Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iran’s oil exports hit new post-sanctions record

Press TV – November 9, 2025

Iran has set a new record in its oil exports despite the continued pressure of US and UN sanctions, according to the latest data from a leading energy analytics firm.

The Tankers Trackers said in a post on its X account on Sunday that Iran had exported an average of 2.3 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil over the past four weeks.

“These are numbers we haven’t seen since the early half of 2018,” the post said.

Iran’s oil exports came under sweeping US sanctions in May 2018, when Washington withdrew from a landmark international deal on Iran’s nuclear program, known as the JCPOA.

The sanctions affected Iranian oil shipments when they were tightened in May 2019, but they gradually became ineffective as Iran managed to restore and expand its exports, particularly to private buyers in China.

The Tanker Trackers had already reported a seven-year record in Iran’s oil exports in September when shipments reached nearly 2 million bpd.

That report came just before the United Nations re-imposed six sanction resolutions on Iran that had been lifted in 2015 when the country signed the JCPOA with world powers.

The US and allies in Europe, who triggered the so-called snapback of UN sanctions on Iran, had expected that the sanctions could curb the flow of oil from Iran to major customers like China.

However, experts and authorities in Iran have consistently downplayed concerns raised about the country’s oil exports, arguing that UN sanctions wouldn’t affect Iran’s oil trade or its access to international markets.

Iranian Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad said in early October that UN sanctions would not add any new pressure on the country’s oil exports as he insisted that the country had overcome some of the harshest American sanctions targeting its oil industry in recent years.

November 9, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO chief urges West to prepare for long-term confrontation with Russia

RT | November 6, 2025

NATO member-states must boost military production to be ready for a prolonged standoff with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, which are challenging the “global rules,” the bloc’s secretary-general, Mark Rutte, has said.

Speaking to Western defense contractors at the NATO-Industry Forum in Bucharest on Thursday, Rutte told the bloc’s arms makers that “there is more cash on the table and even more will flow” amid NATO’s rearmament push.

Moscow has rejected claims it harbors any aggressive intentions towards the US-led military bloc, saying such allegations are being used by politicians in the US and EU to scare the populations and justify huge increases in military spending. Russia also believes that NATO’s deepening involvement in Ukraine was instrumental in escalating the conflict in 2022.

Rutte labeled the fighting between Moscow and Kiev a “threat” to the bloc and he claimed that “the danger posed by Russia will not end when this war does. For the foreseeable future, Russia will remain a destabilizing force in Europe and the world.”

“And Russia is not alone in its efforts to undermine the global rules. As you know, it is working with China, with North Korea, with Iran, and others. They are increasing their defense industrial collaboration to unprecedented levels. They are preparing for long-term confrontation,” the secretary-general said.

He noted the pledge by NATO members to hike military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, but claimed that “cash alone cannot provide security. We need the capabilities. We need the equipment, real firepower, and of course… the most advanced tech.” This would require the bloc’s defense industry “increasing production and shortening delivery times,” Rutte stressed.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova reacted to Rutte’s comments by asking him to clarify what “global rules” he was talking about and publish their “full list” on NATO’s website.

Moscow, Beijing, and the rest of “the global majority, have always declared their commitment to international law, while NATO has repeatedly violated this law with its aggressive actions and illegitimate coalitions: the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, the bombing of Yugoslavia, and so on,” Zakharova wrote on Telegram.

November 6, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

On to the Next Front: Israel Threatens Lebanon with a New War

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | November 4, 2025

Israel’s goal is to eliminate its regional opposition entirely. In Lebanon, the US-Israeli alliance has pursued the push to disarm Hezbollah. The Israeli strategy is to outmaneuver the Lebanese group by opening new rounds of war, while imposing immense suffering on the people.
Israel is now threatening to open up another war against Lebanon and is initiating a propaganda campaign to justify its actions. It has, in reality, violated the ceasefire every day since it was imposed and its strategy is to eventually push the State to internal chaos and collapse.

While it may be well known, at this point, that Israel continues full steam ahead on the war path with Lebanon, as it threatens to bombard Beirut and escalate its ongoing bombing campaign, there are two important points that are necessary to understand what is truly going on.

The beginning of any conversation on the issue is to understand that Israel alone is the reason for the conflict and that its propaganda surrounding Hezbollah’s disarmament is disingenuous. From there, we can properly assess what the Israeli strategy is in Lebanon and what it seeks to gain.

Israeli media is currently ripe with analysts and military officials commenting about the rapid re-armament of Hezbollah, even claiming that, in one year, the Lebanese group has managed to rebuild to the extent that internal estimates believed only to have been possible in a 15 to 20-year time frame. In the Hebrew media framing of events, it is clear that the justification for a new military operation in Lebanon is explained through a “security” lens, arguing that war is necessary to weaken their greatest adversary to the north.

Meanwhile, in the Gulf and Western-owned Arabic media, along with English-language corporate media, their coverage depicts a failure of the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah as the primary issue at hand. The framing harbors the point that the problem here pertains to Hezbollah’s weapons, that this is the reason for the conflict, and that, while Israel may not be helping the situation, the guilty party is the so-called “Iranian proxies”. This line of reasoning argues that, given Hezbollah’s disarmament, Lebanon will be transformed and return to some notion of its “glory days” of old.

Immediately, here there are two narratives that are not congruent, despite bearing some similarities and arguing from the same pro-Israeli point of view, which should be a major red flag for anyone who is looking at this issue critically.

Israel’s Claims about Hezbollah’s Weapons

Ever since the ceasefire was supposed to come into effect late last November, Israel has violated the deal over 7,000 times according to UNIFIL figures. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has not violated the agreement.

According to the ceasefire agreement, the Israeli military should have long withdrawn its forces from the south of the country, yet it has vowed to permanently remain inside what it now considers a security zone; in other words, an illegal occupation of Lebanese lands.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese army has adhered to the deal by dismantling sites used by Hezbollah south of the Litani River, while the group itself agreed to begin disarmament in this zone. Despite this and the work done to remove Hezbollah’s military presence in southern Lebanon, the Israelis only expanded the zone of illegal occupation, continued their strikes, murdered more civilians, and seized more Lebanese hostages. Israel has even struck the Lebanese capital a number of times since the ceasefire was imposed, to which there was no response from Hezbollah.

When it comes to the issue of total disarmament, Hezbollah has rejected this notion. Earlier this year, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had attempted to reach a deal whereby Hezbollah would surrender its weapons to the Lebanese Army and integrate within it, as a national defense strategy was put together. Israel and the United States both rejected such an idea.

The Lebanese public was then polled on this issue and overwhelmingly expressed their opposition to disarmament, in the event that there is no national defense strategy in place, fearing that the Lebanese Army itself could not defend the country against existential threats posed by its southern and eastern borders.

Despite this, under the orders of US envoy Tom Barrack, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam decided to push forward with the agenda to totally disarm Hezbollah by later this year, a task widely viewed as impractical and likely to lead to civil war if attempted violently. Both Washington and Tel Aviv pushed for this, regardless, offering Beirut nothing in return, only threatening to escalate tensions.

Hezbollah itself was born out of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, created to resist the illegal occupation of southern Lebanese territory. Immediately upon its founding, it understood the importance of bearing arms and continuing to resist, until the very last drop of blood. The reason for this is simple: they had the example of what had just happened to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

After Israel murdered around 20,000 people in Lebanon and besieged the PLO’s leadership in Beirut, the group’s Chairman, Yasser Arafat, agreed to “end” the war through disarmament and moving his leadership to Tunisia. Once the Palestinian Resistance was no longer there, the Israelis then occupied southern Lebanon and, along with their fascist militia allies, committed massacres against innocent women and children. These massacres, which targeted primarily Palestinians, but also Lebanese Shia and others, were amongst the worst in the history of the conflict, such as the infamous Sabra and Shatila camp massacre that killed as many as 3,500 civilians alone.

What led up to the 1982 invasion was that the PLO found itself in a very similar scenario to Hezbollah today. The Israelis constantly violated the existing ceasefire agreement, attempting to draw a response that would justify further military operations, to which the PLO did not bite.

The PLO, for its part, was not only adhering to the ceasefire, it was also heading up a diplomatic mission that was paving the way for a “two-State solution” process, in line with the organization’s 10-point plan and Saudi Arabia’s Fez Initiative. The Israelis branded this as the PLO’s “peace offensive”, viewing it as a threat and seeking any excuse to invade Lebanon, which they finally found with an incident that the PLO had nothing to do with.

Hezbollah managed to struggle against Israel for decades, forcing them to abandon their occupation of the south in 2000, and later thwarting an Israeli invasion in 2006. After this, despite Israel still occupying the Sheba’a Farms and Ghajar village, Hezbollah’s weapons managed to cause a deterrence scenario, whereby they achieved nearly 17 years of relative calm. The Israelis would not dare to bomb their territory.

On October 8, 2023, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, would then change this equation by entering into a support front battle, in order to fight alongside the people of Gaza and ensure their victory. The first operations carried out by Hezbollah targeted military sites illegally occupied by Israel in the Sheba’a Farms, a move not prohibited under international law.

The Israeli response then came against Hezbollah sites and civilians in southern Lebanon, soon including the targeting of journalists, medical workers, women, children, and the elderly. Therefore, Hezbollah began escalating its attacks and responding by hitting military sites, then eventually strategically striking settlements in a tit-for-tat battle. While Israel murdered hundreds of civilians in Lebanon, only a dozen Israeli non-combatants were killed by Hezbollah’s fire, which almost entirely focused on military sites and strategically hit settlements.

Even after Israel’s pager attacks across Lebanon, which murdered and maimed women and children, not just Hezbollah members, killing dozens and injuring thousands, Hezbollah still intended to keep its military operations limited to a support front and not all-out war. Then, the Israelis imposed a war on Lebanon, anyway, killed up to 5,000 people in total, assassinating Hezbollah’s senior leadership, and invaded the country with the intent of reaching the Litani River area.

Hezbollah managed to carefully manage the war, not letting it boil over into an all-out extermination campaign as had happened in Gaza, also succeeding in halting the Israeli military’s ground advances in the south.

Despite the words of Hezbollah’s martyred leader, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, in his last speech, vowing to continue firing until a ceasefire is reached in Gaza, the group eventually decided that it would agree to a ceasefire in order to stop the war from escalating to the next phase: anticipated to bring the all out destruction of Beirut.

What Israel’s Agenda Entails

At this point, after reading the above-mentioned context provided, a reasonable skeptic would argue the point that Israel agreed to the ceasefire and, therefore, they must be interested in peace or, at least, their intentions are not as malicious as is being argued. To which the natural answer has been that the Israelis repeatedly violated every tenet of the deal they had agreed to.

Yet, this explanation is not sufficient to explain away the Israeli counterpoint often made. A more rounded answer to this question not only explains why Israel agreed to the ceasefire at the time, but also what their current strategy is.

While Israeli propaganda has it that Hezbollah had been defeated, that some 90 percent of their weapons were destroyed and its mission was completed, the truth is that the war was reaching a boiling point.

In late September and early October of 2024, the Israelis had pulled off their most significant tactical victories against Hezbollah. Their pager attacks, bombings against major weapons depots, and assassinations of senior officials were all massive blows against Hezbollah.

Yet, by late November of 2024, the Israelis had failed to advance any significant distance in southern Lebanon on the ground; they had also gotten themselves tangled up in a deadly tit-for-tat battle. Although the Israeli strikes did far more damage, Hezbollah was revealing and firing new kinds of munitions, day in and day out, even striking high-rise buildings in Tel Aviv.

It was clear to anyone following the course of the war that Hezbollah had an abundance of weapons that were not about to run out, but that the group had also been greatly shaken up. On the Israeli side, their weapons were never going to run dry, yet they failed to achieve anything too significant after the first few weeks, and their ground forces were taking a beating.

After Hezbollah proved it still possessed ballistic missiles capable of striking high-rise buildings in the heart of Tel Aviv, it was clear from the threats being issued by the Israeli leadership that a new phase of the war was afoot. This clearly was not about defeating Hezbollah and would have resulted in destruction against Israeli-held cities that had not yet been seen.

Therefore, understanding that repeating the Gaza model of destruction in Lebanon was not going to serve either side, both agreed to a ceasefire. The result was a stalemate, yet politically and in terms of public perception, the Israelis clearly had the edge.

Hezbollah could not credibly claim a victory and was clearly desperately in need of repair, after suffering severe blows to everything, from its chain of command to its communication, intelligence wing, political standing, and even its weapons. According to multiple sources inside Lebanon, up to 25 percent of Hezbollah’s weapons were destroyed. Although this is nowhere near the Israeli numbers, it is certainly significant.

Tel Aviv saw that, through their actions, they were capable of seriously shaking Hezbollah and putting them in a terrible political predicament, but eliminating them altogether was a goal that clearly failed.

So, the next step was to pursue this goal through other means. Instead of dissolving and the public support for the group evaporating, the base of the group inside Lebanon had doubled down. To them, what was done specifically to their former leader, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, ignited an everlasting fire, inflicting emotional pain that exists in each household until this day.

Israel then sought to impose an equation whereby they could fire at will in Lebanon, while forcing the pro-American stooges picked to run the government to do their bidding. Naturally, the US and Israel knew that the disarmament of Hezbollah was never going to happen by the end of the year, and, without any roadmap as to how to achieve it, there was not even the slightest chance of success with this strategy.

Nevertheless, the US-Israeli alliance has pursued this push to disarm Hezbollah, the Iraqi PMU, Hamas, along all the Palestinian resistance factions, through political maneuvers and agreements.

While ceasefire agreements hold in both Gaza and Lebanon – translating to Israel reducing its attacks while its enemies actually respect the agreements – they scheme for the next inevitable round of confrontations.

Before proceeding with this line of analysis, it is important to establish Israel’s goal, which is to both conquer or impose its will on more territory and eliminate its regional opposition entirely. A perfect demonstration of what happens in the event of disarmament is the case of Syria, where the Israeli military continues to illegally occupy more territory, arm separatists to fight a government it is dealing directly with and refuses to allow the country to enjoy any sovereignty.

The new Syrian government has collaborated with the Israelis openly in the south of the country, worked on their behalf to stop weapons transfers into Lebanon, kicked out and disbanded all the Palestinian resistance groups in the country and is openly aligned with the US. Despite all of the Syrian regime’s pandering, the Israelis are still arming groups to divide the country into separate sectarian regimes and bomb it, at will, additionally refusing to allow the rebuilding of the Syrian army.

On October 7, 2023, the Israelis suffered a severe blow, yet they also saw an opportunity to go after every one of their opponents and to carve out their “Greater Israel Project”, which its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admits to and frames as a “seven-front war”.

In this regional war, Iran is its strongest opposition. However, they have no actual ground options against the Israelis, meaning that as long as any round of conflict with the Islamic Republic is short, they can survive. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has a ground force consisting of around 100,000 men, which makes up for the lack of parity when it comes to missiles and other capabilities.

Incapable of winning any decisive victory over Hezbollah, the Israeli strategy is to put the Lebanese group on the back foot, to open up new rounds of war that will set them back further, each time damaging them, but not inflicting a total defeat. This strategy means that the wars have to be limited and not all-out.

In the Israeli mindset, the Lebanon question is similar to the Gaza question. Solving it is not only destroying Hamas or Hezbollah, because another group will inevitably rise to assume their position. The issue is to use proxy groups, whether sectarian or extremists of whatever flavor, to divide society and turn their focus on within. It is a process by which the people there must be re-educated, propagandized, forced into internal division and controlled as slaves who adhere to Israel’s regional ambitions. Syria is a great example of Israel’s dream.

When we now turn to Israel’s most recent threats against Lebanon, we are in a phase of political pressure being applied upon the government in Beirut, but also on the public, which is collectively anxious about the perceived inevitability of war. Should that war soon come, the Israelis will seek to achieve their goals quickly, impose immense suffering and then go back to a ceasefire, similar to what we have now.

If Hezbollah fails to inflict a perceived defeat upon the Israelis, it will severely damage their image and even sow doubt amongst their own supporters, who all long for revenge. Not only do they seek revenge for what Israel did last year, but they continue to suffer daily oppression at the hands of the occupying force that remains in the south of their country.

The Israelis believed that symbolically imposing their dominance over the Lebanese people, something clearly on display with the fighter jet flyover of Beirut during the funeral of Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, they could beat the people’s spirits down. For now, they have only grown more motivated towards revenge.

Broadly speaking, the public perception, even amongst Hezbollah’s most die-hard supporters, is that Israel is militarily superior and the old perception of the Lebanese group’s power is gone. From an Israeli perspective, this is a good thing, yet it could also serve as the opposite in any future battle.

Hezbollah was perceived as a massive victor in the 2006 war, not because they decisively defeated Israel, but because they were such a massive underdog and still managed to dictate the pace of the conflict in many regards. Mere survival for such an armed group was considered a victory, let alone the master-class pulled off by the group during the war. Back then, Hezbollah did not possess weapons that could hit Tel Aviv, let alone guided ballistic missiles and suicide drones. In many ways, it was comparable to the power of Hamas on October 7, 2023.

Therefore, if Hezbollah plays its cards correctly this time around, it could come off with what is considered a devastating defeat of Israel. The problem with this will be Israel’s reaction to its own failure, as we are no longer in the era of 2006-style battles being permissible, as was the case in Gaza; the Israelis could exit a battle, as occurred in 2014, and be content, but not now. If the Israelis start getting embarrassed in Lebanon, they could feel the need to escalate further.

This is where two major questions arise: Will Iran fight alongside Hezbollah? And how far are Hezbollah willing to go?

Under the scenario that Iran joins in, this could lead to two potential outcomes: A much broader war or an intervention that forces the Israelis to close the war and accept defeat. The Iranians also have their Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) allies, who number above 250,000 and could potentially be used to fight Israel, also.

The reason why Iran could decide to throw its weight behind Hezbollah, this time, is down to the inevitability of another US-Israeli attack on them and the fact that losing Hezbollah could spell strategic defeat.

As for the question of how far Hezbollah is ready to go, if its current Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem’s rhetoric about waging “a Karbalae battle”, that is to say a war to the death, then we should expect their forces to enter the northern Galilee. If this occurs, Israel will interpret it as another October 7-style failure, meaning the number of civilians we can expect them to kill across Lebanon will be unprecedented.

If Hezbollah fighters breach the borders, this will provide a moment of truth for the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza, as well. What the groups in Gaza will do is impossible to predict, but there will certainly be major decisions that will have to be made in such a scenario.

All of this is, to some extent or another, understood by the Israelis. They know the dangers of pursuing this course of action and what happens if it spirals out of control, yet it appears as if they are willing to take these chances. So far, the Iranians have decided to hold back and so the Israelis have walked away from each round, having achieved some objectives and only suffering minor consequences.

If Israel gets its way, it will seek to continue its phased attacks on Gaza, Lebanon and even Iran, each time attempting to score new victories and to inflict major psychological blows on the populations inside these countries. Israeli victory hedges upon limited confrontations and maximum civilian suffering, to rob the people of their sense of stability, their faith in victory, and to divide them, turning the people on each other as a means of crippling their leadership.

November 4, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | 1 Comment

The myth of US peacemaking: Why Washington’s mediation in West Asia keeps crumbling

By Peiman Salehi | The Cradle | November 3, 2025

The US has long styled itself as a guarantor of peace and stability in West Asia while systematically undermining both. From the Oslo Accords to the Abraham Accords, Washington’s so-called peace initiatives have masked coercion as consensus.

These efforts consistently reinforce the regional status quo, prioritizing Israeli security over Palestinian sovereignty, and maintaining western hegemony over regional autonomy.

The collapse of another US-backed Gaza ceasefire, violated within days by renewed Israeli aggression, exposes the structural flaws in this diplomatic model. Rather than arbitrating peace, Washington serves as an enabler of conflict.

Its diplomacy rests on selective morality and strategic interest, not universal principles. The American insistence on brokering ceasefires while actively resupplying Tel Aviv’s military machinery makes a mockery of its so-called neutrality.

‘No legal basis under international law’ 

The recent joint letter by Iran, China, and Russia to the UN Secretary-General rejecting Washington’s attempt to reactivate the expired “snapback” mechanism under Resolution 2231 further lays bare the fissures between western powers and global legitimacy.

The mechanism, part of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, formally expired on 18 October 2025. Yet, the US and its European partners are now attempting to revive sanctions via a legal instrument widely considered void.

Tehran’s rejection of the move, supported by Moscow and Beijing, signals a collective refusal to let Washington unilaterally interpret international law. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian affirmed in August that “China reaffirms its commitment to the peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue and opposes the invocation of the UN Security Council’s ‘snapback’ mechanism.”

His words echoed a broader conviction across the Global South that legitimacy can no longer be dictated by Washington’s will. Fifteen years ago, Beijing and Moscow joined western powers in imposing sanctions on Iran; today, they stand beside Tehran in open defiance of that same framework.

The world’s center of gravity is shifting from a unipolar order managed by Washington to a multipolar one defined by resistance to its dominance.

Economic multipolarity and the end of American centrality

Nowhere is the erosion of US dominance more visible than in East and Southeast Asia. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), once conceived as a Cold War neutral bloc, has evolved into a robust, self-sustaining economic engine. As reported by the Japan News in March 2024, ASEAN’s combined GDP now rivals that of Japan.

Following Washington’s 2017 withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the region coalesced around the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Even traditional US allies have joined. As Professor Amitav Acharya argues in ‘The End of American World Order,’ what is emerging is not anti-western, but post-western – a world in which regions increasingly manage their own affairs. Trump’s recent visit to East Asia highlighted Washington’s growing irrelevance in a region it once dominated.

Yet Washington continues to operate as though the post–Cold War era never ended. Its diplomats still speak the language of the “rules-based order,” even as its actions violate the very norms they claim to uphold.

The attempt to weaponize international law through the snapback mechanism mirrors its broader conduct in Gaza: mediation that enforces control rather than fosters compromise. When the US calls for restraint but resupplies Israel with weapons as civilian casualties rise, its moral authority collapses under its own contradictions.

As former US diplomat Chas Freeman once observed:

“Sadly, theories of coercion and plans to use military means to impose our will on other nations have for some time squeezed out serious consideration of diplomacy as an alternative to the use of force. Diplomacy is more than saying ‘nice doggie’ till you can find a rock … The weapons of diplomats are words and their power is their persuasiveness.”

This transition from persuasion to pressure has degraded Washington’s credibility. US diplomacy increasingly resembles an extension of Pentagon strategy – a negotiation backed by bombs, not by principle.

And this is not limited to Gaza or Iran. From Venezuela to North Korea, from Syria to China, Washington’s diplomatic strategy hinges on threats, sanctions, and military posturing. The soft power myth has dissolved under the weight of decades of failed interventions.

A cultural and philosophical disconnect

Western liberalism, historically presented as a universal framework for progress, falters in regions like West Asia, where faith and justice are intertwined. As even Francis Fukuyama – the American political scientist best known for declaring the “end of history” at the Cold War’s close – himself conceded, liberalism is not a universal fit. For Iran and much of West Asia, peace cannot be reduced to the absence of war or bought through economic incentives. It must arise from justice, dignity, and recognition.

This is the blind spot of every US-brokered deal: the failure to grasp that sovereignty and moral legitimacy cannot be negotiated away. The more Washington pressures regional actors into conformity, the more resistance solidifies into a collective identity.

Tehran’s approach reflects this new reality. Rather than reacting impulsively to western provocations, Iran has adopted a hybrid posture combining strategic deterrence with selective diplomacy. Its partnership with Moscow and Beijing is not an alliance of convenience but of conviction – a shared rejection of a system where power masquerades as principle.

In the wake of the failed snapback, Tehran has deepened energy and transport cooperation through the North–South Corridor while maintaining calibrated dialogue with regional states seeking stability beyond US patronage.

The existential failure of US diplomacy

Unlike in previous decades, Iran is no longer isolated. It now commands a regional network of partnerships that reflect mutual interests rather than asymmetric dependencies. From Iraq to Central Asia, Tehran’s outreach has become a model for post-western engagement.

Meanwhile, the Gaza ceasefire serves as a grim mirror of Washington’s diplomatic decay. Within 48 hours of its declaration, Israeli airstrikes resumed under the pretext of “pre-emptive defense,” and the White House responded with silence. For the Arab and Muslim world, this silence is deafening and an unmistakable confirmation that American mediation is designed to manage violence, not end it.

The myth of the western peacemaker has endured because it served both sides: it offered Washington moral legitimacy and offered local elites a pretext for inaction. But that myth is now collapsing under the weight of its contradictions.

A world divided between moral resistance and strategic cynicism cannot be reconciled through the language of “balance.” It demands a new moral vocabulary – one that acknowledges power but subordinates it to justice.

The failure of US mediation in West Asia is therefore not tactical but existential. It stems from a worldview that confuses control with order and influence with peace. Until Washington accepts that peace cannot be engineered through dominance, its diplomacy will remain what it has always been: an empire’s negotiation with its own illusions.

November 4, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Seyed M. Marandi: Israel & Iran Prepare for War — ‘America First’ Says No to U.S. Intervention

Glenn Diesen | November 3, 2025

Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi outlines how both Israel and Iran are preparing for the next war, and how the “America First” movement keeps distancing the US from Israel.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/ X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen

Support the research: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/Diesen79 Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09FPQ4MDL

November 3, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s FM condemns US nuclear weapons testing resumption as global threat

Press TV – October 31, 2025

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi has issued a warning in response to Washington’s announcement to resume nuclear weapons testing, calling it a regressive and irresponsible move.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Araghchi slammed Washington for rebranding its “Department of Defense” to the “Department of War” and denounced the US as a “nuclear-armed bully.”

“The same bully has been demonizing Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and threatening further strikes on our safeguarded nuclear facilities, all in blatant violation of international law,” the Iranian foreign minister said.

He condemned the US for its longstanding criticism of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program while simultaneously resuming its own atomic weapons tests, actions he claims violate international law.

“Make no mistake: The US is the World’s Most Dangerous Proliferation Risk,” Araghchi stated, arguing that the resumption of nuclear tests poses a serious threat to international peace and security.

He further urged the global community to unite in holding the US accountable for normalizing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, calling the announcement of renewed testing a regressive and irresponsible move.

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday boasted that Washington’s nuclear arsenal is the largest in the world, and attributed this status to updates and renovations made during his administration.

Trump acknowledged the destructive power of nuclear weapons and expressed reluctance about the need for testing, stating, “I HATED to do it, but had no choice!”

He elaborated that due to the nuclear developments in other countries, he had directed the newly named so-called Department of War to initiate nuclear tests, asserting that this process would begin immediately.

In June, Trump again made the debunked claims of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

In response, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, said that there is no evidence Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Grossi acknowledged what Iran has repeatedly stated and the UN nuclear agency has also confirmed in its reports.

October 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Iran needs up to $180bn to meet oil production targets: Official

Press TV – October 29, 2025

An Iranian Oil Ministry official says that the country requires up to $180 billion in investment to increase its oil production by at least 1 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2028, as outlined in its national development plan.

Nasrollah Zarei, who serves as CEO of Petroleum Engineering and Development Company, said on Wednesday that Iran’s Seventh National Development Plan targets an output of 4.8 million bpd within three years.

However, Zarei said that the target may be out of reach due to financial constraints caused by foreign sanctions.

He said that even a more modest target of 4.5 million bpd would require $170 to $180 billion in investment, of which the government can only allocate $10 billion. He called for an immediate revision of funding schemes for oil projects in Iran, saying the country’s sovereign wealth fund could play a larger role in financing such projects.

Despite stringent US sanctions that restrict oil sales and reinvestment, Iran has maintained its production at approximately 3.5 million bpd in recent years. Nearly 2 million bpd are exported, with the remainder used for domestic fuel and petrochemical production.

While Iran has faced challenges in meeting its oil output targets, it has achieved significant breakthroughs in the production of natural gas. The country is now the world’s third-largest gas producer, with a daily output of nearly 1 billion cubic meters, which experts believe is equivalent to approximately 6.3 million barrels of oil.

This solidifies Iran’s position as a leading hydrocarbon supplier, whose petroleum industry has a key role to play in global energy markets.

Chairman of Iran’s Geological Society, Mansour Ghorbani, said on Wednesday that the country holds some 36 trillion cubic meters of gas, representing 16% of global reserves, adding that the figure could rise to 50 trillion cubic meters with new discoveries.

Ghorbani also said that Iran’s oil reserves are estimated at 157 billion barrels, ranking among the world’s largest.

October 30, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

What is the Israeli strategy in Gaza?

By Robert Inlakesh | Al-Mayadeen | October 28, 2025

In order to understand the Israeli-US agenda underlying the so-called “peace plan” set forth by US President Donald Trump, it is important to examine the objectives of the Zionist regime and then assess how these aims might be realized. Such an analysis helps reveal what the future may hold and whether the fragile ceasefire is likely to endure.

On October 19, the Gaza ceasefire appeared to have collapsed after the Zionist regime launched over 100 airstrikes, dropping at least 153 tonnes of explosives across the besieged coastal enclave, and killing around 44 civilians. Even Israeli media outlets reported that the ceasefire had broken down and that the war had re-started, before the situation calmed down by the next day.

Initially, the Israeli establishment claimed that two of its soldiers had been killed by Palestinian fighters in an ambush involving RPGs and automatic weapons, asserting that its subsequent attacks were merely a response to this incident—one that Hamas categorically denied any involvement in.

Yet, it wasn’t long until American, Palestinian and even Israeli reporters began to reveal the truth. In reality, while Israeli soldiers, alongside settlers contracted for demolition work, were violating the ceasefire by destroying Palestinian infrastructure, they accidentally drove over an unexploded ordnance. The consistency of reports from multiple sources lent credibility to this account, yet the Zionist military quickly imposed a publication ban on the incident, before later partially admitting to what had truly occurred.

This meant that the Israelis had, in essence, killed their own soldiers by violating the ceasefire and sending their forces to destroy infrastructure within what was effectively an active minefield, then blaming the Palestinians as a pretext to kill more civilians. Up until that point, the Israelis had already committed at least 80 ceasefire violations and killed more than 100 innocent people.

From day one of the ceasefire, the Israelis had also adopted a strategy of outsourcing the Gaza front’s combat operations to three ISIS-linked proxy militias – each stationed in different areas behind the Israeli imposed ‘Yellow Line’ – instead of engaging Hamas directly. The Zionist regime began pursuing a policy of using these proxy forces to carry out assassinations and ambushes against prominent figures and members of Gaza’s security apparatus.

The Israeli strategy, backed by the United States – according to anonymous sources who spoke to Axios – is to begin using reconstruction funds, to build structures behind the Yellow Line, which represents around 54-58% of Gaza’s territory where the occupation refuses to withdraw and works alongside its proxies to control the enclave. At the same time, the Israelis sought to strangle the civilian population living in areas under the Hamas-led civil authority, while offering them the alternative of living under the joint Israeli-collaborator occupation.

This strategy has already begun to crumble, as many of the families which the Zionist Entity sought to co-opt have sided with the resistance and rejected the collaborators in the midst. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Resistance continues to pursue these collaborator death squads and prosecutes them for their various crimes, including acts like murder and aid theft.

Like other similar strategies proposed by the Israeli regime and greenlit by their subservient American backers, this one is likely to fail under pressure and does not make logical sense given the realities on the ground and the fact that the Zionist proxies have no popular support.

So, then, what do the US-Israeli alliance have in store? It is quite simple, they are seeking to achieve some of their goals under the guise of a ceasefire, which they only partially respect by allowing in limited aid supplies and killing less people than they did prior to the so-called “peace deal”.

Similarly, in Southern Lebanon, the Israelis hatched a scheme after the ceasefire was imposed to seize control of more territory than they managed to capture during the war, all while committing daily ceasefire violations. carefully calibrated to stop short of triggering a return to an all-out war.

If they fail to achieve their aims through limited military measures and aggressive maneuvers dressed up as diplomacy, they will resort to full-scale force, because “peace” is not an option.

In order to understand this line of thinking, you first must conclude that the Israelis have pursued their policies up until this point as a means of collapsing the regional resistance against them, eliminating each and every threat posed to their rule.

To the Zionist regime, there is a perceived imperative to produce an “answer to the Gaza question”, a formulation that, in their view, amounts to the elimination of the people of Gaza: an ethnic cleansing campaign and genocide accompanied by the destruction of the entire territory’s infrastructure. This is not only the objective of the Israeli leadership, but a project implicating Israeli society as a whole, a national project of elimination.

October 7, 2023, represented a major blow to the Zionist project, one that collapsed the illusion of its military superiority and shook its ideology to the core. So, it has since pursued a project to teach its adversaries a lesson and to destroy the ability of regional actors to resist them. Gaza is a statement, rise up against us, and we will pulverize you.

To a certain extent, this strategy has so far succeeded to deter any Arab population from rising up. Immediately after October 7, the Jordanians and Egyptians, for example, had started to join mass demonstrations, attempted to breach the border, and clashed with regime forces. Yet the daily scenes of devastation in Gaza, along with the propaganda pushed by the Arab Regimes, crushed their pride, determination, and willingness to continue resisting, at least for now.

The regional resistance, however, remained undeterred, which is why the US-Israeli alliance now seeks to destroy it, or at least to weaken it so severely that it no longer poses a significant threat.

If the Israelis experience another October 7-style military defeat that includes the penetration of its defensive lines, this will represent a decisive, even mortal, blow to the project, and the Zionist regime is well aware of that.

What occurred on October 7 irrevocably transformed the regime and set in motion a series of irreversible changes. Senior Zionist leaders now view current events in stark binary terms: either the re-birth of “Israel” or its gradual demise. If the former is achieved, the regime would secure de-facto control over the region and bury its security issues; if it fails to eliminate Gaza, to break the Lebanese resistance, and to sufficiently weaken Iran, it will be one step away from a crushing defeat.

In the Zionist regime’s thinking, now is a historic opportunity to exterminate all those who resist it, eliminate Gaza entirely, and impose uncontested dominance over the region. Although it has so far failed to achieve these goals, it perceives any inability to secure a “total defeat” as an existential threat to its own survival. Therefore, if “Israel” does not accomplish during the ceasefire what it set out to do, it is likely to pursue those objectives through renewed military action, with Lebanon and Iran expected to become the principal fronts in the future.

October 28, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

China will act if its interests are harmed by Iran sanctions: Envoy

Press TV – October 27, 2025

China will act to respond to the sanctions imposed against Iran if they harm its interests, the country’s ambassador to Iran has said.

Cong Peiwu said on Monday during a press conference in Tehran that China will not hesitate to act if its economic interests are affected by restrictions imposed on trade with Iran.

Cong made the remarks in response to questions about China’s way of dealing with recent United Nations sanctions on Iran, which were re-imposed in late September after European parties to a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers accused Tehran of failing to observe its obligations under the agreement.

Along with Russia and Iran, China believes that the move by Britain, France, and Germany to return UN sanctions on Iran was illegal, signaling that it would not necessarily abide by the UN sanctions.

The Chinese ambassador said that Beijing seeks closer cooperation with Tehran as he reiterated that Iran and China share a common stance opposing unilateralism in the world.

China is Iran’s largest trading partner, as it buys 29% of Iran’s total non-oil exports while being responsible for 25% of imports into the country.

Estimates suggest that more than 92% of Iran’s oil exports also end up in China, despite a harsh regime of US sanctions that imposes heavy penalties on buyers of Iranian oil.

Those estimates show that China’s total trade with Iran, including its oil purchases, amount to $65-70 billion per year.

Experts believe China counts on the smooth and affordable supply of oil from Iran for maintaining growth in its industrial sector.

Figures published in late August showed that China had relied on Iran for 13.6% of its total oil imports in the first half of 2025 as shipments reached an average of 1.38 million barrels per day (bpd) over the period.

Privately-owned refiners receive the bulk of Iranian oil shipments arriving in China as they enjoy discounts of up to 8% per barrel offered by Iran to circumvent US sanctions.

Recent data by international tanker tracking services suggest Iran’s oil exports to China reached records of more than 1.8 million bpd in September.

October 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran, Russia, China send letter to IAEA chief declaring UNSC Resolution 2231 terminated

Press TV – October 24, 2025

Iran, China, and Russia have written a joint letter to the UN nuclear watchdog chief, affirming the termination of Security Council Resolution 2231 and the agency’s reporting concerning the Islamic Republic’s nuclear energy program.

In a post on his X account on Friday, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, Kazem Gharibabadi, said ambassadors and permanent representatives of China, Iran and Russia sent a letter to Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Mariano Grossi.

It came after the three countries’ joint letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations and President of the Security Council declaring the termination of Resolution 2231 on October 18, he added.

In the letter to the IAEA chief, he noted, the three countries reaffirmed the “illegal” move by the European trio — Britain, France and Germany — to invoke the so-called snapback mechanism and the expiration of all provisions of Resolution 2231 on October 18, 2025.

“But there is another key point which relates to the end of the mandate of the IAEA Director General’s reporting on verification and monitoring under the Resolution 2231 and the implementation of the JCPOA,” Gharibabadi emphasized, referring to the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

According to the Iranian diplomat, the letter asserted that in the IAEA, “the implementation of the JCPOA, as well as verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of UNSCR 2231, were enacted by the resolution of the Board of Governors of 15 December 2015(GOV/2015/72).”

He said, “Operative paragraph 14 of this Resolution unequivocally stipulates that the Board ‘decides to remain seized of the matter until ten years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the Director General reports that the Agency has reached the broader conclusion for Iran, whichever is earlier’.”

“Consequently, as of 18 October 2025, the related agenda item has been automatically removed from the agenda of the Board of Governors, and no further action is required in this regard,” Gharibabadi pointed out.

Iran has rejected the legality of E3’s triggering the snapback of UN sanctions, calling the mechanism “null and void” and a “fabricated” term.

On October 18, Tehran declared an end to all UN restrictions on its nuclear program following the expiration of Security Council resolution 2231.

Iran has faced sustained economic pressure in recent years, particularly after the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and re-imposed sweeping sanctions under the so-called “maximum pressure” policy.

Despite these pressures, Iran has sought to adapt through increased domestic production, non-dollar trade mechanisms, and expanding economic ties with partners in Asia and neighboring states.

October 25, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Excessive US demands prevent return to negotiations: Iran FM

Press TV – October 22, 2025

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Iran will not return to negotiations with the United States so long as Washington continues its policy of excessive demands.

“Until the Americans abandon their excessive and maximalist policy and stop making unreasonable demands of us, we will not return to the negotiating table,” Araghchi told reporters upon arrival at Mashhad’s Hasheminejad Airport on Wednesday, where he was attending a provincial diplomacy conference.

The foreign minister said the previous talks collapsed precisely due to Washington’s overreach.

“The negotiations that were previously underway with the Americans, as well as the New York talks, were stopped and did not progress due to the excessive demands of the American side,” he said, referring to five rounds of nuclear talks before the US-Israeli aggression against Iran in June.

Araghchi said the two sides could also reach a “reasonable, mutually beneficial solution” during the recent annual UN General Assembly meeting in New York, but that opportunity was also lost due to a similar reason.

Araghchi said Iran has consistently demonstrated its commitment to peace and diplomacy, even while facing an adversary unwilling to honor such principles.

“We have shown we are always committed to diplomatic solutions, but this does not mean giving up the rights of the Iranian people.”

“Wherever the interests of the Iranian people and the higher interests of the country can be secured through diplomacy, we have acted. But we are dealing with those who have never adhered to diplomacy,” Araghchi said.

He said Iran recently exchanged messages and contacts with US negotiator Steve Witkoff through intermediaries, but he made it clear that Iran will not re-enter talks unless the US fundamentally changes its approach.

“As long as this spirit exists in negotiations with the Americans, naturally, there is no possibility of returning to negotiations, unless the American approach changes and they accept that negotiations must be based on mutual respect and from equal positions.”

The Iranian minister said Washington’s failed strategies will yield no results. “They have tried other paths and have not succeeded, and if they continue on this path again, they will once more achieve nothing.”

For the first time, Israel and the United States launched large-scale strikes on Iran in June, hitting nuclear and military facilities.

Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories and a major US military base in Qatar.

US President Donald Trump claimed afterward that Iran was close to producing nuclear bombs, but without providing any proof for his claim. Iran says it does not seek nuclear weapons.

In the previous nuclear talks, the Trump administration repeatedly asked Iran to dismantle its nuclear and missile development infrastructure altogether, a demand Tehran rejects.

October 22, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Repeating baseless, meddlesome remarks won’t solve anything: Iran to Poland

Press TV | October 21, 2025

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has hit back at Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski over his “baseless claims and meddlesome remarks” against the Islamic Republic.

Araghchi made the comments in Polish on X, one day after Sikorski alleged that Iran was selling drones to Russia for use in the Ukraine war.

The top Iranian diplomat said that in an earlier X post, he had invited Sikorski to a substantive dialogue and exchange of documents to clarify facts following the display of a drone in the British Parliament, falsely and maliciously attributed to Iran.

“Avoiding responses, repeating baseless claims, and making meddlesome remarks will not solve the problem,” he added.

Araghchi also referred to Iran’s hospitality towards the Poles during the hard times of World War II, with the country providing shelter to over 100,000 Polish people and helping them form their own army.

“The friendship between the people of Iran and Poland was proven in challenging times, and it is our duty to protect this historical and cultural heritage,” he said.

He said the Iranian nation traces its roots to a glorious and significant past and that it will build its future on the path of progress and prosperity.

On October 14, Sikorski participated in an anti-Iran presentation at the UK Parliament in cooperation with a US-Israeli-affiliated group, displaying the wreckage of what they claimed to be an Iranian-made drone used by Russia in its war in Ukraine.

Iran summoned Poland’s chargé d’affaires in Tehran to protest Sikorski’s involvement in the anti-Iran event.

Araghchi also took to X to say that the “pathetic show” was staged by the Israel lobby and its supporters.

He said certain actors opposed to friendly Iran-Europe relations are creating fabricated narratives inconsistent with the long-standing ties between the two sides, including between Tehran and Warsaw.

Both Iran and Russia have repeatedly rejected allegations that Tehran supplied Moscow with drones, ballistic missiles, and related technology for use in the military campaign in Ukraine.

Russia has repeatedly warned against the flow of Western weapons to Ukraine, saying it prolongs the conflict.

October 21, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »