The Math Is In: Why the US Has Already Lost Two Wars /Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 13, 2026
US mulls copying Russia’s air defense tech – Military Watch
RT | August 16, 2026
The US is looking to Russia’s air defense technology as it develops a new generation of mobile radars following losses suffered during the war with Iran, Military Watch has reported. New THAAD radars are reportedly set to gain a mobile sensor platform function similar to those built into Russia’s S-300 and S-400 systems from the outset.
According to a report published earlier this week, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) destroyed more than $3 billion worth of American air defense radars during the first week of the war on the Islamic Republic launched by Israel and the US in late February.
The losses reportedly included lower-value radars such as the AN/TPS-59, valued at around $70 million, as well as an AN/FPS-132 radar and two AN/TPY-2 X-band mobile radar systems from the THAAD anti-ballistic missile system, each valued at more than $1 billion. The destruction of the radars dealt a major blow to the situational awareness of US forces and their allies, the military-focused magazine noted.
The reported approach would potentially move away from the traditional Western concept of a self-contained air defense battery, according to the report. Instead, radars would serve as nodes in broader networks, allowing a mobile sensor to detect a target and relay data to remote launchers while remaining physically separate from the interceptors, the magazine noted.
The concept is reportedly in line with Russia’s networked air defense architecture and with the US Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS), which is designed to connect different sensors and weapons.
According to Military Watch, the destruction of the radars reportedly forced the US and Israel to rely more heavily on ship-based sensors and an AN/TPY-2 radar stationed in Turkey.
Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal reported that Iranian strikes had caused up to $13 billion in damage to US military assets and facilities in the Middle East. Since the start of the US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic, Tehran has carried out more than 2,000 air, missile, and drone strikes, damaging at least 20 sites in eight countries used by the US military. Iran has also damaged or destroyed more than 42 US military aircraft, several while parked at air bases.
Iran’s “Art of the Deal”
By Kevin Barrett | August 16, 2026
Trump wants to make a deal with Iran. That’s why he murdered the current Supreme Leader’s father, along with 168 schoolgirls at Minab and hundreds of other civilians.
Trump’s attempts to make a deal with Iran include: threats of total annihilation, claims that he has already won, obscene Easter outbursts (“Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah!” ), unilaterally declaring possession of the “Strait of Trump,” and vacillating between outraged tirades about how Iran will never have a nuclear weapon and deprecations of the “nuclear dust” that is so far underground it isn’t very important, anyway.
Does Trump think his arrogant scorn for the men and women he’s sent off on a deadly fool’s errand will somehow enhance his negotiating position? Does he imagine that telling the crew members of the USS Abraham Lincoln that after eight months at sea with extremely poor logistical support, “they haven’t been out there nearly long enough” will somehow win concessions from Iran’s Supreme Leader?
Is there some method to Trump’s apparent madness—some multidimensional-chess-style negotiating strategy? To find out, we turn to Trump’s magnum opus, The Art of the Deal. According the real author, Tony Schwartz, Trump didn’t write a single word of that book, and probably didn’t even read much of it. Schwartz says Trump spent a couple of hours with his (Schwartz’s) book, made a few minor marks, and falsely claimed authorship.
Schwartz says Trump’s attention span is so microscopic that it was impossible to do meaningful interviews. So he shadowed Trump for 18 months, embellished and mythologized Trump’s activities and purported methods, and wound up “putting lipstick on a pig.”
AI is mostly a curse, but it’s useful for pulling up the main points of a book one would never dream of buying or reading. According to AI summaries The Art of the Deal advocates various dealmaking strategies that may or may not relate to Trump’s attempts to come to terms with Iran, including:
*“Think big.” Trump says he plans to steal all of Iran’s oil and unilaterally incorporate the Strait of Hormuz into the United States, renaming it “The Strait of Trump.” I guess that counts as thinking big—in the same way the asylum inmate who insists he’s Napoleon is thinking big.
*“Go with your gut feeling, don’t listen to the experts.” When Netanyahu and his Mossad chief visited Trump and advocated attacking Iran, and all of Trump’s advisors except Hegseth were against it, Trump went with his gut feeling… which was, we surmise, that if he didn’t do what Netanyahu ordered, video evidence of Trump raping underage girls might be made public.
*“Always deal from a position of strength.” Trump has been so hilariously unconvincing in his pretensions to be dealing from a position of strength— “we’ve wiped out their entire military,” “we have total control over the Strait,” “our regime change succeeded,” “we’ve completely obliterated their nuclear sites,” “their economy has completely collapsed”—that he has indeed developed a very strong position… as a comedian specializing in self-parody.
*“Maximize your options.” Trump’s supposed strategy of never getting locked into a single deal or path, but instead developing all sorts of fallback options, obviously isn’t working as intended: Trump has exactly ZERO options except surrender. So he parodies the “maximize your options” strategy by being wildly inconsistent and incoherent, saying one thing one minute and its opposite five minutes later. Today, we’re going to invade and occupy them and steal their oil; tomorrow, we’re going to nuke them back to the Stone Age; and the day after tomorrow, we’ll just walk away because, contrary to appearances, we’ve already won. In other words, “maximize your options” has become “maximize your bullshit.”
*“Get the word out.” AI summaries say The Art of the Deal advocates “using publicity and sensational storytelling strategically to capture attention and influence public perception.” Trump is certainly succeeding at grabbing public attention through publicity and sensational storytelling about his misbegotten war on Iran. Unfortunately for him, he is grabbing negative public attention by making a complete ass of himself. “Strategic” doesn’t describe his attention-grabbing incoherence, rage, and obscenity—nor his capturing the world’s imagination, and making it collapse in unbelieving laughter, by sneaking out of Air Force One in a food cart while sending staff and journalists into the sky as bait for purported Iranian missiles. A stunningly brilliant publicity stunt, that… for Iran.
*“Deliver the goods: Back up bold claims with real results.” This, of course, is where Trump most obviously falls flat. The gaping abyss between what comes out of Trump’s unhinged mouth and discernible reality is so vast that one can only marvel at the sheer chutzpah that enables him to emit such preposterously vacuous noises.
In reality, it is Iran’s leadership that is giving a master class in the art of the deal.
*Iran is thinking big. Iran is not just trying to win by surviving, as the North Koreans and North Vietnamese and Taliban did. Instead, it is envisaging a radically different future in which the US fully withdraws from West Asia, concedes Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, returns Iran’s stolen money that it has been holding for 47 years, ends all sanctions, concedes Iran’s full NPT-enshrined rights to civilian nuclear activity, and pressures “Israel” into permanently ending its genocidal war against its neighbors including Lebanon and Palestine.
*Iran is not listening to the Western establishment “experts.” Instead, Iran relies on its own expertise and know-how. That’s why the Western experts, who thought the US 100-to-1 military spending advantage was insurmountable, got a rude awakening. Iranian leaders have long understood that an impregnable missile-and-drone force could beat a much larger traditional army and navy, and they’ve been planning for that contingency for decades. What’s more, instead of the “gut feelings” that Trump advocates, Iran listens to the inner voice of faith, cultivating and seeking Divine guidance and inspiration.
*Iran is dealing from a position of strength. As John Mearsheimer and other experts noted, Iran essentially won the war within the first 72 hours. That victory has gotten more crushing with every passing day. The US has exhausted its munitions, while Iran just keeps manufacturing more new rockets and drones than it fires. Iran’s assets are protected, buried deep underground, often beneath mountains, while US assets are vulnerable. Iran’s long range rockets and drones would enable it to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed even if the US somehow managed to occupy the whole Iranian shoreline of the Persian Gulf, a feat that might require as many as a million troops and casualties in the tens if not hundreds of thousands. Iran can match any attack on its civilian infrastructure with equal or greater attacks on the infrastructure of US allies. And Iran’s population is united behind its leadership and demands an even more militant stance than the leadership is pursuing, whereas the American people never supported “Trump’s Excellent Iran Adventure” even before its calamitous failure was obvious.
*Iran has all kinds of options. Iran can tighten the squeeze on the global economy to whatever degree it chooses, by calibrating the amount of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz (and, through its AnsarUllah allies, the Bab al-Mandab) and deciding who passes and who doesn’t. It can offer carrots and sticks to regional and global powers. It can get help from Russia and China to whatever degree necessary. It can use land routes, Pakistan-shore routes, and Caspian Sea routes to evade Trump’s highly permeable “wall of steel” blockade. It doesn’t need nukes since it’s got Hormuz, and can therefore use its nuclear capability as leverage, relinquishing any prospective nuclear weapons program in return for concessions. But barring such a deal, thanks to its highly-enriched uranium, it could, if attacked with a nuclear weapon, rapidly build its own nuclear weapons and retaliate (or buy some from North Korea or Pakistan, as Pépé Escobar says they already have).
*Iran is getting the word out with sensational storytelling. Iran can’t take credit for Trump’s catering truck escapade, but they are taking advantage of it with their trademarked LEGO videos that have captured the imagination of the world. Iran has successfully (and accurately) cast itself as the “lovable underdog” handing an obnoxious bully (Trump) his just desserts.
*“Iran is delivering the goods, backing up its bold claims with real results. Unlike Trump, Iran hypes its real accomplishments: Trump claims the Strait is under his control and open for business; Iran slams a drone into one of the very few ships dumb enough to take Trump’s word. Trump claims Iran’s military is “totally obliterated”; Iran points to satellite photos showing that it is the US bases in the region that have been totally obliterated. Trump claims a downed airman has been heroically rescued; Iran releases photos and eyewitness reports showing that what really happened was a botched US attempt to snatch Iran’s uranium that left shot-up US aircraft carcasses strewn across the desert landscape.
Has Mojtaba Khamenei been reading The Art of the Deal? I doubt it. Tony Schwartz’s ideas, which he temporarily credited to Trump, are all-too-obvious distillations of conventional wisdom…tired old bromides, really, that anyone with some time on their hands could easily come up with, even if they weren’t shadowing Donald Trump. We all know it’s best to deal from strength. We all know that “thinking big” (within reason) can sometimes work. We all know that listening to our gut intuition (or better yet, flashes of Divine guidance) is a good idea, and that the experts are sometimes wrong. We all know it’s better to have options than no options. We all know, if we’ve taken any good literature classes, that storytelling rules the world. And we all know that people who back up their bold claims with real results tend to be more successful than those who endlessly bullshit… people like Donald Trump, America’s Bullshitter-in-Chief.
Iran is led by people who have undergone the most rigorous academic training—in philosophy and theology—on Earth. They read and write serious books. And when they are forced to wage defensive war, they bring that brainpower to bear.
The USA is led by an airheaded narcissist who once pretended to write a book, but probably has never actually read a serious book in his life. If Trump really did keep a book of Hitler’s speeches at his bedside, as his ex-wife Ivanka claims, it probably served as a talisman rather than material for serious reading.
Mojtaba Khamenei is driving a hard bargain. He knows he has Trump, his father’s murderer, over a barrel.
It seems that Iran is teaching some hard lessons to the purported author of The Art of the Deal.
New Firepower Heads to Iran /Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 14, 2026
US relocates navy logistics after Iran’s attacks on Bahrain, reports show
Press TV – August 15, 2026
The United States has been forced to relocate much of its naval logistics operations to a remote base in the Indian Ocean following heavy attacks by Iran on its key military installation in Bahrain, according to reports.
The reports and analyses, published on Saturday by The New York Times and Defense Security Asia, indicated that the Pentagon had moved its primary naval logistics hub to Diego Garcia, an island in the central Indian Ocean shared between the US and the United Kingdom and under British command.
The reports showed that Iran’s missile and drone strikes, which began in late February after the launch of a joint US-Israeli aggression on the country, had severely damaged the Fifth Fleet command, which hosts US Naval Support Activity Bahrain.
This development means that the US Navy must now rely on a 2,200-mile logistics chain, instead of a short sustainment network in the Persian Gulf, to supply the massive aircraft carriers deployed near Iranian waters for carrying out attacks on the country.
This comes amid reports of shortages aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, a carrier with 5,000 sailors and US Marines that is approaching nine months on deployment.
Those reports have indicated acute problems with food, hygiene, mail, plumbing, and laundry aboard the carrier, leading to unrest and even attempted suicides among the service members deployed on the ship.
“…reported shortages aboard USS Abraham Lincoln demonstrate how destroying shore infrastructure can progressively degrade combat endurance without directly striking a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier,” Defense Security Asia said in its report.
The US is planning to replace the USS Abraham Lincoln with the USS George Washington in the region, although experts warn that the deployment could further expose the vulnerabilities of the US Navy during the ongoing confrontation with Iran.
The report by The New York Times said that Iran’s devastating attacks on the Fifth Fleet facilities in Bahrain have been the main reason behind the difficulties reported by US warships in the region.
“The loss of the hub in Bahrain has contributed to a host of reported problems on carriers supporting operations against Iran,” it said.
Both reports acknowledged that another regional logistics hub capable of supporting US aircraft carriers, located in the Emirati port of Fujairah, is well within the reach of Iranian missile and drone attacks.
They also said that the base in Diego Garcia could itself become a target of Iranian attacks, pointing to the firing of Iranian medium-range missiles at the base in March, just after Britain authorized the conditional use of the base by the US.
The reports come as many in the US and around the world, including families of the sailors aboard US aircraft carriers and lawmakers, continue to question the purpose of the prolonged deployment of US Navy assets near Iran, arguing that the war of aggression on the country has resulted in no tangible achievement for the US nearly six months after it began.
How Israel invented false Iranian quote repeated by Waltz, Fox, etc
By Shaiel Ben-Ephraim Shaiel – X – August 7, 2026
An incredible expose by Ronen Bergman shows how Israel invents quotes from Iranian officials in order to manufacture “evidence” that Iran is building nuclear weapons. This event took place on August 5th, when it was reported globally that Ahmad Vahidi, commander of the IRGC had admitted that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The only problem? It wasn’t true:
- Netanyahu’s pet network in Israel, Channel 14 spent months building Vahedi up as “the strongest man in Iran,” priming audiences to treat any dramatic quote from him as coming from Iran itself. In reality, he is one power player among several.
- An Indian Hindu nationalist account posts an earlier fabricated quote from Vahedi that says that nuclear weapons are a “necessity” for Iran. It does not get much traction.
- The same account publishes a quote saying that Vahedi stated that Iran will keep developing nuclear weapons as long as the US and Israel have them. There was no source.
- The Mossad Commentary account, a large account with no affiliation to the actual Mossad posted the quote in English.
- Channel 14, a mere 33 minutes later, covers this and claims that this is “the first time” an Iranian official directly admitted to building a nuclear bomb.
- Three minutes later Yair Netanyahu, son of the Prime Minister, retweets Mossad Commentary, then three minutes later retweets Channel 14 English, followed later by Israel War Room.
- Two hours later, Netanyahu senior cites the fabricated quote in an official speech at Mount Herzl, now the made up Tweet had become state policy.
- The Tweet makes it to the US, US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz shares it saying that Iran is “finally admitting what was clear for years,” then deletes it without explanation.
- Mark Levine shares it and then Fox News reports it as fact, including an on-screen headline.
- Channel 14 now reports this again with FOX and Netanyahu as the source. Mossad Commentary, the original source of the English version, now cites Channel 14 as its source, completing a circular citation loop.
- Israel’s Foreign Ministry spreads Netanyahu’s remarks to Persian-speaking audiences.
- Indian news agency ANI reports the story back in India, attributing it to “Israeli media,” completing the round trip.
This is a well oiled machine of disinformation emanating from Netanyahu and his circle designed to create a false narrative which will destroy negotiations with Iran and renew the war. Similar frauds have been perpetrated in the past like the Jewish Chronicle/Bild affair, when a made up journalist planted stories in the press to justify blowing up a hostage deal with Hamas. But this time he is dragging the entire world into endless war and not just Israel.
JPMorgan says Iran, Oman ‘legally justified’ to charge Hormuz navigation fees
The Cradle | August 14, 2026
US investment bank JPMorgan has suggested that Iran and Oman’s strategy of imposing mandatory “navigational safety” fees to transit the Strait of Hormuz may be legally justified, the Financial Times (FT) reported earlier this month.
JPMorgan explained in a memo that international law grants ships the right of “innocent passage” through territorial waters, making it illegal to charge fees simply for transit (tolls).
However, charging fees for specific navigational and security services may be permissible, the memo argued.
For example, Denmark and Sweden currently levy charges on vessels transiting the Danish Straits. Rather than charging a toll, which would be illegal, they charge for services.
Denmark’s Pilotage Act makes pilotage mandatory for vessels carrying hazardous cargo – such as oil, chemicals, or gases – or more than 5,000 metric tons of bunker oil.
Pilotage refers to the service of guiding a ship or aircraft through hazardous, confined, or coastal waters and local areas using visual landmarks, charts, and specialized local knowledge. The pilotage fees are paid to the Danish Ministry of Business and range from $10,000 to $25,000 per transit for a Balticmax tanker.
Another country operating “a de facto tollbooth” on oil tankers is Turkiye, a US ally and NATO member, JPMorgan wrote.
Turkish authorities have “broad regulatory powers in the Turkish Straits and can charge for services under the 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits.”
Ankara charges a Suezmax oil tanker approximately $130,000 for a round-trip passage, roughly $0.13 per barrel of crude.
In exchange for the fee, Turkiye provides lighthouses, light, and channel buoys, as well as sanitary control and emergency rescue services.
According to JPMorgan, these precedents indicate that Iran and Oman’s plan to impose mandatory charges for “navigational safety” to transit Hormuz could be legally justified.
In a previous note published in May, the investment bank’s analysts wrote: “By structuring the measure as a service fee rather than a transit toll, and by coordinating with Oman as the other littoral state, Iran could attempt to create a legal framework that appears consistent with international maritime law.”
Amir Handjani of Responsible Statecraft (RS) argues that establishing an Iran–Oman transit authority would benefit commercial shippers.
“Ships get a predictable process instead of IRGC commanders deciding by whim who passes, who doesn’t, and an unpredictable pricing mechanism,” Handjani wrote.
At the same time, US sanctions and restrictive insurance clauses may pose severe compliance issues for international oil and shipping firms seeking to traverse the Strait of Hormuz under such a proposal.
Reuters reported on 6 August that if shipping firms pay service fees to Iran to pass Hormuz, this would trigger US sanctions imposed unilaterally on the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA).
“Any payment could lead to asset freezes,” Reuters quoted unnamed industry sources as saying.
Major shipping firms have also raised concerns over a clause introduced last month by Lloyd’s Market Association (LMA) that terminates vessel insurance if it pays a toll or charge for passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
US military loses roughly 25% of Reaper drone fleet in Iran war: Report
MEMO | August 13, 2026
The US military has lost at least 45 MQ-9 Reaper drones, or roughly 25% of its fleet, during its war with Iran, The Washington Post reported on Thursday, citing three officials.
The losses involve an aircraft used for surveillance and targeted strikes that can cost between $30 million and $50 million depending on its equipment, according to the report.
The newspaper said the potential cost of the lost Reapers exceeds $1.3 billion.
The drones have been heavily used around the Strait of Hormuz but are “relatively easy targets” for Iran and its proxies because they fly slowly and often at low altitudes, it said.
Not all of the aircraft were shot down, with one official saying an unspecified number crashed after operators lost communications links to the drones.
The Air Force fleet had about 165 Reapers, and the Marine Corps possessed 20 before the war began, public budget data and the services showed.
Air Force Lt. Gen. David Tabor told the Senate in May that the number had fallen to about 135.
Iran blocks US-backed plan for Syrian military intervention in Lebanon
Al Mayadeen | August 13, 2026
Iran has thwarted a planned Syrian military intervention in Lebanon that was being prepared at the request of the United States, delivering a direct warning to Damascus that any Syrian military entry into Lebanese territory would be met with a regional response, according to Iranian sources cited by U News.
The Iranian warning included threats to stir up the Syrian–Iraqi border, open a confrontation line in Homs, support Alawite movements in the Syrian coastal region, and encourage the Kurds to return militarily to the outskirts of Aleppo.
The warning was not directed solely at Damascus; it also reached Ankara, Baghdad, Doha, and Riyadh, carrying the message that any Syrian adventure against Hezbollah in Lebanon would not remain confined to the Bekaa Valley but could turn into a broad regional confrontation within Syrian territory.
Iran succeeded in transforming any potential Syrian intervention in Lebanon from a military option that could be marketed to the US into a high-cost regional adventure, sources said. The Iranian warning, which reached Damascus through Turkish channels, included a threat of Iranian ballistic missile strikes that would begin from Damascus and include, in the first wave, more than 100 strategic targets, foremost among them the Syrian presidential palace.
The US-backed scenario: a three-pronged offensive into Lebanon
The scenario promoted by figures linked to the US embassy in Lebanon involves sending Syrian armed units from the Masnaa crossing toward Chtoura in the Lebanese Bekaa and on to the city of Zahle, simultaneously with mobilization from the eastern highlands toward the city of Baalbek.
The proposed scenario also includes declaring the city of Tripoli a Syrian zone of influence, with advancing forces benefiting from local environments, particularly in some Sunni-majority areas.
The presumed goal of the operation is to strike Hezbollah’s rocket infrastructure in the Bekaa and to create military and political pressure that would force the party to withdraw or accept new security arrangements.
Hezbollah prepared, treats potential Syrian operation as US-Israeli pressure
Iran’s warning has prompted regional parties to reassess the cost of the scenario, especially since Syria, emerging from deep military and political transformations, does not appear capable of enduring a new internal war.
Hezbollah is treating the information about a potential Syrian intervention extremely seriously and has taken precautionary measures in the Bekaa in anticipation of any possible Syrian incursion.
Hezbollah does not view the scenario as a separate Syrian operation, but rather as part of US–Israeli–regional pressure aimed at dismantling the structure of resistance in Lebanon from the east, following Israel’s failure to achieve a decisive result in the south.
Iraq’s rejection, UAE’s enthusiasm, and Saudi caution
Iraqi intelligence chief Hamid al-Shatri visited Damascus and informed Syrian officials of Baghdad’s rejection of any Syrian military expansion into Lebanese territory. Al-Shatri warned that Iraqi forces, primarily factions of the Popular Mobilization Forces, might enter Syrian territory if an intervention against Hezbollah occurred.
The Iraqi position added a further layer of deterrence to the Iranian warning, signalling that Damascus could face military pressure not only from within Syria but also from its eastern border.
The UAE is enthusiastic about funding any Syrian military operation in Lebanon, with officials quoted as ready to pay troop salaries as well as finance combat operations. This financial backing suggests that the UAE views the intervention as an opportunity to curtail Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon, despite the broader regional risks that Iran has highlighted.
Qatar rejects Syrian intervention in Lebanon, while Saudi Arabia does not object to an intervention as long as it is within arrangements that weaken Hezbollah without igniting the region. The divergent positions among Gulf states underscore the complex calculations at play, with Riyadh appearing to balance its opposition to Hezbollah against the dangers of a wider conflict that Iran has explicitly threatened to unleash on Syrian soil.
Trump wants to talk to Hezbollah. Will they pick up the phone?
By Ali Rizk | Responsible Statecraft | August 13, 2026
For decades, U.S. policy in Lebanon has focused on the elimination of Hezbollah, or at least its military wing. But the Trump administration has taken this effort to new heights.
The State Department is sponsoring the first ever direct talks between Lebanon and Israel since the Madrid peace talks, with the disarmament of Hezbollah being a central objective of those talks.
Washington has also taken the unprecedented step of sanctioning individuals from outside the party whom it accuses of undermining the campaign against Hezbollah, including members of Lebanon’s state security apparatus. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israel are engaged in an unprecedented financial crackdown on Hezbollah, as the New York Times reported this week.
Ironically, however, Donald Trump is also the first sitting American president to express a willingness to hold direct talks with the Lebanese Shiite movement.
“I would speak to Hezbollah. I speak to everybody. I’ll speak to people that a lot of people think I shouldn’t be speaking to, and things work out,” Trump told reporters during an oval office meeting with his Lebanese counterpart Joseph Aoun last month.
While it would be easy to dismiss these remarks as typical Trumpian grandstanding, there appears to be more to the story.
Multiple reports have recently emerged indicating that serious attempts have been made to open direct channels between Washington and Hezbollah.
According to the Middle East Eye, Trump told Beirut’s ambassador to Washington last May that he wanted to talk to the group in a bid to salvage a shaky ceasefire with Israel. The Lebanese presidency reportedly turned down the request over concerns that holding such talks would undermine Aoun by bypassing the Lebanese government.
That same report quotes senior Lebanese officials saying that both the Trump administration and some of its predecessors have attempted to open direct channels with Hezbollah, but the group rejected these advances.
Another recent report by the Lebanese daily Aljoumhouria revealed that senior Iraqi officials told a visiting Hezbollah delegation that Iraq was ready to sponsor and host direct talks between Washington and the Lebanese Shiite movement. The offer, the report noted, was made shortly before Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s recent visit to Washington, only to be turned down by Hezbollah.
Sources from within the Lebanese Shiite movement confirm that there has been a recent push to establish direct channels between the two sides. “The Americans have made several attempts through a number of intermediaries to engage directly with Hezbollah,” a Hezbollah source explained to RS. “It’s true that al-Zaidi pursued such efforts, but certainly not at our request.”
Interestingly, however, senior Hezbollah officials refused to clarify the group’s stance on the issue despite media reports that it had flatly rejected such offers. “Hezbollah wants to keep its stance concerning this issue out of the media, without giving any indication as to how it will respond to such initiatives,” a political official in the Lebanese Shiite movement told RS. “Our policy is to not reveal how we intend to approach this issue”.
This suggests that Hezbollah is not necessarily rejecting dialogue with Washington out of hand. Talks “will happen if there is an opportunity that presents itself,” said Muhanad Hage Ali, deputy director for research at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“But there will be an ambiguity because the organization basically tries to avoid acknowledging that they’re discussing anything with the ‘Great Satan,’” Hage Ali said, referencing a term Iran and its allies use to label the United States.
According to Hage Ali, who has authored numerous publications about Hezbollah, the group stands to benefit from such dialogue in more ways than one. “Direct contact between the U.S. and Hezbollah would eventually undermine the Lebanese government track,” he explained, in reference to the direct talks Lebanon’s government is holding with Israel. “This is useful for Hezbollah.”
Hezbollah could also use talks with Washington to make a deal under which any measures related to its weapons and military activities would be conditioned on amending Lebanon’s constitutional system to “grant Lebanese Shiites a bigger share of power,” Hage Ali said.
Still, it is difficult to see Hezbollah negotiating away its weapons absent an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and a genuine guarantee that Israel will permanently end military operations in Lebanon. This stems from the fact that the group was founded as a resistance movement against Israel back in the early 1980s, long before it became a political party in 1992.
Meanwhile there is little to suggest that Israel is willing to take any steps that would encourage Hezbollah to take a more flexible stance.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told a recent cabinet meeting that he will not succumb to American demands to withdraw troops from Lebanon. Israel’s Foreign Ministry even published a map where parts of southern Lebanon appeared incorporated into Israel. The map, which Israel posted on X, stirred an uproar in Lebanon before it was taken down. (Israeli officials described the controversial map as the result of “an artificial intelligence error.”)
There is also the issue of Iran which has only doubled down on its support for its Lebanese ally. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mujtaba Khamenei has framed support for Hezbollah as a “strategic mandate” for the Islamic Republic, while underscoring that any deal with the United States is contingent on respecting Lebanon’s territorial integrity and an end to Israeli military operations in the country.
That Khamenei cast his country’s support for Hezbollah in strategic terms — and not merely as an ideological obligation — supports the notion that the Iranian leadership believes supporting the group has become a greater necessity in the wake of the recent conflicts, not least given how Israel has directly attacked Iran in these wars. In other words, rather than weakening the bonds between Tehran and Hezbollah, Israeli attacks on Iran have apparently strengthened these bonds, giving them a stronger strategic rationale.
Against this backdrop, it is far more plausible that, at least for now, Hezbollah is pinning its hopes on what comes out of a potential agreement between Washington and Tehran, as opposed to riskier paths like direct talks with the Trump administration.
“The objective behind the American attempts to establish direct channels with us is to remove Lebanon and Hezbollah specifically from the Islamabad talks,” explained the first Hezbollah source, referencing U.S.-Iran negotiations in Pakistan.
Holding talks with the United States as a separate track from Islamabad would place Hezbollah in a weaker position, he argued, while being part of a framework with Iran which “hold strong cards” means that any agreement reached “will have guarantees.”
Ali Rizk is a security analyst with a Masters Degree in Counterterrorism from Australia’s Macquarie University. Rizk is a contributor to the American Conservative, and his work has appeared in the National Interest, Middle East Eye, and the Australian Institute for International Affairs.
The Caspian Sea: America’s New Eurasian Containment Arena
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – August 13, 2026
The Caspian Sea — for thirty years a backwater of great-power politics — has quietly become a battlespace, and most of the world is still treating it as a footnote.
In late July, Iranian officials confirmed that a US strike had damaged the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Seyyed al-Shuhada naval facility in Zibakenar, in Iran’s Caspian province of Gilan — the first time in the current war that Washington has reached into Iran’s Caspian coastline. Days earlier, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Kyiv’s drones had struck several vessels in the Caspian more than 1,000 kilometers from Ukrainian-held territory, including a ship reportedly ferrying military cargo from Iran toward Russia. Iran, however, said one of the vessels hit was carrying iron ore from Astrakhan to the Iranian port of Anzali and summoned Ukraine’s chargé d’affaires in protest.
Neither strike, on its own, would rewrite anyone’s map. Together, they are a signal. For the first time, the US and US-backed Ukraine have demonstrated that they have the will and the reach to hit targets on a sea that geography, more than strategy, had long kept insulated from direct confrontation. The Caspian’s basin states — Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan — built an entire diplomatic architecture, including a 2018 legal convention on the sea’s status, around the premise that outside militaries would stay out. That premise no longer holds.
What is emerging is not a contest for territory in the traditional sense. It is a contest over connectivity: over the ports, rail lines, pipelines, and shipping lanes that allow Russia, Iran, and, at one remove, China to function as an integrated economic and strategic space rather than three isolated, sanctioned, or otherwise constrained powers. Call it America’s New Eurasian Containment: a strategy that treats infrastructure, not territory, as the terrain worth contesting.
Severing the Connective Tissue
The clearest evidence of this shift sits not on the Caspian’s water but on its shores, in two projects Washington has spent the past year reshaping.
The first is the International North-South Transport Corridor, a roughly 7,200-kilometer multimodal freight route agreed upon by Russia, Iran, and India in 2000 that links the Indian Ocean, through Iran, across the Caspian, to Russian rail networks and on to Europe. Long stalled by under-investment, the corridor has become a priority for Moscow since 2022, precisely because it offers a way around Western sanctions. Its central artery is the Caspian crossing between the Iranian port of Bandar-e Anzali and the Russian port of Astrakhan. More importantly, it is the same stretch of water where Ukrainian drones struck in July and where Israeli forces had already hit Iranian naval and port assets at Anzali back in March, according to regional shipping trackers. A degraded, contested Caspian corridor is a direct blow to the one overland route that lets Moscow and Tehran trade around US and European sanctions. These attacks are, therefore, not about the US war on Iran; they are about reshaping the very geography of trade passing through the Eurasian landscape.
The second is the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, or TRIPP — the transit corridor Washington brokered in August 2025 between Armenia and Azerbaijan, granting a US-led consortium a 99-year lease to build and manage rail, energy, and fiber-optic links through Armenia’s Syunik province. The deal ended a decades-old territorial dispute, but its geopolitical function is narrower and sharper. It places Iran’s only land border with Armenia under American-supervised transit control, cutting off Tehran’s most direct overland access into the South Caucasus and, by extension, into a region Russia has treated as its own backyard since the Soviet collapse. Whatever the deal’s stated humanitarian purpose, it functions as a wedge driven into Eurasian connective tissue.
Neither project was designed with the other in mind. But together with the Caspian strikes, they describe a single logic: deny Russia and Iran the infrastructure that lets their January 2025 Comprehensive Strategic Partnership — a 20-year treaty covering defense, energy, finance, and counterterrorism cooperation — translate into real economic integration rather than a document signed in Moscow. China, meanwhile, watches from the margins. Beijing has no naval presence on the Caspian and is not a party to any of these strikes or corridors, but its own westward trade ambitions run through the same chokepoints, i.e., the Middle Corridor via the South Caucasus, and Iranian ports as a Belt and Road terminus. A Washington-controlled TRIPP and a contested Caspian complicate China’s overland options as a side effect, even if Beijing was never the intended target.
A Frontier Without a Front Line
The danger in this strategy is precisely that it has no clean edges. Containment during the Cold War had defined lines — the Fulda Gap, the Elbe, the 38th parallel — and a doctrine that most parties understood. Infrastructure containment has none of that. A drone strike on a cargo ship, an airstrike on a naval depot, and a 99-year land lease branded with a president’s name: each is individually deniable, incremental, and justifiable in its own narrow terms, even as the cumulative effect reshapes the strategic map of an entire region. That ambiguity is a feature for Washington, which can advance the strategy without ever declaring it. But it is also a source of volatility because affected countries are left to infer intent from actions rather than respond to a stated policy. And, inferences, in a region this armed and this aggrieved, tend toward worst-case assumptions.
The more durable question is what happens once the corridors themselves become targets, not just prizes. Pipelines, rail lines, and undersea cables may now be legitimate objects of great-power coercion. If so, the Caspian will not be the last “peripheral” space pulled into contested geography. The Arctic shipping lanes, the Malacca chokepoint, and the fibre-optic seabed of the Indian Ocean are all candidates for the same treatment. In this environment, the states that thrive will not be the ones with the largest militaries. They will be the ones that make their infrastructure redundant, diversified, and defensible: multiple routes, multiple partners, no single artery whose loss is fatal. Iran and Russia have bet heavily on a small number of chokepoints. Their partnership may keep deepening going forward. But the deeper it goes, the more attacks it will face and endure.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
Misleading intelligence is worse than fake news: Araghchi warns US
Al Mayadeen | August 13, 2026
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned US officials that misleading intelligence can be more dangerous than false news, pointing to Washington’s record of strategic miscalculations.
In an English-language post, Araghchi called on US officials to “beware,” arguing that intelligence failures have repeatedly contributed to major US miscalculations.
He said the United States has “long made miscalculations due to shortcomings in intelligence,” citing the war on Iran as a prominent example.
Araghchi also identified the Strait of Hormuz as “an even bigger miscalculation”; he argued that Washington was making a major mistake in thinking that it can control the key waterway.
Araghchi warns Washington over intelligence failures
Araghchi’s warning comes amid continued scrutiny of intelligence assessments surrounding the US-Israeli war on Iran.
The Iranian foreign minister’s argument centers on the consequences of intelligence failures when they become the basis for military and foreign-policy decisions.
An inaccurate assessment can extend beyond the intelligence community, shaping decisions over military operations, diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and escalation.
The warning also comes as questions have emerged in Washington over intelligence supplied by “Israel”.
Israeli intelligence raises questions in Washington
According to a report by The Washington Post, cited in the source material, the Israeli government informed the CIA about an alleged threat to assassinate US President Donald Trump in Turkey.
The newspaper reported that US analysts did not find the information convincing. American intelligence officials were also reportedly skeptical of Israeli information concerning an alleged Iranian threat.
A US official cited by the newspaper reportedly said that reports concerning threats to Trump’s life originated with “Israel” rather than US intelligence and described them as “low credibility.”
US intelligence officials reportedly told The Washington Post that “the Israeli warning was aimed at influencing US policy in the region,” raising questions over whether the warning was primarily intended to protect Trump or influence Washington’s regional calculations.
Hormuz becomes a central point of confrontation
Araghchi’s warning also directly addressed the Strait of Hormuz, as Tehran’s ability to leverage its geographic control of the vital waterway continues to undermine trust in Washington’s war plans.
Iran has emphasized its authority over the strategic waterway and maintains that its reopening depends on the United States fulfilling Iranian conditions.
The strait’s importance extends far beyond the immediate confrontation. It is a critical maritime passage for global energy supplies, making developments surrounding it consequential for regional security and international markets.
For Iran, control over the waterway represents a significant strategic lever as US military pressure continues. For Washington, efforts to compel its reopening carry broader geopolitical and economic implications.
Featured Video
Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A short history of British torture
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US destroying international space law
- SCO Calls for Binding Global Deal to Prevent Arms Race in Space
- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- ‘40,000 tons of bombs’: Report shows Trump planning ‘largest bomb transfer in modern US history’ to Israel
- Amazon says cloud infrastructure in Bahrain, UAE ‘beyond saving’
- How Europe became an accessory to CIA torture
- Trump says Iran urgently seeks deal, Tehran sets conditions for talks
- The Andean Shadow Army
- Russia Wants to End Ukraine Conflict – Lavrov
- US Flaunts On-Orbit Weapon to Supercharge Space Arms Race
- If Americans Knew
- The assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler and the various Israeli connections to it
- “We Want That the Whole Land Be Jewish”
- BREAKING: Building collapse in Gaza kills at least 20 as they sleep – Daily Update
- ‘School is Life’: 1.5 Million Palestinian Children Face Fourth Year of Shattered Education
- Pentagon admits Iran war caused ammunition shortages, cost US $33.4bn
- 37 Palestinian journalists held in Israeli jails, rights group says
- Israel’s Hilltop Youth Recruits Minors to Terrorize Palestinians (with video)
- 100 Colonial Plans Advance in West Bank Since Start of 2026
- New Maps Show How Israel Has Thwarted Hopes for a Palestinian State
- Israel trying to ‘eliminate’ living conditions for Palestinians in West Bank
- No Tricks Zone
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
- 2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’
Aletho News 