Wars for Israel « Aletho News

Nima R. Alkhorshid: U.S. Military Bombs Multiple Targets on Iran’s Qeshm Island

Dialogue Works | November 8, 2026

November 8, 2026 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, United States, Yemen, Zionism | Comments Off on Nima R. Alkhorshid: U.S. Military Bombs Multiple Targets on Iran’s Qeshm Island

Iran-Linked Ships Spotted Hovering over Subsea Cables: Report

Al-Manar | November 8, 2026

Iranian-linked vessels have been observed making suspicious movements near undersea telecommunications cables in the Gulf of Oman, according to a Financial Times report, following Tehran’s warnings that it could target regional communications infrastructure if the United States and Israel renew aggression against the Islamic Republic.

At least four vessels tracked by the maritime analytics company Windward have been observed taking unusual routes and loitering over subsea cables traversing the Gulf of Oman in the days after Iran warned of disruption to digital infrastructure if the US escalated the conflict, reported the Financial Times on Friday.

Three were tankers subject to US sanctions, while the fourth was a small Iranian fishing craft that loitered over the Europe India Gateway and Transworld cables between October 21 and 26, according to Windward data.

According to data from TeleGeography, six cables run through the Strait of Hormuz, while three more — Fiber in Gulf, Sea-Me-We 6 and 2Africa — are under construction. 2Africa is the closest to completion.

Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar are wholly dependent on cables running under the strait for their internet connectivity.

Tehran has been vocal in its threats against cables and data centers running through the Strait of Hormuz over the past month, in response to threats from US President Donald Trump and other senior US figures that they would launch further attacks on Iran.

Earlier in October, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has warned that undersea internet cables passing through the Strait of Hormuz could become targets if the United States launches a new war against the Islamic Republic.

In remarks quoted by Iranian media on October 19, IRGC Spokesman Brigadier General Hossein Mohebbi warned that any renewed conflict would bring a harsher response, new weapons and previously unidentified targets.

November 8, 2026 Posted by aletho | Wars for Israel | Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar | Comments Off on Iran-Linked Ships Spotted Hovering over Subsea Cables: Report

New attack on Iran could devastate ‘Israel’, IOF general warns

Al Mayadeen | November 8, 2026

US President Donald Trump’s second term has exposed a reality starkly at odds with his promises to end crises and “achieve world peace,” as wars continue and economic difficulties deepen, Israeli reserve Major General Yitzhak Brik said.

In an article published by the Israeli newspaper Maariv, Brik noted that the West Asia region remains engulfed in an ongoing war, amid fears that the confrontation could spread to other parts of the world. Meanwhile, the global economy is deteriorating rather than experiencing the prosperity Trump had promised.

Brik argued that the outcome of the US midterm elections, in which Republicans lost control of Congress, reflected the extent of public dissatisfaction with Trump’s policies and declining confidence in his ability to resolve the crises he had pledged to address.

According to Brik, the US president is now facing consequential decisions over the war on Iran, amid sharp divisions within his administration and the absence of a unified strategy for dealing with the evolving confrontation.

US divided over war

Brik further stated that disagreements within the White House revolve around two principal options: escalating military attacks on Iran in an attempt to achieve a decisive outcome through force, or maintaining economic pressure while pursuing an agreement that could bring the war to an end and prevent further escalation.

However, military and political calculations are not the only factors shaping Trump’s decisions, the Israeli general said. He suggested that the US president’s sense of “humiliation” over Iran’s treatment of him could drive him to launch an attack out of a desire for revenge rather than on the basis of strategic assessments.

He warned that a military decision motivated by such considerations could have grave consequences for the entire region, particularly if “Israel” joined any new offensive.

A catastrophe for ‘Israel’

Brik stressed that another aerial assault on Iran, potentially involving “Israel”, could rapidly trigger a full-scale regional war in which “Israel” would find itself at the center.

He acknowledged that the damage “Israel” could sustain in such a confrontation would be “enormous and unbearable,” noting that some of the damage it suffered during previous rounds of fighting had already become irreparable.

Brik called on the “sensible and responsible” figures within the US administration to dissuade Trump from ordering another attack, warning that further escalation could open the door to a confrontation extending far beyond the current war.

He argued that the expectation that airstrikes alone could secure a decisive military victory over Iran rests on unrealistic assumptions. Without a ground intervention, he said, aerial operations cannot topple the Iranian government or prevent Iran from becoming a “nuclear state”.

Citing the outcome of previous attacks, Brik maintained that they had failed to achieve their strategic objectives, producing little more than temporary destruction while strengthening Tehran’s determination to continue developing its capabilities.

What are the costs of war?

In outlining the options available to Washington, Brik argued that addressing Iran’s nuclear program would require one of two principal courses of action, neither of which could produce results without imposing a substantial cost.

The first option would involve a large-scale ground operation inside Iranian territory, directly targeting nuclear facilities with substantial troop deployments, extensive air support, and the use of technological and intelligence capabilities.

Brik believed this option could potentially deliver a decisive military defeat to the Iranian government and neutralize its nuclear facilities. He acknowledged, however, that it would require a massive operation resulting in heavy casualties among US forces.

The second option would involve economically exhausting Iran through stringent sanctions and a prolonged blockade, backed by the full participation of Western countries, with the aim of isolating the Iranian economy from global markets.

He specified that this approach would require preventing Iran from exporting oil, gas, and other products, while restricting the entry of raw materials and weapons through land crossings, thereby subjecting Tehran to sustained economic pressure.

Brik acknowledged that this option had a lower likelihood of success than a ground military campaign and would require prolonged patience, international discipline, and broad Western commitment.

At the same time, Brik rejected reliance on a “middle-ground solution” based on repeating aerial attacks, arguing that such an approach would neither halt Iran’s nuclear program nor achieve a decisive military outcome. Instead, it could drag “Israel” into a regional war in which it would pay a heavy price.

Brik concluded his article by urging decision-makers to abandon their reliance on political promises and displays of air power, warning that military decisions driven by revenge, without adequately assessing their consequences, could aggravate the crisis rather than resolve it.

November 8, 2026 Posted by aletho | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on New attack on Iran could devastate ‘Israel’, IOF general warns

Nuclear deterrence: The US-Israeli military aggression against Iran made the unthinkable legitimate

By Nahid Poureisa · Press TV · November 8, 2026

From Student Day on 13 Aban in Iran, where crowds chanted calls for Donald Trump’s killing and revenge and carried slogans declaring that “nuclear deterrence is our inalienable right,” to Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin meeting with Mohsen Rezaei and the Republican Party’s historic defeat in the US midterm elections, the war’s spillover effects are reshaping three trajectories simultaneously.

These trajectories include the boundaries of Iran’s nuclear policy, the depth of the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership, and the economic calculus of American domestic politics.

Underlying all three is a dynamic that has been repeatedly reinforced, which is the US-Israeli military aggression lending legitimacy to precisely the outcomes it seeks to prevent.

Erosion of the nuclear taboo: From marginal demand to establishment debate

For decades, Iran’s nuclear policy was constrained by a religious edict issued by the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, prohibiting the development and use of nuclear weapons.

Today, however, voices from Friday prayer pulpits to street demonstrations are calling on the leadership to abandon its longstanding commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. Millions of Iranians, alongside lawmakers and political figures, are increasingly demanding a decisive and timely shift in the country’s defense and nuclear doctrine.

At the highest political level, the shift is becoming explicit. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary, Major General Mohsen Rezaei, said in a state television interview that the leadership was debating whether to maintain its pre-war nuclear doctrine.

“No new decision has been made yet,” he said. “But, of course, the debate now is whether we want to keep the same doctrine we had before the war.”

Calls for Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), once confined to the political margins, are also becoming increasingly prominent in national media.

In parliament, prominent figures have joined the debate, arguing that if Iran possessed nuclear weapons, its adversaries would not dare attack the country or target its leaders and ordinary citizens, including schoolchildren.

Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of the parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission, in his recent remarks said that even before the war was imposed on Iran, 70 percent of Iranians supported acquiring nuclear weapons as a means of securing deterrence.

The underlying perception is increasingly clear: without the ultimate deterrent, Iran could remain vulnerable to attacks by the United States and Israel at any moment. Trump himself reinforced this perception when he said at a Republican convention in September that if Iran possessed a nuclear weapon, he would be “calling the leader politely.”

The structural consequence is stark. Before the June 2025 strikes, the IAEA estimated Iran possessed 440 kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity, a short step from the 90% needed for weapons-grade, and no other country has enriched to such a level without producing a weapon.

About 42 kg is enough for one weapon if further enriched; Iran’s stockpile is roughly ten times that. Inspectors were withdrawn after the US-Israeli aggression and have had no access to Iran’s four declared enrichment sites since. The IAEA’s September 2026 report says it cannot establish the stockpile’s size or location. Iran stayed short of a bomb and was attacked anyway.

For anti-imperialist constituencies globally, the unprovoked and illegal US-Israeli strikes, particularly those occurring during active nuclear negotiations, constitute a crude negation of the principle that sovereign states have the right to self-defense.

When diplomacy is proven ineffective as bombs fall, nuclear weapons as the “ultimate insurance” acquire renewed legitimacy within anti-imperialist discourse. This is not a simple endorsement of proliferation; it is an acknowledgment of a structural predicament.

In an order where a nuclear power can launch preemptive strikes against a state in the middle of nuclear negotiations, nuclear armament is viewed as a rational survival choice.

Russian-Iranian binding: From strategic partnership to substantive interdependence

The war on Iran has accelerated its eastward shift, with all-weather ally Russia emerging as its primary beneficiary. On November 5, 2026, Rezaei met with Putin at the Kremlin, delivering a message from the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei.

Their discussions focused on the ongoing war, Iran’s seven conditions for beginning negotiations with the United States, a natural gas pipeline from Russia to Iran, and the implementation contract for the Rasht-Astara railway line.

The significance of this agenda goes far beyond the symbolic language of a “strategic partnership.” The gas pipeline would not only help alleviate Iran’s energy shortages but also position the country as a transit corridor for Russian gas to neighboring states, further intertwining the two countries’ energy interests.

The transport corridor, meanwhile, would integrate Iran into a regional logistics network less exposed to Western sanctions. At a time when the war is further isolating Iran from the international system, these increasingly binding economic ties carry existential urgency.

Economic blowback and electoral reckoning: Vance’s “cutting losses”

The war’s most direct economic transmission mechanism has been oil prices, which were approaching $120 per barrel on the eve of the midterm elections.

Brent crude had reached a late-October high of nearly $118, while futures jumped to $106.61 on November 3, the day before Americans went to the polls, following fresh US strikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island. The OPEC basket price had stood at $115.86 at the end of October.

For American households, fuel costs at these levels kept inflation elevated, squeezed real incomes, and left the Federal Reserve with little room to cut interest rates.

The political consequences of this economic chain became apparent on November 3, 2026. Democrats retook control of both the Senate and the House, securing at least 54 Senate seats and 248 House seats, according to projections.

The result exceeded expectations of a “blue wave,” with some describing it as a “blue tsunami.” Trump himself – as well as his close aides and children – acknowledged that the war against Iran and the resulting rise in gasoline prices had contributed to the defeat.

JD Vance’s response was particularly direct. In a lengthy post on X the morning after the election, he wrote: “The real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone. The reason we lost is the war.” He added: “If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so.”

Drawing on focus-group research, Vance outlined four priorities for Republicans seeking to win back disaffected voters: ending the war, addressing the cost of living and inflation, putting America first, and changing the country’s relationship with the Israeli regime.

Vance’s call to “cut losses” has been widely interpreted as an effort to position himself for a 2028 presidential run. But the broader significance lies elsewhere: a war in West Asia, transmitted through the everyday economic pressure of higher oil prices, became a factor in reshaping the balance of power in the US Congress.

Republican lawmakers are now looking for scapegoats, with War Secretary Pete Hegseth emerging as a target and Marco Rubio reportedly facing pressure to resign.

Trump, for his part, attributed the defeat to the fact that he “wasn’t on the ballot.” Whatever the competing explanations for the result, the election has exposed the domestic political costs of an overseas military campaign that contributed to rising fuel prices and the cost of living.

Trajectories and the unified logic at work

Taken together, these three trajectories reveal a common underlying logic. US-Israeli military aggression undermined the strategic rationale for Iran’s nuclear restraint, turning a weapons program once treated as taboo into an increasingly discussable policy option.

In global anti-imperialist discourse, the strikes also weakened the moral force of non-proliferation norms, lending new weight to the argument that “sovereign states need nuclear weapons to survive.”

Economically, the war’s costs were transmitted through energy prices to populations around the world, including American voters, contributing to an electoral backlash.

Iran deliberately sought to push the costs of aggression back into the domestic politics of American imperialism. The Republican defeat is not the endpoint of this dynamic, but its clearest demonstration that in a deeply interconnected world, the costs of military aggression can eventually reach the aggressor’s own doorstep, often in unexpected ways.

This is the emerging narrative of Iran’s rise as a power shaped by the ashes and blood of war.

November 8, 2026 Posted by aletho | Wars for Israel | Iran, United States | Comments Off on Nuclear deterrence: The US-Israeli military aggression against Iran made the unthinkable legitimate

U.S. Midterms – a Referendum on Israel and Zionist Power

By Mark Collett | Occidental Observer | November 7, 2026

Trump’s naked pro-Zionist agenda triggered an unprecedented ‘blue wave’ that was characterised by a complete rejection of Israel first neo-conservative foreign policy, changing U.S. politics forever.

In 2024, Donald Trump achieved an electoral miracle. Coming back from an embarrassing defeat in 2020, he won a sweeping victory – winning the presidency in terms of both the electoral college and the popular vote, but also securing Republican majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Effectively, this comprehensive win granted Trump and the Republican Party complete control over the U.S. federal legislative machinery. Holding power over this political trifecta granted Trump a golden opportunity to enact his agenda, something he struggled with during his first term. This incredible victory and the resulting political mandate was largely built around two policies: controlling immigration and ensuring America withdrew its support for the war in Ukraine and did not embroil itself in any other costly foreign conflicts. This policy platform was dubbed ‘America First’, with the overarching narrative being that American politicians needed to focus on domestic issues and the wellbeing of Americans, rather than embroiling the country in foreign entanglements or prioritising the needs of migrants.

The success of Trump’s third campaign for the White House makes the Republican defeat at the 2026 U.S. midterms even more catastrophic, presenting a sweeping structural collapse of the party’s elected power base. The Republicans not only lost their majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but they did so comprehensively, losing a number of historically safe seats along the way. The Democrats did not just win, but to quote President Trump, they won ‘bigly’, striding confidently into Republican heartlands and scoring victories in red states where the idea of a Democrat win was previously unthinkable. While it is true that midterms often see an electoral swing away from the party that is currently in charge of the White House administration, that swing is usually driven by a very specific voting pattern. Usually in a midterm election with a Republican incumbent in the White House, pollsters would expect to see two distinct patterns of voting: Republicans who wished to punish the establishment would stay at home and Democrats wishing to punish the establishment would turn out in greater numbers.

This election however, was different. Democrats who wished to punish Trump did indeed turn out in greater numbers, but interestingly, Republican voters did not stay at home – they went out and voted, but for the Democrats. Usually, Republican voters wishing to punish their own party will simply opt not to vote, thus reducing their party’s tally. However, most of those Republicans won’t actually vote Democrat, because that is a mental step too far, and those voters view that as an endorsement of the ‘other side’ and of policies they fundamentally disagree with. Trump however managed to alter this established pattern; he motivated vast numbers of Republicans to vote Democrat and this is what led to such a monumental swing that altered the balance of power in Congress. What’s more, this is why as the votes were counted Trump watched in horror as the Republicans not only lost swing seats, but also took losses in areas that were viewed as Republican fortresses: Kansas elected a Democrat to the Senate for the first time since 1932, Texas elected a Democrat to the Senate for the first time in nearly four decades and South Carolina flipped to the Democrats for the first time since 1998.

But what fuelled this massive electoral swing is arguably far more interesting than the results themselves. The massive swing that saw millions of Republicans voting Democrat for the first time was primarily fuelled by one issue: Trump’s betrayal of his core anti-war promises and his abandonment of the ideal of America First and the consequent inflation. Trump had embarked on a wholly unnecessary war with Iran at the behest of the state of Israel, and the consequences of that conflict had harmed middle class families all over America. This was not just another unnecessary war, but it was a war that was affecting Americans at home and hitting families where it hurt the most: normal people could no longer afford to fill up their cars with fuel or fill up their shopping cart with groceries. And Trump was not only committed to the war with Iran, but went as far as to make it very clear that he believed the cost to the average American family was not only acceptable, but something that those families should bear for the good of Israel’s wider goals in the Middle East. This was no longer America First, it was Israel First.

Trump was extremely bullish about his commitment to the war, and when asked by reporters whether his slavish support for the Zionist cause was worth the economic hardship that was being experienced by American families as a result of the war, he responded: ‘I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all.’ For the man who once championed the phrase “Make America Great Again”, this comment hit Republicans hard. Voters who had rallied around Trump and turned out in record numbers for him in 2024 could now see the truth: Trump was happy to let Americans suffer. And American families were suffering because Trump was ready to further prioritise the needs of a Middle Eastern nation that was already sucking billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers that could have been better spent on services at home. Further to this, Trump brazenly stated that the federal government could no longer afford to pay for programs like Medicare and Medicaid due to military spending on the war with Iran.

But Trump’s slavish support for Israel and his willingness to destroy the living standards of his voter base to send U.S. troops to war with a country that most Americans couldn’t point to on a map did not occur in a vacuum. This rerouting of American tax dollars away from domestic priorities and towards a wholly unpopular war was egged on by Trump’s rapidly changing inner circle. What’s more, those who had been the most enthusiastic supporters of Trump’s America First platform, like Tucker Carlson, were now moving away from him and turning into his greatest critics. At the same time, new faces began appearing around the president and these new cheerleaders were shouting a very different message altogether. Trump found himself surrounded by a cabal of hawkish Zionist Jews including Mark Levin, Laura Loomer and former Trump critic Ben Shapiro. These individuals all egged Trump on, attempting to convince him that his new direction was the correct path and that voters weren’t bothered by the war and that they would support him and his agenda no matter what. These people were exactly the sort of ‘friends’ that any politician could do without, but all of them managed to gain the ear of Trump by playing on his greatest weakness – his ego.

But Trump hadn’t exactly been shy about his subservience to Israel and had been openly vocal about his ties to leading Zionist megadonors. In a 2025 Hanukkah reception at the White House, Trump famously brought Jewish megadonor Miriam Adelson on stage. While introducing her, Trump brazenly stated, ‘Miriam gave my campaign indirectly and directly 250 million. She was number one. When somebody can give you 250 million, I think that we should give her the opportunity to say hello.’ This is the kind of comment that a president would wisely only make in a very private circle of trusted friends; instead, Trump blurted it out on stage in front of a crowd of dignitaries, the press and the media. This statement of course raised a number of eyebrows and led to accusations about the transactional nature of Trump’s relationship with his pro-Israeli donors. During her time on the microphone, Miriam Adelson revealed she had been discussing the legality of a third presidential term with Jewish attorney Alan Dershowitz – this added further weight to the accusations that Trump was merely a tool of a group of very powerful and wealthy Zionist donors.

But while Trump had clearly abandoned domestic concerns over inflation in the costs of living, he had notably focused his time and energy on several domestic electoral races which added fuel to the fire regarding where his loyalties really lay. Earlier in the year, Trump came together with Miriam Adelson and several other Zionist megadonors to ensure that previous spending records were smashed in relation to a Republican primary election. This was of course the fierce battle that ensued over the re-election of Thomas Massie, a prominent anti-Zionist Republican who consistently opposed U.S. military aid to Israel, opposed the war in Iran and had worked tirelessly to ensure the full disclosure of the Epstein files, an issue that had made Trump uncomfortable, leading to him branding Massie as a ‘traitor’. Similarly, Trump also labelled Marjorie Taylor Greene as a ‘traitor’ and a ‘ranting lunatic’ after she condemned the administration’s alignment with pro-Israel lobbying groups and accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of dragging the US into a broader conflict with Iran.

This all painted a very clear picture. Trump was clearly accepting phenomenal sums of money from Jewish Zionists and openly bragging about the size of the donations, even going as far as admitting this money had granted those donors unprecedented access to the White House. These donations clearly looked transactional, and appeared even more so when Trump pivoted away from his anti-war America First pledges in order to take the U.S. into another deeply unpopular and damaging war in the Middle East, which directly affected the living standards of the average American family. But while doing all of this, Trump was focusing domestically not on attacking or unseating ‘woke’ Democrats in order to please his core voter base, but instead was engaged in a ‘night of the long knives’ where he viciously purged anti-Zionist America First Republicans. U.S. presidents have been accused in the past of being pro-Israel, but never before have such accusations been given so much weight by such obvious and shameless words and actions.

This placed Trump in an interesting position heading into the 2026 midterms. Despite the fact he had made good on a number of his domestic pledges regarding border control, travel bans and the U.S. system of processing asylum claims, he had completely pivoted on his anti-war pledges. Not only had Trump failed to bring the war in Ukraine to an end, but he had opened up a new front in Iran, and the Iranian response of asymmetric warfare targeting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz was causing domestic havoc by means of creating a cost-of-living crisis in America. This all ensured that the stage was set for a perfect storm – midterm elections that would result in one of the greatest examples of a political collapse in post-war history. But while Trump had appeared on the surface to be blissfully ignorant of the coming storm, his surprise announcement on election day would suggest that even he knew what was coming, but more importantly, he knew that his pro-Israeli policies were the root of the problem. At the 11th hour, Trump issued a desperate proclamation as polls opened that he was about to end the annual $3.8 billion military aid package to Israel.

This was clearly not a principled policy change brought about due to a genuine concern for the American electorate and the America First policies that voters had elected Trump to enact; instead, it was a last-minute desperate capitulation aimed at stemming the electoral bloodshed. Trump clearly realised that the Republicans were headed for a humiliating midterm defeat, a fact that would undoubtedly hurt his fragile ego and mar his legacy. However, this election morning announcement most likely worked against him, as it simply served to remind the average voter exactly how much U.S. taxpayers were gifting to Israel as American families struggled to cover the cost of basic groceries. Rather than granting a last-minute reprieve, this policy announcement was likely the final nail in Trump’s coffin. Whereas midterms are often characterised as the electorates’ chance to place a check on executive power, this election would be different – being fought largely over the issue of Zionist power and U.S. subservience to Israel, with even the President himself playing into the narrative. What’s more, post-election, this was publicly acknowledged by Vice President JD Vance.

On November 4th 2026, JD Vance took to X and posted the following:

‘One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was “composition”—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.

So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we’re going to shock the world? “No,” he told me. “We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us.”

Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.

There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.

But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.

Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:

1. End the war

2. Focus on cost of living/inflation

3. Put America First

4. Change our relationship to Israel

Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)

In the next few months, there’s going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I’m open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.

The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.

If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest.

But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.

I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.’

This lengthy admission as to what was at fault was unique. Not only is Vance the Vice President, but his lengthy post goes against what has been the central pillar of Republican foreign policy for more than half a century – the unconditional support of Israel. This was an example of someone at the highest level of political office admitting to the new political reality: there is a massive gulf between the voters who turned out in record numbers in 2024 and voted for America First, and the cabal of Republican Zionists who support the now deeply unpopular neo-conservative policy that has dominated U.S. decision making for decades. Vance’s admission was also unique because he went further and actually dared to blame Trump’s relationship with Israel for the Republicans’ recent electoral failures, going as far as to admit that the ‘blue wave’ was driven by slavish support for a war that is not in the interests of American families, but instead, wholly for the benefit of Zionist power in the Middle East. Had this statement been made by the likes of David Duke, it would have been scoffed at or dismissed, but these were the words of JD Vance.

But Vance was not issuing this statement blindly, swinging wildly and waiting to see what would come back; instead, he was playing to an increasingly large gallery – one which was stacked with powerful and influential pundits and politicians. This was Vance speaking an almost forbidden truth and opening the door to a larger and now-legitimised discussion over Israeli power and Zionist lobbying in America, a discussion which was already entering the mainstream thanks to Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie. But in another blow to Trump, this very discussion is one that he had tried to stifle and silence. This sets up a critical fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party that will rage between now and the next presidential election. The battle lines are drawn: on one side stands the neo-conservatives and Israel first cheerleaders, on the other stands the America First movement and traditional, isolationist conservatives – with the prize being the reins of America’s oldest political party and control of its future direction.

Interestingly though, the American electorate – while at war over issues such as immigration, DEI and abortion – is increasingly united over the issue of foreign wars, Israeli power and Zionist lobbying. Which raises another issue that cannot be ignored: the role of the Democrat voter in creating the ‘blue wave’. While most of the post-election discussion has focused on the Republicans who ‘switched sides’, it is important to note that the ‘blue wave’ was not simply made up of passive Democrats benefiting from angry Republican votes. The Democrats won because their more radical, anti-war flank completely energised their base. Traditionally, the Republican base would slavishly support Israel, while the Democratic base would be far more likely to oppose interventions in the Middle East and scorn unconditional support for the Zionist state. But the combination of angry Republicans who felt betrayed and highly motivated anti-war Democrats created the perfect storm that powered the ‘blue wave’ and helped to achieve a clean sweep of both the House and the Senate. This was a bi-partisan vote, that achieved huge change, powered by a shared and unifying dislike of neo-conservative foreign policy.

Historically, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other Zionist lobbying groups have played a decisive role in U.S. elections, often deciding the outcome in key battlegrounds and helping to unseat anti-Israel candidates, as was seen when Thomas Massie lost his place on the ballot in Kentucky. However, the blue wave witnessed at the recent midterms was so great, it completely broke AIPAC’s power, rendering them impotent or at least forcing their donors to make donations without any reference to Israel or AIPAC, despite their immense spending power. The primary example of this was seen in the Senate race in Michigan. Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed campaigned transparently against Washington’s subservience to Israel, centring his platform on an anti-war message and a demand that American tax dollars be spent on healthcare and infrastructure at home rather than being used to fund foreign conflicts. Sensing an existential threat, AIPAC and its super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), went entirely on the offensive. They pumped a record-breaking $42 million into the electoral race in order to stop El-Sayed.

But the pro-Israel lobbyists went far further than just providing huge sums of money. In a stunning escalation of the establishment’s panic, El-Sayed’s pro-Israel primary opponent, Haley Stevens, crossed party lines just days before the election to endorse the Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. Yet AIPAC’s record spending and the other dirty tricks they employed all failed to influence the outcome and El-Sayed easily overcame the pro-Israeli opposition. El-Sayed went on to mock AIPAC during his victory speech, stating: ‘To AIPAC, who spent $42 million against us: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to beat you twice.’ The midterms were not just a referendum on Zionist power and Israeli control of America; they were not simply a ‘blue wave’, but they were an indicator that pro-Israel super PACs are starting to lose their formerly vice-like grip over U.S. elections. This provides proof that when angry Republicans and energised Democrats vote together over a shared issue of concern relating to Israeli influence, AIPAC loses its position as kingmaker. But the breaking of the Israel lobby’s power in Michigan was not an isolated anomaly, but instead part of a nationwide phenomenon that saw voters reject candidates backed by Zionist money.

Ultimately, the results of the U.S. midterms point to the fact that despite differences over domestic policy, there is a growing consensus among both Democrats and Republicans that whichever way America chooses to go, it should do so under its own direction, rather than that of the Israeli state. What’s more, this consensus is so great that even record super PAC spending cannot overcome it. But interestingly, for this mass awakening, the new voter consensus and the rejection of the Israel First agenda, there is only one man to thank: Donald Trump. Trump’s naked, brazen and often shameless support for Israel has woken up millions of normal Americans to the stranglehold that the state of Israel and Zionist lobbyists have over U.S. politics. In many ways, Trump has lifted the curtain on this pressing issue – whether that is by design or by accident, through his often brash and bumbling behaviour is another matter – but the effects remain the same nonetheless. Trump was so obviously slavish to those he served, that he inadvertently alerted the entire nation to an issue that had, for most voters, flown under the radar for decades.

As a result, political discussion centered on Israel’s power that was once confined to less frequented corners of the internet, banned from YouTube and other mainstream social media platforms, is now being openly espoused by the U.S. Vice President, Tucker Carlson and numerous other notable public figures. Ideas that were once branded as ‘dangerous’ conspiracy theories about Jewish lobbyists, Israeli influence and Zionist power are now becoming more mainstream and are actually influencing voting patterns and helping to decide major elections. As such, Donald Trump, through his total lack of restraint, has become at the very least an accelerationist president who has brought a once taboo topic under the spotlight. What’s more, it is often true that people are moved primarily by economic factors – when the populace starts to feel the financial pinch, they react at the ballot, venting their anger by changing their voting habits. And for the first time since the Second World War, American voters are joining up the dots and connecting their financial woes to Zionist power and the American establishment’s support for Israel, firmly placing pro-Israel foreign policy in direct contradiction with the good of the American people.

The fundamental paradox of the second Trump administration is that a president who swept to power on the promise of ‘America First’ ultimately chose to uphold the values of the old neoconservative consensus. By abandoning his populist mandate in order to wage a catastrophic, proxy conflict on behalf of Israel, Trump did not merely commit a strategic foreign policy error; he shattered the economic security of the very middle-class families who were the electoral backbone of his political resurrection. The resulting ‘blue wave’ that characterised the 2026 midterms was not a routine swing of the electoral pendulum, but a unified, bi-partisan rejection of Zionist power and neo-conservative policy. However, through his shameless behaviour and total lack of restraint, Trump performed an unintended civic service: he permanently lifted the curtain on the mechanics of the Israel lobby, forcing a historic convergence of angry populist Republicans and energised anti-war Democrats. The ultimate irony of the 2026 ‘blue wave’ is that Donald Trump did indeed fundamentally alter American politics forever – not by successfully executing an ‘America First’ agenda, but by proving to millions of voters that true domestic sovereignty can only be reclaimed by decisively rejecting the politicians, lobbyists and megadonors who wish to put ‘Israel First’.

November 7, 2026 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on U.S. Midterms – a Referendum on Israel and Zionist Power

Thousands of Syrian troops set to join Saudi war on Yemen

Al Mayadeen| November 7, 2026

Thousands of Syrian troops are reportedly preparing to deploy to Yemen under a military arrangement with Saudi Arabia, potentially opening a new phase in the conflict and expanding Riyadh’s efforts in its aggression on Yemen.

Yemeni officials cited by AFP on Saturday said hundreds of Syrian personnel had already been deployed near the Saudi-Yemeni border, while additional forces were expected to arrive in stages. The reported agreement provides for an initial contingent of approximately 3,000 troops, with the overall deployment potentially exceeding 10,000.

A source from Yemen’s Aden government told AFP that Damascus and Riyadh reached an agreement on sending the initial contingent to participate in operations against the Yemeni Armed Forces.

“The Syrian side and the Saudi side agreed to send around 3,000 troops to fight against the Houthis,” the source said, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Three separate Aden-aligned Yemeni sources and a defense official confirmed to the news agency that Syrian personnel had already arrived on both sides of the border. However, the full scale and operational details of the deployment have not been officially announced by the Syrian or Saudi governments.

Initial Syrian contingent reportedly includes officers and specialists

A source at the Aden-aligned Defense Ministry told AFP that the first phase would involve approximately 3,000 Syrian fighters, including officers and military specialists. The agreement reportedly provides for more than 10,000 personnel in total, with additional forces to be sent in subsequent stages.

The same source said Syrian and Saudi technical teams from the two countries’ defense ministries were in Riyadh finalizing arrangements for the participation of Syrian forces in aggressions against Yemen.

According to another Aden-aligned source, Syrian personnel already positioned near the Yemeni side of the border are involved in drone operations targeting the group.

The reported deployment is backed by a formal agreement between the Syrian and Saudi defense ministries, providing a legal framework for military cooperation. The arrangement was approved during Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s visit to Riyadh this week, when the two countries signed several cooperation agreements, including a defense deal.

The agreement marks a significant development in relations between Riyadh and Damascus, particularly as Saudi Arabia seeks to consolidate its position in Yemen following the collapse of the truce over the summer.

Saudi Arabia seeks foreign military support

Riyadh has been seeking assistance from regional and international partners to fight against Yemen as the Yemeni Armed Forces retaliatory operations have cause significant damage inside the kingdom. The YAF have expanded their control along Yemen’s Red Sea coastline and stepped up retaliatory attacks on Saudi territory, vessels, and infrastructure.

The retaliatory strikes have also raised concerns over Saudi Arabia’s economic diversification plans and the security of strategic energy facilities. According to the AFP report, strikes on Riyadh forced the airport to close for two weeks following Ansar Allah’s retaliation.

The arrival of Syrian troops would make them the first clearly named foreign ground forces to join the war on Yemen since fighting escalated over the summer.

Other countries have also signaled or provided military assistance. Egypt’s parliament approved President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s request to authorize defensive military support for Saudi Arabia if Riyadh formally requests it.

France has deployed troops to protect the Yanbu oil terminal, a key Saudi energy facility, following a visit by French President Emmanuel Macron to Riyadh last month. The UK government also announced in October that it would deploy fighter aircraft to assist Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, Syria’s top diplomat said last week that Damascus was considering joining a regional defense alliance involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. The pact was signed in Mecca in August and stipulates that an attack against one member is to be considered an attack against all three.

Neither Pakistan nor Turkey has announced military operations against the Yemeni Armed Forces.

Yemen conflict enters another phase of escalation

The renewed war on Yemen followed the collapse of a truce established in 2022 after Saudi Arabia targeted the Sanaa airport. Since the summer, Yemeni Armed Forces has imposed a maritime blockade targeting Saudi Arabia for its blockade on Yemen, launched operations against vessels and facilities linked to hostilities, and announced control of Yemen’s Red Sea coastline.

The Syrian deployment would add a new dimension to the war, bringing Damascus into a military effort alongside Riyadh and other countries supporting the Aden-based government.

The Syrian military itself faces significant organizational challenges. AFP reports that its ranks comprise a collection of armed groups, many of them extremist formations, that participated in the foreign-backed coup and overthrow of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. The composition and capabilities of any force sent to Yemen could therefore have implications for the nature of its role in the conflict.

November 7, 2026 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Wars for Israel | Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen | Comments Off on Thousands of Syrian troops set to join Saudi war on Yemen

Revive Iran’s MOU Deal or Face a Forever War /John Mearsheimer

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – November 6, 2026

November 6, 2026 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | CIA, Iran, Israel, Ukraine, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on Revive Iran’s MOU Deal or Face a Forever War /John Mearsheimer

Would President Vance really ditch Israel?

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | November 6, 2026

Never hesitate to state the obvious: Everyone with eyes to see is recognizing that the US midterm elections have been sensational. The Democrats have achieved a stupendous – “historic” according to the Financial Times – triumph; the Republicans have suffered a crushing, Stalingrad-scale rout.

Let’s focus on the rout: This is the moment when, on the same day, a New York Times front page main headline promises to explain the GOP’s “historic collapse” while Tucker Carlson starts his show with a wry “well, that was a disaster” (adding that he really means “disaster,” as in the sinking of the Lusitania, not rain at a wedding party).

You may suspect both America’s paper of liberal Centrism and the former Fox host turned MAGA dissident of bias or, at least, Schadenfreude. Yet bias is simply irrelevant in this case, where, for once, the facts really do speak for themselves: The great, enormous, humungous GOP midterm catastrophe is quantifiably worse than the 2006 drubbing the party received for George W. Bush’s Iraq War insanity or the “shellacking” – in his own words – voters administered to Barack Obama and his Democrats in 2010. As the staid Economist has summed up the Republican fiasco, this is “not a normal midterm swing against a sitting president, but the biggest wave-election since the aftermath of Watergate more than 50 years ago.”

What is even clearer than that the Republicans have been devastated is that one man in particular has taken a stunning hit: US President Donald Trump. He may insist that he was not on the ballot as much as he likes. No one is fooled. Of course, he was, if not officially – as no president ever is during midterms – then all the more in reality. This was, the Wall Street Journal has noted correctly, “one of the most decisive repudiations of a president in modern history.”

The causes of this “blue tsunami” will keep commentators and, later, historians busy. Here, let’s just note two things: They go beyond the key issues of “affordability,” a typical US euphemism for mass impoverishment and the “Iran War,” in effect another euphemism, standing for a US defeat much worse than Vietnam, incurred for no real reason other than to please genocidal Israel. In particular, the spike in gasoline prices resulting, most of all, directly from this perfectly avoidable war and defeat has delivered a gut punch to Trump’s party.

But also recall that US voters, as we know from polls, are angry as well about such things as the tariff wars that made their lives more expensive even before the Iran War, the blatant rapacity of the Trump clan and their cronies, and the shooting of US citizens in brutal ICE crackdowns.

Not to speak of bulldozing part of the White House in a quixotic quest for the biggest, blingest ballroom of them all. Most of all, perhaps, there is a deep background noise of resentment at a president who seems to make a point out of displaying how little he cares. About his countrymen and about his own promises of no more wars and putting America first, and not Israel.

And now? That is, of course, the most important and most urgent question of this moment. Rumors are swirling: The (political) heads of Secretary of War (On Behalf of Israel) Pete Hegseth and Trump’s chief of staff and single most important adviser Susie Wiles are said to be on the chopping block, for instance.

In this volatile dog-eats-panicked-dog world, one man seems to have made up his mind rapidly. Vice President J. D. Vance, former vehement Trump critic, then devoted Trump convert, has had another moment of revelation and rebirth. With the battle scarcely over and lost, he has addressed the public via X to, in essence, put as much distance between himself and his losing boss as he possibly can while, perhaps, keeping his job.

In a long post, Vance has outlined his theory of why the GOP was crushed. Unusually rich in detail about polling, turnout, and voter movements from one camp (the GOP) into the other (the Democrats), the gist of the post is one clear if implicit message: It’s Trump who is to blame.

Because that’s what you are saying when you say, as Vance does, that the key issue that lost the election was the war against Iran. If you add, as Vance also does, that voters wanted not only an end to that war but also a “focus on cost of living/inflation,” putting America truly first, and a “change of our relationship to Israel,” the point gets only clearer. The Wall Street Journal is right: This was a “stunning repudiation” of Trump.

For while Trump is by no means the only one to blame for the perverse American dependency on and support of a hyper-aggressive and genocidal midget state (that would be virtually the whole US establishment), he has made himself the single most prominent epitome of this national syndrome. And that makes him the single most convenient fall guy, too.

There’s no reason to pity Trump for being stabbed in the back by his very own Brutus. It was always clear that Vance is, to put it mildly, highly flexible in his positions and values as well as unscrupulous. His burning ambition is, if anything, even more obvious: Hire a Vance, don’t complain when he’ll kick and stab you when you’re down.

The Iranian leadership has made no secret of being highly unimpressed by Vance’s latest self-update. “Losing gambler energy, can’t walk away from the table. Boss is prepping the next war phase while America teeters on an Israel-First cliff. Skip the TED talk. Why not say this to your boss?” That was the response of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran’s parliament.

Tehran has every reason to be harsh as well as skeptical. But for the rest of us, it makes sense not to dismiss Vance’s sally so quickly. His motives are certain to be selfish. The fact that he was launched by one of America’s most devious and power-hungry oligarchs, Antichrist-obsessive Peter Thiel, makes his CV even less appealing. But we still have to ask what he may have in mind with his “break” with Trump.

Clearly, Vance is positioning himself for a potential run for the presidency. But what would be his agenda if he ran and won? Skeptics see a massive psyop: Vance will only pretend to offer MAGA cleansed of Trumpian contaminations, in other words, to really put America and Americans first, and cut Israel loose. In reality, they predict, his aim is to betray his potential voters no less than Trump has. Trust neither Vance nor his friend and MAGA rebel Tucker Carlson, the skeptics warn, because they will, in the end, sell out to Zionism and give you the same old, same old again.

There is no compelling reason to rule out such a scenario. Yet there is no reason to find it inevitable either. It is equally possible that Vance – out of opportunism, not because of the conscience he does not have – could really stand for a great right-wing turn away from Israel. Not because Israel is genocidal and all-purpose criminal, but because being tied to it is becoming far too politically costly.

This possibility should not be dismissed out of hand. For two reasons: First, being Israel’s tool in the Middle East has really produced catastrophe for the US and its establishment. And second, until now – or perhaps recently – supporting Israel come-what-may has been a vile bipartisan consensus. To break it down entirely will require great changes both among Democrats and Republicans.

US politics is exceptionally dark and often outright evil. But the geopolitics and the domestic calculus of the long decades of America’s “Israel First” obsession could shift even in that world of darkness. For Israel’s victims, the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Yemenis, Iranians, and many others, it won’t matter why exactly the US will finally stop propping up their tormenters. A realistic commitment to their liberation must focus first of all on getting the US out of the Middle East. Under what regime at home it will make that retreat may matter. Or not.

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.

November 6, 2026 Posted by aletho | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on Would President Vance really ditch Israel?

Using nuclear weapons, the US-Israeli alliance still can’t beat Iran

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | November 5, 2026

While it is true that conventional weapons cannot penetrate Pickaxe Mountain Nuclear Site, there is no guarantee that using a nuclear weapon will actually yield results. Instead, the fall-out is the only thing that is certain.

The United States, at the behest of their Israeli partners, are speculated to be weighing the nuclear option against the Islamic Republic of Iran. In recent weeks, US President Donald Trump has continued to make threats against Tehran, claiming that he will even deploy the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB).

However, the target that the Trump administration and Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu appear the most obsessed with, is the facility located under Pickaxe Mountain, near the Natanz Nuclear Facility. Satellite imagery suggests that there has been significant activity at the site, at least according to US media.

All the talk of bombing this site, which Trump himself has publicly threatened to do, is predicated on the concept that Iran’s highly enriched Uranium is located at this underground facility. Based upon this assessment, there’s only one way to go about destroying that target. A MOAB is not a bunker buster munition, it is an airburst weapon, therefore officials in Washington can’t be seriously considering this as their weapon of choice.

Conventional weapons have failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and underground missile facilities, meaning that the only natural last option is a tactical nuclear weapon.

Yet, there are a number of problems with this strategy, beyond the obvious implications of using nuclear weapons in the first place. The first obvious issue is that the US and Israelis don’t actually know with any degree of certainty that Iran is storing its enriched uranium at this site, at best it is an educated guess.

The next issue they face is that tactical nuclear weapons have never been used in combat, yet alone against this specific kind of target. While hypothetically the force of the weapon would destroy the underground facility, it is also possible that the mountain will absorb a lot of the shock, meaning that what will be felt will be like an earthquake, but not necessarily enough to destroy the infrastructure.

Another major issue that the US has is that they have no idea how deep the infrastructure is actually buried underneath the mountain range. They estimate that the nuclear facility could be buried around 80-100 meters, but have no blueprints and are again guessing. No nuclear inspectors have gained access to it to inspect, so there is no way of telling for sure. It is also unknown precisely where the US, or the Israelis, would have to strike in order to have any hypothetical success.

Let us assume that the US or their Israeli partners use the nuke and still fail to destroy the facility, or that Iran’s nuclear material is not even located there, would it be worth it to deploy such a weapon? Iran has built these facilities and its missile cities, with the threat of nuclear weapons in mind, meaning that they are more than likely prepared for such an eventuality also.

The response that would come to a nuclear attack on Pickaxe Mountain would then be enormous, killing any hope of a negotiated settlement in the short term, ensuring a long and bloody war. As we have seen demonstrated since the Israeli attack on Iran in June of 2025, conventional weapons cannot destroy Iranian underground missile facilities, meaning that they would then have to use countless nuclear weapons if they hoped to penetrate them. It would then be a doomsday scenario, and every front would ignite in a way that cannot be anticipated. In addition to this, the use of these weapons is not even guaranteed to achieve their goals.

Overall, the US-Israeli alliance is not actually attacking Iran over the nuclear weapons issue; they have attempted to inflict regime change. Using nuclear weapons against nuclear sites will do nothing to achieve the overthrow of the Iranian government.

For every offensive action that Washington carries out at the behest of Tel Aviv, Tehran has an answer for it. If there was a quick and simple road to victory, Netanyahu and Trump would have already taken it.

Using nuclear weapons would be a ridiculous and reckless mistake, with potential far-stretching consequences that span much further than the scope of this article. While the third round appears inevitable, the outcome will ultimately have to be a US retreat from the region. First, it is clear that the Zionist regime must be dealt a strategic defeat in order for that to be allowed to happen.

November 5, 2026 Posted by aletho | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on Using nuclear weapons, the US-Israeli alliance still can’t beat Iran

US-‘Israel’ alliance faces growing rupture after midterms

Al Mayadeen | November 5, 2026

The 2026 US midterm elections have exposed a deepening political crisis in Washington’s longstanding relationship with “Israel”, as Democratic victories, declining public support, and statements from senior Republican officials raise questions about the future of American military assistance and diplomatic backing, Bloomberg reports.

Michigan elected Abdul el-Sayed as the country’s first Muslim senator on Tuesday. His campaign included a pledge to end US military aid to the Israeli occupation and characterized its war on Gaza as genocide. His victory came despite the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) reportedly spending $30 million against him.

In Georgia, Senator Jon Ossoff secured reelection, reinforcing the growing presence of Democrats critical of American weapons transfers to “Israel”. Ossoff was among the first Senate Democrats to oppose offensive weapons sales in 2024, a position that has since gained support across much of his party’s caucus.

The electoral developments reflect a broader transformation in American political attitudes toward the occupation and the military campaign in Gaza.

According to a March NBC News poll cited in the original report, only 13% of Democrats held a positive view of “Israel”. The figure was comparable to the share among young American voters overall, regardless of political affiliation.

Minority of GOP support Israeli regime

The trend also extends into Republican ranks. A Pew Research Center survey published in October found that only slightly more than a quarter of young Republicans supported the Israeli government.

For decades, successive US administrations maintained bipartisan backing for the Israeli occupation, providing military financing, advanced weapons, and diplomatic protection. The changing political landscape now threatens the assumption that this support will remain unaffected by electoral competition.

Bloomberg reports that Michael Allen, managing director and partner at Beacon Global Strategies, said the developments had put “Israel” in a precarious position.

“For the foreseeable future I think they’re in a lot of trouble,” he said, pointing to the political developments following the Israeli elections.

AIPAC influence faces mounting electoral resistance

El-Sayed’s election carries significance beyond his victory in Michigan. It challenges the influence of pro-“Israel” lobbying organizations that have traditionally sought to shape congressional positions and electoral outcomes.

The reported $30 million campaign against him illustrates the financial resources deployed against candidates advocating restrictions on military assistance. His victory, however, demonstrates that opposition to unconditional support for “Israel” is gaining electoral ground despite substantial lobbying pressure.

The growing divide within the Democratic Party is particularly consequential as Democrats prepare to assume commanding majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Although legislative efforts to restrict arms transfers remain unlikely to become law under the current administration, a larger bloc of lawmakers opposing military assistance could increase scrutiny of weapons sales, military financing, and Washington’s diplomatic protection of “Israel”.

The shift also presents a longer-term challenge. Younger voters are increasingly approaching the issue differently from previous generations, potentially reshaping the foreign policy positions of both major parties.

Trump and Vance signal Republican reassessment

The political pressure has also reached the Republican leadership with US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly described himself as the most pro-“Israel” president in US history, announcing on Tuesday that Washington would end its annual $3.8 billion in military assistance to “Israel”.

Speaking to Fox News, Trump said the arrangement would end this year, arguing that “Israel” had become sufficiently successful to operate without direct American military financing.

He also acknowledged the domestic political implications, describing the issue as “almost too easy a target.”

US Vice President JD Vance reinforced the significance of the announcement in a social media post published after the Republican electoral losses. He identified the need to “change our relationship to Israel” as central to the party’s efforts to regain control of Congress and the White House in 2028.

Vance is widely expected to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2028, making his intervention particularly significant.

The remarks suggest that maintaining unconditional support for “Israel” is increasingly being viewed as an electoral liability, even within Republican political circles.

Nomi Bar-Yaacov, associate fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, described the election results as a rejection of Netanyahu’s government.

“It is a clear vote of no confidence in the outgoing Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” she said, Bloomberg reports. “This marks a huge, huge shift in the US-Israel relationship.”

Netanyahu faces political fallout as aid agreement comes under scrutiny

The developments in Washington coincide with Netanyahu’s struggle to retain power following the inconclusive October 27 elections in “Israel”.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog is expected to decide whether Netanyahu or his principal challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, will receive the first opportunity to form a government.

Opposition figures have already used the American election results to challenge Netanyahu’s political position.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid argued that the results eliminated the possibility of a unity government led by Netanyahu. Liberal opposition leader Yair Golan said they demonstrated “just how toxic Netanyahu is among both Democrats and Republicans.”

Avishay Ben Sasson-Gordis, head of US-“Israel” research at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, described the situation as a major political emergency.

“Politically, this is a five-alarm fire,” he told Bloomberg.

He argued that Trump’s announcement demonstrated how politically damaging “Israel” had become, potentially sending negative signals to its regional rivals.

‘We made a deal that we’re stopping’

The financial implications remain uncertain. Earlier this year, Netanyahu reportedly expressed interest in gradually reducing dependence on US military assistance over the following decade. In June, American and Israeli officials announced negotiations over a new agreement expected to take effect in 2028, focusing on joint investment in research, development, and weapons production.

Trump told Fox News, “Netanyahu and I have made a deal … We made a deal months ago that we’re stopping — and they’re fine with it. They’ve become a very successful country. They don’t need it. And we won’t be paying anymore.”

However, the announcement appears to have caught Israeli government officials off guard.

Two Finance Ministry officials told Bloomberg that they and their counterparts in the Ministry of War were surprised by the reported agreement. Two Foreign Ministry officials separately said they had not been informed of any changes to the existing memorandum of understanding. All four requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The apparent discrepancy raises questions about the agreement’s status and whether Washington is preparing to alter the financial foundations of its relationship with “Israel”.

November 5, 2026 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on US-‘Israel’ alliance faces growing rupture after midterms

Midterm loss gives Congress power to rein in US war on Iran

Al Mayadeen| November 5, 2026

Tuesday’s midterm elections have left US President Donald Trump facing a Congress with the constitutional means to restrain the US war on Iran, while strengthening Tehran’s hand in negotiations over its memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Washington.

Retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski and Mohammad Marandi, professor of English literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran, reached that assessment on Al Mayadeen’s The Grand Standoff on Wednesday.

They tied the Republican losses to Trump’s abandoned promises to end wars and prosecute the “Epstein class,” the economic toll of the war on Iran, and a growing American backlash against Israeli influence in Washington.

Marandi called the result “a major turning point,” though he stressed that the war is far from over.

Congress holds the power to act

The Congress to be seated in January 2027 “was elected to stop the Iran war,” Kwiatkowski argued, and it has several levers to do so. House appropriators can freeze funds not yet disbursed, she explained, while the Senate can pass binding resolutions and refuse a declaration of war, which the Constitution requires.

She noted that Trump has already exceeded the 60-day limit on military action and dismissed his move of halting at day 58 and restarting the clock as “a joke.” A non-binding Senate resolution criticizing the war passed this summer by only a vote or two, she recalled, but a Senate majority now opposed to it could bar him from acting and censure him.

Kwiatkowski cautioned that change will not come overnight, since AIPAC has lobbied lawmakers of both parties for decades. She pointed out that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer still avoids admitting the war was fought for “Israel,” even though Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and War Secretary Pete Hegseth have acknowledged that Netanyahu wanted it.

Marandi stressed that the vote also raises the political cost of escalation. A renewed attack would be seen as illegitimate because Americans voted against the war, he predicted, adding that “the price would be much heavier for him and his allies” than before the election.

‘Israel,’ AIPAC take the hit

Both guests named “Israel” as the election’s biggest loser.

Marandi pointed out that Vice President JD Vance himself conceded “Israel” was a key factor in the Republican defeat, since all four reasons Vance cited link directly or indirectly to it.

Kwiatkowski judged Vance’s reading correct but suggested he is trying to distance himself from a sinking Trump, and doubted he would act on it after helping Trump attack anti-war conservatives.

Winning Candidates refused AIPAC money and used the word genocide, Kwiatkowski observed, singling out incoming senators Talarico of Texas and El-Sayed of Michigan, who both voiced moral revulsion at US taxpayer money funding a genocide in Gaza. “That is a slap in Netanyahu’s face,” she said, adding that candidates who defy AIPAC and still win will encourage others to follow.

Marandi cited polls showing young Jewish Americans oppose genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing, and credited Americans with waking up “despite being the most propagandized people in the world.” He warned against naivety about the Democratic leadership, though, noting that Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries backed Biden’s policy on Gaza.

A president unlikely to change course

Kwiatkowski rejected Trump’s claim that election results would have been different had he been on the ballot, describing the vote as a referendum on his executive-centered rule.

She also doubted he would adjust, arguing that “the Trump who is 80 years old is irrational” and that only Congress and sustained public pressure can constrain him.

In her view, he is more likely to pick a fight with a Democratic Congress over Ukraine, where Democrats want to keep funding Kiev and maintain tariffs on Russia.

Iran prepares for war

Marandi warned that a US attack could come at any moment. Iranian forces are on full alert, three US aircraft carriers are in place, and “the nights will be very dark” as the weekend approaches, he said.

He added that the Axis of Resistance is active on all fronts, from Lebanon to Sanaa and from Iraq to Tehran, and extended congratulations to Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Palestine for helping shift opinion in the United States.

Iran, he continued, will keep tightening the noose in the Strait of Hormuz and demand full US compliance with the MOU. Tehran would shorten the implementation timeline and is ready to “sugarcoat the MOU,” but it will not withdraw its seven demands or allow the substance to change.

He contended that Iran is now in a much stronger position and Trump a much weaker one, noting that Jimmy Carter, whose comparison Trump has long feared, “looks far more successful” in hindsight.

Carter’s shadow over Trump

The discussion turned to the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, which Marandi argued Americans are taught to see as the origin of the US’ conflict with Iran, as though the takeover were an irrational act with no cause. Iranians view it differently, he explained, because it followed decades of US interference.

Washington overthrew Iran’s government in 1953, installed the Shah and helped build the SAVAK secret police. During the revolution, the army killed protesters across the country, including on Black Friday in Tehran, and Carter phoned the Shah the next day to reaffirm his support.

After the revolution, Marandi continued, the embassy supported separatist groups and kept contact with officers who might carry out a coup. The decision to admit the Shah to the United States then revived fears of a repeat of 1953, and that was what pushed Iranians to take the embassy.

He hoped that Americans, now more politically aware because of the war, would come to understand that history better.

Kwiatkowski saw the same continuity in Washington’s present-day aims, arguing that US goals toward Iran have barely changed since Carter and still amount to making Iran “kneel before the hegemon.”

She called it a long war, but affirmed that “Iran is winning it.”

November 5, 2026 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on Midterm loss gives Congress power to rein in US war on Iran

Midterms Were ‘Vote of No Confidence’ in GOP, But Iran Has No Illusions About Democrats – Marandi

Sputnik – 05.11.2026

Tuesday’s crushing midterm defeat for Republicans was a “good sign” showing “that the American people are pushing the elites” and “putting pressure on them,” but the Democrats’ victory won’t bring positive changes to US foreign policy, Tehran University professor and prolific political commentator Mohammad Marandi has told Sputnik.

“The Democratic Party is not a party of peace,” Marandi emphasized, pointing out that Democrats were in charge when Israel unleashed its bloody campaign in Gaza in 2023, and initiated or greenlit the bombings, dirty wars and proxy conflicts in Libya, Syria and Yemen, as well as the crisis in Ukraine.

As far as Iran is concerned, the change of power in Congress “doesn’t mean the war is over.” The US “may attack Iran at any time. But it does mean that the regime in Washington, the political establishment in Washington, recognizes that the American people are sick and tired of war,” Marandi said.

“The working assumption is that the United States will carry out aggression,” Marandi emphasized.

“The [pro-Israel lobby] will not give up, and they are the ones who are still in charge,” Marandi said. He warned, however, that any new war will be “much more costly” for the US and Israel, both politically and militarily.

“Any attack on Iran will be met with a decisive response, and that will lead to a global economic calamity.”

Israel will inevitably also work to try to rope the US into a new conflict, because they can’t fight alone, the observer noted.

Israel “needs, for example, the refueling planes of the United States. That would mean US involvement…And that, of course, would mean the involvement of the Arab regimes in the region…because the United States uses their bases, airspace and jet fuel,” Marandi said.

“Iran is both prepared for a very decisive battle in the coming days or weeks, and they’re prepared for a very long-term conflict as well,” with the government putting a wartime economy in place, Marandi said.

The military has received “a very large budget,” with the country traditionally having “the smallest military budget in the region” for decades.

The military is building “new underground cities,” expanding existing missile city and command and control infrastructure, developing new missiles, drones, and producing so much equipment they’re running out of places to store them, Marandi said.

The Islamic Republic is ready to fight through the remainder of the current US administration’s term, if necessary, and will not relent, Marandi stressed. The US will have to come to the negotiating table in the end.

November 5, 2026 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on Midterms Were ‘Vote of No Confidence’ in GOP, But Iran Has No Illusions About Democrats – Marandi

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Trita Parsi: Trump’s Swiss Cheese Iran Plan & U.S. Break with Israel?

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

Only a Beginning… Charles Malik’s vision of an emergent Pax Judaica

By David Miller | Tracking Power | November 12, 2026

In August 1949, three months after Israel joined the United Nations, Lebanon’s envoy in Washington sent his government a long report. Charles Malik, no firebrand, had signed the UN Charter and helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His Report on the Present Situation lay largely unread until Dar An-Nahar printed it in 2002. … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,369 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,816,127 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

November 2026

M T W T F S S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

« Oct
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
Afghanistan Africa AIPAC al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkiye Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

November 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Dialogue Works | November 8, 2026

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – November 6, 2026

Featured Video

From the Archives

By David Miller | Tracking Power | November 12, 2026

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info