Sitting ducks: Why the US security umbrella no longer protects the Gulf?
By Dr Mustafa Fetouri| MEMO | July 16, 2026
In Kuwait alone—less than 150 kilometres across the Gulf from Iran—the United States maintains a major military hub of approximately 13,500 personnel spread across installations such as Camp Arifjan and Ali Al Salem Air Base. To its south, Saudi Arabia hosts roughly 2,700 U.S. troops, centered at Prince Sultan Air Base in Al Kharj. Elsewhere in the Gulf, every state hosts either a US military presence or provides access and defence cooperation under bilateral agreements: Qatar houses more than 10,000 personnel at CENTCOM’s sprawling forward headquarters at Al Udeid; Bahrain hosts around 9,000 personnel at the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet; the UAE accommodates approximately 3,500 personnel at Al Dhafra while providing deep-water naval access at Jebel Ali; and Oman offers strategic port and airfield access under bilateral agreements, despite having no large permanent US troop presence.
Beyond the Gulf monarchies, Washington maintains approximately 2,500 troops in Iraq and around 900 in northeastern Syria under Operation Inherent Resolve. To Iran’s northwest, the US operates from Incirlik Air Base in Türkiye— a NATO logistics and intelligence hub too. Until its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, American forces also maintained a major military presence along Iran’s eastern frontier, supported for two decades by extensive supply routes and intelligence cooperation through Pakistan. Although the US lies nearly 10,000 kilometres from Iran, it has constructed an unparalleled regional military architecture of permanent bases, rotational deployments, naval facilities, pre-positioned equipment, access agreements, and security partnerships that stretches from the Eastern Mediterranean across the Gulf to the western Indian Ocean. Combined with the military capabilities of close allies—including Britain, France, and Türkiye—this network almost literally surrounding Iran from all sides. The common thread underpinning this posture has long been the protection of regional partners, the safeguarding of global energy routes, and the defence of US strategic interests.
Yet, this foundational premise has collapsed under the weight of the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has fundamentally transformed the entire regional security landscape. This “war of choice” has exposed how a security arrangement once marketed as an ironclad insurance policy has devolved into a primary strategic liability.
Rather than serving as an effective deterrent, large and static American military installations now act as strategic liability—drawing Iranian retaliatory strikes while denying host states true autonomy or the promised protective shield.
The Gulf states have discovered, at a heavy price, that they are trapped in an impossible paradox: their sovereign territory serves as a staging ground for military operations they were never consulted about—at least that is what they say publically –instantly transforming their critical infrastructure, oil facilities, and urban centers into high-priority targets. Compounding this vulnerability is the stark geopolitical reality that while Washington may eventually pivot away or withdraw—much as it did from Afghanistan—Iran is a permanent neighbour that is going nowhere.
Beyond the immediate threat of missile strikes, the presence of these US installations directly undermines the core national strategies of the Gulf monarchies. Mega-development projects and economic diversification plans—from Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 to Dubai’s global trade hubs—rely entirely on an image of absolute regional stability, investor confidence, and open maritime transit. By hosting forward US bases, host nations inadvertently tie their economic futures to Washington’s military posture, creating an environment of perpetual crisis. Furthermore, defending these expansive American footprints forces host militaries to consume their own finite air-defense interceptors and defense budgets to guard US assets rather than securing their own national borders.
At the same time, while almost all Gulf States have, at least publicly, refrained from taking direct offensive action against Iran to avoid total escalation, they recognise that they are already viewed as passive participants in the wider conflict.
Maintaining this precarious balancing act is becoming increasingly difficult against rising domestic anti-war sentiment, as public anger over regional devastation steadily erodes the host governments’ domestic credibility.
For Washington, this massive network of forward-deployed bases has produced a profound strategic paradox. What was designed to project uninhibited American power now ties US freedom of action to the political consent of cautious host nations. When host governments impose strict sovereignty restrictions—refusing permission for US forces to launch offensive sorties or intelligence missions against regional adversaries from their soil—the Pentagon finds its multi-billion-dollar installations functionally sidelined during critical military surges. Instead of providing seamless operational flexibility, these fixed, highly vulnerable outposts transform into costly “imperial entrapment” liabilities: requiring thousands of US troops, high-end missile defense batteries, and constant naval escort deployments simply to protect the bases themselves, rather than executing broader strategic objectives or enabling Washington’s long-sought pivot to the Indo-Pacific. With the conflict between the US and Iran reigniting, Trump is demanding that the Gulf states pay once again to protect the Strait of Hormuz—a vital transit route that never closed until the war was started by Trump, not Iran.
This strategic calculus becomes infinitely more complex when factoring in Israel’s role in the regional security outlook. In recent years, certain Gulf states—most notably the UAE—operated under the premise that normalization and closer security alignment with Israel via the Abraham Accords would yield a net security dividend. Yet, this belief was never shared across the Gulf; nations like Kuwait, Oman, and Saudi Arabia maintained a far more cautious, sceptical stance toward Tel Aviv. The outbreak of the US-Israeli war on Tehran on February 28 utterly shattered any illusion that an Israeli-linked security architecture could bring regional stability. Instead, it exposed deep internal fault lines among the entire region. Reaching a collective, long-term security understanding with Iran was already a formidable challenge; doing so now, in the wake of a devastating conflict that forced Gulf States into the crossfire, is immensely more complicated. Moving forward, no regional framework can hold if it relies on a anti-Tehran pact anchored in Washington and Tel Aviv while ignoring the permanent reality of Iranian geographic power.
Ultimately, the fallout from the US-Israeli war on Iran exposes a fundamental reality that Washington and its regional allies can no longer ignore: the entire Middle Eastern security architecture must be fundamentally re-evaluated.
The core dilemma facing the region is that no collective security arrangement can ever be viable or effective if it seeks to exclude Iran—an indispensable, geographically permanent power armed with increasingly sophisticated offensive, defensive, and asymmetric capabilities.
Moving forward, any stable regional order must not only account for Tehran’s military leverage, but also accommodate its non-negotiable strategic demands. This includes addressing governance and transit rights over the vital Strait of Hormuz—through which one-fifth of global oil flows—and reaching a durable, pragmatic framework on its nuclear program. Regardless of the final outcome of ongoing US-Iran negotiations, the lesson for the Gulf is clear: true security cannot be built on an external garrison model that marginalizes the region’s principal indigenous power.
Iran’s World Cup ordeal was a dress rehearsal for renewed war
By Faezeh Firuzeh | Responsible Statecraft | July 16, 2026
Over the past week, the U.S. resumed heavy airstrikes on Iran, hitting over 300 targets in the first three nights alone, according to U.S. Central Command. The strikes killed more than 30 civilians and wounded more than 260, according to Iran’s Health Ministry. This U.S. bombing campaign came amid ongoing peace talks between Iran and the U.S. and while Iran held cross-border funeral processions for the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
At the NATO summit in Ankara on July 8, President Trump declared the ceasefire with Iran “over.” He called Iranian officials “scum,” “sick” and “vicious, violent people.” Such insults against Iranians are not new. Weeks earlier, this aggressive rhetoric and the renewed bombing campaign were foreshadowed by the U.S. and FIFA’s mistreatment of the Iranian football team. I witnessed the rehearsal firsthand.
The opening act came well before the tournament began. U.S. officials accused the Iranian national team of attempting to smuggle Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps operatives and barred at least eleven members of the delegation from entering the United States.
Iran’s football federation condemned the claims as “false, fabricated, and lacking any credibility.” However, the accusations played their part. By casting the Iranian football team’s attendance at the World Cup as an infiltration risk, the U.S. could frame every discriminatory action it took as a necessary safety measure.
With the premise set, the restrictions followed. The Trump administration would not allow the team to camp on U.S. soil, despite all their matches being in the United States. They were only permitted to be in the U.S. during narrow windows of time to play their matches and forced to leave immediately after. As a World Cup host, the U.S. did not extend hospitality, only hostility.
I had a front-row seat with the Iranian national football delegation during their World Cup stay — at their matches in Los Angeles and Seattle, in the Seattle hotel we shared, and at their base camp in Tijuana, Mexico, to which I traveled twice. Over days of conversations, members of the delegation came to know me. I had not set out to write about them. That came once I heard what the tournament had been like for them from the inside.
At the airport on the way to and from all three of their matches, captain Mehdi Taremi and assistant coach Saeed Alhoei were held for nearly 30 minutes and questioned. The constant detainments, security, and immigration checks made the 127 mile flight from Tijuana to Los Angeles — normally a short hop — take nearly five hours. The team, initially promised they could stay the night in Seattle given their 8 p.m. match, received an email from FIFA three days before their game saying that they were no longer permitted to stay and would have to leave immediately after the match
Driving back to my hotel at 1:30 a.m. that night — the same one the team had been booked into — I was startled to see their distinctive royal-blue bus on the highway: not parked for the night, but moving. After the post-game press conference, anti-doping testing, airport fingerprinting, and flight, they arrived back at their hotel in Tijuana at 4:40 a.m., only to eat a post-game meal near sunrise.
By refusing them hospitality, the U.S. effectively deprived Iran’s World Cup team of time to sleep and eat, even on a match day. Iran was never offered fair play or an equal chance.
Iran’s Alireza Jahanbakhsh put the team’s ask plainly: “To be honest, we don’t ask for much. We just ask for the same procedure for all the other 47 teams.” The answer came from the head of the White House’s World Cup task force, Andrew Giuliani, who told ABC News the players should thank the U.S. for “our hospitality.” After Iran was eliminated came the curtain call. The Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin told reporters at a World Cup security briefing that he was “so happy,” that his department had “pulled their visas,” and that he “might’ve sung a song or two or maybe even danced a happy dance.”
On the same day Iran played its final match, the U.S. was bombing Iran. The players took the field while their own country was under American fire. When the players emerged from the plane in Tijuana, Mexico, at the start of the tournament, they were wearing pins reading “168” — a reminder to the world of the 168 Iranians, mostly children, who were killed on February 28, the opening day of the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran, at an all-girls’ school in Minab.
The treatment of Iran’s football team underscored the way wars are marketed to the public. Manufacturing an enemy and treating their people as a mortal danger is not realism, and does not bring security. Demonization and threat inflation are expensive habits. They foreclose possible avenues for pragmatic, effective diplomacy, and narrow the script until war looks like the only option. Even now, with no shortage of diplomats and mediators, Washington is attempting to bomb its way into negotiations. Trump said the strikes would “continue until I say it’s enough,” and threatened to bomb Iran’s bridges and power plants “next week” unless Tehran returns to the negotiating table.
The tactics used to promote the latest war on Iran, applied routinely, are a major reason Washington continues to talk itself into unwinnable and costly wars that the American people do not need. That fatal reflex didn’t end with the tournament. The World Cup was the rehearsal; bombing Iran is the show.
Faezeh Firuzeh is a Los Angeles–based writer and strategist whose work connects popular culture to foreign policy. Born in Iran, she was in the country during the 2025 U.S.–Israeli war. She previously served as managing director of the Rethinking Iran Initiative at Johns Hopkins SAIS and as a researcher at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. She holds a master’s degree from the University of Chicago, where she studied social policy and global conflict.
Iran calls on UN rights chief to condemn US attacks on civilian infrastructure
Press TV – July 16, 2026
Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva has called on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to unequivocally condemn ongoing US attacks on civilian infrastructure, warning that Washington’s renewed illegal war against the Islamic Republic is inflicting grave humanitarian and human rights consequences.
In a letter on Thursday, Iran’s permanent representative to the UN Office and other international organizations in Geneva, Ali Bahraini, urged the UN rights chief to publicly denounce the attacks, saying the continuing US aggression against Iran is causing serious humanitarian and human rights harm.
Bahraini called on the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to take a clear and unequivocal stance by condemning the widespread US strikes on Iran, particularly those targeting the country’s southern ports.
He said the attacks constitute a blatant violation of international law, stressing that they have killed large numbers of civilians and caused extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and other critical facilities across the country.
As examples, Bahraini cited the targeting of sections of the Tehran–Mashhad railway, a drinking water production facility in Dehloran, wheat storage silos in the cities of Hoveizeh and Dasht-e Azadegan, fishing vessels belonging to fishermen in southern Iran, missile strikes near Baqaei Hospital in Ahvaz, and the attack on Semnan Airport.
Elsewhere in the letter, the Iranian envoy expressed regret that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has yet to condemn the recent US attacks.
Bahraini warned that, at a time when the territorial integrity of a UN member state has been violated and civilians continue to suffer the consequences of the assaults, the absence of a clear, timely, and firm response could create the impression that human rights protection and the implementation of international law are being applied selectively.
The appeal comes amid renewed US military attacks on Iran, which have struck civilian areas and critical infrastructure alongside other targets.
Tehran has condemned the strikes as blatant violations of international law and the UN Charter, slamming Washington for escalating regional instability and endangering civilian lives through its continued military aggression.
Intl shipping firms shun US-controlled Hormuz corridor over failure to protect vessels
The Cradle | July 16, 2026
International shipping companies are avoiding crossing the Strait of Hormuz through the US-controlled alternative corridor that runs along the Omani coastline due to fears of Iranian strikes, sources told Reuters on 16 July.
After a series of Iranian strikes on ships attempting to bypass the Iranian-designated shipping channels as mandated in the Iran–US memorandum of understanding (MoU), shipping companies are reassessing the safety and viability of US military escort through the strait.
“The US doesn’t seem to have any control over the situation,” one shipping source said, noting that their firm chose to avoid the strait altogether out of concern for crew safety as security conditions worsen.
“Iran’s continued ability to target ships sailing through the Omani route means the Trump administration’s proposed solution to keep ships moving is unlikely to work,” said Torbjorn Solvedt, principal West Asia analyst at risk intelligence firm Verisk Maplecroft.
Following the resumption of US attacks on Iran and the reimposition of the US blockade on Iranian ports and shipping routes, traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has collapsed to a near-complete halt.
Kpler data shows only seven vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz on the first day of the renewed US naval blockade, down from 13 the previous day.
Just prior to the reimposition of the US blockade, Kpler reported 21 monitored transits through the Strait of Hormuz on 14 July, with vessels favoring the Iranian-approved route as the Omani corridor saw no crossings at all.
The firm also verified three additional attacks off Oman, bringing the confirmed toll to 56 incidents and 17 seafarer deaths.
More than 200 non-Iranian vessels applied for Iranian transit permits and insurance coverage in the three weeks between the signing of the Iran-US MoU and the resumption of the war, according to figures released by the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) on Tuesday.
The authority approved 79 percent of requests, with tankers making up the largest share at 41 percent, and China and India each accounting for roughly a fifth of outbound destinations – figures that cover Iran-approved crossings only, excluding the US-escorted Omani route.
Iran warned Vance that Kushner, Witkoff used peace talks as cover for insider trading: Report
The Cradle | July 16, 2026
Iranian negotiators sent a private warning to US Vice President JD Vance earlier this year, saying that US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were “abusing” their roles in the talks to profit from financial markets, Drop Site News reported on 16 July.
The Iranian negotiators sent the warnings to Vance through an intermediary during the late June talks in Lake Lucerne in Switzerland, telling him the pair cared more about profiting from insider knowledge of the negotiations than reaching a deal to end the war on Iran.
The negotiators also said that Kushner had been repeatedly leaking details of the talks to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with one US official telling Axios that Witkoff and Kushner “talk almost every day to Netanyahu” and the head of Mossad.
The Vance outreach came after Tehran had already tried to alert the White House to the pair’s conduct, presenting evidence that “individuals close to [US] President [Donald] Trump” were abusing the war on Iran and diplomatic developments to manipulate financial markets, while warning of Witkoff’s “overall destructive role in the previous negotiation.”
Financial analysts have observed a pattern since the war began in late February of speculative bets and unusually large positions in war-linked markets – oil futures, energy stocks, and prediction markets – often preceded by Trump announcements timed just before Monday trading opens in the US, fueling public suspicion of insider trading.
Iran calculated the profits from these manipulations at around $9 billion by June and formally demanded in writing that half of it, $4.5 billion, be allocated to Tehran.
The official said the exchanged texts “will ultimately become part of the historical record.”
Financial disclosure forms released on 3 July revealed that President Trump’s income soared past $2.2 billion last year, largely built on cryptocurrency ventures that his own administration was regulating.
The Wall Street Journal reported Trump made around $1 billion from crypto deals, including a UAE state-linked investment in World Liberty Financial and proceeds from his $TRUMP memecoin, which later crashed in value by 97 percent.
Trump and those close to him have also profited from massive, highly suspicious trading spikes in oil futures and stock indexes occurring just minutes before the president issued major market-moving announcements on social media about the US war on Iran.
Economists, lawmakers, and market analysts have raised alarms over insider trading, data leaks, and market manipulation coming from the White House.
Almost $1 billion in oil futures trades were executed in early May in the minutes before an Axios report revealed a US-Iran memorandum aimed at ending the war.
Market observers noted the White House’s wild swings between war and peace rhetoric appeared to be little more than a vehicle for insiders to profit through coordinated trading on Polymarket and traditional commodities exchanges
Meanwhile, the Financial Times (FT) reported that the president’s sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., were behind a $1.04-billion investment network funneling money into sectors championed by the White House, including drone companies pursuing Pentagon contracts.
The report also noted that Donald Trump Jr. serves as an advisor to Polymarket, where insider trading on US military action is reportedly rampant.
The Saudis Back Down
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 16, 2026
On Monday July 13, airstrikes hit the runway at Sanaa International Airport shortly after a Houthi delegation returned from the funeral in Iran for the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yemen’s Defense Minister Gen. Taher al-Aqili said on X that the runway was struck to stop a plane carrying the Houthi delegation returning from Khamenei’s funeral. The IRG defense ministry said it had exhausted diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran and the Houthis to stay out of Yemeni airspace, that it would respond to hostile aircraft “by all available means,” and held Iran responsible.
However, Israel’s mouthpiece on Axios, Barak Ravid, citing two US officials, reported that Trump gave Saudi leader MBS his backing for the strike in a phone call last Friday — MBS asked for support for military action against the Houthis and received it. The White House declined to comment directly and the Saudi embassy didn’t respond.
The proximate cause is aviation, not ground war. About ten days ago a Mahan Air flight landed in Sanaa — the first Iran–Sanaa flights in over a decade — and picked up a Houthi delegation traveling to the funeral of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Saudi Arabia blocked subsequent flights, fearing they’d be used to move weapons or Iranian military advisers to the Houthis. (Note the airport itself has been largely destroyed and out of action since Israeli strikes in May.)
Following the Saudi Attack on Sanaa, the Houthis retaliated by firing ballistic missiles and drones at Abha International Airport in Saudi Arabia’s southwestern Asir region — a mountainous area near the Yemeni border and a domestic summer destination. Saree claimed the strike. The Saudi-led coalition spokesman said air defenses “dealt with a threat from ballistic missiles” launched toward the southern region. No casualties reported.
This exchange marked the first Saudi Arabian attacks on the Houthis since the informal truce took effect in March 2022. I thought that the Saudis would retaliate on Tuesday or Wednesday for the Houthi strike on Monday … Thankfully, I was wrong. The Saudis did not follow up by launching new attacks at Houthi positions.
The Saudi attack was foolish and reckless. At present, the Saudis are able to export a bit of oil from Yanbu, a Saudi city that sits on the shores of the Red Sea. This attack on Yemen — albeit an airfield — carried the risk that the Houthis would attack the Saudi oil facility at Yanbu and close the Bab al Mandab Strait. Given the Saudi vulnerabilities if their operation in the Red Sea is suspended or closed, you would think that MBS government would be engaged in further confidence building exercises with Yemen. Nope!! The Saudis almost touched off a renewal of the war with the Houthis.
I don’t know who convinced MBS to put a full stop to further attacks on the Houthi-controlled portion of Yemen, but the Saudis have not attacked again. The Saudis are in no position financially to handle the simultaneous closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al Mandab strait. It appears that cooler heads in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia prevailed… for now at least.
The monopoly of arms: Why the doctrine is enforced only where resistance exists
By Sondoss Al Asaad | Al Mayadeen | July 15, 2026
For decades, the slogan of “restricting arms to the state” has been presented as a universal principle of sovereignty and state-building. Yet a closer geopolitical examination reveals a striking inconsistency: the doctrine is aggressively promoted in countries like Lebanon and Iraq, while it is largely absent from discussions in surrounding countries such as Syria, Libya, or other fragmented states where multiple armed actors continue to exist.
This selective application raises an uncomfortable question: Is the objective truly the consolidation of state authority, or is the slogan primarily employed where armed movements challenge Israeli military superiority and American hegemony?
Political philosopher Carl Schmitt argues that sovereignty ultimately belongs to whoever decides the exception.
Modern geopolitical practice appears to confirm his observation. The international order invokes legal principles selectively, depending on whether they reinforce or undermine prevailing strategic interests. The debate over arms, therefore, is not merely legal; it is profoundly political.
The Lebanese case illustrates this contradiction with exceptional clarity.
Following the November 2024 ceasefire, “Hezbollah withdrew from the north of the Litani River and ‘accepted’ that decisions regarding war and peace would rest exclusively with the Lebanese state and its armed forces”. The expectation promoted by Western capitals was that this would allegedly strengthen Lebanese sovereignty and reduce tensions.
The reality unfolded differently; the Israeli enemy, unable to establish a lasting foothold inside southern Lebanese villages during sixty-six days of warfare, achieved after the ceasefire what military operations had failed to accomplish. It maintained positions inside Lebanese territory, continued near-daily airstrikes across Lebanon, and expanded targeted assassinations while facing little meaningful deterrence.
The sequence of events inevitably fuelled a renewed domestic debate. If sovereignty means that only the state possesses weapons, what happens when the state itself lacks the capacity to prevent violations of its own borders?
This dilemma reflects what Thomas Hobbes identified centuries ago as the fundamental purpose of political authority: providing security.
The legitimacy of the state rests not merely on possessing legal authority but on its ability to protect those living under its jurisdiction. When that capacity weakens, alternative security arrangements inevitably emerge.
The issue extends beyond Lebanon; In Iraq, international pressure consistently emphasizes integrating or dismantling armed resistance groups under the banner of state monopoly over force. Yet comparable urgency is rarely directed toward states where numerous militias continue to operate without challenging Israeli strategic dominance.
Syria offers another revealing comparison. Multiple foreign militaries, including American, Turkish, and Israeli forces, remain active on Syrian territory alongside various local armed factions.
Libya remains fragmented among competing military authorities and militias. Yet the international discourse seldom revolves around an immediate imperative to monopolize arms before broader political settlements are achieved.
Such inconsistencies have led many observers to conclude that the slogan itself is not universally applied but strategically deployed.
French philosopher Michel Foucault argued that power operates through discourse by defining what becomes accepted as common sense.
The phrase “arms outside the state” has increasingly become one such discourse. It transforms a complex security equation into a simplified legal formula while avoiding a more difficult question: Can sovereignty exist when a state cannot defend its territory?
Iran has no plans for negotiations, focused on defense: FM spokesman
Press TV – July 15, 2026
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman says the country has no plans to return to negotiations with the United States as long as Washington violates its commitments under the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the two countries last month.
Esmaeil Baghaei said on Wednesday that Iran is currently focused on repelling and retaliating against US attacks on its territory.
“We currently have no plans for negotiations and are focused on defense,” Baghaei said in response to claims by the US that its ongoing attacks on Iran would force Tehran back to the negotiating table.
The spokesman said Iran no longer considers itself bound by the terms of the MoU signed with the United States on June 17, citing Washington’s repeated violations of its commitments under the agreement.
“An MoU is a set of mutual commitments, and in the event of a breach by the other party, we too will refrain from fulfilling our obligations; this is a principle, and this same path will be followed henceforth,” he said.
“The other party has engaged in bad faith and breach of promise (beginning) from the very first article (of the MoU).”
The diplomat said that everyone inside Iran is supporting the policy of standing up against the US and its bullying demands.
“… our armed forces will respond with full force to any aggressor. If they strike, they will be struck back,” he said.
The comments came amid ongoing US attacks on coastal areas in southern Iran, which Washington claims are carried out to weaken Iran’s ability to “target ships” in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran has rejected the US accusations, saying responsibility for managing transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway in the Persian Gulf that is critical to global energy supplies, has been delegated to Iran under Article 5 of the 14-point MoU agreed between Tehran and Washington.
Can Dems harness Iran war anger to sink Trump’s military budget?
Senate blocked defense bill Monday amid frustration with administration’s return to war and lack of transparency
By Blaise Malley | Responsible Statecraft | July 15, 2026
Congress returned to Washington DC this week after its July 4 recess. With President Donald Trump having recently declared the memorandum of understanding with Iran “over” and with the two countries exchanging attacks, the war has predictably taken center stage.
Congressional Democrats have been mostly unified against the war, but this week has presented opportunities for members to use new vehicles to express their opposition via the power of the purse. On Tuesday, every present Democratic Senator voted to block debate over the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes the appropriation of Pentagon funds. The bill, which needed 60 votes to advance, failed by a 50-46 tally.
The NDAA typically proceeds in a relatively bipartisan manner, but the warning signs were apparent in June when nine Democrats voted against advancing the bill out of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). Several Democrats framed their opposition as, in part, a rejection of the war in Iran.
In advance of the vote, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), said the bill would “effectively green light Trump’s illegal Iran war.” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who noted that he typically votes in favor of the NDAA, said he would oppose it given that the legislature had not “even had an up or down vote to authorize this war in the first place.” Republicans charged Democrats with playing politics over the national security bill, with SASC chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss. ) calling it a “new low.”
There were other considerations at play as well, including the Trump administration’s ask for a $1.5 trillion defense budget and the lack of transparency surrounding the cost of the war with Iran. On Tuesday, Jules Hurst, testifying to become the Pentagon comptroller, told SASC members that he did not have an update on the $29 billion price tag for the war, since he had not been performing the role since May 20, when his term as acting comptroller came to an end.
Sources said that Republicans’ approach to funding bills has created conditions in which Democrats may stall or even stop defense appropriations legislation.
With Democrats seemingly dug in on blocking the NDAA until the questions surrounding an Iran war authorization are settled, the must-pass bill’s future appears murky. “The Trump administration has not meaningfully consulted Congress on the Iran conflict or engaged Democrats on broader budget strategy, leaving its budget plans and legislative priorities stalled,” a senior congressional aide told RS. “Republicans now face the possibility of flat funding for the Department of Defense under a continuing resolution, or potentially an extended shutdown.”
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don’t miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
In addition, a group of Senators, led by Van Hollen and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), raised concerns about an amendment to the NDAA that would more deeply integrate U.S. and Israeli intelligence. They sent a letter to their colleagues last week urging them to block the legislation until they could hold further discussion regarding those measures.
But congressional sources said that the timing of the vote — shortly after Trump’s announcement that the agreement with Iran was dead — contributed to Democrats voting unanimously against the NDAA. Supporters of ending the war with Iran interpreted the vote as a signal that the war was increasingly unpopular and that Congress should keep up political pressure on the president.
“The war with Iran is incredibly unpopular with the American people and Democrats were right to pick up on that and use this opportunity to vote accordingly,” one senior Democratic Senate staffer told RS. In order to keep up pressure on the administration, the staffer argued, Democrats “should announce publicly that they won’t support any measure to advance the NDAA until Trump resumes negotiations with Iran and gets a deal done.”
National Iranian American Council president Jamal Abdi wrote a statement that urged members to not advance any “other major national legislation (…) as long as this unauthorized war continues without an explicit prohibition on funding it.”
That major legislation may include the administration’s roughly $88 billion DoD supplemental funding request, much of which is intended to fund the Iran war. The administration made the request late last month, though its future on the floor remains unclear as Republican members remain frustrated by a lack of information from the Pentagon regarding the request’s details. As the Stimson Center’s Julia Gledhill told RS in June, “the supplemental doesn’t even detail what weapons the Pentagon wants to buy.”
Up until this point, Democratic opposition has primarily been registered through a string of votes on war powers resolutions. Both the House and the Senate passed concurrent resolutions in June to push Trump to wind down the war absent authorization from the legislature. Congressional Democrats are reportedly considering taking the issue to the courts to compel the administration to comply. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has said that he will introduce a new War Powers Resolution this week.
The administration, for its part, informed Congress of the restarting of the war on July 10, which it says should also restart the 60-day war powers clock, though legal experts widely say that this is an incorrect interpretation.
Blaise Malley is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft. His writing has appeared in The Nation, The New Republic, The American Prospect, The American Conservative, and elsewhere.
Trump’s 3 failed options for reopening Strait of Hormuz: The Economist
Al Mayadeen | July 14, 2026
The memorandum of understanding that was meant to end the US war on Iran is unraveling, and Washington is left with the same three options it had before the deal existed, none of which reopens the Strait of Hormuz.
The Economist traces the collapse back to the MoU’s fifth paragraph, which commits Iran to “make arrangements” for safe passage of commercial vessels.
Washington reads this as an obligation to clear mines, while Tehran reads it as a right to administer traffic through the Strait. Washington has already revoked the sanctions waiver that let Iran sell oil, and Trump has said he will resume the naval blockade.
Option one: Continued limited attacks
The first path available to Washington is simply to keep doing what it has already been doing, attacking Iranian military sites and equipment on a limited basis. The Economist argues that this option has effectively already failed.
More than 300 such attacks over five nights have not shifted Iranian behavior in any meaningful way, and there is little reason to expect a sixth night, or a sixtieth, to succeed where the first fifty did not.
Part of the problem is geographic, as even if the US were able to bomb every coastal launcher Iran possesses, the country could keep firing on shipping from positions further inland, since many of its missiles and drones have ranges well beyond 1,000 kilometers.
Option two: Escalation
The second option is to escalate well beyond the current tit-for-tat, but The Economist notes that this path carries substantial risk without any assurance of a better outcome.
Attacking Iran’s core infrastructure directly would likely draw retaliation against Gulf states caught in the crossfire and could expose Washington to accusations of a war crime.
Deploying ground troops, meanwhile, is regarded as politically untenable in Washington under current conditions, making it a non-starter regardless of its theoretical military logic.
Trump has repeatedly floated occupying Kharg Island, the site of Iran’s main oil export terminal, but The Economist points out that this would do nothing to reopen Hormuz itself, since the island sits more than 600 kilometers from the strait.
Option three: Reimposing the blockade
The third option, reinstating the naval blockade, might look like the least disruptive choice, but The Economist argues it simply returns both sides to the standoff that existed before the MoU was signed, a staring contest over which side blinks first under economic pressure.
That earlier standoff is precisely what produced the interim deal now falling apart, which offers little confidence that repeating it would end differently.
There is also no guarantee Iran accepts a renewed blockade without retaliating against Gulf states this time around, and if it does escalate in response, Trump would be left choosing between all-out war and a retreat from his stated goals.
No outside help in sight
Britain and France have offered to help Oman clear mines from the strait, but Germany, Japan, Gulf states and China have all stayed on the sidelines, The Economist observes, leaving Washington with little meaningful outside support to draw on.
Tanker traffic through the strait has collapsed to its lowest level since May, and Brent crude has climbed roughly 20 percent since July 6, trading near $87 a barrel.
The Economist concludes that neither Washington nor Tehran has a military path to what it wants, claiming that the US cannot bomb the strait open, and Iran cannot profit while it stays shut, leaving the fragile MoU as the least bad option either side has left.
Yemen warns airlines to avoid Saudi airspace until Sana’a blockade is lifted
Press TV – July 14, 2026
The Yemeni armed forces have renewed their warning to all airlines against using Saudi airspace, urging carriers to take the advisory seriously until the blockade on Sana’a International Airport is lifted.
The warning was republished in Arabic and English on the social media platform X on Tuesday, reaffirming the Yemeni armed forces’ stance on the continued restrictions affecting the airport.
“We warn all airlines against crossing in Saudi airspace, and they should take our warnings seriously until the blockade of Sana’a International Airport is lifted,” the post read.
The warning came hours after the release of an audio-visual message addressed to Saudi Arabia titled “Siege for Siege.”
In a separate development on Tuesday, Yemeni armed forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree said Yemeni air defenses shot down a Saudi Wing Loong 2 reconnaissance drone over Al-Bayda Governorate, located in south-central Yemen.
“The drone was carrying out hostile missions when it was intercepted at dawn using appropriate weaponry,” he said.
Saree reaffirmed the Yemeni armed forces’ readiness to respond to any violation of Yemen’s airspace and sovereignty.
He stressed that the armed forces would remain vigilant and would not stand idly by in the face of any aggression.
The latest developments follow a military operation carried out by the Yemeni armed forces on Monday targeting Saudi Arabia’s Abha International Airport with ballistic missiles and drones.
The operation followed multiple Saudi airstrikes on Sana’a International Airport, which were aimed at shutting down the country’s main gateway for humanitarian flights.
According to Yemeni officials, air defenses engaged the Saudi warplanes, preventing further strikes on the airport.
Yemeni authorities described the attack on Sana’a International Airport as the most serious cross-border aggression since 2022.
They warned that the strikes could bring an end to the unofficial four-year ceasefire between Saudi Arabia and the Sana’a-based Yemeni government.
TIME Magazine Reveals Israeli Influence Campaign Targeting Americans To Restart Iran War
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | July 14, 2026
Have you ever noticed how so many Zionist social media influencers often post the exact same messaging, at the exact same time?
It turns out, according to a new investigation in Time Magazine, that these messages are part of a coordinated Israeli influence campaign targeting Americans.
The investigation profiled Brad Parscale, the former Trump campaign manager and current registered Israeli agent, whose firm, Clock Tower X, was hired last year “to conduct a digital campaign on behalf of the State of Israel”.
Parscale was paid by the Israeli government to “produce 100 original pieces of content each month, with at least 80% aimed at Gen Z audiences across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and podcasts” and to “amplify the campaign across social media and through ‘integration of narrative messaging into Salem Media Network properties and aligned distribution channels,’ referring to the Christian conservative broadcasting and publishing company where he serves as Chief Strategy Officer” and to “produce at least 50 million digital impressions per month, as well as influence how AI tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini characterized Israel and the war”.
Brad Parscale admitted to Time that “the operation was intended to prevent young conservatives from drifting away from Israel”.
Trump administration officials speaking to Time Magazine revealed that Brad Parscale’s paid influencers were attempting to undermine the MoU with Iran.
The investigation wrote:
Online influencers in Trump’s MAGA movement were excoriating it (the MoU) on social media. One shared an Israeli op-ed titled, “You Could Have Been the Greatest President of All—But You Failed.” Several posted the same video of Qatar’s prime minister appearing to snub Vice President J.D. Vance in Israel, arguing it showed regional powers dismissing the Trump Administration’s “naivete.” Others accused Trump of surrendering before achieving his stated objective of eliminating Iran’s nuclear program. Many of the posts appeared almost simultaneously, with similarities in language and tone.
The official began collecting screenshots, and came to believe it wasn’t a coincidence. Tracing tweets by prominent members of the online right, the official came to believe there was an unlikely figure at the centerof all this criticism: Trump’s former presidential campaign manager and digital guru, Brad Parscale.
The investigation added:
Inside the White House, some officials were frustrated for a different reason. What had begun as an effort to keep the American right supportive of Israel, they believed, had evolved into an influence campaign that was colliding with the President’s political interests as Trump’s and Netanyahu’s war aims diverged, led by a figure trading on the perception that he remained close to Trump. They believed the very media ecosystem Parscale had promised to activate was now helping to circulate arguments that undercut Trump’s effort to end the war. “We’re talking about American influencers who are being paid by a foreign country, then trying to build momentum to change the President’s view, or the views of others around him,” says a senior U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the issue publicly. “It can’t be dismissed as inconsequential by any means.”
Looking more closely at the conversation about the deal unfolding across the conservative internet, the official began noticing the same patterns: similar language appearing across seemingly independent accounts in rapid succession. “You have a person who is farming out this influencing task, who is being paid by a foreign element to the social media space,” the official tells TIME. “To me, this is a very, very dangerous thing.”
Describing the campaign, Time Magazine wrote, “Three people familiar with the campaign describe a messaging operation run through a network of interconnected firms overseen by Parscale or other firms he owns or created, such as Campaign Nucleus and Influenceable, in which he now owns a minority stake. Through private group chats, they say, conservative influencers receive suggested language for posts on social media sites such as X, Instagram and TikTok. They were then compensated based on the impressions and engagement their content generated. On its website, Clock Tower X says it has developed an ‘influencer ecosystem’ that includes ‘managed networks that amplify narratives through credible, distributed voices.’”
It identified the Zionist propagandist X account of “Eyal Yakoby” as one of the accounts on Parscale and Israel’s payroll, writing, “One of the conservative figures associated with the campaign was Eyal Yakoby, a recent college grad with a popular X account who began working with one of Parscale’s firms about a year ago, he says, after testifying before a House committee about antisemitism on college campuses. Yakoby confirms he was paid by Influenceable to fight antisemitism online.”
It added, “Another component involved a sprawling network of conservative influencers. According to a former participant, they received coordinated messaging through private group chats, synchronized the timing of their posts, and were compensated based on the reach they generated.”
This is just one of the many influence campaigns targeting Americans that was paid for by Israel.
Most recently O’Dwyer’s reported that :
Havas Media Germany has hired Piro Inc. to further the digital efforts of the Israel Government Advertising Agency to sway US public opinion.
Founded by Daniel Rosenberg and Tim Piper, New York-based Piro has produced branded entertainment for film, TV and digital media.
Rosenberg has collaborated with actors such as Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts, Robert DeNiro, Steve Martin, Al Pacino, Kevin Bacon and Jodie Foster.
Piper was called “one of the most influential people on the planet” by Time for for his branded content work. He is executive producer on “Odd Mom Out” for Bravo and “Farmed and Dangerous” on Hulu.
According to its June 2 Justice Dept. filing, Piro is engaged to provide digital content strategy, creative development, video production oversight, and campaign advisory services in connection with a pilot digital communications program.
Services include audience research, content architecture, scriptwriting, asset production, distribution planning, iterative performance analysis, and final program evaluation. Al content is developed for distribution via digital and social media platforms in the US.
Piro has received $900K for its effort.
At the time of Israel’s contract with Brad Parscale, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that it was only one of several firms hired by Israel through Havas Media Germany to influence American public opinion.
Harretz reported that Israel also hired “Show Faith by Works, owned by Republican consultant Chad Schnitger, an evangelical operative connected to the Christian right” to “focus on ‘churches and Christian organizations in the western United States’ aimed at countering ‘declining support for Israel among evangelical Christians’ and ‘raising awareness of Palestinian ties to Hamas and support for terrorism’” and to advance, “‘biblically based arguments highlighting the importance of Israel and the Jewish people to Christians,’ while spreading messages that ‘the Palestinians chose Hamas… they murder Christian aid workers… they celebrated the October 7 massacre and shelter terrorists… Palestinians and Iran share genocidal intentions toward Israel’”.
It added, “The filings for the proposed campaign explain that the messages will reach their audience through ‘the largest geofencing campaign in U.S. history’ – a pitch to map the physical perimeters of every major church and Christian college in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado during worship hours; identifying attendees using commercial data, tracking them, and continuing to target them with relevant ads.”
Israel also used Havas to hire SKDKnickerbocker, a firm close to the Democratic Party, to, “develop a ‘bot-based program on various social media channels that that `floods the zone` with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ pro-Israel message.”
Along with this, it noted that Israel hired “Bridges Partners, a Washington-based consulting firm owned by Yair Levi and Uri Steinberg” to “fund social-media influencers promoting Israel”.
Featured Video
Armando Mema: Finland Used as New Frontline Against Russia
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Documentary
Hospital Horror
Documented in the film,“Bad Medicine”
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Poland and Bulgaria put brakes on Ukraine weapons funding
- Russia Reaffirms Its Support for Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity of Lebanon – Russian MFA
- Araghchi: Failure to punish aggressors against Iran endangers all nations
- Iran tells UN Security Council to stop reversing roles of ‘aggressor and victim’
- Disgraced neocons Feith & Libby: stop whining about ‘endless war’
- CENTCOM rejects Israeli claims of preparations for new Iran attacks
- Your Shopping Bag Runs Through Hormuz
- Armando Mema: Finland Used as New Frontline Against Russia
- Gestapo 2.0? Germany grants spy agencies sweeping new powers
- Franco-Palestinian group seeks court ban on Israeli real estate fair in Paris
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Barents Sea Temperatures Were Warmer And Sea Ice Less Extensive In The 1700s Than Today
- German Authorities Start Initiative To Evaluate Public Register For Climate “Disinformation” Spreaders!
- Zonal Asymmetry of Temperature Change in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
- New Study: The Net Fossil Fuel Contribution To Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Been Zero For 500 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
