Iran to US: Sanctions and war failed; try diplomacy and respect
Press TV – February 23, 2026
A top Iranian diplomat says the time is ripe for the United States to abandon its “fruitless” sanctions and failed policy of war against Iran, urging genuine respect for diplomacy as the only viable path forward.
“Iran’s enemies may start a war, but they will not be able to determine the end,” Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi said in an address to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday.
“You have tried sanctions and war in relation to Iran and got nowhere. Now it is time to experience diplomacy and respect,” he said.
He said Iranians do not seek aggression against other countries but will firmly stand against any military or political conspiracy against the Islamic Republic and will defend their homeland.
Gharibabadi said the consequences of war will not be limited only to the parties to the conflict, “but will engulf the region.”
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened military action against Iran since early January, following his public support for foreign-linked riots.
Trump has since ordered a significant military buildup in regional waters near Iran and warned of strikes if Tehran does not accept a deal on US terms.
Iranian officials have reiterated their readiness for a fair agreement on the country’s nuclear program but warned that even a limited attack would trigger a decisive response.
Elsewhere in his address, Gharibabadi said the so-called advocates of human rights supported the United States and the Israeli regime during the 12-day war against Iran in June 2025, which killed more than 1,060 Iranians and injured some 6,000 others.
“They did not even allow the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council to condemn the aggression.”
Gharibabadi said Iran’s enemies, who suffered a severe defeat in the June war, attempted to set the stage for another military offensive by inciting unrest in the country and turning peaceful economic protests into deadly riots.
The Iranian official condemned the terrorists for committing Daesh-style crimes that resulted in the martyrdom of 2,427 civilians.
Gharibabadi said those who place the least value on human dignity are exploiting human rights as a tool to serve their own interests.
The Iranian deputy foreign minister said the main instigators of the January unrest, notably the United States and Israel, must be held accountable for crimes against humanity.
Why the US-Israeli alliance will lose against Iran
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | February 21, 2026
While it is impossible to predict precisely what the war on the Islamic Republic of Iran and its regional allies will result in, the winnability of the regional conflict is clear. The only thing driving this attack is sheer Israeli arrogance, as there is no conceivable situation where all out regional war delivers anything short of uncontrollable chaos.
Why is an all out regional war unwinnable? Although there are various reasons as to why this is the case, it suffices to say that the US and Israelis have no way of controlling its outcomes, in addition to this, they simply do not possess the military industrial capacity to wage such a war for a long period of time.
Now, when this argument is made, it is not done from an idealistic point of view. Therefore, it is important to preface this piece on the fact that there is a clear Israeli-US superiority in terms of technology and the kinds of weapons they possess. Nobody disputes this. There is also clear superiority in the field of their intelligence agencies.
So, let us first assume that the United States and the Zionist entity manage to score all of their desired tactical victories. Working on this assumption will then definitively prove the injudicious nature of the endeavour.
Therefore, under the best case scenario for the Zionist coalition, perhaps they succeed in conducting another decapitation strike on the Iranian military leadership, manage to penetrate and destroy some missile bases, nuclear facilities, while gutting the Islamic Republic’s air defences. These are very likely goals that they will seek to achieve.
Let’s also work under the assumption that they manage to put Tehran on the backfoot for at least a week, due to the intensity of their air campaign, making it difficult for the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) to fire large bursts of ballistic missiles at a single time. Then, after achieving air dominance, strikes on essential infrastructure begin, including cultural sites, government buildings, the media, but also the likes of oil facilities, agricultural areas and water systems.
On top of all of this, assume hybrid warfare tactics will be ongoing. Militant groups, especially those focused along the Iranian periphery, will start major offensive operations, working in conjunction with foreign intelligence agents and operatives on the ground, similar to what we witnessed during the 12-day War in June of 2025.
Note that the much debated potential goal of assassinating Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei is not included above. Although many have speculated that the strategy could very well hindge upon this, it guarantees a war with no predictable end, no escalation ladder and will likely trigger calls for global Jihad.
An inevitable US-Israeli defeat
Giving the Zionist coalition the best possible conditions and achievements as a result of their opening offensive, this strategy will quickly begin to run into major issues.
As we saw last June, decapitation strikes against the Iranian leadership do not work at crippling the government and its military, they are simply replaced by another line of leadership, who implement a whole series of pre-planned counter attack strategies.
The Israelis wrongfully believed that their success during the initial attack on Iran last year was going to yield major results, even attempting to utilise their asset in the United States, the son of the deposed Iranian dictator, to call for a revolt. Not only did no such action take place, as Iranians outside of the diaspora do not support this clear Zionist puppet, but the very opposite occurred as the population rallied behind the flag.
Within 15 hours, the Iranians not only managed to get their air defences back online, but captured the initiative and began launching huge volleys of ballistic missiles into the heart of Tel Aviv. As the conflict evolved, a few important developments occurred: the Israeli air defences began to buckle – with the draining of anti-air munitions – while their agents on the ground carried out most of the attacks, something that is key to note.
While it is clear that the US will bring in greater firepower than the Israelis can muster, an air force is still run by human operators who get tired and operate equipment that needs to be serviced. Iran will very easily be able to launch drones waves constantly at US and Zionist positions, and even if their ability to launch large salvos of missiles is constrained during the first week of the conflict, eventually the opportunity will present itself.
If the Iranian State has not crumbled and civil war has not erupted within this time, then the US and Israelis will then be subjected to wave after wave of counterattacks. Inevitably, this means that airbases will be struck, equipment will be lost, and with fewer assets, this means less ability to keep up the pace of their offensive.
Bear in mind that warhawks employed by Washington and Tel Aviv based pro-war think tanks, who claim that the Iranian State is crumbling at least once a year, are far detached from reality. Take the latest round of foreign backed riots for example, the Western corporate media invented an alternate reality in order to sell the idea that Iran was falling, yet the entire ordeal was more or less over in two days.
It is clear to any learned observer, that without a significant ground element, toppling the Iranian government is impossible. Which then leads to the obvious next question: What if major militant offensives occur inside Iranian territory?
Answering this in depth would take time and a more nimble military mind. Yet, again assuming some level of success on the behalf of separatist militias and al-Qaeda linked Takfiri groups, even if they were to seize territory, Iran is a massive country that allows for mistakes. None of these groups compare and can stand up to the Iranian army and IRGC, nor do they likely possess any considerable advanced capabilities.
What this means is that even if they manage to see some level of initial success, the much larger, well trained, motivated and well equipped Iranian armed forces will eventually crush these insurgents. The only real threat is some kind of mass civilian mobilisation that will deal a blow to the Iranian economy, for which there is no indication this will happen, especially as the nation is suffering through a bloody war of aggression against it.
Then come the attacks on missile bases and nuclear sites. Even if some of these attacks are successful, they won’t destroy all of Iran’s capabilities, and as we saw in June of last year, the US attacks on the nuclear facilities don’t appear to have stopped the nuclear program. If it were that easy to simply take out Iran’s capabilities, it would have been done long ago. The Israelis tried last year and failed. If anything, on the nuclear issue, such a war could end up leading to Tehran actually reversing course on its stance against developing the bomb.
Even with full US-Israeli air superiority, the remaining air defences of Iran will at some point come back online, but even in the event that 100% of their anti-air capabilities are gone, their power is in their offensive, not defensive capabilities.
Once this initial period of assumed US-Israeli offensive dominance is over, Iran can easily block the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, inflict large casualty events on US and Israeli targets, while taking out assets. It is impossible to predict which strikes will be the most effective, however, it is clear that everything will become a target. So expect a big hit on the global oil market, resulting in an economic crisis.
If Iran simply keeps up a pace of fire against the Israelis, the likes of which we saw during the 12-day War, then they only have a matter of weeks before their air defences also become useless.
This is all without factoring in Iran’s various allies, which may enter at any level of intensity at any point in this conflict. There’s Ansar Allah, which has the capability of striking the Israelis, but also assets throughout the Persian Gulf. If Hezbollah manages to wage a considerable ground war, the Israelis have proven in the past to be the weakest in this arena.
The Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU/PMF, Hashd al-Shaabi) are around 250,000 men strong, alongside Saraya Awliya al-Dam, who can use their own capabilities to not only target the US, but the Israelis also. So far, since October 7, 2023, we have not seen a true demonstration of their power. Another factor which is not often discussed, but is also very important, is the role of the Palestinian resistance, who are more likely to wait for the right opportunity, but can also pose a major ground challenge to the Israelis from Gaza.
None of this considers the other elements that could come into play, such as the roles played by regional nations, armed groups we may not have previously heard of, the likes of the Fatemiyoun of Afghanistan and Zainabiyoun of Pakistan, or the general populations throughout the region and what we could see in the event that chaos erupts. Governments could be overthrown, the civilian populations of Jordan and Egypt could become active and out of control. There is also the possibility that some groups in Syria could seize the opportunity to attack the Israelis.
In the event that such a war occurs, the longer it goes on, the more chaotic and unpredictable it becomes. A situation will be totally out of the US’s control, especially as the only means of combating this regional explosion is through the air. As we witnessed with the US campaign against Yemen, airstrikes alone change very little. Even in Gaza, the armed resistance groups fought for over 2 years with no supply chain, and by the admissions of the US and Israelis, their fighting force is still roughly the same size.
If things don’t go their way very quickly, then the Zionist coalition is going to get battered, and not even nuclear weapons will get them out of it. Therefore, [if] the US and Israelis, as long as we again grant them another assumption, that they are somewhat sane, choose to go to war, they will have to try and establish an escalation ladder, devising a real exit strategy.
The question becomes whether the Iranians and their allies allow them to exit the fight. An all out war will be bloody, it will claim an enormous amount of civilian lives, and it will also inflict considerable damage on civilian infrastructure. Truly, the effects of such a war are not desired by anyone in the region, yet the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance have long prepared their capabilities in order to combat what appears to have been inevitable.
Another thing to be mentioned here is that the US government, under the Trump administration, is totally captured by the Zionist entity. For all the reasons noted above, no previous administrations have dared escalate to this extent. If it were easy to launch a regime change operation against Iran, it would have been carried out many years ago.
However, a Zionist stooge is occupying the White House, a narcissistic man whose already low cognitive abilities are clearly declining. He is a President that an FBI report concluded had been compromised by the Mossad, but even if that report isn’t to be taken seriously, his whole campaign was bankrolled by Zionist donors, and his administration is an embarrassing collection of Zionist war hawks. If there was ever any US administration that was foolish enough to launch such a war, it is that of Donald Trump.
US envoy Huckabee claims Israel has ‘biblical right’ to conquer all West Asia
The Cradle | February 21, 2026
During a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee claimed Israel has a biblical right to take over “all” of West Asia.
“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee said when asked whether a passage from the Book of Genesis can be interpreted as granting Israel the right to steal all the land between the Nile River in Egypt and the Euphrates in Syria.
Huckabee was appointed by President Donald Trump as Ambassador to Israel in 2025. He is a former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist minister.
Carlson and Huckabee discussed interpretations of Old Testament (Torah) scripture used by Christian Zionists to justify Israel’s killing and expulsion of native Christians and Muslims from the Holy Land.
Carlson asked Huckabee about a biblical verse in which God promises Abraham that his descendants will receive land “from the wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates – the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”
“Israel is a land that God gave, through Abraham, to a people that he chose. It was a people, a place, and a purpose,” Huckabee claimed.
Carlson responded, saying this would include “like, basically the entire Middle East.”
“The Levant … Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon – it’d also be big parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq,” Carlson said.
“I’m not sure it would go that far, but it would be a big piece of land,” Huckabee answered.
Since 7 October 2023, Israel has launched wars to occupy land in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, including to establish settlements for Israeli Jews. Israel has also escalated its efforts to steal and annex Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank.
Israel has killed at least 72,000 Palestinians during its effort to conquer Gaza, the majority of whom were women and children. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands more may die from the indirect effects of Israel’s destruction of the strip.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to justify the eradication of Palestinians in Gaza at the start of the war, calling them “Amalek,” a reference to the Biblical account of a people exterminated by ancient Israelites.
Israeli Finance Minister and settler leader, Bezalel Smotrich, has stated that Israel would expand “little by little” and eventually encompass all Palestinian territories as well as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.
“It is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus,” he said, referencing the “Greater Israel” ideology.
Carlson also pressed Huckabee about Israel’s role in pushing the US to go to war against Iraq in 2003, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of US soldiers.
“How many Americans put their boots on the ground for Israel?” the US ambassador asked.
“Everybody who served in Iraq,” Carlson responded, adding that the intelligence falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction had come from Israel.
As Gary Vogler has detailed, neoconservatives inside the government of George W. Bush worked secretly with the Israeli lobby and government to launch the invasion of Iraq to satisfy Israel’s energy needs.
Since the start of the genocide in Gaza, members of Trump’s so-called “America First” political movement have become increasingly critical of Israel’s dominant influence in the US government, in particular at the expense of US citizens.
President Trump has currently amassed an “armada” of US forces in West Asia to prepare for a possible attack on Iran, long a key priority for Israel and Netanyahu, which would lead to the deaths of additional US citizens for Israel’s sake.
Testing the Alliance: Netanyahu’s Washington Visit
By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – February 21, 2026
Netanyahu’s recent rush to the United States signals that Israel seeks Washington to expand the agenda of negotiations with Iran. However, the Trump administration seems to recalibrate its policy alignment with Israel.
A Diplomatic Visit or a Geopolitical Stress Test?
Soon after the first round of US-Iran peace negotiations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rushed to Washington. This visit was not part of routine diplomacy, but rather a test of geopolitical endurance. Israel and the United States had always been close allies. This bilateral relationship reached a new high during the tenure of US President Donald Trump. Since Donald Trump’s reelection as the 47th President of the US, both sides have exchanged numerous visits. Yet the recent visit of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu displayed pressing importance and urgency that signaled Israel’s anxiety over the recent US-Iran peace talks. Since the visit, analysts around the world are trying to analyze if the US will once again conduct a military attack on Iran at the behest of the Israeli government or if it will assert strategic independence.
The regional landscape in the Middle East is fraught with stress. Washington has intensified its military posture across the region to reinforce strategic deterrence and stability. The United States is critical of Iran’s nuclear program. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran’s uranium enrichment purity reached up to 60 percent as of mid-2025. This made Tehran’s nuclear enrichment levels the flashpoint for Western concern. Iranian officials insist that their nuclear program is merely for peaceful purposes and reversible. However, Tel Aviv views Iran’s nuclear enrichment levels as an existential threat. Some Arab states are also concerned about Iran’s nuclear program.
Due to these concerns by Israel and some pro-West Arab states, the United States imposed economic sanctions on Tehran. Moreover, it increased its military pressure on Iran by intensifying its military presence in the region. The United States deployed its largest aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, in the Middle East. Reports suggest that the Pentagon has also ordered the deployment of another aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, in the region. US President Donald Trump has also confirmed the deployment of another aircraft carrier in the region. However, none of these arrangements appears to be enough to appease Israel.
Expanding the Negotiation Framework
Netanyahu visited Washington to seek expansion of the US-Iran negotiation outline. Tel Aviv has long maintained that any negotiations and agreement with Tehran must also include restrictions on Iran’s regional alliances and ballistic missile program. This demand has further increased after the recent 12-day war between Iran and Israel. Israel views the range of Iranian missiles and its regional proxy network as a unified threat to its security and expansionist ambitions.
However, Washington’s posture after the Trump-Netanyahu meeting did not suggest any major breakthrough. After the meeting, President Trump stated that nuclear talks with Iran would continue, without mentioning anything about Iran’s ballistic missile program. This suggests that President Trump made no immediate commitment to the Israeli Prime Minister about including Iran’s ballistic missile program in the agenda of ongoing diplomatic negotiations. The absence of a clear US stance on Israel’s demands has drawn global attention.
Domestic Pressures and Global Constraints on Washington
The United States has been Israel’s closest ally for decades. Israel has received the largest amount of US aid in terms of money and weapons. However, it appears that this time the US wants to draw a boundary. There are numerous reasons behind this shift in Washington’s response to the Israeli demands. On the domestic front, the Trump administration is dealing with scores of challenges. American society is highly polarized over the Israeli aggression. Independent estimates suggest that the Palestinian death toll since October 7, 2023, has surpassed 80,000.
More than 90 percent of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure has been intentionally destroyed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A recent report revealed that Israel used prohibited US-made thermobaric weapons, capable of generating temperatures above 3500 degrees Celsius, in Gaza, which made thousands of Palestinian people evaporate. The United States also provided diplomatic assistance to Israel at international forums. Such reports sparked sustained protests across the United States against unequivocal military and strategic alignment with Israel. These protests and the American youth’s criticism have altered the domestic environment in the country and diminished the influence of the AIPAC on American politics.
On the international front, the United States is already facing diplomatic and strategic challenges. Due to Trump’s “America First” approach and his increasing sanctions, tariffs, and interventionist attitude, Washington is facing diplomatic isolation. The rapid rise of Russia and China as new global superpowers and the increasing role of middle powers in global politics have made the world multipolar. The American economy is also burdened by federal debt of around $34 trillion. A war with Iran would deepen Washington’s economic strain and complicate its diplomatic standing. Due to all these issues, the Trump administration seems to adopt a cautious approach towards Iran. However, given the Zionist influence in the US establishment, it would be hard for President Trump to reject Netanyahu’s demands. The increasing US military posture in the Middle East suggests that the coming few weeks will be decisive for the region.
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.
Israel ready to strike Iran-backed armed groups – media
RT | February 20, 2026
Israel’s military is preparing to launch large-scale pre-emptive strikes on Iran-backed armed groups across the Middle East in order to prevent them from lending support to Tehran in any potential regional conflict, the Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat reported on Friday.
Israeli military sources told the newspaper that West Jerusalem has engaged mediators to warn Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group, Yemen’s Houthi rebels, and armed factions in Iraq that any attack against Israel would be met with a “massive and unprecedented response.”
The sources said that Israeli defense officials believe Tehran is pushing its regional allies to take part in any potential escalation after concluding that their limited involvement in the 12-day Israel-Iran war was a strategic mistake.
Iran has allocated substantial resources, including an estimated $1 billion in 2025, to bolster its allies’ ability to strike targets in Israel and the region, the sources claimed.
Israeli assessments cited by the paper suggest that Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq is reluctant to take part in a confrontation, while Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis are more likely to participate.
The IDF said on Thursday it had carried out airstrikes on alleged Hezbollah sites in southern Lebanon. Despite a fragile US-brokered ceasefire, Israel has routinely attacked its northern neighbor, accusing it of violating its side of their agreement.
The Houthis, who control much of Yemen, have halted missile and drone attacks on Israel and its commercial shipping in the Red Sea since the truce with Gaza was signed in October, after repeatedly targeting vessels in what they said was solidarity with Palestinians.
On Thursday, US President Donald Trump set a ten-day deadline for Iran to reach a nuclear deal with Washington, saying that failure to comply could trigger decisive measures. The warning followed Omani-mediated talks in Geneva on Tuesday, which both sides described as a positive step, although no breakthrough was made. At the same time, the US accelerated its troop buildup in the region.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also warned about preparations for possible missile strikes on Iran. “We are prepared for any scenario,” he said, adding “they will experience a response they cannot even imagine.”
The US struck Iran’s nuclear sites during the 12-day Israel-Iran air war in June 2025. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful and has vowed it will not be deterred. Tehran’s UN envoy Amir Saeid Iravani reiterated on Thursday that Iran “will not initiate any war,” but will respond resolutely to being attacked.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has accused the US of “playing with fire” and warned that strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites could lead to disaster.
In an interview with Al Arabiya aired on Wednesday, Lavrov said Moscow backs Tehran’s right to peaceful enrichment, adding that the current tensions stem from the US tearing up the 2015 Iran nuclear deal during Trump’s first term.
Behind US war drums against Iran: No goals, no plan, no off-ramp
Al Mayadeen | February 20, 2026
As the United States continues to amass unprecedented military firepower in West Asia, the largest such build-up since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a senior analyst at the Atlantic Council is warning that Washington has yet to answer fundamental questions about what a military campaign against Iran would actually achieve, or what catastrophic consequences it might unleash.
In a piece published this week, Nate Swanson, director of the Atlantic Council’s Iran Strategy Project and senior advisor on Iran policy to successive US administrations, outlined six critical questions that US policymakers appear unable, or unwilling, to answer before potentially launching a “massive, weeks-long” aggression against Iran.
The analysis, while emerging from a Washington policy establishment that has long driven the logic of “maximum pressure” against Tehran, nonetheless lays bare the incoherence and recklessness of the current US posture.
No clear objective, no clear endgame
Swanson acknowledges that the White House has failed to define what it hopes to achieve militarily. The possible objectives he outlines, leveraging a strike to force nuclear concessions, decapitating Iran’s leadership, or launching symbolic attacks to appear supportive of rioters, each carry “significant obstacles.”
Most notably, Swanson concedes that Iran’s leadership appears to have calculated that dismantling its defense capabilities would be more dangerous than absorbing a US strike. In other words, Washington is considering going to war against a country that has already determined it will not surrender to US demands, regardless of the military cost.
No diplomatic path
Swanson is frank that a diplomatic off-ramp is effectively closed, though the reasons illuminate where responsibility lies. The Trump administration, he notes, is not seeking a deal in the conventional sense but something closer to “an Iranian surrender pact.”
Iran, meanwhile, insists on its sovereign right to a civilian nuclear program. The vast gap between the two positions is less a failure of Iranian diplomacy than a reflection of maximalist US demands that leave no room for negotiation.
The human cost
One of the more significant acknowledgements in Swanson’s piece is the human toll of the June 2025 unprovoked Israeli war on Iran, which the US supported. Over 900 Iranians were martyred in the aggression, including many civilians.
He cautions that a new, prolonged campaign would risk far greater casualties, which is something the great majority of Iranians would oppose. The analyst also notes that Iranians did not come out to protest against the government during the twelve-day war, so there is no reason to believe a large-scale US aggression would trigger protests to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
Regional alarm bells ignored
Arab and Turkish partners of the United States have spent the past month urging Washington to step back from the brink, with Gulf states publicly refusing to permit US use of their airspace for attacks on Iran. The regional consensus against military escalation is striking and largely being ignored in Washington’s war calculus.
Swanson also raises the possibility of Iran retaliating against Gulf states if it cannot de-escalate, echoing the 2019 precedent when Iran struck UAE and Saudi Arabian infrastructure during the last “maximum pressure” campaign. It is a reminder that Washington’s wars rarely stay contained to their intended theatres.
A war machine in search of a justification
Swanson’s analysis, despite being authored from within the US foreign policy establishment, ultimately underscores a troubling reality. The United States is on the edge of a potentially devastating war without a clear objective, without a viable diplomatic track, without regional support, and against the wishes of 70 percent of its own population.
The questions Swanson is asking should have been answered before B-2 bombers were positioned in Diego Garcia and carrier strike groups were dispatched to the Gulf.
That they remain unanswered speaks not to a failure of analysis but to the nature of a foreign policy apparatus that treats war as a tool of first resort.
The Only Motive Behind The ‘Imminent’ U.S. War With Iran Is The Zionist Lobby
The Dissident | February 19, 2026
Barak Ravid in Axios reports that , “The Trump administration is closer to a major war in the Middle East than most Americans realize. It could begin very soon” in reference to Iran.
According to a source in the Trump administration, “it would likely be a joint U.S.-Israeli campaign that’s much broader in scope — and more existential for the regime — than the Israeli-led 12-day war last June.”
The report adds, “Trump’s armada has grown to include two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, hundreds of fighter jets and multiple air defense systems. Some of that firepower is still on its way” adding, “The Israeli government — which is pushing for a maximalist scenario targeting regime change as well as Iran’s nuclear and missile programs — is preparing for a scenario of war within days, according to two Israeli officials.”
If this report is accurate, and the Trump administration actually is about to carry out a regime change war in Iran, there is only one driving motive behind it: the Zionist lobby’s control over Trump and broader U.S. foreign policy.
A Zionist Regime Change Campaign
During the June U.S./Israeli “12 day war”, Trump claimed it was about stopping Iran from obtaining Nuclear weapon, but Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence report from March found no evidence Iran was building a Nuclear weapon, writing, “We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003”.
The real motive behind the Israeli pushed war, was regime change in Iran.
An inside source in the Trump administration told journalists Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil that Israeli intelligence officials who were pushing for U.S. involvement in the war “have demonstrated a single-minded focus on regime change, clamoring for authorization to assassinate Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Israeli officials have emphasized that the moment to take out Khamenei is now.”
The Times of Israel later reported on leaked transcripts of Israeli officials during the June bombing, which showed that the real motive was to “find an opportunity to assassinate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and destabilize Tehran’s regime”.
One senior Israeli intelligence official was quoted as saying that “for years” there was an Israeli “intelligence operation to disrupt enemy activities, including activity to destabilize the regime”.
The Times of Israel noted, “While not initially publicly stated as a goal of the war, the transcripts make it clear that Israel was also looking to destabilize the regime and even to kill Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei” adding, “Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that Israel needed to ‘keep searching for the leader,’ referring to Khamenei” and “Netanyahu also said entire Iranian neighborhoods and districts should be evacuated, and that Israel should work on destabilizing the Islamic regime.”
Israel’s real motive behind the bombing, being regime change, is also underscored by the fact- uncovered by the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab – that during the bombing, social media bots backed by Israeli intelligence ran a propaganda campaign “promoting regime change in Iran”. During the bombing, the Israeli bot network “published a series of posts highlighting the alleged economic upheaval in Iran after the first few rounds of bombings. The network told followers to head to ATMs to withdraw money, emphasized that the Islamic Republic was ‘stealing our money to escape with its officials,’ and urged followers to rise up against the regime,” and “urged followers to get on their balconies at 8 p.m. each evening and shout ‘Death to Khamenei’”.
In a later interview with the Daily Caller, Trump boasted that he took part in the bombing at the behest of Israel, boasting, “Israel is amazing, because, you know, I have good support from Israel. I have. Look, nobody has done more for Israel than I have, including the recent attacks with Iran”.
Following the “12-day war,” the U.S. and Israel exploited protests in Iran in an attempt to destabilize the Iranian government before the apparent upcoming regime change war.
After protests started in Iran due to citizens’ economic concerns, Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent repeatedly boasted that the protests were the intended effect of U.S. sanctions on Iran designed to crash the Iranian economy, saying:
What we can do at treasury, and what we have done, is created a dollar shortage in the country, at a speech at the Economic club in New York in March I outlined the strategy, it came to a swift -and I would say grand- culmination in December when one of the largest banks in Iran went under, there was a run in the bank, the central bank had to print money, the Iranian currency went into free fall, inflation exploded and hence we have seen the Iranian people out on the street
If you look at a speech I gave at the economic club of New York last March, I said that I believe the Iranian currency was on the verge of collapse, that if I were an Iranain citizen, I would take my money out.
President Trump ordered treasury and our OFAC division, (Office of Foreign Asset Control) to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it’s worked because in December, their economy collapsed, we saw a major bank go under, the central bank has started to print money, there is a dollar shortage, they are not able to get imports and this is why the people took to the streets.
This is economic statecraft, no shots fired, and things are moving in a very positive way here
(Emphasis: Mine)
Similarly, the former Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, boasted in response to the question, “Is there a way to bring about the (Iranian) regime falling without using American force?” : “Use economic force, there are ways that you can cripple their economy and some of that has been in the works. It’s more about just weaken their economy and it weakens the support they do have, because they do have support in the rural areas in the more conservative Imams and the rest of that, but we have to make them feel the pain as well”.
Following the protests sparked by economic sanctions on Iran, the Mossad and CIA infiltrated the protests to turn them into a pro-regime change direction.
A Mossad-connected social media account wrote in Persian, to Iranian protestors, “Come out to the streets together. The time has come. We are with you. Not only remotely and verbally. We are also with you in the field,” while former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote , “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”
Israel’s Channel 14 similarly reported that, “foreign actors are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed” while Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu said , “When we attacked in Iran during ‘Rising Lion’ we were on its soil and knew how to lay the groundwork for a strike. I can assure you that we have some of our people operating there right now”.
Afterwards, the mainstream media ran a propaganda campaign claiming that Iran had killed tens of thousands of Iranian protestors, citing anonymous sources and explicitly pro-war and pro-regime change sources, including the German-Iranian eye surgeon Amir Parasta – a lobbyist for the Israeli puppet Reza Pahlavi – and Iran International, an outlet which journalist Barak Ravid said , “the Mossad is using… quite regularly for its information war”.
Given the likelihood of a U.S./Israeli regime change war happening, the propaganda campaign can be seen in the context of previous “atrocity propaganda” campaigns used to justify war such as the false claims that Saddam Hussein was throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait used to justify the first Iraq war, false claims that Muammar Gaddafi was killing civilians in Libya used to justify the 2011 regime change war, and false claims that Hamas committed mas rape and beheaded babies on October 7th used to justify the genocide in Gaza.
Trump Controlled By The Zionist Lobby
If Trump launches a regime change war in Iran, his main motivating factor is the Zionist lobby’s influence over him.
While Trump began diplomatic talks with Iran in Oman, Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Washington to pressure Trump to make unrealistic demands, including demanding Iran give up its ballistic missiles, in order to sabotage diplomacy and force a U.S. war on Iran.
As journalist Glenn Greenwald noted , “Israel is demanding that the U.S. go to war with Iran even if Tehran satisfies Trump’s demands on its nuclear program. Netanyahu is insisting that Trump also require Iran to give up its ballistic missiles before any deal can be signed: something no country would ever do.”
Given Trump’s record, it is highly likely that he will follow the demands of the Zionist lobby and go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel.
Trump has repeatedly boasted that the Zionist lobby- more specifically, pro-Israel mega donor Miriam Adelson – controls his Middle East policy.
Trump boasted during his speech to the Israeli Knesset that Miriam Adelson -and during his first term her late husband Sheldon- were “responsible for so much” of his Middle East policy, adding, “I actually asked her (Miriam Adelson) once, so Miriam, I know you love Israel, what do you love more, the United States or Israel? She refused to answer, which might mean Israel.”
Trump boasted that at the behest of the Adelsons, he “terminated the disastrous Iran nuclear deal”, “authorized the spending of billions of dollars which went to Israel’s defense” and “officially recognized the capital of Israel and moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem”.
Trump later boasted that , “Miriam (Adelson) gave my campaign $250 million” adding that during his first term in office, “her husband Sheldon was an amazing guy, he’d come up to the office, and there was nobody more aggressive than Sheldon … he would always say ten minutes it turned out to be an hour and a half and what he did was he fought for Israel, it’s all he really fought for”.
Along with Trump’s self-admitted capture by the Zionist lobby, there is even the possibility – given Trump’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein and the growing body of evidence that Epstein was an Israeli intelligence asset – that Israel will use sexual blackmail to get its way on Iran.
This was argued by former Israeli intelligence official Ari Ben-Menashe who said , “The Israeli’s are holding some of the sensitive stuff (in the Epstein files) and they might let it out when they feel threatened by Trump” adding, “I believe the Israelis have quite a bit of information that they can release that the Department of Justice doesn’t want to release” and adding that Israel is “very much against the talks with the U.S. and Iran”.
The Final Phase Of The ‘Clean Break’
An Israeli pushed American regime change war in Iran is nothing new, and is in reality the final phase of a long-term Zionist plot to “reshape the Middle East” in Israel’s favour, going back to the Iraq war.
As Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs explained:
In 1996, Netanyahu and his American advisors devised a ‘Clean Break’ strategy. They advocated that Israel would not withdraw from the Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war in exchange for regional peace. Instead, Israel would reshape the Middle East to its liking. Crucially, the strategy envisioned the US as the main force to achieve these aims—waging wars in the region to dismantle governments opposed to Israel’s dominance over Palestine. The US was called upon to fight wars on Israel’s behalf.
The Clean Break strategy was effectively carried out by the US and Israel after 9/11. As NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark revealed, soon after 9/11, the US planned to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.”
The first of the wars, in early 2003, was to topple the Iraqi government. Plans for further wars were delayed as the US became mired in Iraq. Still, the US supported Sudan’s split in 2005, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and Ethiopia’s incursion into Somalia that same year. In 2011, the Obama administration launched CIA operation Timber Sycamore against Syria and, with the UK and France, overthrew Libya’s government through a 2011 bombing campaign. Today, these countries lie in ruins, and many are now embroiled in civil wars.
Netanyahu was a cheerleader of these wars of choice–either in public or behind the scenes–together with his neocon allies in the U.S. Government including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, and others.
Sachs documented that war with Iran in the final phase of this plan, noting:
In September 2023, Netanyahu presented at UN General Assembly a map of the ‘New Middle East’ completely erasing a Palestinian state. In September 2024, he elaborated on this plan by showing two maps: one part of the Middle East a “blessing,” and the other–including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran–a curse, as he advocated regime change in the latter countries.
Israel’s war on Iran is the final move in a decades-old strategy. We are witnessing the culmination of decades of extremist Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy.
Lindsay Graham – one of Israel’s closest allies in the U.S. Senate outright admitted that the hope behind a U.S. regime change war in Iran is that it will cripple resistance in the Middle East to Israel and cause Arab States to normalize with Israel without a Palestinian State – paving the way for the “New Middle East” laid out by Netanyahu at the UN in 2023.
Graham boasted referring to regime change in Iran, “If we can pull this off, it would be the biggest change in the Mid East in a thousand years: Hamas, Hezbollah gone, the Houthis gone, the Iranian people an ally not an enemy, the Arab world moving towards Israel without fear, Saudi-Israel normalize, no more October the 7th”.
Graham’s comments mirror Netanyahu’s at the UN weeks before the start of the Gaza genocide.
As journalist Jeremy Scahill reported :
Just two weeks before the October 7 attacks, the Israeli leader delivered a speech at the UN General Assembly in New York, brandishing a map of what he promised could be the “New Middle East.” It depicted a state of Israel that stretched continuously from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Gaza and the West Bank, as Palestinian lands, were erased.
During that speech, Netanyahu portrayed the full normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia as the linchpin of his vision for this “new” reality, one which would open the door to a “visionary corridor that will stretch across the Arabian Peninsula and Israel. It will connect India to Europe with maritime links, rail links, energy pipelines, fiber-optic cables.”
In 2024, Netanyahu held up another map at the UN portraying Iran and the axis of resistance as a “curse” in the way of this Israeli goal.
It is surely not a coincidence that Israel is hoping to resume the full-scale genocide in Gaza in a few months.
The Times Of Israel reported that , “Israel plans to afford Hamas a 60-day period to disarm, and if it does not, the Israeli military will go back to war in the Gaza Strip, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday.”
This is an obvious attempt to force the failure of ceasefire negotiations in Gaza to justify resuming the full scale genocide, given the fact, as journalist Jeremy Scahil reported , that, “Hamas will not accede to sweeping demands that the Palestinian resistance unilaterally disarm, nor will it submit to a total demilitarization of the Gaza Strip” adding, “the group is willing to negotiate on disarmament of resistance forces only if it is linked to a long-term ceasefire that restrains Israel and is accompanied by a political process that leads to the establishment of a Palestinian state and armed force capable of defending itself”.
Israel hopes that after a regime change war in Iran, it will be clear to carry out its ethnic cleansing plan in Gaza and the West Bank without opposition – and it wants to get the U.S. to carry out the operation on its behalf.
Israel Pushing US Toward a Big and Damaging War With Iran – Ex-Pentagon Analyst
Sputnik – 19.02.2026
Israel was humiliated in the 12 day war with Iran and is seeking a similar humiliation for its rival, retired US Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a former Pentagon analyst, tells Sputnik.
“Israeli demands for no nuclear capability, no enrichment, and no ballistic missiles for Iran is overtly ludicrous, but has been cultivated by numerous visits by Netanyahu to the White House to push for a big and damaging war,” Kwiatkowski says.
The Israeli leadership believes Iran is at its weakest point now — an opportunity that may not come again — and is pressing the US to act.
“Reports of excessive and invasive IDF and Mossad presence inside the Pentagon and Joint Staff planning arenas have made mainstream news, and that is likely due to leaks from inside the Pentagon, by Americans who are concerned about what the US stands to lose by fighting this final war for Israel,” the pundit points out.
How might the US-led operation unfold?
- This time, unlike before, the US and Israel are likely to strike together, combining major electronic and cyber attacks to blind Iran and simultaneous military action
- Experienced Pentagon planners know the risks, so if war comes, they’ll strike hard early hoping to limit Iranian missile retaliation and losses from Persian-controlled sea, land and air
- US forces are likely to play a more overt role in the early phase, partly because there’s limited loitering time for the USS Gerald Ford and Abraham Lincoln
- Throughout, US and Israeli forces will be coordinated by US Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)
However, they have to bear in mind that “Iranian forces and leadership are well aware of US and Israeli tendencies and styles in offensive warfare,” Kwiatkowski stresses.
Unidentified drone downed over Lebanon airbase, US forces block authorities from crash site
The Cradle | February 18, 2026
An unidentified drone was downed in the early hours of 17 February after entering the airspace above Hamat Air Base in northern Lebanon, a Lebanese security source revealed exclusively to The Cradle.
The incident unfolded when security at the base, which also hosts US forces, intercepted the aircraft, causing it to crash into nearby woodland.
According to the source, patrols from Hamat municipal police and units of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) headed to the area to examine the wreckage.
US personnel at the scene intervened to stop the inspection of the downed aircraft. According to The Cradle’s source, US troops drew their weapons and prevented Lebanese officials, including the local mayor, from approaching the crash site, asserting that the drone might have been booby-trapped with explosives.
Lebanese authorities did not take possession of the aircraft, the source said, and US officials later revealed that the drone was no longer at the location initially identified as the crash site.
A US general stationed at the base reportedly sought to contact the Hamat mayor to apologize, but the mayor refused the gesture, objecting to the behavior of the forces hosted at the base in northern Lebanon.
The drone infiltration of Lebanese airspace comes as the Israeli army continues to violate the terms of the US-sponsored “ceasefire” without repercussion.
In early February, troops from the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) near Kfar Kila, southern Lebanon, observed two drones, one carrying an unidentified object assessed as an “immediate threat.” It entered close range, dropped a stun grenade, exploded about 50 meters from the UNIFIL troops, and then headed toward Israeli territory, with no injuries caused.
The UN mission assessed that the drone belonged to the Israeli army and had crossed the Blue Line “in violation of Security Council resolution 1701,” describing the use of armed drones in this manner as “unacceptable.”
Since November 2024, when Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah ceased attacks against Israel under the terms of the US-brokered truce, the Israeli army has committed over 12,000 violations of Lebanon’s territorial sovereignty, including more than 8,000 airspace breaches and 700 airstrikes.
Israeli attacks have killed 343 Lebanese and caused nearly 1,000 injuries, with civilian casualties including dozens of women and children.
Israeli forces maintain an active military presence at several border outposts on Lebanese territory, hindering the return of more than 64,000 displaced residents after a campaign of destruction that rendered much of the southern border zones uninhabitable.
“Our presence at five points in southern Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire agreement, but we imposed it, and the United States accepted it,” Israel Defense Minister Israel Katz declared on 18 February.
His remarks come as Lebanon’s government acknowledged that the army will need at least four months to implement the next phase of a plan aimed at disarming Hezbollah.
Peeling Back the US Information Operation in Iran
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | February 18, 2026
As part of the US campaign to engineer a regime change in Iran, the US military and intelligence community are using Operational Preparation of the Environmnet aka OPE. OPE is defined in joint publications (e.g., JP 3-05 Special Operations) as non-intelligence activities conducted prior to or in preparation for potential military operations to set conditions for success. It encompasses shaping the operational environment through intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, information operations, civil affairs, psychological operations, and other preparatory actions—often in denied or politically sensitive areas.
I believe that one of the major OPE efforts is to convince the US public that the overwhelming majority of Iranians despise the Islamic Republic and want it overthrown. In my opinion, a major player in this OPE is a polling outfit known as GAMAAN. GAMAAN (Group for Analyzing and Measuring Attitudes in Iran) collaborates with Psiphon VPN, which is widely used across Iran. GAMAAN findings have been consistent in painting a picture of massive opposition to the Iranian regime:
According to GAMAAN polls taken prior to 2025, a significant majority of Iranians — around 70% — oppose the continuation of the Islamic Republic. The highest level of opposition, 81%, occurred during the “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising in late 2022. Support for “the principles of the Islamic revolution and the Supreme Leader” has decreased from 18% in 2022 to 11% in 2024. Opposition to the Islamic Republic is higher among the youth, urban residents, and the highly educated. An overwhelming majority of Iranians (89%) support democracy.
Only about 20% of Iranians support the continuation of the Islamic Republic. When asked about preferred alternatives, about 26% favor a secular republic and around 21% support a monarchy. For 11%, the specific form of the alternative system doesn’t matter. About 22% report lacking sufficient information to choose an alternative system.
But what are the funding sources for GAMAAN and Psiphon VPN? Let’s start with GAMAAN. GAMAAN describes itself as an independent, non-profit research foundation registered in the Netherlands. It emphasizes its academic credentials (e.g., founded by scholars at Dutch universities like Tilburg and Utrecht) and innovative online methods (e.g., anonymity sampling via VPNs like Psiphon) to overcome self-censorship in authoritarian contexts.
GAMAAN operates under the supervision of a board including Dr. Ammar Maleki (founder and director), assistant professor of comparative politics at Tilburg University, and Dr. Pooyan Tamimi Arab, associate professor of secular and religious studies at Utrecht University. Maleki is an assistant professor of Comparative Politics and a self-described activist for democracy in his native Iran. Tilburg University Critically, he does not hide his political stance — his Tilburg University profile explicitly states that he is “a pro-democracy activist and political analyst of Iranian politics” and that he tries “to have an impact on political debates around democratization of Iran.”
This is where the picture becomes more contested. GAMAAN has relied on US government-funded VPN provider Psiphon to disseminate its surveys; collaborated with the USAID-funded Tony Blair Institute; and collaborated with and received funding from historian Ladan Boroumand, co-founder of the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, which is in turn supported by the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Psiphon is owned and operated by Psiphon Inc., a Canadian corporation based in Ontario. Psiphon was originally developed by the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, with version 1.0 launching on December 1, 2006, as open-source software. In early 2007, Psiphon, Inc. was established as a Canadian corporation independent of the Citizen Lab and the University of Toronto.
It has a notable funding history. In 2008, Psiphon, Inc. was awarded sub-grants from the US State Department Internet Freedom program, administered by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. In 2010, Psiphon began providing services to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (US), the US Department of State, and the BBC. More recently, in April 2024, the Open Technology Fund (OTF) announced increased long-term funding for Psiphon, with subsequent OTF awards totaling US$18.54 million for 2024 and US$5.87 million for 2025.
The Open Technology Fund (OTF) is administered by the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent federal agency of the US government. USAGM provides OTF with its primary funding through annual grants, which originate from Congressional appropriations under the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs budget. OTF operates as an independent nonprofit corporation (since 2019) but remains a grantee under USAGM’s oversight and governance, as authorized by Congress (e.g., via the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act).
So while Psiphon Inc. is technically an independent Canadian company, it has historically been substantially funded by the US government and other Western institutions — a fact worth noting given its role as the methodology partner for the GAMAAN polling inside Iran. In other words, it is a cut out that, in my opinion and based on my experience, is supporting a CIA information operation to portray Iran as a country on the precipice of overthrowing the Islamic Republic.
There is an alternative polling database that paints a radically different picture of the mood in Iran with respect to the Islamic Republic… The Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland has conducted a separate series of surveys using phone-based methods, which show more moderate results. Their findings from 2023 and 2024 found that about 75% of respondents expect Iran’s constitution and political system to be about the same in ten years, and only 17% agreed with protesters’ calls for the Islamic Republic to be replaced. However, three in five now think the government should not be strict in enforcing Islamic laws, distinctly up from 2018, and support for demands that the government fight corruption has been consistently near-unanimous since 2018.
On the protests themselves, asked in 2024 to think about waves of demonstrations over the past ten years, two thirds say their main objective was to demand that officials pay greater attention to people’s problems, while only one in five think their main objective was to demand greater freedoms or bring about change in Iran’s system of government.
President Pezeshkian, based on the polls from 2024, was viewed favorably by 66% of those polled at the start of his term… and 70% expressed confidence that he would be an honest and trustworthy president, though only a quarter were very confident. Majorities expressed some confidence that he can improve relations with neighboring countries and protect citizens’ freedoms, notably women’s rights, but majorities are not confident that he can lower inflation or improve relations with the West.
There have been no new polls in the wake of Israel’s surprise attack on June 13, 2025. Based on my conversations with both Nima Alkhorshid and Professor Marandi, the reaction in Iran has been similar to what happened in the United States in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks… National unity increased.
The failed color revolution launched on December 28, 2025 by the United States and Israel has reinforced support for the Islamic Republic. President Pezeshkian has openly admitted his government’s failures on the economic front and he has taken some steps to institute reforms. A more important development was the signing of the Trilateral Security Agreement with Russia and China at the end of January. Those two countries are now providing more resources and support to stabilize the Iranian government and improve the economic lives of the Iranian people.
Donald Trump’s threats to attack Iran are backfiring among the majority of the population in Iran. Yes, there are some Iranians who still want to bring an end to the Islamic Republic, but they are dramatically outnumbered. Remember the boost in popularity that George W Bush enjoyed in the aftermath of 9-11? He even picked up support from Democrats who had previously despised him. That same phenomena has happened in Iran. Prior to the June 13, 2025 attack, Iranians under the age of 50 had no vivid memory of Iran/Iraq war — where Iran was attacked with the encouragement and support of the United States. The June 2025 attack, coupled with the foreign instigated late December 2025 protests and violence, have awakened a new sense of nationalism among the Iranian public that has strengthened support for the Islamic Republic.
The belief in the West that Iran is more vulnerable now than at anytime in the last 46 years is the creation of a US funded propaganda campaign that relied on an ideologically biased pollster to produce results that have been used to convince most Americans that Iran is yearning to breath free… All we have to do is kill off the leadership in Iran.
Israel ‘dictating terms’ to US – Turkish professor
Washington is following the Jewish State’s demands on Iran and the Middle East as a whole, Hasan Unal has told RT
RT | February 18, 2026
Israel is effectively dictating US foreign policy, particularly on Iran and the wider Middle East, in a way that is historically unprecedented for a global superpower, a Turkish international relations professor has told RT.
Hasan Unal, who teaches at Baskent University in Ankara, spoke to RT’s Rick Sanchez this week about what he described as a highly unusual power imbalance between Israel and the US.
”We are living in a world now where a small country like Israel is dictating terms to a superpower like the United States on anything and everything, particularly anything pertaining to Israel and to the Middle East,” he said, calling the situation “totally unacceptable.”
Unal added that some analysts have even described it as an “occupation” of US policymaking by Israel, a characterization he said was “almost true.”
He went on to say that pro-Israel lobby influence and the personal involvement of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were shaping American positions, recalling episodes when Netanyahu “gets on his plane immediately” and flies to Washington “to simply dictate what [US President Donald] Trump should say and should negotiate in the negotiations with the Iranians.”
Unal claimed such a pattern has left Washington “dogging behind the Israeli demands all the time” and cautioned that it risks further destabilizing the Middle East.
Netanyahu has made multiple high profile visits to Washington to engage directly with senior US officials on regional policy. In the past year alone, he has met Trump at the White House at least six times to discuss issues ranging from Gaza and Iran’s nuclear program to military cooperation. His latest trip took place last week, ahead of the second round of indirect US Iran talks in Geneva. Netanyahu later said he had pressed Trump to ensure that Tehran is barred from enriching uranium. The renewed diplomatic push followed joint Israeli-US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last year, officially justified as an attempt to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – an ambition the Islamic Republic denies.
Trump has since sent an ‘armada’ to the Middle East and threatened further attacks unless Iran agrees to a deal on both its nuclear and missile programs. Last week, he raised the prospect of regime change and announced a second carrier strike group deployment, with media reports claiming the US military was ordered to prepare for a sustained multi-week operation if talks fail.
Asked whether Iran poses a direct threat to the US, Unal replied that Tehran does not seek to attack American assets as such and that many of the tensions are tied to Israel’s security calculations.
Unal also suggested what he called the gradual collapse of a “big empire,” referring to the Western-led order, and the emergence of a more multipolar system in which countries such as Russia, China, and Türkiye have greater room to maneuver. – video
Erdogan wants nukes: What a Turkish bomb would mean for the Middle East
Ankara is telling the world that a selective and force-driven approach to the Iranian nuclear issue could ignite a chain reaction
By Murad Sadygzade | RT | February 18, 2026
In Ankara, the idea of Türkiye one day seeking a nuclear weapons option has never been entirely absent from strategic conversation. Yet in recent days it has acquired a sharper edge, as the region around Türkiye is sliding toward a logic in which raw deterrence begins to look like the only dependable language left.
Türkiye’s foreign policy has expanded far beyond the cautious, status-quo posture that once defined it. It has positioned itself as a mediator on Ukraine and Gaza, pursued hard security aims through sustained operations and influence in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, and inserted itself into competitive theaters from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Horn of Africa. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long framed this activism as a corrective to an international order he portrays as structurally unfair. His slogan that the world is bigger than five – referring to the UN Security Council – is a statement of grievance against a system in which a narrow group of powers retains permanent privileges, including an exclusive claim to ultimate military capability.
Within that narrative, nuclear inequality occupies a special place. Erdogan has repeatedly pointed to the double standards of the global nuclear order, arguing that some states are punished for ambiguity while others are insulated from scrutiny. His references to Israel are central here, because Israel’s assumed but undeclared nuclear status is widely treated as an open secret that does not trigger the same enforcement instincts as suspected proliferation elsewhere. That asymmetry has long irritated Ankara, but it became more politically potent after the war in Gaza that began in 2023, when Erdogan openly highlighted Israel’s arsenal and questioned why international inspection mechanisms do not apply in practice to all regional actors.
Still, for years this was mostly an argument about fairness and legitimacy rather than a declaration of intent. What has changed is the sense that the regional security architecture itself is cracking, and that the cracks are widening at the very moment the US and Israel are escalating pressure on Iran. Türkiye’s leadership has warned that if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, others in the region will rush to follow, and Türkiye may be forced into the race as well, even if it does not want dramatic shifts in the balance.
This is the key to understanding the new intensity of the debate. Ankara’s signaling is not primarily an emotional reaction to Tehran. Türkiye and Iran remain competitors, but their frictions have also been managed through pragmatic diplomacy, and Türkiye has consistently argued against a military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. Erdogan has again presented Türkiye as a mediator, insisting on de-escalation and rejecting military steps that could drag the region into wider chaos.
The driver is the fear that the rules are no longer the rules. When enforcement becomes selective, and when coercion is applied in ways that appear to disregard broader stability, the incentives change for every middle power caught in the blast radius. The signal from Ankara is that if the Middle East moves into a world where nuclear capability is treated as the only ironclad guarantee against regime-threatening force, then Türkiye cannot afford to remain the exception.
That logic is dangerous precisely because it is contagious. It turns proliferation into an insurance policy. In an unstable region where trust is thin and the memory of war is always fresh, the idea of nuclear weapons as a shield against interference can sound brutally rational. If possessing the bomb raises the cost of intervention to unacceptable levels, it can be perceived as the ultimate deterrent, a guarantee that outsiders will think twice. But the same logic that appears to promise safety for one actor produces insecurity for everyone else. In practice it fuels an arms race whose end state is not stability, but a crowded deterrence environment in which miscalculation becomes more likely, crisis management becomes harder, and conventional conflicts become more combustible because nuclear shadows hover over every escalation ladder.
The renewed urgency also reflects a broader global drift. Arms competition is intensifying well beyond the Middle East. The erosion of arms control habits, the normalization of sanctions as a tool of strategic coercion, and the return of bloc-like thinking in many theaters all contribute to a sense that restraint is no longer rewarded. For Türkiye, a state that sees itself as too large to be merely a client and too exposed to be fully autonomous, the temptation is to seek leverage that cannot be negotiated away. Nuclear latency, even without an actual bomb, can function as a strategic bargaining chip.
Yet the jump from ambition to capability is not straightforward. Türkiye does have important ingredients for a serious civil nuclear profile, and those capabilities matter because they shape perceptions. The country has been building human capital in nuclear engineering and developing an ecosystem of research institutions, reactors for training and experimentation, accelerator facilities, and nuclear medicine applications. Most visibly, the Akkuyu nuclear power plant project with Russia has served as an engine for training and institutional learning, even if technology transfer is limited and the project remains embedded in external dependence.
Türkiye also highlights domestic resource potential, including uranium and especially thorium, which is often discussed as a long-term strategic asset. Resource endowments do not automatically translate into weapons capability, but they reduce one barrier, the need for sustained and vulnerable supply chains. As a result, Türkiye can credibly present itself as a state that could, if it chose, move from peaceful nuclear competence toward a latent weapons posture.
The real bottleneck is not simply material. It is political and legal. Türkiye is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it operates inside a web of international commitments that would make an overt weapons program extremely costly. Withdrawal from the treaty or large-scale violations would almost certainly trigger sweeping sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and a rupture with major economic partners. Unlike states that have adapted their economies to long-term siege conditions, Türkiye is deeply integrated into global trade, finance, and logistics. The short-term shock of a proliferation crisis would be severe, and Ankara knows it.
This is why the most plausible path, if Türkiye ever moved in this direction, would not be a dramatic public sprint. It would be a careful, ambiguous strategy that expands latency while preserving diplomatic maneuvering room. Latency can mean investing in expertise, dual-use infrastructure, missile and space capabilities that could be adapted, and fuel cycle options that remain justifiable on civilian grounds. It can also mean cultivating external relationships that shorten timelines without leaving fingerprints.
Here the debate becomes even more sensitive, because proliferation risk is not only about what a country can build, but also about what it can receive. The Middle East has long been haunted by the possibility of clandestine technology transfer, whether through black markets, covert state support, or unofficial security arrangements. In recent months, discussions around Pakistan have become particularly salient, not least because Islamabad is one of the few Muslim majority nuclear powers and has historically maintained close security ties with Gulf monarchies.
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly signaled that it will not accept a regional balance in which Iran alone holds a nuclear weapon. Saudi leaders have at times implied that if Iran acquires the bomb, Riyadh would feel compelled to match it for reasons of security and balance. Those statements are not proof of an active weapons program, but they are political preparation, shaping expectations and normalizing the idea that proliferation could be framed as defensive rather than destabilizing.
There have also been unusually explicit hints in regional discourse about nuclear protection arrangements, including arguments that Pakistan could, in some scenario, extend a form of deterrence cover to Saudi Arabia. Even when such claims are partly performative, they underscore how the region’s strategic conversation is shifting from taboo to contingency planning.
Once that door is open, Türkiye inevitably enters the picture in regional imagination. Türkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are linked through overlapping defense cooperation and political coordination, and analysts increasingly discuss the emergence of flexible security groupings that sit alongside or partially outside formal Western frameworks. The idea that technology, know-how, or deterrence guarantees could circulate within such networks is precisely the nightmare scenario for nonproliferation regimes, because it compresses timelines and reduces the visibility that international monitors depend on.
For Ankara, this creates both opportunity and risk. The opportunity is that Türkiye could enhance its deterrent posture without bearing the full cost of overt development. The risk is that Türkiye could become entangled in a proliferation cascade that it cannot control, while simultaneously inviting a Western backlash that would reshape its economy and alliances.
This is where the question becomes deeply geopolitical. A nuclear-armed Türkiye would not simply change the Middle East. It would alter Europe’s security landscape and challenge the logic that has governed Türkiye’s relationship with the West for decades. Western capitals have tolerated, managed, and constrained Türkiye through a mixture of incentives, institutional ties, defense cooperation, and pressure. Türkiye’s NATO membership, its economic links to Europe, and the presence of US nuclear weapons stored at Incirlik as part of alliance arrangements have all been elements of a broader strategic framework in which Türkiye was seen as anchored, even when politically difficult.
If Türkiye acquired its own nuclear weapons, that anchoring would weaken dramatically. Ankara would gain a form of autonomy that no sanction threat could fully erase. It would also gain the capacity to take risks under a nuclear umbrella, a dynamic that worries Western capitals because it could embolden more confrontational regional behavior. Türkiye’s disputes with Western partners are already intense on issues ranging from Eastern Mediterranean energy politics to Syria, defense procurement, and the boundaries of alliance solidarity. A nuclear deterrent could make those disputes harder to manage because the ultimate escalation dominance would no longer sit exclusively with the traditional nuclear powers.
At the same time, a Turkish bomb could accelerate Türkiye’s drift away from the West, not only because the West would react with pressure, but because the very act of building such a capability would be an ideological statement that Türkiye rejects a Western-defined hierarchy. It would be Ankara’s most dramatic way of saying that it will not accept a subordinate place in a system it considers hypocritical.
None of this means Türkiye is on the verge of producing a weapon. Political obstacles remain huge, and technical challenges would be substantial if Ankara had to do everything indigenously while under scrutiny. A credible weapons program requires enrichment or plutonium pathways, specialized engineering, reliable warhead design, rigorous testing regimes or sophisticated simulation capabilities, secure command and control, and delivery systems that can survive and penetrate. Türkiye has missile programs that could in theory be adapted, but turning a regional missile force into a robust nuclear delivery architecture is not trivial.
The more immediate danger is not that Türkiye will suddenly unveil a bomb, but that the region is moving toward a threshold era, in which multiple states cultivate the ability to become nuclear on short notice. In such an environment, crises become more perilous because leaders assume worst-case intentions, and because external powers may feel pressure to strike early rather than wait. The irony is that a weapon meant to prevent intervention can increase the likelihood of intervention if adversaries fear they are running out of time.
The escalation by the US and Israel against Iran, combined with the broader arms race logic spreading across the Middle East and globally, is making this spiral more plausible. Uncertainty is the fuel of proliferation, because it convinces states that the future will be more dangerous than the present, and that waiting is a strategic mistake.
Türkiye’s rhetoric should therefore be read as a warning as much as a threat. Ankara is telling the world that a selective and force-driven approach to the Iranian nuclear issue could ignite a chain reaction. It is also telling regional rivals that Türkiye will not accept a future in which it is strategically exposed in a neighborhood where others have ultimate insurance.
The tragedy is that this is exactly how nuclear orders unravel. They do not collapse when one state wakes up and decides to gamble. They collapse when multiple states simultaneously conclude that the existing rules no longer protect them, and that deterrence, however dangerous, is the only available substitute. In a stable region, that conclusion might be resisted. In the Middle East, where wars overlap, alliances shift, and trust is scarce, it can quickly become conventional wisdom.
If the goal is to prevent a regional nuclear cascade, the first requirement is to restore credibility to the idea that rules apply to everyone and that security can be achieved without crossing the nuclear threshold. That means lowering the temperature around Iran while also addressing the deeper asymmetries that make the system look illegitimate in the eyes of ambitious middle powers. Without that, Türkiye’s nuclear debate will not remain an abstract exercise. It will become part of a wider regional recalculation, one that risks turning an already unstable region into a nuclearized arena where every crisis carries the possibility of catastrophe.
Murad Sadygzade, President of the Middle East Studies Center, Visiting Lecturer, HSE University (Moscow).
Featured Video
Elijah Magnier: Yemen’s strikes are shattering Saudi Arabia’s long-term strategy
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
British weapons and personnel doing much of the killing in Yemen
Press TV – June 18, 2019
A detailed report published by the Guardian newspaper has shown how Britain is massively contributing to Saudi Arabia’s devastating war on Yemen as it suggests that London is not only supplying the bombs that fall on Yemenis, but it provides the personnel and expertise that keep the war going.
The comprehensive report by Arron Merat published on Tuesday showed that Britain was doing much of the killing in Yemen as the country continues to provide Saudi Arabia with everything it needs to turn its southern impoverished neighbor into a graveyard.
“Every day Yemen is hit by British bombs – dropped by British planes that are flown by British-trained pilots and maintained and prepared inside Saudi Arabia by thousands of British contractors,” said Merat in the report. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Racist Seinfeld Dances for Joy as Bibi Unveils His New Map
- A West Bank War for Netanyahu’s Election Campaign, Could It Backfire?
- Yemen denounces European Parliament’s ‘hypocritical’ push to blacklist Ansarullah
- Qalibaf: UAE’s UN bid aims to ‘clear the runway’ for ‘Greater Israel’, whitewash genocide
- Pakistan reopens Iran border after boosting security: Report
- Why are so many Brazilians voting for Flávio Bolsonaro?
- Democrats Put Anti-Russia Agenda Ahead of American Workers
- Elijah Magnier: Yemen’s Strikes Are Shattering Saudi Arabia’s Long-Term Strategy
- Pentagon designates Chinese cultural centers national security threat
- Israel Demolishes Home Of Lebanese Journalist Whose Viral Film Exposed Pager Attack
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
