Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Forget Oil: Natural Gas Prices Are About to Go Through the Roof If Hormuz Isn’t Reopened Soon

Sputnik – 01.03.2026

“Gas prices may rise, because approximately 20% of the world’s LNG transits through the Strait of Hormuz, including all of Qatar’s production,” Igor Yushkov, a top Russian energy expert, told Sputnik, commenting on the Persian Gulf crisis.

“Qatar is one of the largest producers of LNG in the world, second only to Australia and the US. If there’s a shortage of LNG on the global market…the exchange price could easily exceed $1k or even 1.5k. We’ve seen similar prices in Europe even without such a shortage. So the price could skyrocket.”

According to Yushkov, “everything will depend on how long the tension in the Strait of Hormuz lasts,” including not only Iran’s readiness to reopen it, but gas producers’ willingness to resume transit.

“In any case, we will see higher shipping costs, higher insurance costs for ships,” with the situation “further exacerbated” by the fact that the Northern Hemisphere is still in the heating season, with Europe’s underground gas storage facilities being gradually depleted.

“Even though Qatar gas physically goes primarily to Asian markets, the exchange price will rise everywhere,” same as oil, Yushkov clarified. Qatar itself also has no alternative to Hormuz. “Therefore, if it is unable to export LNG, Qatar will simply have to stop production.”

Message to China

The current crisis is also “a major wake-up call for China,” with the US demonstrating its readiness to flout international law, Yushkov says.

“China is being shown that anything coming from the south is unsafe. Passage through the Strait of Hormuz may be interrupted today as part of the current conflict, but tomorrow the Americans could close it off to Qatari LNG supplies to the Chinese market.”

“Or they could close the Strait of Malacca, through which all the hydrocarbons going to China from Africa and the entire Middle East flow. Therefore, this is a signal to China that anything coming from the north is much safer, and much more difficult to shut down,” the observer summed up.

March 1, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Forget Oil: Natural Gas Prices Are About to Go Through the Roof If Hormuz Isn’t Reopened Soon

Hormuz Strait: Iran’s Strategic Trump Card for Forcing Enemies to the Negotiating Table

Sputnik – 01.03.2026

Iran is in an “existential confrontation” with the US and Israel, and restricting access to the Hormuz Strait – entry point to the oil-rich Persian Gulf region, is one of the “most powerful strategic cards” it holds, says Dr. Ali Mamouri, a former strategic communication advisor to Iraq’s prime minister.

“Iran’s broader strategy appears to be buying time and raising the cost of the conflict, hoping to drag the United States into a prolonged and expensive confrontation that would generate domestic political pressure on President Trump to seek a ceasefire,” Mamouri told Sputnik.

“On the other side, Washington and Israel seem to be betting on internal collapse—expecting that military pressure might trigger protests, elite divisions, or defections within Iran’s security forces. So far, however, none of these internal fractures have appeared.”

“A prolonged closure” of the Hormuz Strait would have a profound impact on the global economy, Mamouri says.

“A sustained disruption would likely trigger sharp spikes in global oil prices.” Beyond that, the import-heavy economies of Gulf countries, and oil import-dependent economies of Asia and Europe could descend into crises, shipping insurance premiums would surge, global supply chains wrecked, and inflation skyrocketing, “affecting everything from fuel prices to manufacturing and food supply.”

“In this sense, a prolonged crisis in the Strait of Hormuz could trigger a domino effect across the global economy, combining energy shocks, trade disruptions and financial instability,” Mamouri stressed. “If Iran manages to maintain a sustained disruption, it could become a powerful bargaining tool to force negotiations and potentially halt the current military escalation.”

March 1, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Hormuz Strait: Iran’s Strategic Trump Card for Forcing Enemies to the Negotiating Table

Trump bit off more than he can chew with Iran – ex-Pentagon analyst

RT | March 1, 2026

The US-Israeli strikes on Iran are unlikely to trigger regime change and risk escalating into a wider geopolitical confrontation, former Pentagon security policy analyst Michael Maloof has told RT.

Washington and West Jerusalem launched what they described as a “preemptive” attack on the Islamic Republic after nuclear talks failed to produce a breakthrough, prompting retaliation from Iran. Tehran responded with missile and drone strikes targeting Israel and US military bases across the region.

In an interview with RT on Saturday, Maloof said the timing of the attack had likely been finalized during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Mar-a-Lago on February 12, despite President Donald Trump publicly insisting that negotiations with Tehran were ongoing.

“The United States has always done Israel’s bidding. Netanyahu basically controls Trump,” Maloof claimed, adding that the US president has effectively pursued the Israeli PM’s vision of “a greater Israel to encompass all the Arab countries.”

Trump openly declared his goal to force regime change in Tehran, but efforts to topple Iran’s government would face major obstacles, according to Maloof.

“Regime change is something that is going to be difficult, especially in Iran, where they’re very, very set. They have a government in place,” he said. Even with the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would likely keep the country functioning as a “cohesive nation-state.”

At the same time, he described the strikes as part of a broader strategic confrontation extending beyond Iran’s nuclear or missile programs, noting how the US president has been openly critical of BRICS and China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

“And Iran just happened to be a very critical component to that, with Russia and with China,” Maloof said. “I think Trump bit off more than he could chew on this one.”

“These attacks are gonna affect the whole economic world order, literally overnight. So we’re in for a long, hard slug here,” Maloof said, adding that “it’s easy to start a war, but [it’s harder to know] how to stop one.”

March 1, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Trump bit off more than he can chew with Iran – ex-Pentagon analyst

Murdering Khamenei Will Kill Trump’s Presidency

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 1, 2026

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei was assassinated in what is being described in western media as a joint airstrike operation. Even though the Israeli air-force carried out airstrikes in and around Tehran, it is clear that these were supported by the U.S. military. As such, the U.S. is complicit in the murder of the Head of State of a sovereign nation.

And this unilateral military action once again proved both that the United Nations Charter has lost its value and that the UN Security Council is now broken.

In his opening remarks to the Security Council, Secretary General António Guterres condemned the military strikes by the U.S. and Israel, which also condemning the Iranian response, citing Article 2 of the UN Charter.

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The enormous and ongoing military strikes against Iran were clearly in breach of that Article.

In its response to the Security Council, Iran’s Representative cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individuals or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Article 51 is one of only two exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force by UN members set out in Article 2.

The strikes were all the more cynical for taking place part way through talks moderated by the government of Oman. Indeed, Guterres hinted at this in his remarks, saying:

“The U.S. and Israeli attacks occurred following the third round of indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran mediated by Oman.

Preparations had been made for technical talks in Vienna next week followed by a new round of political talks.

I deeply regret that this opportunity of diplomacy has been squandered.”

Pakistan’s representative at the Council was more blunt, saying that “diplomacy has once again been derailed as these attacks have happened right in the middle of negotiations.”

Indeed, the strikes confirmed that the UN Security council has become completely unable to take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

On the 80th anniversary of the founding of the UN Secretary General Guterres warned that “fragile” legitimacy of the Security Council could endanger global peace if it remains gridlocked and fails to fulfil its primary purpose.

All of the the western nations around the UN Security Council table last night showed themselves to be weak and silent, in the face of American’s military might.

As one, they criticised Iran’s unprovoked attacks on Gulf states, as Iranian ballistic missiles targeted U.S. military sites in Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait, while also targeting Israel. Self evidently, Iran was targeting U.S. military installations in all of those countries and. Indeed, the U.S.’ fifth fleet Headquarters in Bahrain was struck by at least one ballistic missile. Yet civilian sites also got hit, including in the UAE and in Bahrain.

However, there was no mention at all of the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in the statements of western nations at the Security Council, as if they feared U.S. reprisals if they spoke out. Not a single word from the French, the Latvians, the Danes, the Greeks, even the Bahrainis, only that Iran murdered its citizens and should not be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb.

In the end the acting UK Permanent Representative, James Kariuki, who I can tell you from personal experience is the most arrogant and puffed up British diplomat that I ever met, said that:

“Iran must refrain from further strikes, and its appalling behaviour, to allow a path back to diplomacy.”

The sitting President of the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom (the U.S. takes over the Presidency today) did not utter a single word about the USA or Israel. No attempt, as the country convening the meeting, to seek common ground and some agreement on the way forward.

Britain’ approach was merely to blame Iran in what the Russian Federation representative described in his intervention as ‘victim blaming’. I already knew that Britain had given up diplomacy in 2014, but this appeared yet another nail in a coffin which the UK refuses to bury as it pretends to be a nation of diplomacy. It is not. Britain is now a nation of warmongers without the troops to fight.

While final confirmation of the fact had yet to be provided at that time, the Prime Minister of Israel and President Trump were already celebrating the possible killing of Khamanei. ‘The dictator is gone,’ Netanyahu crowed.

In his social media statement, President Trump called on Iranian people to rise up and take over their country.

Yet within hours, sources within the CIA were already leaking reports that Khamenei may simply be replaced by IRGC hardliners.

As I have pointed out before, rather than fomenting revolution, unilateral military action against Iran may have the opposite effect and mobilise Iranian resistance.

This idea was stated with great clarity by Professor Robert Pape of Chicago University who said:

“With each passing day of regime-targeting airstrikes, we lose control over the political dynamics they unleash.

It becomes less about individual leaders and more about national survival. Less about dissent and more about resistance.

Imagine if a foreign power struck Washington and called on Americans to overthrow their government. Would citizens rally against their leaders — or against the foreign attacker?”

Iran is a country of 92 million people with an army of over 610,000. It is a tightly controlled state and as we saw in January is more than capable and ready to stifle internal dissent, including through violent means. It also does not have an oven-ready opposition lined up in the wings that can walk in unopposed and miraculously take over the country. To suggest that it does takes us into Bay of Pigs territory.

Having already kidnapped the Head of State of one sovereign nation already this year, the United States of America has now murdered another, Ayatollah Khamenei. This will unleash asymmetric threats against the U.S. and all of its allies that Donald Trump will not be able to control. If this military action drags out inconclusively, and I predict it will, then the mid-terms may prove catastrophic for Trump. I predict that the Iranian regime will outlast his.

