Col Doug Macgregor: All Out War w/Iran Getting Unavoidable
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 7, 2026
Former US negotiator: America faces major ‘strategic defeat’ as Iran tightens control over Hormuz
Press TV – August 7, 2026
Former US negotiator Aaron David Miller has acknowledged that the United States is “on the verge of suffering a really significant strategic defeat” if it is forced to accept Iran’s growing leverage and control over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes.
Speaking in an interview with Australia’s ABC network, Miller warned that emerging arrangements could compel Washington to give Iran the ability to control who and what passes through the waterway. Such an outcome, he emphasized, would constitute a major setback not only for the United States but also for its allied Arab states in the Persian Gulf.
Miller made the remarks while discussing reported negotiations between Iran and Oman on mechanisms to guarantee the safe passage of vessels through the Strait. Although he cautioned that it is still too early to declare a final deal, he made clear that any arrangement strengthening Tehran’s hand would represent a profound strategic loss for Washington.
“The (Persian) Gulf states need to decide whether or not they can acquiesce or even support such an accord. And then, once a text is made public, the administration is going to have to weigh in to see whether or not they’re able to accept. But, again, my confidence level here is not entirely as high these days,” he said.
Miller further observed that while the Persian Gulf states as a group hold limited influence over Trump, Saudi Arabia and the UAE wield considerable leverage thanks to the extensive business interests of the Trump family in the region.
He pointed out that the Trump administration, members of the president’s family, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, as well as Steve Witkoff and others have already benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars in investments linked to projects in the Persian Gulf, he added.
“Affinity Partners, which is Jared Kushner’s $2 billion hedge fund, was bankrolled by Mohammed bin Salman, the future king of Saudi Arabia,” Miller noted.
Miller warned that any US strike on Iran’s energy infrastructure would provoke a severe Iranian response with far-reaching consequences for global energy markets.
The full extent of the damage Iran could inflict on Persian Gulf oil facilities has not yet been seen, he said, and such an escalation could “drive oil prices well north of anything we’ve seen.”
The Telegraph: ‘US and Israel Have Lost, Iran Has Won’ in Historic Strategic Reversal
Al-Manar | August 7, 2026
A leading British broadsheet has declared that the United States and ‘Israel’ have effectively lost their strategic confrontation with the Islamic Republic, asserting that Tehran has emerged from the prolonged standoff with its regional influence not merely intact, but substantially fortified.
In a pointed analysis, The Telegraph argues that the maximum-pressure campaign championed by former President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to either topple or incapacitate Iran’s regime is concluding in a clear reversal of fortunes. The newspaper points to a prospective Omani-brokered arrangement concerning the strategic Strait of Hormuz as tangible evidence that Tehran has outlasted the offensive and consolidated its geopolitical foothold.
More critically, the publication frames this moment as a potential historical inflection point, signaling an accelerating decline in U.S. global supremacy. “Peace agreements ultimately reflect the results of battles on the ground,” the paper observed, adding that Washington’s efforts to reshape those battlefield realities have demonstrably fallen short. In a stark concluding assessment, The Telegraph suggested that the protracted confrontation with Iran may one day be recorded among history’s most profound strategic miscalculations.
Echoing that somber prognosis, the Financial Times has cautioned that a renewed escalation under Trump does not portend a decisive U.S. victory. Instead, the newspaper warns that intensifying hostilities are likely to cast a long shadow over his second term, imposing heavy economic, political, and diplomatic costs on an administration already navigating treacherous waters.
With high-stakes midterm congressional elections looming in the autumn, the FT suggests the White House faces a precarious balancing act one where the perceived geopolitical dividends of confrontation are becoming increasingly overshadowed by domestic blowback and deepening international isolation.
Taken together, the dual assessments from both publications paint a portrait of a conflict whose outcomes, far from securing American interests, may instead accelerate a structural shift in global power dynamics a transition for which Washington appears ill-prepared to counter.
British trade union leaders urge PM to stop UK support for illegal US-Israeli war on Iran
Press TV – August 7, 2026
British trade union leaders have urged UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham to stop rendering support to the United States and Israel in their illegal war on Iran, demanding he reverse his decision to allow the use of UK bases for aggression against Iran.
In an open letter to the PM run by the media on Friday, leaders of ten British trade unions, representing more than 2.3 million workers, urged Burnham to stop rendering support to the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran, and instead focus on the nation’s cost of living crisis.
“[T]he US and Israel’s devastating, illegal war on Iran is deepening the cost of living crisis faced by our members and the British public,” the open letter to Burnham stated, pointing out in continuation that the disruption caused by the war is worsening the cost of living crisis in the UK.
“Disruption to the world’s food and energy supplies is hurting communities here in Britain and having a catastrophic impact in the global south,” it said.
British trade union leaders said they were encouraged by the new Labour government’s focus on the cost of living crisis, but voiced deep concern over any authorization granted to the US to use its bases against Iran.
“We are encouraged by the new government’s focus on the cost of living and the measures it is taking to make life more affordable. However, we are deeply concerned that the same government has authorized US air strikes to be conducted from bases on British territories as part of the war against Iran,” the representative of the large group of British laborers said in the letter to the UK Labour Party prime minister.
They called on Burnham to put pressure on US President Donald Trump to bring the US-Israeli war on Iran to a quick end.
Burnham, right after he took office last month, allowed the use of RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and the Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia to assist the US in the illegal war of aggression against Iran.
On July 21, Burnham approved the continued use of British military bases by the United States for military aggression against Iran, maintaining a policy established under his predecessor, Keir Starmer.
Burnham’s approval of ongoing contribution to American aggression against the Islamic Republic came after another hostile decision by the British government to designate the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) under Britain’s so-called “State Threats legislation.”
Late last month, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned the UK against contributing support to the aggressors waging war against the Islamic Republic.
Iran’s top diplomat issued the warning in a direct telephone call to his British counterpart Ed Miliband on July 31.
Mossad shakes up top ranks after failed Iran regime-change scheme
Al Mayadeen | August 6, 2026
The head of the Mossad dismissed two senior officials from the agency, the head of its Intelligence Directorate and the head of its Iran Division, following the failure of an operational plan designed to facilitate regime change in Iran, Israeli Channel 12 reported.
According to the channel, the Mossad chief’s decision was based on the assessment that the officials who formulated the operational concept and oversaw its development should be held accountable for its failure. The two dismissed officials were reportedly directly involved in the intelligence planning, development, and operationalization of the strategy, which was presented to US President Donald Trump.
The channel added that the plan hinged on establishing cooperation with groups from ethnic minority communities inside Iran to generate conditions for regime change and facilitate the installation of a new Iranian leadership. However, the operation was never translated into action on the ground.
The channel quoted security sources as saying that relations between the Mossad chief and the dismissed officials had been strained from the outset and that their departures were agreed upon.
Nevertheless, the timing of the dismissals was not coincidental, the sources said, given that the two officials had played leading roles in developing the operational plan that ultimately failed, according to the Israeli account.
The US-Israeli aggression on Iran was reportedly built in part around a Mossad assessment that Israeli strikes, assassinations and armed riots would trigger a “popular uprising and ultimately topple the Iranian government.”
However, months into the war, the anticipated regime change has failed to materialize, while US and Israeli intelligence assessments indicate that Iran’s government remains intact.
The plan reportedly faced skepticism from US military commanders and Israeli intelligence officials even before the aggression began. A parallel strategy involving Kurdish armed groups also faltered after opposition from the US, Turkey, Iraq and Kurdish leaders, raising questions over the assumptions underpinning the campaign.
Iran, Oman Strait of Hormuz Deal Will Ban US and Israeli Ships
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | August 6, 2026
Iranian state media reports that a deal with Oman to regulate traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is nearly completed.
Fars News reported that details of the deal include, “Vessels belonging to the United States, the Zionist regime, and other hostile countries will be prohibited from passing through the Strait of Hormuz.”
“Cargo related to the Zionist regime, both military and civilian, will not be allowed to pass through this area.” The Fars report continues, “Vessels or cargoes that are involved in actions against the Resistance Front will also be subject to the ban.”
It adds that other countries that have taken part in the war against Iran will be banned from using the Strait until reparations are paid.
After the US and Israel started an aggressive war against Iran in February, the IRGC seized control over the Strait of Hormuz. Washington has demanded Tehran return the critical waterway to its prewar status. However, Iranian officials say Tehran will retain control over the Strait after the war is settled.
Iran says the current negotiations with Oman do not include the US. Tehran and Muscat plan to split the revenue from the service fees generated from the Strait.
Prof John Mearsheimer: Drones Can’t Deliver Ukraine Victory
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 6, 2026
US Overestimates Capacity to Wage War on Iran While Supporting Ukraine
Sputnik – 06.08.2026
Ukraine believed it could outsmart Russia by placing its most advanced drone facilities under the protection of Patriot air defenses around the capital, military historian Yury Knutov tells Sputnik, adding that the calculation proved wrong — American interceptor missiles ran dry.
“Germany, Norway, the Baltic states, and the Gulf monarchies that purchased Patriot systems are now confronted with the fact that the American shield has holes in it – and can no longer be fully relied upon,” says the pundit.
Reports say the Trump administration discovered its interceptor stockpiles had been drastically depleted, forcing it to scale back plans for large-scale strikes on Iran and deny Ukraine’s request for additional Patriot missiles. The Iran war was identified as a key driver of the shortages.
“For the next 3-5 years, the US will be forced to operate under strict constraints, unable to simultaneously protect all of its assets in the Middle East and continue supporting Ukraine,” Knutov says, commenting on reports that US missile stockpiles may not recover until 2029-2031.
The US may also scale back protection of its allies, the pundit suggests:
- Ukraine is only the first warning sign – other allies could be next to face reduced US air-defense support
- Many Iranian missiles aimed at the Gulf now go unchallenged as US troops conserves scarce interceptors for defending their own bases in the region
- A number of US units not directly involved in air operations or air defense have been withdrawn from the Middle East
The Imbalance in the Iran War is Critical
“Even if the US multiplies production several times over, it will never match Iran in terms of cost or production speed,” Knutov says. “Iran can manufacture missiles and drones at a fraction of the cost, while its facilities are dispersed and protected.”
A war of attrition against Iran would be a losing strategy for the US from the outset, the expert concludes.
60-DAY HORMUZ ARRANGEMENT CONFIRMED BY TEHRAN & OMAN — w/ Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi
Mario Nawfal | August 5, 2026
Bulgaria’s Bezmer Base and the Logic of American Power Projection
By Adrian Korczyński – New Eastern Outlook – August 3, 2026
On July 22, 2026, the Bulgarian parliament voted to authorize the deployment of up to eight U.S. Air Force KC-135 tanker aircraft and 250 U.S. military personnel at Bezmer Air Base.
The vote was 136 in favor, 13 against, with two abstentions. The deployment is scheduled from July 24 to October 1, 2026. On paper, the government insists this is merely “logistical support.”
A Diplomatic Warning from Tehran
Before the vote, Iran’s Foreign Ministry warned that allowing the deployment would make Bulgaria “an accomplice of aggressors.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explicitly stated that any action facilitating U.S. military operations against Iran would make Sofia complicit in “aggression and war crimes.”
The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry responded that it was not “undertaking any hostile actions against Iran” and that “it is out of the question for any military operations in the Middle East to be conducted from Bulgarian territory.” The contrast between the official explanation and the operational role of the deployment is difficult to ignore.
Bezmer in the US Logistics Network
Bezmer Air Base, located in southeastern Bulgaria near the town of Yambol, is one of several joint-use facilities established under the 2006 U.S.-Bulgaria Defense Cooperation Agreement. The agreement allows U.S. forces to use three Bulgarian bases — Bezmer, Graf Ignatievo, and Novo Selo — for training and logistical purposes. Bezmer’s appeal is straightforward: it is close to the Black Sea, has a runway capable of handling large aircraft, and is situated in a country that is a full NATO member.
What makes Bezmer particularly useful is its position within the broader American logistics network. U.S. tanker aircraft operating from Bezmer can refuel fighter jets and bombers over the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Red Sea without returning to bases in Germany, Italy, or Greece. This reduces transit time and allows for sustained operations over a longer period. Bezmer functions as a forward refueling node in a system that stretches from Ramstein in Germany to Souda Bay in Crete to Kogălniceanu in Romania.
The base is not being used for combat operations, but it is enabling them. There is a difference between pulling the trigger and supplying the fuel, but that difference matters less to the pilots being refueled—or to the Iranians being targeted. The Bulgarian government argues that it is merely fulfilling its treaty obligations to its ally. Prime Minister Rumen Radev, often described as more skeptical of Western military adventurism, insisted the tankers would be used “exclusively for logistical and in-flight refuelling missions outside Bulgarian airspace.” The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry echoed this position, stating that no military operations would be conducted from Bulgarian territory.
Spain vs. Bulgaria
The contrast with Spain is instructive. In March 2026, Spain explicitly refused to allow its bases to be used for the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares stated that Spanish bases would not be used for operations “inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.” The Spanish government argued that using its territory for offensive operations against Iran would violate its constitutional obligations and its own foreign policy principles. Madrid made a sovereign choice to refuse Washington’s request.
Unlike Spain, Bulgaria ultimately chose to facilitate the deployment, reflecting its broader security dependence on NATO structures. It did not publicly question the legality of the operation, nor did it challenge the broader strategic rationale behind the request. The Bulgarian authorities chose to accommodate the request rather than contest it.
Several factors may explain this difference. Spain has traditionally pursued a more cautious approach towards military involvement in the Middle East, while Bulgaria places greater emphasis on demonstrating reliability within NATO. Different strategic cultures and security priorities appear to have shaped their respective decisions. Bulgaria, by contrast, is a smaller country more dependent on NATO guarantees for its security. It is also a country that has long sought to demonstrate its value as an ally, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine. For Bulgaria, saying no to Washington is not a luxury it believes it can afford.
There is also a domestic political dimension. The decision was approved by a parliament where the government holds a comfortable majority. Local opposition was minimal. Some Bulgarian officials have argued that refusing the request would have damaged Bulgaria’s standing in NATO. A Bulgarian official’s comment encapsulates the logic of alliance dependency: “We cannot want to be in NATO and then refuse to give anything in return.”
Local Concerns
The decision was not universally welcomed. Burnt-out trees from a fire at the Bulgarian military training ground in Koren were still smouldering during the parliamentary debate. Bezmer’s mayor voiced concerns about the region becoming a potential target. Local communities near Bezmer are not convinced by the official narrative.
The concerns are not entirely theoretical. Iran has already shown its willingness to retaliate against countries it perceives as hostile. In the past, Iranian-backed groups have targeted American bases in Iraq and Syria, and Iranian cyber operations have hit European infrastructure. Bulgarians living near Bezmer now have reason to wonder whether their town might become a target in a future escalation.
Alliance Politics in Practice
The Bulgarian parliament’s decision illustrates a broader reality of the transatlantic relationship. European countries are not always eager participants, but they are deeply integrated into the logistics of U.S. military power. These are not signs of European unity—they are signs of fragmentation within a structure that still depends on the United States for security.
The deeper question is whether this arrangement is sustainable. Bulgaria has made a strategic choice to deepen its military integration with the United States. That choice has immediate operational consequences—a tanker base that enables strikes on Iran—and long-term implications for Bulgarian sovereignty. It may also have security consequences if Iran chooses to respond. The Bulgarian parliament’s decision follows a pattern: Europe increasingly functions as a platform for U.S. power projection.
The deployment at Bezmer therefore reflects a broader reality of contemporary alliance politics: even when European governments avoid direct participation in military operations, they increasingly provide the logistical infrastructure that makes those operations possible. As military logistics become increasingly central to modern warfare, the distinction between participation and support may prove more political than operational.
Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research
The paradox of Brazilian defense: a comparative study with Iran
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 3, 2026
For decades, the debate over national defense in Brazil has been treated as a secondary issue. In a country with no significant border disputes and far removed from the world’s principal conflict zones, the prevailing perception has been that substantial military investments are unnecessary. The result of this mindset is an increasingly evident paradox: Brazil ranks among the countries with the largest military budgets in the world in absolute terms, yet it continues to display significant limitations in operational capabilities, strategic production, and deterrence.
Recently, I had access to a study prepared by Brazilian Navy Commander Robinson Farinazzo, based on data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which highlights a striking reality. Between 2015 and 2024, Brazil accumulated approximately US$214 billion in military expenditures, while Iran spent roughly US$134 billion during the same period. In other words, Brazil invested about 60 percent more resources in defense than Iran over the past decade.
However, a simple comparison of spending figures reveals very little about the actual military capabilities of each country. Brazil allocates the overwhelming majority of its defense budget to maintaining its existing structure. Salaries, pensions, and administrative expenses consume most of the available resources, leaving relatively little room for research and development, procurement, weapons acquisition, and technological modernization. This model preserves a large and professional military force, but significantly limits the pace at which its operational capabilities can be renewed.
Iran, by contrast, has followed a fundamentally different approach. Despite decades of economic sanctions, financial isolation, and severe restrictions on importing military equipment, Tehran invested heavily in building a comprehensive domestic defense industrial base. Unable to rely on foreign suppliers, the country directed its resources toward the development of ballistic missiles, drones, air defense systems, and local weapons production. Ironically, the sanctions intended to undermine Iran’s strategic autonomy ended up encouraging a high degree of self-sufficiency across multiple sectors of its defense industry.
This divergence in priorities has become particularly relevant in today’s international environment. In an era characterized by growing competition among major powers, the ability to manufacture weapons domestically, sustain national industrial supply chains, and rapidly adapt military technologies has become just as important as the nominal size of a country’s defense budget. In this respect, Iran’s experience demonstrates that the efficiency with which resources are allocated can be as decisive as the total amount spent.
The contrast with Brazil is unavoidable. The country possesses a respectable defense industrial base responsible for projects such as the KC-390 military transport aircraft, the ASTROS rocket artillery system, the Guarani armored vehicle, and the PROSUB submarine program. Nevertheless, these achievements coexist with decades of inconsistent investment, recurring budget cuts, and the absence of a long-term state policy aimed at continuously strengthening Brazil’s defense industrial and technological capabilities.
Even more concerning is the fact that Brazil operates in a geopolitical environment that is incomparably less hostile than the one confronting Iran. While Tehran has spent decades under international sanctions, surrounded by regional adversaries and subjected to sustained external pressure, Brasília benefits from regional stability, abundant natural resources, and relatively broad access to international markets. Yet Brazil has failed to transform these favorable conditions into a coherent strategy for strengthening its deterrent capabilities.
The principal lesson from this comparison is not that Brazil should replicate the Iranian model, nor should it overlook the profound political, economic, and strategic differences between the two countries. The conclusion is far simpler: financial resources alone do not guarantee military power. Without long-term planning, sustained investment, a strengthened domestic defense industry, and priority given to research and technological innovation, even substantial defense budgets produce limited strategic results.
The world is entering a period of growing geopolitical instability. In this context, Brazil’s real challenge is not simply determining how much to spend on defense, but defining which capabilities it intends to develop over the coming decades. Otherwise, it will continue spending billions merely to sustain an existing structure that, while important, fails to meet the strategic requirements of a continental-sized nation with increasingly significant interests on the international stage.
Featured Video
Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Pakistan Sign Defence Pact
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
What Is Peanut Allergy?
An Essay on the Injection That Created the Epidemic
Lies are Unbekoming | August 8, 2026
… In 1988, Japanese pediatricians began seeing something new. Children who had received the recently reformulated DTaP vaccine at three months of age were arriving at emergency rooms with anaphylaxis after eating yogurt or Jell-O. Others were reacting at their MMR shot months later. The reactions had not existed at that scale before. The pediatricians investigated. They identified the cause.
The aluminum adjuvant in the new acellular DTaP had sensitized the children to the trace gelatin proteins in the vaccine. Weeks or months later, the MMR (which also contained gelatin) delivered the second dose. The second injection provoked anaphylaxis in a subset of children. Some then reacted to gelatin in food.
The Japanese doctors wrote it down. They published. They removed gelatin from DTaP. New cases of gelatin allergy in Japanese children dropped.
The paper is on file. The cause is named. The solution worked. No Western regulator has applied the same investigation to peanut allergy, though peanut anaphylaxis emerged in Western children during the same window, at the same ages, following the same category of injection schedule change.
The Mayo Clinic’s public description of peanut allergy states that it occurs when the immune system “mistakenly identifies peanut proteins as something harmful.” FARE, the establishment’s own advocacy organization, documents that peanut allergy in US children more than tripled between 1997 and 2008. Neither statement explains why the mistake began, at scale, in a specific decade, in a specific set of countries.
The mistake framing is the tell. A mechanism that “mistakes” a food protein for a threat cannot explain why the mistake was rare in 1980 and epidemic by 1995. The body’s design did not change in fifteen years. What changed was what was injected into infants: what compounds, at what ages, in what combinations.
The Japanese case is the counterfactual. The cause was found and the epidemic was ended. What separates the Japanese gelatin admission from the Western peanut silence is not the science. The science has been in the record since 1913. What separates them is the willingness to name what was done. … Read full essay
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Pakistan Sign Defence Pact
- China to launch regular shipping to Europe via Russia’s Northern Sea Route – Rosatom
- When the coloniser calls resistance terrorism
- Bipartisan Senate bill ties LAF funding to Hezbollah disarmament
- Turkiye restricts Black Sea traffic as drone attacks on commercial vessels spike
- Inside Israel’s pyramid of spies
- Let them eat burritos: Out of touch influencers risk all for Trump war
- Musk blocks Ukraine from using Starlink for deep strikes in Russia – Atlantic
- Col Doug Macgregor: All Out War w/Iran Getting Unavoidable
- Former US negotiator: America faces major ‘strategic defeat’ as Iran tightens control over Hormuz
- If Americans Knew
- Gaza: UNICEF reports a small, “highly fragile” uptick in aid supplies – Daily Update
- Tucker Carlson unveils 10-point manifesto amid third-party speculation
- Unicef: At least 300 children reportedly killed in Gaza in past 300 days
- The Briton who helped 6,000 Jews move to Israel
- Sewage, trash, rodent catastrophe in Gaza
- Trump Undercuts His Own Peace Plan while Israel Ramps Up Killing in Gaza
- Israel’s detention of children in West Bank rises sharply – Daily Update
- Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power
- Lebanon: Israel’s Killing of Journalist an Apparent War Crime
- New party emerging on opposition to U.S. wars, AIPAC, and corporate money
- No Tricks Zone
- Uncertainty In Estimating Solar Forcing Across The Arctic Is 100-350x Larger Than CO2’s Alleged Climate Impact
- Farce Of The Week: Germany’s Weather Site Donnerwetter.de Attempts To Measure The Rhine River’s Temperature!
- Analysis: Robert Koch Institute’s Heat Death Model Is “A Joke”… Deaths “Assumed” To Be Due To Heat
- New Research Finds Increasing CO2 Induces Cooling In The Lower Atmosphere Over The Arctic
- Germany’s Industrial Suicide… Grid Agency Prepares Secret Power Rationing Plans Amid Electric Power Bottlenecks
- ECMWF Models Throwing Cold Water On Extreme Germany Heat Wave Forecast Next Week
- Greenland’s Ice Sheet Was Supposed To Be Rapidly Melting Away. It Hasn’t Been.
- Global Temperature Trend Has Cooled Over The Past 6500 Years, Scientists Have Found
- Wind Energy Means Going Back To The Middle Ages, Says German Professor Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
- New Study: A 40-Fold Increase In Earth’s Main Greenhouse Gas Contributes To Cooling The Ocean
Aletho News 