Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iran will admit students expelled from US as part of Trump’s crackdown on pro-Palestine protests

Press TV – March 30, 2025

Iran’s academic officials have declared the Islamic Republic’s unwavering support for students and academics who have been targeted by the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters on university campuses.

Officials from Iran’s academic institutions said in a joint statement on Sunday that the country’s universities “take pride in extending their support” to students protesting “the crimes of the Zionist regime” in the US.

“The acts of global arrogance in suppressing justice-seeking students and expelling them from American universities after their peaceful protests against the atrocities committed by the Zionist regime against the oppressed people of Palestine have further unveiled the true nature of those who claim to advocate for human rights,” the statement read.

Iran’s universities, it said, are ready to accept students who are being expelled by US immigration officials for showing sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

Iran’s Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution (SCCR), in collaboration with the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Medical Sciences, will facilitate the admission of expelled students into Iranian universities.

President Donald Trump has begun following through on a threat to deport all non-citizen university activists with ties to the pro-Palestine protests, which rocked the US last spring, with students staging daily protests in college campuses across the country for weeks.

The crackdown intensified since US immigration agents arrested Mahmoud Kahlil, a graduate of Columbia University, on March 8. Kahlil, who is being held in an immigration detention center in Louisiana, faces deportation for his role in pro-Palestinian campus protests.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who personally signed off on his arrest, said on Thursday that Washington has revoked at least 300 foreign students’ visas.

“Maybe more than 300 at this point,” he said. “We do it every day, every time I find one of these lunatics.”

Trump officials have accused these students of being “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” of the US.

March 30, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The war over war with Iran has just begun

By Sina Toossi | Responsible Statecraft | March 28, 2025

The war drums are getting louder in Washington.

In recent weeks, many of the same neoconservative voices who pushed the U.S. into Iraq are calling for strikes on Iran. Groups like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy are once again promoting confrontation, claiming there may never be a better time to act. But this is a dangerous illusion that risks derailing what Donald Trump himself says he wants: a deal, not another disastrous war in the Middle East.

A war with Iran wouldn’t just risk another endless conflict. It would blow up Trump’s broader agenda at home and abroad.

A major conflict would drain U.S. resources and attention, distracting from domestic priorities and weakening America’s leverage on every front: China, Russia, Europe, and trade. Europe could seize the moment to prolong support for the war in Ukraine and resist Trump’s push to reset transatlantic ties. Trade partners like Mexico, Canada, India, and others could take advantage of America’s preoccupation to extract lop-sided concessions. And a unilateral strike would likely fracture the international community.

Russia and China, despite their own misgivings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, would point to U.S. aggression as the real threat, undermining American credibility at the United Nations and beyond.

And the most dangerous consequence? A strike could backfire and push Iran to do exactly what Trump says he wants to prevent: build a bomb. Iran is already enriching uranium near weapons-grade. If it withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the last threads of international oversight would disappear. An attack would likely galvanize even more hardline elements in Iran and provide the political justification to sprint for a nuclear weapon.

Trump could go down in history, not as the president who solved the Iran crisis, but as the one under whose watch Iran finally became a nuclear weapons state. That’s not the legacy he wants, or one the country can afford.

Raising alarms, Trump recently declared, “Something will happen to Iran soon.” But he also made clear, “Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other.” These are not the words of a warmonger. They are the words of a negotiator, someone who still sees the value in diplomacy.

Trump is not alone. In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, his foreign policy envoy Steven Witkoff offered a notably more restrained perspective on Iran than is typical from the foreign policy establishment. Witkoff emphasized pragmatism, verification, mutual respect, and, most importantly, avoiding conflict. His remarks reflected a grounded approach rooted in a clear understanding of both American interests and the region’s complex dynamics.

The problem is that many of the loudest voices shaping Iran policy — inside and outside the government — are actively working to sabotage any realistic path to diplomacy. They talk about wanting a “deal,” but what they’re actually demanding is Iran’s surrender: zero uranium enrichment, dismantling its nuclear program, cutting ties with all its regional allies, and fundamentally changing its foreign policy. No Iranian government — pragmatist or hardliner — could accept such terms. Even Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s newly elected president who ran on a platform of diplomacy and engagement, would have no political space to agree to that kind of ultimatum.

Let’s be clear: if you’re pushing for such maximalist demands under the guise of wanting a deal, you’re not working for peace. You’re laying the groundwork for war.

Iran is a complicated actor with a complicated history. But the lessons of the past decade are clear: when the U.S. engages Iran through diplomacy, it gets results. When it relies solely on pressure, it inches closer to conflict.

The point of pressure has always been to create leverage, not to impose costs for their own sake. That leverage now exists. The question is what to do with it.

The 2015 nuclear deal was far from perfect for any side, but it did succeed in placing tight constraints on Iran’s nuclear program and subjected it to unprecedented international inspections. The aim of withdrawing from that deal was to compel Iran to accept stronger terms. That hasn’t happened.

Instead, the result has been several years of Iranian nuclear expansion, regional instability, and growing alignment between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. Iran is now enriching uranium to 60% — dangerously close to weapons-grade — and stockpiling far more than before. Meanwhile, the international consensus that once backed U.S. efforts has frayed.

Now is the time to cash in on current U.S. pressure. Not by continuing on an escalatory path that leads to war, but by using the leverage that’s been built to strike a better deal — one that delivers strong constraints, more transparency, and greater long-term security for the United States.

Against this backdrop, hawkish voices are once again pushing the illusion that striking Iran would be quick and effective. A recent report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) claims Israel’s alleged deep intelligence reach and risk tolerance make a “preventive strike” against Iran potentially “much more successful” than past American efforts, like when the U.S. attacked nuclear targets in Iraq in 1991 and 1993. But this dangerously downplays the risks. Even Trump’s allies are urging caution.

Vice President J.D. Vance, for example, rightly cautioned last October that “America’s interest is sometimes going to be distinct” from Israel’s — and made clear that avoiding war with Iran is in the U.S. interest. He warned such a conflict would be “massively expensive” and a “huge distraction of resources.” The reality is that a strike might at best delay Iran’s program while likely sparking a regional war, endangering U.S. troops, and pushing Iran to weaponize.

Indeed, even the same WINEP report that touts the feasibility of a strike quietly acknowledges the scale of what it would entail: “an open-ended, multiyear campaign to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities, influence its nuclear proliferation calculus, and shape its political and military responses.” In other words, this wouldn’t be a quick, surgical strike; it would be the beginning of another endless war in the Middle East.

Such a conflict would also carry steep economic costs, from skyrocketing oil prices to instability across the Middle East. And it would almost certainly backfire politically: Americans are war-weary, and polls show overwhelming support for diplomacy over conflict.

What’s needed now is a pragmatic strategy to de-escalate and reengage — one that offers Iran credible incentives in exchange for verifiable nuclear limits but doesn’t require dismantling its entire program.

The Iranian leadership has shown a consistent pattern in its dealings with the United States: pressure is met with pressure, while concessions are met with reciprocal steps. History has made clear that what moves the needle is not ultimatums, but a formula grounded in mutual respect, trust-building, and incremental, verifiable actions. Witkoff’s recent interview signaled a welcome openness to serious diplomacy, but rhetoric alone is not enough. To resonate in Tehran, it must be paired with credible, calibrated actions.

Modest, realistic steps — such as allowing a limited release of Iran’s frozen assets for humanitarian purposes or reviving President Emmanuel Macron’s 2019 proposal for a credit line backed by future oil revenues — would not require lifting core U.S. sanctions. Yet they could offer enough tangible benefit to bring Iran to the table. These measures should be linked to parallel Iranian concessions, such as slowing the accumulation of highly enriched uranium and enhancing IAEA access.

Another option is a negotiated “pause:” a fixed-duration agreement where the U.S. freezes further escalation of sanctions and refrains from imposing new pressure, while Iran halts key elements of its nuclear expansion. This mutual freeze could serve as a time-bound window for more comprehensive talks — buying time, lowering tensions, and creating space for diplomacy to succeed.

Critics will claim this approach “rewards bad behavior.” But the real question isn’t about rewarding anyone, it’s about results. What actually reduces the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon or dragging the U.S. into another endless war? The record speaks for itself: pressure detached from feasible diplomatic outcomes hasn’t delivered results. In fact, pressure for its own sake has backfired — driving Iran’s nuclear program forward and repeatedly bringing the U.S. to the brink of conflict.

Some will say Iran cannot be trusted. That’s precisely why inspections and verification are essential. When a deal was in place, international inspectors had access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the program was significantly constrained. Military strikes, by contrast, would likely end all transparency and push Iran to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, eliminating the last tools for monitoring and oversight.

There’s no perfect deal. But the smart play is a deal that contains Iran’s nuclear program, avoids a war, and keeps the U.S. in the driver’s seat. That should be the goal of any serious policy, not wishful thinking or ideological crusades.

President Trump has always seen himself as a dealmaker. Now’s the moment to make one that matters. He should empower voices in his camp — like Steven Witkoff — who understand that diplomacy isn’t weakness, it’s strategy. Rejecting the tired playbook of regime change and endless escalation would show real leadership.

Sina Toossi is a non-resident fellow at the Center for International Politics. Previously he was senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council, and a research specialist at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran urges EU to address Israel’s genocide, aggression instead of leveling ‘hypocritical’ claims

Press TV – March 27, 2025

Iran says the European Union should address the Israeli regime’s genocide and aggression against the countries in the region instead of leveling “hypocritical” claims against Tehran.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remark on Thursday in reaction to the latest allegation by European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who on Monday claimed Iran posed a threat to global stability and said Tehran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Kallas made the remarks during a press conference in al-Quds with Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar.

She also accused Iran of supporting Russia in the war with Ukraine.

Baghaei condemned the EU’s double standard policies and said, “If Kallas is truly concerned about stability and security in the region, she should address the [Israeli] regime’s genocide in Gaza and its repeated acts of aggression against Lebanon and Syria as well as the military occupation of these two countries’ territories.”

He added that such baseless statements, illogical remarks and hypocritical claims against Iran lack credibility.

Unlike her predecessors, who tried a bit to consider the principles of international law in expressing the EU’s positions, Kallas “speaks recklessly”, the Iranian spokesperson emphasized, warning that even if the EU foreign policy chief’s remarks are rooted in her lack of experience, they would further undermine Europe’s credibility in the eyes of any impartial observer.

Iran has repeatedly rejected accusations that it has supplied weapons to Russia for direct use in the war in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Russia has repeatedly warned that a flow of Western weapons to Ukraine will only prolong the conflict.

Tehran has also stressed on numerous occasions that it is not seeking nuclear weapons and has put its civilian nuclear program under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency which has verified its compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Tehran is a signatory.

The allegations against Iran come as Israel is believed to be the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in West Asia.

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump Revolution? Diplomacy Toward Yemen, Iran, Russia & China

Larry Johnson with Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | March 26, 2025

Larry Johnson, a former CIA Intelligence Analyst, argues that Trump’s international diplomacy may be derailing. JD Vance recognised in private messages that bombing Yemen was a mistake and contradicted the America First platform, although the attacks nonetheless took place. Is America returning to its forever wars?

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Explainer: What does Iran’s newly-unveiled largest subterranean ‘missile city’ reveal?

By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | March 26, 2025

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) on Tuesday unveiled its largest underground missile city at an undisclosed location, sending a powerful message to enemies about Iran’s growing military prowess and complete readiness for any eventuality.

The subterranean facility was revealed in the presence of Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, and IRGC Aerospace Commander, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh.

Its unveiling comes amid escalating threats and blatant warmongering from the Donald Trump administration and the Israeli regime, prompting Iran to showcase its military preparedness to defend the homeland.

Just three days prior, the IRGC had unveiled new missile systems on three strategic islands in the Persian Gulf, capable of striking enemy bases, vessels, and assets across the region.

In recent years, the IRGC has released images of various underground bases, but this latest facility stands out as the largest yet, both in scale and firepower.

What ballistic missiles are stored in this underground base?

During the latest unveiling, it was revealed that a wide array of ballistic missiles—including Kheibar Shekan, Haj Qasem, Emad, Sajjil, and Ghadr-H, as well as Paveh cruise missiles—are stored in this missile city.

In a single frame, at least 78 Kheibar Shekan or Haj Qasem missiles were visible, with additional footage showing tunnels filled with dozens more, suggesting that the base houses at least hundreds, if not thousands, of missiles.

Some of these missiles, such as Kheibar Shekan, Ghadr, and Emad, were used in the True Promise I and II retaliatory operations against the Zionist entity last year that sent shockwaves across the world.

These operations demonstrated Iran’s capability to strike Israeli military and intelligence targets with high precision, penetrating much-hyped and advanced Israeli and American air defense systems.

During his visit to the facility, Major General Bagheri emphasized that “Iran’s iron fist is far stronger today than before,” stating that the current missile capacity is ten times greater than during past operations.

He further asserted that “the enemy will definitely fall behind in this balance of power,” signaling Iran’s continued advancement in missile development and underground military infrastructure.

What is the purpose of underground bases?

Iran’s underground missile bases are fortified military facilities constructed beneath the Earth’s surface to store, maintain, and launch ballistic missiles of short (SRBM), medium (MRBM), and intermediate range (IRBM).

Often referred to as “missile cities” by Iranian officials, these bases form a key component of Iran’s defense strategy, designed to shield its vast and burgeoning missile arsenal from detection and destruction during conflicts.

In addition to offering natural protection against aerial threats, these underground bases allow military operations to be carried out in complete secrecy, avoiding exposure to aerial reconnaissance.

The exact number of these facilities remains a closely guarded secret, but estimates suggest there are dozens of them, mostly located in the western mountainous regions.

Brigadier General Hajizadeh in a TV interview recently commented on the vast number of missile bases in the country, stating, “If we unveil a missile city every week for the next two years, it will still not be finished.”

The IRGC has frequently released footage from these underground bases, and analysis of tunnel shapes and weaponry confirms that they are distinct facilities.

In 2018, the IRGC announced the relocation of missile factories to underground bases, marking the first time images from a subterranean ballistic missile production plant were publicly released.

Beyond missile bases, Iran has also constructed underground air bases for jet fighters, underground naval bases for speedboats and missiles, and underground drone facilities.

How protected are these underground bases?

With modern satellite, reconnaissance, and intelligence technology, fully concealing the locations of such underground bases is impossible, particularly due to excavation debris and construction logistics.

However, this does not make them vulnerable, as they are typically carved into mountains, with depths reported to reach up to 500 meters, providing protection against airstrikes and nearly all bunker-busting munitions.

All critical facilities are located hundreds of meters inside the mountains and are practically indestructible, with multiple entrances and exits being their only potential weak points.

To mitigate this, each base has up to several dozen entrances. The destruction of one or even a few does not cause significant damage, as they are typically hundreds or thousands of meters apart, separated by multiple tunnel gates.

Iran has refined camouflage techniques and the creation of false entrances to ensure operational continuity, even under complete enemy air dominance.

Based on published images and videos, these bases feature arched tunnel designs, optimal for load distribution, arranged in either linear or grid formations.

Tunnels range from 6 to 12 meters in width, sometimes reinforced with concrete ceilings, and serve as corridors, missile storage areas, and parking spaces for transporter-erector launchers (TELs).

In some cases, high halls are visible, suggesting the utilization of natural caves to reduce excavation costs and complicate hostile intelligence assessments based on excavation debris.

How are ballistic missiles stored in these bases launched?

Ballistic missiles stored in these bases are launched in two ways: either by deploying the transporter-erector launcher into the open or using vertical silos.

Each base contains numerous silos—often several dozen—as they, along with entrances, are potential vulnerabilities.

Once a silo is used, the hot exhaust trail from rocket engines irreversibly reveals its position, making it a prime target for aerial bombs or cruise missiles.

To counter this, Iran has developed unique underground launch methods to enhance both effectiveness and stealth.

In 2020, Iran released footage of an underground missile system capable of launching multiple ballistic missiles from a single silo in rapid succession.

In other countries with underground missile bases—where such facilities are typically used for bulky intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) within nuclear deterrence strategies—each silo usually holds only one missile.

By contrast, Iran’s system functions more like a “semi-automatic” magazine-fed launcher, rather than a “single-shot” silo.

Footage shows five Emad missiles positioned for vertical launch on a single rail car, which then moves down a high tunnel toward the launch site.

The tunnel’s length and rail system suggest it can rapidly launch dozens of missiles before a potential counterstrike, with multiple silo openings likely enabling continuous barrages.

That same year, during the Payambar-e-A’azam (The Great Prophet) 14 drills, Iran demonstrated a unique camouflaged underground ballistic missile launch, bypassing conventional platforms and equipment.

Brigadier General Hajizadeh stated that Iran was the first country in the world to achieve such a launch capability, posing significant challenges to enemy intelligence agencies.

The released video shows two missiles launching from different locations on what appears to be an untouched surface, suggesting that the vertical launch tubes were constructed from below rather than being dug from above and later camouflaged.

This demonstration signaled that Iran’s underground missile bases, often covering dozens of square kilometers, may house countless concealed silos.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The High Price of War with Iran: $10 Gas and the Collapse of the US Economy

By Dennis J. Kucinich | March 25, 2025

Israel is currently in turmoil, marked by widespread protests demanding Netanyahu’s resignation. Critics accuse him of prolonging war for political gain, while his dismissal of top security officials and ongoing attacks on the judiciary have further intensified the unrest.

Meanwhile, Washington DC’s drumbeat for war never stops. It’s always at the expense of a decent and secure standard of living for people in this country and abroad.

The Trump Administration, after the series of heady airstrikes against Yemen, is at this moment being beseeched by Netanyahu and his associates to prepare for a seemingly consequence-free nuclear strike against Iran, completing the trifecta of Netanyahu’s long-standing dream.

I have consistently warned against the consequences of an attack on Iran, delivering 155 speeches to the House, 63 presentations alone in the 109th Congress, between 2005 and 2007, when the Bush Administration deliberated using nuclear “bunker-busters” as a means of bringing Iran to heel.

I understood the politics then and I understand them today. I warned hundreds of times that it was not in America’s interests to go to war against Netanyahu’s hit list: Iraq, Iran, Libya…

IRAQ

In 2002, the Bush Administration caused Americans grieving over 9/11 to believe Iraq had a direct role in the attacks which took over 3,000 lives. Except, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush claimed Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and other “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) and was an imminent threat to the U.S. Iraq did not have WMD’s. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. Iraq had no ability to attack America. Didn’t matter.

The war against Iraq began 22 years ago and lasted eight years. One million innocent Iraqi men, women and children perished because of lies. They were killed in relentless bombings and aggressive ground operations.

At least 4,443 U.S. servicemen and women were killed, and an estimated 32,000 wounded during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” because of lies.

The lies cost U.S. taxpayers at least $3 trillion. Three trillion hard-earned tax dollars of the American people were spent to pay for the destruction of the people of Iraq while Americans struggled to pay bills for housing, health care, and education and the nation went further into debt.

Remember this diabolical playbook: Create a pretext. Lie to the American people about a threat. Hype the threat. Create irrational fear. Tell them military action is needed to eliminate the threat, and their fears. Bombs away.

On September 12, 2002, as a Member of Congress, I grilled then-former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a congressional hearing entitled, “An Israeli Perspective on Conflict with Iraq” (video and transcript link below). Despite evidence to the contrary, he testified that Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, were a direct threat to America due to an alleged pursuit of WMDs including a nuclear weapon. He urged the U.S. to take military action against Iraq.

I inquired of him who else he would have the United States attack.

“Iran and Libya,” he said.

I spoke to Mr. Netanyahu outside the hearing room and asked him that if he was so convinced those countries were a threat, why didn’t Israel commence the attacks?

“Oh no,” he responded. “We need you to do it.”

On October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 296-133, authorized the use of military force against Iraq. I led the opposition. The war bill passed the Senate the next day, 77-23, and was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

On March 20, 2003, the President describing Iraq as part of an “Axis of Evil,” commenced a “Shock and Awe” onslaught by American warships, aircraft and submarines, launching cruise missiles and “precision guided bombs” roundly murdering people in Baghdad. Iraq was destroyed. Saddam was deposed, captured and hung.

Libya

On March 19, 2011, despite lacking formal congressional authorization, President Barack Obama authorized an attack on Libya to depose Muammar Gaddafi. I led the opposition. Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the EU, NATO, the UK and France to name but a few, lobbied Congress hard to accelerate actions against Libya.

That country’s leaders were dumbfounded as to why, considering that they had done everything America had asked, such as open markets to foreign investment. I held up the bombing for some time by building a bi-partisan coalition of Members of Congress to vote no.

Alas, Obama and the Clinton State Department prevailed. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated a redraft of the authorization bill and the Republicans fell in line.

The U.S., with NATO allies, joined forces, wreaking destruction and havoc upon Libya. Gaddafi was deposed, captured and killed, at an estimated cost of over a billion dollars. Obama admitted years later that this was the worst decision of his Presidency.

Iran

On July 25, 2024, Prime Minister Netanyahu, (while under a criminal investigation by the Israeli judiciary), addressed the U.S. Congress concerning Iran, which he characterized as not only a deadly enemy of Israel, but also of the United States.

“Iran’s axis of terror confronts America, Israel and our Arab friends,” Netanyahu declared.

The interests of Israel and America were and are inseparable, he proclaimed – to 58 standing ovations. One could take that heroic reception as rubberstamping an authorization for war. As Netanyahu had told me years ago, “…we need you [the U.S.] to do it.”

Today, the Houthis of Yemen continue their attacks on Israeli shipping interests in the Red Sea, in protest to the Netanyahu government’s genocidal attack on Gaza.

President Trump, ever sensitive to and allegiant to Israel, views the Houthis as proxies of Iran. The President directed America’s air forces to rain down fire and brimstone upon Yemen, a nation of teenagers. The median age in Yemen is 18.4 years. The country spends about 1/1000 of the U.S. military budget for its own defense.

Trump threatened the Iranian government: “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN (his emphasis). And IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire.”

The Administration followed up with Executive Order (E.O.) 13902, which, according to the U.S. Treasury Department was part of a “campaign of maximum pressure” which “targets Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical sectors and marks the fourth round of sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales…”

The first Trump Administration withdrew from a Joint Plan of Action agreement (JCPOA) which provided Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for accepting limitations which would preclude nuclear weaponization.

President Trump ordered the assassination by drone strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, considered the second most powerful person in Iran, at the Baghdad airport, underscoring his determination to strike at Iran.

Iran has consistently asserted its nuclear research is for peaceful purposes. There has been a long-standing formal prohibition in Islamic law, a fatwa, issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, against the development or use of nuclear weapons.

Recently, President Trump said he would love a deal to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, “I would love to make a deal with them without bombing them.”

At the same time, U.S. B-52 bombers, capable of delivering nuclear bunker-busting bombs, were engaged in joint exercises with the Israeli Air Force, in preparation for a potential strike at Iran’s underground nuclear sites.

These joint maneuvers were reminiscent of the cooperation and interoperability exercises that took place between the UK and French forces in preparation for a real-world offensive against Libya in 2011.

Ayatollah Khamenei replied “…threats will get them (the Americans) nowhere,” and refused talks under such conditions as “deceptive.” Iranian Brigadier General Kiumars Heidari added, for emphasis, “Iran is ready to crush its enemies if it makes mistakes.”

The dialectic of conflict is escalating.

It was not in America’s interest then, nor is it now, to go to war with Iran, a nation of 90 million people, a technologically advanced society, with nearly a million-person army.

President Trump should not be misled. War with Iran would be the end of his presidency. Here is why:

Iran supplies 3% of the world’s oil. If the U.S. goes to war with Iran, crude oil prices per barrel (currently ranging from $68.86 (West Texas Intermediate) – $72.28 (Brent Crude), could rise to $200 per barrel.

The Strait of Hormuz, a major conduit for the transport of oil would be disrupted. Iran has the capability retaliate by targeting Gulf oil infrastructure, including Saudi Arabia. Market panic would ensue.

The price of a gallon of gas, currently averaging $3.13, would double, approach $7 a gallon, and in some cases, reach $10 a gallon, in states with higher fuel taxes. (This is based on historical data which calculates that every $1 increase in crude oil per barrel translates to about a 2 to 3 cent increase per gallon at the pump).

Attempts to manage supply disruptions and market distortions through the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do little to offset panic buying and stockpiling by consumers. Nor would an increase in U.S. domestic drilling be sufficient to offset lost Middle East oil supplies, due to supply shortage, infrastructure constraints and limitations on refining capacity.

Major disruptions, including high inflation, recession risks, and market instability would hit the US economy. Consumer retail spending would sink while prices rose for food and other goods, as energy costs for manufacturing, agriculture and transportation spiraled out of control.

Slower economic growth would push the U.S. into a recession, with the Fed forced to try to maintain control over inflation by hiking interest rates well beyond the current 4.25% – 4.50 % range.

Auto sales would take a hit. Corporate profits in transportation, airlines, trucking would nosedive. The Dow Jones and S& P 500 would be in shock, with major selloffs. America would arrive at stagflation, high inflation rates and negative growth as it did during the 1973 Oil Embargo.

The multiple economic impacts of the 2008 subprime meltdown and subsequent financial crash which cost the US economy $16 to $20 trillion dollars would become the morbid benchmark for the descent of the American economy.

Now contemplate this concatenation: War with Iran, reciprocal high tariffs, massive cuts in the federal workforce and domestic federal spending and you have an economy in a tailspin, with high inflation, rising unemployment, falling consumer spending, leading to an economic contraction requiring a system of government intervention which is currently being dismantled. Then there is the permanent restructuring of the tax code to accelerate wealth upwards. These conditions create political combustibility.

In the end, Iran will never crush Donald Trump. The U.S. will crush itself trying to wipe out Iran.

The economic effects of war with Iran could spell the end, not only of the viability of the Trump Presidency, but of the Republican House and Senate, a political turnaround the likes of which has not been seen in American politics since the 1932 sweep led by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.

In 1928 Republican Herbert Hoover took 58.2% of the popular vote and defeated Democrat Al Smith 444-87 in the Electoral College. Amidst a complete rejection of Republican economic policies and the Depression, Roosevelt took 57.4% of the popular vote in 1932 and defeated Hoover in the Electoral College 472-59.

The 270-164 advantage which House Republicans held in 1928 evaporated in 1932 as Democrats crushed Republicans with a 313-117 majority.

There has not been another turnaround like this in American political history and it was driven by the economic forces which overwhelmed a Republican Administration, followed by a program of promised reform which the new Administration delivered.

While the Administration is at the fullness of its expression of unbridled power, it faces a fateful decision regarding Iran which will determine whether the mandate received by Trump in 2024 evaporates as quickly as did Hoover’s in 1932.

Israel itself is in turmoil, with mass protests calling for Netanyahu’s resignation, charges he is prolonging the war for his political benefit, his firing of top security officials and his attacks on the judiciary.

Netanyahu is on shaky ground, pummeled by his fellow countrymen and women who worry, far from ensuring the future of Israel, his deadly policies threaten it.

One could imagine Trump, considering his own and America’s interests, could call Netanyahu and say, “Bibi, we are friends ‘til the end. This is the end.”

Links: 2002 Congressional Hearing “Conflict in Iraq: An Israeli Perspective” video and transcript

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Talk of US-Iran war is all a load of baloney

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 26, 2025

The air is thick with the prognosis that a military confrontation between the US and Iran is now just a matter of time. Going by the pattern of such scare mongering in the past decades, Israeli media management skills are self-evident. There is a sense of de javu. Of course, therein lies the danger of miscalculations by the protagonists but that is unlikely to happen. 

There are no takers among the regional states for a military conflagration in the Gulf region. The old US-led anti-Iran front has unravelled following the shift in the Iranian and Saudi policies towards reconciliation and amity and the display of strategic autonomy by even those countries who still remain close allies of the US (in particular, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar.) 

In a recent interview with the famous American podcaster Tucker Carlson, Qatar’s Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani drew an apocalyptic scenario that his country and the Persian Gulf Arab states will run out of water within three days if Iran’s nuclear facilities are targeted by the US or Israel! Does that occur to anyone? 

The big question is, what are the intentions of the Trump administration. An underlying assumption here is that President Donald Trump is under obligation to the Jewish-Israeli lobby who funded his election campaign to be supportive of Netanyahu all the way through thick and thin. This assumption is untested yet and may never be, perhaps, given Trump’s complex personality as a deal maker. 

According to a recent poll from YouGov, 52% of Americans think Trump will have a shot at a third term; former White House strategist Steve Bannon is convinced that Trump will run and win in 2028. Indeed, Trump himself has not ruled out a 2028 White House bid. This is an X factor, given the historical legacy that the Iran question ultimately proved to be the nemesis of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Trump, a connoisseur of past American presidencies, cannot be unaware that he ought to tread with great circumspection.

In an interview with Tucker Carlson last week, Trump’s Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff underscored that regional stabilisation in West Asia demands addressing Iran. In his words, “I would say the goal begins with how do we deal with Iran? That’s the biggie. So the first is nuclear… If they were to have a bomb that would create North Korea in the GCC, we cannot have that… we can never allow someone to have a nuclear weapon and have outsized influence. That doesn’t work. So if we can solve for that, which I’m hopeful that we can.

“The next thing we need to deal with Iran is they’re being a benefactor of these proxy armies because we’ve proven that … they’re not really an existential risk… But if we can get these terrorist organisations eliminated as risks. Not existential, but still risks. They’re destabilising risks. Then we’ll normalise everywhere. I think Lebanon could normalise with Israel, literally normalise, meaning a peace treaty with the two countries. That’s really possible.

“Syria, too, the indications are that Jelani is a different person than he once was. And people do change. You at 55 are completely different than how you were at 35, that’s for sure… So maybe Jelani in Syria is a different guy. They’ve driven Iran out.

“Imagine if Lebanon normalises, Syria normalises, and the Saudis sign a normalisation treaty with Israel because there’s a peace in Gaza. They must have that as a — without question — as a prerequisite. That’s a condition precedent to Saudi normalising. But now you’d begin to have a GCC that all work together. I mean, that would be, it would be epic.” 

Does this ‘big picture’ envisage the destruction of Iran as a prerequisite? Not even remotely. And if anyone should know what he is talking about, it is Witkoff. 

Later, towards the end of the interview, Carlson drew out Witkoff specifically with regard to Trump’s recent communication addressed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Excerpts of Witkoff’s remarks are reproduced below: 

“Look, he [Trump] sent a letter to the Iranians. Usually it would be the Iranians sending a letter to him…They’re open to attack today. Yeah, they’re a small country compared to ours… If we used overwhelming force, it would be very, very bad for them…

“So under those circumstances, it would be natural for the Iranians to reach out to the President to say, I want to diplomatically solve this. Instead, it’s him doing that. Now, I can tell you that he’s not reaching out because he’s weak, because he is not a weak man. He is a strong man… Maybe the strongest man I’ve ever met in my life…

“So with that all said, he wrote that letter. And why did he write that letter? It roughly said, ‘I’m a president of peace. That’s what I want. There’s no reason for us to do this militarily. We should talk. We should clear up the misconceptions. We should create a verification program so that nobody worries about weaponisation of your nuclear material. And I’d like to get us to that place because the alternative is not a very good alternative.’ That’s a rough encapsulation of what was said…

“The Iranians have reached back out, and I’m not at liberty to talk about specifics, but clearly, through back channels, through multiple countries and multiple conduits, they’ve reached back out. 

“I think that it has a real possibility of being solved diplomatically, not because I’ve talked to anybody in Iran, but just because I think logically it makes sense that it ought to be solved diplomatically. It should be.

“I think the President has acknowledged that he’s open to an opportunity to clean it all up with Iran, where they come back to the world and be a great nation once again and not have to be sanctioned and being able to grow their economy. Their economy—I mean, these are very smart people. Their economy was once a wonderful economy. They’re being strangled and suffocated today. There’s no need for that to happen.

“They can join the League of Nations and we can have a better relationship and grow that relationship… That’s the alternative he’s presenting… he wants to deal with Iran with respect. He wants to build trust with them if it’s possible. And that’s his directive to his administration. And hopefully, that will be met positively by the Iranians.

“And I’m certainly hopeful for it. I think anything can be solved with dialogue by clearing up misconception and miscommunication and disconnects between people… And the president is a president who doesn’t want to go to war, and he’ll use military action to stop a war … In this particular case, hopefully it won’t be necessary. Hopefully, we can do it at the negotiating table…”

Again, do such remarks sound like war mongering? Curiously, in the interview, Witkoff openly welcomed an opportunity to serve as Trump’s special envoy to Iran to navigate the dialogue and peaceful resolution of issues. 

To my mind, Iranians understand the meaning of Trump’s letter. They are now in an engaging mood as back channels are clocking hours. A commentary by Nour News, a mouthpiece of the Iranian security establishment, rather playfully titled as Analysis of Trump’s Letter to Iran from a Game Theory Perspective, speaks for the mood in Tehran. Read it here.

Make no mistake that Iran and the US are seasoned adversaries who have absolute mastery over the guardrails that contain tensions from escalating in their complicated relationship.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

China submits five-point Iran nuclear deal proposal to UN conference

Al Mayadeen | March 24, 2025

China has formally presented a new proposal to revive stalled negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, calling for diplomacy, mutual respect, and the preservation of the 2015 nuclear deal. The five-point initiative was first unveiled by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on March 14 during a trilateral meeting in Beijing with his Iranian and Russian counterparts. It was later submitted to the United Nations’ Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, where it has been published as Document No. 2448/CD.

According to Chinese diplomats, the document outlines principles intended to defuse mounting tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear activities and offers a framework to restart talks. The Chinese delegation requested its official release as a UN document, underlining Beijing’s push for a greater role in global security discussions.

The first principle calls for a diplomatic solution and warns against military escalation or punitive economic actions. “Stay committed to peaceful settlement of disputes through political and diplomatic means, and oppose the use of force and illegal sanctions,” the proposal states. It urges all sides to create conditions for renewed negotiations and to avoid steps that could worsen the situation.

In its second point, the proposal emphasizes Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while also encouraging Tehran to maintain its pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons. “Stay committed to balancing rights and responsibilities, and take a holistic approach to the goals of nuclear nonproliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy,” it reads. “Iran should continue honoring its commitment to not developing nuclear weapons, and all other parties should fully respect Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

The third point calls for renewed commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral agreement signed in 2015 that placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. “Stay committed to the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as the basis for new consensus. China hopes that all parties will work toward the same direction and resume dialogue and negotiation as early as possible. The United States should demonstrate political sincerity and return to talks at an early date.”

China’s fourth recommendation cautions against moving the matter to the United Nations Security Council, which could trigger the reimposition of international sanctions through the so-called “snapback” mechanism. “Stay committed to promoting cooperation through dialogue, and oppose pressing for intervention by the UN Security Council (UNSC). Under the current situation, hasty intervention by the UNSC will not help build confidence or bridge differences among the relevant parties. Initiating the snapback mechanism would undo years of diplomatic efforts, and must be handled with caution.”

The final principle calls for gradual, reciprocal steps to build consensus, stressing that no lasting resolution can be achieved through pressure or force. “Stay committed to a step-by-step and reciprocal approach, and seek consensus through consultation. History has proven that acting from a position of strength would not lead to the key to resolving difficult issues. Upholding the principle of mutual respect is the only viable path to finding the greatest common ground that accommodates the legitimate concerns of all parties and reaching a solution that meets the expectation of the international community.”

Beijing framed the proposal as part of its broader strategy to promote dialogue over confrontation. Chinese officials said the country will remain in close contact with all relevant parties and will “actively promote talks for peace, and play a constructive role in realizing early resumption of talks.”

Reiterating its longstanding position, China stressed that negotiations—not threats or sanctions—remain the only viable path forward. “Sanctions, pressure, and threats of force are not viable solutions,” Beijing stated.

March 24, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Trump and Putin begin addressing cumulated geo-strategic debris… amidst Trump’s ultimatum to Iran

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 24, 2025

The phone call on 18 March between Presidents Trump and Putin has happened. It was a success, insofar as it allowed both sides to label the result as ‘positive’. And it did not lead to a breakdown (by virtue of the smallest of concessions from Putin – an energy infrastructure truce) – something easily it could have done (i.e. devolve into impasse – with Trump excoriating Putin, as he has done to Zelensky), given the fantastical and unrealistic expectations being woven in the West that this would be the ‘decider meeting’ for a final division of Ukraine.

It may have been a success too, insofar as it has laid the groundwork for the absent homework, now to be handled by two teams of experts on the detailed mechanics of the ceasefire. It was always a puzzle why this had not been earlier tackled by the U.S. team in Riyadh (lack of experience?). It was, after all, because the ceasefire was treated as a self-creating entity, by virtue of an American signature, that western expectations took flight in the belief that details did not matter; All that remained to do – in this (flawed) estimation – was to ‘divvy out the cake’.

Until the mechanics of a ceasefire – which must be comprehensive since ceasefires almost always break down – there was little to discuss on that topic on Tuesday. Predictably, then, discussion (reportedly) seemed to have turned to other issues: mainly economic ones and Iran, underlining again that the negotiation process between the U.S. and Russia does not boil down to just Ukraine.

So, how to move to ceasefire implementation? Simple. Begin to unravel the ‘cats cradle’ of impedimenta blocking normalised relations. Putin, plucking out just one strand to this problem, observed that:

“Sanctions [alone] are neither temporary nor targeted measures. They constitute [rather], a mechanism of systemic, strategic pressure against our nation. Our competitors perpetually seek to constrain Russia and diminish its economic and technological capacities … they churn out these packages incessantly”.

There is thus much cumulated geo-strategic debris to be addressed, and corrected, dating back many years, before a Big Picture normalisation can start in earnest.

What is apparent is that whilst Trump seems to be in a tearing hurry, Putin, by contrast, is not. And he will not be rushed. His own constituency will not countenance a hastily fudged accord with the U.S. that later implodes amidst recriminations of deceit – and of Moscow again having been fooled by the West. Russian blood is invested in this strategic normalisation process. It needs to work.

What is behind Trump’s evident hurry? Is it the need for breakneck speed on the domestic front to push ahead, before the cumulated forces of the opposition in the U.S. (plus their brethren in Europe) have the time to re-group and to torpedo normalisation with Russia?

Or does Trump fear that a long gap before ceasefire implementation will enable opposition forces to push for the recommencement of arms supplies and intelligence sharing – as the Russian military steamroller continues its advance? Is the fear, as Steve Bannon has warned, that by rearming Ukraine, Trump effectively will ‘own’ the war, and shoulder the blame for a massive western and NATO defeat?

Or, perhaps Trump anticipates that Kiev might unexpectedly cascade into a systemic collapse (as occurred to the Karzai government in Afghanistan). Trump is acutely aware of the political disaster that befell Biden from the images of Afghans clinging to the tyres of departing U.S. transport planes (à la Vietnam), as the U.S. evacuated the country.

Yet again, it might be something different. I learned from my time facilitating ceasefires in Palestine/Israel that it is not possible to make a ceasefire in one place (say Bethlehem), whilst Israeli forces were concurrently setting Nablus or Jenin ablaze. The emotional contagion and anger from one conflict cannot be contained to one locality; it would overflow to the other. It was tried. The one contaminated the implied sincere intentions behind the other.

Is the reason for the Trump haste mainly that he suspects his unconstrained support for Israel eventually will lead him to embrace major war in the Middle East? The world of today (thanks to the internet) is much smaller than before: Is it possible to be a ‘peacemaker’ and a ‘warmaker’ simultaneously – and have the first taken seriously?

Trump and those U.S. politicians ‘owned’ by the pro-Israeli lobby, know that Netanyahu et al. want the U.S. to help eliminate Israel’s regional rival – Iran. Trump cannot both retrench the U.S. as a western hemisphere ‘Sphere of Influence’, yet continue to throw the U.S.’ weight around as world Hegemon, causing the U.S. government to go broke. Can Trump successfully retrench the U.S. to Fortress America, or will foreign entanglements – i.e. an unstable Israel – lead to war and derail Trump’s administration, as all is intertwined?

What is Trump’s vision for the Middle East? Certainly, he has one – it is one that is rooted in his unstinting allegiance to the Israeli interest. The plan is either to destroy Iran financially, or to decapitate it and empower a Greater Israel. Trump’s letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei included a two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal.

A day after his missive, Trump said the U.S. is “down to the final moments” with Iran:

“We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon. Something is going to happen very soon. I would rather have a peace deal than the other option, but the other option will solve the problem”.

U.S. journalist Ken Klippenstein has noted that on 28 February, two B-52 bombers flying from Qatar dropped bombs on an “undisclosed location” – Iraq. These nuclear-capable bombers were carrying a message whose recipient “was clear as day; The Islamic Republic of Iran”. Why B-52s and not F-35s which also can carry bombs? (Because ‘bunker-buster’ bombs are too heavy for F-35s? Israel has F-35s, but does not have B-52 heavy bombers).

Then on 9 March, Klippenstein writes, a second demonstration was made: A B-52s flew alongside Israeli fighter jets on long-range missions, practicing aerial refuelling operations. The Israeli press correctly reported the real purpose of the operation – “readying the Israeli military for a potential joint strike with the U.S. on Iran”.

Then, last Sunday, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz boasted that multiple Anglo-U.S. airstrikes “took out” top Houthi officials, making it very clear that this is all about Iran:

“This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out. And the difference here is, one, going after the Houthi leadership, and two, holding Iran responsible”.

Marco Rubio elaborated on CBS: “We’re doing the entire world a favour by getting rid of these guys”.

Trump then followed up with the same theme:

“Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”

In a further piece, Klippenstein writes:

“Trump’s menu of options for dealing with Tehran now includes one he didn’t have in his first term: full-scale war – with “nuclear weapons on the table” (the Trident II low-yield option) Pentagon and company contracting documents I’ve obtained describe “a unique joint staff planning” effort underway in Washington and in the Middle East to refine the next generation of “a major regional conflict” with Iran. The plans are the result of a reassessment of Iran’s military capabilities, as well as a fundamental shift in how America conducts war”.

What is new is that the “multilateral” component includes Israel working in unison with Arab Gulf partners for the first time, either indirectly or directly. The plan also includes many different contingencies and levels of war, according to the documents cited by Klippenstein, from “crisis action” (meaning response to events and attacks), to “deliberate” planning (which refers to set scenarios that flow from crises that escalate out of control). One document warns of the “distinct possibility” of the war “escalating outside of the United States Government’s intention” and impacting the rest of the region, demanding a multifaceted approach.

War preparations for Iran are so closely restricted, that even contracting companies involved in war planning are prohibited from even mentioning unclassified portions, notes Klippenstein:

“While a range of military options are often provided to presidents in an attempt on the part of the Pentagon to steer the President to the one favoured by the Pentagon, Trump already has shown his proclivity to select the most provocative option”.

“Equally, Trump’s green light for the Israeli air-strikes on Gaza, killing hundreds, [last] Monday, but ostensibly targetted on the Hamas leadership can be seen as consonant with the pattern of taking the belligerent option”.

Following his successful assassination of Iran’s top general Qassim Suleimani in 2020, Trump seems to have taken the lesson that aggressive action is relatively cost-free, Klippenstein notes.

As Waltz noted in his press interview:

“The difference is these [Yemen attacks] were not pinpricks, back and forth, what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks. This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out”.

Klippenstein cautions that, “2024 may be behind us but its lessons aren’t. Israel’s assassination of top Hezbollah officials in Lebanon was largely perceived by Washington to be a resounding success with few downsides. Trump likely took back the same message, leading to his strike on [the] Houthi leadership this week”.

If western observers are seeing all of what’s going on as some repeat of Biden’s tit-for-tat or limited attacks by Israel on Iran’s early warning and air defences, they may be misunderstanding what’s going on behind the scenes. What Trump might now do, which is right out of the Israeli playbook, would be to attack Iran’s command and control, including Iran’s leadership.

This – very certainly – would have a profound effect on Trump’s relations with Russia – and China. It would eviscerate any sense in Moscow and Beijing that Trump is agreement capable. What price then his ‘peacemaker’ ‘Big Picture’ reset were he, in the wake of wars in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, to start a war with Iran? Does Trump see Iran through some disturbed optic – that in destroying Iran, he is bringing about peace through strength?

March 24, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A new vision for US global power under Trump

By Batool Subeiti | Al Mayadeen | March 23, 2025

Trump’s approach to global affairs diverges sharply from the American establishment’s traditional strategy. Trump does not see America as a “police state.” He is sceptical of NATO, does not support war with Russia, and believes the US military presence in West Asia primarily serves to protect Arab allies. In his view, they should bear the financial burden of that protection.

The American establishment, represented by institutions like the Pentagon and the White House, follows a long-term strategic vision. It maintains hundreds of military bases worldwide and pursues a structured political strategy across various regions.

Trump, by contrast, envisions American leadership within a multipolar world order. He is less concerned with imposing the American system on other nations and more focused on fostering economic alliances that benefit the US. He also seeks to counter the rise of BRICS and prevent alternative economic blocs from challenging the dollar’s dominance. Rather than waging ideological battles, his strategy revolves around economic leverage.

A key example of establishment influence has been USAID, which has historically functioned as a covert tool for advancing American unipolarity. By using soft power tactics, it has helped destabilize nations through coups and colour revolutions. However, under Trump, funding for such initiatives has been slashed, allowing the US to save billions. His approach is more direct—rather than relying on NGOs to influence societies, he prefers sanctions as a means of coercion. This shift weakens American influence at the grassroots level, creating a vacuum that local movements and other powers can exploit.

Trump aims to strengthen the American economy through relative stability rather than confrontation. He opposes prolonged war with Russia, favouring investment over sanctions. Rather than spending $350 billion on Ukraine, he sees greater economic potential in working with Russia, which he does not view as a direct economic competitor. His broader goal is to retract costly foreign commitments and consolidate American economic dominance, using economic leverage—such as tariffs and sanctions—to maintain control. This was evident in his approach to Zelensky, where he set clear conditions for support.

This stance starkly contrasts with that of Europe, which remains deeply hostile toward Russia and relies on US backing to counter it. Trump’s push for increased tariffs on European imports will likely reduce demand for European goods in the US, stimulating domestic manufacturing and bolstering the dollar. His retreat from NATO further exposes contradictions within the alliance, creating strategic openings that others may exploit.

Trump operates like a political tsunami. In Gaza, he has positioned himself as the real power behind the war, stopping it on his terms. Even his controversial depopulation proposal was more of a bargaining tool than a concrete plan. He sees West Asia as secondary to regions like Mexico, Panama, or Greenland. When asked about Iran’s strength, he acknowledges Iran is very strong—suggesting he prefers to focus on nuclear containment rather than military confrontation, much to Netanyahu’s frustration.

Trump also has a tendency towards withdrawal when he sees American involvement as a financial drain. While “Israel” has expanded its influence in Syria, if its actions provoke widespread resistance, and it becomes clear that “Israel” is a source of ongoing conflict, Trump may reconsider US support.

In contrast to the deep state’s approach—where a weakening “Israel” prompts the search for regional substitutes—Trump’s stance is more transactional. If there is no significant opposition, he will stamp “Israel’s” territorial gains. But if the costs outweigh the benefits, he is willing to incrementally remove support from the occupation entity.

March 23, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scorch Marks in the Sand

Yemeni Warrior Rejoicing over a Slain MQ-9 Reaper
By William Schryver – imetatronink – March 22, 2025

Javelin, Stinger, M-777 howitzer, HIMARS, Excalibur, Switchblade, all manner of electronic warfare gizmos and counter-battery radars, Bradley IFVs, Stryker, Leopard, Challenger, Abrams, Patriot, JDAMs, HARMS, Storm Shadow, ATACMS … I’m sure I’m forgetting some.

Oh, yeah … remember in early 2022 when the unveiling of the Bayraktar strike drones was hailed with great fanfare? They were predicted to be the bane of the Russian army. Instead, it was a major embarrassment for the Turks.

Turkish Bayraktar TB2 Surveillance and Attack Drone

That said, over the past year or so, those “savage barbarians” down in Yemen have shot-down a baker’s dozen of the once-vaunted US MQ-9 Reaper drones – supposedly vastly superior to the Bayraktar TB2.

US MQ-9 Reaper Surveillance and Attack Drone

In any case, all of these things represent top-shelf front-line US/NATO war stuff that has been objectively proven inferior in the crucible of protracted high-intensity warfare. Many are simply ill-suited for the current state-of-play in the military realm, as it has been revealed over the course of the war in Ukraine.

Before this war began, the almost-universal belief was that US/NATO weaponry and equipment were far and away superior to anything the Russians could put on the battlefield.

That unfounded faith in the unrivaled supremacy of western arms has now been shattered — although we already see the think-tank apologists fashioning their strained rationalizations.

Nevertheless, when one examines in aggregate the implements of war the US/NATO have provided to Ukraine, the overwhelming majority consists of the very stuff every military in NATO would field in a war against Russia, or anyone else, for that matter.

Here is a sobering truth: if the Armed Forces of Ukraine could make one wish, it would be to respawn as the army and abundant quantities of effective and durable Soviet equipment they had in February 2022. That was, all things considered, the strongest army they would ever have. And it was, in great measure, squandered on the altar of a misguided commitment to NATO field doctrines that repeatedly proved misconceived and ill-adaptive to the war that actually ensued, as well as the war as it has subsequently evolved.

So, in the case of the Ukraine War, we see attested two now-indisputable facts:

1) US/NATO weaponry and equipment is FAR LESS FEARSOME than was previously believed by the supposed “military experts” in the world. It has either failed abysmally or vastly underperformed in virtually every case.

2) US/NATO war doctrine has been demonstrated to be something quite a bit less than the greatest expression of the martial arts since Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz. The disastrous NATO/AFU “counteroffensive” in Zaporozhye in summer 2023 and the catastrophic blunder of the Kursk Kamikaze Incursion in summer 2024 have laid waste to the mythology of US/NATO military prowess.

Napoleon at Austerlitz Accepting the Surrender of Francis II

Now, here in the early spring of 2025, we see the United States, with Donald Trump again at the helm, trying to soothe the sting and obfuscate the reality of the resounding defeat its strategic designs and battlefield arms have suffered against Russia.

And, after weighing all options and considerations in the balance, the Masters of Declining Empire have decided beating up on Iran is the right medicine for what ails them.

I mean, after all, the Russians never had to face them, and the Iranians certainly cannot pose a credible threat to our decades-old F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, F-22s, F-35s, B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, Tomahawks, etc., not to mention the almighty US Navy.

Everybody KNOWS this to be true. Right?

And even though the Iranians have already proven to be able to defeat all manner of US and Israeli air defenses with their upper-tiers of ballistic missiles … well, if we just have Pete Hegseth give them a proper pep-talk, those interceptors that failed during the reign of the imbecile Joe Biden will strike down every single Muslim Missile they see. American air defense interceptors will be made great again. Hail to the Chief!

As for the Iranian air defenses … well, everyone also knows the Israelis already destroyed them. Right? They told us all about it – how the heroic Israeli F-35s and F-15s stormed across the Tigris into the heart of Iran and blew to smithereens all those S-300s and missile factories. They even showed pictures of scorch marks in the sand to prove it.

Anyway, the point is that America needs to go to war again in an attempt to erase the stain of having lost to the Russians, just as going to war against the Russians was meant to erase the stain of having lost to the Afghanis, just as going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan was meant to erase the stain of having lost to the Vietnamese. And … well, you know the drill by now.

You should also know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men. Nothing ever goes as planned. And I strongly suspect the next war of American redemption will not be a reversal of the prevailing trend.

March 23, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Geography

The Middle East
By William Schryver – imetatronink – March 21, 2025

So the US is sending Carrier Strike Group One (CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson) to the Middle East, leaving CSG-5 (CVN-73 USS George Washington) to “hold the fort” in the western Pacific from the semi-safe environs of its quasi-permanent berth in Yokosuka, Japan.

All the Washington does is sail back and forth between San Diego and Yokosuka every so often to give the impression it’s doing something meaningful. Otherwise I’ve seen no indication for several years that it is anything more than a training and parade vessel.

In any case, the Vinson is headed to the Arabian Sea, and perhaps points beyond. (That remains to be seen.)

Meanwhile the deployment of CSG-8 (CVN-75 USS Trembling Puppy) has been extended, even as it remains bottled up in the northern reaches of the Red Sea, launching air strikes on Yemen from ~1000 km away, with USAF refueling tankers at the ready as needed.

The Yemeni have launched a few modest packages of antiquated drones and antiship cruise missiles in the general direction of the Trembling Puppy – all of which have been relatively easy pickings for the cruiser and destroyers and combat air patrol.

But, keep in mind, even though these old and slow Yemeni drones and missiles have little chance of scoring a hit from 1000 km away, the carrier strike group ships and planes still have to shoot at every one of them!

So every Yemeni strike package of a couple dozen missiles will deplete CSG-8’s munitions magazines by AT LEAST a corresponding number of air defense missiles, and quite possibly TWICE as many, according to standard practice of firing two interceptors at each threat.

CSG-8’s magazine depth has already been substantially depleted over the course of the past two weeks — and remember, the US Navy cannot replenish its vertical launch systems at sea.

And, of course, if military operations against Iran are the ultimate objective, then at some point the Trembling Puppy and its entourage are going to have to leave the cozy waters between Jeddah and the Gulf of Suez, and run the gauntlet of the Gate of Lamentation (Bab el-Mandeb).

The Gate of Lamentation (Bab el-Mandeb)

That’s when things could get more interesting. Because it’s a pretty tight squeeze to pass through. A big deep-draft aircraft carrier can’t just run at full speed, zig-zagging back and forth. It has to stick to the navigable channel.

Navigable Shipping Channels in the Bab el-Mandeb

In the relatively open waters north of Jeddah, there is quite a bit of room for maneuver. But in the straits, you’re restricted to a narrow band — and most significantly, potential Yemeni missile launching sites are only ~200 km away. A more substantial strike package of 50 or so drones, antiship cruise missiles, antiship ballistic missiles, and fast boat and surface drone attacks will get there a whole lot faster, and with a much better chance of actually hitting something.

So, even though CSG-8’s odds of passing through unscathed still probably remain pretty good, there is unquestionably a considerably elevated risk compared to hiding out at the mouth of the Gulf of Suez.

But let’s suppose they sail right through the Bab el-Mandeb with minimal difficulties … then what? You join up with CSG-1 in the Arabian Sea and attempt long-distance strikes into southern Iran — strikes that would still require air-refueling to have any meaningful reach?

Because you sure as hell aren’t going to sail a couple carrier strike groups into the Persian Gulf. And anyone who believes otherwise is drowning in delusion. I mean, just look at the damn map! The Iranians have potent fire control over the passage from the Gulf of Oman, through the Strait of Hormuz, and throughout the entire Persian Gulf.

Strait of Hormuz / Persian Gulf

So I ask, in all seriousness, what exactly are two US Navy carrier strike groups going to do in the context of a no-holds-barred war against Iran?

To me, the entire concept screams of hubris running blindly into catastrophe.

If the US is foolish enough to start a big war against Iran, then 2025 is likely to demonstrate yet again that, combined with firepower, geography is the indomitable god of war.

March 22, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »