This will be a rather lengthy article, but you need to know what Russia and China are doing in a closely coordinated series of actions that show a serious commitment to counter US actions to punish and isolate Iran and Cuba. Let’s start with Iran… Since the June 2025 12-day Iran–Israel war (which ended with a US-brokered ceasefire on 24 June 2025), Russia and China have provided Iran with a combination of diplomatic, economic, military-technical, and strategic support. This has helped Tehran recover from strikes on its nuclear sites, air defenses, and missile infrastructure, while deepening their “axis” alignment against Western pressure. Support has been pragmatic rather than unconditional—neither offered direct intervention during the conflict, leading to some Iranian frustration—but has accelerated in the months since.
The biggest news — a development that has been largely ignored in the West — was the signing of the Trilateral Strategic Pact (signed 29 January 2026), which provides a comprehensive framework for diplomatic, economic, and security coordination (emphasizing sovereignty, sanctions resistance, and multipolarity; no formal defense alliance). The signing occurred through simultaneous ceremonies in Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow, as confirmed by state media in all three countries and reported across outlets like Middle East Monitor, GV Wire, and others. It represents a significant escalation in coordination among the three nations, building directly on their existing bilateral frameworks.
It formalizes a trilateral coordination mechanism for the first time, linking the three powers in a shared strategic framework. It builds on the bilateral agreements that Iran had signed previously with Russia and China:
The Iran-Russia 20-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty (signed January 17, 2025, entered into force October 2025), focused on economic, political, defense, and sanctions-evasion ties.
The Iran-China 25-year Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement (signed 2021), emphasizing trade, infrastructure, energy, and Belt and Road Initiative projects.
While the full text has been released incrementally (with portions still emerging as of early February 2026), public descriptions and official statements highlight the following core elements:
Diplomatic coordination — Unified stances on international issues, including opposition to Western sanctions, support for multipolarity, and mutual backing in forums like the UN.
Economic resilience and cooperation — Enhanced trade (e.g., energy exports, yuan/ruble-based mechanisms), sanctions circumvention, and infrastructure projects (e.g., expanding Belt and Road ties, North-South Transport Corridor involvement).
Strategic and security alignment — Military-technical cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint exercises (e.g., building on annual “Maritime Security Belt” drills; a major joint naval exercise involving all three that will take place in the Gulf of Oman and northern Indian Ocean in the coming weeks).
Nuclear sovereignty — Emphasis on Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear development and resistance to external interference.
Trilateral nuclear and military talks — Including IAEA discussions and coordinated exercises.
No mutual defense clause — It explicitly stops short of a formal military alliance (unlike NATO’s Article 5), focusing instead on coordination and mutual support without automatic defense obligations.
State media in Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow described it as a “cornerstone” for a new multipolar world order, with Chinese messaging highlighting opposition to “unilateral coercion” and Russian/Iranian outlets framing it as bolstering sovereignty against external threats. While I do not believe that Russia and China will join the fray if Iran is attacked, they are making a concerted, substantive effort to ensure that Iran can effectively defend itself and thwart US attempts at regime change.
Both Russia and China are providing important military assistance to Iran, but China appears to be playing a bigger role in supplying hardware while Russia is supplying Iran with critical intelligence. According to press reports and photographic evidence, Russia has deliveried Mi-28NE attack helicopters (confirmed in early 2026) and possible MiG-29 fighters. Russia also has sent a large number of military transport flights to Iran, but there are no reports about what was on board. The most likely case is that Russia is fulfilling supplies of weapons based on prior contracts and in defiance of reinstated UN/EU arms sanctions via the JCPOA “snapback” mechanism.
China has focused on upgrading Iran’s air defense system by supplying HQ-9B surface-to-air missile systems (a long-range SAMs comparable to Russia’s S-300; deliveries reported from July 2025 onward, with Iranian officials confirming integration to replace losses from Israeli strikes). In addition, China has deployed the YLC-8B long-range surveillance radars (for detecting stealth aircraft like the F-35), and shipped missile components (e.g., solid-fuel propellants, guidance systems) to rebuild ballistic missile production lines damaged in the war. Iran is in a much stronger position militarily than it was on June 13, 2025, when Israel launched its surprise attack.
CUBA
Russia and China also are providing significant political, economic, humanitarian, energy, and material support to Cuba, especially amid the island’s severe fuel/energy crisis, food shortages, and economic strains intensified by the longstanding US blockade and recent US actions under President Trump (e.g., pressure on Venezuelan/Mexican oil supplies and threats of tariffs on countries aiding Cuba).
Russia and China are coordinating rhetorically (both denounce US “inhumane” tactics and reaffirm support in bilateral calls and statements). They also are coordinating the kind of aid that each supplies to Cuba… Russia focuses on supplying direct oil/fuel while China is aiding Cuba with financial/renewables/food assistance. There is not a formal trilateral mechanism like the one they signed with Iran, but both countries frame their support as countering US pressure in the Western Hemisphere. This support is ongoing and responsive to Cuba’s acute needs (fuel rationing, blackouts, food scarcity). Deliveries and projects continue despite US threats, with both countries emphasizing it as humanitarian and sovereign cooperation.
Russia’s Support
Russia emphasizes solidarity, political backing, and practical material/energy assistance, framing it as opposition to “suffocating” US measures. Russia’s help consists of the following:
Energy Aid (Oil and Fuel): Russia is preparing to deliver crude oil and petroleum products to Cuba “in the near future” as humanitarian aid. The Russian Embassy in Havana confirmed this to Izvestia. Russia last sent a major shipment in February 2025 (100,000 metric tons of crude under a $60 million state-backed loan approved by Putin). The Kremlin (via spokesman Dmitry Peskov) states it is in active contact with Havana to discuss assistance options and has described Cuba’s fuel situation as “critical.” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov (Feb 13, 2026) confirmed Russia is providing material assistance, including supplies already underway.
Political and Diplomatic Support: Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (phone call with Cuban FM Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Feb 2, 2026) reaffirmed Russia’s “principled position” that economic/military pressure on Cuba is unacceptable and committed to continued political and material/financial support. Russia repeatedly condemns the US blockade, opposes any military intervention, and expresses solidarity with Cuba (and Venezuela). Ambassador Viktor Koronelli has stated Russia “will not abandon Cuba.”
Historical/Longer-Term Ties: Russia wrote off ~90% of Cuba’s Soviet-era debt (~$32 billion) in 2014. Ongoing cooperation includes trade, scientific/academic exchanges, and past energy deals.
China’s Support
China has positioned itself as a major strategic partner, focusing on humanitarian aid, energy infrastructure, food security, and debt/investment cooperation (Cuba is a Belt and Road Initiative partner). The recent Emergency Aid Package (Approved by Xi Jinping, Jan 2026) provides $80 million in financial assistance (in euros equivalent) for purchasing electrical equipment and other urgent needs — specifically to help resolve the energy crisis (blackouts affecting >60% of the country). China also donated 60,000 tons of rice in emergency mode (first shipment of ~4,800 tons arrived Jan 2026; rest in coming months) for food security.
China also is expanding support that builds on prior commitments. Previously it was helping Cuba with a 200 MW photovoltaic (solar) energy projects and, recent days, has delivered 5,000 solar panel kits for isolated homes (new executing company established with Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Trade). Shortly after Venezuelan President Maduro was abducted, China, acting under an emergency program, delivered 30,000 tons of rice (first shipments in Jan 2026)… This was in addition to prior donations of solar lamps, roofing materials, mattresses, and generator sets.
In the face of the US effort to crush Cuba economically, China is helping Cuba with debt restructuring negotiations (banking/financial/corporate debts). Cuba also is being Integrated into China’s CIPS payment system and increased use of yuan in trade (announced 2025). China is in effect helping wean Cuba off of the US dollar. China also is helping Cuba with biopharma (e.g., technology transfers for aspirin production), digital transformation (Phase 4 program), high-definition TV projects, mining, oil exploration, sugar industry recovery, and renewables (China investing in solar to help Cuba reach 25% renewables by 2030).
The support that Russia and China are providing to Iran and Cuba sends a clear message to Donald Trump and to the nations of the global south: i.e., Russia and China are building a new financial and security infrastructure designed to immunize countries against US coercion and threats. They are doing more than just offering words of solidarity… They are backing up their words with concrete economic, diplomatic and military actions. The foundation of the American hegemon is crumbling.
I started my vlogging day with Nima and Colonel Wilkerson:
It appears the main topic of discussion at Wednesday’s meeting between Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu was Iran’s ballistic missile program. It really was not a discussion… Instead it was Bibi, with his advisers, trying to sell Trump and his team on the necessity of ending Iran’s ballistic missile capability. Why the emphasis on those missiles when, until recently, the big concern was whether Iran could build a nuclear bomb? The US and Israeli narrative about Iran’s missile and drone strikes in Israel during the 12-day war in June 2025 insists that Iran did little damage and that the combined might of US and Israeli air-defense systems knocked down 90% of the Iranian ballistic missiles. If that was true, why is Netanyahu pressing Trump touting on the need for Iran to eliminate its ballistic missile force?
I have the answer… We need only look at the damage Iran’s ballistic missiles caused in Israel during the 12-day war in June 2025 — based on reporting and independent analyses of the conflict (much of the detailed damage was initially censored or not fully disclosed by Israeli authorities, but independent and foreign sources have provided information).
Iran launched more than 1,000 ballistic missiles toward Israel over the 12 days, often in large salvos that overwhelmed the Israeli and US air defenses. Israel’s multilayered missile defense systems intercepted some, but a significant number still penetrated and struck targets. Hundreds of buildings in major cities such as Tel Aviv suburbs (Bat Yam, Ramat Gan) were damaged — with some buildings so badly hit they were later demolished. In Tel Aviv alone, analysts mapped damage to around 480 buildings across multiple strike sites.
Iranian missiles damaged key public facilities, such as the Soroka Medical Center in Be’er Sheva, which was hit by an Iranian missile, causing structural damage and chemical leaks; the affected wing was evacuated. Power and water infrastructure also were hit, contributing to service disruptions.
Iran’s ballistic strikes hit high-value facilities as well. The Weizmann Institute of Science (a major research institution in Rehovot) was severely damaged — with an estimated 90% of structures affected, destruction of dozens of labs, and suspension of about 25% of its operations.
Independent radar data and reporting showed that Iranian missiles directly hit around five Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) facilities, including an air base, intelligence center, and logistics base. Israeli authorities did not publicly confirm these hits at the time, due to military censorship. Israeli oil refining infrastructure — especially in Haifa Bay — also suffered direct hits and damage from Iranian missiles, including to critical units and pipelines at the Bazan refinery and associated casualties. The strike on the Bazan oil refinery complex in Haifa Bay, one of Israel’s most important energy facilities, heavily damaged the power generation unit and other infrastructure critical for operation.
Wednesday’s meeting between Trump and Netanyahu lasted nearly three hours (longer than scheduled) and, according to Israeli media, also included US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, Israel’s ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter, Military Secretary Maj.-Gen. Roman Gofman, acting director of the National Security Council Gil Reich, Michael Eisenberg, Ziv Agmon, and advisor Ofir Falk.
So what did President Trump and Bibi talk about on Wednesday. According to the Jerusalem Post :
[T]he prime minister presented intelligence on Iran’s military buildup, including developments related to its ballistic missile program. He also conveyed the message that if Trump decides to strike Iran, the operation should include targeting the ballistic missile project as well.
Haaretz echoed the Jerusalem Post’s report, but also noted that Netanyahu is worried that Trump will strike a deal with Iran that ensures Iran does not and will not have a nuke. Netanyahu thinks that would be bad for Israel:
Messages from the Prime Minister’s Office indicate that such a deal would be bad not only for Israel but for the entire Middle East. Netanyahu was expected to attempt to thwart an agreement that does not include significant restrictions on ballistic missile production in Iran, while at the same time avoiding being perceived as encouraging the United States to go to war with unpredictable outcomes.
Remember all the times that Bibi showed up at the UN and the US Congress with pictures of an imaginary Iranian nuclear bomb? The bomb is no longer the Israeli priority… Eliminating Iran’s ballistic missiles is now number one on the hit list because Israel took a severe beating last June and Netanyhu fears what Iran could do if Iran makes good on its threats to unleash its missile force if attacked.
Trump tried to placate Bibi by announcing that he has ordered the Navy to PREPARE to deploy another carrier strike group to the Arabian Sea. The key word is PREPARE… Preparing is not the same as a Deployment Order. I am happy to say that I was wrong about the US launching an attack this week. Based on Trump’s account of the session with Bibi, there is going to be at least one more round of talks in Oman between the US and Iran before a new attack on Iran is unleashed.
Despite Trump’s constant boasting about the mighty prowess of the US military, the US lacks the capability to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile force. For starters, the Iranian missiles are stored below ground in hardened tunnels that are scattered across Iran. The US military embarrassed itself last March when it failed to destroy the Houthi ballistic missiles during the seven weeks of Operation Rough Rider… Finding and destroying a mobile missile launcher is damn hard. Unlike Yemen, which did not have an integrated air-defense system or an air force, Iran has both. The lack of air supremacy by the US complicates the task of locating and destroying ballistic missiles in Iran. And that is assuming that Iran is not also using decoys in order to deplete the US inventory of missiles it would use to destroy the Iranian capability.
Iran is willing and ready to make a deal that will assure Trump that it is not building a nuke. And, based on Rick Sanchez’s recent interview with Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi, Iran is willing to make concessions on the enrichment of uranium. While Trump will be loathe to admit it, if he accepts Iran’s offer then he is in effect reviving the JCPOA.
Israel says it will attack Iran if Tehran does not agree to a deal that includes restricting the range of its missiles to 300 kilometers (186 miles).
According to Ynet, Israel is demanding that any deal the US makes with Iran include Tehran eliminating its uranium enrichment program, limiting the range of its ballistic missiles to 300 kilometers, and cutting ties with its allies in the region.
President Donald Trump has suggested he will order an attack on Iran if Tehran does not make a deal with the US. Tel Aviv says any deal between Washington and Tehran must include missile range restrictions or Israel will attack Iran.
Iranian officials have stated that Tehran is unwilling to place restrictions on its missile program. Limiting the range of its missiles to 300 kilometers would prevent Iran from having a meaningful retaliatory capability.
Israeli officials, according to Ynet, do not believe that Iran will accept limitations on its missile program.
Trump met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday about Iran. Officials said that Washington and Tel Aviv would continue to prepare for war with Iran, and an immediate attack is unlikely.
On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had ordered a second aircraft carrier strike group to prepare for deployment to the Middle East.
Iran’s security chief says the country received no concrete proposal from the United States during the first round of talks aimed at resolving disputes around Tehran’s nuclear program.
Ali Larijani, who leads Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), said in remarks published on Wednesday that Tehran and Washington had only exchanged messages in talks held in Oman last week.
However, Larijani said that Washington has taken the “wise and logical” decision to enter talks with Iran rather than threatening the country with military action.
He said that talks with the US will continue and that Iran views them positively, while insisting that countries in the region are also contributing to efforts aimed at bringing the Iran-US talks to a successful conclusion.
The top security official made the remarks in an interview with Qatar-based Al Jazeera Arabic TV during a visit to the country, where he met with senior officials to discuss developments related to the Iran-US nuclear talks.
Responding to a question about US demands for Iran to entirely halt its nuclear enrichment program, Larijani said that the country will never accept the zero enrichment condition, as it needs the technology for energy production as well as for manufacturing certain medicines.
He reiterated Iran’s previous warnings that any US attack on its territory will receive a harsh and decisive response.
“If the United States attacks us, we will target its military bases in the region,” said the SNSC chief, according to a Persian transcript of the interview published by the Tasnim news agency.
Larijani also said that the Israeli regime has been trying to sabotage the Iran-US talks and is seeking to draw the region into a new war.
The US is considering seizing tankers carrying Iranian oil in a bid to push Tehran toward a deal on its nuclear program, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing American officials.
Washington has long accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, while Tehran has maintained that its program is strictly civilian. The US has seized several vessels transporting Iranian oil in recent months as part of a broader campaign targeting sanctioned tankers linked to Venezuela. The ships are part of an alleged ‘shadow fleet’ used to move crude from heavily sanctioned countries to China and other buyers.
Senior officials in the administration of US President Donald Trump have debated whether to confiscate Iranian vessels but have stopped short of acting, wary of retaliation from Tehran and potential disruption to global oil markets, the WSJ reported on Tuesday. The option, one of several under discussion at the White House to pressure Tehran into agreeing to limits on its nuclear program, faces significant hurdles, US officials told the outlet.
Iran would likely retaliate against any stepped-up US enforcement campaign by seizing tankers carrying oil from American allies in the region, which could send oil prices sharply higher, posing political risks for the White House, the WSJ said. The US Treasury Department has sanctioned more than 20 vessels allegedly involved in transporting Iranian oil this year, potentially making them candidates for seizure.
When asked about the possibility of the US boarding tankers linked to Iran, a White House official told the outlet that Trump favors diplomacy but has a range of options available if negotiations fail.
The report comes amid rising tensions between Tehran and Washington, with the US recently deploying additional naval and air assets to the region. Washington has demanded that Iran accept a “zero enrichment” policy and has repeatedly suggested it could resort to military action if diplomacy fails, while Tehran insists that enrichment is its legal right, grounded in sovereignty and national dignity.
Speaking to RT’s Rick Sanchez on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran is fully committed to a diplomatic settlement with the US while simultaneously bracing for the possibility of renewed conflict. However, he argued that “there is no solution but a diplomatic solution,” stating that technology and progress cannot be destroyed through bombings and military threats.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman has advised the United States to avoid “destructive” Israeli influence as Washington engages in indirect nuclear negotiations with Tehran, citing the drawn-out history of Tel Aviv-manufactured regional crises.
Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks during a press conference in Tehran on Tuesday, identifying the US as Iran’s sole negotiating counterpart that had to decide whether it was willing to act independently of Israel’s “destructive” pressures that harmed regional stability and even contradicted Washington’s own interests.
Baghaei said one of the main challenges in US foreign policy in the West Asia region was its alignment and compliance with the demands of the Tel Aviv regime, which he said has been the primary source of insecurity in the region over the past eight decades.
He further described Israel as the driving force behind an artificially manufactured crisis surrounding Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy program.
Repeated allegations propagated by Tel Aviv that Tehran sought to divert the program towards military purposes were aimed at creating an illusory sense of fear, he added.
The same regime, the senior diplomat noted, has consistently obstructed peaceful diplomatic processes.
The remarks came as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is about to travel to the United States ahead of schedule in line with what observers have speculated to be Tel Aviv’s intentions to force Washington into complicating the talks.
According to Baghaei, while resolved to address outstanding issues through diplomacy, Iran retains its defensive awareness.
He cited past experiences, including the imposed Israeli-American war on the country that came while Tehran and Washington were engaged in a similar process.
The spokesman warned that any fresh military aggression against the Islamic Republic would be met with a decisive and “regret-inducing” response, saying experience has shown that Israel would unexceptionally coordinate its actions with the United States.
The remarks referred to verification emerging across media that the previous round of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and the US were used as a cover to conceal Tel Aviv’s and Washington’s intentions to wage war on the Islamic Republic in June last year.
The spokesman described the most recent round of the talks that took place in the Omani capital Muscat on Friday as a half-day session intended to assess the seriousness of the other side and the possible path forward.
He said the discussions focused largely on general issues and that the Islamic Republic’s principled positions were made clear.
Baghaei added that Tehran’s core demand was securing the interests of the Iranian nation in line with international norms and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), specifically concerning the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Asked about the format of talks, the spokesman said, “Whether negotiations are direct or indirect is not decisive; if there is political will, an agreement is achievable.”
“The talks in June did not collapse because they were indirect, but because the United States resorted to military force, which led to a deadlock,” he added.
Larijani’s Oman visit
He also commented on an ongoing visit to Oman by Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Ali Larijani, saying it was part of the continuation of regional consultations by the official, who has previously traveled to several regional countries, including Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
He said Iran’s principled policy was to strengthen relations with neighboring countries and promote good neighborliness, adding that the trip had been “planned in advance” and was aimed at enhancing regional cooperation.
Decades of broken promises, military aggression, and Israeli pressure have left Tehran with no reason to trust Washington, says a US-based analyst.
In an interview with the Press TV website, E. Michael Jones, author and editor of Culture Wars Magazine, said it would be “foolish” to put “trust in a regime which violates its own word repeatedly,” referring to the Donald Trump administration.
“Iranians have learned their lesson and will not put themselves in jeopardy again. The US cannot be trusted,” he noted.
Mistrust is not a tactical posture but the logical outcome of experience, Jones said, adding that the United States, particularly under Trump, has demonstrated “again and again” that it does not feel bound by its own international commitments.
That mistrust is sharpened by Trump’s record on international obligations, he remarked.
The US-based journalist and commentator pointed to the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in May 2018.
“Trump has already torn up the JCPOA. He would not feel bound by any agreement,” he said, adding that this piece of history alone makes any future deal “inherently fragile.”
Jones also dismissed Israeli-backed demands to restrict Iran’s missile range, calling them knowingly unrealistic.
“A 300 km limitation on Iranian missiles is an impossible demand,” he stated, adding that Israel is fully aware Iran would never accept such terms.
According to the analyst, these conditions are not designed to advance negotiations but to manufacture justification for war.
“They are making the demand because it provides a pretext for war,” he told the Press TV website, as indirect Iran-US talks have recently resumed in Muscat under Omani mediation.
The discussions, facilitated by Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, allowed the two sides to exchange views indirectly almost eight months after the previous round of talks was suspended due to Israeli-American military aggression against Iran.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the latest round of talks as a “good start,” saying Iran’s positions and concerns were clearly conveyed.
More than a week into the June war, the United States bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. Between June 13 and 27, 2025, at least 1,064 people were killed in Iran, including military commanders, nuclear scientists, and ordinary civilians.
Against this backdrop, claims that talks could once again serve as cover for military action resonate strongly. Jones believes Iranians “learned their lesson” there.
This distrust is further reinforced by Washington’s expanding military footprint and repeated threats. Despite Trump’s campaign rhetoric about ending US wars, his administration has bombed several countries and repeatedly edged toward confrontation with Iran.
In his assessment, Trump’s preferred military option remains limited and performative. “Trump’s preferred option at this point is a symbolic strike at targets pre-arranged with the Iranian government,” Jones says, claiming that this approach was already used in June.
Such strikes, he explained, are designed to create the illusion of victory. Trump can declare success, “satisfying the Israelis, who ordered him to attack Iran, and the Iranians, who lose nothing in the attack.”
But the analyst argued that this balancing act is collapsing. “Unfortunately, neither Iran nor Israel is willing to accept Trump’s solution,” he noted.
Israeli pressure, Jones added, is now the central driver of escalation. With Trump set to meet Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, the analyst expects an ultimatum by the latter: “if you don’t attack Iran, we will.”
“If Trump is smart, he will let Israel attack Iran on its own, hoping that the Iranian response will obliterate Israel once and for all, releasing him from Netanyahu’s constant pressure,” Jones remarked.
Still, he believes Netanyahu’s threats mask a deeper constraint. “Netanyahu is bluffing. He knows he can’t attack Iran by itself,” he said, adding that “many here speculate that Netanyahu is blackmailing Trump with the Epstein files.”
Despite the rhetoric, the analyst insists the US is fully aware of the risks of war with Iran.
Iranian officials have warned that any attack would be met with an immediate response, and Iran’s missile capabilities have already demonstrated their ability to penetrate layered defenses. According to the author, this reality is well understood within the US military.
“The American military has always claimed that the US cannot win a war with Iran,” he noted.
Yet, he hastened to add, such assessments rarely determine policy. “Their verdict invariably gets overturned by Israeli pressure,” Jones stressed, explaining why Trump continues to favor prearranged and symbolic strikes rather than full-scale war.
“American forces are now operating according to Israeli rules,” he stated, noting that the US power in the region no longer operates according to international norms.
He cited the assassination of top anti-terror commander General Qassem Soleimani, carried out while he was on a peace mission in Iraq, as a defining moment.
For Jones, it marked Washington’s abandonment of its own claims to a “rules-based order,” as well as its disregard for institutions such as the United Nations.
He recalled Trump’s own words when questioned by the New York Times. Asked whether he followed international law, Trump said no. Asked what he did follow, Trump replied, “My morality, my mind.”
The analyst described this as a direct reference to John Milton’s Paradise Lost, when Satan said, “The mind is its own place.”
The symbolism, he noted, is unmistakable, adding that it confirms that Imam Khomeini—the founder of the Islamic Revolution—was right when he referred to America as the “Great Satan.”
A top Iranian official said that Tehran would be willing to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium if Washington agrees to remove sanctions completely.
Iran’s atomic energy chief, Mohammad Eslami, proposed that Tehran would dilute its 60% enriched uranium to a lower level if “all sanctions would be lifted in return.” Iran is estimated to have 400-600 kg of highly enriched uranium. Eslami explained that Tehran was unwilling to sell or transfer the nuclear material to a third country.
American and Iranian officials met for talks in Oman last week. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran is “very serious in negotiations” and is eager to “achieve results”. However, he said, “There is a wall of mistrust towards the United States, which stems from America’s own behaviour.”
Tehran says it is willing to agree to a deal with Washington that imposes restrictions and inspections on its civilian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and the US abandoning its aggressive policy towards Iran.
Washington and Tel Aviv are seeking a far more expansive agreement that includes restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs, as well as Iran cutting ties with its allies in the region. The White House has demanded that Tehran eliminate its nuclear enrichment program and limit the range of its ballistic missiles.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with President Donald Trump on Wednesday to ensure Washington does not sign a deal with Tehran that violates Tel Aviv’s redlines. Israeli officials have told the White House that Tel Aviv could launch a strike on Iran if the US agrees to a deal that does not include restricting Tehran’s missile program.
Iran has ruled out signing an agreement on the terms proposed by the US and Israel. President Donald Trump has threatened to attack Iran if Tehran does not sign a new deal with the US.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 8 February that the Islamic Republic will not give up uranium enrichment, as Israel and the US are demanding – stressing that Tehran will continue to pursue a peaceful nuclear program even at the cost of war.
Araghchi also reiterated that talks with the US will not focus on anything except the nuclear issue, as Israel continues to push Washington to double down on demands for curtailing the Iranian missile program and halting support for regional resistance groups.
“Iran has paid a very heavy price for its peaceful nuclear program and for uranium enrichment,” the foreign minister said on Sunday.
“Why do we insist so much on enrichment and refuse to give it up even if a war is imposed on us? Because no one has the right to dictate our behavior,” he added.
Iran will never abandon enrichment even “if war is imposed” on the country. “Their military deployment in the region does not scare us.”
“There was no direct meeting, we had a diplomatic courtesy meeting, which amounted to a handshake. This has been done in the past, this is common,” Araghchi went on to say, referring to the recent talks, which were the first since Iran was attacked by Israel in the middle of negotiations last year.
“The place and time of the next meeting will be determined in the next consultations. It may be another place, but the form of negotiations will be indirect.”
“We will only negotiate on nuclear issues. If it is to continue, it will continue in the same way,” Araghchi affirmed.
Reports said that, as the talks began, the US CENTCOM chief would attend the negotiations.
“The US delegation in Muscat had asked if the CENTCOM commander could participate in a diplomatic greeting with us. We rejected the request, saying we do not accept the presence of a military person within the negotiation,” Araghchi clarified.
He also said the “future of negotiations is unclear,” adding: “We neither trust them nor rule out the possibility of deception and trickery. In fact, we fully anticipate it.”
The foreign minister’s comments come as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to visit the US in the coming days for talks with Donald Trump.
The premier is expected to push Washington not to give up on the demand that Iran abandon the Resistance Axis, as well as its missile and nuclear program.
“The Prime Minister believes that any negotiations must include limiting ballistic missiles and halting support for the Iranian axis,” Netanyahu’s office said on 7 February.
Israeli news site Ynet reported that Netanyahu’s goal for the US visit is “to ensure that Israeli interests are safeguarded in the negotiations.”
The report says Tel Aviv wants Iran’s missiles to be limited to 300 kilometers only, making them incapable of targeting Israel.
“Israel also wants the agreement to stipulate that Iran will no longer be able to provide support to its proxies in the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.”
A senior political source is cited by the outlet as saying that [Netanyahu] “urgently advanced” his visit to the US “to influence the acceptance of Israel’s conditions in the negotiations, with an emphasis on ballistic missiles.”
The report adds that Israel is demanding a return of surprise inspections and “high-quality” monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which Tehran accuses of serving Tel Aviv’s interests.
Additionally, Israel wants Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium to be removed from the country’s territory.
Ynet also confirms other reports that Washington expects significant Iranian concessions in the next round of talks.
Iran has signaled a willingness to potentially limit enrichment in previous negotiations, as it agreed to in the 2015 deal, which Trump scrapped during his first term.
Yet the Islamic Republic refuses to give up support for its allies and says its missile program – a major part of the country’s defense – is non-negotiable.
The negotiations nearly fell apart over Iran’s insistence on discussing only the nuclear issue.
Axios reported last week that the US agreed to meet the Iranians only “out of respect” for its Arab allies who had lobbied to save the talks from cancellation.
Right after the talks, the US imposed new sanctions on Iran’s oil industry.
The last time Tehran negotiated with Washington, it was attacked by Israel in the middle of the talks.
Trump had pretended to be in favor of diplomacy for months prior to the attack, while secretly plotting the 12-day war with Israel.
The talks coincide with a massive US military buildup across the region, and follow numerous threats against Iran made publicly by Trump. Iran has vowed to confront any attack by striking back at Israel and US bases across West Asia.
In 1964, Ayn Rand told Playboy magazine that any free nation had the moral right to invade Soviet Russia or Cuba. “Correct. A dictatorship — a country that violates the rights of its own citizens — is an outlaw and can claim no rights.” Instead, she preferred waging economic warfare against these rogue governments. “I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else, economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia, and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.”
Six decades later, her disciples are advocates of a ground invasion of Iran, crushing Palestinian society, and not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons to bring the Islamic Republic of Iran to heel. A secular ideology devoted to laissez faire capitalism now sounds indistinguishable from the most hawkish neoconservatives and aligns with religious nationalist movements in Israel that openly advocate territorial expansion and Palestinian expulsion.
Rand, who is of Russian Jewish extraction, set the tone in her 1979 appearance on the Phil Donahue Show. “If you mean whose side should we be on, Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because it’s bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation,” Rand stated.
She doubled down. “The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”
Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s designated heir and also of Russian Jewish extraction, continued his predecessor’s hawkish legacy. published a full page advertisement in The New York Times on October 2, 2001. “Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.”
He identified Iran as the central threat. “The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran.” Iran “is the most active state sponsor of terrorism, training and arming groups from all over the Mideast.” His analogy was stark. “What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad mongers only by taking out Iran.”
Peikoff demanded total war to address the issue of Iran. “Eliminating Iran’s terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation.”
The potential for mass civilian casualties was of no concern to Peikoff, who firmly believed that only full-fledged military force could put Iran in its place. “A proper war in self-defense is one fought without self-crippling restrictions placed on our commanders in the field. It must be fought with the most effective weapons we possess [a few weeks ago, Rumsfeld refused, correctly, to rule out nuclear weapons]. And it must be fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire.”
In a 2006 podcast, Peikoff advocated using nuclear weapons against Iran if necessary. On Israel and Palestine, Peikoff’s 1996 essay dismissed Palestinian territorial claims entirely. “Land was not stolen from the nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain, any more than the early Americans stole this country from the primitive, warring Indians.” He called land for peace “a repugnant formula for Israel’s self-immolation.”
Yaron Brook, the current Ayn Rand Institute board chairman, extended these radical Zionist principles to the 21st century. After October 7, 2023, he called for Hamas’s total destruction. “Israel must destroy Hamas, everything about it. Its political leaders, wherever they are hiding must be assassinated, their entire military infrastructure destroyed, its supporters, brought to their knees.”
At a January 2024 event, Brook argued Israel should see “the Palestinian population at large as an enemy” and called for “a fundamental shift in Palestinian culture.” Such a scenario can only be achievable when Palestinians “have lost every ounce of hope that they can beat Israel.”
Brook would not allow aid, electricity, or internet into Gaza. He argued Israel shows excessive restraint despite death tolls exceeding 70,000, which includes at least 20,000 children. “So many Israeli soldiers are dying on the field because Israel refrains from defending them and places the lives of civilians on the other side as more valuable than its own soldiers: He described Gaza as “a primitive society” requiring fundamental transformation like Germany and Japan after World War II.
On Iran, Brook advocated for regime change as the only solution to this geopolitical dilemma. “Israel cannot take out the Iranian nuclear facility. So what is the only other way to stop the Iranians from getting a bomb? The only other way is regime change.” He specified acceptable outcomes for Israel in a confrontation against Iran. “It has to go for an internal revolution in Iran taking out the current mullahs, whether with more moderates who are committed to doing away with the nuclear program or whether it’s all out, you know, liberal democracy-type revolution but or whether it’s the shah coming back. Right the son of the shah, but it has to be regime change.”
Objectivists are a quirky bunch when it comes to their ideology, which may appear critical of mainstream political currents. Brook’s 2007 essay “Neoconservative Foreign Policy: An Autopsy” condemned neoconservatives for advocating democracy promotion rather than rational self-interest. Yet on Israel and Iran, Objectivists and neoconservatives find common ground. Both support unlimited Israeli military action, Iranian regime change, opposition to Palestinian statehood, and framing the conflict as civilization versus barbarism.
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently declared “absolute” support for Greater Israel, Jewish sovereignty from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. Such a Jewish supremacist vision is suffused with religious rhetoric. At first glance, one would think that Objectivism’s atheistic nature would dismiss such religious appeals. But yet again, the Ayn Rand Institute’s positions end up aligning with the Greater Israel framework through the rejection of Palestinian statehood and framing Palestinian aspirations as illegitimate.
Netanyahu’s far-right allies, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”), make no secret of their top goal: Israeli control over Palestinian lands, including Gaza resettlement, West Bank annexation, and the expulsion of Arabs, echoing Rabbi Meir Kahane’s calls for the imposition Jewish law and Arab removal.
Many observers scratch their heads at this odd alliance between Objectivism—an atheistic, free-market creed that Ayn Rand branded as anti-mystical—and religious Zionists appealing to biblical land promises. But when one grasps the Jewish question and how Jews maneuver politically across divides, it all snaps into focus: the Jewish racial will to power drives Jews of all political stripes. Objectivists and religious Zionists clash on faith and domestic policy yet unite to subjugate gentiles like Palestinians and seize their territory.
Objectivism preaches against initiating force and upholds individual rights, yet Leonard Peikoff pushes for invading Iran and Yaron Brook calls for pulverizing Palestinian society to kill their hope. Strip away the lofty appeals to reason and rights, and Objectivism emerges as intellectual camouflage for Jewish racial dominance—a political vehicle that harmonizes Rand’s heirs with Smotrich’s zealots, prioritizing gentile dispossession over any philosophical consistency.
The United States has been pushing for a renewed set of negotiations, aimed at reaching a deal over Iran’s nuclear program, the very same move that was used to set up an Israeli surprise attack last year. This is not a serious effort and appears more than anything to be aimed at stalling.
In mid-January, it appeared as if a US attack on Iran was imminent, as some reports even suggested he was planning to launch airstrikes before backing out. The reason for the absence of any military action can be put down to a series of evolving factors at play, including the security concerns of Israel.
Considering that an enormous amount of the reports published in both the US and Israeli media are drip-fed from their CIA, Mossad, and government contacts, it is reasonable to assume that most of what we are hearing “leaked” from anonymous sources is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign.
Prior to Israel’s surprise attack on Iran in June of 2025, a similar deception campaign was implemented throughout both the Western and Israeli media. In addition to the constant mixed messages regarding Israeli-US intentions, there was also an effort to build the narrative of a feud between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump. Soon after the 12-day war began, Israeli media outlets admitted as such.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that most of what we are being fed through the “anonymous” sourcing of the corporate media is false. Nowhere is this more evident than in the outlandish claims being published, as a means of manufacturing consent for a regime change war, than with the outrageous Iran protester death toll statistics being peddled without any evidence at all.
Disinformation aside, the current attempt to revive US-Iran nuclear negotiations is already being premised on non-starters. Not only are the US going back to their maximalist demands, which prevented any serious progress through multiple rounds of discussions last year, but they are also actively threatening war on a near-daily basis, as more American military assets continue to flood into the region.
In addition to this, the Israelis have demanded the exact same prerequisite conditions they always do, that being the end of Iran’s ballistic missile program, no nuclear enrichment on Iranian soil, and a halt to all of Tehran’s regional alliances with resistance groups. Evidently, none of these conditions is even going to be entertained by the Iranians.
Unless by some miracle the Trump administration decides to totally defy Israel and its top donors, choosing to negotiate a reasonable deal that, at least in part, replicates the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), there will be nothing achieved. Instead, if negotiations are to even proceed, they will simply be designed to stall the inevitable: a military confrontation.
Donald Trump, since his first term in office, has been the most aggressive US president toward the Islamic Republic, unilaterally pulling out of the nuclear deal, implementing a criminal sanctions regime, bowing to every Israeli demand, and even assassinating Iran’s most prominent general at the time, Qassem Soleimani.
This time around, the Trump administration decided to go all the way in its support of Israel’s demands. The US came to Israel’s aid in the 12-day war and directly struck Iran, doing damage to three nuclear sites. More recently, the entirety of the collective West has stood behind a regime change attempt, led by Israeli intelligence agents on the ground. Not a single Western mainstream media outlet has even been critical of the narrative they have been fed on the issue, with some openly advocating military intervention.
Why is the US Stalling?
Unlike during the previous buildups to confrontation between the US-Israeli alliance and Iran, this time appears much more consequential. We are now far closer to an all-out regional war, which was avoided last June. Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has made it clear that any attack on Iran will result in a total war, something that was not previously threatened in this way.
What happened last month was an Israeli-led attempt to drag Iran into a bloody civil war, an attack using agents that targeted cultural sites, places of worship, the nation’s emergency services, banks, and resulted in the murder of around 300 police officers and security force members. If this ground campaign had proven successful, a series of US strikes—while still a gamble—may have proven a serious threat to the stability of Iran.
In the thinking of US and Israeli military strategists, they hoped that an American strike package could have inspired an even greater uprising against the government. Even if this led to a long and bloody civil war, like what occurred in Syria, the idea would be that over time it would cripple the nation as a whole, effectively eliminating the Iranian challenge posed to Israel for the foreseeable future.
However, Iran swiftly cracked down on the failed operation within two days, totally eliminating the ground threat posed to it. Without a ground component against the Islamic Republic, any US-Israeli air campaign—however costly—will ultimately fail to effect regime change.
The best possible outcome for Tel Aviv and Washington is an attack that will work to cripple the nation’s civil infrastructure. Although easier said than done, especially given the fact that Iran’s infrastructure was built with wartime damage in mind, the tactic would be to inflict such a significant blow that, over time, combined with the “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign, the Iranian government will fall, similar to how Syria did.
Standing in the way of such an option are a myriad of issues. There is the anxiety of the Arab regimes, such as Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and beyond, who understand the potential earthshattering implications of an all-out war with Iran. The US and Israel use their nations to stage attacks on Iran, operate air defense systems, and therefore, there are valid military targets there for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to go after.
In addition to this, the threats that have been coming out of Iraq are of major concern to the US, Israel, and the Arab regimes alike. The Hasd al-Shaabi, or Popular Mobilization Forces, number around 250,000 men strong. Kataeb Hezbollah, the strongest faction within the Hashd, has vowed to defend Iran. We have also heard threats that, in the event Ayatollah Khamenei is targeted, this will trigger fatwas (religious declarations) ordering jihad.
Khamenei is not only the leader of Iran, but a major Shia religious and spiritual leader who is central to the belief system of Shia Muslims worldwide. Assassinating him could therefore trigger uprisings and the mobilization of millions of Shia Muslims throughout the entire region and beyond.
Total war with Iran means significant strikes on US bases all throughout the region, a halt to the flow of oil through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. It also means the kind of firepower directed at Israel will much more likely be heavier than what we saw in June of 2025, missile attacks that could be combined with strikes from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarallah in Yemen.
Keeping all of this in mind, the Israelis are clearly attempting to secure the best possible air defense strategy in order to help minimize the damage that will inevitably be inflicted upon them. Tel Aviv still has not rebuilt its infrastructure that was struck last year by Iranian ballistic missiles.
No analyst can truly predict the outcomes of a total regional war, especially if Ayatollah Khamenei is assassinated. There are simply too many factors at play. Such a war could even inspire revolution in Bahrain, Jordan, and an Iraqi war with forces inside Syria. It could bring about regime change in the UAE, even if only by an internal coup. While none of this is certain, it is nonetheless well known. Nobody is truly safe.
In addition to this, even the pro-Western Arab nations do not favor either side in such a conflict. It may work in their favor to see a weakened Iran, for instance, but not a regime change that destroys the country and places Israel as the uncontested regional hegemon. In other words, they thrive off a multipolar West Asia. In the event that Iran wins and Israel is destroyed, they also realize that this could result in their own regimes falling.
Another major question mark hangs over the roles of China and Russia in all of this. As it seems, Beijing views Tehran as an essential partner and even vowed to provide all the necessary support to Iran during the foreign-backed riots. Moscow’s stance at the time was much more neutral. Both maintain relations with Iran and have sold military equipment.
There is no difference between the opinions of the Trump administration and the Israelis on Iran, which means that no deal will be reached without war. The best possible outcome that the US could hope for is a limited conflict, one that can be managed, even if it drags on for over a month. Then, following such a war, they attempt to further weaken Iran, and due to the costly nature of the conflict, neither side seeks direct confrontation for some time.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
What a day!! Lots of negotiation and non-negotiation action on the Iranian front. In the span of two hours, starting at 1 pm and ending around 3 pm eastern time, the world was whipped sawed with news that the bilateral negotiations between Iran and the US was cancelled — that was the 1 pm news — and then, at 3 pm, the talks were back on. The initial reports that the meeting in Oman would not take place cited Iran’s reaction to a US demand that Iranian ballistic missiles and Iran’s support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah must be on the agenda or there would be no negotiations. Without a moments hesitation, Iran barked back and said, “Ok, no meeting.”
Axios reported that US officials were surprised by Iran’s reaction and scrambled to come up with a response to Iran. Within two hours, the US retreated and accepted Iran’s position that the Friday meeting in Oman would only address nuclear bombs and uranium enrichment. Iran won this first round.
While all of this was taking place, Pentagon officials announced that the US carrier strike force had shot down an Iranian drone that was flying towards the USS Abraham Lincoln again… No word about the make and model. Three days ago, Iran successfully overflew the USS Abraham Lincoln and showed the video footage on Iran’s Press TV. I think Pete Hegseth and his team of sycophants were embarrassed by that episode and decided to retaliate with force.
And if that was not enough, Iran dispatched a bevy of small boats to harass what the press described as a US tanker navigating the Strait of Hormuz. I think Iran was simply trying to remind the US that it is serious about taking action against the US military and economic presence in the Persian Gulf if the US acts on its threat to attack Iran.
Danny Davis, Doug MacGregor, and I have heard active duty military officers in recent days insist that any Iranian attacks would be easily repulsed by US forces in the region. We all think that those officers do not understand the full capabilities of the Iranian navy and air force to overwhelm US defenses with a combination of drone and missile swarms if the US carries out an attack on targets inside Iran. King Solomon, writing in Proverbs, accurately described this attitude… Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
If the US is going to attack Iran it will want to launch in the next two weeks because Russian and Chinese warships are headed to the area to participate in the annual Iran-Russia-China joint-naval military exercise. Iran, Russia, and China are scheduled to hold their joint naval military exercise, known as Maritime Security Belt 2026 (the eighth edition of the series), in the northern Indian Ocean (including areas near the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea) in late February 2026. Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Shahram Irani announced on January 31, 2026, that the exercise will involve units from Iran’s regular navy (Nedaja), the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, and naval forces from China and Russia.
Recycling was introduced, worldwide, as a tool to teach citizens to become compliant.
Forcing citizens to sort their rubbish into up to nine separate bags or boxes every week had absolutely nothing to do with ‘saving the planet’ and everything to do with teaching citizens (through a mixture of fines and shame) to behave ‘responsibly’ i.e. to do as they were told without looking too closely at the rationale of what they were being told to do.
The recycling never had anything to do with protecting the planet, of course. Most of the rubbish sorted, washed and collected in the UK was taken abroad, by lorry or ship or train, and burnt or dumped. It was, quite simply, impractical and not cost effective to recycle the material that had been collected. And, of course, collecting the sorted rubbish involved massive costs in terms of cash and pollution.
Today, the recycling business has reached an apogee of lunacy. Councils introduce ever more complex rules and fees. They refuse to take away much of the waste that is collected. And those wanting to take their rubbish to a ‘recycling’ centre will probably have to make an appointment and answer a host of questions.
It is no surprise that fly-tipping has become a major problem. The biggest causes of plastic in the sea are dumped fishing gear and plastic waste (much of it officially designated as recycled) which has been dumped by ships.
The good news, however, is that in Britain, recycling rates are falling. More and more people have become aware that the whole recycling movement was just another piece of manipulative trickery.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
