Sputnik – 02.06.2026
The US is weighing whether to expand NATO’s nuclear-sharing framework by inviting more alliance members to host American dual-capable aircraft—warplanes configured to deliver nukes, reports the Financial Times.
At present, the arrangement includes Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkiye and the UK.
Under its terms, the US retains full custody of the nuclear warheads, which are stored at select European bases, while allied air forces train for nuclear deterrence missions using aircraft such as the F-35, F-15, and Tornado.
The discussions are reportedly driven in part by a need to reassure European allies of Washington’s enduring commitment to NATO’s nuclear deterrent—even as the US scales back some conventional troop deployments on the continent and pushes allies to shoulder more defense responsibility.
The talks remain at an early, highly confidential stage, with no imminent decisions anticipated.
Nevertheless, nations on NATO’s eastern flank—notably Poland and several of Russia’s neighbors—have already signaled interest in a possible expansion of the nuclear-sharing deal.
Russia has repeatedly cautioned that any deployment of nuclear-capable assets close to its borders would be seen as a destabilizing factor, and a direct threat to its national security.
RT | June 2, 2026
Ukraine launched explosive-laden drones towards Finland, triggering an alert that affected 1.8 million people, Helsingin Sanomat reported on Monday, citing sources familiar with the matter.
The incident took place on May 15 and set off a major security alert in the southern Finnish region of Uusimaa, which includes the country’s capital, Helsinki. The warning halted air traffic at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport and triggered a lockdown order by the authorities.
Finnish officials did not initially disclose details of the alert, stating only that the drones could be approaching from Russia, creating the impression that the threat was linked to Moscow.
According to HS, however, the emergency measures were prompted by a warning from Ukraine, which said it had accidentally sent drones carrying explosives toward Finland.
The Finnish Defense Forces later said no violation of Finnish airspace had been detected. HS reported that it remains unclear why the drones never entered the country, noting that Russian air defenses may have shot them down en route.
The report has prompted criticism from Finnish lawmakers. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee said they were not told that the warning came from Ukraine, which was essential information that should have been shared immediately.
The case adds to a growing list of incidents in which Ukrainian drones have entered or approached foreign airspace while apparently en route to targets in Russia. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland have all reported similar episodes in recent months.
Last month, Estonia shot down an alleged Ukrainian drone over its territory for the first time, while Latvia saw Ukrainian drones hit oil storage facilities near the Russian border, which ultimately led to the collapse of Prime Minister Evika Silina’s government.
Moscow has repeatedly accused NATO countries of quietly allowing Ukraine to use their airspace for attacks on targets in northwestern Russia, particularly energy infrastructure in Leningrad Region. Russian officials have also warned that Kiev could stage provocations involving drones to draw NATO deeper into the conflict.
Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo previously said he had told Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky that Helsinki considers Ukrainian aircraft entering its airspace “unacceptable.” Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur has likewise urged Kiev to keep its drones away from Estonian territory and to “control their activities better.”
RT | June 1, 2026
Iran has halted negotiations with the US over the ongoing Israeli offensive in Lebanon, moving to block maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, Tasnim news agency has reported, citing sources.
Israel has intensified its bombing campaign in Lebanon in recent days, against what it describes as sites used by the Hezbollah militant group. The Israeli military has pushed deeper into the country’s south, seizing Beaufort Castle, a 900-year-old Crusader fortress and a key vantage point in the region.
While Iran made an end to the war in Lebanon a condition for its Pakistani-mediated negotiations with the US, the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have continued despite a supposed ceasefire announced in mid-April.
In response to the escalation in Lebanon, Tehran is stopping the “negotiations and exchange of messages through a mediator,” according to Tasnim.
Iran has reportedly demanded an “immediate cessation of hostilities” in the country, as well as in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, making it a condition for continuing the contacts with the US.
Tehran and its regional allied groups have also expressed readiness to seal off the Strait of Hormuz, as well as to “activate other fronts,” including disrupting maritime traffic in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, according to the agency.
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 30, 2026
Prof. Glenn Diesen on Neutrality Studies – May 30, 2026
NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine is morphing into a direct EU-Russia war. And the war hawks in Brussels are further escalating by attacking civilians in the Donbas and Russia proper. The doves in the Kremlin are running out of options to keep their own hawks under wraps. As things stand now, an all-out EU-Russia war is not only a possible, but by now a likely scenario. But to what end?
Strategic Culture Foundation | May 29, 2026
The murder of 21 Russian teenage students at a teacher-training college last week was an abominable moment of truth with far-reaching, grievous implications.
A grim, consequential watershed in the West’s conflict with Russia has arrived.
The victims were mainly girls aged between 14 and 18 who were killed when their university dormitory in Starobelsk, Lugansk, was attacked overnight on May 22.
What is absolutely revealing is how the Collective West has shown no remorse or restraint about the crime, going as far as denying responsibility and adding insult to the memory of the dead. The perpetrators have an obscene sense of impunity and inhumane entitlement.
The attack involved 16 drones that targeted the college in a wave of three assaults. There can be no doubt that the air strike was a deliberate act. That makes it an act of cold-blooded mass murder; an act of terrorism.
Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, stated: “The blood of the children from Starobelsk is on the hands of the West whose nations are supplying the terrorist regime [in Ukraine] with money, intelligence, weapons, and ammunition for years, inspiring it to commit new crimes against the civilian population, and then covering it up by presenting the Kiev regime as a victim.”
The corrupt NeoNazi regime in Kiev under Vladimir Zelensky and his cronies is only a bit player in this crime. The regime, which, by the way, gave burial honors to a World War Two Nazi collaborator this week, is merely the scum atop the Western criminal organizations behind this and other atrocities, and indeed the entire conflict with Russia.
Several respected international authorities have repeatedly pointed out that the nearly five-year war in Ukraine that erupted in February 2022 is the culmination of a long-term policy to embattle Russia with NATO aggression. Professors John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Alfred de Zayas, among others, have cogently explained how this conflict in Europe – the biggest since WWII – has come about.
The Kiev regime has been armed to the teeth by the United States and its Western partners, bankrolled by Washington and the European Union, and directed by NATO military intelligence. The attacks on Russian civilian centers could not happen without the direct support of the “Collective West”.
More recently, the European Union, which has emerged as the de facto political and fundraising wing of NATO, has stepped up its funding and coordination of drone armaments for the Kiev regime. Britain has also become an important supplier of Ukrainian drone technology, while the Baltic states and Finland are acting as launch sites for deeper strikes into Russia.
A drone crash in Romania this week elicited much theatrical condemnation of Russia as the perpetrator. More likely, given the surge in drones operating from NATO states, the Romanian incident was an own goal or a Ukrainian false-flag provocation. Telling, too, was the paroxysm of Western media coverage blaming Russia for the “reckless” drone, compared with the negligible reporting by these same media on the massacre in Starobelsk only days before.
The European NATO states are in effect becoming the Luftwaffe of the Kiev regime. As Russia’s envoy, Dmitry Polyansk, to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, warned this week, the drums of war are beating louder across the continent. European politicians like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz are calling for more NATO forces to build up along Russia’s borders, while the EU’s so-called top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, disparages peace diplomacy with Russia as a “Kremlin trap.”
Alfred de Zayas, professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and a former UN independent expert, gave the following assessment to Strategic Culture Foundation regarding the NATO alliance. He said that it is now urgent to recognize that “it is a criminal organization” within the meaning of the Nuremberg rulings delivered in 1946 against Nazi war criminals, when aggression was defined as the supreme war crime.
De Zayas notes that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded nearly eight decades ago, in 1949, supposedly to defend the West from the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991, along with its Warsaw Pact military bloc, NATO should have also disbanded at that time.
“NATO has morphed from being a defensive alliance into a war coalition that has committed heinous crimes since the 1990s in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere,” he said. “While NATO forces, since the 1990s, have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, what is important today is that world public opinion recognizes NATO as a threat to the peace and security of humankind.”
From the end of the Cold War, the United States-led military alliance has more than doubled its member states to the current 32, several of which border Russia. Under the UN Charter, regional security organizations are supposed to be subordinate to the UN Security Council. But the NATO bloc presumes to be above the law. It is a rogue force that attacks other nations at will, as we are seeing currently with Russia.
Says de Zayas: “It is not a legitimate regional organization under article 52 of the UN Charter, because it acts against the purposes and principles of the UN and has relentlessly committed the crimes of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.”
The mass murder of college students in Starobelsk and numerous other civilian casualties of NATO drone attacks on Russian territory are a testament to the terrorist nature of NATO.
De Zayas adds that it is also important to identify the sinister role of the Western corporate-controlled news media. The media have systematically distorted the conflict in Ukraine as “unprovoked Russian aggression” while whitewashing NATO and the NeoNazi regime for their litany of crimes, the latest being the atrocity at Starobelsk.
“Relentless propaganda and public relations have convinced the Western public that NATO is a good organization, legitimate, respectable, interested in peace and defense. This is total brainwashing,” said de Zayas.
“When the media indoctrination and propaganda about NATO is exposed as false, when the perception in Western countries moves from positive to negative, when people realize that NATO is a criminal institution, it will be possible to wind it down. Ultimately, NATO must be recognized not only as a criminal organization, a blustering vestige of a moribund Western imperialism, but as a mortal danger to the survival of civilization on Earth.”
All this confers on our editorial to draw several inescapable implications: the political leaders of the United States and the European Union, who make this NATO aggression happen through deliberate policies, must also face the same indictment. They are war criminals.
The Western media that propagandize for war and war crimes are also indictable as complicit in these crimes.
Furthermore, it is now clearer than ever that Russia is at war with an aggressive Collective West, and its manifestations, including the United States, the EU, NATO, and the Kiev regime. Therefore, Moscow has the legal and moral right to hit the decision-making centers that have Russian blood on their hands. All the more so because these Western decision-making centers presume impunity and the ghoulish right to drench their hands with even more Russian blood.
RT | May 30, 2026
Croatian President Zoran Milanovic broke ranks with other NATO members as he slammed Lithuania’s foreign minister for his “irresponsible” call to attack the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.
Milanovic’s comments came after Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys called NATO the “strongest organization ever created” last week, arguing for a more assertive posture toward Russia and saying European NATO members must turn “fear of the threat into a sense of empowerment.”
“We have to show the Russians that we’re capable of penetrating the small fortress they’ve built in Kaliningrad,” he said. “NATO has the capability, if necessary, to raze Russian air defenses and missile bases there to the ground.”
Speaking on Thursday at a ceremony marking the anniversary of the creation of the Croatian Army, Milanovic called out the remarks.
“Equally irresponsible, turning now to our own camp, are the calls and appeals I hear week after week from high-ranking officials of certain Baltic states to attack Kaliningrad Region… Such things should not be said,” he said.
He went on to warn that NATO’s principle of solidarity should not be unconditional: “Readiness to come to someone’s vital assistance on the one hand also presupposes responsibility on the other.”
Following the backlash, Budrys walked back the tone but not the substance, claiming that his remarks were not aimed at Russia but at audiences “less familiar with military matters,” and were intended to counter what he called Moscow’s narrative of Kaliningrad as an impenetrable fortress.
Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda called the interview “not the most successful statement.” Prime Minister Inga Ruginiene urged restraint in public comments.
Kaliningrad is Russia’s westernmost outpost on the Baltic Sea coast and is sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland, with no land connection to the mainland part of the country. Formerly known as Koenigsberg and the capital of the German province of East Prussia, it was ceded to the Soviet Union after the end of World War II.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and NATO’s expansion, Kaliningrad became surrounded by the bloc from all sides.
Budrys comments triggered a sharp rebuke in Moscow, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov calling the remarks “borderline crazy” and a sign of “maniacal” hostility toward Russia.
Asked on Thursday whether NATO could attack Kaliningrad, President Vladimir Putin warned that Russia “has all the means to raze to the ground anyone who tries to do so.”
RT | May 29, 2026
Russian President Vladimir Putin has called for an “objective investigation” into a drone incident in Romania in which two people were injured. Moscow is ready to share its assessment if it is provided with either the debris of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or the data about it, he told journalists on Friday.
A drone crashed into an apartment block in the eastern Romanian city of Galati near the Ukrainian border early on Friday. The Romanian Defense Ministry claimed the UAV had originated from Russia.
Putin noted that drones have previously crashed in various EU nations, including Finland, Poland, and the Baltic States.
“A short time later, it would emerge that these incidents had nothing to do with Russian aircraft at all. Rather, they involved drones of Ukrainian origin that had gone off course due to electronic warfare… or technical shortcomings,” the president said during his visit to Kazakhstan.
Putin called on the Romanian authorities to share “objective evidence” with Russia, adding that Moscow did the same when the Ukrainian military targeted a Russian presidential residence in a drone strike. “Let them [Romanians] do the same and provide the evidence to us,” he added.
Romanian President Nicusor Dan, who visited the drone crash site on Friday, told journalists that the incident could have been caused by Ukrainian air defenses. According to him, the drone was a part of a group of Russian UAVs deployed against targets in Ukraine.
“Some of them were shot down over Ukrainian territory, and one of them was probably hit above the city of Reni. Its trajectory changed and it came toward Galati,” he said, adding that the Romanian authorities have data on the drone’s movement. According to Dan, the incident was not considered a deliberate attack by Russia but rather the consequence of military operations not far from the Romanian border.
Russia has previously been blamed for drone and missile incidents in EU nations. One of the most high-profile incidents involved an S-300 air defense missile killing two people in Poland not far from the Ukrainian border in 2022.
Kiev was quick to frame the incident as a Russian attack “on the collective security” of NATO while Warsaw eventually determined that the projectile had been fired by Ukraine in a bid to repel a Russian strike on targets inside Ukraine.
By Ben Freeman | Responsible Statecraft | May 29, 2026
At a time when the American public is expressing unprecedented levels of distrust in the Israeli government, Congress just proposed tying the U.S. to the Israeli military more than ever before.
Buried in the House’s version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) released on Tuesday, is section 224, entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” The provision would arguably do more to intertwine the U.S. military with the Israeli military than the more than $200 billion (inflation adjusted) in military assistance Israel has received from the U.S. since its founding in 1948.
Section 224 lays the groundwork for bilateral research and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing agreements, and seemingly every manner of U.S.-Israeli military-industrial complex cooperation. The U.S. and Israel already work together heavily on missile defense, but this provision would greatly expand coordination to seemingly every area of defense tech, including AI, quantum, autonomous systems, directed energy, cyber, biotech, and many more. It also proposes “network integration” and “data fusion.” In other words, the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.
If fully enacted, this proposal would provide a higher level of military-industrial integration than the U.S. has with any other country in the world. To be sure, the U.S. has worked closely with its NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains, most notably via the Defence Production Action Plan. And, as the number one arms dealer in the world, the U.S. provides weapons to militaries across the globe. But that is mostly a one-way street, with the U.S. providing weapons to foreign buyers who only occasionally make parts for those weapons themselves, as in the case of the F-35’s global supply chain.
Section 224 would be a different beast entirely. It would fuse the U.S. and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas vital to the battlefields of the future, like autonomous systems and cyber. It would also bring extraordinary Israeli influence to the U.S. beyond what it already has through the Israel lobby and its robust network of social media influencers. It would give the Israeli government the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in U.S. politics: jobs in the U.S. By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on U.S. soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs lie.
The result could well be a U.S. political system even more susceptible to the whims of an Israeli government that seemingly has no qualms about drawing the U.S. into military conflicts in the Middle East.
This unprecedented level of U.S.-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of U.S. military assistance. As laid out in a recent Quincy Institute brief, authored by Steven Simon, this shift from an aid model to a military integration model has troubling implications, namely:
The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously deeper and less transparent.
This all comes at a time when the Israeli military has repeatedly used U.S. weapons in strikes that have violated international humanitarian laws in Gaza, and as Israel has repeatedly violated ceasefires (as has the U.S. itself) in the Trump administration’s unnecessary war with Iran.
The enormous gulf between what most Americans want and what the president is doing when it comes to Israel and what Congress is proposing here should not be ignored. Just 30% of respondents to a New York Times/Sienna poll from mid-May believe Trump made “the right decision” to go to war with Iran, with 64% saying it was wrong. An Institute for Global Affairs poll released earlier this week dove even deeper into the American psyche when it comes to arming Israel, finding that “Just 16 percent say the United States should keep supplying Israel with weapons without new restrictions. Thirty-eight percent want to stop supplying weapons entirely, and another 24 percent want weapons conditioned on how they’re used.”
Yet, mainstream leadership in both parties remains largely pro-Israel and continues to shape the base legislative text before amendments and broader congressional debate open it to the full body, as is the case with this NDAA provision.
Though slowly, tides within both parties are shifting as more and more members speak out against the growing divide between Israel’s actions and America’s interests. For example, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday that, “The Democratic Party has provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American interests and values.” On the Republican side of the aisle, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) have openly decried the Israel lobby’s corrosive influence — a stance that may have, at least partially, cost both of them their seats in Congress.
What can other members of Congress who are concerned about Israel’s destabilizing actions do right now? Stop the Israeli-U.S. military-industrial merger in its tracks. Lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel’s military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in the region.
Ben Freeman is Director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute and the author of “The Trillion Dollar War Machine: How Runaway Military Spending Drives America into Foreign Wars and Bankrupts Us at Home” (2025).
SONAR21 | May 28, 2026
ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Avoiding Catastrophic Failure in Cuba
Dear President Trump:
We are deeply concerned that the current U.S. approach to Cuba makes an ugly humanitarian disaster – for which the U.S. will be responsible – increasingly likely. We also believe that any military option will draw us into a losing war.
Cuba is not Venezuela. U.S. relations with Cuba have never been good, even before Fidel Castro’s rise in 1959. Washington has never grasped Cubans’ deep national pride and yearning for sovereignty, nor their culture of respect for institutions. Whether we like it or not, the government has residual legitimacy, and even Cubans wanting significant change will rally behind the flag if there is an attack from outside.
The Cuban people are indeed suffering, but reports alleging broad popular support for U.S. sanctions and even military intervention are heavily colored by people who are in the pay of the USG. Given the false choice between living under the current government with U.S. “maximum pressure” sanctions and living under a new system, some Cubans would indeed opt for change. But their protests aren’t about blaming the government, and even those who want major change in Cuba do not trust the U.S. The 65-year embargo and the ongoing oil blockade are sources of deep, if latent, suspicions toward us.
The language in Executive Orders dated 29 January and 1 May, alleging that “the policies, practices, and actions of the Government of Cuba constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security, suggests confusion between reality and politically motivated allegations. These narratives are mostly fake.
Administration statements, aggressive airborne intelligence collection, and ship movements around Cuba suggest preparations for military action. The Cuban military is weak and lacks even basic supplies, and Cuba’s doctrine of “War of All the People” may seem naïve to us. Cuba will react with what conventional hardware it has and can attain, perhaps even drones, in defense of its leadership and sensitive facilities.
But U.S.-driven “regime collapse” and occupation or imposition of a government of our choosing will fail badly. The same people who keep ’57 Chevrolets on the road with a coat hanger will wreak havoc against a foreign-imposed regime. Administration declarations show a wise tendency to keep U.S. boots off the ground, but it’s also important to know that swarms of Cuban nationalists will silently undermine any system that we impose. The implications of any of these scenarios for migration pressures would be catastrophic.
Press reports indicate that the U.S. is in some kind of “negotiation” with a grandson of former president Raul Castro, who holds no official position in Cuba. In any case, our experience with conflicts worldwide leads us to point out that talks with a gun at one’s temple are not a true negotiation. U.S. coercion against Cuba hasn’t worked for more than six decades. A negotiation without blockades, guns pointed at leaders’ heads, and political indictments can work much better.
FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY (VIPS)
RT | May 28, 2026
Russia has warned that deploying additional US troops near its borders would be “unacceptable,” after Washington pledged to send more soldiers to Poland.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a press briefing on Thursday that reducing the number of US personnel stationed in Europe would be a “rational, justified, and long-overdue” step toward stabilizing what she described as an “imbalanced” security situation created by NATO policies.
Deploying more American troops in the region, on the other hand, would place them within striking distance, Zakharova added.
She said such a move would only increase tensions in Europe and compel Russia to respond with “military-technical measures.” Zakharova accused NATO of pushing the continent toward a “suicidal” conflict.
Around 10,000 American service members are currently stationed in Poland, most of them on a rotational basis, while roughly 80,000 are deployed across Europe overall. Poland shares a border with Russia’s Kaliningrad Region, an exclave on the Baltic Sea.
Last week, US President Donald Trump unveiled plans to send 5,000 additional troops to Poland, one of the most vocal supporters of Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. The announcement came after the Pentagon said it would delay the rotation of 4,000 troops, which Vice President J.D. Vance later downplayed as a “standard delay.”
Trump has frequently accused NATO members of failing to spend enough on defense and recently announced the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany amid a dispute with Berlin over the war with Iran.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow has no intention of attacking NATO members unless Russia itself is attacked first. Russian officials have accused the West of “reckless militarization” and cited NATO’s eastward expansion as one of the causes of the Ukraine conflict.
On Thursday, Sergey Naryshkin, head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, said NATO was “de facto preparing for a large-scale military conflict in the east.”
By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | May 27, 2026
The US military aggression and economic strangulation ended in a ceasefire, not because of American goodwill, but because the war objectives failed and the aggression backfired.
This outcome reflects a new strategic reality that emerged during the war itself.
Facing the biggest military assault in its history, with Western and Arab countries complicit in arming and supporting the enemy across multiple fronts, Iran not only avoided strategic collapse but imposed a new balance of power on the battlefield.
Against overwhelming odds and coordinated pressure, Iranian resistance transformed what was meant to be a war of submission into a demonstration of enduring national strength.
What has emerged now is far more than the end of a military aggression against the Islamic Republic. It is the failure of a campaign designed to weaken Iran, isolate it from other nations, drain its economic strength, and ultimately force it into strategic retreat.
Military lessons of the war
In terms of the military, the most telling and self-evident lesson from the war is that the idea of “shaping Iran to crumble quickly” was misguided from the outset. Even after multiple claims by the enemy that Iran’s missile infrastructure, command centers, and launch capabilities had been destroyed, Iran continued its regular military activity, hitting the enemy at will.
Missile and drone operations were carried out multiple times every day during the war. The continuity of launch waves will one day become one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that the backbone of Iran’s strategic missile program has remained completely intact.
This revealed a critical wrong assumption made by both Americans and Zionists: the true extent of Iran’s underground military infrastructure, its depth, dispersion, and survivability.
Much of Iran’s arsenal of rockets, along with the necessary underground launching, storage, and escape facilities, is located in hardened bunker networks built over decades to resist common aerial attacks. Some of the most effective US bunker-penetration munitions are thought to be severely restricted by these heavily fortified facilities.
Operational philosophy: Restraint as strength
Also significant was the implementation of Iran’s operational philosophy during the war. Data has shown that Iran was not as aggressive in its use of its most advanced missiles as is often believed. Several systems discussed for years in military circles were either underutilized or not used at all. This has reinforced assessments that Iran deliberately relied more heavily on older missile stockpiles while carefully managing the timing and intensity of launches.
This has led to reports that Iran deliberately kept some of its strategic missiles in reserve while using older arms with calibrated firing patterns. This approach enabled Tehran to maintain its escalation edge while simultaneously proving sustainability.
Moreover, recent reports and analyses of military forces in the region suggest that systems for launching newer solid-fuel ballistic missiles with dual-stage capsules were not widely deployed, though they could greatly boost launch density in future operations.
Iran mounted extended attacks without fully testing its more sophisticated launch architecture. The size and intensity of future attacks could be far greater than anything seen so far.
The naval dimension: Anti-access and area denial
The naval dimension of the war also revealed a major shift in regional deterrence equations. US carrier groups operated well off Iranian waters on opposite shores, a remarkable caution given the overwhelming power of the American navy.
It has become clear that as Iran has matured its anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) doctrine, derived from the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles, long-range cruise weapons, drones, and multi-tiered coastal defense systems, the country has imposed a new caution on American operational decisions.
The Khalij Fars and Hormuz missiles, along with newer generations of anti-ship missiles, pose a serious threat to large naval assets in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Notably, these systems were not used during the recent war, indicating that Iran kept its deterrent capacity largely unused – yet visible enough to alter enemy behavior. This restraint sends its own message: what remains in the arsenal is far more capable than what was shown.
Strategic failure: The unraveling of the pressure campaign
Strategically, the most significant event of the third imposed war has been the complete failure of the original political goal behind the military pressure campaign. What its planners envisioned was a war that would trigger internal instability within Iran’s borders, fracture its command structure, undermine its regional cooperation, and ultimately isolate Tehran as a matter of strategy. Prolonged military pressure, they believed, would achieve what decades of illegal and crippling sanctions could not.
Not a single one of these goals was realized. The Iranian state machinery was not fractured. Continuity of command was maintained. Regional ally networks remained not only intact but operationally effective. In fact, the war produced the opposite effect on multiple fronts.
The war reinforced Iran’s broader strategic narrative across the region that military pressure alone cannot force Tehran into capitulation.
Diplomatic implications: A unified front that never formed
The results carry significant implications for diplomacy as well. Perhaps the most obvious fact to emerge from the war is that Iran successfully thwarted the establishment of any unified international body arrayed against it.
Despite a heavy Western political and military campaign coordinated with Israeli objectives, large portions of the Global South refused to align with the escalation drive against Tehran.
Several regional governments actively worked to defuse the crisis rather than escalate it. Major powers like China and Russia remained opposed to wider international isolation measures. Even among Western allies, growing concerns emerged regarding the risks of uncontrolled regional escalation, energy disruption, and maritime insecurity.
This deep division inhibited Washington from fashioning the kind of new global pressure architecture against Iran that it has typically pursued during past crises – from nuclear non-proliferation to regional security frameworks. The coalition that was meant to isolate Iran found itself isolated instead.
Economic dimension: Sanctions undermined, energy leverage preserved
The economic goal of the unprovoked war was another expected outcome that was not met. During the war, the economic disruption that many external observers had anticipated became totally muted. Iran continued exporting energy and maintaining its internal markets and logistics throughout the war, despite pressure on infrastructure and the weight of sanctions.
Remarkably, the US-Israeli aggression and Iranian retaliation revealed the fragile nature of the global energy system when it comes to instability involving Iran. The mere threat of escalation at the Strait of Hormuz triggered an immediate reaction from the international community, precisely because of the waterway’s critical importance to global oil supply.
Tehran’s inability to be isolated without sparking international ramifications was reaffirmed by the facts, not least of which are Iran’s deep ties to the region’s energy landscape and its central role in maritime security.
Industrial adaptation: War as a catalyst for expansion
The swift pace of the industrial adaptation process was another crucial factor in the recent war. Based on domestic sources and analyses from military-affiliated institutions, the rate of missile production had already dramatically increased after the 12-day war in June last year, and the recent war only accelerated and extended it even further.
Iran possesses a widespread defense industry, and even if aggressors succeed in targeting its production facilities, these are interdependent in such a way that they can localize supply chains and establish underground production lines.
Far from halting production and launch capabilities, the latest war has spurred strategic investments in survivability, redundancy, and high-volume output.
Political triumph: The narrative that collapsed
Among the more significant political considerations, this war represents a significant triumph for Iran, given the failure of the central narrative that Tel Aviv and Washington had been aggressively pushing for decades.
Their premise was that continued military, economic, and diplomatic pressure would eventually bring Tehran to the end of its rope, forcing it to “sit at the table” to negotiate strategic concessions.
Instead, the war proved to be another confirmation of the reverse: Iran under pressure continues to function, possesses the capacity to retaliate, and maintains domestic and governmental strength and unity. Most importantly, it has survived the encounter with its ability to influence regional affairs completely intact.
This is not to suggest that Iran was unaffected or bore no costs. Wars come with severe costs. But strategic results are not determined solely by the scale of damage. They are determined by the ultimate success or failure of political and military objectives.
The new regional reality
In this respect, there is growing evidence that Iran’s opponents found themselves baffled by the outcome. A campaign designed to diminish Iranian deterrence ended up confirming much of it.
A policy aimed at isolating Iran was met by a pressure strategy that ultimately promoted de-escalation with Tehran and prevented tensions from proliferating across the region.
What emerged instead were increased challenges and the risk of direct confrontation with a long-established regional power armed with deep missile stockpiles, rugged supply chains, and a mature asymmetric warfare doctrine.
The lessons that have become clear on the battlefield, in regional negotiations, and in energy calculations leave Iran poised to enter the post-war era with strategic gains and enhanced leverage.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Documented in the film,“Bad Medicine”
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
