The US military’s accelerated withdrawal from its base in Erbil, officially described as a scheduled redeployment, comes after Iranian precision strikes destroyed air-defense apparatus, including Patriot air-defense systems stationed there, a development supported by satellite imagery that has received limited attention in much of Western media coverage.
The hasty and unplanned withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq’s Kurdistan region has taken place amid a series of Iranian retaliatory strikes that have reshaped the security environment and military calculations in Iraq and across the region.
Media reports indicate that US military convoys have been moving from Erbil toward neighboring countries in recent days, with a significant portion of American troops and heavy equipment already withdrawn from the military compound near Erbil International Airport.
The official explanation, promoted by regional officials and reflected in Western reporting, presents the move as a routine redeployment consistent with Washington’s obligation to remove all US forces from Iraq by the September 30 deadline agreed upon with Baghdad.
However, this account does not address a key factor behind the reported withdrawal: the large-scale destruction of Patriot air-defense systems that had served as a central element of US force protection in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Satellite imagery dated July 16 and July 24 provide clinching evidence that Iranian drone and missile strikes targeted and destroyed Patriot launchers at Erbil International Airport. Despite this, the imagery has received limited coverage in mainstream Western media.
The removal of these systems reflects not merely a planned redeployment but an acknowledgment that the air-defense assets had become increasingly vulnerable in the face of Iran’s precision-strike capabilities.
Evidence of Patriot system destruction
Satellite imagery captured on July 16 and analyzed by independent observers shows a US Army Patriot air-defense launcher at Erbil International Airport destroyed following an Iranian drone strike in response to the US military aggression against southern Iran.
The imagery shows significant damage to a Patriot PAC-3 system, with smoke visible at the reported impact site, rendering it completely dysfunctional.
The strike was attributed to Shahed-136 one-way attack drones launched by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force – loitering munitions that have demonstrated the cutting-edge ability to challenge advanced and multi-layered air-defense networks.
A second strike on July 24 followed, with additional satellite imagery indicating the destruction of another component of the same Patriot air-defense battery.
A fire reported at Erbil International Airport was linked to damage involving one or more Patriot launchers. Images from the aftermath have been described by military analysts and OSINT researchers as evidence of a precision strike that damaged one of Washington’s most advanced defensive systems and highlighted the challenges posed by Iranian drone capabilities.
The IRGC Aerospace Force announced the destruction of a Patriot air-defense system at Erbil as part of the 27th wave of Operation Nasr-2, carried out under the code phrase “Ya Aba Saleh al-Mahdi, Adrikni.”
In its statement, the IRGC said the operation involved a “surprise” strike that also destroyed a US surveillance balloon and targeted facilities used to accommodate American military personnel.
Declining effectiveness of American air defenses
The devastating strikes against Patriot systems in Erbil exposed vulnerabilities that have been a growing concern for American military planners throughout the war of aggression against Iran.
The Patriot batteries, which have an operational range of between 100 and 160 kilometers, were originally deployed to protect American occupation forces but had become targets themselves.
While US interceptors succeeded in preventing some attacks on the Erbil compound, other attacks proved sufficient to disable the most advanced air-defense systems in the American inventory.
The near-total destruction of Patriot launchers in Erbil was part of a broader pattern of Iranian military successes against American air-defense infrastructure across the region, which prompted war hawks in Washington to look for alternatives and forced Trump to end the bombing campaign.
A study documented the diminishing resources available to American forces, revealing that 55 percent of the Patriot stockpile had been depleted by April, with a further 10 percent reduction following the collapse of the US-Iranian ceasefire in recent months.
The Foreign Policy Research Institute estimated that the United States produces around 600 Patriot interceptors annually, noting that existing stockpiles had already been strained by transfers to Ukraine prior to the escalation of unprovoked hostilities against Iran.
The Iranian success against Patriot systems reflects the inherent asymmetry in modern drone warfare, where expensive air-defense interceptors are depleted by relatively low-cost loitering munitions.
The Shahed-136 drones used in the Erbil strikes are estimated to be thousands of dollars each, while each Patriot interceptor costs millions, making it extremely costly for the aggressor.
This economic imbalance, combined with the demonstrated vulnerability of high-end air-defense systems to drone saturation tactics, has created a fundamental challenge for American force protection that cannot be resolved through redeployment alone.
Accelerated withdrawal: facts on the ground
The destruction of Patriot systems at Erbil appears to have been the catalyst for the accelerated withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi Kurdistan, according to military sources.
The US military began drawing down its last remaining forces stationed near Erbil International Airport, with the pullout starting in the final week of July and continuing at the time of filing this report.
The bulk of US troops and heavy equipment have already been removed from the compound, according to the Al-Monitor website, which claims that all Patriot anti-missile batteries have been redeployed to an undisclosed destination.
However, sources told the Press TV website that the Patriot anti-missile batteries don’t exist anymore at the highly fortified base, which was the main trigger for the hasty military withdrawal.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the reports of its military’s withdrawal, citing “operational security reasons” for refusing to discuss specific movements.
They also remain tight-lipped about the existing condition of air-defense systems, including Patriot, and how they intend to protect their troops in other regional countries with American bases.
This evasive response has done little to reassure Kurdish authorities, who have been left to interpret the withdrawal without clear guidance from their American allies.
Attack context: sustained Iranian pressure on Iraqi Kurdistan
The withdrawal of American forces from Erbil must be understood within the broader context of Iranian military pressure on the Kurdistan Region throughout July 2026.
Iranian forces maintained sustained retaliatory attacks on US military infrastructure in Iraqi Kurdistan, with the bulk of attacks targeting armed Kurdish militant groups based in the region as well as the US military compound near Erbil International Airport.
The attacks on the Erbil compound specifically targeted the Patriot systems and other military assets, with the IRGC launching multiple waves of Operation Nasr-2 that pounded US-run bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Local media outlets reported that the Kurdistan Region was subjected to dozens of drone and missile attacks in July, with the city of Erbil facing repeated air-raid warnings and interception attempts.
Iranian and Kurdish sources confirmed renewed strikes against infrastructure associated with coalition forces, with the attacks focused on operational infrastructure rather than saturation bombardment.
The attacks on Erbil International Airport included strikes on a ground support station and maintenance facility belonging to US surveillance aircraft, along with the destruction of the Patriot systems.
This precision targeting reflects the sophistication of Iranian intelligence gathering and the ability to identify and strike high-value American assets with accuracy.
The IRGC’s statement that “almost all” US military infrastructure in Erbil had been destroyed during the conflict, while not independently verified, is consistent with the subsequent American withdrawal.
Regional realignment: from Iraq to the Persian Gulf
The withdrawal from Iraqi Kurdistan is part of a broader American reassessment of its military posture across the region, driven by the recognition that large, permanent military presences have become liabilities rather than strategic assets.
The priority for the US has also shifted toward Persian Gulf states, particularly Kuwait and Jordan.
The United States has been reviewing the extent of its military presence in Kuwait following developments in the war against Iran, with reports indicating that analysts believe “a large, permanent military presence in Kuwait is no longer vital or militarily wise”.
This reassessment has been driven by the reality that US installations and bases have been repeatedly targeted by Iran during the war, with the Patriot systems themselves becoming magnets for Iranian strikes rather than reliable defensive shields.
The destruction of Patriot systems at Erbil ahead of the troop withdrawal has raised further questions about US interceptor stockpiles and how the military seeks to protect troops elsewhere in the region.
The successful Iranian strikes on Patriot systems in Erbil demonstrated that these assets are vulnerable to drone attacks, making their deployment to other locations a matter of risk assessment rather than simple repositioning.
Strategic implications: victory for Iranian deterrence
The American withdrawal from Iraqi Kurdistan, following the destruction of Patriot systems by Iranian precision strikes, represents a significant victory for the Axis of Resistance and a demonstration of the effectiveness of Iranian deterrence strategy, according to defense analysts.
The IRGC’s official statement on the Erbil strikes warned that “should the unlawful and bullying US regime continue its hostile actions, it will face different and stronger responses,” a warning that has been validated by the American decision to withdraw rather than reinforce its position in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Kurdish Regional Government, which has benefited from the American military umbrella while not being the primary target of Iranian attacks, now faces an uncertain future without the protection of US air-defense systems, including Patriot.
The withdrawal also carries significant implications for the broader regional balance of power. The US, which has maintained a military presence in Iraq for over two decades, is now completing a withdrawal that has been accelerated by Iranian military pressure rather than strategic planning.
The annihilation of Patriot systems from Erbil, and the subsequent withdrawal of American occupation forces, represents an acknowledgment that these systems were no longer capable of protecting American personnel in the face of Iranian precision strike capabilities.
The official narrative of a scheduled redeployment, analysts opine, cannot mask the reality that the American position in Iraqi Kurdistan became untenable following the Iranian retaliatory strikes in recent weeks, which demonstrated that even the most advanced American air-defense systems cannot withstand sustained Iranian drone warfare.
Media reports claiming that the Islamic Republic of Iran has agreed to a plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz are false, and no change has been made to the country’s policy regarding the strategic waterway, according to a report.
Foreign media outlets, citing Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, have claimed earlier that Iran had accepted a proposal under which ships would enter the Persian Gulf through Iranian territorial waters and leave through Omani territorial waters.
Fars News Agency, citing a source close to Iran’s nuclear negotiating team, rejected those claims, with the source saying, “The Islamic Republic of Iran has reached no agreement on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and the reports published in this regard are false.”
According to Fars, a military source also dismissed the claims, saying they were entirely unfounded.
“As long as the hostile actions and acts of malice by the United States continue, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed,” the military source was quoted as saying.
“Passage will only be possible through the designated route, in coordination with the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy and after obtaining permission to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Otherwise, other routes are unsafe, and vessels attempting to use them will certainly encounter incidents.”
The source further emphasized that reports claiming that Iran had agreed to any plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz were “baseless” and that no decision or policy change had been made regarding the strategic waterway.
It came after US President Donald Trump said he had canceled declared attacks on Iran, following warnings from Tehran that any new US or Israeli aggression would face strong retaliation.
In a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump claimed that the US was “locked and loaded” and prepared to launch a military assault against Iran, describing the potential aggression as involving levels of military power “not seen since World War II.”
The latest round of war against Iran began on February 28, when US and Israeli forces launched large-scale strikes on Iranian territory.
Iran responded with daily waves of missiles and drones targeting US and Israeli assets across the region, while closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran and the US later signed the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on June 17 in an effort to end the war across all fronts.
However, renewed US military aggression against Iran in recent weeks has prompted Tehran to resume missile and drone strikes against US assets in the region and close the Strait of Hormuz once again.
Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi discusses the 60,000 Moroccans storming into Spain and the possible encouragement from the US and Israel to reward Morocco and punish Spain.
The Iranian Army says it has targeted key facilities at US-run Ahmad al-Jaber Air Base in Kuwait, as newly analyzed satellite imagery also points to fresh damage at another US-operated base in the Persian Gulf state.
The Army’s Public Relations Office said the strike marked the 27th phase of Operation Sa’eqeh and was carried out in response to recent US military attacks on Iran, including an airstrike on a residential home on Qeshm Island.
According to the statement, loitering drones targeted aircraft shelters, satellite communications systems and equipment storage facilities at Ahmad al-Jaber Air Base. It described the installation as a major hub for US air and surveillance operations and a vital center for the logistical support of American forces.
The retaliation comes as the US has been targeting southern Iranian provinces since earlier in July after violating the terms of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.
Tehran has responded with repeated missile and drone attacks targeting US-operated military facilities across the region under Operation Nasr 2 and Operation Sa’eqeh (Lightning).
The Army condemned the US strike on civilian homes in Qeshm, calling it “a clear violation of humanitarian principles and another example of the enemy’s war crimes.”
It added that “crimes, sanctions and threats will only make Iran more united and cohesive in its sacred defense.”
The statement further said the “decisive, extensive and heavy” attacks carried out by the Army and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps have made it “very costly and difficult” for the United States to intercept Iranian drones and missiles despite deploying advanced air defense systems and reinforcing them.
It also noted that Washington has imposed strict censorship to prevent information about damage, casualties and injuries from becoming public.
The operation followed a deadly US strike on a residential building on Iran’s southern Qeshm Island on Thursday. A local official said three members of a family—a mother, a father and their two-year-old son—were killed in the attack. Two other children were pulled alive from the rubble and taken to hospital after receiving emergency treatment at the scene. The father was identified as a taxi driver, and the neighborhood was a working-class residential area.
Satellite imagery shows damage to US-run base in Kuwait
Meanwhile, satellite imagery has indicated new damage at another US-operated military installation in Kuwait.
Soar Atlas, specializing in maps and satellite imagery, said its assessment of newly released satellite images suggested fresh damage at Ali Al Salem Air Base.
According to the analysis, part of a storage area used by US forces appeared blackened in the latest imagery, indicating that the facility may have sustained damage.
The developments come as The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that Washington is reassessing the scale of its military presence in Kuwait.
Citing US officials familiar with the deliberations, the newspaper said the Pentagon had already been considering reducing its troop presence before the war on Iran began and has since scaled back personnel in Kuwait to minimize the risk posed by Iranian attacks on US military bases.
Analysts quoted by the newspaper said US officials increasingly believe that maintaining a large permanent force in Kuwait is no longer militarily necessary.
On Wednesday July 29, 2026, at roughly 3:20 pm CET, a drone struck the Energos Winter — a Marshall Islands-flagged floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) owned by US company New Fortress Energy — on its starboard side at Egypt’s Mediterranean port of Damietta, in the northern Nile Delta. The fire spread to a nearby Bermuda-flagged LNG carrier, the Gaslog Salem. Both crews were evacuated, the blaze was brought under control, and no injuries were reported. Both vessels were subsequently moved offshore for assessment; the Energos Winter was pulled off the quayside before the fire was fully out.
Egyptian harbor responders got on scene fast from both the land side and with fire and rescue tugs, which several accounts credit with preventing a much larger disaster — a fire spreading to the terminal infrastructure or fully involving either LNG hull would have been catastrophic. Egypt’s Petroleum Minister Karim Badawi traveled to the port personally to oversee the response.
CNBC and CNN framed this attack as part of a widening campaign on energy infrastructure, implicitly blaming Iran: Iran, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias have all broadened strikes, with Iraqi Iran-aligned militias launching drones at oil infrastructure in Riyadh and Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province this same week. The Damietta strike was viewed by many in the West as extending that campaign from Gulf oil into Mediterranean gas.
I think the attack at Damietta was an Israeli false flag that was intended to stir tensions between Cairo and Tehran. Iran inadvertently set the stage for such a narrative. Two days prior to the drone attack Iranian state TV ran a segment headlined about revenge against Ukraine, showing a multi-target map of European-energy-linked infrastructure, which included Damietta, marked with a pin, citing its LNG capacity (5.2M tons/yr) as a “gateway for gas exports to Europe” descriptor. Damietta was not the focus of the broadcast and was merely identified as one of several possible targets. Everything beyond that — i.e., that the map amounts to Iran claiming or committing the strike at Damietta — is inference layered on top. The critical point about the framing: the stated enemy was Ukraine, not the US or Egypt.
Many in the West were quick to point the finger of blame at Iran. Yet Egypt’s Minister of Information, in an interview with Al Arabiya, denied the Wall Street Journal’s claim that the Egyptian government considered Iran responsible for the drone attack on two ships in Damietta port.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Aragchi issued a statement insisting that it wasn’t Iran and that it was an Israeli false flag operation to try to drag Egypt into an anti Iranian coalition. I think Aragchi is correct.
Give credit to Mossad for monitoring Iranian media and taking advantage of the news broadcast to quickly create an incident that would cast the shadow of blame on Iran by virtue of the news broadcast that had listed Damietta as one of many possible targets for retaliation against Ukraine. It is very easy for an organization like Mossad to mount such a drone attack in two days… Guilt by association.
Prof. John Mearsheimer discusses how the dramatic developments in the Ukraine War conflict with NATO’s “Ukraine is winning” narrative. Prof. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago
Israel dragged America into another war, then sat back on the spectator bench and watched U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. Borrowed money burned into bombs. Billions more bled out at gas stations and in inflation, all to reopen a strait that was open before Donald was duped into fighting Benjamin’s war. Now Benjamin Netanyahu watches from a safe distance, gloating as missiles fly between the U.S. forces and Iran in a war he spent years pushing Washington to fight.
At home, flag-draped caskets of American soldiers arriving home from a war Israel instigated and American soldiers carried out. In Congress, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stood before the Senate requesting more money to keep the war running.
Lawmakers asked to sign the check for a war they never voted to authorize, fought for aims Washington did not set, with no accounting of when — or how— it ends.
In occupied Palestine, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich tells a settler conference that “Israel has no interest in joining the campaign . . . a confined campaign between Iran and the United States, is the correct [situation] and best for us [Israel].” In layman language, let’s sit and watch Americans die and pay for our war.
Exhibit A: the U.S. military is depleting its own missile-defense stockpiles defending its bases across the region, while Israel hoards its interceptors in reserve. Israel isn’t spending down its stockpile. It’s waiting for the moment American stocks run dry and the Gulf states are left exposed. When that moment comes, Israeli interceptors will become prized leverage, offered to the UAE and the rest of the Gulf at a price.
Last Sunday on Fox News, Netanyahu outlined to America his goals for the war against Iran. A foreign prime minister, on American airwaves, essentially setting the terms and the finish line for an American war, fought by American pilots, funded by American taxpayers, and now apparently concluded at Israel’s discretion. Whatever Trump negotiates, whatever Washington decides, Netanyahu has already told America it doesn’t matter. He isn’t waiting to end the war on Israel’s terms. He’s informing it.
But it is not only America’s war policy that runs through Tel Aviv. It is diplomacy and commerce too. When Washington signed a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, and the deal was announced, ink dry, both governments on record. Within a day, President Trump reversed course, declaring the agreement was contingent on Saudi normalization with Israel.
Israeli officials do not even try to be diplomatic on how they run Washington policy. Before Trump added the new condition, Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister, Miki Zohar, told Army Radio that “Israel has been clear with the United States about its red lines.” Those are the words of a government that understands it holds a veto pen, set red lines, and where America listens.
Think about it, an Israeli minister speaks openly of red lines over an American commercial and strategic agreement with one of the world’s largest oil exporters, a country central to Gulf security architecture Washington has spent decades building. It did not matter that the Saudi deal serves American energy and strategic interests. It mattered only that Tel Aviv had not yet signed off.
The issue isn’t whether Israel tries to shape American war strategy, or whether its leaders draw red lines Washington isn’t allowed to cross. The real question is why American leaders, across the political spectrum, permit a strategically insignificant country to wield such extraordinary influence over the foreign policy of the world’s only superpower.
Israeli red lines prompted America’s Israel-first loyalists to abruptly discover the agreement was a nuclear proliferation threat. For decades, they have defended, excused, or ignored Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. Yet the prospect of a Saudi civilian nuclear program suddenly provokes moral outrage. The issue was never stopping nuclear proliferation. It was about sequencing. They would be willing to kosher a Saudi civilian nuclear program the day after, not before, it recognizes Israel.
If Arab capitals want an American relationship that serves their own security and economic interests, they need to stop mistaking proximity for leverage. For years the strategy has been to buy access, funneling billions to powerful intermediaries like Jared Kushner, treating him as the private door into the Oval Office.
But Kushner is no neutral broker. He is an Israel-first advocate who built his post-White House fortune partly on Arab capital while shaping Middle East policy on Israel’s behalf and now uses his wealth to finance Jewish-only colonies built on stolen Palestinian land.
The United Arab Emirates lived this irony in hard numbers. Kushner sold Abu Dhabi on the Abraham Accords with a promise attached: normalize with Israel, and the most advanced American fighter jet in the world would follow, a $23 billion sale of fifty F-35s. The UAE delivered its half instantly, recognition, embassies, open skies. Washington delivered Israel every benefit of that deal. The jets never came. Years of “technical requirements,” stalled reviews, and quiet reversals later.
Trump wants to sell Saudi Arabia the promise of a commercial agreement, but deliver Israel an immediate recognition. The Arab cow gets milked for capital, investment, and diplomatic goodwill, and when the moment comes to deliver, the payoff is led instead to the Israeli altar. Every dollar spent courting Kushner, every concession made in good faith, has purchased not access but the illusion of it, never enough to collect on.
Arab regimes must understand that neither buying access to the president through Israel-first loyalists like Kushner, nor hosting the American bases that fight wars designed in and for Tel Aviv, will change U.S. policy — not while Israel holds the lobby power to dictate red lines American leaders dare not cross.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has issued a diplomatic warning to Bulgaria over reports that the country is preparing to host US military aircraft, while simultaneously securing assurances from Cyprus that foreign bases on its territory will not be used for hostile actions against the Islamic Republic.
In a telephone conversation with Bulgarian Foreign Minister Ventsislava Petrova on Thursday, Araghchi firmly condemned Sofia’s reported agreement to allow the United States to station military aircraft at the Bezmer air base.
Tehran views the move as a direct contribution to US military posturing and tension-building in West Asia.
“Allowing the territory of one state to be used by another state for the purpose of committing an act of aggression against a third state constitutes an act of aggression itself,” Araghchi stated, citing Article 3 of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, which defines acts of aggression under international law.
The Iranian foreign minister emphasized that such a decision is unacceptable and contradicts the traditional friendly relations between the two nations, urging the Bulgarian government to urgently reconsider its stance.
He reiterated that the Islamic Republic will not hesitate to defend its national security and interests, warning that “any party that participates in any way in a military attack against Iran must bear responsibility for its consequences.”
In response, the Bulgarian foreign ninister recalled the historically good relations between the two countries, asserting that Bulgaria has no intention of participating in any war and reaffirming its commitment to diplomacy and regional de-escalation.
Securing neutrality in Cyprus
In a separate diplomatic push, Minister Araghchi spoke with Cypriot Foreign Minister Konstantinos Kombos, stressing the critical importance of preventing hostile forces from misusing foreign military bases stationed in Cyprus to target Iran.
The Cypriot foreign minister affirmed his country’s commitment to the principles of international law and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Kombos announced that Cyprus has been in direct contact with the UK government and has received explicit assurances that the foreign military bases on the island will not be used against any country, including the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The diplomatic warnings come amid reports that the Bulgarian government is seeking parliamentary approval to station up to eight US aerial refueling tanker aircraft at the Bezmer military facility, located southeast of Sofia.
These aircraft are primarily used to extend the operational range of US or Israeli strike fighters, a move Tehran interprets as logistical preparation for potential military escalation.
The development occurs against a backdrop of heightened regional tensions.
Following the unraveling of a previous interim ceasefire, the United States has intensified its military footprint and aggressive rhetoric in the region.
Iranian officials, including Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei, have previously warned that any activity facilitating US attacks on Iran amounts to complicity in aggression and war crimes.
Tehran has consistently maintained that it will not tolerate its sovereignty being threatened by foreign military buildups in the region.
Iran has demanded compensation from Ukraine over a deadly strike on a cargo ship after Kiev’s foreign minister initially claimed that “Iran has no standing to pretend to be a victim,” only to call Tehran a day later and assure it that the attack was unintentional and that Kiev did not seek escalation.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Tuesday that he had spoken with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrey Sibiga, following the attack on the cargo ship Anna in the Caspian Sea last week.
“Was assured by Ukrainian FM that the attack on an Iranian ship was unintentional and Ukraine seeks no escalation,” Araghchi wrote on X. “Iran does not seek escalation either, but made clear any attack on our citizens or interests is unacceptable. There must be restitution for losses.”
Sibiga described the call as a “frank conversation” and said Kiev wanted to “avoid unnecessary escalation.” He maintained that Ukrainian operations were aimed at countering Russia and were “never intended to target civilian vessels or people,” while calling on Tehran to end its alleged support for Moscow.
The conciliatory language marked a sharp shift from Sibiga’s public response a day earlier, when he denounced Iran’s complaints as “unjustified and groundless” and referred to the Iranian government as “the regime in Teheran.”
“Iran has no standing to pretend to be a victim,” Sibiga wrote on Monday, accusing Tehran of supplying Russia with weapons and dismissing its references to the UN Charter as “absurd.” He also claimed that Iran was attempting to divert attention from Russian strikes on Ukrainian shipping in the Black Sea.
In recent weeks, the Russian military has escalated long-range strikes on port infrastructure and shipping targets in the Black Sea, seeking to disrupt the flow of military supplies and weapons to Ukraine. Multiple freighters, combat and auxiliary vessels, and various port installations have been struck, according to the Defense Ministry in Moscow.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned the attack as “reckless,” summoned Ukraine’s acting chargé d’affaires and warned that it reserved the right to protect the country’s security and national interests.
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky subsequently praised the “very strong results” of strikes on vessels he claimed were involved in transporting military cargo. Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel similarly claimed that the Anna had been carrying components for drones and missiles, while Tehran maintained that the vessel and its cargo were entirely civilian.
Before Tuesday’s call, Araghchi had accused Zelensky of attacking the commercial vessel “at Israel’s behest” and attempting to draw Europe deeper into the conflict. He warned that the killing of the Iranian sailor “cannot go unanswered.”
The incident involving the Iranian vessel comes amid growing accusations that Kiev is expanding its activities in the Middle East. Iraq’s national security adviser claimed this week that authorities had arrested several groups that confessed to carrying out attacks on behalf of Ukraine. Kiev rejected the allegations as “unfounded and unsubstantiated.”
On Friday, even as the US President Donald Trump was announcing the end of the latest round of the conflict with Iran, the Pentagon unobtrusively extended the war theatre to the Caspian Sea in a hugely consequential geopolitical thrust. The incident hardly figured in the western news cycle.
But CGTN, perhaps sensing that the US could be stealthily spreading its war to the Caspian region, reported on July 25, “US missiles struck a Revolutionary Guards Navy headquarters in the Ziba Kenar area of the Caspian Sea province of Gilan, according to a security official in Gilan quoted by Iranian media. Provincial authorities said US projectiles had also struck the port city of Bandar Anzali, according to the Iranian Labor News Agency.”
Gilan province has a Caspian coastline that borders Azerbaijan in the west, with which Iran has had a troubled relationship in the recent years following the Transcaucasian region’s geopolitical gravitation towards the western orbit. Unsurprisingly, Russia’s ties with Azerbaijan and Armenia also have suffered a severe erosion following the ascendance of US (and NATO) influence in Transcaucasia.
Trump is the new sheriff in town in Baku and Yerevan with Turkey’s president Recep Erdogan playing the role of undersheriff. To add to the complexity, Azerbaijan is a close ally of Turkey, and Turkey’s ties with Moscow are somewhat under the weather in the most recent years following the covert takeover in Syria by al-Qaeda affiliates backed by Ankara.
On the other hand, Turkey has never been a reliable friend for Iran, either, historically. During the war with Iran last year, Turkey opened its air space to the US aircraft to attack Iran from Azerbaijan, which also happens to be one of Israel’s key operational bases against Iran.
Taking advantage of the Ukraine conflict, western intelligence and NATO have made big inroads into the Caucasus and Caspian regions bordering Russia’s Muslim republics and are challenging Iran’s security when it already faces an existential threat from the US-Israeli alliance.
The western media played down the US air strike on Bandar Anzali last week, which is Iran’s biggest port on the Caspian coast and is a vital transportation hub linked to Iran’s national railway grid. The Caspian Sea makes a strategically vital supply route between Russia and Iran. Bandar Anzali is for Tehran what Odessa Port is for Kyiv where it receives western arms supplies. Indeed, Iran and Russia have a close military relationship.
Therefore, Ukraine’s attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea in Russia’s territorial waters on Saturday, the first such attack since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, is anything but a stray incident. Kyiv claimed responsibility for striking an Iranian vessel, signalling that one of Eurasia’s most stable security zones is now vulnerable to the direct spillover of the Ukraine conflict.
The Kremlin took note and spokesman Dmitry Peskov remarked at his daily briefing on Tuesday that the “geography of the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities is expanding.” Citing the incident, he added cryptically that all this “again highlights the need for a successful and complete special military operation.”
The attack on the Iranian ship was carried out from a distance of approximately 1,200 kilometres. Moscow has repeatedly alleged that such precise targeting over very long distances is way beyond Ukraine’s military capability and is only possible with the West’s direct participation. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov touched on it again on July 24: “A significant portion of the support provided to Vladimir Zelensky (from the West) comes from the United States. This is not only because the Americans sell weapons to the EU, which then transfers them to Ukraine, but also because the United States provides intelligence and reconnaissance, Starlink remains operational, and advanced technologies that require specialist expertise on the battlefield do not find their way there by accident. That is the way things are.”
Interestingly,the New York Times report on the Ukrainian attack appeared under the headline Ukraine’s Strike on an Iranian ship Could Bring Two Wars Closer. The Wall Street Journalheadline runs as follows: Two Wars Converge in the Caspian Sea as Ukraine Hits Iranian Supply Line to Russia. Al Jazeera gave a further twist saying Ukraine’s Zelenskyy set to meet Trump as Iran and Ukraine wars converge. A BBC report acknowledged that “The incident marked the first direct link between the wars in Iran and Ukraine.” It added, however, “But some experts question the wisdom of Kyiv’s decision to pick a fight with Iran.”
The impact of the Iran conflict initially seemed negative for Ukraine. It threatened to divert Trump’s already wavering attention. However, there has been not only no let-up in US support for Ukraine but in certain ways, the US involvement has only intensified by escalating the covert operations in Russian territory. Admittedly, these tactical advantages may not add up eventually, as Moscow is also stepping up attacks all across the frontline in Ukraine with a view to end the war soon.
The reported likely reassignment of General Sergey Surovikin, who at one time was commander of Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine, would signal a massive offensive going forward. The highly decorated general had previously served in Chechnya and Syria during conflicts that had overtones of proxy wars similar to Ukraine.
The Ukrainian attack on the Iranian ship could well be a calibrated move by Washington. Ukraine acted simultaneously with the US bombing of Gilan province, suggesting a degree of coordination. The Iranian ambassador to Russia disclosed that the ship was hardly 5 miles from the mouth of River Volga when the attack took place.
If the Moscow-led regional concord on the Caspian’s collective security is weakened, extra-regional military and security rivalries could vitiate the region impacting Russia and Iran’s core interests. Tehran views the Caspian Sea incident not as an isolated tactical event but as evidence of a broader shift in its surrounding security environment.
Last August, US-Azerbaijan-Armenia tripartite agreement was signed in the White House that will create a major transit corridor in Transcaucasia to be named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. Plainly put, the US and NATO are seriously contesting Russia’s pre-eminence in the Caspian / Central Asian regions.
Evidently, the Caspian Sea is no longer the conflict-free zone it was once believed to be. A new arena of geopolitical competition, fundamentally reshaping the security landscape of Eurasia and potentially marking the emergence of a new geographic theatre of conflict, has surfaced last weekend.
The Kremlin has warned that Ukraine is expanding the scope of its “terrorist activities” beyond Europe, citing Kiev’s recent involvement in destabilizing Iraq, attacks on strategic infrastructure in Germany and Kazakhstan, and the attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea.
Speaking at a press briefing on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the reported involvement of Ukrainian-linked groups in Iraq demonstrated that “the geography of the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities is expanding,” warning that such actions pose a growing threat beyond Europe.
“We see that the Kiev regime continues its terrorist activities,” Peskov said, arguing that the trend “again highlights the need for a successful and complete special military operation.”
The Kremlin spokesman also pointed to attacks carried out by Kiev beyond the battlefield, citing the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, strikes against infrastructure linked to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, and an attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea on Saturday.
Peskov’s remarks came after Iraqi authorities said they had identified and dismantled several sabotage cells responsible for a series of bombings across the country that were planning further attacks with backing and support from Ukraine.
Ukraine has denied involvement, saying Baghdad had presented no evidence to support the claims and had not raised the issue through diplomatic channels before the comments were made public.
Iraq’s National Security Adviser Qasim al-Aboudi, however, said authorities had arrested several suspects who admitted working for Ukraine and carrying out attacks on Iraqi facilities, describing the case as complex and still under investigation.
Ukraine also targeted an Iranian cargo vessel in the Caspian Sea on July 25, killing one sailor and injuring several others. Tehran said the vessel was a civilian ship carrying iron from Russia to Iran, while Ukraine alleged it was transporting Iranian drone and missile components to Russia.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the attack had been carried out at the behest of the Israeli regime in an attempt to draw Europe into the war in West Asia, warning that the strike “cannot go unanswered.” The Foreign Ministry also said that Kiev had sought to spread insecurity by attacking the Iranian commercial vessel.
The debate over US forces using Italian military bases in the ongoing US-Israeli aggression against Iran has rekindled in Italy.
Earlier this week, three opposition lawmakers, Francesco Silvestri, Alessandra Maiorino, and Arnaldo Lomuti, formally demanded the government provide clarification regarding the departure towards West Asia of 12 F-16 fighter jets, at least 2 US tankers, and a number of Triton drones, used for maritime intelligence and surveillance, from Italian bases.
The three members of the lower house questioned Italy’s support of the Epstein coalition under bilateral treaties with the US.
The government must explain on what basis Italy is allowing the US to use our bases in this war of aggression against Iran.
Weeks ago, we were told that the use of our bases falls under the bilateral treaties that were forced upon us by Washington more than 70 years ago.
… These treaties are classified; so how can Parliament start a serious debate on the role played by Italy in this war of aggression?
About a month ago, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte revealed during a TV interview that Rome had allowed more than 500 US military aircraft to take off from American bases in Italy during the 40-day war on Iran that began in late February,
Rutte’s revelations triggered a political storm in Italy.
Italy has sought, at least in words, to distance itself from the illegal US-Israel war against Iran over the past weeks. However, many criticize Italy’s technical and logistical support for the US.
When the government says that it’s not involved in the war, well, the government is very wrong.
Without the support of the tankers departing from our base in Sicily, the US jet fighters would not be able to strike. The same applies to the drones departing from our bases.
The truth is that not even our ministers know what the Americans do with the bases on Italian territory.
Orazio Foti, Former US Sigonella Military Base Employee
Surveys have consistently shown over the past months that a considerable majority of Italians think their country should avoid getting involved in the war on Iran.
Italy is up to its neck in the war.
Together with Europe, we simply cannot escape the fact that the political, economic, and military ties with the US and Israel do not allow practically any EU country to act autonomously.
The risk is that without an act of bravery, we will all be dragged into this war, even though we have nothing to do with it.
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 