Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ukraine’s Patriots can’t tackle Russian missiles – FT

RT | October 2, 2025

The Russian military has modified its missiles to better evade Ukrainian air defenses, including US-made Patriot systems – often seen as a key linchpin of Kiev’s shield – the Financial Times reported on Thursday, citing officials in Kiev and the West.

According to officials interviewed by the FT, Russian missiles can now follow a normal arc before veering into a steep terminal dive or executing maneuvers that “confuse and avoid” Patriot interceptors. The outlet cited recent strikes against Ukrainian drone facilities as a strong indication that Russia has likely upgraded the Iskander-M mobile system and the air-launched Kinzhal.

One former Ukrainian official called the added maneuverability “a game changer for Russia,” the newspaper reported, adding that deliveries of US-supplied Patriot interceptors, essentially the only weapon in Ukraine’s arsenal capable of tackling Moscow’s ballistic missiles, are not coming as quickly as planned.

The paper also noted that data released by the Ukrainian Air Force shows that the rate of interception of Russian ballistic missiles improved over the summer, reaching 37% in August, but then fell to just 6% in September.

Ukraine shares data on Patriot battlefield performance with the Pentagon and weapons producers, according to the FT. Officials told the outlet that while efforts are being made to improve the Patriots’ performance, they often lag behind Moscow’s evolving tactics.

Ukraine’s Air Force flagged similar concerns in May. Spokesman Yury Ignat said that the ballistic trajectories of the Iskander-M missiles “have been improved and modernized” while the projectiles could fire off radar decoys. He also complained that Ukraine’s domestically designed air defenses are unable to shoot down most of the Russian missiles, while those produced in the West are used to cover key infrastructure and other high-priority targets.

Moscow has repeatedly said its strikes only target military-related infrastructure, defense industry, and troop deployment bases and are never aimed at civilians.

October 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

EU leaders ‘want to go to war’ with Russia – Orban

RT | October 2, 2025

The EU leadership appears intent on pushing the bloc into a war with Russia, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Thursday.

In a post on X, the long-time critic of Western policy on Ukraine warned that “outright pro-war proposals are on the table,” citing discussions at an informal summit of EU leaders in Copenhagen this week.

“They want to hand over EU funds to Ukraine. They are trying to accelerate Ukraine’s accession with all kinds of legal tricks. They want to finance arms deliveries. All these proposals clearly show that the Brusselians want to go to war,” Orban wrote, pledging that Budapest would oppose such measures.

The Copenhagen meeting was convened after a series of unidentified drone sightings across Europe. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said her government could not determine the origin of the aircraft but claimed that “we can at least conclude that there is primarily one country that poses a threat to Europe’s security – and that is Russia.”

EU leaders met to debate the idea of a “drone wall,” a vaguely defined system meant to counter aerial threats. Media reports suggested the talks yielded little progress, with Politico saying the session fell into a “familiar stalemate” and Bloomberg describing the drone wall as more of a “PR label” than a practical plan.

Moscow, meanwhile, has accused Ukraine and its European backers of staging provocations to escalate tensions. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) claimed this week that the recent drone incursion into Polish airspace – blamed on Moscow by Warsaw – was actually a Ukrainian false-flag operation and predicted more such incidents ahead.

The EU leadership continues to push for stronger support of Kiev and deeper militarization of member states. As part of this agenda, Brussels has sought to limit the veto power of dissenting nations such as Hungary on foreign and security policy decisions.

October 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

US to Provide Ukraine With Intelligence for Strikes Deep Into Russia – Reports

Sputnik – 02.10.2025

US President Donald Trump has allowed intelligence agencies and the Pentagon to provide Ukraine with intelligence for strikes deep into Russia against energy infrastructure facilities, The Wall Street Journal newspaper reported, citing US officials.

Washington is also asking NATO countries to provide similar support, the report said on Wednesday.

In addition, the United States is considering supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk and Barracuda missiles, as well as other missiles with a range of about 500 miles (804 kilometers), the report added.

Russia has said that arms supplies to Ukraine hinder the conflict settlement, directly involving NATO countries in it. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be a legitimate target for Russia.

October 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Leaked Israeli Transcripts Reveal Trump Lied About Attack on Iran

Mainstream media won’t cover this story

By Kevin Barrett | American Free Press | September 30, 2025

Israel’s June 13 attack on Iran, which the US joined on June 22, was framed as a desperate attempt to pre-empt an imminent Iranian nuclear threat. On June 21, Donald Trump insisted that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was mistaken when she testified, in March, that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.

According to CBS News, a reporter asked Trump: “What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community had said they have no evidence that they are at this point.” Trump responded: “Well then, my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?” The reporter answered: “Your director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.” “She’s wrong,” Trump insisted. Later he told reporters aboard Air Force One: “I don’t care what she said, I think they were very close to having one.”

It was all a big lie. Trump was getting his so-called intelligence from Israel, which was reeling from a wave of Iranian counter-strikes and desperately needed the US to join the war. Shockingly, we now know that Israel never really believed that Iran was building a nuclear bomb.

Recently-leaked Israeli documents show that Israel’s real motives for attacking Iran, and drawing the US into its war, were very different from the “immanent nuclear threat” claim. On September 14, Israeli Channel 13 published leaked transcripts of Netanyahu’s security cabinet meetings just before and during the June war. According to Netanyahu’s own words, and those of his advisors, the real aim of the war was not to pre-empt an imminent Iranian bomb—they knew there was no such threat—but rather to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader and as many other leaders as possible, slaughter top Iranian scientists, inflict maximum damage on Iran’s ballistic missile sites, terrorize the Iranian people, cause a mass exodus from Tehran, and thereby, hopefully, instigate a regime change. The nuclear threat, Netanyahu admitted, was “within a few years,” not days, weeks, or months.

Even Netanyahu’s claim that Iran would build nuclear weapons “within a few years” may have been grossly exaggerated. The leaked transcripts show a senior military figure explaining that the real military rationale for bombing Iran—aside from the attempt to instigate regime change—was “to improve Israel’s strategic balance” and “preventing Tehran from going nuclear in the long term.”

Let that sink in. Israel was trying to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons “in the long term.” What does that mean, in years? I knew the approximate answer, but asked ChatGPT anyway: “When military strategists talk about ‘the long term’ what is the time frame, in years, they’re referring to?”

ChatGPT replied:

“Short term: Months to 1–2 years (immediate operations, contingencies, current deployments).

Medium term: About 3–7 years (building readiness, procurement cycles, training new units, near-future conflicts).

Long term: Typically 10–30 years…”

So to the extent that there was any real prospect of Iran building nuclear weapons, it was in the time frame of ten to thirty years. Yet Netanyahu and Trump risked World War III by massively bombing Iran on a blatantly false pretext—a pretext that makes George W. Bush’s lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction seem tame by comparison.

Ironically, the failed Israeli-American attack on Iran may create the very scenario it ostensibly sought to avoid. Iran’s aging Supreme Leader has repeatedly re-issued a religious edict banning nuclear weapons and other WMD. He insists that such weapons are sinful. That’s why strategists have long known—as Tulsi Gabbard said, and a top military advisor to Netanyahu confirmed—that it is highly unlikely that Iran will build a nuke in the foreseeable future…at least it was unlikely, until Netanyahu and Trump kicked the hornet’s nest with their June attack. That attack caused the Iranian people to rise up in fury behind a new generation of hardline leaders, far more militant than the current Supreme Leader, who are open to the argument, now supported by the majority of the Iranian people, that Iran must scrap its prohibition on WMD and build or buy nuclear bombs to deter future attacks.

According to a leading expert, Theodore Postol of MIT, Iran may have already built nuclear weapons in response to the June attack. In an interview with Glenn Diesen headlined “Iran Is Now an Undeclared Nuclear State,” Postol explained that the Israeli-US attack didn’t harm Iran’s now-hidden stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, which can be quickly, easily, and secretly made into bombs.

So the real reason Iran wasn’t building nukes was that it didn’t want them. But now, thanks to Netanyahu and Trump, it probably does.

The June attack wasn’t just a big lie, and a crime. It was a mistake—a blunder of epic proportions.

September 30, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Why the US is so open about its intentions for Lebanese civil war

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | September 30, 2025

The United States is now openly admitting that it is arming the Lebanese military to fight its own people and that it won’t allow Lebanon to defend itself against the Israelis. This is no mistake and is instead part of a clear-cut strategy, designed to plunge the nation into chaos.

Although Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has openly followed orders from his American allies, choosing to pursue the disarmament of Hezbollah without any national defense strategy, a move opposed by the majority of the Lebanese public, it seems that the US is still not impressed.

While some have been duped into believing the policy of pursuing disarmament depends on the willingness of the Lebanese military, this way of reading the current American plot is completely wrong. Disarming Hezbollah is just step one in a much more complex strategy.

Since the ceasefire on November 27, 2024, the Zionist regime has continuously bombarded Lebanese territory, anywhere and at any time. They have committed around 5,000 total violations, continuing to expand their military presence in the south of Lebanon, where the Zionist leadership vows to remain indefinitely.

It is crucial at this stage to ask why, especially since airstrikes, specifically those that kill civilians, only complicate the US-assigned tasks of the Lebanese government, bringing both shame and embarrassment, particularly to Nawaf Salam.

One way of looking at the airstrikes is that the Israelis are seeking to degrade the capabilities of Hezbollah and prevent them from rebuilding following the war. Yet, their strikes are simply not effective enough to make a significant dent in this regard, although they may be hitting some sensitive targets on occasion.

This leaves us with the obvious explanation: the ongoing military assault is part of a war of perception which Hezbollah should behave in a very calculated way to deal with. The Israelis achieve two objectives by carrying out more and more provocative violations of Lebanese sovereignty: they project an image of dominance and attempt to bait Hezbollah into responding.

Some would then ask: Why does Hezbollah not respond? A question sometimes asked rhetorically in order to infer that they are too weak to do so.

The answer is quite simple. Hezbollah has put up a limited military front for almost an entire year in support for Gaza, responding to each Israeli escalation in what it considered a calculated manner. Yet all this merely allowed “Israel” to hatch a plot which harmed not only Hezbollah, but Lebanon as a whole. Despite this, the Zionist regime failed to finish the job, and Hezbollah not only survived but fought a defensive war to a stalemate.

If Hezbollah decides to respond in a limited manner to Israeli aggressions, it would provide the perfect excuse for the occupying entity to launch a large-scale military operation which would significantly damage Lebanon. In return, if Hezbollah does not manage to achieve major and overt military victories in such a confrontation, it would be a devastating blow.

In other words, the next confrontation has to be on a much greater scale than anything seen before, a military campaign in which Hezbollah manages to shock not only the Israelis, but the world, and most importantly, the Lebanese people themselves.

The martyred Secretary General of Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, often spoke of the media war with the Zionist entity, treating it with great seriousness. This was because public perception shapes not only political outcomes, but also the course of battles on the ground through morale.

Prior to September 2024, the stock of Hezbollah was incredibly high. The public perception was that the Resistance was capable of defeating the Israelis by itself. This is why the end of the war and its results, the renewed occupation of Lebanese lands, brought shock. In reality, Hezbollah’s capabilities were never matching those of the Israelis, yet the tenacity of the Lebanese fighter and the Resistance’s planning created such an impression, especially following the 2006 war.

The perception of Hezbollah’s strength made the Israeli terrorist pager attack and assassination strikes against its leadership all the more devastating, because the public believed such attacks to be impossible.

This is something that the US has since weaponised, with figures like US envoy Morgan Ortagus even declaring that Hezbollah is over. This brings us to her fellow American envoy Tom Barrack’s recent interview with Sky News Arabia.

Barrack explicitly asserted that the US is supplying the Lebanese army to fight its own people, even laughing at the idea that this support is intended to confront “Israel”. While some analysts interpreted Barrack’s statements as ill-advised or mistaken, they couldn’t be further from the truth, there is a reason why he speaks with such confidence.

The U.S. Trump administration understands full-well that the Lebanese army is not capable of removing Hezbollah’s weapons by force alone. The Americans and their Israeli allies may be many things, but they are not naive on this issue. They understand that many strings must be pulled if Hezbollah is actually going to suffer a blow which will lead to significant military degradation.

Part of this strategy is to try and publicly humiliate not only Hezbollah, but also the Lebanese State and people as a whole. Meanwhile, the Israelis are performing their part in this plot and are escalating their provocative actions, now implementing tactics such as deliberately carrying out civilian massacres, like the one that occurred in Bint Jbeil recently. Also, they are now attempting to clear portions of southern Lebanon by issuing evacuation orders before bombing civilian buildings.

What the likes of Nawaf Salam don’t appear to understand is that they are totally disposable in this equation. Meaning that there is even a danger he could be assassinated by the Israelis or Americans in order to pin the blame on Hezbollah and its allies.

Right now, the US and “Israel” are plotting against Lebanon. They will seek to carry out actions which will be just as detrimental, if not more, than what we witnessed last September, and they are under no illusions about whether the Lebanese army could simply disarm Hezbollah for them.

The Israelis are openly seeking the so-called “Greater Israel”, as per their Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s own admission earlier this year. A common misconception about the “Greater Israel Project” is that it would mean occupying Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, parts of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Türkiye, in the same way it did in Palestinian occupied territories.

In fact, the man who first conceived the “Greater Israel” model, Oded Yinon, in his academic article back in 1982, advocated for an Israeli empire, under which the nations of the region would be broken down into sectarian regimes and ethno-states, all of which would be effectively demilitarized and under the de-facto control of the Zionist Entity.

When the Zionist regime occupied southern Lebanon following the 1982 invasion, during which 20,000 people were killed, it relied on the “South Lebanon Army” to carry out its agenda. A similar system was not set up in the occupied West Bank. There, the Zionists instead injected their population to build illegal settlements and Judaize the area, while collaborators managed the territory under Israeli rule.

Similarly, in Syria, the Zionists are not necessarily interested in settling Daraa, for instance, they would much rather demilitarize the entire south, except the collaborator regime they hope to implement in Sweida. Officials in Tel Aviv have also made it clear that they will never tolerate the rebuilding of the Syrian Arab Army; they will only allow a military force comparable to that of Lebanon.

All of this is to say that there is a psychological war being waged on the people of Lebanon and region at large. Hezbollah is still very much militarily capable of taking the fight to the Israelis, but how they do it is of great importance. We know well that the Resistance still possesses considerable capabilities, because we witnessed newly revealed weapons right up until the final days of the war, many of them in clear abundance.

One mistake that the US may be making, however, is that all its rhetoric about Hezbollah could well backfire.

September 30, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Kremlin Threatens to Attack US Troops Who Help Ukraine Fire Tomahawk Missiles Into Russia

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | September 29, 2025

Russian officials warn Washington that US troops assisting Ukraine using Tomahawk missiles would become targets. The remarks were a response to Vice President JD Vance, who said the White House is considering sending the long-range munitions to Kiev.

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov questioned what role the Americans would have in assisting Ukraine in firing Tomahawk missiles. “The question… is this: who can launch these missiles…? Can only Ukrainians launch them, or do American soldiers have to do that?” Peskov told reporters.

“Who is determining the targeting of these missiles? The American side or the Ukrainians themselves?” he added. In 2023, The Discord Leaks revealed that there were 100 US troops in Ukraine, along with approximately 100 soldiers from several European nations.

Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian State Duma’s defence committee, explained that the American troops could become targets if they assist Ukraine in attacking Russia with Tomahawk missiles. “And no one will protect them. Not Trump, not Kellogg, nor anyone else,” he said.

The threats from Moscow follow several aggressive statements from Washington and Kiev. Trump claimed on Truth Social that Ukraine was in a position to win the war and the Russian military was a “paper tiger.”

Then, President Zelensky called for the US to give Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine and threatened to attack the Russian leadership. Vance and Trump’s envoy to the conflict, Keith Kellogg, gave some legitimacy to Zelensky’s remarks by explaining that the White House was considering allowing Europe to buy Tomahawk missiles for Ukraine.

Kellogg went on to argue that Ukraine should be allowed to conduct strikes deep inside Russian territory. “Use the ability to hit deep. There are no such things as sanctuaries,” he said.

Tomahawks have a range of about 1,500 miles.

Peskov downplayed the impact the missiles would have on the conflict. “Even if it happens that the United States sends its Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, currently, there is no cure-all that could be a game changer on the front lines for the Kiev regime. No magical weapons exist, and Tomahawk or other missiles simply won’t be a game changer,” he said.

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Orban vows to fight ‘warmongering bureaucrats’ in Brussels

RT | September 29, 2025

The European Union is now a “war project” that puts the economies of its members at risk, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said, vowing to oppose Brussels’ belligerent policies.

Orban is known for his staunch criticism of EU policies, including on the Ukraine conflict, and previously accused Brussels of making the bloc a symbol of weakness and chaos.
Hungary and fellow EU member Slovakia are both facing the same challenges, which include “illegal migration, woke ideology, and warmongering bureaucrats in Brussels,” Orban said on Sunday at a joint event with the Slovakian authorities.

“We will continue to defend our sovereignty, our values, and our future!” Orban said in a post on X to mark the occasion. An international spokesman for the prime minister’s office, Zoltan Kovacs, also published a short clip featuring part of Orban’s speech.

“Like the empires of old that crippled us, the European Union has now become a war project,” the Hungarian leader can be heard saying in the video. Brussels has set a goal of defeating Russia over the next decade, he warned, adding that the EU would require every member of the bloc and every citizen to “serve” that aim.

Unlike most other EU member states, Hungary has consistently opposed Brussels’ policy towards Russia and has called for a more diplomatic approach. Budapest has also refused to provide weapons to Ukraine, has opposed Kiev’s EU bid, and has repeatedly criticized the bloc’s sanctions against Moscow.

Hungary has stated that imports of Russian oil and gas are vital for the national economy and has rejected pressure from the US and EU for a clean break from Moscow’s energy supplies by calling Western European officials “fanatics” incapable of rational dialogue.

Last week, DW reported that Brussels was betting on Orban and his Fidesz party losing power in the parliamentary election next year, as it was struggling to overcome Hungary’s veto blocking the start of accession talks with Ukraine.

Last month, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto also claimed that EU officials were conspiring to overthrow the “patriot Slovak, Hungarian, and Serbian governments” and replace them with puppet regimes.

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear-Armed Sweden: Blueprint or Bluff?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 29.09.2025

Fresh from abandoning centuries of neutrality, Swedish politicians are now openly discussing nuclear weapons. What’s really behind this dramatic shift? Mikael Valtersson, former Swedish Armed Forces officer, breaks it down for Sputnik.

Why Nukes are on Sweden’s Agenda

It’s driven by a “fear of a Russian threat” which is “a consequence of Sweden’s and its European allies’ provocative policies against Russia,” Valtersson explains.

“We will see more of the fear-mongering from Europe in the coming years.”

Sweden wasn’t neutral in the Cold War:

  • Airfields readied for NATO jets
  • Military intelligence was shared between Sweden and NATO
  • Even during tensions over the Vietnam War, military cooperation with NATO never stopped

Though sided with NATO, Sweden doubted its nuclear shield. Therefore, in the 1950s–60s Sweden ran its own nuclear weapon program.

“When the politicians stopped the fission weapons program the Swedish Defense forces continued with fusion weapons instead until the politicians banned all nuclear weapons development when they realized this.”

Nuclear Plan is Not Viable

But an independent Swedish nuclear program isn’t viable. Why?

  • It would come at enormous economic costs
  • Already very large amounts of money are spent on rearmament and supporting Ukraine
  • Swedes don’t want to spend even more on nukes

Europe might start a common nuclear weapons program, but Sweden will not do it on its own, according to the pundit.

“Europe’s military-industrial complex is using the ‘Russian threat’ to strengthen its very reduced size after the Cold War.”

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

US considering Tomahawks for Kiev – Vance

RT | September 28, 2025

Washington is considering making long-range Tomahawk missiles available for Kiev, Vice President J.D. Vance has told Fox News. The White House is “looking at” the issue, he said on Sunday.

Earlier, several Western news media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal and The Telegraph, reported that Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky specifically requested the missiles from the US during a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York earlier this week.

According to the WSJ, Trump did not oppose the idea and was also open to lifting restrictions on Kiev’s use of US-made weapons in strikes deep into the Russian territory but made no specific commitments during the meeting. The president was previously against giving Tomahawks to Ukraine, according to Axios.

“We’re certainly looking at it,” Vance said when asked if Washington considers selling the missiles to other NATO members so that they could be handed over to Kiev. When further pressed on the issue of a potential escalation that could follow such a step, Vance said that Trump would ultimately determine Washington’s course of action.

The US president’s special envoy, Keith Kellogg, who also talked to Fox News on Sunday, said that “the decision has not been made” yet while confirming that Zelensky did ask Trump for Tomahawks. The missiles have a range of up to 2,500 kilometers and can be equipped with nuclear warheads.

Moscow has previously repeatedly warned that Western arms supplies to Kiev would not change the situation on the frontline and only risk further escalation, potentially leading to a direct conflict between Russia and NATO.

In November 2024, President Vladimir Putin warned that “the regional conflict in Ukraine provoked by the West has assumed elements of a global nature,” and warned of a backlash if tensions escalate further.

His words came after Kiev launched several strikes using US-made ATACMS and HIMARS systems, as well as British-made Storm Shadow missiles, deep inside Russian territory after receiving a green light from its Western backers. The Kremlin then also warned that “reckless decisions” of Western nations supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles cannot be left unanswered.

September 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Kabul hails regional powers’ rejection of foreign military bases in Afghanistan

MEMO | September 28, 2025

Afghanistan on Saturday welcomed a joint stance by China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan opposing any reestablishment of foreign military bases in the country, the Taliban administration said, Anadolu reports.

Hamdullah Fitrat, deputy spokesman of the interim government, issued the statement after foreign ministers of the four nations met on the sidelines of the 80th UN General Assembly in New York.

The four countries form a quadrilateral consultation mechanism created in 2017 to promote regional stability and coordinate efforts to counter terrorism, narcotics and extremism emanating from Afghan territory.

In a joint communique, they voiced support for Afghanistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and said they “firmly” oppose any move by outside powers to set up military bases in Afghanistan or the wider region.

Fitrat said that Afghanistan’s territory would not be allowed to be used against any country and that no armed groups are permitted to operate inside the country.

“Afghanistan is taking serious steps against corruption, drugs and all kinds of undesirable issues and considers this process its responsibility,” he said, adding that Kabul seeks positive relations with all countries based on “mutual respect.”

It comes days after US President Donald Trump warned “bad things” would happen if the interim Taliban administration did not cede control of Bagram Air Base to the Pentagon.

The Taliban returned to power in August 2021 after the withdrawal of US-led forces ended a two-decade war.

Kabul has said it would not negotiate its territorial integrity and urged Trump to honor the 2020 Doha agreement.

September 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US ‘preparing options’ for strikes inside Venezuela – NBC

RT | September 27, 2025

The US is “preparing options” for strikes on alleged drug traffickers inside Venezuela, NBC has reported, citing unnamed American officials.

In recent weeks, Washington has sunk at least three boats it alleges were carrying narcotics off the coast of the Latin American country, killing at least 17 people. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has denied any links to drug trafficking and insists that the attacks were part of a US attempt to overthrow him.

The bombing of Venezuela could happen “in a matter of weeks,” the broadcaster reported on Saturday. However, according to its sources, the measure has not yet been approved by US President Donald Trump.

According to the officials, the moves being discussed in Washington mainly include drone strikes on drug laboratories as well as members and leaders of trafficking groups.

The US is considering further escalations because some in the Trump administration are disappointed that the deployment of US warships and aircraft to the Caribbean and attacks on boats did “not appear to have weakened Maduro’s grip on power or prompted any significant response,” one of the sources said.

Trump is “prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice,” a senior administration official told NBC.

At the same time, the US and Venezuela have been talking to each other through unspecified Middle Eastern intermediaries, with Maduro allegedly offering some concessions to Trump in order to defuse tensions, a source told the broadcaster.

In his address to the UN General Assembly on Friday, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil Pinto condemned the US for the “illegal and completely immoral military threat hanging over our heads.”

The minister insisted that Caracas will resist what he called “imperialist aggression” and asked for the support of the international community.

“Venezuela will not yield to pressure or threats. We remain firm in defending our sovereignty and our right to live in peace, free from foreign interference,” he said.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Saudi-Pakistan defense pact: Reshaping security architecture in West and South Asia

By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | September 27, 2025

In the intricate web of West Asian and South Asian geopolitics, where alliances often hinge on the precarious balance of power, energy dependencies, and ideological affinities, the signing of the strategic defense pact between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia marks a pivotal evolution.

This pact represents a calculated maneuver to fortify the alignment of defenses between the two Muslim-majority countries amid waning US commitments. Drawing from operational analyses of similar pacts, like the US-Japan security treaty or the erstwhile CENTO framework, this agreement integrates conventional military interoperability with implicit extended deterrence, potentially altering the calculus of regional power projection.

At its core, the agreement formalizes a mutual defense commitment, stipulating that an armed attack on either party constitutes an assault on both, triggering joint responses under Article 51 of the UN Charter for collective self-defense.

This language echoes NATO’s Article 5 but is tailored to the Persian Gulf’s hybrid threats, encompassing not just conventional invasions but also proxy warfare, cyber intrusions, and ballistic missile salvos. The pact builds on a 1982 protocol that already facilitated Pakistani troop deployments to Saudi Arabia—historically involving up to 20,000 personnel in advisory and training roles—but elevates it to a comprehensive framework for integrated operations.

Militarily, the agreement spans a spectrum of cooperation modalities. Joint exercises will intensify, drawing from existing bilateral drills like the Al-Samsam series, which have honed mechanized infantry maneuvers and anti-tank warfare using platforms such as Pakistan’s Al-Khalid main battle tanks (MBTs) and Saudi M1A2 Abrams variants.

Technology transfers are a cornerstone. Pakistan, with its robust defense-industrial base—including the production of JF-17 Thunder multirole fighters co-developed with China—will share expertise in low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the Burraq, equipped with laser-guided munitions for precision strikes.

In return, Saudi Arabia’s petrodollar-fueled arsenal offers access to advanced air defense systems, such as the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) interceptors, potentially integrating with Pakistan’s HQ-9/P (export variant of China’s FD-2000) to create layered anti-ballistic missile shields.

Arms procurement and co-production feature prominently, with provisions for joint ventures in missile technology—leveraging Pakistan’s Shaheen-III intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) with a 2,750 km reach—and electronic warfare (EW) suites.

Intelligence sharing via secure datalinks will enhance situational awareness, focusing on various threats. Logistically, the pact enables forward basing: Pakistani Special Forces could embed with Saudi Rapid Intervention Forces for counterterrorism operations, while shared maintenance facilities for F-15SA Eagles and AH-64E Apache helicopters streamline sustainment in prolonged conflicts.

This blueprint for operational synergy mirrors how the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) integrates air assets under Peninsula Shield Force, but with Pakistan’s battle-hardened infantry adding asymmetric depth.

Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of this pact stems from a pragmatic recalibration of its security posture, driven by the kingdom’s Vision 2030 imperatives to reduce oil dependency. Riyadh views Pakistan as a Muslim-majority regional powerhouse with a professional army of over 650,000 active personnel, battle-tested in counterinsurgency campaigns against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and capable of rapid deployment via C-130J Super Hercules transports.

The kingdom’s goals are multifaceted: first, to hedge against US retrenchment, as evidenced by Washington’s equivocal responses to the 2019 Abqaiq attacks, which exposed vulnerabilities in Saudi Patriot PAC-3 batteries despite their 90 percent intercept rates against subsonic threats.

Second, the pact bolsters deterrence against Iran’s symmetrical arsenal, including medium-range ballistic missiles and tactical ballistic missiles, which have ranges covering the Arabian Peninsula. By aligning with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia gains indirect access to a nuclear-capable partner, complementing its own nascent uranium enrichment program under IAEA safeguards.

Economically, it secures preferential access to Pakistani manpower—over 2 million expatriates already remit billions annually—while channeling investments into Pakistan’s defense sector, such as upgrading the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) for co-producing Al-Zarrar tanks.

A critical flashpoint is whether the pact extends Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia. Pakistan possesses an estimated 170 warheads, deliverable via Ghauri MRBMs (1,500 km range) or Ra’ad ALCMs (air-launched cruise missiles) from F-16C/D platforms, adhering to a “minimum credible deterrence” doctrine focused on India but adaptable to West Asian contingencies.

The agreement’s text maintains strategic ambiguity—no explicit mention of nuclear sharing—but statements from Pakistani government officials suggest availability “if needed,” implying extended deterrence similar to US commitments to NATO allies.

Analyses indicate this isn’t a formal nuclear-sharing arrangement like NATO’s B61 gravity bombs in Europe; rather, it’s a de facto assurance where Pakistani assets could be forward-deployed in extremis, perhaps via submarine-launched Babur-3 SLCMs from Agosta 90B-class boats.

Saudi funding has historically supported Pakistan’s program, per declassified US cables, but proliferation risks loom under the NPT, which Pakistan hasn’t signed. The pact stops short of a binding nuclear clause to avoid IAEA scrutiny, opting instead for “all necessary means” language that preserves deniability.

The pact’s ramifications cascade across the region, amplifying fault lines and complicating the Persian Gulf’s A2/AD dynamics. For the broader West Asia, it fortifies a new bloc, potentially integrating with the UAE’s Edge Group UAVs or Bahrain’s naval patrols under the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF). This could escalate proxy conflicts in Yemen, where Saudi-led coalitions already employ Pakistani advisors, or in Syria, straining Russian-mediated de-escalation zones.

However, the agreement does not pose any threat to the Islamic Republic, given Pakistan’s role as Iran’s most important security partner, underscored by recent bilateral agreements on border security, counterterrorism, and economic cooperation, including efforts to combat smuggling and joint patrols.

Iran has welcomed the pact as a step toward “comprehensive cooperation among Muslim nations,” reflecting shared interests in regional stability through frameworks like the SCO.

Islamabad’s clarification that the agreement is “defensive and not aimed at third countries” is reassuring, preserving economic lifelines like the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline (delayed but vital for Pakistan’s energy security). Joint border patrols under the 2019 MoU persist, though the pact might divert Pakistani resources—e.g., diverting FC (Frontier Corps) units from anti-smuggling ops to Persian Gulf deployments.

Open-source indicators reveal keen interest from several nations in acceding to this framework, potentially evolving it into a multilateral shield. The UAE, with its Mirage 2000-9 fleet and ambitions for a “Persian Gulf NATO,” tops the list—Abu Dhabi’s prior defense MoUs with Pakistan (including pilot training) align seamlessly, and sources suggest imminent talks for integration.

Qatar, despite Al Udeid’s US basing, eyes the pact for diversified deterrence post-2022 blockade scars, with indications of exploratory discussions. Egypt emerges as a likely candidate: Cairo’s Sisi administration seeks Saudi funding for its T-90MS MBTs and could contribute expeditionary forces, as noted in geopolitical analyses.

Bahrain and Jordan, already in Saudi-led coalitions, have expressed interest via diplomatic channels, bolstering maritime interdiction in the Strait of Hormuz. Even Oman, traditionally neutral, monitors developments for selective engagement in counter-piracy ops.

Mohammad Molaei is a Tehran-based military affairs analyst.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »