The synthesis of regional conflicts into WWIII has begun
By Tim Kirby | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 28, 2026
There are many people who only believe in or write about what they like. Their opinions are not so much derived from facts but are an expression of what they want to see happen. I say this because I want to be clear that the merging of the wars in Iran and Ukraine is neither ‘cool’ nor something I desire, but as they say ‘here we are’ and things will surely only get worse. Over the last two weeks we have seen news headlines demonstrating an interweaving of the conflicts into one. This is more so than just presumed (or in the case of the EU and Ukraine overt) proxy support.
One can only speculate as to why, but Zelensky with great glee has claimed responsibility for targeting an Iranian cargo vessel. There is a presumption that this was done to appease Trump or somehow win favor or attention from Washington. Trump has shown bitter disdain for Zelensky, especially after their spat at the White House early in the American President’s second term. But, we cannot forget that a president’s personal feelings on an individual do not necessarily become reflected in U.S. foreign policy. George Bush Jr. had nothing but praise for Vladimir Putin, while the Deep State was orchestrating the ultimate destruction of Russia behind the scenes. The attack on the Iranian ship has been confirmed by both Western media and RT: Iran has condemned a Ukrainian strike on a cargo ship in the Caspian Sea that killed one sailor and injured another. The Foreign Ministry summoned Ukraine’s acting chargé d’affaires over the attack.
In a post on X on Saturday, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky boasted about what he called “very strong results” from long-range strikes targeting “vessels used in military cargo shipments involving Iran, as well as a warship.”
The Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned the attack, saying it “risks further fueling and expanding the flames of war.” It urged other nations to take a “responsible stance toward this reckless action by the Ukrainian regime” and hold its leadership accountable.
At about the same time, the Iranians have declared that they can and may hit the UK. They shared what could become an infamous image for future generations about climbing the escalation ladder to WWIII – a map showing the range of Iran’s strike capability. The key thing to note again is that Tehran wanted to make the point that they can hit the United Kingdom. This is in connection with the US attacking Iran via a British base, but perhaps there is more to this, because the U.S. has used plenty of foreign territory against Iran, but for some reason only the UK seemed marked for total destruction because of it. The City of London is a very special place indeed.
In the broader picture as time goes on the war in Ukraine and to an extent the one in Iran smells more-and-more like the vile streets of London and is even perhaps the last round of the ‘Great Game’ taking place in the 21st century. No one has been more enthusiastic for using Ukraine as one big suicide drone against Russia than the ever-rotating nosferatu that loom at 10 Downing Street. It was Boris Johnson who put the final nail in the coffin of millions of lives by destroying any sort of peace agreement back in 2022. But we should not forget that the birthplace of Zionism, the blood enemy of Iran, was the British Empire. And, at the very least the British owe the Iranians plenty of money.

At the time of writing no one has yet to be blamed for the explosion(s) at the industrial facility in Essex, but if Parliament and their overloads want, this could be the casus belli for engaging Russia, Iran or both full scale and thus the start of a true WWIII. Tehran did just threaten London after all.
It is obvious that the enemies of Russia and Iran (and China) are essentially the same, however the conflicts seemed to be fairly compartmentalized until this strike by the ‘Junkie Fuhrer’ as Dmitry Medvedev calls him. Anyone with YouTube level knowledge of geopolitics could see there is a sort of soft or compartmentalized WWIII already happening as the West goes into decline and the Monopolar World buckles under its own tremendous bulk. But each ‘front’ in this conflict, including ones that were resolved quickly like Venezuela, seemed to be at least factually separate. Yes, the EU is leading the way on the Ukrainian front and the USA on the Persian one but there’s tons of interplay behind the scenes, however ultimately they have remained separate conflicts despite this. Now, with this attack on Iran by Kiev it looks like these fronts may merge from officially separate ones to potentially turning into one big long arc along the western half of what Mackinder called the ‘rimland’ (the inter marginal crescent).
We also cannot ignore that Zelensky has attacked former supporter Turkey all while Erdogan’s anti-Israel rhetoric only continues to heat up. Interestingly, Kiev’s strike on Caspian oil infrastructure has a deep impact against seemingly neutral Kazakhstan and the United States. It was ultimately the critical infrastructure of these two countries that was effected. We also cannot forget that, although it is obvious where President Lukashenko’s allegiances lie, and that his nation has not entered the war yet, Kiev has still managed to continuously murder innocent civilians in/around Belarus including the now infamous incident against a bus filled with children. The Belorussian side is convinced, that the attack on the bus was meant to provoke them into entering the war directly.
On the other side of the big global strife the Saudis have attacked the Houthis and the other pro-western regimes of the Gulf States are waking up to the fact that if the USA loses then so do they and are trying to counter Iran’s actions to the best of their ability.
There is escalation happening everywhere across the ‘rimland’ except for Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, probably to keep China from helping its like-minded neighbors too directly, or more importantly, too soon. Then again, the Russian rumor mill has it that the North Koreans are gathering an army of 50,000 volunteers to fight against Kiev in the Special Military Operation. This is not escalation in the east, but from the east for certain.
At the beginning of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine one could only hope and pray that something would change and that the West would go quietly into the Multipolar night on its own volition, but alas it has not. It is unclear whether Zelensky’s will is at play or that of his handlers, but Kiev’s ever growing attacks on third-parties in their war with Russia is only synthesizing the two major fights into one. We all remember how in the recent past the Iranians famously rejected Russian “help” in arming themselves, they have probably deeply reconsidered this position. If Zelensky is allowed to further attack Iran we will wake up to find ourselves no longer in a pseudo or soft WWIII but one that is very real and rock solid.
This broadening of conflict presents a danger as the rules of engagement are quite different in both conflicts. The Russians want to save the locals in Ukraine and thus they can’t just ‘nuke it’. The Iranians don’t have nukes thus they trade missiles with the American navy and its various army bases in neighboring countries along with strikes on the source of Zionism in Israel. These are two very different games: one a mission to save locals from extinction from fascists created by the West, and the other a fight back against an unprovoked Zionist bombing campaign. Ukraine is being used as a proxy, protecting Europe from retaliation, whereas Iran is directly hitting the U.S. military and Israel directly. The key take away is that if Zelensky’s authorization of anarchy, possibly planned and orchestrated by London and beyond continues, these two will merge into something truly horrific for all humanity as two wars with no immediate nuclear threat will merge into one with nukes at the ready on both sides. Regional conflicts are now synthesizing into WWIII and the dynamic of this unified war will be nuclear.
Is the Department of War Covering Up the True Extent of US Casualties?
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 28, 2026
Last Wednesday all the signs were pointing to a desperate action by the Trump administration to launch a ground operation inside Iran ostensibly to seize enriched nuclear material from an Iranian nuclear research facility. The report from the Wall Street Journal noted that US special ops forces were once again being deployed to the region to carry out a raid on a Hardened Deeply Buried Target (aka HDBT). But it also revealed something both disturbing and alarming: the deployment of 150 medics:
The U.S. is surging forces, medics and weaponry to the Middle East to give President Trump more muscular military options as he considers expanding the conflict against Iran, according to people familiar with the matter.
In the past week, special-operations forces have deployed to the region from their U.S. bases, according to flight-tracking data and U.S. officials. Squadrons of jet fighters have been staged across the Middle East, and bomber aircraft at bases in the U.S. and U.K. are on high alert to ramp up operations, according to one of the officials.
Additionally, more than 150 medics have arrived at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany in recent days, another official said. The hospital is the primary location for treating troops injured in combat in the Middle East.
Twenty years ago I participated in the scripting and execution of a Special Ops exercise that simulated the targeting of an underground nuclear target in the Middle East. The actual location of the field exercise was in the desert of Nevada, northeast of Las Vegas. At the conclusion of that exercise there was a Hot Wash, i.e., a review of lessons learned from that exercise. What was the primary lesson learned? Don’t do it. Too dangerous because the mission would likely to result in significant casualties and expose the soldiers to unhealthy levels of radiation.
Based on the WSJ report it appears that Trump was on the verge of ordering a real-world version of that exercise. However, this report surfaced on the 23rd of July. Two days later, Trump apparently rescinded the order for the ground op and halted the bombings of the Iranian coast in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.
So far, so good. What most people glossed over was the report that 150 US combat medics were deployed to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. This was not an ordinary deployment, nor was it in anticipation of possible casualties from an impending military operation… These men and women were deployed to reinforce a badly stretched medical staff at Landstuhl that were trying to cope with dozens of badly wounded US military personnel that had survived the missile strikes on Muwafaq al-Salti airbase in Jordan and two army bases in Kuwait.
Based on the number of C-17 medical flights reported in open source that departed Jordan following the 17 July missile attack on Muwafaq al-Salti airbase and flew to Ramstein airbase in Germany, which is the entry port for the Landstuhl Medical Center, US casualties numbered over 100, perhaps higher. The large number of wounded may have been another factor contributing to President Trump’s decision to halt the bombing one week later.
While there are no direct talks between the US and Iran, Pakistan, along with Qatar, are working intensively as intermediaries in trying to resurrect the MoU. If the MoU is resuscitated it will be because the US met Iran’s demands that Israeli forces withdraw from Lebanon and that the US unfreeze Iranian assets up front, not at some point in the future. I am sure that Bibi Netanyahu will try to persuade Trump to reignite the war and pursue a more intensive bombing campaign as well as some kind of ground operation on Iranian territory.
For now, the bombs and missiles are not falling. I am skeptical that this current hiatus will hold… I sincerely hope that I am wrong. Once Senator Graham is buried on Wednesday, we may see Trump reverse course once again and renew the bombing campaign. Iran, for its part, is holding firm to its demands that the MoU be fully implemented, otherwise Iran is prepared to continue fighting and inflicting more damage on US assets and personnel.
I discussed Trump’s latest TACO move with Judge Napolitano.
Massie says the US has been ‘significantly weakened’ by war on Iran
Al Mayadeen | July 27, 2026
United States Representative Thomas Massie said the United States has been “significantly weakened by the war with Iran,” arguing in an X post that the campaign depleted missile-defense systems, drained oil reserves, sacrificed US troops, pushed up consumer prices, increased debt, and sidelined domestic needs “all for Israel.”
The Kentucky Republican’s remarks added fresh political pressure to an already widening debate in Washington over the price of the war on Iran, the scope of US involvement, and the degree to which the White House has tied American military power to “Israel’s” regional agenda. That debate has sharpened as more lawmakers question the administration’s war powers and the long-term cost of the campaign.
CENTCOM urged a pause near the Strait of Hormuz
Massie’s remarks came as Axios reported that Admiral Brad Cooper, the top US military commander in West Asia and head of CENTCOM, advised the Trump administration to halt bombing around the Strait of Hormuz after concluding the two-week assault had reached diminishing returns. Axios said Cooper briefed the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the White House earlier in the week, and that his assessment helped shape Trump’s decision to pause strikes along Iran’s southern coastline and around the strategic waterway.
The report said Cooper warned that most of the assigned targets had already been struck, leaving few objectives whose destruction would materially change the battlefield. In other words, the campaign had begun to run out of useful military targets unless Trump was prepared to escalate the war further.
Air-defense stocks under strain
Meanwhile, General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth that shortages of air-defense interceptors could reduce Washington’s ability to shield its bases and regional allies if the confrontation escalated again. The warning echoed broader concerns inside the Pentagon about the strain that the war on Iran has placed on US missile-defense inventories.
The New York Times said senior advisers including Caine and Vice President JD Vance raised similar concerns about the shrinking stockpile of Patriot interceptors and other air-defence systems needed to protect US forces across the region. That assessment reportedly played a major role in Trump’s decision to hold back from a larger escalation.
Zelensky: North Korea, Iran and China Backing Russia’s War in Ukraine
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | July 27, 2026
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Russia is receiving significant military support from North Korea, Iran, and China.
“I think three moments on which we have to focus. First, North Korea will send to Russia 30,000 soldiers. The second point Iranians will send missiles to Russia,” Zelensky said in an interview with Sky News on Sunday. “Then what is the really big problem: China began to work with Russia, and they work on satellites and on technologies to be more precise.”
The statement follows a Ukrainian attack on an Iranian vessel in the Caspian Sea. “Ukraine continues applying long‑range sanctions in response to Russian strikes,” Zelensky wrote on X Saturday. We also achieved very strong results with long‑range strikes in the Caspian Sea – including vessels used in military cargo shipments involving Iran, as well as a warship.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said the attack would not go unanswered.
“Zelenskyy has attacked an Iranian commercial vessel, killing a sailor. A blatant UN Charter violation done at Israel’s behest to drag Europe into its war,” he wrote on X Sunday. “In calls with EU High Rep Kallas and FM Lavrov, I made clear that what the freeloader in Kyiv did CANNOT GO UNANSWERED.”
Zelensky was asked if he was concerned about an Iranian response. He argued that Iran had already attacked Ukraine by providing drones and missiles to Russia. “We have to be cautious. We have to do everything not to open a new front in any way. But we have to be honest. Iranians and North Koreans already attacked us,” he said.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei responded to Zelensky’s remarks on Monday. “The behavior of the Ukrainian President is reminiscent of the behavior of anarchists who, on the eve of World War I, carried out theatrical and very dangerous actions whose consequences affected all of Europe,” he said. “The Ukrainian regime downgraded its country to a tool for geopolitical disputes between powers starting four years ago.”
Dr. Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute, warned that Zelensky is attempting to merge the wars in Ukraine and Iran. “Ukraine is not trying to just enter the war with Iran. Rather, it appears it is trying to merge the Ukraine war with the Iran war,” he explained. “Why? Because if these two wars merge, Ukraine will be a belligerent in the Iran war and America will be a belligerent in the Ukraine war.”
Saudi oil loading volumes drop 40 percent at Red Sea port amid Yemeni blockade
The Cradle | July 27, 2026
Saudi crude oil loading volumes at the Red Sea port of Yanbu have plummeted by 40 percent in the past several days, with the kingdom using an Egyptian pipeline to avoid the recently imposed Yemeni blockade, according to data released by analytics platform Vortexa on 26 July.
The fall in loading volumes is a result of the Ansarallah-backed Yemeni Armed Forces’ (YAF) retaliatory operations and maritime blockade against Riyadh, which has been besieging and attacking the Arab world’s poorest nation for nearly 12 years.
The blockade is causing very significant losses, according to maritime data intelligence firm Windward.
“Saudi Arabia has established a working alternative export route via the SUMED pipeline and Cape of Good Hope,” Windward wrote in a report on Sunday, citing Vortexa’s data.
According to the report, this is “adding approximately $9 per barrel to transport cost.”
“Saudi crude has not stopped moving. It has bifurcated. Yanbu port has transitioned to entirely AIS-dark tanker operations at berth as vessels shield against [Ansarallah’s] hit list. Saudi Arabia established a working alternative export route via the SUMED pipeline and Cape of Good Hope, adding cost and voyage time but demonstrating the market’s adaptability,” the report added.
Saudi Arabia had established an alternate route via Yanbu at the start of the US-Israeli war, following Iran’s initial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, according to reports at the time.
The Windward report coincided with the release of SoarAtlas satellite imagery showing major fires still burning at Saudi Aramco’s Jazan Oil Refinery due to YAF strikes.
Thick black smoke has continued to rise from a large oil storage tank following Ansarallah’s strikes on the $12 billion complex on Saturday, the images reveal.
The YAF had announced its latest operations against Saudi Arabia on 25 July. This was a response to renewed Saudi bombardment targeting Yemen’s port city of Hodeidah.
“In response to this blatant criminal aggression, the YAF carried out two specialized military operations. The first operation targeted sensitive facilities belonging to Saudi Aramco in Jazan, using dozens of ballistic missiles and drones,” the Ansarallah-led Yemeni army said.
“The second operation targeted sensitive Saudi Aramco facilities in Yanbu, using a number of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones,” it added.
The YAF stressed that the operations were “accurate” and “direct.” Reports from over the weekend said blasts were heard from Yanbu city as well.
Earlier on Saturday, Saudi airstrikes targeted fuel tanks and communication facilities in the western Yemeni city of Hodeidah.
Yemeni President Mahdi al-Mashat said on 27 July, “To the Saudi enemy, we say that those who offer you false hopes will not benefit you. Anything short of ending the aggression and lifting the blockade is mere illusion.”
The YAF had also struck two Saudi oil tankers several days ago as part of the new Yemeni blockade of Saudi shipping.
The Yemeni blockade was announced by Sanaa’s forces on 20 July. “Blockade for blockade,” the YAF said.
Earlier in July, Saudi Arabia carried out its first airstrike on Sanaa International Airport in years, prompting a serious Yemeni retaliation.
In response, the YAF targeted Saudi Arabia’s Abha Airport with missiles and drones. These were also the first direct Yemeni strikes against Saudi territory since 2021.
Saudi Arabia waged war against Yemen in 2015 at the head of an Arab coalition, after Ansarallah seized the capital and ousted the Saudi-backed president from Sanaa. The UAE was a major part of this war, which was also supported logistically by the UK, US, and Israel.
A 2023 Saudi–Yemeni peace process nearly resulted in an agreement between the two sides. The peace talks stalled, yet prevented a major escalation from erupting.
The kingdom for years continued its illegal and deadly blockade of Yemeni ports and airports. Sanaa International Airport in particular has been under Saudi blockade for more than a decade, with severe restrictions imposed on commercial flights.
Sick and wounded Yemenis have long faced restrictions when trying to leave the country for urgent treatment.
The Saudi-led war on Yemen that began over a decade ago resulted in an unprecedented famine and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Prior to Riyadh’s new escalation, Yemeni forces had already begun mobilizing to expel the Saudi-led coalition from the country.
US Can’t Come to Saudi Arabia’s Rescue in Bab el-Mandeb Without Risking Overstretch – Expert
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 27.07.2026
Tensions in the Gulf are spilling over into the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, putting additional pressure on Saudi Arabia, but the US is unlikely to open a second front, Ankara-based security analyst Dr. Hasan Selim Ozertem tells Sputnik.
“Strategically, it would force Washington to choose between protecting energy chokepoints and maintaining deterrence against Iran, a choice that no administration would want to make before elections,” Ozertem says.
- Tackling the challenges posed by the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait “in a synchronized manner” is a difficult task even for the US Navy
- US interceptor stockpiles have already shrunk and emerged as one of the reasons the US has held back from a new wave of strikes on Iran
- The US is likely to seek de-escalation in the region ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections
“A two-front response would require not only a massive expenditure of interceptors, but also a redeployment of carrier strike groups, intelligence assets, and logistical support, which would inevitably leave other regions like the Pacific or Europe more thinly covered,” Ozertem sums up.
The Ansar Allah movement, also known as the Houthis, announced on July 20 that it was imposing a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia in response to the kingdom’s control of Yemen’s airspace and ports. The group later warned that the scale of its operations could increase if the Saudi government continued its blockade of the Yemeni people. The blockade applies to Saudi shipping in the Red Sea, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and the Gulf of Aden.
How Kuwait and Bahrain miscalculated by becoming launchpads for US strikes on Iran
By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | July 27, 2026
On the afternoon of February 28, as the first dark clouds of joint Israeli-American military aggression gathered over Iran, a sports hall in the small southern city of Lamerd – a place that had once echoed with the squeak of sneakers and the thrill of competition – was transformed into a scene of unspeakable carnage.
Two American Increment One Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs), fitted with fragmentation warheads, tore through the facility while a women’s volleyball team was actively training inside. The gruesome and deliberate attack claimed many civilian lives, including dozens of children, and left scores more wounded and maimed.
In a grim parallel to the earlier attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, the US war machine initially refused to acknowledge its culpability in both incidents, due to massive global outcry, particularly in Minab.
Instead, American officials went so far as to formally and cynically attribute the tragedy IN BOTH to an alleged malfunction of an Iranian Hoveyzeh cruise missile, a brazen attempt to absolve themselves of yet another unforgivable war crime.
The official American position attributed the civilian deaths in Lamerd to an Iranian Hoveyzeh cruise missile – a KH-55 derivative that bears no resemblance whatsoever to an American PrSM, differing fundamentally in shape, flight trajectory, and terminal dive profile.
This assertion proved deeply peculiar, particularly after Iranian media published CCTV footage showing impact patterns unmistakably consistent with PrSM fragmentation warheads, alongside visuals clearly depicting a ballistic projectile descending in a manner entirely characteristic of the American weapon system.
Identifying the probable staging ground for this attack and others like it proved to be a matter of straightforward deduction. The United States employs the tracked M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and the wheeled M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) to deploy two distinct families of short-range tactical ballistic missiles: the newer PrSM and the older MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), with maximum ranges of 500 and 300 kilometers, respectively.
Given these systems’ limited reach and the considerable operational threat posed by Iran-allied resistance groups throughout Iraq, it became increasingly evident that the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf had consented to allow American forces to utilize their territory as launch pads for aggression against Iran and its civilian population.
Liability for the strikes
In the weeks following the initial wave of US-Israeli military aggression against Iran, a substantial body of open-source evidence accumulated, enabling one to reconstruct the operational architecture behind the attacks with reasonable confidence.
Satellite imagery reviewed by independent researchers, munitions debris documented by Iranian media and corroborated by third-party analysts, and flight-path data derived from publicly accessible tracking sources collectively point to forward launch positions in Kuwait and Bahrain as the points of origin for a series of ballistic missile strikes against Iranian territory.
The ATACMS and the longer-range PrSM are neither cruise missiles nor air-launched munitions. They are ground-launched ballistic systems that demand substantial fixed or semi-fixed infrastructure, pre-positioned logistics, and complete host-nation cooperation – or at minimum, tacit acquiescence.
In practical terms, this arrangement extends far beyond granting overflight rights to American aircraft. The deployment of American artillery regiments fielding short-range ballistic missiles on Kuwaiti and Bahraini soil is not incidental but structural. Such weaponry would have served no purpose other than to strike at Iranian territory.
Diplomatically, Tehran delivered an explicit and time-bound demand to both Manama and Kuwait City: cease facilitating the war of aggression, expel the American military forces and their assets, or face the consequences.
The initial response from Bahrain and Kuwait was, in a word, silence – punctuated by formulaic statements affirming their alliance commitments while declining to confirm or deny the operational details that open-source evidence had already established.
It was not a neutral posture but represented a conscious and controversial choice to take sides in an active war, which carries inevitable consequences.
Lamerd sports hall attack
The denial and what came after
Both Kuwait and Bahrain moved quickly to deny the reports. Official statements from Kuwait City and Manama dismissed the open-source evidence as fabricated or misattributed, with Kuwaiti officials characterizing the satellite imagery and debris documentation as part of an Iranian information operation.
Bahraini authorities declined to comment on specific operational details, citing security considerations. The denials were categorical yet they did not survive the end of active hostilities.
In the weeks following the cessation of the initial combat phase, a more complete evidentiary picture emerged, placing Kuwait at the epicenter of the ballistic missile campaign against Iran.
CENTCOM released declassified strike footage confirming ground-launched ballistic operations, footage that independent analysts cross-referenced with geographic markers consistent with Kuwaiti territory.
The release, framed by US officials as a demonstration of operational effectiveness, had the unintended secondary effect of directly contradicting the categorical denials issued by Kuwait. More damaging still was the subsequent discovery of expended ATACMS canisters in the Kuwaiti desert, physical evidence that no official statement could plausibly explain away. The canisters confirmed not only the presence of the launch systems but also the scale and intensity of their operational use.
Kuwait’s role as the operational hub
With the resumption of active combat operations in recent weeks, following American attempts to establish an illegal maritime corridor in the Omani section of the Strait of Hormuz in brazen violation of the memorandum of understanding signed between the two sides, Kuwait’s role has intensified considerably.
The frequency of ballistic missile launches from Kuwaiti territory has increased markedly, a pattern fully consistent with Western reporting indicating that US PrSM stocks have been effectively depleted.
With PrSM availability now severely constrained, the operational burden of American ballistic missile attacks has shifted entirely back to the older ATACMS platform, and Kuwait has emerged as the primary launch hub for that capability.
The geographic logic is self-evident. Kuwait’s proximity to western Iran, and particularly to the southern province of Khuzestan, renders it the most efficient forward position for strikes targeting the military, economic, and energy infrastructure concentrated in that region.
Khuzestan is home to a substantial share of Iran’s oil production, refining capacity, and petrochemical industry, and has consequently emerged as a principal focal point of American military aggression. The volume of launches emanating from Kuwait reflects that strategic prioritization with unmistakable clarity.
The Incriminating Lights
The Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf have made every possible effort to suppress citizen documentation of military activity, imposing social media restrictions and punitive measures to limit the spread of footage that might complicate official denials.
Yet those efforts have proven increasingly ineffective. As the war has persisted, a steady and growing stream of video and photographic evidence has emerged from Kuwait, captured by residents documenting ballistic missile launches occurring with near-nightly regularity.
The imagery, showing missile contrails ascending over Kuwait and tracking northeast across or alongside Iraqi airspace before continuing toward Iranian territory, circulates widely across platforms such as Telegram.
Multiple photographs and video footage taken from different vantage points confirm the flight paths, the frequency, and the unmistakable signature of ground-launched ballistic systems operating from Kuwaiti soil with undeniable clarity.
The nightly launches have become, in a grim sense, a matter of public record, documented by ordinary Kuwaiti and Iraqi residents whose smartphones have captured what governments continue to officially deny.
The chasm between the official position and the visible reality has widened to a point where it functions less as a credible denial and more as a formal fiction, maintained by all parties for reasons of diplomatic convenience.
The Iranian counter-strike record
Iran has not absorbed this campaign passively. In the weeks following the intensification of launches from Kuwaiti territory, Iranian forces have conducted retaliatory strikes targeting the American military’s forward launch infrastructure.
A growing evidentiary record of these strikes, assembled from open-source footage, presents an intriguing visual signature involving what appear to be large secondary explosions following initial impact, characterized by the bright, fast-burning combustion profile associated with solid-propellant missile fuel.
The secondary detonations visible in circulating clips are inconsistent with conventional munitions storage and consistent with the ignition of solid rocket propellant – of the type utilized in ATACMS – either from fueled launcher vehicles or from stockpiled rounds awaiting deployment.
Several clips show fires burning after initial impact, with the characteristic white-orange flame column that propellant combustion produces distinguishing these events unmistakably from the black smoke of fuel or ordnance fires.
Survival and the limits of alignment
Small states make difficult choices under duress, caught precariously between a powerful patron’s operational requirements and a large neighbor’s legitimate security concerns.
Experts acknowledge that the constraints on Bahraini and Kuwaiti sovereignty, stemming from their profound dependence on the United States, are genuine and substantial.
But, they insist that acknowledgment of constraint is not the same as absolution from responsibility. Governments bear an obligation to their populations that supersedes alliance loyalties, an obligation to assess, without illusion, the risks that their choices are generating.
The current posture of the Persian Gulf states hosting American military bases and providing a launch pad for ballistic missile operations against Iran is deeply problematic.
It reflects, as per analysts, a perilous combination of structural dependency, institutional inertia, and a dangerous underestimation of Iranian anger, resolve, and military capability.
As one military expert told the Press TV website, these micro-states are not positioned to absorb the consequences of a sustained Iranian retaliatory campaign.
“Their small land masses, concentrated infrastructure, and limited strategic depth render them acutely vulnerable in ways that their larger patron is not. By gambling their national survival on the assumption that Iranian red lines are empty, and that US protection is everlasting, they are making a remarkably poor bet, one that history has rarely rewarded,” he noted.
Zelensky attacked Caspian Sea cargo ship at Israel’s behest – Iran
RT | July 27, 2026
Iran has claimed that Ukraine attacked one of its commercial vessels in the Caspian Sea at Israel’s behest.
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky stated earlier that the vessel struck on Saturday was transporting military cargo. Iran, which has denied involvement in the fighting between Russia and Ukraine, said the attack killed one sailor.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated his country’s position during separate calls with the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
“Zelenskyy has attacked an Iranian commercial vessel, killing a sailor. A blatant UN Charter violation done at Israel’s behest to drag Europe into its war,” Araghchi wrote on X on Sunday.
“In calls with EU High Rep Kallas and FM Lavrov, [I] made clear that what the freeloader in Kyiv did CANNOT GO UNANSWERED,” he added.
During his conversation with Lavrov, Araghchi said Iran “will resolutely defend its security and national interests,” according to Press TV. Lavrov expressed condolences over the sailor’s death and identified the struck vessel as the cargo ship Ana.
Speaking to Israel’s N12 television channel, Ukrainian Ambassador to Israel Yevgeny Korniychuk claimed that the Iranian ship was carrying components for drones and missiles. Tehran, however, insisted that the cargo was entirely civilian.
Iran confirmed in 2022 that it had delivered a “small number” of Shahed-136 kamikaze drones to Russia months before the Ukraine conflict began in February of that year. Moscow has maintained that all Geran-2 drones, believed to be based on the Shahed-136 design, are produced domestically.
In recent statements and interviews with the American press, Zelensky said he was “100 percent sure” that Russia had helped Iran during its conflict with the US and Israel. Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied that Moscow supplied Tehran with weapons. US President Donald Trump also said recently that he did not believe either Russia or China had provided Iran with military assistance.
Seyed M. Marandi: Saudi Oil Is Burning & Trump Has No Way Out
Glenn Diesen | July 26, 2026
Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi discusses Saudi Arabia’s miscalculation in terms of attacking Yemen. Trump has trapped himself in the Iran War, and his options keep getting worse.
Buy merchandise: https://diesen-shop.fourthwall.com/en-nok
Glenn Diesen clip channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Prof.GlennDiesenClips
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
- X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
- Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
- Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Suspension of attacks on Iran not enough, war must end: Russia
Press TV – July 26, 2026
A senior Russian foreign ministry official has called for a permanent end to the US war of aggression against Iran, saying that Washington’s plans to expand attacks must be cancelled for good.
Mikhail Ulyanov, who serves as Russia’s Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna, said on Sunday that the United States has to accept that it has failed to reach its objectives by launching a military aggression against Iran.
“To suspend plans to expand strikes on Iran is not enough. Those plans must be cancelled. It is high time to recognise that this conflict has no military solution,” Ulyanov said in a post on his X account.
The comments came after reports emerged that the US has run short of military stockpiles, causing it to suspend plans for a large-scale aggression against Iran.
The reports published in the US media have pointed to pressure on stockpiles of Patriot interceptors and other defensive weapons that the US needs to fend off extensive Iranian missile and drone attacks on its military bases in the West Asia region.
That comes as US President Donald Trump has continuously threatened Iran with an escalation in attacks.
The threats and the following reports about suspension of plans for a large-scale aggression come as Iran and the US have been exchanging fire since a tentative agreement between the two that had been signed in June fell apart earlier this month over disputes surrounding the control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran says the US has violated the terms of the agreement by trying to interfere in the management of the Strait, which is exclusively devolved to Iran based on the terms of the agreement.
Iran’s fierce response to US attacks and its increased restrictions on transit in Hormuz have caused a fresh spike in international oil prices, further pressuring Washington and its plans for continuing the aggression.
The Iranian-allied government of Yemen has also entered into a conflict with Saudi Arabia in the past days, restricting the movement of oil tankers in the Red Sea and fueling more energy price rises in international markets.
Reports by CNN and The New York Times have pointed to dwindling munition supplies and concerns about the risk of a wider war in the West Asia region as key reasons for the US suspending plans to expand attacks on Iran.
Both news outlets have cited statements from top US government officials suggesting they have serious reservations about continuing the aggression against Iran.
India’s reluctance to confront US over Chabahar attacks exposes contradictions in its Iran policy: Journalist
Press TV – July 26, 2026
India’s continued reluctance to openly challenge Washington despite the recent US attacks on Iran, including the strategic coastal city of Chabahar, has exposed the contradictions at the heart of New Delhi’s foreign policy, says an Indian journalist and foreign policy analyst.
Speaking to the Press TV website, Sanjay Kapoor, founder and editor of Hardnews magazine and president of the Editors Guild of India, said India’s approach towards Chabahar has never been independent of US policy on Iran, noting that New Delhi has consistently calibrated its engagement with the strategic Iranian port around Washington’s broader regional strategy.
“India decided to take up the Chabahar project only after then US President Barack Obama had signed the JCPOA and there was a global attempt to normalise ties with Iran,” Kapoor said.
He noted that India, like many other countries, had also severed its energy relationship with Iran after Washington instructed New Delhi to stop purchasing Iranian oil, underscoring India’s willingness to accommodate American concerns over the Islamic Republic.
“India also cut energy ties with Iran after the US told New Delhi to stop buying Persian oil. In other words, India has been mindful of US concerns on Iran,” he stated.
Kapoor said the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government in New Delhi has simultaneously cultivated close strategic relations with Israel, a policy that has further aligned India’s foreign policy with that of Washington.
“Besides, this BJP government has been close to Israel also, which ensures that New Delhi stays close to the US and its foreign policy,” he told the Press TV website.
His remarks follow the recent US aggression against southern Iran, during which the port city of Chabahar was also targeted, raising questions over the future of India’s flagship connectivity project in the region and whether New Delhi can continue portraying the port as a strategic priority while avoiding direct criticism of US attacks on Iranian territory.
Located on Iran’s southeastern coast, Chabahar has long been regarded as India’s gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, allowing it to bypass Pakistan while providing Tehran with an important regional trade hub.
India has invested in developing the Shahid Beheshti terminal of the port, viewing Chabahar as a counterweight to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Deep historical ties have not translated into strategic consistency
Despite India’s cautious approach in recent years, Kapoor told the Press TV website that relations between Iran and India rest on centuries of historical, cultural and religious interaction.
He pointed out that India is home to the world’s second-largest Shia population after Iran, adding that religious links between the two countries continue to shape people-to-people relations.
He also referred to Imam Khomeini’s old ties with his hometown, Lucknow, the capital of northern India’s biggest state, Uttar Pradesh.
“There is continuous interaction between the Shia clergy in India with their counterparts in Iran and Iraq,” he noted, adding that Iran has traditionally viewed India differently from many other countries, pointing to the longstanding cultural affinity between the two civilizations.
“Iran also never saw India as a foreign country. They also perceive Kashmir in India as Iran-e-Sagheer (little Iran),” he said, referring to the Muslim-majority Himalayan region of Kashmir in northern India.
Kapoor argued that successive governments in New Delhi believed these deep-rooted ties would allow India to preserve its relationship with Tehran even while strengthening strategic cooperation with Washington.
“The Indian government under the BJP always believed that they will manage substantial ties with Iran like they managed the Chabahar Port,” he stated.
However, he maintained that New Delhi ultimately regarded alignment with the United States as the more pressing strategic priority.
“For whatever reason, they thought they had more compelling reason to align themselves with the US. They believed that Iran could wait,” Kapoor remarked.
According to the veteran journalist, India’s reluctance to publicly support Iran stems less from hostility towards Tehran than from its determination to remain aligned with Washington’s geopolitical ambitions.
“Their reluctance to support Iran openly is due to their desperation to be on the right side of the US,” he stressed.
He believes Indian policymakers expect the current regional situation to evolve and remain confident that New Delhi’s long-standing doctrine of strategic autonomy will eventually enable it to restore any damage to bilateral relations.
“They believe that what’s happening is transitory and the final outcome will look different from now. Their resort to strategic autonomy in their foreign policy will give them a chance to make up with the Iranian government,” Kapoor said.
US attacks have exposed the fragility of India’s Chabahar strategy
Kapoor said Chabahar was originally conceived as a stable alternative to Iran’s other major ports, making it particularly attractive to India when Tehran offered New Delhi the opportunity to develop the Shahid Beheshti terminal.
“Chabahar was meant to be away from the ferment that used to be in Bandar Abbas. It was expected to be stable and peaceful. That was the unique selling point of Chabahar when its terminal, Shahid Beheshti, was offered to India by the government of Iran,” he said.
However, he said the recent US attacks around the port have fundamentally altered those assumptions.
“For some strange reason, Chabahar is facing the ire of US attacks. They have misiled and bombed the port.”
Kapoor questioned New Delhi’s claim that Indian infrastructure at the port escaped damage during the attacks.
“The Indian government says Indian infrastructure has not been lost due to the attack. That’s saying a bit much,” he added.
The senior Indian journalist noted that New Delhi invested approximately $120 million in the Shahid Beheshti terminal but deliberately limited further investment because US sanctions made financing increasingly difficult.
According to Kapoor, Russian government sources have previously indicated that Moscow helped India overcome funding shortages for the project on several occasions.
Despite maintaining its presence at Chabahar for years, Kapoor argued that New Delhi never fully embraced the project.
“Despite soldiering on for many years, India always remained a reluctant partner,” he said.
Kapoor said many Iranian experts have long argued that Tehran deliberately preserved Chabahar as an opportunity for India despite having other potential partners.
“As many Iranian experts told me, Tehran had kept Chabahar for India,” he told the Press TV website. “They argue that if they had wanted, they could have given the port to Pakistan, China or even Russia.”
He said India’s strategic calculations changed significantly after the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, removing one of the principal reasons behind New Delhi’s investment in the Iranian port.
“India thought Chabahar had become untenable after the US left Afghanistan,” he said.
Rather than engaging with Afghanistan’s new Taliban-led government, Kapoor said India shifted its focus to alternative connectivity initiatives backed by Washington and several of its regional partners.
The journalist believes India’s regional priorities have increasingly shifted away from Chabahar towards the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), a US-backed connectivity initiative linking India with Europe through the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israeli-occupied territories and Mediterranean countries such as Greece and Italy.
“India did not want to negotiate with the Taliban and happily became part of IMEC, which promised a lot, including a seat on the G7 high table,” he stated.
Kapoor recalled that speculation briefly emerged in Indian media about reviving New Delhi’s engagement with Chabahar following the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Tehran and Washington. However, he said those expectations quickly faded once the ceasefire broke down and US attacks on Iran resumed.
India depends on Afghanistan and Washington’s calculations
Asked whether the long-term success of Chabahar ultimately depends on Iran’s stability and sovereignty, Kapoor said New Delhi’s strategic calculations extend beyond developments inside Iran.
“Chabahar’s stability depends, in India’s estimation, on who controls Afghanistan and on how the US perceives the port,” he noted.
He explained that India’s primary motivation for investing in Chabahar was never limited to commercial interests alone but centred on gaining direct access to Afghanistan while bypassing Pakistan.
According to Kapoor, changes in the regional geopolitical landscape have complicated those calculations.
“My contention may not square with the views of others, but India would only make a pitch for Chabahar if it doesn’t elicit a hostile response from its (Persian) Gulf partners and that’s only possible if Washington is backing India to help Afghanistan as well as support against Pakistan,” he said.
He argued that Pakistan remains a central factor in India’s strategic thinking, noting that the evolving military balance in South Asia following the recent war against Iran has further complicated New Delhi’s decision-making.
“After the recent war in West Asia, there has been a shift and Pakistan is better off militarily. What happens next will impact India’s policy towards Chabahar,” he remarked.
To Kapoor, India’s future investment in the port will depend primarily on the trajectory of Iran-US relations and Pakistan’s regional position.
“To sum up, India will invest in Chabahar if the US builds working relations with Iran and Pakistan is on the defensive due to this.”
Relations with Israel carry long-term risks
Kapoor said India’s growing partnership with Israel inevitably raises questions in Iran about the future direction of bilateral relations.
“Ordinarily, the trust that India and Iran enjoy should get eroded after PM Modi was in Tel Aviv just days before the war broke out,” the Indian journalist stated.
“The moot question that Iran should ask itself is whether India is a friend or a foe,” he added, pointing to the numerous interactions between Indian and Israeli leaders in recent years.
He added that despite increasing strategic cooperation with Israel and close ties with Washington, India has so far managed to preserve working relations with Iran.
According to Kapoor, New Delhi appears confident that it can maintain relations with “both sides” without suffering major diplomatic consequences.
IRGC breaks down US military losses over 15 days of Iranian strikes
Al Mayadeen| July 25, 2026
Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) spokesperson Hussein Mohebbi outlined US military losses during fifteen days of retaliatory Iranian strikes on US bases across the region, in response to US aggression on the country launched from these bases.
In remarks to Tasnim, Mohebbi detailed that Iranian strikes destroyed a range of fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
US aircraft losses:
- 11 stationed fighter jets and helicopters
- 17 reconnaissance and operational UAVs
- Eight intact units
- Eight aerial refueling tankers
- Four heavy military helicopters
- One F-15 fighter jet struck inside a hardened shelter
- One P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft
- One C-17 Globemaster heavy transport aircraft
US radar, command infrastructure
The IRGC spokesperson said Iranian forces also inflicted significant damage on US military surveillance, air defense, and command infrastructure during the fighting, destroying multiple command-and-control centers, radar installations, air defense systems, and satellite communications assets.
- Seven command-and-control centers
- Six Patriot air defense radar units
- Eight early warning and detection radar systems
- Seven air defense missile radars, five long-range radar systems
- Five specialized FPS and FPS-117 radar systems
- Three air and maritime surveillance radars
- Three satellite communications systems
US defense and logistics assets
Mohebbi also claimed that Iranian strikes caused extensive damage to military infrastructure at US bases, targeting aircraft shelters, drone facilities, hangars, and operational infrastructure used to support air operations.
- Six MQ-9 Reaper drone hangars
- Five fighter aircraft hangars and four hardened shelters
- One F-15 fighter preparation hangar, one UAV hangar housing eight new drones
- One P-8 aircraft hangar
- Six flight and parking ramps
- Four HIMARS mobile artillery rocket launchers
- Four Patriots
Supply and intelligence facilities:
- 17 depots containing weaponry
- Naval vessel components
- Aircraft spare parts were destroyed
- 12 fuel storage tanks
- One fuel dock
- One aircraft carrier refueling platform
The losses also included, as per the spokesperson, six underground missile bunkers, six fighter and helicopter maintenance centers, two signals intelligence communication centers, one data intelligence hub, one artificial intelligence processing center, one Amazon data node, and one unmanned surface vehicle (USV) storage facility.
Over 200 American soldiers killed in strikes on US bases
Brig. Gen. Hossein Mohebi revealed that the US casualty figures from recent Iranian strikes were inaccurate, stressing that more than 200 American personnel were killed during Operation Nasr 2.
He described US reports on its military casualties as “an outright lie.” The IRGC spokesperson added that Iranian forces struck eight US military bases during the operation, including one facility containing 20 hangars that were destroyed.
According to Mohebi, more than 200 US personnel were killed in Operation Nasr 2, while the number of wounded was “far higher” than the reported death toll.
The spokesperson also urged the American public not to allow what he called their “dishonest military commanders” to mislead them about the extent of the losses.
He further called on the US government to allow journalists access to the strike locations so they could independently assess the damage and determine how many personnel had been killed.
It is worth noting that Iran has repeatedly said that US military bases and economic assets in the Gulf region have been used to launch acts of aggression against Iran, including strikes that have resulted in civilian casualties. In this context, Iran frames any action against such facilities as retaliation against hostile military activity originating from or enabled by those bases.

