From Proxy to Disposable: The US Betrayal of the Syrian Kurds
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | January 24, 2026
A collapse of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in northeastern Syria, at the hands of the Syrian army, should be a lesson for all regional movements siding with the United States. This should serve as a warning to supporters of the current Syrian government as well.
The United States had supported the rise of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in 2015. That support has now come to an end. For the Kurdish movement inside northeastern Syria, the aim was autonomy, and the territory they captured was viewed as Rojava, part of historic Kurdistan. The primary enemy of Kurdish national movements has been Türkiye, and their project spans Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian territory.
Unfortunately for the Kurds, this meant that their cause was treated as something to be exploited by the US, Israel, and various other actors. In Syria’s case, the US helped establish SDF rule in October 2015, backing its forces against ISIS almost immediately after Russia entered the Syrian war on the side of the government in Damascus at the end of September that year.
The Syrian Arab Army (SAA), with Russian air support, quickly turned the tables on ISIS and began pushing toward the western banks of the Euphrates River. On the other side lay the al-Omar oil fields, home to the vast majority of Syria’s natural resources, which at the time were being exploited by ISIS.
Washington’s project in Syria since 2012, through initiatives such as CIA Operation Timber Sycamore, was to back anti-government forces to effect regime change in Damascus. For a long time, the situation inside Syria appeared as though forces loyal to then-President Bashar al-Assad were on the verge of defeat. This left Kurdish-majority regions without protection and exposed to the brutality of takfiri militants.
When the SAA began pushing ISIS back and appeared capable of reclaiming Syria’s oil fields and fertile agricultural lands, the Americans suddenly launched a major air campaign against ISIS and aided the formation of the SDF as their ground force. Put simply, the SDF was formed to serve as Washington’s proxy, ensuring that the government in Damascus could not regain access to the nation’s breadbasket and natural resources.
The SDF made major advances on the ground and gained control over much of the Syrian-Turkish border region. In Ankara’s eyes, this Kurdish force inside Syria posed a major security threat and was linked to groups such as the PKK, which Türkiye designates as a terrorist organization.
In January 2018, Türkiye launched Operation Olive Branch to seize Afrin from the Kurdish-led SDF. What did the US do? It withdrew its forces and backed off, completely abandoning its allies. Then, in October 2019, the Turkish military launched another operation called Operation Peace Spring, capturing additional border territory in northeastern Syria. Once again, the US abandoned the SDF.
After these betrayals, it should have been clear that the relationship between the United States and the SDF was one of master and proxy, not mutual partnership. Many on the Left argued that the SDF’s project was just and sought to liberate the Kurdish people in their ancestral lands, while others argued that Arab-majority territory should not be ruled by a Kurdish minority. Regardless of which argument carried more moral weight, the United States was never interested in this debate.
When Bashar al-Assad was deposed, and Ahmed al-Shara’a entered Damascus, the usefulness of the SDF evaporated. US support for the Kurdish movement had always been about keeping Syria’s agricultural lands and resources out of the central government’s hands, ensuring the effectiveness of Caesar Act sanctions. The strategy was one of pure cynicism, dangling self-determination before a people to economically strangle the rest of Syria.
The moment Washington achieved its goal of installing a pro-US and pro-Western government in Damascus, it immediately abandoned the ally it had backed for a decade. The lesson is clear: siding with the United States does not bring liberation, only chaos, death, and destruction.
Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s rise was supported by the CIA, after which he became one of Washington’s favored dictators in West Asia. He fought Iran on US orders and used chemical weapons supplied by the West against the Kurdish population. Western media then attempted to blame Iran. When his usefulness ended, he was destroyed.
The same pattern applies to Iran’s former Shah, a US favorite to such an extent that Washington sent currency printing plates to Tehran and used its embassy there as a hub for CIA operations across Asia. After the Iranian people overthrew his brutal dictatorship, the Shah died in exile in Egypt.
Unfortunately, due to the Kurdish-led SDF and parts of the Kurdish movements in Iraq and Iran, strong ties developed with Israel and Israeli intelligence. This has fostered the stereotype that Kurdish movements are inherently pro-Israel, which is untrue. In fact, the PKK would not have emerged as a major force without Palestinian resistance groups.
The PKK ordered its forces to fight Israel during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, even against the advice of some Palestinian leaders who feared they would suffer heavily due to inexperience at the time. It was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine that were chiefly responsible for training the PKK in the Lebanese Beqaa Valley, while even Fatah provided support.
There is a shared history of Kurdish movements and Palestinian resistance working together, although this relationship is not as widespread today. What it demonstrates, however, is that organic and pragmatic alliances between regional movements are possible. The United States is never present to deliver freedom. It is there to extract what it wants and then dispose of its proxies.
This lesson should resonate with many Syrians who currently support their leaders’ alignment with the United States. Just as many among the Kurdish population allowed emotions to cloud judgment and failed to see what was in front of them, the same risk now applies to supporters of Ahmed al-Shara’a.
A serious question must be asked. If the United States could so easily abandon a group it helped create, arm, and work with for a decade, one that made enormous efforts to align itself with Western liberal democracy, why would it side with the leadership of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as a matter of principle? There is no principle involved, only strategic calculation, and it is the Syrian people who will ultimately pay the price.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
US pledges to ‘starve’ Iraq of oil revenue if pro-Iran parties join new government
The Cradle | January 23, 2026
Washington has threatened to block Iraq’s access to its own oil revenue held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if representatives of Shia armed parties enjoying support from Iran are included in the next government, Reuters reported on 23 January.
“The US warning was delivered repeatedly over the past two months by the US Charges d’Affaires in Baghdad, Joshua Harris, in conversations with Iraqi officials and influential Shi’ite leaders,” Reuters reported, citing three Iraqi officials and one source familiar with the matter.
The threat is part of US President Donald Trump’s effort to weaken Iran through a “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions, including on the Islamic Republic’s oil exports.
Trump also bombed Iran’s nuclear sites as part of Israel’s unprovoked 12-day war on Iran in June.
Because of US sanctions, few countries can trade with Iran, increasing its reliance on Iraqi markets for exports and on Baghdad’s banking system as a monetary outlet to the rest of the world.
As punishment, the US government has restricted the flow of dollars to Iraqi banks on several occasions in recent years, raising the price of imports for Iraqi consumers and making it difficult for Iraq to pay for desperately needed natural gas imports from Iran.
However, this is the first time the US has threatened to cut off the flow of dollars from the New York Federal Reserve to the Central Bank of Iraq.
Officials in Washington can threaten Baghdad in this way because the country was forced to place all revenues from oil sales into an account at the New York Fed following the US military’s invasion of the country in 2003.
This gives Washington strong leverage against Baghdad, as oil revenue accounts for 90 percent of the Iraqi government’s budget.
While occupying Iraq for decades and controlling its oil revenues, Washington accuses Iran of infringing on Iraq’s sovereignty.
“The United States supports Iraqi sovereignty, and the sovereignty of every country in the region. That leaves absolutely no role for Iran-backed militias that pursue malign interests, cause sectarian division, and spread terrorism across the region,” a US State Department spokesperson told Reuters.
Some Shia political parties, including several that make up the Coordination Framework (CF), are linked to the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), anti-terror militias formed in 2014 with Iranian support to fight ISIS and later incorporated into the Iraqi armed forces.
Iraq held parliamentary elections in November and is still in the process of forming the next government.
Prime Minister Muhammad Shia al-Sudani, who enjoyed good relations with both Washington and Tehran, has decided not to contend for another term as premier.
The decision has cleared the way for Nouri al-Maliki, of the State of Law Coalition and the Dawa Party, to potentially return to power.
Maliki, who enjoys support from the PMU-linked parties, served as prime minister between 2006 and 2014, including when ISIS invaded western Iraq and conquered large swathes of the country.
Trump threatened a new bombing campaign against Iran following several weeks of violent riots and attacks on security forces organized and incited by Israeli intelligence.
Trump allegedly called off the bombing after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned him that Tel Aviv’s air defenses were not prepared for a new confrontation with Iran.
During the war in June, Iran retaliated against Israel by launching barrages of ballistic missiles and drones, which did severe damage to Israeli military sites, including in Tel Aviv.
Why is the US using Jordan as the main base in possible Iran attack?
By Ali Jezzini | Al Mayadeen | January 23, 2026
US forces have amassed in Jordan ahead of a possible war on Iran, aiming to shift early retaliation away from Israelis, and exploit US airpower, while risking strategic miscalculation and overreach.
Over the past week, the United States has significantly reinforced its military footprint in West Asia amid rising tensions with Iran, deploying F-15 fighter jets and KC-135 tanker aircraft to Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti Air Base as part of a broader repositioning of airpower ahead of a potential attack on Iran.
This buildup, which can be tracked using publicly available satellite images, comes against the backdrop of Iranian warnings to retaliate against American bases in the region should Washington — or its allies — launch an attack on Iranian territory. It also follows movements of US forces and dependents at several regional posts as a staging for possible offensive operations. The intensification of US deployments has thrust installations like Muwaffaq Salti, long a strategic node in Western forces’ deployment in West Asia, into the spotlight as both a potential launch point for attacks and a possible target in any wider conflict.
Why Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti Air Base?
Part of the United States’ increasing focus on Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti Air Base is not simply due to its distance from Iran’s most accurate short-range ballistic missiles, approximately 800–900 kilometers from Iran’s borders, but also because it may be intended to function as a primary Iranian target, or punching bag, in any initial phase of a wider war.
What follows is an attempt to analyze American strategic thinking, though it does not claim that events will necessarily unfold in this precise manner. From Washington’s perspective, “Israel” remains the crown jewel of the imperial order, an extension of US polity itself. During the most recent phase of confrontation, “Israel” encountered serious difficulties intercepting Iranian ballistic missiles, threats it now equates with nuclear weapons in strategic gravity. This urgency explains the current haste, as Iranians ought to possess much greater defensive capabilities in the future, coupled with the baptism by fire they endured during the June 12-day war.
Destroying Iran’s missile program outright is unrealistic, since large parts of the supply and production chains are dispersed in highly fortified underground facilities. As a result, targeting the Islamic system itself, seeking regime change, and sustaining what the US deems as acceptable costs may appear more logical to American planners. In their calculation, such an outcome would justify heavy losses, provided it ends the conflict definitively.
Israeli claims regarding the self-sufficiency and effectiveness of their air defenses are among the most exaggerated on earth. In reality, NATO intelligence and military capabilities played a decisive role in interception efforts, operating out of Jordan. This included US, Jordanian, and French air forces taking off from Jordanian bases, in addition to extensive intelligence, logistics, and aerial refueling missions done by NATO countries, including the UK.
Israeli leadership attempted to strike early under ideal surprise conditions before defensive gaps accumulated and before they were drawn into a prolonged escalation cycle they could not sustain. Even internal measures, such as preventing Israeli settlers from leaving during the war, reflected an acute awareness of how fragile the situation could become if panic spread; that kind of optics is strategically disastrous for a regime that sells itself as secure, resilient, and permanent.
Most interception during the last confrontation in June 2025 was conducted by US naval assets using SM-3 interceptors and THAAD systems. Roughly 25 percent of all THAAD interceptors ever produced were reportedly consumed in that single episode. The persistent exaggeration of Israeli offensive and defensive capabilities, while significant but short-winded, serves two purposes:
- First, it counters the internal Israeli narrative that the United States “saved Israel” after October 7, a deeply sensitive issue tied to Israeli national security self-perception that panics at the idea of having such a level of dependency on the US.
- Second, it preserves an image of invincibility before regional actors, enhancing the regime’s deterrence.
Returning to Jordan: American planners show little concern for Jordanian costs or the consequences for the base itself, which is situated around 70km from the capital Amman. From this perspective, it may even be deemed acceptable for the US if Iran expends part of its ballistic arsenal striking the base, even at the cost of Jordanian casualties.
The American assumption is that they would then be able to launch a major air campaign to destroy Iranian missile production, storage, and launch sites. This would pave the way for an Israeli entry into a second phase of the war, one in which it would no longer face missile volumes it cannot absorb, as it almost did in the June war, as it was running out of interceptors after a presumed US airpower success in weakening the system and reducing launch capacity.
From Iran’s standpoint, directly starting with “Israel” may actually be more rational. An Israeli participation in any war appears almost inevitable, either immediately or at a later stage, for multiple reasons.
Despite the massive US buildup, which includes more than 36 F-15Es, an aircraft carrier, and several destroyers with capabilities to launch cruise missiles, Israelis still retain greater immediate regional firepower than the United States, but it seeks to avoid sudden, large-scale damage to its own infrastructure.
American intentions likely go beyond limited bombings, assassinations, or “decapitation” strikes, as seen previously, if their attack would make sense in terms of weighing gains and possible losses. They may include direct strikes targeting the Iranian leadership, severe economic and energy infrastructure degradation, and long-term destabilization designed to enable internal regime change, added to the sanctions.
The withdrawal of American aircraft from Gulf bases was not only due to their vulnerability to short-range, high-precision weapons that Iran’s arsenal is full of, but also to protect Gulf oil production in the event of war. Gulf states, for their part, would publicly distance themselves from hostilities to shield their economies and prevent market shocks, particularly to avoid upsetting Trump amid any market volatility.
While it is possible to disrupt US operations at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, expending large numbers of ballistic missiles there, missiles that could instead strike high-value counter force and counter value Israeli targets, may be less strategically viable than other options if the US is prepared to escalate toward total confrontation regardless. Completely and permanently disabling the base would be difficult, and the strategic outcome would likely remain unchanged.
American planners appear convinced that Iran will avoid targeting Jordanian state infrastructure or attempting to destabilize the Jordanian monarchy, as such actions can be used for counterpropaganda. They assume Iran will focus on Western and Israeli forces, confining hostilities to sparsely populated desert areas that Jordan can absorb.
Jordan, governed by a monarchy heavily dependent on Western and Gulf countries’ political and economic support, appears to share this assessment. King Abdullah likely believes his rule faces no serious internal risk and that alignment with Western strategy is the safer course, as his country was credited for being “Israel’s” shield against Iranian drones in the June 2025 war.
Under this framework, the US would launch an air campaign using aircraft operating from Jordan to strike western Iran, while carrier-based aircraft in the Arabian Sea attempt to open corridors toward central Iran from the Gulf. This would allow heavy bombers from Diego Garcia to penetrate deeper and strike strategic targets. The Israeli occupation would then enter at a later stage.
The simplest counter-strategy is to do precisely what the Americans do not expect, and to inflict maximum cost. The theory that remains largely unrefuted: Trump is risk-averse. As Western media itself jokes, TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out), he dislikes long wars, favors last-minute, flashy interventions, and avoids sustained attrition. This suggests a vulnerability: American short-termism and reluctance to absorb prolonged pain, particularly when multiple theaters remain active.
Some may ask why Iran does not simply launch a preemptive strike. This is a clear option, but not an uncomplicated one. An initial Iranian strike could rally American public opinion behind a longer war, granting Trump broader authority, resources, and popular support. While it would disrupt US planning and cause early damage, it might ultimately strengthen Washington’s domestic position. By contrast, an American-initiated war, prolonged, unpopular, and costly, would be far more vulnerable to internal pressure, especially if American losses mount.
Adding to the complexity, two Emirati Il-76 cargo aircraft reportedly landed in Tel Aviv before flying on to Turkmenistan. These aircraft are known to be used by the UAE to supply proxy forces with weapons, particularly in Sudan and Somalia, raising the possibility that they were transporting drones or intelligence equipment for regional operations.
The picture remains highly complex, and it is entirely possible that nothing will happen. Still, based on current force deployments and escalation patterns, the probability of a US attack appears to have risen beyond a 50-50 threshold.
This analysis reflects what American planners may be thinking, not what will necessarily occur. It should be noted that after the previous war, many US and Israeli officials declared that Iran’s nuclear and missile programs had been torpedoed, and the system effectively destroyed, assessments that quickly proved false. Now, only months later, they appear to believe that an even more violent war is required to achieve what the last one supposedly already accomplished.
On the other hand, if endurance is possible and the United States is forced to retreat, Trump TACOs or abandon Israelis mid-conflict — an outcome not inconceivable under a president like Trump — the cumulative effects of “Israel’s” recent dominance and coercion across the region may yet be reversed.
As mentioned earlier, the US buildup is not sufficient to start a prolonged attack against Iran with the high goals of regime change. The buildup still does seem as defensive posturing shielding the Israelis, so a chance the Israelis might initiate and use the limited US and Western buildup as a shield is still significant. A scenario similar to what happened in the last war, but that does entail Israeli losses in the opening phase.
Conclusion
What emerges from this assessment is a US strategy built on supposed escalation control, risk displacement, and the assumption that others will behave within predefined limits. Washington appears to believe it can shape the battlefield geographically, pushing early phases of the war away from the fragile “Israel”, absorbing initial retaliation through peripheral bases, and then intervening decisively to reshape the balance before handing the fight back to Israelis under more favorable conditions. This is not a strategy aimed at victory in the classical sense, but at managing exposure and buying time.
The weakness in this thinking lies in its dependence on predictability. It assumes Iran will refrain from actions that collapse the carefully constructed sequencing of the war, that regional systems will remain stable under strain, and that American political leadership will tolerate the costs long enough to reach a decisive point. None of these assumptions is guaranteed. If any one of them fails, the entire escalation ladder becomes unstable.
Ultimately, the outcome of any confrontation will not be decided by the opening phase or by claims of technological superiority, but by endurance, political cohesion, and the ability to impose sustained costs on an adversary unwilling to absorb them.
The United States may possess overwhelming firepower, but it remains constrained by limited strategic patience and domestic vulnerability. If those constraints are effectively exploited, the very war designed to resolve the Iranian question may instead deepen American entanglement and erode the regional order it seeks to preserve.
US sanctions Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad over alleged Hamas links
MEMO | January 23, 2026
The United States has imposed sanctions on the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad, accusing the organisation of supporting Hamas and engaging in deceptive fundraising practices, according to a decision announced on Wednesday.
The sanctions, which also target six charitable organisations operating in the Gaza Strip, include freezing any assets held within the United States and prohibiting US citizens and companies from conducting transactions with the listed entities.
According to the US Treasury Department, the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad was “founded and operated by elements linked to Hamas,” claiming that the movement exercises control over the organisation’s strategic and operational activities. The department also cited the presence of individuals within the conference who have previously been placed on US sanctions lists.
Founded in February 2017, the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad was launched during a large gathering in Istanbul attended by Palestinians from around 50 countries. The organisation describes itself as a grassroots framework aimed at unifying Palestinians in the diaspora, enhancing their political engagement, and reinforcing their role in the Palestinian national movement.
Based in Lebanon, the conference has organized events and conferences in several countries, including Turkey, and has participated in political and popular initiatives related to the Palestinian cause. Its founders say the conference serves as a coordinating umbrella for hundreds of Palestinian institutions worldwide and stress that it does not seek to replace the Palestine Liberation Organisation, but rather to complement its role.
In response to the US decision, the conference has described itself as an independent and open organisation representing a broad spectrum of Palestinian political affiliations. It rejected the accusations, stating that its activities are public and focus on political advocacy, popular mobilisation, and humanitarian support.
The sanctions decision comes amid heightened US scrutiny of organizations accused of links to Hamas, particularly in the context of the ongoing war in Gaza.
How Syria’s Kurds were erased from the US-led endgame
Paris marked the moment Washington quietly aligned with Ankara and Tel Aviv to close the Kurdish chapter in Syria’s war
By Musa Ozugurlu | The Cradle | January 21, 2026
For nearly 15 years, US flags flew over Syrian territory with near-total impunity – from Kurdish towns to oil-rich outposts. In the northeast, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) manned checkpoints, American convoys moved freely, and local councils governed as if the arrangement was permanent.
The occupation was not formal, but it did not need to be. So long as Washington stayed, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) had a state in everything but name.
Then, in the first week of January, that illusion was broken. What had passed for a military partnership was quietly dismantled in a Paris backroom – without Kurdish participation, without warning, and without resistance. Within days, Washington’s most loyal proxy in Syria no longer had its protection.
A collapse that looked sudden only from the outside
Since late last year, Syria’s political and military terrain shifted with startling speed. Former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s rule came to an end, and shortly afterward, the SDF – long portrayed as the most disciplined and organized force in the country – followed the same trajectory.
To outside or casual observers, the SDF collapse appeared abrupt, even shocking. For many Syrians, particularly Syrian Kurds, the psychology of victory that had defined the past 14 years evaporated in days. What replaced it was confusion, fear, and a growing realization that the guarantees they had relied on were never guarantees at all.
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – an extremist militant group stemming from the Nusra Front – advanced with unexpected momentum, achieving gains few analysts had predicted. But the real story was the absence of resistance from forces that, until recently, had been told they were indispensable.
The question, then, is not how this happened so quickly, but why the ground had already been cleared.
The illusion of fixed positions
To understand the outcome, it is necessary to revisit the assumptions each actor carried into this phase of the war.
The SDF emerged in the immediate aftermath of the US-led intervention against Damascus. It was never intended to be a purely Kurdish formation. From the outset, its leadership understood that ethnic exclusivity would doom its international standing. Arab tribes and other non-Kurdish components were incorporated to project the image of a multi-ethnic, representative force.
Ironically, those same tribal elements would later become one of the fault lines that accelerated the SDF’s disintegration.
Militarily, the group benefited enormously from circumstance. As the Syrian Arab Army fought on multiple fronts and redeployed forces toward strategic battles – particularly around Aleppo – the SDF expanded with minimal resistance. Territory was acquired less through confrontation than through absence.
Washington’s decision to enter Syria under the banner of fighting Assad and later ISIS provided the SDF with its most valuable asset: international legitimacy. Under US protection, the Kurdish movement translated decades of regional political experience into a functioning de facto autonomous administration.
It looked like history was bending in their favor.
Turkiye’s red line never moved
From Ankara’s perspective, Syria was always about two objectives. The first was the removal of Assad, a goal for which Turkiye was willing to cooperate with almost anyone, including Kurdish actors. Channels opened, and messages were exchanged. At times, the possibility of accommodation seemed real.
But the Kurdish leadership made a strategic choice. Believing their US alliance gave them leverage, they closed the door and insisted on pursuing their own agenda.
Turkiye’s second objective never wavered: preventing the emergence of any Kurdish political status in Syria. A recognized Kurdish entity next door threatened to shift regional balances and, more importantly, embolden Kurdish aspirations inside Turkiye itself.
That concern would eventually align Turkiye’s interests with actors it had previously opposed.
Washington’s priorities were never ambiguous
The US did not hide its hierarchy of interests in West Asia. Preserving strategic footholds mattered. But above all else stood Israel’s security.
Hamas’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in October 2023 handed Washington and Tel Aviv a rare opportunity. As the Gaza genocidal war unfolded and the Axis of Resistance absorbed sustained pressure, the US gained a new and more flexible partner in Syria alongside the Kurds: HTS leader Ahmad al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Muhammad al-Julani when he was an Al-Qaeda chief.
Sharaa’s profile checked every box. His positions on Israel and Palestine posed no challenge. His sectarian background reassured regional capitals. His political outlook promised stability without resistance. Where the Assads had generated five decades of friction, Sharaa offered predictability.
For Washington and Tel Aviv, he represented a cleaner solution.
Designing a Syria without resistance
With Sharaa in place, Israel found itself operating in Syrian territory with unprecedented ease. Airstrikes intensified. Targets that once risked escalation now passed without response. Israeli soldiers skied on Mount Hermon and posted selfies from positions that had been inaccessible for decades.
Damascus, for the first time in modern history, posed no strategic discomfort.
More importantly, Syria under Sharaa became fully accessible to global capital. Sanctions narratives softened while reconstruction frameworks emerged. The war’s political economy entered a new phase.
In this equation, a Syria without the SDF suited everyone who mattered. For Turkiye, it meant eliminating the Kurdish question. For Israel, it meant a northern border stripped of resistance. For Washington, it meant a redesigned Syrian state aligned with its regional architecture.
The name they all converged on was the same.
Paris: Where the decision was formalized
On 6 January, Syrian and Israeli delegations met in Paris under US mediation. It was the first such encounter in the history of bilateral relations. Publicly, the meeting was framed around familiar issues: Israeli withdrawal, border security, and demilitarized zones. But those headlines were cosmetic.
Instead, the joint statement spoke of permanent arrangements, intelligence sharing, and continuous coordination mechanisms.
Yet these points were also clearly peripheral. The real content of the talks is evident in the outcomes now unfolding. Consider the following excerpt from the statement:
“The Sides reaffirm their commitment to strive toward achieving lasting security and stability arrangements for both countries. Both Sides have decided to establish a joint fusion mechanism – a dedicated communication cell – to facilitate immediate and ongoing coordination on their intelligence sharing, military de-escalation, diplomatic engagement, and commercial opportunities under the supervision of the United States.”
Following this, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office “stressed … the need to advance economic cooperation for the benefit of both countries.”
Journalist Sterk Gulo was among the first to note the implications, writing that “An alliance was formed against the Autonomous Administration at the meeting held in Paris.”
From that moment, the SDF’s fate was sealed.
Ankara’s pressure campaign
Turkiye had spent years working toward this outcome. Reports suggest that a late-2025 agreement to integrate SDF units into the Syrian army at the division level was blocked at the last minute due to Ankara’s objections. Even Sharaa’s temporary disappearance from the public eye – which sparked rumors of an assassination attempt – was linked by some to internal confrontations over this issue.
According to multiple accounts, Turkiye’s Ambassador Tom Barrack was present at meetings in Damascus where pro-SDF clauses were rejected outright. Physical confrontations followed. Sharaa vanished until he could reappear without explaining the dispute.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan was present in Paris and played an active role in the negotiations. Its demands were clear: US support for the SDF must end, and the so-called “David Corridor” must be blocked. In exchange, Turkiye would not obstruct Israeli operations in southern Syria.
It was a transactional alignment – and it worked.
Removing the last obstacle
With the SDF sidelined, Sharaa’s consolidation of power became possible. Control over northeastern Syria allowed Damascus to focus on unresolved files elsewhere, including the Druze question.
What followed was predictable. Clashes in Aleppo before the new year were test runs. The pattern had been seen before.
In 2018, during Turkiye’s Olive Branch operation, the SDF announced it would defend Afrin. Damascus offered to take control of the area and organize its defense. The offer was refused – likely under US pressure. On the night resistance was expected, the SDF withdrew.
The same script replayed in Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh. Resistance lasted days. Supplies from east of the Euphrates never arrived. Withdrawal followed.
The American exit, again
Many assumed that the Euphrates line still mattered. That HTS advances west of the river would not be repeated in the east. That Washington would intervene when its Kurdish partner was directly threatened.
The shock came when HTS moved toward Deir Ezzor, and Arab tribes defected en masse. These tribes had been on the US payroll. The message was unmistakable: salaries would now come from elsewhere.
Meanwhile, meetings between Sharaa and the Kurds, which were expected to formalize agreements, were delayed twice, and clashes broke out immediately after.
Washington had already decided.
US officials attempted to sell a new vision to Kurdish leaders: participation in a unified Syrian state without distinct political status. The SDF rejected this, and demanded constitutional guarantees. It also refused to dissolve its forces, citing security concerns.
The Kurdish group’s mistake was believing history would not repeat itself.
Afghanistan should have been enough of a warning.
What remains
Syria has entered a new phase. Power is now organized around a Turkiye–Israel–US triangle, with Damascus as the administrative center of a project designed elsewhere.
The Druze are next. If Israel’s security is guaranteed under the Paris framework, HTS forces will eventually push toward Suwayda.
The Alawites remain – isolated and exposed.
The fallout is ongoing. On 20 January, the SDF announced its withdrawal from Al-Hawl Camp – a detention center for thousands of ISIS prisoners and their families – citing the international community’s failure to assist.
Damascus accused the Kurds of deliberately releasing detainees. The US, whose base sits just two kilometers from the site of a major prison break, declined to intervene.
Washington’s silence in the face of chaos near its own installations only confirmed what the Kurds are now forced to accept: the alliance is over.
Ultimately, it was not just a force that collapsed. It was a whole strategy of survival built on the hope that imperial interests might someday align with Kurdish aspirations.
Trump presses aides to draw up ‘decisive options’ for strikes on Iran: Report
The Cradle | January 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump is pressing his team to draw up “decisive” options for an attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, after canceling a planned strike earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 20 January.
Officials told the outlet that Trump repeatedly used the word “decisive” when telling his aides what desired outcome he wanted from striking Iran.
As a result, the Pentagon has devised several scenarios including attacks that aim to overthrow the Iranian government, the report said.
One of the options is described as more limited, however, and includes strikes on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facilities.
The officials added that Trump has not yet authorized an attack and that his final decision is still unclear at this point.
Washington is moving the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier toward West Asia after redeploying it from the South China Sea.
Aerial refueling tankers and additional squadrons of fighter jets are also being moved to the region.
The report coincides with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s most stern warning yet, which was conveyed in his own op-ed for the WSJ.
“Unlike the restraint Iran showed in June 2025, our powerful armed forces have no qualms about firing back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack. This isn’t a threat, but a reality I feel I need to convey explicitly, because as a diplomat and a veteran, I abhor war,” Araghchi said.
He also commented on the recent unrest in Iran. “The White House ought to be impervious to the wave of demonstrably false stories in western media about recent events in Iran, but it may be necessary to clarify some points. The protests began peacefully and were recognized as legitimate by the Iranian government.”
“They suddenly turned violent when foreign and domestic terrorist actors entered the scene, so blocking communication among organizers of the rioters and terrorists was an imperative. As those cells are being wrapped up by our intelligence and security agencies, the internet and all communications are slowly being restored,” the foreign minister added.
Over the past few weeks, Iran faced widespread riots after protests turned violent following the collapse of the Iranian currency, caused by years of brutal US sanctions.
Western-based rights groups claim thousands of peaceful protesters have been killed. Iran has detained hundreds of armed rioters, many of whom have been found with links to the Mossad, and are behind the killing of scores of civilians.
A former CIA director recently admitted that Mossad agents were on the ground in the protests.
Multiple reports confirmed Iran’s use of military-grade GPS jammers to shut off Starlink, which had been deployed to Iran in a US-backed effort to ‘aid’ protesters amid an internet shutdown.
As a result, Iran was able to significantly reduce riots and foreign-backed sabotage operations – which included the killing of over 100 security forces and police officers. Tens of thousands of Starlink devices were seized or shut off.
“The Americans and Israelis are shocked,” former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke, previously a British diplomat as well, told The Cradle in an interview.
Trump called off his planned attack on Iran earlier this month, after vowing to hit the country “hard” and “rescue” protesters. The president claimed he changed his mind after Iran decided against executing hundreds of detained rioters.
Abd al-Bary Atwan, a Palestinian-British journalist and editor of Rai al-Youm newspaper, said Trump “was forced to call off his attack” after US-Israeli destabilization efforts failed to weaken the government.
According to the WSJ, Israel requested that Trump call off the strike because Tel Aviv was not prepared for an Iranian retaliation.
Regime Change In Iran Is The Final Phase Of The ‘Clean Break’ Strategy
The Dissident | January 21, 2026
Lindsey Graham, the Neo-con Republican Senator, at the Zionist Tzedek conference, gave the real reason for America’s policy of regime change in Iran, namely to isolate the Palestinians in the Middle East and pave the way for Israeli domination.
Graham, referring to regime change in Iran said, “If we can pull this off, it would be the biggest change in the Middle 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”.
In other words, Lindsey Graham and the U.S. believe that regime change in Iran would lead to the collapse of Palestinian resistance and allied groups Hezbollah and Ansar Allah and lead Middle Eastern powers to normalize with Israel without any concessions to Palestinians, thus paving the way for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank, and further expansion into Syria and Lebanon in service of the Greater Israel project.
This motive is not only driving the desire for regime change in Iran, but has been the main motive for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East since 9/11, not fighting a “war on terror”.
In 1996, key figures who ended up in high level positions in the Bush administration, such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who were at the time advising the newly elected Benjamin Netanyahu, sent him a letter titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, which called on him to make a “clean break” from peace talks with Palestinians and instead focus on isolating them in the region, first a for-most by, “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”.
Netanyahu kept to his word and made his “Clean Break” from the Oslo Accords during his first term as Prime Minister, later boasting:
how he forced former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to agree to let Israel alone determine which parts of the West Bank were to be defined as military zones. ‘They didn’t want to give me that letter,’ Netanyahu said, ‘so I didn’t give them the Hebron agreement [the agreement giving Hebron back to the Palestinians]. I cut the cabinet meeting short and said, ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I ratify the Hebron agreement. Why is this important? Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.”
Soon after, the authors of the clean break document became key advisors on the Middle East in the George W. Bush administration.
After 9/11, they used the attack to carry out the “important Israeli strategic objective” of “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq”, who was seen as too sympathetic to Palestinians.
As David Wurmser, one of the authors of the clean break document and the Middle East Adviser to former US Vice President Dick Cheney, later admitted , “In terms of Israel, we wanted Yasser Arafat not to have the cavalry over the horizon in terms of Saddam”.
George W. Bush aide, Philip Zelikow said , “the real threat (from Iraq) (is) the threat against Israel”, “this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat”, “the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell”.
But for Israel and the Bush administration, the war in Iraq was just the first phase of the “clean break strategy”, to take out all of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East.
As the U.S. General Wesley Clark revealed the clean break went from a plan to take out Saddam Hussein in Iraq to a plan to “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finishing off, Iran”. (Emphasis added)
As Clark later explained on the Piers Morgan show, the list came from a study which was “paid for by the Israelis” and said, “if you want to protect Israel, and you want Israel to succeed… you’ve got to get rid of the states that are surrounding”.
With every other country on the hit list either weakened (Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan) or taken out (Iraq, Libya, Syria) from the ensuing years of U.S. and Israeli intervention, Neo-cons and Zionists see Iran as the last bulwark in the way of carrying out the Clean Break plan.
How many regime change wars before we wake up?
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | January 21, 2026
It was truly astonishing, the speed with which online influencers, including many self-styled anti-war leftists, took to social media in order to espouse regime change propaganda against Iran over the past few weeks. This then begs the question as to how many times this has to happen before people finally wake up?
For each regime change war waged by the West in the MENA region, it is almost as if the collective memory of the Western anti-war movement somehow dissipates. As a result, some principled activists and honest journalists, who retain their memories, are forced to go around in circles, arguing that the latest war is wrong, just like the last one and that lies are being pushed to justify a moral outrage.
The US and “Israel” pick a new target. The same decades old propaganda is pulled out of the draw, and then serious people have to argue endlessly, as they are attacked as “regime defenders”, simply for establishing basic truths. What is perhaps the saddest part of this is that over two years of genocide in Gaza, which the Western Left has collectively come together to oppose, has seemingly failed to impress upon them that their government never cares about human rights or so-called “international law”.
When it comes to the recent series of allegations made against the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is nearly impossible to even engage in rational dialogue, as the pro-regime change crowd appear to be living in a parallel universe. This time, just like the last, they buy that the West is genuinely concerned by the alleged suffering of a foreign civilian population. However, in order to demonstrate just how ridiculous the latest round of propaganda has been, it is necessary to preface that with a little bit of history.
The same old pro-war lies again
If you are to listen to the mainstream corporate media and Western politicians, their portrayal of the Islamic Republic of Iran is of a “malevolent regime” that is negative in every conceivable way. That’s why none of them can ever mention something about Iran that is positive, or address the political climate of the country in any considerable kind of depth.
The primary excuses you’ll hear for why Iran needs a US-led regime change are that it will bring about “women’s rights”, “democracy”, “stop them developing weapons of mass destruction” and that the Iranian government is “killing its own people”.
Remember when we were told that Afghanistan had to be invaded and that the US had to kill innocent people as “collateral damage” in order to “free the women of Afghanistan”? The US invaded and remained there for 20 years, spent over 2 trillion dollars, and the government it built immediately fled the moment the Americans withdrew their forces.
These Colonial Feminist arguments aren’t even worth considering when it comes to the Islamic Republic of Iran, because they are disingenuous to begin with. The Israelis and elements of the Trump administration argue for re-installing the son of the deposed Shah of Iran. The Shah and his views on women were outright repulsive, yet the US government didn’t care about the repression of women’s rights when the Shah was in power, just like it didn’t care while Saudi Arabia prevented its women from driving cars.
Often, you may see people share old footage from Iran, in which women are seen in swimsuits on the beach, advertised as a magical time when the country was “free”. What you are watching is the former Iranian elite, a small segment of the economically advantaged who benefited from a repressive system.
But this all aside, just like was the case with the invasion of Afghanistan, it never had anything to do with women’s rights. Equally, you will see that the US’s soft power institutions use the issue of women’s rights as a means of social control and coercion. It’s not about empowering women, it’s about imperialism.
Iran is also accused of developing weapons of mass destruction. It is a well-established fact that when the US and UK claimed that former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, possessed such weapons, it was a lie.
Some may then come along and cite human rights groups for various statistics they provide regarding the death toll amongst protesters and rioters in Iran. Amnesty International even labelled the protests as “largely peaceful”. Bear in mind here that Amnesty also helped spread and give credibility to the claim that the Iraqi military had thrown 300 babies out of incubators, one of the key lies used to justify the First Gulf War.
While this isn’t to simply discredit all human rights reports, it suffices to say that we must still check their sources and accept the reality that they are not beyond political pressure and the power of their donors. Recently, the major human rights groups have proven extremely diligent on the question of Palestine in particular, but one should note that this hasn’t always been the case, it is instead a newer phenomenon that the likes of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have taken such brave stances, particularly beginning in 2021.
Therefore, we should always be critical of everything we see when it comes to claims without any credible sources behind them, especially surrounding the buildup and justifications provided for regime change wars. In Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and even in Gaza, these human rights organizations and UN human rights reports have aided in justifying the arguments for interventionism and the alleged Israeli “right to self defense”.
Then we come to the next popular argument, which is Identity Politics at its core. This is the “listen to Iranians”. By this, of course, what is implied is that you only listen to a select group of Iranians who are in favour of bombing and destroying their own country.
Simply put, this is no different to the “ex-Muslims” who are paid to talk about how bad Muslims are, it is an argument devoid of any logic and relies purely upon emotion. This time it is “listen to Iranians”, in the past we were told to listen to members of the Iraqi, Afghan, Syrian and Libyan diaspora who would be paraded across all major broadcast media platforms to tell their extremely biased and personalised stories in order to argue in favour of regime change.
There is no difference between Iranians going on the BBC or CNN to argue for more sanctions and intervention, and Iraqis doing the exact same thing in the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many Palestinians are also given jobs by pro-war think tanks and invited to tell their stories in the corporate media, if they simply choose to side with Israel over Hamas.
‘It’s a monstrous regime, but…’
Another popular argument you will see made, is one that automatically accepts all the propaganda used to justify illegal wars of aggression, before going on to make the counter point that “we still shouldn’t support this war”. In essence, this is a coward’s way out of being criticized and labelled.
This tactic is something we saw on display when it came to addressing the Israeli genocide against the people of Gaza. The entire Western media establishment demanded the condemnation of Hamas by any journalist or activist arguing in favour of the Palestinians. Many simply went along with this, blindly accepting much of the propaganda about Hamas without actually knowing anything about the group. Very few dared to go into the details of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and point out the lies about it.
By starting with a condemnation of Iran, or the Palestinian Resistance, you immediately cede to the US-Israeli propaganda framing. These Western media ghouls do not actually care about the details, or the loss of human life on any side, they simply seek to frame the situation in a very specific way. They work to manufacture a controlled media environment, one in which anyone who refuses to utter condemnation is deemed an “extremist” and lacking in credibility.
If you don’t understand the accusations, the best course of action is to refrain from discussing something out of your depth. Alternatively, if you do understand the issue in depth, then explain it in its proper context.
The lies against Iran
There is no need to beat around the bush here, the riots that we saw on January 8-10 were part of an Israeli backed war on Iran. On December 28, legitimate protests began against the government’s mismanagement of the financial crisis, resulting in no violence and no arrests. One day later, suddenly, the former Prime Minister of the Zionist regime, Naftali Bennett, releases a video encouraging a nation-wide Iranian uprising to overthrow the government, something that would not begin until January.
What also occurred at the end of December was that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu had just arrived in the US, where according to sources cited by Axios News, he was urging the US President to strike Iran. All of a sudden, violent rioters just so happened to hijack the totally peaceful protests and ignite a campaign of utter chaos.
The Western corporate media claims that the rioters, whom they refer to as “protesters”, were overwhelmingly peaceful and were subjected to massacres. They also acknowledge that over 160 Iranian security force members were killed over only a matter of days. Which begs the question, during which peaceful protest movements in history have there been so many members of the security forces killed over such a short period of time?
It’s not only police officers, as many civilians were brutally beaten to death by the rioters, as others were burned alive, and there were even cases of beheadings; women and children were also murdered by these rioters.
Peaceful protesters don’t attack 250 mosques, 20 religious centers, thousands of private vehicles, 364 large stores, 419 small shops, 182 ambulances, 4,700 bank branches, 1,400 ATM’s, 265 schools, 3 major libraries, 8 cultural heritage and tourism sites and 4 cinemas. They also don’t burn the Quran in the streets, destroy bus stops, the metro stations, burn down buses, or carry firearms and explosive devices. Although the exact statistics are difficult to ascertain and cannot yet be confirmed, these are the ones provided from sources inside Iran. At the very least, there is video evidence to confirm attacks on these targets.
The evidence about what just happened is there for the world to see. The statistics for the overall death toll range so dramatically that determining it at this moment has been rendered impossible. From the videos and photos of the bodies in morgues, it would appear as if hundreds are dead at the least.
There was no anti-government protest that numbered more than into the tens of thousands, at most, it was more likely only thousands, according to the footage available. Most of these riots and gatherings were small, not more than a few hundred, and in some cases, there were only small teams of men who showed up to cause chaos and then quickly ran away.
On the other hand, the pro-government protests numbered in the millions across the country. Initially, some tried to deny the footage and make up all kinds of lies about it. Everything from “that’s old” to “that’s AI” was claimed. Finally, when these excuses wore out, the pro-regime change media pivoted to “they were coerced”.
Days after the anti-government riots and protests had ended, the Western corporate media and Zionist social media influencers were still sharing old footage to claim that their imaginary “revolution” was still ongoing.
Without going into every minute detail, it suffices to say that the pro-regime change media and social media influencers are simply living in a parallel universe when it comes to this topic. It is impossible to even argue with them, they make up anything they choose and care not for objective realities.
As in any country, there are legitimate grievances from the people against their government in Iran, but these riots had nothing to do with the popular will and beliefs of the masses, this was an Israeli Mossad backed attempt to destabilize the country, then used to justify military intervention.
For saying this, you will be labelled, just as we were labelled before. But the truth is the truth: regime change in Iran serves the Israelis. Iran is the only country, along with the Ansar Allah government in Yemen, that has backed the Palestinians and retaliated against “Israel”. Tehran backs the Palestinian Resistance, which is why it is being targeted for regime change. If it were to abandon its values and the Palestinian cause tomorrow, the regime change threats against it would cease outright.
What a War on Iran Would Really Look Like — Beyond the Regime-Change Fantasy
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | January 19, 2026
While the corporate media and social media influencers run non-stop regime change propaganda, replete with unverified statistics, fabricated claims, and the denial of objective reality, it is important to cut through this and ask the more important question: What will a regime change war on Iran look like?
The following analysis must be first prefaced by stating that the unrelenting wave of regime change propaganda currently being disseminated with the implicit intent of manufacturing consent for war is, in essence, no different from the claims and rhetoric used over decades to justify various other wars of aggression.
Last year, Israel attacked Iran in a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter, and was later followed by the United States, which also participated in illegal aggression. Although it should be noted that using the metrics of International Law is at this stage redundant, as it has been rendered null and void by the US-Israeli alliance since October 7, 2023.
In the immediate aftermath of last June’s 12-Day-War, US-based pro-war think-tanks ranging from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) all the way to the Atlantic Council, all began scheming about what the next round should constitute and its intended outcomes. Meanwhile, on July 7, Axios News cited its sources claiming that Israel was already seeking a greenlight for a new attack and that it believed the US would grant it.
Fast forward to December 28, 2025, when peaceful protests erupted in Iran over government mismanagement of the worsening economic crisis, caused by Western economic sanctions. The very next day, December 29, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett posted a video talking about a mass anti-government uprising, which had not yet happened. His message was accompanied by countless old videos and AI-generated footage depicting such a rebellion.
As this was happening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was visiting US President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, where, according to several media reports, he was requesting an American attack on Iran and had received everything he had asked for. At the beginning of January 2026, violent elements suddenly emerged, and protests calling for the fall of the government began.
On January 8, 9, and 10, the situation dramatically escalated as Iran shut off the internet across the country. The footage revealed that the largest crowds participating in the riots and protests numbered only in the tens of thousands, yet numerous rioting groups emerged throughout the country.
The Western media and pro-Israeli social media influencers had by this time constructed their own narratives that deemed what was happening a “revolution” of “millions across Iran” and that peaceful protesters were being slaughtered for standing up for their freedom.
Without going into the fine details, it suffices to say that what we see portrayed in the corporate media about Iran is a reflection of a parallel universe. There is a total denial of any nuance, an inability to accept mass pro-government demonstrations that were bigger than the riots that occurred, a refusal to air the countless videos of armed militants on the streets and mass destruction caused by rioters.
Instead, Iran is an “evil regime” that is “slaughtering its own people” for absolutely no reason beyond that they are peacefully protesting for their freedom. There is also a particular focus on women’s rights when it comes to this propaganda. Even those who accept that over 160 members of the Iranian security forces were killed, including some who were beheaded and set on fire, still uphold that a peaceful revolution occurred. One that they all claimed would topple the government in days or weeks.
You need only look back over the past decades to see the same regime change scripts in action. The Colonial Feminism employed to justify these wars of aggression has been apparent throughout, especially in the case of Afghanistan. Yet, after 20 years of war and 2 trillion dollars in taxpayer dollars later, it was clear that the US’s longest war had nothing to do with “liberating the women of Afghanistan”.
Bear in mind also that atrocity propaganda can come from so-called trusted sources, especially when used to drum up support for such a major foreign policy objective as overthrowing the Iranian government. For example, Amnesty International gave credit to totally fabricated claims that Iraqi soldiers had thrown babies out of incubators in the lead-up to the First Gulf War.
Former Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi was also accused of “killing his own people” as the justification for NATO intervention, while it was claimed that peaceful protesters sought to achieve democracy. Then came a tirade of totally fabricated statistics and outlandish stories, none of which the corporate media dare challenge.
Every time it’s the same cycle, a totally fictitious narrative is constructed as a means of justifying a kind of “humanitarian intervention”, after which everyone will later acknowledge much of it was exaggerated or outright false. Then, anyone challenging this is labelled a “regime puppet” and called names to delegitimise their arguments. Disgruntled members of that nation’s diaspora are also employed to come up with sob stories and advocate regime change, a cheap identity politics trick.
What Will A War On Iran Look Like
A war with Iran could go in many different directions, depending on a large number of variables and how countless actions factor into decision-making on all sides. Therefore, the first point of entry into this brief analysis should be the reality inside Iran and separating this from the fictional depictions provided by the corporate media.
Iran is not Venezuela, nor is it Syria. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for a start, possesses military capabilities that are beyond any other player in West Asia, with exceptions of the Israelis and Turkish militaries. Even in these cases, they do not possess the volume of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, or drones that Iran has mass-manufactured.
What Tehran lacks in terms of the latest in technological development, it makes up for with its offensive missile and drone arsenal, enabling it to hit the Israelis and US bases across the region. These capabilities are now tried and tested on the battlefield.
On the ground, Iran has its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) along with its regular army. The conservative estimates put the total active personnel of the IRGC at around 190,000 men strong, while the regular army is said to have 420,000 active duty members. In addition to this, there is a volunteer paramilitary force known as the Basij, which is said to be able to mobilise over a million fighters if needed.
The Iranian military is well trained, well armed and is constantly running exercises designed to combat insurgencies and foreign invasion forces. Iran’s terrain is also mountainous and vast, meaning that even in the event that mistakes are made, there is room for them to then regain lost ground. All previous US war games estimated that an invasion of Iran in the early 2000’s would have been a disaster for American forces. This was before the Iranians developed militarily in the way they have over the past decade or so.
Millions of Iranians who have demonstrated they will come to the streets in order to protest in solidarity with their government is also a strong sign of the base of support behind the current government. Although survey data is scarce, a large portion of the Iranian population is indeed socially conservative and believes in the religious doctrine of the Islamic Republic.
Another element to consider here is that the Iranian opposition has no real leader. The son of the Shah has a very small base of support inside Iran and is widely regarded as no more than an Israeli puppet. Then we have the Iranian minorities, who have managed to coexist much better under the Islamic Republic than the former Shah’s rule, as the Shia religious system does not rule for the Persian majority alone and does not have the same ethno-supremacist tendencies as previous Iranian leaderships.
On top of Iran’s own forces, there are also its regional allies. These include Ansarallah in Yemen, the Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi, the Afghan Fatimeyoun, Pakistani Zeinabiyoun, the entire Palestinian resistance, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. These are the main players, but there are also various other groups that they have partnered with.
There is also a question mark surrounding what role China will play in support of Iran, while it is expected that Russia will also provide some kind of assistance. Beijing, in particular, cannot afford the fallout of losing Iranian oil and has already signed an economic partnership deal with Tehran.
Understanding all, there are clearly various cards that the Iranians have to play, and the idea that the government would simply fall without a fight and that its leadership would flee is pure fantasy. Several scenarios could play out given a war opens, including the following:
- Iran initiates a preemptive series of strikes.
- The US bombs Iran symbolically and tries to fight a limited conflict.
- An Israeli-US total regime change plot is hatched.
To address the first way this could unfold, it may be possible that, given the failure of the riots to create major fractures in the Islamic Republic’s system and drag the country to civil war, the US and Israelis may be trying to bait Iran into attacking first. The reason for this would be so they are able to gauge how broad the confrontation will be from the opening round of strikes and then adjust their own offensive from there. This kind of conflict would likely be limited.
The next option would be a US air campaign designed to deal a blow to Iran, with the hope that it could also lead to a change of events that results in regime change, but primarily to send a message and extend the conflict to another round. Such an exchange could end up getting out of hand, depending upon how both sides choose to retaliate against each other’s actions, yet the goal would be to avoid a long war.
If these kinds of 12-Day-War style rounds are to keep occurring each year or so, then this would greatly favour Iran. This is the case as Iran replaces its stockpiles infinitely quicker than the US and Israel.
Then there is the worst-case scenario, an all-out regime change war. Whether this arrives through a series of waves of attacks, both from the air and using militants on the ground, or through a tit-for-tat escalation that leads to it, expect enormous death and destruction on all sides.
There can be no disputing the US military edge here from the air, although an air campaign alone will not topple the government. If this happens, the worst-case scenario will be that the US will strike Iran repeatedly, perhaps alongside Israel’s attacks, assassinating political and military leaders, taking out weapons depots, missile launch sites, infrastructure targets, government buildings, and cultural sites. If Iran is unable to effectively defend from such an assault, it should be expected that it will take around 4 days to get on its feet.
This being said, such an assault would likely radicalise the population and make them double down. If the US and Israel succeed at assassinating Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, then we should expect an unprecedented war that may even extend beyond the region. More than being the Iranian Supreme Leader, he is also a Shia Spiritual leader, meaning his role transcends that of a leader of a country. It would be the equivalent of assassinating the Pope.
Iran itself has several options: to pound American bases, strike US aircraft carriers, launch much larger waves of ballistic missiles into Israel, and at this point, it is likely its allies would have mobilised. The Iranians themselves could shut down the Persian Gulf by locking the Gulf of Hormuz, inflicting a global economic crisis.
Hezbollah, Ansarallah, the Hashd al-Shaabi, Zeinabiyoun, Fatemeyoun, and Palestinian factions could all then participate in an all-out war, one from which there is no turning back. For the Shia in particular, their ideology is not one of backing down in these situations; they will very likely interpret such circumstances as their equivalent to the battle of Karbala, where the Prophet of Islam’s grandson Hussein was martyred.
If this becomes an all-out battle, everyone will take the gloves off, and the only way the Israelis will likely prove capable of escaping is to begin using nuclear weapons, which may not even work.
Although the doomsday scenario is possible, it is likely the war will end before it gets to that stage, and although all of Iran’s allies may participate this time, it would appear the US would like to refrain from entering a long, unpopular, and unwinnable war of aggression. The Trump administration likes quick wars that don’t take much time and runs away when things don’t go their way, as we saw with their attack on Yemen.
It should be expected that the Israelis and their Western allies throw the kitchen sink at Iran in an attempt to manufacture civil war, also. So far, the Syriaization of Iran has failed, but this isn’t to say they will give up on implementing such an agenda.
All of this is to say that regime change in Iran is not a simple matter of committing a few airstrikes; it is an ideologically driven State with mass support and a large number of allies willing to fight on its side. Therefore, the likelihood of the Islamic Republic of Iran falling in a few days or weeks is outlandish to say the least.
– 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.
Scott Ritter Hiding the Dominant Minority Behind Geopolitics?
Peace Activists Forced to Hide the Jewish Geopolitical Dots?
By Geurt de Wit | Ruling Elite Studies | January 18, 2026
Introduction
All political scientists and historians agree that some minorities have historically been able to dominate their host nations. Notable modern examples include the Spanish in South America, overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, and Tutsis in Central Africa. Sometimes host nations rise against a dominant minority, as seen in Southeast Asia, where local populations have implemented various quotas and measures—such as Malaysia’s Bumiputera policies—to curb the economic and social influence of the ethnic Chinese community.
Jews
There is another significant example of a dominant minority, yet naming it remains a taboo: the Jewish elite in the West. This group exerts influence through economic and media power, a “Culture of Critique,” and its maneuvers within the geopolitical “Great Game”. U.S. foreign policy, for instance, appears heavily influenced by Jewish Zionists, compelling even the supposedly “America First” Trump administration to adopt “Israel First” policies. While parts of the peace movement have begun to note the Jewish role in fomenting conflicts also beyond the Middle East, many activists still fail to see the broader connections. The conflicts in Ukraine and Taiwan are directly linked to the crisis in the Middle East.
The reason is simple: Jewish led neoconservative and neoliberal forces aligned with Israel seek to weaken Russia and China, both of which support Iran and the Shia “Axis of Resistance” in the Middle East. Consequently, the West attempts to encircle Russia and China with military bases and hostile alliances while undermining their economies through sanctions and high tariffs to facilitate regime change.
This is nothing new. For centuries, Jews have viewed Russia and China as “antisemitic” for opposing Jewish attempts to become a dominant minority within their borders. Historically, this has manifested as a prolonged struggle. Jewish elite dynasties like the Rothschilds, Sassoons and Kadooreis, for example, pushed Western empires to subjugate China during its “Century of Humiliation.” Similarly, they managed to organize various wars against Russia including the first Crimean War in the 1850’s and then later the Jewish led Bolshevik and Oligarch takeovers in the 1920’s and 90’s. The present Ukraine War is just the latest in a series of conflicts and wars between Jews and Russia going back a millennium.
The obvious Jewish role in geopolitics and various wars has always been known to political scientists and historians. It is also common knowledge in many parts of the world such as in Eastern Europe, China and the Arab world. However, in America the Jewish dominant minority has achieved such power that both academia and media now avoid the subject entirely. Only occasionally does the American public hear about it through random outbursts, such as Mel Gibson’s criticism of the Jewish role in instigating wars.
Putin and Xi
Under the leadership of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, Russia and China have regained their independence and power. Their geopolitical support for the Axis of Resistance has drawn the ire of Zionist Jews running Great Game geopolitics, while their nationalist anti-liberal policies have alienated liberal Jewish factions running the Culture of Critique movements. As a result, the Jewish dominated Western academia and media has totally demonized both nations, while Jewish led neoconservatives and neoliberals push for their encirclement and the targeting of their global allies.
The influence of Jewish dominant minority behind these conflicts remains such a taboo that even peace activists often ignore it. This gives Zionists a carte blanche to pursue military and cultural wars, regime change operations and proxy wars aimed at isolating Russia and China. By refusing to “connect the dots,” Western peace activists effectively allow this dominant minority to continue pushing for perpetual war.
Scott Ritter
In recent years, the peace movement has been bolstered by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. A prolific advocate, Ritter has tirelessly warned against the dangers of nuclear war, organized demonstrations and personally lobbied Congress. Despite his background as a leftist philosemitic Democrat, he has significantly influenced the Republican “MAGA” movement toward anti-war policies.
Ritter has gained a massive following as a commentator on the Ukraine War. However, during the conflict’s first year, he remained silent on the Jewish and even Israeli connection, blaming only the CIA, MI6 and the U.S. and British governments. In this, he was joined by libertarian figures like Andrew Napolitano and Lew Rockwell, who focus on American “Primacists” rather than identifying a dominant minority.
Traditionally, both leftists and libertarians have avoided identifying the Jewish dominant minority to avoid being labeled as antisemitic. It was only during the recent genocide in Gaza that Ritter began to explicitly critique Israel’s geopolitical role, though he has yet to identify the dominant minority or even connect these dots to the broader global landscape.
Silent Peace Activists
Some suggest that platform policies, such as those on YouTube, drive this reticence. Peace activists like Andrew Napolitano, Alexander Mercouris, and Danny Haiphong reach hundreds of thousands of viewers daily through their Youtube channels. Openly discussing Jewish dominant minority and connecting Jewish geopolitical dots could lead to deplatforming and lost revenue. However, this doesn’t fully explain the silence, as they could simultaneously use alternative platforms like Rumble, X or Locals—a strategy successfully employed by the famous anti-Zionist, Candace Owens. Unsurprisingly she has been branded an “anti-Semite” by many Jewish organizations.
Alexander Mercouris
Another explanation is ideological. Many activists from leftist or libertarian backgrounds may instinctively view the concept of a “dominant minority” as inherently racist. The most dramatic example of this is the leftist peace activist and popular YouTube commentator Alexander Mercouris, who for years was oblivious to the Jewish connection. However, a few months ago, due to audience feedback, he admitted on his channel that he had never even thought about a possible connection between the Ukraine War and the Middle East Crises.
Afterward, he has not talked about the subject anymore, though he does seem to increasingly speak in code. For example, he repeatedly emphasizes that his channel will be shut down if he analyzes the Epstein case too deeply. At the same time, he seems to spell “Epstein” in the Jewish-German way, making Epstein’s ethnic background clearer. Mercouris also has the revealing habit of always following the arch-neocon warmonger Lindsey Graham’s name with the name Richard Blumenthal, possibly hinting that Graham is influenced by him and other Jews to a significant extent.
The third explanation for not openly noticing the dominant minority is that many prominent peace activists hope to attract the support of wealthy, anti-Zionist Jewish donors to finance the movement, a development that has yet to materialize.
Debanking
Certainly, the fourth and most important explanation is fear. Leading peace activists face tremendous pressure from various sides. Ironically, this pressure appears stronger in America than in Europe, despite stricter official censorship in Europe. However, Europeans benefit from strong employment and social security protections against firings and debanking. In America, people’s lives are more precarious and heavily dependent on high incomes, making it easier to intimidate them with threats to their reputation, job, income, or even bank accounts. The American media rarely discusses this, but hundreds of politically incorrect individuals have been debanked—not only in Canada but also in the U.S. Scott Ritter has now joined their ranks.
In the above video Scott Ritter recalls his days as a highly connected American intelligence operative, working closely with the CIA, Israelis, and even the White House. He emphasizes that he was once the “Golden Boy” of intelligence, privy to “everything.” Clearly, he must be aware of America’s dominant minority and their potential to ignite a nuclear war. Yet, despite recent escalations in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, Ritter in this video claims that the main problem is America itself, with Trump as a “prisoner of the CIA”—not the Mossad, Israel, or even the Zionists.
The next day, however, Ritter appeared in an interview with Andrew Napolitano. He admitted that after being debanked, he fell into depression and briefly felt hopeless, especially as his wife had grown weary of the persecution that had affected their entire family for decades. At that point, Napolitano played a clip of Jonathan Greenblatt, the Jewish ADL’s chairman, boasting about the organization’s role in training American police and officials. This ignited Ritter, who then openly declared that Zionists are running the American government.
Trump’s chess moves
At the same time, Ritter suggested there might still be hope. He noted that many parts of the government resent Zionist dominance, and even Donald Trump could be among them. That wouldn’t be surprising, given Trump’s ego—he can’t be pleased with how Netanyahu and many other Jews publicly humiliate him. Being Israel’s bitch cannot be fun.
It could even be that Trump is deliberately undermining American influence abroad through his erratic behavior, bullying threats, and tariffs. After all, U.S. foreign policy is thoroughly dominated by Zionists, so disrupting the entire system might be the only way to halt it. For instance, threatening to annex Greenland would certainly fracture or weaken NATO, making it harder for EU NATO countries to sustain their warmongering. Perhaps Trump truly seeks peace through a “Fortress America” approach, dividing the world among American, Russian and Chinese spheres of influence. Maybe he’s really playing four-dimensional chess, with method to his madness. Of course, the alternative is that he’s simply a madman. As Scott Ritter admits, he doesn’t know—and neither does anyone else. Probably not even Trump himself.
People worldwide are deeply divided over Donald Trump. Some view him as a mastermind playing four-dimensional chess to save the world, while others see him as a narcissistic bumbler who sows chaos wherever he goes. So, which perspective aligns more closely with the truth? We do not know but let’s first assume that Donald Trump is a rational player in do…
Conclusion
Many in the peace movement believe that concealing the Jewish dominant minority and obscuring its role in numerous wars is essential for peace. However, this strategy may backfire, giving that minority a free hand to escalate proxy conflicts and try again and again to push the world toward “limited” nuclear war.
People often demand perfection from their heroes, which is counterproductive. No one is a superman—not even Scott Ritter. Of course, he must consider his family. Of course, he has been reticent about exposing Jewish power. The same applies to all other peace activists. But gradually, things are changing on both the left and right. They are beginning to point out the man and group behind the curtain.
In any case, peace activists perform invaluable work and deserve unwavering support. After all, they do what they humanly can. Without them—especially Scott Ritter—a nuclear war might already have begun.
Latest US-backed regime change operation in Iran hits the wall
By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | January 17, 2026
Having bombed the country in 2025, “Israel” and the US seemed to think that provoking street violence would have more success at collapsing the Iranian state. Instead, it fizzled almost instantly.
We have been here at least half a dozen times in the past two decades. Street protests in Iran over an internal economic, social or political issue emerge, gather a degree of momentum in urban areas and the Western propaganda system declares that the protests have “shifted” from their initial focus, to calls for the repudiation of the Islamic Revolution and the end of the political system it created. European and American politicians issue their empty statements of solidarity with the Iranian people and unilaterally decide that the Islamic Republic has “lost its legitimacy,” that its fall is simply a matter of “when,” not “if.” We have seen this narrative played out often enough to recognize it never survives contact with the real world.
The source of the persistent delusion that the Islamic Republic is about to fall comes not only from the Euro-American elite class wishing it to be so, but also from its deferral to the “analysis” of segments of the diaspora whose own political objectives are detached from reality.
Whether it is protests over the government’s handling of the economy, energy blackouts, or the water crisis, most external observers are incapable of viewing each individual issue through any lens other than that of regime change.
This time around the US and Israelis, in coopting the protests to destabilize the country through street violence, have not even bothered to hide their involvement. It has also not helped the West’s case that it is now feigning “humanitarian concern” for the rights of Iranian citizens while it has spent more than two years facilitating the ongoing slaughter and starvation of Gaza’s population. Any observer following both issues can detect the dissonance and conclude what is motivating the frantic calls to escalate the situation into military intervention. That is, the desire to crush a state and society that has resisted Western dominance for more than four-and-a-half decades.
The brazenness of the West’s affected concern for the well-being of the Iranian public is particularly galling in light of the sanctions. If Iranians’ living standards were really of any concern to Washington, London or Brussels, they would start by unconditionally ending their economic strangulation in effect against the country. The truth is that the suffering and misery engendered by the sanctions is entirely the point. As well as stifling the development of an independent state outside the globalized-Western economy, the siege is specifically intended to make living conditions unbearable for the average Iranian so that they are incentivized to undermine the Islamic Republic. The continuation of the sanctions is a barely disguised punishment of the Iranian public for not pursuing the West’s geopolitical goal of regime-change for them.
Were it not glaringly obvious to the Trump administration before the latest unrest, it surely is now that the exiled political diaspora most actively pushing for the fall of the Islamic Republic through Western military action are entirely incapable of political organization. Even the least crazed fan of the defunct Pahlavi dynasty is pathologically hostile to the terrorist personality cult of the MEK, as much as they are to the Islamic Republic itself. There simply is no political alternative, to say nothing of whether it even has any domestic support, waiting to replace the Islamic Republic.
Flush from the “success” of his abducting Venezuelan president Maduro, Trump seemed temporarily convinced he might have a similar option here, to carry out a meaningless military stunt for which he can take credit and declare “victory.” His problem is that there is no level of open military action against Iran that would allow him to do this without igniting a regional war that destroys the global economy.
This realization, if he has come to it, would explain his backtracking on the red lines he set, that any executions would trigger US attacks. If a controlled, stage-managed performance is his goal, as it almost always is, then the confrontation with Iran leaves him with no viable option but to back down.
The absence of any realistic military option has now seen both the US and Europe revert to their standard tactic; the intensification of the sanctions they have used to punish the Iranian people. Trump’s latest declaration of a 25% tariff on any country trading with Iran is his way of giving himself an off-ramp, for now, from a crisis that is largely of his making.
“Real men go to Tehran” — The Zion-Con fantasy of regime change in Iran
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | January 16, 2026
“Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran.”
It is difficult to imagine a sentence that more perfectly distils the arrested adolescence of American neoconservatism. Equal parts locker-room bravado and imperial hallucination, the phrase belongs to the same intellectual ecosystem as Rambo sequels, Tom Clancy paperbacks, and the enduring belief that history naturally submits to men armed with air superiority and a television-ready talking point.
The slogan has circulated for decades among Washington’s most aggressively incurious minds. Iraq was merely the appetizer. Tehran was always the entrée — the Everest of regime change, the final boss in a video game played by men who have never once paid the price of defeat.
Iran is not different merely because of its size, its population, or its terrain — though the Zagros Mountains are far less forgiving than the streets of Fallujah. Iran is different because it has refused, stubbornly and at enormous cost, to internalise the post–Cold War catechism: accept American primacy, subcontract your sovereignty, and call the arrangement “integration into the international order.”
For the ‘Zion-Cons’ — Zionist neoconservatives — this refusal is not simply strategic defiance. It is psychological heresy.
The theology of regime change
Neoconservatism is not a foreign-policy framework. It is a belief system. Like all theologies, it comes equipped with sacred texts, sanctioned demons, and end-times fantasies. Iran occupies a unique place in this cosmology: simultaneously an ideological abomination and a geopolitical temptation too intoxicating to abandon.
The Islamic Republic represents everything neocon thought cannot tolerate — an independent regional power immune to Western legitimacy rituals, rooted in a civilizational memory more than a millennium older than Washington itself. That it is also openly hostile to Israel, and persistently aligned with Palestinian resistance, elevates Iran from problem to obsession.
This obsession is always framed as concern. Concern for democracy. Concern for women’s rights. Concern for regional stability. Yet the concern follows a suspiciously selective pattern. It spikes when Iranian women protest. It flattens when women in Gaza are buried beneath concrete and shrapnel. It demands sanctions in the name of “helping the Iranian people” while celebrating the annihilation of Iran’s middle class as a strategic achievement.
This is not hypocrisy. It is architecture.
Sanctions are not a failed alternative to regime change; they are its slow-motion variant. When bombing proves politically inconvenient, starvation becomes policy. When diplomacy threatens stabilisation, diplomacy must be sabotaged. Engagement is dangerous precisely because it works. The objective is not reform. The objective is obliteration.
Israel’s strategic mirage
For Israel’s security establishment, Iran is the final unresolved obstacle in a region otherwise disciplined into submission. Egypt neutralised. Syria pulverised. Iraq shattered and held together with duct tape. Lebanon perpetually destabilised. Only Iran remains intact and intolerably autonomous.
The idea that Israel’s posture toward Iran has ever been defensive borders on parody. The fear is not that Iran will strike tomorrow; it is that Iran will exist coherently ten years from now.
This explains the fixation on Iran’s air defences, its scientists, its infrastructure. The logic is brutally simple: a state that cannot defend itself cannot act independently. A state that cannot act independently can eventually be wrecked, partitioned, and remade.
But here the fantasy collides with reality. Iran is not Syria. It is not Libya. It is not Iraq circa 2003 — hollowed out by sanctions and ruled by a dictatorship so despised that collapse felt like relief. Iran, like all societies, contains fractures and rivalries. But fragmented societies do not automatically disintegrate. Quite often — especially under existential threat — they consolidate. External assault does not reliably dissolve states. Sometimes it forges them.
The opposition mirage
Every regime-change project requires a hero. In Iran’s case, while ritualistic nods are made toward protesters with genuine grievances, the starring role is awkwardly reserved for an exile aristocracy whose Twitter/X followings vastly exceed their domestic relevance.
Reza Pahlavi is marketed like a Silicon Valley prototype: sleek, Western-approved, and permanently “almost ready.” His appeal thrives in think tanks, donor salons, and Israeli conference halls. Inside Iran, his name provokes neither mass devotion nor visceral hatred — just indifference at best, uncontrollable laughter at worst.
This is the core contradiction of Washington’s Iran policy: regime change without revolution; installation without legitimacy; democracy without the inconvenience of mass politics.
The resulting strategy is perversely elegant in its cynicism — wait for collapse while ensuring no alternative survives long enough to govern.
Civil war option
What follows regime collapse? Zion-Con discourse treats the question like a software update users will sort out later. Something, it is assumed, will emerge. Something manageable. Something vaguely liberal.
History offers no such reassurance
Iran’s disintegration would not yield a liberal republic — and it is not meant to. It would yield precisely what Zion-Cons privately welcome: centrifugal violence, ethnic fragmentation, militia economies, refugee flows that would make Syria look like a rehearsal dinner. Kurdish separatism. Baloch insurgency. Nuclear insecurity. The scenario reads less like a transition plan than a controlled demolition spiralling out of control.
For Washington and Tel Aviv, this is not a deterrent. It is an acceptable – perhaps even desirable – outcome. A broken Iran is preferable to a strong one, even if the shards cut indiscriminately.
The masculinity problem
“Real men go to Tehran” is not merely rhetoric. It is theatre. It reflects a masculinity crisis at the heart of American empire — a compulsion to prove relevance through violence because legitimacy has evaporated.
Short wars. Clean optics. Cinematic strikes. The problem with Iran is that it refuses to follow the script. There is no “Mission Accomplished” banner waiting in the Persian Gulf. There is only attrition, retaliation, and the dawning realisation that power is not a substitute for strategy.
The endgame nobody admits
The scarcely concealed truth is that regime change in Iran is not primarily about Iran. It is about preserving Zionist hegemony in the region. An Iran that survives sanctions, absorbs pressure, and refuses submission is contagious. It teaches others that defiance is survivable.
That lesson is intolerable
So, the fantasy endures. The slogans recycle. The men who went to Baghdad insist they are wiser now — just before deliberately repeating the same catastrophe, only on a grander scale.
But Tehran is not a sequel. It is a reckoning. And this time, the audience will not be so forgiving.
Featured Video
A New World Emerges: Iran Will Win & Israel May Not Survive
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Iran war would devastate US economy: Brzezinski
Press TV – July 20, 2012
Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has warned that a US military confrontation with Iran could be devastating for the American economy.
“A war in the Middle East, in the present context, may last for years,” Brzezinski said in an interview with Newsmax.TV published on Wednesday.
“And the economic consequences of it (the war) are going to be devastating for the average American; High inflation, instability, insecurity,” he added.
He warned the US administration not to rush into a war with Iran and said, the consequences of yet another military strike in the Middle East “will be certainly very costly for the United States.”… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran no longer has any reason for restraint
- US ‘stonewalls’ Gulf calls for more interceptors as supplies quickly run out: Report
- US running out of stand-off munitions, copies Iranian drones to compensate
- How Close Were Iran Negotiations Before Trump Flipped the Table?
- War on Iran shifts to attrition phase: Bloomberg
- Attrition Advantage: Why Iran Holds Upper Hand
- EU gas prices surge 50% right as Germany and France face down lack of energy reserves after cold winter
- Israel launches Bible study program targeting US evangelicals
- UK Government Secretly Tracked 25 Million People as Potential EV Owners
- Moscow warns of worrying NATO buildup in Arctic
- If Americans Knew
- Trump admin promises Iran war will be short…or not – Not a ceasefire Day 142
- Tucker Carlson: A New Middle East War for Israel Started by the U.S.
- Israel launches Bible study program targeting US evangelicals
- Israel’s lonely push for war with Iran
- WATCH: How Israel is controlling the world – in their own words
- Trump Starts a Major Regime-Change War with Iran, Serving Neoconservatism and Israel
- US–Israel illegal aggression in Iran is an abomination
- Meet Bari Weiss’s Israel Flag-Waving News Correspondent
- Oman’s Foreign Minister Said US-Iran Deal Was ‘Within Our Reach.’ Then Trump Started Bombing
- US-Israeli war on Iran rages, as 2 Gaza babies die of starvation – Not a ceasefire Day 142
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Internal Noise’ And Volcanic Forcing Can Trigger 10-15°C Warming Within Decades
- Glaciers Worldwide Are Suddendly Surging, Experts Blame Warming!
- Surprising Discovery: Sahara Is Greening…Billions Of Trees Where Once Thought To Be Barren
- New Research Reaffirms Clouds, Aerosols, And Surface Solar Radiation Are ‘Driving The Climate System’
- Germany: Electric Car Catches Fire At Charging Station, Sets Off Local “Inferno”, Widespread Damage
- New Study: Canada’s New Brunswick Was 1°C Warmer Than Today During The Medieval Warm Period
- Coal Power Back In Trend As Globe Tries To Keep Pace With Growing Demand For Power
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
Aletho News 