Atlantic Magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg has won the admiration of his Beltway peers for the conduct he displayed after being accidentally invited into a smoke-filled “bomb Yemen” Signal chat with Trump’s national security honchos and top advisors. “Props to Jeffrey Goldberg for his high standards as a professional journalist,” declared Ian Bremmer, the trans-Atlanticist foreign policy pundit on his Bank of America-sponsored GZero podcast. “When he realized the conversation was authentic he immediately left, informed the relevant senior official, and made the public aware without disclosing intelligence that could damage the United States.”
But what exactly did Goldberg do to deserve such high praise?
With a once in a lifetime opportunity to view and report on high level discussions on the US launching an illegal war on Yemen, Goldberg chose to avert his gaze and leave the scene as soon as he could, apparently because maintaining such unparalleled access would have compelled him to report on discussions that might have complicated a war being waged on behalf of the Israeli apartheid state to which he emigrated as a young man. Instead of exploiting his front row seat to the Trump admin’s war planning – a vantage point that would have yielded countless scoops and a bestselling book for any adversarial journalist – Goldberg bolted and dutifully informed the White House about the unfortunate situation.
From there, the story became a palace intrigue over an embarrassing failure of “opsec,” or operational security, and not one about the policy itself, which entails a gargantuan empire bombarding a poor, besieged country because it is controlled by a popular movement that is currently the only force on the planet taking up arms to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
In the fourth paragraph of Goldberg’s Atlantic article about the principals’ Signal group, he strongly implied that he supports the war’s objectives, describing Ansar Allah, or the Houthis, as an “Iran-backed terrorist organization” which upholds a belief system that is (what else?) antisemitic. Given Goldberg’s admission that Waltz first reached out to him at least two days prior to mistakenly adding him to the Signal group, it appears the NSC director had been leaking to the Atlantic editor on behalf of the neocon faction in the Trump White House. And it seems clear why Waltz would have sought to cultivate Goldberg.
During the run-up to to the Iraq war, then-Vice President Dick Cheney cited Goldberg’s bunk reporting alleging deep ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda during multiple media appearances hyping up the coming invasion. Under Obama, Goldberg served as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s errand boy, churning out tall tales about Tel Aviv’s imminent plan to attack Iran’s nuclear sites – unless the US did it first. Since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, the once-failing Atlantic has suddenly turned a profit, as Goldberg unleashed a firehose of propaganda against the keffiyeh-cladenemies of the magazine’s Upper East Side donor base. This month, with momentum for a strike on Iran building within the Trump White House, Goldberg was summoned once again to move the neocon message, and wound up with more access than he bargained for.
When asked in a March 24 interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins why he left the Trump principals’ Signal group voluntarily, Goldberg ducked the question. But as Ian Bremmer suggested, he did so out of deference to power and an abiding belief in a US empire hellbent on protecting Israel. And in the culture of Beltway access journalism, that’s considered a laudable trait.
China has formally presented a new proposal to revive stalled negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, calling for diplomacy, mutual respect, and the preservation of the 2015 nuclear deal. The five-point initiative was first unveiled by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on March 14 during a trilateral meeting in Beijing with his Iranian and Russian counterparts. It was later submitted to the United Nations’ Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, where it has been published as Document No. 2448/CD.
According to Chinese diplomats, the document outlines principles intended to defuse mounting tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear activities and offers a framework to restart talks. The Chinese delegation requested its official release as a UN document, underlining Beijing’s push for a greater role in global security discussions.
The first principle calls for a diplomatic solution and warns against military escalation or punitive economic actions. “Stay committed to peaceful settlement of disputes through political and diplomatic means, and oppose the use of force and illegal sanctions,” the proposal states. It urges all sides to create conditions for renewed negotiations and to avoid steps that could worsen the situation.
In its second point, the proposal emphasizes Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while also encouraging Tehran to maintain its pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons. “Stay committed to balancing rights and responsibilities, and take a holistic approach to the goals of nuclear nonproliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy,” it reads. “Iran should continue honoring its commitment to not developing nuclear weapons, and all other parties should fully respect Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”
The third point calls for renewed commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral agreement signed in 2015 that placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. “Stay committed to the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as the basis for new consensus. China hopes that all parties will work toward the same direction and resume dialogue and negotiation as early as possible. The United States should demonstrate political sincerity and return to talks at an early date.”
China’s fourth recommendation cautions against moving the matter to the United Nations Security Council, which could trigger the reimposition of international sanctions through the so-called “snapback” mechanism. “Stay committed to promoting cooperation through dialogue, and oppose pressing for intervention by the UN Security Council (UNSC). Under the current situation, hasty intervention by the UNSC will not help build confidence or bridge differences among the relevant parties. Initiating the snapback mechanism would undo years of diplomatic efforts, and must be handled with caution.”
The final principle calls for gradual, reciprocal steps to build consensus, stressing that no lasting resolution can be achieved through pressure or force. “Stay committed to a step-by-step and reciprocal approach, and seek consensus through consultation. History has proven that acting from a position of strength would not lead to the key to resolving difficult issues. Upholding the principle of mutual respect is the only viable path to finding the greatest common ground that accommodates the legitimate concerns of all parties and reaching a solution that meets the expectation of the international community.”
Beijing framed the proposal as part of its broader strategy to promote dialogue over confrontation. Chinese officials said the country will remain in close contact with all relevant parties and will “actively promote talks for peace, and play a constructive role in realizing early resumption of talks.”
Reiterating its longstanding position, China stressed that negotiations—not threats or sanctions—remain the only viable path forward. “Sanctions, pressure, and threats of force are not viable solutions,” Beijing stated.
The phone call on 18 March between Presidents Trump and Putin has happened. It was a success, insofar as it allowed both sides to label the result as ‘positive’. And it did not lead to a breakdown (by virtue of the smallest of concessions from Putin – an energy infrastructure truce) – something easily it could have done (i.e. devolve into impasse – with Trump excoriating Putin, as he has done to Zelensky), given the fantastical and unrealistic expectations being woven in the West that this would be the ‘decider meeting’ for a final division of Ukraine.
It may have been a success too, insofar as it has laid the groundwork for the absent homework, now to be handled by two teams of experts on the detailed mechanics of the ceasefire. It was always a puzzle why this had not been earlier tackled by the U.S. team in Riyadh (lack of experience?). It was, after all, because the ceasefire was treated as a self-creating entity, by virtue of an American signature, that western expectations took flight in the belief that details did not matter; All that remained to do – in this (flawed) estimation – was to ‘divvy out the cake’.
Until the mechanics of a ceasefire – which must be comprehensive since ceasefires almost always break down – there was little to discuss on that topic on Tuesday. Predictably, then, discussion (reportedly) seemed to have turned to other issues: mainly economic ones and Iran, underlining again that the negotiation process between the U.S. and Russia does not boil down to just Ukraine.
