyone who stands up to the lobby.

Hiding underneath this, we have think tanks, which are the policy expert wing of the lobbyists. These think tank “experts” are brought in as the brains behind the operation. They shift around between holding positions within different administrations, sitting on boards, and writing briefs or analyses for think tanks.

Then you have the mainstream media, which is owned by many of the same people funding the think tanks and lobby groups, employing articulate individuals to parrot their propaganda. The media itself is a bubble, where the so-called “reputable” outlets rely on each other for validity and help to police the boundaries of the “acceptable” discourse, meaning the likes of the New York Times, BBC, and others.

When it comes to broadcast media in specific, the top suppliers of stories, soundbites, on-the-ground footage, and leads are Reuters, AFP, and the Associated Press. Oftentimes, broadcast media channels will simply copy and paste the leads or descriptions from what these suppliers provide, altering them ever so slightly to suit their channel’s bias. That is why they often use very similar language and report the same stories for their news bulletins. Anyone who has worked in a newsroom knows this to be the case.

This trio of information control, which often intersects and enjoys some crossover, is what pollutes the minds of the masses on a daily basis. This is important to understand in order for the rest of this article to make sense.

Falling for their own lies

In the lead-up to the illegal attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Western ruling class constantly repeated the idea that Iran and its allies were severely weakened. Revelling in what will likely prove to be a pyrrhic victory in Syria, with the installation of a pro-US Zionist collaborator regime in Damascus, the annihilation of Gaza’s infrastructure, along with the severe blows to Hezbollah’s leadership, all three elements of the Zionist information control system began to grow arrogant.

Think Tanks like the Zionist Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) held a series of conferences about the disarmament of Hezbollah and discussed how the so-called Gaza ceasefire was supposed to be weaponized in “Israel’s” favour, while discussing war on Iran as if it was like putting down a once dominant racehorse with a broken leg.

Still, today, if you look at WINEP’s homepage, there are analysis pieces, written by Zionists salivating over a victory over Iran and envisaging how the future will pan out in a West Asia dominated by the Israelis. “The Middle East’s 1919 Moment” and “A Levant Without Militias” discuss the downfall of Iran and Hezbollah, respectively. Even at a time of great crisis for the Zionist entity, they cannot help but fantasize about how they will dominate in the future.

The trio of information control has created a parallel universe for themselves, one which they continue to cling to, for fear of shattering their entire view of reality.

When Donald Trump and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have greatly degraded Iran, it wasn’t just them speaking; they were in lockstep with the think tanks, lobbyists, and donors. Just as was the case when former US envoy to Lebanon, Morgan Ortagus, confidently asserted that Hezbollah was defeated.

For them, assessing the realities on the ground was no longer a priority; what was important was bolstering a narrative that would lead to the war that the Zionist entity desired. In essence, what they had done was fall for their own nonsense.

All of this stems from the psychological blow the Zionist regime and its loyal supremacist backers suffered on October 7, 2023. When a few thousand Palestinian Resistance fighters, armed with light weapons, tore down the illusion of the Israeli surveillance regime and collapsed its southern command within hours, the Zionists went into a kind of mental hysteria.

Suddenly, on that day, it was proven that the theory of Hezbollah’s late Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was correct: “Israel” is indeed weaker than a spider’s web. This meant for them that two things had to be achieved: the first was that their so-called “deterrence capacity” had to be re-established, which they believed would be achieved through committing the world’s first live-streamed genocide.

The second imperative was that the Zionist project had to be rapidly accelerated. At first, this appeared unlikely, yet their perceived successes in Lebanon and Syria appeared to give them the impression that it was possible.

Along comes the second Trump Presidency, which was bought and paid for by the Zionist billionaire class.

Donald Trump, a man with a vocabulary no greater than that of a 10-year-old, is their perfect puppet. Not only this, his entire administration is staffed with ultra-Zionists or paid shills who lack basic intelligence. Therefore, the Zionists saw that this was the perfect time for them to hatch the last phase of their so-called master plan to expand their regime and rule the entire region.

In the process of doing this, the Zionists dismantled the United Nations and the notion of International Law, instead ushering in “the law of the jungle.” There are no longer international norms or red lines, just total chaos.

Meanwhile, as this was going on, the Zionists adopted the attitude toward the global population that they should be scared into submission; should they dare stand up to oppose the tyranny everyone has watched unfold before their very eyes. When they are surprised because things aren’t going their way, they cry victim and, in a fit of rage, attempt to punish you. This is a reflection of their unstable mental state.

All of this is relevant because it explains how we have gotten to this point and why this trio of information control has bought into their own nonsense. The war on Iran was evidently going to be a catastrophe, but they did it anyway. Those of us who have been monitoring the situation could also tell that Lebanese Hezbollah was far from militarily finished, which the Israeli media are now beginning to come to terms with.

What do they do now that the situation is getting out of hand? They censor and desperately lie to cover their tracks. They censor their deaths, lie about the destruction and missile hits, fake air defense victories, and claim tactical and operational military victories that don’t exist. One example of this is the US Trump administration, which claimed to have destroyed Iran’s navy during the first days of the war and still brags about sinking new ships.

The Israelis take things even further: with dozens of military vehicles hit and their soldiers falling into ambush after ambush in Lebanon, only two soldiers have died, according to them. They have even banned the filming of Iranian and Hezbollah missile strikes, threatening their own population with fines and jail time for doing so. Sometimes, they will claim to have intercepted all incoming projectiles or say they fell in open spaces, yet not too long after, published videos show direct hits. It’s getting so bad there, in terms of censorship, that their own people are getting agitated.

These people lived in a “reality” where Hezbollah was weak and Iran was weak, claiming that it had only a few thousand missiles and a handful of launchers; a “reality” in which killing Iran’s leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei, would instantly lead to regime change, where the Iranian people would suddenly fight against their government because Netanyahu told them so. Perhaps the only thing they don’t believe is their laughable lies about Iranian protester deaths; that nonsense is reserved for the Pahlavist cult.

As the entire planet is witnessing, Iran and the Axis of Resistance that it backs are far from weak. Their determination is strong, and their capabilities are clearly greater than the Zionists expected. The longer this insane arrogance continues, the worse things are going to get, because just as we saw in the Gaza Strip, nobody is about to back down and become the slaves of the terrorist entity occupying Palestine.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on The US fell for its own Iran propaganda

Seyed M. Marandi: Threat of Seizing Kharg Island & the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Glenn Diesen | March 12, 2026

Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi argues that it will be extremely difficult for the US to seize Kharg Island, and Iran would then destroy all energy facilities in the region.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Seyed M. Marandi: Threat of Seizing Kharg Island & the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Is there even an off ramp?

Have events accelerated to the point where a nuclear attack is nearly inevitable?

Ashes of Pompeii | March 13, 2026

The strategic paradigm regarding Iran has shifted fundamentally. And despite the calls for a ground invasion in some circles, and given the combination of current events on the ground, Iranian resiliance, and logistics, it is simply not possible. Therefore, the United States faces a constricted set of options amidst an escalating existential crisis. The convergence of domestic political survival, allied desperation, military attrition, and the personal psychology of the executive creates a pressure cooker where the use of tactical nuclear weapons transitions from absolute taboo to a very real grim strategic calculus. Central to this equation is the vindictive nature of President Trump, a trait that transforms geopolitical setbacks into personal grievances, compounded by the “Bibi factor”: Benjamin Netanyahu’s four-decade obsession with confronting Iran, now reaching a point of catastrophic desperation as every strategic avenue fails.

Netanyahu has dedicated much of his political life to conflict with an emergent, Islamic Iran. For forty years, he has advocated, plotted, and pressured for decisive action. Now, with Israel under daily barrage and conventional options nearly exhausted, his influence on Washington becomes a volatile accelerant. But the more dangerous variable may not be Israeli pressure on America, but rather Israeli action independent of America. Israel possesses nuclear weapons. A desperate Israel, facing existential threat, may calculate that only a nuclear strike can halt the onslaught. If Israel launches first, the United States is instantly complicit. The question shifts from “Will America use nukes?” to “How does America respond when its ally does?”

This scenario triggers a specific and catastrophic escalation dynamic. Iran has consistently signaled that any existential attack would be met with disproportionate retaliation against its primary adversary: Israel. A nuclear strike would not coerce Tehran into surrender; it would guarantee an all-out Iranian assault focused overwhelmingly on Israeli population centers and probably the Dimona nuclear center. The retaliation would not be measured; it would be existential. For Trump, this creates an impossible bind. His vindictiveness demands punishment of Iran, but his legacy depends on protecting Israel. If Iran retaliates with devastating force, Trump faces two choices: accept the near destruction of America’s key ally, cementing his legacy as the president who lost the Middle East, or escalate further. Each path deepens the quagmire. Added to this is the question of whether Iran has, or is quickly acquiring, nuclear weapons that would be used in any retaliation response.

Compounding this trap is the total collapse of trust. Any diplomatic off-ramp requires a minimum reserve of credibility between adversaries. The Trump administration has systematically burned every bridge. The precedent of attacking on February 28 in the midst of negotiations signaled that talks were not a path to resolution, but a ruse to keep the opponent off guard. To de-escalate now would almost certainly require Trump to take substantial, clear and verifiable unilateral first steps: a ceasefire, sanctions relief and public concessions. In the current climate, such actions would not be read as statesmanship; they would be interpreted as capitulation by many in America, especially his staunchest allies. For a leader whose political identity is built on projecting strength and punishing perceived slights, unilateral de-escalation is politically indistinguishable from surrender. The trust deficit does not merely complicate diplomacy; it comes close to eliminating it as a viable instrument.

This absence of trust reinforces the escalation logic at every turn. Iran, believing that American assurances are worthless, has no incentive to show restraint. Israel, doubting that diplomacy can halt the threat, has every incentive to act alone. Trump, convinced that any sign of weakness will be exploited, has no political space to offer concessions. The system becomes self-reinforcing: distrust justifies aggression, aggression deepens distrust, and the space for compromise evaporates. Institutional guardrails – the military chain of command, cabinet counsel, congressional oversight – retain theoretical weight, but they are overwhelmed by the momentum of crisis. When every actor believes the other operates in bad faith, restraint appears as vulnerability, and to a desperate man, escalation appears as the only rational response.

Global and domestic consequences, however catastrophic, are discounted in the immediate calculus. The precedent of nuclear use would shatter non-proliferation regimes and realign global power. Yet, in the moment of existential pressure, these long-term risks are subordinate to the demand for survival and retribution. Domestic backlash remains possible, but partisan media ecosystems and the framing of Israeli victimhood could harden public resolve rather than soften it. The political cost of appearing weak may be seen to exceed the cost of escalation. Trump’s fear of legacy merges with the visceral demand to protect an ally under fire and punish an adversary that, in his mind, has humiliated American power for nearly half a century.

In conclusion, the decision rests on a knife’s edge, sharpened by the certainty of Iranian retaliation against Israel and the impossibility of diplomatic retreat. The trust deficit is not a peripheral concern; it is the linchpin that locks the system into escalation. With no ground option, no credible off-ramp, a desperate ally possessing nuclear capability, and a vindictive leader who equates compromise with defeat, the use of nuclear weapons emerges not as a deliberate policy choice but as an emergent property of systemic collapse. The taboo against nuclear weapons persists only so long as actors believe restraint serves their survival. When survival is perceived to depend on escalation, and when trust, the essential currency of de-escalation, has been extinguished, the unthinkable becomes inevitable. The United States may not make the first move, but it may find itself unable to stop the chain reaction it enabled. The legacy Trump fears may not be shaped by his decision, but by his inability to escape a logic where every path forward leads deeper into catastrophe. The world watches not a policy debate, but the unraveling of deterrence, diplomacy, and restraint in real time. The outcome will not be chosen, it will be endured.

God help us all.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Is there even an off ramp?

US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran meant to reshape region: Omani FM

Press TV – March 12, 2026

Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi says that the United States and Israel launched an all-out coordinated aggression against Iran to block the Palestinian statehood and reshape the West Asia region.

Albusaidi said on Thursday that the “real objective of the war” is to “weaken Iran, reshape the region, and push the normalization agenda,” including efforts “to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

The top Omani diplomat warned that the ongoing US and Israeli attacks on Iran are part of a “dangerous chain of violations.”

The war on Iran has undermined the legal framework that has provided regional stability for decades, he added.

Albusaidi also pointed out that Iran is not the only target of the ongoing aggression.

“There is a broader plan targeting the region, and Iran is not the only target. Many regional actors are aware of this, but they are betting that aligning with the United States may push it to revise its decisions and policies,” he said.

In recent months, the Tel Aviv regime has displayed its ill intention by releasing maps which show several areas of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq as part of “Greater Israel,” a vicious Zionist project, widely supported by the administration of US President Donald Trump.

The Israeli regime’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his extremist cabinet have already announced a plan to annex the occupied West Bank in order to steal more Palestinian land and block the possibility of a Palestinian statehood.

Albusaidi also warned the war could drive higher oil prices and major supply chain disruptions globally.

The US-Israeli aggression has already driven the oil and gas prices much higher and caused food inflation.

Oman is seeking to stop the war and return to diplomacy, he stressed.

Albusaidi said the war may end soon, but called for reconsidering Persian Gulf security strategies and preparing for worst-case scenarios.

The US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28 in an unprovoked act of aggression, targeting sites across Iran, including schools, hospitals, and sports halls.

Iran responded by launching missiles and drones at targets inside Israel as well as at American bases across the region.

Senior Iranian officials have asserted that any deliberate assault by the United States and Israeli regime on Iran’s civilian and cultural heritage sites constitutes a “flagrant breach of international humanitarian law and an undisputed war crime.”

Elsewhere in his remarks on Thursday, the Omani foreign minister said Oman will not join Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” and will not normalize relations with Israel.

The remarks come as Trump keeps pushing more Arab states of the Persian Gulf region to join the Abraham Accords and normalize their ties with Israel despite the regime’s brutal more than to-year long Israeli assault against Palestinians in Gaza.

March 12, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran meant to reshape region: Omani FM

Iran Does Not Consider Israel Party to Talks to Need Mediators With It – Ambassador

Sputnik – 12.03.2026

Iran does not need mediators with Israel because it does not consider it a party to negotiations, Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Kazem Jalali told Sputnik in an interview.

“Iran does not officially recognize the Zionist regime as a party with which to negotiate. To date, there have been no cases of mediation or similar measures. In the recent series of events, Iran has responded on the battlefield and is not seeking mediation or any similar steps,” Jalali said when asked whether Iran attempted to establish contact with Israeli authorities through Russia.

He also recalled that Israel had told the Russian leadership that it had no intention of attacking Iran, but Tehran, he said, knew that such assurances were untrue.

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched strikes on targets in Iran, including in Tehran, causing damage and civilian casualties. Iran responded by striking Israeli territory and US military facilities in the Middle East.

The US and Israel initially claimed their “preemptive” attack was necessary to counter the perceived threat coming from Iran’s nuclear program, but they soon made it clear that they want to see a change of power in Iran.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed on the first day of the military operation. The Islamic Republic declared 40 days of mourning.

Russian President Vladimir Putin described Khamenei’s assassination as a cynical violation of international law. The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the US-Israeli operation and called for an immediate deescalation and an end to hostilities.

March 12, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran Does Not Consider Israel Party to Talks to Need Mediators With It – Ambassador

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »