Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

India-Israel-UAE: An Alliance of Many Anxieties

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – May 27, 2026

The I2U2 — that much-heralded “West Asian Quad” of India, Israel, the UAE, and the United States — is gathering dust. Launched with fanfare in July 2022 and billed as a transformative framework for regional integration, it has produced little of consequence since its inaugural summit.

Progress stalled through 2024, and its April 2025 revival dialogue in New Delhi was notably described as the first convening of the group in almost two years. Without sustained American engagement, the scaffolding has simply collapsed. What remains, however, is something more durable and more troubling: an informal troika of Israel, the UAE, and India, joined not by shared ambition but by a shared phobia.

Three States, One Obsession

Strip away the diplomatic pleasantries, and the organic glue binding Jerusalem, Abu Dhabi, and New Delhi is strikingly similar: each government perceives political Islam — in its domestic and regional expressions — as a foundational threat to its survival. For the UAE, the enemy has a name: the Muslim Brotherhood. Abu Dhabi under Mohammed bin Zayed has treated Brotherhood-affiliated movements as an existential menace to dynastic stability. The Emirati government’s sweeping crackdown on al-Islah, the Brotherhood’s local affiliate, was driven by the calculation that political Islam of any kind is fundamentally threatening to government security. The UAE formally designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation in 2014, backed the military coup in Egypt, led the 2017 blockade of Qatar, and as recently as January 2025, blacklisted eleven individuals and eight UK-based organisations linked to Brotherhood networks. This is not counterterrorism policy in any conventional sense; it is a preemptive war on political pluralism dressed in security language.

India’s version of the same anxiety plays out along the Hindu-Muslim fault line. Anti-Muslim sentiment has intensified systematically since 2014. India’s 200 million Muslims — the world’s third-largest Muslim population — have faced demolitions of homes, discriminatory citizenship legislation, and a political atmosphere. The BJP government has systematically reframed domestic Muslim political life as a security threat, deploying counterterrorism law against peaceful dissent. If the UAE fears a Brotherhood-style capture of the state, India fears the democratic agency of its own largest minority.

Israel’s specter is Palestine. More precisely, it is the impossibility of indefinitely suppressing Palestinian political self-determination without a cost to legitimacy. For all three governments, the language of “counterterrorism” functions as a tranquilizer: it sedates domestic dissent, silences international criticism, and transforms political opponents into security threats. This shared grammar of repression is the true foundation of the troika.

While tackling these internal and regional threats remains a key imperative, the most recent push to revive the alliance, even without Washington being a formal member, is Iran and the still ongoing Iran war.

From Phobia to Alliance: Iran as the Accelerant

If political Islam is the ideological glue, Iran is what has now hardened this informal troika into something resembling a war coalition. Following the US-Israeli strikes on Iran that began on February 28, 2026, the theoretical alignments of the Abraham Accords era became operational reality. Iran retaliated by targeting Gulf infrastructure, firing some 550 ballistic and cruise missiles and more than 2,200 drones at the UAE, making it the most targeted country in the region, including Israel. In response, Israel did something unprecedented: it deployed an Iron Dome battery, Israeli troops to operate it, and reportedly also its cutting-edge Iron Beam laser defence system and Spectro surveillance technology to Emirati soil. The Financial Times reported that Israeli military personnel on the ground in Gulf states were “a not insignificant number”. Emirati officials, reflecting on who came to their defence, reportedly said: “It was a real eye-opening moment. To see who our real friends are.”

The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, were partly motivated by a shared perception of the Iranian threat. What the 2026 conflict has done is strip away all residual ambiguity about what that means in practice. The UAE allowed its territory and airspace to be used by Israeli and American forces for strikes on Iran, according to Iranian officials. The Israeli Air Force carried out strikes in southern Iran during the war to neutralize short-range missiles threatening Gulf states. Abu Dhabi and Jerusalem are no longer strategic partners in aspiration; they are military partners in fact. The dream project of dismantling Iran as a regional power, long whispered in the corridors of both capitals, is now an open agenda.

It is in this context that Prime Minister Modi’s May 15, 2026 visit to Abu Dhabi — his eighth trip to the UAE in twelve years — must be read. The visit produced a raft of agreements: $5 billion in Emirati investment pledges, a long-term LPG supply deal, ADNOC access to India’s strategic petroleum reserves, and — most significantly — a formal Framework for the Strategic Defence Partnership covering defence industrial collaboration, cybersecurity, intelligence sharing, maritime security, and joint military exercises. Modi also chose to publicly condemn the Iranian attacks on the UAE and pledged India’s support in maintaining regional peace — a significant departure from the studied neutrality New Delhi had maintained for years. The visit came one day after India had hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who had openly accused the UAE of being “directly involved” in the US-Israeli war on Iran. The juxtaposition was not accidental; it was a signal about the direction of India’s foreign policy.

Silence Is No Longer a Strategy

For years, India’s position in this triangular relationship was one of studied ambiguity. New Delhi deepened ties with Israel and the UAE while maintaining functional relations with Iran and nominally adhering to the principle of strategic autonomy. That posture is now collapsing under the weight of events.

The contradiction at its heart is Chabahar. In May 2024, India signed a ten-year agreement to operate the Shahid Beheshti terminal, committing $120 million with a further $250 million credit line. This was to be New Delhi’s only viable overland and maritime gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia that bypasses Pakistan. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi has called it a “golden gate” for India’s connectivity ambitions. Yet the US ended its special sanctions waiver for Chabahar in September 2025, and India has been reduced to exploring a temporary transfer of its stake back to Iran to avoid American penalties. Strategic autonomy, it turns out, survives only on American sufferance. Meanwhile, any Indian military technology that reaches the UAE now enters a security ecosystem that includes Israel — meaning India’s new defence partnership with Abu Dhabi is, in practice, an indirect alignment with Tel Aviv.

India now faces a reckoning that its political class has been deferring for years. As the region moves from cold confrontation to hot war, the space for equidistance evaporates. Every arms deal, every investment pact, every public statement condemning Iranian strikes while maintaining silence on Gaza and the West Bank narrows the gap between partnership and complicity. The troika that fear built has a peculiar logic: states drawn together by what they dread at home — Muslim political power in its various forms — will inevitably be pulled toward a shared agenda abroad. For India, the path ahead is less a clear choice than a delicate negotiation — with its own pluralistic traditions, with its new partners in the Gulf and Israel, and with a neighbourhood that offers no easy answers. What happens next will depend not on grand declarations, but on the quiet, unglamorous work of balancing interests without losing sight of the human cost at home.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

May 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Islamophobia, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on India-Israel-UAE: An Alliance of Many Anxieties

Trump advances his Arctic strategy

Washington will have many difficulties implementing its plans for the Arctic

By Lucas Leiroz | May 26, 2026

US interests in the Arctic continue to pose a significant threat to the European security architecture. Washington continues to advance its plans to expand its military and economic presence in the Arctic, despite the proven inability of the current American naval apparatus to conduct operations in the region efficiently. In practice, the irresponsibility with which the US conducts its Arctic policy could lead to a serious escalation of tensions in the near future.

According to recent reports, the US and Denmark are finally reaching an understanding on the Greenland issue. The Danish government has allegedly given permission for the US to proceed with a plan to build two military bases on Greenlandic territory. This will allow Washington to control specific territorial zones in the region, expanding its influence in the Arctic without having the burden of a formal annexation of Greenland.

The measure, if confirmed by Danish authorities, will certainly face strong opposition from the local population. The current situation of Greenland is unpopular among native Greenlanders, who do not want their homeland administered by a European country – nor by the US. Without the political power necessary to fight for independence, the locals end up having their future defined in negotiations between Europeans and Americans, in which they do not participate.

However, despite the disapproval of the local people, it is likely that the US will be able to impose its presence in the region in a reasonably peaceful manner. Local citizens do not have sufficient political power to prevent these moves, leaving them only with formal disapproval. Furthermore, regardless of how this process unfolds in practice, the final result will be the expansion of the American military presence in the Arctic zones, which will bring an atmosphere of tension and insecurity to the Greenlandic people.

Still, Greenland is just one of the regions where the US plans to enter in order to increase its Arctic presence. Washington is also reportedly planning to occupy the Norwegian island of Svalbard, which would have even more significant impacts on regional security. Despite Norwegian sovereignty, the island is regulated by an international treaty that guarantees Russia the right to economic exploration of the region, which is why, even today – despite sanctions – Moscow maintains activities in Svalbard.

Militarizing Svalbard would be a terrible move, as well as a violation of international law. The treaty regulating the island prohibits its militarization, and there is a historical Russian presence that cannot be ignored. Furthermore, even if the US does not use the island for public military purposes, the mere expansion of the American presence in a European Arctic region – so close to Russia – would be enough to substantially escalate regional tensions.

However, in both Greenland and Svalbard, the US will face the same problem: its logistical weakness in Arctic environment. Washington has historically ignored the Arctic, focusing on other regions of the world for its military and economic expansion. The result has been a significant lag in US Arctic technologies. The country does not have a significant icebreaker fleet, which severely diminishes its ability to operate in the Arctic. For decades, the Arctic has been seen by American experts as an inhospitable region of low strategic value, leading the country to not give due attention to its military and economic potential.

In recent military exercises in the Arctic, the US has proven incapable of conducting complex operations due to the low quantity and quality of its icebreakers. While the country is attempting to rehabilitate its Arctic strategy and produce high-quality equipment for the region, it is practically impossible for the US to achieve any status as an “Arctic superpower” in the near future. In practice, Washington is only beginning to take an interest in the region, but its possibilities for action are extremely limited.

In fact, instead of seeking to expand its Arctic presence aggressively and unilaterally, the US should simply engage in joint peaceful cooperation projects in the Arctic – especially with Russia, which is the country that currently possesses the most advanced Arctic technology in the world. Unfortunately, warmongering and pro-hegemonic sectors have gained considerable influence in the Trump administration in recent months, which explains his irresponsible decisions on several recent issues.

If Trump manages to regain control of his own government and contain the pressure from pro-war sectors, the US may in the future engage in fruitful international cooperation in the Arctic. Without this, however, the Americans will remain unable to explore the economic and strategic potential of the region for a long time.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

May 26, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on Trump advances his Arctic strategy

Senior MP reveals Russia’s strategy for strikes on Kiev

RT | May 26, 2026

The Russian military will begin targeting bunkers used by Ukrainian military commanders and leadership in response to Kiev’s continued terrorist attacks on civilians, senior MP Andrey Kartapolov says. Ukraine’s parliament – the Verkhovnaya Rada – and Vladimir Zelensky’s office are not on the target list, he told Parliamentskaya Gazeta on Tuesday.

In the wake of the deadly Ukrainian drone attack on a college in the Lugansk People’s Republic, Moscow announced a new strategy, pledging to systematically hit assorted targets across the Ukrainian capital in retaliation. The strike killed at least 21 people, mostly teenage girls sleeping in a dormitory, in what the Russian Foreign Ministry characterized as the manifestation of “the Nazi and terrorist nature of the Kiev regime.”

Russia’s “patience has run out,” Kartapolov said, commenting on the tragedy. Kiev’s tactics have spiraled into “blatant terrorism against our civilians,” the head of the State Duma Defense Committee stated, adding that Moscow would now abandon its self-imposed commitment not to target Ukraine’s capital.

When asked about potential targets, the lawmaker stated that neither the Verkhovnaya Rada building nor Zelensky’s office counts as a “decision-making center.” Ukrainian MPs do not control the troops, and Zelensky himself does not even visit his office any longer, the MP stated.

“Decision-making centers [are] underground fortified [military] command and control centers,” as well as bunkers used by the Ukrainian security services and leadership, said Kartapolov, himself a retired colonel general and former deputy defense minister.

Earlier, the Russian Foreign Ministry urged foreigners to leave the Ukrainian capital and warned locals to stay away from military, industrial, and government sites. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed the issue with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio as well.

The EU has openly dismissed the warnings, accusing Moscow of “unacceptable escalation.” The bloc’s foreign policy spokeswoman, Anitta Hipper, said on X on Tuesday that Brussels summoned the Russian Charge d’Affairs over the ministry’s call and stated that “the EU delegation stays in Kiev.”

The Russian military maintains that it never targets purely civilian sites in Ukraine and focuses on military or dual-use installations.

May 26, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Senior MP reveals Russia’s strategy for strikes on Kiev

Germany Embarked on Unprecedented Military Buildup – Expert

Sputnik – 26.05.2026

Germany is carrying out total militarization at all levels and on a scale unprecedented in the country’s history, Reiner Braun, an expert and former co-chair of the International Peace Bureau (IPB), told RIA Novosti.

“We are witnessing the total militarization of the country. This isn’t just a crazy arms buildup in terms of spending money. We are seeing the militarization of absolutely every aspect of society: from healthcare and civil defense to schools and environmental programs. We have reached a completely new level of war preparation. What is happening now is on a scale never before seen in the history of Germany,” Braun stated.

According to Braun, part of German society opposes militarization. Polls show that approximately 35% of the population is critical of the current military policy.

“Nevertheless, we must objectively assess reality and acknowledge that the concept of ‘war preparedness’ and the associated construction of an enemy image in Russia have taken root in German society and enjoy a certain level of support,” he added.

The expert noted that fear of Russia was a powerful tool in contemporary German politics that should not be underestimated.

“This fear clouds reason, creates mental chaos, distracts people from many other pressing issues, and, what’s more, it is built entirely on lies,” Braun added.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius earlier presented Germany’s first-ever independent military strategy and armed forces development plan, under which Germany plans to deploy the most powerful conventional army in Europe by 2039. The new strategy officially identifies Russia as the main threat to Germany’s security and the entire Euro-Atlantic area.

May 26, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | | Comments Off on Germany Embarked on Unprecedented Military Buildup – Expert

When Our Word is No Longer Good

By Ron Paul | May 25, 2026

The pattern of media reports – based on White House leaks – that an agreement with Iran is almost completed has become predictable. Where once the markets fluctuated wildly (and some insiders made huge profits with the information), each time we hear that the deal is almost complete only to see it fall through, the markets barely move.

It is dangerous to have a US Administration that no one in the US or the rest of the world believes. When White House “sources” claim a deal is in sight only to have President Trump post another AI graphic of the US military – or himself – firing missiles at Iran, the futility of engaging with the United States becomes reinforced to the rest of the world.

This is not projecting strength. It is signaling moral and ethical bankruptcy. And it is dangerous. In a world where no other country sees value in negotiating to end disputes with the US government, the only solution is to prepare to use force against it.

A US government whose word is no good will soon find a world that refuses to speak with it.

That is what we have seen with the Iranian response to the US surprise attacks of last June and this February 28th. Two times the US used lies and deception that we were negotiating as an honest partner as cover for a pre-planned attack. How can any country negotiate in such circumstances?

There is a word for this: nihilism. It is the belief that there is no truth. Only the convenient lies and deceptions to force one’s will. Governmental nihilism leads to bankruptcies both financial and moral. Nearly $40 trillion in debt demonstrates the former bankruptcy, while our foreign policy of war and aggression demonstrates the latter.

A world that sees force as the only way to negotiate with the United States may not attack us immediately. But it will prepare to do so. That is what Iran has done for the past four decades. That is what our “rivals” China and Russia have done. Others are following suit.

The government and its neocon mouthpieces continue to propagandize the American people that we have the strongest military in the history of the world. And while it is true that we have a powerful military, more expensive than most others combined and capable of projecting force worldwide, it is also irrelevant.

Despite the relentless propaganda of “War Secretary” Hegseth, we are slowly learning the truth about the US war of aggression against Iran. Just a few weeks of fighting has nearly depleted our arsenal while barely denting that of Iran. Despite the US Administration’s initial claims that 90 percent or more of Iran’s military was destroyed, we now know that the opposite is the case: nearly 90 percent of Iran’s military remains intact.

What we should have learned from 20 years wasted in Afghanistan – that a nation fighting for its homeland has an immense advantage – has still not been learned.

Having the “most powerful military in the world” is irrelevant if the US continues to pursue a global military empire. There will never be a military strong enough for that. It is a lesson we have just learned in Iran.

If the American people are not willing to demand that their elected officials uphold the Constitution and restore our good name as honest brokers, I am afraid the future consequences of our current nihilism will be grave.

May 26, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | | Comments Off on When Our Word is No Longer Good

The Disasters of War. Trump’s “Peace Through Strength” Doctrine Conducive to Worldwide Famines…

By Manlio Dinucci | Global Research | May 26, 2026

The White House announced:

“The Trump Administration’s doctrine of peace through strength has strengthened alliances and established America as an indispensable force for global stability.

As these achievements mount up, we have unequivocally entered a Golden Age of American Greatness, which promises even greater opportunities and security for the future”.

Adhering to the “peace through strength” doctrine, the Trump Administration increased US military spending from $860 billion in the 2025 financial year to $1.45 trillion in the 2027 financial year. This figure is further increased by $488 billion allocated to the Department of Veterans Affairs and other military appropriations, bringing the US’s annual military spending to over $2 trillion — more than a quarter of the Federal Government’s total public expenditure. Official budgets vastly underestimate the true cost of wars: the Pentagon claims that the war against Iran has so far cost $29 billion, but Forbes magazine estimates the cost at nearly $200 billion.

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which the United States continues to enforce by using its warships to block the entrance to the Gulf of Oman, prevents Asian countries in particular from receiving the oil and gas they need from Iran and other countries in the Persian Gulf. These resources are increasingly being supplied to Asian countries by the United States at much higher prices. The rise in energy prices has led to a rise in the prices of agricultural products, with disastrous consequences.

The World Food Programme predicts that rising food prices will reduce access to food for poor households that were already barely able to afford a minimum diet before the conflict. For the 53 countries for which data is available, the number of people suffering from acute hunger is expected to rise by 45 million – compared with a pre-conflict baseline of 318 million – if the conflict continues into the second quarter of this year.

Overall, more than 360 million people could face severe food insecurity by 2026. This means that millions of people could go hungry. In this way, the war is causing far more casualties than those caused by the bombings. Others will die from the effects of pollution caused by US and Israeli bombing of Iranian oil refineries. An oil slick has reached Shidvar, an Iranian island in the Persian Gulf, surrounded by crystal-clear turquoise waters that provide a refuge for endangered sea turtles and dolphins. It is one of Iran’s most important protected nature reserves. Large dark streaks of oil now snake along the white sandy beaches. Birds, turtles and crabs can be seen trapped in piles of tar.

At the same time, the risk of nuclear war is increasing, both in the Middle East – where Israel, the only country in the region to possess nuclear weapons, could use them in a war against Iran – and in Europe, where the United States has deployed nuclear weapons aimed at Russia. Finland has stated its intention to lift the restrictions prohibiting the presence of nuclear weapons on its territory, in order to align the country with NATO’s ‘deterrence’ policy following its accession to the Alliance in 2023.  This means that US nuclear weapons – such as the new B61-12 nuclear bombs already deployed in Italy and other European countries – could be deployed in Finland, close to St Petersburg and other major urban centres. The Kremlin has warned that nuclear weapons in Finland would pose a very serious threat to Russia. It therefore conducted nuclear exercises from 19 to 21 May, involving 64,000 military personnel and 7,800 nuclear-capable missile launchers.

May 26, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Comments Off on The Disasters of War. Trump’s “Peace Through Strength” Doctrine Conducive to Worldwide Famines…

Iran shoots down Israeli spy drone over Hormozgan province

Press TV – May 24, 2026

Iranian air defense forces have shot down an Israeli “Orbiter” reconnaissance drone over the southern province of Hormozgan, according to military sources from the country’s southeastern air defense command.

The drone, described as being used for espionage and surveillance, was intercepted and destroyed after entering the operational airspace under the protection of Iran’s southern air defense network on Sunday.

Officials said the UAV was targeted by a specialized defense system whose technical specifications have not yet been disclosed.

Military authorities based in Bandar Abbas stated that the system used in the operation is capable of detecting and engaging radar-evading drones and that no stealth UAV would be able to penetrate the airspace stretching from the Persian Gulf and its islands to southern and southeastern Iran.

The wreckage of the destroyed drone was later recovered with the assistance of maritime border police units operating in Hormozgan Province.

The interception comes at a time of increasing scrutiny over the vulnerability of advanced Western and American unmanned aerial systems in regional conflicts.

A recent Bloomberg report detailing the loss of multiple advanced US drones during the war against Iran has drawn attention to the growing challenges facing technology-driven aerial warfare.

Among the systems highlighted was the MQ-9 Reaper, long regarded as one of the symbols of American military and technological superiority due to its surveillance, tracking, and precision-strike capabilities in conflicts ranging from Afghanistan and Iraq to Syria.

Analysts say the significance of such incidents extends beyond financial losses. The downing of advanced drones increasingly carries political and strategic implications, raising broader questions about the effectiveness of modern airpower and the sustainability of prolonged military engagements.

In the United States, criticism has gradually intensified over the objectives and outcomes of US aggression against Iran.

Analysts say that if Washington, despite possessing some of the world’s most advanced military technologies, is unable to achieve its strategic goals, the justification for continuing this war becomes increasingly difficult to defend.

May 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Iran shoots down Israeli spy drone over Hormozgan province

Oreshnik strike a retaliation for Kiev’s ‘terrorist attacks’ – Moscow

RT | May 24, 2026

Russian forces launched a “massive strike” overnight against military targets in Ukraine, using intermediate-range hypersonic Oreshnik system and Iskander ballistic missiles, Kinzhal and Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles, air-, sea- and ground-launched cruise missiles, as well as attack drones.

The strike came after Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Defense Ministry to “submit proposals” for a response to a Ukrainian drone attack on a teacher training college dormitory in the Lugansk People’s Republic, which left 21 people dead and 42 injured, mostly teenage girls.

The bombardment targeted the Ukrainian military’s command and control facilities, air bases, and the country’s defense industry enterprises, the ministry said. No strikes had been planned or carried out against civilian infrastructure, it added.

“The objectives of the strike have been achieved. All designated targets were hit,” it stressed.

Earlier on Sunday, Ukrainian media and Telegram channels circulated videos showing clusters of bright objects rapidly descending from the sky, claiming that Russia had deployed an Oreshnik against an unspecified target in the town of Belaya Tserkov near Ukraine’s capital, Kiev.

The dormitory of Starobelsk College, a facility of Lugansk Pedagogical University located in the town of Starobelsk, was struck by multiple waves of Ukrainian drones on Friday while students were asleep inside, in what Putin described as a deliberate “terrorist act.”

Governor Leonid Pasechnik declared May 24-25 days of mourning, describing the attack as “pure evil” and saying those responsible would face “deserved and inevitable punishment.”

Earlier, the US Embassy in Kiev warned American citizens of a “potentially significant air attack” that could take place within 24 hours and urged them to be ready to seek shelter immediately if an air alert was issued.

Moscow first publicly confirmed firing an Oreshnik in November 2024 when the missile was used in a strike on the Yuzhmash military-industrial facility in Dnepropetrovsk. It was deployed for the second time this January, obliterating an aircraft repair plant in Lviv, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

May 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on Oreshnik strike a retaliation for Kiev’s ‘terrorist attacks’ – Moscow

Warmongers in meltdown as Trump heralds Iran deal

In essence, this agreement brings the situation to where it was supposed to be following the announcement of the original ceasefire

By Trita Parsi | May 23, 2026

I wrote yesterday that the United States and Iran were on the verge of an agreement. Trump appeared to confirm as much a few hours ago with an unusually disciplined Truth Social post — grammatically coherent, diplomatically measured, and notably devoid of his customary theatrics or ritual humiliation of the opposing side.

That restraint matters. Unlike his earlier proclamations of imaginary breakthroughs, this statement carried the tone of a serious diplomatic signal rather than political indiscipline. Its timing, moreover, appeared disconnected from market considerations or domestic spectacle. My own sources in Tehran likewise confirm that a major breakthrough has been reached, though it remains contingent on final approval — precisely as Trump indicated.

So what does all of this mean? What do we actually know about the contours of the agreement? How significant was the role played by regional actors in securing the breakthrough, and what explains Europe’s near-total irrelevance in the process? If this arrangement is merely a Memorandum of Understanding, where do the principal vulnerabilities lie as negotiations enter a second phase?

Moreover, can Trump successfully sell the deal at home? What steps can — and likely will — Israel take to sabotage the agreement? And if a final deal is secured, how profound would Israel’s strategic defeat be?

Let me try to address these questions one by one.

First of all, the full details remain unclear. But according to reporting by Amwaj.media —much of which I have independently corroborated — the agreement entails a comprehensive cessation of hostilities, including in Lebanon; the gradual release of Iran’s frozen assets; and an end to America’s “blockade of the blockade” in the Strait of Hormuz.

Maritime traffic through the Strait would resume under joint Iranian and Omani oversight. Once these measures take effect, the parties would have an additional 30 days to negotiate a final agreement. That second-stage accord is expected to address both the nuclear issue and the long-term status of the Strait.

Significant progress, however, already appears to have been made on the nuclear file, and, as I understand it, broad principles for its resolution have largely been agreed upon.

In essence, this agreement restores the situation to where it was always supposed to be following the announcement of the original ceasefire. From the outset, the ceasefire was intended to be regional in scope and to include Lebanon. There was never supposed to be a “blockade of the blockade” — an absurd scheme concocted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies that only served to undermine America’s strategic position.

Nor was commercial traffic through the Strait meant to remain disrupted. The genuinely new elements are limited sanctions relief for Tehran and a formal commitment to resolve the nuclear issue within the next 30 days.

Yet while reaching this point is undeniably significant, there is still no real deal until a final agreement is secured. And the 30-day window, though short, nevertheless offers ample opportunity for spoilers on all sides to sabotage the process.

The regional buy-in — and the fact that Trump announced the agreement only after speaking with a wide array of key regional leaders, including those of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain, in addition to a separate call with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu — is highly significant. This regional anchoring affords Trump a degree of political insulation in Washington. Faced with inevitable accusations from hawks that the agreement amounts to defeat or that it betrays Israel, he can point to broad regional support as evidence that America’s principal partners in the Middle East prefer diplomacy to escalation.

Indeed, compared to President Obama’s 2015 nuclear agreement, the regional engagement surrounding Trump’s deal is objectively deeper, broader, and more politically consequential. Obama’s agreement was negotiated despite resistance from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE; Trump’s appears to be taking shape with active regional backing. Europe’s near-total absence from the process is nevertheless striking — though hardly problematic. By this point, Europe’s diplomatic irrelevance in major Middle Eastern diplomacy has become so normalized that its exclusion barely registers.

Judging by the public panic now emanating from Washington’s war hawks and pro-Israel circles, however, the next 30 days are likely to be politically brutal for Trump. FDD is already openly attacking him. AIPAC is amplifying lawmakers denouncing the agreement. An adviser to the former Crown Prince of Iran has accused Trump of “total surrender.” Many of the same allies who enthusiastically applauded Trump’s decision to initiate the war are now turning on him for choosing diplomacy over permanent escalation.

Senior Israeli politicians, however, may choose a more cautious approach. Rather than confronting Trump directly, they are likely to let their proxies in Washington wage the public battle on their behalf.

Israeli elections are approaching, and Trump remains deeply popular among Israeli voters, while Netanyahu has thus far failed to convert the popularity of the Iran war into a decisive electoral advantage. A direct public clash with Trump over the agreement could therefore prove politically dangerous for Netanyahu. Trump, if provoked, could inflict substantial damage simply by signaling support for one of Netanyahu’s challengers.

Trump may have hinted at this dynamic a few days ago when he — seemingly out of nowhere — told reporters that he enjoys a “99% approval rating” in Israel and could run for prime minister there himself. On the surface, it sounded like another episode of characteristic Trumpian bravado. But in context, it may well have been a pointed warning to Netanyahu and Israel’s political establishment that Trump can damage them far more than they can damage him.

There should be little doubt, however, that if a final agreement is reached — and any lasting agreement will almost certainly require substantial, if not total, sanctions relief for Iran — it would constitute a devastating strategic defeat for Tel Aviv.

Israel’s two wars have, paradoxically, strengthened Iran’s deterrence posture, exposed Israel’s inability to confront Iran without overwhelming American military backing, and inflicted incalculable damage on America’s global standing and aura of military supremacy.

Indeed, the cumulative effect may be so severe that the pursuit of uncontested American global primacy is no longer a realistic option. At the same time, support for Israel within the United States has eroded dramatically across nearly every demographic group except older Republican voters.

Most importantly, sanctions relief would liberate Iran’s economy from decades of constriction and gradually shift the regional balance of power away from Israel and its vision of a “Greater Israel.” For precisely that reason, Israel will almost certainly do everything within its power — behind the scenes — to sabotage the agreement before it becomes irreversible.

But Israel is not the only threat to the deal. Both Washington and Tehran will have to exercise extraordinary discipline to ensure that their competing narratives of victory do not strengthen the hardline opposition camp in the other country. Throughout the negotiations, Trump has shown remarkably little sensitivity to how his inflammatory social media posts complicate Tehran’s ability to compromise. Iran must now avoid making the same mistake. Public triumphalism in Tehran could easily undermine Trump’s political capacity to deliver the agreement domestically.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s recent tweet comparing the outcome of Trump’s war to the failed Roman attempts to subjugate the Sassanidian Persian Empire is a case in point. Whatever its domestic appeal in Iran, such rhetoric risks hardening opposition in Washington at precisely the moment when restraint and strategic ambiguity are most needed.

At the end of the day, for the Phase II negotiations to succeed — and for any agreement to prove durable — both sides must be able to claim victory.

Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

May 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Warmongers in meltdown as Trump heralds Iran deal

British bases in Cyprus face renewed scrutiny amid war on Iran

Al Mayadeen | May 23, 2023

The war on Iran has reignited political tensions in Cyprus over the continued presence of British military bases on the island, with critics describing them as a lasting symbol of colonial domination and a direct threat to Cypriot security.

The debate intensified after a drone struck the British Akrotiri base in southern Cyprus in March, causing limited material damage but triggering renewed scrutiny over London’s military role on the strategically located island.

In the days that followed, British and Greek fighter jets intercepted additional projectiles reportedly heading toward Cyprus, while several European states deployed naval assets to the eastern Mediterranean amid fears of regional escalation linked to the US-Israeli aggression on Iran.

According to Cypriot and Lebanese media reports, Cyprus’s intelligence chief, Tasos Tzionis, later allegedly established contacts with the Lebanese Resistance to obtain assurances that no further attacks would target the island, amid concerns that British military activity could drag Cyprus deeper into the regional confrontation.

British military presence described as colonial legacy

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides has publicly criticized Britain’s handling of the situation, warning that ambiguity surrounding the role of the Akrotiri and Dhekelia bases effectively turned Cyprus into a target during the confrontation.

Speaking in Brussels earlier this year, Christodoulides described the British bases as a “colonial legacy,” stressing the need for a broader discussion with London once regional tensions due to US and Israeli hostilities subside.

The Cypriot government reportedly lacks oversight over many military activities conducted inside the British-controlled zones, including the transfer of military equipment and logistical operations connected to Western regional interventions.

Diplomatic sources cited in the report said London “does whatever it wants” inside the bases, which have long served as key hubs for British and US military operations across West Asia.

Strategic role of Cyprus in Western military operations

Located roughly 150 kilometers from the coasts of Syria and Lebanon and around 350 kilometers from Gaza, Cyprus occupies a central position in the eastern Mediterranean and has increasingly served as a forward operating platform for Western military and intelligence activity.

Akrotiri has reportedly been used in logistical support operations tied to “Israel”, as well as in broader US and British regional military deployments.

The Dhekelia base also hosts extensive surveillance infrastructure, including radar and signal interception systems used in operations stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Researchers and political analysts in Cyprus argue that the continued British presence undermines the island’s sovereignty and complicates efforts to resolve the decades-long division of Cyprus between the Turkish-occupied north and the internationally recognized south.

Calls grow for decolonization and sovereignty

The British-controlled territories are not conventional foreign military bases governed through bilateral agreements. Instead, they remain sovereign British overseas territories retained by London when Cyprus gained independence from British colonial rule in 1960.

Together, Akrotiri and Dhekelia cover roughly 3% of Cyprus’ territory and include civilian communities inhabited by around 11,000 Cypriots.

Critics argue that the arrangement represents an incomplete decolonization process imposed on Cyprus as a condition for independence.

The issue has gained renewed relevance following international legal disputes over Britain’s control of the Chagos Islands, where London agreed to return sovereignty to Mauritius while retaining long-term military access to Diego Garcia, a major Anglo-American military base.

Cypriot officials are now reportedly studying similar legal and diplomatic pathways as pressure grows domestically to challenge Britain’s continued military presence on the island.

May 23, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on British bases in Cyprus face renewed scrutiny amid war on Iran

NATO must ‘show its teeth’ to Russia – Czech president

RT | May 23, 2026

Czech President Petr Pavel has urged NATO to “show its teeth” in response to what he described as Russian “provocations” on the bloc’s eastern flank.

Pavel’s remarks follow a series of Ukrainian drone incursions into NATO airspace in Europe. Since mid-March, long-range UAVs have repeatedly crossed Baltic and Nordic airspace en route to targets in northwestern Russia, particularly oil facilities in Leningrad Region. The incursions prompted fighter jet deployments, and some drones crashed inside NATO states, causing damage.

Moscow has accused European NATO members of quietly allowing Kiev to use their airspace for attacks on Russian territory, but Western officials deny this, instead blaming Russia for the incursions and claiming that Russian electronic warfare systems may have redirected the drones to stray into NATO airspace.

In an interview with The Guardian published Friday, Pavel echoed the accusations, claiming that Russia was intentionally staging “provocations” operating just below the threshold that would trigger NATO’s collective defense clause, Article 5. He also claimed that Russian military officials openly mock the bloc’s indecision during such incidents, and called for “decisive enough, potentially even asymmetric” responses to counter Moscow’s actions.

“Russia, unfortunately, does not understand nice language. They mostly understand the language of power, ideally accompanied with action,” he claimed. “When I asked them why they do these provocative actions in the air… their answer was ‘because we can’. That’s exactly the kind of behavior we allowed.”

Citing earlier Western allegations of Russian “provocations” in the Black and Baltic Seas – such as fighter jet intercepts and purported airspace violations – Pavel suggested that NATO should consider shooting down “either an unmanned or manned” Russian aircraft if spotted near its borders. Moscow has denied the accusations, insisting its patrols occur in international airspace and are a necessary response to Western reconnaissance flights near Russian borders.

Pavel also proposed “potentially asymmetric” measures against Moscow, including disrupting internet access, targeting satellites, or cutting Russian banks off from the global financial system, measures he said “are not killing people, but are sensitive enough to make Russia understand this is not the way they should go.”

Pavel’s position echoes that of several other NATO countries. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on Thursday that NATO states should actually help Kiev “direct” drone attacks “in the right directions.” Latvian and Estonian officials defended Ukrainian incursions by saying that Kiev “has every right to defend itself.”

Finland, however, rebuked Kiev over the breaches of its airspace, while Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico urged renewed dialogue with Moscow, warning of potential Ukrainian drone provocations involving NATO territory that he said could trigger direct conflict between Russia and the bloc.

Multiple Western officials have claimed that Moscow could test the alliance through provocations and hybrid operations, or eventually attack European states after the Ukraine conflict ends. Citing the purported threat, European NATO members last year pledged to raise military spending to 5% of GDP and launched rearmament initiatives such as ReArm Europe.

Moscow, however, dismissed claims that it poses a threat to Europe as baseless “nonsense” and condemned what it calls reckless EU militarization. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently accused European “warmongers” of portraying Russia as a “model external enemy” to distract from domestic problems.

May 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on NATO must ‘show its teeth’ to Russia – Czech president

Russia Has Three Responses to Ukrainian Attack on Donbass Children – Expert

Sputnik – 22.05.2026

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told the Defense Ministry to plan responses to the Ukrainian drone attack on a high school dormitory in Starobelsk in the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR).

Russia has several options, National Defense magazine editor-in-chief Igor Korotchenko tells Sputnik.

  1. Hitting decision-making centers — specifically in Kiev, “where the leaders of the terrorist regime direct and order attacks on Russia, including the latest large-scale tragedy involving the deaths of children”
  2. Critical infrastructure that supports Ukrainian Armed Forces rear operations and stability
  3. Ukrainian military and state command networks

“The retaliation strike must be large-scale and concentrated,” Korotchenko says. “Of course, we will not strike civilian infrastructure or the civilian population. Those are the methods used by Zelensky’s terrorists against us.”

The pundit stressed that Russia is fighting the military operation in Ukraine in line with international law and the UN Charter.

“Accordingly, strikes will target only military sites, critical infrastructure — considered lawful military targets — and Ukraine’s political and military command centers.”

The strike on the Starobelsk dormitory was not accidental — it came in three waves during the night. There are no military facilities near the dormitory.

Why does the Zelensky regime target civilians? Because it built up an illusion of safety and impunity, the expert replies.

May 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on Russia Has Three Responses to Ukrainian Attack on Donbass Children – Expert

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »