Several countries have either rejected or expressed serious concerns about US President Donald Trump’s plan to form a coalition aimed at escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran has closed to Washington and its allies in retaliation for the brutal US-Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic.
Germany’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Johann Wadephul, said on 15 March that he was “skeptical” of Trump’s plan.
“Will we soon be an active part of this conflict? No,” he went on to say.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said, “What does Trump expect a handful of European frigates to do that the powerful US Navy cannot?” adding, “This is not our war, and we did not start it.”
Meanwhile, France officially rejected the US request to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz.
The French Foreign Ministry rejected reports that it was gearing up to send vessels, saying, “No. The carrier strike group remains in the Eastern Mediterranean. France’s position remains unchanged: defensive and protective.”
Australia has also denied the request, as have Japan, China, Norway, and Spain. The UK and South Korea said they were reviewing options.
The US president had demanded that NATO states join his proposed coalition, threatening that they would face a “very bad future” if they did not.
Trump had also expressed hope that “China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a nation that has been totally decapitated.”
Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz to Washington and its allies in response to the US-Israeli war against the Islamic Republic. Several vessels trying to cross in violation of Iranian warnings have been targeted.
A number of countries have reached out to Tehran for access to the Strait, through which 20 to 30 percent of the world’s energy passed prior to the war.
India has confirmed that two of its ships passed after talks with Iran. Tehran also allowed a Turkish vessel to pass through the strait.
“The Strait of Hormuz has not been militarily blocked and is merely under control,” said Alireza Tangsiri, naval commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated, “The Strait of Hormuz is open. It is only closed to the tankers and ships belonging to our enemies, to those who are attacking us and their allies. Others are free to pass.”
After Yemen began its pro-Palestine blockade in the Red Sea following the start of the Gaza genocide in 2023, Washington launched a naval operation under the name Prosperity Guardian – aimed at deterring Sanaa’s forces and facilitating the transit of vessels.
The US failed to secure enough partners, and the mission ultimately failed.
The Ansarallah-led Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) has recently vowed that it is ready to intervene alongside Iran’s other allies – meaning the potential closure of another vital energy route, the Bab al-Mandab strait.
March 16, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Wars for Israel | China, France, Germany, Iran, Israel, Japan, South Korea, UK, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on ‘Not our war’: Trump’s naval coalition to reopen Strait of Hormuz dead in the water
The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has issued a warning that all logistical and service centers supporting the US aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford in the Red Sea are now considered legitimate targets for Iranian armed forces, as the warship takes refuge at Saudi Arabia’s Jeddah port.
The spokesman for the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters released a statement on Sunday declaring that the presence of the American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the Red Sea constitutes a direct threat to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
“The logistical and service centers providing support to the aforementioned carrier group in the Red Sea are considered targets of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s armed forces,” the spokesman emphasized.
The warning specifically addresses the support infrastructure that enables the carrier’s operations, including maintenance facilities and supply chains, rather than merely the vessel itself.
The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the US Navy’s most advanced and largest supercarrier, transited the Suez Canal on March 6 and entered the Red Sea as part of a broader American military reinforcement amid escalating tensions following the February 28 US-Israeli aggression against Iran.
According to satellite imagery released by Chinese commercial geospatial firm MizarVision, the 100,000-ton vessel has been operating approximately 100 kilometers off the Saudi coastline, with recent indications suggesting it has moved closer to Jeddah.
The carrier is accompanied by its strike group, including guided-missile destroyers.
The deployment represents the Ford’s first operational mission in the Middle East since its commissioning in 2017, and comes as the vessel has already exceeded 255 days at sea.
This is not the first warning directed at the Ford.
Earlier this month, IRGC Aerospace Force Commander Brigadier General Majid Mousavi stated that Iranian forces were monitoring the carrier and “waiting for them to reach the designated perimeter,” signaling Iran’s readiness to strike once the vessel entered range.
The IRGC has previously reported successful drone and missile strikes against another US carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Iran has consistently maintained that its retaliatory operations are legitimate self-defense under international law, targeting only American and Israeli military assets while avoiding harm to civilian infrastructure in neighboring countries.
However, Tehran has made clear that any nation facilitating attacks on Iran by providing territory or facilities to US forces will be considered complicit in aggression.
March 16, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Saudi Arabia, United States |
Comments Off on Iran declares support centers for USS Gerald R. Ford legitimate targets
No, this is not another conspiracy theory. Several hypotheses have emerged suggesting that Netanyahu may be dead, missing, or facing some other serious circumstance. The reality, however, is that his current whereabouts remain unknown. Nevertheless, there are several points that can still be articulated.
Do you recall the period during which Israeli forces were heavily bombarding the population of Gaza? During that time, Netanyahu frequently appeared on the political stage, presenting a series of perfidious claims intended to justify why the largely defenseless population in Gaza purportedly deserved such devastating treatment. Over the past decade, Netanyahu has adopted a similar posture with respect to Syria, Libya, and other regions that Israel has sought to undermine or destabilize.
The narrative has shifted considerably. Netanyahu is obviously absent from public appearances; he is neither addressing the nation from podiums nor proclaiming victory. He may be sheltering in a secure location, receiving heightened protection, strategically awaiting a particular moment to emerge, or perhaps entirely removed from public view. What is evident, however, is that he is not asserting triumph—a clear indication that Israel may not be achieving its objectives, or that the Israeli regime almost certainly miscalculated the Iranian defenses. Furthermore, Iran has not appealed to the United States or Israel to terminate hostilities or request a ceasefire. In other words, the current conflict differs markedly from prior engagements and does not appear to favor Zionist Israel or the United States.
Moreover, it is evident from recent developments that Donald Trump has publicly emphasized the importance of bringing the conflict to an end and has actively called on various allied and partner nations to assist in maintaining the security of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime point for global energy supplies. However, these appeals have not yet resulted in significant commitments from other states, and Iran has so far resisted overtures to negotiate a cessation of hostilities. These dynamics just indicate that the current war differs substantively from previous Israeli debacles in the Middle East.
In other words, regardless of interpretation, Iran has already delivered a powerful strategic pushback against U.S. and Israeli actions, which can be viewed as a critical counterbalance to the policies and interventions of these powers. Obviously, a conflict of this magnitude exacts a heavy toll on both sides in terms of human and material costs. Nevertheless, Iran appears to have shifted the dynamics of the confrontation, signaling two central messages: first, that it will no longer tolerate continued aggression without any serious confrontation, and second, that the Israelis and the Zionist regime can bleed–politically, strategically, ideologically, and economically.
It is interesting that Iran is undertaking actions that many Western policymakers have failed to address effectively for decades. Iran’s assertiveness highlights the contrast with politicians across the ideological spectrum in the West—both self-identified right and left, or conservative and liberal—who have often expressed concern over migration from Muslim and Arab countries, yet have largely remained silent regarding the repeated interventions by the United States and Israel in the Middle East, which have resulted in the destabilization and destruction of multiple countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan.
This clearly shows a contradiction. Some people keep saying that Muslims and migrants are destroying Europe, but they stay silent about, or support, endless wars in the Middle East and Africa. This is simply lunacy. You cannot destroy countries like Syria and Iraq for the sake of Israel and then expect “peaceful harmony” in Europe and America. You cannot keep supporting one empire after another around the world and expect your own region to stay safe. You also cannot support leaders like Trump invading countries such as Venezuela and then suddenly start talking about “white identity” in Europe. If these people cannot see this basic contradiction and abandon it, there is nothing we can do to help them.
Michael Jones has argued that Trump may, inadvertently, be signaling the end of the American Empire, and this perspective warrants consideration. Certainly, neither Trump nor the Israeli government set out with such an outcome in mind. However, given their sustained engagement in diabolical policies across the Middle East, their objectives are being viewed increasingly as unattainable. Trump’s tenure, in this respect, illustrates a critical lesson: the pursuit of an “America First” agenda is fundamentally incompatible with unwavering support for the Israeli regime and the Zionist ideology. These positions represent inherently contradictory political ideologies; for an “America First” policy to maintain coherence and credibility, the United States and much of the West would need to reconsider the uncritical alignment with Israeli interests.
There is no way around this principle. Even during Trump’s first term, he was saying things like “America First” and “enough is enough with endless wars in the Middle East.” At the same time, he was becoming closer to the Israeli government and powerful elites in the United States who support those wars. Because of this, it seemed clear to me that Trump was misleading the American people.
Now that Netanyahu is no longer boasting about winning a war against Iran, Trump has to ask the Iranians to stop the conflict. Otherwise, the American economy could suffer serious damage. As writer Ilana Mercer has argued, the Iranians should make Israel pay a price for its actions. Only then will Israel learn some basic lessons.
March 16, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Benjamin Netanyahu, European Union, Israel, Middle East, UK, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on Where in the World Is Benjamin Netanyahu? On the Move or Out of Sight?
Israeli control of the Pentagon goes back to 2002.
Pentagon insider and senior enlisted leader of nearly three decades standing, Command Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, Dennis Fritz describes what he saw in the Pentagon leading up to the Iraq War: Each cabinet official had an individual who they would talk to in Israel to keep them posted on what we were doing…
The point person that Doug Feith, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense, was keeping in touch with at the time was Benjamin Netanyahu.’ Fritz is the author of “Deadly Betrayal: The Truth About Why the United States Invaded Iraq“
March 15, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | Iraq, Israel, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on Pentagon insider says high US official Douglas Feith reported to Netanyahu
Two legal organizations, European Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights and the Cyprus Democratic Lawyers Association, have called for the termination of British claims over the military bases at Akrotiri and Dhekelia, describing them as remnants of colonial rule that undermine the sovereignty of the Cypriot people.
In a joint statement, the organizations argued that Cyprus remains only partially decolonized more than six decades after gaining independence. They said the agreements establishing the bases in 1960 were imposed as a condition for independence, allowing Britain to retain control over parts of the island for strategic military use.
The statement challenged Britain’s assertion that Akrotiri and Dhekelia are sovereign British territories. According to the groups, the arrangement was established under unequal and coercive circumstances at the time of independence and therefore cannot be considered the result of genuine consent.
UN resolution cited on territorial integrity
The organizations pointed to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 of 1960 on decolonization, which they say prohibits the fragmentation of colonial territories during the decolonization process and protects their territorial integrity.
They also cited the 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice regarding the Chagos Archipelago. In that case, the court determined that the decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed after Britain separated the islands in 1965 and concluded that the UK should end its administration of the territory.
According to the statement, the same legal reasoning applies to Cyprus. The groups argued that the British bases represent a continuation of colonial authority under a different framework, dividing the island’s territory and turning it into a staging ground for foreign military operations.
Security risks from foreign military activity
The organizations also warned that the use of the bases by other states, including the United States, could expose Cyprus to regional conflicts. They said activities conducted from the bases, including operations that could be interpreted as unlawful self-defense, might threaten the island’s security and territorial integrity.
The statement additionally cited a 2024 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice regarding Israeli policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, arguing that third-party states must not assist in maintaining situations that violate international law.
The organizations said the issue ultimately concerns international law, decolonization, and the protection of the Cypriot people’s rights. They argued that Cyprus has the right to challenge the arrangement in international forums and demand the complete end of colonial-era structures.
Finally, the groups urged the Government of Cyprus to stop its tolerance of the British bases and to begin discussions with the United Kingdom on steps toward their removal and the return of all Cypriot territory to national control.
The incident comes amid escalating regional tensions following coordinated US and Israeli strikes on Iran. Tehran has since launched missile and drone attacks across the region, with British officials noting that some projectiles were fired in the direction of Cyprus.
March 15, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Wars for Israel | Cyprus, UK |
Comments Off on Lawyers’ groups demand end to British military bases in Cyprus
The Judaeo-American war on Iran was intended to be a lightning strike routing, fought exclusively from the air, lasting only a few days. Instead, Washington and its Zionist proxy have blundered into a major multi-front conflict, which could well threaten the Empire’s very existence. The initial US aerial bombardment’s centrepiece was Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s February 28th murder. Initially hailed by Western media as “the assassination of the century,” the vile act has resulted in catastrophe for the perpetrators.
The Islamic Republic’s relentless battering of Zionist entity civilian centres and military and intelligence infrastructure, and US bases throughout West Asia, hasn’t been deterred one iota. Vast crowds took to the streets of Tehran in vengeful mourning. Their righteous anger has pullulated throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Ever since, incensed Shiites have violently clashed with security forces in multiple major Pakistani cities. Meanwhile, Bahrain teeters on the brink of all-out revolution. Now, Mojtaba Khamenei, the slain Supreme Leader’s son, has taken his place.
Iranian citizens of every ethnic and religious extraction braved US-Israeli airstrikes to celebrate his ascension. Commonly perceived as a hardliner with strong ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, the expectation that the new Supreme Leader will adopt a considerably less conciliatory, patient approach than his father is widespread. Western sources forecast Mojtaba may decide the Islamic Republic “must move quickly to obtain nuclear weapons in order to forestall future US and Israeli attacks,” overturning Ali Khamenei’s longstanding fatwa against their development by Tehran.
US President Donald Trump has declared he is “not happy” with Mojtaba taking power, and Israeli apparatchiks are likewise perturbed by the development. Nonetheless, this was an inevitable upshot of assassinating the former Supreme Leader. There was also no reason to believe doing so would precipitate the Islamic Republic’s collapse, or lead to Tehran’s military submission. It begs the obvious question of why Washington and Tel Aviv electively helped install a ruler more committed than ever to expelling the Empire from West Asia.
Similarly, Hezbollah’s extraordinary broadsides of the Zionist entity since Khameinei’s assassination should dispel any notion – as perpetuated by Israeli political and military chiefs – the group was obliterated by Tel Aviv’s criminal October 2024 invasion of Lebanon. That incursion was prefaced by an operation in which thousands of pagers used by senior Hezbollah operatives were detonated simultaneously, having been wired with explosives by Mossad pre-purchase, killing and injuring many. A week-and-a-half later, the group’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah was lethally targeted in a Zionist entity airstrike.
Evidently, the Resistance cannot be crushed via high-level assassinations. In fact, such actions actively strengthen its members. This inconvenient reality has been well-known to the CIA since at least 2009. In July that year, the Agency produced a top secret assessment laying out the pros and cons of liquidating “high value targets” (HVTs). It was prepared in advance of Barack Obama’s CIA chief Leon Panetta shifting US “counter-terror” operations from capturing and torturing high-level suspects, to outright executing them.
The assessment concluded HVT operations “can play a useful role when they are part of a broader counterinsurgency strategy,” and sought to “assist policymakers and military officers involved in authorizing or planning” such strikes. However, it listed many “potential negative effects” of “high value” assassinations. Israel’s past killing of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders were specifically cited as examples of how the strategy can spectacularly backfire. We have witnessed the CIA’s unheeded cautions play out in real-time since February 28th.
Foremost among prospective blowback from HVT operations is that the risk high-level assassinations can increase an “insurgent” group’s support. This occurs when killing a target “[strengthens] an armed group’s bond with the population, radicalizing an insurgent group’s remaining leaders, creating a vacuum into which more radical groups can enter, and escalating or deescalating a conflict in ways that favor the insurgents.” Such actions can also “[erode] the ‘rules of the game’ between the government and insurgents,” thus exacerbating “the level of violence in a conflict”:
“HVT strikes, however, may increase support for the insurgents, particularly if these strikes enhance insurgent leaders’ lore, if noncombatants are killed in the attacks, if legitimate or semi-legitimate politicians aligned with the insurgents are targeted… An insurgent group’s unifying cause, deep ties to its constituency, or a broad support base can lessen the impact of leadership losses by ensuring a steady flow of replacement recruits.”
The CIA assessment noted several historical instances of supposed HVT successes. When high-level targets have “prominent public profiles”, assassinations can in specific instances shatter a target group. However, this was not the case with Hamas or Hezbollah. The pair “carry out state-like functions, such as providing healthcare services,” so group leaders are well-known to citizens of Gaza and Lebanon. Yet, their “highly disciplined nature, social service network, and reserve of respected leaders” mean they can easily “reorganize” in the wake of assassinations.
The Zionist entity had by this point been engaged in “targeted-killings” against Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Resistance groups since the mid-1990s. However, their “decentralized command structures, compartmented leadership, strong succession planning, and deep ties to their communities” made them “highly resilient to leadership losses.” Undeterred, Tel Aviv’s high-level assassinations continued apace. In the early 2000s, Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin and the group’s leader in Gaza Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi were murdered. However, the killings “strengthened solidarity” between Resistance factions, while “[bolstering] support for hardline militant leaders.”
The obvious lessons of this wanton bloodletting remained unlearned by the Zionist entity, once the Gaza Holocaust erupted. In June 2024, elite imperial journal Foreign Affairs published a report unequivocally headlined Hamas Is Winning. It boldly concluded “Israel’s failing strategy makes its enemy stronger.” The outlet also recorded how “according to the measures that matter,” Hamas was considerably bigger and more powerful than on October 7th 2023. Israel had thus stumbled into a deeply ruinous attritional war, with a “tenacious and deadly guerrilla force.”
Hamas’ surging popularity with Palestinians throughout the Gaza genocide was found to have significantly enhanced the group’s “ability to recruit… [and] attract new generations of fighters and operatives.” This granted Hamas the ability to launch “lethal operations” in areas previously “cleared” by the IOF “easily”. Foreign Affairs charged the Zionist entity, to its “great detriment”, failed to comprehend how “the carnage and devastation it has unleashed in Gaza has only made its enemy stronger.”
It is not merely Hamas that has been galvanised by the Gaza genocide. Israel’s “carnage and devastation” has greatly expanded the ranks and resolve of the entire Resistance, while its constituent members have won hearts and minds globally in ever-mounting numbers. Tel Aviv and its Anglo-American puppet[master]s have no good choices left to make, in a criminal war of choice waged against an indefatigable adversary committed to total victory, the likes of which they have never faced off against before.
The calamitous outcomes of Judaeo-American conflict with Iran were amply spelled out in a June 2025 report by the Israel-based Institute for National Security Studies. Among other things, it cautioned against assassinating Ali Khamenei, as the Islamic Republic “would likely have little difficulty selecting a successor, who could prove to be more extreme or more capable,” while uniting the Iranian public and government more than ever behind all-out victory. The consequences of disregarding this prophetic curse will reverberate throughout West Asia for centuries.
March 15, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on CIA Assessment: The Resistance Cannot Be Crushed
Hezbollah’s intervention in the war with Israel followed months of Israeli ceasefire violations in Lebanon, challenging Western media narratives about responsibility.
Key Takeaways
- UNIFIL recorded more than 15,400 Israeli ceasefire violations in Lebanon between November 2024 and February 2026.
- Hundreds were killed inside Lebanon during the ceasefire period, including around 150 civilians, while Israeli strikes repeatedly hit Beirut.
- Hezbollah largely maintained the ceasefire for 15 months, cooperating with the Lebanese Armed Forces despite continued Israeli attacks.
- Western media narratives claiming Hezbollah “dragged Lebanon into war” overlook the ongoing Israeli military actions and territorial violations.
- Hezbollah’s battlefield performance suggests the group retained significant military capacity, contradicting claims that it had been decisively weakened.
Media Narrative vs. Reality
When Lebanese Hezbollah chose to fire on Israel, effectively transforming the US-Israeli assault on Iran into a regional war, it did so in retaliation for aggression against Lebanon. Contrary to what Western corporate media has reported, the group is not responsible for initiating the war, and its role in it is crucial to the region’s future.
At the beginning of this month, the BBC ran a story entitled “Battered and isolated, Hezbollah drags Lebanon into another war”. Written by the British State-funded media’s correspondent in Tel Aviv, the piece not only presents a biased and false depiction of events, cheap propaganda that you would expect from the Sun or other tabloids, but fails to even mention Israel in its title.
CNN and others throughout the Western corporate media landscape also published pieces with similarly worded headlines. Therefore, the first point of entry into this topic is to establish the facts, which reveal just how atrocious the BBC and others have been in their framing of the Lebanon-Israel war.
On February 25, 2026, UNIFIL, the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, had recorded over 15,400 Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement that technically went into effect at the end of November 2024. This included the killing of hundreds of people inside Lebanon, mostly Lebanese, but also Syrians and Palestinians, including around 150 civilians in total.
Thousands of civilians, over the 15-month ceasefire period, were forced to flee their homes due to bombings, while Israel attacked the capital, Beirut, a number of times. Additionally, Israel was caught spraying cancer-causing chemical substances across southern Lebanon, also illegally occupying seven points there and refusing to leave the nation’s territory.
That entire time, Hezbollah held its fire and cooperated with the Lebanese Armed Forces, even when Lebanon’s pro-US Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam, pursued a campaign against the group. He aggressively pursued Israeli-US demands, forcing the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah, while announcing his intentions to eventually normalize ties with Tel Aviv, a blatant stab in the back to his own people, who were experiencing daily bombing raids by Israel.
Israel committed more ceasefire violations of the Lebanon truce than any military has ever committed against any ceasefire in human history.
In other words, the idea that Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into a war is categorically false. Israel never implemented its side of the deal, and for the residents of southern Lebanon, the war was ongoing throughout those 15 months. The only reason we continued to call it a ceasefire is that Hezbollah chose to uphold it.
The Myth of Hezbollah’s Weakness
Following the cessation of hostilities — at least from the Lebanese side — in November of 2024, US and Israeli officials publicly bragged that they had defeated Hezbollah. In February of 2024, then US envoy to Lebanon, Morgan Ortagus, asserted publicly that Hezbollah had been “defeated” and that its “reign of terror” was over.
This theory of Hezbollah’s apparent weakness was widely accepted among Western leaderships. Evidently, the Lebanese leadership under Nawaf Salam had also gotten this impression. They believed Israel’s unsubstantiated statistics about how it had taken out the majority of the group’s weapons, believing that the terrorist pager attacks and assassinations of key leaders had, in effect, destroyed the organization. At the very least, Hezbollah was believed to have been badly degraded and hanging on by a thread.
Here for the Palestine Chronicle, I have been writing over the past 15 months against this notion, arguing that the merits of this argument do not hold up to scrutiny. The reasons for this are rather simple: the group has a ground force of around 100,000 fighters — larger than the Lebanese Army — as it also demonstrated all the way up until the last days of the 2024 war that it still possessed strategic weapons.
Hezbollah was so confident in its stockpile of drones, for example, that there were accounts of them using dozens of them in singular operations against invading Israeli soldiers toward the end of November 2024. In addition to this, at the end of the conflict, is when the group began to reveal its most deadly capabilities, which clearly still existed after the ceasefire was declared.
The fall of former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was initially interpreted as being a major impediment to the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah, yet this eventually turned out to be only partially true. There were even some sources that argued that larger quantities of weapons were being transferred than in the last years of Assad’s reign in power. Other sources alleged that weapons belonging to the former Syrian Arab Army (SAA) may have fallen into Hezbollah’s hands during the collapse of the state.
A key reason why the weapons continued to flow into Lebanon was that the new Syrian state had no real security apparatus. It is, in essence, a collection of armed groups that operate in an environment inside the country where gangsters, local militias, and groups all maintain their own arms.
As has been on display since Ahmed al-Shara’a came to power, he is unable to control many of the militias inside the country, despite his best efforts alongside his US allies to do so. The conflict in Sweida and the coastal massacres were great examples of this.
Therefore, when Hezbollah chose to retaliate against Israel after 15 months of non-stop fire against Lebanon, they did so not from a position of weakness, but with the understanding that it was waging a war effort with the most favorable circumstances for achieving victory.
A War Israel Provoked
Although there are many within the Lebanese Army that seek to resist and protect Lebanon, including its current commander — after all, it is the nation’s official armed forces — it is held back by the government and under constant pressure from the United States. The US does not allow it to possess strategic weapons and won’t allow Hezbollah to integrate into it.
This means that Hezbollah is the only force capable of defending the country against Israeli aggression. That being said, if the pro-US regime in Syria — which has already reached a security understanding with the Israelis — attempts to attack Lebanon, the Lebanese Armed Forces will likely prove capable of defending their borders.
Although the Lebanese Army is not capable of fighting Israel, the Syrian militia forces that constitute its army are clearly less well prepared. Hezbollah will also likely assist the Lebanese Army in such a defense, as it did against Daesh and Al-Qaeda militants during the Syrian War.
Hezbollah, since entering the conflict against the Israeli occupiers, has managed to inflict countless deadly ambushes, thwarted two landing attempts in the Bekaa Valley, and taken out dozens of Israeli military vehicles with guided anti-tank weapons along the border area. In addition to this, it has fired precision missiles at strategic locations south of Tel Aviv and around Haifa, accurately striking their targets with pinpoint precision.
The strength of Hezbollah this time around has shocked Israeli analysts, who are scrambling to explain the sudden revival of the group that they believed to have been weakened south of the Litani River (southern Lebanon).
It is likely that Hezbollah are seeking to drag the Israeli army as deep into Lebanese territory as possible, making them commit to a costly invasion, one in which they can then engage in all-out ground warfare. While Israel has air superiority and more advanced weapons, Hezbollah is a much more formidable ground force than the Israeli army.
In order to force the Israelis into committing to such a large-scale invasion, where their troops will be led into countless ambushes — especially if they try to invade the Bekaa Valley through Syria — we may even see some cross-border operations in the future.
All of this could have been avoided by the Israelis and their arrogant backers in the White House, yet they chose to illegally occupy Lebanese lands and to violate the ceasefire at least 15,400 times. Just as is the case in Gaza, where Israel has committed around 2,000 ceasefire violations so far, it is they who are at fault.
Despite the fact that Hezbollah’s true strength is on full display and that Israel clearly started this conflict, the corporate media will continue to lie about the situation in Lebanon. This should come as no surprise, considering their atrocious and racist reporting throughout the Gaza genocide.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
March 14, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Zionism |
Comments Off on Hezbollah Returns: It Didn’t Start a War, It Is Ending One
European countries have been reaching out to Iran for negotiations to allow their vessels to pass safely through the Strait of Hormuz, informed sources told the Financial Times (FT).
Two officials cited by FT said that France was among the EU countries participating in these talks. Another indicated that Italy had also made attempts to open dialogue with Iran on the matter.
The sources stressed that there is no guarantee of progress in the talks or of Iran’s willingness to negotiate on the issue.
There have also been disagreements among EU states, as some have expressed discomfort with direct talks with the Islamic Republic, according to the report.
China, India, and Greece have also reportedly reached out to Tehran. Iran’s Ambassador to India, Mohammad Fathali, indicated on Friday that Indian ships can expect safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
The FT report comes as the global price of oil has surpassed $100 per barrel, after dropping from $120 to $90 following US President Donald Trump’s claim that the war on Iran could end soon.
It also comes as Tehran has been targeting oil tankers that have tried to cross the Strait of Hormuz in violation of Iranian warnings.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this week that an “international coalition” could soon be escorting vessels through the strait.
“My belief, that as soon as it is militarily possible, the US Navy, perhaps with an international coalition, will be escorting vessels through,” he stated, adding that Washington still needs to gain “complete control of the skies.” Iran’s missile rebuilding capabilities also must be “completely degraded.”
Yet Trump says Washington will only escort vessels “when needed.”
Several tankers were recently hit, including a US-owned vessel in the northern Persian Gulf this week.
Tehran announced on Thursday that some countries would be allowed to transit the Strait.
“Some countries have already talked to us about passing the strait and we have cooperated with them. As far as Iran is concerned, we feel that those countries that joined the aggression should not benefit from safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi said on Thursday.
After Yemen began its pro-Palestine blockade in the Red Sea following the start of the Gaza genocide in 2023, Washington launched a naval operation under the name Prosperity Guardian – aimed at deterring Sanaa’s forces and facilitating the transit of vessels.
The US failed to secure enough partners, and the mission ultimately failed.
March 14, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | European Union, Iran, Zionism |
Comments Off on EU states seek ‘talks’ with Iran for access to Strait of Hormuz: Report
US President Donald Trump said Saturday that countries relying on oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz should take responsibility for “safeguarding” the vital maritime corridor, with the United States offering its “assistance.”
“The United States of America has beaten and completely decimated Iran, both Militarily, Economically, and in every other way, but the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage, and we will help — A LOT!” Trump reiterated on social media.
“The US will also coordinate with those Countries so that everything goes quickly, smoothly, and well. This should have always been a team effort, and now it will be,” he further claimed.
Trump says US destroyed Iran military, but demands China secure Hormuz
Earlier, Trump posted on Truth Social, calling for multiple nations to send warships alongside the US to keep the Strait of Hormuz “open, safe, and free”. His post specifically named China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
The request drew immediate attention for its irony, as China is both a strategic rival of the United States and maintains close relations with Iran. Trump’s call for Chinese assistance in a US-led operation to secure a major oil chokepoint underscores the contradictions and hyperbole in his adminstration’s messaging, following a horrific press conference by War Secretary Pete Hegseth a day earlier.
Trump also claimed that Iran’s military capabilities are “100% destroyed”, yet immediately acknowledged that Tehran could still deploy drones, mines, or short-range missiles along the strait. He urged the creation of an international coalition to manage threats in the waterway, highlighting a sharp contradiction between his declaration of total victory and the perceived need for global military support.
Kharg Island strike escalates Gulf tensions
Earlier, the Trump administration conducted an attack on Kharg Island, a critical hub for Iranian oil exports. While the strike did not target oil infrastructure, reports suggest Washington may be considering a larger operation to invade and control the island, a move that could further destabilize the region.
US control over Kharg Island could provoke Iranian retaliation against shipping routes, oil facilities in the Strait of Hormuz, or the island itself, pushing energy markets into uncertainty.
Brent Crude has climbed sharply since the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran, rising from around $70 per barrel in late February to $103.14 for April contracts. Analysts interpret Trump’s public statements as an attempt to reassure buyers and ease market anxiety, yet the combination of strikes on Kharg Island and the ongoing threat in the Strait of Hormuz continues to push prices higher.
Conflicting US messaging and regional skepticism
Trump’s post follows a series of contradictory statements from senior US officials over the past week. Hegseth previously insisted the Strait of Hormuz was not closed, blaming Iranian missiles for disrupted shipping while claiming the situation was under control. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Energy Secretary Chris Wright gave conflicting timelines regarding the readiness of the US Navy to escort oil tankers through the strait.
Analysts remain skeptical about the US’s ability to secure Hormuz, citing capacity constraints, Iran’s asymmetric military capabilities, and the logistical challenges of establishing a multinational escort operation. RBC Capital Markets described the proposed $20 billion US insurance program for vessels as limited and unlikely to reassure market participants fully.
Despite Trump’s claims of decapitated Iranian forces, Tehran’s military remains operational, with the capability to target enemy assets and infrastructure in the Gulf and beyond.
March 14, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | China, Iran, United States |
Comments Off on Trump on Hormuz: “Others must take care of it” after US falters
Everything Trump has said about the war with Iran is pure lie or at least a major distortion of the facts. In the middle of this week he boasted that he had supposedly destroyed virtually the entire defense infrastructure of the country, including its naval fleet, air force, and missile capabilities. He even went so far as to declare that the United States had won the war.
Only the hypocritical journalists of the Pentagon’s propaganda machine — the same ones who like to present themselves as impartial and even critical of Trump’s domestic policies — can pretend to believe it and attempt to brainwash their audience with this farce.
Just as with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the imperialist industry of lies is trying to force down the audience’s throat the idea that Iran is on its knees before the omnipotence of the United States and Israel. Yet U.S. intelligence itself admits that the Iranian regime “is not in danger,” despite nearly two weeks of incessant bombing and heavy manipulation.
Of course Iran is the victim of a cowardly war of aggression, whose enemies have no shame in bombing kindergarten schools killing 160 girls or in causing acid rain that brings illness to civilians through attacks on oil facilities. They are historic war criminals, accustomed to using the vilest and most despicable methods to achieve their objectives of annihilation.
But the country’s political and military high command knew this was inevitable and had been preparing for a confrontation of this magnitude for decades. Iranian resilience has few competitors in the world. They are prepared to endure high costs with the certainty that their war is sacred and that victory will be achieved.
Because victory, in an asymmetric and disproportionate war such as that of an oppressed country against the greatest oppressive power in the history of humanity, does not need to — and will not — be achieved through the destruction of the enemy. It is enough to prevent the United States and its Israeli outpost from achieving their short- and medium-term objectives. In a time of structural crisis of the imperialist system, even in its very heart — the United States itself — not only will the enemy fail to achieve its goals, but it will also weaken in a way never seen before.
When have American military bases been struck as they are being struck in this war? When have Americans had to evacuate so many embassies and consulates as they are doing now? When has the all-powerful U.S. arms industry been so humiliated by seeing such expensive defense systems devastated — the very systems that supposedly protect its clients in the region?
Iran has the potential to generate indelible economic damage to the United States and to the entire global imperialist system. And it is already showing its weapons by closing the Strait of Hormuz and bombing refineries in the Persian Gulf. In a certain sense, the game has turned against imperialism: it seems that control over the world economy is not as tight as once believed. It seems that those who control, in a certain sense, this world economy are not the developed, rich, first-world countries, but rather the “lunatic” and “fanatical” ayatollahs.
The magazine The Economist, the leading mouthpiece of international bankers, revealed the despair of these speculators by featuring on its most recent cover the headline: “A War Without Strategy.” The most powerful people in the world are beginning to panic in the face of Iranian resilience and are already questioning the effectiveness of Trump’s aggression.
Let us not deceive ourselves: they fully support the total destruction of Iran. For them, not a single stone of the millennia-old Persian society should be left standing. We are speaking of the promoters of the genocide of at least 70,000 Palestinians. Proof of this support is the shameful vote in the UN Security Council, proposed by the puppet state of Bahrain, which condemned the legitimate Iranian retaliation against artificial regimes sustained by the United States and Israel in the Gulf, yet said not a single word about the aggression Iran is suffering.
Indeed, the game has turned against imperialism. The closure of Hormuz means the strangulation of the global economic system and therefore the suffocation of the American economy itself. The use of international oil reserves is already being seriously considered to contain the exponential rise in prices — an absolutely exceptional measure effective only in the very short term.
The White House, although it does not admit it, knows that the plan is backfiring: Trump, nervous, has already said that the U.S. armed forces will escort ships that need to pass through the Strait of Hormuz in order to guarantee the transport of oil. It seems like a bluff, at least for now. In any case, if they attempted it, at the current level of escalation there is little doubt that Iran would destroy the escort and sink those ships.
The United States would already be wasting about $2 billion per day on this war. It is extremely costly for public finances, especially with a staggering debt of nearly $40 trillion. The continuation of the war could accelerate a new financial crisis worse than that of 2008 — as well as an oil crisis worse than that of 1973. The global capitalist system itself would be brought to its knees.
The position of The Economist expresses the dissatisfaction of the international bourgeoisie, including the American one. Some Democratic and even Republican congressmen have once again been mobilized to criticize the government. At the same time, they also represent layers of ordinary citizens, workers, small business owners, and farmers who feel betrayed by Trump after he was elected promising to end imperialist wars under the slogan “America First.”
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released the day after the war began showed that only one in four Americans supported the imperialist aggression, while 43% opposed it. In subsequent polls there was greater balance: first 56% opposed and 44% in favor (NPR/PBS/Marist, March 2–4); then 42% in favor of stopping the attacks and 34% in favor of continuing them (NYT, March 6–9). This indicates that the CNN-Fox News-NYT-WP propaganda apparatus has worked to present the aggression against Iran from a positive point of view, leading many Americans to believe that the United States is right after the initial shock.
But trust in the media is no longer as blind as it once was. In 2001 a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 93% support for the invasion of Afghanistan, while Gallup showed nearly 90%. When the United States invaded Iraq two years later, support was also enormous: 72% according to Gallup and 70% according to the Pew Research Center. The extermination of civilians and the military disaster, despite the destruction of those countries and the eventual expulsion of the U.S. army, led to a wave of protests across the country, driven by the outbreak of the capitalist crisis in 2008. Since then, the political consciousness of Americans has been rising, even if timidly due to the high dose of stupidity among the American people.
Today there is a growing number of influencers, mainly on the right, who oppose neoliberal globalization whose military manifestation is precisely the aggressions carried out by the United States army. Many former members of the armed forces, intelligence services, and the U.S. government are now independent commentators who enjoy great popularity and openly criticize imperialist actions. Most importantly, they influence the very social base of the Trump government: citizens disillusioned with establishment politicians and with the status quo who believed Trump would be different. Although not yet entirely visible, there is a crisis within Trumpism reflected in the complete marginalization of figures such as Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., while Marco Rubio takes the reins of foreign policy.
American society has been divided for some time, and since the first months of the second term the Trump administration itself has suffered a possibly incurable fracture. The military and economic disaster of the aggression against Iran will certainly contribute to further weakening this fragile political and social structure.
On the surface it may even seem that Iran is losing the war. But deep down, the defeat has already been decreed for the United States.
March 14, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on Who Is closer to collapse?
Contrary to the rhetoric of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not on the verge of collapse. In fact, it appears as if this war against them could end up strengthening and cementing the government’s position, not only regionally, but among its own people.
As the regional war rages on across West Asia, it becomes more and more clear that Iran is capable of dictating the pace of the conflict. The US, with no clear goals, has failed to achieve escalation dominance. The Trump administration has therefore been searching for alternative strategies to try, and change this dynamic.
Most Western analysts, who have a warped perception of Iran, are currently struggling to get their heads around what is truly happening. It appears as if the decades of speaking to themselves have caged them within their bubble world. The only Iranians they talk to are individuals who are vehemently anti-government, most of whom have no real idea what is going on inside Iran, are members of ideological cults, and are totally ignorant of the country’s history.
The Western consensus perspective on Iran is that the Islamic Republic is a monstrous, malevolent regime, one which they portray through all the stereotypical orientalist depictions of the region that have been promoted for decades.
Although Iranians who support cult-like movements, such as the followers of Reza Pahlavi, believe that they, as Persians, are somehow excused from being victims of Western racism. Many of them, due to their notions of Persian supremacist views, those upheld by their Israeli-backed puppet leader’s father, believe that, because in their minds they are “the true Aryans”, the Americans and Israelis do not view them as sub-humans.
It is relatively unknown to Westerners that the Pahlavists think this way, but many of them are extraordinarily racist against Iran’s minority communities. Interestingly enough, these delusions that they are going to be treated better by the United States than any of their neighbors are still beliefs you will see them clinging onto. In reality, the US and Israel take these delusions just as seriously as the Taliban’s Pashtun nationalism, which also led to claims of being “the original Aryans”.
The average American or Brit cannot distinguish between Arabs and Persians; they simply know that there is a Middle East where dark-skinned Muslim peoples live. The Israelis may, on average, know a little more, but hate everyone equally.
This being said, it was this kind of orientalist thinking, lacking any nuance, that led to the historic mistake of the US-Israeli war on Iran. The concept that by waging a war of aggression, where you kill Ayatollah Khamenei and a group of top officials, the entire system will collapse like a deck of cards. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Every few years, we constantly hear about the “imminent collapse of the regime”, yet it never comes. The only way that there will be a regime change is through efforts on the ground, not a bombing campaign, and not even in the event that the US invades, which I will explain below.
While Iran is an incredibly complex country and no analysis of this brief could touch on all the elements at play, there are a few key points in the Islamic Republic’s history that are key to understanding it today.
The first point to understand is what happened during the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which ushered in the revolutionary movement that governs the country today. The revolution against the Shah did not happen overnight; it was a process that took years of collective action, mass general strikes, sit-ins, and saw the participation of all elements within the society.
In the end, the 1979 revolution ended up becoming an Islamic revolution. Under the rule of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the pro-Western dictator led what was known as the White Revolution, a campaign of reforms that sought to “Westernize” the country, while undermining the Islamic clergy and leading to the repression of Islam more generally. Therefore, the revolt against the Shah included an element that sought to reinstate the former position of Islam inside the country, meaning that people used Islam as a means of resistance.
We cannot, however, leave out the fact that Leftists also played a large role in the revolution itself and that the uprising against the Shah was not just simply an Islamic movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini alone. Therefore, following the overthrow of the Shah, the newly installed system faced the tall task of forming a government that could be accepted by the people. Groups, for example, the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK), disagreed with the new leadership, as did others.
The subsequent takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, creating an immediate crisis between Iran and America, would end up setting the tone for what was to come next. In September of 1980, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was encouraged by the US to launch an invasion of neighboring Iran.
The Iran-Iraq War was fought for nearly 8 years, and at a time when the Iranians were militarily much less prepared and armed to do so. While many expected that this war would lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic, it did the very opposite. The motivating factor for many Iranians, who had not even experienced two years of their new government’s rule, was the Islamic doctrine they were fighting under.
Between 500,000 to 1 million people were killed in the war, which left around two million others injured. That meant that a significant portion of Iran’s population was either wiped out or injured, many of whom died horrible deaths, such as through chemical weapons attacks.
Although deadly and a war that drained resources, putting real strain on society as a whole, it ended up hardening the stances of many. It is not uncommon to hear from Iranians that people will use the sacrifices made during the Iran-Iraq War to justify all kinds of policies that may come under scrutiny.
The same year that the Iran-Iraq war ended, the US Navy decided to shoot down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Gulf of Hormuz, killing 290 Iranians, including 44 children. These events ended up cementing the ideals of the Islamic Republic among its people.
Fast forward now to 2009, when there was a public uproar about the Iranian Presidential election being rigged. This triggered the Green Movement, a mass mobilization across the country that called for reform. Bear in mind now that the relatively new system of governance had been under constant US sanctions since 1979, meaning that the pressure was consistently being turned up on the civilian population.
The 2009 Green Movement ended up leading to what is known as the Reformist camp in Iran attaining greater power inside the country, opposed to the Principalists, referred to in the West as the “hardliners”, who represented the Islamic revolutionary purest camp. For those who may be wondering, the reformists represent the more capitalist, or business class, inside the country. They have historically sought to mend ties with the West, and it was under reformist President Hassan Rouhani that the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was signed.
All of this time having passed since the Iran-Iraq War, where the people were left to live under ever-intensifying sanctions, brought about social change. Still, there remained a sizable bloc of the Islamic revolutionary movement’s base, but many became disillusioned and sought amendments to the system. To be clear, amendments do not mean regime change; they simply sought to achieve changes in their nation.
Although no authoritative polling exists to prove this, it’s generally thought that the base of the Islamic Republic’s support falls within the range of 30 million people, out of 93 million, with the majority falling in the zone of somewhat neutrality; they have complaints or skepticism, but don’t want the government to be toppled to install a Western puppet. Then you have the rest, which fall into the regime change camp, the size of which is often overinflated, but nonetheless certainly exists in its different flavors.
This war appears to have revived Iranian nationalism, the necessity of the revolutionary movement that governs the country, reminding the people why they overthrew the Shah and held so much animosity towards the United States government. For those young people who grew tired of the constant anti-imperialist slogans, it is all starting to make sense to them. This is the reason why their government has been spending so much money backing their regional allies (the Axis of Resistance).
For the Iranian people, they have just seen the theories being proven true that many of them once rolled their eyes at. The US and Israel are killing thousands of their countrymen and women, they slaughter their children, they bomb their oil storage tankers, and create black acid rain. On the first day of the war, the US opened the conflict with the worst civilian massacre they have committed since the Vietnam War, murdering around 180 schoolgirls with a double-tap strike.
Not only have they seen the terror that the US and Israel have unleashed on their people, but they are also witnessing the destruction of their cultural heritage sites.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the government may have been cemented in its place, but this time, there is a real difference; they are able to fight back effectively. The people are seeing the successes of their military and that they were able to lose their leader, but continue fighting. Instead of taking a beating, Iran is dictating the pace of the conflict, battering all the US’s military bases and standing up to the entire region.
Even for those Iranians who have many criticisms of their government, they have come to the streets in numbers and united with those they used to argue against, because the war has created the biggest rally behind the flag moment in decades. That is what the US-Israeli aggression has done: it has managed to unite Iranians in a way we have not seen in recent memory.
For those who have been writing about this issue for some time, this was a predictable outcome. The Iranian government is not as barbaric and stupid as it is depicted through Western propaganda. In the months following the 12-Day War last year, if you paid attention, you may have realized that the government began leaning into Iranian nationalism and symbolism more than ever, because it understood that the next war was going to require unity from across the spectrum.
So for those who believed that this war would somehow overthrow the government, the exact opposite appears to be happening. This war of aggression may end up being an event similar to the Iran-Iraq War in the way it cements the existence of the Islamic Republic. As for an American ground invasion, if they try, they will be met by millions who will mobilize to crush it, just as they did in the 1980s, but with better training and more sophisticated weapons.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
March 14, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on A War that Backfired: Why the US-Israeli Campaign Is Strengthening Iran
The recent US attack on Iran has raised criticism both internationally and at home due to President Trump’s shift from America First to Israel First and over the Zionist control over the US establishment.
US-Israel Strategic Alignment: Historical Patterns
Escalating tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran have raised a critical concern in global geopolitics: has the US attacked Iran to protect its regional interests, or has it jumped into this fray to defend Netanyahu’s Zionist regime in Israel and its strategic interests? The history of American foreign policy decisions since the establishment of the illegitimate Israeli state suggests that protecting Israel’s national and strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond has become a key aspect of the United States’ strategic priorities.
Throughout history, whenever Israel felt threatened or insecure by a regional power, Washington has always supported it directly or indirectly. The historic rivalry between Israel and Iran and its escalation after the recent genocidal operation by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has rendered the situation more intense. Israel considers Iran’s missile capabilities and nuclear program as a threat to its sovereignty and security. Moreover, Iran’s regional proxies also pose a significant threat to Israel’s expansionist agenda.
Recently, the United States and Iran were engaged in negotiations over the latter’s nuclear program. Reports propose that the two sides have made significant progress in resolving the issue peacefully. However, the United States and Israel launched a combined attack on Iran, targeting its key military and political leadership. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other high-level military and political leaders of the country were killed in the US-Israel joint strikes. These strikes, despite positive progress in the US-Iran peace negotiations, created an international perception that the United States is fighting Israel’s war in the Middle East.
Domestic and International Backlash Against US Involvement
Dissenting voices regarding the US involvement in a foreign war are rising even within the United States. People from within the US Army are raising questions over the country’s involvement in a foreign war. Even former soldiers are asking whether the US military personnel should sacrifice their lives to secure the strategic interests of Israel. Reportedly, many US soldiers have expressed their concerns over their participation in this war against Iran. They seek to know the moral and legal status of a war waged merely to protect the interests of a specific allied country. The United States faced a similar issue during the Cold War, especially in the Vietnam and Iraq wars, when numerous military personnel criticized and questioned policies that led the country into those wars. Within both U.S. military and civilian policy circles, there is mounting pressure to more clearly distinguish between America’s core national interests and the interests of its allies.
Economic and Global Implications of the Conflict
The Middle East is the center of global energy politics, and the Persian Gulf is one of the key maritime routes for global oil supply. Iran has already blocked the Strait of Hormuz, leading to disruption in global oil and energy supply, causing inflation around the world. Oil and energy prices have surged across Europe, Asia, and other regions, impacting everyday consumers and households—including those in the United States. Due to the aggressive policies of former US governments, the country has lost trillions of dollars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The recent US war against Iran would prove far more expensive because of the latter’s geostrategic location and greater regional influence.
On the diplomatic front, this war will further tarnish Washington’s international image. Most of the Global South is already hostile to the United States’ interventionist policies. A prolonged war with Iran would not only widen the gulf between the US and its European allies, but it would also increase Russia and China’s global support. This war has already shifted global public opinion against the United States, weakening the country’s international credibility. Many developing nations are increasingly aligning themselves with Russia and China, signaling their interest in joining the BRICS coalition.
Washington’s involvement in this war, at the behest of Israel, has created significant intricacies for its regional allies. It has exposed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a key US ally in the Middle East, to significant Iranian attacks. Iran is repeatedly targeting US interests across the region. The GCC countries are also facing disruption in the supply chain, leading to significant economic losses, due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran. Moreover, it has undermined the security and safety of the UAE for global investors. This suggests that this war would create visible fractures in the US-GCC relations.
However, the United States’ involvement in this conflict, despite knowing that it will lead to severe public backlash and impinge on the country’s interests in the Middle East and beyond, demonstrates that in Washington, it’s not the US leadership but the Zionist lobby that actually calls the shots. The release of the Epstein files further strengthens the notion that the Zionists use such tools to blackmail and influence the US leaders, including President Trump, to mold the US policies to protect Israel’s interests in the Middle East and around the world.
Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
March 14, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Israel, Middle East, United States, Zionism |
Comments Off on How Zionist Control Is Hurting US Interests
Aletho News 