Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Pro-‘Israel’ Dems win key panel posts, influence over West Asia policy

Al Mayadeen | August 26, 2026

Three vocally pro-“Israel” House Democrats were given influential posts on the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, with Rep. Jared Moskowitz taking the reins of the subcommittee that oversees US policy toward West Asia, according to Axios.

The appointments represent a significant win for the Democratic Party’s pro-“Israel” wing despite growing pro-Palestinian sentiment among the party’s grassroots.

“If Democrats take control of the House, I’ll be in a position to help steer US policy on Israel and the Middle East,” he told Axios.

In addition to Moskowitz leading Democrats on the West Asia and North Africa subcommittee, pro-“Israel” Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Wesley Bell were appointed to the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday. They all defeated left-wing primary challengers during this election cycle who targeted their support for “Israel”.

Rep. Mark Pocan, a pro-Palestinian progressive and outspoken critic of AIPAC, was also appointed to the panel.

Pro-Israeli lawmakers overtake committee

Rep. Greg Meeks, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said the appointees’ “experience, commitment, and expertise will strengthen our work and help guide the committee as it addresses urgent challenges in national security and diplomacy.”

“I look forward to working closely with all of our members during this turbulent time when Congressional oversight is most needed,” added Meeks, who is also a vocal supporter of “Israel”.

AIPAC punishes Democrats over ‘Israel’, ends their fundraising

This notably comes after AIPAC suspended campaign fundraising support for more than two dozen House Democrats who voted in July in favor of reducing billions of dollars in US military funding to “Israel”.

On Wednesday, more than 100 Democrats in the House backed an amendment to the fiscal 2027 State Department and national security appropriations bill introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). The measure would have barred funds in the legislation from being used to assist “Israel” and cut the Foreign Military Financing program by $3.3 billion.

The amendment was defeated in a 104-314-10 vote. Democrats were nearly evenly divided on the proposal, while Massie was the only Republican to support it. The vote underscored an increasingly visible shift within the Democratic Party regarding the United States’ closest ally in West Asia.

August 26, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Pro-‘Israel’ Dems win key panel posts, influence over West Asia policy

Netanyahu Claims Reaching Agreement With Iran Impossible

Sputnik – 26.08.2026

TEL AVIV – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that reaching a “good” agreement with Iran’s authorities is impossible.

A ceasefire between the United States and Iran has been agreed upon, including freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, Pakistani military sources and Iranian security sources previously told Sputnik. The parties are expected to officially announce the ceasefire in the coming days.

Speaking at an event on settling the West Bank, the Israeli prime minister said that he is determined to ensure no threats from Iran. Netanyahu said that he discussed this with US President Donald Trump a few weeks ago at the White House.

“We discussed three options. I told him about an old option – to reach a good agreement. We have no objections. But I doubt that with this group of people … an agreement can be reached. I told him [Trump] that an agreement is impossible,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister said that the second option is a resumption of hostilities.

Trump announced the launch of an economic operation against Iran on August 20, calling it “isolation on an unprecedented scale.” He urged US allies to join Washington.

Tehran will use all its resources to combat Washington’s economic pressure, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said on Monday, adding that the only option for the US is respectful dialogue with the Iranian people.

August 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Netanyahu Claims Reaching Agreement With Iran Impossible

Strait of Hormuz won’t reopen unless US accepts Iran’s conditions: IRGC

Press TV – August 26, 2026

The Strait of Hormuz will remain closed unless the United States halts its blockade and accepts Tehran’s conditions for implementing a recent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), said the spokesperson of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).

Brigadier General Hossein Mohebbi said on Wednesday the strategic waterway is firmly under Iranian control and that hostile military forces have been pushed back.

“The Strait of Hormuz is in our hands, and no enemy military vessels are currently present inside the Persian Gulf,” he added.

He said all warships have retreated at least 400 kilometers away from the Strait, adding that from a military and territorial standpoint, “no vessel is capable of transiting this waterway without Iran’s permission and management.”

Addressing the administration of the Strait, which is geographically shared by Iran and Oman, the IRGC spokesman said Tehran has been in active negotiations with Muscat for the past month.

General Mohebbi confirmed that the two sides have reached mutually acceptable agreements regarding the demarcation of their respective shares of the waterway and the distribution of revenues generated from maritime traffic.

He also said the waters near the Omani coast are fully under joint control.

US obstruction primary obstacle

Despite the progress with Oman, General Mohebbi pointed to the United States as the primary obstacle to normalizing traffic through the world’s most critical energy chokepoint.

“The United States is creating obstacles in this process, which has caused delays.”

General Mohebbi stated that if Washington ceases its interference and returns to the framework of the existing MoU, Iran is prepared to reopen the Strait in accordance with that agreement.

“Therefore, the United States must accept our conditions,” the IRGC spokesman said.

“If the US does not accept our conditions, the Strait of Hormuz will under no circumstances be reopened.”

Tehran has established new regulatory frameworks requiring commercial vessels to register with Iranian authorities, obtain transit permits, follow Iran-designated shipping routes, and utilize Iran-provided security and insurance mechanisms amid the US-Israeli war of aggression.

The Islamabad MoU is a landmark 14-point diplomatic framework brokered primarily by Pakistan, with mediation support from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey.

Signed in mid-June between Iranian and US leadership, the agreement was designed to halt the military aggression, ensure an immediate and permanent cessation of hostilities, and establish a clear roadmap for de-escalation.

A central pillar of the agreement was the easing of wartime restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz and the initiation of further negotiations toward a comprehensive, final settlement.

However, the fragile framework has recently unraveled. Tehran announced the suspension of its own obligations under the accord, asserting that Washington shattered the agreement first through bad-faith negotiations, continued economic coercion, and a failure to honor its commitments.

This diplomatic impasse has prompted urgent, high-level shuttle diplomacy by Pakistani officials, including the Chief of Army Staff, who are actively working to salvage the MoU and prevent the region from sliding back into open conflict.

August 26, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Strait of Hormuz won’t reopen unless US accepts Iran’s conditions: IRGC

Iran inflicted billions in damage to American intelligence sites during US-Israeli aggression: Report

Press TV – August 26, 2026

Iranian missile and drone strikes during the US-Israeli aggression caused unprecedented damage to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) facilities and equipment across West Asia, a report says.

Four officials familiar with the damage told NBC News that the destruction represents an unprecedented setback for US intelligence agencies.

Since CIA was established in 1947, it has never experienced attacks on its facilities and equipment on a similar scale, the officials said.

Iranian missiles and drones hit intelligence sites as well as conventional military targets, including a CIA office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and an intelligence center in Iraq’s Sulaymaniyah Province.

Radar systems and other surveillance equipment were also struck, along with fixed electronic intelligence stations, satellite communications systems and data-processing centers.

Power lines and cooling systems needed to operate high-technology equipment were damaged, reducing Washington’s ability to monitor developments across West Asia.

The strikes also spread across a wide geographic area, with an earlier assessment finding more than 100 targets.

Those countries included Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the report said while it put the number of damaged US bases at 16.

The financial toll is enormous, with the American Enterprise Institute estimating that infrastructure repairs alone could exceed $5 billion, excluding damaged equipment and weapons.

The US Department of War requested $67 billion in emergency funding in late July, including $18.2 billion to replenish Patriot, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) and other advanced missiles.

The cost of the wider war has also been staggering, with Bloomberg reporting that the US fired 13,629 munitions at Iranian targets between February and April.

CBS News estimated the total cost of the aggression at no less than $50 billion, while Joint Chiefs Chairman Daniel Caine warned that renewed fighting could dangerously deplete US interceptor supplies.

The attacks have also exposed failures in American preparations, prompting questions over why US facilities were not better protected against Iran’s growing missile and drone capabilities.

Seth Jones of the American Enterprise Institute offered a blunt assessment, saying, “The US walked into this war and had not sufficiently thought through base defense in any way, shape or form, and we got hammered.”

The latest round of US-Israeli aggression against Iran began on February 28, when Washington and Tel Aviv forces launched large-scale strikes on Iranian territory.

Iran responded with daily waves of missiles and drones targeting US and Israeli assets.

Although Iran and the US signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on June 17 in an effort to end the aggression, repeated US attacks on southern Iran violated the agreement.

Iranian authorities have since suspended all contact with Washington until it ends its military attacks and hostile rhetoric.

August 26, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran inflicted billions in damage to American intelligence sites during US-Israeli aggression: Report

Iran Channels Demands on MoU and Strait of Hormuz to US Through Pakistan

Sputnik – 25.08.2026

Iran has conveyed its conditions regarding the memorandum and the Strait of Hormuz to the United States through Pakistan, Iranian media reported, citing an informed source.

“Contrary to reports by some media outlets that Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir carried a message containing US threats during his visit to Iran, the trip was aimed at creating space for negotiations and conveying Iran’s conditions and position to the American side,” the source told Tasnim.

According to the source, Tehran’s demands included the US returning to compliance with the memorandum on ending the conflict, signed in mid-June, as well as implementing provisions related to Iran’s rules for navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

The US and Israel began strikes on targets in Iran on February 28, after which Tehran responded with its own attacks. In mid-June, Iran and the US signed a memorandum on ending hostilities, but later resumed strikes against each other. The conflict remains unresolved, although active fighting has stopped and Washington is relying on economic pressure.

Media previously reported, citing an unnamed senior source, that the US had offered to end the blockade of Iran and lift sanctions in exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

August 25, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on Iran Channels Demands on MoU and Strait of Hormuz to US Through Pakistan

After 6 months of war, why aren’t oil prices even higher?

By Sam Fraser | Responsible Statecraft | August 25, 2026

For decades, the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz has been considered the ultimate doomsday scenario for global oil markets. So, when Iran effectively closed the Strait earlier this year in response to the joint U.S.-Israeli assault, many analysts warned that oil prices could skyrocket to record highs.

The logic was straightforward. Prior to the war, about 20% of the global oil supply transited the Strait. A loss of supply on this scale could easily have pushed oil prices to $150 or even $200 per barrel — but it didn’t. Instead, prices peaked around $120 per barrel in April and have largely stayed below $100 since June.

To understand the dynamics that have so far prevented an even higher price spike, and to get a sense of where oil supply and prices may be headed as the conflict drags on, I spoke with Rory Johnston, a leading oil markets analyst and the author of the Commodity Context blog. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Sam Fraser: Let’s talk about why we haven’t seen the $150-200 per barrel oil prices that you warned about early in the war. You’ve pointed to a few reasons, including China’s massive import cuts. As we understand it, what has China done with their oil imports and how have they managed it?

Rory Johnston: It’s a bit of a mystery. At this stage, what we know for sure is that China reduced its crude oil imports by over five million barrels a day, roughly 45% of their total pre-war import appetite. For China, there’s two endpoints of that crude oil balance: into a refinery or into storage. We know that China had been building up a massive volume of strategic reserves prior to the war.

Essentially half of the 5 million barrels a day reduction can be explained roughly by reductions in refining runs in China. The remainder is a question of balancing in and out of stockpiles. Some of it would’ve been likely a drawdown of less visible or underground stockpiles. And the other portion of it is the halting of that prior pace of stockpile building. The main debate is how much each of these factors is contributing. If, let’s say, 80% of that remainder is a halt to prior purchases that were building strategic stocks, that is a bearish outcome for oil prices because it means that Beijing doesn’t need to replace those volumes anytime soon. But if they are aggressively drawing down less visible strategic stocks right now, that’s a much more bullish interpretation because it means they can’t keep going on forever and they’re going to need to replace those stockpiles.

On the refined product side, they cut refining runs by about 2.5 to 3 million barrels a day. What are they doing with that prior flow of diesel, jet fuel, et cetera? And that’s where we start to get even more speculative. Above-ground storage tanks for refined products don’t have floating roofs. We can’t independently verify their fill.

It comes down to the apparent consumption and the apparent available supply of these fuels within China. For gasoline and diesel, each of those supplies have apparently fallen by about 20%, which is a stark reduction. There’s no evidence that people in China are just driving a fifth less. If they aren’t actually cutting back that much on consumption, where is the fuel coming from? Prior to the war, we suspected that China was also building strategic reserves of refined fuels. Again, we can’t verify that, but if they had built that up, they could be drawing it down. We’re then faced with that same question as in crude oil, how much of this is a cessation of prior stock building and how much of this is the drawdown of existing stock?

For reference, the last moment we saw anything like this in terms of apparent consumption collapse was COVID zero in 2022 when the country was entirely locked down.

Fraser: So we can say that stockpiles of refined products must exist, but we have no insight into their size or how much is being drawn down or how sustainable those drawdowns would be?

Johnston: Correct. There are mixed estimates, but I think they are at best estimates. It’s funny, I think in some ways the lack of verifiable data allows people to speak very confidently about what’s happening in China, because there’s no data to rebut virtually any argument. That’s just allowing people to run with it without any kind of real pushback.

Fraser: How have we seen the Chinese buying patterns change since the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding and since it collapsed?

Johnston: What we saw following the MOU was a surge of exiting cargoes from Hormuz. The vast majority of that seems to have routed towards China. What we saw was that, at the very bottom, Chinese crude oil imports fell to around 6 million barrels a day in June. And then those spiked back up to more than 10 million barrels a day in July, or at least that was the high point in July. Roughly a month later, those imports are back down around six. You’ve seen a rollover back to where we stood pre-MOU.

Fraser: Do we know how long this import suppression can continue?

Johnston:. Let’s say this has been entirely a drawdown of stocks, which seems implausible. Even then, they have more than a billion barrels of crude oil stocks that we know about for sure. If they want to support the market to their maximum ability, they can do that for months further. But in doing so, they would deplete the entirety of the energy security blanket they’ve spent almost two decades constructing.

Fraser: Let’s move on to the strategic petroleum reserve releases by the U.S. and other partners. To what degree have those been instrumental in keeping prices from going a lot higher?

Johnston: It’s part of the suite that the world has kind of engaged in to blunt those effects. This is the largest release of strategic stocks on record. Depending on the exact month you’re talking about, it has potentially been over 3 million barrels a day of incremental supply coming from OECD SPRs. Without that, the market would’ve been much tighter and we likely wouldn’t have experienced the same relief even with China’s import cut at the same time.

Fraser: Last week the U.S. SPR dipped under 300 million barrels. There’s a lot of discussion of what the physical limits on those stockpiles are given that they’re stored in salt caverns. They need a certain amount of fill to maintain structural integrity. Are we anywhere close to pushing up against the U.S. ability to continue drawing down from those stockpiles?

Johnston: I do not believe we are. I think that you have probably at least another 200 million barrels that can be readily drawn down. With the required fill level, absolutely it would be a massive issue if you just drew it down and left a vacuum in there. It would implode on itself. But they don’t do that. They one-to-one replace a barrel of crude oil extracted with a barrel of saturated brine. So theoretically it should maintain the same fill. The issue for SPRs is not necessarily fill level, but number of refill and empty cycles. It’s the actual up-and-down motion that disturbs and further erodes the walls and structural integrity.

I think that the SPR caverns can get below 100 million barrels of fill before we run into any issues.

Fraser: So if we continued the current rate of drawdown, that would take us well into next year.

Johnston: Correct.

Fraser: Over the course of the war, Trump or someone in his administration will make a statement about how diplomacy is progressing or about how much oil is coming out of the strait. And even if those are quickly disproven, there is a downward impact on prices. So why do these traders keep listening to Trump? Has there been a change in the reaction of markets over the course of this war?

Johnston: You definitely get smaller drawdowns to these kinds of jawboning attempts today than you would have, say, in March and April, where there are multiple days that you saw $15 to $20 per barrel reductions in the span of a day.

When you look at the history of oil, there’s a tendency on these geopolitical events to overdo it. That’s a natural kind of fear-driven phenomenon. In some ways Trump has short-circuited that normal behavior in oil markets. Because while you’re right that it’s never coming true, the price action is coming true. At the end of the day, for prices to go higher, you need traders to bid higher. And if they bid higher and they get blown out of the water and they lose their jobs, they’re going to be replaced by someone that doesn’t bid higher on geopolitical risk. It has successfully arrested the upside volatility. But if we keep getting tighter, markets will continue to respond higher; we just won’t get those runaway phenomena that we would’ve seen historically.

Fraser: Since the start of the war, we’ve seen Saudi Arabia and the UAE successfully use pipelines as an alternative route to get oil out of the Gulf. How much oil are those getting out at this point? And has the Houthi blockade of Saudi shipping in the Red Sea had a meaningful effect on this?

Johnston: The total volume coming out of Emirates at Fujairah and then the west coast of Saudi Arabia and the Red Sea rose to about 6-7 million barrels. It was about 2-3 million before, so that was an incremental change of 4-5 million barrels.

To your question with the Houthis, it has absolutely been having an effect. As soon as they started attacking Saudi ships, the entire Red Sea fleet went dark. Everyone turned off their transponders, making it much harder to verify flows out of Saudi Arabia. Verifiable transits of Saudi tankers through the Bab al-Mandab have gone functionally to zero. They still are probably getting some out, but we’re also seeing evidence of flows north into the Mediterranean. Pre-war flows here were around a million barrels a day, give or take. That’s jumped over the past week or two to around 2.5 million barrels a day, presumed Saudi flow.

Over the past two weeks, we’ve also seen Saudi Arabia begin loading tankers in the Gulf again, which they hadn’t done since the collapse of the MOU. And the question is, does Riyadh know something? Is something big going to break in the Hormuz negotiations? Or are they being forced back into the Gulf? You’re seeing reports now that they are participating in the Emirati-led shuttle trade, ship-to-ship transfers in the Gulf of Oman. It seems likely that some of that is displaced barrels coming back from the Red Sea. So Saudi Arabia is needing to diversify away from its diversification. There’s a poetic side to it.

Fraser: Pulling all these factors together, where are we left in terms of a kind of global supply shortage? And what kinds of price impacts can we expect if that persists over the next few months?

Johnston: It’s very hard to estimate global balance right now. My bet would be 2-4 million barrels a day undersupplied on a global basis.

The rub on top of that is that we now have a parallel crisis that’s emerging on the refining side of the slate. So even if we’ve sorted out what was happening on the crude oil side, we have the Ukrainian hammering of Russian refineries, the attacks in the Black Sea, the reduction in U.S. exports now that stocks have drawn down, and China is not exporting refined products either. All together this further tightens global refined product markets.

If this persists and we keep drawing down crude oil stocks, the crude oil price is going to keep rising. On top of that, we could see refined product prices independently going higher. So that’s just an amplification. For consumers, it’s refined product prices and not crude oil that are going to drive those economic issues.

Fraser: So even though these factors we’ve discussed have kept oil prices down so far, and the biggest of these can persist for a while, we could still be looking at those extremely elevated prices by a few months from now.

Johnston: Easily. We’re already feeling it. Refined prices are already at demand-destructive levels. It’s just a question of whether they are at sufficiently demand-destructive levels. It’s the same fundamental concern I would’ve had back in April, playing out on a much longer timeline and now more on the product side than the entire oil complex.

Sam Fraser is a writer based in New York City. He holds a Master’s in International Finance and Economic Policy from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, where his studies focused on the changing global trade system. Previously, Sam worked as Senior Communications Associate and Publications Manager at the Quincy Institute.

August 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on After 6 months of war, why aren’t oil prices even higher?

Sanctioning the Dollar Iran Already Left: Why Bessent’s “Economic D-Day” Is Toothless

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | August 24, 2026 

There was one sentence in Scott Bessent’s Monday sanctions announcement that gave the whole game away. Anyone who launders money for the Iranian regime, the Treasury Secretary warned, “will be removed from the US dollar system.” He meant it as a threat of annihilation. It is, instead, a confession of the policy’s central weakness. The entire architecture of what Bessent has branded “Operation Economic Outcast” rests on a single assumption — that Iran and its trading partners need the U.S. dollar. They increasingly do not. And a threat to bar someone from the dollar system means nothing to a trade that has already walked out of it and into the Chinese yuan.

What Bessent actually announced

Strip away the “economic D-Day” theatrics and the substance is a secondary-sanctions framework: the United States threatens to punish any country or entity that refuses to sever economic ties with Iran, expands the categories of activity exposed to those secondary sanctions into five new fields — digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping — and designates roughly sixty individuals, entities, and vessels tied to nuclear and missile procurement, cyber operations, and oil smuggling. The mechanism of pain, in every case, is the same: exclusion from the dollar-based financial system that Washington polices through its control of dollar clearing, SWIFT messaging, and correspondent banking.

That is a devastating weapon against anyone who lives inside the dollar system. It is close to irrelevant against those who have deliberately built their most important trade outside it. And Iran’s lifeline — the oil trade with China — is now largely outside it.

The trade that runs on yuan

Follow the barrels. China is now the buyer of over 80 percent of Iran’s seaborne crude exports. Iran is shipping somewhere around 1.65 to 1.8 million barrels a day, almost all of it to the independent “teapot” refiners of Shandong, moved by a shadow fleet of more than 350 tankers using ship-to-ship transfers off Malaysia, Singapore, and the Sea of Oman, the cargoes routinely rebranded as Malaysian or Omani. And critically, the money for it increasingly does not move in dollars. Payment flows in yuan, routed through small Chinese banks and Hong Kong trading shells, settled in a growing volume of renminbi that bypasses the dollar clearing system entirely.

The plumbing for this is China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, CIPS — the settlement network the People’s Bank of China launched in 2015 precisely to clear cross-border yuan transactions without touching the Western financial architecture. Its use has surged in lockstep with the war. CIPS processed on the order of $214 billion in March 2026, hit a single-day record of 1.22 trillion yuan — roughly $178 billion — across nearly 42,000 transactions, and saw its average daily value jump about 50 percent from February to March, a spike analysts tied directly to the Iran conflict and rising yuan demand in oil trade. More than five thousand institutions are now connected. These channels allow settlement without any intermediary US bank in the chain — which is the entire point.

Nor is this confined to China. Even Indian refiners buying rare cargoes of Iranian oil have settled the payments in yuan, routed through the Shanghai branch of an Indian bank, because Iran wants a currency that sidesteps the dollar sanctions channel. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has reportedly begun demanding yuan or cryptocurrency for oil transactions outright. When Bessent adds “digital assets” and “gold” to his sanctions categories, he is chasing evasion routes Iran is already using by design, through a shadow system purpose-built to be untraceable.

You cannot freeze a yuan payment out of a dollar system it never enters. That is not a loophole in Bessent’s plan. It is the plan’s foundation, missing.

The market already delivered its verdict

The most eloquent judgment on these sanctions came not from a pundit but from the oil market itself. If traders believed Bessent’s “economic onslaught” would actually choke off Iranian barrels, crude would have spiked on the announcement. It did the opposite. Brent fell about 2.3 percent on August 24, sliding below $92, as investors concluded the measures were unlikely to remove Iranian oil from the market. A sanctions package advertised as an economic D-Day was met by the market marking the price of oil down. The traders who move real money on real supply read the announcement for exactly what it was: sound and fury aimed at a target the dollar can no longer reach.

The one tooth Bessent won’t bare

There is precisely one measure that could actually bite the yuan trade: sanctioning the major Chinese banks and the CIPS architecture that clear it — cutting large Chinese financial institutions out of the dollar system and forcing Beijing to choose. And that is the step Bessent, once again, announced but did not take. He warned that at least one major financial institution could face sanctions this week, and said China would not be exempt. A threat, not an action — the same threat that has hovered over this campaign for months and never descends, because executing it means a financial rupture with Beijing on the eve of a planned Trump-Xi meeting, and an oil-price shock Washington cannot afford heading into the midterms.

And even if he pulled that trigger, the trade is engineered to survive it. The yuan payments already move through small Chinese banks and Hong Kong front companies precisely so that the large, dollar-exposed institutions stay clean and the flow continues if a big bank is hit. The system was designed by people who assumed Washington would eventually come for it. Bessent is threatening to breach a wall its builders reinforced years ago.

Ten years of sanctions, and a larger economy

Step back from Monday’s announcement and ask the longer question: what has a decade of sanctions actually done to the size of Iran’s economy? Measured properly, it has grown.

The measure matters, because there are two ways to size an economy and here they tell opposite stories. In nominal dollars — the plane on which sanctions operate — Iran looks devastated: its dollar GDP is around $300 billion in 2026, and dollar income per head has been falling fast, because the rial has been pulverized and everything Iranian looks cheap when priced in a currency Iranians increasingly cannot obtain. But nominal-dollar GDP largely measures the exchange rate, not the economy. Measured by purchasing power parity — which values what Iran actually produces at the prices Iranians actually pay, stripping out the collapsed currency — Iran’s GDP has risen from roughly $1.4 trillion in 2015, when the JCPOA-era sanctions architecture was in force, to about $2.18 trillion in 2026, by the IMF’s reckoning the world’s twenty-third-largest economy. That is an expansion of more than fifty percent over the same decade of “maximum pressure” that was supposed to break it.

The caveat belongs in plain sight, not buried: part of that gain is simply more Iranians — the population has grown by roughly a sixth since 2015 — so per-capita output has risen far more modestly, and none of it means Iranian households feel richer, with inflation running near forty percent and the currency in ruins. Growth of the economy is not prosperity for the family. But that is a different claim from the one that matters for sanctions policy. A pressure campaign that can wreck a currency and still not shrink real output is a campaign that produces hardship without submission. Iran has now demonstrated exactly that across two sanctions architectures — the JCPOA snapback and its “maximum pressure” successors — and ten years of data. Bessent is adding a chapter to a book whose ending is already written.

The honest limits

This is a dollar bypass, not the death of the dollar. The greenback still makes up around 57 percent of global foreign-exchange reserves against roughly 2 percent for the yuan, and only a low single-digit share of cross-border trade settles in renminbi; CIPS remains far smaller than the SWIFT-and-CHIPS system it shadows. The claim here is narrow and it is enough: a determined seller like Iran, with a willing Chinese counterparty, can route its oil revenue around the dollar — not that the world has.

Nor are the sanctions literally costless to Tehran. The friction of operating in the shadows is real: Iran sells its crude at discounts of $14 to $17 a barrel below Brent, up from $8 in 2023, precisely because sanctions raise the risk and complexity of buying it; its fiscal break-even sits far above the price it actually realizes, and the rial has lost most of its value. Bessent’s measures will add a little more friction at the margin — another turn of the screw on the discount, another few front companies to replace.

But friction is not a chokehold, and a poorer Iran is not a compliant one. The sanctions make Iran’s oil cheaper and its economy more strained; they do not, and cannot, sever the yuan-denominated artery to China that keeps the oil flowing and the regime funded. That artery is the thing Bessent promised to cut, and it is the one thing his announcement does not touch.

Bessent has threatened to expel Iran and its partners from a financial system Iran has spent years leaving. The dollar guillotine is real, and it still falls with terrible force on anyone standing beneath it — but Iran’s oil trade stepped off the block and into the yuan, and every fresh round of dollar-weaponization only sharpens the incentive for others to follow. The measures announced Monday will generate headlines, a few dozen designations, and a marginal widening of the discount China already enjoys on Iranian crude. What they will not do is the thing they were sold to do: collapse Iran’s options and force it to heel. You cannot sever a lifeline that no longer runs through your hands. Bessent is standing guard at a door Iran walked out of a long time ago, threatening to lock it.

August 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Sanctioning the Dollar Iran Already Left: Why Bessent’s “Economic D-Day” Is Toothless

US unveils ‘economic onslaught’ against Iran

RT | August 24, 2026

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced new sanctions against Iran, and threatened to boot any country dealing financially with Tehran out of the US dollar system, in a bid to make Iran an “economic outcast.”

The new sanctions target nearly 60 entities, individuals, and vessels in multiple jurisdictions that allegedly trade in “illicit nuclear and missile technology” with Iran, aid Iran’s “cyber operations,” and move Iranian oil, the US Treasury Department said in a statement on Monday. More than a third of the sanctioned entities and individuals – 21 – are based in China.

The Treasury also said it had identified digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping as areas for potential secondary sanctions.

Speaking at a press conference later on Monday, Bessent went further, announcing the beginning of “Operation Economic Outcast,” which he described as “an economic onslaught against Iran’s financial connections around the globe.”

Bessent explained that the US would penalize any country refusing to sever its economic ties with Tehran. “Any entity that facilitates money laundering on behalf of Iran will be removed from the US dollar system,” he said, adding “the clock just started ticking.”

Iran exports goods to 147 countries, and imports from 114, according to the most recent data from the World Bank. Asked how the US intends to force three quarters of the world’s nations to cease trade with Iran, Bessent said that US President Donald Trump phoned multiple world leaders over the weekend “with specific requests to cease their interactions” with Iran, and that every country had been given “a defined timeline” to comply with his demands.

Bessent refused to share any more details, telling reporters that “we’re not going to name names,” nor was he “going to set timelines.” Pressed on whether Washington expected China – which is Iran’s largest trading partner – to abide by the sanctions regime, Bessent did not give a definitive answer.

“We find that the best way to engage with countries is through quiet diplomacy. And we are level-setting with every country to tell them our expectations. We know who they are. They know who they are,” he replied, adding “no-one is above the reach of US sanctions.”

Bessent’s threats were shrugged off in Tehran. “Americans know that no one buys their bombast,” senior Iranian negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf wrote on X after the treasury secretary’s press conference.

“The United States is not in an economic position to further restrict its relations with other countries,”he explained. “Iran’s trading partners, both in the media and through messages sent to us, have made it clear that they don’t take these statements into account anywhere.”

Mohsen Rezaei, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, warned on Sunday that “not a single drop of oil will leave the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz” if the Gulf states join the US’ economic pressure campaign. If US President Donald Trump “wants to do something, we will retaliate in a seismic manner,” Rezaei added.

Last week, Trump threatened to inflict what he called “Economic D-Day” on Iran, after a 60-day window for negotiating peace with Tehran expired with no breakthrough. Trump ruled out a return to negotiations, but Pakistani Chief of Defense Forces Asim Munir arrived in Tehran on Monday in an attempt to revive the talks.

August 24, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on US unveils ‘economic onslaught’ against Iran

Iran warns of strikes on US bases in Europe if nations join aggression

 Al Mayadeen | August 24, 2026

Iran will strike US bases in European countries if those nations participate in aggression against it, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei warned on Monday.

During his weekly press briefing, Baghaei emphasized that “Iran does not accept that the aggressor sets the conditions for ending the war,” adding, “there is no justification for any country to fear Iran unless that country opens its territory to the United States for aggression against Iran.”

He stressed that “it is Iran’s right to target the source and origin of any aggressive action against the Islamic Republic.”

Baghaei also affirmed that “Iran did not start the war and was exercising its legitimate right to self-defense, and will not allow the war to end on the aggressor’s terms,” explaining that “Iran used all diplomatic tools to prevent war”.

He stated that, “we did not start the war, and we should not blame ourselves for the continuation of this situation”.

Iran did everything to pursue diplomacy, US violated agreements

Baghaei noted that “Iran did everything possible through the diplomatic path to prevent war and secure national interests and benefits. In many cases, arrangements and agreements were reached, but the US side violated all of them”.

He pointed out that “the memorandum of understanding did not last more than three weeks, after which America revoked all its provisions”.

Baghaei stressed that “Iran’s power and the cohesion of its people are the shield of the Islamic Republic”, affirming that “Iran was able to thwart all the enemy’s plans”.

Regarding the Mecca agreement, Baghaei noted that “Iran did not receive an official invitation to join the Mecca agreement, but proposals were presented to it in this regard.”

US Naval blockade considered aggressive act

Responding to reports of several million barrels of oil crossing through Hormuz daily, Baghaei said: “This is part of the enemy’s psychological warfare, and there is no such thing.” He continued: “Regarding what America calls the economic war, they used to say economic sanctions, and we used to say this is economic terrorism.”

Baghaei noted that “America uses every tool to punish Iranians simply for their insistence on their sovereignty, national independence, and dignity,” adding that, “the Iranian government is mobilizing all its capabilities to alleviate living pressures on the people”. He affirmed that “the naval blockade on Iran at the present time is in itself an aggressive act, and escalation of this situation will certainly have its own repercussions”.

Iran-Pakistan relations at their best stages

Regarding bilateral relations between Iran and Pakistan, Baghaei said they are “going through one of the best stages, and both sides are determined to expand these relations.” He added: “The visit of Oman’s Foreign Minister to Tehran has no connection to the visit of the Pakistani army chief. They coincided only in terms of timing.”

Baghaei continued: “During the visit of Oman’s Foreign Minister to Tehran, we will discuss bilateral relations and issues related to the security of the Strait of Hormuz and transit routes”. He concluded: “Iran and Afghanistan will expand their commercial dealings”.

August 24, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran warns of strikes on US bases in Europe if nations join aggression

The World Sees What the US is Trying to do to Iran /Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 21, 2026

August 23, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on The World Sees What the US is Trying to do to Iran /Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis

China will not play along with the US’ ‘reckless games’ on the Iran issue

Global Times | August 21, 2026

US President Donald Trump announced on August 19 local time that he would launch a so-called “economic D-Day” operation against Iran. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in outlining the operation, described it as “economic warfare and isolation on an unprecedented scale,” adding that other countries “are either with us or against us.” When asked whether the new sanctions would involve China, Bessent urged China to “get with the program,” claiming that would do China “a big service.”

The US war against Iran has now entered its sixth month, with both sides now locked in a stalemate – unable to escalate the conflict further yet unable to reach a negotiated settlement. The so-called “economic D-Day” operation is less a new offensive launched by the US against Iran than it is yet another attempt by Washington to cut its losses as quickly as possible and extricate itself from the quagmire of the Middle East – a move to change tactics and keep gambling after military means have proven ineffective.

But it may well be heading in the wrong direction. Whether it is the ever-rising bills at US gas stations or the soaring energy and shipping costs in global markets, one thing is clear: Economic sanctions can concentrate pressure on a single country, but it is difficult to confine the costs to that country alone. War cannot solve problems, and sanctions only add fuel to the fire.

The so-called “either with us or against us” rhetoric, in a sense, exposes Washington’s strategic predicament: it “can no longer handle this mess on its own.” Ironically, while Washington has been spouting “bold rhetoric,” its circle of allies has remained silent on the matter. In fact, since the US’ war against Iran began, most US allies have been highly reluctant to go along with America’s radical strategy out of concern for the spillover effects of the conflict and the energy crisis. The reason is simple: for these countries, the Iran issue affects energy supply, shipping security, and inflationary pressures.

The US has set its own house on fire, yet it wants the whole world to help fan the flames, making the blaze even bigger – and in the end, it expects everyone else to foot the bill. Who would want to be such a patsy? The US has repeatedly labeled European nations “cowards” for refusing to join the war, further provoking a strong backlash from its European allies and creating a rare, deep‑seated rift in the alliance system.

If the US cannot even rally its own allies, it certainly cannot expect to boss China around. China has consistently opposed unilateral bullying and long-arm jurisdiction – not because China is Iran’s largest trading partner and maintains long-standing friendly relations with Iran, but because once this US logic is accepted, international trade would no longer be normal exchanges between nations. Instead, it would devolve into an absurd situation where the US unilaterally sets the rules and the flow of all goods must be approved by the US.

If the US can force China to cut ties with Iran today, will it be able to arbitrarily cut off all foreign trade with any country it regards as a “rival” tomorrow? If so, there is no doubt that the world would be reverting to the law of the jungle, where the basic rules of modern civilized society will cease to exist.

The Strait of Hormuz is a strait used for international navigation. Restoring safe and free passage through the strait as soon as possible serves the interests of all parties and is also the shared aspiration of the international community. But if the fact that “the Strait of Hormuz concerns a certain country’s interests” is used as a pretext to demand that this country unconditionally comply with Washington’s maximum pressure and trade bullying, that would not only put the cart before the horse, but also steadily deplete the US’ international credibility while exacerbating global energy volatility, high inflation, and market disorder.

Only a comprehensive ceasefire and the cessation of hostilities can fundamentally create the conditions for easing tensions, because the disruption of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is itself a spillover effect of the US’ war against Iran. China has consistently supported all efforts conducive to a ceasefire and an end to hostilities. But ultimately, those who tied the knot must be the ones to untie it; this knot can and must be resolved by the parties directly involved.

America’s strategic predicament stems precisely from its obsession with the “big fist” and its inexplicable confidence that “there is always a way to force those who refuse to comply into submission.” If the US continues applying pressure at will, it will only be kept trapped for longer and sink deeper.

Simply expanding economic pressure will only prolong the conflict and increase the losses for all sides. The entire world can see this clearly. Not only will China not play along with the US’ “reckless games” on the Iran issue, but the international community will not stand with Washington either. From moral, legal, and practical perspectives, escalating unilateral sanctions has neither legitimacy nor feasibility.

An immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, the prompt resumption of peace talks, the restoration of navigation through the strait, and upholding the authority of the UN Charter – these have been China’s consistent positions since the conflict broke out, and they are the approach that serves the interests of all parties. Only by abandoning the Cold War mentality of confrontation, setting aside the tool of maximum pressure, and returning to the proper track of dialogue and negotiation can Washington cut its losses in time and make a dignified exit.

August 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on China will not play along with the US’ ‘reckless games’ on the Iran issue

Israel’s New War in Syria: Why Türkiye Is Now in the Crosshairs

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | August 22, 2026

What has been happening in Syria should come as a wake-up call for the Turkish leadership: as long as Israel is a major player in the region, you cannot simply compete with them without engaging in violent conflict.

Earlier this week, Israel began bombing Syrian military positions for the first time in around four months, specifically targeting an air base where Turkish military personnel are known to be present – this is not random violence; it is instead part of a concerted pressure campaign that is pushing boundaries that even the United States is not fully prepared to go along with.

Israeli air raids targeted and destroyed air strips and hangars at the Abu al-Duhur Air Base in the Idlib province of Syria, inflicting significant damage and intentionally attempting to curb efforts by Turkiye to revive the largest destroyed Syrian air force and air defense systems.

While Tehran and Moscow were the chief supporters of the former Syrian military, the country now depends on both Washington and Ankara. NATO member Turkiye has therefore taken it upon itself to try and get a military foothold inside Syrian territory, attempting to extract the maximum it can from its relationship with its neighbor.

Like Iran, Turkiye has different interests from its other major partner inside the country, but unlike the Iranians, the Turkish State is not backing resistance to Israel and instead has maintained strong economic ties with the occupying regime. However, the Israeli government does not care that Turkiye presents no military threat to it, nor are there any signs it will; it is only fixated on regional dominance and views Syria as competition.

Turkiye and Israel are both US allies, meaning that the American government will not throw its weight fully behind either side and instead play a balancing game. Yet, the Israelis evidently have much more sway over Washington and seek to crush Turkish regional influence, as they endeavor to achieve their dreams of a “Greater Israel”.

Israeli bombing attacks against military positions – with the exception of a few occasional strikes – largely halted after March, when a series of strikes were carried out. The reason behind most of the attacks carried out against positions affiliated with Damascus-aligned forces has been to send a message. This is precisely why the old Ministry of Defense was even blown to pieces and why Israel launched strikes in the vicinity of the Presidential Palace – they are demonstrating who the boss is and warning the Syrian leadership of the consequences should it step out of line.

The Syrian leadership, under the command of Ahmed al-Shara’a, or Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, has largely capitulated to Israeli demands, such as attempting to disarm Syrians in the south of the country, working to intercept arms shipments to Hezbollah, and even signing a “Joint Fusion Mechanism” with the Israelis. As part of this mechanism, it was clearly written that Syria would even pursue economic projects with the Zionist regime that continues to expand its occupation of southern Syrian lands.

The relationship between Syria, Turkiye, and Israel today is one of a tug of war. The Turkish State is attempting to help Syria revive its air force and hopes to introduce a functioning air defense system to the country, but the Israelis want Syria weak.

It is also clear why Tel Aviv is so paranoid. They know that the future of the Syrian State is not certain and they see the sentiments expressed by the fighters who have formed the new Syrian Army. They are also aware that everyone in Syria is armed and that with a different leadership, or an escalation that spins out of control, they could be in serious trouble.

During the era of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) possessed a large arsenal of strategic weapons, much of which was incinerated during the overthrow of the previous leadership in an enormous Israeli air campaign. However, what Tel Aviv feared just as much was the strength of Syria’s air defense network – regarded as one of the most sophisticated in the region.

Not only did Israel destroy the air defenses of Syria during the regime change transition in December of 2024, but what impacted the nation’s ability to defend its skies even more was the disappearance of the old air defense teams. When it comes to these sophisticated weapons, the humans operating them are just as important as the systems themselves, and it takes a long time to properly train new operators. Under the new Syrian Army, there are no experienced operators who are on hand, meaning that it will take help from their Turkish allies if they are ever going to have a functioning air defense option.

Israel is competing with Turkiye as of now, with the situation not deteriorating into direct confrontation. Although we are far from the point of anything that could resemble war between the two, the Israelis will kill Turkish soldiers and may even explore options using intelligence operatives inside Turkish territory in the future.

Ankara is clearly not willing to respond to Tel Aviv with the use of force, or even using armed factions to carry out operations in the south, despite Turkish soldiers having been killed by Israeli airstrikes in the past. At some point, Turkiye will likely be forced to make a decision to defend its interests that will involve confronting Israel.

Bear in mind that despite the rhetoric of its President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish State never even severed ties or cut off Israel’s flow of cheap gas from Azerbaijan throughout the Gaza genocide. The Israelis have interpreted the behavior of the Turkish leadership as weakness, meaning that they are going to push things to the limit, testing just how far they can go before the regional power decides to finally take concrete measures against it.

Ankara is seeking to become an international trade hub, sitting at the crossroads between Asia and Europe, benefiting immensely from the expansion of the Middle Corridor. Yet, Tel Aviv has been busy forming alliances to ensure it is a thorn in Turkiye’s side, including expanding tripartite relations with Greece and Cyprus.

What has been happening in Syria should come as a wake-up call for the Turkish leadership: as long as Israel is a major player in the region, you cannot simply compete with them without engaging in violent conflict. If Ankara seeks to truly assert its power, it must pursue confrontation and make the Israelis suffer in Syria; if it backs down and refuses to do this, it will end up feeling the consequences of its strategic mistake.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

August 22, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Israel’s New War in Syria: Why Türkiye Is Now in the Crosshairs

« Previous Entries