Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Bahrain admits US Patriot missile hit residential area, injured dozens

Al Mayadeen | March 21, 2026

Bahrain’s government has admitted that a US Patriot air defense system was involved in the March 9 interception over the Sitra residential area that left dozens of civilians injured, Reuters reported.

This admission directly refutes the account offered by US Central Command, which had attributed the casualties to an Iranian drone strike.

In a statement to Reuters, a Bahraini government spokesperson said the Patriot system intercepted an Iranian drone, insisting that the operation “prevented a drone strike and saved lives.”

CENTCOM had previously maintained that an Iranian drone directly struck a residential neighbourhood. Bahrain’s admission that a Patriot missile was involved now places both accounts in open contradiction with the footage and with each other.

Video published by Drop Site News shows an air-defense interceptor descending following a failed interception attempt, with an impact occurring off-camera shortly afterward. The images strongly suggest it was the interceptor, not an Iranian drone, that struck the residential area, injuring 32 civilians, including children, with four reported in critical condition.

Whose lives were being saved?

The Iranian missiles and drones at issue were directed at US military bases in Bahrain, installations that a significant portion of the Bahraini population regards as an occupying presence, which secures the authoritarian order and is complicit in the genocide in Gaza and the war waged on Iran and Lebanon.

Had those bases not existed on Bahraini soil, no Iranian missile would have targeted Bahrain, and no Bahraini civilian in Sitra would have been injured. The only lives the Patriot system could plausibly claim to have saved were those inside the bases themselves, the very presence most Bahrainis have long demanded be ended.

Death penalty for documenting the damage

Rather than launching an independent inquiry into how a US missile system came to strike a residential neighbourhood, Bahraini authorities have moved to prosecute those who documented the aftermath.

The kingdom’s Public Prosecution is seeking the death penalty for several citizens charged with photographing locations where photography is allegedly prohibited, in what prosecutors framed as “high betrayal”.

During court proceedings, they described the situation as “brutal Iranian aggression” and called for “maximum penalties, without the slightest mercy,” specifying that this meant capital punishment.

162 arrested, crackdown still ongoing

According to the Prisoners Affairs Authority in Bahrain, 162 citizens, including men and women, have been detained since the onset of the US-Israeli war on Iran, with only five released as of March 18.

Detentions have targeted citizens who filmed Iranian strikes on US military bases in the region, individuals who publicly expressed solidarity with those operations, as well as citizens who participated in peaceful protests denouncing the war and the assassination of martyred Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei.

The Prisoners’ Affairs Authority warned that the documented figure almost certainly undercounts the actual number of arrests, as raids and detention operations were still ongoing at the time of reporting.

March 22, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Bahrain admits US Patriot missile hit residential area, injured dozens

Iran retaliation shakes helium, global tech supply chains

Al Mayadeen | March 22, 2026

The Associated Press on Sunday reported that Iranian strikes on US-linked gas infrastructure in Qatar is now threatening to disrupt not only global energy markets, but also key technology supply chains, due to the role Qatar plays in helium production.

The strikes come in direct response to the earlier targeting of Iran’s own energy sector, particularly the attack on the South Pars gas field, the country’s largest and most strategic source of natural gas. Iranian officials had warned that any attempt to hit its economic infrastructure would be met with reciprocal measures across the region, signaling a shift toward targeting energy assets tied to the broader war effort.

Qatar, which shares the same gas reservoir with Iran, became part of this escalation, with strikes on Ras Laffan reflecting a deliberate mirroring of earlier attacks on Iranian facilities.

Helium shock

The Gulf state supplies roughly a third of the world’s helium, a gas that, despite its everyday image, is essential for advanced industries, including semiconductor manufacturing, medical imaging, and space launches.

Production was halted earlier this month at the US-linked Ras Laffan facility after attacks on energy infrastructure, with further strikes this week causing what officials described as extensive damage. Qatar’s state-owned energy company has since warned that helium exports will be reduced by around 14 percent.

“It makes the story worse,” Phil Kornbluth, president of Kornbluth Helium Consulting, told AP. “Your best-case scenario would be you’re back producing some helium in six weeks or something like that. As it looks right now, that’s highly unlikely.”

Prices surge

Prices have already begun to rise, with spot rates doubling since the crisis began. While most helium is sold through long-term contracts, analysts say sustained disruption could push those prices higher as well.

“There’s lots of room for price increase if this is an extended outage,” Kornbluth said.

The impact has not yet fully reached global markets, largely because shipments sent before the escalation are still arriving. But that buffer is expected to run out within weeks.

“Nobody’s run out of helium yet. But it’s a few weeks out when the shortage really hits,” he added.

Chips under pressure

The implications are particularly serious for the semiconductor sector. Helium is used during chip production to regulate temperature, especially in the etching phase, where maintaining consistent cooling is critical.

“You really want to maintain a constant temperature over the wafer. And in order to do that, you need to be able to draw heat away from the wafer that’s being processed,” said Jacob Feldgoise, an analyst at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology. “Helium is an excellent thermal conductor. And so chip fabs will blow helium over the back of the wafer in order to speed heat removal and keep heat removal consistent.”

There is currently no viable substitute for helium in this process.

Beyond chipmaking, helium is also used to cool MRI machines and in rocket fuel systems, making it a key resource across both medical and aerospace sectors.

Supply chain strain

The situation is further complicated by transport constraints. Liquid helium must be stored in specialized containers that can only hold it for a limited time before it begins to escape. Around 200 of these containers are currently stuck in the region, slowing efforts to stabilize supply.

“It’s going to take a fair amount of time to get these containers out of Qatar and to get them somewhere else where they might be able to be filled with helium,” Kornbluth said. “So this initial period when you lose Qatar supply and have to rejig the supply chain and reposition containers, that’s going to be the worst part of the shortage most likely.”

With few alternative producers and Russian exports restricted by sanctions, options for replacing Qatar’s supply remain limited. Asian manufacturers, particularly in South Korea, are seen as especially exposed due to their reliance on Qatari helium.

“Even disruptions affecting just a handful of materials could destabilize the entire semiconductor manufacturing process as each stage of production depends on the previous one,” said Jong-hwan Lee, a professor at Sangmyung University.

Still, analysts say a complete supply collapse is unlikely. In the event of shortages, helium is typically redirected toward critical sectors such as healthcare and chip production, where demand is hardest to replace.

But the situation points to how quickly a regional escalation can ripple through global industries, exposing vulnerabilities far beyond the immediate battlefield.

March 22, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran retaliation shakes helium, global tech supply chains

Zionist takeover: Trump’s war on Iran reveals who really dictates US foreign policy

By David Miller | Press TV | March 21, 2026

US President Donald Trump’s brazen military assault on Iran – launched at the behest of the Israeli regime – lays bare an unvarnished truth: Zionist interests have effectively captured American foreign policy.

Broader imperial objectives have been sidelined in favor of the settler colony’s agenda.

A group of analysts continues to cling to the notion that the Zionist entity functions as a strategic asset – a forward outpost – for the American Empire. Yet the coordinated strikes on Iranian soil tell a different story. Far from acting as a subordinate ally, Tel Aviv now dictates the terms, with Washington following suit.

This is no simple case of the tail wagging the dog. More accurately, the agents of the tail have not merely tugged at the leash; they have colonized and captured the vital organs of the dog itself, steering the body of American policy toward unnecessary wars that serve a singular, foreign interest over its own imperial interests.

Trump’s claim of imminent Iranian threat

Trump justified the unprovoked and illegal aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran by citing advice from key advisers who convinced him that an attack from Iran was imminent.

In a candid statement captured on video, Trump declared the situation had approached a “point of no return,” based on intelligence from his inner circle. As he explained, the US found it “intolerable,” with figures like Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio insisting that Iran planned to strike the US.

“In my opinion, based on what Steve and Jared and Pete and others were telling me, Marco is also involved, I thought that they were going to attack us. I thought they would. If we didn’t do this at the time we did it, I think they had in mind to attack us,” he claimed.

This narrative framed the February 28, 2026, assault, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, as a “defensive” measure. Trump reportedly ordered the operation while aboard Air Force One, with missiles and drones hitting the residences of senior Iranian leaders, including Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in the initial barrage.

The assault soon escalated into full-scale war, with civilian casualties mounting, including a strike on an elementary school in Minab, a town in southern Iran’s Hormozgan province, that killed at least 153 people, mostly children. As even CNN noted, video footage showed a US Tomahawk missile striking the school, contradicting Trump’s claims of Iranian hand.

Trump’s rationale hinged on perceived threats, yet evidence points to manipulated intelligence. The assault aligned closely with the Zionist entity’s strategic aims, targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes while bolstering its regional dominance.

Exposé on assassination plots

American journalist Max Blumenthal reported about Trump’s belief that Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps orchestrated the two assassination attempts against him in 2024.

As Blumenthal reported in The Grayzone, the FBI manipulated evidence on alleged assassination plots to convince Trump that Iran sought to kill him, while Israel and its allies exploited his fears to maintain pressure for a full-fledged war.

Trump feared for his life even before the attempts, with claims of Israeli agents planting devices in Secret Service vehicles during Netanyahu’s White House visits.

Blumenthal’s analysis details how the FBI, in coordination with Israeli intelligence, tied Tehran to the plots despite lacking evidence. Trump publicly linked the attempts to Iran, drawing from US intelligence briefings and DOJ charges against alleged  IRGC members.

Such manipulation exploited Trump’s vulnerabilities, pushing the US into a direct confrontation with the Islamic Republic to serve Zionist interests. This underscores how external forces shaped the decision, far beyond genuine US imperial concerns.

Trump’s Inner Circle: Zionist Affiliations Revealed

Trump’s advisers form a network deeply embedded in Zionist advocacy, blending Jewish Zionists with fervent non-Jewish supporters of the settler colony.

Here are the four specifically named as advising the attack on Iran.

  • Marco Rubio: A non-Jewish Cuban-American, Rubio has long championed the Zionist cause. As AJC’s Jewish Political Guide reports, he opposed the anti-Israel boycott and divestment campaign, backed the US embassy move to occupied al-Quds, and supported anti-BDS legislation. His funding from pro-Zionist donors like Norman Braman highlights this alignment.
  • Pete Hegseth: A Christian Zionist, Hegseth robustly backs the Israeli regime. During his confirmation, he declared his Christian faith drives support for the Zionist regime’s “defence”. His church ties to Reconstructionist principles reinforce this theological Zionism.
  • Jared Kushner: An Orthodox Jew and ardent Zionist, Kushner shaped Trump’s West Asia policy. Raised in a family steeped in Holocaust survival, he authored the Abraham Accords, normalising ties between the Zionist entity and Arab states. His pro-Zionist stance is evident in unwavering advocacy.
  • Steve Witkoff: A staunch Jewish real estate mogul, Witkoff staunchly supports Netanyahu and the Zionist colony. As Al Jazeera profiles, he negotiated Gaza deals for Trump, ignoring Shabbat to push agendas.

These Zionist figures, central to Trump’s decision to attack Iran in the middle of indirect nuclear talks, illustrate deep Zionist penetration into US power structures.

Extended Zionist network in Trump’s orbit

Beyond the core quartet mentioned above, Trump’s circle brims with many other Zionist influencers. Here are a few of them who influence him and his policies:

  • Mike Waltz: Non-Jewish but pro-Zionist, Waltz discussed strikes with Netanyahu. As the Jewish Virtual Library notes, he praises Israeli operations against Hamas and Hezbollah, viewing them as fighting America’s enemies.
  • Elise Stefanik: Non-Jewish, Stefanik earned Zionist acclaim for grilling university presidents on antisemitism. She received the so-called “Defender of Israel Award” and nearly $1 million from the notorious pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, affirming Israel’s biblical right to the occupied West Bank.
  • Mike Huckabee: A Christian Zionist, Huckabee rejects Palestinian statehood and has backed the ongoing genocide in Gaza. He told senators he supports the occupied West Bank annexation, viewing it as biblical Judea and Samaria.
  • Stephen Miller: Controversial Jewish supremacist whose hardline immigration policies drew some Jewish criticism. Yet his role in Trump’s pro-Zionist moves, like the embassy shift, aligns with the Zionist entity’s interests.
  • Howard Lutnick: A Jewish billionaire, Lutnick champions the Zionist cause. As Jewish Insider reports, he has donated over $1 million to the racist Birthright programme and has also supported the genocidal Chabad cult.
  • Miriam Adelson: An Israeli-American Jewish philanthropist, Adelson donated millions to Trump with caveats like embassy relocation. As reported, she pushed for recognition of the Golan Heights occupation.

Zionist footprint beyond Epstein shadows

Trump’s war of aggression against Iran transcends US imperial interests. It expresses a complete and official capture by Zionist forces. His advisers’ backgrounds reveal a cabal prioritising the settler colony’s expansion over American strategy.

Even without the Epstein leaks dangling like a sword of Damocles over his head, Trump appears as Zionism’s plaything, executing policies that entrench occupation and support Zionism’s maximalist and genocidal expansionism.

State capture of the US apparatus of power is in itself an indication that the Zionist ambitions go much further than the so-called “Greater Israel” project, as they push towards becoming an empire. I have called this Pax Judaica. Netanyahu, for his part, has described his view that the Zionist entity is becoming “in many respects a global superpower”.

How Zionists infiltrated US power system

Those who argue that the metaphorical tail (the Zionist colony) doesn’t wag the metaphorical dog (US Empire) fail to account for the process of infiltration, which the Zionists have been engineering for many decades, since before the creation of their so-called “Jewish State”.

Infiltration is, as I have documented elsewhere, a “cardinal” function of the Zionist movement. In the case of the United States, Zionist agents have become embedded in US national security institutions.

It’s not that the tail wags the dog, so much as agents of the tail have infiltrated and taken control of the vital organs of the dog. They wield influence, enabling the settler colony’s dominance in US decision-making, and they have done so for decades.

How did this happen? We examine the roots.

The architect: James Jesus Angleton’s CIA legacy

James Jesus Angleton, as CIA counterintelligence chief from 1954 to 1974, forged unbreakable ties between US intelligence and the Zionist entity.

He managed the Israel desk from 1951, liaising directly with Mossad and Shin Bet, viewing Soviet émigrés to the colony as prime intelligence assets. His actions entrenched Zionist interests within American spy networks.

Meir Amit, Mossad Director (1963-1968), who was instrumental in cementing the Mossad-CIA relationship, described Angleton as “the biggest Zionist of the lot”. He viewed Angleton as a personal friend and a foundational figure in the penetration of the US intelligence system.

Angleton’s fanaticism extended to shielding the regime’s top secrets. Former Shin Bet chief Amos Manor, who hosted Angleton on his first visit to the colony in 1952, described how he was able to persuade Angleton that the Zionists were not potential Communist agents and after that, he was firmly in their camp.

Monuments to betrayal: Honoring a US traitor in the colony

The Zionist colony uniquely memorialized Angleton with two tributes, underscoring his pivotal role in its ascent. In 1987, Mossad and Shin Bet leaders secretly planted a tree and dedicated a stone near Jerusalem, inscribed “In memory of a dear friend, James (Jim) Angleton.” A second site, “Jim Angleton Corner” in Yemin Moshe, overlooks the Old City.

These honors, as The Washington Post reported in 1987, reflect gratitude for his espionage aid. No other US intelligence officer received such recognition. This singularity highlights Angleton’s exceptional service to the settler state.

Jefferson Morley wrote in his biography of Angleton, entitled Ghost: “Angleton was a leading architect of America’s strategic relationship with Israel that endures and dominates the region to this day.”

Samuel Katz, author of Soldier Spies: Israeli Military Intelligence, claims in his 1992 book that “perhaps most importantly, [MOSSAD] forged a firm and binding relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, especially with the legendary James Jesus Angleton”.

His monuments symbolize the deep penetration of Zionist agendas into US halls of power.

Enabling the bomb: US officials’ collusions

Angleton facilitated the Zionist regime’s nuclear arsenal through betrayals of American secrets. Both Morley and Katz, along with Seymour Hersh (in The Samson Option) and others, claimed he directed CIA assistance to the Zionist nuclear programme, diverting scrutiny from Dimona’s development in the 1960s.

The NUMEC (Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation) affair—also known as the Apollo affair—involved the unexplained disappearance of over 300 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU, weapons-grade material sufficient for several nuclear bombs) from a US nuclear fuel-processing plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania, between the late 1950s and the 1970s.

Declassified FBI, CIA, and Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) records show strong suspicions that some or much of it was diverted to Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program at Dimona.

The company’s ownership and management were closely linked to Zionist networks: founder and president Dr. Zalman Mordecai Shapiro, a prominent chemist, headed the Pittsburgh chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and maintained extensive contacts with Israeli regime officials, including science attachés at the embassy, Shin Bet and Mossad operatives, and LAKAM (Israel’s scientific intelligence unit focused on nuclear technology acquisition).

NUMEC’s key financial backer, David Lowenthal, an American Zionist, co-founded the company through Apollo Industries and partnered with figures like Ivan J. Novick (later ZOA national president); NUMEC acted as a U.S. procurement and technical agent for Israel’s defense ministry.

FBI surveillance and wiretaps documented Shapiro’s “pronounced pro-Israeli sympathies,” including a November 8, 1968, intercepted statement that “he is of more value to Israel if he continues to reside in the US, where Israel’s problems can be more readily resolved.”

A 1980 FBI affidavit from a former NUMEC employee described witnessing armed strangers loading HEU canisters onto a truck bound for Israel via Zim shipping lines in early 1965, followed by threats to remain silent.

Shapiro consistently denied any diversion, attributing losses to routine “attrition,” contamination, and plant residues. US intelligence assessments disagreed: CIA Deputy Director Carl Duckett briefed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in February 1976 that the missing uranium “ended up in Israeli bombs,” a view echoed in CIA internal memos and briefings.

Environmental samples near Dimona reportedly matched US Portsmouth-enriched HEU supplied to NUMEC. Despite extensive investigations spanning multiple agencies and administrations, there were no prosecutions.

The affair remains unresolved, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded cleanups costing hundreds of millions in recent decades. Roger Mattson’s book, Stealing the Atom Bomb: How Denial and Deception Armed Israel, details how denial and deception armed “Israel,” with officials like Angleton turning a blind eye to Zionist covert ops.

Jonathan Pollard compounded these treacheries. The naval intelligence analyst, arrested in 1985, passed classified data to handlers, compromising US signals intelligence. Collaborators included Rafi Eitan, Pollard’s handler, and Aviem Sella, who recruited him and was indicted for espionage, but later pardoned by Trump.

The Forward noted how such acts strained alliances, yet US leniency persisted, an indication of an advanced process of state capture.

Senator Fulbright – The canary in the coal mine

Senator William Fulbright (US Senator, 1945-1974; longtime chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee) was one of the first major political figures to call out Zionist infiltration of the US political system.

He said, on the CBS show, Face the Nation, in early 1973, that “The Senate is subservient to Israel, in my opinion, much too much. We should be more concerned about the United States interest rather than doing the bidding of Israel. This is a most unusual development.”

He went on to say, “The great majority of the Senate of the United States–somewhere around 80 percent–are completely in support of Israel, anything Israel wants. This has been demonstrated time and again and this has made it difficult for our government.”

He expanded on his views in a major speech in 1974 in which he talked of Zionist “domination” of the power structure:

“So completely have the majority of our officeholders fallen under Israeli domination that they not only deny the legitimacy of Palestinian national feeling, but such otherwise fair-minded individuals as the two current candidates for Senator from New York engage in heated debate as to which one more passionately opposes a Palestinian state. We have nearly allowed our détente with the Soviet Union to go on the rocks to obtain an agreement on large-scale Jewish emigration — a matter of limited relevance to the basic issue of human rights in the Soviet Union, and of no relevance to the vital interests of the United States.”

Since then, many major figures from both parties (Fulbright was a Democrat) have endorsed or extended this analysis, including

  • 1985 – Paul Findley, a Congressman from Illinois, in his 1985 book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby
  • 1990 – Pat Buchanan (White House Communications Director under President Reagan; Republican presidential candidate in 1992, 1996, and 2000) “Capitol Hill is Israeli-occupied territory.”  (15 June 1990, on the television show The McLaughlin Group)
  • 2006 – Chuck Hagel (US Senator, R-NE, 1997-2009; later Secretary of Defense under President Obama): “The political reality is that … the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator.” (2006 interview, Aaron David Miller).
  • 2007 – Ron Paul (US Representative, R-TX, multiple terms through 2012; Republican presidential candidate):  “AIPAC is very influential in our political process … the assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the war.” (May 22, 2007)
  • 2007 – Jim Moran (US Representative, D-VA, 1991-2015) “AIPAC had been pushing the [Iraq War] from the beginning … I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful—most of them are quite wealthy—they have been able to exert power.” (interview with Tikkun magazine, September 2007).
  • 2019 – Ilhan Omar (US Representative, D-MN, 2019–present) “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” (referring to campaign money; she clarified the next day that she meant AIPAC). She also stated there is “political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”(February 2019).
  • 2024 – Thomas Massie (US Representative, R-KY, 2012–present): “Everybody but me has an AIPAC person. It’s like your babysitter. Your AIPAC babysitter who is always talking to you about AIPAC. … They’ve got your cell number and you have conversations with them.” Date: June 7, 2024 (interview on The Tucker Carlson Show).

Angleton’s legacy – Institutionalised infiltration 

Angleton’s influence lingered, shaping US policy toward West Asia in multiple ways, and becoming more institutionalised despite Mossad intelligence ops breaching a mutual no-spying agreement on many occasions.

Collaboration grew with the Kilowatt network in which 18 Western agencies (including CIA, MI6, Mossad) shared raw intel on Palestinian resistance operatives, enabling Mossad’s so-called “Wrath of God” assassinations.

Collaboration stepped up in the 1980s under Reagan when a memorandum of understanding on counterterrorism included proposed joint programs and assassination authorizations.

Unequal alliance: Intel sharing and persistent spying

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou highlighted the lopsided US-Zionist intelligence pact. The regime receives near-total access yet spies relentlessly.

“Mossad gets the best intel cooperation from the US, including 99% of secrets, but they still spy on the US for the remaining 1%,” Kiriakou asserted in his podcasts.

Evidence abounds: In the 1990s, Israelis wiretapped White House lines during Clinton’s era, according to reports in the Guardian. Under Trump, StingRay devices near the White House mimicked cell towers, linked to Mossad by FBI forensics, as Politico reported.

These operations targeted presidents and aides, not the action of an ally, but of a hostile power.

Mossad’s Pentagon infiltration post-9/11

After 9/11, Mossad agents roamed the Pentagon unchecked, as retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson revealed. They bypassed security, accessing high-level officials like Douglas Feith.

“I watched Mossad take over the Pentagon in 2002. They did not need any identification to get through the river entrance… They went upstairs to Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy… Occasionally, they went to… Paul Wolfowitz… Donald Rumsfeld said to my boss one time ‘Hell, I don’t run my building, Mossad does!” Wilkerson stated in interviews.

This access, circulated widely online, exposed Zionist overreach amid heightened US vulnerabilities.

Neocons’ Iraq war: A campaign for the Zionist entity

As leading commentators affirm, neoconservatives engineered the 2003 Iraq invasion primarily for the settler colony’s benefit.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued in their seminal essay that the lobby pushed regime change to reorder West Asia, surrounding the Israeli-occupied territories with compliant states. “Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical.”

They also noted: “Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign.”

They added that the war was “motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure,” citing Philip Zelikow’s 2002 statement that the “unstated threat” from Iraq was primarily against Israel.

“Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.”

They further note that the lobby was a “necessary but not sufficient” condition, citing a February 2003 Ha’aretz report: “the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.”

They specifically highlighted the following statements from Zionist leaders:

  • Shimon Peres (September 2002): “The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.”
  • Ehud Barak (New York Times op-ed, September 2002): “The greatest risk now lies in inaction.”
  • Benjamin Netanyahu (Wall Street Journal op-ed, September 2002): “Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do… I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.”

The duo notes that Israeli intelligence acted as a “full partner,” providing alarming (often exaggerated) WMD reports and urging no delay.

Zionist leaders lobbied against UN inspections and delays but were cautious about public over-visibility to avoid perceptions of pushing the US into war.

Some (e.g., Ariel Sharon) initially saw Iran as the bigger threat and had reservations, shifting support only after American plans solidified.

Breaking the chains: Against Pax Judaica

These infiltrations reveal a parasitic dynamic, where Zionist agendas hijack and direct American might. Dismantling such entanglements demands vigilance and determined action over the course of years. However, it cannot be done in isolation.

Defeating the Zionist colony is only the beginning. After that comes the need to push back against the Zionist capture of Western states and the rest of West Asia as well.

The most effective and decisive strike against the Zionist colony and its US proxy is currently being struck by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Axis of Resistance.

According to available and credible evidence, Iranian armed forces have decimated Israeli military infrastructure across the occupied territories as well as American military bases scattered across the Persian Gulf region in the past three weeks.

The next few weeks would be decisive for the US presence in the region and the future of the Zionist entity that is reeling under unprecedented retaliatory strikes.

March 22, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Zionist takeover: Trump’s war on Iran reveals who really dictates US foreign policy

US Trying to Oust Russia From All Energy Markets – Lavrov

Sputnik – March 21, 2026

MOSCOW – Moscow does not currently see any US commitment to respecting Russia’s interests, with Washington attempting to push Moscow out of all energy markets, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Saturday.

“We are being pushed out of all global energy markets. Eventually, only our own territory will remain. The Americans will come to us and say they are for cooperation with us. But if we are willing to implement mutually beneficial projects on our territory and provide the Americans with what they are interested in, taking their interests into account, then they should also consider ours. We do not see this yet,” Lavrov told a Russian TV program.

He added that the US “has welcomed and welcomes Russia’s marginalization in European energy markets,” which, he said, was an open claim to energy dominance worldwide.

“This is an unusual situation – a return to a time when there were no frameworks for international relations. It was stated clearly that the interests of the US take precedence over any international agreements,” the minister said.’

The severe consequences of US and Israeli actions in the Middle East will be felt for a very long time to come, Lavrov also said.

“Despite all the outward signs of a farce, and I think many people understand that these are present, the consequences of what our American colleagues are doing, in this case together with the Israelis, are extremely severe. They will continue to have repercussions for a very long time,” Lavrov told the Russian TV program.

March 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on US Trying to Oust Russia From All Energy Markets – Lavrov

Role reversal – “divide & conquer” used against the west

Ashes of Pompeii | March 21, 2026

For centuries, the strategy of “divide and conquer” has been a cornerstone of Western geopolitical power. The British Empire mastered the art of ruling vast territories with minimal forces by exploiting internal divisions, setting local leaders against one another, leveraging ethnic tensions, and securing cooperation through selective incentives (aka bribes). The United States later employed similar tactics, from Cold War interventions to coalition-building in Iraq and Southeast Asia. The principle remains consistent: fracture opposition to maintain advantage.

Today, we are witnessing a role reversal in real time. Iran, long subjected to Western pressure and sanctions, is employing a parallel strategy regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Much of the west is not entirely enamoured of Trump’s Iran strategy but is afraid to openly challenge America. The closing of the Strait is economically catastrophic for most US allies and they are caught between a rock and a hard place – a vindictive Trump demanding support to open the Strait, and economic hardship.

In steps Iran with its own “divide and conquer” strategy, now reportedly negotiating with individual Asian and European countries a sort of Hormuz toll to allow tankers from these allied countries to pass through. And of course, they would each be required to not support the the US Navy if it attempts to open Hormuz. These discussions would be regarding tolls, security guarantees, and bilateral arrangements that would circumvent a collective response.

This approach carries significant strategic implications. If key U.S. allies secure individual agreements ensuring their energy shipments, the incentive to support a unified, potentially confrontational effort to keep Hormuz open is dead in the water.. Why risk escalation when a separate deal preserves economic interests? This dynamic could gradually erode the cohesion of Western alliances. Imagine Japan, Korea or Germany putting their national interests ahead of America’s! Unthinkable just a few weeks ago.

Iran’s maneuvering reflects a calculated understanding of coalition politics. By offering tailored terms, Tehran exploits the very real economic dependencies that different nations have on Persian Gulf oil flows. A country like Japan, facing immediate energy shortfalls, may prioritize short-term access over long-term strategic solidarity.

The irony is substantive, not merely rhetorical: a regional power taking advantage of a strategy historically used to extend Western influence, now being adapted to counter that same influence. Traditional western asymmetric power dynamics being used against the west.

If Iran successfully institutionalizes a system of bilateral tolls or passage agreements, it could reshape regional power structures and perhaps challenge the precedent of freedom of navigation under international law. However, this development also exposes the conditional nature of the “rules-based order” itself. When international norms align with western strategic interests, they are vigorously defended; when they become inconvenient, exceptions are quietly made. The interesting aspect here, is that for once, the exception is used against the USA.

In the end, this is power politics, plain and simple. Iran is using the tools available to it, geography, energy dependence, and diplomatic patience, to turn a strategic vulnerability into leverage. The West built much of its influence by splitting opponents; now it faces the same tactic applied in reverse. One would expect that states would always seek national advantage where they find it, but that has often not been the case for “junior” members of the western alliance in the last 30 or 40 years.

This is just another step towards a multipolar world where the west is seeing its own playbook used against it, where alliances and coalitions may be less static, and where national interest may be considered more important than following the diktats of a hegemon or a bloc leader.

Turn around is fair play and America and the west will need to get used to the idea that other countries, here Iran, can both play hardball and use divide and conquer strategies.

I am not sure Donald Trump will quite understand the significance of this moment.

March 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Role reversal – “divide & conquer” used against the west

Iran signals upper hand as the US-Israeli war reaches third week

Al Mayadeen | March 21, 2026

Iran is signaling that it is winning and has the power to impose a settlement on Washington that would cement Tehran’s influence over Middle East energy resources for decades, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ notes that Iranian officials appear to see time as working in their favor, suggesting they are not in a rush to end hostilities.

Despite repeated US and Israeli claims of successfully targeting missile launchers and stockpiles, the WSJ reported that Iran has retained the capacity to fire dozens of ballistic missiles and a large number of drones daily across the region.

In fact, the rate of attacks has increased in recent days compared with 10 days ago. Iranian strikes reportedly inflicted severe damage this week on US-linked energy infrastructure in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, while Iran’s own oil exports continued to flourish.

The WSJ added that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains contingent on Iranian permission, and that rising oil and gas prices are exerting pressure on the US administration to end the war.

Low-cost, high-impact disruptions

The Wall Street Journal cited analyst Dina Esfandiary, who said that Iran has learned it can inflict large-scale disruption at relatively low cost.

“The Iranians aren’t ready to end the war because they have learned an important lesson: They can, comparatively easily and cheaply, cause a lot of damage and disruption. They now want the whole world to learn that lesson, too,” she told the newspaper.

Iranian leaders appear to be leveraging this capability to set conditions for a ceasefire. As cited by WSJ, Esmail Rezaei, spokesman for the Iranian Parliament’s foreign affairs and defense committee, stated after a recent meeting with military commanders that any talks with the US are currently off the agenda, as Tehran “focuses on punishing the aggressors.” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, has described Iran’s position in the war as comparable to Vietnam for the US.

The Wall Street Journal notes that Iran’s demands for ending the war reportedly include massive reparations from the US and its allies and the removal of American military forces from the region.

Iranian officials have also suggested transforming the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic international waterway, into an Iranian-controlled passage where ships would pay fees to transit.

Expediency Council member Mohammad Mokhber, advisor to the supreme leader on economic affairs, told Mehr News Agency that Iran intends to “turn its position from a sanctioned country to an enhanced power in the region and the world.”

US officials, experts, express doubt despite the facts

US officials and military experts, the WSJ reports, have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of such an arrangement, highlighting the difficulty of US decision-makers coming to terms with the demands at this stage.

Former White House special envoy Jason Greenblatt commented, “President Trump will never let them win. They don’t understand how far he’s willing to go.”

The WSJ also cited retired US Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, who said that reopening the Strait of Hormuz would require careful intelligence and surveillance, but claimed that this could be achieved within weeks.

“It’s not something that is going to happen overnight, but over time the Strait of Hormuz will be open back to the levels of shipping that we saw before this conflict broke out. The Iranians are not going to end up with control over the strait, we are,” he claimed, according to the Wall Street Journal, revealing that a battle may be ahead for control of the strait.

Additional perspectives reported by the WSJ include Sanam Vakil of Chatham House, who described leaving Iran in control of the strait as “a categorical failure for the United States and President Trump,” and Robin Mills of Qamar Energy, who said that even if temporary control were granted to Iran, it would likely provoke renewed military or diplomatic action.

March 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran signals upper hand as the US-Israeli war reaches third week

Airlines Suffer Losses Estimated at $53Bln Due to Middle East Conflict

Sputnik – 21.03.2026

On February 28, the United States and Israel began striking targets in Iran, including in Tehran, causing damage and civilian casualties. Iran has carried out retaliatory strikes on Israeli territory, as well as on US military targets in the Middle East.

The damage caused by US and Israeli aggression against Iran amounted to approximately $53 billion for the 20 largest publicly traded airlines, the Financial Times reported, based on its own calculations.

Airline executives are warning of the consequences caused by the sustained rise in oil prices, disruptions at Gulf airports, and a potential hit to global demand, the Financial Times added.

In the coming months, passengers planning trips on routes that are not related to the Middle East will face a sharp rise in ticket prices as airlines try to protect their revenues, the newspaper reported.

March 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Airlines Suffer Losses Estimated at $53Bln Due to Middle East Conflict

Have you heard the latest joke about Trump and Iran?

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 21, 2026

What’s the difference between Vietnam and the Iran War? Answer: Trump had an exit strategy for Vietnam.

How much collective responsibility can the West take for the shitstorm it is in now, otherwise known as ’The Iran War’? Many would like to blame most of it on Trump for being a manchild and just going ahead with the most madcap military venture NATO countries have ever known, against all the expert advice, and ending up with a regime which is even more hardcore for having a bomb, world energy prices soaring and causing chaos due to Iran choking the Straits of Hormuz, and the entire relationship between Washington and its allies in the region reduced to a handful of dust?

The reality is that Trump took the decision to go to war not based on one issue alone. Left-wing commentators in the U.S. would like us to think it was to distract the media away from the latest revelations of the DOJ and the Epstein files, which had a tome of evidence accusing him of having inappropriate relations with a 13-year-old girl. But there were other reasons which pushed him over the line. Top of that list is surely that Netanyahu was blackmailing him, threatening to release recordings of his phone calls with Epstein where they talk about young girls. Add to that, it was probably pointed out to him that he was not going to keep both houses when the midterms come unless a considerable amount of Jewish American money was pumped into his campaign.

But it isn’t just Trump that has got us all into this mess that we’re in. For decades, the EU allowed Israel to ratchet up their brutal occupation of Palestinians and in the process to dehumanize them, leading to the climax of the Gaza genocide. This gave an unrealistic sense of impunity, almost akin to a divine intervention to religious fanatics who already believed that they were the chosen people and that they had a right to murder those beneath them and steal their property. Look at the reaction of western governments and in particular the EU when the events of October 7th unfolded and how they supported any response at all from Israel. In fact, just look at how any UK government minister reacted to the start of the Iran War, which, if we didn’t know better, might have thought it was started by Iran.

Trump is isolated now not for his rank stupidity, or his delusional views about who he is and what America is. He is isolated by EU leaders as none of them want to be part of a new Vietnam War scenario which goes on for years and only produces body bags — only to keep a U.S. president from looking like a total fuckwit in front of his own people.

Yes, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans don’t really understand what Trump just did in Iran. Even today, something like 80 percent of Republicans polled agree with his decision to begin a conflict with Iran, while Democrats are in the other camp altogether, perhaps better informed of Trump’s rationale behind going ahead with the plan.

Most likely the plan had been on the table for months and each time a military expert pointed out the harsh realities of it bringing blowback on a global level, affecting not only pump prices rocketing but just about everything else over the longer term, they were ignored or swapped for a sycophant in a uniform who just nodded like a demented parcel shelf toy dog until he had a whole room full of them. Does the American public understand just how self-indulgent Trump has been and that he has now created for himself a new threat, like a magician pulling a pigeon out of his hat? While the so-called ’threat’ from Iran goes from being a vague, opaque notion which most people don’t even believe, to being something quite real and lucid to the point that, ironically, Trump can now present it to the gullible public and hope they don’t notice that he manufactured it all by himself.

Yet it is remarkable how detached Europeans are from Trump and his plans. What an extraordinary example of how diplomacy is entirely dead and not worth the paper it’s written on, when EU ambassadors had no clue about these meetings and what came out of them. Shouldn’t EU leaders have stepped in at some point and warned him he was playing with fire and that the only certainty was that the West was guaranteed to be the burn victim? What about our intelligence services? It is inconceivable they didn’t know what was coming? Did they not tip off their own governments? Likely they did and that London, Paris and Berlin simply did nothing, such is the non-existent special relationship between Old Europe and Washington. Even Britain.

Transatlantic relations between the U.S. and EU countries is never going to be the same again if something can’t be done to get a dialogue going. Sure, Trump may pull the U.S. out of NATO just out of spite, like a fuming four-year-old who’s just lost his ball to an angry neighbour, but other, bigger relations are probably burnt forever. Washington’s relations with Israel can never go back to the Master (Israel) Slave (U.S.) set-up. And America’s relations with Gulf Arab countries is going to be hard to put back on an even keel when Arab leaders can see how fake they were in the first place.

Trump’s childish revelation recently that he couldn’t have imagined Iran hitting the GCC countries feels like a seven-year-old boy trying to explain to a room full of adults that he didn’t realise that borrowing his friend’s go-kart would result in so much damage as no one told him the jalopy would go so fast down a hill. The EU has a similar idiot in power, though. Kaja Kallas, a name which conjures up a 1980s underarm deodorant or a Greek ferry company, is blessed by at least not looking as stupid as she really is. This daughter of an Estonian communist politician, who was happy to live the high life under the Soviets, seems to be almost entirely brain dead when she gets on the podium or in front of the six microphones (all of EU TV networks who are actually paid cash to broadcast her moronic ramblings) and harps on about Russia getting more money now from oil sales. It’s literally like watching someone in a mental institution who hasn’t taken their medication talking to the mirror with a toothbrush as a mic and trying to sound clever.

But it’s no joke how the West got to where it is with Iran, when these same buffoons for decades have been encouraging Israel to expand its ideas and, red in tooth and claw, reach a point today where they are either starving people so as to ethnically cleanse Gaza or simply bombing women and children in their tents — or taking over part of Lebanon, a decades-old fantasy which didn’t end well in 1982 when they tried it before.

So the Trump joke is less funny when you see it in the light of who led him to where he is and what his inconsistent messages are to EU leaders. He is stuck in the past and tends to be someone trying to correct or duplicate U.S. foreign policy. Of course, he lacks élan, though, which is also part of the problem with such leaders. In the early 70s, when Nixon wanted to devalue the dollar but retain its power around the world, EU leaders were horrified. Apparently, he simply said to them: “It’s our dollar, but it’s your problem.”

March 21, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Have you heard the latest joke about Trump and Iran?

Trump signals possible wind-down of aggression against Iran despite unresolved Hormuz crisis

Press TV – March 21, 2026

US President Donald Trump has indicated he is considering scaling back the underway unprovoked aggression towards Iran, even as the crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz remains unresolved.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Friday, Trump claimed the United States was close to achieving the military goals sought by the aggression.

“We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East.”

He listed, what he called, degrading Iran’s missile capability and industrial base, and protecting US allies in the region.

The remarks flew in the face of the Islamic Republic’s robust underway retaliation, codenamed Operation True Promise 4, that keeps taking larger portions of hostile targets under the country’s firepower.

US military positions throughout the region, including in Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, have been subjected to sustained counterstrikes.

The retaliation has also struck sensitive and strategic locations across the occupied territories, including those lying in Tel Aviv, the holy occupied city of al-Quds, Haifa, Be’er Sheva, considered a technological hub, and the Negev Desert.

On the issue of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has closed to enemy vessels as well as ships belonging to those cooperating with the adversaries since the onset of the aggression, Trump suggested the US might step back from direct responsibility.

“The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it — The United States does not.”

Commenting on the remarks, American outlet Axios acknowledged that efforts to reopen the strait have proven difficult.

It cited Trump’s advisors as pointing to his frustration due to limited allied support, despite his alleging military victory.

The US has sought to form a coalition to secure the strait, asking NATO allies and others to contribute naval and air assets. Most have declined to commit forces, and some have only backed a political statement supporting the effort.

Trump has retorted to allies over their reluctance, calling NATO countries “cowards” and saying that without US backing, NATO is “a paper tiger.”

Meanwhile, disruptions to global oil flows continue to drive up energy prices.

March 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump signals possible wind-down of aggression against Iran despite unresolved Hormuz crisis

The American Fantasy of Iranian Surrender

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – March 21, 2026

What if the state that claims global military supremacy is now confronting a conflict it cannot win on its own terms?

President Trump’s repeated assertions that the US could defeat Iran and force it to surrender are now colliding with battlefield realities and geopolitical fissures that suggest otherwise. The very premise of a quick and decisive US victory is unravelling in real time, raising profound questions about American strategy, alliance cohesion, and power in a multipolar age.

The Illusion of Swift Victory in Tehran

President Trump’s pronouncements on Iran have been starkly ambitious. On multiple occasions he has touted rapid success and overwhelming military might in confronting Tehran — insisting that the US does not need British help to prevail and that Iranian forces will be “hit very hard.” Yet these claims increasingly look detached from both strategic reality and on‑the‑ground dynamics.

The US military doctrine has traditionally relied on superior air power and technological edge to achieve rapid dominance. In early March 2026, the Pentagon publicly stated that operations against Iran’s missile, air, and naval capabilities were underway, though officials stopped short of conceding a quick end to the campaign. But the timeline Trump once floated — nominally four to five weeks — has already blurred into ambiguity, with the White House acknowledging potential extensions and evolving objectives primarily because of the failure to achieve quick objectives. They thought that the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader would cause the regime to fall. That did not happen, forcing the US and Israel to rethink the nature and the duration of the campaign.

The expectation that air campaigns alone could cripple Iran’s military infrastructure — or compel unconditional political submission — misreads Tehran’s defensive resilience and strategic depth. A recent classified report from the US National Intelligence Council found that even large‑scale US use of force is unlikely to dismantle Iran’s entrenched political and military leadership. That insight undercuts the notion that a blitz of strikes can replace the complex sociopolitical calculus of regime transformation. The council’s document, drafted late last month, builds on work by the C.I.A. that assessed that a complete change of government was unlikely even if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, was killed in a US-led military operation.

Iran’s responses have also defied Washington’s expectations. Despite extensive targeting, Iranian forces have not capitulated; they have continued missile and drone strikes on US and allied targets across the Gulf region. Rather than collapse, Tehran appears to be adapting, leveraging both conventional responses and strategic signaling to blunt American efforts and maintain a posture of deterrence. Reports in the Western media show significant Iranian success in repeatedly targeting US military bases. Taken together, these developments erode the core of the Trump administration’s confidence in quick, decisive military outcomes, thus setting the stage for a campaign that may extend far beyond initial projections without achieving strategic objectives. As such, President Trump has now stopped threatening “certain death” to Iran and its people.

Eroding Alliances and Strategic Overreach

A second blow to US fantasies is the fraying of Western and regional support that Trump and his advisers presumed would form the backbone of sustained operations. Trump’s suggestion that the US does not need British assistance belies deeper tensions within the transatlantic alliance over legal responsibility, operational strategy, and political backing for war.

Across Europe, capitals are deeply divided over the US-led escalation. Spain has resisted aligning its military fully with Washington’s campaign, and the US leadership has grappled with legal and planning complications related to base access, epitomizing a broader transatlantic unease over the wisdom and legitimacy of war with Iran. These disagreements have reduced the coherence of NATO‑era cooperation, complicating US expectations for collective action.

The US’ handling of Gulf states has also strained ties with regional partners. Officials in several Gulf kingdoms privately expressed frustration at the lack of prior notification before strikes on Iranian territory and at US reliance on Gulf air defenses to intercept Iranian missiles with limited American support. This undercuts longstanding assumptions about the reliability of regional alignments and may incentivize some states to hedge their security calculations.

Domestically, American public opinion is also shifting in ways that undermine unilateralist ambitions. Polling suggests historically weak support for the operation against Iran, with a significant portion of the public expressing opposition and frustration at the perceived readiness of U.S. forces to engage in protracted conflict. This internal division complicates political sustainment of a drawn‑out campaign, particularly given the toll of casualties and financial costs that would accrue over time. Collectively, these fissures — within alliances, among regional partners, and on the home front — highlight the weakening of America’s hegemonic posture and raise questions about its ability to marshal durable coalitions in pursuit of major strategic objectives.

A Crisis of America’s Own Making

The deeper problem is not Iran’s resilience or the alliance falling apart; it is the strategic trap Washington has walked into. According to testimony before Congress, Pentagon officials repeatedly warned that Tehran posed no imminent threat of attacking the US directly. Yet the Trump administration chose to escalate, interpreting cautious intelligence as justification for preemptive strikes and forceful posturing. The result is a war the US did not need to fight, at a cost that will reverberate far beyond the battlefield.

This miscalculation is more than a tactical error; it is a strategic misstep that is reshaping global perceptions of American power. Allies are questioning Washington’s judgment, adversaries are emboldened, and the credibility of US deterrence is being tested. The costs are not just measured in military engagements or financial outlays; they are being paid in influence, alliances, and leverage in other regions of the world. The campaign against Iran is eroding the very hegemonic posture the US has relied on since the end of the Cold War.

The longer the conflict drags on, the more entrenched this erosion becomes. The US now faces a geopolitical deadlock of its own making: a situation where victory is unlikely, withdrawal risks loss of prestige, and every subsequent action is constrained by the consequences of a war initiated without necessity. What started as an assertion of American strength may ultimately be remembered as a cautionary tale of overreach, misreading intelligence, and underestimating both the limits of force and the resilience of regional actors.

In short, the crisis is not just in Iran. Rather, it is in Washington itself. A nation confident in its global supremacy has stumbled into a conflict that threatens to unravel the assumptions underpinning that supremacy, leaving the US not just challenged militarily, but on a path to strategic downfall.


Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affair

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

March 21, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on The American Fantasy of Iranian Surrender

US sends more Marines to Middle East as Trump hints at wind-down; contradiction reflects face-saving bid to unsustainable war

By Li Yawei | Global Times | March 21, 2026

The US-Israeli strikes on Iran have entered their fourth week, with Washington’s operations against Iran veering into contradictory directions. While US President Donald Trump has publicly said his intention is to gradually “wind down” military operations, media reports say that the US Department of Defense has made comprehensive preparations for the potential deployment of ground forces inside Iranian territory. A Chinese expert says that the US is currently putting on a show of toughness, yet its real intent is to bring this unsustainable war to a face-saving end.

The US is “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East,” Trump said in a Truth Social post late Friday.

Yet the Pentagon’s planned actions stand in stark opposition to President Trump’s claim of phasing out military operations.

US military officials said that about 2,500 additional Marines aboard three warships are heading to the Middle East, the New York Times (NYT) reported.

The Marines, who will deploy next month, are from the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit based at Camp Pendleton, California, and the U.S.S. Boxer amphibious ready group, per the NYT.

The US actually has come to realize that it has overcommitted and overextended itself in this war, which is increasingly detrimental to its own interests, Li Weijian, a vice president of the Chinese Association of Middle East Studies, told the Global Times on Saturday.

Yet it is unwilling to acknowledge the reality of its situation or its inability to prevail, and seeks to preserve its dignity by deploying troops, Li added.

It is by no means the first time that the US has struck a defiant tone in regard to this war. Trump told reporters on Friday that he is not interested in a ceasefire with Iran, CNBC reported. “We could have dialogue, but I don’t want to do a ceasefire,” Trump said from the White House South Lawn before departing for Florida. “You know you don’t do a ceasefire when you’re literally obliterating the other side.”

Additionally, CBS News reported that the Trump administration has been strategizing methods and options to secure or extract Iran’s nuclear materials, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions.

The timing of any such operation — if President Trump were to order it — remained unclear Friday night, per CBS News.

Such tactics of the US are intended to send a clear message to Iran that “it is not incapable of responding to the situation,” Li said, adding that the reality is that the US has already expended far too much.

Iranian strikes on military bases used by the US in the Middle East caused about $800m in damage in the first two weeks of the war, a new analysis shows, BBC News reported on Saturday.

A significant portion of the damage was caused by a strike on a US radar for a THAAD missile defence system at an air base in Jordan, per the report.

The US is also seeking to draw more countries into this conflict. Trump said Friday that “it would be nice” if Japan, China and other countries that are highly dependent on energy imports from the Middle East join his efforts to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the Mainichi reported on Saturday.

Trump also assailed NATO allies on Friday over their lack of support for the US-Israel war against Iran, calling the longtime US ‌allies “cowards,” Reuters reported.

Unwilling to concede defeat and unable to make an outright withdrawal, the US, amid mounting pressure, has sought to leverage the influence of other countries to pressure Iran into making concessions, according to Li.

The US ought to recognize that the war it has waged against Iran together with Israel is inherently unjust, that its isolation is no accident, and that it must bear the consequences for all of this, Li added.

March 21, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on US sends more Marines to Middle East as Trump hints at wind-down; contradiction reflects face-saving bid to unsustainable war

Pentagon Fast Tracks Iran War Ground Option

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – March 20, 2026

March 21, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Pentagon Fast Tracks Iran War Ground Option