So, how to move to ceasefire implementation? Simple. Begin to unravel the ‘cats cradle’ of impedimenta blocking normalised relations. Putin, plucking out just one strand to this problem, observed that:
“Sanctions [alone] are neither temporary nor targeted measures. They constitute [rather], a mechanism of systemic, strategic pressure against our nation. Our competitors perpetually seek to constrain Russia and diminish its economic and technological capacities … they churn out these packages incessantly”.
There is thus much cumulated geo-strategic debris to be addressed, and corrected, dating back many years, before a Big Picture normalisation can start in earnest.
What is apparent is that whilst Trump seems to be in a tearing hurry, Putin, by contrast, is not. And he will not be rushed. His own constituency will not countenance a hastily fudged accord with the U.S. that later implodes amidst recriminations of deceit – and of Moscow again having been fooled by the West. Russian blood is invested in this strategic normalisation process. It needs to work.
What is behind Trump’s evident hurry? Is it the need for breakneck speed on the domestic front to push ahead, before the cumulated forces of the opposition in the U.S. (plus their brethren in Europe) have the time to re-group and to torpedo normalisation with Russia?
Or does Trump fear that a long gap before ceasefire implementation will enable opposition forces to push for the recommencement of arms supplies and intelligence sharing – as the Russian military steamroller continues its advance? Is the fear, as Steve Bannon has warned, that by rearming Ukraine, Trump effectively will ‘own’ the war, and shoulder the blame for a massive western and NATO defeat?
Or, perhaps Trump anticipates that Kiev might unexpectedly cascade into a systemic collapse (as occurred to the Karzai government in Afghanistan). Trump is acutely aware of the political disaster that befell Biden from the images of Afghans clinging to the tyres of departing U.S. transport planes (à la Vietnam), as the U.S. evacuated the country.
Yet again, it might be something different. I learned from my time facilitating ceasefires in Palestine/Israel that it is not possible to make a ceasefire in one place (say Bethlehem), whilst Israeli forces were concurrently setting Nablus or Jenin ablaze. The emotional contagion and anger from one conflict cannot be contained to one locality; it would overflow to the other. It was tried. The one contaminated the implied sincere intentions behind the other.
Is the reason for the Trump haste mainly that he suspects his unconstrained support for Israel eventually will lead him to embrace major war in the Middle East? The world of today (thanks to the internet) is much smaller than before: Is it possible to be a ‘peacemaker’ and a ‘warmaker’ simultaneously – and have the first taken seriously?
Trump and those U.S. politicians ‘owned’ by the pro-Israeli lobby, know that Netanyahu et al. want the U.S. to help eliminate Israel’s regional rival – Iran. Trump cannot both retrench the U.S. as a western hemisphere ‘Sphere of Influence’, yet continue to throw the U.S.’ weight around as world Hegemon, causing the U.S. government to go broke. Can Trump successfully retrench the U.S. to Fortress America, or will foreign entanglements – i.e. an unstable Israel – lead to war and derail Trump’s administration, as all is intertwined?
What is Trump’s vision for the Middle East? Certainly, he has one – it is one that is rooted in his unstinting allegiance to the Israeli interest. The plan is either to destroy Iran financially, or to decapitate it and empower a Greater Israel. Trump’s letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei included a two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal.
A day after his missive, Trump said the U.S. is “down to the final moments” with Iran:
“We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon. Something is going to happen very soon. I would rather have a peace deal than the other option, but the other option will solve the problem”.
U.S. journalist Ken Klippenstein has noted that on 28 February, two B-52 bombers flying from Qatar dropped bombs on an “undisclosed location” – Iraq. These nuclear-capable bombers were carrying a message whose recipient “was clear as day; The Islamic Republic of Iran”. Why B-52s and not F-35s which also can carry bombs? (Because ‘bunker-buster’ bombs are too heavy for F-35s? Israel has F-35s, but does not have B-52 heavy bombers).
Then on 9 March, Klippenstein writes, a second demonstration was made: A B-52s flew alongside Israeli fighter jets on long-range missions, practicing aerial refuelling operations. The Israeli press correctly reported the real purpose of the operation – “readying the Israeli military for a potential joint strike with the U.S. on Iran”.
Then, last Sunday, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz boasted that multiple Anglo-U.S. airstrikes “took out” top Houthi officials, making it very clear that this is all about Iran:
“This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out. And the difference here is, one, going after the Houthi leadership, and two, holding Iran responsible”.
Marco Rubio elaborated on CBS: “We’re doing the entire world a favour by getting rid of these guys”.
Trump then followed up with the same theme:
“Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”
“Trump’s menu of options for dealing with Tehran now includes one he didn’t have in his first term: full-scale war – with “nuclear weapons on the table” (the Trident II low-yield option) Pentagon and company contracting documents I’ve obtained describe “a unique joint staff planning” effort underway in Washington and in the Middle East to refine the next generation of “a major regional conflict” with Iran. The plans are the result of a reassessment of Iran’s military capabilities, as well as a fundamental shift in how America conducts war”.
What is new is that the “multilateral” component includes Israel working in unison with Arab Gulf partners for the first time, either indirectly or directly. The plan also includes many different contingencies and levels of war, according to the documents cited by Klippenstein, from “crisis action” (meaning response to events and attacks), to “deliberate” planning (which refers to set scenarios that flow from crises that escalate out of control). One document warns of the “distinct possibility” of the war “escalating outside of the United States Government’s intention” and impacting the rest of the region, demanding a multifaceted approach.
War preparations for Iran are so closely restricted, that even contracting companies involved in war planning are prohibited from even mentioning unclassified portions, notes Klippenstein:
“While a range of military options are often provided to presidents in an attempt on the part of the Pentagon to steer the President to the one favoured by the Pentagon, Trump already has shown his proclivity to select the most provocative option”.
“Equally, Trump’s green light for the Israeli air-strikes on Gaza, killing hundreds, [last] Monday, but ostensibly targetted on the Hamas leadership can be seen as consonant with the pattern of taking the belligerent option”.
Following his successful assassination of Iran’s top general Qassim Suleimani in 2020, Trump seems to have taken the lesson that aggressive action is relatively cost-free, Klippenstein notes.
As Waltz noted in his press interview:
“The difference is these [Yemen attacks] were not pinpricks, back and forth, what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks. This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out”.
Klippenstein cautions that, “2024 may be behind us but its lessons aren’t. Israel’s assassination of top Hezbollah officials in Lebanon was largely perceived by Washington to be a resounding success with few downsides. Trump likely took back the same message, leading to his strike on [the] Houthi leadership this week”.
If western observers are seeing all of what’s going on as some repeat of Biden’s tit-for-tat or limited attacks by Israel on Iran’s early warning and air defences, they may be misunderstanding what’s going on behind the scenes. What Trump might now do, which is right out of the Israeli playbook, would be to attack Iran’s command and control, including Iran’s leadership.
This – very certainly – would have a profound effect on Trump’s relations with Russia – and China. It would eviscerate any sense in Moscow and Beijing that Trump is agreement capable. What price then his ‘peacemaker’ ‘Big Picture’ reset were he, in the wake of wars in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, to start a war with Iran? Does Trump see Iran through some disturbed optic – that in destroying Iran, he is bringing about peace through strength?
The “winds of war” are blowing toward Iran. This is the war for which Israeli donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, along with pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL, paid US President Donald Trump hundreds of millions of dollars over two election cycles.
But it’s not only the Israeli lobby banging the war drums; American Evangelicals – especially groups like “Christians United for Israel” – also support war, believing it will “save Israel” from the “Iranian menace.” Evangelical membership in the 119th Congress (2025–27) is high. War with Iran is not (yet) popular in the US, but – just as with Iraq – consent will be manufactured by Washington elites and the media.
Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin to resolve the Ukraine war partly aims to shift the Pentagon’s attention back to West Asia. He assumes that an early 2025 war with Iran will “save Israel” and secure his legacy, letting him focus on “America First” for the rest of his term.
But war with Iran could also backfire disastrously, sink his presidency, and derail the ambitions of 2028 Republican hopefuls like Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance. For starters, should the military campaign encounter any unforeseen backlash – which is highly likely, and the reason the Pentagon has assiduously avoided direct confrontation with Iran – the Democratic Party could retake both chambers of Congress after a US stock market crash and recession triggered by the war.
Iran’s military responses
Iranian leaders have vowed “devastating” retaliation for any attack on their soil. This would likely involve missile strikes against Israeli and US military targets – and possibly infrastructure and economic targets within the occupation state. If Israel uses tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran will escalate further.
Whether or not nukes are used, war would shock the global economy, send oil prices soaring, and halt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The greatest impact will fall on countries most dependent on West Asian oil.
The US economy may be less affected in the short term. Its stock markets, already down 10 percent since Trump’s return to the White House, would decline further – but Trump is gambling that households will not feel the pain. But if the Islamic Republic launches economic warfare that “brings the war home,” political dynamics will change.
Economic warfare
Most Americans are detached from the notion and consequences of war because, since the Civil War, US wars have been fought far from its borders. Even during the World Wars, though American families faced personal loss, the nation did not endure widespread suffering – unlike Britain, which imposed food rationing from 1939 to 1954.
The “Global War on Terror” impacted some communities, but not the country. US troops often joked in Iraq: “We’re at war; America’s at the mall.” Americans kept spending and enjoying life, while Iraqis and US occupation soldiers endured the brutal costs.
Iranian leadership understands this disconnect. The US stock market is a tempting target. In 1929, at the start of the Great Depression, just 2.5 percent of Americans owned stock. Today, about 61 percent of US adults – roughly 160 million people – own shares through private accounts, pension schemes, or retirement plans.
Factoring in children in such households, roughly 200 million Americans are exposed to market fluctuations. Trillions more dollars are invested by corporations, universities, and foreign institutions. The exposure is deep.
The US economy is fragile. Mark Zandi, Moody’s chief economist, warned that the risk of recession is “uncomfortably high and rising.” On 19 March, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell kept interest rates steady, citing slowing consumer spending and growing uncertainty. Trump, fearing economic fallout, raged on Truth Social over the Fed’s refusal to cut rates. He announced retaliatory tariffs set to take effect on 2 April.
Household debt is rising – $18.04 trillion as of Q4 2024 – with increasing defaults on auto loans and credit cards. Americans, like the federal government, spend on credit. Investors borrow against their portfolios with margin loans. If stock values fall, forced selloffs to cover debts could intensify market collapse. “Margin calls” – demands for loan repayments – played a greater role in the ensuing economic turmoil than the 13 percent market drop on 28 October 1929.
The US economy is already strained, and consumers are over-leveraged. A large external shock could push it into a deep recession. Stock markets would plunge, wiping out pension savings and private wealth.
How far markets fall would depend on the force of Iran’s blow. The current 10 percent drop has already hurt. A deeper decline – say, 25 to 50 percent – would cripple the economy, spark layoffs and bankruptcies, and tighten credit. That would suppress consumer spending and crash the housing market, as in 2008.
Tehran’s targets
As Iranian leaders have often repeated, “If Iran cannot sell oil, no one will.” If US or Israeli forces strike Iranian tankers or infrastructure, Tehran is likely to target US economic interests and the oil sectors of any Persian Gulf Arab state that supports the attacks by allowing fighter jets, drones, or missiles to launch from their territories.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may choose to strike Bahrain, which is an obvious military target since it hosts the US Naval Forces Central Command. In addition to military sites, Iran could target the Bahrain Petroleum Company’s refinery, which processes 270,000 barrels per day, along with its marine terminal and oil storage facilities.
The oil farm holds 14 million barrels – ample fuel for a dramatic strike. Iran could also destroy the King Fahd Causeway connecting Bahrain to Saudi Arabia to prevent Riyadh from sending ground troops to suppress unrest among Bahrain’s majority Shia population, as it did during the 2011 uprising.
In Iraq, too, US military bases will almost certainly come under fire. Beyond that, Iran-aligned factions within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) may attempt to capture the 2,500 US troops still stationed there – not to kill them, but to take them as hostages.
Living captives would be far more valuable, creating a nightmare scenario for Trump and serving as a sharp reminder to Americans – who often forget the wars they once supported – that US troops remain in Iraq more than two decades after the 2003 invasion. These POWs would likely be scattered across the country, making coordinated rescue missions difficult and turning them into bargaining chips in any future negotiations.
Jordan, having allowed Israeli overflights last year in October during Iran’s retaliatory strikes and before that in April, is likely to do so again and could face significant retaliation. In addition to the Zarqa oil refinery, Iranian forces might strike political, military, and intelligence targets. Such attacks would certainly provoke unrest among Jordan’s population, the majority of whom are of Palestinian descent and already harbor grievances against their leadership for its collusion with Tel Aviv.
The UAE, if complicit in the attacks, could face military strikes on its energy infrastructure and power plants, as it experienced during its war with Yemen. The Emirates is particularly vulnerable due to its demographic makeup – about 88 percent of its population consists of foreign workers. If those workers flee following targeted attacks, the country’s economy would be brought to its knees.
Qatar and Oman are likely to be treated differently. Muscat, with its long-standing neutral foreign policy in the region, has maintained warm relations with Iran, and will not likely participate in a US military aggression. Doha also enjoys relatively good relations with Tehran, though it hosts the US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) Al-Udeid Air Base and worked to thwart Iranian interests in Syria. Iran might strike CENTCOM’s headquarters in West Asia, but is unlikely to target other Qatari assets.
Saudi Arabia presents a more complex scenario. Although both Russia and China have encouraged reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the kingdom may not remain on the sidelines. If it does participate in hostilities, it would become a high-priority target.
Even if Riyadh stays neutral, Iran might still strike its East–West oil pipeline, which terminates at the port of Yanbu. That pipeline – built in 1982 to bypass the Persian Gulf – delivers over three million barrels per day to Europe.
Yanbu’s port, refinery, and export terminals, some of which are operated in partnership with western firms, would be natural targets. A simultaneous closure of the Strait of Hormuz and disruption of Red Sea traffic would block the export of roughly five million barrels per day. While former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter predicted oil prices could surge to $120 per barrel, Iran might be capable of pushing them as high as $200.
China, when retaliating against Trump’s tariffs, acted strategically. It imports just 7 percent of its pork from the US, but most pork producers are in Republican “red states.” Targeting that sector hurt Trump’s base directly.
While spiking oil prices and global economic turmoil would harm Iran’s allies and the Global South, Iran’s adversaries in the US, UK, Israel, and EU stand to lose the most. If Iran wages a smart economic war, even Evangelicals may start caring more about their grocery bills than hastening the reconstruction of the “Third Temple” and other end-times prophecies.
So the US is sending Carrier Strike Group One (CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson) to the Middle East, leaving CSG-5 (CVN-73 USS George Washington) to “hold the fort” in the western Pacific from the semi-safe environs of its quasi-permanent berth in Yokosuka, Japan.
All the Washington does is sail back and forth between San Diego and Yokosuka every so often to give the impression it’s doing something meaningful. Otherwise I’ve seen no indication for several years that it is anything more than a training and parade vessel.
In any case, the Vinson is headed to the Arabian Sea, and perhaps points beyond. (That remains to be seen.)
Meanwhile the deployment of CSG-8 (CVN-75 USS Trembling Puppy) has been extended, even as it remains bottled up in the northern reaches of the Red Sea, launching air strikes on Yemen from ~1000 km away, with USAF refueling tankers at the ready as needed.
The Yemeni have launched a few modest packages of antiquated drones and antiship cruise missiles in the general direction of the Trembling Puppy – all of which have been relatively easy pickings for the cruiser and destroyers and combat air patrol.
But, keep in mind, even though these old and slow Yemeni drones and missiles have little chance of scoring a hit from 1000 km away, the carrier strike group ships and planes still have to shoot at every one of them!
So every Yemeni strike package of a couple dozen missiles will deplete CSG-8’s munitions magazines by AT LEAST a corresponding number of air defense missiles, and quite possibly TWICE as many, according to standard practice of firing two interceptors at each threat.
CSG-8’s magazine depth has already been substantially depleted over the course of the past two weeks — and remember, the US Navy cannot replenish its vertical launch systems at sea.
And, of course, if military operations against Iran are the ultimate objective, then at some point the Trembling Puppy and its entourage are going to have to leave the cozy waters between Jeddah and the Gulf of Suez, and run the gauntlet of the Gate of Lamentation (Bab el-Mandeb).
The Gate of Lamentation (Bab el-Mandeb)
That’s when things could get more interesting. Because it’s a pretty tight squeeze to pass through. A big deep-draft aircraft carrier can’t just run at full speed, zig-zagging back and forth. It has to stick to the navigable channel.
Navigable Shipping Channels in the Bab el-Mandeb
In the relatively open waters north of Jeddah, there is quite a bit of room for maneuver. But in the straits, you’re restricted to a narrow band — and most significantly, potential Yemeni missile launching sites are only ~200 km away. A more substantial strike package of 50 or so drones, antiship cruise missiles, antiship ballistic missiles, and fast boat and surface drone attacks will get there a whole lot faster, and with a much better chance of actually hitting something.
So, even though CSG-8’s odds of passing through unscathed still probably remain pretty good, there is unquestionably a considerably elevated risk compared to hiding out at the mouth of the Gulf of Suez.
But let’s suppose they sail right through the Bab el-Mandeb with minimal difficulties … then what? You join up with CSG-1 in the Arabian Sea and attempt long-distance strikes into southern Iran — strikes that would still require air-refueling to have any meaningful reach?
Because you sure as hell aren’t going to sail a couple carrier strike groups into the Persian Gulf. And anyone who believes otherwise is drowning in delusion. I mean, just look at the damn map! The Iranians have potent fire control over the passage from the Gulf of Oman, through the Strait of Hormuz, and throughout the entire Persian Gulf.
Strait of Hormuz / Persian Gulf
So I ask, in all seriousness, what exactly are two US Navy carrier strike groups going to do in the context of a no-holds-barred war against Iran?
To me, the entire concept screams of hubris running blindly into catastrophe.
If the US is foolish enough to start a big war against Iran, then 2025 is likely to demonstrate yet again that, combined with firepower, geography is the indomitable god of war.
Former Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki warned that Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is seeking to drag the region into a major war by escalating the confrontation with Iran, which could ignite complex internal conflicts in the Middle East.
In a statement to Al-Resalah Net, Marzouki said the current phase is characterised by great instability where the region is experiencing increasing turmoil.
He pointed out that US President Donald Trump is a fickle politician who cannot be trusted and who is being dragged into new wars by Israel.
“The current situation portends an explosion, but the Arab peoples remain calm, and this is what occupies my mind. We are living through a period similar to what we witnessed in 2010, when everything seemed calm before the spark that completely changed the scene,” he said
Marzouki criticised the Egyptian position toward the Gaza Strip, saying,
The Egyptians act as if they are not a party to what is happening, while in reality they are participating in the strangulation of Gaza by continuing to close the crossings and restricting aid.
He added that the Israeli occupation continues its crimes and massacres in Gaza without deterrence, but the situation will not remain as it is, and the time will come to take action and stand up against this unjust reality.
Marzouki concluded by emphasizing that history indicates that the situation will not remain as it is, warning that an Israeli escalation could lead to a regional explosion, with serious repercussions for the entire region.
Since Donald Trump returned to the White House on January 20, 2025, there was an initial sense of hope that he would wind down the conflict in Ukraine. However, continued flows of military aid to Ukraine and slow progress in the negotiations still make a lasting peace settlement a distant prospect.
The Trump administration’s preference would be to conclude the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine and shift its geopolitical gaze to Asia to contain China. The icing on the cake would be for the United States to have Russia break its “no limits partnership” with China to isolate the East Asian giant. In effect, Trump is attempting to pull a “reverse Nixon” strategy in its foreign policy approach. This strategy aims to improve relations with Russia to balance against China, in contrast to then-President Richard Nixon’s original approach of engaging with Communist China to counter the Soviet Union.
U.S. foreign policy, idealistic grandstanding notwithstanding, is suffused with cynical geopolitical plays. The Trump administration looks to use this sleight of hand against China by playing Russia off against it, even to the point of tricking both Eurasian heavyweights into protracted conflicts. Such a scenario would be every DC strategist’s dream—a Eurasian plane mired in conflict while the United States sits on the sidelines waiting for the moment to waltz in as the dominant power in the Eurasian domain. All of this done without firing a shot.
Heading back to reality: U.S. foreign policy strategists will find that prying Russia from China, much less baiting it into an open conflict with China, will be a tall order. The numerous factors that led to Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972, wherein Sino-American relations were subsequently normalized and exploited to serve as a counterweight against the Soviet Union, are simply not there in the present.
For one, relations between the Soviets and Chinese were already fraught prior to Nixon and his trusty sidekick Henry Kissinger using clever statecraft to woo over the Chinese. Enter the Sino-Soviet split, in which relations between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Soviet Union (USSR) deteriorated, starting in the late 1950s and intensifying throughout the 1960s.
This rupture in Sino-Soviet relations was brought about by a combination of factors. Following the death of Soviet strongman Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev initiated a de-Stalinization agenda and moved towards peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West, which Chinese leader Mao Zedong perceived as an ideological betrayal and “revisionism.” On Mao’s end, his Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution polices clashed with Khrushchev’s more moderate approach to communism.
The twentieth century split between the two Eurasian giants was not exclusively ideological; it had a geopolitical component as well. China’s growing assertiveness under Mao led to tensions over leadership in the communist world. The USSR’s decision to cut aid to Maoist China in 1960, coupled with the Soviet’s support for India during the Sino-Indian War of 1962, further strained Sino-Soviet relations. Border clashes between the Soviets and Chinese in 1969 underscored their rivalry, as U.S. foreign policy strategists looked from afar with great interest.
Internally, China was also reeling from the disastrous effects of the Great Leap Forward—economic collapse and famine—and growing political intrigue brought about by the Cultural Revolution’s numerous purges of the Chinese political structure.Against this backdrop of heightened tension on the domestic and international fronts, prominent leaders such as Minister of National Defense Lin Biao insisted that China maintain hawkish relations toward both the Soviets and the United States. Lin perceived both the United States and Soviet Union as imperial powers that threatened Chinese interests, standing in contrast to Mao and Premier Zhou Enlai’s efforts to pursue diplomatic ties with the United States to counterbalance Soviet hostility.
However, Lin’s death in 1971 in a suspicious plane crash cleared the way for China’s leadership class to pursue a rapprochement with the United States. Shortly thereafter, China’s positive overtures to the United States culminated in President Richard Nixon’s historic visit in 1972. In turn, the “Chimerica” project was forged with China as the workshop of the world in the liberal economic order.
However, this arrangement in the international order would begin to disintegrate after the United States prosecuted unpopular nation-building ventures in the Middle East and was at the center of the global financial crisis of 2007-2008. This series of events discredited the U.S.-led liberal order among many of the resurging actors on the world stage such as China and Russia. The United States’ penchant for being “agreement incapable” on issues regarding NATO expansion and the Iran nuclear deal lent further credence to the idea that Washington is an erratic diplomatic actor that can’t be trusted to abide by international norms.
As the forces of nationalism and great power competition returned, the very notion of the preeminent powers of the Eurasian plane submitting to the whims of DC seemed fantastical at best. The previously mentioned intricacies of Cold War geopolitics and the United States’ bungled economic and foreign policies of the past three decades makes the realization of a “reverse Nixon” strategy a pipe dream at best. Dialing down tensions with Russia is fine but it should be done without ulterior motives.
Perhaps the United States should start treating countries like Russia as normal political entities as opposed to geopolitical playthings for American strategists to exploit to their heart’s content.
March 2025 marks the beginning of a fourth year of the military conflict in Ukraine. Kiev, its sponsors in Europe and the United States, are proving unwilling to end the war being waged despite mounting evidence they are facing a major political and military defeat.
Zelensky vs Trump?
The five-year, electoral mandate dating from May 2019 of Volodymyr Zelensky as president of Ukraine expired ten months ago. Yet on February 28, Zelensky staged a widely publicized quarrel with the new US administration in Washington headed by Donald Trump. The administration reacted, in turn, with a dramatic suspension of US arms shipments and sharing of intelligence and satellite data. Without this data, Ukrainian troops are ‘blinded’ because US military specialists have played a key role in helping choose Russian targets and helping operate complex rocket and missile weaponry. Particularly valuable are the images provided, with US government approval, by US commercial satellite imaging company Maxar.
The ‘suspensions’ were very short-lived. A meeting in Saudi Arabia on March 11 between the Kiev government and the Trump administration saw a renewal of the briefly-disrupted partnership between the two after its brief interruption in supplying military data and equipment. The meeting issued a proposal to Russia (better described as a threat) prepared in advance by Washington for a 30-day ‘ceasefire’. Critics in Russia and abroad say the proposal would allow the Ukraine Armed Forces to rest and regroup. If Russia turned it down, the Western powers could then condemn it for refusing peace.
Every serious analyst is pointing out that the ceasefire proposal does not at all address Russia’s well-publicized minimum conditions for a peace settlement. In other words, the plan is something of a trap for Russia. For that reason, it will not see the light of day.
Zelensky was absent from the Ukraine delegation in Saudi Arabia. He remains apprehensive over the prospect that Trump may wish to replace him and could do so at any time. Ukrainian political analyst Kost Bondarenko, who now lives abroad, explained on Telegram on March 4 that Zelensky is no longer listening to anyone, including those in his personal entourage. “He is acting hysterically and capriciously, recognizing only his own claimed righteousness. He doesn’t even listen to Yermak [head of the Office of the President of Ukraine]. His egocentrism has made Ukraine hostage to his whims.”
Europe benefits from the war
Zelensky is seeking more support from his patrons in the European Union and becoming more dependent on them, especially on the government of Great Britain. The latter continues to encourage him to sacrifice the people of Ukraine in a losing war against Russia.
Former Ukrainian (now Russian) political scientist Rostislav Ishchenko said in an interview on March 7 that the only difference between the Trump regime in Washington and the leading governments of the European Union is that ‘liberal’ Europe wants a consolidated West under a ‘liberal’ image while the right-wing, conservative Trump regime wants a united West focused on weakening and paralyzing Russia while simultaneously weakening China.
“Trump’s goal is not to make life easier for Russia. Trump’s goal is to get a peace that is acceptable to America. So far, everything that Trump formulates is absolutely unacceptable to us.”
Another former Ukrainian and now Russian political analyst Andrey Vajra told a Crimea news broadcast in February that the war in Ukraine has helped the European elites to appropriate billions of euros. “Europeans understand perfectly well that the war is lost. But the European elite needs to continue stealing [from weapons supplying and the multitude of forms of ‘aid’]. I have already explained how it is possible to continue stealing billions of euros so long as the killings continue in Ukraine. Far more millions of euros can be had. That’s why the European leaders are clinging to a warmaking Ukraine.”
In early March, the head of German intelligence, Bruno Kahl, stated in an interview with the state-run Deutsche Welle that it would be ‘safer’ for Europe if the war in Ukraine continued for another five years. He criticized the Trump administration, saying the kind of swift end to the war being voiced by Trump “would enable the Russians to focus their energy against Europe”. This suggested ‘long war’ against Russia is the new, official theme of EU leaders as they strive to convince their populations of the need to massively expand military spending.
Even former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko (2007-2010) of the Batkivshchyna faction in the Ukrainian legislature says she is outraged by Kahl’s frank admission. “Bruno Kahl for the first time officially confirmed what we were so reluctant to believe: At the cost of thousands of Ukrainian lives and the very existence of Ukraine, some people decided on a war to ‘deplete’ Russia and thereby enhance the security in Europe? I did not think that they would dare to say it so officially and openly. This explains a lot,” Tymoshenko doth protest too much. She was a key fomentor of the violent, Maidan coup in February 2014 and an ardent advocate since then of military and political confrontation with Russia.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has also stated that a peace agreement could be more dangerous for Ukraine than an ongoing war. “I understand that many people believe that a peaceful solution or a ceasefire is a good idea, but we run the risk that peace in Ukraine would actually be more dangerous than the war that is ongoing now.”
Such pro-war stances are not only due to the fact that Western companies are getting rich on fulfilling military orders. A permanent war in Ukraine appeals to many Western leaders because this would weaken and pre-occupy Russia. “Israel” has long acted on the same principle in the Middle East. It has waged bloody wars in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon to weaken these countries and prevent them from doing anything to stop “Israel’s” genocide against Palestinians and its occupation of Syrian territory.
Those who justify continued war in Ukraine make two contradictory assertions. On the one hand, they argue that the war has greatly weakened Russia and that the government there may soon collapse. Ukrainians should therefore fight just a little longer to secure ‘victory’. On the other hand, they say that Russia has become too strong and is a threat to overrun more European countries in the future. Ukrainian social networks have coined an ironic term for this contradictory belief system, calling it ‘Russophrenia’ (derived from the word ‘schizophrenia’).
The end of Ukraine’s adventure in Kursk
Disaster has befallen the Ukraine Armed Forces present in the Kursk border region of Russia. Large numbers of Ukrainian troops have become encircled—as many as 10,000 according to some Western media outlets. A March 8 report in a Ukrainian media outlet nervously reassured that the situation in Kursk “is not yet catastrophic”.
The Ukrainian military command did not issue any orders to retreat from threatened encirclements in Kursk. This repeats the experiences with earlier military encirclements in Donbass. These have allowed the Russian army to make steady and continued military advances there.
As reported by the online Politnavigator on March 7, a former advisor to the office of Zelensky, Alexei Arestovich, sees a familiar pattern to events in Kursk. “In dire conditions where encirclement is threatened, only the introduction of reserve troops can help. So we [the Ukraine Armed Forces] proceed as usual: drop in a few reserves removed from other threatened locations. These will most likely be unable to stabilize for any length of time because there are few reserves to draw upon. No one is left. Even worse is to keep the army in encirclements or threatened encirclements for too long, waiting for the political leadership to give an order to retreat. But those orders do not come. This scenario has repeated itself over and over again. We need to stop playing by such scenarios.”
Arestovich lives in exile somewhere in Europe and has said he would be a candidate in a forthcoming election for president of Ukraine should a free election take place.
On March 8-9, Russian troops managed rather easily to contain the remaining Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast and cut off re-supply routes. This was partly helped by the spring thaw because Western-supplied military equipment becomes booged down in mud; it is designed primarily for use on paved or improved gravel roads.
Ukrainian opposition blogger Anatoliy Shariy writes that the losses of the AFU in Kursk are huge – some of the biggest losses that Ukrainian servicemen can remember.
The Ukrainian grouping in Kursk was centered around the border town of Suzdha. It is the site of an important pumping and transit station for a natural gas pipeline built during the Soviet era which connects the vast gas fields of eastern Russia to markets in Ukraine and further west in Europe. In January, Ukraine shut down pipeline shipments through Suzdha, drawing sharp protests and threats of counter-measures from Hungary and Slovakia.
An ironic consequence of Ukraine shutting down the pipeline was that Russian soldiers were able to use the now-empty pipeline to advance some 15 kilometers directly into the center of the Ukrainian grouping in Suzdha. They waited days for orders. Russia then surprised and overwhelmed the embedded Ukrainian forces with a multi-pronged attack beginning on March 8. Many Ukrainian soldiers and allied mercenaries ended up stampeding into surrounding minefields.
Russian military correspondent Anna Dolgareva spoke to Russian military scouts in Suzdha and reported, “For six days, the Russian fighters sat inside the pipeline awaiting orders to move. They spent some 24 hours of difficult walking to get there. The pipeline still contained traces of methane gas and so holes were cut in the pipe along the way for ventilation.”
This operation was made possible because Ukraine shut off gas transit causing European countries to buy much more expensive liquefied gas from producers in the United States. Western sanctions against Russia have cost Europe its supply of relatively cheap Russian gas, replaced by shipments of expensive liquefied natural gas from the United States as well as gas from Norway and Algeria shipped by pipeline.
Ukrainian elite on ‘starvation rations’
Representatives of the Ukrainian political elite are today extremely worried about Zelensky’s quarrel with the new US administration that exploded into view in Washington on February 28. For most, funding from the United States is their main source of income.
Since the early 1990s, Ukraine has developed an entire class of government officials and politicians who have ‘monetized’ Russophobia and anti-communism. A key piece of moving up the career ladder has been to act the loudest in stigmatizing the former Soviet Union and modern Russian Federation, and figuring out how best to draw Western funding for such efforts. This scheme has worked well for decades, but now the apparent chaos being sown by the new Trump regime in Washington has upset the old arrangements. The chaos is merely the expression of a governing U.S. regime facing a looming defeat of its proxy war in Ukraine along with its European partners.
Some legislators realize that Zelensky’s harsh outbursts and confrontation with Trump and Trump’s vice president in Washington on February 28 could cost the country dearly, but others are betting on maintaining an aggressive, pro-war rhetoric. They are looking to the British government to help out.
Alexei Arestovich writes that Zelensky’s ‘disobedience’ is based solely on his desire to extract security guarantees for himself and his entourage. He says the problem for the White House is that “providing personal guarantees to thieves risks setting yourself up before American justice.”
Ukrainian economist Oleksiy Kushch writes that for the Ukrainian elite, the era when it could act as a child and demand money from the ‘adult uncles’ in the West is coming to an end. The West is so used to that arrangement that Zelensky’s apparent conflicts with the U.S. administration are bewildering, a kind of ‘revolt against the boss’.
Kushch summarizes Ukraine’s situation after Zelensky’s quarrel with Trump in this way, “Like a teenager who ‘unexpectedly’ has a child and finds all responsibility now rests on him, ‘daddy’ U.S. may threaten to stop helping out as punishment for any ‘disobedience’ while ‘mommy’ Europe promises to continue giving money but not forever.”
The Ukrainian elite has been thoroughly corrupted by years of generous Western ‘aid’ handouts. It no longer knows how to earn revenue and wealth on its own. So if some character named Zelensky becomes an obstacle to the continued flow of ‘daddy’s’ money, he becomes expendable. So much the worse for him.
Neoconservatism began to take root in the 1970s as strength through militarism and an interventionist foreign policy were increasingly seen as the path to peace. Ideological Manicheanism and narratives of peace through strength challenged more traditional concepts of security that focused on mitigating the security dilemma. Human rights, rather than restraining the use of force, were discovered as a weapon that would legitimize the removal of restraints on the use of force.
I had a conversation with Alastair Crooke and Alexander Mercouris about the geoeconomic confusion in Europe. The US is repositioning itself as the unipolar world order has ended, and multipolarity is already here. The Europeans have no strategy and the policies subsequent lack direction and reason. In Isreal, society has polarised to the extent that political and societal instability will become a challenge to national security.
A prominent legal expert says Yemen is being bombed by the United States and the United Kingdom for fulfilling obligations set by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).
Craig Mokhiber, a US-based human rights lawyer and former United Nations official, took to his X handle, formerly Twitter, on Monday to condemn the latest American-British aggression on Yemen.
He said both the ICJ and the UNGA have found that all countries are “legally obliged” to cease any kind of support for the Israeli occupation regime amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
The obligations, he elaborated, include banning any products from the illegal settlements, to cut off all military, diplomatic, economic, commercial, financial, investment, and trade relations with the Israeli occupation, to respect the provisional orders of the ICJ in the Israel genocide case, and to respect their third-state obligations under the Genocide Convention to act to prevent and stop Genocide.
“Yemen is being bombed for respecting these obligations,” he remarked.
Mokhiber, who previously served as the director of the New York office of the UN high commissioner for human rights, resigned from his position in October 2023 in protest against the UN’s “failure” to prevent the genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
He described the US, the UK and much of Europe as “wholly complicit in the horrific assault.”
American and British warplanes attacked Yemen on Saturday night after US President Donald Trump vowed to use “overwhelming lethal force” against the poorest country in the Arab world that had recently resumed a ban on Israeli ships from crossing key maritime regions after the Tel Aviv regime reimposed crippling blockade on the besieged Palestinian territory.
Yemeni health ministry condemned the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, describing it as a “full-fledged war crime and a blatant violation of international laws and conventions.”
The US-UK military coalition launched another attack on Sunday night, with Yemeni authorities now putting the death toll at more than 50, including women and children.
According to Yemeni reports, American and British warplanes launched at least 47 airstrikes on several sites in Yemen’s capital, Sana’a as well as areas in the northern province of Sa’ada, the central province of al-Bayda, and the southwestern province of Dhamar.
The leader of the Ansarullah resistance movement in a speech on Sunday night warned the United States that the aggression against the Arab country will be met with escalation.
“The aircraft carrier and American warships will be targets for us, and the navigation ban will include the Americans as long as they persist in their aggression,” Abdul Malik al-Houthi said.
“We will respond to escalation with escalation, and we will strike at the American enemy by targeting its aircraft carrier, warships, and imposing a blockade on its vessels.”
Over the weekend President Trump ordered a massive military operation against the small country of Yemen. Was Yemen in the process of attacking the United States? No. Did the President in that case go to Congress and seek a declaration of war against the country? No. The fact is, Yemen hadn’t even threatened the United States before the bombs started falling.
Last year, candidate Trump strongly criticized the Biden Administration’s obsession with foreign interventionism to the detriment of our problems at home. In an interview at the Libertarian National Convention, he criticized Biden’s warmongering to podcaster Tim Pool, saying, “You can solve problems over a telephone. Instead they start dropping bombs. Recently, they’re dropping bombs all over Yemen. You don’t have to do that.”
Yet once in office, Trump turned to military force as his first option. Since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire plan negotiated by President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, Yemen has left Red Sea shipping alone. However, after Israel implemented a total blockade of humanitarian relief to citizens of Gaza last week, Houthi leaders threatened to again begin blocking Israel’s Red Sea shipping activities.
That was enough for President Trump to drop bombs and launch missiles for hours, killing several dozen Yemeni civilians – including women and children – in the process.
After the attack, Trump not only threatened much more force to be used against Yemen, but he also threatened Iran. His National Security Advisor Mike Waltz added that the US may start bombing Iranian ships in the area, a move that would certainly lead to a major Middle East war.
Like recent Presidents Bush and Obama, candidate Trump promised peace after four years of Joe Biden’s warmongering and World War III brinkmanship. There is little doubt that with our war-weary population this proved the margin of his victory. Unfortunately, as with Bush and Obama, now that he is President, he appears to be heading down a different path.
The Republican Party is gradually becoming a pro-peace, America first party, but the warmongers and neocons of the old line in the Party are not going to let go so easily. Unfortunately many of these dead-enders have found their way to senior positions in Trump’s Administration, with voices of restraint and non-intervention nearly nowhere in sight among his top tier of advisors.
To solve the Yemen problem we must understand it: Russian and Chinese ships, for example, are not being threatened because they are not enabling the Israeli demolition of Gaza. The slaughter there has been facilitated with US money and US weapons. It is the US doing Israel’s bidding both in Gaza and in the Red Sea that is painting a target on us and unnecessarily putting our troops at risk of retaliation.
The US government, starting with Biden and continuing now with Trump, seems eager to make this our war even though, as Rep. Thomas Massie pointed out over the weekend, Red Sea shipping is of minor importance to the US economy.
In a real “America first” foreign policy we would be following the Russian and Chinese lead and staying out of the conflict. It’s not our war. End US military involvement in the Middle East and our troubles disappear. It really is that simple.
On Saturday, US President Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon “to launch a decisive and powerful military operation” against the Houthis of Yemen with “overwhelming lethal force” in the most significant military action of his second term, to date.
The US attacks began on Saturday and continued into Sunday on the Yemeni capital Sanaa and other areas reportedly killing 31 people and wounding 101 so far, most of them children and women.
Such wanton killing of defenceless women and children can only be seen as an act of cowardice. Trump has blood on his hands. Trump wrote on Truth Social addressing the Houthis, “Your time is up, and your attacks must stop, starting today. If they don’t, hell will rain down upon you like nothing you have ever seen before.”
Thereupon, Trump abruptly digressed to address Iran that it needed to immediately stop supporting the Houthis. Trump threatened, “America will hold you fully accountable and, we won’t be nice about it!”
Iran has reacted strongly. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Trump has no authority or business to dictate Iran’s foreign policy. Araghchi noted that Houthis are only reacting to “Israeli genocide and terrorism”. The commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps General Hossein Salami warned that Iran would give “a destructive response” to any attack.
Trump’s belligerence came within two days of a visit by Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, to Tehran on Thursday to hand over a letter from Trump addressed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing talks on Iran’s nuclear programme and Iran’s support to resistance groups. Tehran remains open to nuclear talks but has rejected any linkage with its regional policies.
Meanwhile, Tehran has begun circling the wagons as a new phase is beginning in Trump’s foreign policies, with tensions rising steadily over the nuclear issue. The October deadline is drawing closer by the day for invoking the snapback clause in the JCPOA (2015 Iran nuclear deal) to reinstate UN Security Council sanctions will expire, and Iran’s enrichment programme, on the other hand, has apparently reached a point where it already has a stockpile to make “several” nuclear bombs, per the International Atomic Energy Agency.
On March 14, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi hosted a joint meeting in Beijing with the Russian and Iranian deputy foreign ministers where he proposed five points “on the proper settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue”, which, for all purposes endorsed Tehran’s stance. It was a resounding diplomatic victory for Iran.
Interestingly, the Beijing meeting was timed to coincide with the conclusion of a 6-day naval exercise at Iran’s Chabahar Port with the theme of Creating Peace and Security Together between the navies of Iran, Russia and China. A readout by the Chinese Ministry of Defence stated that “The naval exercise enhanced the joint operational capabilities of the three navies to respond to various emergencies and maintain maritime security, deepened military trust and practical cooperation among the navies of the participating countries, and laid a solid foundation for future cooperation.”
All these developments taken into account, Trump faces multiple challenges at the diplomatic level over the Iranian nuclear issue with Tehran, Moscow and Beijing coordinating their approaches in the crucial six-month period ahead and Tehran giving confusing signals over Trump’s letter to Khamenei. Trump cannot be pleased with the developing situation on the diplomatic track and some pressure tactic becomes necessary against Iran. Simply put, Trump’s egocentric mind took the easy route of punching the Houthis so hard to send an indirectmessage to Tehran (and Moscow and Beijing) that he is not to be trifled with.
Indeed, Moscow has lately waded into the Iran nuclear issue and is positioning itself for a mediatory role potentially. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently came out against attaching extraneous issues (eg., verifiable arrangements by Tehran to ensure the cessation of its support for resistance groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria) to the nuclear negotiations. Lavrov said frankly, “Such a thing is unlikely to yield results.”
Lavrov has also emphasised Moscow’s support for Tehran’s basic stance that any resumption of US-Iran negotiations ought to be stemming from the 2015 nuclear deal known as the JCPOA which carries the approval of the UN Security Council (which of course Trump tore up in 2018.)
Don’t be surprised if Moscow is wading into the US-Iran nuclear standoff with great deliberation when it is tackling on a parallel track Trump’s intrusive calls for cessation of Russian special military operations in Ukraine even while there is much unfinished business which remains to be completed and Ukraine showing no genuine interest in negotiations with Russia — and has actually enacted a law expressly prohibiting such negotiations.
Specifically, Trump would know he is in no position to get Zelensky to agree to a surrender of weapons by the Ukrainian troops in Kursk — although, Putin has offered that “If they lay down their weapons and surrender, they will be guaranteed life and decent treatment.”
The crunch time is coming as the Russian deadline for peaceful surrender is about to expire by 6 am Moscow time today. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council wrote on Telegram channel that “should they refuse to lay down arms, they will all be systematically and mercilessly eliminated.” Trump’s nerves must be on edge as embedded within the Ukrainian occupying forces there could be Western mercenaries as well.
In the circumstances, one feels sorry for the Houthis whom Trump is using as a punchbag to vent his frustrations and suppressed fury against Tehran. Top officials in the Trump administration have openly acknowledged that Tehran is being notified that “enough is enough” — an expression used by Trump’s National Security advisor Mike Waltz to interpret the nuanced message of the air and missile strike against the Houthis.
Certainly, Yemen which has gone through so much suffering does not deserve such bestial attacks. As for Houthis, they are yet to attack any ships despite threatening to do so over Israel’s blockade on all food, fuel and other supplies into the Gaza Strip. The Houthis have accused the Trump administration of overstating the threat of maritime embargo, which is limited only to Israeli navigation until humanitarian aid is delivered to the people of Gaza according to the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel.
Evidently, the Houthis are neither looking for a showdown with Trump nor are they to be regarded as Iranian proxies. Houthis halted the drone and missile attacks altogether when the Gaza ceasefire was declared in January. Even Trump’s best argument is that Houthis had attacked US ships during the Biden administration.
Nonetheless, US Central Command described Saturday’s strikes as the start of a large-scale operation that may continue indefinitely. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on X, “Houthi attacks on American ships & aircraft (and our troops!) will not be tolerated; and Iran, their benefactor, is on notice, Freedom of Navigation will be restored.” Behind such fictitious rhetoric, Hegseth probably understands that Trump expects him to keep the pot boiling in the Gulf region through the next several months as the Iran nuclear issue approaches a point of criticality.
The Russian Foreign Ministry, in a readout on Saturday, stated that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Lavrov and informed him about the US decision to attack the Houthis. It said Lavrov, in response, “emphasised the need for an immediate cessation of the use of force and the importance of all parties engaging in political dialogue to find a solution that prevents further bloodshed.” Well, the shoe is on the other foot now, isn’t it? On March 15, Trump forfeited the moral ground to be leading with peace through strength in his foreign policy.
By F. William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 11.04.2022
Amid the ongoing global inflation crisis, NATO heads of state and mainstream media repeat a mantra that high energy prices are a direct result of Putin’s actions in Ukraine since end of February. The reality is that it is the western sanctions that are responsible. Those sanctions including cutting SWIFT interbank access for key Russian banks and some of the most severe sanctions ever imposed, are hardly having an impact on the military actions in Ukraine. What many overlook is the fact that they are increasingly impacting the economies of the West, especially the EU and USA. A closer look at the state of the global supply of diesel fuel is alarming. But Western sanctions planners at the US Treasury and the EU know fully well what they are doing. And it bodes ill for the world economy.
While most of us rarely think about diesel fuel as anything other than a pollutant, in fact it is essential to the entire world economy in a way few energy sources are. The director general of Fuels Europe, part of the European Petroleum Refiners Association, stated recently, “… there is a clear link between diesel and GDP, because almost everything that goes into and out of a factory goes using diesel.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