March 1, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Murdering Khamenei Will Kill Trump’s Presidency

Unexpected Iranian reaction paralyzed Americans and Israelis on the first day of war

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 1, 2026

The recent military escalation in the Middle East revealed a strategic miscalculation on the part of Washington and Tel Aviv. By launching a direct offensive against Iran, authorities in the United States and Israel apparently assumed that Tehran would repeat the pattern observed in previous confrontations: initial restraint, calibrated retaliation, and delayed timing. This pattern was evident both during the so-called Twelve-Day War and in earlier episodes of Israeli aggression against Iranian targets and regional allies. This time, however, the calculation proved mistaken.

The central element of the initial strategy appears to have been a classic attempt at “decapitation,” targeting the Supreme Leader, his family, and other high-level figures. The underlying logic is well known: by removing the apex of decision-making authority, internal disorganization, succession disputes, and operational paralysis would follow. This approach is recurrent in Western military doctrine, especially when directed against states considered systemic adversaries.

However, this type of strategy tends to fail when applied to highly institutionalized states equipped with complex political-military structures. Iran is not a fragile entity dependent on a single personal command center. It is a system with multiple layers of authority, defined chains of succession, and deep integration between the state apparatus, regular armed forces, and parallel security structures. Moreover, it is a civilization with millennia of historical continuity, whose contemporary political identity was consolidated precisely under external pressure. The elimination of an individual leader, even if symbolically significant, does not automatically dismantle a state with this degree of structural cohesion.

What surprised analysts was the speed of the Iranian reaction. Unlike what occurred during the Twelve-Day War, this time retaliation was immediate and multifaceted. Within the first hours after the attacks, Iran launched a series of simultaneous operations against American military installations across the Middle East. Bases used by U.S. forces were struck with missiles and drones in coordinated actions aimed at saturating defense systems and reducing interception capacity.

At the same time, Israeli defensive systems were placed under pressure through multiple and forceful attacks. Iran’s strategy was not limited to a symbolic gesture; it represented a deliberate attempt to impose immediate and visible costs, altering adversaries’ perception of risk. Throughout the first day of confrontation, the operational tempo remained constant, creating an environment of heightened uncertainty for the Zionist regime.

The multiplicity of vectors employed – different launch platforms, varied trajectories, and synchronized timing – contributed to confusion among military planners in Washington and Tel Aviv. By all indications, such a bold and rapid action was not anticipated. The assumption that Tehran would hesitate, seek mediation, or respond in a limited fashion proved incorrect. Instead, Iran sought to demonstrate its capacity for strategic coordination under maximum pressure.

This behavior suggests that Iranian authorities internalized relevant lessons from recent conflicts. Delays in responding, observed in previous episodes, were interpreted by adversaries as signs of strategic restraint or operational limitation. By opting for an immediate and comprehensive reaction, Tehran sought to redefine the rules of engagement and establish a new threshold of deterrence.

The psychological impact should not be underestimated. Continuous attacks throughout the first day reportedly generated confusion and near paralysis within certain Israeli and American decision-making circles. When multiple fronts are activated simultaneously, the ability to prioritize strategically becomes far more complex, if not effectively impossible.

It now remains to be seen how escalation will unfold in the coming days. Iran’s initial response altered the immediate balance but does not end the cycle of action and reaction. Washington and Tel Aviv face the classic dilemma between expanding the offensive – risking a large-scale regional conflict – or seeking indirect channels of containment. The first day demonstrated that the scenario evolved beyond initial expectations. From this point forward, each additional move may redefine not only the military dynamic but the broader security architecture of the entire Middle East.

March 1, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Unexpected Iranian reaction paralyzed Americans and Israelis on the first day of war

Larry Johnson: The U.S. Will Exhaust Itself & Lose War Against Iran

Glenn Diesen | February 28, 2026

Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses why the US will lose the war against Iran.

Read Larry Johnson’s Sonar21: https://sonar21.com/

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen

Patreon:   / glenndiesen  

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

February 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Larry Johnson: The U.S. Will Exhaust Itself & Lose War Against Iran

In The Name of ‘Helping Iran’, The U.S. And Israel Slaughter Over 100 Iranian Schoolgirls

The Dissident | February 28, 2026

During his announcement of the current U.S./Israeli regime change war on Iran , Trump framed the war under the pretext of helping Iranians, saying:

to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations.

For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want, so let’s see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.

But after one day of war, the U.S. and Israel have already carried out a massacre of over 100 children.

The Financial Times reports that, “A primary school in southern Iran was struck during Saturday’s joint US-Israeli military operation, killing at least 108 people who were mostly schoolgirls, according to Iranian authorities.”

According to the governor of Hormozgan Province, Mohammad Ashouri, “In addition to the deaths, 92 people were injured and an unspecified number trapped under rubble”.

The Guardian reported that , “In one video circulating on social media, purportedly showing the immediate aftermath of the strike, smoke rises from the burnt-out walls, and debris lies spread across the road. Hundreds of onlookers gathered at the site, some in obvious distress. Screams can be heard in the background,” adding, “Persian factchecking service Factnameh was able to cross-reference the video with other photographs of the school site, and concluded that the video was authentic. Reuters said it had also verified the footage as being from the school.”

Other footage also shows the bodies of the student girls who were killed in the massacre.

This massacre has also been confirmed by multiple witnesses who have spoken to the media.

Middle East Eye interviewed a staff member at the school who said, “She used to watch these young girls playing at school every day. But after today’s strikes, she saw their bodies lying on classroom benches and in different corners of the school.”

Middle East Eye added:

She said she had stepped out of the school to take care of something when she suddenly heard a horrifying sound. Within seconds, a missile – or something like it – hit the school building.

After hearing the blast, she ran back toward the school and was faced with a scene she says she will never forget for the rest of her life.

“I felt like I had gone mute. I couldn’t speak,” the staff member told MEE. “You could hear the sound of children crying and screaming.”

Drop Site News spoke to Mohammed Shariatmadar, the father of a six-year-old girl named Sara killed in the massacre, who said, “I cannot understand how a place where innocent children learn can be bombed like this, We are talking about small children who knew nothing of politics or wars. And yet they are the ones paying the highest price,” adding, “My heart is broken, For Sara and for all the children we lost today. I want the world to know that the children are the real victims. Every day that passes without a solution increases the pain and the suffering for the families and for the children alike”.

Another witness told Drop Site News, “Everyone rushed to the school the moment they heard the blasts. Chaos took over completely. Security forces were trying to push families back, fearing the area would be targeted again.”

Seyyed Ibrahim Mirkhayali, a father who lost his nine-year-old daughter in the massacre said, “I was at work when my wife called and told me that the girls’ primary school in Minab had been bombed. I could not process what I was hearing at first. Then I left immediately and drove to the school. The atmosphere was terrifying and catastrophic. The parents were in a deadly silence, filled with fear and dread for their daughters. We did not know who had gotten out and who was still under the rubble”.

Along with this media reports that “In Fars Province, also in southern Iran, ‘Israel’ killed 20 volleyball players in a strike on a sports hall in the city of Lamerd, according to a provincial official.”

While pretending to care about Iranians, the U.S. and Israel are clearly happy to massacre children and civilians in Iran in order to carry out the real goal of destroying Iran as a nation.

February 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on In The Name of ‘Helping Iran’, The U.S. And Israel Slaughter Over 100 Iranian Schoolgirls

Why are Americans killing and dying for Israel, again?

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | February 28, 2026

Israel and its US auxiliaries have attacked Iran. In terms of international law and elementary justice, things are clear beyond the slightest doubt: the attack is a war of aggression – but to be fair, in Israel’s case that hardly makes a difference anymore.

With ‘highlights’ including apartheid, ethnic cleansing, unlawful detention, torture, sexual violence, and genocide, Israel has such an extensive and constantly growing record of, literally, every crime under international law, including human-rights and humanitarian law (or the law of armed conflict), that one more or less hardly seems to matter anymore. This state is a monster, and monsters will monster as long as they can.

The US, of course, is no spring chicken either when it comes to treating international law – really, any law – as a doormat and brutally, gleefully violating the most basic ethics, the kind of simple rules normal people intuitively recognize, such as “don’t murder, lie, or steal.”

Indeed, while Israel can easily claim to be the single most criminal, indeed evil country in the world, the US wins the most-powerful-rogue-state prize hands down. There is – empirically, quantifiably – no other country that combines such ingrained and increasingly explicit scorn for law and morality with such brute power and perpetual violence. Before the current assault on Iran, the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was just the last proof of that fact, so glaringly obvious that it woke up even some Western commentators.

If some things are too obvious to merit further discussion, others are more intriguing. Let’s start with the greatest mystery: Why is the US joining – really, obeying – Israel and its powerful American lobby once again in going to war in the Middle East? Was Iraq 2003 not enough of a disaster? Are the American elites really congenitally unable to learn?

In terms of actual US interests, war against Iran makes no sense at all. Iran is not close to a nuclear bomb and, as a matter of fact, has a religiously and ethically based (hard to grasp in Washington, I know) explicit policy against acquiring one. And even if Iran were building such weapons or seeking a state of being “latently” able to do so as urgently needed insurance against permanent Israeli and US aggression, Washington would gain nothing and risk very much by going to war.

On the other hand, it was precisely the JCPOA agreement with Iran, destroyed by the US during the first Trump presidency, that proved empirically that the issue of Iranian nuclear energy use can be resolved well by compromise. As to recent, hysterical US claims about other types of WMDs and “intercontinental missiles,” it is time to no longer give such crude, dumb lies the time of day. Enough with the propaganda already.

Regime change? So, please could someone explain why installing a washed-out Pahlavi princeling – if it ever were to work, that is – in Tehran is good for Americans? Spoiler, no one can. At least not honestly. Do I hear someone say geopolitics? Oh, that would mean the “genius” geopolitics of risking a long war with great damage to the US and its regional allies? Then, perhaps it’s all about plunder? Yes, true, the US simply loves plundering. Historically speaking, the whole country is built on it, just like Israel. But even plunder on its own despicable terms only makes sense if you turn a profit. Good luck with that while sinking more gazillions into war-for-Israel.

And that brings us to the only explanation that does make sense, even if in a very grim way: The US, as in almost all Americans, has zero interest in war with Iran. As little as in a proxy war with Russia and a Cold War with China, both strategies, by the way, doomed to fail. In all three cases, the vast majority of Americans would only stand to benefit from peaceful and cooperative relationships.

But Washington chooses permanent conflict and war against Iran anyhow. The reason is that US policy in the Middle East – and not only – has been captured by Israel and its lobby. As John Mearsheimer, both doyen of explaining international relations by national interests (the theory of Realism) and co-author of the standard work on the Israel Lobby, has long acknowledged, Israel’s influence on the US is real, contradicts American interests, and forms an exception to the theory of realism in that Washington is constantly hurting its own country.

For reasonable observers, this case is closed. When devastating the Middle East, the US is acting not in its own genuine national interest but the perverse conception that Israel has of its national interest: subjugating and, if needed, destroying all sovereign states in its neighborhood so as to create and preserve Israeli domination and even ‘Greater Israel’, a nightmare of ‘Lebensraum’ for Zionist settlers from, at least, Egypt to Iraq.

But, again, why? This is where the Epstein scandal makes a difference – or should do so – to unbiased minds. We must acknowledge that Jeffrey Epstein was not “merely” a very rich and perverse criminal with far too many friends in high places but an agent of Israel, whether with a direct affiliation to its dreaded Mossad service of spying, murder, and subversion or not. His core operation served to gather extremely compromising blackmail material on large swathes of the elites of the US and the West more generally. FBI agents, we now know, assessed that Trump himself is among those trapped in this manner. If anything, frantic – and also, again, criminal, efforts – by Trump’s Department of Justice and his head of the FBI to purge the files of references to the current president and his friends only provide further corroborating evidence that Trump is under Israel’s control.

Remember ‘Russiagate’ (really, of course, Russia Rage)? The irony! Russia was never remotely close to (or even trying) to having a US president under its thumb. That was all BS. Yet, in the end, ‘Russiagate’ did do two things: it gave Trump a (fundamentally realistic if exaggerated) sense of having been a victim of a smear campaign and, among voters, it helped Trump make his furious comeback, without which he would not now be in power. The delusion and mass hysteria of ‘Russiagate’ – which was that famous American thing, a nothing-burger – paved the way for the power that really controls Trump and really does enormous damage to America: Israel and its lobby.

Will Americans ever free themselves from the one state and network that have really run history’s most successful subversion and state-capture operation on them? Who knows? We know that it would take more than putting an end to Epstein-like blackmail. If anything, Trump’s bitter enemies, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, have only recently shown us that the American “elite” is enthralled to Israel and its crimes also for reasons ranging from being bribed to sharing the vile insanity of Zionism. If the US ever wants its independence back from Israel, all of that will have to go.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

February 28, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Why are Americans killing and dying for Israel, again?

Timing of US-Israel attack on Iran bears symbolic meaning in Judaism

By Tal Shalev | CNN | February 28, 2026

The timing of the US and Israeli attack on Iran bears symbolic meaning in Judaism. Ahead of the upcoming Jewish holiday of Purim, worshippers read the specific portion from the Old Testament, known as Zachor.

The passage from the book of Deuteronomy commands the ancient Israelites to remember an unprovoked attack by the nation of Amalek and to eradicate the memory of Amalek once the Israelites are settled in their land.

The passage is read publicly before Purim to fulfil the mitzvah of remembering Amalek as Israel’s achetypical enemy.

February 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Timing of US-Israel attack on Iran bears symbolic meaning in Judaism

70 martyrs, 90 wounded in US-Israeli strike on elementary school

Al Mayadeen | February 28, 2026

Iran’s ISNA news agency reported that dozens of students remain trapped under the rubble, while a number have been rescued. A hospital in the same area also suffered partial damage, according to ISNA.

Iran’s Mehr news agency further reported that two students were martyred in the Narmak area of Tehran.

Iran Invokes Article 51 of the UN Charter

In the official statement from the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Iran invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, affirming its legitimate right to self-defense following the Israeli strikes on Iran.

The ministry characterized the airstrikes as a violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

According to the statement, “The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond forcefully to any attack.” The ministry reiterated that Iran would use all its capabilities to deter aggression and confront its enemies.

Call on the UN Security Council

Iran also called on the United Nations and the UN Security Council to take immediate action in response to the blatant violation of international peace and security.

The statement urged the UN Secretary-General, as well as the President and members of the Security Council, to fulfill their responsibilities without delay.

It also appealed to all UN member states, particularly countries in the region, members of the Islamic world, and states belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, to condemn the act of aggression and to adopt urgent and collective measures to halt it.

The ministry warned that the escalation represents an unprecedented threat to regional and global peace and security.

February 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on 70 martyrs, 90 wounded in US-Israeli strike on elementary school

Trump Starts a Major Regime-Change War with Iran, Serving Neoconservatism and Israel

By Glenn Greenwald | February 28, 2026

For decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and American neoconservatives have dreamed of only one foreign policy goal: having the United States fight a regime-change war against Iran. With the Oval Office occupied by Donald Trump — who campaigned for a full decade on a vow to end regime-change wars and vanquish neoconservatism — their goal has finally been realized.

Early Saturday morning, the United States and Israel began a massive bombing campaign of Tehran and other Iranian cities. President Trump posted an eight-minute speech to social media purporting to justify his new war, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury.” Trump’ war cry was filled with the same slogans and clichés about Iran that Americans have heard from the carousel of bipartisan neocons dominating U.S. foreign policy for decades: Iran is a state sponsor of “terror”; it is pursuing nuclear weapons; it took American hostages forty-seven years ago (in 1979); it repressed and kills its dissidents, etc.

As if to underscore how fully he was embracing the very foreign policy dogma he vowed to reject, Trump invoked the Marvel-like “Axis of Evil” formulation that White House speechwriter David Frum wrote for George W. Bush at the start of the War on Terror. Iran’s government, President Trump proclaimed, is one determined to “practice evil.” This is how Bush — speaking of Iraq, Iran and North Korea — put it in his 2002 State of the Union address: “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil.”

Trump left no doubt about the scope and ambition of his new war. This will not be a quick or targeted bombing run against a few nuclear sites, as Trump ordered last June as part of Israel’s 12-day war with Iran. There is nothing remotely constrained or targeted about any of this. Instead, this new war is what Trump called a “massive and ongoing” mission of destruction and regime-change, launched in the heart of the Middle East, against a country of 93 million people: almost four times the size of Iraq’s population when the U.S. launched that regime change war back in 2003.

That Trump claimed to have “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program last June — just eight months ago — was not something he meaningfully acknowledged in his new war announcement, other than to vaguely assert that Iran somehow resumed their nuclear program. In fact, Trump seemed to delight in repeating the same triumphalist rhetoric that he used last year when he assured Americans that Iran’s nuclear program could no longer pose a threat as a result of Trump’s triumphant Operation Midnight Hammer.

In lieu of outlining any clear mission statement for this new war, let alone a cogent exit strategy, Trump offered a laundry list of flamboyantly violent vows. The U.S. will “totally obliterate” Iran’s ballistic missile program (which Iran could not use to reach the American homeland but which Trump admitted last June caused Israel “to get hit very hard” in retaliation). Trump also promised that the U.S. would “annihilate” Iran’s navy. And he told Iranians: “the hour of your freedom is at hand….bombs will be dropping everywhere.”

Trump also attempted to prepare the nation for caskets and body bags of American soldiers returning to the U.S. “The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost; we may have casualties,” the President said. But, said the man who did everything to avoid military service including during the Vietnam War, mass death of American soldiers “often happens in war.”

In sum, Trump just launched the exact war that most of his MAGA movement professed to oppose. That included one of Trump’s most influential supporters, the late Charlie Kirk, who repeatedly maligned the neocons’ drive for war with Iran as “pathologically insane,” and warned that grave disaster of historic proportions would be the result:

Charlie Kirk, X, April 3, 2025, warning against a regime-change war in Iran

The false claims behind this new war with Iran are ones we have extensively documented. In Trump’s war announcement this morning, he claimed — as he did at Tuesday’s State of the Union address — that Iran refuses to promise that it will not obtain nuclear weapons. The exact opposite is true: Iran has stated this clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly, and did so as recently as this week. “Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon,” proclaimed Iran’s foreign minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi.

The consequences of this new Trump/Netanyahu war of choice cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. Already, Iran has launched numerous retaliatory ballistic missiles at Israel, as expected, and has also attacked U.S. military bases in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.

But the lack of predictable outcomes is, of course, precisely the point. If the U.S. and Israel succeed in their stated goals of widespread “annihilation” and regime change, then they will create, at the very least, a huge power vacuum in the middle of the world’s most volatile region that will require U.S. resources and a sizable military presence for years if not decades to come. One of the world leaders most responsible for the Iraq War, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, admitted that it was the invasion of Iraq that gave rise to ISIS.

It is hard to overstate what a massive fraud Donald Trump, his campaign and his political movement are. For more than a decade, Trump has ranted and raved against the evils of regime-change wars and neoconservative dogma, only to launch a new war that most perfectly encapsulates and aggressively advances both. He spent years falsely warning that former President Obama would start a war with Iran because of how weak and inept Obama supposedly was at negotiation and diplomacy, only to now do that himself (rather than start a new war with Iran, as Trump predicted, Obama entered a diplomatic agreement with them which major nuclear bodies attested was effective in monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities: a deal which Trump, at Israel’s insistence, tore up in 2018).

Throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump mercilessly mocked Marco Rubio for receiving millions in donations from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, money that Trump said would “mold [Rubio] into [their] perfect little puppet,” only for himself to become not only the largest beneficiary of Adelson funding in history, but to become the ultimate puppet of the Adelsons’ agenda, one which Trump has clearly acknowledged — when speaking in Israel last year — is an agenda that puts the interests of Israel atop everything, including Americans’ interests:

“I get her in trouble with this, but I actually asked [Miriam] once… ‘What do you love more? The United States or Israel?’ She refused to answer. That might mean Israel,” Trump says, smiling, while looking at the dual Israeli-American national.

And it is not an exaggeration to say — in fact, basic honestly requires one to say — that the 2024 Trump/Vance campaign is one of the most fraudulent political campaigns in American history:

Just one week before the 2024 election, Tulsi Gabbard proclaimed that “a vote for Kamala Harris is a vote for Dick Cheney and a vote for war, war and more war.” Conversely, Gabbard said, “a vote for Donald Trump is a vote to end wars, not start them.” Other than immigration, this “no-new-wars” theme was the most central to Trump’s political appeal and his political promises since he emerged on the political scene a decade ago.

One can rehash the decades of now-trite arguments about Iran as much as one wants. But such endless debate cannot alter the facts here that are indisputable and fundamental.

Iran has not attacked and could not have attacked the United States at home. No such attack was even arguably imminent. The new war that Trump just started with Israel is thus the definitive war of choice.

In contrast to the lie-driven 18-month public campaign of Bush and Cheney to convince the American public to support an invasion of Iraq, there has been virtually no attempt made, as I documented this week, to even explain to the American public why a new war with Iran is necessary or desirable. There has been no Congressional approval sought let alone obtained, notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution’s exclusive assignment of war-making powers to the Congress.

In his novel 1984, George Orwell highlighted the dangerous insanity of war propaganda with this leading example: “WAR IR PEACE.” Yet that is precisely the rationale invoked by various Trump supporters to somehow depict this new war as aligned with Trump’s vows of peace (starting massive new wars is merely “peace through strength”).

This is, obviously, the war that Israel and Trump’s largest Israel-loyal donors most wanted and have long been pressuring him to start. Pro-Israel billionaires like Bill Ackman, long-time pro-Israel warmongers like Lindsey Graham, and Israel First activists like Mark Levin are of course already boisterously celebrating this new war against Israel’s primary adversary.

But this is ultimately an American war, one that Trump unilaterally started and for which Trump is responsible. Notably, of course, it is not Trump or his family, but instead everyone else in the world, who will bear the costs and burdens of the war. This was the point Trump famously emphasized shortly before the 2024 election — on November 1 — when explaining why Washington is full of sociopathic warmongers such as Dick and Liz Cheney who constantly start wars in which other people’s families, but never their own, must go fight and die.

As Trump’s senior White House advisor Stephen Miller said about those comments, “warmongering neocons love sending your kids to die for wars they would never fight themselves.” Indeed they do, Stephen Miller.

Do not expect meaningful opposition from the Democratic Party. Some of them, perhaps most, will make loud noises in protest. But the party’s senior leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), this week urged Trump to make the case to the public about why this war was necessary, whereas Schumer last June mocked Trump for attempting to obtain a peace deal with Iran and accusing him of “chickening out” of the war with Iran that he prosed. Some Democrats, such as Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), are effusively praising Trump and his new war.

This new war against Iran is as pure a continuation of the bipartisan DC posture of endless war that has, more than any single cause, destroyed American prosperity, standing, and future over the last six decades at least. The only question how is how many people will die, for how long the damage will endure, and what new unforeseen evils will be created in its wake.

February 28, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Trump Starts a Major Regime-Change War with Iran, Serving Neoconservatism and Israel

Why Trump’s war on Iran will fail

By Tamer Ajrami | MEMO | February 27, 2026

The United States has turned the talks with Iran upside down. What is happening now does not look like serious negotiations. It looks more like a way to buy time and prepare for a more dangerous phase. That is why two questions matter: Why Trump’s war on Iran will not succeed, and why would it be a dangerous choice for Washington? The answer is simple. The demands Washington is putting on the table are designed to be rejected, and because any military action, if it occurs, will reveal the limits of force, the logic of exhaustion, and the absence of a clear or achievable goal.

All the talk about a deal, gaps, and loopholes continues to go around in circles. On the ground, the US is moving in a completely different direction: it is raising the bar in a way that ruins the talks from the inside and pushes things toward escalation.

Washington now says it has clear conditions. In reality, these conditions make any settlement almost impossible. The first demand is that Iran hand over all its enriched uranium directly to the United States. Not to a third country, not through an international mechanism, not through gradual reductions. Just hand it over to Washington. This is not meant to produce a balanced agreement. It is meant to humiliate a state and force it to give up a highly sensitive part of its sovereignty.

The second demand is even clearer: dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities and destroy them completely, including major sites like Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow, along with underground facilities hidden in mountains. The irony is that Washington and its allies do not have full certainty about what earlier strikes (12-day war, June 2025) actually achieved inside these deep facilities. So, the demand for dismantling and destruction looks like a political cover for the simple reality of what lies underground is not easy to reach.

On sanctions, the US offers no clear path. The talk is about lifting a limited set of sanctions imposed recently, while keeping the main sanctions in place under a long “test.” Has Iran truly surrendered, or is it only offering symbolic concessions? Then comes the most dangerous condition of all: the deal must be permanent, Iran must stop enrichment completely, and this must last forever. These are not terms for a fair agreement. They are terms of surrender.

That is why this round looks more like the round before war. The US military buildup in the region is still expanding, and the flow of aircraft, defence systems, and naval assets continues. Everyone is watching everyone through satellites. Almost nothing can be hidden. The real message is not in press statements. It is in the movements that create a new reality and make escalation feel closer than a settlement.

But if a strike happens, it will be full of risks. Even in the American media, one question keeps coming back: what exactly are Trump’s goals? Does he want a limited strike to force Iran into quick concessions? Does he want a wider campaign to bring down the regime? Or does he simply want to declare that he “destroyed” the nuclear program without being able to prove it? The problem is that these goals clash with each other, and each one requires different tools, different costs, and different timelines.

Time is part of the problem too. Some estimates suggest that the ability to keep up intense operations with the current level of forces may be limited. This connects with warnings about running down air defences and burning through advanced / expensive ammunition in a campaign that does not guarantee results. In other words, if war starts, it may quickly turn into a war of exhaustion. It is exactly the kind of fight Washington does not want.

If Iran can launch large waves of ballistic missiles, it can drain defensive stocks on US ships and at US bases in the region fast. Then comes the embarrassing question: how does the US keep fighting? And how does it stop without looking like it pulled back under fire? If Iran keeps firing while the US withdraws, the image inside America would be politically costly.

That is why the administration, based on what is being discussed in Washington, may look for a way to sell the war at home. One idea is for Israel to launch the first strike, and then for the US to step in later under the banner of “defending Israel”. That makes it easier to justify the intervention in Washington, because critics will face a ready-made slogan: we are defending an ally.

But on the ground, it is hard to separate who starts and who joins. US and Israeli forces operate in the same environment and in overlapping ways. The real difference is not in the sky. It is in the story Washington wants to tell its public.

Even if a strike happens, the main question remains: can airstrikes alone achieve big goals? Many analysts say hitting facilities becomes like a game of chasing a moving target. You destroy one site, it gets rebuilt. You hit a surface facility that was emptied beforehand. Equipment and materials are moved elsewhere. As for facilities buried deep in mountains, they remain a major problem. Access is not guaranteed, and photos alone cannot prove total destruction.

More importantly, a nuclear programme is not just concrete and steel. It is knowledge, technology, experience, and an industrial base. Even if part of it is damaged, Iran can repair it over time. Claims of “total destruction” therefore sound more like political messaging than a verifiable reality.

The missile program is an even bigger challenge. Iran produces missiles in large numbers and has the industrial and scientific base to rebuild its stock after any confrontation. Even if the US hits some production lines, wiping the program out completely would require long-term control on the ground and not just airstrikes.

Here is the truth that official speeches avoid: if Trump’s real goals are regime change, removing Iran’s missile power for good, or forcing “zero enrichment” forever, then airstrikes will not deliver that. Those goals require a major ground war and a long occupation. This then may bring huge losses, heavy costs, and years of deep involvement.

This would not serve the US at a time when competition with China is rising. Burning through advanced and expensive American capabilities in the Middle East without clear gains could give China a strategic advantage and push it to move faster on bigger priorities like Taiwan, while Washington remains stuck in a war with no clear ending.

There is also a constant operational risk in any large air campaign: an aircraft could be shot down, a pilot could be captured, or a major incident could happen in a sensitive strait. One such event can turn a limited strike into a wider war, and shift the focus from negotiating nuclear issues to negotiating prisoners and political humiliation.

So, Washington faces two costly paths: a full-scale war it does not have the political tools to sustain, or airstrikes that will not achieve the announced goals but could open the door to further escalation. In both cases, negotiations become a temporary cover while the region moves toward a dangerous test of power and its limits.

The bottom line is this: raising demands to the level of humiliation does not lead to an agreement. It pushes the other side toward rejection and then toward preparation for confrontation. When talks become terms designed to fail, they do not prevent war. They delay it to a moment chosen by Washington; after the battlefield is prepared and the political story is already written.

In the end, the problem is not that Washington has less power. The problem is that it is pursuing goals that are bigger than its tools. Airstrikes do not topple regimes, erase nuclear know-how, and do not end a missile program that can be rebuilt. The higher the US raises its demands, the more it closes the door to diplomacy and the closer the drift toward confrontation.

If war begins, it may quickly become a costly fight with no clear ending: defenses get drained, rare munitions get burned, markets shake, and bases come under attack. Then an unsolved question will rise inside the US: how do we end this without political defeat? Failure becomes likely because the goals cannot be achieved by bombing alone. And the danger is huge, because escalation may spiral beyond control. In a war like this, Washington might win a round in the air, but lose the bigger game on the ground.

February 27, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Why Trump’s war on Iran will fail

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »