Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump on Hormuz: “Others must take care of it” after US falters

Al Mayadeen | March 14, 2026

US President Donald Trump said Saturday that countries relying on oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz should take responsibility for “safeguarding” the vital maritime corridor, with the United States offering its “assistance.”

“The United States of America has beaten and completely decimated Iran, both Militarily, Economically, and in every other way, but the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage, and we will help — A LOT!” Trump reiterated on social media.

“The US will also coordinate with those Countries so that everything goes quickly, smoothly, and well. This should have always been a team effort, and now it will be,” he further claimed.

Trump says US destroyed Iran military, but demands China secure Hormuz

Earlier, Trump posted on Truth Social, calling for multiple nations to send warships alongside the US to keep the Strait of Hormuz “open, safe, and free”. His post specifically named China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

The request drew immediate attention for its irony, as China is both a strategic rival of the United States and maintains close relations with Iran. Trump’s call for Chinese assistance in a US-led operation to secure a major oil chokepoint underscores the contradictions and hyperbole in his adminstration’s messaging, following a horrific press conference by War Secretary Pete Hegseth a day earlier.

Trump also claimed that Iran’s military capabilities are “100% destroyed”, yet immediately acknowledged that Tehran could still deploy drones, mines, or short-range missiles along the strait. He urged the creation of an international coalition to manage threats in the waterway, highlighting a sharp contradiction between his declaration of total victory and the perceived need for global military support.

Kharg Island strike escalates Gulf tensions

Earlier, the Trump administration conducted an attack on Kharg Island, a critical hub for Iranian oil exports. While the strike did not target oil infrastructure, reports suggest Washington may be considering a larger operation to invade and control the island, a move that could further destabilize the region.

US control over Kharg Island could provoke Iranian retaliation against shipping routes, oil facilities in the Strait of Hormuz, or the island itself, pushing energy markets into uncertainty.

Brent Crude has climbed sharply since the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran, rising from around $70 per barrel in late February to $103.14 for April contracts. Analysts interpret Trump’s public statements as an attempt to reassure buyers and ease market anxiety, yet the combination of strikes on Kharg Island and the ongoing threat in the Strait of Hormuz continues to push prices higher.

Conflicting US messaging and regional skepticism

Trump’s post follows a series of contradictory statements from senior US officials over the past week. Hegseth previously insisted the Strait of Hormuz was not closed, blaming Iranian missiles for disrupted shipping while claiming the situation was under control. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Energy Secretary Chris Wright gave conflicting timelines regarding the readiness of the US Navy to escort oil tankers through the strait.

Analysts remain skeptical about the US’s ability to secure Hormuz, citing capacity constraints, Iran’s asymmetric military capabilities, and the logistical challenges of establishing a multinational escort operation. RBC Capital Markets described the proposed $20 billion US insurance program for vessels as limited and unlikely to reassure market participants fully.

Despite Trump’s claims of decapitated Iranian forces, Tehran’s military remains operational, with the capability to target enemy assets and infrastructure in the Gulf and beyond.

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Trump on Hormuz: “Others must take care of it” after US falters

Who Is closer to collapse?

By Eduardo Vasco | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 14, 2026

Everything Trump has said about the war with Iran is pure lie or at least a major distortion of the facts. In the middle of this week he boasted that he had supposedly destroyed virtually the entire defense infrastructure of the country, including its naval fleet, air force, and missile capabilities. He even went so far as to declare that the United States had won the war.

Only the hypocritical journalists of the Pentagon’s propaganda machine — the same ones who like to present themselves as impartial and even critical of Trump’s domestic policies — can pretend to believe it and attempt to brainwash their audience with this farce.

Just as with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the imperialist industry of lies is trying to force down the audience’s throat the idea that Iran is on its knees before the omnipotence of the United States and Israel. Yet U.S. intelligence itself admits that the Iranian regime “is not in danger,” despite nearly two weeks of incessant bombing and heavy manipulation.

Of course Iran is the victim of a cowardly war of aggression, whose enemies have no shame in bombing kindergarten schools killing 160 girls or in causing acid rain that brings illness to civilians through attacks on oil facilities. They are historic war criminals, accustomed to using the vilest and most despicable methods to achieve their objectives of annihilation.

But the country’s political and military high command knew this was inevitable and had been preparing for a confrontation of this magnitude for decades. Iranian resilience has few competitors in the world. They are prepared to endure high costs with the certainty that their war is sacred and that victory will be achieved.

Because victory, in an asymmetric and disproportionate war such as that of an oppressed country against the greatest oppressive power in the history of humanity, does not need to — and will not — be achieved through the destruction of the enemy. It is enough to prevent the United States and its Israeli outpost from achieving their short- and medium-term objectives. In a time of structural crisis of the imperialist system, even in its very heart — the United States itself — not only will the enemy fail to achieve its goals, but it will also weaken in a way never seen before.

When have American military bases been struck as they are being struck in this war? When have Americans had to evacuate so many embassies and consulates as they are doing now? When has the all-powerful U.S. arms industry been so humiliated by seeing such expensive defense systems devastated — the very systems that supposedly protect its clients in the region?

Iran has the potential to generate indelible economic damage to the United States and to the entire global imperialist system. And it is already showing its weapons by closing the Strait of Hormuz and bombing refineries in the Persian Gulf. In a certain sense, the game has turned against imperialism: it seems that control over the world economy is not as tight as once believed. It seems that those who control, in a certain sense, this world economy are not the developed, rich, first-world countries, but rather the “lunatic” and “fanatical” ayatollahs.

The magazine The Economist, the leading mouthpiece of international bankers, revealed the despair of these speculators by featuring on its most recent cover the headline: “A War Without Strategy.” The most powerful people in the world are beginning to panic in the face of Iranian resilience and are already questioning the effectiveness of Trump’s aggression.

Let us not deceive ourselves: they fully support the total destruction of Iran. For them, not a single stone of the millennia-old Persian society should be left standing. We are speaking of the promoters of the genocide of at least 70,000 Palestinians. Proof of this support is the shameful vote in the UN Security Council, proposed by the puppet state of Bahrain, which condemned the legitimate Iranian retaliation against artificial regimes sustained by the United States and Israel in the Gulf, yet said not a single word about the aggression Iran is suffering.

Indeed, the game has turned against imperialism. The closure of Hormuz means the strangulation of the global economic system and therefore the suffocation of the American economy itself. The use of international oil reserves is already being seriously considered to contain the exponential rise in prices — an absolutely exceptional measure effective only in the very short term.

The White House, although it does not admit it, knows that the plan is backfiring: Trump, nervous, has already said that the U.S. armed forces will escort ships that need to pass through the Strait of Hormuz in order to guarantee the transport of oil. It seems like a bluff, at least for now. In any case, if they attempted it, at the current level of escalation there is little doubt that Iran would destroy the escort and sink those ships.

The United States would already be wasting about $2 billion per day on this war. It is extremely costly for public finances, especially with a staggering debt of nearly $40 trillion. The continuation of the war could accelerate a new financial crisis worse than that of 2008 — as well as an oil crisis worse than that of 1973. The global capitalist system itself would be brought to its knees.

The position of The Economist expresses the dissatisfaction of the international bourgeoisie, including the American one. Some Democratic and even Republican congressmen have once again been mobilized to criticize the government. At the same time, they also represent layers of ordinary citizens, workers, small business owners, and farmers who feel betrayed by Trump after he was elected promising to end imperialist wars under the slogan “America First.”

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released the day after the war began showed that only one in four Americans supported the imperialist aggression, while 43% opposed it. In subsequent polls there was greater balance: first 56% opposed and 44% in favor (NPR/PBS/Marist, March 2–4); then 42% in favor of stopping the attacks and 34% in favor of continuing them (NYT, March 6–9). This indicates that the CNN-Fox News-NYT-WP propaganda apparatus has worked to present the aggression against Iran from a positive point of view, leading many Americans to believe that the United States is right after the initial shock.

But trust in the media is no longer as blind as it once was. In 2001 a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 93% support for the invasion of Afghanistan, while Gallup showed nearly 90%. When the United States invaded Iraq two years later, support was also enormous: 72% according to Gallup and 70% according to the Pew Research Center. The extermination of civilians and the military disaster, despite the destruction of those countries and the eventual expulsion of the U.S. army, led to a wave of protests across the country, driven by the outbreak of the capitalist crisis in 2008. Since then, the political consciousness of Americans has been rising, even if timidly due to the high dose of stupidity among the American people.

Today there is a growing number of influencers, mainly on the right, who oppose neoliberal globalization whose military manifestation is precisely the aggressions carried out by the United States army. Many former members of the armed forces, intelligence services, and the U.S. government are now independent commentators who enjoy great popularity and openly criticize imperialist actions. Most importantly, they influence the very social base of the Trump government: citizens disillusioned with establishment politicians and with the status quo who believed Trump would be different. Although not yet entirely visible, there is a crisis within Trumpism reflected in the complete marginalization of figures such as Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., while Marco Rubio takes the reins of foreign policy.

American society has been divided for some time, and since the first months of the second term the Trump administration itself has suffered a possibly incurable fracture. The military and economic disaster of the aggression against Iran will certainly contribute to further weakening this fragile political and social structure.

On the surface it may even seem that Iran is losing the war. But deep down, the defeat has already been decreed for the United States.

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Who Is closer to collapse?

A War that Backfired: Why the US-Israeli Campaign Is Strengthening Iran

By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | March 14, 2026

Contrary to the rhetoric of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not on the verge of collapse. In fact, it appears as if this war against them could end up strengthening and cementing the government’s position, not only regionally, but among its own people.

As the regional war rages on across West Asia, it becomes more and more clear that Iran is capable of dictating the pace of the conflict. The US, with no clear goals, has failed to achieve escalation dominance. The Trump administration has therefore been searching for alternative strategies to try, and change this dynamic.

Most Western analysts, who have a warped perception of Iran, are currently struggling to get their heads around what is truly happening. It appears as if the decades of speaking to themselves have caged them within their bubble world. The only Iranians they talk to are individuals who are vehemently anti-government, most of whom have no real idea what is going on inside Iran, are members of ideological cults, and are totally ignorant of the country’s history.

The Western consensus perspective on Iran is that the Islamic Republic is a monstrous, malevolent regime, one which they portray through all the stereotypical orientalist depictions of the region that have been promoted for decades.

Although Iranians who support cult-like movements, such as the followers of Reza Pahlavi, believe that they, as Persians, are somehow excused from being victims of Western racism. Many of them, due to their notions of Persian supremacist views, those upheld by their Israeli-backed puppet leader’s father, believe that, because in their minds they are “the true Aryans”, the Americans and Israelis do not view them as sub-humans.

It is relatively unknown to Westerners that the Pahlavists think this way, but many of them are extraordinarily racist against Iran’s minority communities. Interestingly enough, these delusions that they are going to be treated better by the United States than any of their neighbors are still beliefs you will see them clinging onto. In reality, the US and Israel take these delusions just as seriously as the Taliban’s Pashtun nationalism, which also led to claims of being “the original Aryans”.

The average American or Brit cannot distinguish between Arabs and Persians; they simply know that there is a Middle East where dark-skinned Muslim peoples live. The Israelis may, on average, know a little more, but hate everyone equally.

This being said, it was this kind of orientalist thinking, lacking any nuance, that led to the historic mistake of the US-Israeli war on Iran. The concept that by waging a war of aggression, where you kill Ayatollah Khamenei and a group of top officials, the entire system will collapse like a deck of cards. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every few years, we constantly hear about the “imminent collapse of the regime”, yet it never comes. The only way that there will be a regime change is through efforts on the ground, not a bombing campaign, and not even in the event that the US invades, which I will explain below.

While Iran is an incredibly complex country and no analysis of this brief could touch on all the elements at play, there are a few key points in the Islamic Republic’s history that are key to understanding it today.

The first point to understand is what happened during the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which ushered in the revolutionary movement that governs the country today. The revolution against the Shah did not happen overnight; it was a process that took years of collective action, mass general strikes, sit-ins, and saw the participation of all elements within the society.

In the end, the 1979 revolution ended up becoming an Islamic revolution. Under the rule of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the pro-Western dictator led what was known as the White Revolution, a campaign of reforms that sought to “Westernize” the country, while undermining the Islamic clergy and leading to the repression of Islam more generally. Therefore, the revolt against the Shah included an element that sought to reinstate the former position of Islam inside the country, meaning that people used Islam as a means of resistance.

We cannot, however, leave out the fact that Leftists also played a large role in the revolution itself and that the uprising against the Shah was not just simply an Islamic movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini alone. Therefore, following the overthrow of the Shah, the newly installed system faced the tall task of forming a government that could be accepted by the people. Groups, for example, the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK), disagreed with the new leadership, as did others.

The subsequent takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, creating an immediate crisis between Iran and America, would end up setting the tone for what was to come next. In September of 1980, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was encouraged by the US to launch an invasion of neighboring Iran.

The Iran-Iraq War was fought for nearly 8 years, and at a time when the Iranians were militarily much less prepared and armed to do so. While many expected that this war would lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic, it did the very opposite. The motivating factor for many Iranians, who had not even experienced two years of their new government’s rule, was the Islamic doctrine they were fighting under.

Between 500,000 to 1 million people were killed in the war, which left around two million others injured. That meant that a significant portion of Iran’s population was either wiped out or injured, many of whom died horrible deaths, such as through chemical weapons attacks.

Although deadly and a war that drained resources, putting real strain on society as a whole, it ended up hardening the stances of many. It is not uncommon to hear from Iranians that people will use the sacrifices made during the Iran-Iraq War to justify all kinds of policies that may come under scrutiny.

The same year that the Iran-Iraq war ended, the US Navy decided to shoot down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Gulf of Hormuz, killing 290 Iranians, including 44 children. These events ended up cementing the ideals of the Islamic Republic among its people.

Fast forward now to 2009, when there was a public uproar about the Iranian Presidential election being rigged. This triggered the Green Movement, a mass mobilization across the country that called for reform. Bear in mind now that the relatively new system of governance had been under constant US sanctions since 1979, meaning that the pressure was consistently being turned up on the civilian population.

The 2009 Green Movement ended up leading to what is known as the Reformist camp in Iran attaining greater power inside the country, opposed to the Principalists, referred to in the West as the “hardliners”, who represented the Islamic revolutionary purest camp. For those who may be wondering, the reformists represent the more capitalist, or business class, inside the country. They have historically sought to mend ties with the West, and it was under reformist President Hassan Rouhani that the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was signed.

All of this time having passed since the Iran-Iraq War, where the people were left to live under ever-intensifying sanctions, brought about social change. Still, there remained a sizable bloc of the Islamic revolutionary movement’s base, but many became disillusioned and sought amendments to the system. To be clear, amendments do not mean regime change; they simply sought to achieve changes in their nation.

Although no authoritative polling exists to prove this, it’s generally thought that the base of the Islamic Republic’s support falls within the range of 30 million people, out of 93 million, with the majority falling in the zone of somewhat neutrality; they have complaints or skepticism, but don’t want the government to be toppled to install a Western puppet. Then you have the rest, which fall into the regime change camp, the size of which is often overinflated, but nonetheless certainly exists in its different flavors.

This war appears to have revived Iranian nationalism, the necessity of the revolutionary movement that governs the country, reminding the people why they overthrew the Shah and held so much animosity towards the United States government. For those young people who grew tired of the constant anti-imperialist slogans, it is all starting to make sense to them. This is the reason why their government has been spending so much money backing their regional allies (the Axis of Resistance).

For the Iranian people, they have just seen the theories being proven true that many of them once rolled their eyes at. The US and Israel are killing thousands of their countrymen and women, they slaughter their children, they bomb their oil storage tankers, and create black acid rain. On the first day of the war, the US opened the conflict with the worst civilian massacre they have committed since the Vietnam War, murdering around 180 schoolgirls with a double-tap strike.

Not only have they seen the terror that the US and Israel have unleashed on their people, but they are also witnessing the destruction of their cultural heritage sites.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the government may have been cemented in its place, but this time, there is a real difference; they are able to fight back effectively. The people are seeing the successes of their military and that they were able to lose their leader, but continue fighting. Instead of taking a beating, Iran is dictating the pace of the conflict, battering all the US’s military bases and standing up to the entire region.

Even for those Iranians who have many criticisms of their government, they have come to the streets in numbers and united with those they used to argue against, because the war has created the biggest rally behind the flag moment in decades. That is what the US-Israeli aggression has done: it has managed to unite Iranians in a way we have not seen in recent memory.

For those who have been writing about this issue for some time, this was a predictable outcome. The Iranian government is not as barbaric and stupid as it is depicted through Western propaganda. In the months following the 12-Day War last year, if you paid attention, you may have realized that the government began leaning into Iranian nationalism and symbolism more than ever, because it understood that the next war was going to require unity from across the spectrum.

So for those who believed that this war would somehow overthrow the government, the exact opposite appears to be happening. This war of aggression may end up being an event similar to the Iran-Iraq War in the way it cements the existence of the Islamic Republic. As for an American ground invasion, if they try, they will be met by millions who will mobilize to crush it, just as they did in the 1980s, but with better training and more sophisticated weapons.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on A War that Backfired: Why the US-Israeli Campaign Is Strengthening Iran

How Zionist Control Is Hurting US Interests

By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – March 14, 2026

The recent US attack on Iran has raised criticism both internationally and at home due to President Trump’s shift from America First to Israel First and over the Zionist control over the US establishment.

US-Israel Strategic Alignment: Historical Patterns

Escalating tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran have raised a critical concern in global geopolitics: has the US attacked Iran to protect its regional interests, or has it jumped into this fray to defend Netanyahu’s Zionist regime in Israel and its strategic interests? The history of American foreign policy decisions since the establishment of the illegitimate Israeli state suggests that protecting Israel’s national and strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond has become a key aspect of the United States’ strategic priorities.

Throughout history, whenever Israel felt threatened or insecure by a regional power, Washington has always supported it directly or indirectly. The historic rivalry between Israel and Iran and its escalation after the recent genocidal operation by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has rendered the situation more intense. Israel considers Iran’s missile capabilities and nuclear program as a threat to its sovereignty and security. Moreover, Iran’s regional proxies also pose a significant threat to Israel’s expansionist agenda.

Recently, the United States and Iran were engaged in negotiations over the latter’s nuclear program. Reports propose that the two sides have made significant progress in resolving the issue peacefully. However, the United States and Israel launched a combined attack on Iran, targeting its key military and political leadership. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other high-level military and political leaders of the country were killed in the US-Israel joint strikes. These strikes, despite positive progress in the US-Iran peace negotiations, created an international perception that the United States is fighting Israel’s war in the Middle East.

Domestic and International Backlash Against US Involvement

Dissenting voices regarding the US involvement in a foreign war are rising even within the United States. People from within the US Army are raising questions over the country’s involvement in a foreign war. Even former soldiers are asking whether the US military personnel should sacrifice their lives to secure the strategic interests of Israel. Reportedly, many US soldiers have expressed their concerns over their participation in this war against Iran. They seek to know the moral and legal status of a war waged merely to protect the interests of a specific allied country. The United States faced a similar issue during the Cold War, especially in the Vietnam and Iraq wars, when numerous military personnel criticized and questioned policies that led the country into those wars. Within both U.S. military and civilian policy circles, there is mounting pressure to more clearly distinguish between America’s core national interests and the interests of its allies.

Economic and Global Implications of the Conflict

The Middle East is the center of global energy politics, and the Persian Gulf is one of the key maritime routes for global oil supply. Iran has already blocked the Strait of Hormuz, leading to disruption in global oil and energy supply, causing inflation around the world. Oil and energy prices have surged across Europe, Asia, and other regions, impacting everyday consumers and households—including those in the United States. Due to the aggressive policies of former US governments, the country has lost trillions of dollars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The recent US war against Iran would prove far more expensive because of the latter’s geostrategic location and greater regional influence.

On the diplomatic front, this war will further tarnish Washington’s international image. Most of the Global South is already hostile to the United States’ interventionist policies. A prolonged war with Iran would not only widen the gulf between the US and its European allies, but it would also increase Russia and China’s global support. This war has already shifted global public opinion against the United States, weakening the country’s international credibility. Many developing nations are increasingly aligning themselves with Russia and China, signaling their interest in joining the BRICS coalition.

Washington’s involvement in this war, at the behest of Israel, has created significant intricacies for its regional allies. It has exposed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a key US ally in the Middle East, to significant Iranian attacks. Iran is repeatedly targeting US interests across the region. The GCC countries are also facing disruption in the supply chain, leading to significant economic losses, due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran. Moreover, it has undermined the security and safety of the UAE for global investors. This suggests that this war would create visible fractures in the US-GCC relations.

However, the United States’ involvement in this conflict, despite knowing that it will lead to severe public backlash and impinge on the country’s interests in the Middle East and beyond, demonstrates that in Washington, it’s not the US leadership but the Zionist lobby that actually calls the shots. The release of the Epstein files further strengthens the notion that the Zionists use such tools to blackmail and influence the US leaders, including President Trump, to mold the US policies to protect Israel’s interests in the Middle East and around the world.

Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on How Zionist Control Is Hurting US Interests

Iran warns it may target US missile launch sites in UAE cities

By Al Mayadeen | March 14, 2026

The spokesperson for Iran’s central Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters warned that Iranian forces may target US missile launch sites operating from locations inside cities in the United Arab Emirates, following attacks launched against Iranian territory.

Lieutenant Colonel Ebrahim Zolfaghari said the US military had resorted to operating from ports, docks, and concealed facilities within UAE cities after its military bases in the region were destroyed.

According to the Iranian official, US forces launched missiles from these locations targeting the Iranian islands of Abu Musa and Kharg. The US CENTCOM had published footage of earlier attacks from desert settings where High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) fired precision munitions at Iranian territory.

Although several Gulf states have publicly claimed that their territories would not be used for attacks against Iran, open-source information suggests otherwise. Flight-tracking data indicate that Saudi Arabian airspace is being used by aerial refueling tankers supporting fighter aircraft involved in strikes against Iran. The Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia has reportedly hosted multiple Stratotanker refueling aircraft participating in these operations.

Kuwait also plays a key logistical and operational role. The country hosts US Marine contingents, communications infrastructure, command-and-control facilities, and other assets used by US forces participating in operations targeting Iran.

In Qatar, the Al Udeid Air Base serves as a central node for regional operations, hosting critical radar systems for missile early warning and satellite communications infrastructure and serving as the forward headquarters for United States Central Command air operations.

Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates hosts anti-missile radar systems and interceptor batteries, along with logistical infrastructure supporting both US and Israeli personnel, including facilities used for resupply and operational coordination.

Iran asserts right to strike launch sites

Zolfaghari addressed the UAE leadership directly, stating that Iran considers it a legitimate right to strike hostile US missile launch sites located in ports, shipping terminals, and military hideouts used by US forces in certain UAE cities.

He stressed that such actions would fall within Iran’s right to defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The spokesperson reiterated that Tehran views the targeting of US launch sites used in attacks against Iranian territory as a lawful defensive measure.

Zolfaghari also called on residents in the UAE to stay away from ports, docks, and locations hosting US military forces inside urban areas to avoid potential harm. He emphasized that Iran’s position stems from what it describes as its legitimate right to defend its sovereignty and national territory in the face of US attacks.

Additional CENTCOM-supporting infrastructure in the UAE

Beyond missile defense assets, the UAE hosts several facilities and capabilities that support CENTCOM activities:

Al Dhafra Air Base

One of the most important US-operated installations in the Gulf. It hosts:

  • US Air Force fighter aircraft
  • ISR platforms (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance)
  • MQ-9 Reaper drones
  • Aerial refueling aircraft
  • Surveillance aircraft such as AWACS

Port logistics hubs

Jebel Ali Port in Dubai is the largest US Navy port of call in West Asia, regularly hosting carrier strike group vessels, destroyers, and logistics ships. It alsos serves as a major resupply and maintenance hub for the United States Navy.

Pre-positioned military stockpiles

The UAE hosts US pre-positioned equipment, including:

  • Ammunition
  • Armored vehicles
  • Spare aircraft parts
  • Logistics supplies for rapid force deployment.

Intelligence and surveillance infrastructure

Facilities linked to:

  • Regional signals intelligence collection
  • Satellite communication nodes
  • Integrated air defense networks.

With US threats against Kharg Island escalating, and the possibility of a limited US operation to seize the strategically critical island increasingly discussed, the United States Central Command would likely view the United Arab Emirates as the primary hub for logistics and land-based strike operations against Iranian positions along the mountainous coastline opposite the country.

Given its proximity to southern Iran and its extensive military infrastructure, the UAE could serve as a key staging area for missile launchers, aircraft, reconnaissance platforms, refueling operations, and maritime logistics supporting operations around Kharg and the Gulf.

The UAE would also likely play a central role in any US attempt to control the Strait of Hormuz, particularly after Tehran restricted the passage of US- and Israeli-linked vessels through the critical waterway. The strait is one of the world’s most important maritime choke points, handling roughly 20% of global seaborne oil trade, making control of the passage a major strategic objective in any escalation.

Iran says drone strikes targeted Israeli intelligence, cyber units

Meanwhile, amid operations directed away from the Gulf and toward the Israeli-occupied territories, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Army announced carrying out drone strikes targeting key Israeli military infrastructure, including intelligence and cyber operations facilities.

In a statement, the army said the strikes targeted the Israeli military’s intelligence apparatus, specifically “Aman”, Unit 8200, which is specialized in cyber operations and data processing, and sites housing Israeli fighter jets were among the targets struck during the operation.

According to the Iranian army, the attacks were carried out in honor of “the brave fallen Iranian leaders,” naming Chief of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Abdolrahim Mousavi, IRGC Commander Mohammad Pakpour, and Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh.

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran warns it may target US missile launch sites in UAE cities

Ukrainian Embassy in Beirut sheltering top Mossad agent

The Cradle – March 13, 2026

The Ukrainian Embassy in Beirut is currently harboring a high-profile Israeli intelligence asset wanted by Lebanese authorities, journalist and The Cradle contributor Radwan Mortada has revealed.

Khaled al-Aida, a Palestinian-Syrian with Ukrainian citizenship, has been implicated in bombings and assassinations across Lebanon between 2024 and 2025.

Security investigations have proved his involvement in an assassination attempt at Beirut’s Rafiq Hariri International Airport, as well as the capital’s southern suburb.

Aida was also on the ground during the assassination of former Hezbollah secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, according to Mortada, who also reported that Aida had helped Lebanese intelligence dismantle a Mossad cell.

He was eventually caught with an explosive device hidden on a motorcycle intended for later use in southern Beirut.

“Aida managed to escape after the Israeli bombing of the building where he was being held in Beirut’s southern suburbs. The bombing provided him with an opportunity to flee, and he eventually sought refuge in the Ukrainian Embassy, ​​which is now attempting to smuggle him out with the help of the US Embassy,” according to the information obtained by Mortada.

The embassy is reportedly seeking to secure Aida’s exit, requesting a laissez-passer from Lebanese security, while US operatives, including CIA station chief Sherry Baker, are pressuring for his evacuation.

“We will not accept being told that he left in a diplomatic vehicle, or through an illegal crossing, or under the protection of the American Embassy in Lebanon,” Mortada went on to write.

In recent history, Lebanese authorities have repeatedly been coerced by Washington to release agents who have been detained.

“Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and the General Security Directorate, specifically Major General Hassan Shqeir, are all accountable to the Lebanese people. If they are truly concerned about the interests of Lebanon and the Lebanese, they must arrest Khaled al-Aida and hand him over to the judiciary. This wanted man is a valuable asset for Lebanon, one that should be negotiated for, not given away for free,” Mortada said.

Around two dozen Lebanese prisoners are currently being held in Israeli prisons, some of whom were abducted during the ceasefire.

Mortada’s report comes as Lebanon is under heavy Israeli bombardment. Around 700 have been killed by Israel since 2 March, when Hezbollah responded to over a year of Israeli ceasefire violations.

Israel has stepped up attacks on Beirut’s suburbs as well as the heart of the city, while continuing brutal and deadly attacks across southern and eastern Lebanon.

Israeli planes dropped leaflets over the capital on Friday, threatening that Hezbollah must be disarmed for “everybody’s interest.”

The Lebanese army warned citizens not to open the QR Code on the leaflets, which “link to a WhatsApp contact and another to a Facebook page to communicate with Unit 504 of the Israeli army, which is responsible for recruiting agents.”

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Ukrainian Embassy in Beirut sheltering top Mossad agent

The EU never learns – except for the wrong lessons

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 13, 2026

Some observers of the current EU ‘elites’, including this author, used to believe that their defining feature – apart from things such as complicity in genocide and wars of aggression with Israel and the US, bigoted xenophobia about Russia and China, and, of course, pervasive corruption – was an absolute inability to learn.

We must admit, we stand corrected: Those running the EU are able to learn. The real problem is their relentless compulsion to learn the wrong thing. We are not dealing with non-learners but anti-learners: where others progress from experience, they regress.

Case in point, their response to the fact that their US-Israeli masters have started a war to end if not strictly all then at least all (barely) affordable energy supplies to the EU’s economies, while its major players are already limping along on a spectrum between walking-wounded (for instance, France, maybe) to comatose (Germany, definitely).

In Germany, still the largest single economy inside the EU, providing almost a fourth of the bloc’s total GDP, industrial demand – orders from factories – fell by over 11% in January. Such a decrease – really, collapse – in orders is “drastic,” as German Manager Magazine notes. According to the Financial Times, this “very weak” start into the new year, puts preceding – and very modest – signs of a recovery from years of stagnation in doubt. Indeed. And all of that disappointing data was gathered before the fallout of the Iran war had even started.

Regarding the latter, it will be severe. Even Berlin’s Ministry of Economics admits that the risks stemming from the war’s consequences, most of them still incoming, is substantial.

In general, the Eurozone – different from but covering most of the EU – is not in good shape either. According to Bloomberg, a very low and yet still over-optimistic Eurostat estimate of expansion by 0.3% for the last quarter of 2025 has just been revised downward to 0.2%. But frankly, who cares at that level of misery?

And for the Eurozone as well, America and Israel’s unprovoked war against Iran is likely to make things much worse. Philip Lane, chief economist of the European Central Bank (ECB), has confirmed that much to the Financial Times : An enduring decrease in oil and gas supplies from the Middle East can (read: will), he warns, bring about a “substantial spike” in inflation and a “sharp drop in output.”

And what is the EU leadership’s response to this deeply depressing outlook for its economy and the European citizens depending on it? Let’s not dream. It is true, if the EU’s ‘elites’ were in the business of protecting European interests and prosperity, they would, obviously, take a sharp turn against both the US and Israel (as well as London in case it were to stick to its special-poodle relationship with Washington).

Yet if the EU leadership had such priorities, it would long have turned against the US, for its blatant exploitation of its vassal regimes via, first, NATO over-expansion and, now, crippling overspending, for Ukraine proxy war outsourcing, and for devastating tariff warfare. It would also long have broken with Israel, for, to name only two compelling reasons, its genocide and serial wars of aggression that are both horrifically criminal and extremely destabilizing and damaging not “only” to the Middle East but the world as a whole and Europe in particular.

In short, the EU would not even be in the mess it is now if it actually took care of Europe. And, by the way, if it were not so craven but had opposed the US and Israel instead of pandering to them, perhaps it could even have contributed to preventing the current criminal war against Iran.

That, however, would not be the EU as it really is. In sordid reality, it is a second iteration of NATO, that is, an instrument of the US empire (notwithstanding showy and silly Greenland hysterics) and of international oligarchic structures. Ordinary Europeans matter only in so far as they are expected to vote – and think and speak – in line with EU ‘elite’ priorities, and when they do not, they are made to.

No wonder then that the utterly unelected and legally extremely challenged EU Commission head Ursula von der Leyen – really, the EU’s despot and US viceroy rolled into one – demonstratively does not give a damn about the massive energy price shock that has already started hitting the fragile economies of EU-Europe.

With tanker ships on fire off the Strait of Hormuz, oil surging over $100 per barrel, national reserves being dipped into, gas prices up by 50% in the EU, and, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil markets suffering “the largest supply disruption in history,” von der Leyen has had nothing to offer but reverting to the tired – and less than successful – playbook of 2022, originally put together when the Western-Russian proxy war via Ukraine escalated. Tinkering, again, with ineffective price caps, taxes and fees, electricity market structures and price distortions, renewables, and wasting money on subsidies (out of budgets that are already vastly overstretched) – that was about it. No wonder, several national governments have already signaled their impatience with what, in essence, is inactivity and non-strategy.

At least as important, though, was what von der Leyen took pains to rule out: Returning to Russian supplies would be a “strategic blunder,” the EU’s one-woman decider-in-chief declared. Instead, she insists, the EU must stay the course and continue ridding itself of the last remnants of Russian gas and oil. Clearly, von der Leyen is anxious that not everyone in the EU’s ‘elites’ is up to her level of ideological obstinacy and economic as well as geopolitical irrationality. “Some,” she chided, “argue that we should abandon our long-term strategy and even go back to Russian fossil fuels.” Perish the thought! As long as von der Leyen and her type run the EU, it will ruin itself before doing the obvious – making peace with Russia and rebuilding economic ties, including in the energy sector.

And there you have it: This is a leadership style not simply refusing to learn from experience but repeating the worst blunders of the past. The von der Leyen way of policy making – from sanctions (now on round 20, I believe) to pipelines – is akin to negative natural selection: Whatever does not work will be done again, and again, and again. The real question, it seems, is not if the EU “elites” will ever stop being perverse anti-learners, but whether – or when – they will lose control. Mismanaging the massive shock that the US and Israel have sent their way now may finally provoke enough backlash from below to send the von der Leyens packing. For Europe’s sake, let’s hope for the best, even if it’s delivered by the worst.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The EU never learns – except for the wrong lessons

Iran attacks on UAE leaves RSF militia high and dry

The Canary | March 12, 2026

Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are reportedly contributing to a rapid collapse of the genocidal so-called ‘Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) in Sudan.

The RSF, funded and armed by the UAE and Israel, had been making gains up to February 2026. It has murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Sudan. Rapes, sexual torture and executions have been common and almost 400,000 people are in starvation.

However, Sudanese government forces have achieved a string of military victories that appear to be turning into a rout.

With UAE shipments rerouted from the Hormuz Straight and the UAE to Saudi Arabia due to Iran’s counterattacks of shipping, the UAE economy, and it’s global financiers, have been dealt a major blow.

Meanwhile, Sudanese forces are targeting RSF arms and supply depots, crippling front-line RSF troops by cutting off ammunition, fuel, and essentials.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Iran attacks on UAE leaves RSF militia high and dry

Hosting Washington’s war: Bahrain faces the consequences

By Hasan Qamber | The Cradle | March 12, 2026

The Persian Gulf is entering one of the most volatile periods in its modern history. Military confrontation between Iran, the US, and Israel has, from the outset, unfolded across the Gulf geography itself. States hosting western military infrastructure – particularly Bahrain – have not merely been exposed to the conflict’s expansion, but structurally integrated into its battlefield logic.

For Bahrain, the current escalation raises urgent questions about the kingdom’s internal stability, the resilience of Gulf political systems, and the capacity of neighboring countries to absorb the security, economic, and social shocks generated by an expanding war.

Frontline kingdom

Bahrain today stands squarely at the center of the region’s intensifying confrontation. Despite its small size, the island holds outsized political and military importance. Its strategic location, heavy reliance on the energy sector, and fragile domestic balances make it one of the Gulf states most exposed to the consequences of prolonged escalation.

The kingdom’s hosting of the US Fifth Fleet headquarters cements its position as a key node in Washington’s military architecture in the Persian Gulf. This presence transforms Bahrain into a potential target in any direct clash between Tehran and Washington. As the war goes on, US installations on Bahraini soil are increasingly viewed as forward operational platforms – and therefore legitimate strategic objectives in a widening regional war.

The implications extend beyond the military domain. Bahrain’s domestic political arena remains shaped by unresolved tensions dating back to the 2011 uprising. Renewed confrontation risks aggravating these internal fault lines by tying national stability more closely to the trajectory of external conflict.

Recent developments have effectively placed Bahrain on the front line. Its role as both a logistical hub for western military operations and a regional energy services center means that any escalation in the Persian Gulf immediately reverberates across the island’s security environment.

According to reports, Iranian strikes against Bahraini-based targets began on 28 February. By early March, roughly 70 to 75 ballistic missiles and more than 120 drones had reportedly been launched. Bahraini authorities stated that most incoming projectiles were intercepted.

Targets included facilities linked to the US Fifth Fleet, Bahraini and US military infrastructure, the BAPCO refinery complex in Ma’amir, and sites in Manama associated with US personnel. Installations near Bahrain International Airport and a major desalination plant – the Abu Jarjour facility – were also reportedly struck.

While the full extent of the damage remains unclear, some accounts suggest partial destruction of base infrastructure and temporary disruption of logistical systems. Heightened alert levels were subsequently reported across US installations throughout the Persian Gulf following injuries among American personnel.

Energy pressure points

The military dimension of the crisis intersects with Bahrain’s structural economic vulnerabilities. The kingdom’s economy remains heavily dependent on the energy sector, with BAPCO Energies forming its backbone. Following recent upgrades, refining capacity has reached approximately 405,000 barrels per day – positioning Bahrain as an important, if relatively modest, contributor to regional oil supply dynamics.

Reports indicate that the refinery complex has been hit at least once during the escalation, triggering fires and forcing the company to invoke force majeure clauses on certain export commitments. Temporary disruptions to refining operations reportedly led to shipment delays and a partial pause in exports, although authorities insist domestic fuel supplies remain secure.

The situation is further complicated by the growing role of international investors in Bahrain’s energy sector. The sale of selected BAPCO assets to major global investment firms – including the US-based BlackRock – has generated political controversy.

Civil society groups have criticized such moves as part of a broader normalization trajectory aligned with Washington’s regional agenda, particularly amid mounting public debt estimated to exceed 130 percent of GDP.

Any sustained targeting of energy infrastructure would therefore carry consequences far beyond immediate production losses. It would threaten investor confidence, fiscal stability, and Bahrain’s long-term economic positioning within the Gulf.

Hormuz chokehold

The crisis acquires even greater significance in light of Iran taking control over maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz – one of the most critical arteries in the global energy system. At least 20 percent of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes through this narrow waterway. Any disruption to navigation would send shockwaves through international markets and place immense pressure on Gulf economies.

For Bahrain, whose oil export routes are heavily tied to the strait, strategic alternatives remain limited. While pipeline connections to Saudi Arabia offer partial mitigation, rerouting exports through Red Sea terminals or relying on floating storage solutions would impose logistical and financial constraints.

The implications extend to food security. Gulf states import the vast majority of their food supplies via maritime routes traversing Hormuz, with some importing as much as 85–90 percent overall. Bahrain, constrained by limited agricultural capacity, is particularly vulnerable.

Early indicators of wartime strain have already surfaced, including higher transport costs, shipment delays, and rising prices for essential imported goods. Authorities maintain that strategic reserves are sufficient for now, but prolonged disruption could test these assurances.

Public mood and internal pressure

Bahrain’s domestic political environment adds another layer of complexity. The kingdom is often described as the only Gulf state where a Shia demographic majority lives under Sunni political rule, though the absence of official statistics makes precise figures contested. Estimates have fluctuated significantly since the introduction of political naturalization policies in the early 2000s.

The 2006 “Bandar Report” controversy – which alleged systematic demographic engineering – remains a reference point in debates about representation and legitimacy. Today, observers suggest Shia citizens may constitute between 55 and 65 percent of the population, with Sunnis forming a substantial minority. Expatriates account for more than half of Bahrain’s total population, further complicating social dynamics.

Against this backdrop, public reactions to regional escalation diverge sharply from official state positions. While Gulf governments continue to emphasize strategic partnership with Washington, segments of Bahraini society openly express support for strikes targeting US military facilities in the region. Social media circulation of footage from recent attacks reflects this polarization.

Authorities have responded with sweeping security measures aimed at preventing internal destabilization. Arrests have been reported against individuals accused of documenting strikes or organizing demonstrations. Restrictions on public gatherings and curfews in sensitive areas underline official concerns that regional war could reignite domestic protest movements.

According to human rights and field sources speaking exclusively to The Cradle, at least 114 people have been arrested since the beginning of the events. The Public Prosecution has sought the death penalty for a group of citizens and residents accused of “communicating with the enemy” for documenting missile and drone strikes on military targets.

This reflects the scale of the political challenge Bahrain faces as it attempts to balance internal stability with its security and external commitments amid a divided public mood regarding the regional war.

Strategic dilemmas

Manama’s predicament reflects a broader Gulf reality. The kingdom faces simultaneous pressures stemming from its geographic exposure, reliance on external military guarantees, and unresolved internal political tensions. Crisis management under such conditions becomes increasingly complex as regional confrontation deepens.

There is also uncertainty surrounding the stance of neighboring Gulf states. Should escalation expand to include widespread targeting of energy infrastructure or maritime trade routes, regional economic interdependence could magnify the impact on domestic stability across the peninsula.

A sustained Iran–US–Israeli confrontation threatens to reshape the political calculus of Gulf states. For decades, security architectures across the region have been anchored in strategic partnerships with Washington. Direct confrontation between Iran and the US, therefore, places these states in a structurally vulnerable position.

Three major risks loom. First, the physical targeting of military bases and oil facilities could undermine deterrence frameworks. Second, prolonged disruption to trade and energy flows may generate severe economic stress. Third, divergent popular attitudes toward the conflict risk fueling internal political tensions.

In Bahrain, these dynamics intersect with an already active opposition and a politically engaged society. Continued escalation could heighten domestic sensitivity to government policies and widen the gap between official narratives and public sentiment.

Paths ahead

Several trajectories remain possible. Rapid containment of escalation would restore the familiar pattern of managed tension in the Persian Gulf. A prolonged exchange of strikes, however, could intensify economic pressure and gradually erode political stability across Gulf states.

The most dangerous scenario would see the region transformed into an open theater of great-power confrontation – fundamentally altering the balance of power and exposing smaller states like Bahrain to sustained instability.

The kingdom now finds itself navigating an exceptional moment in regional history. Escalation is now shaping the island’s economic stability, political tensions, and security calculations in real time. Efforts by authorities to enforce internal control underline the depth of official concern that external conflict could reopen unresolved domestic fault lines.

The kingdom’s experience points to a wider shift across the Persian Gulf: strategic alignment with Washington’s military order is increasingly transforming allied states into operational terrain. In Bahrain’s case, the distance between the forward base and the front line has effectively collapsed.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Hosting Washington’s war: Bahrain faces the consequences

The US fell for its own Iran propaganda

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | March 13, 2026

The US government’s mistake with Iran has been that it clearly fell into believing its own lies. Think tanks, donors, paid advisors, lobby groups, and establishment analysts are all responsible for the catastrophic mistakes that have been made in attacking the Islamic Republic.

What was supposed to be a war, destined to be all over in four days, quickly turned into weeks, months, and now, in US President Donald Trump’s own words, a “forever” war. In order to understand why, we have to assess the way the political system in Washington works.

As we now know, US politicians are oftentimes chosen by the donor class. Most of the US Congress and Senate take considerable sums from AIPAC and affiliated pro-Israeli, pro-war donors. The Israeli Lobby not only pays its chosen politicians, but also hands them materials to run through, so that they skip to the Zionist script and position themselves as attack dogs against anyone who stands up to the lobby.

Hiding underneath this, we have think tanks, which are the policy expert wing of the lobbyists. These think tank “experts” are brought in as the brains behind the operation. They shift around between holding positions within different administrations, sitting on boards, and writing briefs or analyses for think tanks.

Then you have the mainstream media, which is owned by many of the same people funding the think tanks and lobby groups, employing articulate individuals to parrot their propaganda. The media itself is a bubble, where the so-called “reputable” outlets rely on each other for validity and help to police the boundaries of the “acceptable” discourse, meaning the likes of the New York Times, BBC, and others.

When it comes to broadcast media in specific, the top suppliers of stories, soundbites, on-the-ground footage, and leads are Reuters, AFP, and the Associated Press. Oftentimes, broadcast media channels will simply copy and paste the leads or descriptions from what these suppliers provide, altering them ever so slightly to suit their channel’s bias. That is why they often use very similar language and report the same stories for their news bulletins. Anyone who has worked in a newsroom knows this to be the case.

This trio of information control, which often intersects and enjoys some crossover, is what pollutes the minds of the masses on a daily basis. This is important to understand in order for the rest of this article to make sense.

Falling for their own lies

In the lead-up to the illegal attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Western ruling class constantly repeated the idea that Iran and its allies were severely weakened. Revelling in what will likely prove to be a pyrrhic victory in Syria, with the installation of a pro-US Zionist collaborator regime in Damascus, the annihilation of Gaza’s infrastructure, along with the severe blows to Hezbollah’s leadership, all three elements of the Zionist information control system began to grow arrogant.

Think Tanks like the Zionist Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) held a series of conferences about the disarmament of Hezbollah and discussed how the so-called Gaza ceasefire was supposed to be weaponized in “Israel’s” favour, while discussing war on Iran as if it was like putting down a once dominant racehorse with a broken leg.

Still, today, if you look at WINEP’s homepage, there are analysis pieces, written by Zionists salivating over a victory over Iran and envisaging how the future will pan out in a West Asia dominated by the Israelis. “The Middle East’s 1919 Moment” and “A Levant Without Militias” discuss the downfall of Iran and Hezbollah, respectively. Even at a time of great crisis for the Zionist entity, they cannot help but fantasize about how they will dominate in the future.

The trio of information control has created a parallel universe for themselves, one which they continue to cling to, for fear of shattering their entire view of reality.

When Donald Trump and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have greatly degraded Iran, it wasn’t just them speaking; they were in lockstep with the think tanks, lobbyists, and donors. Just as was the case when former US envoy to Lebanon, Morgan Ortagus, confidently asserted that Hezbollah was defeated.

For them, assessing the realities on the ground was no longer a priority; what was important was bolstering a narrative that would lead to the war that the Zionist entity desired. In essence, what they had done was fall for their own nonsense.

All of this stems from the psychological blow the Zionist regime and its loyal supremacist backers suffered on October 7, 2023. When a few thousand Palestinian Resistance fighters, armed with light weapons, tore down the illusion of the Israeli surveillance regime and collapsed its southern command within hours, the Zionists went into a kind of mental hysteria.

Suddenly, on that day, it was proven that the theory of Hezbollah’s late Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was correct: “Israel” is indeed weaker than a spider’s web. This meant for them that two things had to be achieved: the first was that their so-called “deterrence capacity” had to be re-established, which they believed would be achieved through committing the world’s first live-streamed genocide.

The second imperative was that the Zionist project had to be rapidly accelerated. At first, this appeared unlikely, yet their perceived successes in Lebanon and Syria appeared to give them the impression that it was possible.

Along comes the second Trump Presidency, which was bought and paid for by the Zionist billionaire class.

Donald Trump, a man with a vocabulary no greater than that of a 10-year-old, is their perfect puppet. Not only this, his entire administration is staffed with ultra-Zionists or paid shills who lack basic intelligence. Therefore, the Zionists saw that this was the perfect time for them to hatch the last phase of their so-called master plan to expand their regime and rule the entire region.

In the process of doing this, the Zionists dismantled the United Nations and the notion of International Law, instead ushering in “the law of the jungle.” There are no longer international norms or red lines, just total chaos.

Meanwhile, as this was going on, the Zionists adopted the attitude toward the global population that they should be scared into submission; should they dare stand up to oppose the tyranny everyone has watched unfold before their very eyes. When they are surprised because things aren’t going their way, they cry victim and, in a fit of rage, attempt to punish you. This is a reflection of their unstable mental state.

All of this is relevant because it explains how we have gotten to this point and why this trio of information control has bought into their own nonsense. The war on Iran was evidently going to be a catastrophe, but they did it anyway. Those of us who have been monitoring the situation could also tell that Lebanese Hezbollah was far from militarily finished, which the Israeli media are now beginning to come to terms with.

What do they do now that the situation is getting out of hand? They censor and desperately lie to cover their tracks. They censor their deaths, lie about the destruction and missile hits, fake air defense victories, and claim tactical and operational military victories that don’t exist. One example of this is the US Trump administration, which claimed to have destroyed Iran’s navy during the first days of the war and still brags about sinking new ships.

The Israelis take things even further: with dozens of military vehicles hit and their soldiers falling into ambush after ambush in Lebanon, only two soldiers have died, according to them. They have even banned the filming of Iranian and Hezbollah missile strikes, threatening their own population with fines and jail time for doing so. Sometimes, they will claim to have intercepted all incoming projectiles or say they fell in open spaces, yet not too long after, published videos show direct hits. It’s getting so bad there, in terms of censorship, that their own people are getting agitated.

These people lived in a “reality” where Hezbollah was weak and Iran was weak, claiming that it had only a few thousand missiles and a handful of launchers; a “reality” in which killing Iran’s leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei, would instantly lead to regime change, where the Iranian people would suddenly fight against their government because Netanyahu told them so. Perhaps the only thing they don’t believe is their laughable lies about Iranian protester deaths; that nonsense is reserved for the Pahlavist cult.

As the entire planet is witnessing, Iran and the Axis of Resistance that it backs are far from weak. Their determination is strong, and their capabilities are clearly greater than the Zionists expected. The longer this insane arrogance continues, the worse things are going to get, because just as we saw in the Gaza Strip, nobody is about to back down and become the slaves of the terrorist entity occupying Palestine.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on The US fell for its own Iran propaganda

Seyed M. Marandi: Threat of Seizing Kharg Island & the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Glenn Diesen | March 12, 2026

Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi argues that it will be extremely difficult for the US to seize Kharg Island, and Iran would then destroy all energy facilities in the region.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Seyed M. Marandi: Threat of Seizing Kharg Island & the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Is there even an off ramp?

Have events accelerated to the point where a nuclear attack is nearly inevitable?

Ashes of Pompeii | March 13, 2026

The strategic paradigm regarding Iran has shifted fundamentally. And despite the calls for a ground invasion in some circles, and given the combination of current events on the ground, Iranian resiliance, and logistics, it is simply not possible. Therefore, the United States faces a constricted set of options amidst an escalating existential crisis. The convergence of domestic political survival, allied desperation, military attrition, and the personal psychology of the executive creates a pressure cooker where the use of tactical nuclear weapons transitions from absolute taboo to a very real grim strategic calculus. Central to this equation is the vindictive nature of President Trump, a trait that transforms geopolitical setbacks into personal grievances, compounded by the “Bibi factor”: Benjamin Netanyahu’s four-decade obsession with confronting Iran, now reaching a point of catastrophic desperation as every strategic avenue fails.

Netanyahu has dedicated much of his political life to conflict with an emergent, Islamic Iran. For forty years, he has advocated, plotted, and pressured for decisive action. Now, with Israel under daily barrage and conventional options nearly exhausted, his influence on Washington becomes a volatile accelerant. But the more dangerous variable may not be Israeli pressure on America, but rather Israeli action independent of America. Israel possesses nuclear weapons. A desperate Israel, facing existential threat, may calculate that only a nuclear strike can halt the onslaught. If Israel launches first, the United States is instantly complicit. The question shifts from “Will America use nukes?” to “How does America respond when its ally does?”

This scenario triggers a specific and catastrophic escalation dynamic. Iran has consistently signaled that any existential attack would be met with disproportionate retaliation against its primary adversary: Israel. A nuclear strike would not coerce Tehran into surrender; it would guarantee an all-out Iranian assault focused overwhelmingly on Israeli population centers and probably the Dimona nuclear center. The retaliation would not be measured; it would be existential. For Trump, this creates an impossible bind. His vindictiveness demands punishment of Iran, but his legacy depends on protecting Israel. If Iran retaliates with devastating force, Trump faces two choices: accept the near destruction of America’s key ally, cementing his legacy as the president who lost the Middle East, or escalate further. Each path deepens the quagmire. Added to this is the question of whether Iran has, or is quickly acquiring, nuclear weapons that would be used in any retaliation response.

Compounding this trap is the total collapse of trust. Any diplomatic off-ramp requires a minimum reserve of credibility between adversaries. The Trump administration has systematically burned every bridge. The precedent of attacking on February 28 in the midst of negotiations signaled that talks were not a path to resolution, but a ruse to keep the opponent off guard. To de-escalate now would almost certainly require Trump to take substantial, clear and verifiable unilateral first steps: a ceasefire, sanctions relief and public concessions. In the current climate, such actions would not be read as statesmanship; they would be interpreted as capitulation by many in America, especially his staunchest allies. For a leader whose political identity is built on projecting strength and punishing perceived slights, unilateral de-escalation is politically indistinguishable from surrender. The trust deficit does not merely complicate diplomacy; it comes close to eliminating it as a viable instrument.

This absence of trust reinforces the escalation logic at every turn. Iran, believing that American assurances are worthless, has no incentive to show restraint. Israel, doubting that diplomacy can halt the threat, has every incentive to act alone. Trump, convinced that any sign of weakness will be exploited, has no political space to offer concessions. The system becomes self-reinforcing: distrust justifies aggression, aggression deepens distrust, and the space for compromise evaporates. Institutional guardrails – the military chain of command, cabinet counsel, congressional oversight – retain theoretical weight, but they are overwhelmed by the momentum of crisis. When every actor believes the other operates in bad faith, restraint appears as vulnerability, and to a desperate man, escalation appears as the only rational response.

Global and domestic consequences, however catastrophic, are discounted in the immediate calculus. The precedent of nuclear use would shatter non-proliferation regimes and realign global power. Yet, in the moment of existential pressure, these long-term risks are subordinate to the demand for survival and retribution. Domestic backlash remains possible, but partisan media ecosystems and the framing of Israeli victimhood could harden public resolve rather than soften it. The political cost of appearing weak may be seen to exceed the cost of escalation. Trump’s fear of legacy merges with the visceral demand to protect an ally under fire and punish an adversary that, in his mind, has humiliated American power for nearly half a century.

In conclusion, the decision rests on a knife’s edge, sharpened by the certainty of Iranian retaliation against Israel and the impossibility of diplomatic retreat. The trust deficit is not a peripheral concern; it is the linchpin that locks the system into escalation. With no ground option, no credible off-ramp, a desperate ally possessing nuclear capability, and a vindictive leader who equates compromise with defeat, the use of nuclear weapons emerges not as a deliberate policy choice but as an emergent property of systemic collapse. The taboo against nuclear weapons persists only so long as actors believe restraint serves their survival. When survival is perceived to depend on escalation, and when trust, the essential currency of de-escalation, has been extinguished, the unthinkable becomes inevitable. The United States may not make the first move, but it may find itself unable to stop the chain reaction it enabled. The legacy Trump fears may not be shaped by his decision, but by his inability to escape a logic where every path forward leads deeper into catastrophe. The world watches not a policy debate, but the unraveling of deterrence, diplomacy, and restraint in real time. The outcome will not be chosen, it will be endured.

God help us all.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Is there even an off ramp?

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »