Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Coming War on Iran: What Has Really Been Happening?

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | January 13, 2026

The unrest inside Iran was effectively brought to a halt by the authorities, culminating in mass pro-government demonstrations in the millions across the country. Yet, the specter of a US-Israeli regime change operation continues to lie in the wake.

If you have been following the course of the protests/riots inside Iran on social media or in the corporate press, the impression given since the beginning of the year has been that Tehran is on the verge of collapse. Countless false claims were issued regarding the fall of entire cities, the collapse of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a massacre of peaceful protesters and even that Ayatollah Khamenei was seeking to escape to Moscow.

Evidently, the reality on the ground couldn’t have been more opposite of what the pro-regime change news outlets and social media influence operations have been portraying. Therefore, to understand what is happening, it is important to understand what truly transpired.

The Road to another Regime Change War

Ever since the conclusion of the 12-Day War between Iran and Israel last June, foreign policy hawks have made it abundantly clear that another round of fighting was only a matter of time. In fact, on July 7, 2025, Axios News reported that Israeli officials were already seeking a green-light, from the US President for them to attack Iran again.

Influential pro-Israeli Washington-based think tanks – such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and the Atlantic Council – all agreed that another round would be necessary, yet argued in different ways that the next round would have to result in the closure of the conflict for the foreseeable future.

The reasoning behind this was clear: if the next round was to mirror the 12-Day War, then another round would again become an inevitability. This scenario would mean that every 6-12 months, the conflict would go from Cold to Hot, a predicament that would actually heavily favour Iran.

If Tehran manages to keep repeating a similar series of rounds to what we saw in June of 2025, the Israelis will be at an enormous disadvantage. Not only does Israel have a smaller territory in which to operate, making taking out vital infrastructure easier, but it cannot produce weapons and rebuild at the rate Iran can. For example, the air defence munitions it depleted last year have still not been fully replenished, and many of the sites struck in Tel Aviv remain in ruins.

Iran, on the other hand, has been able to mass-produce ballistic missiles and drones. Western publicly released estimates greatly vary, but often indicate that the Iranians have replenished their arsenals, whereas the indications coming from Iran itself appear to suggest that they have superseded what they previously possessed, both in quantity and quality.

The US and Israel, nevertheless, have clearly been threatening to attack Iran once again for months, using varying excuses about why. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has recently been complaining about Iran’s missile program, which quickly became a talking point of the Trump administration, too.

Yet, the moment to attack Iran clearly hadn’t presented itself. There were simply too many variables, too many unknowns, and too many doubts for them to commit any action. We also saw this when it came to Israeli threats against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Even got to the point late last year that Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Naim Qassem, publicly stated that Israel is just bluffing and that although something may happen in the new year, he essentially told the Israelis to shut up and just attack if they were set on doing so.

Why didn’t Israel attack Lebanon? Perhaps the biggest reason why they didn’t is because of Iran and the fear of how far such a war could go. The Israelis attempted assassinations and ramped up their air attacks as a means of attempting to draw a retaliatory strike from Hezbollah, but this failed. Instead, the option left on the table was full-scale war or no war at all.

Then came the pivot to Iran, at least in terms of public propaganda and ramping up rhetoric.

Riots In Iran as A Prelude to War

On December 28, the Israelis spotted a new opportunity. Protests erupted throughout cities across Iran, as mainly shopkeepers took to the streets in order to express their outrage at government mismanagement amidst the ongoing sanctions-induced economic crisis.

To be clear, these protests were totally organic and genuine; they had the backing of major Unions inside the country, and the Iranian government appeared to be quickly engaging with them in order to reach concessions. There was no violence at these protests initially. Even when suspected agent provocateurs had attempted to chant for regime change, shopkeeper protesters had forced them out of their crowds.

By December 29, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett then posted a video on social media, in which he claimed that Israel was standing with the Iranians “rising up” against their government. Bear in mind that when this address was issued, the situation in Iran was in fact relatively calm, and the widespread riots had not yet taken place.

However, on social media, old videos and AI-generated clips were suddenly spread like wildfire, in a clearly coordinated campaign led by the Israelis and their Iranian opposition allies.

Almost out of nowhere, rioters began to spring up in small groups, primarily in the West of Iran. Some of these rioters carried weapons, but most just committed vandalism and burned down cars or shops. At this point, the protests over the economic crisis began to reduce, to be replaced by anti-government protests. Despite the violence and escalating rhetoric, the authorities in Tehran made sure to distinguish between rioters and legitimate protesters, not bringing down full force against them.

Then came the first day of the New Year, when the violence suddenly exploded. Iranian opposition channels began claiming cities had fallen, which never happened; they claimed millions were rising against the government, which also was not the case. On January 1, two Iranian police officers were murdered, and rioters even executed a young man who belonged to the Basij paramilitary force in the country.

The day after saw all the major Unions condemn the violent rioters, as Israel’s official Persian-language account posted AI-generated images depicting Iran’s police forces hosing down peaceful protesters. Again, the riots escalated and more members of the security forces were murdered, as rioters committed arson attacks.

All of this ended up coming to a head on January 8, as the riots escalated dramatically and this led to Iran shutting down the internet across the country as it took the gloves off and sent its IRGC forces in to stabilise the situation.

The largest recorded anti-government protests, as one called for by the Shah’s son from the comfort of California, numbered no more than in the tens of thousands. It is estimated that at their peak, there were around 40,000 that showed up.

The footage that began emerging from the streets of Tehran and elsewhere was nothing short of shocking, mass destruction and arson against public transit, the burning of mosques, attacks on schools, medical clinics, shops, homes and streets left in ruins as dumpsters were overturned and set alight, along with all the vehicles in sight.

In total, Iran claims that over 100 members of its security forces were murdered, 350 Mosques were set ablaze and 150 ambulances were damaged or destroyed. Civilians were also brutally murdered by the rioters, reportedly including a three-year-old child and a nurse who was burned to death; multiple police officers were also burned alive.

Without needing to go any further, there is copious evidence of armed militants firing on security forces and mass violence committed against civilian infrastructure. What started as a totally normal and organic series of protests was hijacked and turned into an Israeli-backed riot campaign. This was not comparable to the likes of the 2022 or 2009 unrest, which were evidently taken advantage of by Iran’s enemies, but had support from a sizable portion of the population nonetheless.

In the end, it appeared that by January 12, when millions of Iranians came to the streets across the country in solidarity with their government and against the rioters, the Israeli-backed operation had failed.

Yet, the US government had begun to ramp up its direct threats of intervention as the riots died down. Leaving the question open as to when the next round of American strikes would occur, following Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Iran last year.

The real question is whether these riots were a desperate and failed regime change attempt in and of themselves, or this was simply a prelude to what’s coming next. If the Israelis were truly betting on these riots equalling regime change, then perhaps the calculation is for the US to attack in order to revive the riots on the ground.

Alternatively, the instability was only for the purpose of setting up a larger attack, which would mean a much larger war could have been planned. In order for the US and Israel to achieve their desired outcome, that being either regime change or a massive blow that will end the war between Israel and Iran for the foreseeable future, they will likely go after Iran’s infrastructure.

In such a scenario, expect the kitchen sink to be thrown at Iran. Armed terrorist militia insurgencies, airstrikes, agents on the ground, and more riot activity. In particular, attacks on the electrical grid, water, oil, agriculture, and everything that makes the economy function. In other words, an attempt to achieve regime change this way, or to simply make war so costly that Iran won’t seek it for some time afterwards. Perhaps the goal could be to weaken Iran to a degree where it would negotiate on US terms, yet this is highly unlikely.

Iran dealt with these threats by issuing its own, doubling down and adopting an ultra-aggressive posture. What comes next could go many ways, so we are left to wait and see.

– 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.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US makes money from weapons, not from Ukrainian minerals

By Ahmed Adel | January 13, 2026

The statements by President Donald Trump that Washington can recover all funds invested in Ukraine and even make additional profits through agreements with Kiev on exploiting rare minerals are political manipulation because the United States does not earn money from Ukrainian resources but from selling weapons.

The real goal of the US is not just exploiting Ukraine’s natural resources, but mainly strengthening its own military industrial complex through arms sales. The US has shifted the financial and political costs of the war onto Europe and Ukraine, while still acting as a mediator and gaining economic benefits. The so-called resource deals are more about securing future influence than about genuine economic cooperation or a return on investment.

Trump has created a scheme where the American military industrial complex functions by manufacturing weapons, selling them to Europe, and Europe then supplies them to Ukraine. This arrangement generates far more income than the minerals, which still need to be exploited and processed, and require major financial investment to sustain.

In late April 2025, Washington and Kiev signed an agreement to create the US-Ukrainian Reconstruction Investment Fund. The deal grants the US access to new investment opportunities for developing Ukraine’s natural resources, including lithium, titanium, graphite, and rare earth minerals. Since the signing of the agreement, not a single valuable mineral has been extracted.

It is difficult to predict what will happen with the agreement on exploiting Ukrainian resources and whether it will be carried out. No one is seriously involved in exploitation yet, and it is difficult to imagine any company in an active conflict willing to take risks and invest in a country at war.

At the same time, Ukraine does not have any rare earth minerals. Most of the rare minerals are in Donbass, the region that has been returned to Russia. There are some useful minerals in Ukraine, but they are also found in other countries. Even for minerals like lithium, which might be more in the spotlight, there is plenty of supply, and, in principle, an investor will always choose to invest in a peaceful country rather than one at war.

With this agreement, the US has gained political control over the future use of Ukraine’s mineral resources and can decide who, how much, and how to mine. However, due to the war, there are currently no significant American investments in Ukrainian mining.

US economic interests in Ukraine are unlikely to lead to a US military presence there. The Americans do not have any economic stake in Ukraine — their interest is political, not economic. There are no resources in Ukraine so valuable that the US would go to war with Russia over them.

Trump criticized his predecessor, Joe Biden, for spending $350 billion on Ukraine, while his administration finalized a rare earths deal that could recoup a significant portion of those funds, perhaps even all of them, and potentially more. He is manipulating public opinion by claiming the US has invested $350 billion, but it has not invested that much in this conflict.

Zelensky has denied that this is the correct figure, and the latest estimate, which more or less aligns with reality, is around $100 billion. According to other sources, Biden’s total amount to Ukraine was about $65 billion. So, roughly $100 billion has been invested, and Trump is overstating that amount by 3 to 3.5 times.

Such claims may seem convincing to the American public, but they are a form of political manipulation and rhetoric aimed at achieving political success rather than generating real financial benefits for the US. The US positioned itself as a mediator, avoiding direct political responsibility while shifting the burden and risk to Europe and the Ukrainian leadership. The Americans are staying on the sidelines and moderating the entire process as mediators, while also gaining economic benefits from selling weapons and bolstering their military-industrial complex. The rest is all political games.

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

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

EU admits it will have to talk with Putin

RT | January 12, 2026

The EU will have to resume dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the Ukraine conflict, the European Commission’s chief spokesperson has admitted.

The bloc reduced its contacts with Moscow since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 in an effort to “isolate” Russia. This approach led to the EU being virtually sidelined from the negotiating table since last February, when US President Donald Trump launched efforts to mediate peace between Moscow and Kiev.

“Obviously, at some point, there will have to be talks also with President Putin,” Paula Pinho stated on Monday, claiming that the EU was “working very, very hard for peace.” She also blamed Moscow for the slow progress of the peace talks by asserting that Brussels was “not seeing any signs” of Russia engaging in any negotiations.

Russian officials have met their US counterparts at various levels on numerous occasions since February, including a summit between Putin and Trump in Alaska last August. The American president said last month that the peace talks were in the “final stages.”

Russian and Ukrainian negotiators also held several rounds of direct talks in Türkiye last year, after early negotiations between the parties stalled in spring 2022 after Kiev withdrew.

Moscow has also repeatedly stated it is ready to engage in peace talks with Kiev and its European backers. In December, presidential aide Yury Ushakov told journalists that Western leaders were welcome in Moscow for talks, but maintained that “the Europeans are refusing all contacts.”

Several European leaders have changed their rhetoric on Russia over the past months. In December, French President Emmanuel Macron stated it would be “useful” to reengage in talks with Putin. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni supported the idea last week by saying it was time for the EU to talk to Russia.

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Is a New Saudi-Led Axis Forming against the UAE & Israel?

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

The emergence of a new alliance in the region has the potential to challenge some of Israel’s more aggressive endeavors, so this could end up working in favor of the Palestinian people in some regards.

Prior to October 7, 2023, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia appeared poised to join the so-called “Abraham Accords” alliance and normalize ties with Israel. Now it appears to be forming new alliances and even undermining Israeli interests, pursuing a different regional cooperation agenda. Where this leads will be key to the future of the region.

In September of 2023, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, had informed Fox News that normalization with the Israelis was growing closer. This development came as then-US President Joe Biden had been seeking to broker such an agreement, which appeared to be his administration’s planned crowning achievement in the foreign policy realm.

The Hamas-led Al-Aqsa Flood operation changed the regional equation entirely. Riyadh, instead of normalizing ties with the Israelis and seeking concessions from the United States in order to enter into a regional alliance against Iran, began considering a different option entirely.

Israel’s weakness in the face of the Hamas-led attack was one message to the entire region, which was that if it could not even take care of its own security issues against a guerrilla army equipped with light weapons, then how could an agreement with Tel Aviv ensure the security of its allies? Another element to the developments in Gaza was that Israel decided to commit a genocide in order to restore its image in the region and in a gambit to “solve the Gaza question”.

This behavior, combined with attacks on nations across the region, evidently served to set normalization talks back and pushed Saudi Arabia to reaffirm its commitment to the Arab Peace Initiative of the 2000s—in other words, no normalization without a viable Palestinian State.

Then came the Israeli bombing of neighboring Qatar, a message to all Gulf nations that Israel is ready to act against any of their territories. It was even reported that Israel’s missiles flew over Saudi airspace in order to reach their target.

Since then, Saudi Arabia has been busy attempting to secure its interests and has signed a security pact with Pakistan as part of this effort. It is very likely that a large driving element behind this deal was to ensure that a future Iran-Israel war would not impact them directly. The Saudis are also currently working to strengthen their ties with Iran.

Yet Riyadh didn’t stop with Pakistan; it is now reportedly in high-level talks with Turkey in an attempt to bring them into the fold of their security agreement, in what is being labeled a Middle East NATO project. While it is perhaps too soon to predict the outcome of these talks and where such an agreement would lead, it suffices to say that there is certainly a realignment going on in West Asia.

The ongoing feud between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia was sent into overdrive when the Emiratis decided to order their proxies in Yemen to seize key regions of the nation’s east, home to 80% of the country’s oil reserves. These Southern Transitional Council (STC) separatists, backed by the UAE, took over the Mahra and Hadramaut provinces, posing a major security risk to the Saudis and Omanis.

In reaction to the UAE’s meddling, Riyadh decided to take the gloves off in Yemen and crushed the STC entirely. But the backlash against Abu Dhabi was not limited to the end of their proxy militia’s role in Yemen; instead, there was a media war in the UAE that aimed to expose its crimes across West Asia and in Africa, as well as a prepared economic blow.

As a result, there was a diplomatic fallout between the UAE and Algeria, over Abu Dhabi allegedly backing separatist movements there, and later the government of Somalia even rescinded its agreements with the Emiratis, following UAE-Israeli meddling in their affairs, in regard to the recognition of Somaliland as a State.

If Riyadh and Ankara do end up forming some kind of security alliance, it will likely also include Qatar. It would then prove interesting to see how they all coordinate on issues like Libya and Sudan. The Emiratis not only back the Rapid Support Forces militants in Sudan, who stand accused of committing genocide and mass rape, but long threw their weight behind warlord Khalifa Haftar in Libya.

This would also mean that the UAE’s role in Syria could be undermined or completely terminated, as it could also be forced from other areas of influence, like Iraq, too. It is clear that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have sway in Lebanon, so depending upon what their goals are there, this may prove an interesting development for the Lebanese predicament, too. The same goes for Egypt and beyond.

One thing to keep in mind is that such an alliance would not equate to an Axis of Resistance-style opposition to the Israelis. Although Riyadh may see it fit to teach its Emirati neighbors a lesson, the likelihood of any serious conflict with the Israelis is thin.

It is true that the Israelis, aided by their UAE lapdogs, are pursuing an ultra-aggressive policy in the region, especially against Ankara. Yet this competition is not one between warring nations seeking to defeat each other decisively; it is viewed, at least for now, as a competition instead. Turkey maintains its relations with Israel; the Saudis, on the other hand, have not formally recognized Tel Aviv, but have long been in communication with their Israeli counterparts.

An alliance of this nature does not serve as a new support system for any resistance front in the region; instead, it seeks to achieve security and to escape the grip of the emerging “Greater Israel” project. At this stage, it has become abundantly clear that there are no promises of a prosperous future through aligning fully with the Israelis; instead, Tel Aviv will aggressively pursue its interests against every nation in the region and doesn’t respect any agreements it signs. The recent Emirati-Israeli actions demonstrate this perfectly.

Ultimately, the emergence of a new alliance in the region has the potential to challenge some of Israel’s more aggressive endeavors, so this could end up working in favor of the Palestinian people in some regards.

This could prove beneficial to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which, instead of facing total isolation and seeking to combat Israeli schemes alone, may, on different issues, find itself on the same page as the Saudi-led alliance. Some analysts have posited that Tehran may eventually join such a security pact, although it is way too early to say if such a development is even on the cards.

Overall, we should not expect Riyadh to do a total one-hundred-and-eighty-degree foreign policy shift, nor should that be expected of Ankara; after all, they are US allies and maintain close relations with Washington. The real question is whether the United States is willing to push back against such an alliance for the sake of Israel, which is when things will really begin to get interesting.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UAE begins ‘hurried evacuation’ from Somali air base: Report

The Cradle | January 12, 2026

The UAE has begun evacuating security personnel and heavy military equipment from Somalia, after officials in Mogadishu reportedly suspended Emirati use of their territory and airspace for military operations, Middle East Eye (MEE) reported on 12 January.

The Somali government informed the Emiratis that “all their military activities in Somalia, including the use of airspace and the landing of cargo military aircraft in Bosaso, Berbera and Mogadishu, had been suspended,” a senior Somali official told MEE, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official said the UAE now appears to be evacuating its security personnel and military equipment to neighboring Ethiopia.

Citing flight-tracking data and two eyewitnesses, MEE reported that an average of six IL-76 cargo aircraft have arrived and departed the air base in Bosaso – the port city in Somalia’s Puntland – each day over recent days.

One source speaking with the UK news outlet described the flights as “resembling a hurried evacuation.”

“Unlike previous operations, where incoming cargo would be immediately transferred to another aircraft on standby, these planes have been arriving over several days, loaded with heavy military equipment, and departed without delay,” a source at Bosaso air base told MEE, describing the activity as highly unusual.

The UAE has long used Somalia as a rear operational base for its military engagements in both Sudan and Yemen. It had been using Bosaso’s port and airport in recent years to send weapons, mercenaries, and supplies to Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which is fighting a civil war against Sudan’s military.

Bosaso is part of a cluster of airfields the UAE has constructed in an effort to dominate the southern end of the Red Sea, the Bab al-Mandab Strait, and the Gulf of Aden.

According to a source in Somalia’s federal government, Mogadishu has revoked the agreement allowing the UAE to use the Bosaso air base and other facilities in the country.

Somali authorities opened an investigation into Emirati activities at Bosaso after the UAE used the air base to help a Yemeni separatist leader escape to the Gulf nation.

The separatist leader, Aidarus al-Zubaidi, is the president of the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC).

He was wanted by Saudi Arabia amid fighting between the STC and Saudi-backed forces in Yemen that began in December. The UAE was supporting the STC’s bid to take territory from the Saudi-backed Presidential Leadership Council (PLC) in hopes of creating an independent state in southern Yemen.

Zubaidi was supposed to travel to Saudi Arabia for talks to end the violence, but the UAE secretly helped him escape to Abu Dhabi. He first traveled by ship to the breakaway region of Somaliland, then boarded a plane at the Bosaso air base to travel to the UAE.

After helping Zubaidi escape, the Somali government informed the Emiratis that all their military activities in Somalia were suspended.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are increasingly competing for influence in both Yemen and Somalia.

The UAE is closely aligned with Israel, which has supported Somaliland in its effort to gain formal independence from Somalia.

In contrast, Saudi Arabia has supported Somalia’s unity and established closer relations with officials in Mogadishu.

Saudi officials held an Organisation of Islamic Cooperation conference on Somalia over the weekend and rallied the Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to issue statements in support of Somalia’s unity after Israel recognized Somaliland.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UK believes it can seize any tanker under Russia sanctions – BBC

RT | January 12, 2026

The British government believes it has found a legal way for its military to seize any vessels in UK waters that it suspects of being part of a so-called ‘shadow fleet’, state broadcaster BBC has reported.

The move is expected to target Russia, Iran and Venezuela, all of whom the UK claims use third-party vessels to circumvent Western sanctions, according to the report.

Britain’s 2018 Sanctions and Money Laundering Act initially allowed London to impose sanctions in line with UN Security Council resolutions but was later expanded to allow entities London has accused of human rights violations to be targeted.

The law states that the government can detain “specified ships” in its territorial waters or prevent them from entering. This can affect vessels going through the English Channel – one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. It also says that any ships can be targeted, except for those of the navies of foreign nations. The legislation does not explicitly mention the use of military force, though.

According to BBC, it is unclear when the UK could launch an operation targeting a foreign vessel. The British military have not boarded any vessels so far, the broadcaster said, adding that the UK did aid the US in seizing the ‘Marinera’ oil tanker last week.

The ship was intercepted in international waters northwest of Scotland. Moscow, which granted the tanker a temporary sailing permit, condemned the seizure as a gross violation of international rules.

Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Western governments have imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia, targeting its oil trade and what they call its “shadow fleet” in particular.

According to BBC, London has imposed restrictions against more than 500 suspected “shadow fleet” vessels. The UK also imported oil products from refineries processing Russian crude worth £3 billion ($4.04 billion) over a period between 2022 and the second quarter of 2025, according to a June report by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). That generated £510 million ($687 million) in revenue for Moscow.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Pirates of the Caribbean

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 12, 2026

So many things are happening in such a short space of time that it is difficult to keep track of them all. Certainly, one of the most “entertaining” is the return of piracy, which the United States of America inaugurated at the beginning of 2026.

We are talking about a new and particularly controversial phase of their economic and strategic pressure policy: the direct seizure of oil tankers on the high seas, believed to be involved in the transport of crude oil on behalf of states subject to unilateral U.S. sanctions, in particular Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. This practice, which Washington presents as a legitimate enforcement activity against illegal trafficking, is raising profound questions about international maritime law and the balance between state sovereignty, freedom of navigation, and the use of force.

From the Caribbean to the icy North Seas, the most emblematic case is that of the oil tanker Mariner, seized a few days ago after a long chase in the North Atlantic by the U.S. Coast Guard, while the ship was being joined by Russian naval forces. According to U.S. authorities, the ship was part of the so-called shadow fleet, an informal network of oil tankers that operate through frequent changes of name, flag, and management company in order to evade sanctions regimes. This operation is accompanied by other significant seizures or interceptions, including the tankers Sophia, Skipper, and Centuries, stopped in various maritime areas on similar charges of sanctioned oil trafficking and fraudulent use of flags of convenience. In short, a cinematic-style raid. Donald “Sparrow” Trump has found a new hobby.

As for the Mariner, to be fair, it is a VLCC oil tanker built in 2002. Its gross tonnage is over 318,000 tons, making it one of the largest types of oil tankers used in the global crude oil trade. In terms of age and technical characteristics, it is an ordinary working ship, designed to operate for 25-30 years, provided it passes inspections. Since its construction, the ship has not had a stable “nationality.”

Over the course of more than twenty years, it has changed its name, flag, and owners several times, a practice typical of tankers operating in sanctioned and semi-sanctioned segments of the market. The ship was successively named Overseas Mulan, Seaways Mulan, Xiao Zhu Shan, Yannis, Neofit, Timimus, Bella 1, and finally Marinera. Each name change was accompanied by a change of jurisdiction or management company. The flags also changed regularly. The ship flew the flags of the Marshall Islands, Liberia, Palau, and Panama. According to international databases, there was a period when the ship flew the flag of Guyana, indicating an incorrect or unconfirmed registration. This episode was subsequently used as a formal pretext for intervention by the U.S. Coast Guard.

After the persecution began, the ship obtained temporary registration under the flag of the Russian Federation with Sochi as its port of registry, as recorded in official ship registers. The history of the ship’s ownership and management also indicates its commercial rather than state nature. Over the years, the ship has been managed by companies registered in Asia and offshore jurisdictions, including structures linked to Chinese and Singaporean operators. Between 2022 and 2023, the owner and manager of the ship was Neofit Shipping Ltd, then Louis Marine Shipholding ENT. Since the end of December 2025, the owner and commercial operator of the ship has been the Russian company Burevestmarin LLC. This is a private entity, not linked to state-owned oil companies and not part of any “state fleet.”

In recent years, the ship has been used in the classic sanctions evasion scheme linked to the Iran-Venezuela-China routes. A crucial turning point came in mid-December 2025, when the United States announced an effective maritime blockade of Venezuela. The tanker, then called Bella 1, had left the Iranian port in November and was approaching the Venezuelan coast just as these measures were introduced. The attempt to enter the port was interrupted by the U.S., after which the ship set course for the Atlantic Ocean. The composition of the crew also clearly shows the commercial nature of the ship. Most of the sailors on board are Ukrainian citizens, while there were also Georgian citizens and only two Russians on board. The Mariner proved to be a convenient demonstration target for the U.S. as part of its new strategy of forcibly disrupting Venezuelan oil routes.

The owner’s attempt to hide under the Russian flag was a logical commercial move, but it did not change the intentions of the U.S. Russia was formally involved in the situation as the flag state and because of the presence of Russian citizens in the crew. The ship was not of strategic value to Russia and was not part of its oil logistics. Any escalation around a private tanker, which had been operating for decades on gray routes, would have made no rational sense.

From Washington’s point of view, the legitimacy of such actions rests on two main pillars. The first is the extraterritorial application of U.S. sanctions: seized tankers are considered assets directly involved in violations of Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) regulations and are therefore subject to confiscation. The second pillar is the doctrine of the stateless vessel, according to which a ship that cannot credibly prove its nationality—due to irregular registrations, false flags, or contradictory documentation—loses the legal protection guaranteed by the flag state and can be stopped by any other state on the high seas.

Bye-bye Law of the Sea

It is precisely this second point that is the focus of much of the legal debate. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes that, on the high seas, a ship is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state. Exceptions to this principle are limited and strict: piracy, slave trade, unauthorized radio transmissions, absence of nationality, or express authorization from the UN Security Council. The extension of these exceptions to the application of unilateral sanctions, not approved by the United Nations, is a highly contested interpretation.

Russia and China have reacted harshly to the seizures, calling them a blatant violation of international law and, in some cases, an act comparable to state piracy. Moscow argues that the seized tankers were flying regular flags and that the use of force against commercial vessels in peacetime, outside a UN mandate, constitutes a breach of the maritime legal order. Beijing, for its part, has emphasized the illegitimate nature of unilateral sanctions and the risk that such practices create dangerous precedents, normalizing the armed interdiction of commercial shipping.

The implications of this new phase are significant. On the legal front, there is growing tension between a law of the sea based on the neutrality of routes and freedom of navigation, and a power practice that tends to transform economic sanctions into instruments of military coercion. On the geopolitical front, there is a risk of maritime escalation, with possible countermeasures by the affected states and a progressive militarization of global energy routes.

On the other hand, all this is consistent with what the U.S. administration is doing: creating rapid chaos that distracts the world, while surgically targeting certain elements within the American system and, on the other hand, applying the Donroe Doctrine and establishing control over the Western Hemisphere.

The seizure of oil tankers is not just an isolated episode of conflict between states, but a sign of a deeper transformation of the international order. The U.S. has set out with conviction and has no intention of stopping. If this practice were to become established, international maritime law would risk being very quickly stripped of its fundamental principles, leaving room for a logic of force in which naval supremacy replaces shared legality. The issue, therefore, is not only about the seized ships, but the entire future of global maritime governance.

The U.S. has said it: Venezuela is American property and from now on will be its new backyard. Greenland will be next.

Piracy elevated to the rank of military strategy and international relations.

And remember: in just 11 months of government, since the beginning of his second term, Donald Trump has bombed seven sovereign countries: Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela. He has kidnapped one head of state (Maduro) and threatened to kill three others: Khamenei, Petro, and Rodriguez. He has threatened to invade five countries: Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, and Greenland (i.e., Denmark). He has done everything in his power to prevent the international community from passing resolutions against Israel and its prime minister Netanyahu during and after the massacres in Gaza.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense, who is not misled by political preconceptions, can draw the most basic conclusions from these actions.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UK to Develop Nightfall Ballistic Missile With Over 300 Miles Range for Ukraine – Ministry

Sputnik – 12.01.2026

The United Kingdom will develop a new Nightfall ballistic missile with a range of over 500 kilometers (310.6 miles) for Ukraine, the UK Defense Ministry said on Sunday.

“The UK will develop new tactical ballistic missiles that boost Ukraine’s firepower … Under Project Nightfall, the UK has launched a competition to rapidly develop ground-launched ballistic missiles with a range of more than 500 kilometres and designed to operate in high-threat battlefields with heavy electromagnetic interference,” the ministry said in a statement.

Missile’s specifications:

  • >500 km range
  • 200 kg warhead
  • $1 million per missile
  • Production: < 10/month

Three industry teams will each receive $12 million to design and deliver three test missiles within 12 months, the statement said.

The West’s plan to further militarize Ukraine is far from a peaceful settlement and is rather aimed at escalating and spreading the conflict, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said earlier.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The Coalition of the Willing has achieved nothing

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 11, 2026

The war in Ukraine happened because western nations insisted that Ukraine be allowed to join NATO but were never willing to fight to guarantee that right.

That reality has never changed. This week’s latest Summit of the Coalition of the Willing has confirmed that it will not change any time soon.

The only countries that appear remotely willing to deploy troops to Ukraine in a vague and most certainly limited way are the British and French.

Both would need parliamentary approval which can’t be guaranteed. Reform Leader Nigel Farage has already come out to say that he wouldn’t back a vote to deploy British troops to Ukraine because we simply don’t have enough men or equipment. And even though Keir Starmer has the parliamentary numbers to pass any future vote on deploying British troops, it would almost certainly damage his already catastrophic polling numbers.

Macron is clinging on to his political life and would probably face a tougher tussle to get his parliament to approve the French sending their troops to Ukraine, potentially leaving the UK on its own.

In any case, it is completely obvious that Russia won’t agree to any deployment in Ukraine by NATO troops. This shows once again that western leaders have learned absolutely nothing over the past decade. It will never be possible to insist that Russia sues for peace under terms which is has long made clear are unacceptable at a time when it was winning on the battlefield, and European nations refuse to fight with their own troops.

Hawkish British journalist Edward Lucas, with whom I disagree on most things, summed it up well in an opinion in the Times newspaper when he said:

We are promising forces we do not have, to enforce a ceasefire that does not exist, under a plan that has yet to be drawn up, endorsed by a superpower (read the U.S.) that is no longer our ally, to deter an adversary that has far greater willpower than we do.

President Putin has shown an absolute determination not to back down until his core aims, namely to prevent NATO expansion, are achieved. And as I have said many times, the west can’t win a war by committee.

All of these pointless Coalition of the Willing meetings happen in circumstances where Europe refuses to talk to Russia upon whom an end to the war depends. Peace will only break out after Ukraine and Russia sign a deal, and the west appears deliberately to be doing everything possible to ensure that Russia never signs.

Instead, we entertain Zelensky with hugs and handshakes, reassuring him that we will do anything he wants for as long as he needs, only to offer insufficient help all of the time.

And, as Zelensky is in any case unelected, not likely to win elections in Ukraine as and when they happen, overseeing a corrupt regime that is adopting increasingly repressive tactics to keep a losing war going, it is not in his interest to see the war end anyway.

His calculus continues to be that, if he clings on for long enough, the west will finally be dragged into a direct war with Russia. So, he’s happy to drag out an endless cycle of death by committee in which European leaders never agree to give him exactly what he wants and he uses that as a pretext not to settle.

Zelensky went on from Paris to Cyprus where, among other things, he has been pushing for more sanctions against Russia. At no point since 2014 have sanctions looked remotely likely to work against Russia, for reasons I have outlined many times.

The European Commission is now planning its twentieth round of sanctions to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the war on 24 February 2026. So with peace talks ongoing, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas as always are doing their bit to ensure that nothing gets agreed.

None of this brings the war any closer to an end nor does it provide any security guarantees to Ukraine. As always, the biggest security guarantee should be the offer by European allies to intervene militarily in Ukraine should Russia decide to reinvade after any future peace deal.

But that was not agreed in Paris. Instead, the Paris Declaration said, ‘we agreed to finalise binding commitments setting out our approach to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. These may include, military capabilities, intelligence and so on.’

In diplomatic parlance, agreeing to ‘finalise commitments that may include’ basically means that nothing has been agreed.

The declaration also said:

We stand ready to commit to a system of politically and legally binding guarantees. However, the final communique gave individual countries opt outs from those guarantees by saying that any guarantees would be, ‘in accordance with our respective legal and constitutional arrangements’.

So, again, in diplomatic parlance, what this means is that some coalition members may be able to opt out of the security guarantees if they decide that their domestic framework does not allow for such an arrangement, thinking here in particular of Hungary, Italy and Spain, for example.

What the declaration does achieve is to commit European nations to paying Ukraine to maintain an army of 800,000 personnel after the war ends which, by the way, is significantly higher than the total number of armed forces personnel of Germany, France and Britain combined.

Even though these are Ukrainian troops, not European, Russia will undoubtedly see EU funding of a large Ukrainian army on its border as a form of NATO lite. Which, of course, Zelensky would welcome.

So the process of holding near weekly Coalition of the Willing summits is entirely pointless, though perhaps that is the point. Since 2022, western leaders have been completely unable to say no to Zelensky, either through guilt or stupidity, or both.

Yet at some point, if only for their own political survival, Starmer and others will have to politely decline to offer more support and make it clear to Zelensky that he has no choice but to sue for peace. To me, at least, the European offer to Zelensky follows these lines:

Ukraine cannot join NATO (sorry we lied to you about that) but you can join the European Union and we will help you make the reforms you need to do so.

You will get significant investment when the war ends that boosts your economy. As your people return home, we believe Ukraine has potential to grow quickly and reconstruct.

However, it may still be many years before you receive EU subsidies on the level of other European Members, and you possibly may not receive them at all.

And you will have to become financially sustainable, including meeting the EU’s fiscal deficit like other EU member states.

I’m afraid that means that you won’t be able to maintain an army of 800,000 people at Europe’s expense (sorry we reassured you that you could).

But, as a European Union member you would have a security guarantee by virtue of your membership of this community, even though only Macron’s France has said it would send you troops (je m’excuse).

You should also be aware that Europe sees benefit in a normalised economic relationship with Russia, that includes purchasing cheap Russian energy. We can’t go on buying massively expensive U.S. LNG just to avoid hurting your feelings.

Sanctions may have been a policy or war, but they won’t be a policy of peace, and you will need to accept that we will drop them too.

We have now reached the limit of the financial support that we can provide to you so we have reached the point of now or never in your signing a peace deal.

That requires you to make hard choices about de facto recognition of land on the lines of the peace deal that the U.S. is trying right now to finalise with Russia.

Without that, he will simply continue this charade of endless pointless Summits and the war will drag Europe even further into the mire.

That’s a lot to take in and we’ve already apologised enough as it is. Look, we lied to you okay, but everyone makes mistakes.

Somehow, though, I predict the Europeans will continue to drift in circles. I wonder where the next Coalition of the Willing Summit will be? I hope it’s soon, as Zelensky might actually have to spend some time inside of Ukraine if there’s a delay. And he likes it in Europe as it’s the only place where everyone seems to love him.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Britain and France want to ‘set Europe on fire’ – Hungarian FM

RT | January 11, 2026

Britain and France are risking dragging Europe into an all-out war with Russia, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said, condemning plans to deploy Western troops in Ukraine.

On Tuesday, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron signed a declaration of intent with Ukraine to establish “military hubs” in the country after a peace deal with Moscow. UK Defense Secretary John Healey later said during a visit to Kiev that London would spend $270 million on equipping units ready to become part of a “multinational force.”

Hungary has consistently opposed further escalation with Russia and has urged the EU to focus on diplomacy. Speaking at a congress of the ruling conservative Fidesz party on Saturday, Szijjarto said the “war fanaticism” of Western European leaders was “throwing Hungary into the greatest danger.”

“Last weekend, a statement was released in Paris announcing the two European nuclear powers’ decision to send their troops to Ukraine. Essentially, this means that the European nuclear powers are starting a war. Their goal, let us be clear, is to engulf all of Europe in flames,” the diplomat said.

Szijjarto argued that the EU viewed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban as “the only obstacle” to its plans and was seeking to replace him with a pro-Ukrainian leader in parliamentary elections scheduled for April.

“If we win the election, we will stay out of the war,” he said. “If we do not win, then the Brussels–Kiev plan will be implemented.”

Under the plan outlined in Paris, Britain and France would deploy troops to help build protected weapons facilities and take part in US-led truce monitoring. The US has ruled out sending its own soldiers to Ukraine.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that Moscow would treat any Western troops or military sites in Ukraine as “a foreign intervention” posing a threat to its security. Russia has listed Ukrainian neutrality, including no foreign troops on the ground, as one of its key conditions for a lasting peace.

January 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Larry Johnson: End of Negotiations & Launch of Oreshnik

Glenn Diesen | January 10, 2026

Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses provocations, end of negotiations and launch of the Oreshnink.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

January 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia carries out three evacuation flights from Israel in under 24 hours

MEMO | January 9, 2026

Russian authorities have reportedly carried out three evacuation flights from Israel in less than 24 hours, transporting officials and their families to Russia, according to Hebrew and regional media.

Israel’s Channel 14 reported on Thursday that the flights were conducted without any official explanation from Moscow. Separate reports in Russian and Iranian media said the evacuations were carried out under what appeared to be an urgent mandate, involving officials and their families.

The reports suggested that the pace of the evacuations was faster than usual, fuelling speculation that Moscow may have received sensitive or significant information prompting the move. However, no details were provided regarding the nature of the alleged information or the identities of those evacuated.

The Kremlin has not issued any official statement clarifying the reasons behind the evacuation flights, and Russian authorities have so far declined to comment on the reports.

January 9, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »