Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Pakistan thought it won the peace. Now, it could be dragged into war.

By Elfadil Ibrahim | Responsible Statecraft | July 22, 2026

Four weeks ago, Pakistan looked like one of the biggest winners of the U.S.-Iran war.

Its army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, shuttled between Washington, Tehran and Gulf capitals for months. As part of his efforts, Pakistan hosted the first face-to-face U.S.-Iran talks in years and helped broker the Islamabad memorandum of understanding that Vice President JD Vance signed in June, thanking Munir and calling him one of the “very, very important people” in his life.

Islamabad hired a Washington lobbying firm to convert that goodwill into defense cooperation and minerals investment, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke of a “sun of progress and prosperity” for Pakistan’s chronically stressed economy after the MoU between the U.S.and Iran brought an end to major military operations.

Pakistan’s fortunes have since reversed. Fighting between Washington and Tehran has resumed, and Islamabad’s dual goals of being Iran’s trusted interlocutor and the Arab Gulf states’ security guarantor are once again at odds.

President Donald Trump declared the deal was “over” in early July, after which the U.S. struck civilian and military targets in Iran. Iran, for its part, declared on July 18 through its deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, that it was “suspending all obligations” under the framework. The war has since widened into exactly the kind of multi-front regional conflict Pakistan spent the spring trying to prevent.

The clearest new exposure for Pakistan is in Saudi Arabia, where Iran struck Prince Sultan Air Base at al-Kharj — its first direct hit on Saudi territory since March — just days after the Houthis, Iran’s Yemeni ally, fired missiles on the kingdom, hitting Abha airport in the country’s south. That escalation occurred after Saudi-allied forces hit Sanaa airport in Yemen to prevent the landing of an Iranian airliner; the U.S. Treasury alleged without providing evidence that the plane is linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp. The strikes effectively enforced Riyadh’s airspace veto over the Houthi-controlled capital.

Pakistan signed a mutual defense pact with Riyadh last year. It deployed fighter jets and thousands of troops to the kingdom after earlier Iranian strikes on Saudi energy infrastructure. More recently, Islamabad has reportedly communicated to Tehran directly that attacks on Saudi Arabia will be treated as attacks on Pakistan itself. Sharif’s own statement in the aftermath called the Houthi strikes on Saudi Arabia a violation of the kingdom’s sovereignty that Pakistan “strongly condemns,” pledging “unwavering support” for Riyadh’s security.

The tone is notable given that Pakistan’s parliament explicitly refused to get entangled in Yemen over a decade ago. In April 2015, faced with a nearly identical Saudi request to join the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis, Pakistan’s National Assembly voted unanimously to “maintain neutrality.” Islamabad’s calculus has not changed. If anything, recent events have sharpened Pakistan’s desire to broker a lasting peace.

Pakistan is home to the world’s second-largest Shia population after Iran, and the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, in February set off deadly unrest in Karachi and Islamabad; Munir himself had to intervene to calm a wave of processions and pledges of allegiance to the new supreme leader across Shia neighborhoods.

Significantly, Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif attended Khamenei’s funeral in July, and Sharif posted after that “the late Supreme Leader’s wisdom, leadership and profound influence on Iran and the wider region will be remembered for generations” — a demonstration of the fine line Pakistan’s leadership has to walk, one no doubt delivered with a domestic audience in mind as much as an Iranian one.

That fine line becomes impossible to walk when a defense pact, triggered by Saudi-Houthi fighting or by further Iranian strikes on Saudi Arabia, would ask Pakistan to do the exact thing its parliament explicitly refused a decade ago: take a military side against a Houthi-Iran axis, and do so at a moment when its domestic Shia politics is highly combustible

Kuwait is now reportedly asking for the same kind of commitment that Saudi Arabia already has. Reuters reported last week that Islamabad is in early-stage talks with Kuwait — which has absorbed repeated Iranian strikes on its infrastructure in recent days — over an expanded defense agreement that would include “thousands of Pakistani troops on the ground, fighter jets, drones, an air defence system, and other defence-related facilities,” according to an anonymous Pakistani government official cited in the report.

Another anonymous Pakistani security official said the country “cannot consider a deployment of combat troops at this stage.” That hesitation suggests that stacking multiple defense commitments across Gulf states in Iran’s crosshairs makes Islamabad’s balancing act much harder to sustain. Each new pact narrows the room to claim neutrality the next time Tehran calls.

During this war, Pakistan discovered what happens when Gulf partners doubt its ability to balance between Tehran and the Arab Gulf states. The United Arab Emirates recalled a $3.5 billion loan in April and quietly began deporting Pakistani Shia workers by the thousands. The move was widely read as retaliation for Islamabad’s perceived tilt toward Tehran during the mediation. Saudi Arabia stepped in with $3 billion to cover the gap, but the lesson was clear: Pakistan’s neutrality satisfies no one fully, and the cost of disappointing any single Gulf patron is measured in the billions of dollars.

Economic self-preservation has been Pakistan’s primary motive for steering mediation and ending a war that has hobbled the economies of its creditors and choked the trade routes that power its own electric grid. Pakistan is on its 25th International Monetary Fund program; more than half of its tax revenue is put towards servicing its debts. It had barely stabilized its inflation before the Strait of Hormuz’s closure sent rates back into double digits.

In March, as the war’s first phase disrupted energy flows out of Hormuz, Islamabad ordered a two-week school closure and imposed a four-day work week to conserve fuel — measures the government has now indicated it may need to revive.

A parallel disruption to the Red Sea, like the blockade of Saudi Arabia declared by the Houthis Monday, would be highly disruptive to Pakistan’s energy security, and by extension, its economy. While Pakistan imports the overwhelming majority of its fuel from the Gulf, the closing of another critical chokepoint would simultaneously tighten global tanker capacity and insurance costs everywhere, pushing the same spot-market prices Pakistan is already struggling to afford even higher.

It would also add further pressure on Pakistan’s defense commitments to Saudi Arabia, given that Riyadh will not tolerate such a closure. In a recent statement, Riyadh pledged to deal with “Houthi threats against transiting vessels… firmly and swiftly.” The stakes for Saudi Arabia are high: Since the Strait of Hormuz was blocked, Saudi Arabia has relied on its East-West pipeline to divert roughly 5 million barrels per day of crude to the Red Sea Port of Yanbu — its only viable export outlet while Hormuz is all but closed.

None of this means Pakistan’s mediation was a mistake, or that its diplomatic capital has evaporated. Kuwait’s foreign minister still thanked Pakistan last week for its “constructive and mediatory role,” and Islamabad remains one of the few channels through which Washington and Tehran would resume talks, when the time comes. But the specific bet Pakistan made — that ending the war would allow it to bank the goodwill through commerce and financial aid — has not yet paid off.

Instead, the restart of the war has brought Saudi Arabia back into Iran’s crosshairs. At the same time, the Saudi-Houthi front has reopened, the Strait of Hormuz has been closed again, and a blockade of Saudi-linked ships on the Red Sea has been formally declared.

Each of these factors adds immense pressure on Pakistan, which now has every reason to double down on diplomacy, lest it be drawn in as a combatant.

Elfadil Ibrahim is a writer and analyst covering the politics of the Middle East and Africa, with a special focus on Sudan. His work has been featured in The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The New Arab, Open Democracy and other outlets.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Pakistan thought it won the peace. Now, it could be dragged into war.

Ukrainian human rights commissioner warns of growing public anger at forced conscription

By Ahmed Adel | July 22, 2026

Ukrainian society is approaching a violent confrontation with its political leadership because of the apparent shortcomings of current mobilization efforts, said Dmitry Lubinets, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada (unicameral parliament) Human Rights Commissioner. In a recent TV interview, Lubinets warned that rising tensions could spiral into chaos if not addressed promptly.

Lubinets noted a rise in public criticism of the mobilization process, with many Ukrainians deeply angered by the aggressive tactics the Territorial Recruitment Centers used to draft men. He cautioned that unless reforms are implemented, Ukraine could face worsening social divisions and even violent confrontations between civilians and authorities.

The ombudsman explained that Ukrainian citizens notice the lack of legal accountability for the actions of recruitment officers. As a result, citizens are taking matters into their own hands, which could potentially lead to escalated conflicts and greater instability in the future. This self-help approach, Lubinets said, reflects a breakdown in trust between the population and state institutions responsible for defense matters.

Lubinets expressed concern over the high levels of desertion and evasion occurring even before soldiers reach the front. Many conscripts reportedly escape from enlistment centers or while being transported to training sites. He noted several instances of unauthorized desertion from assigned positions. As a result, although official records may indicate a growing army, the real number of active combat-ready troops is decreasing. This gap highlights significant inefficiencies and morale issues within the military.

Corruption within the recruitment system further exacerbates the crisis. Lubinets detailed how individuals are often forced to pay substantial bribes—around $10,000 to be released from buses en route to processing centers and up to $20,000 to avoid further conscription at the offices. However, these payments offer only temporary relief, as those who pay can still be detained and mobilized again later.

Ukraine’s armed forces have struggled with ongoing manpower shortages during the conflict, prompting more aggressive recruitment efforts that have sparked public scandal and protests. Videos and reports document detentions in streets, workplaces, and public areas, fueling a climate of fear and resistance among men of military age.

Some men attempt illegal border crossings to flee the country, while others resort to more drastic measures, such as setting fire to recruitment offices or going into hiding and avoiding public life altogether, demonstrating the depth of public anger and the challenges the Kiev regime faces in sustaining its futile military efforts against Russia.

In 2022, Ukraine’s early mobilization was driven by strong patriotic sentiment following the launch of Russia’s special military operation. Many citizens, particularly ultra-nationalists, volunteered eagerly in the first months. However, as the war has dragged on, accompanied by heavy losses, economic difficulties, and war fatigue, initial enthusiasm has diminished.

Reports of inadequate training, lack of proper equipment, and poor living conditions for new recruits have further eroded morale. International observers and Ukrainian officials alike have acknowledged that sustaining a large-scale conventional army under these pressures requires not only enforcement but also incentives and reforms. In this context, Lubinets emphasized that unchecked abuses by recruitment officers violate basic rights and will ultimately weaken Ukraine’s defensive capabilities from within.

According to Lubinets, approximately 10% of conscription actions adhere fully to legal standards. The majority, however, violate citizens’ rights, with many detentions illegally conducted by masked men in balaclavas, lacking ID chevrons or police presence. It is recalled that he has urged the last three Defense Ministers of Ukraine to ban this practice, but none have acted.

Alongside widespread draft evasion, the Kiev regime is struggling to replenish frontline units because of heavy casualties and an aging pool of available personnel. Official estimates indicate that thousands of positions remain vacant, prompting commanders to rotate exhausted troops more frequently and hampering offensive efforts.

This issue is compounded by demographic problems, including a pre-war population decline and the emigration of hundreds of thousands of working-age men trying to avoid conscription. Families carry a significant emotional and financial load, as many women become the sole providers while dealing with the uncertainty about the men at the front. Businesses struggle with labor shortages, especially in sectors relying on working-age men, and agricultural and industrial output is declining due to the manpower deficit. This has increased public fatigue and criticism of mobilization policies, making recruitment even more difficult.

Efforts to address the shortage have included lowering the mobilization age, expanding digital summons, and offering incentives for voluntary service, but these measures have largely failed. Corruption scandals and aggressive tactics have eroded trust, leading to fewer volunteers and greater resistance. Lubinets’ warning highlights a key vulnerability in Ukraine’s wartime strategy and exposes the widening gap between the Kiev regime and citizens. Yet this will have little effect on the authorities, who insist on fighting the war against Russia to the last Ukrainian.

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

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Comments Off on Ukrainian human rights commissioner warns of growing public anger at forced conscription

The Zumwalt-class destroyer is an ever-growing boondoggle

By Stavroula Pabst | Responsible Statecraft | July 22, 2026

After ten years of upgrades, repairs, and program-related issues, the lead Zumwalt-class destroyer is finally returning to service this September. But it will have to go without the hypersonic missiles many hoped would give the troubled program a purpose.

Thanks to ongoing modernization efforts, the lead Zumwalt-class destroyer now has a launcher, making it the Navy’s first hypersonic strike ship. But the missiles themselves will not be tested until next year, as the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missile rollout is about two years behind schedule.

Experts tell RS the problem is par for the course for the Zumwalt program.

“The Zumwalt program had extraordinary promise,” Ben Freeman, the director of the Quincy Institute’s Democratizing Foreign Policy program, wrote to RS. “But it was curtailed from 32 ships to just 3 for a reason: it didn’t come close to living up to that promise.”

The Zumwalt’s initial role as a land-attack ship was scrapped in 2016 after ammunition for its land-attack gun became prohibitively costly, reaching $800,000 to $1 million per round.

Beyond that, “they couldn’t get the [ship’s] weapon to work properly,” Dan Grazier, who directs the Stimson Center’s National Security Reform program, told RS.

In the end, the military built three Zumwalts at a cost of $9.5 billion per ship. Now, efforts to convert the remaining vessels into hypersonic strike ships have only steered the program into more procurement issues

“They foisted an unproven missile system with its own checkered acquisition history onto the Zumwalt seemingly in hopes that two wrongs would make a right,” Freeman said. “Spoiler: they didn’t.”

The Pentagon plans to invest $50 billion into developing and fielding its CPS hypersonic capability across Army and Navy programs. But a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published last week found the project “does not have a comprehensive strategy” to accomplish its objectives.

Canceled and failed test flights and quality control issues also plague the hypersonic missile program. One test, for example, was canceled in 2023 after a battery failure during a pre-launch check. Lockheed Martin can only make six or seven hypersonic missiles each year, short of the military’s target of 12 missiles, jeopardizing the program’s ability to scale.

Meanwhile, costs are compounding for the Zumwalt, with questionable payoff.

The hypersonic missile capability will tack on about $452 million to the cost of each destroyer. Each ship will only be able to carry 12 hypersonic missiles, which leaves them with far fewer munitions than their naval counterparts. The missiles themselves are estimated to cost tens of millions of dollars each.

As Freeman concluded, “taxpayer dollars will still be wasted until the Navy comes to its senses.”

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | | Comments Off on The Zumwalt-class destroyer is an ever-growing boondoggle

Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s new PM, wants to end homelessness by fueling militarism and war

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 22, 2026

Andy Burnham took over as British prime minister this week, promising to bring “hope and change” to poverty-stricken Britain amid a political crisis in which public contempt for governing parties is at record levels.

In his first speech outside 10 Downing Street on Monday, Burnham said: “I will put the care of people at the heart of everything I do… Let us make this the moment when Britain starts to believe again, the moment we bring back hope.”

British media headlines were swooning over this supposed radical new beginning for Britain. At 56 years old, Burnham brings a fresh face to tired British politics.

Notably, he said his top priority was to end “rough sleeping” on the streets for thousands of homeless Britons. And he announced a budget of £340 million (€400 m, $450 m) over the next five years to fix the problem by building affordable homes.

This apparent commitment to improving social conditions may sound laudable. It buffs Burnham’s image as a caring politician on the side of working-class Britons. He likes to talk about his North of England credentials and empathy for popular concerns during his tenure as Mayor of Greater Manchester (2017-2026).

But let’s put his homeless budget in a realistic context. On his first day in Downing Street, Burnham also made Britain’s military support for Ukraine another of his priorities. He said there would be “one hundred per cent” continuation of the policy under his predecessor Keir Starmer that made Britain one of the most gung-ho backers of the Kiev regime in NATO’s proxy war against Russia.

Significantly, Burnham appointed former defense minister John Healey as the new Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister). Healey will be London’s man in control of all government budgets. As defense minister in the previous Starmer Cabinet, Healey was an ultra-hawkish figure when it came to supporting Ukraine and calling for greater military spending. It was Healey’s shock resignation on June 11 as defense secretary that was the last nail in Starmer’s premiership. Healey quit because he claimed that Starmer had not allocated enough money to enable Britain’s NATO commitments for reaching a military spending target of 3.5 per cent of GDP. He claimed that Starmer was undermining Britain’s national security and leaving it vulnerable to an alleged Russian threat. Healey and the military establishment wanted additional funds amounting to at least £15 bn more than what Starmer could muster in his Defence Investment Plan.

If Healey gets his way as the new finance minister, he will commit Britain to increasing its annual military spending from £63 bn to £90 bn. This will have to be paid for by massive cuts in public services and social welfare, austerity that has already driven British society into widespread poverty, where one-in-three children live in deprivation.

That Burnham has surprised many observers with the appointment of Healey to the second-most powerful position in Downing Street is a sure sign that he, as prime minister, is fully committed to Britain ramping up its militarism and support for Ukraine.

Burnham’s first phone call in office was to U.S. President Donald Trump. His second call was to Vladimir Zelensky, the puppet president of Ukraine, to assure him of Britain’s ongoing support.

Doesn’t it seem a bit incongruous that “caring, sharing Andy” should make support for Ukraine and assurances about NATO spending his first foreign policy priority while at the same time posing with concern about homelessness in Britain?

Under a bilateral defense pact between Britain and Ukraine signed last year by Starmer and which Burnham will uphold, London is committed to supplying £3 billion (€3.5 bn, $4 bn) in military aid to the Kiev regime every year over the next five years and “for as long as Ukraine needs support”. This is on top of Britain’s own national military spending.

Burnham’s budget to end homelessness in the UK works out at £68 million per year over five years. This is paltry, equivalent to only 2.3 per cent of the money that his government will be supplying every year to a NeoNazi regime to fight a futile war against Russia – paid for by British taxpayers.

What’s going on in Britain is not a supposed renaissance of people-centered democracy. The British media are hyping Burnham as a “people’s prime minister”. He is talking about decentralizing political power from London to create a “No 10 of the North”. All the sentimental aspiration about hope and change is reminiscent of when Barack Obama became U.S. president in 2008. It’s all hokum and empty rhetoric.

Lord Peter Ricketts, a former British national security advisor, let the cat out of the bag when he told CNN in an interview that Burnham’s task will be to use his populist communication skills to “sell” the agenda to the public of Britain continuing its support for Ukraine and intensifying the militarism of the British economy. This agenda depends on convincing the British public that Russia is a threat to Europe.

Already, Burnham has shown that he buys into that geopolitical project of making Britain ready for war against Russia. He is being an obedient politician to promote the interests of the British imperialist deep state and the military-industrial complex. As soon as he announced the appointment of Healey as chancellor, the stock prices of British weapons companies spiked.

Before he became prime minister, Burnham gave an interview to the London Times in which he pointedly said that he would not be “squeamish” about cutting social welfare funds to pay for increasing military spending. He was signalling to the British establishment that he would be a “safe pair of hands” in Downing Street.

During his first speech outside Downing Street this week, he said he would find a “sustainable way to bring the welfare bill down, to meet our fiscal rules, and honor our commitments on defense to our international partners.” For “international partners” read “NATO and Ukraine.”

If Burnham were genuinely seeking to overhaul Britain’s politics and economics to serve the pressing democratic needs of the British people, he would be challenging the irrational, undemocratic and reckless agenda of pushing NATO militarism and a proxy war in Ukraine. He would reject the relentless propaganda demonizing Russia that is driving Britain and Europe to the abyss of all-out war.

Andy Burnham is not going to save Britain from political and economic collapse. He’s just another manikin brought in to fob off the mass of angry people while the British imperial state siphons more money out of the economy for war. Under Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s homelessness problem will take on a whole new meaning if he lets the country slide into a world war.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Comments Off on Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s new PM, wants to end homelessness by fueling militarism and war

China hawks are losing the public opinion battle

Despite a Beltway push for confrontation, polls show that average Americans want a normal relationship with Beijing

By Frank Yuwen Chen | Responsible Statecraft | July 22, 2026

It sometimes seems easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of Washington’s anti-China obsession.

Congressional Republicans, on one side, are championing a staggering $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget that would cannibalize domestic programs to “deter China.” Meanwhile, many of their Democratic colleagues are attacking President Donald Trump due to his apparent lack of enthusiasm for confronting China.

Yet under the surface, a crack is widening between how Beltway elites talk about China and how ordinary Americans view the U.S.-China relationship. In particular, younger Americans are roundly rejecting tough-on-China politics. Over time, this chasm will challenge the very foundation of Washington’s indefinite strategic competition with Beijing.

While the Blob whips itself into an anti-China frenzy, Americans are backing away from the so-called “China consensus.” Over the past two years, national surveys by reputable pollsters have consistently found that Americans are warming up in their views on China and seeking closer ties between the two superpowers. There are reasons to believe this trend will continue.

Indeed, as Americans increasingly struggle with affordability, AI dislocations, and the rising cost of a possible forever war in the Middle East, Beltway China hawks — fixated on commandeering ever more national resources to confront Beijing — are revealing themselves to be a self-sustaining industry detached from both public sentiment and material reality. This gap creates political space for a more grounded and productive approach to U.S.-China relations.

Americans across the political spectrum are moving on from endless China-bashing. Their opinions about China, after years of declining, are meaningfully recovering. Gallup shows China’s favorability climbing 19 points and unfavorability dropping 23 points between 2023 and 2026. Polls from Pew and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs/Ipsos found similar warming trends. Though Republicans are still more hawkish towards China than independents and Democrats, even their views have appreciably moderated.

Concurrently, Americans support closer ties with the rival superpower. The Chicago Council/Ipsos and the Searchlight Institute/Hart show most Americans now favor improving relations and cooperating with China (53% in Ipsos, 50% in Hart) over limiting China’s power (44% in Ipsos, 40% in Hart), a sharp reversal from recent years’ antagonistic attitudes.

Overall perception of China remains negative, with 61% of Americans telling Gallup this year that they had an unfavorable view of the country. But crucially, the “enemy” framing has crumbled. Pew and YouGov surveys show double-digit declines in percentages of Americans calling China an “enemy” over the past two years. Instead, Americans are developing more nuanced views. A characteristic 2026 NPR/Chicago Council/Ipsos poll found Americans more likely to describe China as a “rival” (37%) than an “adversary” (21%); 18% of respondents described Beijing as a “partner.”

Notably, most Americans still see China as some form of threat. Hawks may welcome this as evidence of popular backing for their tough-on-China agenda, but that would be a grave mistake. While public perception of China as a threat is still broad given a decade of hawkish narrative dominance, that perception is increasingly shallow.

From 2023 to 2025, The Economist/YouGov found fewer and fewer Americans describing China’s various threats as “immediate and serious.” Polls by the Institute for Global Affairs/YouGov and the Chicago Council/Ipsos also reveal that Americans view China’s threats as “moderate” rather than “severe.” Indeed, IGA/YouGov found that only 3% of Americans worry about competition with China in their daily lives, underscoring how abstract the “China threat” is for most people. Americans may continue to hold unfavorable opinions of China, but there is little indication they will accept the enormous costs needed to contain China.

Stark generational divides — fueled by radically different life experiences and information environments — are propelling this opinion shift. Throughout all surveys, across party lines, adults under 45 and especially those under 30 simply do not see China as an adversary, ideological nemesis, or existential threat

An illustrative 2025 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace/YouGov study found that 52% of Americans over 65 say China surpassing the U.S. in global power would make their lives worse; however, those under 30 completely disagree, with 73% saying their lives would not worsen. Even on the right, younger Republicans are much more dovish towards China than their older counterparts. The Manhattan Institute found that 45% of Republicans under 50 see China as a global power to cooperate with, and only 24% see it as an adversary; that ratio transforms to 18% vs. 67% for Republicans over 65.

This shift is not occurring in a vacuum. Americans’ warming views on China coincide with China’s rising global approval, which has overtaken that of the U.S. Simultaneously, Americans increasingly accept the fact of multipolarity. Contra Beltway consensus, Americans now want the U.S. to either share leadership roles with other powers or drastically scale back international involvement rather than clinging to global dominance. These mutually reinforcing trends further deflate any popular enthusiasm for the hawks’ grandiose project of leading a global coalition to take on China.

What explains this unmistakable change in public opinion? Americans are not becoming pro-Beijing; they have simply become skeptical of Washington’s interminable crying wolf about China. Meanwhile, they see that their own government, which frames confronting China as essential to safeguarding American democracy and prosperity, consistently ignores their democratic will and increasingly fails to meet their basic needs.

The rapprochement Americans want is not about capitulating to China, as some hawks claim, but smart pragmatism. More and more voters recognize the reality of China’s rise and want peace and mutually beneficial outcomes, not ideological crusades the country can’t afford and is unlikely to win.

Skeptics of this public opinion shift may attribute changes only to Trump’s reshuffling of U.S. foreign policy priorities and the backlash against him, expecting faith in U.S. hegemony to recover and robust strategic competition against China to return once Trump leaves office. But that would be foolish.

While those factors (along with fading COVID-related hostilities) certainly played a role, they can’t explain, for example, why Democratic voters — who oppose nearly everything Trump does — still predominantly support improving ties with China despite the fact that Trump is the one driving that approach. Nor can they explain the stark generational divides, and why younger Americans across party lines simply refuse to see China as an enemy.

Rather, Americans’ rejection of Beltway China hawkishness is likely driven more by bigger forces like young people’s near-total disillusionment with the American dream and American exceptionalism, growing weariness with U.S. hegemony, mounting constraints on America’s ability to coerce China, and increasing acceptance of China’s still-rising power. Public sentiments may fluctuate, but these structural trends will persist.

If policymakers ignore these trends and insist on an unrealistic grand strategy centered on confronting China, they risk not only profound policy failures but also a dangerous democratic deficit. As the “guns vs. butter” tension heightens and politicians choose sustaining militarism over addressing worsening domestic needs, populist anger and political instability will only intensify.

But the good news is that the political space for averting a “New Cold War” with China is real and growing. If the U.S. wants to focus on domestic regeneration, it needs to secure a peaceful and productive relationship with China.

The lane is wide open for a potent vision of renewal that promises to shift Washington’s focus away from dominating the world and confronting China and toward solving urgent problems and bettering Americans’ lives at home, offering voters tangible benefits from peace and cooperation. The question is whether any political coalition — particularly after Trump leaves office with his improvisational détente with China still unfinished — will have the courage to occupy it.


Frank Yuwen Chen is a China analyst and media strategist. He is currently Manager, US-China Relations at ReThink Media. He researches international political economy, US-China diplomatic history, domestic politics of US foreign policy, and the future of US-China relations. Previously, he had extensive experience leading media and digital strategy for political campaigns and nonprofits.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Comments Off on China hawks are losing the public opinion battle

Iran warns Bulgaria against supporting US military aggression

Press TV – July 21, 2026

Iran has warned Bulgaria against approving a reported US request to station military aircraft at one of its air bases, saying any cooperation with military aggression against Iran would make Sofia complicit in unlawful acts of aggression.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei issued the warning on Tuesday in response to reports that the Bulgarian government is considering a US request to deploy military aircraft at Bezmer Air Base in support of operations related to the war with Iran.

Baghaei said Bulgaria is fully aware that recent US military aggression against Iran constituted a violation of the UN Charter and international law.

He said any participation in preparing or facilitating such operations would amount to complicity in the crimes of aggression and war crimes.

Baghaei expressed surprise over remarks attributed to Bulgarian Prime Minister Roman Radov regarding the reported request, saying that even considering support for an “illegal war” against Iran would be inconsistent with Bulgaria’s international legal obligations and the principle of respect for national sovereignty.

The spokesman cited Article 3(f) of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, which defines aggression, arguing that allowing one state’s territory to be used by another for acts of aggression against a third state could itself constitute an act of aggression under international law.

While emphasizing that Iran and Bulgaria have maintained relations based on mutual respect, Baghaei warned against any decision that would permit the United States to use Bulgarian territory or facilities for military operations against Iran.

“Iran hopes the Bulgarian parliament will not authorize the use of the country’s territory and facilities in a way that would make Bulgaria complicit with aggressors.”

Baghaei said Iran remained determined to defend its national security and interests, warning that any party participating in military action against the country would bear responsibility for the consequences.

The United States and the Israeli regime waged their illegal war of aggression against Iran on February 28. However, forty days later, on April 8, the enemies were forced to accept a ceasefire amid Iran’s brave resistance and successful retaliatory operations.

On June 17, Tehran and Washington signed the Pakistan-brokered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to end all hostilities and prepare for further negotiations.

However, Washington violated all provisions of the understanding, prompting Iran to deliver a firm response.

July 21, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran warns Bulgaria against supporting US military aggression

DeBasification… A Fancy Word for Booting the US Out of the Middle East

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 21, 2026 

Tehran delivered to Washington via Pakistan in early April, a formalized demand for the withdrawal of US combat forces from military bases across the region. It sat in a package alongside the lifting of all sanctions and UN resolutions, the release of Iranian assets held overseas, reparations, and Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment.

Instead of waiting for the US to agree to the demand, Iran has launched targeted attacks during the past two weeks on key US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. This has produced a de facto evacuation of US forces and equipment from most of these bases. The US Navy’s Fifth Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain is in shambles; the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at Al Udeid in Qatar has been closed and moved to Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina. And Iran continues to pound bases in Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar to ensure that no US aircraft or missile launchers remain intact at those locations.

Besides the bases in the Persian Gulf nations, Iran also has pummeled the Muwaffaq Salti Airbase and the Prince Hassan Airbase in Jordan. There are grainy satellite images showing that the United States has removed all aircraft from the open-air parking lot at the Muwaffaq al-Salti airbase, fearing that they would be destroyed by Iranian missiles.

The US also has relocated the $250 million MQ-4C Triton. In early May 2026, the US dispatched the MQ-4C Triton drone to Jordan:

The second US Navy MQ-4C Triton (reg. 169804) drone has yesterday departed from Naval Air Station Sigonella and relocated to Al Hussein Air Base in Jordan, further reducing the US Navy’s high-altitude ISR presence in Sicily. The aircraft involved is the Triton that had arrived in recent weeks to replace the drone lost in the Gulf area during operations linked to the regional crisis. . . .

The MQ-4C Triton is one of the US Navy’s most important intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets, designed for long-endurance maritime monitoring over vast operational theaters. From Sigonella, the platform has regularly supported surveillance missions across the Mediterranean, Black Sea, North Africa and the Middle East.

Relocating both surviving Tritons to Jordan suggests a clear operational reprioritization. By operating from Al Hussein, the drones gain shorter transit times toward the Red Sea, Arabian Peninsula, Iraq and Iran-related operational areas, allowing longer on-station persistence and more responsive ISR coverage during a period of continued regional instability.

Following massive missile strikes by Iran on 11 and 12 July on Jordan’s two airbases hosting US combat aircraft, including the MQ-4C Triton, the US pulled the plug on keeping the Triton in Jordan. Defense Security Asia reported on Monday, 14 July 2026 that:

The Pentagon Pulls $240M Triton Drone from Jordan to Italy After Devastating Iranian Ballistic Missile Strikes Threaten Strategic Airfields . . . . According to regional military planners, the strategic redeployment of the multi-million dollar maritime surveillance platform from forward-deployed hubs in Jordan to permanent facilities in Italy reflects an urgent effort to mitigate severe attrition risks.

The repositioning directly follows a series of sophisticated adversarial long-range strikes that successfully breached localized air defense networks and targeted high-value infrastructure. Open-source intelligence analysts observed that specialized hangar facilities designed to shield premium unmanned platforms sustained direct impacts during these intense bombardments.

In response to these escalating kinetic vectors, the United States Navy chose to pull back its premier intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets to the safer sanctuary of southern Europe.

During the first 43 days of the 2026 Iran war (Operation Epic Fury, beginning 28 February), Iran systematically targeted the sensor and communications layer of the US military’s integrated air defense architecture across the Persian Gulf. Rather than simply overwhelming interceptors with mass drone and missile barrages, Iran prioritized destroying the radars and SATCOM terminals that make the entire network function — a strategy described by analysts as “blinding US eyes in the Middle East.”

By the end of the first 43 days, Iran had hit at least 12–19 radar and SATCOM systems across seven countries, with total damage estimated at $3.15 to $5+ billion. The targeting pattern revealed a sophisticated operational concept:

  1. Day 1 priority: The AN/FPS-132 at Al Udeid was struck within hours — the single most valuable radar in the region, specifically deployed to counter Iranian ballistic missiles.
  2. THAAD radars next: All four deployed AN/TPY-2s (Jordan, UAE ×2, Saudi Arabia) were hit within 48–72 hours, effectively neutralizing the upper-tier missile defense layer.
  3. SATCOM infrastructure: Command-and-control nodes at Bahrain’s 5th Fleet HQ and Kuwait’s Camp Arifjan were destroyed, degrading the ability to coordinate defenses across distributed bases.
  4. Layered approach: After stripping away early warning and upper-tier defense, Iran could then attrit remaining Patriot batteries with mass drone waves — a cost-exchange ratio heavily favoring Iran (Shahed-136 at ~$20K–$50K vs. PAC-3 MSE at ~$4M).

The destruction forced interception duties onto already-depleted Patriot systems, compounding a crisis that saw the US and GCC allies burn through 86% of their combined Patriot inventory within five weeks.

Now, with the MoU dead, Iran is focused on making life on the bases that are still hosting US troops and aircraft a living hell. It is no longer up to the US to decide to leave the Persian Gulf… Iran is making that decision for them.

July 21, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on DeBasification… A Fancy Word for Booting the US Out of the Middle East

Houthis Close Bab al Mandeb Strait /Lt Col Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 20, 2026

July 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Houthis Close Bab al Mandeb Strait /Lt Col Daniel Davis

US doesn’t have what it takes to repel Iranian counterattacks – expert

Sputnik – 20.07.2026

While the US does retain an enormous offensive capability, which allows it to conduct an intense wave of attacks against Iranian facilities, it can only weaken Iran, veteran war correspondent Elijah J. Magnier tells Sputnik.

The US has plenty of offensive weapons to attack Iran, but at the same time has a limited supply of interceptors needed to repel Iranian counterattacks against US assets, allies and Israel.

“The United States could therefore launch a major campaign, but sustaining it would force difficult choices: which bases to protect, which cities to defend, which incoming threats to intercept,” Magnier explains.

In the meantime, Iran will likely seek to widen the “geography of the conflict, multiplying the number of targets Washington must defend, and raising the political and above all economic costs of an additional American strike.”

Using concentrated ballistic and cruise missile attacks to saturate enemy air defenses, and forcing the US and its allies to expend their interceptors on decoys, Iran can unleash hell upon US bases, logistics hubs, ports, radar installations, and fuel storage facilities in the region.

Attacks upon the US allies in the Gulf can ramp up domestic pressure on local governments, which could prompt them to demand the US to back down.

The Iran also maintains its hold on the Strait of Hormuz, requiring very little resources to ensure that “no insurance company will accept to insure a tanker navigating in a war theater, and no ship owner will take the risk of jeopardizing his asset in that area.”

US media earlier reported that the growing American military presence in the Persian Gulf may signal preparations for a major confrontation.

July 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on US doesn’t have what it takes to repel Iranian counterattacks – expert

Trump booed during FIFA World Cup trophy presentation to Spain

Press TV – July 20, 2026

US President Donald Trump was received with loud boos from sections of the crowd during the 2026 FIFA World Cup trophy presentation.

Trump was booed at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey on Sunday at the FIFA World Cup final between Argentina and Spain as he presented the Spaniards with the trophy after their 1-0 victory over their rival.

Trump was asked to step aside by the “winners” of the globally sought Gold Cup, with Spain’s captain Rodrigo Hernández Cascante, also known as Rodri, ushering Trump to exit the stage before the World Cup trophy lifting ceremony. He, however, refused to leave the scene and awkwardly lingered on the side of the giant podium as the loud boos and whistles rang out across the stadium. Eventually, a brief exchange between FIFA President Gianni Infantino and Trump resulted in the host of the event giving in to his unpopularity and leaving the world stage viewed by billions of football fans across the globe.

Trump has spent much of his second term in office berating Spain over its NATO military spending and refusal to allow American forces to use Spanish bases in the illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, calling the Latinos in general, and Spaniards, in particular, “losers.”

The American president has also branded Spain as a “hopeless” country, deriding the Latino people as “bad people” and briefly threatened to cut off all trade in goods with Madrid.

For his part, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has been a vocal critic of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy for nearly two years.

Sánchez and Trump were present at the final match, both sitting in the VIP section of the stadium.

However, the two Western countries with a long history of territorial wars appear to be at loggerheads still over issues ranging from NATO spending to US militarism in West Asia, Latin America, and beyond.

Madrid censured Washington over US military operations in Venezuela, warning that Washington’s actions endanger sovereignty, international law, and the country’s natural resources.

July 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on Trump booed during FIFA World Cup trophy presentation to Spain

How to Honor the Dead US Service Members

By Ron Paul | July 20, 2026

Over the weekend the Pentagon announced that four more US soldiers have been killed in President Trump’s war on Iran. That brings the total to 17, but many believe the real number of dead US servicemembers is much higher than that. The Pentagon has claimed it has no obligation to reveal how many military personnel have been injured, which suggests that number may be much higher than we are hearing. Many of these injuries will be horrific and life-altering.

Back on April 12th, President Trump told Fox News that Iran, “has no cards. Their navy is gone. Their air force is gone. Totally gone. They have nothing.” Yet three months later, US bases in the region continue to be successfully attacked, US military equipment worth billions continues to be destroyed, and US servicemembers continue to be killed and injured.

This war was launched by President Trump without Congressional approval in February because the President believed that Iran, at 6,000 miles away, posed an existential threat to the United States. At the same time, he believed that the Iranian government was so weak that after a couple of days of bombing the political system would collapse and a “US-friendly” government could be installed in its place.

This makes no sense. How can a country be strong enough to threaten the United States but be so weak it is about to collapse?

Now, five months later, we continue to attack Iran to open a Hormuz Strait that was open before the war and to end a nuclear weapons program that does not exist. And the American middle and working classes are hit with a price tag for this senseless war that could exceed one trillion dollars.

That is why our Constitution requires that war be declared by the US Congress after extensive deliberation. The Framers wanted to safeguard the new country from the whims of a King George or other monarch who could take the country to war at will. The patriots fought for independence from exactly the political system we have in place today because they understood how destructive endless and foolish wars can be to a country.

The Framers also assumed that Members of the Legislative Branch of government would be of sufficiently good character that they would not allow an executive to abuse power in such a way. They were given all the tools they needed to prevent this, but today Congressmembers remain silent, unwilling to perform the duty required by their office. Most would rather not have the burden of declaring war because they are afraid that an unpopular war might hurt their re-election chances.

A recent poll featured in the Washington Post reveals that nearly seven in ten Americans disapprove of President Trump’s handling of the Iran war. Along with the economy, the Iran war is the most important issue concerning the American people today.

Over the weekend President Trump announced that “we hit (Iran) very hard again… in honor of the three” servicemembers who were killed in recent days. But hitting Iran again does not honor the dead US servicemembers. It only guarantees that more Americans will follow them. If the President really wants to honor our military, he will declare an end to this pointless war, bring all of our troops home from the region, and announce that the destroyed US bases will not be rebuilt. It is time to end the American empire and come home.

July 20, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on How to Honor the Dead US Service Members

Iran air defense downs multiple enemy drones, cruise missile

Press TV – July 19, 2026

Iran’s integrated air defense network has successfully intercepted and destroyed several enemy aircraft and a missile across multiple regions of the country, including an MQ-9 Reaper drone in the west, a cruise missile, a “Lucas” drone, and another MQ-9 over Ahvaz, as Iranian forces continue to demonstrate their aerial dominance against US aggression.

The Army’s Air Defense Force, operating under the unified national air defense network, shot down an MQ-9 Reaper drone in the western region of the country on Sunday, the Army announced.

This was followed by the interception of a cruise missile belonging to the American aggressor enemy in the same western region, which was successfully tracked and destroyed by Army air defense systems.

Earlier in the day, the Army’s Naval Forces intercepted and shot down a “Lucas” drone over southern Iran, using naval air defense systems operating under the integrated command network.

In a separate operation, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force announced it had shot down another MQ-9 Reaper drone over the skies of Ahvaz in southwestern Iran using an advanced new air defense system.

Additionally, fighters from the 48th Fath Brigade of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province successfully brought down an enemy spy drone in the southern operational zones.

The drone was captured intact after being forced to land, having been conducting reconnaissance and espionage missions over the country’s southern operational areas.

Iran’s air defense record

Iran’s air defense forces have compiled a remarkable record of aerial victories during the ongoing war and previous conflicts with the US.

During the 40-day US-Israeli war of aggression, Iranian air defense units destroyed hundreds of advanced enemy drones, including MQ-9 Reapers, Hermes, and LUCAS models.

The IRGC has also successfully targeted multiple US fighter jets, including F-35 stealth fighters, F-15s, and F-16s, along with refueling planes.

In a single 24-hour period on April 3, 2026, Iranian forces downed an F-15E Strike Eagle, an A-10 Thunderbolt II, multiple MQ-9 Reaper drones, Hermes reconnaissance platforms, and a salvo of cruise missiles.

The downing of three MQ-9 drones and a cruise missile in less than 24 hours comes as Iran’s armed forces continue their sustained retaliation against US military bases across the region, following repeated American violations of a fragile ceasefire and the collapse of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.

July 19, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on Iran air defense downs multiple enemy drones, cruise missile

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »