Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why the Push for a US–Iran Nuclear Deal is Not Serious – and Never Was

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | February 5, 2026

The United States has been pushing for a renewed set of negotiations, aimed at reaching a deal over Iran’s nuclear program, the very same move that was used to set up an Israeli surprise attack last year. This is not a serious effort and appears more than anything to be aimed at stalling.

In mid-January, it appeared as if a US attack on Iran was imminent, as some reports even suggested he was planning to launch airstrikes before backing out. The reason for the absence of any military action can be put down to a series of evolving factors at play, including the security concerns of Israel.

Considering that an enormous amount of the reports published in both the US and Israeli media are drip-fed from their CIA, Mossad, and government contacts, it is reasonable to assume that most of what we are hearing “leaked” from anonymous sources is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign.

Prior to Israel’s surprise attack on Iran in June of 2025, a similar deception campaign was implemented throughout both the Western and Israeli media. In addition to the constant mixed messages regarding Israeli-US intentions, there was also an effort to build the narrative of a feud between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump. Soon after the 12-day war began, Israeli media outlets admitted as such.

Therefore, it is safe to assume that most of what we are being fed through the “anonymous” sourcing of the corporate media is false. Nowhere is this more evident than in the outlandish claims being published, as a means of manufacturing consent for a regime change war, than with the outrageous Iran protester death toll statistics being peddled without any evidence at all.

Disinformation aside, the current attempt to revive US-Iran nuclear negotiations is already being premised on non-starters. Not only are the US going back to their maximalist demands, which prevented any serious progress through multiple rounds of discussions last year, but they are also actively threatening war on a near-daily basis, as more American military assets continue to flood into the region.

In addition to this, the Israelis have demanded the exact same prerequisite conditions they always do, that being the end of Iran’s ballistic missile program, no nuclear enrichment on Iranian soil, and a halt to all of Tehran’s regional alliances with resistance groups. Evidently, none of these conditions is even going to be entertained by the Iranians.

Unless by some miracle the Trump administration decides to totally defy Israel and its top donors, choosing to negotiate a reasonable deal that, at least in part, replicates the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), there will be nothing achieved. Instead, if negotiations are to even proceed, they will simply be designed to stall the inevitable: a military confrontation.

Donald Trump, since his first term in office, has been the most aggressive US president toward the Islamic Republic, unilaterally pulling out of the nuclear deal, implementing a criminal sanctions regime, bowing to every Israeli demand, and even assassinating Iran’s most prominent general at the time, Qassem Soleimani.

This time around, the Trump administration decided to go all the way in its support of Israel’s demands. The US came to Israel’s aid in the 12-day war and directly struck Iran, doing damage to three nuclear sites. More recently, the entirety of the collective West has stood behind a regime change attempt, led by Israeli intelligence agents on the ground. Not a single Western mainstream media outlet has even been critical of the narrative they have been fed on the issue, with some openly advocating military intervention.

Why is the US Stalling?

Unlike during the previous buildups to confrontation between the US-Israeli alliance and Iran, this time appears much more consequential. We are now far closer to an all-out regional war, which was avoided last June. Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has made it clear that any attack on Iran will result in a total war, something that was not previously threatened in this way.

What happened last month was an Israeli-led attempt to drag Iran into a bloody civil war, an attack using agents that targeted cultural sites, places of worship, the nation’s emergency services, banks, and resulted in the murder of around 300 police officers and security force members. If this ground campaign had proven successful, a series of US strikes—while still a gamble—may have proven a serious threat to the stability of Iran.

In the thinking of US and Israeli military strategists, they hoped that an American strike package could have inspired an even greater uprising against the government. Even if this led to a long and bloody civil war, like what occurred in Syria, the idea would be that over time it would cripple the nation as a whole, effectively eliminating the Iranian challenge posed to Israel for the foreseeable future.

However, Iran swiftly cracked down on the failed operation within two days, totally eliminating the ground threat posed to it. Without a ground component against the Islamic Republic, any US-Israeli air campaign—however costly—will ultimately fail to effect regime change.

The best possible outcome for Tel Aviv and Washington is an attack that will work to cripple the nation’s civil infrastructure. Although easier said than done, especially given the fact that Iran’s infrastructure was built with wartime damage in mind, the tactic would be to inflict such a significant blow that, over time, combined with the “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign, the Iranian government will fall, similar to how Syria did.

Standing in the way of such an option are a myriad of issues. There is the anxiety of the Arab regimes, such as Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and beyond, who understand the potential earthshattering implications of an all-out war with Iran. The US and Israel use their nations to stage attacks on Iran, operate air defense systems, and therefore, there are valid military targets there for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to go after.

In addition to this, the threats that have been coming out of Iraq are of major concern to the US, Israel, and the Arab regimes alike. The Hasd al-Shaabi, or Popular Mobilization Forces, number around 250,000 men strong. Kataeb Hezbollah, the strongest faction within the Hashd, has vowed to defend Iran. We have also heard threats that, in the event Ayatollah Khamenei is targeted, this will trigger fatwas (religious declarations) ordering jihad.

Khamenei is not only the leader of Iran, but a major Shia religious and spiritual leader who is central to the belief system of Shia Muslims worldwide. Assassinating him could therefore trigger uprisings and the mobilization of millions of Shia Muslims throughout the entire region and beyond.

Total war with Iran means significant strikes on US bases all throughout the region, a halt to the flow of oil through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. It also means the kind of firepower directed at Israel will much more likely be heavier than what we saw in June of 2025, missile attacks that could be combined with strikes from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarallah in Yemen.

Keeping all of this in mind, the Israelis are clearly attempting to secure the best possible air defense strategy in order to help minimize the damage that will inevitably be inflicted upon them. Tel Aviv still has not rebuilt its infrastructure that was struck last year by Iranian ballistic missiles.

No analyst can truly predict the outcomes of a total regional war, especially if Ayatollah Khamenei is assassinated. There are simply too many factors at play. Such a war could even inspire revolution in Bahrain, Jordan, and an Iraqi war with forces inside Syria. It could bring about regime change in the UAE, even if only by an internal coup. While none of this is certain, it is nonetheless well known. Nobody is truly safe.

In addition to this, even the pro-Western Arab nations do not favor either side in such a conflict. It may work in their favor to see a weakened Iran, for instance, but not a regime change that destroys the country and places Israel as the uncontested regional hegemon. In other words, they thrive off a multipolar West Asia. In the event that Iran wins and Israel is destroyed, they also realize that this could result in their own regimes falling.

Another major question mark hangs over the roles of China and Russia in all of this. As it seems, Beijing views Tehran as an essential partner and even vowed to provide all the necessary support to Iran during the foreign-backed riots. Moscow’s stance at the time was much more neutral. Both maintain relations with Iran and have sold military equipment.

There is no difference between the opinions of the Trump administration and the Israelis on Iran, which means that no deal will be reached without war. The best possible outcome that the US could hope for is a limited conflict, one that can be managed, even if it drags on for over a month. Then, following such a war, they attempt to further weaken Iran, and due to the costly nature of the conflict, neither side seeks direct confrontation for some time.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran Adamantly Rejects US Attempt to Control Upcoming Negotiations Over Iran’s Nuclear Program

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR | February 5, 2026 

What a day!! Lots of negotiation and non-negotiation action on the Iranian front. In the span of two hours, starting at 1 pm and ending around 3 pm eastern time, the world was whipped sawed with news that the bilateral negotiations between Iran and the US was cancelled — that was the 1 pm news — and then, at 3 pm, the talks were back on. The initial reports that the meeting in Oman would not take place cited Iran’s reaction to a US demand that Iranian ballistic missiles and Iran’s support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah must be on the agenda or there would be no negotiations. Without a moments hesitation, Iran barked back and said, “Ok, no meeting.”

Axios reported that US officials were surprised by Iran’s reaction and scrambled to come up with a response to Iran. Within two hours, the US retreated and accepted Iran’s position that the Friday meeting in Oman would only address nuclear bombs and uranium enrichment. Iran won this first round.

While all of this was taking place, Pentagon officials announced that the US carrier strike force had shot down an Iranian drone that was flying towards the USS Abraham Lincoln again… No word about the make and model. Three days ago, Iran successfully overflew the USS Abraham Lincoln and showed the video footage on Iran’s Press TV. I think Pete Hegseth and his team of sycophants were embarrassed by that episode and decided to retaliate with force.

And if that was not enough, Iran dispatched a bevy of small boats to harass what the press described as a US tanker navigating the Strait of Hormuz. I think Iran was simply trying to remind the US that it is serious about taking action against the US military and economic presence in the Persian Gulf if the US acts on its threat to attack Iran.

Danny Davis, Doug MacGregor, and I have heard active duty military officers in recent days insist that any Iranian attacks would be easily repulsed by US forces in the region. We all think that those officers do not understand the full capabilities of the Iranian navy and air force to overwhelm US defenses with a combination of drone and missile swarms if the US carries out an attack on targets inside Iran. King Solomon, writing in Proverbs, accurately described this attitude… Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

If the US is going to attack Iran it will want to launch in the next two weeks because Russian and Chinese warships are headed to the area to participate in the annual Iran-Russia-China joint-naval military exercise. Iran, Russia, and China are scheduled to hold their joint naval military exercise, known as Maritime Security Belt 2026 (the eighth edition of the series), in the northern Indian Ocean (including areas near the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea) in late February 2026. Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Shahram Irani announced on January 31, 2026, that the exercise will involve units from Iran’s regular navy (Nedaja), the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, and naval forces from China and Russia.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Coordinated Media Messaging Is Prepping for Iran War

By Thomas Karat | The Libertarian Institute | February 5, 2026

Between January 27 and January 29, 2026, something carefully orchestrated unfolded across Western capitals. Within this forty-eight hour window, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group arrived in the Persian Gulf, President Donald Trump declared “time is running out,” the European Union unanimously designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced “Iran’s days are numbered,” and oil surged 5%. This was not a spontaneous crisis but methodical preparation for military action.

Analysis of 235 news headlines from eleven countries1 reveals a coordinated information operation mirroring Iraq and Libya’s preparatory phases. The pattern: synchronized political statements, expanding legal justifications, managed market reactions, and systematic absence of dissenting voices. What emerges is not diplomacy exhausted but deliberately sidelined.

Forty-seven headlines—twenty percent of the dataset spanning back to 2021—appeared within those two days. This clustering is inconsistent with organic news flow. News organizations covering genuine crises do not synchronize attention with such precision across multiple countries unless events themselves were coordinated to generate exactly this response. The headlines did not drive events; events were staged to generate headlines.

Military deployments require weeks of planning. Carrier groups do not sail on presidential whim. The Abraham Lincoln‘s Gulf presence represented logistical preparation that necessarily preceded public rhetoric by considerable time. Yet political messaging was timed to coincide with arrival, creating the impression of responsive crisis management when reality was long-planned positioning. Iranian protests provided convenient moral framing for plans already in motion.

The European Union’s unanimous Revolutionary Guard terror designation demonstrates similar coordination. Achieving consensus among twenty-seven member states typically requires months of negotiation. Yet this designation moved with remarkable speed, arriving at unanimous approval precisely when it would provide maximum legal cover for military action. International legal frameworks precede military operations in the modern interventionist playbook. The terror designation creates legal architecture for strikes against Revolutionary Guard targets anywhere, transforming acts of war into counterterrorism operations under existing agreements.

Chancellor Merz’s “Iran’s days are numbered” represents an unprecedented declaration from a German leader on Middle East military matters. That Merz made this pronouncement within hours of the EU designation and Trump’s escalating rhetoric points to coordinated messaging at the highest levels. When pressed about advocating military action, Merz offered calculated non-denial: “I am describing reality.” The phrasing reveals purpose—presumes outcome while disclaiming responsibility for advocating it.

Meanwhile, according to multiple reports, Israeli military intelligence officials were sharing targeting data with Pentagon planners. This intelligence sharing represents not consultation among allies but active participation in operational planning. Israeli defense analysts have identified approximately three hundred sites linked to the Revolutionary Guard’s command structure and weapons programs. The message conveyed through these leaks is transparent: if American strikes occur, Israel is already integrated into the campaign. The question is not whether Israel will be involved but whether the United States will join an operation in which Israeli interests are clearly paramount.

Yet behind this public coordination lies a revealing contradiction. According to University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer and multiple Israeli sources, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu privately asked Donald Trump around January 14 not to launch strikes against Iran because Israeli air defenses were insufficiently prepared to handle the inevitable counterattack. After absorbing approximately eight hundred Iranian ballistic missiles throughout 2024 and 2025, along with hundreds more from Hezbollah and Houthi forces, Israel’s Arrow interceptor stockpiles had been severely depleted. The Jerusalem Post confirmed that despite reducing Iran’s pre-war missile arsenal by roughly half, Netanyahu feared the Islamic Republic retained enough firepower to overwhelm Israeli defenses in their current degraded state. The public posture of coordinated operational planning contradicted the private reality of Israeli vulnerability.

This creates an impossible position for the Trump administration. Carrier strike groups cannot maintain forward deployment indefinitely—the logistical burden and operational costs make extended positioning unsustainable without clear objectives. Yet backing down after deploying what Trump himself called a “massive armada” risks appearing weak, undermining American credibility precisely when the administration seeks to project strength. The machinery of escalation, once assembled and publicly announced, develops its own momentum. Political costs of retreat can exceed strategic costs of engagement, even when engagement serves no clear national interest.

The situation grew more complex in late January as Iran responded to American military positioning with its own demonstrations of capability. On January 30 and 31, the Revolutionary Guard conducted live-fire naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, prompting sharp warnings from U.S. Central Command about “unsafe and unprofessional behavior” near American forces. Iran’s military spokesman reminded audiences that “numerous U.S. military assets in the Gulf region are within range of our medium-range missiles”—a statement of fact rather than mere bluster given Iranian capabilities demonstrated repeatedly over the previous year.

Regional powers, meanwhile, moved to constrain American options. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and UAE officials both announced their territories and airspace would not be available for strikes against Iran. Turkey offered to serve as mediator between Washington and Tehran. Egypt engaged in intensive diplomatic consultations with Iranian, Turkish, Omani, and American officials. The architecture of constraint was being constructed even as military assets concentrated. By January 31, both American and Iranian officials were signaling that talks might commence, though with contradictory preconditions: Trump demanding Iran abandon nuclear weapons [no nuclear program, no ballistic missile program, and no support to armed proxy groups] development entirely, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi insisting defense capabilities remain off the table. Trump told reporters Iran was “seriously talking to us,” while Ali Larijani, head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, acknowledged that “structural arrangements for negotiations are progressing.”

The question is whether these diplomatic signals represent genuine off-ramps or merely tactical pauses in an escalation that has acquired its own logic. Netanyahu’s private request that Trump delay strikes suggests even the most hawkish regional actor recognizes the costs of actually executing the plans being prepared. Yet the very existence of those plans, the deployment of assets, the public threats, and the coordinated messaging create pressures that constrain diplomatic flexibility. Leaders who threaten military action and then negotiate without delivering on threats risk domestic political consequences. The machinery assembled for coercion can become difficult to dismantle without appearing to capitulate.

The multiplication of justifications over seven days reveals strategic hedging rather than clarifying purpose. Nuclear negotiations, humanitarian intervention for protesters, counterterrorism via the EU designation, and finally explicit regime change language—four distinct rationales in one week. This pattern has precedent. The George W. Bush administration cycled through weapons of mass destruction, democracy promotion, and humanitarian intervention as rationales for Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz later acknowledged that WMDs were selected not because evidence was strongest but because “it was the one reason everyone could agree on”—a marketing decision, not an intelligence assessment.

When governments offer multiple expanding rationales, it indicates the decision to strike preceded the search for justification. A principled case for intervention would stand on a single foundation. The proliferation reveals a predetermined conclusion seeking retrospective legitimization. Each rationale serves a distinct constituency, constructing a coalition no single justification could achieve.

What remains absent from the 235 headlines reveals as much as what appears. Chinese state media produced zero articles captured in Western aggregation despite China’s strategic partnership with Iran and opposition to American intervention. Russian media produced only four headlines—less than 2%—despite Moscow’s regional involvement. Turkish, Saudi, and Arab League perspectives were similarly absent, despite these nations facing direct consequences from regional war. The Iranian perspective itself was reduced to threatening rhetoric with no diplomatic proposals or policy statements beyond deterrence. Western audiences encounter an information environment that presents military action as responding to Iranian aggression rather than initiating it.

This selective amplification follows established patterns. Before Iraq, weapons inspector Scott Ritter’s detailed assessments that Iraq had been disarmed received minimal coverage while administration officials making evidence-free claims dominated news cycles. Millions protesting the war globally in February 2003 generated less coverage than Secretary of State Colin Powell’s fabricated United Nations presentation. The pattern is refined through repetition.

Financial markets, often more honest in their assessments than political rhetoric, sent contradictory signals that warrant attention. Oil prices surged as expected when supply disruption from the Strait of Hormuz closure became possible—20-30% of global oil supply transits this waterway, and Iran possesses the anti-ship missiles and naval mine capability to close it for extended periods. Yet gold, the traditional safe-haven asset that rallies sharply during genuine geopolitical crisis, fell 10% during the same period. Institutional traders with billions of dollars at stake and access to the same intelligence briefings as government officials apparently viewed the escalation as a pressure campaign rather than certain prelude to war. The gold crash suggests sophisticated market participants believe the military posturing serves primarily coercive diplomatic purposes, not inevitable preparation for strikes.

This market divergence creates an interpretive dilemma. Either traders are badly misreading signals—unlikely given the sophistication of institutional risk assessment—or the public escalation deliberately overstates the probability of military action to maximize pressure on Tehran. Yet history demonstrates that pressure campaigns can transform into actual wars when escalation momentum becomes impossible to reverse without political cost. The machinery assembled for coercive purposes can be activated for actual strikes if diplomatic face-saving becomes impossible or if domestic political calculations shift. The invasion of Iraq began as a pressure campaign to force weapons inspections and compliance; it became regime change when backing down appeared politically untenable.

The costs of military action against Iran dwarf previous Middle Eastern interventions yet receive minimal discussion. Iran fields ballistic missiles capable of striking American bases and Israeli cities, anti-ship missiles threatening carrier groups, and proxy forces across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Hezbollah alone possesses 150,000 rockets—enough to overwhelm Israeli defenses. This is not Iraq 2003 with degraded capabilities.

The financial burden would exceed the six trillion dollars already spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran’s population is three times Iraq’s, its military more capable, its geographic position more strategic. Regional destabilization would be immediate. Strait of Hormuz closure for two weeks would drive oil above $150 per barrel, triggering global recession. Every Gulf nation would face impossible choices. Humanitarian consequences measured in hundreds of thousands.

The blowback from intervention would generate more terrorism. The CIA’s own assessments confirm military action creates enemies faster than it eliminates them. The Islamic Republic’s proxy network exists precisely to impose costs on adversaries with conventional superiority. Strike Iran, face attacks throughout the region for years. The presumption that Tehran would absorb strikes without major retaliation contradicts both Iranian doctrine and rational assessment of their capabilities.

What is being assembled is not simply military capability but political momentum. The forty-eight hour window represented orchestrated escalation designed to create facts—legal, political, military, psychological—that constrain future options. Each element reinforces others: assets positioned, consensus constructed, frameworks established, markets reacting, attention concentrated. The machinery operates through accumulation of decisions that individually appear reasonable but collectively narrow space for alternatives.

This is how wars begin in the twenty-first century—not through sudden attacks but through gradual construction of inevitability. Diplomatic options are not explored and exhausted; they are marginalized. Intelligence is curated to support predetermined conclusions. Public opinion is manufactured through coordinated messaging and selective information. And when bombs fall, the question asked is not whether war was necessary but only whether it can be prosecuted successfully.

The next seven to fourteen days will reveal whether coordination produces strikes or sustained coercion. Carrier positioning, intelligence preparation timelines, and rhetorical escalation pace suggest decision point approaching. But whether the outcome is strikes or coercion, the pattern revealed in these 235 headlines demonstrates how consent is manufactured—not through lies alone but through timing, framing, omission, and construction of false consensus that makes dissent appear isolated. Understanding these patterns is essential not merely for analyzing this crisis but for recognizing how power operates when information warfare precedes military action.

February 5, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Douglas Macgregor: Russia, China & Iran Seek to Contain U.S. Military

Glenn Diesen | February 4, 2026

Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor explains how the military adventures of the U.S. are incentivising greater military cooperation between Russia, China and Iran.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

February 4, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine & Europe Can’t Out Wait Russia /Alexander Mercouris & Lt Col Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – February 3, 2026

February 3, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

IRGC drone completes lawful recon mission before contact lost

Al Mayadeen | February 3, 2026

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) has reportedly lost contact with one of its drones during a reconnaissance mission over international waters, according to a source cited by Tasnim News Agency on Tuesday.

The Shahed 129 was conducting a routine operation when communication with the aircraft was suddenly interrupted.

Media reports earlier claimed that the US military downed an Iranian UAV that allegedly approached the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea.

According to the Iranian source, the drone had been engaged in lawful reconnaissance and aerial photography, consistent with standard practices in international airspace. “The Shahed 129 drone was carrying out its routine reconnaissance and photography missions in international waters. This is considered normal and legal practice,” the source said.

The source added that the UAV had successfully transmitted all required imagery to the command center before contact was lost.

On the diplomatic front

This comes amid heightened regional tensions amid US threats to launch an aggression against Iran earlier in January. According to AFP, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman mounted a coordinated diplomatic effort on January 15 to dissuade US President Donald Trump from authorizing military strikes, warning that such an attack could trigger uncontrollable regional repercussions given the concentration of US military bases and strategic assets across the Gulf.

On the same day, diplomatic sources in Tehran told Al Mayadeen that a friendly regional party had informed Iran that Washington had reversed course on plans for military action following a reassessment of security and military risks, including the potential consequences of a large-scale strike and an evaluation of internal conditions inside Iran. Despite this reported pullback, Iranian authorities said they remained on full alert while keeping diplomatic channels open.

Both Tehran and Washington are expected to engage in mediated talks. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and White House envoy Steve Witkoff are expected to lead the two negotiating teams. Araghchi held calls on Tuesday with his Omani and Turkish counterparts, as well as with the prime minister of Qatar.

February 3, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘No nuclear program, no ballistic missiles, no support for resistance’: Israel sets red lines ahead of Iran–US talks

The Cradle | February 3, 2026

Israel is pushing the US to maintain the “three no’s” in upcoming talks with Iran, Israeli media reported – referring to the demand that Tehran end enrichment and give up its nuclear program, end its ballistic missile program, and halt support for resistance groups in the region.

“Israel is expected to call for the US to uphold ‘three no’s’ during the talks with Iran. These demands are that under any deal with the US, Iran agree to have no nuclear program, no ballistic missile program, and to give no support to armed proxy groups,” the Times of Israel said.

The report says the message will be delivered during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of US envoy Steve Witkoff’s expected engagement later this week with Iran’s top diplomat.

According to Israel’s Channel 12, the chiefs of Mossad and the Israeli army will be present at the meeting, as well as other security officials.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has announced that Tehran has agreed to hold a round of nuclear talks with Washington – in an effort to de-escalate tensions – on the condition that threats be halted and that “fair and equitable” negotiations take place.

“I have instructed my Minister of Foreign Affairs, provided that a suitable environment exists – one free from threats and unreasonable expectations – to pursue fair and equitable negotiations, guided by the principles of dignity, prudence, and expediency,” he said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi will meet Witkoff in Ankara on Friday.

Despite agreeing to hold talks, Tehran has categorically refused to capitulate to the “three no’s” demand.

“Iran’s defense is non-negotiable,” an Iranian source told Reuters.

Ali Shamkhani, senior advisor to Iran’s supreme leader, said the same thing in an interview with Al Mayadeen. He also said the US must “set aside unreasonable demands.”

He said Iran could potentially reduce enrichment, as was reported last year and hinted at by some officials.

“If the US attacks us, we will automatically regard Israel as a party to it, and we will inevitably respond accordingly. Any aggression against Iran, no matter how limited, will be turned into a very serious crisis, far greater than others imagine.” he added.

The Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has warned of a “regional war” if Iran is attacked. Officials have vowed that Tehran will strike Israel and US military bases across the region if the US decides to bomb.

Resistance groups in West Asia, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah, have warned that an attack on Iran would ignite the region.

Washington’s aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, has arrived in West Asia with several accompanying warships. Washington has also deployed additional fighter jet squadrons to the region.

Last week, Trump said that a “beautiful armada” is headed toward Iran, calling on the Islamic Republic to capitulate to US terms.

“If Iran doesn’t come to the talks on Friday with tangible things, it could find itself very quickly in a very bad situation,” a top official from a mediating country told Axios.

Araghchi recently said, “Let’s not talk about impossible things” when asked about the three main US-Israeli demands.

February 3, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran riots 2026: How the Erfan Soltani “execution” story went viral – and fell apart

By Yousef Ramazani | Press TV | February 3, 2026

The release on bail of Erfan Soltani, an Iranian national detained during recent riots in the country, on Sunday did more than conclude a domestic legal episode.

It also dismantled a carefully constructed and extremely flawed international narrative that, for weeks, had weaponized misinformation to portray his “execution” as an imminent certainty.

In mid-January 2026, a wave of alarming headlines rippled across global media, claiming without evidence that Iran was preparing to execute a young man named Erfan Soltani.

Major outlets – including the BBC, Euronews, The Guardian, and Sky News – reported his supposed “sentence” as fact, citing scandalous Western-based “human rights groups,” and triggering diplomatic warnings and an avalanche of political reactions.

“Iran set to execute protester days after arrest as Tehran speeds up death sentences,” declared Euronews. ABC News ran with: “Relative speaks out on plight of arrested Iranian protester Erfan Soltani, who had faced execution.” The Hill asked: “Who is Erfan Soltani, Iranian protester Trump mentioned facing execution?”

As the initial fog of propaganda began to lift, the narrative quietly shifted. The Guardian, which had earlier warned of Soltani’s “imminent execution,” later revised its framing: “Execution of condemned Iranian protester postponed, family told.” The BBC followed suit with: “Who is Erfan Soltani, Iranian protester who reportedly had execution postponed?”

The storyline consistently casts Iran’s judiciary as carrying out summary executions – a familiar script deployed in previous cycles of engineered unrest.

Yet on February 1, Soltani was released on bail. His case remains open, but without any death sentence outcome, Iranian judicial authorities had already signaled weeks earlier.

For charges against him, the provision of execution does not exist; they had made it clear.

The stark gap between the initial global coverage and the eventual reality revealed more than a routine correction. It exposed a complex ecosystem in which unverified activist claims, geopolitical pressure, and coordinated digital disinformation converged to shape a predetermined narrative against the Islamic Republic.

This investigation traces how the story was constructed, amplified, and sustained amid foreign-backed riots across Iran. It focuses in particular on the systematic manipulation of Wikipedia by a network of accounts linked to the exiled Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO) cult, designated as a terrorist organization.

It also shows how contemporary information warfare is waged not only through headlines and breaking news, but through the quiet, strategic curation of what is presented as the world’s most trusted knowledge repository.

How a legal case became a global human rights flashpoint

The international narrative surrounding Soltani ignited with striking speed and uniformity in the second week of January 2026, while riots and terrorism were at their peak across Iran.

The initial spark did not originate in mainstream newsrooms, but rather from organizations operating outside Iran. Among the first to circulate claims were the Norway-based, Kurdish-focused Hengaw Organization for Human Rights and the Iran Human Rights (IHR) group.

Both organizations reported that Soltani had been arrested, tried, and sentenced to death within an extraordinarily compressed timeframe – allegedly in a matter of days. These assertions were disseminated through their own platforms and amplified across social media.

Hengaw and IHR have a documented record of promoting anti-Iranian narratives and of repeatedly circulating unverified or later-debunked claims in high-profile cases, including those of Armita Geravand and Mahsa Amini.

Their statements contained severe allegations: that Soltani had been denied access to legal counsel, informed of a death sentence almost immediately after his arrest, and was facing imminent execution.

These claims were framed within a broader warning that Iran was embarking on a new wave of summary executions aimed at suppressing the “protest movement.”

The framing was particularly effective from their standpoint. It cast Soltani not as an individual defendant in an ongoing legal process, but as an early signal of an escalated phase of state repression.

Presented under the moral authority of human rights reporting, the narrative offered international media outlets a ready-made, emotionally charged storyline – one that aligned seamlessly with prevailing coverage of unrest and political tension in Iran.

Western media machine and the rush to judgment

Major Western media outlets swiftly amplified these unsubstantiated claims, often with little independent verification of the underlying judicial details.

Headlines quickly shifted from cautious phrasing to declarative assertions presented as fact. The Independent, for example, ran a story titled, “Iran set to execute first protester after ‘no trial and no due process’,” unequivocally treating the allegations as established reality.

The Guardian’s live coverage included an entry stating, “Execution of condemned Iranian protester postponed, family told,” reinforcing the impression that an execution date had already been set and merely delayed.

Broadcast and digital video platforms adopted even more sensational framing. On YouTube, outlets such as NewsX Live ran segments headlined: “Iran Protests Day 17: Iran Set to Execute Protester Erfan Soltani (26) After Fast-Tracked Trial.”

Across media outlets, the narrative structure was remarkably uniform: an innocent protester, a sham judicial process, and an impending state-sanctioned killing.

This coverage was frequently interwoven with statements from Western politicians, most notably reports that US President Donald Trump had warned his administration would take “strong action” should such executions proceed.

The result was a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Media reports appeared to justify political pressure, while political statements in turn validated and amplified the media’s gravest framing.

On social media, the story rapidly achieved viral status under hashtags such as #ErfanSoltani, where it was often stripped of nuance and circulated as categorical proof of Iranian “barbarity.”

At this stage, the narrative’s momentum became self-sustaining. The sheer volume of coverage by respected international outlets lent it an air of inevitability, crowding out a critical component: the perspective of Iran’s judiciary and state institutions.

Iranian counterpoint: Legal clarifications and a different frame

At the same time, from the earliest moments of the international media surge around this particular case, Iranian officials issued firm and detailed denials, grounded in logic.

The Judiciary Media Center described the reports as a coordinated rumor campaign driven by what it termed “media supporters of street terrorists.” Beyond dismissing the allegations, authorities sought to ground their response in legal specifics.

Officials stated that Soltani was arrested on January 10, 2026, during the deadly foreign-backed riots on Bahar Street in Karaj, and charged with “gathering and colluding against the country’s internal security” and “propaganda activities against the state.”

Crucially, they emphasized that these charges – under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code – carry penalties of imprisonment, not execution.

Authorities further stated unequivocally that no death sentence had been issued and that no final verdict had been reached in Soltani’s case, dismissing the media trial.

Some international wire services, including Agence France-Presse (AFP), as well as outlets such as Euronews and CBS News, did report these denials, resulting in a fragmented media landscape of competing claims.

However, these reports often appeared as secondary updates or were framed with distancing language – “Iran claims” or “Iran denies” – subtly casting doubt on the official statements while preserving the primacy of the original allegations.

As a result, the Iranian position struggled to gain equal footing. It was presented less as a substantive legal clarification and more as a predictable rebuttal from an accused state.

This imbalance allowed the execution narrative to remain the dominant global understanding of the case for weeks, despite the absence of any confirmed death sentence.

Digital battleground: Wikipedia’s vulnerability to coordinated influence

While the media storm raged with a familiar viciousness, a more subtle and insidious battle unfolded on Wikipedia – a platform whose content shapes the work of most Western journalists, researchers, and public perception.

Wikipedia’s open-editing model, a cornerstone of its success, also makes it uniquely vulnerable to coordinated influence campaigns orchestrated by well-resourced political actors.

The case of Soltani did not arise in isolation on the platform; rather, it was planted into a digital landscape already carefully cultivated by partisan forces.

For years, Wikipedia administrators have waged a silent war against a network of user accounts dedicated to advancing the agenda of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO) terror cult.

This cult, which fought alongside Saddam Hussein during the Holy Defense War in the 1980s and is designated a terrorist group by Iran, has long sought international legitimacy and crafted a narrative of popular resistance against the Iranian government.

Its digital strategy includes systematic infiltration of Wikipedia to whitewash its own controversial history and amplify content critical of the Islamic Republic.

From whitewashing to newsjacking: Soltani case as a target

The emergence in early January 2026 of a new Wikipedia user, PatriceON, exemplifies how this disinformation apparatus exploits breaking news to shape and distort narratives.

Created in July 2025, the account initially gained credibility through minor, low-profile edits before dramatically ramping up activity at the exact moment the Soltani story broke internationally.

PatriceON focused intensively on creating and editing biographies of individuals portrayed as “victims” of unrest, applying a formulaic narrative that emphasized their innocence and state brutality. The account’s sources consistently included exile media outlets and the same human rights groups driving the Soltani narrative.

When the Soltani story erupted, accounts like PatriceON were ready to embed it into Wikipedia’s permanent record with a dual purpose: to frame Soltani’s case through the now-debunked execution narrative, thereby enshrining it as historical fact, and to connect this content within a broader web of articles depicting systemic state violence.

This activity produces a self-referential information loop. For example, an article on “Human rights in Iran” cites the Soltani case, which in turn relies on sources from the very same partisan entities. This cycle creates an illusion of independent verification, effectively “source-washing” activist claims into encyclopedic knowledge.

Unmasking the network: A persistent playbook of deception

The tactics employed by PatriceON were far from novel, following a well-established playbook honed by a network of earlier accounts linked to MKO advocacy.

Wikipedia’s volunteer administrators have repeatedly documented this exact modus operandi across accounts such as Stefka Bulgaria, ParadaJulio, and TheDreamBoat – created between late 2016 and 2017 and eventually exposed and blocked in 2023.

Each account began with a “gnoming” phase, making hundreds of benign edits to non-controversial topics to build edit counts, avoid suspicion, and gain editorial privileges.

Once legitimacy was established, they abruptly pivoted to intense editing of articles on Iranian politics – whitewashing the MKO and promoting opposition biographies.

The sophistication and coordination of this network were revealed through behavioral forensics, including distinctive technical quirks like consistent template misuse that acted as a digital fingerprint. In one telling incident, a user accidentally pasted part of an external email containing instructions, exposing off-platform direction.

The MKO link was further confirmed when the Stefka Bulgaria account petitioned to remove Wikimedia Commons photos of paid non-Iranian (African) protesters at an MKO rally in Paris, an effort documented by journalists as crowd manipulation.

Wikipedia officials concluded these accounts were part of a “complex and multi-person operation” designed to subvert editorial guidelines and promote a singular viewpoint.

The campaign exhibited persistence; blocking one account was quickly followed by the emergence of another, indicating an organized, long-term strategy rather than sporadic activism.

How Wikipedia and media fuel each other

The interplay between covert Wikipedia editing and mainstream media is symbiotic, often indirect but mutually reinforcing.

Journalists working under tight deadlines frequently rely on Wikipedia for quick background. Articles citing reports from organizations like Hengaw or IHR, framed around an alleged impending execution—reinforce the story’s perceived legitimacy.

Conversely, after major outlets like the BBC or The Guardian publish stories, Wikipedia editors, including those linked to influence networks, swiftly cite these articles as “reliable sources,” leveraging mainstream media’s authority to legitimize the narrative within the encyclopedia.

This creates a closed informational loop: activist claims → media amplification → Wikipedia codification → further media citation.

Though initial sourcing traces back to a handful of partisan actors, the journey through respected media intermediaries obscures this provenance.

In the Soltani case, this feedback loop operated with remarkable speed, cementing the execution narrative as accepted fact well before judicial clarifications could surface.

Unraveling: Bail and the narrative’s collapse

The factual cornerstone of the entire international narrative collapsed on February 1, 2026, when Soltani was released from Karaj Central Penitentiary on bail of two billion tomans.

His lawyer, Musa Khani, publicly confirmed the release, and Iranian media reported the news straightforwardly. This outcome was irreconcilable with the widely circulated story of a man on death row facing imminent execution.

Some Western outlets, such as Sky News, acknowledged the release but continued to frame it with headlines like “Iranian protester Erfan Soltani released after death sentence threat,” perpetuating the discredited execution claim as a foundational part of the story.

The contrast was stark: a judiciary accused of summary executions had, in reality, processed a bail application and released the defendant pending trial, standard procedure in legal systems worldwide.

Soltani’s own mother revealed she first learned of the alleged death sentence not from Iranian authorities, but from the BBC, underscoring how the family became collateral in the international media battle.

Aftermath and lingering damage

Despite the resolution, the damage to accurate public understanding was profound. The initial false narrative had already reached global saturation, and diplomatic capital had been expended.

The hashtag #ErfanSoltani remained indelibly linked to “state execution” within the digital ecosystem of social media. On Wikipedia, correcting the record became a difficult and contested process.

Editors seeking to update Soltani’s entry to reflect the bail release faced resistance from those invested in maintaining the earlier narrative. The MKO-linked networks, despite periodic disruptions, showed resilience, the blocking of PatriceON in January 2026 being merely one episode in an ongoing campaign.

Their strategy is long-term and systemic. It does not hinge on winning a single edit battle over Soltani’s case but on persistently shaping hundreds of articles to construct an overarching meta-narrative of Iranian illegitimacy and oppression, into which individual cases like Soltani’s are seamlessly woven as examples.

The protest article as a propaganda platform

The systemic nature of this influence campaign is perhaps most starkly revealed in the ongoing manipulation of Wikipedia’s main article covering the 2025-2026 Iranian protests-turned-riots.

Far from serving as a neutral encyclopedic record, this entry functions as a curated propaganda platform, actively shaped by a coalition of interest groups – including MKO advocates, monarchist partisans, and pro-Israeli editors.

Its foundation is critically compromised by heavy reliance on sources such as the Saudi-funded, Israeli-linked outlet Iran International – a propaganda channel widely documented as a disinformation platform. Yet, its own Wikipedia article is systematically whitewashed by the very same network of editors who promote its narratives.

The result is a narrative rife with blatant falsehoods presented as fact: the article claims an unverified figure of “5 million protesters,” despite independent analysis indicating that, at the peak of the unrest on January 8 and 9, fewer than 20,000 people were on the streets.

It elevates the Israeli-aligned Reza Pahlavi as a principal leader of the “protests” and inflates casualty counts by an order of magnitude, attributing all deaths solely to state forces.

This curated version deliberately omits documented counter-evidence, including forensic proof of terrorist infiltration and shootings, video footage of armed violence against police, extensive damage to infrastructure, and the scale of pro-government counter-demonstrations.

Instead of portraying the complex on-the-ground reality, the article foregrounds imagery from diaspora monarchist rallies in Western capitals, effectively substituting actual events with an externally manufactured political narrative.

This distortion epitomizes the ultimate goal of the coordinated campaign: to entrench a partisan version of history within the world’s most trusted knowledge repository.

February 3, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Showdown

By William Schryver – imetatronink – February 2, 2026

For several years now I have been making the argument that, because American military power is so widely dispersed and diluted across the planet, the only way the United States could concentrate sufficient forces to prosecute a war against one of its three major power adversaries (Russia, China, and Iran) would be to significantly deplete its force posture relative to the other two.

That is precisely what has been happening over the course of the past few weeks in relation to the military buildup in the Persian Gulf region, in apparent preparation to launch an air campaign against Iran.

Now, granted, as I wrote yesterday, the force the US is concentrating in the Middle East via an aggressive heavy airlift operation is not sufficiently potent to sustain more than about two weeks of high-intensity war against Iran. US stockpiles of precision-guided weaponry are simply too limited to allow for a more protracted campaign.

Nor do I believe the US has the logistical and maintenance capacity to keep a large percentage of its fleet of aging aircraft air-worthy for more than about two weeks — especially when there will very likely be Iranian missiles raining down on all the US bases in the region.

And therefore, if Iran proves capable of turning it into even a month-long regional war of attrition, there is no way I can see the US being able to sustain its sortie rate, nor to tolerate the losses of men and equipment it would inevitably incur.

The US would be forced to withdraw.

It would be a catastrophic debacle for Washington, and would radically alter the global balance of powers.

Of course, a great many Americans and others around the world are convinced that the US military is so incomparably awesome that it will be able to overwhelm and subdue the Iranians within no more than 48 hours or so – and therefore the risk of “running out” of strike missiles and air defense interceptors is illusory and irrelevant.

For most people around the globe, the notion that the US could actually LOSE a war to Iran is utterly incomprehensible.

Maybe these people are right. Maybe I and others have completely overestimated Iranian capabilities. Maybe Iran will collapse like a house of cards in the face of one “shock and awe” strike by the US and Israel. Maybe they will be so intimidated by this major concentration of American force that they will, at the eleventh hour, simply accede to American demands to abandon their nuclear program, dismantle their missile force, and permit the US to install a puppet government in Tehran.

But I strongly doubt it.

In any case, the US has delivered a formidable strike force to the region. In addition, a huge proportion of US air defense capability has now been committed to this campaign in anticipation of a formidable Iranian counterstrike to an American/Israeli attack on them.

I have, for the past few years, repeatedly expressed my doubts that the US would ultimately opt to launch a war against Iran. I have been largely persuaded that clear heads in the Pentagon would recognize the very significant risks of such an undertaking, and that their well-established aversion to human and material losses would eventually dissuade them from stumbling into such a potential strategic disaster.

But, by all indications, the powers-that-be in Washington are now fully committed to enforcing their demands on Tehran. And the Iranians appear committed to standing their ground. Neither side can retreat at this juncture. So it’s gonna be a showdown.

February 3, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

US traders struggling to find buyers for Venezuelan oil, as China shifts supply chain to Canada

Inside China Business | February 2, 2026

Following the US takeover of the Venezuelan oil industry, commodities trading firms were given contracts to market the crude to buyers across the world, including to China. But Venezuelan crude oil is now being sold at far higher prices than before, with the profits routed through US companies and energy traders. The higher prices have pushed Chinese refiners out of the market for the heavy crude from Venezuela, and they are shifting their orders to Canada, Russia, and Iran. Canadian tar sands oil is more expensive than Venezuelan heavy sour, but is similar, and offers far shorter transit times and lower shipping costs. Chinese energy traders have been instructed to refuse new offers for Venezuelan crude. Closing scene, Wulingyuan, Hunan Resources and links:

Reuters, Vitol, Trafigura offer Venezuelan oil to Indian, Chinese refiners for March delivery, sources say https://www.reuters.com/business/ener…

China replaces US barrels with crude from Canada https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/tan…

Trump’s Venezuela oil grab is pushing Chinese refiners to Canada (Not paywalled) https://calgaryherald.com/business/tr…

Reuters Exclusive: PetroChina holds off from buying Venezuelan oil marketed under US control, sources say https://www.reuters.com/business/ener…

Bloomberg, Trump’s Venezuela Oil Grab Pushes Chinese Refiners to Canada https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…

Trump administration demands Venezuela cut ties with US adversaries to resume oil production https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/07/politi…

February 2, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Fantasies of Fragmenting Iran Only Serve Israeli Interests

By José Niño | The Libertarian Institute | February 2, 2026

A troubling convergence has emerged among Western think tanks, Israeli politicians, and exiled opposition figures advocating for the partition of Iran along ethnic and sectarian lines. This strategy represents a dangerous escalation from traditional regime change toward what can only be described as regime destruction, a policy shift that would benefit Israeli regional ambitions while catastrophically destabilizing the Middle East and creating humanitarian disasters that would dwarf the Syrian refugee crisis.

Iran’s demographic reality forms the pretext for these proposals. Persians constitute between 51 and 61% of the population, while Azerbaijanis comprise 16 to 24%, Kurds represent 7 to 10%, with smaller populations of Arabs, Baloch, Lurs, and Turkmen rounding out the nation’s ethnic composition. Rather than viewing this diversity as a national strength, Balkanization advocates frame it as a strategic vulnerability ripe for exploitation.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a rabid neoconservative organization, has positioned itself at the forefront of this campaign. Analyst Brenda Shaffer has explicitly promoted Iran’s fragmentation comparable to Yugoslavia’s violent collapse, while maintaining undisclosed financial ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company SOCAR. Her advocacy centers on promoting secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, revealing fundamental misunderstanding of Iranian internal dynamics. Both Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Massoud Pezeshkian are Azerbaijani, thoroughly undermining narratives of Persian ethnic hegemony driving separatist sentiment.

Media outlets have amplified these calls with alarming explicitness. In June 2025, The Jerusalem Post editorial board urged formation of a “Middle East coalition for Iran’s partition,” proposing “security guarantees to Sunni, Kurdish and Balochi minority regions willing to break away.” The editorial advocated federalization or complete partition, explicitly comparing Iran’s potential dismemberment to Yugoslavia’s breakup. The Wall Street Journal similarly published arguments that a fractured Iran could frustrate Russian and Chinese interests while reducing threats to Israel, downplaying catastrophic risks.

Israeli political circles have demonstrated institutional support for partition. In 2023, thirty-two members of Parliament signed a declaration calling for Iran’s disintegration into six parts, advocating territorial separation from Tehran to Iranian Azerbaijan, merger of Iranian Kurdistan with Iraqi Kurdish regions, independence for Ahwaz, and alignment of Baluchistan with Pakistan. Though most lawmakers later rescinded signatures following backlash, the episode exposed significant appetite for fragmentation strategies within Israeli political establishment.

The ideological foundation for these proposals traces directly to the 1982 Yinon Plan, a strategic memorandum by Israeli journalist Oded Yinon advocating division of Middle Eastern states along ethnic and sectarian lines. The plan explicitly stated Israel must effect “the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states,” operating on the premise that smaller states are weaker states and therefore easier to dominate. While the original document focused primarily on Arab states, contemporary partition advocacy has extrapolated these principles to Iran, effectively creating a Yinon Plan for the Iranosphere.

This represents the logical culmination of a strategy that has already produced catastrophic results across the region. Iraq’s 2003 invasion and subsequent sectarian fragmentation created hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, millions of refugees, and the rise of ISIS rather than the democratic transformation promised. Syria’s fragmentation generated over half a million deaths and displaced half the pre-war population. Libya’s post-intervention collapse created ungoverned spaces exploited by terrorist networks and human traffickers. The pattern is consistent: balkanization produces chaos, humanitarian catastrophe, and conditions favoring extremist groups rather than stability or democracy.

For Iran specifically, partition would serve exclusively Israeli strategic interests while harming American national security. Israel seeks to leave Iran fragmented and dotted by warring statelets incapable of posing coherent challenge to greater Israeli regional ambitions. A broken Iran cannot develop nuclear capabilities, cannot support resistance movements, cannot project power beyond its borders. The United States has no corresponding interest in such outcomes. Iranian fragmentation would create massive refugee flows destabilizing neighboring states and requiring international humanitarian intervention. It would generate ungoverned territories exploited by terrorist organizations.

Turkey will never tolerate Western support for Kurdish separatism in Iran given its decades-long struggle with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Pakistan, already facing a Baloch insurgency movement, would view Western meddling in Iranian Balochistan as direct threat to its territorial integrity. Russia and China, both managing ethnic minority regions, would interpret Iran partition as validating their darkest suspicions about Western intentions, accelerating formation of anti-Western coalitions and hardening domestic crackdowns.

American efforts against Iran have already demonstrated the futility of maximum pressure approaches. Decades of sanctions have not produced regime change but rather entrenched hardliners and strengthened nationalist resistance. Covert operations including assassinations of nuclear scientists, Stuxnet cyberattacks, and support for exile groups have failed to alter Iranian strategic calculations. Direct military strikes destroyed facilities temporarily rebuilt within years. The historical record shows Iranian society rallies around the flag when facing external aggression rather than fragmenting along ethnic lines.

Iranian nationalism represents a powerful unifying force transcending ethnic divisions. Iran claims status as one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations, with national identity predating modern ethnic categories. Unlike Iraq or Syria where borders reflected colonial cartography, Iran constitutes a historically integrated entity where internal diversity has coexisted with strong national consciousness for millennia.

The alternative to destructive partition fantasies requires sober policy recognizing previous failures. The United States needs fundamental strategic reorientation away from Middle Eastern interventions toward addressing genuine national security priorities. Border security in the Western Hemisphere, managing peaceful co-existence China, and rebuilding domestic infrastructure represent core American interests unrelated to fragmenting Iran.

Non-interventionism and restraint acknowledge that Iranian political evolution must emerge from internal dynamics rather than external manipulation. The lessons from Iraq, Syria, and Libya are unambiguous. Military intervention and support for fragmentation produce humanitarian catastrophes, empower extremist factions, and create conditions requiring prolonged American involvement rather than enabling withdrawal. The Middle East does not need another failed state generating refugee crises and terrorist safe havens. The American people deserve foreign policy serving national interests rather than outsourcing strategic decision-making to regional allies [?] pursuing incompatible objectives.

Iran’s partition would not take the country off the geopolitical chessboard as advocates claim. It would set that board on fire, creating unpredictable cascades of violence, displacement, and great power competition in one of the world’s most volatile regions. The humanitarian costs would be staggering, the strategic consequences counterproductive, and the benefits accruing exclusively to Israel rather than the United States or the Iranian people themselves.

A responsible approach recognizes Iran’s ninety million citizens deserve to determine their own political future, but such transformation cannot be imposed through external fragmentation. The path forward requires restraint, non-interventionism, and acknowledgment that decades of sanctions, covert operations, and military threats have consistently failed while strengthening the very regime they aimed to weaken.

February 2, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Mike Pompeo admits Washington ‘directly helped’ rioters in Iran

Press TV – February 2, 2026

Former CIA director Mike Pompeo has admitted that Washington played a direct role in recent violent riots in Iran, saying the United States “directly helped” the rioters.

In an interview with Israeli Channel 13 on Monday, the interviewer referred to US President Donald Trump’s promises of support for the rioters and suggested that such help never materialized.

Pompeo rejected that view, responding, “I do not think so. Help did come … a lot of help. We may not see it all … We may not know about it all, But the United States is actively trying to help [them].”

When asked whether Trump had missed the opportunity to “overthrow” the Iranian government, Pompeo again disagreed.

His remarks revealed that despite the Trump administration’s repeated statements about pursuing a peaceful solution with Iran, Washington was in practice working toward “regime change” in Tehran.

Pompeo had previously linked the riots in Iran to American and Israeli intelligence agencies. During the riots on January 2, he wrote on the social media platform X, “Happy New Year to every Iranian on the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”

Peaceful protests began in late December in Iran’s commercial districts following the depreciation of the rial against the US dollar.

By early January, however, the situation escalated into violent riots after terrorists linked to Israel and the US infiltrated the gatherings, using live ammunition against security personnel and civilians.

In response, and to protect ordinary people, Iranian security forces and intelligence units intervened decisively and detained the ringleaders behind the violence.

On January 12, millions took part in nationwide demonstrations in support of the Islamic Republic, after which the riots quickly subsided.

February 2, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »