John Mearsheimer: Toward All-Out War With Both Russia & Iran
Glenn Diesen | May 18, 2026
Prof. John Mearsheimer discusses the West going up the escalation ladder against both Russia and Iran, with all-out war as the logical conclusion.
IRGC Navy says more ships transiting Strait of Hormuz under its coordination
Press TV – May 20, 2026
Iran reports increased ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz under new arrangements to facilitate transit via the key Persian Gulf waterway.
The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy said on Wednesday that a total of 26 ships had passed through the Strait of Hormuz in the past 24 hours.
The IRGC Navy’s command, which controls the Strait in cooperation with the Iranian Army, said in a statement that the ships that passed through the Strait during the period included “oil tankers, container ships, and other commercial vessels”.
The statement said that all passages had taken place in coordination with the IRGC Navy, adding that the force had ensured the security of passage through the waterway.
It said transit is currently flowing through the Strait of Hormuz in coordination with the IRGC Navy, and after ships obtain permits from the force.
The passage of 26 ships marks a major increase compared to transit rates in the Strait since the beginning of US-Israeli aggression against Iran in late February, which prompted Iranian military forces to take control of the waterway and impose restrictions on shipping through it.
The restrictions have caused a major surge in international energy and commodity prices, as the Strait is responsible for a fifth of global oil demand.
Iran said after a ceasefire was announced to halt the aggression on April 8 that it would continue to control transit via the Strait of Hormuz by banning or restricting adversarial ships and charging tolls on others seeking safe passage.
The country has also indicated that it would be ready to reopen the Strait as part of a deal that ensures the permanent end of the US-Israeli aggression and lifts all sanctions and blockades on the country.
If Thomas Massie Was President…
By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | May 20, 2026
If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no American involvement in the war in Iran. Rep. Massie (R-KY) introduced a bipartisan resolution barring “unauthorized hostilities” against Iran and said flatly that, “The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war.” Massie respects the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war. A Massie presidency would not begin hostilities at the behest of a foreign nation and then pretend the War Powers Resolution clock never started when Iran didn’t turn out like Venezuela (which he also wouldn’t have started).
If Thomas Massie were president, Americans wouldn’t be funding Ukrainian oligarchs to the tune of billions of dollars. He said, “We shouldn’t send another penny to Ukraine,” and demanded an audit before another dollar moved. Congress, meanwhile, appropriated more than $174 billion for Ukraine-related purposes through FY 2024, passed another $60.84 billion package in April 2024, and oversight bodies documented serious tracking failures for sensitive equipment. A government that cannot account for what it sends abroad has not earned the moral right to demand more from taxpayers at home.
If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no more regime change wars, period. Years before Iran returned to the front page, Massie was already trying to block unauthorized aid to Syrian rebels, restrain intervention in Yemen, require congressional authorization for any action in Venezuela, and later withdraw the United States from NATO. The antiwar right is perfectly encapsulated by the non-interventionist foreign policy supported first by Dr. Ron Paul, and now by Massie. America First means supporting the troops, and supporting the troops means not sending them to police the world.
If Thomas Massie were president, a foreign government (Israel) wouldn’t control America. Massie voted against Israel’s 2024 supplemental, proposed forcing politically active organizations that principally advance foreign interests to register under FARA, and argued that federal officeholders should disclose dual citizenship and abstain from votes uniquely benefiting those countries. It was when Massie told Tucker Carlson about his colleagues in Washington having an “AIPAC Guy,” a handler to make sure they were always putting Israel’s interests first, that the Rubicon had been crossed. Israeli billionaires would then make the Republican primary in Kentucky’s 4th district the most expensive such race in America. To be Israel First is to be America Last.
If Thomas Massie were president, Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators would be in jail. He forced the U.S. House to vote on releasing the full Epstein files, gathered the signatures to bring the measure to the floor, and said Americans deserve to know “who’s implicated, and how deep this corruption goes.” Massie said we would know the movement to release the Epstein Files was a success when “rich men… powerful men are being perp-walked to the jail.” Such men have faced consequences abroad, but not in America. The Epstein class is politically active in the States.
If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no FISA Section 702, no warrantless spying on Americans. He has spent a decade attacking the “backdoor” searches that let intelligence agencies rummage through Americans’ communications without a warrant, and he warned in 2025 that, “The intelligence agencies will use these loopholes to spy on Americans.” His Republican colleagues were urged to unite behind extending Section 702, and Congress promptly bought more time for the program. A President Massie would be among the first since the days of Jefferson to repeal and restrict executive power, even when (or especially when) that executive is himself.
If Thomas Massie were president, there would be no automobile kill switch mandates. Massie authored a 2026 amendment to block federal funding for the impaired-driving technology mandate born in the 2021 infrastructure law, and he argued that a car should not become “your judge, your jury, and your executioner.” Regulators may prefer cleaner language, but the civil-liberties dispute is obvious enough: should Washington require vehicles to monitor drivers and intervene? Massie’s answer is no, and instead of being celebrated for voting to defund the Biden-era legislation, it became yet another grievance of those who prefer safety over liberty.
If Thomas Massie were president, there would have been no federal COVID mandates. He sued to end the CDC’s air-travel mask order, introduced legislation to terminate the vaccine mandate for international travelers, and condemned the “faceless bureaucrats” behind edicts Congress never enacted. The courts later blocked OSHA’s vaccine-or-test rule for large employers, and CMS eventually withdrew its healthcare-worker vaccine mandate. Massie was right earlier than most, and louder than nearly everyone who later pretended the whole episode had simply been an understandable excess.
If Thomas Massie were president, there wouldn’t have been record federal gun control prosecutions. His legislative instinct runs in the opposite direction: national constitutional carry, repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and fewer federal crimes piled onto conduct that the Second Amendment was written to protect. That outlook is irreconcilable with a Justice Department mentality that boasts it will “pursue every firearms case referred.” A Massie administration would treat gun ownership as a liberty to be secured, not as a pretext for one more bureaucratic dragnet.
If Thomas Massie were president, the national debt wouldn’t be $39 trillion and rising by trillions each year. Massie has spent years voting against omnibus bills and continuing resolutions, and he now calls the continuing resolutions ritual a “fake fight,” because both parties preserve the machinery that drives borrowing higher. The Biden-era spending levels were not only cut, but refusing to rubber-stamp said spending created yet more friction between him and the supposed party of “fiscal conservatism.” The 2025 tax-and-spending package was projected to add roughly $3.8 trillion more over a decade. In Washington, insolvency is bipartisan, but a President Massie would veto such bills, challenging Congress to keep trying until it could either balance the budget, or embrace shutdown.
If Thomas Massie were president, gas prices would be cheaper. His politics point toward more supply, fewer regulatory affectations, and less willingness to destabilize oil-producing regions in the name of grand strategy. In Congress he backed cross-border energy infrastructure, while current inflation data show energy prices surging and gasoline costs jumping as the Iran war drove up oil. A government that constrains energy at home and jeopardizes it abroad should not affect surprise when the reckoning arrives at the pump.
If Thomas Massie were president, grocery store prices would be cheaper. He has long argued that Washington makes food needlessly dear by burdening local production and intrastate processing, backing the PRIME Act, interstate raw-milk legislation, and country-of-origin transparency. USDA still shows food-at-home prices above year-earlier levels, and Federal Reserve research has noted that modern food inflation is driven heavily by supply-chain and processing costs, not merely by raw commodities. Massie attacks the most important problem facing everyday Americans, cost of living, from multiple angles, be it tackling inflation or clearing the path between producers and consumers.
If Thomas Massie were president, the swamp wouldn’t be bigger than ever. He calls out the political theater of Washington, attacks taxpayer-funded censorship programs, presses for foreign-agent transparency, and treats debt monetization as a racket and a ponzi scheme. In his view, the swamp is manned from all corners of DC: lobbyists, bureaucracies, intelligence agencies, subsidy-seekers, and legislators. A Massie presidency would work to dismantle the managerial state which is full to bursting with progressive lifers who somehow manage to retain their positions with each passing administration, both Democrat and Republican alike.
But with Donald Trump as president, the opposite is true. Under Trump, America enjoys new wars along with its decades-long police actions. It features extensions for spying apparati, even those used against Trump. It stares at $40 trillion in debt, not only without tapping the brakes, but with calls for even more spending. It navigates an evolving narrative on Epstein from releasing the files, to calling them a hoax, to then attacking those who demand justice. Above all else, America under President Trump puts the needs of Israel before the needs of its own citizens. And should a single Congressman from rural Kentucky both say America First and mean it, then he is Public Enemy #1.
If only Thomas Massie were president and not exiting Congress.
Kata’ib Hezbollah warns Jordan over allowing US-Israeli reconnaissance missions against Iraq
Press TV – May 19, 2026
The Kata’ib Hezbollah resistance movement has warned the Amman government against ongoing reconnaissance missions launched by the United States and Israel from Jordanian soil against Iraqi resistance fighters, particularly the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU).
“In the wake of unfolding developments across the region and US-Israeli actions against Iraq’s security and stability, the enemies are aggressively seeking to escalate tensions against the (Iraqi) resistance front and the PMU,” Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, the security chief of the group, said in a statement on Monday evening.
He warned that the patience of heroic resistance fighters in the face of blatant Israeli violations of ceasefire agreements and recurrent acts of aggression against Iraq’s national sovereignty is about to run out.
Assaf noted that the bulk of US and Israeli surveillance missions are being launched from Jordan, warning that this serves as a prelude for attacks against Iraq.
The Jordanian government, therefore, is strongly advised to take lessons from missile and drone operations conducted in retaliation for the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, as “patience is starting to run out,” the senior Kata’ib Hezbollah official emphasized.
He further said that the US and Israel, based on received information, are preparing for a fresh round of strikes against commanders of Iraqi resistance groups and the PMU, commonly known by its Arabic name Hashd al-Sha’abi.
Assaf warned Washington and Tel Aviv against any strikes on Iraq, stressing that the response to such a folly would be comprehensive, and the United States would have to shoulder responsibility for all serious repercussions in such a case.
The remarks come as US military aircraft have been scrambling over the past few days to transfer personnel and munitions from one military installation to another across Iraq.
US-Israeli war on Iran unlikely to resume due to global opposition: Pakistani defense minister
Press TV – May 19, 2026
Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif says that a resumption of the US‑Israeli war on Iran is unlikely given the widespread global opposition and lack of public support in the United States for another war in West Asia.
In an interview with Geo News’ “Capital Talk” program on Monday, Asif said Israel strongly desires the war to restart and be fought by America on its side, but “my hunch says that this war will not happen again.”
“Wars are fought when the public stands behind them. When the public does not support them, wars are not fought,” he added.
The defense minister noted that even Iran’s neighbors across the Persian Gulf are not in favor of aggression against the Islamic Republic.
He highlighted Pakistan’s ancient linguistic and neighborly ties with Iran and expressed gratitude for Tehran’s trust in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.
Israel ‘left alone’ as world rejects war
Asif argued that Israel has been left alone in its push for a prolonged conflict.
“Israel or maybe two or three countries want the war to be prolonged and for America to fight on their behalf,” he said, stressing that the overwhelming international mood is against it.
He said the positions of China and Russia are very clear in that they, along with other nations, are not supporters of war against Iran.
The defense minister also praised Iran’s strong spirit during the imposed war, which began on February 28 when the United States and Israel launched joint assaults that assassinated Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and targeted civilian infrastructure.
Trump still threatens military action
Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened that military action remains possible if diplomacy fails.
On Monday, Trump said he had paused plans for a major assault at the request of Persian Gulf Arab allies, but threatened to launch a “full, large‑scale assault” if no agreement is reached.
Despite the recurring threats, Iran has consistently rejected US proposals that undermine its sovereignty.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed on Monday that exchanges with Washington continue through Pakistani mediation, with Tehran having conveyed its concerns.
Trita Parsi: Iran War Marks the End of American Primacy
Glenn Diesen | May 18, 2026
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Parsi discusses why a peace deal can be achieved, yet it seems more likely that the US will restart the war.
Follow the Substack of Trita Parsi: https://tritaparsi.substack.com/
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
Iran says any agreement with US must end war on all fronts, lift blockade and sanctions
Press TV – May 18, 2026
Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi has said that any possible agreement with the US must ensure an end to the war on all fronts and lift the naval blockade and sanctions imposed against the country.
Gharibabadi laid out Iran’s conditions for an agreement with the United States to end the war as he briefed members of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission on Monday, according to Ebrahim Rezae, the committee’s spokesman.
Rezaei said the deputy foreign minister updated lawmakers on the ongoing indirect negotiations between Iran and the US and the proposals exchanged between the two sides through Pakistan.
“Gharibabadi emphasizes that in any possible agreement, [it must be stipulated that] the war must end on all fronts, including Lebanon, US forces must withdraw from the region surrounding Iran, the naval blockade must be lifted, sanctions must be cancelled, and Iranian assets must be released,” the spokesman said.
He quoted Gharibabadi as saying that the Islamic Republic has sent its latest proposal to the American side, and is yet to receive an official response.
The deputy foreign minister also stressed that it was the US that requested a ceasefire and negotiations, and that the Islamic Republic never sought negotiations with Washington during this war.
“It was also emphasized that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the definitive winner of the 40-day war, and that the United States and the Zionist regime were defeated,” Rezaei said.
According to Rezaei’s remarks, the commission’s members presented their suggestions during the session and stressed that Iran’s negotiating team should not back down from the Iranian nation’s legitimate demands and should negotiate “from a victorious position”.
They warned of the US history of breaking promises, including its withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), calling for the continuation of Iran’s management of the Strait of Hormuz and the official recognition of this role.
Meanwhile, the commission’s members also rejected the UAE’s hostile actions and called for a “serious” response to the UAE.
They also emphasized the need to pursue justice for the assassination of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, in international forums and courts, stating that “diplomacy should be used to stabilize the capacities resulting from the war.”
The US and Israel started a fresh round of aerial aggression on Iran on February 28, some eight months after they carried out unprovoked attacks on the country.
Iran began to swiftly retaliate against the strikes by launching barrages of missiles and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories as well as on US bases and interests in regional countries.
On April 8, a Pakistan-brokered temporary ceasefire between Iran and the US took effect. However, subsequent peace negotiations in Islamabad ultimately stalled amid Washington’s maximalist demands and insistence on unreasonable positions.
Iran asserts sovereign rights over Hormuz fiber-optic routes
Al Mayadeen | May 18, 2026
Tehran has signaled that, under Iran’s sovereign rights over its territorial seabed, the country could regulate optical fiber cables crossing the Strait of Hormuz through permits, oversight mechanisms, and transit fees, highlighting the strategic importance of the waterway in global communications and finance, Iran’s Fars News Agency has reported.
Iran could require sovereign permits, impose oversight measures, and levy fees on subsea communications infrastructure passing through the strategic waterway, as per the report.
The report underscores the growing geopolitical importance of undersea digital networks alongside the strait’s longstanding role in global energy transit.
Fiber-optic cables routed through the Strait of Hormuz facilitate more than $10tn in daily financial transactions worldwide, the news agency reported, citing a report by the UK-based Policy Exchange research center. The corridor reportedly serves as a critical link connecting Gulf states, Asia, and Europe through high-capacity telecommunications systems.
Iran’s subsea leverage
The agency further warned that any disruption involving protected dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) cables in the strait could trigger substantial economic fallout, with losses potentially reaching tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per day through direct and indirect impacts on regional and global markets.
The report comes as Iran is reportedly looking to expand its control over the Strait of Hormuz by eyeing the vast network of subsea communication cables running beneath the vital waterway amid the US-Israeli ongoing threats.
Following a successful demonstration of leverage during recent US-Israeli aggression, Iranian officials and state-linked media are now focusing on underwater internet infrastructure that carries major volumes of global digital and financial traffic between Europe, Asia, and the Gulf.
Iranian authorities are discussing plans to impose charges on international companies using submarine internet cables that pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian military spokesperson Ebrahim Zolfaghari stated on X last week, “We will impose fees on internet cables.”
Media outlets said the proposal could require major technology firms, including Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon, to follow Iranian regulations regarding cable operations in the region. Reports also suggested submarine cable operators could face licensing fees, while maintenance and repair activities may be limited to Iranian companies.
Several of the companies referenced have financial interests tied to cable systems operating through the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. However, it remains uncertain whether those specific routes pass directly through Iranian territorial waters.
At the same time, Iranian media have hinted at the possibility of disruptions to subsea cable traffic, raising concerns about the vulnerability of infrastructure responsible for trillions of dollars in global data transmission and international internet connectivity.
Strait of Hormuz gains new strategic importance
Concerns over renewed US-Israeli aggression have intensified following US President Donald Trump’s return from China, with Tehran increasingly emphasizing the strategic tools it possesses beyond conventional military capabilities, CNN reported.
The latest rhetoric highlights the growing geopolitical significance of the Strait of Hormuz not only as a major energy corridor but also as a critical digital passageway. Iran appears intent on converting its geographic position into broader economic and strategic influence.
Subsea communication cables are essential to the modern global economy, carrying most international internet and data traffic. Any major disruption could affect banking operations, military communications, cloud computing systems, AI infrastructure, remote work networks, online gaming platforms, and streaming services worldwide.
Dina Esfandiary, Middle East lead at Bloomberg Economics, said Iran’s messaging is intended to showcase its leverage over the strategic waterway and protect the Islamic Republic from future aggressions.
“It aims to impose such a hefty cost on the global economy that no-one will dare attack Iran again,” she said.
Concerns over potential cable attacks
A number of key intercontinental subsea cables pass through the Strait of Hormuz. According to Mostafa Ahmed, a senior researcher at the UAE-based Habtoor Research Center, international operators have historically avoided Iranian waters because of long-standing security concerns. Instead, many cables are concentrated near the Omani side of the strait.
Still, Alan Mauldin, research director at telecom research company TeleGeography, noted that two systems, Falcon and Gulf Bridge International (GBI), cross Iranian territorial waters.
Although Iranian officials have not directly threatened to damage the cables, Tehran has repeatedly warned Washington’s regional allies that it possesses multiple ways to respond to pressure. Experts say this reflects a broader pattern of asymmetric tactics employed by the Islamic Republic.
Ahmed warned that Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), equipped with combat divers, mini-submarines, and underwater drones, could pose a threat to underwater communications infrastructure. He said a major strike on subsea systems could trigger a “digital catastrophe” affecting multiple regions simultaneously.
Global economic risks
Countries along the Gulf could experience severe internet disruptions in the event of cable damage, potentially affecting banking systems and critical oil and gas exports. Ahmed also noted that India could face significant interruptions to internet traffic, placing billions of dollars in outsourcing services at risk.
Because the Strait of Hormuz serves as a major digital corridor connecting Asian hubs such as Singapore with European cable landing stations, disruptions could also slow financial trading and international transactions between Europe and Asia. Some areas in East Africa could even experience internet outages.
Experts further warned that similar tactics in the Red Sea by the Yemeni Armed Forces could magnify the threat.
In 2024, three subsea cables were damaged after a vessel hit by Yemen’s resistance movement dragged its anchor across the seabed while sinking. According to Hong Kong-based HGC Global Communications, the incident disrupted nearly 25% of internet traffic in the surrounding region.
Despite these risks, TeleGeography said cables running through the Strait of Hormuz represented “less than 1% of global international bandwidth as of 2025.”
Undersea cable warfare has deep roots
The strategic importance of underwater communication lines dates back to the 19th century. The first transatlantic telegram was transmitted in 1858, carrying a 98-word message from Britain’s Queen Victoria to US President James Buchanan that took more than 16 hours to arrive.
Today, modern submarine fiber-optic cables can transmit enormous amounts of information at extraordinary speeds. According to the International Cable Protection Committee, a single optical fiber can carry data equivalent to around 150 million simultaneous phone calls.
The targeting of undersea communication infrastructure is also not new. During World War I, Britain cut Germany’s key telegraph cables in one of the conflict’s earliest moves, isolating German military communications.
While most modern cable failures cause limited disruption because traffic can be rerouted through alternative networks, experts caution that a large-scale attack today would carry far greater consequences due to the world’s heavy dependence on digital connectivity.
Repair operations could also become more difficult during ongoing regional instability. Maintenance vessels must remain stationary for long periods while fixing damaged cables, making them vulnerable in conflict zones. Mauldin said only one of the five repair ships usually operating in the region currently remains inside the Gulf.
Iran looks to the Suez Model
Iranian media outlets have defended the proposal to charge for subsea cables by citing international maritime law, particularly provisions within the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Although Tehran signed but never formally ratified the convention, many legal experts regard parts of it as customary international law. Article 79 of UNCLOS allows coastal states to set conditions for cables and pipelines entering their territorial waters.
Iranian commentators have compared the initiative to Egypt’s management of the Suez Canal, which hosts numerous subsea cables connecting Europe and Asia and generates substantial annual revenue through transit and licensing fees.
“Of course, for existing cables, Iran has to abide by the contract that had been made when the cable was laid,” said Irini Papanicolopulu, a professor of international law at SOAS University of London. “But for new ones, any state, including Iran, can decide if and under what conditions, cables can be laid in its territorial sea.”
Esfandiary said Tehran may have previously understood its strategic leverage over the strait only in theory, but recent developments appear to have reinforced its confidence.
Now, she said, Iran “has discovered the impact.”
Thomas Massie Introduces Bill To Finally Force AIPAC To Register As A Foreign Agent Under FARA
blueapples on X | May 18, 2026
Ahead of a monumental primary on Tuesday, May 19th, which will determine whether or not the dying embers of America’s democratic process will be completely extinguished by the pro-Israel lobby, Kentucky representative Thomas Massie has introduced a bill into Congress that could deter future politicians actually willing to put America before Israel from suffering his same fate. On May 14th, Massie introduced the Americans Insist on Political Agent Clarity Act (”AIPAC Act”) in an effort to finally force the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (”AIPAC”) to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (”FARA”). The proposed legislation is the apotheosis of a crusade fought by Massie that has opened the eyes of the American people to see how the pro-Israel lobby has taken control over the country’s electoral process. Yet, despite widespread public support to force AIPAC to register as a foreign agent under FARA, the pro-Israel lobby’s stranglehold over Congress stands as a seemingly insurmountable obstacle keeping Massie’s proposed legislation from turning that into a reality.
The express aim of the AIPAC Act is to “amend the Foreign Registration Act of 1938… to clarify the definition of ‘foreign principal’ and ensure transparency in lobbying on behalf of foreign interests.” Under FARA, a foreign principal is defined as:
(1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;
(2) a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States; and
(3) a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
Since its inception in 1954, AIPAC has circumvented the registration requirements under FARA by virtue of being established as a domestic lobbying organization legally distinct from the parameters that the act uses to designate a foreign principal. AIPAC was created by Isaiah L. Kenen, a lobbyist for the Israeli government that previously served under the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who worked as the information director of the American Zionist Council (”AZC”). After raising $65 million and $73 million in U.S. aid for Israel in 1951 and 1952, respectively, Kenen grew weary that he would be investigated by the U.S. State Department for not registering as a foreign agent under FARA. Kenen created the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (”AZCPA”) to navigate around the registration requirements under FARA in response to that concern. The AZPCA was renamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 1959 and became the preeminent political vehicle for the pro-Israel lobby in the decades that followed its creation.
The AIPAC Act would amend FARA by adding a fourth paragraph that would additionally define a foreign principal as “any organization, association, corporation, or other entity….whose lobbying activities or stated mission is, either wholly or in part, to influence United States public policy or government action in furtherance of the political or economic interests of a foreign country or recognized state-affiliated political entity.” That language included in Massie’s proposed legislation would broaden the definition of a foreign principal to encompass domestic lobbying firms in the U.S. like AIPAC. The proposed legislation would also establish indicators for determining the foreign political alignment of lobbying firms and allow American citizens to file complaints with the U.S. Department of Justice to request investigations into potential FARA violations.
Massie explained the calculus behind the proposed legislation designed to require AIPAC to register as a foreign agent shortly after introducing it into Congress on May 14th in an interview with Redacted News. “For some reason, they’re immune right now, and I think not just the money that’s spent in politics but the lobbying that happens on Capitol Hill should be reported if it’s a foreign country. Whether it’s Great Britain, Australia, Turkey, Qatar, or Israel, it needs to be reported,” he stated, clarifying the amendment to FARA would apply to foreign principals lobbying on behalf of any nation.
Although the expanded definition of a foreign principal under FARA in the AIPAC Act would apply to lobbyists working on behalf of any nation, the material reality is that the legislation is designed to address the unrestrained power and influence of the pro-Israel lobby. In 2021, AIPAC changed its lobbying strategy by moving away from funding political candidates indirectly by working with unaffiliated political action committees (PACs) and instead created its own PAC to raise and contribute funds directly. In the 2024 election cycle alone, AIPAC backed candidates using its own PAC and super PAC, the United Democracy Project, in 389 congressional races through either official endorsements and/or campaign contributions. AIPAC-backed candidates won 318 of those 389 congressional races, expanding the roster of pro-Israel politicians in Congress even further. Presently, 80 members of Congress, or 15%, list AIPAC as their all-time top contributor.
Nowhere is the unyielding influence of the pro-Israel lobby on American elections more apparent than in Massie’s current bid for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. Massie, who has held the seat for the 4th Congressional District of Kentucky since first being elected to Congress in 2012, has seen the broader pro-Israel lobby spend tens of millions of dollars in an effort to depose him. Ed Gallrein, Massie’s opponent in the May 19th primary for the seat representing the 4th Congressional District of Kentucky, has received over $15.5 million in campaign contributions from pro-Israel PACs, including donations from the MAGA Kentucky PAC, created by Jewish billionaires Paul Singer, John Paulsen, and Donald Trump’s biggest political donor, casino magnate and fervent Zionist Miriam Adelson, expressly for the purpose of defeating Massie.
The race between Massie and Gallrein has eclipsed more than $30 million in spending, making it the most expensive congressional campaign in U.S. history. The majority of that spending has been made in an effort to unseat Massie, as the pro-Israel lobby’s expenditures against him have surpassed the $14.5 million dollars AIPAC spent to successfully replace former representative of New York’s 16th Congressional District, Democrat Jamaal Bowman, with pro-Israel candidate George Latimer in 2024. AIPAC also succeeded that year in unseating Democratic representative from Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, Cori Bush, with pro-Israel candidate Wesley Ball, thanks to $9 million of spending against her.
The defeats of Bowman and Bush were engineered by AIPAC to remove two of the most outspoken critics of Israel from Congress. However, neither Bowman nor Bush was as outspoken against the political malfeasance of the pro-Israel lobby as Massie has been. In recent years, Massie has shifted the Overton Window by exposing the inner machinations of the pro-Israel political machine toward a perspective that has accelerated the decline in public support for Israel from American citizens. In doing so, he has also amplified the efforts of AIPAC and the broader pro-Israel lobby inextricably tied to the Trump administration to replace him in Congress with a Zionist puppet, who has taken the form of Ed Gallrein.
While Massie had coasted to re-election in each of his previous campaigns, the spending against him by the pro-Israel lobby has created the realistic possibility that he could be ousted from Congress. If Massie fails at defeating Gallrein in the primary for his congressional seat, then it would render the AIPAC Act he has introduced to Congress as his last stand against a Zionist Occupied Government that has shown it will spend every resource at its disposal to subvert the American democratic process. That stranglehold that the pro-Israel lobby has over the American political system is clear as the AIPAC Act currently only has a 2% chance of being passed following its referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The dynamic cultivated by Massie that has led to the boundless spending against him by the pro-Israel lobby shows that even if he is defeated, then it may be little more than a Pyrrhic victory for AIPAC, as Massie’s demise would only prove how justified the crusade he fought against them was to begin with.
Thomas Massie Gives the ‘America First’ Leadership Trump Promised
By Jack Hunter | The Libertarian Institute | May 18, 2026
When Donald Trump ran for president in 2024, he promised, among other things, no more U.S. regime change wars, no more of America sending its citizens’ dollars to fund foreign nations, and that he and Elon Musk would drastically cut federal departments and overall spending, finally taking a hatchet to the country’s mounting debt.
In other words, the opposite of the last Republican president, George W. Bush.
It is 2026, the United States is stuck in a seemingly endless regime change war in Iran, America continues to funnel money to nations around the world (particularly Ukraine and Israel), Musk is long gone and any promises of spending cuts through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are but a distant memory.
At this juncture, President Trump’s goal seems to be to become more George W. than George W.
Then there’s Thomas Massie, the libertarian-leaning Republican U.S. congressman from Kentucky’s 4th district, who was an avid supporter of Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012.
Long before Trump officially entered the political fray, Massie supported Dr. Paul, in part, because he promised no more endless wars, an end to foreign aid, and because he was a serious fiscal conservative.
When Trump also promised these things, Massie lent his support at various intervals and gave his full endorsement in 2024. Massie also still votes according to these principles in Congress. If those votes run against any part of Trump’s agenda, and they have—part of Trump’s early ire against Massie was his opposition to the president’s big spending “Big Beautiful Bill” last year—Massie still votes against war and foreign aid and for fiscal responsibility.
Massie has refused to change throughout. This has made Trump and people who blindly support him mad.
President Trump and his allies apparently now expect Massie to support U.S. regime change wars, to support foreign aid, and to put up with financial recklessness from Republicans. They are so angry that he won’t go along with their complete betrayal of what Trump originally campaigned on that the president, leftwing Zionist billionaires and Israeli lobbying group AIPAC have poured a historic amount of money into Massie’s primary opponent ahead of tomorrow’s election.
Team Trump insists that Massie needs to betray his principles just like they have. They are absolutely outraged that he won’t do it.
If you think this sounds completely insane, you would be correct. Only someone with their head so far up Trump’s backend could not be able to see the complete lunacy of how Team Trump now views Massie and his primary race.
There’s a lot of those, unfortunately.
What is fortunate, however, is there are also powerful conservative voices who can still discern reality.
Tucker Carlson is chief among them. Before interviewing Massie on his popular podcast earlier this month, Carlson said in his opening monologue, “Thomas Massie is, in his district, and probably nationally, but certainly we know for a fact in his district, the most popular person.”
He continued:
“Thomas Massie has made good on the promises that Donald Trump made to the nation. Thomas Massie is a better standard bearer for Trumpism, for the ‘America First’ ideology that Donald Trump ran on three times, than Donald Trump is.”
Carlson went even further about Massie’s overall character. “He is, in short, the American they told us we should aspire to be. He is the man you want your son to be.”
That’s high praise.
Another Massie fan is Dr. Ron Paul, who was exiting Congress when the Kentucky Republican was elected in 2012. Paul has said of Massie:
“I met Thomas before he came to Congress and was sworn in before his class was actually sworn in. But I was leaving Congress a few weeks later. So we actually crossed paths so we could say we served in Congress together.”
Paul would add, “I knew he was very dedicated to the cause of liberty. I was anxious to help him. And I think he has proved his case for being a defender of liberty and the Constitution.”
The same Thomas Massie who supported Ron Paul’s presidential runs and who now votes according to those libertarian principles is the same in his beliefs now as he has been throughout his entire political journey. For a time, Trump claimed to believe in these things too, but now clearly doesn’t. As Carlson notes, in the three times he ran for president, Trump promised an “America First” agenda and now, today, prioritizes the state of Israel and other foreign interests over those of the country he was elected to lead.
Which indeed makes Massie “a better standard bearer for Trumpism,” or at least what Trump advertised himself as originally, than Trump himself.
This is barely even debatable. It is almost perfectly clear to anyone not completely blinded by mind-numbingly dumb partisanship.
Again, what Donald Trump and his supporters now truly need from Thomas Massie is for him to betray those principles too. To join them in putting America second or third or worse.
But he won’t. And thank God for that.
More Wars and Rumors of Wars
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • May 16, 2026
President Donald Trump is back from his business trip to China which had a lot of ambiguity over issues like Taiwan without having done either much discernible damage or benefit to American interests. The trip ended with the American participants dropping all the gifts that they had received from the Chinese into a large garbage bin on the tarmac before they boarded their plane. And while the president was gone Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to everyone’s surprised announced that he was canceling plans to deploy an additional 4,000 Texas-based US soldiers to Poland for a long-planned nine month rotation that includes training with NATO allies. The assignment was also originally intended to serve as a possible resource should the situation with Russia-Ukraine happen to spill over into adjacent NATO countries. The troops were already moving to establish themselves and their equipment in their new Polish bases when the surprise cancelation order was issued, possibly as a follow-up to Trump’s threats against NATO for failure to support the US war against Iran. As the situation in Eastern Europe stands, Russia has warned that an increasing level of NATO involvement in the conflict through its provision of weapons, intelligence and even some boots on the ground is already crossing several red lines which might quite plausibly be regarded as acts of war.
It might be possible to regard the decision not to add American soldiers to a region already awash with bellicosity as positive, but it could possibly be premature to regard it as so. The Trump Administration has been admittedly nearly always inclined to go for the most aggressive option whether it be in what adversaries regard as foreign policy “negotiations” or in terms of supporting even more violence prone allies like Israel. Indeed, two other foreign policy issues that are currently on the news front pages are renewed drives to send more soldiers to Greenland, presumably as another step forward to annexation, and the apparent desire to invade Cuba before too long and remove its Communist government.
Cuba is currently being blockaded by the US and has completely run out of fuel, leading to unrest which is being cynically exploited just as the White House manipulated the situation in Iran where riots among the public due to shortages were cited as sign that the government would easily fall. And the Trump administration is about to pull another rabbit out of its hat concerning Cuba, preparing to indict former Cuban President Raúl Castro on charges in connection with shooting down planes 30 years ago, a move similar to the indictment of now deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro before his recent kidnapping by US Delta Force commandos.
Negotiations with Cuba were in fact launched after Trump suggested a “friendly takeover” of what he called a “failed nation,” while Secretary of State Marco Rubio, himself a Cuban refugee, said the country would need to change not just its economic policies but move away from the current regime, which he has called both “incompetent,” which admittedly sounds like the Trump Cabinet, as well as being Communist.
And as if that were not enough, there is even talk in Washington about making Venezuela the fifty-first state, though it should be observed that the Venezuelans, already on the receiving end of Yankee largesse when Maduro was kidnapped, have not been consulted on that possible development.
But the biggest issue confronting the returning Trump is what to do about the Iran War monster that has been confronting him since before he departed for Beijing, leading many observers to believe that he may have been looking for a way out of the situation with the help of China, which in the event only advised him to “end the war.” That the conflict was entered into by choice with considerable prodding and lying coming from his “best friends” the Israelis is, of course, the background to what developed. Trump returned to the confusion generated by negotiations that go nowhere wrapped around a ceasefire that is generally being regarded as only a pause in the action.
Trump may have gone to China with expectations that the Chinese government would suggest to him some face saving way to extricate the US from the Iran quagmire, but if that was so he was mistaken and China did not offer an acceptable off ramp for Trump to extricate himself. China, for its part, and like Russia, is undoubtedly delighted that the United States is finally knocked down from its pedestal as the world’s preeminent superpower. President Xi Jinping, to cite only one example of how China clearly regards itself as a major power equal to the US, made clear to Trump that Beijing will tolerate no US interference with Taiwan, which the Chinese consider an integral part of their country. Trump could not push back on that assertion.
There has been considerable news concerning Iran while Trump was gone, most notably in the United States due to the release of several articles in the mainstream media suggesting that the politically powerful neoconservatives, who normally delight both in global dominance by Washington as well as in any conflict directed against Israel’s enemies, are now calling the Iran war an unmitigated disaster, a “checkmate” by Iran and a “humiliation.” They are even arguing that there is no way to move forward with it. And there is more than that with the Saudi Arabians also chiming in on what a disaster the war has been to themselves and also to the other Gulf States. The Arabs now believe that the assumption that they were protected by a US security umbrella proved to be absolutely worthless. Beyond that, they also have observed that they were without any consultation dragged into an unnecessary and unwanted war against Iran by the US and Israel.
American neoconservatives have been a major force in support of US military dominance policies since the nineteen nineties, when they launched the international side of their movement with the A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing the Realm document in 1996, a policy statement that was prepared by a study group led by prominent Jewish neocon Richard Perle for then-as-now Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The report argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries brought about with the aid and assistance of the US. The “clean break” was a rejection of the Oslo Accords that actually sought to develop a modus vivendi between Israel and the Palestinians. This was followed by the Project For The New American Century (PNAC) in 1997, which had as its stated goal “to promote American global leadership.” The organization stated that “American leadership is good both for America and for the world” which it described as “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity. ” Both Clean Break and PNAC fit together nicely to promote a policy of political and military dominance for the United States. And, as most of the neocons were Jewish, one of the principal arguments made by them was that a confident and aggressive United States would be better able to support and protect Israel as it moved to establish dominance over the Middle East.
One of the founders of Neoconism (and of the PNAC) was Robert Kagan, who has now written a lengthy May 10th piece in the Atlantic Magazine entitled Checkmate in Iran: Washington can’t reverse or control the consequences for losing this war. He begins with: “It’s hard to think of a time when the United States suffered a total defeat in a conflict, a setback so decisive that the strategic loss could be neither repaired nor ignored. The calamitous losses suffered at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, and throughout the Western Pacific in the first months of World War II were eventually reversed. The defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America’s overall position in the world, because they were far from the main theaters of global competition. The initial failure in Iraq was mitigated by a shift in strategy that ultimately left Iraq relatively stable and unthreatening to its neighbors and kept the United States dominant in the region… Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character. It can neither be repaired nor ignored. There will be no return to the status quo ante, no ultimate American triumph that will undo or overcome the harm done… Far from demonstrating American prowess, as supporters of the war have repeatedly claimed, the conflict has revealed an America that is unreliable and incapable of finishing what it started. That is going to set off a chain reaction around the world as friends and foes adjust to America’s failure.”
Another neocon godfather Max Boot set the stage by preceding Kagan in an April 8th Washington Post opinion piece entitled The Iran ceasefire was a TACO Tuesday, and thank goodness: Trump gets to act like his bloodcurdling threats worked, but he’s giving up far more than Tehran did. Both Kagan and Boot are well known and respected in the neocon movement. Kagan is the husband of the deplorable Victoria Nuland who, as a US Diplomat, did so much to create the political crisis in Eastern Europe that has led to the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Kagan and Boot are not particularly regarded as fans of Donald Trump, but they are reliable supporters of Israel and all its works, which should be considered when examining their writings and speeches on Iran, which they would be quite pleased to see destroyed.
The Kagans in particular are enamored of stirring up conflict when other options are available. Robert’s brother Frederick is a resident scholar at the neocon American Enterprise Institute. His wife Kimberly is founder and head of the aptly named Institute for the Study of War. And, to be sure, the Kagan hearts belong only to Israel…
One might reasonably consider what Kagan might be trying to accomplish by dissing Trump’s war. In my opinion he is of course deliberately depicting and over-emotionalizing the consequences of a “worst case” outcome to come into play if Trump panics and actually ignores Israel’s demands and decides to pull the plug on the war. By taking an adversarial position he is instead playing the Trump personality card by focusing on the president’s clear vulnerability when it comes to rationally considering policy options. In this case Kagan as well as Boot are seeking to humiliate Trump by emphasizing how the status quo is a disastrous defeat because the real objective is to take advantage of an insane T’s limited mental capability and non-existent moral code to shame him into changing the narrative on his personal failure by pursuing the “worst course” of action in the viewpoint of many observers, i.e. total war against Iran using all available weapons including nuclear to utterly destroy it!
Other neocons are also recognizing that the Iran war is going disastrously bad but are less ambivalent about the options they see, namely being openly and clearly focused on doubling down for victory. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute sees success coming from a change in personnel in and around the White House coupled with a stiffening of Trump’s will to win. The-Iran focused neocon Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) also wants more war no matter what it takes to destroy the Persians.
Overall, I think that some neocons like Kagan and Boot are calling for not going back to a mismanaged and pointless war because they believe an embarrassed and ego driven Trump will seek to repair and reverse course on his damaged reputation and do precisely that. That is exactly what they want him to do! And bear in mind that Trump is being heavily pressured by the Israel Lobby and its billionaire donors like Miriam Adelson to continue war. And then there are the near daily phone calls from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has the same objective, i.e. to keep America in the fight to eliminate Iran. So one might assume that if indeed Trump would like to escape from the Iran quagmire there are a lot of reasons why he will not opt to do so. In fact, Trump has already declared that he does not care about the sinking US economy and upcoming midterm elections. He told reporters “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation — I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.” And he has also declared that the “clock is ticking” and has vowed that there will be “nothing left of Iran if it does not come to terms.” Those threats, unfortunately, open the door to what comes next. Dare one mention that madmen like Trump and Netanyahu might well consider that if they can get away with an endless war that is damaging the whole world’s economy they can go one step further with their nukes to finish the job!
Is Trump poised to restart the Iran war?
By Trita Parsi | May 17, 2026
The Middle East is once again teetering on the brink as Trump appears poised to reignite war with Iran. Press reports indicate he will convene military advisers on Tuesday, though my understanding is that both the meeting and the decision are likely to come sooner. Over the past several hours, Trump has flooded Truth Social with a barrage of incendiary threats. While some of this may be theatrical brinkmanship designed to force Tehran into submission, sources in the Iranian capital tell me they expect the United States to resume hostilities within the next 48 hours.
We should first recognize that restarting the war amounts to an admission that Trump’s previous escalatory gambit — the blockade of the blockade — has failed. That, in turn, was itself an admission that the war had failed. Which was an admission that the threats of war in January had failed. As I have argued before on my Substack, this relentless search for an escalatory silver bullet capable of bringing Iran to its knees is not unique to Trump; it has become a defining pathology of American Iran policy for decades.
Although negotiators have made meaningful progress on several fronts, talks have thus far failed to produce an agreement, largely because of irreconcilable differences over Tehran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile. And as Washington has come to realize that the blockade is backfiring, a new and dangerous dynamic has emerged: both sides now believe another round of fighting will strengthen their hand in the negotiations that follow.
As I argued in numerous interviews in January, Trump dramatically underestimated Iran’s strength, while hard-liners in Tehran believed war would strengthen Iran’s leverage by exposing the illusion of Iranian weakness. In their view, the outcome of the conflict vindicated that assessment, leaving them increasingly confident — even emboldened — about what a second round of war could yield. I am told the new Supreme Leader belongs to this camp.
Moreover, just as Tehran believes Trump intends to prosecute the next war with far greater ferocity, Iranian planners are preparing a far more expansive and punishing retaliatory campaign, complete with new strategic objectives and targets.
First, Iranian officials increasingly describe the next war as an opportunity to inflict maximum strategic damage on the United Arab Emirates, citing Abu Dhabi’s active role in the previous conflict, its deepening and increasingly overt partnership with Israel, and its role in urging Trump to resume hostilities.
Tehran is likely to target American data centers in the UAE, a move that serves multiple purposes. Iranian officials argue that these American technology firms have already become participants in the conflict through their support for the Pentagon. At the same time, Tehran sees an opportunity to cripple the UAE’s ambitions to become a global artificial intelligence hub — and, in doing so, potentially undermine Washington’s AI competition with China.
This points to a second defining feature of Iran’s strategy in a future war. Tehran believes Trump and his family hold financial stakes in many of these same technology ventures. Targeting Trump’s personal business interests is a lever Iran conspicuously avoided pulling during the first conflict but now appears increasingly willing to use. The logic is straightforward: Trump may tolerate damage to American strategic interests, but he is acutely sensitive to threats against his own financial empire. Raise the personal cost to Trump himself, the reasoning goes, and he may prove more willing to adopt a realistic negotiating position.
Third, Tehran is likely to show far less restraint if evidence emerges that other Gulf Cooperation Council states permit the United States or Israel to use their territory or airspace in a renewed conflict. The result would be broader and far more perilous horizontal escalation, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the global economy should critical energy infrastructure come under attack.
Fourth, the Red Sea is now in play. That would dramatically widen the geographic scope of the conflict while placing even greater upward pressure on already volatile oil prices.
Finally, Tehran is increasingly examining the possibility of severing the major submarine fiber-optic cable networks running beneath the Persian Gulf — arteries through which most GCC internet traffic flows, including billions of dollars in financial transactions. Iranian officials increasingly view this as a potential second Strait of Hormuz: a powerful new point of leverage capable of disrupting the global economy at enormous scale.
Renewed war is not inevitable. But when both sides convince themselves that another round of fighting will strengthen their negotiating position, the gravitational pull toward conflict becomes dangerously strong — however irrational the logic may ultimately be.
Saudi Arabia is pulling Europe toward a “Gulf Helsinki” deal with Iran — because Washington failed
By Tamer Ajrami | MEMO | May 17, 2026
When military power fails to impose “deterrence,” oil becomes politics. And the Strait of Hormuz is now writing Gulf security rules instead of the Pentagon.
With Hormuz still closed and the emergency oil stock releases used to calm markets running down, prices are moving _ no matter how much some people deny it _ toward a new surge. The real problem is not the price as a number. It is the chain reaction: gasoline and diesel, shipping and insurance, raw materials, and then inflation that travels from Asia to the United States. And even if the strait opened tomorrow, the damage would not vanish. Supply chains do not reset overnight, and parts of the oil and petrochemicals flow would take time to recover.
In my previous Middle East Monitor article, I said clearly that Gulf states “have nothing but to talk to Iran now”. That was not idealism or goodwill. It was hard security math: the old formula is eroding. Bases do not protect the way people assumed, and guarantees shrink the moment they face a real test. Today, this is no longer an argument. It is a reality driven by markets before politics.
Trump and China: A visit without a lifeline — and Time is against him
Trump’s attempt to turn to China produced no clear exit. Not because Beijing is powerless, but because it sees the issue in simple terms: open the strait through practical understandings, and negotiate with Iran on realistic terms.
The problem is that Washington still wants a “surrender” wrapped in diplomatic language. Iran sees no reason to give that for free as it holds leverage in a global energy shock.
This is the core of Trump’s trap: he can say whatever he wants, but he cannot cancel economics. Markets do not negotiate. They punish.
That is why countries are now moving on two tracks: a unilateral track to protect their own interests, and a collective track to design a new framework that prevents the next shock. Saudi Arabia is stepping forward to lead the collective track, not because it loves “mediation” as a headline, but because the cost of ongoing chaos has become higher than the cost of a deal.
A New “Helsinki Act” — But without the Human Rights Basket
According to Western reporting, Saudi Arabia is floating something close to a “Gulf Helsinki Act” arrangement with Iran—modeled on the Helsinki process of the mid-1970s during the Cold War. It would not be just a Saudi–Iran deal. It would extend to the Gulf and the European Union, aiming to lock in non-aggression, structured economic normalization, and monitoring and implementation mechanisms.
The original Helsinki process was built around four “baskets”: security and non-aggression; economic cooperation; human rights and self-determination; and follow-up mechanisms. In the Middle East, copying the third basket is unrealistic. The region’s unwritten rule is non-interference. Here, states do not use “human rights” language as a tool to destabilize each other internally. So, the Saudi approach seems to focus on three practical baskets: security and non-aggression, economic cooperation and stable energy flows, and verification/implementation.
It is a practical logic: if you want an agreement that can survive, you do not plant a delayed bomb inside it.
The Hard Question: Can a Deal work without the United States?
Here is the central dilemma. A Gulf–EU–Iran non-aggression arrangement without the United States creates a dangerous gap: the Gulf and Europe commit to non-aggression, Iran commits too, but Washington and Israel still retain the ability to strike Iran. What does the agreement do then? Does it become a nice document that collapses at the first air raid?
On the other hand, bringing Washington into the deal is not easy either. The US is struggling to produce a quick bilateral agreement with Iran to end the crisis, so why would it accept a broader framework that limits its freedom of action?
This opens a third, more sensitive option: Gulf states and Europe “bypass Washington” in practice. That would mean refusing the use of their airspace and territorial waters for any military or intelligence activity against Iran. And maybe refusing to enforce sanctions that destabilize the region and recreate the Hormuz shock. This is not a small move. It would be a strategic shift.
The UAE: A Different Vision — and a Dangerous Ceiling
The Gulf is not unified on strategy. Other reporting suggests Emirati efforts to push a coordinated Gulf military “response” against Iran. The problem is not the idea of response by itself. The problem is the ceiling of objectives.
If the goal is limited deterrence to reduce escalation, that is one thing. But if the goal mirrors Netanyahu and Washington _ regime change, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, destroying its ballistic capabilities, and reshaping Iran from the inside _ that is a long war. And the Gulf does not have the luxury to absorb its costs.
Most importantly, the idea of “escaping Hormuz” through alternative pipelines is not a real solution. If peace collapses, fields, ports, and energy infrastructure across the region remain within range. And Bab al-Mandab can become another choke point. In the end, the issue is not a pipeline or a port. It is a sustainable peace that prevents the drone and the missile before it “manages” the price.
Whoever Ends the War Ends the Chaos
A way out starts from one point: ending the US–Israeli confrontation with Iran through a realistic understanding; then building a regional framework similar to “Helsinki” that locks in non-aggression, protects economies, and prevents a repeat of the strait crisis.
Saudi Arabia is trying to “hold the story together” because Washington entered, got stuck, and now wants to exit; while the Gulf cannot afford to sit between Iran’s leverage and America’s disorder.
The choice is clearer than ever: either a settlement that closes the door on choke-point warfare, or a longer crisis that bankrupts markets before it bankrupts armies. The Gulf; whether it likes it or not; no longer has the option to “wait”.
Aletho News 