Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Matt Gaetz’s Brilliant Exposé on Israel Partisans’ Claims of “Antisemitism”

If Americans Knew | September 11, 2026

From The Matt Gaetz Show on OAN (One America News), Matt Gaetz exposes the dishonest double standard in American politics meant to shut down the conversation as support for Israel in the United States continues to collapse. “The Republican Jewish Coalition can say that they took out Thomas Massie but if you say they did, that is anti-Semitic. And if you say Israel caused the Iran War, that’s bigotry—unless it’s uttered by Netanyahu on the campaign trail, then it’s leadership.” – Matt Gaetz.

Source: https://x.com/OANN/status/20974901703…

Gaetz is a political commentator and former Republican Congressman from Florida. He generally identifies as a libertarian populist.

September 13, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Matt Gaetz’s Brilliant Exposé on Israel Partisans’ Claims of “Antisemitism”

Trita Parsi: Massive Houthi Victory Transforms U.S.-Iran War

Glenn Diesen | September 12, 2026

Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Follow the Substack of Trita Parsi: https://tritaparsi.substack.com/

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

September 12, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trita Parsi: Massive Houthi Victory Transforms U.S.-Iran War

Iran has good reason to bar IAEA inspectors from returning amid US aggression: Author

Press TV | September 12, 2026

Iran’s refusal to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors back into the country amid ongoing US aggression is understandable, says a US-based author and activist, urging the UN nuclear watchdog to inspect Israeli nuclear facilities as well.

Speaking to the Press TV website, Anthony Donovan, a war veteran and political campaigner, said he supports Iran’s decision not to allow IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi and his team into the country while Iran remains under attack by the United States, Western countries and their allies.

“IAEA will be welcome when the threats cease. Perfect good sense. You have good reason to not trust Grossi and the US pushing for this absurd resolution in the UNSC,” Donovan said.

He added that the nuclear watchdog should instead be demanding an end to the attacks and warning about the dangers posed by military action against nuclear facilities.

“The IAEA needs to immediately and strongly demand an end to these bombings and aggressions, express the outrage at the danger this can pose,” Donovan said.

His comments came after the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a politically motivated resolution drafted by the United States, Britain, France and Germany calling on Grossi to report Iran to the UN Security Council and General Assembly.

The resolution was adopted with 23 votes in favor on Wednesday, while Russia, China and Niger voted against it and eight countries abstained. The move marked the first time in 20 years that Iran had been referred to the Security Council over its nuclear obligations.

Iran’s ambassador to international organizations in Vienna, Reza Najafi, dismissed the resolution as a “political tool” and said Tehran would cooperate with inspectors only “to the extent that circumstances and safety permit.”

It comes as the IAEA has been unable to access some Iranian nuclear facilities since a US-Israeli military aggression in June 2025 that included strikes on safeguarded nuclear sites. Access remained blocked after a broader aggression was unleashed against Iran on Feb. 28.

For Donovan, the circumstances surrounding the latest pressure on Iran made renewed inspections particularly problematic.

He said the West has remained heavily “obsessed” with Iran’s nuclear program even though “it has been inspected more than any other country.” He also warned against repeating the use of the unfounded nuclear weapons programs as a pretext for military action, citing the experience of Iraq.

“The echo of using the nuclear program as we did in Iraq is before us again, an excuse to bomb and kill, to violate all known international law, humanitarian law, and our own laws,” he said.

Donovan said inspections could resume once hostilities end and trust between Iran and the international community is restored, while noting that any future inspection regime should also address Israel’s clandestine nuclear facilities.

“When there is a true lasting peace, which seems very far away, and when there is mutual trust renewed, which is very far away, Iran remains naturally open to allow inspections, along with a requirement of full inspection of Israel’s nuclear weapons facility,” he said.

Israel’s nuclear program

Donovan pointed to a double standard in international nuclear oversight, noting that Israel should face the same scrutiny demanded of Iran.

He said President John F. Kennedy had “tried to prevent” the Israeli regime’s ability to gain access to nuclear weapons.

“Israel lied to him, built a mock facility hoping to fool him. He intuited that and gave several strong ultimatums to [then-prime minister David] Ben Gurion and his government to allow full inspection by his team and warned of serious repercussions if this was not allowed,” said Donovan.

Kennedy, he added, “was adamant they not get the bomb and was killed within months of these demands.”

He also linked the issue to Kennedy’s broader efforts to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, including his back-channel communications with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and the 1963 Atmospheric Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

“The Test Ban Treaty was a phenomenal success,” Donovan said, adding that Kennedy viewed it as an initial step toward ending the nuclear arms race.

Donovan noted that after Kennedy’s assassination, the US approach toward Israel’s nuclear program changed.

He also criticized the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), saying it had been weakened over time by nuclear-armed states and that Israel had not joined it.

Israel has never signed the NPT and has not submitted its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections. The regime maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity and has never officially acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons.

Estimates of the size of Israel’s nuclear arsenal vary widely, but it is widely believed to possess hundreds of nuclear warheads and maintains delivery capabilities involving missiles, aircraft and submarines.

Donovan noted that focusing on Iran while nuclear-armed entities continue to expand their arsenals represents a dangerous double standard.

“The fact that we keep pointing at Iran maybe getting a weapon, while we are all wildly building these omnicidal devices claiming they ‘Ensure our Future,’ our security, etc. is blind, dangerous and extremely egocentric,” he said.

He said Iran’s historical experience had also shaped his understanding of Tehran’s security concerns, citing past wars and Western involvement in regional wars.

“I understand better now why it was important for Iran to be prepared for such murderous colonists,” Donovan said, referring to the US-Israeli front that has “violated life” in Iran, Palestine and Lebanon.

The author added that he would continue to call his representatives to “listen to any but Israel.”

“Fortunately, things are changing; people are rising. Most here know what we are doing in Iran is criminal, wrong,” he added.

September 12, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran has good reason to bar IAEA inspectors from returning amid US aggression: Author

Invoking 9/11 to justify war against Iran is ‘utterly absurd’: Tehran

Press TV – September 12, 2026

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman has rejected US attempts to invoke the anniversary of the September 11 attacks to justify a “reckless and unlawful war” against Iran, saying Washington’s narrative on terrorism is riddled with fundamental contradictions.

In a post on X early Saturday, marking the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Esmaeil Baghaei criticized remarks by the US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on terrorism and Iran.

“The narrative advanced by the US Secretary of War on the anniversary of 9/11 is riddled with fundamental contradictions,” he said.

Baghaei said the US could not simultaneously wage aggression, carry out assassinations, and cause civilian casualties while claiming exclusive authority to define terrorism and determine whose violence was legitimate.

“The perpetrators of 9/11 were not Iranians; they were the very same people whom the US itself had armed, organized, or otherwise cultivated in the preceding decades,” he said.

He also criticized the US-led “war on terror,” saying the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had brought years of war, occupation, civilian deaths, and widespread devastation.

“Against this backdrop, invoking the anniversary of 9/11 to justify a reckless and unlawful war against Iran is utterly absurd,” Baghaei said.

He further rejected attempts to justify the US war against Iran through counterterrorism rhetoric, stressing that the war involved the assassination of officials of a sovereign state and attacks on civilians, including women and children.

“A criminal war that has involved the assassination of officials of a sovereign state and the targeting of civilians, including women and children, cannot be made morally coherent simply by wrapping it in the language of counterterrorism,” he said.

The American invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, less than a month after the September 11 attacks killed 2,977 people in the United States. Washington presented the foolhardy military adventure as the opening battle in a so-called “war on terror.”

Yet after 20 years of brutal military occupation, trillions of dollars spent, and enormous human suffering resulting from the US-led coalition’s horrendous war crimes, the occupiers have not achieved a political settlement or eliminated the forces they had vowed to defeat.

September 12, 2026 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Comments Off on Invoking 9/11 to justify war against Iran is ‘utterly absurd’: Tehran

Anthropic bans Israeli account over Iran, Gulf social media citizen profiling

The Cradle | September 11, 2026

An operation run by or on behalf of the Israeli-Singaporean commercial intelligence vendor S2T Unlocking Cyberspace used Claude models to map, classify, and profile social media users across Iran and the Persian Gulf, according to a threat intelligence report published by Anthropic on 11 September.

The platform recorded the locations of users, sorted them as supporters or opponents of their governments, and grouped populations into six demographic categories covering urban, clerical, military, youth, diaspora, and rural.

Its output was written in formal Arabic and styled as official government communications, with sentiment scores broken down by Gulf nationality alongside recommended counternarratives.

The actor fed the model batches of roughly 25 social media posts at a time and directed it to return each poster’s demographic group, location, and political leaning, with confidence ratings attached to every finding.

Anthropic identified a second workstream of more than 255 fabricated social media accounts, which the company said indicated the actor was assembling a stock of fake profiles for later deployment.

In a separate task, the actor directed the model to generate posts for online personas in Persian, Arabic, English, and German, intended to pass as members of both pro- and anti-government Iranian populations.

The company said its findings independently corroborate a February 2023 investigation by the journalism network Forbidden Stories, which documented an S2T surveillance product described in a company brochure recovered from leaked Colombian military files.

Anthropic said the capabilities in that brochure map closely onto the behavior it observed.

Anthropic added that it identified the activity at its pilot stage and found no evidence that later stages of the surveillance chain described by Forbidden Stories were used against real targets before the account was banned.

Israel has invested heavily in cyber capabilities, signals intelligence, artificial intelligence (AI), and advanced surveillance – a technological expansion that shifted the balance of its intelligence collection away from recruited human agents.

Mossad chief Roman Gofman dismissed two of the agency’s most senior officials in August over the failed plot to topple the Iranian government earlier this year.

One had run the intelligence directorate since December while the other headed the Mossad’s Iran division, and both were among the architects of a plan to bring down the Iranian government by igniting nationwide protests and supplying military and communication equipment to opposition groups and insurgents.

Channel 12 said the plan was drawn up in coordination with Washington and was meant to unfold under joint Israeli-US airstrikes.

The New York Times reported on 22 March that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had embraced the Mossad’s promise of a popular revolt when he urged US President Donald Trump into the war, and had grown frustrated when no uprising came.

Before the war on Iran, then-Mossad chief David Barnea had told Netanyahu and Trump that once Iran’s leaders were killed, his agency could galvanize the Iranian opposition into renewed mass unrest, swiftly producing regime change.

September 11, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Anthropic bans Israeli account over Iran, Gulf social media citizen profiling

Is the Noose Tightening on Iran?

By Bryan Anthony Reo – New Eastern Outlook – September 11, 2026

The Western takeover of Syria, the weakening of Hezbollah, and now the capitulation of Hamas signal that Western/American/Israeli penetration of Iranian outer defenses is essentially complete. The only remaining coherent and unassailed bastion outside of Iran is found among the Houthi. There remains Iran itself, which has weathered six months of American and Israeli aggression.

Western Encroachment on Russia from the South and West

Over the last fifteen or sixteen years, I have followed and analyzed certain developments across the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Central Asia, and I have noticed a pattern, a theme, a trend — that trend being the dismantling of certain sovereign states aligned with Russia and Iran, or at least committed to their own sovereignty in resistance (or perhaps rather, ‘defiance’ is a better term) to the attempts at policy imposition by Western nations (usually the USA, sometimes France or the UK or Israel).
Iraq went down in 2003.

Then in the recent modern era, Libya was one of the first to be dismantled with the toppling and murdering of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011.

Syria followed in 2024, but fortunately Assad and his family were able to leave safely.

Lebanon was fractured and crippled decades ago and limps along on life support, with only Hezbollah holding the line to protect Lebanese national sovereignty.

Jordan was bought off and is a pathetic satellite of the USA, as is Egypt, with both of those nations having puppet governments that have betrayed their people and their regional partners for American dollars and Western approval.

It is now increasingly obvious and apparent that the Arab Spring was nothing more than a color revolution aimed at the Arab world, the way color revolutions occurred in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and were attempted elsewhere (i.e., Belarus). The Arab Spring was intended to plunge the Arab/Islamic world into chaos and allow the replacement of the post-Cold War era Arab nationalist strongmen with weak, fractured coalition parliaments and fractured states or simply outright chaos (Libya) or Israeli/American puppet regimes.

In some sense, it would be reasonable to label the American advance across the Arab world, from North Africa to the Middle East, as long-term strategic “shaping operations” to remove genuinely sovereign and pro-Moscow governments from the board, so that American and Israeli positions throughout the region become almost unassailable and Russia is denied easy access to the Mediterranean and Iran is denied outer defensive bastions. This advance has been so blatant it is almost impossible not to notice, and attention must be called to it.

Iran Alone Defies America in Central Asia/Middle East

Iran and a few partners (Hezbollah, Houthi, etc.) throughout the region are all that remain in defiance of the Israelis and their American muscle/enforcers.

Syria has become a puppet satellite of the USA/Israel and has effectively ceded a large portion of southwestern Syria to the Israeli “security zone” that has resulted from Israel’s advance from the Golan Heights.

It should be increasingly obvious that Israel will never leave the territory it has occupied in Syria; it will move soldiers in, construct more permanent outposts, and then move settlers in.

Meanwhile, the Damascus branch of Al Qaeda, installed by the CIA and Mossad, is more concerned with trying to provide a legal basis by which they can murder former Syrian President Assad than with maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria against Israeli expansionism.

Across the border in Lebanon, Israel and the USA are working hard to plunge Lebanon into a renewed civil war, as that is the most probable outcome from the policy being foisted on Beirut, specifically the “disarm Hezbollah at all costs” policy. Any significant armed attempt by the anemic, corrupt, Western-aligned government in Beirut to disarm Hezbollah will likely result in a civil war.

While this is happening in the near periphery of Israel, closer to home, in Gaza, it appears that Hamas has capitulated, or at least their senior leaders are prepared to cut and run and toss their fighters under the bus so long as they have personal security guarantees and are able to depart Gaza with their families and wealth.

The disarmament of Hamas will begin the final chapter in the story of the Palestinian people, and this chapter will end with their permanent mass expulsion from the remnants of the Palestinian territories and the formal annexation of those territories into the state of Israel and their population by Zionist settlers.

It will also mean that in regard to the regional chessboard, the only pieces remaining on the board in opposition to Israel and America are essentially Hezbollah, the Houthi, and Iran itself.

Westerners, especially Atlanticists, are great at advocating for the setting of wildfires, and for starting those wildfires, but they seldom give much thought to what happens once they set a conflagration in motion

Despite American Propaganda, Iran is Actually Winning

CNN claims “80% of all traffic transiting Hormuz is going through the American route,” which, on its face, is plausible and is likely the case.

However, the CNN article does not tell the actual story: that traffic transiting Hormuz is down at least 90-95%.

Thus the notion that “80% of all traffic transiting Hormuz uses the American route via Oman” becomes far less impressive when one analyzes it through the lens of the traffic being 95% reduced from where it had been before the war.

I once had a potential client ask me to take a loser of a case on contingency; he even said, “You can have 100% of the money,” after which I told a colleague, “One hundred percent of zero is still zero.”

80% of 5% is a minuscule 4%, which means 4% of the pre-war traffic is using the American route via Oman. This is hardly something to brag about and it is not evidence that Iran is days from collapse or that the USA has won or is in the process of winning.

By the very nature of the situation, Iran wins by default if the US fails to maintain Hormuz open and freely available for maritime commerce. If the USA is unable to subdue Iran, then Iran prevails. All Iran has to do is avoid losing. It is similar to how in a lawsuit the plaintiff has the burden to prosecute a claim against the defendant in order to succeed and prevail; if the defendant simply avoids losing, then the defendant wins. If Iran is able to avoid botching the defense of their country and come through the war with their regime intact and while maintaining control over the Strait, or at least effectively maintaining area denial of the Strait, then Iran wins.

The Americans can sink some Iranian ships and try a repeat of Operation Praying Mantis, but this isn’t the 1980s, and Iran is a much harder target.

The US can likely even manage commando raids and strikes on Kharg Island, but it won’t be able to take and hold the island. Likewise, the USA is not capable of taking and*holding Qeshm Island (something likely necessary to exercise any significant long-term control over the Strait of Hormuz). An American operation to seize Qeshm Island, unless it has a plan for how to resupply the occupying forces with food and water in the face of drone and missile attacks interdicting the supply craft, is essentially an operation in “how long can these men hold out until they have to surrender to Iran due to hunger and thirst.” In short, an American invasion and occupation of Qeshm Island would be extremely ill-advised, unless President Trump has some secret logistical weapon, or a “trump card” that the American public is simply not aware of.

Negotiations with Iran are the Only Way Forward (But Iran Has NO Reason to Trust Americans Now)

It is painfully obvious that the only way forward for the United States in regard to Iran is to enter into negotiations, negotiations that would have to be fair, reasonable, sincere, and honest. However, given the American tendency to engage in direct strikes and targeted killings (assassinations) of the people they are negotiating with, it is doubtful if the Iranians are going to believe anything the Americans have to say at this stage.

Negotiations with Iran would also require (at least implicitly) the recognition of Iran as having legitimate national and regional interests if not indeed being an actual regional power in Central Asia and the Middle East, something the United States appears unwilling to do, largely because of Israeli/Zionist influence being exerted on American policy.

How can any sincere American diplomat go to Iran and ask, in good faith, that they trust him? How can he suggest, in good faith, that they work with American envoys? We have an established record of murdering diplomats during breaks in diplomatic sessions. How does any nation recover and come back from this reputation?

Neo-Con Provocations and Delusions Hinder Negotiations

At the present time it seems the United States is living in a fantasy land where it can endlessly sustain and support Ukraine in its war against the Russian people in Donbas and Crimea (using Ukraine as a NATO puppet to advance NATO/American interests in Eastern Europe), escalate on the Korean Peninsula against North Korea; continue to aggress against Iran in the Persian Gulf and wider region; support Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah; support the Saudis against the Houthi; and pivot forces from Europe to the Pacific and East Asia as part of a long-term program to contain and curtail China as a prelude to attempting to dominate China.

It is a very ambitious American grand strategy, and while lacking the resources to be successfully pursued, it also lacks any coherent overarching worldview that would string it all together and explain the motive, reasoning, or the telos. At present, it seems America is a mediocre chess-player simply moving pieces back and forth across the board, without any rhyme or reason, although that is the conclusion one reaches at a casual glance. A more thorough analysis would reveal that America’s policy in regard to Iran is primarily aimed at fulfilling long-term Zionist ambitions in the region and providing a puppet government in Tehran amenable to the stationing of American military assets (including nuclear weapons) that would be used to coerce and threaten Russia for the purpose of pursuing the long-term American neo-con goal of causing the collapse of the Russian Federation as a coherent, centralized polity.

America is presently trying to escalate with Iran and Russia, and is always eager and willing to unnecessarily confront, provoke, or escalate with the DPRK and China as well.

What is the American End Goal? Short-Sighted Regime Change?

Let us suppose that American/Zionist goals are accomplished in Iran, and Iran collapses; at that point the USA will have opened a southern front against Russia, with the ability to threaten Russia by projecting power across the Caspian and by escalating provocations throughout the Caucasus region as a way to distract, divide, weaken, and strain Russian resources.

But to what end? For what purpose? Why? While attending recent seminars at the University of Oxford in Aristotle’s Politics and Nuclear/Particle Physics, I had the opportunity to discuss ongoing geopolitical matters with a variety of European classmates. The vast majority (80%) had the standard mainstream EU/UK/Atlanticist line, and some were militantly anti-Russian. One (a man born in the Latvian SSR in 1986) openly said he wanted to see “democracy” rise up in Iran, topple the Islamic Republic, and to see “Putin toppled” in Moscow, and Western liberal democracy take over Russia.

My challenge to all of that was multi-faceted, but one aspect I consistently hammered home was “Why? What comes next? The US has a very bad track record of collapsing regimes and dealing with the aftermath… Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria… Why would we want to collapse stable states such as Iran and Russia? Even if we could, why would we want to collapse those states? What about the aftermath? What about thinking five years or ten years down the road instead of just thinking about the next six months or twelve months? The leaders in Iran and Russia are reasonable and rational, and those powers being intact and stable are crucial to regional stability; why remove them and have them replaced with, well, who really knows, some unknown quantity that might be a lunatic or a zealot or something unreasonable.”

I have very little appetite, and no sympathy, for the view that the USA should lead the way in toppling all non-Western governments so they can be replaced by what would presumably be Western-aligned parliamentarian democracies of the plutocratic variety. Westerners, especially Atlanticists, are great at advocating for the setting of wildfires, and for starting those wildfires, but they seldom give much thought to what happens once they set a conflagration in motion.

Many of the Russophobes cannot see past their own hatred of Russia and of President Putin, and they cannot wrap their minds around the simple truth that the West is fortunate to be able to deal with and interact with a Russia that has historically strong and visionary leadership in the form of true statesmen such as Putin and Lavrov, who are well-educated, experienced, and have coherent and sensible worldviews shaped by a proper and true classical education, whereas most Western leaders are fungible, interchangeable bureaucrats educated in technocratic parliamentary procedure and institutional rules.

Much like we are with Iran, we in the West are squandering golden opportunities for historic cooperation and mutual benefit with Iran and Russia because we are pursuing absurd policies based on, well, frankly, crap beliefs, garbage intelligence, and an incoherent worldview formed in the crumbling and decaying ruins of post-modernity.

Whether or not the US is actually succeeding in tightening a noose against Iran, it is certainly expending significant resources in an effort to do so, although it presently seems to have very little to show for all the effort.

Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

September 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Is the Noose Tightening on Iran?

Persian Gulf states to meet in Oman to discuss regional security, Hormuz navigation: Iran

Press TV – September 11, 2026

Iran and other Persian Gulf littoral states will meet in Oman on Monday to discuss regional issues, including arrangements for safe commercial navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, says Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei.

Speaking on Friday, Baghaei said the meeting would bring together Iran, Iraq and other countries bordering the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, describing the initiative as an important step toward strengthening regional understanding and cooperation.

He said Iran had consistently sought to build trust and cooperation among regional countries to promote peace and stability without “destructive and divisive interventions” by actors from outside the region.

The meeting in Muscat is also expected to address the outcome of recent Iran-Oman talks on establishing safe routes for commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, Baghaei said.

Iran and Oman have been engaged in negotiations for nearly three months over arrangements for safe navigation through the strategic waterway. On Aug. 25, the two countries announced discussions on a phased framework that would initially establish a temporary joint maritime corridor, alongside a joint mine-clearance project.

The framework is aimed at restoring safe navigation while preserving the sovereignty and sovereign rights of coastal states. Technical talks are expected to continue toward a permanent navigation corridor and an agreement on the future administration of the waterway.

Baghaei recalled the understanding reached between Tehran and Muscat on temporary shipping routes, saying Iran remained committed to efforts to ensure the safety of navigation through the strait.

“However, naturally, as long as the aggressive actions and illegal interventions of the United States, including the naval blockade and economic warfare, continue, the security of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz cannot be guaranteed,” he said.

The Strait of Hormuz is a major global energy chokepoint, with roughly one-fifth of global oil demand passing through the waterway. Iran has maintained heightened restrictions on navigation since the start of the US-Israeli military aggression against the country on Feb. 28, citing security concerns and the need to safeguard its sovereignty.

Back on August 25, Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi stressed that future management of the strait and a permanent solution would follow the terms of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding, particularly its Article 5.

The memorandum, signed by Iran and the United States in June, aimed at ending the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, included an arrangement under which Iran agreed to allow fee-free maritime transit through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days.

Tehran subsequently established a special maritime route for vessels crossing the chokepoint; however, the US established unauthorized routes along Omani shores in violation of the agreement. In response, Tehran reimposed restrictions.

The joint Iran-Oman statement also pointed to the importance of consultations with other countries bordering the Persian Gulf and called for adherence to international law and respect for the sovereign rights of coastal states.

The meeting will be the first of its kind between Iranian diplomats and their regional counterparts following the start of the US-Israeli aggression, during which the US used the soil and airspace of some of these countries, including Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE, to launch criminal attacks against Iran.

September 11, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Persian Gulf states to meet in Oman to discuss regional security, Hormuz navigation: Iran

Araghchi: US acknowledgment of Bahrain damage exposes cost of Israel’s wars

Press TV – September 11, 2026

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has referred to Acting US Navy Secretary Hung Cao’s remarks on extensive damage to US facilities in Bahrain, saying Americans should not pay for Israel’s wars.

“We appreciate the candor of Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao. Our powerful Armed Forces did indeed ‘blow the hell out of the 5th Fleet HQ in Bahrain,’ as well as other bases supporting US aggression,” Araghchi wrote on X on Friday.

“The American people deserve better than footing the bill for Israel’s wars,” he said.

Cao acknowledged in a September 9 interview with The Epoch Times the extensive damage inflicted on US naval facilities in Bahrain by Iranian attacks.

Cao said Iranian forces had “blew the hell out of Bahrain,” referring to the damage sustained by Naval Support Activity Bahrain, which serves as the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet.

The damage also disrupted operations involving the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, with Cao saying there was “no place for them to pull in.”

The comments come after open-source and satellite imagery had also pointed to significant damage at US facilities in Bahrain during the early stages of US-Israeli aggression against Iran which began on February 28.

Adm. Daryl Caudle, the US Navy’s top uniformed officer, said earlier this month that the Navy would not return to the Bahrain facility “anytime soon” because of the damage.

Jim Webb, a US Marine infantry veteran and independent national security consultant, said Cao’s latest comments suggest that the current US force posture in West Asia “is unsustainable without continuing to be under attack.”

“I don’t think there’s any way, you know, in the short, medium, or potentially even long term, that we can adequately defend a place like NSA Bahrain, or let alone the rest of the logistics bases there,” Webb told The Epoch Times.

Webb said keeping US troops at bases in the region makes those troops “constant targets.”

Cao said the Navy was reviewing whether the facility would be needed for future high-intensity deployments, adding that he had assigned a task force to examine the issue.

The USS Abraham Lincoln recently ended an extended deployment of nearly nine months, including around 200 days in a combat zone, after arriving in Thailand earlier this month.

The deployment had faced scrutiny over shortages of food and water, plumbing problems, declining morale among sailors as well as concerns about sailors’ mental health and the risk of self-harm.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, however, rejected reports about conditions aboard the carrier, claiming they are “completely misrepresented.”

September 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on Araghchi: US acknowledgment of Bahrain damage exposes cost of Israel’s wars

US tanker strikes fail to deter Iran, drain interceptors: Bloomberg

Al Mayadeen| September 10, 2026

US attacks on Iranian oil tankers have failed to prevent further Iranian missile operations against American naval forces, while repeated strikes are forcing Washington to expend costly and increasingly scarce air-defense interceptors, Bloomberg reported.

The report examined the limits of Washington’s policy of attacking Iranian tankers in response to operations targeting US warships, noting that the strategy has so far failed to establish the deterrence sought by the Trump administration.

US Central Command claimed it destroyed eight Iranian tankers over recent days following two Iranian missile attacks against US Navy vessels.

Washington has presented the attacks on the tankers as a punitive measure aimed at raising the cost of targeting US forces. Analysts cited by Bloomberg, however, said the calculation may favor Tehran, particularly as Iran can continue threatening vastly more expensive US naval assets while forcing American vessels to consume large quantities of defensive missiles.

US retaliation fails to halt Iranian operations

Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, said the possibility of successfully striking a US naval vessel could outweigh the losses Iran incurs from American attacks on its tanker fleet.

“A successful hit would send the message that  US naval forces cannot operate with impunity, giving Tehran something it could portray both domestically and internationally as a success,” Grieco said. “Losing the tankers certainly hurts, but Tehran may well think it is worth it.”

US tanker strikes fail to halt Iranian operations

Significantly, Bloomberg noted that an earlier wave of US attacks on Iranian tankers did not prevent Tehran from subsequently launching further operations against American warships.

The latest confrontations are unfolding amid Washington’s continued naval blockade targeting Iranian oil exports and renewed tensions over navigation through the Strait of Hormuz following the expiration of the previous ceasefire arrangement.

Iran has sought to enforce restrictions on maritime traffic through the strategic waterway as the United States continues its campaign aimed at choking off Tehran’s oil revenues.

Rubio vows to continue tanker retaliation

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio nevertheless defended Washington’s policy on Tuesday, signaling that the administration intends to continue attacking Iranian tankers in retaliation for operations against US vessels.

“When they try to hit US naval ships, they will get hit themselves,” Rubio told reporters. “The back and forth is pretty straightforward. For every time they do that, or try to do that, they’re going to lose tankers.”

Meanwhile, Bloomberg stressed that Iran can still impose substantial costs on the US Navy even when incoming missiles are intercepted.

Iran operations drain costly US interceptor arsenal

The Pentagon has said that many of the weapons launched toward US vessels were ballistic missiles, although Washington has not disclosed the exact missiles involved or the defensive systems used during the latest confrontations.

American warships depend on several layers of missile defenses, including SM-3 Block IIA interceptors, SM-6 missiles, and short-range Rolling Airframe Missiles.

According to Bloomberg, a single SM-3 interceptor produced by Raytheon costs roughly $15 million, while each SM-6 costs around $5 million.

Cost imbalance favors repeated Iranian attacks

Iranian missiles are believed to cost substantially less and can be produced more readily than the advanced interceptors Washington must expend to defeat them, creating a widening cost imbalance with every new attack.

Becca Wasser, defense lead for Bloomberg Economics, said repeated missile operations can therefore benefit Tehran even without producing a direct hit on a US vessel.

The same challenge previously emerged during US naval confrontations with Yemen’s Ansar Allah. Wasser said the Yemeni Armed Forces launched around 480 relatively basic cruise missiles toward US Navy vessels between November 2024 and January 2025, compelling Washington to expend billions of dollars’ worth of defensive weapons.

US struggles to replenish interceptor stockpiles

Heavy interceptor consumption during the ongoing US war on Iran has further compounded the problem, with Washington and its allies already struggling to replenish air-defense stockpiles.

“The sheer amount of air-defense interceptors consumed in every attack continues to be unsustainable,” Wasser said. “The US risks running bare, and the continued costs on US stockpiles may lead Washington to reevaluate its approach.”

The assessment highlights a broader vulnerability facing US naval forces: Tehran does not necessarily have to penetrate American defenses in order to inflict strategic costs.

Tanker strikes fail to establish deterrence

By compelling US warships to repeatedly launch multimillion-dollar interceptors, Iranian operations can steadily erode American missile inventories, increase the financial burden of maintaining the US naval presence, and place additional pressure on already strained Western defense production.

Meanwhile, Washington’s destruction of Iranian tankers has yet to demonstrate that it can prevent Tehran from continuing operations against US forces, raising further questions over the sustainability of the Trump administration’s attempt to impose deterrence through attacks on Iranian maritime assets.

September 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US tanker strikes fail to deter Iran, drain interceptors: Bloomberg

Douglas Macgregor: U.S. Defeated in Iran & Israel Will Not Survive

Glenn Diesen | September 9, 2026

Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran, and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Please like, subscribe & share!

Colonel Macgregor’s substack – Trump is not in Hell, Yet: https://substack.com/home/post/p-2140…

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen

Patreon:   / glenndiesen  

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Buy Diesen merchandise: https://diesen-shop.fourthwall.com/en…

 Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

September 9, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Douglas Macgregor: U.S. Defeated in Iran & Israel Will Not Survive

Iran, Russia, China Demand Guarantees Against Further Attacks on Iranian Nuclear Sites

Sputnik – 09.09.2026

MOSCOW – Iran, Russia and China have demanded guarantees against further attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran’s mission in Vienna said on Wednesday.

“China, Iran, and Russia, in a joint statement to the [IAEA] BoG [Board of Governors] today, condemned repeated attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, together with continuing threats of further aggression. In this regard, effective assurances, in particular guarantees of the non-recurrence of such actions, are indispensable for further development of Iran’s cooperation with the Agency,” the mission wrote on X.

The prevailing security conditions have effectively made the normal implementation of IAEA safeguards in Iran impossible, the mission added.

The US and Israel struck a number of Iranian nuclear facilities during the conflict of June 2025. Iranian nuclear sites were also hit during the latest escalation that began in late February 2026. Tehran blamed the US for the strikes.

The IAEA Board of Governors began its regular session on Monday in Vienna. The session, which runs until September 11, will address issues related to the implementation of safeguards in Iran and developments surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.

September 9, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran, Russia, China Demand Guarantees Against Further Attacks on Iranian Nuclear Sites

How the Latest Iran Sanctions Could Impact Central Asia

The US Iran strategy is working against its Central Asia strategy; Secondary sanctions may push the region closer to China and Russia.

By James D. Durso | The National Interest | September 8, 2026

On August 19, US President Donald Trump announced an “ECONOMIC D-DAY” against the Islamic Republic of Iran, warning of “tremendous economic consequences” for any country allowing its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide Iran a “lifeline.” On August 24, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced “Operation Economic Outcast,” which sanctions Iran and its facilitators in third countries (but no major Chinese banks), and declared, “you are either with us or against us.”

Potential secondary sanctions threaten Central Asia’s developing trade, energy, and transport links with Iran, raising costs, disruption risks, and pressure to diversify routes. The Central Asian republics are not major supporters of Iran, but Iran is becoming an increasingly important southern outlet for their trade and connectivity. The biggest risk is therefore collateral damage to legitimate commerce and transportation, rather than a confrontation over Iran policy.

The Effect of Secondary Sanctions on Central Asia’s Economy

Banking and financial services could become the most immediate problem. Central Asian banks and companies may decide that even legitimate transactions involving Iran are not worth the compliance risk. If a Kazakh or Uzbek bank processes an Iranian payment and Washington later determines the transaction constitutes a prohibited “lifeline,” the bank could lose access to the US financial system.

That creates a powerful chilling effect: the US threatens sanctions, banks become risk-averse, Iranian transactions become difficult, and Central Asia-Iran trade declines as the republics lose access to a market of over 90 million people.

Washington is already targeting Iranian shadow-banking networks and foreign facilitators for enabling Iran’s rahbar banking system. The Treasury Department said its August 7 action involved networks spanning several countries and hundreds of millions of dollars in Iranian transactions.

The result could be over-compliance: Central Asian banks might stop handling perfectly legal Iran-related transactions simply because determining what Washington will regard as a “lifeline” is too difficult. Secondary sanctions can dampen commerce even without formal designations, as private actors withdraw to avoid US financial-system exclusion or penalties.

Transportation and logistics corridors could become economically unattractive, potentially with greater strategic consequences than the direct loss of trade. A container originating in Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan and traveling through Iran to a Persian Gulf port might have nothing to do with Iran politically. Still, it could require an Iranian trucking company, an Iranian railway, an Iranian port, Iranian customs services, Iranian insurance, an Iranian bank, and fuel purchased in Iran. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is a major player in Iran’s economy, it will be tough not to deal with an IRGC-affiliated business.

If Washington interprets normal business activity as supporting the Iranian government, the entire corridor could become commercially radioactive. Iran offers a continuous land route southward and onward to the Persian Gulf petrostates, South Asia, East Asia, and East Africa.

The Central Asian republics are landlocked and have pursued pragmatic economic ties with Iran primarily for southern access to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean via ports such as Bandar Abbas and Chabahar. These routes form part of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and related rail and road networks, offering alternatives or complements to routes that transit Russia, China, or Afghanistan.

Energy relationships are another vulnerability, particularly for Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Energy swaps, fuel purchases, and other transactions involving Iranian counterparties could become more expensive or difficult if banks, insurers, shippers, or trading companies conclude that they face sanctions exposure.

A prior Turkmen gas-swap arrangement involving Iran was disrupted by US sanctions, illustrating how sanctions can affect nonmilitary transactions. Tajikistan has also sought large preferential fuel supplies from Iran amid unreliable Russian supplies.

Central Asian governments may therefore face higher freight and insurance rates, longer transit times, additional compliance costs, and pressure to use alternative corridors. They may also see greater use of barter or non-US Dollar settlement mechanisms where feasible.

Trade and regional connectivity. The economic effect is likely to be less a complete collapse of trade than higher prices and greater complexity of using Iran. The region may accelerate diversification toward the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (the “Middle Corridor”), Pakistani ports, or Chinese routes, although each has capacity, cost, or security limitations.

Kazakhstan is probably the most exposed, given its long-term connectivity strategy and interest in an outlet to the Persian Gulf. It has been developing multiple routes to diversify its export geography, including the Middle Corridor through the Caspian and South Caucasus, as well as routes through Iran. Its development of port infrastructure in Iran illustrates that Astana sees Iranian territory as part of its long-term connectivity portfolio.

Bilateral trade rose 26.4 percent in 2025 to about $430 million, with ambitions to reach $3 billion, supported by the Eurasian Economic Union-Iran free trade agreement. Rail freight with Iran increased 69 percent, while INSTC freight overall grew 12 percent to 3.5 million tons. In June 2026, Kazakhstan signed a 27-year Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) deal for its own logistics terminal at Bandar Abbas, aimed at Persian Gulf, South Asian, Southeast Asian, and East African markets. Secondary sanctions could delay or derail the terminal project and raise logistics costs; banks and carriers could also self-sanction and chill transactions even without formal government action.

Washington now faces a dilemma: the more aggressively it sanctions Iranian transit infrastructure, the harder it becomes for Central Asian states to build the independent trade routes Washington claims it wants them to develop.

Uzbekistan has an especially strong reason to maintain multiple southern options. Tashkent has pursued routes through Turkmenistan and Iran toward the Persian Gulf while also developing routes westward via the Middle Corridor and eastward (the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan Railway).

Roughly 9 percent of imports and 10 percent of non-gold exports transited Iran in 2025. Officials have estimated potential losses from Middle East logistics disruptions at $1–$1.5 billion (0.7–1 percent of GDP). Sanctions pressure could force costly rerouting toward the Middle Corridor or other paths, raise freight rates, and reduce competitiveness.

In June, Tashkent concluded a successful investment forum that saw interest from 193 American companies and investors, and where Washington and Tashkent launched a joint investment platform to “identify strategic investments in Uzbekistan for the US and US allies in key sectors.” In February 2026, the United States and Uzbekistan established a critical-minerals partnership, including a framework for up to $400 million in investment in the two countries.

Uzbekistan’s president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, visited the White House in February 2026, and the leaders concluded agreements in critical minerals, energy and petrochemicals, agriculture and poultry, and irrigation and water-saving technology, the latter a critical issue in the water-stressed country. They also announced a three-year, $35 billion Economic Cooperation Program. Uzbekistan’s World Trade Organization accession got a boost, and the Board of Peace gave Uzbekistan a role in Trump’s Middle East initiative.

The Uzbek leader has made a substantial personal investment in the relationship with the United States, and Uzbekistan has an incentive to comply with US sanctions on prohibited Iranian entities while preserving legitimate transit and commercial relationships wherever possible. That said, Trump must ensure his attack on Iran’s economy doesn’t damage the economies of countries that want a serious relationship with America, as future leaders will not again expose themselves politically if the Americans are careless.

Turkmenistan could face a somewhat different problem. It has extensive energy and transportation ties with Iran and depends on its neighbors for alternative routes. At the same time, Ashgabat traditionally values neutrality (and it is official state policy) and is unlikely to want to become involved in a US-Iran confrontation.

Turkmenistan is expanding cooperation with Iran in transport, energy, communications, and construction. US sanctions disrupted a prior gas-swap arrangement, so secondary measures could freeze or raise the cost of energy swaps and transit.

If Washington begins sanctioning Iranian transportation or energy counterparties broadly, Turkmenistan could be forced to choose between maintaining economically useful relationships with Iran and avoiding exposure to the US financial system, an uncomfortable choice for a country that works not to take sides.

Tajikistan’s direct trade with Iran is smaller, but its exposure is growing. Freight with Iran rose 17.5 percent in the first half of 2026 to 433,000 tons, mostly by rail. Tajikistan has sought large preferential fuel supplies from Iran—2.55 million tons of crude and products, including 2 million tons of crude plus diesel, gasoline, and aviation fuel—amid unreliable Russian supplies. It has also discussed joint road corridors with Iran and Afghanistan, potentially extendable regionally and toward China.

Disruptions could therefore hit fuel access, raise costs, and complicate logistics. Tajikistan may seek alternative suppliers and routes, but those alternatives could be more expensive or less reliable.

Kyrgyzstan is less directly tied to Iran than the other republics, so immediate sanctions exposure should be lower. Nevertheless, it could feel the effects indirectly through higher regional freight costs, fuel prices, insurance costs, banking restrictions, and shared corridor dependencies.

The Strategic Consequences of US Secondary Sanctions in Central Asia

The Central Asian governments pursue multi-vector policies and generally avoid open confrontation with Washington. They are unlikely to disregard US pressure or politically champion Iran, but will manage exposure carefully, possibly scaling back high-visibility projects while seeking workarounds.

Their most likely strategy is: comply with US sanctions on prohibited Iranian entities while preserving legitimate transit and commercial relationships wherever possible. They may also seek explicit US assurances or exemptions for infrastructure projects, but that may dissuade US investors if multiple approvals are needed over a project’s lifetime. And US policy can change overnight.

Washington says it wants Central Asia to become less dependent on Russia and China, and Central Asian governments want that too; one way to do it is by developing connectivity through Iran.

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan joined Trump’s Board of Peace, but that may not protect them if Trump decides “all hands” must support America’s crusade against Iran. The point of maximum danger for the two republics may come if Trump can’t force China to isolate Iran and tries to punish Beijing by punishing Astana and Tashkent for trans-shipping Chinese goods while allegedly concealing their true origin to take advantage of lower tariffs. There is always the chance a Trump-affiliated investor may ask the White House to attack Tashkent’s trade with Iran, $578 million in 2025, if it doesn’t like Tashkent’s terms and conditions for a deal.

Consequently, an overly broad sanctions campaign could produce greater dependence on China and Russia, the opposite of the strategic objective Washington often advocates for Central Asia, consequences that probably weren’t considered before Trump and Bessent took to social media. Russian State Railways is sanctioned by the United States and the European Union, so Central Asian businesses may be stuck between two transport options, both sanctioned by the West.

The consequences will depend on how Washington defines a “lifeline.” If “lifeline” means financing Iran’s military or IRGC, oil exports, weapons procurement, or sanctions-evasion networks, the Central Asian impact could be manageable. If it means ordinary transportation, banking, aviation, port services, and non-military government-to-government commerce involving Iran, the consequences could be much larger.

The American administration has already demonstrated that it is willing to sanction foreign transport and financial networks supporting Iran’s military and procurement activities. That distinction is central to the policy question. If Washington wants Central Asia to have “connectivity without dependence,” it may need to distinguish carefully between Iranian military lifelines and Iranian transportation infrastructure that Central Asian states use simply to reach global markets.

Central Asia probably will not be the principal target of the new sanctions, but it could be the sanctions’ most significant collateral damage. The danger is not that the republics will support Iran, but that Washington could make legitimate Iranian transit so financially risky and demand that Iran’s neighbors help quarantine the Islamic Republic, undermining Central Asia’s effort to develop alternative routes to the world to the benefit of China and Russia.

James Durso is a regular commentator on foreign policy and national security matters. Mr. Durso served in the US Navy for 20 years and has worked in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. His writing has appeared in The Hill, The National Interest, Defense News, and Responsible Statecraft. Follow him on X: @james_durso

September 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Latest Iran Sanctions Could Impact Central Asia

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »