Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Seven Reasons Not to Bomb Iran

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | April 23, 2025

“There are two ways Iran can be handled,” U.S. President Donald Trump has said, “militarily, or you make a deal.” National Security Adviser Mike Waltz advocated for the military solution; Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance advocated for diplomacy. Trump has opted for diplomacy. But all options are still on the table, and if the diplomatic path fails, Trump says “the other will solve the problem.”

But there are several reasons why all options should not be on the table and why bombing Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear bomb would be absurd.

Most importantly, and the only one that really needs to be said, is that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb. In 2003, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, issued a fatwa, an official religious ruling, that declared nuclear weapons to be forbidden by Islam. The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, which “reflects the collective insights of the Intelligence Community,” clearly states that U.S. intelligence “continue[s] to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that [Ayatollah] Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” That assessment maintains the 2022 U.S. Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review that concludes that “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” The most absurd reason for bombing Iran to prevent them from pursuing a nuclear bomb is that the U.S. knows Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb.

Since Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, the second reason why it is absurd to bomb Iran is that it has every legal right to its civilian nuclear program. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has “the inalienable right to a civilian program that uses “nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” The United States does not believe Iran has an illegal nuclear weapons program, and it would be absurd to bomb them for having a legal civilian nuclear program.

Thirdly, Iran has already demonstrated that a military solution is not necessary for the Trump administration to achieve its goal of ensuring that Iran does not enrich uranium to weapon grade levels. America’s concerns, well-founded or not, can be satisfied by establishing verifiable limits on Iran’s levels of enrichment. Iran demonstrated its willingness to comply with this nonmilitary solution when it agreed to those verifiable limitations in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement. Eleven consecutive International Atomic Energy Agency reports verified that Iran was completely and consistently in compliance with the commitments made under that agreement. A military solution to America’s concerns about Iran’s civilian nuclear program is absurd because the U.S. has historical evidence that the nonmilitary solution works.

The military solution is not only absurd because it is unnecessary, it is even more absurd because it risks, not only war with Iran, but a wider, regional war. The United States has begun moving military equipment into the region, including aircraft carriers, bombers, and air defense systems. While presented as preparation for the possibility of intensified war with the Houthis, American officials have privately said “that the weaponry was also part of the planning” for a potential “conflict with Iran.” Even just that “buildup of American weaponry,” according to a new intelligence assessment provided by Tulsi Gabbard, “could potentially spark a wider conflict with Iran that the United States did not want.” Iran has stated that U.S. military action against its civilian nuclear program will elicit a military response from Iran against U.S. bases in the region. Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, said, “If they threaten Islamic Iran, then, like powder kegs, America’s allies in the region and U.S. bases will be made unsafe.” A military solution risks a war with Iran and, potentially, even a wider, regional war.

The fifth reason is that, for all the risk of war with Iran and, perhaps, even a wider regional war, the assessed benefit is not worth it. In a striking line that has received little attention, The New York Times reported that the goal of military plans to bomb Iran’s civilian nuclear sites being discussed by the United States and Israel “was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more.” Absurd is an understatement for risking war with Iran, and even a wider Middle East war, to set Iran’s nuclear program—a nuclear program the U.S. knows Iran does not have—to set the program back by only a year.

All of this calculation of costs and benefits and risks of war is absurd because we know that the diplomatic path can work. We know it can work because it did ten years ago with the successful solution of the JCPOA nuclear agreement. There is reason to hope that, a decade later, it can work again. In the first round of talks in Oman on April 12, Iran insisted that future direct talks would be contingent on the success of the current indirect talks. At the end of that first round, Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. chief negotiator Steve Witkoff, met directly, not momentarily as first reported, but for forty-five minutes. The first round in Oman successfully led to a second round in Rome, and the second round has now led to a third round because the second round was constructive.

And, finally, talk of a military solution by the nation that claims leadership of a world order based on international law is absurd because a pre-emptive strike on Iran without Security Council approval would be a violation of international law.

Diplomacy has a real chance of defusing the long and volatile standoff between the United States and Iran. Threats of war are not only unnecessary, they contribute only to making the diplomacy more difficult.

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Bulgaria denies joining Croatia, Albania and Kosovo in encircling Serbia

By Ahmed Adel | April 22, 2025

Bulgarian Foreign Minister Georg Georgiev denied that Bulgaria is interested in joining a military alliance to encircle Serbia, comprising Croatia, Albania, and the Albanian-majority breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo. Bulgaria’s disinterest was expected, considering it would not want to join a localized alliance with Albania, the country serving as Turkey’s gateway into the Balkans to pursue irredentist ambitions, including against Bulgaria.

Georgiev responded in writing to MPs Djipo Djipov and Elisaveta Belobradova that Bulgaria is aware of the initiative of Croatia, Albania and Kosovo and that it is carefully analyzing the text of the Joint Declaration signed by the defense ministers of the three countries in Tirana on March 18.

“The information in the public suggesting that Bulgaria has expressed an unofficial interest in joining the declaration is incorrect,” Georgiev stressed.

The anti-Serbia coalition resembles a mini-NATO within the Balkans and is backed by Turkey, which is militarily present in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, North Macedonia, and Kosovo. Turkey has greater ambitions after achieving successes in Syria and the South Caucasus and has now turned their attention to the Balkans too.

Former Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu wrote in “Strategic Depth,” his comprehensive and influential work on Turkish foreign policy and geopolitics strategic doctrine, that Serbia and Greece, or the Belgrade-Athens axis, are the main obstacles to the Turkish return to Europe. NATO and the European Union, except for Greece, do not oppose Turkey’s ambitions in the Balkans as the Turks can challenge Russian influence in the region.

However, the West does not want a war between Greece and Turkey to break out. Despite being NATO member states, this is a real possibility, especially as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not hidden his ambitions for the Greek islands and northern Greece. Nonetheless, conflicts could very easily be provoked at several points within the former Yugoslavia, and then Turkey and a number of other sponsors would be involved, where Greece would support the opposing side, just as happened in Bosnia in the 1990s.

A big problem in the EU is that unelected technocrats are leading the bloc into a war against Russia, and in that sense, the Balkans could be one of the peripheral points of that crisis. For this reason, Serbia needs a quick Russian victory in Ukraine to turn the tide of events in their strategic favor. If not, Serbia would be in a very unfavorable position, surrounded by NATO countries with weak alliances. Serbia has partnerships with only two regional countries, ironically also in NATO: Greece and Hungary.

Bulgaria has been in a transition phase for 30 years, practically under Western occupation, and it cannot be said that it has an independent foreign policy. Therefore, if Brussels or Washington ordered them to join an alliance against the Serbs, the Bulgarians would do so. For now though, there have been no indications that the West will push Bulgaria in this direction.

At the same time, Turkey is also Bulgaria’s biggest strategic challenge, especially considering that more than 8% of the country is ethnic Turks who can be weaponized against Sofia. Therefore, Bulgaria will face pressure to join the anti-Serbian military alliance of Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo, especially since Turkey is the main military patron of Albania and Kosovo.

To deal with Turkey as a rising challenge, military departments in Bulgaria have begun distributing mass mobilization calls to military conscripts. Citizens are sharing photos on social media of the documents they received. Some documents show a call from the Military Department in Varna, dated April 9, 2025, and the exact time to report. Mobilization calls for reservists in Bulgaria have not been issued for more than 30 years.

The Bulgarian military recently received its first American F-16 fighter jet. Although the Bulgarians announced that they had received a new one, this is not true because it is a second-hand aircraft that has been overhauled. Bulgaria otherwise does not have large quantities of weapons and military equipment because they emptied their warehouses at the start of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine.

Bulgaria also gave Ukraine most of its T-72 tanks and some Mi-8 transport helicopters, which ended in 2023. Bulgaria’s last deliveries from its stocks were more than a hundred BTR 60 armored personnel carriers that belonged to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and were extremely well preserved.

Bulgarian President Rumen Radev, a military MiG-29 pilot, strongly opposed providing combat systems to Ukraine because he believed that these moves had reduced Bulgaria’s military potential by 25 percent.

Now with Bulgaria significantly weakened for the sake of Ukraine’s futile war against Russia, the Balkans country cannot consider any military adventures against the Serbs, even if they do have historical territorial issues, and must instead rebuild its depleted forces, reservists and military equipment in face of a growing Turkish threat in the region.

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

April 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Where have Europe’s pacifists gone – the ones who once opposed NATO?

By Sonja van den Ende | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 22, 2025

Where are they now—Europe’s pacifists? Why do they no longer gather in Belgium, in Brussels, NATO’s headquarters, where large demonstrations against the alliance once took place? These protests, led by pacifists, denounced NATO, war, militarization, and nuclear arms.

The Belgian newspaper Le Soir recently posed an intriguing question: Why have the pacifists vanished? “The arms race has begun,” the article argues. “Like its European neighbors, Belgium is preparing to significantly increase military spending this year—without facing any opposition.”

“We keep our word,” declares Francken, Belgium’s former Defense Minister. “Belgium will become a solidary ally with extra defense budgets for personnel, equipment, and infrastructure.” He claims the spending will also boost jobs and innovation. Belgium, after all, is a NATO founding member, alongside the Netherlands.

Some Belgian (former) pacifists have reacted sharply to the government’s plans: “Retirees must accept lower pensions, unemployment benefits are being slashed, the sick languish in poverty, nurses earn less and work longer for diminished pensions, hospitals lose subsidies—all to enrich that corrupt Zelensky gang in Kiev.” The same measures, they note, are being imposed in the Netherlands.

But as the article points out, criticizing NATO now invites ridicule. Or does it go further than mockery? Across Western Europe—Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany—and in the Baltic states and Poland, dissent is met with more than scorn. People are arrested, elections are overturned, and societies drift toward totalitarianism—or worse, a resurgence of militarism and fascism unseen since 1945.

Europeans once insisted America should not meddle in their affairs. But it’s too late for that. EU governments, radicalized by waning U.S. interest in Europe, have already been co-opted. They should have spoken up years ago, when it became clear Europe was being used to wage wars in distant lands its citizens barely knew. Instead, they absorbed refugees (often unwillingly) and fell under what some call American colonization.

Yet America wasn’t entirely wrong. In Munich last February, Vice President J.D. Vance called Europe a “totalitarian society,” singling out Germany. I can confirm his assessment was accurate—but it barely scratched the surface. The reality is far worse and deteriorating daily.

Consider these examples:

  • A 16-year-old German girl was expelled from school by police for posting a pro-AfD TikTok video featuring the Smurfs (the right-wing party’s color is blue).
  • An AfD politician was fined for stating that migrants commit more gang rapes than German citizens. (The court didn’t dispute her facts but ruled they incited hatred.)

Germany once had a robust pacifist movement. In the 1970s and 80s, activists—many from what is now the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)—protested NATO and nuclear weapons. Today, those same Greens, led by Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck, champion war and arms shipments.

Their party program declares Germany must lead Europe, offering a “global counterweight” to China and Russia. The anti-war, anti-NATO movement has been absorbed into a party now pushing for war—especially against Russia, as Baerbock’s rhetoric makes clear.

Or take a 2023 case where the EU’s High Representative expressed concern over “extrajudicial sentences against Serbs” who protested NATO in Kosovska Mitrovica. Kosovo’s Foreign Minister defended the arrests, claiming police had “clear evidence” the demonstrators participated in an “attack on NATO.”

So where have Europe’s pacifists gone—the ones who marched against war, militarization, and nuclear arms for decades? The Friedrich Naumann Foundation (banned in Russia) claims to have the answer. In an article, they declare: “The end of pacifism (as heard in a Bundestag debate) was historic. Hopefully, it marks the end of a moral and political error.”

Has pacifism become a “political mistake”? Millions who oppose war have been misled for years by their own politicians—like the Greens, who traded peace for militarism. The world is upside down, yet Europe’s docile masses seem content as their pensions fund weapons.

New Eastern Europe takes it further, arguing “Pacifism kills.” The outlet claims: “The problem isn’t pacifism itself, but its manipulation for purposes contrary to its ideals. While pacifist appeals to Russia (the aggressor) are justified, targeting Ukraine or both sides aids Moscow.”

In short: Pacifism helps Russia. The “hippies” of the 1960s live in a fantasy where peace is impossible, Russia is the villain, and Europe must defeat it. The campaign against pacifism mirrors the EU’s push for militarization.

Europe is silencing pacifists—and dissidents—just as pre-WWII Germany did under fascism. New laws are emerging. In Germany, the proposed CDU/CSU-SPD coalition plans to “fight lies,” per their “Culture and Media“ working group. If you “lie” by government standards—say, by advocating peace with Russia or denying its “aggression”—you risk jail, fines, or online erasure.

“The deliberate spread of false claims isn’t covered by free speech,” they assert.

Le Soir asked: Where are the pacifists? They’re still here—for now. But once Germany’s new government takes power, once the digital ID and CBDC (mandatory across Europe) launch this October, protests—online or in streets—will be surveilled. Small demonstrations in Germany and Amsterdam show resistance lingers. But soon, fear will silence them: fear for jobs, pensions, benefits, even children.

Because CBDC and Digital ID mean governments can monitor “fake news” and freeze dissenters’ funds. Europe is birthing the very totalitarianism it accuses Russia, China, or America of. Militarization, fascism’s revival—all while Europeans dread a war that isn’t theirs, yet one their leaders enable.

April 22, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

EU and UK preparing naval blockade of Russia – Putin aide

RT | April 22, 2025

The EU and the UK are gearing up to impose a naval blockade on Russia, Nikolay Patrushev, a senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has said. He warned that Moscow has a fleet powerful enough to respond to any such move.

In an interview published on Monday by Kommersant, Patrushev, who chairs Russia’s Maritime Board, a body which oversees national policy in this domain, stated that Moscow is facing escalating threats and challenges at sea amid growing geopolitical tensions.

“The collective West no longer hides its intentions to expel our shipping from the seas, while sanctions plans mulled, for example, by the British and some EU members increasingly resemble a maritime blockade,” he said.

Patrushev warned that these steps would “meet an adequate and proportionate response” from Moscow. “If diplomatic or legal instruments do not take effect, the security of Russian shipping will be ensured by our navy. The hotheads in London or Brussels need to clearly understand this,” he said.

Patrushev emphasized that Russia is pursuing a large-scale naval modernization program, including the development and deployment of unmanned systems while refining navy tactics. However, Moscow does not intend to get involved in a “naval arms race,” he added.

Western countries introduced maritime restrictions on Russia in 2022 over the Ukraine conflict, and have sanctioned dozens of Russian ships for allegedly circumventing an oil price cap. Russian ships have also faced major obstacles in accessing EU ports, insurers, and financial institutions.

The British Navy has been shadowing Russian ships passing near its waters for months, citing concerns about a perceived threat to national security and maritime infrastructure.

Maritime tensions have also been heightened in recent months following several ruptures in underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. While there has been speculation about alleged Russian involvement, Western officials have offered no evidence. The Kremlin has dismissed the speculation as “absurd.”

NATO has increased its military presence in the Baltic Sea following the sabotage allegations, prompting Russia to warn that it would respond appropriately to any “violations” by the bloc’s vessels.

April 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

UK advancing military measures

By Lucas Leiroz | April 22, 2025

Despite current US’ efforts to reduce the diplomatic crisis between the West and Russia, the UK and the EU are not following in the American footsteps and continue to escalate their military actions as much as possible. Increasing arms production and expanding troops have been some of the measures adopted to prepare for the supposed “imminent conflict with Russia”. In the case of London, the current focus seems to be on creating an autonomous explosives and artillery industry, eliminating dependence on the US.

In a recent article, The Times revealed that the UK plans to “drastically” increase its explosives production to reduce imports of this type of material from the US. The newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, reported that London is concerned about the future of its alliance with the US, considering the recent changes in American foreign policy, which is why the country aims to become completely independent in all sectors of the military industry, with the explosives segment being a top priority.

The article states that British military scientists are using containers at sites across the country to manufacture RDX, an explosive vital for 155mm artillery shells. In addition, BAE Systems, the only British company currently specializing in the production of these artillery shells, is also planning to build new facilities with the aim of expanding the production of explosive materials for its rockets.

“In an effort not to repeat the mistakes of the past, and in acknowledgment of Britain’s inability to produce shells for Ukraine, BAE is increasing munitions production in the United Kingdom substantially. The company is establishing multiple sites for explosives manufacture to increase resilience and eliminate dependence on supplies from America and other countries. This will also help insulate the UK from restrictions on the use of US hardware”, the article reads.

As can be seen, the issue of explosives has become central to Britain’s arms production strategy as the country finds it difficult to supply its Ukrainian ally with sufficient UK-made artillery shells. The weakness of the military industry is hampering London’s plans to remain a key supporter of the Kiev regime – especially after the Trump-led reduction in US aid, which is why expanding the production of explosives that enable the projectiles to work has become a priority for the country.

However, Britain’s concerns are not limited to artillery. The UK is starting a major renovation of its strategic policy, trying as much as possible to nationalize the production of critical military materials. The Times article also expressed concern about the US control over other sectors of the British military, stating, for example, that the country’s air force needs to become independent of American technology. In other words, London no longer trusts Washington and is preparing for a scenario where the two countries could simply cut relations.

“The Royal Air Force is especially exposed to US technology. While the Royal Navy and the army field more homegrown and European systems, the RAF relies on US airborne early warning and maritime patrol aircraft and the F35 stealth fighter. The latter’s software is under US control and, in truth, it is not a sovereign system. Nowhere, however, is Britain’s dependence on the US deeper than in the nuclear field. While the UK builds the submarines and warheads for its deterrent, it relies on America’s Trident missile for delivery. The UK draws its Tridents from a joint stockpile held and serviced in the US. While Britain can fire its missiles independently, a withdrawal of US support following a rupture in relations would result in Tridents in British possession gradually becoming unusable. The UK should reshore missile maintenance,” the article adds.

In fact, making its military production fully sovereign is an interesting goal for any country. Dependence on foreign technology is an uncomfortable situation and creates instability for the country that imports defense hardware. The problem in the current case is that the UK is seeking this “strategic sovereignty” for the wrong reasons.

The UK’s move comes amid a current wave of militarization in European countries as a response to Trump’s “isolationism.” The UK and EU are trying to become “independent” of American military technology because they believe that they must not only continue to arm Ukraine in the long term, but also that they must prepare for a possible direct conflict with Russia in the future.

If London were planning to become truly “independent from the US,” the right thing to do would be to adopt a policy focused on internal development and to leave NATO. But Britain’s interest is simply to react to Trump’s diplomacy and pursue an even more aggressive and bellicose foreign policy. It remains to be seen whether the declining British economy will have enough strength to complete this “remilitarization” project without generating serious social side effects.

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.

April 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Yemen: US fails in its aggression since day one; Trump ‘accountable’ for fatalities

Press TV – April 21, 2025

The chairman of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council says Sana’a has not suffered even one percent damage at the military level despite all US assaults in support of Israel’s war on Gaza.

“I assure you that the aggression failed from its very first day, and we had previously managed to obtain information that thwarted the aggression before it occurred,” Mahdi al-Mashat said during a meeting of the National Defense Council on Sunday.

He added that if the Americans increase their mobilization, it means their weapons have failed.

Referring to US warship USS Harry S. Truman, Mashat said that it lost its command and control and was rendered out of service in the early days of the aggression.

The warship “achieved nothing for the enemy, forcing them to bring in other vessels and use other weapons,” he further said.

Mashat also said that, “The criminal US President Donald Trump will be held accountable for all that he did to civilians and civilian facilities, whether he remains in office or not.”

The US military has been carrying out almost daily attacks on Yemen for the past month, claiming that they are aimed at stopping the Ansarullah movement’s attacks on Israel-related ships.

The Yemeni army, however, said it will not stop its attacks on Israel-bound vessels until the regime halts its genocidal war on Gaza.

“Our stance in supporting our brothers in Gaza is firm and we will never retreat from it,” he said, adding that Yemen cannot allow the Americans and the “Israelis” to prey upon the Palestinian people in Gaza alone.

Since March, over 200 individuals have lost their lives due to US aggression in Yemen.

In retaliation for Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the US-UK-led assault on Yemen, the Yemeni Armed Forces began to carry out a series of strikes against Israeli, American, and British interests in the Red Sea and nearby regions in late 2023.

As the brutal conflict in Gaza worsened, Yemen imposed a strategic blockade on major maritime routes to hinder the movement of military supplies to their enemies and to pressure the international community to respond to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

April 21, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

If the US launches a ground operation against Yemen, it will backfire

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | April 21, 2025

Frustrated by its costly ongoing offensive campaign against Yemen, the Trump administration is said to be in talks to launch a ground effort aimed at seizing the strategic port city of Hodeidah, before effecting regime change in Sanaa. If this offensive does occur, it will result in a disastrous defeat for Washington.

In 2015, when then-US President Barack Obama backed the Saudi-led coalition’s war on Yemen, Riyadh had estimated that it would only take a few months to uproot the Ansar Allah leadership that had taken over Sanaa. Instead, they faced defeat after defeat at the hands of a highly-motivated armed force that received the backing of the majority of Yemen’s Armed Forces.

A decade later, despite the 2022 ceasefire, the conflict remains unresolved – and Ansar Allah’s power has only continued to grow. The movement that once seized control of Sanaa with the backing of key elements of the existing power structure, including segments of the military, was a shadow of what it has since become. Not only has it forged strong alliances with various tribal factions across Yemen, but it has also made leaps and bounds in developing both offensive and defensive weapons technologies.

The Yemeni Armed Forces that aligned with the Ansar Allah-led government proved capable of holding off the combined power of the Saudi-backed and UAE-backed Yemeni forces, in addition to various militant groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, also battling Saudi Arabia’s armed forces and later mercenary fighters from Sudan and elsewhere. They fought on the ground for years, amidst a US-Saudi blockade in the Red Sea, combined with US-British-Israeli logistical support being provided to their enemies, backing Riyadh’s air attacks against the country.

While managing to inflict countless defeats on what was supposed to be a militarily superior opposition – on paper – the Yemeni government in Sanaa continued to expand its power and territorial control in a country that has historically been divided between north and south.

In late 2021, game changing technological advances introduced a new dynamic to the conflict, ultimately pressuring the Saudi-led coalition to accept a UN mediated ceasefire proposal. By early 2022, after an expansion of the ground war the previous year, the Yemeni Armed Forces had launched a wave of successful drone and missile attacks at targets across the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia.

While Riyadh had been dealing with Ansar Allah’s drones and missiles for years by that point, it was clear that a significant technological advancement had occurred. And whereas the Saudi State had some capacity to absorb limited attacks on its vital infrastructure, the Emirati regime was far less equipped to withstand repeated blows from Yemen.

Abu Dhabi in particular cannot afford to absorb sustained waves of drone and missile attacks, especially if Dubai becomes a target. Unlike Saudi Arabia, the UAE is a tiny and vulnerable country. If Yemen decides to blanket them with strikes, their endeavors to diversify their economy will likely disintegrate, and no amount of deals with the US nor the Israelis can help them.

The claims that are being spread, particularly across Arabic language media, speculate that a Saudi-UAE backed force of about 80,000 soldiers is being amassed in order to launch an offensive aimed at seizing Hodeidah. Then, so goes the report, the US will offer air support and even launch a smaller ground attack to invade Yemen.

Donald Trump’s Vietnam?

Yemen was once dubbed Egypt’s Vietnam – and if the United States decides to launch a ground campaign there, the outcome is unlikely to align with President Donald Trump’s intentions. Already, the air campaign alone, which has to date killed around 150 civilians, has proven to be an embarrassing failure, costing US taxpayers billions of dollars with little to show in return.

Despite this war of aggression against Yemen being launched without a popular mandate, nor congressional approval, the US corporate media have largely chosen to ignore it. Yet, if Trump sends boots on the ground, Yemen will quickly dominate headlines, for the simple reason that US service members will start returning home in coffins.

So far, the Yemeni Armed Forces have limited their confrontations with the US’s naval fleets to defensive maneuvers, meaning that they have not been attempting to sink ships or aircraft carriers and are focused on defending their nation. If a large-scale ground operation is launched, the defensive posture will shift to one of offense.

The ground campaign will not only be costly and far from a walk in the park, the US will also endure direct hits to its vessels and significant casualties. Additionally, we should expect major attacks on both Saudi and Emirati infrastructure, which will disrupt oil markets. It is also very likely that US bases located in the Arabian Peninsula and beyond will come under attack.

Furthermore, we should probably expect occasional strikes against the Zionist regime that will be more intense than previous waves. If we begin to see the civilian death toll climb dramatically in Yemen, while the war is overtly an American-Zionist aggression, the way in which Ansar Allah will deal with it won’t be restricted any longer. On top of this, it could even end up uniting the people of Yemen to an even greater degree as a result, including factions and tribes that have always been at odds with Ansarallah.

Yemen is not Iran, but it has the capacity to inflict considerable losses on the US-allied regimes surrounding it and can target US forces directly. The question then becomes, can Riyadh and Abu Dhabi endure continuous barrages of munitions being fired towards them? Also, when the war lasts much longer than anticipated and the proxy ground force used to attack Yemen is suffering severe losses, as American soldiers return home in body bags, what will the strategy be then?

Will the 80,000 strong force continue to fight if they are suffering considerable losses, all in order to achieve a victory for Israeli strategic interests? Or will they begin to experience serious morale issues and defections? Will the US public be able to stomach the losses, and can the US military itself justify the loss of assets in a pointless fight to please their Zionist allies?

There will be no benefits to launching such an assault, and the US has not amassed nearly enough ground troops to launch a war alone. On every level, this would be a catastrophic strategic blunder. If they lose, this would be an embarrassment of historic proportions and nation-defining victory for the Sana’a government, despite the immense civilian suffering that will inevitably come from the war. All of this leaves out the potential involvement of other regional actors who may take advantage of the situation too.

If Trump decides to go ahead with such a conflict, in order to please his Zionist ally, it will greatly backfire. There will also be no way to hide the fact that he is working against US interests and sacrificing his own citizens in order to make the Israelis satisfied, without any real end goal or vision for victory.

April 21, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian envoy asks for 30% of Germany’s military equipment

RT | April 20, 2025

Germany should donate 30% of its available armored vehicles and military aircraft to Kiev, according to Andrey Melnik, Ukraine’s envoy to the UN. His appeal comes as EU nations seek ways to boost support amid uncertainty over whether US President Donald Trump would continue backing Ukraine.

Melnik, who served as ambassador to Berlin from 2015 to 2022, addressed his plea in an open letter to Chancellor-designate Friedrich Merz, published in Welt am Sonntag on Saturday. “It is in your hands, as peacemakers, to stop this damn war by the end of 2025,” he wrote.

The diplomat outlined a series of steps he believes Merz must take to “cut the Gordian knot and force [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to make peace.”

According to Melnik, Germany should donate 30% of its Bundeswehr stock of armored vehicles and aircraft to Kiev, including around 45 Eurofighter Typhoon and 30 Tornado fighter jets, 100 Leopard 2 main battle tanks, and 115 Puma and 130 Marder infantry fighting vehicles. He also called on Berlin to defy “the expected resistance” from the Social Democrats (SPD) and send 150 Taurus cruise missiles.

The SPD has opposed the missile deliveries, citing concerns about further escalation with Russia. The Social Democrats and Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) are currently engaged in coalition talks.

Melnik urged Germany to commit 0.5% of its GDP – or €21.5 billion ($24.5 billion) annually – toward military aid to Ukraine through 2029. “These funds should be invested in the production of state-of-the-art weapons in both Germany and Ukraine,” he wrote. He also called for the 0.5% benchmark to be adopted across the EU as a “huge warning signal” to Russia.

Merz recently expressed openness to delivering Taurus missiles, prompting criticism from SPD leader Matthias Miersch and Defense Minister Boris Pistorius. Meanwhile, Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechayev warned that such shipments would “bring no changes to the battlefield” but would further implicate Germany in the conflict.

April 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

China detonates non-nuclear hydrogen bomb — media

RT | April 20, 2025

Chinese researchers have successfully tested a non-nuclear hydrogen bomb that created a sustained fireball, far outperforming traditional explosives, the South China Morning Post has reported.

In an article on Sunday, the newspaper cited the researchers’ study published last month in the Chinese-language Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance. According to the report, a team from the China State Shipbuilding Corporation’s (CSSC) 705 Research Institute — a key player in underwater weapon systems — developed a 2kg (4.4lbs) bomb primarily composed of magnesium hydride, with conventional explosives serving as the catalyst.

In a field test, the device reportedly generated a fireball with temperatures exceeding 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,832 degrees Fahrenheit) that lasted for more than two seconds, which is considerably longer than what an equivalent TNT blast is capable of producing.

In the reaction, magnesium hydride, a compound originally developed as an efficient fuel, rapidly releases stored hydrogen gas, resulting in a sustained inferno.

The novel explosive device’s destructive power thus is said to lie not in its blast pressure, but rather in the ability to generate extreme heat.

The South China Morning Post quoted CSSC research scientist Wang Xuefeng as explaining that its properties also allow for “precise control over blast intensity, easily achieving uniform destruction of targets across vast areas.”

If fully developed, the method could presumably yield a weapon similar to napalm or a thermobaric device – ideal for annihilating defensive structures and armored vehicles.

While the production of magnesium hydride used to be mostly small-scale and rather complicated, China has recently developed a cheaper and safer production method and built a plant capable of producing 150 tons of the compound per year.

April 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

Germany announces new military aid package to Ukraine

RT | April 20, 2025

Germany has announced a new package of military aid for Ukraine, which includes armored vehicles, air-defense rockets, and howitzers, among other weaponry. Earlier this month, incoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz indicated that he might break Berlin’s self-imposed taboo on providing Kiev with long-range rockets – a remark that drew a stern warning from Moscow.

On Thursday, the German government published an updated list of arms and military equipment it shipped to Ukraine. The latest batch encompasses a number of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP), ammunition for Leopard 2 tanks as well as Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns and missiles for IRIS-T SLM air-defense systems. On top of that, Berlin supplied Kiev with several Zuzana 2 self-propelled howitzers, 155mm and 122mm artillery rounds, reconnaissance and strike drones, as well as man-portable anti-tank weapons and assault rifles.

According to the statement, “in total, the Federal Republic of Germany has so far provided or committed for future years military assistance with a value of approximately 28 billion euro,” with around €5.2 billion ($5.9 billion) worth of supplies coming from the German military’s own stocks.

Additionally, “more than 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers have received military training in Germany” since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, Berlin estimated.

At a meeting of the Ukraine Contact Group in Brussels, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced plans to donate military equipment to Ukraine in 2025. The donation will include four IRIS-T air defense systems, 300 guided missiles, 100 ground surveillance radars, 100,000 artillery rounds, 300 reconnaissance drones, 25 Marder infantry fighting vehicles, 15 Leopard 1A5 tanks, and 120 portable anti-aircraft missile systems.

Speaking to outlet ARD last Sunday, Merz, who is expected to be officially named chancellor on May 6, hinted that he could deliver Taurus missiles to Ukraine. The Taurus has a range of 500km.

Current Chancellor Olaf Scholz has repeatedly turned down Kiev’s requests for the rockets, arguing that they could lead to a dangerous escalation of the conflict.

Matthias Miersch, the leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is currently in the process of forming a coalition government with Merz’s Christian Democrats, expressed hope on Wednesday that the incoming chancellor, “once fully informed by [intelligence] agencies, will reassess the issue clearly.”

In response to Merz’s remark, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated that any cruise missile attack on Russian facilities or critical transport infrastructure requiring Bundeswehr assistance would be seen as direct German involvement in military operations.

April 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Over 1,300 Easter truce violations by Ukraine – MOD

RT | April 20, 2025

The Russian military has been targeted more than 1,300 times by Ukrainian forces in the less than 24 hours since the declaration of an Easter truce by both sides, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said earlier that the pause in hostilities would be in effect from 6:00pm Moscow time on Saturday, and last until midnight on Monday. He instructed the country’s military to stay on high alert and be ready “to respond to any violations or provocations.” Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky answered a few hours later that Kiev’s forces “will act in a reciprocal way.”

The Defense Ministry said in a statement on Sunday that “despite the announcement of the Easter truce,” Ukrainian forces attempted to assault the positions of the Russian military in the areas of the settlements of Sukhaya Balka and Bogatyr in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic overnight. The attacks were repelled, it added.

Kiev’s troops also used 48 plane-type UAVs against the Russian military, including one in Crimea, the statement read.

“The Ukrainian units fired 444 times from cannons and mortars at the positions of our troops, [and] carried out 900 strikes with quadcopter drones,” the ministry said.

There were 12 artillery attacks, 33 UAV strikes, and seven munition drops in the border areas of Bryansk, Kursk, and Belgorod regions in western Russia, which resulted in “civilian casualties and injuries, as well as damage to civilian facilities,” according to the statement.

“In accordance with the order of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces [President Vladimir Putin], all [Russian military] groupings in the area of the special military operation strictly observed the ceasefire regime… and remained at previously occupied lines and positions,” the ministry said.

The Russian Foreign Ministry’s ambassador-at-large overseeing investigations of war crimes by Kiev, Rodion Miroshnik, said earlier in the day that Ukraine used artillery and drones to attack residential areas in several cities and towns in Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republic as well as in Kherson Region. More reports of violations of the Easter ceasefire by Ukraine have been coming in, he added.

During their phone call on March 18, Putin accepted his US counterpart Donald Trump’s proposal to introduce a 30-day pause on targeting energy facilities. Zelensky also said at the time that his country would abide by the truce. However, the Russian Defense Ministry reported daily violations by Ukraine of the partial ceasefire, which expired last week.

The breaches of the Easter truce suggest that Kiev is unable to stick to any pause in the fighting, Miroshnik said during appearances on Soloviev LIVE TV on Sunday.

“I do not remember a single ceasefire that would be successful and long-term, so I do not yet see any serious grounds to say that Ukraine is capable of doing this [abide by a truce],” the diplomat stressed.

April 20, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

NATO’s War Narratives Collapse

Aaron Maté & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | April 18, 2025

Investigative journalist Aaron Maté discusses how NATO’s war narratives are falling apart. Maté is renowned for debunking the Russiagate hoax, yet the lessons about the dangers of embracing false stories have not yet been appreciated.

April 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »