Unexpected Iranian reaction paralyzed Americans and Israelis on the first day of war
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 1, 2026
The recent military escalation in the Middle East revealed a strategic miscalculation on the part of Washington and Tel Aviv. By launching a direct offensive against Iran, authorities in the United States and Israel apparently assumed that Tehran would repeat the pattern observed in previous confrontations: initial restraint, calibrated retaliation, and delayed timing. This pattern was evident both during the so-called Twelve-Day War and in earlier episodes of Israeli aggression against Iranian targets and regional allies. This time, however, the calculation proved mistaken.
The central element of the initial strategy appears to have been a classic attempt at “decapitation,” targeting the Supreme Leader, his family, and other high-level figures. The underlying logic is well known: by removing the apex of decision-making authority, internal disorganization, succession disputes, and operational paralysis would follow. This approach is recurrent in Western military doctrine, especially when directed against states considered systemic adversaries.
However, this type of strategy tends to fail when applied to highly institutionalized states equipped with complex political-military structures. Iran is not a fragile entity dependent on a single personal command center. It is a system with multiple layers of authority, defined chains of succession, and deep integration between the state apparatus, regular armed forces, and parallel security structures. Moreover, it is a civilization with millennia of historical continuity, whose contemporary political identity was consolidated precisely under external pressure. The elimination of an individual leader, even if symbolically significant, does not automatically dismantle a state with this degree of structural cohesion.
What surprised analysts was the speed of the Iranian reaction. Unlike what occurred during the Twelve-Day War, this time retaliation was immediate and multifaceted. Within the first hours after the attacks, Iran launched a series of simultaneous operations against American military installations across the Middle East. Bases used by U.S. forces were struck with missiles and drones in coordinated actions aimed at saturating defense systems and reducing interception capacity.
At the same time, Israeli defensive systems were placed under pressure through multiple and forceful attacks. Iran’s strategy was not limited to a symbolic gesture; it represented a deliberate attempt to impose immediate and visible costs, altering adversaries’ perception of risk. Throughout the first day of confrontation, the operational tempo remained constant, creating an environment of heightened uncertainty for the Zionist regime.
The multiplicity of vectors employed – different launch platforms, varied trajectories, and synchronized timing – contributed to confusion among military planners in Washington and Tel Aviv. By all indications, such a bold and rapid action was not anticipated. The assumption that Tehran would hesitate, seek mediation, or respond in a limited fashion proved incorrect. Instead, Iran sought to demonstrate its capacity for strategic coordination under maximum pressure.
This behavior suggests that Iranian authorities internalized relevant lessons from recent conflicts. Delays in responding, observed in previous episodes, were interpreted by adversaries as signs of strategic restraint or operational limitation. By opting for an immediate and comprehensive reaction, Tehran sought to redefine the rules of engagement and establish a new threshold of deterrence.
The psychological impact should not be underestimated. Continuous attacks throughout the first day reportedly generated confusion and near paralysis within certain Israeli and American decision-making circles. When multiple fronts are activated simultaneously, the ability to prioritize strategically becomes far more complex, if not effectively impossible.
It now remains to be seen how escalation will unfold in the coming days. Iran’s initial response altered the immediate balance but does not end the cycle of action and reaction. Washington and Tel Aviv face the classic dilemma between expanding the offensive – risking a large-scale regional conflict – or seeking indirect channels of containment. The first day demonstrated that the scenario evolved beyond initial expectations. From this point forward, each additional move may redefine not only the military dynamic but the broader security architecture of the entire Middle East.
Trump to Give “Important Update on Iran” Wednesday in Prime-Time Speech
By Larry C. Johnson – SONAR – April 1, 2026
What is Donald Trump going to say about Iran on Wednesday night? Before I layout three possible outcomes, let’s examine what Trump is actually doing in terms of some key military assets (all of this is from open source reporting).
A-10 Squadron (Confirmed New Deployment)
Since Friday, March 27, 2026, the most prominently reported new US air asset movement to the Middle East (CENTCOM area of responsibility) has been a squadron-sized deployment of A-10C Thunderbolt II attack aircraft (Warthogs). Six A-10s from the Idaho Air National Guard’s 190th Fighter Squadron arrived at Pease Air National Guard Base (New Hampshire) as part of staging. On March 30, twelve A-10s from the Michigan Air National Guard’s 107th Fighter Squadron (Selfridge ANGB) departed Pease for RAF Lakenheath, UK (a common transit stop), in two flights of six. Another six followed on March 31. These ~12–18 aircraft are en route to the Middle East to reinforce or nearly double the existing A-10 presence there.
A-10s are already operating in theater (e.g., from the 75th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron) for close air support, anti-boat strikes in the Strait of Hormuz, drone interdiction, and coastal targeting. The surge supports intensified low-altitude operations against Iranian “mosquito fleet” vessels, mines, and remnants amid the broader campaign.
Apache Helicopters (AH-64) Squadron
US Central Command publicly confirmed the operational use of AH-64 Apache attack helicopters in late March (updates around March 16–18 and a specific confirmation on March 26). The 6-17th Air Cavalry Squadron (part of the 4th Infantry Division Combat Aviation Brigade, operating AH-64D/E variants) is the unit involved. It had been forward-deployed earlier (under prior rotations like Operation Inherent Resolve) but was newly integrated into Epic Fury strikes against Iranian boats, drones, and coastal targets in the southern flank/Hormuz area.
Several viral Facebook posts and YouTube videos (from accounts like “MovieFans.Lich,” “Live WWIIIRE,” and similar sensationalist pages) claim a “massive C-17 fleet” is deploying Apache helicopter squadrons alongside troops, armored vehicles, and equipment. These describe “dozens” or “over 112 C-17s” streaming into the region, with Apaches highlighted for their anti-armor, close air support, and anti-boat roles in rugged coastal terrain. Some videos include generic footage of folded Apaches inside C-17 cargo bays or all-female flight crews turning around quickly.
Posts from OSINT-focused X accounts (e.g., @TheIntelFrog, @Faytuks, @JewishWarrior13) detail dozens of C-17 flights since mid-March (e.g., ~35–50 flights tracked from March 12–24, with more ongoing) originating from bases like Fort Bragg/Pope AAF, Fort Campbell, Hunter AAF, and McChord AFB. Destinations include Ovda (Israel), Jordanian bases (King Faisal, King Hussein), and other CENTCOM hubs. These are linked to troop surges (including elements of the 82nd Airborne) and special operations forces, with some users speculating or claiming that attack helicopters like Apaches are part of the heavy equipment being airlifted. One analysis noted origins tied to units with aviation assets, such as the 160th SOAR (which operates helicopters, though primarily MH-6/ MH-60 rather than AH-64).
The new deployment of these assets are consistent with a military option that involves close-air support and/or attacks on Iranian fast boats and water drones.
So what is Trump going to announce?
Option 1 — Declare that negotiations with Iran via intermediaries (e.g., Pakistan) are progressing and that the United States is going to cease combat operations against Iran in order to support the negotiations and achieve a peaceful resolution.
Option 2 — Declare that victory has been achieved and that US forces will begin withdrawing from the region, leaving the status of the Strait of Hormuz in limbo.
Option 3 — Announce a massive air and ground operation to secure the freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
The deployment of the A-10s and the Apaches can only mean one of two things:
- It is a show of force intended to pressure Iran to return to the negotiating table.
- The US is going to launch a massive attack against Iranian assets in the Persian Gulf, especially those located in and around the Strait of Hormuz.
Since Monday, March 30, 2026, President Donald Trump has made several public comments on the ongoing US-led Operation Epic Fury against Iran, primarily via Truth Social posts, interviews (including with the New York Post ), and remarks to reporters. His statements emphasize US military successes, threats of further escalation if demands are unmet, criticism of allies, and a potential near-term wind-down of direct US involvement.
On Monday, Trump described Iran as effectively “decimated” or “obliterated,” with its air force, navy, and many ships sunk or destroyed. He portrayed the campaign as highly successful and “way ahead of schedule” in prior context, but continued highlighting strikes on “long-sought-after targets.” He shared video footage on Truth Social of a massive explosion and secondary blasts in Isfahan (linked to strikes on uranium-related or military sites), without additional caption in one instance.
Trump also posted that the US was in “serious discussions with a new, and more reasonable, regime” to end operations. He warned that if the Strait of Hormuz is not “immediately ‘Open for Business’” and a deal is not reached shortly, the US would “completely obliterate” Iran’s electric generating plants, oil wells, Kharg Island, and possibly desalination plants. He framed this as concluding the US “lovely ‘stay’ in Iran.” In follow-up comments, he suggested the US could respond to Iranian actions “twenty times harder” with “Death, Fire, and Fury.”
Overall, Trump’s messaging since March 30 combines triumphalism about US achievements, escalatory warnings tied to the Strait of Hormuz and energy targets, frustration with allies, and signals of de-escalation with a short timeline for reduced US involvement. These comments have influenced market reactions (e.g., oil prices and equities) and drawn responses from Iranian officials and international observers.
Trump’s remarks since Monday have boosted the confidence of the folks on Wall Street and contributed to a significant surge in the stock market, with the Dow up 1,125 points. The price for BRENT oil dropped from 118 to 103 during Tuesday trading. This means the financial folks believe the war is going to end.
I think Trump is counting on Iran offering up some concessions in the face of the US buildup of additional air combat assets. Netanyahu reportedly just said Iran no longer poses a threat to Israel’s existence… A dramatic pivot if true. However, over the last few hours, Israel and the US carried out a large wave of attacks across Iran. They struck targets across several parts of Tehran, as well as in the cities of Karaj, Shahriar, Ahvaz, Shiraz, Abadeh, Isfahan, and Bandar Abbas. Iran will retaliate in force to these latest attacks.
In short, I believe Donald Trump will announce a major offensive to try to force Iran to release its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz… I believe that offensive will fail and that the war will escalate unless the US and Israel agree to two critical Iranian demands: the end of all sanctions and the removal of US military bases from the Persian Gulf arab countries.
Russia and China are two wild cards that could change the trajectory of the current war. If they engage and apply pressure on the diplomatic front — including ironclad security guarantees to Iran — Donald Trump may take the exit ramp.
What do you think?
Pascal Lottaz and I discussed the current situation in the Persian Gulf:
I did my usual Tuesday chat with Marcello:
A new interview with Rathbone. Interesting fellow… He’s also a comedian:
Trump Starts a Major Regime-Change War with Iran, Serving Neoconservatism and Israel
By Glenn Greenwald | February 28, 2026
For decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and American neoconservatives have dreamed of only one foreign policy goal: having the United States fight a regime-change war against Iran. With the Oval Office occupied by Donald Trump — who campaigned for a full decade on a vow to end regime-change wars and vanquish neoconservatism — their goal has finally been realized.
Early Saturday morning, the United States and Israel began a massive bombing campaign of Tehran and other Iranian cities. President Trump posted an eight-minute speech to social media purporting to justify his new war, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury.” Trump’ war cry was filled with the same slogans and clichés about Iran that Americans have heard from the carousel of bipartisan neocons dominating U.S. foreign policy for decades: Iran is a state sponsor of “terror”; it is pursuing nuclear weapons; it took American hostages forty-seven years ago (in 1979); it repressed and kills its dissidents, etc.
As if to underscore how fully he was embracing the very foreign policy dogma he vowed to reject, Trump invoked the Marvel-like “Axis of Evil” formulation that White House speechwriter David Frum wrote for George W. Bush at the start of the War on Terror. Iran’s government, President Trump proclaimed, is one determined to “practice evil.” This is how Bush — speaking of Iraq, Iran and North Korea — put it in his 2002 State of the Union address: “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil.”
Trump left no doubt about the scope and ambition of his new war. This will not be a quick or targeted bombing run against a few nuclear sites, as Trump ordered last June as part of Israel’s 12-day war with Iran. There is nothing remotely constrained or targeted about any of this. Instead, this new war is what Trump called a “massive and ongoing” mission of destruction and regime-change, launched in the heart of the Middle East, against a country of 93 million people: almost four times the size of Iraq’s population when the U.S. launched that regime change war back in 2003.
That Trump claimed to have “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program last June — just eight months ago — was not something he meaningfully acknowledged in his new war announcement, other than to vaguely assert that Iran somehow resumed their nuclear program. In fact, Trump seemed to delight in repeating the same triumphalist rhetoric that he used last year when he assured Americans that Iran’s nuclear program could no longer pose a threat as a result of Trump’s triumphant Operation Midnight Hammer.
In lieu of outlining any clear mission statement for this new war, let alone a cogent exit strategy, Trump offered a laundry list of flamboyantly violent vows. The U.S. will “totally obliterate” Iran’s ballistic missile program (which Iran could not use to reach the American homeland but which Trump admitted last June caused Israel “to get hit very hard” in retaliation). Trump also promised that the U.S. would “annihilate” Iran’s navy. And he told Iranians: “the hour of your freedom is at hand….bombs will be dropping everywhere.”
Trump also attempted to prepare the nation for caskets and body bags of American soldiers returning to the U.S. “The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost; we may have casualties,” the President said. But, said the man who did everything to avoid military service including during the Vietnam War, mass death of American soldiers “often happens in war.”
In sum, Trump just launched the exact war that most of his MAGA movement professed to oppose. That included one of Trump’s most influential supporters, the late Charlie Kirk, who repeatedly maligned the neocons’ drive for war with Iran as “pathologically insane,” and warned that grave disaster of historic proportions would be the result:
Charlie Kirk, X, April 3, 2025, warning against a regime-change war in Iran
The false claims behind this new war with Iran are ones we have extensively documented. In Trump’s war announcement this morning, he claimed — as he did at Tuesday’s State of the Union address — that Iran refuses to promise that it will not obtain nuclear weapons. The exact opposite is true: Iran has stated this clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly, and did so as recently as this week. “Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon,” proclaimed Iran’s foreign minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi.
The consequences of this new Trump/Netanyahu war of choice cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. Already, Iran has launched numerous retaliatory ballistic missiles at Israel, as expected, and has also attacked U.S. military bases in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.
But the lack of predictable outcomes is, of course, precisely the point. If the U.S. and Israel succeed in their stated goals of widespread “annihilation” and regime change, then they will create, at the very least, a huge power vacuum in the middle of the world’s most volatile region that will require U.S. resources and a sizable military presence for years if not decades to come. One of the world leaders most responsible for the Iraq War, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, admitted that it was the invasion of Iraq that gave rise to ISIS.
It is hard to overstate what a massive fraud Donald Trump, his campaign and his political movement are. For more than a decade, Trump has ranted and raved against the evils of regime-change wars and neoconservative dogma, only to launch a new war that most perfectly encapsulates and aggressively advances both. He spent years falsely warning that former President Obama would start a war with Iran because of how weak and inept Obama supposedly was at negotiation and diplomacy, only to now do that himself (rather than start a new war with Iran, as Trump predicted, Obama entered a diplomatic agreement with them which major nuclear bodies attested was effective in monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities: a deal which Trump, at Israel’s insistence, tore up in 2018).
Throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump mercilessly mocked Marco Rubio for receiving millions in donations from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, money that Trump said would “mold [Rubio] into [their] perfect little puppet,” only for himself to become not only the largest beneficiary of Adelson funding in history, but to become the ultimate puppet of the Adelsons’ agenda, one which Trump has clearly acknowledged — when speaking in Israel last year — is an agenda that puts the interests of Israel atop everything, including Americans’ interests:
“I get her in trouble with this, but I actually asked [Miriam] once… ‘What do you love more? The United States or Israel?’ She refused to answer. That might mean Israel,” Trump says, smiling, while looking at the dual Israeli-American national.
And it is not an exaggeration to say — in fact, basic honestly requires one to say — that the 2024 Trump/Vance campaign is one of the most fraudulent political campaigns in American history:
Just one week before the 2024 election, Tulsi Gabbard proclaimed that “a vote for Kamala Harris is a vote for Dick Cheney and a vote for war, war and more war.” Conversely, Gabbard said, “a vote for Donald Trump is a vote to end wars, not start them.” Other than immigration, this “no-new-wars” theme was the most central to Trump’s political appeal and his political promises since he emerged on the political scene a decade ago.
One can rehash the decades of now-trite arguments about Iran as much as one wants. But such endless debate cannot alter the facts here that are indisputable and fundamental.
Iran has not attacked and could not have attacked the United States at home. No such attack was even arguably imminent. The new war that Trump just started with Israel is thus the definitive war of choice.
In contrast to the lie-driven 18-month public campaign of Bush and Cheney to convince the American public to support an invasion of Iraq, there has been virtually no attempt made, as I documented this week, to even explain to the American public why a new war with Iran is necessary or desirable. There has been no Congressional approval sought let alone obtained, notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution’s exclusive assignment of war-making powers to the Congress.
In his novel 1984, George Orwell highlighted the dangerous insanity of war propaganda with this leading example: “WAR IR PEACE.” Yet that is precisely the rationale invoked by various Trump supporters to somehow depict this new war as aligned with Trump’s vows of peace (starting massive new wars is merely “peace through strength”).
This is, obviously, the war that Israel and Trump’s largest Israel-loyal donors most wanted and have long been pressuring him to start. Pro-Israel billionaires like Bill Ackman, long-time pro-Israel warmongers like Lindsey Graham, and Israel First activists like Mark Levin are of course already boisterously celebrating this new war against Israel’s primary adversary.
But this is ultimately an American war, one that Trump unilaterally started and for which Trump is responsible. Notably, of course, it is not Trump or his family, but instead everyone else in the world, who will bear the costs and burdens of the war. This was the point Trump famously emphasized shortly before the 2024 election — on November 1 — when explaining why Washington is full of sociopathic warmongers such as Dick and Liz Cheney who constantly start wars in which other people’s families, but never their own, must go fight and die.
As Trump’s senior White House advisor Stephen Miller said about those comments, “warmongering neocons love sending your kids to die for wars they would never fight themselves.” Indeed they do, Stephen Miller.
Do not expect meaningful opposition from the Democratic Party. Some of them, perhaps most, will make loud noises in protest. But the party’s senior leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), this week urged Trump to make the case to the public about why this war was necessary, whereas Schumer last June mocked Trump for attempting to obtain a peace deal with Iran and accusing him of “chickening out” of the war with Iran that he prosed. Some Democrats, such as Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), are effusively praising Trump and his new war.
This new war against Iran is as pure a continuation of the bipartisan DC posture of endless war that has, more than any single cause, destroyed American prosperity, standing, and future over the last six decades at least. The only question how is how many people will die, for how long the damage will endure, and what new unforeseen evils will be created in its wake.
The KAL Flight 007 Tragedy
Tales of the American Empire | February 26, 2026
The United States government has admitted that over 200 American military personnel were shot down aboard aircraft while spying over the Soviet Union during the Cold War. American Generals had sent aircraft probing into Soviet airspace to test reactions and collect intelligence. They loved to play cat and mouse games to taunt the Soviets. This was considered good training that provided valuable intelligence. These games resulted in 269 civilian deaths in 1983 when a Korean airliner (KAL Flight 007) was shot down as it flew over the Soviet Union.
_________________________________
“Secret Casualties of the Cold War”; Air & Space Magazine; Paul Glenshaw; December 2017; https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-sp…
“A Shot in the Dark: The Untold Story of Korean Air Lines flight 007”: Kyra Dempsey (aka Admiral Cloudberg); Medium; May 20, 2024; / a-shot-in-the-dark-the-untold-story-of-kor…
“DISGUISED RC-135W RIVET JOINT OF U.S AIR FORCE CARRY OUT SURVEILLANCE OF CHINESE MILITARY BASES!”; Defense Updates; September 17, 2020; 
• DISGUISED RC-135W RIVET JOINT OF U.S AIR F…
Related Tale: “A U-2 and World Peace were Sabotaged in 1960”; • A U-2 and World Peace were Sabotaged in 1960
Why Trump’s war on Iran will fail
By Tamer Ajrami | MEMO | February 27, 2026
The United States has turned the talks with Iran upside down. What is happening now does not look like serious negotiations. It looks more like a way to buy time and prepare for a more dangerous phase. That is why two questions matter: Why Trump’s war on Iran will not succeed, and why would it be a dangerous choice for Washington? The answer is simple. The demands Washington is putting on the table are designed to be rejected, and because any military action, if it occurs, will reveal the limits of force, the logic of exhaustion, and the absence of a clear or achievable goal.
All the talk about a deal, gaps, and loopholes continues to go around in circles. On the ground, the US is moving in a completely different direction: it is raising the bar in a way that ruins the talks from the inside and pushes things toward escalation.
Washington now says it has clear conditions. In reality, these conditions make any settlement almost impossible. The first demand is that Iran hand over all its enriched uranium directly to the United States. Not to a third country, not through an international mechanism, not through gradual reductions. Just hand it over to Washington. This is not meant to produce a balanced agreement. It is meant to humiliate a state and force it to give up a highly sensitive part of its sovereignty.
The second demand is even clearer: dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities and destroy them completely, including major sites like Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow, along with underground facilities hidden in mountains. The irony is that Washington and its allies do not have full certainty about what earlier strikes (12-day war, June 2025) actually achieved inside these deep facilities. So, the demand for dismantling and destruction looks like a political cover for the simple reality of what lies underground is not easy to reach.
On sanctions, the US offers no clear path. The talk is about lifting a limited set of sanctions imposed recently, while keeping the main sanctions in place under a long “test.” Has Iran truly surrendered, or is it only offering symbolic concessions? Then comes the most dangerous condition of all: the deal must be permanent, Iran must stop enrichment completely, and this must last forever. These are not terms for a fair agreement. They are terms of surrender.
That is why this round looks more like the round before war. The US military buildup in the region is still expanding, and the flow of aircraft, defence systems, and naval assets continues. Everyone is watching everyone through satellites. Almost nothing can be hidden. The real message is not in press statements. It is in the movements that create a new reality and make escalation feel closer than a settlement.
But if a strike happens, it will be full of risks. Even in the American media, one question keeps coming back: what exactly are Trump’s goals? Does he want a limited strike to force Iran into quick concessions? Does he want a wider campaign to bring down the regime? Or does he simply want to declare that he “destroyed” the nuclear program without being able to prove it? The problem is that these goals clash with each other, and each one requires different tools, different costs, and different timelines.
Time is part of the problem too. Some estimates suggest that the ability to keep up intense operations with the current level of forces may be limited. This connects with warnings about running down air defences and burning through advanced / expensive ammunition in a campaign that does not guarantee results. In other words, if war starts, it may quickly turn into a war of exhaustion. It is exactly the kind of fight Washington does not want.
If Iran can launch large waves of ballistic missiles, it can drain defensive stocks on US ships and at US bases in the region fast. Then comes the embarrassing question: how does the US keep fighting? And how does it stop without looking like it pulled back under fire? If Iran keeps firing while the US withdraws, the image inside America would be politically costly.
That is why the administration, based on what is being discussed in Washington, may look for a way to sell the war at home. One idea is for Israel to launch the first strike, and then for the US to step in later under the banner of “defending Israel”. That makes it easier to justify the intervention in Washington, because critics will face a ready-made slogan: we are defending an ally.
But on the ground, it is hard to separate who starts and who joins. US and Israeli forces operate in the same environment and in overlapping ways. The real difference is not in the sky. It is in the story Washington wants to tell its public.
Even if a strike happens, the main question remains: can airstrikes alone achieve big goals? Many analysts say hitting facilities becomes like a game of chasing a moving target. You destroy one site, it gets rebuilt. You hit a surface facility that was emptied beforehand. Equipment and materials are moved elsewhere. As for facilities buried deep in mountains, they remain a major problem. Access is not guaranteed, and photos alone cannot prove total destruction.
More importantly, a nuclear programme is not just concrete and steel. It is knowledge, technology, experience, and an industrial base. Even if part of it is damaged, Iran can repair it over time. Claims of “total destruction” therefore sound more like political messaging than a verifiable reality.
The missile program is an even bigger challenge. Iran produces missiles in large numbers and has the industrial and scientific base to rebuild its stock after any confrontation. Even if the US hits some production lines, wiping the program out completely would require long-term control on the ground and not just airstrikes.
Here is the truth that official speeches avoid: if Trump’s real goals are regime change, removing Iran’s missile power for good, or forcing “zero enrichment” forever, then airstrikes will not deliver that. Those goals require a major ground war and a long occupation. This then may bring huge losses, heavy costs, and years of deep involvement.
This would not serve the US at a time when competition with China is rising. Burning through advanced and expensive American capabilities in the Middle East without clear gains could give China a strategic advantage and push it to move faster on bigger priorities like Taiwan, while Washington remains stuck in a war with no clear ending.
There is also a constant operational risk in any large air campaign: an aircraft could be shot down, a pilot could be captured, or a major incident could happen in a sensitive strait. One such event can turn a limited strike into a wider war, and shift the focus from negotiating nuclear issues to negotiating prisoners and political humiliation.
So, Washington faces two costly paths: a full-scale war it does not have the political tools to sustain, or airstrikes that will not achieve the announced goals but could open the door to further escalation. In both cases, negotiations become a temporary cover while the region moves toward a dangerous test of power and its limits.
The bottom line is this: raising demands to the level of humiliation does not lead to an agreement. It pushes the other side toward rejection and then toward preparation for confrontation. When talks become terms designed to fail, they do not prevent war. They delay it to a moment chosen by Washington; after the battlefield is prepared and the political story is already written.
In the end, the problem is not that Washington has less power. The problem is that it is pursuing goals that are bigger than its tools. Airstrikes do not topple regimes, erase nuclear know-how, and do not end a missile program that can be rebuilt. The higher the US raises its demands, the more it closes the door to diplomacy and the closer the drift toward confrontation.
If war begins, it may quickly become a costly fight with no clear ending: defenses get drained, rare munitions get burned, markets shake, and bases come under attack. Then an unsolved question will rise inside the US: how do we end this without political defeat? Failure becomes likely because the goals cannot be achieved by bombing alone. And the danger is huge, because escalation may spiral beyond control. In a war like this, Washington might win a round in the air, but lose the bigger game on the ground.
Ukraine Given $43Bln in Proceeds From Russian Assets Frozen by G7 Since 2024 – Estimates
Sputnik – 27.02.2026
The G7 nations have issued $3.8 billion in loans to Ukraine in 2026 using proceeds generated by frozen Russian state assets, bringing the total amount of loans given to Kiev since 2024 to almost $43 billion, according to calculations by Sputnik based on data from the Ukrainian Finance Ministry and national agencies.
In 2024, the G7 countries approved a $50-billion loan to Ukraine, funded by revenues from frozen Russian assets. By late February 2026, the countries had allocated $42.7 billion to Ukraine under this scheme.
The first billion was transferred to Ukraine by the United States in late 2024. Since then, Washington has not provided any new funding to Kiev from Russian asset proceeds. The other members of the G7 gave Ukraine $37.9 billion in 2025 and $3.8 billion in 2026.
Overall, the European Union has contributed $32 billion in funding to Ukraine as part of the loan secured by Russian assets. Canada has contributed $3.6 billion, while Japan and the United Kingdom have each contributed approximately $3 billion.
The military is babying F-35s to hide their true cost to taxpayers
By Mike Fredenburg | Responsible Statecraft | January 23, 2026
Are the military services babying the F-35 to obscure its true costs while continuing to get enormous sums of taxpayer funding for a plane that has consistently failed to live up to performance expectations?
From the very beginning, the F-35 program has been plagued by hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns and repeated schedule delays.
Moreover, even as promised capabilities have been delayed by well over a decade, billions poured into fixes haven’t resolved ongoing reliability issues, crippling its operational effectiveness, and rocketing the program cost to over $2 trillion dollars — 400% more in inflation-adjusted dollars than its 2007 Government Accountability Office estimate.
The plane’s extreme unreliability has resulted in full mission capable rates (FMC) of only 36.4% , 14.9%, and 19.2% for the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C, respectively. For F-35Bs and F-35Cs, only the newest planes have full mission availability rates above 10%.
Unsurprisingly, the services and Lockheed Martin don’t really like to talk about FMC; instead, they like to focus on mission-capable (MC) rates of roughly 50%. While much lower than the 90 percent promised by Lockheed Martin and its service partners, it certainly sounds much better than the dismal FMC rates. But MC is a very deceptive measure, and the services know it, as “mission capable” aircraft need only be capable of flying non-combat missions, such as training, ferrying, or public relations, etc.
But the MC deception is only part of the equation when it comes to just how little bang-for-the-buck taxpayers are getting for their dollar.
Strong circumstantial evidence, coupled with emerging data and the services’ long history of stonewalling when it comes to problems associated with major programs, suggest that the U.S. military services , as well as prime contractor Lockheed Martin, have been babying the F-35s to obscure just how unreliable and expensive they would be if not being nursed along.
This coddling of the F-35 lowers some costs and pushes other costs into the future, keeping current year expenses as low as possible. This makes the program look like it is more efficient and effective than it really is, improving the chances of selling and delivering more F-35s while decreasing the chances the program will be curtailed or even canceled.
Major maintenance cost factors
There are three major drivers of wear and tear on an aircraft like the F-35: how many missions (sorties) it carries out, how many flight hours it accumulates, and how it’s flown during a mission.
Missions/Sorties are the best predictors of maintenance-related costs. While accumulated flight hours are often discussed when it comes to aircraft age and maintenance, studies have shown that the number of sorties, on average, is a better predictor of the wear and tear on an aircraft. This is because each sortie involves the stresses of taking off and landing, as well as subjecting the engine to thermal cycles, the primary culprit when it comes to engine wear.
Once the plane is flying, its wear is minimal unless subjected to aggressive maneuvering and engine use. Hence, when it comes to minimizing wear, for the same number of flight hours, fewer sorties of longer duration will produce less wear than more sorties of shorter duration, 100 two-hour sorties vs. 200 one-hour sorties.
Flight hours and operating costs. While in most cases, the number of sorties will be a better predictor of when maintenance will be required, more flight hours still equal more maintenance. So, if you can keep the hours down, the absolute cost of maintaining the plane will be less. For context, modern fighters like the F-16 routinely flew 250–350 hours per year in their prime, but F-35s average only about 195 hours annually — well below their original targets of 250–316.
To note: the June 2025 Congressional Budget Office found that F-35 availability and hours being flown are “lower, in some cases much lower, than those of other fighter aircraft of the same age.” Interestingly, even at 17-years of age, legacy aircraft such as F-16s and F-15s blow away the mission readiness of brand-new F-35s, even though they are flying more hours annually.
Indeed, we know the hours flown each year by the F-35A and F-35B declined markedly over the first seven years of their lifetimes. This means aircraft just a few years old are being flown less than brand new planes and consequently being subject to less daily wear and tear, conveniently pushing the cost of replacing engines and other expensive depot-level work down the road, even as the services continue to buy new F-35s under what some, including myself, would call false cost metrics.
But beyond cost shifting, overall fewer hours being flown means less in-the-air training “stick time.” And while flight simulators are helpful, there is no substitute for training in a real plane, being subject to real flight forces. Sadly, due to unreliability and cost per flying hour, F-35 pilots are not getting the stick time they need to truly excel.
How the planes are flown during sorties matters. While the services do not typically report how the planes are actually being operated during a sortie, babying vs. pushing it to the limits of its airframe and engine will dramatically impact how much maintenance is required. Due to operational security concerns, exactly what non-combat operational limits are placed on the pilot and his plane is not available. But we do know now that there are very tight limits on how often and how long the F-35B and F-35C are permitted to go supersonic due to the damage done to their stealth coating and perhaps even structure during supersonic flight.
F-35 retrofits and upgrades kick costly engine overhauls down the road. By building and fielding aircraft even before final designs were complete, the F-35 program took concurrency to a level never seen before. This multibillion-dollar concurrency experiment resulted in an unprecedented number of retrofits and hardware modifications for early batches of F-35s — work that can take more than a year to complete for each affected plane. But while the plane is offline, it isn’t being used, so again, any necessary engine overhaul and associated maintenance costs will be kicked like a can into the future.
Putting it All Together
Consider a brand-new F-35A delivered to an Air Force squadron. In its first few years, it is assigned to training units where it generates many short-duration sorties of 1.5 hours or less, while generating over 200 or more flight hours per year. From there, it gets assigned to an operational squadron, flying fewer sorties of longer duration, but still racking up enough hours not to have a big negative impact on the fleet-wide average. Reduced sorties mean less monthly maintenance costs and less wear on the engine.
Then in year five and six, it undergoes refits and rework that take it out of service for a total of 12 months. While out of service it is not contributing hours and sorties, but it also is not putting wear on its engine, pushing a multi-million dollar engine overhaul out by another year. This cost shifting makes the program look better than it is. By year eight it is flying just over 150 hours per year, while the Air Force is counting on newer planes to keep the averages up.
While this kind of micromanagement can reduce maintenance costs due to fewer sorties and hours, it also shifts major costs into the future and depends on new planes to maintain average flight hours and sorties at a high rate. Once new planes stop entering the fleet, the number of hours and sorties pilots will be able to fly will have to be reduced to keep costs from going through the roof.
We don’t have the smoking gun, but…
Ultimately, due to legitimate operational security (OPSEC) concerns, the services won’t reveal full details on how the F-35 sorties and hours are being micromanaged or limitations and restrictions on how F-35 pilots are allowed to operate the aircraft. But we do know that the 2024 CBO report adjusted overall estimated sustainment costs for the F-35 program from $1.1 trillion to $1.58 trillion, while stating F-35s will be flying 21% less hours going forward due to reliability issues.
This is exactly what one would expect from the kind of cost shifting pattern we have described. What’s more, we can be sure sophisticated opponents like China and Russia have seen this report and have doubtlessly conducted in-depth analysis exposing the F-35’s inability to conduct high-tempo operations over a sustained period against a peer competitor, who, unlike opponents such as Venezuela and Iran, will regularly create situations in which we aren’t controlling the timing and tempo of our responses.
This lack of robustness also ensures that our pilots are shortchanged in skills development relative to what they could count on from a more reliable fighter.
By micromanaging F-35s, the true depth of their shortcomings can be concealed/minimized, helping to sustain support for a program diverting enormous resources from potentially more effective alternatives. It’s time to stop wallowing in sunk cost emotionalism and put a stop to buying planes whose reliability and costs make them a national security liability.
Ukrainian military analyst praises use of drones against ‘Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship’
Remix News | February 27, 2026
Ukrainian analyst Valery Savchuk spoke in a video about Ukraine’s geopolitical pressure on Hungary by shutting down the Friendship oil pipeline, calling it a correct strategy. He added that drones should also be used to strike at the “Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship,” writes Hirado, based on a video the analyst published.
“I personally like this Ukrainian position: the position of a serious player who uses all opportunities to achieve his goals. Blackmail? Yes, geopolitics. It’s time for us to play these games too — on the condition that this game leads to the desired result for us.”
He then went on to say that Ukraine should also use drones against the Hungarians and Slovaks. “Now we will wait for the decision of the European Union. We will wait for the effective work of our diplomats, and most importantly: We will wait for new devastating blows of our drones to this Russian-Hungarian-Slovak friendship,” he said, presumably referring to the Friendship oil pipeline.
Ukraine has been blamed for various attacks on the Friendship pipeline and Russian energy producers, including a massive wave of drone strikes in Russia territory that destroyed the Kaleykino pumping station.
Meanwhile, Parliamentary State Secretary Balázs Hidvéghi posted his own video message on the importance of a new national petition, where Hungarians can say “no” to financing the Russian-Ukrainian war, 10 years of support for Ukraine, and a rise in utility costs.
The Fidesz politician stressed that “Brussels is planning €1.5 trillion in aid for Ukraine and wants its membership by 2027. Given the events of recent days, it is especially important now for Hungarians to make their voices heard: Ukraine has not resumed oil shipments to Hungary for political reasons, while the Brussels leadership has sided with Ukraine.”
“Hungary has become the target of serious threats and pressure, and therefore it cannot remain silent now. He added that the government is calling on Hungarians to stand up against the Brussels-Ukraine-Tisza Pact and join the national petition,” he added.
The petition can be filled out until March 23, and according to estimates, the number of returned forms could exceed one million.
Daniel Davis: China & Russia Will Defend Iran
Glenn Diesen | February 26, 2026
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis is a 4x combat veteran, the recipient of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling, and is the host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive YouTube channel. Lt. Col. Davis discusses why diplomacy in Iran has failed, how there is no off-ramp, and why this war will likely be a disaster.
Daniel Davis Deep Dive: https://www.youtube.com/@DanielDavisDeepDive/videos
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
- X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
- Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
- Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
The US’ self-directed ‘China nuclear threat’ will only be a waste of effort: Global Times editorial
Global Times | February 27, 2026
On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio again touched upon China in terms of nuclear weapons negotiations, claiming that any nuclear arms treaty must include China. In the same few days, CNN published an “exclusive report,” citing so-called intelligence sources, to hype up the so-called “Chinese nuclear test.” These coordinated efforts are just a carefully orchestrated show by Washington. Earlier this month, Christopher Yeaw, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Arms Control and Nonproliferation at the US Department of State, disclosed a so-called “breaking news,” claiming that China conducted nuclear testing in 2020, causing a stir in international public opinion. Since then, the “China nuclear threat” rhetoric, directed by Washington, has been launched.
With high-ranking officials making statements, the so-called “insiders” disclosing information to the media, and a number of mainstream media outlets echoing the sentiment, Washington’s elaborate efforts are clearly driven by self-interest. The intention is obvious: Simultaneously with Yeaw’s alleged “Chinese nuclear test” revelations, he also conveniently stated that the US will return to testing on an “equal basis.” This timing coincides with the expiration of the New START Treaty between the US and Russia, a time when the US faces immense international pressure. Clearly, hyping up the “Chinese nuclear threat” is a two-pronged approach: It allows the US to deflect responsibility for deliberately delaying or even abandoning US-Russia nuclear negotiations, while simultaneously providing a fig leaf for its shady ambition to resume nuclear testing.
Washington’s close monitoring of China’s nuclear development is no secret. Take last year as an example. The Arms Control Treaty Compliance Report published in April focused solely on Russia’s suspected supercritical tests, while the Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China released in December detailed the so-called ‘China’s nuclear arsenal expansion and missile deployments,’ making no mention of so-called nuclear tests. It’s worth noting that these reports, in order to prove the so-called “China threat,” gathered various rumors from different sources. If there were truly “concrete information,” would Washington have kept it hidden from 2020 until now? Why didn’t it disclose it in official reports, but instead waited until the expiration of the New START Treaty between the US and Russia to release it? Moreover, global seismic networks, including the US Geological Survey under the Department of the Interior, did not record any abnormal seismic events at that time.
But this blame-shifting spectacle isn’t merely friction between China and the US. The US possesses more than 5,000 nuclear warheads, a considerable number of which are deployed in a ready-to-launch posture. It also stations tactical nuclear weapons in six NATO countries capable of conducting nuclear strikes. Under such circumstances, how could China engage in so-called “equal negotiations”? As the country with a vast nuclear arsenal and the greatest impact on global strategic balance, the US should shoulder special and primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament and demonstrate genuine sincerity. The reality, however, is that Washington not only shows no intention of reducing its arsenal, but is accelerating nuclear expansion. Should Washington fail to restrain its nuclear ambitions, the consequences for the world would be disastrous.
Facts indicate that the US itself has become the greatest hidden danger to global nuclear security. It has withdrawn from multiple international arms control agreements, while continuing to modernize its nuclear arsenal, develop new nuclear weapons, expand the scope of nuclear strike capabilities, and even lower the threshold for nuclear use. By introducing nuclear deterrence into regional conflicts, it has seriously undermined the stability of the global nuclear security architecture. More ironically, while frequently accusing other countries of “developing nuclear capabilities,” the US simultaneously engages in nuclear deterrence cooperation with its allies, transfers nuclear technology, and deploys nuclear equipment abroad. The double standard is evident.
It is the strong expectation of the international community that the US assumes its due responsibility as a major power in safeguarding global nuclear security. What Washington should do first is stop shifting blame. It should immediately resume strategic stability dialogue with Russia and discuss follow-up arrangements to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. In addition, AUKUS, which has raised concerns about nuclear proliferation, should be halted, and Washington should exercise restraint over its “close ally” Tokyo’s increasingly swelling nuclear ambitions. The waste contamination left behind by dozens of US nuclear tests in the South Pacific also urgently requires remediation. In the nuclear issue, Washington has many pressing responsibilities to fulfill, rather than “finding faults” with China.
Nuclear arms control is a shared security issue for all humanity. Safeguarding it requires major powers to take proactive responsibility. During the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, China said it is willing to maintain communication with all parties and exchange views on the work of the Conference and on the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. China has long participated in and supported a range of arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation mechanisms – actions and contributions that are visible to the international community. Washington’s elaborate scheme, full of hidden motives, lacks both persuasiveness and credibility, and will ultimately be a waste of effort. Hopefully, it could do something genuinely meaningful that contributes to world peace and security.
US fears Iran war will ‘deplete’ air defenses stretched thin by Ukraine, Israel: Report
The Cradle | February 26, 2026
Military officials and lawmakers in Washington have warned that a prolonged war with Iran could stretch US military stockpiles of air defense interceptor missiles “to the brink and make the country more vulnerable,” POLITICO reported on 26 February.
“Gen. Dan Caine, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, has raised concerns about the military’s shortage of air defense interceptors since January,” POLITICO wrote, citing a person familiar with the matter.
“But the fears have magnified in recent weeks as the Pentagon amassed the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the Iraq War,” the magazine added.
Since returning to the White House a year ago, US President Donald Trump has won praise from Israelis while supporting the genocide in Gaza and overseeing a massive expansion of US military operations, including in Venezuela, Yemen, and Nigeria.
Crucially, Trump ordered US warplanes to join Israel’s 12-day war on Iran to bomb Tehran’s nuclear sites in June 2025.
Interceptor missiles were used not only to protect US forces from Iranian and Yemeni counterattacks but also to protect Israel from Iran’s barrages of ballistic missiles and drones.
During these operations, US forces “burned through” significant numbers of Standard Missile-3s, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors, and Patriot missiles, POLITICO observed.
Since then, the Pentagon has been unable to replenish its interceptor stocks due to the complexity and slow pace of their production.
Six current and former US officials and members of Congress told POLITICO of their widespread worries that a sustained war with Iran could deplete remaining US air defenses and “leave tens of thousands of American troops in the region unprotected against Tehran’s missile salvos.”
An Israeli intelligence official stated on Thursday that the US only has the capacity to sustain four or five days of intense aerial assault on Iran, the Times of Israel wrote, citing the Financial Times (FT).
Israel is pushing for a major war, claiming that limited US strikes on Iran could only “embolden the regime,” the Times of Israel added.
Since January, President Trump has assembled what he called an “armada” of US naval ships with accompanying war planes in the region in preparation for a possible renewed attack on the Islamic Republic.
Analysts have suggested that Iran will retaliate much more strongly in the event of a second war, including against US bases in the Gulf, leading to a much longer and more devastating war than last June.
“Do we have enough interceptors to sustain a retaliation?” said the person familiar with the talks. “We don’t have a discretely focused objective. Is it regime change or is it [just] ballistic missiles?”
A US military spokesperson responded to the POLITICO report by saying its weapons stockpiles are sufficient.
“The Department of War has everything it needs to execute any mission at the time and place of the president’s choosing and on any timeline,” said spokesperson Sean Parnell.
However, some US lawmakers say that the defense industry is not producing enough Lockheed Martin-built Patriot interceptors or RTX’s Tomahawk long-range missiles, nor quickly enough.
“There have been urgent calls for reforms in procurement, but the net result is that we are seemingly unable to meet all of the needs for defense production – for Ukraine, for our partners in the Middle East,” said Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic congressman.
“It may be problematic to think about moving Patriot missile interceptor systems from the Middle East because now we’re going to have to protect our embassies, not to mention our bases,” he added.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank, estimated the US had used up to 20 percent of the Standard Missile-3 interceptors and between 20 and 50 percent of its THAAD missiles.
Featured Video
US Blockade on Iran Just Triggered Iran’s HARSHEST Response Yet
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Guatemala: A Test Tube of Repression
By Robert Parry | Consortium News | October 3, 2010
Last week’s grotesque revelation about American public health doctors infecting nearly 700 Guatemalans with venereal disease to test penicillin from 1946-48 marked just the start of the U.S. government’s post-World War II abuse of that Central American country.
Indeed, as troubling as the VD experiments were, U.S. administrations from Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan would do much worse, treating Guatemala as a test tube for Cold War counterinsurgency experiments that led to the slaughter of some 200,000 people, including genocide against Mayan Indian tribes. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Iranian knot needs to be untangled, not cut – Lavrov
- Villains of Judea: Charles Bronfman
- Seyed M. Marandi: US Blockade on Iran Just Triggered Iran’s HARSHEST Response Yet
- The new assault of the Zionist lobby in Brazil
- Italy suspends defense deal with ‘Israel’ over war on Iran, Lebanon
- Indonesia Agrees to Receive Oil, Gas Supplies From Russia – Indonesian Energy Ministry
- Saudi Arabia Urges US Back to Iran Talks as Other Oil Routes Face Risk
- Iran demands reparations from Arab states
- Tankers transit Strait of Hormuz amid US attempt to impose blockade, data shows
- US Strikes Kill Five in Alleged Pacific Anti-drug Campaign
- If Americans Knew
- ‘Not Acceptable’: President of Iran Condemns Trump For His ‘Desecration of Jesus, the Prophet of Peace’
- We Are the Barbarians
- Netanyahu Says the Trump Administration Gives Him Reports on Iran Talks Every Day
- Second Contractor Steps Forward to Blow the Whistle on Israeli Attacks at Gaza Aid Site
- Mighty Israel wants all of its neighbors to be defenseless – Daily Update
- Emergency waivers move arms for Israel, UAE to speed lane
- Caitlin Johnstone: Nobody’s “Obsessed” With Israel — It’s Just A Uniquely Horrible Country
- Israel’s Ben Gvir says he feels like the ‘owner’ of Al-Aqsa Mosque
- History of flotilla campaigns to end Israel’s siege of Gaza
- Humanitarian Scorecard: Six Months In, Gaza Ceasefire is Failing
- No Tricks Zone
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
Aletho News 