Israel’s ‘Holy War’ falters: Seven fronts, Zero victory
Netanyahu’s ‘historic and spiritual mission’ is bleeding international support, turning short-term military gains into an imminent strategic defeat.
By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | September 11, 2025
For nearly two years, Israel has been waging what Netanyahu calls a “multi-front war.” This war includes, in addition to Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the occupied West Bank, and Iran. In one of his interviews, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed that he feels he is on a “historic and spiritual mission,” and that he is “deeply connected” to the vision of the Promised Land and Greater Israel. With these words, Netanyahu confirms that what he calls a “multi-front war” is driven by both religious and political motives.
The danger lies in Netanyahu and the radical religious Zionist right believing that the world must approach the brink of a great war “for the Messiah to descend and save it”. For this reason, they encourage continuing and expanding the violence in Gaza to Lebanon, Iran, and beyond, seeing this as the “age of the Messiah.”
The seven fronts of the war
On 9 October 2023, just two days after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, during a meeting with the mayors of the southern border towns affected by the 7 October attack, Israel’s Prime Minister stated that Tel Aviv’s response to the unprecedented multi-front assault launched by Palestinian fighters from Gaza “will change the Middle East.” From that moment, it became clear that the war would not remain confined to Gaza, but that Israel would expand it to achieve its main goal, which is a new regional order where the balance of power favors Tel Aviv.
Israeli leaders have repeatedly claimed they are simultaneously fighting on seven fronts – Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the occupied West Bank, and Iran – portraying all these conflicts as targeting an “Iran-led axis” allegedly seeking to “destroy the Jewish state.”
To achieve this goal, Israel pursues two main paths: weakening its enemies and enforcing compliance by force on the rest of the region’s states, including US allies. On the first path, Israel has relied on direct military strikes, framing them as “multi-front wars” under a “defensive” rationale.
As for the second path, enforcing compliance by force, Israel repeatedly attacked the “new Syria,” a state no longer hostile to Israel or the US, and has occupied portions of its territory. Syria’s consistently positive overtures toward Tel Aviv did not deter Israel, which persisted in its strikes and continued occupation.
Meanwhile, Israel’s recent strike on Qatar on 9 September fits within two parallel tracks of its policy. The first is aimed directly at Hamas’s political leaders, signaling that there is no safe haven for them anywhere in the world. The second conveys a clear message to Qatar and other US allies in the region; Israel’s approach is not based on shared interests but on fear of consequences. Alliances based on mutual interests are one thing, and compliance enforced through fear is another. At this stage, this is precisely the message Trump seeks to send to the region’s states: “Obey me, or I cannot guarantee that Israel will remain distant from you.” Fundamentally, this warning is addressed to all states in the region, without exception.
Regional states must understand that what once shielded their capitals from Israeli-American aggression was the presence of the Axis of Resistance that maintained a regional deterrence balance for years. Once this axis weakened, Israel was liberated from constraints and began operating without limits. It should not be noted that Qatar is officially designated a “Major Non-NATO Ally” of the US, a status conferred by the Biden administration since March 2022. In addition, Qatar hosts the Al-Udeid Air Base, which is far more than a conventional military base, but serves as the headquarters of US Central Command (CENTCOM) in the region, making it one of Washington’s most strategically significant hubs worldwide. Yet none of this prevented Tel Aviv from attacking it.
What has Israel achieved?
We must begin by defining strategic achievement. In international relations, a strategic achievement can be defined as attaining long-term goals that reshape the balance of power, enhance state security, or expand influence in the international system. Strategic achievement differs from short-term tactical or operational gains in that it “produces changes in the fundamental structures of interaction between states and non-state actors.” This means that strategic achievement must consolidate a lasting advantage in the geopolitical arena.
From this perspective, Israel has so far failed to achieve any strategic accomplishments in West Asia. Instead, over the past two years, it has accumulated a series of tactical gains that it seeks to transform into strategic advantages. In Gaza, Tel Aviv remains unable to eliminate the Hamas, and in Lebanon, it has likewise failed to dismantle Hezbollah – despite managing to weaken both resistance movements. In Iran, its attempts to change the regime or dissuade Tehran from supporting resistance movements have failed. In Yemen, its actions did not stop Sanaa’s support for Gaza.
Therefore, the core of the current battle is to prevent Tel Aviv from transforming its tactical gains into entrenched strategic ones. If Israel fails to eliminate the Palestinian resistance, fails to isolate and disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon, sees Iran continue to support resistance movements and anti-hegemony discourse, and if the Yemeni support front remains steady, then Israel will have exhausted the maximum of its power to impose a regional reality that grants it temporary superiority, neutralizing resistance for a period, but remaining fragile and unsustainable in the medium and long term.
The outcome of this struggle ultimately depends on Tel Aviv’s opponents overcoming the multiple challenges created by its wars in West Asia. Either the resistance forces succeed in thwarting Tel Aviv’s attempts to turn temporary gains into a long-term strategic achievement, or Tel Aviv and Washington succeed in leveraging these tactical gains to impose a new strategic reality that serves their interests.
A critical question then arises: What price has Israel paid to achieve its current ‘accomplishments’?
In a recent article titled ‘Israel is Fighting a War It Cannot Win,’ Ami Ayalon, former head of the Israeli Navy and former director of Shin Bet, writes, “The course Israel is currently pursuing will erode existing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, deepen internal divisions, and heighten international isolation. It will fuel greater extremism across the region, escalate religious-nationalist violence by global jihadist groups thriving on chaos, weaken support from US policymakers and citizens, and drive a rise in anti-Semitism worldwide.”
He concludes by saying, “Israel’s military deterrence has been restored, demonstrating its ability to defend itself and deter its enemies. But force alone cannot dismantle Iran’s network of proxies nor secure lasting peace and stability for Israel for generations to come.”
Additionally, as a result of Israeli crimes in Gaza, responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe there has shifted from Hamas to Israel. For a long time, Tel Aviv sought to portray Hamas as primarily responsible for Gaza’s difficult humanitarian reality. However, Israel’s unlimited aggressiveness undermined this effort.
A survey conducted by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to evaluate its global reputation found that respondents in the US, Germany, Britain, Spain, and France believe that the majority of those killed by Israel in Gaza are civilians. The survey also revealed that Europeans, in particular, “agree with characterizing Israel as a state of practicing genocide and apartheid, despite their opposition to Hamas and Iran.” Moreover, a recent Quinnipiac University poll indicated that 37 percent of US voters support Palestinians, compared to 36 percent who support Israelis. The danger of these figures is that they show Israel is losing western public opinion, which may make support for Tel Aviv a key issue in future western elections.
Furthermore, nine states completed the legal procedures required to formally recognize the State of Palestine last year, the largest annual increase since 2011:
These recognitions raised the global total from 138 to 147 in 2024, meaning that nearly three-quarters of UN member states (147 out of 193) now officially recognize the State of Palestine.
In addition, three of the US’s key allies – France, the UK, and Canada – announced their intention to recognize a Palestinian state, while several other countries are considering the same step. This marks a significant shift that further isolates Israel amid growing international concern over Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. These three countries will become the first G7 members to formally recognize a Palestinian state, posing a clear challenge to Israel. Should they proceed, the US would remain the sole permanent UN Security Council member not to recognize Palestine.
A new combat doctrine
There is no doubt that 7 October marked a turning point in Israel’s military strategy. From that date onward, Israel abandoned for the first time the combat doctrine established by David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister. Blitz wars were no longer its preferred option, the issue of recovering prisoners was no longer a central priority, and its threshold for human and material losses in any military confrontation rose significantly. This shift compels all regional states to recalibrate their strategies to match Tel Aviv’s new combat doctrine.
It is important to stress that Ben Gurion designed Israel’s combat doctrine to suit its geographic and demographic realities. This may have prompted retired Israeli colonel Gur Laish, former head of war planning in the Israeli Air Force and a key participant in the army’s strategic planning, to publish a paper on 19 August at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, warning Israeli leaders against adopting a new security doctrine that disregards Israel’s limits of power. Yet, the following crucial question remains: Will Netanyahu succeed in proving the effectiveness of Israel’s new approach, or will abandoning Ben Gurion’s doctrine mark the beginning of Israel’s end?
Israel’s strike on Qatar exposes the collapse of Arab security assumptions
By Dr Sania Faisal El-Husseini | MEMO | September 12, 2025
The thunder of Israeli warplanes over Doha this week was more than just a military operation, it was a shattering moment for the region. Missiles aimed at residential neighbourhoods in Qatar’s capital, as an attempt to assassinate Hamas leaders, sent a shockwave across the Gulf. The United States, caught between its alliance with Israel and its defence commitments to Qatar and other Arab Gulf states, sought refuge in manoeuvering, distancing itself from the strike while tacitly enabling it. For Arab national security, particularly in the Gulf, the implications are sobering.
The paradox is glaring, Qatar, host to the vast Al-Udeid Air Base, America’s forward headquarters in the region, and dependent on US military systems for its defence, finds itself exposed. The strike underscored what many Arab analysts have long warned, Washington’s strategic loyalty lies firmly with Israel, while Arab allies are seen as expendable partners.
This attack, the first of its kind on Qatari soil, is unlikely to be the last in the region. While framed as part of Israel’s campaign against Hamas, its significance extends far beyond Gaza.
For years, Qatar has hosted indirect negotiations between Hamas and Israel, offering itself as a diplomatic broker. But Israel, it now appears, used those talks as cover, buying time while pursuing unchanged objectives, the conquest of Gaza, the dismantling of Hamas, and the displacement of its population. As Israel intensified its push into Gaza City, it simultaneously targeted the Hamas delegation in Doha, an unmistakable signal that diplomacy was never the true endgame.
The operation reflects a broader Israeli strategy, expand military dominance step by step, strike beyond borders, and erase red lines that once constrained its reach.
Qatar’s own relationship with Israel has always been a delicate balance. From the opening of an Israeli trade office in Doha in 1996, to intelligence meetings hosted in recent years, to participation in joint air exercises in Greece, the two states have maintained limited yet functional ties. Still, Israel’s decision to strike inside Qatar amounts to a message to the entire Arab Gulf, no country is immune, and restraint will only embolden further violations.
This reality stretches well beyond the Palestinian question. Israel’s ambitions are no longer confined to blocking Palestinian statehood. The Netanyahu government, driven by the most hardline coalition in Israel’s history, has laid bare its intent, redraw the regional map through force, not diplomacy. Its declared expansion goals in the region, military reach backed by nuclear superiority, unmatched intelligence networks, and unwavering US support positions it as a major security threat to the regional countries. From assassinations in Iran to operations in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and now Qatar, Israel acts with impunity. The Gulf, it seems, is simply no longer far from its attacks and ambitions.
The position of the American adminstration towrds the Israeli attack on Qatar has revealed a pivotal thorny issue. Qatar’s partnership with Washington was supposed to offer military and security safeguards. The two countries signed a Defence Cooperation Agreement in 1992, renewed in 2013, and Qatar was designated a Major Non-NATO Ally in 2022. Billions have been invested in Al-Udeid, now central to US operations across the region and Central Asia. Yet when Israel violated Qatari sovereignty, the US response revealed the harsh truth, strategic guarantees for Arab states collapse the moment they clash with Israel’s interests.
For Qatar and for every Arab state relying on US military systems, the lesson is stark. Dependence on Washington offers no shield when it matters most.
Many Arab states, particularly in the Gulf, have built their national defense almost entirely on Western military and security systems. In addition to Qatar, Saudi Arabia relies heavily on U.S. made F15 fighter jets and Patriot missile defence systems, the United Arab Emirates has invested billions in advanced American and French aircraft, as well as the THAAD missile shield, Bahrain hosts the US Fifth Fleet, and Kuwait depends on American logistical and intelligence support. These examples reflect a broader regional reality, the very foundations of Arab security are tied to Western supply chains, training, and decision making structures. Yet the Israeli strike on Qatar laid bare the danger of this dependency. When the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv converge, as they so often do, the security of Arab allies becomes secondary. Israel’s declared ambitions to project power beyond Palestine, coupled with the US’s unambiguous tilt toward Israel, mean that the entire architecture of Arab national security now stands on precarious ground.
Silence now would be perilous. If Arab governments allow this strike on Doha to pass without response, Israel will take it as a green light to extend its reach even further. The moment demands more than statements of concern. It requires a collective Arab reckoning, not only with Israel’s unchecked aggression, but with the illusion that the US security umbrella offers reliable protection.
The question is simple, if uncomfortable, will Arab states finally learn from experience, or will they continue to build their security on foundations that crumble when tested?
EU chief facing new ouster attempt after ‘pro-war’ address
RT | September 12, 2025
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is facing two new motions of no confidence following her State of the Union address to the European Parliament this week.
The Left faction filed its censure proposal on Thursday, a day after the right-wing Patriots for Europe group submitted a separate bid. Von der Leyen survived a previous no-confidence vote in July.
Renewed efforts to remove the EU chief came after she urged stronger military support for Ukraine and proposed allowing foreign policy decisions without unanimous member-state approval – which dissenting member states, such as Hungary, view as a ploy to dismiss their objections.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who backs the no-confidence motion, views von der Leyen’s remarks as “hardcore pro-war,” according to governmental spokesman Zoltan Kovacs. In her address, “the word ‘Ukraine’ was mentioned 35 times, and threats were made to cut EU funds from anyone refusing to follow Brussels’ line,” he said on social media.
The Patriots’ motion argued the president “has failed on trade, abandoned transparency, and rejected accountability,” while the Left – joined by some Greens/EFA MEPs – accused her of having “sold out workers and farmers, funneled billions into arms and war, shredded climate and social protection” and being “complicit in genocide” in Gaza.
“There is a tendency within the European Commission to push things through by force” at the EU’s expense, Left co-leader Manon Aubry told Euronews. She cited a recent deal with the United States that she said “will literally reduce the EU to a Donald Trump vassal.”
During the previous attempt to unseat her, von der Leyen dismissed her critics as “conspiracy theorists” and claimed they acted on behalf of Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying there was “ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere.”
The current commission is trying to launch a multibillion-euro military expansion program across member states, arguing the EU should fund it through loans to counter the threat from Russia – an assessment Moscow calls baseless.
US House votes to repeal president’s Middle East war powers
Al Mayadeen | September 11, 2025
In a significant move to reclaim Congressional authority over military engagement, the US House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to repeal decades-old laws that authorized war in the Middle East.
The 261-167 vote represents a bipartisan push to rescind the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), originally enacted ahead of the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The repeal was adopted as an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and is being hailed as a victory for war powers reform advocates, who argue that outdated authorizations enable unchecked presidential use of military force.
Long-awaited win for war powers reform advocates
The amendment was co-sponsored by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and garnered support from 49 Republicans and 212 Democrats. Advocates argue that keeping these authorizations in place enables future administrations to bypass Congress in deploying US military power.
“We don’t need to have Congress effectively modern-day declaring war and leaving it in place for a quarter of a freaking century, or in this case, 34 years,” said Roy.
Meeks added that he was “prepared to fight” in upcoming Senate negotiations to ensure the repeal becomes law.
Pushback from opponents
The proposal had an uncertain path to passage. Initially excluded from the package of amendments allowed for floor debate, the measure was added only after an unusual procedural win in the House Rules Committee. Republicans Ralph Norman (SC), Morgan Griffith (VA), and Chip Roy broke with their party to help Democrats force a debate on the amendment.
Not all lawmakers welcomed the repeal. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-FL) warned that revoking the war powers laws would “tie the president’s hands” in responding to regional threats, including resistance movements in Iraq.
Despite these concerns, the amendment passed with bipartisan backing, though deeper divisions remain over broader defense policies.
Wider debate over executive military power continues
While the vote represents a symbolic step toward limiting presidential war authority, critics note that the repeal will not affect recent military actions, including President Donald Trump’s alleged strike last week on a vessel in the Caribbean he claimed was for smuggling drugs.
The war powers repeal is expected to become a central issue in House-Senate negotiations over the final defense policy package. Although both chambers have voted in recent years to repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF, no repeal legislation has yet been enacted into law.
Background on AUMFs
- 1991 AUMF: Authorized military force during the Gulf War under President George H. W. Bush;
- 2002 AUMF: Enabled the 2003 invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush;
- 2014: Former President Barack Obama used the authorization to justify airstrikes in Iraq and Syria;
- 2020: US President Donald Trump used it in his first term to greenlight the airstrike that killed the IRGC’s Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad.
While former President Joe Biden never formally used the authorization, his administration argued it was important to keep it intact to respond to any future threats.
Macron orders French hospitals to prepare to receive 50,000 soldiers by March 2026
By Ahmed Adel | September 11, 2025
The announcement that hospitals in France are preparing to receive 50,000 soldiers by March 2026 did not elicit a noticeable reaction in the French media, and, in fact, it should not be given any undue importance. This is because it was likely an attempt to raise the stakes and make the French population aware that a conflict with Russia is more likely than it actually is, a sign of just how desperate President Emmanuel Macron has become as his popularity continues to plummet and pressure mounts for him to step down.
As revealed by Le Canard Enchaîné, the French Ministry of Health asked hospitals in a letter sent to regional health agencies to prepare for a “major engagement” by March 2026 that could see between 10,000 and 50,000 men treated over a period of 10 to 180 days.
“In the current international context, it is necessary to anticipate the modalities of health support in situations of high-intensity conflict,” the Ministry of Health reportedly wrote in the document.
Health Minister Catherine Vautrin did not deny the details outlined in the letter or its existence in an interview with French broadcaster BFMTV, instead minimizing the alarming preparedness efforts by using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example.
“It’s part of preparation, like strategic stockpiles, like epidemics. I wasn’t in office at the time of COVID-19, remember. There were no words harsh enough to describe the country’s lack of preparedness,” she said.
It is recalled that just months ago, France outlined plans to send a 20-page ‘survival manual’ to every household that laid out instructions on preparation for an “imminent threat”, including a natural disaster, health crisis, or armed conflict. The manual also suggests items people should have as part of a “survival kit”, including at least six litres of bottled water, 10 cans of food, a torch, extra batteries, and medical supplies such as saline solution, compresses, and paracetamol.
Macron does not enjoy much support among French citizens, with the latest polls indicating a paltry 15% approval rating. Such an announcement should therefore not be taken too seriously. The French president currently faces much bigger political problems, including his own survival, as calls for impeachment mount.
At the same time, March 2026 is only half a year away, and it is questionable whether hospitals can realistically prepare for such a large capacity within such a short period. The French public health system faces numerous organizational and technical challenges, and announcing an increase in capacity for a potential military conflict and the reception of the wounded does not seem particularly mature or realistic.
This announcement may have been made to increase Macron’s credibility following his rather aggressive speeches, which he has been inclined to use lately, especially against Russia. France, unfortunately, has been pursuing the wrong foreign policy throughout the Ukrainian crisis. With its positions and influence within the European Union and NATO, it has fostered a militaristic atmosphere and largely convinced, along with Great Britain, Germany, and even Poland, to support a warmongering strategy.
Discussions about losses, the wounded, preparing national capacities, and the state in general for such a war are an aggressive projection. Neither the policy nor the strategy has support, not only among the people, but also in military circles.
Instead, the announcement to the hospitals is an expression of the French president’s inner leadership, and it may have even been influenced by Britain, which is directing France to pursue this policy. Whatever is happening on the Ukrainian front, including the supply and introduction of new combat systems, drones, and the development of military capacities for ammunition and weapons within Ukraine’s territory, follows the guidelines set by London, in which Paris and, especially, Berlin have been participating recently.
Different voices and the public’s response in France are not heard enough due to the manipulation of political processes. Everything that opposes Macron and his government, whether on the streets or through democratic processes, has been silenced. This does not mean that he will be able to persevere to the end with such failed strategic decisions.
France has had a hung parliament since Macron surprised his country by calling snap national elections last year, after a poor performance in the June 2024 European vote. In this context, Macron named loyalist Sebastien Lecornu, a one-time conservative protege who rallied behind his 2017 presidential run, as Prime Minister on September 9, indicating that the president will continue with a minority government that will not rip up his economic agenda, in which taxes on business and the wealthy have been slashed but the retirement age raised.
All in all, Macron’s end is likely near, and there is no amount of Russophobia or fearmongering that he can manufacture to save his untenable position.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Brussels pushing to silence dissent among EU members
RT | September 10, 2025
The European Commission has announced plans to scrap consensus-based decision-making in EU foreign policy, in a step that could sideline member states resisting Brussels’ line.
Brussels has long weighed replacing unanimity – a founding principle of EU foreign policy – with majority voting, arguing the change would speed up decisions and stop individual states from blocking measures such as sanctions and military aid for Ukraine. Under the current system, all 27 members must agree for decisions to pass. The proposed reform would require a qualified majority, meaning decisions would be adopted if backed by a set threshold of states.
In her ‘state of the union’ address on Wednesday, Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said it was time to “break free from the shackles of unanimity,” and insisted that the bloc act “faster.”
“I believe that we need to move to qualified majority in some areas, for example in foreign policy,” she stated.
The EC chief, who has repeatedly invoked the “Russian threat” to justify military aid to Ukraine, sanctions, and the push for accelerated militarization, was met with opposition from Slovakia and Hungary. Both governments have repeatedly threatened to use their veto powers to block EU actions they view as harmful to their national interests.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has warned that removing members’ veto power on foreign policy would spell the end of the bloc and could be “the precursor of a huge military conflict.”
Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban has dismissed officials in Brussels as “bureaucrats” and argued that abandoning consensus would undermine national sovereignty, as member states could be dragged into wars without their consent. Orban said the EU is on the verge of collapse and will not survive beyond the next decade without a “fundamental structural overhaul” and disentanglement from the Ukraine conflict.
Moscow has accused the West of pursuing “uncontrolled militarization” to prepare for war with Russia, while dismissing claims it intends to attack NATO or EU states as “nonsense.” Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have accused Western leaders of fearmongering to justify inflated military budgets and to cover up their economic failures, insisting that aid to Kiev only prolongs the hostilities.
US lawmaker moves to block Ukraine aid
RT | September 9, 2025
US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has proposed removing $600 million in Ukraine support from the draft Pentagon spending bill, arguing that Americans’ “hard-earned tax dollars” should not go to foreign aid.
The Georgia Republican proposed cancelling the allocation of these funds in the 2026 and 2027 fiscal years to shift priorities toward the US.
With Donald Trump back in the White House, the US has dramatically cut military aid to Kiev, pausing more than $1 billion in planned funds.
In a video post on X on Tuesday, Greene said that her amendment would strike $600 million from the defense bill, money that she noted “goes to Ukraine.” She argued that the US had already sent “over $175 billion to this war” and that it was “enough of your hard-earned tax dollars.” She described the measure as part of the America First agenda, saying US funds should not be used for “foreign wars” while the country faces a $37 trillion debt.
The congresswoman stated that the US usually allocates $300 million annually but that “Speaker Johnson and Republicans are feeling so generous they’re wanting to give them 600 million this time. My amendment will take it out.” Greene said, adding she has “never voted to fund this war.”
Greene introduced another amendment after learning that “another $100 million” had been earmarked for Kiev and said she wanted to remove all funding in case others in Congress felt “so giving.” Greene also put forward measures to cut aid for Israel, Syria, and Iraq adding that the money should be “kept back here at home.”
While previous President Joe Biden’s administration approved large-scale aid packages to Kiev, Trump has cut assistance but allowed some deliveries, such as Patriot air-defense systems. He has repeatedly expressed concern about possible misuse of US aid to Kiev, claiming that billions allocated under Biden may have been embezzled. In July, Trump said that any additional weapons delivered to Ukraine would have to be paid for by Europe’s NATO members.
Ukraine’s European backers are pressing for more weapons as part of security guarantees, while Russia insists Western military aid is an obstacle to reaching a peace deal.
29 million deaths linked to EU and US sanctions – study
The unilateral measures were associated with more than 560,000 excess deaths annually from 1971 to 2021, a recent study suggests
RT | September 7, 2025
Western sanctions contributed to nearly 29 million excess deaths worldwide over five decades – a toll comparable to that of wars, according to a recent study.
The research, published last month in Lancet Global Health, has gained attention around the world.
Examining age-specific mortality in 152 countries from 1971 to 2021, using statistics from the Global Sanctions Database, researchers compared mortality rates before and after sanctions, tracking long-term trends to estimate their toll in excess deaths. They focused on three sanctioning authorities: The UN, the US, and the EU (and its predecessor).
“We estimate that unilateral sanctions over this period caused 564,258 deaths per year, similar to the global mortality burden associated with armed conflict,” the authors noted, with a total of 28.8 million deaths across the 51-year span.
We found the strongest effects for unilateral, economic, and US sanctions, whereas we found no statistical evidence of an effect for UN sanctions.
Most excess deaths occurred among the most vulnerable – the very young and the elderly.
“Our findings reveal that unilateral and economic sanctions, particularly those imposed by the USA, lead to substantial increases in mortality, disproportionately affecting children younger than 5 years,” the study said, noting that the age group accounted for 51% of the total death toll.
The report found that the sanctions undermine economic and food security, often causing hunger and health problems among the poorest. Additionally, the dominance of the dollar and euro in global transactions allowed the US and EU to amplify the impact of their sanctions.
At last year’s BRICS summit, member nations called for “unlawful unilateral coercive measures” to be eliminated, warning of their disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable. Members have increasingly avoided the dollar “to shield themselves from US arbitrariness,” Moscow has said.
At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin this week, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for a fairer global governance system based on mutual respect and opposition to Western dominance. Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the proposal as especially relevant when “some countries still do not abandon their desire for dictatorship in international affairs.”
Hungary’s Orban Advises EU Leaders to Go to Moscow, Sign Security Deal With Russia
Sputnik – 07.09.2025
The leaders of the European Union should go to Moscow and conclude a security agreement with Russia, stipulating that Ukraine will not become a member of the EU and NATO, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Sunday.
“Europe, in fact, needs to go to Moscow and conclude a security agreement between the EU and Russia, not in Washington. Not only about Ukraine, but also about security between the EU and Russia. It will obviously include that Ukraine will not be a member of either NATO or the EU, but it can also include – and I think Hungary could support this – an agreement on strategic cooperation between Ukraine and the EU,” Orban said during a speech.
Ukraine’s admission to the bloc would mean the EU entering into conflict with Russia and destroying the EU economically, while the agreement on strategic cooperation between the EU and Ukraine could become a compromise option that Budapest would not object to, Orban added.
Ukrainian Armed Forces Exert Psychological Pressure on Zaporozhye Power Plant Staff
Sputnik – 07.09.2025
The shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces is exerting psychological pressure on the staff of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, Yevgenia Yashina, the plant’s communications director, told Sputnik.
On Saturday, the Ukrainian armed forces were reported to attack the training center of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant using drones, with the strike hitting the roof. A fire and critical damage were avoided. The limits and conditions for the safe operation of the nuclear power plant were not violated, and the background radiation remains normal.
“Daily shelling exerts significant psychological pressure on the nuclear power plant staff, creating a tense and unstable environment that hinders the performance of their professional duties,” Yashina said.
The safety of the nuclear power plant primarily depends on the human factor, on the coordinated and precise actions of the staff, she said, adding that “the mentioned threats directly undermine this fundamental principle.”
The nuclear power plant is located on the left bank of the Dnepr River near Energodar. It is the largest nuclear plant in Europe in terms of the number of units and installed capacity. The plant has six power units, with a capacity of 1 gigawatt each, all of which are currently in a state of so-called cold shutdown. In October 2022, the nuclear power plant came under Russia’s control and has since been routinely targeted in Ukrainian attacks.
Iran’s Araghchi Raps “Deafening Western Silence” on Expansion of Israeli Nuclear Weapons
Al-Manar | September 6, 2025
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rapped what he called the “deafening Western silence” on the expansion of the Israeli nuclear weapons.
“Iran has long warned that the Western hysteria over nuclear proliferation in our region is all fluff. The issue, in their view, is not the existence—or expansion—of atomic weapon arsenals. It is about who gets to advance scientifically, even with peaceful nuclear programs,” Araqchi wrote in a post on his X account on Friday.
“It is therefore not a surprise that there is deafening Western silence over the apparent expansion of the only nuclear weapons arsenal in our region—the nukes in the hands of their genocidal ally. The E3 and the US may be in denial, but their silence is eliminating any credibility to utter anything about non-proliferation,” the Iranian foreign minister said.
The remarks by the top Iranian diplomat came as new revelations point to intensified construction at the Dimona nuclear site, long suspected of housing the Israeli regime’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.
According to a report published by the Associated Press on September 3, satellite images show intensified construction at the Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center near the city of Dimona, a facility long linked to the Zionist regime’s secret nuclear weapons program.
Experts who analyzed the images suggested the work could either be a new heavy water reactor —capable of producing plutonium for atomic bombs— or a facility for assembling nuclear weapons. They highlighted that the Zionist entity’s current heavy water reactor, which dates back to the 1960s, may soon require replacement.
Featured Video
Answers to Myocarditis and Heart Conditions
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Casuistry
By Thomas S. Harrington | CounterPunch | August 19, 2016
… What will almost never be talked about are the many very good reasons a person from the vast region stretching from Morrocco in the west, to Pakistan in the east, have to be very angry at, and to feel highly vengeful toward, the US, its strategic puppeteer Israel, and their slavishly loyal European compadres like France, Germany and Great Britain. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Eilat port faces worst crisis… loongtip on British minister dreams of kid… loongtip on Kiev awards major mining proje… loongtip on UK believes it can seize any t… loongtip on Pirates of the Caribbean loongtip on Australian festival boycotted… loongtip on Kiev seeks to ban Russian musi… seversonebcfb985d9 on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Kidnapped By the Washington… aletho on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… John Edward Kendrick on Somaliland and the ‘Grea… aletho on Donald Trump, and Most America…
Aletho News- Australia’s New Hate Speech Bill Is Reckless, Contradictory, and Repressive
- Report: Kurdish Fighters Have Been Entering Iran From Iraq and Clashing With the IRGC
- Trump’s Options in Iran Limited By Military Buildup in Latin America
- Villains of Judea: Paul Singer’s Empire of Debt & Demographic Replacement
- The Gaza ceasefire’s Phase 2 only exists in the media and at UN meetings
- We must act before Palestinian hostages are executed in the world’s worst prisons
- Why Washington will take Greenland
- Former Head of Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate: There’s a ‘very significant influence operation by the US’ in Iran
- Israel–Syria security pact stumbles as Tel Aviv rejects withdrawal: Report
- The Ukraine Snare Still Beckons
- If Americans Knew
- Militant Pro-Israel Group Agrees to Halt Operations in New York
- During “ceasefire,” at least 100 Gaza children killed – clearly NOT a ceasefire Day 96
- Israel Has Demolished 2,500 Buildings in Gaza Since Signing Ceasefire Deal
- Iran, Gaza and the politics of counting the dead
- How Israel’s move in Somaliland fits in its broader strategy for regional dominance
- As genocide continues in Gaza, the West Bank is pushed into a new Nakba
- Israeli settlers beat elderly, deaf Palestinian man in West Bank attack, video shows
- U.S. May Bankroll New Israeli Armored Vehicles With Billions of Dollars, Internal Files Reveal
- How Israel and the US are exploiting Iranian protests
- The New Neoconservatives
- No Tricks Zone
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
- Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
- Expect Soon Another PIK Paper Claiming Warming Leads To Cold Snaps Over Europe
- New Study: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 1.57% Of Global Temperature Change Since 1750
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
Aletho News 